John Christy on making sense of data in the climate change debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 янв 2025
- Climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann notes climatologist Dr. John R. Christy as a compelling voice on the other side of the climate change debate. Dr. Christy, a pioneer in measuring global temperatures by satellite, discusses challenges to understanding data from satellites, balloons, and terrestrial weather stations. He also examines the impact of CO₂ and the practical problem with climate models driving energy policy worldwide, especially in developing nations. Distinguished professor of Atmospheric Science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the Alabama state climatologist, Dr. Christy talks with Dr. Jed Macosko, academic director of AcademicInfluence.com and professor of physics at Wake Forest University.
See Dr. Christy's profile at academicinflue...
Interested in pursuing your own research in climate change?
Check out the best research universities for the Earth Sciences:
academicinflue...
It's not climate change that scares me, it's climate policy that scares the crap out of me.
Infidel, some would say that the major problem we face today is that all policy based on science is dependent on politicians understanding the science, and from all scientific perspectives. When you have a lot of turmoil in the scientific community about this issue, how are politicians ever going to grasp it enough to make an informed decision? Our science is rapidly outpacing the ability of the average person to comprehend it-especially the downsides of that science.
@@AcademicInfluence I disagree. I think our "scientists" don't understand "the science". How can politicians understand the science, when scientists don't understand the science either? And part of THAT problem is the ideological gate-keeping in these fields of science taking place since about the 1970's. You get the scientists that you wish for.
@@222ableVelo "I disagree. I think our "scientists" don't understand "the science". "
I also disagree but for different reasons. Firstly, there is little overall disagreement with what's going on. Secondly, you could be right if there weren't that many scientists and if the split was more based on countries and institutions but that's not what we're seeing. We're seeing agreement across multiple disciplines, across multiple agencies and private enterprises across most countries.
"And part of THAT problem is the ideological gate-keeping in these fields of science taking place since about the 1970's. You get the scientists that you wish for."
I think it's more ideological brainwashing of the general public from businesses and politics that clouds opinions moreso than what affects scientists. After all, you don't see a split in the scientific community based on what one believes, where they live and who they work for, but you do see pro vs anti split down left and right of politics and it's often those people who throw out claims about scientific bias who don't actually understand it (the number of times I've heard about the natural forcings being the driver, as though these are new things never accounted for).
It was always about control and profit. Greta recently said capitalism must go.
@@AcademicInfluence Translation: "We are smarter than you, so shut up, sit down, stand up and salute our brilliance! And don't forget to fall in line behind the piper!"
When I was a child I asked my father what we should do in preparation for the forecast of gloom and doom. His response was that it never comes true and there is always a new threat imagined every 10 or 12 years because the old threat never happens. My children can’t believe that politicians would be so
corrupt and use fear to distract and to control people. In my 76 years I have observed the failure of every prediction proving my father’s observations to be correct. One day, my children will no doubt reach the same conclusion.
how many times can someone lie to me before i stop believing the lies?
how many times can some one cry wolf before i stop believing them?
how many times can i be kicked in the teeth before i start doing something about it?
@@crashoppe that’s why they always go hard after the kids, who don’t know their history, and are doomed to repeat it
Excellent comments here, in this little thread. 👏👏👏👏👏
Al Gore predicted in the 1980's that 90% of all coastal cities would be underwater in 30 to 40 years,due of course to global warming.
Total complete b.s.
So far, the world is still revolving around the sun, and the world is no warmer than it was in 1900.
According to the upper atmosphere Tropical Troposphere as measured by the ACRIM I AND ACRIM II SOLAR RADIANCE MEASURING SATELLITES put up in space in 1979.
@@jimhenry6844 i agree. its a board game. it starts out with many players and slowly winds down to a winner. each player acquires land and resources, collects money gets more powerful and sooner or later there is a winner and the game is wiped out. then the game starts again. we are getting down to the "end game" on a global scale. the "board" (world) never gets destroyed, a new game just starts
I've been following Dr. Christy for 20 years and it's true, he is the voice of reason when it comes to climate. So glad that he's still in the game.
no, he's a liar in the pocket of big oil, and you're his sucker.
If you really follow John Cristy you can notice how he has been wrong all the time and that his conclusions are based onreligious fate. It goes like "God would never allow it."
I am surprised Michael Mann is still talking. I would go to some remote place, no one ever see me anymore.
@@seanleith5312 Off you go then. Nobody's gonna miss an incel.
@@birrextio6544 Yep, but you'll never convince these cretins of that. You can never convince anyone of anything when all they do is pick and chose which information they allow in to align with what they want.
That's how con artists and k00ks like Christy operate - telling them what they want to hear.
I repeat my experience, I read the Daily News Paper one morning as a 10 year old.
The Headlines blared out the FACT that in 30 years, there would be NO Snow on the Victorian Alps (Australia) and mention of my home town would be underwater within that time frame.
I was shaking with this news.
This was over 70 years ago.
There is no difference in sea levels, we have had one of the best Ski Seasons on our Alps this season, so I no longer believe "Chicken Little" and his statement "The Sky is falling".
I double check everything I am told and look to see who gains from such information and what are the supporting facts.
As far as removing ICE engines and replacing with EV's on this current information, these proponents are "Dreaming".
Have they seen the long lines waiting to recharge your EV, can they see an EV Bulldozer to mine the Minerals for the Batteries, the fossil materials that go into the materials to build the vehicles.
Yes, check ALL The Facts.
We have heard the chicken little thing many times. Replacing ICE with EV, is a good idea...over a 50 year period. The idea of 2030 or 2035 is absolutely nuts.
I believe there is SOME truth, in all the climate talk, but not the politically driven alarmism we see every day. - Cheers
Exactly. I’m only 50 but we were taught in the 70s and early 80s that famine would blanket the Earth as we would run out of food by 2000 because of population change and that the Earth’s climate wouldn’t be able to sustain such a population. Then of course global warming dominated the zeitgeist in the late 80s, 90s and 2000s until the term “climate change” entered stage right.
I have friends here in the US who are literally looking to purchase land well above sea level because they are absolutely convinced that sea level rise is coming and coming to the tune of 10-20’ in the next 50 years. It’s amazing the hysteria.
There is a world of difference between scenarios suggested by scientists and articles in newspapers - the latter are seeking headlines and don't car who they hurt. Fear sells.
Barry, excellent comment.
When I hear activists shouting, "Stop Big Oil", I have to wonder if they've considered, if they got their wish, how workers would commute to work for money to put food on the table and pay for housing, etc. Or have they considered how those grocery store shelves will be replenished. If their answer is EV (I'm a fan, but practical), then they cannot have considered current production. Stopping Big Oil and putting commuters on an EV wait list is not going to pay the bills.
Also, I just saw an article recently that Cat is making or going to make the 793 E haul truck for mine sites and heavy construction. I drove a 795 once and the new announcement is very impressive -- I wasn't even sure if I could believe it.
Not to mention where does the energy that we use to build those batteries and charge them come from? How fast does the efficiency of the EV go down? And how bad is it for the environment (in actuality, right now, re toxins and pollution) to recycle the batteries (or deal with millions of them being thrown away and polluting the environment)?
A continued voice of reason in a world of frantic alarmism.
And soup throwing, hand gluing art destroyers. I doubt that crowd will put a single thought in watching a video such as this and listen to all sides of science. If we were in trouble, would big Al buy ocean front property? No! As with anything, follow the money.
Climate Change is real and will destroy our society and everything we love about this planet. The destruction is going on around you NOW. Open your eyes. Climate Chaos does not care about our opinions...it is controlled by the Laws of Physics. 98% of the earth scientists are telling us that we ae committing suicide. Wake UP
@@seanstehura7179 unfortunately you're the brainwashed one who is completely asleep. I used to believe what you believe....but after thirty years of following the dire predictions, then looking at the REAL science I realized this is complete insanity. What I see "all around us" is a much BETTER climate than we experience not even 100 years ago. You're pushing an anti-human agenda that has NOTHING to do with "saving the planet". Wake UP!!
You guys will be crying foul as you burn up, cursing that this isn't happening, the deniers told me so.
@@jimmyf9545 LOL. I think the only thing that is "burning up" is the federal budget while tilting at windmills. I am far more concerned about the next cooling trend than a little bit of warming. Humans do great in warmth...not so much in cold.
I am a Historian...I KNOW from the historical record that every few centuries our planet goes through serious climate change cycles... and few died or were seriously effected by the change...when the sea level rose 20 feet, they just moved!!!
From about 900AD uintil 1340AD there was a huge global warming event flooding coastal areas so people moved from Holland to England for example...Newfoundland had a warm climate seldom even had frost in the winter time... the Norse could sail the North Atlantic in open boats with no problem!!! The English grew better wine grapes than the french! Global Temps were several degrees warmer than today!!! The between 1340-1350 global temps plunged into an Ice Age, London's Thames river froze a couple feet thick ice for months in winter... it was not until the late 19th century that temps warmed up...
This global warming hype is %95 POLITICAL so the crazy people can run our lives... Nothing bad happened during the last global warming and the same will happen this time!
Ancient Egypt all of North Africa, the Sinai, Israel, was watered fertile and had large forests 2000 years ago! That is what the historians say!!! So stop being so silly delusional foolish!!!
The Talking Heads put it this way in their lyrics: "Same as it ever was, same as it ever was…" Thanks for writing and for watching, Lewis!
@@AcademicInfluence Their doctrine of ""uniformitarianism" that things change over geologic ages--- except for "climate change"
Go look up "Humphfries" on the age of the mississippi river according to the soil deposits he measured at mouth. done about 1820.. no way can the river be more than 4500 years old! same for ALL the worlds rivers !!!
Follow the money. Too many people making big bucks out of CO2 trading
The MWP and LIA were anomalies that science has explained.
@@fredberkvens3401 through fake science. Follow the money…and politics aka power.
Ps was going to say dodgy science, but let’s just give the alarmists the credit they give to empiricists…none.
Excellent interview. I especially liked the question, "Is it okay to exaggerate the science to get people to do what we know is best for them?" Dr. Christy's response was very human and focused on the people who need access to cheap energy today to overcome poverty. But equally troubling is the erosion of trust in science. Science should not be a political tool used to manipulate the populace.
We have plenty of energy. Everytime we empty an oil well the dam thing fills right back up. We also have plenty of time to advacne technologically to the point we actually have solutions instead of virture signals. Unless you want billions to starve we will continue using fossil fuels, PERIOD. The Collectivist left hates humans and they want billions to die despite their contant lies to the contrary. See China today. That will not be allowed here. Science fell to the Commie/Fasisct LEFT easily because they like money too. Try to get research funded today that goes against the "Climate change" theory. LOL> May as well have asked the other Socialist Nazis to fund the "The Jewish Individual Safety Program" in 1934 Germany.
Well said! The manipulation of science for political purposes and financial gain has gravely eroded the public’s trust in the scientific community.
Believe it or not, one of the answers to the alleged problem comes from the United Nations who believe "This planet should have 4 billion people not 8 billion." The simple solution is the cultures having 10 children should go down to 2 children per couple.
@@clearview5281 The UN outlived its purpose in 1989 and has been taken over by the Commie/Fascist left like eevery other institution. The very thing the UN was created to defend individual Liberty against, Socialism, is what it now is.
@Santa Claus I agree with much of what you say, 2 differences.
1) my comment suggested that I was not a fan of the UN
2) It is not "natural" to have 8 or 10 kids that you cannot feed, then they have to break into countries that wouldn't have a over-population problem (Climate Change), however this makes a problem for their new country.
A warmer climate actually DECREASES hurricanes. The temperature gradient between polar and equatorial regions is less steep with a warmer climate leading to less convective turbulence.
Thank you, @AaronBarlow, for starting another thread in the discussion. I would like to hear other people weigh in on this. The simple model, using a Carnot Engine, shows that when the ocean surface heats up, the resulting windspeed is higher. But you seem to be referring to a more complicated model.
@@AcademicInfluence Is it not the temperature difference between water and surface air that causes the convection currents that generate cyclones? i.e. not the absolute temp of the water.
@@finkum09 @Geoffrey Stevenson Yes, that's what the Carnot Engine model suggests, with the caveat that a 100 C difference gives more windspeed between 0 and 100 than between 50 and 150. Thanks for continuing this conversation!
Excellent critical reasoning.
@@finkum09
The energy contained in evaporating water and later released during condensation is absolutely necessary to drive cyclones with the observed intensity.
This is what we need, is more like this Dr Christy, level headed, intelligent and factual basing information on facts and not emotional personal egos and deviant thinking.
Ha. You only think he's factual because he represents your side.
@@YTEdy facts are facts. Theories are opinions based on assumptions.
@@carlosdesousa6712 Wow, you're a real philosopher.
What do you think about the FACT that the evidence supports my side? That is a fact. The evidence is very firmly on my side of this argument, not the quacks and oil company funded think tanks on your side.
@@YTEdy you're the quack with a screw loose waiting to catch your next multi-million $ Grant to produce a report that will fit your little model.
The biggest problem with hysterics like you is that you just don't know HOW MUCH YOU DON'T KNOW, let alone WHAT YOU ALREADY SUSPECT YOU DON'T KNOW.
There are none more blind than those that will not see - there's a little more philosophy for you to digest. 👌
@@carlosdesousa6712
So, your approach is ad hominem attacks, without a speck of evidence.
That's not how to make an argument.
I'm happy to walk you through the facts, but first, we have to discuss the facts. Are you able to do that?
Sometimes adults need to explain things to children with loving kindness
Paul, we could all do with a little more loving kindness, can't we?
@@AcademicInfluence No......
But sometimes spoiled petulant children need a good swift lick in the rear!
@@terryboyer1342 Sometimes
@@terryboyer1342 cheers 🥂
Thanks for letting him present his data. Science can change as we allow all at the table.
The UN do not allow any balance at COP meetings nor do they respond tk any questions from the public or indeed have a contact email whic is responded to. In the meantime as with all of these posts about climate change their own fixed propane message pops up under the guise of Facebook context and Facebook simply refer you back to the UN if you protest. It is an insidious form of brainwashing from the UN without the support of evidence from their own IPCC reports that it is catastrophic or an emergency.
His data was wrong. That's bee proven. And his analysis makes no sense whatsoever.
What data? He didn't present his data or his peer reviewed papers that contradict the mountain of data and papers that disputing.
the science won't change but the discourse will
Except that there is NO science or scientist AT ALL in the IPCC which 100% political based with smart strategies to put scientist names on their fake reports ...
Many scientists agree that the CO2 greenhouse effect is at the saturation point -meaning a further rise to CO2 levels will not increase the greenhouse effect, because CO2 is now at its maximum level and cannot "get worse." Additionally, more CO2 means MORE oxygen and food plants produce and the greener the world gets. It's important to note that water in the atmosphere (clouds) produce 85-90 percent to the "greenhouse effect" and no one (hopefully) is suggesting getting rid of the water (clouds) in the atmosphere.
The “saturation” argument was based on an experiment done years ago. Infrared radiation was fired into a container of CO2 and the molar density of CO2 was gradually increased. The amount of radiation absorbed followed a logarithmic curve. This is the law of diminishing returns. For years this was accepted as how CO2 would behave in the atmosphere. The reality is CO2 doesn’t behave this way and the saturation argument is invalid. If the original experiment were done correctly, it would have gradually increased the radiant energy to mimic the earth. The container would have a floating roof to mimic what happens when the atmosphere’s temperature increases. The result is that the law of diminishing returns does not apply to the CO2 “greenhouse” effect in the atmosphere.
Satellites show the earth is getting greener. Did you know that commercial green house growers introduce CO2 into their greenhouses to increase yields. The atmosphete does not have enough CO2 to maximise yields ( photosynthesis).
"Many scientists agree that the CO2 greenhouse effect is at the saturation point" Now there's an utterly stupid statement. If you actually look at the temperature increase graph, it's basically linear for quite an amount of CO2 concentration change. The other problem is for every 1C temperature gain due to the additional secondary greenhouse gases, there will be a corresponding 1C temperature gain due to the additional water vapor from the additional infrared photons the secondary greenhouse gases blocked from escaping into outer space.
"Additionally, more CO2 means MORE oxygen and food plants produce and the greener the world gets." Look at that. Someone is living in a dream world. As absolute humidity increases from the additional evaporation on land and sea, relative humidity will decrease causing the drying out of the continents. Already, with an increase of approximately 1C global temperature increase due to the additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the western United States is in a megadrought. That drought is heading east as global temperatures continue to increase. bIt's not going to stop. Imagine another 1C in global temperature increase.
"It's important to note that water in the atmosphere (clouds) produce 85-90 percent to the "greenhouse effect" and no one (hopefully) is suggesting getting rid of the water (clouds) in the atmosphere." It is the secondary greenhouse gases, CH4, CO2, N2O, and O3 that put water vapor into the atmosphere. Without those gases Earth would have an albedo of .9, meaning 90% of the sunlight striking the Earth would be reflected back into outer space. Tha would make the Earth considerably colder than the moon with an albedo of .12 and a mean temperature of -18C.
@@skipperx5116
Yes, that is correct, adding co2 increases growth significantly.
There is another side of the co2 situation and that is the quantity per volume, which changes with elevation, at sealevel the mean air density (ISA) is 1.225 kg/m³, the quantity of co2 is then 0.49 grams/m³ today. At higher elevations, say the highlands above La Paz, Bolivia, where more than a million people live the density is much less, there the quantity of co2 is only 0.29 grams/m³. Not enough to sustain fruit trees and normal agricultural products, without additional co2, produced by combustion and kept in closed transparent 'greenhouses'
The notion, that co2 should be removed from the atmosphere is absurd, in view of the consequences of the loss of food production for that population.
The co2 indeed absorbs infrared radiation in the narrow band centered at 15 micrometers wavelenght. The associated reduction in radiation density to space is no longer a factor, and has not been in a long time, because of saturation.
Any emissions of co2 have the effect of enhancing plant
growth, especially in dry regions and the high elevations mentioned.
Bill you are correct. CO2 is essential to life. You didn't mention the CO2 absorbed by phytoplankton. That is the basis for the oceans food chain.
Oceans represent 2/3 of the earths suface so the potential is enormous. More seafood is a good thing.
The sad part, is the climate casttrophe debate is forcing people away from a cheap , abundant, and efficient source of energy in fossil fuels. Third world countries who are trying to develop their weath and well being of their citizens are being discouraged from using fossil fuels.
Right now we are starting to face food shortages due to the war on our energy sector.When.people can't get food, all the other matters are ignored and getting food becomes paramount. If our govt thinks January 6 was an insurrection, they will find it to be a Sunday prayer meeting to when people start protesting the lack of food.
I feel sorry for Dr Christy sometimes. Seems like he has to repeat the same message over and over again and it's just ignored. He's been saying these kinds of things since he was working on the IPCC reports himself in the late 90s early 2000s.
Yes, I got the impression he is used to being ignored. That doesn't seem very fun!
Ah yes ignored. Except for all the response papers dismantling his bs.
@@XMysticHerox Care to provide references? How do you account for the CMIP 6 model failings in the tropical troposphere?
@@XMysticHerox Ah yes, his 'bs'. The whole science and reality thing that's so out of style these days.
@@hotdogandahayride9823 Science overwhelmingly disagrees with Christy especially when it comes to his claims made outside peer reviewed papers. Don´t delude yourself into believing that you are on the side of science.
When you are coming out of an ice age, don't be surprised to see the temperature go up.
And an ice age is a disaster for vegans.
What a very measured interview. Mr Christy is the kind of scientist we need more of. The belief in computor model predictions that fly in the face of measured data is very disturbing. Remember the computers that predicted a missile attack decades ago and fortunately a realistic man in charge of the warning system ignored it and fortunately we are still here!
"Mr Christy is the kind of scientist we need more of" Christy might allow you to feel better, but it doesn't change the fact that we are getting dangerously close to a global catastrophe. Already, atmospheric drought is having a global financial disruption.
@@Cspacecat
“Global Catastrophe” 😂
Hyperbolic much ?
Powerful , cogent recitation of data which should guide American policy.
@@Cspacecat Six solid days of rain predicted in the UK. We had a very brief drought in the summer, but the reservoirs and rivers are full again. The longest drought in the UK was in 1976. I lived through it.
@@Dragonblaster1 You are talking about local weather. The issue is global. We are experiencing a global atmospheric drought due to the trace greenhouse gas that industry continues to inject into the atmosphere.
Congrats on one of the most fair minded q&a pieces I've seen on the topic. The avoidance of such a platform by the msm is a disgrace making your effort even more a breath of fresh air.
One of the points I would make about potential downsides of ignoring empirical data and pursuing man-made climate doom fantasy is the waste of public monies. There are so many genuine problems in the world such as curing dreadful conditions like cancer, resolving pollution and environmental damage and helping solve 3rd world inequalities etc. Pouring trillions down the drain on a hypothesis that has failed the observations test is not only bad science but the worst kind of political opportunism.
No one should fear engaging the marketplace of ideas. When people do fear that engagement, it's often because their position cannot stand up to scrutiny. Here's to free and open discussion-let's never be afraid to wade into the intellectual fray.
Do you deny that globally, the years 2020, 2016, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2014 are the hottest on record in modern history.
@@fredberkvens3401 "modern history" ??
Do you mean after the death of Christ, the middle ages or a handful of years to suit an agenda?
Not that it matters the earth has been warmer before according to proxy data with unmanipulated measurements from thermometers showing the 1930s as hotter than today. Not that temp recordings of themselves could identify causation by man made co2
Your question is not only irrelevant but ignorant, sort yourself out and do some research beyond newspaper headlines you bad spud
@@lengthmuldoon
Old denier site trick. The1930’s were very hot years in the United States. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet, including the oceans. The land area of the U.S. accounts for only 2% of Earth's total surface area. Despite the U.S. sweltering in the 30’s, those years were not especially hot over the rest of the planet. Globally, 1930 temperatures were actually cooler than average for the 20th century.
@@fredberkvens3401 I've tried to reply twice but each time it is blocked/deleted. This is a test
Many Thanks for this discussion with Dr Christy. Would love to see him and Dr William Happer in discussion with this level of respect. Cheers.
Thank you, 416d, for your kind comment! We couldn't agree more!
The earth survived a few solid hits by meteors. Hard to conceive 8 billion earthlings are destroying the planet.
I think they agree more than the differ. Same with Patrick Moore.
CO2 has very little effect demonstrably. Global temps have not been increasing in lockstep with CO2 rise.
Thank you, Aaron, for the comment! I think Dr. Christy might agree with you (it didn't come up in our short interview).
You are quite wrong. Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are over 30% higher than they were about 150 years ago at the dawn of the industrial revolution and in the same time span the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming?
@@fredberkvens3401 there is a lot of evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than our current day temperatures, while CO2 levels were below pre-industrial levels. Furthermore, our modern day warming started at the end of the 18th century, way before CO2 levels started to rise.
@@ericmartin9429
The MWP was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in the northern hemisphere. Other regions around the globe were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the MWP was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. Evidence shows ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic and this is why it was felt mainly in the Northern Hemisphere. It is clear that there was an increase in temperature which is considered the MWP, but the regional temperatures were not higher than the global temperature during that period. Regional does not mean global.
@@fredberkvens3401 calling the northern hemisphere a "region" is a stretch in my opinion. That's half the planet. Regarding the southern hemisphere, the number of proxies applied in Mann08 GLB curve for temperature estimation 1000 years ago is very low and subject to a wide margin of error. However the data for the northern hemisphere has a lot more proxies and has a narrower margin of error. Do you have data for the southern hemisphere that proves your statements with a high level of confidence?
Great interview. I find it interesting that no-one, on either side, seems to happily state that models are simply a mathematical expression of someone's opinion. These are often then used as solid evidence to back up the aforementioned opinion.
I believe they use RPC8.5, which is a worse case scenario program.
I develop satellite models and your observation is spot on!
They use a model ensemble. Not the worst case.
Absolutely true !
No, opinions are not used in computer models. That is such a stupid comment.
Look at that!
An actual expert using actual empirical data who says that we don't need to panic and that renewables are not the way to go.
That's because it's all fake news put out by big oil, the Republicans, and many other evil polluters bent on destroying the world. :)
Yeah, it's refreshing !!!
Who will be totally ignored by Western politicians whose knowledge of the subject is net zero.
It depends on the country you live in. In some countries, everyone knows that renewable energies are far from being sufficient, but they are trying to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by all means because they think global warming is a serious issue. Many nations have a huge public health problem with coal and oil, and that's an emergency.
Important points: 10:04 and 11:15. Christie does NOT have a model. He has data. To frame the "debate" as opposing "models" is mistaken. There are data sets that can be used to test various hypotheses.
Dr John Christy is one of the few climatologists worth listening to. I understand that the interviewer has to play the devils advocate, but he seems a tad disappointed to be pulled back to reality. Nonetheless, a fair interview. Pity it was so short, since this is a vitality important subject because the 'free world' is shooting itself in the foot. Civilisation, as we know it, depends on having ample and affordable energy. As John Christy says, we should be building Nuclear plant, particularly those 4th generation solutions that aim to consume spent nuclear fuel and waste.
Thanks for writing, Winnie. Tell your friends about us!
Agreed. Wise energy policy means using the right energy type for the right need, along with ensuring multiple fallback options to guarantee we never are caught off-guard when we need energy. Nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind, gas, coal-all have a place in wise energy policy. If anything, today our challenge is rebalancing these for the future.
@@AcademicInfluence Thanks for your response. I couldn't agree more. Though it is disheartening to see such polarisation of attitudes generally these days, rather than open minded and sensible discussion. Meanwhile in other places, notably in Asia, they quietly advance technologies, that were often pioneered in the West, that may well find the holy grail of cheap, clean and abundant energy!
Winnie, the dream of fusion generators looks closer than it has ever been, though it is not the West driving it. Whether this ultimately is a good or bad thing is still to be decided.
"As John Christy says, we should be building Nuclear plants, particularly those 4th generation solutions that aim to consume spent nuclear fuel and waste." Quaise Energy plans on drilling 3X the depth of oil wells, at decommissioned coal-fired power plants, deep enough to create supercritical steam which can run generators at $0.01 to $0.03 per kilowatt. That would undercut solar, wind, hydro, natural gas, coal, oil, and nuclear energy.
@@Cspacecat Interesting and thanks for the info. If only policy makers were as open minded as us lot! I reckon we could solve the worlds energy problems, given a fair wind - and a few other things besides...
Dr. Christy is exactly right.
He is measuring the data,
It is not a model!
Warming is about 1.5 °C per century! According to measured data.
Thank you, Arturo, for this enthusiastic comment! Please tell all your friends about this interview!
That is until it gets colder. Hopefully someone keep measuring. We are in a time between ice ages.
Those are the 1.5 degrees that many people are scared about. Because, as far as I can see, they compare the data for today with year-to-year resolution with average changes over thousands of years in the past. So they say that global warming as fast is we see now is unpreceded in the geological record, since some time far back in the mid Tertiary.
With fossil fuels getting unaffordable let's pray it doesn't start getting colder. The displacement of people if they can't heat their homes will dwarf the displacement caused by heat.
Warming of about 1.5 °C per century is certainly acceptable for me, my children and grandchildren. Even my great grandchildren would enjoy.
As a Forecaster, I have always felt that climate models were worthless as there is no verification. Great to hear John Christy is adding his voice and HARD work to the discussion!
Models can be verified by using historical data and seeing if they correctly predict the current situation. This is done with other models - eg urban development. There are plenty of situations where you can't run an experiment and have to create models this way - eg astronomy on galaxy formation.
@@oakbellUK However, ALL CLIMATE MODELS (HYPOTHESES) HAVE BEEN PROVEN FALSE! They cannot accurately model known historical climate, and they fail in forecasting. There is a word used to describe the use of falsified hypotheses: ANTI-SCIENCE.
And yet none of the models and predictions are ever verified or their verification data released. Model results are a Guess... they are not Data or deteriminative. They are a guess. A guess that has been consistently proven wrong by the Data.
Greedy corporations and politicians looking for ways to enrich themselves is more worrisome. The Green Machine is very lucrative.
People forget that the Vikings called Greenland Greenland because when they settled there 900 years ago it had lush green grass. By 1350 they were forced to abandon Greenland because it was engulfed in snow and ice.
So what?
That shows it was much warmer than now and people were not driving SUVs or running coal powered factories.
Shhh! don't trigger the pedotube censorship algorithm!
Temperature readings prior to 1850 are less accurate. Scientists use ice cores and tree rings to estimate past climates. The University of Amherst argues that the ice core used to measure Greenland’s past temperature was found 600 miles off the coast, and therefore the claim that it was once engulfed in snow might not be true. Regardless, if you look at the rate of change of temperature ever since the industrial revolution, you can see a significant increase in the rate of change. I don’t believe this is a coincidence.
@@andrewdeneve7274 Read the papers from the 1800s. Look at artefacts such as ruins of dairy farms in Greenland and vinyards in Scotland.
The climate hasn't changed in the past 50 years. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about, I was there in 1970 and the climate then was no different than it is today.
This interviewer seems to be leading this guy. The CO2 levels now are 406 ppm. At the beginning of the industrial revolution it was around 280 ppm. Both of these numbers are at a very low trough and the lowest levels in 600 million years. It was in the thousands ppm in the Cretaceous and Jurassic periods when the planet was booming with plant life. Photosynthesis starts shutting down at 180 and totally shuts down at 150 ppm.
CO₂ levels are at 421ppm, and the 50% increase is INSANELY fast. When levels have been between 200 and 350 for millions of years (yes, 1,000,000s) and never even hinted at 400, and man based his life around these levels (thus temps) it is absurd to assume we want a rapid increase to 1,000s ppm just because we are at a "low trough". Killing most species because we can?
Richard Lindzen has made the statement that since hurricanes are driven by cyclonic and anti cyclonic winds and that these are the result of temperature differential between the latitudes and that global warming due to CO2 forcing is greater in higher latitudes, which DECREASES the thermal differential, that the frequency and/or the strength of hurricanes should decrease not increase as CO2 concentrations rise.
I would recommend you read or view information from Will Happer (Princeton University), Richard Lindzen (MIT), Judith Curry (Georgia Tech), John Christy (UAH), Steve Koonin (Cal Tech), Bjorn Lomborg (Hoover Institute), Michael Shellenberger (Environmental Progress), Patrick Moore (Greenpeace co-founder), Roy Spencer (NASA). Their perspectives will open many eyes to what's really happening with climate, not what you see in 60 second blurbs on CNN. Unfortunately most people don't want to invest the time to actually understand this important subject.
we now have a full generation of 20-50yo adults that have been filled with just horrible perspectives of science, knowledge, technology, economics, and causality and enough in the older generations who are more than willing to exploit it that for power. - I'm in Massachusetts where I'm represented by two the most outspoken senatorial idiots and a governor who is proud to have STOPPED multiple natural gas pipelines into the state.
the only path I see to a stable republic is if we crush the political aspirations of morons and do so without hesitation or restraint.
The job of science is to discover the truth, not to lie because it fits a politician or activist’s political agenda.
Loved this interview! I've been lately getting very anxious and overwhelmed with all these banner like statements about irreversible climate change and the inevitable extinction of humanity and what not!
This is such a breath of fresh air! Thank you for arranging this interview and helping not just me, but many young people who are more and more likely to get depressed ❤
Yeah, he told me what i wanted to hear but can't prove is true. He is paid to confuse you.
16,000 years ago no residual snow during summer at Chicago. 12,000 yrs ago a 2 mile high glacier over Chicago gouging out the Great Lakes. 7,000 yrs ago it was warm enough that there was a warm inland sea in Iceland. (Happy to provide a video with an Icelandic Glaciologist saying so). From 1300 to 1890 we were in the Little Ice Age. Since humans are responsible for Climate Change, what is the Industrial Activity we humans keep turning on and off? (What kind of technology did we have 16,000 yrs ago when it was warm? Ans: Hunter/Gatherer. No sign of even simple agriculture... pre horse drawn plows, yet warm.)
From Ice Core Samples 500 million yrs ago CO2 conc in the atmospehere was 4,000 ppm. Today it is 400 ppm. What were we humans doing 500 million yrs ago to make the CO2 *Ten Times* today's CO2 conc.
"Well, first of all, I don't have a Model. I have hard data."
@@cryptoskywalker6000 Data is worthless without a model in which to organize it.
@ErgoCogita Models don't organize data. They manipulate data.
@@cryptoskywalker6000 Organization IS manipulation.
@ Data organization IS manipulation.
Our current co2 level is 400+ppm. During the Cambrian Age when life exploded on Earth, the co2 level was at 7000ppm. It was at 4000ppm during an ice age (not warm!). As animals used the co2 to create shells and bones and then died - becoming limestone and fossils - the co2 level in the atmosphere continued to decline. One million years ago, Earth was at 180ppm, only 30ppm above extinction! That's when a creature with a weak stomach, no fur, and a brain big enough to make fire (not easy!) and build with limestone began to fill that ecological niche of releasing bound up co2. Like bees’ role is to pollinate, humanity's role in nature is to recycle bound up co2 back into the atmosphere. Thank goodness for humans!
Professional greenhouses pump co2 levels to over 1000ppm cause that's where plants thrive. Our current atmospheric level of 400+ppm is way too low. Zero emissions is suicidal for the whole planet.
Annprehn, thanks for being a viewer. Modern civilization has not seen the levels of CO2 you mention, and it's probably smart to find ways to produce less of it so we can level off our current production. Yes, some people are overstating the case, but they also overstated the case of cleaning up our waterways in the 1970s and 1980s, and we have all benefitted from the cleaner water and greater awareness of water pollution the activists noted. Can we do better regarding CO2 emissions the same way we got better in reducing water pollution and taking smart steps to improve our air quality too? Sure. when done wisely.
@@AcademicInfluence I agree with you that pollution from fracking, smokestacks, packaging, airplanes, shipping, agriculture, etc has to have a better clean-up. What you don't seem to realize is that co2 is odorless and colorless and even non-conductive. It is not a pollutant, but rather the basis of photosynthesis. Plants need 1000ppm+ to thrive. Is it being villified to justify massive electronic intrusion into our lives? Just asking.
@@annprehn
There is no doubt (increasingly so) that CO2 is being used as a "Trojan horse" to force legislation that would
otherwise be resisted by the population
Hence the increasingly hysterical claims from "authority"
I agree with your point that mankind releasing the vast stores of trapped CO2 is entirely beneficial and have
no doubt that future generations will appreciate this.
In many ways, we are living through a scientific "Dark Ages" - mostly driven by political influences
Science + Politics = Science Fiction
I'm a big fan of John Christy as a balanced honest scientist.
Thank you for speaking up DR. Christy.
Pádraig, thanks for watching, Please tell others about our interviews with top academics. Is there someone you think we should interview?
@@AcademicInfluence Dr Lomberg
@@ablewindsor1459 I strongly second that... he is not where Dr. Christy is on the subject. He definitely sees CO2 as a problem, but not one that should be at the top of our list... And he is no "right wing ideologue". (note: I find Dr. Christy's positions the most accurate and don't see CO2 emissions as a problem, so I'm not totally in agreement with Lomberg - but find him a reasonable voice as well)
@@johndavis9641 Lomborg is not even remotely the expert Christy is. Lomborg is just a smart guy that has questioned the solutions to the hypothetical problem of "climate change". Christy is questioning the scientific assumptions that are the origins of the evil and we shouldn't go past the origins.
@@C_R_O_M________ Oh - I TOTALLY agree with you - Christy KNOWS the data and the climate models - and I COMPLETELY agree that his assessments that are presented here are accurate and sufficient. I was just mentioning that Lomberg is a person who actually is on the opposite side of the conversation - but has analyzed the arguments and data - and come to the conclusion that the insane Climate Crisis solutions will do much greater harm to the world population than any issues from the predicted climate change - if it did actually happen (which I don't believe it will)... So we are in agreement!
Christy convincingly addresses Mann’s misconceptions. Christy and Mann have gone back and forth on this issue for decades now. In the vast majority of interactions, Christy’s view wins out.
See "Climate Misinformation by Source: John Christy."
Co2 is virtually saturated at current levels.Max Planck and Carl Schwarzshield showed a hundred years ago that Co2 absorption and radiation can be calculated on a logarithmic scale.We’re at 420ppm Co2,since it’s virtually saturated at current levels,concentration of Co2 will need to double,840 ppm to increase temperatures by 1C.
What does saturated mean here? Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause it to precipitate out and, being denser than air, displace the O2+N2 we breathe? I am skeptical of this saturation, but open to learning from reliable sources.
@@PeterLawton That is probably a poor description of what occurs.I’m referring to the absorption spectrum for Co2.The wavelengths that can be absorbed by Co2 become almost “totally captured “,although they’re also continually reemitted ,at the level of 400 ppm.The discovery by Planck that Co2’s ability to “trap” reemitted long wave radiation is a logarithmic function meaning it’s concentration would now need to double to 800 ppm to absorb additional radiation to theoretically , increase temperatures by an additional 1C.
@@lv4077 And how is the distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere, tropshere or stratosphere?
Troposphere....
we should fear a cooling not a warming, that's a basic argument, very basic indeed
Thanks for writing, David! Please tell your friends about our interviews and subscribe. As for cooling, there will always be trends in climate. Because the topic has been so infused with calamity, we will have people fearing the direction of the mercury in the thermometer, whether we are on the upside or down.
With 8 billion people burning up gigatons of resources every year, there is zero danger of ever cooling the earth, as our CO2 has overpowered all three Milankovitch Cycles.
We're ready for another ice age..lol
You won't have to worry about cooling.
Interesting how there is never any mention of the sun's effect on global temperatures and instead focus solely on carbon emissions!
The energy from the sun is always a component in climate models. It's energy has been increasing slowly over billions of years. Carbon emissions have spiked dramatically in the last 100 years due to humans use of fossil fuels. These are facts that don't require debate. How to adapt to this more rapid heating of the planet is what the debate is about.
"Shouldn't we continue to worsen people's lives even if there is no reason for it? Maybe we can even make up some other reason."
*Climate change hysteria is big business* Buying a member of the professional managerial class of scientists is no more difficult than buying a lawyer, politician or corporate CEO.
Michael Mann's notorious 'hockey stick graph' started us down this slippery slope.
Michael Mann and John Christy agree on nuclear power, what a great place to start a discussion. Forget climate change, think about the 3 billion people on this earth who either live with no electricity or live in energy poverty. These people will power themselves out of poverty this century with coal unless there is something just as reliable and cheaper. Both men can agree on the real consequences of coal pollution and if that can be avoided, it's a huge win, not just for the impoverished but everyone.
Start there because advanced nuclear, like they are developing in Indonesia can provide that kind of energy cheaper than coal. An American company (Thorcon) has been working with the Indonesian government for years to bring this technology to the grid. Capital cost is less than a coal plant with a 2-year build cycle. Everyone wins regardless of which side of the climate issue you stand on.
Thank you for this good information! I will pass it along to my friend, Ed Kee, who will be visiting me in April. His book (Market Failure: Market-Based Electricity is Killing Nuclear Power) is something you might enjoy.
6 billion people on planet plus
What about the knock-on benefit of nuclear energy? Several very reliable analyses of the input/output of the large windmills and silicon solar panels show conclusively that the life of the panel and windmill is too short to get back the fossil fuel input to manufacture them. So, third world conditions are against nuclear power stations but the rich economies in stable states could use the nuclear power to make panels and windmills to allow the third world to use them until they reached a stage of having their own nuclear plants.
Don't you think that the climate alarmists might actually prefer them to come out of poverty more slowly? Ultimately, what happens if we are all equal? I hypothesise that this underpins western climate alarmism, the concern that more populous harder working people might actually displace the west (and its wealth) in some way
Humans screw things up when making products for money!
Making nuclear plants for kick backs, that become disposable is human nature! Think about nuclear accidents like that in Pa, happening around the poverty areas in the world. Solar and wind power will not kill millions in accidents.
Human failure is an important issue to consider!
One thing that really bothers me is that nobody mentions that the base line the alarmists are using for the warming is the little ice age they don't tell people how warm it was in the late medieval times there was a lot less sea ice in the north Atlantic and the vikings were farming in Greenland where the ground is frozen year around now please explain that
A rare balanced objective discussion we will never see on legacy media channels.
Or in the parliaments of the rich countries.
Great interview. The common sense that you won't find in mass media.
This is what can happen when the two sides of the issue can talk it out instead of name calling and cancelling.
I'd like to see a cost benefit analysis on expected warming and mitigation costs.
Then I would like someone to be held accountable for these predictions directly back to the public
Start with Bjorn Lomberg.
I'm surprised to find that someone is still at the bargaining stage. I'm so glad that there are so many commenters who laud the concept of letting all be heard.
A constant in nature is change. Climate changes. This is not shocking nor horrifying. Great video.
Climate Variability is a sign of stability. If a tall building doesn't away in the wind it will collapse.
Not one single climate change prediction ever made, has come to fruition.
every greta fan should have to watch this.
CO2 is a huge benefit to all mankind. To demonize CO2 is ridiculous if you follow the science. If you follow the "money" then you are credulous.
If you like your poison ivy extra-itchy, yes, CO2 is a boon. ;-) Turns out the plant makes more of its toxic oil when C02 levels rise.
CO2 doesn't predominate in our atmosphere, but being smart about how much we produce is probably wise. We can be ill-informed with both production and reduction. Finding a workable middle is likely the best policy.
Yo are totally wrong look up Simon Clarks youtube on this
@@AcademicInfluence you know nothing. Open a 4th grade science book. preferably one written before 2000.
@@briancrowther3272 As if this will change what I know to be true about science.
This is simple they use the data that agrees with their theories and ignore the data that disputes what they claim
Do they actually have any hard data?
I've never seen this interviewer before, but I am in awe of Dr. Christy's ability to calmly answer these very leading questions. I almost lost it at 14:00 when he says "you admit that there's more CO2 and that could be bad." Yes, but it is most likely good. We are at geologically historic lows in CO2 concentrations. Remember that "saving the planet" is a luxury that only rich countries can afford.
Yes. "Saving the planet" is a religion. And extremely dogmatic.
More co2, more food as we are pumping 3-5 times more co2 into greenhouses where a lot of our food grows! More heat, more food as it will be longer seasons for growing food...
I am all for protecting the enviroment and not pollute, but the idea og co2 and climate change is bad, has proven to become ridiculos.
More C02 equals more Life. Less C02 equals less Life. Its population control they want. The irony is theres no data that shows any correlation with C02 causing a rise in temps. It's actually the complete opposite which makes sense. Higher temps create more C02. It's like a fire, you burn the wood & it releases C02 not the Wood releases C02 then catches on fire. Or lets use there favorite fuel Gas. You burn Gas that releases C02. There has to be a heat source to start the C02 release.
there is a fort build at the entrance to Sydney Harbour that has been measuring sea levels for well over a century . Their data shows no rise in sea levels over 100+ years.
WRONG. You have just been crapped on by liars on the internet, posting a 140 year old picture no one knows the time or tide and then claimed 0.0cm
The maximum range of the variability in water level due to tides and storm surges at “Sydney Harbour” (the location shown is actually Fort Denison) is around 2 metres (i.e. it varies around mean sea level by around +/- 1 metre).
Therefore, if you take a photograph and you don’t quote (or even know) the state of the tide or surge at that time, then all you can say is that the level shown is the mean sea level +/- 1 metre (where I’m here quoting the maximum possible, or limit, of the error; I do this in all of the following).
Long story short, two independent tide gauge records show that sea level in Sydney has risen by about 12 cm since the end of the 19th century.
Listening to this was like a cool, fresh breath of air, not just because of one of the view voices that oppose the narrative that is pushed at as the absolute truth but also because of the inquisitive and at the same time extremely pleasant and civilized manner this interview was conducted.
There is no way to measure the temperature or average temperature of the whole earth.
Excellent interview... really enjoyed the fact that neither one is trying to push a narrative, they are only reasoning the facts and the available research.
:
Why do we only hear about the negative problems of global warming?
As a retired scientist who worked at a climate modeling lab, I estimate 1/2% of the warming is anthropocentric; the rest would be from other factors that would exist without the industrial revolution.
There can be some really bad environmental fallout from some of the ' clean' energy. Renewables may not be all that renewable. I think a mixture of energy and reducing through technology the emissions from use of fossil fuel or improving the efficiency of fossil fuel use, I think that's a better approach
Thanks for watching, Michah7214! As they say, "There is no free lunch." And this is especially true for sources of energy. Finding a way to balance the pros and cons of all the various energy-production types is critical to establishing a wise energy policy and not fall into the "one-size-fits-all" mentality that exists in some circles. Please tell others about us!
The ones pushing UN Agenda 2030 are career criminals. No one here seems to be aware of it? To start see Book Behind The Green Mask, by Rosa Koire. And 1PacificRedwood yt channel for real weather reports.
@@BE74297 I doubt more criminal than big oil. But I do suspect there's power and monetary influence behind all energy agendas.
@@AcademicInfluence I will!! I agree 🙂
I would have liked to hear more about the actual satellite data as John is an expert on that.
Unfortunately, his data was incorrect. The satellite he was using was slowing, setting his data off by a considerable amount.
The evidence in overwhelming. Rising Co2 levels cause hysteria.
Anthony, any deviation from a baseline is worthy of examination. There are two errors possible: over-reaction and complacency. We can't afford either. Thanks for writing. Please share our site with others!
@@AcademicInfluence What baseline? There is no level the CO2 is 'supposed' to be. It's been as high as thousands of ppm many times in the past. There is no baseline. This is not a goldilocks planet.
@@MsBiggles51, baseline within the realm of recorded human history (see earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ for instance). There has been a stability within this timeframe until recently. Not saying that deviation is the cause of this, that or the other; only that it is worth exploring more simply because we are not where we have been for most of human history.
It was warmer in the first half of the 20th century than anything lately
It was clearly not warmer in the 20th C. Not for the earth (the topic) and not for the US (small percentage of the earth). No scientist claims it has been warmer.
No it wasn't. LIAR. You work for an oil lobby perhaps?
There is no "climate change debate." Climate change has been disproved multiple times in published peer reviewed articles.
In his address to Congress in 1985, Carl Sagan proposed fission and fusion to help mitigate carbon emissions. Also, Sagan encouraged sound policy and solutions that would bot break the economy!
I'm looking at a table showing most all temperatures record were set in the 1930's Dust Bowl time. Ever since it's on average getting colder. For example we burn about 30% more of renewable solar energy (stored in that firewood) to heat our homes in the last 20-30 years. Clearly it's getting colder. Most of the flora and fauna is in the tropics, clearly warm is good, cold is bad.
Fantastic interview - about time coverage was given to a true scientist
There has never been a time in the history of the planet when the climate was not changing. It's always changing. And all living things, including everything from bacteria to plankton to cows to forests ... and yes, humans too .. play some role in that change. This idea that we can prevent the climate from changing is flat-out unscientific.
There has never been a time in the history of the planet when forests didn't burn. It always burned. Therefore humans can neither cause forest fires, nor prevent them. That's basically the STUPIDITY you're spewing here.
In reality, if we look at the evidence, we see that the ONLY reason the average global temperature is rising rapidly, i.e. the climate changing rapidly, is because of HUMAN acitivity. Without humans, this trend would not exist right now. So if we are the one and only cause of it, then we have the power to prevent it too. We know CFCs caused a cooling effect, and we know GHGs cause a warming effect, both of which were caused by us humans. That's what science proves. Science proves we can prevent the climate from changing through our ENORMOUS impact on the world.
@5:59 '...there still can be huge problems with... CO2'
Like what problems? Is there any indication for any problem? No?
There is also possibility that increased CO2 is good for the biosphere (hint: CO2 is food for photosynthesis).
Members of Mann's email group debunked the hockey-stick graph alluded to by the host.
It has been withdrawn I believe but it served its purpose.
Well, YT, the United Nations is not right on the political positioning based on the real world. Great video love it the 🛰️'s !
Thanks for watching, Bill! Tell your friends about us, and please subscribe!
Great explanations by Dr. Christy directly refuting the incredibly exaggerated claims by supposed climate scientists. Thank you Dr. Christy!
1) CO2 is essential to life
2) The historical temp record has been tampered with to fit their failed models
3) Wind & solar graveyards along with mining for battery materials and battery recycling is overlooked.
Climate change policy is the biggest threat we face.
I really appreciated this dialog and discussing both sides of an issue. Please keep this sort of inquiry up.
Correction - the 0.05 degC is per *decade* not century, which is the rate that has been occurring for a long time.
Thanks for the correction and for commenting!😃
Another correction, even though not a trend yet, the past 7 years we see a rate of COOLING of about -0.11C per decade while CO2 increases. That's from NOAA's online tool.
Wow. This is an area of study for me and it finally popped up on my feed. Great interview. I wish you would have gotten more granular though. Thank you.
EdP IV, thank you for viewing! We may revisit this interview with a follow-up in the future. Glad it was helpful. Let others know. Did you see the Michael Mann interview? (ruclips.net/video/ydtmJ8RwxHs/видео.html)
Thank you Dr Christy for living in the real world. May God give you strength
how many times can someone lie to me before i stop believing the lies?
how many times can some one cry wolf before i stop believing them?
how many times can i be kicked in the teeth before i start doing something about it?
Nice to see another voice of reason with knowledge and experience.
I’ve really enjoyed listening to Dr. William Happer as well.
Freeman Dyson and Patrick Moore are also recommended.
Can anyone take M Mann seriously?
There's a lot of confusing information on both sides of this debate. Here's the one thing we WILL support with enthusiasm: continued scientific inquiry. Science is never truly settled, especially when it comes to issues as complex as this one.
Mann's work has been upheld over and over again.
No
@@huwthomas9954
Yup! Would you like proof?
@@AcademicInfluence Simple things confuse simple minds.
The Sun, with an effective temperature of approximately 5800 K, is an approximate black body with an emission spectrum peaked in the central, yellow-green part of the visible spectrum. Of that, about 55% of incoming sunlight to Earth is infrared photons. They strike the Earth and are reradiated back out into the atmosphere. The other 45% is white light and of that, about 30% is reflected which is what you would see if you were to look at the Earth from outer space. That should leave about 31.5% of the total light being white, to strike the Earth, absorbed, and then reradiated in the Earth's black body 255k infrared range back into the atmosphere. That would mean 55% infrared photons coming in and 86.5% total infrared photons going out. As we increase secondary greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4, O3, N2O, CFCs, and HCFCs, in the atmosphere, we block more incoming infrared photons, slightly cooling off the planet. In addition, some incoming infrared light is converted into kinetic energy (heat), in the atmosphere by the greenhouse gases before reaching the planet. Being there are more outgoing infrared photons than incoming, as we increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we should trap more outgoing infrared photons than reflecting incoming photons. That being said, all things being equal, on the mean, the planet must heat.
Excellent Q & A.
I know the moderator is trying to be "devil's advocate" as he indicates a few times, but this summary by Dr. Christy explains in part why our world is in the bad shape it is in... especially this part: "first of all i don't have a model these are real data that we're talking" As a Data Analyst, I would prefer to use read data too... Also, there is a lack of compassion for those in Africa - as I lived there too. The Paris accord should not be adjusted - one for developed/developing, it should be scrapped. Wind farms are also not advisable to be added in Washington state. I have 3 friends working on Power Systems as PhD's in Canada and you won't believe how costly it will be to basically run duplicate solar and wind along with backup. You are welcome to read this part of the transcript: 10:33
"um now i mean in a scenario that you
10:36
just described i could kind of imagine
10:38
okay we'll make a new paris accord that
10:41
says
10:41
if you're in a developing country you
10:43
can still burn you know
10:45
fossil fuel if you're in a more modern
10:47
country
10:48
you have to just do solar and wind and
10:51
nuclear and all these other things
10:52
because
10:54
even though one guy's model you know
10:56
john christie's model says it's not a
10:58
big deal we got to be
10:59
careful we know that there's more
11:01
greenhouse gases we know there's more
11:02
co2
11:03
you agree that there's more that might
11:05
be bad that might be really bad and even
11:07
if his models don't show
11:08
we can't just trust that we got to be
11:10
careful here so would that be
11:12
a good strategy would you support that
11:14
kind of a strategy
11:15
well first of all i don't have a model
11:17
these are real data that we're talking
11:19
about that i'm talking about
11:20
real data that disproves that that
11:23
invalidates
11:24
basically what models are showing so to
11:26
separate that
11:27
and another thing is that you know we
11:29
can pass all kinds of regulations at the
11:31
united nations level or this level
11:34
but the impoverished world is going to
11:37
do what it's going to do"
One thing I wish John Christy had pointed out is the difference between his data set - true global temperature measurement via satellite - and terrestrial temperature measurement via ground-based thermometers, which are mostly land based and mostly concentrated in north America and Europe. In the 1980's there was a drastic reduction in the total number of ground-based weather stations which affected the terrestrial trend, not to mention the terrestrial measurements susceptibility to the "urban heat island" and other effects.
If you compare the temperature trends from the terrestrial records versus the satellite trends you will find the terrestrial record shows a much greater trend upwards than does Christy's satellite dataset. Christy's data has also been checked against the weather balloon dataset and they compare very well. The terrestrial data, on the other hand, is a mess, but people still use it to frighten the bejeepers out people.
I prefer Christy's dataset because it's truly global (terrestrial, marine and polar) versus a few thousand terrestrial weather stations, mostly urban now, and not a true global sample. People are panicking over the bad terrestrial data, I think.
Funny thing: years ago I read the IPCC AR4 technical report. There is a page where there is a box wherein it says there was a pause in warming for 16 (?) years and there was no consensus on the cause of the "pause". The "summary for policy makers" said the exact opposite. Go figure.
Today is Christmas 2022 in NC. The coldest Christmas since they've been keeping records. I think I like global warming better.
But the modelers won the Nobel Prize in physics lol
Lol
Nobel prize? so did the Doctor who developed the Frontal Lobotomy....guess that should make people think about the validity of Nobel Laureates
we need more like him, science by a scientist not a media type cherry picking data.
why does this interviewer keep referring to Dr Mann as some kind of climate guru???certainly not my opinion
John, thanks for writing. There has been no time in human history free of factions. And anyone familiar with the history of science knows that science has its factions too. Time has a way of proving ideas. We will have to stay tuned to see which faction prevails in the debate over climate change.
@@AcademicInfluence I agree, but creating hypothesis of extreme climate that have been proven to use fraudulent numerical models and aggressively challenging people in the courts who disagree with those model predictions, is a poor way for scientists to behave
We base normal temperature on our comfort level. What is Normal? Hot? Cold? Somewhere in between? The weather is always changing with or without human activity.
Finally, someone pointed out what I’ve been saying for 40 years.
When I was 16, my science teacher was telling us that the earth was entering “another Ice Age.” Because of air pollution, we were all going to freeze to death in 20 years, when the earth entered an Ice Age.
Fast forward 20 years, and they were talking about a “Greenhouse Effect,” a global warming phenomenon that would result in the earth becoming uninhabitable 20 years hence. Didn’t happen.
Christy also points out a well-known fact we learned in grammar school, that plants love C02, that we exhale it, and they absorb it. We need plants, and they need us. It makes perfect sense. The earth goes through 20-year cycles of heating and cooling, and it has naught to do with human behavior or fossil fuels.
Yes! Finally a voice of reason! I have been saying to people for years, we shouldn’t be making policy based on hypothesis, but on fact. Global warming caused by man is a hypothesis. But fact is, for mankind to survive, we need clean air, clean water, and clean food.
Finally , somebody who tells the truth..!!!!
Essential trace gas means no life without it.
This is why I was worried when I first heard about carbon removal technology
(the process of removing CO2 from the air)
Until it was shown that the energy required to drive the process produces more CO2 than the
equipment can remove from the air.
In other words another big scam !
@@burgesspark685 And the ethanol scam produces more CO2 than it saves. I Gore admitted to it, as he was "winning the Iowa primary". The '16 primary, Trump called for double the % in gasoline to win his Iowa primary. Cruz won anyway. Another money wasting scam. When 90% of all peoples want freebies paid for by others.
There is no chance adding CO2 at the rate we are will cause more problems than it will cost to "try" to fix. In fact, more CO2 and heat is likely a net positive to life on earth.
If the theory (models) do not agree with the measurement from the reality what does it mean for the models? That they are wrong.