In his op-ed piece published in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, “My Nobel Moment,” John R. Christy takes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to task for its “overstated” confidence concerning a human contribution to the ongoing climate change. He complains that the IPCC’s findings are flawed, because they rely on computer models that do not constitute “proof” of the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and observed warming. A closer examination of his major arguments finds a number of sizable flaws.

First, he writes, “Both halves of the award [2007 Nobel Peace Prize] honor promoting the message that Earth’s temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases.” Actually, the IPCC did not attach such certainty to its conclusion. Instead, the IPCC found, “Most over the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Putting aside Christy’s interpretation of IPCC’s more qualified findings, he argues that one should dismiss the IPCC’s findings on account of “a reliance on climate models (useful but never “proof”) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time. First, it should be noted that the IPCC devotes an entire chapter of its report to the discussion of the limits, uses, and advances in the modeling (Chapter 8 of the IPCC Working Group I’s report). Second, a model is simply a representation. Myriad fields outside and within the sciences rely on models to understand, explain, and even forecast complex phenomena. If “reliance” on modeling were as useless as Mr. Christy seems to infer, one would not have witnessed their proliferation in recent decades. Third, carbon dioxide’s heat-trapping properties are well-established in scientific literature. Fourth, the relationship of “natural” forcings to temperature change broke down by the mid-20th century (Chapters 2 and 9 of the IPCC Working Group I’s report). In other words, the tight relationship between such factors as solar activity and observed changes in temperature fell apart. Natural factors, alone, could no longer satisfactorily explain global temperature trends.



The IPCC explained:

Simulations of global mean 20th-century temperature change that accounted for anthropogenic greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols as solar and volcanic forcing were found to be generally consistent with observations. In contrast, a limited number of simulations of the response to known natural forcings alone indicated that these may have contributed to the observed warming in the first half o the 20th century, but could not provide an adequate explanation of the warming in the second half of the 20th century, nor the observed changes in the vertical structure of the atmosphere.

Later, he seeks to dismiss the IPCC’s findings by arguing, “It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system’s behavior over the next five days.” That line of thought would essentially be the same as one’s asserting that the weather and climate are the same thing. In reality, Mr. Christy’s premise rests on the classic fallacy of treating synoptic events that explain day-to-day weather events as identical to overall climate, which encompasses temperature and precipitation data over long periods of time.

Finally, he contended that record sea ice coverage in the vicinity of Antarctica undercut the case for climate change. Yet, if one reviews literature based on paleoclimatic data, the “bi-polar seesaw” theory likely explains Antarctica’s much more modest temperature change relative to the observed warming that has taken place in the Arctic in recent years. In fact, the climate change models suggest that the Arctic region will likely warm 5°C-7°C (with some greater warming in parts of that region) vs. 2°-3.5°C in the Antarctic. During the 20th century, Antarctica witnessed a warming on its peninsula but very little change in interior temperatures. Hence, Antarctica’s establishing a new record for sea ice coverage during a summer when Arctic sea ice coverage plunged below its previous record minimum by more than 20% does not necessarily shoot down the IPCC’s climate change findings.

This summer also had an extra ingredient that might have contributed to the buildup of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere. It witnessed the onset of a strong La Niña during which the ENSO Region 1+2 sea surface temperature fell to a record low of 18.62°C in September. That development likely contributed to a prevalent synoptic environment that was especially favorable for increasing Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage, as well as extreme weather events such as Buenos Aires’s first snowfall since 1918.

All said, an objective assessment of Mr. Christy’s arguments against the available evidence concerning climate change suggests that it is a stretch for Mr. Christy to argue that a human contribution is “scientific uncertainty.” Certainly, he advances no alternative hypothesis. In short, although the extent of the human contribution remains up for debate, the notion that there has been a human contribution to climate change that might be responsible for most of the observed climate change since the mid-20th century is consistent with the best understanding science currently can provide. Needless to say, the efficacy and costs (including opportunity costs) of policy alternatives aimed at mitigating climate change and its impact are entirely different matters.

Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts* Version 69 – 20 September, 2007 Kesten C. Green, Business and Economic Forecasting Unit, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia. Contact: PO Box 10800, Wellington 6143, New Zealand. kesten@kestencgreen.com J. Scott Armstrong†, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania 747 Huntsman, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. armstrong@wharton.upenn.edu (This paper is a draft of an article that is forthcoming in Energy and Environment.) ... We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

SUMMARY I will close with three questions and a plea. Is the climate changing? Yes, it always has and it always will, but it is very difficult to detect on decadal time scales or on regional spatial scales. Are climate models useful? Yes, and improving. At this point, their utility is mostly related to global averages, though shortcomings are still apparent. Is that portion of climate change due to human factors good, bad or inconsequential? No one knows (although the plant world thrives on increases in carbon dioxide because CO2 is plant food.) What we do know is that we depend on data to answer these questions. The global data network is decaying at the very time we need it most. If the richest country in the world could do something, it would be to lead out in monitoring the present climate, in reconstructing the past climate, in assuring easy and timely access to the data S and in supporting scientists to study the data on which depend such important answers.

Originally Posted by Navy Pride Hell I could probably beat McCain.....

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 Here is an exerpt from Christy's written testimony to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on 17 May 2000. http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/pdf/christy000517.pdf Christy was also a lead author for the IPCC Third Assessment Report in 2001 and didn't have a problem with the claims in that report. What gives?

Originally Posted by Gill Perhaps Christy has become fed up with the IPCC's tactic of ignoring any dissenting views on the subject like so many others have. Or maybe he has changed his viewpoint after looking at the changing evidence. For instance, temperatures have not risen any more since 2002 despite increasing CO2. He also wrote papers on the poor state of surface station data in both California and Alabama. His new research could easily have swayed his opinion on the subject of GW.

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 No credible scientist would make a determination based upon a miniscule 5 year sample. It seems his claims are discredited by himself. He says that it is too complex to predict. Then he goes on to predict. He doesn't cite a study. Is he taking into account that carbon based energy continues to grow exponentially? What if Joseph Newman could get a patent? Has he taken that into account? That would surely change the economic aspect of his argument. The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman

SUMMARY I will close with three questions and a plea. …. What we do know is that we depend on data to answer these questions. The global data network is decaying at the very time we need it most.

If the richest country in the world could do something, it would be to lead out in monitoring the present climate, in reconstructing the past climate, in assuring easy and timely access to the data S and in supporting scientists to study the data on which depend such important answers.

Originally Posted by Gill Here's a soon to be published paper that agrees with Christy that the IPCC is utilizing faulty information and reasoning in their conclusions and forecasts of doom and gloom. http://www.forecastingprinciples.com...armAudit31.pdf

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat This is just beyond ridiculous anymore. The latest IPCC assessment is the product of some 600 authors from 40 countries. It was reviewed, line by line, by 620 experts representing 113 different nations. Not a one of these nations has anything to gain at all economically from regulating carbon emissions. Yet we should be believe that authors and reviewers are either a bunch of idiots, or all involved in the grandest conspiracy ever in the history of science. I mean come on. With every scientific field there are always dissenters. However in this case, the vast, vast majority of the scientific community considers the IPCC assessments to be conservative assessments based in largely settled science. In fact, the only credible criticism in mainstream science has been on how much of a role warming will have with the spread of tropical diseases. Personally, I think that most reasonable and objective people would argue that public policy should be based in scientific consensus. If one has 99 experts saying one thing, for every one saying another, common sense dictates you go with the 99.

Originally Posted by Gill Can't handle it when people start pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes?? The IPCC is a political organization. Wegman showed beyond doubt that some climate scientists (Mann in particular) uses poor and improper statistical methodology. Now an expert in forecasting principles shows that the IPCC breaks every rule of forecasting methodology. If these people want us to believe them, they'd better start using correct scientific principles and sharing data so that their findings can be replicated. By the way, how about some proof that the "vast majority" of scientists think the IPCC is to conservative.