Academic Influence 
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 https://academicinfluence.com/people/john-christy
Interested in pursuing your own research in climate change?
Check out the best research universities for the Earth Sciences:
https://academicinfluence.com/rankings/discipline/best-earth-sciences-research-universities
source
About The Author
Our understanding of climate change and global warming is not limited to satellite models. The satellite date is correct John Christy is wrong. The idea that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is physical fact and not debatable. The physics of climatology and global warming is complicated and covers a wide range of domains, and subjects which use physics such as quantum field theory, and atomic physics which specifically use spectroscopy, oceanography, atmospheric physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, atmospheric chemistry, thermodynamics, etc. The physics of why carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is not debatable by most physicists who have a complete knowledge of the physics of global warming, and it has long has been proven as scientific, physical fact as any jar filled with carbon dioxide will always get warmer in the sunlight than than a jar with ordinary air with a thermometer in each. A subjective worldview is limited to politics, materialism, and money making can't understand the physics of climate change which is very complicated. The philosophy of physics is that the four forces of nature are mind independent, objective and unchanging, i.e, they are not a belief system or opinion, rumor, etc. The four forces and electromagnetic radiation, thermal infra red black body radiation does not care whether or not anyone believes in it. It exists and continues to work in the same, predictable way anyway independent of one's belief and will which is atmospheric chemistry.. For example. Carbon dioxide will only absorb infra red thermal radiation which is completely invisible to the naked eye. All other electromagnetic radiation, Gamma rays, x rays, ultra violet, visible light and radio waves pass right through the carbon dioxide molecule, but infra red light is absorbed by carbon dioxide molecule. Infra red radiation causes the carbon dioxide molecule to vibrate and rotate which and re radiate the infra red in all directions. Consequently, carbon dioxide keeps infra red from coming from the ground heated by the Sun in the visible light from escaping into space. The more carbon dioxide molecules we put into air, the more vibrations, rotations and heat in the lower atmosphere. We've put one trillion tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere since 1850 much faster than any volcanoes or nature has ever released.
We've put one trillion tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere since 1850 bringing the carbon dioxide from 380ppm to 415ppm. Our temperatures have been rising faster than anytime in the entire history of Earth, not counting the giant impact hypothesis 4.3 billion years ago. This is something to be alarmed at as we are nearing the tipping point of ppm of carbon dioxide where our entire polar ice caps will melt raising the see level rise of more than 195 feet.
The host is very diplomatic buy does not agree a bit with the profesor. The professor is very confident and he doesn't give a F..k! What this tranid about climate change? When I see zealous young people who only clean their room once a year descend on a busy city street and glue their hand to road to prostate against fossil fuel it makes me wonder the end game!
Was Greta Thunberg used by the Chinese to force us to use lithium batteries made in China, and to Close all our Car Manufacturers and Part Suppliers.❓
Why are there No charts.
Their are many Charts on CO2, (Carbon Dioxide)
But no one has any Charts on:
CO, (Carbon Monoxide)
H2O, (Water Vapour)
CH4, (Methane)
N2O, (Nitrous Oxide)
Why is it only CO2 is the Planet Killer.❓
Apparently we are being Brainwashed by those who PROFIT from CO2 Capture Companies.
Christy completely doesn't understand the radiative forcing assertion. Radiative forcing is a BS argument.
C02 can be good and slight warming of the planet is beneficial..solar and wind have environmental impacts I.e mining the minerals and elements to achieve this is not good and building wind farms also have effects on land and even kill whales..i love this man he has a brain
Data fudgers and climate change, go hand in hand…😢
Climate change is a Mann made disaster 🙂
I think funding leads to alarmist results.
We can't rely on wind and solar as it can't cope with a base load. We need nuclear power for the base load.
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.
Here are the temperature trends for various surface and lower troposphere temperature data sets since the beginning of the satellite era in 1979 °C/decade ± 2σ:
Gistemp 0.188 ±0.035
Berkeley 0.192 ±0.029
Hadcrut4 0.171 ±0.031
NOAA 0.166 ±0.037
RSS 0.210 ±0.050
UAH 0.133 ±0.047
UAH shows a lower temperature trend than the other data sets and the average trend together with CO2 data gives a rise of 3 C per doubling of CO2 concentration as predicted by the models and theory of AGW.
Even the UAH data gives a figure of 2 C with 95% confidence limits of ± 0.7 C.
The calculation includes the effect of a cooling contribution due to the decrease in solar intensity towards a grand solar minimum over the last five decades.
The data does not show that the earth is warming faster than the models indicate.
Proxy data going back 25 thousand years shows that the current temperature is higher and rising at a faster rate than at any time over the 10,000 years of the holocene (Osman et al 2021) when concentrations of population, agriculture, civilization, infrastructure including cities developed where they are, much of it on coastal plains.
As for extreme weather events. The models say that there will be fewer hurricanes but they will be stronger. And it is true that there is not yet enough data for increases or decreases in hurricanes, floods, fires etc to be determined in terms of statistical significance, that is that there is a greater than 95% probability that the change is real and not due to chance, but I live in Australia and recent years have shown a higher than average occurrence of such events.
And sea level rise, ice cap melt and fall in ocean pH are occurring as predicted.
Global warming started before the industrial revolution. Without co2 there are no plants which means no oxygen. Wake up .
Well, Michael E Mann is no competition!
All this climate panic is based on a bunch of tempered historical data. It's the biggest lie in human history.
If you go back and look at temperatures in 50s and 60s we were still recuperating from last ice age temperatures were still going down ,now they go up gradually. Everything in nature is cyclic. Cutting co2 and killing off our trees and food supplies in the name of climate control only makes since to the mindless brain washed masses?
If humans were able to raise the global temperature, it would be a good thing. More people die of cold weather than warm weather.
There are things we can do to lessen our footprint, but the world can't up and go renewable energy overnight. Wind and solar is ok but not the only solution. I'm thinking of nuclear submarines. If we can do that we can do it on land. Small modular reactors, SMRs seems to me a good alternative. With wind and solar come batteries. The mining, processing, shipping, etc. to supply the world with not just windmills and solar panels but the batteries makes me wonder how it's any greener than what we're doing now. I'm no expert on climate change or the production of energy but I've seen pictures and videos of lithium mines and how it's done. I've watched videos of cobalt mines where kids are working. I agree, we need to minimize our emissions of Co2 and other greenhouse gases, but how about we don't turn the planet inside out to save it. Let's try not to freeze ourselves to death during winter using wind and solar that not reliable enough for now. Cold kills more people than heat I think.
Excellent. Should be required viewing for all commentators before the make their comments.
We are actually warming TEN TIMES faster than is normal when receding from an Ice Age.
Christy's data has been corrected by others numerous times over the years. The most egregious is when he failed to account for satellite drift. He has also errantly included stratospheric temperature for tropospheric temperature. This is why you always want to have rebuttals as part of any teaching video.
SkepticalScience skewers his views on their site. See CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: JOHN CHRISTY
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.
What is a woman? We live in an ideologically possessed queer cult. Our universities are leaders in promoting the violence that twins with insanity. We are philosophical zombies. Does anyone, under fear of being arrested, as in Canada, dare to state what a woman is lest one's child be stolen by members of the insane state? Who can possibly trust "science" when insanity is the dominant cultural motif. I don't have and informed opinion on climate issues though I do try to follow the exchanges and presentations. I used to trust our universities. What is a woman?
Only in a Clown world like the one we now seem to inhabit is it possible for governments to continue to get behind model after model over several decades even though just about EVERY one (of those the governments support) have turned out to be erroneous.
It cannot possibly be that successive governments just HAPPEN to support the wrong models every time and it is certainly no coincidence that even after so many model failures, NOTHING significant has been done to improve the quality of the modelling.
Governments would never allow drugs to be released for use on the public without thorough testing and analysis so why is this different – oh, no, wait.
Scrub that last sentence.
Eventually, I hope the public will realize that it isn't the Climate which needs to be radically altered, it's the Western style of government – where lies and corruption seem to be the order of the day.
There aren’t more forest fires or hurricanes etc, there is just more media.
Who gave academic credentials to Jed The Doctor who is constantly insisting on idiotic false preordered conclusions about climate based on the data that do not exists.
The fact that micheal Mann has been caught data cheating , makes him irrelevant, Mr Christy talks common sense on climate . I will side with Mr Christy.
Christy's data has been corrected by others numerous times over the years. The most egregious is when he failed to account for satellite drift. He has also errantly included stratospheric temperature for tropospheric temperature. This is why you always want to have rebuttals as part of any teaching video.
SkepticalScience skewers his views on their site. See CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: JOHN CHRISTY
I wish young people would listen to this and become motivated again. It seems they have lost the will to be productive, because of all the
fake doomsday scenarios being propagated by governments and bodies like the U.N.
CO2 is essential for all plant life.
Is it me, or does it seem to everyone else that our host is doing more than playing devils advocate here with Dr Christie and seems more of an AGW ideologue with his line of questioning. From my knowledge of thermodynamics, my understanding is that it is impossible for heat transfer to take place from the atmosphere to the land surface, firstly because the temperature gradient both between the ground and the air, and below the ground are both negative, more so below ground because of the much greater mass density of the ground (1000x) than for the air irrespective of the composition of the air so that the temperature apex is always at the ground surface independent of whether it is day or night, summer or winter. The Sun is the primary heat source in our Solar System, and the ground surface is the principal secondary heat radiator, while the atmosphere can only be a net heat sink purely on the basis of potential heat density at ambient temperatures and pressures and the nature of heat flux combined with heat convection. My understanding too is that the climate debate has been focused on the empirical data provided by temperature measurements and its variability over recorded time has been the endless subject of controversy, but there seems to be little recourse to the thermodynamics of heat transfer between solids, liquids and gases that takes place in the atmosphere on a daily basis, where latent heat flux plays a disproportionate role in the balance between sensible and latent heat, most significantly with water vapor which is commonly understood by everyone to be the primary determinant of the prevailing weather, whether as rain, hail, sleet, snow, cloud or not insignificantly ground moisture. That carbon-based compounds that dwell in the atmosphere and oceans only transiently as part of the carbon cycle have been elevated to being the primary determinants of significant thermodynamic effects in the weather seems spurious not only to me but many others, notwithstanding their ability to absorb radiation albeit in a narrow band of ambient temperature ranges (a characteristic that I believe has been crucial for plant and animal respiration and survival in cold climates in particular). Recourse to the solar spectrum reveals that the intensity of incident daylight radiation at the frequencies sensitive to these carbon-based gases is roughly 180x the intensity experienced from ambient ground temperatures, and therefore any net latent heat absorbed by carbon-based gases in the atmosphere will be firstly dissipated through sensible heat transfer with more concentrated diatomic gases in the atmosphere, and secondly through convective heat transfer with the cooler upper atmosphere, so that less effective radiation reaches the ground surface (think of how a parasol works). My understanding too is that Fourier for one would agree wholeheartedly.
I really enjoyed this discussion. Thanks for posting it.
One thing I learned in my post grad research is that often rather perplexing contradictions in one field of research are easily explained by phenomena researched outside of the immediate field of research.
In the case of climate change, it is worth looking at the underpinnings of 1970s politics, power, and funding cycles that have only increased with time.
The desire for a common enemy to justify the creation of a world government is the motivation (as evidenced by the writings and actions of those who promote such an end).
Looking, seeing, and accepting what one objectively sees can require one to overcome personal prejudices and blinkers – something Daniel Kahneman (Nobel Prize winner) and others have long warned us about.
I can recommend "From Greta to the Great Reset: Making Emergencies Work" by T. Witt, 2022 in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 81, No. 2 as a helpful starting point. I also recommend digging through sources.
The political underpinnings of the apparent contradiction between models and actual data also underpin other sociological and political phenomena societies are currently navigating Following the money and on record statements made by those who pull the strings…
Anyone who claims the globe is warming is a grifter for the cause of Michael Mann Climate Hysteria.
You agree, you agree, blah blah… This insanity must stop.
I'm a climato-realist and I never believed that mankind had the power to change the climate. Mankind is supposed to have the intelligence to take responsibility on the way mankind lives in its biosphere. The capitalist model based on never ending increase of ressources extraction can not stand for a few more centuries. Of course, nuclear energy is the most likely to replace fossile energy but there are AT LOT of machines that can't be powered with electricity and the batteries needed are also very polluting to fabricate. Besides the metals required for an electrified network for everybody on the planet aren't available anymore and the mining industry is the most polluting one. So nuclear energy won't save the western lifestyle based on programmed obsolence and consumerism. Mankind have to work on a most sober way to live on this earth as a matter of fact.
Low-tech solutions can be invented : they are actually by the poorest one in eastern countries who can't live anymore in the previous consumerist lifestyle.
It's quite clear to me that the continent where the low-tech will be more and more powerfull and inventive will be Africa while we are going to cling on the last oil drop by wars etc etc
I suspect while scientists discuss their issues the journalists and politicians pick what they like and try to make sensations and scandals. This is where many scientific facts get twisted and exaggerated. And by the way Greta Thunberg should go back to school and learn the stuff.
So if the real scientists with the real data such as Mr. Christy are correct, can we the little people all agree to dismantle our governments (which are FORCE) who cause things like war and hyper-inflation? I agree 100% with Ronald Reagan on one point: government is the problem.
Co2’s heat trapping ability is a logarithmic association.Therefore to double its heat absorption co2 concentration must increase by a factor of 10.Thus co2 more than likely has very little affect on temperature.We are however due for another ice age which would be more than devastating to mankind.
The strongest tornadoes in history happened in 1974 where it had 7 EF5 tornadoes.
The earth is now much greener than our history due to fossil fuel.
CO2. Is an invisible gas that improves plant growth.
More unprofessional rubbish
When my wife first suggested that dark matter might be causing climate change I laughed. Dark matter after all should be a constant, I thought. When we began looking at the data I stopped laughing. Dark matter it seems is not a constant.
Global Warming is happening but dark matter is the chicken and Co2 is the egg.
Dark matter phase transitions appear to be a primary climate driver. If the solar system passes through an area of higher liquid dark matter content the planets cores would all receive more heat due to increased phase transitions thus heating the earth from the inside out.
Heating of the planet from the inside out would result in :
Increased ground temperatures
Increased sea temperatures
Increased nighttime temperatures
Increased seismic activity
Increased earthquakes
We are currently passing through the S1 dark Matter stream which, as it is going the opposite direction around the galaxy was described as a dark matter hurricane. From spring to fall the earth is downstream from the sun. And from July to December the earth is traveling with the S1 stream and from January to June we get our maximum ongoing dark matter exposure as we travel into the S1stream. There have also been peer reviewed papers that discuss dark matter annihilation heating the earth from the inside, they did not mention any impact to climate change.
We may also be subject to surges of dark matter
June-July 2020 Earth Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn conjunctions. This means that the earth passed through several consecutive dark matter streams
July 2020 Siberian heatwave and Antarctica temperature spike
Jan 9 2022 Venus Earth conjunction this resulted in an increase in the amount of dark matter leaving the sun and Venus
March 18 2022 Concordia Station spiked 39 C degrees due to unusual air patterns near Australia
North Pole regions hit 30C above normal
May 2022 mars crosses the dark matter stream to Saturn
May 4, 2022 a 4.7 magnitude Marsquake occurs due to tectonic activity.
March 26 2024 the Parker Solar Probe began its lap around the sun on April 4 it came out on the other side of the sun to start back towards Venus. In between it was actually inside of the Alfven Limit which is where I believe the surface of the dark matter sphere that surrounds the sun lies. This would be the equivalent of a speed boat sending a wake towards the earth.
April 11 mercury and earth are in an inferior conjunction which would also send a bit of extra dark matter in earths direction.
Mid June 2024 multiple heat waves.
Venus atmospheric temperatures from 2009-2017 also were higher after conjunctions and the atmospheric wind speeds have increased by 33% probably due to the increase in incoming dark matter.
Venus atmospheric temperatures from 2009-2017 also were higher after conjunctions
Venus atmospheric tsunami
If the dark matter spin off to the sun happens every 5 days on average and coincides with the wave facing the sun it may be proof of dark matter. During conjunctions if the tsunami is facing earth we get an extra surge of dark matter heading to the earth which also affects the time it takes for the tsunami to circle Venus. The gravity well fills up and dumps back to the sun but if it fills faster due to a conjunction it can spill toward the earth resulting in higher temperatures about 60 days later. The streams of liquid dark matter are constantly overflowing the suns dark matter sphere which extends to the Alfven radius. This distance varies dependant on how much dark matter reaches the point at which it vaporizes. (Velocity/gravity/temperature)
NASA issued a climate change warning for Mars after Mariner 9
Neptune has been heating up since 2018
"climatey change" is voodoo science
Global warming/climate change is pure fraud and has been so since day one three decades ago. Everything is a lie.