The biased notion of catastrophic climate change

 HYPERLINK "http://www.earthsky.org/blog/the-biased-notion-of-catastrophic-climate-change" http://www.earthsky.org/blog/the-biased-notion-of-catastrophic-climate-change

Guest post from Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville

Earth & Sky’s goal of being a clear and unbiased voice for science seems noble, and I am pleased to have helped a bit in the past. Nonetheless, the climate stories Earth & Sky has reported in recent months are typical of the biased notion that catastrophic climate change is not only inevitable, but is directly or indirectly caused by human beings.

That is something that a large number of working-stiff scientists like me, who actually build from scratch the datasets being analyzed, simply do not see. Every year scientists publish numerous rigorously peer-reviewed research publications reporting results of research that runs counter to the conventional wisdom on dire climate change.

Case in point: I led a team of scientists who reconstructed surface temperatures for Central California in a manner that was far more meticulous than had ever been done. The results, which were  HYPERLINK "http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3627.1" published in the  HYPERLINK "http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/jcli/" Journal of Climate in February 2006, suggest that the substantial, largely nighttime warming seen in the San Joaquin Valley over the past 50 years is probably due to irrigation and other land use changes, and is not due to greenhouse gases or global warming.

There was no warming in the nearby mountains, which is where climate models had all predicted rapid warming – if the enhanced greenhouse effect was the cause.

Unfortunately, this kind of hard-nosed data analysis usually doesn’t produce the dramatic results that grab the attention of reporters and editors. (Unlike computer climate models, whose range of possible outcomes will always include a most dire, least likely to happen, but most likely to be reported, scenario for disaster.)

Virtually no media picked up the news from our Journal of Climate publication, although that research is fundamental to understanding why temperatures are changing in California (and other similar areas around the world). This research turns the reason for the current bid to cut CO2 emissions in California on its head. This isn’t a politically popular thing to do.

After 18 years of collecting, analyzing and publishing global temperature data (which does show some warming, by the way), I have become accustomed to being labeled an outcast and a minority scientist. That does not mean I am alone, or even lonely. There are three frequently updated websites run by publishing scientists which deal with peer-reviewed research that runs counter to the conventional wisdom about climate change:

 HYPERLINK "http://www.worldclimatereport.com/" World Climate Report

 HYPERLINK "http://www.worldclimatereport.com/" http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

 HYPERLINK "http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/" Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog

 HYPERLINK "http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/" http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/

 HYPERLINK "http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/" Prometheus: The Science Policy Weblog

 HYPERLINK "http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/" http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/

[CSPP Note: We would add:  CO2 Science

 HYPERLINK "http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp" http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp

For example, recent published research at these sites reported on: – Antarctica being warmer in the last 2000 years than today; – Greenland being warmer in the past century than today; – Drought frequency not increasing in places like Africa and the U.S.; – Numerous studies of warmer conditions in the recent past around the globe; – Numerous studies of model inadequacies; – Lack of evidence for hurricane increases; – Lack of decline in Eurasian and Western China snow cover; and – Misrepresentation of science in the policy debate.

If the staff at Earth & Sky checked these sites every week, I suspect they would be surprised at how much scientific research is being published that does not support the forecasts of catastrophic, manmade climate change.

Because it isn’t often dramatic and doesn’t support the pre-conceived beliefs of the gatekeepers in science and the media, however, this serious research seldom gets the notice it deserves. All too often, research that doesn’t support the lockstep dogma of global warming advocates only makes news when it is being pilloried by those same advocates.

Despite assertions and claims made to the contrary, the real science of climate change and global warming is less certain, less reliable and substantially less unanimous than one might think based on news reports, even reports from Earth & Sky, which are, admittedly, less alarmist than the mainstream media. I’m hopeful that the democratization of information via the web might one day make a difference in public understanding of this issue before the U.S. adopts expensive (especially to the poor) and non-productive environmental regulations and policies.

 HYPERLINK "http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html" John R. Christy
Director, Earth System Science Center
Professor, Atmospheric Science
Alabama State Climatologist
University of Alabama in Huntsville

 http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3627.1

 http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/jcli/