2011-05-27 15:27:59Christy distorting and misinforming on CBC......
Julian Brimelow

Hi all,

Sigh.  Christy has been at it again. This time on CBC in Canada. Listen and weep.  I have transcribed some of the pertinent quotes.  All quotes below are made by Christy.

“People are able to have fact free views on things.  But when we look….we actually build datasets to test these theories and these assertions, and we do not find trends in these things, not even in heat waves, we do not see heat waves getting worse in the United States, the worst period by far was in the 1930s and the 1920s ….snowfall is still falling in the west.”

 “In looking at the best climate data through the past, these events are not outside the range that of what has already occurred”

 “Extremes events are not the key that you look for, you look for a large global number in the heat storage of the atmosphere and ocean and that is rising slowly but it is not rising catastrophically or dramatically and certainly does not point to a high sensitivity of the climate to things like GHGs.”

 “The small rate of warming that the planet is going through and the fact that energy production and CO2 might be related to a part of that, there is not much you can do to reverse whatever the climate is going to do whether is man caused or or not.”

 “We are finding that the climate is not very sensitive to CO2 and those kind of gases”


Just in case the hyperlink did not work:


2011-05-27 22:50:19


I think Christy's been surfing SkS, and finding ways to reword the top ten arguments.

2011-05-28 00:33:22


In that case, maybe we should look into updating the top 10 ...

2011-05-28 02:35:02
Alex C


Yes, the "Climate's Changed Before" argument does not have an Advanced rebuttal yet, which I think it ought to.  Addressing the causes of specific past cycles or events would be helpful, but that's another tangent.

It's sad that he's still spreading these distortions.  The attempts to address him seem to have no effect on what he says.  That seems to be the case with most "skeptics."

2011-05-28 02:37:06


We will hear more and more about extreme events for two reasons. First, we'll get more of them; this is what physics tells us. Second, they're very hard to prove statistically; up to now, no known extreme event has been.
This is really unfortunate because extreme events have a strong impact on people's opinion. Be warned to not use this argument on statistical ground, we can just say that this is what we expect to happen based on physics.

2011-05-28 02:59:38
Dana Nuccitelli

Freaking Christy.  It's weird, we never seemed to see him in the media until just recently, and now he's all over the place.  I'd like to refute his low sensitivity claims, but it's a subject we've kind of done to death.  Anybody know of any recent sensitivity studies?

2011-05-29 02:26:20dana


How about the Hansen and Sato (2011) paper:

The empirical sensitivity 3°C for doubled CO2 agrees with estimates of Charney (1979)
and modern climate models. But the empirical result is more precise, and it includes all real-
world processes. Moreover, by examining observed climate change over several Milankovic
oscillations it is now possible to further reduce the uncertainty in this fast-feedback sensitivity.

Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change
James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato

2011-05-29 03:48:01
Dana Nuccitelli

Yeah that's a good one oslo.  Perhaps I'll use it to write a rebuttal to Christy's recent low sensitivity statements, and update the 'sensitivity is low' rebuttal to include a reference to this paper.  Lots to do, but fortunately we've got a 3-day weekend, so I'll probably have time.

2011-05-29 05:39:38
Dana Nuccitelli

Christy Crock on climate sensitivity is up for review.