Scientist ruthlessly debunks NOAA climate claim

In face of intense criticism from alarmist scientists, Dr. John Christy went to great lengths in a Tuesday congressional hearing to detail why satellite-derived temperatures are much more reliable indicators of warming than surface thermometers.

Read Dr. Christy’s full testimony at

“That’s where the real maDaily Caller  New Foundationss of the climate system exists in terms of the atmosphere,” Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama and Alabama’s state climatologist, said in a Wednesday hearing before the House science committee.

“When a theory contradicts the facts” you need to change the theory, Christy said. “The real world is not going along with rapid warming. The models need to go back to the drawing board.”

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee’s chairman, convened a hearing on the implications of President Barack Obama’s recent United Nations deal in Paris, which agreed to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Christy doesn’t think signing onto a U.N. deal is good for Americans, and challenges the very data politicians and environmentalists rely on to push green energy policies.

“One of my many climate interests is the way surface temperatures are measured and how surface temperatures, especially over land, are affected by their surroundings,” Christy wrote in his prepared testimony.

Christy recently co-authored a study with veteran meteorologist Anthony Watts that found the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was basing its temperature adjustments on “compromised” temperature data.

John Christy

Dr. John Christy

The study found most of NOAA’s 1,218 thermometers were sited near artificial surfaces and heat sources like concrete, asphalt, and air conditioner exhausts that were causing more warming to show in the U.S. temperature record than was present at weather stations that were well-sited.

Christy and Watts surmised NOAA was basing its temperature adjustments (efforts made to get “biases” out of the temperature record) on bad data.

“I closely examined individual stations in different regions and have come to the conclusion that the magnitude of the relatively small signal we seek in human-induced climate change is easily convoluted by the growth of infrastructure around the thermometer stations and the variety of changes these stations undergo through time, as well as the variability of the natural ups and downs of climate,” Christy noted in his testimony.

“It is difficult to adjust for these contaminating factors to extract a pure dataset for greenhouse detection because often the non-climatic influence comes along very gradually just as is expected of the response to the enhanced greenhouse effect,” Christy added.

But that’s why Christy argues satellite-derived temperatures are a better way to look at how greenhouse gases are impacting the Earth’s climate.

“The bulk atmospheric temperature is where the signal is the largest,” Christy said in the hearing, referring to the greenhouse gas effect. “We have measurements for that — it doesn’t match up with the models.”

Satellite-derived temperatures have come under fire recently by scientists more alarmist about global warming than Christy, but the Alabama climatologist addressed those criticisms.

“Because this result challenges the current theory of greenhouse warming in relatively straightforward fashion, there have been several well-funded attacks on those of us who build and use such datasets and on the datasets themselves,” Christy said.

Climate models for the bulk atmosphere (where satellites measure temperature) show 2.5 times as much warming as has been observed by satellites and weather balloons.

“It is a bold strategy in my view to actively promote the output of theoretical climate models while attacking the multiple lines of evidence from observations,” Christy wrote. “Note that none of the observational datasets are perfect and continued scrutiny is healthy, but when multiple, independent groups generate the datasets and then when the results for two completely independent systems (balloons and satellites) agree closely with each other and disagree with the model output, one is left scratching one’s head at the decision to launch an offensive against the data.”

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller


About the Author: Michael Bastasch

Michael Bastasch writes on energy, climate and the environment for the Daily Caller.

  1. Joseph Finney

    Climate change is all part of a U.N. conspiracy. They want the industrialized nations to distribute their wealth with the poor nations. They would bring down the richer nations in order to bring up the poorer nations. That sounds like everyone becoming a third world nation to me. The U.N. also knows that that will be a hard sell to Americans, so they are also bent on taking our guns. They are pushing the U.S. to sign various treaties on gun confiscation. Do they push that agenda in the poor countries especially a muslim country? Just wondering.

    • Daniel F. Melton

      The agenda is to rob from the rich, and keep it. The poorest countries will remain destitute, simply because they are ruled by despots. One prime example and comparison is Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Even disaster relief for survivors of the 2010 earthquake attracts vultures from as far away as Washington (bill clinton for one) to pick the bones of the destitute.

      • Joseph Finney

        So true. Look at Mubarak, from Egypt if I spelled it right. He was the Egyptian leader for 30 years and the U.S. gave that country 60 billion dollars in aide. He was ousted and he had 60 billion in a foreign bank. We give so much money now, without robbing the people, and it gets in used against us or in a dictators pocket.

  2. Tom Baker

    Where is the proof of global warming? In 2007 Gore said based on scientific FACT, the polar Ice cap would be GONE in 2014. Well the Ice cap is as large as ever. The Antarctia is bigger than ever. so they lied to create backing. Then they said the polar bears are dying off because of the lack of ice. Just another lie because the bears are as populated as ever, and the ice is just fine. Many scientists are now saying the temperature rise is in a :pause” for the last EIGHTEEN years…..I have always had to laugh at the 97% of scientists agree with the global warming BS. you could get 97% to agree the sky is blue. If you delve into these scientists they quote, they are all on government grants.. Humm gee I wonder…..Follow the money.

  3. James Sullivan

    We need an investigation into the weather historical information being changed at NOAA and in private hands like . I will ask each of you That remember a date and place where you where when there was a record high or low reported go back @ NOAA.GOV and see if it has been altered many events have been and this data is saved with tax money it should be a crime to alter.

    • Dano2

      the weather historical information being changed at NOAA and in private hands like

      You have no evidence this is true. We need an investigation into the purposeful disinformation being spread by private parties and PR firm sockpuppets.



      • James Sullivan

        Dano2 you either can not read or doubled down on being stupid I asked people to go back and check the numbers against experience and memory . The reason i did that is so people can verify it with there own experiences that the data has been altered .

        • Dano2

          We’re talking about scientific evidence. Anecdata is not compelling, despite your wish for it to be so.



          • James Sullivan

            Discussion is a two way process i give you information and you deny that is only a sign of mental illness on your part.

                • Dano2

                  Is your widdle froggy evidence for your statement the weather historical information being changed at NOAA and in private hands like ?

                  I can’t tell what it is you are flailing about for anymore.



0 Pings & Trackbacks