John Christy, el cambio climático ....y ¿los chemtrails?

                                        "Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled". 

Dr David Deming

¿QUIÉN ES JOHN CHRISTY?

John Christy es básicamente un profesor con bigote, pero no uno cualquiera, sino Profesor de Ciencia Atmosférica de la Universidad de Alabama en Huntsville y Director de la Escuela del "Earth System Science Center" y experto en monitorización satelital de la temperatura atmosférica (posee un galardón al respecto recibido por la NASA, ojo, la NASA, ese "ente al servicio de la conspiración"!), al que ANECIL (la Asociación Nacional de Cielos Limpios) bate palmas y toma como estandarte de su paranoia por ser un científico crítico con las políticas de cambio climático de la administración Obama, basadas en que las predicciones del aumento de temperatura publicadas por el IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) no casan las lecturas reales de temperatura de los globos sonda y satélites que ha usado este señor. 

ANECIL (lejos de ser críticos con lo que publican), para sustentar sus delirios, copian literalmente un artículo del blog argentino "Mitos y Fraudes", extraído y traducido literalmente de un artículo de Patrick J. Michaels, director del "Centro para el Estudio de la Ciencia del Cato Institute (aquí el artículo de ANECIL), donde se refieren a un gráfico que "sustenta" su argumentación. En concreto es éste: 

La línea roja se trata de una predicción de temperatura obtenida como media de 102 Modelos Climáticos "CMIP-5" del IPCC. "CMIP-5" significa "Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5" (Fase 5 del Proyecto de Intercomparación de Modelos Acoplados). Este nombre tan raro, al cual ANECIL ni siquiera ha prestado un minuto de atención para averiguar qué significa, es motivo de la siguiente sección. Los puntos azules se corresponden con los valores medios obtenidos en la troposfera media (unos 5 km de altura) por los sets de datos de 4 globos sonda (sí, SOLO 4, para los que saben de estadística y consistencia de datos) y los puntos verdes se corresponden con los valores medios obtenidos por dos anáisis ampliamente aceptados de satélites con sensores de temperatura (sin más detalle). Como se ve a simple vista, los datos de los globos sonda y de los satélites son bastante consistentes entre sí, pero se alejan de la predicción del IPCC sobre todo desde 1995 (cuidadín, cuando empieza la paranoia de los chemtrails, algo que alimentará a buen seguro la paranoia de los chemtrailistas).

El CMIP-5

El CMIP-5 es una agrupación, o acoplamientode 20 modelos climáticos, aportados fundamentalmente por el International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, que lo conforman un sinfín de departamentos universitarios, organizaciones y grupos de investigación de todo el globo, aplicados entre 2008 y 2013 (5 años, de ahí lo de "5") para la intercomparación de datos y obtención de una predicción media sobre el cambio climático BASADA EN DICHOS MODELOS. Los primeros resultados de predicción de estos modelos acoplados se publciaron en 2011. Hay que hacer constar que dichos modelos se basaron en experimentos sobre el cambio climático para un periodo de 5 años que incluía simulaciones y que intentaba por un lado reproducir fielmente la realidad de los datos pasados para posteriormente, por extrapolación, obtener una predicción a futuro. Básicamente el CMIP-5 fue concebido para suministrar un set estándar de modelos de simulación con el fin de:

• evaluar con qué nivel de realismo estos modelos simulan el pasado reciente
• proveer proyecciones del cambio climático futuro en dos escalas temporales: corto plazo (hasta alrededor de 2035) y largo plazo (más allá de 2100), y
• entender algunos de los factores responsables de las diferencias en los modelos de proyección, incluyendo la cuantificación de informaciones clabe como aquellas que impliquen nubes o ciclo de carbono

El (diseño de experimentos CMIP5 finalizó con las siguientes suites de experimentos:

1. Predicciones retrospectivas decenales y simulaciones de predicción. 
2. Simulaciones "a largo plazo". 
3. Simulaciones de "sólo atmósfera" para modelos especialmente exigentes computacionalmente .

Como se puede desprender de la gráfica anterior, los modelos usados por el CMIP-5 eran bastante fieles a los datos satelitales/de globos sonda del Dr. Christy hasta 1995. Esto es básicamente así porque los modelos se basaban para su generación precisamente en datos históricos, en los cuáles se incluyen dos períodos de ligero enfriamiento, incluídos en los modelos, con lo cual tiene sentido el acople con un cierto grado de ajuste. No obstante las predicciones futuras están sujetas a la extrapolación del comportamiento pasado, con lo cual se introduce un grado de incertidumbre importante. Como es de esperar, para los que saben de análisis de datos, los modelos basados en datos históricos no contemplan las fluctuaciones futuras (no sabes cuando un volcán va a entrar en erupción, por ejemplo, lo que haría enfriarse la atmósfera terrestre alguna décima de grado), sino el comportamiento medio, por eso la línea roja desde 1995 no muestra subidas y bajadas si no una tendencia continua ascendente. Tampoco perdamos de vista que los modelos se aplican a la troposfera media y no a sistemas dinámicos mucho más estables y predecibles como la estratosfera.

El sesgo de ANECIL

Como hemos visto, ANECIL apoya la existencia de la geoingeniería o de un programa deliberado para cambiar el clima sustentándose en un gráfico producido por un científico que únicamente DUDA QUE EL AUMENTO DE LA TEMPERATURA SEA FUNDAMENTALMENTE DEBIDO A LA ACCIÓN HUMANA, con lo cual ya están incurriendo en una contradicción. Hay que hacer constar que este señor NO NIEGA EL CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO Y NI MUCHO MENOS DEFIENDE LA EXISTENCIA DE CHEMTRAILS o de programas de gestión de la radiación solar (geoingeniería) o de una conspiración de fumigaciones secretas para modificar el clima. Sencillamente hace notar que las predicciones de los MODELOS del IPCC generados entre 2008 y 2013 NO CASAN CON LA REALIDAD DE LAS OBSERVACIONES INSTRUMENTALES (recalco esto, ya que NO se trata de observaciones hechas con la mera vista, como hacen los chemtrailistas). John Christy cree que "el sistema climático es bastante insensible a las emisiones antropogénicas de gases de efecto invernadero y PONE EN DUDA QUE LA ACTIVIDAD HUMANA sea la culpable DE LA MAYOR PARTE del calentamiento reciente observado". Ojo: no dice que no haya calentamiento global, sino que éste no se debe a la acción humana en su mayor parte.

O sea, que si realmente creyera en "geoingeniería" o en "fumigaciones deliberadas", no pondría en duda la acción del ser humano en el resultado de sus observaciones, cosa que contradice lo que quiere defender ANECIL (ANECIL tiene un lío mental cada vez mayor: defiende a un científico que pone en duda la acción del ser humano en el aumento de la temperatura global de la atmósfera.... ¿entonces dónde cabe aquí la geoingeniería, fumigaciones, etc, como actos deliberados del ser humano?).

Otro sesgo en el cual incurre ANECIL es en la interpretación del signiicado del gráfico y de la escala del mismo. El gráfico muestra LA VARIACIÓN de la temperatura, no la temperatura en sí. Si nos fijamos en el eje de ordenadas, el rango en el que nos movemos es de alrededor de 1ºC. Desde 1975 hasta 2005, se puede decir que la temperatura ha aumentado más o menos 0,2ºC, cuando la predicción de los modelos a 2015 era de un aumento de unos 0,8ºC. Si tomamos la temperatura media aceptada de la atmósfera (como un dato muy ambíguo, ya que depende de muchísimos factores: latitud, altura, época del año, factores geográficos, climatología, etc), en alrededor de 15ºC, decir que en 2015 la temperatura es de 15,2 o 15,8 ºC, significa hablar de un error en el modelo de predicción de un 4%. es decir, el ajuste del modelo se puede estimar en un 96% de fiabilidad. No está nada mal dadas las circunstancias. 

Lo que ocurre es que ANECIL toma los modelos matemáticos como REALIDADES en lugar de como lo que son: HERRAMIENTAS PARA PODER GESTIONAR EL FUTURO climático de la mejor manera. 

Si las predicciones son más pesimistas que la realidad, MEJOR, porque así se propondrán medidas de mitigación del impacto del calentamiento global más efectivas con un rango de seguridad más elevado.

Las sospechas sobre las afirmaciones del Dr. Christy

La defensa que hace John de sus observaciones, que por otro lado contrastan con las de la vasta comunidad científica a nivel mundial, provocó que un congresista de Arizona solicitara en febrero de este año información a la UAH sobre el origen de los fondos externos que recibe John Christy, ya que sus observaciones tan "amables" parece que le están viniendo muy bien a la industria de los combustibles fósiles (las petroleras, vamos), para defender sus actividades y justificar la emisión de CO2 a la atmósfera. Esto viene a ser análogo a los estudios que pagaban las tabacaleras a centros de investigación, universidades etc, en los años 50 y 60 para afirmar que el tabaco no era tan malo (os recomiendo la sección "Conspiracy to Deceive" de este enlace), o los estudios financiados por farmacéuticas, industria del aditivo alimentario, del alcohol, etc, con los mismos fines.

Al respecto, es graciosa esta frase del Dr. Christy, que reproduce un mantra que nos profieren a menudo los chemtrailistas: "La administración (de Obama) cree que SI NO ESTÁS DE ACUERDO CON ELLOS sobre el cambio climático, DEBES ESTAR SIENDO PAGADO PARA TENER ESA OPINIÓN."

No obstante ya hay precedentes sobre financiaciones de la industria petrolera a científicos para que minimicen en sus estudios la implicación del CO2 procedente del petróleo en el aumento de la temperatura atmosférica. Sin más, en este artículo del New York Times, se desvela que Willie Soon, un científico del "Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics", recibió más de 1.2 millones de dólares de la industria de los combuistibles fósiles. En el artículo del Times se menciona que este señor omitía frecuentemente tal información, pese a haber admitido ese cobro. De hecho una de sus declaraciones (Madison, Wisconsin, 2013) fue "I write proposals; I let them decide whether to fund me or not”, para luego añadir “If they choose to fund me, I’m happy to receive it; I would never be motivated by money for anything.”.... 1,2 millones... a mi tampoco me motivan.....

Conclusiones

¿Pero, John Christy tiene razón? SÍ Y NO: "Sí" en el aspecto de que las observaciones de sus data-sets de rardiosondas y satélites son las que son, muestran las temperaturas medias reales medidas por cada sistema en base a los datos capturados y anáisis realizados.

Sin embargo el "no" viene dado porque es muy pretencioso llegar a conclusiones tan aparentemente demoledoras y globales (como la práctica ausencia de la acción antrópica en el cambio climático) basándose únicamente en los datos aportados por 4 globos meteorológicos y dos modelos de análisis de sistemas satelitales. De hecho, la siguiente tabla, suministrada por Skeptical Science, reproduce sus afirmaciones más polémicas (todas referenciadas con su fuente) y en la columna siguiente exponemos lo que dice la ciencia (entendida como lo aceptado o consensuado a nivel global por la comunidad científica.

¿Y qué tiene esto que ver con geoingeniería o chemtrails?: NADA!

Citas de John Christy

Afirmación de John Christy	Qué dice la Ciencia
"We are finding that the climate is not very sensitive to CO2 and those kind of gases" 26 May 2011 (Source)	Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
"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." 26 May 2011 (Source)	A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.
"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" 26 May 2011 (Source)	Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.
"In looking at the best climate data through the past, these events are not outside the range that of what has already occurred" 26 May 2011 (Source)	Internal variability can only account for small amounts of warming and cooling over periods of decades, and scientific studies have consistently shown that it cannot account for the global warming over the past century.
"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." 26 May 2011 (Source)	Extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming.
"Catastrophic warming doesn’t look like it’s in the future at all." 1 April 2011 (Source)	Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
"The climate always warms and cools." 1 April 2011 (Source)	Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
"People who make those kind of claims [urging immediate action] I think are arithmetically challenged, that they don’t sit down and take out the back of an envelope and calculate that when you reduce emissions by X amount what that possibly might mean to the climate, and they will see that these reductions are just not useful. […] To think that you might change the climate, that’s just not on the cards." 1 April 2011 (Source)	If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale.
"We’re talking about less than a hundredth of a degree [if California cuts emissions by 26% by 2016]. It’s just so minesule; I mean the global temperature changes by more than that from day to day. So this is what we call in Alabama “spitting in the ocean”." 1 April 2011 (Source)	If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale.
"Additional emissions in the atmosphere are only going to add on to what is already there. And so the net effect of trying to change that growth of emission rates is gonna be pretty small." 1 April 2011 (Source)	CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels
"On the climate front, [Australia cutting its emissions by 5% by 2020] will be imperceptible or minuscule compared to what the rest of the world is doing." 1 April 2011 (Source)	If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale.
"I would think a couple of things will happen [if Australia cuts its emissions by 5% by 2020]. One is that your energy prices will rise and your economy then will begin to turn downward. And you will provide opportunities for other nations to take up the slack that Australia used to provide the world." 1 April 2011 (Source)	The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.
"What we’ve found is that the rate of warming due to carbon dioxide must be pretty small because the Earth is not warming very rapidly. […] I would guess on the order of 1 degree per century. […] I don’t think it’s something to be alarmed at." 1 April 2011 (Source)	This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia.
"Look at the observations and you will find these weather disasters have always occurred. You will find them in the history at various places at various times. It’s just that we have the ability to record them on camera videophones and put them on YouTube and that’s what makes them so dramatic today, because everyone can see around the world these events that are happening in very localized places." 1 April 2011 (Source)	Extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming.
"If it’s just between you and me I’ll just say I prefer [the temperature] going up than going down. […] When it goes down we have ice ages that occur and nobody wins in an ice age." 1 April 2011 (Source)	Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
"Has the temperature of the planet warmed in the past 100 years? And that’s true, it has; it’s warmed a little bit. But remember the climate, or the average temperature of the Earth is never ever static. It is always either going up or going down." 1 April 2011 (Source)	Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
"Inside a city it’s a lot hotter than out in the countryside, so these thermometers do have problems in that regard." 1 April 2011 (Source)	Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.
"We look at the temperature of the bulk of the atmosphere, so it’s not confused by what might happen in cities and the countryside and so on at the surface. And by looking at the bulk of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is supposed [to] have its greatest effect, we just don’t see much happening at all." 1 April 2011 (Source)	The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.
"We like to look at the hardcore data, the observations, and the facts of the climate system, and they just don’t add up to make that case." 1 April 2011 (Source)	There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming.
"You know, by looking at the evidence - we have satellites and so on - we do not see any dramatic or catastrophic changes at all." 1 April 2011 (Source)	Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
"[the hockey stick] was the icon of the TAR, the Third Assessment Report, and what the tree ring record did, in showing it did not agree with temperatures, indicated that the icon itself, which was based primarily on tree rings prior to the 16th century, was therefore not very good at explaining what the temperature was." 31 March 2011 (Source)	Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
"I think I might like it warmer actually" 31 March 2011 (Source)	Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
"the natural unforced variability...the complexity of the system itself can create these variations [like today's warming] on its own" 31 March 2011 (Source)	Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.
"When you look at the possibility of natural unforced variability, you see that can cause excursions that we've seen recently" 31 March 2011 (Source)	No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
"I think there's been too much jumping to conclusions about seeing something happening in the climate and saying 'well the only way that can happen is human effects'" 31 March 2011 (Source)	Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.
"I think the consistency [between now and 1970s cooling predictions]...there's a large amount of ignorance about the climate system." 31 March 2011 (Source)	Very few studies predicted global cooling in the 1970s, whereas virtually every study today predicts global warming
"I can say that there certainly hasn't been a warming of temperatures since [1998]." 31 March 2011 (Source)	The global warming trend has continued since 1998.
"I think most of all, [current temperatures] are part of the normal ups and downs of climate." 31 March 2011 (Source)	Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.
"If you go back through the entire history of the world, most of the periods have not been cooler than today, they've been warmer." 31 March 2011 (Source)	Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
"Greenland ice borehole temperatures...indicated a clear 500 year period of temperatures warmer than the present centered around 900 AD commonly referred to as the Medieval Warm Period." 31 March 2011 (Source)	Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.
"you're looking at most at a tenth of a degree [reduction in global temperature] after 100 years [if USA imposes CO2 limits]" 31 March 2011 (Source)	If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale.
"In this sense yes [1970s cooling predictions were similar to current warming predictions], our ignorance about the climate system is just enormous" 31 March 2011 (Source)	The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
"climate model output does not match up to the real world" 31 March 2011 (Source)	Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
"this issue has policy implications that may potentially raise the price of energy a lot, and thus essentially the price of everything else." 31 March 2011 (Source)	The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.
"the EPA overstated the agreement between models and observations, when in fact there was significant disagreement." 31 March 2011 (Source)	Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
"Evidence was presented by Dr. Ross McKitrick and others indicated the popular surface temperature data sets were affected by warming not likely to be caused by greenhouse gases." 31 March 2011 (Source)	Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.
"The hockey stick's author was the same IPCC lead author who in my opinion worked with a small group of cohorts...allowing amputation of a disagreeable result, and the splicing of unrelated data to 'hide the decline'." 31 March 2011 (Source)	The "decline" in tree-ring density was not present in the "hockey stick", and was only "hidden" in other separate work because scientists knew it did not accurately represent recent temperature trends.
"The hockey stick's author was the same IPCC lead author who in my opinion worked with a small group of cohorts and misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1,000 years by promoting his own result" 31 March 2011 (Source)	Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
"IPCC-selected lead authors are given significant control over the text, including the authority to judge their own work against the work of their critics...this process has led to the propagation of incorrect and misleading information in the assessments, and thus should lead you to question the IPCC's general support for a catastrophic view of climate change." 31 March 2011 (Source)	Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.
"sea level is rising and will continue to rise because we're in an interglacial. There is still more land ice to melt. So as I always tell our folks down on the coast, be prepared for the fact that sea level is rising about an inch per decade, and I don't see anything stopping it until the next ice age comes." 8 February 2011 (Source)	A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.
"what we found from real satellite observations...is that it takes a lot of energy to make the temperature go up because of all the things in the climate system that work against a warming effect." 8 February 2010 (Source)	Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
"in real data from satellites we found [a negative cloud feedback] to be the case" 8 February 2010 (Source)	Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.
"water vapor and clouds do force the climate. They can be the cause of things that ultimately happen. They're not just responders to things that happen" 8 February 2010 (Source)	Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse.
"This is the 1988 predictions by James Hansen...here's what really happened in the world [shows UAH and RSS lower troposphere temperature data]. And you see that even the actual temperatures fell far below even the scenario that didn't happen (Hansen Scenario C)." 8 February 2010 (Source)	Jim Hansen had several possible scenarios; his mid-level scenario B was right.
"Climate models overstate the warming...every single modeler knew the answer ahead of time, so it should not surprise you at all that a model can reproduce what's happened in the past." 8 February 2010 (Source)	Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
"the popular surface data sets...overstate what warming is occurring." 8 February 2010 (Source)	The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.
"There's been a lot of articles recently and scrutiny about climate work because of some released emails from East Anglia University in England...scientists can be devious and they can act pretty much like anybody...science is supposed to be open, transparent and so on. That hasn't really been the case in some of the cases here recently." 8 February 2010 (Source)	A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
"CO2 is not a pollutant." 26 November 2008 (Source)	Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant
"The truth is, our climate system is so complex that we cannot predict its state even into next month." 28 April 2008 (Source)	Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail.