The Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. weblog today includes a letter from Dr. Joanne Simpson, recently retired. He calls her “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years”. It seems that she really spoke her mind on the subject of climate models and the problems of the changing measurement environment around climate monitoring stations.
The full letter is here on that weblog.
Excerpt:
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. […] The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models.
We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. […] The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable? One distinguished scientist has shown that many aspects of climate change are regional, some of the most harmful caused by changes in human land use.
No one seems to have properly factored in population growth and land use, particularly in tropical and coastal areas.
[…] But as a scientist I remain skeptical. I decided to keep quiet in this controversy until I had a positive contribution to make. […] Both sides (of climate debate) are now hurling personal epithets at each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences.
I agree, enough of this sniping.
Witness the cordial exchange I have with Atmoz, a graduate student at the University of Arizona in Tucson. We see things differently, each of us has made some good analyses and each of us has made some mistakes, but we don’t insult each other over it.
Though I do wish he and others would remove the cloaks of anonymity. Science has never been advanced by an anonymous person, there’s always a real person with a name at the center of discovery and progress.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Some important statistics work was published anonymously early in the 20th by “Student”.
Maybe I’m just a cynic, but “Atmoz” may want to remain anonymous in case 20 years from now after the AGW fad has passed s/he isn’t culpable for any lapses in judgment.
It would be nice to see Dr. Simpson’s message get out to those it really matters… the lay public and the politicians who continue to use the “threat” of AGW to mask their ulterior motives. What she said was very powerful.
I agree, enough of this sniping.
Amen to that!
Hoodlumman:
No need to be a cynic. My identity isn’t hard to figure out, and it isn’t a secret. I used to post under my real name, but people kept referring to me as Atmoz anyway. So I decided it’d be easier to just keep everything under one name for simplicity.
” I agree, enough of this sniping.” Snipes are becoming endangered, and snipe hunting (or sniping) will no longer be allowed under a new Congressional Bill, H.R. 5500. It has been determined that global warming is the cause.
The problem is that climate science has become intensely political.
I don’t use my full name because my brother is a prominent US scientist with a public policy role (he is on an FDA committee). I have no desire to cause him any embarassment.
Even when scientists point out the faulty models and bad assumptions behind global warming, I still hear so many people say things like, “Just in case global warming predictions turn out to be correct, wouldn’t it be wise to …” fill in the blank.
The real problem is the proposals of the eco-lobby, especially at this time when our economy is already looking like it could take a nosedive, would irresponsibly inflict more suffering on people by raising prices on fuel, raising taxes, restricting business, etc. And those are the mild proposals. The harsher ones would greatly restrict personal freedoms. Some of them are downright scary.
And all of this is over a roughly 1-degree rise in average temperatures (depending on what year you measure from, or which may not even be based on accurate temperature readings), of which CO2 is only about 3 percent responsible, with 97 percent of THAT portion being from natural sources.
It turns out humans’ possible contribution to global warming is demonstrably so miniscule that we couldn’t change the average even if we were trying. So the next time someone says “Wouldn’t it be wise to …,” tell them the wisest thing is to preserve liberty and free societies because it is free societies that are the cleanest and the best hope for preserving our environment.
Tad
It is interesting that the anonymous players in the debate tend to be on the pro-AGW side (Atmoz, Tamino, Eli Rabett). I checked through the 15 or so sceptic sites I have in my Favorites and all of them identify themselves by name.
Incidentally, “Student” did not choose his anonymity. His work was funded by an employer (Guinness Breweries) that did not want its competitors knowing they were behind it. To their great credit, though, they allowed the work to be published; nowadays it would probably be guarded jealously as Intellectual Property.
I have to disagree on CO2 accumulation.
The natural CO2 is absorbed by the system resulting in no real accumulation. Industry CO2 (c. 6.3 BTMC) is, yes, only c. 3% of atmospheric CO2 emitted. And even half of that winds up in Ocean or land sinks. But an estimated 3.1 BMTC winds up in the atmosphere (which has c. 730 BMTC or so). CO2 is pretty persistent, so it accumulates.
Now, as to whether a difference between 1/30 of 1% and 1/20 of 1% of atmospheric CO2 makes a difference is another question. My guess: some, but not much. But atmospheric CO2 is increasing at current rates at c. 1/2% per decade.
I don’t think this matters much, but it is what it is.
(There are disputes as to the historical levels of CO2 that I am beginning to look into, but that’s another question.)
Hi,
Well another attempt in the trash bin on Tamino. Tried to post the link to this letter and just got ignored. I guess Dr. Simpson is just another denier. Makes you wonder how good the GCM’s really are. When someone like Dr. Simpson says just look at weather forcasts.
I typically don’t use my (full) name either, but I mostly blog about politics. Still, especially when your young, you don’t like using your real name online. Some of us were taught not to do so. In the case of some of these older science bloggers, it really isn’t excuseable. But its easier for you, Anthony, you were a weatherman!
I agree with all the above. what more could I say. I am not a scientist and have no degrees but I believe that any one with some intellegence could read the reports and look at some of the reported problems with methodology and come to their own conclusion. I believe the major problem is that many of the the newer studies don’t agree with the older (pre 2000) studies. There are many careers and reputations at stake and we are going to have a time getting to the truth.
The good doctor has hit the nail on the head and we need to stop the infighting and work together for the common truth. The consequencies of the incorrect solution is terrible for the general population.
Bill’s 2 cents
(There are disputes as to the historical levels of CO2 that I am beginning to look into, but that’s another question.)
Evan,
Our collaboration may have to wait a day or two. I got waylaid by a flurry of business activity today, much of which will carry over to at least tomorrow afternoon.
No problem, Stan.
BTW, I mistyped ealier. make that 1/2% a year added to carbon in atmosphere. (There isn’t much to begin with, of course.)
I recommend “The Weather Makers” by Tim Flannery for a realistic interpretation of the devastating effect that man has had on his environment over the last two centuries. It is the “rate of change” that distinguishes the present from the past, a rate which Flannery estimates to be 30 times greater than ever before. I agree. To deny anthropogenic destruction of our environment, as so many insist on doing, borders on the criminal and they should be treated with contempt, something I will continue to do. By the end of this decade anthropogenic global warming deniers (AGWDers) will be as scarce as hen’s teeth.
Be sure not to publish this opinion as it is at variance with the majority.
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
John A. Davison
john.a.davison.free.fr/
especially my thread on Global Warming.
Hi,
Stan, Evan here is a post by William Briggs. Not sure if you have seen it. All about CO2.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/06/has-atmospheric-co2-decreased-a-different-way-to-look-at-co2-changes/
Not only does nosivad not know what a URL looks like, He is posting links to other comments where he again posts a link. I didn’t bother to check how long these chains of links are, but they are an attempt to get higher search engine ranking.
Worse than spam IMO.
And Flannery is a nut with a hairbrained scheme to build a city powered by geothermal energy in the middle of Australia.
nosivad: You seem angry. Why? What have we done to you? Please tell us! Science is not a bad thing, really. You should try it sometime!
Jim,
Thanks for the Briggs link. I had not seen it. The Beck paper was what caught Evan’s and my attention. You are more than welcome to join our little study group.
To deny anthropogenic destruction of our environment, as so many insist on doing, borders on the criminal
You’re a little behind the curve, nosivad. Calls have already been made to throw the lot of us in prison unless we jump on the AGW bandwagon. Perhaps you could tell us how exactly that would advance science.
and they should be treated with contempt
What do you mean, “should be”?
I knew the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) house of cards would eventually, collapse, but I didn’t think it would happen so quickly.
If I were one of the “high priests of the climate orthodoxy” I would be looking for somewhere to hide. When the confounded construct comes down, a lot of members of the public who were previously true believers are going to be out for blood. A dangerous situation.
I was publishing in the best scientific journals when you unfulfilled, unpublished, cowardly snot bags weren’t even born yet.
Tim Flannery is head and shoulders over every other author on the global warming issue. Have a nice “groupthinktank.” That is all most internet blogs are anyway. This one is sure no exception.
I am not angry. I am hostile!
adios
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
John A. Davison
REPLY: Well at least you said “snot bags”. It would have no credibility otherwise.
To deny anthropogenic destruction of our environment, as so many insist on doing, borders on the criminaland they should be treated with contempt
Tsk! Tsk! If you feel so vehemently, I’d recomment going for greater effect. One rarely defeats an intellectual foe by emitting or engendering hostility. Victory is best achieved by winning the other fellow over to one’s own side. (Presumably the main point of the scientific journal.)
Most folks around here think there has been some degree of global warming, even that some of it is anthropogenic. And I’m sure that no one present would deny that mankind has done his share of environmental damage. Depending on how one defines that, of course. (Is a house “damage”? Or does it take a village?)
I thnk that mankind is going through a very rapid development phase that will continue for the next few decades. Like it or lump it. Then, once near-universal affluence emerges, there will be a rather intense and continuing greening, following the pattern of current crop of DCs. This pace will not continue indefinitely.
I also think there is plenty of room for both man and nature, and there will be even more elbow room in the future even with a larger population. The history of the last two centuries is, in the long haul, unique and our current transitional phase temporary. But I doubt you would agree with me.
Me?
Well, I’m just a 60 year old construction worker that likes to stay informed on the “CO2 induced global warming”, changed to “CO2 induced climate change”, now called “climate change” issues.
I may start buying warmer work coats.