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.
You are more than welcome to join our little study group.
Yes, surely. I see arguments on both sides. For example, I would want to know where and under what conditions the old-style CO2 samples were taken, as a windless area will tend to accumulate more CO2.
But on the other hand I find it very hard to believe that CO2 levels were declining or even flat during WWII. It was a smoky kind of a thing, whatever else it wasn’t.
Well, the quality of trolls sure has declined lately. They don’t stick around for more than an post or two. Not that any conclusion can be drawn from this.
REPLY: I recently installed the TROLLMAX ® applet on the server, which has helped tremendously. Thanks for noticing. 😉
And you haven’t given up your modern lifestyle to mitigate the problem?? Obviously you don’t really believe, but just want to call people names. Typical.
Tim flannery has been completely wrong in all his predictions re australia. Wettest Summer in history (about) rain everywhere. Also cooler (feb etc)
Extrapolating from tadcronn (13:27 – 27 Feb.)…
…it’s a shame there were not enough caves to go round, way back, else maybe these monstrous homes of even basic comfort would never have been built? Shame some idiot trapped lightning in a heap of fuel and did cooking; then potting; then smelting. Without that we could still be content to shiver; eat off the skin; walk when we wanted to go…
But take heart. There are an enlightened amongst us who will return mankind to its roots… then we can begin all over.
Fightin’ for a cave, first. There still ain’t all that many…
Nosivad: http://tinyurl.com/22y2n9
Jeff, whoever that is and we will never know.
You know absolutely nothing about my lifestyle. It is I who knows about yours. You are a mindless blowhard, an intellectual zero and I bet your IQ is in the room tmperature range.
“I get no respect.”
Rodney Dangerfield
I don’t give a lot either when I am dealing with lightweight cowards who can’t even use their own names
“Birds of a feather flock together.”
Cervantes
Come join my little one man study group -john.a.davison.free.fr/
If you don’t show I will make a note of it.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
REPLY: Mr. Davison; No matter high big your IQ may be compared to others, on this forum, we treat others with respect. See the policy. You’ve made two posts here, both using disparaging language. Please don’t make a third with the same tone.
This site was a pleasant discovery. I’m a engineer and physicist by training and not a meteorologist, but still can add my scientific judgment, and two cents.
I find the qualitative hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming posed in the 1960-70s to be quantitatively answered in the science of the 21st century. A proposed threat with a power to alter the global temperature by a several degrees per century, has been revealed to be capable of only a quantitative change of a few hundredths of a degree per century. Any other changes appear to be non anthropogenic in origin, but all taken together, are insignificant unless carried on for millenia, not decades.
That is during the passing transitory phenomenon of a fossil fuel based civilization transitioning to better energy sources. Fusion beckons long before 2100, and a lot sooner than many including within the scientific community anticipate. ITER is only a confirming physics experiment now, no longer a quest for answers; and it is simultaneously a very crude engineering prototype of a fusion power station.
I was prompted to write because Mr. Novidad does not know of what he speaks. The developed countries have made great progress in cleaning the environment, It is much better than it was at mid-century past. The air water, land and biosphere are cleaner and healthier than then.
Soon the battle will have been completed, and we can declare victory. In the US, there are only a few places that actually don’t have good air yet. But most of the country’s air and water are near clean; except for minor single site alarms set off during some arbitrary fifteen minute window every other year or so. The worst such site the LA basin, has marked improvement but still suffers 30-40 bad air days when it used to have a few hundred per year. And the 30-40 are no where near as polluted as in the days of old. There is still much work to be done.
The real danger is the changes in society adopted in fear of AGW, I suspect.
I can’t believe nosivad is still pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by using his computer to post on this blog which he freely admits just a “groupthinktank”.
He is literally murdering the planet with his unnecessary CO2 emissions, just like Al Gore.
Why can’t the pair of them live in biofuel and solar power commune and stay carbon neutral?
I find it difficult to comprehend why a person who so strongly believes in the ’cause’ would harm the planet so much.
I guess Al Gore is right? Only the rich deserve to expel as much CO2 as they want. They can buy expensive carbon credits from themselves and kill the planet as much as they like with a clear conscience while the proles have CO2 meters installed in their homes (only a matter of time).
Are there any climate-related bets now on in Las Vegas?
People like novisad, those who base their assertions on junk science, all like to say they are certain the earth is “very likely” headed to a manmade climate catastrophe. However, I have yet to find neither a doomsday-sayer nor a climate scientist who is confident enough in his own science to put money down where his mouth is.
If asked to bet on catastrophic sea level rise, which they all prophesize, they simply refuse to. I’ve tried this a number of times…they’ve all run away.
They themselves know (but refuse to admit) the gross uncertainties and lack of undstanding when it comes to climate science.
My bet:
I’ll bet my house that sea levels will rise LESS THAN 10 cm in the next 10 years (i.e. 1 meter per century). I’ve been searching for a climate scientist ready to make this bet (Not that a meter would be catstrophic).
Less than 10 cm in the next 10 years: I win.
More than 10 cm in the next 10 years: the doomsday scientist wins (and us skeptics will all shut up and throw ourselves at their feet).
You can’t find one scientist who would even bet on 60 cm in the next 100 years…let alone 100 cm – or 6 meters like Al Gore warns!
Anyone can blow hot air – but few are willing to put their money down on what they say.
So, “Nosivad”, you aren’t angry, but “hostile”. And you thought by coming here with your “hostility” you would accomplish what, exactly? If you know something scientifically, perhaps you would like to share your obviously superior knowledge with us? If you care, you’ll share.
Atmoz runs a civil discussion. thanks for putting him on the blogroll
here here!
Win ’em over with kindness! Tamino and the folks at Real Climate for one thing have been most uncivil as of late.
Personally, I think people from all walks of life and political ideologies are getting very turned off by all the catastrophe talk, and unlike in the past when it was very easy to suppress alternate theories and such the internet pretty much ensures this suppression won’t happen again.
just as an aside—tomorrow’s the last day the State Department is taking public comment on the IPCC. http://regulations.justia.com/view/102004/
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.
Wasn’t too hard to figure out. Atmoz is Nathon Johnson in the department of atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona.
A who is search was all it took.
confirmed by a search of the University of Arizona.
Keep the rational discussions Nathan!
REPLY: Well, he’ll always be Atmoz to us.
[snip]
Sure, you know about my lifestyle, oh all-knowing one. I know enough about yours to know you’re a hypocrite. Take note all yo want, I don’t deal with hypocrites and bullies.
Hi,
Evan I know what you mean. You would think with a the industries, bombings and fires of the war that CO2 would go up during that time. As for modern CO2 I look at the Mauna Loa for info.
“I bet your IQ is in the room tmperature range”
I’m assuming you meant “temperature”, and I won’t point out the irony of a mistake like that when insulting someone’s intelligence.
So this room temperature range. How is it measured? Is it a rural room temperature or is it subject to urban heat island bias? Is it a room in Al Gore’s mansion, and therefore having a carbon footprint 10 times larger then mine? I bet his rooms are pretty hot, even when he isn’t even there, while he is off polluting the planet in his private jet?
Is this room from pre-1979, when we all know the Earth was a frozen ball of ice until those satellites came online and discovered the Earth was actually habitable?
Is the temperature of the room measured in Kelvin? So his IQ is about 300?
If he leaves his DVD player on stand-by over night, will it generate enough waste heat to warm the room even further, thus increasing his IQ?
Do we know that this is the real Davison or one of his proteges having a lark? Seems to me that the backward spelling of the name is inconsistent with a man his age and more consistent with the younger crowd also prone to use the mixed case (e.g. 133t haXor) convention. If it _is_ him then Bulworth there needs to check his meds.
Either way… Mr. Watts, you can make a fortune here. When will the Snot Bag t-shirts be on sale? I want one. XL please.
Shame some idiot trapped lightning in a heap of fuel and did cooking; then potting; then smelting.
So far as I can dope out, the current breed of man had fire and was hunting and cooking from the very beginning. H. Erectus had fire, and maybe even Ergaster. Australopithicenes had stone tools. I think H.S. figured out the potting and smelting.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”,/cite>
I am not so sure about that. We still get a different flu each year. Humans have undergone some minor but naotable change in fewer than 100 generations. (You could feed a typical medieval person a modern diet, but it wouldn’t make him tall. We have evolved to be somewhat taller, via whatever mechanism.)
I think you may be at least partly right in there is latency at work. But I do not discount mutation either. I can think of examples of slow drift and radical deptarture.
I am not any kind of scientist, neither a climatologist nor biologist, so I can’t demonstrate evolution in a controlled manner. But look at New York pigeons (an artificially created species), which have evolved considerably during my lifetime, in terms of both size and coloration/pattern. I hypothesize that this is in response to changing environmental conditions (i.e., pre- and post- Clean Air Act). That is a form of evolution (of the gradual kind; I do not speak to cause) that I have actually seen personally.
BTW, I was in high school when you were publishing your papers, but I had definitely been born by then. I note that my field (history) and yours (biology) are somehat in competition for the same intellectual real estate, but one will not replace the other, and each can inform the other.
Mr. Davison may have noted the “unintended evolution” in my last post, owing to a “genetic code” typo. Once the trait was introduced and the cutoff failed, the italic latency took over. Yet it remains (somewhat) legible.
If you don’t show I will make a note of it.
Do.
and a lot sooner than many including within the scientific community anticipate.
And one holy heck of a long time before we go anywhere near short of oil (but then, we just keep on finding 2 bbls for every one we use and have since the getgo).
The developed countries have made great progress in cleaning the environment, It is much better than it was at mid-century past. The air water, land and biosphere are cleaner and healthier than then.
Yes.
Less than 10 cm in the next 10 years: I win.
The IPCC resided AR4 is betting on your side. Sea Level rise has been dumbed own to 17 inches–max.–over the next century. Mostly thermal expansion, not melt.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. […]”
I keep wondering what level of bias NSF and other funding organizations, including universities, have imposed by their policies on the science of climate analysis. I was astounded at the amount of funding for “projects”, “grants” and “research” a local dendrochronologist received (stated plainly on his CV page). He’s a firm believer in AGW, and co-author of several papers with M. Hughes and others. Looking at a few other AGW scientists’ web pages, I found that these grants are not really unusual – individual grants are often in the hundreds of thousands, some in the millions.
I’m not sure what it say when scientists and academicians wear these prizes on their sleeves, but if their findings all skew toward the same public position, it beseaks a more or less overt bias in the funding process. I’ve come to think of the “precautionary principle” really as a guidebook for how climate scientists keep the spiggot open at all costs, with injunctions to be fastidiously cautious about one’s friends, learning to use only the politically purified language of the brotherhood, and probably choosing anonymity over self-disclosure.
One climate scientist, posting on a blog recently, claimed she was living a life of “genteel poverty”, but the size of the grants she receives are lavish by comparison to your grassroots efforts with surface temps, and Steve McIntyre’s Almagre bristlecone project. These efforts demonstrate to the interested, but non-scientific community, that results can be archived publicly, and research, data gathering, and analyis can be conducted in a way that preserves integrity.
I found a portion of Dr. Simpson’s statement very telling: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly”.
The converse of this statement is that affiliation with, or funding from an organization does not allow you to speak your true beliefs. I believe absolutely that no one bites the hand that feeds them. The majority of scientists are motivated by the same needs and drives as all people.
I have a whole thread devoted to global warming on my blog and you are all invited there to make your contributions. All that is required is registration and refraining from personal insult or obscenity .I will even tolerate a modicum of insult as long as it serves its puroose which is to characterize the commenter. Whatever you say will remain, No statements will edited or deleted. If you insist on anonymity which I also deplore, I will make a note of it when I respond. Now that is as good a deal as one will find on any weblog I am aware of.
I still predict that you won’t leave the security of this “groupthinktank” which is exactly how this blog comes across.
“Birds of a feather flock together.”
Cervantes
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns”
John A. Davison
REPLY: The invitation is welcome, but I posit that you have an odd, perhaps counterproductive way of introducing yourself then offering dialog. I don’t usually greet people with the phrase “snot bags” or “IQ’s of room temperature” (as you did in your comments #1 and 2) when building up to soliciting an invitation. Is this a typical social skill up there at the University of Vermont or is it your particular style?