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.
These charts are not a “refutation” of global warming, but merely environment enmity in the form of statistical deflection. Despite the uniformed and devious Fox furor that ensued, its ideologically tainted tutorial is already dated. Interludes of global cooling are paradoxically known to be a manifestation of global warming. In fact, attention has already been drawn to this 9 years ago. For the most condensed synopsis I know that is accessible to the general educated public Cf. the article below.
Dr. G. Heath King (IQ 178)
Global Warming can Cause Global Cooling
Jeff Poling
Scientists announced in the July 21, 1999, edition of the journal Nature findings that suggest that global warming can sometimes lead to cold weather or even a worldwide freeze.
Scientists have long known that a severe cold spell occurred after the end of the Pleistocene glaciation, approximately 8,200 years ago. The cause, however, has been a mystery. The authors of the Nature article write that the centuries long cold spell might have been caused by meltwater from the disappearing glaciers, cooling the North Atlantic.
The Laurentide Ice Sheet covered parts of North America with ice up to two miles thick for more than a million years. When the Earth began to warm 10,000 years ago, it retreated back toward the poles. The ice sheet left in its wake at least two lakes containing more water than the Great Lakes combined.
In the Hudson Bay, ice held the water in place like a plug in a bathtub. When the plug finally melted, trillions of gallons gushed into the Labrador Sea, flowing out at 100 times the rate water leaves the Mississippi.
The conclusions of the authors are the result of a study by University of Colorado and Canadian researchers who examined evidence of this huge flood in the Hudson Bay region of Quebec and Ontario.
Independent research showed that global temperatures dropped significantly within several hundred years of the flood. Until this study, nobody could pinpoint if these two events were connected, said the study’s lead author, University of Colorado geologist Don Barber. The scientists used radiocarbon dating of clams in the flood sediment, and other evidence, to correlate the two events.
The Atlantic Gulf Stream normally acts like a conveyor belt to deliver warm tropical water to temperate regions. By adding so much cold fresh water in such a short time, the flood shut down the Gulf Stream, said Richard Alley, a climate expert at Penn State University.
Temperatures in Greenland and Europe dropped by 6 to 15 degrees for at least 200 years, according to ice core data.
The authors conclusions demonstrate how global warming can, paradoxically, provoke a global freeze. If a modern glacier such as the Greenland Ice Sheet melts as a result of rising temperatures in the next century, it could trigger a similar flood and climate fluctuation, the researchers said.
Are my comments ever going to appear or am I in effect muzzled? My last three are still awaiting moderation. There is more than one way to skin this Davison cat. I know all about all of them.
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
and
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
REPLY: Try reading the main page, out of town for 4 days…seems lots of folks like yourself are not looking beyond the thread.
Oh brother.
‘Cause she’s heart and soul
She’s hot and cold
She’s got it all
–Huey Lewis
Thanks for the insults. Consider them preserved for all time.
REPLY: Actually, no. Only for as long as the hard disk keeps working storing the data or the blog is operating, both of which is a much shorter time span than “all time”.
Dr. Davison, I do not intend to insult you.
I do disagree with some of your basic premises. I have my reasons, and I also admit I may be wrong.
To be clear, I do believe in GW and do believe that man is a contributor. but I also think it is exaggerated (as evidenced by recent trend in site violation). I think PDO correlates best with the observed climate change during the 20th Century. Better than either solar activity or CO2 increase. If there is a downturn now, that correlation will have been reinforced.
I also think there may be some question concerning CO2 measurement itself. For example, I am highly skeptical of the accepted slight downturn in trend during WWII, which, as you know, featured allout full war production, several troposhpere-puncturing firestorms, and aerial bombardment of over 100 cities, many of them incendiary raids. Especially as direct measurements at the time (but not the ice core proxies) correlate somewhat with this and the postwar recession. (Perhaps CO2 is disributed less well than is currently accepted?)
What are your thoughts on this?
Dr. King:
Clearly La Niña has had a major effect on the recent downturn. The question is whether this presages a PDO reversal (which occurred 1949-1951). It’s a 25-30 year half-cycle, and it’s 28 years in. If that’s true, we could be in for a stretch of cooling for the next 2 to 3 decades.
There is some question concerning Greenland melt. There has been some melt around the edges, but increaded precip has caused an accumulation in the middle. (Also, a recently discovered under-ice hot spot has been discovered in NE Greenland.)
Assuming that there is at least a partial offset of center-ice growth to make up for (at least aprtially) edge melt, does this not create some sort of homeostasis?
Also consider that thew UDCs will have developed and turned away from coal in the next few decades. Natural economic forces (without regualtion) will come into play and CO2 use will stabilize. CO2 persists for only a few decades in the atmosphere, and before long the troposphere will be shedding it as fast as it is accumulating it, another homeostasis factor.
All too often scientists do not account for the sociological or historical factors. They understand science, not history (which is where I come in).
They simply assume CO2 use will keep incresing at the same rate without end. This is (highly unlikely. An s-curve will occur even if not a single CO2 law is enatced. Paul Ehrlich made this same error repeatedly, by analogy. Climate scientists also tend to ignore 800-lb gorillas like the impact of WWII.
It is not just I who claims that no new Genera have appeared in the last two million years.
As to that, I think the modern genus of African elephants is about 1.5 myo (the older Mammoth genus appearing about 2my ago). Not a thesis-busting exception, but there it is.
We stll have a great deal of speciation today, even with man’s footprint. How often did new genera develop in the past? Are there not 2 million (or 1.5 m) year gaps between new genera in the past?
Folks,
Be sure to check my Why Banishment? thread, comment #71 where you may find some of your comments reprinted.
I have little more to offer here.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
John A. Davison
As a parting bit of advice I would strongly recommend that everyone take very seriously Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers.”
Not to mention we don’t even know all the species that exist now, either on land or in the oceans, so there’s no way anyone can say there hasn’t been any speciation in x amount of time. And of the deep ocean, we know practically nothing.
The formation of every species, every genus, every family, right on up the taxonomic series was an INSTANTANEOUS event. There was never such a thing as a gradual evolution. Such saltational origins are now a thing of the distant past. In short – EVOLUTION IS FINISHED.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Sorry to go back on my word but I can ‘t stand seeing Evan Jones’ statement remain unchalleneged.
But I don’t really see how that challenges my statement. I did not comment on how quickly a genus springs into being, merely that it has happened (somewhat) less than 2mya.
Or do you mean that NO evolution happens gradually? If you are saying that, I must disagree, and so do “my pigeons”, which have changed substantially during my lifetime). Either that or we disagree on the meaning of the term “gradual”.
In the case of the pigeons, the environment changed:
1.) Cleanup of the air, massive sandblasting of buildings, resulting in a radical change of color of buildings (they used to be a ubiquitous gray–but no longer!)
2.) A heavy dose of predation. partly by hawks, but esp. by crows, both recent immingrants to NYC. Neither were a significant presence when i was growing up.
The considerable change in the pigeon population (size, robustness, and esp. coloration) has taken a mere dozen or so generations to manifest itself (on a subspecies level).
Evan Jones
I mean that NO evolution HAPPENED gradually. I also mean what I say in my signature. I have published these views and consider them valid. To review those papers I recommend going to ISCID’s “brainstorms” forum where you will find them all in the Archives along with commentary.
You are welome to participate on my weblog where I have a thread – EVOLUTION IS FINISHED – dedicated to exactly that proposition.
The variations in your pigeons are due only to the relaxation of natural selection in urban environments. They are still all Colombo livia. In rural environments their phenotypes remain unchanged. Subspecies are not incipient species. They are more or less specalized evolutionary dead ends, doomed to ultimate extinction.
“We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed…The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.”
Otto Schindewolf
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable….
Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
John A. Davison
REPLY: Enough about evolution here. This blog deals mainly with climate, weather, and technology. Anyone who wants to discuss evolution, do it on Davison’s blog please.
Thank you for letting me respond to Evan Jones, and I hope he and others will visit my weblog. So far they avoid it like the plague which I take to be a good thing!
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns…A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
Thanks for now shutting me down completely. In so doing you have joined with Pharyngula, Panda’s Thumb, EvC, ARN, RichardDawkins.net, Uncommon Descent and a number of other weblogs that deal with dissenters exactly the same way. I just called attention to it on my Global Warming thread. Congratulations on having made my increasing list of “blogbullies.”
I love it so!
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns……A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
REPLY: You aren’t “shut down”. But you apparently didn’t remember I said earlier no more talk about evolution here, since it is not the focus of this blog. But you persisted; your last post tried to tie evolution and global warming together. Thus, I choose not to post it.
It would be no different if you tried to regularly engage conversations on quilting or gardening. If you want to engage the topics we are discusssing, sans evolution, you are welcome to. If you want to talk evolution, you have your own blog for that.
All you have to do is to print the message which would have been #116 if you hadn’t stopped it from ever appearing. Why don’t you do just that and all will be forgiven.
Dr. Davison–the Rev has got to sleep sometime. And he obviously has to moderate the queue.
I’m sure we are more than welcome to discuss climate change in the appropriate threads no matter what side of the controversy one is on. I, for one, would be interested in what you have to say. (I suggest you repost the part with the GW stuff.)
I beg to differ. Evolution and global warming are intimately related. You are more interested in CONTROL than in the truth. You are no different than every other blogczar, insecure, protectionist and power crazed. That is why you deleted my comment. It did not conform with your bias. I recommend you replace it but that is entirely up to you. It is likely that you can’t can’t as you probably destroyed it in a fit of pique. That was a mistake and if so is one you will regret. I love to expose my adversaries with their own actions.
I love it so!
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns…A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
REPLY: “…in a fit of pique” You mean like your opening statement here where you called us all “snotbags”?
You can believe whatever you like, but if you want to discuss evolution, do it on your own blog please. You clearly live for the fight, I’m just not interested in discussing evolution here. You have your own blog, discuss it there. You seem to imply that I and others have to conform to your terms, I assure you sir that we do not.
I see you deleted my next one too. You are trash, no better than P.Z. Myers .
REPLY: And I will continue to delete any posts on evolution you make, if you don’t like that, tough noogies. This blog is not about evolution nor will I allow it to be co-opted into one because it interests you.
You are one paranoid person. PLEASE take your medication! For our sake!
Evan Jones
Thank you for your intervention. That is unique in my experience. My convictions on the causes of global warming are well known and agree with those of Tim Flannery for whom i have great respect as a researcher, a naturalist and a climatologist. The primary and dominant cause of the rapid changes that the earth is now undergoing is the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Variations in the activity of the sun and the Milankovich cycles which are very real, pale in comparison to the rapid changes now taking place which correlate perfectly with the records of the Mauno Loa station in Hawaii. It is my conviction, which I share with Flannery, that for all practical purposes, CO2 is the sole cause of the dramatic alterations that now threaten our very existence not only as a civilization, but perhaps even as a species.
It was in another doomsday book, Patrick Buchanan’s “Day of Reckoning,” that I found an appropriate comment on page 160.
“As Pogo said, ‘We have met the enemy and he is us.'”
“Day of Reckoning” would have been a much better title for Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers.”
I am convinced with Buchanan that we are also doomed politically and economically. Our greed will surely destroy us as we try to inflict our views on every other nation on earth. We are just as assuredly doomed by our physical presence, a monoculture approaching seven billions. It is absurd to imagine that such a biomass of large mammals coud possible survive in the technological world that made those numbers possible. We have created a nightmare for ourselves from which there will be no awakening. The only conceivable solution would be to reduce our numbers by two orders of magnitude to what they were a mere two centuries ago. Only China is facing this reality which is to their credit. Such a reduction would require a world government which could enforce one child per couple. Even if that could be achieved, I believe it is already too late.
There is no need to further elaborate my position here except to assert, as I did in the message that never appeared, that evolution and global warming are intimately related subjects. It was the evolution that produced Homo sapiens that ultimately produced the Industrial Revolution which began only two centuries ago and with it came the Age of Technology which I believe is the terminal age of human history. It is my conviction that we are comitting suicide with CO2, the molecule that made the Age of Technology possible. I further believe that there is absolutely nothing that we can now do to prevent it from occurring before the end of the present century and probably much sooner.
It is not pleasant for me to have to offer this pessimistic scenario, but I nevertheless feel it is my responsibilty as both a scientist and a citizen to do so.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable,,,….Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
John A. Davison
I thank Evan Jones for his intervention on my behalf. It places this weblog a cut above most.
As far as I know Flannery is a Mammologist and Paleontologist, not a climatologist. So he’s as qualified to comment on climatology as I am.
Jeff Alberts
Flannery is indeed a Mammalogist and Paleontologist and Climatologist too. In my opinion he is far more qualified to comment on climatology than you are. I don’t even know who you are. What have you published? What are your credentials?
You have also become one of my favorites sources of denigration. Check out #71 on my WHY BANISHMENT? thread.
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns….A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
john.a.davison.free.fr/
REPLY: Actually you are wrong about the climatologist part. From Wikipedia, Flannery’s description reads:
“Professor Timothy Fridtjof Flannery (born 28 January 1956) is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist and global warming activist.”
“global warming activist” does not equal “climatologist”, saying it does is like saying noise=music