Dr Joanne Simpson was the first woman in the world to earn a doctorate in meteorology. She has devoted her entire professional life to studying clouds and violent storms, and at 75, she’s still at it.
Formerly of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Present Position Chief Scientist for Meteorology, Earth Sciences Directorate. Simpson’s career also included working with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and NASA. Former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. Called Dr Simpson “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
The following are excerpts from her guest post on Roger Piellke Sr’s Climate Science weblog:
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.
Biography of Dr Joanne Simpson.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
And the peer reviewed paper with the reasoning and calculations that backs this up is ……?
Can someone post it please?
Women with whom I deal have a right to change their minds as many times as they like.
Someone’s going to claim that Al Gore scorned her and it’s time for payback.
Hmmm — peer-review that prove GCMs suck?
Hansen & GISS, DEC’06
Jones & HADCRUT, JAN’07
ALL of ’em missed the regional cold in S.AM in SEP’07 — but maybe you could show a preponderance of GCMs that got it?
ALL of ’em missed the record cold in N.AM, China, and others in JAN’08 — but maybe you could show a preponderance of GCMs that got it?
Other than that, the GCMs are perfect!
No, the claims are based on physics, the physical property of CO2 to absorb and re-transmit radiation, something she would have probably never studied.
mccall – “ALL of ’em missed the regional cold in S.AM in SEP’07 — but maybe you could show a preponderance of GCMs that got it?
ALL of ’em missed the record cold in N.AM, China, and others in JAN’08 — but maybe you could show a preponderance of GCMs that got it?”
Why would you expect them to get it? They have already predicted that as the energy in the Earths system is increased then we will see more unpredictable weather and greater temperature extremes. So far they have got it right.
As for predicting exact events the only thing that can be expected to do this is a crystal ball and and a suitable fortune teller, neither of which climate researchers rely on.
Good grief – Chickenhawk almost said something.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/87ANNUAL/wrfredirect.cgi?id=6473
Classic unfalsifiable religious indoctrination, Mr. Ender … more heat in the system means both more and highs, plus more lower lows. By extension of your Gaia, if one heats a pot of room temperature water to boiling, there will be a statistically observable increase in record cold spots in that water (and/or the atmosphere above it) as part of that human-induced climate change? Great therm’s!
You, SJT, and the Lukefish should get a room with an altar…
re: SJT physics prerequisites — you obviously don’t know what is required for a meteorology degree (including a Ph.D). But then, that’s been obvious to most of us since you began spewing.
correction: “more heat in the system means both more and highs, plus more lower lows.”
more heat in the system means both more and HIGHER highs, plus more AND lower lows.
mccall – “if one heats a pot of room temperature water to boiling, there will be a statistically observable increase in record cold spots in that water (and/or the atmosphere above it) as part of that human-induced climate change? Great therm’s!”
Are you suggesting that a pot of water heated from below is a suitable analog for a planet?????? Is this how you think?
If you think that you can apply what happens in a pot of water to an entire planet then really you are in need of serious help.
“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. ”
This statement is misleading, but interesting. First she confirms there has been warming recently. The main problem, as she indicates, is attribution. To what do we owe the recent warming? The ONLY way we can work that out is by modelling. There is no other way. I find it odd that she suggests that this is somehow bad. Can anyone else suggest a method of determining what has caused the recent warming?
And I like the bits you didn’t quote Paul:
“We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. However, a vocal minority of scientists so mistrusts the models and the complex fragmentary data, that some claim that global warming is a hoax. They have made public statements accusing other scientists of deliberate fraud in aid of their research funding. Both sides are now hurling personal epithets at each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences. The claim that hurricanes are being modified by the impacts of rising greenhouse gases is the most inflammatory frontline of this battle and the aspect that journalists enjoy the most. The situation is so bad that the front page of the Wall Street Journal printed an article in which one distinguished scientist said another distinguished scientist has a fossilized brain. He, in turn, refers to his critics as “the Gang of Five”.
Few of these people seem to have any skeptical self-criticism left, although virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both. 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.
”
Doesn’t sound like she’s that sympathetic to your ideas. Sounds like she’s annoyed that the debate has moved out of formal publication and into the media.
“What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical. ”
Seems she thinks it’s best to err on the side of caution.
“Few of these people seem to have any skeptical self-criticism left, although virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both. 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.
”
All data is flawed and all models are imperfect. That’s just the way it is in this universe. Doesn’t sound like she disputes the idea of more CO2 more warmth.
My memory of statistics is getting a little misty due to old age, but I think the argument is that as planetary temperature rises, the standard deviation associated with the temperature graph will also rise.
The statistical question seems to be whether the extra swings reflected by the increased SD will [occasionally] push temperatures to new lows locally.
Has anyone actually measured this SD and done a statistical analysis?
My non-scientific observation is that the frequency of extreme low temperature events in the last 12 months makes the proposition very unlikely.
Occam’s Razor would suggest that a much simpler explanation is that the planetary temperature has stopped rising and possibly started to fall.
“Why would you expect them to get it? They have already predicted that as the energy in the Earths system is increased then we will see more unpredictable weather and greater temperature extremes. So far they have got it right.”
Where do you see more unpredictable weather and greater temperature extemes?
A millennial perspective on Arctic warming from 14C in quartz and
plants emerging from beneath ice caps
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L01502, doi:10.1029/2007GL032057, 2008
Rebecca K. Anderson,1 Gifford H. Miller,1 Jason P. Briner,2 Nathaniel A. Lifton,3
and Stephen B. DeVogel1
[1] Observational records show that the area of ice caps on
northern Baffin Island, Arctic Canada has diminished by
more than 50% since 1958. Fifty 14C dates on dead vegetation
emerging beneath receding ice margins document the
persistence of some of these ice caps since at least 350 AD.
In situ cosmogenic 14C in rock surfaces, and 14C in plant
macrofossils from lake-sediment cores demonstrate that the
plateau remained ice-free through the middle Holocene, but
has supported ice caps for more than 2000 of the past
2800 years. The rapid disappearance of these ice caps over
the past century, despite decreasing summer insolation,
further demonstrates the unusual character of 20th Century
warmth. Widespread ice-cap expansion ~1280 AD early in
the Little Ice Age, and intensified expansion ~1450 AD,
coincide with peak stratospheric volcanic aerosol loading and
reduced solar luminosity, suggesting that these mechanisms
may have initiated ice-cap growth, subsequently maintained
by strong positive feedbacks.
But Luke, what about the Medieval Warm Period!! AND Vikings in Greenland!! And English wine!!!! It’s just natural, you see, it’s a natural cycle… And we’re about to go through another Maunder Minimum, and so it’s lucky we have global warming (but it’s not warming, right?)
Don’t like it a simple boiling pot extension, eh? Just trying to put it in extreme terms one thought your mind could handle? Something more complex, perhaps?
mccall – “Don’t like it a simple boiling pot extension, eh?”
The main thing that my mind cannot handle is someone that could think that a pot of boiling water could be in anyway compared to planet.
I think yes you will have to stretch your obviously already overtaxed brain matter and come up with a slightly more complex analogy.
To return to the point of this post, it is more than a little disturbing that a distinguished and respected climatologist waited until retirement at the age of 75 to express scepticism about AGW.
She clearly implies that she has held these views for some time, yet only now can “speak frankly”. This speaks volumes about the state of debate, or lack of it, within the climate science community.
It may be understandable if scientists are afraid to speak their mind in such circumstances, but it is still disappointing when they do not do so.
Tilo – “Where do you see more unpredictable weather and greater temperature extemes?”
This unpredictable enough for you?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDV10310.txt
Braddles, you misinterpret what she wrote, read the full article. Not justthe “choice” excerpts from Paul
Exactly Braddles.
SJT writes:
“No, the claims are based on physics, the physical property of CO2 to absorb and re-transmit radiation, something she would have probably never studied.”
Before you mouth off again (and this goes for Ender’s silly remark at the beginning as well), consider the following:
http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/lookingatearth/simpson_bio.html
Proteus read the whole article on the Climate Science blog. Paul has missed a lot of key points in his excerpts.
“What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical. ”
See how she says “if… …the climate models are right”
So she is actually using the real postion of skeptic here, that is one who is unconvinced either way.
Mr T, I have read the whole article, yesterday actually, when I visited Pielke Snr’s website, as I do regularly.
Anyway, I think your point is silly. Braddles’ general point stands.
proteus – “Before you mouth off again (and this goes for Ender’s silly remark at the beginning as well), consider the following:”
What’s silly about it. A scientist of her qualifications and experience should have no trouble producing a paper to submit to peer review.
Until she does this blog post in interesting however it is just her opinion and nothing else.
Proteus, what a well thought out repsonse.
If Braddles was “right” why would she be saying:
“What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. ”
She’s not on your side. She’s a scientist who is unconvinced, but she doesn’t think it’s a load of baloney (as implied by Paul).
You’re getting over-excited Mr T and trying to speak for Dr Simpson, and me. I tend to quote about 10% of an article to avoid copyright problems and I link to the entire article – not hide it! Clearly Dr Simpson is skeptical, as all objective scientits should be. She’s going to test for trends using TRMM and compare them with climate models. Clearly no one told her ‘the science is settled’ and ‘the debate is over.’
Mr T, I took Braddles’ general point as being “it is more than a little disturbing that a distinguished and respected climatologist waited until retirement at the age of 75 to express scepticism about AGW.”
Why you keep pointing to her statement, “What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable” was beside Braddles point and mine.
“She’s not on your side. She’s a scientist who is unconvinced, but she doesn’t think it’s a load of baloney” Where have I ever said that AGW is baloney? You need to stop engaging with strawmen; it’s unbecoming.
Ender
“And the peer reviewed paper with the reasoning and calculations that backs this up is ……?”
Go to Pielke Sr’s website. He is her peer. He reviewed it, and then he published it on Climate Science. You find it and you post it here! How’s that? your learning curve would improve considerably if you put more effort into it.
Cheers…..theoldhogger
Proteus, the problem is that Braddles (and Paul) are making more out of this than is reasonable.
“it is more than a little disturbing that a distinguished and respected climatologist waited until retirement at the age of 75 to express scepticism about AGW.”
Do you think she waited 75 years? That’s just ridiculous. You seem to misunderstand ‘skepticism’. Skepticism isn’t a scientific position. It’s the absence of a position. So you start skeptical, then get convinced by evidence. People seem to think being skeptical means you are in opposition to a theory. Really it means you have no opinion.
Why did Paul post this? What was the point? I am addressing what I believe is his motivation as he’s too cowardly to actually express it.
He comes close in the title “First Woman to Earn PhD in Meteorology Speaks Out”, which has caught Braddles in it’s headlights. As though FINALLY she has voiced her terrible concern, which is absolutely a load of baloney. AND if it were true she’d be a pretty useless scientist.
I keep pointing to that line, because it reveals a lot. It shows that even with her skepticism (that is that she is unconvinced by the data – not that she thinks it’s baloney) she believes we should act. It expresses an opinion.
Paul also tries this stupid line “Clearly no one told her ‘the science is settled’ and ‘the debate is over.'” – of course it isn’t, that’s why they still study it. Have any climate scientists stopped studying? Are they saying “phew, that was hard work, but it’s settled now, think I’ll go get a beer”
Mr T, you are being ridiculous.
Braddles:
“it is more than a little disturbing that a distinguished and respected climatologist waited until retirement at the age of 75 to express scepticism about AGW.”
Mr T:
“Do you think she waited 75 years?”
No, I don’t. Neither does Braddles. And no one else does either since no one, except you apparently, interpreted “waited until retirement at the age of 75 to express scepticism about AGW” as suggesting she had been waiting to express scepticism about AGW since she entered the world. Plainly silly; another strawman.
“Skepticism isn’t a scientific position. It’s the absence of a position. So you start skeptical, then get convinced by evidence. People seem to think being skeptical means you are in opposition to a theory. Really it means you have no opinion.”
Well, no, you’re conflating scepticism with agnosticism.
Mr T:
“As though FINALLY she has voiced her terrible concern, which is absolutely a load of baloney.”
Simpson:
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly.”
“Few of these people seem to have any skeptical self-criticism left, although virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both.”
“But as a scientist I remain skeptical. I decided to keep quiet in this controversy until I had a positive contribution to make. That point is to be celebrated in the TRMM 10 year anniversary in a Conference in February, 2008.”
The above and the paragraphs they are apart suggest otherwise.
Re your last point. I agree her comment has some merit, but I think she’s wrong and you exaggerate its importance. The greater the scientific uncertainty the more sceptical I am of the need for political action and the more convinced I am of the prudence of adaptation as opposed to mitigation (although I don’t think they are mutual exclusive) and technological innovation as well as common sense efficencies, for instance, in the use of electricity and water.
Does anyone (who isn’t on acid) really think that we can cut GHG emissions here or anywhere else by 80% by 2050 with a increasingly industrialised China (China, if memory serves, is set to emit current global CO2 within the next 20-30 years on its own!), India, etc.?
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001345carbon_emissions_suc.html
No, I don’t think so either.
Proteus, read what Braddles said:
“it is more than a little disturbing that a distinguished and respected climatologist waited until retirement at the age of 75 to express scepticism about AGW.”
What Braddles is suggesting isn’t correct. She surely would have expressed skepticism before, and if she didn’t she isn’t a very good scientist.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly.”
So what are you suggesting? If she can’t speak for fear of losing money then that’s pretty lame.
“Few of these people seem to have any skeptical self-criticism left, although virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both.”
Which people? Is it the climate scientists? Or the
” vocal minority of scientists so mistrusts the models and the complex fragmentary data, that some claim that global warming is a hoax.” Or both?
Th sentence, if you say it’s the climate scientists making the models doesn’t actually make sense.
“Few of these people seem to have any skeptical self-criticism left”
“although virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both.””
This, to me, reads that the
“vocal minority of scientists [who] so mistrusts the models and the complex fragmentary data, that some claim that global warming is a hoax.”
have no self-skepticism , although what they are skeptical about “are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both.”
So the scientists claiming hoax or conspiracy have no self-skepticism about it being a hoax.
“But as a scientist I remain skeptical. I decided to keep quiet in this controversy until I had a positive contribution to make.”
This is perfectly normal. Scientists will keep quiet until they can contribute (normally through the literature). Because skepticism and agnosticism are synonyms.
No, I don’t think we can do it either. Not with the current attitudes in Governments in China etc.