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.
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.
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, 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"
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
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.
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.'
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).
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.
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 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.