By Paul Homewood h/t 1saveenergy
Regular reader, 1saveenergy, popped along last week to listen to Prof Tom Anderson. He was, to say the least, distinctly unimpressed, and gives us these thoughts:
Last week I attended my local science café meeting entitled:
“Why we should trust projections of global warming by climate models”
by Prof Tom Anderson from the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.
The speaker started with pictures of backlit cooling towers, an emaciated cow on dried mud, flooded streets & the ubiquitous polar bear on melting ice.
He referenced works of Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, but ‘forgot’ to say the Arrhenius greenhouse theory was disproved by Robert Wood in 1909. He went on to describe the 1930s work of Guy Stewart Callendar but also ‘forgot’ to say that just before his death in 1964 Callendar realised he’d made a mistake on CO2; (sadly Callendar’s book was never published).
The speaker showed some very crude graphs with distorted axis as ‘proof’ the models were correct but wouldn’t discuss the fact that observed satellite & balloon data didn’t agree.
He refused to look at data someone had brought showing the divergence of the models from observation.
He wouldn’t discuss the fact that similar temperature changes had occurred without CO2 (as he “wasn’t an expert in historical temperatures”)
He wouldn’t discuss the fact that Ice Ages had occurred without a CO2 signal (as he “wasn’t an expert”).
He wouldn’t accept the Medieval, Roman & Minoan Warm periods were hotter than present (as he “wasn’t an expert in historical temperatures”)
Even though he’s from the National Oceanography Centre he was unable to discus hydrates, ‘acid seas’ or methane. He did mention the seas had a high heat capacity & that the balance could be affected by a rise in atmospheric temperature, but couldn’t explain how or why…. (“Not his field” !! )
When asked about feedbacks & latent heat energy transfer being a negative feedback, he said “its all in the model & that comes out as a positive feedback”
I‘m saddened at the lack of scientific rigour applied to these ‘models’– no hind casting, no real validation, no comparison with observations; & as the only signal looked for was CO2….the answer was CO2 !!
When asked several times, where we could obtain the model assumptions/parameters, he failed to answer.
When asked what the temperature would be in 2100, he suggested 4-5 C warmer than present, (so a 0.8C rise over 137yrs will suddenly accelerate to ~ 4.5C over 83yrs !!… right).
The other great howler of the night was his belief that the current population of the earth was only 2.5 billion! & that would increase to 10 or 12 billion in the next 83 yrs.
If he can’t check his data on a simple fact like population, it’s probable that his climate model data is also incorrect. GIGO, garbage in garbage out !
[But as he repeated many times in his presentation he’s “not an expert” ]
I am appalled that climate science has been reduced to this level of snake oil salesmanship & unquestioning belief; HH Lamb must be turning in his grave.