UPDATE: this meeting is canceled, I will not be attending – Anthony
I’m pleased to announce that I and the entire WUWT community have been invited to a meeting and demonstration of computer modeling skills with Dr. Kevin Trenberth on November 10th in Boulder, CO. at NCAR. This meeting has been a behind the scenes negotiation with WUWT regular “R. Gates”, who has direct contact with Dr. Trenberth.
While some might question the wisdom of attending such a meeting, especially given some of the history, I’ll point out that a trademark of skeptics, illustrated here daily, is to listen to all available evidence and ask questions about it. This forum on how computer modeling works in climate science will provide just such an opportunity. I have tentatively agreed to attend.
One of the caveats I put forward is that Dr. Trenberth will not refer to me nor anyone in attendance as a “denier” such as he did with his AMS address. He has agreed to this. He has also agreed to allow me a short introduction and to have the event videotaped in entirety with it placed on the web unedited at some future date.
The Nov. 10th tentative agenda is:
====================================
Thursday November 10, 2011 9AM-1:30PM
9:00 arrival and greet in Damon Room
9:15 Dr Trenberth talk w/ Q&A
10:30 computer modeling demonstration in the visualization lab
11:15 short tour of the building-optional
11:45 lunch, on their own, in our cafeteria-optional ( we could reserve tables for the group)
1:00 explore climate exhibit floor and weather trail-optional
1:30 depart??
====================================
This meeting is free and open to any WUWT readers that can get there, but this is strictly a pay your own way event. I’m paying my own way as well.
Unfortunately, Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. will be in Florida at the time, and other scientists that I have invited have declined due to schedule conflicts and/or inability to justify travel for a half day event.
I can have up to 20 attendees, so attendance is strictly via RSVP.
If you can attend please use this contact form, providing your name and a valid address and email. This is required in order to get a visitor badge at the security gate.
Registration will be open until Tuesday and is on a first come first served basis. I hope you’ll be able to join me in person to help ask some serious questions. Thank you for your consideration.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wish I could go. Simple question to ask. What percent of the current “extreme” weather is caused because of our CO2? 0% to 100% Ask for their models to calculate that, and show emperically how those calculations relate to the real world. If Trenberth cannot answer that, then the next logical question is how does he know it’s not 0%.
Another simple question: “Show us a valid graph with CO2 as the leading variable and temperature as the trailing variable for several centuries. If there isn’t such a graph, admit you’re completely wrong.”
From the agenda it seems like they are planning a gee-whizz session. Lots of flashing lights and teramegaflops. Probably a lot of pointy-headed guys with beards wandering around looking brainy too. The idea is that you’re not supposed to understand much of the technical content but you will go away with a nice warm feeling that some really clever people are devoting their lives to the sbject – and so they must be right.
I’ve organised and hosted a few of these in my time in the commercial world.
But I fear Dr. T may have underestimated his audience. He probably believes the RC generated stereotype of the ‘d….’ word. A barely-literate and certainly innumerate knuckle-dragging oaf with poor personal hygiene,a bible under one arm and a teapot under the other carrying fat cheques from Big Oil Central.
He could be in for a very nasty shock. Would love to apply, but 4500 miles is a long way to come…and last time I was in Denver it snowed………..
I would ask what the uncertainties are, specifically about clouds.
I smell something fishy. 45 minutes would hardly be enough time to discuss/demonstrate a simple model let alone a complex one…
Watch your back!
I remember demonstrating some scientific software I had written back in the late 1980s. Let’s just say I knew what buttons not to press better than anyone.
I think it is great for both “sides” to get together. A little bit like exchanging gifts on the front line at Christmas.
Please ask how they validate their models. I think I know the answer, but am curious how they describe it.
It will be a set-up.
I could be completely wrong here, but it would be helpful to know if the following allegations about GCM’s are correct:
Questions 1 through 4 are essentially the same:
1) Do GCM’s set the heat capacity of N2 to zero;
2) ” ” ” ” ” of O2 to zero;
3) ” ” ” ” thermal conductivity of N2 to zero;
4) ” ” ” ” thermal conductivity of O2 to zero;
But the last one is the biggie:
5) Do GCM’s assume a 100% STATIC atmosphere?
Would attend (it is just down the road) but must make the “daily dime” to support the wife and four grandchildren.
Best regards,
Mark H.
Anthony–
The biggest concern in my mind is a crystal clear explanation of how climate models are “validated”. It would help if Trenberth provided a comprehensive list of papers/studies that deal with this subject so those of us who have experience in thermal/fluids modeling can review and decide for ourselves. Appeals to consensus will be disregarded. I have over thirty years of experience modeling thermal & electrical performance of terrestrial and space-borne photovoltaic systems as well as in performance modeling of microelectronics/avionics in severe environments on Earth as well as in space (including numerous spacecraft/instruments monitoring the Earth environment). If I were to use the kinds of arguments put forth so far by climate modelers during a design review covering my work I’d get swamped with a huge pile of action items covering every aspect of my work as well as get laughed out of the room.
Another question that needs very clear answers is just what are “forcings”, how are they defined in the models, and what are the rationales for using them.
Good luck.
One can’t help but wonder, as did Jaye Bass, if it isn’t just going to be used to make skeptics look stupid. Will Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, or any other scientist skeptics be there? What about Judith Curry and some of her denizens. She and they would be a huge value add here.
Nice to go, I suppose, but what would this prove or demonstrate? A model is a model. All the inputs, algorithms, codes, and outputs would have to be made public for careful analysis and comment before there would even be a sense of the value of such models. Even then, their predictive value, if any, would only been demonstrated based on results of run, unaltered or ‘adjusted’.
@jim I invited Dr. Curry, and Dr. Spencer, both had scheduling issues.
@Mark Hladik great questions, I urge you to make time to ask them yourself, especially given the proximity.
Ask how many parameters are adjustable in the model. How many are hard coded in the program? Who decide these parameters?
Maybe, we can get some answers?
Would like to know who is attending and questions asked.
“a trademark of skeptics, illustrated here daily, is to listen to all available evidence and ask questions about it”
That is a trademark of true sceptics. Here, what I mostly see illustrated is uncritical acceptance of any evidence that accords with the overall prejudice.
45 minutes? Dog and pony show. Won’t even be time to check the teeth on the pony.
Questions:
• Now that cosmic radiation has been shown to influence cloud cover – is this factor accurately represented in Global Climate Models?
• How does the sun’s influence on our atmosphere’s height affect cosmic radiation?
• What is the delay from solar effects on atmospheric height to changes in cosmic radiation?
• Can anyone answer the simple question does more cloud coverage equal higher or lower surface temperature?
• How are delay mechanisms such as heating of oceans / release of ocean heat accounted for in Models?
• If sunspot cycles are relevant to solar forcing in our climate system then what is the underlying cause of sunspots exactly and how can anyone possibly assign atmospheric Carbon Dioxide as a “cause” of changes in sunspots?
• Now that surfacestations.org has shown conclusively that our temperature records are deeply flawed why should any conscious intelligent person spend even one minute on “research” based on these flawed temperature records?
Anthony,
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than being a part of this. It would be impossible for me to break away from my job.
I was unemployed for almost three years, and am still in my mandatory six-month probation period at my new job; not being a spring chicken, I was lucky to get THIS job. It truly breaks my heart that I will be unable to attend. PLEASE PLEASE bring them up, or have someone bring them up.
I am operating off of what I have gleaned in my studies, and would like to know the answers to these questions. Do note that each requires a simple “yes” or “no” answer. Anything involving a filibuster would be an indication that the true answer would be “yes”.
Try to get Mr. T. to give the simple, straightforward answer, in the presence of all.
Will keep a good thought for all on that day,
Mark H.
Please ask for me…why use IPCC [ IMO a most currupt forum ] If the science is sound?
Is this a tacit recognition that skeptics have become a real and growing force and need to reasoned with rather than attacked or dismissed though ad homs?
Shame on those who are too busy to attend.
If cost is an issue then I feel sure that many skeptics here would happily sponsor the travel for the likes of heavy weights like Pielke, Curry, Spencer, Lindzen and others to attend.
Just setup a paypal donation link on your blog here…
This is a small but significant step in the right direction. Skeptics with no other agenda besides getting the science right and preventing it from being captured by politics should welcome the opportunity — and be on best behavior. “Trust, but verify” works for both sides of a dispute and that starts with dialog. In negotiations, both sides agree to a set of ground rules to get things moving in the trust arena. Banning pejorative labels and full-disclosure are a starting point. Asking “gotcha” questions, though, is not acting in good faith. I’m looking forward to the outcome.
stevo says:
October 16, 2011 at 10:23 am
[ ” That is a trademark of true sceptics. Here, what I mostly see illustrated is uncritical acceptance of any evidence that accords with the overall prejudice.” ]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IMO: a most uncharitable statement – I have seen posters here… charitably answer / address your contentions for some time.
A 45 minute ‘demonstration’ of a complex model followed by a tour of the building is a joke.
I get why you want to attend, but is it really a good use of your time?