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.
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?
I would question that computational fluid dynamics via partial differential equations is at all valid when:
1. Grid cells are larger than hurricanes.
2. Insolation and IR irradiance are used as long-time averages.
3. Thermal equilibrium is assumed (how else could the Earth have a temperature?).
4. A multitude of important processes are either ‘parameterized’ or ignored.
The entire AGW-modeling schtick slyly confuses itself with short-term weather -modeling,
which has actual empirical success and shows some understanding of storms.
The entire climate system, however, is an entirely different animal that is many orders of magnitude more difficult to even understand, let alone computerize.
Just ask them this:
When you look back at your computer models 20 years ago, they must seem very limited and so weak as to be nearly useless by today’s standards, but this is how today’s models will seem in twenty years, so why pay them any heed today, especially considering the above-listed weaknesses?
Suggested question:
What historic data of Aerosol forcing and what assumptions about historic Aerosol forcing do they use to make the hindcasting fit?
A question I would like to see answered.
What steps were taken in the design and implementation of the models to prevent the “experimenter expectation” effect from influencing the results?
Specifically, what steps were taken in the model design to isolate the model from the experimenters, such as double blind techniques used in other fields of science?
For example, were the model parameters fully determined before the experiment, of did the experimenters adjust the parameters after observing the results of the experiment?
If the experimenters adjusted the parameters after seeing the results of the experiment, then is it not possible that the models have been adjusted to reflect the experimenter expectations. Otherwise, why adjust the model parameters except that it did not give the expected results?
In other words, have the models been cherry picked? Have those model parameters that did not fit experimenter expectations discarded, and those parameters that gave expected results retained.
Here is an example. Say for instance that cloud albedo is directly measured to be 0.73, but when that parameter is used in the model the results do not predict that past as well as using a figure of 0.77 in the model. Is the figure of 0.73 let untouched in the model, or is it replaced with 0.77?
If 0.73 is replaced with 0.77 then the model has been invalidated. The adjustment was made to meet experimenter expectations that the model should be able to predict the past. The correct figure to use is 0.73 because that matches observations. The conclusion that should have been made if the model doesn’t predict the past is that there are still unknowns and further observations are required to find them.
It is my understanding that the computer models parameters have been adjusted to made the models predict the past, similar to what is done with curve fitting. In which case the models are not predicting the future, they are predicting what the experimenters expect the future to look like.
Hmm, so R Gates, who started out as an eyes wide open fence sitter allegedly, has now morphed into a mate of someone who calls anyone who asks questions a d*****.
Run Luke, its a trap…..
Interstellar Bill says:
October 16, 2011 at 10:33 am
“I would question that computational fluid dynamics via partial differential equations is at all valid when:
1. Grid cells are larger than hurricanes.”
Bill, the entire approach of the GCM’s rests on the fact that grid cells are larger than one cloud, or one hurricane, so that they can use statistics. So, instead of simulating one cloud, they say, we know how a thousand clouds behave on average, and that’s why our approach works. Similar to how you can’t predict the exact trajectory of one atom in a gas but you can make valid statements about the behaviour of a volume of gas.
It’s a dilemma for them: Convective fronts come in all sizes, they can get larger than the grid cell size and cannot be described statistically in that case. It also stops them from improving the accuracy by making the grid cells smaller – the statistical approach breaks down in that case.
Some of the reasons why GCM’s don’t work as a predictive tool…
Anthony
If you have to shake hands with Trenberth I suggest you count your fingers afterwards.
Stevo
Looking in the mirror too much isn’t healthy.
Just a few questions I’d like to be answered as I can’t be there.
Which is the most accurate (best) model and how does he know?
Why take the average of models instead of just using the best when predicting?
If all CO2 was slowly removed from the current atmosphere what would the resultant average global temperature be according to the best model? And how much water vapour would remain in the atmosphere?
Would this zero CO2 climate be the same as snowball earth? If not why not?
Is the best model sophisticated enough to resonably carry out this exercise? If not what is the missing physics and what are the unreasonable/missing assumptions in the model? If it is how does he know?
The answers will be of great interest to me in assessing how believable the models are.
If you can get some good people to go such as Willis, maybe even one of the M & M’s, I’d be glad to contribute to travel expenses. Ric Werme is pretty good with computers.
REPLY: …maybe even one of the M & M’s
Regular or peanut? ;p – Anthony
I will not be able to attend, but would love to hear the answer to this question:
“If one runs the ‘best’ climate models forward, how long is it until the next ice age if we remove the effects of human-induced increase in CO2? ”
And the obvious followup,
“How does human-induced increase in CO2 change the timing of the next ice age?”
Anthony,
Surely it is possible for this to be set up for video conferencing so that all those who are best placed to evaluate and question this presentation can participate. Otherwise, it is extremely unlikely that this will do anything other than obfuscate.
REPLY: We are asking for that, but the time may not allow for extended Q&A – Anthony
[snip -great idea – I don’t want to give it away just yet – Anthony]
Timing on Nov 10 is a little short notice, unfortunately.
A good question to courteously ask is about the error from a certain fundamental circularity of the GCM argument; a circularity which the IPCC has supported.
For help framing the question, see Chapter 28 – “Spinning Straw into Gold”, [Laframboise, Donna (2011-10-09). The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert (Kindle Location 1598). Ivy Avenue Press. Kindle Edition. ]
John
I would expect that the quid pro quo was that you were not allowed to mention the “travesty” nor its implications?
If unedited, it would certainly be a showpiece for ummmm, a lessening of tensions? (As long as their are no fisticuffs and only verbal fustigations… 😉 )
Are there any other denizens of the modelling world that will be in attendance?
Anthony,
Maybe get a short list of pivotal questions from Spencer, Pielke Snr, et all to be asked.
I signed up!
Hmm, please ask him: Why does he imput shortwave, a.k.a. light, from the Sun as heating land and oceans, which is physically impossible, and misses out all the thermal infrared, a.k.a. heat, thermal energy direct from the Sun to the Earth’s surface (which we feel as heat) which actually does heat land and oceans? And, Who suggested this gi? I suggest this is the missing heat he’s been looking for..
If you can’t ask all the questions posted here at the time, seems there’s not much of it allotted for Q&A, would you give them to him as a written form to fill in and send back?
The main problems with the current models are clouds and aerosols. The first are parametrised as a positive feedback on warming atmospheres (by CO2), while it is more and more clear that clouds provide a negative feedback (see the contribution of Dr. Spencer of lately).
The second is an important one too: If aerosols have a huge cooling effect (as several models imply to explain the 1945-1975 cooling period), then CO2 must have a huge effect and vv., but that is very questionable. See the discussion I had in the early days of RC, before they censored about halve my comments:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/an-aerosol-tour-de-forcing/ see my comment at #6.
The effect of aerosols can be reduced by 3/4, which makes that the effect of CO2 can be halved, without changing the tracking of the temperature record of the past century:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oxford.html
The interdependence of the sensitivity of the climate for aerosols and CO2 can be seen in the first graph at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/climate-sensitivity-and-aerosol-forcings/
And the comment of Kaufmann and Stern, that a simple linear model (on a spreadsheet!), only taking the forcings as base, outperforms the multi-million dollar models for hindcasting global temperatures is of interest too:
http://climateaudit.org/2005/12/23/gavin-vs-kaufmann/
Anthony,
Perhaps the time allocated for the tour of the building could instead be allocated to an extended Q & A. A building is a building.
Agree with lot of comments along the line – “Simply no time for any serious discussion”. If he wants to organise trully scientific meeting, then it should be 2-3h around-the-table open debate.
DB – UK
Simple questions:
1. How models handles thermodynamic laws?.
2. How there can be some backradiation from cooler atmosphere/gases to the warmer surface that warms it and transfers energy.
3. Do the models include heatstoring capasity from different gases?
9:15 Dr Trenberth talk w/ Q&A
I would be extremely concerned about this format – it appears that the may well be NO chance for questions, or questions cut short due to lack of time.
I would also urge someone to have a quality audio recording of the session – test the equipment before the gathering in the room – leave nothing to chance.
posters here are suggesting some very good questions – i fear the tragedy is that there will be no opportunity to ask them AND get answers – not change of subject OR the excuse of scientific ignorance of attendees justifies simplistic answers.
I fear you may be being set up AND tricked into having your ‘appearance’ morphed into a sort of ‘see, we have convinced the doubters of our correctness’ !
remember, there IS a snake in the grass.
Kudos to Kevin for taking this step. Do everything to make him glad that he did. Civility and comity are an absolute.
Dr. Dave says:
October 16, 2011 at 10:57 am
[snip -great idea – I don’t want to give it away just yet – Anthony]
—————
Dr. Dave & Anthony,
It is not nice for both of you to be such teases with your hints of spicy things to come.
John
Anthony – A simple question:
The reports of atmospheric warming are always couched as average global atmospheric temperatures. However, the effect of CO2 is to scatter heat energy. The actual atmospheric temperature rise caused by that heat will be dependent on the enthalpy of the atmosphere which is largely driven by its water vapor content. Why report atmospheric heat content as a temperature – when temperature is not a measure of heat content? And why average that inappropriate measure globally despite the huge variances in humidity?
Given the amount of time available I don’t think you will be able to get many questions asked and answered. I think the most important thing is, and there should be time for this, to get public admission that these are only process models. Research vehicles really. And as such they have not gone through any official validation and verification by software professionals. Which makes them useless for making predictions for public consumption. The “scenarios” are really just what-if questions and the “projections” merely “experiments”. While useful for the researchers, they can’t be used to form public policy in any way.
This brings to mind the climate debate of James Cameron:
————————————————————————-
Filmmaker James Cameron challenged three global warming skeptics to a debate that was to be held at an environmental event in Colorado this past weekend [Aug 2010]. Representatives for Cameron contacted Ann McElhinney, the filmmaker behind the documentary Not Evil Just Wrong, Marc Morano of the Climate Depot website and new media guru Andrew Breitbart to participate. Then, according to McElhinney, Cameron started waffling:
But then as the debate approached James Cameron’s side started changing the rules.
They wanted to change their team. We agreed.
They wanted to change the format to less of a debate—to “a roundtable”. We agreed.
Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed.
Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed
Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he “wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out,” decided to ban the media from the shoot out.
He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference.
No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet. No one would be allowed to record it in any way.
We all agreed to that.
And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. “shoot it out ” Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled.
————————————————————————-
Watch for Trenberth to start fiddling with the terms you’ve agreed upon.
Hey – the skeptics should show up in farmers garb toting torches and pitchforks.
JUST KIDDING! 🙂
F*ck the computer models. Those can be programmed to produce any output one desires. I want to see some real science. By that I mean experiments the confirm some of the claims made by alarmists.
1) I’d like to see Trenberth repeat Al Gore’s experiment with the two jars and infrared lamp with the jar containing CO2 internal temperature rising faster.
2) I’d like to see a demonstration that far infrared (10um) radiation can slow down the rate of cooling of seawater in typical tropical ocean night time surface conditions.
I’m with Dave earlier. Computer modelling in all its various guises is unlikely to be able to be ‘demonstrated’ adequately in 45 days – let alone 45 minutes!!
But seriously, I wouldn’t be interested in the specifics of a model, although knowledge of the typical variable and fixed parameters are paramount. I’d be more interested to see them demonstrate a relatively simple GCM model – whereby an output (prediction) has been categorically validated against observations – and I don’t mean one run in 100 is correct! – I mean where say 50 runs out of 100 are correct, etc….
In other words, lets say that ten years ago they modelled something like a hurricane track (I’d guess its a circulation model of sorts?) – what the first model did, how it’s output was verified/validation against the actual observations – and then how it was ‘improved’ and after each stage of the ‘improvement’ how the output was actually shown to be more correct or the certainty/predictability levels (and forward accuracy/timescale) increased? i.e. how they demonstrate their changes/assumptions are working….and thus that they are on the right track..
Another ‘simple’ one would be a model of the so called generic CO2 in a bottle experiment! You would think (well, I would anyway) that if their modelling of convective and radiative transfer, etc, capabilities are that good – they would be able to model such a small ‘closed’ system very accurately? such that, for example, the precise temp changes could be predicted for a given gas concentration, volume and radiative energy input? And for those who have an understanding, I don’t mean a reverse engineered model whereby they draw a straight line between start and end temps and ‘fit’ a slope to it then use that as a predictive method for the next experiment. No, I mean a model that can have various start inputs inserted into it such as differing gas concentration/mixes, etc and the model takes the radiative properties of that gas mix and accurately predicts the temps that will be recorded. (I’m actually wondering if this has ever been done? – I’d think it would be the first starting point of sorts?) Hope that makes sense……..
My suspicion is that like many things, there are many ‘assumptions’ inherent in the first model – a good example might be the ‘assumption’ that a general global temp is say 15degC – what if this is changed to 14 or 16 degC – what differnece does it make to the output?
I dunno, perhaps a simple one would be the hurricane track predictions (its a type of circulation model after all, isn’t it?) or perhaps the ozone ‘hole’ and its closing.
I’d love to be there but it would be a 24000 mile round trip which is not exactly practical. However, well done R.Gates and Anthony. You have shown how co-operation from opposites sides of the debate should be no barrier to increasing our understanding of the science. I doff my hat to you both.
Have they not stated that they need to control the discussion? is this an example of that or will it be open to question concerning the very basic assumptions that have been made? I do not think we are past the discussions of the basic assumptions, making the models moot. The shark has to be addressed, not jumped over.
bloomin wordpress comment box – I didn’t see the last two paragraphs (which I thought I’d deleted) – so please ignore them….LOL
Anthony
As its too far for me to go from Britain I will pledge $100 travel expenses to go towards anyone who might be concerned about the expense of travel.
All credit to R Gates for helping to facilitate this. I really hope some heavyweights from the sceptic community will step up to the mark.
I have some questions of my own;
1) If the start date of overall warming is one of the parameters of the modeling can someone ask when it is assumed that general warming commenced? I say 1608.
2) The idea of a ‘global’ temperatrure really messes up the many nuances within the temperature record. I believe that up to 25% of temperature stations show a cooling trend -i.e at least 30 years. Are the cooling signals part of the modelling or is just the warming signal fed in?
No doubt we will get a full report
tonyb
Well, this shows a new situation. The often mentioned Gandhi words come to my mind: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
As a laymen I do not have much of a word to say. I think what Mescalero posted (October 16, 2011 at 10:07 am ) makes a lot of sense (to me) – validation, variables definitions and forcings definitions – why and how – but there are also a lot of good questions coming in the blog.
Lots of great questions above, and each one would take more than the time allotted between 9:15 and 11:15. I would expect that there will not be time to fully explore even one scientific question. Record everything because it has never been about “science”.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Do you expect the Pielkes, Sr and/or Jr to attend?
I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but:
stevo says:
October 16, 2011 at 10:23 am
“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.
Geez, stevo, if you would read other people’s posts instead of just your own, maybe you’d have a different opinion of WUWT.
Just a suggestion.
Are we – the Greeks………..and bearing gifts?
Better take extra care……… ‘be prepared’ and enter the ‘lair’, with some cerebral ‘muscle’ and some muscled personal security – with you Mr. Watts, perhaps Jack Reacher is available…………….?
I fail to see the significance of this if Roy Spencer cannot attend since he is at the center of the recent controversy with Trenberth.
IMO this is should be an Oxford/Cambridge/Academic style debate where both sides present their case and evidence. Will this end up being a lecture where Trenberth controls the discussion?
Ask for a printout of the source code, even if it’s only to peruse onsite. Take a professional software engineer with you.
If this Q&A goes like most skeptical Q&As I have seen the people asking the questions will hop on their hobby horse and ask the wrong questions.
Anythony I suggest that people study the NCAR model ( see a recent Judith post on it ) and ask specific questions about the NCAR model.. not questions about C02 or MWP or cosmic rays or UHI or climategate or the missing heat or any of those. As specific questions about weakness in the NCAR product.
Any other questions, general questions, off topic questions, can all be swept away with standard stock replies. I’ll give you an example.
For AR4 NCAR submitted runs for the hindcast, Dr. Trenverth how well did those runs
capture the rise in global temperature seen in the 1930s, with particular focus on the arctic region?
TRust me trenberth is expecting standard skeptical talking points and is briefed to handle all hobby horses. So, you best get inside of the actual NCAR results and the actual NCAR findings and target your questions that way.
Another example:
NCAR also will have submitted runs forecasting the 20th century. how are NCAR runs doing against observations.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/year-end-trend-comparison-individual-model-runs-2001-2008/
COming prepared with specific questions about NCAR is probably the smartest thing you can do.
Ask Lucia for the data on NCAR runs. have willis look at the NCAR runs. Judith also has some interesting questions.
So, if you want to ask a question about “models” resist that. Ask about the NCAR model.
1. How do you “tune” the NCAR model?
2. Compare your forecast accuracy with temperature versus your forecast accuracy with precipitation.
These are questions should know the answers to. The more specific your questions the less likely it is that he can punt and get away with it.
Again, I would avoid asking the “big” questions that everyone thinks that Trenberth has to answer. People always try to do this in public forums because they think it will have big impact.
Remember the Al gore 24 show? remember that simple question that stumped the scientist.. and the beauty queen answered? In short, avoid all general big questions. focus on the NCAR model and FRAME all questions about climate science WITHIN the context of NCAR.
On climategate there is one SPECIFIC question you should ask.. Ross or I can write it out for you..
dr. Trenberth
In Ar4 4 you wrote the following
“McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant”
I find the last sentence troubling because of the following
A. there is no citation for this statistical claim
B. at the time this was written there were no publications making this claim.
C. In order to prove that the relation found by McKittrick wasnt significant, somebody
would have to do that math, and we find no record of that math.
Question: How did you and Dr. Jones determine mathematically that this last sentence
was true?
Follow up: ” was this what Jones meant by redefining peer review?”
Specific question that has never been answered. How did Jones and Trenberth support
“Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant” Where is the math?
I would love to go, yeh I know, everyone is saying that but from europe for a morning, NON.
Incidentally, it is worth noting that Gates et al are almost certainly monitoring your questions in order to be well prepared to provide the BS answers. Weasel words.
I agree with other posters…..I smell a rat.
Be prepared as always, Anthony. Bring up glaring examples of past failures of these models, you know a great deal on this topic.
I smell a large rat. Wish I could be there, but make sure you tape and record everything and don’t agree to any suggestion that you rely on their recording. Editing these days is easy and Dr Goebbels proved how effective it is in destroying an enemy’s credibility some 70 years ago …
“”””” DirkH says:
October 16, 2011 at 10:40 am
Interstellar Bill says:
October 16, 2011 at 10:33 am
“I would question that computational fluid dynamics via partial differential equations is at all valid when:
1. Grid cells are larger than hurricanes.”
Bill, the entire approach of the GCM’s rests on the fact that grid cells are larger than one cloud, or one hurricane, so that they can use statistics. So, instead of simulating one cloud, they say, we know how a thousand clouds behave on average, and that’s why our approach works. Similar to how you can’t predict the exact trajectory of one atom in a gas but you can make valid statements about the behaviour of a volume of gas.
It’s a dilemma for them: Convective fronts come in all sizes, they can get larger than the grid cell size and cannot be described statistically in that case. It also stops them from improving the accuracy by making the grid cells smaller – the statistical approach breaks down in that case.
Some of the reasons why GCM’s don’t work as a predictive tool… “””””
Dirk, I found your commen to be quite interesting This part :- “”””” the GCM’s rests on the fact that grid cells are larger than one cloud, or one hurricane, so that they can use statistics. “””””
This naturally leads to the obvious question; statistics of what ?
It also leads to an equally obvious observation: So you are asserting at the outset, that your choice of cell size ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES that the sampling strategy ensures violation of the Nyquist criterion, for sampling any band limited signal. You guarantee, that the real signal contains frequency components outside the sampled band limit; and evidently by a big enough factor (>2.0) to also guarantee that even the AVERAGE (the zero frequency component) is corrupted by aliassing noise, and therefore also NOT recoverable.
What is the good of applying statistics to a data set, whose average is guaranteed to be in error, because of sampling strategy errors.
The central limit theorem does not buy you a reprieve from the Nyquist violation; which is why I fault the entire data gathering methodology; and have zero confidence in ANY reported conclusions from such corrupt data.
It is a major problem of cloud modelling that even the temporal variations ensure that the twice a day, min-max thermometer data violates Nyquist; let alone the much more serious spatial sampling violation. Using a Temperature observed at the San Jose airport to represent the temperature of places 1200 km distant is patently absurd.
Uh oh…
In seriousness, it shows how far their argument is falling to pieces seeing as they now feel forced to actually have to explain something. However, I expect similar special effects (not literally, though that would be cool).
A meteorologist I know would show me his forecast maps. The only way to tell they were forecasts and not historic weather maps was looking at the time code. I thought that looking at those all day one could easily confuse data with predictions. That is what I think computer modelers do.
This is most likely a part of “How to communicatre better”. And it will be by back-stabbing. As allways. And you will be the victim.
Ask him what he thinks of Spencers work lately.
hehe.
I too smell a rat.
Learn to recognize and diffuse the Delphi Technique:
http://www.nogw.com/documents/_07_defeating_delphi.pdf
{“In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as “facilitators” or “change agents,” who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear “sensible,” while making opposing views appear ridiculous.”}
With all the claims of disaster from global warming they have made based on models while expressing scorn for opposition to the point of substituting the word skeptics for scientist and attempting to exile that opposition from publication and those claims being used for regulation and legislation, why the sudden desire to associate with those scientists, I mean skeptics? My question is what word will Trenberth use in reference to Anthony Watts and others that he prefers to call skeptics?
Well done Anthony, this is a positive development.
However, be aware that after the event it will be spun as how Trenberth convinced the sceptics.
All the best.
I really hope you can get some knowledgable folks to back you up as one guy can’t do it all. A credible climate scientist or two with a skeptical outlook would be terrific. Also, perhaps one of the two Joes over at Weatherbell? Bastardi might jump at the chance as I know he travels quite a bit.. I disagree with you at times Anthony, especially with respect to politics, but I’ve great respect for your courage.
Go get ’em!
stevo says:
October 16, 2011 at 10:23 am
“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.
Projection, anyone?
We seem to me to have lost touch with basics. A computer model is not some brand new form of mathematics. It is simply a quick means of solving an equation. No matter how complex the equation, solve is all that it does. Some values may be fixed and some may be variable, but beyond that there is no magic.
All that is needed is for the equation representing their ‘best’ model to be published along with the programme that supposedly represents their equation. Those with the requisite skills can then point out any defects detected in the programme and those with climate credentials can point out any shortcomings in the equation. At the end of the day a computer simply does high school algebra.
Heh, as i’m stuck in the UK i doubt i’ll be able to attend (it’s in denver right?).
Shame too, i have a history in validation and qualification (not to mention many years in science); i’m sure i could have asked some useful questions.
Plus it’s always nice to meet the person behind the name, they’re often a lot nicer than you would expect.
Steve Mosher wrote “If this Q&A goes like most skeptical Q&As I have seen the people asking the questions will hop on their hobby horse and ask the wrong questions.”
I think Steve’s advice is superb. Those guys are ready for the obvious, “game changer” type questions. Don’t try to hit home runs. Specific, detailed queries that force them away from glib, stock replies are the way to go.
Politely ask him to reschedule to a later date. And ask him to publish details of what he intends to demonstrate. 3 weeks is short notice for an event like this.
Well Anthony, I’m not going to side with the doom and gloom set, that thinks this is all a setup trap.
I’m confident, that you yourself can raise enough to the point issues. I have quite a few issues myself.
Number (2) issue is why does Dr Trenberth consider any static average energy balance model as depicted in his famous cartoon to have any validity, given that the earth rotates, so the actual local input energy rate, is four times what he assumes leading to quite different instantaneous, and also averaged results; fourth power law and all that. and of course with an actual global temperature range covering -90 C to +60 C extremes all of which could be simultaneously present.
My number one issue is MUCH simpler.
Why in the hell are they wasting all of this time and energy and money “investigating” a minor side issue; such as how cloud variations impact a quite secondary factor, namely the interception of a small part of the LWIR emission spectrum of the earth by CO2, and other non H2O GHGs.
Why don’t they FIRST perfect a model of the main climate feedback loop, namely the direct effect (always negative feedback) of water vapor plus clouds on the total amount of solar spectrum input energy from the sun, that gets captured by planet earth; largely in the deep oceans (0-700 metres.)
When they can properly model how water alters the total ENERGY INPUT from the sun; then they might think about other minor secondary issues such as CO2. CO2 of course is also a feedback (negative) factor in the attenuation of incoming solar spectrum radiation.
As to the meeting; I would very much like to attend. My problem is that having been laid off back in May from a 23 year long job, with its attendant severance pay; plus being well over the SS/medicare age and all the finacial ramifications of that; this tax year is going to be a giant financial disaster. After that, relatively smooth sailing. but November is when the big cash outlays are going to happen; so I have no discretionary spending available this year; toherwise I woulod go in a flash. And no I would NOT burden other posters here; even though I do believe many would actually do as they suggest, and drop sheckels in a. can. But not something I can accept; it is NOT a Kiwi thing, to not pay our own way; and I would very much like to ask fellow Kiwi Trenberth; how the hell he ran off the rails; we are a whole lot smarter than that.
But I do hope some others can go. I think a lot of the suggested questions are far too specialized; I’d be happy if they could respond rationally to YOUR discovery of the brain dead surface stations set. Revisiting the climategate e-mails does not seem to me to be a useful use of the opportunity being offered; I’d rather take them at face value, to try and learn something that is of use to YOU Anthony; then you can wise ther rest of us up.
George
climatereason says:
October 16, 2011 at 11:30 am
Cost is not a problem. Shell, BP, Exon, Chevron, and Conoco are paying all travel expenses plus per diem for as many skeptics as can fit in the auditorium plus twice that number to picket on the sidewalk in front the of the place. /sarc
I’d love to go, but I have to teach labs that day. Too bad I’m not at UNC (Northern Colorado in Greeley) anymore– I’d love to pop down and check out Tenebrith and his operation.
Dave Springere
Obviously the money I was offering originally came from Big Oil. I get a cheque from them every month 🙂
Tonyb
I agree with all that say reschedule, also get the agenda first, and most importantly, get some heavy duty scientists to join you. Otherwise this will end badly.
The full source code to the models should be published and available for public scrutiny. If not, who knows what’s in there?
I assume this has been asked at some point,
Can they validate their modelling by imputing “known” historic data and then output later “known” historic data?
if not its “garbage in…..garbage out!”
would love to attend but only a lowly, concerned observer, who wants the scientific world to objectively look at all and every option and then and only then when all possible FACTS have been checked publish an answer, surely not too much to ask?
Eric Worrall says:
October 16, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Politely ask him to reschedule to a later date. And ask him to publish details of what he intends to demonstrate. 3 weeks is short notice for an event like this.
Nov. 19th, the 2nd anniversary, would be appropriate.
You can also go to the bank with the idea that one of the grad monkeys will have a factory answer to every question asked so far in this thread….
Pick anyone of the following responses:
“That’s a good question. We’ve been concerned about that line of thinking for quite some time.
(a) its one of the areas we hope to delve into in the future
(b) we currently have that as a principal agenda for some of our students
(c) there are many things we know need further work, but we have to work within the budget we currently have
(d) some of our colleagues in other institutions are already committed to significant studies on that topic and we don’t think it would make sense to duplicate the research
(e) we explored that concept, but didn’t come to a useful conclusion about its relevance
(f) our studies and those of others have provided no validation for that
(g) our research to date has not lead to that conclusion
(h) the research into that involves confidentiality agreements and I can’t go into details at this time. Rest assured however it is a topic of considerable interest
(i) we don’t believe that line of research has merit
(j) thank you for asking it, any other questions?
Watch for a press release following the event. It will make the CAGW bunch seem authoritative, reasonable and intelligent. We will see nice pictures of the splendid facility. The invited guests will be subtly described in a way that will make the reader mentally picture a group of dolts with bad attitudes. (But they were treated with graciousness and great generosity of spirit.)
When all is said and done, this entire costly argument is about whether a few extra molecules of CO2 per million can transfer enough kinetic energy to adjacent atmospheric molecules to cause a change in everything else and in a time frame that actually matters.
Great questions guys, but with the short time, I think only one or two basic questions that can expose the fallacy of AGW is going to get through. The claim is 95% of scientists agree we are changing the climate with our CO2. Yet NOT ONE of those who agree with the 95% confidence will tell us BY HOW MUCH CO2 changes the climate. Far too much we let them get away with the lie that ALL climate change is because of our CO2. When pressed they admit that it’s not all. So the next logical question is, “By HOW much?” Doesn’t matter what their computer models claim. Doesn’t matter what they believe. What matters is what they can measure. So the simplest question to ask and get an answer is: “By how much does our CO2 affect the climate? It has to be between 0 and 100%. If they are unable to answer (and they can’t), then the next logical question is “How do you know it’s not 0%?” (If they do throw out some number, ask where the number comes from). Since they cannot answer either of those questions with real numbers, the entire premise of AGW falls apart.
Oh, and don’t let them claim it is an irrelevant question, because it’s the core of AGW.
BTW, when I ask this on forums directly to AGW Faithful, their general reply is “I won’t play your silly games” and they leave. This means it is a very sensitive issue and we MUST rub salt in that wound as hard as we can.
A four-hour razzle-dazzle dog and pony show won’t be very edifying. Can you get copies of the code and data?
Just to be clear…this is the guy that said there had to be heat….and then can’t find it…but he’s still right……
I agree with mosh….
steven mosher says:
October 16, 2011 at 11:55 am
Anythony I suggest that people study the NCAR model ( see a recent Judith post on it ) and ask specific questions about the NCAR model..
I was going to suggest involving Lucia (or even dragging her along, kicking and screaming), but Mosh kinda beat me to it. I might add, Mosh makes some good points. I do think Pielke Sr’s. question begs a straightforward answer as to how come the ARGO network strangely missed picking up the missing heat as it supposedly went into hiding down deep. And does he really want to hang his entire reputation on that?
Will look forward to watching.
whilst he doing the Q&A get some one with computer know how to down load the codes….
just joking.though you could ask for a copy of the codes..and see what colour his face go’s
$100 in the tip jar towards getting Dr T. pissed. Then you’ll get the real story out of him!
Sorry – just to make it clear for our friends over the pond – “pissed” is a Bitish euphemism for “inebriated’. I didn’t mean that I wanted you to get him angry…
Please ask the doctor to justify his claim from Trenberth and Fasullo (2009) that:
“the main warming from an energy budget standpoint comes from increases in absorbed solar radiation that stem directly from the decreasing cloud amounts“
The idea that more water vapour in the atmosphere cause less clouds appears stupid on its face. The NCAR CAM2 model that doesn’t show decreased low cloud has a “so-what?” sensitivity of less than 2°C.
Some context here: http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/07/cloudy-or-sunny-future.html
Anthony, don’t forget to take Dr T a bucket of missing heat…
…cue Josh.
Trenberth is mostly an observational data person. If you expect him to defend or know about every detail of the climate models, you have the wrong person. He is as critical of models as anyone in climate science, and they have to prove themselves to him via matching the data.
What questions to ask?
How naive are we as a group?
Does anyone think that a computer program of this complexity can be “demonstrated” in 45 minutes, let alone provide sufficient time for a Q&A period within the 45 minutes? This will be a demonstration of the OUTPUT of the computer program, flashy graphics showing which parts of earth warm up how fast in full animation on a giant screen with a running commentary so high level that not one word of it will be anything to do with the science or the computer code itself.
This is a trap, plain and simple. Shovel you in, shovel you out, instant press release full of half truths and misrepresentations about the discussion and the reaction to it to follow immediately.
I’d go, but I’d go on a condition. The condition being that a list of questions be posted on WUWT immediately following the meeting, and that Kevin Trenberth agree to answer each and every one of them personally. I’d also request that whatever official relationship there is (if any) between R Gates and K Trenberth be revealed.
I cannot take seriously anything associated with R. Gates, now including Kevin Trenberth. In saying this, I am not trying to be mean.
I applaud Anthony and others who attend. You are both noble and energetic. However, I cannot believe for one minute that you will get genuine responses to questions.
As regards questions you might put to Trenberth, ask him once again to answer Pielke’s criticisms of his “heat hidden in the deep oceans” idea. The two questions are as follows:
“There are two major issues, however, with the new study that the authors [that the news article reports on] did not seem to recognize:
1. If heat is being sequested in the deeper ocean, it must transfer through the upper ocean. In the real world, this has not been seen that I am aware of. In the models, this heat clearly must be transferred (upwards and downwards) through this layer. The Argo network is spatially dense enough that this should have been see.
2. Even more important is the failure of the authors to recognize that they have devalued the use of the global average surface temperature as the icon to use to communicate the magnitude of global warming. If this deeper ocean heating actually exists in the real world, it is not observable in the ocean and land surface temperatures. To monitor global warming, we need to keep track of the changes in Joules in the climate system, which, as clearly indicated in the new study by Meehl and colleagues, is not adequately diagnosed by the global, annual-averaged surface temperature trends.”
A leopard doesn’t change its spots
Trenberth can’t change his ways. We are still all deniers.
My advice to the attendees would be to listen attentively and to not jsut make this a confrontation with preconceived opinions
A useful line of questioning might be: Under what conditions would Trenberth consider a given model to be falsified? What time interval of what extent of deviation between forecast and observation would be considered sufficient proof against a given model? As I see it, he can
1. Declare that this cannot happen, since the science is settled. If he chooses this, it begs the question why we even still need models
2. Demand very long periods of conflicting observations. This begs the question whether the models can be considered supported by evidence after a shorter time than would be required for their falsification
3. Agree to reasonably stringent criteria, that is even a realistically short period of time and a realistically low deviation falsifies a model. This would probably mean that several models still used by the IPCC will already meet those criteria
4. Explain that model parameters can be tweaked and tuned in order to better match reality. At which point one might say that the act of “tuning” a model implies an admission of falsification, and that an old model with a new set of parameters is in fact a new hypothesis, even if it uses the same general equations and computer code.
5. Expel ink. At which point one could probably not do much more than pointing out that trying to falsify hypothesis is an essential part of the scientific method.
In the foregoing, I assumed that you will have an opportunity to respond to his replies – I almost expect that will not be the case though.
The event for the most part is simply an icebreaker and the institute will milk it for pr. Take the opportunity to meet and greet. For many skeptics this will be an eyeopener. A campfire is being struck and the participants can raise the bar of civility. Ask tough questions but avoid the gotcha stuff – it won’t play well the next morning. Consider – if the subject can be adequately wrapped up in 3 or 4 hours of show and tell, there’s not much there to begin with, but you know that’s not the case. More to be learned by studying the people in one of these, than the science.
Do you people really think it is going to be that easy! You are being fooled! It could become a major major mistake to make the visit. Don’t trust these people. Their record is one of deception and hiding data. Comparing us with holocaust deniers etc etc.
I don’t think there will be a video for future release.
I hope I will be wrong this time.
Ken Harvey says:
October 16, 2011 at 12:34 pm
God Bless you and yours, Ken. You get it. So few do. So many, even among sceptics, are mystified by the witch doctor’s garb.
Recently some kid wrote at Judith Curry’s site, I believe, that you could start (fire up) a model and it would tend toward the actual conditions of the climate. I replied that Miller Brewing has a model of their shipping infrastructure and that you can fire it up and it will tend toward the actual shipping patterns used by the company. I then asked if he believed that Miller Brewing has a scientific theory about its shipping patterns. He did not reply.
What is the ideal CO2 level?
Justify.
Can’t find the heat Trenberth is not going to allow himself to be blown off course. He has something planned that will allow him to show ‘deniers’ as crazy idiots and his models to be the absolute truth.
Prepare meticulously. Oh and by the way you all know Gates well enough. If he has been instrumental in organising this little matinée then he will have used his knowledge of this site to persuade Trenberth that he can win the discussion.
Prior to attending, PLEASE review all relevant documentation on Trenberth, among others that contained in Donna Laframboise’s recent work! See how far it got Chris Landsea, attending one of these seances.
In the Q&A (if there is one) ask how they are including the aerosol nucleation effect per CERN in the models.
Obvious trap…but if it weren’t I’d simply ask what evidence would make him change his mind about the use of models (or anything else)…
Everything else will be a waste of 45 minutes.
Theo Goodwin says:
What exactly would you expect the Argo network to see? That network looks at the temperature (and hence heat content) in the upper ocean, not the heat transfer through it. Could you explain to us what measurable parameter(s) from the Argo data would tell you the amount of heat going into the deeper ocean?
While monitoring the total energy would indeed be nice, it does not necessarily follow that because transfer of heat to the deep ocean can affect the global temperature trends on the order of a few years to a decade, it is necessarily a problem on the longer time scales. It can just explain why one can’t trust temperature trends over too short time scales, a fact that is already obvious empirically from the size of the fluctuations seen in the global temperature data (in both the real world and climate model simulations).
Please ask him to make a streaming video of the presentation able to be viewed by the non-attendees, and post it on your blog. Ask him to take selected questions on your blog that he can choose to answer or not. Possibly questions can be limited to well qualified scientists (who state their qualifications, and this should not be limited to climatologists). Any other route would be too limited.
I always knew there was a good reason to keep R. Gates around – kudos. Will he be attending?
Sometimes the smallest events can have the largest ramifications, and such an icon could mark a shifting of climate explanation. It may mean nothing, but is the best news, that I have heard for awhile. I hope everyone comes with sharpened pencils and a open, inquiring mind. GK
Dr. Trenberth has a rare talent (among Global Warming advocates) of occasionally putting his finger on the right button, e.g., the travesty. Unfortunately, lately his lock-step devotion to the cause has resulted in little of value in the debate.
My question for Dr. T.: Recently, CERN was able to confirm prior experimental work suggesting that the solar wind may indirectly influence climate by moderatating cosmic rays. Do any climate models presently account for this forcing? Assuming the effect found by CERN and others is real, can any model which fails to account for this influence be consider an accurate approximation of reality?
Robbie says:
October 16, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Do you people really think it is going to be that easy! You are being fooled! It could become a major major mistake to make the visit. Don’t trust these people. Their record is one of deception and hiding data. Comparing us with holocaust deniers etc etc.
I don’t think there will be a video for future release.
I hope I will be wrong this time.
———
If no one went it would look even worse, and hyped even more especially since our side has been hammering for times like this. We have no choice but to go, cautious oh, yes. I wouldn’t trust Trenberth and I don’t know the man. Just their ilk makes them untrustworthy.
Anthony,
Thanks for posting this. Having had the pleasure of working with both you and Dr. Trenberth to get this meeting set up, I can confirm that both of you were naturally very upfront in all conditions. Having been the “instigator” of this in some respects, and the go-between in communications I can assure everyone that there is no agenda other than to have an honest presentation and exchange. The tour should also be quite interesting.
Also, I made this offer to Anthony, and I’d be glad to extend it to others, I’d be glad to provide some transportation from Denver International to Boulder if a group of you coordinated coming in at the same time. I have a seven person van and would be glad to assist in this. Anthony could act as point of contact and I’ll be available the day before (Nov. 9th) as I would expect most would come in that day.
It will be very difficult to coordinate twenty people asking questions – it is likely that everyone will want their own air time so there will only be time for one question each and no follow-up.
I strongly suggest that the people attending agree on a small number topics to ask about, and that no more than one or two people ask questions (with conferring between attendees if necessary)
I would open a thread on difficult questions to ask Dr Trembath. I do not mean ranting questions but educated questions. You have time to sort the wheat from the chaff, and you could ask some very penetrating questions.
R Gates
Wish I could be there, but its a long weay from the Uk to Denver.
Well done for helping to set this up-I dont share the sispicions of some others on this blog.
tonyb
As an occasional player of MMP RPG games, I want to believe that weather can be modeled and that climate can be modeled – now or in the future. This could be a great event if the peanut gallery holds back on all the impertinent questions and lets the modelers make their case. It should be obvious from the character of the “pitch” whether this is a public relations event or whether it is an honest presentation on the technical difficulties of making good models. I have no sense of how big a gulf lies between the kind of created worlds that I see in mmp games and weather models that predict the paths of hurricanes, but it’s said that mmp is a billion plus market – and growing. Perhaps the true great modelers of our day are all all employed by Blizzard Entertainment.
I assume that modeling is an established discipline within the engineering community. It should be interesting to hear what kind of line modelers draw delineating climate from weather. It would also be interesting to hear how a modeler knows when he is creating a model that behaves like the real world and when it is a model that just pictures the real world. Obviously, if you just take averaged weather data and use is as an input to your model you don’t have a true model – you’ve got a model that pictures the climate based on “fudge factors.” On the other hand using certain givens seem inescapable. I assume one doesn’t need to rely on models of the sun to tell your climate model what the watts per square meter are arriving at the top of earth’s atmosphere.
Perhaps there should be a Turing test for models….or perhaps the question is how much does an NCAR programmer make as compared to one who works for Blizzard. That would be an impertinent question though.
Joel Shore says:
Theo Goodwin says:
1. If heat is being sequested in the deeper ocean, it must transfer through the upper ocean. In the real world, this has not been seen that I am aware of.
What exactly would you expect the Argo network to see? That network looks at the temperature (and hence heat content) in the upper ocean, not the heat transfer through it.
—
Heat transfer requires a temperature gradient. The more heat the upper ocean is supposed to transmit to the deep ocean, the hotter the upper ocean would have to be.
Joel Shore ,
Can you suggest a mechanism which allows warmer surface water to sink below colder , denser water ?
“10:30 computer modeling demonstration in the visualization lab”
They are working towards AR5, so I’d like to see the latest simulations that would be a part of NCAR’s AR5 contribution.
Try to get digital copies of whatever is shown in the visualization lab demonstration(s).
good luck.
have a couple pages of good questions to hand him at the start.
and invite him to your own press conference afterwards to examine his answers.
maybe marc morano can help out?
Well, it sounds like a fun day out. Queue the carbon footprint jokes.
Dr. T is supposedly an expert on the tropics, so maybe someone could ask him
‘whether the tropics are dominated by a negative feedback? And if so, in the absence of human induced forcing (try to make it easy for him), would that mean that the earth’s climate is relatively stable?
And if there was human interference, why would a negative feedback suddenly turn into a positive feedback?’
Agree to disagree.
P Walker says:
October 16, 2011 at 2:42 pm
“Joel Shore: Can you suggest a mechanism which allows warmer surface water to sink below colder , denser water ?’
Maybe I can help Joel out here with a few suggestions.
Global warming?
Rich white guys?
Conservatives?
i say that TB will make a long statement spouting the “company line”, a shill in the audience will ask a softball question the answer of which will soak up all of the time available. after a “canned matt” answer is given the good TB will notice that all of the time is used up and do a scoot. within the hour of the scoot the local MSM will put out a preprapared totally self serving press release trying to make the skeptics look like ill advised amateurs.
C
With that short time available do I believe Mr Trenberth only have time for one question.
Where is the heat?
For any other question can he also use WUWT.
My simple question would be:
“Since models have been less than accurate considering and compared to empirical data………………………..”
The agenda is a joke.
1 – Agree upon the topics that will be discussed during the meeting beforehand.
2 – Reserve enough time for each topic.
3 – Reschedule the meeting so that you will have the best selection of knowledgeable people on each topic.
4 – Do not go to the meeting if you do not have points 1-3 crystal clear.
Anthony:
This is a noble cause.
I like the advice given by Steve Mosher to focus on the construction of the NCAR computation methods rather than bring up the other AGW baggage or IPCC credibility. You have clearly and openly identified through WUWT that there are major random and systematic temperature uncertainties everywhere in the world and there are some very hokey methods of messaging the data by many researchers such as Mann’s hockey stick. If he is really interested in a dialog with you as keeper of keys to the temperature vault, perhaps he would agree to help you with your efforts to clean up the temperature data banks and how they are used to validate computational results from the NCAR models realizing that ultimately the computation of temperature should match the temperature data in an improved data compilations.
One must assume that Dr. Trenberth hopes to gain something from this meeting or it would not have come to fruition. Maybe he would agree to provide written comments to WUWT. You should get something in return to foster your own agenda besides an agreement to stop calling each other names. This is his agenda to demonstrate the facility and its capability and to impress the visitors that the NCAR is seriously geared up to model climate in a big way. I would hope that Dr. Trenberth in his presentation would explain how the research group hopes to include elements currently absent in the model that potentially impact climate warming such as aerosols, cloud cover, etc. You should present yours.
I doubt that anyone will have time to ask this question, but I’ve often wondered if the computer models can show decreasing temperatures in the face of increasing CO2. Or is it a case of the models being hard wired to only show the increasing CO2 increasing temperature scenario.
Anthony, R. and Dr. Trenbeth, kudos to y’all!
I post rarely but am constantly accessing all sides of the blogs. It appears to me, that in the last 4-6 months, there has been a slight, but somewhat perceptible change in the way that the leading figures of this debate are reacting to their critics. I see Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Pielke actually responding to each other quite civily about the transfer of heat to the ocean depths (look it up on RC), both gents being somewhat respectful of the others opinion and occasionally seeing the others point. I see Dr. Lacis posting on Dr. Curry’s blog, then answering some well thought out questions to not only his post, but on another post too. Yes Dr. Lacis did play the denier card, but was roundley castigated for this, and there seems to be a bit of awareness, now, on his part that that is not where the debate is anymore. I still see Dr. Shore comment on this blog and try to clear up some misconceptions with the physics of the atmosphere. Myself, I have slowly come to accept that CO2 does have a finger on the recent warming, and it appears many others have accepted this also.
To me, I believe that things like the demonstrations against Wall Street are showing the world, that we as citizens are no longer going to just take anyones word for things, just because they are a scientist or expert. And the scientists that are aware, are getting it, and are now starting to realize that they have to become inclusive.
Anthony, i pray that Dr. Tenbreth is coming around to this position, and that this is a gesture of goodwill. Of course the first meeting between 2 of the biggest players in this passion play would be expected to be short and courteous, as there stil is a lot of distrust. But as all journey’s must start with a first step, however tentative, I wish the both of you the courage to take that first step and get this journey, finally underway.
All the best,
Leo G
I would be interested in meeting with Trenberth one on one. If a person and her friends were to go into a theatre and all yell “Fire! Fire! Fire!”, start screaming, crying, and running for the door, there is a likely possibility of unfortunate consequences.
Trenberth is obviously intelligent. He is distorting and manipulating the science for what he believes is the good cause.
http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/bioenergy/NewsReleases/Biodiesel%20Energy%20Balance_v2a.pdf
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
“The Clean Energy Scam
The U.S. quintupled its production of ethanol–ethyl alcohol, a fuel distilled from plant matter–in the past decade, and Washington has just mandated another fivefold increase in renewable fuels over the next decade. Europe has similarly aggressive biofuel mandates and subsidies, and Brazil’s filling stations no longer even offer plain gasoline. Worldwide investment in biofuels rose from $5 billion in 1995 to $38 billion in 2005 and is expected to top $100 billion by 2010, thanks to investors like Richard Branson and George Soros, GE and BP, Ford and Shell, Cargill and the Carlyle Group.
But several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it’s dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future, looks less green than oil-derived gasoline….
…Meanwhile, by diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks, biofuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry. The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. Harvests are being plucked to fuel our cars instead of ourselves. The U.N.’s World Food Program says it needs $500 million in additional funding and supplies, calling the rising costs for food nothing less than a global emergency. Soaring corn prices have sparked tortilla riots in Mexico City, and skyrocketing flour prices have destabilized Pakistan, which wasn’t exactly tranquil when flour was affordable.”
“…Backed by billions in investment capital, this alarming phenomenon is replicating itself around the world. Indonesia has bulldozed and burned so much wilderness to grow palm oil trees for biodiesel that its ranking among the world’s top carbon emitters has surged from 21st to third according to a report by Wetlands International. Malaysia is converting forests into palm oil farms so rapidly that it’s running out of uncultivated land. But most of the damage created by biofuels will be less direct and less obvious. In Brazil, for instance, only a tiny portion of the Amazon is being torn down to grow the sugarcane that fuels most Brazilian cars. More deforestation results from a chain reaction so vast it’s subtle: U.S. farmers are selling one-fifth of their corn to ethanol production, so U.S. soybean farmers are switching to corn, so Brazilian soybean farmers are expanding into cattle pastures, so Brazilian cattlemen are displaced to the Amazon.”
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
“After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.
I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
While no one can “tell” scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation—though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements—would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.”
While you are there see if Dr. Trenberth can tell you the truth about the 65-66 W/m2 up and down welling LR radiation, being the only relevent amount to the climate, and why he never mentions the 260 W/m2 that is horizontal in component and does nothing at all in Earth’s case (though for Mars and Venus this cannot be said, Venus too thick, Mars too thin, horizontally). If you will notice the sum total of those figures (65+260+65=390) IS this 390 W/m2 his graphics all warped portray as “back-radiation”.
The key to the above is radiation does cancel when for every transfer of energy from point A to point B by radiation there is a statistically equal amount moving simultaneously from point B to point A, not all of the energy, just a specified dimensional component. The net effect is zero and you will never be able to sense or measure these components though your maths (Stefan-Boltzmann) says it is there,and happening, though no effect will ever occur in this specified portion, 260 W/m2 of the 390 W/m2.
He does know the very basics of physics doesn’t he?
Just signed up. NCAR is just down the hill from me, so to speak. It’ll be fun to meet Anthony again, along with bouldersolar and who knows who else. This will be a nice get-together of some Voices of Reason, but the occasion will be mostly Dr. Trenberth’s show. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say, but I don’t expect any knockout punches by anyone.
Berkley affiliation redux.
If this were a week-long seminar/workshop, I could see the value in it. 45 minutes? Flight time on the plane getting there will be longer than the meeting, hence not worth the trip. If they were serious about opening up their methodology and discussing pertinent factors, it would also be scheduled far enough in advance that the movers and shakers in the science wouldn’t have scheduling conflicts. They must be looking for hostages.
It sounds like an interesting event. I would have gladly flown over from California for the day but unfortunately I’ll be in Europe on business that week.
As an experienced PR hand, I don’t agree with the folks crying “Trap! Trap!”. First of all, it’s not a debate. It’s been structured as a brief presentation and Q&A. The skeptics don’t have to do anything but show up and listen. Here’s how the skeptics could “lose” though:
– Try to ask “loaded” questions or be otherwise disrespectful (I know Anthony would never do that but there is that .01% fringe element that conceivably could). That would be playing right into a stereotype that many CAGW believers already have.
Here’s what the skeptics could accomplish:
– By attending and being reasonable, intelligent people who are good listeners with perhaps a few thoughtful, on-point questions. This will help Trenberth, his team and perhaps others like them, realize that skeptics are not “big oil funded, politically motivated ideologues”. Remember that this false stereotype is entrenched and provides perceived justification for some CAGW believers to subtly participate in (or not stop) “noble cause” corruption. Weakening that incorrect notion in their minds can do a lot of good down the road for the cause of reason, science and transparency.
– To the CAGW world at large this would be another proof-point that the vast majority of skeptics are actually willing and able to engage and listen. This is actually a pretty powerful net win for the skeptical viewpoint. We have some very compelling questions, observations and arguments. The #1 way we fail to sway “true believers” isn’t that our arguments fail, it’s that true believers don’t seriously listen to are arguments in the first place. This one short meeting at NCAR isn’t the place to try to win or even make those arguments, it’s an opportunity to shift perceptions and show that skeptics and our questions are worth taking seriously.
– I think that the value of questions skeptics ask in the Q&A period won’t be that they are “zingers” or that the answers contain some fatal admission (they won’t). The #1 value of the questions the skeptics ask will be to show just how well skeptics really understand the nitty-gritty details of the science (see Mosher’s suggested questions). The nature of the questions can also prove that skeptics are actually interested in really understanding what’s happening in the physical world, not just scoring short-term political points. At NCAR that would be a pretty significant win.
Here’s what Trenberth and NCAR can accomplish:
– Show the community that they were open to engaging with skeptics and generally educating the public on their work. They get a some nice photos and a summary to include in their yearly accomplishments report to their bosses (you can bet that public education/community outreach are on the organization’s mission statement/goals).
As a skeptic, I’m all for giving Trenberth and NCAR that PR “win” in exchange for the chance to put another crack in the CAGW community’s false stereotype of skeptics. After all, we *want* them to see engaging with skeptics as a good, productive thing. From the NCAR perspective they have little to lose and from the skeptics perspective we have little to lose. That’s how first steps are. Small and measured.
Rhoda Ramirez ,
The answers to your questions are no and yes .
I conveyed this privately to Anthony. I am willing to pay the travel expenses of appropriate people to this. Steve Mosher? Lucia? Willis?
By all means, get permission to record the proceedings. The overall manner in which you are received would be telling.
Will someone please ask Trenberth, what is the key evidence that man’s CO2 is causing global warming. He told me in a private correspondence that the key evidence is sea levels. I’d love to hear him say that in public.
Anthony..
I read through the comments. You are being “set up”.
DO NOT AGREE TO THIS! Period. If you meet ANYWHERE, it’s NEUTRAL GROUND. Not on “your turf” or their “turf”.
There is absolutely NO reason in this day and age that you need to “come to their facility”.
Look, the LEFTIST, LIBERALS, LOONEYS, whatever..will ALWAYS (see James Cameron comment) feel free to “change the rules of the ballgame”, or “fink out” at the last moment.
Do that NOW. Tell them, “You want a “DENIER/SKEPTIC/RATIONALIST/NOT FINANCED BY BIG GOVERNMENT MONEY gathering? Then PLENTY of advanced notice (6 months) and on NEUTRAL GROUND. (Say, hotel or conference center in Kansas, or Denver..)
Play the game at YOUR SPEED not theirs.
Remember this prophecy, if you go and they set you up to do a PR trashing number..you have been WARNED.
Joel Shore says:
October 16, 2011 at 2:13 pm
“What exactly would you expect the Argo network to see? That network looks at the temperature (and hence heat content) in the upper ocean, not the heat transfer through it. Could you explain to us what measurable parameter(s) from the Argo data would tell you the amount of heat going into the deeper ocean?”
The “deeper ocean” does not mean “Twenty Thousand Leagues Beneath The Sea.” It can mean as little as 200 feet beneath the surface. ARGO covers way deeper than that. The temperature did not go up.
“While monitoring the total energy would indeed be nice, it does not necessarily follow that because transfer of heat to the deep ocean can affect the global temperature trends on the order of a few years to a decade, it is necessarily a problem on the longer time scales. It can just explain why one can’t trust temperature trends over too short time scales, a fact that is already obvious empirically from the size of the fluctuations seen in the global temperature data (in both the real world and climate model simulations).”
Warmista have adamantly denied that the heat is “in process” as it travels through natural processes. Warmista have adamantly denied that a science of heat flow through the actual natural processes in the oceans and elsewhere is actually necessary. They have insisted on the simple minded assumption that Earth’s surface can be treated as something like the surface of a “black body” in radiation theory. They calculate radiation in versus radiation out to calculate the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. I am quite happy that they have discovered that heat can be “in process” and that those processes might take many years to cycle.
A validation question stated a little differently, I’d like to know what the reject criteria for model projections and output are. If there is none the models are worthless.
Continuing todcom’s theme:
How many models are run by NCAR?
Which three do you, Dr. T, consider to be the most trustworthy?
Which three the least? The basis for that evaluation?
What is the histogram of Model runs and Model time? Do a couple of models the get the majority of cycles?
Of the most trustworthy models:
What is the size of grid cells in X,Y,Z, and Time? ( I am particularly interested in the time step.)
How many layers (Z-dimension). How many layers in the ocean?
What are the physical parameters tracked in each cell?
In true scientific method, what are the testable predictions made by these models?
Are reviews of the model runs ever done in a “blind study” without knowing the inputs?
What percentage of the climate modelers and analysts would consider themselves to be CAGW skeptics?
I don’t think that it is relevant or necessary for me to travel hundreds of miles for a couple of hours.
I’ve been programing and working with computers for 18+ years, My occupational background is in Engineering, I’ve actually seen code from released e-mails one time, and had a real good laugh, I don’t think I could keep a straight face listening to someone explain how they model an assumption or premise on which their silly inference of man made global warming comes from.
But as R. Gates and Dr. Kevin Trenberth are two of my favorite Anthropogenic Global warming enthusiasts (giggles) I’d like to wish them all the best and I hope something positive can come from this short visit.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/16/skeptics-are-invited-to-a-public-meeting-with-dr-kevin-trenberth/#comment-769224
“Heat transfer requires a temperature gradient. The more heat the upper ocean is supposed to transmit to the deep ocean, the hotter the upper ocean would have to be.”
Not so.
Heat transfe only requires a mechanism of transport. Diffusion is only one very slow method of transport. Vertical diffusion is not the dominant mechanism of vertical heat transport in the oceans. Mixing is the dominant mechanism of vertical heat transport in the oceans.
You might want to look into things like convective transport. Or thermohaline circulation. Or dispersion. Or turbulence. Or eddies. Or gyres.
This is a link to the book I grew up with;
http://books.google.com/books/about/Buoyancy_Effects_in_Fluids.html?id=x8NqYA97-wMC
It’s a classic.
Tell me what you don’t know??? That should take half a day alone.
And unless the models can produce past history, they aren’t very good at predicting the future. Set initial conditions for year 0 and run model to predict the last 2000 years of temperature.
You have to attend; not to do so would open the first jaws of A trap.
The question is: what are the second AND third sets of traps? For example: the place could be stuffed full of ranting, raving alarmists, or maybe just a few alarmists paid to yell loudly at you whenever you try to speak..
Anthony, walk carefully and carry a big stick – neither your health, nor preserving your reputation, are in Mr Trenberth’s best interests, so expect him to act accordingly.
DO NOT GO ALONE!!!!
The cynics here shouting “Trap!” are being too reactive and unreasonably suspicious. Instead I see this as merely outreach, and thus consistent with at SAY IT LOUDER! strategy we know all to well. If Believers think they know what they know is True, then what is to be lost by doing so? Nothing.
I find it astounding that suspicions of duplicity abound so widely. Believers demonstrate this Machiavellian capacity, intellectually, in scientific papers (eg, hiding data and methods), and in playing the organizing game (eg, RC). and in politics and media (by popularizers, not by really Trenberth and his friends). Not much elsewhere.
Instead, I see an almost friendly dog and pony show that Boulderites are familiar with from their local federal labs. As for implied remainder, we’ll see if they are testy and irritable to be called to account and answer critical questions. This, I expect. They are used to being worshiped or overawe-ing the ignorant. Not criticism from unBelievers. Not focused, knowledgeable questions. These are likely to frustrate and annoy them.
There is nothing calculated and “Trap worthy” about this.”
R. Gates said:
October 16, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Anthony,
Thanks for posting this. Having had the pleasure of working with both you and Dr. Trenberth to get this meeting set up, I can confirm that both of you were naturally very upfront in all conditions…. yadda yadda…
Hey guys — go enjoy and have some fun learning… Wish I could make it…
I don’t believe a lot of what Trenberth says (and I have spent a lot of time designing models of NP problems so I have some experience with models…) But I would still go. Sometimes the best experiences occur with people who are in complete disagreement with yourself.
The climate problem is in the NP space — problems of that space can only have solutions verified — they cannot be calculated — so how do your validate (for correctness) a solution of a climate model? (That would be my question.) That should be an easy question — is for every NP solution/approximation model I have designed.
Sure it could be a setup — who cares(?) — use it as a learning experience. Organizing the questions to keep them on point, respectful and conducive to a fun learning experience is a good one.
In closing, Say please and thank you for everything and have a good time.
I presume there will be teleconferencing to allow people to participate without having to burn all that fuel travelling?
Ask him if NCAR is worried about budget priorities in D.C. changing drastically soon…
http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=Republicans+cutting+spending+for+climate+change
I just don’t see enough funds available for NCAR’s participation in AR5. Do you?
I’ve found his missing heat for him, he has excluded the thermal energy from the Sun direct to planet Earth’s land and oceans. Simples.
I’d like to know why he’s excluded it.
………………
Leonard Weinstein says:
October 16, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Please ask him to make a streaming video of the presentation able to be viewed by the non-attendees, and post it on your blog. Ask him to take selected questions on your blog that he can choose to answer or not. Possibly questions can be limited to well qualified scientists (who state their qualifications, and this should not be limited to climatologists). Any other route would be too limited.
Streaming video great idea. Asking him to take selected questions, humph, I’d like him to answer all the questions here, guest postings. Limited to well-qualified and named scientists..? Running scared already??
A two part chalenge…
1) Before accepting that models can predict the future, I want to see proof that they can predict the past. Here are a few challenges. Do the models show these?
Middle Bronze Age Cold Epoch 1800 BC to about 1500 BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Bronze_Age_Cold_Epoch
The intervening warm epoch
Iron Age Cold Epoch 900 BC to 300 BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age_Cold_Epoch
Roman Warm Period 250 BC to 400 AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
The intervening
Dark Ages Cold Period 400 AD to 800 AD
Medieval Warm Period 900 AD to 1300 AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Little Ice Age 1300 AD to 1900 AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
These are century-scale events, similar to what the extreme alarmists are using. How well do the models show the above events, without fudging? Part 2 of the challenge follows in another post.
At the following, Lord Monckton talks about “Trenberth’s Twenty-Three
Scientific Errors In One Short Article” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/23errors.html
Since it was written in 2007, perhaps some things are either outdated or the case is even stronger for many points. Has Dr. Trenberth ever given a rebuttal to these? If not, could he be asked to respond to Lord Monckton’s points in a future WUWT article?
R. Gates;
Thanks for posting this. Having had the pleasure of working with both you and Dr. Trenberth to get this meeting set up, I can confirm that both of you were naturally very upfront in all conditions. Having been the “instigator” of this in some respects, and the go-between in communications I can assure everyone that there is no agenda other than to have an honest presentation and exchange. >>>
I applaud you putting this together and Anthony for accepting. But your assurance that there is no hidden agenda seems no more genuine to me than your repeated statements in this blog that you were 25% skeptic and 75% warmist, a statement regularly followed by a blatantly warmist position attempting to hijack the thread. You finally stopped making the claim when I and others called you on it.
Further, I let you off the hook regarding the wager that you volunteered to make with me regarding the results of reproducing Al Gores’s on air CO2 warming demonstration, which you defended to no end. I’ll still let you off the hook, but it was in fact a sucker bet. If you are actually on such good terms with Kevin Trenberth, then I suggest you askl him if it was a sucker bet or not. The part where you suggested that to reproduce it, the globes could be taken out of the jars was the funniest part. Perhaps you can get Dr. Trenberth to explain the “greenhouse effect” to you and how removing those globes reduiced the possibility of demonstrating it to ZERO. You cast yourself as having some level of expertise, and also of being genuine. Actions however, speak loudly.
And you have been evasive as I recall regarding your actual job. Could you please explain your personal relationship with Dr Trenberth and your professional affiliation?
I’m looking forward to this event, not because I don’t believe that there is an agenda, but because I am certain that there is and that it will backfire.
Thanks to R. Gates for setting this up and K. Trenberth for agreeing.
Obviously the global warming debate is not going to be settled in this session either way or even moved in any way.
It is just an opportunity to view the evidence/position of NCAR/Trenberth who should be viewed as one of the most important proponents/agency/persons on the AGW side.
Will contribute to the costs.
“…demonstration of computer modeling skills with Dr T…”
Can you get prior knowledge of EXACTLY what they are going to demonstrate?
It is best the audience is clicked in right from the beginning or they will be on the back foot catching up with what is going on.
Then the most pertinent questions will be asked with no regrets afterwards from what should have been asked.
Are they detailing one “important” model or are they describing how they approach the overall problems of modelling?
Please forgive me for sounding skeptical of this. But what good does a modeling demonstration do anyone? The issues w.r.t. computer modeling are all about methodology versus result. I’ve met plenty of scientists who like to present their results from computers, but few who like to spend hour upon hour discussing their software/method and why it is preferred.
IMO, the entire day should be spent with Trenberth and anyone who works on the model software, in front of a blackboard/whiteboard, discussing methodology and why. Based on that itinerary, it looks like only 90 minutes at best was set aside for this.
EFS_Junior says:
“Heat transfer requires a temperature gradient. The more heat the upper ocean is supposed to transmit to the deep ocean, the hotter the upper ocean would have to be.”
Not so.
Heat transfer only requires a mechanism of transport. Diffusion is only one very slow method of transport. … Mixing is the dominant mechanism of vertical heat transport in the oceans.
—
Indeed. However, if there is no temperature gradient, you can stir all you want, there will not be any heat transfer. Furthermore, an increase in the amount of heat transferred by stirring would require a steeper temperature gradient, or an increase in the rate of stirring. How do you get an increase in the rate of convection without a steeper temperature gradient?
There must be a way to broadcast the meeting live over the web? Ustream anybody?
Anyway: Mosher’s suggestions seem great. Call me…skeptical though, but Dear Kev has believed to be in a war to defend the planet for as long as he can remember. The chance of getting anything meaningful from the guy who forced poor wagner with lowercase w to run away in disgrace, is less than the chance of getting anything truthful from your average campaigning politician.
Anthony, I would love to attend the meeting, but cost of flights from and back to UK and accommodation, plus lost time at work are prohibitive. Many comments on this topic have been negative. I think WUWT should accept the invitation and in the spirit with which it is intended; to show us sceptics that AGW is happening. I am sure that you have the knowledge and debating skills to prove otherwise. If the invitation to this event was declined can you imagine the negative publicity?
I also think that at least this is one warmist who has the courage to air his views to a sceptical audience, as opposed to Michael Mann who resorts to lawyers to hide his data.
Anthony, go for it !
Hi Anthony,
All I can suggest is don’t go in to “trap” Kevin. If you do, it’ll be spun to show you in a bad light. Pick some strong relevant questions to actual concerns about the models and projections and keep the Q&A serious about the actual science. That way it can only ever be said your team there was only concerned for the science.
Also, I think it would be a good idea that if you have some questions which would require some “look up” time, or has some complexity that Kevin might not be able to answer off the top of his head without looking up notes or data, fore-warning him of the topics might prove very fruitful, especially since time is very limited. At least that way he’ll have the information in front of him. It’ll also show you’re trying to take this conference seriously. If the conference is to become a smear, let them take it down that road, not yourself.
Part 2 of my challenge for the models. They seem to be hyper-sensitive to CO2 concentration. Alarmists claim that CO2 going from 350 PPM (industrial revolution) to 450 PPM will cause catastrophic warming. In that case, I would be interested in seeing what the models say will happen with a 1,000 to 4,000 PPM (YES!!! THOUSANDS!!!) CO2 concentration. This has happend a lot in earth’s history. Please see the following examples…
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/1999/10.1999.01Ekart.pdf
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/1991/04.1991.03Cerling.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X07007753
http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/152/1/1
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012821X9500213V
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/full/ngeo.2007.29.html
just a few of the results from a Google Scholar search
Note that the Cretaceous saw some of the lushest flora and fauna ever in the history of planet earth. Elevated CO2 levels obviously did *NOT* turn planet earth into a Venusian hellhole. Please give Dr. Trenberth advance warning of this challenge so he’s not caught by surprise. How long does a model run take?
Part 2 of my “put up or shut up” challenge for the climate models… do some GCM runs at 3,000 or 4,000 PPM CO2, and see what happens. If the models blow up, or show earth as a Venusian hellhole, they’re junk science.
As a critic of R Gates and his Gatesisms, I applaud his efforts in making this happen. Hopefully Anthony will wear a tracking device just in case he ends up in the same place as Trenberth’s heat.
🙂
Anthony,
this is a set-up to lessen your position, not to debate.
Turn the tables !!
This is excellent – more co-operation less villification on all sides. I always try to make sure my mind is open to being changed by scientific evidence. I have criteria by which my ideas can be falsified. This approached is what changed me from being a believer to a sceptic in the first place and is the underlying approach to all good science.
omnologos says:
October 16, 2011 at 4:53 pm
There must be a way to broadcast the meeting live over the web? Ustream anybody?
————
That might still happen. I will know more this coming week and Anthony will certainly give the details here. Access to NCAR’s network, even though it would be outbound traffic, is the issue.
Show me the code, commentary and the archiving procedures. Specs? Equations? Data sets? Processor configuration? Sounds like more than a 45 minute event just to show the internals. To evaluate seems like a lot of work. I once worked 3 months to fix a bug in a complex matrix processing routine written by a pretty bright guy. Funny he just moved on to some other new project and left the hard part. Funny as most of the time these interesting things are not well commented which would have allowed the original author to resolve their own amateur mistakes. (sorry for the rant) The devil is in the details.
Anthony,
Thanks for the collective invite. Although I do live close by, I will be out of town on that date.
Things I would consider if I were in your shoes :
1) Choose who you bring along very carefully. Bring along the most knowledgeable people you can so there is minimal opportunity for anyone in the group to collectively make the group look foolish (given the video tape probability). That could not only make WUWT look bad but the skeptic community at large look bad.
2) Choose the questions you want to ask very carefully. Think about what the answer might be ahead of time, what the pitfalls of answers maybe & how questions could be turned to make skeptics look ignorant or worse.
3) I would bring & quote specific peer reviewed literature that contradicts the AGW hypothesis on various fronts. When certain expected arguments are brought up, be ready to site those references in defense of any positions taken.
In short, I would be extraordinarily prepared for that meeting. Have a well thought out strategy for the entire thing. I would like to think this is an olive branch, but given the history of calling skeptics the “d” word, this feels more like a potential trap on first blush.
Best of luck with the meeting. I look forward to hearing how it goes
Theo Goodwin says:
Here is a link to the study: http://www2.ucar.edu/news/5364/deep-oceans-can-mask-global-warming-decade-long-periods They looked at heat storage below 300 m, or 1000 ft. Here is what they note, by the way, they see in the models: “Eight decades with a slightly negative global mean surface-temperature trend show that the ocean above 300 m takes up significantly less heat whereas the ocean below 300 m takes up significantly more, compared with non-hiatus decades.” ( http://acacia.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/Meehl_Natureclimatechange2011-1.pdf )
Maybe there are experimental things that the Argo buoys can check…but rather than just making blanket statements about what you think Argo isn’t seeing that it should be seeing, why don’t you show us exactly how the data deviates from what would be predicted under the scenario that they describe?
Surely, if the data are in such contradiction with what is predicted, you should be able to demonstrate this?
I think you are creating a strawman to argue against. I don’t think that anybody has ever denied that there are such processes at work (except for “skeptics” who claim that any few year period of cooling disproves AGW). Over the longer term, however, it will indeed be the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere that dominates because the only significant energy exchange between the earth system and the sun and space is via radiation.
I would love to attend. Sadly, I’m forced to work for a living and can’t take the time to travel halfway across the country. I’d be interested in finding out how he sets his model up, and how he deals with all the inputs necessary to get an output–in particular, I’m interested in how he determines what to use for feedbacks.
My view is that they are so concerned about the current collapse of AGW due to evidence presented here and other Skeptics sites,that they are now trying to “befriend” this site etc and try to somehow convince you to stop it!
A bit sad if your blog can not conjure up only 20 people.
I have been studying a course from the Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
University of Colorado at Boulder, on the Finite Element Method:
Introduction to the computer-based simulation of linear structures by the Finite Element Method (FEM).
http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/CAS/courses.d/IFEM.d/
Climate modeling must be far more complex than what I have been studying.
Anybody that thinks High School algebra can be used, please browse some of the content found at the link I provide above.
I have been studying this FEM for several years on my own, and had to spend several years studying multivariable (more than one variable) calculus before I could even understand the appendix’s to this book / course.
That was supposed to be ” multivariate” . Darn you auto spell corrector.
Gathering information for commenting using a smart phone sucks. I’m ten times faster on a desktop computer, but I’m sitting in a coffee shop doing this. Life is full of compromises.
Theo Goodwin says:
“ARGO covers way deeper than that. The temperature did not go up.”
True. ARGO buoys go to 2,000 meters. And the ARGO network shows that the ocean temperature is declining. That is confirmed by the flattening of the sea level rise.
Joel Shore’s response is, well, typical Joel Shore: compare his models with empirical observations that contradict the models… then declare the models to be correct. It’s Joel’s version of Trenberth’s hidden “heat in the pipeline”. They can’t find the heat, but they know absolutely that it’s there, somewhere, just out of sight. The models prove it.
To quote Joel Shore in a previous post, “the problems lie not with the models but with the observational data itself.” I think he really believes that nonsense.
If all the morons at the various Occupy Wall Street protests would simply convert to climate skeptics, they too could be rich! Then they could actually have a nice bath and a meal while they protest for Big Oil.
Climate modelling: The wrangling of spherical cows.
At least the computers will keep you warm in November.
One skeptic’s questions for Dr. Kevin Trenberth et al. on climate models:
1) Natural Hypothesis
Can climate models reproduce objective parameters of the null hypothesis of natural climate variations? E.g.
1.1) Precipitation
Account for the 95% correlation WJR Alexander et al. find between precipitation/runoff in Southern Africa and the ~22 year Hale magnetic solar cycle.
1.2) Ocean Oscillations
Reproduce the 60 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and corresponding global temperature warming/cooling trends as documented by Don Easterbrook etc.
1.3) Hurst-Kolmogorov Statistics
Demonstrate the ~ 0.70 H correlations across 1 to 20 centuries shown in the Hurst phenomenon, as documented by Demetris Koutsoyannis of ITIA, etc.
1.4) Regional precipitation & temperature
Hindcast historical temperature and precipitation (with tuning if any only on part of the historical record), as tested and found wanting by Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, et al. , and by David Stockwell.
1.5) Counter TSI vs T variations
Reproduce the temperature increases corresponding to TSI decreases with decreasing UV but increasing VIS, and opposite high and mid stratosphere O3 trends. See J D Haigh et al Nature 467 p 696 Oct 2010 (Nigel Fox slide 17)
1.6) Model clouds accurately
Nigel Fox (slide 13) notes clouds form 93% of total uncertainty in feedback factor ). See the diurnal variations as observed by Willis Eschenbach?
2) Impartial Scientific Forecasting
As clinical research requires double blind testing, will climate modelers require:
2.1) Use Scientific Forecasting Principles
See the objective impartial standards for Scientific Forecasting as compiled and applied in the Global Climate Audit by the Public Policy Forecasting, Special Interest Group.
2.2) Verify & Validate
Provide full objective verification and validation by third party testers, and make that an essential part of all grant application.
3) Quantitative Uncertainty Evaluation
3.1) Quantify model uncertainties
Quantify and individually report both Type A and Type B errors for each of the 100+ parameters, and their combined errors per international uncertainty guidelines. See NTIS 1297 Guidelines for the Measurement of Uncertainty., and NIgel Fox of NPL pdf and video on satellite measurement uncertainty.
3.2) Chaotic Uncertainty
Address chaotic variations with sufficient runs for statistical significance, and publish each of the run results. E.g. Singer & Monckton 2011 find 10 runs are needed.
3.3) Scenario uncertainty
Include the societal uncertainties as evidenced in the economic variations in growth since 2004. See Gail Tverberg, 2011
3.4) Resource uncertainty
Address the geological fossil fuel resource constraints in CO2 scenarios. See Tad Patzek (2011) Physical Limitations on Mining Natural Earth Systems and Patzek 2008; Owen et al. 2010) The status of conventional world oil reserves – Hype of cause for concern?
(The plateauing of crude oil since 2004 caused the 2008 and 2011 financial crises. See Gallo et al. Energy 35(2010)4126-4141)
3.5) Hurricane Uncertainties
Account for the high uncertainties in hurricane predictions. <a href=http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/13/hurricanes-and-global-warming-5-years-post-katrina/Judith Curry
Can’t attend. Recommend that the presentation be webcast if possible.
Question on Ocean models.
How well do the models reproduce the Levitus temperature oscillations and diffusion with ocean depth?
See Roy Spencer: Deep Ocean Temperature Change Spaghetti: 15 Climate Models Versus Observations
NOAA/Mauna Loa CO2 figures over the past 40 years show that CO2 levels are increasing by about 10% every 20 years (slightly less). That extrapolates to a doubling of CO2 levels by 2155. Any departure from that must assume (i.e. pure guess) that our rate of adding CO2 is going to increase (or decrease).
If humanity can’t find a way to handle a minor temperature increase by 145 years into the future, then maybe we deserve to be in trouble. Consider where we were in 1866.
I agree with the perception of R. Gates’ seemingly gratuitous sniping in this forum. I am hopeful that this meeting will put a stop to it, for it accomplishes nothing. Because I can’t attend this despite being fortunate enough to afford to, I will do the next best thing: A pressing of the ‘donate’ button. Best of luck, Anthony!
Curious is R Gates related to Bill Gates, maybe his dad?
REPLY: No, “R. Gates” is a made up name – Anthony
Ian W says:
October 16, 2011 at 11:17 am
Anthony – A simple question:
The reports of atmospheric warming are always couched as average global atmospheric temperatures. However, the effect of CO2 is to scatter heat energy. The actual atmospheric temperature rise caused by that heat will be dependent on the enthalpy of the atmosphere which is largely driven by its water vapor content. Why report atmospheric heat content as a temperature – when temperature is not a measure of heat content? And why average that inappropriate measure globally despite the huge variances in humidity
===============================================
…. is probably the question I would ask (along with another regarding the exact mathematics of back radiation in the tropics), but both might fall into the “hobby horse” category brought up in Steven Mosher’s excellent post. Plus, I doubt that Trenberth has given ten minutes thought to this critical issue in his career.
What an interesting thread though, with two of the most abysmal posts I’ve ever read from Joel Shore. Who are you trying to kid Joel ??
Anthony and attendees:
‘Watch your six’ as they say.
Though the NCAR building is gorgeous (worked Meteorology at Buckley AFB, Peterson AFB/Colorado Springs airport when the AF had a weather station and upper-air training when going to Antarctica at their Vaisala company in nearby Louisville), the kooks who work in there are plentiful.
NCAR hasn’t seen a research grant that’s federally (i.e. taxpayer) funded that DEMANDS hypothesis-first AGW support THEN data which they don’t like. The scientific method is wrong in NCAR’s eyes. Ideology trumps all.
2ndly, the folks who are using NCAR, NOAA/NWS/NBDC, PNNL, DoE, NASA ‘graphs’ ‘charts’ ‘articles’ for validity in NCAR’s findings.. reader beware.
I would ask about the escape factor. We already know that upper tropospheric hotspots come and go in random fashion (as opposed to this upper layer getting hotter and hotter). Heat likely escapes in this way: here and there, now and then, a little, a lot, etc. Unless we have a ton of eye in the sky satellites that are measuring this unpredicatable phenomenon, we have no accurate empirical data that allow us to build a model of escaping heat.
If Trenbeth is an observational data guy, then clearly you have to ask him about the missing heat.
If it is in the deep oceans as he suggests then what physical mechanism gets it there without Argo detecting it? If he answers Benguela Current or similar. Ask how he intends to measure this.
Argo is a huge problem for the ~3C warming crowd. As reported here at WUWT, the Argo data shows only 7% of the warming predicted by the models.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/trenberths-missing-heat-look-to-the-deep/
Argo is the best climate data we have, Ask why the models are so far off (more than an order of magnitude) the best climate measurements?
If you get an answer along the lines of ‘internal climate variability allows for as much as a decade with little or no warming’.
Then, even though I’d dispute this claim, ask how long would the Argo data have to be well below model predictions, before model predictions are revised down to be in line with Argo?
Good Luck, Anthony and I hope everyone is polite and civil even if it does become a bit of an ambush.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/16/skeptics-are-invited-to-a-public-meeting-with-dr-kevin-trenberth/#comment-769338
Same old same old, I see.
Fiends of Science? 🙁
And look at your own link, nice squiggly line, it goes up, it gows down, but what is it exactly?
Temperature (C or F) vs time, but temperature of what exactly?
Is it an actual temperature profile as a function of depth? No.
How aboot we look at the temperature and conductivity profiles as a function of depth all the way down to what is usually referred to as close-out depth.
Quite obviously close-out depth has not been reached even at the 2 km depth limit;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Argo_profiles.png
Easy to do: All you need is 1) your laptop, 2) a broadband ethernet port to the outside world (could be a 3G or 4G phone connection and a phone-based WiFi hotspot to the laptop), 3) a MS Lifecam Cinema (autofocus, auto-exposure, some zoom, auto mic levels) and 4) a Ustream (or Livestream even) account (free for Ustream, can’t vouch for any others).
Log into your Ustrream account and select broadcast; the rest is pretty much WYSIWYG.
If Occupy Wall Street types can do this for several weeks straight, I’m sure someone here can show up with the needed components …
.
If I were there, I would ask for full documentation of the model (which they do have), then ask if they can show that the coupled non-linear partial differential equations, and their associated initial and boundary conditions, constitute a well-posed mathematical problem. We could then start drilling down into the stability of the numerics (proofs please), and the order of accuracy of the numerical approximations for each equation. We could then ask about sensitivity to initial conditions, unique solutions, boundary conditions (particularly accuracy of the boundary conditions)…the list is endless.
Olive branch or the tip of a spear…
Defection of Nobel Prize winner and respected scientists.
EPA getting roasted.
ATI’s lawsuit for Mann’s work.
Cerns substantiation of Sevenson work.
Climate Gate.
Gore’s prediction failures and the oh so embarrassing Goreathon.
Solyndra.
Hansen’s financial disclosure.
Obama’s total and quick retreat from all things green and association with the EPA.
And of course the WUWT crowd that just will not go away.
This all has been pretty hard on the Climate guys. It is possible this is the branch and there is a genuine attempt to come back to the middle. However I would not bet my life on this assumption. This is based solely on the damage control /PR work we have seen from MSM and Mann’s camp over the last few weeks. This could be just more of the same.
Anthony we all would love to have several questions answered. Any chance to have Trenberth take a list of say 20 top questions from WUWT skeptics? It would be nice to present them before hand so he would have time to answer at the meeting, but if not have them listed here and he would be able to reply as he had time.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/16/skeptics-are-invited-to-a-public-meeting-with-dr-kevin-trenberth/#comment-769300
“However, if there is no temperature gradient, you can stir all you want, there will not be any heat transfer.”
But there is always a temperature gradient. Otherwise the entire ocean would overturn. There’s a reason it’s called the thermocline.
“Furthermore, an increase in the amount of heat transferred by stirring would require a steeper temperature gradient, or an increase in the rate of stirring.”
Not so.
Google Richardson Number or more appropriately gradient Richardson Number.
Small R means much mixing, it’s inherently not buoyancy dominated..
Then turn towards the fluid mechanics definition of convection;
“The term “convection” may have slightly different but related usages in different contexts. The broader sense is in fluid mechanics, where “convection” refers to the motion of fluid (regardless of cause). However in thermodynamics “convection” often refers specifically to heat transfer by convection.
Additionally, convection includes fluid movement both by bulk motion (advection) and by the motion of individual particles (diffusion). However in some cases, convection is taken to mean only advective phenomena. For instance, in the transport equation, which describes a number of different transport phenomena, terms are separated into “convective” and “diffusive” effects, with “convective” meaning purely advective in context. A similar differentiation is made in the Navier–Stokes equations. In such cases the precise meaning of the term may be clear only from context.”
I’m talking aboot convection in the fluid mechanics sense.
“How do you get an increase in the rate of convection without a steeper temperature gradient?”
Did I say that? No I did not. See above.
Step one: Learn to recognize when you are being manipulated.
Aaron A says:
October 16, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Curious is R Gates related to Bill Gates, maybe his dad?
REPLY: No, “R. Gates” is a made up name – Anthony
——–
R. Gates is not a made up name but is my first initial and middle name. I look forward to meeting some of you in November.
[Reply: In other words, it is a made up name, to anonymously hide out. ~dbs, mod.]
As a former computer programmer, I can say that the point to remember about modelling is that no matter how many calculations a computer does on any amount of data, the ‘conclusions’ arrived at by the computer are those that the human-written program tells it to arrive at when a certain set of circumstances exist. And the people telling the computer what to conclude are the same people who cannot tell us what CAUSES el ninos and la ninas (causes, not effects), what caused the mediaeval warming, why the 800-year lag between CO2 increases and warming, how warming changes the albedo effect, how the solar cycle affects earth’s climate etc, etc, etc, not to mention the scandals and frauds that have dogged their every prediction and publication and their simplistic ‘belief’ in a linear or near-linear relationship between CO2 and temperature.
How I would love to come but am afraid it will be “January weather” and we won’t be getting over the mountains on any given day or at any time. Not far but often you just can’t get there from here.
steven mosher says (October 16, 2011 at 11:55 am): “As[k] specific questions about weakness in the NCAR product.”
I understand the IPCC uses an “ensemble” of climate models of which (I assume) the NCAR model is one. If so, I’d like to know what’s so “wrong” with the NCAR model that the IPCC won’t use it exclusively. For example, are its projections of warming near the low end of the IPCC’s range, and therefore suspect (to the IPCC)?
@R Gates
I commend you for getting this demonstration together. I wish this sort of communication, brief as it is, had been engaged in all along. Walls of discommunication can only build distrust. Its converse, trust, is built when people communicate.
Having read many things written by Trenberth it will be interesting to find out what he plans to do following this interchange. I will speculate as other might. We will judge him by his actions, as always.
Anthony Watts,
Thank you for attending so the rest of won’t have to.
After thinking about this a little more… It’s interesting that Dr T has agreed to this event. Does it show a change in strategy? We can examine that question in three scopes: 1) the CAGW movement overall, 2) NCAR the organization, and 3) Dr. T’s professional status and reputation among his peers.
In scope 1 it seems that this shift may be in response to the CAGW movement clearly failing to win over the populace at large (and in fact losing ground). Remember that they are *sure* they are absolutely correct in their belief and have been puzzled as to how anyone could be genuinely skeptical. They are sure that some rabble rousers are funded by “big oil” and others are political motivated zealots whose opposition is anything but sincere. However, they’ve finally admitted to themselves (due to overwhelming evidence) that there are a lot of legitimately skeptical observers who aren’t paid shills or political partisans. To CAGW believers, any such ‘open-minded’ skeptics must simply be misinformed (perhaps by the shills). So it would make sense to begin reaching out to those skeptics (particularly perceived leaders) and try to correct the “misinformation”. Then once these ‘open-minded’ skeptics realize that they’ve been fed wrong information they will fall into line!
As odd as it sounds, that’s probably how many CAGW perceive the situation. I think it’s wonderful for the skeptical cause because it will be a two way street. To pursue this strategy requires the CAGW believers to actually engage in real conversation with skeptics. Previously, they could just lob arguments and invective at us and close their ears to any reply. In a real exchange of ideas and questions, over time, they will become as exposed to the skeptical viewpoint as they hope to expose skeptics to theirs. I’m willing to take that exchange any day of the week.
The second scope (NCAR the organization) is a pretty easy read. They are government funded and there is a never-ending need to justify their expanding budgets. This helps show how NCAR is heroically fulfilling their public education mission.
The third scope (Dr T’s professional status and reputation) may be the most interesting. I don’t really know what the dynamics are here, but I believe he’s thought about it. Could there be a possible role as perceptual “peace maker”? Or perhaps successful “missionary to the heathens”? As much as Judy Curry has gotten slammed by the CAGW high priests, she’s cultivated a surprisingly positive image with scientists outside the priesthood. The CAGW believers expected her to be marginalized and shunted aside but that hasn’t happened (note her recent paper on uncertainty, speaking at MIT, etc). She’s successfully carving out a respected “middle-ground” position and is being validated by the broader community. Perhaps Dr C’s example hasn’t been lost on Dr. T. This NCAR “outreach” event may not actually be a first step in that direction, but it could be a way of testing those waters (let’s not forget that Dr T was willing to openly question the missing heat in private among his peers). It will be interesting to see just how forthcoming Dr T is about uncertainty in this exchange. Of course he’s certainly going to toe the CAGW party line. The telling part will be how explicit he is about the caveats. In the mainstream press the caveats and doubts are largely ignored. In papers they are downplayed and minimized. In private discussion with peers they are acknowledged and debated. What point on that spectrum will he decide land on for this event?
If I was going to be there (sadly, out of the country then) my one question would be an open ended query designed to see how open about uncertainly he’s willing to be in this context.
Ooops! That was supposed to be “the rest of us won’t have to.”
R. Gates;
R. Gates is not a made up name but is my first initial and middle name. I look forward to meeting some of you in November.>>>
Either your name is first initial “R” and last name “Gates” or it isn’t. Since it isn’t, the name is made up. I won’t be able to meet you unfortunately, but I’m certain that of the 20 or so people going along with Anthony, one of them will remind you of the bet I let you off the hook for and that you continue to avoid answering the questions that I pose to you directy such as the ones in this thread.
If a private word could be had with Dr. Trenbirth, perhaps it should go something like this:
‘Saruman, Saruman!’ said Gandalf still laughing. ‘Saruman, you missed your path in life. You should have been the king’s jester and earned your bread, and stripes too, by mimicking his counsellors. Ah me!’ he paused, getting the better of his mirth. ‘Understand one another? I fear I am beyond your comprehension. But you, Saruman, I understand now too well. I keep a clearer memory of your arguments, and deeds, than you suppose. When last I visited you, you were the jailor of Mordor, and there I was to be sent. Nay, the guest who has escaped from the roof, will think twice before he comes back in by the door. Nay, I do not think I will come up. But listen, Saruman, for the last time! Will you not come down? Isengard has proved less strong than your hope and fancy made it. So may other things in which you still have trust. Would it not be well to leave it for a while? To turn to new things, perhaps? Think well, Saruman! Will you not come down?’
Some of the paranoia here is incredible. The advice to not go alone or bring ‘muscle’ strikes me as a little absurd. They are scientists, not mobsters. Geez.
I am personally hoping the session can reduce some of the animosity in these discussions.
Being a lay person I have a simple question.
Ask Trenberth why he or his peers have not done this sort of collaboration years ago or all along many times?
It would be good to ask good questions as suggested on here. But discussing here will mean they can pre-empt the questions and have answers prepared. If any delagates have good questions and follow-ups, best to keep them quiet.
What about this question; Petit et.al, Callion et.al, Fisher et.al. (Science) says CO2 lags temperature 800-1000 years. The current flattening of temperature and sea level increase indicates that the same thing is happening again.
Does he agree with Callion,Fisher and Petit et.al. ?
I suggest you have no preconceived questions. Listen to the presentation and question only what is presented based on your understanding of the science.
It may be an ambush and you should be alert but not behave the same.
Hopefully the content of the presentation will end up in the public domain
Oops, my apologies, that is Trenberth, of course. Not a typo, just careless me.
I haven’t read all the comments. Did a search for “trapping” – none.
Please ask how heat trapping gases work.
Looking forward to the post mortem. 🙂
I’ve been to various UCAR/NCAR presentations in the past, including one on global climate change. My boss, a co-worker and I had questions that were poorly answered. That’s okay. When NCAR is willing to make a presentation, I’ll happily listen, ask about the presentation and discuss further during the obligatory tour of the building and lunch. You might be surprised at how much you can learn beyond the presentation period. I think it would be inappropriate to hijack the presentation Q&A period with climategate, IPCC, NOAA questions. As a guest, I would listen politely, learn and hope to develop future opportunities for discussions of our concerns. In other words, it’s their party so let them make their points.
I’ll fill out the form and will be available to attend. If there are many attendees who are scientists, I’ll take a spot on the waiting list.
Dr. Dave, do I know you? Are you, by chance, a transplant from Hawaii?
If Gates had been banned… well I never imagined something like this, breaking the ice. What a deal!
R Gates
I would rather see you engage here than not engage-we need a plurarilty of views to get to the truth and I welcome your considered responses, although I don’t always agree with them.
A two part question I have asked you several times -but I haven’t seen a reply to- is simple, so perhaps as you are hanging around here you might see this version of it;
When do you believe the Northern Hemisphere started generally warming?
What percentage of the global temperature temperatures show a cooling for a statistically meaningful period of time?
I wish I could meet up with you, Dr Trenberth and the others, but obviously distance makes that impossible.
I shall compensate by paying a visit to the Met office archives in nearby Exeter where I am researching my next article.
Tonyb.
If at any time during the meeting Dear Kev tells you “no pressure”: RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!
🙂
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
Might be useful
So many comments, so little time.
However, it seems that the gist of the comments are about how to pull the rug from under the “trenberths” of the world. That being, it states that the lay community of commentators believe they know it all, and there is nothing new they might learn from this event about models, that they did not already know / assume from this event.
Does no-one believe they can expand their knowledge and understanding through this? The comments here would suggest that. Lets also approach this with some natural inquiry to learn more about models.
Gary Hladik says:
October 16, 2011 at 9:57 pm
steven mosher says (October 16, 2011 at 11:55 am): “As[k] specific questions about weakness in the NCAR product.”
I understand the IPCC uses an “ensemble” of climate models of which (I assume) the NCAR model is one. If so, I’d like to know what’s so “wrong” with the NCAR model that the IPCC won’t use it exclusively. For example, are its projections of warming near the low end of the IPCC’s range, and therefore suspect (to the IPCC)?
……………………
Crucially, there is no projective ability in their modelling, as examined:
Additionally, please ask Trenberth why he uses unknown-to-traditional physics properties of carbon dioxide in his models and not real world well-known properties? Since he does so, where has he attempted to show that his fictional descriptions overturn known physical properties? Which world is he modelling?
How can Carbon Dioxide which is heavier than Air and so will always displace air unless work is done to alter this accumulate in the atmosphere? Does he know what rain is? How can Carbon Dioxide which has a heat capacity even less than Nitrogen and Oxygen trap heat?
“The cynics here shouting “Trap!” are being too reactive and unreasonably suspicious.”
Nothing wrong with healthy sc(k)epticism, thats why we are all here. It’s an odd development as everyone knows. Trenberth’s language recently has shown nothing short of open contempt for every single one of us, R Gates has morphed from an agnostic to the cheerleader for AGW in every single post on this site nearly.
Completely right to be sceptical about intent in this situation, if you’re not, you are naive.
Why not go to the core and ask what justification they have to assume that the Gravitational Constant, big G, is indeed constant. And what value they use, with error estimates.
So there are full 45 minutes for the computer modelling demonstration !
I hope that nobody is expecting that during those 45 minutes something will be REALLY modelled ?
I am familiar with fluid dynamics modelling and this is simply impossible.
What you will be seing on the screen will be a graphic/video file with no physics inside.
The movie (and/or snapshots) you will be shown will have been fabricated for the purpose of the demonstration long before.
There will have been many runs (how many ?) which will have been tested beforehand. Some will have been rejected and some will have been kept.
Very probably the runs will have used emission scenario A1B runs for the 21st century and will have been fitted to the 20th century.
The basic communication idea for these 45 minutes will be :
– “See that we get the 20th century reasonably well ?”
– “You must trust us that we will get the 21st century well too.”
Of course as the people will only be using eye balling, no detailed and relevant question can be asked as far as the computer “results” are concerned because then numbers and maths would be needed and this blows the allowed 45 minutes time (like f.ex why there are too many clouds in the Arctic or why the temperatures are by 0.5°C too high around 2010).
The questions I would have asked would be 2 :
1)
Don’t show us prepared runs, make 10 runs 1900-2100 where the CO2 concentration goes to 500 ppm in 2000 (step change) and show us the dispersion of the 10 runs in 2100. If you want to make an average of the 10 runs, what is the mathematical justification that the average of 10 runs is relevant to anything?
2) Make a run with A1B scenario and show how and when the next glaciation kicks in e.g when the average temperature reaches a maximum and begins to decrease. Make a run where the CO2 concentration is kept constant after 2000 and show how and when the next glaciation kicks in.
Compare and explain.
There is also of course what is for me the fundamental question concerning the chaotic nature of the system’s dynamics.
1) We know that the solutions of Navier Stokes equations which govern the system dynamics represent spatio-temporal chaos. The numerical models pretend to solve the Navier Stokes equations.
2) We know that chaotic solutions have following properties:
– they cannot be computed numerically beyond a finite time (exponential divergence of orbits)
– if a solution is chaotic then its spatial and temporal averages are chaotic too
– the chaotic solutions exhibit pseudo periodical spatial oscillations at ALL time scales. Examples are all oceanic and cryospheric oscillations on time scales from a couple of years to hundreds of years.
3) From 2 follows that to make a prediction for long time scales like centuries, it would be necesary to know the frequency and the phase of spatial oscillations at the same time scales (centuries). This is impossible to be done numerically.
So while it would be possible to say In theory and all things being equal, the effect of CO2 on a variable X is Y.” this would have no practical interest because in the real world where things are not being equal the real effect on the variable X would be Y (CO2) and Z (everything else) .
The final value of X would be X + Y + Z and as per 2) above, this can’t be predicted accurately.
Unless one postulates Z=0 what stands in contradiction with the fact that we know that the system is spatio-temporal chaos where Z is not 0 on ALL time scales.
Finalement all this can be summed up in one simple question :
If you make a prediction for 2100, a 100 years scale, what makes you believe that there are no spatio-temporal oscillations with periods 100, 150 , 200 years and above?
Some ideas for your meeting with Kevin Trenberth, PhD
STATEMENT:
Let me be clear. My fellow Skeptics and I accept that:
1. The “greenhouse effect” is real,
2. There has been general Global Warming over recent centuries, and
3. Some of it is due to human activities in the Industrial Age.
Yes, all else being equal, the unprecedented burning of fossil fuels and resultant increase in CO2 levels will tend to raise mean temperatures. But, all else is NOT equal. The Ice Core record shows that temperatures have naturally varied up and down prior to the Industrial Age and well before any human activities whatsoever.
What we are skeptical about is:
1. The total amount of warming,
2. The portion you have assigned to Natural Causes, not under human control or influence,
3. The portion due to Human-Caused CO2 increases and albedo changes due to land use,
4. How you have modeled clouds and weather events.
In short, we believe the official “Climate Team” –of which you are a part- has:
1. Promulgated models that exaggerate the effects of CO2 by at least a factor of five, and
2. Abused the temperature record available since the advent of reliable thermometers in the late 1800’s, approximately doubling net warming over the actual amount.
QUESTIONS:
1. According to Phil Jones, Head of the Climategate Research Unit in England (I’m sorry, the Climactic Research Unit :^), there has been no statistically significant temperature rise over the past decade and a half, despite continued rapid rise in CO2 levels. How do you square that with your climate models that claim CO2 sensitivity as high as 4.5ºC for a doubling of CO2?
2. Comparing US temperature records officially published by NASA GISS prior to and after the late 1990’s, it appears that temperatures prior to the 1970’s have been systematically reduced and those after the 1970’s increased, exaggerating warming by up to 0.5ºC. For example, the records for 1934 and 1998, as published in 1999, show 1934 over a half degree warmer, while the current official story has 1998 a bit warmer. If there is that much “wiggle room” in the official Climate Team analysis of US temperature records, how can we trust global records and analysis which are surely not as reliable?
3. In your models as we understand them, the net effect of increased clouds is positive. In other words, increased water vapor due to Global Warming causes positive feedback that raises temperatures further. We understand that clouds have both positive and negative effects. For example, nighttime clouds enhance the “greenhouse effect” while daytime clouds also increase albedo. Do you accept the possibility your models have exaggerated the positive feedback and got the net direction backwards, which would explain the failure of your models to properly predict the stabilization of Global temperatures despite the undoubted continued increases in CO2 levels?
4. Thunderstorms and precipitation generally transport warmth from the surface to the atmosphere where it may more readily escape into space, in effect cooling the Earth. Do your models properly account for the effects of increased water vapor due to rising temperatures on these weather effects? Might your failure to model them properly account for the failure of your models to properly predict the stabilization of Global temperatures despite the undoubted continued increases in CO2 levels?
Good luck and go get ’em!
If a question is to be asked, them let it be this;
“What direct evidence would change Trenberth’s mind about the validity of current models?”
Is it the role of clouds?
Is it the lack of a clear AGW signature in the troposphere?
Is it the lack of heat in the oceans?
Is it the role of the sun in effecting directly and indirectly changes in climate?
Is it that the models are poor in predicting changes in climate even over the short term?
Is it that climate scientists have behaved more as activists than scientists in discounting contradictory evidence when modelling the climate?
What evidence would change Trenberth’s mind and behaviour?
If there is none then there is no point in asking any more questions. I would give my apologies and as a group leave quietly
jrwakefield says:
October 16, 2011 at 1:24 pm
I work in the oil industry evaluating the size of oil fields. If i’m asked for an exact number for the amount of oil that will be produced I could only answer that the day that the last barrel of oil was extracted from the reservoir. However a company needs to know what values is most likely to be there and what the range is. I can give them these values based on the availible data by modelling the various parameters. The ultimate recovery might be higher than my best guess or lower than my best guess, that doesn’t mean my model was wrong. As long as you capture all the uncertainties and provide a valid range of values your model is correct for the data. If oil companies only made decisions based on 100% certainties no one would be drilling oil wells at the moment.
For those demanding access to code and/or documentation to the NCAR models, you can find information and links to download all those from http://www.nesl.ucar.edu/modeling/all_models.php or http://ncar.ucar.edu/community-resources/models
I would ask two questions:
1. What emissivity is used in the models for radiative heat transfer for a H2O & CO2 mixture at one atmosphere?
2. Why cannot 321 W/m^2 of IR heat my sun tea when 168 W/m^2 of sunshine can?
I’ll go, right after Trenberth provides a legitimate scientifically, defensible mechanism that shows how all that missing heat got deep down in the oceans, withoug being detected in the upper 700 meters. Not a computer model! Also, I will actually believe what he says when there are actual data showing that that missing heat sunk into the abyss.
It strikes me that with such a short time available for the presentation and the Q/A session following, the ideas for questions put forward by some of the commenters here would be impractical. Perhaps a single, simple, neutral, direct question which can be easily answered by Dr T would be a better approach. Something like, “In the leaked emails of 2009, you mention a problem with missing heat. Have you been able to resolve this problem and, if so, how?”
****
This meeting has been a behind the scenes negotiation with WUWT regular “R. Gates”, who has direct contact with Dr. Trenberth.
****
Well, at least that explains some things.
One naturally wonders if Gates too has his snout in the taxpayer/Soros-funded trough?
So, who is going to stream this? (I could/would but I’m not in the state of CO.)
Beyond our capability (I can walk anyone through the process, even set up a Ustream account for them to use*) or do one of the principles have reservations? One need not show many faces (if this is the consideration) … just the presentation/white board and pick up the ambient audio of the presentations (‘voice shifting’ could even be implemented to shield the participants as well) …
.
* I am not affiliated w/any streaming service or product.
.
If you won’t let him call you a denier, then you can’t call him a True Believer or an alarmist. That takes some of the fun out of the conversation :(.
Kudos to Dr. Trenberth. A climate scientist who agrees to meet with and discuss viewpoints with those who differ in their understanding?
Maybe Kevin has checked where his particular train is headed and has decided to find an alternate form of transportation.
It remains to be seen what will come of this, but in the meantime it beats the stonewalling and tin-ear response one usually gets from ‘the team’.
I think ‘area man’ had an excellent suggestion about asking when the models forecast the next age will occur. This question will force discussion of at least two things.
One, the (c)agw folks have driven all policy decisions based upon the fact that warming is the only bad thing CO2 causes. I have not been able to find any scientific paper that deals with costs or benefits of either delaying (or eliminating entirely) the next age. The models should give us a preview of when the next ice age will occur and its severity just like they predict future warming. This is the real question we should be addressing. If the next ice age is delayed by 500 or 1000 years shouldn’t we be really dealing with the question of whether or not we should be doing anything? Likewise, if the next ice age is delayed indefinitely is this not better than bringing it on sooner by reducing CO2? CAGW scientists are only dealing with part of the question of mankind’s survival. Making this point would be worthwhile! Their models should also be dealing with the next ice age if correct policy decisions are to be made.
Second, if the modelers can not or will not admit that their models correctly deal with the next ice age then one must really question if they are dealing with warming correctly either. The modelers can’t just dismiss the issue because their models must show both to have any relevance to reality at all. Likewise, if they try to indicate that the timing of the next ice age is unpredictable by the models they are only condemning their predictions of warming also!
You are faced with someone who stands in opposition to you, and who does not merely disagree with you, but does not respect either you or your position. When someone like that flatters you with requests to parley, pretending that what you believe is important to him, he is attempting to manipulate you.
Agreeing to temporarily refrain from using terms like ‘denier’ does not change the contempt he feels for you, it just hides it for the purpose of him accomplishing his immediate goal. This social call is not about ‘coming together’ or any other such nonsense. This person does not believe that there is any middle ground with you, and he certainly does not accept that he is wrong about anything that would be in any way important to you.
The cynicism is to be found in those that perform these insincere machinations, not those that recognize them.
SteveE says:
October 17, 2011 at 5:53 am
You make the statement “that doesn’t mean my model was wrong”. However, since your data is subjective and not accurate, so is your model based on it, which means the model doesn’t reflect reality, yet models are supposed to reflect reality. Correct modeling isn’t a closed set of algorithms independent of the system they’re supposed to represent.
TomVonk says:
October 17, 2011 at 3:07 am
“So there are full 45 minutes for the computer modelling demonstration !
I hope that nobody is expecting that during those 45 minutes something will be REALLY modelled ?”
Yeah, that a REAL LAUGH! 45 minutes? And what are they going to look at? See some canned output stream by on a terminal? HAHAHAHA…
mfreer says:
October 17, 2011 at 6:09 am
For those demanding access to code and/or documentation to the NCAR models, you can find information and links to download all those from http://www.nesl.ucar.edu/modeling/all_models.php or http://ncar.ucar.edu/community-resources/models
—
Yes, the folks at NCAR do a great job with documentation..unlike NASA/GISS – which has one of THE WORST DOCUMENTED (AND WRITTEN) CLIMATE MODELS I’VE SEEN…
Which makes me wonder why we SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON COMPETING CODES (and associated “products”). Let just develop ONE CODE and let the scientists collectively use that. I suppose that makes too much sense to be considered seriously by the climate science community…
Any chance that Steve MacIntyre can attend? He has some revealing thoughts about Dr. Trenberth here:
http://climategate.tv/2011/01/14/trenberths-bile/
The OWS ppl have a saying. “The next revolution will not be televised, it will be live-streamed.” (I have taken the opportunity to view a number of their live-streamed ‘broadcasts’ from New York City this past week, viewing them from both a sociological standpoint as well out of morbid curiosity in the vein of OPFOR.)
I would like to modify this to: “The next revolution will not be blogged, it will be live-streamed.”
If the principles have no reservations, I sure hope somebody takes the initiative to live-stream the event.
R. Gates?
Do you have a student or associate with the requisite (and relatively modest) skills who could facilitate streaming?
.
I give Trenberth credit for apparently attempting to put up or shut up so to speak, but I too am very skeptical (just my nature it seems). I heartily second the suggestion of ‘davidmhoffer’:
I’d go… on the condition… that a list of questions be posted on WUWT immediately following the meeting, and that Kevin Trenberth agree to answer each and every one of them personally.
Make the list in advance and submit it in writing to Trenberth. Then let’s see if he puts up or shuts up (or obfuscates). What a great WUWT posting that will be! I can’t wait.
Expect such comments as “you can’t talk to deniers – its pointless” from Trenberth in the future.
agree with JJ who says:
October 17, 2011 at 8:30 am
“You are faced with someone who stands in opposition to you, and who does not merely disagree with you, but does not respect either you or your position. When someone like that flatters you with requests to parley, pretending that what you believe is important to him, he is attempting to manipulate you.”
AW I would heed this advice in view of past experience with AGWers LOL
If we can dispense with the bugling of bull elks in rut, we might consider accepting this invitation, with pleasure and some diplomacy. Sending demands to Dr. Trenberth to provides answers to 20 questions or to prove the work he’s been doing for years is not reasonable. Yes, we will get the visiting undergrad presentation of GCM with all the excited proclamations about their success. Yes, we will tour buildings and labs and be expected to be thoroughly impressed. The message will go out to staff to clean up their desks and work areas and greet their visitors with friendliness and respect, as their area is toured. Yes, the program will be under the control of NCAR staff. Finally, yes, we will have opportunity to ask questions about the presentation and related subjects both formally and informally.
Honestly, if we intend to bring the equivalence of signs and demonstrations to NCAR concerning our complete views on CAGW, including challenges and accusations, our host will likely decide the whole affair is not worth his time and trouble. We will have given him the perfect excuse to uninvite us.
Having been to NCAR presentations, I believe that we are unlikely to be “brainwashed”. In fact, my brain remained quite dirty and contained further information about the uncertainties of their results. So let’s do this but keep in mind that incivility never wins the argument.
You’ll have little time, so questions, if any, need to be focused. Suggestions:
1. A critical element of any model predicting catastropohic AGW is strongly positive feedback from water vapor/clouds. There is evidence (eg Spencer or temp record of last 15 years, not to mention the overall stability of the climate over billions of years) that net feedback is either minimal or even negative. Have you run your model testing these conditions? What does your model show?
2. The atmosphere cannot heat up much if the the ocean temps are stable. How do the predictions of your model compare with actual sea temps in the last couple of decades?
I think I figured out how this is gonna work.
They’ll do a movie…oops, uhm, ehr… “demonstration” and then take one question from Anthony. He’ll ask something totaly sensible, and they will in turn ask where he got such data from. Anthony will quote actual observational data.
At this point Trenberth will explain that this is about modeling, not about observations, and If he doesn’t understand that, then Anthony should resign and apologize.
Hey! Its only a prediction! If it turns out I’m dead wrong, will that qualify me to publish papers on climate?
…wherein the never-skeptical Smokey uses a plot from an astro-turf group showing outdated data that is known to be wrong and has since been corrected ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_%28oceanography%29 ).
Yes, to quote me completely out-of-context…talking about a completely different subject. But, hey, we already know what Smokey thinks of personal responsibility: It is for other suckers, not for him and his “skeptic” friends that can throw around as much untruths, cherry-picked data, and what have you, as they want.
<blockquote
I think he really believes that nonsense.
As, in the case where that quote comes from, does Richard Lindzen ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/ ):
Since you’re the only person in the known universe who believes that bumpf, why not go yourself?
On second thought, please don’t.
I’ve been trying to figure out why Trenberth would suddenly do this now…my guess is that the budgets are being set for next year, and Kevin wants to put on an NCAR happy face to ensure that none of his funding gets cut. After that, he can go back into his hyperventilating, “you’re an evil denier!” CAGW mode…
Joel Shore ,
I won’t speak for Smokey , but I suspect he was describing what he percieves as your mindset . BTW , I returned to this thread some 24 hrs after leaving it . After wading through all the comments since my post to you , I noticed you still haven’t answered my question . As I assume that you either can’t or won’t , I’ll leave .
From R. Gates on October 16, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Strange, “Gates” is hardly common as a first or middle name, only as a family name. Only use I can recall is (Cheryl) Gates McFadden…
OMG! R. Gates must be a woman, “Gates” is her maiden name! It all makes sense now, the ever-polite attitude even when digging in her claws with snark and snide remarks, the 75/25 “I’m not taking sides” even when she clearly is…
Who could’ve guessed? What a great deception it was!
😉
There’s a reason that only applies to fresh water. Salt water is colder all the way down.
“our”, I assume?
I guess it depends on what you mean by “seriously”. I don’t think they take them seriously, as evidenced by the fave “anti-science” meme; they just write them off as doubts about the value of science (AKA whatever it is they’re doing). But they’re beginning to take them seriously as an actual and potentially accelerating impediment to the funding flood they’re riding.
Hence the renewed efforts to intensify the sales job, and bypass national governments’ qualms with “binding international financial commitments”.
Brian H says:
October 17, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Myrrh says:
October 16, 2011 at 11:07 am
Since you’re the only person in the known universe who believes that bumpf, why not go yourself?
On second thought, please don’t.
Every applied scientist working in the real world with heat and light energies knows the difference, and those who taught them. Go to the discussion I linked to and answer my questions, give me the information I requested, ad hominem to hide that you cannot provide the information I’ve asked for says more about you than me.
Even if I was alone and the rest of you thought that the heat we feel from the Sun comes from visible light, you’d all be wrong and I right. The Kiehl/Trenberth energy budget is ludicrous, pathetic, totally imagined, not even good science fiction. If we, those of us in the real physical world as explained by traditional physics, didn’t already know well that the heat we feel from the Sun is its thermal energy, thermal infrared, your ignorance would be understandable, and I a genius. As it is, here, I’m merely the one eyed in the kingdom of those blinded by the deliberately manufactured science fiction memes in support of AGW.
I’m really pleased that R Gates has set up this meeting. I sense it is part of a real “sea change” (interesting phrase) in climate science orthodoxy. I’d go “gentle as doves and wary as serpents” to use a famous quote.
Wary: see here, here, here, here, here
Gentle: Take every opportunity to offer olive branches, practice forgiveness. The last thing the planet needs is bad science. Skeptics don’t want recrimination or punishment for bad past behaviour. They just want the transparency that IPCC declared but failed to practice, probably because it has not been accountable to anyone, as Donna Laframboise notes. That can be remedied. The accountability needed for global concerns IMHO necessitates auditability by independent volunteers like Steve McIntyre. It is not appropriate for a cabal to guard the knowledge of Climate Science as if it were something which ordinary citizens must not be allowed to question or debate. Extraordinary claims require stringent, engineering-like testing. Remember the incredible achievements of collaboration in the Open Source community. How wonderful if Climate Science could foster collaboration instead of competition, poor statistics, and excommunication of dissenters.
Not tea bags! I like it.
Warming==>More Life;
Cooling==>More Death. Especially Ice Ages.
Indeed. Compromise and consensus to such persons means, in practice, “You all must come to agree with me.” We’ve seen that attitude writ large in the case of a certain prominent self-proclamed “Uniter”. The actual results, of course, are diametrically opposed to that.
Strawman argument. Oil companies know very well they’ll hit a few (or many) dry holes, but make up for it with the big hits. Massive global mitigation is a one-shot bet, with “drilling” expenses in the multi-trillions.
To what end? So we can all “get along”, to quote a famous criminal?
And the bugling you hear is not of bull elks in rut, but of a planet being Gored and gored by one of the most, if not the most, audacious and mendacious power-plays in history. Playing nicely together isn’t part of the program.
Wanna bet? Speak for yourself.
I think a poll question among skeptics would show a majority do, in fact, want both. In any case, certainly not a full “consensus” that sweet forgiveness and letting bygones be bygones is in the cards.
People (many, many) have died, careers have been ruined, personal principles twisted, reputations savaged, laws broken and ignored, massive funds misappropriated and misdirected, etc., etc. There must be an accounting.
All EM radiation when absorbed by matter ends up as heat. Check back with your fave scientists for disagreements with that statement.
I’d love to quote Mr. T.’s most famous 2-word utterance here, but I’ll refrain.
Brian H says:
October 17, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 17, 2011 at 2:07 pm
…
Skeptics don’t want recrimination or punishment for bad past behaviour.
Wanna bet? Speak for yourself.
I think a poll question among skeptics would show a majority do, in fact, want both. In any case, certainly not a full “consensus” that sweet forgiveness and letting bygones be bygones is in the cards.
People (many, many) have died, careers have been ruined, personal principles twisted, reputations savaged, laws broken and ignored, massive funds misappropriated and misdirected, etc., etc. There must be an accounting.
Yes, thank you, I should not have generalized. You’re right. However, I know that revenge brings no reward and no progress. And please note, I am not blind to Trenberth’s failings as you will see if you click my “wary” links 3,4 and 5, indeed I flagged them up because I thought others were not aware enough.
I have one request…I know how justifiably angry people are, but this meeting won’t be the time and place to express that. Anything anyone does in that direction will be used as evidence of emotional thinking rather than rational thought.
It would be really nice of people thought of some non-combative questions, just so the whole meeting doesn’t seem like a Soak-the-Swab event.
I think Trenberth is doing something remarkable here. Even if you don’t like the guy, he’s setting himself up to be in a 20-1 situation…that takes guts.
That said, I think he misunderstands the nature of the disagreement…it doesn’t really matter how well the models are done, they are models, and models are scientific tools, not science. Using models as “Science” is like using the end of a screwdriver as a hammer.
What I really think would be nice is if this results in “humanizing” the enemy in both directions. It’s really easy to hate when your opponent is a few words in an old email, but a dialog can be established if you recognize that you are dealing with a person.
I hope you all go out for pizza and beer afterwards. 🙂
Brian H at 2:50: People (many, many) have died, careers have been ruined, personal principles twisted, reputations savaged, laws broken and ignored, massive funds misappropriated and misdirected, etc., etc.
Yes. Justice is called for. I have to agree when you say There must be an accounting. My awful bad. But I am also aware of (a) the horrendous scale of corruption – eg see Hal Lewis’ letter of resignation from APS (b) the difficulty of impeachment of such a huge and international number (c) an inner truth that was expressed in the past as “vengeance is mine saith the Lord”.
I’d like to dream that the “punishment” be made to “fit the crime” eg demoting the brigands of IPCC (and I have to include Trenberth) to work FOR those who tried to work to proper standards within IPCC before resigning in despair – Moerner, Reiter, Landsea? It would be lovely to promote Lindzen, Tim Ball, Chris Monckton, Steve McIntyre and NIPCC writers to a panel to oversee the IPCC and establish appropriate accountability.
Do warmists sense their ship is sinking, and are looking to jump ship and curry favour?
Since the Q&A is on the agenda before any model demos, may I suggest you ask for some substantial evidence that the models can be validated against historical data before devoting any time to looking at their forecasts? A modest test would be comparing back-cast temperatures from ice-core CO2, dust, etc., to the Holocene optimum (about 10,000 years ago) with isotopic temperature indicators.
Wow… This is the first step to compromise. I would however not put your guard down. Not attending will make the WUWT community look like politically motivated activists. Engage with Dr. Trenberth with utmost respect. Remember he took his time to host a mild Q&A and a presentation. Reaffirm who is part of the WUWT community. Hold a meeting on the proper ettiquette. Write a list of questions that will be asked before departure. Call out on those who say disrespectful comments to reaffirm that they aren’t the average voice of the skeptics. This should destroy any traps Dr. Trenberth may have planted. I’ll come up with questions.
A couple of years ago, I had a lengthy exchange of emails with someone who believes in AGW. If anyone brings up any points that I brought up, expect and be ready to counter the answers I received. For what it’s worth, see the comments below. What immediately follows the number is my original comment and what follows afterwards is the rebuttal of the AGW person. I apologize in advance for the huge length of this post.
1a) CO2 effect is saturated:
Not true.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
1b) “I do not trust GISS data due to the missing thermometers. See the Edmonton Journal article Jan. 21, page A3e”
This myth (about the impact of “missing thermometers”) has been debunked by Hansen and Tamino. Also, exclude stations at high latitudes will underestimate the amount of warming because greatest warming has occurred at high latitudes, especially in the N. hemisphere.
Hansen:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/19/nasa-giss-james-hansen-global-warming-record-hottest-year/
Tamino:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/global-update/#more-2382
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/false-claims-proven-false/
2) Scientific denialism and Dunning-Kruger
http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Dunning-Kruger-effect-and-the-climate-debate.html
3) Do you consider the Institute of Physics a denialist organization?
No, but the Energy sub-group of the IOP has been infiltrated by denialists, and a denialist drafted their report which was submitted to parliament. That said, IOP does support theory of AGW.
http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/18/iop-energy-group-founder-featured-speaker-at-upcoming-heartland-conference/
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/03/iop_i_hate_it_when_they_do_tha.php
4) “Clearly, the IPCC models have not predicted the last 8 years of cooling that Phil Jones has admitted to.”
Admitted to? You make it sound like a crime. Anyhow, the observed temperatures are well within the range predicted by the models, which by the way, do not predict a monotonic increase in global temperature!
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/19/nasa-giss-james-hansen-global-warming-record-hottest-year/
In fact, the model predictions are in remarkable agreement with observations.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/models-2/
5) “The science is what interests me the most”
I’m sorry, but this does not wash, why then the absence of references to papers in reputable, peer-review literature that have not been debunked or retracted, while relying on information from blogs and denialists groups? You will note that while I have cited the blogs the content therein is sourced from reputable peer-reviewed journals and the research has stood the test of time.
9) “Information that I read indicates that the life of CO2 in the atmosphere is between 5 and 7 years”
That is not what the science in the IPCC reports says. Also,
“The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is often incorrectly stated to be only a few years because that is the average time for any CO2 molecule to stay in the atmosphere before being removed by mixing into the ocean, photosynthesis, or other processes. However, this ignores the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the other reservoirs. It is the net concentration changes of the various greenhouse gases by all sources and sinks that determines atmospheric lifetime, not just the removal processes.” (Wikipedia)
12) So while it is not statistically significant, I believe you can say for sure that the warming is not accelerating when compared to 1975 to 1998. Or do you not agree with that?
Not sure what the point is, b/c you are not comparing the same period of time, and 1998 is cherry picked. Anyhow, I and the data disagree. To compare apples with apples we’ll use your cherry picked dates, but compare linear trend rate of warming you mean 1975-1998 (23 yrs), rate of warming over the equivalent time 1986-2009 (23 years). All calculations performed using data and tools in http://www.woodfortrees.org
GISS:
Least squares trend line; 1975-1998; slope = 0.0175290 per year
Least squares trend line; 1986-2009; slope = 0.0175453 per year
Rate of warming for 1986-2009 greater than between 1975 and 1998.
HadCRUT:
Least squares trend line; 1975-1998; slope = 0.0155812 per year
Least squares trend line; 1986-2009; slope = 0.0171206 per year
Same here. Rate of warming between 1986 and 2009 greater than 1975-1998, even using your cherry picked dates.
Also, read Copenhagen Diagnosis:
“Nevertheless global cooling has not occurred even over the past ten years, contrary to claims promoted by lobby groups and
picked up in some media. In the NASA global temperature data, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000
and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 C warming per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend,
with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 C per decade.”
Also, read:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/19/nasa-giss-james-hansen-global-warming-record-hottest-year/
13) You cite some ‘statistics’ from Lubos Motl:
Motl has admitted to fudging the numbers. when calculating the temperature trends. He is not a climate scientist nor is he a statistician. He has also been banned from several websites b/c of his inflammatory and offensive comments.
http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/02/round-and-round-we-go-with-lindzen-motl-and-jones/
14) You still insist that the climate is presently cooling despite the evidence to the contrary, including that graph that I sent you???? You are incorrigible.
15) Sun activity and global temperatures:
Even if we were to enter a prolonged period (multi decadal) of low solar activity is will have very little impact on warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/upcoming-ice-age-postponed-indefinitely.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-would-happen-if-the-sun-fell-to-Maunder-Minimum-levels.html
Also, unlikely that we will enter Maunder-like minimum:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm
20) Heavy snow in DC is consistent with AGW.
Don’t expect change to all be immediately intuitive. BC was observing record high temperatures this winter, the eastern USA was colder than average but did not experience record cold. The storms which produced the heavy snow managed to tap into abundant moisture over the N. Atlantic b/c higher SSTs and warmer air mass.
Also, similar circulation patterns (such as the extremely negative phase of the AO) in past have produced much, much colder weather than was observed in the eastern USA this winter. Despite colder weather in the eastern USA and Europe this winter, global temperatures for DJF were near much above normal (second warmest on record for GISS and fifth warmest on record for NCDC).
Another counter intuitive example, the shores of the Great Lakes could have more (and heavier) lake effect snows with warmer temperatures associated with global warming because of less (or no) lake ice causing more frequent lake effect snows– cold air moves over warm water causing lake effect snow. One can’t have lake effect snow if lakes are frozen.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/16/hansen-global-warming-cooling-nasa-gisstemp/
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/16/hansen-global-warming-cooling-nasa-gisstemp/
http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/03/hansen-throws-cold-water-on-cooling-climate-claim/
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/15/an-amazing-though-clearly-little-known-scientific-fact-we-get-more-snow-storms-in-warm-years/
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/12/jeff-masters-joseph-romm-on-record-snowstorms-extreme-weather-and-climate-change-science/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-record-snowfall-disprove-global-warming.html
21) Furthermore there is proof the MWP was global.
You do not understand, this myth has been solidly refuted so many times. The MWP was not global, read Mann et al. (2009)– their code and data by the way have been made available to the public.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html
And even if the MWP were global, then that would suggest that the climate system is more sensitive than understand now to small changes in external or internal climate drivers.
You cite work by Soon and Baliunas which is alleged to “proved” that the MWP was global. Their work has been widely refuted. Also, Soon and Baliunas are very dubious scientists, and rarely, if ever, published in respected and reputable peer-review journals, and Energy and Environment is not one of them.
Soon and Baliunas (they have ties with some pretty radical groups and groups of ill repute e.g., “Friends” of Science):
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Willie_Soon
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sallie_L._Baliunas
Soon and Baliunas (and deFreitas) are guilty of subverting the peer-review process at Climate Research back in 2002 and 2003:
“03/28/02 DeFreitas submits paper, Soon & Boehmer-Christiansen review.
04/11/02 Soon& Baliunas submit paper (whose first-acked sponsor was the API) to de Freitas
06/23/02 DeFreitas paper published
01/31/03 Soon&Baliunas published by de Freitas.
So, thats 2.5-month overlap, where Soon&de Fretias are both reviewing each others (dodgy) papers.”
[Quoted from Dr. John Mashey at DeepClimate]
Also of interest:
Video:
Economist on AGW, MWP and other climate matters (sadly, they give Watts too much credit for his surfacestations.org project which has been soundly refuted by Menne et al. (2009)):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15719298
Oh and Werner, what do you think about this? Here we have Lindzen coaching Anthony Watts on how to cherry pick data so as to hide the statistically significant warming:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/02/round-and-round-we-go-with-lindzen-motl-and-jones/
Lindzen also has ties with neocon lobby groups, fossil fuel industry and in the past has even taken money from the FF industry.
Werner Brozek,
The echo chamber blogs in your post are unconvincing to those of us outside their coven. Willis shows in his informal hitchhiking article that most folks know it’s false alarmism.
If they used charts with a normal y-axis no one would get alarmed. See? One simple chart debunks all their wordy nonsense.
One question that interests me, that has been hinted at by some posters, and that would be perfectly respectful to ask:
“Why now?”
Smokey says:
October 17, 2011 at 5:37 pm
If they used charts with a normal y-axis no one would get alarmed. See? One simple chart debunks all their wordy nonsense.
🙂 Perhaps Anthony and others going could be wearing t-shirts with this printed on..? And of course, take some for their kind hosts.
stevo says:
October 16, 2011 at 10:23 am
Nonsense. I and others regularly post about some of the foolish claims made by skeptics.
w.
_Jim says:
October 17, 2011 at 8:56 am
R. Gates?
Do you have a student or associate with the requisite (and relatively modest) skills who could facilitate streaming?
_____
Still trying to get a clear answer to the streaming issue. We’ve asked NCAR for access to their network for the streaming. Anthony says he has the equipment. We’ve had several offers to help in this. I should know more by mid-week.
Werner Brozek,
Your collection of strawmen is fooling no-one. As regards the MWP, check the corrected Mann et al 2008 with the boneheaded upside-down sediment series eliminated.Your ad hominems against Lindzen are just stupid. Menne et. al. was working off preliminary incomplete data; why on earth not reference the definitive paper of Fall et. al. (2011)? Observations are most certainly not in agreement with the models: in addition to actual temperatures running well below the 2 degree per century central tendency claimed by IPCC AR4, there is the embarrassment of the missing tropical troposphere hotspot – see McKitrick et. al. (2010). I don’t have the time and effort and go through all your other errors.
So tell your “friend” he needs to go back to the drawing board.
One question I didn’t notice yet. Would this Colorado modeling crew be willing for a couple of representative skeptic modelers to be an official Devil’s Advocate part of their team and work with them for some time to further understand and improve their work, as well as consult a much larger resource?
I would think some enterprising skeptics would jump at this chance for fame and influence – but probably little fortune.
Even if the immediate answer is “no,” it might be worth planting this seed.
Do make sure the likes of Mann, Hansen, Mc Gibbon and Gore have not been invited tio the party!
RockyRoad says:
October 17, 2011 at 8:31 am
If the inputs to the model reflect the range of possible variables then it is still reasonable it’s when you change the variables to those that aren’t realistic that the model is no longer reflecting reality. No model is perfect, as at the end of the day it’s only a model, but it can be used to give an indication of what is likely to happen.
How can this be a serious meeting when the talk, including questions and answers, is a mere 45 minutes long. All the rest, of this massive two hour meeting is given over to a tour of the building and an optional exploration of ‘the climate exhibit floor’. There will obviously be no time whatsoever for the many questions, listed here by sceptics, to be answered, which rather begs the question, why should anybody want to go in the first place? It seems to me that there might be an ulterior motive here. Perhaps after this meeting Dr.Trenberth should be invited to a return meeting organised by sceptics with a whole day of genuine dialogue between warmists/modellers and sceptics. That to me would be the only reason why anyone would want to attend such a ridiculously short presentation.
Thank you for your replies Smokey and zing1.
“zing1 says:
October 17, 2011 at 9:40 pm
So tell your “friend” he needs to go back to the drawing board.”
This went through a third party and communications were broken off when they could not convince me that we should be worried about CAGW. I am pretty sure I know who my “friend” is, however what I was told officially is: “I did pass along your comments to a colleague, who is also a Ph.D student whom I co-supervise, as he is interested in the denialist arguments.” On the basis of my “friend’s” credentials, it might be appropriate to assume that Dr. Trenberth would have said similar things in the exchange that took place in March of 2010.
So I hope the responses of my “friend” will serve as a sparring match, to use a boxing analogy, for any one wanting to ask questions of Dr. Trenberth at the upcoming meeting.
Good luck to those attending!
P.S.
“Roberto says:
October 18, 2011 at 7:05 am
Would this Colorado modeling crew be willing for a couple of representative skeptic modelers to be an official Devil’s Advocate”
See
Werner Brozek says:
October 17, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Smokey says:
October 17, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Your graph is even more impressive when degrees Kelvin is used.
I welcome anyone attempting to inject general remarks and technical details on the workings of climate models into the discussion. I would especially like to hear what a climate ensemble is.
From HankHenry on October 18, 2011 at 12:11 pm:
As I understand it, they can run the same climate model with different starting info (historical weather records for period X or period Y, etc), and the grouping of the different results can be called an ensemble forecast. They can also gather together the results of several models and call the result an ensemble forecast.
It makes sense to them. We can see when all the models are generating garbage, but they are certain something must be true in the results. So they gather up the “hints” in the model outputs by averaging (or something similar) all the outputs together, with the result being the “most true” forecast. Now, doesn’t that make lots of sense? 😉
JonasM says:
October 17, 2011 at 6:50 pm
One question that interests me, that has been hinted at by some posters, and that would be perfectly respectful to ask: “Why now?”
That question would not be answered honestly. It would be far more productive for Anthony to ask that question and answer it himself. What does Trenberth think he’s getting from this? Why should Anthony give it to him?
JJ says:
October 18, 2011 at 7:40 pm
JonasM says:
October 17, 2011 at 6:50 pm
One question that interests me, that has been hinted at by some posters, and that would be perfectly respectful to ask: “Why now?”
———
Since I sought Dr. Trenberth out and requested this presentation all on my own initiative the timing is purely happenstance. He told me his schedule for the remainder of the year and the week of Nov. 10th turned out to work out the best. It is as simple as that, but I’m sure some would like make up some more interesting stories, as the truth is often too boring.
Jimmy Haigh says:
October 18, 2011 at 9:25 am
Smokey says:
October 17, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Your graph is even more impressive when degrees Kelvin is used.
=====================================
Pity the global moist enthalpy data isn’t available back to 1880. It would look like this:
_______________________________________________________________
…… with pretty much any y-axis.
R. Gates;
It is as simple as that, but I’m sure some would like make up some more interesting stories, as the truth is often too boring>>>
I for one would be very happy with some boring truth. Like truthfull answers to the direct questions I’ve asked you in this and other threads. Like the boring truth that when one of your ridiculous arguments gets shredded, you know darn well that responding further only exposes your lack of sound science further, and so you retreat into silence, only to pop up in another thread later on expounding the same old junk. I’d like the truth as to why you suddenly withdrew from the wager you agreed to take in regard to the results of reproducing Al Gore’s experiment. Are you ready to admit that the experiment was not only staged, but if it had been performed as staged it could not possibly have proven the greenhouse effect because it relied on an outsisde source of LW instead of an outside source of SW that the “model” could convert to LW?
The excuse that the truth is boring just won’t fly. Be as boring as you want, but answer the questions truthfully else your silence speaks for you.
Anthony, you need to take at least one VERY attractive woman with you.Scientists are thrown off their game by such a tactic. Easier than getting them drunk
/sarc
why was the meeting canceled?