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.
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.