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.
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.