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.
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?