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.
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?