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.
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.