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.
Joel Shore says:
Theo Goodwin says:
1. If heat is being sequested in the deeper ocean, it must transfer through the upper ocean. In the real world, this has not been seen that I am aware of.
What exactly would you expect the Argo network to see? That network looks at the temperature (and hence heat content) in the upper ocean, not the heat transfer through it.
—
Heat transfer requires a temperature gradient. The more heat the upper ocean is supposed to transmit to the deep ocean, the hotter the upper ocean would have to be.
Joel Shore ,
Can you suggest a mechanism which allows warmer surface water to sink below colder , denser water ?
“10:30 computer modeling demonstration in the visualization lab”
They are working towards AR5, so I’d like to see the latest simulations that would be a part of NCAR’s AR5 contribution.
Try to get digital copies of whatever is shown in the visualization lab demonstration(s).
good luck.
have a couple pages of good questions to hand him at the start.
and invite him to your own press conference afterwards to examine his answers.
maybe marc morano can help out?
Well, it sounds like a fun day out. Queue the carbon footprint jokes.
Dr. T is supposedly an expert on the tropics, so maybe someone could ask him
‘whether the tropics are dominated by a negative feedback? And if so, in the absence of human induced forcing (try to make it easy for him), would that mean that the earth’s climate is relatively stable?
And if there was human interference, why would a negative feedback suddenly turn into a positive feedback?’
Agree to disagree.
P Walker says:
October 16, 2011 at 2:42 pm
“Joel Shore: Can you suggest a mechanism which allows warmer surface water to sink below colder , denser water ?’
Maybe I can help Joel out here with a few suggestions.
Global warming?
Rich white guys?
Conservatives?
i say that TB will make a long statement spouting the “company line”, a shill in the audience will ask a softball question the answer of which will soak up all of the time available. after a “canned matt” answer is given the good TB will notice that all of the time is used up and do a scoot. within the hour of the scoot the local MSM will put out a preprapared totally self serving press release trying to make the skeptics look like ill advised amateurs.
C
With that short time available do I believe Mr Trenberth only have time for one question.
Where is the heat?
For any other question can he also use WUWT.
My simple question would be:
“Since models have been less than accurate considering and compared to empirical data………………………..”
The agenda is a joke.
1 – Agree upon the topics that will be discussed during the meeting beforehand.
2 – Reserve enough time for each topic.
3 – Reschedule the meeting so that you will have the best selection of knowledgeable people on each topic.
4 – Do not go to the meeting if you do not have points 1-3 crystal clear.
Anthony:
This is a noble cause.
I like the advice given by Steve Mosher to focus on the construction of the NCAR computation methods rather than bring up the other AGW baggage or IPCC credibility. You have clearly and openly identified through WUWT that there are major random and systematic temperature uncertainties everywhere in the world and there are some very hokey methods of messaging the data by many researchers such as Mann’s hockey stick. If he is really interested in a dialog with you as keeper of keys to the temperature vault, perhaps he would agree to help you with your efforts to clean up the temperature data banks and how they are used to validate computational results from the NCAR models realizing that ultimately the computation of temperature should match the temperature data in an improved data compilations.
One must assume that Dr. Trenberth hopes to gain something from this meeting or it would not have come to fruition. Maybe he would agree to provide written comments to WUWT. You should get something in return to foster your own agenda besides an agreement to stop calling each other names. This is his agenda to demonstrate the facility and its capability and to impress the visitors that the NCAR is seriously geared up to model climate in a big way. I would hope that Dr. Trenberth in his presentation would explain how the research group hopes to include elements currently absent in the model that potentially impact climate warming such as aerosols, cloud cover, etc. You should present yours.
I doubt that anyone will have time to ask this question, but I’ve often wondered if the computer models can show decreasing temperatures in the face of increasing CO2. Or is it a case of the models being hard wired to only show the increasing CO2 increasing temperature scenario.
Anthony, R. and Dr. Trenbeth, kudos to y’all!
I post rarely but am constantly accessing all sides of the blogs. It appears to me, that in the last 4-6 months, there has been a slight, but somewhat perceptible change in the way that the leading figures of this debate are reacting to their critics. I see Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Pielke actually responding to each other quite civily about the transfer of heat to the ocean depths (look it up on RC), both gents being somewhat respectful of the others opinion and occasionally seeing the others point. I see Dr. Lacis posting on Dr. Curry’s blog, then answering some well thought out questions to not only his post, but on another post too. Yes Dr. Lacis did play the denier card, but was roundley castigated for this, and there seems to be a bit of awareness, now, on his part that that is not where the debate is anymore. I still see Dr. Shore comment on this blog and try to clear up some misconceptions with the physics of the atmosphere. Myself, I have slowly come to accept that CO2 does have a finger on the recent warming, and it appears many others have accepted this also.
To me, I believe that things like the demonstrations against Wall Street are showing the world, that we as citizens are no longer going to just take anyones word for things, just because they are a scientist or expert. And the scientists that are aware, are getting it, and are now starting to realize that they have to become inclusive.
Anthony, i pray that Dr. Tenbreth is coming around to this position, and that this is a gesture of goodwill. Of course the first meeting between 2 of the biggest players in this passion play would be expected to be short and courteous, as there stil is a lot of distrust. But as all journey’s must start with a first step, however tentative, I wish the both of you the courage to take that first step and get this journey, finally underway.
All the best,
Leo G
I would be interested in meeting with Trenberth one on one. If a person and her friends were to go into a theatre and all yell “Fire! Fire! Fire!”, start screaming, crying, and running for the door, there is a likely possibility of unfortunate consequences.
Trenberth is obviously intelligent. He is distorting and manipulating the science for what he believes is the good cause.
http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/bioenergy/NewsReleases/Biodiesel%20Energy%20Balance_v2a.pdf
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
“The Clean Energy Scam
The U.S. quintupled its production of ethanol–ethyl alcohol, a fuel distilled from plant matter–in the past decade, and Washington has just mandated another fivefold increase in renewable fuels over the next decade. Europe has similarly aggressive biofuel mandates and subsidies, and Brazil’s filling stations no longer even offer plain gasoline. Worldwide investment in biofuels rose from $5 billion in 1995 to $38 billion in 2005 and is expected to top $100 billion by 2010, thanks to investors like Richard Branson and George Soros, GE and BP, Ford and Shell, Cargill and the Carlyle Group.
But several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it’s dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future, looks less green than oil-derived gasoline….
…Meanwhile, by diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks, biofuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry. The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. Harvests are being plucked to fuel our cars instead of ourselves. The U.N.’s World Food Program says it needs $500 million in additional funding and supplies, calling the rising costs for food nothing less than a global emergency. Soaring corn prices have sparked tortilla riots in Mexico City, and skyrocketing flour prices have destabilized Pakistan, which wasn’t exactly tranquil when flour was affordable.”
“…Backed by billions in investment capital, this alarming phenomenon is replicating itself around the world. Indonesia has bulldozed and burned so much wilderness to grow palm oil trees for biodiesel that its ranking among the world’s top carbon emitters has surged from 21st to third according to a report by Wetlands International. Malaysia is converting forests into palm oil farms so rapidly that it’s running out of uncultivated land. But most of the damage created by biofuels will be less direct and less obvious. In Brazil, for instance, only a tiny portion of the Amazon is being torn down to grow the sugarcane that fuels most Brazilian cars. More deforestation results from a chain reaction so vast it’s subtle: U.S. farmers are selling one-fifth of their corn to ethanol production, so U.S. soybean farmers are switching to corn, so Brazilian soybean farmers are expanding into cattle pastures, so Brazilian cattlemen are displaced to the Amazon.”
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
“After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.
I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
While no one can “tell” scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation—though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements—would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.”
While you are there see if Dr. Trenberth can tell you the truth about the 65-66 W/m2 up and down welling LR radiation, being the only relevent amount to the climate, and why he never mentions the 260 W/m2 that is horizontal in component and does nothing at all in Earth’s case (though for Mars and Venus this cannot be said, Venus too thick, Mars too thin, horizontally). If you will notice the sum total of those figures (65+260+65=390) IS this 390 W/m2 his graphics all warped portray as “back-radiation”.
The key to the above is radiation does cancel when for every transfer of energy from point A to point B by radiation there is a statistically equal amount moving simultaneously from point B to point A, not all of the energy, just a specified dimensional component. The net effect is zero and you will never be able to sense or measure these components though your maths (Stefan-Boltzmann) says it is there,and happening, though no effect will ever occur in this specified portion, 260 W/m2 of the 390 W/m2.
He does know the very basics of physics doesn’t he?
Just signed up. NCAR is just down the hill from me, so to speak. It’ll be fun to meet Anthony again, along with bouldersolar and who knows who else. This will be a nice get-together of some Voices of Reason, but the occasion will be mostly Dr. Trenberth’s show. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say, but I don’t expect any knockout punches by anyone.
Berkley affiliation redux.
If this were a week-long seminar/workshop, I could see the value in it. 45 minutes? Flight time on the plane getting there will be longer than the meeting, hence not worth the trip. If they were serious about opening up their methodology and discussing pertinent factors, it would also be scheduled far enough in advance that the movers and shakers in the science wouldn’t have scheduling conflicts. They must be looking for hostages.
It sounds like an interesting event. I would have gladly flown over from California for the day but unfortunately I’ll be in Europe on business that week.
As an experienced PR hand, I don’t agree with the folks crying “Trap! Trap!”. First of all, it’s not a debate. It’s been structured as a brief presentation and Q&A. The skeptics don’t have to do anything but show up and listen. Here’s how the skeptics could “lose” though:
– Try to ask “loaded” questions or be otherwise disrespectful (I know Anthony would never do that but there is that .01% fringe element that conceivably could). That would be playing right into a stereotype that many CAGW believers already have.
Here’s what the skeptics could accomplish:
– By attending and being reasonable, intelligent people who are good listeners with perhaps a few thoughtful, on-point questions. This will help Trenberth, his team and perhaps others like them, realize that skeptics are not “big oil funded, politically motivated ideologues”. Remember that this false stereotype is entrenched and provides perceived justification for some CAGW believers to subtly participate in (or not stop) “noble cause” corruption. Weakening that incorrect notion in their minds can do a lot of good down the road for the cause of reason, science and transparency.
– To the CAGW world at large this would be another proof-point that the vast majority of skeptics are actually willing and able to engage and listen. This is actually a pretty powerful net win for the skeptical viewpoint. We have some very compelling questions, observations and arguments. The #1 way we fail to sway “true believers” isn’t that our arguments fail, it’s that true believers don’t seriously listen to are arguments in the first place. This one short meeting at NCAR isn’t the place to try to win or even make those arguments, it’s an opportunity to shift perceptions and show that skeptics and our questions are worth taking seriously.
– I think that the value of questions skeptics ask in the Q&A period won’t be that they are “zingers” or that the answers contain some fatal admission (they won’t). The #1 value of the questions the skeptics ask will be to show just how well skeptics really understand the nitty-gritty details of the science (see Mosher’s suggested questions). The nature of the questions can also prove that skeptics are actually interested in really understanding what’s happening in the physical world, not just scoring short-term political points. At NCAR that would be a pretty significant win.
Here’s what Trenberth and NCAR can accomplish:
– Show the community that they were open to engaging with skeptics and generally educating the public on their work. They get a some nice photos and a summary to include in their yearly accomplishments report to their bosses (you can bet that public education/community outreach are on the organization’s mission statement/goals).
As a skeptic, I’m all for giving Trenberth and NCAR that PR “win” in exchange for the chance to put another crack in the CAGW community’s false stereotype of skeptics. After all, we *want* them to see engaging with skeptics as a good, productive thing. From the NCAR perspective they have little to lose and from the skeptics perspective we have little to lose. That’s how first steps are. Small and measured.
Rhoda Ramirez ,
The answers to your questions are no and yes .
I conveyed this privately to Anthony. I am willing to pay the travel expenses of appropriate people to this. Steve Mosher? Lucia? Willis?
By all means, get permission to record the proceedings. The overall manner in which you are received would be telling.
Will someone please ask Trenberth, what is the key evidence that man’s CO2 is causing global warming. He told me in a private correspondence that the key evidence is sea levels. I’d love to hear him say that in public.
Anthony..
I read through the comments. You are being “set up”.
DO NOT AGREE TO THIS! Period. If you meet ANYWHERE, it’s NEUTRAL GROUND. Not on “your turf” or their “turf”.
There is absolutely NO reason in this day and age that you need to “come to their facility”.
Look, the LEFTIST, LIBERALS, LOONEYS, whatever..will ALWAYS (see James Cameron comment) feel free to “change the rules of the ballgame”, or “fink out” at the last moment.
Do that NOW. Tell them, “You want a “DENIER/SKEPTIC/RATIONALIST/NOT FINANCED BY BIG GOVERNMENT MONEY gathering? Then PLENTY of advanced notice (6 months) and on NEUTRAL GROUND. (Say, hotel or conference center in Kansas, or Denver..)
Play the game at YOUR SPEED not theirs.
Remember this prophecy, if you go and they set you up to do a PR trashing number..you have been WARNED.
Joel Shore says:
October 16, 2011 at 2:13 pm
“What exactly would you expect the Argo network to see? That network looks at the temperature (and hence heat content) in the upper ocean, not the heat transfer through it. Could you explain to us what measurable parameter(s) from the Argo data would tell you the amount of heat going into the deeper ocean?”
The “deeper ocean” does not mean “Twenty Thousand Leagues Beneath The Sea.” It can mean as little as 200 feet beneath the surface. ARGO covers way deeper than that. The temperature did not go up.
“While monitoring the total energy would indeed be nice, it does not necessarily follow that because transfer of heat to the deep ocean can affect the global temperature trends on the order of a few years to a decade, it is necessarily a problem on the longer time scales. It can just explain why one can’t trust temperature trends over too short time scales, a fact that is already obvious empirically from the size of the fluctuations seen in the global temperature data (in both the real world and climate model simulations).”
Warmista have adamantly denied that the heat is “in process” as it travels through natural processes. Warmista have adamantly denied that a science of heat flow through the actual natural processes in the oceans and elsewhere is actually necessary. They have insisted on the simple minded assumption that Earth’s surface can be treated as something like the surface of a “black body” in radiation theory. They calculate radiation in versus radiation out to calculate the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. I am quite happy that they have discovered that heat can be “in process” and that those processes might take many years to cycle.