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.
A validation question stated a little differently, I’d like to know what the reject criteria for model projections and output are. If there is none the models are worthless.
Continuing todcom’s theme:
How many models are run by NCAR?
Which three do you, Dr. T, consider to be the most trustworthy?
Which three the least? The basis for that evaluation?
What is the histogram of Model runs and Model time? Do a couple of models the get the majority of cycles?
Of the most trustworthy models:
What is the size of grid cells in X,Y,Z, and Time? ( I am particularly interested in the time step.)
How many layers (Z-dimension). How many layers in the ocean?
What are the physical parameters tracked in each cell?
In true scientific method, what are the testable predictions made by these models?
Are reviews of the model runs ever done in a “blind study” without knowing the inputs?
What percentage of the climate modelers and analysts would consider themselves to be CAGW skeptics?
I don’t think that it is relevant or necessary for me to travel hundreds of miles for a couple of hours.
I’ve been programing and working with computers for 18+ years, My occupational background is in Engineering, I’ve actually seen code from released e-mails one time, and had a real good laugh, I don’t think I could keep a straight face listening to someone explain how they model an assumption or premise on which their silly inference of man made global warming comes from.
But as R. Gates and Dr. Kevin Trenberth are two of my favorite Anthropogenic Global warming enthusiasts (giggles) I’d like to wish them all the best and I hope something positive can come from this short visit.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/16/skeptics-are-invited-to-a-public-meeting-with-dr-kevin-trenberth/#comment-769224
“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.”
Not so.
Heat transfe only requires a mechanism of transport. Diffusion is only one very slow method of transport. Vertical diffusion is not the dominant mechanism of vertical heat transport in the oceans. Mixing is the dominant mechanism of vertical heat transport in the oceans.
You might want to look into things like convective transport. Or thermohaline circulation. Or dispersion. Or turbulence. Or eddies. Or gyres.
This is a link to the book I grew up with;
http://books.google.com/books/about/Buoyancy_Effects_in_Fluids.html?id=x8NqYA97-wMC
It’s a classic.
Tell me what you don’t know??? That should take half a day alone.
And unless the models can produce past history, they aren’t very good at predicting the future. Set initial conditions for year 0 and run model to predict the last 2000 years of temperature.
You have to attend; not to do so would open the first jaws of A trap.
The question is: what are the second AND third sets of traps? For example: the place could be stuffed full of ranting, raving alarmists, or maybe just a few alarmists paid to yell loudly at you whenever you try to speak..
Anthony, walk carefully and carry a big stick – neither your health, nor preserving your reputation, are in Mr Trenberth’s best interests, so expect him to act accordingly.
DO NOT GO ALONE!!!!
The cynics here shouting “Trap!” are being too reactive and unreasonably suspicious. Instead I see this as merely outreach, and thus consistent with at SAY IT LOUDER! strategy we know all to well. If Believers think they know what they know is True, then what is to be lost by doing so? Nothing.
I find it astounding that suspicions of duplicity abound so widely. Believers demonstrate this Machiavellian capacity, intellectually, in scientific papers (eg, hiding data and methods), and in playing the organizing game (eg, RC). and in politics and media (by popularizers, not by really Trenberth and his friends). Not much elsewhere.
Instead, I see an almost friendly dog and pony show that Boulderites are familiar with from their local federal labs. As for implied remainder, we’ll see if they are testy and irritable to be called to account and answer critical questions. This, I expect. They are used to being worshiped or overawe-ing the ignorant. Not criticism from unBelievers. Not focused, knowledgeable questions. These are likely to frustrate and annoy them.
There is nothing calculated and “Trap worthy” about this.”
R. Gates said:
October 16, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Anthony,
Thanks for posting this. Having had the pleasure of working with both you and Dr. Trenberth to get this meeting set up, I can confirm that both of you were naturally very upfront in all conditions…. yadda yadda…
Hey guys — go enjoy and have some fun learning… Wish I could make it…
I don’t believe a lot of what Trenberth says (and I have spent a lot of time designing models of NP problems so I have some experience with models…) But I would still go. Sometimes the best experiences occur with people who are in complete disagreement with yourself.
The climate problem is in the NP space — problems of that space can only have solutions verified — they cannot be calculated — so how do your validate (for correctness) a solution of a climate model? (That would be my question.) That should be an easy question — is for every NP solution/approximation model I have designed.
Sure it could be a setup — who cares(?) — use it as a learning experience. Organizing the questions to keep them on point, respectful and conducive to a fun learning experience is a good one.
In closing, Say please and thank you for everything and have a good time.
I presume there will be teleconferencing to allow people to participate without having to burn all that fuel travelling?
Ask him if NCAR is worried about budget priorities in D.C. changing drastically soon…
http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=Republicans+cutting+spending+for+climate+change
I just don’t see enough funds available for NCAR’s participation in AR5. Do you?
I’ve found his missing heat for him, he has excluded the thermal energy from the Sun direct to planet Earth’s land and oceans. Simples.
I’d like to know why he’s excluded it.
………………
Leonard Weinstein says:
October 16, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Please ask him to make a streaming video of the presentation able to be viewed by the non-attendees, and post it on your blog. Ask him to take selected questions on your blog that he can choose to answer or not. Possibly questions can be limited to well qualified scientists (who state their qualifications, and this should not be limited to climatologists). Any other route would be too limited.
Streaming video great idea. Asking him to take selected questions, humph, I’d like him to answer all the questions here, guest postings. Limited to well-qualified and named scientists..? Running scared already??
A two part chalenge…
1) Before accepting that models can predict the future, I want to see proof that they can predict the past. Here are a few challenges. Do the models show these?
Middle Bronze Age Cold Epoch 1800 BC to about 1500 BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Bronze_Age_Cold_Epoch
The intervening warm epoch
Iron Age Cold Epoch 900 BC to 300 BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age_Cold_Epoch
Roman Warm Period 250 BC to 400 AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
The intervening
Dark Ages Cold Period 400 AD to 800 AD
Medieval Warm Period 900 AD to 1300 AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Little Ice Age 1300 AD to 1900 AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
These are century-scale events, similar to what the extreme alarmists are using. How well do the models show the above events, without fudging? Part 2 of the challenge follows in another post.
At the following, Lord Monckton talks about “Trenberth’s Twenty-Three
Scientific Errors In One Short Article” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/23errors.html
Since it was written in 2007, perhaps some things are either outdated or the case is even stronger for many points. Has Dr. Trenberth ever given a rebuttal to these? If not, could he be asked to respond to Lord Monckton’s points in a future WUWT article?
R. Gates;
Thanks for posting this. Having had the pleasure of working with both you and Dr. Trenberth to get this meeting set up, I can confirm that both of you were naturally very upfront in all conditions. Having been the “instigator” of this in some respects, and the go-between in communications I can assure everyone that there is no agenda other than to have an honest presentation and exchange. >>>
I applaud you putting this together and Anthony for accepting. But your assurance that there is no hidden agenda seems no more genuine to me than your repeated statements in this blog that you were 25% skeptic and 75% warmist, a statement regularly followed by a blatantly warmist position attempting to hijack the thread. You finally stopped making the claim when I and others called you on it.
Further, I let you off the hook regarding the wager that you volunteered to make with me regarding the results of reproducing Al Gores’s on air CO2 warming demonstration, which you defended to no end. I’ll still let you off the hook, but it was in fact a sucker bet. If you are actually on such good terms with Kevin Trenberth, then I suggest you askl him if it was a sucker bet or not. The part where you suggested that to reproduce it, the globes could be taken out of the jars was the funniest part. Perhaps you can get Dr. Trenberth to explain the “greenhouse effect” to you and how removing those globes reduiced the possibility of demonstrating it to ZERO. You cast yourself as having some level of expertise, and also of being genuine. Actions however, speak loudly.
And you have been evasive as I recall regarding your actual job. Could you please explain your personal relationship with Dr Trenberth and your professional affiliation?
I’m looking forward to this event, not because I don’t believe that there is an agenda, but because I am certain that there is and that it will backfire.
Thanks to R. Gates for setting this up and K. Trenberth for agreeing.
Obviously the global warming debate is not going to be settled in this session either way or even moved in any way.
It is just an opportunity to view the evidence/position of NCAR/Trenberth who should be viewed as one of the most important proponents/agency/persons on the AGW side.
Will contribute to the costs.
“…demonstration of computer modeling skills with Dr T…”
Can you get prior knowledge of EXACTLY what they are going to demonstrate?
It is best the audience is clicked in right from the beginning or they will be on the back foot catching up with what is going on.
Then the most pertinent questions will be asked with no regrets afterwards from what should have been asked.
Are they detailing one “important” model or are they describing how they approach the overall problems of modelling?
Please forgive me for sounding skeptical of this. But what good does a modeling demonstration do anyone? The issues w.r.t. computer modeling are all about methodology versus result. I’ve met plenty of scientists who like to present their results from computers, but few who like to spend hour upon hour discussing their software/method and why it is preferred.
IMO, the entire day should be spent with Trenberth and anyone who works on the model software, in front of a blackboard/whiteboard, discussing methodology and why. Based on that itinerary, it looks like only 90 minutes at best was set aside for this.
EFS_Junior says:
“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.”
Not so.
Heat transfer only requires a mechanism of transport. Diffusion is only one very slow method of transport. … Mixing is the dominant mechanism of vertical heat transport in the oceans.
—
Indeed. However, if there is no temperature gradient, you can stir all you want, there will not be any heat transfer. Furthermore, an increase in the amount of heat transferred by stirring would require a steeper temperature gradient, or an increase in the rate of stirring. How do you get an increase in the rate of convection without a steeper temperature gradient?
There must be a way to broadcast the meeting live over the web? Ustream anybody?
Anyway: Mosher’s suggestions seem great. Call me…skeptical though, but Dear Kev has believed to be in a war to defend the planet for as long as he can remember. The chance of getting anything meaningful from the guy who forced poor wagner with lowercase w to run away in disgrace, is less than the chance of getting anything truthful from your average campaigning politician.
Anthony, I would love to attend the meeting, but cost of flights from and back to UK and accommodation, plus lost time at work are prohibitive. Many comments on this topic have been negative. I think WUWT should accept the invitation and in the spirit with which it is intended; to show us sceptics that AGW is happening. I am sure that you have the knowledge and debating skills to prove otherwise. If the invitation to this event was declined can you imagine the negative publicity?
I also think that at least this is one warmist who has the courage to air his views to a sceptical audience, as opposed to Michael Mann who resorts to lawyers to hide his data.
Anthony, go for it !
Hi Anthony,
All I can suggest is don’t go in to “trap” Kevin. If you do, it’ll be spun to show you in a bad light. Pick some strong relevant questions to actual concerns about the models and projections and keep the Q&A serious about the actual science. That way it can only ever be said your team there was only concerned for the science.
Also, I think it would be a good idea that if you have some questions which would require some “look up” time, or has some complexity that Kevin might not be able to answer off the top of his head without looking up notes or data, fore-warning him of the topics might prove very fruitful, especially since time is very limited. At least that way he’ll have the information in front of him. It’ll also show you’re trying to take this conference seriously. If the conference is to become a smear, let them take it down that road, not yourself.
Part 2 of my challenge for the models. They seem to be hyper-sensitive to CO2 concentration. Alarmists claim that CO2 going from 350 PPM (industrial revolution) to 450 PPM will cause catastrophic warming. In that case, I would be interested in seeing what the models say will happen with a 1,000 to 4,000 PPM (YES!!! THOUSANDS!!!) CO2 concentration. This has happend a lot in earth’s history. Please see the following examples…
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/1999/10.1999.01Ekart.pdf
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/1991/04.1991.03Cerling.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X07007753
http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/152/1/1
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012821X9500213V
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/full/ngeo.2007.29.html
just a few of the results from a Google Scholar search
Note that the Cretaceous saw some of the lushest flora and fauna ever in the history of planet earth. Elevated CO2 levels obviously did *NOT* turn planet earth into a Venusian hellhole. Please give Dr. Trenberth advance warning of this challenge so he’s not caught by surprise. How long does a model run take?
Part 2 of my “put up or shut up” challenge for the climate models… do some GCM runs at 3,000 or 4,000 PPM CO2, and see what happens. If the models blow up, or show earth as a Venusian hellhole, they’re junk science.
As a critic of R Gates and his Gatesisms, I applaud his efforts in making this happen. Hopefully Anthony will wear a tracking device just in case he ends up in the same place as Trenberth’s heat.
🙂
Anthony,
this is a set-up to lessen your position, not to debate.
Turn the tables !!
This is excellent – more co-operation less villification on all sides. I always try to make sure my mind is open to being changed by scientific evidence. I have criteria by which my ideas can be falsified. This approached is what changed me from being a believer to a sceptic in the first place and is the underlying approach to all good science.