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.
omnologos says:
October 16, 2011 at 4:53 pm
There must be a way to broadcast the meeting live over the web? Ustream anybody?
————
That might still happen. I will know more this coming week and Anthony will certainly give the details here. Access to NCAR’s network, even though it would be outbound traffic, is the issue.
Show me the code, commentary and the archiving procedures. Specs? Equations? Data sets? Processor configuration? Sounds like more than a 45 minute event just to show the internals. To evaluate seems like a lot of work. I once worked 3 months to fix a bug in a complex matrix processing routine written by a pretty bright guy. Funny he just moved on to some other new project and left the hard part. Funny as most of the time these interesting things are not well commented which would have allowed the original author to resolve their own amateur mistakes. (sorry for the rant) The devil is in the details.
Anthony,
Thanks for the collective invite. Although I do live close by, I will be out of town on that date.
Things I would consider if I were in your shoes :
1) Choose who you bring along very carefully. Bring along the most knowledgeable people you can so there is minimal opportunity for anyone in the group to collectively make the group look foolish (given the video tape probability). That could not only make WUWT look bad but the skeptic community at large look bad.
2) Choose the questions you want to ask very carefully. Think about what the answer might be ahead of time, what the pitfalls of answers maybe & how questions could be turned to make skeptics look ignorant or worse.
3) I would bring & quote specific peer reviewed literature that contradicts the AGW hypothesis on various fronts. When certain expected arguments are brought up, be ready to site those references in defense of any positions taken.
In short, I would be extraordinarily prepared for that meeting. Have a well thought out strategy for the entire thing. I would like to think this is an olive branch, but given the history of calling skeptics the “d” word, this feels more like a potential trap on first blush.
Best of luck with the meeting. I look forward to hearing how it goes
Theo Goodwin says:
Here is a link to the study: http://www2.ucar.edu/news/5364/deep-oceans-can-mask-global-warming-decade-long-periods They looked at heat storage below 300 m, or 1000 ft. Here is what they note, by the way, they see in the models: “Eight decades with a slightly negative global mean surface-temperature trend show that the ocean above 300 m takes up significantly less heat whereas the ocean below 300 m takes up significantly more, compared with non-hiatus decades.” ( http://acacia.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/Meehl_Natureclimatechange2011-1.pdf )
Maybe there are experimental things that the Argo buoys can check…but rather than just making blanket statements about what you think Argo isn’t seeing that it should be seeing, why don’t you show us exactly how the data deviates from what would be predicted under the scenario that they describe?
Surely, if the data are in such contradiction with what is predicted, you should be able to demonstrate this?
I think you are creating a strawman to argue against. I don’t think that anybody has ever denied that there are such processes at work (except for “skeptics” who claim that any few year period of cooling disproves AGW). Over the longer term, however, it will indeed be the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere that dominates because the only significant energy exchange between the earth system and the sun and space is via radiation.
I would love to attend. Sadly, I’m forced to work for a living and can’t take the time to travel halfway across the country. I’d be interested in finding out how he sets his model up, and how he deals with all the inputs necessary to get an output–in particular, I’m interested in how he determines what to use for feedbacks.
My view is that they are so concerned about the current collapse of AGW due to evidence presented here and other Skeptics sites,that they are now trying to “befriend” this site etc and try to somehow convince you to stop it!
A bit sad if your blog can not conjure up only 20 people.
I have been studying a course from the Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
University of Colorado at Boulder, on the Finite Element Method:
Introduction to the computer-based simulation of linear structures by the Finite Element Method (FEM).
http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/CAS/courses.d/IFEM.d/
Climate modeling must be far more complex than what I have been studying.
Anybody that thinks High School algebra can be used, please browse some of the content found at the link I provide above.
I have been studying this FEM for several years on my own, and had to spend several years studying multivariable (more than one variable) calculus before I could even understand the appendix’s to this book / course.
That was supposed to be ” multivariate” . Darn you auto spell corrector.
Gathering information for commenting using a smart phone sucks. I’m ten times faster on a desktop computer, but I’m sitting in a coffee shop doing this. Life is full of compromises.
Theo Goodwin says:
“ARGO covers way deeper than that. The temperature did not go up.”
True. ARGO buoys go to 2,000 meters. And the ARGO network shows that the ocean temperature is declining. That is confirmed by the flattening of the sea level rise.
Joel Shore’s response is, well, typical Joel Shore: compare his models with empirical observations that contradict the models… then declare the models to be correct. It’s Joel’s version of Trenberth’s hidden “heat in the pipeline”. They can’t find the heat, but they know absolutely that it’s there, somewhere, just out of sight. The models prove it.
To quote Joel Shore in a previous post, “the problems lie not with the models but with the observational data itself.” I think he really believes that nonsense.
If all the morons at the various Occupy Wall Street protests would simply convert to climate skeptics, they too could be rich! Then they could actually have a nice bath and a meal while they protest for Big Oil.
Climate modelling: The wrangling of spherical cows.
At least the computers will keep you warm in November.
One skeptic’s questions for Dr. Kevin Trenberth et al. on climate models:
1) Natural Hypothesis
Can climate models reproduce objective parameters of the null hypothesis of natural climate variations? E.g.
1.1) Precipitation
Account for the 95% correlation WJR Alexander et al. find between precipitation/runoff in Southern Africa and the ~22 year Hale magnetic solar cycle.
1.2) Ocean Oscillations
Reproduce the 60 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and corresponding global temperature warming/cooling trends as documented by Don Easterbrook etc.
1.3) Hurst-Kolmogorov Statistics
Demonstrate the ~ 0.70 H correlations across 1 to 20 centuries shown in the Hurst phenomenon, as documented by Demetris Koutsoyannis of ITIA, etc.
1.4) Regional precipitation & temperature
Hindcast historical temperature and precipitation (with tuning if any only on part of the historical record), as tested and found wanting by Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, et al. , and by David Stockwell.
1.5) Counter TSI vs T variations
Reproduce the temperature increases corresponding to TSI decreases with decreasing UV but increasing VIS, and opposite high and mid stratosphere O3 trends. See J D Haigh et al Nature 467 p 696 Oct 2010 (Nigel Fox slide 17)
1.6) Model clouds accurately
Nigel Fox (slide 13) notes clouds form 93% of total uncertainty in feedback factor ). See the diurnal variations as observed by Willis Eschenbach?
2) Impartial Scientific Forecasting
As clinical research requires double blind testing, will climate modelers require:
2.1) Use Scientific Forecasting Principles
See the objective impartial standards for Scientific Forecasting as compiled and applied in the Global Climate Audit by the Public Policy Forecasting, Special Interest Group.
2.2) Verify & Validate
Provide full objective verification and validation by third party testers, and make that an essential part of all grant application.
3) Quantitative Uncertainty Evaluation
3.1) Quantify model uncertainties
Quantify and individually report both Type A and Type B errors for each of the 100+ parameters, and their combined errors per international uncertainty guidelines. See NTIS 1297 Guidelines for the Measurement of Uncertainty., and NIgel Fox of NPL pdf and video on satellite measurement uncertainty.
3.2) Chaotic Uncertainty
Address chaotic variations with sufficient runs for statistical significance, and publish each of the run results. E.g. Singer & Monckton 2011 find 10 runs are needed.
3.3) Scenario uncertainty
Include the societal uncertainties as evidenced in the economic variations in growth since 2004. See Gail Tverberg, 2011
3.4) Resource uncertainty
Address the geological fossil fuel resource constraints in CO2 scenarios. See Tad Patzek (2011) Physical Limitations on Mining Natural Earth Systems and Patzek 2008; Owen et al. 2010) The status of conventional world oil reserves – Hype of cause for concern?
(The plateauing of crude oil since 2004 caused the 2008 and 2011 financial crises. See Gallo et al. Energy 35(2010)4126-4141)
3.5) Hurricane Uncertainties
Account for the high uncertainties in hurricane predictions. <a href=http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/13/hurricanes-and-global-warming-5-years-post-katrina/Judith Curry
Can’t attend. Recommend that the presentation be webcast if possible.
Question on Ocean models.
How well do the models reproduce the Levitus temperature oscillations and diffusion with ocean depth?
See Roy Spencer: Deep Ocean Temperature Change Spaghetti: 15 Climate Models Versus Observations
NOAA/Mauna Loa CO2 figures over the past 40 years show that CO2 levels are increasing by about 10% every 20 years (slightly less). That extrapolates to a doubling of CO2 levels by 2155. Any departure from that must assume (i.e. pure guess) that our rate of adding CO2 is going to increase (or decrease).
If humanity can’t find a way to handle a minor temperature increase by 145 years into the future, then maybe we deserve to be in trouble. Consider where we were in 1866.
I agree with the perception of R. Gates’ seemingly gratuitous sniping in this forum. I am hopeful that this meeting will put a stop to it, for it accomplishes nothing. Because I can’t attend this despite being fortunate enough to afford to, I will do the next best thing: A pressing of the ‘donate’ button. Best of luck, Anthony!
Curious is R Gates related to Bill Gates, maybe his dad?
REPLY: No, “R. Gates” is a made up name – Anthony
Ian W says:
October 16, 2011 at 11:17 am
Anthony – A simple question:
The reports of atmospheric warming are always couched as average global atmospheric temperatures. However, the effect of CO2 is to scatter heat energy. The actual atmospheric temperature rise caused by that heat will be dependent on the enthalpy of the atmosphere which is largely driven by its water vapor content. Why report atmospheric heat content as a temperature – when temperature is not a measure of heat content? And why average that inappropriate measure globally despite the huge variances in humidity
===============================================
…. is probably the question I would ask (along with another regarding the exact mathematics of back radiation in the tropics), but both might fall into the “hobby horse” category brought up in Steven Mosher’s excellent post. Plus, I doubt that Trenberth has given ten minutes thought to this critical issue in his career.
What an interesting thread though, with two of the most abysmal posts I’ve ever read from Joel Shore. Who are you trying to kid Joel ??
Anthony and attendees:
‘Watch your six’ as they say.
Though the NCAR building is gorgeous (worked Meteorology at Buckley AFB, Peterson AFB/Colorado Springs airport when the AF had a weather station and upper-air training when going to Antarctica at their Vaisala company in nearby Louisville), the kooks who work in there are plentiful.
NCAR hasn’t seen a research grant that’s federally (i.e. taxpayer) funded that DEMANDS hypothesis-first AGW support THEN data which they don’t like. The scientific method is wrong in NCAR’s eyes. Ideology trumps all.
2ndly, the folks who are using NCAR, NOAA/NWS/NBDC, PNNL, DoE, NASA ‘graphs’ ‘charts’ ‘articles’ for validity in NCAR’s findings.. reader beware.
I would ask about the escape factor. We already know that upper tropospheric hotspots come and go in random fashion (as opposed to this upper layer getting hotter and hotter). Heat likely escapes in this way: here and there, now and then, a little, a lot, etc. Unless we have a ton of eye in the sky satellites that are measuring this unpredicatable phenomenon, we have no accurate empirical data that allow us to build a model of escaping heat.
If Trenbeth is an observational data guy, then clearly you have to ask him about the missing heat.
If it is in the deep oceans as he suggests then what physical mechanism gets it there without Argo detecting it? If he answers Benguela Current or similar. Ask how he intends to measure this.
Argo is a huge problem for the ~3C warming crowd. As reported here at WUWT, the Argo data shows only 7% of the warming predicted by the models.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/trenberths-missing-heat-look-to-the-deep/
Argo is the best climate data we have, Ask why the models are so far off (more than an order of magnitude) the best climate measurements?
If you get an answer along the lines of ‘internal climate variability allows for as much as a decade with little or no warming’.
Then, even though I’d dispute this claim, ask how long would the Argo data have to be well below model predictions, before model predictions are revised down to be in line with Argo?
Good Luck, Anthony and I hope everyone is polite and civil even if it does become a bit of an ambush.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/16/skeptics-are-invited-to-a-public-meeting-with-dr-kevin-trenberth/#comment-769338
Same old same old, I see.
Fiends of Science? 🙁
And look at your own link, nice squiggly line, it goes up, it gows down, but what is it exactly?
Temperature (C or F) vs time, but temperature of what exactly?
Is it an actual temperature profile as a function of depth? No.
How aboot we look at the temperature and conductivity profiles as a function of depth all the way down to what is usually referred to as close-out depth.
Quite obviously close-out depth has not been reached even at the 2 km depth limit;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Argo_profiles.png
Easy to do: All you need is 1) your laptop, 2) a broadband ethernet port to the outside world (could be a 3G or 4G phone connection and a phone-based WiFi hotspot to the laptop), 3) a MS Lifecam Cinema (autofocus, auto-exposure, some zoom, auto mic levels) and 4) a Ustream (or Livestream even) account (free for Ustream, can’t vouch for any others).
Log into your Ustrream account and select broadcast; the rest is pretty much WYSIWYG.
If Occupy Wall Street types can do this for several weeks straight, I’m sure someone here can show up with the needed components …
.
If I were there, I would ask for full documentation of the model (which they do have), then ask if they can show that the coupled non-linear partial differential equations, and their associated initial and boundary conditions, constitute a well-posed mathematical problem. We could then start drilling down into the stability of the numerics (proofs please), and the order of accuracy of the numerical approximations for each equation. We could then ask about sensitivity to initial conditions, unique solutions, boundary conditions (particularly accuracy of the boundary conditions)…the list is endless.