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.
Olive branch or the tip of a spear…
Defection of Nobel Prize winner and respected scientists.
EPA getting roasted.
ATI’s lawsuit for Mann’s work.
Cerns substantiation of Sevenson work.
Climate Gate.
Gore’s prediction failures and the oh so embarrassing Goreathon.
Solyndra.
Hansen’s financial disclosure.
Obama’s total and quick retreat from all things green and association with the EPA.
And of course the WUWT crowd that just will not go away.
This all has been pretty hard on the Climate guys. It is possible this is the branch and there is a genuine attempt to come back to the middle. However I would not bet my life on this assumption. This is based solely on the damage control /PR work we have seen from MSM and Mann’s camp over the last few weeks. This could be just more of the same.
Anthony we all would love to have several questions answered. Any chance to have Trenberth take a list of say 20 top questions from WUWT skeptics? It would be nice to present them before hand so he would have time to answer at the meeting, but if not have them listed here and he would be able to reply as he had time.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/16/skeptics-are-invited-to-a-public-meeting-with-dr-kevin-trenberth/#comment-769300
“However, if there is no temperature gradient, you can stir all you want, there will not be any heat transfer.”
But there is always a temperature gradient. Otherwise the entire ocean would overturn. There’s a reason it’s called the thermocline.
“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.”
Not so.
Google Richardson Number or more appropriately gradient Richardson Number.
Small R means much mixing, it’s inherently not buoyancy dominated..
Then turn towards the fluid mechanics definition of convection;
“The term “convection” may have slightly different but related usages in different contexts. The broader sense is in fluid mechanics, where “convection” refers to the motion of fluid (regardless of cause). However in thermodynamics “convection” often refers specifically to heat transfer by convection.
Additionally, convection includes fluid movement both by bulk motion (advection) and by the motion of individual particles (diffusion). However in some cases, convection is taken to mean only advective phenomena. For instance, in the transport equation, which describes a number of different transport phenomena, terms are separated into “convective” and “diffusive” effects, with “convective” meaning purely advective in context. A similar differentiation is made in the Navier–Stokes equations. In such cases the precise meaning of the term may be clear only from context.”
I’m talking aboot convection in the fluid mechanics sense.
“How do you get an increase in the rate of convection without a steeper temperature gradient?”
Did I say that? No I did not. See above.
Step one: Learn to recognize when you are being manipulated.
Aaron A says:
October 16, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Curious is R Gates related to Bill Gates, maybe his dad?
REPLY: No, “R. Gates” is a made up name – Anthony
——–
R. Gates is not a made up name but is my first initial and middle name. I look forward to meeting some of you in November.
[Reply: In other words, it is a made up name, to anonymously hide out. ~dbs, mod.]
As a former computer programmer, I can say that the point to remember about modelling is that no matter how many calculations a computer does on any amount of data, the ‘conclusions’ arrived at by the computer are those that the human-written program tells it to arrive at when a certain set of circumstances exist. And the people telling the computer what to conclude are the same people who cannot tell us what CAUSES el ninos and la ninas (causes, not effects), what caused the mediaeval warming, why the 800-year lag between CO2 increases and warming, how warming changes the albedo effect, how the solar cycle affects earth’s climate etc, etc, etc, not to mention the scandals and frauds that have dogged their every prediction and publication and their simplistic ‘belief’ in a linear or near-linear relationship between CO2 and temperature.
How I would love to come but am afraid it will be “January weather” and we won’t be getting over the mountains on any given day or at any time. Not far but often you just can’t get there from here.
steven mosher says (October 16, 2011 at 11:55 am): “As[k] specific questions about weakness in the NCAR product.”
I understand the IPCC uses an “ensemble” of climate models of which (I assume) the NCAR model is one. If so, I’d like to know what’s so “wrong” with the NCAR model that the IPCC won’t use it exclusively. For example, are its projections of warming near the low end of the IPCC’s range, and therefore suspect (to the IPCC)?
@R Gates
I commend you for getting this demonstration together. I wish this sort of communication, brief as it is, had been engaged in all along. Walls of discommunication can only build distrust. Its converse, trust, is built when people communicate.
Having read many things written by Trenberth it will be interesting to find out what he plans to do following this interchange. I will speculate as other might. We will judge him by his actions, as always.
Anthony Watts,
Thank you for attending so the rest of won’t have to.
After thinking about this a little more… It’s interesting that Dr T has agreed to this event. Does it show a change in strategy? We can examine that question in three scopes: 1) the CAGW movement overall, 2) NCAR the organization, and 3) Dr. T’s professional status and reputation among his peers.
In scope 1 it seems that this shift may be in response to the CAGW movement clearly failing to win over the populace at large (and in fact losing ground). Remember that they are *sure* they are absolutely correct in their belief and have been puzzled as to how anyone could be genuinely skeptical. They are sure that some rabble rousers are funded by “big oil” and others are political motivated zealots whose opposition is anything but sincere. However, they’ve finally admitted to themselves (due to overwhelming evidence) that there are a lot of legitimately skeptical observers who aren’t paid shills or political partisans. To CAGW believers, any such ‘open-minded’ skeptics must simply be misinformed (perhaps by the shills). So it would make sense to begin reaching out to those skeptics (particularly perceived leaders) and try to correct the “misinformation”. Then once these ‘open-minded’ skeptics realize that they’ve been fed wrong information they will fall into line!
As odd as it sounds, that’s probably how many CAGW perceive the situation. I think it’s wonderful for the skeptical cause because it will be a two way street. To pursue this strategy requires the CAGW believers to actually engage in real conversation with skeptics. Previously, they could just lob arguments and invective at us and close their ears to any reply. In a real exchange of ideas and questions, over time, they will become as exposed to the skeptical viewpoint as they hope to expose skeptics to theirs. I’m willing to take that exchange any day of the week.
The second scope (NCAR the organization) is a pretty easy read. They are government funded and there is a never-ending need to justify their expanding budgets. This helps show how NCAR is heroically fulfilling their public education mission.
The third scope (Dr T’s professional status and reputation) may be the most interesting. I don’t really know what the dynamics are here, but I believe he’s thought about it. Could there be a possible role as perceptual “peace maker”? Or perhaps successful “missionary to the heathens”? As much as Judy Curry has gotten slammed by the CAGW high priests, she’s cultivated a surprisingly positive image with scientists outside the priesthood. The CAGW believers expected her to be marginalized and shunted aside but that hasn’t happened (note her recent paper on uncertainty, speaking at MIT, etc). She’s successfully carving out a respected “middle-ground” position and is being validated by the broader community. Perhaps Dr C’s example hasn’t been lost on Dr. T. This NCAR “outreach” event may not actually be a first step in that direction, but it could be a way of testing those waters (let’s not forget that Dr T was willing to openly question the missing heat in private among his peers). It will be interesting to see just how forthcoming Dr T is about uncertainty in this exchange. Of course he’s certainly going to toe the CAGW party line. The telling part will be how explicit he is about the caveats. In the mainstream press the caveats and doubts are largely ignored. In papers they are downplayed and minimized. In private discussion with peers they are acknowledged and debated. What point on that spectrum will he decide land on for this event?
If I was going to be there (sadly, out of the country then) my one question would be an open ended query designed to see how open about uncertainly he’s willing to be in this context.
Ooops! That was supposed to be “the rest of us won’t have to.”
R. Gates;
R. Gates is not a made up name but is my first initial and middle name. I look forward to meeting some of you in November.>>>
Either your name is first initial “R” and last name “Gates” or it isn’t. Since it isn’t, the name is made up. I won’t be able to meet you unfortunately, but I’m certain that of the 20 or so people going along with Anthony, one of them will remind you of the bet I let you off the hook for and that you continue to avoid answering the questions that I pose to you directy such as the ones in this thread.
If a private word could be had with Dr. Trenbirth, perhaps it should go something like this:
‘Saruman, Saruman!’ said Gandalf still laughing. ‘Saruman, you missed your path in life. You should have been the king’s jester and earned your bread, and stripes too, by mimicking his counsellors. Ah me!’ he paused, getting the better of his mirth. ‘Understand one another? I fear I am beyond your comprehension. But you, Saruman, I understand now too well. I keep a clearer memory of your arguments, and deeds, than you suppose. When last I visited you, you were the jailor of Mordor, and there I was to be sent. Nay, the guest who has escaped from the roof, will think twice before he comes back in by the door. Nay, I do not think I will come up. But listen, Saruman, for the last time! Will you not come down? Isengard has proved less strong than your hope and fancy made it. So may other things in which you still have trust. Would it not be well to leave it for a while? To turn to new things, perhaps? Think well, Saruman! Will you not come down?’
Some of the paranoia here is incredible. The advice to not go alone or bring ‘muscle’ strikes me as a little absurd. They are scientists, not mobsters. Geez.
I am personally hoping the session can reduce some of the animosity in these discussions.
Being a lay person I have a simple question.
Ask Trenberth why he or his peers have not done this sort of collaboration years ago or all along many times?
It would be good to ask good questions as suggested on here. But discussing here will mean they can pre-empt the questions and have answers prepared. If any delagates have good questions and follow-ups, best to keep them quiet.
What about this question; Petit et.al, Callion et.al, Fisher et.al. (Science) says CO2 lags temperature 800-1000 years. The current flattening of temperature and sea level increase indicates that the same thing is happening again.
Does he agree with Callion,Fisher and Petit et.al. ?
I suggest you have no preconceived questions. Listen to the presentation and question only what is presented based on your understanding of the science.
It may be an ambush and you should be alert but not behave the same.
Hopefully the content of the presentation will end up in the public domain
Oops, my apologies, that is Trenberth, of course. Not a typo, just careless me.
I haven’t read all the comments. Did a search for “trapping” – none.
Please ask how heat trapping gases work.
Looking forward to the post mortem. 🙂
I’ve been to various UCAR/NCAR presentations in the past, including one on global climate change. My boss, a co-worker and I had questions that were poorly answered. That’s okay. When NCAR is willing to make a presentation, I’ll happily listen, ask about the presentation and discuss further during the obligatory tour of the building and lunch. You might be surprised at how much you can learn beyond the presentation period. I think it would be inappropriate to hijack the presentation Q&A period with climategate, IPCC, NOAA questions. As a guest, I would listen politely, learn and hope to develop future opportunities for discussions of our concerns. In other words, it’s their party so let them make their points.
I’ll fill out the form and will be available to attend. If there are many attendees who are scientists, I’ll take a spot on the waiting list.
Dr. Dave, do I know you? Are you, by chance, a transplant from Hawaii?
If Gates had been banned… well I never imagined something like this, breaking the ice. What a deal!
R Gates
I would rather see you engage here than not engage-we need a plurarilty of views to get to the truth and I welcome your considered responses, although I don’t always agree with them.
A two part question I have asked you several times -but I haven’t seen a reply to- is simple, so perhaps as you are hanging around here you might see this version of it;
When do you believe the Northern Hemisphere started generally warming?
What percentage of the global temperature temperatures show a cooling for a statistically meaningful period of time?
I wish I could meet up with you, Dr Trenberth and the others, but obviously distance makes that impossible.
I shall compensate by paying a visit to the Met office archives in nearby Exeter where I am researching my next article.
Tonyb.
If at any time during the meeting Dear Kev tells you “no pressure”: RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!
🙂
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
Might be useful