The 2016 AGU Fall Meeting is coming up in December. With nearly 24,000 attendees, AGU Fall Meeting is the largest Earth and space science meeting in the world. I hope to attend so that I can cover what is being presented in the world of climate science, while keeping tabs on the antics of people like Michael Mann, John Cook, Peter Gleick, and some of the other players. As some people may or may not know, I am a full member of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in good standing. For the last three years when I attended, I produced several reports and videos in 2013, 2014,and 2015 plus many, many, live Twitter entries that kept tabs on the politics and the science. This year I hope to do the same. But this year, I’m going to be more than that – Willis and I will be the only climate skeptics invited to give a scientific presentation.
Last year, my presentation was well received, and even made the AGU press release feed. You can view it here.
The presentation this year came right out of the pages of WUWT, inspired by these two blog posts.
Precipitable Water and Precipitable Water Redux I expect it will be contentious to some.
It will be at AGU on Wednesday, Dec14th.
Abstract ID: 190899
Final Paper Number: A33B-0226
Abstract Title: Observational Quantification of Water Vapor Radiation Forcing
Session Date and Time: Wednesday, December 14th; 1:40 PM – 6:00 PM
Presentation Length: 19:10 – 19:25
Session Number and Title: A33B: Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks: Advances and New Paradigms I Posters
Observational Quantification of Water Vapor Radiation Forcing
Authors
Anthony W. Watts, Willis Eschenbach
Abstract:
An investigation was conducted utilizing the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) 1°x1° gridded total precipitable water (TPW) dataset to determine the magnitude of upwelling long-wave infrared radiation from Earth’s surface since 1988. TPW represents the mass of water vapor in a 1 meter by 1 meter column from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. As referenced in IPCC AR5 WGI Box 8.1, the radiative effect of absorption by water vapor is roughly proportional to the logarithm of its concentration. Therefore it is the fractional change in water vapor concentration, not the absolute change, that governs its strength as a climate forcing mechanism. A time-series analysis utilizing a Loess decomposition filter indicated there is a clear upward trend in the RSS TPW data since 1988. The observed total change over the period is ~ 1.5 kg/m^2, centered around the long-term mean of 28.7 kg/m^2. Utilizing the observed relationship between water content and atmospheric absorption, the RSS TPW data indicates an increase in downwelling longwave radiation of 3.3 W/m2 over the period 1988 – 2015.
As in years past, here’s the problem. It is VERY expensive to attend, and more so in previous years due to my dual role as news media as well as presenting AGU member. The reason is that I’m told that while in previous years I could register for free as a member of the news media, this year (and last year) due to the fact that I’m presenting, I’m also required to register like any other attending member. I also have to register Willis.
The cost of registration is $480, and the deadline is November 3rd at 1159PM EDT to get that rate. That’s TONIGHT.
Add a hotel for 5-6 days at the typical $150-250 per night rate in SFO, plus incidentals, printing/publication costs, parking, etc. and the cost to attend easily tops $3000.
While many attendees get the taxpayers (via their Universities) or their NGO’s via donors to pay for such things, WUWT has no such resources, and despite the claims common from detractors, like the last few years, we are still waiting for that “big oil check” to arrive. I’ll drive down to save money rather than take a plane. Willis will drive (and maybe take BART) too.
So, like I have done before (and many of you graciously responded), I thought I’d ask the readership if they can help out so that there will be somebody at AGU to report on climate science that can do so from the skeptic side. It is very important that at least one climate skeptic reporter attend. Otherwise, the media coverage will be completely one-sided. As they have before, AGU approved my media pass for 2016, so now I’m set to attend for that at least, but in order to present, I need to pay the member registration fee (for myself and for Willis) and hotel in advance.
Due to the fact that water vapor seems to be generally ignored in favor of CO2 as a climate driver, I suspect this presentation won’t be all that well received, and may raise some eyebrows. If we are lucky, some people might actually leave their comfort zone and pay attention.
Willis and I need your help to get it done.. Thanks for your consideration, and most of all thanks for reading WUWT.
Donations toward this effort will be gratefully accepted: here
See update below.
P.S. This year, with all the activists trying to get AGU to boot out the oil and gas sponsors – unsuccessfully, one wonders if we will see this poster on display again:
“Dear George, remember no man is a failure who has friends. Thanks for the wings. Love, Clarence.”
I thought CAGW required a positive feedback due to increased H2O. Doesn’t the whole alarmist schtick rely on water vapor?
Yes, it is strange that H20 is often not taken into account. But if you look at IPCC AR5 chapter 9, table 9.5, the majority of models listed there do not take water vapour or clouds into account when calculating climate sensitivity. Although how an accurate model can omit two of the largest feedbacks, and still be considered valid, I don’t know.
The game isn’t to prevent warming by understanding feedbacks and forcings, but rather to control the populace through draconian energy restrictions. To that end, it is easier to implement controls on carbon dioxide than water vapor since 2/3 of the planet is covered with oceans, hence the models ignoring the supposed primary greenhouse gas.
considered valid?
Per their mission statement, the IPCC isn’t allowed to look for causes outside of CO2
IPCC’s clearly stated mandate is what does mankind do to the climate. That excludes water vapor.
You are misreading the chart.
read harder
Commie Bob, I thought exactly the same. Far from ignoring water vapor the climate sensitivity claimed requires it. The difference is that water vapor is not a driver, but a response. Is there something in the presentation that shows that water vapor increasing is a driver rather than a response?
I am also unsure how this finding is reconciled with the finding that relative humidity has declined against predictions that it would stay the same. That is, there is not enough water vapor in the atmosphere to give the IPCC climate sensitivity. It appears that the presentation is providing data that there is sufficient water vapor after all, confirming the IPCC climate sensitivty.
Perhaps someone could explain?
The description presented here in the abstract is very short so I may not be getting what the content of this paper is saying but this figure is similar to the simple radiative forcing from CO2. I would think most mainstream climatologists would see this as confirmation of a 2x positive WV feedback “exactly as models have predicted”. Indeed Willis” last post showed that it is far strong again in the tropics: up to about 15 W/m^2.
There is clearly something countering that and it has to be the poorly understood evaporation/precipitation cycle.
Can’t help with the scientific but wish you both the best and if WUWT is any guide you will slayem.
Failing that bamboozle them with bullshit . After all it’s the only language they know .
Done. 20 bucks from Switzerland.
Same here from Greece, sorry it’s not more but as you probably know we’re having a bit of a rough time here financially.
Contributed. Thanks.
I appreciate this site and all you do
Long time lurker and appreciator of this site, was time for me to actually contribute in a small small way.
Many thanks for your continued effort.
B
Also just made a contribution – good luck and keep up the excellent work.
Donation in. Have fun.
Go with our best wishes! Come back with your shield or on it! 🙂
Donated, looking forward to reading all about it
Not much, but hope it helps.
Donated. Best of luck with it.
Done; but use a little of it for beer.
Or better, malt whisky.
Or G&T for Willis.
My contribution sent…a small price to pay for a great educational website…keep up the good work. Enjoy the buzz of the meeting.
I second that motion
Done, good luck with the presentation.
happy to have donated –but later on could you explain the significance of your findings in the grand scheme of global warming please
$100 (in pounds) on their way.
Frederick Davies
Donated. Now go do that voodoo that you do so well :).
You have my money. Now, FIX ‘EM!
what, no bitcoin slot?
donated
Done, good luck with your presentation.
I’m in.
Donated. Enjoy. We look forward to hearing about it.
I kicked in my $20. Keep up the good work.
Ante’d up.
At my conferences, only one person (the presenter) on a multiauthor paper needs to register. If Willis presents and you go on your media pass, perhaps you could save the registration fee. But whatever you decide, I’m with you.
They won’t even let you in the conference without a badge at AGU, whether you are a presenter or not. Seems rather unfair.
I’m in. good luck.