Willis and I are presenting at AGU’s fall meeting – assistance requested from WUWT readers

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

Anthony W. Watts, Willis Eschenbach



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:



UPDATE: The funding goal has been reached and actually exceeded. I offer my sincerest thanks to everyone who contributed ! It is amazing how those $10 and $20 donations add up quickly. Bothe Willis and me thank you. I’m reminded of a quote from an old movie:
“Dear George, remember no man is a failure who has friends. Thanks for the wings. Love, Clarence.”
I offer my humble thanks on behalf of myself and Willis -Anthony
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 3, 2016 1:11 am

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.

I thought CAGW required a positive feedback due to increased H2O. Doesn’t the whole alarmist schtick rely on water vapor?

ralph ellis
Reply to  commieBob
November 3, 2016 3:18 am

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.comment image

Reply to  ralph ellis
November 3, 2016 6:38 am

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.

Reply to  ralph ellis
November 3, 2016 6:39 am

considered valid?

Reply to  ralph ellis
November 3, 2016 7:10 am

Per their mission statement, the IPCC isn’t allowed to look for causes outside of CO2

Reply to  ralph ellis
November 3, 2016 7:42 am

IPCC’s clearly stated mandate is what does mankind do to the climate. That excludes water vapor.

Reply to  ralph ellis
November 3, 2016 12:20 pm

You are misreading the chart.
read harder

Reply to  commieBob
November 3, 2016 5:44 am

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?

Reply to  commieBob
November 4, 2016 1:29 am

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.

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.

Robert from oz
November 3, 2016 1:14 am

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 .

November 3, 2016 1:20 am

Done. 20 bucks from Switzerland.

Reply to  whuerlimann
November 4, 2016 2:37 am

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.

November 3, 2016 1:43 am

Contributed. Thanks.

Larry Neufeld
November 3, 2016 1:59 am

I appreciate this site and all you do

November 3, 2016 2:15 am

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.

Heather Brown (aka Dartmoor Resident
November 3, 2016 2:29 am

Also just made a contribution – good luck and keep up the excellent work.

November 3, 2016 2:34 am

Donation in. Have fun.

November 3, 2016 2:40 am

Go with our best wishes! Come back with your shield or on it! 🙂

November 3, 2016 2:41 am

Donated, looking forward to reading all about it

November 3, 2016 3:15 am

Not much, but hope it helps.

November 3, 2016 3:17 am

Donated. Best of luck with it.

November 3, 2016 3:26 am

Done; but use a little of it for beer.
Or better, malt whisky.

Reply to  Oldseadog
November 3, 2016 3:37 am

Or G&T for Willis.

Reply to  Oldseadog
November 3, 2016 5:41 am

My contribution sent…a small price to pay for a great educational website…keep up the good work. Enjoy the buzz of the meeting.

Gordon Ford
Reply to  Oldseadog
November 3, 2016 9:16 am

I second that motion

November 3, 2016 3:38 am

Done, good luck with the presentation.

November 3, 2016 3:49 am

happy to have donated –but later on could you explain the significance of your findings in the grand scheme of global warming please

Frederick Davies
November 3, 2016 3:49 am

$100 (in pounds) on their way.
Frederick Davies

John Bennett
November 3, 2016 3:56 am

Donated. Now go do that voodoo that you do so well :).

November 3, 2016 4:35 am

You have my money. Now, FIX ‘EM!

November 3, 2016 5:01 am

what, no bitcoin slot?

November 3, 2016 5:11 am

Done, good luck with your presentation.

November 3, 2016 5:19 am

I’m in.

Malcolm Chapman
November 3, 2016 5:23 am

Donated. Enjoy. We look forward to hearing about it.

Geoff Withnell
November 3, 2016 5:34 am

I kicked in my $20. Keep up the good work.

Lance Wallace
November 3, 2016 5:38 am

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.

Dave Yaussy
November 3, 2016 6:01 am

I’m in. good luck.

November 3, 2016 6:12 am

Just dropped $US50.00 in the jar…

Bill Illis
November 3, 2016 6:12 am

Just noting that RSS water vapor (60N-60S) was down to +0.654 kg/m2 anomaly in September 2016 as the impacts of last year’s El Nino wear off. This is very large drop from the peak of +2.064 kg/m2 in December 2015. The ENSO controls these numbers far more than the basic temperature changes does.

Ethan Brand
November 3, 2016 6:13 am

Donated. Keep up the great work. I envy the interesting conversations you and Willis are sure to have.

November 3, 2016 6:27 am

When I am asked to debate a climate alarmist I often loudly state that I only debate informed people so they must answer a couple of questions to show that they can understand what they are talking about. The questions are as follows:
Q: What is by far the largest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere?
A: Water or H2O
Q: What happens to water when it gets warmer?
A: Turns to vapor
Q: What is one of the most common name for water vapor in our atmosphere?
A: Clouds
Q: What color are the tops of clouds when you look at them from an airplane?
A: White
Q: What happens to much of the sun’s energy when it hits a white surface?
A: It is reflected
Q: (the hardest scientific question) What do you call a system that naturally corrects itself?
A: A self balancing system.
I know that there are lots of other factors that go into calculating the warming / cooling effect of water vapor but this little exercise makes them look at the world in a whole different manner. They usually just grumble and walk away.

Robert Austin
Reply to  Pedio
November 3, 2016 7:07 am

Strictly speaking, clouds are an aerosol, not a vapour.

Reply to  Robert Austin
November 3, 2016 12:21 pm

Dont mind him, he knows it all. Settled skeptic science

Reply to  Pedio
November 3, 2016 12:24 pm

Clouds cannot form without removing energy from the Earth’s surface
Clouds are only up there because H2O has done its job.

Reply to  AndyG55
November 3, 2016 2:24 pm

to Steven Mosher: the only way a theory can be “settled” is when it is proven wrong.

November 3, 2016 6:34 am

Donated. Please let us know when you reach your goal. I’m looking forward to reading about your experience and sure do hope you are able to draw some “closet-skeptics” out into the open!

November 3, 2016 6:37 am

Donated. If you get a chance, thank AGU president Margaret Leinen for her careful handling of the Exxon-Mobil issue. She probably will be taking heat for it from some quarters at the conference.

Tom in Florida
November 3, 2016 7:34 am

Done. Remember folks, your donation doesn’t have to be large, every dollar counts.
Et tu regular commenters?

Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 4, 2016 12:26 pm

“Remember folks, your donation doesn’t have to be large, every dollar counts.”
sure does
regular reader, not regular commenter, just a regular commoner
just the same as every vote counts : )
Have a good Ole A & W Root Beer float , if you choose for desert, “A & W” and best wishes for success.

November 3, 2016 7:44 am

I trust WE will not mention his nonsense steel/glass 0.04% colander energy doubling breeder theory or his CV.

November 3, 2016 7:50 am

“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. ”
Water vapour is a feedback, and therefore cannot be a driver. There is no way of causing temperatures to rise in the long term by increasing water vapour because it just precipitates out again within a matter of days. Of course this feedback is incorporated in the models, just as a feedback rather than a forcing.

Reply to  dikranmarsupial
November 3, 2016 7:52 am

Worldwide brightening can lead to increased temperatures and increased WV feedback.
So what drives the brightening?

Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 7:57 am

Depends what you mean by “Worldwide brightening”, but I would take it to mean a reduction in aerosols, and again WV would be a feedback not a forcing (driver) that would be the aerosol emissions.

Janice Moore
Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 8:02 am

Cloud cover (driven by water cycle, winds, currents — the sun is the steady-state maintainer of climate homeostastis — Note: solar chemistry, may drive shifts in climate via changes in the UV part of the spectrum — this is plausible, but, not yet proven).
Here is an article about global brightening you may find helpful:

Janice Moore
Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 8:09 am

ECB: Here is an article about how the sun may significantly affect global cloud cover (amount and or location):
From above article:

in a study based on over 25 years of satellite observations.
The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth’s atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. The eruptions cause a reduction in cloud fraction of about 2 percent corresponding to roughly a billion tonnes of liquid water disappearing from the atmosphere.
Since clouds are known to affect global temperatures on longer timescales, the present investigation represents an important step in the understanding of clouds and climate variability. …

And here is a good article about solar chemistry, Gray, et al.
From the abstract:

Understanding the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate requires knowledge of
1) solar variability;
2) solar-terrestrial interactions; and
3) mechanisms determining the response of the Earth’s climate system.
We provide a summary of our current understanding in each of these three areas. …

I hope this is helpful!

Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 8:39 am

Thanks Janice. That last link does not seem to work though.
They do not know what is the biggest driver of brightening, etc, but the recent warming burst we are worrying about (1975 to 1998) is nearly identical to 1910 to 1940.(eg: Phil Jones interview 2010).
Therefore I still do not see any evidence of CO2 warming. If there is, it is very small, on the order of what Dr. Lindzen measured, ie, about 0.6 C for a doubling.
IE, nothing to worry about.

Janice Moore
Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 8:51 am

In case you’d like to read Gray, et al. (2010)
Here you go (sorry that the above link did not work)
(within above link: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Gray_gr08900n.pdf )
Both the above links worked within the last 4 minutes.
They may not know which driver is BIGGEST, but, they do know the drivers for which there is good evidence.
You’re welcome. 🙂

Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 8:52 am

O.K. so this is nothing to do with whether or not water vapour is a feedback rather than a forcing (and hence cannot be a driver of climate change)? If so, why post it as a reply to my comment?

Janice Moore
Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 8:55 am

Guess what, Dikran?
I wasn’t talking to YOU.

Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 9:01 am

It is still obfuscating the point I was making though (by separating the initial comment from any discussion of what I said with a bunch of comments on a completely unrelated topic). Funny that! ;o)

Janice Moore
Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 9:51 am

Guess what, Dikran? I was writing my comment while you were posting yours (note the time stamps). I had no idea that ANY comment would appear between mine and ECB’s.
I figured that my addressing my comments to “ECB:” would be a clue….
The content of my comments might also have been a clue, for some…..

Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 10:35 am

Janice, you are of course right, I had misread the nesting of posts, and I sincerely apologise for my error.

Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 10:39 am

Actually ECB’s comment does appear to have been a (non-sequitur) reply to mine, in which case all the subsequent discussion was also a non-sequitur, but I shouldn’t have been grumpy about it in any case, so the apology stands anyway.

Janice Moore
Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 10:44 am

Dear Dikran,
How very kind of you. I forgive you. Please forgive MY rather brusk responses.

Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 11:18 am


Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 12:39 pm

“So what drives the brightening?”
The same thing as in the early 1980’s and up to the late 1990’s: Reduced net global SO2 aerosol emissions due to EPA-driven Clean Air efforts (and similar efforts abroad).
Warming ALWAYS occurs whenever net global SO2 aerosol emissions are reduced.
As I have posted in earlier threads, temporary periods of increases in average global temperatures occur whenever there is a a business recession, or a depression, due to .the decreased industrial activity, and fewer SO2 emissions.
Since the IPCC “Diagram of Radiative Forcings” has no component for the large amount of warming due to the REMOVAL of SO2 aerosol emissions, it is seriously misleading and should be discarded.
Considering all of the above, the,actual amount of warming due to CO2 can be proven to be ZERO.

Reply to  dikranmarsupial
November 3, 2016 9:37 am

“Water vapour is a feedback, and therefore cannot be a driver”
It is clearly a negative feedback, transporting heat from the surface to the upper troposphere to be radiated away. A troposphere hot spot is not needed, as all it takes is a few moments earlier vertical transport as described by Willis, giving a larger sum of heat transport per day, without any change to the maximum temperature for that day.

Janice Moore
Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 9:54 am

Also, being a cycle, a feedback can become a driver.

Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 10:19 am

IMO, the daily, hourly, minute by minute vertical transport needs energy to drive it. The driver is the surface heat, ocean heat and wind velocity. That would give the illusion of water vapor being a driver, but is it not a lagging variable.(other than daily weather, including jet streams, moving moist air around)
Is there data to show otherwise?

Janice Moore
Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 11:00 am

Dear ECB,
As to the ultimate driver identification issue, in a coupled, non-linear, apparently chaotic, system such as “earth,” can that ever be known?
We agree on the essentials:
1) there are drivers, for which there is solid evidence, i.e., data; and
2) there is nonsensical conjecture (especially now, given the ANTI-correlation data: CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.) about human CO2 (re: its effect on the open system called “earth”).
Thank you for considering what I had to say with such graciousness.
I hope that someone of your level of science education attainment answers you!

Reply to  ECB
November 3, 2016 11:12 am

Thanks for the feedback Janice.
I made a typo “That would give the illusion of water vapor being a driver, but is it not a lagging variable”
it should be ” “That would give the illusion of water vapor being a driver, but it is not, as it is a lagging variable, (other than daily weather, including jet streams, moving moist air around)”
As far as a science education, I have had mine way back in the 60’s, but Willis and AW have blown me away in their innovative thinking and attention to detail.(I could add many others, like Steve McIntyre, etc)

Reply to  ECB
November 4, 2016 3:50 am

ECB “It is clearly a negative feedback, transporting heat from the surface to the upper troposphere to be radiated away. ”
It isn’t a negative feedback, it is a positive one. You would get convection even without water vapour and that is what drives the transfer of heat to the upper trophosphere. Again this is just avoiding the point that water vapour is not a driver of climate change.
There is a good reason why water vapour is not talked about as being a driver of climate change, which is that it clearly isn’t. However that doesn’t mean it isn’t important or that its effects are not already properly included in climate projections. Indeed, at the moment I am reading a standard textbook related to the carbon cycle (Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow) and the second sentence on page 1 is:
“Next to water vapour it [carbon dioxide] is the second most important greenhouse gas”.
This isn’t a secret, all the climatologists know about it, and are perfectly happy to discuss it. The difference is that they know it is a feedback, not a “driver” of climate change (on any timescale greater than a few days).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  dikranmarsupial
November 3, 2016 11:45 am

Anthropogenic water vapor can be a driver if activities such as impounding water behind dams, bringing subsurface water to the surface to water crops, and in particular pivotal irrigation in general, introduce water vapor that would not otherwise be there. Golf courses are a great source of water vapor, especially in the SW USA. Using river or lake water to cool power plants introduces water vapor that would not otherwise be present. The combustion of hydrocarbons produces water vapor as well as CO2. The anthropogenic water vapor is continually replenished, so even if it precipitates out within a few days, it still has an impact.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 3, 2016 12:07 pm

That seems reasonable enough. Do you have a measure of the amount? If one adds the total hydrocarbons burned per year, water used for irrigation, cooling.. is it equivalent to the many inches of yearly world wide preciipation?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 3, 2016 12:20 pm

Tim Ball addressed this issue:
Conclusion: ” They don’t know how much contribution human water vapour (H2O) makes because they don’t have critical information. They don’t know how much H2O humans produce, how much H2O there is in the atmosphere, or the amount H2O varies naturally”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 3, 2016 7:12 pm

Clearly, the oceans and transpiration from native vegetation dominate the production of water vapor globally. However, the point is that dry land that previously provided a small amount of water vapor is now producing much more as a result of the “Aswan Dam Effect” and people now living in large numbers in desert areas (like Phoenix and Las Vegas), and marginal semi-arid lands being put into agricultural production with ground water or water brought over large distances from reservoirs.
As an example of what I’m familiar with, the Santa Clara Valley (now generally called Silicon Valley) once had Artesian wells. The water table is now about 500′ deep. The area gets about 15″ of rainfall a year, but because of the ground water and water brought in from Hetch Hetchy and other places, the urban landscape is more like areas that get twice that amount. The water from lawns, trees, and golf courses is transpired at about twice the rate it was in 1850. This has got to have an effect locally and downwind.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 4, 2016 3:54 am

Clyde, the amount of water behind dams and that used for irrigation is tiny compared to the surface of the oceans, the difference this will make on a global scale is going to be entirely negligible.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 4, 2016 3:32 pm

:You said, “Clyde, the amount of water behind dams and that used for irrigation is tiny compared to the surface of the oceans, the difference this will make on a global scale is going to be entirely negligible.”
I said, “Clearly, the oceans and transpiration from native vegetation dominate the production of water vapor globally.”
Aren’t we saying essentially the same thing? However, the point I was trying to make is that anthropogenic water vapor can be important on a regional scale, over land. The water vapor moves with the prevailing winds and therefore covers an area much larger than just the surface area of the reservoir water and field crops. Since most of us live on the land, and that is where most of the weather stations are located, the impact is not really “entirely negligible.” In the case of the US, most of the arid and semi-arid land is west of the Mississippi River and water vapor largely moves eastward, impacting the rest of the country Assuming that the prevailing winds average about 30 miles per hour, the water vapor-enriched air will travel about 700 miles per day; assuming it has an average residency of 3 days before precipitating, it can cover a 2,000 mile east-west swath because it is being released continuously, not just as a one-time pulse. In summary, it seems to me, that if humans are introducing water vapor that was not present over the land previously, there has to be a non-negligible effect.

Smart Rock
November 3, 2016 7:56 am

When you have time, perhaps you can fill us in on how your study relates to the big picture. Perhaps it’s too early in the morning, or my brain is starting to slow down due to overwork (sudden increase in investor interest in base metals and I’m all bogged down in data), but I need a hand to follow how your analysis “to determine the magnitude of upwelling long-wave infrared radiation from Earth’s surface” leads to in finding “an increase in downwelling longwave radiation”, and how that impacts the overall energy balance.

Reply to  Smart Rock
November 3, 2016 12:04 pm

Seconded. AW, I am interested in how you see your analysis contributing to the understanding of climate. At face value, it seems to enhance the “water vapour feedback” claim of the IPCC. One important factor not examined is precipitation. Presumably the increased water vapour content would lead to increased precipitation and hence to cooling, which would offset your W/m2 finding.

Chris Nelli
November 3, 2016 8:04 am

Done! Give’em hell.

Janice Moore
November 3, 2016 8:18 am

I donated!!!! For the first time (had a little extra cash, for once!) in over 3 years of being here! And am I glad for the opportunity.

(youtube New Avengers)
You are up against the Green Slime Monster and the very powers of Hell (we all know who is the author of lies).
Praying for you both,

November 3, 2016 8:30 am

Glad to help. $ on the way.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 3, 2016 8:39 am

You are a gentleman and a scholar, Leif.

Jack Langdon
November 3, 2016 8:47 am

I’m in. God Speed!

David Day
November 3, 2016 8:48 am

Donated what my small pension allows.
I second the interest in reading a “summary for laymen” explanation of
what you will be presenting. Perhaps Willis could knock it out quickly.
He seems the best “this subject for dummies” guy I’ve ever read.
Knock ’em dead.

November 3, 2016 8:48 am

Ok, I’m in.

The Old Man
November 3, 2016 8:58 am

Well worth the contribution. Happy to be able to do it. (d.f.)

November 3, 2016 9:24 am

Done. Hope the presentation goes well.

November 3, 2016 9:33 am

Spend my donation on a good bottle of wine or a lot of beer for you both while in attendance.

David Alexander
November 3, 2016 9:47 am

I am a long time lurker. I have never posted nor have contributed in any way. Glad to be able to contribute something. Good luck.

Janice Moore
Reply to  David Alexander
November 3, 2016 10:10 am

Dear Mr. Alexander,
Glad you piped up!
KEEP ON POSTING — it’s fun! 🙂
@ all the “David Alexanders” out there: “You know things. Share.” (John F. Hultquist to me, upon the occasion of my hesitant first comment (“Curse you, Hultquist,” many are saying, right now, lolololol))
Take care,

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 3, 2016 9:23 pm

Back at you, Janice.
O/T: Nice day in the Great State of Washington — for a change!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 4, 2016 7:45 am

John. 🙂

CD in Wisconsin
November 3, 2016 10:03 am

Donated $20. Keep it up Anthony and Willis. Stand your ground against the climate gloom-and-doomers, don’t let them intimidate you.

November 3, 2016 10:17 am

I am encouraged to see the observation of increasing WV getting some exposure. Expanding on Willis’ work I found the NASA/RSS data on TPW and incorporated the effect into my assessment of average global temperature (98% match with measured average global temperatures 1895-2015). WV appears to be the “as yet unidentified factor” I referred to at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/12/the-hyping-of-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-required-weather-myths/
Curious about where the increasing WV is coming from, some rough calculations show about 22% from increased average global temperature and nearly all of the rest from irrigation. Humanity’s energy use (which lots of folks are in a sweat about and are side tracked on CO2 which has no significant effect on climate) contributes only a tiny part.
The draw down of water tables world wide for irrigation looks like a looming real problem for humanity.

November 3, 2016 10:18 am

Donation’s done. I’m happy to help.

November 3, 2016 10:26 am


November 3, 2016 10:33 am

I’m in – have a great time and maybe open a few, previously closed, minds

Eric S. Elsam
November 3, 2016 10:53 am

Done. I know your contributions will be ill-received by some, but that’s science, and so be it. Safe trip.

November 3, 2016 10:55 am

I’m in. Accounting for water vapor is BIG.

Don V
November 3, 2016 11:00 am

Glad to donate!
The paper looks to be an excellent presentation of hard data. Can’t argue much with that.

November 3, 2016 11:05 am

Here’s my tuppence.
Since I did contribute, let me wish you both well, and encourage each of you to continue to remain above the base behavior evinced by some others holding views at odds with yours.

Steamboat McGoo
November 3, 2016 11:09 am

Another $100 in the can. Hours ago, actually, but … well … I fell asleep. *Glares – Daring anyone to laugh*

Frederik Michiels
November 3, 2016 11:11 am

is there a way to donate through international bank transfer? If so i would gladly do so!

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  Frederik Michiels
November 3, 2016 3:35 pm

Not sure about that, but I think you can use a credit card (either through PayPal, or I think there’s a separate choice you can click for it).

Janice Moore
Reply to  Frederik Michiels
November 3, 2016 4:16 pm

Good idea, Ms. Skolaut. I used my VISA card.
Also, Mr. (M.?) Michiels, another option to support Anthony is to buy something from his business, The Weathershop
here: http://weathershop.com/
(and also linked via the “Monitor Your Own Climate” link on the right sidebar of this page.

November 3, 2016 11:12 am


Mike Robinson
November 3, 2016 11:13 am

Here’s a small contribution. Thank you very much for the site.

Joe Crawford
November 3, 2016 11:20 am

Done…. I wish you and Willis good luck since you are destined to run into a rather large gaggle of deniers (i.e., those that are unwilling to listen to much less accept anything that conflicts with the Gospel according to InterPanClimChan). They really don’t like someone forcing them into thinking. It is markedly uncomfortable.

Michael Brown
November 3, 2016 11:23 am

donated 20 bucks Thanks for all you do!

November 3, 2016 11:34 am

That’s $20 from Munich, Germany. Thanks for all the hard work

November 3, 2016 11:48 am

in for $100. Have a good time and show them what real science looks like.

November 3, 2016 11:50 am


Clyde Spencer
November 3, 2016 11:52 am

Do me a favor and while you’re there, ask around why we have seen so little about the results of the OCO-2 satellite program. I’m beginning to think that they are embarrassed to show the results.

Smokey (Can't do a thing about wildfires)
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 4, 2016 3:36 am

No idea if the data sets actually work, but there’s the place NASA’s distributing them publicly. Like you, I wouldn’t mind seeing an update on it! (Anthony did one last year, but other than that article & the Wikipedia page on the mission I haven’t seen anything new about the project in a while.)

Reply to  Smokey (Can't do a thing about wildfires)
November 4, 2016 6:22 am

Here’s a very recent press release, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?CFID=d11df51f-403f-45c7-b1a2-7c9fab0f37f3&CFTOKEN=0&feature=6666
It talks about a new global map, but only includes an image of Europe and northern Africa.
I don’t have time to hunt it down, the paper is probably paywalled:

The team of scientists from the Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, produced three main maps from OCO-2 data, each centered on one of Earth’s highest-emitting regions: the eastern United States, central Europe and East Asia. The maps show widespread carbon dioxide across major urban areas and smaller pockets of high emissions.
“OCO-2 can even detect smaller, isolated emitting areas like individual cities,” said research scientist Janne Hakkarainen, who led the study. “It’s a very powerful tool that gives new insight.”
The results appear in a paper titled “Direct Space-Based Observations of Anthropogenic CO2 Emission Areas from OCO-2,” published Nov. 1 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The New Horizons team (Pluto et al probe) have a much better understanding of letting the public know what’s going on.
The last post here may be mine from exactly a year ago, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/04/oco-2-orbiting-carbon-observatory-2-the-mission-has-released-an-animation/
Hey Anthony, if you see a bureaucrat involved with OCO-2 at the meeting, give him a dope slap for me.

Smokey (Can't do a thing about wildfires)
Reply to  Smokey (Can't do a thing about wildfires)
November 4, 2016 7:07 am

@Ric Werme: Thanks very much! Also, yes, your article does post-date the one I saw by Anthony by about a month, & yes, all but the abstract of the paper you reference is currently pay-walled (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL070885/full).
Regarding that paper, I love that its abstract opens with an unqualified, unsupported assertion: “Anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion have large impacts on climate.”
The end, full stop, thanks for playing; it offers no references, footnotes, examples or qualifiers, just a bald assertion from which everything else follows. It’s a bit sad when a peer-reviewed paper needs a Wikipedia-style [citation needed] tag in the very first sentence, but that’s the state of the field I suppose.
Dear Authors: I just want to see the data you obtained, not slog through your editorials, please.

fred J
November 3, 2016 11:54 am

A point that needs to be emphasised is that quoted concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are measured on a dry air basis. This is because H2O is exceedingly variable and very difficult to measure.

Reply to  fred J
November 3, 2016 12:37 pm

NASA/RSS does it by satellite and reports on line

Reply to  fred J
November 6, 2016 2:41 pm

What? Satellites are used to estimate vapor and precipitable water.

November 3, 2016 12:17 pm

PayPal links not working from surfacestations.org here (wonder why?) – anyone have the surfacestations PayPal address to make a donation via the app?

Roger Hird
November 3, 2016 12:40 pm

My $20 is on the way.

Reed Coray
November 3, 2016 12:41 pm

I’m in. Good Luck.

Steve (Paris)
November 3, 2016 1:03 pm

Donation done. I hope there’s some beer money in there too. Thirsty work telling the truth.

November 3, 2016 1:12 pm

Happy to help. Thanks for everything you do.
In a (very) weird way, it’s ok that the giant climate tanker will take some time to turn around. WUWT is a fantastic source and would be sorely missed if the sceptical silver bullet happened tomorrow.
Best of luck from South West England.

November 3, 2016 1:23 pm

Donated with thanks for all you do.

Javert Chip
November 3, 2016 1:23 pm

Feels good to support this…

November 3, 2016 1:26 pm

Donated. Have fun!

Barbara Skolaut
November 3, 2016 1:27 pm

Give ’em hell. 😀

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  Barbara Skolaut
November 3, 2016 3:32 pm

And by the way, thanks for the opportunity to participate in some small way.

November 3, 2016 1:32 pm

done. keep up the good work.

November 3, 2016 1:35 pm

Done. Get ‘er done.

November 3, 2016 2:04 pm

Done, Thanks for all that you do Anthony.

Joe Prins
November 3, 2016 2:15 pm

Done. Thanks so much for all your efforts, Anthony and you too, Willis.

Walt Allensworth
November 3, 2016 2:34 pm

$50 on the way for you guys!

feeling great
November 3, 2016 3:14 pm

Think I just donated for a talk about clouds

November 3, 2016 3:16 pm

donation in ..good luck to both of you …hope its not too late!

November 3, 2016 3:41 pm

Small donation made – hope it helps Anthony.

Bob MacLean
November 3, 2016 4:22 pm

Modest contribution from a senior citizen. Good luck with the presentation.

TibJane (Full name in Email)
November 3, 2016 4:25 pm

Donated for you and Willis — looking forward to those conference reports!

Stefan in Houston
November 3, 2016 4:50 pm


old construction worker
November 3, 2016 5:07 pm

Done have fun. Don’t come back with a black eye.

Matheus Carvalho
November 3, 2016 5:28 pm

Also did a small donation. Thanks for the awesome work.

David S
November 3, 2016 6:27 pm

I don’t mean to throw a wet blanket on things, but wouldn’t this just show water vapor to be a strong positive feedback?
Yeah I sent a donation too.

November 3, 2016 6:48 pm

You sent a payment of $50.00 USD to Willard Watts.


Reply to  Anthony Watts
November 3, 2016 7:11 pm

Sorry for the bother. I’m way beyond paranoid and worry about anything that looks even slightly wrong. 🙂

Tom Dayton
November 3, 2016 7:14 pm

Ray Pierrehumbert and others have given “Invited” talks. In contrast, your request to present was accepted. There is a big difference.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom Dayton
November 3, 2016 8:51 pm

Pierrehumbert’s 2012 talk was full of NON-science, half-truths, and errors like this one:
… the models were getting it right, and it was the CLIMAP data and Lindzen’s theories that were wrong. Unfortunately, bad scientists don’t acknowledge their mistakes; Lindzen keeps inventing ever more arcane theories to avoid admitting he was wrong.
(Source: http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2012/12/successful-predictions-agu-2012-tyndall-lecture/ )
You have, on the one hand:
P., a junk science climate clown, invited by the AGU because the AGU (to keep the gov’t. grant money flowing) backs the junk science of failed-model-based AGW.
And on the other:
Anthony Watts, et al., presenter of observational-based, historically accurate, science.
There is a big difference.

Reply to  Tom Dayton
November 3, 2016 9:39 pm

“Ray Pierrehumbert and others have given “Invited” talks”
Was the comedy festival in town again !!

November 3, 2016 7:28 pm

Donated 50 buck. Keep up the good work.

J Wurts
November 3, 2016 7:33 pm

A little help…
Knock em dead.

November 3, 2016 8:24 pm

In order to reduce the meeting’s carbon footprint, rather than hold the meeting in San Francisco they should hold the meeting on line on the Internet.

Reply to  willhaas
November 3, 2016 8:49 pm

Gee, maybe they realize that the carbon (carbon dioxide) footprint. doesn’t have much to do with the climate – hurricanes, drought, rainfall floods, tornadoes, sea level rise… etc.

Reply to  willhaas
November 3, 2016 11:06 pm

@ willhaas, That’s logical, don’t you know ?

Jack Woodward
November 3, 2016 8:59 pm

Anthony and Willis, it is a privilege to be able to donate to your trip.

November 3, 2016 9:01 pm

I’m in too. A modest contribution from another senior citizen – but as much as I can afford. Oh to be a rich man… and make a REAL difference.
Good luck to both of you and my thanks and appreciation for all the hard work you do to promote truth.

November 3, 2016 9:07 pm

Donated $20 from New Zealand.

November 3, 2016 9:55 pm


November 3, 2016 10:04 pm

If you need more Anthony just let us know.

James Bull
November 3, 2016 10:09 pm

You and Willis have a drink on me.
James Bull

November 3, 2016 10:23 pm

OK. Done. Anytime, just ask.

November 3, 2016 10:38 pm

$20 from Florida to California.

Rhys Kent
November 4, 2016 12:18 am

Here’s my Canadian donation eh? Keep up the good work!

Janet Smith
November 4, 2016 3:02 am

Dollars from Australia and happy to help.

Smokey (Can't do a thing about wildfires)
November 4, 2016 4:18 am

Donated, for a decent meal or whatever other purpose(s) “A. & W.” may require it.
With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone. =D

November 4, 2016 6:20 am

$20 straight from TX. Give ‘me hell you guys.
How’s the total?

November 4, 2016 6:34 am

Anthony W. Watts, Willis Eschenbach a shame that Jaworowski will not see your work.

November 4, 2016 7:24 am

Good that you have a paper on the AGU meeting agenda. I for myself would have chosen a more radical approach and ditched the idiotic greenhouse effect. I am also an AGU member but being a retiree those meeting expenses keep me back. They are meant for your institution or your corporation and that is how most of them pay. When I was active in my field (which is spectroscopy) my employer (Grumman) used to send me to these meetings a couple of times a year, sometimes even abroad if I could convince them of its importance. I fell into climate science accidentally after I retired thanks to that moron Al Gore who told us that a twenty foot sea rise was on the way. When he got a Nobel prize for that I was mad. It was easy to disprove but when both Nature and Science refused to publish me I knew something was very wrong and started doing climate science. Currently I have proved that the greenhouse effect that is going to burn us up does not even exist. I have a short summary I will attach below. I am afraid the figures will not go in, but I will send them if somebody is interrested. You may take it up with some participants at the meeting if you wish.
Arno Arrak
September 30th 2016 — Revised October 2016
Truth of the matter is that carbon dioxide does not now, and never has, caused any global warming. This is proven by the well-known geologic history of carbon dioxide and by observations recorded in the global temperature curves by NOAA, GISS, the Met Office, and others. All the observed temperature changes shown in these global temperature curves are caused by natural phenomena, not by humans. How do I know this? Very simply, by comparing a global temperature curve with the Keeling [1] curve. We really owe a debt to Dr. Keeling for deciding to create an accurate record of atmospheric carbon dioxide. His curve goes back to 1958 but it has been extended to earlier times by measuring carbon dioxide within ice cores. As you probably have been told, the greenhouse effect is allegedly caused by atmospheric, anthropogenic greenhouse gas CO2 getting warm by absorbing the infrared radiation that is leaving the earth. It is referred to as AGW, for anthropogenic global warming. That has already been questioned based on the energy density not being sufficient to create warming but we do not need it for our purpose. Greenhouse theory works fine with pure gases in the laboratory but it fails in the atmosphere. You can see for yourself the record of its failure by comparing any global temperature curve with the Keeling curve in figure 1.. There is a physical theory, introduced by Ferenc Miskolczi [2], that explains what happens. According to him, water vapor and carbon dioxide, both greenhouse gases, form a joint absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1.87. When additional carbon dioxide is then added, it starts to absorb in the IR as predicted. But this will increase the optical thickness. And when this happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. Proof that addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will not increase the optical thickness was published by Miskolczi in 2010 [3]. But by lowering the water vapor you also lower its infrared absorptivity. And this prevents the added carbon dioxide from raising global temperature by its greenhouse effect. If you then still insist that the added CO2 created those warm peaks of the temperature curve note that there are no counterparts to these ups and downs of global temperature on the Keeling curve. Keeling curve is smooth from start to finish and shows no signs of having given up any of its carbon dioxide. Greenhouse warming simply does not happen thanks to the Miskolczi effect above. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of the laws of physics. Laws of physics simply do not agree that temperature variations attributed to the greenhouse effect by global warming advocates are in fact caused by the greenhouse effect. To put it another way: anthropogenic greenhouse effect has been proven to be non-existent. We are not causing the world to warm up and all the mitigation in the world will not change the climate. Conclusion: mitigation initiated by Copenhagen and Paris meetings and by other national efforts must be stopped and monies that were collected for it must be returned to the states and organizations who were swindled out of it. And I want my taxes back that were wasted on this boondoggle.
Figures below:
(1) Global temperature curve and the Keeling curve since 1850.
(2) History of atmospheric CO2 since the Cambrian.
[1] Charles David Keeling started measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory of Hawaii in 1958. Additional observing sites have been added since then and at the present day the Keeling curve is compiled from data taken by 100 observatories located all over the world.
[2] Ferenc M. Miskolczi, “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent atmospheres” Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service 111(1):1-40 (2007)
[3] Ferenc M. Miskolczi, “The stable stationary value of the earth’s global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness” Energy & Environment 21(4):243-262 (2010)

Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
November 4, 2016 1:23 pm

Arno @ 7:24
Very interesting post and good to have comments form a spectroscopist.
“But this will increase the optical thickness. And when this happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored.”
Could you please elaborate on this process a bit more.
Also how thick or how overlapping do similar wavelength bands of two gases in the atmosphere have to be before one masks the effect of the other (eg. CO2 and H2O)? Does the overlap have to extend down to the 1or 2 angstrom level?

November 4, 2016 9:10 am

It was much less painful than losing 6 of 7 games of pool to my nemesis, although it cost about the same 🙂

November 4, 2016 1:51 pm

$100 to help you keep up the good work

November 4, 2016 2:04 pm

Anthony – I donated. It is great to have the skeptical media present for this meeting.

November 6, 2016 12:19 am

Hi, Caught this late…have now made my donation…I guess it will just be towards a few beers…thanks for all your work and blogs…look forward to your report back. Roger

November 6, 2016 7:00 am

Mark Steyn has an excellent promotional post on this expidition to the AGU to challenge the warmers in their exclusive den: http://www.steynonline.com/7581/did-the-earth-move-for-you

H. Douglas Lightfoot
November 6, 2016 8:34 pm

AR5 has experimental data showing the water vapour content in the atmosphere increased over the period of approximately 1970 to 2000 and the atmospheric temperature increased by approximately 0.5C over the same period.
There are some good scientists doing good work, such as Willett, K. M and the team that measured this data. Although their work got into the IPCC report, AR5, it is not easy to tease the good data out of 1500 pages.
Nevertheless it is worthwhile.
Hope all goes well at the AGU conference.

November 7, 2016 7:07 am

I was researching some info about biospheric oxygen levels. Seems that some are concerned that burning fossil fuels depletes atmospheric and ocean oxygen levels as well as producing CO2, with dire (What other kinds are there?) consequences.
I found a blog comment by some unemployed rock musician who had bothered some “experts” with his uninformed questions, found the atmospheric oxygen concentration as 20% in Wiki, some vague mutterings from OSHA about 19.5%, the rate of depletion over 261 years, and concluded the end is eminent. WE’RE ALL GOING TO DDDIIIEEE!!!!! And soon, too.
One of the commenters noted that at the rate he mentioned it would be several thousand years before it makes a real difference.
The concentration of oxygen at sea level is 20%. In mile high Denver it’s 17%. On top of Pikes Peak it’s 12%. People work and live out here & up there every day. Hikers make the top of Colorado’s fourteeners every day without turning comatose at the top. Mt Everest, 5%. (You will die.) Species adapt.
This whole climate change kerfuffle would be more peacefully resolved if there weren’t a bunch of know-it-all, blow-hard, wannabe amateurs with no formal training in physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, algebra, statistics etc. and no real-life experience in application of same talking out their butts!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights