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.”


Done. I know your contributions will be ill-received by some, but that’s science, and so be it. Safe trip.
I’m in. Accounting for water vapor is BIG.
Glad to donate!
The paper looks to be an excellent presentation of hard data. Can’t argue much with that.
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.
Felix
Another $100 in the can. Hours ago, actually, but … well … I fell asleep. *Glares – Daring anyone to laugh*
is there a way to donate through international bank transfer? If so i would gladly do so!
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).
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.
Donated
Here’s a small contribution. Thank you very much for the site.
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.
donated 20 bucks Thanks for all you do!
That’s $20 from Munich, Germany. Thanks for all the hard work
in for $100. Have a good time and show them what real science looks like.
Done
Anthony,
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.
Clyde
https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/#mission=OCO-2
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.)
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 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.
@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.
Kthxbai,
Smokey
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.
NASA/RSS does it by satellite and reports on line
What? Satellites are used to estimate vapor and precipitable water.
PayPal links not working from surfacestations.org here (wonder why?) – anyone have the surfacestations PayPal address to make a donation via the app?
My $20 is on the way.
I’m in. Good Luck.
Donation done. I hope there’s some beer money in there too. Thirsty work telling the truth.
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.
Donated with thanks for all you do.
Feels good to support this…
Donated. Have fun!
Done!
Give ’em hell. 😀
And by the way, thanks for the opportunity to participate in some small way.
done. keep up the good work.