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.”
$20 from Florida to California.
Here’s my Canadian donation eh? Keep up the good work!
Dollars from Australia and happy to help.
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
$20 straight from TX. Give ‘me hell you guys.
How’s the total?
Anthony W. Watts, Willis Eschenbach a shame that Jaworowski will not see your work.
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.
************************************************************************
AGW IS MISSING
[PRELIMINARY]
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.
References:
[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)
Arno @ur momisugly 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?
Thanks
Donated.
It was much less painful than losing 6 of 7 games of pool to my nemesis, although it cost about the same 🙂
$100 to help you keep up the good work
Anthony – I donated. It is great to have the skeptical media present for this meeting.
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
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
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.
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!