Anthony Watts Presentation at AGU16

Jack Hays · Dec 21, 2016

Buzz said:
Damn Jack.... what is with you? I got into this argument because your OP described water vapor as a forcing. It is in the title of Watts and Eschenbach's presentation... remember?

I pointed out that water vapor is a feedback. And now you are agreeing with me and acting like I was the one who claimed it was a forcing. This just makes no sense what-so-ever. And you have said nothing that makes me think you have any idea what this debate is really about.

I do have a question for you... Where do you get all your heavily formatted cut and pastes from?

You are indeed the only one who has claimed water vapor is a forcing. The OP did not, and I did not. Your argument is based on your own fabrication.

Buzz · Dec 21, 2016

Jack Hays said:
You are indeed the only one who has claimed water vapor is a forcing. The OP did not, and I did not. Your argument is based on your own fabrication.

Seriously? This title came from within your OP:

‘Observational Quantification of Water Vapor Radiative Forcing’

Do you deny that this is written there?

Jack Hays · Dec 21, 2016

Buzz said:
Seriously? This title came from within your OP:

Do you deny that this is written there?

And your claim can only be based on a willful bad faith reading of the title. The authors' intent is clear in this passage.

The study, using satellite measured water vapor data obtained from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) of Santa Rosa, CA, suggests that the global climate sensitivity to increased carbon dioxide, and the potential feedback mechanism of increased water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere, is actually far less than postulated by the IPCC.

Buzz · Dec 21, 2016

Jack Hays said:
And your claim can only be based on a willful bad faith reading of the title.

Water vapor was called a feedback once and called a forcing 4 times in your OP. And Watts and Eschenbach's logic, calculations and conclusions are all based on water vapor as a forcing.

So who is really committing a bad faith reading of this article? Or do you just not really understand the logic part?

Jack Hays · Dec 21, 2016

Buzz said:
Water vapor was called a feedback once and called a forcing 4 times in your OP. And Watts and Eschenbach's logic, calculations and conclusions are all based on water vapor as a forcing.

So who is really committing a bad faith reading of this article? Or do you just not really understand the logic part?

Your claim is false. The full poster is here: agu16-poster-final (PDF)

"The radiative effect of absorption by water vapour is roughly proportional to the logarithm of its concentration, so it is the fractional change in watervapour concentration, not the absolute change, that governs its strength as a feedback mechanism."

iguanaman · Dec 21, 2016

Jack Hays said:
Anthony Watts and Willis Eschenbach presented their research today at the American Geophysical Union Fall convention (AGU16). Seems like a significant result.

Challenging climate sensitivity: ‘Observational Quantification of Water Vapor Radiative Forcing’ #AGU16 presentation

By Willis Eschenbach and Anthony Watts Today at the American Geophysical Union Convention, Willis Eschenbach and Anthony Watts will be presenting at 1:10PM in Moscone South. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Study at AGU 2016 challenges conventional wisdom on climate sensitivity ‘Observational Quantification of Water Vapor Radiative Forcing’ December 14th, 2016 – San Francisco, CA – A…
Continue reading →

Study at AGU 2016 challenges conventional wisdom on climate sensitivity
‘Observational Quantification of Water Vapor Radiative Forcing’
December 14th, 2016 – San Francisco, CA – A new study about the role of water vapor in climate sensitivity is being presented at the 2016 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union today by Willis Eschenbach and Anthony Watts in session A33B: Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks: Advances and New Paradigms, in Moscone South Poster Hall at 1:10PM to 6PM December 14th, position A33B-0226.
The study, using satellite measured water vapor data obtained from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) of Santa Rosa, CA, suggests that the global climate sensitivity to increased carbon dioxide, and the potential feedback mechanism of increased water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere, is actually far less than postulated by the IPCC.
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.
Key finding:
The finding of an observationally measured increase in downwelling radiation of 3.3W/m2 since 1988, in addition to the increase in downwelling radiation over the period as calculated by the IPCC, with little corresponding change in temperature, calls into question the applicability of the concept of “climate sensitivity”.

And yet each year is warmer than the last. Has Watts given any effort to explain that? Or the fact that record heat records are being set at a far greater pace than record cold? Deniers are in denial...what a surprise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/11/21/u-s-record-heat-poised-to-outpace-cold-by-factor-of-15-late-this-century/?utm_term=.f15e5169caed

Jack Hays · Dec 21, 2016

iguanaman said:
And yet each year is warmer than the last. Has Watts given any effort to explain that? Or the fact that record heat records are being set at a far greater pace than record cold? Deniers are in denial...what a surprise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-15-late-this-century/?utm_term=.f15e5169caed

UAH Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomalies – 1979 to Present

University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) – Dr. Roy Spencer – Base Period 1981-2010 – Click the pic to view at source

iguanaman · Dec 21, 2016

Jack Hays said:
UAH Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomalies – 1979 to Present

University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) – Dr. Roy Spencer – Base Period 1981-2010 – Click the pic to view at source

Buzz · Dec 21, 2016

Jack Hays said:
Your claim is false. The full poster is here: agu16-poster-final (PDF)

"The radiative effect of absorption by water vapour is roughly proportional to the logarithm of its concentration, so it is the fractional change in watervapour concentration, not the absolute change, that governs its strength as a feedback mechanism."

OMG.... you really have no clue... do you?

That quote you provided is actually a quote from the IPCC.

:lamo

Jack Hays · Dec 21, 2016

Buzz said:
OMG.... you really have no clue... do you?

That quote you provided is actually a quote from the IPCC.

:lamo

Sorry, but it is you who look foolish. The fact is the authors take that as their point of departure. So much for your nonsense about water vapor as a forcing.

Lord of Planar · Dec 21, 2016

Buzz said:
OMG.... you really have no clue... do you?

That quote you provided is actually a quote from the IPCC.

:lamo

Again, unspecified and out of context, forcing is a general term.

What about "cloud forcing?"

Specified, it means a specific thing. The term "forcing" by itself con be so many things.

The sun provides forcing.

The greenhouse effect provides forcing.

Clouds provide forcing.

No wonder you warmers never understand the climate sciences. You have to start by understanding science. Not what some pundit tells you.

I suggest you spend a little time with this paper:

Simulation of Global Land Surface Conditions from 1948 to 2004. Part I: Forcing Data and Evaluations

Do a keyword search for "forcing" and see how they use it.

But then, I guess if you actually read real science studies like I do, you might understand the facts of global warming, outside of the dogma the prophets of AGW say.

Lord of Planar · Dec 21, 2016

Buzz said:
Did you miss my last post right before your last post? Why don't you show us you have the ability to construct rational thought and respond to it?

Yes, I read this laughable piece of tripe. Do you really wish a response?

Buzz said:
There you go again... claiming I don't get it or that I am wrong when it is you that doesn't get it or is wrong. And I am getting sick of it.

The please, by all means, show us that you "get it."

I have seen absolutely nothing to conclude you have any reasonable understanding of the complexities involved with the climate sciences.

Buzz said:
Let me explain this to you all for hopefully the first and last time....

Now I realize that water vapor is a green house gas and that if the earth was nothing but a perfectly round sphere with no oceans, lakes, rivers and weather other than maybe some wind with an atmosphere and if there was water vapor in that atmosphere then that water vapor would fit the definition of a radiative forcing. But in the real world we have large bodies of water and weather. Lots of evaporation and condensation going on storing and releasing heat energy on a regular basis. That is why water vapor is a feedback and not a climate forcing.

And what is feedback, but an addition or reduction of the source signal?

If we are modulating water vapor with a "forcing," and water vapor as a greenhouse gas provides forcing, then the feedback is also a forcing.

The link I provided in my last post disagrees with you. Are you going to claim it to be a "denier paper?"

Buzz said:
Now what Watts and Eschenbach are doing here is taking the change in water vapor over time and treating it like it is climate forcing. They even say in the article(poster) that the IPCC doesn't do this and if I am understanding their methodology correctly their calculations are all based on the earth being all clear of clouds and weather for the whole time. Obviously the planet is not clear all the time and there is lots of weather so that water vapor does not always act like a forcing.

How is that different that taking the changes of CO2 over time?

I know you treat the IPCC as God, and their material as holy script.

Sorry. I am not a follower of your religion.

Buzz said:
So when Watts and Eschenbach take their calculations based on water vapor being a forcing when it isn't and then say that since the planet didn't warm as much as a hypothetically cloudless and weatherless planet would have warmed that the IPCC is wrong.... well they are just wrong.

What are your credentials to conclude that?

Buzz said:
Now if I am wrong here I would love to hear some arguments based on science and logic instead of obfuscation, word twisting and other assorted logical fallacies.

When the level of the climate sciences improve, and the papers don't obfuscate, then I won't have to.

My God.

Time and again, you show you don't read and understand the papers. Can you show me a set of papers with the conclusions of your belief, that don't obfuscate?

Tim the plumber · Dec 22, 2016

iguanaman said:
And yet each year is warmer than the last. Has Watts given any effort to explain that? Or the fact that record heat records are being set at a far greater pace than record cold? Deniers are in denial...what a surprise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/11/21/u-s-record-heat-poised-to-outpace-cold-by-factor-of-15-late-this-century/?utm_term=.f15e5169caed

I believe that Watts has given a lot of thaught to that.

His position, I think, is that human activity, CO2 etc, does increase the temperature. But not by much.

Have you considered how much warming is likely and what would happen if that happened? If so please explain.

Lord of Planar · Dec 22, 2016

iguanaman said:
And yet each year is warmer than the last. Has Watts given any effort to explain that? Or the fact that record heat records are being set at a far greater pace than record cold? Deniers are in denial...what a surprise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/11/21/u-s-record-heat-poised-to-outpace-cold-by-factor-of-15-late-this-century/?utm_term=.f15e5169caed

Wow...

What is amazing is that if catastrophic global warming was occurring, that we still have as many record lows as we do...

Now when you take a the thousands of weather stations, and see more and more record highs, this is expected.

Think about the effects of the loss of evapotranspiration as cities grow...

If there was no global warming at all, we should see record highs at all weather stations that have population growths nearby. Just that simple.

Lord of Planar · Dec 22, 2016

I started a thread about evapotranspiration:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/269596-evapotranspiration.html

Jack Hays · Dec 22, 2016

Buzz said:
OMG.... you really have no clue... do you?

That quote you provided is actually a quote from the IPCC.

:lamo

Here's the final nail in your debate coffin. I guess you just needed a little more context. I erred in thinking you would see it for yourself.

We note that this is experimental validation of the IPCC’s statement4about the underlying physics, of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere viz:

The radiative effect of absorption by water vapour is roughly proportional to the logarithm of its concentration, so it is the fractional change in water vapour concentration, not the absolute change, that governs its strength as a feedback mechanism.

Hypothesis: More than just validating the IPCC claim of a generalized logarithmic relationship, however, this has allowed us to actually quantify the relation between the two. It also allows us to differentiate that relationship in order to determine the slope of the atmospheric absorption as a function of water vapor. That slope turns out to be 62.8 / TPW. At the average TPW value in Figure 3 of 29 kg/m2, this gives us a slope of 62.8 / 29.0 = 2.2 W/m2increase in absorption per kg/m2change in TPW.

Jack Hays · Dec 22, 2016

Buzz said:
OMG.... you really have no clue... do you?

That quote you provided is actually a quote from the IPCC.

:lamo

And finally:

There is a clear trend in the TPW data. The total change over the period is ~ 1.5kg/m2, centered around the long-term mean of 28.7 kg/m2. Utilizing the relationship between water content and atmospheric absorption derived above, this indicates an increase in downwelling radiation of 3.3 W/m2over the period. Note that this 3.3 W/m2increased forcing from the long-term increase in water vapor since 1988 is in addition to the IPCC-claimed 2.3 W/m2 increase since 1750 in all other forcings (see Figure SPM-5, IPCC AR5 SPM5). The IPCC counts as forcings the long-term changes in the following: CO2, CH4, Halocarbons, N2O, CO, NMVOC, NOx, mineral dust, SO2, NH3, organic carbon, black carbon, land use, and changes in solar irradiance, but not the long-term changes in water vapor.

Key finding: This leads us to a curious position where we have had a larger change in forcing from water vapor since 1988 than from all the other IPCC-listed forcings since 1750.

Buzz · Dec 23, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
Again, unspecified and out of context, forcing is a general term.

What about "cloud forcing?"

Specified, it means a specific thing. The term "forcing" by itself con be so many things.

The sun provides forcing.

The greenhouse effect provides forcing.

Clouds provide forcing.

What do you call this? Isn't it "weasel words"?

Lord of Planar said:
I suggest you spend a little time with this paper:

Simulation of Global Land Surface Conditions from 1948 to 2004. Part I: Forcing Data and Evaluations

Do a keyword search for "forcing" and see how they use it.

This is a study of climate models on a local level. Of course it is going to look at water vapor as a forcing. Thing about it is that the forcing isn't always going to positive. There will be times that water vapor will be a negative forcing. So you can't use this study to back up this stupidity that says that water vapor will always be a positive forcing.

Lord of Planar said:
But then, I guess if you actually read real science studies like I do, you might understand the facts of global warming, outside of the dogma the prophets of AGW say.

If you really read the science like you claim we wouldn't be having this stupid argument in the first place.

Lord of Planar said:
Yes, I read this laughable piece of tripe. Do you really wish a response?

Yes... I will enjoy you making a fool of yourself.

Lord of Planar said:
The please, by all means, show us that you "get it."

I have seen absolutely nothing to conclude you have any reasonable understanding of the complexities involved with the climate sciences.

Actually you refuse to acknowledge the posts I have made that show I have a good understanding of the science.

Lord of Planar said:
And what is feedback, but an addition or reduction of the source signal?

If we are modulating water vapor with a "forcing," and water vapor as a greenhouse gas provides forcing, then the feedback is also a forcing.

Yes... an addition or reduction of the source signal. Problem is that you denialists want to pretend that source signal is always an addition. That is what Watts and Eschenbach are doing when they say water vapor is a forcing. Why can't you get this through your thick skull?

Lord of Planar said:
The link I provided in my last post disagrees with you. Are you going to claim it to be a "denier paper?"

No... it isn't a denier paper. It is a denier taking it to prove something it doesn't actually prove.

Lord of Planar said:
How is that different that taking the changes of CO2 over time?

Because CO2 is always a positive forcing. Water vapor is not.

Buzz · Dec 23, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
I know you treat the IPCC as God, and their material as holy script.

Sorry. I am not a follower of your religion.

Oh please... You claim to be a follower of published science yet the IPCC's material is almost all based on published science. So... either you believe in published science and believe in what the IPCC says or you are a denier who doesn't. Sorry but you can't have it both ways.

Lord of Planar said:
What are your credentials to conclude that?

The same as yours. I am, as well as you are, nothing but anonymous posters on a forum. Anything you or I might claim as credentials are essentially unprovable and therefore meaningless. That is unless you are willing to completely expose your true identity and provide private information about yourself.

Lord of Planar said:
When the level of the climate sciences improve, and the papers don't obfuscate, then I won't have to.

But in the mean time you will go ahead and obfuscate like you are doing here.

Lord of Planar said:
Time and again, you show you don't read and understand the papers.

This is nothing but a lie. I have shown an understanding of the science on several occasions and you have yet to prove otherwise.

Lord of Planar said:
Can you show me a set of papers with the conclusions of your belief, that don't obfuscate?

Sure... How about this:

Identification of human-induced changes
in atmospheric moisture content

The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s
temperature to radiation changes

Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor

An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models

Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implicationsf

And I know you will whine and complain about the source but here is a IPCC response to the commonly asked question....

How Important Is Water Vapour to Climate Change?

Buzz · Dec 23, 2016

Jack Hays said:
Key finding: This leads us to a curious position where we have had a larger change in forcing from water vapor since 1988 than from all the other IPCC-listed forcings since 1750.

Like I was saying.... clueless!

Jack Hays · Dec 23, 2016

Buzz said:
Like I was saying.... clueless!

You are truly relentless in embarrassing yourself. You would do better to simply admit you had this wrong from the start, and live to fight again another day.

Anthony Watts Presentation at AGU16

Jack Hays

Traveler

Buzz

Irritant

Jack Hays

Traveler

Buzz

Irritant

Jack Hays

Traveler

iguanaman

Jack Hays

Traveler

iguanaman

Buzz

Irritant

Jack Hays

Traveler

Lord of Planar

Lord of Planar

Tim the plumber

Lord of Planar

Lord of Planar

Jack Hays

Traveler

Jack Hays

Traveler

Buzz

Irritant

Buzz

Irritant

Buzz

Irritant

Jack Hays

Traveler