<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for &#8216;Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor&#8217;&#8212;No, they really don&#8217;t]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by vaporman</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/climate-scientists-dodge-the-subject-of-water-vapor/</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:17:32 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/climate-scientists-dodge-the-subject-of-water-vapor/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>water pumped from underground aquifers</strong></p><p>for all the talk of "sequestering" CO2 how can we ignore the "de-sequestration" of water from underground aquifers? Here's the bottom line-- the high-end estimate of annual CO2 discharge is 25 billion tons per year. However, the annual rate of groundwater "de-sequestration" i.e. the net amout of water pumped to the surface and not returned underground is 160 billion tons per year. Even though all of this water is now in the atmopheric system, i.e. the lower troposphere, let us just assume that half, or 80 billion tons a year ends up as extra atmospheric water vapor. since water vapor has about ten times the "greenhouse effect" as CO2, this is the CO2 equvalent of 800 Billion tons!! Or about 32 times the impact of CO2 increase!! Water aquifer info is from various sources, including USGS and USAID.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>water pumped from underground aquifers</strong></p><p>for all the talk of "sequestering" CO2 how can we ignore the "de-sequestration" of water from underground aquifers? Here's the bottom line-- the high-end estimate of annual CO2 discharge is 25 billion tons per year. However, the annual rate of groundwater "de-sequestration" i.e. the net amout of water pumped to the surface and not returned underground is 160 billion tons per year. Even though all of this water is now in the atmopheric system, i.e. the lower troposphere, let us just assume that half, or 80 billion tons a year ends up as extra atmospheric water vapor. since water vapor has about ten times the "greenhouse effect" as CO2, this is the CO2 equvalent of 800 Billion tons!! Or about 32 times the impact of CO2 increase!! Water aquifer info is from various sources, including USGS and USAID.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by bobbyfontaine</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/climate-scientists-dodge-the-subject-of-water-vapor/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:37:59 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/climate-scientists-dodge-the-subject-of-water-vapor/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>pollution changes water vapor</strong></p><p>water vapor does not condense normally into rain when polluted so there is more water vapor in the atmosphere because it has been made toxic and gaseous</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>pollution changes water vapor</strong></p><p>water vapor does not condense normally into rain when polluted so there is more water vapor in the atmosphere because it has been made toxic and gaseous</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by warreno</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/climate-scientists-dodge-the-subject-of-water-vapor/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2007 23:32:16 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/climate-scientists-dodge-the-subject-of-water-vapor/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Low physical concentration limits to water vapor</strong></p><p>There is a very strict, and pretty low partial pressure limit to water in the atmosphere, as well as to limits on suspension of ice/water particles in the air. This is true even for slight rises of temperature. Suffice it to say that any amount of water removed from the ground goes into the ocean or possibly into ice. &nbsp;The main effect is localized freshening of sea water. &nbsp;The atmosphere really does not count as a storage in the water cycle.<br>
</p><p>Water vapor is essentially an system <b>amplifier</b> of heat forcing, where as C02 makes the forcing term larger. <br>
</p><p>I'm trying to think of a good mechanical analogy.</br></br></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Low physical concentration limits to water vapor</strong></p><p>There is a very strict, and pretty low partial pressure limit to water in the atmosphere, as well as to limits on suspension of ice/water particles in the air. This is true even for slight rises of temperature. Suffice it to say that any amount of water removed from the ground goes into the ocean or possibly into ice. &nbsp;The main effect is localized freshening of sea water. &nbsp;The atmosphere really does not count as a storage in the water cycle.<br>
</p><p>Water vapor is essentially an system <b>amplifier</b> of heat forcing, where as C02 makes the forcing term larger. <br>
</p><p>I'm trying to think of a good mechanical analogy.</br></br></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by barry schwarz</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/climate-scientists-dodge-the-subject-of-water-vapor/</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:32:23 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/climate-scientists-dodge-the-subject-of-water-vapor/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>water vapour discussed at length 2001 2007 IPCC<p>[Transferred in part (and slightly amended) from my post on the subject at illconsidered blogspot]<p>
Water vapour gets a lot of mention in the IPCC documents (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).<p>
If you want to corroborate this, you can open the pdf files for each of the IPCC chapters at the links below, type 'vapour' (note the European/Australian spelling) in the search box, and click the appropriate button to search through each document (different versions of pdf have different search buttons).<p>
IPCC 2001:<p>
<a href="http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm<p>
Don't bother with the HTML pages on the left of that web page. They're just summaries of the chapters. Open the pdf files on the right hand side of that page and have a good search.<p>
IPCC 2007:<p>
<a href="http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html" rel="nofollow">http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html<p>
I chose 3 chapters for 2007, the three I thought most likely would discuss water vapour (2, 3 and 8, from memory).<p>
I also ran a search on 'carbon dioxide' and 'CO2' and compared the results.<p>
Again from memory, there was 273 hits for 'water vapour', and 295 for 'CO2' and 'carbon dioxide' from those three chapters, including the studies referenced at the bottom of the page.<p>
I chose 3 chapters from 2001 and did the same thing. There were tons of hits for water vapour in that one, too. I then checked all the chapters but didn't bother to count, as it was obvious that water vapour was discussed again and again. Some chapters only mention it a little.<p>
Also, both the 2001 and 2007 reports had sections specifically dedicated to water vapour.<p>
This says nothing about the focus or quality of the science, of course, but it completely dispels the myth behind this simple statement:<p>
"Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor"</p></p></p></p></p></p></p></a></p></p></p></a></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>water vapour discussed at length 2001 2007 IPCC<p>[Transferred in part (and slightly amended) from my post on the subject at illconsidered blogspot]<p>
Water vapour gets a lot of mention in the IPCC documents (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).<p>
If you want to corroborate this, you can open the pdf files for each of the IPCC chapters at the links below, type 'vapour' (note the European/Australian spelling) in the search box, and click the appropriate button to search through each document (different versions of pdf have different search buttons).<p>
IPCC 2001:<p>
<a href="http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm<p>
Don't bother with the HTML pages on the left of that web page. They're just summaries of the chapters. Open the pdf files on the right hand side of that page and have a good search.<p>
IPCC 2007:<p>
<a href="http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html" rel="nofollow">http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html<p>
I chose 3 chapters for 2007, the three I thought most likely would discuss water vapour (2, 3 and 8, from memory).<p>
I also ran a search on 'carbon dioxide' and 'CO2' and compared the results.<p>
Again from memory, there was 273 hits for 'water vapour', and 295 for 'CO2' and 'carbon dioxide' from those three chapters, including the studies referenced at the bottom of the page.<p>
I chose 3 chapters from 2001 and did the same thing. There were tons of hits for water vapour in that one, too. I then checked all the chapters but didn't bother to count, as it was obvious that water vapour was discussed again and again. Some chapters only mention it a little.<p>
Also, both the 2001 and 2007 reports had sections specifically dedicated to water vapour.<p>
This says nothing about the focus or quality of the science, of course, but it completely dispels the myth behind this simple statement:<p>
"Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor"</p></p></p></p></p></p></p></a></p></p></p></a></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>