NSA response: Okay, bend over and assume the position.
We had plenty of Republicans in office in Oregon until the party started going crazy in the late 1980's and 1990's. I voted for many of them including Senators Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood and a number of statewide ones whose names wouldn't be recognized elsewhere. Now all of the Republican's I might consider voting for have been driven out of the party. It's a shame really but what are you going to do?
Yes, "mostly" was probably an overstatement, but it wouldn't surprise me if the single largest group of attendees were part of the climate science community. Most of those other sections bleed into climate science in one way or another.
Agreed, increasing temperatures will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere which will have an effect. My point was that human emissions of water vapor are not an issue.
At the same time if we could do something to deliberately reduce the water vapor in the atmosphere it would quickly get replaced by evaporation. A number of years ago an atmospheric scientist did a thought experiment about what would happen if you could remove 100% of the water vapor from the atmosphere. He calculated it would take at most 60-70 days for water vapor levels to return to normal because of evaporation from the oceans.
What Antipater said.
Not even close. The Earth is accumulating heat at a rate of about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. The increase in atmospheric temperatures has slowed a bit in the last decade+ but the oceans where over 90% of the heat goes continue to warm.
And burning 100 tonnes of coal will produce about 256 tonnes of CO2 (assuming the coal is 70% carbon).
CO2 is pretty well mixed in the atmosphere with the maximum variation between different locations being on the order of 10 ppm. In general it is a bit higher in the Northern Hemisphere dropping some the further south you get. Here's a paper from 2000 titled The Natural Latitudinal Distribution of Atmospheric CO2 that addresses the issue.
Actually there is a mostly climate science conference going on right now in San Fransisco, CA. The 2013 American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting has more than 22,000 people in attendance and is generally the largest gathering of the climate science community yearly. I've been hearing some fascinating stories out of it.
Remember Michael Mann of the Climate Research Unit of the East Anglia University
Why should we take anything you say seriously when you make such and elementary error as that? Mann of course is at Penn State and before that at Virginia and has never been associated with the CRU.
Compared to the amount of water vapor evaporated into the air from the ocean's surface (70%+ of the surface) human emissions of water vapor are a rounding error. Any excess water vapor in the atmosphere is quickly precipitated out. It's just not a factor.
While it's true that methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide it's also true that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is a bit less than 2 ppm whereas the concentration of CO2 is ~400 ppm, a factor of 200.
Considering the phrase "just do it" in the GP shouldn't that be Swoosh (tm)!