This greenhouse equilibrium mechanism doesn't care if
an initial increase of greenhouse gases was water vapor or CO2.
Not exact matches
Thus, I'd say Roger Sr's concern is apt, in the abstract, but is vacuous until somebody ponies up a credible atmosphere - ocean - glacier mechanism that exhibits chaos
of such a nature that the sensitivity
of trends in its decadal statistics to
initial conditions swamps the sensitivity
of these statistics to the
increase of greenhouse gases.
A positive cloud feedback loop posits a scenario whereby an
initial warming
of the planet, caused, for example, by
increases in
greenhouse gases, causes clouds to trap more energy and lead to further warming.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are therefore not responsible for the
initial transmission
of warming from the high latitudes to the southeast African tropics.
The resulting warming due to the water vapour is in fact larger than the
initial warming due to the CO2 that forced it to happen, and this is the point
of the Lacis paper - yes, water vapour is a more important
greenhouse gas than CO2, but water vapour doesn't change systematically with time UNLESS CO2 is changing and initiating a warming that sets into motion the surface and atmospheric processes that allow water vapour to systematically
increase.
-- First we
increase the
greenhouse gases — then that causes warming in the atmosphere and oceans — as the oceans warm up, they evaporate more H2O — more moisture in the air means more precipitation (rain, snow)-- the southern hemisphere is essentially lots
of water and a really big ice cube in the middle called Antarctica — land ice is different than sea ice — climate models indicated that more snowfall would cause
increases in the frozen H2O — climate models indicated that there would be
initial increases in sea ice extent — observations confirm the indications and expectations that precipitation is
increasing, calving rates are accelerating and sea ice extent is
increasing.