Not exact matches
Tropospheric
water vapour plays an important role in regulating the energy balance of the surface and TOA, provides a key
feedback mechanism and is essential to the formation of clouds and precipitation.
This «climate sensitivity» not only depends on the direct effect of the GHGs themselves, but also on natural «climate
feedback»
mechanisms, particularly those due to clouds,
water vapour, and snow cover.
With regards to «climate modelling», an assumed (positive
water vapour feedback) warming
mechanism that can not be observed, that there is no experimental evidence for, combined with after the fact, admitted as invented cooling factors....
Certainly sounds like a nice, physically plausible
mechanism: — RRB - rather than say something like CO2 (which needs massively unrestrained & unstable positive
water vapour feedback).
Very few (certainly not me) ignore other
feedback mechanisms, including
water vapour, clouds, etc..
Reviewing the IPCC papers, I see that you are right about the
feedback uncertainty being more related to clouds rather than
water vapour, although they also state that the precise
mechanisms of
water vapour feedbacks are quite complex and the form its spacial distribution would take is still not well understood.
There is the lack of evidence supporting positive
water vapour feedback, suggesting that nature has a
mechanism to limit the concentration of
water vapour in the atmosphere.
One of the biggest uncertainties for the science relate to the
feedback mechanisms, from
water vapour and cloud changes in particular, that arise when the atmosphere warms.
In other words will the small amount of warming cause the powerful GHGs (like
water vapour) to increase the amount warmed or is the climate system stable such that there are
feedback mechanisms which works to dampen and / maintain the climate in a «steady state».