Not exact matches
Why not instead an exacerbated
water -
vapor feedback?
Since Milankovitch factors are excluded as small, BUT they do exist and by ignoring them you are introducing an increasing underestimation of the incoming solar radiation (& its impact on solar irradiance and on
water vapor etc
feedbacks), then
why is there not an uncertainty estimate for this or better yet an actual estimate of what the under estimation is?
The official climate Team says that
water vapor feedback has a net positive effect, which is
why they estimate the sensitivity of doubling CO2 as high as they do, +2 ºC to +5 ºC.
The reasons
why the Arctic is warming so quickly — a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification — has to do with factors that are unique to the Arctic environment, involving
feedbacks between sea ice, snow,
water vapor and clouds.
Hunter: While I understand
why water vapor is deemed a
feedback in that is does contribute to the variability of warming, to stop there is very misleading.
Why didn't the
water vapor feedback escalate far more?
&
why does ALL the
feedback water vapor always absorb a photon to cause warming?