Replies

The article does not, however, provide any of the numbers - a distinct drawback. Somehow if the result were 95% of what is needed to maintain relative humidity - i.e. keep a large positive feedback - I think they'd have mentioned it.

It may be that the level of confirmation of the model in the upper troposphere data doesn't allow (at present) the quantification that you mention here. Still, this is just getting out -- we may see estimates like that soon.

They say that the rise is water is not enough to maintain relative humidity. They probably measured humidity. It obviously went down. They would have to check, mathematically, whether it went down due to an absolute decline in water vapor, or only a decline relative to a higher saturation point. Since the mean temperature is only a tiny bit higher, this is a quite small difference. To say it is going up absolutely but relative humidity is going down, they have to have measured it, numerically. This article just doesn't say what the numbers are. It is based on a publication in a more serious journal, which would absolutely have to have such numbers. The decision not to include any of them in the article is a free decision.