Thanks. I was under the impression that CO2 was a more effective greenhouse gas, and that water vapor was so critical only due to its abundance. Are you sure, pound for pound, water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2?
Google “Harvard and MIT debunk global warming”
In the lab, perhaps.
In the atmosphere, under the dynamics of complex weather, sunlight, cosmic rays and other solar system nasties we may not even know about, apparently not.
One of the qualities of real scientists is the ability to make a distinction between isolated lab experiments, and the identical few substances interacting with the thousands of different elements, compounds and factors in a real-time atmosphere.
The arrogance and ignorance of those claiming to mimic the complexity of weather, climate and the atmosphere on computer models which they write themselves --- is mind boggling.
Climate models, until recently, were claimed to be predicting future weather.
Since they have all failed, 100% of the time to do so, the claim has now changed to "projections!"
... which will continue to be wrong 100% of the time!
CO2 can matter (though only marginally because it is so trace a gas) because the sky is largely "clear" in those wavelengths. But this changes as the CO2 level rises. The response is log rather than linear; the second doubling of the concentration does much less than the first. Close your window shades. How much would it matter if you hung 4 more sets of shades behind them?