How much new H2O does feedback from the CO2 GH heating actually add to the total GH effect?

lmao

NONE. Your question is all HOGWASH. Mike

I have no idea because that is the minor problem. Releasing CO2 and METHANE from the ocean bed is of much greater importance, methane is capitalized because it out ranks virtually any other green house gas and is being released by ocean warming.

Not very much, if at all!

Ocean upwelling brings a lot of gases with it, but the main gas is H2O or water vapor. It also brings CO2, SO2, and methane. Most of that has been part of natural cycles. Any "EXTRA" H2O added is quickly turned into clouds and then rain. Measuring it substantively and with with any certainty is nearly impossible. The H2O cycle acts very quickly.

The hydro-cycle is the least understood process in climate science. Subsurface ocean cycles are another barely understood process. Deep ocean cycles are another aspect of the overall climate "manipulators" that aren't understood. Atmospheric physics are probably the most understood, but the importance of CO2 in the entirety of Earth's climate has been severely overestimated IMO.

IR (infra-red) emitted from the Earth's surface is used as the focal point in the Global Warming "controversy". 15 micrometers is the bandwidth where both CO2 and H2O absorb IR from the Earth's surface. There's 10x more H2O to absorb IR at the 15 micrometer level. CO2 warming is limited to its absorption frequency where it is most dominant. CO2 simply can't dominate because of H2O's ability to over-dominate the absorption of IR emitted from Earth's surface.

" ... The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule and thus only has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface.  The three main wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 are 4.26 micrometers, 7.2 micrometers, and 15.0 micrometers.  Of those 3, only the 15-micrometer is significant because it falls right in range of the infrared frequencies emitted by Earth.  However, the H2O molecule which is much more prevalent in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which is a bend molecule, thus having many more vibrational modes, absorbs many more frequencies emitted by the Earth, including to some extent the radiation absorbed by CO2.  It turns out that between water vapor and CO2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed. Thus increasing the CO2 levels should have very minimal impact on the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat radiated from the Earth.  That explains why there appears to be a very weak correlation at best between CO2 levels and global temperatures and why after the CO2 levels have increased by 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution the global average temperature has increased only 1 degree centigrade, even if we want to contribute all of that increase to atmospheric CO2 increases and none of it to natural causes. ... "

Water vapor (H2O) dominates in the absorption of Earth's emitted IR. CO2 has a lot of "catching up" to do before it can control our atmospheric temperature. The alarmists are "CLIMATE CLOWNS"! They won't even try to understand the REAL SCIENCE behind the warming simply because they "CAN'T" get away from CO2 forcing as being the cause of any warming that might be depicted through BIG GOVERNMENT-manipulated temperature data.

Bottom Line :

The "Hydro-Cycle" in the atmosphere, biosphere, surface oceans, and deep oceans is the least understood aspect of the climate, simply because H2O is multi-faceted. Measuring rises in overall water vapor is a near impossible task unless science wants to assume a lot. That's where "alarmism" has been getting into trouble anyways. Science just doesn't know much about how it all works together, but the REAL SCIENTISTS know that CO2 is a very small "bit" player on the overall climate.

"Now, we must keep in mind that H2O molecules have strong spectral absorption lines in the IR rage regardless of phase (ie. solid , liquid, or gas)"

Alternative physics , eh?

global warming is a hoax

You do NOT understand the greenhouse effect. You need to read a physics book, such as "An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics" by Fleagle and Businger. Your statement that " the only way the CO2 GH heating can produce more H2O vapor is by vaporizing portions of the cloud" is ridiculous. Greenhouse gases (of any type) warm the surface of the planet, and there are large bodies of water there, if the temperature of the water goes up, more of it evaporates.

If we believe your claims, you have the physics background to understand anthropogenic climate change, but you seem to lack the initiative to actually study it, you would rather make silly arguments based on your misunderstanding. How many questions have you asked like this? Open a book and read, take a class, but stop making arguments that literally don't hold water.

EDIT: I find your update very strange, you say:

"THERE IS NO EMISSION SPECTRA OF LIQUID OR SOLID H2O IN THE TEMPERATURE RANGE OF INTEREST TO CLIMATE SCIENCE. I did find info on the absorption spectrum, and thought the emission lines would be similar, but I was mistaken."

But for any arbitrary material at a particular wavelength, the absorptivity has to equal the emissivity. This is one of Kirchhoff's many laws. If this were not true, then you could build a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. I think you must have forgotten this.

The clouds also reflect incoming sunlight and during the day are a negative feedback. At night the negative feedback is obviously not there and that is why cloudy nights are relatively warmer then cloudless nights.

fhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfh

No. The clouds themselves can act as a feedback. Depending on the location, it can be positive or negative feedback.

There is the possibility that the clouds are a forcing being misdiagnosed as a feedback. This theory has been pushed by Dr. Roy Spencer.