If CO2 is the controlling GHG and H2O vapor a feedback only, then why do the concentrations of these two gases behave entirely differently?

One point upon which AGW advocates and contrarions seem to agree is that atmospheric CO2 is a well-mixed gas. Janne Hakkarainen, a researcher at the Finnish Meteorological Institute and co-author of the study that used OCO-2 data to make satellite-based maps of human emissions of carbon dioxide, wrote: “Carbon... show more One point upon which AGW advocates and contrarions seem to agree is that atmospheric CO2 is a well-mixed gas. Janne Hakkarainen, a researcher at the Finnish Meteorological Institute and co-author of the study that used OCO-2 data to make satellite-based maps of human emissions of carbon dioxide, wrote: “Carbon dioxide is indeed well mixed in the atmosphere. This means that if we look at the CO2 concentrations globally, the value is about 400 ppm everywhere.” [See https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2016/12/05/reader-question-does-co2-disperse-evenly-around-the-earth/]. Therefore, we would expect that the concentration of CO2 varies slowly and smoothly over both location and time. This being the case, the CO2 "control knob" effect (or equivalently the Clausius-Clapeyron equation) would constrain H2O vapor to also be well-mixed and slowly varying over location and time. Specifically, it is a mere amplification of the CO2 Greenhouse warming [See Yale Climate Collections: The Water Vapor Feedback: www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/c... SkepticalScience: skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenho...
Update: This, however, is NOT the behavior of H2O vapor concentrations nor the resulting greenhouse warming. Since H2O vapor is a condensible GHG, much larger variations in concentration occur as a result of phase transitions between the vapor and condensed states. Also, since H2O vapor is a much stronger GHG than CO2,... show more This, however, is NOT the behavior of H2O vapor concentrations nor the resulting greenhouse warming. Since H2O vapor is a condensible GHG, much larger variations in concentration occur as a result of phase transitions between the vapor and condensed states. Also, since H2O vapor is a much stronger GHG than CO2, these variations in concentration result in temperature fluctuations that are much larger than any temperature increase resulting from the CO2 greenhouse effect.
Update 2: These fluctuations in fact show up in the temperature data, and must be filtered somehow in order to determine warming/cooling trends. Therefore, it seems to me that the assumption of H2O vapor being a temperature feedback only has lead to a contradiction.
Update 3: In reviewing some of the comments I made to answers in the question, I discovered this morning that I had confused the name El Nino with sunspot cycles. So when I used the term "El Nino effects", I actually meant the effects of low sunspot activity. Meanwhile Dirac, who knows the correct meaning of El... show more In reviewing some of the comments I made to answers in the question, I discovered this morning that I had confused the name El Nino with sunspot cycles. So when I used the term "El Nino effects", I actually meant the effects of low sunspot activity. Meanwhile Dirac, who knows the correct meaning of El Nino, got quite confused over what I was arguing. It turns out, however, that sunspot activity did quiet dramatically after 2000, which probably best explains the "warming hiatus" reported in 2005.
15 answers 15