This is the reason that the last time CO2 increased the earth burned to a crisp.
Oh wait - it didn't.
Maybe more moisture makes more clouds which reflect sunlight back into space.

How do we Cap & Trade H2O? Next we'll see calls for H2O taxes?

Water vapor is not well mixed in the atmosphere. Anybody that has flown in a jet has probably noticed that clouds do not rise much more than 15,000 feet above the surface. However, CO2 is well mixed and exist at higher altitudes where it is the predominate greenhouse gas. So, it's at the higher altitudes where CO2s warming allows water vapor to exist at than it would otherwise. This makes the troposphere thicker than it would otherwise and since average surface temperatures are a function of the thickness of the atmosphere, there is more warming.

Another result of the higher water vapor holding capacity of the atmosphere is that there will be more weather. More storms and more precepitation.

Should make the weather business more interesting!

Without a comprehensive understanding of how clouds behave, this result has no connection with reality. A slight increase in precipitation efficiency can completely negate the temperature increase from increased CO2. Even the IPCC claims very low understanding of how clouds behave, while at the same time minimizing its impact on climate trends.

Water vapor is indeed the elephant in the room. The missing piece in this article is the fact that water vapor is the working fluid in the Earth's cooling system. It is responsible for the lion's share of heat transport from the surface to space via evaporation and subsequent precipitation, followed by IR emission to space from the troposphere.

Once again, where is the warming? Where are the apocalyptic climate changes predicted by the IPCC computer simulations? Global mean temperatures have barely risen in the past century and have dropped significantly in the past few years. Sea levels aren't rising more than a few millimeters a year and are dropping in some areas. A NASA report showed that the Arctic ice melted to its lowest levels in 30 years because of shifting wind patterns, not atmospheric warming. Arctic ice has grown to record levels this Fall, but the media doesn't report it. Antarctic sea ice continues to expand. IPCC climate predictions don't account for the urban heat island effect and hundreds of weather stations are either positioned in poor areas for taking accurate measurments, such as in parking lots, or are in poor condition. The anthropogenic global warming theory is full of holes and isn't based on real science. I've lost all faith in the media to objectively report this issue, and I don't believe in using computer simulations as a basis for U.S. energy policy. Oppose carbon regulation and taxation before we're all shivering in our homes because the coal industry has been bankrupted to "fix" non-existant global warming.

I believe this is the paper in question:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L20704, doi:10.1029/2008GL035333, 2008

Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003-2008

Abstract
Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6�C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA's satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λ q = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere.

Received 13 July 2008; accepted 19 September 2008; published 23 October 2008.

Yep! That's the theory, all right.

The fact that atmospheric humidity truly increases with temperature does not come as too much of a surprise.

I guess it still leaves me wondering why GW, oceanic warming, and sea level rise have all "paused" recently.

"By estimating water vapor feedback, the researchers were able to determine that warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle."

By estimating??? That isn't science, that is what is called 'situating the estimate'. In other words, you make your study match your conclusions, thereby proving nothing but the biases of the author(s). What this study proves, alas, is that you can prove anything you want if you make the right 'estimation' to start with.

As usual, this paper considers the points that supports the myth and ignors everything else.

Here is really interesting take:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0811/S00028.htm

Excerpt:
The projections of the IPCC are simplistic, superficial, and now proven wrong. The whole issue requires a fresh start, based on the mass of irrefutable data which has been assembled. Certainly New Zealand should not incur any expenditure based on the fallacious IPCC Report. Indeed, New Zealand should take a lead internationally to publicise the barycentric science, demonstrating how it explains the recent finding of low sun-spot activity, the very cold winter in Europe, and thereby destroys the whole �conventional wisdom� of so-called global warming. Here is a real opportunity for New Zealand to lead the world,� said Dr Sprott.

Brett:Here is a new way to capture carbon and change it to carbonates. Not just another carbon sequester story. KIPP

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/update/2008/11/inground_carbon_dioxide_captur.htmluld

Reply: That link did not work Kipp.

So let's not look at all those negative feedbacks of that snarky water vapor.

Let's see now. Those couldn't include cloud formation, vertical convection and precipitation could they?

" By ESTIMATING water vapor feedback [?????] , researchers were able to determine ... " . Here we go again. So how come water vapor levels didn't cause a significant increase in GMT's between January 2007 & March 2008 even though CO2 levels increased during that same period ? Oh , that's right, Me Forget ...La Nina . Funny how the models seem to neglect those pesky IRF's getting in the way.

That's correct water vapor has a big role to play in climate change. Put a lid on a pot of cold water and the water will boil faster compared to a pot of water without the lid. GHGs are the lid we are placing over our planet. It may take a few hundred years to restore GHGs to that of pre-industrial revolution levels with my "Underwater Suspension Tunnel" idea which computer modeling will verify. Cooling SSTs in this manner will lower vaporization of our sea surfaces and will also remove the GHGs because of the huge amount of hydroelectrical energy they produce.If you are interested in my idea come on over to the forum and ask questions!!!!

Fantastic! Someone finally puts it together and ding ding ding, they figure out that water vapor is a potent GHG.

What is interesting is do you read what the trigger was for this "problem", you guessed it, WE "dump" CO2 into the poor atmosphere, IT increases the temp, thereby making it possible to have more humidity, thereby raising the temp because water vapor is a better GHG than CO2.

So, once again, humans are the root of all evil.

I say we must fight BIG WATER and start building an army of robot de-humidifiers.

Somebody call Gore and tell him to put all of his carbon credit money into BIG de-humidifier.

You know, maybe the problem is caused by all of the windmills out in the water. You know how your cool air humdifier works with a fan blowing air over a pool of water?

My understanding was that in 2004 the US launched the "Aqua" satellite to measure how much the water vapor was increasing as CO2 increased. It has been leaked that Aqua measured the CO2 going up alright, but it is showing water vapor going down. So, the lattest that I know was in response to a letter from Anthony Watts several months ago asking when a report would be published, they said that they were going through extra peer review because it "was at odds with current scientific thinking."

Has anyone paid the $9.00 to read the study? If so, could you answer the following questions?

1. How did they account for the variations in cloud cover and the effects of those changes on the levels of solar irradiance reaching the Earth's surface?

2. How did they account for the variations in ocean heat content and SST and their impacts on water vapor levels as caused by 1?

3. If the model they used does in fact simulate ENSO, do El Nino/La Nina events occur at the same frequency and amplitude as the actual events? If not, have they input them as a separate forcing?

Regards.

The initial assumptions are always critical to providing a framework for the conclusions. If one's initial assumption is that CO2 is behind the 20th century's apparent warming then one can make the conclusion "Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid".
Quite the leap of logic all around.

"How do we Cap & Trade H2O?"

Isn't that called bottled water? :)~

Nice sat photo, Brett

When I was forecasting many moons ago I remember when the vapor channel sat photos first came out. They really came in handy forecasting the weather. The West Texas Dryline could really be seen easily when looking at it using the water vapor channel.

Reply: I really like the colorized ones from ramsdis online.

Amazing! One model says we overestimate warming but the next paper says its a runaway Carbon dioxide water vapor tsunami.
Oh my! Is there no one to help us?
Will the field of Climate study please tone down stupid inane articles?
How about you do some real basic research on how climate actually works and begin to collect data that does not need adjustments, before you keep publishing garbage of what you think.
On the bright side Does anybody know if this articles author
Kathryn Hansen of Goddard Space Flight Center
is related to THE Dr. James Hansen?
If so do we add nepotism to his sterling resume of hutzpah, data adjustments and unreproducable statistical methodology?
Brett: On Friday's you always manage to either make my blood boil (I blame that on AGW) or laugh at the stupididy of junk written. This Friday it's new instrument that produces results the models predict or is it the other way around? In either case it is entertainment at it's ironic best.
Have a great weekend everybody and throw another log on the fire. In central NY it won't get above freezing for at least a week. These temps are about a month early, but with AGW I expected that.

Reply: Ted, looks like a cold/snowy pattern for you at least through the next two weeks. Enjoy!

John Bunt, why so confused about this? Actually Watts got the story straight for once, so perhaps you should read his post more carefully.

When this report uses "warming", does it mean the temperature rise from the increased sensible heat or the increased latent heat added with the water vapor or the enthalpy gain from both?

Brett, you wrote: "By estimating water vapor feedback, the researchers were able to determine that warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle."

This was the other way around (i.e. the observations of the spiraling increase were used to estimate the feedback):

"Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback."

Please fix the sentence, since as you can see Aviator and SAGWH were confused by it.

Reply: My bad. Thanks guys.

paminator: "Without a comprehensive understanding of how clouds behave, this result has no connection with reality. A slight increase in precipitation efficiency can completely negate the temperature increase from increased CO2."

Possibly you should try thinking this through, noting that any increase in precipitation efficiency would have reduced the observed quantities of water vapor.

OTOH if it's just that you're hoping some such effect will kick in later, all you need is a physical theory and some observations to prove that. Among other things, that theory will need to account for how water vapor effects would be strong enough to damp climate variability in the present or near future but would be too weak to do the same with the temperature swings in the paleoclimate record (e.g. the large ones associated with glaciations). Good luck!

Darren I think you'll find that water vapor was know to be a greenhouse gas way before CO2.

Its all part of the equation which you keep plugging your ears to.

Over all trend is up...
Global Temperature Record
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

John Bunt, could also say "was at odds with current scientific observations."

Over all trend is up...
Global Temperature Record
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Brett: Here is the right link. A good article.
KIPP

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2910

Brett:Here is the story PHYSICS TODAY HOME
In-ground carbon dioxide capture
As concern over global warming continues to grow, pressure and funding are increasing to find ways to reduce the growth and, in time, the actual levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (see PHYSICS TODAY, August 2008, page 26). Peter Kelemen and J�rg Matter of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have proposed a new approach for CO2 sequestration: accelerating the natural carbonation of exposed mantle rock. In many places around the globe�perhaps most dramatically in Oman�sections of the upper mantle have been raised through subduction or tectonic spreading. The resulting outcrops, termed ophiolites, are rich in peridotite, a rock primarily composed of the minerals olivine and pyroxene. (For more on the Oman ophiolite, see PHYSICS TODAY, January 2005, page 21.) Strongly out of chemical equilibrium with the atmosphere, the mantle rock naturally reacts with water and CO2 to form silicates, carbonates, and iron oxides. Kelemen and Matter find that atmospheric CO2 reacts with peridotite surprisingly quickly, at a rate of about 4 � 107 kg/yr for the 500-km-long Oman ophiolite. The researchers suggest several options for boosting that reaction rate even higher, starting with increasing the interaction volume by drilling and fracturing the peridotite. Some fracturing will happen spontaneously as the hydration and carbonation reactions expand the rock volume and give off heat. When the two scientists incorporate into their model the effects of raising the CO2 concentration near the rock and elevating the peridotite temperature, they estimate a potential increase of 109 in the reaction rate, or 2 � 109 tons of CO2 captured and sequestered each year per cubic kilometer of ophiolite. The researchers call for further modeling and field testing of what could be a permanent storage solution. (P. B. Kelemen, J. Matter, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17295, 2008.) � Richard J. Fitzgerald
Posted by Physics Today on November 10, 2008

Andrew: Another way to describe another obvious part of Global Warming. Either people are really dumb, or they don't want to face the realities of current accepted science.
"If the average temperature of atmospheric layers near to the ground, as a consequence of anthropogenic CO2 and methane emissions, is rising, then the evaporation of water is increased.Henceforth more water vapor will get into the air, and this additional abundance of water vapor will also absorb more heat.
KIPP

Paulm: Read my last post under anonymous. The feedback effect from greenhouse gases is to promote more water to warm, causing more water vapour, which helps carry the radiative forcing from Co2 and CH4 which are radiative, and not great absorbers as water is. Water vapour that carries heat from GHG's, is not truly gaseous. Water Vapour is caused by the heat contained from the blanketing of the IR by GHG's. A small difference from your good post. KIPP

I'm confused about one thing in the write-up about the conclusion that "The warming caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere." It seems that there were other atmospheric warming gases looked at in the study.

Suppose the warming came from a source other than an increase in CO2, would the water vapor still increase?

In addition, since CO2 comes from many sources, does the study really support the conclusion of warming by "dumping"?

I have a compromise over CO2 cap and trade. it goes like this....

Since water vapor and CO2 are the 2 primary products of combustion and water vapor is a much stronger GHG, lets capture the H2O emissions instead of CO2. Condensing water from the combustion stream is much more economical then CO2 capture, and the technology is immediately available. We may not even need to cap and trade it, just have the EPA regulate H2O as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. They wouldn't need an army of additional EPA Co2 police and massive regulations.

Compromise reached. Let's move on.

Nozz4

Suppose the warming came from a source other than an increase in CO2, would the water vapor still increase?

Yes

In addition, since CO2 comes from many sources, does the study really support the conclusion of warming by "dumping"?

I would assume the researchers are simply reflecting what is in the recent IPCC report which is just a summary of the research to date. Whatever your stance, the AIRS satellite looks like a good experiment. From the satellite web page,

AIRS' high resolution infrared coverage from 3.74 to 15 m gives researchers the ability to validate numerical models and to study different climate processes as needed. For example, emission to space by strong and weak water vapor lines is a critical climate feedback mechanism in the middle and lower troposphere. Numerical models must reproduce such lines as an indication of their ability to describe the climate system.

Pete says:I have a compromise over CO2 cap and trade. it goes like this....

I'm afraid you've missed the true intention of cap and trade. CO2 is the excuse while revenue is the reason!

Cap and trade is totally controlled by pandering policy decisions and can technically allow major polluters even more latitude with their polluting businesses.

The more "credits" they buy, the more they can pollute AND remain within the "law". Since the "product" that is produced suffers additional costs, the consumer pays ......again .......and the companies continue to pollute.

Who wins? Government: increased revenues which end up being diverted to wherever. Polluters: less REAL restrictions because of cap and trade. You & me: Pay .......pay ......pay .......and WE are the ones who suffer the unintended consequences of a dishonest policy!

Pete | November 22, 2008 1:31 PM --- Unfortunately for your idea, the global relative humidity remains nearly constant. Any attempt to remove water vapor is quickly offset by further evaporation from the oceans.

Steve Bloom- "Possibly you should try thinking this through, noting that any increase in precipitation efficiency would have reduced the observed quantities of water vapor."

Perhaps looking at measured data would help...

Here are NOAA's changes between 1950 and 2008 for relative humidity at various heights-

1000 mb- 79.8% (1950) to 79% (2008)
850 mb- 69% to 62.5%
600 mb- 49.5% to 45.8%
300 mb- 48% to 38%

Almost 60 years of unprecedented global warming caused by dramatic water vapor feedback triggered by CO2-induced warming, yet measured (using radiosondes) relative humidity (and specific humidity) DROPS?

Ever wonder why, although there is an essentially infinite supply of water vapor, the atmosphere is actually profoundly dry at and above the troposphere? Could it be due to precipitation systems providing a huge negative feedback? Could it be that a 1 or 2 percent change in precipitation efficiency can completely compensate for the warming expected from a doubling of CO2? Indeed so.

How many more decades of data are needed before the large, positive water vapor feedback hypothesis is revised?

"OTOH if it's just that you're hoping some such effect will kick in later..."

Looks like you and others are making exactly this assumption.
Thanks for playing.

Gary:

Thanks for the link; it's encouraging to see that some scientists are looking at the forest instead of the trees regarding Earth's climate (and what REALLY drives it).

As for the nonsense that is the subject of this particular post, I'd like to emphasize a different quote - "the team observed how atmospheric water vapor REACTED TO SHIFTS IN SURFACE TEMPERATURES between 2003 and 2008." Once again, cause and effect are confused for one another.

The famously unreliable sonde data, pam? Tch. See this discussion as to why it can't be relied on. Note in particular the link to a note on the NOAA site stating that the data is unreliable.

The AIRS instrument was planned and launched in order to get an accurate data set. Is there something you don't like about that? Possibly the failure to detect the preciptation efficiency increase you wish were happening?

paminator | November 23, 2008 7:53 PM --- The global precipitation product prodcued by a group in Italy has shown no change in global precipitation over the past 28 years.

Bloom- The AIRS satellite is a great step forward in deploying instrumentation to measure things. I applaud that. Since it has only been collecting data for 5 or 6 years, clearly no-one is claiming any sort of climate trend of water vapor or cloud cover, are they? When will the data be released? The AIRS website doesn't appear to provide the data yet.

Meanwhile, radiosonde data for humidity, even after re-analysis to account for instrument changes, is according to you "famously unreliable", although NOAA maintains it on their website as a searchable dataset.

Without this dataset, there is no way of determining historical atmospheric water vapor content. Until AIRS has collected 30 years of data, there isn't much to say about water vapor climate trends. Certainly claiming any sort of confirmation of GCM output is specious at best.

Its amusing that people are so quick to throw out the radiosonde humidity data. Yet:

-GISS GMST data, which undergoes ad-hoc adjustments using an embarrassing network of surface stations, is the gold standard;

-Radiosonde data for wind shear is deemed reliable enough be used as a PROXY for temperature trends in the troposphere, but the temperature trends in the troposphere that were MEASURED by radiosondes is deemed unreliable;

-Radiosonde temperature data is deemed reliable enough by UAH and RSS to cross-calibrate MSU satellite temperature data.

Har dee har har!

Benson- I have seen similar studies. I have very low confidence in our ability to measure climatic changes in precipitation of 1% or 2%, even in places where rain gauges or weather radar actually exist. Satellite measurements of cloud cover are not this good, and certainly are not able to accurately measure precipitation to this level.

The whole idea that water vapor can act as a positive forcing factor to amplify any slight warming by CO2 is absolutely wrong. In a static situation, maybe, but not in n atmosphere with an active water cycle. With the circulation created by humid air rising, condensation, and then precipitation, atmospheric water is part of a huge heat engine which carries heat upwards and away from the planet's surface where it is radiated out to space. A slight increase in temperature causes an increase in humidity which turns up the engine.

Before modeling or trying to model the climate, it is mandatory that the models first include and incorporate the systems which keep our climate so relatively constant. Models which do not include these systems are designed to tip and cannot and will not describe anything real regarding our climate or how it will react.

Furthermore, there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere that it cannot do what they say anyhow. And likewise with methane, which is also relatively low and has been decreasing. And CO2's absorption spectrum overlaps so much with water vapor that its effects are decreased.

Lastly, the idea that CO2 can act as such an effective "greenhouse" gas is laughable as that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. The only way that the IPCC could get CO2 to have appreciable effects was to alter (increase dramatically) a known constant in thermodynamics - a totally invalid and unethical action.

In addition, because man's CO2 production cannot account for the alleged CO2 increase since the 1800's, the IPCC changed the 1/2-life of CO2 from the observed 5-10 years to 200 years - another unethical change.

AND, to top it off, the alleged low CO2 levels for the 1800's were cherry picked from direct atmospheric measurements which included periods of high CO2 above 550 ppm. They could not afford to have any high levels back then or it would be impossible to maintain that man is responsible for all CO2 increases.

This is a cobbled up case against CO2 and has no validity of any kind. The icing on the real cake is that CO2 was above 440 ppm in the 1940's and the planet's temperature dropped while CO2 was high, indicating that CO2 cannot maintain elevated temperatures, just as has been seen in other historical records, such as ice core data, which ALWAYS show CO2 peaks lagging temperatures peaks.

By the way, the ice core data has been shown to under-represent the CO2 at the time by 30-50%. When this is added back to the reported ice core CO2 levels, the CO2 comes in right in the level we are now or higher, 380-438 ppm. So, our current CO2 is not even abnormally high, it is lower than the 1940's (440+ ppm).

There is no problem regarding CO2 levels and the planet has been cooling since 1998. The big problem is the misinformation perpetuated by the IPCC to further their agenda to create a new power structure in our world based on forcing people and countries to regulate their carbon emissions. Truly evil.

The IPCC is a political body formed to show the effects of global warming. They have no other mission and specifically have no interest or mission to disprove or not find effects. Their budgets demand that they find something. Their science staff is not great, as many of the best have quit but, even so, they actually report semi-decent findings. The final summary of their findings, however, has no relation to their published conclusions as the politicians who write the summary alter their findings to consistently insist that man's activities are driving the climate; the exact reverse of the scientists' reported inability to detect a human footprint in the climate's behavior. They obviously have a political agenda that does not include the truth.