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/