Just because something is said to be an amplifier doesn’t mean it actually is doing so, plus other datasets don’t show an increase in water vapor. See below. Also, you gotta love the big burning ball of hot they included with the press release.
From the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science
Scientists suggest that water vapor will intensify future climate change projections

MIAMI – A new study from scientists at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and colleagues confirms rising levels of water vapor in the upper troposphere – a key amplifier of global warming – will intensify climate change impacts over the next decades. The new study is the first to show that increased water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are a direct result of human activities.
“The study is the first to confirm that human activities have increased water vapor in the upper troposphere,” said Brian Soden, professor of atmospheric sciences at the UM Rosenstiel School and co-author of the study.
To investigate the potential causes of a 30-year moistening trend in the upper troposphere, a region 3-7 miles above Earth’s surface, Soden, UM Rosenstiel School researcher Eui-Seok Chung and colleagues measured water vapor in the upper troposphere collected by NOAA satellites and compared them to climate model predictions of water circulation between the ocean and atmosphere to determine whether observed changes in atmospheric water vapor could be explained by natural or man-made causes. Using the set of climate model experiments, the researchers showed that rising water vapor in the upper troposphere cannot be explained by natural forces, such as volcanoes and changes in solar activity, but can be explained by increased greenhouse gases, such as CO2.

Greenhouse gases raise temperatures by trapping the Earth’s radiant heat inside the atmosphere. This warming also increases the accumulation of atmospheric water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas. The atmospheric moistening traps additional radiant heat and further increases temperatures.
Climate models predict that as the climate warms from the burning of fossil fuels, the concentrations of water vapor will also increase in response to that warming. This moistening of the atmosphere, in turn, absorbs more heat and further raises the Earth’s temperature.
The paper, titled “Upper Tropospheric Moistening in response to Anthropogenic Warming,” was published in the July 28th, 2014 Early Addition on-line of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The paper’s authors include Chung, Soden, B.J. Sohn of Seoul National University, and Lei Shi of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/07/23/1409659111.abstract
Full paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/07/23/1409659111.full.pdf
Supporting Information: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/07/23/1409659111.DCSupplemental/pnas.201409659SI.pdf#nameddest=STXT
Abstract
Water vapor in the upper troposphere strongly regulates the strength of water-vapor feedback, which is the primary process for amplifying the response of the climate system to external radiative forcings. Monitoring changes in upper-tropospheric water vapor and scrutinizing the causes of such changes are therefore of great importance for establishing the credibility of model projections of past and future climates. Here, we use coupled ocean–atmosphere model simulations under different climate-forcing scenarios to investigate satellite-observed changes in global-mean upper-tropospheric water vapor. Our analysis demonstrates that the upper-tropospheric moistening observed over the period 1979–2005 cannot be explained by natural causes and results principally from an anthropogenic warming of the climate. By attributing the observed increase directly to human activities, this study verifies the presence of the largest known feedback mechanism for amplifying anthropogenic climate change
Significance
The fact that water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas underscores the need for an accurate understanding of the changes in its distribution over space and time. Although satellite observations have revealed a moistening trend in the upper troposphere, it has been unclear whether the observed moistening is a facet of natural variability or a direct result of human activities. Here, we use a set of coordinated model experiments to confirm that the satellite-observed increase in upper-tropospheric water vapor over the last three decades is primarily attributable to human activities. This attribution has significant implications for climate sciences because it corroborates the presence of the largest positive feedback in the climate system.
==============================================================
I note this graph from their SI, the trend seems tiny, and one wonders if they have done all the appropriate orbital drift corrections that people often like to mention about Christy and Spencer:
However, this dataset below of relative humidity, from reanalysis of in-situ radiosonde measurements (not from remote sensing) suggests water vapor has not been on the increase in the upper troposphere, nor in the middle, nor in the lower troposphere.
Atmospheric Relative Humidity from NOAA ESRL data:
Relative atmospheric humidity (%) at three different altitudes in the lower part of the atmosphere (the Troposphere) since January 1948 (Kalnay et al. 1996). The thin blue lines shows monthly values, while the thick blue lines show the running 37 month average (about 3 years). Data source: Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA). Pre-1973 data from the United States is not homogeneous according to Elliot and Gaffen (1991). See also data description by Kalnay et al. (1996). Last month shown: June 2014. Last diagram update: 12 July 2014.
Click here to download the raw data used to generate the above diagram. Use the following search parameters: Relative humidity, mb, 90N-90S, 0-357.5E, monthly values, area weighted grid.
Specific Humidity (the ratio of the mass of water vapor in air to the total mass of the mixture of air and water vapor) also shows no increase in the upper troposphere. In fact it shows a down-trend, opposite of what would be expected from a water vapor feedback amplifying mechanism.
Atmospheric Specific Humidity from NOAA ESRL data:
Specific atmospheric humidity (g/kg) at three different altitudes in the lower part of the atmosphere (the Troposphere) since January 1948 (Kalnay et al. 1996). The thin blue lines shows monthly values, while the thick blue lines show the running 37 month average (about 3 years). Data source: Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA). Pre-1973 data from the United States is not homogeneous according to Elliot and Gaffen (1991). See also data description by Kalnay et al. (1996). Last month shown: June 2014. Last diagram update: 12 July 2014.
Click here to download the raw data used to generate the above diagram. Use the following search parameters: Specific humidity, mb, 90N-90S, 0-357.5E, monthly values, area weighted grid.
h/t to Ole Humlum at http://climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm#Atmospheric%20water%20vapor
Interestingly, the 300 mb level (~9-10km above the surface), is the level most commercial airlines fly. Some folks worry that all that water vapor coming from those jet engines each day might have an effect on the upper troposphere, and I’m not talking about the “Chemtrail” loonies. I wonder if their remote satellite sensing was tuned to deal with that?
![Contrails-NASA-Langley-Research-Center-1024x809[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/contrails-nasa-langley-research-center-1024x8091.gif?w=640&resize=640%2C505)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

![NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/noaa20esrl20atmospericrelativehumidity20globalmonthlytempsince194820with37monthrunningaverage1.gif?w=640&resize=640%2C517)
![NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/noaa20esrl20atmospericspecifichumidity20globalmonthlytempsince194820with37monthrunningaverage1.gif?w=640&resize=640%2C504)
“Scientists suggest that water vapor will intensify future climate change projections”
What, the projections aren’t intense enough already?
What You Never Suspected About Water in the Atmosphere
http://wp.me/p4JijN-4y
Note the second paragraph of the paper:
“Changes in upper-tropospheric water vapor have been examined based on satellite-observed radiances of 6.7-μm water-vapor channels (3, 7, 8), which are closely related to the layer–mean relative humidity in the upper troposphere (9). Decadal trends in upper-tropospheric relative humidity exhibits distinct regional patterns associated with changes in the atmospheric circulation, but the decadal trends over larger domains are small due to opposing changes at regional scales (8). Analyzing the globalscale changes in 6.7-μm water-vapor radiances reveals little change over the past three decades. However, when the 6.7-μm radiances are examined relative to microwave radiance emissions from oxygen, a distinct radiative signature of upper-tropospheric moistening can be revealed (3).”
In other words, the data didn’t show any increase in water vapour so we tortured it until it did.
So nice that the “Geographers” at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science have discovered …. gasp … space space physics or rather the near under belly.
“the researchers showed that rising water vapor in the upper troposphere cannot be explained by natural forces”; well that is because the geographers at NOAA fudge the “data” in order to arrive at a pre-determined value that fits the EPA and Obama demands darling.
😀
“As I have blogged about before, there is a correlation between the SSM/I cloud water and the CERES net radiative flux variations, so the recent elevated cloud water amounts lead to less sunlight entering the oceans, which is consistent with the recent hiatus in warming.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/SSMI-cloud-water-thru-Jun14.png
‘ By attributing the observed increase directly to human activities, this study verifies the presence of the largest known feedback mechanism for amplifying anthropogenic climate change’
Damn and I attributed the observed increase to Aunt Martha’s cat.
two statements:
1. more water vapor = more clouds = increased albedo.
2. more vapor in tropics = more convection = IR heat dump to space
models do not effectively, if at all, deal with those two physical feedbacks.
on an aside, didn’t Hanson made a water vapor –> runaway GH effect prediction in early 70s only to later backtrack?
To amplify requires extra energy. Where does that extra energy come from?
Us see rain clouds in the Atlantic.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=-41.90,-0.73,365
Clouds around Antarctica.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=-126.89,-91.14,365
davidmhoffer says: July 28, 2014 at 5:33 pm
“The error bars are there, and they essentially invalidate the paper all by themselves.”
Those are plots of trends calculated over quite short time periods. The 2σ error ranges shown are not large compared with surface temperature trends, say.
“Why, does a paper published in 2014, ignore nearly 10 year’s worth of data?”
from the paper
“Unfortunately, the continuity of the 6.7-µm water-vapor record ends in 2005 due to the shift of central wavelength from 6.7 µm (HIRS/2) to 6.5 µm (HIRS/3), which also coincides with the end of the CMIP5 historical experiment. We therefore limit our observational analysis to the 27-y period 1979–2005.”
Frankly, I don’t know what to make of the decline in specific humidity at 300 mb. Anyone have any ideas? If it’s CO2 displacing water vapor, how does it do that?
@ur momisugly Patrick here you go http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
Lewis P Buckingham,
You may be on to something there. See David Hagen’s comment above. RH & SH have been declining for decades, as jetliner travel has increased.
Just been watching a BBC tv science programme “Operation Cloud Lab”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01hn0cq
The lead scientist stated there were now more hurricanes because the removal of pollution from the atmosphere led to less clouds which led to warmer seas from direct sunlight.
Love this consensus science!
“Interestingly, the 300 mb level (~9-10km above the surface), is the level most commercial airlines fly. Some folks worry that all that water vapor coming from those jet engines each day might have an effect on the upper troposphere…. I wonder if their remote satellite sensing was tuned to deal with that?”
The study of the behavior of jet contrails seems to me to be one of the most tragic missed opportunities. They do exhibit wonderful morphology, which changes from day to day. I live close enough to an airport to see that if I had a way to determine the altitude of every plane and every cloud, I would be able to make meaningful comparisons and to note the varying conditions which cause clouds and jet trails to form, enlarge, and remain coherent, or not to form. As it is, I cannot even guess heights from the ground, and all that detail is lost. There may be varying conditions which relate to space weather, and also fluctuations in both the magnetic field of earth and the efield. I do think it varies from day to day, and how much may be where the surprise lies.
At what other time in history could so many droplets at different altitudes be studied every day? And also, no crystal has ever been captured from a cirrus cloud. Great picture of jet trails from orbit.
Are we really expected to treat this as “serious science” when it uses a false colour image depicting something like the Eye of Sauron?
At least when Astronomers use false colour images they are doing so to entertain and enthrall us, not terrify the living cr*p out of us.
In early August, the first signs of autumn in northern Europe.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/08/03/0000Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-29.17,57.98,481
The disturbing condition the Gulf Stream.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/07/12/0000Z/ocean/surface/currents/orthographic=-29.17,57.98,481
Just last night I measured the Ocean surface temperature (thermal skin layer) here in Marsh Harbour, under both clear and overcast conditions and guess what? No temperature difference. An overcast sky even though it emits 100 more watts than a clear sky doesn’t warm the surface of the ocean at all.
2001 to 2005 is right in the middle of the pause.
So now we have CO2 rising AND water vapor rising, but still no increase in temperature.
How do they explain that?
BTW, Dr. Soden is one of the group of Florida academics who are trying to box Gov. Rick Scott in on the question of global warming.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2014/07/university-scientists-ask-scott-for-chance-to-meet-to-talk-about-climate-science.html
No doubt when he gets his one-on-one time with Scott he will push this study and there will be no one there who will question his findings.
Also I note that this was published in PNAS. That journals rep is pretty tarnished, esp. in regards to CAGW hooey.
KRJ Pietersen
I have to tell you all that the underground bunker I’m planning for the impending climate catastrophe is still very much at the concept stage
———————-
Best follow Al Gore and David Suzuki, buy as many houses as you can, as big as you can and by the sea or any beautiful spot you can find. As you gather more properties do tell everyone else to cut back for the forthcoming armageddon.
Ćlimate will change in 2 degrees during the next 100 years. We still don’t know the sign, though. 😛
“No global warming for over 16 years.”
Decade C Delta
===========================
1880s 13.80
1890s 13.73 -0.07
1900s 13.67 -0.07
1910s 13.65 -0.02
1920s 13.78 +0.13
1930s 13.92 +0.14
1940s 14.01 +0.09
1950s 13.96 -0.05
1960s 13.98 +0.02
1970s 14.03 +0.05
1980s 14.21 +0.18
1990s 14.37 +0.16
2000s 14.57 +0.20
Min 13.65
Max 14.57
Delta +0.92
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend
I don’t see any pause in the anomalous increase in global average temperature. Huh. Nor do any scientists.
Meanwhile, the increasing water vapor feedback is observed to be positive, not negative:
Water Vapour
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-2.html
Stratospheric Water Vapour
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3-7.html
Water Vapour and Lapse Rate
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html
Changes in the Water Cycle: Water Vapour, Clouds, Precipitation and Tropical Storms
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-1-3.html
http://coelho.mota.googlepages.com/RadiationBudget.pdf
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius-Clapeyron_relation
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3799.1
http://maths.ucd.ie/met/msc/ClimSyn/heldsode00.pdf
http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/ATOC6020/papers/Soden_etal_727.pdf
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0702872104v1.pdf
http://xweb.geos.ed.ac.uk/%7Edstevens/publications/penner_ngeo10.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/330/6002/356
Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming
http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf
“Ćlimate will change in 2 degrees during the next 100 years.”
That is only if increasing atmospheric CO2 stays at about 400 ppmv: it will not. Without any additional greenhouse gases, and all feedbacks suddenly stopping at this moment (i.e., the gods perform a miracle), the global average increase would be about 2.62c by year 2100.