The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming
Abstract
▪ Abstract Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere. As the concentrations of other greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, increase because of human activity, it is centrally important to predict how the water vapor distribution will be affected. To the extent that water vapor concentrations increase in a warmer world, the climatic effects of the other greenhouse gases will be amplified. Models of the Earth's climate indicate that this is an important positive feedback that increases the sensitivity of surface temperatures to carbon dioxide by nearly a factor of two when considered in isolation from other feedbacks, and possibly by as much as a factor of three or more when interactions with other feedbacks are considered. Critics of this consensus have attempted to provide reasons why modeling results are overestimating the strength of this feedback. Our uncertainty concerning climate sensitivity is disturbing. The range most often quoted for the equilibrium global mean surface temperature response to a doubling of CO 2 concentrations in the atmosphere is 1.5°C to 4.5°C. If the Earth lies near the upper bound of this sensitivity range, climate changes in the twenty-first century will be profound. The range in sensitivity is primarily due to differing assumptions about how the Earth's cloud distribution is maintained; all the models on which these estimates are based possess strong water vapor feedback. If this feedback is, in fact, substantially weaker than predicted in current models, sensitivities in the upper half of this range would be much less likely, a conclusion that would clearly have important policy implications. In this review, we describe the background behind the prevailing view on water vapor feedback and some of the arguments raised by its critics, and attempt to explain why these arguments have not modified the consensus within the climate research community.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Runaway and moist greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of Earth and Venus
Kasting, J. F. (1988) · Icarus · doi:10.1016/0019-1035(88)90116-9 · Cited by 709 · cited 1×
“Although it is difficult to be quantitative, primarily because of uncertainties in cloud prediction, it is clear that this point is only achieved for temperatures that are far warmer than any relevant for the global warming debate (22).”
Background
Cited by
Robust Responses of the Hydrological Cycle to Global Warming
Held, I. M., & Soden, B. J. (2006) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli3990.1 · Cited by 4,959
Self-citationEvidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review and synthesis
Huntington, T. G. (2006) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.003 · Cited by 2,374
Effect of climate change on air quality
Jacob, D. J., & Winner, D. A. (2009) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.051 · Cited by 1,979
An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models
Soden, B. J., & Held, I. M. (2006) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli3799.1 · Cited by 1,082
Self-citationMechanisms of Global Warming Impacts on Regional Tropical Precipitation*
Chou, C., & Neelin, J. D. (2004) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<2688:mogwio>2.0.co;2 · Cited by 474
Metadata
- Authors
- Held, I. M., & Soden, B. J.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2000-11
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 441-475
- ISSN
- 1056-3466 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2165026909
- Cited by
- 1,266
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441
- The paper
- Held, I. M., & Soden, B. J. (2000). Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.