What a vacuous article. 
"Higher temperatures lead to higher concentrations of water vapor, which then absorbs more thermal energy radiated from the Earth, which further warms the atmosphere."<p>This article is about how increased water vapour <i>cools</i> the atmosphere.  Then it goes on to say this is because less water vapor is going into the upper atmosphere.<p>The conclusion is 'we really don't know'<p>The failure of climate models to accurately hindcast shows how inadequate they are. The water vapor cycle is hardly a new discovery.  Why, then, was it not in the climate models?
If it's not accurate (failure to predict flat temperature growth) then there must be some fundamental assumptions wrong.  It's not valid to curve-fit the results by messing about with inputs.  They need to start again.<p>Climate papers/articles seem to be becoming more like a youtube comment thread, where everyone piles on agreeing with the last person, and repeats what they said, just to make sure the point isn't lost.