I have noticed that Dane Wigington has added a new section to his article criticizing the new study: This graph was prepared and popularized by the group named "Friends of Science", which seems to be a climate change denialist group. It is known to be an oil-industry funded astroturf group. The graph is essentially incorrect and shows a false trend. The problems with the graph are discussed in environmental scientist Jim Milks' blog here: James Taylor versus relative humidity and specific humidity. Basically, the data used to make the graphs are unhomogenized, i.e. changes of the location and type of the instruments have not been accounted for. This produces a false trend. The data come from the "NCEP Reanalysis" data set, which has been criticized in the literature, see: Dessler, A. E., and S. M. Davis (2010), Trends in tropospheric humidity from reanalysis systems, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D19127, doi:10.1029/2010JD014192. In fact the relative humidity in the upper troposphere has been increasing, as confirmed by a number of published studies. The graph below from Dessler and Davis compares several different reanalyses: This shows the specific humidity at 300 hPa in the tropics. The solid line is the criticized "NCEP Reanalysis" data set, and this is the only one showing a declining trend. The other lines are other reanalyses, showing a slightly increasing trend. See also: Chung, E. S., Soden, B., Sohn, B. J., & Shi, L. (2014). Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(32), 11636-11641. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/32/11636.full Also, from skepticalscience.com: So, ironically, Dane used climate change denialist propaganda to support his point.