Sentences with phrase «from stratospheric water vapor»

I'll then back the 15 % warming influence from stratospheric water vapor changes since 1980 out of the «corrected» data in Figure 2.

Warming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux at TOA).

Not exact matches

But then there's feedbacks within the stratosphere (water vapor), which would increase the stratospheric heating by upward radiation from below, as well as add some feedback to the downward flux at TRPP that the upward flux at TRPP would have to respond to via warming below TRPP.

First, for changing just CO2 forcing (or CH4, etc, or for a non-GHE forcing, such as a change in incident solar radiation, volcanic aerosols, etc.), there will be other GHE radiative «forcings» (feedbacks, though in the context of measuring their radiative effect, they can be described as having radiative forcings of x W / m2 per change in surface T), such as water vapor feedback, LW cloud feedback, and also, because GHE depends on the vertical temperature distribution, the lapse rate feedback (this generally refers to the tropospheric lapse rate, though changes in the position of the tropopause and changes in the stratospheric temperature could also be considered lapse - rate feedbacks for forcing at TOA; forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment takes some of that into account; sensitivity to forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment will generally be different from sensitivity to forcing without stratospheric adjustment and both will generally be different from forcing at TOA before stratospheric adjustment; forcing at TOA after stratospehric adjustment is identical to forcing at the tropopause after stratospheric adjustment).

(CO2 band is near the peak wavelength, water vapor bands significant in stratosphere for wavelengths longer than ~ 25 microns and between ~ 5.5 and 7 microns, and ozone between ~ 9.5 and 10 microns, and CH4 and N2O between ~ 7.5 and 8 microns — Hartmann p. 44 and 48, rough est. from graphs; signficant stratospheric transparency remains in several of those bands except near the peak of the CO2 band, but especially water vapor from 25 to 50 microns.)

In the antarctic polar band (60 and south) there is no ocean at all, all water vapor coming in from the stratospheric conveyor belt (Hadley cell to temperate cell to polar cell), and in the north, there is an icy ocean mostly covered with floes and fast ice.

Right now I am curious about stratospheric cooling from CO2 and the effect on ozone as well as high altitude water vapor.

Previous studies reported a wide range of stratospheric water vapor feedback strength from 0.02 to 0.3 Wm - 2K - 1» https://ams.confex.com/ams/21Fluid19Middle/webprogram/Paper319586.html

Methane does produce some stratospheric water vapor in AOGCMs and therefore a forcing slightly different from simple radiative transfer calculations.

Everytime an author publishes something different from what the IPCC published in their last report — from Solomon et al. on stratospheric water vapor trends to all the new hockey sticks post the so - called «iconic» Mann hockeystick, each of which is somewhat different, to all the GWP - replacement metrics proposed by Fuglesvedt et al., to practically any paper published in the scientific literature or any talk given at AGU... scientists don't make their name by publishing papers that say, «yup, we're just saying exactly what the IPCC said.

Working through the rest of my calculations (i.e., stratospheric water vapor and then black carbon) using the new 0.085 °C / decade baseline leaves a trend of 0.056 °C / decade that could potentially be from anthropogenic GHGs, or a total potential temperature rise of 0.337 °C — which is 48 % of the current «observed» value — or less than half of the current «observed» warming from the mid-20th century.

Had I applied the black carbon influence to the error corrected baseline and added that to the stratospheric water vapor reduction (that I already calculated from the error - corrected baseline), the total net reduction would sum to be 0.348 °C — or very nearly 50 % (compared to my 52 %).

The figure below, from a paper in Science by Susan Soloman and her colleagues, shows a notable decline in stratospheric (high - atmosphere) water vapor after the year 2000.

For stratospheric water vapor, the analysis suggests a small negative correlation with the error from the long - run cointegrating relation, but the negative sign is inconsistent with the warming effect of stratospheric water vapor.

Recently, there have been debates about the slowing of the warming rates since 2005, with explanations (44 ⇓ — 46) ranging from increases in stratospheric water vapor and background aerosol to increased coal burning in the emergent economy of China of the past 20 y.

The level of scientific understanding of radiative forcing is ranked by the AR4 (Table 2.11) as high only for the long - lived greenhouse gases, but is ranked as low for solar irradiance, aerosol effects, stratospheric water vapor from CH4, and jet contrails.

Lower stratospheric cooling is mainly caused by the effects of ozone depletion with a possible contribution from increased stratospheric water vapor and greenhouse gases increase.