Sentences with phrase «of stratospheric water»
... there is little quantification of the stratospheric water vapour change attributable to different causes.
http://drtimball.com/
Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming.
Susan Solomon, Karen Rosenlof, Robert Portmann, John Daniel, Sean Davis, Todd Sanford, Gian - Kasper Plattner, Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming, Science, Published Online January 28, 2010
b) How can scientists like Susan Solomon report on changes in the more difficult problem of stratospheric water vapor (in terms of TOA forcing) when water vapor in the upper troposphere is such a problem.
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.
Solomon, S. Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming.
«Corrected» temperature history with general influence of stratospheric water vapor (according to Solomon et al., 2010) removed and the influence of black carbon (according to Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2009) removed (blue line).
If this hypothesis is correct, the omission of stratospheric water vapor (or black carbon) would bias the statistical estimates and / or the model forecast.
The results are moot regarding the effect of stratospheric water vapor (or black carbon) on global surface temperature in general.
«Corrected» temperature history with general influence of stratospheric water vapor (according to Solomon et al., 2010) removed (green line).
Chemistry - climate models predict increases of stratospheric water vapor, but confidence in these predictions is low.
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
Some of the mid-latitude increase of stratospheric water vapor (1 % per year) over the period of 1980 - 2006 can be explained by the increase of atmospheric methane, but not all.
For instance, perfect initialization of the state of the Atlantic ocean, a correct simulation of the next 10 years of the solar cycle, a proper inclusion of stratospheric water vapor, etc may be important for whether the next 5 years are warmer than the previous 5, but it has nothing to do with climate sensitivity, water vapor feedback, or other issues.
«Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming.»
The contributions of stratospheric water vapour and ozone, volcanic eruptions, and organic and black carbon are small.»
Recent studies have shown a doubling of stratospheric water vapour, likely from increasing atmospheric heights due to global warming, overshooting thunderstorm tops from stronger tropical cyclones and mesoscale convective systems etc...
«Methane's growth rate has dropped, so it'll have become a weaker source of stratospheric water, but we don't fully understand why its concentrations have not increased as rapidly in recent years as they did for the previous several decades.»
Not exact matches
Those data, to be collected this year and next, could improve climate models, which account poorly for these atmospheric interactions and contain «horrific» uncertainties about the levels and behaviour of water vapour at stratospheric altitudes, Austin says.
13 The slower rate of warming in the past decade might be due to a 10 percent drop in stratospheric water.
Comparison with the modeled temperature response in histAll is inconsistent without accounting for stratospheric water, land - use, solar, etc, some of which are poorly characterized (hence I did not make use of a calculation like this).
I would assume that the increase in stratospheric water vapour would make for a thicker vail of sulfuric acid given a large volcanic eruption.
Forster, P.M. de F., and K.P. Shine, 2002: Assessing the climate impact of trends in stratospheric water vapour.
The forcing due to reduced amounts of long lived GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O) was -3 ± 0.5 W / m2, with the indirect effects of CH4 on tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor included (fig.
The stratopsheric cooling may be caused by the tropospheric water vapor (see figure 3 of http://www.springerlink.com/content/6677gr5lx8421105/fulltext.pdf)-- but in that figure water vapor is fixed only above sigma = 0.14 (~ 140 hPa), so the cooling may also be caused by the increase in lower stratospheric water vapor.
The relative contribution of each trace GHG to increased Eocene and Cretaceous land temperatures at 4 × CO2, assessed with multiple separate coupled - ocean atmosphere HadCM3L model simulations, revealed methane and associated increases in stratospheric water vapor dominate, with nitrous oxide and tropospheric ozone contributing approximately equally to the remainder.
In fact, as the atmosphere warms, the «atmospheric window» tends toward closing (particularly because of water vapor effects), and excess escape through this window can't account quantitatively for the reduction in stratospheric temperatures.
As a provisional bottom line number — «provisional» because uncertainties still exist — Figure 8.15 (p. 697) gives solar forcing for 175 - 2011 as ~ 0.05 W / m2 (roughly comparable to the effects of contrail - induced cirrus, or stratospheric water vapor due to methane breakdown), while total anthropogenic forcing is ~ 2.3 W / m2.
As to the idea of CH4 contributing to an increase in O2 in the atmosphere we are leaving out the recent examples of increased water vapor in the Stratospheric region.
Perhaps this is because of the band - widenning (of the type refered to above) effect, with the initial introduction of some CO2 causing some upper level warming (enhanced by the shorter wavelengths of the CO2 band relative to stratospheric water vapor given the cold temperatures (lack of importance of the ~ 5 to 7 micron band -LRB-?)
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).
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.)
«Climate models show cooler stratospheric temperatures happen when there is more water vapor present» «The stratosphere is the typically dry layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere, where temperatures increase with height.»
How is it that the AGW enthusiasts attribute such a water vapor contribution to CH4 rather then the mixing of the Tropopause and Stratospheric water vapor in a similar action as to the boundary layer temperature change at the Stratospheric and Mesospheric level?
By the same token if I look at polar regions with the concentration of frontal changes there seems to be a rapid rise of tropospheric water vapor invading the stratospheric range.
When it was first observed a few years ago, there were lots of theories — including things like stratospheric water vapor, solar cycles, stratospheric aerosol forcing.
Instead, they discuss new ways of playing around with the aerosol judge factor needed to explain why 20th - century warming is about half of the warming expected for increased in GHGs; and then expand their list of fudge factors to include smaller volcanos, stratospheric water vapor (published with no estimate of uncertainty for the predicted change in Ts), transfer of heat to the deeper ocean (where changes in heat content are hard to accurately measure), etc..
A second factor is Polar Stratospheric Cloud (PSC) that form when gases including water vapor sublimate directly to crystals because of the intensely low temperatures -LRB--70 °C and below) and pressures over the South Pole.
The difference is in the residence time, mainly due to the lack of water vapour: the stratospheric injection of SO2 by the Pinatubo did last 2 - 3 years before the reflecting drops were large enough to fall out of the atmosphere.
There is a potential issue with aerosols and stratospheric water vapour over the short term period of the «plateau».
These include the influences of a changing climate, altered air mixing and transport rates, energy exchange, and changes in the composition of the atmosphere (e.g., water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, aerosols, etc.), all of which can influence stratospheric ozone.
«i) Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).»
[The paper was] the first proper computation of global warming and stratospheric cooling from enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, including atmospheric emission and water - vapour feedback.
«The observed temporal trends in stratospheric water vapour are poorly understood and this demonstrates our lack of understanding of how water vapour enters the stratosphere.
I think forcing from stratospheric water vapour, including that from oxidation of methane, is normally accounted for separately from methane forcing.
No matter what the origin is, however, Karen Rosenlof, a member of Solomon's team, says it is now clear that stratospheric water vapour has a significant effect on global warming and that models» inability to take this effect into account is a significant failing.
The Met Office held a briefing for the press to explain that the reduction in warming might be natural variation, or could be accounted for by a mixture of a decrease in stratospheric water vapour and the cooling bias introduced by new methodology.
CAS = Commission for Atmospheric Sciences CMDP = Climate Metrics and Diagnostic Panel CMIP = Coupled Model Intercomparison Project DAOS = Working Group on Data Assimilation and Observing Systems GASS = Global Atmospheric System Studies panel GEWEX = Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment GLASS = Global Land - Atmosphere System Studies panel GOV = Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE) Ocean View JWGFVR = Joint Working Group on Forecast Verification Research MJO - TF = Madden - Julian Oscillation Task Force PDEF = Working Group on Predictability, Dynamics and Ensemble Forecasting PPP = Polar Prediction Project QPF = Quantitative precipitation forecast S2S = Subseasonal to Seasonal Prediction Project SPARC = Stratospheric Processes and their Role in Climate TC = Tropical cyclone WCRP = World Climate Research Programme WCRP Grand Science Challenges • Climate Extremes • Clouds, Circulation and Climate Sensitivity • Melting Ice and Global Consequences • Regional Sea - Ice Change and Coastal Impacts • Water Availability WCRP JSC = Joint Scientific Committee WGCM = Working Group on Coupled Modelling WGSIP = Working Group on Subseasonal to Interdecadal Prediction WWRP = World Weather Research Programme YOPP = Year of Polar Prediction
«stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30 % as compared to estimates neglecting this change.