Sentences with phrase «of stratospheric water vapor»

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.»

Not exact matches

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.

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.

«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.

As for your V&V discussion, I don't see the relevance of it in this talk, but in the context of physical science of climate change we have overwhelming evidence of model usefulness and verification (water vapor feedback, simulating the Pinatubo eruption effects, ocean heat content changes, stratospheric cooling, arctic amplification, etc).

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.

Others argue that a plethora of recent small volcanoes, changes in stratospheric water vapor, and a downturn in solar energy reaching the Earth may also be contributing to the slow - down.

In fact, since 1980 (the start of the data analyzed), an overall increase in stratospheric water vapor content as been responsible for perhaps 15 % of the overall temperature increase.

Alternatively, expanding the list of forcings to include recent changes in stratospheric water vapor (6) may account for the recent lack of warming.

These findings are not sensitive to a wide range of assumptions, including the time series used to measure temperature, the omission of black carbon and stratospheric water vapor, and uncertainty about anthropogenic sulfur emissions and its effect on radiative forcing (SI Appendix: Sections 2.4 — 7).

The use of water vapor is also misleading — the findings of Solomon did not include any claim that stratospheric water vapor was unrelated to the concentration of other GHGs, only that it had declined recently (perhaps) for unknown reasons.

Soloman and her co-authors argue that El Niño has been one of the drivers of changes in stratospheric water vapor, noting that «The drop in stratospheric water vapor observed after 2001 has been correlated to sea surface temperature (SST) increases in the vicinity of the tropical «warm pool» which are related to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO).»

Cointegration indicates that internal climate variability and / or the omission of some components of radiative forcing (e.g., stratospheric water vapor, black or organic carbon, nitrite aerosols, etc.) do not impart a stochastic or deterministic trend that would interfere with the interpretation of temperature changes at the subdecadal scale (SI Appendix).

Based on these results, declining stratospheric water vapor would account for only about one - fourth of the slow - down in warming.

They argue that this «very likely made substantial contributions to the flattening of the global warming trend since about 2000» and that temperatures between 2000 - 2009 would have warmed about 25 percent had stratospheric water vapor remained constant.

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

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.

That said, the models that Soloman and her co-authors use still show significant warming over the past decade even when stratospheric water vapor is declining (they give a rise of 0.10 C instead of 0.14 C, a 0.04 degree C difference).

This modell shurely will not include the new findings of Susan Solomon regarding stratospheric water vapor and it's influence to global temperatures.

If we believe Solomons findings stratospheric water vapor was responsible for a big amount of warming since 1979 and even for about 25 % less warming since about 2000.

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.