Sentences with phrase «stratospheric water vapor»

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.

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

Stuber, N., M. Ponater, and R. Sausen, 2001: Is the climate sensitivity to ozone perturbations enhanced by stratospheric water vapor feedback?

The climate model reproduces the temperature trends only when stratospheric water vapor also increases.

All told, stratospheric water vapor declined by 10 percent since 2000, based on satellite and balloon measurements, yet that was enough to appreciably affect temperatures at ground level according to climate models.

More limited data suggest that 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.

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.

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).

But stratospheric water vapor variations apparently do have a sizeable impact on decadal - scale trends.

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.

Here we use a combination of data and models to show that stratospheric water vapor very likely made substantial contributions to the flattening of the global warming trend since about 2000.

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.

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.

To evaluate this hypothesis, we test whether stratospheric water vapor (or black carbon) is related to either; (i) errors in the long - run relation between radiative forcing and surface temperature, (ii) errors in the error correction model that represents the dynamics by which surface temperature adjusts to long - and short - run determinants, or (iii) errors in the forecast that is generated by the full statistical model (SI Appendix: Section 2.7).

We find no relation between stratospheric water vapor and error in the dynamics by which surface temperature adjusts to long - and short - run determinants, or the simulation errors generated by the full statistical model.

This might be reason to think (if the result holds up) that stratospheric water vapor varies with multiple inputs, not that it is unrelated to other GHGs.

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.

They also point out that an increase in stratospheric water vapor during the 1990s may have led to about 30 percent more warming during that decade than otherwise would have occurred.

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.

Oltmans, S.J. and D.J. Hoffman, «Increase in Lower - Stratospheric Water Vapor at Mid-Latitude Northern Hemisphere Site from 1981 - 1994,» Nature, 374 (1995): 146 - 149.

The figure below shows various different estimates of stratospheric water vapor content, with the pre - and post-2001 periods highlighted.

Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10 % after the year 2000.

Oinas, V., A.A. Lacis, D. Rind, D.T. Shindell, and J.E. Hansen, 2001: Radiative cooling by stratospheric water vapor: Big differences in GCM results.

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.

The most important non-CO2 forcing is methane, whose increases in turn cause tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor to increase.

Previous studies suggested that stratospheric water vapor might contribute significantly to climate change.

The radiative effects of increased stratospheric water vapor act to cool the stratosphere and warm the troposphere and are described by Oinas et al (2001) «Radiative cooling by stratospheric water vapor: big differences in GCM results» GRL 28, 2791 - 2794.

Oinas et al also show that stratospheric dynamics make their contribution in the polar vortex regions to produce local warming in the 1 mb region for the uniformly applied increase in stratospheric water vapor.

On the other hand, decreasing stratospheric ozone (above 25 km), increasing stratospheric water vapor, and increasing atmospheric CO2 uniformly with height) will produce global surface and tropospheric warming along with stratospheric cooling.

Much of the absorption of fluxes going into the stratosphere and emission of fluxes going out from within the stratosphere may actually be due to stratospheric water vapor, because it has moderate optical thickness (on the order of unit optical thickness) over a wide band of wavlengths (though it is transparent in the vicinity of the 15 - micron - centered CO2 band); the optical thickness is much greater in the CO2 band, but it covers a narrow range of wavelengths.

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?