4.6 Article

An observationally based constraint on the water-vapor feedback

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
卷 118, 期 22, 页码 12435-12443

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2013JD020184

关键词

water vapor; climate feedback

资金

  1. NERC [NE/E016189/1]
  2. LLNL Institutional Postdoc Program
  3. NASA [NNX09AN92H, NNH08CC72C]
  4. Office of Science (BER), U.S. Department of Energy
  5. National Science Foundation [ATM 0904092]
  6. NorthWest Research Associates Inc.
  7. NASA [NNX09AN92H, 113860] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER
  8. EPSRC [EP/I014721/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. NERC [NE/E016189/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I014721/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/E016189/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increase in atmospheric concentrations of water vapor with global warming is a large positive feedback in the climate system. Thus, even relatively small errors in its magnitude can lead to large uncertainties in predicting climate response to anthropogenic forcing. This study incorporates observed variability of water vapor over 2002-2009 from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder instrument into a radiative transfer scheme to provide constraints on this feedback. We derive a short-term water vapor feedback of 2.2 0.4 Wm(-2)K(-1). Based on the relationship between feedback derived over short and long timescales in twentieth century simulations of 14 climate models, we estimate a range of likely values for the long-term twentieth century water vapor feedback of 1.9 to 2.8 Wm(-2)K(-1). We use the twentieth century simulations to determine the record length necessary for the short-term feedback to approach the long-term value. In most of the climate models we analyze, the short-term feedback converges to within 15% of its long-term value after 25 years, implying that a longer observational record is necessary to accurately estimate the water vapor feedback.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据