The response of stratospheric water vapor to climate change driven by different forcing agents
-
Published:2020-11-10
Issue:21
Volume:20
Page:13267-13282
-
ISSN:1680-7324
-
Container-title:Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Atmos. Chem. Phys.
Author:
Wang XunORCID, Dessler Andrew E.ORCID
Abstract
Abstract. We investigate the response of stratospheric water vapor
(SWV) to different forcing agents within the Precipitation Driver and
Response Model Intercomparison Project (PDRMIP) framework. For each model
and forcing agent, we break down the SWV response into a slow response, which is
coupled to surface temperature changes, and a fast response, which is the
response to external forcing but before the sea surface temperatures have
responded. Our results show that, for most climate perturbations, the slow
SWV response dominates the fast response. The slow SWV response exhibits a
similar sensitivity to surface temperature across all climate perturbations.
Specifically, the sensitivity is 0.35 ppmv K−1 in the tropical lower
stratosphere (TLS), 2.1 ppmv K−1 in the northern hemispheric lowermost
stratosphere (LMS), and 0.97 ppmv K−1 in the southern hemispheric LMS.
In the TLS, the fast SWV response only dominates the slow SWV response when
the forcing agent radiatively heats the cold-point region – for example,
black carbon, which directly heats the atmosphere by absorbing solar
radiation. The fast SWV response in the TLS is primarily controlled by the
fast adjustment of cold-point temperature across all climate perturbations.
This control becomes weaker at higher altitudes in the tropics and altitudes
below 150 hPa in the LMS.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
Atmospheric Science
Reference83 articles.
1. Adams, B. K. and Dessler, A. E.: Estimating Transient Climate Response in a
Large-Ensemble Global Climate Model Simulation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46,
311–317, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080714, 2019. 2. Allen, R. J., Amiri-Farahani, A., Lamarque, J.-F., Smith, C., Shindell, D.,
Hassan, T., and Chung, C. E.: Observationally constrained aerosol–cloud
semi-direct effects, npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., 2, 16,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-019-0073-9, 2019. 3. Arora, V. K., Scinocca, J. F., Boer, G. J., Christian, J. R., Denman, K. L.,
Flato, G. M., Kharin, V. V., Lee, W. G., and Merryfield, W. J.: Carbon
emission limits required to satisfy future representative concentration
pathways of greenhouse gases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L05805,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046270, 2011. 4. Banerjee, A., Chiodo, G., Previdi, M., Ponater, M., Conley, A. J., and
Polvani, L. M.: Stratospheric water vapor: an important climate feedback,
Clim. Dynam., 53, 1697–1710, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04721-4, 2019. 5. Bellouin, N., Rae, J., Jones, A., Johnson, C., Haywood, J., and Boucher, O.:
Aerosol forcing in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5)
simulations by HadGEM2-ES and the role of ammonium nitrate, J. Geophys.
Res., 116, D20206, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016074, 2011.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|