Discussion in 'Environment' started by bripat9643, Jun 11, 2011.
Clive Best » Blog Archive » 1990 IPCC predictions confront the data
Yes, they couldn't even forecast 20 years in advance. Forecasting 89 is not going to be any better...It will be on the low side or outside the forecast limit for low. I will forecast 1.5-1.8c of warming by 2100.
Here are the actual temperature predictions from the 1990 report (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_annex.pdf)
Here are the actual temperature predictions overlaid on UAH:
The top line is BAU (business as usual). The bottom line are all the other scenarios.
BAU did not happen. CFC emissions did not keep increasing past 1990 but fell. Methane concentrations also stopped rising. Therefore the proper prediction to compare with recent UAH and HadCRUT temperatures is the bottom line.
A couple of other factors in there, also. One is the amount of aerosols emitted by India and China were not expected. See Hanson's Faustian Bargain for that effect. The other being that the models of that time were pretty primative.
Now, while our present models are better, we also realize that we have no real grip on the size or scope of the feedbacks that we are starting to see. From the CO2 and CH4 emissions from the permafrost and Arctic Ocean clathrates, to the lessoning of albedo as the Artic ice melts, estimates are all over the board as to the affects.
"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC
Yes, it's true, you have no real grip.
Most honest statement you've made in all the time I've known you
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJgneekeb00]YouTube - ‪Tips for Creating Feedback with an Electric Guitar‬‏[/ame]
I'm not convinced that EITHER overlay of the models is correct. RWatt may or may not be closer, but the models for C,D are not linear and estimating them as linear will make a diff. If I'm really bored, I'll give it a shot, because it's extremely important to get it right.
Let the excuses begin
Using that logic and excuses -- we arrive at 2 other conclusions..
1) Because the US/Europe made great strides in REDUCING their aerosol emissions in the period from the 70's to the 90's , that most of the observed warming could be due to the fact that PRIOR to China leaping into industrialization -- that WE CAUSED the rise because we CLEANED the air of actual pollutants...
2) And had the ACTUAL jump in greenhouse gas emissions from the Far East been built into the models adequately -- the models WOULD have output much higher estimates than they actually did.
Aerosols versus CO2.. One's an actual pollutant with acknowledged health hazards. The other is "what plants crave" (from Idiocracy of course). Who knew we had to pollute to save our sorry asses..
I think the at least the 2nd point should make you worry just a tad.. Ole Rocks..
Rocks don't worry -- he's a Troo Beleever.
The other being that the models of that time were pretty primative.
Laugh my balls off..........the k00ks are always correcting with revisionist history.
"Present models".............are bullshit.
Was out in Pennsylvania for a few days. All the local forecasts were calling for bright sunshine and no chance of rain today. Woke up this morning to head back to New York........at 9am, couldnt see a speck of blue in the sky looking north, east, west or south and whats more, it was misting out. Fcukking fAiL.........
Separate names with a comma.