How are the models that match up with our emissions doing?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Matthew, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,755
    Thanks Received:
    4,609
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,214
    Lets look at the IPCC 4th assement models against reality
    [​IMG]

    Figure 2: Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980–1999) for the scenarios A2, A1B, and B1, shown as continuations of the 20th century simulations. Shading denotes the ±1 standard deviation range of individual model annual averages. The orange line is for the experiment where concentrations were held constant at year 2000 values. The grey bars at right indicate the best estimate (solid line within each bar) and the likely range assessed for the six SRES marker scenarios.

    A2 is slightly lower in rate during the next 20 years. Most likely caused by sulfurs, but ends the highest at 2100 as the level of co2 increases as the sulfur, aerosals decrease.

    This is on a 1980-1999 baseline, so we have to match the giss record to that....

    ------What occurred, A2, A1b1
    2002 .33c, .262c, .272c
    2005 .37c .349c .339c
    2007 .37c .373c .401c
    2010 .40c, .423c, .408c

    Model data
    http://www.ipcc-data.org/data/ar4_multimodel_globalmean_tas.txt

    2010 giss
    Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
    2005
    Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
    2007
    Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

    Here are some predictions from the ipcc models
    Year, A1b1, A2
    2012 0.516 0.461
    2015 0.546 0.526
    2018 0.605 0.553
    2020 0.684 0.615
    2030 0.944 0.809

    I'd likely go with A2...Why, because it is handling the aerosals much better as are emissions put out sulfur at the rate we're increasing them. I'd also wouldn't judge these models from anomaly's like 1998, 2008, 2011.

    ---A2 is lower throughout mid century even with higher emissions for this reason. I expect it is right. Aerosals for the next 20-30 years will hold it down. Longer term 2060 onwards A2 with higher emissions over takes A1b1. http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/2001wg1/large/01.33.jpg


    Here is the emissions. We're close to A2.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  2. asterism
    Offline

    asterism Congress != Progress

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,592
    Thanks Received:
    906
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Ratings:
    +1,073
    Can we say overhyped?
     
  3. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,560
    Thanks Received:
    5,424
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,368
  4. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,755
    Thanks Received:
    4,609
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,214

    How is something that matches up with reality overhyped? Seriously! Sure, I think that 2011, 2012 is going to be below the means, but with good reason(nina, low solar min). .615c is A2 by 2020, which likely is a little high, but we will just have to see. How accurate do you went a model of the climate? Do you have any understanding what a MEANS IS or what the enso can do to the short term...If not then you wouldn't even have the foggiest idea on what I'm talking about...Hell, you're just shooting from your ass. As you don't care to read the data I put forward!

    Old Rocks; I ran giss for 1979-2010 and got only .3c for them for August. Uah is slightly hotter then Giss.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2011
  5. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,755
    Thanks Received:
    4,609
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,214
    This run started in 2000! So it has fit for 10 years so far!!!

    What is the funniest thing is the ipcc models forecasted the sulfur right as b1 shows the fastest warming, which would of had us at .5c by 2011, but only 1.7-1.8c by 2100...We're following the A2, which shows the slowest short term warming, but the fastest long range.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2011
  6. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    This model would match up well with my emissions of essential bodily fluids.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,755
    Thanks Received:
    4,609
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,214
    [​IMG]

    Ok, this is from 1990-2011...I started it before the massive vei 6 volcano in 1990...Remember, 1999-2005 was a warm enso pattern, but 2006-2011 are mostly cold...So with this stuff in mind here is how it would look like.

    Started in 1990 so I didn't have to include the climb out of the vei 6.
    More or less trends it within the means from 1990-2011
    Added a thin black line for a forecast from 2011-2015.
    Last, but not least added a blue dash line to show the difference between 1990 and 2011.

    I feel 1990 is a good year to start as 1992-1994 is within the basement of the giant eruption. 1993-1998 is climbing out of it. You don't choose 1998 for the same reason as it is a huge anomaly. Do you agree?

    --------------------------------------------------------
    Best case B1 needs only 2 gt of co2
    Second best case B2 needs 6 gt to make the long range 1.85c of warming by 2c over 1980-1999 means a reality. A little less then 2000-2010 by 2030.
    A1b1 27 gt
    A2 30 gt

    Whats this to today
    B1 30.5+2=32.5 gt
    B2 30.5+6=36.5 gt. 1.85c+.2=2.15c by 2100 warmer then 1980-1999 means
    We're close to being committed to this sucker!
    A1b1 30.5+27 gt=57.5 gt by 2030 would give us 2.805c+.2c=3.005c by 2100
    A2 30.5+30=60.5 gt by 2030 would give us 3.565+.2=3.765c over 1980-1999 means.

    We're likely to get to B1 this year or sometime next year. Before 2014-2015 for B2.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig4-1.jpg
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2011
  8. asterism
    Offline

    asterism Congress != Progress

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,592
    Thanks Received:
    906
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Ratings:
    +1,073
    Show me the match to reality again? You just qualified your prediction.

    How accurate do I want a model of climate? Accurate enough to not have so many qualifications while still supporting the cap and trade farce.

    If there is a direct correlation between CO2 and global average temperatures, it needs to be refined. 1995 models predicted that the global average temperatures would be much higher if CO2 levels increased.

    So...now it's not that simple?
     
  9. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,755
    Thanks Received:
    4,609
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,214

    I didn't check it against anything of mine, but the A2 and A1b1 emissions models against the giss temperatures. Pretty close, wouldn't you agree?

    Your right about the first and second report from 1990-1995 were a little high. But we have much clearer idea(data)of the sensitivity, which we didn't have in the early 1990's, which has been shown to be over 4c in hansen 1988.

    Thirdly can you post a real peer review paper that shows that the green house effect is fake? Not something from a total skeptic web-page. Something even handed.

    Can you agree with some of that?
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2011
  10. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,016
    Thanks Received:
    7,987
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,781




    The only GHG that actually works in the real world is water vapor because of the way it changes phase. Any other GHGs if they actually even have an effect are minor.
     

Share This Page