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

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Lets look at the IPCC 4th assement models against reality


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.



 
Last edited:
OP
ScienceRocks

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Can we say overhyped?

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:
OP
ScienceRocks

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
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:

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,908
Points
48
Location
My Shack
This model would match up well with my emissions of essential bodily fluids.
 
OP
ScienceRocks

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America


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:

asterism

Congress != Progress
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
8,592
Reaction score
970
Points
190
Location
Central Florida
Can we say overhyped?

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.
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?
 
OP
ScienceRocks

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Can we say overhyped?

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.
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?

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:

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,951
Reaction score
21,536
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
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.
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?

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?




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.
 
OP
ScienceRocks

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
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?

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?




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.

Can you post a few scientific peer reviewed papers supporting your case. I'd think IF most of science is on your and wirebenders side there should be a ton of them. Should be easy to find a even handed peer reviewed paper.
 
Last edited:

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
Writing a model that matches our emissions is no feat to be particularly proud of Matthew. Writing a model that can project emissions doesn't really tell us anything other than what we are emitting. A child could write a model projecting how much water is escaping from a hole in a dam over a period of time but the greatest modeler in the world would fail if he were asked to model the impact of that escaping water. He may get the obvious, but would inevetably fail on the more subtle impacts.

Compare those emissions to the projected warming and that is where the disconnect happens. The models are written to match the current time and are naturally correct for a period. As time passes, however, the models deviate further and further from reality because they assume that they know what is causing the warming and their assumption is not the actual cause. That is why they can not run their models in reverse and recreate known variations in the climate.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
I suspect that the science is not yet up to the task it is attempting to do.

I think we're working with too many unknowns, too many unknow-ables, some dubious and perhaps outright incorrect data, and then that fly in most every scientific ointment, the pernicious effect of chaos when creating forecasting models of highly complex systems.

I think: Something is happening here, but we don't know what it is. Do we, Mr Jones.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,401
Reaction score
7,258
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
What we do know.

1. It is getting significantly warmer.

2. We have added enough GHGs to the atmosphere to be at an equivelent of 460 ppm of CO2.

3. The TSI for the last couple of decades has been declining.

4. That there are additional sources of GHGs coming into play as the warming Arctic is emitting GHGs from both the permafrost and the ocean clathrates.

5. That at present the use of fossil fuel is the major source of the increase in GHGs in our atmosphere.

6. That the physics of the absorption bands of these GHGs state that the increase will warm the atmosphere and oceans.

7. That the increase of CO2 is already affecting the Ph of the ocean.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,951
Reaction score
21,536
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
What we do know.

1. It is getting significantly warmer.

2. We have added enough GHGs to the atmosphere to be at an equivelent of 460 ppm of CO2.

3. The TSI for the last couple of decades has been declining.

4. That there are additional sources of GHGs coming into play as the warming Arctic is emitting GHGs from both the permafrost and the ocean clathrates.

5. That at present the use of fossil fuel is the major source of the increase in GHGs in our atmosphere.

6. That the physics of the absorption bands of these GHGs state that the increase will warm the atmosphere and oceans.

7. That the increase of CO2 is already affecting the Ph of the ocean.




None of what you claim is supported by fact.
 
OP
ScienceRocks

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
I had a little fun and made a c class graph...I put the giss yearly temperature in as "Red" dots. Secondly, I put the lower and higher estimate; being A2 or A1b1 as either green or blue dots. Finally, I put a lighter green line for the means of the model. I'd say over all the ipcc isn't doing to bad...Maybe, we're slightly on the low side, but I'd give it a B.

Remember, it is on a 1980-1999 baseline for the giss to match the ipcc models.
*2000, 2008 had fairly powerful ninas...Same as 2011. So these years are the years that fall way below the means. (Yes, I extended it out to 2012).

Yeah, I know it's not the best graph, but I feel I got the point across. Do you agree with it?
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,401
Reaction score
7,258
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
What we do know.

1. It is getting significantly warmer.

2. We have added enough GHGs to the atmosphere to be at an equivelent of 460 ppm of CO2.

3. The TSI for the last couple of decades has been declining.

4. That there are additional sources of GHGs coming into play as the warming Arctic is emitting GHGs from both the permafrost and the ocean clathrates.

5. That at present the use of fossil fuel is the major source of the increase in GHGs in our atmosphere.

6. That the physics of the absorption bands of these GHGs state that the increase will warm the atmosphere and oceans.

7. That the increase of CO2 is already affecting the Ph of the ocean.




None of what you claim is supported by fact.
Your proof of which is?
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
You guys can pull all the graphs you want out of your butts, it won't change the simple fact that the last 100 years has seen a rise of less than one degreee celsius in global temps. THATS LESS THAN ONE DEGREE CELSIUS!

1 degree Celsius well within natural variability by even the most strict standards. Yet you guys are calling it drastic and dangerous warming. GET A GRIP!
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
I had a little fun and made a c class graph...I put the giss yearly temperature in as "Red" dots. Secondly, I put the lower and higher estimate; being A2 or A1b1 as either green or blue dots. Finally, I put a lighter green line for the means of the model. I'd say over all the ipcc isn't doing to bad...Maybe, we're slightly on the low side, but I'd give it a B.

Remember, it is on a 1980-1999 baseline for the giss to match the ipcc models.
*2000, 2008 had fairly powerful ninas...Same as 2011. So these years are the years that fall way below the means. (Yes, I extended it out to 2012).

Yeah, I know it's not the best graph, but I feel I got the point across. Do you agree with it?
Are your comparisons to the IPCC based on their older models which have proven to be woefully off, or on the newer models based on the same assumptions that caused the failure of the older models but haven't had enough time yet to show how pifully inadequate they really are?
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
What we do know.

1. It is getting significantly warmer.

2. We have added enough GHGs to the atmosphere to be at an equivelent of 460 ppm of CO2.

3. The TSI for the last couple of decades has been declining.

4. That there are additional sources of GHGs coming into play as the warming Arctic is emitting GHGs from both the permafrost and the ocean clathrates.

5. That at present the use of fossil fuel is the major source of the increase in GHGs in our atmosphere.

6. That the physics of the absorption bands of these GHGs state that the increase will warm the atmosphere and oceans.

7. That the increase of CO2 is already affecting the Ph of the ocean.




None of what you claim is supported by fact.
Your proof of which is?
Reality.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top