编辑-地球科学江南体育网页版堆栈交换江南电子竞技平台

你不是登录。你的编辑将被放置在一个队列,直到同行评议。

我们欢迎编辑,使读者更容易理解和更有价值。因为社区成员审查编辑,请尽量使文章更好比你怎么发现,例如,通过修正语法或添加额外的资源和超链接。

牧师

我们现在和/或我们在RCP8.5场景吗?

我们一般理解(全球)已经生活在一个RCP8.5场景在过去7 - 8年?

这样一个预测气候模型使用RCP8.5假设运行大约在2011年可以被认为是象征着过去与现在之间的时间?

我在干球温度建模数据的校准与实际观测这些年来但我意识到任何修正我一定会想出任何偏离现实和RCP8.5烤。

回答

简而言之,我想说,它还为时尚早。但是,如果我被迫猜:我的确倾向于认为我们生活在一个RCP 8.5一样的场景。我不是一个专家在气候模型或RCP场景,但我发现这个问题很有趣,这是我尝试回答我发现基于最可靠的数据源。我希望激励专家跳进置评,改善,挑战或支持这个答案。RCP场景- - - - - - - - - - - - -场景涉及未来通路大量各种不同的化学物质的排放(温室气体和气溶胶),所以如果我们看看实际排放二氧化碳匹配了美元的场景中,我们可能会认为我们是在一个场景中,而是我们看的排放NH_3美元我们可能会发现自己在另一个场景。总结所有这些不同的参数的最佳方式是考虑总辐射强迫,这是所有这些化合物的综合效应在地球能量平衡。事实上不同标签的数字(RCP)[1]的2100年预期的总辐射强迫的W / m ^ 2美元。下面的图显示了辐射强迫(这一次二氧化碳当量)美元每个场景。,正如你所看到的,到2018年,差异如此之小,以至于我认为它与任何合理的确定性为时尚早,我们是流动的一个或另一个场景。[![enter image description here][2]][2] (Figure from Wikipedia commons originally [here][3]) Scenarios versus measurements ----------------------------- Nevertheless, we can attempt to plot the actual measurements against what was predicted by the scenarios. The best variable to contrast would arguably be the total radiative forcing. However, that is a quantity difficult to calculate and I haven't found published values like those in the [IPCC Assesment report 5 (AR5) Annex II][4] table AII.1.2, beyond 2011. Up to that year, the forcings were beautifully summarized in figure 8.18 of [AR5 chapter 8][5]: [![enter image description here][6]][6] Given the lack of total radiative forcing data, we can instead make the comparison with some other variable. Such analysis will be liable to depend on the chosen variable as pointed out before. Therefore, to minimize that problem let's pick a variable with a large influence in the difference between the four scenarios. I think that would be $CO_2$ emissions from fossil fuels and industry. The the emissions predicted by each scenario can be obtained at the [RCP Database (version 2.0)][7]. That data looks like this: [![enter image description here][8]][8] Now, for the actual estimated emissions, perhaps a reliable source is the [Global Carbon Project][9], that provide the [emissions data up to 2016][10]. Putting all that together we get the following figure: [![enter image description here][11]][11] So, it looks RCP8.5-ish, but the differences between the scenarios are still quite small, so it is difficult to say. Another good variable to compare would be $CO_2$ concentration, that can be directly measured instead of just estimated. In that case using NOAA's [Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network data][12] for global $CO_2$ concentration, against the ones prescribed for each scenario (taken as well from [RCP Database (version 2.0)][7]) the figure looks like this [![enter image description here][13]][13] That looks more like RCP4.5-ish. But again, probably too soon to say. Also, it might be that even given more time, the path followed by the climate system would be like one RCP in some aspects and like other RCP in other aspect. For example, $CO_2$ emissions might follow roughly RCP8.4 but methane emission might follow RCP4.5. Or somewhere in between. Another approach would be to use use an actual climate model forced by RCP8.5 (not just the RCP), so you can compare mean surface temperature, but that would be tricky for many reasons and also model dependent. If anybody knows of published estimated total radiative forcing from 2012 onward, that would be nice to add and compare. It might make the answer a bit more clear but I think that in any case, it is too soon to give a definite answer. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ySHut.png [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways#/media/File:All_forcing_agents_CO2_equivalent_concentration.png [4]: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_AnnexII_FINAL.pdf [5]: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9WIVt.png [7]: https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=compare [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lMrPN.png [9]: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/17/data.htm [10]: https://data.icos-cp.eu/licence_accept?ids=%5B%22-OrQ3afxxWEwG-LMJDyfVRot%22%5D [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RQIk6.png [12]: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_data.html [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ynXTd.png

编辑总结

取消

\ begingroup美元比较的情况从现在起到释放AR5就是问,有趣和你没有做的事情。AR5工作组将2009年和2013年发布的物质基础部分,所以这些日期之间的气候模型运行和模型结果多年来在此之前你可以看到从你的情节不匹配现实(模型)的属性。因为你所有的数据来自AR5没有办法你可以比较AR5的预测是如何匹配的现实比AR5本身。说我也不知道哪里有估计2012 - 2017年营力。 \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -Communisty
2018年3月10日22:33
1

\ begingroup美元 @Communisty好,很好。我已经改变的答案一种不同的方法。现在你怎么想? \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -卡米洛·Rada
2018年3月11日,在32
\ begingroup美元好,二氧化碳排放和测量之间的差异可能是因为bio -缓冲和水气比模型估计。 \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -Communisty
2018年3月12日,在8:54
\ begingroup美元 @Communisty我同意。也许我应该强调的区别基本上规定变量等排放和建模变量浓度。一些时间RCP也称为“基准排放场景”,把更多的重点在排放。可以说,回答这个问题更有意义看排放浓度。 \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -卡米洛·Rada
2018年3月12日17点

添加一个评论 |

正确的小错误或错误
澄清的意思,而不更改它
添加相关资源或链接
总是尊重作者的意图
不使用编辑与作者回复

创建代码用引号”或式子~篱笆
' ' '
像这样
' ' '
添加语言标识符来突出显示的代码
”“python
def函数(foo):
打印(foo)
' ' '
把段落之间的回报
在结束linebreak添加2个空间
_italic_或* *的* *
报价将>开始的
做链接(尽量使用https)
< https://example.com >
(例子)(https://example.com)
< a href = " https://example.com " > < / >示例
MathJax方程罪\ \ ^ 2θ美元

格式帮助»
回答帮助»

MathJax帮助»