|
|
Post by Babu on Jul 9, 2019 16:56:02 GMT -5
So SMHI has got a bunch of models for simulating climate change in Sweden using different warming scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). RCP8.5 is the one that most closely resembles the warming trend we've seen in later years, and basically sees a continual warming throughout the century, and RCP2.6 is the goal we strive for according to the Paris agreement. RPC4.5 means we start stabilizing in the middle of the century and stop warming after that. What I did is I looked at RCP8.5 which is their warmest model, and I looked at the deviation map for each of the four seasons, and I looked at the location where Lund is in (more warming as well as seasonal variation in warming in the north). The model predicted a +3'C increase equally to all seasons in southern Sweden, so what I did was I took the 61-90 normals and added 3'C to each month, keeping the diurnal range the same. (The map was using 1971-2000 vs 2071-2100 as a reference period, but that shouldn't matter). Then I did the same for precipitation which saw 25% increase in winter precipitation and 5% increase in summer precipitation (20% and 15% in spring/fall). The sunshine increase trend has been 0.5% per year since 1983. That'd yield a 65% increase and 2627h annually if applied directly to the normals which is obviously nonsense. Using a linear function it'd give a 50% increase and 2388h which is still nonsense. 1900-2100h is more probable. This is the result for Lund.  And here's 2002-2018 for reference: Looks a lot like 1981-2010 in Cologne. I don't like the increased rainfall, but the temps are definitely much nicer. Overall a C+, and I think this looks like a reasonable prediction for Lund's climate in 70 years. What do you think about the climate both in terms of rating and plausibility? |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Jul 9, 2019 17:18:23 GMT -5
C+; stable, muggy, washed-out, gloomy, boring crummers—lovely winters, however.
As for your climate model, accordingly by the plummeting of future solar activity (Grand Solar Minimum), it will yield quite the opposite effect; thereby, I voted that it will be colder than now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lommaren on Jul 9, 2019 17:19:39 GMT -5
C+
I think July would be a touch warmer than that in the 8.5 scenario, probably totalling out at 24.8°C highs. June and August seem about right, even though I think the July-August low difference would be more than 0.1°C. Winter does look reasonable though. So, all things considered, it's a reasonable model, although July would be a touch underestimated and would probably have higher diurnals as well. 24.8/14.8 or something like that, with August being 23.8/14.5 or similar.
|
|
|
|
Post by tij on Jul 9, 2019 17:20:14 GMT -5
MeH, C/C- perhaps, a bit better than Minneapolis but not the greatest, needs a wider winter diurnal range and a warmer summer. I like the increased precip actually, Sweden is quite dry by north American standards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 18:11:13 GMT -5
Seems like a reasonable model. As for the rating, it's a C-.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steelernation on Jul 9, 2019 23:54:01 GMT -5
D. Looks like a boring British climate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crunch41 on Jul 10, 2019 18:27:51 GMT -5
B, better summers but winters are worse. 5/0 averages will bring mostly cold rain in winter. 3/-2 is also bad but snow will be more likely.
|
|
|
|
Post by sari on Jul 10, 2019 19:09:20 GMT -5
I can't vote on believability until after the US 2020 election.
My first thought upon seeing the climatebox was "is this like Kent in England?" but no, it's quite a bit more continental than that. It looks like a German climate.
Which is tolerable, I guess. C+
|
|
|
|
Post by Hlidskjalf on Jul 11, 2019 13:04:52 GMT -5
That looks like a nice climate for the latitude. And this is what the anti climate change brigade are fighting against?
Too bad I'm 80- 110 years old then. Sure hoping for anti aging technology to arrive.
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on Jul 11, 2019 14:14:59 GMT -5
I'd say RCP 6.0 fits current trends better than RCP 8.5; carbon dioxide emission every year haven't declined by they've barely increased at all in the last decade; RCP 8.5 is emissions keep on increasing. Don't feel like looking it up right now. I expected a bigger warming for a high latitude location; you added 3°C to 1961-1990 but your future Lund is only 1.5°C warmer; 2002-18 must have been unusually warm. I'll be harsh and give it a C+. Because it doesn't look that crazily warm I'll still choose "model looks right" even though I think RCP 8.5 is probably too much overall.
|
|
