Re: [geo] positive forcing in all SSPs but GMST falls ?

[Govindasamy Bala]

It is all "relative". The 1.9 Wm-2 is relative to the pre-industrial times
and hence there is a warming in 2100 relative to the preindustrial time.

However, in the SSP1-1.9 scenario, the forcing and warming peak somewhere
around 2050, and then the forcing (and hence warming) decline slightly
because of net negative emissions after 2050. Yes, there is slight cooling
in 2100 relative to 2050..

Cheers,
Bala

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 9:14 PM Colin Forrest 
wrote:

> Hi,  could someone perhaps explain why the SSP 1.9 for example has a
> climate forcing of 1.9 W.m-2 at 2100, yet is modelled to produce a
> reduction in GMST ?
>
> Considering that current net anthropogenic forcing is 2.72 W.m-2 (AR6, WG
> 1, full report, ch 7 page 926 )
>
> Thanks,  Colin Forrest
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/e383b9ef-38ea-48c9-b649-5e1132c4d7cen%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
With Best Wishes,

---
G. Bala
Professor
Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore - 560 012
India

Tel: +91 80 2293 3428; +91 80 2293 2505
Fax: +91 80 2360 0865; +91 80 2293 3425
Email: gb...@iisc.ac.in; bala@gmail.com
Google Scholar 
---

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAD7fhV%3D1-8Ag%3D4bNKUbVJjA-ZvUk4_AaiNE76Eb13wFbo0tdQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] positive forcing in all SSPs but GMST falls ?

[Colin Forrest]

Hi,  could someone perhaps explain why the SSP 1.9 for example has a 
climate forcing of 1.9 W.m-2 at 2100, yet is modelled to produce a 
reduction in GMST ?

Considering that current net anthropogenic forcing is 2.72 W.m-2 (AR6, WG 
1, full report, ch 7 page 926 )

Thanks,  Colin Forrest

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/e383b9ef-38ea-48c9-b649-5e1132c4d7cen%40googlegroups.com.