Climate scientists have been underestimating the role of aerosol-cloud interactions, a new study suggests, thus again throwing climate models into disarray… accurate future climate projections unlikely.
A new paper by Hailing et al appearing in Nature Communications found a “significant underestimation of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions derived from satellite-based methods.
Image: Nature, cropped here.
Accurate projections of future climate change hampered
The new paper’s abstract notes that satellite-based estimates of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions (RFaci) are consistently smaller than those from global models, and thus hamper accurate projections of future climate change.
That means that climate modelers are not simulating the climate system correctly, and thus makes accurate climate projections unlikely.
By acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), aerosols act as cloud condensation nuclei and thus can alter cloud properties and precipitation. This influences the Earth’s radiation budget and hence climate change. This means a major model perturbation in a very complex system.
“An increase in CCN number concentration will generate a cloud with more droplets,” the authors say. “The consequence is scattering more solar radiation back to space, thus exerting a negative climate forcing.”
The authors show that the discrepancy could be substantially reduced by correcting sampling biases and satellite measurements tend to artificially discard the clouds with high cloud fraction.
Clouds’ cooling effect underestimated
This has significant implications, as the missed clouds exert a stronger cooling effect and are more sensitive to aerosol perturbations.
The abstract continues:
By accounting for the sampling biases, the magnitude of RFaci (from −0.38 to −0.59 W m−2) increases by 55% globally (133% over land and 33% over ocean). Notably, the RFaci further increases to −1.09 W m−2 when switching total aerosol optical depth (AOD) to fine-mode AOD that is a better proxy for CCN than AOD. In contrast to previous weak satellite-based RFaci, the improved one substantially increases (especially over land), resolving a major difference with models.”
Of about 15 climate science websites blogs I visit every day, this is the best one, so far in 2021. Congratulations. And this article was good too.
But I read the first sentence, and went berserk !
My fault, not yours.
Climate models do that to me.
The sentence included this phrase:
“… throwing climate models into disarray
… accurate future climate projections unlikely. …”
That phrase would be more HONEST, IMHO, if stated this way:
“… throwing climate computer games into disarray … accurate future climate projections would be a miracle. …”
.
.
My Assumption:
The average climate model represents the government bureaucrat climate science consensus.
With dozens of models, one or two could seem accurate by chance.
My Comment:
They are climate computer games, not climate models.
Real climate models would make reasonably accurate predictions.
The IPCC (CMIP) models, as a group, don’t do that,
Real climate models would become more accurate over time.
The IPCC models, as a group, don’t do that either.
And there are indications the CMIP6 models, on average, will over predict global warming by even more than the CMIP5 models had over predicted global warming.
The Russian INM model, that least over predicts global warming, should get the most attention, but gets no specific attention
The climate computer games, as a group, have not made an accurate temperature projection in about 40 years.
So the word “unlikely” is too weak, when estimating the accuracy of future temperature projections by the computer games.
My conclusion, which I think is obvious, but will automatically be rejected by many people:
Accurate predictions are NOT a goal of the climate computer games.
The goal is scary climate change predictions.
So they are programmed to make such predictions.
If accurate predictions were the primary goal, model output (the rate of global average temperature rise) could be reduced by 50%, and then the average model would at least appear to be accurate.
That fudge factor would take a few minutes.
But it is not done.
So every year, for about 40 years, we average the climate computer game projections.
And every year, they are the same scary, and always wrong, projections, as in the prior year.
They are computer games, not models of climate change on this planet.
Richard Greene
Bingham Farms,Michigan
The only models I like
… are female models !
” The only models I like
… are female models !”
I agree.
“The only models I like
… are female models !”
I forgot, ” They work”, sorry about that.
“The only models I like
… are female models !”
#MeToo
🙂
“That means that climate modelers are not simulating the climate system correctly, and thus makes accurate climate projections unlikely.”
Since just about every substantive, measurable, prediction based on those models has been proven wrong, I would replace “unlikely” with “damned certain”.
(If they have ever got a prediction right, please tell me. I can’t find one.)
RoHa:
If you start with two to three dozen models, and run three different simulations with each model, you can have over 100 simulations / projections / predictions (aka malarkey).
One or two of the 100+ simulations is likely to appear “in the ballpark” of accurate.
Of course I have a broken watch at home that is also “in the ballpark” of accurate … that broken watch is perfectly accurate twice a day … still more accurate than any climate computer game.
But unlike my broken watch, climate computer games have a political purpose.
The computer games are effective props to support the coming climate crisis hoax.
That hoax is intended to scare people.
People in fear turn to their government, and ask for help.
Which is exactly what leftist politicians want to hear.
They will never let a crisis, real or imaginary, “go to waste”.
A crisis gives politicians permission to virtue signal, seize more power over the private sector, and spend lots of money on that “crisis” (a real or imaginary crisis).
Which is exactly what leftists have always wanted to do, for the past 100 years.
The coming climate crisis hoax is a leftist strategy to get the political power they have always wanted … to micromanage our lives.
Rule by competent “experts” in their goal.
In my view, that’s rule by incompetent, power hungry government bureaucrats.
And I don’t want that.
As a libertarian, since 1973, I want minimum government, and maximum personal freedom.
We are getting the opposite.
The imaginary coming climate crisis, with its climate computer games, is a large part of the problem.
Richard Greene
Bingham Farms, Michigan
[…] Full story … […]
[…] Reposted from the NoTricksZone […]
[…] Reposted from the NoTricksZone […]
[…] Reposted from the NoTricksZone […]
[…] Reposted from the NoTricksZone […]
[…] Models In Turmoil: Underestimation Of Satellite-Based Cloud-Aerosol Interaction “Hampering Cli… […]