• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Big Source of Uncertainty in Climate Models

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Recent papers have emphasized two things about global climate models: They proved to be very poor at predicting future climate, and they don't even agree with each other in most of their outputs other than global temperatures, which they all got wrong.

Now, in a peer reviewed paper published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, modelers describe a big problem causing lack of accuracy in models; that is, assumptions in the models concerning clouds and aerosols have been off by as much as 100%. In short, they show there is no good way to model clouds and aerosols yet, and guesstimates of those factors are often way off.

Observations show that even when conditions are identical one day clouds will form and the next day they won't. They might form in one area and not in another. The source of this variation isn't well understood but may have a lot to do with the randomness of aerosols in the atmosphere.

There is relatively little real world data on the types and concentrations of aerosols and no way to predict these factors.

Hindcasting of models shows that clouds and aerosols are a big source of variability in the climate.

One theory about climate feedback is that clouds cool the surface. Clouds form from rising water vapor, which is increased with higher temperatures. Precipitation has a big effect on heat exchange in the atmosphere, too. So it may be that warming of the surface leads to more clouds and precipitation, which in turn cools the surface resulting in an overall neutral or negative feedback. This could have profound effects on the overall climate, but with no way to model clouds it's not predictable.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
28,870
Reaction score
9,895
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Big Source of Uncertainty in Climate Mo

Recent papers have emphasized two things about global climate models: They proved to be very poor at predicting future climate, and they don't even agree with each other in most of their outputs other than global temperatures, which they all got wrong.

Now, in a peer reviewed paper published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, modelers describe a big problem causing lack of accuracy in models; that is, assumptions in the models concerning clouds and aerosols have been off by as much as 100%. In short, they show there is no good way to model clouds and aerosols yet, and guesstimates of those factors are often way off.
While that is an interesting paper, it would have been excluded from Cook's consensus study,
because it does not state a position.:mrgreen:
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
52,258
Reaction score
18,752
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Big Source of Uncertainty in Climat...

Recent papers have emphasized two things about global climate models: They proved to be very poor at predicting future climate, and they don't even agree with each other in most of their outputs other than global temperatures, which they all got wrong.

Now, in a peer reviewed paper published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, modelers describe a big problem causing lack of accuracy in models; that is, assumptions in the models concerning clouds and aerosols have been off by as much as 100%. In short, they show there is no good way to model clouds and aerosols yet, and guesstimates of those factors are often way off.

Observations show that even when conditions are identical one day clouds will form and the next day they won't. They might form in one area and not in another. The source of this variation isn't well understood but may have a lot to do with the randomness of aerosols in the atmosphere.

There is relatively little real world data on the types and concentrations of aerosols and no way to predict these factors.

Hindcasting of models shows that clouds and aerosols are a big source of variability in the climate.

One theory about climate feedback is that clouds cool the surface. Clouds form from rising water vapor, which is increased with higher temperatures. Precipitation has a big effect on heat exchange in the atmosphere, too. So it may be that warming of the surface leads to more clouds and precipitation, which in turn cools the surface resulting in an overall neutral or negative feedback. This could have profound effects on the overall climate, but with no way to model clouds it's not predictable.
If anyone is wondering, this is where lowdown cribbed this from.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/new-paper-finds-climate-model.html?m=1
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
52,258
Reaction score
18,752
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Big Source of Uncertainty in Climat...

How tiresome. No cribbing was involved. All of my text is original.

?


Cribbed and then mis- attributed, to make it look like you read obscure journals instead of schlocky websites.

'Spreading the Word'! It really IS a religion with you! Keep the faith! (Ill stick with science...)
 
Top Bottom