Models In Turmoil: Underestimation Of Satellite-Based Cloud-Aerosol Interaction “Hampering Climate Change Projections”

Reposted from the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 16. June 2021

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.

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.”

4.1 18 votes
Article Rating
103 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 17, 2021 6:05 pm

clouds and asphalt driveways at noon just seem to escape our betters

June 17, 2021 6:18 pm

If the climate modelers are not simulating climate systems correctly,thus making accurate climate projections impossible, then your guess is as good as mine and we can all go home, relax, and get back to sanity..

Komerade Cube
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
June 18, 2021 10:21 am

Oh come on NT, they got this >>By acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), aerosols act as cloud condensation nuclei<<

Reply to  Komerade Cube
June 18, 2021 3:11 pm

That is Gosselin writing, not modellers.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2021 10:33 am

Yes the paper reads, “…By acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), aerosol can alter cloud properties and precipitation…”

At least Gosselin went with plural “aerosols.”

Robert Ingersol
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
June 18, 2021 1:08 pm

Except that is not what the paper shows. It asserts that the models are correct and the satellite measurements are wrong. Now what?

Satellite-based estimates of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions (RFaci) are consistently smaller than those from global models, hampering accurate projections of future climate change. Here we show that the discrepancy can be substantially reduced by correcting sampling biases induced by inherent limitations of satellite measurements, which tend to artificially discard the clouds with high cloud fraction. Those missed clouds exert a stronger cooling effect, and are more sensitive to aerosol perturbations. 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.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Robert Ingersol
June 18, 2021 4:45 pm

The inherent limitations of satellite measurements being they are measurements AKA real data. Don’t worry, smart ambitious PhD students to the rescue, there WAS soemthing wrong with the satellite data and we can correct for it in the direction we need.

Question for the modellers: Why is it always reality that needs correcting, not your models?

Joel O'Bryan
June 17, 2021 6:48 pm

File this finding on RF from aerosol-CCN interaction failure under “Reason # 1,742. Why GCM’s are junk science.”

Last edited 1 month ago by joelobryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 17, 2021 9:28 pm

No. See my comment below. NTZ has totally turned around the result of the paper, which was actually titled:
“Significant underestimation of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions derived from satellite-based methods”
What they say is that if you fix that underestimation, caused by identified bias, agreement with models is much better.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 17, 2021 11:04 pm

It should be ‘models agree with data’ not the other way around.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
June 17, 2021 11:13 pm

Nothing has the status of “data” here. Some satellite measure of incoming radiation has to be reconstructed to give a 3D image of clouds. There are many ways you can do that. The scientists here are saying there was a fault in earlier ways, and they can do it better. They explain why. 

NTZ was typically untruthful in misdescribing the paper.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 17, 2021 11:29 pm

So you are saying that the climate models were not giving the correct projection because the cloud model(not data) was incorrect and it was because the satellite instrumentation was not interpreted correctly.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
June 17, 2021 11:59 pm

No. The abstract I showed described the discrepancy thus:
Satellite-based estimates of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions (RFaci) are consistently smaller than those from global models”
They showed that the satellite based estimates were wrong, and when corrected, were much closer to GCM estimates. That says nothing but good about the GCM estimates.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2021 12:44 am

I can see that we were talking at cross purposes.
You are saying that there was a problem between the OFFICIAL GSM and the satellite-based estimate, and now it’s ok.
I am stating that the GSM does not reflect reality.

I’m getting a headache.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
June 18, 2021 12:47 am

“I am stating…”
No. You said I was saying that, and I’m not.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2021 1:39 am

I said I am stating. Not you are stating.

Robert Ingersol
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
June 18, 2021 1:29 pm

The cloud model used to interpret the data has a possible flaw. This paper points out the flaw and offers a correction. The corrected data is consistent with the General Circulation (climate Models which were correct all along.

Everything we know is wrong, except what science has corrected. Add aerosol-cloud forcing satellite data to the list.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Robert Ingersol
June 18, 2021 4:48 pm

Amazing how all the errors are in one direction and, of course, all the corrections in the other. These models have a lot of time and money investment in them, they must be protected. Anyway, I thought the science was settled but every 3 months, another correction to reality is required.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2021 4:46 pm

Nick says: No data to see here, move along.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
June 18, 2021 5:31 pm

So what data do you see?

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2021 7:14 am

Nick slow as ever … It’s a meme joke look it up.

Immortalized by Frank Drebin in the Naked Gun movies.

whiten
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2021 12:12 am

Man,
English is not your first language…
is it?

😳

Where is Mosh when needed most!
🤓

cheers

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  whiten
June 18, 2021 12:17 am

Nick obfuscates, dancing on the head of a pin.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
June 18, 2021 12:38 am

There is no obfuscation here. NTZ lied. They had the paper saying “Models In Turmoil” when in fact it said they were ” resolving a major difference with models”. 

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2021 10:35 am

I, too, was initially mislead by the title. After looking at the reference I realized the true result of the study. Whether the author of the title was outright lying or just sloppy, I don’t know.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2021 10:25 am

Nick is correct, this is a study of satellite retrieval methods. There are caveats, though: “This study focuses on the roles of sampling biases and choice of the CCN proxy in the satellite-based estimate of RFaci, with a clear demonstration of the potential magnitude of the impacts of both. It should, however, be noted that the exact forcing value is also affected by other potential sources of the uncertainties, which are noteworthy for future explorations.”

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 18, 2021 4:54 pm

…which are noteworthy for future explorations.”
Got to keep the grant money flowing

Robert Ingersol
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2021 1:16 pm

Climate Science Deniers hate it when you point out how stupid they are. How many bothered to click on the link and read the paper – or at least the abstract – for themselves. How many could understand it? I kept thinking I was missing something but every time I read it, it told me the same thing.

  1. The models are likely correct regarding this aerosol-cloud effect.
  2. Accepting the satellite data as correct would mean the planet warming faster than the models predict.
  3. Anthropogenic aerosols (largely the product of FF combustion) are cooling the planet, while CO2 warms it (more.)
  4. As we reduce FF combustion, the cooling aerosols will decrease rapidly, while CO2 will only decrease slowly (and not at all until we are nearly at net zero.) Thus warming may initially accelerate, even as emissions are reduced.

All in all, mark this one as confirming that AGW is as bad or worse than we thought. Thanks WUWT.

Last edited 1 month ago by Robert Ingersol
Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Robert Ingersol
June 21, 2021 9:56 am

Mark your comment as confirming you are as bad or worse than we thought. Thanks Robert Ingersol.

What the paper shows is that nearly a dozen publications in the references from 2002-2020, for starters, were failures.

But these authors got the right answer…well, at least until the next disagreement/error is found.

Smart Rock
June 17, 2021 7:21 pm

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.”

Editing that statement to try and tease out what they really mean:

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 alarming predictions of future catastrophic global warming.

stinkerp
June 17, 2021 7:28 pm

Well at least they’re admitting problems with the accuracy of the models, but they have their heads so far up their models they can’t see the crazy assumptions the foundation rests on. Fix the massively overstated forcings and the presumption of positive feedbacks from warming—upon which the entire doomsday hue and cry of “tipping points” is based, and for which there is not a shred of evidence—and they might get closer to what the real world is doing. But for now they overestimate warming by 50% to 300%. That’s not a little off. That’s spectacularly, embarrassingly, and clearly unscientifically off.

Last edited 1 month ago by stinkerp
Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  stinkerp
June 18, 2021 4:55 pm

No they are not admitting problems with the models, the opposite. The are admitting problems with the data which, once compensated for, agree with the mdoels.

Devils_Tower
June 17, 2021 7:44 pm

Another issue to consider…

From a Russian a while ago. Just starting to unwind.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1024856010040020?error=cookies_not_supported&code=f5190cde-dee3-4161-878d-532c56551f0e

If link is an issue while up date…

His claim is he has experimental evidence for the fact that condensation emits IR directly giving of more energy than would be expected from black body radiation.

Comments anyone?

Charles Fairbairn
Reply to  Devils_Tower
June 17, 2021 9:43 pm

Yes. In layman’s terms he merely says that in the condensation phase there is net output of energy to the surroundings. Take the cirrus clouds for example; up there nudging the Tropopause. In spite of receiving the full force of solar radiation and being at some -50C still grows their crystals dendrically; hence must be losing energy to space. The energy being lost comes from the Latent Heat within the vapor/gas phase still available. This should not be surprising as after all there is temperature differential between these crystals and space of some 220C.
All this is intrinsic within the Hydrocycle which acts as a Rankinecycle being a major component in the overall balancing mechanism for global temperature; but, unfortunately sits outside the current consensus mindset obsessed with CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect.

The reason why these factors never seem to get traction in the computer models quite frankly appalls me. The Russian INMCM5 model, however seems to be moving in the right direction; but I have no idea of the assumptions being made here.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Charles Fairbairn
June 18, 2021 10:38 am

I assume that, among other things, INMCM5 just tunes to a lower ECS.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Devils_Tower
June 17, 2021 10:03 pm

There are well-established tables for evaporation/condensation energy. They have been confirmed millions of times over the years. Without knowing the details I am sure that there is some sort of photon energy exchanged as part of the process.
The apparatus that determines that there are 540 calories per gram of energy involved does not discriminate between what forms of energy are involved.
It’s cool that they can ‘tease out’ the IR component of this. However, there is a danger that the component calculated might be added to the overall energy involved. It’s always going to be 540 calories per gram, finding, for example, that 1% is IR does not change the value. It does not become 545.4.
Unfortunately, climate science has a lack of basic mathematics.

Devils_Tower
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
June 18, 2021 8:56 am

On the papers I have tracked down, it described as a two step process. Direct ir in first step, thermalization in second.

5.6 microns for condensation, 38 or so for freezing. 1 to 3 microns for dimers.
3 to 5% of latent heat is thru direct IR….

Big thing to note, 3% direct ir is 10x the thermalized black body(Planck) radiation

I came across this as I tried to get a handle on the actual emmisivity of Water vapor/liquid in the atmosphere. Still no clear answer to check against model results.

Paul Johnson
June 17, 2021 7:54 pm

Don’t worry. They will find a way to “correct” this over-estimation in such a way that further increases future temperatures. It’s always worse than we thought.

Peta of Newark
June 17, 2021 8:15 pm

The honesty has to be admired:
viz: They completely don’t understand their own subject and admit it here

Why:

  • Clouds in the sky are cold objects and thus can not radiatively force anything or anywhere apart from Outer Space
  • Clouds should be in the outputs of computer models, not the inputs
  • What are Sputniks doing ‘making estimates’ – weren’t they sent up to take measurements?

This is just babbling, they don’t understand even their own words let alone ‘climate
That they have been elevated to positions of unaccountable power, by politicians equally lacking in self-awareness, is A Cause For Concern

Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 17, 2021 8:40 pm

Until the Media is forćed to stop changing the wrd ptojections with is just a guess by the so called scients, by that Media changi ng it to “” Fact””

The n the politicians wishinv to frighten uhs, agan send lots of money to these Fake Experts.

Its all about money as usual plus of course Power.

V k 5 ELL nje

Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 8:32 pm

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

H.R.
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 8:48 pm

All models are wrong.

Some models are useful.

Some models are gorgeous.

Iain Reid
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 17, 2021 11:34 pm

Lawrence,

while some of the reasons he dislikes wind generators are misplaced he is absolutely correct in that they are not a good idea. They can never be a basis for a reliable supply of electricity, not only because of their intermittency but due to other technical deficiencies also. Solar is significantly worse.

June 17, 2021 8:55 pm

Breaking News: Squaring bullshit results in.. more bullshit!

Give me a break please! I know, some people want to believe in a negative cloud feedback due to global warming, and that is negative feedback due to more clouds. And so logically they try to argue higher temperatures, or astrologic constellations, will magically tune cloud cover to modulate surface temperatures.

Ironically that is not too far from the truth, although in the wrong direction. Clouds are not cooling at all, but warming the planet!!!

https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/11/austrian-analyst-things-with-greenhouse-effect-ghe-arent-adding-up-something-totally-wrong/

https://greenhousedefect.com/the-beast-under-the-bed-part-1

June 17, 2021 9:19 pm

A typical NTZ misleading by cherry-picked extracts, which totally distort the meaning of the paper. In fact, what it says is that satellite measurements were subject to a sampling weakness, and if you correct that, the agreement with models is much better. Even the title
“Significant underestimation of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions derived from satellite-based methods”
which NTZ does not mention, makes it clear they are identifying a fault in the satellite methods. Here is the abstract (my red):
comment image

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 17, 2021 10:24 pm

Ok, so your saying the error of estimating aerosol effect came from poor measurement by the satellites, not the models. The new improved satellite measurements discovered the “underestimating”. The point is now we know why the models have been so wrong. That’s great, but what is now required is we immediately stop wasting money on sunshine and breezes ,the unworkable solution for the non-existent global warming “crisis”. Clouds have saved the day. Am I missing something?

Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
June 17, 2021 11:22 pm

“now we know why the models have been so wrong”
The GCMs were not wrong. The process of inferring cloud properties from satellite radiation measurement was faulty, and has been fixed. As the say, “ resolving a major difference with models”.

whiten
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 17, 2021 11:55 pm

Nick,

You are aware, that you holding and supporting the line of adjustment of the experiment to match the expectations.

Actually the adjustment of the experimental results to the one’s liking… more like it.

The aerosol ‘knob’ has no any impact in the GCM simulations, in the main process and the projections.

That is why not considered as a validation factor or an invalidateing factor.

More like a fudge factor to be utilised and abused as required…
when attempting to explain things that are missing without permission.

cheers

KevinM
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2021 9:22 am

Frequently, not necessarily here, smart people failing to explain what they know in simple words indicates personal bias. (Controversial examples, not for argument, just examples: pro-choice politicians can never answer exactly when biological life begins; liberal Christians can never answer exactly where the bible becomes errant).

A: Satellite measurements more accurately indicate Earth temperature
or
B: Model projections more accurately indicate Earth temperature

“Both” and “Neither” are invalid answers.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2021 10:30 am

The GCMs are clearly wrong because they don’t agree with observation. Even you, Nick, as deluded as you seem to be, must admit that the models are predicting higher temperatures than have been observed.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Komerade Cube
June 18, 2021 11:58 am

No, Nick is not admitting the models are wrong, just the opposite, he said above: “The GCMs were not wrong.”

Nick lives in a fantasy land.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2021 10:46 am

The question is, from where did the UN IPCC CliSciFi models get there “more accurate” cloud/aerosol forcing values? I note the CMIP6 models get higher ECSs from dicking with clouds, abandoning/reducing the old aerosol fiddling.

bdgwx
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 18, 2021 1:27 pm

There are two concept in play here. 1) the aerosol forcing values which are inputs into the model and 2) the cloud microphysics schemes. #1 is an educated guess based on the statistical distribution of volcanoes and human behavior in regards to their emissions. Climate models do not forecast either of these. They are scenario based inputs. #2 is from model developers with a specific focus on cloud microphysics. I believe CMIP6 uses updated cloud microphysics schemes that have been shown to more realistically model clouds and produce better weather forecasts. The idea being that if they more realistic model clouds and yield better forecasts in the domain of weather forecasting then perhaps they would be superior in the domain of climate forecasting as well. It’s really not known yet if they can be successfully applied to climate time scales as they were to weather time scales. There is some evidence that they might not. This evidence includes inferior skill in replicating the glacial cycles and the fact that CMIP6 predicts +0.22C/decade of warming vs. CMIP5 prediction of +0.21C/decade vs the observed value of +0.19C/decade from 1970-2019. So CMIP6 deviates a bit more relative to CMIP5 here. Though from the period 1880 to 2019 CMIP6, CMIP5, and observations are +0.07C/decade, +0.08C/decade, and +0.07C/decade respectively. So over the last 140 years CMIP6 outperforms CMIP5 and is essentially a perfect match with observations at least in this regard. The jury is still out on where the cloud microphysics is better or worse in CMIP6 vs CMIP5.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Dave Fair
Reply to  bdgwx
June 18, 2021 2:30 pm

Aerosol forcing values were tuned to produce an ECS that “seems about right,” varying from one modeling team to another – they said so. After CMIP5 and UN IPCC AR5 people figured it out and the jig was up; they had to tune the models with clouds. Estimates of cloud microphysics in models that go from paleo to 2300 AD are a joke.

Why don’t we all go with Dr. Spenser’s tropospheric temperatures from satellite and radiosonde average estimates vs the average of CMIP ensembles beginning in 1979? The UN IPCC CliSciFi CMIP5 ran so hot that the AR5 fiction writers had to arbitrarily reduce the medium term estimates of temperature “projections” because they ran too hot. They left the long-term “projections” unchanged because …. climate.

bdgwx
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 18, 2021 7:47 pm

In hindcast mode aerosol forcing is tuned to best match observation and for the model output to best replicate observations. In forecast mode it is obtained from predetermined scenarios. The way the model deals with aerosols or any external forcing inputs is the same in both hindcast and forecast mode. In both cases it is an input. Can you post a link to a publication or information provided by CMIP or one of their participants regarding your statement about aerosols being tuned to produce an ECS that “seems about right”? I’d like to review that.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Dave Fair
Reply to  bdgwx
June 18, 2021 8:37 pm

To get high water vapor feedback amplifications required for high ECS estimates assumed by UN IPCC CliSciFi modelers, they had to assume constant relative humidity throughout the various tropospheric layers. That gives the CMIP3&5 tropospheric hot spot in the tropics (CMIP6 additionally overheats the troposphere at all other latitudes as well by manipulating cloud microphysics.). That extra modeled radiation reflected back to the surface, raising modeled surface temperatures.

Since observations proved that the modeled tropical tropospheric hot spot did not exist, there was no enhanced surface warming. Modelers then had to use aerosols to cool off the surface in their models to match observations. That is how they justify their programming in high ECSs such that their non-aerosol constrained forecast future temperatures are too high for any of the fantasy scenarios.

Do your own research on what the CliSciFi modelers say about their practices. Even playing waggling the elephant’s trunk games, they couldn’t get late 19th and early 20th Century temperature profiles and trends close to observed, both up and down.

UN IPCC CliSciFi practitioners are sophisticated liars (Billions of dollars helps in that endeavor.). From the Hockey Stick eliminating the Medieval Warm Period to comparing tuned model outputs with model runs made without anthropogenic forcings using the same tuned parameters, they practice to deceive.

Read the AR SPMs and compare those fictions to the actual studies utilized in sections WG1, the Physical Basis. And read the latest U.S. National Climate Assessment. Try not to puke over the lies about increasing storms, tornadoes, droughts, hurricanes, etc. across the nation; all political assertations easily disproved.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Fair
bdgwx
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 18, 2021 9:14 pm

The aerosol forcing (and other external forcing) input and physics modules within the model itself are tuned to get the model to reproduce observations more realistically. That’s one of the purposes of hindcasting. You tune the model to better reproduce historical observations and then let it go on its own with those parameters for the forecasting phase using predetermined scenario based inputs. The model is not tuned to get an ECS that “seems about right”. It is tuned to better replicate past observations. Besides CMIP6 has an ECS range of 1.8 to 5.6 so if they were tuning to a desired ECS then they did a really bad job of it. Anyway, the rub here is that aerosol inputs have to be tuned to the extent that they are in the first place. We need better observations of aerosol emissions and forcing so that at least the aerosol input is more tightly constrained.

Dave Fair
Reply to  bdgwx
June 19, 2021 8:49 am

bdgwx, you are using buzzwords you don’t seem to understand. The fact is that developers of high-ECS CMIP3&5 models used arbitrary amounts of aerosols, among other parameter adjustments, to tune to accommodate their assumptions of high positive water vapor and cloud feedbacks to noncondensing GHG forcings in order to more closely track observations over the late 20th Century “tuning period.” Outside that “tuning period,” both in hindcast and forecast modes, the models fall apart and do not reflect observations of the early 20th and 21st Centuries. Do read more than governmental, NGO and crony capitalist propaganda.

The lower ECS CMIP6 models better reflect the ECSs derived from empirical observations and calculations. The high ECS UN IPCC CliSciFi CMIP6 models are a continuation of the paid practice of “science” in support of its paymaster’s ideological, political and pecuniary interests. While not exhaustive, the highest ECS models seem to primarily come out of European, British, Canadian and U.S. institutions, countries that have jumped on the existential crisis bandwagon. It is ironic (revealing) that the model most closely matching 21st Century observations is Russian. They don’t seem to have jumped on the existential crisis bandwagon.

The aerosol assumptions in the various UN IPCC CliSciFi models are not ‘constrained’ in the slightest. Among adjustments of other tuning parameters, aerosols are inserted as needed to counteract unrealistic assumptions as to the levels of water vapor and cloud positive feedback the climate system provides to the forcings of noncondensing GHGs. That practice, obscured by past propaganda, eventually got out into the public domain after the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR5 farrago.

Caught with their pants down, the high-ECS UN IPCC CliSciFi CMIP6 modelers then hit upon the little-understood cloud microphysics to provide for the high positive water vapor and cloud feedbacks to noncondensing GHGs they needed to continue to scare energy consumers and taxpayers. It will take awhile for uncorrupted scientists to untangle how the CliSciFi practitioners have manipulated water vapor and cloud microphysics for their master’s benefit. But manipulated they did; observational methods give low ECSs and the UN IPCC CliSciFi CMIP6 high ECS models still don’t track early 20th and 21st Centuries’ actual observations.

bdgwx, I’m done reciting commonly known facts. Do more reading outside the bubble of Marxist ideologues, venal politicians, Deep State shills, NGO hustlers and crony capitalists.

bdgwx
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 19, 2021 12:07 pm

If you know of publications relevant to this topic please post them. I would be happy to read to them.

Dave Fair
Reply to  bdgwx
June 19, 2021 2:02 pm

Get out of your comfort zone; do your own research.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2021 4:36 pm

The process of inferring cloud properties from satellite radiation measurement was faulty”

“inferring cloud properties”? Let me rewrite that for you

A change in cloud parameters has led to a better fit between satellite readings and GCM output.

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
June 18, 2021 5:30 pm

“A change in cloud parameters…”
No. Hailing et al are not parameterising clouds. They are looking at the way that satellites convert measures of incoming radiation into a reconstructed 3D picture of clouds, and finding that it undercounts the clouds with high cloud fractions, which interact more strongly with aerosols. They fix that.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2021 8:51 pm

They are looking at the way that satellites convert measures of incoming radiation into a reconstructed 3D picture of clouds”

And what exactly do you think this means to the models used to convert what the satellites measure to the inferred atmosphere temperatures?

TonyG
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
June 19, 2021 2:02 pm

I’m still trying to see where the raw data is to validate any of the estimates, models, conversions, etc. I haven’t seen anything about a pure, unadulterated real-world measurement.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 17, 2021 10:25 pm

No one is doubting that there are inherent limitations to satellite measurement. As someone who has a basic understanding of FOV and various other aspects of instrumentation, I am ‘eye=poppingly’ astounded by the conclusions drawn from some results. Never mind (eye-roll).
As far as I know the results of satellite instrumentation are used as inputs in climate models. If the model is fed incorrect information then your model will give incorrect results. No surprise.
Maybe the models should be adjusted rather than the data.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2021 10:28 am

So, given how inaccurate the models have proven to be, by your argument the satellites should be adjusted to be equally inaccurate?

Loydo
June 17, 2021 10:44 pm

“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.”

…in other words doing their job and thus improving climate projections.
The only thing in “disarray” is Trickyzone’s credibility.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Loydo
June 17, 2021 10:54 pm

How did you draw that conclusion?

Loydo
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
June 17, 2021 11:19 pm

How would you suggest they improve their projections if not through new information or new studies that “resolve major differences”?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Loydo
June 17, 2021 11:47 pm

We can’t be certain that they have improved climate projections. I would be impressed by their honesty if they ran their supercomputer software and showed the new results compared with old results of models and announced to everyone that the old models were wrong.
I think No tricks Zone were referring to a published paper. I’m not sure how their credibility is involved.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Loydo
June 18, 2021 4:55 am

How would you suggest they improve their projections”

They cant. Not all science is within reach with today’s technology.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
June 18, 2021 2:39 pm

I’ve no problem with improving very uncertain model “projections.” It is the use of the models to speculate future disaster an claim it is “business as usual” that I get a hardon over. They are using highly speculative models (which have been proven to be greatly unreliable) to justify turning the West into Marxist workers’ paradises using Trillions of dollars from the Capitalistic-derived systems.

whiten
Reply to  Loydo
June 17, 2021 11:25 pm

Loydo,

With all due respect,
this line of thought about aerosols in steroids,
does really harm the arsenal of “Hiroshimas” gone and going in to oceans.

You guys should be more coherent when it comes to explaining your missing heat.

Have ever kinda of just for a moment, only a moment, you guys consider that actually nothing else is missing, but the ability to think straight!

cheers

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Loydo
June 17, 2021 11:35 pm

But the science is settled.

Loydo
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 18, 2021 1:20 am

What do you mean Jim?

Christopher Hanley
Reply to  Loydo
June 18, 2021 12:21 am

“… in other words doing their job and thus improving climate projections …”.
On the contrary, the range of climate sensitivity is wider in the latest models.
The CMIP5 ECS range was 2.1C -> 4.7C while the newer CMIP6 ECS range is 1.8C -> 5.6C, in other words the model projections are becoming less precise.

Last edited 1 month ago by Christopher Hanley
Loydo
Reply to  Christopher Hanley
June 18, 2021 1:31 am

Your suggestion to reverse that is what, cease studying it?

Christopher Hanley
Reply to  Loydo
June 18, 2021 1:39 am

Studying what?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
June 18, 2021 10:53 am

Well, my suggestion would be to quit using wildly exaggerated scenarios and high ECS fudges to scare the uncritical and enrich politicians, NGOs and crony capitalists. To tell people these are just guesses and not at all represent what will actually occur. That adopting Marxist economics will destroy western civilization.

Derg
Reply to  Loydo
June 18, 2021 2:36 am

“ improving”

Finally you admit they were wrong.

Thank you

Herbert
Reply to  Loydo
June 18, 2021 3:25 am

Loydo,
James Lovelock in The Guardian,29 March, 2010-
“ The great science centres of the world are well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and aerosols are doing.
They could be absolutely running the show.We haven’t got the physics worked out yet”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
This paper confirms what the Gaia author and climate scientist James Lovelock states.
There is no compelling evidence that the “improved”climate model projections solve the uncertainty with clouds and aerosols.

dk_
June 17, 2021 10:57 pm

Possibly the biggest problem faced by modelers in making climate change projections is the insistance that climate change projections are possible, at all, for a poorly understood complex adaptive system using unsuitable tools and unmanaged processes, under political influence, social pressure, and competing financial incentives. Aerosols? Meh.

Dave Fair
Reply to  dk_
June 18, 2021 8:46 pm

With a spread of 3 C average global surface temperatures across the various UN IPCC CliSciFi models, I’m certain that they are not modeling the same ‘physics.’ Water freezes at 3 C?

Patrick MJD
June 17, 2021 11:48 pm

That means that climate modelers are not simulating the climate system correctly, and thus makes accurate climate projections unlikely.”

We know this because reality is disagreeing with the models.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 18, 2021 11:00 am

That is interesting, Patrick. If the UN IPCC CliSciFi models are running hot with high cloud/aerosol negative feedback, what if they reduced negative feedback?

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Fair
BallBounces
June 18, 2021 2:24 am

“By acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), aerosols act as cloud condensation nuclei…”. This is either begging the question, a trivial illustration of the law of non-contradiction, or something really, really profound….

fretslider
June 18, 2021 3:36 am

climate modelers are not simulating the climate system correctly

And they never will. Besides, the models are giving the desired results….

How accurate are Climate Models?

How accurate are Climate Models? • Skeptical Science (skeptical-science.com)

Hilarious stuff.

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
TimTheToolMan
Reply to  fretslider
June 18, 2021 4:51 am

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.”

Future climate projection simply isn’t possible without perfectly modeled processes from first principles. The climate signal is subtle as it is, let alone at a model time step resolution. Put more simply future climate projection simply isn’t possible in GCMs with current technology or any foreseeable technology.

Its hilarious that “climate scientists” are surprised when an aspect of their fit is possibly wrong and the projection is “wrong”.

PaulH
June 18, 2021 6:00 am

It’s a good thing the science is settled and we don’t have to worry about blunders like these anymore.

Nick B
June 18, 2021 6:03 am

Models, models… All models use blackbody radiation and we have Planck’s formula describing such radiation. There are two forms of the formula – spectral radiance vs. frequency and vs. wavelength.
Everyone could draw a graphs for both versions of the formula using Excel. Although both curves are different, the position of the maximum should be same on both graphs. In fact the position of the maximum differ by 1.7 fold.
I am wondering which one is the correct one, if any?
And which variant is used in numerous climate models?

Brian BAKER
June 18, 2021 6:36 am

Here is some more models in turmoil because of the incorrect estimate of initial conditions.

Why Warwick’s Covid modelling doesn’t make sense

By Ross Clark The Spectator

 

This week began with more frightening graphs from SPI-M, the government’s scientific modelling committee. A team at Warwick University calculated that, should the 21 June reopening have gone ahead, hospitalisations could have peaked at more than 3,000 a day in August. The first peak in April last year saw 3,149 admissions in one day and the second peak in January reached 4,160 on a single day.
 
But it transpired that the team had assumed that two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were 90 per cent effective at preventing serious illness and the Pfizer vaccine 91 per cent. Public Health England has since put out figures suggesting that these are unduly pessimistic: two doses of AstraZeneca it estimates have 92 per cent efficacy against serious illness and Pfizer 96 per cent. While that might seem a small difference, it indicates that we might expect fewer hospitalisations among Pfizer recipients than was modelled by the Warwick team.   
 
Somewhat pessimistic assumptions for the efficacy of vaccines have been a regular feature of SPI-M modelling this year. As I have written here before, modelling by Imperial College in February – used to inform the roadmap out of lockdown – assumed that two shots of the AstraZeneca vaccine were just 63 per cent effective at preventing symptomatic illness. Imperial’s modelling also considered a pessimistic case where two shots of AstraZeneca were only 50 per cent effective at preventing symptomatic illness.

dmanfred
June 18, 2021 7:56 am

“Clouds’ cooling effect underestimated”

I was out walking the other day when the sun came out from behind a cloud. It felt like the temp. went up 10 degrees instantly.

dmanfred
Reply to  dmanfred
June 18, 2021 7:57 am

Sorry about all the bolding.

DMacKenzie,
June 18, 2021 8:45 am

The biggest number I see is -1.09 W/m^2. This is irrelevant when cloud modelling algorithms can’t tell you at 8 AM whether a m^2 of cloud cover will reflect 1000 or 700 W/m^2 at 2 PM nor how many m^2 of cloud cover there will be.
Perhaps the authors should review the basics from the greats of the field like Ramanathan and Hartmann…..

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patrick-Minnis/publication/313177307_Cloud-radiative_forcing_and_climate_Results_from_the_Earth%27s_radiation_budget/links/5a6f442f45851517967626e3/Cloud-radiative-forcing-and-climate-Results-from-the-Earths-radiation-budget.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Robert Ingersol
June 18, 2021 9:56 am

Thanks for the link to the paper which asserts that:

  1. Models show more cloud cooling than satellites.
  2. Satellites have a sampling bias.
  3. Correcting that bias resolves much of the discrepancy.

Conclusion: The models were correct, the data from previous satellite measurement was wrong.

Satellite-based estimates of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions (RFaci) are consistently smaller than those from global models, hampering accurate projections of future climate change. Here we show that the discrepancy can be substantially reduced by correcting sampling biases induced by inherent limitations of satellite measurements, which tend to artificially discard the clouds with high cloud fraction. Those missed clouds exert a stronger cooling effect, and are more sensitive to aerosol perturbations. 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.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Robert Ingersol
June 18, 2021 2:47 pm

Maybe. The study says there are still uncertainties in their calculations and further study is needed.

Komerade Cube
June 18, 2021 10:20 am

So… Willis is right?

TonyG
June 18, 2021 11:12 am

“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.”

Perhaps I’m missing something, but what evidence other than the models is there that the measurements are incorrect?
IOW: What were the measurements measured against?

Richard M
June 18, 2021 3:49 pm

Dr. Roy Spencer has a new blog article where he looks at models vs. observations. As usual the models fail miserably. Here’s the key take away from the article.
comment image

The negative feedback seen is the tropics is probably what leads to lower water vapor content high in the Troposphere which then reduces the overall GHE.

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

Robert of Ottawa
June 18, 2021 4:40 pm

satellite-based estimates of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions (RFaci) are consistently smaller than those from global models,

Well, gosh darn! Must be something wrong with the satellites.

Macha
June 18, 2021 5:02 pm

Erl happ…

Take away the cloud and surface temperature increases. Put the cloud back, and the temperature plummets. Adding the cloud back negatively impacts the Southern Hemisphere in its summer giving rise to cooler temperatures at every latitude than is experienced in the same latitude in the northern hemisphere.
 The notion that cloud warms the surface via back radiation that is incorporated into the mathematical equations that constitute climate models is erroneous. 

https://reality348.wordpress.com/2021/06/14/the-linkage-between-cloud-cover-surface-pressure-and-temperature/

pochas94
June 19, 2021 2:49 am

The Adjusters visit Alabama.

2hotel9
June 19, 2021 3:31 am

So they are publicly admitting their lies just ain’t getting the job done. I coulda told them that 40 years ago.

%d bloggers like this: