Posted on 01/10/2018 10:11:25 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Princeton University researchers have found that the climate models scientists use to project future conditions on our planet underestimate the cooling effect that clouds have on a daily — and even hourly — basis, particularly over land.
The researchers report in the journal Nature Communications that models tend to factor in too much of the sun’s daily heat, which results in warmer, drier conditions than might actually occur. The researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for the diurnal, or daily, cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections, but they did increase the margin of error for a crucial tool scientists use to understand how climate change will affect us.
“It’s important to get the right result for the right reason,” said corresponding author Amilcare Porporato, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and the Princeton Environmental Institute. “These errors can trickle down into other changes, such as projecting fewer and weaker storms. We hope that our results are useful for improving how clouds are modeled, which would improve the calibration of climate models and make the results much more reliable.”
By capturing the timing and thickness of the daily cloud cycle on a global scale, however, Yin and Porporato have provided scientists with a tool for confirming if climate models aptly portray cloud formation and the interaction between clouds and the atmosphere.
“The global coverage and emphasis on both ‘timing’ and ‘amount’ are notable. As far as I am aware, this is the first study to explore this manifold of models in such a coherent way,” Katul said. “I am sure this type of work will offer new perspectives to improve the representation of clouds. I would not be surprised to see this paper highly cited in future IPCC [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports.”
(Excerpt) Read more at princeton.edu ...
These “scientists” need to carefully calibrate their tools for counting the numbers of angels on the head of a pin—their continuing grant money depends on it!
It’s all those dang people storing their music and photos in the “cloud”. I knew this would come to no good.
“Katul said...”I would not be surprised to see this paper highly cited in future IPCC [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports.”
Cited in future reports?
Only if the ADJUSTED models predict more warming!
ML/NJ
Meteorologists can barely forecast the weather three to four days away, and oft times not even that. But these so-called climatologists, politicians and actors cast their lots with those of witch doctors who actually beat them at the odds more often than not.
Ah ha!
This explains everything!
Also, as the Sun’s magnetic activity decreases (and has been decreasing, overall, for several decades), the cosmic rays hitting the Earth’s atmosphere increases.
With that cosmic-ray increase, cloud cover also increases.
And that cosmic-ray-induced cloud-cover-increase can be demonstrated in a laboratory with the proper apparatus. It does not rely on unvalidated computer simulations.
No sh*t! I've been saying this for over a decade. Water Vapor is the dominant factor in Global Cooling, and failure to recognize this, makes all the global warming models wrong.
I keep saying that if their theories were correct, we would be an 800 degree hell like Venus. Fortunately water vapor causes a negative feedback effect instead of a positive one.
They never include temps from Canada and Russia ,D’oh
Them: “This is settled science!”
Me: “What about clouds?”
Them: F$%# Y^# you science-denying moron!”
As we all know form our vast studies of climate, the sun has absolutely no effect on cloud cover. So rejiggering the algorithms for cloud cover cooling should give us the predictions we are looking for to bamboozle the public into supporting our efforts and life stye also giving us more money to look at things again with ever more expensive computers parties, publications, drugs and the like. Thank You.
Oh the absurd lip service which must be given! Of course they don't invalidate the projections....Empirical results have already done that years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.