2 ms·

What about all the unaccounted negative feedback loops? Like e.g. increased low lying cloud cover formation. A lot of these aren't taken into account by the IPC

What about all the unaccounted negative feedback loops? Like e.g. increased low lying cloud cover formation. A lot of these aren't taken into account by the IPCC either.

acqq 7y ago
> these aren't taken into account by the IPCC either. But they are. I know for sure that water vapour is a part of the models.
- erichocean 7y ago
  Eh, it's more complicated than that. > 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. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/01/10/spotty-coverage-climate-models-underestimate-cooling-effect-daily-cloud-cycle https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/01/10/spotty-coverage-cl... However, note that "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."
  - acqq 7y ago
    The links confirm that the clouds are the part of the models. Moreover, from the actual research paper, which compared the models with their data they collected about the DCC (differences during the day, which are less important than the averages) when we parse the text we find: "the mean appears to be reliable" "this model tuning does not seem to invalidate climate projections because of the limited DCC response to global warming" "it may potentially increase the uncertainty" So the paper can't claim more than weasel wording: "may potentially increase the uncertainty." It's the averages that are important. It's good that there's the research, but at the moment it still seems it's about the details which don't invalidate anything. Especially it's nothing that can be called "unaccounted negative feedback loops" as claimed by the post to which I've replied.

What about all the unaccounted negative feedback loops? Like e.g. increased low lying cloud cover formation. A lot of these aren't taken into account by the IPCC either.

acqq 7y ago

> these aren't taken into account by the IPCC either. But they are. I know for sure that water vapour is a part of the models.

erichocean 7y ago
Eh, it's more complicated than that. > 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. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/01/10/spotty-coverage-climate-models-underestimate-cooling-effect-daily-cloud-cycle https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/01/10/spotty-coverage-cl... However, note that "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."
- acqq 7y ago
  The links confirm that the clouds are the part of the models. Moreover, from the actual research paper, which compared the models with their data they collected about the DCC (differences during the day, which are less important than the averages) when we parse the text we find: "the mean appears to be reliable" "this model tuning does not seem to invalidate climate projections because of the limited DCC response to global warming" "it may potentially increase the uncertainty" So the paper can't claim more than weasel wording: "may potentially increase the uncertainty." It's the averages that are important. It's good that there's the research, but at the moment it still seems it's about the details which don't invalidate anything. Especially it's nothing that can be called "unaccounted negative feedback loops" as claimed by the post to which I've replied.