3 ms·

> Shocking scientific shame ensues. It really does not sound plausible that all the people who spend all day improving climate models never even thought about

> Shocking scientific shame ensues. It really does not sound plausible that all the people who spend all day improving climate models never even thought about this.

pjkundert 6y ago
Climate models challenged by cloud modelling: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-clouds-hold-key-better-climate-models https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-clouds-hold-key-b... Effect of contrails not modeled well, even though "contrail cirrus have contributed more to warming the atmosphere than all CO2 emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.": https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190627113949.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190627113949.h... New research shows the contrails are playing a significant role in global warming: https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-helping-make-the-planet-warmer https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-he... Little attention has been given to soot and snow albedo: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231007009752 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13522... High loss in greenland due to soot and dirt: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/6/140610-connecting-dots-dust-soot-snow-ice-climate-change-dimick/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/6/140610-connec... Cutting soot emissions fastest solution to arctic ice melt: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/21/cutting-soot-emissions-arctic-ice-melt-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/21/cutting-... Now, the arctic warming has not been caused by soot, but by the reduction in average snow cover, caused by dramatic warming since the 1980s: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883849/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883849/ Which coincides nicely with the increase in high-level cloud formation and heat blanketing causee by the increase in "great circle" air traffic since that time: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR Now, why hasn't this been modeled? Because they are complex to model; pre-industrial clouds don't match post-industrial, and the modelers don't know why: https://phys.org/news/2016-03-narrow-clouds-hard.html https://phys.org/news/2016-03-narrow-clouds-hard.html So, now we'll see -- there will be a dramatic change in cloud formation due to not dumping 1/2 a billion tons per year of water into the super-dry upper troposphere, over a several month period. Good fun! From a previous thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22224141 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22224141), I wrote: > Those now attempting to figure out the mystery of the hot climate models think one factor might have caused the recent unusual results: clouds. It turns out simulated clouds often cause headaches for climate modelers. The impact of cloud cover in these models has been incorrect, and has such a large impact. Doesn't this strike anyone as a major problem? We're burning about 100 billion gallons of aviation fuel per year. > This means each gallon of jet fuel (6.5lbs) will combine with 23lbs of Oxygen and turn into twenty pounds of CO2, and just over nine pounds of water! (see: https://paullaherty.com/2015/01/10/calculating-aircraft-co2-... https://paullaherty.com/2015/01/10/calculating-aircraft-co2-...). So that's 100B gallons * 9lbs is about a half a billion metric tons of water vapor going into the dry upper troposphere annually from commercial aviation. Which, evidence would seem to suggest, has not been modeled properly (at all?) by these climate models? If I was producing these models, I would be embarrassed.

> Shocking scientific shame ensues. It really does not sound plausible that all the people who spend all day improving climate models never even thought about this.

pjkundert 6y ago

Climate models challenged by cloud modelling: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-clouds-hold-key-better-climate-models https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-clouds-hold-key-b... Effect of contrails not modeled well, even though "contrail cirrus have contributed more to warming the atmosphere than all CO2 emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.": https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190627113949.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190627113949.h... New research shows the contrails are playing a significant role in global warming: https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-helping-make-the-planet-warmer https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-he... Little attention has been given to soot and snow albedo: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231007009752 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13522... High loss in greenland due to soot and dirt: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/6/140610-connecting-dots-dust-soot-snow-ice-climate-change-dimick/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/6/140610-connec... Cutting soot emissions fastest solution to arctic ice melt: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/21/cutting-soot-emissions-arctic-ice-melt-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/21/cutting-... Now, the arctic warming has not been caused by soot, but by the reduction in average snow cover, caused by dramatic warming since the 1980s: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883849/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883849/ Which coincides nicely with the increase in high-level cloud formation and heat blanketing causee by the increase in "great circle" air traffic since that time: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR Now, why hasn't this been modeled? Because they are complex to model; pre-industrial clouds don't match post-industrial, and the modelers don't know why: https://phys.org/news/2016-03-narrow-clouds-hard.html https://phys.org/news/2016-03-narrow-clouds-hard.html So, now we'll see -- there will be a dramatic change in cloud formation due to not dumping 1/2 a billion tons per year of water into the super-dry upper troposphere, over a several month period. Good fun! From a previous thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22224141 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22224141), I wrote: > Those now attempting to figure out the mystery of the hot climate models think one factor might have caused the recent unusual results: clouds. It turns out simulated clouds often cause headaches for climate modelers. The impact of cloud cover in these models has been incorrect, and has such a large impact. Doesn't this strike anyone as a major problem? We're burning about 100 billion gallons of aviation fuel per year. > This means each gallon of jet fuel (6.5lbs) will combine with 23lbs of Oxygen and turn into twenty pounds of CO2, and just over nine pounds of water! (see: https://paullaherty.com/2015/01/10/calculating-aircraft-co2-... https://paullaherty.com/2015/01/10/calculating-aircraft-co2-...). So that's 100B gallons * 9lbs is about a half a billion metric tons of water vapor going into the dry upper troposphere annually from commercial aviation. Which, evidence would seem to suggest, has not been modeled properly (at all?) by these climate models? If I was producing these models, I would be embarrassed.