Predicting where, how and how quickly Greenland’s ice will melt is difficult. Projections by the best models are cloudy, and new research suggests clouds are doing the clouding.
Currently, models of Greenland’s melting ice sheet put the greatest emphasis on the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.
But new research, published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, suggests the microphysics of clouds are equally important.
Under high emission scenarios, the uncertainties of Greenland ice sheet models are caused almost entirely by the uncertainties of cloud dynamics.
Cloud cover dictates the ice sheet’s longwave radiation exposure. When clouds over Greenland are thicker, they operate like an insulating blanket, encouraging longwave radiation and surface-level melting.
Thinner clouds are associated with reduced melt rates, researchers determined.
The uncertainty caused by clouds translates to a difference of nearly five inches of global sea level rise by the end of the century.
SEE ALSO: Ice Melting In Greenland? It’s Summer!
The accelerated melting of Greenland’s ice sheet could threaten many coastal communities across the globe. To better project this threat, authors of the new paper suggest scientists work to figure out how climate change will impact cloud dynamics in the Arctic.
“Observations of cloud properties in the Arctic are expensive and can be challenging,” lead author Stefan Hofer, a Ph.D. student at the University of Bristol, said in a news release.
“There are only a handful of long-term observations of cloud properties in the Arctic which makes it very challenging to constrain cloud properties in our climate models.
“The logical next step would be to increase the amount of long-term observations of cloud properties in the Arctic, which then can be used to improve our climate models and predictions of future sea level rise,” Hofer said.
Read more at UPI
The models are crap.
Best laughs… hand held calculators match super-computer models… 12:28, climate model uncertainty (error bars)… 24:25
“Cloud error is 114 times larger than the variable they are trying to detect”
Dr Patrick Frank has presented his paper to 6 Journals, has had 16 reviewers, 13 of which were modelers. The count is 13 to 3 against publication, all 13 modelers voted against it. All 13 critics were incompetent in their reviews, making basic errors in comprehension.
Check out this cycle:
Warmer air temp,
more water is evaporated and the warmer air can hold more water,
warm air rises, cools, forms clouds,
Clouds reflect sunlight and cools the air temp
Model that one.
Most climate models have a simple cloud factor with no feedback effect. They virtually ignore clouds. Why? Too complex to model.