Immediate and shocking drop in average daily temperatures, and dramatic accumulation of snow in the north polar area over this next winter/spring, I predict.
And, a stunning repudiation of the models that have basically ignored these 2 major factors.
Removal of high level cloud formation isn’t going to be one of them, I predict!
But, I could be wrong. We’ll know with statistical certainty almost immediately (months).
https://news.psu.edu/story/361041/2015/06/18/research/jet-co...
It should reinforce or repudiate the assumptions underlying our climate models - which have chosen to basically ignore these 2 factors.
I predict, in the next 6-12 months, that statistically significant deviations in predicted vs. actual temperatures and snow accumulation will appear, repudiating this assumption that ignoring these factors was scientifically sound.
Drop gigatons of soot on polar snow/icepack, it melts due to insolation. Reduce soot, it re-accumulates - especially if avg. temperature drops due to reduced high cloud formation, by reduced “great circle” jet traffic.
Apparently, neither of these effects have been effectively modelled in the “climate models” used.
Shocking scientific shame ensues.
Or, I’m wrong, and no such thing happens. Now we’ll see!
It really does not sound plausible that all the people who spend all day improving climate models never even thought about this.
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.h...
New research shows the contrails are playing a significant role in global warming:
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/S13522...
High loss in greenland due to soot and dirt:
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-...
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/
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
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
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), 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-...).
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.