> 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 embarassed.
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 embarassed.