Not exact matches
The analysis ascribes that a large EF underestimate is the dominant source of error in all
models with a large positive temperature bias, whereas an EF overestimate compensates for an excess of absorbed
shortwave radiation in nearly all the
models with the smallest temperature bias.
Certainly, it is true that you can't get the stratospheric cooling in a grey
model without
shortwave absorbers, not if you keep the OLR fixed (i.e. constrain things to satisfy the TOA
radiation budget).
Some
models include volcanic effects by simply perturbing the incoming
shortwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere, while others simulate explicitly the radiative effects of the aerosols in the stratosphere.
Most
models reasonably represent the poleward increase of reflected
shortwave radiation in the mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere, presumably because part of this is carried by the influence of specified surface features such as the Saharan desert and Tibetan Plateau.
«how it is supposed to work» = according to non-real-world theoretical
models that say CO2 molecules that are spaced together 1/20, 000 ths more closely today than they were in 1990 function just like a blanket draped over the ocean waters, and this CO2 blanket determines the net heat changes in the depths of the ocean more so than variations in direct
shortwave radiation absorption does.
See Figure 9.3 in the IPCC for the
shortwave radiation effects as a result of Pinatubo and how the simulations that included Pinatubo correctly
modeled the
shortwave radiation effects as a result of aerosols.
As annual integrated absorbed
shortwave radiation is measured to be the same for the two hemispheres (in spite of the huge difference between their clear sky albedos), and this feature is replicated by no computational climate
model, generating realistic regional scenarios from output of said
models is currently hopeless.