Mmm. Perhaps you have seen some of the headlines - New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole in Global Warming Alarmism and Climate Change Debunked? Not So Fast. All the fruit throwing has been triggered by the paper, On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. I could not discern anywhere in the paper or abstract any hyperbole, but instead, just another climate model.
Computer modeling of even simple things is difficult. There are an unknown number of variables affecting the the Earth's weather, and I suspect they are dynamic - meaning the important variables change over time. It is also easy to create a model that is correct for a specific set of variables, but if anything changes, it generates inaccurate estimates.
Since the Carribean waters are warming, hurricane season is upon us. Remember the spaghetti plots with all of the different hurricane prediction models for a particular storm that frequently diverge and scatter all over the Gulf of Mexico? Weather and climate modeling is difficult and made more complex by nonlinear processes. Recall the Butterfly Effect, which hypothesizes, "Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?" (I have written a novel, Butterflies Escape, with this as a storyline.)
The question being asked in the paper is whether a feedback mechanism has been properly modeled in other climate computer models. Essentially, the paper questions whether the Earth would radiate more heat if global temperatures were to rise, instead of less, as many models assume. (The latter assume that clouds will effectively block the radiation of heat into space.) The authors of the paper base their assumptions upon some NASA radiometric measurements and construct a model for that specific data set.
In a system, feedback is when the output essentially changes the input, which then changes the output, which then changes the input .... It is difficult to model a complex system's feedback and fraught with errors. Guys - it is really, really, tough.
So what do I think after reading the paper? One thing about a model - it should pass the giggle test. That is, does it agree with expectations and observations? The glaciers are undeniably melting. Something is happening. But are we seeing a decline of Earth's heat into space? It is something worthy of further investigation. But for now, we seem to have another climate model for our spaghetti runs, but this one diverges from many of the others.