[erichocean]

Eh, it's more complicated than that.

> Princeton University researchers have found that the climate models scientists use to project future conditions on our planet underestimate the cooling effect that clouds have on a daily — and even hourly — basis, particularly over land.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/01/10/spotty-coverage-cl...

However, note that "the researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for the diurnal, or daily, cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections, but they did increase the margin of error for a crucial tool scientists use to understand how climate change will affect us."

[acqq]

The links confirm that the clouds are the part of the models. Moreover, from the actual research paper, which compared the models with their data they collected about the DCC (differences during the day, which are less important than the averages) when we parse the text we find:

"the mean appears to be reliable"

"this model tuning does not seem to invalidate climate projections because of the limited DCC response to global warming"

"it may potentially increase the uncertainty"

So the paper can't claim more than weasel wording: "may potentially increase the uncertainty."

It's the averages that are important. It's good that there's the research, but at the moment it still seems it's about the details which don't invalidate anything. Especially it's nothing that can be called

"unaccounted negative feedback loops"

as claimed by the post to which I've replied.