[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.