Our climate models are failing because we do not monitor enough

The Earth is heating faster than many climate models predicted. 

According to a new study from CICERO, models with low climate sensitivity simply can’t reproduce the observed trend in Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) over the past two decades. 

In other words: the real world is absorbing more energy than many simulations allow, including those simulations on which global agreements and targets are based.

No matter which environmental parameter you need to measure, find your next instrument in our international directory. 

Earth’s energy imbalance

Earth’s energy imbalance, the difference between incoming solar energy and outgoing heat, is a foundational measure of climate change. 

Recent satellite and ocean measurements show that EEI has doubled since the early 2000s, now reaching approximately 1.8 watts per square metre (W/m²). 

That’s more than expected from greenhouse gas forcing alone.

Most of this excess heat is going into the oceans, which means rising sea levels and more intense storms and heatwaves. 

At the same time, Earth is becoming less reflective. 

Melting ice, shifting cloud cover, and reductions in atmospheric aerosols are allowing more solar energy to be absorbed. 

This compound warming effect is occurring outside the range of what many climate models can replicate.

How do we know that CO2 concentrations are highest in more than 300,000 years?

As the latest data on carbon dioxide concentrations hits the headlines, it's a good time to dive into how we measure these concentrations - and why they matter. By Jed Thomas  High on th... Read More

Low-sensitivity models are failing

Climate models vary in their equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS): the amount of warming projected for a doubling of CO₂. 

Models with low ECS (below roughly 2.5°C) tend to predict slower rates of warming. 

But the CICERO study finds that these low-sensitivity models fail to reproduce the recent observed rise in EEI.

The key issue lies in feedback mechanisms. 

These models underestimate how clouds and surface reflectivity (albedo) evolve as the planet warms. 

They simulate too little solar absorption and too little outgoing heat radiation. 

As a result, they present an artificially muted climate response, flattening out the sharp trends seen in real-world data.

This has policy implications. 

If climate models downplay the severity of current trends, mitigation strategies based on them may fall short of what's actually required.

New James Hansen paper links accelerating climate change to new aerosol regulations for ships

A new paper claims that average temperatures have shifted permanently above 1.5C as a result of an obscure factor: recent regulations on shipping. A recent study led by legendary climatologi... Read More

Why our models are mistaken

Several interacting factors explain why many models underestimated EEI.

Firstly, there's cloud feedback uncertainty. 

Small changes in cloud coverage and type can significantly alter the planet’s energy balance. Low-ECS models likely misrepresent these shifts.

As global air quality improves, atmospheric aerosols are declining. If models overestimate aerosol cooling, they also understate today’s warming.

Lastly, regional variations in ocean temperatures affect cloud formation and global heat flows. Misrepresenting these patterns can distort sensitivity estimates.

What it means for monitoring

These model shortcomings underscore the essential role of environmental monitoring. 

In general, the models are falling short because of a lack of comprehensive, real-world measurements across multiple parameters. 

This reinforces the need to expand and enhance monitoring infrastructure in several key areas.

Firstly, satellite continuity is critical. NASA’s CERES instruments have been indispensable for tracking Earth’s radiative energy flows. 

But with these satellites aging and no firm replacement schedule, continuity is at risk.

Secondly, ocean sensors need investment. The Argo float network provides the clearest view of ocean heat uptake, the largest component of EEI. 

Expanding into the deep ocean and ensuring full global coverage is vital.

Thirdly, surface and aerosol monitoring must scale.

Ground-based stations like AERONET and GCOS help quantify radiation and aerosol trends by helping scientists resolve attribution.

Lastly, real-time EEI tracking should guide policy, not just global average surface temperatures. 

Earth’s energy imbalance acts like a planetary speedometer. 

Monitoring EEI in near real time offers direct, policy-relevant feedback on how well we’re doing in curbing climate change.

How EU Copernicus will progress aerosol monitoring by 2030

The European Union’s Copernicus programme is on the cusp of a revolution in aerosol monitoring.  Over the next five years, new satellite missions and model upgrades will vastly improve the spati... Read More

A new paradigm

In this context, increased environmental monitoring becomes not just an expansion of the existing market but a political imperative. 

Real-time monitoring across multiple relevant parameters is now the only reliable way to track our trajectory and course-correct in time.

If we're going to meet our obligations under the Paris Agreement, we have to step into a new era in climate monitoring that attempts to keep track of our geophysical system in its entirety as it undergoes this transition.

Climate change is not linear: why the Paris Agreement needs updating

For a few years, scientists have been warning that even if we hit Paris targets, we could cross several tipping points that could trigger a cascade into total climate breakdown. Jed Thomas‘A clus... Read More