Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Planetary albedo is a key parameter of the planet’s energy balance, and its sustained decline contributes appreciably to present-day warming. Using CERES EBAF Ed4.2.1 satellite data and the ERA5 reanalysis for March 2000 – December 2014, we evaluate the representation of planetary albedo by 51 CMIP6 models. According to CERES, global albedo declined by (1.20 ± 0.61)×10⁻³ per decade, of which (0.85 ± 0.48)×10⁻³ occurred under clear-sky conditions; the ERA5 trend is statistically indistinguishable from zero. The models systematically overestimate albedo (by 1.3% on average) and underestimate the observed darkening: over 2000–2014 the difference remains within internal variability, but over the extended 2000–2025 record it becomes statistically significant (−(1.05 ± 0.15) versus −(2.46 ± 0.33)×10⁻³ per decade). An objective selection procedure based on median-normalized climatological metrics and model genealogy identifies a nine-model ensemble that reduces the mean-albedo bias to + 0.1% while preserving the trend magnitude. In the selected ensemble’s projections, albedo decline continues under all ScenarioMIP scenarios: by 2091–2100, global albedo falls 0.0046–0.0116 below its 2015–2024 level, equivalent to an additional ~ 1.6–3.9 W m⁻² of absorbed solar radiation; the largest changes occur at polar latitudes, and only under SSP1-2.6 does the decline level off. Over 2015–2025 the scenarios remain statistically indistinguishable in albedo, while the observed decline lies at the lower edge of the ensemble spread: only two of the 36 scenario members darken at least as fast as observed. A faithful representation of cloud and cryospheric processes remains the primary prerequisite for reliable projections of Earth's radiation budget.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Poliukhov et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: