Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Hefaistos

Pages: [1] 2
And this, illustrating lockdown effects on air traffic and thus contrails in USA (from another thread).

Previous research on aerosols in connection with major volcanic eruptions (Agung, Pinotubo, etc), show that the (cooling) effect from increased aerosols happens with very little delay in the area first affected.
But we really see no such (warming) effect from the collapse in air traffic in USA.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: July 20, 2020, 10:35:13 AM »
(Sorry if this is off-topic. It doesn't seem to fit in the "Lessons from COVID-19" thread)

Now there's an argument for mandatory vaccinations, for everybody, every three months!

This has crossed my mind as well. I am wondering whether 'bad actors' (non-commercial) are seeing a great opportunity for some piggy backing of other stuff in those vaccinations. But I have no knowledge of the possibilities so my wondering looks as conspiracy thinking. Would someone please enlighten me on the possibilities of such a thing? To further 'enslave' or control the little people? A.I. doesn't seem to move fast enough.

Many people will refuse to take any vaccines that haven't been proven to be safe for, let's say decades.
I'm not an anti-vaxxer per se, but we learnt our lesson in Sweden during the swine flu in 2009.
100's of Swedes became invalids for life from the vaccine (Pandemrix) given to the masses, as people developed narcolepsy. Mainly affecting kids.
Pandemrix and some other vaccine were shown to be contaminated with 'unexpected things'.
A new vaccine against Covid will not be considered safe to take by very many people.

Maybe that's why Swedish authorities aim for herd immunity, because they know that vaccination will not be a popular thing this time around.

The rest / Re: Free Access to Journal Articles
« on: June 03, 2020, 11:52:39 PM »
Currently working:

ht to Nanning

Kate Marvel has spent most of her career studying cloud feedback (which has proven to be key w.r.t. the high values of ECS projected by the high-end CMIP6 model projections) and in the linked opinion piece she acknowledges a good amount of uncertainty about projections of future climate change; which from a risk point of view is not good:

Title: "Global Warming: How Hot, Exactly, Is it Going to Get?"

Extract: "All climate models simulate a changing planet in response to a changing temperature. And, increasingly, we know why they disagree on that final warming. In the climate models that warm more, low, thick clouds appear to be changing in ways that reduce their sun-blocking power. In the models that warm less, these changes are smaller.

So scientists have devoted their time to measuring clouds, understanding them, and figuring out how to represent them in climate models. This work has paid off: the range of uncertainty is now changing. Unfortunately, it’s increased. Climate models that use more modern techniques to simulate clouds are now projecting more warming: five or six degrees Celsius in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide. To put those numbers in context, four and a half degrees is the difference between now and the last Ice Age.

But the past is not the future, and we have good reason to believe that there are no analogues for the future into which we are hurtling."

She is quite skeptical to the unbelievably high ECS values of the majority of CMIP6 models, though:
"I find these high numbers hard to believe, but as a scientist it’s my job to find things hard to believe. My skepticism is rooted in clues from the planet’s past. At the height of the last Ice Age, temperatures were cooler and carbon dioxide levels lower. It’s hard to reconcile these measurements with extremely high climate sensitivities."

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic energy balance
« on: May 29, 2020, 02:34:52 PM »
Some valid input might be gathered from this paper:
"Trends in the CERES Dataset, 2000–13: The Effects of Sea Ice and Jet Shifts and Comparison to Climate Models"
Dennis L. Hartmann and Paulo Ceppi

From the Abstract

The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) observations of global top-of-atmosphere radiative energy fluxes for the period March 2000–February 2013 are examined for robust trends and variability. The trend in Arctic ice is clearly evident in the time series of reflected shortwave radiation, which closely follows the record of ice extent. The data indicate that, for every 106 km2 decrease in September sea ice extent, annual-mean absorbed solar radiation averaged over 75°–90°N increases by 2.5 W m−2, or about 6 W m−2 between 2000 and 2012.  ...."

Full paper:

The linked article, and associated reference, project that the rate change of deep ocean 'climate velocity' will accelerate about 11 times before the end of the century:

Title: "The deep ocean is warming slowly—but dramatic changes are ahead"

I'd love to see the precise defintion of climate velocity. This quote doesn't give it:  "We used a metric known as climate velocity which defines the likely speed and direction a species shifts as the ocean warms,..."

And also which species will be most affected.

The research article is paywalled.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 19, 2020, 05:51:26 PM »

We are witnessing Trump get away with mass murder for everyone to see. It will not get better.

The same policy of culling of our old ones goes on in the UK, in USA and in Sweden.

Lockdown of those who don't even need to be protected, while those that are most at risk get no protection whatsoever.

"Anger in Sweden as elderly pay price for coronavirus strategy
Staff with no masks or sanitiser fear for residents as hundreds die in care homes"

Our old people sitting in nursing homes like lame ducks, scared to death, waiting to be culled.
And this is due to our experts' ignorance and our politicians' lethargy.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 17, 2020, 12:44:05 PM »
The open water may extend to the Pole in Siberian side in September if such pattern will continue. The Laptev/ESS ice is already thin + early surface melting and quick land snow retreat in Siberia

If that happens, would it be the first time the pole melts?
Probably for the first time in about 3 million years, yes.

The significance of a pole melt would be mainly psychological.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 15, 2020, 11:24:23 AM »
Trump has been sabotaging the world's response since the beginning of this emergency, and he has to sabotage it even further to save face he will do so. It does not matter how many people die.

He just called for the US to end WHO funding. Right in the middle of a global pandemic.

We are witnessing Trump get away with mass murder for everyone to see. It will not get better.

Yeah, and seems to me that the Swedish authorities copied Trump's policy here.
The effect: Mass murder of our old people sitting in our nursing homes like lame ducks, just waiting to be culled.
And this is due to our so called 'experts' ignorance and our decision makers' lethargy.

"The /Swedish laissez-faire/ strategy has also come under fire from some of the country’s scientists. A group of 22 doctors, virologists and researchers on Tuesday criticised the health agency in an op-ed published by Dagens Nyheter newspaper.
“The approach must be changed radically and quickly,” the group wrote. “As the virus spreads, it is necessary to increase social distance. Close schools and restaurants. Everyone who works with the elderly must wear adequate protective equipment. Quarantine the whole family if one member is ill or tests positive. Elected representatives must intervene, there is no other choice.”"

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 11, 2020, 07:04:21 AM »
Lethality..... the range varies widely but they all agree it is much worse than a bad flu year and up to 4%. The percentage is fuzzy but bad regardless. 1% in one region doesn't mean a lot when other regions with collapsed health care systems record much higher rates of death. It has happened multiple times already.

Rodius, you're mixing the numbers in the sentence I emphasized. 1 % mortality is for the municipalities and regions that have been overwhelmed, and it's measured as the number of dead related to total population.

Do you have a reference that there has been a higher figure than 1% anywhere?

Let's please stick to that definition, as Sam's forecast is for the same metric. Sam said:

Now - of course - humanity may fail to extirpate this virus. In that case, we will lose 4-12% of the population over the next year or two, ...

The prediction that 4-12% of the global population will die has no support whatsoever in what we have seen sofar of the effects ot Covid-19.
We have some evidence of Italian municipalities where herd immunity (about 70%) has been reached (referenced above), but also those figures point to a mortality from C19 of 1% of total population.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 10, 2020, 08:05:06 AM »
Now - of course - humanity may fail to extirpate this virus. In that case, we will lose 4-12% of the population over the next year or two, ...

Sam, I'd appreciate if you could please tell us how you came to that very high figure, and range!

In Northern Italy, the highest lethality is 1% of population, and that is in municipalities that have a very old population on average (around 45 years iirc), and with many lifestyle diseases. I would say that 1% lethality is proven under such circumstances of old people and many comorbidities, but cannot see what can contribute to an even higher figure than that?

So why should we expect even higher lethality on a global scale?

Sam will give a better explanation but here is my take on why 10% is possible.

1 - it isn't going anywhere. There are too many carriers without symptoms, it is global and it spreads easily. Even lockdown don't truly stop it. As soon as a lockdown is removed it reappears.

However, eventually herd immunity will be reached. We haven't seen much research on that. In this thread it was reported about one Italian municipality where 70% of tested in Castiglioni d'Adda, ie 40 out of 60 had antibodies. The town has 4600 population and lost 62 people.
62 is the total number of deaths for ca 2 months, that is an anomaly of ca 52 deaths, ie. slightly above 1% of total population. That seems to be enough to create herd immunity as based on these blood tests 2/3 of them have antibodies.
So we have a 1.0 % lethality of C19 but in a place where immunity was checked for. That is the price of herd immunity.
This was reported upthread, with links to La Stampa.
No support here or from other Italian places for anything above 1% lethality of population.

2 - there is a growing body of work that is beginning to suggest that immunity either doesn't happen or disappears quickly.

We have seen very few reports on immunity and one of them shows weak immunity in young people. But some immunity is also immunity. Where are the reports that "immunity disappears quickly"?

3 - Without decent medical treatment, a lot more people die. It appears that about 1% of people die when treated well but it leaps up quickly when hospitals are overwhelmed. And soon, it will hit countries with inadequate medical services to begin with.

Italy is the benchmark here, and we got 1% population lethality there in the OVERWHELMED parts of Northern Italy. We supposedly won't get much more lethality than that anywhere.

4 - give the above, the virus can potentially do the rounds over and over again in the same people until they die.

Herd immunity was reached, and 1% of people died in overwhelmed parts of Italy. Your claim assumes that there will be no herd immunity, but that is just empty speculation.

5 - with a mutation rate similar to flu, there is a chance that it will mutate every two years. If that happens, it becomes a flip of the coin as to what it does next.
To me, it is not unreasonable to see a significant ongoing event that will cause many problems for a long time.
I am not saying this will happen..... but it isn't out of the realms of possibility. And if it does happen, 10% will be on the low end of victims.

The virus will have to mutate to survive and thrive. But why should we assume that a mutated virus will be more contagious, or more deadly? The null hypothesis should be that future mutations will be just like other corona virus seasonal flu mutations, with similar lethalities below 0.1%.

Overall, the forecast of 4 - 12 % population lethality is unfounded. It's actually nothing but speculation and fearmongering.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 04, 2020, 03:04:19 PM »
I would like to come back to a link that was given here a few days ago, which I found had some really important information on the lethality of C19 on population level. This is what the mayor of Nembro writes:

"Nembro, one of the municipalities most affected by Covid-19, should have had - under normal conditions - about 35 deaths. 158 people were registered dead this year by the municipal offices. But the number of deaths officially attributed to Covid-19 is 31 (...)"

As we all know, Italy has had a lot of deaths in C19, but overall Italian mortality figures indicate a factor of at least 4 of underreporting C19 deaths, depending on which city you look at.

"The difference is enormous and cannot be a simple statistical deviation. Demographic statistics have their «constancies» and annual averages change only when completely «new» phenomena arrive. In this case, the number of abnormal deaths compared to the average that Nembro recorded in the period of time in consideration is equal to 4 times those officially attributed to Covid-19."

I think this is the real end-game story, after all cases are closed, all recoveries and all deaths are checked out of the system, we see that there were very many people who perished from C19.

Why are the data so unreliable? Simply because very many of those who died were never swabbed, never tested, etc. So they never entered the system as C19 cases - they just died.

Please note that the lethality rate in C19 is 1% of the population. The figure is for the whole population of 11,500 people in Nembro. Assumedly they were all exposed to the virus, and those who could get infected got infected and herd immunity has now been reached, as the number of deaths have come down to their normal levels again. If Northern Italy is representative for other developed countries, we should expect to see the same lethality rate in other countries as well.

For the USA this indicates a number of deaths in the millions. Especially as the US population to a very large degree is affected by lifestyle diseases such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension. This will not happen during the current first wave of infections, but that will be the end result, when we have reached herd immunity.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 02, 2020, 01:31:49 AM »
I follow the statistics, projections and reports published daily by Swedish health authorities. As of today some new advice and recommendations regarding distancing on public transport and in supermarkets were published. It is now forbidden to visit care homes for the elderly.

Swedish bureaucracy at its worst. On Tuesday March 31 they finally decided that our elderly need to be protected. WOW!

For how long did they already know that C19 kills first of all the sick and elderly? First reports about this came in the beginning of February afaik. Statistics and scientifical evidence from Wuhan. More than 6 weeks were lost doing nothing to protect our most vulnerable groups.

Due to their negligence to react and to act in due time on evidence they had, those Swedish politicians and bureaucrats are actively killing our elderly.
Murderers they are.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 01, 2020, 01:05:30 PM »
This is a horrible pandemic.
We must look back to the 1918 influenza to grasp its severity. 

For some perspective, there were about 50 million dead from that flu in 1918, and the global population was about 1.7 billion people.
So a death rate of close to 3%.

The C19 will kill a few million people out of a global population of about 7.7 billion people. A death rate of maybe 0.3%.
C19 is roughly about 1/10 as deadly.
And it will not even dent the incredible population growth going on at the same time as this pandemia: "The current average population increase is estimated at 81 million people per year."

Please stop trying to minimize the danger of this virus. It is vastly more lethal than you want to believe. And a whole lot of people are going to get sick over the next two months with an immense number dying. Cut it out.

We get that you do not want to believe the facts in front of you. That is just plain stupid.


The numbers are what they are.
I'm talking facts, not emotions. Can you please also try to keep those two apart, Sam?
I'm just saying that this pandemia will not even make a dent in population growth.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 27, 2020, 10:03:24 AM »
Remember please that the percentages Oren cites are from reputable literature, BUT that study was based on a 2.3% CFR for the population. We know that the CFR for the hospitalized population is double that. So - double ALL of the numbers in the table.

For the US, I suspect that the most likely death toll will be about 5 million. I cannot see it being less than 1 million. The high end is likely 25 million.

The high end comes about from presuming that there is not some large unseen portion of the population that never shows anything other than mild symptoms and is never tested; plus presuming the 4.5% CFR is accurate and representative for the hospitalized portion (who then represent everyone); and that half of those requiring intensive care die as a result of the collapse of the hospital systems when they become over run. That last part adds about 7.5% to the CFR of 4.5%, hence a 12% death rate. Italy is already seeing close to that. And they aren't through the worst of it yet.

Sam, why do you assume that we have a 4.5% CFR in the USA? Would appreciate if you could explain that! Latest data show a much lower figure.

I believe that too many analyses are focused on the natural mortality rate with treatment, rather than on the number whose symptoms are severe enough to require hospitalization which is a far higher percentage than occurs with the flu. Even with the flu affecting a higher count each winter than COVID-19 has thus far, the impact on the hospital system is already far outpacing the flu.

The problem with many analyses and forecasts is that they don't take into consideration the issue of overwhelming of the intensive care units (ICU) in the healthcare system, as seen in Italy and Spain, and as will SURELY be seen in the USA, France and UK in the coming weeks. About 6% of the infected in C19 will need ICU, which is way more than for the regular flus.

In a way, the situation is on one hand that we wish for everything to happen quickly, get to herd immunity in the population (=more than 90% infected for this virus), and then C19 will be just like any other flu virus, as we will not have a vaccine or mass vaccination in the nearest 18 months or so. From this point of view, we want the infection to run freely so we can become immune.

On the other hand, we fear death, we don't want people to die. So we want to slow the infection down, and above all suppress it sufficiently so that the ICU units aren't overwhelmed. If 6% of your cases require intensive care and you can’t provide it, most of those people die. As simple as that. We don't want Italy or Spain.

Meanwhile, the disease continues to progress exponentially in many big countries, e.g. USA.  Inflexion point on the positive exponential growth has still not been established. Meanwhile, efforts to measure and contain it seem to be more linear.

Korea has been very actively testing and tracking infected people. Korea tracing/testing has shown that around 11% of positives proceeded to Serious (=supplemental oxygen) or Critical (=ventilator). About 1/3 of those infected in S/C state will eventually die. That is in a health care system that is NOT overwhelmed. We have much worse ratios in overwhelmed Italy.

I think it's not the best metric to use total cases, because ‘active’ cases have yet to be determined. Now that we know the disease course—5 day mean incubation, 9-10 days symptoms, then either recovery or serious/critical on day 11-12, the best CFR proxy is Fatalities/ recoveries. We have a 3.0% CFR ratio in S.Korea of resolved cases, and we have only 1 %  S/C out of active (unresolved) cases.

Moreover, of active unresolved cases, 6.0 % in Italy are S/C, implying that about 45% of those S/C die and 55% eventually recover in a medical system that is overwhelmed.

These data are all readily available on

About USA, we're already getting reports of overwhelmed hospitals/ICU units in some states. And we still have a couple of weeks of exponential growth left. There are 4 million admissions to the ICU in the US every year, and 500k (~13%) of them die. Without ICU beds, that share would likely go closer to 60-70%. Even if only 50% died, in a year-long epidemic you go from 500k deaths a year to 2M, so you’re adding 1.5M deaths, just with collateral damage.

So, on one extreme we have countries like S.Korea, on the other extreme we have the overwhelmed countries. I think any forecast for USA has to take into consideration the issue of the forthcoming overwhelming of ICU units.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 26, 2020, 08:05:50 AM »
You have to ask also how many prospects for dying in Covid19 there are in the population. How many old and sick in lifestyle diseases are there? ...

There are more than 50 million people 65 and older in the US. That's a rather large pool.

That is not the pool!
The pool consists of people with one or several lifestyle diseases, especially old people with such diseases. Practicallt no on dies from Covid19 without having such diseases.

Please check data and attached figure from Italy, I posted it before, but it's apparently worth repeating:
Italian co-morbidities with Covid-19.
From a report in Italian, I think it's a government report.
It's a sample of 355 dead in Covid19, but with other health issues.
Total sample of infected was 2003.
Average age of dead: 79 y.o.

Esp. hypertension is common. 76% of those who died also suffered from hypertension.
Most of the dead had several conditions. 48% of them had 3 or more lifestyle diseases.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 24, 2020, 06:52:01 AM »
No way to know if you already had Covid:
"Covid-19 symptoms vary widely, and undertesting in many countries means that many people may have already had the coronavirus without having received a positive diagnosis. Is it possible to find out, and how should you behave if you think you may have been infected?
Is there any way to know whether someone has had Covid-19 in the past?

Dr William Hillmann: At this point, we don’t have a test to tell that. We are developing antibody tests to check for a prior infection, but those aren’t ready for clinical use yet. The only definitive way to know that you’ve had it is to get tested while you have it and to have that test be positive."

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 23, 2020, 07:45:27 AM »
My big worry right now is not the 1st but Africa and the Middle East (i know, i am a racist). They have no chance at all, their whole population will be infected (the only saving grace is their young population). And they almost unavoidably will reinfect the EU and the US eventually.

I beg to differ.
1. Large parts of Africa and the ME have hot or even tropical climates.
This virus doesn't survive long in heat.
Interestingly, countries with high malaria counts, have the inverse situation reg. corona. See attached figure.

2. Poor countries, i.e. all African, and most ME, have relatively young populations, on average. Population pyramids are highly skewed to the young, and with fewer of old age.

3. People in poor countries don't suffer from welfare diseases, that we know are conducive to getting the life threatening outcomes of the corona. Not too many people on blood pressure medication. Not too much of diabetes, etc.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 19, 2020, 11:37:17 AM »
without tests and contact tracing there is no choice. Your strategy leads to a shutdown of medical services and widespread death. This will lead to chaos. If you choose to keep working then 1 in 10 or your coworkers will eventually collapse and die in place, like it was happening in Iran. There will be no hospitals or medicine available.

We must also learn to live with whatever sequela this disease has, which will likely include permanent lung damage at the very least.

what you speak of, doing nothing, will lead to an uncontrolled shutdown instead of a controlled one.

I certainly didn't say "do nothing". I said: "I think the old and sick should be maximally protected and quarantined, but the rest of population should be let free to live their lifes."

There are several ways here. One is to quarantine whole towns/regions/countries, shut borders etc. etc. But this type of quarantine to some 96-97 percent affects people that don't need to be quarantined at all, as they will either get a rather ligth infection, or if more seriously infected, they will eventually recover.
The other is to quarantine only those who according to statistics have a high likelihood of dying if infected, i.e. the elderly with some underlying serious health conditions.
Of course you can quarantine those groups!
I find Your answer completely unsubstantial.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 19, 2020, 04:59:40 AM »
99% of all elderly who died from the virus in Italy (median age 80) had other serious illnesses – 50% had 3 serious conditions.
And 100% of all 50 who died aged below 40 had serious underlying conditions.
More evidence that deaths “from Coronavirus” is only to a limited extent actual incremental deaths – statistically.

"99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says"

Thoughts: Which means that we close down whole regions and countries, shutting borders, forcing numerous businesses into bankruptcy, and in essence now start a global recession just in order to save some sick, old people? Where is the cost benefit analysis of that?

Oh, we will all die, eventually. [/sarc]

Seriously, I think the current policies of quarantines and shut downs etc., are wrong.
I think the old and sick should be maximally protected and quarantined, but the rest of population should be let free to live their lifes.

Expect some serious discussions on this topic in the coming months, as the social costs of shut-downs will rise and rise and rise.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 19, 2020, 04:39:35 AM »
Just want to say a sincere thanks to Vox for your reporting.
And thanks to Sam for in depth analyses.
And to others who provide their professional medical knowledge.

ASIF is my one-stop source on the pandemia.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 17, 2020, 10:38:55 AM »
Rodius wrote:
I think the increase death toll as a percentage is a reflection of how many uncounted cases there are.
It isnt the death rate is worsening, it is likely the same, but the number of deaths compared to counted cases when not much counting is happening will increase the percentage.

Well, that makes sense in my head anyway

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that.

But I think these are raw numbers, not ratios

If I understand this correctly, epidemics in general follow a Gompertz curve.

There is an inflection point that is of importance, where increasing exp. growth is taken over by the second exp. function that defines the Gompertz, which has a decreasing exp. growth.
It seems that the US hasn't reached the inflection point yet. To little testing to tell. And the latest data show no inflection point reached:

Compare the time line with S korea, which is the case of a well managed situation. 60 days until maximum and inflection point:

Another helpful model is the SIR model

Consequences / Re: COVID-
« on: February 27, 2020, 12:09:54 PM »
Quote from: Sam link=topic=2996.msg251513#msg251513
Barring major other differences, and with comparable populations (age, gender, condition, cofactors, confounders) we would expect the disease to behave comparably. I.e. the progression should be comparable, the rates of involvement of heart, lungs, kidneys, liver etc... should be comparable. And the death and recovery rates should be reasonably comparable.

When there are differences as large as the difference for the subset of data you point to compared to the full Chinese data sets, it suggests that something or several somethings are NOT comparable.

It is possible to have different genetics - that is unlikely in China.
It might be different treatment - again that is unlikely
It could be viral strain differences - also unlikely
It might be statistics of small numbers - possible, though unlikely
It might be temporal differences in an exponential growth - that too is unlikely.
It might be that the hospitals in Hubei were saturated with sick people resulting in poor care and increased death rates. That is likely a small factor. Given what we have seen, it is undoubtedly only a small factor, and can not explain the differences.

It also could be a number of other factors.

I cannot confirm these, but my suspicion leans toward a couple of factors.

1) age. ...

2) gender. ...

3) incomplete data, or differences in data reporting. ...
4) willful omission of “adverse” data. ...

First of all, thanks a lot Sam for your interesting analyses.

"Populations comparable "  No, they aren't. Chinese men of age are all more or less heavy smokers (or previous heavy smokers). Plus to that they live in highly populated areas with known big issues with air pollution.
Conclusion: Lung function is likely not the same as for same cohort in other countries.
Ergo: Covid might not have as big effects in e.g. USA or Europe as in China.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: February 26, 2020, 10:43:15 PM »
Thanks for your input.
F.Tnioli made a pretty bold statement:
I foresee highly unusual melting season as a result. In particular, i expect great number of strong cyclones entering the Arctic and some, possibly, forming in it much earlier and stronger than ever before.

I don't see the link between a very gradual loss of albedo over land in the early months of the year when insolation is very weak, to the formation of a "great number of strong cyclones".

The Arctic sea ice has had a good year so far compared to the decadal average.
I hypothesize we will have an average melting season without much drama.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: February 26, 2020, 12:46:45 PM »

My bold. I said it a while ago about "no snow cover during late winter triggers massive albedo feedback", meaning by this significant insolation in February, March and April hitting dark Earth surface instead of white snow. Which brings in - as it stands right now - truly massive extra heat into the system ...

I live on 60N in Scandinavia and this has been the 'new normal'  winter for a decade at least. Our winters are getting much shorter as a result.

But there is no punch at all in the sun at these latitudes in Feb., and March. It's not gonna bring in "massive extra heat" as you write. In April insolation is strong, but by then snow is mostly gone anyway.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: January 15, 2020, 10:22:21 PM »

Very interesting. Cloud cover is not everything of course, and in the Arctic, low-lying fog is quite common and probably not counted as cloud. I wonder if anybody is qualified to claim anything about changes in fog prevalence in the Arctic?

Also it'd be interesting to see if humidity has changed (or rather, the total amount of water vapor - which I presume has increased).

Hi binntho,
here are some plots from the Reanalyzer, it's snow depth, TPW and precipitation. All year.
Snow depth is a bit down, TPW is a bit up.

If you want some specific month or range of months, you can select that.
I checked TPW for October - April also, and it's significantly up, see last attachment. So maybe gives some input to the issue of 'fogginess'.

You can also respecify what area you want to include. Their 'Arctic' goes all the way down to 60 N, but you can choose another latitude as you like.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: January 15, 2020, 10:18:13 PM »

Here is a plot showing the opposite of what is claimed about increasing cloudiness.

That looks to be a yearly tally. What about seasonally?

I used to live in a city in BC which is ranked as one of the sunniest in Canada. But it's simultaneously one of the cloudiest - in the winter.

Here is the cloud cover for October - April.
You can select any period you want at the Reanalyzer.

Same impression, cloudiness is down.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: January 14, 2020, 11:21:02 PM »

What are the best ways to see cloudiness in the arctic?

Here is a plot showing the opposite of what is claimed about increasing cloudiness.

This Caldwell paper is a very good find.

Based on my reading of earlier work from his team, I can see now why E3SM has the highest ECS and TCR since they have been on the cutting edge of tropical cloud constraints.   Looks like they also have better sea ice modeling.  It is a little surprising that the higher resolution didn't increase sensitivity.

Yes, the Caldwell paper gives good insights into these very advanced GCM modelling efforts.

As we have discussed ECS values here in this thread, it's interesting to note that: "Since we cannot afford to run the fully coupled HR /High Resolution/ model for the hundreds of years necessary to compute transient or equilibrium climate sensitivity,..." (quote from section 6),
and they resort to calculate the lambda coefficient instead. It allows one to compute the effective net feedback from the change in TOA radiative imbalance ΔFTOA caused by forcing global‐average surface temperature Tglob, ave to change as a constant lambda. Well, at least it's assumed to be a constant in the short run, whereas no one knows how it behaves in the long run. What they find is that "The direct effect of increasing resolution causes a slight strengthening of λ, indicating stronger resistance to temperature change and therefore weaker climate sensitivity". The more true HR model has a lower ECS than the LR one, (the latter one is used for CMIP6).

These models are incredibly complex, always run on supercomputers, and the High Resolution version is so computationally demanding that they cannot afford to run essential tests for tuning, and a run to extract ECS from the model is also "unaffordable".

The LR version of E3SM displays a rather suspicious behaviour when it comes to GSTs, as demonstrated in the attached figure. Looks like it's rigged to run cool until 1995 or so, and then it's set off on a very steep trajectory. Surely, this indicates high ECS and TCR values, but should we trust them when model behavior is so apparently wrong?

If you read the Caldwell paper you also understand that the LR version is substandard, as the HR version "is sufficient to capture the most energetic motions in the ocean, which are poorly represented in standard resolution coupled climate models."

This is perhaps the most essential aspect of GCMs: they are unable to model the most energy intense climate processes, i.e. the hydrological cycle and esp. deep convection in the tropics. From this point of view, the HR version reported in the Caldwell paper is a step forward, and it's a deep pity that model complexity makes it rather unusable due to computational costs.

See my Reply #1668 above.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming more livable
« on: January 09, 2020, 03:56:27 PM »
 As for the tropics: they will have serious problems.

I strongly doubt that statement about the tropics - do you have some scientific evidence for that?
I think that deep convection handles most imbalances in the tropics. The serious problems will be in the subtropics.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: January 05, 2020, 02:06:08 PM »
Is there so much ice in the Arctic this year that there is no need for the freezing season stuff anymore?
Please, get back on topic.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Fast Transition
« on: January 04, 2020, 07:55:31 AM »
From the same paper as in previous post, with the "surprising" results from CERES with a negative trend of Earth Energy Imbalance as well as a negative trend of Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative :

"The Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) shows a trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The decreasing trend in EEI is in agreement with a decreasing trend of −0.26 ± 0.06 W/m2dec in the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative (OHCTD) after 2000.
The OHCTD over the period 1960–2015 shows three different regimes, with low OHCTD prior to 1982, rising OHCTD from 1982 to 2000, and decreasing OHCTD since 2000. These OHCTD periods correspond to periods of slow/rapid/slow surface temperature rise [16,17], to periods of strong La Ninas/El Ninos/La Ninas [14,18], and to periods of increasing/decreasing/increasing aerosol loading [19,20]. "

Figure 15. Purple curve: running yearly mean EEI. Green line: linear fit to running yearly mean EEI. Blue curve: 10 year running mean OHCTD. Orange curve: piecewise linear fit to OHCTD.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Fast Transition
« on: January 04, 2020, 07:38:32 AM »
Greater role for Atlantic inflows on sea-ice loss in the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean
Arctic sea-ice loss is a leading indicator of climate change and can be attributed, in large part, to atmospheric forcing. Here, we show that recent ice reductions, weakening of the halocline, and shoaling of the intermediate-depth Atlantic Water layer in the eastern Eurasian Basin have increased winter ventilation in the ocean interior, making this region structurally similar to that of the western Eurasian Basin. The associated enhanced release of oceanic heat has reduced winter sea-ice formation at a rate now comparable to losses from atmospheric thermodynamic forcing, thus explaining the recent reduction in sea-ice cover in the eastern Eurasian Basin. This encroaching “atlantification” of the Eurasian Basin represents an essential step toward a new Arctic climate state, with a substantially greater role for Atlantic inflows.

"Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance" by Dewitte , Clerbaux and Cornelis.

Abstract: Decadal changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation (RSR) as measured by CERES from 2000 to 2018 are analysed. For both polar regions, changes of the clear-sky RSR correlate well with changes of the Sea Ice Extent. In the Arctic, sea ice is clearly melting, and as a result the earth is becoming darker under clear-sky conditions. However, the correlation between the global all-sky RSR and the polar clear-sky RSR changes is low. Moreover, the RSR and the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) changes are negatively correlated, so they partly cancel each other. The increase of the OLR is higher then the decrease of the RSR. Also the incoming solar radiation is decreasing. As a result, over the 2000–2018 period the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) appears to have a downward trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The EEI trend agrees with a trend of the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative of −0.26 ± 0.06 (1 σ) W/m2dec.

Over the 2000–2018 period the Arctic clear-sky RSR shows a decreasing trend of −0.13 W/m2dec.

Figure 8. Arctic clear-sky RSR compared to Arctic SIE. Purple curve, left scale: Clear-sky RSR contribution of zone from 60∘ N to 90∘ N. Green curve, right scale: Arctic SIE.

There are also ocean beds that need to warm with the changing bottom ocean temps. Earth is not just ocean + air. Melting ice takes a lot of energy, providing a cooling effect. There's water in the atmosphere, upper atmosphere heat exchange etc.
To me warming the Earth is much more complex than you picture it. Maybe I misunderstand you.

I agree with your conclusion about inertia. If the ocean stratifies, there will be less ocean inertia and the atmosphere will warm faster.

Nanning, all what you say is of course correct!
I just wanted to point out the more basic relationships in terms of heat storage. 'We' tend to focus a bit too much on what's going on in the atmosphere and 'forget' about the more important role that the Ocean plays in long-term climate change.

Nearly every major aspect of the European economy is to be re-evaluated in light of the imperatives of the climate and ecological emergency, according to sweeping new plans set out by the European Commission on Wednesday.

"As well as bidding to lead the world on climate action, with a proposed target of net-zero carbon by 2050 and halving emissions by 2030, the EU will delve far more deeply into the root problems that contribute to carbon emissions and pollution. For instance, in manufacturing: in previous decades, the EU was content to set targets for recycling rates; under the European Green Deal, regulators would set specific standards on the manufacturing of goods to create a circular economy and phase out unnecessary plastic and other waste before it is created."

Ursula van der Leyen:
"Our goal is to become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, slowing down global heating and mitigating its effects. This is a task for our generation and the next, but change must begin right now – and we know we can do it."

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: December 09, 2019, 05:35:10 AM »
Nice interview with Greta in Dagens Nyheter, the leading Swedish daily newspaper.
On her preparations for giving a speech at COP, there will be no more 'emotional stuff':

"Have you written the speech yet?

– No. But I know approximately what it is going to be like.

What is your line of reasoning?

– Apparently I am quite bad at giving speeches. Because what people bring up from the speech in New York is me sitting and saying: ”How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood” and that is not what I want to communicate. I want to communicate facts. And if you leave out what the rest of the speech is all about, if you only take out three sentences, then that makes me sound like an idiot.

What are you going to say?

– I don’t give speeches so that I in some magical way will talk world leaders into realizing that I am right and they are wrong. My long term goal is that the gap between what science is saying and what is actually being done is made so clear that it can no longer be ignored. So now I am not going to give them any emotional stuff. Now they will get real content. "

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 30, 2019, 08:26:03 AM »

Thanks Kiwi, really good graph.
I looked up the paper where it is to be found

There is also a nice presentation by the author:

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: November 28, 2019, 04:15:19 PM »
The first derivative is the slope and the slope is upwards so the first derivative is positive. The second derivative of this curve is negative but this is the third derivative of CO2 levels.

So I am happy for you to claim the third derivative appears to be negative.

Thanks Crandles, I stand corrected!
Sorry for the confusion! I started from the polynomial and looked at 1st and 2d derivative of that.
Which is the same as the 2d and 3d derivatives of the CO2 levels.

Towards the end it is getting very close to being horizontal at which point we would have constant rate of growth

As to the slight change indicated by the 3d derivate approaching zero (horizontal in the figure), would by itself be a reason to rejoice, as the climate effect - disregarding any feedback effects - of increasing CO2 is the log(CO2).

Quote from: AbruptSLR link=topic=2205.msg238141#msg238141
The second reference is:
Henley, B. J and King, A. D. (2017) Trajectories toward the 1.5C Paris target: Modulation by the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1002/2017GL073480

 A transition to the positive phase of the IPO would lead to a projected exceedance of the target centered around 2026.

According to later data from the Met/Hadley, the IPO has been positive for some time already. So we should reach +1.5 in the shorter timeframe then, in only 6 years. I doubt it, but we'll see.

IPO is positive up until mid 2017 according to this report:

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: November 19, 2019, 10:47:23 AM »
"How not to get stuck in the Arctic sea ice"
Akademik Fedorov, a Russian supply vessel to Polarstern is part of Mosaic. Now playing a difficult game in the high Arctic: trying to stay in the thickening winter sea ice without getting stuck.
Long read.

If you reject the fundamental influence of market forces you always risk repeating the mistake of the Club of Rome report "Limits to growth".

Have you actually read "Limits to Growth"? If so, where exactly did you find the mistake?
As far as I know they didn't reject the fundamental influence of market forces at all, but maybe I missed it.
Even market forces cannot provide unlimited material growth on a finite planet.
Current market forces are already exceeding several planetary ecological boundaries.
The longer this overshoot lasts, the higher the risk of eventual collapse.
Only by governing market forces can we hope to still avoid this collapse, or at least make its impact less destructive.
This is how I understand the Club of Rome's warning of 1972 (updated several times since), which still seems very accurate to me.

Yes Lennart, I was kind of mezmerised by the Limits to Growth (LTG) book, and actually worked with their programming language to develop some partial models for market processes. Even met briefly with Dennis and Donella and Jay Forrester at MIT in Boston in 1983.
The basic concept of LTG is that there are limited resources, and that mankind is depleting those resources in such a way that it triggers more or less uncontrollable dynamic developments regarding environment etc.
This concept is faulty. Resources will get higher relative prices the scarcer they become. But they won't be physically depleted. That was the first big modelling mistake they made.
The second big mistake was to disregard all technical development. This is also connected with the changing relative prices: when an essential resource gets a higher price due to scarcity, it will trigger developments to either replace that resource with substitutes or find ways to improve the extraction or production of the resource. If we take the oil industry as an example, OPEC tried to impose scarcity several times, oil prices went through the roof, but eventually oil was substituted for other sources of energy, and oil extraction saw new technologies being developed, such as fracking.
The third modelling mistake was to not include counteractions by TPTB.
That said, I agree with what you say about ecological boundaries. Capitalism needs regulation.

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« on: November 16, 2019, 11:49:21 PM »

... “I’ll look like a fool if I wear a mask,” said R.L. Khattar, ­a ­92-year-old resident of a nearby ­lower-income neighborhood, prompting laughter from the others. Delhi’s bad air had given him a recurring cough and feelings of breathlessness. But a mask makes Khattar feel “claustrophobic.”

Standing nearby, Prem Gupta, 52, concurred. No one in his family wears a mask, including his children. “Pollution won’t stop if you wear a mask, so what’s the point?” he asked.

... and there are some who want them but can't afford them.

Those simple masks don't help too much anyway, do they?
Yes, they take out some particles down to 2.5u (PM2.5)  or so, but none of the toxic gases. Most of smog is below 2.5u.
Maybe the help that simple masks offer is more of a psychological help.

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: November 16, 2019, 11:24:49 PM »
Those cultural techniques need to go I'm afraid. It is driven by immoral commerce in stead of rational high morality thinking. Do we want to steer our path into the future or not?  ???

I feel so much for our new humans  :'(, I recognize the deep lifelong damage our current culture does to them. Not just the cultural techniques. Parents in thrall of these techniques and addicted to technofixes will give their toddler a screen, which is a low morality action in my view.
Like other animals young humans need a form of 'natural unbringing' in order for their brainstructure, social systems, non verbal communication skills, emotional action/reaction/understanding, discipline, morality, physical skills, touch/smell capacity etc. to develop to a complete brain and human and without faults (I don't mean natural variation).
And all of this development has to take place in the real world. A world increasingly at a distance for our young ones because the grown-ups pull them in all kinds of abstract versions.

I observe that there is not much critical thinking going on. While there are many good articles on this (as seen in The Guardian).

Thanks, nanning.
I detest consumerism, and I try to fight the attitudes of a consumerist culture that seep into our kids' minds through all those screens.
"Do we want to steer our path into the future or not?"

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: November 16, 2019, 11:18:41 PM »
No. It's time for parents to wake up and take the smartphones away from their kids.
Kids don't need smartphones.

Sure, if you think the internet is going away any time soon or that your kid doesn't need to learn basic cultural techniques needed to function in society, this is indeed the way to go.

I want my kids to be with real people, not virtual representations of people.
When we are together, I want my kids to relate to me, and the rest of my family, and no-one or nothing else. I don't invite virtual representations of others into our family.
So, no smartphones until the teens.

Interestingly, schools in Sweden now have various degrees of bans on smartphones. Our eldest daughter is in a Waldorf school, where the ban is total. Smartphones are collected at the school gate in the morning and handed out after school.

[Are lower latitudes warming? No, see attached, we have a negative SST trend in Antarctic seas.

Antarctic seas are at higher latitudes, not lower. Lower latitudes are closer to the equator.

Yes, my bad... when down under, up is down :)

Science / Re: Carbon Cycle
« on: November 10, 2019, 02:05:02 PM »
This seems like quite a break-through in understanding.

Study finds fungi, not plant matter, responsible for most carbon sequestration in northern forests
In their study they found that 47 percent of soil carbon found on large island samples came about due to fungi, as did a whopping 70 percent of carbon in small island soil samples. Thus far, the team is only able to guess why there are such differences in the soils, but theorize it's likely due to differences in decomposition rates.

Another very interesting and novel paper just out, with a global mapping of the location and extent of this essential symbiosis with fungi.
Paper in Nature relating ecosystem processes to the functioning of distinct types of mycorrhizas on a global scale. Open access.
"Global mycorrhizal plant distribution linked to terrestrial carbon stocks"
Because our maps are based on field data, and not on a machine-learning model trained with environmental variables, they provide independent data for examining the relationships between mycorrhizal status and ecosystem functioning, without introducing a circular reasoning caused by the use of common environmental variables. ... Our maps enable quantifying relationships between mycorrhizal abundances in ecosystems as well as soil and vegetation carbon content in global-scale analyses of biogeochemical cycles. In particular, the results of our study suggest that restoration of native vegetation especially in abandoned agricultural and barren land may help alleviate anthropogenic soil carbon losses and ameliorate increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases."

In related research, it has been recently reported that CO2 levels expected by the end of the century should increase plant biomass by 12%, enabling plants and trees to store more CO2 – an amount equivalent to six years of current fossil fuel emissions. The study highlights important partnerships trees forge with mycorrhizal fungi to help them take up the extra nitrogen and phosphorus they need to balance their additional CO2 intake.

Figure byline: Percentage of aboveground plant biomass of mycorrhizal vegetation. a Arbuscular mycorrhizal plants, b ectomycorrhizal plants, c ericoid mycorrhizal plants, and d non-mycorrhizal plants. The map resolution is 10 arcmin.


Oddly, India in particular, need to stop using coal and fossil fuels not to reduce their CO2 emissions, they need to do it to vastly reduce their levels of air pollution.
This means they need to do it for local reasons that are unrelated to global CO2 levels, but rather pollution levels.
To me, this benefit is just one more reason to get rid of fossil fuels. Maybe there is motivation for change in this approach.

However, the main culprit for the extreme seasonal Indian air pollution has less to do with fossil fuel: according to government sources about half of pollution is because of subsistence farmers burning their fields.

It has been legally forbidden to burn the grass and crop leftovers, but substistence farming means that you cannot afford to pay for mechanical soil processing. So they will continue to burn their fields.

The politics / Re: Economic Inequality
« on: November 03, 2019, 11:47:48 AM »
Fascinating research reported in Scientific american.
The origins of inequality are hotly debated, but might have been hiding in plain sight—in a well-known quirk of arithmetic. This method uses agent-based models of wealth distribution , which begin with an individual transaction between two “agents” or actors, each trying to optimize his or her own financial outcome.
If you simulate a very simple transactional economy, a variant of the yard sale model, you will get a remarkable result: after a large number of transactions between, say, 1000 agents, one agent ends up as an “oligarch” holding practically all the wealth of the economy, and the other 999 end up with virtually nothing.
It does not matter how much wealth people started with. It does not matter that all the coin flips were absolutely fair. It does not matter that the poorer agent's expected outcome was positive in each transaction, whereas that of the richer agent was negative. Any single agent in this economy could have become the oligarch—in fact, all had equal odds if they began with equal wealth. In that sense, there was equality of opportunity. But only one of them did become the oligarch, and all the others saw their average wealth decrease toward zero as they conducted more and more transactions. To add insult to injury, the lower someone's wealth ranking, the faster the decrease.

This outcome is especially surprising because it holds even if all the agents started off with identical wealth and were treated symmetrically.

While one cannot directly compare the Eocene with modern climate conditions; nevertheless, the linked reference indicates that for modern conditions that ECS is 4.2C, and that ECS increases as the Earth warms, primarily due to cloud feedback mechanisms, so who knows what the effective ECS will be by 2100:

The Early Eocene, a period of elevated atmospheric CO2 (>1000 ppmv), is considered an analog for future climate. Previous modeling attempts have been unable to reproduce major features of Eocene climate indicated by proxy data without substantial modification to the model physics. Here, we present simulations using a state-of-the-art climate model forced by proxy-estimated CO2 levels that capture the extreme surface warmth and reduced latitudinal temperature gradient of the Early Eocene and the warming of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Our simulations exhibit increasing equilibrium climate sensitivity with warming and suggest an Eocene sensitivity of more than 6.6°C, much greater than the present-day value (4.2°C). This higher climate sensitivity is mainly attributable to the shortwave cloud feedback, which is linked primarily to cloud microphysical processes. Our findings highlight the role of small-scale cloud processes in determining large-scale climate changes and suggest a potential increase in climate sensitivity with future warming

ASLR, I have no problem with the results of this paper, that ECS might be very high during Eocene conditions.
Some very brief characteristics of the Early Eocene are equable climate; >1000 ppm CO2; sea surface temperatures in the tropics as high as 35 °C and, relative to present-day values, bottom water temperatures that are 10 °C higher.
Currently, mankind has managed to warm the oceans with a trend of approximately 0.04 °C per decade for the upper 700 meters. Or, less than half a degree per century. The warming is much less than that on deeper levels of the oceans. Thus, it will take a fairly long time to reach anything like the conditions during the Early Eocene. It's on the scale of several millenia.

I'm curious, given this background, what is the relevance of your mentioning of the year 2100 in your comment?
What is your percieved timescale for Earth to develop an Early Eocene equable climate, given the amount of warming of the oceans involved?


Thus, I reject calling any of these models "the best".
I prefer to think of the scientific method as a process that is continually improving climate change models, and as an example of the next generation (of new & improved) climate change models, I provide the following link to special issues of the JGR Atmospheres publication, update September 13, 2019, focused on the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM), which is one of the CMIP6 preliminarily indicating that the mean value of ECS is currently over 5C (as discussed earlier in this thread):
Title: "The Energy Exascale Earth System Model"

ASLR, thanks for providing those references to the open source project E3SMv1. I read some of the articles that disclose various details about the modelling work, and want to provide some further insights here.

Unsurprisingly, the model makers continue to have insurmountable difficulties to handle the hydrological cycle/convection issues, as evidenced in the previous generation of CMIP5 models.

It's not astonishing that this particular GCM displays a high ECS, over 5.
"E3SMv1's high climate sensitivity is solely due to its large positive cloud feedback, which causes its net feedback parameter (which quantifies how strongly the 4xCO2 forcing is radiatively damped) to be less negative than all but two CMIP5 models"

My impression is that the model makers delibaretely set this model on a trajectory that is sure to yield a high ECS, starting in around 1990, but that is rather inconsistent with GSTs from around 1960, see the attached figure.

Digging deeper, we go into the art of tweaking/tuning of the models:
"...two adjustments were made to the deep convection scheme in EAMv1. One is to reduce the number of negative buoyancy levels (capeten) that deep convection is allowed to penetrate from 5 to 1. The other is to lift the air parcel launch level (liftlevel) from the model bottom level to 2 levels above. Results showed that these two adjustments, and particularly the rise of parcel launch level, could have significant impact on high clouds and precipitation as well as their vertical structure. They typically act to suppresses deep convection over tropical oceans and enhance convection over lands.
Similar to what we saw over the TWP, these EAMv1 configurations have substantially underestimated clouds below 6 km and only show one peak in the upper troposphere. The lack of middle and low clouds over deep convection regions is an issue that needs to be addressed in the future development of EAM"

The model manipulators would like to be able to include 'more convection', but instead have to suppress convection. Convection is not allowed to be as deep in the model as it is in nature - model makers delibaretely chose to suppress convection.

 "The physical processes associated with deep convection, shallow convection along with cloud macrophysics and cloud microphysics are treated via separate parameterizations in EAMv1. In each parameterization scheme there are multiple, often dozens of, uncertain parameters that cannot be constrained by using direct measurements and so they can be tuned within a reasonable range to improve model fidelity."

What they say here is that they have a lack of data on convection, so they have to guess and tune the models with a range of free parameters.

ASLR, you prefer to think of this as a "scientific method"? Is the art of tweaking and tuning a GCM really science? The modelling magicians themselves describe their method in terms of educated guesses that necessitates physical intuition:

"...combining experience, physical understanding, and educated guesses has difficulty anticipating nonlinear relationships between parameters and model output as soon as the number of parameters exceeds a few (Hourdin et al., 2017). The procedure relies heavily on experienced climate scientists and their physical intuition, and the outcome is not always as expected.

I don't deny that GCM models can be useful to get a hunch about where climate is going, but at the end of the day they are nothing more than the educated guesses built on intuition that go into the tweaking and tuning efforts.

Pages: [1] 2