Bevis-001

On 2022-01-20 14:00 Rodrigo Caballero wrote:

 

Dear Bengt,

Climate science estimates that the ECS is in the neighborhood of 3 C.

You estimate it at 36 C. So your claim is that thousands of scientists who have devoted decades to this issue are collectively underestimating the ECS by an order of magnitude.

To take such an extreme claim seriously requires an extreme burden of proof: extensive theoretical and empirical evidence that provides solid and credible support for your claim.

 

Rodrigo,

 

 

Dear Rodrigo,

My educated suspicion is that science may have locked itself in a knot. In that case, entirely new approaches are required.

One sees this interesting parallel:

U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer: "Trump's lies are now the founding principle of the Republican Party.

Shame on the GOP" Republicans are building a political bomb.

clip4863

With the support of the three researchers, there is a need to speak plainly just as Chuck Schumer does ;

Corresponding conclusion:

Lies are now the fundamental principle of world climate policy.

Shame on all the experts and authorities who are building a climate bomb in battle

with the laws of nature and avoid any debate about it.

 

To take such an extreme claim seriously requires an extreme burden of proof: extensive theoretical and empirical evidence that provides solid and credible support for your claim.

 

The onus is on you climate scientists. It is part of the scientific methodology to

hypothesising and investigating the mathematical implications.

 

There are several possible hypotheses that could free us from the possible knot that everyone suffers from.

Here is an example that could lead us all the way. One that you could successfully analyse:

 

Our climate calculator interprets the ordinary differential equation for linear heat transfer.  

Its function can be deduced down to the smallest detail. https://ppm.today/calc/

 

It handles ALL climate sensitivities,

but the calculation has nothing to do with climate. It just shows how any object

in an oven rises in temperature. We can create an imaginary world with climate sensitivity 3 (green) and

then vary the time constant (25 years) until NASA's (black) real measurement matches best.

 

 

clip8712

 

Then we see that the curve shape is not correct which indicates that climate sensitivity=3 is grossly wrong.

The world we build with climate sensitivity=3 does not match NASA's real world. (This is just one indication of many)

 

If the climate sensitivity is increased to 6 then the curve shapes fit better and the time constant ends up at 85 years.

 

 

clip8713

 

 

Prof. James Hansen, formerly of NASA and one of the world's foremost

climate scientist, showed already more than ten years ago that

the climate sensitivity is 6 C.

 

Some of the heaviest climate models, well above 3

thus confirming James Hansen's view.

 

A. The Hadley model from the MetOffice in the UK

B. US NCAR model CESM2

C. European Cooperative Model EC-Earth3

 

These would form the basis of the 2021 IPCC report

but the IPCC has rather written down the climate sensitivity to below 3 in the last report.

This suggests perhaps a political will within the IPCC to ignore the science that

should be the basis for the reports.

 

The very worst claptrap in the 10 million year history of mankind

may turn out to be the Nobel Prize in 2021 that celebrates climate sensitivity 2.3

It is a tribute to the idea that fossil fuels can be used unrestrained long after 2100.

 

If climate sensitivity = 6

then the NetZero policy falls and must urgently be replaced by something else.

The remaining emissions budget disappears in one fell swoop (see Rockström)

 

The best adaptation is obtained at climate sensitivity=36 and time constant 655 years.

Even if this turns out to be true, climate sensitivity=6 is sufficient for a working climate politics.

Climate sensitivity=3 is wrong and leads to disaster.

 

It is urgent to get this discussion going and you climate experts

have a heavy responsibility. The above argumentation for climate sensitivity=6 is

unwaveringly heavy. It's a good and perfectly workable start.

The argument I show here should be far heavier than what the IPCC

accomplished in the last report.

 

Further indications:

Climate Sensitivity=36 gave a correct forecast 2008-2022 while Climate Sensitivity=3

which the IPCC used,  became a disaster (+2/450ppm/2100) that now looks to be 60-70 years off.

Suspicion: With this catastrophic forecast, the people and countries of the world have been lured into a perilous

climate policy - and time is running out.

 

We can use Chuck Schumer and his way of expressing himself:

Lies are now the fundamental principle of world climate policy.

Shame on all the experts and authorities who are building a climate bomb in battle

with the laws of nature and avoid any debate about it.

 

Show that you can stand this debate by raising the debate in DN.

After all, you published in DN to get exactly this kind of debate.

A debate that leads to powerful solutions.

 

Bengt Ovelius