Call for Action

Highest ALARM level !

Leadership and innovation are required at a level the world has never seen before.

 

 

Tre_Alternativ2

 

"Business as Usual" is the worst thing the world can do

Zero emissions in 2025 is the best the world can do  

 

The world's temperature will stay between the red and green curve

all the way until 2040.

Within this short time it will be decided whether we win or lose.

 

SSP1-1.9 from the latest IPCC report is the only curve the world can survive

but it requires CO2 to be sucked out of the atmosphere immediately.

IPCC+SMHI have forgotten to tell this to the people and politicians.

These professors in the UK confirm this fact.

 

Three prominent climate scientists write:

Instead of working through our doubts, we scientists decided to

construct increasingly detailed fantasy worlds in which we would be safe.

The price to pay for our cowardice: keeping our mouths shut......

 

It is precisely these fantasy worlds that we see in the curves of the

IPCC+SMHI, which also have

chosen to keep their mouths shut on this sensitive issue.

 

SMHI in Sweden (the representative for IPCC)

has been notified to the Npof, the National Commission for the Examination of Misconduct in Research.

Members of parliament have been asked to pursue the matter in the constitutional committee:

We, the Swedish people and our elected politicians have been misled on an issue that has existential

importance for the country. Could be the most dangerous lie in the country's history.

The issue must be discussed and answered quickly as time is running out.

 

 

Global temperatures will NOT stop

when all emissions are stopped.

Therefore, Zero Emissions 2050 cannot do the intended good.

 

As already mentioned, watch this video in 2015 from British professors:

Survivable IPCC projections based on science fiction - reality is far worse

 

From these professors we can learn:

The IPCC curve that we can survive, (SSP1-1.9)

and that keeps the Earth UNDER +2C requires Geo Engineering.

Many governments have signed binding agreements to follow this.

Thus, many countries have signed a binding agreement to develop technology

to suck GigaTons of CO2 out of the atmosphere.

The IPCC has forgotten to tell this to the people and to the politicians.

 

In 2008 I made my own calculator to understand exactly

what the IPCC seems to want to hide from us. Green curve shows the earth's

temperature evolution if all global emissions are stopped in 2025.

In the critical area up to 2040 (in the yellow field)

there is almost no difference in temperature development, whatever

we do. In the narrow, yellow field, it is decided whether we will meet the Paris

Agreement and whether civilisation will survive, or not.

 

ssp5-85_ssp1-19-nasa3

 

 

My calculator also shows that if 200 Gt of CO2 are removed per year

starting in 2025, that is the only path to survive the climate crisis.

This looks a lot better and corresponds to IPCC curve SSP1-1.9.

IPCC is correct about that geo-engineering is needed by they

have to tell the people and politicians

 

200Gton_clip19073

 

The IPCC actually shows below the result of 200 Gton sucked out per year

but it deliberately hides this information.

Therefore the curve at the red arrow is a pure lie that causes

the end of civilization if we do not wake up quickly and

correct the WHOLE climate policy. NetZero 2050 does not work

at all during the extremely critical time when everything is decided (before 2040) !

Summary_for_Policymakers_AR6_WG1_SPM-

 

 

 

 

Short introduction -- click on the play button ! Sorry So far only swedish.

 

 

 

It is important to take the IPCC's warnings very seriously. In addition, the IPCC can be a

a unique, unifying force for the world, under the UN.

 

At the same time, the IPCC is unfortunately suspected to bear the main responsibility for the world's climate failure.

The fault lies right here at the arrow and this requires extensive discussion and urgent action:

Summary_for_Policymakers_AR6_WG1_SPM-

Summary for Policymakers, IPCC WGI Sixth Assessment Report, Page 22

 

 

SMHI, representing the IPCC in Sweden, explains:

SSP1-1.9 corresponds to a sustainable society that complies with the commitments of the Paris Agreement.

The Swedish people and politicians have been told that Zero Emissions 2045, which is the only

policy we have, will save the Paris Agreement and the temperature rise will stop

as soon as global emissions cease.

 

I am an engineer in electronics and thermodynamics and have worked on various innovations.

In 2008 I developed a climate calculator in collaboration with an independent scientist

and presented the results to the senior management of the IPCC.

 

This relatively simple differential equation is the engine behind the calculator

clip4733

and the calculator clearly shows that the Earth's temperature by no means stops when emissions are stopped.

In the graph below, all global emissions stop in 2025 and the temperature rise continues thereafter

at a furious rate, contrary to the information provided by the IPCC and SMHI.

IPCC+SMHI are lying to the Swedish people and to our elected politicians, which means our doom

if the truth in the graph below is not highlighted.

 

The IPCC has had 14 years to answer and explain. The silence shows that the issue is sensitive.

 

The curves in the IPCC WGI Sixth Assessment Report, Page 22 should look like this. Then we can build a true climate policy on a true climate understanding, in my humble mind.

 

ssp5-85_SSP1-19-NASA

Moreover, the calculator gave a perfect forecast for 2008-2022, while the IPCC delivered a

catastrophic forecast, +2C by 2100 at 450 ppm , which has now shaped the swedish

parliament bill and climate law.

The calculator also shows that 200 Gt of CO2 per year must be removed, starting by 2025 at the latest, for the Earth to pay respect to the Paris Agreement and then follow a trajectory that humanity can survive. There is no other path.

 

As already mentioned, please watch this youtube video:"Survivable IPCC projections"

A series of professors at the Tyndall Centre, UK, confirm that the IPCC forgot to tell the people

that unimaginable amounts of CO2 must be sucked out.

They also confirm that there is no CO2 budget at all and that the red curve we

we are following right now will lead to oxygen depletion. No humans or animals can survive

the red curve's progress.

 

survivable_IPCC_tyndall3

 

Using the same maths but with the very latest data from NASA on the ocean heat balance,

the near future looks like this. We will reach +2C around 2033 if we don't act with full force NOW.

Climate experts are welcome to see our full calculation or respond with their own.

SMHI+IPCC  should give the people the kind of tools and rules of thumb that we already provided since 2008  with our calculator.

The people need clear information from the IPCC and SMHI on how many Gtonnes of CO2

that must be removed per year to meet the Paris Agreement and to ensure the survival of civilisation.

 

front_12_15_20_temp_year

 

Prof. James Hansen describes super-storms during the Eemian period 129,000 years ago.

that could move 1,000-tonne boulders. Back then, the overtemperature was +2C.

We'll have the same overtemperature in 11 years. No one knows what will happen, but

it's not out of the question that superstorms in 2033 will topple buildings and rip the asphalt out of roads.

Everyone was surprised by the floods in Germany, summer 2021.

These violent surprises might appear more frequently, with completely unexpected results.

It's not just the over-temperature that matters. During the Eemian, there was equilibrium

between radiation and the Earth's +2C.

Now there's a radiation pressure that wants the Earth to rise

far above +2C. That might prove extremely critical, just 10 years from now.

 

Current climate policy Zero Emissions 2050 cannot deliver measurable changes

because the above curve is driven by the 3000 Gtons CO2 that already exist.

Emissions of 40 Gton/year are only 1% of the driving force. This subset

also needs about 600 years to develop full temperature impact.

Current climate understanding seems fundamentally flawed by the lie of the IPCC.

It is urgent to discuss these suspicions.

 

 


 

 

Why don't our climate professors react?

The fascinating  history explains why:

Ignaz_Semmelweis

 

In 1846, Dr Ignaz Semmelweis had just started his job at a maternity hospital in Vienna.

At the time, maternity wards were flooded with cases of childbed fever, a mysterious

disease that was killing an alarming number of new mothers.

Wards run by doctors had twice as many deaths as wards run by midwives.

Many women believed it was the doctors who brought death to them,

calling it"the doctor's plague".

 

Soon, women preferred to give birth with midwives, not doctors.

 

Although Dr. Semmelweis brought the death rate down from 30% to almost zero, he was fired and forced to move  from Vienna to St. Roch's Hospital in Budapest.

Now deaths in Budapest disappeared but went up again in Vienna.

 

Semmelweis was mocked in the press, for example in the Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift

 

In 1861, Semmelweis published his main work

Die Ätiologie, der Begriff und die Prophylaxis..

He sent it to all prominent obstetricians and medical societies throughout Europe,

without result.  The weight of the authorities stood against his teachings.

 

Dr Semmelweis was bullied, shunned, ignored and rejected

by the medical elite of the 19th century.

Doctors saw a threat to their respect and social alliances

because of these new ideas.

 

Dr. Semmelweis addressed several open letters to professors of medicine

in various countries in Europe, but to no avail. At a conference of German physicians

and scientists, speakers rejected the ideas.

Rudolf-Virchow

Dr. Professor Rudolf Virchow was perhaps the most famous medical scientist of the time

with many groundbreaking discoveries. He was called "the Pope of Medicine".

Despite his enormous expertise, he vehemently opposed the new idea of washing the hands.

 

Doctors who operated or delivered with dirty hands labelled Dr Semmelweis a murderer,

The prestigious medical society in Vienna was not gracious in its response to the criticism.

They saw it as an attack on established hygienic practice. How can doctors be murderers?  

 

Dr Semmelweis became increasingly despondent over all the young mothers-to-be

who were dying needlessly creating emptiness and chaos in their young families.

 

This led to his breakdown in 1865 and he was placed in a

mental institution. Only 14 days later he was found dead, after, among other things.

having been severely beaten by the institution's guards.

 

His courage and struggle lead to conclusions that are still valid today:

 

pregnant_clip19073

 

Ordinary people in the form of young mothers-to-be understood the context,

while doctors and professors from an entire continent

were stuck in total ignorance.

This gross ignorance turned the elite into murderers, according to Semmelweis.

 

The important, scientific explanation lies in Groupthink. President JF Kennedy devoted himself

and was able to improve the quality of political decision making.

This would really be needed today to deal with the climate crisis.

 

Climate experts and politicians alike should read:

Irving Janis: Victims of GroupThink and

David Allen: "Groupthink in Science". The University of Tennessee research shows

that both science and politics are seriously damaged by Groupthink. We can finally understand the dangerous

scientific damage we see in the IPCC, which in turn produces a non-functioning climate policy.

 

clip4900b


 

 

This tragic gridlock is being repeated with full force now !

The first step in Civilization's survival depends on the country's climate professors

dare to tell the truth:

 

1.Temperatures will continue when emissions are stopped !

2.Zero Emissions 2045 will not have the promised effect

3.200 Gton CO2 must be sucked out per year, starting no later than 2025. This is where 99% of the climate work lies

4.Disruptive innovations the likes of which the world has never seen are our only hope. There is no other way.

5.It now requires leadership from the highest level with a sharpness no one has seen before.

 

When the truth prevails:

Then a new era begins. The age of truth in climate work. It will be completely different.

Then fascinating opportunities will open up that will change life for the better for everyone.

Then the climate anxiety of young people will disappear and be replaced by workable action plans.

 

Dr Semmelweis would call anyone who claims that the temperature is stagnating a murderer.

This actively prevents necessary, disruptive innovations from emerging.

The impetus for these killers comes, paradoxically, from the IPCC and the SMHI

if there institutions does not tell the truth..

 

Dr Ignaz Semmelweis fought a powerful paralysis of groupthink

among the doctors and professors of the time, who did not want to wash their hands.

 

Man is no different today:

 

Now we have again a mighty paralysis, originating in the lies of the IPCC and SMHI.

Today's professors, press, media and politicians are taking part in this blind parade

that is well on its way to causing the end of civilization.

 

Anyone who raises the truth that temperatures are continuing is bullied, shunned,

ignored and rejected by today's elites who see a threat to their respect and social alliances.

Everything is repeated. Semmelwei's truth, however, prevailed after furious resistance

and became one of the most important medical discoveries.

 

The truth will prevail now too and become the foundation of future climate work,

despite furious opposition from an elite in a blind parade.

It is just on the verge of being too late.

 

The question to everyone in the parade (not least the press) :

How do you want to be described in the history books?

 

after_trace_c

 

 

The people in the parade earn more per hour than I have earned in the last 20 years

on climate change because everything is opposed that is not already approved by

the powerful parade.

Donations are welcome so that more videos can be produced quickly.

An upcoming video is about what leadership must look like

and another video is about a totally different kind of climate action that aims for the whole:

Solving the whole climate and energy crisis. The methane in the atmosphere that needs to be removed

to survive, is enough to give every home free heat and electricity.

This detailed idea sketch, based on scientific facts, shows how 100 million villas

could solve the entire climate crisis and the entire energy crisis.  

 

hus_methane_car_102065119_m_00007_soekt-

 

 

Hundreds of similar proposals can be made at a rapid pace.

 

The prospects are fantastic if we can do as President JF Kennedy did: deepen democracy

radically by disbanding the group-think.

 

Thinking independently unleashes enormous power and lifts democracy to the next level.

 

Further confirmation comes from the very important article

"Concept of net zero is a dangerous trap" written by three prominent climate scientists.

In consultation with the authors, I have translated it into English, which can be found here:

Some important lines from this article

 

Instead of working through our doubts, we scientists decided to

construct increasingly detailed fantasy worlds in which we would be safe.

The price to pay for our cowardice: keeping our mouths shut......

 

(We see these fantasy worlds in some IPCC+SMHI curves)

 

Altogether, we three authors of this article must have spent more

than 80 years thinking about climate change. Why has it taken us so

to see the obvious dangers of the net-zero concept?

(Zero Emissions 2045) In our defence, the premise of net-zero is

deceptively simple - and we admit it fooled us.

 

Sometimes the truth is blinding. Blurred contours become sharp and suddenly

everything makes sense.A dawn process with a sense of confusion

until everything falls into place with a click

 

We have come to the painful realisation that the idea of net-zero

defends a ruthless "burn now, pay later" attitude.

that has led to a continued increase in carbon emissions. It has

also accelerated the destruction of the natural world by increasing

deforestation today and increasing the risk of further destruction in

destruction in the future.

 

 

Around 1997, the first computer models

They seemed like a miracle: you can test policies on a computer screen

saving humanity costly experiments. They became important

guidelines for climate policy and remain so today

Unfortunately, they also removed the need for deep critical thinking.

By including carbon sinks in climate economic models, a

Pandora's box had been opened. This is where we find the genesis of today's

net-zero.

 

 

The Paris Agreement was a stunning victory...........

But dig a little deeper and you may find doubts.

We've since been told by some scientists that the Paris Agreement

"of course it was important for climate justice but unworkable" and "a

complete shock, no one thought it was possible to limit to

1,5 ° C".

 

 

Instead of working through our doubts, we scientists decided to

construct increasingly detailed fantasy worlds in which we would be safe.

The price to pay for our cowardice: keeping our mouths shut......

 

Temperatures would be allowed to go above 1.5°C in the short term, but then

lowered with a series of carbon dioxide removals by the end of the century.

 

Once we understand that net-zero won't happen in time or at all,

geoengineering - the deliberate and large-scale intervention in

Earth's climate system - is likely to be invoked as the solution to

limit temperature rise.

 

Academics usually see themselves as servants of society.

Most academics clearly feel uncomfortable crossing the

invisible line that separates their day-to-day jobs from broader social and

political problems. There is a real fear that being seen

as advocates for or against certain issues may threaten their perceived

independence.

 

Researchers are one of the most trusted professions. Trust is very difficult to

build and easy to destroy.

 

But there is another invisible line, the one that separates maintaining

academic integrity and self-censorship. As researchers, we learn to be

sceptical, to subject hypotheses to rigorous testing and interrogation. But when

perhaps the greatest challenge facing humanity,

we often show a dangerous lack of critical analysis.

 

In private life, scientists express considerable scepticism about the Paris Agreement,

Apart from a few notable exceptions, we go silent about our

work, apply for funding, publish articles and teach.

Instead of acknowledging the seriousness of our situation, we continue to

instead participate in the fantasy of net-zero. What will we do when

reality bites?

 

What will we say to our friends and loved ones?

loved ones about our failure to speak out now?

 

Net-zero cannot be limited to +1.5C and this was never the intention

Net-zero is driven by the need to continue Business As Usual.

 

 

 

MVH Bengt Ovelius

 

 

 

PS Hypothesis about the IPCC's incredible mistake:

 

Looking forward to comments from climate scientists and the IPCC on whether this can be true.

 

There is a mathematical relationship between

1.Climate sensitivity

2.Time constant between CO2 and temp.

3.How Zero Emissions evolves over time

 

I heard a scientist who in 2000 noticed how

seemed to want to play down the time constant, from a few hundred years to almost zero.

If this is true, there may have been a thought behind it. They wanted

claim a low climate sensitivity=3 so that fossil fuels could

be used numerically until 2100.

A low climate sensitivity requires a low time constant for the mathematics to

(about 20 years). This can be approximated by zero and argued that

Zero Emissions 2045 will work.

 

Here is the interesting hypothesis about what happened within the IPCC:

 

By reasoning down the time constant, they fooled themselves.

Then it was enough to look at the last 100 years. Feel free to plot NASA global

temperature over 100 years as a function of ppm CO2

It will be a straight line that has climate sensitivity exactly =3.

If this is how the IPCC determined climate sensitivity

then they were fooling themselves in a completely unbelievable way !

 

With this thought-experiment we might see the whole picture:

 

If 100 years of CO2 emissions had been made in a single day, the Earth's temperature

would not rise at all. It would be a straight, red line and one could easily think wrongly and believe that climate sensitivity is zero. (see graph below)

 

Current emissions over the last 100 years (NASA cs=3) from the planet's point of view have gone like this

that the temperature has not kept up fully. Therefore the slope is quite small.

It corresponds exactly to climate sensitivity = 3 (see graph below).

 

The temperature we are experiencing now is only a fraction of the temperature the Earth is

programmed to achieve.

 

From the angle of the NASA measurements we can roughly estimate with our thumb that the Earth

needs about 600 years to become a stabilized temperature that disappears into the cloud.

(The grey area)

 

If the same emissions took place over 5,000 years, the line would follow the grey field upwards

and this slope corresponds to climate sensitivity = 36.

 

cs000

 

This is where the IPCC may have made its incredible thought-error:

the slope of the stick tells us how fast CO2 has increased

but says nothing about the true climate sensitivity.

 

Therefore, for 40 years the IPCC has calculated the wrong climate sensitivity = 3.

Thw consequences are wrong projections, wrong CO2 budget, wrong time constant

and a non-functioning NetZero policy, all of which we see today.

 

One can think a bit philosophically, with heavy consequences:

Scientists coming in 100,000 years and looking at the ice cores

will again see a harmonious cloud of measurement points. The stick that is now

sticking out of the last 100 years of emissions will fold up over the next 600 years and become invisible. If it does, the true value of the climate sensitivity is 36

If it doesn't, a stick will continue to be visible  after 100,000 years.

 

They will see the true climate sensitivity which for millions of years has been 36.

Has the IPCC completely missed this perhaps true climate sensitivity

because they stared blind at 100 years, saw the NASA dots and missed the big picture?

 

It will probably be a long time before everyone will believe in climate sensitivity=36 because

the idea is new. All new ideas are discouraged.

 

However, it is enough that climate sensitivity is in the range 4-36

for the whole climate policy to change. There needs to be a comprehensive discussion on this.

 

When the IPCC talks about climate sensitivity = 3, it is only a measure of how fast

CO2 has evolved in the last 100 years. Had civilization taken twice as long

time, the IPCC might have made the same mistake, but

climate sensitivity would now be 6 instead and all the calculations would be better.

 

All this is just a thought and a hypothesis but it can hopefully provide a valuable discussion.

 

 

 

 


 

It is not the IPCC, SMHI or the climate experts who should govern the countries.

That is the government's task. There must be leadership and oversight

with a level of quality that the countries have never experienced before. Otherwise, we will

fail with the climate crisis. The government must have a broader and more resilient

approach and be able to weigh more things at the same time. Without being experts in

anything at all. This is optimal leadership.

 

Of particular interest is an article from SVD (Svenska Dagbladet)

 

"Be wrong in 2022 and live longer and more fun"

 

Short summary:

..a serious societal problem is to be totally sure about something...

 

Philip Tetlock, professor of social psychology at Penn University,

made several points about "being totally sure" in his book that came out

a few years ago.

 

Experts, as academics who have studied something long and well, are often

very good at their respective subjects. Above all, they know all the history and

what developments have looked like so far. They are therefore often asked what

what will happen next. But predicting the future, even in their

their own field, they are absolutely miserable at it. They are almost always completely wrong, as

it turns out.

 

Changing their minds, perhaps even admitting they were wrong, however, is

the death of an expert. It comes across as weak and insecure. Unreliable.

 

Anyone who pokes holes in you about the same thing, on the other hand, is perceived as

trustworthy.

 

As an added bonus, Tetlock noted a kind of narcissistic

effect in that experts who are given a lot of space become even more sure

about being right, and thus can never deviate from their original thesis.

 

Those who were much better at understanding both the present and predicting

future were people who had a much broader and more elastic view

and could weigh more things at once. Without being experts in

anything at all.