climate sensitivity -en- 2022-0602
Climate sensitivity, based on NASA's latest info on doubling the energy flow to the oceans.
We seek an unknown equation describing the oven_temperature = efit (ppm)
We can deduce from Vostok ice cores that 275 ppm corresponds to +0C overtemperature
and that +2C occurred 4 times at 285 ppm CO2
Furthermore, we can add some typical points during the ice age.
NASA says that the power that warms the oceans has doubled between 379ppm and 409ppm
efit (190)= -8
efit (210)= -6.5
efit (250)= -3
efit (275)= 0
ephit (285)= 2
2*efit (379)= efit (409)
This system of equations finds its solution in a 5th degree polynomial if regression analysis is applied.
The classical calculation of global expected temperature as a function of
climate sensitivity cs and ppm CO2
Earth's expected temperature at increasing ppm CO2 has a logarithmic, damping curve (Classic cs=20)
while real, expected temperature exhibits an exponential character.
This is probably due to the fact that global warming produces other greenhouse gases.
Therefore, the ppm CO2 scale can only be seen as a reference scale, while other
greenhouse gases already play a major role.
The derivative of efit can be called defit(ppm)
defit(ppm) = -0.0000273584052143587
In the classical formula
one can also calculate an expression for the derivative dt_classic(ppm,cs)
This allows us to calculate the instantaneous climate sensitivity as a function of ppm
We see that the climate sensitivity was 15 during the deepest ice age
and it was 36 around 320 ppm CO2
Now it is approaching 150
If you take the integral under efit(ppm) and divide by the time constant
then the true temperature evolution of the Earth is obtained.
If we experiment with different time constants and compare with NASA's real
measurements, then we find a perfect fit.
In this way the time constant can be determined and it is of the order of
Now you can draw hundreds of conclusions - here are just 3:
1.If all emissions were stopped in 1895 at 285 ppm CO2, a dangerous
overtemperature could have occurred 800 years later.
2.When mysterious over-temperatures occur nowadays , for example Canada,
in the summer of 2021, when the entire city burns down -
the high wind chill may explain it.
3, NetZero (zero emissions in 2045) is an ineffective policy because
the earth needs below 285 ppm CO2 for temperatures to start dropping.
Zero emissions in 2045 will stabilise above 400 ppm, where temperature
and instantaneous climate sensitivity are in any case soaring out of control.
Climate experts must stand up as one and explain to politicians
that GDP-class sums must be invested NOW to remove greenhouse gases
on a massive scale. All with technology the world has yet to see.
NOT telling the truth is a crime against humanity.
If the above deduction is wrong - then point out the error
or present as soon as possible your own calculation of
instantaneous climate sensitivity.
This must be the most important calculation in the whole climate effort
Again, this curve shows the climate sensitivity to different ppm CO2.
The validity of the above curve can be easily checked by everyone
by simply counting squares in the Vostok plot below.
The climate sensitivity is the number of degrees C that the Earth's temperature
rises for a doubling of CO2. For example, it is easy to
see that the temperature rises 15C at 200 ppm CO2 in the deepest ice age
if the same slope continues to 400 ppm.
The black dots that we calculated in 2008 need to be corrected.
Latest NASA measurements show that they should rise even steeper.
Conclusion: climate sensitivity is between 15 and 150 .
The IPCC maintains 3. See how wrong the yellow dot is in the graph.
calculated quite correctly with the classical formula:
1.442695041*cs*ln(ppmCO2/275)= 3 cs=3 ppmCO2=450
What is wrong is the climate sensitivity cs. In this worldview, no ice age can occur and the Earth can only get +35C at 100% CO2,
Maximum ice age: 1.442695041*3*ln(180/275)= -1.8 C (Earth cannot get colder )
Maximum VENUS situation: 1.442695041*3*ln(1000000/275)=35C (Earth cannot get warmer at 100% CO2)
The correct VENUS-like value is > +400C according to. NASA.
Oil companies have for 40 years probably been happy with value 3 on climate sensitivity,
which by pure arithmetic allows oil extraction past 2100. But we can see directly from the VOSTOK data that 285 ppm
is the critical level and it occurred in 1895. After 1895 there was no further emissions budget.
The Nobel Prize in 2007 and 2021 is strongly suspected to have strengthened the view that climate sensitivity=3 is correct.
The question should be raised, whether this is a crime against humanity.
The Nobel committee should have sufficient depth of knowledge to lead the world in the right direction. That was Alfred Nobel's wish.
A correct value of climate sensitivity affects all calculations
and it affects ALL climate policy
Anything above 3 means a scientific earthquake, where the whole
climate policy needs to be recalculated.
Professor Johan Rockström addresses the coming scientific earthquake
Finally, it is worth recalling that this entire group of professors
behind the opinion piece in DN have thrown in the towel.
If not: join forces and take part in the debate.
Otherwise you show that you cannot defend the article in DN, nor the IPCC's latest
reports, which several of you have been involved in writing.
The survival of the country depends on the truth of these fateful issues.
DN Debate. "Don't spread the image that it's too late to save the climate"
Frida Bender, Associate Professor, Senior Lecturer in Climate Modelling, Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University
Rodrigo Caballero, Professor of Climate Modelling, Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University
Deliang Chen, Professor of Physical Meteorology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Gothenburg
John Hassler, Professor of Economics, Institute of International Economics, Stockholm University
Per Krusell, Professor of Economics, Institute of International Economics, Stockholm University
Thorsten Mauritsen, Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University
Jonas Nycander, Professor of Physical Oceanography, Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University
Michael Tjernström, Professor of Meteorology, Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University
Several calls have gone to DN to highlight this discussion but DN has refused everything since 2021 10 19.
The Swedish people have no right to know the counter-arguments to the DN article,
However, the counter-arguments can be found here