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.



- 0.0000273584052143587*ppm

- 0.00202010538991192*ppm^2

+ 0.0000169294548881191*ppm^3

- 4.86896673949794*10^(-8)*ppm^4

+ 5.03011930405903*10^(-11)*ppm^5


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

- 0.00404021077982383*ppm

+ 0.0000507883646643573*ppm^2

- 1.94758669579918*10^(-7)*ppm^3

+ 2.51505965202951*10^(-10)*ppm^4


In the classical formula

t_classic(ppm,cs) =1.442695041*cs*ln(ppm/275)

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


cs_ppm(ppm) = clip19080






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

800 years.


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.


cs_ppm(ppm) = clip19080








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

brilliantly here



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