Climate Sensitivity and IPCC

PS Hypothesis about the IPCC's incredible mistakes:


Looking forward to comments from climate scientists and the IPCC on whether this could 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 IPCC

seemed to want to play down the time constant, from hundreds of years to almost zero.

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

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

be used numerically beyond 2100.


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

(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. (see graph below)


If this is how the IPCC determined climate sensitivity

then they were deceiving themselves in a completely unbelievable way !


With this thought-experiment one can guess the mathematics behind the mistake:


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

would not keep up at all. It would be a straight, red line and one could easily think wrong and believe that the 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.




This is where the IPCC has probably made its incredible thought-error:

the slope of the stick tells us how fast CO2 is emitted  but says nothing

about the true climate sensitivity.


Therefore, for 40 years, the IPCC has calculated the number 3 and believed

that this is the climate sensitivity.

In reality, 3 is just a measure of how fast civilization has evolved, with the associated

emissions. The calculated climate sensitivity is not even the Earth's climate sensitivity.


The mathematical consequence is incorrect projections, incorrect CO2 budget,

wrong time constant and a non-functioning NetZero policy. All of which we see today.


The psychological explanation lies in the science of Groupthink and how it can

destroy science.


One can think a bit philosophically, with heavy consequences:

Scientists who will come in 100,000 years and look back at the ice cores

will again see a harmonious cloud of measuring 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, then after 100,000 years a stick will continue to stick out and then

IPCC was right about the climate sensitivity being 3. Then it remains to be explained

why nature suddenly changed climate sensitivity from 36 to 3.





Scientists in 100,000 years will see the true climate sensitivity which for millions of years has been 36.

These scientists will write a report on the IPCC's theoretical shortcoming that caused

end of civilization.


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 provide a valuable discussion.



SMHI has been notified to the Npof, the Commission for the Review of Research Misconduct.

MPs have been asked to pursue the issue in the Constitutional Committee: We the Swedish people

and our elected politicians have been misled on an issue that has existential

importance for our children.


The history books tell us about Dr Semmelweis in the 1800s.

In the same way, the history books will describe how the press, researchers

and policy makers dealt with the IPCC paroxysm.

The choice is between lie and truth and whether a free discussion

is allowed to develop the truth to perfection.



This graph may support the idea. We can see how the IPCC tricked us into believing

in curve A, climate sensitivity=cs=3. A whole spectrum of facts proves how wrong

450 ppm CO2 doesn't even go with +2C and the error will be record high

60-70 years within a 100 year period. This error has shaped the bill and climate law.

This error prevents us from seeing clearly - Zero Emissions 2045 is reality-free politics.


The true picture may well be cs=36, with +2C occurring in 1895 at

285 ppm CO2, with a 600 year time constant. If all emissions were stopped in 1895 then

dangerous +2C would occur 600 years later.