Deliang Chen English

Subject:

I'd love to hear your feedback on this

Date:

Sun, 26 Sep 2021 19:39:10 +0200

From:

Bengt Ovelius

To:

deliang@gvc.gu.se

 

To Professor Deliang Chen

 

Dear Deliang,

I read with interest the article in GP two days ago.

However, questions also arose during my perusal which I captured on my website.

 

Here https://ppm.today/index.html?deliang-chen.htm

 

I would be delighted to hear your feedback on this

 

Thank you and best regards

Bengt Ovelius

 


 

Subject:

Re: I would be happy to hear your feedback on this

Date:

Sun, 10 Oct 2021 15:16:13 +0200

From:

Bengt Ovelius

To:

deliang@gvc.gu.se

 

 

To Professor Deliang Chen

 

I would be pleased to hear your feedback, which I will publish here

 

https://ppm.today/index.html?deliang-chen.htm

 

Thank you and best regards

 

Bengt Ovelius

 

 

 

 

 


GP Two Days From Mao's China to Mölndal 2021 0925

Comments on the article in Göteborgsposten

 

Black text: Prof Deliang Chen

Red text Bengt Ovelius

 

We will reach +1.5 C within 20 years

 

With eye measurements from NASA real measurements we will reach +1.5 around 2030

 

clip4786

 

If we take into account NASA's latest measurements that show a doubling of the energy flow to the oceans in 14 years

we reach +1.5 C by 2027. The mathematical proof is in my latest book.

Therefore it is correct but misleading to say "within 20 years"

We should rather say "within 6-10 years"

 


 

The national climate plans developed by the world's governments are inadequate.

 

 

 

The world's governments therefore have inadequate plans that are also running on the wrong compass course.

The foundation that is the IPCC's report has two major flaws.

 

§ 1. That the climate sensitivity is 3 when the truth is around 36

§ 2. That global temperature stops when emissions stop when the truth is the opposite

 

The world's governments cannot design a workable climate policy until the IPCC gives the world a correct

picture of the climate threat. The IPCC has two main errors §1 and §2 described below.

 

 


Deliang Chen's three main climate insights:

1.Human impact has caused warming OK

2.Milder winters OK

3. Global warming is due to accumulated CO2 from human activities OK

 

Since 1850 we have emitted a large amount of CO2 causing +1.1 C

To limit to +1.5C or +2C requires very rapid emission reductions

even now so that Net Zero is achieved by 2050

 

This is wrong. Four times in the last half-million years the Earth has reached a dangerous +2C

at 285 ppm. So +2C can be linked to 285 ppm on good grounds.

... clip4746

 

Then we see that the Earth reached a critical CO2 level in 1895 at 285 ppm. Had all emissions

stopped in 1895, the Earth would have entered a crisis at +2C about 700 years later.

This shows that a NetZero policy would have worked if it had been started much earlier

than 1895, say 1850. 1895 also saw the end of all budget for emission allowances.

 

 


 

Unless large and rapid reductions in emissions are made immediately

the +1.5 C limit will be out of reach

 

This is wrong.

Even if all emissions stop now, temperatures will continue to rise

by 0.035 C/year. This is driven by historical emissions of 3000 Gt "too much".

The Vostok Scatterplot shows that we have programmed the atmosphere

for +25 C and the time to get there is roughly 25 / 0.035 = 700 years

 

clip4872

So this is the temperature the Earth is programmed for at different CO2 levels.

 

However, if you take into account NASA's recent measurements of doubling the energy flux

to the oceans in 14 years, the programmed temperature rises more steeply.

 

The time between the programmed temperature and the real one is about 700 years.

By the errors §1 and §2 that the IPCC built into its latest report

politicians will soon be at a loss.

 

clip4873

 

 


 

All of the above of issues can really be summed up in what a

Independent researcher and I submitted to the IPCC senior management in 2008.

 

The overall picture seems to be:

 

IPCC has for 40 years given us the wrong climate sensitivity=3

 

The mathematical consequence is the wrong main projection (+2C by 2100 450 ppm)

 

With a higher climate sensitivity (>4) follows:

All remaining emission budget no longer exists (see Rockström)

Temperature does not stop when emissions are stopped

The whole NetZero (Zero Emissions 2045) collapses like a house of cards

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


http://rcg.gvc.gu.se/

 


 

No response has been forthcoming from Prof Deliang Chen.

Recent events may give rise to the following comment. Looking forward to comments

greta_clip4930

QUOTE GRETA:(SVD 2021-10-16)

 

- The gap between what we do and what we should do is so incredibly large, so

honestywill be required .

 

Prof. Deliang Chen can now make his greatest contribution of all time to nature and the climate by

being honest and telling the truth:

 

1.Declare that Zero Emissions 2045 is a policy that doesn't work.

2.Declare that the earth's temperature will continue at the same rate when emissions are stopped...

 

Then Glasgow will change direction with a chance of true climate policy being created.

 

 

Looking forward to comments

MVH Bengt Ovelius