Discussion with the experts

To Professor Rodrigo Caballero,

Dear Rodrigo,

 

 

The post-discussion that Dagens Nyheter  should have had about your article

"Don't spread the image that it's too late to save the climate"

I put it on my website instead. I am grateful for the extensive and interesting debate that ensued.

 

The most important and constructive part of this whole extensive discussion is probably your post:

 

You wrote: ...........For example, if we suddenly stop all greenhouse gas emissions today, warming will stop and the temperature will stabilize near its current value. The main physics behind this behavior consists of two main parts:

 

One is that the surface oceans are already near thermal equilibrium at the current level of greenhouse gas forcing.

If this forcing is maintained (by stopping new emissions), the deep oceans will continue to warm,

but the surface will warm very little.

 

The second part is that if emissions stop, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will slowly decrease as carbon dioxide is absorbed in the ocean, counteracting the small warming of the surface. As a result, the surface temperature will remain roughly constant for centuries, eventually falling. All this is explained quite clearly in the document attached here.

 

So no, it's not too late for climate action. That's the simple answer.

If you want the full answer, you should read the attached document, the IPCC report and the literature cited therein.

Short-lived climate pollution.pdf

 

Rodrigo Caballero

 


Response and Comment to your two parts by Bengt Ovelius:

1. What contradicts your reasoning is that the oceans  are not close to thermal equilibrium. It is just the opposite. All based on the fact that there are 3000 Gtons too much in the atmosphere and oceans. Emissions that are 1% of 3000 Gton annually have no practical significance in the short term.

 

TheGuardian:

Energy imbalance doubled from 2005 to 2019. The increase is alarming.

Last year the oceans absorbed heat equivalent to seven Hiroshima atomic bombs detonating each second,

Extreme heat in the world's oceans passed the "point of no return" in 2014.

2. The oceans and atmosphere should be seen as a single unit, which today has about 3000 Gt too much CO2. The damage to the oceans is also enormous. We cannot increase the load on the oceans to correct the atmosphere. It is quite true that we need to suck out 200 Gton CO2/year and 2 Gton Methane/year. That will also repair the oceans. If you factor in the thermal response and base the calculation on a reasonably accurate climate sensitivity, this job has to start by 2025 to save the hugely important Paris Agreement. By then, 3000 Gt will have been sucked out in 15 years. However, warming is likely to increase CO2 emissions from permafrost, seabeds and burning rainforests. The estimate may be that 20 years are needed. Due to the high inertia of the systems, it may take another 50-100 years to bring the Earth down to 1700s temperatures. The math shows that this is our only way out. Our calculator can be the mathematical basis for the thermal response at any climate sensitivity. Climate experts are invited to evaluate this calculator or make their own calculation with associated mathematical derivation. This is the most important calculation in climate science and policy. The result determines everything....

The attachment you gave me, Short-lived climate pollution.pdf is veryinteresting. One-line summary:

Such control can ..make up for the current inaction on CO2....

This approach is correct and can provide the main, initial solution to the climate crisis. For example, look at the 2 Gtonnes of Methane/year that MUST be sucked out of the atmosphere.

Then the methane level goes down from 1.8 ppm to the 18th century natural level of 0.8 ppm. Methane is 120 times more aggressive than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and this measure is as effective as lowering CO2 from 420 ppm to 300 ppm. We get back to 1920 in greenhouse effect. If you weigh in the importance of keeping society going instead: such atmospheric methane can make fossil fuel climate neutral even at 8 parts per million. Therefore the price of this methane can be set at 10 EUR/kg. The annual production value of 2 Gton of methane is then 2 * 10^9 *1000*10 = 20 000 000 000 000 EUR.

Would you climate experts oppose the objective of separating gases from the atmosphere without loss ? There are several possible paths and all should be explored at a rapid pace. One route was discussed at a conference at Chalmers/Graphene on 27 April 2015 on my initiative. It was then about tailoring holes in a graphene mesh with 1 molecule thickness. Researchers were positive, but the project was not considered important because according to IPCC earth will only reach "harmless" +2C in about 100 years. Our children's children will have to deal with that later on.

The IPCC's miscalculations have probably stopped this project, which could have become EU's biggest and most important environmental project. How many other disruptive innovations has the IPCC stopped by giving the world a grossly inaccurate picture of the climate threat ? Can one say that the IPCC has become a major brake on the world's climate work, when it is pushing the explicit lie that global temperatures will stop when emissions are stopped ? It is you climate experts who are putting the brakes on or gassing. When will you dare to go against the IPCC and become representatives of the most likely truth: temperatures continue - NetZero is a reality-free cheating politics? The argumentation confirming or denying this statement must be on a strictly mathematical level and the world needs this discussion. Most important point in the whole climate drama.

My calculator gave a very accurate forecast for 2008-2022. Correcting slightly ahead for the unexpected increase in ocean temperature balance, the forecast looks like this. I can provide a full mathematical analysis of this.

Can you help me to continue this discussion by replying to this email to improve accuracy, and to help to promote the discussion on the DN debate?

It's urgent because time has probably run out, even if everyone who counts on the IPCC's erroneous climate sensitivity continues to be deeply ignorant.

MVH Bengt Ovelius https://ppm.today/

clip4917