Wed, 17 Nov 2021 19:16:41 +0100




Many thanks for "An Assessment of Earth' sClimate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence.pdf"






The amount of cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum provides strong evidence against values of S greater than 4.5 K.


285 ppm -> 275 ppm (Blue Aiming Line)

+2C -> 0 (Green line of sight)

Rough estimate: climate sensitivity is about 36, i.e. the above two points

fit exactly into the equation t(ppm)=1.443*36*ln(ppm/275)




The big difference raises the question: Where is the misunderstanding ?


Plain Language Summary

Earth's global "climate sensitivity" is a fundamental quantitative
measure of the susceptibility of Earth's climate to human influence. A landmark report in 1979
concluded that it probably lies between 1.5°C and 4.5°C per doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide,
assuming thai other influences on climate remain unchanged. In the 40 years since, it has appeared difficult
to reduce this uncertainty range.


The large uncertainty is probably due to the fact that this whole scientific paper is about evaluating untabulated values.

This image shows all Vostok measurement points and global temperature as a function of CO2 content.

The stick that sticks out is NASA's actual measurements over 100 years. It is thought-provoking that such a stick sticks out

and in this picture probably lies the whole explanation of why this paper arrives at climate sensitivity=S=3

when the real value is around S=36. This whole paper is about examining the stick without seeing the whole picture.

The following statement puts everything on its head:


If civilization with all emissions had evolved in half the time, the IPCC would have reported climate sensitivity=S=1.5.

If civilization with all emissions evolved in twice the time, the IPCC would have reported climate sensitivity=S=6

The climate sensitivity that this paper arrives at is not a measure of the intrinsic properties of nature,

it's just a measure of how fast our civilization has implemented emissions.





In this report we thoroughly assess all lines of evidence including some
We find that a large volume of consistent evidence now points to a more confident view
of a climate sensitivity near the middle or upper part of this range. In particular, it now appears
extremely unlikely that the climate sensitivity could be low enough to avoid substantial climate change (well
in excess of 2°C warming) under a high-emission future scenario. We remain unable to rule out that the
sensitivity could be above 4.5°C per doubling of carbon dioxide levels, although this is not likely.



Page 5


This single sentence may indicate that the whole report is written in a spirit where 150 years is a long time and the expected

climate sensitivity is S=3


The median equilibrium warming per doubling at 4xCO2 is 17% higher than the

median S, suggesting a robust amplifying impact of processes too slow to emerge in the first 150 years.


Undergoing 2 doublings at S=3 gives about +7C

The 17% increase in reality is probably due to longer time and more contagion from true S=36

The report writers seem unaware of the long time constant of 700 years needed to achieve

stabilised values.







Could it be that the IPCC is working entirely with unstabilised values, i.e. well below 700 years ?

Then the results could be anything. If 50 years of emissions were released in a single day, then

climate sensitivity would be zero.

The faster the emissions, the lower the climate sensitivity seems to be,

That's why you only see cs=3 of 50 years of emissions. If you observe these emissions

over the next 700 years, cs=36



Page 5

Warming to the end of the century, depending on S.


The incorrect climate sensitivity induces another serious error.

Representative Concentration Pathways, RCP, are entirely dependent on the emissions in this graph.


But it is the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere that gives 0.035 C/year right now and this value

is almost unaffected by the amount of exhaust because the emissions are only 1% of what is already

and the time to full temperature impact is 700 years.

Thus RCP2.6 and RCP 8.5 should follow roughly the same path.

The graph would be extended to S=36 where all tracks end up at +21 C after 700 years





Page 17

3.1.4. Further Considerations


Both approaches are consistent with the effective climate sensitivity S definition used (section 2.1). Thus,
when considered, GCM feedback estimates are generally calculated from the linear regression of associated
anomalies on global mean SAT during the first 150 years of the abrupt 4xC02 experiment simulations. One
problem with this approach is that GCM feedback estimates calculated in this manner when combined with
a CO> forcing that uses surface albedo and tropospheric adjustments from fixcd-SST GCM experiments (sec-
tion 3.2.1) would overestimate our target definition of Sby-15%. (This is because the C02 forcing estimated
from fixed-SST experiments is -15% larger than that estimated via ordinary linear regression from abrupt
4xC02 experiments.) However, because this error only affects feedback estimates from GCMs and not the
feedback estimates from theory, LES, or observations of interannual variability, the overall impact on the
feedback values estimated with the primary approach would be much less (<5%) and is accordingly

Mathematically, Gaussian likelihoods are assigned for each individual feedback component A*. This means
that we assume that the likelihood is a Gaussian function of the variable being assessed, requiring that we spe-
cify two parameters-the mean and standard deviation. Note that if a Gaussian likelihood function is applied
to a variable with a broad (e.g., uniform) prior PDF in that variable, the implied posterior PDF will also be
Gaussian with the same mean and standard deviation. Broad priors are appropriate for feedback components
for which we do not have an a priori expectation of their value, and which can be positive or negative (our
Baseline prior case). Hence, the likelihood functions for A, determined below can be considered equivalent
to PDFs for this case.


Just a simple question: since everything below 700 years is unstable values below S=36

these values can be anything. Without going through all the details

the suggestion is to work through this entire scientific paper under the hypothesis

that S=36 and the time lag is 700 years.


The overriding reason is that S in range 3 will be wrong in a practical test.

The equation t(ppm)=1.443*S*ln(ppm/275) S=3 will be wrong except at 275 ppm

Therefore, there is some error hidden in this theory.






You can make a model as complicated as you like and prove that climate sensitivity=S=3


But when S=3 doesn't fit reality, there must be something wrong with the complicated model.




The IPCC says that 450 ppm is associated with 1.443*3*ln(450/275)= +2C in 2100

But that doesn't fit with reality which places +2C in 2040.

This is 60 years wrong - so the complicated model falls.

This also shows that the IPCC is not successful in forecasting because the right climate sensitivity is missing.


If you instead model S=36 t=1.443*36*ln(ppm/275) then you get the "oven temperature"

When it is integrated with respect to time and divided by the time constant 700 years, it becomes a correct forecast.




Page 32


Also discussed here in a 100 year perspective


The climate sensitivity S is determined by the radiative forcing per C02 doubling AF2xCo2* and the sensitivity
of TOA net radiation to global mean temperature ("total climate feedback"), A. In this section, wc assessed
the various lines of evidence-observations, theory, GCMs, and process-resolving models-directly con-
straining these two quantities. The focus is on physical processes that control the TOA energy balance via
the global albedo and the greenhouse effect. AF2xC02 is relatively well known, and its direct component
can be calculated from the equations of radiative transfer using linc-by-linc models. Most uncertainty there-
fore comes from the climate feedback parameter A, which is in turn the sum of contributions A,- from a set of
distinct feedbacks.


Vostok monitoring points are stabilized because each monitoring point had more than 700 years to stabilize.

Page 36 looks at radiative forcing in a much smaller time window than 700 years.

Climate sensitivity S requires knowing the change in global temperature and this needs

about 700 years to stabilise in the case of a transient change in radiative forcing.

Page 38

Exactly here we see the fallacy:

It is unstabilized values that are considered.

Since 18'th century = 1700 - 2021

With S=3 and time constant 30 years, 1K

With S=36 and time constant 700 years it is about +18C


What can we learn about climate sensitivity from the historical record of changes in global mean temperature
and the energy budget? The world has warmed by approximately 1 K since the eighteenth century (Allen
et al., 2018). This warming is primarily attributable to the net effect of anthropogenic GHGs and aerosols,
but other external influences on the climate system and internal variability have also played a role (see assess-
ment in Bindoff et al., 2013). A number of studies have estimated climate sensitivity based on observed
changes in temperature and ocean heat uptake over a given period, along with the radiative forcing estimated
from emissions inventories, observations, and climate models. Best estimates of climate sensitivity from such
approaches range from 1-3 K and feature wide uncertainty ranges, particularly toward high values. More
recent studies appear to have lowered the upper limits on sensitivity owing primarily to better constrained
and stronger estimates of radiative forcing (see Knutti et al., 2017, and Forster, 2016, for reviews of recent pro-
gress), although recent wider ranges of aerosol forcing have put this narrowing into question (see below).


This animation shows the error in thinking clearly. The unstabilized values discussed in this scientific paper

are in motion in time, hence the large uncertainty. The stick that sticks out is NASA measurements a hundred years back.

If 100 years of emissions came in a single day, the climate sensitivity would be zero; if 100 years of emissions came

in 5000 years, the climate sensitivity is 36.

Climate sensitivity=3 is not a fundamental property of the earth, it is just a measure of how fast

emissions occurred. Such a climate sensitivity figure has no scientific value.

It is the stabilised value that we need to establish and that then becomes the correct basis for most calculations and projections.


Therefore, I was able to get a correct forecast for 2008-2021 with S=36

while the IPCC failed completely with S=3 (+2C 2100 450 ppm)











Our climate calculator, can process all values of climate sensitivity.It is a good tool to

to discuss climate sensitivity.




Calculation method: the theory posits a CO2 evolution as a political will following an andragrad polynomial

which gives the following ordinary differential equation.



This equation has the following symbolic solution.



This equation is the engine of our climate calculator, which can process all values of climate sensitivity.

Here the relationships become quite clear.


Following this formula, a forecast was made in 2008 that worked perfectly until 2021.


The trend for the near future is calculated in the same way, but corrected slightly for the latest NASA measurements.

It should be noted that the Paris Agreement falls around 2027 and +2C falls around 2034.


The IPCC's inability to produce this projection is due to the wrong climate sensitivity being used.


This is dangerous, to have a wrong picture of what to expect and with a total unwillingness for transparency and discussion !


The derivation is in my last book.








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



It can also lead to a setback for climate action when it shows

that the Earth does not end when the 1.5°C target is exceeded, which

it will most likely do so within a decade or so.



If the authors used their eye measurements and looked at NASA's actual measurements (black)

then +1.5 ends up at the year 2030. If this NASA data is used to fine-tune

then +1.5C would be in 2027.

How responsible is it to call 6 years "a decade" ?


How responsible is it to ignore the huge increase in flash floods and fires

that we saw in the summer of 2021, at +1.1 C

What does it look like at +1.5 ?


My only goal is to get a true climate picture so that the innovators can solve the climate puzzle.

Hope everyone wants to help.


Earth is trapping 'unprecedented' amount of heat, Nasa says

Scientists from agency and Noaa say Earth's 'energy imbalance' roughly doubled from 2005 to 2019 in 'alarming' way





The study found that this doubling is the result, in part, by an increase in greenhouse gases and water vapor, as well as decreases in clouds and ice.

"It's likely a mix of anthropogenic forcing and internal variability," Loeb said. "And over this period they're both causing warming, which leads to a fairly large change in Earth's energy imbalance. The magnitude of the increase is unprecedented."





"An Assessment of Earth' sClimate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence.pdf"


The stick that sticks out is NASA's actual measurements over 100 years. It is thought-provoking that such a stick sticks out

and in this picture lies the whole explanation for the fallacy that led to the wrong climate sensitivity=S=3 in this paper

when the real value is around S=36. This whole paper is about examining the stick without seeing the whole picture.

The following statements bring everything to a head:


If civilization with all its emissions had developed in half the time, the IPCC would have reported climate sensitivity=S=1.5

If civilization with all emissions evolved exactly as it did, the IPCC would report climate sensitivity=S=3

If civilization with all emissions evolved in twice the time, the IPCC would report climate sensitivity=S=6

If civilization with all emissions evolved in 5000 years, IPCC would report climate sensitivity=S=36

If civilization with all emissions evolved in 10,000 years, the IPCC would have reported climate sensitivity=S=36

When the earth after about 700 years reaches the stabilized value S=36, it does not change anymore.

Thus, S=36 gives the true, intrinsic property of the earth. This is the only value that has scientific value.


The climate sensitivity that this paper arrives at is not a measure of the intrinsic properties of nature,

it is only a measure of how fast our civilization has implemented emissions.

Such a measure of climate sensitivity has no scientific relevance. All calculations and projections

must be based on the stabilised value of climate sensitivity, and this value is of the order of 36.

The report could be extremely good if it is reworked from scratch according to these suggestions.




Since climate sensitivity not only leads to incorrect projections but also to incorrect conclusions about NetZero

it is urgent to get this discussion on the table and change climate policy quickly.


If climate sensitivity turns out to be S=36, then the following applies:


1. The miscalculation S=3 is, with its consequences, the greatest crime ever committed against humanity.

2. It is expected that climate experts will stand up, driven by truth, not prestige.

3. The press needs to get a grip on this discussion

4. Hearing of the experts in the Constitutional Committee, because people and politicians have been duped

5. NetZero2050 cannot work

6. All efforts must be put on a single target: suck out 200 Gt CO2 and 2 Gt methane per year, starting no later than 2025.



A big, warm thank you to the following climate experts

who actively participated in the discussion and contributed strongly

the development of the topic:


John Hassler

Rodrigo Caballero

Thorsten Mauritsen

Michael Tjernström

Lennart Bengtsson



I imagine I can represent quite a few

of the Swedish people in the questions I ask:

Issues that are crucial to the future of our own children.


A big question mark to these climate scientists

who have chosen never to answer questions from the Swedish people

who actually pay your salaries


Deliang Chen

Jonas Nycander

Per Krusell




To  Deliang Chen,


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

Thank you and best regards

Bengt Ovelius