Getting depressed

Climate scientist: "Of course I get depressed"

Published 2021-08-09



For decades, climate scientists have warned of the consequences of

emissions. Now they're showing up in more and more weather disasters. Deliang Chen,

climate scientist at the University of Gothenburg, is one of the coordinating

of the new IPCC report - and while he's delighted with the

scientific progress, he mourns what is happening now.


- Of course I'm depressed," he says.


Peter Alestig



When Deliang Chen is asked what the most important conclusion of the IPCC report is, the answer is simple.


- It requires rapid, large-scale, systematic reductions in the world's

emissions - otherwise the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting global

warming to 1.5 degrees will not be achieved," he says.


Comment by Bengt Ovelius: If all emissions are stopped today, the temperature will still continue to rise by at least 0.035 C/year

for at least 80 years to come. Therefore, limiting emissions to either +1.5C or +2C is completely impossible with the tools that

NetZero policy offers.

Reference .


In fact, the IPCC concludes that even the upper limit of 2C in

Paris Agreement, risks being out of reach without comprehensive action.


And, points out Deliang Chen - as things stand, there are 50%

chance of reaching 1.5 degrees by the 2030s.


Comment by Bengt Ovelius

In my opinion, the IPCC calculates with the wrong climate sensitivity = 3.

If the forecast is made with a more correct climate sensitivity and one takes into account

that theenergy to the oceans has doubled in 14 years, so the earth reaches +1.5C in 5 years, in 2027.

Because the Earth's temperature cannot be controlled at all in such a short time as a decade,

the probability is about 100% that the Earth will reach +1.5C within 5 years (max 7 years)







Is it even possible to stop the warming there?


- That's a good question. We're looking at five scenarios, and it's only in

the most optimistic scenario that we meet that target.


If you have to make your own assessment, what do you think is likely?


- What matters is what happens in November, when the politicians meet

at the climate summit in Glasgow. All countries voluntarily produce their own

targets, but what we have seen so far suggests that we will not meet



Deliang Chen, a professor of physical meteorology at the University of Gothenburg

University of Gothenburg, has worked on three IPCC reports since 2003.

he is the lead co-author of chapter one, which summarises

since the last report, describes methodology and sets out

report in a wider context.






- As a scientist, it's a research achievement. At the same time, as a citizen,

it is of course depressing. We have reached the point where the effects are happening around

around us, all the time. The world has not responded in the way that

necessary to limit the effects - and still not enough

political will. So yes, I get depressed.


Comment by Bengt Ovelius.


Above all, a true picture of the climate crisis is missing from climate scientists.

It is increasingly clear that all of the following are a direct mathematical consequence of the IPCC

and its erroneous climate sensitivity=cs=3


The IPCC cannot make workable projections as long as it uses cs=3

For this reason, Exxon Mobil secretly knew more 42 years ago than the IPCC looks to know in its final report in 2021.


The IPCC believes that global temperatures will stop when emissions stop. This does not work when cs > 3

With cs=3 a whole world is fooled into thinking NetZero works. (ZeroEmissions 2045).

At cs>3 this policy is ineffective.


The IPCC is fooling the world into believing that there is barely any time lag between CO2 and temperature.

There is some truth in this as the theoretical lag is about 25 years at cs=3

If cs=6 (as James Hansen says ) then the theoretical lag is 85 years.

In that case, the Earth's temperature will continue to rise for 85 years (roughly estimated ) when emissions are stopped.

This is the most important point in the whole climate debate and climate scientists should spend all their time on

confirming or denying.


The IPCC is fooling the world into believing by cs=3 that there is a fairly large remaining emissions budget.

If cs > 3, this entire budget disappears in one fell swoop (see Rockström)








Do you scientists talk about this with each other?


- Of course we talk about the extreme weather events that happen.

But we don't talk about climate policy. It easily becomes quite emotional

and everybody has different views and it's important to keep your role

as a scientist within the IPCC, which is supposed to be policy neutral.