With the right measures, we can reduce our carbon emissions quite easily, says economist John Hassler.
The other day, a number of Swedish climate scientists, including Thorsten Mauritsen and Deliang Chen, two of the lead authors of the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published an article in DN Debatt entitled "Don't spread the image that it's too late to save the climate".
In it, they address the risks of discussing the climate threat on the basis of unproven hypotheses that we would face so-called threshold effects, or tipping points, where the Earth's climate suddenly changes and becomes difficult or impossible to stabilise. This is a widespread belief - according to the recently published Global CommonSurvey , as many as 73% of people in the world's largest economies, the so-called G20 countries, believe we are close to such a threshold. But this idea is unfounded, it does not match what the science says, and risks falsely spreading an image that it is too late to save the climate, say the scientists who wrote the opinion piece.
So what should we do instead? How should we deal with climate change, and tackle the problems that are actually occurring in the most effective way?
In the podcast, Jesper Sandström interviews one of the authors of the article, John Hassler, Professor of Economics at Stockholm University.
By putting a price on carbon, and motivating other countries to follow the EU's example, we can tackle climate change quite easily, he argues. It also matters what we do, when we do it, and we have to be careful not to pursue inefficient, ill-founded climate policies.
Quote "By putting a price on carbon, and motivating other countries to follow the EU's lead, we can deal with climate change quite easily," hesays.It also matters what we do, when we do it, and we must be careful not to pursue ineffective, ill-founded climate policies."
Even better to look at the theoretical consequence of the whole world reaching zero emissions today.
Then the temperature will rise by 0.035 C/year of the 3000 Gt CO2 "too much" that already exists
On top of that, NASA study shows that the energy going into the oceans doubles in 14 years.
This causes the temperature curve to bend (exponential). The mathematical analysis is in my last book.
In light of this, I see your statement as both inaccurate and dangerous. The statement gives
in a profound way the wrong foundation for the Glasgow meeting.
Your proposal is to pursue ineffective, ill-founded climate policy, exactly what you yourself warn against.
On 2021-10-22 11:11, John Hassler wrote:
I am not a scientist. If you want to challenge what is said in the IPCC's latest report on the scientific basis for climate change, you'll have to do it with the natural scientists.
Fri, 22 Oct 2021 12:08:20
Many thanks for your reply. My starting point is that every Medel Svensson has to understand the context. The natural scientists do not have a monopoly on this.
If you create a big headline in the press about "It's easy to fix the climate threat", you must have the same overview as can be expected from MedelSvensson. If this fix is also linked to economic transactions (CO2 fee) then it must be possible for you to coordinate with all your professor-colleagues who are natural scientists, so that the overall concept has a chance to work.
Can you make a denial in SVD together with your close scientists ? - It is very important.
In addition, it is important that the debate in DN continues about the article where you are 8 authors.
There too you have a great responsibility to ensure that the debate continues.
My comments are here. Also check out my two videos https://ppm.today
To the honourable 8 article authors and to DN and SVD debate,
The undersigned would be very grateful for a response to the opinion piece. You have called it Debate -article in DN and you are surely looking forward to the debate that you have actively started with this article.It is also important with debate before Glasgow. Also the readers of DN and SVD have the right to this discussion. Discussion is the cornerstone of democracy that leads to the truth.
Furthermore, we have the article in SVD"It is easy to save the climate" which John Hasser alone is behind. This article can be divided into several pieces and John Hassler calls for support from scientists, which is among the 8 authors of the article in DN. So the readers of the newspapers are also looking forward with gratitude to this analysis and the following discussion.
Saving the climate is not that difficult: it probably consists of these pieces of the puzzle
1.There is a budget on remaining CO2 emissions
2.With tariffs, emissions can be forced down so that this budget lasts longer and zero emissions are approached
3.When the world reaches zero emissions, warming stops
Comment Bengt Ovelius: All these points look wrong and the evidence for the claim is here:
1. This budget ended in 1895 when the earth reached 285 ppm CO2. Had all emissions stopped in 1895, the Earth would have reached conditions that would be catastrophic for humans some 700 years later. We know exactly what is happening by looking at the Eemian time period: 10 m higher ocean and superstorms that can move 1000 ton boulders,(Ref Prof. James Hansen)
We reach +2C again in 2033. The situation in 11 years may be worse than during Eemian as the programmed temperature for the Earth in 2033 is likely to be around +50C. NASA's latest alarm report indicates this, During Eemian the programmed temperature was +2C (=same as real temperature, as there were plenty of 700 year periods to stabilize ).
2. So there is no budget. Here it remains for a professor of Economics to explain how to sell something that does not exist.
3. It is crucial that every average person understands that warming does not stop at Zero Emissions. Since this is the unequivocal conclusion of our natural laws and of precise mathematics, it is up to professors of science to confirm this picture or prove the opposite. The last chapter of my book is the mathematical proof that temperature continues at zero emissions. The numerical analysis also shows how much it increases. The authors of the article, distinguished professors of science, are invited to respond to this mathematical analysis or to make their own, which will be presented long before Glasgow. The survival of the next generation depends on getting this analysis right. It is of the highest priority that both DN and SVD open this discussion in a big way.
The discussion is also here so that the many followers of my web can learn the important information from the 8 article authors. Democracy demands that this discussion gets publicity.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
To the SVD editorial page
The article and POD contain a gross error and SVD should provide space for a reply so that the error is corrected.
Comment here: https://ppm.today/index.html?john-hassler.htm
Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:16:14 +0200
Professor of Economics at IIES.
The undersigned is an engineer and innovator and I have decades of experience in computing complex thermodynamic processes and running computer simulations. I've also been using my mathematical tools ever since 2008 to keep an eye on the climate.
Understanding the climate in depth plays a crucial role in sketching the innovations needed to solve the climate crisis.
I read with interest your debate article in DN, and debate means exactly that: debate.
My opinion piece is here. https://ppm.today/index.html?bilden-av-att-det-aer-foer-sen.htm
It would be best if DN would spin on this thread.
Many thanks for future replies.
We are fighting from a disadvantage but we must help each other to change the direction of Glasgow so that climate policy really solves the climate crisis.
Editorial: It's not that hard to save the climate
PODD | 21 October. With the right measures, we can reduce our carbon emissions quite easily, says economist John Hassler.
This is a text from SvD Ledare.
John Hassler has designed this headline and SVD editorials sign it.
Since zero emissions are not enough to save the climate, both John Hassler and SVD ledare are throwing in the towel.
You can't defend the headline.
When will SVD publish a correction and allow an open debate on the issue?
Should I interpret you as saying that the scatter plot you use should be interpreted as the strength of a causal relationship from CO2 content to temperature? If you make this interpretation and it would be correct, it is reasonable to use it to estimate a correlation between also anthropogenic increases in carbon dioxide content and the temperature increase these will generate.
The problem, however, is that a correlation between two variables does not in itself tell you anything about the causal relationship. This is a problem that occupies much of the thinking of economists. This year's economics prize was precisely about how to determine causality from observational data, and it is rarely straightforward.
Let me take an illustration of the problem. Without additional information, a scatterplot like the one you show cannot determine causality. Without more information, your scatterplot could just as easily be interpreted as showing a causal relationship from temperature to CO2 levels. As an extreme example, suppose that this is the only causal link, i.e. that various factors such as the Earth's orbit around the Sun, the tilt of the Earth's axis, variations in solar activity, etc. change the Earth's average temperature and that this also has an effect on the atmospheric carbon dioxide content, for example by the fact that warmer seas cannot harbour as much carbon dioxide. If this latter effect is relatively weak, the relationship is such that a large increase in temperature leads to a small increase in carbon dioxide content. If the causal relationship were to be wrongly interpreted as being in the opposite direction, the interpretation would be that a small increase in carbon dioxide content leads to a large increase in mean temperature, i.e. a high climate sensitivity. Under the assumptions I have made, this is of course incorrect.
In economics, there are two ways to solve this problem (given that controlled experiments are not possible). One is to impose an assumed model structure describing the causal relationships and estimate the parameters of the model which then become conditional on the model being correct. The second is to look for "natural experiments" that can be used to identify the causal relationship. This involves finding variation in a variable that is driven by a factor that does not have a direct effect on or is driven by the variable on which you want to study the effect. Maybe this doesn't work as an example, I'm now out of my area of expertise, but I believe that large emissions of CO2 from volcanoes are not driven by temperature changes. Unless, moreover, volcanic eruptions affect temperature (in the short term, of course, they do via aerosol emissions, but perhaps not in the longer term, that's beyond my area of expertise to determine). Given this, volcanic eruptions are a natural experiment. The temperature increase that occurs after a carbon dioxide increase caused by a volcanic eruption can be used to estimate the causal effect of carbon dioxide emissions on temperature.
Many thanks for your thoughtful comments.
What you say here is extremely valuable
One is to impose an assumed model structure that describes the causal relationships and estimate the parameters of the model that then become conditional on the model being correct. The other is to look for "natural experiments" that can be used to identify the causal relationship. This involves finding variation in a variable that is driven by a factor that does not have a direct effect on or is driven by the variable on which you want to study the effect.
I have found two such natural experiments that are completely outside the "causal chain"
1. If said scatterplot followed the IPCC's preference of climate sensitivity=3 straight through, it would follow the straight line
that the IPCC expresses in its blue sign. We also see that the IPCC has calculated exactly right in the relationship between climate sensitivity, ppm and temperature
1.443*cs*ln(450/275) = +2.13 C cs=3
What ultimately proves cs=3 wrong is the fact that their forecast seems to be 60 years off.
I made a forecast in 2008 with cs=36 that got it exactly right until 2021, while the IPCC with cs=3 got it 60 years wrong. (Feel free to check these two sets of parameters yourself ! )
This gives indications that the VOSTOK scatterplot passed a test that is completely outside of "causality".
2. The second verification comes from James Hansen who, using completely different methods, has found that
the Eemian time period had +2C excess temperature 129,000 years ago.
From this time there is evidence that superstorms moved 1000 ton boulders
We can find this point in the Vostok measurement series and confirm that these scientists have done an incredibly good job.
The timing of Eemian is................................................................................................................................................HERE
The points from Eemian are also in the scatterplot I use to try to understand the future from history.
There are no contradictions here other than the IPCC has placed cs=3 completely outside of reality. No wonder the result
of the IPCC's yellow dot makes you miscount 60 years out of a 100 year period.
The crucial question for the climate experts: surely we can agree that the IPCC's cs=3 is grossly wrong.
What then is the correct value ? All of climate science needs this information
I don't see that you tried to answer my argument about causality.
As for the question of why temperature increase stops when emissions increase, this is intuitively and simply described on page 66 onwards in our 2020 SNS report
The mechanism is that the decreasing cooling effect of energy uptake in the oceans (which alone would cause atmospheric warming to continue for a long time after emissions stop) is unlikely to be balanced by carbon dioxide forcing decreasing at roughly the same rate as carbon dioxide leaves the atmosphere.
I have tried to answer your question about causality here. https://ppm.today/index.html?john-hassler.htm
According to Immanuel Kant, causality is an expression of how the human mind is constructed, a so-called category of understanding, which exists before any actual observation, a priori. The theory can be understood, among other things, as a way of answering the question why everything has a cause.
Why is the temperature rising? We think there is too much CO2 and are working to reduce emissions.
Then comes the next cause and effect. Climate scientists say that it is the accumulated emissions that
are causing the temperature to rise.
The IPCC says in its latest report that emissions are causing the rise in temperature and implicitly that accumulated
emissions do not matter. Physics teachers say the temperature is continuing.
Many thanks for your pdf. It is well written and interesting and I will study it carefully in the coming days. Will be back!
I wish you a nice weekend
You write "As for the question of why temperature increase stops as emissions increase, this is intuitively and simply described on page 66 onwards in our 2020 SNS report "
The description from page 66 leads to this graph page 69
The 2020 SNS report page 69.
Here we clearly see the fundamental flaw that threatens our entire civilization.
With a low value of climate sensitivity=S=3 there is almost no time constant
between a transient CO2 increase and the corresponding temperature. Here we move
completely in the false worldview that the IPCC has forced upon us with S=3. Within this worldview
the conclusions and graph are reasonably correct. All this is false and wrong because the IPCC gives the wrong value for S.
This year's Nobel Prize celebrates an even lower and more incorrect value of S=2.3 This is a global disaster and the Nobel Committee
should take responsibility for supporting information that leads to the collapse of society.
The reality is that S=36 (approx). This picture explains:
The programmed over-temperature now in 2021 is +21.4 C (driven by CO2 alone)
Now there are 2422 Gton too much CO2 (air and ocean) and it does NOT give 1.5 C but +21.4C (see detailed table )
Elsewhere in www.ppm.today it is shown that the time constant is about 700 years. If all emissions
are stopped today, the earth will reach +21.4C after 700 years. It is after that line everything evolves.
For the same reason, the whole description on page 66 of the 2020 report and graph
completely wrong at S=36
We find that the IPCC only looks at nearby unstabilised data (100 years)
and completely ignore the bigger picture.
This is wrong and it is extremely dangerous because the whole Glasgow conference has been given the wrong compass course
because of this gross error.
I have only had time to ask one physics teacher in high school and he spontaneously said:
"This is completely elementary and beyond discussion:
Temperatures continue to rise almost as fast when emissions cease
because what is already there in the form of CO2 is the driving force."
This is the flaw in the models that threatens our entire civilization. It should be the duty of all
climate experts to raise this discussion at the very highest level so that we can quickly reach consensus
throughout society. Otherwise, we will not survive the climate crisis.
Climate sensitivity=S=3 downplays the power of the process, which in reality is 6/3=12 times more brutal.
We must dare to see the truth. This must happen NOW !
Already the first step in your analysis, that there is 2400 gt too much co2 in the atmosphere is completely wrong.
On 2021-11-25 19:14, Bengt Ovelius wrote:
You wrote: Already the first step in your analysis, that there is 2400 gt too much co2 in the atmosphere is completely wrong.
Answer: I wrote Now there is 2422 Gton too much CO2 and it does NOT give 1.5 C but +21.4C (see detailed table )
In the table you see "Oceans included" which also agrees with the Economic Council 2020 report page 69.
Carbon dioxide in the ocean and biosphere does not affect the Earth's energy balance.
You wrote : Carbon dioxide in the ocean and biosphere does notaffect the earth's energy balance.
Klimatfakta writes: Recycle CO2 - Save the Biosphere
Earth's thin membrane of life, the biosphere, is in danger of losing its ability to maintain a stable planet, scientists warn. We need a completely rethink
writes Research and Progress.
Everyone probably agrees that Carbon dioxide in the ocean and biosphere affects the Earth's energy balance.
After all, the warming of the biosphere due to CO2 is the problem.