Climate experts and politicians are expected to take responsibility and show leadership
in the face of the most difficult challenge in the history.
Swedish climate policy Zero Emissions 2045 cannot work. We must act NOW.
It is the same with NetZero 2050.
Responsibility and leadership is about telling what is to come instead.
Part of the picture is that the IPCC and SMHI are lying about the most important point:
They claim that the Earth's temperature will stop when emissions reach zero.
Proof further down that this is wrong. (If not lying, it may be ignorance.)
When Zero Emissions 2045 soon proves ineffective, politicians and experts will probably have no idea what to do next.
An elite has developed that owns the climate. From there, instructions will come to businesses and to the people.
This elite has totally failed to provide a proper view of the climate threat. Proved in the book.
This elite does not have a single creative solution, so far.
Only a cheat solution called NetZero2050. It can only work on paper
by the IPCC and SMHI making up their own natural laws. Proof further down.
This elite fights all ideas from the outside exactly following the Groupthink model that JF Kennedy set up to improve the quality of decisions.
Psychological research can give the world a new start and a true path to
solve the climate crises.
This very interesting theme is dealt with in the psychology chapter of the book.
Psychology is currently the main obstacle to surviving the climate threat. This psychological research also explains the enigma we see
in the IPCC and the SMHI.
Sweden needs to search with lights and lanterns for solutions.
Instead of fighting everything new, the country needs to suck up all ideas like a sponge.
The flow of ideas must go from the bottom up because the expertise is within
industry and people. This is also where 95% of all patents come from.
Academia globally supplies 5% of all patents, but gets 99.3%
of government support for innovation. If the support goes instead to the parties that deliver the chances of solving the climate crisis through innovation increase radically.
Representatives from academia sit on all the "climate chairs" but have
perhaps only 5% of the climate understanding and 5% of the solutions. This could be our undoing.
We need to use the total capacity of the country for the most difficult challenge ever.
We need a top-functioning IPCC.
Sweden should push for a total reorganisation of the IPCC so that
IPCC is transformed from a colossus on feet of clay to a high-performing organisation.
Any scientist, in any field, after a week's work can give a true view of the climate threat.
I showed this in 2008. Free for anyone else to test the same.
The IPCC has tens of thousands of scientists and professors.
40 years of work have failed to come up with the elementary: a correct figure on climate sensitivity.
From there, all calculations are wrong. All this is proven in the book.
These are not empty statements. Through mathematical proof, the book invites a serious and structured discussion, based on natural laws and precise mathematics.
This is how it all fits together:
There are 400 tonnes too muchCO2 in the atmosphere per person in the world. It looks like this if you freeze the carbon dioxide to -78C
The annual emissions per person in the world are 4 tonnes of CO2
The best possible outcome in the world is to halve each decade
according to the IPCC RCP2.6 prescription, which Johan Rockström also talks a lot about.
2020-2030 2 tonnes *10
2030-2040 1 tonne * 10
2040-2050 0.5 tonnes * 10
Total 35 tonnes of emissions per person, saving 120 -35 = 85 tonnes
The 85 tonne saving corresponds to 21% of what already exists, seen over 2020-2050.
Situation in 2050:
Without measures, there are 400 + 4 * 10 * 3 = 520 tonnes of CO2 per person and the earth rises 0.035 * 520/400 = 0.045 C/year
With savings there are 400+35 = 435 tonnes of CO2 per person and the earth rises 0.035 * 435/400 = 0.0381 C/year
assuming the rate of rise is proportional to the number of tonnes "too much".
The time between a change in CO2 content and the corresponding full temperature response is about 700 years.
We see that the rate of increase of the Earth's temperature must be higher than 0.035 C/year
This shows that the IPCC's curves are wrong and the whole curve
needs to be skewed upwards.
Thus the Zero Emissions and NetZero policies fall completely.
Each level of CO2 implies a likely level of global temperature.
The IPCC claims in this graph that it is the flow of emissions that determines global temperature.
There is no scientific basis for this. Yet the entire world's climate policy is based
on something that has no scientific basis whatsoever. SMHI agrees with the IPCC and presents
an equally inaccurate diagram via the Rossby Centre.
They write: 'SMHI also shows that warming is occurring faster than previous projections have shown.
The only problem is that Exxon Mobil knew this secretly 40 years ago (See TheGuardian)
The real reason is that SMHI, on the advice of the IPCC, calculated the wrong climate sensitivity=3 for 40 years and
must now in panic adjust to reality.
Had SMHI calculated the correct climate sensitivity=36, the previous calculations would have been correct already
40 years ago, just like Exxon Mobil.
The IPCC takes the right to change the laws of nature and Sweden bases its climate law and all climate policy on this.
This arrogance in violation of natural laws will result in bottomless misery.
It is a matter of responsibility and leadership to protect the country and steer it onto a path that works. Action must come now.
The elites who think they own the climate and are blocking any new ideas
must ask itself whether it should save face and prestige
or whether to save the next generation.
Starting with the right climate sensitivity=36 means that climate change in reality is 36/3 = 12 times faster than we thought.
The IPCC and SMHI are still living in the wrong and slow climate sensitivity=3
It would take 300 years for the world to recognize that Galileo was right.
The IPCC and SMHI should come to clarity in a fraction of the time until Glasgow, say 2 weeks.
Climate sensitivity=3 is an expression of wishful thinking that there is still a CO2 budget and that temperature changes will be negligible by 2100.
At the right climate sensitivity = 36, the CO2 budget ended in 1895
and temperature changes are already very dangerous. Fires, storms, floods.
Now TheGuardian wrote that +1.5C will be catastrophic from many points of view. This will happen in 2027 if you calculate with the right climate sensitivity=36.
There is no help to be had from the IPCC and SMHI who still believe the earth is flat (symbolically speaking) and who do not seem to want to take part in a free and open discussion.
The press and TV have a crucial responsibility here.