To the climate professors:


The most important calculation in the whole climate debate is requested:


What is the climate sensitivity right now when the energy flow to the oceans doubled between 2005 - 2019

and when the situation is worse than it has been for the last tens of millions of years?


You climate professors can do this calculation far better than I can. But as long as no one better

calculation comes along, then perhaps we should fall back on the only calculation that exists - my calculation

(and our unique climate calculator that gave the correct forecast 2008-2022 https://www.ppm.today/calc/  ) :



We are approaching a national and global emergency if this issue is not even discussed.

The math is clear: The climate situation is far worse than most people think

because the wrong climate sensitivity has been widely assumed, which means that  

most other climate calculations are wrong. That's why you often hear, for example:


Wow, the permafrost is thawing 70 years earlier than scientists thought.... etc.....

There is a mathematical explanation........ and it is frightening....



Approach to calculation:

Heat Transfer (energy per unit time) to the oceans has doubled between 2005 and 2019 according to NASA.

We have the following CO2 content for the two years:


Year ppm

2005 379

2019 409


The logarithmic formula, which is 120 years old, is also the foundation of the concept of climate sensitivity.

Expected global overtemperature = t = 1.443*cz*ln(ppmCO2/275)    cz= climate sensitivity.


You can check: a doubling of ppmCO2 gives +3C if cz=3 etc.... It all makes sense.

If ppmCO2 only increases by 1%, the temperature increase will still be the same, regardless of ppmCO2



The points in the graph below show the relationship between ppm CO2 and global overtemperature.

You only have to count the squares to see that the climate sensitivity has been about 36

over the last 500,000 years. An extrapolation (regression analysis) suggests a

exponentially increasing climate sensitivity in the future.

The message from NASA, that 7% increase in CO2 levels between 2005 and 2019 shows

that the black spots must be rising much faster.

Today's instantaneous climate sensitivity is very much above 36.

Climate experts are urged to develop this theory as quickly as possible

as this will have a profound impact on all climate policy .

It could be argued that there is no more important calculation at the present time.




Since the IPCC has forgotten the time lag between "oven temperature" and global temperature

they have deceived themselves.



The climate sensitivity=3 that the IPCC has been claiming for 40 years

follows NASA measurements last 100 years over global temperature.

Had the IPCC instead followed the recommendation of Prof. James Hansen then

they would have calculated climate sensitivity=6.

If all emissions are stopped today, today's global temperature will continue

climb following the arrow, from 1.1 C to 3.2 C, which will take (3.2-1.1)/0.035= 60 years

Thus the NetZero policy cannot work (Zero Emissions 2045)

If, on the other hand, the real climate sensitivity remains at 36, then

temperature will climb for 500-1000 years after a total stop of all emissions,

until +22 C has been reached, which corresponds to 420 ppm

according to the well-established logarithmic formula t=1.443*36*ln(420/275)







It should be possible to calculate the real, instantaneous climate sensitivity today

in the above example where the  expected global "oven" temperature doubles

at just 7% increase in ppmCO2 concentration.

Just solve the equation and there seems to be only one solution.

Urgent: Comments and discussion requested !





Thus, one should be able to calculate the climate sensitivity in the above example where the expected global "oven"  temperature doubles for a 7% increase in ppmCO2 concentration. Just solve the equation and there seems to be only one solution.  Comments are welcome indeed.



The effect received by the Earth's oceans P=W/t = k * (t-te)

t= expected oven temperature, te= actual overtemperature of the earth

Then we can express a certain global temperature increase as a function of ppp ranging from 1 to 2,

and function of cz plotted for 3,10,20,30,40....100


We see that when ppp=2 there is a doubling of ppmCO2 and t then becomes 3,10,20,..... as expected.

Tppp(ppp, cz) := 1.443*cz*ln(400*ppp/275) - 1.443*cz*ln(400/275)



The plotting can also be done with logarithmic ppp axis , which as expected gives spike-straight curves.


We can solve the equation for the above task and see that the current climate sensitivity is 175

Tppp(1.07, 175) = +17 C

where +17C is the furnace temperature increase between 2005 and 2019 .

Earth's actual temperature will be the integral below the "oven temperature" divided by the time constant

The climate sensitivity was about 36 for most of the last 0.5 million years. It has apparently increased

sharply in the last decades, perhaps because the +1.1 C overtemperature triggers other greenhouse gases.


It is obvious that climate sensitivity = 3 is completely wrong and this has a whole range of dangerous mathematical consequences.



If you professors do not agree that the current climate sensitivity is 175, it would be important and urgent to

to see a more correct derivation. Any climate sensitivity above 6 will force a completely different view

of the climate and that is urgent. With the right innovations, it is all solvable.

It is we (the people) who demand that the naked truth be put on the table.


If we follow the IPCC and apply climate sensitivity=cz=3 to the above calculation, with 7% increase in ppmCO2

over the period 2005-2019, the oven temperature can only increase by 0.292 C. In addition, there are about 20 years  time lag to actual overtemperature.

Tppp(ppp, cz) := 1.443*cz*ln(400*ppp/275) - 1.443*cz*ln(400/275)

Tppp(0.07,3 ) = +0.292 C


In addition, with cz=3, no ice age can occur and the earth will not reach +450 C as NASA claims at 100% CO2.

It can only get +35 C. Thus, it is harmless to use fossil fuels during further long times.


The maths shows that it is deeply irresponsible of the IPCC to continue to count on climate sensitivity=3

and it is deeply irresponsible of climate experts and the press to avoid this discussion at all costs.

It is our own children who suffer from this immoral behaviour.


Quote Vinod Khosla: The great disruptive innovations do not come from the core of the system, they come from the edges.


Greta belongs to the "edges" and she is absolutely right when she says : "The house is on fire". We can solve this when we finally get a correct view of the climate. All this also provides the important answers to your original article in DN: "Don't spread the image that it is too late to save the climate". 99% of the solution lies in removing huge amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. This message must come from the climate experts - then the work will start. Time is running out....


Best regards

Bengt Ovelius


PS Reminder: This debate is not yet over https://www.ppm.today/index.html?diskussion-med-expertisen.htm

With great gratitude if we can come to consensus.