Örjan Hallberg en


False optimism delays necessary action


Unless the Earth's temperature stops when all emissions have ceased

then current climate policy ZeroEmissions 2050

will fail completely. Then all efforts must be focused on sucking out

CO2 directly from the atmosphere instead.


Sweeping the truth under the carpet means the end of civilisation.

Therefore, the following discussion may be the most important

piece of the puzzle in all of climate policy. The truth must come out and it is urgent:


The undersigned, Bengt Ovelius, together with

researcher Örjan Hallberg, contacted the top management of the IPCC.


This happened in May 2008 and the message was a serious warning:

Global temperatures will not stop  when emissions stop.


This picture summed up our warning. It compared our model

with the IPCC's model (red) of a total emissions freeze.





The IPCC still claims, after 15 years, that temperatures will stop.

That the temperature is considered to stop is a prerequisite for the world's climate policy NetZero to have a chance to work (Zero Emissions 2045 in Sweden).


In the article below, researcher Örjan Hallberg shows that the Earth's temperature will continue to rise for at least 113 years after all emissions have been stopped, by which time

the temperature has only reached halfway to its final value.


Sadly, scientist Örjan Hallberg passed away all too soon, in 2016. He was a unique scientist who put science and truth first, and he had an amazing ability to make connections, like a top-notch detective with his

mathematical tools.


We had many discussions about climate change and Örjan wished that

I would use his reports and calculations in my presentations.

So I have a lot of interesting material from him.


Among these documents I recently found the article below.

Unfortunately, I don't know when it was written. It must have been 10-20 years ago. I also don't know if it was published anywhere.


But the article is almost more interesting today because it answers all the

important questions in today's climate debate. It could have a decisive impact on creating a climate policy that really works.


Here is the article:



Optimism delays necessary action




How is the global

temperature to an increase in atmospheric CO2?

According to an earlier report, the UN's climate panel, the IPCC,

that the climate has a thermal inertia so it

takes some time before temperatures start to rise.


According to this report, it takes between 120 and

150 years before the temperature increase reaches 50% of

of its final value. But now in the latest report

suddenly changed tactics. In order not to scare us to death

it now claims that the climate will stabilize quickly if we stop emitting

greenhouse gases. Now they say it will only take about 20 years

to achieve a 50% change.

Why have

suddenly 100 years been cut from this basic climate model?


Our climate experts claim that the IPCC's report gives the best

picture of what is to come because it is based on

results of thousands of research papers.

Unfortunately, a compromise report like this one from the IPCC

instead most likely does not tell the truth at all.

If it were the case that one of these underlying reports really did present a true scenario, the likelihood is that the aggregate

final report would happen to coincide with that single report is extremely small, if not non-existent.


Since we already have data on atmospheric C02 increase since 1850

to the present day, and also have good data on how temperature has changed over this time, it is relatively easy to let a computer search for the response curve that gives the best fit to these data. Such an exercise gives a response time for a sudden increase in C02 of 113 years,

not far from the 120-150 years previously claimed by the IPCC.


By doing a similar analysis of the IPCC's latest projections

the model is now based on a response time of only 35 years.

Moreover, this model does not give a good fit at all with the measured data we already have. And it is designed to be reasonably consistent with future temperature increases only on the assumption that greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise unchecked. If we really succeeded in stopping the increase in greenhouse gases , we would find that temperatures would continue to rise for a long time.


Using this new optimistic model where everything will quickly fall into place once we have the time and financial resources to reduce our emissions, nothing will be done. After all, we can see today that our government has nothing concrete in mind to do anything about the situation.


It is high time to start doing something. One practical measure is to introduce greenhouse gas ration cards. Every time you go shopping, you swipe your C02 card and your monthly ration is reduced by what the barcode reader at the checkout calculates. We have the technology and it would be a huge boost to the development of new environmentally friendly products and services. Everyone should get the same monthly ration, but of course politicians and governors will get extra allocations...


But it would be nice if we could get together on something concrete and practical instead of just waiting for the next IPCC report.


It doesn't take much of man-made temperature rise before everything goes into a spin and the temperature rushes up to 480 C and atmospheric pressure approaches 90 Atö (atmospheric overpressure). That's what happened on Venus about 2.8 billion years ago.


Inexplicable are the machine-made steel balls, found in South Africa, that have been in the sandstone for just that long. All have three stripes engraved around the centre, as if they were meant for the third planet from the sun.


In the hope that the Amoebians of the time would one day become so intelligent that it was clear that these bullets were partly shot here as a warning. Don't do what we did, it ended really badly, was perhaps the message.


Örjan Hallberg, Hallberg Independent Research


Original newspaper article, Swedish:






Comments on the above newspaper article


Climate sensitivity and time delay are interlinked. Örjan's calculation of time lag 113 years - to 50%, gives a climate sensitivity around 8.


Prof James Hansen says 6 and the IPCC sticks to 3. The IPCC locked in this figure when they removed the time delay.


I think Örjan in this old article captured the essence of the manipulation that Dr Peter Carter writes about in his 2019 book.


Dr Peter Carter was the expert reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR5 and the IPCC special report on 1.5ºC.

He is the author of the book Unprecedented Crime, which he co-wrote with Elizabeth Woodworth.


Dr Peter Carter said:

In summary, the IPCC has manipulated the most crucial figure of the Sixth Assessment, climate sensitivity, making it truly catastrophically wrong in a way that exposes the future to climate catastrophe.


This benefits no one but the fossil fuel industry. The difference between a climate sensitivity of 3°C and 4.5°C is life and death for our future and all life.


He describes the manipulation of climate sensitivity as the worst crime ever committed against humanity.


Hallberg and Carter are actually warning about the same thing - in completely different ways.


If you put together what Örjan Hallberg says and what Dr Peter Carter says, you have the definition of a trap. Based on this definition

you can say on solid ground that most climate experts have

have fallen right into this sophisticated trap.


Just look out for all the experts who believe that temperature stops

or even just rise a single degree rise when emissions cease.

In other words, anyone who believes that Zero Emissions 2050 will solve the climate crisis.


It's time to take this seriously and welcome a free, open discussion

that will lead us to an answer to the most important question of our time.


Following this definition, for example, the full Swedish Climate Policy Council

has fallen into the trap. In the same situation, according to the definition, is Swedish SMHI.


These actors have had the opportunity for many years to explain their views on this criticism.

The job of the press is to ask these questions, but they are not doing their job

for the following paradoxical reasons:


The experts have dragged the free press down into this suspicious darkness

making it impossible for any whistleblower to start a free, open and honest debate on the most

important issue in all of climate policy.


The scientist Örjan Hallberg already stated around 2008 that

all doors were closed to this debate.


The press needs to critically examine the expertise but at the same time use

the same expertise as truth witnesses, which is contrary to press ethics.

main rule. This has created a deadlock - which is a threat

to freedom of expression and democracy.


The entire future of our young people depends on the press getting out of the trap

and dare to look for the truth.


The aim must be for the whole population to understand the above context.

Otherwise, how will we be able to elect politicians who can take on a leading

role in the most dangerous crisis in human history?


How can we find the truth when the only way to do so is through free, open and honest debate?

discussion? We cannot sweep this under the carpet any longer.

The press and the media should be filled with this question.

Nothing is more important right now.


One Swedish climate expert who deserves credit is Prof. Johan Rockström.

He describes in this newspaper article the scientific earthquake that

awaits when climate sensitivity is assessed to be >4 instead of 3.

CO2 budget disappears in one fell swoop, etc......


Rockström points out that the heaviest climate models show

climate sensitivity above 5

Hadley model, MetOffice NCAR's CESM2

The IPCC ignores this and continues to hold to 3


The main conclusion: zero emissions 2045 cannot work

at climate sensitivity above 4 - because the temperature does not stop

when emissions stop.

Nor can NetZero policy affect more than about 10 Gt CO2

and NetZero policy cannot back reverse CO2.


If cs > 4:

The situation is now so critical that 200 Gt of CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere per year,

starting no later than 2025. This is the only chance to survive the climate crisis.


Most people have heard: things are moving faster than scientists thought.

Yes, that's probably because scientists believed in climate sensitivity=3

and the IPCC has assured us that 10,000 scientists are behind this.


However, it is obvious that real climate sensitivity is between 5-36

and any discussion of this seems to be forbidden.



MVH Bengt Ovelius




PS A good curve fit to the last newsletter from Prof. James Hansen is climate sensitivity = 36 and time lag = RC = 700 years.


Climate experts are asked to test cs=36 and RC=700 in different calculations

and note the consequences. Extensive discussion is needed here.


Note that the IPCC has been stuck with the wrong cs=3 for about 40 years.

There is much evidence that true climate sensitivity = 36.