Prof Syukuro Manabe

Dear Mr Professor Syukuro Manabe,

Congratulations to the Nobel Price !

You have among other things studied the relation between CO2 and temperature increase.


For 15 years I have studied the climate sensitivity and in my mind it is a paradox

why IPCC has been using the wrong climate sensitivity for the last 40 years.

The consequence of this IPCC error is that NetZero becomes a dangerous trap.

It is discussed here and comments and  answers are urgently needed long before the Glasgow conference.

I would really look forward to your comments.

The world needs this to prevail

Best regards

Bengt Ovelius





-------- Forwarded Message --------


Re: Urgent - The world needs this to prevail


Sun, 10 Oct 2021 14:40:21 +0000


Syukuro Manabe <>


Bengt Ovelius <>



Dear Bengt,


Thank you very much for your mail. I look forward to reading the website, where you discussed climate sensitivity.

I would like to have you read the Chapter 6 and 7 of our book 'Beyond Global Warming' recently published by Princeton University Press,

where I discussed the issue of climate sensitivity.












-------- Forwarded Message --------


Urgent - The world needs this to prevail


Sun, 10 Oct 2021 20:10:09 +0200


Bengt Ovelius <>


Syukuro Manabe <>



Dear Suki,

I have purchased the book and it is very valuable and interesting.  I will try to read and understand chap 6,7,

but chap 8 also seems very interesting.


On the other hand, My view in one single picture:

Hope you can see the animation below:

The cloud is vostok measurements,

the stick is NASA real measurements during a century.


Vostok tells me that climat sensitivity was approx 36 for the last 400k years.

The stick tells that climate sensitivity is 3 for young, unstabilized values,

A young value is far less than 700 years, in this case 100  years.


The stick stabilizes during 700 years and will not be visible for scientists

that will study the earth ex 20,000 years into the future.


This proves to me that climate sensitivity is around 36.

This is so different from anything that is generally accepted . By using

cs=36 and time constant RC=700 years  between CO2 and global temp

it was possible for me to make a very exact forecast 2008-2021, where IPCC

failed totally (+2C 450ppm 2100).

How can two so very different theories fit in the end ?

Best regards Bengt Ovelius







Reply / comment awaited



The swedish paper DN Wrote KVA is as fast as Glenn Hysén


DN writes: ... Syukuro Manabe got his

Nobel Prize for research they published from the 1960s onwards

to 1980. That is over forty years ago.


Syukuro Manabe had already in the 1960s developed a value for the so

climate sensitivity - that is, how much the Earth's average temperature

would rise if the amount of carbon dioxide doubled - of 2.3

degrees Celsius.



Comments Bengt Ovelius

We can test climate sensitivity=cs=2.3 on reality.

The logarithmic relationship has been known for 120 years.


Everyone probably agrees that 275 ppm in 1700 is a pre-industrial situation

with no over temperature and no warming. We assume this.


Earth's expected temperature, after stabilization, solely by the impact of CO2:


t=1.443 : cs * ln(ppm/275)


If we choose cs=2.3, the following result is obtained:

The green ring is the current ppm level and global over temperature is slightly above 1 C.

As a control, the temperature is 2.3 C higher at 2 x 275 = 550 ppm. Everything seems to fit.






However, the line is in sharp disharmony with all the points from the Vostok measurement series.


NASA has calculated that the Earth gets almost as hot as Venus if the atmosphere is 100% CO2.

That is equivalent to 1 million ppm. At cs=2.3 the earth only reaches +27C.

We see that the Earth hardly increases in temperature with increasing CO2 content is cs=2.3.




If cs=36 is chosen

then 420 C overtemperature is consistent with NASA calculations of an Earth with 100% CO2

the line fits perfectly with the last half million years of Vostok measurements on ice cores.





If we zoom in to the 275 to 550 ppm range we also see that cs=36 fits very nicely

with Vostok ice cores.

This is where the radically different interpretation of our climate situation arises. We are in the green

circle. The Earth is programmed for about 22 C overtemperature right now and we know from NASA

that the Earth is rising by 0.035 C. So the time to get there is about 22/0.035 = 700 years.




Johan Rockström wrote in SVD


The so-called climate sensitivity.. is absolutely crucial for

how much warming our greenhouse gas emissions will cause.

will cause.


Counting on cs=2.3 when true cs=36 is simply a threat to our own children.

That is why this needs to be depply discussed. It is the foundation for everything.


An incorrect climate sensitivity must under no circumstances be allowed to ride roughshod over

the global credibility of the Nobel Prize.


The entire credibility of the Nobel Foundation is at risk if we judge the above

vital facts wrong.


It is accepted that 275 ppm gives zero over-temperature and zero warming.

We see over half a million years that 285 ppm CO2 and +2C over temperature

occur again and again. We can therefore link 285 ppm to +2C.

In 1895, 285 ppm CO2 occurred again. If all emissions had been stopped 1895, the risk

would have been imminent for dangerous +2C some 700 years later. We can see the consequences on

the Eemian age: 10 m higher ocean and superstorms moving 1000 tonne boulders.




The climate sensitivity between the two points 275 and 285 ppm is 36.

The climate sensitivity all the way down to the ice age is 36. it's just counting squares.

The IPCC's blue forecast  is out of touch with reality.


Manabe's cs=2.3 gives a point +2C @ 500 ppm - even further out of reality.




Climate sensitivity up to the NASA point of 420C @100% CO2 is also 36.

We live on a line with climate sensitivity 36 that sweeps from freezer to pizza oven.

From there we can build a workable climate policy.

Climate sensitivity 2.3 or 3 will lead the world to total destruction because it totally

downplays the power of climate change.



Reply / comment awaited