The birth rate in Sweden is at a record low, and the main
reason is a deep concern for the climate. This shows that people do not
believe in the current climate policy.
Greta has stopped saying "Believe in science".
The climate professors are about to lose their trusted position,
the politicians as well.
In 1850, expectant mothers refused to be treated by doctors.
Ordinary people, who began to understand the context, turned to
to midwives, who maintained better hygiene than doctors.
Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis did not succeed in persuading the professors of
of medicine to wash their hands.
We have to pay the final bill for 200 years of the oil festival. There are no
shortcuts in the form of the world's current bogus NetZero policy.
With the current technology to separate CO2, the final bill is perhaps
on 7 million SEK / person in Sweden (Calculation See Danderyd)
Swedish GDP = 6 000 billion SEK
7 000 000*10 000 000=70 000 000 000 000 000 SEK
= 70 000 Billion SEK
=12 GDP
This is the reality. It costs 12 GDP for Sweden
to take its share of the world's responsibility.
The same figure for all other countries, regardless of size.
The total responsibility in the world is 1000 times greater since
Sweden represents one thousandth of the world's population.
The choice is between winning or losing. So this must be
resolved in a scientifically correct and structured way.
The alternative is to give up and watch civilization disappear.
in a painful way in the very near future.
NetZero is the distraction that has caused us to lose the truth
and lose focus.
Outline of action plan (First draft to be discussed):
Responsibility must be shared.
Government and business can together provide 10% (=1 GDP).
With these resources, Innovators can probably ensure that the cost of
of CO2 capture is reduced by 90%.
A well-executed job can give Sweden a leading position
and large revenues.
Capturing CO2 economically could also mean that hydrogen gas
and methane can be extracted from the atmosphere economically.
This alone has the potential to provide all the energy we need.
What are the principles of the technology that the world has not yet seen?
Hundreds of proposals need to be made here.
One of these is the following:
In 1875, the great scientist Maxwell proposed something
that came to be known as "Maxwell's Demon". With this simple sketch
everyone can understand how to harness the energy that abounds
all around us.
In 1865, Clausius created the concept of Entropy which prohibits
Maxwell's Demon. Most of the world's professors of
Thermodynamics believed in Clausius and have therefore for 170 years
opposed Maxwell's idea.
Professor Phil Attard recently published a book "Beyond Entropy"
where he opens the door to the future. There are lots of
processes that contradict Clausiu's entropy and each of these processes
holds the key to the world's entire energy supply.
The Swedish government is prepared to spend 400 billion sek.
on nuclear power which is hopelessly outdated and hopelessly
unprofitable technology, which will also be too late in 30 years.
An amount that is only 15 times larger (1 GDP).
can probably solve the energy issue and it can also
provide the technology that solves the entire climate crisis.
These ideas also provide a great hope for the future
for our young people, who have already seen through the current,
disastrously inadequate climate policy.
This is just one proposal, which seems to go all the way.
There are hundreds of other proposals.
The time must pass when every new idea is thwarted.
When every whistleblower is fired, ignored and laughed at.
Whistleblowers, like Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis in 1850, must be taken
seriously and governmental procedures must be created to
deal with such suggestions. The truth is often inconvenient.
Everything seems to repeat itself.
Medical Professors did not want to wash their hands around 1850
Today's climate professors are fleeing in panic every climate discussion
around this letter. Why?
Nobody on this planet understood Maxwell's equations until 30 years later.
Einstein explained that he stood on Maxwell's shoulders and founded the
theory of relativity on Maxwell's equations.
These equations have given us radio, television, cell phones and radar.
Maxwell was probably the world's greatest scientist by far. At least that's what
Albert Einstein thought.
No one on this planet understood "Maxwell's Demon" until 170 years later...
when Professor Phil Attard wrote the book "Beyond Entropy" and opened the
the door to the future. On this path awaits the entire solution to the
climate crisis and so much more.
It turns out that only 5% of the innovations come
from the academic sector
Similarly, it can be assumed that only 5% of climate understanding comes
from the academic sector
Ref Innovations
In the wake of the incorrect climate sensitivity from the IPCC, thousands
of scientific papers are wrong.
A serious example is this scientific paper that concludes climate
sensitivity=2.4C.
An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines
of Evidence
S. C. Sherwood, M. J. Webb, J. D. Annan, K. C. Armour, P. M. Forster, J.
C. Hargreaves, G. Hegerl, S. A. Klein, K. D. Marvel, E. J. Rohling, M.
Watanabe, T. Andrews, P. Braconnot, C. S. Bretherton, G. L. Foster, Z.
Hausfather, A. S. von der Heydt, R. Knutti, T. Mauritsen, J. R. Norris, C.
Proistosescu, M. Rugenstein, G. A. Schmidt, K. B. Tokarska, M. D.
Zelinka
This paper contributes to entire countries designing ineffective climate
policies and thousands of necessary innovations are not realized.
Therefore, it should be discussed, on solid ground,
whether this paper is the most inaccurate, dangerous and flawed
scientific paper ever published.
If these conclusions are correct, the authors have the opportunity to
apologize and withdraw this scientific paper and
to produce a new paper that powerfully helps the world solve the climate
crisis.
The same problem exists in the scientific paper:
"What caused Earth's temperature variations during the last
800,000 years?"
Authors
Professor Peter Köhler
Professor Richard Bintanja
Professor Hubertus Fischer
Professor Fortunat Joos
Professor Reto Knutti
Professor Gerrit Lohmann
As transparency and accuracy are of the highest priority, all authors have
been invited for months now to
to provide their comments, which can be published and discussed here.
I will be very happy if climate sensitivity really is 2.4 . Then it will be easy to handle climate change.
Please-
Take part in the discussion and defend your scientific paper in a way that everybody can understand!
And prove that Prof James Hansen is wrong with cs=4.8 . If he is right, we are in a different world !
Temperature doesn't stop when emissions stop. It is the job and the task for Climate Scientists to
give a correct view. Our future depends on it.
Here is space for comments and arguments ..............................................................
The Question, the issue: Is this correct ?
The professionals have built in the coming disaster by miscalculating climate sensitivity!
“ Remember, amateurs built the Ark,
professionals built the Titanic”