Rodrigo Caballero

On 2022-01-20 14:00, Rodrigo Caballero wrote:

 

Dear Bengt,

The climate science community estimates ECS to be in the neighbourhood of 3 C.

You estimate it at 36 C. So your claim is that thousands of scientists who have dedicated decades to this question are collectively underestimating ECS by an order of magnitude.

 

Taking such an extreme claim seriously requires an extreme burden of proof: substantial theoretical and empirical evidence making a solid, credible case in favour of your claim.

 

Yet the only piece of evidence you supply is the Vostok data correlation: and that evidence is easily dismissed as irrelevant, because glacial-interglacial temperature changes are not driven by CO2 but by changes in insolation and surface albedo. Thorsten already mentioned this months ago, but you have taken no notice or bothered to read the relevant papers and build a counterargument.

 

A person who makes extreme claims based on flimsy evidence and refuses to consider counterarguments is acting unscientifically and cannot be taken seriously.

 

Such a person can also be dangerous to society at large by spreading misinformation that can cost lives — the Covid pandemic provides several such examples. If you want any professional scientist to listen to you, you would need to do your homework.

 

Read the relevant papers, think carefully through their arguments and think critically about your own; analyse the relevant data for yourself, etc. This will take many years of hard work. Then finally you may be ready to submit a paper to a peer reviewed journal where the scientific community can evaluate it.

 

And if it is accepted, then people might actually take you seriously. There are examples of non-professional scientists who have gone through this process and have actually had important impact on the science. It’s hard work, but it’s possible But before you have done that work, I would ask you to cease and desist from trying to spread your outlandish unproven ideas to the public, or trying to recruit professional scientists to provide you with some sort of official stamp of approval—it’s not going to happen.

Regards, Rodrigo

 


 

Dear Rodrigo,

 

Thank you indeed for your reply.

 

My last message to all of you  is here in english

https://ppm.today/index.html?most-dangerous-error-_.htm

 

My message says that if climate sensitivity proves to be more than 3, we have a huge problem.

This is also exactly what Prof. Johan Rockström has written here.

 

All these points indicate a climate senitivity far above cs=3:

 

1.Hadley-model fron MetOffice UK,

2.NCARs model CESM2, USA

3.European cooperation model EC-Earth3

4.Prof. James Hansen claims cs=6  (10 years ago)

 

I have calculated the consequences of cs=3 and cs=6.

 

Consequence of cs=6:

If all emissions are stopped today, the earth will reach +3.5 C in 70 years

according to the formula (3.5-1.1)/0.035 = 70 years

 

The most serious consequence of this is that IPCC is wrong here if cs=6.

The minimum rate of rise is 0.035 C/yearIPCC_AR6_WG1_SPM_page_29_SSP1_to_5_a_and_b-

 

The entire NetZero politics depends om SSP1-1.9 and this is false if cs=6

 

>A person who makes extreme claims based on flimsy evidence and refuses to consider counterarguments is acting unscientifically and cannot be taken seriously. Such a person can also be dangerous to society at large by spreading misinformation that can cost lives — the Covid pandemic provides several such examples.

 

If James Hansen is right   that cs=6,  then  I would argue that it is dangerous to society and it

will cost millions of lives to continue and ignore the possibility of cs=6 or higher.

 

I have explained my view of the consequences  of a higher climate sensitivity, expressed in 5 simple formulas.

If you find these formulas wrong, I would be extremely grateful to see your mathematical approach to the issue.

How will cs=6 affect the practical climate politics today ?

This might be the most important calculation in the climate science today. The result will show us

if the NetZero concept will work or not.

 

I have also explained the differential equation needed to calculate much more exactly, as the heat transfer

is not a linear process.  This is the engine behind our climate calculator, and you are welcome to test it.

https://ppm.today/calc/

It calculates all climate sensitivities  between 1 and 50.

Here we can see what happens if all emissions stop 2025 and what a radical difference it is

between  CS=3 and CS=6

 

CS=3 :

 

clip8707

 

CS=6

clip8708

 

 

The main message is actually that temperature continues if emissions stop 2025.

The calculation method should be subject to discussion.

 


 

 

>>You write:  Taking such an extreme claim seriously requires an extreme burden of proof: substantial theoretical and empirical evidence making a solid, credible case in favour of your claim.

 

You might be able to meet this extreme burden of proof just by answering one simple question:

 

The cloud is Vostok ice core

The rod is 100 years of Nasa measurements

 

If scientists make measurements on the earth after 500, 000 years : Will they see the rod ?

If your answer is no, then climate sensitivity is approx 36   and you have meet the extreme burden of proof!

 

clip4887

 

 

Yes, The rod will move and integrate into the cloud. It will be invisable after 700 years.

Nature almost never shows such  discountiuity.

Whenever a process goes much faster than the time constant, such a stick appears

If the last 100 years of emissions occurred over 10,000 years, no stick would have appeared at all.

If the last 100 years were emitted in a single day, the stick would be horizontal.

If the last 100 years of emissions occurred at half speed, the IPCC would measure climate sensitivity = 6

To suspect: The IPCC has probably fooled themselves by building the whole climate science

on unstable values. Therefore all important conclusions are wrong, e.g. +2C/2100 /450 ppm

or the conclusion that temperature will stop when emissions are stopped.

In that case the value 3 can not be used for any calculations.  The true value for climate sensitivity

is probably around 36.

climatesensitivity2

 


 

More detailed analysis of your email,

Rodrigo =Black text,

Ovelius =Blue text

 

 

Dear Bengt,

The climate science community estimates ECS to be in the neighbourhood of 3 C.

You estimate it at 36 C. So your claim is that thousands of scientists who have dedicated decades to this question are collectively underestimating ECS by an order of magnitude.

 

The number of believers is no argument for anyone other than the Groupthinkers.JF Kennedy fought

successfully with this, supported by academic research, which says that Groupthink destroys

both science and politics. Only strict scientific argumentation is the path ahead. I think we agree.

 

 

Many new ideas , or for that matter innovations, usually come from a single person who often becomes

discouraged. Dr Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865) was bullied, shunned, ignored and rejected.

by the entire 19th century medical establishment for urging doctors to wash their hands.

Doctors saw a threat to their respect and social alliances because of these new ideas.

 

Innovations were discouraged in the same way. Rudolf Diesel was opposed by a professor

from the University of Cologne to the point where he almost gave up. The same professor made sure

in collusion with Deutz, that Diesel earned nothing at all.

 

I myself developed a new scientific field around 2007, stack-free thermoacoustics,

US Ambassador Michael Wood expressed that this could be the most interesting

climate innovation in Sweden. The head of the IPCC raised this innovation in his

speech to Global Forum 2008.  WWF made a video about this innovation.

The piston, which consisted of a frictionless sound wave, generated several cubic metres of cold air per

second. We had a professor with us who checked all the measurements and gave a thumbs up

for each new breakthrough.

Then the project became  9 doctors and professors against us who managed to fire

the competent professor and ruin all the research. It was just when a

big company was going to take over the project. Had academia not destroyed the project

we would probably have COP=10 heat pumps today. It seems to be a universal

rule that 10% of academics can handle new ideas that lead to disruptive technology

and 90% destroy ideas, because they exceed the knowledge of the academic world.

(otherwise it would already have been invented).  

Vinod Kholsa has exactly the same experience in USA and therefore he says:

We can invent the future we want, as long as the experts don't stop us.

 

Taking such an extreme claim seriously requires an extreme burden of proof: substantial theoretical and empirical evidence making a solid, credible case in favour of your claim.

 

Yet the only piece of evidence you supply is the Vostok data correlation: and that evidence is easily dismissed as irrelevant, because glacial-interglacial temperature changes are not driven by CO2 but by changes in insolation and surface albedo. Thorsten already mentioned this months ago, but you have taken no notice or bothered to read the relevant papers and build a counterargument.

 

It is a bit strange that cs=36 1.443*cs*ln(ppm/275) matches reality perfectly in a huge range

from ppm=180 ppm to 1 000 000 ppm. It may be a hint that CO2 controlled more during the last

million years than what you and Thorsten describe.

 

It is a bit strange that cs=3 1.443*cs*ln(ppm/275) does not allow for ice ages or Venus-like earth.

Also, all projections seem to be wrong that assume cs=3.

 

You advocate the last formula which doesn't agree with anything and reject the first formula

which passes all the checks and gave the correct forecast 2008-2022.

 

No one is 100% sure of anything and the climate is enormously complex. But we are looking for a

pattern that will help us make the most likely best decision.

The formula cs=36 1.443*cs*ln(ppm/275) seems to provide such a pattern.

 

A person who makes extreme claims based on flimsy evidence and refuses to consider counterarguments is acting unscientifically and cannot be taken seriously.

 

I have weighed this argument into the overall picture with great interest.

The counter-arguments are these:

 

 

1.NASA has calculated that the Earth reaches +420 C when we have 100% CO2.

2.We also know that +2C has occurred 4 times in the last 700,000 years, each time at about 285 ppm CO2

3.We know that +0C usually looks like it happens around 275 ppm

4.We know that the deepest ice age is marked by -8C at 190 ppm CO2

 

Climate sensitivity 36 mathematically supports all these points t=1.443*36*ln(410/275)

Using this as a starting point, we made a forecast in 2008 that fit perfectly until 2022

You can easily check this claim, now afterwards,  in excel.

 

Climate sensitivity 3 does not mathematically support a single point t=1.443*3*ln(410/275)

Based on this, the IPCC made a forecast in 2008 that proved completely wrong.

This graph shows how this suspected IPCC misinformation crept into the bill and climate law.

This is suspected to be mis-information from the IPCC that in the long run threatens the

lives of billions of people.

 

Where is the climate expertise hiding instead of speaking truth to power

about this, that is so obviously wrong for everybody ?

Why was Exxon mobil in secret able, to calculate the red graf already 42 years ago ?

Did they know more 1980 than IPCC knows in the latest report 2021 ?

 

clip4918

 

 

 

Such a person can also be dangerous to society at large by spreading misinformation that can cost lives — the Covid pandemic provides several such examples. If you want any professional scientist to listen to you, you would need to do your homework.

 

How can one be considered dangerous to society by seeking the truth, asking for a

open democratic discussion and proposing much stronger measures in the context of a smarter

climate policy  and faster reduction of CO2 ?

 

Read the relevant papers, think carefully through their arguments and think critically about your own; analyse the relevant data for yourself, etc. This will take many years of hard work. Then finally you may be ready to submit a paper to a peer reviewed journal where the scientific community can evaluate it.

 

Together with a scientist, I submitted a warning to the IPCC senior management in May 2008

about the temperature not stopping. It has since been many years of hard work

2008-2022 trying to get the climate experts to pay attention to this and confirm/deny.

Without success.

 

In retrospect, we can now see that our climate prediction, based on cs=36,

was a total success  in 2008-2022.

The IPCC's forecast for the same time, based on cs=3 was a disaster.

 

My job is innovation. The climate should be handled by climate experts.

 

And if it is accepted, then people might actually take you seriously. There are examples of non-professional scientists who have gone through this process and have actually had important impact on the science. It’s hard work, but it’s possible But before you have done that work, I would ask you to cease and desist from trying to spread your outlandish unproven ideas to the public, or trying to recruit professional scientists to provide you with some sort of official stamp of approval—it’s not going to happen.

 

What is most intolerable is that the climate experts have given the people, parliament and government the message  that +2C will occur after 2100 at 450 ppm, all mathematically based on cs=3

Any child can see this is wrong but the figures are in Swedish Government Bill 2016/17:146.

A direct consequence of cs=3 is that everyone thinks the temperature will stop when emissions stop.

It is up to the climate experts to work through this quickly.

It is easy to show mathematically that our near future looks like this graph below,

when you do the math with correct climate sensitivity. However, there is no time to work

on this for several years.  This should be confirmed within weeks.

 

 

clip4917

 

Earth is trapping 'unprecedented' amount of heat, Nasa says.

Energy doubled in 14 years. Alarming - says NASA.

This article confirms a higher cs but these contexts

are obscured by the IPCC pad-locking the cs at 3.

You can actually calculate current climate sensitivity from this info.

It would be brilliant if you could do this calculation.

Then you would get exactly the evidence you are asking for.

- probably meeting an extreme burden of proof-

Seriously, this is my challenge to you - and we can compare

our different mathematical approaches afterwords.

 

 

I have worked so many decades in product development, creating a new scientific

field of stack-free thermoacoustics and done lots of computer simulations

on complex thermodynamic processes. Therefore, I have largely done my

homework which involves new perspectives and completely different angles.

I have used the same tools to look at climate over the last 20 years.

There is some likelihood that these findings will be equally misunderstood by the academic

world as stack-free thermoacoustics was. What you write I actually recognise

from professors around 2008, but at that time  we could empirically prove

that 90% of them were wrong.

 

In the first place, I just wish for an open discussion where everyone has their say.

That would mean that my criticism should be taken up in the DN on your article from Oct 2021.

The discussion will lead to the truth.

 

I am looking for that truth that the climate experts should deliver.

I see myself as an innovator but the false climate sensitivity=3 from the IPCC

has actually stopped another project that was up at Chalmers/Graphene April 2015.

It has probably stopped many important projects.

 

As long as climate expertise can't give a true picture of the climate, innovations are slowed down

that could otherwise solve the crisis.

 

I suggest that you all write a new DN article and analyze   and answer my critics

in public. You wanted debate and now you want me to study for an other decade or two.

It is a comfortable way to dismiss the very debate that you wanted !


 

 

There are a number of reasons why NetZero cannot work (Zero Emissions 2045)

 

1. Large countries refuse to become climate neutral until 2060 or later. The Paris Agreement falls in 2027

2. Three prominent scientists call NetZero a Dangerous Trap

In English, Swedish, ONE of the best articles in the entire climate debate ,

recommended by Greta, read by many, many people.

 

3. Existing greenhouse gases are driving current increase 0.035 C/year

If all emissions are stopped now, the increase will continue

 

for 17 years if climate sensitivity=3

in 70 years if climate sensitivity=6

in 700 years if climate sensitivity=36

 

If emissions continue, each year's global emissions are just over 1% of the CO2 that

must be collected. In addition, the temperature impact will be diluted in 700 years if

climate sensitivity=36

 

Conclusion: it is probably not possible to control the temperature trend at all to 2050.

That is too short a time.

Even if all emissions are stopped today, it will only continue upwards by 0.035 C/year

As the Earth warms, additional greenhouse gases are added as a secondary

effect of the warming itself.

 

The climate experts should take the lead in educating people about this, or telling them so that everyone understands, why this is wrong.