Rodrigo_Caballero

Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:16:14 +0200

Professor at the Department of Meteorology in Stockholm University

Rodrigo Caballero

 

Rodrigo,

Undertecknad är ingenjör och innovatör och jag har årtionden av erfarenhet av att beräkna komplexa termodynamiska förlopp och köra datasimuleringar.  Mina matematiska verktyg har jag också använt allt sedan 2008 för att hålla ett öga på klimatet.

Djupförståelse av klimatet spelar en avgörande roll för att kunna skissa på de innovationer som behövs för att lösa klimatkrisen.

Jag läste med intresse er debatt-artikel i DN, och debatt innebär ju exakt detta: Debatt.

Mitt debattinlägg kommer här. https://ppm.today/index.html?bilden-av-att-det-aer-foer-sen.htm

De svar/repliker  du ger kommer jag att publicera både på svenska och engelska

Bäst vore om DN ville spinna vidare på denna tråd.

Stort tack för kommande repliker.

Vi slåss från ett underläge men måste hjälpas åt att ändra inriktning på Glasgow så att klimatpolitiken verkligen löser klimatkrisen.

Bästa hälsningar

 

 

 


11/9/2021 1:43:19 PM

 

Bengt,

 

The simple answer you are looking for is this: No, the earth will not continue warming at the same rate regardless of what we do.

 

For example, if we abruptly stop all greenhouse emissions today, the warming will come to a halt, and temperature will stabilise close to its current value.

 

The essential physics behind this behaviour is in 2 main parts: one is that the surface ocean is already close to thermal equilibrium with the current level of greenhouse forcing; if you hold that forcing fixed (by stopping new emission), the deep ocean will continue to warm, but the surface will warm very little. The second part is that if emissions stop,  atmospheric CO2 concentration will slowly decrease because CO2 is absorbed into the ocean, counteracting the small surface warming. As a result, surface temperature stays roughly constant for centuries, and eventually decreases. This is all quite clearly explained in the paper attached here.

 

So no, it is not too late for climate action. That is the simple answer. If you want the full answer, then you should read the paper attached, the IPCC report, and literature cited there.

 

Rodrigo Caballero

 

PDF reference

Short-lived climate pollution

 

 


Rodrigo,

Very interesting comments that I will study further. Many thanks. It would be very gratifying if this is true.

 

What is not quite correct in your 2014 pdf is that the oceans are by no means in thermal equilibrium, as these results from

NASA indicate. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/17/earth-trapping-heat-study-nasa-noaa

 

Mathematically, my own model seems to fit better, where the model is an oven that currently has

temperature +25C and within 14 years will be +50C, exactly according to the information from NASA.

 

clip4798

 

 

This model can be described by this simple differential equation, where the CO2 evolution is expressed as a

polynomial of the second degree.

clip4733

The symbolic solution of this equation looks like this

clip4734

 

 

Our climate calculator uses this formula as its engine. https://ppm.today/calc/

 

 

I will try to compare your proposed model with mine and get back to you if I find something interesting.

I will be very happy if I am wrong. The laws of nature will determine and we have to accept the truth with a humble mind.

 

Best regards

Bengt

 

 


 

Rodrigo,

After studying your convincing answer since November 2021,  I have come to the following conclusion:

 

1. If we assume climate sensitivity=6 according to. Prof. James Hansen, the Earth is now

programmed for +3.6C over temperature. This temperature will be reached after about 73 years

if all emissions are stopped today.

 

clip19062

 

 

 

2. There is a heat transfer from the radiation imbalance to the earth that can be described

as if the Earth with the current +1.1C over temperature is placed in an oven, set

at +3.6 C . The Earth is shown as a bowl of water:

earth_oven_bowl_skal2_36

Your simplified answer is that a bowl of water holding +1.1C can stand indefinitely

time in an oven holding +3.6 C

 

 

>>one is that the surface ocean is already close to thermal equilibrium with the current level of greenhouse forcing;

 

This equation is the basis for the IPCC's calculation of climate sensitivity:

1.442 *cs*ln(ppmCO2/275) cs=climate sensitivity

 

Your statement would be true if climate sensitivity is zero.

At climate sensitivity=3 there is no equilibrium because we currently have about 1.8C overtemperature and at climate sensitivity=6 we have 3.6 C overtemperature

 

 

>>The second part is that if emissions stop, atmospheric CO2 concentration will slowly

decrease because CO2 is absorbed into the ocean, counteracting the small surface warming. As a result, surface temperature stays roughly constant for centuries, and eventually decreases.

 

We have 3000 Gt too much CO2 if we add the ocean and the atmosphere.

It is a dubious solution that the oceans absorb even more CO2, which gives

even more acidification.

At the same time, this does not affect the total of 3000 Gton , which must be removed if we are to go back to 275 ppm CO2.

 

We can also guess that we need to get below 285 ppm CO2

before the temperature can drop.

That's because nature has shown, over half a million years, time and time again,

that dangerous +2C has occurred with precision at 285 ppm CO2.

The earth does not reach equlibrium until we reach 275 ppm CO2 again.

We are very far from the equilibrium that you suggest would prevail when emissions

have ceased.

 

 

clip4746