Speak up!

Speak up !

 

NetZero-2050 has the opposite effect.

 

 

Together with an independent researcher, we made our first attempts around 2008 to be whistleblowers for the most important factor in the climate debate.

Many opinion pieces are written - unsuccessfully - because no one wants to hear this.

Now, so many years later, I think I've managed to articulate the problem clearly and sharply enough in the text below.

 

 

Debate post

In all humility: the following debate post requires extensive post-discussion on the most important issue of the climate debate.

Only an open, honest discussion can lead to the truth - but this discussion is long overdue.

What is most important is not being talked about. For decades this has been swept under the carpet.

Now that Europe is on fire, perhaps this forbidden area can finally be discussed,

 

Climate expertise has a key role to play and, unfortunately, it is largely not doing their job around this issue.

An appeal to the Climate Experts:

 

Speak up NOW or lose all credibility in the near future when the truth has prevailed.

This is a claim based in precise mathematics and science. Everything can be motivated down to the smallest detail:

 

NetZero 2050 policy says "When emissions stop, the temperature has stopped"

 

Scientific fact: The effect will be the exact opposite.

The reason is simple and also one of the most important pieces of the puzzle in the whole climate debate.

 

If the NetZero 2050 policy succeeds perfectly across the world, the annual temperature rise in 2050 will be significantly higher than today. If nothing is done at all

it will be even worse.

Detailed Rationale: We now have 3000 Gt too much CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere. This amount, already emitted, is causing

global temperatures are currently rising by a dangerous 0.035 C/year, according to NASA.

 

If the Earth continues as it is now, with 40 Gt of CO2 emissions per year until 2050, there will be 4120 Gt of CO2 too much in 2050

 

If NetZero 2050 were to succeed perfectly on a global scale, emissions would be stepped down every year and reach zero by 2050

 

By 2050, the Earth will have 3560 Gtonnes of CO2 too much and temperatures will rise significantly more each year than now.

 

In pure arithmetic terms, that's 3560/3000 => 20% more, but the heat will gradually release other greenhouse gases, which could lead to a 20-200% increase.

So the new rate of temperature increase in 2050 will be somewhere between 0.04C/year and 0.10 C/year.

 

The crucial and incredibly important conclusion:

There is not the slightest trace of the temperature mitigation promised in today's debate.

 

Many politicians say: "If we just cut emissions fast enough, we can meet the Paris Agreement."

How are we going to force the temperature to stop when the annual increase just keeps going up and up?

The world is waiting for the climate experts to have the courage to tell the truth. A workable climate policy is built on a foundation of truth.

We are not there yet.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Each global concentration of CO2 corresponds to a likely global temperature

according to this logarithmic relationship t = 1.442*cs*ln(ppmCO2/275) where cs is the climate sensitivity.

Professor Svante Arrhenius used this relationship 130 years ago and climate science uses it daily as the basis for the concept of climate sensitivity.

 

Conclusion: the Zero Emissions 2045 policy is important but ineffective in controlling temperature. The false message from the IPCC leads the world to believe that this is the solution.

In fact, the opposite is achieved. That is why the Paris Agreement is certain to fail in the order of 5 years.

 

Responsible climate experts have so far only responded by remaining completely silent. I base this conclusion on the extensive discussion I have had with the country's foremost climate experts. I have documented this entire discussion for possible publication in book form later.

 

Either you tell the truth and go against the IPCC, which nobody dares to do.

Or you say that the IPCC is right that the temperature is staying. Then you have signed your own scientific resignation, which will occur on the day that the truth prevails on this issue.

 

The fate of the country: How will the truth come out fast enough ?

 

There seems to be only one way out, one workable climate policy:

 

Suck out 200 Gt of CO2 and 2 Gt of methane per year, starting no later than 2025. Then we can also meet the Paris Agreement.

All politicians who have promised to respect the Paris Agreement should be aware of the only possible way to fulfil this promise.

Nature does not care that this technology does not exist. We face an ultimatum: win or lose.

We can do all this if we start by building climate policy on truth. This is the truth that the IPCC has yet to deliver.

 

Those professors at the Tyndall centre sounded the alarm about the same thing in 2014 - no one listened.

Survivable IPCC projections based on science fiction - reality is far worse

 

Most climate experts rely on the misinformation provided by the IPCC, including

is expressed in this graph (left) from recent IPCC reports:

 

IPCC_AR6_WG1_SPM_page_29_SSP1_to_5_a_and_b-

 

It promises in graphic form that the temperature will stop as soon as emissions cease (SSP1-1.9).

This graph is a complete lie. Temperatures are driven by the greenhouse gases that already exist.

Annual emissions are only about 1% of what is already there and the Earth has a long reaction time between emissions and the corresponding temperature.

Therefore, the amount of emissions has very little controlling effect on temperature over decades but a large effect over centuries.

If all emissions were stopped today, the 3000 Gt of CO2 already present would not be affected. Temperatures will continue as if nothing had happened.

IPCC senior management refuses to comment despite

reminders from me since May 2008. The Swedish climate experts who  

write the IPCC reports also refuse to comment. This means

that they are probably aware of this lie but want to avoid rocking the boat.

It is most peaceful that way. Better to save face than to save the next generation.

Worst of all: There is no open, honest discussion about this. The press and media must take responsibility here and finally allow this discussion.

Not a single one of our political parties has a workable climate policy. Continuing with Zero Emissions 2050 as the only climate policy, will quickly

lead to unprecedented distress and misery. At the same time, there are good opportunities for a comfortable solution to the climate crisis. Then climate policy must look completely different. Only an open discussion can change this  rapidly enough.

Since the 3000 Gt of CO2 "too much" will not disappear under NetZero 2050-

course, no emissions policy can force the Earth's temperature rise rate below 0.035 C/year

 

IPCC_AR6_WG1_SPM_page_29_SSP1_to_5_a_and_b-

On the right is basically what a correct graph looks like.

 

This error by the IPCC spells our doom, as all forces are put to work on an ineffective

NetZero climate policy. By the time the error is discovered, it may be too late to turn to a workable path. That's why it's so important to speak up NOW.

 

Personally, I would be very happy if my suspicions are wrong. But a body of climate expertise hasn't been able to point out any error yet - after years of discussion.

A comprehensive debate is called for with the sole aim of ensuring that the world becomes  a FUNCTIONAL climate policy, so that our young people have a future.

The press and media could do wonders by highlighting this discussion. It is urgent.

Bengt Ovelius