2021 10 19 Swedish here
https://www.dn.se/debatt/sprid-inte-bilden-av-att-det-ar-for-sent-att-radda-klimatet/
DN Debatt. "Don't spread the image that it's too late to save the climate"
Frida Bender, Associate Professor, Senior Lecturer in Climate Modelling, Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University
Rodrigo Caballero, Professor of Climate Modelling, Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University
Deliang Chen, Professor of Physical Meteorology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Gothenburg
John Hassler, Professor of Economics, Institute of International Economics, Stockholm University
Per Krusell, Professor of Economics, Institute of International Economics, Stockholm University
Thorsten Mauritsen, Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University
Jonas Nycander, Professor of Physical Oceanography, Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University
Michael Tjernström, Professor of Meteorology, Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University
Comments from Bengt Ovelius:
.............
In summarising the article below, the following emerges
conclusion to the climate expert who wrote the article:
The following 8 points are survival factors for civilization:
Clarity must be achieved before Glasgow
Climate experts must take a stand: declare the following or prove
the contrary.
1.The Earth's temperature continues to rise at about the same rate whatever we do
2.It is the 3000 Gt of CO2 that already exists that is causing this upward journey
3.Annually, global emissions add about 1% of what is already there.
4.Its temperature impact is spread over 700 years
5.Emissions up to 2050 have a barely measurable temperature impact
6.The curves below from the IPCC in the Sixth Assessment Report are pure lies.
7.The "three scientists" call this "detailed fantasy worlds"
8.The price to pay for this cowardice is : to shut up. (quote )
All this leads to the well-founded conclusion that Zero Emissions 2045
is ineffective policy. The mathematical proof is in my new book.
Feel free to challenge the evidence or provide alternative evidence.
(The following Black text are parts of the article in DN, Green are my answers)
Climate scientists: equating the risks of climate change with
the end of humanity lacks scientific support.
If you refer to scientific support from the IPCC:
IPCC lacks scientific support for its predictions and therefore cannot
therefore cannot even assess the risk of the end of mankind.
The evidence for this statement comes here:
The very basis of the IPCC's miscalculations lies in the fact that for 40 years the IPCC
calculated the wrong climate sensitivity = 3, while the true value is around 36.
This makes almost all IPCC predictions wrong.
As an example: I calculated with climate sensitivity = 36 and made a
forecast in 2008 that was exactly right in 2021.
The IPCC did the same and based the forecast on climate sensitivity=3
Climate sensitivity=3 had the consequence that the IPCC miscalculation was at least 60 years out of a 100 year
Record!!! Moreover, this miscalculation came to characterize Bill 2016/17:146
and these errors then found their way into the Climate Act 2017:720. Where was the expertise
in this process when the Swedish people and the politicians were led behind the scenes by the IPCC?
Where is the excuse for this dangerous miscalculation ?
IPCC insists on sticking to climate sensitivity=3, trend downwards
in the last report. Nice that the Nobel Prize is a tribute to climate sensitivity=2.3
However, this record low figure is consistent with the view of professors
in the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, as Rockström also pointed out in SVD.
Such miscalculations will be our downfall. The power of the climate is downplayed
and support is given to much longer use of fossil fuels.
The perception that it will soon be too late to save the climate has
created anxiety and paralysis of action, writes among others Thorsten
Mauritsen and Deliang Chen, two of the lead authors of the latest
report from the UN IPCC.
The paralysis of action consists primarily of scientists' refusal to admit
the truth of the above 8 points.
I am also waiting for a response from Deliang Chen regarding the article in GP 26 Sept
https://ppm.today/index.html?deliang-chen.htm
But we also want to convey the insight that the risk that young people in the Western world in
climate change in the future is small and probably in practice
negligible from an individual perspective.
We have +2C in 2033. That's 11 years away.
You authors of the article also convey the insight that Zero Emissions 2045
is the solution, that we can meet the Paris Agreement on emissions reductions alone.
This is demonstrably wrong.
If we assume the correct climate sensitivity = 36 and also take into account
that NASA announces a doubling of the energy flow to the oceans in 14 years,
then the projection looks like this. The exact derivation is in my latest book.
The Paris Agreement is shattered in 2027.
The scientists who blindly follow the IPCC can't even
make such a prediction because the correct climate sensitivity is not yet included in the theories.
They have created a huge blind spot in the scientific landscape.
Ugo Bardi,
Professor of physical chemistry
Department of Chemistry University of Florence, Florence, Italy,
has devoted research to the "Seneca curve"
Growth is slow but the fall to ruin is rapid.
The name Sceneca derives from the author Seneca the Younger (4BC-AD65)
"Moral Epistles and Letters from a Stoic"
a work published in Latin in 65 AD
A 20% fall in world food production combined with disruption
in trade routes may give an indication of what is to come.
Energy prices will be thrown out of kilter by climate demands and there is a risk
of economic collapse in many countries.
Already in 2027 with +1.5 C overtemperature means huge risks.
We do not know what nature will do. All disasters in 2021 came as
surprises.
Science supports the idea that collapses come quickly and unexpectedly.
We now have many factors at fault and the wrong climate sensitivity
from the IPCC has left the whole climate science in total confusion.
This DN article is an example of this total confusion.
Not only young people are worried. The recently published study Global
Common Survey,
https://globalcommonsalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Global-Commons-G20-Survey-full-report.pdf
co-funded by the Swedish research fund Mistra,
shows that as many as 73% of the population in the world's largest economies
G20 countries, believe that we are close to a tipping point, where
the earth's climate suddenly changes and becomes difficult or impossible to
stabilise.
We see here that ordinary people seem to have a better understanding of the climate situation than scientists.
If this happens, it may be too late to stop
climate change. Climate policy will then be meaningless. That this
perception has grown strong may be due to the misconception
that a missed global temperature target is in itself a step beyond a
such a threshold, for example that when the carbon budget for 2 degrees
warming is used up, further warming cannot be stopped.
Again ERROR....
The CO2 budget for +2C warming ran out in 1895.
Had all emissions been stopped in 1895, catastrophic conditions would have
come about 700 years later. Proof here.
Now the atmosphere is programmed at +25 C with time constant 700 years,
The evidence is on this website and in the new book.
However, this is unsubstantiated and does not match what the science says. We
are concerned that the misconception that it will soon be too
late is spreading.
Most worrying is the misinformation from the IPCC
that will lead to destruction unless climate scientists show civil courage
and tell the truth.
The latest report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) discusses research
that found evidence that rapid changes in the entire Earth's climate have
occurred over the Earth's long history. These rapid changes have
have only occurred in conditions significantly colder than now
or much warmer than those expected by the IPCC even in more
pessimistic scenarios.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
The IPCC notes that there are unconfirmed hypotheses that emissions of
emissions could lead to a threshold being crossed and the Earth's
climate tips over into a permanently much warmer state. That
this could happen in the near future is dismissed by the IPCC. It writes (in our
translation, the original is in chapter 1, page 66): 'There is no
evidence for such non-linear effects at the global level in predictions
for the next century, during which the global
temperature is instead expected to increase at a roughly constant
proportion to accumulated greenhouse gas emissions."
This is completely wrong and is refuted by NASA's report
where the climate is now racing. A doubling of energy intake in 14 years
corresponds to a climate sensitivity of over 100. The IPCC expects 3
and thus misunderstands the whole climate situation. This is not linear,
it is exponential.
The notion that we are close to an absolute limit at which the concentration of
or temperature must not exceed unless the climate system
collapse is dangerous. It can lead to the advocacy of extreme
solutions such as abolishing democracy,
We are currently living in an extreme solution where democracy is halfway abolished.
Groupthink is so strong that academia, government and even politicians
are creating little internal paramilitaries. Here democracy is locally completely abolished.
This whole DN article could be an example of a parade in an extreme
narrow corridor of opinion. There is possibly also a hatred of free discussion, for example
in the form of this green text, to the extent that it ignores responding and
to move the debate forward.
It is deeply human to resort to a narrow corridor of opinion and a
typical manifestation of this is also to fight any new thought.
How are we to resolve the greatest crisis facing humanity in this atmosphere?
The way out is: President JF Kennedy applied academic research and
managed to get rid of these local paralysis trains. The quality of all decisions increased
because people began to think independently. Democracy was restored.
and ignoring
the cost and effectiveness of different measures.
By the IPCC lying to our faces about the temperature staying
when emissions are stopped,
all the power goes to NetZero 2050. This is where the laws of nature are ignored
which show that the cost is sky-high and the effectiveness near zero.
It is the climate scientists who blindly follow the IPCC and drive the entire society
right into the wall.
It could also lead to a setback for climate action when it shows
that the earth does not end when the 1.5 degree target is exceeded, which
it will most likely do so within a decade or so.
Calculated with the correct climate sensitivity, +1.5 C will occur in 2027.
The IPCC simply cannot make such a prediction because it
has not yet discovered the correct climate sensitivity as a basis for the calculations.
Therefore it is believed that it is decades to +1.5 C.
Lift your eyes and step out of the narrow corridor of opinion created by the IPCC.
A rough eye chart based on NASA's actual global temperature (black)
shows that +1.5C will occur in 2030. That's 8 years away and the authors of the article
nevertheless want to downplay the course of events by saying "within a decade or so".
Don't you feel any responsibility ?
But according to the research there is no such limit, but the damage
the damage increases with the size of the emissions. And so the value
of reduced emissions. Yet to peddle scientifically unfounded
hypotheses as truths risks undermining confidence in a serious
climate research.
Today's research is not serious if it is based on climate sensitivity=3
Although it will not be too late, we should certainly not
wait to move to global climate neutrality.
de facto net zero global carbon dioxide emissions, the temperature
be stabilised. The sooner this happens, the lower the degree of warming can
we can stay at.
This is wrong. Net zero cannot stabilize temperature.
By this reasoning, climate scientists become a threat to our entire
civilization.
Analyses by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and international
energy agency IEA have shown that a transition to net zero emissions over
a few decades can be achieved without major societal costs and negative
distributional consequences. For this to happen, it is
it is essential that it costs to exploit the limited natural resource
capacity of the climate system to absorb carbon dioxide.
The IEA has relied on the IPCC and thus miscalculates.
We are deeply concerned that a misrepresentation of the state of the science
is gaining traction with the public.
After all, it is the IPCC that is providing the wrong information:
Wrong climate sensitivity=3, should be about 36
Temperature will stop when emissions are stopped. The truth is the opposite.
We are convinced that political decisions
will be better if they are based on the best knowledge of conditions,
risks and necessary trade-offs.
Most people are convinced that political decisions are better if they are based on truth.
The IPCC does not seem to be able to deliver this truth.
The IPCC must submit to the laws of nature. The evidence is crystal clear that the IPCC
has a long way to go.
This is a bad breeding ground for the political decisions and international
agreements required for an orderly transition to
climate neutrality.
Climate neutrality will have no measurable effect on warming in as little as 30 years.
More serious action is needed, specifically 200 Gt of CO2 must be removed per year.
It is time for scientists to confirm mathematically that this is the only solution.
What is needed is an accurate description of
the state of the art, clearly distinguishing between widely established
results and controversial hypotheses.
What is needed is a correct description of the laws of nature and of precise mathematics.
What is called "widely established results" are in fact
"widely established lies". The evidence is unequivocal.
The best thing that could happen is that you 8 authors join the three
eminent scientists by saying: We admit that we were fooled.
This could be enough to change the compass course of the Glasgow meeting.
If you calculate with the correct climate sensitivity, you see that Glasgow
is our last chance. Those who still believe in the IPCC and climate sensitivity=3
remain blissfully unaware of the reality in which we live.
Below is space to publish the 8 article authors' rejoinders. Welcome !
To DN
The debate article https://www.dn.se/debatt/sprid-inte-bilden-av-att-det-ar-for-sent-att-radda-klimatet/
unfortunately contains many and also dangerous errors that radically prevent the Glasgow conference from being a success.
The authors are asked to respond to the comments via DN
https://ppm.today/index.html?bilden-av-att-det-aer-foer-sen.htm
Best regards
Bengt Ovelius
Here is the place to publish the 8 authors' replies