An action plan for Climate
A different debate book on the climate
The book is about the disruptive ideas needed to tackle the climate crisis
but which unfortunately attract furious academic opposition simply because
the ideas are new. Super-entrepreneur Vinod Khosla apparently has similar
experiences. If the suspicions below are correct, we see
a huge potential for improvement. That's why an open, democratic
discussion is so important.
Three scientists have written the best paper in decades,
It was recommended by Greta and millions have read it.
"Zero Emissions is a dangerous trap".
Zero Emissions 2045 simply can't work because it
it has a long list of theoretical flaws.
We have 3000 Gt too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Here, the driver of the current increase is 0.035 C/year.
The increase per year that NASA measures will continue, whatever we do
in the context of reducing emissions.
Reduced emissions can only be on the order of 3 Gton/year, globally.
That's 0.1 % of the CO2 that already exists
Moreover, it takes 700 years for a change in CO2 levels to take effect
fully as global temperature.
Moreover, those 3000 Gt cannot become less. So 0.035C/year
cannot be less either. Whatever we do, we are above 0.035C/year.
Therefore, NetZero 2050 is ineffective in the perspective of 2050.
An ambitious NetZero 2050 effort by the major countries will be barely measurable.
Everyone should check this mathematically for themselves.
Climate experts and politicians do not seem to take notice.
The alternative view is that they have become completely silent and
helpless because the only climate policy the world has, fades away.
Nor is there the slightest hint of thought about what will come instead.
Every uncomfortable discussion has so far been swept under the carpet.
The world must have an answer: how will a functioning climate policy
look like when Zero Emissions 2050 is not working?
There is demonstrably only one answer:
200 Gt of CO2 must be removed every year,
or 2 Gt of methane. Impossible or not? This is
an ultimatum from the laws of nature. Win or lose !
(200 Gton= 200 000 000 000 Tons = 200 000 000 000 000 kg )
In 2008 I came up on US Ambassador Michael Woods
list as one of Sweden's most interesting innovators.
What I had created was a new scientific field
"Stackfree Thermoacoustics". It was possible to achieve cubic metres per second with
very cold air, -30 C by using a sound wave. Within reach
it seemed possible to make a heat pump with COP=10
which would make house heating almost free. Within reach were
also the possibility to take water directly from the air using a sound wave,
to irrigate dry areas.
One professor1 was vehemently opposed to our getting some subsidies, but
had to give in when experiments proved him wrong.
A professor2 who regularly monitored the experiments, year after year,
was a valuable support. "You are on the right track, this works" was his
was his conclusion. His accuracy and knowledge were impressive.
A large company wanted to realise this project.
A group of experts and academics who didn't understand the theory behind "stack-free thermoacoustics"
succeeded in dismissing Professor2 from office and destroying the whole project with a
scientific report full of errors.
A big company does not dare to enter a project that is opposed by a group of experts and academics.
Even Rudolf Diesel was opposed by the academic world to the point of
that the diesel engine barely became a reality. Then a professor from the Cologne University of Technology
ensured that Diesel made no money from his innovation.
Is academia a brake on the disruptive innovations that are
necessary for us to survive the climate crisis?
It is crucial to discuss this as our survival might depend on it.
In 2008, I used my own model for climate calculation based on the
scatterplot that had emerged from Vostok Ice Cores. The book is available here.
With this simple thought model, a perfectly working forecast was made
2008-2021. At a glance, you can see that the Earth's temperature
rises about 36 C for every doubling of CO2 levels. Just count the squares !
This is called climate sensitivity (=cs).
A professor in the IPCC declared in 2008: "You don't understand this.
It's +2C by 2100 that counts". After years of uncertainty
I got the proof that my prediction actually won.
The IPCC's main forecast of 2008-2021 was a disaster.
How can you get 70 years wrong in a 100 year period? Hard to beat this record.
How do you make sure no one talks about it ?
It's all because the IPCC has been calculating with the wrong climate sensitivity
for 40 years cs=3
These errors are now in the bill and swedish and EU climate laws and here is the basis
of the non-functioning Zero Emissions 2050 policy.
If we are to have any chance of overcoming the climate crisis,
everything must be ased on truth.
The book shows with text and mathematical derivation that the two curves below
from the IPCC (2021) and SMHI are incorrect and dangerous. Earth's temperature stays
constant when emissions cease. With Scatterzone Theory and a correct
climate sensitivity, the curves look completely different.
Quotes from the three scientists might fit in here:
Instead of working through our doubts, we scientists decided to
construct increasingly detailed fantasy worlds in which we would be safe.
The price to pay for our cowardice: keeping our mouths shut......
Here we see detailed fantasy worlds from the IPCC and SMHI respectively.
It is the end of civilization if these fraud graphs are not discussed very soon.
It might very well be the scandal of the century.
The ScatterzoneZone ideas have been presented to the IPCC, SMHI etc.
basically since 2008 without any reaction.
Is academia a brake on the disruptive understanding of climate
that is necessary for us to survive the climate crisis?
Our unique climate calculator can calculate all climate sensitivities and all
time constants between CO2 and temperature. Through this calculator
you can see in a convincing way the mathematical proof of why
IPCC+SMHI have been widely deceived both on climate sensitivity
and time constants. Here is the calculator.
Lawyers have even banned professors from being affected by the message
in this book. That is how dangerous the search for truth can be perceived.
Thus, in all humility, an entirely new climate theory is proposed
"Scatterzone Theory" that can play a central role in understanding climate
and tailor solutions. Experts are invited to confirm this theory
or describe their divergent worldview with mathematics as extensive as mine
used at the end of the book.
Could it be that the real expertise is in industry and in
independent innovators ? If we are to realise innovations in the shortest possible time
of a class the world has never seen before, then all aspects must be discussed.
It is simply a question of discussing the naked truth,
otherwise we will not be able to overcome the climate crisis.
So this book is about the disruptive ideas needed to tackle the climate crisis
but which unfortunately attract furious academic opposition simply because
the ideas are new.
I'm sure there are many academics who are put in a bad mood by these ideas
and see their power and influence threatened.
But what lies in the other scale? Because so many have not done their
jobs, we are on the brink of global collapse.
We have increasing rates of suicide among young people who don't see
a future because climate experts and politicians are not showing
any leadership at all.
Swedisch Television Says : Government's lack of action plans is more shocking
than the IPCC report. Published 9 August 2021 Erika Bjerström
This raises a long list of issues that need to be addressed.
Does academia have an outdated structure and outdated teaching ?
Have we created a society that blocks out 90% of the innovations
that we now urgently need for the survival of civilisation?
Was J.F. Kennedy right to deepen the democratic process
by reducing groupthink ?
Is it Groupthink in science that is quietly and imperceptibly destroying
science from within ? The book deals with the research on this.
It seems to be a destroyed science when tens of thousands of professors
within the IPCC over the course of 40 years fail to figure out a
climate sensitivity that is consistent with the laws of nature.
The only aim of this debate is to enable young people to have
a fantastic future.
We can step in and show leadership.
The climate experts need to speak plainly about this. The people want to build climate work on truth.
Politicians must have an action plan based on truth, science, mathematics and a comprehensive national discussion
which must take up 1000 times more time than Corona, because the climate problem is 1000 times more serious.
TV and the press have a huge responsibility.