Two factors

Two factors that save humanity according to. IPCC:

 

A pool of expertise along with the IPCC assures that temperatures will stop when emissions stop.

 

The two mechanisms that save humanity look like this: (inspired by Thorsten Mauritsen)

 

1. One is that the oceans at the surface are already close to thermal equilibrium with the

current level of greenhouse gas forcing.

If this forcing is maintained by stopping new emissions,

the deep oceans will continue to warm, but the surface will warm very little.

 

2. The second part is that if emissions stop

carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will slowly decrease because

carbon dioxide is absorbed in the ocean, counteracting the small warming

of the surface. As a result, the surface temperature will remain roughly constant in

centuries, and eventually fall.

 

 

Proof that the above two factors cannot work in reality:.

 

The rough rule of thumb for expected global temperature:

t=1.443*cs*ln(ppmCO2/275)=21C cs=36 ppmCO2=413

 

clip4793

 

 

Model: the Earth is in an oven.

So the oven is at +21 C

A bowl of water, +1.1 C corresponds to the oceans on Earth.

 

What the IPCC claims is that the surface water in the bowl stays at +1.1C

for hundreds of years due to circulation in the bowl and transport

of CO2 to the bottom water - even though the oven is constantly at +21C.

earth_oven_bowl_skal2

These 4 scientific reports say the same thing if you drill the message down to the core:

 

"The surface water in the bowl stays at +1.1C for hundreds of years thanks to circulation in the bowl and transport

of CO2 to the bottom water - even though the furnace is constantly at +21C."

 

IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report See chapter 5

MacDougal_etal_2020

Mauritsen_Pincus_2017

Short-lived climate pollution

 

 

 

 

It can all be summed up with this image from the IPCC.

 

 

clip4973

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/1-2/1-2-4/figure-5-pdf/

 

The flaw with this figure above from the IPCC is that it is calculated with the wrong climate sensitivity (=3).

 

clip4793

 

 

 

In a world that the IPCC paints with climate sensitivity=3, the expected stabilized

temperature will be t=1.443*cs*ln(ppmCO2/275)=+1.8C cs=3 ppmCO2=413

See red line at 413 ppm CO2.

 

Our unique climate calculator, which can handle all values of climate sensitivity, shows

that the time constant in the IPCC's world must be 25 years for their world to fit

NASA's real temperature measurements (black graph to the right).

 

clip4974

 

 

 

If you turn off all emissions in the IPCC world, when we are now at +1.1 C

then committed warming will  end up at t=1.443*cs*ln(ppmCO2/275)=+1.8C

and stabilisation will occur in 25 years.  The climate politics of the world today

has a good chance of working as promised.

 

 

The IPCC writes : Compared to pre-industrial levels, we find a

warming of 1.5 K at equilibrium and 1.3 K during this century,

assuming that ocean carbon uptake cancels out the remaining

greenhouse gas-induced warming on century time scales,

the projected warming is reduced to 1.1 K

In the latter case, there is a 13% risk that the predicted warming already

exceeds the 1.5 K target set in Paris.

 

All this shows that all the reports have made the same mistake: they have assumed

wrong climate sensitivity=3  (in my humble view)

 

The direct mathematical consequence of this is that the temperature stops when emissions stop.

All this is correct under cs=3. The IPCC has calculated correctly but has chosen the wrong climate sensitivity.

 

The true climate sensitivity is around cs=36 and the time constant around 700 years.

 

We are now at +1.1 C

Right now committed warming will  end up at t=1.443*36*ln(413/275)=+21.1C

and the stabilization will occur in 700 years.

 

Then the earth's temperature will continue upwards almost just as fast when emissions are stopped.

This is simple and crystal clear mathematics.

 

Another consequence is that business as usual  only cause marginally faster climate warming.

This is because a true climate sensitivity=cs=36 gives a very long time constant (700 years)

What is emitted per year is only 1% of what is already there and this subset

has its effect spread out over 700 years.

 

Therefore, the factor driving the increase in temperature must be addressed:

It is the CO2 that already exists. It is not current emissions. Its effect is

barely measurable in 30 years. Even here, the IPCC is wrong to show such a big difference between

different global emissions if calculated at cs=36.

The difference between SSP1-19 and SSP5-85 is not as big as the picture shows at cs=36:

On the other hand, the slope of the base is minimum 0.035 C/year.

The IPCC which calculates with cs=3  can't be aware of  these aspects of reality appearing at cs=36.

 

IPCC_AR6_WG1_SPM_page_29_SSP1_to_5_a_and_b-

 

 

This is a serious issue.

All the authors seem to have fallen into the same trap !

 

Welcome to confirm or refute in a way that everyone can understand !

Our whole climate policy depends on getting this right --- quickly !!!!!!

 

 

I worked with a scientist in 2008 who was quite clear

that temperatures don't stop at zero emissions.

 

Together we submitted this info as well as the curves below

to the IPCC top leadership in May 2008. The IPCC responded and took this

very seriously  and promised to discuss with colleagues.

 

clip4909

The IPCC continues to make the same errors 14 years later which may come

cause the end of civilization.

 

14 years would have been enough time analyze the situation, prove what is true and

to steer towards a workable climate policy if necessary.

 

The cause of all these dangerous errors is the wrong climate sensitivity 3.

 

 

 

Grateful if  united climate experts can confirm

 

1. that temperatures are continuing to rise,

when emissions are stopped, (so that climate policy can be corrected)

 

2. alternatively explain so that everyone can understand why a bowl of cold water

can stay cold for 100's of years in a hot oven.

The salvation of mankind depends on it. Nothing is more important to explain.

 

Please look at further discussion here at Deep Sea .