2021 10 19
DN Debate. "Don't spread the image that it's too late to save the climate"
Frida Bender, docent, universitetslektor i klimatmodellering, Meterologiska institutionen, Stockholms universitet
Rodrigo Caballero, professor i klimatmodellering, Meterologiska institutionen, Stockholms universitet
Deliang Chen, professor i fysikalisk meteorologi, Institutionen för geovetenskaper, Göteborgs universitet
John Hassler, professor i nationalekonomi, Institutet för internationell ekonomi, Stockholms universitet
Per Krusell, professor i nationalekonomi, Institutet för internationell ekonomi, Stockholms universitet
Thorsten Mauritsen, universitetslektor i klimatvetenskap, Meterologiska institutionen, Stockholms universitet
Jonas Nycander, professor i fysisk oceanografi, Meterologiska institutionen, Stockholms universitet
Michael Tjernström, professor i meteorologi, Meterologiska institutionen, Stockholms universitet
Comments from Bengt Ovelius:
In summarizing the article below, the following call for
the climate expert who wrote the article:
Stand up and declare the following: (or prove the opposite mathematically )
1.The Earth's temperature continues to rise at about the same rate no matter what we do
2.It is the 3000 Gtons of CO2 that already exist that is causing this upward journey
3.Annually, global emissions add about 1% of what is already there.
4.Its temperature impact is spread out 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.
Thus the entire article you wrote falls.
DN should request that the article be rewritten in its entirety based on the truth.
(The following Black text are parts of the article in DN)
Climate scientists: equating climate change risks with
humanity's demise 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 means that almost all IPCC predictions are wrong.
For example, I calculated 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
IPCC insists on sticking to climate sensitivity=3, trend downwards
in the last report. Glad the Nobel Prize is a tribute to climate sensitivity=2.3
Such miscalculations will be our undoing. The power of climate is downplayed
and support is given to much longer use of fossil fuels.
Climate sensitivity=3 resulted in the IPCC miscalculation being 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 ?
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 main authors of the latest
report from the UN IPCC.
The paralysis of action is the refusal of scientists to admit the truth
in the above 8 points.
I am also waiting for a response from Deliang Chen regarding the article in GP 26 Sept.
But we also want to convey the insight that the risk that young people in the West 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
Professor of physical chemistry
Department of Chemistry University of Florence, Florence, Italy,
has been researching the "Seneca curve"
Growth is slow but the fall to ruin is fast.
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
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
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
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.
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
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, and ignoring
the cost and effectiveness of different measures.
It can also lead to a setback for climate action when it shows
that the Earth will not end if the 1.5°C 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 +1.5 C is decades away.
A crude 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 progress 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
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. This is also
easy to prove with high school mathematics. Everyone can understand this.
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 social 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.
This is a poor breeding ground for policy decisions and international
agreements needed for an orderly transition to
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 and the coming discussion
should be strictly mathematical.
Below is space to publish the replies of the 8 article authors. Welcome !
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
Here is the place to publish the 8 authors' replies