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




Ugo Bardi,

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

Common Survey,




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.



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.





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

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. 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.

Evidence here



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.


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 !







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


Best regards

Bengt Ovelius






Here is the place to publish the 8 authors' replies