Climate researcher Jørgen Randers receives harsh criticism for his research report – NRK Norway – Summary of news from different parts of the country

“Dust at the end of the world” and “hopelessly inadequate model.”

The criticism comes from Norwegian climate economist and researcher Jørgen Randers and co-author Ulrich Goluke recently publishing an article on global warming in Scientific Reports. The journal is owned and operated by the renowned Nature.

In the article, the duo present a series of grim predictions based on their own ESCIMO climate model.

– Nothing would have been better than us wrong, Randers tells NRK.

According to Randers and Goluke, their model shows that we have already passed “the point of no return.” Global warming will intensify regardless of new greenhouse gas emissions.

The study has been covered by various international outlets, including the United States and the United Kingdom.

The reactions came quickly. Several well-known climate scientists responded on social media. The article has also attracted the attention of Norwegian researchers.

Self-booster heating

Randers and Goluke’s conclusions are based on a number of known mechanisms in which global warming leads to changes that even more heating. These feedback loops can be:

1. Melting ice means less solar energy is reflected back into space, generating more heat and more melting.
2. A higher temperature produces more water vapor in the air, which in turn captures more heat and gives a higher temperature.
3. The thawing of permafrost generates greenhouse gas emissions from the soil, which in turn provides more heat and more thaw.

What is special about the Randers and Goluke model is that these effects alene it is enough to maintain global warming until the year 2500. Even if we cut all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow.

The result is in stark contrast to what other modern climate models show.

– If we are right, as I am pretty sure we are, then we will have helped to improve climate models and we can provide better policy information, Randers tells NRK.

According to the article, it is a way to break the vicious cycle: stop all emissions and at the same time absorb huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere.

Massacre the perpetrators’ model

But the mathematical model that Randers and Goluke have used to simulate the weather is getting the slippery slope of several renowned climate scientists.

– After discussing it with several colleagues, we believe that this model has no credibility, says Professor Richard Betts from the University of Exeter to The Independent.

Zeke Hausfather, director of climate and energy at The Breakthrough Institute, also dismisses the study as silly. In a message to NRK, he writes that Randers and Goluke assume that “feedback loops” are much stronger than most other research suggests.

– My concern is that people do not realize that this is an article written by non-experts where the results are in stark contrast to our most advanced models of the Earth’s climate, he writes in a message to NRK.

Well-known climate scientist Michael E. Mann also fired on Twitter:

Norwegian researcher supports criticism

Lead researcher Bjørn Samset from the Cicero Climate Research Center has read Rander and Goluke’s study. He says he “essentially” agrees with the criticism.

– What they have done is take their special model, with the assumptions it has, and promote it over time. It’s okay. But when you say “this is going to happen” and “this has happened”, I mean it will be wrong, he tells NRK.

– We still have opportunities to limit the worst consequences of global warming. It will be demanding, but we can make a difference, he adds.

Means the article

Jørgen Randers tells NRK that he is responsible for both the use of the model and the conclusions drawn.

– It is incorrect to say that our model cannot be used to analyze these types of questions, he tells NRK

Randers admits that the model is much simpler than the more advanced climate models. He believes, on the other hand, that it is a strength, not a weakness.

– The point is that it is a different model, casual, dynamic and based on fundamental physical causal models, he says.

Randers believes that when the relatively simple model reaches such a dramatic result, it is a sign that more advanced models need to be investigated further.

– The reason we are writing this is that we ask our knees to investigate if this is found in their models. Now we have their attention, says Randers.

He says he hopes the article is motivating rather than demotivating.

– What we say makes it even more important that we phase out coal, oil and gas as soon as possible. So one must quickly improve carbon capture and storage technology in order to suck up enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Randers says he certainly doesn’t mind that his results are sabotaged by a number of well-known climate scientists.

– No, I am delighted and I have achieved what I wanted.