Sunday, December 6, 2009

Climategate still ignored in Swedish media

It has been several weeks since the Climategate scandal broke loose. But in Swedish news papers and news broadcast on both radio and TV, the scandal is not even mentioned! It is completely ignored, or what I fear, it is censored. My interpretation is that the Swedish media does not dare to bring up anything that contradicts the "general consensus" of AGW based on CO2 now that we are closing into the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen next week. After all, until the end of this year Sweden is driving the climate work within the European union.

Just for reference: If I do a search for "Climategate" on Google search today I get 30,7 million results!

The great news about Climategate is that it has been confirmed that there have been major manipulation to the raw temperature data at CRU. But for some strange reason Swedish climate scientist also deny these findings..."move along, nothing to see here". This is truly amazing, or do they just don't understand the impact of the apparent fraud done at CRU?

Someone asked "but if the results and conclusions from CRU have been confirmed by other independent research teams, how have they been able to get the same results without manipulating the data?". The question is valid and I fear that the Climategate scandal will grow and many research teams will be affected.

At least the East Anglia University understands the problem and have started an investigation and also aim at publishing all raw data. The MET also plans to recalculate it's temperature series.

To give some references, I suggest looking at the following two blogs (there are daily updates and many interesting results):
Just to give some example of the findings:
When I started this blog, I asked for all raw data to be published. It seems that I will get what I asked for :-)

My next request is for Swedish climate scientists to make a 180 degree turn and start looking into their own results based on the new raw temperature data. They have to do this really soon before the situation starts to get too embarrassing and before they run out of road to turn on...

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Climat scientists in complete denial?

One thing that is very troublesome is the way climate scientists supporting AGW is acting in blogs and on internet forums. I just can't understand the behavior. Let me give an example:

In my previous blog "Why are we always 10 years from doomsday?" I got a comment with a link to "Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies". Ok, so I started to read that blog. What is the first impression? There is no interest what-so-ever to find the truth about climate changes. All that is stated is that people that are not in favor of AGW are deniers and the list of articles is irrelevant.

I simply can't understand the reason to this mindset towards other scientists and also general public that would like to know more about the climate changes and the reason why climate changes are occurring. There seems to be no interest to find any alternative explanation to climate changes than AGW and CO2. Thus I would say that most climate scientists active today are deniers, they don't want to find the real reason for climate changes!

There have been many suggestions that climate data have been manipulated. When a "hacker" revealed emails and other documents from some of the more prominent AGW "scientists" it is quite obvious what is going on. My conclusions so far (based on the many blog posts on the subject):
  • Among these "scientists" there is no interest to find any alternative explanation to climate changes than CO2.
  • Anyone not in favor of AGW must be discredited and not allowed to publish any papers or articles. Some "scientists" are even happy and cheering when "opponents" die!
  • The climate changes reported by IPCC and in recent year are mostly man made, i.e., they do not exist in the way they are described but constructed from manipulated data.
What is most disturbing about this? There may actually be real climate changes going on that threatens human life on the Earth, but we will not know about it! Since every scientist that are allowed to publish papers and get funding is in favor of AGW and not trying to find any other alternative explanation.

Therefor, I would say that every climate scientist active today is as trustworthy as any successful professional cyclist from the 90's when saying that they have never been using doping.

My conclusion: Every paper ever published on climate changes are potentially (or most likely) wrong!

Monday, November 16, 2009

Why are we always 10 years from doomsday?

It is always interesting to make a historic inventory of different claims about the climate: "Not again! Another 10-year tipping point issued".

One way of interpreting the history is that we have never known enough. Do we know enough today? Well, if you look at this video you will see that there are thousands of scientists working on various aspects of our climate and describe and model the behavior of the climate: Rachel Pike: The science behind a climate headline. I must admit, it's a stunning presentation!

But some claim that not all scientists are allowed to influence the work in UN and IPCC. Some of the papers written by other scientists have been collected here: Reference: 450 skeptical peer reviewed papers.

It is very strange, that given that we almost certainty do not know enough about the climate and what drives the climate, why are some scientists not allowed to provide their input?

In a Swedish blog, Lars Bern asks if AGW and IPCC is a way for the UN to get a new level of control over the world and if this is based on one of the biggest attempt to fraud in human history?

Well, it is a valid question!

Monday, October 19, 2009

What's the status of the global warming today?

The people working with tracking and analyzing the Earth's climate must all be old meteorologists. As meteorologists they were allowed to be wrong every day when trying to guess the weather for the next day. When working with climate it seems to be allowed to be wrong every day as well. Just have a look at the following:

  • WWF makes a statement that to me appears to be a declaration of war. Why are they doing such a statement, what do they know?
  • SPPI publishes a report clearly stating that there is no global warming.
  • According to NASA measurements, Antarctica is not decreasing in size and has not been for the last 30 years. But for some very strange reason, this news is not reported anywhere, why?
As an outside observer to all this mess, what data and what facts can we trust?

Thursday, October 15, 2009

CO2 vs H2O

Continuing the Blog Action Day 2009 with one more blog.

We know that CO2 can absorb IR radiation, but not very well. On the other hand water, H2O, is a very good absorber. In comparison, the effect of CO2 absorption is almost negligible compared to H2O. So why is all focus on CO2 and not on water vapor in the air?

If we temporarily assume that AGW is true and that it is caused by man made CO2 emissions. Using the same model for water would result in an even better "isolation" of the Earth. Should we then not do everything we could to stop emitting water from man made activities?

As it turns out, global warming is not hitting the entire globe to the same extent, despite CO2 levels being quite equal everywhere. But, the temperature increase found in the end of the 20th century was mainly on the northern hemisphere and in urban areas.

Hello...anyone seeing the connection here? Human activity - increase of water vapor locally - small local temperature increase. Thus, there may be some substance in AGW, but it's not due to CO2. Even if water contributed to all measured temperature increase, it was only adding a small increase and the contribution from CO2 is in this context ridiculously small.

Please note, that when looking at the global climate a lot of things needs to be considered where the influence of the oceans is one of the biggest contributors. The amount of energy stored in the oceans is much, much higher than the energy in the air. If we were able to direct an ocean current properly towards the Arctic ice, we would probably be able to melt all ice within a few years time.

Why is change bad?

The Blog Action Day 2009: Climate Change is by some people interpreted as the blog action day against climate changes. I don't understand this. Normally "change" is means something positive, good and natural. But when it comes to the climate, the word change seems to be the worst thing that can happen.

As a result of "climate changes" it has been proposed a lot of things that can go bad:
  • Flooding will get worse
  • Storms will increase
  • More areas will turn into dessert
  • Polar ice will melt
  • The poor people and third world will get hit the worst
But what is the logic behind this? That we have been at an optimum point for our climate and every change will result in a worse climate? I don't think so! The only thing that is sure is that a change will result in something different compared to today. Through history we have learned that empires have grown, had their golden days and died. In many case, maybe in all, these empires golden days have a strong correlation to a good climate (warm weather and much rain) and good harvests.

I'm sure that we will see a lot more climate changes in the future. Of course that many get scared about this fact. Me too. What if my hometown would no longer be a place where it's possible to live? We actually had such occasions in Sweden's history not too long ago. In the 19th century there were several years with bad harvests and many people emigrated to north America.

My conclusions is: There will be changes in the world due to climate changes, regardless if AGW is true or not, let's make our best to cope with the situation!

Is there a connection between CO2 and global warming?

If you read blogs today from the Blog Action Day 2009: Climate Change, there is almost an equal sign between:
  • AGW
  • CO2
  • Climate change
Why? If you look at "The Science of Global Warming in Perspective" the result is that the increase of CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm has a ridiculously low impact on the temperature as CO2 is not very good as a "green house gas". But on the other hand, it is possible through various methods to find out variations on CO2 and temperature over a very long time span. In "Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report" it is reported on how this data was extracted from ocean sediments giving an unprecedented look into the history. I must first of all congratulate to this amazing achievement, it is most outstanding! A work well done.

I have no reason to question the correctness of the result. There may be measurement errors or problems with this method, but it is less relevant at this point. The outcome is that there is a correlation between CO2 and the temperature! This is very important result and this is essentially what everyone working with climate research is also claiming.

OK, so we know that there have been a natural, i.e., not man made, change that have affected the levels of CO2 and the temperature. We of course also know this from the fact that there have been ice ages and times when there have been less or no ice at all in the Arctic and Antarctica.

If the previous climate changes were not man made, what caused it and why is there a correlation between temperature (T) and CO2? I have four different suggestions:
  1. T & CO2 are independent of each other: There exists an unknown parameter X. This parameter changes over time by some external force. Both T and CO2 will both increase and decrease in the same manner based on changes of X (i.e., T = f(X) and CO2 = g(X)).
  2. T depends of CO2: The global warming concept. When CO2 rises, T will also rise. An open question that remains to be answered is what causes changes of CO2 if it's not man made?
  3. CO2 depends on T: When temperature rise, the amount of CO2 will increase. One possible explanation for this is all the CO2 stored in the oceans. When the temperature rise, the oceans will release more CO2 compared to when it is colder. Just as your carbonated soft drink will lose all the bubbles when being placed in sun light. But what would increase the temperature? Most of the energy reaching the Earth is from the Sun. It is a huge amount of energy! There are some different changes worth considering: changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun and changes in Sun's radiation.
  4. CO2 & T depends on each other: If you combine all the 3 first you will get T = f(CO2,X) and CO2 = g(T,X).
At this point you really have to do some thinking of your own :-) To be honest, this is not easy, and that is probably one of the reasons why there is no conclusive result that explains current climate changes.

But one thing i very, very strange. Assuming that CO2 is what is driving climate changes, why are "everyone" focusing on reducing the man made CO2? The maximum amount of CO2 emissions that can be reduced are still small, and almost insignificant, compared to natural sources. Why are we not focusing on reducing the natural CO2 emissions instead?

Who can we trust?

(This is a part of the Blog action day 2009: Climate change)

I you ask me "who can we trust when it comes to information about climate changes?", I would happily answer no one!

From all the blogs, articles etc that I have been reading, there have been tons of lies, false information and a lot of incorrect conclusions. Does this mean that this blog is the only one you can trust? NO, you can' must actually think for yourself and if you have any ideas that can contribute to my understanding, please contact me. In the end, we are all living on the same Earth. I don't think the Earth is "dying" due to climate changes, but I think we as humans have a lot of challenges a head of us in order to be able to live well in peace and freedom on this Earth.

Just to give you some ideas of the contradictions that can be found:
  • Here is a video showing that CO2 absorbs heat radiation (infra red radiation). Ok, that is fine there is no problem accepting that fact and anyone can reproduce that experiment with the same result. However, CO2 only absorbs certain wave lengths of the IR radiation according to this web page. That last fact is harder for "anyone" to reproduce, but still not a problem to verify. So, what does this give us? We have an educational video that shows an invalid experiment in order to confuse us?
  • What happens if someone is questioning the "truth"? Have a look at this video, it speaks for itself.
  • It has also been identified that data used by IPCC has been seriously flawed and manipulated. For Swedish readers I could also suggest reading this.
So, I only have two simple requests to everyone working with climate:
  1. Please publish all raw data about the climate without any manipulation or modification.
  2. Don't lie!
Can you believe that maybe the last 10 years of research could be completely wasted due to manipulated data and people telling lies? Let us hope that it isn't that bad and that truth will prevail...soon!

My position about climate changes

Welcome to the Blog action day 2009: Climate change!

I would like to give my position about "climate change" in this blog, in a few words:
  • I consider climate change on Earth a natural thing. Looking at history we see that there have been colder periods (with ice age) and there have been warmer periods.
  • I think it is extremely complicated to model or describe all the details the influences the climate. On a global scale, there are probably thousands of different parameters that needs to be considered just to make a rough usable model.
  • I think human can to some extent influence the climate locally.
  • I don't think CO2, as a green house gas, is contributing significantly to the measured global warming seen in the end of the 20th century.
  • I think that any attempt by human to actively change the climate by some new technology will almost certainly fail. History shows that we rarely know enough about things until we have done the mistakes.
  • I'm very concerned about pollution in our environment, how we should be able to feed all people in the future, how we can help exposed people in the third world etc. But this has nothing to do with climate changes.
I hope you will enjoy reading my blogs about the climate!

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Welcome to my blog!

Together with millions of people around the world, I'm worried about the climate changes coming in the future. About half a year ago I started to read various blogs, papers and articles about climate changes, global warming, environmental problems etc. Today I tracking several different blogs on a daily basis to learn more.

The only thing I'm really sure about at this point is that there are a lot of misunderstanding in this area. There is also a lot of lies, fake and manipulated data etc that are used for various purposes such a confirming incorrect theories. This pisses me off! This is not acceptable!

I decided to start this blog in order to participate in the Blog action day 09: Climate change.