tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69855912247645210482024-03-13T14:59:14.358+01:00Nicklas' climate blogNicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-47972589646079534922011-04-01T21:41:00.004+02:002011-04-01T22:20:43.922+02:00Trenberths missing heat has been found!There have been a lot of discussion about "Trenberths missing heat", e.g., see "<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/examining-trenberths-the-heat-will-come-back-to-haunt-us-sooner-or-later-statement/">Examining Trenberth’s ‘The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later’ statement</a>". What it is all about is that in the global energy budget there is approximately 0.8 W/m2 missing to confirm the AGW hypothesis based on CO2.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/missing_heat2_h.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 640px; height: 254px;" src="http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/missing_heat2_h.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />(Picture linked from US National Science Foundation)<br /><br />After careful investigation I have today, April 1, 2011, found where the heat is! The explanation is a rather simple Y2K problem showing up in Trenberths calculations. As you all know, there are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year">365 days every year</a>, except for every four years which has 366 days. Except that there are exceptions to first exception. Please consult Wikipedia's page about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_year">leap year</a> for the details.<br /><br />The problem that has happened in Tranberths calculations is that from 2000 and onwards, he has forgotten to add the leap days to the leap years. Not a big deal? Actually it is.<br /><br />The energy that heats the earth is approximately 1366 W/m2, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight">Sunlight</a>. The increase in energy when adding the approximately 0.25 days per year is thus: 0.25/365. This result in the total change in the energy budget with 1366*0.25/365 which is approximately 0.94 W/m2. It could possibly be that the year 2000 is correctly handled in Trenberths calculation and thus the difference will be lower.<br /><br />In any case, this difference is well within the estimation error done by Trenberth. Thus, the missing heat has been found to be a simple calculation error for leap years following the year 2000.<br /><br />Personally I think this is a disaster. This actually shows that the AGW hypothesis has been correct all the time but the calculations have been incorrect. Until today, I have always thought it was the other way around, i.e., the hypothesis is incorrect since it could not be possible to do simple calculation mistakes with the huge amount of review each climate science paper must undergo. Not to forget all "skeptics" that would do anything to find the smallest of errors in any paper.Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-71334432304559003902011-03-24T20:59:00.005+01:002011-03-24T21:34:25.793+01:00Utopi vs verklighetJag sitter och skummar genom ett stort antal bloggar och läser på <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=656">SkepticalScience</a> hur man kan gå över till helt "förnybara" energikällor.<br /><br /><blockquote>We recently examined how Australia can meet 100% of its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020. Here we will examine how that goal can be scaled up for the rest of the world.<br /><br />...<br /><br />There's a saying, "where there's a will, there's a way". In this case we have a way to fully transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy by 2050. The question is, do we have the will?<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Men som jag ser det så lär inte användningen av olja, kol och naturgas minska något nämnvärt det närmaste decenniet eftersom det är alldeles för billiga energikällor. Om man har en förhoppning eller målsättning att ersätta fossila energikällor så måste man konkurrera ut dem, jag ser inget annat sätt. Med andra ord, det som presenteras på SkepticalScience ser jag som ren utopi.<br /><br />I verkligen händer det istället riktiga och viktiga saker. Läs tex om att <a href="http://www.china.org.cn/china/2011-03/17/content_22166536.htm">Kina kommer starta byggandet av sin första Gen IV reaktor</a>. De viktigaste fördelarna med Gen IV jämfört med de gamla skruttarna som vi har i Sverige (och som för den delen även finns i Japan där det nyligen uppstod härdsmälta) är säkerhet, kostnad samt användningen av bränslet på ett annat sätt så att man slipper problemet med slutförvaring.<br /><br />Gen IV kraftverk är ingen lösning för all framtid, men det är en möjlighet att på kort sikt konkurrera ut fossila bränslen (om man nu så önskar). Den enda möjligheten. Varför är den sk miljörörelsen emot ny modern kärnkraft? Varför vill man satsa på miljöförstörande teknik som tex vindkraft? Varför vill man symbolisera framtiden som mörk och osäker med <a href="http://www.earthhour.org">Earth hour</a> istf att se ljust på framtiden, utveckling, människans drivkraft och uppfinningsrikedom? Själv skall jag inte "fira" människans undergång under Earth hour på lördag utan istället tända en (energisnål) lampa för upplysningens timme. Det tycker jag att du också skall göra!<br /><br />(Länktipsen kommer från <a href="http://gunnarlittmarck.blogspot.com/2011/03/forsta-masstillverkade-geniv-kommer.html">Gunnars Littmarks blogg</a>)Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-32479976289677242772011-01-05T23:17:00.005+01:002011-01-05T23:54:42.813+01:00CO2 and ice ages?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.ekstrand.org/climate/iceage20101122/all.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 1200px; height: 900px;" src="http://www.ekstrand.org/climate/iceage20101122/all.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />On Skeptical Science there appeared a blog today about <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=502">"Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change"</a>. They show a figure from the ice core records from Vostok.<br /><br />I actually studied this particular data a few weeks ago since I noticed a small error in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg">figure presented on Wikipedia</a>. If you look very carefully you will notice that the three graphs are not aligned properly!<br /><br />I downloaded the data and made my own graphs. You may find all the figures and Octave/Matlab scripts here: <a href="http://www.ekstrand.org/climate/iceage20101122/">http://www.ekstrand.org/climate/iceage20101122/</a>.<br /><br />About the main question, what conclusions are possible make from this data? I can think of three different things:<br /><br />1) There is a systematic error in the data and CO2 and temperature should be aligned (if you didn't notice, there is a 600-1000 year delay in the CO2 levels after the temperature). <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/nasa-giss-in-science-express-co2-climates-main-control-knob/">CO2 is the primary control knob of the earths temperature</a>. We have no explanation for the CO2 changes.<br /><br />2) CO2 does not affect the temperature in any significant way. But the temperature of the oceans will control the CO2 in the atmosphere. We have no explanation for the temperature changes.<br /><br />3) CO2 has a major impact on earths temperature: more CO2 will cool the earth.<br /><br />On Skeptical Science they promote the theory that CO2 provides positive feedback. That means that something triggers an increase in temperature -> CO2 levels will rise -> more temperature rise. But we can't make that conclusion from this data since there is no explanation why the temperature rise stops and we get a temperature drop when the CO2 level increases far enough. Does the positive feedback turn negative all of a sudden?<br /><br />You have to look at the graphs more than once. But after a while you will probably see what I wrote as item 3: The high CO2 level will actually push the earth into a new ice age. The temperature increase -> CO2 levels will rise -> as CO2 levels rise a negative feedback kicks in -> temperature decreases -> CO2 levels will fall after some time.<br /><br />As far as I can tell, item 2 and 3 are both consistent with the theory outlined in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6">Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory</a>.<br /><br />But item 1 and the description on the Skeptical Science blog does not appear to be reasonable from this data alone.Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-1512180997066639412011-01-05T22:58:00.003+01:002011-01-05T23:09:18.005+01:00World climate widget shows too low temperature?For those of you how look at the world climate widget on the right hand side of my blog may have been puzzled by the last update with the December 2010 temperature. The temperature anomaly is now at +0.18C, while it was "much" higher just a month ago. There are two reasons for this:<br /><br />1) The global temperature is decreasing really fast as a result of the transition from El Nino to La Nina conditions last year.<br />2) There is a change in the base line for the anomaly.<br /><br />The reason for the base line change can be found on <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/">Roy Spencer's blog</a>:<br /><br />"NEW 30-YEAR BASE PERIOD IMPLEMENTED!<br />Sorry for yelling like that, but if you have been following our global tropospheric temperature updates every month, you will have to re-calibrate your brains because we have just switched from a 20 year base period (1979 – 1998) to a more traditional 30 year base period (1981-2010) like that NOAA uses for climate “normals”."<br /><br />So, no need to worry this is just a small offset update as it has no implications of the actual interpretation of the data.Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-60001005280775228272010-11-18T21:17:00.002+01:002010-11-18T21:58:41.072+01:00Efter 4 timmar med "The Global Warming hearing"Jag har ägnat några timmar av dagen åt att lyssna på den utfrågning som var igår:<br /><a href="http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/11/17/HP/A/40918/House+Science+Technology+Subcommittee+Hearing+on+Climate+Change+Science.aspx">House Science & Technology Subcommittee Hearing on Climate Change Science</a><br /><br />Det är rätt länge att sitta nästan 4 timmar och lyssna på detta, men det är samtidigt rätt intressant. Med några få undantag så tyckte jag att deltagarna gjorde ett bra intryck och redogjorde bra för sina ståndpunkter och vad de baserar sina ståndpunkter på.<br /><br />Mina slutsatser från utfrågningen är dessa:<br /><br />* Det finns fortfarande några knäppgökar som tror att vi står inför en "tipping point" och att allting går åt skogen om vi inte genast upphör med alla CO2-utsläpp. Dessa personer övertygar inte och ingen tar dem på allvar.<br /><br />* CO2 påverkar strålningsbalansen i atmosfären. Men resultatet är mycket lite och kanske inte ens signifikant även om CO2-halten skulle fördubblas. Det råder enighet om detta.<br /><br />* Det finns olika syn på vilken återkoppling som en ökning av CO2 kommer ge upphov till, tex ökad vattenånga i atmosfären, molnbildning mm. IPCC hävdar positiv återkoppling och tex Lindzen påvisar negativ återkoppling baserat på satellitmätningar från de senaste åren.<br /><br />* Liv i hav och sjöar påverkas pga ökad CO2-halt som ger försurning i vatten. Ingen ifrågasätter detta heller även om naturligtvis omfattningen är föremål för vidare undersökning.<br /><br />* Klimatet ändras på många ställen på jordklotet. Ingen ifrågasätter detta heller. Lokala klimatförändringar pågår hela tiden. Men vilka förändringar som beror på CO2, om ens någon, är mycket oklart.<br /><br />* Judith Curry hade en bra kommentar där hon säger att det som är dåligt för någon kan vara bra för någon annan. Hon tar Kina som exempel och undrar vad har de för motivation att inte höja temperaturen om det leder till behagligare temperatur och mer nederbörd?<br /><br />* Slutligen, oavsett om CO2 har någon betydelse eller inte: Den som är smart är förberedd och har alternativa energikällor redo innan det är för sent.<br /><br /><br />Så, mycket att de som sade ligger väl i linje med vad jag själv tycker:<br /><br />1) Glöm bort häxjakten på CO2 och låt klimatforskare objektivt och ostört ägna sig åt klimatet. AGW hypotesen mm kan vi slänga i sophinken!<br /><br />2) Studera inte något globalt klimat som inte existerar. Studera istället vad som händer på regional nivå. Det händer saker hela tiden, klimatet förändras kontinuerligt och oavsett hur mycket CO2 som finns i atmosfären. Om man skall anpassa sig så måste man göra det baserat på vad som händer på regional nivå. Jag rekommenderar en titt på det arbete som <a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/">Roger Pielke Sr</a> ligger bakom. Det handlar om att ha en mycket bredare syn än enbart CO2-halt och global temperatur.<br /><br />3) Det finns ingen anledning över huvud taget att inte finna alternativa och bättre energikällor än olja, kol naturgas mm. Att minska förbränningen av fossila bränslen är troligtvis både bra och önskvärt även om det inte påverkar klimatet. Den som är smart har redan börjat och den som är dum står och väntar på att USA, eller att de blivande supermakterna Kina och Indien, skall ta täten. Varför sitter du nu här och hänger på denna bloggen? <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sätt genast igång utvecklingen av modern energi!</span>Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-54975358378438660942010-11-18T21:02:00.003+01:002010-11-18T21:17:08.446+01:00Hur kan man vara skeptisk till CO2 alarmismen?Jag har i över en veckas tid försökt göra i ordning en blogg om hur SvT används för propagandaverksamhet och hur CO2 bubblan håller på att brista. Men jag har idag kommit till en ny viktigare insikt som jag skall återkomma med i nästa blogg. Dock vill jag gärna dela med mig av några av del länkar som jag tänkte använda i bloggen:<br /><br />SvT eldar på med sin propagandamaskin:<br />* <a href="http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministeriet_f%C3%B6r_allm%C3%A4nhetens_upplysning_och_propaganda">http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministeriet_f%C3%B6r_allm%C3%A4nhetens_upplysning_och_propaganda</a><br />* <a href="http://svt.se/2.136479/1.2223219/del_10_klimatfiaskot">http://svt.se/2.136479/1.2223219/del_10_klimatfiaskot</a><br />* <a href="http://svtplay.se/v/2226725/vetenskapens_varld/del_12_av_18__climategate">http://svtplay.se/v/2226725/vetenskapens_varld/del_12_av_18__climategate</a><br /><br />Uppsalainitiativet är inte sena att hänga på för att förlöjliga personer med annan åsikt än dem själva. Det är pinsamt och det är löjligt:<br />* <a href="http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2010/11/ingen-fara.html">http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2010/11/ingen-fara.html</a><br /><br />Andra grupperingar ägnar sig åt andra hot. Det är vidrigt:<br />* <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM<br /></a><br />Några källor för bakgrundsdata:<br />* <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/</a><br />* <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=101605710001&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=101605710001&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1</a><br />* <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">http://www.ipcc.ch/</a><br />* <a href="http://cc2010.mx/en/">http://cc2010.mx/en/</a><br /><br />På The Climate Scam har man även tagit upp bloggar på detta tema:<br />* <a href="http://www.theclimatescam.se/2010/11/11/den-vilda-jakten-pa-fornekare/">http://www.theclimatescam.se/2010/11/11/den-vilda-jakten-pa-fornekare/</a><br />* <a href="http://www.theclimatescam.se/2010/11/14/bubblan-nara-att-brista/">http://www.theclimatescam.se/2010/11/14/bubblan-nara-att-brista/</a><br /><br />Slutligen har jag ett boktips om en ny bok nästa vecka som jag ser fram emot att läsa:<br />* <a href="http://www.slayingtheskydragondeathofthegreenhousegastheory.com/">http://www.slayingtheskydragondeathofthegreenhousegastheory.com/</a>Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-34656537439748053752010-10-09T09:15:00.002+02:002010-10-09T09:49:53.134+02:00Climategate aftermathAlmost a year has passed since the Climategate broke lose. For many of us of following climate blogs on a daily basis we know what Climategate is about and know that the science behind climate change is severely corrupted.<br /><br />Today I read a tragic, but still interesting, <a href="http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html">mail</a> from Harold Lewis (Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara). I quote the most interesting part:<br /><br />"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."<br /><br />I can only agree. It is so obvious for anyone with an open mind reading the details from the Climategate emails that AGW is nothing more than a global warming scam.<br /><br />To the main question: is CO2 causing global warming? I would answer: We don't know. We can be pretty sure that CO2 is a <a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/what-is-a-first-order-human-climate-forcing/">first order human climate forcing</a> (as Pielke Sr and others has pointed out). But it does not mean that it is the only one and not even the most important one!<br /><br />Let us hope that the IPCC meeting in Mexico later this year will result in a more open research about the climate, and that all first order human climate forcings are considered.<br /><br />To another main question: should we decrease CO2 emissions anyway? My answer is: Yes, that is probably a very good idea. Let us do so. The main issue is to be able to produce electricity at a low cost without CO2 emissions. We won't be able to change this by laws and regulations, that is counter productive. We need to solve this problem by inventing new technologies and/or improving current ones, such as nuclear power.<br /><br />Let us now move forward, not backwards!Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-89281917787627597222010-08-01T11:01:00.004+02:002010-08-02T08:13:40.469+02:00Svar till Magnus Westerstrand 2010-08-01(In Swedish only)<br /><br />Detta är ett svar på den blogg som Magnus har skrivit på <a href="http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2010/07/med-osakerhet-som-vara.html">Uppsalainitiativets</a> blogg:<br /><br />Vilken makalös smörja! Ta och skärp dig!<br /><br />Att referera till maffiaorganisationen Greenpeace när det gäller undersökningar är väl ändå magstarkt. Greenpeace som har enorma summa pengar investerade i att CO2-hypotesen stämmer, långt mer än den ev miljard som du nämner från "oljeindustrin". Det samma gäller fö också WWF. Det är en "big carbon" industri under uppväxt med enorma ekonomiska intressen. Vidare så har Greenpeace på sin hemsida gått ut med offentliga hot mot de som inte till fullo stödjer CO2-hypotesen. Dessutom har Greenpeace, WWF mfl bidragit till en sammanställning på forskare som inte stödjer CO2-hypotesen till fullo med syfte att hindra dessa att publicera artiklar, ta del av forskningsbidrag mm. Det har tom gått så pass långt att ungdomar ur en sådan svensk "klimatorganisation" har försökt hacka min familjs hemsida. Är det patetiskt eller vad?<br /><br />Vad gäller de sk "oberoende" undersökningar som gjorts av klimatforskningen efter Climategate så får man vara bra blåögd för att inte kunna se genom den lögnen. Det handlar om whitewash och inget annat i syfte att undvika pinsamheter för forskningscentra och problem vid kommande förhandlingar under IPCCs ledning. Alla utomstående personer kan dock utan problem se att oegentligheter har förekommit. Jag ser stora likheter mellan dessa undersökningar och det icke godkända 2-2 målet i VM-matchen mellan Tyskland och England. Domaren kunde från sin position inte se att det blev mål och dömde därför inte mål, men alla vi som kunde se målet i repris ur många olika vinklar kunde utan några som helst problem se att det var mål.<br /><br />Många av oss som är "skeptiska" är det som privatpersoner. Vi är inte sponsrade av några oljebolag. Vi snarare är intresserade och läser en hel del av det som publiceras och är lätt tillgängligt inom klimatforskningen. Inte sällan så stöter vi på orimliga påståenden och undrar då vad som ligger till grund för dessa. Inte helt sällan, snarare i princip alltid, så är det felaktigheter eller direkta lögner som ligger bakom de värsta AGW-larmen. Undrar ni varför vi är skeptiska?<br /><br />Men vad gäller CO2 så råder det vad jag kan se inte några som helst tvivel om att det är en "first order climate forcing". Det innebär dock inte att det är den enda, den mest betydelsefulla eller att man skall ljuga, fuska, fabricera/manipulera data mm. Se till att städa upp på er egen bakgård och flytta klimatforskningen från den pseudoforskning som det just nu är till riktig forskning. Då och först då kan du komma och börja klaga på vilka bolag som sponsrar vilken forskning!<br /><br />(Uppdatering: Magnus inlägg är från SvD med följande länk: <a href="http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/med-osakerhet-som-vara_5069149.svd">http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/med-osakerhet-som-vara_5069149.svd</a>)Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-3594042365325644882010-03-12T08:18:00.006+01:002010-03-12T08:31:56.960+01:00I'm puzzeled about growing ice and increased sea levelThere are some new interesting blog posts that I have read during the last week. But when you put them together, I don't get the logic to make sense:<br /><ul><li><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-record-snowfall-disprove-global-warming.html">Does record snowfall disprove global warming?</a></li><li><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=157">Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice</a></li><li><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/ippc-sealevel-gate/">Sealevelgate</a></li></ul>I will have to read these blogs again and look into the background material. But it is very strange that the AGW theory results in extended snow cover on the winter (i.e., on the northern hemisphere the snow cover will go further south) and on Antarctica the sea ice will extend. In the last blog in the list, it is said that global sea level will rise maybe 3 meters until 2105, i.e., faster rise than predicted by IPCC. This doesn't make sense to me.<br /><br />Please note, the second blog is about sea ice which will not affect the sea level since the ice is already in the water. But if the sea ice extends it will be harder for the land ice to melt and perhaps it will even increase due to increase in snow fall?<br /><br />Anyone who would care to enlighten me? ;)Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-69786454953656220212010-03-01T17:26:00.003+01:002010-03-01T17:53:05.389+01:00The warming is much smaller than expected?The question in my previous post "Where is all the warming?" seems to have a possible explanation. In a blog by <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/28/sense-and-sensitivity/">Willis Eschenbach</a> it was concluded:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">While my results are far below the canonical IPCC values, they are not without precedent in the scientific literature. In CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change, Sherwood Idso gives the results of eight “natural experiments”. These are measurements of changes in temperature and corresponding forcing in various areas of the earth’s surface. The results of his experiments was a sensitivity of 0.3°C per doubling. This is still larger than my result of 0.05°C per doubling, but is much smaller than the IPCC results.<br /></span><br />This is a huge difference compared to what IPCC says. Thus the result implies that the extra forcing of 1.5W/m2 has essentially no effect on the climate. This also makes sense given that we have seen close to no measurable global warming.<br /><br />But as always, you really have to be "skeptic" about this kind of new results that are considerably different compared to current knowledge about the climate. The energy must still be there somewhere, or is the 1.5W/m2 simply wrong?<br /><strong></strong>Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-45132018055696822602010-02-28T10:05:00.002+01:002010-02-28T10:26:51.254+01:00Where is all the warming?If we look at what <a href="http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm#635">IPCC states</a> there is approximately an 1.5 W/m2 more energy coming into the Earth than is going out. Looking at the climate widget in my blog you will see that the temperature anomaly for January 2010 is 0.72C, which is record high. There have never been any measurements that have shown this high temperature on Earth! This seems logical, we have a huge inflow of energy and this warms the Earth and the atmosphere.<br /><br />But when you start to look into actual surface measurements. There are many open questions and the uncertainties about the quality of the measurements are troublesome. There are a lot of people out there doing sanity checks of the temperature data and for every day that passes by, new errors are found. In another blog today I found <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/spencer-spurious-warming-demonstrated-in-cru-surface-data/">"It is increasingly apparent that we do not even know how much the world has warmed in recent decades, let alone the reason(s) why. It seems to me we are back to square one."</a><br /><br />How on earth are we able to have a fruitful discussion about our climate? Do we know anything about the climate at all?Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-37684690818135002572010-02-22T19:51:00.002+01:002010-02-22T20:05:12.605+01:00Even more on nuclear power for the futureIt seems that not only Bill Gates thinks that it is a great idea with new nuclear power plats for the future in order to get clean and sustainable energy:<br /><a href="http://yottawattsthorium.blogspot.com/2010/02/dr-patrick-moore-talks-nuclear-energy.html">Dr. Patrick Moore talk nuclear energy</a><br /><br />Thanks to the successful climate meeting in Copenhagen last December, we finally see people starting to discuss innovative possibilities for the future! It's great that the terrible CO2 discussion is coming to an end now that we know that changing the CO2 level a few PPM up-or-down had essentially no effect on the climate. Don't let us spend more time on the past, let us look forward!Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-43145735138805498062010-02-22T14:54:00.003+01:002010-02-22T15:03:45.227+01:00Bill Gates doesn't like climate skepticsThis was a very interesting presentation: <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html">http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html</a>. I have never been a fan of Bill Gates. But this was a good presentation and in some way he actually manage make it a void question whatever and to what extent CO2 is causing global warming. The solution is of course simple, make the alternative to burning fossil fuel so cheap that there is no point in creating CO2 for power.<br /><br />By the end of the presentation he managed to make fun of climate skeptics. Ok, I can live with that :-)Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-8546361041229123512010-02-20T16:18:00.003+01:002010-02-20T16:27:45.405+01:00Climate science is funny?As a follow-up on my previous blog, I should also state that following all climate blogs is not only interesting, but also sometimes funny. I share these two links from the Swedish blog sphere:<br /><ul><li>John Christy on global warming: <a href="http://labbibia.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/professor-christy-slaktar-global-warming-i-intervju/">http://labbibia.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/professor-christy-slaktar-global-warming-i-intervju/</a></li><li>The daily show makes fun of climate skeptics: <a href="http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2010/02/usas-framsta-komiker-driver-med.html">http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2010/02/usas-framsta-komiker-driver-med.html</a></li></ul>I hope you enjoy these videos as much as I did :-)Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-14306855143968273472010-02-16T09:25:00.002+01:002010-02-16T09:35:09.331+01:00Climate science is very interesting!On one all blogs that I'm following it said some time ago "<a href="http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12620">Pass the popcorn, this might be very interesting</a>". And of course, climate science is very interesting! I have been so extremely busy the last couple of months that I haven't had time to update my own blog.<br /><br />I think I'm reading about 20 to 30 climate blogs every day. It's both AGW and non-AGW blogs. With all these "gates" that has followed the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate">climategate</a> scandal I can with confidence say that I have never found anything more entertaining since they started to show <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_%28TV_series%29">Dallas</a> on Swedish television back in 1981.<br /><br />So, please pass the popcorn...this is a good show going on!Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-77954051607679566492009-12-06T09:39:00.002+01:002009-12-06T10:48:52.241+01:00Climategate still ignored in Swedish mediaIt has been several weeks since the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate">Climategate scandal</a> 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.<br /><br />Just for reference: If I do a search for "Climategate" on Google search today I get 30,7 million results!<br /><br />The great news about Climategate is that it has been confirmed that there have been major manipulation to the raw temperature data at <a href="http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/homepagenews/CRUreview">CRU</a>. 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?<br /><br />Someone asked "but if the results and conclusions from CRU have been confirmed by other <span style="font-style: italic;">independent</span> 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.<br /><br />At least the East Anglia University understands the problem and have started an investigation and also aim at publishing all raw data. The <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece">MET</a> also plans to recalculate it's temperature series.<br /><br />To give some references, I suggest looking at the following two blogs (there are daily updates and many interesting results):<br /><ul><li><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/">Watts Up With That?</a></li><li> <a href="http://strata-sphere.com/blog/">The Strata-Sphere</a></li></ul>Just to give some example of the findings:<br /><ul><li><a href="http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11732">QED: Climategate proves there is no AGW. No wonder CRU hid the data and the decline.</a></li><li><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/jo-nova-finds-the-medieval-warm-period/">Jo Nova finds the Medieval Warm Period</a></li></ul>When I started this blog, I asked for all raw data to be published. It seems that I will get what I asked for :-)<br /><br />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...Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-6993889149683504842009-11-21T09:25:00.002+01:002009-11-21T10:16:47.024+01:00Climat 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:<br /><br />In my previous blog "<a href="http://nicklas-climate.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-are-we-always-10-years-from.html">Why are we always 10 years from doomsday?</a>" I got a comment with a link to "<a href="http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/">Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies</a>". 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 <span style="font-weight: bold;">deniers</span> and the list of articles is irrelevant.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />There have been many suggestions that climate data have been manipulated. When a "hacker" <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/">revealed emails and other documents from some of the more prominent AGW "scientists"</a> it is quite obvious what is going on. My conclusions so far (based on the many blog posts on the subject):<br /><ul><li>Among these "scientists" there is no interest to find any alternative explanation to climate changes than CO2.</li><li>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!<br /></li><li>The climate changes reported by IPCC and in recent year are <span style="font-weight: bold;">mostly man made</span>, i.e., they do not exist in the way they are described but constructed from manipulated data.</li></ul>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 <span style="font-weight: bold;">allowed</span> to publish papers and get <span style="font-weight: bold;">funding</span> is in favor of AGW and not trying to find any other alternative explanation.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />My conclusion: Every paper ever published on climate changes are potentially (or most likely) wrong!Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-10952238647243715132009-11-16T10:35:00.003+01:002009-11-16T10:59:53.066+01:00Why are we always 10 years from doomsday?It is always interesting to make a historic inventory of different claims about the climate: <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3826/Not-again-Another-10year-climate-tipping-point-warning-issued--Despite-fact-that-UN-began-10Year-Climate-Tipping-Point-in-1989">"Not again! Another 10-year tipping point issued"</a>.<br /><br />One way of interpreting the history is that <span style="font-style: italic;">we</span> 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: <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_pike_the_science_behind_a_climate_headline.html">Rachel Pike: The science behind a climate headline</a>. I must admit, it's a stunning presentation!<br /><br />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: <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers/">450 skeptical peer reviewed papers</a>.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />In a Swedish <a href="http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2009/11/14/bevisen-mot-ipcc-hopar-sig">blog</a>, 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?<br /><br />Well, it is a valid question!Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-45124284172356218482009-10-19T23:01:00.003+02:002009-10-19T23:15:24.937+02:00What'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:<br /><br /><ul><li><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE59I06A20091019">WWF makes a statement</a> that to me appears to be a declaration of war. Why are they doing such a statement, what do they know?</li><li>SPPI publishes a <a href="http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/august_co2_report.html">report</a> clearly stating that there is no global warming.</li><li><a href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10638">According to NASA measurements</a>, Antarctica is not decreasing in size and has not been for the last 30 years. But for some very strange reason, this <span style="font-style: italic;">news</span> is not reported anywhere, why?</li></ul>As an outside observer to all this mess, what data and what facts can we trust?Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-59773966771046369782009-10-15T17:12:00.002+02:002009-10-15T17:43:56.369+02:00CO2 vs H2OContinuing the Blog Action Day 2009 with one more blog.<br /><br />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?<br /> <br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-40009985012876384012009-10-15T16:26:00.003+02:002009-10-15T16:57:52.280+02:00Why is change bad?The <a href="http://www.blogactionday.org/">Blog Action Day 2009: Climate Change</a> is by some people interpreted as the blog action day <span style="font-weight: bold;">against</span> 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 <span style="font-weight: bold;">change</span> seems to be the worst thing that can happen.<br /><br />As a result of "climate changes" it has been proposed a lot of things that can go bad:<br /><ul><li>Flooding will get worse<br /></li><li>Storms will increase<br /></li><li>More areas will turn into dessert<br /></li><li>Polar ice will melt</li><li>The poor people and third world will get hit the worst</li></ul>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-33611762724337779072009-10-15T13:28:00.005+02:002009-10-15T15:11:21.947+02:00Is 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:<br /><ul><li>AGW</li><li>CO2</li><li>Climate change</li></ul>Why? If you look at <a href="http://nov55.com/gbwm.html">"The Science of Global Warming in Perspective"</a> 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 <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm">"Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report"</a> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic">Arctic</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica">Antarctica</a>.<br /><br />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:<br /><ol><li>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)).</li><li>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?</li><li>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.</li><li>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).<br /></li></ol>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.<br /><br />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?Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-20791983415247975732009-10-15T10:35:00.004+02:002009-10-15T11:33:18.870+02:00Who can we trust?(This is a part of the Blog action day 2009: Climate change)<br /><br />I you ask me "who can we trust when it comes to information about climate changes?", I would happily answer <span style="font-weight: bold;">no one</span>!<br /><br />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't...you 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.<br /><br />Just to give you some ideas of the contradictions that can be found:<br /><ul><li>Here is a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo">video</a> 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 <a href="http://nov55.com/ntyg.html">web page</a>. 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?</li><li>What happens if someone is questioning the "truth"? Have a look at this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbj78civS-4">video</a>, it speaks for itself.</li><li>It has also been identified that data used by <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">IPCC</a> has been <a href="http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2056988&p=1">seriously flawed and manipulated</a>. For Swedish readers I could also suggest reading <a href="http://www.moderna-myter.se/2009/10/ipcc-skandalen-rullar-vidare.html">this</a>.</li></ul>So, I only have two simple requests to everyone working with climate:<br /><ol><li>Please publish <span style="font-weight: bold;">all</span> raw data about the climate without any manipulation or modification.</li><li>Don't lie!</li></ol>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!Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-84264068258724686782009-10-15T09:49:00.003+02:002009-10-15T10:16:04.375+02:00My position about climate changesWelcome to the Blog action day 2009: Climate change!<br /><br />I would like to give my position about "climate change" in this blog, in a few words:<br /><ul><li>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.</li><li>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.</li><li>I think human can to some extent influence the climate locally.</li><li>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. </li><li>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.</li><li>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.</li></ul>I hope you will enjoy reading my blogs about the climate!Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985591224764521048.post-58139067476205519212009-10-14T20:09:00.000+02:002009-10-14T20:24:50.911+02:00Welcome 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.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />I decided to start this blog in order to participate in the <a href="http://www.blogactionday.org/">Blog action day 09: Climate change</a>.Nicklas Ekstrandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16613561150397108166noreply@blogger.com0