I came rather late to the climate party; if I were to guess, it happened sometime between the ‘Inconvenient Truth’/’Nobel Peace Prize’ ballyhoo and the ‘Climategate’ debacle. Being an earth scientist of heart and mind (and education – I’m a Quaternary geologist, although not a working one), I was certainly aware of the whole issue long before that, but never really bothered to delve into the matter. I – like most people even today – simply chose to assume that these people knew what they were talking about, that they had done their research and based their conclusions on solid, observational, evidence-based science. I took for granted that it was empirically shown (out there in the real earth system) how more CO2 in the atmosphere will and does in fact help to warm the surface, and that the reason we are able to even live on this planet at all is because of an ‘Atmospheric Radiative GreenHouse Effect’ (rGHE) where so-called ‘GreenHouse Gases (GHGs)’ – like CO2 – make it so that some of the energy that leaves the surface of the earth never manages to escape the system as a whole to space, but is rather ‘recycled’ internally between atmosphere and surface, creating ‘extra’ atmospherically induced warming of the surface on top of the original solar warming.

How to explain the general increase in global temperatures since the 70s? The ‘Modern Era of Global Warming’. This soon became my main point of focus. I first started reading Bob Tisdale’s blog in 2009 and found it very intriguing indeed. An all data-based approach readily explaining the warming with nothing but natural internal processes. No need for any ‘GHGs’ whatsoever.

So what was the deal here? How, then, could the politically appointed (and motivated) UN IPCC and all its affiliated individuals and groups calling themselves scientists and researchers end up being so certain that ‘Late 20th Century Warming’ must be (mainly) due to our industrial emissions of CO2, that they wouldn’t even care to discuss the matter? ‘Trust us, we’re experts!’ And why at the same time did they feel such an urgent need to continuously adjust current temps up-up-up and historical temps down-down-down?

This was my jumping-off point into the larger ‘debate’. The more I read, the more I realised I (and, basically, the people of the world) had been ingeniously duped by an activist clique of pseudo-scientists driven and supported by an overarching political agenda – “The Cause”.

Being an innate generalist rather than a specialist, I care much about how the different strands of an explanatory model of reality fit together, rather than how plausible each of them theoretically may sound on their own, in isolation (the whole ‘All Else Being Equal’ meme). Also (essential!), data and observation always trump theory and hypothesised effects. If you can’t find your proposed effect in the real world, then it’s back to the drawing board. This (I believe, fundamentally scientific) approach has given me – and still does – a seemingly endless string of epiphanies providing insight into how stupid, incoherent and opportunist the whole AGW narrative really is …

My main ‘climate’ interests (in no particular order) are:

  • How does the ‘Atmospheric Warming (insulating) Effect’ on the surface really come about? Tropospheric processes.
  • What actually causes global warming (and cooling) besides the sun? Ocean/atmosphere processes. ENSO.
  • The characteristic nature of global temperature adjustments to fit real-world data to a pet theory. (The promoters of “The Cause” are also in a direct position to alter the global temperature records, pretty much at will (one of the clearest cases of the fox minding the henhouse in modern history), both in the present and in the past … and they actively do both, all the time.)

Okulær (Kristian)

4 comments on “About

  1. DHF says:

    You better replace the default text if you want to get this thing up and running.

    • okulaer says:

      Hehe, thanks. Yep. Agreed. I will. In time. Till now, I have mostly been considering this blog a reference room for myself. To lay out ideas. I guess it will still continue to be …

      But yes, you’re right.

  2. jerry l krause says:

    Hi Kristian,

    From time to time I have noticed your name at Roy Spencer’s blog-site but I cannot remember responding to your comments and I cannot remember that you ever responded to any of my comments. From this I must conclude that our ‘approaches’ to the issue of the GHE and its possible role in the earth-atmosphere radiation balance system must be different. Your comments about Feldman’s et al. Nature article are a serious attempt to assess the significance of this article.

    My objective is to establish with you a general ongoing conversation about the GHE but since you have not previously responded to my comments, I don’t want to burden you with reading what I have to share that you might have no interest. If you have not given any attention to my ‘philosophy’, you can check it out in my responses to Rafael in Roy’s post to which you responded and toward the end of Roy’s previous post. If you have no interest that is okay. I will check back here for your response.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  3. C. Wells says:

    Hello…just found your blog a few days ago, and want to thank you for lucid interpretations of our climate system. I am not a scientist, but, I study daily physics, mathematics, and other scientific areas of interest. I am 71 years old, and keep trying to learn and understand natural climate cycles. I very much appreciate your method of explaining phenomena. C. Wells

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s