The Climate Realists of Norway

Klimarealistene – (The Climate Realists) is a politically independent organization for us who believe that the climate is dominated by natural variations. We do not agree with the IPCC, when they claim that CO2 emissions change the climate dramatically. We support scientifically based public education as an essential part of democracy.

The organization was established in Oslo on May 15, 2008 after one year of preparations. Our name was suggested by Knut Orø already in 2007.

The sun controls the climate
The purpose of the Climate Realists is to influence the climate debate both nationally and internationally with reliable and realistic knowledge. The key factors are systematic changes in the sun, winds and ocean currents where changes in distances and gravitational forces of the planets and the moon are significant. CO2 is, however, a harmless and vital gas that is essential for all life on Earth.

Climate science is unambiguous
We strive to present scientific facts telling a different story than the politically adopted message that only has support in deceptive climate models. Climate science is and has always been clear: No studies have so far positively attributed all or part of observed climate change to anthropogenic causes. The unilateral and massive message of a man-made climate threat presented in newspapers, radio and television is the result of deficient, untested and unvalidated models.

Our registration ID is 995 314 592.
Our address is PO Box 5337 Majorstuen , 0304 Oslo.
Chairman of the board is Trygve Eklund (PhD/MSc/MBA)
Our email adress is post@klimarealistene dot com

Scientific Advisory Board
Our Scientific Advisory Board was established in June 2015, and currently consists of the following members:
Professor emeritus Martin T. Hovland (leader)
Professor Elen Roaldset (deputy leader)

Professor Olav Martin Kvalheim
Professor emeritus Gunnar Abrahamsen
Cand. real. Stein Bergsmark (added Q1/2016)
Professor Ole Henrik Ellestad
Professor emeritus Eigil Friis-Christensen
Professor Rögnvaldur Hannesson
Professor Jens Morten Hansen
Ph.D. Göran Henriksson
Professor emeritus Martin T. Hovland
Professor Ole Humlum
Cand. real Morten Jødal (added Q1/2016)
Professor Wibjörn Karlèn (added Q4/2016)
Professor Nils-Axel Mörner
Associate professor Tom Victor Segalstad
Professor Fred Sigernes
Professor emeritus Einar Sletten
Professor Jan-Erik Solheim
Dr. Phil. Kjell Stordahl

10 thoughts on “The Climate Realists of Norway

  1. As regards the recent warming in the Arctic… I think it’s time we let the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks in on the joke we’ve been playing on them. Their low-information histrionics have gone beyond being funny to just being sad and pathetic. It’s time to end their suffering for our amusement.

    A warming Arctic (and cold air sweeping more southward) is due to the sun entering a quiescent phase. This lowers the convective heat transfer from equator to pole (and thus the strength of the winds normally containing the Polar Vortex… the same reason the Polar Vortex strengthen in winter and weakens in summer).

    This weakened Polar Vortex undulates further southward, dumping cold air and snow. The cold polar air is replaced in the Arctic by warmer air from nearer the equator. The increased snow increases the albedo of those more-southerly regions. The Arctic being sunless in winter doesn’t offset this increased albedo, so the overall albedo of the planet rises.

    Given enough of this, you’ve got growing glaciers.

    As the Arctic ice thins due to the above, more seawater from further south can wash through the Arctic, melting the ice completely and warming the entire region. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still cold, just not so cold that people can’t live there (as it is now).

    Archaeological finds in the Arctic discovered there were people living there during the height of the last ice age, whereas further south there were miles-thick glaciers. They migrated across the Siberian land bridge.

    When sea level fell far enough that warm water from further south couldn’t continue to warm the Arctic (the Arctic is ringed with undersea ridges that prevent major seawater flow when sea level drops far enough), the Arctic started cooling. The decrease in evaporation due to the cooler Arctic water led to a decrease in snow being dumped further southward, tipping the glaciers into melt-mode..

    As the glaciers melted, sea level rose, closing off the land bridge. The people were forced to move southward. Those are the people we know as native Americans.

    It’s known as the Ewing-Donn Paradox, and it’s an indication of a cooling planet. Please tell your Klimate Katastrophe Kook friends that they can stop screaming their fool heads off about the planet bursting into flames… it’s actually cooling.

  2. Solen styrer ikke klimaet. Jordens mantel i et glovarmt og enormt volum gjør det så lenge den slipper ut og så lenge vi har en atmosfære som ikke slipper ut varme umiddelbart (Termodynamikkens lover).

    Solen er lillebror til dette og mennesket minstebror.
    Siden oppvarming faktisk skjer vesentlig saktere enn påstått av mange(og nå har flatet ut, noe den kalde våren og sommeren i Norge viser) , er det noe som tyder på at lillebror Solen blir svakere.

  3. Er mye komikk fra klimahysterikerne. “Forskerne har imidlertid funnet at grunnen til at det var så stort i fjor, var utbruddet av den chilenske vulkanen Calbuco”.

    Og det har aldri vært vulkanutbrudd før? 🙂 Er det mye bruk av spraybokser i Antarktis?

    Sammenlign innhold med overskriften og de politiske oppgulpene i teksten.

    Noenganger kløner klimagjengen helt alene 🙂 🙂 I sine egne kanaler for propaganda.

    • Overbevisningen er politisk og noe religiøs. Folk flest er ikke forskere eller skarpe hoder.
      Mange altruister tenker at om klimateori overdriver så gjør ikke dette noe så lenge et bigger good oppnås.
      Det er dessverre en usunn holdning fordi reelle og menneske*skapte* miljøproblemer havner i bakgrunnen. Og de er det mange av.

      Å dog snakke om at co2 ikke er et problem og at solen overstyrer klimaet er litt som å skyte seg selv i foten fordi det ikke helt stemmer.
      Jordens naturlige varme er lokal hovedkilde for planetens temperatur og co2 = forurensing. Planter trenger det men det kan tippe over en grense

      • Mengden lava er så enorm på en så høy temperatur at selv små naturlige variasjoner og vulkanutbrudd har mye å si.

  4. Josef Loschmidt (Maxwell’s teacher) was the first to realistically determine the size of air molecules – quite a feat in the 19th century. There is no correct peer-reviewed published refutation of his gravito-thermal effect, which is based on and derived directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that law also never proven incorrect. There’s a US $7,500 reward offered at if you or any reader can prove me wrong and produce a study confirming water vapor warms to the extent implied by the IPCC. Furthermore, the Loschmidt effect is now proven empirically in hundreds of 21st century experiments. The existence of this gravitationally induced temperature gradient means the IPCC doesn’t have a leg to stand on regarding CO2.

    Hence there is no need for James Hansen’s guesswork that radiation from a cold atmosphere must be heating an already-warmer surface, because it is the force of gravity acting on molecules between collisions that produces both a density gradient and a temperature gradient. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that in Nature there is an autonomous propensity for a system to move towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, which state has maximum entropy. However, this state in a force field is NOT isothermal. That is, there exists a non-zero temperature gradient which we can understand and quantify using the Kinetic Theory of Gases.

    This fact, known about by physicists since the 19th century, completely demolishes the greenhouse. Hansen assumed isothermal conditions without GH gases, but that is NOT what the Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates will tend to occur. See for more detail.

    In the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (that is, maximum entropy) in a column of the troposphere the pressure from above and below any horizontal plane is equal. Because pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density, and because there can be no transfer of energy or matter across any internal boundary when there is thermodynamic equilibrium, we can deduce that, for any horizontal plane, there must be equal numbers of molecules crossing upwards as there are crossing downwards, and the mean kinetic energy of each group while crossing the plane must be equal.

    Now for the temperatures to be equal when crossing this means that (because molecules gain Kinetic Energy with downward motion) there must have been lower mean molecular Kinetic Energy (temperature) above the plane and warmer temperature below. Hence there is a stable equilibrium temperature gradient resulting from the entropy maximization process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

  5. You cannot add back radiation to solar radiation and use the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to explain the mean surface temperature.

    The 324W/m^2 of back radiation is overstated because the wrong emissivity value of the atmosphere has been used in calculating that back radiation from measurements. On Venus, using emissivity of 0.19 for carbon dioxide, the atmosphere would have to be over 350 degrees hotter than the surface for its radiation to support the surface temperature.

    Even if you use the 324 figure (as is implied in the energy diagrams which show 168+324-102 = 390W/m^2 into the surface) that 390 figure (being a mean of variable flux) gives you a mean temperature close to zero C, not 15C.

    So it’s all totally wrong and the whole radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture fails to explain reality.

    If you genuinely want to hear explained what really happens in the equivalent of a 43 minute live presentation, watch the full video as over 1,100 others have done in its first 6 months. You can ask genuine questions on this blog.

    • You are right. Radiative balance occurs high up in the atmosphere, the surface temperature is due to the gravitational compression of that warmed atmosphere.

      Take Venus. CO2 saturated, Free path length is very short, yet its highest mountain is some 80C colder than the surface. Its all in the lapse rate.

  6. It is truly refreshing to see academica not on the payroll for Global Warming messaging. I have been blogging about this fraud on for a year or two, and before that at The inertia of the mass media has to be addressed with continuous messages from realists like all of you until they see the value in broadcasting an alternative point of view. Please keep it up.

  7. Pingback: Geir Aaslid: Free speech is needed in the climate debate « Independent Committee on Geoethics

Legg igjen en kommentar til itsnotco2 Avbryt svar

Din e-postadresse vil ikke bli publisert. Obligatoriske felt er merket med *