The website of the German Employers Association (DAV) has posted a comprehensive interview by Holger Douglas with physicist and climate scientist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, concerning the role of CO2 on the world’s climate.
Photo: Professor Horst-Joachim Lüdecke
Lüdecke, who has authored numerous climate science publications in climate science journals, is sure that the role of CO2 on climate is grossly overstated and riddled with alarmist hype.
Polar bear population “growing”
On polar bears, Lüdecke says there is “no trace” of the animal disappearing due to climate change and that the polar bear population has in fact been climbing. Moreover, the polar bear has been around for “hundreds of thousands of years“.
Climate sensitivity much weaker than assumed
On the subject of the greenhouse effect and radiation outwards into space, Lüdecke reminds that the climate system involves countless, poorly understood complexities, such as cloud cover and water vapor. In the interview he tells:
Water vapor is a very powerful greenhouse gas, and acts to enhance the warming effect. We call this feedback, as the warming is magnified more by it then it is alone by the radiation effect. But the other assumption claims: The opposite is correct! More water vapor in the air leads to more clouds that cool.”
On which effect is true, Lüdecke tells the DAV:
The theory of a feedback is not confirmed by measurements. According to the theory, the altitudes over the tropics at about 5 to 7 kilometers are supposed to be showing a clearly measurable heating zone that is referred to as the ‘Hot Spot’. No one has found it. Everything points to the pure radiation effect being weaker and not enhanced.”
No human fingerprint
The retired, independent physicist then tells the DAV that “man’s influence on the climate still cannot be filtered from the climate noise even today” and that today’s climate and weather changes are no different than what was observed hundreds of years ago, citing the IPCC itself:
There is not a single bit of scientific justification to claim: Here we are seeing unusual climate developments that can be only attributed to humans.”
Lüdecke suspects that the cyclic nature of climate natural climate change is caused mainly by the sun’s activity, naming the De Vries/Suess 200-year cycle and the 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle as examples.
He also confirms the recent “18-20 year” global warming pause and reminds us that in geological terms, the Earth today in fact finds itself in a ice age period, which is typically defined as one that sees the poles frozen over – as is the case today.
On proxies the retired climate scientist says that care has to be exercised in interpreting the data they yield. The DAQV asks whether there is a relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration. Lüdecke replies:
No, there’s nothing to see there.”
CO2 concentration in fact historically low
Lüdecke also points out that today’s atmospheric CO2 levels are in fact close to historical lows, and that elevated concentration bring a number of advantages to the ecosystems, foremost a greener planet with better plant growth.
Also, man’s CO2 emissions pale against those from the oceans and natural environment.
Ocean acidification “an alarmist myth”
On whether the threat of ocean acidification exists, Lüdecke dumps cold water on that claim:
No, ocean acidification is another myth of the alarmists. Every chemists you talk to on ocean acidification being a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 will roll his eyes. […]
Also the supposed sensitivity of corals to CO2 in sea water is an alarmist myth.”
“Dangerous, undemocratic ideology”
At the very end of the interview, Lüdecke comments on climate protection as a movement:
Here I allow myself to state very clearly: Climate protection has nothing to do with protecting nature. Climate protection is a dangerous, undemocratic ideology.”
In the next post, we will look at what Prof. Lüdecke says in the rest of the interview concerning climate models and the energy trend in Europe.
52 responses to “Retired German Climate Scientist: “No Man-Made Signal Found” …”Climate Protection A Dangerous Ideology””
Interesting guy. Before his position at Saarland, Lüdecke worked for the chemical industry creating numerical computer models for chemical facilities and for flow processes in pipelines and supply pipe networks. His doctoral research was in nuclear physics.
I happened upon a couple quotes of his that might be of interest:
1: “It is the unprecedentedly rapid recovery of the Sun’s activity over the past 300 years – far stronger than anyone had previously suspected – that has been the chief driver of global warming in recent decades. We have very little to do with it.”
2: “Climate Specialist I’m not. […] My criticism is well founded and professionally sound mix, but [I am] not a specialist in technical details of climate physics.”
So….he says he is NOT a climate specialist. And..that the “sun has been the chief driver of global warming over the last 300 years.”
I guess he must be at odds with Ed Caryl…..because Ed says there HASN’T been any global warming….at least for the last 85 years:)
Interesting times we live in isn’t it….:)
The alarmists are reduced to arguments like this one:
“So….he says he is NOT a climate specialist.”
They are desperate. Interesting times, indeed.
How the **** does your insipid mind equate a comment about 300 years with a comment about 85 years?
Seriously Bubby, get a new brain, one that can actually function at a rational level. !!
He is saying that there has been some warming over the last 300 years, hardly disputable at least in the case of the northern hemisphere and the observations available.
Other people are wondering about the claims of recent warming. A survey of Australia found that the UNADJUSTED temperature readings over 100 years for all surface stations in a thousand kilometres radius from Alice Springs showed no increase in temperature. For the effect over time Try http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/fieldwork2.html
I find it interesting that Germany seems to have this strong scientific skepticism of CAGW, while also the most official government policy of self damaging actions TO COMBAT CAGW. It seems schizophrenic.
Is this true and if so, why?
Reality vs Politics and Money.
Doug, here’s part of Prof. Lüdecke’s answer:
“Once communism disappeared, the climate was discovered as a new ideology. Amazingly, the protagonists were numerically not very strong but prevailed quickly due to strong political support and powerful financiers.
The prospect was too tempting to use climate fear to acquire political power and tax the air, and to develop new business opportunities for shrewd investors in objectively useless green energy fields.”
Those were the drivers but I would add two more notes about the preexisting conditions that he didn’t cover because they are well understood by the interview’s target audience:
1. Germany has an old tradition of nature veneration, going back to 18th century romanticism and surviving strong to this day
2. The leftist Green Party has been in the federal and state parliaments since the 1980s and even part of the federal government coalition from 1998 to 2005
So, Andy got it right (in fewer words) and yes, it is schizophrenic because the Germans are very rational at the same time.
This is not the first time that German rationality coexists nicely with a very irrational and self-destructive political ideology.
“I find it interesting that Germany seems to have this strong scientific skepticism of CAGW, while also the most official government policy of self damaging actions TO COMBAT CAGW. It seems schizophrenic.”
I think the problem is with perspective, especially when you take the majority of your informations about Germany and climate change from this blog.
the majority of Germans wants climate action and also wants Germany to continue to be a spearhead of the effort:
People in Germany think that climate action is an important part of many policy actions.
and they are willing to take personal action:
The “energiewende” is important or very important to 90% of Germans:
and if you read a poll that shows that germans support coal power, then it was done by the coalpower industry:
Everyone wants and supports clean energy. You’re misleading the readers here, sod.
When consumers are polled if they are prepared to pay a lot of money for it and to give up freedom, then the results change dramatically. Already we see leading climate activists like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio doing nothing to cut back their huge “dirty” energy use. If they aren’t willing to scale back their lavish lifestyles, why would normal workers who are struggling to get by be willing to scale back?
And of course, the very CLEANEST of energies is modern coal fired electricity.
Not only is it the cheapest, most economical, and least environmentally damaging, it does, IN FACT, enhance the planet’s plant growth as well.
The scientific proof for this is absolute.
Colorado – thanks for your thoughts.
I have read about the historical German Green inclination. The schizophrenic part …
I used to say the essence of humans was paradox. We know we should do one thing but we instead do something else. But I never applied it to a Nation.
“On polar bears, Lüdecke says there is “no trace” of the animal disappearing “etc.
Always useful site regarding the big white bears:
Dr. Susan J. Crockford, zoologist
Be sure to read her “About” page. Posts a few times a month; no comments taken.
I think that this one is funny. so she has no experience with work in the field.
I wonder what you would say, if scientists working in their labs came up with a decrease in polar bear populations, while those working in the fields said the opposite….
You are the funny one given that you often quote people to support your odd views that have NO expertise in climate research
I think it is strange, when people accept the one outlier opinion, just because it fits their believes.
Look at arctic temperatures this year. They are just leaving the scales:
That light grey is 100% of known data. we are leaving the past behind.
And only a fool could be surprised by massive fires, when temperatures are totally out of the norm!
But yeah, there is that one lady, far from the arctic, who thinks that everything is fine.
Weather. Climate. Learn the difference.
“when temperatures are totally out of the norm!”
Fort McMurray Maximum temp this April was 27.2°C
Record for April was 30.2°C in 1980
Maximum for May so far is 32.6°C
Record was 34.8°C in 1986
Forecast is in the teens for next several days.
Also, 1944, 1961,1971, 1995 all had a higher May maximum than the 2016 maximum so far..
and as the forecast says… temps below 20C for next week or so.
Fort McMurray Maximum temp this April was 27.2°C
Record for April was 30.2°C in 1980″
no, fact. There was a daily record:
” The remote town, which is the gateway to Canada’s oil sands region, a hotbed of fossil fuel extraction, saw a high temperature of 91 Fahrenheit on Tuesday. The previous record of 82 degrees was set in 1945, according to government climate data. ”
wildfire season is expanding, hot days are also expanding massively:
Fires are not caused by heat alone, we also had a dry winter:
Vancouver and areas surrounding it had the hottest and driest april on record:
quoting previous records for all of may does not make any sense, as may temperature shows a pretty steep increase over the whole month:
“The previous record of 82 degrees was set in 1945, according to government climate data.”
RUBBISH.. newspaper is LYING to you.
“RUBBISH.. newspaper is LYING to you.”
your link goes to temperature records by month. I am talking about a daily record.
“As the Fort McMurray wildfire rapidly spread Tuesday, temperatures surged to 90 degrees (32 Celsius), shattering the daily record of 82 degrees set May 3, 1945. Dozens of other locations in Alberta also had record high temperatures.”
your link is nice, but shows record by month. and the may record is on may 26 1986. that is a full 3 weeks later! (and temperatures on average grow by about 6°C over may.
basically it makes more sense to compare this high temperature to the late april record in your link, than to late May numbers.
The data is in front of you.
END OF STORY.!
ps.. so, so stupid of you to quote another newspaper as a response against real data.
I mean .. seriously .. is that the best you can do ?
There’s a fire in Canada and that proves warmunist theories? We are at that again?
Canada has trees. Canada is vast and unpopulated. It has forest fires all the time.
NOAA using the El Nino surge to produce SCARY graph.. how unusual. Also note the standard reliance on the 1980 start data for any SCARY graphs… ie the very bottom of the AMO, and we are just over the top now.
Poor sob falls for it EVERY time.
GULLIBLE is the word, hey sob. 🙂
Reality is somewhat different. Temperature is pretty much on average when taken back to 1958.
And of course, having a rabid alarmist like Slater, climate modeller, and Serreze’s buddy, in charge of the data, doesn’t bode well for its accuracy/authenticity.
Fudge and manipulate
Gotta get people to listen.
Before its too late….
…and the La Nina cooling comes. 😉
25 years of basically ZERO TREND in Fort McMurray.
Now blame global warming, silly sob !
“25 years of basically ZERO TREND in Fort McMurray.”
nice attempt. Let us look at precipitation, shall we?
roflmao. You again display your abject ignorance.
Looks like a pretty average year so far..
You do realise that Fort McMurray gets very little rainfall in the first 4 months of the year and gets most its rainfall in May-October.
I bet you thought that 44mm for 2016 was the whole year., you are that dumb.
Now see if you can think even remotely..
the two years with the lowest total rainfall were 1998 and 2015.
Come on, sob.. engage that putrid sludge in your head, and figure it out.
It seems sod is stuck on stupid, like a fly on a glue board trap. He just keeps repeating the same old tired cliches, even after he’s been shown they are wrong.
Here’s a good evaluation of the Ft. McMurray fire.
Here’s another good link for you. (It would be wasted on him)
G-D help the people of Fort McMurray!
“Here’s another good link for you. (It would be wasted on him)”
your source is starting in the highest point of the data set.
you can see that, in direct comparison with this picture:
That is plain out garbage.
Yes, sod’s post is just “plain out garbage,” all right. He posts the graph of incomplete data. The more complete data set, when plotted on top of the one he shows, is here (the NFD curve is the most complete).
that was from the link P. Gosselin gave, here
Once again, sod has chosen poorly.
“And only a fool could be surprised by massive fires, when temperatures are totally out of the norm!”
sod, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Forest fires in the North American West are a complex problem and some of us actually live here.
I have experienced many and I lived through them. I’ve watched the forests change—even in the relatively short time frame of a single human life, I saw fires start, spread and change behavior. I know how much the forest has changed over the centuries and how it behaves without human intervention.
We walked the burned areas and inspected the actual evidence. We analyzed the causes. We sat in operational briefings in preparation for fires and in fire department post mortems. We discussed the complexities of assessing the likelihood of a break out and the proper notifications of the public.
Air temperatures within the ranges discussed here are just a small part of the equation and everyone involved knows that.
Only a fool would write “yeah, there is that one lady, far from the arctic, who thinks that everything is fine” and in the same thread “educate” me in Colorado from his computer in Germany about the causes of our Western forest fires.
“I bet you thought that 44mm for 2016 was the whole year., you are that dumb. ”
No.I was talking about the obvious trend in the data!
“the two years with the lowest total rainfall were 1998 and 2015.”
El Nino is part of the effect, but only a part.
We get less rain, more heat and less snow cover. What we see, is the effect.
So.. absolutely NATURAL variability..
Thanks for the confirmation.!
@ P Gosselin
And Canada is still there?!
(OK, it’s for 34 years, but still…)
Yet even more astounding (to me), the fine print says “not all fires are shown.” And with the more complete data set there is clearly no increase.
Ahhh Sod, king of the low IQ alarmist paid shills.
No arctic temperatures are not unusually high – Fact.
No fires are not due to warming THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED ACCORDING TO SATELLITES THE MOST RELIABLE INSTRUMENTS WE HAVE. They’re due to arson, most likely set by scumbag evil, piece of shit alarmists willing to sacrifice lives to prove their demonstrably wrong hypothesis about man made global warming.
No warming for 18 years – FACT.
Sorry Sod, no global warming for 18 years – FACT.
All your arguments are thus invalid as it couldn’t possibly be from CO2.
Climate sensitivity is demonstrably much lower than the alarmist models predict.
You have zero legs to stand on. Oh and by the way weather is not climate, localised weather events are irrelevant and purely due to natural variation.
“Sorry Sod, no global warming for 18 years – FACT.”
That is garbage. The pause is gone, even in UAH data. you are not up to date.
you also do not understand how droughts and forest fires work. they are not just caused by the temperature on the day of the fire, but by temperatures over months and years.
This exposes the “pause” meme again as a completely useless statistical artefact:
The data clearly shows, that the years in those 18 years since 1998 have been much warmer (nearly 0.5°C) than the years before 1998.
all these warmer years are reducing snowpack, drying swamps and lakes and increase the fire risk.
Ask Colorado Wellington, he is an expert in this kind of thing!
You are LYING again, sob.
You have already been shown that there is nothing untoward about the Fort McMurray current temperatures or the rainfall over the past couple of years.. the DATA tells you that.
You also LIE about the global temperature.
The only warming in the whole of the satellite data period is from two major El Ninos, following an extended period of high solar activity referred to as a “Grand Solar Maximum”
There was no warming before the 1998 El Nino
And no warming between the end of that El Nino and the start of the current one(which is dropping fast)
That means that there absolutely NO CO2 warming signal in the whole of the satellite record.
Furthermore, the latest forecast on the coming EL Nino is that it will quite likely cause a drop in temperatures back down to 1979 levels or even lower, and with the AMO heading down as well, its going to be cold time in the NH over the next couple of decades.
If you are in Germany as I suspect you are, I bet you will be really happy your electricity supply system is in such good shape and so cheap.. … you are going to need a lot of that super-reliable wind turbine energy over the next several years. 😉
“There was no warming before the 1998 El Nino”
you did not understand my point. i will try again. This “step increase” theory is nonsense. but even if we accept it, you are in big difficulties.
Because obviously the low temperatures before 1998 did create much better anti-fire conditions than the high temperatures that we saw before the 2015/16 el nino.
“Because obviously the low temperatures before 1998 did create much better anti-fire conditions than the high temperatures that we saw before the 2015/16 el nino.”
Well you just pulled this out of your arse obviously as you didn’t even bother to find a link. But I found one and it not only violently deflates your bullcrap assertion but the entire Global Warming bullshit with it… here goes…
Oh , and the “plateau” will be back again in a few months, once the transient effect of the El Nino fully dissipates. And as it drops further it is likely that a zero trend will be back calculated over the full period of the satellite record.
Wish I could see your face when that happens 😉
In puzzlement, sod is scanning the web and wonders:
Who is this Rorschach guy and why do all his ink blots look like CO2 molecules?
I can’t help him now because I am spending the day outdoors but I hope by the time I get back he will find more stuff on the Internet to tell me about Western forest fires. 😀
The PAUSE is gone?
no non nein nyet. You’ve got it all wrong!
Well, he knew something was lost, anyway.
“all these warmer years are reducing snowpack, drying swamps and lakes and increase the fire risk.” – sod
Here are some actual facts for you.
You know, sod, if you don’t want to give the impression you’re an idiot, don’t write like one.
“You know, sod, if you don’t want to give the impression you’re an idiot, don’t write like one.”
Sound advise. Even safer:
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Thing is, sod is a passionate young man. He can’t hold it. The pressure is too much.
little brain in futile search for big thoughts.
Please look at the maps of temperatures this winter:
and then look at a map of canada:
The place, were that hot “finger” with anomalies above +5°C ends, is alberta. and by pure chance, that is, where we see the fire now.
People could have been discussing this risks earlier, but the focus was on some minor snow event in north germany.
You are childishly naïve and conceited, sod.
People living on the Western prairie, in the mountains and in the forests know that wildfires are an ever present danger. It is not any different than people along the Southeast coast living under the threat of hurricanes or those dealing with tornadoes in the Midwest.
Your belief that they could have been discussing these risks earlier but didn’t because Pierre blogged about unseasonably cold weather in Germany instead is about as stupid as it gets. You are deluded to think that any of us are interested in your opinion and advise how to deal with these threats. Even those neighbors of mine not directly involved in wildfire and emergency response know more than what you have found on the internet.
You should seek help with controlling these savior impulses before you lose whatever is still tying you to reality.