German Scientist: CO2 Not The Cause of Climate Change – Cold Period Is Anticipated

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

The European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) released a paper today written by German physicist Dr. Horst Borchert. The paper reveals a clear relation between solar activity and ocean cycles, and thus act as the main climate drivers. Measured data shows no CO2 impact on climate.

Paper as pdf here.

Unfortunately, the paper is only in German. But the abstract is in English. Here it is (I made a couple of grammatical corrections for clarity):

It was found that the South Pacific Oscillation (SO) is influenced by solar activity, similar to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Especially during the warming period from 1980 to 2009 the oscillation of solar wind – Index “aa“ – was in good resonance with the delayed South Pacific Oscillation. The same observation was found between the oscillation of cosmic radiation, which is controlled by Forbush– reduction by the magnetic fields of the sun protons of the solar wind and the delayed SO (K=0.8). The consequence of these observations is the postulation that the increase of global temperature in the Southern Hemisphere was caused by solar activity with strong emissions of proton-rays in the Earth ‘s direction during the 22nd and 23rd sunspot-periods, reducing cosmic rays. This led to a reduction of cloudiness, increased solar rays and warming up the lower atmosphere (Svensmark –Effect). As a consequence, dissolved CO2 was continuously emitted by the slowly warming ocean, providing fertilizer for the flora of the world. A relevance of CO2 concerning climate change could not be found. With the end of solar activity in 2006, a cold weather period has also started in the Southern Hemisphere.

In the paper’s conclusion, if I understand correctly, Bochert writes that the southern hemispheric temperature has followed the long-term average of the Southern Oscillation (SO) since 1980. During this warm period, the SO was enhanced by an additional especially strong solar-controlled heat source, which ended with the 23rd cycle.

As a consequence the global temperature of the Southern Hemisphere, like the Northern Hemisphere, shows a stagnation and has a downward trend since about 2009.

Borchert writes:

Temperature increases also in the southern hemisphere from 1980 until 2009 are not caused by man, but by unusual solar activity. A control of the warmth development in the South Pacific region by increasing CO2 concentrations during this warming period is not discernible from the measured data.


CO2 is not climate-relevant; from ground-based measurements, climate change and warming cannot be shown to be caused by increasing Co2 .

And for the future:

The weather on the earth will be characterised on average over the long-term by increased cloud cover and thus less solar radiation as a result of the slightly reduced cosmic radiation.  Over the long term, a cold period is anticipated.

Borchert ends with:

There’s no reason to expect or fear an anthropogenically caused climate catastrophe. All climate changes are due to natural causes. It does make sense to adapt to them.

I’m going to have to spend more time looking deeper into this paper. Above, I merely presented the conclusions Borchert has drawn.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

23 responses to “German Scientist: CO2 Not The Cause of Climate Change – Cold Period Is Anticipated”

  1. R. de Haan

    Yet another confirmation from something we already knew for a long time.
    It’s the sun stupid. We need a translation of the report.

    And our climate fear mongers fall over each other to make 2010 the hottest year ever.

  2. DirkH

    During the warm years, a mock beach culture in German cities started to develop. Discotheque owners would rent parking decks or park areas near rivers in the city to erect faux beach bars complete with sand and music, selling beer and cocktails. In Braunschweig, there is one such seasonal outfit called the Okercabana (the Oker being the river that, divided in two semi-circular trenches, forms a ring around the medieval city center).

    This year, they didn’t make a dime. I guess the guy who runs the show bets on a return to profitability next year, but i think he’ll be in for a surprise.

  3. Zdzislaw Meglicki

    I would be more comfortable if the paper was published in a refereed journal, say, Journal of Geophysical Research, or, closer to home, Geophysical Journal International–it’s a publication of the Deutsche Geophysikalische Gesellschaft, jointly with the Royal Astronomical Society. There is much to be said for the review process, and… no, they’re not all corrupt.

  4. DirkH

    O/T Jo Nova : How the BBC became a propaganda arm of the UK government (and WWF)
    “Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement. To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.”


  5. Bruce

    Solar Cycle 24 is still looking anaemic, arguably less than SC5 although it is really hard to compare the two cycles accurately. Dr Bochert’s hypothesis of a coming cool period seems supported by the data. The more snow that falls the more the excuse “this is all caused by global warming” becomes untenable.

  6. Dan

    – Discovery News (Aug 25, 2010): IS THE SUN EMITTING A MYSTERY PARTICLE?… LiveScience (29 July 2010): Antarctica Experiment Discovers Puzzling Space Ray Pattern…National Geographic (November 19, 2008): “High-energy electrons captured over Antarctica could reveal the presence of a nearby but MYSTERIOUS ASTROPHYSICAL OBJECT that’s bombarding Earth with cosmic rays:

  7. Ike


    I don´t knew this song, unitl I visited this German sceptics site:
    (Pierre, you might consider to add this site to your blogroll.)—im-a-denier.html


  8. R. de Haan
  9. Stephen Wilde

    I think this shows how it could work:

    “How the Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”.

    Basically a weak sun sends the jetstreams toward the equator with an increase in total cloud amounts and an increase in global albedo for a reduction in the amount of solar shortwave energy entering the oceans.

    The opposite when the sun is more active.

  10. Pointman

    As part of its Cancun Week, today’s piece at is the second part of the Low Carbon Plot Chinese translation.


    1. DirkH

      Thanks. Locusts’ translations provide valuable insight.

  11. hr

    I think his surname is Borchert

  12. Julia Speaks! | Greenhouse Bullcrap

    […] NOTRICKSZONE German Scientist: CO2 Not The Cause of Climate Change – Cold Period Is Anticipated By P Gosselin on 16. November 2010… […]

  13. Craig Goodrich

    If Dr. B has succeeded in explaining the ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation), this is a major, extremely important finding, since another study has shown that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a delayed, multiyear integration of ENSO.

    If all of the major ocean oscillations are explicable by solar activity, our understanding of climate change has increased by an order of magnitude. I wonder what armwaving nonsense the pscientists at RealClimate will post in reaction to this — if any of them can read German.

    1. Ike


      there is the German scientist Stefan Rahmstorf (physicist and oceanographer by training) who is contributer to RealClimate.


  14. Stephen Wilde

    The most interesting question from my point of view is as to whether the effects noted are from cloudiness changes resulting from:

    a) The Svensmark cosmic ray effect as he suggests or

    b) The latitudinal shifting of the jet streams as I contend.

    Currently I think the cosmic ray variations are just a proxy for solar variability and not themselves directly responsible for any additional cloudiness.

  15. salvatore del prete

    This is a good read. It confirms my thinking ,that all climatic temperature changes are a result of natural causes which phase in with one another ,to one degree or another in a radom, chaotic nature.

    To make a correct climate forecast one needs to first forecast what these items will be doing going forward,and to what degree they will move in a given direction.

    They are,

    solar activity

    volcanic activity

    soi oscillation

    pdo and amo

    ao,aao,nao oscillations

    Those factors control the climate, and how they interact, and phase in with one another.

    If solar activity could remain weak enough ,long enough ,I think this will effect those other items by making them more likely to phase in ,and stay more in a cold mode. I hate to use numbers, but I think a solar flux reading of 90 or lower will be needed to get significant results,(for a long period of time) in a directional temperature change towards cooling.

  16. Erl Happ

    Here is an opportunity for theorists to earn a dollar:
    All welcome.

  17. Global Warming

    It is a very important issue that we can not run. In today’s world global warming is big serious problem. Global warming is certainly a global issue that needs a global solution. The global warming occurs due to rise in the temperature around the earths atmosphere. There are lots of reasons for Global Warming. Humans are the main responsible to worsen the Earth condition. The increase in urban heat is not only by the natural causes in climate change but the Green house gases are the main cause of global warming.

  18. Seawolf74

    I am an Oceanographer by education and qualified as a nuclear engineer and security specialist. I do not believe the drivel that is being sold to us as science. It was shown in the revealed emails that the “scientists” falsified the data to make it match their models. Hardly something that gives you confidence in their veracity on anything else. Also, how many of the proponents of AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) get paid from taxpayers dollars “grant”ed to them to study the “upcoming disaster”? Seems like an income motive to keep the crisis going. Also, it seems that some of these same folks were decrying the coming ice age back in the 70’s or as a US politician said “Never let a crisis go to waste” and in the case of AGW: even if you have to make it up. The famous AlGore movie “An unfortunate lie” was determined in a court in England to have nine provably false assertions and merely used graphics to attempt to delude the world’s people in to believing a lie. One interesting correlation that is frequently overlooked is that the temperature trends on Mars looked similar to those on Earth. I think the common factor must be considered as important when analyzing for a cause and effect relationship. The Sun anyone?

  19. Joseph Oruoch

    It is correct that climate change is outside the sphere of human influence. The sun is also too far and other research have shown that it is not the primary source of heat on earth. The earth has its on heat which is responsible for global climate variations. To see how this happens please go to

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy