A new research institute in Switzerland set to rock the climate science boat…will investigate natural causes of climate change. Director calls claims CO2 the main driver and a pollutant “absurd”.
Swiss institute director and climate scientist Hans-Joachim Dammschneider says natural factors in large part behind recent climate change. Photo credit: IFHGK
The Swiss Basler Zeitung (BZ) reported on April 13, 2018, that a new research institute opened at Lake Aegeri in Switzerland last year: the Institute for Hydrography, Geo-ecology and Climate Sciences (IFHGK), which will focus on the natural causes of climate change.
Contrary to the other government-funded institutes, the IFHGK focusses on the natural causes of climate change: the Institute for Geo-ecology and Climate Sciences wishes to show that CO2 is not necessarily the main driver behind global warming and thus goes against the alleged broad consensus among mainstream researchers, the Baseler Zeitung writes.
A real climate scientist
The new institute, founded at the start of 2017, is located in Oberägeri, Switzerland is directed by Hans-Joachim Dammschneider. who according to the BZ explained:
Unlike many others who speak on the subject of global warming, I’m actually a climate scientist.”
The institute consists of scientists who work on a volunteer basis and operates on a shoestring. Decisive in the founding of the institute was Dr. Hans-Joachim Dammschneider’s encounter with Dr. Sebastian Lüning, who together with Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt wrote the Spiegel bestseller “Die kalte Sonne“, which upset German mainstream climate science. Lüning also runs the Die kalte Sonne climate site, where he posts daily.
Looking at climate science with “calm, common sense and reason”
Dr. Lüning, a geologist, long ago concluded that the mainstream climate scientists have navigated themselves into a dead end. Dammschneider told the BZ that the institute will look at the issues with “calm, common sense and understanding.”
Dammschneider, who considers himself a climate realist, says that it is absurd that CO2 has been designated a pollutant and that the substance is mainly to blame for es climate change. Dr. Dammschneider is a leading German expert in the field of geography, climate research, oceanography and geology.
The BZ reports that already Dammschneider has published some papers in their own publication series and that he specializes in the field of periodic temperatures changes of the oceans, which have a direct impact on the atmosphere. He told the BZ:
The atmospheric temperatures tend to correspond with the oscillations of the oceans and are subject to a comparable pattern.”
Today’s warmth “not unique”
The German-born researcher believes it is essential to record these changes and to see if the climate changes are normal, or if they only have existed since man started burning fossil fuels.
His research and the findings of Sebastian Lüning for the North African region show that during the period of the year 1000 to 1200 A.D. it was similarly as warm as it is today. The BZ writes:
The works of Lüning and his team show that during this period very optimal climate conditions predominated. They also indicate that today’s warm period is not unique.”
The fear to dissent
On the future success of the institute, the BZ writes that Dammschneider is aware that it’s going to be a long and difficult road, saying that “young climate scientists as a rule cannot afford to question asserted truths if they do not want to endanger their careers. Thus the new climate science skeptic institute will have to rely on support from independent scientists and retired professors who are free to speak without the fear of harsh consequences.
Funding needed
The BZ writes that the institute is working to gain public attention, but is in need of funding. However: “business sponsors look promising, and so it hopes to employ some workers,” the BZ reports.
Concerning the widespread alarmism over man-made climate change, Dammschneider told the BZ:
Sooner or later they will have to soften the positions they’ve held so far.”
Read the entire story in German at the Basler Zeitung
Where do I donate?
Here: http://kaltesonne.de/die-mittelalterliche-warmeperiode/ Or contact Dr. Lüning directly through his DkS site. He speaks prefect English and is easy going.
Sort of on topic.
Greenland Ice melt GEOTHERMAL, Not Man-made
https://s19.postimg.cc/p42wgwtir/comparison.jpg
Just like the Antarctic.
Nothing bad can come out of this, really …
So it’s basically another “institute” like EIKE 😉
I wouldn’t say that. If you were at all familiar with Lüning’s work, you wouldn’t write such nonsense. Lüning and the institute are totally focussed on RESEARCH, while EIKE focuses to some extent on commentary. I’ve looked for a Seb climate site and Seb climate institute. But haven’t found any. All I’ve found are your comments here, courtesy of NTZ.
“you wouldn’t write such nonsense.”
Unfortunately he would.!!
Perpetually UNAWARE.
Perpetual NONSENSE.
Its inbuilt, and unchangeable.
You can start here: http://kaltesonne.de/die-mittelalterliche-warmeperiode/
Will they finally find out whether or not we already surpassed MWP temperatures then? Will skeptics finally realize that it doesn’t really matter if it was warmer in the past than today? That doesn’t change the cause for modern warming that will continue for quite some time …
But life florsihed in the past when it was warmer.
All the great rises of civilisation and the change from the bronze age to ice age are temperature dependent, the warmer the sooner advances were made.
Every thing we know about the past tells us that warmer world would be a better world. If only we could return to the Holocene Optimum, it being called optimum for a reason. But unfortunately, we are on a downwards descent, away from the interglacial, and back into the deep throes of the ice age that we are currently in. When that happens, then we will see real climate change, and it will then be a bad thing.
Those weren’t “great rises”. We live in extraordinary times today. Our civilization is rising faster than ever before and no, it wasn’t the temperature that did it, more like the other way around.
We quite certainly aren’t. The next decades/centuries will be even warmer than today.
we are on a downwards descent
Wow. You’re certain, huh? Predicting the temperatures for the coming decades based upon the burgeoning concentration of a trace gas has been tried (and failed) already.
“The next decades/centuries will be even warmer than today.”
Even warmer and the very slight warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years..
GREAT NEWS
Do you reckon we will ever get back up to MWP temperatures, seb??
What do your crystal balls tell you, seb.
Or do you use tarot cards??
You have ZERO science to back up that claim, of course. EMPTY baseless rhetoric, will not warm the world.
But warming if it actually did occur, would be a blessing for sure. The last thing the world needs right now is a COOLING period (only benefit would be to freeze the AGW trolls)
“Our civilization is rising faster than ever before and no, it wasn’t the temperature that did it”
It was a bit to do with temperature.
People needed HEATING because of the continual cold toward the end of the LIA….. so they eventually found a way to provide it.
…. but mostly it was the provision of CHEAP RELIABLE ENERGY, ..
… ostensibly from COAL and GAS and OIL.
That which you and your AGW anti-CO2 religious nutters want to get rid off, the very things that helped build out vibrant society, and which are the only power sources that really provide what is necessary to keep it going..
As certain as one can be when you understand the mechanisms involved. How certain are you that the curve fitting exercises can accurately predict the future? Haven’t you posted a paper that tried to use KI to predict future temperature development just by looking at past temperature curves?
Up until now it worked pretty decently. What method for predicting the development of the climate do you suggest we use? Curve fitting?
So what are the mechanisms causing the Southern Ocean to cool and the SH sea ice to grow…since neither cooling nor SIE growth was expected to occur according to climate modeling?
What’s the mechanism that has kept Greenland from warming since the 1920s-1940s? What’s the mechanism for the dramatic North Atlantic cooling? Why has the Arctic not warmed since 2005? What’s the mechanism for the U.S. cooling since the 1950s?
That is a good question. Care to answer it yourself (in your own words)? Try to include the word “ozone” or something from this paper mabye: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2731
Maybe I got the coordinates wrong, but Greenland is warming dramatically: https://imgur.com/a/6NJMS
Well, there were these papers last week about the weakening Gulf Stream current. Didn’t pay attention?
Has it not? At least you can’t deny polar amplification anymore, right? The graph you posted has the Artic warming way higher than for the globe. https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
You tell me. Just calling it “natural variability” doesn’t cut it. So, what are the mechanisms for all those questions you asked (if what you asked for actually happened)?
” Greenland is warming dramatically: “
WRONG.IPCC shows Greenland cooling
https://s19.postimg.cc/7tl7hii8z/greenland1.jpg
Greenland temps follow the Arctic pattern of warmer around 1940
https://s19.postimg.cc/jftrrchtf/Greenland_Dec_temps.png
Greenland is COOLER than before the anomalous cold of the LIA, not warmed back up properly yet.
https://s19.postimg.cc/3zakdupdv/greenland_temp.png
And around Greenland there is FAR MORE sea ice than at basically any time in the Holocene except the :LIA
https://s19.postimg.cc/loqxfbppf/Holocene-Sea-Ice-Greenland-Sha-17.jpg
“The graph you posted has the Artic warming way higher than for the globe”?em>
WRONG. was warmer in the 1920-1940 period
https://s19.postimg.cc/rdfnulv37/Arctic-_Surface-_Temps-_Since-1920.jpg
Poor seb .. perpetually WRONG
Perpetually UNAWARE. !!
“Up until now it worked pretty decently”
No, it has FAILED MISERABLY
Even when compared to the RCP4.5 models , a scenario that isn’t happening, the “predictions” have been woefully WRONG.
https://s19.postimg.cc/hz5lgm6hv/biggestfail2.png
And as the slightly cooling trend sets in, those models are looking decidedly LAUGHABLE
Not only that, but MANY parts of the world ARE NOT WARMING, Only warming is coming from Ocean cycles and El Nino events, so CERTAINLY nothing to do with a trace of human released plant food.
Nope , sorry seb, but the anti-CO2 mantra is a load of hallucinogenic fantasy and scientifically unsupportable garbage.
“That doesn’t change the cause for modern warming “
Yep NATURAL VARIABILITY will always exist.
Warming from CO2.. nope. !!
ZERO EVIDENCE of that, anywhere, anytime, anyhow…
…as you well know.
” it doesn’t really matter if it was warmer in the past than today? “
Yes it does… your mantra and your irrational baseless belief in CO2 warming CANNOT allow you to accept that the world is actually still very much in a cool phase of the current interglacial.
It is highly pertinent that we haven’t yet reached anywhere near MWP temperatures.
Still way more Arctic sea ice.
Still no major crops in Greenland.
Shows that all the PANIC, WHINGING and CARRYING-ON about warming is like someone complaining because they have to take their second winter jacket off.
Also shows that the HUGE amounts of money WASTED on unreliable, intermittent supply systems while trying to curtail the one gas that provides food for ALL LIFE ON EARTH (but totally FAILING) has been based on a load of anti-science, anti-REALITY nonsense.
ONLY by DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE history can you possibly hold the irrational cult-like belief that the current slight, but highly beneficial, warming out of the COLDEST temperature anomaly in 10,000 years, is ANYTHING BUT NATURAL.
Hopefully this institute will help start meaningful scientific debate.
Something that climate alarmists have done their best to suppress.
There is none of this “herd instinct” and pressure to conform amongst climate scientists of China, Japan, India and Russia. Great many papers published by Chinese scientists in particular find close parallels between the climate of today and climates of the past. Scientists of China and Japan scrutinized (mostly) American numerical climate models and found them wanting, adding their own corrections to them, and developing their own models in the end.
Can you present some examples please? Links to models they’ve come up with that are better than the current ones?
If you had read his book, you’d have seen their model, which turns out to be more accurate than anything we’ve seen thus far. But you never read the book and just blabber nonsense about it. Read, then judge.
The “they” was referring to the Chinese and Japanese scientists who Gus was writing about …
Regarding the book: I read the reviews, no thanks. I can recommend you more books which are similarly reviewed. Maybe you’d enjoy reading them.
Deaf-in-one-ear Seb.
DNFTT
Poor seb, Content to remain UNAWARE.
Actually….. NEEDS to remain UNAWARE.
With pleasure. See, e.g., [1,2]. There is a lot more, too much for a short blog note.
[1] Yousuke Sato, et al., “Aerosol effects on cloud water amounts were successfully simulated by a global cloud-system resolving model,” Nature Communications, 7 March 2018, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03379-6
[2] Sonja Totz, et al., “The dynamical core of the Aeolus 1.0 statistical–dynamical atmosphere model: validation and parameter optimization,” Geoscientific Model Development, 22 Feb 2018, doi:10.5194/gmd-11-665-2018
Thank you. So [1] tuned a model so it produces the same sign values for aerosol induced cooling (namely causing rain). How is that a deviation from the “heard instinct”? Not exactly something that contradicts AGW. [2] I haven’t read yet.
Anyway, the more diverse the research directions, the more knowledge we gain.
“How is that a deviation from the “herd instinct”? “
Because it got something CORRECT.
Also VALIDATED against REAL data, unlike the herd !!
You will never gain more actual knowledge seb,
You CANNOT allow yourself to…
… because actual real knowledge will destroy your irrational anti-CO2 AGW belief.
From [1] (as per above):
“Aerosols affect climate by modifying cloud properties through their role as cloud condensation nuclei or ice nuclei, called aerosol–cloud interactions. In most global climate models (GCMs), the aerosol–cloud interactions are represented by empirical parameterisations, in which the mass of cloud liquid water (LWP) is assumed to increase monotonically with increasing aerosol loading. Recent satellite observations, however, have yielded contradictory results: LWP can decrease with increasing aerosol loading. This difference implies that GCMs overestimate the aerosol effect, but the reasons for the difference are not obvious. Here, we reproduce satellite-observed LWP responses using a global simulation with explicit representations of cloud microphysics, instead of the parameterisations. Our analyses reveal that the decrease in LWP originates from the response of evaporation and condensation processes to aerosol perturbations, which are not represented in GCMs. The explicit representation of cloud microphysics in global scale modelling reduces the uncertainty of climate prediction.”
So, you see, they did far better and far more. They introduced explicit parametrization of cloud microphysics, something notoriously lacking in American GCMs. By doing so they reproduced satellite-observed LWP responses, something American GCMs couldn’t do.
But they still have to parametrize, which is bad. Even they cannot compute cloud dynamics ab-initio, an Achilles heel of all climate models. They neither have the resolution, nor do their authors have sufficient knowledge of cloud dynamics.
Some examples of the lack of “herd instinct” and pressure to conform amongst climate scientists of China and Russia:
Two from China: Wang et al., 2017 (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46091) and Quansheng et al., 2017 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-017-6238-8).
And two from Russia: Stozhkov et al., 2017 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.3103/S1062873817020411) and Ukhvatkina et al., 2018 (https://www.clim-past.net/14/57/2018/cp-14-57-2018.pdf).
A wavelet/curve fitting paper citing Scafetta, temperature reconstruction for China, another curve fitting believer who also tries to blame everything on cosmic rays. And finally another Asia reconstruction that shows modern warming (and that today’s temperature exceeded the 1940s warming).
So, ZERO counter as always seb.
Is that what you are saying??
Just like you have ZERO to say as real evidence of CO2 warming anything.
You’ve completely missed the point – which was simply to illustrate (with a tiny fraction of many examples) the uncomfortable fact that, as Gus noted, there’s no pressure to follow the “herd Instinct” to conform amongst climate scientists in China, Japan, India and Russia. “Uncomfortable” because the US, Canada, Western Europe and Australia (i.e. the conforming West) are responsible for only 27% of global emissions, whereas China, Japan, India and Russia are responsible for 44% (http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&sort=des8). And their policymakers are likely to be more influenced by their own scientists than by those in the West – notwithstanding criticisms of the former from SebastianH.
@Robin Guenier 19. April 2018 at 2:51 PM |
Permit me to translate SebH’s comment.
“Cease and desist from independent thought. Return to the herd at once!”
PS – That’s basically the translation of all his comments.
yonason: you say that SebH is telling me to “Return to the herd at once”.
But for all he knows I may already be a member of the herd. The serious issue is quite different: it seems that scientists in major emerging economies responsible for far more emissions than the whole of the West, are not members. If that’s true – and it certainly seems to be – it means the prospects for major emission reduction are extremely poor. The West needs to come to terms with that. And, if its politicians really believe (as they say they do) that emission reduction is essential if we are to avoid potential catastrophe, they should be considering urgently what they’re going to do about it. Just repeating their concerns is otherwise no more than hand-waving.
@Robin Guenier: “But for all he knows I may already be a member of the herd.”
Yes. “for all he knows.” – His fingers type without his brain being engaged. His many predictable activist knee jerk reactions to comments have earned him a deserved negative reputation here, and are why I have in the past referred to him as a “chatbot.” Don’t let it bother you. That’s just SebH.
“…it seems that scientists in major emerging economies responsible for far more emissions than the whole of the West, are not members. If that’s true – and it certainly seems to be – it means the prospects for major emission reduction are extremely poor.”
Perfectly logical.
“Just repeating their concerns is otherwise no more than hand-waving.”
Yes. “Virtue signalling” never solves anything, but it does placate fellow travelers. And what’s the percentage of risking being marginalized by one’s in crowd for thinking critically, anyway, especially if you can’t? Case in point, Justin Trudeau. He regurgitates a lot of ideologically safe buzzwords, and acts on them without care for the consequences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0q8Vv-sRR8
And people are surprised when someone points out what a few decades ago would have been obvious.
It’s a very serious problem, whether or not CO2 is a problem, which it has not yet been scientifically shown to be.
Not everything needs a “counter”, you know.
Especially when you have none. !!
Evasion as always, seb.
Quite feeble. !!
I would be all too happy to work for this institute. Bravo, Dr. Dammschneider!
You should contact them with a CV 🙂
Predictions of climate models that don’t factor in cloud cover changes particularly over tropical oceans are useless.
None of them do as far as I know.
SebastianH 18. April 2018 at 3:02 PM
Until you know what caused MWP you can’t claim to know what caused “modern warming”.
Thanks for admitting, in a roundabout way, that it has been warmer in the past.
I don’t think he has admitted yet that it was the LIA that was ANOMALOUSLY COLD !!..
…. as opposed to NOW actually being that warm at all, which it isn’t when compared to the rest of the interglacial.
Quite on the COOL side, actually
But this FACT cannot be allowed to interfere with his parrot-like mantra.
It’s the LIA that was the exception to the rule…the “hockey stick”. Modern climate is just a partial return to “normal” relative to that frigid period.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Global-Temperatures-0-2000-AD-PAGES-2k-2015.jpg
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Extent-North-of-Iceland-3000-Years-Moffa-S%C3%A1nchez-and-Hall-2017.jpg
As I keep saying DNFTT.
B&T, that’s your decision, not mine.
Sound logic. Until we don’t know who killed Kennedy, we can’t know who killed anyone this year.
Sure it has only not in the MWP (very likely).
Yeah right, modern warming is just around 0.4 to 0.5 °C since 1900. Maybe you want to post the version where you appended some made up data to end, too?
And of course, the North of Iceland graph again … *sigh*
DENIAL of Iceland temperatures and sea ice extent.
DENIAL of temperatures all around the Arctic.
Even DENIAL of Hadcrut Arctic temperatures.
DENIAL that Arctic sea ice is FAR more extensive than at basically any other time except the LIA, which incidentally was a rather COLD period. CERTAINLY more than during the WARMER than now age of the MWP.
And most of all DENIAL that the LIA was an ANOMALOUSLY COLD period, that the world has, very thankfully, just eased out of.
No wonder you “sigh” when you see that Iceland sea ice graph. It totally destroys the need to PANIC about the current HUGE extent of Arctic sea ice, and you KNOW that you have NOTHING to counter it.
Nice to know there is a Hans-Joachim out there who speaks sense.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/joylyxgksrle4k0/It%27s%20not%20the%20heat….pdf?dl=0
[…] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]
[…] Swiss Climate Institute Director: “Absurd” To Call CO2 “Pollutant…Main Culprit Behind Climat… […]
[…] Swiss Climate Institute Director: “Absurd” To Call CO2 “Pollutant […]