Meteorologist Dominik Jung Turns Skeptical After Germany Sets Record 5 Consecutive Colder-Than-Normal Winters!

Jung Dominik_TwitterBig, embarrassing news for German climate scientists.

With 11 days remaining, Germany this year is set for its 5th colder-than-normal winter (DJF) in a row (a record), this according to high-profile German meteorologist Dominik Jung at here (photo left). Jung is an often-quoted meteorology expert of the German media.

I’m really quite (pleasantly) surprised because I recall sharply criticizing, even berating, Jung in a post about a year or two ago for believing all the warmist rubbish. I guess five cold, snowy winters in a row have been enough to get Jung to take closer look. His tone and music have changed completely.

Jung begins his post with:

Just a few years ago climate experts prophesied that Germany would no longer experience winters with ice and snow in the future. In the 1990s there had been an entire series of milder and stormier winters. […] However, this trend has not been observed over the last years. To the contrary: winters have again gotten considerably colder and the huge storms like those in the 1990s have more or less disappeared. […]. Climate experts prophesied in the year 2000 that winters with snow and ice in Germany would cease to exist.”

Jung then presents the data for Germany’s last 4 winters and that of the current winter, and compares them to the 1980-2010 mean winter temperature, which was 0.8°C above the 1960-1990 mean.

– 2008/2009: 1.0 °C cooler
– 2009/2010: 2.0 °C cooler
– 2010/2011:  1.3 °C cooler
– 2011/2012: 0.1 °C cooler
– 2012/2013 (so far): 0.4°C. cooler

We should recall that whatever applies for Germany, also applies for much of Central Europe. Moreover, Jung mentions that the results are the same if you compare the five winters to the 1970 -2000 period. Jung summarizes the results:

With the current winter, we now have 5 winters in a row that have been colder than the long-term average! Crafty scientists at first explained that climate warming was just taking a timeout. Strangely, this timeout has now been going on for 5 years without interruption. Accordingly things have gotten very quiet in the climate warming debate.”

Yes indeed it has. Germany’s prestigious research institutes and leading climatologists, such as “internationally recognized” Prof. Dr. Mojib Latif, Head of both the Research Division Ocean Circulation and Climate Dynamics and the Research Unit Marine Meteorology of the IFM-GEOMAR of Kiel, Germany, and “renowned” Prof. Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf of the influential Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research (PIK), or Prof. Dr. Jochem Marotzke of the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg are now stumped, baffled and confused by this unexpected development, which completely contradicts their earlier super-computer models. Indeed, most of the German warmist modellers have since gone back and revamped their models, and are now suddenly claiming that the colder winters are actually a sign of global warming! But for much of the remaining German science community, these once prestigious scientists are beginning to increasingly look like laughing stocks of the new century.

Jung did his homework, and also checked to see how the earlier models have been doing for the summers (JJA). Jung writes:

By the way, according to many climate projections, also summers in Germany were supposed to get increasingly drier and hotter. Over the last 10 summers, only one summer was too dry, and that was the summer of 2003. Otherwise all summers were either average or much too wet.”

The models got the summers wrong 9 consecutive years in a row! So expect the Latif and the other hapless scientists to roll out new models soon. Jung continues:

The earlier climate projections and prognoses of the 80s and 90s are more or less way off, at least for Germany and Europe. Because of the current situation with the facts, they simply no longer fit and must be urgently revamped, otherwise we will wind up with credibility problems here.”

Too late. As mentioned above, the scientists are already laughing stocks and many of us have been rolling on the floor with laughter for quite some time. Jung:

People aren’t stupid and they recognise what the facts are. So let’s look and see just how much longer this timeout is supposed to go.”

If he hasn’t done so already, Jung ought to pick up a copy of Die kalte Sonne. It’ll remove any remaining doubts he may have.

There you have it. The climate models have been wrong in the winter 5 years in a row, and wrong in the summer nine years in a row. That’s even far worse then random guessing. This is an incredible performance.

Send thanks for this report to e-mail address:

Photo credit Dominik Jung:


53 thoughts on “Meteorologist Dominik Jung Turns Skeptical After Germany Sets Record 5 Consecutive Colder-Than-Normal Winters!”

  1. Blind trust into the integrity of colleagues from a related scientific branch has deluded Jung for years, obviously. As a meteorologist he should have known that the climate modelers are charlatans. He knows how quickly his models go off the rails. Why should the climate models be any better?

    1. It’s one thing to model climate, and quite another to claim the model projections are reliable enough on which to base future plans. Those who do are indeed charlatans. As far as I know, there are no meteorologists out there who would claim a 15-day or 30-day forecast is “accurate”. They always include the fine print.
      That climate scientists claim their decadal and 100-year forecasts are good enough to base policy decisions on, tells me they are charlatans. Weather and climate are different, but both are chaotic systems.

      1. I do not completely rule out that there might be honest climate modelers. But I have yet to find one. Maybe it is their own knowledge of the futility of their work that turns them all into agenda-driven cynical parasites.

        1. I’m still looking for a PhD thesis I cannot find on the internet. Perhaps it is in some university library. Simon James Busby (2010). Simulating patterns and causes of North American drought : a case study using the HADCM3 general circulation model.

          1. Thanks, Dirk. I know this article from 2008 but it is not the thesis from 2010. If I only had the preface …

          2. Here you go:

            “Simulating patterns and causes of North American drought : a case study using the HADCM3 general circulation model”, Simon James Busby


            Unfortunately it seems to be hardcopy only, despite UEA policy that soft copies must be filed. Probably Phil Jones paranoia.

          3. Mindert – Make sure there’s an actual physical copy in the library before you go.

            It wouldn’t surprise me if the library copies of the thesis are out on loan to Phil Jones, just to make sure no one can get at them.

            If you are in academia, or have a friend who is, you might have a better chance via an interlibrary loan.

  2. Don’t meteorologists need to understand psychrometrics? Especially the aspect of the heat content of air being far more dependent upon water vapour content than (dry bulb) temperature?

    A side effect of extra-moist air is that it “draws” heat from the surface (conduction/convection) more effectively as it remains “cooler” than the surface for longer. That improves the “insulation” effect of the air on the surface. More heat is “stored” close to the surface, at a lower temperature so radiation from the surface is reduced.

    Dry air produces more (natural) convection, but that air doesn’t hold much heat before becoming too buoyant to remain near the surface; therefore losing its ability to remove heat from (cool) the surface.

    The interaction is very difficult to model; even as ideal processes. If the surface is water; which accounts for most of the planet’s surface; then it’s likely to be an intractable task to be definitive about the magnitude of energy flux; to the precision required for a real “climate model” that has forecasting skills beyond the imediate diurnal cycle.

  3. Yeah, they’re different. Weather is what happens; Climate is what is supposed to happen. The two concepts have been hopelessly confused. Weather is what happens in a chaotic system. It can only be predicted by looking upwind and guessing about what will change in the day or two before a system gets to you. Climate is the long-term average weather for a particular location. The climate at my house is different from the climate just a mile down the road. I know from looking at the growth rings in the firewood I burn every day that the climate has changed from year to year in a chaotic way. There is no pattern; no CO2 signal. The climate only determines what species survive long term. At my house those are Piñon Pine, Juniper, and a few cacti species. Non-native plants must be watered regularly to survive, and/or brought indoors.

    If I look at the region where I live, southern New Mexico, USA, and observe the vegetation for any longer-term changes, I observe many dead palm trees and Mexican deciduous species, killed by recent cold winters. Many of those trees survived for the previous 30 to 90 years. From that I must judge that the climate must be getting colder, not warmer.

    If I look at continental scale climate, ignoring indicators subject to human bias such as temperature records, I see increasing winter snow cover, occasionally into northern Mexico, North Africa, and Himalayan foothills in India. In the Southern Hemisphere, I see winter snow records set in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and South America.

    The summer melt lakes in Greenland have black bottoms from all the soot that has collected in them. This is the Anthropomorphic driver I see in the Arctic. Multi-year ice in the Arctic Ocean collects soot each year it persists until it is driven to melt. This, and warm water from the Gulf Stream and warm currents flowing north through the Bering Strait, have reduced the summer ice to new lows. Will summer ice disappear? No. A new equilibrium will be reached where the soot flux melting and the winter ice production will again balance. Meanwhile, the world weather will continue to respond to input from the sun.

  4. Jung (or the translator) shows his ignorance by saying the climate models were wrong for five winters in a row. Global warming climate models aren’t weather forecasts designed to pinpoint seasonal temperatures in a small geographic area. Rather, they are designed to capture long-term trends on a global scale.

    1. Did you even read the story? It’s the German scientists who made the “local” forecasts and said the warmth of the 1990s and early 2000s was going to just keep on going. Of course now that it hasn’t, they are telling us they meant the year 2100. Scientists said in 2000 that winters in GERMANY would be warmer, yet instead the opposite is happening: we’ve had five cold ones in a row. Of course, if the five winters had been warm instead, you’d be the first to say the climate models had gotten it all right.

      In fact the models have gotten the entire 21st century global trend completely wrong so far. But hey, don’t let us keep you from being duped for the rest of your life.

    2. “Rather, they are designed to capture long-term trends on a global scale.”

      (Chuckles). Bob, they are designed to give the IPCC reports the trends the UN ordered. Even Phil Jones, boss of the CRU at the UEA, a chief warmist and member of the hockey team, said:
      “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds”

      If the IPCC were a scientific organisation they would have to say “We can’t prognosticate anything; first we need to improve our models”.

      Please inform yourself about the difficulties in simulating complex chaotic systems. Start with the mathematical definition of “chaos”.

    3. Dear Rob, I would say it as follows. If more than five percent of their model runs would have produced something like five cold winters in a row, the modelers could blame the result on chance. I cannot say whether this is the case and for some reason I cannot find this kind of information.

  5. It is all part of the scam. The perpetrators of this SCAM knew the temperature had to eventually come back down. However, they expected to have had UN contracts signed that had reduced CO2 by 20% by this time and a massive effort installing trillions of windmills and solar panels furthering these reductions. This would have proven that their SCAM worked and that we need to continue with it. But they would be rolling in Carbon credits forever.

    If the model makers are good enough to “simulate” the global warming created by a chemical that is only .04% of the atmosphere WITH other atmosphere chemicals that supposedly have 10 to 100 times the effect – some positive and some negative. Then why haven’t they use this immense knowledge of computer models to simulate the various stock exchanges and made fortunes trading stock?

    Meanwhile, at least once a year I read about another “Newly Discovered Life Form affects the adsorption of CO2 in the Ocean, Soil, etc. …..” Seems like these MASSIVE “blooms” of microscopic life in the ocean, that they are only discovering in the last few years, adsorb immense amounts of CO2 (more than man makes in a year), die, get eaten and/or sink to the bottom of the ocean.

  6. Phil Jones, “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds”
    Or thunderstorms. Or, indeed any storms at all! All the models use grid cells that are far larger than the usual convection cells, and these are what moves most of the heat from the surface to the top of the Troposphere. In order for a model to have a ghost of a chance to truly model the earth, it would need to run on a super-supercomputer more than 1000 times larger than the largest one currently in existence so that the grid cells could be three-dimensional, and a few hundred of them fit in a typical thunderstorm. But even that would not be successful because of the chaos involved in the real world. But it might be smart enough to tell the modelers to find real work.

    1. No, Ed, the problem is reverse. Each grid cell does not simulate the physical processes in it – they can’t do that as the physics are unclear (cloud formation e.g.).
      What they try to do is make the grid cells large enough so they can give a statistical description; using the Law Of Large Numbers. (similar to thermodynamics; you can’t predict the path of one gas molecule but you can describe the behaviour of a volume of gas rather well in certain regards.)

      So they still operate with grid cells 50 times 50 km large. One of the many problems they have is that convective fronts can and do become as large as a small continent and the statistical description, the Law Of Large Numbers, doesn’t work anymore for these (frequent) cases.

      It is really a completely nonrealistic description, a mockery of a simulation that they use.

  7. Here is one model I think “they” might have gotten right.
    The effect of the Sanders-Boxer carbon tax.
    and from 2010 Uncle Sam chimes in. Tax our economy to death to lower global temps in 2100 by .001C. (1st paragraph middle column)

    1. Carbon tax is as helpful as the “letter of indulgence” from the Catholic church.
      At least the Catholic church used the money to build the Petersdom in Rom.

      What do we get for the carbon tax?

      1. Well Juergen, I have seen some photographs of Al Gore’s mansion. What are you complaining about?

  8. Random find. What would a weekend be without following the labyrinthine connections of the German Globalist Warmist-Scientific Complex.

    The Great Transformation is alive and well. Tomorrow, Wuppertal Institute (legendary Green Political Religion breeding ground), Maria Göpel.
    “3rd workshop for the Forschungswende (Science Turn) for the Great Transformation”

    Maria Göpel has worked for one of the many committees of ultraglobalist Jakob von Uexküll, founder of the Alternative Nobel Price and grandson of Jakob Johann von Uexküll, who in turn was a very good friend of Houston Stewart Chamberlain.
    (’nuff said)

  9. Good evening chaps…so good to “chat”. Two things:

    1) What was the ANNUAL temperature anomaly for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 in Germany (as opposed to just a “winter anomaly” which covers only 3 months)? Since some of you are German…you no doubt know where to get that information. That would be interesting to see.

    2) From P: “Too late. As mentioned above, the scientists are already laughing stocks and many of us have been rolling on the floor with laughter for quite some time.”

    I’ll answer the 2nd one. Those darned silly scientists!! What the heck are they doing? Next thing you know….they will say we need a system to deflect asteroids before a big one hits the earth. I man really…..what are the chances of a big asteroid hitting the earth these days?…:)

    So good to talk with you boys….JC

    PS..Looking forward to the answer to #1 above….

    1. Germany’s and Central Europe’s annual temperature has been trending downwards for about a decade as well. The reason Jung focussed on DJF winter temps is because of all the stupid predictions about snowless winters made earlier made by Viner, Latif etc. Check out the annual temps yourself.

    2. JC Smith
      18. Februar 2013 at 01:16 | Permalink | Reply
      “1) What was the ANNUAL temperature anomaly for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 in Germany (as opposed to just a “winter anomaly” which covers only 3 months)? Since some of you are German…you no doubt know where to get that information. That would be interesting to see.”

      A much more interesting question would be what was the temperature. Alarmist scientist stand-ins consciously choose to use anomalies. This way they never have to define what they think the “right” temperature of the globe should be and why.

    3. JC,
      These are global maps. As you can see, there was only one recent year where Germany was below average for the annual anomaly.
      But there are problems with anomaly maps. Read here:
      The odds are quite low, but the annualized cost is much higher (it is positive) than the annualized cost of any global warming, (which happens to be negative). The cost for last weeks meteor explosion over Russia was 100 million Rubles just to replace broken windows.

      1. Ed: Thanks. I thought you folks might have access to some other more “regional” or “local” information relative to Germany. But thanks for posting the global maps. I was aware that the global anomaly was positive for most of Europe, not negative (like the winter temps).

        Regarding my comment on an asteroid: We won’t have to worry about it at the rate we are going. If global warming doesn’t kill us in the next 200 years….surely we will kill each other since we can’t seem to figure out how to get along with each other.

        Which shouldn’t be a surprise, espeially if you read some of the reactions on many websites (HI Dirk:). You see….if a society can’t disscuss important issues of our time in a civil yet passionate way, and be ACCOUNTABLE, then there is not a lot of hope.

        I happen to be someone who thinks we are just at the BEGINNING of an UPSWING in humanity. But we’re starting from a very low point we hit over the last 6 – 8 years or so…..and it will be a LONG….SLOW grind forward as humanity advances (its amazing what video clips will do). The only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time.

        1. Oh we’re a little thin-skinned today, JC Smith? Tell your superiors in your warmist madhouse that I’ve seen so many malthusian misantropists in my life that I know you idiots are not in danger of going extinct any time soon.

        2. Global warming will not harm us. On the contrary, if temperatures rise, (and that is still a large IF) most of the rise will be at latitudes that will increase the growing season. Rising CO2 (a crop fertilizer) will increase the food supply. Less temperature difference between the tropics and the poles will reduce cyclone energy, reducing relative storm damage. If we let the market determine energy and food supply, the rise in standard of living will reduce strife and population growth. I want to see civil and DIS-passionate discussion of our problems. We need a lot more attention to logical and well researched solutions, not decisions based on ideology. Humanity advances because of the increase and availability of knowledge. As long as we don’t perform the equivalent of burning the Alexandrian Library, which would be very difficult today because of the dispersal of our knowledge, we will advance just fine.

        3. Dear Joe, neither Dirk nor me have the slightest idea who you are but my impression is almost the opposite of Dirk’s, although his style is brilliant. Your last paragraph leaves at me an autobiographic impression. In several of your comments you are telling a mix of stories. My country has a tradition of tolerance since the days of William the Silent. When early 2009 my leftist newspaper told the Dutch public that a certain science was settled and that dissident opinions were no more allowed, I decided that it was time to do some research. Whether you like it or not, I concluded that AGW is probably swindle. It could have been otherwise but anyhow I am grateful to the little fascists of my newspaper that they got me out of my chair.

  10. Look at the longer term to assess climate change: not just a natural warming period of some 20 years since the 1970s.

    Never forget that the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD, according to ice core data, was the coolest of the current benign Holocene epoch, since the last real ice age.
    At ~12,000 years our happy Holocene, the period responsible for the development of all human civilizations is getting long in the tooth.

    Overall it has been cooler than the previous Eemian epoch and its end is now overdue when compared with earlier shorter more intense warmer interglacials.

    So whether the diminishing sunspot cycle and changing ocean circulation patterns lead to another Little Ice Age or perhaps to the impending real end of the Holocene epoch during this millennium, the one thing that the world should not be concerned about is a little Global Warming, well within the level of natural variations that have been seen in the past 12,000 years.

    A cooling, rather than a warming, world leads to both a reduction in agricultural productivity with huge deprivation for all natural life including mankind worldwide. It also probably leads to more extreme weather events, (possibly even like hurricane Sandy). There is very good reason to expect worsening weather events in a cooling, rather than a warming world because the temperature differential between the tropics and the poles is enhanced.

    But now the Western world is continually being pressured by propaganda and has widely enacted legislation about “Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption”. These definitions have meant that any adverse weather event can be ascribed to “Climate Change” and thus be blamed on the destructive actions of Mankind.

    The Catastrophic Climate Change Alarmists back every horse whichever way it runs. Nonetheless all Alarmist policy recommendations are only intended to control excessive Global Overheating by the reduction of Man-made CO2 emissions. This has to be a blinding paradox.

    It is not clear how reducing CO2 emissions would help save the world from a climate change towards a cooling world which now seems to be occurring nor how it could ameliorate severe weather events.

    It may be that the climate establishment is gradually coming to its senses. Not only has the Met Office admitted that warming has stopped but also NASA, no doubt much to the chagrin of James Hansen, has now released information that it believes that the sun, rather than CO2 influences climate.


  11. Global Warming theory is Social Construction build on pack mentality and when that failed bullying: professional, financial and political. Nothing more.

    If those scientists had remembered their lessons of Scientific Method they couldn’t go much further than maybe’s, eventually’s, it is just a hypothesis, we don’t know much, we don’t even have a reliable climate history to 100 years…even today we can’t even know what to measure because we don’t know all the climate variables.

  12. “With 11 days remaining, Germany this year is set for its 5th colder-than-normal winter…”—does winter end on a different date in Germany? Our spring (USA) starts on March 21.

Comments are closed.