Weather Statistics Show June Mean Temperature In Germany Hasn’t Changed in 80 Years!

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning und Professor Fritz Vahrenholt

June brings with it sunshine and warmth – Germany can rely on that.

The German June mean temperature, however, has hardly changed over the past 85 years, as the official weather data of the German DWD National Weather Service confirm:

Figure: June mean temperature trend in Germany over the past 85 years. Data: DWD. Chart: Josef Kowatsch

What stand out are the negative peaks in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Then in the 2000s there was a sudden upward jump.

Today June mean temperatures have been moving well within a normal range. Of course this is much too boring for the media to report on. Luckily at the Die kalte Sonne website, you get all the facts unfiltered.

Thanks to Josef Kowatsch

 

44 responses to “Weather Statistics Show June Mean Temperature In Germany Hasn’t Changed in 80 Years!”

  1. sod

    Why pick 1930 as a start year?

    It is a pretty high start, by chance.

    The series is much longer. And the linear trend for June is upwards. and only a couple of years before 1930, there was a serious low.

    http://www.dwd.de/DE/leistungen/zeitreihenundtrends/zeitreihenundtrends.html?nn=495662

    1. DirkH

      sod 23. June 2016 at 9:26 PM | Permalink | Reply
      “Why pick 1930 as a start year?

      It is a pretty high start, by chance.”

      So is today. So you’re saying it’s unfair to let it end with today?

      1. sod

        “So is today. So you’re saying it’s unfair to let it end with today?”

        no. You obviously want a trend till today. Only the start is a pure cherrypick. Why do people here accept this sort of trick?

        1. DirkH

          “You obviously want a trend till today.”

          So the left end is cherrypicking but the right one is not? This climate science stuff is so complicated!

          1. sod

            “So the left end is cherrypicking but the right one is not? This climate science stuff is so complicated!”

            This is how time series work. the most recent data typically is the end point of any period.

            Why not comment on the fact, that the data looks completely different, when you chose either a little longer or a shorter period?

            That it looks completely different, if you use all data available?

            That it looks completely different, when you focus on the states that saw a big increase? (these will eb the places that suffer from changes by AGW first!)

    2. David Johnson

      So if you start before 1930 and if that shows there is a warming trend, what caused that pre 1930 warming?

      1. sod

        “So if you start before 1930 and if that shows there is a warming trend, what caused that pre 1930 warming?”

        You do not understand how trend lines work.

        If you cherrypick a start date at a high point, you can eliminate an existing trend. This is especially true, when like a true sceptic you ALWAYS do not add a measure of correlation to your fake trend lines.

        1. David Johnson

          Not answering the question asked as usual. You are pathetic

    3. nightspore

      So an 85-year non-trend is somehow irrelevant? After the umpteenth time, these little tricks to avoid facing the issue at hand become a bit tiresome. (Remember, it’s supposed to have been warming inexorably over the past 30 years.)

      I’m surprised that you didn’t also point out that the trend line is actually above the horizontal (not yet significantly different, perhaps, but undoubtedly trending that way).

  2. DirkH

    Well down here in Munich it stayed conveniently cold right until calendaric start of Summer, JUN 21, as clouds gathered north of the Alps.
    (Causing strong rain and 2 deaths by a flash flood in an underpass to be instrumentalized by sod as victims of Global Warming. Hmm. It wasn’t warm while the clouds were there. I think they must have reflected all that sunlight right back into space. Global Warming is the most confusing religion ever. And its members the most confused ever.)

    1. sod

      Temperatures in Bavaria show an even stronger trend than in Germany for June:

      http://www.dwd.de/DE/leistungen/zeitreihenundtrends/zeitreihenundtrends.html?nn=495662

      1. yonason

        Thanks, genius, but that’s the graph of January, not June.

        You and your intellectually gigantic pals should investigate more thoroughly. If you did, you would find that AGW is not just merely dead, it is really most sincerely dead.

        1. sod

          “Thanks, genius, but that’s the graph of January, not June.”

          Sorry genius, but you have to click bavaria and june, all by yourself. Try some data, once in a lifetime!

          http://www.dwd.de/DE/leistungen/zeitreihenundtrends/zeitreihenundtrends.html?nn=495662
          In the past, June in Bavaria could see an average of nearly 10°C. (ouch, would be called “JUNE WINTER” over here!).

          In more recent times, we saw a June above 20°C average.

          1. yonason

            “you have to click bavaria and june, all by yourself.” – sod

            The point is how sloppy you are now, and always have been.

          2. sod

            “The point is how sloppy you are now, and always have been.”

            I am not sloppy, the page resets the input, when you post the link.

            If i post the correct link, you lose all interactivity:

            http://www.dwd.de/DWD/klima/national/gebietsmittel/brdras_ttt_06_by.jpg

          3. yonason

            satellite temps for June since 1979
            http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01901e344ff8970b-pi

            It was JUNE you were talking about, wasn’t it sob?

            I know that’s not for Germany or any portion thereof, but since this IS supposed to be “global warming” I thought you might be interested in what the globe has actually been doing.

          4. yonason
          5. yonason

            “the page resets the input, when you post the link,”- sob

            Funny, but that didn’t “reset,” at least not for me.

            And NOTICE that it’s pretty flat from 1950 to present, as are some others I’ve checked. Why is that sob? Most of the CO2 allegedly accumulated AFTER 1950, so why would you need the period from 1880 to 1950, during which not much change occurred either?

            Bottom line, you have no idea what a “trend line” means. Just because you can show an increase, does NOT mean you know what caused a jump, pretty much around 1950. And, coincidentally, that’s when solar activity also made a jump after over half a century of relative constancy. (not saying that is the cause, but it makes more sense than CO2).

            Clearly you haven’t a clue what you are talking about.

      2. yonason

        P.S.

        You might just be a demented sack of porcine excrement if…

        you want the planet to become colder instead of warmer.

        (hopefully the other will stay in moderation, because with the wrong link it makes no sense. This one is correct.)

        1. sod

          “You might just be a demented sack of porcine excrement if…”

          is this really the way the discussion is supposed to be here?

          1. DirkH

            You snipped the other half sentence.
            “You might just be a demented sack of porcine excrement if you want the planet to become colder instead of warmer.”

            I fully agree. The colder it is the lower the bioproductivity and the biodiversity. Why do you warmists even want that? I thought you called yourself the “Greens”? No, in fact you Greens give a flying s**t for nature or life as what you want is total political control and control over the income of everyone.

            This is in line with the plans of Monnet, cofounder of the EU movement, who clearly stated that democracy has failed, and that there needs to be an undemocratic superstate ruled by “wise men”, and that the people need to be stripped off their souvereignty against their will – so Monnet declared that only deception would do the trick.

            And obviously, Warmunism *IS* that deception.

            We see the concept for the false religion of Warmunism in Plato’s Politaia (The Republic) 2600 years ago, as “The Noble Lie”, for the exact same purpose Warmunism is brandished today.

            Sod, it’s too bad that you Warmunists have declared your interest to enslave us for 2600 years now. All we need to do is spread the knowledge of your plans. You shouldn’t have PUBLISHED it, idiots.

          2. yonason

            Don’t pretend you have some moral high ground, sod. You don’t.

            But, just out of curiosity, what other response would you consider to be appropriate to people who wish death and destruction upon the least fortunate of humanity?

        2. yonason

          Here’s the link that was supposed to go with that.
          https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/more-people-die-of-cold-than-heat/

          Bottom line, if you want don’t want the world to warm, you want more people to die.

      3. DirkH

        Well don’t we all confuse January and June all the time. Anyway. Sod, if Global warming causes lots of clouds necessary for ever stronger rains that kill people, and , as I observed, its COLD under a cloudy sky, How does Global Warming then actually lead to, well, warming?

        Please address the change of albedo and negative feedback loops in your answer, thanks and XXOO.

        1. sod

          ” as I observed, its COLD under a cloudy sky, ”

          No, it is NOT! You know absolutely nothing about the climate subject.

          At night, clouds often preserve warm temperatures.

          1. Manfred

            Try living in New Zealand sod, where as a rule there’s no central heating. In the middle of winter in the South Island, after a clear night when the frost develops and temperatures drop with uninhibited radiative cooling, a cold front often sneakily moves in just before dawn preventing the following day from receiving any sunshine. The day remains in lock-down, frigid cold under a blanket of impenetrable cloud. Clouds inhibit radiative energy transfer in all directions, just depends when and under what pre-existing conditions they’re inserted into the sky.

          2. DirkH

            sod 25. June 2016 at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Reply
            “” as I observed, its COLD under a cloudy sky, ”
            No, it is NOT! You know absolutely nothing about the climate subject.”

            sod, you might know everything about the “Climate Subject”; I was talking about OBJECTIVE REALITY though as I *WAS THERE*. And surprise, it WASN’T WARM. On 21 JUN the clouds vanished and it got HOT. Because it’s SUMMER.

            You know *I* was at university for 9 years for the tax free status and they didn’t manage to turn *MY* brain into a turnip.

  3. mikewaite

    SOD
    I looked at the links(thank you for that source of info) that you quote and I have to say that you are (as we say in England ) “trying it on a bit”.
    I cycled through the 1880 – 2015 plots for the different German states for June and found that there is usually only about 1C/ century rise , and in fact for the Northern states and cities , Hamburg, Berlin and Schlesig -Holstein the trend is virtually zero.
    Furthermore there are individual records within all these series which are far above or below the median .
    It is interesting that there is a slght trend, particularly in the southern part of the country ,and probably evidence of a small greenhouse effect but really nothing any sensible person would panic over.
    Mikewaite – frei Englander

    1. yonason

      @Mikewaite – frei Englander

      Yes, you are now, if you can ceep it. I hope you guys can make BREXIT work. You’re off to a great start telling the EU scoundrels where to get off.

      We’re rooting for ya!

  4. Jan_Vermeer

    De Bilt, The Netherlands 1901-2014 , June
    T mean, Min and Max

    https://s31.postimg.org/rksd8ye0b/De_Bilt_June1901_2014.jpg & With Trend : https://s32.postimg.org/y2cuv230l/De_Bilt_June1901_2014_trend.jpg

    Slight upward trends for Mean and Minumum not for Maximum. CO2 in apparently does not work for TMax in June. No trend…..

    Source: I downloaded it to Excel from de KNMI.NL (Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI)) website in February 2015. I cannot find it anymore , they have reorganised their site.

    1. Mindert Eiting

      Thanks, Jan. By the way, do you also have graphs of the same period with days with at least 20 mm or 30 mm rainfall in the Netherlands? I do not have the time, but heavily suspect the hype in our newspapers and by our weathermen about rainfall. Mikewaite: my congratulations.

    2. AndyG55

      Classic UHI signature.

      1. sod

        “Classic UHI signature.”

        no. you will find the same in rural stations.

        1. yonason

          sot gets it wrong again.
          http://icecap.us/images/uploads/URBAN_HEAT_ISLAND.pdf

          Now, who’s surprised by that?!

        2. yonason

          I got that link from here
          http://icecap.us/images/uploads/URBANIZATION_IN_THE_TEMPERATURE_DATA_BASES.pdf

          See pp2-4 for intro on UHI, and also why “adjustments” bias data in favor of warming.

    3. sod

      “Slight upward trends for Mean and Minumum not for Maximum. CO2 in apparently does not work for TMax in June. No trend…..”

      if yo do some reading, you will find out that this is in agreement with AGW theory.

      1. yonason

        LOL – Yes, let’s do look at how well AGW “agrees” with reality:

        http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

        https://anotherslownewsday.wordpress.com/global-warming-failed-predictions/

        http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

        And, since AGW predicts everything, it is as useless as the information provided by you and all of your idiotic alarmist friends.

      2. AndyG55

        ANY trend is in agreement with AGW thought-bubble..

        Up, down, wiggly, doing nothing………… ANY TREND !!

        1. sod

          “ANY trend is in agreement with AGW thought-bubble..

          Up, down, wiggly, doing nothing………… ANY TREND !!”

          No. you are wrong. The IPCC says exactly what i wrote above:

          ” Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures, leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range.”

          https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es-2-temperature-extremes.html

          Why not do some reading?

          1. yonason

            “The IPCC says exactly what i wrote above” – sod

            LOL – No surprise there, sob. They are known to be liars, too.

            http://nov79.com/gbwm/ipcc.html

          2. yonason
          3. yonason
          4. AndyG55

            “” Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures, leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range.””

            Gee sob, great description of the UHI effect.

            That’s all “Global warming” is.

  5. Jan_Vermeer

    Hi Mindert,

    On June the 10th 2016, KNMI published a quick analysis regarding the recent floodings in Germany and France, (only in Dutch unfortunately).

    http://www.knmi.nl/kennis-en-datacentrum/achtergrond/klimaatanalyse-van-extreme-buien-eind-mei-begin-juni-2016

    They had at look at whether or not the heavy downpours & flash floods could be attributed to “Climate Change”.
    Because it is a governement institute they will not drift very far from the current mainstream opinions regarding the climate and this is what you see in the article , there is a strong believe in modelling.

    So in this case they used a regional KNMI Climate Model called RACMO and HadGEM3-A from UK Met Office to see wether or not observations fit with what their models tell them.

    For France they concluded that the chance of this type of heavy downpours occuring has increased by a factor 1.8, 1.9 , but given the uncertainty at least 1.4 , so at least a 40 % more chance.

    For Southern Germany they however notice that there is a DECREASE in OBSERVED extreme precipitation in the months April through June, in the last 65 years.
    and “In contrast with observations the only model that can calculate these kind of showers shows a significant INCREASE in extreme precepitation between 1960 and 2016”, and “we need more research to explain the difference between Model and Observations.

    So here you have it: Two locations not far apart, France apparently more or less falls within the current mainstream Climate Change logic, the other one , Southern Germany does not at all.

    Regarding your question about the precipitation data: please have a look at the KNMI Climate Explorer , I think that is where the data is now. (Dutch Daily Data) but you can also select worldwide.

    http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectdailyseries.cgi?id=someone@somewhere or

    https://data.knmi.nl/datasets

    Historical climate data from the Netherlands are still at http://projects.knmi.nl/klimatologie/daggegevens/antieke_wrn/index.html including the Labrijn series from 1706- up until now.