Germany’s DWD National Weather Service Slammed For “False Statements”

At the site of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) Josef Kowatsch and Stefan Kämpfe look at the frosty spells that typically occur in mid May, the so-called “Ice Saints“, which are widely reported on by the German media each year.

The German DWD national weather service, once a model for meteorology and climate, has over the years taken on a more activist global warming role, with some even claiming that it too has joined the propaganda army of the man-made global warming movement.

Not surprisingly, the DWD management has been claiming in the press that the so-called Eisheilige (Ice Saints) have been getting less intense over the years and that they may wind up disappearing altogether. Because of global warming!

Often typical in mid May, a weather pattern involving a high located over the North Atlantic near Iceland feeds blasts of polar air across Europe. This happened last year on May 14, 2016 – see following chart:

Figure 1: A high over Iceland pumped polar air (blue arrow) across Europe, 2016.

Unfortunately, the DWD has been spreading false information on Europe’s Ice Saints, the two authors at EIKE write, and that their article is to make German readers aware that the DWD top management has been “regularly telling complete falsehoods to the media over the past years in the week before may 11“.

Kowatsch and Kämpfe add.

The DWD Chairman has claimed that over all the previous years:

1) The “Ice saints” recently have been getting continuously warmer and that they will soon become the Hot Saints, which the press then gladly called the Sweating Saints, and

2) the Ice Saints have practically disappeared on account of climate warming.”

These claims of course aroused the suspicions of Kowatsch and Kämpfe, who decided to go back and look at the DWD’s own data. What they found is that the DWD had been misleading the media and the public with statements of warmer Ice Saints periods, and that in fact the very opposite has been occurring: the Ice Saints have been getting colder!

The following charts show the mean May 11-15 temperature for Potsdam, which is home of the notoriously alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), headed by global warming pope, Prof. Dr. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber.

Figure 1: The Ice Saints (May 11-15) for Potsdam, Germany since 1985 – going back more than 30 years. The mid-May frosty period has in fact been getting colder, not warmer as the DWD has claimed. Chart: Josef Kowatsch

Kowatsch and Kämpfe also present the trend for Dresden-Klotzsche, an official station of the DWD. It too shows a cooling trend. So why would the media be reporting that the “Ice Saints” have been disappearing? Baffling, to say the least.

Figure 2: DWD station Dresden Klotzsche. Blue curve shows the May 11-15 mean temperature with linear trend, 1985 – 2016. Brown shows the maximum high temperatures, gray shows the minimum temperatures and yellow shows the 5 cm surface temperature. Chart: Samuel Hochauf. For 2016 the mean temperature was 12.88°C, i.e. right on trend.

Kowatsch and Kämpfe summarize:

All four trend lines [in Figure 2] show that the Ice Saints have been getting colder since 1985, and not warmer. All four trend lines show that the statements from the DWD management are false. The Ice Saints in Germany are getting colder.

Kowatsch and Kämpfe also look at another DWD weather station, which has been in operation since 1996: Goldbach bei Bischofswerda. Here as well the Ice Saints have been getting steeply colder:

This makes it all the more puzzling that the DWD higher-ups would be using the terms “recently has been“, or “is currently” getting” when telling the public the Mid May frost periods are disappearing. Example here.

Kowatsch and Kämpfe write that this year the DWD spoekespeople should make major changes in the next press releases on the subject of mid May cold spells, suggesting: “The month of May is getting colder and the Ice Saints are getting even colder” and that he should add the remark: “The Ice Saints soon will be as cold as they were in the mid 20th century, some 60 years ago when scientists worried about a new ice age.”

Why are May cold snaps in Europe getting colder?

Kowatsch and Kämpfe suspect that solar activity may be a major factor in the may cooling, as it is known that it has an impact on large weather patterns over Europe. Solar activity has been dwindling over the past 2 decades. Another factor maybe the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which now appears to be coming down from its warm peak. CO2 obviously is having no effect at all.

Josef Kowatsch is an independent nature and climate researcher. Stefan Kämpfe is an agricultural engineer and also an independent nature and climate researcher.

============================

PS: This year it appears that the Ice Saints will be right on schedule, with even winter conditions (snow!) across Scandinavia and Eastern Europe.

98 responses to “Germany’s DWD National Weather Service Slammed For “False Statements””

  1. sod

    always starting every graph at a maximum. Is this trick not getting old one day?

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

    1. Ric Werme

      It would help if you provided a graph of May 11-15 temperatures instead of January. You might have noted that the form would let people select May temps, but I don’t see a way to select May 11-15.

      However, I agree longer would be better. 60 years, to sort of match a full AMO/PDO cycle would help.

    2. Ric Werme

      Sod, Looking at the Mai data at the URL you provided, the 1985 start does not appear to be the maximum. For 1985, it looks like it was only 13C, and several later years had temps over 14C, most recently 2012. To start at the highest, the graph would have to go back to the 15.8C in 1889.

      Perhaps you provided the wrong URL.

      1. sod

        “Sod, Looking at the Mai data at the URL you provided, the 1985 start does not appear to be the maximum.”

        it is a time frame that allows the graph to sink. it is not the year, more the period.

        1. Pethefin

          LOL, a data-denying-troll compelled to close his/her eyes from the May data desperately asks us to look the other way. Get a life, sod.

      2. SebastianH

        Kowatsch has been posting these graphs for years. It took until now for the 30 year “trend” for some small timespans (he likes comparing months or now even weeks) to become negative.

        Other than that he posts on conspiracy websites and EIKE. Really inspiring, isn’t it? 🙂

        1. Kenneth Richard

          What “conspiracy” websites? And what’s the conspiracy?

          1. SebastianH

            http://www.wahrheiten.org

            A site about nearly every conspiracy theory in existence …

          2. AndyG55

            “A site about nearly every conspiracy theory in existence …

            Which seb obviously spends all his time on. !

        2. AndyG55

          “Really inspiring,”

          Certainly far more inspiring that your record of 1 correct comment out of 1000+

          We are all still waiting for a paper that shows CO2 causes warming of ocean or causes warming of a convective atmosphere.

          Your only inspiration seems to be some cocked-up anti-science AGW religion.

          That seems to be all you have in your life.

        3. Pethefin

          Troll with a conspiracy fixation, how lovely.

          1. AndyG55

            That’s what is life is worth to him.

            That’s seb for you…

            .. a pitiful fixated creature of some sort, with a soul from the depths of a sewer.

          2. SebastianH

            How poetic, “And”.

    3. tom0mason

      Of course you mean if you look over a longer time scale all you see is …
      —– NATURAL VARIATION ——–

    4. Kenneth Richard

      Can you explain, sod, how this graph you linked to supports the narrative that the dramatic rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions has caused a dramatic temperature change in Germany? Variations by + or – 5 degrees C from year to year, including double digit temperature declines from one decade to another, does not support the contention that rising CO2 causes a steady and growing warming.

      1. sod

        that is, why we look at the trend. and not at single year data from carefully selected months.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          “that is, why we look at the trend.”

          So then why have you been pointing out the sea ice anomalies for Antarctica for 2016, a one-year period? When an article is presented here about sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere, you and SebastianH ignore the rising sea ice trend and point to the depressed anomalies for the months during 2016.

          1. sod

            “So then why have you been pointing out the sea ice anomalies for Antarctica for 2016, a one-year period?”

            because the tend in the antarctic is completely different from that in the arctic. It is mostly noise, so another year of noise can change everything. In the arctic, it can not.

            The difference is easy to spot:

            http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/UpdatedFigures/Storms_Fig20.gif

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “It is mostly noise, so another year of noise can change everything. In the arctic, it can not.”

            Sorry, sod, but there really isn’t a “changes everything” difference between 1979-now…
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1979/to/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1979/to/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1979/to/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1979/to/trend

            …and 1979-2016 (December 31, 2015):
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1979/to:2016/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1979/to:2016/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1979/to:2016/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1979/to:2016/trend

            Adding the 2016 anomaly doesn’t change the overall trend to any significant degree. Your “it’s just noise” excuse for cherry-picking monthly anomalies for Antarctica and ignoring the trend has been exposed. You cherry-pick when it suits your purposes, and then scold others for doing exactly what you have done.

            And you don’t even realize you’re doing it.

          3. AndyG55

            “because the tend in the antarctic is completely different from that in the arctic”

            Yes the Antarctic trend has been upward for the last several years.

            2016/2017 is a weather based anomaly, but that is all you have, isn’t it sob-sob.

        2. AndyG55

          The whole article is about May temperatures.

          WAKE UP, sob-sob.. dry the tears from your eyes..

          … so you can ACTUALLY READ what the topic is about.!!!

      2. SebastianH

        Look at moving averages over a longer period of time and bigger regions .. warming in Germany isn’t identical to warming of the globe. Especially if you just look at a specific week or month.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          “warming in Germany isn’t identical to warming of the globe.”

          But…the globe hasn’t warmed either. Only some areas of the globe have. Some others have cooled. Antarctica, the Southern Ocean, much of South America, New Zealand…haven’t warmed. The Arctic cooled for 50 years between the 1940s and 1990s before it began warming again (1995-present). Why did that cooling period happen? And why is the North Atlantic now cooling dramatically?

          In other words, you are implying that the rest of the globe has been warming rather uniformly, and Germany is the exception. The rest of the globe isn’t warming uniformly. Germany’s lack of warming is no different than Antarctica’s lack of warming. Germany’s not an exception to the global “rule”. There is no global “rule”.

          1. SebastianH

            North Atlantic has been a cold anomaly in many years. I am not implying that the globe warmed uniformly, I am however saying that looking at specific regions and then at specific weeks says nothing about climate change in general.

            https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=GISS_TA_Y&date=2016-11-01

            You can select different years and compare them to 1951-1980.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “North Atlantic has been a cold anomaly in many years.”

            Not understanding what is meant here.

            The NASA dataset is hopelessly corrupted — 0.5 C of early 20th century warmth has been artificially removed to suit the purposes of the purveyors. I don’t even bother with their made-up graphs.

          3. SebastianH

            Of course … you just wrote the North Atlantic would be cooling, I present you a link to a map that shows exactly that and you come up with the default excuse of skeptics -> the data is corrupted.

            P.S.: In 2012 and 2013 the North Atlantic wasn’t cooler than normal.

          4. Kenneth Richard

            “I present you a link to a map that shows exactly that and you come up with the default excuse of skeptics -> the data is corrupted.”

            So which one of these two very different NASA graphs is not corrupted?

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NASA-Global-Surface-Temps-1987-0.5C-1880-1950.jpg
            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NASA-Global-Surface-Temps-1987-1880-1950-0.5C.jpg

          5. AndyG55

            roflmao..

            seb yet again hoisted on REAL DATA.

            Poor petal doesn’t have a clue, or a leg to stand on (how would he when both feet are permanently in his mouth)

            GIVE IT UP, seb..

            You do not have the knowledge to put up any sort of rational argument, and are only making an ABJECT FOOL of yourself, and doing a great disservice to the AGW with your incessant wrongmess.

          6. SebastianH

            Overlay of those two graphs:
            http://imgur.com/a/oksOx

            While whoever made those two graphs in the first place isn’t exactly lying, but I guess you can see what this person did. Can you?

            Do you suggest that the image derived from satellite data is not correct and the North Atlantic isn’t a cold spot in most years?

            @AndyG55:
            Nothing but insults …

          7. SebastianH

            Overlay of those two graphs:
            http://imgur.com/a/oksOx

            While whoever made those two graphs in the first place isn’t exactly telling a lie, but I guess you can see what this person did. Can you?

            Do you suggest that the image derived from satellite data is not correct and the North Atlantic isn’t a cold spot in most years?

          8. SebastianH

            Overlay of those two graphs:
            http://imgur.com/a/oksOx

            See for yourself what the adjustments did.

          9. Kenneth Richard

            Um, no, overlaying the two graphs doesn’t make it go away. NASA’s graph of global temperatures had a warming of 0.5 C between 1880 and 1950. Today, that warming has been eliminated. Effectively half a degree of global warming that occurred in the absence of significant CO2 concentration increases was removed so as to comply with the models that say warming without CO2 changes shouldn’t happen.

            Why did there need to be adjustments to past data anyway? It’s not like new temperature data was collected from that period. Instead, it was just made up…just like the data for the SH. Why is making stuff up so acceptable to you? Why aren’t YOU skeptical?

          10. SebastianH

            So the temperature difference between 1880 and 1950 didn’t stay the same. Why is this a problem? Do you think NASA manipulated the data so that this specific timespan has a smaller increase and others don’t? 1900 to 1940 didn’t change, 1920 to 1980 didn’t change, 1940 to 1960 didn’t change, and so on …

            Why data needs adjustment? Is that a serious question? Do you think the RSS-data has no adjustments in it? Here is a link explaining the adjustments for NOAA data, I am sure the reasons are similar: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

            Why aren’t YOU skeptical?

            Oh, I am skeptical of a lot of things. Nearly everything that gets posted on this blog, I am skeptical of …

          11. Kenneth Richard

            “So the temperature difference between 1880 and 1950 didn’t stay the same. Why is this a problem?”

            Because “it didn’t stay the same” by 0.5 C (!) — which is more than half of all the warming alleged by the IPCC since 1850 (+0.8 C). And the adjustment was artificial. We have e-mail evidence that overseers discuss “removing the 1940 blip” by artificially reducing it by -0.15 C. Of course, you have no problem with data manipulation. You do it yourself here on a routine basis when you make up false statements and then attribute them to others.

            NASA had -0.5 C of NH cooling from 1940 to 1970, and there was consensus in the scientific literature and temperature datasets that the globe had cooled by -0.3 C between 1940 and 1970. That was changed to -0.15 C cooling for the NH, and now NASA only shows a pause between 1940 and 1970 — no cooling at all. In 1981, NASA had 1940 +0.15 C warmer than 1980. Now, 1940 is -0.2 C cooler than 1980. I understand that you don’t have a problem with this…as long as the narrative is advanced.

            Kelly, 2016
            http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900–an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.pdf
            The compilation of temperature records are a source of problematic methodology of a kind not seen elsewhere in science. Under the umbrella term of “homogenisation”, there now seem to be a growing myriad of post-hoc adjustments to the original raw data that all seem to go in one direction, namely to increase the overall rate of global warming. This happens even on official websites. The total change is often somewhat greater than the 0.8-1ºC rise over the 20th century that is agreed by most people, critics or not. This is exemplified by data in Figure 4. This makes the problem of dispassionate engineering assessment almost impossible to achieve. Hansen (1981) wrote : “A remarkable conclusion from Figure 3 is that the global temperature is almost as high today as it was in 1940.” It is not clear now why this should be remarkable, although at the time, the rise in temperature from about 1975 had cancelled out some of the cooling since 1940 in the then available data. At the time, he [Hansen] showed 1980 temperatures were about 0.15ºC cooler than 1940. Now, NASA shows 1980 temperatures about 0.2ºC warmer than 1940. They have made a relative shift of +0.35ºC, and the adjustment represents ~40% of the century variation. The lesson from this is that the data integrity for claiming extreme events needs to shown to be of the highest order, and that the results claimed do not depend on the data manipulation itself.

          12. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “I am skeptical of a lot of things.”

            SebastianH, you’re obviously not the least bit skeptical. Just last week you linked to the Marcott graph as if it had never been debunked. You probably agree with James Hansen that sea levels will rise by 10 feet in the next 50 years too. And you likely believe that Michael Mann could determine the temperature of the entire Northern Hemisphere from a few select trees in North America. And you probably believe that “hide the decline” was not an attempt to conceal the 1960s-’70s cooling. And you probably think that John Cook’s abstract-counting paper that arrived at a predetermined 97% result is good science. And you probably believe the “science” that says one million species will undergo extinction by 2050 due to “global warming.” And you of course believe that varying CO2 concentrations by 0.000001 over a body of water causes ____(?) heat changes in that body of water…even though you know there is no physical scientific evidence or measurement that affirms this to be true. You just believe it is true…because you’re a believer.

          13. AndyG55

            seb, again with the TOTAL DENIAL of data even when it is right in front of him.

            BIZARRE. !!!

            We are more than sceptical of your posts, seb….. we know they are downright FARCE. !

            But FARCE is all you have left.

          14. SebastianH

            1) Where in the overlayed graph did the temperature differential between 1940 and 1980 change? If those two images were correct this must be visible, right? It’s not …

            http://imgur.com/a/oksOx

            2) I didn’t know that the Marcott graph had been debunked and I wouldn’t call it that today. I’ve read what the skeptic community thought of the upward slope at the end and the timing of the FAQ regarding the method used in averaging. As if this would invalidate the rest of the data … it’s just a distraction, as it is most of the time.

            3) And there it is again … you telling me that I “believe” something while you claim that energy can just vanish as long as there is a body of water involved. I find that very hard to believe 🙂

          15. Kenneth Richard

            “Where in the overlayed graph did the temperature differential between 1940 and 1980 change?”

            SebastianH, your overlayed graph has the starting point (1880) as -0.4 C colder than the starting point shown for the ’87 and ’16 graphs. If you were to actually put the starting point in its same location, you’d see why it is you who, once again, is engaging in deception in your attempts to claim that NASA has not artificially manipulated the data. Overlay the graph with the same starting point and then see how the graph compares.

            This is why you are considered wholly unreliable in your representations of “truth”. You just make stuff up.

            “I didn’t know that the Marcott graph had been debunked”

            So you were completely unaware that Marcott himself had acknowledged that “the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used, is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions”?

            “you claim that energy can just vanish as long as there is a body of water involved.”

            No, I didn’t “claim” that. I have never claimed that solar energy penetrating into the depths of the ocean “vanishes”. You’re dishonestly making stuff up and claiming I said it again. Do you consider yourself an honest person, SebastianH?

        2. AndyG55

          “warming in Germany isn’t identical to warming of the globe.”

          Well Done seb..

          … yet another nail in the AGW zombie coffin !! :-).

          If it was CO2 doing the warming, CO2 is well mixed, so it would be warming similarly.

          But as you say.. IT ISN’T.

          That’s because its the Sun doing the warming and the oceans distributing it.

          You have managed, yet again… to firmly plant both your feet in your mouth. 🙂

          1. SebastianH

            How CO2 travels in the atmosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04

            Europe’s climate depends on the climate of other regions. Why do you think that it should be x degrees warmer in every region of this planet as a result of global warming?

            https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=GISS_TA_Y&date=2016-01-01

            Map of temperature anomalies.

          2. pmc47025

            Seb says: “How CO2 travels in the atmosphere:”

            That link is to a model that was invalidated by OCO-2 data:
            https://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/images/ocov2/JPL-20161110-OCOs-0039-OCO2_XCO2_Krig_20160616_to_20160701.jpg

          3. AndyG55

            I don’t think it should be warmer from CO2 at all.

            That is your fantasy. !!

            One you continue to be unable to provide even the slightest bit of proof for.

            You really should drop this myth, and start looking at solar and ocean effects , seb.

            You will get much closer to reality..

            … if reality interests you at all, that is.

          4. SebastianH

            Thank you for that link pmc.

          5. SebastianH

            @pmc47025:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syU1rRCp7E8

            That NASA video was derived from the data gathered by OCO-2 … doesn’t look too different.

            https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/oco2-full_w_legend.jpg

            That image is from the first 2 weeks of June 2015 (your image shows the last 2 weeks of June 2016).

            And here, some skeptic has managed to parse the OCO-2 Lite dataset and generated some images for different timespans: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/finally-visualized-oco2-satellite-data-showing-global-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/

            CO2 concentration is at no time of the year uniform on this planet.

          6. pmc47025

            Seb says:
            “That NASA video was derived from the data gathered by OCO-2”

            The video description says:
            “Using observations from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) satellite, scientists developed a model”

            Not exactly a derivation, but, appears better (more accurate?) than the 2006 video. The 2nd model video didn’t cover the Oct/Nov time frame, that might have been interesting:
            https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/mainco2mappia18934.jpg

            Seb also says:
            “CO2 concentration is at no time of the year uniform on this planet”

            Most of the jpgs and model videos I’ve seen show a min CO2 level of ~380ppm and a max of ~415ppm – not enough difference to significantly (?) change a MODTRAN plot!

          7. AndyG55

            “CO2 concentration is at no time of the year uniform on this planet.”

            Small fluctuations, ALL of them caused by the NATURAL SEASONAL VARIABILITY.

            You really should pay more attention to actual facts, seb.

    5. AndyG55

      poor sob-sob, your LIES and MIS-INFORMATION are coming back to bite you.

      You link, when you select May, clearly shows that the 1930-40 period was warmer than now..

      As well as that it clearly shows the “recent” cooling since about 1990.

      Well done. 🙂 an excellent contribution to REALITY. 🙂

      How do you manage to type with both feet perpetually in your mouth !!

      1. AndyG55

        Wow, and look at the massive cooling trend from 1945 to around 1980…

        … everything that Global temperature USED to show before GISS go hold of the data.

        Thanks so, so, much, sob-sob.

        1. SebastianH

          Did you see that this is just temperature data from Germany? Isn’t Germany in a zone where the global warming anomaly is small? There are NASA maps for everything … Look it up.

          1. AndyG55

            do you DENY that the German May temperatures have a solid downward slope from around 1945-1980.

            Are you blind even that that FACT, in front of your eyes !!!!

            Do you DENY that prior to “adjustments”, global temperatures also showed a marked decline d=from around 1940- late 1970’s

            You seem to be heavily into DENIAL of very obvious facts, today.. even more into DENIAL of facts than you usually are.

          2. AndyG55
          3. SebastianH

            Wow AndyG55,

            why do you compare global temperatures to the temperatures in a region like that?

            Also: you tried to draw a trendline from 1945 to 1985 in that image, suggesting that average May temperatures in Germany dropped by 1.5 degrees during that 40 year time. Excel has a neat feature to calculate the linear trend from any starting point. The slope for a 40-year trend starting in 1945 is -0.029 degrees and if you start just 4 years later it is allready positive and never becomes negative.

            Can you do the same in June or July? If Germany is such a good example for global temperature change, where is the “solid downward slope” for July temperatures? August?

            Regardings the post itself … comparing one specific week in a year and detecting a downward trend is interesting, but does nothing for describing climate change. I am pretty sure you can easily find weeks with an upward slope. If the point was to show that the “ice saints” stick out particularly why hasn’t he compared it with the surrounding weeks?

          4. SebastianH

            Wow AndyG55,

            why do you compare global temperatures to the temperatures in a region like that?

            Also: you tried to draw a trendline from 1945 to 1985 in that image, suggesting that average May temperatures in Germany dropped by 1.5 degrees during that 40 year time. Excel has a neat feature to calculate the linear trend from any starting point. The slope for a 40-year trend starting in 1945 is -0.029 degrees and if you start just 4 years later it is allready positive and never becomes negative.

            Can you do the same in June or July? If Germany is such a good example for global temperature change, where is the “solid downward slope” for July temperatures? August?

          5. AndyG55

            Poor seb, having to DENY what is right in front of him.

            Trend from 1915 -1980 is downwards.

            Stop your incessant LYING .

          6. AndyG55

            And sorry that you are ignorant of the El Nino climate shift in the late 1970’s.

            I can’t fix your ignorance of climate changes while you choose to remain wilfully ignorant.

          7. AndyG55

            The topic of this thread is mid May.

            Do try to keep up, seb. !

            At least you have now admitted the strong downward trend in May from 1940- to late 1970’s .. well done.

      2. sod

        “You link, when you select May, clearly shows that the 1930-40 period was warmer than now..”

        no.

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

        1. AndyG55

          Your graph reading is again a total FARCE, sob-sob

          the period from about 1925-1945 contains several peaks warmer than current

          You continue to be a deceitful LIAR.

          1. sod

            “the period from about 1925-1945 contains several peaks warmer than current”

            but the trend from 1930 till2016 is still UP.

            your eyeball trends are total garbage.

          2. AndyG55

            You have to use NON-CO2 climate shifts, always, showing ZERO knowledge of what has actually happened with climate or n data .

            Your very own chart shows was an undeniable cooling trend cooling trend from 1945-late 1970’s. Similar to other NH hemisphere cooling trends.

            Get over it and start to FACE FACTS for once in your pathetic AGW shill semi-existence.

        2. AndyG55

          Just to show what donkeys these two child-minds are being… as usual

          https://s19.postimg.org/s5iulzm5v/Germany_May_temperatures.png

          1. sod

            “Just to show what donkeys these two child-minds are being… as usual”

            No argument, just insults.

            you started a trendline at the very peak and drew it to the very bottom. The mother of cherrypicks.

            in case you ever stumble into an institution serving education, you should order the most basic course they offer.

          2. AndyG55

            Do you DENY that the temperatures circled in purple are higher than now.

            Do you DENY that there was a strong cooling trend from 1915 to 1980?

            I apologise to donkey.. they are far more intelligent and sob-sob.

        3. SebastianH

          http://imgur.com/a/UxgFR

          1949-1989 is already positive.

          The average for 1930-1940 was 12.26 °C, the average for 2006-2016 is 13.1 °C. Wasn’t warmer back then …

          1. AndyG55

            So the temperatures circled in purple weren’t warmer.????

            Of course seb, whatever your brain-washed DENIAL tells you.

          2. SebastianH

            Is this how it works now? Pick one or a few dates from a dataset with large variations and compare them with today’s values? So what else didn’t change at all? Cloud cover? Ice sheet extent? Your weight?

          3. AndyG55

            Data denial is STRONG with you, isn’t it seb.!!!

            But that DENIAL is all you have to keep your mindless, baseless AGW religious belief going, isn’t it. 🙂

          4. SebastianH

            Data denial? Who is denying that 1930-1940 period was colder than the current period of equal length? You are …

          5. AndyG55

            So warmer temperatures means it was cooler. !!

            Ok.. a new FANTASY from seb.

            Do you still also DENY the strong cooling trend from that 1920-40 PEAK down to just before 1980, even though it is blatant on the chart.

            Are your eyes that BIASED toward your baseless unsupportable religion ???

    6. richard verney

      Why do you want to start at a low? Why not start at the high of say the Medieval Warm Period or Roman Warm Period or Holocene Optimum?

      Why not start at say 1912 and you will note that there has bee approximately zero change in more than a century.

      Any start date is a cherry pick, but when investigating a claim that RECENTLY ice saints are getting warmer it is legitimate to look at the most RECENT data to see whether the claim is valid or false.

  2. CO2isLife

    Discussing Climate Change Policy isn’t “Hate Speech.”

    Ann Coulter offers some great ideas for the people engaging in the climate change debate. Frame it as a public policy discussion, not a scientific debate. It is the climate alarmist that has to defend killing coal jobs and not building roads, schools, and hospitals, not the climate skeptic. That is a discussion I would like to have and am sure I could win.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/discussing-climate-change-policy-isnt-hate-speech/

  3. UPDATE: Die Eisheiligen sind pünktlich! Wie kalt wird es im Mai 2017 in Deutschland und Europa? – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Germany’s DWD National Weather Service Slammed For „False Statements“ […]

  4. CO2isLife

    Congress Should Investigate the Peer Review and Publication Process

    It is almost unfathomable to believe that a survey performed through a simple search of journal article performed by a “researcher” with an Anti-Trump book in the works can be justification for spending TRILLIONS of US taxpayer’s dollars.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/congress-should-investigate-the-peer-review-and-publication-process/

  5. Stuart Lynne

    Yes, But, The models say they will disappear! Who are you going to believe, the actual weather or the models?

    1. AndyG55

      Its imitation ice… we skeptics are a canny lot 😉

  6. sod

    Has anyone read what the DWD actually said?

    here is the link, which i could not find before:

    http://www.dwd.de/DE/Home/_functions/Stage/klima/stage_klima_eisheilige_artikel_160510.html

    it is specifically talking about frost temperatures and about the middle of the 19th century. It is absurd to try to contradict that, by looking at the last 30 years. It is also talking about south germany where the event is down to a 50% chance.

    Just look at the graph: no frost at all.

    https://i0.wp.com/www.eike-klima-energie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Eis_2.png?ssl=1

    Instead the DWD argues, that cold spells have spread out and appear at any time in May, but with a less drastic effect. Looks right to me.

    anyone want to bet on frost this year?

    1. DirkH

      You broke? Warmunist oligarchs not sending you the 0.01 Eurocents per post?

      1. DirkH

        Lemme guess, you blew all your money on electricity due to excessive commenting on NTZ.
        You do realize that excessive use of social media makes people mad, right?

    2. sod

      no argument, just insults.

      You folks fear facts?!?

      1. AndyG55

        The perpetually WRONG sob-sob.

        Full of fantasy interpretations of data.

        REAL data is not within his capability

  7. AndyG55

    Lets say its May 5th 2017 11am in Germany and there is about 59GW of demand to keep the country functioning and you are a greenie looking forward to a day when there is no more nuclear or CO2 producing power plants..

    Ooops. 0.17GW from solar. 3.37GW from wind.

    7.7GW from nuclear.

    42GW from CO2 producing power plants (gas, coal, biomass, oil)

    (Courtesy sunshinehours)

    https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/capture.jpg

    Wind and solar really are impressively UNRELIABLE, aren’t they !!

    What a WASTE of money and environment !!

    1. sod

      yawn. Your replies are pretty repetitive.

      yes, there are times with little PV and little wind.

      That is not a problem. We will need backup for at least another decade.

      You really did include biomass in the “CO2 producing” list? pathetic!

      and you ignored hydro, of course.

      1. AndyG55

        You still think wind is RELIABLE ????

        ROFLMAO. !!!

        Prove it by show what percentage of nameplate it can RELIABLY produce 95% of the time.

        Why are you SO, SO SCARED of doing that calculation ???

        SCARED it might make you cry ???

      2. AndyG55

        And of course its going to be REPETATIVE if we report every time that wind and solar FAIL TO SUPPLY !!!

        That’s the whole point, isn’t it sob-sob !!

        DOH !

      3. AndyG55

        Ok, let’s count hydro.

        China has now exceeded it renewable target.! 🙂

      4. AndyG55

        “We will need backup for at least another decade”

        We will ALWAYS need backup, nearly 100% back-up for wind and solar.

        Coal and gas, don’t need back-up, particularly not from UNRELIABLES.

        It is utter stupidity to have two systems, when one would do the job reliably and efficiently, while also providing MUCH NEEDED atmospheric CO2 for plant and food growth.

        1. SebastianH

          This world view is only possible if the mind of the person completely ignores the fact that burning fuel is neither sustainable nor good for the environment. But we all know AndyG55 loves CO2, so it’s understandable that he can’t see how this will work.

          1. tom0mason

            @SebastianH 9. May 2017 at 1:08 PM

            Why is burning fuels ‘unsustainable’ ?
            Do we not have an abundance of coal, oil and gas to see us well into the future, for at lease 6 to 10 generations?
            If not exactly for how long will they last seb at the current usage?

          2. AndyG55

            Burning fossil fuels has been the mainstay of all present civilisation.. of which even you are a part, seb

            Look around you.. your WHOLE LIFE is dependant on those fossil fuels and the massive benefits that have brought and continue to bring to society.

            It also provides much needed atmospheric CO2 without which the planet cannot function.

            CO2 is ABSOLUTELY BENEFICIAL to the environment at any small level that is ever attainable by human effort.

            I like LIFE and NATURE, seb, and that means CO2.

            You appear to despise life and nature !!

            That is a truly SICK and PATHETIC position to adopt…

            … but that is YOU. !!

          3. AndyG55

            Come on seb, in what way is CO2 “not good” for the environment???

            Unfortunately it doesn’t cause any extra warming, so we are stuck near the bottom of the Holocene temperature range. That is “not good”

            Apart from the non-warming aspect, everything about increased atmospheric CO2 is a MASSIVE PLUS for the environment.

          4. SebastianH

            @tom0mason:

            Why is burning fuels ‘unsustainable’ ? Do we not have an abundance of coal, oil and gas to see us well into the future, for at lease 6 to 10 generations? If not exactly for how long will they last seb at the current usage?

            Do we really have an abundance of everything? At the end of April this paper was linked in a post on this blog: http://www.journalrepository.org/media/journals/JGEESI_42/2017/Jan/Ludecke842016JGEESI30532_1_1.pdf

            Quote:

            Decreasing emissions after 2100 suggest itself
            because the global coal reserves are estimated
            as roughly 1100 GtC [21] and the extreme
            scenario with an integrated value of ∼ 2000
            GtC [20] exceeds this value nearly twofold.

            It will not last that long and problems will occur decades before the end (consumption will have increased threefold by then). Fossil fuel prices don’t have to increase by much for alternatives to become economical and then the switch to sustainable energy will happen fairly quickly. Do you think it is a good idea to wait this long though?

            The world eventually has to switch to sustainable energy sources. Burning stuff isn’t sustainable at the scale/growth we are at.

          5. tom0mason

            And your linked document says

            Under the assumption of future model validity and depending on the emission scenarios given in [20] until 2100 AD as well as the assumed emission scenarios after 2100 AD until 2150 AD ( see Fig. 3, upper panel ), our model gives the results depicted in the lower panels of Fig. 3: The atmospheric CO2content will not exceed a maximum between ∼500 to ∼800 ppm ( see left lower panel of Fig. 3 ). The AF remains constant until 2050 AD and does decrease later steadily…

            So more assumptions based only a theory (and no observation) that human made CO2 is bad.
            Otherwise none as sophistry and b*llsh|t!
            for all scenarios. At maximum atmospheric CO2
            concentration the atmospheric net-f l ux naand
            with it the AF = na(t) / ¯ ntot(t) change sign
            because the sum of the net-f l uxes of atmospheric
            CO2into the ocean and the biosphere is smaller
            than the emitted anthropogenic CO2( see right
            lower panel of Fig. 3 ).

          6. AndyG55

            “Come on seb, in what way is CO2 “not good” for the environment”

            Noted..

            No answer. !!

            And known coal reserves have grown as usage has grown.

            There are many places barely explored.

            Peak this, peak that.. … proven BS.

            All this renewable crap is more like PEAK STUPIDITY !!

  8. My Homepage

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More here: notrickszone.com/2017/05/07/germanys-dwd-national-weather-service-management-slammed-for-false-statements/ […]