German DWD Weather Service Misleads Public Into Thinking May Mean Temperatures Are Rising

Obviously it’s become necessary to focus more attention on shenanigans from Germany’s DWD National Weather Service.

Lately they have developed a seemingly activist habit of blaming everything on “global warming” and using dubious tactics in doing so. These tactics include putting out deceptive and misleading press releases for the media to spread to the public.

The latest episode is described by Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt at the Die kalte Sonne site here.

A couple of months ago the Deutsche Wetterdienst (DWD) worried that frosts seemed to be occurring less often in mid May, hinting that their seemingly lower frequency of the recent past was due to global climate warming. They wrote that over the recent years that “they often have not occured at all“. They added:

Recent studies by the Deutsche Wetterdienst show that the frequency of cold snaps in mid May foremost in the southern region was significantly under 50%. […] Many experts trace the changes to climate change, among other things, because the ongoing warming of the global atmosphere is leading to less and less frosty May cold snaps. The earlier and possible future changes in mean temperature for May, the number annual frost days, and many other figures are shown at a glance at the Deutsche Klimaatlas.”

Read entire article at the DWD here.

No warming

However, Lüning and Vahrenholt point out that the DWD fails to provide any charts illustrating this. But looking at the Deutsche Klimaatlas we find a chart of May mean temperature for Germany. The following chart shows Germany’s mean May temperature for the past 130 years:

Chart for Germany mean May temperature. Source: DWD, Deutscher Klimaatlas.

Suddenly it becomes clear why the DWD did not present any chart in its press release: May has not warmed at all in 100 years!

What one does see is a cyclic pattern with warm phases 1915-1950 and since 1985. The curve in fact follows almost precisely NAO ocean cycle. Lüning and Vahrenholt write that it is “peculiar” that the DWD would assign the May frosts as being a victim of climate change: “We’d like to see a little more realism and transparency from the DWD.”

German climate enthusiast Josef Kowatsch then provided a temperature curve for May for all of Germany going back to 1915. The chart is based on the DWD’s own data.

Clearly one sees the distinct oceanic cycles in the chart:

May mean temperature for Germany. has been declining for the past 15 years. Chart: Josef Kowatsch.

Note how in fact Germany temperature trended downward from 1915 to about 1985, despite rising CO2 emissions during the period. The hottest May took place early in the 20th century.

Strangely, although Europe’s climate is directly coupled to North Atlantic oscillations, one never hears of this in the German media. The problem for this has to do in part with the DWD press releases of the sort we’ve been seeing lately. With such misleading press releases, it should not be of any wonder that Europeans are now accustomed to having everything blamed on “man-made climate change”.

At Europe’s climate institutes like the DWD, oceans and the sun do not exist.

 

24 responses to “German DWD Weather Service Misleads Public Into Thinking May Mean Temperatures Are Rising”

  1. SebastianH

    Why not look at the original graph from the DWD?
    http://imgur.com/a/G9Rc5

    May temperatures increased as the linear trend line and sliding 30 year mean clearly show.

    Strangely, although Europe’s climate is directly coupled to North Atlantic oscillations, one never hears of this in the German media.

    We hear this all the time. Europe’s mild climate largely depends on the North Atlantic Gulf Stream.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Your graph shows that temperatures increased from about 1900 to 1920, and then temperatures have been flat ever since. Human emissions were flat and less than 1 GtC/yr during the 1900 to 1920 warming peiod. Since 1945, human emissions have risen from 1 GtC/yr to 4 GtC/yr (1970) to 6 GtC/yr (1990) to 10 GtC/yr (2014)…and yet there has been no warming since the 1920s. In other words, human emissions do not align with temperatures.

      1. SebastianH

        and then temperatures have been flat ever since

        The skeptic in you is eyeballing again? Let your inner agnostic compare the graphs of Germany’s mean temperature with a temperature series like Hadcrut4 NH and describe if you see similarities? It’s essentially the same trend but with higher variability.

        http://imgur.com/a/G4J9K

        In other words, human emissions do not align with temperatures.

        You really see no warming since the 1920s? It’s between 0.5 and 1 degree warmer on average than in the 1920s in that graph (May) and when you look at yearly averages (see graph in this comment) the difference is even more pronounced …

        1. Kenneth Richard

          This is the graph I was referring to when I wrote “your graph”:

          http://i.imgur.com/aCRmKCh.jpg

          There is no warming since about 1920, which is the same conclusion reached when looking at the graph from the article. Apparently realizing this, you’ve decided to find a different graph and then pretend like that was the graph being referred to all along. That way, you can get your digs in (“your inner agnostic” “eyeballing again”). Because you just can’t help yourself.

          1. SebastianH

            Kenneth, let’s be honest. Did you read my whole comment? Or did you just search for something that you could use to support whatever point you are trying to make and ignore the rest?

            I specifically wrote “graph (May)”. And even that graph has the mean in the 1920s at ~12.3°C and current mean at above 13°C.

            The thick blue line in the “Klimaatlas” graph (http://www.dwd.de/DE/klimaumwelt/klimaatlas/klimaatlas_node.html you can choose the month in the drop-down at the top of the page) is 30 year Gaussian low pass filter. It also has its right part (future predictions) cut off. BTW: you can also display a yearly view of that graph: http://imgur.com/a/0BvQg
            Does that make it clearer for you that temperatures in the 1920s weren’t the same as today? Not in May and not in yearly averages.

          2. yonason

            “Kenneth, let’s be honest.” – Chatbot_troll_SebH

            You wouldn’t begin to know how.

            “The width of the black horizontal line corresponds to the change in the global mean temperature anomaly over the past 150 years.” – Richard Lindzen (referencing this graph)
            http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/lindzen.png

            See here for more information.
            http://euanmearns.com/global-warming-and-the-irrelevance-of-science/

            Any sane and honest person can see that THERE IS NO PROBLEM. Yet you, and the many warmist troll minions continue to scream in our faces about irrelevant nonsense. You are delusional, at best.

          3. SebastianH

            How does discussing an even more local graph show that “there is no problem”? But it’s very interesting that Lindzen thinks that aerosols aren’t compensating the CO2 forcing as much. He also seems to ignore that the entire warming from a CO2 concentration of currently 400 ppm hasn’t occurred yet, so inferring the climate sensitivity from the current temperature change and percentage the CO2 concentration increased is incorrect.

        2. yonason

          Chatbot_troll_SebH swings wildly, while grasping at imaginary straws…

          How does discussing an even more local graph show that “there is no problem”? – SebH

          Lindzen is contrasting what they portray as a terrifying harbinger of imminent disaster with what we experience every day. That can ONLY be done locally.

          …it’s very interesting that Lindzen thinks that aerosols aren’t compensating the CO2 forcing as much. – SebH

          Why do you suppose that is, chatbot? Let’s see what Lindzen wrote.

          …in a recent paper from the Max Planck Institute, Stevens (2015) [12] finds that aerosols are limited and unable to compensate for the [imagined] higher sensitivities. – Lindzen

          I encourage readers to look at the original and the context, where it is clear that Lindzen is saying that the modelers are invoking unknown amounts of substances with unknown origin to have an imagined degree of effect on imagined parameters. That is what passes for “science” these days.

          SebH further asserts that…

          [Lindzen] also seems to ignore that the entire warming from a CO2 concentration of currently 400 ppm hasn’t occurred yet – SebH

          Seriously? He’s not taking a paranoid warmist future fantasy seriously enough for you? So you want us to reject his rational (scientific) assessment of reality and the models’ failure to forecast it?

          1. SebastianH

            So you want us to reject his rational (scientific) assessment of reality and the models’ failure to forecast it?

            Well, that and your whole comment illustrates the skeptic belief system pretty well. Why aren’t you the least bit skeptic when some “scientist” like Lindzen says what he says? Why is what he says the holy grail for you?

        3. yonason

          I answer your flimsy criticisms and you come back with veiled insults. That’s the best you’ve got?

          SebH retorts:

          Why is what he says the holy grail for you?

          Your whole comment is fact free gibberish and hyperbole. I listen to people like Lindzen because they provide data and make sense, unlike the warmists and their troll sycophants.

          If you don’t like having what’s wrong with your fallacies exposed, stop making them.

          1. yonason

            My comment is to SebH’s found here.
            http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/22/german-dwd-weather-service-misleads-public-into-thinking-may-mean-temperatures-rising/comment-page-1/#comment-1227469

            Just noting that in case more comments get inserted after his, and obscure that.

    2. John F. Hultquist

      The “Atlantic Gulf Stream” does not come near Europe and does not explain the ‘so called’ mild climate. Satellite images of the North Atlantic allow you to see this.

      The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth
      The Source of Europe’s Mild Climate

      1. SebastianH

        Thank you for that link. Very interesting read … so any change in the circulation that results in a few degrees of cooling “would most likely be overwhelmed by the warming caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases”?

        The effect (mild Central European climate) is more rooted in heat capacity of the ocean and wind currents according to this article/paper. That doesn’t change the decoupling from a uniform increase of surface temperatures due to the increase of greenhouse gases, does it?

      2. tom0mason

        John F. Hultquist,

        A very interesting paper.
        And it does highlight 2 fundamental for climate that I have always maintained.
        1. That climate is a regional effect.
        2. The regional climate and how it varies is defined by its topology.

        However it is a shame that apparently the same rigor in observing that topology of Rock Mountains causing the waviness in airflow was not also applied to the flow of the ocean currents. Between the Caribbean and the North West coast of Europe the are many underwater mountains interfering with that flow. Something his model apparently missed?

        Also of note is the well known, and semi-permanent feature, of the ‘Azores High’ pressure system off the coast of Portugal (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores_High ). This feature during most summers stretches over the European land mass in a roughly NE direction (and ensure Europe has much warmth), and during the winter stretches over the Atlantic in a roughly westerly direction (and thus sometimes allows more chilling northwest and northeast air masses to move over Europe).

        1. John F. Hultquist

          Regarding the “many underwater mountains interfering with that flow” — note there are other flows of interest.

          Have you ever wondered where the very warm saline water of the Mediterranean Sea goes after it exits into the Atlantic Ocean? The Coriolis force will send it to the right, or north, under the existing cooler and less dense ocean surface water. Then what?
          [Over the Gibraltar Sill, the outflow is on the bottom, inflow from the Ocean is on top.]

          1. tom0mason

            John F.

            “Mediterranean Sea goes after it exits into the Atlantic Ocean? The Coriolis force will send it to the right, or north, under the existing cooler and less dense ocean surface water.”

            Excellent point. And that would be around where the ‘Azores High’ usually pitches up.

      3. yonason

        As old as that news is (11 years), I’m surprised more people aren’t aware of it. Of course, I shouldn’t be, as I only learned of it last year.

  2. tom0mason

    The peculiar thing happening currently is the NAO diverging from the AO, not unheard of but certainly not what usually happens.

    Here https://youtu.be/XD_FwUI_XpE at about 12 minutes it shows the AO followed by the NAO. The model has been predicting for them to come into a coordinated state by so far nature has not obliged.