Top Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann blasts the quality of modern weather information in Germany, warning that 80-90% of weather stories found in the online media are “false information” or even “made-up nonsense”, and feels his field has become “a hoard of anarchy.”
Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann. Photo source: https://weather.us/
Yesterday here I reported how veteran Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann, 59, called the blaming of single weather events on climate change “complete idiocy”.
The quality of weather reporting and information, and the overall knowledge of natural sciences, have gotten so bad in Germany, according to Kachelmann, that he felt compelled to comment at the online Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung (HAZ). He wrote (link added by author):
In matters concerning natural sciences, a collective educational precariat rules.”
Meaning: when it comes to knowledge of natural sciences, and especially meteorology, Germany is in trouble, and the citizens are being terribly disinformed.
Excessive, click-baiting media hype
One of the major reasons behind the destructive development, according to Kachelmann, is all the “nonsense” that gets reported by the media concerning the weather.
One example is the often-made claim today that severe thunderstorms or heavy downpours are linked to “climate change”. What in the past used to be just called a storm or bad weather, now gets recorded by countless mobile devices and sent to some studio, where it is hyped and sold as a 100-year event of Biblical proportions.
“Anarchy” ruling day-to-day weather reports
Kachelmann comments how today one often finds weather tips in the German media, e.g. for golfers and mountaineers, but which are in fact “complete idiocy”. Much of the nonsense, the Swiss meteorologist believes, is driven by the media’s insatiable appetite for clicks. “There’s anarchy in the weather report,” Kachelmann writes.
Today every north wind in the wintertime gets dubbed the “Siberian whip!” or every warm summer breeze from the south now gets labelled as a “Saharan heat wave!”, he describes.
Meteorology has become a hoard of anarchy
Kachelmann’s observations are spot on. But we could add that the rush to crank out sensational headlines is not limited to tabloids, but also flagship media outlets and once renowned weather and climatological institutes, who are now getting into the click-baiting, attention-seeking extreme weather frenzy.
For example “renowned” institutes are increasingly linking foul weather to climate change, and warn things are only going to get worse! “We’re toast!” the AP once warned, citing serious scientists.
“80 to 90% false information” …”or made up”
In Kachelmann’s view the field of meteorology has deteriorated so much that he comments at HAZ:
It’s truly a drama: Today 80 to 90 percent of the weather stories in the German online media are false information or often freely made-up nonsense. My science has become a hoard of anarchy.”
The absence of knowledge about nature allows every nonsense to be printed — in order to generate clicks — yet not be recognized as such.”
So why has the German citizenry become so weather-disinformed?
Kachmann points to the educational system, where children are allowed to bypass natural science classes at schools. He comments at HAZ:
It is breathtaking what only a few decades and the allowance to skip school subjects can do to a country that, at least in folksongs, was long familiar with storms.”
Jörg Kachelmann runs Kachelmannwetter.com and, in cooperation with Dr. Ryan Maue, weather.us. He was formerly the meteorologist for flagship ARD German television.
41 responses to “Weather Info Today “80- 9041 Nonsense”, Veteran Meteorologist Bemoans Media Hype/Nonsense”
I’d have to say that the situation is in fact as bad, or even worse, in many other countries. The lack of knowledge in natural sciences make a society highly vulnerable to abuse by elite classes.
Pierre, you are absolutely right, I hate to say.
Paradoxically, environmentalism has contributed significantly to the loss of sound knowledge about nature.
I call this “Ökoverblödung”: personal concern for and contact with nature (including her conscientious study in theory and practice) is replaced by politically correct liturgy, the constant regurgitation of green stereotypical myths.
Instituting a new cultural paradigm, the greens have actually managed to substitute their false folklore about “nature” for science and an approach to nature guided by a critical, discerning, and knowledgeable mind.
Hence: “The absence of knowledge about nature allows every nonsense to be printed — in order to generate clicks — yet not be recognized as such.” That’s what I call die “Abrichtung des politischen Konsumenten”, “the conditioning of the political consumer”, making, as you observantly write, “society highly vulnerable to abuse by elite classes”.
Moreover they are unwittingly accomplishing the opposite of what they promised: paradise. Quite like how it worked out with socialism and communism.
I’ll post a new hypothesis. Those who think of themselves as know-it-alls regarding a subject and the perceived opponents as people without a clue on the subject, don’t have the actual ability to make such an observation. It’s pure imagination caused by a perceived injustice directed from the opponents towards them.
The vulnerable parts of society are those that blindly follow “leaders” that try to instrumentalize topics like climate change, migration, globalization, etc for their purposes. We are seeing something like that with the political party AfD. The movement couldn’t be more stupid and contemptuous, but even those who can objectively be shown would not benefit from their politics still vote for them. That’s the vulnerable part of society abused by a small elite right there …
“I’ll post a new hypothesis.”
And we’ll all keel over in laughter. !
From your very first lines, you seem to be talking about yourself, in a VAIN attempt to make a mindless, irrelevant point.
The AGW movement couldn’t be MORE STUPID or contemptuous, as you continually show.
And their abuse of society in inflicting the massive costs of “unrealiables” on the population, as well as the far leftist agenda, really hurts a lot of the more vulnerable in society,
Yep.. a very self-reflective post, seb.. without you even realising it.
“It’s pure imagination “
Ah, a seb speciality
Mindless fantasies, back by zero- or anti-science
The seb way !!
I was going to reply, but Andy’s reply was better!
Indeed it is. Shows wonderfully what I meant …
Your comments are MEANINGLESS, as always.
You were unable to contradict one word I said with anything resembling rational thought.
Just read an article in the Wall Street Journal talking about today’s drought across the Southwest U.S., to include large chunks of Oklahoma, Kansas, and the Texas panhandle.
The article compares the drought to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, but mentions that today’s is worse because of climate change.
Truth is, the 1930s dry spell was worse, and of course this “journalist” has no clue what role climate change plays.
Exactly. The dramatic exaggerations, from those seeking attention, are absurd. How many “once in 100 years” storms will we have this year? They seem to be coming at a claimed rate of one every third year!
I find an article, reprinted from Reuters (by Ana Compoy), from 2011.
Fierce Drought Hurts Farmers in the Southwest
If there is a current story, please post a link. Thanks.
Thanks, I missed that when I looked.
I always try to find the actual writer so I can (maybe) understand what bias may be there. In this case:
“—This essay is adapted from Mr. Ross’s “The Promise of the Grand Canyon: John Wesley Powell’s Perilous Journey and his Vision for the American West,” which will be published by Viking in July.”
Ross is the former Executive Editor of American Heritage and has served on the Board of Editors at Smithsonian Magazine.
So, apparently an historian, writer, and editor.
They haven’t a clue what real drought is.
“ The lack of knowledge in natural sciences make a society highly vulnerable to abuse by elite classes.” – Pierre
It certainly appears to be by design. Import 3rd world dreck, brainwash children of all ages, destroy critical infrastructure. We are watching Western Civilization dying, or at least suffering from a life threatening disease – Leftism. The wages of electing incompetent fools to lead us.
“brainwash children of all ages,”
We have one who posts here, who spends his time with mindless parrot like regurgitation.
“least suffering from a life threatening disease – Leftism”
Yep, same little child.
“The lack of knowledge in natural sciences”
Same childmind, PROVEN time after time after time.
Not so much a “lack”, but everything he thinks he knows, is diametrically opposed to reality.
Interesting assessment of the cult of climate change here.
Yes, it’s pretty clear our resident activist troll is a member in good standing.
It seems to me that, among it’s management benefits, a high standard of general knowledge conveys a kind of herd immunity. The more knowledgeable the general populace is, the less susceptible they are to fringe claims by activists.
Of course there will always be some who are immune to sanity, but the more lacking the populace is in basic knowledge, the less immune they (we) are to extremists.
But in the UK it is compounded by the almost complete scientific ignorance within Parliament.
Only 3 out of 650 MPs have a science background.
Interestingly it was these 3 who voted against the disastrous Climate Change Act, which commits the UK to ruinous renewables.
Little wonder these morons unquestionably believe every end-of-world scenario their taxpaid institutes put out.
You unquestionably believe you have figured it all out. This illusion that everyone else is a moron is just a sign of “conspiracyritis”. And those “veteran” weathermen you idolize … it’s just weird 😉
Not going to admit that you pwned yourself in your opening comment, are you?
Huh? I am not the one who is arrogant enough to think that most climate scientists have it wrong and those who provide temperature data are faking it. Nope, that is you pseudoskeptics believing you know it better 😉
“This illusion that everyone else is a moron”
Not everyone, seb
Certainly YOU, though.
And you are only one ever bring up the word “conspiracy”, or your mindless corruption of it.
Glad to see you are not one of those ‘know-it-alls’ like most CAGW advocates.
However what is obvious is that CO2 does not control any regional or global temperatures, CO2 does not control regional or global climate either. This is evidenced by an inspection of historic the atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature records. The evidence shows that atmospheric CO2 levels tend to follow temperature changes not lead them.
Most CAGW advocates, and IPCC propagandists wish to ascribe just about any unusual temperature or weather effect as the result of atmospheric CO2 being very slightly above the levels experienced at the end of the LIA.
*sigh* what temperatue change are the current CO2 levels following then?
Some might, the rest of knows that the imbalance caused by the enhanced CO2 GHE is real and how it affects heat content/buildup. CO2 concentration in not just “very slightly above” past levels.
CO2 does not control regional or global climate either.
At what point did CO2 begin controlling the oceans’ temperatures? What year or span of years? See the below graph for context:
Humlum et al., 2013
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whetherrepresenting sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”
(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little inﬂuence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.
(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.
When the CO2 concentration increased far enough to cause an imbalance that increased OHC while no other factors (like global dimming for example) were working against the created imbalance.
What context? For what? It should be quite obvious that atmospheric CO2 in the pictured timeframe was caused by something other than human emissions and at the very small variations is very likely the normal “CO2 follows temperature” thing.
What? I thought it was 1300 to 6500 years? Didn’t you post an article about that?
Anyway, that Humlum paper has been shown to be incorrect many times and still you bring it up … https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908
It’s nonsense and it should be obvious from that 6th point. Nevertheless, CO2 indeed trails temperature. The mechanism for this is known and included in all models. But it surely doesn’t account for the current increase in CO2 concentration. Not in the slightest. Since this was an attempt to claim that this is the case, you – again – demonstrated a disturbing lack of understanding or – if this was on purpose – an aptitude towards trolling. Which is it?
How do you know it was CO2 that caused the radiative imbalance–since other factors have not been ruled out? For example, we know that cloud cover changes are far more influential in changing the radiative imbalance (W m-2 per decade) than CO2 changes are.
“It is widely assumed that variations in Earth’s radiative energy budget at large time and space scales are small. We present new evidence from a compilation of over two decades of accurate satellite data that the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) tropical radiative energy budget is much more dynamic and variable than previously thought. Results indicate that the radiation budget changes are caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness.”
And yet we don’t have satellite data for cloud cover changes that occurred before 1979. How convenient, right? And the satellite data we do have since 1979 can establish that cloud cover changes are far more radiatively responsible (~1-2 W m-2 per decade) for the imbalance (warming) than are changes in CO2 (i.e., 0.2 W m-2 per decade per Feldman et al., 2015). Why do you nonetheless insist on claiming that cloud cover changes effectively have nothing to do with controlling temperatures…since this contradicts what the scientific literature says? At what point was cloud cover change ruled out as a factor in warming/cooling trends?
Correct. And yet you believe that which follows controls that which precedes. Odd.
“[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”
Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (textbook)
“The results for the two periods are in broad agreement. Together with the strong dependence of CO2 emission on temperature, they imply that a significant portion of the observed increase in r˙CO2 derives from a gradual increase in surface temperature.” pg. 253
“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”
Correct. CO2 follows temperature on short-term and long-term timescales. This is commonly acknowledged.
I find it rather amusing that you think that if I don’t agree with you that the science is settled and thus we know all there is to know about what is the 100% driver of CO2 concentration changes (humans!), then I must be either ignorant or a troll – a ridiculously false dichotomy. I’m neither…as I figure there is still quite a bit we don’t know about CO2 and its effect on climate (if any) and the extent to which humans are responsible for changing the atmospheric values vs. natural sources/sinks imbalances. I’m a skeptic. I think humans contribute to the CO2 concentration changes…but I don’t know how much. It could be <10%. It could be ~30%. While I think it's likely not higher than 50%, I haven't ruled it out either.
Because it has been measured and we know about this effect for a very long time now. It’s basic physics.
Sure, and since you believe clouds are not a feedback, but directly influenced by cosmic rays, this all makes sense in your mind. Right?
Why do you think it has been ruled out? Do you really believe cloud cover changes are not included in models/calculations? Maybe they even forgot the Sun? And of course volcanoes! Only CO2 in those graphs depicting the forcings, right?
You really have no idea how that might work? Not even after (hopefully) reading thousands of papers on the topic?
If you are living in a world where everything correlates in a linear fashion and things influence other things without feedbacks and with only one way things can work, well … then it is that fantasy world that makes you a pseudoskeptic and not a skeptic.
And that is just an example of living in that world. Since “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.” is not a necessary condition, not at all. We know that the uptake of the oceans (and nature) are influenced by temperatures, so that is what those short term fluctuations are. The longterm increase “correlates” well with human CO2 emissions of which around half get absorbed by nature every year because of partial pressure differences.
It is indeed amusing that this is your defense. You cited a paper that you should have known is nonsense and used its contents to reply to the question “what temperatue change are the current CO2 levels following then?”.
Either you are trolling me or you are incapable of noticing the problem with this paper.
You are most definetly a pseudoskeptic.
We actually know by how much. Besides, you constantly claim it was warm before … why wasn’t the CO2 concentration as high as today then?
DWLWR has decreased.
OLR follows the temperature.
There is no evidence of any “imbalance” except in seb’s mind.
Yes, CO2 absorbs low-energy radiation in a tiny narrow band to extinction in a very short distance.
So what. Its just thermalised to the rest of the atmosphere, and is dealt with like any other energy.
It doesn’t matter WHERE the enhanced atmospheric CO2 comes from.. so long as it keeps coming.
I really like the idea that humans have contributed at least some of the highly beneficial rise in aCO2, because that means it will just keep on rising as more and more coal and gas fired power stations come on line in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, India, China, Germany and other parts of Europe..
Just as the IPCC said “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
It is also true of many weather events. Our records of historic weather events being only partial and very sketchy in details. So to says that virtually any event is ‘unprecedented’ is to misunderstand the limitations on our knowledge of the past.
Also of note is that weather research, just like climate research, has not got a single source of unimpeachable knowledge — a consensus on what is thought to happen is no validation of its quality, as neither of them are ‘settled science’, both are continuing work-in-progress, and IMO probably can never be completely settled.
That IPCC quote that so clearly you exposes their fraud is just such a gem that it can hardly be repeated too often, IMO.
@Yonason 17. June 2018 at 4:02 PM
Indeed, it is for the cAGW advocates, the slap-down that put them in their place when they presume to know how the climate works.
Well-known policy analyst Indur Goklany pertinently wrote on 7. January 2018 this comment here at NoTricksZone:
“In the 1950s and 1960s, growing up in India, we used to believe Germany was the epitome of Engineering Excellence. Well, what with going all-in on solar and wind, Energiewende, and now this, Germany is now more accurately viewed as the epitome of Engineering Stupidity.”
I suspect that German and Swiss engineering are as strong as ever, the problem lies in the non-engineers that end up in politics, education and the media, a cabal that controls policies such as the Energiewende.
The stupid is strong with them.
Unless it’s derailed, then when that experiment with insanity hits the wall, it won’t be pretty.
Just another e.g., of politicians passing laws that are impossible to comply with…
What could go wrong?
I suspect the vulnerability of many people to the unwarranted claims made by the Weather Police results from 1) a lack of exposure to nature, and the potentially dramatic variations in weather which one observes, if the effort is made to get out there; and, 2) a societal over-reliance on experts, who are often wholly lacking in humility, and think their competence far higher than it is.
OT, Interesting new paper out soon about Antarctic ice.
Seems East Antarctic is GAINING mass.
West Antarctic is of course being melted from below by volcanic activity… caused by suburban SUVs and coal fired power stations…. naturally
Rothschild has a controlling interest in Weather Central. Just sayin’.