As Germany Cools, Projections Of Warming Heat Up

The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) has a story on the German Weather Service, and temperature trends for Germany, which are a good indicator for Central Europe.

Cooling in Germany has been accelerating. Source: EIKE

A few days ago the Deutscher Wetterdienst, DWD, (German Weather Service) in a press release warned that Germany’s temperature were likely to rise 2 to 4°C by the year 2100 and that action was necessary. Like the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) the DWD too has been transformed into a propaganda mouthpiece for Germany’s powerful government-driven global warming movement.

But there’s a small problem at the DWD. Like the outlier sea level projections made by the PIK, the temperature projections made by the DWD just don’t match observations. For example Germany’s annual temperature over the last 11 years has shown COOLING, and not warming, see chart above produced by EIKE.

This has led scientists at EIKE to comment as follows:

This casts the DWD’s credibility into question.”

Sure many warmists will point to the latest press release issued by the DWD, which claims that the first 6 months of 2011 in Germany have been the second warmest on record.

But if the 2nd half continues on the same path as the July trend, then the DWD, may soon start find itself comparing quarter years, or even months to milk out any warming news from its statistics.

And in the meantime, in the real world, Germans will have to wait until 2050 or even 2100 for any real warming. The DWD should take a close look at what happened to the Met Office in England back when it tried to get into the global warming gig and so began issuing stupid press releases filled with fantasies and not meteorology.

10 responses to “As Germany Cools, Projections Of Warming Heat Up”

  1. MostlyHarmless

    In 2009 Vicky Pope of the Met Office was claiming that 2000-2009 warming was greater than previous decades. Anyone with one eye and half a brain could look at any temperature chart and see that was a direct lie. Within a year she was admitting to a “slight slowdown”, yet quoted a wide range for the decadal increment. Met Office/Hadley has their own dataset – why not use that? It’s politics, not science.

  2. Edward

    Met Office/Hadley has their own dataset – why not use that? It’s politics, not science.

    Who ever said, that, the Met Office was full of real scientists?

    It is an arm of the HMG and nothing more, which means, lots of ‘on message’ civil servants like Pope – AGW advocate.

  3. DirkH

    Reality has never irritated a German with a belief.

  4. Doug Proctor

    It is legitimate to claim both that Germany is cooling and that it is warming: your choice depends on what time interval you choose (a point Hansen makes regularly).

    The last few years have seen Germany cool, but if you recognize a cyclicity in the decadal temperature record, you’ll see that the last ten are just part of the longer (20 -30 year) period. Going back to the early 90’s gives you the continual rise which has been happening since the mid 70’s.

    HOWEVER, the problem the warmists have is the admission that ANY cooling periods exist, as they claim that the CO2 warming is 90% or more dominant, while saying that a doubling of CO2 will give a 3C (+/-) global temperature increase. The power and exclusivity of CO2 as a global heating agent leave very little wiggle room. If CO2 is such a demon, wherefore from doth this sweet angel of cooling come?

    This is the problem: with the IPCC/Hansen/CO2 meme, there should be little to no significant “natural” cooling (or heating) that isn’t readily explainable by solar irradiance changes or noise. CO2 is rising in our atmosphere by 2 ppmv/year. Each year should see 0.0214C added to the global surficial temperature record; in 10 years, 0.214C, a most noticeable increase. Which is not seen.

    There are two ways of explaining this situation. The first and best for the IPCC crowd is that there is a short-term cooling phenomenon equal to (or almost equal to) an addition of 20 ppmv (10 yr X 2 ppmv/yr). The second, and the worse story, is that prior to the stall-point, perhaps five of those years there was a non-CO2 HEATING event. The IPCC et al claim that a) their records are impeccably corrected for UHIE and all other non-CO2 effects, and b) there is NO non-CO2, natural effect to warm the planet to a significant level. The first says that everything was fine until something came in from left field, and we can’t be blamed for what wasn’t on the field. The second says we missed something in our initial analysis and our temperature records are faulty.


    Little to no explanation has been provided by the warmists for the warming and cooling cycles within the current record and described as “natural variability”. In other terms, “weather”, as opposed to “climate”. Whatever causes this variability, however, is considered to be random over the longer-term of 30 years. All the global records show this variability to be around +/- 0.2C (land records are larger and SST records, smaller). As long as the current round gets back on the rising-track within four years or so, the warmist theories are still viable (except, perhaps in magnitude, so that CAGW becomes dull ol’ AGW). But the longer the heating stalls the worse the non-natural case becomes. Every year the global temperature must rise by 0.0214C for CAGW to be real, and if an extended period of stall occurs, the following period must make up for the lack of rise PLUS it’s own rise.

    Right now Hansen et al claim that the global temperature of 2000 as measured by GISS/NOAA/NASA (all claim to be without error, so they all deserve to be identified with Hansen/the IPCC) is verifiably accurate and precisely accurate. Since 2000 the record should have rise by 0.214C. If another 10 years of warming is to both reverse the trend AND support the 2000 temperature as valid, by 2020 the global temperature rise should be 0.428C higher than in 2000.

    A prediction: Hansen et al will start using longer periods of smoothing to demonstrate the continual heating by CO2. While claiming individual hot months as real, and individual cooler months as noise.

    Our mothers were wrong. You can have your cake and eat it, too.

  5. mwhite
    1. DirkH

      Well, the German term for adjustment would probably be “Korrektur”… searching for that term at the DWD’s website yields 221 hits… many talking about “Bias-Korrektur”… i guess you can play a lot of tricks with that. Unfortunately, openness in German science is to my knowledge absent, and our media has never heard of it.

      1. DirkH

        Yes, they freely admit it but don’t publish details.

        “Aus dem Bereich der Klimaforschung wird zunehmend der Bedarf nach zeitlich homogenen langen Zeitreihen deutlich. Da lange Zeitreihen durch Stationsverlegungen, Änderungen in der Instrumentierung oder bei den Beobachtungsregeln meistens nicht homogen sind, werden für ausgewählte Elemente geeignete Standardverfahren zur Homogenisierung angewendet.”

        “There is an increasing need for long, homogenous time series by climate science. As time series are usually not homogenous, due to station moves, change in instrumentation or operating procedures, selected elements are treated with suitable standard procedures for homogenisation.”

        As long as that’s all they say about it i’d guess they do what is politically desired.

        1. DirkH

          The responsible subcommittee seems to be the NKDZ – “National climate data centre”

          Here’s an interesting page i stumbled across. Some all time weather records.
          Highest temperature ever in Germany:
          Höchste Temperatur: 40,2°C
          am 27.07.1983 in Gärmersdorf bei Amberg (Oberpfalz)
          am 09.08.2003 in Karlsruhe, am 13.08.2003 in Freiburg und Karlsruhe

          Surprisingly, not very recent…
          Höchste Temperatur: 57,3°C
          im August 1923 in El Asisija/Libyen (112 m. ü. NN)

          Höchste Durchschnittstemperatur: 34,6°C
          Dallol/Äthiopien (79 m. unter NN), Mobile Messstation von November 1960 bis Oktober 1966

          And very hot in 1923 and from 1960 to 1966…
          Also not very recent…

  6. Ed Caryl

    GISS has been doing “adjustments” to temperature records for almost all stations for years. Willis Eschenbach has analyzed several station records, including Darwin Zero, Matenuska Valley, and others. The adjustments are always in steps, often in the opposite direction from urban warming effects, always cooling the past. The warmists hate him.

  7. matti

    DWD, (German Weather Service) in a press release warned that Germany’s temperature were likely to rise 2 to 4°C by the year 2100 . To get this kind of temperature rise the annual average rise would have to be 0.04C per year which is about 10 times faster than the past 0.0044C per year rise per hadcrut3gl for the years 1850-2011. This will not happen .In addition I quote from one of my previous article and the writings of Girma Oressengo whose ideas on this I tend to agree with. He said and I quote

    “…the century [20th] started when the oscillating anomaly was at its minimum near 1910 with GMTA of –0.64 deg C and ended when it was at its maximum near 2000 with GMTA of 0.48 deg C, giving a large global warming of 0.48+0.64=1.12 deg C. This large warming was due to the rare events of two global warming phases of.77 deg C each but only one cooling phase of 0.44 deg C occurring in the 20th century, giving a global warming of 2*0.77-0.42=1.12 deg C.

    In contrast to the 20th century, from Figure 3, there will be nearly no change in GMTA in the 21st century. This is because the century started when the oscillating anomaly was at its maximum near 2000 with GMTA of 0.48 deg C and will end when it is at its minimum near 2090 with GMTA of 0.41 deg C, giving a negligible change in GMTA of 0.41-0.48=-0.07 deg C. This negligible change in GMTA is due to the rare events of two global cooling phases of 0.42 deg C each but only one warming phase of 0.77 deg C occurring in the 21st century, giving the negligible change in GMTA of 0.77-2*0.42=-0.07 deg C.”

    All signs point to a net climate change of below 1 deg C and perhaps even less[0.6C ] by 2100 and nowhere near 2-4 C being predicted above .It is easy for these AGW supporting scientists to make such questionable forecasts. None will be around to be held accountable for their forcasts.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy