Vahrenholt: Scale-Back Shows HadCrut’s And Hansen’s Earlier Prognoses Are On The Verge Of “Dramatic Failure”

Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning have called HadCrut’s temperature prognosis scale-back “drastic” and say James Hansen’s “legendary prognoses” of rising global temperatures are on the verge of a “dramatic failure”.

Vahrenholt_Photo_DkS siteProf. Fritz Vahrenholt (Photo credit:

The avalanche starts to roll: British weather service drastically scales back its prognoses for warming
By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Lüning
(Translated/edited with permission by P Gosselin)

The British weather service is one of the first important organisations to pull the emergency brake and drastically scale back its warming prognoses for 2020. After 15 years of no warming, it’s obvious that the models have been re-evaluated by the UK Met Office and that they have given up on the notion of an imminent global warming surge (see report at Tallbloke’s Talkshop).

The old prognoses showed a temperature increase of almost 0.5°C by the end of the current decade. Now the scientists expect the temperature will stay more or less stable, perhaps rising a tenth of a degree.

An animated comparator of the old and new prognosis is provided by Bob Tisdale.

Before and after comparison of the old and new UK Met Office temperature prognosis. Source: Bob Tisdale, also see Tallbloke’s Talkshop.

Former Max-Planck Institute of Meteorology Director Hartmut Graßl and GISS director James Hansen are not going to be amused. Their legendary heat prognoses have lost yet more backing from today’s science (see our blog articles: “Graßl’s warming prognoses of 1990 risks dramatic collapse” and “What happened with James Hansen’s temperature forecast of 1988? Time for a look back“).


16 responses to “Vahrenholt: Scale-Back Shows HadCrut’s And Hansen’s Earlier Prognoses Are On The Verge Of “Dramatic Failure””

  1. Bob Tisdale

    Pierre: Thanks for the link. This story has gotten lots of attention over the past few days. Traffic at my blog is more than twice normal.

    Your visitors may also be interested in the satellite-era model-data comparisons I posted yesterday for the UK and U.S., using the multi-model mean of the CMIP5 models that were prepared for the IPCC’s upcoming 5th Assessment Report (AR5):

    No surprise: the models performed poorly–and I’m being kind with poorly. Terribly may be more appropriate.


    1. Edward.

      Good stuff, as always Mr. Tidsdale – good link.

  2. JC Smith

    Yes….this is the same Dr. Vahrenholt, who served on the Board of Deutsche Shell AG, a Shell subsidiary. Yes….it is so good to have a chemistry professor who is in the back pockets of the oil industry tell us about the climate. I’m just glad there are no conflicts of interest:)

    1. DirkH

      JC Smith, it is also the same Vahrenholt who wrote the book “Seveso Ist Ueberall” in I think 1979 warning of environmental catastrophe through chemicals. The book was a bestseller in Germany and contributed to the formation of the environmental movement in Germany.

      Your lacking command of history is stunning.

    2. Paddy

      J C Smith, I am confident that Dr Vahrenholt is a member of Deutsche Shell AG because of his impeccable credentials as a rational environmentalist.

      Why is it that people like you invariably slime the messenger when you have no rebuttal to the message? Exactly what is it that is wrong or eroneous in the views and work of Drs Vahrenholt and Lunning?

    3. Billy

      I’m sure you are aware that James Hansen is paid by Shell Oil. That is why his predictions are wrong.

    4. DirkH

      JC Smith, all the IPCC scientists are paid by governments. By your logic they are therefore corrupt and interested only in pushing through the interest of the governments. So we shouldn’t take any IPCC report seriously as it is corrupted, right?

  3. Edward.

    Met Office, under attack and quite rightly, they are CAGW advocates and paid for by the tax payers via HMG on orders from CAGW central Brussels [though it is time that was stopped – privatise the Met Office now!!!].

    Donna LaFramboise, is on the case with IPCC AR5 and knocking them down like ninepins!

    NASA reining in Hansen at long last.

    Good Lord, the supposition……….MMCO2 = global warming – is as dead as the dodo, even renowned physicist Angela Merkel must be doubtful now…..surely?

  4. edmh

    Look at the longer term to assess climate change. Never forget that the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coolest of the current benign Holocene epoch, since the last real ice age. At ~12,000 years our happy Holocene, the period responsible for the development of all human civilizations is getting long in the tooth. Overall it has been cooler than the previous Eemian epoch and its end is now overdue when compared with earlier shorter more intense interglacials.

    So whether the current sunspot cycle and changing ocean circulation patterns lead to another Little Ice Age or perhaps to the impending real end of the Holocene epoch during this millennium, the one thing that the world should not be concerned about is a little Global Warming, well within the level of natural variations that have been seen in the past 12,000 years.

    A cooling, rather than a warming, world leads to both a reduction in agricultural productivity with huge deprivation for Mankind worldwide and probably to more extreme weather events, (possibly like hurricane Sandy). There is very good reason to expect worsening weather events in a cooling world because the temperature differential between the tropics and the poles will be enhanced.

    But now the Western world is continually being pressured by propaganda and has widely enacted legislation about “Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption”. These definitions have meant that any adverse weather event can be ascribed to “Climate Change” and thus be blamed on the destructive actions of Mankind.

    The Catastrophic Climate Change Alarmists back every horse whichever way it runs. Nonetheless all Alarmist policy recommendations are only intended to control excessive Global Overheating by the reduction of Man-made CO2 emissions.

    It is not clear how reducing CO2 emissions would help save the world from a climate change towards a cooling world which now seems to be occurring nor how it could ameliorate severe weather events.

    It may be that the climate establishment is gradually coming to its senses. Not only has the Met Office admitted that warming has stopped but also NASA, no doubt much to the chagrin of James Hansen, has now released information that it believes that the sun, rather than CO2 influences climate.


  5. Juergen Uhlemann

    The blue line in the new graph looks a bit like the 11 year sunspot cycle. It’s the Cold Sun (Die Kalte Sonne) afterall.

    The UK Met Office says 15 years of no warming and what does is saying? “16 more years of global warming”

    I watched their video and it is (amazing) crazy how they proof it.
    They are using the El Ehichon 1982 eruption and Mount Pinatubo 1991 eruption. Start time incorrect and length of effect going through a warming into another cooling. This is then subtracted from the graph based on imaginary baseline.
    The the use the El Nino and La Nina effect and subtracted this as well from the graph based on imaginary baseline.
    Btw.: The real CO2 graph is not added. Why? Do they have to hide something?

    I think skepticalscience should do my tax return. Wow, I would get more money back then I (ever) payed.

    1. DirkH

      Juergen, that “subtraction” goes back to a paper by Foster & Rahmstorff (Foster is also the blogger Tamino).

  6. Alex

    edward said: “…..even renowned physicist Angela Merkel must be doubtful now…..surely?”

    Angela Merkel has ordered the construction of 23 coal-fired power stations each 2400MW. Reason being that she is a PhD scientist and therefore understands what the science is telling us. CO2 not equal to global warming.

  7. sunsettommy

    Steve Goddard is all over it too in his own way:

    NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands (Part 1)

    He shows that adjustments went upward about .6C

  8. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

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