Meteorologist Dominik Jung is sort of Germany’s (younger) version of America’s Joe Bastardi. Like Joe, he also runs his own private weather forecasting company and site, wetter.net, which serve agriculture, industry and the public.
And as any serious meteorologist knows, success depends almost entirely on product quality, i.e. forecast accuracy. There’s absolutely no room for politicized science here.
Jung is quoted and featured regularly by Germany’s mainstream media.
This summer Germany and much of Central Europe have seen a spate of severe thunderstorm activity, and as a result many are asking if this might not be an ominous sign of global climate change.
Again Dominik Jung reminds us that the recent weather is nothing new, and even implies that the prognoses made by “climate experts” seem to change as quickly as the weather itself (translated with permission):
Weather: Storms in Germany: Is that the climate change?
Wiesbaden (wetter.net), 30 July 2014 – Storms in the summer are nothing unusual. The same is so with variable weather during Central European summers. This is entirely typical.
In 2003 scientists announced droughts for summers
There is also no data confirming that the number of storms has increased over the past years. However we have been able to determine that the single storms have become a little more severe with regards to their strength.
That there have been storms so often this July is pure coincidence. July 2013 was the exact opposite; it was too dry and rarely were there thunderstorms. Now after having seen the thunderstorms of the past few days, we are already once again hearing the first climate prognoses announcing that extreme downpours will continue to rise over the next years.
That’s weird: After the driest and hottest summer of all time in 2003, the climate experts all assumed summers would become drier and drier – the talk was even about drought.
Slowly we have to start asking ourselves what follows what: The climate follows the prognoses, or the prognoses the climate? The current stormy weather appears to be a welcome opportunity for some climate experts to shift the focus back to climate change – with the aim of acquiring more research money.
Meteorologist and chief editor at wetter.net”
5 responses to “German Meteorologist Dominik Jung: Climate Experts’ Forecasts Changing As Fast As The Weather!”
New avenue for environmental activists: Send fake press releases, destroying shares value of hated coal companies. Aussie court says that’s just fine, get on with it.
Brussels Eurocleptocrats to force slave territories to recycle 70% of their waste in 2030. Germany currently at 50%; Romania at 0%.
I don’t know, shouldn’t they slowly start to concentrate on making their escape plans?
The declared role of the IPCC is to look at human-induced climate change.
So how the hell can the IPCC provide an accurate assessment of climate change if it basically ignores the overwhelming body of scientific literature relating to natural climate variability?
Ever since the IPCC adopted its supposition (not an hypothesis or theory) of human-induced dangerous global warming, it has been moving the goal posts to suit its supposition.
Because the climate models have spectacularly failed, the IPCC and army of government bureaucrats and other supporters have found it necessary to manipulate the science to match their cause.
The blatant manipulation of the surface stations temperature data around the world is a classic example of alarmist scientists and bureaucrats adapting the data to fit their supposition.
There is no other way to describe this … human-induced dangerous global warming is a blatant fraud by officials who are guilty of engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct. And it has been encouraged by individuals like President Obama and Prince Charles.
dry winters / wet summers this is the most reliable scenario with an exception to the U.K in winters
Mervyn said, at 31. Juli 2014 at 03:39 : “The declared role of the IPCC is to look at human-induced climate change.”
That does not seem to be an accurate interpretation of the IPCC’s mission. Going by the full title of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and its role declared at its own website, it is not obvious that its “declared role” is “to look at human-induced climate change,” although we all know that that is what the IPCC does.
There is nothing in the declaration of the IPCC’s purpose that points in any way to man-made causes of climate change:
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.” More: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml
Nevertheless, the IPCC deviates from its self-declared role by stating,
“Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.” More: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml
All of which leaves me puzzled as to why understanding the basis of risk of nature-induced climate change should be of any lesser concern and should have led to the IPCC virtually ignoring it, given that about 96 percent of annual CO2 emission injected into the atmosphere are of natural origin.
Thereby the IPCC violates its primary purpose: “to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.” A “clear scientific view” will not downplay or ignore 96 percent of annual atmospheric CO2 emissions from natural sources, while focusing on and emphasizing a minuscule 4 percent of annual CO2 emissions from human sources.