German Met: Climate Change Nothing New…”We Do Not Know What Will Be 30, 40, Or 50 Years In The Future”

German skeptic site Die kalte Sonne here directs our attention to an article on Germany’s record warm 2014 year in German national daily, Die Welt.

The Die Welt article quotes German commercial meteorologist Dominik Jung of, who is often quoted in the German print media. Here’s the Die kalte Sonne post in English!

Dominik Jung warns of uncertain climate forecasts: “Us meteorologists know just how difficult forecasts for the next 5 to 10 days are. So how certain can 50-year trends be?”
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Exemplary reporting on the 2014 German temperature record appeared on December 30, 2014 in Die Welt. The daily allowed meteorologist Dominik Jung to get a word in. Jung puts the temperature trend in important context: 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period it was at least just as warm in Germany as it is today. One needs to be careful when using the word “record”. What follows is an excerpt from the Die Welt article:

For the first time we have the number ten before the decimal point for Germany’s annual mean temperature. The mean temperature was around 10.2°C. ‘That’s a one hundred year record. Never has it been so warm in Germany,’ says meteorologist Dominik Jung at the weather site […]

‘One must clearly state: The temperature trend for Germany is clearly upwards over the last 130 years. And naturally this is climate change,’ said Jung. He then adds: ‘But: Climate is always changing. The earth’s climate has been subject in part to large fluctuations. During the Medieval Period there were both warm and icy times. So this pattern isn’t really anything new. However, there’s a lot of controversy in the ongoing discussion concerning what impact man has on the on the current increase in the mean temperature. Today that still has not yet been adequately determined.’ […]

‘We are a long way away from the severe drought summers, or winters without ice and snow – just a look out the window is already enough. These extreme scenarios help very little. They only serve to spread uncertainty. We do not know what will be 30, 40, or 50 years into the future. Chill out: Us meteorologists know just how difficult forecasts for the next 5 to 10 days can be.’ Jung has doubts on ‘How accurate the 50-year trend will be.'”

You can read the entire German article at Die Welt.



5 responses to “German Met: Climate Change Nothing New…”We Do Not Know What Will Be 30, 40, Or 50 Years In The Future””

  1. John F. Hultquist

    I do think it is great that a person with public exposure makes a case for chilling out regarding climate change. So, I applaud Dominik Jung.
    Because I dislike the use of average temperature as the metric of climate, never am I happy with the details. Climate is better thought of as a pattern of seasons even if the mean temperature is not exactly stuck.
    For example, I cannot tell you what the weather will be like on March 15, 2015. However, I do think the period between Jan. 1, 2030 to Jan 1, 2035 will be remarkably the same as the period between Jan. 1, 2005 to Jan. 1, 2010. The trees I see on the hills just north of me will be the same types in 2035 that were there when we moved here, and that were there 25 years before that, and 25 years before that.

  2. Graeme No.3

    The Medieval Warm Period(s) have always been the weak point in the AGW claim. Hence the desire to “get rid of it” and their enthusiastic response to Michael Mann’s trick graph. They are still reluctant to let that one go, but with Briffa’s admission that the tree rings do show such a warm time they have no science to stand on.

    Keep mentioning it and asking why it was so warm with CO2 at 280 ppm?

    1. Mindert Eiting

      Perhaps this was Mann’s tragedy: he got a divergence for the late twentieth century. If two sets of measurements diverge, not both of them can be true. So one of them or both are false. He must have concluded that his proxies failed at the end and substituted for them the instrumental record (Mike’s Nature trick). The instrumental record however could have been wrong as well (see e.g. Hager’s claim here, a few days ago). Perhaps his proxies were perfect and he substituted junk for them. I would have sleepless nights if this were the case.

      1. Graeme No.3

        The instrumental record is highly suspect, but I don’t think that would have worried him (if he had known) because he set out to get a result that he wanted and would have used anything that gave him that result, regardless of correctness or relevancy.

  3. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #165 * The New World

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