Germany Experts Revise (Junk) Model Projections For Summer Precipitation After String Of Failures

Since the Met Office’s infamous prediction of “barbecue summers” and snowless winters, Germany’s “climate experts” too have made some awfully embarrassing and sorrowfully wrong model projections.

For example they too predicted that Central Europe’s winters would become snowless and summers would be more like the 2003 summer: long stretches of heat and drought conditions.

However, as I mentioned two years ago here, summers in Central Europe, particularly Germany, instead have seen normal or even above normal precipitation. And this reality did not escape German meteorologist Dominik Jung, who wrote at in 2015:

Do you recall the climate prophets after the hottest and driest summer of all time in the 2003 prophesizing more drought summers? None of that has occurred. Of the 11 summers that followed, 7 were wetter than the long-term mean, i.e. too much rain. Moreover predictions of sustained heat waves failed to come true. Four summers turned out to be almost normal and only one single summer was about 15% too dry. The majority of the past summers saw no large heat waves. It was hot only for a few days, with really cooler days with thundershowers in between.”

It turns out that the German 2015 summer, according to the DWD German national weather service, did turn out to be drier than normal and the 2016 summer was only very slightly below normal (one could even argue it was normal) in terms of precipitation. That means from 2004 – 2016, 10 of 13 summers have been normal or above normal in precipitation.

This summer, 2017, is a very wet one thus far in Germany, and so it means 11 of the past 14 summers will be in contradiction to what the climate models projected earlier.

So have the modelers issued a correction and an apology? No, they haven’t. Instead they are now claiming that their models in fact had been projecting more heavy rains and flooding all along.

According to alarmist climate-propaganda site Klimaretter here, researchers at Germany’s Helmholtz Centre for Ocean sciences in Kiel (Geomar) issued last September new scenarios for the future that according to Klimaretter “shockingly match well with the current weather pattern in Central and South Europe“. Klimaretter writes:

Using the circulation models of the atmosphere, the scientists studied whether the rising temperatures of the Mediterranean have an impact on precipitation in Central Europe.”

And cites the paper’s author Claudia Vološčiuk:

Our results indicate that the rising temperatures are continuing to enhance the especially heavy rainfalls from low pressure systems from the Mediterranean.”

So forget the barbecue summers with protracted droughts for central Europe. Klimaretter and the fortune-tellers modelers now conclude that we now have to expect “more heavy rains, more floods and more damage“.

But what is in the future the projections of more rains don’t turn out? Not to worry. The alarmists will be able to fall back on recent projections by the DWD German Weather Service. According to Klimaretter:

They anticipate that Germany’s weather will become significantly ‘more variable’: phases of drought will alternate with phases of heavier precipitation.”

For readers not familiar with Germany’s climate, that’s the way it has always been in Central Europe. So no matter what happens, the DWD forecast will always be right — and alarmist sites like Klimaretter will always be able to claim the models were right.

So stay tuned for the next climate horoscope and hocus pocus from the climate institutes.


28 responses to “Germany Experts Revise (Junk) Model Projections For Summer Precipitation After String Of Failures”

  1. ole jensen

    One word : Climastrology

  2. tom0mason

    It sounds to me like Germany’s “climate experts” need to do what the UK’s Met Office is proposing — ditch ALL past records and regenerate new ‘historical data’ from computer models only. From this virtual weather forecaster —

    Professor Adam Scaife, who leads this area of research at the Met Office said “The new Met Office supercomputer was used to simulate thousands of possible winters, some of them much more extreme than we’ve yet witnessed. This gave many more extreme events than have happened in the real world, helping us work out how severe things could get.”

    Analysing these simulated events showed there is a 7% risk of record monthly rainfall in south east England in any given winter. When other regions of England and Wales are also considered this increases to a 34% chance.

    Dr Vikki Thompson, lead author of the report, said “Our computer simulations provided one hundred times more data than is available from observed records. Our analysis showed that these events could happen at any time and it’s likely we will see record monthly rainfall in one of our UK regions in the next few years”

    With researchers not knowing the difference between real data (unprocessed, measured observations), and computerized statistics from a virtual world, can things only get better?
    From all of this you can say that the ‘unprecedented’ weather events will be truly computer derived ‘unprecedented’, adhering strictly as it will to the computer-coded, scientific, and numerically Met Office’s formulated wishful thinking algorithms.

  3. SebastianH

    Regarding models not meeting reality: what are your thoughts about this graph?

    1. yonason


      Models have so many tunable parameters that they can be forced to mimic some aspects of reality, especially when data measuring temperatures is fraudulently “adjusted” to agree with the models. That had to done AFTER the fact, because not a single model has been correct to date.


      Just like the NYSlimes

      You warmist trolls are no different from religious zealots who just won’t stop proselytizing, no matter how often they are shown to be wrong, which it is…

      1. Colorado Wellington

        Regarding progressive reality, he may be onto something there:

        Margarine consumption linked to divorce

        But I think that first we must look into the
        decline of piracy

        1. yonason

          Well, if someone keeps feeding you poison, would you want to stay married to them?

      2. SebastianH

        And there it is again … the “everything is fake anyways” defense. And you alone know the truth? 😉

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Did he write that “everything is fake anyways”, SebastianH? Or are you just making stuff up again?

          1. SebastianH

            The very first word of the comment …

          2. AndyG55

            seb.. you are FAKE..

            You actually know that everything you say is a MONUMENTAL FARCE.

            But you just HAVE to keep the attention-seeking going

            There are clinical drugs that can help you with that, you know, although I suspect they have tried them all.

        2. AndyG55

          There is MASSIVE amount of EVIDENCE, as linked by yonason, that the NOAA/GISS and its related temperature series are FAKE, MANIPULATED FRAUD.

          Evidence to support the very basis of your SCAM/RELIGION, is TOTALLY LACKING.

          As usual, you have NOTHING, seb-t

          1. SebastianH

            Nope, that is just wishful thinking. You hardcore skeptics need everything to be fake data otherwise you’d have to admit that you are wrong.

          2. AndyG55

            DENY your recognition of the facts all you like, seb.

            But it is obvious that deep down, you KNOW that the whole AGW thing is a monumental FAKE.

            Its just how you get your jollies each day, isn’t it.

        3. yonason

          Another chatbot strawman, accusing me of saying something I didn’t.

          I said that particular climate model result was fake, as in fact all climate models MUST be, because it is impossible to model non-linear chaotic systems. They don’t, and can’t, know about cloud distribution, solar activity, cosmic rays, wind speeds and directions, ocean temperature variations, volcanic activity, etc., etc.

          As Judith Curry writes…

          “So many are the influences, and so totally ignorant are we of the possible outcomes, that it is impossible.
          “mathematically speaking, ‘probability’ already implies a great deal of certainty — that we have a well-defined pdf [probability distribution function] that includes all possible results. This is certainly not true of very much in climate science, particularly related to attribution and 21st century projections.”

          …and also…

          “Climate model projections and IPCC conclusions are possible future scenarios, and the uncertainties are too great to even come close to assessing probabilities.”

          Another expert observation…

          “Climate models are engineering codes and not fundamental physics.”

          See also here.

          So, what is “FAKE” about them is pretending, as you do, that they will correspond to reality, when they don’t, because they can’t, unless by the sheerest accident.

          When confronted with reality, the chatbots of the world resort to personal attacks, because they have no facts to back themselves up.

    2. tom0mason

      When the code and the data that drives it is made available to all to inspect then it can seen whether or not the models are of any value. Generating a pretty picture of what appears to be is a picture of little worth.

      1. SebastianH

        The GISS temperature record (and other similar records) and the CMIP5 results are freely available. It’s easy to check both.

        1. AndyG55

          Yep, they have been checked..

          And GISS in particular has been found to be a pile of monumental, maladjusted, farcical doggie-doo.

          Just down your alley, seb.

        2. yonason

          Tony Heller has checked and exposed the lies they American con-men been telling. He’s exposing…
          1. lies about extreme weather.

          2.lies about the arctic sea ice extent.

          3. lies about temperatures.

          Same for Jennifer Marohassy in Oz.

          But for some reason SebH ignores what they have inconveniently exposed.

    3. AndyG55


      All based on HIGHLY adjusted mal-manipulated junk temperature series, SPECIFICALLY adjusted to try to match the models.

      This is actually the STATED AIM of some of the anti-science adjustments

      The Temperature series as shown are totally meaningless.. A LOAD OF JUNK-science.

      All part of the Agenda driven SCAM.

      And I suspect that you are FULLY AWARE of that FACT, seb.

      All you are doing is your continued MINDLESS TROLLING

  4. AndyG55

    That quote is funny.

    I’ve worked with ARR (Australian Rainfall and Runoff).

    Heaps of statistical modelling in there as well.

    Its called “monte-carlos” stochastic modelling for a reason. 😉

    I particularly like the last quote

    Our analysis showed that these events could happen at any time and it’s likely we will see record monthly rainfall in one of our UK regions in the next few years”

    All I can say is .. WELL….. DURRRRRR !!!!

    1. AndyG55

      typo…… monte-carlo… not monte-carlos

      DOH !!

  5. David Johnson

    Luckily for them, most journalists and indeed government officials appear to have the attention span of a goldfish nowadays.

    1. Colorado Wellington

      It’s not just their comparable attention span. Goldfish, like Progressive journalists a government officials, are also not known to suffer from cognitive dissonance during those fleeting moments of realizing that they are holding mutually exclusive beliefs. Both species are superbly adapted to their natural environments where they can exist as long as others support them.

      There is one fundamental difference, though. Goldfish do no harm.

  6. Mark M

    July 27, 1988: “Experts guess we have a window of about 20 years to undo the atmospheric damage

    1. AndyG55

      YAWN.. Still quite a way to go to get the CO2 level UP to optimum plant growth levels.

      No warming CO2 warming signature in satellite temperature data, sea level.. or anywhere else for that matter.

      But gees, that guy must go through heaps of mattresses or nappies, with all his bed-wetting.

      Always sleeping in a wet patch, poor little boy !

  7. Mike Spilligan

    The DWD’s “significantly more variable” is clearly a production of its committee of semantics as it covers everything from anything that can be described as “normal” to the extremes and the unarguably unprecedented.

  8. Bitter&twisted

    Give the DWD and the Met. Orifice some credit.
    Their models are in agreement.
    Just wrong.

  9. tom0mason

    For the latest look at what 12 weather models are saying about the likely Autumn weather for the UK, have a look at latest video at These models are from weather outlets across the world from Brazil to Russia, Germany to Korea and Japan, and many others!
    The vast majority of these models incorporate climate model information, thus they are indicating warmer than usual temperatures (but that is what they usually say — and often correct themselves in the shorter term as they’ll have it wrong) but overall there is no reliable pattern to pick from these all these models’ predictions. By the way ALL of them will update before any of the events they predict happen, and so NONE of them should be taken as any more accurate than a guess.

    IMO, as a piece of entertainment these weather models are as interesting as and TV soap opera.
    So what is your guess for the Autumn weather. (I’m going for average temperatures but more rain.)

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