German Professor: Climate Model Deviation From Observations “Striking”…”Politically Significant”

At Die kalte Sonne, Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt – one of the founders of Germany’s modern environmental movement – presents his monthly summary, which includes a look at global temperature and how the models are doing.

Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, Source: GWPF. 


“The global mean temperature deviation of satellite-based measurements from the mean of the 1991 – 2020 period was -0.05 degrees Celsius in April 2021. Nevertheless, German courts have ruled that something has got to be done about the warming planet!

Global temperature curve in April 2021

The cool La Niña situation over the recent months is still having an effect. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there is an 80% probability that La Niña will end between May and July. However, the agency expects a new La Niña to begin again in the fall.

The average temperature increase has been 0.14 degrees Celsius per decade. The model calculations, on which the IPCC’s recommendations are based, come up with a temperature increase that is twice as high for the same period (see chart below, source: R. Spencer 2021).

This striking deviation from the real temperature development is politically significant, because model forecasts are the basis for far-reaching decisions, such as constitutional court rulings.”


15 responses to “German Professor: Climate Model Deviation From Observations “Striking”…”Politically Significant””

  1. Carl A Palminteri


  2. Richard Greene

    The average climate model simulation (prediction, projection, BS, etc.) represents the government bureaucrat climate science consensus.

    Computer game ‘prediction’ ARE the personal opinions of the computer owners / programmers.

    The ‘prediction’ is whatever he or she wants to predict.

    The computer calculates based on assumptions.

    And the assumptions can be changed to get the desired prediction.

    The desired prediction is what the government bureaucrat scientists are paid to predict — rapid, potentially dangerous in the long run, global warming.

    Anyone who believes these models are intended to make ACCURATE global average temperature predictions is very gullible.

    These computer games have had about 40 years to be refined, and become more accurate.

    In fact, it appears new CMIP6 models will be even less accurate than the old CMIP5, models, based on what is known about CMIP6 models so far.

    I will make a bold prediction (bold because I’d don’t like to make predictions, but this is an easy one) — CMIP7 models will predict even faster global warming than CMIP6 models did.

    These models have nothing to do with real science.

    Real science requires fairly accurate predictions, that get better over time.

    These computer games started with inaccurate predictions, and have never improved over many decades.

    So what purpose do climate computer games serve?

    Their purpose is political.

    They serve as props to support repeated predictions of a coming climate crisis.

    I believe those predictions started in 1957, with oceanographer Roger Revelle, back in the old days when scientists had uncertainty.

    So why predict a coming climate crisis that never happens … getting louder, and more hysterical, every year?


    When people fear a crisis, whether real (COVID) or imaginary (climate emergency), they turn toward their government for help.

    Scared citizens allow their government to seize more power, and tell them how to live.

    A leftist leader or bureaucrat ALWAYS wants to do that — having a crisis makes it much easier — never let a crisis go to waste, they say.

    The models are props that appear scientific, and support the generation of climate change fear.

    Most people who have lived through mild, harmless global warming for the past 45 years, since the mid-1970s, have been convinced that future global warming will be completely different than past global warming — rapid and dangerous.

    The models help with that persuasion.

    They models are doing what they are intended to do.

    Accurate predictions are NOT their intended purpose.

    If accuracy was important, the Russian INM model would be celebrated (it over predicts global warming less than other models), and other models would be generally ignored.

    What appears to be bad science, is good leftist politics.
    (I’m not sure “good” and “leftist” should be used in the same sentence).

    Sorry, I type with a lot of spaces because of a vision disability)

    Richard Greene
    Bingham Farms, Michigan


    Published today – Update 1e. Download the WORD file.

    Global cooling now, as we correctly predicted in 2002 – many more extreme cold events worldwide.

    Regards, Allan MacRae

    By Allan M.R. MacRae, May 8, 2021 UPDATE 1e

    1. Richard Greene

      Mr. MacRae’s paper turned out to be the most interesting article I’ve read in the past week. I had to cut and paste the text into a much bigger, all bold font, to make the article readable with my poor eyesight. The political opinions are strong. That may turn some readers off. But I believe “climate change” is more about politics, than science. The science is junk science. Readers here know that. But the politics, unfortunately, have been a success (for the politicians, not for the rest of us).

      Folks here realize global warming (COVID too) is exaggerated by politicians for their personal gain. The junk climate science includes 64 years of wrong coming climate crisis predictions of doom. And about 40 years of inaccurate climate model predictions. This website refutes climate junk science every day. And has done a much better job than any other science website in recent weeks (I read at least 12 climate websites every day).

      A crisis that people believe is coming gives politicians an opportunity to seize more power, and tell everyone how to live. The crisis does not have to be real. And the “climate emergency” is not real – it’s an imaginary crisis. But it is believed to be coming, by most people. And that’s good enough to scare most people.

      MacRae implies that politicians don’t understand climate science.
      My alternative point of view is they don’t care about science. They pay government bureaucrat scientists to predict a climate crisis. That prediction is their opportunity to ramp up their power. Not because they love power, of course (that would be self-serving). They NEED more political power, they falsely claim, to save the planet for the children. What a sales pitch! Save the children!

      I’d been enjoying the mild global warming since the mid-1970s here in Michigan, and want a lot more warming. But all that warming seems to have disappeared this year. And to me, if global warming stops before I can retire my snow shovels, that would be a REAL climate emergency.


        Thank you for your good comments Richard.

        To be clear, both catastrophic global warming and the Covid-19 lockdown were frauds from the start – concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep.

        Those who know they are lying are the wolves – those who believe the lies are the sheep.

        We are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.

        1. Richard Greene

          Mr MacRae
          A coming crisis claim always needs a little truth at the core, which is then multiplied.

          There has been global warming since the mid-1970s.
          It was mild and harmless.

          And there was a COVID flu epidemic. Even Ignoring the new 2020 methods in for over counting “cases”and deaths, and very few conventional influenza cases, it was a bad year for the flu.

          But there was no science to support lock downs, six foot distancing and masks. There was science to support lock downs of nursing homes, but that was botched in many states.

          I’m waiting to find out how many so-called asymptomatic COVID cases were nothing more than false positives from inaccurate PCR tests.

          How future warming can be predicted to be “a climate emergency”, is a sales pitch like no other in history.

          The only comparison I can think of was selling the (invisible) “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq.

          When I talk to people I mention they’ve been living with global warming for 45 years (we’re old), and they seem surprised.

          When I remind them that their property, here in Michigan, was under a thick ice glacier 20,000 years ago, that had melted by about 10,000 years ago, they seem unaware of history.

          These are successful people (obviously not in climate science) and some are multi-millionaires.

          People in relatively cold Michigan being worried about global warming … is almost as strange as a teenager worried about warming in cold Sweden, who gets global attention.

  4. drumphish

    Ground observer report:

    If you haven’t noticed that the spring temps are below normal, you are not paying attention. Completely blinded by the artificial weather prognostications, which aren’t worth squat, the fake meteorologists are stumped. lol

    The record temp was set in 1934,it was 96 degrees F on May 8th of that year.

    55 degrees today is the high temp.

    There has been two or three days of temps in the low 70’s and that’s it so far this year.

    Snow is predicted for tomorrow. Not warm weather for this time of year.

    Climate change Chicken Little sky is falling imbeciles are in need of a wake up call.

    The waxing ice pack covering the Arctic Ocean just won’t go away much to the chagrin of Al Gore, environmentalist nonpareil.

    1. oebele bruinsma

      Excellent and correct observation, thanks

    2. Scissor

      I definitely recognize the cooling in Colorado. Snow is in the forecast.

  5. tygrus

    Getting confused between land temp (thermometer), sea temp (same energy change = less temperature change), land+sea temp (raw or heavily manipulated), troposphere temps (satellite radiosonde from afar). There are differences between models & observations but your chosen evidence are not the best choices. They do make it hard to validate the models with reality.

  6. mwhite

    “La Niña will end between May and July”

    Thought we’d been in neutral conditions for a while now.


      La Nina did end some time ago, but impacts on air temperatures have a ~4 month delay after Nino34 SST’s, so the cooling impact of La Nina could last into June or July (as I recall).

  7. ArndB

    Willis Eschenbach at WUWT just few weeks ago.questions about this historical temperature record, concluding with the question: Why has it warmed, in fits and starts, from the Little Ice Age up to the present?

    In 2014 Judith Curry complained that models fail to simulate the observed warming between 1910 and 1940, stating that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) does not have a convincing explanation for it.

    A recent post took on the questions “If the IPCC can’t answer it, we’ll do it. The last century warming and cooling was done by two naval wars.”

  8. CO2isLife

    Here are the Monthly Charts for the South Pole. You will see that if you identify locations that are shielded from the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor, you get no warming even though CO2 has increased from 336.84 ppm in 1979 to 414.24 ppm today, a 23% increase.

    Here are the charts and undeniable evidence CO2 doesn’t cause warming.

  9. German Professor: Climate Model Deviation From Observations "Striking"…"Politically Significant" | Un hobby...

    […] P. Gosselin, May 8, 2021 in […]

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