From KlimaNachrichten

By KlimaNachrichten Editor

Viewers of “heute” on ZDF experienced it first-hand: In an interview on 24.9.2025, Hayali asked Stefan Rahmstorf about the forecasts for global temperatures in 2050. The occasion was a current “wild forecast” by the “German Meteorological Society” (DMG). In the video of it here, he first said at min. 0:35:

“We are currently in the upper end of the climate forecasts.”

Dunja Hayali had explicitly asked him beforehand:

“Do you think 3 degrees by 2050 is also possible?”   

But even at the “upper edge” it literally goes through your marrow and legs. We had only recently warned against his forecasts, as he had already predicted the actual end of the September ice in 2011 for “today”, which definitely did not happen. Instead, we see more Arctic ice at the minimum cover in 2025 than then, even more than in 2007. It is therefore very appropriate to examine all his statements carefully. We take a look at a graphic on the topic of “Carbon Brief” from January 2025:

The observations of several data series are recorded up to and including 2024, the model values (“climate forecasts”) are shown in blue, their “edges” in light gray. What does the interested observer see? After 2000, almost all years are below the model average, 2021 and 2022 even scratched the “lower end”, 2015 barely made it to the average and most recently 2024. There is still a lot of uncertainty about the causes of this “hub” in 2023/2024, we had reported on it. We take the facts as they are.

If one compares the long-term trends 1980 to 2024 of the observations with that of the blue model mean, one finds that the real data show a warming trend about 20% lower than the average of the climate projections, which are still running too “hot”. “Climate” does not consist of 2 years! Top edge? Then we would have had to see about half a degree more! In 2025, we expect temperatures that will again be about 0.1 °C BELOW those of 2024, as the data of the past months indicate. So, in 2025 we will again be BELOW the average of the most modern climate projections, following the long-term climate trend. How can Rahmstorf then announce that we are “at the top of the projections”? It will probably remain his secret, as will the Arctic Sea ice, which has supposedly already disappeared.

Further in the video: At minute 0:58 he states:

“Now that we are at 1.3 degrees…”.

We look at long-term forecasts; it was actually about “3 degrees in 2050?”.

First of all: The 1.3 °C currently, which Rahmstorf himself mentions, is quite exactly where the average of the projections expects it, not “at the upper edge”. Again: He contradicts himself! Which scenario (“SSP”) is the right one? It is not without reason that reference is made to the “SSP2-4.5” (olive) under the figure in “Carbon Brief”, it is by far the most likely, as global emissions follow it quite closely. What do we read for 2050? It’s 2 degrees of warming, not three! They are not even projected in 2100.

So instead of fabulating about “three degrees would be a catastrophe”, he should have simply formulated:

“Three degrees in 2050 is almost impossible to achieve.”

Then the interview would have been over. However, it went a total of 5:18 min.

What else was to come? Dunja Hayali concludes at min. 1:11:

“To stay with the 3 degrees, so that’s not scaremongering…?”

Correct answer if you know the numbers: “Yes, that’s scaremongering!”

Convoluted answer from Rahmstorf at min. 1:28:

“So 3 degrees is really on the top edge … so worst case so to speak, we really don’t want to hope for that“

In real terms, the data show: In the longer term, the development of global temperatures is BELOW the average of the models, the “upper edge” is as far away as the North Star: 440 light years. To get to 3 degrees in 2050, it would have to become 1.7 degrees warmer globally in 25 years by then. From 2000 to 2025 we saw about 0.7 °C. The Polarstern comparison is very likely not lame.

Stefan Rahmstorf also tried to bring in the more realistic 2 degrees. But he had made the calculation without Hayali. She insists on the abstruse 3 degrees at min. 2:00:

“And if you take the worst-case scenario of 3 degrees, or 2.5 from my point of view, what does that mean? Can you outline that a bit? “

The woman could not be dissuaded from the number despite some attempts. Even Stefan Rahmstorf tells her (a little through the flower) that one should stick to the 2 degree forecast for 2050. It insists on completely improbable high values! Why? Here one can only guess. It is known that the Greens in particular suffer from significantly dwindling “climate fear” (we reported) in the population in terms of votes, it is above all “their issue”. A little help from Hayali for her through “Climate Porn” with unreal scenarios, even outshining Stefan Rahmstorf?

In any case, however, another cautionary tale of strongly biased journalism. Or: How do I put the words in someone’s mouth to achieve my actual goal?

Stefan Rahmstorf can’t help but throw improbable horror pictures at the wall. He was literally forced to do so by Hayali and did not have the courage to openly contradict her. As a scientist, he should have done that. So you can “fast-forward” to Min 2:55, he creates scenarios that he says are unlikely. That is apparently what Hayali wanted. Just like that.

From min 3:00 it gets purely political. What should the government do? Objectively, this would not be a question for a climate scientist, here the roles are confused. The political raid, which is out of place in context, then also goes in the direction of the USA and Donald Trump.

In the end, Rahmstorf recommends that every member of the Bundestag read the reports of the IPCC. Could his “favorite topic” AMOC collapse then still have the significance it does now? In the current 6th Assessment Report (AR6), this is granted a “medium security”, which in connection with other risks is rather “cool enthusiasm” with many question marks. However, he doesn’t like them so much with “his” AMOC topic.

---