PDF version of the 'Booklet on Naval War changes Climate'

Book Chapters,
Presented in brief summaries

Adolf Hitler started World War II in September 1939, and initiated the longest and biggest climate change of the last century. This book is about oceans, wars at sea and climate changes. It focuses on two major climate changes, which happened because man abused oceans through naval warfare two times during the last century.

Chapter B. Arctic winter 1939/40

The severe winter period in North Europe lasted from mid-December 1939 until April 1940. It was the coldest for more than 100 years. Allowing navies to participate in a war at sea, in Northern Europe natural heat reservoir, is like hastily stirring a hot soup to cool it down for quick consumption. Once the heat storage of North Sea and Baltic Seas has been diminished, water will warm again only during the next year summer.

Chapter C. The three years cold package & the war

The statistics for the war winter temperatures between 1939 and 1942 is nothing less than a “Big Bang”. In five out of six locations nothing comparable has ever happened since temperature observations have been made.

Chapter D. 20th Century Climate changed by the Naval War

The chapter will focus on the warming trend (1918-1939) and on the cooling trend (1939-1980). Naval war and supply across the seas became part of ocean physics for a long time. Correspondingly climatic changes during WWII have two distinct periods, namely the period before Pearl Harbour and the period thereafter. From September 1939 until early 1942, naval warfare was largely confined to European waters, than war at sea became a global matter.

Chapter E. Climate changes today

The book shows that the war activities on sea during WWI and WWII correlate perfectly with the only two significant climatic changes between 1900 and 2000. The first one started in 1918 and lasted until 1939, while the second started in the winter of 1939/40 and came to an end in the early 1980s. The temperature rise during the recent 25 years can have “new causes”, but it might as well be a resume of the steep temperature rise between 1918 and 1939, interrupted by WWII.

Naval War Changes Climate

Hot topics archive

2011-09-19

How naval war saved Russia in the winter of 1941/42

By: Dr. Arnd Bernaerts, 16 September 2011

The fact that weather prevented Adolf Hitler’s army to reach Moscow before the winter season is widely acknowledged. The New York Time brought the news on the front page of the 9^th December 1941 issue: "Nazis give up idea of Moscow in 1941. Winter forces abandonment of big drives in north till spring, Berlin says (New York Times, 09 Dec.1941). Temperature and snow conditions became worse than the worst imagination. What is not known is that Hitler could only blame himself and his advisors for this huge miscalculation.

See: The global temperature conditions: Fig. 1: November 1941; Fig. 2: December 1941; and Fig.3 (below): Dec./(Jan./Feb/ Temperatures at: St.Petersburg

The topic is about the role of naval war on the weather during the autumn of 1941. From all the numerous naval activities in Europe and in the North Atlantic, the eastern Baltic Sea was very severely under siege from June to December 1941. The moderating role of the Baltic Sea in the adjacent countries and eastwards, into the Euro-Asian continent, was immediately perturbed. Without the naval war operation in the Baltic Sea and in the North Sea, the weather would have not turned into an arctic mode. Modern climatology should do at least now what their predecessors should have done. For a long time now, science should have investigated and explained the reason for the exceptional winter conditions that took Europe into an icy grip. Further details in

the Booklet (PDF): http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/book.pdf or in Russian at: http://www.1okeah-1klimat.com

2011-04-05

What else need science to get serious
The Tallin case - A case for Climatic Research?.

By: Dr. Arnd Bernaerts / www.seaclimate.com/ 31 March 2011

Tallin is situated at the at the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland. Off it´s shore a naval war took place between Russia and Germany in WWII. It started in June 1941. Anthropogenic stress on the marine environment in the Baltic proper was extreme high. The air temperature during the following winter 1941/42 broke down. Is that a proof that man can change climate?

Just ten year ago S. Jevrejeva¹ discussed the air temperature condition from November-Aprilalong the Estonian coast the period 1900-1990. The record she uses (Fig. 2)shows extraordinary deviation for the years 1939/40, 1940/41, and 1941/42. Not one word about that, instead it is merely mentioned (excerpt):

The results of analysis of mean air temperatures for November-April indicate during the winter seasons almost all parts of Estonia experienced an overall warming of 0.5-1.0 °C for the period 1900-1990, however the increase is statistically significant only for station Sõrve, for the rest time series the increase is significant on the less than 95% level.

The early decades of the 20th century were cooler than the period from 1920 to 1936.

It seems that nobody asked for an explanation, or did pick up the issue, which is difficulty to accept. In order to form your own judgment, the data record from Tallin is presented according three periods, annual, half-year, and for the three winter months (DFJ). Viewing the images, below, the relevance is easy to grasp. If such material is published in internationally available journals and there is no reaction, it is inconceivable, to say the least. What is needed to become a case for climatic research? Should it not have been investigated a long time ago?

More about the subject: See the Booklet (above)

Or at: http://www.climate-ocean.com/

Page : 173 Naval activities in Baltic Sea 1941 (3_21)

Page: 181 Winter weather - Cold axis 1941/42 (3_22)

Page: 193 Stockholm’s arctic winter of 1942 (3_23)

	Impressive The Annual Deviation In WWII

	Six Months Deviation From Nov.1941 to April 1942 Ca. 7,5°C ./. 1939

	Between DJF 1939 &1942 the Diff. Is 9°C

___________________________

¹S. Jevrejeva, (2000);"Long-Term Variability of Sea Ice and Air Temperature Conditions Along the Estonian Coast", Geophysica, 36(1-2), 17-30

2011-03-01

A sudden sea ice increase in the Baltic Sea in February 2011.

Posted: 01 March 2011, by Arnd Bernaerts

Only a fortnight ago it looked as if the sea ice in the Baltic will end the season according average as indicated in Fig 1, showing the ice cover on the 7th Feb. (jäätä) vs normal ( 11/Feb, right).On week later on the 14th the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Finland were fully covered with ice for the first time this year (Fig. 2 ; Finish ice map 14.Feb.- No.89). Last year this situation appeared early March 2010 (Click here ). However during the last two weeks the ice extended quickly southwards. About 250,000 square kilometres of the Baltic Sea are now covered by ice according to the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI). The last time hat so much of the Baltic was frozen was the winter of 1986-87, when ice covered nearly 400,000 square kilometres of the sea's surface. (see: Click here )


14. February 2011 – Ice Report No.89	26. February 2011 – Ice Report No. 101
The Finnish Meteorological Institute; http://www.itameriportaali.fi/en/itamerinyt/en_GB/jaatilanne/

The quick extension over the last few days, is due to low temperature from Siberia to the Baltic countries. The cold is still present and forecast indicate hash freezing conditions (between high –3°C and low: -15°C) until early March. That will presumably mean that the
400,000 square kilometres of 1986/87 will be succeeded soon.

The sudden increase during the last few days is not so much an surprise if one recalls that Northern Europe from Great Britain to Murmansk experienced presumably in December 2010 the coldest December months during the last 100 years. For example, the United Kingdom claims that December 2011 was the coldest for 120 years. In particularly the sea ice conditions as per the 31 December 2010 had been extraordinary. At that time all conditions indicated for a record to come. For details see: “Record Sea Ice conditions for the Baltic Sea region ahead?” at : http://www.2007seatraining.de/Archiv/dec2_10.html Instead the January and February had been modest in western Europe, only north-east of the river Oder the temperatures dropped sharply in February. The cold reached the Baltic countries at about 14th February.

Last year the winter condition had been deep wintry since the Climate Summit in Copenhagen in mid December 2009. Despite this severe condition for 10 weeks, the ice cover remained in the range of normal until the end of February 2010. Details here: “The coldest winter in the Baltic Sea region for 30 years, but where is sea ice in winter 2009/10?”
Click here . This year raises even more questions science should answer. For example which role plays shipping with regard to preventing the forming of sea ice, or even contributing to the freezing process.
However, as per 28th February 2011 (see Figure 4) it seems that the process of sea ice decrease e has started.
Fig. 4: Ice Report 103, 28 Feb./FMI.

2011-02-01

Just a word on the words "weather" and "climate". Here science fails

Posted: 01 February 2011, by Arnd Bernaerts

This two words "weather" and "climate" originate in the layman sphere and are layman expression about observed, experienced, and expected conditions in the atmosphere. It can comprise one or several component, like temperature, clouds, precipitation and presumably up to two hundred or more classification, meaning, and explanation. As the life of everybody is very depended on weather and climatic conditions from childhood to death, both expressions have a great emotional component. Nothing is fixed, and the use may vary from one thought, or discussion, or day to another thought, discussion or day. This aspect is highlighted in the Glossary of the American Meteorological Society: "Weather is the state of the atmosphere, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities", but without mentioning the personal component of each individual sufficiently. (More: Here)

That is fine and sufficient as long as this general expressions are kept in the layman’s sphere, but naïve and unprofessional if the words „weather“ and “climate“ are used by science without providing a meaningful and workable definition. A surprise, or a shame? The scientific community is not able or willing to provide proper definitions, but is merely using the layman’s meaning. In science climate is still defined as average weather, or statistical weather. As already mentioned ‘weather’ may comprise many dozen if not hundreds terms, meanings, and descriptions. Used as an scientific term “weather” is an empty phrase, and open ample room for speculation and misunderstanding. One condition alone (e.g. rain, wind force, temperature, cumulus clouds) is not: “the weather”. Neither can a combination of several condition, regardless how explained, e.g. in statistical numbers, be regarded as ‘weather’, but remain one or more single aspects of the weather. That applies simultaneously to ‘climate’. As long as it is not said what the meaning of weather is, ‘average (statistical) weather’, also ‘climate’ means likewise nothing, as the word (as term) is completely unspecific. (More: Here-PDF-1MB)

This nonsense has even found its way into the highest legal instrument on atmospheric matter, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC, 1992), which neither defines “weather”, nor “climate”. Although “climate” is not defined, the word is used to title the Convention, and it is used to defined the following terms:

• Article 1, para. 2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

• Article 1, para. 3. “Climate system” means the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions.

That top the nonsense indicated above. It is rubbish pure when it is said (para 2): Climate change means a change of climate. It is in no way better when the definition of the ‘climate system’ (para 3) does not say anything more as: the interaction of nature. (More: Here)

The terminology on key terms used by science is meaningless and a scientific disgrace. Using layman’s expression in the public and political debate is irresponsible, as it may convey the impression that science knows what it talking about. It distracts the attention from issues that matter much more (see: HERE) Keep distance to such talking. Protest the misuses of layman’s terms. Regard with suspicion an academic discipline which is not able to define what it is talking about.

Further recent posts:
___http://www.whatisclimate.com/b206_need_to_talk_July_2010.html
___http://www.whatisclimate.com/b202-open-letter.html
___http://www.whatisclimate.com/who_rules_the_climate.html

2011-01-11

To the RUSSIAN Version

When will Russian Scientists explain the war winter miseries of their grandfathers in WWII.

January 2011

During the last 70 years atmospheric science in Europe and America has been reluctant to explain the extraordinary war winter 1939/40, 1940/41, and 1941/42. What surprises that also Russian scientists seem to have done nothing to bring light into this chapter of climatology, although their fathers and grandfathers suffered the most, first during the winter war in Finland 1939/40, and two year later in the Great Patriotic War with Germany. In only few months time, on 22. June, is the 70th anniversary of the German invasion of the Soviet Union. Only few months later his armies were stuck in ice and snow of unprecedented proportion. Presumably the best positioned come up with reasonable explanation why this weather adversaries happened are Russian scientist as they have immediate access to huge material collected and analysed from the first day of WWII. This request will be repeated over the next time, as it seems time not only from an historical perspective, and in honour of the veterans, but also to make the best out of the WWII disaster along which it might be possible to explain antrophogen weather modification and climate change of considerable proportion, as previously discussed at this site (October 2007) , and which is reproduce hereafter, with few modification:

“Those who understand too little about climate, will be punished by life”[1] was a lesson two very bad guys experienced back in World War II. This thesis is not too difficult to prove with regard to the reckless Soviet Union in winter 1939/40, and Nazi-Germany in winter 1941/42. Their climatic skill was too insufficient to avoid a disaster. One lost more than hundred thousand soldiers the other lost the war.

We have chosen the Finish Capital Helsinki to explain the made allegation, because this location represents North-East Europe up to Moscow in climatologic terms, the city has a long temperature data series since 1829, and Timo Niroma analysed them with regard to global warming and the effect of solar variability[2]. The latter aspect can be skipped without hesitation because we will focus on the winter season when sunray is less relevant and the bad guys received their lesson. In the first case the Soviet Union ambushed Finland (1939/40), in the second case Nazi-Germany tried to conquer Russia by reaching Moscow before the end of year 1941. Both war parties suddenly faced the coldest winter environment since the end of Little Ice Age. While this has all been already explained in detail elsewhere[3], we summarize Nimora’s analysis.

After the very warm period 1934-1939, which was warmer than today or in a tie with 1999-2005, there were suddenly the amazingly cold years of 1940-1942. These war years where about 2 degrees colder than the two warm periods.
The actual temperatures of –13,7 degree in February 1940 and –15,9 in January 1942 were not broken as records from 1829 until the 1980s.
Why did the first hot period (1934/39) end up suddenly in 1939 and a super cold three years began in 1940?

The question is, why was the Red Army not prepared for fighting a polar cold winter war on Finland’s soil, which they had started on 30th November 1939, and whey did the German Army repeated the Russian mistake and were not prepared for facing extreme arctic temperatures already in December 1941 that prevented them to reach Moscow before years end as anticipated, which proofed fatal for the whole adventure?

Actually, the Red Army had planned for a short war of few weeks to be finished and won in December 1939. Instead they very soon faced unusually harsh weather conditions which already turned into Ice Age conditions around the 20 th December 1939. The NYT reporter James Aldridge was present: “The cold numbs the brain in the Arctic hell, snow sweeps over the darkened wastes, the winds howl and the temperature is 30 degrees below zero Fahrenheit”[4] (Details: Here). At this time the earlier mentioned very warm period from 1934-1940 had defiantly ended. The question again is: Why?

The unusual weather conditions commenced with WW II on 1 st September 1939 that brought huge armadas out to sea. From now on many thousand naval and other ships navigated the seas day and night. Many thousand military encounters took place day and night. The North and Baltic Sea are not used to such stress, usually serving as central heating for Northern Europe during winter releasing their summer heat only gradually. In autumn 1939 naval activities squeezed the heat out of the seas more quickly, freeing the way for polar air from the high North and Northeast. As meteorology was not aware of such link, the ambushing Russian and German Armies had not been warned to prevent activities that would turn the two seas ‘up-site-down’, at least during the early winter season. In retrospect we can only be happy that at least the German weather service was completely unaware about it than. With huge naval activities in the eastern part of the Baltic Sea during autumn 1941 Adolph Hitler sealed his and the German Army’s destiny. Fortunately. This all explained in detail in the ‘Booklet’ as presented on this site and corresponding reference, e.g. www.seaclimate.com.

In conclusion the information and analysis by Timo Niroma are most welcome, but further investigation in Northern Europe temperatures series should look more beyond data sets, and more to marine issues particularly if the sea is dramatically affected by uncommon events. During the winters 1939/40 to 1941/42 neither the sun, nor CO2 brought Arctic conditions to Europe. The North and Baltic Sea did.

_____Author: Dr. Arnd Bernaerts, Oct.2007 (Archive: http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/archive.php

#Timo_Niroma%E2%80%99s_Helsinki_temperature_analysis_can_teach_a_lesson

Further material:

___Finland winter 1939/40 at: http://www.winterwar.com/other/weather.htm#weekly ___2008 Extreme winter 1939/40 at (left column): http://www.oceanclimate.de/

___2010 War Winter Europe 1939/40 in PDF: http://www.oceanclimate.de/Archiv/pdf/may5_10.pdf

Footnotes

[1] Based on Michail Gorbatschov’s slogan: “Those who come too late, will be punished by life”

[2] Timo Niroma, (Year ?), “The Effect of Solar Variability on Climate Calculations and conclusions” Sunspots and Temperature in January and July: Helsinki temperatures for 159 years; http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/clim.htm , http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/globwarm.htm#19341992

[3] Arnd Bernaerts, “War Changes Climate”, 2005, Trafford, Canada; and other material: see the given links (right column).

[4] The New York Times, 25 December 1939. 30 degrees below zero Fahrenheit equals minus 34,4 ° Celsius

2010-11-05

Cold pole Skagerrak –Winter 1940/41!
Did man contributed?

By Arnd Bernaerts, November 2010
Excerpt from www.what-is-climate.com

Many believe in natural climate variability. 70 years ago the winter in the Skagerrak region was extreme cold. (see: Fig.; D/J/F 1940/41, Giss) Only few years later Hesselberg et al stated that many low temperatures all over Norway had been the coldest ever observed in January 1941¹, the by far lowest at all stations around the Skagerrak. An all time record was measured at Oslo/Blindern (-26°C), and Viborg/Denmark (–30°C). Is assuming a purely natural cause a mistake?

The 1930s had been the warmest since the Little Ice Age. That turned suddenly to the coldest winters in Europe in the moment World War II started in September 1939. The first war winter became the coldest in Northern Europe for more than 100 years. The third even succeeded the 1st war winter, particularly in Eastern Europe. Towards the end of this two winters naval activities run high in the North and Baltic Sea. That was quite different prior the winter 1940/41. The Baltic Sea had had a year without belligerent activities. But since early April 1940 the Germans sailed with huge naval forces northwards to conquer Norway. For the rest of the year the sea areas along Norway was a battle ground from the Skagerrak to Narvik. Uncountable naval activities penetrated the sea over considerable depths.

See Chapter 3, p. 45-48; "Booklet on Naval War changes Climate"; or Буклет "Флотскaя войнa изменяет Климат"

The cold could have happen only due to a lack of heat reserve in the sea area from Dover to Bergen. Presumably the Skagerrak has contributed as well. Further more, the southern coast of Norway the sea has a depths of up the 700 meters, with a temperature difference to the surface of more than 10°C in August (see Fig.2).
Any mixing up side down would cool the surface layer as well. Has this combination contributed to the record winter conditions in the countries around the Skagerrak (Fig.3)?

From a climatologically point of view, the event possibly marks a great failure of atmospheric science. Did naval activities in 1940 have anything to do with the cold center around the Skagerrak? If that would be proved one day, it would be shocking. Human activities moderated the winter 1940/41 seven decades ago, and science and the general public do not know. Man or ‘natural climate variability’ that is a great question.

More about the subject:
Booklet (about 100 pages): http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/ or http://www.1okeah-1klimat.com/
and

“Climate Change & Naval War” (2005),Victoria/CA, pages 326.

Online: http://climate-ocean.com/
For details see: "Occupation of Norway - Return of Ice Age (3_11)"
at: http://climate-ocean.com/03_11-Dateien/03_11.htm

_________________________
¹ Hesselberg, TH., and Birkeland, B.J. (1944); ‘The continuation of the secular variations of the climate of Norway 1940-50’, in: Geofysiske Publikasjoner Vol. XV. No. 5. , Bergen 1944-56; p.14, Table C.

2010-10-29

Phenomenal Wind Shift – Cause Unknown

Posted: 28 October 2010

The newest NOAA: ”Arctic Report Card: Update for 2010” mention a phenomenal wind change that happened previously only three times before in the last 160 years, without mentioning the years. One winter was definitely the 1st war winter in WWII, 1939/40. There was for example a wind shift in Great Britain (see Fig.). The temperature maps, than and now, prove a high similarity.

R. Scherhag explained the sudden change 1939/40 a few years later in this way:
“The temperature anomalies which were observed in the northern hemisphere in January 1940 can easily be explained by the occurrence of the pressure deviations.” (Richard Scherhag, 1951, “Die große Zirkulationsstörung im Jahr 1940”; Annalen der Meteorologie, Vol. 7-9, pp. 327-328). In the same way he tried to explain the Arctic warming (1919 to 1939) in the 1930s.

C.E.P. Brooks (1938) required to name the reason: "Attributing the recent period of warm winters to an increase in the strength of the atmospheric circulation only pushes the problem one stage further back, for we should still have to account for the change of circulation." (in: “The Warming Arctic”, The Meteorological Magazine, 1938, p.29-32.). The next answer was not far: It’s the ocean that matter.

And here we are, 70 years later. Who is not able to explain the early Arctic warming since 1919, and the onset of the global cooling since winter 1939/40, is unlikely to explain convincingly the mechanisms that drives the conditions in the polar region today.

Further Reading
(see also the Post 08.Oct.2010 – Archive)
Отрывок из книги иУнивepc - Excerpt from iUniverse book:
__Реакция Северного и Балтийского Морея
At: http://www.1okeah-1klimat.com/pdf/b31.pdf
__The reaction of the North and Baltic Seas
http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/pdf/b31.pdf

More about the NOAA Report at:
http://www.what-is-climate.com/
Leave a comment at: http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/noaa-%E2%80%9Carctic-report-card-update-for-2010%E2%80%9D/

2010-10-20

Sea ice cover in the Baltic Sea in a cold winter

Posted: 16 October 2010

The period and extent of sea icing in Northern Europe may give interesting climatic change indications, and more important which influence human activities may have had. The last winter 2009/2010 was the coldest since 1987, put the sea ice cover remained far behind (Fig. left ) the ice extent of about 85% 30 years ago. (Details: HERE).

A fully ice cover happened in the winter 1939/40, the first time since after 1883. The Swedish Meteorological Service¹ analysed the situation 71 years ago as follows:

--“Throughout the autumn 1939 high pressure prevailed all over Scandinavia, and a widely persistent wind flow from the north. The icing of seas and rivers started in the northern und middle part of Norrland, in the north of the NW of Svealand in the mid of October, about 2 weeks earlier then usually. The first ice reports from the ports Toe and Lulea came in on the 2nd of November. It remained modest throughout the month, and only since the 27th of November sea ice appeared in other ports, including Hasparand and Karlsborg.”

On the 30th November the Soviet Union ambushed Finland, by land, sea and air, which increased the activities at sea in the Gulf of Finland tremendously. Although the temperatures dropped to record low since the mid of December, the Gulf of Finland was still open as far East as the median of Pellinki on January 15, 1940, presumably due to the tremendous naval activities, until sea ice covered the Gulf very suddenly and completely a few days later.

Does a cold winter loom? Has the wind already changed as in 1939?

Posted: 08 October 2010

The recent claim by Polish climatologists, that the warm Atlantic Gulf Current is cooling fast, which may cause the harshest winter since long[1], became quickly a news story and a topic in the blogosphere[2]. Not everyone agrees. To NASA the current is stronger and warmer for many years, while Alexander Frolov, head of the Russian Meteorological Agency assumes that Russia will have a normal winter, perhaps not as harsh as last year.

Indeed, during the month October 1939 the general wind direction had changed almost entirely. The weather analysis of the German meteorological service wrote[3]: Hamburg reported winds from the North-Eastern quadrant on almost two thirds of the dates observed (33% easterly winds out of 65%) while North-Eastern winds accounted only for a quarter (26%) of several previous years’ averages. Otherwise most frequent direction of the wind – South-West (24%) – accounted for 9% of all cases. Thus the observations at this station alone show what the weather charts of an extensive area will obviously indicate as well. (More at: http://climate-ocean.com/02_12-Dateien/02_12.html )

The current situation (07 Oct.10) does not differ very much from the same time in 1939. Let's see how things develop, which will be covered here.


07 October 1939 (NCAR/wetterzentrale)	07 October 2010 (University Cologne)

Image 07/Oct/1939:
___NCAR/wetterzentrale, Bodendruckkarten 1880-1949) at: http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsslpeur.html Image 07/Oct/2010:
___University Cologne at: http://www.meteo.uni-koeln.de/meteo.php?show=En_We_Wk

[1] "Projected Coldest Winter In 1000 Years May Be Caused By Global Warming?" ; at: http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/05/projected-coldest-winter-in-1000-years-may-be-caused-by-global-warming/
[2] The Voice of Russia: http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/09/22/21716105.html Watts-up-with-that: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/04/fight-brewing-between-polish-and-russian-forecasters-over-a-potentially-record-cold-winter-ahead/
[3] Seewarte, 02 November 1939.

2010-02-18

Different sea ice conditions: 1939/40 & 2009/10.
A matter of naval war?

Prepared on 15th February 2010 (Top-right image – SST 14. Feb. 2010)

Excerpt from Wikipedia, Feb.15, 2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2009%E2%80%932010_in_Europe
“The winter of 2009–2010 in Europe has been unusually cold with atypical snowfalls in several parts of the Northern Hemisphere. In January 2010, the northern half of Europe experienced one of its coldest winters since 1981–1982. Starting on 16 December 2009 light snowfalls and weather warnings took place. A persistent weather pattern brought cold moist air from the north …. and saw many parts of Europe experiencing heavy snowfall and record low temperatures. “

From Admiral Danish Fleet Report 13/Feb./2010:
http://forsvaret.dk/SOK/eng/National/Ice/Ice_Reports/Pages/2010-02-13.aspx
Kattegat: There are areas thin open drift ice, new ice and pancake ice overall in Kattegat. Along east facing coastlines and in sheltered bay and inlets there are close drift ice, new ice and fast ice up to about 30 cm thick. Belt sea the Sound and western Baltic: There are areas with close to open drift ice and fast ice up to about 50 cm thick.

COMMENT: The winter 2009/2010 is one of the coldest since WWII, but the sea ice conditions in the Baltic Sea and Kattegat are very different. The sea ice in winter 1939/40 was one of the most severe, and the first year after 1883 with the highest ice cover possible, while the current sea ice conditions are modest in comparison. What is the reason? Was naval war the cause in 1939/40?

This information is related to: http://climate-ocean.com/

2009-09-16

Are 70 Years Ignorance enough?

The Biggest Climatic Shift Started in Autumn 1939.

By: oceanclimate.de / 30 August 2009

Friday the 1st September 1939 can be set as turning point from a warming-up period to a period of global cooling for three decades. Only four months after Hitler had dragged the world into World War II, Northern Europe was back to the conditions of the Little Ice Age. It was the coldest winter for more than 100 years.
(For details see: Essay 2008, in top-box, above)

Back in 1943 the British scientist A.J. Drummond observed: "The present century has been marked by such a widespread tendency towards mild winters that the 'old-fashioned winters', of which one had heard so much, seemed to have gone for ever. The sudden arrival at the end of 1939 of what was to be the beginning of a series of cold winters was therefore all the more surprising" [1] And what explanation does modern science offer? Non! The possible impact of the naval war on the climate is a non issue in climatology. Is that tolerable?

OCEANCLIMATE pursues the matter since long (see material in the right column). The preface of a book titled: "War Changes Climate – The Naval War Effect" [2] , raised the matter in a symbolic narrative:

Asta Lindskog had only ten minutes for her lunch break at mobile phone giant Ericsson's canteen in Stockholm. And now the soup was too hot. She turned the spoon through the soup bowl. Her thoughts drifted to the looming war hoping that the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain could persuade Adolph Hitler not to make war. If not, what would be the future for little Eric and sweet Signe, her children of four and two, and the spoon moved quickly. "Calm down", she ordered herself, "it will not come to the worst". When realizing the soup was suddenly too cold her mind jump: "Sweden will hardly see a mild winter if navies at war churn and turn the Baltic Sea about as I just did with the soup." The war started within few weeks time and all countries around the Baltic Sea experienced the coldest winter for more than 100 years.

It came as worst as Asta had expected (see: Fig. "January Temperature in Sweden & Germany" below). Very illustrative is the general situation in January 1940, as shown in the Scherhag image published in 1951 [3]. His colleague M. Rodewald [4]. already recognised few years earlier that a "secular heat wave" had been felt over most of the Earth especially striking between 1900 and 1939, so that it was all the more surprising that there was a series of three severe winters in succession in 1939/40, 1940/41 and 1941/42. Rodewald's observation is now 60 years old and no questions have been asked why the series of three severe war winters occurred. The severity is particularly well demonstrated if reviewed as 'package', as successive cold winters in Northern Europe are rare [5]. By taking the full record available for Stockholm since 1756 into account, the first three war winters beat all corresponding years by length (see the three images in row). Would it not be high time to study the WWII war winters in depth and learn from it now. 70 years have already been lost.

See also in the Archive of: http://www.oceanclimate.de/

IPCC ignores the start of a four decade cooling in winter 1939/40. Why? J. Everett emphasizes that cooling, rather than warming, is in our future. Click here: (Archive 28th January 2008)
Who is going to explain the global cooling from 1940 to about 1970? When will NASA expert James Hansen do it? Click here: (Archive 10th April 2008)
WORLD CLIMATE REPORT on: A Sea Surface Story[1]; Click here: Archive 22nd May 2008


Sweden	GHCN Land Surface Data 1881-1951	January 1881/1951	GHCN Land Surface Data 1881-1951		Germany

Footnotes:

[1] Drummond, A. J.; 1943; "Cold winters at Kew Observatory, 1783-1942"; Quarterly Journal of Royal Met. Soc., No. 69, 1943, pp. 17-32.

[2] BOOK (2006): http://www.warchangesclimate.com/index.htm

[3] Richard Scherhag, 1951, "Die große Zirkulationsstörung im Jahr 1940"; Annalen der Meteorologie, Issue 7-9, pp. 321ff.

[4] M. Rodewald, 1948, "Das Zustandekommen der strengen europäischen Winter", in: Annalen der Meteorologie, Vol. 4/5, p. 97 .

[5] A statement by: Liljequist, Gösta H. (Severity); 'The severity of the winters at Stockholm 1757–1942', in: Geografiska Annaler 1-2, 1943, p. 81-104; and as an extended paper in: Meddelanden, Serien Uppsatser, Stockholm, 1943, p.1-24.

2008-12-29

„A Focus on Climate During the Past 100 Years“

by Brönnimann et al.; 2008[1]

A Comment the Editor’ s “Introductory Paper” [2]

The ‘Introductory Paper’ is fair in acknowledging that there are many open question[3], but has little prove to offer if it claims that the past 100 years are significant for “the changeover of a climate system dominated by natural forcing to a climate system dominated by anthropogenic influences”[4]. The paper presents the matter as fact which is elsewhere formulated as question: “Was the 1910–1945 trend a result of “natural variability” and the 1950–2003 trend an “anthropogenic” warming?” (p.9). The paper says also that the introduction gives an overview of the book in the context of recent research, highlighting some of the key findings and concepts (p.2), but rarely does. Instead a mingle-mangle of other findings are presented with little, if any, critical review.

For example:

INTRODUCTION p.2: During the past 100 years the Arctic experienced two pronounced warming periods. Between 1915 and 1945, annual mean temperatures increased by about 1.8°C. This period was followed by a cooling and a more recent warming, which started around 1970 and is still ongoing.

COMMENT A:

Any assessment of the recent climate should acknowledge that a global warming trend had started at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850[5], because the mentioned two pronounced warming periods could be part of one warming-up since 1850, interrupted by a three decade cooling phase. By global warfare? See here PDF

The sudden increase of temperatures started in winter 1918/19 (see: upper graphic) and not 1915.

The warming was initially not global, but had an impact in the USA until about 1933 (see graphic: Global Temp.)

The warming did not lasted until 1945 but ended with three extreme Northern Europe winters immediate after World War II commenced. See HERE

INTRODUCTION p.8/9: The 1910–1945 (warming) trend was most pronounced over the Atlantic and North America, while Europe experienced a winter cooling. In contrast, the 1950–2003 period exhibited a strong winter warming of the northern hemispheric land masses. What may have caused this difference in climatic response?

COMMENT B:

The third shown graphic for the time period Nov.1936 to Oct.1938 indicates the trend was quite different as claimed by Brönnimann.

The period between 1940 and 1970 was strongly influenced by a global cooling.

And is there a difference in climatic response? Yes & No!

YES: The early warming had been caused by the West Spitsbergen Current, while the second warming was actually marking the end of the interrupted warming trend from 1940 to 1970s presumably partly due to the naval warfare during WWII.

NO: Because the discussed changes had been generated and controlled by the oceans and seas.

The Booklet here presented discusses the two climatic shifts during the last century in detail.

Footnotes:

[1] Brönnimann; S.; Luterbacher, J.; Ewen, T.; Diaz, H.F.; Stolarski, R.S.; Neu, U. (Eds.) ; 2008; “A Focus on the Climate During the Past 100 Years”; pages 364

[2] Ditto; the Introductory Paper is titled as the book; “A Focus on the Climate During the Past 100 Years”; p.1-28.

[3] For example: (p.3): Our understanding of the climate mechanisms operating in the Arctic on different timescales is still limited; (p.8): What may have caused this difference in climatic response?

[4] See: Introduction, p.2 and Conclusion, p.20

[5] According James Hansen the overall Earth’s average temperature rose by about 0.4°C for the period from 1880 to 1978, interrupted by a global cooling from 1940-1970; see: David Herring, November 5, 2007, „Earth’s Temperature Tracker“ , NASA at : http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GISSTemperature/printall.php

2008-10-17

A Large-Scale Experiment with Climate
– The Extreme Winter of 1939/40 and Climate Research –

THE ISSUE: Europe suddenly experienced its coldest winter in more than 100 years. Since the 19th century, winters had become successively milder. “The present century has been marked by such a widespread tendency towards mild winters that the ‘old-fashioned winters’, of which one had heard so much, seemed to have gone for ever. The sudden arrival at the end of 1939 of what was to be the beginning of a series of cold winters was therefore all the more surprising,” reported the British scientist A. J. Drummond in the QJoR Met. Society as early as 1943. But neither he nor climate researchers in general went searching for the cause. This article explores the possible reasons.

From the time the Second World War began on 1 September, the weather displayed a broad range of peculiarities on both the local and large scale. Only four months into the war, Northern Europe was back in a small ice age. A look at meteorological developments through the end of February 1940 reveals a direct or indirect relationship to the high level of naval warfare activities in the North and Baltic Seas. But the thesis of the effects of the naval war is only one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is much more decisive and, in view of the ongoing climate discussion, can be called dramatic, even irresponsible. The climate makes an abrupt about-face in the winter of 1939/40, and climate researchers show no interest – neither immediately after the war nor half a century later. The IPCC has been talking about climate change for 20 years now, yet still does not have a clue about events in the autumn and winter of 1939/40 and whether this was the start of global cooling lasting more than 30 years. This is not a question of just any historical study, but of recognising how climate functions, how it can suddenly change and what the underlying causes of such changes can be. In particular, did human activity play a small or even a major role in the occurrence of the most severe winter in a period of more than 100 years?

The naval war in the autumn and winter of 1939/40 was a gigantic field study with verifiable effects. Researchers should have realised this and drawn conclusions relevant for the current climate discussion long ago.

more...

2008-09-23

Is HELCOM ignoring a crucial aspect ?
-Why is the Baltic Sea warming stronger than the global trend?-

Air temperature in the Baltic Basin has increased by 0.7°C per 100 years since the late 19th century – a stronger trend than the global trend, is widely claimed[1]. A HELCOM Report subsequently concluded that “based on available regional modelling studies, a warming of the mean annual temperature in the order of 3ºC to 5ºC is projected for the total basin during this century[2]. Despite this alarming facts and claims a major aspect, which could significantly enhance the warming trend is not even mentioned, respectively discussed.

1ocean 1climate Helcom recognizes that the Baltic Sea is one of the most intensely trafficed marine areas in the world. Both the numbers and the sizes of ships have grown in recent years, especially oil tankers, and this trend is expected to continue.[3] There are about 1,800 - 2,000 ships in the Baltic marine area at any given moment[4]. This armada is turning the Baltic Sea upper sea level of a thickness up to 7 meters and more ‘up-side-down’ within two weeks or less. And that shall have no effect on the regional air temperatures over the four seasons?

1ocean 1climate The impact of shipping in the Baltic region is simple: The upper 3m of water has the same heat capacity as the whole of the atmosphere. Hence the heat required to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 1ºC can be obtained from cooling the upper 3m of water by the same amount[5]. One can only wonder why this fundamental aspect in the Baltic Sea climatology is completely ignored.

For example: a recent paper concluded: Centennial time scale results indicate that the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries were the coldest centuries, while the 1690s were the coldest decade and 1695 the coldest year in the last 500 years. The results also indicate that the twentieth century was the warmest century with the least MIB (annual maximum ice extent) of the last 500 years. On a decadal time scale, the 1990s, 1930s and 1730s were the warmest decades and comparable in terms of both water temperature and MIB.[6]

As the 1930s decade belongs to the warmest, and while factual this decade ended abrupt in winter 1939/40, an answer should be given: why?. Only four months into World War II, and due to huge naval activities and warfare, the climate was back in the Little Ice Age, giving Northern Europe the coldest winter for more than 100 years, as thoroughly explained at this site.
1ocean 1climate
Why exist today so little willingness to listen to an eye witness, like M. Rodewald[7], who wondered back in 1947: >>a “secular heat wave” made itself felt over most of the Earth. We noticed this especially in the increasing mildness of the winters which, while beginning in the previous century, became more and more striking between 1900 and 1939. So it is all the more surprising that there was a series of three severe winters in succession in 1939/40, 1940/41 and 1941/42, appearing to indicate a sudden reversal of the previous development rather than a slow deceleration, contrary to the sustainment tendency of circulation and temperature deviation.>>

When HELCOM Secretary Juha-Markku Leppänen[8] considers that: “The HELCOM strategy in relation to climate change should aim to limit or mitigate adverse impacts as well as to enhance the resilience of the Baltic marine environment by improving its capacity to cope with the stress of climate change,” he should require that Helcom adviser pay attention to the temperature impact of movement of ships. The Large-Scale Experiment with Climate during war winter 1939/40 should not longer be ignored.

More:
A Large-Scale Experiment with Climate
– The Extreme Winter of 1939/40 and Climate Research –

[1] Omstedt, A. & Storch, H.; 2006, „Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin“, BACC Conference for EUROceans.doc. With reference to: The BACC Author Team, 2008, Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin, Berlin 2008.

[2] HELCOM Thematic Assessment in 2007, Climate Change in the Baltic Sea Area, Proceedings No. 111, p. 6 .

[3] Summary of HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, adopted by HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, 15 November 2007, Krakow, Poland

[4] Press release 03 August 2006, at http://www.helcom.fi/press_office/news_helcom/en_GB/Ship_traffic_stat/?u4.highlight=2000%20sizable%20ships

[5] B.R.Stanton, 1991, “Ocean Circulation and Ocean-Atmosphere Exchanges”, Climate Change, Vol. 18: p.175-194

[6] Hansson, Daniel and A. Omstedt; 2007, „Modelling the Baltic Sea ocean climate on centennial time scale: temperature and sea ice“, Climate Dynamics, p. 763-778

[7] M. Rodewald, 1948, „Das Zustandekommen der strengen europäischen Winter“, in: Annalen der Meteorologie, Heft 4/5, S. 97.

[8] Helcom Press release March 2007: “Baltic Sea region air temperature likely to achieve 3ºC to 5ºC increase this century”

2008-05-26

„Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”? No!

- The Ocean Rules the Climate, and Human Activities can alter the Rules of the Ocean -

Under the editorial guidance of the eminent climatologist S. Fred Singer, a group of about 30 scientists published a paper: „Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate“[1] recently criticizing the IPCC[2]. In conclusion they say: “Our imperfect understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change means the science is far from settled” (p.2), and that their paper “falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases” (p.28).

By all respect for the work, the paper title is grossly misleading, if not erroneous. They actually review the extreme narrow question of carbon dioxide (CO2), but do not hesitate to make the pompous announcement that „Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. If man-made CO2 is not contributing to climatic changes, it would not be a prove that anthropogenic climate forcing does not exist. This site as well as other sites covering the global cooling starting in winter 1939/40 in Northern Europe[3], and the early arctic warming from 1919-1939 (see here), analyze whether “human activities” in oceans and seas could have contributed. Human activities did. But this is not the only flaw.

Of not less concern is the notion that: nature rule the climate. The authors are in so far in full agreement with IPCC scientists. They actually agree with the text of the UN Convention on Climate Change, 1992 (CCC)[4], which defines: "Climate system" means the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions.” All that this boils down to is ‘the interactions of the natural system’. What is the point of a term if it explains nothing, said a letter to NATURE[5] back in 1992 already (here). The matter gets even worse when realizing that the CCC has not defined “climate” at all. Neither Singer et al. nor IPCC seem to care about this situation. More at: what-is-climate.

Presumably science would serve the general public better when they would listen to Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) who said: “Water is the driver of nature”. Not nature rules climate, but water rules the nature on this earth, and the water on earth is so much synonym with the oceans and seas that it can be said: Climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means[6].

As the oceans rule our climate, it is high time to organize a comprehensive ocean observing system, understand the ocean processes and changes to prevent human induced changes, and protect the marine environment from the top to the bottom.
ab

Footnotes:

[1] Singer, S. Fred (ed); (2008), „Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate“; © 2008, Science and Environmental Policy Project / S. Fred Singer; Published by THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf .

[2] IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[3] http://www.seaclimate.com .

[4] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf .

[5] NATURE, Volume 360, 26 November 1992, page 292; see: Essays http://www.arctic-warming.com/

[6] ditto

2008-03-03

The result of scientific research recently and before WWII

Scientific position when it comes to explaining the phenomenon arctic warming 90 years ago has already been highlighted in the Introduction above. It might therefore be of interest to see to what extent the phenomenon was discussed before WWII.

One of the first scientists who highlighted the extraordinary temperature development at the ‘Green Harbour’ Spitsbergen station was the Norwegian scientist B.J.Birkeland, in 1930 (op. cit). He was very surprised of what he discovered. He finishes his brief essay with this statement: “In conclusion I would like to stress that the mean deviation results in very high figures, probably the greatest yet known on earth”. A couple of years later, in 1936, a number of authors put Birkeland’s findings into a wider context.

(A) Johansson (op. cit., 1936) focused his investigation on the relevance of sunspots. Yet, some analytical consideration is nevertheless interesting. For example: (a) In 1919, the statistical means crosses zero-value; or, in other words, all previous years are colder; all later years are warmer; (b) Between 1917 and 1928, the increase during the summer season is of +0.9°C per 10 years, and in winter, of +8.3°C, in February, of +11.0°C; (c) It seems that the changes are coming from the North. (d) Johannsson’s main conclusion is that the increased air circulation (15 % higher) between 1896 and 1915 had gradually changed the current and ice conditions, thus altering the borders between the Arctic gulf current climate and the true Arctic climate further north.

(B) Scherhag (op. cit., 1936/8) refers to Birkeland’s work from 1930, assuming that all warming analyses have to begin with the observation of the Spitsbergen phenomenon, because only here the temperature increase was measured in the winter of 1918/19 for the first time (Scherhag, 1939); (a) There were increased Gulf Current temperatures, particularly significant in the Barents- and East Greenland Sea. (b) The extraordinary increase of the winter temperatures in Greenland (Scherhag, Nordeuropa, 1936) , was caused by a considerable retreat of the ice border and the prominent increase of the atmospheric circulation (Scherhag, ditto).
(c) Scherhag (op.cit., 1937) states that a thorough research of the temperature changes over the whole northern half of the globe during the period 1921-1930 confirmed that the largest part of the investigated region had been, indeed, considerably warmer during the decade 1921-1930. (d) Scherhag stressed: “such kind of climate changes as could now be observed in Spitsbergen and along the western coast of Greenland were certainly not restricted to a small region but must be global” (Scherhag, 1937). (e) In his subsequent research work, Scherhag pays little attention to the natural circumstances from Spitsbergen in the late 1910s, merely acknowledging that the extent of the temperature increase would be, without any doubt, the greatest in the Arctic (Scherhag, 1939).

(C) Brooks (op.cit.,1938): (a) The Spitsbergen branch of the North Atlantic Current has greatly increased in strength and the surface layer of cold water in the Arctic Ocean has decreased in thickness from 200 to 100 metres. (b) Attributing the recent period of warm winters to an increase in strength of atmospheric circulation (in reference to Scherhag) only pushes the problem one stage back, because one should still have to account for the change in circulation. (c) It may also be objected that the atmospheric circulation depends on the difference of temperature between low and high latitudes and, hence, should be weakened instead of strengthened by a warming in the arctic. (d) Regardless the mechanism, the rise of temperature did begin prematurely and had a cause, though it is conceivable that it arose spontaneously in the incessant kaleidoscope of temporary pressure distributions.

(D) Manley (op. cit., 1944): (a) Temperature in Norway, especially in the North, has certainly risen far more in recent years than at any other time in the last two centuries. (b) A more vigorous atmospheric circulation in the region of the Norwegian Sea would explain the observed facts, namely the recession of the ice-limit, the increased frequency of south-westerly winds, rather than south-easterly, in North Norway, and the consequent marked rise in winter temperatures which has attained its greatest magnitude in the north of the Scandinavian Peninsula.

All pre-WWII papers acknowledge the suddenness of the rise in temperatures in the North Atlantic region since the early 1920s, but pay too little attention to the location of Spitsbergen, an island in the mid of a huge sea area, with sea-ice in the north and at the edge of the Norwegian Sea in the South. However, the great-grandfathers of today’s climatologists discussed this matter very seriously and in a way, which is not very different from today.

READ MORE		READ MORE
From this site		Full text of HOT TOPIC
Spitsbergen 1918—The big warming -The Jump Get the PDF!
Seas under naval stress Naval warfare: 1914-1916 Get the PDF!
Northern Mine Barrage Get the PDF!
A possible cause for the severe warming: 1918-1939 Get the PDF!

2008-02-13

Aspects concerning the big warming at Spitspergen from 1918-1940

Until recently, a systematic ocean data collection did not exist, with the exception of the frequent sampling of the sea surface temperatures made by merchant vessels. But these measurements were very random, very selective and very insufficient. Analysing oceanic conditions and changes has to be largely based on air temperature observation. At Spitsbergen, the first permanent temperature data series recording began in 1912. In other places from the Nordic Sea areas, e.g. North Greenland, Jan Mayen, and Bear Island, weather records date from the 1920s. Actually, for the first quarter of the last century, solid data concerning the polar region are limited and rely only on a number of single expeditions and interpretation of secondary observations.

As for the facts concerning temperature development in the high northern hemisphere, the over-proportional rise in the wider polar region is well established and undisputed. The temperature increase is two to three times higher than the global average of the last century. This is well indicated in all temperature graph series available. What these graphs and tables do not indicate clearly enough is the purpose or relevance of the statistical accumulation of data series. The following applications of temperature data are either related to geographical, earth surface or to seasonal issues, as it follows:

Geographical: (A) Local: Spitsbergen, latitude ca. 80 degrees North; (B) Regional: Arctic/Polar region, at least higher than 60º North; (C) Global: Northern Hemisphere; (D) Global: Northern and Southern Hemisphere, whereby this statistical mean can be neglected because it doesn’t provide any clue on Spitsbergen warming; or

Earth Surface: (A) Land-based air temperature observation. Concerning air temperature data taken at Spitsbergen, it should be observed that, due to the permanent and extended sea ice-cover, the island is partly similar to an inner continental place. But as the southern flank of the island is open to the sea and the closest continent is almost 1000 km away, this South-Sector is under very strong oceanic influence; (B) Sea-surface air temperatures (SST), which play no important role in this investigation simply because they do not exist in any reasonable number and time for the period in question.

Season or specific months: (A) Seasonal temperatures are of particular interest because Polar Regions at high latitudes are an outstanding example of the considerable impact and influence of the sun decreases in wintertime as far down as the North- and Baltic Sea (both above 50° North). (B) Monthly mean data are a tool equivalent to the seasonal temperature measurement. Their applications make sense in exceptional cases. Spitsbergen is such an exceptional case.

In our research and effort to explain the big warming at Spitsbergen and its causes, air temperatures series play a major part. Focusing on certain aspects such as location and time sequence may reveal the source of the warming.

READ MORE		READ MORE
From this site		Full text of HOT TOPIC
Spitsbergen 1918—The big warming -The Jump Get the PDF!
Seas under naval stress Naval warfare: 1914-1916 Get the PDF!
Northern Mine Barrage Get the PDF!
A possible cause for the severe warming: 1918-1939 Get the PDF!

2008-01-17

Recent conclusion on the arctic warming in the 1920s/1930s

Natural fluctuations are a component of the climatic system (Johannessen
et al., 2004);

Natural variability is the most likely cause (Bengtsson, et al., 2004);

Sun has partly caused the warming (Daly, 2004);

The 1930s warm period did not coincide with a positive phase of the NAO
(North Atlantic Oscillation) (Polyakov et al., 2004).

The latest IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (IPCC 2007) paid little attention
to the previous statements and summarised the ‘arctic warming’ as
it follows:

Average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate
in the past 100 years. Arctic temperatures have high decadal variability, and
a warm period was also observed from 1925 to 1945.

One century has passed since arctic warming started in the late 1910s, but
science is still unable to give a consistent explanation of the warming causes
and origins. This investigation attempts to offer clues and explanations about
what caused the arctic warming at the beginning of the last century. However,
as a Conference paper, it is actually only a brief summary of a more detailed
work, which is fully accessible at http://www.arctic-warming.com.

It will be demonstrated that the location and the timing of the first observed
arctic warming in the early 20th Century could be identified with high precision.
We will prove that the warming phenomenon started at Spitsbergen and, even
more that it started within a very short time frame of only a few months, in
1918. Therefore, the most dramatic air temperature increase was recorded in
the winter of 1918/19 and lasted in force only until ca. 1922. Over a very
short period of time, from the winter of 1915/16 to the winter of 1921/22,
winter temperatures had risen by about 10ºC, never coming back to pre
1918/19 level, but increasing at a lower level until ca. 1940.

A further highly significant aspect is the Spitsbergen location. On one hand,
a substantial part of the water masses reaching Spitsbergen have either passed
the West coast of Scotland or came from the North Sea, which might have had
dramatic consequences back in 1918. These water areas around Great Britain
had been under considerable constraint due to naval warfare during World War
I (WWI), whereby the ca. 2000 kilometre distance between the two locations
is not a significant one. Oceanic currents carried all the naval battleground
water northwards, in the Spitsbergen region, within only a few weeks or a couple
of months. Once the ‘composition’ of the battleground seawater
structure has changed, it remained so.

It is important for this investigation to mention that only the winter season
is covered: not only because of the fact that only winter temperature recorded
a dramatic increase, but because it covers a period during which the sun influence
is inexistent for many months, or its direct influence is negligible.

READ MORE		READ MORE
From this site		Full text of HOT TOPIC
Spitsbergen 1918—The big warming -The Jump Get the PDF!
Seas under naval stress Naval warfare: 1914-1916 Get the PDF!
Northern Mine Barrage Get the PDF!
A possible cause for the severe warming: 1918-1939 Get the PDF!

2007-10-30

Timo Niroma’s Helsinki temperature analysis can teach a lesson

“Those who understand too little about climate, will be punished by life”

After the very warm period 1934-1939, which was warmer than today or in a tie with 1999-2005, there were suddenly the amazingly cold years of 1940-1942. These war years where about 2 degrees colder than the two warm periods.

The actual temperatures of –13,7 degree in February 1940 and –15,9 in January 1942 were not broken as records from 1829 until the 1980s.

Why did the first hot period (1934/39) end up suddenly in 1939 and a super cold three years began in 1940?

Author: Arnd Bernaerts, Oct.2007

Footnotes

[1] Based on Michail Gorbatschov’s slogan: “Those who come too late, will be punished by life”

[3] Arnd Bernaerts, “War Changes Climate”, 2005, Trafford, Canada; and other material: see the given links (right column).

[4] The New York Times, 25 December 1939. 30 degrees below zero Fahrenheit equals minus 34,4 ° Celsius

2007-07-10

Al Gore and WE

“Moving Beyond Kyoto”, The New York Times, July 1, 2007 1

“We – the human species – have arrived at a moment of decision.”

“What is at risk of being destroyed is not our planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings”.

“We – all of us – now face a universal threat. Though it is not from outside this world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.”

With these empathetic words Al Gore claims, that this is not a political but a moral issue that affects the survival of human civilisation, in a recent article in The New York Times1.

Should WE – all of us – be happy that Al Gore not only makes ‘Live Earth’ concerts available around the globe, but also demands the rapid conclusion of a tougher climate change pact, to reduce carbon emission, as it appears to him, that there is, after all, a planetary emergency; or

Should WE – all of us – be on high alert when being advised by someone who seems to care little for historical context when saying:

“Just in the last few months, new studies have shown that the north pole ice cap – which helps the planet cool itself – is melting nearly three times faster than the most pessimistic computer models predicted” 1;

Such claim is imprudent, superficial and grossly misleading as long as the dramatic arctic warming at Spitsbergen from 1918 to 1940 is ignored and not sufficiently explained.

WE – all of us – should be very reserved, if a well-documented climatic event only 90 years ago has neither been thoroughly investigated nor reasonably explained until now.

(see on this site: Chapter D - 20th Century Climate)

WE – all of us – and Al Gore should ask 2:

Footnotes:

Al Gore, “Moving Beyond Kyoto”, in:
THE NEW YORK TIMES, OP-ED, Sunday, July 1, 2007, WK 13

Click on image, or here: http://www.arctic-warming.com

2007-03-01

This site acknowledges the fact of global warming without any reservations. This site assumes as ‘official’, the last winter 2006/07 will be remembered in Europe as a ‘winter without a winter’. Four degree Celsius above average is remarkable. (FN.1) However, this site is very unhappy on how IPCC, Al Gore, and others process climatic matters.

The same situation was there only few generations ago. The late years of the 1930th decade had been the warmest for several hundred years (see graph ‘Northern Hemisphere’). The warmest autumns covering the last 507 years were in 1938, 1772, 2000 and 2006. (FN.2) The subsequent autumn/winter of 1938/39 was due to follow the trend. Instead winter 1939/40 became the coldest winter in Europe north of the Alps for more than 100 years. Why? North- and Baltic Sea had become a naval battleground. 1000 naval vessels ploughed the waters day and night. Millions of small and big explosives swirled the water about. The autumn warm seawater, serving Europe like a central heating, was quickly squeezed out. It rained ‘cats and dogs’ along the battle line between France and Germany from September to November 1939. The general wind direction changed from SW’ to NE. Atlantic depressions were barred to cross the continent, as demonstrated by the weather map of December 7th, 1939. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung observed this already in January 1940, which is all explained in detail in the BOOKLET presented on this site.

The winter 1939/40 became extreme arctic, and it got worst. Also the next two war winters were beating any previous cold record since the Little Ice Age during the early 19th century. Already in 1942 the Swedish G. Liljequist scientist observed (FN.3): “Three consecutive cold winters are scarce. During the period 1757-1942 only three such cases occurred (means temperature of December – March lower than minus 5° C). This is not only well demonstrated in the graph ‘Stockholm’, but breathtaking with regard to the difference to the previous record series 1783-1786, and 1802-1805. Also in the graph of F. B. Groissmeyer (done 1944) (FN.4) the seriousness of the successive three war winters 1939-1942 is highlighted. And all was caused by naval war! What else?

And the polar war winter 1939/40 was only the start of a four decade global cooling, as indicated in the first graph ‘Northern Hemisphere”. There was a pronounced global warming from winter 1918/19 to winter 1939/40, and a substantial global cooling from 1940 until ca. 1980, and neither IPCC, nor Al Gore, nor the other warming cassandras know why. They do not even show interest to understand the matter, but claim they know how climate is going to develop over the next decades. How, if they are not able to explain the most recent climatic events? The BOOKLET and given web-links offer you a rich source of ideas, facts, and evidence on how climate worked during last century.

FN. 1: UK/England: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aaJ.5ysx8A9I
Swiss: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070227/sc_afp/switzerlandweather_070227200717
Germany: ahttp://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/40571/story.htm
FN.2: Dr Elena Xoplaki, Autumn 2006 is Warmest of Over More Than Half a Millennium, Dec.23, 2006, http://scitizen.com
FN.3: Liljequist, Gösta H.; ‘The severity of the winters at Stockholm 1757 – 1942’, in: Geografiska Annaler 1-2, 1943, p. 81-104; and as an extended paper in: Meddelanden, Serien Uppsatser, Stockholm 1943, pp.1-24. http://www.seaclimate.com/3/pdf/3_31.pdf , http://www.seaclimate.com/3/3_31.html
FN.4: F. B. Groissmeyer; ‘Die gewaltigen Temperaturstoerungen auf der Nordshemisphaere 1920-1942’, in: Zeitschrift fuer angewandte Meteorologie, Jg. 61, 1944, p. 15-56 (15-24, and 49-56).
http://www.warchangesclimate.com/Three%20war%20years%20cold%20package.htm#Three-year%20winter%20package

2007-02-27In an interesting weblog dialog recently, Professor Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, suggested that:“ The mesh size in the ocean model then has to be less than a few tens of kilometres if a better than extremely crude representation of the oceanic fluxes of heat and momentum is desired.” (FN). Hopefully that would be enough when taking into consideration that a three metres thick seawater layer has more heat capacity than the 10’000 metres air above the sea..

Prof. Tennekes’ statement implies: Dimension Matters. This means in the first place understanding the oceans and it’s short and long term impact on climate. But while ocean-dimension-affairs are too little understood one has hardly a chance to get the message convened to those thinking that CO2 is causing the current warming trend.

What must be done to get them, e.g. IPCC, to acknowledge the fact? They must be forced to prove their ‘climatic understanding’ on recent climatic events. The here presented naval war thesis is one of the most promising one. It is easy to give a powerful demonstration what naval war could do to the Netherlands in February 1940, by only few extracts form the New York Times, February 14th, 1940:

Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Feb.13 (UP) – Europe suffered tonight in the paralysing grip of the bitterest cold in more than 100 years. Hundreds of persons abandoned their homes in the face of crushing ice packs boiling up from ice-locked canals, rivers and seas.

At least two ships were crushed in ice packs in the Rhine and Ijsselmeer River, and thirty others were damaged severely. The Netherland Government contemplated dropping bombs from airplanes in the vicinity of Tiel in an effort to breack up a dangerous ice congestion in the Waal River. Residents along the Rhine, Ijsselmeer, Waal and Dannube Rivers evacuated their homes as the rivers rumbled with ice. ..
…
Islands along the coast of the Netherlands and in the Baltic were isolated. All days they sent out SOS calls for coal and foodstuffs. Temperatures dropped to sub-zero records. The Weather Bureau here recorded the lowest temperature ever recorded in this country, 11,2 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. To the Netherlands, which has a rather mild climate, this is more severe than the lowest temperatures recorded in Minnesota. The average for the whole country was 1,4 degrees below zero….

Thirty-seven deaths in the Netherlands were attributed to the cold wave.

“Record Cold Grips European Nations” was the article titled by the NYT, as all of Central, East, and Northern Europe was in a record cold grip.. The arctic wave was caused be naval war swirling about the summer-warm water of the North Sea and Baltic Sea. If IPCC wants to explain and proof the sudden switch from warmest winters in Europe at the end of the 1930th decade for several hundred years to arctic cold by the impact of CO2 and greenhouse gases, that should be highly appreciated. But saying nothing to such event or the global cooling for four decades which had started together with sending many thousand naval vessels out at sea for combat missions, shows that IPCC has still a long way to go to understand that: ocean dimension matters! More details is available at this website and indicated links.

(FN) http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/01/31/a-personal-call-for-modesty-integrity-and-balance-by-henkrik-tennekes , subject: #35