„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.

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

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.

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?

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. 

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 –

„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 

[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

The result of scientific research recently and before WWII

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.

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

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


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


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


4. 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. 

Timo Niroma’s Helsinki temperature analysis can teach a lesson

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

“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: Arnd Bernaerts, Oct.2007

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

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

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


2. 
   Click on image, or here: http://www.arctic-warming.com