Not competent enough to read the wind-shift in W-Europe 1939

Unprecedented wind shift after WWII
commenced, one in over 100 years  

Post 03  Dezember 2017

As early as October 1939

 At the end of October 1939 the “Seewarte” (the German Naval weather service) analysts had realised that the wind pattern over Northern Europe had changed completely (Fig.1. Unfortunately they lacked the competence to read the signs. According to their observations:

    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 the 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 (Seewarte, Nov. 02, 1939), next Figure C5-8.

This is a very strong and clear indication that huge air masses moved  from Eurasia continent to West Europe. Unusually high evaporation affected by naval war, caused a shift in the wind direction. While the water of the seas was ‘stirred and turned’ the ‘steam’ rose upwards into the sky, causing an air inflow from easterly directions, which subsequently prevented low-pressure systems to travel along the west-wind-drift channel via North Sea and Central Europe into the eastern hemisphere.

The rare wind from North-East

Based on works of different authors, Drummond explains that, from 1788 to 1942, only 21 winters but of 155 had easterly residuals; only 7 since 1846 and only three since 1903, namely 1904 (SSE), 1929 (ESE), and 1940 (ENE). The latter is the most stunning one. In only three years, the wind changed to the north-east sector. That happened in 1814 (NE), 1841 (NE), and during the winter of 1939/40 (ENE). It must have had a cause, which should be identified. An interesting aspect could be that the other two war winters of 1940/41 and 1941/42 did not make it in the list of years with winds from the east. They had, like the other 153 winters, winds from the west, although they came along with a considerable cold average. That made the exceptional winter of 1939/40 even more interesting. For more details see HERE

An urgent need to research

It is difficult to understand that science has not picked up the wind-shift issue for a better understanding a possible link between naval war and climatic change. If the winter wind in Western Europe did blew only two times in about 150 years from NE something extraordinary must have happened. As the general situation had been ‘normal’ until World War II commenced in September 1939, the question is inevitable: Why so suddenly and why in Europe? The logical answer would be to assess all circumstances, and if there is no ground for any ‘natural’ reason, it seems irresponsible not to consider an anthropogenic cause. Actually war has a profound impact on air and sea. Particularly naval warfare during autumn churn the sea over huge areas, and thus release more quickly the heat stored during the summer season, with significant impact on the atmosphere and the sea water temperature. It is like stirrng the hot coffee to cool it down.  Subsequently icy air more easily can travel from Siberia to the Atlantic shore of Western Europe. It happened only few months in war, resulting in the coldest winter in many regions, in more than 100 years. It is high time to research the wind-shift seriously.

More at Booklet “War Changes Climate” Chapter A, Chapter B, Chapter  C I , Chapter C II Chapter D, Chapter E

The 945mb cyclone on 26th November 1939 caused by naval gunfight?

The sinking of the “HMS Rawalpindi” a serious contribution to “weather modification”?

Post: 18 November 2017

Causing mist and rain: Did the first surface shoot-out in the North Atlantic cause misty conditions, rainstorm and subsequently a 12 Beaufort storm? Contributed several dozen warships using all kind of explosives to a change in weather conditions? Was naval warfare partly to blame for the extreme forceful low pressure at the North Sea entrance on early morning of the 26th of November (Fig). For sure it did not come alone, but man contributed. For climate change research a unique opportunity to understand more about anthropogenic influence on weather. The case goes as it follows:

The weather was good. Ships could be seen up to the horizon.  That changed quickly. After a 40 minute long barrage of many hundreds of 11-inch (28 cm) shells, the scene was quickly covered by mist, followed by a heavy rainstorm.  Had the weather change been caused by the sinking the British armed merchant cruiser HMS Rawalpindi? The deadly assault came by surface action against the German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau during the first months of the Second World War at 3.51 pm on the 23rd of November 1939? At 1600 hours a tremendous explosion broke the gallant merchant cruiser in two. Shells from one of Scharnhorst’s eighteen modern 11-inch guns had found Rawalpindi’s forward magazine. The battle ships didn’t sail alone but with several cruisers and submarine nearby. The location was South-east of Iceland.

Immediately and as long as they felt to be alone at the scene the Gneisenau picked up twenty-one survivors, Scharnhorst another six. When assuming the arrival of alien ships an due to increasing mist  they left the scene. In fact, HMS Newcastle, the next ship to the Rawalpindi on the patrol line, closed the position and also sighted the two German Battle-cruisers, but lost them again in a heavy rainstorm. The following day HMS Chitral found eleven more. All other 238 crew member died on Rawalpindi.

Feeding a strong Cyclone:  HMS Rawalpindi send a message to the Home Fleet Head Quarter before shelling started. There they acted swiftly and ordered all available ships to hunt the German ships. Three dozen ships where now on search for the enemy. In those early war days the sailors saw U-boats everywhere and threw depth-charges abundantly. At the same time a cyclone strengthened rapidly, crossing the North Atlantic very quickly. The air pressure dropped to lower than 945mb on early 26th of November.

     

The situation was exceptional. The sinking of the Rawalpindi was a serious naval blow for the Royal Navy, and an unknown contribution to “weather modification”. Not the percentage is important, the fact would matter. A small share, even a very small share, should be understood and explained. Anthropogenic climate change matters are too serious as not to undertake any efforts to understand the whole situation. The sinking of the Rawalpindi is only one significant event form many, many thousand naval warfare events, with traceable connections to weather and climate modification, during the two World Wars are still waiting for a thorough analysis and explanation.  

 

     

First war efforts 1939 caused rain

An easy way to explain anthropogenic rain making

Posted: 13 November 2017  – Source-Chapter C4

Immediately after WWII had begun, a rain zone center established itself along the war front between France and Germany, which was maintained during the months of September, October and November 1939. Across north-western Europe thousand naval vessels plowed through the sea day and night. Many thousand sea mines were laid every day. Uncountable exploded instantly. In early October 1939 161’000 troops, 24’000 vehicles an 140.000 tons of supplies had transferred by sea from the UK to France. Thousands of air planes were up in the air on training or military mission. Impossible that all the various human activities did not influenced the course of weather substantially, as is evident by the excessive rain in Western Europe over the first three month at war.   

With the start of the Second World War, rainfall rose exceptionally from Wales to Austria. Many stations saw double digit numbers above the statistical averages, which increased up to 360% in October and November at several locations.  The region became so much soaked with rain that in November 1939 Adolf Hitler gave up his plan (known as: “Deployment Instruction No. 1, Case Yellow”) to invade the Benelux countries and France before the end of the year. It is unbelievable that the climate community is unable and unwilling to interpret and explain these relationships. After all, it is about understanding man-made climate change. 

   Two factors could have contributed to generate the excess amount of rain. There is, on one hand, the land and air warfare, which produced large quantities of nuclides since September 1939 that could have very well been suited as condensation nuclei for the formation of raindrops. On the other hand, the naval warfare in all sea areas from the Biscay to the North Cape and the Baltic may have increased the evaporation process at sea. In autumn, these activities work like stirring the spoon in a hot coffee pot. The sea surface layer is turned over more often than usually. The warmer the surface layer, the more vapor and heat can be dissipated into the air. From September, the air above the sea surface at these latitudes is usually colder than the water. The agitation of the water by naval activities increased the evaporation rate on one hand, but on the other hand cooled down the water body more quickly. 

[Fig. left: One week naval war in October.          Fig. middle: Sea mines.             Fig. right: British submarine hunted]

A place where this could have happened was the Western Front between France and Germany after the outbreak of WWII, where more than 2 million soldiers had been put into position along the war front in autumn 1939. Although, neither big battles nor “shoot outs” occurred along the huge defence system along the river Rhine up to the Belgian border, everything was done to improve defence capabilities and to train and prepare two million soldiers for the worst. Therefore both fronts were busy day and night with transportation, construction, surveys, training and military encounters. The first substantial clash saw 700 French tanks and planes moving seven miles over the Saarland border, while 300 airplanes attacked German positions in the city of Aachen’s industrial region and munitions area, some 125 miles further north, (NYT, Sept. 07, 1939) encounters that occurred frequently since then over the next months.

Many thousand more military events offer climatology a wide field for demonstrating how quick and easy man interfered with the war weather in autumn 1939, and the war contributed to climate change.   

   The post is based on material from Chapter C4  at:

http://www.seaclimate.com/

Poland prayed for rain in September 1939 – In vain.

Only two weeks at war the rain remained in the West. Science should have explained it
to the Poles since long that the war prevented raining. (Story 2)

Posted 01 November 2017 – Comments welcome!

What a horror! To ambush Poland on 1st September 1939 the Germans employed, or had available, forces estimated at approximately 1,250,000 men comprising 60 to 70 divisions. Their Air Force possessed 7,000 first-line airplanes. After just two weeks the Polish Army lost 20 divisions, some 100.000 dead or wounded, and another 100.000 prisoners (NYT, 10/15/1939). Three weeks later the numbers are 123’000 dead, 134’000 wounded, 700’000 prisoners (plus 220’000 taken by the Soviet Union). This mischief must, at least partly, be attributed to the weather conditions as well. The usual rain did not came, which may have hampered the advance of the highly merchandized German army significantly. The Poles prayed for rain, in vain.

Poland’s tragic in September 1939 had been so horrible that it seems inappropriate to talk about the weather. But it is necessary, as Poland deserves an explanation. The topic is lack of rain, and all those who suffered and prayed for rain, as their descendant up to today, should know, that it was not ‘natural’ but caused by Adolf Hitler’s ruthlessness, through war activities on land, at sea and in the air. And as science has failed desperately in this respect over more than seven decades, it is high time to remind them that they failed to serve the Polish people appropriate.  

Fact is that there was water in the air over Western Europe abundantly. From Dover to Germany the rain exceeded 200% above September average,  [Berlin-Dahlem (197 %); Frankfurt/Oder (197 %); Breslau (204 %); Ratibor (210 %); Karlsruhe i.B. (208 %); Stuttgart (199 %); Ulm (226%); Wuerzburg  (215 %); Muenchen (212%) ] with little to nothing left for Polish soil. This sharp demarcation had been so extreme, that science should have taken the chance to explain the situation by human input thoroughly. Here we can only raise some basic aspects.

Actually the sharp West-East demarcation can derive from warfare on land, in the air or at sea. Thousands of air planes were suddenly in the air, uncountable bullets, shells, mines and bombs got activated, thousand naval vessels sailed the sea. The sudden movements of several hundred warships at Heligoland could have attracted a low-pressure center to move in the German Bight (see last post) and further to Belgium, instead of moving to the southern Baltic bringing rain to Central Europe.

Although the maritime influence on the weather scene has –for sure – had a great influence from the first day of WWII, the September rain-matter is certainly strongly related to ‘all the stuff’ man pushed into the air, at sea, along the Maginot Line and West Wall, or the land war in Poland. 

By the third war week Warsaw was encircled. The Red Army marched into Poland from the East. Days of the Polish Republic were numbered. The Nazis had deployed 5,000 planes in Poland (NYT, 10/25/1939). On September 25, 1939, 240 German planes bombed Warsaw, dropping 560 tons of bombs, including the first 1,000 kg bomb. Meanwhile 1,000 batteries shelled the city. 30 transport aircraft dropped 70 tons of fire-bombs. Warsaw was on fire for many days. No rain arrived to end the burning down of the city. The silence of science speaks not for their competence.

A better understanding of the weather situation in Poland September 1939 is still possible. Actually September 1939 it was not necessarily a solely European matter, as Russia and Japan were at war in the Far East (August 9 – September 2, 1939), which subsequently saw weather extremes in California, and heavy rain in Western Europe until November 1939, which will be discussed in the next post.

Further Reading on Autumn 1939: Climate Change and Naval War, 2004 – Chapter 2_31

 

Cyclone attracted by naval activities at Heligoland early in WWII

Sea war meet climate in the 2nd war week;
1st Story on war winter 1939/40

General  – Posted 26th October 2017

          The most forceful meteorological blocking of the 20th Century, if not during the last 200 years, established at the onset of the Second World War in autumn 1939. It followed the coldest winter in Northern Europe for more than 100 years, at some locations even more than 120 years. Uncountable strange, bizarre, extraordinary events produced three war winters in row, which caught meteorology completely off guard. While it was impossible to investigate and discuss the events and possible correlation and links to human activities during war time, there is no excuse today. Nearly eight decades have passed since WWII ended. Nothing has been done, although the meteorological material collected was huge, offering an excellent basis for testing climate modelling. Actually nothing has been achieved in this respect, although many extraordinary weather events can be strongly linked to the impact of naval warfare in the marine environment. This Blog will work on the matter during winter 2017/18, based on the Booklet [ HERE: Chapter A. How to change Climate; link at the top = Ch A (1-8) ] and my book (pages 220) of 2012 online

1st Story Introduction– Cyclone at Heligoland

Presumably usual flow of circulation may have been affected by numerous war activities since the Deutsche Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht (German Air Force and Army) had begun the invasion of Poland at its western borders at 04:48 local time on September 1st, 1939. Here I want to discuss only one example, which strongly links naval activities to the movement of a cyclone.  The story lasted from September 10th to 13th, and could be entitled: Cyclone attracted by naval warfare activities in the Heligoland Bight (German Bight).  

Naval forces at Heligoland

A huge number of the Kriegsmarine vessels were stationed in the North Sea from day zero, and were highly active. The Royal Navy and Air Force showed up several times around the island of Helgoland and the German coast with submarine, bomber and sea mine laying missions. The German Navy was particularly engaged in planting contact mines from Holland ’s coastal waters (off Terschelling) northwards across the German Bight up to the entrance of the Skagerrak, at a distance of between 50 and 100 km off the coast of Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark , called the “Westwall”. The most north-westerly point announced by the Germans as ‘Dangerous zone’ was the position: 56° 30’ North and 4° 25’ East. That was about half the distance between Skagerrak and Scotland . The first minefield locations were off Terschelling, Esbjerg , near Helgoland and two places off Jutland . (NYT, September 5,1939) As many as 300 mines an hour could be laid by one single minelayer. (NYT, February 18, 1940), and the German Navy had presumably several dozens in service to plaster the North Sea off the German coast with ten-thousand sea mines.  

Cyclone attracted:

   In the north of Scotland a low arrived on September 10th, presumably bound to travel via Skagerrak eastwards to the Baltic and beyond. It almost did, but before entering the Skagerrak it swung southwards and moved straight to the center of naval activities, and further along Holland to the Belgium coast on September 13th, as shown in 2nd & 3rd Fig. above. And again just two days later on the 15th, at 8 a.m. , there was a small low-pressure center (1005 mb) north of Helgoland (not shown) close to the location of meanwhile already large sea mine fields.

The story has started and Poland did not get rain

From a climatic point of view the cyclone in the German Bight may have sucked some heat out of the sea, is it possible to make much out of it? Unlikely!  Unexpetively Poland was derived from rain it usually gets at the time of the year, while Western Europe from Germany to Grat Britain got three times as usually. The next post will raise this matter.

 

 

They warm-up the Arctic! Shipping, Off-Shore, Science etc.!

Do they want to know how they contribute to Arctic warming? Not in the least!

 
Posted: 04 September 2017 – Comments welcome!2_

Concerning the Arctic warming all are very proud. Some climate change expert claim that global 6_warming may reduce sea ice in the Arctic Ocean to insignificance pretty soon.  Off-shore industry sees advantage to move sea-bed explorations quickly further north. Merchant shipping watches with interest the vastly decreasing sea ice extent. And here we are! A Russian liquid gas tanker (LNG) “Christophe de Margerie” just set two Arctic records few weeks ago (Details). The ship not only traveled through the Arctic in record time, but has done so without the use of an icebreaker escort. She is the first of a total of 15 planned LNG carriers that will be gradually deployed.

 

Extreme warming in the Kara Sea and Barents Sea during the winter period 2000 to 2016 

Amended  30 September 2017

Svenja H.E. Kohnemann; Günther Heinemann; David H. Bromwich; Oliver Gutjahr 

Published Online: 31 August 2017
Preliminary Accepted Version_in PDF_ Pages 44     

That is a horrible aspect. At least it is not known which alterations shipping, naval forces, research vessels and off-shore industry cause ins the Arctic Ocean sea-body structure,  whether ice covered or not, and the subsequent impact on the annual sea ice and the polar-weather, called climate change. Bad that science has no idea about this human Arctic warming aspect. Worse, science has never rose, or ever been willing to raise and investigate the subject. At least you will face a hard time to3_ find anything in this respect. 

When considering the possible impact of ocean uses on climate change, any activities at sea north of the Polar Circle is a multifold higher than in any other Ocean region. Between the Arctic Ocean and the Equator the climatic impact of human activities the difference could be several hundred, if not thousand times, due to extreme narrow structure margin concerning water temperature and salinity. The temperature range in the upper 150 meter sea surface level is minus 2° to plus 4°C.  Arctic salinity is down to 30ppt in places, while the oceans vary between 34ppt and 36ppt. So far it is statistics, and they are ‘wrong’ if 1_not properly applied.

What the statistics do not show is the huge difference between the season, and the tremendous difference between a complete sea-ice cover, broken sea ice and open sea. The statistics show no difference between the freezing and melting period, both can extent over a half year. In the former case the immediate sea water level raises salinity significantly, instandly causing (as heavier water) a strong vertical current. During the melting, the surface layer is suddenly almost free of salinity, and because this water is much lighter than salty water, forms a stable and some meters deep water level, particularly as long as the sea ice remains intact. That may last for many weeks, or up to a few months.

5_Navigating and other ocean uses in Arctic sea areas without knowing the impact is irresponsible. Navigating through compact ice is even worse, as the force of ship screws may travel over long distances, with significant changes to sea temperatures and salinity. But science does not care. For decades they send research vessels deep into the Arctic 4_region. No wonder that the off-shore industry and shipping does not care either. But that has to change. Any LNG-, cruise-, research-vessel or other uses in the Arctic region should immediately be investigated of having a serious impact on Arctic warming and subsequently climate change.

 

Read for more information the book about the Early Artic Warming (1918-1939)
at:
http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/

Related issue: Europeans warm their winters ( Post 2016/04/07)

MORE READING: 
Extreme warming in the Kara Sea and Barents Sea during the winter period 2000 to 2016″; Published Online: 31 August 2017

Krakatoa – Northern Hemisphere winter warming after volcanic eruptions?

Krakatoa’s climatic impact still not understood – Shocking?! 

Posted 12th August 2017

The forceful eruption of Krakatoa, August 26-27th, 1883, darkened the sky worldwide for years 1_afterwards. The final explosive eruption was heard 4,830 km (3,000 miles) away, 20 million tons of sulfur released into the atmosphere; produced a volcanic winter, reducing worldwide temperatures by an average of 1.2 °C (2.2 °F) for five years. Weather 4_patterns were chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888 (Wikipedia). A unique climatic event was offered to science for their better understanding. Did they used the opportunity?

Immediately a worldwide observation and research commenced in an unprecedented scale. “The year 1883 will take a remarkable place in the history of earth with respect to the effects of the earth’s interior on the crust and everything found upon it,” wrote Neumayer in January 1884. Unfortunately it didn’t happen.

 More than 130 years later the Krakatoa matter is insufficiently understood and explained.  For example a recent research by Zambri et al. 2017 claim, that “Observations show that all recent large tropical volcanic eruptions (1850-present) were followed by surface winter 7_warming in the first Northern Hemisphere (NH) winter after the eruption”. In no way more convincing argues Willis Eschenbach (WUWT) saying “Krakatau, largest eruption in recent history, shows almost no effect on the winter. It’s just about average”. The use of statistics in this way is frightening.  

 Both views are shaky, if not outright misleading, and in any case of no help. Both views ignore that only a detailed assessment of temperature variations in different regions may reveal a picture, which offers valuable clues for climate research and understanding. Observing a pronounced difference between continental inland areas and close-to-the-ocean areas, would inevitable quickly highlight the significant role the oceans have played in the aftermath of the eruption of Krakatoa. An essay from 1992, explained it in detail as it follows:  


EXTRACT
Krakatoa – A Climatic Once-in-a-Century Event?
LINK

  1. State of Affairs

In the year following the three volcanic eruptions in 1883, including Krakatoa in August 1883, the circulation in the atmosphere was above normal and then sank to a powerfully developed minimum in 1888, wrote Artur Wagner in his discussion of climatic change in 1940[37]. At 5_the most, a reduction in solar energy could be caused only by fine dust at high altitudes. Other authors also refer to Krakatoa only from the standpoints of blockage of sunlight and as a cause of ice ages[38]. Even today, the discussion of large-scale volcanic eruptions is limited to the determination that it can become colder for a short period of time[39]. Little is left of Neumayer’s euphoria of January 1884 and – as it appears – there have hardly been any advances for science. Did Krakatoa really leave behind so few traces, or were they simply not recognized?

  1. b) The Observations after Krakatoa and the Stabilizer

Only a short time after the main eruption of Krakatoa on 21 August, 1883, unusual observations were reported, which were compiled by Neumayer[40].

Here are some examples from ship logs from all over the world in 1883:

  • 3 September: During the past few days, there has been a fairly even gray cloud mass, normally covering the entire sky, above the cumulus and stratus clouds;
  • 3 September: At midday hazy gray air. Hazy, gray air condensing into dew towards evening;
  • 5 September The air appears yellow and watery;
  • 7 September: The atmosphere appeared to be filled with very small, evenly distributed clouds of vapor;
  • 13 September: The yellowish “haze” continues in the upper atmosphere;
  • 11 October: Fiery atmosphere, cloudless sky;
  • 5 November: Pale atmosphere;
  • 10 December: The air was very clear and looked like the air in the southern Indian Ocean during the typhoon season;
  • 13 December: Lead-colored sky.

The observations were continued, collected, evaluated, and thoroughly discussed.

Five years after the eruption of Krakatoa, the scientific work on the events of the year 1883 were temporarily brought to a close with the “Report of the Krakatoa-Committee of the Royal Society.” A summary by J. M. Pernter was given in the Meteorologische Zeitschrift of 1899. The following information is derived mainly from this summary[41].

The most amazing aspect of the report is that it does not contain any mention of possible relevance of the oceans. Furthermore, the question of a possible change in the average temperature of the atmosphere does not appear to have interested anyone. Although it was quickly determined that the amount of solar energy received was clearly reduced for a period of several years, little attention was paid to the development of the atmospheric temperature. The blockage must have fluctuated strongly and have varied greatly, depending on the observation point. In total, the blockage effect has been calculated at an average of approximately 10% over a span of four years, whereby the reduction of solar energy in the northern hemisphere (Paris) was at its greatest in fall of 1885, reaching a value of 25%[42].

It would seem that a reduction of solar radiation of such proportions would necessarily have a long-lasting effect on atmospheric dynamics. But supposedly the average temperatures fell only slightly[43] and the atmospheric circulation in 1884 was above normal and did not sink to a strongly developed minimum until 1888[44]. While the equilibrium of the world of statistics may not have been disturbed by Krakatoa, events were rather different in the world of nature. Without the stabilizing effects of the ocean, the effect of Krakatoa would have been catastrophic. A person sitting in warm bath water does not experience any discomfort when the heating is turned off – at least, not right away. But what can possibly happen to the higher latitudes of the earth if the warm water from the tro­pics is already on the way? A cooling-off effect will only become noticeable after the passage of some time and continued blockage of solar radiation. The influence of the oceans was shown clearly by the fact that coastal areas had above-average temperatures in 1884, whereas continental land masses such as Russia, Siberia, India, China, Canada, and the USA (inland areas far from the Atlantic) recorded very cold winters in the years up to 1888[45].

This could be dismissed as coincidence if the time until 1886 had not been accompanied by another phenomenon, a “hazy fog”, a strange, smoky cloudiness in the atmosphere which was observed both in the tropics and in other areas. When Pernter further states (P. 410): “The hazy fog appears as a constant companion of the extraordinary optical phenomena in the atmosphere during the entire period of the atmospheric-optical disturbance”, then one can say – speaking non-technically – that Nature had “popped a lid over it” and so protected the oceans from cooling off too quickly. The lid consisted of ingredients provided by Krakatoa and water vapor provided by the ocean. As a result of the “dirtying” of the atmosphere by the volcano’s eruption, the atmosphere displayed characteristics and behavior deviating from the norm. Just as fog over a water surface sharply limits the transfer of heat energy, the hazy fog must have had a long-lasting effect. The dispute at the time as to whether Krakatoa had provided the water vapor (Pernter, P. 414) would most likely not have occurred if it had been assumed that the upper ocean water level (statistically speaking) was about 30° C. warmer than the atmosphere. The fact that the air circulation did not reach its minimum until 1888 is not surprising. From the middle of the 1880s on, a “weakening” of the oceans in the higher latitudes must have become noticeable. The less heat energy the ocean feeds into the atmosphere, the weaker become the dynamics in the atmosphere. This also becomes clear when it is seen that three years after Krakatoa the temperatures above land rose more sharply than above the oceans[46].

  1. c) The Missed Opportunity

If climate is explained by average weather conditions and the oceans are allowed only a static place in events in Nature, as was the case until recently, then we really could go on with our daily affairs and regard Krakatoa as no more than an interesting event in Nature which gave us some beautifully dramatic sunsets. But when the oceans temporarily cool off, it does not mean that heat is withdrawn in equal measure everywhere from the upper ocean layer. As the oceans comprise a chaotic system[47], it must be assumed that the tendencies in the entire system change when an event such as the eruption of Krakatoa takes place and has an effect over a period of three to four years. The fact that the sum of the statistical values (particularly the global average temperature) showed little or no deviation cannot be proof that the event did not have any climatic quality whatsoever. An event which reduced the solar radiation by about 10% for more than three years cannot have failed to influence ocean currents and must have had to one extent or another short- as well as long-term consequences. In addition, the possibility that the oceans reacted in some way to a three-year “cleaning of the sky” of volcanic ash, pumice dust, and sulfuric acid, more than 2/3 of which landed in the seas, cannot be categorically excluded.

After the eruption of Katmai in 1912, the temperatures in the low and middle latitudes also rose by up to 1° C. and even more in the higher latitudes. Wexler of the US Weather Bureau wrote of this in 1951: The warming in the middle and lower latitudes can be a result of clearer air and increased transport of solar energy, but the warming in winter in higher latitudes during the Arctic night will have to be explained in another way[48]. Naturally, someone should have thought of the oceans.  [Link to the ABTRACT]

The entire essay from 1992

The “control knob is the ocean waters”, says Rick Perry on AGW.

josh-knobsAn Open Letter to the U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry:
To prove that AGW is hoax, look at ocean use during
the two World Wars

Posted:  01st July 2017;

Dear Secretary Perry,
Asked in a recent CNBC interview whether carbon dioxide is the major source of AGW, you gave the imminent answer: “No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in…and that man is having an effect on it.” This can be proven in the case of the Early Global Warming from 1918 to 1939, and the subsequent Global Cooling from 1940 to mid-1970. On these matters I have been working since James Hansen’s claim on AGW in 1988. As trained Master Mariner and a _05-flong-time Attorney at Law I wondered that climatology ignored the ocean almost completely ever since. 

05aFor a long time a main subject should have been the impact of ocean use particularly by merchant shipping with screw driven vessels. Due to lack of any substantial understanding and data in this field,  two huge “field experiment”, namely the naval warfare during World War I & II, provide a clear picture on how quickly and decisively man can manage a change in climate matters. During WWI naval war was mainly restricted to the waters around Great Britain, where water masses almost entirely travel north towards Svalbard and the Arctic Ocean. The change in temperature and salinity structure in the Gulf Stream and North Sea, subsequently change the sea structure in the high North causing a shift to a substantial warming in the Northern Hemisphere from 1919 to 1939 (in the USA until about 1933). The dramatic impact of naval warfare during WWII is divided in the initial 05b_phase with three extreme winters in Europe 1939/40, 1940/41 and 1941/42, whereon cooling commenced on a global base since the United States entered  the war after Pearl Harbor and naval warfare covered the entire North Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean west of Hawaii. The in-depth analysis has been published in several books (A) and hundreds of on-line published articles (B: selection of Links –).

Dear Sir, to prove that main stream climatic change views belong more in the category of HOAX than serious science, the most promising way is to show that the two World Wars, respectively human activities over a very short period of time, immediately has changed the course of climate twice during the last century.The letter you received from AMS (June 21, 2017) does not even mention the reference you made concerning the ocean. Expecting a fair and competent advice from leading epa_scientific institutions seems hopeless for an indefinite time.  

I am ready to assist you, your staff or experts to explore in further detail the human caused climatic changes as mentioned above, whether from my home base, in Washington or elsewhere in any format you regard helpful. 
Sincerely,
Arnd Bernaerts

 2006 – Booklet on Naval War Changes Climate; iUniverse/USA, p. 108

http://1ocean-1climate.com/wp-content/uploads/book.pdf

  • (A) Further Books

(2005) http://www.2030climate.com/  ;  (2009) http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/  ; (2012) http://www.seaclimate.com/

  • (B) LINKS – selection –
http://www.oceanclimate.de/  

http://climate-ocean.com/

http://www.2030climate.com/

http://www.warchangesclimate.com

http://www.ocean-climate-law.com

http://www.whatisclimate.com/

http://www.1okeah-1klimat.com

Reference to the UN Law of the Sea:

http://www.bernaerts-sealaw.com

http://www.bernaerts-guide.de

http://www.bernaerts-guide-russian.de

http://www.bernaerts-unclos.de

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Admirals’ failures – Battle of Jutland – Mai 31st, 1916

Naval fighting caused fog and mist – which
should have been expected.

Posted: May 12th, 2017

This post is about meteorology, respectively about the impact of the sea on the weather during a major clash of two naval fleets in the North Sea, and whether the Admirals were well enough trained for such an event. They were not! The battle itself was fought late in the day of May 31st, 1916. About 250 naval ships and 100.000 sailors took part.

Soon the visibility was appalling, induced by a combination of North Sea fog, lingering cordite fumes and chemical smoke screens. Often, only two ships could be seen at any moment. None of the parties did foresee it. Neither party had prepared for it. None of the ship-leaders had been meteorologically trained for this situation thus missed the opportunity to handle poor visibility, and to turn it into an advantage.

37_1_

 

 

 

 

 

37_2

37_3

37_4_

The two Admirals John Jellicoe and Reinhard Scheer should have known, that a huge armada of warships at the entrance of the Skagerrak in early summer would inevitably cause severe visibility problems, due to the temperature structure of the sea. Before explaining this in more detail, a brief instruction to the sea battle itself.  

Just fought over a few hours on May 31 1916 (starting about 02 p.m. plus 15 hours), the Battle of Jutland was the only major battle of First World War (WWI) fought at sea, but became known as perhaps the largest surface battle in naval history due to the numbers of battleships and battlecruisers engaged. Although the battle itself produced no winner, it nevertheless changed the course of WWI, because the Imperial German High Sea Fleet, was never been seen  at sea again.

37_5 37_6 37_7

The battle began ignominiously with the destruction of two British battlecruisers, Indefatigable and Queen Mary. Of the HMS Indefatigable crew of 1,019, only two survived; 1,266 crewmen of HMS Queen Mary were lost; eighteen survivors were picked up by several GB and GER destroyers.  At the beginning of the battle the firing range was between 10,000 and 18,000 yards (about 9-16 km). That applied only for a short time. Soon visibility changed on a wide range and at all battle areas. Occasionally ships in the West of the major scene could be better targeted (fired at) than those more easterly of the fighting center. Those vessels were more hidden in smoke, dust, mist and fog.  This difficult fighting condition was clearly expressed by the First Lord of the Admiralty John Jellicoe:
                      “The whole situation was so difficult to grasp, as I had no real idea of what
                     was going on and we could hardly see anything except the flashes of guns,
                     shells falling, ships blowing up, and an occasional glimpse of an Enemy vessel.” 
 
This situation continued with fog and mist patches until the navies separated in the early morning hours on June 1st, 1916.

Meanwhile 101 years have passed and presumably many 100 books and several 1000 analysis and articles been written. On the other hand the anthropogenic weather-making aspect by churning the sea with screw driven vessels, many thousand shells and several sinking ships that contributed significantly towards miserable fighting conditions, has never received any attention. During the last 101 years meteorology has not undertaken any attempt to analyzes, whether the navies had been insufficiently trained to expect and handle such a situation. After 101 the navies are still not trained to prepare and handle such situation today.  Until now meteorology has still not recognized that even brief activities at sea, as the Battle of Jutland, may show a significant impact on weather, and over a longer period on the ‘climate’. The Battle of Jutland would have been an excellent event to study the correlation. Here is our assessment:

37_8 37_9 37_10

The North Sea at 56°42 North and 5°52 East is about 250 km off the shore of Jutland, and at the South/West entrance to the Skagerrak. The area of the major engagement in the afternoon of Mai 31st exceeded 100 km in diameter. The water depth is about 50-70 meter and the water temperature in May between 6 to 8°C in June between 7 to 12°C (Fig. 8 and 10). The upper sea surface layer of several meters was certainly a few degrees warmer. Before the major fighting started the weather was fine, a light breeze, calm sea, and the visibility was good. That change quickly dramatically, with greatest variations.

That should not come as surprise. Actually the North Sea water is still cold. Only a thin surface layer is significant warmer than the lower water body. The numerous battle ships had a drought of 10 meter and a speed of close to 50 km/h. Instantly the sea water structure changed. The warm surface layer was plugged under and replaced by colder water. Instantly the air temperature cooled down as well supporting a downgrading of the visibility. There are many reports from eyewitnesses available. A Turret Officer of HMS “Malaya” noted for the time 05:40 p.m. this:

Until about 5.40 the enemy’s firing continued to be very brisk, and to fall all around us. The visibility for us had been getting steadily worse; in fact ever since 5.15 we had rarely been able to see … (cont.)

This problem remained. The sea was flat calm but the sight hazy. Although the two armada sailed on a crossing line southwards during the night only random fighting occurred.  Sea fog often only 10 to 20 meters high prevented more clashes. After daybreak on June 1st, the High Fleet was in the east of The Royal Navy, and thus on the safe side. The Battle of Jutland was history.

The lessons the battle could taught meteorology and naval commanders with regard to weather making have not been investigated and learned yet. The message is:

Those who do not understand anthropogenic weather making
can hardly explain climatic changes !

More concerning WWI & Weather/Climate:

[1]   Warming before Cooling – 1918 to 1939; The trace to the First World War; http://www.seaclimate.com/i/i.html
                 [2]
Europe Weather–Influence by WWI  http://www.2030climate.com/a2005/05_11-Dateien/05_11.html

This post hopefully encourages investigation in man-made weather aspect of the Jutland Battle now. Your input is welcome!

37_11 37_12 37_13
37_14 37_15 37_16_

 

 

 

No plausible scientific definition of climate!

There is no plausible scientific definition of climate!

 Letter to the “FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG”  (21. April 2017)Bild 07
zz_fin_Published on Tuesday, 25th April 2017, page 6
h/t and translation by Dick Koock, posted 25/04/2017

 Climate change is no hoax

The essay „For this we will walk for miles, written by Karsten Fischer and Peter Strohschneider (F.A.Z. April 21., 2017) has strong relevance to the opinion of the U.S. President concerning climate change. He, like many republicans consider the issue as the greatest hoax and intend to cut science and support considerably. Thus the “March of Science” war initiated on the day of the earth (April 22), and the essay’s sub- title is calling for: Do not submit to stupidity and malice.

 Most aggravating about the whole discussion on climate is that scientific populism stands at the start of this debate and that science commenced warning politics and the public in the year 1980 about anthropogenic (manmade) climate change. Since then within the last 30 years science has failed to scientifically define climate in an understandable manner.

 A hundred years ago: Climate was the average weather and the period from 1901 to 1930 was declared as the “normal climatological period”. What was missing then is an explanation of “Weather”.  If a few components of weather might be sufficient for a statistical analysis or daily use they are not suited and insufficient for scientific studies because weather consists of many dozens of components.

A random selection or combinations promote „alternative facts” now called “fake news”. For a long time a time scale is not mentioned. Meanwhile the 30 year period has been extended from months to a thousand or one million years. This absurd approach is being used by all climatological organizations and institutes. In this sense the word “Climate” is populism pure. It does not explain nor describe anything and encourages all those who can add to weather that anyone can talk about as a steady companion closer than ones shirt.

10_1 The situation is pretty intricate. Climate change is no hoax. Global temperatures are rising since the end of the last so called “minor ice age” around 1850. We have to cope with this fact if it is excluded that mankind is contributing to this warming. Climate science has gained prominence and enormous funding claiming that using fossil fuels has contributed to considerable warming. Since there is no plausible scientific definition of climate, an assessment of assumptions cannot be made. Rising air temperatures do not represent “weather”. Therefore the approach of climate research is dangerous and aggravating, appearing with meaningless definitions. Unfortunately the republicans and Donald Trump are doing it. Both sides are incapable or unwilling to deal with this question, how our global weather functions. Thus the anthropogenic quantum cannot be determined. Logic demands to begin with water. “Water drives Nature” Leonardo da Vinci already claimed back in the 15th century. The atmosphere looks quite old considering the ratio to the oceans of 1:1000.

More at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/