All posts by admin

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/

Winter 2016/17 – Europeans warm their winters

 

Update of previous post – BELOW – April/August 2016

Offshore Windfarms  heat-up Europe’s winters and
cool spring season – Assessment of Winter 2016/17

Posted April 18, / update April 30, 2017

 Our last post (below) provided evidence that due to ample activities from the English Channel to the Barents S2_ea they contribute to warmer regional winters. The last winter 2016/2017 confirms the process.  Figure 1-right

indicates the significant between Northern and Southern Europe. Instead of discussing the last winter on this basis, the DWD summarize the winter 2016/2017 as exceptionally dry, very sunny and somewhat too mild.

The Met-Off agrees that it was a rather dry and mild winter.  Both do not find one word on whether the clear temperature distinction (Fig.1 )  requires some explanation, or whether human activities at sea may have contributed. For further reading we recommend this LINK: Winter 2015/16 –versus – Winter 1939/40   

3_Fig. 3 4_Fig. 4

Offshore windfarms, shipping and other activities have a pronounce impact on the a7_tmosphere throughout the year. They may have significantly contributed to the  warming during the early part of the winter (Fig. 2 – above left & 3) and to lower temperature now in spring (Fig. 4 & 5).

Even only a minor contribution, must be recognized by science. Neither mentioning the aspect, nor undertaking any research in this respect is irresponsible.   Please read the following post as well!!

Update on 30 April: Spring warmth came on hold across Europe in early 3rd week of April (19 April), and cold weather brought snow to parts of Germany, Austria and the Balkans. Fig. 6

Last Tuesday/Wednesday (25/26 April), a powerful cold front swept through Britain and France. It brought gusty rain showers that included hail, sleet, snow and “even #thundersnow in places” the British Met Office reported.

Unusual cold conditions continue into early May (Fig. 7, indicating that off-shore activities may contribute a significant share.

n1_Figure 6 n2_Figure 7
   

Previous Post – April/August 2016

Europeans warm their winters,
but science does not know why!

Analyzed here: Winter 2015/16 –versus – Winter 1939/40

And cool down their summers?

Not knowing why the European winters are getting warmer and warmer is a shame. Not analyzing the potential reasons is a scandal. For years it is known that warming was the strongest over Scandinavia, especially in winter, (EEA-1). That can be easily 1_finbe connected to warmer seas. “Over the past 25 years the rate of increase in sea surface temperature in all European seas has been about 10 times faster than the average rate of increase during the past century(EEA-2). “In the North and Baltic Seas temperatures increased five to six times faster than the global average over the past 25 years, and three times faster in the Black and Mediterranean Seas” (EEA-2). Establishing a convincing chain of causation between warmer Europe and human activities at sea is the inevitable conclusion. Not for climate science running the global CO2 warming story, but who is blind, ignorant, unable to see the obvious link, and is unwilling to undermine their AGW theory.

Here is the consideration posted by Ron Clutz [30 March 2016]

Man Made Mild Weather (MMMW)

This post concerns work by Dr. Arnd Bernaerts on human activities contributing to mild winters in Europe.

To start with, he is analyzing “climate” properly. Climates are plural, not singular; the term is a human construct referring to distinctly local and regional patterns and expectations of future weather. Secondly, he addresses changes observed in one particular season as a way to identify inter annual variation. Thirdly, he is well aware of oceanic fluctuations, and seeks to understand human effects in addition to natural variability.

Specifically Dr. Bernaerts studies the linkage between the Baltic and North Seas and winters in Northern Europe. His article (here) is entitled “Northern Europe’s Mild Winters. Contributions from Offshore Industry, Ships, Fishery, et cetera?”

11_From the Abstract:
The marine environment of North Sea and Baltic is one of the most heavily strained by numerous human activities. Simultaneously water and air temperatures increase more than elsewhere in Europe and globally, which cannot be explained with ‘global warming’.

The climatic change issue would be better understood if this extraordinary regional warming is sufficiently explained. The regional features are unique for in-depth studies due to different summer-winter conditions, shallowness of the seas, geographical structure, and main pathway for maritime weather patterns moving eastwards.

The impact of sea activities on the seasonal sea water profile structure is contributing to stronger regional warming, change in growing season, and less severe sea ice conditions. The impact of the man, whether small or large, should be understood very 5_soon and very thoroughly.

Pay particular attention to the Discussion at the end, which includes this:

Regional seas in Northern Europe are minor from size and volume in global ocean affairs. Weather is “done” elsewhere, but every location contributes to the global picture. In the case of N-Europe it may be more significant as weather can be divided in maritime and continental influence, and due to the global air circulation from West to East, it is a gate. It may support the flow of warm wet air eastward (low pressure), or stem it by dry and cold continental air (high pressure), by diverting low pressure areas– in extreme circumstances – towards the Bering Sea or Mediterranean. In so far the North Sea and Baltic play a crucial role in how to open or close this gate.

Three facts are established: higher warming, a small shift in the seasons, and a decreasing sea ice cover. In each scenario the two 9_sea’s conditions play a decisive role. These conditions are impaired by wind farms, shipping, fishing, off shore drilling, under sea floor gas-pipe line construction and maintenance, naval exercise, diving, yachting, and so on, about little to nothing has been investigated and is understood.

Summary:
The facts are conclusive. ‘Global Climate Change’ cannot cause a special rise in temperatures in Northern Europe, neither in the North Sea nor the Baltic or beyond. Any use of the oceans by mankind has an influence on thermo-haline structures within the water column from a few cm to 10m and more. Noticeable warmer winters in Europe are the logical consequence.

 

The text was first published a few months ago.

a_0817_2016_f_And is the summer temperature 2016 in
Northern Europe below average ?

In the same way as winter temperatures may affect the winter conditions, the opposite is likey to occure – at least temprarily – during ther summer season. Warm surface water is replaced by colder water from sub-water layers. The variable weather conditions during this summer so far have the potential for having contributed, and should not be ignored when analyzing the situation.

12th August 2016 _ http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/12/europe-hit-with-frigid-weather-snow-in-august/
  “Northern Europe was hit with some weird August weather in the past week, as summer snows fell in Sweden and a city in Saxony experienced its coldest temperature on record.

Åre, Sweden was hit with summer snow Thursday, and while temperatures across Sweden are expected to stay between 50 and 60 degrees Fahrenheit, ski resort owners were thrilled to see the snow.”

18th August, 2016, ACCUWEATHER: Wet, windy conditions to stretch from Ireland and the U.K. into Scandinavia – On the heels of a cool and wet summer for parts of the United Kingdom, an increasingly stormy autumn is expected.”

 

NOTE: Posting resumes in late autumn.

Links to References:

European Environment Agency: EEA-1

European Environment Agency: EEA-2

RonClutz: MMMW

Northern Europe’s Mild Winters

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduced – Off-Shore Activities Contribute!

Posted: 03 June 2016

Barents Sea a key issue to Arctic warming

Since January 2016 Arctic sea ice extent is far below average (Fig. 1).  Arctic sea ice could set a new record low extent this

Figure 1
Figure 1

summer, and the Barents Sea is one of the main sources to blame (Fig. 2), due to the fact that along the Norwegian coast , in the Barents Sea and north of the Russian coast human offshore activities steadily increase year by year.

Figure 2
Figure 2

What’s behind this winter’s low ice extent? The Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the global average, largely in response to rising greenhouse gases, assumes a recent report (HERE-1), which is pure guessing. Another source must drive the warming, for example dozens of human activities at the sea surface and below the sea surface down to the sea bottom.  Particularly the off-shore installation that stretch over several hundred meters, form a formidable resistance to flowing water, by changing the water structure concerning temperatures and salinity. The last year record low is discussed HERE-2. The post clearly points to a significant anthropogenic relevance, not via the air, but via the sea.

45_3 45_4 45_5

Credit and Source: Arctic sea ice record low – 02/25/2015 – Post 17. April 2015

 Three recent essays by McBride and colleagues, October 2015 (HERE-3; HERE-4, HERE-5) confirm positive surface water temperature anomalies prevailed in the Barents Sea. According their research the area of Atlantic Water and mixed water has increased in past decades, whereas that of Arctic water has decreased (Fig-3)   (based on average temperature 50-200 m depth).

Figure 3
Figure 3

What they do not tell were the change is coming from. It could be either solely from the inflow from the North Atlantic, from the Arctic, originates from sea water mixing due to industrial operations, or via the atmosphere and/or sun. The latter is by far the most unlikely source, as the Barents Sea, is well above average summer and winter since long. The excess Arctic warming is an ocean matter. Presumably it may be a mix based on water inflow and various mixing mechanism due to industrial use of the Barents Sea. Whether the latter is minor, reasonable or very significant , is impossible to discuss, as not only any research is missing in this respect, but it lacks even the understanding that this aspect must not be ignored, but is a core issue for understanding higher than global average warming in the Arctic.  

Also Ron Clutz  (HERE-6) agrees with the conclusion (HERE-2):

“The recent new Arctic sea ice record gives little reason for lamenting, but should be seen as an opportunity to investigate and understand the human activities in the Barents and Okhotsk Sea. It could be observed that both seas differed most from average due to warmer sea water temperature. Although it may be difficult to assess the impact of worldwide shipping and fishing on climatic changes and ‘global warming’, it is a much lower challenge if only the impact of two regional seas, representing only about 1% of the global water surface, is investigated.” http://www.ocean-climate-law.com/13/Arch/5.html

 

 

HERE-1: http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-highly-unusual-behaviour-of-arctic-sea-ice-in-2016

HERE-2: http://www.ocean-climate-law.com/13/Arch/5.html

HERE-3: http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/sport/24-cricket/259-temperature-and-salinity-in-the-standard-sections

HERE-4: http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/sport/24-cricket/260-temperature-at-the-surface-100-meters-and-bottom-layer

HERE-5: http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/sport/24-cricket/261-currents-and-transport

HERE-6: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/18/okhotsk-barents-who-cares/

 

 

Atlantic „Cold Blob“ in Action – Only Gabbling in Reply?

Post May/06/2016

Not long ago the world experienced a ‘global cooling’, starting with thee extreme winters in Europe (1939/40 to 1941/42), which

1
1

continued across the Northern Hemisphere (1940 to mid-1970th).  As science failed to analyze, understand and explain the issue, this site discusses the thesis that human activities were the likely cause.  A thorough understanding of the phase of cooling several decades ago would have reduced any superficial talking about the reason and impact of the ‘cold blob’ currently active in the North Atlantic.

Seven decades after WWII the entire world is glowing red [Fig. 1], only a tiny blue eye defies the global picture. The alert is high, the number of questions higher, and suggestions about the possible cause the highest.  Per se that is not necessarily bad. The matter is more serious as the size indicates, as this blob of unusually chilly water seems like semi-permanent residence in the North Atlantic Ocean; which is “a marine cold wave that won’t go away”(1)   Northern Hemisphere air temperature are likely to decrease over

2
2

an unknown period of time.  And how is science handling the issue? There is little explained comprehensible. There is little that can be taken take seriously. Most is mere gabbling. Why?

As the entire ocean, also the North Atlantic is a huge water body, very deep, very saline, and very, very cold. The overall mean temperature is about 4 ° Celsius, in the North Atlantic due to the Gulf Current by 1-2° slightly higher, as indicated in Fig. 2, which does not show currents, gyres and eddies. Any cold blob analysis has to discuss it on this basis and much more data from the sea bottom to the sea surface.  Instead, curious facts and assumptions are named for drawing conclusions on causality. The result is gabbling, and presumably far away from reality, and a

well-founded explanation.

40_5 40_4_ 40_3

Another theory as to why the ocean’s current caused the anomaly is according Gavin Schmidt, the director of the NASA Goddard 40_3Institute for Space Studies in New York (4), that melting ice from Greenland and the Arctic flowed into the Atlantic Ocean’s current and essentially drowned out the warmer water rising from the South Atlantic.

Other researchers claim a warmer North Atlantic in the upper 700 meters, the wind, “oceanic heat wave”, orepa_ “natural variability”. Not many of them seem to pay attention to the different heat capacity: ocean vs atmosphere; the latter with only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth’s water volume, respectively energy content (Fig. 3). Much more ocean data and records are needed. Not necessarily 1’000-times more as available for the atmosphere, but not 100-times less. That is a matter science has to communicate, before assuming casual correlations, and risking gabbling.

“Global cooling” from 1940 to the 1970th  [Fig. 4] is still on offer for a better understanding of anthropogenic climate change, and which impact human activities at sea may have had in the past and present.

READ from the Booklet:
Chapter E. Climate changes today

 

___1 https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/the-north-atlantic-blob-a-marine-cold-wave-that-wont-go-away

___2   http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/whats-going-on-in-the-north-atlantic/

___3   http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v388/n6645/full/388825a0.html

___4 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/global-warming-nasa-eastern-arctic-1.3415108

Europeans warm their winters

Europeans warm their winters, but science does not know why

Not knowing why the European winters are getting warmer and warmer is a shame. Not analyzing the potential reasons is a scandal. For years it is known that warming was the strongest over Scandinavia, especially in winter, (EEA-1). That can be easily 1_finbe connected to warmer seas. “Over the past 25 years the rate of increase in sea surface temperature in all European seas has been about 10 times faster than the average rate of increase during the past century(EEA-2). “In the North and Baltic Seas temperatures increased five to six times faster than the global average over the past 25 years, and three times faster in the Black and Mediterranean Seas” (EEA-2). Establishing a convincing chain of causation between warmer Europe and human activities at sea is the inevitable conclusion. Not for climate science running the global CO2 warming story, but who is blind, ignorant, unable to see the obvious link, and is unwilling to undermine their AGW theory.

Here is the consideratioin posted by Ron Clutz [30 March 2016]

Man Made Mild Weather (MMMW)

This post concerns work by Dr. Arnd Bernaerts on human activities contributing to mild winters in Europe.

To start with, he is analyzing “climate” properly. Climates are plural, not singular; the term is a human construct referring to distinctly local and regional patterns and expectations of future weather. Secondly, he addresses changes observed in one particular season as a way to identify inter annual variation. Thirdly, he is well aware of oceanic fluctuations, and seeks to understand human effects in addition to natural variability.

Specifically Dr. Bernaerts studies the linkage between the Baltic and North Seas and winters in Northern Europe. His article (here) is entitled “Northern Europe’s Mild Winters. Contributions from Offshore Industry, Ships, Fishery, et cetera?”

11_From the Abstract:
The marine environment of North Sea and Baltic is one of the most heavily strained by numerous human activities. Simultaneously water and air temperatures increase more than elsewhere in Europe and globally, which cannot be explained with ‘global warming’.

The climatic change issue would be better understood if this extraordinary regional warming is sufficiently explained. The regional features are unique for in-depth studies due to different summer-winter conditions, shallowness of the seas, geographical structure, and main pathway for maritime weather patterns moving eastwards.

The impact of sea activities on the seasonal sea water profile structure is contributing to stronger regional warming, change in growing season, and less severe sea ice conditions. The impact of the man, whether small or large, should be understood very 5_soon and very thoroughly.

Pay particular attention to the Discussion at the end, which includes this:

Regional seas in Northern Europe are minor from size and volume in global ocean affairs. Weather is “done” elsewhere, but every location contributes to the global picture. In the case of N-Europe it may be more significant as weather can be divided in maritime and continental influence, and due to the global air circulation from West to East, it is a gate. It may support the flow of warm wet air eastward (low pressure), or stem it by dry and cold continental air (high pressure), by diverting low pressure areas– in extreme circumstances – towards the Bering Sea or Mediterranean. In so far the North Sea and Baltic play a crucial role in how to open or close this gate.

Three facts are established: higher warming, a small shift in the seasons, and a decreasing sea ice cover. In each scenario the two 9_sea’s conditions play a decisive role. These conditions are impaired by wind farms, shipping, fishing, off shore drilling, under sea floor gas-pipe line construction and maintenance, naval exercise, diving, yachting, and so on, about little to nothing has been investigated and is understood.

Summary:
The facts are conclusive. ‘Global Climate Change’ cannot cause a special rise in temperatures in Northern Europe, neither in the North Sea nor the Baltic or beyond. Any use of the oceans by mankind has an influence on thermo-haline structures within the water column from a few cm to 10m and more. Noticeable warmer winters in Europe are the logical consequence

Links to References:

European Environment Agency: EEA-1

European Environment Agency: EEA-2

RonClutz: MMMW

Northern Europe’s Mild Winters

…another climate witch hunt

A

Climate Skeptics weak on „Climate Criminals“

Posted 05 March 2016, amended 30 March

Not Adolf Hitler war against the entire world from 1939 to 1945 is investigated as climate crime (see previous post), but U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ): refers Exxon “climate crime” to FBI for decision on action. This comes only two months after a ‘Wanted’ campaign targeted Climate Criminals at Paris summit” (see WUWT). It couldn’t be much nastier. Unfortunately it is a failure of reasonable scientists and skeptics alike. Had Adolf Hitler been identified as the “First Climate Criminal “ many decades ago James Hansen would not have had a chance to testify to US Congress on 23 June 1988 that CO2-global-warming was underway.

C2_3February 1940

1b_February 2016 C2_4Central Europe – February 1940

Worst; when paying a visit to Capitol Hill on 23 June 2008, he not only celebrated his testimony in 1988, but told the audience:

“CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
Reported by NYT

Hansen’s receivable bears fruit. At COP21 the global citizens movement AVAAZ published a dossier (see WUWT) about:

  “The seven most insidious fossil fuel lobbyists in Paris to weaken attempts to agree a global climate deal have been named and shamed as ‘climate criminals’ “.

In this respect James Hansen’s incapability and unwillingness to investigate the climatic change towards a global cooling since war winter 1939/40, which reflects the grand failure of climatology to name Adolf Hitler as the First Climate Criminal”. Concerning this gross negligence, skeptics should have demanded from Hansen and his colleagues clarification and explanation since long.

Thehill: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/271642-feds-refer-exxon-climate-claims-to-fbi
WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/07/climate-skeptics-in-paris-branded-as-criminals-wanted-posters-go-up-in-the-city/
NYT (underline added): http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/are-big-oil-and-big-coal-climate-criminals/?_r=0
AVAAZ dossier: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/07/climate-skeptics-in-paris-branded-as-criminals-wanted-posters-go-up-in-the-city/
Credit for Text and  images: www.ocean-climate-law.com