All posts by admin

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

The First Climate Criminal – Adolf Hitler – Still Not Named

After many decades of global warming the first eight weeks in 1940 turned the wheel back to the Little Ice Age. Suddenly the 10_winter in Europe was the coldest since the early 19th Century. That was man-made, and responsible was Adolf Hitler. After merely four months of war in Europe, with extensive naval war in its regional seas and coastal waters, the weather broke down. Completely unexpected temperatures were permanently seven to ten degrees Celsius below average for weeks. The responsibility was clear, the war-monger who started World War II on 1st September 1939. That was in first place Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler, at least in an objective sense. He never has been accused of this crime, even not on moral grounds, as climatology is not aware of this important link. Naval warfare not only slingshot the winter 1939/40, but also the next two winters back in the Little Ice Age, presumably also contributed significantly to a period of global cooling from 1940 to mid1970s.

POL-Recortd

16_

17_

Is Adolf Hitler’s responsibility in regard of the ‘climate change matters since winter 1939/40’ of any interest? Not necessarily from a criminal point of view, as he could claim, that none of his adviser and meteorologist had any idea of such a link, and none of them raised the issue, neither before WWII nor during the war.

 0m1

 The New York Times,
February 21, 1940

In Sweden all cold records werer beaten in the last twenty-four hours with 32 below zero, the coldest since 1805.

 0m2

 But here starts the problem of this historical event. Meteorology failed to warn the war-mongers before WWII commenced neither during the war. Whether that can be excused is a historical question. Quite different the period of time might be seen, which has J-Fpassed since winter 1939/40. For more than 76 years climatology was able to investigate and explain the various extraordinary meteorological changes, but nothing happened. For several decades climatology rides the carbon-dioxide-issue (CO2), as AGW, without being able and willing to investigate and explain the dramatic weather and climatic changes correlated with, during and after WWII.

Adolf Hitler’s personal guilt concerning the most pronounce climatic shift since the early 19th Century is not the point of concern, but the ignorance and unwillingness to establish in a clear scientific manner the reasons for the winter conditions 1939/40 and thereafter. As science has had seven decades to shed light on WWII impact on climate change matters, which would be evidently a man-made cause, it seems meanwhile a serious competence issue.

After all Adolf Hitler was not only a war-criminal, but should also be identified as the first climate-change criminal. Naming him as a “climate criminal” would help to recognize more clearly that     OCEANS MAKE CLIMATE

 

More and Credit: ocean-climate-law

In El Niño matters: “Ask the Experts” but expect nothing!

In mid-January 2016 the Journal Scientific American run a story;
“Ask the Experts: Is El Niño to Blame for So Much Weird 45_5Weather?”,

12_written by Mark Fischetti. As usual the benefit reading the text tends to nil. But before this is discussed, the author demonstrates that he understands little of its trade. He really claims that “the whole atmospheric system is so complicated that it never changes in the same way”. If that is the case, why paying for climate research? Obviously Fischetti does not know that the entire weather system is run by the laws of physics. Whether it is easy to understand, or difficult to analyze, the laws of physics determine the state of weather. Such a dumb assertion as published in a top journal, would presumably not possible, if science would be able and willing to give the term “weather” and “climate” a scientific reasonable meaning, e.g. as this site suggest: 1ocean-1climate. They ignore this paramount scientific duty .

 45_1  45_4

The current El Niño active since summer 2015, is one of the three strongest ever recorded, as long as one reduce the observation period to the last couple of decades. However we know that there was a El Niño during the first winter in World War II (WWII). In Europe the winter was the coldest for more than 100 years. (HERE) In the U.S. a number of States experienced an extraordinary dry and warm autumn 1939, and record cold in January 1940 as well. But why should a US Journal and M. Fischetti take note of this event and explain. The following images are self-explanatory:

45_2 45_4
45_3 45_6_

The Blog “fabiusmaximus” asks: Why we’re misled; how to get good info

Journalists report the weather and climate because it provides a stream of lurid stories (always a disaster or record in some form, somewhere) that we enjoy reading. They increasingly rely on activists (often amateur activists) for alarming — entertaining but often misleading — sound bites. Which is why the news media are among our least-trusted institutions, and their profits are melting like this winter’s snow.
Journalists — and citizens — interested in accurate information can turn to reliable and clear articles from NOAA. NOAA had a good 2015. They accurately predicted this would be among the 3 strongest on record, contrary to the hysterical predictions of a “monster” or “Godzilla” El Niño. And it appears to have peaked as their models predicted in early December, although the strongest impacts on the weather lie ahead in January and February. Continue reading: HERE

45_10 45_11_
45_12 45_13_

The failure of climate research is incompetence or unwillingness of the scientific community. If there have been two strong El Niño winters as now and 76 years ago in winter 1939/40, but the outcome is completely different, it should be the first obligation to annualize and explain the difference. (see Chapter B Part I & Part II) In the case of WWII it is even more an ultimate requirement, as it might prove the case that warfare has generated the cold winter. Presumably a too shocking aspect for CO2 and Greenhouse claims. But foremost the Journal Scientific American should stop to publish such stupid sentence as:

“The whole atmospheric system is so complicated
that it never changes in the same way”.

Ref: January 13, 2016; Scientific Ameriocan

January 2016 US Record Cold due to warm Europe via „Siberian Express“

22 January 2016, the coldest day ever!
Temperature records broken across the country by the ‘Siberian Express’ cold snap as Manhattan hits 1F. (Dailymail)

 46_1  46_2

Did hot Europe (Fig1) contributed to another record cold in U.S. Eastern States? Europe did it last year in February 2015 (see NOAA image, Fig. 2), as the winter was very mild. Western Europe is under the influence of the weather system from West to East. Atlantic low pressure areas move east, unless cold continental high pressure air blocks them. These are the winters that Europe talks about. This succeeds very well when the North Sea and Baltic do not assist the Atlantic weather because they cannot release enough heat or are hindered by sea icing. During last winter 2014/15 they served as perfect helpers and keep the cold from Siberia at a safe distance. Here the air mass known as the Siberian Express traces a line all the way back to the Russian territory, crossing over the North Pole on its way to Canada and into the U.S. (Fig.2)

The more the Atlantic weather governs the situation beyond the Ural the further Polar and Siberian cold will be pushed eastwards. This was felt in Alaska, Canada and Eastern U.S. in February 2015. Many days were extremely cold with deviations from the mean of 20°C and beyond.

More: http://www.ocean-climate-law.com/12/arch/12.html ;

As Essay from: Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering 6 (2016) 46- (PDF)

46_3 46_4

And it happened again a week ago on January 22, 2016 Europe helped to put the “Siberian Express” in motion:

  • In New York City, the temperature was 1F Friday morning, beating the record low from 1950, and snow is expected in the city over the weekend 

  • Cold weather expected to last through Friday, with sub-zero temperatures forecast in parts of Northeast 

  • On Thursday Embarrass, Minnesota reported a temperature of -41F – without the wind-chill factor

  • Some place, such as  

    • The temperature in Boston is below freezing, as the city is set to break the record of 16 days below 32F set in 1961

    • In Florida, strawberry and orange crops have frozen over because of the harsh winter weather 

The weather phenomenon dubbed the Siberian Express caused record-breaking low temperatures in almost every single area in the central and eastern US on Friday, with all major cities reporting record lows for this date and many reporting record lows for the month of February.

46_5 46_7_

[Credit: Monday, Jan 25th 2016   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2961118/Siberian-Express-arctic-blast-kills-seven-record-low-temperatures-Eastern-U-S.html ]

27/January/2016: Atlantic Cyclones and Siberian Express

46_10

US blizzard: Washington struggles to rebound from ‘Snowzilla’, analysts predict ‘multi-billion-dollar’ losses
(25. Jan. 2016)

 46_11
 46_12

A Few Severe Thunderstorms Possible in Florida Through Thursday
28 January 2016

 46_13