CH E (p. 80-101)

Chapter E. Climate changes todayE_cov


Autor: Dr. Arnd Bernaerts (date of publication 2006)
NOTE: All book images replaced
Published by: iuniverse/USA

The ‘Effect of the Naval War’ is a serious matter to discuss. The detailed investigation we went through in our pervious chapters proves that this phenomenon clearly dominated the climatic situation during the last century. The climate changed at least twice because of the war at sea. We still have to answer the question: by which proportion is man responsible for global warming?

aa_This issue has been the subject of arduous debates for more than 20 years. And most of the claims say that modern civilization is responsible for the higher atmospheric temperatures, which were caused by man-made greenhouse gases. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), active since 1988, is the main supporter of this thesis.

The carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main argument of the IPCC. Proud to convey the “consensus” of hundreds of top scientists from around the world, this organisation has hardly ever hesitated to confirm its belief in the Assessments Reports and their correctness.

The IPCC Report from 1990 states:

“Emission resulting from human activities is substantially increasing the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in additional warming of the earth’s surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it”.

Not everybody agrees with IPCC and its “consensus” thesis. While most of the scientists and climatologists support it, there are also voices which contradict the conclusions of IPCC. The most important document in this regard is the “Oregon Petition” of 1998, signed by 17,000 scientists who were protesting against the Kyoto Agreement. The petition requested the acknowledgement of the following statement:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth”.

Neither the IPCC nor the Oregon Petition’s claims are satisfactory enough. They don’t reflect a correct assessment and analysis of the Earth’s climate during the last 150 years.

The 20th century climatic changes

After the end of the Little Ice Age (in the middle of 19th century, around 1850), global temperature started to rise, the main reason g1_4of this phenomenon being the decrease of the volcanic activities. But naval war interrupted a steady warming trend two times yet.

World War I ended with a severe “bang” in the late 1918.

There is nothing clearer than the beginning of a “big warming” that occurred concomitantly with the end of WWI, in November 1918.

During WWI, naval war was fought around Britain and in the North and Baltic Seas. It actually started seriously only in the autumn of 1916 when new naval weaponry became fully available and devastatingly effective (particularly sub-marines (U-boats), depth charges, and sea mines). During the war year 1917, German U-boats alone sank ships with a total tonnage of 6,200,000. The war total loss was of 12 million tons: 5200 ships and about 650 naval vessels. Most merchant vessels had been fully loaded with cargoes of all kind, from grain, ore, coal, crude oil to whatever the war parties needed. All that stuff polluted the sea and was taken away by the Gulf Current or by the Norwegian Current up to the North. It was precisely there that the “big warming” occurred. At Spitsbergen, the winter temperatures jumped up by 8ºC in only a few years. Suddenly, the Northern Hemisphere became significantly warmer. The terms like “Greening of Greenland” or “Warming of Europe” became common expressions.

World War II (1939 – 1941): In the autumn of 1939, the naval warfare ended within four war months which reversed the two decade warming trend and determined the cooling phenomenon which started with three extreme war winters in Northern Europe and which lasted four decades, until 1980.

If the war in Europe had ended with the winter of 1939/40, a few weeks after Herman Goering’s speech (in mid-February 1940) , the description of the winter of 1939/40 as “weather modification” would have probably been correct. The extremely icy January and February 1940 would have ‘submerged’ in weather statistics.

But this didn’t happen. The war went on and the war winter of 1940/41 came up in Northern Europe with the same climatic conditions as the year before. The same phenomenon occurred again during the winter of 1941/42, when Germany was at war with Russia (since July 1941), the Baltic Sea became arctic and the temperature was colder than if they were at the North Pole.

World War II (1941 – 1945) saw naval war spreading at a global level and the global weather cooling down for four decades. After having gone through three chilling war winters in Europe (1939-1942), world community was ready to go through an even bigger climate experiment. With Japan’s ambush at Pearl Harbor with dozens of ships and hundreds of bomber air planes, on the 7th of December 1941, a new chapter of anthropogenic climate change started and was going to last for about four to five years, until most of the sea mine fields had been eliminated (1946/47). Mission was soon accomplished. Climate changed very pronouncedly to a colder status which lasted until about 1980.

“Global Warming” continued after 1980? The fact is that there was a strong warming between 1918 and 1939, which was interrupted for four decades by the naval war and then re-emerged in the early 1980. At this point, one can guess whether we can talk about a new cause or it is just the follow-up of the interrupted WWI-warming trend of 1918-1939.

Causes of the climate change (the 19th century)

Since the middle of the 19th century, when industrialization started to grow rapidly, man became an active user of the surrounding nature in many respects. That brings up the big question: did temperatures rise because of the end of the Little Ice Age only or did human activities have a major contribution to this climatic phenomenon?

There are a number of man-made contributory factors that may have had specific impacts on the atmospheric heating, e.g. local warming in the cities (due to housing, roads, and other resultant factors), smoke and dust over long distances or deforestation of huge forest areas. Each of the above examples may have had temporary or long lasting implications, but none of them is a major source for the strong warming or cooling trends during the last 150 years.

However, two major contributors (shipping and naval war) have been given little or no attention at all until now. Although the surface of the oceans is gigantic, their structure can be still influenced by certain factors. As we want to understand the impact of the oceans on climate better, we will briefly consider the main oceanic conditions.

a_ aaa_

Dimension

If the sun were “turned off,” the temperature of the atmosphere would be with only 28°C above absolute zero, viz. -245°C. With the sun and the “greenhouse gases”, but without enough water, the average temperature on earth would be of -11°C (resulting from a daytime mean temperature of approximately +135°C and a nighttime temperature of approximately -175°C). The moon provides such conditions at night. CO2 would delay the cooling towards the absolute minimum only for a short time. Its functioning on earth is not so much different.

The amount and the concentration of water in the atmosphere do matter. If the atmosphere is divided into two ‘warming’ or energy bearing mediums, more precisely water and greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, etc.), then the atmospheric humidity will have a warming capacity equal to a two-meter deep layer of the ocean surface, while greenhouse gases, a power equal to a one-meter deep layer. Practically, this means that a rise of the atmospheric temperature with 1°C must cause a drop of an equivalent amount in the upper three meters of the ocean. But because water vapor is usually in a much higher concentration at lower altitudes, its impact on the weather is much more powerful than CO2. CO2 is always equally distributed throughout the atmosphere. Their weather and temperature functioning are extremely different from ‘water in the air’. Water vapor is well above 95% responsible for the greenhouse effect; and on a foggy day, even 100%.

Since so much has been written about the greenhouse effect, whatever is written here will be insignificant. Basic understanding about carbon dioxide issue is relevant only as far as it is needed to provide a comparison between possible contributors to the warming trend (including human input). While atmospheric water is only a remote subject in IPCC reports on climate, the naval war and the shipping issue is practically inexistent.

Oceans and their functions

d9The oceans affected by naval and merchant ships operating and sailing the seas back and forth should d10have been the hottest topic in the debate on climate change since meteorology was established as a science in the late 19th century. Instead of that, oceans were ignored up to the late 20th century and not even today do they enjoy the significant position they deserve. Oceans are a decisive climatic force, the second after the sun.

a) The starting point is the fact that the oceans are huge and deep. If all continents were to be leveled, the globe would then be covered by one ocean all around the sphere, at a uniform depth of 3,000 meters. It is not only quite an impressive mass of water; water is also an excellent thermal reservoir. Heat capacity ratio between ocean and atmosphere is of 1:1000. The sea can store heat for hours, days, decades or even centuries. Atmospheric heat capacity is almost completely limited to the amount of water vapor available. If not sustained by sunrays or ocean heat, atmospheric heat is gone within 2 to 3 days. Humidity is particularly important for the winter seasons at higher latitudes where sunshine is rare, insufficient or even inexistent. Merchant and naval vessels, fishing and leisure boats plough and push warmer surface water to lower sea levels during summer time. During winter, the process is reversed. The more the ships turn the surface water layer around during the cold winter days, the more the warmer water from the lower levels will surface and contribute to rising the air temperature. However, heat capacity of shallow seas is grossly limited during winter season

b) A major climatic implication in the oceanic affairs started with the development and the use of screw-driven steam and motor vessels in the middle of the 19th century. For more than one hundred years, 10,000 vessels sailed the seas every day, covering more than 40,000,000 kilometres. Each ship sailing the seas will force more heat inside the sea than out of the sea. The more heat the oceans hold, the warmer the atmosphere gets. Thus, an area as large as the Atlantic (from the ice barrier of the Arctic to the ice barrier of the Antarctic) can be ploughed up in one year.

c) But there are not only merchantmen out in the sea. If all ships are to be counted (including fishing vessels, coast guard ships, tugs and millions of leisure boats during the summer season), we can easily double or triple the churning effect in the coastal waters and seas. And sailing is not the only contributor: let’s not forget the dragging, seabed drilling, off shore wind energy farms, etc. which may also contribute to the turning upside down of the seas. Actually, every contribution, as little as it may be, makes a difference in the statistics, possibly resulting in the change of the climate data.

d) There are virtually no continuous series of measurements, which would lead to acceptable conclusions about the isotherm structure and its development of the upper layer of the ocean to a depth of at least 50 meters, over a long period of time. But the temperature difference can be of several degrees within a few meters, during the summer as well as during the winter.

Who contributed and to which extent?

We are going to make a brief assessment of the percentage that each major contributor had in the process of the global warming.

The earth’s temperature has been rising for several decades. That is a fact that we all agree on. Many people also agree that The Little Ice Age came to an end because the series of Middle Age volcanic activities had ceased in the first place. As its impact on global warming is a significant one, natural causes are given a contribution rate of 50%. The next high rating of 30% is given to the section “ocean uses”. 20-25% is allocated to general ocean uses, as it happens day by day since the end of the Little Ice Age. Finally, only 5–10% is attributed to the naval war.

And where do we put the most important climate determinant? There is little one can do against the already established ‘beliefs’ of certain circles. This investigation gives CO2 a marginal rank, with only 10%. This low rating derives particularly from the fact that the atmosphere is not the driving force for the warming mechanism but a mere appendix of the oceans. Furthermore, since its first report in 1988, IPCC has never offered more explanation: through consensus, they just reached the conclusion that there was a connection between the rising of the CO2 level and the rising of the temperature level. This is hardly a convincing argument.

Other contributors and summary

One could possibly name many dozens of aspects and sources, alone or in combination with others that might contribute to warmer or colder regional and global air temperature. But none of them belongs to the “premiere league”, as a major player. Not to be ignored, they are given a rating of 10 %.

Why focus on war at sea?

To begin with, there is nothing so impossible to observe and to record as the ocean water masses are. There have never been 2such large oceanic experiments before the two big naval wars, each with the duration of a half-decade during WWI and WWII.

Although industrialization and meteorological science emerged two centuries ago, reliable ocean statistics, comparable to atmospheric weather statistics, is extremely scarce, not to mention the anthropogenic ocean usage which hardly exists. The use of oceans has never been taken into account seriously when it came to its determinant role in the climate change. So far, serious data is not available. One would have to look for computer modelling, which, until now, has rarely given impressive results.

It is a shame that it seems necessary to regard historical naval wars as a kind of blessing. Their massive appearance and devastating forces serve as huge field for experiments. One needs only to sit down and compare time of activity and results on weather charts and weather statistics. If these “experiments” prove that naval war changed the regional weather and the course of the climate, it will serve as ample proof that any kind of ocean uses are serious forces to be taken into consideration when matters of climate changes are at stake.

The central point of this investigation was to demonstrate how, during two world wars (in the 20th century), naval warfare contributed to the global warming. An in-depth analysis has shown that the overall picture provides clear clues. World War I initiated a two-decade warming, from 1918 until 1939. World War II initiated a four-decade cooling period, from 1940 until about 1980. What made things even more interesting are the three consecutive arctic war winters of 1939/40, 1940/41 and 1941/42, caused by military activities in the North and Baltic Seas. The emergence of these three winters proved to be a powerful demonstration of how naval warfare drove temperatures to the Ice Age level, changed regional weather conditions and left an imprint on climatic statistics. This is commonly called “climate change”.

Can WWII go by unnoticed?

The aim of the book was to drag the attention on the oceans, to explain the real cause of the global rising of temperatures, phenomenon that scientists started to study in the 1980’s. The aim of the book was to ensure that the mainstream of climate research was not constantly missing the point. The investigation had the purpose to establish that anthropogenic climatic changes were real and caused by the two grand field experiments that men undertook during the last century.

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

CO2 gases are the most blamed for the so-called global warming. And this thesis continues to be the viable and general accepted explanation for most of the official world. The aim of the book was to leave no doubt that the ocean determined where the climate was heading to. In this scenario, CO2 played only a minor role. CO2 was definitely neither the source of the “Big Warming Bang” (in 1918, far in the North of the North Atlantic), nor of the global cooling (from 1939 until the 1980’s).

Oceans and seas are very complex, which are not well-understood not even today. But war at sea during two major world wars was a tremendous force that has left its trace on the oceans. Two climate changes during the last century prove our thesis. Winter temperature had risen in Spitsbergen with 8ºC (1918–1939). The whole Europe got warmer every year. The German Chancellor Adolph Hitler started the war in 1939 and immediately North Europe was dragged back into the Little Ice Age, which implied climatic conditions not experienced for over 100 years. Two arctic war winters followed in the region with extreme naval activities until the war at sea went global, in 1942. And what followed immediately after that?

There were four decades of global cooling, affecting particularly the Northern Hemisphere, because here naval war had the most devastating effects and left a definite fingerprint in the downturn of global temperatures.

Even though our book section on naval warfare between 1942 and 1945 is short, the connection between naval forces and global cooling is overwhelmingly convincing. Actually, it is the first reasonable explanation for this phenomenon at all.

Even more reliable proof is the several regional, large field experiments in Northern Europe’s waters: 1916/17, 1939/40, 1940/41 and 1941/42. They were strongly felt throughout the region because of the extreme winter temperatures. Each time, the effect was like a “big shift”, proving that a definition like “climate is the average weather over a longer period of time” is nonsense in the field of scientific research.

c2 c1_ c3

Winter temperatures of more than 5ºC below average are totally out of tune. Weather statistics cried for attention, but nothing happened in this respect over more than six decades.

Until now, only one of the most ruthless WWII warmongers, the German Vice-Chancellor Hermann Goering, commented the arctic winter of 1939/40 by saying that a higher power has “sent” the harsh winter conditions. It is time to prove him wrong and to blame him, Hitler and the Nazis for having caused the arctic war winters and the global cooling.
Imagine that there is a phenomenon like the global cooling and that no one cares about giving an explanation. Imagine that there is global warming and that, this time, the world is highly concerned. The first reflects circumstances that happened more than half a century ago; the latter is the actual situation. So far, the statements seem to contradict each other. But in a wider sense, they are pretty logical. Someone who claims to be able to explain current global warming must implicitly be able to explain a pronounced global cooling which affected the climate only half a century ago. Ignoring the event for more than six decades is even more bizarre than relating phenomena to a ‘higher power’.

Do you remember the moment when the unusually powerful hurricane ‘Katrina’ hit New Orleans in the summer of 2005? People insisted on being informed and on understanding the phenomenon. Let’s assume that winter temperatures turn suddenly to Ice Age conditions (not experienced for more than one hundred years), but no one talks about this because there is a war going on. That was the case during the winter of 1939/40, when, in several locations in Northern Europe, average temperatures were more degrees lower than during the previous century, and the WWII war machinery cooled down the earth for four decades.

If this investigation succeeds in proving that two major wars changed the course of the climate twice in the last century, it will also prove that shipping, fishing, off-shore drilling, and other ocean uses had constantly contributed to the global warming since the start of industrialization, more than 150 years ago. A new chapter on the climate change issue could be now opened, giving more attention to oceanic phenomena under the influence of the potential of the “1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” . All research would lead to a better understanding and protection of the stability of our short-term weather and long-term global climate.

Concluding Remark

Those readers who wish to read a comprehensive scientific assessment, with detailed references, can find complete information in the book “Climate Change and Naval War”, published by Trafford/Canada, 2005, or visit

www.seaclimate.com

www.warchangesclimate.com

 FOOTNOTES

[1] www.bbc.co.uk/climate/policies/uk_policy.shtml Topic: Climate Change from the BBC Weather Centre/ Policies/ UK Policy; “PM Tony Blair described climate change as ‘the most important environmental issue facing the world today’”.

[2] Hermann Goering was a celebrated pilot which fought on an air fighter in WWI. He joined the Nazi movement in 1923 and became head of Germany’s armed forces in 1938. The following year, he officially became Hitler’s deputy and legal heir. After WWII started, Goering was named in charge of the Luftwaffe. In 1946, he was found guilty of war crime during the War Crimes Trail at Nuremberg.

[3] Herman Goering in a speech in Berlin on the 15th of February 1940; reported by The New York Times, the 16th of February 1940.

[3] Arnd Bernaerts, Letter to Editor, NATURE, Vol.360, the 26th of November 1992, p. 292;

SIR – The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the earlier struggle for a Convention on Climate Change may serve as a reminder that the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea has its tenth anniversary on 10 December. It is not only one of the most comprehensive and strongest international treaties ever negotiated but the best possible legal means to protect the global climate. But sadly, there has been little interest in using it for this purpose. For too long, climate has been defined as the average weather and Rio was not able to define it at all. Instead, the climate Change Convention uses the term ‘climate system’, defining it as “the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions”. All that this boils down to is ‘the interactions of the natural system’. What is the point of a legal term if it explains nothing? For decades, the real question has been who is responsible for the climate. Climate should have been defined as ‘the continuation of the oceans by other means’. Thus, the 1982 Convention could long since have been used to protect the climate. After all, it is the most powerful tool with which to force politicians and the community of states into actions.

[5] German daily weather charts of ‘Seewarte’.

6 Source:www.usafa.af.mil/dfh/harmon_series/docs/Harmon36.doc.

[6] Liljequist, Gösta H.; ‚Isvintern 1941/42’; in: Staten Meteorologisk – Hydrograiska Anstalt, No.4, 1942, pp.2-15.

[7] It should not be so much a surprise that the third coldest January occurred during WWI. There were also a lot of naval activities in all North Sea regions. Since late 1916 naval warfare stepped into a new age of destruction, due newly developed sea mines, submarines and depth charges (see chapter on WWI, below). In so far it might be not too far fetched to assume any link between the biggest naval encounter ever, the Battle of Jutland on 31st May 1916 and the record January 1941.

[8] Second coldest was January 1942 (-12,1°C); Third coldest January 1917 (-11,6), seven months after Battle of Jutland according monthly means temperatures at Oslo/Gardermoen (www.wetterzentrale.com/klima/) during time period 1816-1988. 4th coldest January 1867 (-11°C), 5th coldest January 1820 (-10,7°C).

[9] Water entering Skagerrak via the Jutland Current in the southwest, proceeding along Denmark’s coast, turning anti clockwise at Sweden’s coast to become off Oslo Fjord the Norwegian Coast Current flowing south-westward until leaving Skagerrak and turning northwards flowing along Norway’s coast until reaching Norwegian Sea. In opposite direction a deep counter current injects high salinity Atlantic water into the Skagerrak deep.

[10] Liljequist, Gösta H.; ‚Isvintern 1941/42’; in: Staten Meteorologisk – Hydrograiska Anstalt, No.4, 1942, pp.2-15.

[11] Liljequist, Gösta H; ‘The severity of the winters at Stockholm 1757 – 1942’, Geografiska Annaler 1-2, 1943, p. 81-104; and as an extended paper in: Meddelanden, Serien Uppsatser, Stockholm 1943, pp.1-24.

[12] Liljequist, Gösta H., ‚Isvintern 1941/42’; in: Staten Meteorologisk – Hydrograiska Anstalt, No.4, 1942, pp.2-15.

[13] See above: Chapter I, Introduction

[14] Gösta Liljequist, Liljequist, Gösta H. (1941/42); ‚Isvintern 1941/42’; in: Staten Meteorologisk – Hydrograiska Anstalt, No.4, 1942, pp.2-15.

[15] A.J. Drummond.; ‚Cold winters at Kew Observatory, 1783-1942’; Quarterly Journal of Royal Met. Soc., No. 69, 1943, pp 17-32, and: Drummond, A.J.; Discussion of the paper: ‚Cold winters at Kew Observatory, 1783-1942’; Quarterly Journal of Royal Met. Soc., 1943, p. 147ff.

[16] Cave, C.J.P.; ‚The ice storm of January 27-29, 1940’, and Discussion; Quarterly Journal of Royal Met. Soc., Vol. 66, No.285, 1940, pp.143-150. See also http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/climate/wxevents

[17] Lewis, Lilian, F.; ‘Snow-cover in the British Isles in January and February of the severe winters 1940, 1941 and 1942’, in: Quarterly Journal of Royal Met. Soc., 1943, pp. 215-219.

[17] Finnish Institute of Marine Research; M. Leppäranta et al.; “Phases of the ice season in the Baltic Sea’ No. 254, Suppl.2; Helsinki 1988

[19] Drummond, A.J.; ‚Cold winters at Kew Observatory, 1783-1942’; Quarterly Journal of Royal Met. Soc., No. 69, 1943, pp 17-32, and: Drummond, A.J.; Discussion of the paper: ‚Cold winters at Kew Observatory, 1783-1942’; Quarterly Journal of Royal Met. Soc., 1943, p. 147ff.

[20] Winton, John; ‘Convoy – The defense of sea trade 1890-1990’, London 1983.

[21] Gilles, D.C.; ‘The Temperature ans Salinity of the Surface Waters of the Irish Sea for the Period 1935-46’, in: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom. Society, Geophys. Suppl., Vol.5, Nr.9, London 1949, pp. 374-397.

22] Birkeland, B.J.; ‘Temperaturvariationen auf Spitzbergen’, Meteorologische Zeitschrift, Juni 1930, p.234-236

23] The New York Times, August 14, 1975

[24] Science magazine, March 1, 1975,; and December 10, 1976.

[25] Time magazine, June 24, 1974 “

[26] Source: www.pmel.noaa.gov/

[27] For example 1990, 1995; and the Report 2001 on http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

[28] IPCC First Scientific Assessment Report, Climate Change, J.T. Houghton, et al (ed), Executive Summary, page XI, Cambridge July 1990

[29] See: Anti Global Warming Petition Project; http://www.oism.org/pproject

[30] See Chapter A

[31] See: Chapter A, Footnote 4, Letter to Nature in 1992

Below is the original book version published and online 2006 – not updated

Climate changes today

The ‘Effect of the Naval War’ is a serious matter to discuss. The detailed investigation we went through in our pervious chapters proves that this phenomenon clearly dominated the climatic situation during the last century. The climate changed at least twice because of the war at sea. We still have to answer the question: by which proportion is man responsible for global warming? Get the PDF!

The 20th century climatic changes Get the PDF!

The ‘Effect of the Naval War’ is a serious matter to discuss. The detailed investigation we went through in our pervious chapters proves that this phenomenon clearly dominated the climatic situation during the last century. The climate changed at least twice because of the war at sea. We still have to answer the question: by which proportion is man responsible for global warming? This issue has been the subject of arduous debates for more than 20 years. And most of the claims say that modern civilization is responsible for the higher atmospheric temperatures, which were caused by man-made greenhouse gases. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), active since 1988, is the main supporter of this thesis.

Causes of the climate change (the 19th century) Get the PDF!

Since the middle of the 19th century, when industrialization started to grow rapidly, man became an active user of the surrounding nature in many respects. That brings up the big question: did temperatures rise because of the end of the Little Ice Age only or did human activities have a major contribution to this climatic phenomenon? There are a number of man-made contributory factors that may have had specific impacts on the atmospheric heating, e.g. local warming in the cities (due to housing, roads, and other resultant factors), smoke and dust over long distances or deforestation of huge forest areas. Each of the above examples may have had temporary or long lasting implications, but none of them is a major source for the strong warming or cooling trends during the last 150 years. However, two major contributors (shipping and naval war) have been given little or no attention at all until now. Although the surface of the oceans is gigantic, their structure can be still influenced by certain factors. As we want to understand the impact of the oceans on climate better, we will briefly consider the main oceanic conditions.

Dimension Get the PDF!

If the sun were “turned off,” the temperature of the atmosphere would be with only 28°C above absolute zero, viz.-245°C.With the sun and the “greenhouse gases”, but without water, the average temperature on earth would be of- 11°C (resulting from a daytime mean temperature of approximately +135°C and a nighttime temperature of approximately-175°C). The moon provides such conditions at night. CO2 would delay the cooling towards the absolute minimum only for a short time. Its functioning on earth is not so much different.

Oceans and their functions Get the PDF!

The oceans affected by naval and merchant ships operating and sailing the seas back and forth should have been the hottest topic in the debate on climate change since meteorology was established as a science in the late 19th century. Instead of that, oceans were ignored up to the late 20th century and not even today do they enjoy the significant position they deserve. Oceans are a decisive climatic force, the second after the sun.

Who contributed and to which extent? Get the PDF!

We are going to make a brief assessment of the percentage that each major contributor had in the process of the global warming. The earth’s temperature has been rising for several decades. That is a fact that we all agree on.Many people also agree that The Little Ice Age came to an end because the series of Middle Age volcanic activities had ceased in the first place. As its impact on global warming is a significant one, natural causes are given a contribution rate of 50%. The next high rating of 30% is given to the section “ocean uses”. 20-25% is allocated to general ocean uses, as it happens day by day since the end of the Little Ice Age. Finally, only 5–10% is attributed to the naval war.

Other contributors and summary

One could possibly name many dozens of aspects and sources, alone or in combination with others that might contribute to warmer or colder regional and global air temperature. But none of them belongs to the “premiere league”, as a major player. Not to be ignored, they are given a rating of 10 %.

Why focus on war at sea? Get the PDF!

To begin with, there is nothing so impossible to observe and to record as the ocean water masses are. There have never been such large oceanic experiments before the two big naval wars, each with the duration of a half-decade during WWI and WWII. Although industrialization and meteorological science emerged two centuries ago, reliable ocean statistics, comparable to atmospheric weather statistics, is extremely scarce, not to mention the anthropogenic ocean usage which hardly exists. The use of oceans has never been taken into account seriously when it came to its determinant role in the climate change. So far, serious data is not available. One would have to look for computer modelling, which, until now, has rarely given impressive results.

Can WWII go by unnoticed? Get the PDF!

The aim of the book was to drag the attention on the oceans, to explain the real cause of the global rising of temperatures, phenomenon that scientists started to study in the 1980’s. The aim of the book was to ensure that the mainstream of climate research was not constantly missing the point. The investigation had the purpose to establish that anthropogenic climatic changes were real and caused by the two grand field experiments that men undertook during the last century.

Concluding Remark

Those readers who wish to read a comprehensive scientific assessment, with detailed references, can find complete information in the book “Climate Change and Naval War”, published by Trafford/Canada, 2005, or visit www.seaclimate.com, or, www.seaclimate.de www.oceanclimate.de www.warchangesclimate.com