What is Climate

Hard to believe – The experts from the department of meteorology have never considered whether a major war can change weather pattern. To highlight the failure, the following consideration put the focus on ten experts concerning their view on the reason of the extreme war winters 1939/40, 1940/41, and 1941/42. Eight profiles are about time witnesses, two were born much later. One should assume that the list of a few time witnesses is selective, but surprisingly it is not. Actually none of the time witnesses considers in the remotest sense a correlation between the war and the weather extreme. Even more surprising little efforts have been undertaken to analyse the weather condition during World War II comprehensively. To my knowledge the time witnesses listed below represent the scientific standard in this respect quite well. At least no better or more convincing sources I became aware of during my research.

Although all recognise that these winters had been extreme exceptional, not one of them raised the most obvious question, namely to ask about the role of the war on the weather. How can science work with such a big lack of curiosity? How can today climatology claim that they understand ‘climate change’ if they have no definite answers at hand about weather and climate deviations that had happen under the eyes of modern science. The following presentation of views provides a fairly comprehensive picture of the negligence of science in the ‘war change weather matter’. Hard to believe. WWII ended 65 ago, and science has no idea what did the war to the weather.

If there has ever one sentence been published that alone should have forced legions of scientist into motion, and kept them going until they had convincingly established the reasons and conditions why it had happen, it could have been this sentance:

A link of some remarkable proportion, between snow cover and naval warfare, can be expected for sure. If seven decades could pass without that science has shown any interest, either to establish a connection, or prove evidently that that was definitely not the case, than something is wrong with science, or with the professionalism of scientist working in the field of anthropogenic climate change. Naval war is not natural, but activities by man in the marine environment.

Fig.3

Furthermore, the paper clearly highlights the exceptionality of the three war winters by stressing:

“The present century has been marked by such a widespread tendency towards mild winters that the ‘old-fashioned winters’, of which one had heard so much, seemed to have gone for ever. The sudden arrival at the end of 1939 of what was to be the beginning of a series of cold winters was therefore all the more surprising. Never since the winters 1878/79, 1879/80 and 1880/81 have there been three in succession so severe as those of 1939/40, 1940/41 and 1941/42.”

And Drummond offers more facts to think about. One very fine example is that during 155 years of observation of the wind direction during the winter season (1788 to 1942) only 21 had easterly resultant, and only three a northerly component: 1812 (NE), 1842 (NE), and 1939/40 (ENE). Ignoring such invaluable observation is unprofessional.

A.J. Drummond’s very detailed assessment on cold winters deserves attention, as it provides interesting data and observation to determine the role the naval war had on the extreme three war winter 1939-1940.

[1] Correspondingly (Lewis,1943) confirms “Three such severe winters in succession as 1940, 1941 and 1942 appear to be without precedent in the British Isles for at least 60 years, a similar succession occurring from 1879-1881.”