|
NOTE:
The website is under construction. presumably until early January 2012!
A1.
Introduction to
climate change and man’s contribution.
The Second World War stands for pure horror: the criminal madness of
the German Nazi government, also for the only climatic shift from warm to
cold in an otherwise constantly warming world over the last 150 years. The
three war winters of 1939/40, 1940/41 and 1941/41 mark the change. In the
regions that had been closest to intense naval war activities, the Baltic,
the North Sea and the sea areas around
Great Britain
, immediately experienced the coldest winter in 100 years. For this to
happen, men needed only four months since commencing the Second World War
(WWII) on September 1st 1939. Not only during the first but also second
and third war winter.
Europe
’s winters were back in the Little Ice Age. After
Japan
attacked
Pearl Harbor
on December 7th 1941 the naval war became a global affair lasting until
August 1945. In close conformity with the naval war in European seas, and
globally subsequently, a pronounced global cooling took place, which
lasted over three decades until about the mid 1970s.
Not one weather forecast had expected an exceptionaly cold winter.
Since the midle of the previous century the winters had been becoming
milder over the time. The Englishman A.J.
Drummond expressed his astonishment in 1943: “The present century
has been marked by such a wide-spread tendency toward mild winters that
the ‘old-fashioned winters’, of which one has heard so much, seemed to
have gone for ever”. At the same time the Swede G.H.
Lilijequist ascertained that such a series of three consecutive cold
winters in Stockholm have never been observed, while the German M.
Rodewald (1948) wondered that the pronounced, 'secular heat wave'
since the 19th century had been interrupted so suddenly by three
consecutive severe winters. However, a connection with the war at sea had
never been recognized. Neither the three mentioned experts, nor their
colleagues, nor the ten thousand climatologists of following generations
noted the connection. The biggest climatic change since the industrial
revolution, its debut in the winter of 1939/40, and the subsequent three
decade lasting cold period is still a mystery in climatology.
|
|
|
|
There are plenty of signs of a
close timely correlation between the naval war and the three extreme
winters. Many observations, whether concerning rain, wind, temperature,
and the sea ice formed in the
North Sea
and the Baltic, indicate answers for it’s cause, like the fact that for
the first time since 1883, the Baltic was fully covered by ice.
Temperatures plunged very deep particularly in regions, which were covered
by the most intense naval warfare. The "naval war effect" is
clearly visible during the winter because the seas and coastal waters
north of the
English Channel
exchange the heat they have stored during the summer season with the
atmosphere. North of the Bay of Biscay the influence of the sun on winter
weather in
Northern Europe
is low, that of the ocean and seas comparably mighty.
Actually, the effect of ocean uses,
including naval warfare, on weather and climate should have been
investigated and understood long ago. A thorough analysis of the effect of
the two naval wars during WWI and WWII could have contributed important
insights into manmade climate change. There are not only the
meteorological data available of the three extreme winters of 1939/40 to
1941/42, and the several year long naval warfare in the Atlantic and
Pacific, but there are also numerous facts available for comparison with
the First World War from 1914 to 1918 (WWI). It seems utterly unacceptable
that science ignores observation that had been made 70 years ago. Here are
two examples:
·
__Drummond
(1943): "Since the beginning of comparative observations in 1871,
there have been only three consecutive winters (1939/1940, 1940/1941 and
1941/1942) that were as snowy as this, i.e. 1915/1916, 1916/1917 and
1917/1918. "
·
__Östmann
(1941): "Very rarely are two severe ice winters directly followed one
another - since 1870 when regular ice observations started in
Sweden
. Except for the last two winters, these are -1939/40 and 1940/41 the only
other cases are 1915/16 and 1916/17."
How would Mr. Östmann have expressed his astonishment, if he had also written
the next sea ice report for the Swedish weather service? Instead of the
already mentioned G.H. Lilijequist
who was in charge, noting that the third war winter 1941/42 was colder
than the previous two winters, and the coldest in
Stockholm
since 1756. The reason is not too difficult to identify: The German
invasion of the
Soviet Union
since June 22nd 1941, which included a seven month battle for
supremacy in the eastern Baltic between the German Navy and the Baltic
Fleet, until heavy sea ice prevented any further naval activities by the
end of January 1942.
Links between naval warfare and climatic deviations during WWII are
abundantly available. Discussing human activities in the marine
environment in conjunction with three extreme winters in Europe
(1940-1942), and the commencement of global cooling (1940-1970) is not
done to write a history of naval warfare, but does not only demonstrate
that the oceans and seas are the key to understand the functioning of
climate, but how quickly human activities cause a threat to the weather
and climatological system. If a period of four months naval activities in
autumn 1939 shows sufficient interrelations on contribution to an extreme
winter in
Europe
, what further motivation is needed to go for a painstaking analysis of
the impact of the two World wars on climatological changes? The general
public and the international community can require from science that it is
able to understand and explain the two most serious climatic changes that
occurred 70 respectively 90 years ago, and whether they have had an
anthropogenic component, due to naval warfare during WWI and WWII. A
positive answer would underline the books subtitle: “The oceans makes
the Climate”, or that:
Climate is the continuation of ocean properties by other means.
|
New Book
Publication - 2012
To the Table of
Content (ToC)
Below an example of one of the
14 Temperature Maps (TM).
Here: Winter 1939/40 - TM4
The Author
Dr. jur., trained as seaman and served as ship master
before becoming a lawyer and an international consultant.
|
NOTE:
The website is under construction. presumably until early January 2012!
J.
Result
DRAFT _uncorrected)
Climatology
does not care. The connection between two naval wars and two climatic
changes within 25 years has not been investigated and explained yet.
That can’t be may some reader say. However, that is the case. Climate
science does not know to this day that during the global warming over
the last 150 years the
two world wars have influenced
the two only climatic changes in this period.
Even for the meteorologists
of the war generation there was
nothing in the way to
obtain the knowledge about this
relationship. If they had warned
by the intensity on the threat of climate
change, as their successor
do it currently with the "greenhouse
effect", World War II may have been prevented,
or at least war activities been limited. They
did not, and this
justifies the question:
Had meteorology been too stupid in the first half
of last century?
Demonstrating
the effect of naval
warfare, is not
difficult, if one recognizes the seas
as the dominant climate
factor, and
limits the investigation on the war winter
season In
Europe there was a record
number of winters. The
climate changes that followed the wars, the
strong warming phase
(1919-1939) and the
cooling phase (1940
to ca.1975), naval warfare
attributed, at least partially.
The starting points of the
naval war theses are the
three extremely cold war
winter of 1939/40, 1940/41 and
1941/42 in
Europe
. Had they happened without the war at sea? No!
To prove this, the study
use more than
four-fifths of the available book space.
The result is convincing. The
three extreme winters are
anthropogenic and the source is the sea. This
justifies, assuming a link with
the long-term changes
until proven evidently otherwise. So far other explanations
offer far much less
convincing options.
The
naval war impact is proven according the air temperatures in
Europe
. The available material is sufficient.
Especially helpful are
the temperature maps from
the NASA, many of which are
reproduced in color. From
them one can easily
see: The world
was warm, just
Europe
froze. It is
shown that a cold
corridor extends from the
west coast of
England
, via the North and
Baltic Sea
towards the Urals. This
applies to all three winters, but is especially
elaborated for the first war
winter 1939/40. This
winter was a
complete surprise to the contemporaries, and
any deviation is based on
observation from periods without
human military interventions in the marine
environment. Evidential circumstance can be also drawn from the
sea ice developments in the North and
Baltic
Seas
, which got the first full-icing since
1883. It
is getting sensational if one adds the air temperatures
and sea ice cover of the
initial three war winters and is looking for comparative
periods. They seem not to exist. Their absence
confirms the thesis. That
these three extreme winters
did not repeat between 1943 and 1945 can be explained
by the fact that naval war went global after the attack on
Pearl Harbor in December 1941,
and the war activities at sea happened across the
Atlantic
and the Western Pacific.
With
the relocation of naval warfare from
Europe in the oceans
of the Northern Hemisphere,
the consolidation of the global
cooling that began, which statistically
commenced with the extreme
winter 1939/40. In
turn, is evident in
temperature data at many the Atlantic
locations. In a recent
study by Thompson (et
al., 2010) only
a late phase of global
cooling around 1970, by 0.3°C lower
water temperatures in the
North Atlantic is
attributed. On possible
contribution by 5 years the naval war in
the
Atlantic
, the authors have
spend no word. They ignore, as other
climate scientists, the
role of the
Atlantic
for the change to a
cold phase from 1940 onwards.
Also in the northern Pacific,
there was an abrupt change in
surface temperatures, after
amassing a colossal war machinery between
Hawaii
and the Asian continent from 12/1941 to 08/1945. A change in the
attribution of warm and cold water, known as "Pacific
Decadal Oscillation", began 1943. Since
this phenomenon has been in place for only two times
in the last century, indicates a contribution
by the Pacific War. This
is supported by the
very cold winter of 1944-45 in
Japan
, as well as by low temperatures in the following
summer months, when the naval warfare
came closer and closer to Japan’s shores.
From
the beginning to the end of the Second World War meteorology could have
been foreseen these developments, if they had ever
undertaken to analyze the weather and climate
development during the First World
War. At the latest, when
it became known, that the winter temperatures had rapidly at
Spitsbergen since 1918/19, the time had come to
analyze the effect of the previous
naval warfare on the
weather conditions in Europe,
on the sea areas in
Western Europe and their connection
through the
Norway
and the West
Spitsbergen Current. But
neither an exceptional
snow incidence in
England over three successive
winters, for example nor the increasing sea
cover in the Baltic Sea (see Ref: Drummond and
Östmann above), or the cold winter 1916/17 in
West Europe, neither the extreme sea ice in the Nordic Sea during summer
1917, etc, were taken into consideration. How
is it possible that massive naval wars have been ignored as potential
anthropogenic climate change? Thus,
meteorologists failed to gain
the competence which would
have enabled them to warn of the possible consequences of a further
world war. The
consequences are with
the word, ‘tragic' inadequately described.
The
tragedy
continues: Even after
90 respectively 70 years,
none of the issues raised has
been picked up by climatology and been answered.
Instead, it is suggested to the public
and politics that the climate
system and anthropogenic influences,
with reference to the
greenhouse effect, is understood. This
is objectively irresponsible, as
long as the weather and climate change,
which could be observed
during both world wars,
is neither discussed, nor
explained, nor proven.
The findings highlight
the dominance of the oceans
in weather and climate
system significantly. One may have to
speak of a lack of professionalism, if it is recalled what an
oceanographer HU Sverdrup
had told meteorologists already 70 years ago:
It
might appear, therefore, as if the oceanic
circulation and the distribution of temperature
and salinity in the ocean are caused by the
atmospheric processes, but such a conclusion would be
erroneous, because the energy that maintains the
atmospheric circulation is to be greatly supplied
by the oceans. *)
*) "Oceanography for
Meteorologists",
New York
1942.
|
