Post 24. February 2018
Recently we discussed here: “Europe winter free – Thanks to off-shore windfarms?”; showing that when reginal seas are cooled to ‘unusual levels’, Siberian icy cold air can easily travel to the Atlantic shore. Something similar just occurs right now outside.
Don’t believe that this spring is bound to being cold by natural cuase. If you do not see at least an attempt to consider a serious human contribution reject it as too superficial and incomplete. As shown in Fig. 1 & 2, the center of cold are the North-Sea and the Baltic Sea. For Europe they functioning like a storage-heater. During summer they take heat in, during winter they release heat. The latter is particular important to keep the west-drift working. This means, moisture warm air moves from the Atlantic east-wards toward the Ural Mountains, until it is stopped by continental cold and dry air. The weaker the maritime air is, the easier she not only gets ‘pulverized’ by the cold and dry air, but opens the path for the ‘Beast from the East’ to travel to the Atlantic shore.
Until now science has never cared. Many posts and research remained unnoticed, for example a recent essay: HERE-2016. Highly active is the news press, but offer nothing in explanation. Here some excerpts:
__ Meteorologist Alex Burkill told the Evening Standard that the cold snap was likely to mirror freezing winter weather seen in March 2013 – the second coldest March recorded in more than 100 years.
__ Dominik Jung warns against such complacency and dismissive attitudes: The icy cold, also called the Russian Whip, is really going to hit starting on Sunday. Foremost nights are going to be especially cold. Low temperatures are expected to fall under double-digits below zero. Over snow covered ground minus 20 or minus 25°C are possible. Even lower temperatures are possible directly at ground level.”
__Jesper Starn and Rachel Morison at Bloomberg: Cold air flows from Siberia will send temperatures 10 degrees Celsius (18 Fahrenheit) below normal next week, when Germany, France and parts of Britain are expected to get the coldest temperatures this winter, weather forecasters said….. The freezing conditions will last through the first 10 days of March for Britain, the Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia and could bring heavy snowfall, Dobson said.
There is no mentioning of any anthropogenic aspects, whether big or small, although the matter leaves hardly any room for neglecting a significant human contribution. For further information see the following links
__Validation required! Climate impact of offshore wind turbines serious!
__Off-shore wind farm impact is not natural variabuility.
and kindly pay us another visit for any further update.
The next three Fig. demonstrate the difference between prediction and facts. (Add. 27. Feb. 20h GMT)
Can the courts say something about global warming?
Post by Dr. Arnd Bernaerts, 17th February 2018
Are jurists able to deliberate climate cases? That was a question asked by Ron Clutz in a recent post (22.Dec.2017): “How many other jurists have prepared themselves for this battleground?”, referring to a discussion by Jason Scott Johnson, et al; Global Warming Advocacy Science: A Cross Examination (2010, PDF, 80 p). A very recent defamation case the court showed strength by calling the article “a poorly written opinion piece that offers views on conventional climate science”. The case was dismissed. The clear verdict was released on February 13, 2018, (Judgement ca. 23p) based on the following circumstances. .
The Supreme Court in British Columbia/Canada had to handle a dispute between a climate warm-monger, Andrew Weaver (plaintiff), and on the other hand a climate skeptic Timothy (Tim) Ball (defendant). Both are Professors and well versed in the climate research field since long. Now the plaintiff required damage for defamation by a Tim Ball article on January 10, 2011, entitled: „Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years”. (full text: Judgment – Schedule A – p. 20-22).
Whether the Judge, Mr Justice Skolrood, has any in-depth knowledge about the climate change debate is hardly to say. Presumably not. His reasoning shows the professional capability of careful reading and analysis. Without calling in experts for cross-examination (Judgement p. 6/7), he made, inter alia, the general observations:
“… despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth.”
”…that people read a 45-year-old text on climate science written by Professor Hubert Lamb”.
 “Overall, even as an opinion piece, the Article presents as poorly written and it provides little in the way of credible support for Dr. Ball’s thesis”.
Reading through the huge blog-share on climate change matters, what percentage of posts, whether pro or contra, would be characterized similar? The number would surely be high, but to what effect? Improve the climate change debate?
Prof. Tim Ball’s reaction at WUWT (14. Feb) offers little hope. His post starts as it follows:
I am extremely grateful for the judgment of a complete dismissal in the lawsuit brought against me by Andrew Weaver. It is a victory for free speech and a blow against the use of the law to silence people. As with all events, there is so much more that rarely receives attention yet is essential to understanding and improving conditions in the future.
This statement ignores the principle damage done to science in general and him in particular. The claim was rejected because of his ‘meaningless’ chatter, presumably not worse than those of Andrew Weaver. Tim Ball is certainly a serious man, but the Judge had not to look at that, but only to identify a case of defamation, which he not rejected entirely, saying:
 “….While the Article is derogatory of Dr. Weaver, it is not defamatory, in that the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr. Weaver’s reputation in the minds of reasonable thoughtful and informed readers”
What a blow, at least in this case. Let us end the discussion at this point, with the reminder that this blog challenged Tim Ball twice concerning the meaning of the term climate; HERE in July/2015, HERE October/2015, and HERE January/2018. When his 2011-text emphasise “that he has taught science for the last 30 years”, which means since 1981, he should have realized that all sections of scince is talking about climate but not able to ensure that the use of the word ‘climate’ is based on reasonable scientific definitions. Lamb and Hare (see Figures) stressed that Cliamte used to be a layman’s term.
Whether jurists are able to say something about global warming, may be only secondary to experienced judicial deliberation, which the Supreme Court in British Columbia could demonstrate in the case Weaver vs Ball fairly well .
F. Kenneth Hare (1919-2002) on: DEFINITIONS OF CLIMATE
Canada’s most distinguished geographer and climatologists,
the late Professor F. Kenneth Hare, explained that climate
was a layman’s word, and that the professional use is still erratic
Extract from section: Climatic Variability and Change (ca. 1984)*
“The word climate is often seen as ambiguous, because of confusion with related words like weather, or vague climatic conditions. In fact it is capable of fairly exact definition. In recent years, moreover, public usage seems to have moved closer to that of the professional.
In lay usage, climate usually stands for the expectation of weather on time-scales comparable with a human lifetime; it is the layman’s sense of the sequence of weather he or she may expect at a given locality. As such it governs countless daily decisions, from choice of personal clothing to the work calendar of the farmer. Habitually this expectation is taken for granted. Only when unexpected weather occurs does the ordinary citizen become acutely aware of the stresses that the atmosphere’s behaviour can bringsometimes to the point where the question is asked (as it is below): `is the climate changing?’ This question arises from the suspicion that recent weather lies outside normal expectation, that is, outside the present climate.
Professional usage is still erratic, but usually starts with the same idea of expectation. It is assumed
that a climate exists at any given moment; and
that the integrated experience of the recent past specifies this climate.
We tend to assume that the near future will resemble this recent past. For lack of any better guide we accept a dictum attributed to Whitehead: how the past perishes is how the future becomes. We think it highly probable that past experience will repeat itself. In effect, we assume that the climate of today will endure for an undefined period.”
*) F. Kenneth Hare; ca. 1984; Climatic Variability and Change, “SCOPE 27 Climate Impact Assessment – Studies of the Interaction of Climate and Society”, Preface by: ROBERT W. KATES; available via: https://de.scribd.com/document/85685254/Climate-Impact-Assessment-10-1-1-123
Climate Science ignorance helps to keep heavy cold at bay
Post: 3rd February 2018, by Dr. Arnd Bernaerts
It seems time to praise science, but only if you do not care and prefer warming. In Europe winter are getting warmer at a pace faster than global average. The current winterproves it again. Whereas North America and Siberia saw record braking freezing temperatures in early 2018 (more), Europe is spared of wintery weather until now (Fig. 1). The most likely reason is increasing ocean use, particularly by off-shore windfarms and shipping, which churn the sea like moving spoon in a hot coffee pot. While climatology is not able to consider this mechanism, any cold from the Arctic or Siberia is kept at bay. That should have been common knowledge since long, at least since the commencing days of World War II.
Actually the story is simple. Since the Little Ice Age has ended around 1850, the world has been getting warmer. By the end of the 1930s the temperatures, particularly in the Norther Hemisphere, increased to level close to current values. That stopped abruptly during the first war winter 1939/40 (Fig. 2, 3). The cause is to attribute to excessive ocean penetration due to naval warfare on a grand scale, bombs, sea mines, depth charges, many million shells, and thousands of vessels, navigating, fighting, mine-operation, surveillance, and training. However, the impact on the winter conditions than and today seems contradicting. Winter 1939/40 was in many locations the coldest for up to 200 years or ever recorded, while currently climatology will soon declare Europe’s winter 2017/18 the warmest ever. The tragic is that both cases have the same source, man-made climatic changes, but science does not know, and is unable to inform politics and the general public correctly.
The way man has contributed to the extreme climate conditions in winter 1939/40 and 2017/18 is based on the same physically-dynamic process. The starting point is the intake of heat during the summer season in the reginal seas around Europe, particularly in the North- and Baltic Sea, which will be released during the subsequent winter. This ‘natural’ process is meanwhile greatly enhanced by human activities. The more or the longer the atmosphere gets an extra heat input, the less any Arctic or Siberian cold will get a chance to govern the winter in Europe. But the stored heat is not unlimited. If the available heat is released too quickly, the result reverses. When reginal seas are cooled to ‘unusual levels’, Siberian icy cold air can easily travel to the Atlantic shore. That occurred in winter 1939/40. As an example then and now, see Fig. 4 & 5.
The winter meanwhile 78 years ago, could easily explain how reginal climate works. One needs only to imagine the picture of a baby bath with too warm water to bath the baby. The water will be turned around until the temperature is right for the baby. The longer it is turned the colder it gets. Is it so difficult to acknowledge and apply the every day experience with a too hot soup? The warring naval forces did the same across the coastal seas in Europe. It took only four months, and the first WWII winter run amok. Those responsible for this event, in first place the German Reichskanzler Adolph Hitler, should have been identified as a person appropriate to be considered as ‘climate change criminal’ since long.
OK! Mr. A. Hitler may never have been charged due to insufficient scientific advice and being a crackbrained monster. But ignoring the case entirely raises the question of gross negligence. WWII contributed to a global cooling from 1940 to the mid-1970s. Ocean uses in all its facets, is likely to have contributed to the global warming over the last 150 years. The vast installation of hundreds of off-shore windfarms during the last decade is certainly a contributing factor to the higher than the global warming of the seas around Europe. 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. (Related Essay in PDF) Science spend many billions to prove a correlation between CO2 and global warming, but not one cent on how shipping, fishing industry and naval activities have influenced weather and climate conditions since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. Climate science behaves highly irresponsible.
Links to nine Chapters on Naval War during the
1st war winter 1939/40. Book pages 13 to 104