Posted in Uncategorized

Ocean physics is not a simple one!

A climatic tipping point is good for what?

Date: December 31, 2020

In science a precise and transparent language is paramount. Climatology is far from it. Many of the used terms in climatology are extremely superficial, if not meaningless, which is a major reason for the hysteria in the current climate change debate. And science is using them recklessly.

The result is obvious, when the claim is made: The world may already have crossed a series of climate tipping points, which mean an ‘existential threat to civilization’.(The Guardian, Nov.2019). Many climate scientists have warned that CO2 has pushed Earth dangerously close to a no-return threshold, beyond which lies an unlivable hothouse world. (See: Phy.Org Nov 2019). This belongs in the department: Scare monger machine.

The term ‘tipping point’ has its origin in physics and chemistry, meaning: that if an object becomes unbalanced, even a slight force can cause it to topple. Note that this explanation refers to “one object”.
Currently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chang (IPCC) says:

___ IPCC, Glossary – 4/06/2018.Tipping point: A level of change in system properties beyond which a system reorganizes, often abruptly, and does not return to the initial state even if the drivers of the change are abated. For the climate system, it refers to a critical threshold when global or regional climate changes from one stable state to another stable state.
Wikipedia cites the IPCC in this way: The IPCC AR5 defines a tipping point as an irreversible change in the climate system.

The problem starts with referring to “a climate system”. The IPCC (2018) defines it as a“highly complex system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere and the interactions between them”, which has two principal flows:

  1. It actually means nothing else as the interaction of nature, which explains nothing. All that this boils down to is ‘the interactions of the natural system’. What is the point of a term if it explains nothing? (See Letter to Nature, 1992)

  2. Worst is the use of the word ‘climate’, which according IPCC is the statistic of average weather over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years, culminating in the fact that IPCC does not explains in the Glossary, what it regards as ‘weather’. (Discussion HERE)

The corresponding Glossary of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) is neither very helpful, merely saying that: The “present weather” table consists of 100 possible conditions, (More HERE ), thereby paving the way to a meaning that cannot be verified. There is no ‘object’, like in physics, which can become unbalanced, as mentioned above.  But scientists speak about it, as if they understand the complexity of the unexplained.

ROYAL AIR FORCE COASTAL COMMAND, 1939-1945. (C 3575) Mirror camera oblique aerial photograph showing depth charges straddling the German type VIIC submarine U-266, during an attack by Handley Page Halifax GR Mark II, HR746 ‘M’, of No.58 Squadron RAF in the Bay of Biscay. The aircraft was flown by the Squadron’s Commanding Officer, Wing Commander W E Oulton and crew, who were later able to confirm the U-boat’s destruction. Copyright: © IWM. Original Source:


ROYAL AIR FORCE COASTAL COMMAND, 1939-1945. (C 3685) A spreading patch of burning oil and petrol on the surface of the water, following the shooting down of a Junkers Ju 88 by Bristol Beaufighters of No. 248 Squadron RAF over the Bay of Biscay. Copyright: © IWM. Original Source:

T.M. Lenton from 2008 started with the sentence:  The term “tipping point” commonly refers to a critical threshold at which a tiny perturbation can qualitatively alter the state or development of a system. The same authors: T.M. Lenton, S. Rahmstorf and HJ. Schellnhuber, et. al, published recently again an article in NATURE, 27. Nov. 2019, titled: “Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against”. They talk about ice collapse, biosphere boundaries, global cascade, offering nothing more than the believe, that by strongly forcing the system, with atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature increasing at rates that are an order of magnitude higher than those during the most recent deglaciation. Not one word can be found that the earth got warmer since the end of the Little Ice Age, around 1850, about 100 years before consumption of fossil fuel raised the CO2 level significantly. Not one word about the entire impact of the ocean and the impact of human activities at sea may have had since industrialization commenced. But like their paper in 2008, their tipping-points scenarios aim to raise scare, concluding with the warning: „We argue that the intervention time left to prevent tipping could already have shrunk towards zero, whereas the reaction time to achieve net zero emissions is 30 years at best. Hence we might already have lost control of whether tipping happens. A saving grace is that the rate at which damage accumulates from tipping — and hence the risk posed — could still be under our control to some extent.The stability and resilience of our planet is in peril. International action — not just words — must reflect this.”

Even the skeptical think-tank Global Warming Policy Forum (GWP), adopted the claim that “Global warming alone is insufficient to cause such a tipping point”, and that a better “insights into the role of water vapor may help researchers predict how the planet will respond to warming”. They cite an analysis by the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in September 2018.The mere reference to atmospheric water vapor is very naive, because to a very high degree the oceans control it (see Fig. below). In a world were annually averaged sea surface temperature is about 16°C, but the overall ocean mean temperature are merely +4°C , even mentioning a tipping point, would indicate incompetence in climatic matters. That applies also to the above cited authors, T.M. Lenton, S. Rahmstorf and HJ. Schellnhuber, when they refer in their 2019 paper, inter alia, to parts of the oceans, in the Arctic, Antarctic and North-Atlantic. Discussing the general term tipping point without having a thorough insight into the interior of the oceans is a hopeless undertaking, if at all possible.

Every attempt to identify a tipping point in the natural system shows that users of the term understand little about the matter, and nothing about the oceans.

Posted in Uncategorized

US weather records by war

War in 1939 caused several weather records in the U.S.A.

Post: 29th December 2020

In autumn 1939 there is war in East Asia, and war in Europe. And suddenly the weather produce records, from wettest to coldest, across the USA.
  • Record wetness month September 1939 in Arizona (see Fig. 4 below)
  • Record driest month in November 1939 in 9 States (see Fig. 6 below)
  • Record warmest month in December 1939 in 3 States (see Fig. 8 below)
  • Record coldest month in January 1940 in in 7 States (see Fig. 2)
Weather changes in Europe are much more dramatic, but that is another story. Here we deal with weather records in the United States. The extraordinary conditions, almost eight decades ago, should be thoroughly explained for two reasons:
  1. Were the records anthropogenic influenced?
  2. Marked the records the start of the global cooling until the mid-1970th, the only and most severe cooling period since the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850.
Even the smallest percentage contributed by human activities to the weather pattern in winter 1939/40 needs to be understood and discussed in the general debate on climate change.
Three records in late 1939 culminated in the coldest (Fig. 2)
    The fact that the first signs of a real winter emerged at Christmas time 1939 (NYT, Dec. 23, 1939) was presumably not worth a doctor’s thesis at any time. Neither that the winter earnestly came in early January 1940, with a frigid wave that gripped most of the United States (NYT, Jan. 6, 1940).  Icy north-westerly winds swept over New York with force, on January 6, causing temperatures to drop to an average of 10 degrees Fahrenheit below normal. Frigid waves even touched northern parts of Florida (NYT, Jan. 07, 1940).
But the information by Dr. James Kimball published in ‘The New York Times’ on January 7th, 1940, that November 1939 had been unusually dry, should have been investigated by science, why that had happened, and whether military activities in China and Europe, and the increase of condensation nuclei had anything to do with it. The less humidity is in the atmosphere, the more easily it can be replaced by colder air. If the amount of water in the atmosphere is less than average, the ‘vacuum’ thus created, needs to be filled by air. The fact that the Northern Hemisphere was in such a state towards the end of the year 1939 is very likely and science could have found out why long ago. The USA had records in September, in November and  December, which made it easy for Arctic air to travel south to filling up the gap. A detailed assessment is at: ,

A special September 1939 in California (Fig.4)

   In September 1939 the sun state had to cope with a number of weather caprioles. The unanswered question until today is what role an El Niño event had in that place at that time, and the contribution of war activities in China and Europe, due to the excessive release of condensation nuclei. Much too extraordinary and seldom was the situation that caused high precipitation during September with 370% above normal in California (Alabama, 119%; Arizona, 335%; Nevada 327%; Utah 261%).
   California experienced an eight-day-long heat wave since about September 16th before a tropical storm, formerly a hurricane, hit Southern California , at San Pedro early on the 25th with winds of severe gale force. The up to 11 Beaufort strong winds were the only tropical storm to make landfall in California in the twentieth century. The air pressure went down to 971 mb, and the excessive rain caused heavy flooding, e.g. September records in Los Angeles (5.24 inches in 24 hours) and at Mount Wilson, 295mm/11.60inches). It was the heaviest September rain in Los Angeles’ weather history and it broke the worst heat wave in Weather Bureau records, as measured by intensity and duration. (NYT, Sept.26,1939).
   The scientific disinterest in investigating whether the exceptional conditions had been a reflex action in the atmosphere that reached North America from the French-German, or the Polish-German front in Europe, e.g. from thousands of planes in the air, from shelling and burning down Polish villages and Warsaw, or even from fighting in China is stunning. That El Niño had a stake in the issue will be hard to prove, as the air temperatures at the equatorial Pacific was neutral, if not in La Niña condition (see: Fig. at left).
For references and further details see .

The driest November on record (Fig. 6)

   Except for a few States in the east (see above), the fall season was extremely dry over large areas. For all the areas east of the Rocky Mountains it was the driest fall on record (Martin, 1939). For about 9 States it is the all-time record and the dryness must have severely affected southern Canada as well. Time magazine titled on December 25th, 1939: “WEATHER: Driest Fall”, and reported “the driest fall on record, a severe case of spotted drought affecting 97,000,000 U.S. acres. About 16 States had less than 33% of their normal November precipitation. 

The warmest month in December 1939 in 3 States
(see Fig. 8)
(without text)

What else was curious in late 1939?

 The 1930s were famous for the ‘Dust Bowl’, during which severe dust storms caused agricultural damage to American and Canadian prairie lands. In some areas this phenomenon lasted until fall of 1939, when regular rainfall finally returned to the region.
   After extreme amounts of precipitation in September and dryness in November (see above) December came along with another curiosity. The overall monthly temperature record was considerably above average (TM5). In three States the all-time record had been observed. In the east, a change was already expected for the beginning of the holiday season: “White Christmas is likely for city” (NYT, Dec. 23, 1939). It took a few days longer for winter to come. On the 28th, it was time to report: “A biting northerly, driving grey, snow-laden clouds before it, brought to New York yesterday the coldest day of the winter. Shortly before 10 A.M. the mercury dropped to 11.9°F above zero”(11°C), (NYT, Dec. 28). Soon in 1940 the “Winds sweep the city as cold grips the U.S. ”, with “a mark of 11°F below (-24°C) in Indiana (NYT, Jan. 07, 1940. An exceptionally cold January 1940 had reached the United States , as shown in Figure 2 (above)
   Further north, in Canada, the situation was partly reverse, as Brooks (1940) explained in a paper only few months later:
 “Paradoxically, most of eastern Canada north of latitude 48° was above normal, with temperatures ranging up to more than 25°F above normal north of latitude 58° and 18°F above normal in the interior of Alaska. Missouri was actually as cold as the Hudson Bay region for the month”.

Natural variation?

          The Timing: The ‘timing’ between excessive rain in Europe and the dry months in the United States is a perfect indication of the relationship between both events. Any ‘interchange’ between dry and wet air takes its time. A dry or humid air body can exist from up to several days to a few weeks. An ‘air body’ needs a couple of weeks to circle the Northern Hemisphere. Scherhag (1951), analysed a disruption in the circulation of air in the winter of 1940, and states with regard to air movements that there must have been a subsequent air-body-transfer (“Massentransport”) from the Southern Hemisphere towards the Arctic, which means, that ‘dry air’ from Europe could have circled the globe for some time before a ‘humidity gap’ could be refilled. This also confirms that there was a ‘humidity gap’ in the first place. If the ‘dry-out’ had not been caused by military activities, what else could have caused it?
          Record Warmest vs. Record Coldest: The fact that temperatures in December 1939 had been widely above normal, versus the observation that in the south-east of the U.S. recorded values were much below normal with eight States experiencing the coldest January on record should be enough reason to ask why, and to consider whether it had something to do with war activities elsewhere.
         The Regions Covered: January 1940 was cold in all Northern Hemisphere regions, viz. North America, Northern Europe and Northern Asia. This is a strong indication that there was too little humidity in the air (as proven in the case of the USA – above), giving arctic air a free path to penetrate deep into southern regions.
          Difference between the winters in the USA and Europe: A further piece of evidence is the fact that the severity of the winter in the United States was over by the end of January 1940 (Brooks, 1940), whereas extreme winter conditions prevailing in Northern Europe during February 1940 show that a number of countries, e.g. Holland, Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia, experienced their coldest winter for more than a 100 years.
Lower air circulation: The winter of 1939/40 was the result of a comprehensive general disruption of the atmospheric circulation, which could be regarded as a ‘prototype’ for a weakened circulation. Less humidity in the atmosphere and lower temperatures in seas and oceans, due to naval warfare in the waters of Northern Europe , inevitably caused disruptions in atmospheric air movements.


   A number of indications show that the war in Europe and in China may have significantly influenced winter weather conditions over long distances. In this case, North America had a severely cold January in 1940. Most likely, it had been supported by a lack of usual rain in the United States during the months of October to December 1939, in the first place due to generating condensation nuclei by military activities in Asia, in Poland and along the Western Front in Europe. The obvious “rain forcing” in autumn 1939 that caused low humidity in the atmosphere, made it easy for arctic air to forcefully travel down to the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. The timing of ‘dry air’ and the invasion of polar air over all NH continents suggest that this was not a mere natural variation. The drier the air properties at lower latitudes are, the easier arctic air can spread southwards. The lower maritime influence is (warm moist air), the more continental conditions will prevail (cold dry air). The Northern Hemisphere felt it with full force in January 1940.  A severe winter, the coldest in one hundred years in countries bordering the most war-affected seas in Northern Europe, did not come ‘just out of the blue’, but it was a combination of too dry air circling the hemisphere and naval operations in the marine environment of Europe.

For references and further details see:,

For a complete overview on WWII and Weather from September 1939 to February 1940 consult
Book 2012, Chapter C1 to C9 (page 43-104) at:

Posted in Uncategorized

Christmas Eve 1939. An unsolved climate case: Why?

The NYT reported on soldiers that “turned to wax” on Christmas Eve 1939.
An unsolved climate case: Why?

Post: 21th December 2020; Read 4 min.

Climate change has two sides. If natural we do not need science. If we assume it could be man-made, competent science is needed to explain why and able to say what needs to done to prevent it. Here we raise a very significant weather event, which science has never attempted to explain, even eight decades have passed. What a big mistake!

World War II was only four months old, and suddenly the weather run amok in Norther Europe. Although “The New York Times” reported from Rovaniemi/Finland on December 25, 1939, a highly challenging weather story, climatology completely ignored ever since. They never asked why it happened ‘out of the blue’, whether it could have been significantly cause by man, who had been in the fourth month of World War II. James Aldridge reported to the NYT on December 24th 1939 the very sad story, which reveals a lot about those claiming to understand how the atmosphere works. Read yourself:

“The cold numbs the brain in this Arctic hell, snow sweeps over the darkened wastes, the winds howl and the temperature is 30 degrees below zero (minus 34.4° C). Here the Russians and Finns are battling in blinding snowstorms for possession of ice-covered forests. …I reached the spot just after the battle ended. It was the most horrible sight I had ever seen. As if the men had been suddenly turned to wax, there were two or three thousand Russians and a few Finns, all frozen in fighting attitudes. Some were locked together, their bayonets within each other’s bodies; some were frozen in half-standing positions; some were crouching with their arms crooked, holding the hand grenades they were throwing; some were lying with their rifles shouldered, their legs apart….Their fear was registered on the frozen faces. Their bodies were like statues of men throwing all their muscles and strength into some work, but the faces recorded something between bewilderment and horror”.  

Few further information:

___In December 1939; Total losses of the Finnish armed forces were: about 13.200

___In December 1939 Total losses of the Russian armed force: presumably 3 to 5 times higher than the Finnish losses.

Temperature forecast Rovaniemi/Finland, 19-31 Dec. 2020; (see image)

The very cold Christmas in Finland 1939 was only the beginning of a dramatic winter in Europe. It became the most severe in many parts of Europe for more than one-hundred years. There are plenty indication that the war contributed heavily. But neither meteorology nor climatology have ever shown any interest, on either confirm the anthropogenic massive contribution, or demonstrate competence by naming a different causation of the extraordinary winter 1939/40.

Or do they fear undermining their greenhouse theory? It would indeed be shocking to learn after almost a full century that man is to blame for the horrible Christmas story that James Aldridge has covered in the NYT.

The so called ‘Winter War’ between Russia and Finland lasted from November 30, 1939 to March 13, 1940.  Poland had already over-run and Warsaw already “burned down” in September 1939. In the European war scenario, the war activities in Finland during December 1939 were only a “sideline” in the whole war picture. Nevertheless, the NYT Christmas story reported a remarkable event, serious enough that should have caught the attention of science.

After all, climatology is dispensable, if not able and willing to investigate any case, whether big or small, which may indicate how human activities could or have contributed to significant weather events and climatic changes.   What a big failure. Eight decades have passed without to take note of James Aldridge’s Christmas story 1939.

Further read. The weather attacked in the Winter War:
Russia vs. Finland

Why is Europe so warm? Read the post 17. Debember 2020 at :

Human activities at sea contribute to warming. Science can test it in the Baltic Sea how it’s done.

Posted in Uncategorized

A big Arctic Warming – Human caused?

A big Arctic Warming started 102 Years ago!
Human caused? The interest is nil!

Post: 09 December 2020

Climate changed suddenly in 1918. Within few months air temperatures in the Arctic region increased, for three years dramatically. Until nowadays science does not know why. They never connected this event with the fact that it occurred after a devastation war in Europe from 1914 to November 1918. The rise continued less pronounced all over the Norther Hemisphere., in some regions up to two decades. Fifty years later, after a cooling period from 1940 to the mid-1970s warming resumed and science explained that it was due to the human produced release of carbon dioxide ()CO2) in the atmosphere, which would diminish the sea ice the Arctic regions and increase climate changes. But why had they been unable to investigate the causes for the warming. More than one-hundred years have passed? A anthropogenic contribution of CO2 was it for sure not. Do they fear such finding could destroy their theory on the greenhouse-effect? One key to understand any climatic shift is the Arctic. Although it is a top topic in science since several decades, it is outrageous how superficial the question on climate change in 1918 is handled.

A recent paper “Rapid reductions and millennial-scale variability in Nordic Seas sea ice cover during abrupt glacial climate changes” by researcher Henrik Sadatzki, et al. (1) from the Niels Bohr Institute, at the University of Copenhagen, claims that abrupt climate change occurred as a result of widespread decrease of sea ice. By analyzing the last glacial period, app. 10,000 – 110,000 years ago the Northern Hemisphere was covered in glacial ice and extensive sea ice, covering the Nordic seas. But as soon as the Nordic Seas changed abruptly from ice covered to open sea, the energy from the warmer ocean water was released to the cold atmosphere, leading to amplification of sudden warming of the climate. The study concludes, that sea ice is a “tipping element” in the tightly coupled ocean-ice-climate system. This is particularly relevant today, as the still more open ocean to the north can lead to similar abrupt climate change.
The paper assumes that scientific evidence for abrupt climate change in the past has finally been achieved. Doubts are justified. Sea ice is an element between the interaction of ocean and atmospheric energy, but also a “tipping point”? A much more recent warming event, the so called Early Arctic Warming (EAW) from 1918 to 1939 certainly followed other rules. It has caused the most pronounced warming of the Northern Hemisphere since the end of the Last Little Ice Age (~1850), lasting in North America until about 1933, and in Europe until winter 1939/40. The EAW was primarily related to a sharp rise in winter temperature since 1918, gradually decreasing subsequently, which is a strong indication that the warmth derived for the Nordic Seas and related currents that flow into the Arctic Ocean.
To summarize the problem, it follows an excerpt from the Book : “How Spitsbergen Heats the World – The Arctic Warming 1919-1939”, Chapter 2C, (2):

The early arctic warming and modern assessments
Many scientists confirm broadly the early two decade long warming period (WHEN) but fall short of identifying the exact time period and location, of which a few are here presented exemplary:
• The warming in the 1920s and 1930s is considered to constitute the most significant regime shift experienced in the North Atlantic in the 20th century (Drinkwater, 2006).
• The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the 20th century (Bengtsson, 2004).
• At least Polyakov (2002) get the timing right: The period from 1918 to 1922 displays exceptionally rapid winter warming not only in the circum-Arctic region northward of 62oN. (Polyakov, 2002).
• A meridional pattern was also seen in the late 1930s with anomalous winter (DJFM) SAT, at Spitsbergen (Overland, 2008).
• Average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years. Arctic temperatures have high decadal variability, and a warm period was also observed from 1925 to 1945. (IPCC, 2007)
When it comes to explaining the causation of the warming (WHY), the matter seems rather sketchy than well founded. Here only two examples:
• Natural variability is the most likely cause (Bengtsson, 2004);
• We theorize that the Arctic warming in the 1920s/1930s was due to natural fluctuations internal to the climate system (Johannessen, 2004).

The EAW had defiantly been a climatic shift, the most pronounced since 1850, only followed by the a severe global cooling from 1940 to the mid-1970s. In both cases neither an increase or decline in sea-ice cover, show up as significant contributor. As the sun can be excluded concerning the EAW during the winter season in the higher Northern Hemisphere, the only cause remaining is a substantial shift in the structure of the Nordic Seas, which are likely to have caused by two factor.

First reason: Shift in the Arctic Ocean structure since the end of the LIA
A shift within the Arctic Ocean was underway since the 19th Century. During his Arctic voyage with his ship “FRAM”, from 1893-1896, Fridjof Nansen, observed (see image) that the colder sea-cover layer (and lower salinity), over a warmer and saltier water layer, was thinning. The lower level, several hundred meters thick, was Atlantic water carried into the Arctic Basin. While in Nansen’s time had been in a slow process, it accelerated three decades later due to human activities at sea.

 Naval War, 1914 to 1918, a force to recon
Around the years of the 1910s, nature had run its normal course. No “natural” event, which could have affected the natural commons, had been observed in the North Atlantic or Arctic region, or at a global level. There was no significant earthquake, no eruption of a forceful volcano, no tsunami, no sunspots, and no big meteorite fell on the continent or into the sea. But with the commencement of the First World War (WWI) the situation changed.

WWI had destructive effects on men and on the environment, but nothing changed the commons of nature as much as the naval war did. This notion derives from understanding that the oceans, together with the sun, determine the status of the atmosphere on a short, medium or long term. Human war activities at sea penetrate and churn the sea surface layers of 50 meters and lower depth. Huge water masses in Western Europe seas were churned upside-down by naval war activities. The Norwegian Current transports these water masses northwards, to Spitsbergen. The temperature and salinity structure of the water had certainly changed its composition.

The total loss of the Allies ship tonnage during WWI is of about 12,000,000 tons, namely 5,200 vessels. The total loss of the Allies together with the Axis naval vessels (battle ships, cruisers, destroyers, sub-marines, and other naval ships) amounted to 650, respectively 1,200,000 tons. Most ships that were sunk transported a variety of cargo, and all of them had equipment and provisions on board. The total number could be somewhere in the range of 10-15 million tons. It has been never quantified how much cargo and provisions surfaced and traveled with the currents towards the Arctic region and how the sea and sea-ice interacted with all that stuff – a matter that should not be ignored outright.

The naval war from1914 to 1918 can be considered as the most comprehensive single event in the 1910s that has altered the common sea body structure around Great Britain through a huge variety of activities and means. All naval activities around Britain had changed the water structure that moved on toward the North. The distance between Spitsbergen and the main naval battleground was of about 2000 km. But this distance is not very significant in this case. The currents moving along the Norwegian coast consist of water from the North Sea and of water from the Golf Current, flowing at a medium speed of 0.1 km/hour. At the sea surface, the current is up to 10 times faster.
The branch of the North Atlantic Current has temperatures exceeding 6°C and salinity greater than 35. The main arm is well below the sea surface and in quite a distant to the coast of Norway. The Norwegian Coastal Current flows closer to the coast of Norway in the upper 50-100 m of the water column with lower temperatures than the Atlantic branch and low-salinity water, less than 34.8.

What does a system shift mean in respect to the Spitsbergen/Arctic region? The main answer is simple. The incoming warm water of the West Spitsbergen Current was “positioned” in a manner that it could release more heat into the atmosphere. This can happen in two ways: I.) the sea ice forming during the winter season diminishes, which would not explain the suddenness of the shift; or II.) the thickness of cold sea water layer above the warm water was suddenly substantially reduced so that the air temperatures could immediately benefit from warmer water close to the sea surface. This was actually the case. In the mid-1930s it had been already discovered and published, that since the FRAM expedition in 1893-1896 the cold surface layer had grossly weaken, observed the Russian oceanographer J. Schokalsky, 1936 (3):

“The branch of the North Atlantic Current which enters it by way of the edge of the continental shelf around Spitsbergen has evidently been increased in volume, and has introduced a body of warm water so great, that the surface layer of cold water which was 200 meters tick in Nansen’s time, has now been reduced to less than 100 meters in thickness.”

What further evidence is required to attribute the EAW from 1918 to the 1930s to naval war activities during WWI? This knowledge is necessary in order to better understand the mechanisms between sea, sea ice, atmosphere and human influence on processes in the Arctic. The sudden shift into the EAW, was a significant climatic change event, strongly enhanced by naval war activities. Instead of analyzing the last glacial period, app. 10,000 – 110,000 years ago, a thorough understanding of what the WWI caused changes in the North Atlantic and Arctic Ocean and subsequently on weather and climate is urgently required. Henrik Sadatzki, et al. conclusion that sea ice is a “tipping element” in the tightly coupled ocean-ice-climate system, would certainly require a revised and more convincing classification.

(1) Henrik Sadatzki, et al.; 2020; “Rapid reductions and millennial-scale variability in Nordic Seas sea ice cover during abrupt glacial climate changes” ; first published November 9, 2020;; dito:
(3) Schokalsky, J. (1936); ‚Recent Russian researches in the Arctic Sea and the in mountains of Central Asia’, in: The Scottish Geographical Magazine, Vol. 52, No.2, March 1936, p. 73-84. See: