Since my days as seafarer and ship master I always regarded the oceans as the driving force of global weather and climate, defining the term ‘climate’ as the continuation of the oceans by other means (see: Nature, 1992 , and other articles on http://www.oceanclimate.de). The thesis on ‘naval war changes climate’ is to support the definition, as only if the oceans are widely acknowledged as driving force, superseding any CO2 impact by far, we would quickly realise that our knowledge on climate change matters is very limited, as ‘ocean observation’ is very limited (www.1ocean-1system.de).

To make the climate definition understood, the naval-war-effect thesis is of invaluable help. Man has never made a comparable large-scale ‘field experiment’ in the North Sea and Baltic Sea as during the three war winter 1939/40, 1940/41 and 1941/42. The circumstantial evidence presented in detailed workouts
(e.g. http://www.seaclimate.com; http://www.warchangesclimate.com) is convincing and is made fully available to everyone interested. If naval war in Northern European waters can produce arctic winter conditions (the coldest winters over more than 100 years) within a short period of time, this would necessarily have a tremendous effect on the current climate debate.

My research furthermore came to the conclusion that the only two major climatic shifts during the last century, a strong warming period from winter 1918/19 until 1939/40 (see my earlier comment on Oct.15), and the four decade cooling from 1939/40 to ca. 1980, can to a very high degree of certainty be linked to the two World Wars. What else has caused these shifts? After 85 respectively 65 years have passed, those how speak on climate, as a matter of expertise, should be able give reasonable explanations. There seems to be little in this respect. When eminent climatologists claim to know the cause of current global warming, they should be able to explain the four-decade global cooling, and why Northern Europe was thrown back into the Little Ice Age during war winters 193940 to 1941/42 although nothing disturbed the normal course of nature at that time except a very serious war.

And the matter has presumably much wider implications, which should not be ignored any longer. If the naval war effect can be indeed established, it is time that science makes the assessment it should have done since long. For explanation it follows an excerpt from a booklet that is soon published:
QUOTE:
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.
UNQUOTE
It is time to include this aspect in the climate change debate. The Naval-War-Effect will contribute largely in this respect.

Thanks TokyoTom for your comment, ab

Since Hansen refers to “Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations” I presume he is talking about short-term (5-20 years?) GCM output on the scenarios that seem to best fit recent observations (and presuambly use assumptions that are most relevant/defendable).

Tom

What is a “nearfuture observation” of which Hansen speaks? Is that like GCM output “data”?

http://ipcc-ddc.cru.uea.ac.uk/ddc_visualisation.html

My person view re: Hansen/Michaels is that while Hansen did not strongly condemn the use of extreme scenarios and seems sympathetic to the past use of such scenarios, his statement is certainly not a ringing enorsement of them nor an admission that he himself deliberately used extreme scenarios, “simply in order to gain people’s attention.” Thus, I find these two statements by Michaels are completely unjustified by Hansen’s remarks:

“Hansen has himself advocated the use of exaggeration and propaganda as political tools in the debate over global warming.”

“[Hansen] admits to having misrepresented the facts in the past”.

I’m happy that you seem willing to agree to this. I can say that while Hansen’s position about the past use of extrem scenarios can be seen as ambivalent, Hansen is certainly not responsible for Michaels’ unsupported allegations. For that, Michaels has only his own hot partisanship to blame.

I also think that it is quite ironic that when Hansen is specifically calling for “demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions … [and] that accurately fit recent and nearfuture observations”, this position does not call forth universal agreement, but instead partisan condemnation from Michaels about what he thinks Hansen is saying about the past. It is an attempt to distract the current debate and to discount Hansen’s current statements. Michaels seems to have no interest in finding any common ground or points of agreement, but to tear down Hansen by whatever means he can.

I ask again, does Michaels seem like a scientist trying to identify the current knowledge about climate science, or someone engaged in a tooth and nail defense of political turf?

You and your websites posit that human activities, particularly military, in stirring the North and Black Seas played the major role in the period of global cooling that followed. That is an intersting thesis that I would like to hear more of.

However, may I suggest that what you propose is not inconsistent with other anthropogenic forcings, led by GHGs and changes in albedo? Cannot man force the climate in more than one direction? Thus, I see no necessary conflict between your thesis and that of AGW.

You imply that “those who focus on few decades warming, with no interest in explaining the global cooling from 1940 to 1980 in the first place, should be not taken too seriously” – yet I fail to see your support for this among climate scientists, whom I understand to be quite interested in understanding the period of cooling that you mention (with Northern Hemisphere air pollution and particulates thrown into the atmosphere by nuclear testing being offered as suggestions).

You offer another possible explanation for an anthropogenically-forced mid-century cooling, but what climate scientists seem to be saying is that with these past cooling effects behind us, the warming forced by GHGs and albedo changes are starting to prevail. Do you believe that there are no forcings underway in the direction of heating?

Sincerely,

TT

Thanks for your response. Upon reading Dr. Michaels’ American Spectator piece, his language is hot, but not entirely unsupported by Hansen’s quote. It doesn’t seem to me that Hansen scolded the IPCC by stating the emphasis on extreme scenarios was inappropriate and that the public and decision-makers should have always been given the most accurate guidance. Instead, he says that “it may have been appropriate at one time” basically to get everyone’s attention. I can’t read Michaels’ extracted sentence, or Hansen’s entire paragraph and come to any different conclusion. I will say that it doesn’t appear that Hansen claimed in his SciAm article that he, personally, had ever fed extreme scenarios to the public in order to get their attention. I guess it is a matter of debate whether he has used that tactic (recall his 25m +/- 10m sea level rise projection, et al.), but, Michaels was probably a bit strong in implying that he (Hansen) admitted he did so in his SciAm article. But, I guess that is a matter of opinion. Had Hansen come out and was firmly against emphasis of extreme scenarios, rather than, as you say, skate around the issue, then perhaps(!) some of this could have been avoided.

-Chip

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/

(Hansen, page 26) However, many aspects of global warming need to be understood better, including the best ways to minimize climate change and its consequences. Legitimate skepticism will always have an important role to play.
Comment: Where was Hansen’s intervention when the UN Climate Change Convention (UNCCC) was implemented, that there is no definition of the term ‘climate’, instead the convention states: “‘climate change’ means the change of climate…”. With UNCCC in place how can we look for ‘the best way to minimize climate change’

(Hansen: Page 28) However, hard-core global warming contrarians have an agenda other than scientific truth. Their target is the public. Their goal is to create an impression that global warming or its causes are uncertain.
Comment: Few observer doubt global temperature rise over the last 2-3 decades, the question is what is causing this trend. Until now Hansen and Colleagues have failed to explain the sudden warming trend starting 1918 in the Northern North Atlantic, lasting in Europe until winter 1939/40, in Greenland only for one decade (about 1932), although the overall impact could be recognized as ‘global warming’. This warming period was too specific as that it could have been caused by CO2.

(Hansen: Page 29) Graph: Annual Mean Global Temperature Change.
Comment: Why is the global cooling 1940-1980 not indicated? This climatic shift can definitely be excluded of having been caused by CO2, which means that about 60 years of the last century climate has been ‘forced’ by other means than CO2.

(Hansen, page 31) We need to make clear to them (business leaders) the legal and moral liabilities that accrue with continued denial of global warming. It is time for business leaders to chuck contraries and focus on the business challenges and opportunities.
Comment: Who is insisting on ‘legal and moral liabilities’ in climate change matters, has foremost the obligation to acknowledge the totally unacceptable UNCCC, and does not rest before this gross nonsense is scraped and replaced by something reasonable and meaningful. Since long climate should have been defined as ‘the continuation of the oceans by other means’, see: Letter to Editor, Nature, Volume 360, 26 November 1992, page 292, available on: http://www.oceanclimate.de/

But when you say “A scientist simply shouldn’t be using language like that”, I would simply note that this is an open piece of advocacy, not science, and he is defending himself against attacks that he probabbly fairly perceives as personal.

In addition, I would note that language such as that is rather limited in his piece, whereas Michael`s work seems much more venomous. Do you think that Michaels is even more guilty that Hansen, or do you have a different, more lenient standard for him, since he seems to be much more of an advocate and much less of a scientist?

Regards,

Tom

“I realized that I do not know of one single ‘climate change denialist’! Can any of you name a single scientist that denies that climate changes?”

“If we accept Hansen’s premise, then we must conclude that there are no scientists involved in the climate change debate at all, only lawyers! Therefore, I do not accept his premise!”

“That is why this phrase is an ad hominem attack, regardless of a link to the holocaust, either real or imagined. The whole purpose of putting those three words together is to make someone who disagrees with you appear stupid!”

You`ve mixed two different strands of discourse: (1) Hansen`s, which contrasts “contrarians” who acts as if they were lawyers with true scientists who are always skeptical and open to testing their views, and (2) Robert`s and Gelbspan`s attack on the commercial “climate change denial lobby”.

Roberts and Gelbspam put those three words together since they are directly attacking the bona fides of the “denial lobby”, and not to make such debaters seem stupid. Since they are partly attacking non-scientists who are paid for their speech, perhaps it is not surprising that you do not consider any scientists to be “climate change denialists”. But your defense is simply non-apropos of the accusation (and those who nake it). You call their attack “ad hominem”, but is it really? Is there no climate denial lobby such as Gelbspan describes? But in any case, please note that they are not addressing scientists qua scientists, but a lobby group.

On the other hand, Hansen focusses on “contrarians” and skeptics; his implication is that most scientists are skeptics, but some are rather contrary and there may be some (perhaps Michaels) who are “hard-core global warming contrarians” with “an agenda other than scientific truth. Their target is the public.
Their goal is to create an impression that global warming or its causes are uncertain. …
Sophistical contrarians do not need to win the scientific debate to advance their cause.”

Is Michaels an active climate scientist, working hard on research and with an open mind, or someone acting like a lawyer to win a PR battle, in which he has all the truths he needs to know? What are your thoughts? Hansen doesn`t draw a conclusion, but simply indicates a direction. But somehow I think he has a case that there may be a few scientists who act more as contrarians than as true, skeptical scientists.

Do you still think that Hansen is making a personal attack on all scientists who disagree with him, and trying to make them look stupid or worse, lawyers?

TT