The Blitzkrieg saga ended in early December 1941
thanks to the inability of meteorology.

Post 21 November 2021

When Adolf Hitler attacked Russia on 22 June 1941 (Frontline strength, 3.8 million personnel), he believed that the highly successful Blitzkrieg strategy during the first  two war years would also be sufficient to conquer Russia. But just five months later, the concept ended in ice and snow between Warsaw and Moscow. Such a weather situation had not existed for over 150 years and meteorologists had predicted the opposite. The reason: after the two winters in Europe 1939/40 and 1941/42 were extremely cold and snowy, a third extreme winter in a row was ruled out. This has never happened since there were weather records. The forecast turned out to be catastrophic, but on the other hand revealed incompetence in metrology, which turned out to be a blessing for the course of the war. Hitler and the German Army Hitler and the German Army got their Waterloo and the end of the earlier blitzkrieg successes.

To understand the drama, one only has to look at the weather and temperature maps between Warsaw and Moscow for late November and early December. These are around the freezing point, then as now. That was different in late autumn 1941. On December 9, 1941, the NYT reported: "Nazis give up Idea of Moscow in 1941, as winter has stopped the Germans short of Moscow", which as spokesman for the High Command explained that "The cold is so terrific that even the oil freezes in motorized vehicles. Soldier and officers trying to take cover simply freeze to the ground ". This unusual weather situation had been brewing since the beginning of November. After a wet autumn, severe frost set in unusually early. It was one of the earliest and severest since observation had been recorded.

The extraordinary situation is reflected by two sources: The German Field Marshal von Bock, commander of Army Group Center, recorded in his war diary on 5 November 1941 that the mercury dipped to -29°C (-20°F), and Albert Seaton reported that  around 24 November it was a steady -30°C (-22°F). Even the Russian the Meteorological Service records of the minimum temperatures for the Moscow area in late 1941: October, -8.2°C (about +17°F); November, -17.3°C (+1°F); December, -28.8°C (-20°F). On 30 November the already mentioned Marshall von Bock informed the Chief of Staff of the German Army, that his men face temperatures down to -45°C (-49°F). Exaggerated or not, the winter came much too early and exceeded all expectations. The misery continued to last, enhance by heavy snow and snow drifts. The Blitzkrieg versus Russia ended already in early December 1941, and marked the beginning of the end of Adolf Hitler’s great power aspirations.

It is embarrassing that this turning point can be traced back to incompetent meteorologists, and that even 80 years later, climate science has nothing to say about it and is silent. After all, two extreme war winters had preceded and had the involved meteorologists inquired about their causes, namely the naval war in the North and Baltic Seas and all other European waters, a false prognosis would have been avoidable. The false and incompetent prognosis had a pronounced impact on the length and outcome of World War II, and is to be judged as an unique stroke of luck. However, that the reasons for this failure, has not been explored to this day, means a severe failure in climatology.

If science can't explain the last century
 warming and cooling, we'll do it.

Here posted: May 02, 2021

“What Does 2000 Years of Temperature Data Tell Us?”, is a good question in a recent essay by  Willis Eschenbach  at WUWT in March 2021 (see Ref.).

Here are Willis Eschenbach’s questions about this historical temperature record:

• Why did the temperature start dropping after the Roman Warm Period? Why didn’t it just stay warm?

• Why did the cooling start in 200 AD, and not say in the year 600 AD?

• Why did the temperatures start warming around 550 AD, and continue warming up to the Medieval Warm Period peak at around 1000 AD? It could have stayed cold … but it didn’t.

• Why was that warming from 550 to 1000 AD, and not from say 800 to 1300 AD?

• What caused the steady cooling from about 1000 AD to the depths of the Little Ice Age, where temperatures bottomed out around 1700 AD?

Continue reading

The Gulf Stream is weakening - says science.

Is the North Atlantic understood?

Post: March 05. 2021

Has the North Atlantic become the newest playground for climate science? Support has now come from the New York Times, (March 03, 2021), citing some scholars fear that “The warming atmosphere is causing an arm of the powerful Gulf Stream to weaken”. The title of the article written by Moises Velasquez-Manoff and Jeremy White is: “In the Atlantic Ocean, Subtle Shifts Hint at Dramatic Dangers”. It immediately met with great approval from the readers:  Fantastic article! Fantastic visualization! Amazing graphics!

Ocean Climate Ripples

Post: January 24, 2021

Reposting of a post by Ron Clutz; on February 18, 2017 , https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/02/18/ocean-climate-ripples/

Dr. Arnd Bernaerts is again active with edifying articles on how humans impact upon the oceans and thereby the climate. His recent post is Global Cooling 1940 – 1975 explained for climate change experts

Climategate 2009.
 Much smoke for nothing? Opportunity missed!

Posted: January 08, 2021

Was there a scientific scandal in climate change matters almost one dozen years ago? "Climategate" began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files (the Climatic Research Unit documents) see: Wikipedia .  One side claimed that the hacked emails showed evidence that climate scientists manipulated data. The opposite side said that the release of emails was a smear campaign. The latter group won. .... cont//

To the entire text

./.

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

Post: December 17, 2020, About 15 minutes read

The oceans are still the greatest unknown in the climate change scenario. Oceans cover 71% of Earth and they contain 99.93% of the thermal energy (“heat”) on the surface. Is it a too big issue for increasing understanding the matter? Certainly if you lump everything together! Progress requires selection! Focus on smaller regions, distinction between the seasons and on observations where people are particularly active. Then you would quickly look at the North and Baltic Seas.  CONT...//

Read the whole POST

About 15 minutes read

BACK TO WATER - CHEERS

The text from 1994 -.see enlarge 1^st image -  republished here - Spring  2020

The most fascinating thing about the day on which the 1982 Law of the  Sea Convention comes into force in a few months' time will presumably be the fact that hardly anyone will be fascinated. While the Earth Summit forced 170 countries to fly their leaders and delegates to Rio in order to plan the planet's preservation, not even two heads of state will meet on 16th November 1994 to pay tribute to the 1982 Convention, although this paper will pave the way for rediscovering that water matters and that its source is the oceans. 

The 1982 Law of the Sea is to further understanding on the natural commons buried since the industrial revolution 200 years ago. … CONT.//

Full text HERE; ~ 3 min. reading

Climate, a term ignored by the
most prominent treaty, the UNFCCC-1992

Post: 06 December 2020

 Abstract: While the debate on the climatic change issue has reached unprecedented global prominence over the recent years, the content is often a fierce clash of opinions rather than a fruitful discussion. One reason could be the use of insufficiently defined terms in climatology. The key term ‘climate’ is used by lay persons, politics, and science alike, while the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC (1992) does not define the term at all. Instead the Convention defines ‘climate change’ and ‘climate system’, which does not necessarily mean that it makes the terminology more definite. This requires looking at the ordinary meaning as used since Ancient Greek, and how science explains the terms nowadays, and whether it is done in a manner that avoids confusion, or misleading interpretation. As science is supposed to define and use terms and definitions with care, the current situation may require that the major terms used in climatology are revised.

Continue reading Click HERE, about 20 min