Is man responsible for global warming? This has been debated for more than 20 years. And most of the claims say that modern civilization is responsible for higher atmospheric temperatures caused by man-made greenhouse gases. The mouthpiece for this claim is the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), founded in 1988.
The main argument of the IPCC is based on carbon dioxide (CO2). Proud to convey the “consensus” of hundreds of leading scientists from around the world, this organisation hardly ever hesitated to confirm its belief in the Assessments Reports as being correct.
The IPCC Report from 1990 states:
“Emission resulting from human activities is substantially increasing the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in additional warming of the earth’s surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it”.
After the end of the 19th century, the world’s global surface air temperature has increased from 0.3 to 0.6°C, the 1999 Report further states.
IPCC’s CO2 claim proved highly successful. The science on climate change received many billions of US dollars every year for research, in addition to meeting the costs of infrastructure, meteorological services, satellites, ships, etc., all paid from the public funds. The CO2 claim was the basis on which politics has been made since the Rio de Janeiro Summit, in 1992, which agreed on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of the same year. Only five years later, a treaty on curbing greenhouse gases was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan. The negotiation resulted in the agreement that is world-wide known: The ‘Kyoto Agreement’.
The Russian Federation, an opponent of the treaty for many years, approved it in late 2004, due to the promises and persuasion of the European Union. Twenty years of hard lobbying proved to be a great success story for climate science. The last big industrial country still holding back its approval of the treaty is the USA. But with Russia on board, the Kyoto Treaty went into force on the 16th of February 2005. The strong belief and conviction of the man-made planetary climatic catastrophe due to greenhouse gases have created a mighty political tool within the community of climatologists.
Seeking funding, having visions, lobbying for one’s own belief is all fair deal. But what will happen if the greenhouse strategy is found to be grossly exaggerated or even proves wrong in due course? Could it all result with global community having lost dozens of years to understand the mechanism of natural climate system?
Not everybody is with the IPCC and its findings by “consensus”. While the mainstream of science and climatologists support it, there are also voices opposing the IPCC’s conclusions. The most prominent document in this regard is the “Oregon Petition” from 1998 signed by 17,000 scientists protesting against the Kyoto Agreement. The petition requested acceptance through the following statement:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth”.
Neither the IPCC claim nor the Oregon Petition are satisfactory and reflect a fairly correct assessment and analysis of the Earth’s climate during the last 150 years. A thorough analysis of climate events and human activities will show that it is possible to establish considerable links between the two. After all, the global weather system is based on the law of physics. That will be explained, demonstrated and discussed in details throughout this book.
Want to have a freezing winter? Start a war!
The following section will provide an initial example. It is one of the climate change experiments made by man that should have been subject to a detailed assessment when the experiment started, on the 1st of September 1939. If the meteorologists of the 1930s failed to recognise that a climate change is inevitable in case of war at sea, the post-war climatologists had 60 years to rectify the failure of their pre-war colleagues.
On the 14th of February 1940, virtually only hours before the German Vice-Chancellor and Air Field Marshal Herman Goering denied any responsibility for the weather with the words: “We did not ask for ice, snow and cold – A higher power sent them to us”, The New York Times reported that a record cold gripped the European Nations and that at least 56 people died from Scandinavia to the Danube, while the Baltic Sea was frozen. The newspaper informed its readers about the situation as it follows:
“Europe suffered tonight in the paralysing grip of the bitterest cold in more than 100 years”.
“The cold wave extended from the Arctic fringes of Norway and Finland to the Netherlands and Hungary”.
“The Netherlands Weather Bureau recorded the lowest temperature ever recorded in this country, 11.2 degrees below zero Fahrenheit.” (-11.2 F corresponds to -24°C).
“Water transportation in the Netherlands is completely paralysed. The canals have been covered with thick ice for more than six weeks. Hundreds of persons abandoned their homes in the face of crushing ice packs boiling up from ice-blocked canals, rivers and seas.”
“In Copenhagen the temperature has dropped to 13 degrees below zero Fahrenheit (-25°C)”.
“The Baltic Sea was frozen over for the first time in many years. Islands along the coast of the Netherlands and the Baltic were isolated. All day they sent out SOS calls for coal and foodstuff”.
“In Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, more than 10,000 persons suffered severe cases of frost-bite. At least five persons froze to death in the three Baltic countries where temperatures reached 54 degrees below zero Fahrenheit (-47°C) for the first time in 150 years”.
Only five and-a-half months earlier, Hitler had started a war in Northern Europe. Then there was bitter cold, lack of coal, shortages of food, frozen water pipe lines. Keeping transportation going had become a nightmare since the cold wave had started during the second week of January. To boost the morale of the population under these difficult circumstances, Herman Goering appealed to them in a speech, in Berlin, on the 15th of February 1940 (NYT, the 16th of February 1940):
troubles, naturally, take precedence over
The arctic winter in Northern Europe continued for another week. In Sweden, all cold records were beaten during the days of 19th/20th of February, with 32 degrees below zero F. (-35.5°C), the coldest since 1805 (NYT, the 23rd of Feb.’40).
Only a few lines from the outstanding war time reporting of The New York Times are enough to illustrate the astonishing result of one of the most captivating climate change experiments.
Since the 1st of September 1939, thousands of naval vessels were permanently engaged in war, guarding merchant ships, patrolling sea areas, and exchanging fire with shore batteries or with other naval vessels. Thousands of planes flew on bombing, fighting or patrolling missions every day. Up to 100,000 sea mines were dropped in the sea of which several thousands exploded. Many thousands depth charges were thrown over board to destroy enemy submarines. U-boats torpedoed vessels. Hundreds of ships were sunk in the sea. Some exploded with extreme force due to their loaded cargo consisting of ammunition or gasoline.
Baltic and North Sea waters were churned, mixed and turned upside down as never before. It was as if someone violently stirred a bowl of soup with a spoon to cool it quickly. Waters of Northern Europe went to a similar process which paved the way to the arrival of polar air which established there for many weeks. The impact on regional winter conditions should have hardly come as a surprise. The arctic cold during January and February 1940 was an inevitable result of the war at sea. It will be discussed in more details at a later stage of this presentation.
Not one cold winter alone
If the war in Europe had ended with the winter 1939/40, a few weeks after Herman Goering’s speech in mid-February 1940, a description of the winter 1939/40 as “weather modification” would presumably be correct. The climate, the same as the statistics of weather data over a longer period, would hardly have left a trace. Consequently, the extreme icy January and February 1940 would have ‘gone under’ in the weather statistics.
But the war continued and the war winter of 1940/41 in North Europe came up with the same conditions as the year before. Same phenomenon occurred again during the winter of 1941/42 when Germany was at war with Russia since July 1941. This extreme winter is the most stunning regional weather modification event. As a result of the war at sea for over six months, the Baltic became arctic and temperature became colder than that of the North Pole.
But WWII is not the only example of weather modification as a result of fighting at sea. Even the war at sea during World War I (1914-18) left a similar trail in the weather data records of the British Isles (the winters of 1916/17 and 1917/18). Fighting in the waters of Great Britain became very fierce and deadly with newly developed military weapons, sea mines, submarines, and depth charges. Each of the mentioned five war winters proved how the war at sea left its clear fingerprint on the regional winter conditions. One can only wonder why meteorologists at that time were not capable of seeing a link between altered seawater conditions due to naval warfare towards the end of a year and arrival of icy air from the north or the east during the following winter months.
Act together to change global weather
But the story on how war at sea determined a climatic change will not end with some cold regional winters in North Europe. Act globally and you can globally change the climate for the better or the worst. With Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour, on the 7th of December 1941, naval warfare went global, resulting in a colder temperature phase which lasted over four decades at a global level. Therefore, the winter 1939/40 was part of an already huge global climatic change event.
After having mentioned that all cases of war at sea can be directly linked to climate-relevant events, two further highly interesting climate changes during the 20th century may have been man-made with a somewhat “extended link” to the war at sea. There is, in the first place, the sudden warming at Spitsbergen, in 1918, as a result of the naval warfare around Britain, and in the North Sea, this having an impact on the Norwegian Sea and current. The other aspect, the warming of air temperatures since the mid-1980s, is certainly a remote possibility but altogether not impossible.
Issues raised so far need further evidence and explanations, which will come step by step. But to start with, it will be necessary to give an assessment on how the world climate would presumably have looked like if man had failed to industrialize and had remained a small population.
Starting point will be around 1850 when the so-called Little Ice Age ended. Climate would presumably have been totally unspectacular without two World Wars generating two climate changes during the last century, namely 1918 and 1940. The temperature increase after the 1980s is perhaps not a change but only a continuation of the rising trend from 1918 to 1939. Indeed, it is one of many interesting questions. But as man-made changes to climate are a major concern, it could only have happened with the advent of industrialization one and a half century ago.
 For example 1990, 1995; and the Report 2001 on http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
 IPCC First Scientific Assessment Report, Climate Change, J.T. Houghton, et al (ed), Executive Summary, page XI, Cambridge July 1990;
 IPCC First Scientific Assessment Report, Climate Change, J.T. Houghton, et al (ed), Executive Summary, page XII, Cambridge July 1990;
 The Kyoto global warming pact, negotiated in Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto in 1997 and ratified by 140 nations, went into force on the 16th of February 2005, seven years after it was negotiated, imposing limits on the emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases scientists blame for rising world temperatures, melting glaciers and rising oceans;
 With the United States staying out, Russia was the last hope for the treaty's supporters to get the necessary 55 countries accounting for at least 55 percent of global emissions in 1990. Russia accounted for 17 percent of emissions, second to the United States;
 See: Anti Global Warming Petition Project; http://www.oism.org/pproject