AGU: Link found between cold European winters and solar activity

“Skaters can only do this race every 10 or 11 years because that’s when the rivers freeze up,” Sirocko said. “I thought to myself, ‘There must be a reason for this,’ and it turns out there is.”

Skaters take to frozen-over canals in the Netherlands in Feb. 2012. (Credit: De Vries)
From the American Geophysical Union

WASHINGTON – Scientists have long suspected that the Sun’s 11-year cycle influences climate of certain regions on Earth. Yet records of average, seasonal temperatures do not date back far enough to confirm any patterns. Now, armed with a unique proxy, an international team of researchers show that unusually cold winters in Central Europe are related to low solar activity – when sunspot numbers are minimal. The freezing of Germany’s largest river, the Rhine, is the key.

Although the Earth’s surface overall continues to warm, the new analysis has revealed a correlation between periods of low activity of the Sun and of some cooling – on a limited, regional scale in Central Europe, along the Rhine.

“The advantage with studying the Rhine is because it’s a very simple measurement,” said Frank Sirocko lead author of a paper on the study and professor of Sedimentology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Geosciences of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany. “Freezing is special in that it’s like an on-off mode. Either there is ice or there is no ice.”

From the early 19th through mid-20th centuries, riverboat men used the Rhine for cargo transport. And so docks along the river have annual records of when ice clogged the waterway and stymied shipping. The scientists used these easily-accessible documents, as well as additional historical accounts, to determine the number of freezing episodes since 1780.

Sirocko and his colleagues found that between 1780 and 1963, the Rhine froze in multiple places 14 different times. The sheer size of the river means it takes extremely cold temperatures to freeze over making freezing episodes a good proxy for very cold winters in the region, Sirocko said.

Mapping the freezing episodes against the solar activity’s 11-year cycle – a cycle of the Sun’s varying magnetic strength and thus total radiation output – Sirocko and his colleagues determined that ten of the fourteen freezes occurred during years around when the Sun had minimal sunspots. Using statistical methods, the scientists calculated that there is a 99 percent chance that extremely cold Central European winters and low solar activity are inherently linked.

“We provide, for the first time, statistically robust evidence that the succession of cold winters during the last 230 years in Central Europe has a common cause,” Sirocko said.

With the new paper, Sirocko and his colleagues have added to the research linking solar variability with climate, said Thomas Crowley, Director of the Scottish Alliance for Geoscience, Environment, and Society, who was not involved with the study.

“There is some suspension of belief in this link,” Crowley said, “and this study tilts the argument more towards thinking there really is something to this link. If you have more statistical evidence to support this explanation, one is more likely to say it’s true.”

The study, conducted by researchers at Johannes Gutenberg and the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich, Switzerland, is set to be published August 25 in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

When sunspot numbers are down, the Sun emits less ultraviolet radiation. Less radiation means less heating of Earth’s atmosphere, which sparks a change in the circulation patterns of the two lowest atmospheric levels, the troposphere and stratosphere. Such changes lead to climatic phenomena such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, a pattern of atmospheric pressure variations that influences wind patterns in the North Atlantic and weather behavior in regions in and around Europe.

“Due to this indirect effect, the solar cycle does not impact hemispherically averaged temperatures, but only leads to regional temperature anomalies,” said Stephan Pfahl, a co-author of the study who is now at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich.

The authors show that this change in atmospheric circulation leads to cooling in parts of Central Europe but warming in other European countries, such as Iceland. So, sunspots don’t necessarily cool the entire globe – their cooling effect is more localized, Sirocko said.

In fact, studies have suggested that the extremely cold European winters of 2010 and 2011 were the result of the North Atlantic Oscillation, which Sirocko and his team now link to the low solar activity during that time.

The 2010 and 2011 European winters were so cold that they resulted in record lows for the month of November in certain countries. Some who dispute the occurrence of anthropogenic climate change argue that this two-year period shows that Earth’s climate is not getting any warmer. But climate is a complex system, Sirocko said. And a short-term, localized dip in temperatures only temporarily masks the effects of a warming world.

“Climate is not ruled by one variable,” said Sirocko. “In fact, it has [at least] five or six variables. Carbon dioxide is certainly one, but solar activity is also one.”

Moreover, the researchers also point out that, despite Central Europe’s prospect to suffer colder winters every 11 years or so, the average temperature of those winters is increasing and has been for the past three decades. As one piece of evidence of that warming, the Rhine River has not frozen over since 1963. Sirocko said such warming results, in part, from climate change.

To establish a more complete record of past temperature dips, the researchers are looking to other proxies, such as the spread of disease and migratory habits.

“Disease can be transported by insects and rats, but during a strong freezing year that is not likely,” said Sirocko. “Also, Romans used the Rhine to defend against the Germanics, but as soon as the river froze people could move across it. The freezing of the Rhine is very important on historical timescales.”

It wasn’t, however, the Rhine that first got Sirocko to thinking about the connection between freezing rivers and sunspot activity. In fact, it was a 125-mile ice-skating race he attended over 20 years ago in the Netherlands that sparked the scientist’s idea.

“Skaters can only do this race every 10 or 11 years because that’s when the rivers freeze up,” Sirocko said. “I thought to myself, ‘There must be a reason for this,’ and it turns out there is.”

###

Title:

“Solar influence on winter severity in central Europe”

Abstract:

The last two winters in central Europe were unusually cold in comparison to the years before. Meteorological data, mainly from the last 50 years, and modelling studies have suggested that both solar activity and El Niño strength may influence such central European winter coldness. To investigate the mechanisms behind this in a statistically robust way and to test which of the two factors was more important during the last 230 years back into the Little Ice Age, we use historical reports of freezing of the river Rhine. The historical data show that 10 of the 14 freeze years occurred close to sunspot minima and only one during a year of moderate El Niño. This solar influence is underpinned by corresponding atmospheric circulation anomalies in reanalysis data covering the

period 1871 to 2008. Accordingly, weak solar activity is empirically related to extremely cold winter conditions in Europe also on such long time scales. This relationship still holds today, however the average winter temperatures have been rising during the last decades.

Authors:

Frank Sirocko and Heiko Brunck: Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz;

Stephan Pfahl: Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.

==============================================================

I hope to have a copy of the paper soon – Anthony

UPDATE: Dr. Leif Svalgaard provides the paper, as did the AGU press agent Kate Ramsayer per my emailed request, along with a copyright admonishment. Thank you both. Figure 6a and 6b are interesting:

From the paper:

In agreement with the 20th Century Reanalysis central European temperature observations from the CRUTEM3 dataset [Brohan et al., 2006] from winters directly following a sunspot minimum are also significantly lower than the average temperature during the remaining winter seasons (Fig. 6a). The relation between cold winter conditions and sunspot activity is thus not specific to rivers alone (which could also be affected by a number of additional factors, for example warm water from the numerous powerplants constructed along the river). The strong variations of the time series in Fig. 6a, which are largely independent of the sunspot cycle, show the important role of internal, stochastic variability of the atmosphere for European winter temperatures. The relation shown above holds true only for central European temperatures. When the CRUTEM3 winter temperature data are averaged over the whole Northern Hemisphere, no relation to the solar minima is found.

This suggests a regional circulation pattern effect, as the authors state connected to figure 5a and 5b:

To identify the atmospheric circulation anomalies in the North Atlantic and European region associated with cold winters during solar minima, Fig. 5a shows the difference in the geopotential height fields at 500 hPa (Z500) between the winters directly following a year with a sunspot minimum and the remainder of the period 1871 to 2008, obtained from the 20th Century Reanalysis dataset [Compo et al., 1996]. A strong, statistically significant positive anomaly occurs over the eastern North Atlantic in the region of Iceland, while negative anomalies are found over the Iberian peninsula and over north-eastern Europe (the latter being not significant). These Z500 anomalies are associated with an enhanced northerly flow and cold air advection from the Arctic and Scandinavia

towards central Europe, leading to significantly negative temperature anomalies over England, France and western Germany (Fig. 5b). The centre of the cooling is in the region of southern England, the Benelux countries and western Germany down to middle Rhine area. Eastern and southern Germany are not effected as much as the above region. Accordingly, it is only the Rhine and possible some Dutch rivers that provide the possibility to reconstruct this specific temperature anomaly pattern, which corresponds to an anomalously negative NAO and a preference for blockings over the eastern North Atlantic.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
308 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 25, 2012 2:11 pm

Henry@Ulric
No. Sorry. Made a slight calc error. Just as there was nothing
between 1964 – 1975 there will be no elfstedentocht
between 2015 – 2025

matt v.
August 25, 2012 2:13 pm

There has been an El Nino the year after every solar minimum . Since at least 1880, 10 of the last strongest and climate altering El Nino’s have been the year after a solar minimum. The extra warming during the warming period 0f 1970-2000 has come from 3 extra strong El Ninos that did not happen a year after the solar minimum namely 1991/1992, 1982/1983 and 1972/1973. A similar additional strong El nino took place during the previous warming cycle of 1910-1945, namley 1940/1941. If the solar cycle gets longer and less intensive , there could be fewer stronger and/or climate altering El Ninos, resulting in gradual cooling .

August 25, 2012 4:01 pm

HenryP says:
August 25, 2012 at 2:11 pm
“..there will be no elfstedentocht between 2015 – 2025”
11th December 1657: Beginning of one of the longest periods of snow lying in England, lasting (reputedly) until 21st March 1658.
A notably severe winter over western Europe & much of Britain (Easton in CHMW/Lamb). In some parts of England, the frost lasted from 1st December (OSP) to 10th March (OSP). Ice was reported around coasts of SE England.
In Scotland, the winter was also ‘seasonably severe’, but the cold lingered through March into April, with frequent wind from the east or NE.
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1650_1699.htm
179.05yrs later we have Murphy’s winter from early January 1838. The next one of these should dig in from later in January 2017.

August 25, 2012 4:15 pm

HenryP says:
August 25, 2012 at 11:34 am
Either you are ignorant or you want to be.
I don’t [pretend] not to be as so many here.

August 25, 2012 4:18 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
August 25, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Sorry, 1658 is the wrong analogue that I posted above, 179yrs back from 1838 is 1659 which actually was not so cold, though I still anticipate early 2017 as being very cold.

August 26, 2012 1:54 am

MattV says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/agu-link-found-between-cold-european-winters-and-solar-activity/#comment-1064974
Henry @Matt & Ulric
you are both on the right path but you took a wrong turn somewhere.
Note that I say that extreme weather events – of cold spells or warm spells- not only depend on current ambient temperature (ie. whether we are in a cooling period or warming period) , but also on acceleration – whichever the sign – because this seems to bring about or cause the relevant airflows/ pressures that bring about the event. Start by looking at my results
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
and do the plot for the change in maxima in degrees C / annum against time for yourself. What you get is acceleration of cooling or deceleration of warming, whichever you prefer. What you will note from the plot is that this acceleration is greatest when there is an actual change of sign. My results show that in 1995 we changed sign. Acceleration into cooling was the highest there, hence we had an Elfstedentocht a few years later (earth is always a few years later – if you look at the means in degrees C /annum against time), even though in 1997 we were actually at the height of a warming period. My results also suggest that around 1944 or 1945 we changed from cooling to warming. So at that stage, just before and after we had maximum acceleration into warming. Hence the warm events you, MattV, have noted just before 1944. It was yesterday reported that we currently have a very warm spell in Germany which makes sense to me. Obviously, to keep the balance, in the SH we now get more cold spells. We had snow here in August for the first time in Johannesburg since 1981.
We almost had an Elfstedentocht in Friesland in 2012. But we are now approaching the bending point and between 2015 and 2025 acceleration will be close to zero and speed of cooling will be more or less constant. Obviously ambient temperatures may change somewhat towards more cooler and winters may become a bit longer, but in general, I predict that there will be no extreme weather events between 2017 and 2027 (if we add a few years of lag on earth’s output compared to energy input)

David Cage
August 26, 2012 8:40 am

So what the report says is that low radiation gives cold weather but high temperatures are caused by global warming and they wonder why many engineers and other scientists despise climate studies and reject the notion of it as science.

August 26, 2012 9:40 am

Leif Svalgaard says
I don’t [pretend] not to be as so many here.
Henry@Leif
What was that you always said?
There are none so blind as those who do not want to see?Look, we all know for sure that you are the most knowledgeable and best scientist on this blog/block. I am sure everybody here will agree with me on that, even though some will not always admit it or even sometimes tease you a bit, just to get you off from your horse. So, really there is no need for you to have to make any ad homien remarks.
When you speak everybody listens so it is a bit of a disappointment if there is no science in your post.
Either way, did you ever consider my results and do you agree with me that there appears to be a 100 year cycle that began in 1895 and ended in 1995 consisting of 50 years of cooling (1895-1945) and 50 years of warming (1945-1995). My binominal plots are actually not correct there because it is an a-c wave – unfortunately for me Excell does not do the a-c waves plots; so it is somewhat difficult for me to calculate the actual fluctuations in ambient temperature that this 100 year cycle causes/
Do you have any idea on that for me?

August 26, 2012 9:51 am

HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 9:40 am
do you agree with me that there appears to be a 100 year cycle that began in 1895 and ended in 1995 consisting of 50 years of cooling (1895-1945) and 50 years of warming (1945-1995).
It does not matter what people agree on. Mother Nature has the final say, and she says that there was warming the first half of that cycle, cooling from 1945 to 1980 [remember the ice age scare in the 1970s], and warming since. Not at all what you advocate.

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 26, 2012 10:16 am

I also have been troubled by HenryP’s suggestion that warming began in 1945 because I well remember the cooling scare of the 60s and 70s.
If we start around1895 that seems to have been quite a cool time (some say the LIA continued to the 1850s) with warming up to the 1930s then cooling to the 70s then warming to around 2000 and then possibly cooling but the new trend has not yet become fully established since it takes time to turn the system around.
We see a 60 year (PDO) pattern there superimposed on the general warming trend in the background since the LIA.
I think HenryP should look at the interplay between the background long term warming trend and the effects of the 60 year PDO cycling in his regions of interest and see if some of his timings need adjustment.
I cannot bring myself to be as negative and dismissive as Leif.

August 26, 2012 10:14 am

Henry Leif
I do not “advocate” a certain stance. I collected the relevant data, evaluated those data, according to logical statistical principles. Prove to me that any individual weather station’s results are incorrect?
Then I plot what I get. What I get is what I get. I cannot change what I get. It looks clearly like an a-c wave? Seeing that for maxima, means and minima I get similar a-c wave plots, don’t you think it is possible that those evaluating “Mother Nature” have made some serious mistakes?

August 26, 2012 10:30 am

HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 10:14 am
don’t you think it is possible that those evaluating “Mother Nature” have made some serious mistakes?
Not really, one can quibble about the details, but the gross picture is largely correct.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 26, 2012 at 10:16 am
I cannot bring myself to be as negative and dismissive as Leif.
Mother Nature cannot be easily dismissed.

August 26, 2012 10:43 am

Hi Henry
Dr. S. and I discussed my ~ 52 / 105 cycles on many an occasion, and let me make it clear that he considers it ‘nonsense’.
However if that doesn’t deter you, it is all here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
my persistence knows no bounds, but I do not wish to engage Dr. S. since he is far too persuasive, not to mention more knowledgeable than I am, so I shall qualify my results as
‘speculations of an idle mind’, or to be honest I need a favor again.
Dr Svalgaard
I would be very obliged if you may be able to trace numerical data file for the graph
Figure 6. An illustration of the effect of the regression of the moon’s nodes on the water levels at Puget Sound, WA.
ftp://ftp.flaterco.com/xtide/tidal_datums_and_their_applications.pdf
all my previous attempts have failed.

Stephen Wilde
August 26, 2012 10:43 am

Mother Nature speaks with forked tongue.
It is very difficult to ascertain what she is really telling us.
Does Leif Svalgaard claim to be her best interpreter ?
I think he will say he is 🙂
On solar issues I would agree (but best doesn’t imply all knowing).
As regards the interaction between the sun and Earth systems I am a little less confident.

August 26, 2012 10:51 am

Henry@Leif
Quible…??
To start off with, they never even considered looking at maxima by which they could have easily evaluated energy input, like I have done. Which sane scientists looking at global warming would “forget” to look at such an important variable?

August 26, 2012 11:22 am

vukcevic says:
August 26, 2012 at 10:43 am
Hi Henry
Dr. S. and I discussed my ~ 52 / 105 cycles on many an occasion, and let me make it clear that he considers it ‘nonsense’.
The ~100 yr cycle in solar activity is real enough.
all my previous attempts have failed.
The simplest is just to print out the figure and carefully measure the data points.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 26, 2012 at 10:43 am
Mother Nature speaks with forked tongue.
Usually not. And in any case, we have to go with what she says.
HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 10:51 am
Which sane scientists looking at global warming would “forget” to look at such an important variable?
For the energy in the system, the average temperature would seem to be most appropriate. It would seem an overreach to declare all other people not ‘sane’.

August 26, 2012 11:56 am

Henry@Vukcevic
Thanks for your input there, that also proves there is a ca. 100 year cycle of which 50 is positive and 50 negative like an a-c wave. Like I also found in VI here:
http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyclesresearchinstitute.org%2Fcycles-astronomy%2Farnold_theory_order.pdf&ei=FG46UIz-LdKyhAf9roCAAQ&usg=AFQjCNG0fLT-0fkPPYFamQGUguMy3oFmGQ&sig2=qUIhZuI9XjlplDXIOR4YtA
(note that Arnold’s times for the waves are 1860-1900-1950-1990 correspond closely with my estimates)
Anyways, I need to plot my results in degrees C/ annum against time for maxima and means and minima in that a-c wave but my maths on geo has always been bad. Do you perhaps know how I can do that plot and get the co-ordinates for my waves?

August 26, 2012 12:16 pm

Leif says
For the energy in the system, the average temperature would seem to be most appropriate. It would seem an overreach to declare all other people not ‘sane’.
Henry says
No, if you say you want to study global warming it is not logical not to look at all variables that are relevant and available. But let us “quible” on. They came with the idea that it must be the CO2 that is causing the global warming problem, causing the delay in cooling in which case you would expect strongly rising minima. Did you see anyone plotting minima and proving to me that it was rising minima that pushed up means? Do you actually know what the ratio is for the global increases in maxima-means-minima?
(Do not quote my results)

August 26, 2012 12:29 pm

HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Leif says
They came with the idea that it must be the CO2 that is causing the global warming problem
You – and many other people – have to get off the silly notion of framing everything in terms of CO2 [or opposition thereto]
Do you actually know what the ratio is for the global increases in maxima-means-minima?
(Do not quote my results)

Doesn’t matter where the increases are as long as the mean goes up, which it did in both your two 50-yr halves.

August 26, 2012 12:40 pm

Leif says
which it did in both your two 50-yr halves.
Henry says
No! This is where the problem is. Automatic recorders only came after 1970. How would you prove to me that the global temperature in 1895 was lower then in 1995? That the warming from 1945 to 1995 was already natural: that we know from my results.

August 26, 2012 1:03 pm

Henry
I am not certain what exactly you have in mind,
if column A is ‘year’ A1 1900, A2 1901 etc)
column B is temperature value
write in box C2
=B2-B1 gives you degrees/annum change
copy box C2 and paste in column C from C3 to the end e.g. C200 or whatever
which will be ac type curve
if it is something like last graph at
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
plot normal graph, then ‘ad trend line’ and select option ‘display equation’ which looks something like this
y = 0.005x – 14.6
Now in box C1 write
=B1-(A1*0.005 – 14.6)
copy box C1 and paste in column C

August 26, 2012 2:52 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 25, 2012 at 4:37 am
Geoff Sharp says:
Your SC14 comparison is running out of legs the further we get into SC24.
——————————————
On the contrary: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png

Your graph is pure slight of hand. Surely you don’t believe that people could be so naive?
Do it properly and SC14 is much higher (so far) than SC24.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24.png

August 26, 2012 8:05 pm

HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 12:40 pm
How would you prove to me that the global temperature in 1895 was lower than in 1995? That the warming from 1945 to 1995 was already natural: that we know from my results.
I don’t need to prove what is generally accepted, and you wouldn’t believe it anyway. The cherry trees in Japan knows: http://arnoldia.arboretum.harvard.edu/pdf/articles/1893.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
August 26, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Your graph is pure slight of hand.
The graph just shows the official sunspot number. That official SC24 is a bit higher than SC14 is probably due to the Waldmeier jump.
Surely you don’t believe that people could be so naive?
What people? Wolfer? Cortesi? or your sycophants and acolytes?
Do it properly and SC14 is much higher (so far) than SC24.
‘much’ is a big word’ like 50% higher or such.
Correcting for the Waldmeier jump, SC14 and SC24 are at the moment just at the same level:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24-overlap.png
If we take into account the L&P effect, the SC24 is probably too low already, but we don’t need to do this to refute your erroneous assertion.

August 26, 2012 9:59 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 26, 2012 at 8:05 pm
The graph just shows the official sunspot number. That official SC24 is a bit higher than SC14 is probably due to the Waldmeier jump.
A real white wash job going on here. It is amazing to observe what lengths you will go to bolster your own ideas. Why don’t you simply show a graph of the SC24 SIDC values less the Waldmeier factor. If you want to further improve the accuracy so that the pre 1945 cycles can be compared you would also allow a deduction for the recent SIDC trend of more splitting of groups (as you have observed), along with an allowance for the increased speck ratio, and a small allowance for the difference in technology.
But even just allowing for Waldmeier anyone can see SC5 is so far a better match.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24_less_wald.png

u.k.(us)
August 26, 2012 10:04 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 26, 2012 at 8:05 pm
“The cherry trees in Japan knows”
http://arnoldia.arboretum.harvard.edu/pdf/articles/1893.pdf
=============
Knows what ?, warm is better than cold ?
It is as it ever was.

August 26, 2012 11:59 pm

Leif says
HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 12:40 pm
How would you prove to me that the global temperature in 1895 was lower than in 1995? That the warming from 1945 to 1995 was already natural: that we know from my results.
Leif answers: I don’t need to prove what is generally accepted, and you wouldn’t believe it anyway. The cherry trees in Japan knows: http://arnoldia.arboretum.harvard.edu/pdf/articles/1893.pdf
Henry says
I am open for any proof. We do need to prove this first because what is generally accepted could be wrong. Nobody informed me or anybody about a 100 year weather cycle. That is a lifetime. That why we are here, to examine and measure what is really happening. That reverence you gave: if you look carefully at the graph you will note that the DOY of the last 100 year is really no different as it was between 1400 and 1600. It is just that the last 100 year there are records for every year which makes it look “black” (bad). If you give me the data I may be able to prove this conclusively by doing a statistical analysis.
So we have been there, before. There might still be another 500 year cycle that I will have to look at. And like I said before, I will still try to calculate by how much degrees K life on earth varies in the 100 year cycle if I can get my a-c wave right.
But let us “quible” on. Here is a reference on arctic ice:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/
Assuming 1900 was the end of the warming period before the last warming period, that we know ended in 1995, note that by 1920 people were not so much concerned as surprised by the disappearing arctic ice. I remember reading a news paper article from back then on WUWT (but could not find again). Sounds familiar does it not? In fact the disappearing arctic ice was main news on some networks again yesterday. But now the disappearing ice is caused by “global warming”, or a GH effect, meaning us. But note in my reference I gave you above: it seems from the maps that when WWII started all the ice had mostly grown back again. So there you have it: I know it and now you know it. We are now cooling again and by ca. 2045 everything will be back to how it was, as it always was, more or less. I am sorry to have to bring this news. In fact: I hate cold. I wish I could report some other findings. But, in the end, we probably need to be happy, even about the big bad cold, because that is probably why we are alive today.

1 5 6 7 8 9 13