{"id":56,"date":"2014-08-06T13:35:31","date_gmt":"2014-08-06T13:35:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arctic-warming.com\/?page_id=56"},"modified":"2014-08-22T11:18:03","modified_gmt":"2014-08-22T11:18:03","slug":"which-causing-mechanism-should-be-discussed","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/www.arctic-warming.com\/?page_id=56","title":{"rendered":"Which causing mechanism should be discussed?"},"content":{"rendered":"
Starting Point<\/strong><\/div>\n

\"pozaN1S[1]\"<\/a><\/span>It is easy to say \u201cthat the warming in the early part of the 20 th century was probably mostly natural\u201d[1]<\/a>. The fact that nature is involved is obvious. However what does it mean saying: the cause was probably mostly natural? The statement ignores the fact that \u2018natural\u2019 weather temperatures are based on physical dynamics and meteorological science is in charge to explain it on this basis. In so far, using the term \u2018natural\u2019 explains nothing.<\/p>\n

It is furthermore evident that the Spitsbergen event was, in the common sense of the word, \u2018unnatural\u2019. Science has never recorded a similar situation. To quote Birkeland[2]<\/a>\u00a0once again, this rise at Spitsbergen in winter 1918\/19 and until ca 1922 is probably the greatest yet known on earth. At that time, weather records had been taken for about 200 years. Meanwhile, another 75 years have passed, but the repetition of such a phenomenon was not observed again. While a significant cooling can happen very suddenly, due to the fact that the average ocean temperature is 3.5 degrees C, warming is a very slow process.<\/p>\n

Having clearly shown, that the warming has not been sufficiently explained by recent research papers, it is now up to \u2018arctic-warming.com\u2019 to do better. And it will be done much more convincingly. Before starting this undertaking it shall be stressed once again, that the sudden Arctic warming at Spitsbergen in and since winter 1918\/19 is not an atmospheric issue, but an oceanic one. This aspect had been thoroughly highlighted, elaborated, and discussed in previous chapters. From hereafter only the oceanic aspect for generating and sustaining the Arctic warming will be in focus.<\/p>\n

\n\"pozaN1[1]\"<\/a>Before continuing on elaborating the causation by the sea, it shall also be stressed that various causation aspects are discussed, but at no stage should any assertion be regarded as a claim for a 100% prove. The reason is simple. This paper is not able and willing to provide a \u2018solution\u2019 on oceanic behaviour, in the Northern North Atlantic and the West-Spitsbergen Current, to which science paid \u2013with regard to the early Arctic warming – practically no attention until now. On the other hand \u2018arctic-warming.com\u2019 will show that the \u2018climatic revolution\u2019[3]<\/a>\u00a0in winter 1918\/19 can be so closely linked to the war activities in Northern Europe, that this establishes a \u201cprima-facie-evidence\u201d. Not \u2018arctic-warming-com\u2019 needs to prove that World War One is responsible for the dramatic temperature shift, but science has to demonstrate that this assertion is wrong by providing a more convincing explanation and prove. After all it is simply not enough to say merely: that it was probably a natural phenomenon[4]<\/a>. The subsequent discussion should be regarded as an offer to do further investigation. Important is not what this site offers as explanation, but that ocean science shows that it is able to explain a \u2018climatic revolution\u2019 which took place 90 years ago.<\/p>\n

Probable time period of causation<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n\"pozaN1T[1]\"<\/a>During the early 20 th Century nature run its normal course. The volcanic eruptions in 1902[5]<\/a>\u00a0and of Katmai (Alaska) in 1912, remained without any registered significant effect in the Northern North Atlantic realm[6]<\/a>. Since the year 1900 no \u2018natural\u2019 event, which could have affected the natural commons around Spitsbergen, has been observed. There was no significant earthquake, no eruption of a forceful volcano, no tsunami, no sunspots, and no big meteorite fell on the continent or in the sea. As the previous analysis showed, there was no hot spot in the atmosphere, from which warm air could have been transferred to Spitsbergen, causing a very pronounced warming and sustaining the phenomenon for such a long time. In so far, the only conclusion is that physical dynamics must have undergone dramatic changes in the marine environment around Spitsbergen.<\/p>\n

As there had been no extraordinary event space, in the atmosphere or in the common ocean behaviour which might have caused this special phenomenon, it is reasonable to think about a causational force never experienced before: the First World War (WWI). Highly destructive forces had been fighting in the air, on land and at sea, in Northern Europe from August 1914 until November 1918, when the big warming at Spitsbergen began to manifest itself.<\/p>\n

Probable lines of causation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Looking for a probable line of causation actual means looking for a oceanic mechanism, which not only can tigers such a pronounced temperature rise during a full winter period, but is also capable to kept this event going over many years; in this case sustaining the warming for two decades. As already discussed in the previous chapter, something must have happened within the water body of the Norwegian Sea, and with the West Spitsbergen Current, either by more warm water supply from the South, or by diminishing the thickness of the cold surface layer above the warm water current. As no unusual warming in the southern Norwegian Sea had been observed during the time period in question. This investigation considers as the most likely reason the up-wards trend of the warm-water current towards the sea surface. The thinner a cold sea surface layer, the more latent heat from the sea will be released to the atmosphere, particularly during the sunless winter season. This assertion is supported by the observation Schokalsky published in the 1930s[7]<\/a>\u00a0, namely that the cover layer of cold water, which was measuring 200 metres in the 1890s, was reduced to less than 100 metres in the 1920s. Although there might have been other \u2018mechanism\u2019 in play, the following analysis will focus on the question what caused the West-Spitsbergen Current to rise, respectively the thinning of the cold sea water level. For this purpose we will pursue two options. They shall be presented separately, although they certainly have worked cumulatively and in combination:<\/p>\n