For centuries, farmers in Austria shot consecrated guns at storms in attempts to dispel them. Some guns were loaded with nails, ostensibly to kill the witches riding in the clouds; others were fired with powder alone through open empty barrels to make a great noise -- perhaps, some said, to disrupt the electrical balance of the storm. In 1896, Albert Stiger, a vine rower in southeastern Austria and burgomaster of Windisch-Feistritz, revived the ancient tradition of hagelschiessen (hail shooting) -- basically declaring "war on the clouds" by firing cannon when storms threatened. Faced with mounting losses from summer hailstorms that threatened his grapes, he attempted to disrupt, with mortar fire, the "calm before the storm," or what he observed as a strange stillness in the air moments before the onset of heavy summer precipitation.
From the new book, Fixing the Sky, a history of attempts to control weather and climate. H/T Marginal Revolution.
Bishop Hill
Reader Comments (22)
O/T but just wanted to ask has anyone else noticed the Daily Mail has been carrying some of the most alarmist stories of late, usually not credited to any particular journo?
13 Jan: Daily Mail: The sun rises two days early in Greenland, sparking fears that global warming is accelerating
by DAILY MAIL REPORTER
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346936/The-sun-rises-days-early-Greenland-sparking-fears-global-warming-accelerating.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
We always have to keep in perspective the "science" of the day and it's likely it they did such things as the science was considered unequivocal.
The author of "Fixing the Sky", James Fleming, was interviewed by 'our Phillip Adams', a radio presenter and a leading CAGW cultist in Australia.
The 25 min interview can be found here.
It will be interesting to see what it written about this period 30 years hence. I hope I live long enough... :-)
James P, I said almost exactly the same thing this morning, "I hope I live to see the next Ice age scare in 20 or 30 yrs" <lol>
Blimey, we're actually living " Fixing the Sky Vol 2 " real time!
It is very odd how the same old scams - chain letters, spoon bending, geomancy - keep on going round and round.
I can only imagine that most warmists are in their teens and find pretty much everything new and alarming.
Eh?
Gaian CAGW cultists started looking like this a long time ago:
http://dvdmedia.ign.com/dvd/image/article/773/773344/apocalypto-20070316000537705.jpg
@ Justice4Rinka
There's a theory I haven't really looked into but which seems plausible suggesting that Major stock market bubbles occur about every 70 years, that being about the time it takes for everyone with first hand knowledge of the last one to die out.
There's a long history of attempts to control the weather. Ringing church bells to ward off hailstorms in medieval times comes to mind.
A more recent one was Wilhelm Reich's Cloudbuster, a device designed to drain the clouds of orgone energy.
Magic is basically an attempt to control things that are beyond control.
The sun rises two days early in Greenland, sparking fears that global warming is accelerating
Eh?
Above the Artic Circle you have perpetual night in Winter and depending on where you are there is a date each winter when the sun pops up above the horizon. This is determined by the tilt in the Earths Axis so the Earth must have tilted in the North a bit closer to the Sun or the calenders bust. If its true you get a change in the sunlight reaching the polar extremes, not sure whether it cools or warms globally.
Just read the article, this comment makes the best explanation.
The atmosphere acts as a weak lens, bending light about 0.5 degrees - this is because the lower air is denser than the upper air, so light travels (very slightly) more slower in the lower than upper air. The outcome is you can see things that are 0.5 deg below the horizon. The lens effect would increase if the density gradient of the air increased,i.e. the lower air got denser, which it would if it were colder, like the last few weeks in the UK. Or if the upper air got warmer, and less dense. NB we're talking or air temps, not above Greenland but above the horizon to the SE where the sun rises, i.e. over W Europe So if the sun is visible when it should still be below the horizon, try looking at atmospheric temperatures at different heights over the UK
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346936/The-sun-rises-days-early-Greenland-sparking-fears-climate-change-accelerating.html#ixzz1B0mz9qdZ
Pat
When the sun is close to the horizon it appears to be higher than it actually is. Navigators call it sextant refractive error. It is usually about 30 minutes of arc (comparable to the sun's diameter) but is quite sensitive to atmospheric pressure and temperature. The most likely explanation is unusally high pressures and low temperatures.
@ cosmic
Kondratieff Wave hypothesis, I believe.
I am not sure whether the issue is a cyclical 70-year propensity to swallow anything for the cause you summarise, or a structural persistence of religiosity that means there's always some scare about something. They seem hard to reconcile.
Oops.
unusually
A bit more of interest about the 'man-made flood' in Brisbane: http://tinyurl.com/5r7qp24
Aw jeez, Neal, you mean that someone built them a wonderful dam and still the silly buggers stuffed up?
(paraphrasing Split Second(which references Global Warming circa 1992))
James Hansen: "We need to get bigger guns! BIG F***ING GUNS!"
Fresh Air --
If I've used NOAA's website correctly (http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/azel.html), the sun reaches an elevation about 0.2 degrees higher each day (at that place, this time of year). So two days early would mean that the effect is about 0.4 degrees. It seems extremely unlikely that this effect is due to melting ice. If the ice which defines the horizon is 1 mile away, 0.4 degrees would imply a reduction in the ice's elevation of about 37 feet. Looking at a Google map, the village is in close proximity to some mountains to the south, and depending on where one made the measurement (of the sun being visible), the ice which defines the horizon might be a mile off, or possibly only a half-mile (in which case the 0.4 degrees would require only half the change in ice height). Still, whether the ice had lost 37 feet of thickness or only 19, that's an awful lot to lose in one year.
So I'd concur with the suggestion of the comment you cited, that it's down to increased refraction.
@ cosmic
was listening to Hawkwind 'argon accumuler' as you posted, are you messing with my mind :-)
Dreadnaught
"When the sun is close to the horizon it appears to be higher than it actually is. Navigators call it sextant refractive error. It is usually about 30 minutes of arc (comparable to the sun's diameter) but is quite sensitive to atmospheric pressure and temperature. The most likely explanation is unusally high pressures and low temperatures."
That may well be the reason. Only several days go I read someone saying the temps are near record lows where he lived in Greenland.
Harold W
"Depending on where one made the measurement" - in particular how high the observer was. The sun's apparent altitude also depends on the height of the observer's eye. The sextant correction is known as the 'dip' and is proportional to the square root of the height.
You are right about the observation being made towards the south. When the sun first reappears after the winter darkness it will do so at its greatest altitude, i.e. at local noon, when by definition it is due south.
I take it you are assuming that the observation was made at Illulisat, where it was reported. I too have investigated the terrain towards the south using my trusty Times atlas. One thing is obvious. There may be seasonal snow and ice but there ain't no ice cap.
But what do we know about it? We're not published climatologists.
Dreadnought -
Yes, I assumed the observation was made at Illulisat. I also assumed, since they had an "official" sun sighting date, that there was a consistent spot in town -- perhaps the airport? or the steeple of a local church? -- from which they make the determination of the sun's return each year. I agree that the effect of the height can be significant, several days in fact, but if they report from the same place each year, that would cancel out.
I think you're correct that the snow/ice on the hills to the south is only seasonal. In which case, I suppose it's remotely possible that the snow cover is *much* less thick this year than usual. But then it would be due to an extremely dry winter, not to melting icecaps. The article mentioned icecaps, so I went with that. Perhaps the scientist they consulted heard "Greenland" and assumed a horizon limited by icecap, but on the coast that isn't a foregone conclusion.
For a laugh, check out the local weather forecast. They say "Today is forecast to be Much Warmer than yesterday" with a predicted high of -9 C.