








































07 Vollset - Asking too much


 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

83

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Asking too much? 
Postwar climate research in Norway, 1947-1961 

 
 

Magnus Vollset 
Magnus.Vollset@uib.no 

AHKR, University of Bergen 
 
 
Following the extremely dry summer of 1947, the head of the Norwegian Water 
Resources and Electricity Works, Fredrik Vogt, wrote a concerned letter to the 
Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters asking if the climate was changing, and if 
this would be possible to predict. Vogt was worried about the future stability of 
Norwegian hydropower: “If you can develop fairly reliable prognosis for climate 
variations in the coming years or decades, this would be of great practical importance for 
how we manage the power supply.”1 In response, the Academy established a 
multidisciplinary taskforce, which gave birth to an Institute for Weather and Climate 
Research. Parallel to this, the Meteorological Office had its own section for climate. 
However, by the time the Institute closed in 1960, the question of climate prediction was 
long forgotten. 

This paper investigates Norwegian postwar climate research through studying the 
institution that was set up, its mandate, how the research was funded, which researchers 
were involved, and how they were recruited. I examine the findings, the concurrent 
debates on what meteorological research to conduct, and show how ‘climate’ held 
different meanings for the different actors. The goal of the paper is to explain why Vogt’s 
request for climate prognosis was not pursued. By focusing on the overlooked period 
1947-61, which was when the Institute for Weather and Climate Research operated, and 
before the computer at the Meteorological Office transformed the capacities of the 
climatologists, I demonstrate that history is not a linear affair, and that research projects 
that did not lead to a breakthrough are also part of it. By exploring efforts that were seen 
as important at the time, but did not necessarily lead to the present, we can gain better 
insights into how science actually works. 

                                                           
1 Letter from Fredrik Vogt, head of the Norwegian Water Resources and Electricity Works [‘Norges 
vassdrags- og elektrisitetsvesen’], to the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters [‘Det Norske 
Vitenskapsakademi i Oslo’], dated Oslo, December 23, 1947. Beretning fra utvalget for vær og 
klimavariasjoner, 1948 og 1949. 1950: 2-3. [Hereafter: Beretning. 1950].  



 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

84

 
The drought and the committee 
 

Although the cold winter of 1947 is well documented, particularly on the British Isles,2 
the extremely dry summer that followed in most of Europe is less well known. From the 
middle of July to the middle of August, the meteorologists in the Norwegian capital of 
Oslo registered only 2.2 millimeters of rain, compared to a 30-year average of 102 
millimeters.3 Streams and rivers dried up, there were wildfires, and electricity was 
rationed.4 In September, the Norwegian School of Agriculture reported that the rainfall in 
the growth season had been between a fourth and a fifth of that in a normal year, and that 
crop yields were halved.5 Farmers were instructed to butcher farm animals to save on 
food supplies for the coming winter, and in a country still rebuilding after five years of 
Nazi occupation, newspaper columnists commented: “This is a crop failure of the worst 
kind; a catastrophe no one had believed could befall Norwegian agriculture in our time.”6 

The consequence of the drought on the production of hydroelectric power was 
especially alarming. When Norway accepted the Marshall Plan in April 1948, increased 
electricity production for industrial needs was defined as the country’s main contribution 
to European postwar reconstruction.7 Thus, when Vogt as head of the Norwegian Water 
Resources and Electricity Works asked if the climate was changing, and if this would be 
possible to forecast, his request was taken very seriously.8 In line with influential 
contemporary climatologists such as Helmut Landsberg, Vogt understood climate as an 
inexhaustible natural resource.9 Climate was what controlled the rainfall needed to 
produce hydropower, and climate prediction was key to managing this vital national 
resource. 

The Academy established a Committee on Weather and Climate Variation, which 
worked in a multidisciplinary rather than an interdisciplinary way. The group consisted of 
three meteorologists (Theodor Hesselberg, Einar Høiland, Halvor Solberg), two botanists 
(Ove Arbo Høeg, Knut Fægri), an expert on oceanography (Harald Ulrik Sverdrup), an 
                                                           
2 Cerys A. Jones, S. J. Davies and N. Macdonald. “Examining the social consequences of extreme weather: 
the outcomes of the 1946/1947 winter in upland Wales, UK”. Climatic Change. 2012: 35-53; Hall, 
Alexander. Risk, Blame, and Expertise: The Meteorological Office and extreme weather in post-war 
Britain. PhD-thesis, University of Manchester. 2012: 63-73; Robertson, Alex J. The Bleak Midwinter 1947. 
Manchester University Press. 1987; Roberts, Cedric. “The Winter of 1947 in Halesowen, West Midlands”. 
Weather. Vol. 58, 2003: 113-119; Kearns, Kevin C. Ireland’s Arctic Siege, The Big Freeze of 1947. Gill & 
MacMillan. 2011. For a contemporary account from Britain, see: Manley, G. “Looking back at last winter 
(a) February 1947: its place in meteorological history”. Weather. Vol. 2, No. 9. 1947: 267–272. 
3 “Lite håp om regn” [‘Little hope for rain’]. Verdens Gang. 19.8.1947: 1.  
4 Bjørbæk, Gustav. Norsk vær i 110 år: Temperatur, nedbør, værrekorder. Damm Forlag. 2003: 143. 
5 “Avlingene ved Landbrukshøgskolen 50 prosent av et normalår” [‘Crops at the College of Agriculture 50 
percent of a normal year’]. Verdens Gang. 1.9.1947: 2. 
6 “Ikke nedslakting på slump” [‘Not slaughter at random’]. Verdens Gang. 30.8.1947: 2. 
7 Skjold, Dag Ove. Statens Kraft 1947-1965. For velferd og industri. Universitetsforlaget. 2006. 
8 Letter from Vogt. Beretning. 1950: 2-3. The Academy was chosen because they “have members from all 
camps of science: meteorologists, physicists, botanists, geologists etc.” 
9 Landsberg, Helmut. “Climate as a Natural Resource”. The Scientific Monthly. Vol. 63, No. 4. 1946: 293 – 
298. See also Vladimir Janković’s paper in this issue. For more on Landsberg’s later attempts at 
establishing a ‘scientific middle ground’ in environmental debates in the US, see: Henderson, Gabriel. 
Raising the alarm: The cultural origins of climate 'denialism' in America, 1970-1988. PhD Dissertation, 
Michigan State University. 2014.  



 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

85

expert on glaciers (geographer Werner Werenskiold), an astrophysicist (Svein 
Rosseland), a historian (Johan Schreiner), and a representative from the Water Resources 
Service (Halfdan Klæboe).10 Representatives from the different disciplines worked side 
by side on independent projects, but outside the board meetings that took place at the 
state Meteorological Office, there was no collaboration. The reports on their progress 
consisted of minutes of meetings and individual papers, but there were no final report that 
summarized the findings. 

The result was a plethora of studies: The botanists conducted tree-ring dating 
(Dendrochronology) and pollen analysis in marshes to map the climate fluctuations in the 
recent past.11 The meteorologists used past weather observations to map the geographical 
patterns of the changing climate.12 The oceanographer examined the sea-ice in the Arctic 
Ocean, and the glaciologist mapped the retreat of the mountain glaciers as proxies for the 
impact of these variations.13 The astrophysicist began investigating the correlation 
between climate and sunspot cycles, while the representative from the Water Resources 
Service did a statistical mapping of the fluctuations in runoff.14 Finally, the historian had 
a student analyze river flows using historical records from timber mills.15 

While the studies documented that the climate had fluctuated, the search for 
patterns in the climatological records was far from useful for making predictions. 
Regardless of the method used, the variations were greater than the trends. The pollen 
analysis, for instance, suggested that climate changed in 600-year cycles, give or take a 
few decades. The tree-ring dating suggested 33-year patterns, correlating with the 11-year 
sunspot cycles, but again reality did not fully align with the statistical trends. Similarly, 
the meteorologists showed that a “wet” year could have two to three times more 
downpour than a “dry” year, and that even in “normal” years the annual fluctuation in 
river flows could be 10 percent or even greater.16 

The most useful findings for the hydroelectric producers came from the 
meteorologists, who could rely on previously published research. In the 1930s, inspired 
by reports that the season for ice-free harbors on Spitsbergen (Svalbard) had increased 
from 120 to 200 days, the head of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Theodor 
                                                           
10 Beretning. 1950: 4. The group was financed by the Norwegian Hydropower Association 
[‘Reguleringsforeningens Landssammenslutning’], with modest contributions from power-intensive 
industries.  
11 Fægri, Knut. “Pollenalanysens anvendelse for undersökelse av sykliske klimavariasjoner” [‘Using pollen 
analysis to investigate cyclic variations’]; Höeg, Ove Arbo. “Dendrokronologi og klimaendringer” 
[‘Dendrochronology and climate variations’]. Beretning. 1950: Attachments 1 and 4.  
12 Hesselberg, Theodor. “Hva de meteorologiske observasjoner viser om klimavariasjonene i Norge” 
[‘What the meteorological observations show regarding climate variations in Norway’]. Rapport fra 
Utvalget for vær og klimavariasjoner. Blindern. December 2, 1948: 22. 
13 Sverdrup, Harald Ulrik. “Oseanografiske observasjoner som antyder en klimaendring” [‘Oceanographic 
observations which suggest climate change’]; Werenskiold, Werner. “Bremålinger i Jotunheimen”  
[‘Glacier measurements in Jotunheimen’]. Beretning. 1950: Attachments 7 and 8; Fægri, Knut. “On the 
variations of Western Norwegian glaciers during the last 200 years”. Procès-verbause des séances de 
l’Assemblée Générale d’Oslo de l’Union Géodesique et Géophysique Internationale. 1948: 293-303. 
14 Rosseland, Svein. “Solen som variabel stjerne. – Solaktivitetens virkning på jorden” [‘The sun as a 
fluctuating star. – The effect of solar activities on earth’]; Klæboe, Halfdan. “Fluctuations in Run-off”. 
Beretning. 1950: Attachment 5 and 6. 
15 Authén, Grethe. “Elvenes vannføring på 1700-tallet, belyst ved fogderegnskapenes sagmannstall” [‘River 
levels in the 1700s, illustrated by shire saw-records’]. Beretning. 1950: 72.  
16 Hesselberg 1948: 22, ref. note 12. 



 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

86

Hesselberg, and the head of the Section for Climate, Bernt Johannes Birkeland, had 
begun examining the secular variations in the Norwegian climate.17 When weather 
forecasting was banned during the five years of Nazi occupation, the meteorologists 
stepped up their efforts on time-consuming climatological research.18 In this research, 
climate was understood as a regional and measurable phenomenon consisting of average 
temperature, humidity, precipitation, wind, and air pressure. 

Based on around 1.8 million observations and accompanied by over 200 pages of 
tables, all calculated by hand, Hesselberg and Birkeland concluded that the climate in 
Norway had changed more in the past fifty years than it had the previous two hundred.19 
The average temperature had increased by 0.6 degrees centigrade from 1911 to 1940. The 
increase was greater in the north than in the south, and the change was stronger in winter 
and spring than in summer and fall. The most extreme changes had taken place in 
Karasjok, Kautokeino and Sør-Varanger in the far north of the country, where the average 
temperatures in February had increased by more than four degrees centigrade. Further, 
rainfall had increased by up to twenty percent in the south-eastern part of Norway, while 
north-western Norway had become up to fifteen percent drier. Accompanying this, the 
frequency of winds from the southeast had increased by 25 percent, while winds from the 
northwest had decreased by 20 percent. This meant, they explained, that warmer and 
more humid winds from the south had brought more precipitation, and with a mountain 
range separating east from west, north-western parts of Norway were left in a relative 
rain-shadow. 

According to Hesselberg, the geographical pattern had clear practical 
implications: producers of hydropower in different parts of the country needed to 
collaborate. When it rained on the eastern side of the mountains, the production of 
electricity should be increased and “exported” to the west – and vice versa.20 While 
useful, this was not really what Vogt had in mind when he had asked for long-term 
forecasts for years or decades.  

Hesselberg and Birkeland’s research was extremely empirical, and unlike 
climatologists of the same generation, they were not interested in stretching the study 
back to before the official records began in 1866.21 In addition, contrary to concurrent 

                                                           
17 Secular variation was defined as climate change over periods of a hundred years or more. 
18 Barlaup, Asbjørn. Det norske meteorologiske institutt 1866-1966. Fabritius & Sønner. Oslo. 1966: 64-70. 
19 Hesselberg, Th. and B. J. Birkeland. “Säkulare Schwankungen des Klimas von Norwegen. Teil 1. Die 
Lufttemperatur” [‘Secular variations in the Norwegian Climate. Part 1. The air temperature’]. Geofysiske 
Publikasjoner. Vol. XIV, No. 4. 1940; Hesselberg, Th. and B. J. Birkeland. “Säkulare Schwankungen des 
Klimas von Norwegen. Teil 2. Die Niederschlag” [‘Secular variations in the Norwegian Climate. Part 2. 
Precipitation’]. Geofysiske Publikasjoner. Vol. XIV, No. 5. 1941; Hesselberg, Th. and B. J. Birkeland. 
“Säkulare Schwankungen des Klimas von Norwegen. Teil 3. Luftdruck und Wind” [‘Secular variations in 
the Norwegian Climate. Part 3. Air pressure and wind’]. Geofysiske Publikasjoner. Vol. XIV, No. 5. 1943; 
Hesselberg, Th. and B. J. Birkeland. “Säkulare Schwankungen des Klimas von Norwegen. Teil 4. Die 
Feuchtigkeit” [‘Secular variations in the Norwegian Climate. Part 4. Humidity’]. Geofysiske Publikasjoner. 
Vol. XV, No. 2. 1944.  The temperatures previous to the official Norwegian records began in 1866 were 
gathered from Stockholm, Copenhagen, Edinburgh and Stykkisholm on Iceland. (Hesselberg and Birkeland 
1940: 26-27) 
20 Hesselberg, Theodor. “Memorandum til Utvalget for vær- og klimavariasjoner” [‘Memorandum to the 
Committee for weather and climate variations’]. November 1948. Beretning. 1950: 41. 
21 See for instance: Britton, C. E. “A Meteorological Chronology to A. D. 1450.” Geophysical Memoirs. 
No. 70. Meteorological Office, London. 1937. 



 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

87

research of climatologist Gordon Manley in the UK or glaciologist Hans Ahlmann in 
Sweden, there were no references to amateur observations, no real interest in glaciers and 
snowfall, and no links between climate and culture.22 Although the findings would have 
supported Ahlmann’s theory of polar warming,23 he was merely mentioned in the passing 
as one of several researchers having pointed out that climate varied with time.24 And 
while Manley was generally skeptical of identifying patterns or trends from his long-term 
records,25 this was exactly what Hesselberg and Birkeland set out to do. Finally, even 
though the Norwegian researchers argued that their climatological findings were linked to 
atmospheric circulation, they made no mention of Tor Bergeron’s dynamic climatology.26 
In general, Hesselberg and Birkeland did not engage in ongoing debates on climate 
variations elsewhere: in line with their empiricist approach, the observations, calculated 
and put into tables and graphs, should speak for themselves. 

A separate strategy that the Norwegian meteorologists pursued was to use records 
from the growing international network of radiosonde observations. After discussing the 
matter with several experts abroad, a group of meteorologists in Oslo requested upper air-
observations from 33 countries in the northern hemisphere.27 The dual purpose of the 
study was to investigate the abnormal spring and summer of 1947, and to examine if the 
observations could be used in extending the weather forecasts. However, when it turned 
out that the dataset from December 1948 was the most comprehensive, the ambition of 
investigating the drought in 1947 was abandoned. Increasingly, what mattered to the 
meteorologists was extending the weather forecasts. In December 1949, at the fifth and 
final meeting of the committee, meteorologist Einar Høiland suggested that instead of 
working out predictions for years or decades, «the only rational way forward» was 
incremental steps, starting with extending forecasts from 24 to 72 hours.28 He failed to 
mention that experiments in extended forecasts had begun more than a decade earlier, 
independent of the Committee’s work,29 but the representative from the Water Works 
agreed that three-day forecasts would be useful. 

                                                           
22 Endfield, Georgina, Lucy Veale and Alexander Hall. “Gordon Valentine Manley and his contribution to 
the study of climate change: a review of his life and work”. WIREs Climate Change. Vol. 6. 2015: 287–
299; Endfield, Georgina. “Reculturing and Particularizing Climate Discourses: Weather, Identity, and the 
Work of Gordon Manley”. Osiris. Vol. 26, No. 1, Klima. 2011: 142-162. See also Alexander Hall’s paper 
in this issue. 
23 Sörlin, Sverker. “The Anxieties of a Science Diplomat: Field Coproduction of Climate Knowledge and 
the Rise and Fall of Hans Ahlmann’s "Polar Warming"”. Osiris. Vol. 26, No. 1, Klima. 2011: 66-88, p. 88.  
24 Hesselberg and Birkeland 1940: 7.  
25 Endfield, Veale and Hall. 2015: 292. 
26 For more on Bergeron’s dynamic climatology, see Jim Fleming and Philipp Lehmann’s papers in this 
issue. 
27 Through the Norwegian meteorologist Jørgen Holmboe at UCLA, they got in touch with Jerome Namias, 
head of the Extended Forecasting Section at the U.S. Weather Bureau in Washington, and arranged for him 
to visit Oslo to demonstrate the American methods for 5- and 30-day forecasts. Two meteorologists were 
sent to visit Carl-Gustaf Rossby in Stockholm, and Arnt Eliassen filed a report on the forecasting methods 
used at the University in Chicago. They also read up on research being done elsewhere in Europe and in the 
Soviet Union. Høiland, Einar. “Rapport fra Dr. Høiland”. Beretning. 1950: 46-48. 
28 Report from meeting, Thursday December 1, 1949. Beretning. 1950: 8.  
29 The seasonal four-day forecasts for the fisheries in the North Sea, based on surface observations, were 
broadcasted by radio three times a week. Petterssen, Sverre. Kuling fra nord – en værvarslers erindringer. 
1974: 199. An English translation of Petterssen’s autobiography was published by the American 
Meteorological Society under the title Weathering the Storm, edited by James R. Fleming, in 2001. See 



 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

88

The committee finally agreed to contact the newly established Norwegian Council 
for Scientific and Industrial Research, to secure more reliable funding. A group 
consisting of meteorologists Hesselberg and Høiland and astrophysicist Rosseland, all 
former Bjerknes-acolytes,30 wrote a proposal to turn the Committee into an Institute for 
Weather- and Climate Research: “The purpose of this inquiry is primarily to give the 
committee a more permanent character by the indicated name-change, while the activities 
in the beginning will continue along current lines.”31 In the application, emphasis was on 
improving long-term weather forecasting following the line of research developed by the 
Bergen school of meteorology, while the prospect of swift progress in climate prediction 
was downplayed. The main argument was the economic usefulness of the research and a 
desire to reinforce an already established collaboration with the Norwegian 
Meteorological Institute, the Norwegian Polar Institute and the Water Resources and 
Electricity Works. The application also highlighted that similar research into long-term 
forecasting, utilizing three-dimensional synoptic- and radiosonde observations from the 
northern hemisphere, was going on at the Extended Forecasting Section at the U.S. 
Weather Bureau in Washington D.C, headed by Jerome Namias, at the University of 
Chicago and at the Stockholm University College under the leadership of Carl-Gustaf 
Rossby, and at The Forecast Research Division in Dunstable, England, headed by 
Reginald Sutcliffe.  

There were several reasons why the committee received the funding it asked for. 
In addition to being vital for the postwar reconstruction and already having secured 
annual contributions from the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, historian Kim 
Gunnar Helsvig has shown that two of the three experts who evaluated the application 
had themselves been members of the multidisciplinary taskforce.32 Also, it probably did 
not hurt that the year before requesting climate prediction Fredrik Vogt had been 
instrumental in instituting the Norwegian Research Councils, where Committee member 
Svein Rosseland was deputy head.33 The following decade, Høiland’s annual applications 

                                                                                                                                                                             

also: Fleming, James R. “Sverre Petterssen, the Bergen school, and the Forecasts for D-day”. History of 
Meteorology. Vol. 1, 2004: 75-83. 
30 Hesselberg had started his career as an assistant to Vilhelm Bjerknes in Kristiania in 1908-12, and joined 
him in Leipzig in 1912-15, before being appointed director of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute in 
1915. (Sverdrup, Harald Ulrik. “Theodor Hesselberg”. Norsk Biografisk Leksikon. 1934.) Rosseland had 
been an assistant for Bjerknes in Bergen from 1919. However, when it turned out his proficiency for 
drawing weather maps was severely limited, he was sent as an assistant to Niels Bohr in Copenhagen 
instead. (Vaagen, Jan S. “Norske fysikere. Niels Bohr og hans institut.” Niels Bohr 100 år. Vitenskapsmann 
og Verdensborger. Vitenskapsteoretisk forum, Universitetet i Bergen, Skriftserien nr. 3. 1985: 71). Einar 
Høiland began his career as Bjerknes’ last Carnegie-assistant in 1935. (Godske, Carl Ludvig et. al. “In 
memory of Vilhelm Bjerknes on the 100th Anniversary of his Birth”. Geofysiske Publikasjoner. Vol. 
XXIV. 1962: 22.) 
31 “Søknad D-106.” [Application to Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Forskningsråd]. RA/S-
2939/D/Db/Dbd/Ddbd/L0763/0004. Riksarkivet [‘Norwegian State Archive’], Oslo. 1950: 4. 
32 Helsvig, Kim Gunnar. Elitisme på norsk: Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi 1945-2007. Novus/DNVA, 
Oslo. 2007: 81. The three members of the Committee for Geophysics were Halvor Solberg, Theodor 
Hesselberg and professor of physics, Lars Vegard. 
33 Slagstad, Rune. De nasjonale strateger. Pax, Oslo. 1998: 297; Devik, Olaf. N.T.H. femti år: Norges 
tekniske høgskoles virksomhet 1910-1960. Oslo. 1960: 185-187; Røberg, Ole Anders. «Vitenskap i krig og 
fred.» Astrofysikeren Svein Rosseland i norsk forskningspolitikk 1945-1965. Garduate thesis in History, 
University of Oslo. 2000: 51-55; Barlaup, Asbjørn. NTNF – Ti-års beretning 1946-1956. Norges teknisk-
naturvitenskapelige forskningsråd. 1956: 24-26. 



 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

89

for “theoretical and empirical research with aim to analyze the variations in weather and 
climate, and identify their causes”, summarizing the past years’ activities at the Institute, 
were all marked with an expectation of receiving similar grants for “several years to 
come”.34 

 
Staring at the sun 
 

The Institute for Weather and Climate Research was located on the second floor at the 
Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics at the University of Oslo, with funding for one 
senior scientist, two junior researchers, an assistant and a secretary. It was headed by 
Einar Høiland, who had been the secretary of the preceding Committee. The Institute 
arranged seminars, had international guests, and collaborated on research projects. In 
addition to inviting colleagues from the Institute of Meteorology, Høiland offered 
research positions to promising students who shared his interest in theoretical 
hydrodynamics.35 Of fourteen researchers affiliated with the institute, eight focused on 
hydrodynamics (Per Martin Breistein, Arne Foldvik, Yngvar Gotaas, Einar Høiland, Jack 
Nordø, Eyvind Riis, Sigurd Jahr Smebye, Kristian Trægde), three on theoretical 
meteorology (Arnt Eliassen, Ragnar Fjørtoft, Kåre Pedersen), two on cloud physics (Egil 
Hesstvedt, Marius Todsen), and one on mathematics (Enok Palm). 

Apart from a failed cloud seeding experiment,36 the research at the Institute was 
highly theoretical: 38 of 50 publications concerned hydrodynamics, particularly 
expressing weather phenomena such as the impact of topography, gravity, friction and the 
dynamic interactions between different layers of the atmosphere in quasi-geostrophic 
equations. Eight reports focused on cloud physics, particularly the formation of mother of 
pearl clouds,37 droplets and thunderstorms. Only three studies had any relation to climate. 
One was a literary review of Grosswetter-studies,38 the two others were statistical 
investigations of the relations between solar activity and terrestrial climate.39 

The reorganization of the Norwegian Universities for mass education, which 
translated into expanding the academic staff and a corresponding change in research 

                                                           
34 RA/S-2939/D/Db/Dbd/Ddbd/L0763/0004; RA/S-2939/D/Dbd/Ddbd/L0764/0001. 
35 Interview with Arne Foldvik, Bergen, 10.10.2014.  
36 Unsigned. “Report on a Cloud Seeding Experiment”. Reports from the Institute for Weather and Climate 
Research. No. 6, 1956. 
37 Mother of pearl clouds are high altitude cloud formations (15-25.000 meters) that develop in Polar 
Regions, today referred to as Polar stratospheric clouds. Through investigating this rare (and beautiful) 
weather phenomenon, the goal was to gain insight into atmospheric conditions, especially humidity and 
motion, at higher altitudes that could not be acquired through the distributed radiosonde network. 
38 Nordø, Jack. “Oversikt over en del nyere ‘Grosswetter’-undersøkelser” [‘Overview over some newer 
Grosswetter-research’]. Reports from the Institute for Weather and Climate Research. Oversiktsartikkel No. 
1, 1952. Grosswetter-studies, literally large-scale weather, are studies of mean pressure distribution over 
time. 
39 Nordø, Jack. “A Statistical Discussion of a Possible Connection between Solar Activity and Sea-Level 
Pressure”; Nordø, Jack. “A Comparison of Secular Changes in Terrestrial Climate and Sunspot Activity”. 
Reports from the Institute for Weather and Climate Research. No. 5, 1955. See also: Nordø, Jack. 
“Solaktiviteten og dens innflytelse på atmosfæren” [‘Solar activities and its influence on the atmosphere’]. 
Naturen. 1954: 192. 



 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

90

funding, was the main reason why the Institute was closed in 1960.40 In their 
announcement, the research council stressed that this was not a critique of the research, 
but in line with their general policy of expanding the universities rather than funding 
independent institutes: “It is exclusively the organizational terms we found 
counterproductive in the long term.”41 In return, they suggested channeling a similar 
amount of funds, approximately 70.000 NOK per year, into permanent positions at the 
Universities, so that the research could continue there. 

As historian Kristine Harper and others have pointed out, the 1950s saw an 
increased interest in numerical weather forecasting using computers, especially in the 
wake of the first computer generated weather forecast at the Institute for Advanced 
Studies at Princeton: “Meteorologists from academic, the Weather Bureau, and the 
military - in Princeton, Stockholm, Chicago, New York, Cambridge, and Washington - 
were busy trying to develop a workable theory of atmospheric motion that could then be 
programmed into von Neumann’s new machine.”42 Both Arnt Eliassen and Ragnar 
Fjørtoft moved from being important members of the Princeton project to doing research 
at the Institute for Weather and Climate Research in Oslo.43 However, the Institute did 
not have access to computers, and instead of numerical weather prediction, their approach 
followed in the footsteps of the Bergen school of meteorology. That Vilhelm Bjerknes 
until his death in 1951 had his office at the same building as the Institute, and that the 
leading investigators had all started their careers as Carnegie-assistants to Bjerknes, 
probably influenced the choice of direction. However, the legacy would eventually turn 
out to be a disadvantage.  

While the computer models went from extreme simplification to increased model 
complexity, Høiland’s team started at the other end. Ideally all complexities should be 
included in the equations. However, the fact that they followed a different tradition than 
the numerical and published most research in technical reports instead of in journals with 
wider readership, the research was of little relevance to the wider scientific community 
and to the new approach to theoretical meteorology that took the computer models as 
their starting point. It would be decades before computers were powerful enough for the 
equations developed at the Institute to be put into practice in numerical weather 
forecasting, and by then the technical reports were mostly forgotten. 

Another distinctive feature of the Norwegian weather research in this period was 
that there were no links between meteorology and atmospheric chemistry. At Carl Gustaf 
Rossby’s International Meteorological Institute in Stockholm, which was inaugurated at 
more or less the same time as Høiland’s institute in Oslo, research into atmospheric 
chemistry went hand in hand with numerical weather prediction and studies into climate 
variations.44 Interested mainly in hydrodynamics, the researchers in Norway saw 

                                                           
40 Ore, Aadne. “Det matematisk-naturvitenskapelige fakultet”. Universitetet i Oslo 1911-1961, Bd. 2. 
Universitetsforlaget. 1961: 95-98; Helsvig 2007: 82. 
41 Letter from The Norwegian Council for Scientific and Industrial Research to Einar Høiland, signed by 
Georg Hygen, dated Oslo, February 15, 1960. RA/S-2939/D/Db/Dbd/Ddbd/L0763/0004. 
42 Harper, Kristine C. Weather by the numbers: the genesis of modern meteorology. MIT Press. 2008: 150.  
43 Harper, Kristine C. “The Scandinavian Tag-Team: Providers of atmospheric reality to numerical weather 
prediction efforts in the United States (1948-1955)”. History of Meteorology. Vol. 1, 2004: 84-91. 
44 Rossby, Carl Gustaf and H. Egnér. “On Chemical Climate and Its Variation with the Atmospheric 
Circulation Pattern”. Tellus. Vol. 7, No. 1. 1955: 118-133; Bohn, Maria. “Concentrating on CO2: The 
Scandinavian and Arctic Measurements”. Osiris. Vol. 26, No. 1, Klima. 2011: 165-179. 



 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

91

temperature, pressure and humidity as what characterized differences in the air, not its 
chemical composition. Atmospheric chemistry in the period was a Swedish, and partly 
Finnish, endeavor.45 With the exception of a short popular text on a possible link between 
acid rain and fish death, published in 1959,46 atmospheric chemistry was first introduced 
to Norwegian meteorological research in the early 1970s when the newly established 
Norwegian Institute for Air Research led an OECD research program into air pollution 
dispersion.47 

Some of the reasons for prioritizing hydrodynamics rather than climate variations 
can be found in a public lecture held by Høiland at the annual meeting of the Research 
Council in March 1952 entitled “Climate fluctuations and possible causes”.48 Høiland’s 
argument was that climate had changed for the better, meaning it was warmer, that this 
was caused by changes in the energy from the sun, and that this was likely a short-term 
fluctuation. His presentation reflected the general view among the meteorologists at the 
time: the sun was the ‘engine’ or ‘power source’ for the atmosphere, and was, therefore, 
the cause for climate variations. This theory was famously put forward by James Croll in 
1875.49 While not supporting the specifics of Croll’s theory, Norwegian oceanographers 
such as Bjørn Helland-Hansen, Harald Urik Sverdrup and Fridtjof Nansen had in the first 
decade of the 20th century argued that the key to climate variations on earth was the sun.50 
                                                           
45 Bohn 2011. For more on early climate modelling, see: Heymann, Matthias. “Constructing Evidence and 
Trust: How Did Climate Scientists’ Confidence in Their Models and Simulations Emerge?”. In: Hastrup, 
Kirsten and Martin Skrydstrup (eds). The Social Life of Climate Change Models. Anticipating Nature. 
Routledge Studies in Anthropology. 2013: 203-224. 
46 Dannevig, Alf. “Nedbørens innflytelse på vassdragenes surhet og på fiskebestanden” [‘The influence of 
percipitation on acidities in rivers and on fish populations’]. Jeger og Fisker. No. 3. 1959: 116-118. 
47 OECD. The OECD Programme on Long Range Transport of Air Pollutants: Measurements and findings. 
Paris. 1977. The project confirmed that pollution from sulfur dioxide was transferred between European 
countries, and that two third of pollution in Scandinavia originated from outside sources. (Rothschild, 
Rachel. “Burning Rain. The Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution Project.” In: Fleming, Jim, and Ann 
Johnson, eds. Toxic Airs. Pittsburgh. 2014: 181-207). The report led to the establishment of the Convention 
on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, the first international legally binding instrument to deal with 
problems of air pollution on a broad regional basis. The convention was signed in 1979 and entered into 
force four years later. (Gillespie, Alexander. Climate Change, Ozone Depletion and Air Pollution. Legal 
Commentaries with Policy and Science Considerations. Brill, Leiden. 2006; Underdal, Arild and Kenneth 
Hanf (red). International Environmental Agreements and Domestic Policies. The case of acid rain. 
Ashgate. 2000, particularly chapters 3, 4 and 11.) 
48 Høiland, Einar. “Klimasvingninger og mulige årsaker til dem. Foredrag holdt ved årsmøtet 19. mars 1952 
i Norges Allmennvitenskapelige Forskningsråd.” [‘Climate fluctuations and possible causes. Lecture held at 
the annual meeting of the Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities, March 19, 1952’]. 
Naturen. 1953.  
49 Croll, James. Climate and Time in their Geological Relations. A Theory of Secular Changes of the 
Earth’s Climate. 1875. For more on Croll, see Gunnar Ellingsens paper in this issue. 
50 Helland-Hansen, Bjørn and Fridtjof Nansen. “Temperaturschwankungen des Nord-Atlantischen Ozeans 
und in der Atmosphäre” [‘Temperature fluctuations in the North Atlantic Ocean and in the atmosphere’]. 
Vitenskapsselskapets Skrifter, No. 9. Kristiania, 1917; Sverdrup, H. U. “Die Beziehungen der elfjährigen 
Klimaschwankungen zur Sonnentätigkeit” [‘The relations between 11-year climate variations and solar 
activities’]. Annalen der Hydrographie und maritime Meteorologie, Berlin. 1918; Helland-Hansen, Bjørn 
and Fridtjof Nansen. “Temperature Variations in the North Atlantic Ocean and in the Atmosphere. 
Introductory study on the Cause of Climatological Variations”. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. 
Vol. 70, No. 4. 1920; Ellingsen, Gunnar. Varme havstrømmer og kald krig: “Bergensstrømmåleren” og 
vitenskapen om havstrømmer fra 1870-årene til 1960-årene. [‘Warm ocean currents and cold war: “the 
Bergen current-meter” and the science of ocean currents from the 1870s to the 1960s’]. PhD-Dissertation, 



 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

92

The position was supported by leading astronomers at the time,51 and in Norway the 
importance of the sun was probably reinforced by the Rockefeller Foundation-financed 
solar observatory at Harestua outside Oslo, which opened in 1954.52  

The debate at the time was not whether climate variations were caused by the sun, 
but if the warmer climate was due to an increase or a decrease in the solar energy. From 
the 1930s, the British meteorologist George Clarke Simpson had argued that more solar 
energy caused more clouds, more snow, growing glaciers and that this eventually would 
lead to more energy being reflected.53 Therefore, the observed heating could just as likely 
herald the start of a new ice age. This fit well with another authoritative hypothesis at the 
time, the American meteorologist Hurd Curtis Willet’s theory of cyclic variations, which 
predicted that the average temperatures would start dropping significantly in the late 
1950s.54 Hesselberg and Birkeland’s update to their own study, published in 1956, 
pointed in the same direction: in the 1940s the rise in temperatures had slowed down 
compared to the preceding decennium.55 

The real worry of the time was not that the observed warming would continue 
indefinitely, but that the climate would inevitably turn for the worse and that humanity 
would face a new Ice Age. The research conducted at the Institute should, therefore, 
focus on understanding the mechanisms of the atmosphere so that the coming Ice Age 
could be stopped. Høiland argued: 

 
“Has climatology reached a complete understanding of what lies behind climate change, 
the mechanisms that are at work? And even more important, has it found ways to 
intervene and control this mechanism, so that the ice can be stopped?”56 

 
Framing the problem of climate variations as a matter of developing methods for 
avoiding the coming Ice Age made studying the dynamics of the atmosphere more vital 

                                                                                                                                                                             

University of Bergen. 2013: 100-101. In an interview with a daily newspaper in 1958, Jack Bjerknes argued 
that the relation between solar activity and climate variation was “inescapable”. “Vil polarisen forsvinne 
helt?” [‘Will the polar ice cap disappear completely?]’. Verdens Gang. 8.5.1958. 
51 See for instance: Hoyle, Fred. “External sources of climatic variation”. Quarterly Journal of Royal 
Meteorological Society. Vol. 75, 1949: 161-163. 
52 Brahde, Rolf. “Solobservatoriet på Harestua” [‘The solar observatory at Harestua’]. 1998. 
[https://www.ub.uio.no/fag/naturvitenskap-teknologi/astro/historiske-
samlinger/brahde_solobservatoriet_1998.pdf]  
53 Simpson, G. C. “Further studies in terrestrial radiation”. Memoirs of the Royal Meteorological Society. 
Vol 3. 1930: 1-26; Simpson, G. C. “World climate during the Quaternary Period”. Quarterly Journal of the 
Royal Meteorological Society. Vol. 60. 1934: 425-478. 
54 Willett, H. C. “Long-period fluctuations of the general circulation of the atmosphere”. Journal of 
Meteorology. Vol. 6, No. 5. 1949; Willett, H. C. “Solar variability as a factor in the fluctuations of climate 
during geological time”. Geografiske Annaler. 1949. See also: Godske, C. L. Hvordan blir været? 
Meteorologi for alle. [‘What will the weather be? Meteorology for everyone’]. J. W. Cappelens Forlag. 
Oslo. 1956: 189. 
55 Hesselberg, Th. and B. J. Birkeland. “The continuation of the secular variations of the climate of Norway 
1940-50.” Geofysiske Publikasjoner. Vol. XV, No. 5. 1956. 
56 Høiland 1953: 43.  On the relationship between climatology and Bergen school hydrodynamics, see 
Lehmann’s paper in this issue. 



 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

93

than investigating climate patterns in the past. According to Høiland, it was through 
knowing the mechanisms in the atmosphere that humanity could stage an intervention.57 

 
 
A matter of prestige 
 

Høiland’s emphasis on mechanisms rather than geographical or temporal patterns in the 
climatic record reflects another trait shared by the meteorological research community in 
the 1950s: In the shadow of the Bergen school, climate studies had low prestige and was 
often portrayed as a second-rate science. According to meteorological textbooks used 
from the 1940s, all science matured through distinct phases: first, speculation was 
replaced by observation. Second, observations were systematized and one could start 
looking for patterns. In the third phase, the mechanisms behind the phenomenon were 
uncovered and science became predictive, which was what the Bergen school of 
meteorology had brought to the table.58 In popular books on meteorology published in 
Norway in the 1950s, a fourth phase was added, “applied science”, which meant using the 
mechanisms to stage interventions to control the weather and possibly the climate of the 
future.59 According to this positivist narrative of linear progress, studying the climate 
through looking for patterns in past observations was merely second phase science. Only 
research and forecasting based on physics and hydrodynamics was truly predictive, since 
this was the only part of meteorology that had uncovered underlying mechanisms. To 
Høiland, climate research was merely statistical tinkering, a science of the past using 
methods of the past. 

The low prestige of climatology in the period was also an international 
phenomenon. In his first public lecture as President for the Commission on Climatology 
in the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1953, Charles Warren 
Thornthwaite stressed: “I hope that we may soon rise up from our inferior position in the 
hierarchy of meteorology.”60 When climatology received attention in the WMO Bulletin 
in the 1950s, it was only to repeat the mantra that the specialization should have higher 
ambitions than providing statistical descriptions of the past.61 When the new president of 

                                                           
57 For more on the history of weather control, see: Fleming, James. Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History 
of Weather and Climate Control. Columbia University Press. 2010. 
58 Petterssen, Sverre. Introduction to Meteorology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. New York and 
London. 1941: 217-224. 
59 Godske 1956: 22. 
60 Thornthwaite, C. W. “A Charter for Climatology. Presidential address at the First Session of the 
Commission for Climatology, Washington, March 1953”. WMO Bulletin. April 1953: 46. 
61 “To many people at the present time, the content and scope of climatology is only this – the measuring, 
recording, and averaging of standard meteorological elements. I need not remind you that climatology 
when circumscribed in this way is sterile and unrewarding.” Thornthwaite, C. W. “The Task Ahead In 
Climatology. Presidential Address at the Second Session of the Commission for Climatology, Washington, 
January 1957.” WMO Bulletin. January 1957: 2-7, quote on p. 3; “Surely at this stage, it should not be 
necessary to convince meteorologists that the prospect of fundamental progress is negligible as long as 
climatology remains purely descriptive! The collected world weather charts, although they have the merit 
of containing in concise form a record of world weather from July 1957 to December 1958, will remain 
little more than a set of pretty picture books, unless the numerical data extracted from them be rationally 
analyzed.” Schumann, T. E. W. “World Meteorology: Retrospect and Prospect”. WMO Bulletin. January 
1959: 29-35, quote on p. 34. 



 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

94

the Commission on Climatology, R. G. Veryard from the UK, in 1959 proposed 
establishing a permanent working group to study climate change, the reception was 
“somewhat divided”.62 Instead, after a suggestion by the Swedish meteorologist Carl 
Christian Wallén, the initiative resulted in a symposium on climatic changes held in 
Rome in 1961.63 

Another reason the Institute for Weather and Climate research did not focus on 
climatology, was that the Meteorological Office already had its own Section for 
Climate.64 In 1950, they employed two meteorologists and ten assistants.65 Ten years 
later, the number of meteorologists had increased to four and the number of assistants to 
fourteen.66 However, in a period when state funding for meteorology in Norway was 
increased by a factor of seven from the end of the War to 1960, this meant that the 
proportion of funds appropriated for climatology had decreased from 3.2 percent to below 
2 percent.67 

With the exception of the project headed by Hesselberg during the Second World 
War, the Section for Climate did very limited research. In addition to functioning as a 
public library for government agencies and insurance companies that wanted information 
on specific weather conditions in the past, the main activity was limited to making charts 
and tables for individual weather observation posts. To the Section for Climate, ‘climate’ 
was as Julius Hann had defined in the late 19th century: the average weather conditions at 
a single point on the planet.68 Every year they published 5-day statistics from 34 stations 
and monthly statistics from 171 observation posts.69 All calculations were done by hand, 
and by the end of 1956 they had a backlog of 598 months.70  

According to meteorologist Sigurd Evjen, head of the Section for Climate from 
1949 to 1956, the lack of research ambition was due to a lack of manpower. When 
Jerome Namias visited Oslo in 1949, he had explained that his section for long-term 
forecasting in the United States had sixty meteorologists, which was about the same as 
the total number of meteorologists in Norway: “We simply do not have the manpower to 
begin embarking upon the massive undertaking necessary for systematic predictions like 
in the United States”, Evjen argued.71 Ragnar Fjørtoft, who in 1955 succeeded Hesselberg 
                                                           
62 “Climatology”. WMO Bulletin. April 1959: 86. 
63 UNESCO. Changes of climate. Proceedings of the Rome Symposium organized by UNESCO and the 
World Meteorological Organization. Belgium. 1963. 
64 Interview with Arne Foldvik, Bergen, 10.10.2014. 
65 Det Norske Meteorologiske Institutt (Hereafter: DNMI), Boks 283, Budsjettforslag for Meteorologisk 
Institutt, 1945-1957. Budsjettforslag for de meteorologiske institusjoner 1951-52. [‘Budget proposal for the 
meteorological institutions 1951-52’]. Oslo, 31.08.1949. 
66 DNMI. Årsberetning for de meteorologiske institusjoner i Norge for budsjettåret 1. juli 1959 til 31. 
desember 1960. [‘Annual report from the meteorological institutions in Norway for the budget year July 1 
1959 to December 1, 1960’]. Oslo. 1962. 
67 My calculation based on the accounts printed in the annual reports from the Meteorological Office. 
68 Hann, Julius. Handbuch der Klimatologie. ‘[Handbook of climatology’]. Stuttgart. 1908. For more on the 
genesis of the empirical tradition, see: Nebeker, Frederik. Calculating the Weather: Meteorology in the 
20th Century. Academic Press. 1995: Chapter 2. 
69 DNMI. Norsk meteorologisk årbok. Annual publication. 1945-1979. 
70 DNMI, Box 285. “Budsjettforslag MI, 1966-1970.” Budsjettforslag for De meteorologiske institusjoner 
for året 1970. [‘Budget proposal for the meteorological institutions for the year 1970’]. February 8, 1969: 
Attachment 18.2: 1. 
71 “Langtidsvarslene fra USA - et gigantisk vær-eksperiment” [‘The US long term forecasts - a gigantic 
weather experiment’]. Verdens Gang. 9.7.1955. 



 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

95

as the head of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, however, argued that the problem 
was in the methods and not the ambitions: “The reason why the Section for Climate is so 
inefficient is not primarily in the lack of staff, but in the methods and technical aids the 
section has at its disposal.”72 From 1957 the Section started using punch card machines, 
but the ambitions did not change: Climate research still consisted of organizing the 
records of the past and providing statistics for one and one place only. 

After the computer FACIT 1 was inaugurated at the Meteorological Office in the 
summer of 1961, the capacity of the Section for Climate greatly expanded, and so did its 
activities.73 Reflecting the emphasis on weather forecasting, between 70 and 80 percent 
of the computing time was spent on routinely producing computer generated upper air 
forecasts.74 Still, while the climatologists used less than 15 percent of the computing 
time, this meant they could produce climate statistics on demand for road engineers, 
architects, agriculture, shipping industries, as well as electricity producers. Although 
climate prediction by now was off the table, statistics of temperatures in different parts of 
the county were useful for estimating power consumption, and a tool for managing the 
power supply. Producing climate statistics was not a new task: already in 1949 the 
climate section had been asked to identify the 10-day period in which the average 
weather conditions would be most advantageous for arranging the Winter Olympics in 
Oslo in 1952. With the computer, the calculations that in 1949 had taken months could 
now be completed in a matter of hours.75 

 
Too many weather maps 
 

Not all meteorologists agreed with prioritizing hydrodynamic research, and in the mid-
1950s there was some debate regarding what kind of meteorological research to pursue. 
Most notably, meteorologist Petter Dannevig published a series of articles in the popular 
science magazine, Naturen, arguing that too much time was spent drawing weather 
maps.76 At three forecasting stations and nine airports, surface maps were drawn 
manually up to eight times per day, in addition to two daily altitude maps. All this 
mapmaking, Dannevig argued, was turning meteorology into a handicraft, where science 
was reduced to a spare-time hobby with little to no impact on the practice of forecasting: 
“It might seem paradoxical, but at times the meteorologists seem not to see the weather 
due to all the weather maps.”77 Dannevig’s remedy was to centralize the mapmaking and 
use the resources that were freed up on applying past climate observations in synoptic 

                                                           
72 DNMI, Box 283. “Budsjettforslag for Meteorologisk Institutt, 1945-1957” [‘Budget proposal for the 
Meteorological Office, 1947-57’]. Budsjettforslag for De meteorologiske institusjoner for 1955/56. July 1, 
1954: 4. 
73 DNMI. Årsberetning for de meteorologiske institusjoner i Norge for 1961. [‘Annual report from the 
meteorological institutions in Norway for 1961’]. Oslo. 1963. 
74 DNMI. Annual Reports, 1961-1971. 
75 Den Internasjonale Olympiske Komité. Oslo 1952, VI Olympiske vinterleker/Olympic Winter Games. 
Oslo 1952: 72; Godske 1956: 184-185. 
76 Dannevig, Petter. “Værvarslingen ved korsveien” [‘Forecasting at a crossroads’]. Naturen. No. 8. 1955; 
Dannevig, Petter. “Værvarslingsmetodene i søkelyset” [‘Spotlight on the forecasting methods’]. Naturen. 
No. 15. 1955; Dannevig, Petter. “Værvarslingen og vitenskapen” [‘Forecasting and science’]. Naturen. 
1956. 
77 Dannevig 1955: 228. 



 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

96

statistics, documenting what “normally” happened in specific weather conditions. 
However, his suggestion was not followed up on: By 1962, the forecasting section at the 
Meteorological Office in Oslo, the largest one of three in the country, alone produced a 
minimum of 69 weather maps per day.78 Regardless, Dannevig’s bottom line echoed the 
mentality of most Norwegian postwar meteorologists: science or not, the pinnacle of 
meteorology was weather forecasts. If climate studies had a role to play, it was to 
improve the forecasts. 

Synoptic statistics was not the only option for making climate observations useful 
for predictions. Inspired by the 30-day forecasts from the U.S. Weather Bureau, Evjen 
suggested combining climate statistics and persistence trends to make similar long-term 
forecasts for Norway. However, when put to the test, he concluded that in order to 
achieve 90 percent certainty, the confidence interval for average temperatures in the 
coming month had to be on plus/minus 3.8 degrees centigrade. This, he dryly noted, 
“would have severely limited practical application”.79 When Evjen died in November the 
following year, it seems no one was interested in continuing the project.80 

 
Concluding remarks 
 

This paper has posed a negative question: Why did the Norwegian meteorologists not 
pursue climate prediction in the first decades after the Second World War, despite 
funding and an explicit mandate to do so? At first glance, the answer seems simple: 
despite methods from several disciplines, climate variations were greater than the trends. 
The “signal to noise” problem, and the huge amounts of calculations which would have 
had to be made by hand, led to climate predictions being seen as too time-consuming and 
too complex to be feasible. However, more factors were involved. 

The different actors had different understandings of ‘climate’. For Vogt, climate 
was what controlled the rain that fueled the hydropower. For the Section for Climate, 
climate was the average weather conditions for a single observation point. For Hesselberg 
and Birkeland, climate was a regional phenomenon whose variations could be mapped 
over time. For Høiland, climate was the old-fashioned and sterile study of statistical 
averages. As head of the Institute for Weather and Climate Research, Høiland’s view had 
a deep impact on the research interests of his institutions, and was reflected in the 
researchers he chose to recruit. In contrast, climatology in Norway lacked a ‘champion’ 
who could generate funding, organize recruitment and define what research to pursue. 

                                                           
78 The maps produced were six altitude maps, eight surface maps, six synoptic maps of Norway, seventeen 
prognostic maps, six analytical maps, and twenty-four weather maps to be telexed to airports. In addition, 
maps for 100mb and 200mb altitudes were produced most but not every day. Det Norske Meteorologiske 
Institutt. Årsberetning for de meteorologiske institusjoner i Norge for budsjettåret 1962. Oslo. 1964. 
79 Evjen Sigurd: “Statistisk varsling av middelverdier” [‘Statistical forecasting of mean values’]. Naturen. 
1955: 181. See also: Evjen, Sigurd. “Statistiske stikkprøver som forundersøkelse for 30-dagers-varsling” 
[‘Statistical sampling - a preliminary investigation for 30-day forecasting’]. Værtjeneste-memorandum. No. 
4. Det Norske Meteorologiske Institutt. Oslo. 1956.  
80 Evjen had studied climate prediction since the 1920s. Evjen, Sigurd. “Barometerschwingungen und 
langsichtige Prognosen” [‘Barometric oscillations and long-term forecasting’]. Geofysiske Publikasjoner. 
Vol IV, No. 1. 1927; Evjen, Sigurd. “Zur langfristigen Wettervorhersage” [‘On long-term weather 
forecasting’]. Geofysiske Publikasjoner. Vol. X, No. 3. 1935; Evjen, Sigurd. “Forecasting north-west gales 
in the Skager Rack (a synoptic-statistical study)”. Geofysiske Publikasjoner. Vol. XVII, No. 5. 1949. 



 History of Meteorology 7 (2015)  
 

 

97

Further, climate studies had an inferior status among the meteorologists. It was 
seen as a science of a lower order focused on mapping the past rather than predicting the 
future based on already uncovered mechanisms. While this could have been seen as a call 
to arms, none were in a position to pick up the gauntlet. A similar lack of practical output 
did not stop the highly theoretical research into hydrodynamic equations at Høiland’s 
institution. While the research did give new insights into the mechanics of the 
atmosphere, the results were essentially useless at the time. There were meteorologists 
who argued for more investment in climate studies, but they too maintained that the goal 
was to aid weather forecasting and not to develop climate prediction. Besides, the drought 
which had caused Vogt to contact the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters did not 
return. The summer of 1947 was soon seen as an anomaly, not a warning of a lasting 
change. 

Unlike climate prediction, forecasting was not just scientific and useful; it was 
also seen as attainable. When Fredrik Vogt contacted the Norwegian Academy of Science 
and Letters after the drought in 1947, he was simply asking too much: Climate prediction 
was understood to be impossible, and no one were willing to challenge this orthodoxy. 

 
 
 
 

Acknowledgements 
 
Different versions of this paper were presented at the workshop “Climate in Meteorology, 
Meteorology in Climate Studies” in Bergen in November 2014 and at the 6th Norwegian 
Conference on the History of Science in Oslo in February 2015. I am grateful for the 
input from the discussions. I am also grateful for the comments on the manuscript from 
the anonymous reviewers, Astri Andresen, Gunnar Ellingsen, James R. Fleming, 
Alexander Hall, Ana Lorena Ruano and Svein Atle Skålevåg, as well as Thorleif Aass 
Kristiansen for help finding source material. 


