First Week of 2017: Record Cold, 48 States Going Below Freezing

December 28th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

It is increasingly looking like the first full week of 2017 will be greeted with a cold air outbreak over the Lower 48 states that will be widespread and persistent.

Early next week the cold air will enter the U.S. through Montana and the Dakotas, where temperatures will likely plunge into the minus 30 deg F (or colder) range.

By the end of the week, single digits could extend into the southeast U.S., and a hard freeze could push into central Florida (graphic courtesy of

GFS model forecast surface temperatures for Friday morning, Jan. 6, 2017.

As can be seen, substantial portions of all 48 states might well be below 32 deg. F.

At the longer range, there appears to be a reinforcing plunge of even more frigid air heading south out of northwest Canada in the second week of January.

395 Responses to “First Week of 2017: Record Cold, 48 States Going Below Freezing”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. moron maroney says:

    i voted Trump….you might be stupider than me?

    • Rex Thompson says:

      Why can’t we all just keep politics out of this? The weather controls humans.. not the other way around!

      • Jack Hudson says:

        No, man. Humans control weather. President Obama said so. End of discussion.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Jack Hudson…”President Obama said so.”

          Right now, he’s busy making amends with the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbour. He seems to be apologizing to them for the US getting so upset about it.

          He made a statement to the effect that we must not demonize people for being different. Guess that does not apply to catastrophic climate change skeptics.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon: The Japanese didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor for no reason, you know. FDR deprived them of oil, an aggressive act.

          • AaronS says:

            FDR was ahead of his time for stopping global warming. Did he take away their solar and wind? What could they be upset about.

          • Lewis says:


            I suspect you should commit suicide to assuage your guilt.
            Aren’t you an offspring of one of those white devils?

            The Fact is the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor. If you need to give them an excuse why it was ok, do so. But don’t think the Japanese are thereby absolved. Besides, what did they need oil for? Aren’t you always carping about alternative energy sources, how you pay you $1 for offsets? Shouldn’t the Japanese just have built a bunch of windmills?

          • Muhammed Atta says:

            You spelled BathHouseBarry wrong.

          • Denny adams says:

            Appell, a revisionist in history as well. So with the sanctions contemplated today on some countries around the globe do you think those warrant an attack on the US?

          • fonzarelli says:

            LUV it when libs harp on their own…

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA …….”Gordon: The Japanese didnt bomb Pearl Harbor for no reason, you know. FDR deprived them of oil, an aggressive act.”

            Another perverse response from the Appell camp.

            The US put an embargo on Japan because Japan had invaded China in the 1930s and were brutalizing the Chinese. They were also exerting hostilities in the Pacific.

            They went on to re-invade China, the Philipines, assorted Pacific Islands, Papua/New Gunieas, Malaysia, Thailand, and Burma. They were in the process of invading India before they got their butts kicked back home. They had plans for invading Australia as well.

            None of the above had done them any harm.

            So your solution to an oil embargo is to bomb people? The reason they did bomb Pearl was to put the US navy out of action so they could have their way in the Pacific. What they did not count on was the ability of the US to rebuild their navy real quick like.

        • DJ says:

          LOLLOL funny,,,

        • “Humans control weather. President Obama said so.”

          If your English-language skills are this poor, then you should recuse yourself from the debate and try listening and learning for a while.

          Or at least move to the USA.

      • Mickey says:

        According to the data/science deniers the humans are controlling the weather. LOL, fat chance but that doesn’t stop the progressives trying to make millions and feel good.

    • Billie Williams says:

      moron maroney molested his family goat.

    • Bodhisattva says:

      Nope – your comment suggests you win, nobody can claim to be stupider than you. Are you some sort of spambot? That would explain it.

  2. Tim says:

    WOW, the last article from these folks talked about the USA being the “hotbed” for global warming….

    more fake news….

  3. patrikk07 says:

    i voted trump too

  4. joe bob jimmy says:

    I live in Alabama.
    With the cold coming, is it safe to eat yellow snow?

    I voted for Mr Trump as well.

  5. Tim Wells says:

    Hi Roy.

    Can I trust the artic sea ice figures from the national snow data and ice center? They are showing a massive dip in artic and antartic sea ice. Greetings from the UK.

    • Alberto Gorez says:

      Sure, and you can also TRUST that the Easter Bunny will be hopping by your house soon and leaving you some delicious chocolate confections!

      If it’s Run by ‘Chews”, It’s fake News!

    • for the most part, I’d say yes. I know how it’s retrieved from the passive microwave satellite data…I headed a satellite instrument team that included those folks. The question is, what is causing it? There’s some evidence it has happened before (1920s).

      • Ralph says:

        Very reasoned post. Yes we are in a warmer weather pattern, we can see that, my dad talked about this back in the 20s when it happened before. The real question is what’s causing it and how long will it last. One other problem is that the government propaganda with their thermometers that when they were placed there years ago they were in the countryside now they are either in a metropolis or a suburb which has its own warming affect, Minneapolis metro area is a perfect example of that. All this hype is to tax and control people, I’d be much more concerned about a massive cooling period. The temperate zones on earth are really very small.

        • Slipstick says:

          Given that the oscillatory warming trend has persisted for more than three decades with no indication of abating, I have a hard time judging the 1920’s as comparable.

          • Jessy S. says:

            You do realize that, for example, the area around the current Mall of America in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul was basically all farmland when Met Stadium was built. That is just one of thousands of examples of the current warming.

          • SAMURAI says:

            Global temps have followed PDO & AMO 30-yr warm/cool cycles perfectly since the 1800’s.

            The previous PDO 30-yr warm cycle was from 1915~1945, and its warming trend was almost identical to that of the 1978~2008 PDO warm cycle.

            The PDO cool cycle from 1945~1978 created bitter cold global temps, to the point where many scientists were predicting a New Ice Age.

            The PDO recently entered a new 30-yr cool cycle in 2008, however, global cooling has so far been obscured by two strong El Nio events in 2009/10 and 2015/16. The AMO enters its 30-yr cool cycle from 2019, so a noticeable global cooling trend should become apparent from around 2020.

            By 2021, the disparity between CAGW’s global warming projections vs reality should exceed 3 standard deviations for 25 years, which is more than sufficent disparity and duration to officially disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis.

            We’ll see soon enough.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Slipstick…”I have a hard time judging the 1920s as comparable”.

            Why? 1934 is still the warmest year in North America. Warmer than 1998.

          • Slipstick says:

            Areas such as Minneapolis or the continental U.S. are small fractions of the surface of the Earth and their temperatures cannot be used extrapolate the global temperature. For example, while 1934 was very warm in the U.S., globally the year ranks around 50th. By the way, the ten warmest years globally have occurred since 1998.

            Gordon Robertson, even if what you stated is true, and I doubt that it is, since 2012 is, by far, the warmest year in the continental U.S. record, a single outlier data point does not represent a trend.

    • Jay Mohr says:

      Well,if you read it in the Guardian you can bet it’s a lie.

  6. elizabethclark says:

    Obviously Obama is frantic to create his “new world order” of making all nations equal and under one world order, an order that takes from successful nations and gives to unsuccessful nations, that punishes the U.S. for finally having enough domestic energy sources to maintain our economy and takes away our own uses of our own resources. Obama’s father wanted to punish America and Obama is doing all he can to fulfill his father’s wishes.

    Obama hates Americans, the Constitution, and free market capitalism. He destroyed our economy with measures like the ACA, immigration amnesty, and now this climate sham. The “Affordable” Care Act has been nothing short of a disaster. My health insurance bill is up to $450/month. (Compare this to my $25/month auto insurance from Insurance Panda or my $10/month renters insurance… both private enterprise!)

    Thank God for the Republican Party that will deny passage of this bill in Congress. Thank God that our nation can rid itself of Obama in one more year and stop the damages he is causing. We must all vote to protect our nation for ourselves and our future generations.

    • earnest the angry old man says:

      i’m angry too!

    • Richard1725 says:

      You Madam are absolutely correct! Not certain how long it ail take to undo the damage Obama has done. Trump has already done more for America than Obama did in EIGHT YEARS! Thats what happens when you elect a POTUS based solely on their race or sex!

      • Richard1725 says:

        Forgive the typo.I am getting old and the eyes are not what they used to be!

      • David Appell says:

        What damage, specifically, has Obama done?

        Please try to do more than rant.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”What damage, specifically, has Obama done?”

          He made the US into the most politically-correct nation of all time. That’s why US voters turfed the Dems and the Queen of Political Correctness, Hillary Clinton.

        • Curious George says:

          Syria. Libya.

        • Lewis says:


          You’re too obtuse to recognize facts when you see them. Why then should someone list the things he believes/knows Obama has done to harm the US when you will have already seen these facts and consider them good? Democrats have lost 1000 or more elective offices since Obamaman was first elected to POTUS. Why? Because the people, in their wisdom, decided what he and his party offered is not good for them.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      elizabethclark…”Obama hates Americans…”

      Got your point Elizabeth but why does he hate Canadians and Mexicans too? We’re all on the continent of America and there is no country legally called America.

      • Bodhisattva says:

        What a pointless, ridiculous remark.

        Obviously when she said “Americans” she was referring to the citizens of the United States. Your comment about him allegedly hating Canadians and Mexicans too left out South America.

        The citizens of the U.S. are generally referred to, around the world, as “Americans”. Most people know this.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bodhisattva…”The citizens of the U.S. are generally referred to, around the world, as Americans. Most people know this”.

          Referring to the US as America is an anachronism dating back a century at least, and it is wrong.

          People can go on repeating an error all they want, it doesn’t make it right. Last time I checked, consensus does not change an egregious error.

          The proper name of the US is the United States OF America. ‘OF America’ clearly means ‘IN America’ or ‘part of America’. It means in the CONTINENT of America and that is how the founding fathers intended it in the Constitution.

          The real name of the US is the United States. If you are going to shorten the name you must shorten it based on those two words not on the continent of which it is a part.

          Anyone referring to US citizens as Americans is claiming there is a country called America on the continent of America, which is blatantly wrong.

  7. earnest the angry old man says:

    I don’t know what make me angrier, the Mainstream media and their lies or why I am so angry at everything all the time?

    • earnest the angry old man says:

      shut the hell up!

    • jwardl says:

      So long as your eyes don’t start turning green, everything will be ok. 🙂

    • David Appell says:


      I wonder if you

      have not been angry

      for a very long


      perhaps since early?

      perhaps before we can both remember.

      i remember

      some, just a bit

      making my only advice

      to you

      to look for clues,



      deep, and sometimes not.

      As uncomfortable as i know

      it is,

      before casting


      know that

      you are not


      but don’t fear the path

      you must


      Or, at least

      approach it with as much

      courage as


      It is not easy,

      I know,

      my brother.

      but it is no small thing

      and this is who

      we are.

  8. BattleHorse says:

    How’s that global warming working out for you, so called scientist?

  9. Chancellor Jim says:

    Tiny Tim,
    I hope Ebenezer gave your papa an extra chunk of coal in his pay bucket this Christmas. Our friends at the Journal of Glaciology indicate Antarctica is GAINING about 100 billion tons of ice per year…that’s more Tim. Trump electoral votes..more. Votes for Brexit…more. In all cases more is better. Pls find your “safe space” and settle in for a cold winter.

    • earnest the angry old man says:

      what the hell are you talking about?

      this author is on your side!!!!!
      you might be angrier than me??!?!?!?!?!??

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Chancellor Jim..”Our friends at the Journal of Glaciology indicate Antarctica is GAINING about 100 billion tons of ice per year”

      Need to explain something Jim. Alarmists consider Antarctica to be the northern tip of the panhandle with a latitude closer to that of South America.

      Please don’t confuse South America with the Confederate States.

      • David Appell says:

        Very very v odd how Gordie R can’t cite a link to support his Antarc claim.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…all references to warming in Antarctica are references to the northern tip of the Antarctic panhandle. Polar expert, Duncan Wingham, is on record as saying it is far too cold on the Arctic continent for glaciers to melt.

  10. John F Cramer [the other JC says:

    Hi Roy;

    Thanks for your good work.
    I have and read your book “Climate Confusion”.
    I presume you are conversant with Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov’s Paper published Nov 2013.
    In Dr HA’s paper he says Total Solar Irradiance peaked in 1990.
    He says the oceans store heat and can give it back for 20 +, – 8 years after the TSI starts to decrease.
    28 years plus 1990 = 2018 which is also when Sun Spot Cycle 24 is supposed to end. Solar Cycle Progression shows a fitted curve for SSC 24 and it appears that the Sun could possibly quit spotting a year early.

    Do you expect we will see Climate instabilities like Europe and China experienced at the start of the Wolf Sunspot Minimum in 1280 AD? Torrential rains and crop failures and cold climate caused starving, sickness and death along with the Plague. Over half the population of Europe and China perished by 1350 we are told.

    What is your comments and advice to the folks?
    May the Good Lord bless and keep you. JFC

  11. earnest the angry old man says:

    you need to get a hobby JC.

    how about being angry like me and lashing out at everything?

    • liberalism is a mental disorder says:

      Earnest the angry old man…. Is this mocking bit all you have?
      I don’t see you refuting anything of any real substance.
      The public has been told one horrific lie after another related to global warming. Speaking out against lies and deception doesn’t categorize someone as “lashing out at everything”. Speaking out against lies created by govt and the “settled science” promoters (real science is NEVER settled) is the normal response when you find corruption.

      So its not so much that people are angry at everything, we just hate those who lie for a living. Only people lower in life are those who try to protect the lies like you.

      • David Appell says:

        liberalism is a mental disorder says:

        A favorite tactic of the Soviets was to label their opponents as mentally ill, using it as an excuse to lock them in up hospitals and gulags.

        It’s frightening how quickly the racist-right has adopted communist practices.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”A favorite tactic of the Soviets was to label their opponents as mentally ill, using it as an excuse to lock them in up hospitals and gulags.”

          Let’s be more specific. You mean the Bolsheviks, not the Soviets. The Bolsheviks hated everyone not Bolshevik, including real communists and socialists.

          There was never a communism in the USSR, it was a totalitarian state run by nutjobs.

          • David Appell says:

            No, I meant the Soviets.

            But I’m sure you understand communist nuances better than I do, Gordie.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”But Im sure you understand communist nuances better than I do, Gordie”.

            Obviously. Soviets are references to the states in Russia, not people. The people who implemented the system were called Bolsheviks. As I said, they lived to hate and they hated real cummunists and socialists.

        • Bodhisattva says:

          A favorite tactic of the left is to vilify the right by claiming they’re racist, or disparage them by claiming they’re stupid science deniers when in fact science is based primarily on OBSERVATION, which in the case of “global warming”, proves that humans aren’t causing it – as the rate of surface warming, predicted famously to take off like the blade of a hockey schtick, has actually slowed down as the level of atmospheric CO2 has increased.

          As for that increase, it has been claimed that CO2 is moving from the atmosphere into the oceans, but the oceans are the larger reservoir of CO2 and it is much more likely that the net transfer taking place involves CO2 moving from the ocean to the atmosphere, a suggestion that is supported by known physical laws involving the affect of temperature on the solubility of gasses.

          As for labeling opponents as mentally ill, liberals have produced a number of “studies” claiming just that about the right, though once one looks at the evidence, the logic of the studies is proven flawed – similar to what happens when one takes the time to examine theories involving AGW.

          • David Appell says:

            Bodh: Both the ocean and the atmo are gaining CO2 concentration.

            This isn’t rocket science, you know.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA..”Both the ocean and the atmo are gaining CO2 concentration.”

            You can’t have it both ways. Oceans have a cyclic system whereby they absorb CO2 in cold water and out-gas CO2 in warm water. If the oceans are warming they must be out-gassing CO2 therefore they should have a lower concentration.

            The official CO2 monitoring site at Mauna Loa is right above warm ocean water where CO2 is being out-gassed.

  12. Alberto Gorez says:

    Alberto Gorez predicted 20 years ago that we would be going into an ice age. The Maunder Minimum is returning. Bundle up, burn more coal, and buy carbon Debits….

    • David Appell says:

      Greenhouse gas warming easily swamps any cooling from a Maunder Minimum-like sun. Cooling by 2100 would only be, at most, 0.3 C below IPCC projections. We will not be entering another Little Ice Age.

      “On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth,” G. Fuelner and S. Rahmstorf, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L05707 2010.

      “Increased greenhouse gases enhance regional climate response to a
      Maunder Minimum,” Song et al, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L01703 (2010)

      “What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?” Gareth S. Jones, et al, JGR v 117, D05103 (2012) doi:10.1029/2011JD017013, 2012.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…why do you persist in quoting the fairy tales of Rahmstorf?

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon, Rahmstorf is a million times smarter than you are, chump.
          Really man, you need to learn how to pick your battles. Aren’t you tired of all the bloody noses?

          PS: Don’t dare wipe them on your sleeve.

          • Lewis says:


            You’ve proved you’re a liberal whiner 1,000 +. We believe you. Move along. Go have your tantrums in the changing room.

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis: If you ever have a meaningful reply, attach one of those blinking police lights to it, OK, so I’ll know to make an exception and look.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Really man, you need to learn how to pick your battles. Arent you tired of all the bloody noses?”

            You live in a delusional world in which you think you are super smart when in fact you are a paradigm junkie who cannot see beyond the end of his nose.

            Have not noticed any bloody noses meted out by the likes of you. I generally laugh at your scientific illiteracy and generalized appeal to authority.

            As far as Rahmstorf being smarter than me I contacted him once regarding the hockey stick graph which he claimed is still used by the IPCC. The reference he gave was to the spaghetti graph, which the IPCC had inserted to replace the debunked MBH98 catastrophe.

            I saw a debate between Rahmstorf and Lindzen and it was Rahmstorf who came out with the bloody nose. You and he are birds of a feather, paradigm junkies who appeal to authority.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Greenhouse gas warming easily swamps any cooling from a Maunder Minimum-like sun.”

        Real proof please. i.e. not Rahmstorf

        • wert says:

          Variation easily swamps record GHG emissions in decadal scope. We have only 66 years of observations after 1950 which is pretty much zero line. Not convincing yet, from the alarmist point. I’m sorry, you DA need to do more confirmation biased adjustments. Or just lie more.

  13. ImAngryToo says:

    Hey earnest, I’m angry too. Want to know what I’m angry about?

  14. Jim Anger says:

    Dang you Global Warming!!! Dang you!!!

    • David Appell says:

      2016 = warmest year on record.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”2016 = warmest year on record.”

        Bit premature. We’re still waiting to see if the December cold in North America and parts of Siberia will be enough to keep 2016 a smidge below 1998.

        Even if it exceeds 1998, it will be by an insignificant amount and due to an El Nino as in 1998.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “DA2016 = warmest year on record.
          Bit premature.”

          No, it’s already guaranteed in all the surface datasets.

          Recall: humans live on the surface.

          PPS: OK, so they poke up about 2 m into the lower troposphere.

          • wert says:

            The ‘surface’ dear DA has lots of points at 4πR. The lower trop today at the pit was cloud covered, here at the hill the atmospheric window quickly cooled us down under 270K.

            There is no single global temp or global warming as such. There are placs in time and space, some cold, some sweaty.

      • Bodhisattva says:

        2016 was warm due to WEATHER events, the most obvious being the strong El Nio, which actually DISPROVED a major claim of people such as yourself. You know, the one about how nature can’t possibly cause rapid temperature changes? Yet the El Nio did just that, caused some pretty rapid warming. Followed by equally rapid cooling as La Nia set in.

        It is an example of the unbalanced mentality of climate alarmists to continually use WEATHER events as “proof” of climate change when they are no such thing.

        • David Appell says:

          Why did this El Nio bring surface temperatures about 0.4 above 1997-98’s, and why did that one bring surface temperatures about 0.4 C above 1982-83?

          You can answer on these lines:




          But this line should remain blank – it’s for administrative use only:


  15. Machismo says:

    Hey – It was warm all over the United States last week. Now, it is below freezing over most of it. The Climate is changing like it always has. Booo hooo Hooo!

    • David Appell says:

      Weather. Is. Not. Climate.

      • Bodhisattva says:

        And yet you yourself just blamed the warming caused by a weather event (El Nio) on climate change.

        Proving, once again, how you apply one set of rules to others and a completely different one to yourself.

        Also, words followed by periods are not proper English. Just a sign of immaturity and possibly insecurity. The proper sentence, which you should heed, is this:

        Weather is not climate.

  16. Mark says:

    The current extended forecast for Dallas, TX – typically cold during the first week of January – is for highs in the mid to high 70s and lows not reaching below 32.

    Is that forecast wildly inaccurate or is yours?

    • Chances are the forecast you are seeing is a statistical analysis of model forecast output, called MOS. It takes into account how a model forecast a week in advance has typically low skill, so it produces a number close to the climatological expectation. It doesn’t take into account that each of the model runs recently has been pretty consistent in generating this cold air outbreak, which increases confidence it will happen.

    • Bodhisattva says:

      Again you (and others) seem to be mistaking weather for climate. We have not been keeping records for long enough to see all the possible variations, all the possible extremes, both high and low, that can occur for any one point.

      As for your claims about the current forecast, for the first week of January I’m seeing three days where the temperature is predicted to get to 71, 70 and 71 surrounded by days where it will be in the 50s and at least one where it might hit 60, followed by a day where it might get as high as 47.

      Now I only visited Dallas, but I did live in Texas and it isn’t unusual to have warm air settle in until a vigorous cold front pushes it out – the predicted temperatures seem about normal compared with what I remember from actually being there.

      • Lewis says:

        This is along the lines of one of the points I make: that 30 years or even 130 years is hardly long enough to have records which won’t be constantly broken, it either direction. But it is this short term record which is cited as being a harbinger of warming.

        Difficult to really believe.

        • Nate says:


          Having ~ 1C added to global temp clearly wont prevent regions from having cold events or breaking short-term, regional, cold records.

          But when was the last time the country, or the planet as a whole, broke an annual record for lowest temperature? When such records are only broken in the warm direction for many decades one has no choice but to conclude there is an upward trend.

      • Curious George says:

        Your crystal ball seems to be defective.

    • Curious George says:

      Fortunately we don’t have to wait until January 6, 2100 to find the truth. Ten days will do it.

  17. jvjj says:

    This is terrible! The whole thing is falling apart! Somebody needs to get with it and get Al-Buffoon back out on the trail to give the correct facts !!!

  18. Cornwallis says:

    shiiiiiiiiiiiiit…..I’d gladly take some global warming right now… I’m getting chilly folks and all you phags can do is phucking yell at each other about Earnest the angry old man.

  19. Dennis Smith says:

    Maybe another ice age is coming. They predicted one in 1973 and I was glad they were right. It did come and killed off all the killer bees that were coming up from Mexico to sting us to death.It also finished off SARS and Mad Cow disease. Of course the world ended in December,2012 according to the Mayans so we’re not even here anyway.

  20. Eric johnson says:

    I live in northern AL and the forecast from the local news and accuweather doesn’t align with this at all. Forecast says highs in mid-upper 40s, and lows in upper 20s.

  21. Dave In Arizona says:

    Word has it, the Global Warming folks claim the world will bet colder before it gets warmer; no word on when the cold ends and the heat starts.

  22. sod says:

    an attempt to distract from 2016 breaking records?

  23. Alan J. Perrick says:

    People say there is a RACE problem. People say this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY and ONLY into White countries.

    People say the only solution to the RACE problem is if ALL and ONLY White countries “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-Whites.

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against White people, Anti-Whites agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.

  24. dlmstl says:

    Gee, January and cold. who’d have thunk it?

  25. GlobalWrench says:

    Good question, why is it colder in the upper 48 states than at the north pole?

  26. Rex Thompson says:

    Why can’t we just keep politics out of this? Politions cant control the weather anymore that forecasters can. Good grief!

  27. Rex Thompson says:

    Why can’t we keep politics out of this. We don’t control the weather…it controls us! Good grief!

  28. whatshisname says:

    Good! I’ve got freaking green grass at my house. Green grass 3 days after christmas. ridiculous! bring the cold!

    • Eric johnson says:

      If you had a cool season grass you should. 🙂 But if you live in the south, and have crappy Bermuda (an invasive weed acting like a grass), you certainly shouldn’t. It’s the same way here in northern AL. 🙁

    • David Appell says:

      You’re grass’s climate is moving north at about 5.5 feet per day.

      Soon you will be living outside the kind of tatoo parlor your daughter swears she never visited.

  29. Rytheguy says:

    Weather Channel is showing a low of only 48 in Housron on Friday AM. I sure hope you are right Dr Spencer…we need some cold to kill these damn December mosquitoes!

  30. Steve says:

    It’s more stupid. Not stupider.

  31. Mississippi Sawyer says:

    “Weather has been around for a long time.”
    — Mark Twain

  32. cmk says:

    Men cannot effect weather, they can destroy everything on earth but nothing to the weather.climate change is a useless slogan.

    • sod says:

      “Men cannot effect weather, they can destroy everything on earth but nothing to the weather.climate change is a useless slogan.”

      sorry, but you are wrong. We can cause rain with planes, “nuclear winter” has been a term for quite a while and we are changing the air and that for climate now with CO2.

      • An Inquirer says:

        Sod, Yes, the human race can affect weather and climate. Urbanization has a big effect. Deforestation has a big effect. Development and intensive agriculture have an big effect. Increased CO2 can also have an effect, but its impact could be overwhelmed by other factors, including non-anthropogenic factors. So far, I have not seen any solid evidence that increased CO2 is having a dominant effect over other issues . . . and I spend a lot of time studying the models used to say that CO2 is having a big impact.

      • Fred says:

        I hope you are wrong, because if you are right it’s like the world is hanging up on us snow removal guys and trying to put us out of business.

        • An Inquirer says:

          Fred, the snow removal business is not a business that I would like to be in — unless there were fantastic margins. Snowfall is so unpredictable. As a kid, I can remember winters in the 50s without snow. As a teen and into my twenties, the 60s and 70s seemed to be full of snow. And there has not been a consistent trend in my life in the last couple of decades. However, satellites indicate increasing snow extent in the past several years.

  33. Fema Region 5 says:

    CO2 necessary for plant life…necessary for oxygen production…necessary for us. Al Gore is big investor/owner of carbon credit trading scheme in Chicago. Why would he tell a lie? Why are scientific reports being suppressed, scientists fired, unless you agree and post more of the agenda being told to us. I personally don’t give a rats rear end about what happens because we are not the cause of what they (globalists) say we are responsible for and you cannot change what is happening in this world. I don’t know how many of you got your information from some university of B.S. but I would advise you to research it for yourself and quit believing these PRO fessors that are being paid, forced, blackmailed into pr-teaching all of this, failing you in a class because you disagree with it. If you still believe in global warming read John Casey’s forcast. Yes, John Casey worked for NASA so I think you can trust that he is just as smart as those who PRO fess do be smart.

    • David Appell says:

      Fema Region 5 says:
      “CO2 necessary for plant life”

      So are the right temperatures and precipitation — both of which are changed by atmo CO2.

      • Mariner 9 says:

        In the unlikely event that the AGW crowd is correct, increased CO2 concentration will result in a warmer, wetter world with longer growing seasons. This is why Arrhenius the wily old Swede thought it would be a good thing, at least for Sweden.

        So far as I am aware, there is no compelling argument or evidence to support alarmist claims that climate change, whatever its origin, can bring nothing but doom, doom, and more doom. AGW is more like an apocalyptic cult than a well reasoned scientific body of knowledge supported by evidence. When events happen to support the SACRED DOCTRINE, said events are invoked ad nauseum in the popular media and elsewhere. When similar events appear to contradict said Holy Writ, the mystic mantra, “Weather is not climate” is invoked to shield the faithful from the unbelievers as observed above.

  34. Fred says:

    I do roof snow removal for a living and steam ice dam removal so, cold weather equals a lot of work! I’m hoping they are wrong on the global warming, that would put me out of business during the winter

    • David Appell says:

      Hope is always a poor substitute for reality.

      • Eric johnson says:

        Yes, just like what we got with our last President…

        • David Appell says:

          Obama made a real difference in my life, Eric.

          Now Trump and the Republicans can’t hurry fast enough to take it away.

          • Lewis says:


            Your comment “Obama made a real difference in my life, Eric.” tells others more about you than you realize.

            You obviously make decisions about what is good for the community, even mankind, based on what is good for you as an individual. These type decisions are almost always self-serving decisions which are generally bad for the those who must pay to subsidize your excesses and abuses.

            It is different from those who believe in freedom and personal responsibility.


          • David Appell says:

            Lewis, that’s a lot of misunderstanding for just one short paragraph.

            Look, pal, you know nothing about me, my community, my beliefs, my history or what I strive for.

            Given that, it’s best you just shut up.

  35. David Young says:

    Not sure I would bet the farm on a forecast more than a week away. Skill declines a lot at that distance from the present.

  36. Tom W says:

    Ok, help me out here. Warm weather is bad because global warming is bad, no?
    But colder temperatures are…. bad too?

  37. jazzphoto says:

    Global Schwarming is a term I invented which means “Global warming and climate change fu^%$# idiots are a pack of lying greedy incompetent fools”

    • David Appell says:

      Clearly you understand NONE of the science, so all you have left is sputtering insults at everyone who does.

      You have no legitimate role in this discussions. Bow out.

      • Mariner 9 says:

        Is this YOUR blog, Mr. Appell? Are you not a guest here such as the rest of us? You have a special power to banish others withheld from the rest of us hoi polloi? How did you acquire it?

        I would rather have jazz photo provide evidence to back up his/her claims. If said evidence is unconvincing, your impotent efforts at censorship will be less obvious, if not less odious.

  38. Brian Barnett says:

    Thanks Dr Roy for your very interesting blogs. I look forward to reading them, and some of the responses. I don’t understand a lot of the technical terms in some but certainly get enough out of it to enjoy it. I know you have often remarked that poverty and the cold will kill more people than global warming. I wondered how much money we taxpayers are spending on trying to change the climate and prevent global warming. The number that has been identified is $1.5 trillion. On the other hand it is claimed that it would take about $250 billion to eradicate global poverty. One wonders how our leaders can get priorities so wrong.

    • David Appell says:

      Brian Barnett says:
      “I wondered how much money we taxpayers are spending on trying to change the climate and prevent global warming.”

      Not NEARLY as much as we spend subsidizing fossil fuels — ~$5 T/yr worldwide.

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        Holy Cow you are unreal! Does anyone take your mindless posts seriously? What is your goal with your lies? About 5 trillion dollars a year? That is about 10 times the best estimate given. You really seem to have a problem with math.

        From article: “In 2013, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that consumer subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to US$548 billion, while subsidies for renewable energy amounted to US$121 billion.”

        Or this.

          • Norman says:


            I read some of the link and found this: “. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.”

            So does that mean this ridiculous IMF study (not really experts as would be the IEA) includes all the bad weather events and concludes with no supportable evidence that such weather events are caused by climate change.

            Fake news in my opinions. No scientific support for the study but just include it anyway. And what money is being used to pay for harm caused to local populations by air pollution? US health is mostly private funded and has mostly clean air. The nations with the terrible pollution (India and China), do their governments pay for the ill effects of air pollution coming from fossil fuel consumption?

          • Greven says:


            I can’t seem to reply to your reply. The number is for global subsidies.

            Pollution causes deaths:

            How much impact does that have, economic-wise? No idea.

            “The costs resulting from the climate change driven by fossil fuel emissions account for subsidies of $1.27tn a year, about a quarter, of the IMFs total.”

            I refuse to go to Forbes, but if you buy their argument:

            Then global subsidies in 2013 were $523 billion (fossil fuels) to $88 billion (renewable). Them trying to change it to units of energy / subsidy to say fossil fuels is less subsidized is really atrocious.

            Something to take grave note of, however – the subsidies figures for fossil fuels is for consumers, which is only a portion of real subsidies. This doesn’t take into consideration things like tax breaks by government for oil/coal companies.

            Here’s one from my home state:

            “After intense lobbying, Oklahomas oilmen scored a victory two years ago. State lawmakers voted to keep in place some of the lowest taxes on oil and gas production in the United States – a break worth $470 million in fiscal year 2015 alone”

            They exist at the Federal level, too:
            “In total, the United States government has identified eleven Federal fossil fuel production tax provisions, as shown below. Combined, these provisions total USD 4.7 billion in annual revenue cost(nominal annual average figure based on the 10-year revenue estimate).”

          • David Appell says:

            Don’t worry, Greven, Norman isn’t serious. He does that to everyone.

          • Lewis says:

            Subsidies are a misnomer, although a useful one. Consumers pay all costs, directly or indirectly. Taxes cause distortions in the market and, all too often, tax law is written for the distinct purpose of causing those distortions. The end result is that some things are encouraged and others discouraged.

            Pollution is a result of many things. Humans breathe and eat. The pollution resulting is CO2 and excrement. Humans, just as any other creature, cannot live in high concentrations of their pollution.

            Industrial pollution is along the same line, but a different method. To decry it and its associated causes would be the same as decrying breathing and eating. The fact is industrialization and the associated use of fossil fuels has helped millions, if not billions, of humans to live better and longer lives. The fact that some die from disease caused by pollution is not a real argument against industrialization and its associated benefits but an argument for political control. In essence that and the AGW religion are one and the same: something to be wary of.

        • David Appell says:

          “Fossil Fuel Subsidies Cost $5 Trillion Annually and Worsen Pollution,” Scientific American, 5/19/15

          • Rick says:

            Greven, you said “Them trying to change it to units of energy / subsidy to say fossil fuels is less subsidized is really atrocious.”
            In what way do you see a problem with evaluating subsidies in “units of energy / subsidy”? This is the only fair way to evaluate energy subsidies for different energy sources.

          • Greven says:


            Because it ignores everything else. It is a very narrow comparison and extremely NOT fair. Pollution from coal being responsible for thousands of deaths annually is ignored, for example. That’s just one of the externalities ignored.

            The main thing holding back renewables is the need for capital (like infrastructure) to purchase/support it. You get 2-3 decades of useful production out of a photovoltaic panel, but a gallon of gas is consumed and then gone.

            The payback on photovoltaic is something like 15:1 or higher.

            An analogy:
            One could build a Monolithic Dome house for (probably under) 50% more than a conventional brick and wood house for the same square footage. The former being reinforced concrete would make it utterly safe with very little maintenance needed; its strong insulating shell would even make it very energy efficient.

            Hail could force a new roof for a conventional house; some other man-made or natural disaster might destroy the conventional house entirely.

            Is the price per square footage truly representative with these considerations?

      • An Inquirer says:

        Statistics can be used in a variety of misleading ways. If the study is going to include deaths from fossil fuels, then it also should include lives saved via fossil fuels. Also, a better measure would be $ per MBTU, not total dollars.

        • Lewis says:


          Even better would be a study showing lives lengthened versus shortened: lived with enough food, shelter and clothing, vs without.

        • David Appell says:

          Lives aren’t saved by fossil fuels — they’re saved by energy, whereever it comes from.

          Much of it currently comes from energy sources that kill people and other animals.

          • Mariner 9 says:

            Renewables fall into that category of killing animals, of course. Solar power towers fry unwary birds on the wing unless it happens to be cloudy out or at night when they are putting out zero watts. Wind farms kill birds and bats day and night, but only when the wind is blowing.

            At least those cuddly lovable polar bears are safe from such menaces, give us your address so we can send you one. There seems to be a surplus of the cute little beasts at the moment, contrary to Gore’s forecasts.

  39. John Hultquist says:

    Roy says: “Early next week the cold air will enter the U.S. through Montana and the Dakotas, …

    You missed the Fraser River Valley of B.C. where the cold air is expected to flow into Washington State beginning Sunday evening and being very cold Monday evening. Inland there will be more intense cold — if NWS has it right. Tuesday will be the coldest, as far as they take the forecast out. In the minus single digits. Western Mt in the minus double digits.
    We’ll see.
    A predicted big snow came in on the low end (last 2 days). The Pass just east of Seattle only got 20 inches.

    We may have to burn some wood to help the heat pump keep up.

    Wishing all a Great 2017!

    • David Appell says:


      Salem, OR, average +0.5 F over the last three days.

      What is that in warming per century? — catastrophe, I’m sure.

      Someone send those big dogs with a barrel of brandy around their neck.

      Hey, it can’t hurt, right?


      • John Hultquist says:

        Salem — What?
        I’ll allow you to explain what Salem has to do with anything, because I have no idea.

        I will try to bring you up to speed on the St. Bernard Rescue Dog that I guess you meant:
        Although in legend casks of liquor were strapped around the dogs’ collars to warm up travelers, no historical records exist that document this practice.

        As for rescue efforts on the pass, monks now rely on helicopters, and have for about the last 13 or 14 years.

        • David Appell says:

          John: What does the Fraser River Valley of B.C. have to do with anything?

          • Mariner 9 says:

            Evidently people live there. There might be weather there, possibly even climate. Was there more than urine in that Nalgene bottle of yours and are you still drinking from it?

            Informed medical opinion advises against consumption of alcohol in cold weather since it dilates surface blood vessels and increases heat loss.

  40. GeoCat says:

    Is there a published, reasonable, scientific conclusion regarding what causes the LaNinas/ElNinos? All I can find is that they are the result of warm/cold water in the W Pacific rise to the top and affect the weather world wide, but nowhere can I find WHY this happens.

    • Norman says:


      It seems the trigger for an El Nino is the weakening of trade winds (easterlies) because the pressure gradient (high in east, low in west) weakens.

      Here are two links that describe it to some extent.

      I believe Bob Tisdale has lots of writings about the causes and formation of each so you might try to visit his blog.

      • GeoCat says:

        Thank you. The explanations don’t say what generates the movements which lead to the Nina/os actions, ie, which is the chicken/ which is the egg? Do you know if the Models used by the UN/Gore/Hansen GW cartel take in to account the effects of the Nina/os? Also, relating to ocean levels, do they take into account the continuing deposit of volcanic ash into the oceans ?

        • Norman says:


          Maybe this article will help.

          The normal pattern is for warm water to be located in the East Pacific ocean and cooler water in the West by South America. This sets up a stable wind pattern that maintains the warm ocean to the west (the warm ocean water causes air to rise, rain out, then sink west of the warm water creating air circulation that keeps the warm water in an eastern pool).

          Pressures change with other air movements not part of this pattern that can disrupt the circulation and the wind weakens and some of the warm water in the East moves toward South America. This warmer water causes the air above to rise and now sink in the East creating westerly wind flows that push more warm water westward and intensify the El Nino pattern.

          At this time I am not sure why this effect warms the whole globe but observations confirm it does, I think I will do some research and try to figure it out. I am sure others know the answer already.

      • David Appell says:

        Bob Tisdale thinks global warming is caused by El Ninos.

        But he never asks where the heat for the El Ninos comes from.

        • aaron says:

          Pretty sure he has said relatively clearer skies during La Nia and neutral conditions, but yeah, he’s a little too quick to write off IR contribution.

        • Norman says:

          David Appell

          Here is the answer to your the question of why El Ninos warm the entire globe (mainly the air). Seems the major cause is latent heat from evaporating water, more water evaporates during El Nino which in turn warms the atmosphere relatively more than non El Nino years.

          That is why the temperature drops as rapidly as it rises once the El Nino ends since the increased rate of evaporation leading to greater latent heat added to the atmosphere now is stopped.

          • David Appell says:

            Everyone knows why El Ninos warm the atmosphere.

            But they don’t believe, like Tisdale, that that warmth comes from nowhere.

          • John Hultquist says:

            Get a clue. The energy comes from the Sun, as shortwave energy (aka,light) that enters the water.
            Bob Tisdale has written this many times in his posts.
            Perhaps you should read more and comment less.

          • David Appell says:

            John, but the energy from the Sun has been decreasing since the mid-1960s.

            (Let me know if you need a graph, but I hope not.)

            So where does all this extra energy come from?

  41. Kevin says:

    Tell that to Al Gore and all of his disciples. They think we control the weather

  42. Bruce says:

    I live in Oklahoma and during the “dog days ” of summer nearly every record high dates back to the 1930s. Must have been those flatulent bison! Hahahahaha!

  43. David Appell says:

    Wanna talk about the Arctic, where temps have been up to 50 F above normal???

    • Norman says:

      David Appell

      What is going on at the North Pole now?

      Air Temperature (last set of numbers) look around -25 C at this time.

      Look at the normal range for North Pole temperatures.

      “Winter temperatures at the North Pole can range from about −50 to −13 C (−58 to 9 F), averaging around −31 C (−24 F).

      From this article:

      You can see normal winter temperatures at the North Pole can swing 67 degrees F. It is a highly variable temperature location, the cold air can move away replaced by relatively much warmer air from elsewhere so you can have large temperature swings.

      • David Appell says:

        “You can see normal winter temperatures at the North Pole can swing 67 degrees F.”

        No, that is not “normal.”

        Don’t try to make us laugh.

        Things like this are why you are so easily painted as a rank amateur.

        • Norman says:

          David Appell

          Idiot! Did you even look at the link before you posted your mindless statemnent.

          It is quite normal for the North pole to vary greatly in temperature. The mass of cold air in the arctic moves around and does not stay centered on the North Pole all winter. At least if you make a stupid post support it with some evidence. Prove that the North Pole does not have a high range of winter temperatures, then you at least show some scientific research. As of now it is just the opinion of a mindless moron.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            Certainly you will choose not to look at this link. It is a forecast tool for global weather patterns. I have selected temperature as the field.

            If you let the animation run you can see that cold air mass in the Arctic moves around, it is not stationary as you falsely seem to assume. Evidence based science, no doubt a new concept for you.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            Barrow, Alaska. North of the Arctic Circle. No solar energy striking the surface in January.


            You can use this tool to help educate you about air mass contribution to temperature fluctuations. January 2012 on the 20th the high temp was 5 F. A couple days later on the 23rd the temperature was -45 F. A 50 F swing in a couple days with no solar input!

            Use the tool an put in various Arctic cities and see what you get. I have tried a few from Canada northern area like Igloolik and you get similar results as Barrow. No solar input but a highly variable temperature readings throughout the cold dark month’s of winter.

            Because of your closed mind it is highly unlikely this real world data will have any meaning to you. Maybe you are like the Westworld robots from HBO series. If they see something in a photo that goes against the program they cannot see anything.

  44. Norman says:


    (You wouldn’t be the famous Science of Doom would you?)

    I hope you can take the time to look at the CERES graphs and explain the meaning.

    I have attempted to show others but no one seems to respond.

    Link to CERES web site (this is the data used by the climate scientists to create the global energy budget graphics).

    Click the tab “Visualize Data” at lower left.

    This will bring up radiant energy at the surface graphs.

    Look specifically at “Surface Longwave Flux Down All-sky” and let me know where the increase in radiant energy is. To get the temperature increase in GISS global temperature maps this radiant energy should be going up at least a couple watts.

    Also check “Surface Net Total Flux All-Sky” this would include all the radiant energy interactions with the surface (Shortwave Flux Up and down, Longwave Flux Up and down…basically all the radiant energy received by the surface). The graph is not showing a steady increase which would be necessary for AGW to be a correct hypothesis. Thanks for you consideration.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman’s amateurish calculations are far, far away from real science. I’ve explaine this to him before, but he pretends not to hear.

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        Enough of you deceptive tactics. You are exactly why so many distrust the alarmists in climate science.

        You are so incredibly phony I really find it hard to believe you post with such arrogance.

        You have never looked at the links. They are not “my amateurish calculations” !! They are graphs generated by CERES staff.

        I pretend nothing. Now I see what a really dishonest person you are. You are making claims that are untrue hoping no one will check up on your claims.

        I hope you can reform your dishonest personality and try to become a true scientist someday by seeking the Truth. I really cannot understand what drives your desire, do you get paid money to engage in dishonest behavior? At least that would make some kind of sense, everyone needs a roof over their heads and food to eat.

        Quit the lies and look at the link.

        • David Appell says:

          Norman, you are an utter amateur who has no idea how to analyze real data.

          Get your junk published somewhere, Norman, and win a Nobel Prize.

          What are you waiting for, dude?

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            Idiot! It is not my junk or my data nor my calculations nor my published work. Maybe your cat thinks you possess a mind but I doubt any on this blog think you even resemble a thoughtful intelligent person.

          • David Appell says:

            You’re an amateur in a field (satellite data) that hard enough for professionals.

            Step up or step out.

          • Mariner 9 says:

            Gore got a Nobel Prize so they must be setting the bar pretty low. I’d say Norman has a pretty good shot given that. Perhaps he too can release a boring and error riddled documentary full of more sentimentality than science and get an Academy Award as well.

            It has been known to happen.

    • Slipstick says:

      I finally had time to fiddle with this site and found that I needed to set parameters to get the data to display. I noticed something immediately. The surface longwave flux up increases from 2000 to 2015, as you would expect with a warming surface; the effect is small but it is clearly visible. Also, I think you are misinterpreting the “Net” values. These are not the sums of the up and down flux, they are the differences; look at the vertical scales. That said, I don’t think this data set covers enough time to draw any real conclusions, at least to my satisfaction.

      • Norman says:


        Yes I would agree with you that the longwave flux up has slightly increased slightly. The globe is warming a little but not from AGW.

        I am correct in my understanding of Net flux. If you look at the individual graphs (shortwave down and up adds to around 162 W/m^2 then also sum the longwave which is around -53 W/m^2 and you get around 109 W/m^2 as the net radiant energy reaching the surface which is about what you get when you view the graph of Net radiant energy reaching the surface)

        The CERES data shows the each meter of surface is receiving a positive radiant energy of around 107 W/m^2 to 109 W/m^2)

        The reason the surface is not warming with such an influx of energy is because evaporation and thermals balance this positive net radiant energy. The globe may be warming from a change in either of the surface cooling mechanisms (thermals or evaporation).

        The Earth shows a slight warming but the Net radiant energy is not showing any increase so you should conclude that the warming is caused by a change in one of the cooling mechanisms and not an increase in radiant energy to the surface.

        Look at longwave down and notice if you see an increase.

        Like this graph:

        What the data set covers is that satellite temperature graphs are more accurate (showing no net warming during this time frame) as compared to GISS which needs an addition of radiant energy to explain the warming they show (if you calculate it, it is around 2 or 3 watts more radiant energy needed to explain the warming based upon AGW hypothesis)

        Thanks for looking at the site though. More than most are willing to do.

        • David Appell says:

          Norman can’t explain his calculations, or how he corrects for satellite offsets. That makes his work both amateurish and meaningless.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            You are a complete idiot! A mindless unscientific moron!

            You keep saying things like this “Norman cant explain his calculations, or how he corrects for satellite offsets. ”

            You dishonest unscientific moron! The graphs are NOT (repeat it again “NOT” since you seem as dense as you are dishonest) my calculations.

            Why are you such and idiot? You don’t look at the link and make foolish statements that are not based upon reality and pat yourself on the back for your delusional brilliance.

            The graphs are NOT mine! Again the graphs are NOT mine. Can you understand or comprehend the meaning of the word “NOT”?

            I really do not think you are an idiot. I think you are just one of the most dishonest people that post on this blog.

            I think you are paid money to try to disrupt and refute good arguments on this blog. I am only using the term “Idiot” here in case someone actually might think you are honest and making a credible point. At least Slipstick looked at the data before he posted.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman: Having to resort to name calling shows you are (1) unprofessional (2) can’t defend you science (3) perhaps in 7th grade.

            So keep them coming.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            I am not resorting to insults. I am trying to point out that your posts are idiotic. You are making untrue and dishonest claims. My choice of word you believe are insulting are actually the product of your posts and not at all insults but rather factual assessment of your posting.

            If you do not look at data and make claims about it it makes you quite mindless. A mindless person is considered an idiot. It is very unscientific to not look at a link and then post falsehoods about it.

            If you look at the links I post and make comments dealing with the post I would consider this behavior thoughtful. If you point out flaws in my thought process, wonderful. It is always beneficial.

            You post negative comments and then complain if someone calls you idiotic. Here is an example.

            YOUR POST: “Norman, you are an utter amateur who has no idea how to analyze real data.

            Get your junk published somewhere, Norman, and win a Nobel Prize.

            So you are insulting my intelligence and abilities and then complain if I return the favor? You do realize your behavior is the cause of my return.

        • Slipstick says:

          If you going to use measured surface radiative flux to determine the anthropogenic component, you will first need to account for the other components which affect the flux. These include incoming solar flux, average temperature, cloud cover, particulates, SO2 concentration, sea surface temperature, surface areas of snow, ice, flooding, drought, and vegetation, and so on. Note that some of these other components are interdependent and some are fractionally dependent on human action. What you are trying to do is analogous to determining the value of a house by measuring the size of one bedroom window.

          • Norman says:


            I do not think you understood my post. I am not trying to determine the anthropogenic component with my post. The content of the post is to show that the total radiant flux (all-sky which includes all the other factors like clouds, particulates etc) hitting the Earth’s surface has not increased in 16 years of observation. That would mean radiant energy cannot be the source or cause of any global warming. Other effects mankind has are not showing any changes in the amount of energy reaching the surface. The GHE is only a radiant energy effect. It is produced by IR active gases radiating energy back to the surface. The overall effect of these gases is not increasing the amount of radiation that is reaching the surface.

            The conclusion you might have to accept is the emitted carbon dioxide is not creating enough increase in downwelling IR to affect the surface radiant energy budget so it would not be responsible for any global warming in the 16 year time frame.

  45. Cypher says:

    Hopefully this means that the MSM will stop the nonsensical fear mongering around Zika.

    • David Appell says:

      In other news, Mrs Mikalachki dumped some spoiled milk outside her house over on the corner where the dill grows, disrupting the jet strean for thousands of kilometers in each direction.

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        Okay I had to agree that was a funny post! Though not much of what you post has much scientific credibility, you do possess a flare for humor.

        • David Appell says:

          Norman: I put your scientific credibility at zero. Couldn’t care less what you think of me. Mostly I wonder why you’re sitting on world-changing calculations, but don’t have to gumption or courage to put them other than here, where it’s very very safe.

          • Lewis says:

            Actually David,
            You seem to care quite a bit what others think. You are too busy defending the defenseless for it to be otherwise.

            Insecurities keep you up at nite.
            And, for you, The fact that you are paranoid does not mean nobody is watching you.

          • David Appell says:

            Odd again, Lewis, how you know so much about my personal and private life.

            Are you a cat, maybe?

            Are you sure?

  46. AaronS says:

    Does anyone else struggle to see trends in these sort of color bars?

  47. Lone Gunman says:


    ScottBoyd13 says:

  48. Ron Hyatt says:

    Dick Cheney is still at the wheel, slamming hurricanes and other weather at minorities. Doesn’t he know that Black Lives Matter? In other news, world to end tomorrow, Women, Childern Minorities hit hardest.

    • David Appell says:

      ren, have the noticed the temperature astride the bushes in my back yard, there over to the right where the cats sneak through??

      I mean, wow ren, do you think the new ice age is starting here, right here in my backyard?

      Do you Ren?

  49. John Travis says:


    I’m a busy working person with a family, I read your posts quickly when I have some time but if you had to summarize the current status of global warming/climate change in 5-10 bullet points what would it be? Especially when you consider – the following:

    1 – Since 1998 – which seems to be the high point of avg global temp – it seems we have been mostly lower in global avg temp until this year – is that accurate – is this widely understood?
    2 – CO2 produced by humans has been increasing at a higher % than any change in avg global temps correct?
    3 – Can you summarize how smog/pollution correlates with CO2 if much at all?


    • David Appell says:

      John: 1998 wasn’t a “high point.”

      Read harder, buddy. Let me know if you need help.

      • Bryan A says:

        1998 was very clearly the high point in the temperature record through 2014 until Dr Karl started adjusting the pre 1998 temperature data lower and the post 1998 temperature data higher thereby creating the illusion of a post 1998 increase in an attempt to “Bust the Pause”

        • David Appell says:

          The raw data needs adjusting. (Ask Roy — they adjust more than anyone.) This started in the 1980s, and continued to Karl 2015, and ite isn’t finished yet – it’s a continual process.)

          How would you prefer to handle the biases in the raw data?

          (I’ve asked this of dozens of deniers; no one ever answers. Not one.)

        • David Appell says:

          Bryan A says:
          “1998 was very clearly the high point in the temperature record through 2014”

          Shorter Bryan: 1998 was the warmest year if you don’t include the warmer years that came after it.

          PS Bryan: Would you be surprised to know that the changes to UAH’s dataset were about three times larger those of Karl et al?

        • barry says:

          1998 was very clearly the high point in the temperature record through 2014 until Dr Karl started adjusting

          Looks like the calendar year 2016 will be the new high point in every data set of surface/near-surface global temperatures, including satellite data.

          But the record for the warmest 12 month average has already been broken over the last year in all those data sets.

  50. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    “First Week of 2017: Record Cold, 48 States Going Below Freezing”

    Roy, you look like nothing but a cherry picker here.

    Come on, Roy, you know better than that. Time to start acting like it.

  51. Ross Brisbane says:

    Ever since colleagues published the global warming consensus paper two years ago in which we found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature on human-caused global warming, Roy Spencer has been claiming to be part of the 97%. As I showed two years ago, hes not. Spencer and Christy each authored five papers captured in our climate science literature survey. Among those papers, we classified one of Spencers and two of Christys as minimizing or rejecting the human influence on global warming, and the others as not taking a position on the issue.

    That makes both of them authors of the less than 3% of peer-reviewed climate science papers rejecting the consensus on human-caused global warming. This is an indisputable fact the 97% consensus figure is based on our teams categorization of the scientific literature, and we put their research outside the 97% consensus. Spencer and Christy reject this fact because they dont understand our study specifically that papers minimizing the human influence on global warming fall outside the 97% consensus. Their research is nevertheless among the 3% of outliers.

    As for the American Meteorological Society (AMS) survey, only 13% of participants described climate science as their field of expertise. The Heartland Institute the source of the story linked in the above quote by Christy misrepresented the associated study so badly that the AMS executive director took the unusual step of issuing a public reprimand against their behavior. Studies of climate science experts have again and again found a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

    More misinformation comes from these two unreliable sources (Christy & Spencer) then any other in Climate studies. The organisation Heartland is not misinformation but horrific “tale” tellers. For they ideologically bound up in the political policies rather then the actual science.

    • WizGeek says:

      Ross, I recommend you take a refresher class on how properly to use an apostrophe for contractions and possessive forms; otherwise, one may assume your literacy and, by way of implication, your opinions are specious and sophomoric.

      Additionally, your use of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” tactics is as deplorable as it is impressive.

    • Lewis says:


      Thank you for this critical information!!! I am now reassured of the reliability of Dr. Spencer’s work.

    • David Appell says:

      Valuable input, Ross. Thanks.

  52. WizGeek says:

    Are David Appell and Ross Brisbane the same person? Their writing styles and grammatical failings are quite similar.

  53. jimc says:

    Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold

    Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity believe the incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard. This didnt happen under the Obama administration, which denied that a debate even existed. Now, some scientists say, a more inclusive approach and the billions of federal dollars that might support it could be in the offing.

  54. D3F1ANT says:

    Evidently, the globe isn’t warming as much as the Libs want us to believe! Or AT ALL!

  55. barry says:

    When you mix science with politics you get politics. The agenda behind the blog is now being realized in the comments sections.


  56. Ross Brisbane says:

    The accuracy of Spencer and Christys atmospheric temperature estimates remains a question of rigorous scientific dispute today. While the interview says,

    Still, they carry on – comfortable in their research and data that has remained true to their findings

    That comfort may very well be misplaced.

    When asked about data from government agencies contradicting their contrarian beliefs about the dangers associated with climate change, Christy said,

    NASA, NOAA, EPA, DOE, those are agencies. Agency leaders are appointed by the government, by the current administration. They do not represent objective independent scientific organizations. They cant. They are appointed by the head. They try. People who come out with different views in their organizations are found to be squashed. There is an agenda in those agencies … There are skeptics in NASA and NOAA, a good number. But they are quiet. They know in this administration, they dont speak out.

    This is an ironic answer given the recent revelations that scientists in Florida have been barred from using phrases like climate change and global warming. Similarly, the George W. Bush administration was accused of censoring government reports about climate change. Its contrarians who have tried to squash inconvenient scientific research, not those who accept the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming.

    The interview also included an extensive discussion about fossil fuels, with Roy Spencer saying,

    When I talk to scientists who should be objective over a beer at the end of the day, I will argue with them and their final position will always be, Yeah, but we need to get away from fossil fuels anyway. Where did that come from? Are you an expert in alternative energy sources and what they cost? How many poor people are you going to hurt? How many more people are you going to make poor through energy poverty because they are paying five to 10 times as much for their energy?

    Roy Spencer is of course not an energy or economics expert either. Experts in these fields who have published research on the subject have found that fossil fuels are incredibly expensive, when we account for all of their costs. For example, one recent study conservatively estimated that including pollution costs, coal is about 4 times more expensive than wind and 3 times more expensive than solar energy in the USA today. Additionally, poorer countries are generally the most vulnerable to climate change impacts. John Christy made similarly backwards arguments,

    Carbon dioxide makes things grow. The world used to have five times as much carbon dioxide as it does now. Plants love this stuff. It creates more food. CO2 is not the problem … There is absolutely no question that carbon energy provides with longer and better lives. There is no question about that.

    The CO2 is plant food argument is a gross oversimplification. For example, rising carbon dioxide levels increase the greenhouse effect, causing global warming, which in turn intensifies droughts. As were seeing in California right now (the Golden State turning brown), thats not good for plants.

    Christy also made a key mistake in those comments. Energy gives people longer and better lives, but theres absolutely no reason that energy must come from carbon-intensive fossil fuel sources. In fact, my colleague John Abraham is helping developing countries in Africa deploy clean energy sources instead.

    Christy and Spencer have also been affiliated with various conservative fossil fuel-funded think tanks. And Spencer is on the Board of Advisors of the Cornwall Alliance a religious group that essentially believes God wouldnt let damaging climate change happen. Spencer has also made some controversial comments, calling those who disagree with him global warming Nazis as well as declaring I love FoxNews and saying,

    I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.

    Spencer and Christy made a valuable scientific contribution by creating their atmospheric temperature data set. However, given how few climate scientists dispute the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, its useful to examine their research and comments with a critical eye. When we do, it becomes clear that they have less in common with Galileo than with the scientists who disputed the links between smoking and cancer.

    In consideration of truthfulness or FAKE information or withheld information or distorted information or contextual aberrant information or misquoting information or agenda biased information or politicised information. That pretty well sums up these guys.

    • jdhuffman says:

      Ross, I really appreciate your endless rambling comments.

      I never read all of your babbling, but your expense of electrons will hopefully keep the planet healthy.

      Please keep up the effort.

      • David Appell says:

        Ross took to write a detailed response based in science.

        jdhuffman responded with no science whatsoever, just (literally) babbling and insults.

        Ross wins, going away.

        • Lewis says:

          Ross, writes what suits him. It is opinion of which I will take issue with one part. Denigrating Dr. Spencer for not being an expert in economics is amusing. Spencer has demonstrated he knows as much about economics as many do. While the study of economics can be esoteric, it is not something like climate or meteorology or physics that is difficult for the average person to understand, without dedicated study. It is only the sociology of money, which most of us study and participate in daily all of our post adolescent lives. This participating leads to an understanding, if one pays close attention, which allows one to draw accurate conclusions.

          But from Ross’s comments, we see he is interested in attacking Spencer and Christy. Why? If he doesn’t care for Spencer or Christy, why come to this blog and spend time typing his objection? Does he think he will accomplish a change of mind among the readers. If he does he is as obtuse as Appell. Few change their minds due to something like that.

          No. It seems sour grapes. And is thus insignificant and so jhuffman is correct in his comment.

        • Nate says:


          Just participating in the economy allows one to understand it??!

          Then most Americans should understand economics! Well clearly they do not. Even the most intelligent among them can have vastly different views on economics.

          Just look at the effects on raising the minimum wage. There is wide disagreement, even on what the research shows.

          In many ways it is harder than physics. There are no Newtons laws of economics. Some empirical models work in idealized cases.

          But no economic models predicted the 2008 crash!

    • David Appell says:

      ren wrote:
      “Ozone is falling because declining the amount eruptions in the sun (UV)”

      Ah, chaotic poetry as only ren can write it.

    • Greven says:


      Why would a decline in ozone/UV cause the lower stratosphere to cool?

      • barry says:

        Ozone acts as a partial shield to UV, absorbing and re-radiating it. This transmission generates some energy and heat in the stratosphere.

        Less ozone means less radiative activity in that layer of the atmosphere, and therefore less heat there.

        • Greven says:

          I know what ozone does, and what the interaction between it and UV is.

          In the stratosphere, temperature increases with height BECAUSE of this interaction.

          Why would the LOWER stratosphere cool?

        • barry says:

          Because that is where ozone concentration is greatest, and where ozone depletion has mostly occurred.

        • barry says:

          The whole stratosphere, wherever there is ozone would also cool from ozone depletion, but picking that cause apart from the cooling from reduced OLR from GHGs would be rather tricky, I imagine.

          • barry says:

            Googling for the paper is easy. The modeling work and the research behind it, much less so. But let’s read some of the paper:

            “The decrease in TLS is primarily a response to human-caused stratospheric ozone depletion, with a smaller contribution from anthropogenic changes in other greenhouse gases…”

            And how certain is this?

            In the ALL+8.5 simulations, the most pronounced intermodel differences in temperature trends are in the vicinity of the Antarctic ozone hole (Fig. 2B and SI Appendix, Fig. S4), where internal variability is large (10), and there are appreciable intermodel differences in historical ozone forcing…

            …It is difficult to make more rigorous quantitative comparisons of the temperature changes in the ALL+8.5, ANT, NAT, SOL, and VOL simulations. This difficulty arises because of (i) between experiment differences in the number of models and realizations available for estimating multimodel averages (SI Appendix); and (ii) between model differences in external forcings (27) and climate sensitivity…

          • Greven says:

            Suppose ozone depletion is solely behind the cooling trend in the lower stratosphere.

            UV radiation would then penetrate into the tropopause / troposphere. This radiation would then, instead of warming the stratosphere, warm the troposphere.

            Do you agree with this?

          • barry says:

            The wavelength UV absorbed by ozone would pass through the rest of the troposphere mostly unhindered, and would warm surfaces (and damage skin).

            Why are we having this discussion? Is there a point of contention?

  57. ren says:

    The temperature in the upper stratosphere over the polar circle is the lowest from the beginning of satellite measurements.

  58. Mariner 9 says:

    Good luck with that, ending bias in government funded research. Charles Seife’s book “Proofiness: How You’re Being Fooled By the Numbers” describes the widespread abuse of data by the political class for various agendas in the press, the courtroom, and elsewhere.

    Is peer reviewed literature the gold standard for the determination of truth? The same used to be said of witch trials, not so long ago.

    • willb01 says:

      Someone back in the 1800’s once said: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
      Unfortunately, nothing much seems to have changed since then.

  59. Rutheguy says:

    David if weather. Is. Not. Climate. You need to tell that to the liberal hacks who are using it all over MSM to convince the world that they are. Related.

    • barry says:

      They are related. Climate trains the boxer, weather throws the punches.

      Think seasons. Average conditions are different, but a particular day in Winter may be warmer than one in Summer at the same location.

      For the most part, the press flourishes an extreme weather event and contextualizes properly in terms of climate change. Occasionally they don’t. People in the comments sections of blogs frequently muddy the distinction, as has happened in this thread, with people conflating a cold spell in the US (in Winter, of all seasons!) with some kind of global trend in climate.

      • ren says:

        Now the solar wind speed up because of coronal holes and polar vortex also accelerate.

      • ren says:

        There is there any reason that during the Maunder minimum winter in the northern hemisphere were sharp, whether you agree?

      • ren says:

        As we know, the polar vortex accelerates in the stratosphere, but it goes back to the troposphere.,59.21,452

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”people conflating a cold spell in the US (in Winter, of all seasons!) with some kind of global trend in climate.”

        There is no global trend in climate. Climates are localized areas where the average weather is calculated over a term. Here in BC, Canada, we have a rain forest climate on the south west coast and 150 miles NW there is a pure desert climate with cactus and sagebrush.

        The current cold spell in the Vancouver area is a record for December. Why should that happen with reports in the media of catastrophic global warming?

        I don’t want to hear about climate model theories, real science please.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Climate trains the boxer, weather throws the punches”

        Climate is a mathematical average not a force. Weather is forces in action. It is incorrect to attribute changes in the atmosphere to climate. In fact, climate is due to changes and forces in the atmosphere over a long time period, all driven by the Sun.

        • barry says:

          There is no global trend in climate.

          Of course there is. Global climate is always changing, at different rates over time. The surface of the Earth was once 1000C. Ice ages and the intervals between are distinct climate regimes on a global scale. The time between them encompasses the trend rate from one phase to another.

          Climate is a mathematical average not a force.

          It was a metaphor to explain the difference between weather and climate. Works well in that context.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”Global climate is always changing, at different rates over time”.

            I thought you wanted to talk real science? Climate is average weather over a region, not over the entire globe. There is no such thing as global weather so how can there be a global weather average which is climate?

            “It was a metaphor to explain the difference between weather and climate. Works well in that context”.

            There is no room for metaphors in real science. The greenhouse effect is a metaphor as well but cannot be explained using science that can be reproduced via the scientific method.

            Glass in a real greenhouse traps heat as atoms of nitrogen and oxygen which come as molecules. Heat is the kinetic energy of the N2 and O2 therefore it is trapped with the atoms.

            There is no such barrier in the atmosphere, making the greenhouse effect metaphor a fictitious entity. There is nothing there to trap heat since heat is related to atoms and GHGs cannot trap atoms.

            Heat as atoms can be transferred by conduction and convection, as in thunderstorms, as Lindzen has indicated in his greenhouse paper. Transported to higher elevations by convection the atoms can release their energy to space.

            That makes far more sense than the radiative theory associated AGW.

        • barry says:

          The current cold spell in the Vancouver area is a record for December. Why should that happen with reports in the media of catastrophic global warming?

          If you want to discuss ‘real science’, leave the media out of it.

          There are cold and hot records broken every year. But the far greater majority each year have been hot record breakers, for quite a few years now.

          That’s because the Earth has been warming.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”If you want to discuss real science, leave the media out of it”.

            I have been trying to discuss real science with you but you go into denial the moment I present the facts to you.

            I have quoted several times to you from the IPCC where they state clearly there was a warming hiatus between 1998 and 2012. You dig out another quote in which the reference to warming hiatus has been deleted, but with the same trend and error margin, yet you claim the IPCC did not claim a hiatus.

            I gave you the page number and a link to a direct IPCC quote on their official site, yet you still deny it.

            You simply don’t want to digest anything that contradicts your catastrophic warming dogma. The IPCC claimed there was a warming hiatus 1998 – 2012 and the accompanying trend is not significant while the error margins indicate it could have been an insignificant warming or cooling.

          • I wonder at your resorting to the “hiatus” at this point, since it does not seem to pertain to anything in the foregoing exchange. However, if you are going to use the word “hiatus” and quote the IPCC as support, then you need to clearly show that you are using the same meaning and not merely the same spelling, otherwise you produce what is known as a “fallacy of equivocation”. The IPCC text quite clearly states that this “hiatus” features a reduced warming trend relative to the longer-term trend, NOT a pause in warming.

            Quote follows. The blog won’t accept the link.

          • Hmm. Blog won’t even accept the quote. Alright, my ten shots per day will be used up soon just by trying to post a quote from the report. It’s Box 9.2 in the WG1 AR5 report. First link when you Googol for “ipcc hiatus”.

          • Lewis says:


            I find that quotes from other places will work better if you first place them in a word program, clean them up, then recopy from there.

            Happy New Year

          • barry says:

            Gordon – you posted a link to a draft, not the published report. Kristian, however, posted a link to the published Technical Summary which mentions a hiatus in relation to the period. I acknowledged on that thread and apologised to you.


            The IPCC pointed out in the same paragraph in the Technical Summary that these trends are statistically non-significant and do not reflect the underlying trends.

            To clear up another point you made – I’ve been using the term ‘global climate trend’ to indicate a trend in surface temperatures. You are using the same metric here when you discuss a ‘pause’.

            20,000 years ago the planet was an average of 5C cooler, there were great ice sheets over Northern Europe and America, and sea level was 100 meters lower. If you don’t think this is a different global climate we’ll just have to disagree.

  60. barry says:

    Happy New Year!

  61. Erik Aamot says:

    It’s all cool to yap about tax ‘breaks’ or depletion allowances or supposed ‘subsities’ until you realise that all taxes and costs to (oil) company are paid by the end consumer .. in other words .. if taxes and costs are higher .. everyone’s fuel costs go up .. this BTW .. hurts poor people the most

  62. What country is this in? The pistes around here are completely free of snow and the Arctic has been registering record warmth. We don’t all live in the provinces, you know.

    • ren says:

      But you have a excellent high pressure ..

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Elliott Bignell…”The pistes around here are completely free of snow and the Arctic has been registering record warmth”.

      What planet are you on? The North Pole vicinity of the Arctic had one day of temperatures around 0C while other parts of the Arctic like Siberia, Alaska and Greenland had temperatures at -40 C.

      Here on the south west coast of Canada, in the Vancouver region, we have just suffered through the coldest December on record. The cold air came from the same Arctic you claim is experiencing record warming.

      • Elliott Bignell says:

        That’s partly why it’s experienced record warming.

        • Bryan says:

          Elliott Bignell

          You are saying that record cold temperatures prove CO2 induced global warming but also that record warm temperatures prove CO2 induced global warming.

          Could you give me any temperature conditions that you believe would falsify the CO2 global warming theory?

          • “You are saying that record cold temperatures prove CO2 induced global warming”

            No, Bryan. I am not.

            The POLE has experienced record warming partly because the weakened polar vortex is allowing cold air from the Pole to spill out over Northern the continental landmasses, I didn’t say anything about “CO2” or “global” at all.

            Obviously a sustained trend-rate in total global heat energy not showing an increase and sustained over 30 years would falsify global warming. This follows by definition, so I am surprised you have to ask. And it’s not a “theory”. It is a prediction based on existing bodies of theory dating back to Tyndall and Arrhenius in the 19th century. The applicable theories include thermodynamics and radiative heat transfer.

            It’s also a fact, by the way.

          • Bryan says:

            Elliott Bignell you say

            “Obviously a sustained trend-rate in total global heat energy not showing an increase and sustained over 30 years would falsify global warming.”

            Thats reassuring, because I have asked the same question of other CO2 induced heating advocates who said 300 years of such cooling would not shake their faith in the theory.

            Since 1600AD we have been experiencing a gradual natural increase in global temperatures.
            Large scale use of fossil fuels did not occur until around 1880AD.
            Several significant cooling and warming periods are superimposed on this gradual rise.
            So a more reasonable approach would be to find out if the general temperature rise is accelerating
            Indeed in the last 20 years or so there has shown hardly any increase at all.
            Even CO2 induced heating advocates are describing this as a hiatus.
            This is why some of us are rather sceptical about CO2 induced heating having anything of signifiance to contribute to our climate

  63. ren says:

    The problem for North America is such that the polar vortex has tended to move in the direction of Europe.,85.32,393

  64. Bindidon says:

    It is a bit strange to see climate specialist Roy Spencer writing about weather…

    Unfortunately, on uah’s climate page, the november revision of the spheric chart did not appear yet.

    If it was there, we all could see the big warmth blob over Northern America!

  65. Gordon Robertson says:

    Bindidon …”It is a bit strange to see climate specialist Roy Spencer writing about weather”

    Roy has a degree in meteorology, meaning he is an expert on weather. Dr. John Christy also of UAH, has a degree in climate science. Most climate alarmists have neither.

    The current leader of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician and a climate modeler. His partner at realclimate, the Mother of All Alarmist sites, Michael Mann, is a geologist. The resident science expert at realclimate, Raymond Pierrehumbert, has a degree in Aeronautic and Astronautics from MIT and an undergrad degree in Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics from Cambridge.

    None of them are schooled in-depth in meteorology or climate science. The people with degrees in weather and climate like Roy and John are urging caution and skepticism of catastrophic climate change. The others, using models programmed with presumptions from physics, which lack fact, are predicting catastrophe.

    With regard to the ‘big warmth’ over North America, the Vancouver region on the west coast of Canada has just endured its coldest December in history. The cold continues into the New Year.

  66. Norman says:

    Some on this thread were enthralled by the “fake news” about the North Pole temperature.

    I am looking at the buoys that measure temperatures around the North Pole and the temperature plot shows significant variability in temperatures in the winter is quite normal. I am sad that Scientific American has become such a political magazine. I still subscribe but will probably let it go. It seems a most unscientific publication.

    Lint to temperature graph from this overall webpage

    Hope the alarmist David Appell takes a moment to view the material. I am still hoping a scientist will emerge in his mind and he can get back to reality.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “Hope the alarmist David Appell takes a moment to view the material. I am still hoping a scientist will emerge in his mind and he can get back to reality”.

      I’m not holding my breath on that with Appell. He is stuck in a delusion that he is giving those who disagree with him a bloody nose. I am forming an image of him as a legend in his own mind who trolls blogs like this delivering his message of religious-based environmentalism while trying to disrupt those interested in science.

      That kind of obstruction of science seems to prevail in the minds of alarmists who use any method other than science to oppose those skeptical of their propaganda.

      • Lewis says:


        This is exactly my opinion. I enjoy coming here and reading about climate, weather and the occasional other subjects. Some of it I understand, some goes way over my head. But when someone, such as David, proselytizes for a emotional point of view to dominate, I take issue.

        Best wishes,

        Lewis Guignard

    • Massimo PORZIO says:

      Hi Norman,
      I find very interesting the first graph that you linked above.

      IMHO it looks like WV really drives the air temperature, during the dark winter the air falls well below the surface temperature, while during the sunny summer the air temperature is practically at the very same surface temperature.
      The few thermal inversions during winter look well correlated to pressure drops, highlighting that clouds should be the real cause of the inversions.
      And more, during summer the higher average humidity seems to reduce the effect of clouds avoiding high temperature inversions.

      Happy 2017 to everyone,
      have great days.


      • Norman says:

        Massimo PORZIO

        I was doing some research on your point and this is what I was able to find.

        Seems winter low cloud formation may be the cause of a warmer Arctic and less summer sea ice.

        One thing interesting in the link is how much higher NCAR reanalysis Arctic temperature deviates from actual Buoy measured temperatures after around the year 2000.

        Have a Happy and productive New Year as well!

  67. Gordon Robertson says:

    Predicting La Ninas is not an exact science and given a co-relation between LN and the PDO, there is obviously something afoot in the Pacific Northwest of North America where record low temps in December have been recorded.

    Given a further co-relation between ENSO, the PDO, the AO, and the AMO, as presented in a paper by Tsonis et al, we could be in for a cooling trend not foreseen.

    • ren says:

      This is not about the weather, but about the climate. For several years now there is a clear shift of the polar vortex in the direction of Europe and it is a clear trend.
      The air from Siberia over Alaska enters into the North America. Air can not warm up over the Pacific.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ren…”This is not about the weather, but about the climate”.

        I would say ENSO and the phase of the PDO disrupt climates globally far more than does the pitifully small amount of CO2 we emit. The AO and AMO are likely responsible for Arctic ice extent.

    • barry says:

      we could be in for a cooling trend not foreseen.

      As you’ve remarked upthread you don’t believe in a global change of climate, so to what are you referring, Gordon?

  68. ossqss says:

    Oh boy, really glad I decided to read some of the bazillion comments, not!

    I really liked the one on how well the current POTUS has done. We have better race relations, economy, security, international standing, global peace and, well not really any of those or any other things I can think of that are better now than 8 years ago. Oh wait, Healthcare is better, no?

    No, it’s not either…..

    So maybe David can tell us what is actually better now that 8 years ago? Maybe me paying for his healthcare? No, no it must be CO2 LEVELS?

    Onward with the countdown to Making America Great Again! 17 days and counting……

    • David Appell says:

      Do you get your health insurance via an employer?

      Then you’re getting a huge tax break of several thousand dollars. I”m paying for that.

      Deduct mortgage interest? Another huge cost I’m paying for.

      Stock market increase under Obama: +$15.4 trillion.

      Uninsured: down by almost 30 million.

  69. Henk van der Wilt says:

    Maybe a bit off topic, but here goes:

    If the global temperatures were at a record all time high and more so in the Arctic. The sea ice extent was at a second record all time low, why is ice growth still happening at a rate that is higher than the 1981-2010 average. Something does not add up. If the arctic was so much warmer according to the graph – for Nov-Dec – yet when I look at the same time period and see that at the start of November there was only 7.103 million sq km compared to the average of 9.641 million sq km, I can clearly see that it was 2.538 million sq km below normal. However at the Dec 30 mark the average had grown to 13.525 million sq km and in 2016 it had grown to 12.403 million sq km. This is now only 1.122 million sq km behind the average.

    How is it possible that we have so much higher temperatures for that period yet the sea ice extent managed to grow an astounding 1.416 million sq km more than it normally would.

    Lets take an example most people logically get.
    If I am in a race to catch up to someone, I will have to extend more energy compared to my opponent to catch up. I must run, bike, swim, skate or whatever it is I am racing in faster compared to my opponent.

    Back to the ice:

    For more sea ice to form (and the data has shown this to have happened), I would have to release more heat from the ocean into the atmosphere and cool the water to the point ice forms. It must be colder over a larger area to release more energy for more ice to form. Therefor to claim that Nov-Dec of 2016 was so much warmer in the arctic compared to the 1981-2010 average or normal is absurd and not correct.

    Am I wrong in this???

    The image I made by combining two images to compare the data. I posted this on my FB page, and this allowed me to link it here.

    • Nate says:


      You dont understand something happening in nature, so you’re assumption is that someone producing the data is lying (as u say on FB)? I think that is a strange response.

      In any case, you are looking at rate of change and saying it is very high, but compared to what? The average rate of growth?

      Consider the average snow coverage in US during month of December. Im sure that would it would be a slowly and smoothly increasing curve.

      But in a given year snow coverage could jump drastically in one week due to storm systems passing across the country. That’s weather.

      Or consider ice thickness on Lake Michigan-a week or two of very cold weather and suddenly its thick enough to walk on.

      • Henk van der Wilt says:


        Thanks for the feedback. Yet when you graph the ice extent and use an average rate of change for a period of 30 years and use that as your baseline, you are indicating that based on the 30 years the temperatures lead to ice growth leading to a certain amount of ice extent increase.

        Now I am showing you that 2016 had a higher rate of increase of ice extent during this period compared to that baseline. That is what these graphs on arctic sea ice extent are all about. They compare year after year this increase in ice extent to these other years.

        Now based on this difference for 2016 compared to the 1981-2010 baseline, would you not agree that it would require more heat release into the atmosphere, therefor making it colder over a larger area? If in 2016 more ice formed during the same time period compared to what the baseline says is normal to form, it must be colder than normal – colder compared to that baseline.

        Lets for instance take that Christmas 2016 warm spell in the arctic, that slowed ice extent increase, even showed it to decrease a bit. The main stream media is making you believe the arctic is melting, however temperatures never went over the zero degree Celsius mark and so it never was melting. At -10 to -15 degrees is was still forming ice, but at a slower pace. Ice shelves were compacted by the huge winds and waves and this resulted in the ice extent decrease.

        In 1983 when ice extent was well beyond the 1981-2010 baseline there was a similar line curve in the graph for that time period. So probably there was a storm of similar proportions in the arctic that had similar temperature changes and ice compacting. In those days no one ever mentioned the ice was melting, because just like in 2016 the ice was not melting.

        Now whether or not the temperature graph is used for a smaller area around the pole >80 degrees N, they are using it to make the people see how much warmer the area was compared to this same 1981-2010 baseline. But we all know logically that 12.505 million sq km of ice goes well beyond this small area around the pole, but do we realize that when we see the graph? The average Joe on the street will not.

        So are they lying? In way they are, because arctic sea ice extent is measured all the way passed the >80 degrees N area, so why then not show all the temperatures in the graph for the entire arctic region considered for arctic sea ice extent, but they didn’t did they?

        And for the entire region the temperature graph would probably show below average temperatures in order to show the increased rate of ice extent compared to the 1981-2010 baseline. Like you said some areas of the arctic may have seen some temperatures above average for specific times, and other areas well below, but overall it should have been showing below in order to have a higher rate of ice growth in the fall/winter of the 2016 year.

        • Nate says:

          Henk. Ok. The temp graph for > 80 is used primarily for science to estimate temp where few measurements are made. If some news outlets are misunderstanding it well not to surprising. But i think in general the arctic has been warm and sea ice (measured by several groups) has been lower than prev nov-dec.

          Ocean currents, winds, snow fall play a role inn addition to temp, I believe.

        • David Appell says:

          Currently Arctic sea ice extent is the lowest in the satellite record.
          So is Antarctic sea ice extent.

    • Nate says:

      And BTW, the temperature graph you are showing is for > 80 degrees N, a small area around the pole. Arctic ice can extend well below 80 N.

  70. barry says:

    Henk, the temps you are showing is for the region North of 80 latitude. It is still mostly sea ice covered throughout the year – which is why air temps for that region don’t stray much higher than 0C even at peak – the sea ice keeps near-surface air temps at around the freezing point of water.

    The high temps you are showing Nov-Dec are well below freezing. Of course sea ice will form at those temps.

    But your temp graph is not really covering the latitudes where sea ice is growing.

    Arctic sea ice grows from the centre outward. The reason that strong minima are often, but not always, followed by strong regrowth is geometric – the relationship of the sun to the hemisphere is the pacemaker for melt and growth seasons. That pacemaker is (relatively) constant, so if melt contracts the sea ice cover nearer the pole than usual, it regrows more quickly (usually) because the sunlight wanes at the regular time, and the sea ice grows more quickly with the setting sun because there was more area TO grow when the sun started it’s long setting into Arctic Winter.

    Local effects are also important. The news reports you’ve been hearing are about temperatures “20C above normal” – but if normal for a particular region is -25C, you still have below freezing conditions. Still, in many parts of the Arctic Air temps have been above freezing. Sea ice forms when the sea is cold enough.

    We’ve had the lowest sea ice coverage in the Arctic for the time of year in November and December. It has remained the lowest almost continually throughout the last 8 weeks, despite being a speedy regrowth season. It hadn’t grown fast enough over that period to catch up with the setting sun as soon as previous years (I think Arctic sea ice ‘caught up’ with previous years in the last few days).

    Rather than being surprising, the terrestrial/solar geometry over the Arctic means that we should expect record-breaking minima to be followed by faster/est regrowth.

    • Nate says:

      Henk, i think Barry’s explanation rings true.
      Another thought is that any compaction by temporary wind/current patterns (as you mentioned) will be reversed with a change in winds, so ice extent could appear to spring back. These wiggles are added to overall seasonal trend producing slower followed by faster regrowth.

      • Henk says:

        Thanks for the info guys.

        Based on the record temperatures coming from the El Nino in 2015-2016, and the knowledge that now with La Nina in full motion I think we have seen the worst of severe arctic weather(La Nina does tend to move a lot of heat toward the poles)One reason why those record global temperatures are dropping so quickly now. The heat has been moved to the poles, resulting in massive ice loss, while cooling down the planet. Recall the August Arctic Cyclone and its damage to sea ice extent, and the repeating storms in November and again in Late in December.

        The 2016 fall/winter season saw more than it’s normal share of arctic cyclones. These cyclones with associated warm water and air temperatures affected the rate at which the ice grew. Is that an anomaly? Or is this climate change? If we saw this for several years in a row, perhaps it is climate change. However, I think that after the 2017 arctic melt season that the fall/winter of 2017 will see a lot less storms and see a more normal ice growth pattern. With El Nino conditions not expected to be around for a while, we will have to see what mother nature will do with global temperatures and global sea ice extent at both poles.

  71. Lou Maytrees says:

    So Joe Bastardi and Dr Spencer are clueless about what constitutes a hard freeze in Central Florida? Forecast for Sat – Sun is a low of 31* Gainesville to 43* Frostproof Fla, all inland central Florida N-S. A weatherman who does not know what a hard freeze is. Shameful.

  72. Lisa says:

    So glad someone knows their history. 👍👍👍

  73. Mike McD says:

    Actually all 50 states will record temps below 32. The temps at the peak of Mauna Loa often dip below freezing.

  74. john gabriel says:

    If the Japanese bombed pearl harbor for the US depriving them of oil, what did china deprive them of? face the facts. A totalitarian will use any excuse. Human history is a good record. The romans found a way to get what they wanted and they took it. Grow up people. there will always be a person or system or group of people that wants to control other people and resources. Every generation will have to deal with this reality. If you don’t address it up front you will pay for it later. Evil must be confronted and stopped every time it makes itself present. History of the human race is loaded with those who do confront it early or ignore it and have to deal with the results. People will die in any event.

    Get up and engage!!!!!!!

  75. RickS says:


    The Science is “settled” !

    Because “Science” is a one-way street, ALL SCIENCE IS SETTLED !

    Now shut down Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Nuclear, Meteorology, Climatology, Geology, etc, etc, etc…

    And just think of all the $,$$$,$$$.00 We’ll save, and We can put that money into Sexual Identity/Identification since there’s no such thing as Male & Female anymore ?

    Perfect !

    And when you think about it, San Francisco “should” run the World since everyone knows that San Francisco has the “greatest” Intellectual minds on the Planet, and every City on Planet Earth “should” be safe Cities because it is the “fault” of every Human Being that “some” Human Beings rape and murder so they (Murderers and Rapists) “should” go “free” because “actually” it’s “all” our fault ? ! ?

    Perfect x 2 !!

    What a “Fantastic” Society “We”-All could form ! ? !

    Perfect x 3 !!!

    Sincerely yours,

    “Ex”President Barack Insane Obama

  76. Taylor says:

    God controls the weather end of discussion thank you

  77. Hey This blog is beneficial for us. this is nice and beneficial for us.

Leave a Reply