Cold to be Followed by Southern Snowstorm

January 2nd, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The coast-to-coast cold that will be spreading across the U.S this week will be be accompanied by the development of a Gulf Coast low pressure center that will threaten the South and Southeast with substantial snowfall by the weekend.

The low is just now approaching N. California and will intensify as it travels across the Inter-mountain region, the Texas panhandle, then travel eastward along the Gulf coast by the weekend.

The latest GFS model forecast total snowfall by midday Sunday shows the possibility of 6-12 inch snowfalls across portions of about ten southern states, including Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia (graphic courtesy of

Total snowfall accumulation by midday Sunday, Jan. 8, 2017 as forecast by the NWS GFS forecast model.

It’s still too early to tell what areas will get the greatest snowfall, which in the current forecast approaches two feet in the higher elevations of North Carolina. It’s also possible that a wintry mix including freezing rain will exist along the southern edge of the frozen precipitation region.

As of Tuesday morning (Jan. 3, 2017), the snow path looks like it will be farther south than depicted above, with lesser snow totals: 6-12 inches only over eastern N. Carolina, and up to 3 to 6 inches elsewhere.

102 Responses to “Cold to be Followed by Southern Snowstorm”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Snowready says:

    I love the snow…let it snow let it snow let it snow. However the climate reanalyzer anomaly for Jan 2 2017 is +,69c ….boo on that…..

  2. jimc says:

    This weeks forecast for SE Arizona is intolerable as well low 60s and partly cloudy. Only relief is Wed and Thur which are mostly sunny.

    • Mark Luhman says:


      Yes it cold for Arizona, but where I came from my son is going get -15 tonight, he lives in Alexander North Dakota, Glad I left Watford City North Dakota for good in 2007. Oh by the way Christmas eve in that area in the early eighties was balmy -50, I lived I Ray North Dakota to see that. In the early nineties, I moved back to eastern North Dakota to see 117 inches of snow in Fargo in the 96-97 winter and try to explain to someone in Arizona that the high for the day in Fargo that winter was going to be a balmy -22. I think the sixties this next week should be great, my siblings and children are not going to see those temperates for about three months.

    • Tom says:

      I lived in Sierra Vista from 1967 to 1970 when I went off to college. The weather was always fine except for an occasional pacific front that came over the Huachuca mountains with rain, low clouds and once in a blue moon SNOW!

  3. Tim Wells says:

    We are being told to expect a similar winter to 2010 in the UK, that was the coldest winter since the early 1960’s.

  4. RW says:

    Gotta take any prediction beyond a day or two with a grain of salt.

  5. fonzarelli says:

    Dr. S., we’re all on the edge of our seats, now, waitng for this month’s update. Word’s out that we’re gonna see a signif drop. Care to give us a hint?

  6. ren says:

    If someone does not remember I remind that solar activity is minimal. This shows an increase of galactic radiation.

  7. Crakar24 says:

    Soooooo, 400ppm worth of the trace gas co2 has far more impact on earths climate than that spherical fusion reactor.

    DA believes co2 floats in the air like a blanket trapping heat, a simply theory for the simple minded the solar influences are to complex for them which is why gore in his infotainment film described it as complicated and so resorted to cartoons.

    The cartoon explanation was supplied for people like DA.

    • David Appell says:

      Crakar, can the insults — they display diffidence.

      Why not enlighten us as to what the problems are for basic greenhouse theory?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Why not enlighten us as to what the problems are for basic greenhouse theory?”

        It’s a metaphor for a real greenhouse and it is nothing like a real greenhouse. The glass in a real greenhouse can trap atoms of air which are 99%+ nitrogen and oxygen. Heat must be associated with atoms of air in the atmosphere since it represent their kinetic energy.

        There is NOTHING in the atmosphere to trap atoms of air (as molecules).

        • David Appell says:

          Yes, it’s a metaphor. And everyone knows it’s a metaphor. (But, it’s a decent metaphor as metaphors go.) It’s not going to change. Case closed.

          • Mark M says:

            A decent metaphor?

            Is there an example of a greenhouse with its own ocean to hide it’s missing heat in?

          • Mark Luhman says:

            The question never answered is what the climate sensitivity is for each doubling of CO2, is it 5c, 4C, 3c, 2c, 1c or .5c, if it the top three it might be a problem, if it the bottom three C)2 is a moot point, what is it, David? As long as that question is unanswered again the whole debate is moot! Billions have been spent and we still don’t have the answer. I guessing the AGW crowd knows the answer and it somewhere in the bottom three and they are unwilling to admit it.

          • Slipstick says:

            Mark M, it’s a metaphor not an analogy.

          • Slipstick says:

            Mark Luhman,
            So we should wait to find out and then spend trillions on mitigation from the effects?

          • alphagruis says:

            So we should wait to find out and then spend trillions on mitigation from the effects?blockquote

            It might very well be a better idea than spend that much money to massively implement intermittent renewables. They can’t really do the job and there is (at least not yet) any real alternative to fossil fuels with a world population as large as 7.4 billions that might curb enough global CO2 emissions to have any sizable effect on climate.

            Anyway, no human being is most likely able to seriously “control climate”. Since humans exist they allways adapted to climate change not the the other way around.

            it is thus highly unlikely to succeed be it just because poor people won’t accept to suffer even more right now in order to “save the planet” in future so that rich people won’t have their properties flooded in Miami or their kids suffocating in the smog of persistent anticyclones linked to polar amplification.

          • David Appell says:

            Mark, do you know that a magnetic “field” doesn’t really mean a piece of property on a farm that grows magnetic crops?

            It’s a metaphor.

          • David Appell says:

            Mark, are you kidding? This is THE question in climate science. The IPCC puts it between 1.5 and 4.5 C. Uncertainties, model limitations, and more make it currently unable to pin it down further. It may, actually, *never* be able for models to narrow the range further.

  8. Nate says:


    I think it would be nice to have an comprehensive alternative solar based theory that when modeled, predicts global temperatures, so we can compare to the actual record like we do for AGW based models.

    But AFIK we dont have one. So we cant.

    • Crakar24 says:

      Dr David Evans has one, he makes predictions based on this model for the next year (2017/2018) so will be tested as of now not in 100 years as per the models DA prefers

    • David Appell says:

      Nate, there is no such solar-based model that explains modern warming because the sun doesn’t explain it!

      For one, the climate isn’t very sensitive to changes in solar intensity (<~ 0.1 K/W/m2) and because the sun hasn't warmed.

      In fact, since the '60s the sun has been in a slow cooling trend.

      • Rick Spung says:

        David, what is your opinion of the back adjustments to the US temperature record being done by the NOAA?

        This seems to be pretty powerful evidence:

        • David Appell says:

          Rick, the adjustments are a result of correcting for biases in the raw data. This article explains it better than any I’ve read:

          “Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, 1/21/16

          • Rick Spung says:

            The problem with the adjustments is they are all massively skewed in one direction. Historical readings go way down, current readings go way up.

            This indicates that most of the reasons cited in that article cannot be the cause of the adjustments, because all the measuring station movements, time of day adjustments, etc. are all in the same direction.

            This cannot be the result of mere co-incidence.

          • David Appell says:

            Rick, the Scott Johnson article I referenced explains why the adjustments are usually upward.

            BTW, the adjustments REDUCE the long-term warming trend.

          • Rick Spung says:

            The image I linked to clearly shows the adjustments dramatically lowering historical US temperatures and increasing current US temperatures.

          • David Appell says:

            Rick: see Figure 2 in Karl et al Science (2015).

            Your graph is apparently from “Steve Goddard.” Enough said.

      • David,

        Even if the difference insolar radiation is very low, there are lots of other influences from the sun, like solar magnetism, invisible radiation, x-rays, solarwind, etc.

        It seems there is a loose connection between sunspot number and earth temperature, with a lag of some years, like connected with a rubber string.

        CO2 is just one thing which influences earth temperatures, there are other gasses as well having different functions in various heights. And then there are mighty oceans cycles, el Ninos, clouds, etc.

        CO2 plays an important role in global heat control, but there are other factors which are regulating the earths temperature, which can override CO2.

        • David Appell says:

          Johannes, of course there are other influenes, though what evidence is there that all the other solar effects you listed are changing our climate?

          Over decades, our CO2 emissions are the primary driving force of modern warming.

  9. AaronS says:

    The global temp is about to cool down because La Nina, just like the tropical ocean warming diring El Nino warmed the global data after a lag. It is a natural climate couplet and not relevent to the global warming debate. Unfortunately, the AGW “believers” sold it as part of 2016 global warming, so now they will be in a tough spot as Temperatures drop for the next 6 months or whatever. End of 2017 there will be some indication if the climate hiatus continues, and until then this is just noise in the system. I did find it odd NOAA was saying low chance for la nina based on models until October 16 when the event was active. They seem biased and low credibility to me.

  10. JB says:

    I live in the Lowcountry of South Carolina between Charleston and Savannah and today broke an all time record for the month of January with a high of 80 degrees. Tomorrow is expected to be equally warm and may beat that, but rain is forcast. I could believe it though witht he way the weather has been lately.

  11. Mandingo says:

    I’d escaped Detroit in 2003… expat assignent in Sweden then 5 years in Seattle and finally settled in Charleston. The wife asks me why I still have our old snow shovel in the garage… THIS is why. Already moved my potted fruit trees into the garage, on heated germination pads.

    Bring It!

    • Bubbalama says:

      Here on Johns Island (Charleston portion) I think we will escape the coldest regional temps. That said, the frost blankets are ready for the rooted oranges and lemons. I plan on filming the white bread stampede once wintergeddon creeps closer. Hope we have a mass kill of sand flea larvae and mosquitoes!

  12. Bill says:

    That darn global warming…climate change now actually I think it’s called — yep it’s winter!

  13. BulSprig says:

    Obumbling Idiot fired scientists who disagreed with his idea of Climate change. A not too bright Lawyer, dictating how Science should work.

    • David Appell says:

      Who did Obama fire?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Who did Obama fire”?

        Dr. Noelle Metting

        “During an October 2014 briefing with senior DoE staff on the matter, lawmakers heard testimony from Dr. Noelle Metting, the radiation research programs manager.

        Less than a month later, lawmakers discovered that Obama administration officials had removed Dr. Metting from federal service for allegedly providing too much information in response to questions posed by Congress during the briefing, the report states”.

        “The investigation concluded that DoE placed its own priorities to further the presidents Climate Action Plan before its constitutional obligations to be candid with Congress, the report states”.

        Obamagate has just begun. Stay tuned.

        • Bubbalama says:

          56 of the 57 states are heading for killer monster freeze! This has to be Trump messing with the jet stream.

        • Slipstick says:

          This bit of fake news comes appears once again. Go read the article you posted, find the link to the “report” cited in the article, and then read the report. If you do, you will find that this incident was misconduct within the DoE involving scientists in a “Low Dose Radiation Research” project, most related to Homeland Security, did not involve the White House, and had absolutely nothing to do with climate change. As I said in a previous post when someone posted a link to this article, apparently the “Washington Free Beacon” radiates falsehoods.

          • Slipstick says:

            After rereading the report cited, I see that the committee contended that the misconduct was in management decisions at the DoE in an attempt to prioritize projects related the Obama administration climate action plan, so I hearby withdraw the phrasing “absolutely nothing to do with climate change” and my remark about the Free Beacon. However, the scientist in question was not involved climate research nor was the White House involved in the misconduct.

        • John Hultquist says:

          Noelle Metting got a lawyer and was promptly reinstated.

          But they did try.

        • David Appell says:

          Metting is a radiation biologist, not a climate scientist. Her firing had nothing to do with climate science or climate change.

      • Slipstick says:

        And yet again…sheesh

        This bit of fake news comes appears once again. Go read the article you posted, find the link to the report cited in the article, and then read the report. If you do, you will find that this incident was misconduct within the DoE involving scientists in a Low Dose Radiation Research project, most related to Homeland Security, did not involve the White House, and had absolutely nothing to do with climate change. As I said in a previous post when someone posted a link to this article, apparently the Washington Free Beacon radiates falsehoods.

    • Patriot says:

      No longer lawyer. He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.

      Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!

      Refer to which,in turn, links to other websites supporting the foregoing statements.

      • Slipstick says:

        Can we please forgo the irrelevant politics, especially recycled nonsense from nearly a decade ago, and post things at least tangentially related to climate change. If you cannot control your urges, at least do some fact-checking first:

        • acetruther says:

          Anyone that uses snopes could get the same “truth” from or beavis and butthead

          • Joe Braindead says:

            You are all idiots living in the past! If even one of you had a clue, you would have noticed that this “real” news article predicts the snow on the 8th of January LAST year! I have real problems believing an imbecile that does not even know what year it is. This also says little for the rest of you making stupid revelations on other subjects about which you are just as uninformed and clueless; if you can’t even detect a year’s difference, how can anyone really think that there are no other errors in this junk of an article?

        • Slipstick says:

          Mr. Braindead,
          So much rant over a typo. Those of us with a clue realize that it is most likely the “new year typo”, since Jan 8, 2016 cannot be a Sunday.

        • Patriot says:

          Your comment is not about climate change, i.e., the pot calling the kettle black.

          • Slipstick says:

            Actually, my comment is a response to a comment about the article regarding snowfall, and is, thus, tangentially related to climate.

        • Patriot says:

          OK, you only want posts related to climate change, fair enough. However, this is an essay I wrote on the topic.

        • Patriot says:

          Regarding your latest comment/criticism, which read,

          Actually, my comment is a response to a comment about the article regarding snowfall, and is, thus, tangentially related to climate.”

          My my first reply to you was about another person’s comment about Obama’s erroneously being called a lawyer with no expertise in climate. Thus, my comment was much closer to climate change than yours. Oh, well, there they go again.

      • David Appell says:

        False (about Michelle Obama’s law license). She still holds it.

  14. ga steve says:

    The Russian are behind this.

  15. Ken says:

    It looks like the higher elevations in NC will get less snowfall, about a foot. It appears to dump in the Piedmont region.

  16. Tom Dockery says:

    “What’s snow,Fiddler?”

  17. Avyateher says:

    What explains the studies showing all the planets warming?

    • acetruther says:

      err.errr..ahh.. Oh I got it!! The Earth is producing so much co2 and pollution it’s floating up and polluting other planets.. and the extra heat is warming them up.. that is.. the heat that isn’t hiding in the bottom of the ocean waiting to pounce…

    • Slipstick says:

      Please cite the studies to which you are referring. I have yet to see any real evidence for that claim, just conjecture based on a few scattered data points.

  18. Gordon Robertson says:

    The Artic air just passed us here in Vancouver, Canada leaving a dumps of snow, and left the side streets looking like ice rinks. Some people are out skating on them.

    Coldest December in the history of this area and January is starting with a week of the same. We have been socked in with Arctic air almost non-stop since the beginning of December. Unheard of in this banana belt rain forest.

  19. Crakar24 says:

    To David Appell, as explained a greenhouse does not represent the atmosphere one traps heat the other does not does anything more need to be said.

    What is interesting is many northern commentators are saying a big freeze is here for us southerners it has also been cool. The barossa valley vintage HSS been delayed by a month at least due to a very cool spring and summer Is yet to arrive, the planet is cooling obviously.

    But why? Co2 is increasing so is this another case of the oceans ate my warming?

    • Slipstick says:

      The temperature in your area, or even continent, cannot be extrapolated to the global temperature. Australia, for example, is just 1.5% of the Earth’s surface. One of my favorite examples of this is the year 1934. In the U.S. (1.9% of the Earth’s surface, by the way), it is in the top 5 hottest years, globally it ranks around 50th.

    • David Appell says:

      Crakar24 says:
      “To David Appell, as explained a greenhouse does not represent the atmosphere one traps heat the other does not does…”

      No they both trap heat here is the evidence see both the chart and the text:

  20. Ken Wells says:

    Tim Wells, greetings from the Wells of Michigan!

  21. Jack P says:

    Bring it on! From Athens, Georgia.

  22. Mike Maher says:

    Is Betty’s Bar still open in Alexander? I worked near Alexander during the first boom in the early 80’s.

  23. Robert Sargent says:

    Last night (Mon) in Atl we had lightning for about 20 minutes and we have a old saying,, If there is lightning in the winter, snow in a week. It has done that just about every time since I learned that.

  24. ren says:

    A long-duration blast of arctic air will create dangerous conditions across eastern Europe into early next week.
    Some locations will have the lowest temperatures in several years, while others contend with bitter cold for almost a week straight.
    Locations from the Baltic states and Belarus southward to Italy and Greece will be impacted by the dangerous arctic air.

  25. Meaghan says:

    Me, too!! 🙂

  26. Debbie Hutter says:


  27. David L. Hagen says:

    10-15 feet of snow to bury California; wintry weather also targets South

    Ryan Maue ✔ @RyanMaue
    Enormous snow totals still modeled: 10-15+feet from warm, very moist series of Atmospheric Rivers down-spouting over Sierra
    Next 10-days:
    3:21 PM – 4 Jan 2017

  28. ren says:

    “People in the cities of Atlanta and Augusta, Georgia; Columbia and Greenville, South Carolina; Charlotte, Fayetteville and Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and Richmond, Virginia, should be prepared for snow-covered and icy roads during Friday night and into Saturday. An accumulation ranging from 1 to 6 inches will occur along the Interstate 85 and I-77 corridors.”

  29. ren says:

    Intellicast Video Portal Home Video Portal
    Over 2 Feet of Lake Effect Snow Expected in Some Places

    Lake effect snow will be a major issue for the Great Lakes through Friday.

  30. Tim Wells says:

    Roy a Blog on the AMO index would be interesting, if you could explain the effect on us and its current trend. I think this is the most important thing we should be keeping our eye on. My big concern is the lack of planning for a cooler world and reduced crop production. Regards Tim

Leave a Reply