U.S. Average Temperature Plummets to 11 deg. F

January 1st, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

This morning at 7 a.m. EST, the area average temperature across the contiguous 48 states was a frigid 11 deg. F.

Here’s the high-resolution surface temperature analysis from NCEP, graphic courtesy of Weatherbell.com:

Surface temperature analysis at 7 a.m. EST January 1, 2018.

Over 85% of the nation is below freezing, and nearly 1/3 is below 0 deg. F. The forecast is for cold air to continue to flow down out of Canada into the central and eastern U.S. for most of the coming week.

259 Responses to “U.S. Average Temperature Plummets to 11 deg. F”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. CAOYUFEI says:

    Thank you for doctor roy spencer

    • James Fleming, Jr says:

      All these Climate changers should be forced to walk around in shorts for a week outside in Chicago.

      • Richard T says:

        Dude, I resent that. I’m not a climate change sheep. Never was.But, I’ve been walking around in shorts in the winter forever. I’m in northeast.

        • Ed says:

          OK snowflake. You have won the “I’m the first to be offended” contest.

        • Mauricio Barahona says:

          This is a dialogue of the deaf. Let’s agree on something please.
          The theories of climate change and global warming have an anthropogenic origin … theories of course.

  2. Bruce says:

    Happy New Year Dr. Spencer and thanks for the work you do and provide to us. I check your site often and believe you to be honest in reporting. Your monthly temperature reporting is of great interest as I monitor in relation to a possible upcoming grand minimum. I also enjoy your sense of humor!
    Thanks again,

  3. Laurence says:

    Happy New Year and think you Dr Spencer for your inspiring and independent thinking.

  4. SAMURAI says:

    I read this is the lowest average January 1st 48-state US temp in 100 years.

    I cant wait to see the UAH December temp anomaly, which should be close to .1C.

    All the best in the New Year Dr. Spencer!

    • mikeR says:

      Is that for UAH USA or global? I think it might be even lower than that for the USA (after being +1.54 C in November) while it should be greater than 0.4 C for the globe. Just wait a day or two.

      The other thing to note is that the consensus here seems to be that 97 % of the earth’s surface is covered by the USA.

      Here is a link to the other 3 %.

      http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom .

      • SAMURAI says:


        I wasnt referring to UAH global lower troposphere anomaly.

        Were in a weak La Nia cycle, so I expect global temp anomalies to fall for the next six months or so, as there is about a 3~4 month lag between NIO 3.4 SSTs and global UAH TLTs.


    • Nate says:

      Globe in the top 5 for december, I predict.

    • mikeR says:


      RSS TLT v4 just came out for December 2017 and for USA it is +0.27 C.

      The is much warmer than the previous December which was -0.40 C.

      The 0.27 C value is also warmer than the December average of 0.06 C.

      It looks like the extreme cold for the last week or so of December for the East coast was balanced by a much warmer West coast for the entire month.

      It will be interesting to see whether the same holds for UAH when the data becomes available.

      And many cheers to you to.

      • mikeR says:

        Just an update. UAH come in with +0.76 C for USA49 December. This is the 7th warmest December on record. This emphasizes that a severe cold snap for a week in one part of the U.S. does not mean that much overall.

        The global figure (+0.41 C) was the second warmest on record.

        The long term increase in temperatures, inexorably grinds on.

  5. William Ripskull says:

    And 2018 has just been declared the warmest year on record.

    • G says:

      This is how you answer the “Mother Earth” lovers. Trying to refute propaganda with facts gives credibility to their premiss… In their eyes “humans are the problem”.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      william…”And 2018 has just been declared the warmest year on record”.

      If that info came from NOAA or NASA GISS, check the fine print for a confidence level. NOAA proclaimed 2014 as the warmest year ever based on a 48% confidence level. GISS has used CL’s in the 30 percentile range.

    • Ron says:

      How can 2018 be the warmest year on record when it is only the second day?

    • barry says:

      Learn to recognize sarcasm, guys.

  6. Covfefe says:

    Thank you for this most amusing list. I will pass it around to my friends. As a meteorologist trained in the late 70s (concentration in mesoscale atmospheric systems), I too find these terms distasteful and agree with you on all. I look forward to reading more of your information and posts. Happy New Year.

  7. JohnD says:

    OMG it was so cold this mourning in Boston the trolley repeatedly malfunctioned. Continued carnage is forecast for at least a week. Fortunately I am on a plane now headed to a warmer place.

  8. Henry says:

    Global Warming or Cooling has to do with energy coming from the sun. It has nothing to do with humans. The cycle is about 320 years. Data exists. Check out Martin Armstrong’s computer mondels.
    We are in a colling mode now which coinsides with increase in pandemics around the word and increase food prices.

  9. Dr. Mark H. Shapiro says:

    Of course, except for a part of North America the temperatures across the rest of the globe are above average.


    What does that tell us Dr. Denier?

    • Travvy says:

      Medieval Warming Period / Little Ice Age.

      What does that tell you, idiot?

    • AaronS says:

      I dont see your problem with this post. He made no connection to global climate patterns. For me, the evidence for N Hemisphere climate (30 yr average over 2 milenium) and solar activity and the emerging pattern of a major solar minimum make a post like this about a globally significant region (for agriculture and the economy) very interesting and fit well on a climate forum.

    • Tom D Perkins says:

      No, most of the northern hemisphere is below normal year over year, and the Southerner hemisphere just got over an unusually cold winter.

      This will no longer be in the official record once the warmists get done making bogus adjustments to the actual measurements.

    • ren says:

      Location stratospheric polar vortex that makes the air from the southwest, from the warm Atlantic on Europe reaches.

    • ren says:

      Now you can see how important is the warm Gulf Stream for the climate of Europe.

    • John Haverly says:

      You left out that the global temp has slightly declined for the last 17 years. Check out Piers Corbyn at http://www.weatheraction.com That guy has figured it out. People are finally listening to him because he nails his weather predictions every time. His process is repeatable and follows the scientific method and peer review. I am sure the global warming people aren’t happy with him though….lol

      • professorP says:

        I took a quick look.
        Why do I think of snake-oil merchant, scam artist, con man, trickster, quack, shyster etc.
        It reminded me of how gullible some people (Americans) are.

        • John Haverly says:

          I guess you should have actually researched him then instead of a quick look…

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          profp…”I took a quick look.
          Why do I think of snake-oil merchant, scam artist, con man, trickster, quack, shyster etc.”

          A very quick look, I’d say. Given your alarmist leanings I’d say you saw some real science and balked. Then you reacted with ad homs, typical of alarmists.

          You support a site like skepticalscience, run by a cartoonist who has been known to impersonate people. Yet you slam a guy trying to make sense of climate science.

          Are all Aussies so obtuse?

          • Svante says:

            Gordon says: “Then you reacted with ad homs”.

            In the next sentence you do it yourself!

        • professorP says:

          Let me take a longer look.
          And what do I find?

          “Piers Corbyn is the owner/operator of WeatherAction, a website that claims to accurately predict the weather in Britain & Ireland for much longer than the standard accuracy time frame of 5 days that most meteorologists agree on. Currently he makes predictions 30, 45, and 60 days in advance. In the past Corbyn claimed to be able to make predictions between 9 months and a year ahead. Corbyn has an honours degree in physics at Imperial College London, and studied astrophysics in 1979 at Queen Mary College (no degree recorded).

          He also frequently bets on the accuracy of the results, and he founded a company to profit off his predictions in 1997. It was later taken private in 1999 due to staggering losses of 70,000 in the first year, and 480,000 in the second.[1] Corbyn claimed that the failure was because of his company’s small size compared to high overhead, which is bizarre after public statements that the business was doing great, “turning over” 250,000 compared to overhead costs of ~70,000.

          Most scientists on the other hand completely ignored him, as his estimates are so vague the weather needs to be well off to be wrong. Taking into account how vague he can be, like giving high winds and heavy rain as a prediction, he is still largely wrong when compared to actual.[2] In 2007 some people who had tired of his whining took a look at his forecast for killer storms to lash Britain on the 17th of October, and the last week of November[3] which never happened. Undeterred by his abject failure he predicted January 2008 to be a period of intense cold (-17C)[4] it turned out to be one of the warmest Januarys on record. Corbyn has made it a bit difficult after those highly-mocked failures to criticize his inaccuracies due to him banning the use of extracts of his works, and suing most anyone who tries.”

      • Nate says:

        John,Let me make a recommendation, don’t get your data and analysis from an political-agenda-driven source. Unlikely to be free of bias.

    • Another Scott says:

      Everyone replying to this guy is off base. Note the link to a Forbes article and the name calling. Think about just those and realize that this person is trying to push buttons. Ignore these kinds of comments and your life will be much better in the end.

    • Daniel Newman says:

      That site, Climate Reanlyzer is in the pocket of the IPCC. I would rather see satellite temperature data, not the same old thermometer data in inconvenient locations with extrapolations where there is no data.

      • Nate says:


        RSS or UAH, which is better?

      • Nate says:


        You think the global weather maps and predictions for the week at Climate Reanalyzer are wrong/inaccurate?

        You think its not above average temp in most of Asia right now?

        IMO weather predictions like these for a week are damn good, and easy to confirm.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Mark…”Of course, except for a part of North America the temperatures across the rest of the globe are above average”.

      Only on the fudged NOAA temperature data sets.

      Point is, the frigid air causing the record low temps in the US is coming from the Arctic, where ice is supposedly melting.

      Stick that in your alarmist pipe and smoke it.

      • professorP says:

        So what is it to be?
        (1) The data is corrupted in which case claims of record cold temperatures are suspect
        (2) The data is uncorrupted in which case global warming is real

        • AaronS says:

          Professor P.
          Only those 2 options? Lol.
          How about 3. North America has sufficient historical data coverage to compare back to 1979, but places like high latitudes, oceans, and developing countries rely on lower confident historical data? Thus, the uncertainty can be manipulated to increase warming. Apples to Oranges in simplified terms.

          I see this often… it is called Oversimplified Cause Fallacy and is representative of simplistic thinking. It seems common educational systems where memorization is used to differentiate students ‘fairly’ and things are boiled down to very simplified scenarios. I see it often in the developing world, where the process selects the wrong minds to actually understand complex and nuanced processes.

      • barry says:

        Mark…”Of course, except for a part of North America the temperatures across the rest of the globe are above average.”

        Only on the fudged NOAA temperature data sets.

        And which data set are you using, Gordon?

      • Nate says:

        Gordon goes all-in and denies its above average temp in Asia and most other places right now. OK.

        Got some people on the ground there in Moscow Gordo? Geez, just look at any weather site.

    • Randall Cornwell says:

      “What does that tell us Dr. Denier?”

      Dr. Mark H. Shapiro, can you please expand on why you use the word “denier”? Can you please tell us what you believe Dr. Spencer denies?

  10. Steve Hardon says:

    Al Gore lied to us!

  11. max says:

    ..this calls for a scientific consensus to re-adjust the data.

  12. AGWiscold says:

    It’s simple to prove the Scientific Method is not being used with the claims.

    If a 4 1/2 foot tall, 10 year old boy, who is given a growth drug, measures 6 and 1/2 feet tall at age 20, you cannot claim the drug caused him to grow 2 feet because a variable is missing. And that variable is, how tall would he have grown without the drug.

    ALL rising temp claims are based on a FIXED, PRE-IR temperature. ALL rising temps are compared to a non-rising temperature.

    This is claiming if man never contributed one molecule of CO2 to the atmosphere, the temperature would NOT have risen over the last 200 or so years.

    We may be 2C (or whatever the real number is) above Pre-IR temps, but what, if anything, are we above what the naturally-occurring WOULD have been?

    Simple logic..

    • Nate says:

      Yeah, Scientists never thought of that! sarc.

      Have you not seen the computer modeling done of the world without extra CO2 over the last century, vs the world with extra CO2?

      Also impressive IMO: modeling done in 1980 predicted the magnitude of warming, its spatial pattern, the melting of arctic sea ice, that indeed occurred over next 35 y.

    • SAMURAI says:

      Weve enjoyed about 0.85C of warming recovery since the end of the LITTLE ICE AGE in 1850, of which, CO2 forcing has perhaps contributed 0.3C of the total.

      Since CO2 forcing is a logarithmic function, (each incremental increase has less and less of an effect), its impossible for CO2 forcing to add another 2.5C~3C of warming between now and 2100.

      We may enjoy another 0.3~0.6C of CO2 induced warming by 2100, less the coming Grand Solar Minimum Cooling well likely experience over the next 75 years.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        samurai…”of which, CO2 forcing has perhaps contributed 0.3C of the total”.

        I’d say more like 0.03C, based on the percent mass of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        Remember the ideal gas equation (PV = nRT) and Dalton’s law of partial pressures. Since the atmosphere is essentially a constant volume/constant mass system, it’s fair to equate pressure and temperature. That means the temperature contributed by each gas is proportional to the percent mass of each gas.

        Given that nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of the atmosphere, and CO2 a pithy 0.04%, that pretty well answers the question regarding the contribution of CO2.

        • professorP says:

          I think I follow your (incorrect) thinking.
          Firstly, you appear to assume
          .04% of .85 degC = .034degC ??
          Except .04% represents .0004 as a decimal (didn’t they teach you how to deal with percentages in engineering?)
          Therefore your (incorrect) answer should be .00034degC

          you are equating a change in temperature (+0.85 degC) with the current % composition.
          You should equate a change in one quantity with a change in another otherwise your units get out of whack. (Didn’t they teach you this in engineering ?)
          Thus, your correct working should state that CO2 has increased by about 100% therefore it accounts for most of the +0.85 degC change.

    • Nate says:


      So, whatever scientists find, if I dont like it, they must be liars.

      Is that the gist of it?

      Smoking bad for my heart-nah their liars.

      • Jeff says:

        First sentence, “don’t”. Third sentence,”they’re”…but I’m sure you’re really smart, regardless. Hey, you scored one out of three sentences without a bust. Keep trying. Your credibility has nowhere to go but up, right?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      agw…”ALL rising temp claims are based on a FIXED, PRE-IR temperature”.

      There is actually no pre-IR temperature declared. The pre-IR (Industrial Revolution) claim is of a CO2 concentration and is nothing more than a wild guess (the levels vary wildly) based on ice core proxies. There is, however, documented evidence from reputable scientists that atmospheric levels of CO2 were as high as 400 ppmv during parts of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

      The irony is this: the pre-IR era and the IR era were in the middle of the Little Ice Age. Global temps were estimated through proxy data to be 1C to 2C below normal globally. Therefore the 1C warming claimed by the IPCC since the IR, began 1C below normal.

      What kind of brains miss that? The IPCC corroborates the LIA in their 1990 review and must have known global temps were 1C cooler. Why did they fail to allow for that in their claim of 1C warming since the IR?

      That kinds of answers the question, the brains were biased toward anthropogenic warming.

      • professorP says:

        “There is, however, documented evidence from reputable scientists that atmospheric levels of CO2 were as high as 400 ppmv during parts of the 19th and early 20th centuries.”
        I’d love to see where this rubbish has been published.

      • professorP says:

        “Therefore the 1C warming claimed by the IPCC since the IR, began 1C below normal.”
        Wrong (again).
        You are assuming that the climate system bounces around some fictitious “normal” state – independent of any external forcing. i.e. you are denying any cause and effect and assuming that the global climate system behaves randomly – possibly driven by the whim of God.
        (did’nt they teach you anything in engineering class?)

        • SkepticGoneWild says:


          All I see from you is a lot of hand waving with the use of sciency terms in the attempt to impress people. Big fail.

          I truly hope you are not an actual professor. Your poor students.

  13. I think global temperatures will also be coming down as we move forward in year 2018.

    +.200c overall temp. deviation trending down

    • professorP says:

      The black knight is still here!
      Keep making those predictions Salvatore – eventually you will be correct.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        profp…”Keep making those predictions Salvatore eventually you will be correct”.

        At least Salvatore is going out on a limb and making them. Speaks volumes compared to your protesting whines and ad homs.

        • professorP says:

          Would you accept the assurances of somebody like Salvatore if he told you the bridge he built is safe (despite the fact that all the bridges he has built to date have collapsed).?
          The scientific method relies on hypothesis-prediction-verification-discarded (or modified) hypothesis.
          Obviously they didn’t teach you this in engineering school.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Dear ProfessorPathetic,

            You left out the important scientific concept of falsifiability. It is the principle that in hypothesis testing a proposition cannot be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown to be false. So the IPCC climate scientists project disastrous climate change by the year 2100 using climate models. Now can any scientist dispute these findings? Of course not. The models are not falsifiable. These models are pure garbage…unscientific. (Perhaps you should read up on Popper).

            Now if you want to accept the pseudoscience espoused by the IPCC, be my guest. Your gullibility is duly noted. After all, that is what lemmings do. They follow the crowd because they can’t think for themselves in a rational scientific manner.

  14. Dave says:

    It seems to me that the evidence against anthropogenic climate change is so overwhelming, it baffles me that so many scientists have defied logic, and the scientific method, so as to embrace what seems to be a false religion.

    Can any supporters of anthropogenic climate change explain how two miles of ice over the northern US, Canada and Europe that built up during the Pleistocene Epoch (2.6m years ago) and subsequently melted some 12,000 years ago, well in advance of humankind’s zenith of industrial revolution in the late 1800’s which is the kick off point of every Al Gore zeolot’s argument that man has caused the climate catastrophes of the present day?

    I am starring at the stones in my back yard which are remnants of the Appalachian Mountains to prove that the glaciers came and went, a long time ago, way before man allegedly starting polluting and destroying the planet.

    Mother Nature took down these immense glaciers without man’s help. She can put them back up if we tempt her. My theory is that things grow much better when there is no ice or cold. We can manage irrigation during drought if we come together. We can’t manage frozen and frigid temperatures where things just do not grow (on ice).

    So before you sign on to theories like anthropogenic global warming, please use your common sense. Look around. Don’t base your thought process on an article in the NY Times that cites some study that is paid for by a government grant from a government that is trying to tax you more, control your lives more, and take away your freedoms.

    Finally, for those of you who are still close-minded, please ask yourself, what is the ideal temperature for the planet? Do you even know or have a clue?

    • Nate says:

      “Can any supporters of anthropogenic climate change explain how two miles of ice over the northern US, Canada and Europe that built up during the Pleistocene Epoch (2.6m years ago) and subsequently melted some 12,000 years ago”

      Yes, it has been explained. And it has to do with changes in our orbit around the sun and the position of the continents.

      What does that prove about AGW?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dave…”Can any supporters of anthropogenic climate change explain how two miles of ice over the northern US, Canada and Europe that built up during the Pleistocene Epoch…”

      Sorry, I’m a skeptic, but I equate the scientists making such claims about ice ages to the scientists making claims of catastrophic anthropogenic warming. I fail to see how 2 miles of ice could build up anywhere on our planet unless something drastic happened to solar output.

      I don’t see how volcanic aerosols or major collisions with huge bodies could affect the planet’s temperature to produce such a vast amount of ice.

      I rate the ice ages with the Big Bang theory: entertaining but short on fact or a realistic cause.

      • professorP says:

        Given there is no evidence for a drastic change in solar output, I guess the ice ages never happened!
        Louis Agassiz must have been wrong!
        “Previous scientists had variously explained these features as made by icebergs or floods, but following the lead of others, Agassiz became a powerful proponent of the theory that a great Ice Age had once gripped the Earth, and published his ideas in tude sur les glaciers in 1840.”

      • Nate says:

        More established science that Gordon denies. What’s next? The round Earth? Gravity?

  15. AGWiscold says:

    CORRECTION: Currently 1C above pre-IR.

    Another way to look at..

    The Paris Poverty Accord is to keep the temps from rising 2C above pre-IR.

    Where is the proof that the temp would not rise to that level naturally??

    The warming at the end of the Younger Dryas went vertical, so a naturally-occurring rapid rise is certainly possible.

    The heating and cooling of the Earth has NEVER been a constant.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      agw…”Where is the proof that the temp would not rise to that level naturally??”

      There is none. AGW is not about global warming or climate change it’s a social movement who have hitched their wagons to a bad science vehicle. They don’t care if it warms or if climates change, there motives are personal and obfuscated. They use bad science to scare people onside.

      • JohnS says:

        AGM is about redistribution of wealth, period. Why have we not heard from the climate gurus about the declining solar output and decades long solar minimum we have entered into? This IS historically provable, has current evidence and will cause millions to starve. Is this because they can’t make money off it or do they ignore it because it is astronomy and not climate mumbo jumbo?

        • Nate says:

          “decades long solar minimum we have entered into? This IS historically provable, has current evidence and will cause millions to starve.”

          If provable, then show us.

          According NASA, no one can predict solar activity more than about half a cycle, 6 y, ahead.

    • professorP says:

      I guess these things just happen – as if by magic, with no cause and effect, simply because of randomness, just like quantum physics- totally unpredictable – much like the weather- maybe it depends on how hard we pray!
      Gee, some people are (comment withdrawn)!

  16. Entropic man says:

    AG Wilson

    Variations in the average temperature of the Earth depends on six main variables:

    Greenhouse gases, aerosols, land use, ozone, solar insolation and volcanoes.

    Over the last 200 years five of these have been roughly constant. If these were the only variables we would expect the temperature 200 years ago and the temperature today to be the same.

    The only variable to increase over the last 200 years is CO2, while the temperature has increased about 1C. In the absence of other causes it seems reasonable to link increasing CO2 and increasing temperature.

    • AaronS says:

      No. Albedo could have changed greatly from cloud cover and aerosols. Most climate sensitivity in IPCC models above the 1.1 deg C of direct warming from doubling CO2 and other ghg relates to the cloud albedo effect. Currently, the thought is we are more cloudy with more aerosols than in a pristine atmosphere. As humanity cleans its pollution some think the real warming will begin. Others (CERN research) think this is exaggerated.

      • AaronS says:

        Entropic man,

        Even your own link disagrees with your statement.

        “Aerosols are projected to decline significantly by 2100, bringing total warming from all factors closer to warming from greenhouse gases alone.”

        • AaronS says:

          And this is what frustrates me. Both sides are typically ignorant. The IPCC models are complex and if you have never been on the team building them, then you dont get them enough to understand. For all of us bloggers (myself included) they are a black box.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        aaron s…”Most climate sensitivity in IPCC models above the 1.1 deg C of direct warming from doubling CO2 and other ghg relates to the cloud albedo effect”.

        The models are programmed with a fictitious warming effect from CO2 of 9% to 25%. They also have a mystical positive feedback due to CO2 back-radiation that is not supported in physics or by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

        Climate models are nothing more than experimental toys programmed by dreamers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”The only variable to increase over the last 200 years is CO2, while the temperature has increased about 1C. In the absence of other causes it seems reasonable to link increasing CO2 and increasing temperature”.

      ‘Seeming reasonable’ is not part of the scientific method. Prove your point and allow others to try reproducing your results.

      There is a perfectly natural cause for the warming, although we don’t as yet understand it. Something caused the Little Ice Age that ended circa 1850. Since then, global temps have been recovering from a cooling of 1C to 2C below ‘normal’.

      We don’t need an inane CO2 explanation based on a gas that is so trivial in the atmosphere it is not worth considering.

      If your argument is to hold, then the 0.04% of atmospheric CO2 before anthropogenic CO2 became an issue, should have caused catastrophic warming and climate change. It did not.

  17. AGWiscold says:

    “expect” is NOT fact.

    Just 40 or so years ago, the scientists “expected” us to enter a new Ice Age.

    Let’s see some FACTS to back up this claim.

    • Nate says:

      Who are “the scientists”? Turns out even 40 y ago, most climate scientists were focused on warming. A few were thinking about cooling.

  18. Krell51 says:

    This cold was obvious to anyone that connects the dots on weather. For the past decade there were few hurricanes, the ocean stayed warm thus we had warm winters, in 2017 we had several large hurricanes that dissipated the energy stored in the water and allowing the jet stream to move south, COLD WINTER.

    • ManBearPig says:

      How come you guys never tell us this stuff that is sooooo obvious to you BEFORE it happens?

    • John F. Hultquist says:

      K-51 wrote: “thus we had warm winters”

      You should not make statements such as this without saying exactly what or where you mean.

      Last winter — in Washington State — it was cold and it lasted such that frost-free water pipes froze. Equipment, animals, and humans suffered. Now, while the eastern USA is cold, we here in eastern and central Washington State are not so cold : 30F (-1C), at Noon. The “jet” is north of us.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        john…”Last winter in Washington State it was cold and it lasted such that frost-free water pipes froze”.

        We got the same cold north of you in Vancouver, BC, Canada. It lasted from late November through mid-January, setting records for cold weather temperatures.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      krell55…”that dissipated the energy stored in the water and allowing the jet stream to move south, COLD WINTER”.

      Let’s not forget La Nina, which with its partner El Nino, has dominated global warming/cooling cycles the past 20 years at least. Kevin Trenberth claimed they were so strong they masked global warming. That’s when he resorted to his lame theory about heat being stored in the oceans.

      We don’t know enough about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation yet and how it drives ENSO. There is also the AMO, the AO, etc.

      This cold winter was predicted based on a strong La Nina.

  19. CygnusCitizen says:

    You’ve got to be below embryo IQ to believe such a hoax.
    Global Warming Church members are the same people that fall for the email scams from Africa.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      cygie…”Global Warming Church members are the same people that fall for the email scams from Africa”.

      The late Michael Crichton nailed it when he claimed those to whom you refer have adopted the environment as their religion. I have spoken to several of the less irrational eco-types who admit global warming does not seem to be as a serious as predicted. However, they are sticking with the religion because they feel doing so will benefit the environment.

      It’s like debating a Jehovah’s Witness. They’ll never tell you what they think, they will reference the Bible to see what God thinks. Then you have to debate against what they think God thinks.

      Those who have the eco-religion are not interested in logic, scientific or otherwise. I can go along with that to an extent, spirituality is not about logic, it’s personal and about how a person feels. However, when that person’s religion begins to interfere with the rights of others to have an affordable source of fuel, I draw the line.

      • barry says:

        Try this for logic:

        Since 1957, when we first started taking air measurements of background levels of CO2 in remote areas, there has been a relatively stable rise, no sudden jumps up or down in the intervening years.

        Ernst Beck’s CO2 record of the decades prior include samples taken in cities near industrial sites, and shows large annual jumps.

        Logic: as the cleaner record shows no large jumps over the last 50 years, it is irrational to infer that atmospheric CO2 suddenly behaved very differently the moment careful measuring was undertaken, and rational to consider that Beck’s record is flawed – particularly considering that he did not take the measurements, nor subject them to any quality control.

  20. AGWiscold says:

    “Greenhouse gases, aerosols, land use, ozone, solar insolation and volcanoes.

    Over the last 200 years five of these have been roughly constant.”

    Assuming these are your five, you’re claiming that Greenhouse gases, aerosols, land use, and ozone has remained constant over the last 200 years?? Really??


    I would think adding 6 billion people over the last 200 years would have had some effect on these variables..

  21. Linda says:

    When hearing of data being manipulated to show Climate Change is real, I find it hard to believe.

    • John F. Hultquist says:

      The temperature and other measurements are adjusted, altered, manipulated (your word) for various reasons. This has been discussed over the last 10 years via web sites, and before that in meetings and published work.
      Your phrase “to show Climate Change is real” is an interpretation that is disputed. Regardless, the collected readings from weather stations, ship, balloons, and more are manipulated.

      Please read: Understanding adjustments to temperaturedata

      byZeke Hausfather from Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

      There are 2,044 comments. Catch Up!

    • Laura says:

      There is no question the raw data has been manipulated.

      The people involved in the manipulation have acknowledged doing so publicly.

      Look it up.

      It is not difficult to find or understand their justifications for their actions.

      • professorP says:

        Laura, you will need to do better than that.
        Remember the phrase “appeal to authority”?
        Let me help you:
        “Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument”

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          profp…”Laura, you will need to do better than that.
          Remember the phrase appeal to authority?”

          There is nothing in Linda’s reply that is an appeal to authority. She is merely stating a well known fact for those not too myopic to find it.

        • Ken says:

          There was data manipulation.

          The reasons may have been well meaning or not.

          End result is that murky data was stirred around muddying the waters.

        • Nate says:

          ‘There was data manipulation.’

          ALL data is manipulated folks. Its called analysis.

          Without it, data is just thousands of numbers.

          For example should all temperature measurements in the world just be averaged together?


          There are dozens of measurements around big cities and hardly any in rural areas. We dont want to count big cities more than rural areas.

          Some data may be corrupted by urban-heat-island, others by a change of location, others by faulty siting, or glitches.

          So there has to be an algorithm. You dont like NO*AAs algorithm? Try BE*ST, or JA*X or GI*SS, or HAd*CRUT, or various others.

          Thing is, they all produce similar warming.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      linda…”When hearing of data being manipulated to show Climate Change is real, I find it hard to believe”.

      Make up your own mind. The following link is from NOAA, a scientific institution responsible for acquiring surface temperature data globally and making data sets from it.


      They ask the question: “Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”

      Have you got that, NOAA is admitting to using less than 25% of the available data it collects? What does it do with the rest? It discards 75% of the data.

      Why?? What they don’t tell you directly but which you can glean by reading between the lines or examining their methods, is that they submit less than 25% of the global surface data to a climate model where it is interpolated and homogenized.

      What does that mean? Interpolation means to essentially average values to produce another value. In old logarithm tables you would average two adjacent numbers to produce a third.

      That’s what NOAA does. They throw out a lot of temperatures gathered from surface stations by thermometer readings, leaving them with blanks in the data. To fill in the blanks, they use retained temperatures from stations up to 1200 miles apart and average them to find what the missing temperature ‘should be’, according to their definition of should.

      Such a process leaves a jagged array of temperatures that might not make a lot of sense. So they homogenize the data to give it a nice smooth look. Today, they are installing reference stations which will be used as a basis for their interpolation and homogenizations. That’s not science.

      If you’re still with me, you might ask yourself why they need to throw out good, real data and recreate data artificially? There is only one reason, Linda, to make the data have an appearance it does not have normally. In other words, their methods allow them to show warming where there is none.

      Aghast with disbelief??? The IPCC as well as UAH have shown no warming since 1998 for 15 and 18 years respectively. NOAA, using the devious methods I described have gone back in history and rewritten the data to show a warming where even they had hitherto found none.

      Still in disbelief??? NOAA declared 2014 the warmest year ever based on a confidence level of 48%. That means essentially, flip a coin to see if it was or was not. Why the confidence level? Since they use a virtual medium like a climate model they cannot use the standard scientific error margin. Therefore they are required to state the likely error in their findings. Confidence levels are used to estimate an error when data is derived statistically.

      If you want to see the full extent of NOAA’s chicanery, look at this site. It explains that NOAA has been slashing surface stations since the 1990s and how they have manipulated the data to show mainly warming stations/.


      • barry says:

        Have you got that, NOAA is admitting to using less than 25% of the available data it collects? What does it do with the rest? It discards 75% of the data.

        Liar. There is no ‘75%’ of data excluded, discarded, slashed or deleted.

        Liar. Again and again.

  22. Iska Waran says:

    If global warming were real humans would thrive in a warmer world.

  23. Tim Wells says:

    Crushes the belief that man is altering the temperature of the world and not a cooling sun.

    • Nate says:

      A couple of weeks of cold weather in winter in one country tells you all that?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”A couple of weeks of cold weather in winter in one country tells you all that?”

        It’s more than a couple of weeks of cold weather, these are record breaking cold temperatures.

        AGW theory in the modern era has been with us since 1988, some 30 years. When is this catastrophic warming going to begin?

        I have pointed out the 18 year flat trend since 1998 – 2015. Rebuttals have claimed that period is not long enough. How about the 30 years just cited? Alarmists have been screaming since 1988 that the world is ending unless we cut back on CO2. Where is this warming?

        And where is the climate change it’s supposed to cause. Where are the rising sea levels?

        Instead of that, we are now experiencing the coldest winter in North America ever. I know it’s just weather but I would have expected a much warmer planet by now had AGW been right.

        And please don’t tell me the models predicted this cold. They completely missed the 18 year flat trend.

        • Nate says:

          “Instead of that, we are now experiencing the coldest winter in North America ever. I know its just weather”

          Winter has barely started, wait and see. And yes, it is just weather.

          Look the GW that has happened so far over land has been ~ 2F. Dont see how that is going to eliminate cold blasts of -20 F that are expected in winter?

          Then there is possibilty, unproven yet, that arctic warming (5-10C this winter) affects the jet stream pattern.

          Noone should be surprised that what happens in the Arctic affects weather elsewhere.

      • Nate says:



        Tiksi, Russia, 40 degrees F above average today.

  24. Bob Hoye says:

    The Danish Met publishes the Daily Mean temp for North of 80 latitude. The Arctic summer was slightly below the mean. Last 40 days or so have been well above the mean.
    A while ago, Siberia clocked some very cold lows, when N America was not.
    How cold will it get in Europe and N America when North of 80 gets down to the mean curve?
    After all, climate history is now on a Solar Minimum, with the usual cooling trends following.

  25. Entropic man says:


    The five roughly stable variables were aerosols, land use, ozone, solar insolation and volcanoes.

    Greenhouse gas concentrations, mostly CO2 are up by 40%.

    Look at the last two graphs in my link


    and you’ll see the effect of each of the six variables on global temperature.

    • ManBearPig says:

      CO2 increases do not cause temperature increases, they are a RESULT of increasing temperatures…..

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Thanks for that humorous link, EM. It has some great pseudoscience. I was chuckling by the third paragraph.

      Claim: “However, the science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear.”

      Proof of the claim: “Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) fifth assessment report.”


    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”Greenhouse gas concentrations, mostly CO2 are up by 40%”.

      According to the IPCC and other alarmist sources. There is no concrete evidence of that.

      There is concrete evidence from scientists in the latter 19th century and early 20th century that CO2 atmospheric levels have been as high as 400 ppmv. The IPCC has conveniently ignored that information.

      • barry says:

        The IPCC does not have concrete evidence of CO2 levels, but you have concrete evidence of CO2 levels being as high as 400 ppm in the 20th century?

        Concrete = “what I believe.”

  26. Vox Veritas says:

    Impossible — Nobel [Junk] Science Prize recipient Albert Arnold Gore, Jrs. said so.

  27. Gary says:

    Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam

    • Gary says:

      A book by Brian Sussman…get it on Amazon

      • professorP says:

        Brian Sussman credentials:
        American Meteorology Societys Seal of Approval.
        (The AMS Seal of Approval is a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor’s or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology to attain it.)

        Attended post-graduate studies in meteorology.
        (Sussman states that he attended the University of Missouri, it is unclear if he completed the degree.)

        Sussman has been a proponent of the Birther Conspiracy regarding President Obama’s heritage and he has promoted other theories including the discovery of the real Noah’s Ark.

        Sounds like a really well qualified, sensible, rational person !

      • Nate says:

        Regardless of ones beliefs, it is generally not recommended to learn your science from wacko conspiracy theorists. Can we agree on this?

  28. jknbt says:

    I was working on my house on the south side putting up fascias on a cloudless day on Nov. 5th….the temp was a whopping 105 degF where I was working. A month later, dec. 5th, I had two inches of snow on my bushes in the back yard…this follows the Harvey disaster, where 3 feet of water were in the street in front of the house…now it is 32 and will hard freeze at 22 tonite…yikes…part of the fun of living on the texas gulf coast…

  29. AGWiscold says:

    Entropic man:

    Based on MODELS. The IPCC said itself that 111 out of 114 of their models had FAILED.

    “Models”, “Expect”, “a possibility” are NOT FACTS. They are GUESSES..

    There is a “possibility” that the rising temps, if they are in fact rising, are 100% naturally-occurring.

    One last question for you..

    Do we know how the Little Ice Age came to an end??

    Hint: The temperature went up!!

    Imagine that!!

  30. AGWiscold says:

    Entropic man:

    Okay…one more question..

    Historically, does CO2 lead or lag temperature?

    If so, then by how many years??

  31. ossqss says:

    Burrrfect weather to watch college football inside all day 😉


  32. John Poynter says:

    I’m 72. I was born in 1945, and I’ve lived through two complete cycles of climate variability, if you assume a climate oscillation of 60 years.

    I grew up during the last cold period, I’ve lived through the last warming period, and now we’re heading into another cooling period.

    Take it from me, warm is better. I’m looking forward to the next time it starts getting warmer again, if I live that long.

    • John Poynter says:

      Excuse me, that’s two complete half-cycles.

    • Nate says:

      “Im looking forward to the next time it starts getting warmer again”

      That would be around April, depending where you live.

      But seriously a week or two of cold in the US in December…how does that became “now were heading into another cooling period.”?

      • John Poynter says:

        That was kind of a non sequitur, wasn’t it? Actually, I was referring to discussions we’ve been having on FB page “Scientists Skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming”. I assumed, erroneously it seems, that the people replying to this thread would be up on the latest about climate oscillations.

        If you’re interested, head on over and read the discussions. I’d cite them here, but there’s way too much of it.

      • Nate says:

        Its been discussed here, (cycles). My take on it is that its not very convincing. Data sets going back 150 y or longer dont show steady-state periodicity. The climate seems to have aperiodic or quasiperiodic variations.

        The ‘pause’ that was pointed to as the turning point in the cycle to cooling, now appears to be over…

        • John Poynter says:

          Well, there’s no need to debate it. The truth of the matter (or its falseness) should become evident within, say, 10 years at the most, as temps continue to plunge.

          Today we’re talking about the warming Arctic, which seems to be normal during Ice Ages, or mini-ice ages. The thing is, even during a full ice age, not all of the Earth will be cold at the same time. Temps will go up and down, as cooling and warming switches places over time.

          Here’s one of the videos we’re discussing:

          • Nate says:

            They seem to be predicting a grand solar minimum in solar activity-like that of Maunder Minimum.

            I don’t believe anyone has proven they can predict the sun’s behavior beyond the current 11 y cycle with any accuracy.

          • Snape says:


            I watched the video. It’s a load of BS.

            They show a graph that they allege is Greenland temperatures 10,000 years ago to the present (based on ice core samples).

            But the “present”, as defined by the GISP2, is 1950, and the data for the graph actually starts 95 years before this.

            Do the math, and you see the graph ends in 1855. That’s 163 years ago!


          • Nate says:

            NASA solar science site says this:

            ” While we now know many details about the sunspot cycle, (and also about some of the dynamo processes that must play key roles in producing it), we are still unable to produce a model that will allow us to reliably predict future sunspot numbers using basic physical principles. This problem is a little like trying to predict the severity of next year’s winter or summer weather.”


          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…from NASA…”This problem is a little like trying to predict the severity of next years winter or summer weather.

            Doesn’t prevent NASA GISS making ridiculous claims about the climate 100 years from now.

          • Nate says:

            “Doesnt prevent NASA GISS making ridiculous claims about the climate 100 years from now.”

            Gordon thinks all temperature prediction challenges are equal in difficulty.

            I can predict that July will be about 45 degrees F warmer than January in my state.

            I can predict tommorrow’s temperature pretty darn well. But I cant predict very well at all what it will be on Jan 30.

  33. Randy says:

    Diversity never means anything other than Less White People

    When is any country or institution too black too yellow etc. and needing of diversity?

    The self-proclaimed “progressives” basically demand No White Anything Anywhere

    How is this not Anti White?
    How is this not Geno Cide?

  34. philip l horner says:

    Just think how cold it would be WITHOUT Globull Warming! #coldwave=heatwave

    • Snape says:

      If no global warming? With La Nina conditions and very low solar, I would expect UAH/TLT for December, and many months to come, to be well below the baseline.
      In the range of – 0.25 C to – 0.50 C

      • Snape says:

        Of course, the UAH baseline itself likely represents significant warming over pre-satellite years.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You mean. since the LIA, the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

          Be VERY thankful for that slight warming.

          • Snape says:


            Show us the science that backs up your claim. When was the peak of the LIA and what years did it span? What were global temperatures immediately prior and after. How did they compare to 2017?

          • AndyG55 says:

            WOW, you really are a Climate Change Denier, aren’t you.

            Looks like you are trying to DENY the LIA existed. !!

            As you well know, the MWP was before the LIA, and it was warmer than now.

            We live in the Modern SLIGHTLY warm Period.

          • Snape says:


            I see you didn’t answer any of my questions. Just more bluster.

            My guess is you referenced the little ice age without knowing anything about it.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Do your own research…. sounds like you desperately need to.

            Or remain wilfully ignorant.

          • Snape says:

            Looks like I guessed right.

          • Fox says:

            Show us your research Snape.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Then stop “guessing” and do some research.

          • Snape says:


            Let’s make sure we understand each other. You wrote, “You mean. since the LIA, the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.”

            Are you implying that warming prior to the satellite era was primarily a rebound from the LIA? If yes, then show the evidence. If not, then I misunderstood you and apologize.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…” When was the peak of the LIA and what years did it span?”

            There were two peaks and the LIA spanned about 400 years from around 1400 – 1850. The second peak coincided with the Industrial Revolution, used as a base point by the IPCC for atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

            Ironically, they completely ignored the obviously colder climate and proceeded with a cockamamey theory about anthropogenic gases.

            You could have looked it up but I know you’re trolling.


            Some propaganda from the IPCC, likely written by Michael Mann, but it’s safe to read.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”Are you implying that warming prior to the satellite era was primarily a rebound from the LIA? If yes, then show the evidence. If not, then I misunderstood you and apologize”.

            I’ll show you the evidence when you show me evidence that CO2 in our atmosphere, at 0.04%, can warm the atmosphere more than a few hundredths C.

          • Snape says:


            Based on the gragh you referenced, global temperatures had rebounded from the LIA by the mid 20th century, and by 2004 had exceeded the Medieval Warm Period by a large margin. The past decade has seen the most warming yet.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”Based on the gragh you referenced, global temperatures had rebounded from the LIA by the mid 20th century…”

            As I pointed out the article has been infiltrated by IPCC nonsense. I supplied the link only to share basic facts about the LIA. How can you expect someone like the IPCC to supply unbiased info about a phenomenon they deliberately tried to ignore.

          • Snape says:


            I was already familiar with the LIA basics. Show what you think is the unbiased data.

          • barry says:

            There were two peaks and the LIA spanned about 400 years from around 1400 1850.

            This from the guy who doesn’t believe in proxy data.

            Contrarians contradict themselves.

          • Snape says:


            I’m still waiting for the data that supports his claim from upthread:

            “Something caused the Little Ice Age that ended circa 1850. Since then, global temps have been recovering from a cooling of 1C to 2C below normal.”

          • Snape says:

            The wiki graph he linked shows peak cooling during the LIA was -0.9 C Global temperatures had returned to normal (1950 – 1980 baseline) by early to mid 20th century.

          • Snape says:

            Also worth noting: according to the graph, peak cooling occurred in the late 1500’s. Therefore, only 0.9 C total warming In the following 350 years.

            Compare that to today’s rate: 0.13 C per decade

  35. Charlie says:

    Problem with liberals is they believe everything they read, or are told!

  36. ren says:

    In Erie still snowing.

  37. Jerry S says:

    Just throw some some money to a politician and the Global Climate change will be solved.

  38. kingbum says:

    Lmao I’m in International Falls, Minnesota heading towards Denver for a week….I’m bringing shorts

  39. AndyG55 says:

    It is so cold, all the climate alarmists have their hands in their OWN pockets

  40. AndyG55 says:

    Its so cold, all the climate alarmists are moving to France.. The world’s first climate refugees.

  41. Dave Samson says:


  42. Dave Samson says:

    TOTALLY BOGUS SCIENCE,,,bought and payed for

  43. GlobalWrench says:

    In climate engineering terms it is called “Artificial Ice Nucleation”.

  44. Entropic man says:


    Okayone more question..

    Historically, does CO2 lead or lag temperature?

    If so, then by how many years??

    I can give you two examples.

    20,000 years ago orbital changes started a slow increase in temperature. CO2 followed and amplified the change. It took 10,000 years to increase temperature from 9C to 14C and CO2 from 200 to 280ppm. Temperature led CO2 by about a century.

    In the latter 1800s CO2 from the Industrial Revolution began to accumulate in the atmosphere. After about 150 years the concentration has risen from 280 to 400ppm. In the same time temperature has risen by about 1C. Temperature is presently lagging CO2 by about 25 years.

    Does CO2 lead or lag temperature? You can find examples of both.

    How many years? It depends on the rate of change. The faster the rate of change, the shorter the lag.

    • AndyG55 says:

      In the Vostok cores, peak CO2 values were NEVER able to maintain the peak temperature that preceded them.

      In fact, peak CO2 was ALWAYS as temperatures started to drop.

      So much for having “warming” effect

      • Entropic man says:

        Of course not. As interglacials come and go the CO2 follows the temperature up and then follows the temperature down again.

        CO2 amplifies the temperature change, but orbital changes are the driver.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”CO2 amplifies the temperature change, but orbital changes are the driver”.

          How??? Explain the physics, no one else can.

          You are claiming that CO2 amplifies heat, an utter impossibility. Nothing in the atmosphere can amplify heat, that would require changing the way atoms operate or creating more mass out of existing mass at a specific temperature.

          Or, you could add heat from an independent source, like moving another star into the vicinity of the Sun.

          There’s no way CO2 amplifies anything.

          • Entropic man says:

            Gordon Robertson

            The energy warming the surface of the Earth comes in as solar insolation., mostly visible light.

            The energy radiates from the surface and atmosphere back into space at infra-red wavelengths, known as the Outward Longwave Radiation or OLR

            The Earth stabilises at the energy content and temperature at which insolation=OLR.

            When you add greenhouse gases they act as insulators reducing the OLR. With OLR less than insolation energy imbalance causes the energy content and temperature toincrease

            As the temperature increases more OLR is produced until you reach a new eqiulibrium.No energy has been created, just accumulated from the flow.

            As an analogy, think of a river. The volume of water flowing flowing from upstream towards your house is the solar insolation and the volume flowing away downstream is the OLR. The river level is the temperature.

            Now build a weir(equivalent to adding greenhouse gases.) The flow of water is obstructed and the flow downstream is reduced. Water accumulates behind the weir, raising the water level. When the water level tops the weir normal flow resumes, but with extra water trapped in the pool behind the weir and a higher river level.

            Finally, to represent increasing greenhouse gases due to fossil fuel burn, build the weir higher and consider the effect.

          • Nomran says:

            Entropic man

            Your water and river analogy is an excellent way to describe the GHE. There are some who falsely believe that the term GHE means the atmosphere is the heat source warming the surface of Earth by 33 C. I like your analogy and it describes the effect well. You will soon come to understand you are not arguing with rational minds. They are ideologues and will reject all information as false except for that which agrees with them. Not scientific like you seem to be but more of the religious type.

            Gordon Robertson seems especially prone to religious belief that spills over to science. He blindly accepts the prophets of old (Clasius, Woods, etc) but rejects all current information as false.

            It is impossible to reason with a person who thinks all current science is lies and he rejects all evidence that does not support his beliefs.

            I wish you well in trying to convince him of his irrational thought process but you will not be able to. No one will be able to but Gordon himself and that will not happen.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            I had an inkling that 2018 would bring some more great pseudoscience here. And, Entropic man starts us off with his hilarious GHE comparison to a river and a weir. “Finally, to represent increasing greenhouse gases due to fossil fuel burn, build the weir higher and consider the effect.”


            And, then the yelping chihuahua jumps in to patronize the pseudoscience.

            It doesn’t get any funnier.

            But, to correct the pseudoscience, and the analogy to CO2 in the atmosphere, the weir would have to be motor-controlled. The opening in the weir would increase based on the fourth power of the river height. IOW, the weir would NOT be able to hold back the river.

            The humor continues.

  45. ren says:

    LIVE from prolific snowfall rates inside lake effect snow band in Oswego,NY.

  46. ren says:

    Temperature (C) in Canada and the northeast of the US.

  47. ren says:

    Chicago, Illinois

    Current Conditions – F | C As of 4:52 PM on Monday 1 Jan 2018 (Local Time)
    Feels Like: -26
    Wind Chill: -26 Ceiling: NA
    Heat Index: -17 Visibility: 16.09k
    Dew Point: -23 Wind: 16kph
    Humidity: 99%
    Pressure: 1040.98mbar

  48. Barrack says:

    Climate Change religion members are very stupid , they are the same inbred’s that don’t believe I was born in Kenya!

  49. Norman says:

    It looks like what the polar air does. If it moves down to one location and remains for a significant time you get some record cold temps as in the Central and Northern US. But the cold air is the same source, the Arctic. So if the US is exceptionally cold other areas are more normal temperatures.


    Europe’s current temperatures


    Current US temperatures.

    • Snape says:

      Hi Norman

      I tried your links but got error messages. In any case, you are most certainly right. It’s always cold somewhere, always warm somewhere else. Right now it’s 10 to 20 degrees Celsius above average in a big section of Siberia.

      Interesting weather. A big yawn in terms of climate science.


      • Snape says:

        My recent comments about Arctic winter warming were specifically directed at the Arctic Ocean. It’s been consistently warmer than normal there all winter/fall. Land masses like Greenland and Siberia, OTOH, have had wild temperature swings.

  50. professorP says:

    An amazing bit of trivia:
    Way back in 1959, at the Energy and Man symposium organized by the American Petroleum Institute and the Columbia Graduate School of Business, the nuclear weapons physicist Edward Teller informed the audience:
    “At present the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 2 per cent over normal. By 1970, it will be perhaps 4 per cent, by 1980, 8 per cent, by 1990, 16 per cent [about 360 parts per million, by Tellers accounting], if we keep on with our exponential rise in the use of purely conventional fuels. By that time, there will be a serious additional impediment for the radiation leaving the earth. Our planet will get a little warmer. It is hard to say whether it will be 2 degrees Fahrenheit or only one or 5. “

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      profp… re 1959 symposium…”At present the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 2 per cent over normal”.

      A stalwart climate researcher in the 1950s, Dr. Roger Revelle, stated circa 1990 that we should not read too much into increasing CO2 levels. He was the professor at Harvard who taught Al Gore.

      Gore was so incensed by the statement that he claimed Revelle must have been senile. The he blamed Revelle’s co-author, Fred Singer, through a proxy, for leading him astray. Singer sued and won.

    • Alaskabugman says:

      More trivia..
      Arctic ice all but vanished from 1920 to 1947. Tell that to a warmist and they freak out and immediately deny reality, history.

  51. Alaskabugman says:

    Winds around 40 MPH and 33 degrees outside Wasilla Alaska. Spoda hit 43 tomorrow.
    Happens all the time but…good timing as my Buddy in Florida will see 20s tomorrow.

  52. barry says:

    The cold weather in the US has some people very excited.

    • barry says:

      Dunno if this interests anyone, but if December ends up being equal coldest monthly anomaly in the UAH record for the US, there would be a reduction in the long-term US temp trend since ’79 of about 0.01 C/decade.

      That’s an anomaly of -0.3, by the way: January 1979.

    • barry says:

      Decimal typo: Jan 1979 was -3.0 C for the US.

  53. ren says:

    In Europe, frost from the east will gradually expand to the west due to the effects of La Nia and low solar activity. Circulation is very weak in the north.

  54. ren says:

    Citrus crops in Florida are at risk due to several days of frost.

  55. 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.

  56. ren says:

    Temperature in Louisiana (Gulf of Mexico).

  57. ren says:

    Gordon Robertson says:
    “That means the temperature contributed by each gas is proportional to the percent mass of each gas.
    Given that nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of the atmosphere, and CO2 a pithy 0.04%, that pretty well answers the question regarding the contribution of CO2.”
    This is confirmed by satellite data.
    The temperature distribution in the dense troposphere is clearly different from the temperature in the stratosphere.
    In winter over the pole the stratosphere falls to the surface of the Earth.

  58. ren says:

    Currently, the temperature in the stratosphere is clearly falling.

  59. ren says:

    Time-series representation of temperatures at the 30-hPa level over the North Pole
    The black line shows daily temperatures, and the gray line indicates the normal (i.e., the 1981 – 2010 average).

  60. Deplorable Joe Voter (fedup) says:

    If we don’t do something IMMEDIATELY we’re all going to freeze to death from glowbull warming!

  61. Dave says:

    Here in the Monadnock region of New Hampshire it’s crazy cold. It’s -19 Fahrenheit, or -28 Celsius. The daytime highs are in the single digits Fahrenheit. On top of the cold we are scheduled to get a major blizzard the day after tomorrow. A big worry is power outages, as furnaces no longer work, and how soon power can be restored. Once, about 8 years ago, we were getting similar temps, and the power went out. I used a whole bunch of giant candles in the basement, right below the water pipes in the ceiling to keep the water in the pipes from freezing. It worked, just barely. When the power was restored it was 33 degrees in the basement.

    • lewis says:

      I always kept a backup un-vented propane heater in the basement. No electricity required. Kept the chill off.

  62. Ghost Rider says:

    I’m looking forward to the next alarmest headline from NOAA — “This was the Warmest Winter on Record.”

    • barry says:

      If that was the case for the NH average, would you remember the difference between the US and the whole world?

      But it’s unlikely to be a record-breaking Winter for the NH – that would be 2015/16.

  63. jj soteria says:

    HNY Dr Roy! Thanks for all you do to push back the darkness of AGW!

  64. ren says:

    Oswego, NY as lake effect snow machine continues. Snowfall rates in excess of 6″ per hour reported last night.

  65. TZAZ says:

    Phoenix is in the mid 70s, has been for months, come on down and spend some money.

  66. Melvin says:

    Mr. Gore has made false predictions that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone by 2014. If the High Priest of Global Warming can’t get it right then obviously its a scam on the worlds citizens. You Global Warming fools should turn the blame on Governments and not the citizens of the world. Governments are the ones blowing up atomic bombs,and breaking the snow up with ice breaking ships!

    • Nate says:

      “Mr. Gore has made false predictions”

      Politician/activist, not a scientist.

      Actual sci predictions are of a continued downward trend.

  67. Slipstick says:

    Some context for those who can’t seem to grasp the meaning of the word “global”. Please examine the rectangular projection at the bottom of the page and take particular note of the eastern portion of the Arctic Circle:


    • ren says:

      Please write what is the conclusion?

    • barry says:

      The US is much colder than usual just now, but much of the rest of the world is warmer than usual for this time of year.

      I think this is a message for people in the thread who are trying to connect a cold US with evidence against global warming.

  68. Smart Texan says:

    Plenty of outlets’ winter forecasts have already busted in my opinion. I am not sure if many of you have heard of the recurring cycle theory. A blog called Texas Storm Watch discusses it frequently. They just did an article today making the connection between the East Coast Winter Storm and the weather pattern in mid-November. It is a pretty interesting article to read: http://texasstormwatch.com/2018/01/next-system-on-schedule-to-arrive-this-weekend.html . I am glad to see cold weather again, though. Of course, the mainstream outlets will ignore it and cite the “warmest year on record”.

    • barry says:

      Was it the coldest year on record? Coldest month? What record-breakers are the news media ignoring?

      • Smart Texan says:

        The temperature data supporting the “warmest year on record” is still preliminary. Also, the margin of error is always at least a few tenths of a degree. In other words, it may very well not be the warmest.

  69. ren says:

    In Savannah, Georgia, the temperature has dropped to -8 degrees C.

    • Svante says:

      The 2nd law says that cannot exist in the atmosphere, basically because the
      alleged feedback as back-radiation cannot warm the surface. “See” T^4-1.


  70. Bindidon says:

    For people thinking that the current weather period might have anything to do with La Nina:



  71. 출장오피 says:

    This is very attention-grabbing, You are an overly skilled blogger.
    I have joined your rss feed and stay up for in the hunt for extra
    of your excellent post. Also, I have shared your web site in my social networks

  72. This post is priceless. When can I find out more?

Leave a Reply