Watch the USA in ‘polar vortex’ deep freeze – live

Top sticky post – new posts will appear below this one.

This map below updates every hour, and shows city temperatures along with temperature gradients. Can you believe 18F in Atlanta (midday) at the time of this writing? Low temperature records are being shattered in many USA cities with cold records outnumbering warm records almost 5 to 1.  This thread will update with weather news as it happens.

Look at all of the cold records:

USA_records_1-7-14

Total Records: 1045
Rainfall: 127
Snowfall: 351
High Temp: 85
Low Temp: 162
Low Max Temp: 300
High Min Temp: 20

Cold records total: 462

Warm records total: 105

Source: http://wx.hamweather.com/maps/climate/records/1week/us.html

================================================================

Update: here is WeatherBell’s map being used for The Drudge Report. It represents the air temperature at 2 meters above the surface  (you may need to manually refresh browser to see it.) Note the United States Avg: value, which is below freezing for the CONUS.

UPDATE2: record breaking cold in Atlanta

image_full1[1]

About these ads

159 thoughts on “Watch the USA in ‘polar vortex’ deep freeze – live

  1. It’s so cold it’s MINUS zero, not just your regular zero, in Detroit, Minneapolis and Pittsburgh!

  2. Interesting,
    As I mentioned in another thread this morning, the temp here and in Raleigh NC was 9F this morning and the record low was 15 F so we certainly did break the record low and then some.

    History for Raleigh-Durham Airport, NC
    Tuesday, January 7, 2014
    Temperature:
    Mean Temperature 14 °F 40 °F
    Max Temperature 19 °F 50 °F 75 °F (1907)
    Min Temperature 9 °F 31 °F 15 °F (1988)

    http://classic.wunderground.com/history/airport/KRDU/2014/1/7/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

  3. Stephen Rasey says:
    January 7, 2014 at 10:18 am
    @lsvalgaard: It is a 1 week view. The rain records could have come while it was still warm.
    Thanks. That little detail escaped me.

  4. Also noticed that temps in the 30 – 40 degree range are now considered “mild” 50’s are down right warm!

  5. According to NOAA, it was 8F at GSP this morning. The previous low for this date was 9F in 1904. No matter how you spin it, single digits are really cold for South Carolina. Happy to find our wood stove kept the house warm over night.

    The area is currently experiencing blackouts– probably as people add space heaters to the grid.

    No matter what you think about green technology in general, I really appreciate my Nest thermostat, which can tell me that it is currently 61F in the house.

  6. Looks like Detroit is still using COBOL – } (-0 degrees)… Grace Hopper would be proud (albeit freezing….)

  7. One thing the polar vortex has shown us is how woefully unprepared we are for the record cold temperatures we’re experiencing. We’re particularly misinformed when it comes to choosing winter warmup drinks. It seems to defy logic, but a cold beverage can help you hang on to body heat better than a hot one.
    Remember that most of the world drinks hot tea in hot weather, and Alaska leads the nation in per capita ice cream consumption. It’s counterintuitive but true—hot drinks cool you down and cold drinks warm you up.

    http://gigabiting.com/what-to-drink-in-a-polar-vortex/

  8. Now everyone, click your ruby slippers together and repeat: “There’s no place like warm, there’s now place like warm, there’s no place like warm”.

  9. @Jon – I think here in Europe we’ve found the “missing heat”. Good thing, though, with the rapidly
    increasing fuel prices, a warm winter will be welcome from a financial standpoint.

    Having said that, it’s the pits for peach, apricot, and other fruit growers, as I believe there needs to be a number of winter days below freezing in order for fruit to set…(or whatever they call it…)…

  10. It’s great to see weather and natural variability alive and well. It was beginning to look like climate change was going to smother all. It’s actually Spring in reality land.

  11. Andrew Freeman (Climate central) starts with…

    While the ongoing cold snap is breaking records from Minnesota to Florida, it will not go down in history as the most significant Arctic outbreak in U.S. history, not even by a longshot. Scientists said the deep freeze gripping the U.S. does not indicate a halt or reversal in global warming trends, either. In fact, it may be a counterintuitive example of global warming in action.

    He then goes on to claim that the polar vortex that causes warmer Arctic temperatures and “dangerously cold conditions [that] exist in vast parts of the lower 48 [US states], may be tied to the rapid warming and loss of sea ice in the Arctic due, in part, to manmade climate change”.

    So which is it? Are the current cold temperatures not the most significant Arctic outbreak in US history (it’s just weather) or are the dangerously cold conditions “unprecedented” and caused by “global warming”? Because as I read his argument he seems to be suggesting that global warming reduces the extent of these dangerously cold conditions, which would be great, no?

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/polar-vortex-in-u.s.-may-be-valid-example-of-global-warming-16927?ir=Canada

    Plus isn’t there a lot of ice in the Arctic right now?

  12. lsvalgaard says:
    How can you have record rainfall in Detroit when the temperature is -2F?

    How can you have a hail storm in August ? Surface temps to not necessarily match the air temp where precipitation forms and/or falls through.

  13. I’m glad we are burning a lot of fossil fuel to keep people from freezing. What if we were forced to depend on solar cells or wind mills to keep us warm?

  14. lsvalgaard says:
    January 7, 2014 at 10:14 am

    > How can you have record rainfall in Detroit when the temperature is -2F?

    I won’t dig into it far, but “rainfall” to meteorologists often means all precip for the period, including “snow, freezing rain, and sleet after melting the mess.”

    The one and two day maps show other rain, see http://wx.hamweather.com/maps/climate/records/2days/us.html?cat=rain,snow, and http://wx.hamweather.com/maps/climate/records/1day/us.html?cat=rain,snow,

    BTW, a lot of those stations are minor stations with short histories, I take that site with a fair amount skepticism.

  15. “David says:
    January 7, 2014 at 10:20 am
    Funny that Achorage (at 26oF) is warmer than Atlanta…”

    260K? :) (just kidding, hope it’s not that cold….

  16. Of some note:

    The current “Record Lows” are those from 1492 or so to now.

    Flint arrow points of the Pecos ones and Inca tools date prior.

    Ask the people who live in igloos what they know of the weather prior.

  17. David says:
    January 7, 2014 at 10:20 am

    Funny that Achorage (at 26°F) is warmer than Atlanta…

    It’s only funny if you’re not living in Atlanta.

  18. What I worry about are the Seville oranges, which I need to make my marmalade every year. I believe the ones we get in Canada are grown in Arizona. They should be in the stores within the next two weeks. Anyone got any news?

  19. Greg Goodman says:
    January 7, 2014 at 10:41 am
    Surface temps to not necessarily match the air temp where precipitation forms and/or falls through.
    If the surface temperature is -2F the overlying air temperature can hardly be above freezing, but the real explanation is the weekly period.

  20. Jon says January 7, 2014 at 10:14 am

    How is this snow in USA and no snow in Europe going to affect the Public health in USA and in Europe?

    The physiological or the psychological? Also bearing in mind one can either adversely or the
    antonym, ‘favorably’, affect the other …

    .

  21. According to bbc weather they have no reason to think that the polar vortex has anything to do with this weather. They referenced the Met Office who say the same.

    They say it’s just jet stream behaviour.

  22. ‘Found this editorial From the Washington TImes. A total reversal of the use of “Climate Denialists”. ‘

    Yep, I’ve been referring to warmies as “deniers of science” for years. Warmies HATE being shown data, statistics, satellite readings, long term histories. They work with forecasts, predictions, guesses.

    They openly now admit that they’re probably wrong – falling back on the precautionary principle. Did Einstein have a theory of what relativity might be, but probably isn’t? Do they award a Nobel Prize in Probably Not Chemistry?

  23. Jim Cripwell says:
    January 7, 2014 at 11:01 am

    What I worry about are the Seville oranges, which I need to make my marmalade every year. I believe the ones we get in Canada are grown in Arizona. They should be in the stores within the next two weeks. Anyone got any news?

    The western US is in a drought of record proportions so that may effect the citrus crop.

  24. NOAA’s experimental FIM model is supposed to one day succeed the GFS. For now it’s still rated “experimental”. But it is already supposed to beat the GFS 6 days out and further. The url for the website (CONUS coverage) is

    http://fim.noaa.gov/FIM/Welcome.cgi?dsKey=fim_jet&domain=236

    Click on an hour in the “2m temp” line, and you’ll get the temperature forecast map for that hour. If you click on the “Domain:” dropdown menu, you can get different areas. E.g. “Arctic” gives you coverage of most of Asia and North America.

  25. Sorry, but could you please advise
    Degrees F or C
    I could try and guess, but then I`m not a AGW scientist so would have to learn the skill

  26. . A similar polar vortex breakout happened also in January1985 shortly after a very warm spell along the east coast of North America in December 1984. Could the past warm spell in November2013 in Northern Asia be behind our current cold spell. These events are both somewhat similar to a SSW event [ Sudden Stratospheric Warming ]which have been happening in December / January every few year but have been happening more frequently recently .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_1985_Arctic_outbreak

  27. Steve from Rockwood: No there is not a lot of ice in the arctic. its currently running at less than last year (take a look at the ice page under Reference Pages in the menu at the top).

    There was a period when it was icing up faster than normal, and lots of people hooked on to that and keep repeating it as if its still true – its not.

    To maintain credibility we really have to call out those that exaggerate or use out of date information on both sides of the argument.

  28. I guess for irony’s sake, cspan’s Washington Journal invited the Center for American Progress’s Director of Climate Strategy to spew their climate Change boilerplate. It didn’t take long to figure out what their climate strategy is; green technology boondoggles. I do credit him for being completely unfazed by today’s temperatures, he called it winter.

  29. People seem to display immense levels of ignorance when it comes to the weather. I suppose that’s what these disciples of pope Al Gore and his religion of global warming count on. I can guess at the fun they’d have with the situation I’m experiencing now in Buffalo …

    tied the record low of -5°F (-20.5°C) this morning around 10AM

    experiencing a blizzard as well … no, not blizzard-like conditions but an actual blizzard

    the three counties around Buffalo (Erie, Genesee, and Wyoming) are the only 3 counties in the country right now where the NWS has issued a blizzard warning … it kicked in yesterday and it’s set to continue on into tomorrow morning. First time we’ve had a blizzard since 1993.

    It’s not the coldest it’s ever been in Buffalo, nor is it the worst blizzard, nor is it the most snow, so, it can’t be touted as unprecedented; but, for people who are unaware of weather history, it’s easy to get suckered into the “unprecedented” label. But spare me that stupid “extreme weather” label … a blizzard is extreme weather in its most fundamental sense … it’s been 20 years since the last blizzard and I can remember experiencing a blizzard more than 50 years ago, when I was a tad bit younger and better able to enjoy the conditions (when I loved those snow days). And how much snow am I talking about? I don’t know. 5 miles south of me, in the village of Lancaster, they’re reporting 10″ snow (so far) and 5 miles west of me, the reported total so far is 4″ of snow. But the storm itself keeps on moving around … it’s ~50 miles long and ~12 miles wide … or rather, it was … it’s since split in two lengthwise and is covering more territory with a nice breather in the middle (oh look … the sun just came out).

    I wonder if those idiots at the Weather Channel will give a name to this storm. Spare me the fluff n stuff and bring a shovel and dig me out.

    And the NY State Thruway (interstate (I90) for all you normal folk) is closed from Rochester to the NY/PA state line.

    And the blizzard warning has just now been lifted for Erie county … I guess the sustained winds have dropped enough to make it no longer a blizzard … but it’s still cold and snowing and there is plenty of wind and wind gusts.

    Where’s that global warming when you need it?

  30. steveta_uk: As I understand it Polar Vortex = Jet Stream. Just sounds more … evil … so I have no idea what the Met Office is trying to say.

  31. Conversion: [°C] = ([°F] − 32) × 5⁄9 [°F] = [°C] × 9⁄5 + 32

    Intervals:1 °F = 1 °R = 5⁄9 °C = 5⁄9 K

  32. fhhaynie says:
    January 7, 2014 at 10:43 am
    “I’m glad we are burning a lot of fossil fuel to keep people from freezing. What if we were forced to depend on solar cells or wind mills to keep us warm?

    If you were going to rely on wind power from the Bonneville Power grid (western US, I know), you would get very cold. See the green line here:

    http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx

    Did I mention that there is 100% cloud cover? As if that mattered for power here.

  33. Thumb-rule for conversion between degrees Celsius and degrees Fahrenheit:
    Fahrenheit to Celsius: Subtract 32 and halve the resulting number.
    Celsius to Fahrenheit: Double the number and add 32.

  34. Leon, what your experiencing is not a “storm” per se, even tho the conditions are by definition “blizzard”. The winds from this “polar vortex” (it’s not as far as I can see, but really just a very large, very deep low (940mb), over Ungava at one point, coupled to the jet stream) are pumping strong winds straight down Lake Erie, giving you a solid enduring lake effect blizzard, that will persist until the low moves off and/or breaks up. This winter season has had its fair share early of lake effect snow, with lots of wind. Hopefully Erie will soon freeze and we can move on to “sedate” bright skies winter.

  35. Berényi Péter says:
    January 7, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    More ice on Lake Michigan than seen in decades

    According to Environment Canada, the Great Lakes haven’t had this much ice so early in the season since the late 1980s.
    […]
    From a historical perspective, the current ice level is on track to do something we haven’t seen in decades: cover most of Lake Michigan.
    ————————————————————–
    Why is it that a reduction in summer Arctic ice increases extreme weather in the winter on the North American continent while an increase in winter ice over the Great Lakes does nothing?

  36. @lsvalgaard – the preceding for this tongue of cold air was a warm sector boundary that streamed over Detroit on the weekend, and brought a lot of moisture out of the US lower midwest across lower Michigan and southern Ontario – the warm line was pretty well defined – south of it everybody got rain then a bit of freezing rain, then came the cold air Sunday night. Temps in the Detroit area hovered close to freezing.

  37. An interesting point of order. Everyone is referring to this pattern as a “Polar Vortex”. From my many moons of forecasting in Canada, and north of 60N, I would definitely be calling this the “Arctic Vortex”. Generally the Arctic Vortex does not drop much further south than southern Hudson Bay. This time it decided to venture much further south.

    When it comes to airmass and fronts these definitions are generally accepted:

    Polar Front: Separates air masses of polar and tropical origin.

    Arctic Front: The front between the deep, cold arctic air and the shallower, basically less cold polar air of northern latitudes.
    So this is definitely a classic “Arctic Vortex”.

  38. Philip says:
    January 7, 2014 at 12:08 pm
    ———————————————–
    Phillip, I checked the Arctic page, about 12 million sq km versus 13 for “normal”. So the Arctic is about 30 days behind in its ice build-up. This is enough to cause unprecedented weather?

  39. Berényi Péter says:
    January 7, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    More ice on Lake Michigan than seen in decades

    According to Environment Canada, the Great Lakes haven’t had this much ice so early in the season since the late 1980s.
    […]
    From a historical perspective, the current ice level is on track to do something we haven’t seen in decades: cover most of Lake Michigan.

    Lake Michigan does freeze over on occasion (depending on your definition of “freeze over”); it came very close in 1979, and fairly close in 1977 and 1994. Lake Superior less often, but it froze over in 2003 and 2009, or twice in one decade.
    See the WUWT Article.

    But the Coast Guard icebreakers on the Great Lakes have been busy this year.

  40. Columbus Ohio set a new record low for January 7, -8F.
    In 2002 the record low for the date was -6F set in 1942.
    In 2012 the record low for the date was -5F set in 1884.

  41. Martin Hovland says:
    January 7, 2014 at 10:23 am

    Where’s the centigrade maps?
    _______________________
    I found mine in the box where i keep my 15mm wrench.

  42. By the record events map at top of this page, most of the US is experiencing Winter weather, while California is in the throes of Global Warming. Just look at all those record highs!

  43. A bit off topic but The Weather Channel changed the format for “Weather on the 8’s” last November. Since the change I haven’t noticed them mention the record highs and lows for the date. Maybe I’ve just missed them. Has anyone noticed them showing them at times for other areas?
    Back in 2007 noticing the record highs didn’t seem to be recent and so didn’t jive with the “Global Warming” hype is what prompted me to start getting the list of records from the (US) NWS in the first place.

  44. Here is another case of SUDDEN STRATOSPHERIC WARMING splitting the polar vortex in two that just happened in January 2013

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/16/1179397/-Sudden-Stratospheric-Warming-Split-the-Polar-Vortex-in-Two#

    Here is the GLOBAL SST IN January1985 just when there was another polar vortex breakout like January 2014. Notice the extra warm water off the coast of North America and North Pacific near ALASKA

    Here is the GLOBAL SST in December 2013 just before the current polar vortex breakout. Notice the anomalous anticyclone near the coast of Alaska and the Pacific northwest. Could the warm spell over North Asia and the warm spot near Alaska have pumped extra warm air into the Arctic [ positive AO existed in November and December 2013] cause the latest polar vortex break out?

  45. Andy says:
    January 7, 2014 at 11:28 am

    They openly now admit that they’re probably wrong – falling back on the precautionary principle. Did Einstein have a theory of what relativity might be, but probably isn’t? Do they award a Nobel Prize in Probably Not Chemistry?
    ——————————————————————————————————————-
    The precautionary principle is based on possibility not probability and therefore is not a scientific principle.

  46. Paul Coppin says:
    January 7, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    Leon, what your experiencing is not a “storm” per se,

    It may not be the usual type storm most familiar to everyone (cyclonic disturbances), but its consequences are just as devastating. Witness Lake Storm Aphid (yes, they actually name them) from October 2006 (aka the October Surprise Storm) which downed thousands of trees and left 2′ of heavy wet snow on the ground in the bulls eye of the storm (where I live).

    In the meantime, it looks like the blizzard warning does in fact remain in effect for Erie County … the on-air meteorologist jumped the gun and goofed in saying it had been cancelled. However, the record cold (tied the old record of -5°F set in 1942) is causing a rapid freezing of Lake Erie and is impacting the lake effect snow band so much that it’s starting to break apart. Much of what might get classed as open water is probably “rotten” ice (a Lake Erie slushee).

    Another bad bit of news for the kids is that while they may have a snow day (or two) it won’t do them much good since it’s far too cold to play in it. Mostly it’s the kind of snow a skier would love … a fine powder and lots of it.

  47. This is what happens when the institutional memory (the media and the Meteorologists) of a country has self imposed Alzheimers.

    This was NORMAL weather for this country less than 50 years ago. Every. Winter. Duh.

    Good grief. I lived in NW Indiana and it got cold as he!!, it snowed a lot and the wind blew it into snow drifts that would be higher than the cars. Go look at some archival photos of the time.

    This ain’t rocket science. If a pattern of weather happened once before, then it’s likely to happen again.

    But because of a political agenda suddenly no one can remember the ’50’s or ’60’s or ’70’s and even in some areas the early ’80’s last century. Strangely enough this occurred in the exact same area that it’s happening again now. Imagine that.

    (I can’t speak for earlier than that but my parents used to tell me about the storms that THEY lived through in the ’20’s, 30’s and ’40’s)

  48. steveta_uk says:
    January 7, 2014 at 11:15 am

    “According to bbc weather they have no reason to think that the polar vortex has anything to do with this weather. They referenced the Met Office who say the same.”

    Aren’t these the same guys who have been wrong for a decade or so? Aren’t they the ones that had the lowest estimate for arctic sea ice extent – 50% or so too low. I think I’m right because Julia Slingo of the Met O. just got the OBE (order of the British Empire) for her seminal work (I didn’t know she was microbiologist sarc/off).

  49. Jim Cripwell. Seville oranges are available in Sainsbury’s, Wigan, U.K. Bought some today. Suspect cost of postage may be prohibitive though.

  50. jakee308 says:
    January 7, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    This is what happens when the institutional memory (the media and the Meteorologists) of a country has self imposed Alzheimers.

    This was NORMAL weather for this country less than 50 years ago. Every. Winter. Duh.
    ====================================================================
    As I mentioned before, Columbus Ohio set a record low. But the all-time (recorded) record low was -22F set January 19, 1994. I lived here then. So did my kids but they were to young to remember.
    BTW Our record low for January, 6 was -20F set in 1884. Our record low for January, 8 from the 2002 list was -12F set in 1942. (The 2013 list says it was only -9 set in 1968.)

  51. Impressive the arguments these guys are using these days. See how Richard Alley tries to mislead CNN readers:

    “The knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it has a warming influence we’ve had for more than a century,” he said. “And the real physics of it were refined by the Air Force after World War II when they were working on sensors for heat-seeking missiles.”

    “In some bizarre sense, to deny global warming is to question the ability of the Air Force to put the right sensor on the heat-seeking missile.”

    Anyone to comment this incredible argument? It’s so dumb that I doubt that he is a climatologist, at least a serious one…

    http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/07/is-climate-change-responsible-for-record-cold-in-u-s/?hpt=hp_t2

  52. Not only do we have the only 3 counties in the country with a blizzard warning, but we’ve also got, with temps in the single digits (just rose to 7°F) the only flash flood warning in the country … the winds are such that they pushed so much ice into the ice boom on Lake Erie that it was breached and ice is flowing down the Niagara River and jamming up a few miles from Niagara Falls, raising the river levels for a couple miles upstream.

    Current conditions in the country:

    http://www.weather.gov/

    So far it looks like most activities that were closed today will be closed tomorrow … still way too cold and we’ll all be busy slowly digging out … we should all be back to normal by Thursday.

    In the meantime, for only the first time in over a dozen years, the NHL hockey game for tonight in Buffalo has been postponed.

  53. Spartacus says:
    January 7, 2014 at 2:48 pm
    ========================================================
    The secret to the sensors in US heat-seeking missiles is that they contain CO2?
    Who’da’thought?

  54. It seems as though you could model the earth as a heat pump that balances between heat leaving at the poles(plasma fountain, plasma structures that change) and heat coming in at the equator… We measured record cold at the poles so the earth will cool off..

    Simple, huh…..

  55. Doug Huffman says:
    January 7, 2014 at 12:31 pm
    “Thumb-rule for conversion between degrees Celsius and degrees Fahrenheit:
    Fahrenheit to Celsius: Subtract 32 and halve the resulting number.
    Celsius to Fahrenheit: Double the number and add 32.”

    Except that the boiling point of water is not 90 C {(212-32)/2} nor is it 232 F {(100×2)+ 32} .

    It does work for the melting point of water though.
    .

  56. In the News:

    4. Chicago’s resident polar bear at the Lincoln Park Zoo stayed indoors. Now, that’s cold.

    5. In Minnesota, the record for AAA roadside assistance calls was shattered, with 3,000 members calling on Monday.
    link

    The polar bear stayed inside? No that is a real comment on the weather!

  57. jono1066 says:
    January 7, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Sorry, but could you please advise
    Degrees F or C
    I could try and guess, but then I`m not a AGW scientist so would have to learn the skill
    =====================================================================
    Try this. It’s not a computer model but I think you can trust it. 8-)

    http://www.onlineconversion.com/

  58. To those commenting on the record rain event in Detroit. I am not familiar with this particular product and so can’t explain why its indicated but there was no record rainfall event in Detroit the past week.

    The warmest reading in Detroit during that period was 32 F on January 4th. Rain can fall at that temperature and freezing rain can occur at temperatures much colder than 32 F but that is not what happened in Detroit. There was a record snow event on January 4, 2014 when 10.2 inches of snow was recorded. See Climate report below for January 5, 2014 and SNOWFALL YESTERDAY.

    You can also note the month to date precip as 1.36 and month to date snowfall as 21.0 inches. All of this precip fell as snow in Detroit.

    ..THE DETROIT MI CLIMATE SUMMARY FOR JANUARY 5 2014…

    CLIMATE NORMAL PERIOD 1981 TO 2010
    CLIMATE RECORD PERIOD 1874 TO 2014

    WEATHER ITEM OBSERVED TIME RECORD YEAR NORMAL DEPARTURE LAST
    VALUE (LST) VALUE VALUE FROM YEAR
    NORMAL
    …………………………………………………………
    TEMPERATURE (F)
    YESTERDAY
    MAXIMUM 32 146 PM 59 1997 32 0 34
    MINIMUM 20 1159 PM -10 1999 20 0 14
    AVERAGE 26 26 0 24

    PRECIPITATION (IN)
    YESTERDAY 0.90 0.91 1955 0.07 0.83 0.03
    MONTH TO DATE 1.36 0.36 1.00 0.03
    SINCE DEC 1 3.78 2.82 0.96 2.67
    SINCE JAN 1 1.36 0.36 1.00 0.03

    SNOWFALL (IN)
    YESTERDAY 10.2 R 4.6 2005 0.4 9.8 0.5
    MONTH TO DATE 21.0 2.0 19.0 0.5
    SINCE DEC 1 36.5 11.6 24.9 11.1
    SINCE JUL 1 37.7 13.2 24.5 11.5
    SNOW DEPTH 8

  59. Gail Combs says:
    January 7, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    The polar bear stayed inside? No that is a real comment on the weather!

    ==============================================================
    Soooo…are Al’s polar bear numbers decreasing because it’s so cold polar bears aren’t going out to meet other polar bears or is Al wrong because it’s so cold polar bears aren’t going out after they’ve already met other polar bears?
    Sounds like this calls for another research grant!

  60. Does Dr. Monseigneur Gavin Schmidt still believe in warmer winters as a result of carbon dioxide?

    June 4, 1999
    Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model
    ….Other authors of the Nature paper were Gavin A. Schmidt, associate research scientist at Columbia’s Center for Climate Systems Research;…..

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990604081638.htm

    ———————————————-
    Nature – 29 March 1999
    Simulation of recent northern winter climate trends by greenhouse-gas forcing

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/full/399452a0.html

    ———————————————-
    NASA Giss – Apr. 23, 2001
    Greenhouse Gases Main Reason for Quicker Northern Winter Warming

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20010423/

    Climate change is real, it is happening before our very eyes. Change you can believe in.

  61. Remember, boys and girls, as the Weather Channel just reminded everyone, this is just weather as the global situation is still above normal and trending upward. BTW they forgot to mention the lack of said upward trend for the past 17 years.

  62. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    January 7, 2014 at 1:14 pm
    “But the Coast Guard icebreakers on the Great Lakes have been busy this year”.

    ABC News ran a (mostly) good piece about the cold from both an economic perspective as well as the impact on people. They had some good footage of icebreaking in the Saint Mary’s River near my hometown of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. I say it was mostly good because near the end, they brought out the obligatory climate “scientist” (or wannabe scientist) who claimed the cold weather is due to melting ice in the arctic.

    As driveby journalists, they really can’t help themselves…

  63. Q: When did modern science lose it’s credibility with the public?
    A: When it substituted accurate scientific terminology with speaking in metaphors.

    The common occurrence of “Global Warming” became a metaphor for “Man-Made Global Warming”.
    The common occurrence of “Climate Change” became a metaphor for “Man-Made Climate change”.

    I don’t believe this conscious choice of truncated spoken and written words to describe a scientific idea was done out of laziness. Rather, I think it is done out of a conscious will to brainwash and deceive the general public into believing that climate is their fault and must take the blame for all weather events. If the scientific speaking in metaphors was not done on purpose for psychological reasons then why do it? Scientists commonly use acronyms and could have used MMGW or MMCC to more accurately describe exactly what it is they’re talking about concerning climatology.

    As long as the scientific community continues to speak in metaphors concerning climate change, I’ll continue to hold them in low esteem.

  64. Tomorrow, in the (still) bitterly cold, as I get out to begin shoveling out at least a half foot of powdery snow, I’ll have to remind myself that in only 3 days from then we’ll have temps above normal, in the mid-40’s and rain … and Sunday will be even better … no rain, just sun … unfortunately, we still face ~3 months of snow.

  65. The planetary wave induced SSW that initiated the artic vortex this time was triggered by solar events several days prior to the vortex induced cold waves. This Xflare day will probably kick off another series of similar events.

  66. poor saskatoon, always coldest. although winnipeg usually gives it a run for that crown every year. saskatoon is a great place by the way, booming actually.

  67. I come from the land of the ice and snow,
    from the freezing wind where it’s ten below
    (Immigrant Song)
    Greetings from Michigan

  68. lsvalgaard says:
    January 7, 2014 at 10:19 am
    Stephen Rasey says:
    January 7, 2014 at 10:18 am
    @lsvalgaard: It is a 1 week view. The rain records could have come while it was still warm.
    Thanks. That little detail escaped me.

    That, too, would be a record. ; – )

  69. Meanwhile here in SoCal it’s temperatures in the mid 70’s. However, it’s dry enough that the trees try to go after the dogs.

  70. Martin Hovland says:
    January 7, 2014 at 10:23 am
    Where’s the centigrade maps?
    ———————————

    centigrade (ˈsɛntɪˌɡreɪd)
    adj
    1. (Units) a former name for Celsius
    n
    2. (Units) a unit of angle equal to one hundredth of a grade
    Usage: Although still used in meteorology, centigrade, when indicating the Celsius scale of temperature, is now usually avoided because of its possible confusion with the hundredth part of a grade

  71. This all looks like the kind of winter weather I grew up with in Wisconsin (1960 – 1980). Seriously.

    I was back in WI this year during the week of Thanksgiving. The low of the week was 6F and the high was 31F. Although the local mill ponds were frozen over sufficiently to be safe for ice fishing, skating, and hockey, there were no kids out on them. I guess it’s hard to skate and text at the same time…..

    Big Green Lake (270 feet max. depth, Green Lake county, WI) seldom freezes over before January – maybe 1 year in 25 or so. It froze over on Dec 28 this year. It’s shaping up to be a real ‘old fashioned winter’ in the northern tier of the US and Canada.

  72. 7 Jan: Metro.US: City breaks 118-year-old record as New Yorkers endure freezing weather and below-zero wind chills
    Temperatures dropped to a low of 4 degrees in the city, according to the National Weather Service.
    The previous record for Jan. 7 was set in 1896, when temperatures reached 6 degrees.
    In Central Park, that record was broken before 7 a.m., when temperatures reached 5 degrees and continued to drop.
    Wind chills reached minus 17 degrees just before 9 a.m…

    http://www.metro.us/newyork/news/local/2014/01/07/new-york-city-record-cold-weather/

  73. Ron Christie says:
    January 7, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    “FYI, a certain Michael Mann has commented on cbc.ca news:

    http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Technology/ID/2428739814/

    They say the best defense is a good offense, but really!”

    I hate to say I watched this video. Why didn’t CBC get a reputable meteorologist to comment like Anthony Watts or John Coleman?

    So M. Mann infers that this an unprecedented (climate change) jet stream wiggle? What about when these all time state records were set? Was that because of climate change also? Probably had to do with a jet stream wiggle – Check the dates:
    State Record Low Date Location
    Alabama −27 °F / −33 °C January 30, 1966 New Market
    Arkansas −29 °F / −34 °C February 13, 1905 Gravette
    Florida −2 °F / −19 °C February 13, 1899 Tallahassee
    Georgia −17 °F / −27 °C January 27, 1940 Northern Floyd County
    Louisiana −16 °F / −27 °C February 13, 1899 Minden
    Mississippi−19 °F / −28 °C January 30, 1966 Corinth
    South Carolina−22°F/−30°C January 21, 1985 Hogback Mountain
    Texas −23 °F / −31 °C February 8, 1933 Seminole

  74. While the US is shivering in record cold, the BoM here in Australia is predicting, based on computer models, record heat at Emu Creek and other Western Australian locations over the next few days.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/remote-emu-creek-may-be-set-for-50degree-scorcher-20140108-30gmd.html

    As the article states, the nearest automatic weather station to Emu Creek is at an airport. Peter Hannam is an extreme supporter of AGW. We won’t have too long to wait Peter.

  75. I see there is a lot of comment in the US press about a “1 in 20 year event”.

    For people outside the US like me, it would be useful to know how for back the ?instrumental weather records go back, so we can judge the actual magnitude of the event. Seems more like a 1 in 200 year event in some places.

    Help anyone?

  76. Philip says:
    January 7, 2014 at 12:08 pm
    Steve from Rockwood: No there is not a lot of ice in the arctic. its currently running at less than last year (take a look at the ice page under Reference Pages in the menu at the top).

    It’s not quite as simple as that. Ice extent is maller but ice area is larger than last year. So there is actually more ice, but concentrated in a smaller area. Probably this is because warm weather and southerly winds in the northeast Atlantic have been concentrating the ice. Ice extent is currently at 95 % of the 1979-2008 average (in the Antarctic it is at 135%!)

  77. Greg Goodman,

    In the very unlikely event that you had air warm enough for liquid water droplets to form above a surface temp of -2F, the droplets would freeze long before hitting the ground resulting in hail/sleet not rain.

  78. I have lived in or around Atlanta for all but about 2 of my 71 years. Yes this is a cold snap although I have seen worse. The interesting fact for me is that while in most (almost all) years we have several 100F days in the summer. We had none last summer.

  79. http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Books/Personal/The-Bet?WT.mc_id=12_13_2013_TheBet

    The recent very cold temperatures in North America provide a preview of how a colder climate affects people. More people die.

    Excess winter mortality rates increase and the poor suffer the most.

    Fortunately in North America we have cheap natural gas due to shale fracking.

    In Europe the enviro-extremists have been fighting shale fracking and natural gas is many times more expensive.

  80. The cold is coming to Europe next week. Me hopes for the same record cold as the US had.

  81. Jimbo’s links etc… and other similar are what really counts here. Steven Goddard has saved thousands of fraudelant adjusments contradictory statements etc materials which can be used to completely and efficiently counter the warmistas

  82. Hard freeze in the northern parts of Florida this morning. Crestview Florida hit -7.5C. Freezing rain around Gainesville.

  83. Fear not. A January thaw is coming this weekend, lasting about four days. Whether unusually cold or unusually warm though, it’s just weather of course.

  84. Wouldn’t want to be walking round Disney in a temperature of 43 degrees..! (I assume that’s Fahrenheit). I have actually been there in January – and it WAS pretty damn cold…

  85. All that cold sucked down from North pole.
    Expect to hear about “the lowest mid winter ice extent ever” as there will be less heat at the margin for a while. I wish there were put and call options on JAXA sea ice.

  86. BBC reports that North American cold records tumble.

    BBC – 8 January 2014
    Weather records have tumbled across North America, with freezing temperatures even in the southern US.

    The most extreme arctic blasts, blamed on a weather pattern known as the polar vortex, were said to have affected nearly 190 million people.

    In Kentucky, an escaped prisoner turned himself in to get out of the cold.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25647963

    I see that co2 is now the main climate driver, especially during the winter.

  87. Ron Christie says:
    January 7, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    “FYI, a certain Michael Mann has commented on cbc.ca news:

    http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Technology/ID/2428739814/

    They say the best defense is a good offense, but really!”
    _____________________________
    Aside from the completely BS claims made by Mann in the video, the newscaster (Susan Bonner,) called Michael Mann a “co- winner of the Nobel Prize” and he didn’t correct her. That should tell anyone all they need to know about Mann’s credibility. If anyone in the MSM calls him on the Nobel BS, then he’ll just say it slipped his mind,. or something.

  88. How do recent temperature extremes constitute proof that our climate is not changing? I’m not saying it’s conclusive or even good evidence for climate change or global warming, but it certainly does not support the opposing view.
    This is obviously a politically charged issue, but I am hoping someone will have some kind of rational argument to give me on this point.

    As you may have guessed, my beliefs do align with those of the so-called AGWs, but I am first and foremost a scientist (though not a climate scientist), and I am trying to keep an open mind, as difficult as that can be at times. I hope the fact that I am reading some of the articles on this site is evidence of this.

  89. Gigabiting (@gigabiting) says:
    January 7, 2014 at 10:37 am

    One thing the polar vortex has shown us is how woefully unprepared we are for the record cold temperatures we’re experiencing. We’re particularly misinformed when it comes to choosing winter warmup drinks. It seems to defy logic, but a cold beverage can help you hang on to body heat better than a hot one.
    Remember that most of the world drinks hot tea in hot weather, and Alaska leads the nation in per capita ice cream consumption. It’s counterintuitive but true—hot drinks cool you down and cold drinks warm you up.

    http://gigabiting.com/what-to-drink-in-a-polar-vortex/

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Let me know when it gets cold, so far I’m not impressed but I’ll give you the unprepared, most folks today are not prepared for anything and further they’ll panic over nothing.

  90. Given Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) as the primary driving-force of global temperatures, Sunspot Cycle 24’s extremely sub-par peak likely precedes a 70+ year “dead sun” Grand Solar Minimum similar to that of 1645 – 1715, which depopulated northern Europe by two-thirds in the mid-1690s.

    Warmist drivel aside, after some 14,400 years Earth’s current Holocene Interglacial Epoch is 1,500 years overdue to end, delayed only by the exo-planetary Younger Dryas “cold shock” from c. BC 8800 – 7300 [see Prof. James P. Kennett’s report on “Impact Spherules”, May 2013].

    Characterized by periodic chill-phases over some 2.6-million years, median Pleistocene Era glaciations last 102,000 years with kilo-year interstadial remissions. Since these result primarily from continental plate-tectonic dispositions –whereby North and South American landmasses disrupt Eastern vs. Western Hemispheric atmospheric/oceanic circulation patterns– geophysicists (not climatologists) can safely say that Planet Earth is likely due for cyclical hominid-endangering Deep Freezes recurring regular-as-clockwork over the next 12 to 14-million years.

    Nothing anthropogenic about plate tectonics or Total Solar Irradiance, my little Warmist chickadees.
    Over the next few decades, perhaps centuries, as Gaia becomes progressively uninhabitable a la the 17th Century’s classic Maunder Minimum, the only escape will be off-Earth to gigantic modular refugia orbiting about Sol’s “habitable zone” plane-of-the-ecliptic. Hyper-linked cyber-organisms in autonomous, competing analogs of Renaissance city states will be the least of it.

  91. The warmistas on The Weather Channel this morning were saying that the bitter cold was caused by warming in the Arctic that “dislodged” part of the polar vortex and send it southward to us. They showed their obligatory graphics showing the “strong” warming trend over the last 50-60 years. For them to make such warmist points during the middle of such immense cold is interesting…

  92. @Gary Pearse
    Julia Slingo hasn’t been awarded an OBE, she has been given a much higher honour (ti some people) – she’s been made a Dame (the female equivalent of a Knight or ‘Sir’). The award was for “her services to weather and climate science.” (to quote the official reason).

    The Met Office’s chief executive, John Hirst, has also been recognised in the New Year Honours List and has been made a CBE.

    Because the Met Office is sooo good they can now give us space weather and the weather forecast for Jupiter! But can only say that it ‘may rain’ later today in the UK.

    8-)

  93. @Bob S.

    Great to have an open minded person AGW-inclined persuasion. I think that the onus to prove premise that we are experiencing extraordinary climate change is on the Warmist camp. The Polar Vortex we are experiencing is the status quo for North America, as it was in the 70’s when alarmist proclaimed it heralded Ice-Age-Impending Global Cooling. (See Time Magazine via: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/time-magazine-goes-both-ways-on-the-polar-vortex/)

    Note that we have changed from Global Warming (since the globe hasn’t been warming for 15-17 years — even with some interesting temp adjustments applied to the data) to “Climate Change”. Well, the climate always changes. I’m glad we’re not in the midst of an Ice Age, or even a “Little Ice Age”. The world has been much warmer (see the Jurassaic period or the Holocene Optimum) without any interference by man. Furthermore, the rate of temperature increase in the latest warming period (80s-90s) was no more rapid that the previous period (30s-40s — I’m sure someone else here has the reference to the charts I’ve seen in the past.)

    What is remarkable is that the IPCC says that man could not have caused the earlier temperature increase, but causes the second (at a 95% certainty level). Yet, the rates were the same. And now, massive increases in CO2 during the last 1 1/2 decades, we have seen no temperature increase.

    Few people here deny that extra CO2 from man has no contribution to the climate. We only note that, given physics as we understand it, it can only have a small and declining contribution with increased concentrations. Even the IPCC relies on Water vapor (the models to not predict at all reliably) to get the catastrophic warming.

    I hope this helps you.

  94. jono1066 says:
    January 7, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Go to Google.com, type ‘7f in c’ in the search box (no quotes), hit return. Read answer.

  95. The purple bit on the first map looks very like the extent of the Laurentide ice sheet during the Wisconsin glaciation (the most recent one). Just sayin’.

  96. @danj

    Why is anyone in their right mind watching “The Weather Channel” to get any weather information at all? The only way these people will go away is if we stop funding their garbage by watching their channel on cable or visiting their websites. Eventually, their sponsors will get the message…

    (These same comments also apply to the “Weather Underground” – the only weather “information” site named after a radial left wing organization)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

    “The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), commonly known as the Weather Underground, was an American radical left organization founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. Originally called Weatherman, the group became known colloquially as the Weathermen. Weatherman first organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)[2] composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters. Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the overthrow of the US government.

  97. Bob S. says:
    January 8, 2014 at 6:49 am
    “How do recent temperature extremes constitute proof that our climate is not changing?”

    They don’t. The climate is always changing. The concept that humans have had any significant contribution to that change or that changes in our behaviour could have any significant impact upon it are what most analytically oriented individuals challenge. According to the climate models temperatures should still be rising along with the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and they have not risen in 17 years. Models that do not predict should not be the basis for public policy. Warm has historically always been better than cold for human populations and such activities as food production. Without CO2 this would be a dead planet, ie no photosynthesis. There are so many erroneous issues in the AGW plan book one could write a book on the errors in logic, alone.
    Monitor this site and you will have plenty of additional data and insites to add to your personal evaluation of what you want to believe.

  98. Bob S. says:
    January 8, 2014 at 6:49 am

    How do recent temperature extremes constitute proof that our climate is not changing? I’m not saying it’s conclusive or even good evidence for climate change or global warming, but it certainly does not support the opposing view.

    A bit of a straw man there, Bob. No one claims either a) that the climate isn’t changing, since it always changes or b) that it “proves” anything one way or the other. There is little evidence that man’s CO2 has done anything to affect temperatures, and the idea that it somehow affects our weather is laughable. Yet, the claim continues to be made, or at least implied.

  99. Who’all wants to get in on a betting pool over whether or not, come the first week of February, NOAA will call January 2014 the hottest January ever recorded?

    Side-bet on whether or not there’ll again be a suspiciously Russia-sized, Russia-shaped superhotspot centered on Russia and stopping precisely at Russia’s borders present in the land-based temperature record, the magnitude of which will be enough to skew the entire data set to record highs?

  100. Bob S. says:
    January 8, 2014 at 6:49 am

    How do recent temperature extremes constitute proof that our climate is not changing? I’m not saying it’s conclusive or even good evidence for climate change or global warming, but it certainly does not support the opposing view.
    This is obviously a politically charged issue, but I am hoping someone will have some kind of rational argument to give me on this point.

    Please answer – by calculations, NOT by “press release” or by sweeping generalities! – the following:

    1) These temperatures (lows in the US and highs as in Australia) are truly “exceptional” in the world’s historical period, and they have not been measured before by “unmodified” temperature records.

    2) Show, by calculations, that a perceived (claimed) global average temperature increase of 0.7 degrees since 1850 can CAUSE today’s regional low temperatures in the US, AND regional high temperatures in Australia, AND a 17 year period of steady temperatures AND a 25 year decline in global average temperatures between 1940 and 1975. (Remember, there are no worldwide measurements of the so-called “soot effect” or aerosols … Only claims.) NO global circulation model at ANY site has been correct over even a ten-year forecast period.

    3) Tell us, by calculation, WHY the GCM models can be accepted as accurate when

    While CO2 was steady over 75 year period, global average temperature records and proxies
    Remained steady over several12 year periods,
    Increased over a 25 year period,
    Decreased over a 20 year period.
    While CO2 was increased over 55 year period, global average temperature records and proxies
    Remained steady over two 12 year periods,
    Increased over a 25 year period,
    Decreased over a 20 year period.

    Thus, my final questions:
    3A) What is the actual measured influence on global temperature,
    3B) If the world’s global average temperature has increased despite the addition of CO2, and it has increased without the addition of CO2, and will cause no harm by increasing, so why does the CAGW community demand the world harm itself by artificially restricting CO2 and deliberately restricting greater energy economies?
    3C) If the CAGW can ONLY justify its extremely large budgets (and its crisis mode of demands that will harm people worldwide) by creating perceived emergencies and by demanding more money and ever-greater budgets, how can they pretend to NOT be “self-funding through crisis”?

  101. Bob S. says:
    January 8, 2014 at 6:49 am

    How do recent temperature extremes constitute proof that our climate is not changing?….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Try to get rid of the your preconceived notions about this site. This site has attracted and kept as contributors many scientists. Saying those here think the climate does not change is really quite insulting. It is an attempt to reduce us to unthinking idiots and thereby marginalize us.

    For example try William McClenney (geologist):
    New Geologic evidence of very very quick climate changes. link

    An alternate view: The Antithesis

    A discussion of a new paper (2012) Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?

    Or try Dr. Robert Brown of Duke University:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/07/a-brief-introduction-to-the-detection-of-climate-and-weather-transitions-using-hurst-rescaling/#comment-1299461

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/#comment-1521678

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/18/the-ensemble-of-models-is-completely-meaningless-statistically/

  102. Hi Leon,

    I wonder if the blizzard you mention from your youth is the one my mom talks about. It would have been the mid 1940s. It was the year they moved to Erie County from Oklahoma. She describes the snow drifting to the peak of the barn — 40 feet (12m). I might dismiss that as hyperbole, except that I’ve seen the photo my Grandfather made of the kids playing in it.

  103. @ Bruce Cobb
    My “straw man” comment was based on numerous posts on this site that seem to me to imply that if it is colder than usual somewhere, than global warming is definitely a hoax. That is a logically flawed argument. I know these posts I refer to do not necessarily represent the views of all people not in the AGW camp, but it is those types of comments that I was aiming at, and there are many of them.
    Also, I don’t understand why it is “laughable” that man’s production of CO2 could affect global temperatures, which could potentially affect the weather we experience. The greenhouse effect can be demonstrated on a small scale and adding more energy to our atmosphere seems to me to have the potential to change things. Can it change things on a scale that we can measure or even notice? I admit I do not know the answer to that, but it’s hardly a laughable notion.

    @ Dire Wolf
    Thanks for your level-headed reply. You bring up some good points I will think more about. Your main argument seems to be that man’s activities probably do have some effect on the climate, but these effects are dwarfed by non-anthropogenic changes. This may be exactly correct. I don’t know, nor, I suspect, does anyone else. It is certainly something to consider.
    I do have to question one thing you wrote. You give the example of the warming periods of the 30s-40s and the 80s-90s. I was not previously aware of them, so I will take you at your word. You mention that the IPCC claims that the more recent warming period was caused by man with high certainty, but the previous one was not. I think the fact that the rate of warming is similar in both cases hardly suggests that they are both naturally occuring. I know this over-simplifies the issue, but what if, without human intervention, the 80s-90s warming period would have never happened?Would it alarm you if the IPCC was correct in their analysis? What are your thoughts about this perspective?
    It is my general philosophy to play it safe with things we don’t understand. I believe you agree that the severity of anthropogenic climate change is clearly difficult to predict, but there are some potentially severe consequences if the AGWs are correct. So why not play it safe, and try to reduce our carbon emissions? If this is not done in fear of AWG predictions, then why not do it to keep our air cleaner, take power away from oil-rich, unstable, often hostile regimes, and reduce the impact of losing fossil fuels when this finite resource eventually runs dry?

    @ Jim G.
    You seem to have a similar gestalt stance to Dire Wolf, which I cannot dispute. You mention that wildly inaccurate models should not shape public policy, which I would completely agree with. Do you have a link to the data to back up your statement about the discrepancy between AWG models and measured data over the last 17 years? That is something I would be interested in seeing first hand. I have seen data in the past that the global temperature is indeed rising in the last couple of decades unlike your claim. If you trust NASA as a source, see this website: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/. The rising temperatures seem to correlate pretty well to anthropogenic CO2 production, maybe not on the timescale of one or even five years, but I find the apparent overall trend supporting AWG theories. Is it possibly a coincidence? Yes, we cannot discard that possibility, but I don’t see the discrepancy you described.
    I find your implication about CO2 being good for the planet somewhat simple-minded. I’m not an advocate of removing all CO2 from the atmosphere, I am simply concerned that increased levels could possibly have some undesirable consequences. Also, your warmer being better argument seems short-sighted. I believe it is important to think about consequences a warmer climate could have on the global ecosystem, not just directly to humans. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree on this particular point?

  104. > Bob S. says: January 8, 2014 at 6:49 am
    > How do recent temperature extremes constitute proof that our climate is not changing?

    The big lie from the AGW side is that we’re “deniers”, i.e. we deny that climate is changing. That is 100% false. Any sane literate person acknowledges that Earth’s climate has been changing for the past 4 billion years, is changing now, and will continue to change for the next 4 billion years. Deal with it

    > As you may have guessed, my beliefs do align with those of the so-called AGWs,

    The “A” in “AGW” implies “Anthropogenic”, i.e. caused by humans. That’s where most of this forum disagrees. Over the past 4 billion years, long before homonids stood up on their rear limbs, earth’s climate went through many extremes. All the way from a big ball of molten lava 4 billion years ago, through “snowball earth” through every phase in between. Man was not present then.

    More recently, 18,000 years ago, Earth’s temperatures were several degrees colder than today, and ice sheets 2 kilometres thick covered places like Toronto and Chicago. There were less than a million homo sapiens on the planet, mostly hunter-gatherers in Africa. Yet, the planet started to warm up and polar ice cover started to retreat. The macro trend for the past 18,000 years has been rising temperatures and retreating polar ice cover, with a few speed bumps along the way (Younger Dryas, Little Ice Age, etc). Note that for 99% of this time period (i.e. up to 1830) human population was below a billion, and it had nowhere near today’s per-capita carbon footprint. Notwithstanding that, temperatures rose and polar ice retreated. Temperatures have continued warming and polar ice retreating for the last 180 years, just like the 16,200 years before that. It is up to the AGW crowd to explain why 180 years ago, a natural phenomenon has switched to being a man-made phenomenon.

  105. @ Gail Combs
    You’re right, I’m sorry. I did come here with a preconceived notion of the site’s regulars, and I have been pleasantly surprised so far. Admittedly, I chose this particular article because it seemed to be trying to support the argument that “if it’s really cold right now, then global warming does not exist,” as I have seen on other venues. I wanted to hear the reasoning behind such an argument, but clearly this is the wrong place for that exact topic. Regardless, I still got a couple a well-thought-out replies so far, and I hope to keep the discussion going.
    I will try discriminate between this site and others from here on out. Thanks for the reading material.

    @ RACookPE1978
    I’m afraid won’t have many numbers for you, but I’ll try to answer anyway. You should also know that I’m not here to argue that there exist accurate GCMs. I want to discuss the other side of the climate issue, one that I’ve wrongly dismissed up to now. If I have errors in logic, I want you to point them out, just as if you have errors in logic, I will try to point them out. Too often people get stuck in their ways on both sides of charged issues, and I think open conversation accomplishes much more than blind argument.
    Nevertheless, I will try my best to answer your questions with the knowledge I currently have.

    1) I’m just not sure what you’re getting at here.

    2) I can’t. I do not have the knowhow, nor, it seems, does anyone else, CAGW or not. Assuming your facts are correct, I have a question for you: just because we haven’t come up with an accurate model yet, does it mean we should stop trying?

    3) Knowing very little details about the GCMs to date, my answer would be that global temperatures vary due to many independent variables, not just CO2 concentration. How severely does CO2 effect global temperatures is unknown.

    3A) Once again, I think there are too many variables in play to be able to isolate the effect of just one.

    3B) First, how can you be so sure that increasing global temperatures can do no harm? I am not convinced of this. I highly doubt the CAGW is trying to cause the world harm. It is their belief that the world will be harmed more over the long term if we do not try to curb our emissions. Also, how much do you think the world would be harmed if we do not try to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and the accessible reserves of fossil fuels run dry. I think it is better to be proactive, look forward and prepare, not just trust that things will work themselves out.
    Let me propose an analogy. Say you and a group of people are stranded on an island with a stock of, say, cheese to sustain yourselves. The island has other food sources, but no one knows how to effectively harvest enough to sustain the group. Also, there is a potential danger on the island, say, lions. It is predicted by some of your group that the lions will be attracted to the smell of cheese if you open the packages in too great a quantity, and the lions may kill the group. However, it has never been conclusively demonstrated that lions are attracted to cheese. Additionally, the stock of cheese is limited, and you don’t know when the supplies will be finished. Do you A) eat the cheese at a high rate assuming the lions will not come and you will figure out how to sustain yourselves off the islands bounty after the cheese is gone, or do you B) ration the cheese to reduce the potential risk of lions and try to start researching harvesting methods to supplement your cheese stock and prepare you for when the cheese runs out.
    This is a simplified situation, but the choice seems obvious to me.

    3C) All I can say to this is that climate change research takes up a very small amount of the nation’s budget. Whether or not the money is being spent well, we have bigger budgetary fish to fry. I personally think that it is worth spending money on if there is a small chance of avoiding or mitigating a problem of this magnitude.

  106. (Mods. since this is no longer one, you may want to remove this first line. Top sticky post – new posts will appear below this one.)

  107. Bob S. We’ve only begun to pay.
    “The US is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

  108. @ Bob S

    Thank you, in return, for your own level-headed response. For the two warming periods I suggest this chart for a beginning: http://d243395j6jqdl3.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/graph.jpg Note that between the two warming periods was a dramatic cooling period, even though CO2 was increasing rapidly. If CO2 can increase while the earth experiences rapid decreases in temperature (such that people worried about the onset of an ice age) what role does CO2 really play? Indeed, today’s “global temperature pause” begs just that question.

    In addressing the precautionary principle you mentioned (erring on the side of caution), we must first talk about the costs. If we could eliminate the use of fossil fuels around the world right now we would be dooming billions of people to poverty. Already our misguided Ethanol mandates have raised world food prices making it harder for the poor to eat. Electricity is the engine that has lifted people out of poverty around the world and there is no real substitute source for electricity generation besides fossil fuels. (Nuclear could be a solution, but only if massively developed, and you will find Anthony Watts a great promoter of thorium fusion reactors — much safer than Uranium fusion and something neglected in our mad dash for nuclear weapons.) The de-carbonizing of the world economy would produce or continue massive suffering. To my mind, the needs of the poor must be put above speculations about AGW that lacks scientific rigor. (I recommend to you this essay: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/)

    In addition, we must consider what problems we spend on. We spend billions of dollars directly as a nation on “green” solutions (and probably a trillion if you count indirect costs such as mandated wind/solar components to electricity). An asteroid impact of catastrophic consequence is inevitable. How much should we spend on that? The supervolcano at Yellowstone will erupt catastrophically. How much for that? An ice age will, inevitably arise. What should we spend on that?

    Finally, about peak fossil fuel production. Is it inevitable that we will “run out” of fossil fuels? I speak specifically about methane. Methane is one of the most common substances in our solar system, occurring in places with no hint of life (such as Jupiter’s moon, Titan, where it rains methane). If methane is produced without dead dinosaurs, etc. (the fossils in “fossil fuel”) how can we be certain it is a fossil fuel here. Furthermore, any good economist will tell you we will never “run out” of fossil fuels. What will happen is that, if they become more scarce, they will
    a) become more expensive making innovation affordable (whether it is better production such as fraking or it is alternative energy sources such as thorium fusion or some future innovation) and
    b) be used less and less until, like whale oil, the are rarely thought of.

    I hope this hasn’t been overly long. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

  109. “American taxpayers spent $7.45 billion to help developing countries cope with climate change in fiscal years 2010 through 2012, according to a federal government report submitted to the United Nations on a subject that Secretary of State John Kerry described as “a truly life-and-death challenge.”

  110. @ RichardLH
    Thanks for that great resource. That shows the cyclic nature very well. However, it also shows an increasing trend since roughly the 1920s: the blue line in your link. That is more the issue, I think. The million dollar question: what is causing that trend?

    @ Dire Wolf
    RichardLH linked to a really nice resource for the historic temperature measurements. It allows you to easily take the convolution the measured data with a prescribed function width, so you can filter out the higher frequency noise in order to see the trends. In Richard’s link the green plot shows a remarkably regular sinusoidal oscillation with a period of roughly 60 years which is imposed upon an increasing function (blue curve) that could be interpreted as having begun circa 1920 based on the data shown. Now, let us postulate that the cyclical function is not anthropogenic since I can’t conceive of anything humans have done in regular 60 year periods that would affect the global temperature. The increasing trend is of unknown origin which is the reason for this debate if I’m not mistaken. I believe this because it explains many things: the two aforementioned warming periods and the milder cooling period in between could easily be explained by a sinusoidal function imposed on a monotonically increasing function. Additionally, the sinusoidal function has been in the decreasing phase over the last couple of decades or so, and the increasing trend has an increasing slope, so instead of a cooling period like that of 50 or 60 years ago, we have a flattening of the data in recent years, explaining the “global temperature pause.” Note that I’m not saying that the increasing trend is anthopogenic, but I don’t see why that is an invalid theory. The AWG interpretation is making sense in terms of this data, but I am open to other explanations. What is your interpretation of this data? What do you think is causing that blue curve?

    Good point. It is true that we have to think about the costs of implementing the precautionary principle. This is something that is often overlooked. I do believe there will be costs, but I don’t think the poor are the ones who will suffer most.
    First off, I don’t think we should just eliminate the use of fossil fuels immediately. I think it is high time we start phasing them out. This would be a long process, lasting probably a couple centuries.
    Second, I completely agree with you on the ethanol mandates. They were a severely misguided and just plain ignorant attempt to burn cleaner fuel. Besides the negative effects on the agricultural economy, if memory serves, it takes about 3 gallons of gasoline worth of energy to process and create a single gallon of ethanol from corn, and ethanol has a lower energy content than gas. Granted it costs energy to produce a gallon of gas, too, the net energy gain of ethanol is far into the red. Really stupid idea. (Sorry for the soapbox.)
    Third, the suffering poor. I am highly unconvinced that the poor will bear the brunt of losing fossil fuels. The metric I like to think about when it comes to poverty is income inequality. I want to show you two graphics. The first one shows a metric of income inequality by country: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/international/gini%20map%20large.jpg. The second shows the magnitude of oil production by country: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Oil_producing_countries.2010.png. Now, the correlation isn’t perfect, but income inequality tends to increase with greater oil production. On the small scale, this also seems to be true, since oil money often ends up in the hands of a relatively small group of people. Nigeria is an extreme yet somewhat representative example of this: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/ross/NigeriaOil.pdf. It’s worth reading at least the first couple pages of that link to see my point.
    Fourth, you are right, there is known source that is as easy and energy-rich as fossil fuels. I would argue that is the reason for our addiction to it. While there are no sources that are anywhere near as convenient, there are alternatives. You pointed out nuclear, which I also support along with Watts. Solar and wind are also pretty serious options. Solar in particular is good for developing countries, even disregarding contentious environmental impacts, solar is great as a distributed energy source in regions without an existing electrical infrastructure. A couple summers ago, I spent a month in Ghana in west Africa partially for the purpose of evaluating the viability of alternative energy there. It is a perfect candidate for solar, as I suspect many developing countries are. Outside the larger cities, electrical infrastructure is non-existent. Most smaller villages have no access to electricity, and they will travel hours, believe it or not, in order to charge their cell phones (oddly enough, almost everyone has one). They also have no access to refrigeration for food, or more importantly, medicines. Solar panels have been deployed in a handful of these communities, and they are a huge boost to quality of life, and much, much cheaper than extending the electrical infrastructure or running a generator. Long story short, there are viable alternatives for fossil fuel, and even more convenient ones in select cases. I think they are worthy of being developed further.
    Fifth, I really find it hard to appreciate that article with it’s accusatory, one-sided, and subjective language. It is articles like that that gave me my initial negative impressions of this website. But aside from that, looking at the data the article presents, yes the initial predictions of the AGW do seem to be overblown. This goes to show the unreliability of predictions, since they are exactly that: predictions. Does that prove that the current estimates are overblown, too? What I find more disturbing about the data presented is the final figure with the “observations” listed out to the year 2050. That is a prediction, too, and it assumes temperatures will rise linearly at the same rate as the last 60 years. I’m no climate scientist, but that is way oversimplified. I don’t think we should base our public policy solely on these predictions, nor do we. If our government truly adhered to all the AGW warnings, we would be spending a heck of a lot more on climate research and energy alternatives than we do today. The AGWs have not “won” if you want to look at this issue in an adversarial light, nowhere close.

    On your next point, the difference between the catastrophes you listed and the issue in question is that, assuming the AGW camp is correct, this potential catastrophe is avoidable and we know how to mitigate it’s effects. The sun will die out in 3 billion years. Today, we have no way of changing that, and we have more pressing issues, so we should spend $0 on that problem.

    I feel like you’re arguing semantics with methane not necessarily being a fossil fuel. I think the point is moot. No matter where it comes from, it’s supply is finite on this planet. And producing more would take more energy than you will get back from burning it (conversion efficiencies are less than unity).
    The economist’s argument is one I’ve heard before, and while technically true, it ignores important details, and assumes that our rate of innovation and deployment of new tech will keep up with declining fossil fuel resources. My greatest fear on this issue is that fossil fuel production will decline too fast for us to keep up with it, and the transition will be disastrous. This fear is based partially on the fact that we have little idea of how much accessible fossil fuel resources we have left. The economist argument says nothing about the potential discrepancy between the rate of change and the rate of innovation. This is what I meant in a previous post by just sitting back and letting things work themselves out, along with my silly analogy about cheese and lions. Things will be much easier on us long term if we look forward and wean ourselves off fossil fuels slowly, rather than to react to an inevitable drop in their supply.

    P.S. No worries about long posts. Thank you for reading mine, as I seem to be an even worse offender :)

  111. @ Laurie
    You clearly don’t want your tax dollars being spent on climate research or alternative energy subsidies. Would you pay taxes to support the fossil fuels industry? Because that is what you are doing. It is possible that even more of your tax dollars are going to fossil fuel subsidies, anywhere from 10 to 52 billion dollars per year of U.S. taxpayer money goes to well-established and wealthy companies that sell us a product we are addicted to (these numbers have to be estimated because they are not transparent like the numbers you gave). That makes no sense to me. If you think that alternative energy should be able to compete on it’s own merits, then certainly should oil. Do you at least agree that if we cut funding for alternative energy tech, that we should also cut the fossil fuel subsidies?
    I apologize in advance for the one-sided source, but this article gives direct links to the studies from which it gets its numbers: http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/.

  112. Bob S. says:
    January 9, 2014 at 8:34 am

    “@ RichardLH
    Thanks for that great resource. That shows the cyclic nature very well. However, it also shows an increasing trend since roughly the 1920s: the blue line in your link. That is more the issue, I think. The million dollar question: what is causing that trend?”

    Well we can be fairly sure that it too is cyclic, at least to some extent. After all the temperatures dropped to the low point at 1840-80 from a slightly higher regime before that. There was a sequence of low points stretching back through the whole of the Little Ice Age, apparently at ~100 year periods.

    “NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[7] ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

    So the data does not (yet anyway) allow for us to decide if we are close to the end of this ~100 cycle or not.

    I believe that at least some of the rise since 1840-80 has natural causes and that it will reverse at some point. As you say the question is when and at what level.

    Mind you, it is possible to add CO2 to that graph and come to the conclusion that it is all down to that and that alone.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.007/offset:-2.25

    Fits the values but not necessarily the logic :-)

  113. @ RichardLH
    Maybe this is my personal bias, but I see an alarmingly high rate of increase in recent years looking at the temperature data on that wikipedia page. It is very difficult to pick out the 100 year cycle from the noise, but the recent increase is very obvious. It may be an added effect of the end of a cold period and something else like increased CO2 concentrations, but whatever it is, it is apparent that something is different. It’s possibly a perfect storm of natural cycles, but it seems more likely that something is changing our planet. That is my interpretation, anyway.
    How do you interpret the high rate of increased temps since 1900? In a little over one century, we’ve gone from a cold period of the little ice age to greater than the peak temps of the medieval warm period. That is a little alarming to me.
    Clearly I still don’t see how this undercuts the fundamental AGW hypothesis that excessive CO2 production is warming the earth, assuming that’s your point. Am I missing something?
    Also, even if the current temp increase is due partially to natural cycles and will partially reverse someday, is the anthropogenic contribution something we should ignore?

  114. Bob S. says:
    January 9, 2014 at 9:34 am

    “@ RichardLH
    Maybe this is my personal bias, but I see an alarmingly high rate of increase in recent years looking at the temperature data on that wikipedia page.”

    The main problem is to do with the accuracy and coverage of the data. The later we go in time to the current date the better and better the quality of information in both dimensions.

    This means that as we go further back in time (and switch from measurements to proxies) the resolution in values, geographic coverage and time precision decreases.

    This makes interpretation of ‘old’ data quite challenging and very subject to ‘personal bias’.

    So I tend to just observe the high quality data as ‘fact’ and the most recent data (satellite) as being even better than the thermometers. The earlier data I treat as ‘indicative’ rather than ‘fact’ and base my conclusions appropriately.

    There does not appear to be any doubt that there is a 60 year cycle. It is even starting to show quite clearly in the satellite data. That is likely to dominate the short term (next 10 years?) I think. The longer ~100 year is the guessing game. Are we at a peak or still climbing?

    And how much of this is CO2 and how much other factors? Well I cannot in all conscience make it all CO2. There may well be a proportion to that, but how large? Observing that fitting a lid to a boiling pot could turn it into a pressure cooker cannot be disputed, but it does rather depend on how well the lid fits!

    Unfortunately the only real way to know is wait and see. Fits badly with this internet driven age I know!

  115. @ RichardLH
    I believe we are in agreement!
    I do not know how much of the increase is do to CO2, but I still find myself convinced that it is not insignificant. I can base this in fact no more than others can do for the opposing view. So that, I suppose, is my opinion based on the data in front of me.

  116. John from the EU says on January 8, 2014 at 3:14 am
    The cold is coming to Europe next week. Me hopes for the same record cold as the US had.

    John – let’s hope not. Please read the following,
    Regards, Allan

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/blind-faith-in-climate-models/#comment-1462890

    An Open Letter to Baroness Verma

    “All of the climate models and policy-relevant pathways of future greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions considered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Fifth Assessment Report show a long-term global increase in temperature during the 21st century is expected. In all cases, the warming from increasing greenhouse gases significantly exceeds any cooling from atmospheric aerosols. Other effects such as solar changes and volcanic activity are likely to have only a minor impact over this timescale”.
    – Baroness Verma

    I have no Sunspot Number data before 1700, but the latter part of the Maunder Minimum had 2 back-to-back low Solar Cycles with SSNmax of 58 in 1705 and 63 in 1717 .

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/

    The coldest period of the Maunder was ~1670 to ~1700 (8.48dC year average Central England Temperatures) but the coldest year was 1740 (6.84C year avg CET).

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html

    The Dalton Minimum had 2 back-to-back low SC’s with SSNmax of 48 in 1804 and 46 in 1816. Tambora erupted in 1815.

    Two of the coldest years in the Dalton were 1814 (7.75C year avg CET) and 1816 (7.87C year avg CET).

    Now Solar Cycle 24 is a dud with SSNmax estimated at ~65, and very early estimates suggest SC25 will be very low as well.

    The warmest recent years for CET were 2002 to 2007 inclusive that averaged 10.55C.

    I suggest with confidence that 10.5C is substantially warmer as a yearly average than 8.5C, and the latter may not provide a “lovely year for Chrysanths”.

    I further suggest with confidence that individual years averaging 7.8C or even 6.8C are even colder, and the Chrysanths will suffer.

    So here is my real concern:

    IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.

    You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes.

    I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder.

    I also suggest that the IPCC and the Met Office have NO track record of successful prediction (or “projection”) of global temperature and thus have no scientific credibility.

    I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.

    I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.

    As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.

    Best regards to all, Allan MacRae

    Turning and tuning in the widening gyre,
    the falcon cannot hear the falconer…
    – Yeats

  117. Bob S. says:
    January 9, 2014 at 10:54 am

    “@ RichardLH
    I believe we are in agreement!
    I do not know how much of the increase is do to CO2, but I still find myself convinced that it is not insignificant.”

    I suspect that you assign a larger proportion of the rise since 1840 to CO2 than I do.

    My problem is that CO2 before then cannot have been responsible for the drop TO 1840 (at least I can find no evidence that it did).

    So, at best, I cannot assign more than about half of the rise to CO2 since then. And that makes the sensitivity calculation way too small for it to be a real problem in the future.

    I suspect that ‘natural causes’ have been given an insufficient weight with all the problems to science that an observation of that nature (pun) creates.

  118. @Bob S.

    Took a little break for real life. Now, just several small notes/questions. Forgive me if this is repetitive of other discussions. I don’t have time to read everything. (I am amazed at how well you have kept up on these discussions.)

    1. If, as you have noted the rhythm of the temperature changes over the last century is dominantly natural, why do we need to rid the world economy of carbon-based fuels? What is the utility in that if it is not causing climate catastrophe?

    2. You seem to have some experience with solar/wind. However, there are facts that make conversion to these power sources in most of the world impractical. Both take immense tracts of land to replicate what one carbon/nuclear power source does in a much smaller foot print. The microclimate changes from solar/wind (heat islands and sound vibration), plus the impact to fauna (bird kills, especially of raptors, along with bats both from windmills and very hot collectors) make these problematic on large scales. In addition, both produce intermittent energy which must be backed up by conventional production (for industrial/electronic applications), thus demanding duplicate production and inefficient use of the back up source (usually natural gas).

    3. The world’s poor are definitively harmed when they are prevented from advancing to 1st world living standards because of lack of adequate reliable energy. In the event of naturally occurring disasters (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.) it is 1st world technology, construction and infrastructure that militates the death and destruction.

    4. When I note that Methane may likely not have a fossil source, I am suggesting that it may not be a legacy fuel (i.e. the leavings of a past, no longer operative process). Methane fields regenerate. If Methane is currently being produced by the earth (through nuclear reaction or heat deep in the mantel) then it may not swiftly “run out”. The fact that it is produced without carbon-based life forms on other planets makes this a possibility that needs to be explored.

    5. I am sorry you found Monkton’s article more contentious than you care. I am used to those from British government who express witty and combative reparte (such as on the floor of Parliament) and therefore take it in its cultural context.

    Thank you again for being so kind as to take my thoughts in serious discussion.

  119. @Dire Wolf

    Thank you for your patient and sensible comments. Some thoughts:

    In 2002 I was asked by my Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (“APEGA”) to debate in writing the issue of catastrophic humanmade global warming and the proposed Kyoto Protocol.

    [PEGG debate, reprinted at their request by several professional journals, the Globe and Mail and la Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae]

    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

    We knew with confidence based on the evidence that global warming alarmism was technically false, extremist and wasteful.

    We clearly stated in our 2002 debate:

    On global warming:

    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

    On green energy:

    “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

    On real pollution:

    “Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.”

    On squandering resources:

    “Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.”

    I suggest that our four above statements are now demonstrably correct, within a high degree of confidence.

    To date, every major dire prediction by the IPCC and the global warming alarmists has failed to materialize.

    I suggest that we, and a few others like us, have been essentially correct in our predictions to date.

    I suggest that the individual’s predictive track record is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s competence.

    Regards, Allan

  120. More thoughts:

    The problem with the fractious global warming debate is that it has become a political debate between Right and Left, but should have always been a scientific debate between true and false.

    The “mainstream” global warming debate centres on the magnitude of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (“ECS”) to atmospheric CO2, which is the primary subject of contention between global warming alarmists (aka “warmists”) and climate skeptics (aka “skeptics”).

    Warmists typically say ECS is high, greater than ~~3 degrees C [3C/(2xCO2)] and therefore DANGEROUS global warming will result, whereas skeptics say ECS is 1C or less and any resulting global warming will NOT be dangerous.

    The scientific evidence to date strongly suggests that if one had to pick a side, the skeptics are more likely to be correct.

    However, BOTH sides of this factious debate are in all probability technically WRONG. In January 2008 I demonstrated that CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales*, so the mainstream debate requires that “the future is causing the past”, which I suggest is demonstrably false.

    In climate science we do not even agree on what drives what, and it is probable that the majority, who reside on BOTH sides of the ECS mainstream debate, are both technically WRONG.

    Hypothesis:
    Based on the preponderance of evidence, temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature, so ECS may not exist at all at the “macro” scale, and may be utterly irrelevant to climate science except at the “micro” (and materially insignificant) scale.
    There may be other significant sources of CO2 that contribute to its increase in the atmosphere, but increasing CO2 just does not have a significant or measureable impact on global warming (or cooling), which is almost entirely natural in origin.

    I therefore suggest that the oft-fractious “mainstream debate” between warmists and skeptics about the magnitude of ECS is materially irrelevant. ECS, if it exists at all, is so small that it just does not matter.

    Wait 5 to 10 more years – I suggest that by then most serious climate scientists will accept the above hypo. Many will claim they knew it all along… :-)
    ________

    * If ECS (which assumes CO2 drives temperature) actually exists in the Earth system, it is so small that it is overwhelmed by the reality that temperature drives CO2.

    Proof:
    In this enormous CO2 equation, the only signal that is apparent is that dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature, and CO2 lags global Lower Troposphere temperatures by about 9 months.

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/

    CO2 also lags temperature by about 800 years in the ice core record on a longer time scale.

    To suggest that ECS is larger that 1C is not credible. I suggest that if ECS exists at all, it is much smaller than 1C, so small as to be essentially insignificant.

    Regards, Allan

    ________

    My January 2008 hypo is gaining notice with the recent work of several researchers. We don’t always agree on the fine details, but there is clear agreement in the primary hypothesis.

    Here is Murry Salby’s address to the Sydney Institute in 2011:

    Here is Salby’s address in Hamburg 2013:

    See also this January 2013 paper from Norwegian researchers:

    The Phase Relation between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature
    Global and Planetary Change
    Volume 100, January 2013, Pages 51–69
    by Ole Humluma, Kjell Stordahlc, Jan-Erik Solheimd

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

    Highlights
    – Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
    – Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
    – Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
    – Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
    – Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

  121. http://www.scotsman.com/news/gerald-warner-global-warming-s-deranged-disciples-1-3264990

    THE SCOTSMAN: GLOBAL WARMING’S DERANGED DISCIPLES

    by Gerald Warner
    Published on the 12 January 2014
    Edinburgh

    CLIMATE change is real and it is happening very fast. The climate of opinion, that is, regarding the rapidly imploding fantasies of the global warming alarmists.

    After a decade in which sane commentators have been angered and frustrated by the purblind adherence to the warmist superstition by followers of the Al Gore cult – prominent among them our own esteemed First Minister and President for Life Designate – the whole climate change scam has finally degenerated into a joke, provoking widespread derision.

    That has not deterred the climate Gnostics, sustained by their mystical insight into inner truths hidden from sceptics (“deniers” in their language of anathema) and, increasingly, from scientists who have not taken the IPCC shilling. The cultists can rely on the support of politicians since non-existent global warming furnishes the pretext for all-too-existent and exorbitant taxes, which is what the whole myth is all about. Thus, during discussion of the recent floods in the Commons last week, David Cameron was prompted by the Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron to attribute the problem to climate change. The Prime Minister dutifully replied: “Colleagues across the House can argue about whether that is linked to climate change or not. I very much suspect that it is.”

    That statement was overdue as it was seven weeks since he had been reported as telling his colleagues “We have to get rid of the green crap”, an exceptionally long period for Dave to entertain a consistent opinion. Unfortunately, Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, refused to endorse his leader’s view. Then the Meteorological Office intervened to contradict Dave: “At the moment there’s no evidence to suggest that these storms are more intense because of climate change.” That was a significant development because formerly the Met Office could be counted upon to support climate alarmism. Clearly it is now conscious of reputational damage and is hedging its bets.

    It is not alone. Very subtly, unobtrusively, other institutions and individuals are backing away from the discredited orthodoxy of warmism. The process began some time ago when the Royal Society declared its switch to a more neutral stance in the climate debate. Scientists not committed to the cause by financial considerations are growing aware that the imposture is disintegrating so fast it could achieve Piltdown status within their own career spans. It is a measure of the bogus nature of the alleged climate crisis that the last time warming occurred there was a majority Tory government in office under John Major (“Oh, yes!”).

    Recently the collapse of the scam has accelerated. The Christmas holiday period was enlivened by the hilarious pantomime “Anthropogenic Global Warming On Ice”, when 52 AGW believers led by Professor Chris Turney embarked on the Russian ship Akademik Shokalsky to study the melting of Antarctic ice. In reality, as they would have known before they set out if they had read Nasa reports, Antarctic sea ice is currently at its largest extent since records began: 19.5 million square kilometres. Their ship became embedded in the ice, as did the Chinese icebreaker sent to rescue them. When their situation became potentially life-threatening, these pioneering climate change gurus experienced the humiliation of having to rely on the leading climate sceptic Anthony Watts and his colleagues for accurate Antarctic weather information to facilitate their rescue by helicopter.

    Meanwhile, the United States was in the grip of a “polar vortex”, with temperatures in all 50 states below freezing and a low of –43C recorded in one area. The Niagara Falls froze into stalactites of ice. This was hailed by True Believers as conclusive evidence of global warming – after all, everything is. As a Greenpeace activist famously expressed it: “Global warming can mean colder.” A heatwave, a flood, a drought, a blizzard, an away win by Partick Thistle – all will be determinedly conscripted as “evidence” of man-made climate change. These people are beyond help. The climate imposture is doomed to end not with a bang but a belly-laugh.

    What is totally unamusing, however, is the harm these fanatics and complicit politicians have done, raping the landscape with their hideous wind turbines and imposing crippling taxes. Fuel poverty is killing the elderly. Every winter more people die of hypothermia in Scotland than in Finland. Although the climate madness will have the most lethal consequences in the developing world, it also threatens to impoverish Europe. A government study has shown the lifetime cost of meeting “renewables” targets across the EU will be £290 billion, more than a quarter of which will be contributed by the UK. Denmark already has the dubious distinction of being the first country where green taxes account for more than 50 per cent of an electricity bill. It is not global warming that is killing us but its deranged disciples.

Comments are closed.