Chicago snow 2011 and 1967 – global warming then too?

Here’s the national snow depth, Chicago has between 20-30 inches of snow by this map:


Dr. Richard Keen writes in an email:

I was a college student in Chicago for the 1967 Big Snow, so here’s a couple of photos I took back then.  There will be lots of comparing of yesterday’s storm with the ’67 snow, so I’ve thrown in some current pictures from the Chicago Tribune of the two storms to compare with my ’67 photos.  Kind of looks the same!

After the storm, I looked under the hoods of a few cars and it was solid packed snow.

Here’s Chicago yesterday:

And another from yesterday:

Now let’s have a look at 1967:


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Well heavy snowfall in the past was a sign of virgin, unspoiled climate. Today, heavy snowfall is just a sign of warm air holding a lot of moisture, direct result of GW. All models predicted exactly this.


Great pictures. Google New York blizzard 1888 shows pictures indicating it was just as bad and maybe worse.

Douglas DC

And, the nice weather here in the Inland Pac NW is aso caused by AGW, along with
my male pattern baldness, arthritis, and cavities….

Noblesse Oblige

Greetings from sunny Tucson, Arizona. No global warming snow here. The outside temp is a balmy 19 deg F (8:30AM) and the high for today is projected at 39. Hard to imagine this is because of my driving my SUV.
They take us for fools.

art johnson

In Gail Collins column in NYT”s today, she quotes Al G. blaming extra water vapor in the atmosphere because of warmer oceans and air. Of course no mention of La Nina, cold PDO, or the below normal average global temps for Jan. What a shocker.
I like Gail Collins and I know she means well, but these people just don’t know any better. Al Gore of course is another matter. I


Actually Juraj, the models DID NOT predict this. They predicted a slow and steady increase for certain areas. They WERE NOT predicting the change in the PDO (funny that..after all, the models use physics, right???) and a SUDDEN change in the climate regime to one of bitterly cold and snowey winters. Nope, it was the supposed “deniers” that predicted this change…pure and simple.


Ah Juraj, interesting. You’re saying that AGW will change the climate, but the weather will stay the same?

Frank K.

Well, I just shoveled another two inches here in western New Hampshire this morning! That brings my snow total to about 18″ from snowzilla. And they are now predicting yet another snow storm for this Saturday (another 6″ – 10″)! Sigh…


Only the Warmists know when snow is natural or caused by AGW. But they always know with certainty.

Gordon Ford

In 1967 we were well into Catastrophic Global Cooling. We just didn’t know it as Al Gore hadn’t told us.

Coach Springer

Great pictures! Living here, it’s gorgeous and exhilarating. Sometimes, nature isn’t boring.


Everything that used to happen was predicted by the AGW models.
Everything that is happening now is also predicted by the AGW models.
Especially male pattern baldness.


Al Gore came out from under his rock the other day and started his “It’s all because of Global Warming ” mantra. Just confirms why he got a “D” in science. And yet, way smarter people than him in science are putting their entire careers on the line going to his camp, the real question should be “WHY”???


Simply AWESOME to have these photos! Thanks! We must show them to those alarmist newspapers that have been calling doom for such a long time. The IPCC nonsense “satanic co2” theory may fall into full discredit much sooner than what I tought.


The answer to the title: yes. I find it very difficult to argue with global warming believers because everything is consistent with their theory; that’s right, even snow on the ground is proof of global warming. There’s no winning when you’re arguing with these people.


Seriously, Juraj needed to add a /sarc ???
Honestly, that was so obvious I can’t imagine taking it seriously!
Anyway, we’ve had huge dumps of snow in the past, and will in the future. Anyone who thinks otherwise should be consulting a medical doctor to help them deal with their memory problem.


Juraj. The models decidedly did not predict colder and wetter winters. As recently as last year CRU, NOAA, and Met were predicting mild dryer winters. In spite of the record cold and snow cover Europe had in 2010. Your revisionist history show either extraordinary ignorance or the type of deceit we are now seeing on display at crackpot Warmists blogs, the MSM, and at Met. It was the skeptics who modeled wetter SUMMERS if the world were warmer. Further, the present cold and snow is hemispheric not regional thus indicating that the world is a bit cooler. Lastly atmospheric water storage is down a dramatic 10% over recent years indicating, again, cooling. Did your modellers predict that also?


My prediction for the next grasp at straws:
Hard winters inadvertently cause global warming! Big snow & ice storms mean lots of people are stuck at home. Taking the opportunity to enjoy a little wintry ambiance, the planet-killing moron masses turn to their woodburning fireplaces. CARBON! DEAD TREES! FIRE! EXCLAMATION POINTS!


I do suspect that Juraj V. is being sarcastic.


The pictures from 1967 are clearly the nascent stages of global warming.

John Blake

In their Dantesque circle, AGW hysterics time-and-again face Groundhog Day as if all that matters were their self-perpetuating asininities. Alas for the Green Gang, nature takes her course… as Earth’s long summer fades, as our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch subsides to Ice Time via a Grand Solar Minimum, greenies’ Luddite psychopathology will have a lot to answer for.


So the same type of major Chicago Blizzard happened in 1967 and 2011. Though it is a bad storm, It’s happened before. Except now the AGW advocates will blame this storm on global warming, forgetting that a similiar storm happened 44 years earlier

I was a young’un living in Chicago for the 1967 blizzard. I thought the pictures in the newspapers for this storm looked familiar. Thank you Dr. Keen for the memories.
I also lived Florida in 1971 when it snowed in Tampa. It hasn’t done so since, but it sure got close these past two winter seasons. Up until recently, it has been brutally cold – by Florida standards at least 🙂

Jeff in Calgary

Poitsplace and Ryan, I think you need to turn on your sarcasm detector.

Bob Kutz

Funny, I thought we couldn’t blame weather events on climate change?
(This is the pro-AGW mantra for when it’s unbelievably cold outside and people start to question the theory.)
I thought too that global warming would result in less and less snow. (This is what global warming proponents say whenever snowfall for a season falls below mean.)
I thought the models showed Actual Global Warming. (This was before the globe stopped warming and the pro-AGW set was forced to fall back to ‘climate change’ and now ‘climate disruption’.) This last term is of course entirely correct and accurate; the climate has created a huge disruption in their plans to implement Cap and Tax and force the U.S. and U.K. to acquiesce to the demands of the leftist, communists and the U.N. through the IPCC.
However, I am quite certain that huge amounts of global warming are on the way; in 90 days the northern hemisphere mean surface temp will have increased by at least 30 F! At that rate it’ll be some 1200 F in 10 years!! Run for your lives! Oh wait . . . it’s called spring. And thank God; just in time too. (My thermometer read -13F on the way in to the office this morning . . . but spring is coming!)
Anyway; always love it when Al Gore opens his mouth. He hasn’t a clue how little he understands about any of this. He is a good and constant reminder of how little anyone really knows for certain about our climate and our planet really. And for that we should thank him!

I was a young TV meteorologist in Milwaukee in 1967. After plotting surface and upper air teletype reports on an acetate covered US map I predicted three inches of snow in Milwaukee and monstrous snow storm in Chicago. The Chicago NWS had predicted a chance of light snow. When the storm hit, I immediately was hired by a Chicago TV station. I was simply a lucky kid.
As this storm was predicted, I got calls from Chicago, “tell me this is not going to happen again.” This time I had the excellent computer model and agreed with the NWS which was issuing perfect forecasts. The science of weather forecasting has come a very long way.
As for the science behind climate disruption; it is a pathetic joke.
In any case, this weeks event was full of big time deja vu for me.

Robert M

Juraj V. says:
February 3, 2011 at 7:28 am
Well heavy snowfall in the past was a sign of virgin, unspoiled climate. Today, heavy snowfall is just a sign of warm air holding a lot of moisture, direct result of GW. All models predicted exactly this.
Poitsplace says:
February 3, 2011 at 7:38 am
Actually Juraj, the models DID NOT predict this. They predicted a slow and steady increase for certain areas. They WERE NOT predicting the change in the PDO (funny that..after all, the models use physics, right???) and a SUDDEN change in the climate regime to one of bitterly cold and snowey winters. Nope, it was the supposed “deniers” that predicted this change…pure and simple.
Poitsplace, I hope Juraj meant to use the /sarc after his post, otherwise… 🙁 Well it’s worse then we thought!


Interesting images from NASA about the storm too

[Snip. Calling other commentators “deniers” gets your post deleted. Read the Policy page. ~dbs, mod.]

mike sphar

I finally got it. Warm makes cold! Sorta like night makes day! Pass me some more of that kool aid. /sarc
Musings while waiting for CPC to publish the ONI NDJ number.

I really like the shot of the 66/67 Bronco tooling along next to all the other disabled cars.
(I own a 1970)

Robert M

I see that there is a winter storm warming from Brownsville, TX to Baton Rouge, LA clearly Global warming is going to freeze us all unless we let the progressives and watermelons and little dictators have their way… /sarc
Is it just me or does Al Gore and Co. sound like a bunch of mafia goons running a protection racket?


“The pictures from 1967 are clearly the nascent stages of global warming.” /sarc
(Just caught a glimpse of the rules)

J. Knight

I have just about had it with the climate change/global warming knotheads who continue to say that their models predicted more snow due to global warming. Horse hockey. It takes cold temperatures to cause snow, and when we are getting snow/sleet/ice as far south as Houston, you can bet it’s due to the cold, which is not caused by global warming, at least not yet. I’m sure the next big thing for these global warming folks will be that global warming causes cold.
Wasn’t it just a couple of years ago that these same people claimed that snow would be a thing of the past due to global warming? These people change the narrative to fit the facts. And they call themselves scientists. Pathetic.

rob m.

If it were just increased snowfall then Al Gore might make sense. But how does he explain the record cold temps? It will be intewresting to see how Hansen “adjusts” the January temp data.

Doug Proctor

Global temperatures have huge day-night, season-to-season and day-of-year-to-day-of-year differences. Rainfall and wind the same. Solar radiation is not a steady thing, but varies AROUND the average by 20W/m2 (40W/2 if you consider that only half the world is in sunlight at any time), plus each hemisphere is lighted from 76% to 126% of its average area because the world axis is tilted. I haven’t mentioned that the albedos of the hemispheres is signficantly different, so that when the North should be cooler, it is actually (by average) 2.2K warmer. Nor have I mentioned that cloud cover varies on all sorts of time scales and has a different effect during the night (no sun) than during the day, and during the winter with snow on the ground than during the summer with green, brown and blue (different ground albedos).
All these averages! Each gets an “error” bar individually. As a planet and for happy calculations, these averages mean something. But for individuals, and for specific places where individuals live, the reality is not variation around the planetaruy averages, but variations of the spot, far greater than the “average”.
None of us experience a planetary average. We assume or calculate that all the variations disappear within a certain time period. The mathematical work requires it. Individually, locally, this is clearly not true. So we rage against a summer of heat and a winter of cold. It is what we experience. Not the “average” temperature going up 0.18K/decade.
So what is global warming? The complex interaction of the three stable variables, orbital eccentricity, axial tilt and hemispheric albedo (excluding cloud cover) give a non-unique input through the year. Anywhere. Cloud cover and circulation patterns are not random but patterned and interactive. Heat is accepted or denied and moved around in a time and location sensitive manner. It is an assumption that all of this, at a planetary scale, averages out so that we can detect a difference in the heating of the world that means something to an accuracy and precision of .18K over a decade. Is this true?
Clearly the world warms and cools by 4 – 10K, and sometimes over very short periods of time. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores show that this happens, at least on a local scale. Glaciers melt. Savannas become deserts. And deserts become savannas and glaciers advance. These changes are not in question. And that we humans had nothing to do with the pre-1945 goings on, except locally (deforestation, agriculture). Right now, though, we are told that the 0.18K/decade has the human “fingerprint” of fossil fuel CO2 on it. But can we say that all the natural variation in input and output of heat can be averaged out so cleanly and over such a short time period that a 0.18K/decade global temperature “average” has any meaning outside of the non-perfect union of variables? And since we see the Arctic heating up more than elsewhere, but agree the global average is high because of this regional anomaly, can we say that this regional warmth is not just the unexpected result of the complex variables interacting as described above?
We – warmist and skeptics alike – are forced to use merged, homogenized and detrended data, adjusted and averaged out at a planetary scale. We are told that, mathematically/statistically we know “reality” to within 0.05K or better. We assume or are told that local events of larger than average magnitude do not distort the averages (and make them meaningless globally) or that they are random and cancelled out by equally large but local events of the other type. Perhaps. But do we know this to the 0.05K level of a decadal time-frame?
Weather is nature’s way of evening out the heat flow. Weather, not climate, is what moves heat around. So on what basis do we have for certainty that 0.18K/decade is not the result of imperfect balancing of input/output, in which local variations do not distort the apparent group behaviour?
The calculations of single numbers with an accuracy magnitudes less than the local variation over the planet in which regional changes are known to be perhaps a magnitude or more different one from the other, strikes me as open to much bigger uncertainty of interpretation than of calculation. Ultimately we work with what something “means”, not what it is. If the global population was stable to the extent that the global climate parameters are, we would look to its local cause to effect change. We would wonder if there was something special about where the increase was coming about, not suggest that globally people were reproducing more. And population change is a very, very simple issue.
What change is actually a global change and not local? What level of change globally is detectable as an expression of something outside the complex mix of variables?
Taking 10 people of 5 foot in height and averaging their height with 10 people of 7 foot in height does not tell you anything meaningful about the height of people. Add in someone of 6 foot in height, average their heights again, and you still know nothing meaningful from the average about what their height is, but now you can say the height of the group is getting greater.


Obviously the moisture is not coming down from the Arctic, below freezing….
Then the moisture has to be coming up from the gulf and Caribbean…
which is way below normal SST…..
So exactly where is this warming causing all this moisture?


in 1967 blamed to GC and now blame to GW

Jim G

“Vinny says: February 3, 2011 at 7:54 amAl Gore came out from under his rock the other day and started his “It’s all because of Global Warming ” mantra. Just confirms why he got a “D” in science. And yet, way smarter people than him in science are putting their entire careers on the line going to his camp, the real question should be “WHY”???”
Follow the money. When there are grants out there for NON-AGW religious fanatic researchers then there will be some honest research. There are billions of dollars at stake here. Just ask Jeff Immelt, CEO GE. Don’t they own NBC as well? What a surprise that they distribute the AGW propaganda so much.

North of 43 and south of 44

OMG it snowed during winter, we’re all gonna dieeeee!!!!


I just finished reading Edward P Kohn’s “Hot Time In The Old Town – The Great Heat Wave of 1896 and the Making Of Theodore Roosevelt.”
Nothing too “Great” about the book as far as climate change or historical development of today’s business, political, social-illogical socialism goes. But it does go into good detail about how the heat wave in New York City influenced two politicians of the era: Theodore Roosevelt (who used his position on the Police Board to influence ice handouts, and Bryon, who lost political momentum trying to read his speech to a very hot, very over-crowded jammed-in non-air-conditioned Madison Square Garden.
1896 was at the tail end of the 66-year short term climate cycle that had peaked in the 1880’s, and temperatures were heading “down” into the low point between 1910-1920. (The next 66-year high point was to be the 1935-1940 Dust Bowl hot period that NASA’s Hansen is still trying to “edit” away.) The author explains well the “urban heat island” effect of concrete and brick and stone reflecting the heat, low vegetation available for cooling, low water for evaporation, and greater density of people and energy. (1896 was pre-electricity, no A/C and little energy production in the streets except horse and wagon, coal for heating (not in August of course!) and manufacturing – even in Manhattan and Brooklyn.) Relief from the heat was only by ice. No fans, but no indoor heat producers by electric appliances or lights or TV’s or telephones or refrigerators either.
The heat wave itself was explained well, but the author spends great time on details of individuals he found in the records who had died or were injured – some 700 extra deaths in just under two weeks. Temp’s were only over 90’s “officially in Manhattan, but were locally measured at over 120 in the streets and tenements and apartments. Interesting that one of the most severe impacts was on horses – over 1500 carcasses had to be pulled from the streets as they decayed in place over the two weeks of August. Normally, there would be fewer than 1200 in an entire year.
The writer concludes by noting additional heat waves in New York City 1899, 1900, 1905.
He also uses the World Health Organization predicting worldwide heat deaths could double in twenty years from now (if their assumed global warming continues.)

Separately, I read that the Indian villages and the original Roanoke and Jamestown and St Augustine and Jacksonville settlers before 1620 suffered from periodic droughts and famines. Long before today’s cars and trucks permitted crops to be exchanged alleviating the impact of local weather across whole regions and countries.
…. So, heat waves happened in the past, and will happen again. Cold waves – remember the blizzards of 1888 that destroyed the free-range cattle industry – will happen again.
Weather you like it or not, climate changes. 8<)


please, everyone, stop being so earnest and literal! Sarcasm like Juraj V’s should be blindingly obvious to everyone here.
From now on, just recognize that the phrase “All models predicted exactly this!” has the exact same meaning and intent as “It’s Bush’s Fault!” In other words, it’s a phrase that no one can even attempt to use seriously anymore, since it has been misused so often and so blatantly.
p.s. it always sucks to have to explain a joke


So based on the last few posts Global warming causes it to be both hotter and snowier all at the same time? Well increased snowfall clearly makes things colder so does that mean global warming caused the previous ice ages? Imagine how hot it must have been to get enough snow to cause the ice ages.


Obviously there are chrono-teleconnections between AGW and blizzards.



One wonders why, if the AGW models called for more moisture and snow, was it predicted that snow would become rare to non-existent by the likes of Charles Onians, Robert Byrd and Barbara Boxer?


p.p.s. – if I was an artist I would come up with a cartoon of a scientist rowing away from the Titanic, saying “all Models predicted exactly this!!!”

Viv Evans

C’mon – that’s sooo …old!!!
Most AGW warriors weren’t even out of diapers then, and haven’t we been told repeatedly by our younger and therefore betters that nothing counts that happened before the age of the mighty internet?


I remember the storm of ’67 when I lived in the mountains in Virginia. We had 3 weeks off from school that winter and some of the roads drifted over higher than my head! And this was in a place that was “used” to the the snow.

Nice artic weather for POLAR BEARS´endangered species.