Claim: Climate Change Made the US Deep Freeze Warmer

Giant blocks of ice wash ashore at Cape Cod (2015)

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Snap frozen sharks and brutal winter cold will soon be a thing of the past, according to climate scientists.

Cold snaps just ain’t what they used to be, scientists find


The first week of January was the coldest such week on record in most locations in the Eastern United States. It was so frigid that week, and the week preceding it, that sea ice formed around Cape Cod and Chesapeake Bay, sharks froze to death on Massachusetts beaches, and alligators went into a resting state while entombed in ice.

One might think that a cold snap like this one all but disproves global warming, or at least refutes the more dire scenarios about winter all but disappearing as the globe responds to sharp increases in greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane.

However, the reality is far more complex, scientists say. In fact, it’s getting harder to pull off a cold outbreak of the severity and longevity of the late December and early January Arctic blast, according to a new analysis published on Thursday.

In fact, the attribution analysis, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, found that the effects of global warming on cold outbreaks like this is to make them warmer than they otherwise would be, by about 4 degrees Fahrenheit.

In fact, the researchers calculated that a cold wave like this occurred about once every 17 years at the beginning of the 20th century, but now can be expected to occur just once out of every 250 years. In other words, there used to be a 5.8 percent chance of such a cold wave occurring in a given year, but now the odds are down to 0.4 percent.

Read more:

The abstract of the analysis;

Over the last week of 2017 and first week of 2018, a cold wave gripped the northeastern U.S. and southeastern Canada, with temperatures over 18ºF (10ºC) colder than is typical at this time of year over this area, setting records at many sites. We show that the temperature of North American cold waves has increased substantially over the last century due to global warming. So, although this cold spell would not have been unusual before global warming, it is now a relatively rare event in any one region. The chance of a cold wave anywhere in North America is much larger than in this specific location. We do not find any evidence for an intensification of these types of cold waves due to the Arctic warming faster than the midlatitudes. On the contrary, they seem to be warming faster than the winter mean as the Arctic air coming south is less cold now.

Read more:

Climate scientists who explain that global warming is causing extreme winter cold are simply demonstrating their lack of faith. The climate models tell us that winters full of snap frozen sharks and bomb cyclones can now only occur once every 250 years.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 11, 2018 4:46 pm

One thing is consistent…the science is settled

Ice clogs the Hudson as scientists admit the recent brutal cold snap was a ‘freak of nature’ and NOTHING to do with global warming

Reply to  Latitude
January 11, 2018 5:47 pm

Yeah today it was in the low 50s and tomorrow will be in the high 50s/low 60s.

Don Perry
Reply to  Phil.
January 11, 2018 7:18 pm

I don’t know where you are, but it was 50 degrees at noon today and by 5 PM it was 23 degrees. Monday night will be back below zero. This is NOTHING new. I also remember 1967 in January when it went into the low 60’s and two days later we had 27 inches of snow. It’s called WEATHER.

Reply to  Phil.
January 11, 2018 7:46 pm

We were talking about NY harbor so that’s where I was referring to, and yes it is weather. By the way it’s a balmy 46 right now in NYC. A lot of the ice on the harbor has floated down from further north.

Reply to  Phil.
January 17, 2018 5:50 am

Oh! The record cold never happened. Woo! Thanks Phil. You’re great!

Joe Bastardi
January 11, 2018 4:52 pm

Unreal . I said this in jest last week, that it caused the extreme cold but because of climate change the 20 days ending Jan 10 was not as cold as 83-84 ( analog I showed in early December) I did it to point out the absurdity of an argument that says it gets cold because of their idea, but is not as cold too. They actually do it. You cant make this up. Climate ambulance chasers

Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 11, 2018 5:26 pm

Old law of climate science: no matter how outrageous or absurd…they’ve already thought of it and used it

Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 11, 2018 6:10 pm

Muggeridge’s Law of Climate “Science”.

Ian McCandless
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 13, 2018 7:34 am

New law of climate science? Actually it’s an old law: “you can’t prove a negative.” That’s why science has protocols against such, by refusing to admit false positives with no proof, and this is prevented via instituting rigorous standards for rejecting the null hypothesis against any proposed alternatives.
However these standards were completely ignored in the case of AGW, and so the entire case has to be thrown OUT.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 17, 2018 5:58 am

It’s like with China thought a certain Onion article was real and republished in their papers.

Reply to  Joe Bastardi
January 11, 2018 6:54 pm

You have to love Freedman’s use of research where short term cycle trends are assigned century and longer status.
Those bozos ignore centuries of climate cycles so they can utilize extremely short term trends. These researchers note that historically similar events occurred fifty and one hundred years ago; but they then apply their short term trend claims along with their belief that CO2 magic means long climate cycles will never return.

All, to place another daft excuse on the CO2 altar of failures and busted predictions.

Ian McCandless
Reply to  ATheoK
January 13, 2018 7:37 am

ATheok: what I love even more, is how he arbitrarily assigns measurement periods to the turn of the century, as if there is actually a difference in centuries when it comes to climate. So he talks about the 20th century, and what’s expected for the 21st LOL
I’m not Albert Einstein, but I don’t think time works that way.

Reply to  Joe Bastardi
January 11, 2018 7:38 pm

Just as youth reportedly think the book 1984 is and instruction manual, climate scientists see every objection or point made as a contest to see who can first produce a peer-reviewed paper on why global warming caused the phenomena or didn’t. Normal scientific discourse is no longer possible, and stay far away from speculation. That really pushes them off the rails.

Reply to  Joe Bastardi
January 17, 2018 5:56 am

Joe B! I “discovered” you only about a year ago and have been very impressed with your successful forecasts, especially when compared against the world-wide echo chamber of unhinged hacks (who’ve somehow convinced the masses -even otherwise smart people- that they are experts in this field. Expert idiots, perhaps. Other than that – meh.) In addition to YOUR ACTUAL measurable expertise, I give you a world of credit for even bothering to look into, let alone respond to, the moronosphere were orbits Phil and his ilk (Philk?). I’ve tried discussing and/or arguing with turnips like this and find it a pointless use of the finite moments of my life. But God bless ya Joe and keep up the great work!

January 11, 2018 4:55 pm

Here’s another angle on that new climate communication talking point.

Reply to  icisil
January 11, 2018 5:08 pm

“It sure felt cold, but that’s b/c most days are really warm now.”

0.8 degrees

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Latitude
January 11, 2018 7:11 pm

So human bodies are adapting to climate change then? lol

Reply to  icisil
January 12, 2018 3:00 am

Warmer, huh? Yeah, after our little ‘warm snap’ this week (not an unusual thing in my kingdom) the REAL temperatures dropped back to the low 20s and mid-teens in about an hour, when the cold front from Siberia/Alberta/Great Frozen North passed through here on its way Eastward.

I did my errands-running very quickly yesterday, because I knew that cold snap was coming. High Thursday was 69F w/rain. Temps dropped like a stone in less than an hour, and AM temp (local) is 20F and will drop to 19F by sunrise. I checked last year’s temps for the same dates: same temps, same sloppy, icky weather.

Just as a side note, while I was at the grocery store, I passed by some young lady wearing short shorts and flipflops, on the phone with someone complaining that she hates climate change because it makes her wear winter clothing.

I kid you not. Some things you simply can’t make up.

Reply to  Sara
January 12, 2018 5:25 am

Possibly the young lady is trying out the Kneipp Method… Using cold shocks to harden up.

Ian McCandless
Reply to  icisil
January 13, 2018 8:54 am

Eric Holthaus: correct our understanding of meteorology? That’s nothing! climate change has taught us that the entire standard scientific method is all wrong, and that there is no longer any need to prove alternative propositions to the null hypothesis of all scientific knowledge established in history! That’s right, any random claim can now be accepted as a positive absolute, against which the null hypothesis must be proven as a negative– and for those who say that’s impossible, that’s okay too since logic need not apply!
Thank Obama for climate change, because actually having to prove one’s position was was just so old-school and unliberated.
Just like picking presidents on the basis of qualifications– if we did that, we would have gotten President John McCain or Mitt Romney! And then where would climate change be? Right back in the library under “children’s fiction” next to Harry Potter!
Good thing we dodged THAT bullet, we would have to throw out the entire climate change issue for all time if we follow the standard scientific method.

Reply to  Ian McCandless
January 17, 2018 6:06 am

McCain and Romney are both on board. We would still be in the Paris Accord with them.

Reply to  icisil
January 17, 2018 6:03 am

Christ. HTF do these people look at themselves in the mirror?! You’d think a toxic concoction of stupidity coupled with the deep seated knowledge that they’ve either blatantly lied, or said something SO DUMB that people laugh at them would have caused a leap off a bridge by now. But I guess I’m remembering sad choices made by those who felt desperate because they flouted standards in a world that still had standard for honesty and integrity (esp in science)! God help us.

January 11, 2018 5:00 pm

A week ago tomorrow it was -39.6 C, Obviously NO greenhouse gas climate warming gases were present in my backyard, or several million backyards. Actually, just a winter day here, and for large areas, of Canada.

Reply to  Davis
January 11, 2018 5:09 pm

Without climate change it would have been -43.6 C. They have proof.

Reply to  Davis
January 12, 2018 5:28 am

actually the greenhouse gasses are about 6-10 km up in the air, radiating down with minus sixty degreees Celsius… as a certain Mr Stefan-Boltzman told me…

A C Osborn
Reply to  Johannes Herbst
January 12, 2018 7:53 am

As Ed Bo will tell you they are still photons, it doesn’t matter where they come from, they will still be absorbed and heat up whatever they hit.
SB be damned.

Ian McCandless
Reply to  Davis
January 13, 2018 9:00 am

Davis: well that proves it, since if they were greenhouse gases in your backyard and it couldn’t have been that cold LOL
And it also proves it, because everything proves it. For the simple reason that you can’t prove a negative, and AGW has been a asserted as a positive… and who needs all that “proof by the scientific method” thing? Everyone knows that’s just a fossil fuel industry plot LOL

January 11, 2018 5:25 pm

I’m trying to fall asleep and this is not helping, as it is causing laughter …

January 11, 2018 5:25 pm

“sharks froze to death on Massachusetts beaches,”

Sharks don’t normally spend much time on beaches, do they? The ocean they swim in is liquid (above freezing), isn’t it? How did live sharks freeze?

Reply to  TA
January 11, 2018 5:47 pm

Consider a shark out to sea off Portsmouth, NH, well north of Cape Cod. The shark heads south looking for warmer water. If the shark follows the coast too closely, it comes down *west* of the outer cape. The outer cape hooks up to the north, and the shark is effectively penned into Cape Cod Bay. The shallow and relatively calm waters of the bay are susceptible to freezing as shown by the picture of ice on the beach, above.

You can even see Green and Leatherback turtles in the bay (both species are tropical/sub-tropical). Apparently they ride the Gulf Stream up north, then get snagged in the bay on their way back south.

Reply to  TA
January 11, 2018 5:53 pm

Land sharks?

Reply to  goldminor
January 11, 2018 6:30 pm

Land sharks, indeed.
We are getting pretty sick of the cold up here, so let’s all take a break.
Here are your tropical land sharks.


January 11, 2018 5:28 pm

No matter how little effort or how much effort is put into preventing it, the climate will always change.

January 11, 2018 5:36 pm

Yes, absolutely *everything* is caused by human-caused CO2. The Alarmists tell us so.

This looks like a normal winter to me. It gets cold for a few weeks, and then it warms up for a few weeks and then it gets cold for a few weeks and then it warms up again.

In a couple of weeks the Alarmists will be citing the warm weather on the U.S. East Coast as being caused by human-caused CO2. Right in the middle of winter, and it warmed up!!!

January 11, 2018 6:47 pm

Coclusion from warmist argument: So it was a record-setting cold in many places, but it could’ve been even colder were it not for AGW.

So what’s the problem?
None. AGW is a non-problem with likely benefits. Those benefits far outweighing costs in any attempt to fix weather by beggaring ourselves before a pagan religion and its carbon demon.

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 11, 2018 10:04 pm

What “could have been” is not a testable hypothesis, therefore not science. You can’t turn back the clock, run the same weather pattern with slightly different components, and determine what could have been. That’s like saying, “If I’d married Suzy instead of Linda our kids would have been geniuses who cured cancer, instead of lazy, ungrateful brats who shoplift on the rare days they’re not incapacitated with drugs.”

It’s an interesting speculation, but it’s not science.

Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
January 12, 2018 9:34 am

… poor Linda

January 11, 2018 7:41 pm

Wonder what the chiropractic bill is for dealing with the pain of all the contortions these scientists twist themselves into to defend the cause .

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Sheri
January 12, 2018 5:50 am

Not to mention first having to pull their firmly-planted heads out.

Ian McCandless
Reply to  Sheri
January 13, 2018 9:06 am

Sheri: nothing at all, they are mental gymnasts. In the Special Olympics.

Richard Keen
January 11, 2018 8:25 pm

Climate change me arse ….
Looks like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, aka AMO, to me.
Look at Figure 3 in Oldenborgh etc. et al. ad nauseum …
Then feast your eyes on the AMO …
A nice 60-year cycle with lots of noise superimposed.
The AMO affect hurricanes, too, but oppositely. More cold waves, fewer hurricanes.
As a kid in Philadelphia I remember the hurricanes of the 1950s (Hazel, Carol, Donna, etc.) being rather abruptly replaced by blizzards in the 1960s, and the first subzero reading in town in 25 years on JFK’s first day as president.
It’s called “natural variability”, and has been known for decades.

Joe D Banks
January 11, 2018 8:29 pm

Well I guess next year when it happens again, they will tell us how a warmer world mkes these cold waves more common.

Reply to  Joe D Banks
January 12, 2018 7:15 am

No doubt! Here in the midwest, just a few years ago, we had record breaking cold weather (-15°F)!! How could this cold snap, similar to the one a few years ago, be calculated as a once in every 250 year event when it just happened twice in 3 years?

Reply to  Doug
January 12, 2018 8:48 pm

Because of ancient weather records that will be published soon that it has only happened 3 times in the last 750 years. NOAA are working on them as we speak.

Reply to  Doug
January 17, 2018 6:10 am

Because these assclowns bank on the short term memory of people being as crappy as it is. People don’t remember and don’t trust their memories and if they hear a lie enough, that becomes their “memory” of the event.

January 11, 2018 8:46 pm

Global warming caused the recent cold snaps, Global Warming made the recent cold snaps less cold, Merkel has given up on the Paris agreement after berating Trump for doing the same. The racket coming out of the House of CAGW is rising to a crescendo. Bodies will soon be seen coming out of the first and second-floor windows.

Reply to  ntesdorf
January 12, 2018 5:35 am

Merkel has actually given up Germanys Climate goals for 2020, by trying to build a new old coalition.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Johannes Herbst
January 12, 2018 7:54 am

She has also agreed to restrict immigration to 200,000 as well, what a climbdown.

Jeff Wilson
January 11, 2018 9:42 pm

If the science is settled, why do we continually need new theories to explain these events?. It should be well understood.

Ian McCandless
Reply to  Jeff Wilson
January 13, 2018 9:08 am

Jeff Wilson, because the science is settled in terms of being completely abandoned from the get-go. By both sides.

Richard Keen
January 11, 2018 10:18 pm

Several places in eastern VA and NC set their all-time coldest ever low records during the cold wave (such as Wakefield VA -14F and Elizabeth City NC +2F), so the claim the cold wave was warmer that earlier cold waves is ludicrous.

Reply to  Richard Keen
January 11, 2018 10:44 pm

Well that will be a past they don’t have to bother cooling.

Reply to  Richard Keen
January 12, 2018 6:31 am

Oh, but you forget the homogenation and averaging part. When the climate folks are done, it will be the warmest ever cold wave.

Ian McCandless
Reply to  Sheri
January 13, 2018 9:11 am

Sheri : “Oh, but you forget the homogenation and averaging part. When the climate folks are done, it will be the warmest ever cold wave.”
Yep, who needs double blind testing when they’ve got both eyes up their butts? So what they lose in carbon credits they save in colonoscopy- bills.

January 11, 2018 10:37 pm

Just more of the same we’ve been seeing lately. They are desperate and it shows. I mean after all, where did “consensus” go? Now we’ve had three different stories from the alarmists. First it was Climate change made it worse. Then it was Climate Change didn’t cause it. Now it’s it would have been colder if not for Climate Change. And the litany of excuses and claims by the Climate Change crowd for what caused it to get so cold goes on and on and it’s all about WEATHER!

You can fiddle with the numbers and the temperature records all you want. You can play with your climate models and pretend they accurately portray what THE WEAHER is going to be in the coming years. But you can’t fool mother nature nor those exposed to what she dishes out. There is not enough BS they can possibly shovel to change that fact.

I really believe that so many of these “climate scientists” believe that they can get away with pushing the same shit on grown adults who have been around and done and seen things as they push on their students.

I remember as a new SF soldier I and several of us other new guys were detailed to go support recruiters in SE OH, N WV, and SW PA. Visit two High Schools per day. I was standing in line for the cafeteria talking to the kids and a guy walks up and says “take off your hat”. (We had been told by the recruiter to wear our berets inside as PR I guess). I said “please identify yourself”. He started to reach to snatch my beret off my head and I caught his hand and twisted his wrist almost putting him to his knees. It was just a instinctive reaction. After that the guy identified himself as the vice principle. I told him to use some manners and ask me to remove my head gear and I would do so. A Hole was trying to embarrass me and inflate his own status with those kids. Instead he was the one that was embarrassed. I’m sure those of you that have kid have met the type when you’ve visited your kids at school. Well climate scientists remind me of that kind of arrogant teacher.

Richard Keen
Reply to  RAH
January 11, 2018 11:09 pm

RAH: You can fiddle with the numbers and the temperature records all you want …
That sure is true with colleagues in the academic climate biz, where I’ve been for 47 years now. But before that I was a field meteorologist in the U.S. Army, giving winds and temperatures to the artillery guys, fly boys, and anyone else who cared. And in operational meteorology you DO NOT fiddle with the numbers. Bad data kills. I’ve known guys killed by bad data, be it coordinates, winds, or aim angles, that caused the 105’s to hit a bit too close, or because someone somewhere misread a tornado’s motion vector.
I’m still a weather observer, and fiddling with the numbers remains out of the question.
As for that principal, he should have listened to Jim Croce when (and if) he was growing up:

Alan Robertson
Reply to  RAH
January 12, 2018 10:31 am

US Army protocol/(regulation) is to immediately remove cover when going indoors, unless under arms. It’s not only a signal to others that you are not armed, but is also the respectful thing to do, especially in someone else’s mess hall. Some soldiers come to live by the rules, and increase the likelihood that they live. You were eating dinner in his mess and failing to follow his rules, then got physical with him.
You’d already been told to uncover. He didn’t need to ask “nice”. That doesn’t excuse his reaching for his hat, but doesn’t give you braggin’ rights, either.

I guess you still haven’t figured out who the true a- hole was in this situation. That’s why you aren’t ashamed to admit to such a huge f- up in a public forum.
Good thing for you, a certain ex- SSG wasn’t on scene. On the other hand, you’d have had it figured out for you, back then.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 12, 2018 3:43 pm

I think you are being a little hard on RAH.

He was told to wear the beret.

An unknown male comes up and starts ordering him around, so RAH asks the guy who he is.

Then the guy, without identifying himself, reaches to snatch the beret off RAH’s head, and RAH takes action to counter the aggression, gaining control of his assailant, but not harming him physically.

Under the circumstances, I think RAH acted properly.

I’m betting the vice principal always thinks twice now before trying to snatch a beret off a Special Forces troop’s head.

What would you do, Alan, if your superior told you to wear your beret indoors? Would you defy him? Would you drag out the Code of Military Conduct?

Reply to  RAH
January 17, 2018 6:15 am

I have to admit that I like that story.

January 12, 2018 12:42 am

I came across this yesterday:

Cold Winter Over North America: The Influence of the East Atlantic (EA) and the Tropical/Northern Hemisphere (TNH) Teleconnection Patterns
The abstract begins:
-“Anomalous cold temperatures and strong cyclonic circulation were observed during winter 2013/14 over North America. In this article, we propose for the first time that positive East Atlantic (EA) and positive Tropical/Northern Hemisphere (TNH) patterns were dominant in the winter of 2013/14….”-

It is open access and seems to link the anomalous cold in north eastern US – 2013/4 ( how quickly people forget, clearly not a once in 285 years effect) to warmer than normal sea surface temperatures . If the latter is the result of global warming then there might be something in the claim that global warming causes the extreme cold in 2013/4 and 2017/8. Could it be?

Reply to  mikewaite
January 12, 2018 5:40 am

If we had two of these event within two years, we will expect the next cold snap in about 285 years times two. You can be sure about it.

January 12, 2018 12:57 am

“such as carbon dioxide and methane”

I’ve noticed that the narrative has started to push methane up the hierarchy.

Waiting for the water vapour horse to be introduced bigly.

Reply to  Jones
January 12, 2018 6:36 am

We can’t tax water vapor or control its concentration much. People might think the climate change people want to get rid of clouds (and thus rain) when they learn that clouds are water vapor. I’m not saying they won’t try it, just that it’s going to be extremely difficult to sell. “Clear skies, dry land, send in your water vapor tax today and save the planet”. It just doesn’t have that clever ring to it.

Reply to  Sheri
January 12, 2018 1:16 pm

They’ve taxed light and air before so I wouldn’t put it past them…..

January 12, 2018 2:50 am

Looks like ocean water freezes again. From Accuweather’s video files comes this. No takesies-backsies.

Reply to  Sara
January 12, 2018 6:52 am

The video with the surfer taking off in slush is interesting. He puts a chunk of ice on the front of his surf board. You don’t see that much.

Frederik Michiels
January 12, 2018 3:14 am

in short: would there be no macical CO2 molecule the cold records would have been broken…

euhm errrrr….

weren’t they broken? and a few years before other snow and cold records were broken?

Of course that’s all weather, but weather events should at least give some idea of how climate change works. like that the LIA in europe wasn’t really a “colder episode” but a more volatile episode that did average as colder.

A C Osborn
January 12, 2018 3:35 am

These Scientists are very US centric, they haven’t noticed the Cold & Snow in
Italian Alps
French Alps
Sahara Desert

So does that look like it is only a polar event in the USA?

Reply to  A C Osborn
January 12, 2018 4:26 am

And also they’ve noted that the Arctic itself is warmer than average, with another year of low winter sea ice extent.

The study is about the intensity of cold waves which do occur…

That this cold wave is an effect of climate change, specifically a warming arctic, is not in doubt

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2018 5:55 am

Oh look, here come Griffie with his hand waving and wild, baseless assertions. Cool.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2018 5:59 am

A warming Arctic, yes -20C to -30C is really warm at the moment.

Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2018 6:03 am

Yes it is in doubt. Most climate scientists even alarmists have stated it has nothing to do with climate change. Only Al Gore and his pet Mann have stated otherwise. Mann has no more expertise in this area than Gore so….

Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2018 6:54 am

Sorry, Griff, but “not in doubt” means “I have faith in my global warming religion”. There is NO definative way to make that statement and have it be scientifically true. We simply cannot know, do not know and probably never will know. You keep up the faith, though. Everyone needs something to believe in.

Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2018 8:37 am

You should be Jerry brown’s spokesman. Confident assertions about which you don’t know much about.

Reply to  Griff
January 14, 2018 3:11 pm

Wrong, as usual…

Reply to  Griff
January 17, 2018 6:23 am
Reply to  A C Osborn
January 12, 2018 2:06 pm

“These Scientists are very US centric, they haven’t noticed the Cold & Snow in …”
“So does that look like it is only a polar event in the USA?”

Yes, actually, as cold is common in winter and snow is not a measure of it.
You are being disingenuous in the extreme.

“From California to Alaska, it’s been a weirdly warm winter. If it’s cold where you are right now, chances are you’re in the eastern U.S. — which is practically the only place on Earth that’s significantly cooler than normal at the moment.”

comment image

A C Osborn
Reply to  Toneb
January 12, 2018 3:11 pm

But the point you are missing Griff is that it is Record breaking snow and cold, not just “winter”.
And it certainly isn’t winter in Australia, Tasmania and Brazil.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Toneb
January 12, 2018 3:13 pm

You do realise that the very dark area you show as warm is actually -15C and further East it is below -40C.

Matt G
Reply to  Toneb
January 13, 2018 2:23 pm

Much of that dark area has no data.

Reply to  Toneb
January 17, 2018 6:26 am

More record hear from areas of Africa wherein there are no temp data actually taken.

Reply to  A C Osborn
January 17, 2018 6:21 am

Well. In fairness, each of those places have a different word for “snow,” so it does get confusing.

January 12, 2018 4:56 am

Climate Change Double Standard Double Speak Proves Slimate Clience is a Fraud

Liberals can take one position, that the recent record cold is normal and natural, when they are taking the position opposite of President Trump. Liberals can then take the exact opposite position when they are defending Al Gore and Michael Mann. The position a liberal will take isn’t dependent upon the science, data or facts, the position a liberal will take is dependent upon who is making the claim. If Conservative believe the facts point to climate change being a fraud, liberals will defend it to the death as scientific truth. Liberals are so oblivious to the facts that The Guardian recently published an article about global warming and defended their position by using quotes that disprove the very position they were intended to defend.

George Lawson
January 12, 2018 5:36 am

How do these so called scientists have the effrontery to make these utterly ridiculous statements. Can they tell us why periods of very cold weather that have prevailed over many countries of the world in recent and ancient history have never led to or have been caused by global warming? Ice at the North Pole may be melting slightly more through any of a number of reasons, but with record freezing over so many areas of the world, it is hard to imagine how the GW clan can argue that that a slightly bigger melt in the Arctic equates to GLOBAL warming.

Reply to  George Lawson
January 12, 2018 7:02 am

It’s lucrative. They get a check and they have a nice house. Some may have faith in the results, some may be true believers. Bottom line, they have jobs. They produce what their employer demands they produce. While we like to believe science is different, sorry, it’s not. People are paid to make science into whatever the person paying for it wants. The government wanted global warming, so universities, funded by the government, produce that. The quaint notion that science is for discovery died a long time ago. Discovery is merely an accident and often it’s tossed out if it contradicts the desired results. Science became too competative and too expensive for discovery. Just find what you are supposed to find.

Ian McCandless
Reply to  Sheri
January 13, 2018 7:25 am

Science is different because it has protocols designed to circumvent this sort of pimping of scientific results. However these protocols have been breached by all sides, and therefore it is by definition no longer science.
If a police officer brings a suspect into court, and there is no probable cause, the case is thrown out.
Similarly, if somebody presents an alternative hypothesis and it is not properly proved against the null hypothesis, then it is also thrown out.
And guess what: AGW has never been properly proved against the null hypothesis. So guess what has to be done, in order to call it “science?”
Yep. Therefore, agw ain’t science.

January 12, 2018 7:41 am

a cold wave like this occurred about once every 17 years at the beginning of the 20th century, but now can be expected to occur just once out of every 250 years.

…or what, three times in the past five years?

This article literally made me LoL.

Reply to  RWturner
January 12, 2018 4:23 pm

Yeah, it hit -12 F here in Oklahoma in the winter of 2012, about the lowest low we’ve seen in about 30 years. My water pipe *almost* froze that day. Right now it’s a balmy 20 degrees outside. Call me when the record-breaking cold comes along.

January 12, 2018 8:32 am

Rushing to the press even before peer-review? Some Josh Willis-esque PhD student drone wrote this bullshit overnight in response to the current cold spell.

Laughable and pathetic. Childishly written, too many paragraphs beginning with “in fact”.

Joel Snider
January 12, 2018 12:29 pm

Gee. Sounds to me like they’re just running the same set of alarmist predictions all over again.
They’re really counting on people being too stupid to remember the last round.
What’s really sad is how often that actually works.

January 13, 2018 7:12 am

These two points have been made above, but I wish to summarize.

First, just what is it about the words “record low temperatures” do these researchers fail to understand? In many stations the data goes back over a hundred years, and if the old record was twenty and the new record is nineteen, you cannot say the nineteen degrees is somehow a “warmer” nineteen than the old twenty. (or, you can do it, but you will look like an idiot if you do so.) Furthermore, if you say the record-setting cold is warmer, what you are in fact saying is that the record would have been broken by five degrees rather than a single degree, and an epic cold wave would have happened, and that really fails to convince people the world is “warming”. You defeat your own purpose.

Second, to bandy about data concerning how often these cold waves occur makes you look especially foolish when a child in third grade can recall worse winters. In actual fact the picture at the start of the post is old file-footage from the winter of 2014-2015. So it is somewhat ridiculous to talk about once-every-seventeen-years, or once-every-250-years, when in actual fact Massachusetts Bay has seen sea-ice three times in five years.

This sort of poor fact-checking is a disgrace to science, and journalism, and even science-fiction. I get the feeling these fellows just make it up as they go along.

Back in 2014-2015 Michael Mann had to dream up an excuse for Boston being buried by snow, so he stated “warmer oceans” created “higher humidity” in Boston, leading to more snow. But he never bothered check Boston’s records. Joe Bastardi did that, and discovered the entire record-setting month of February the humidity was well below average. Also Mann didn’t check out the reports from the shore, and was embarrassed by pictures of “slurpie surf” way out on Nantucket:

Ian McCandless
January 13, 2018 7:18 am

If this proves anything, it’s my original point that reaching scientific protocols in order to allow and unproven positive, results in junk science and proving a negative, and therefore the entire discussion has to be thrown out.

In fact at this point of global panic, I really don’t even think that’s possible that there can never be an objective analysis of the situation. Because you can’t prove a negative. It’s like we are in a Panic Room elevator and all the buttons have been pushed. So it’s just going to stop at every floor… except the top one because a panic monger’s elevator doesn’t reach it.
The Earth could turn to a solid block of ice, and they would still blame human CO2 emissions. That’s what happens when you let a bad apple in the barrel… and precisely why we have basic protocols in the scientific method.
Since these have been breached on both sides, we need to throw the entire discussion on climate change, it’s been a tragic mistrial for which there can be no resolution.

%d bloggers like this: