By P Gosselin on 24. October 2025
This is not supposed to be happening, according to the climate models.
Symbol image: NASA
While the headlines relentlessly holler about “exploding global warming” and “dramatic melting” of the polar caps, the South Pole is telling a starkly different story.
Here reports Germany’s Report 24.
On October 15, the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station registered an astonishing temperature of minus 61.3 degrees Celsius and it isn’t even winter there. It’s springtime and temperatures should be on the rise.
Coldest October since 1981
According to Report 24, the numbers are clear: It was the coldest October measured at the station since 1981.
This extreme cold is not an isolated event. As the article points out, even CNN reported in 2021 that the continent had experienced its coldest winter since records began.
The data from stations like Amundsen-Scott, Vostok, and Dome C show that instead of a linear, CO₂-driven heating trend, the South Pole is dominated by naturally occurring, extreme temperature fluctuations, including pronounced cold snaps.
Natural factors dominate
This directly contradicts the dominant narrative that “extreme heat is the new normal” and challenges the core assumption that the trace gas CO₂ is the overwhelming, all-determining factor in our climate system. Climatological mechanisms like stratospheric waves, polar vortex stability, and cloud cover appear to be the actual drivers of weather events.
Even growing colder
For decades, we’ve been told that polar regions would experience the strongest warming. Yet, the Antarctic region has stubbornly resisted, in some parts even growing colder.
The Report 24 article argues that this recurring cold record is a “nail in the coffin of the CO₂ dogma.” If carbon dioxide were truly the dominant climate control knob, such an extreme, decades-long cold minimum shouldn’t be happening.
The underlying models—like the IPCC forecasts from the 1990s—have systematically overestimated temperature trends. When faced with such real-world deviations, one must ask: are the climate models flawed, or is the CO₂-centric theory of climate incomplete?
For those politicians and policymakers who are basing sweeping, economy-altering decisions on the idea that the “science is settled,” the stubborn cold of the South Pole presents a critical challenge that can no longer be ignored.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Absolutely astounding. One low month and it’s “nail in the coffin of the CO₂ dogma.”. I think this might be too ludicrous for even WUWT readers. The IPCC report, and others predicts temperature extremes, low and high, but with an overwhelming warming trend, as that’s what has happened, like it or not. I don’t think one low or high temperature for a month is particularly newsworthy, unless you’re grasping at straws
Objectively, you are right. But when extreme warm or wet events are considered newsworthy—and it seems they are—we need to hear about the other extreme events too. It is tiresome, but this is where we are.
Not if the climate system is out of balance. The attached map clearly shows that warmer than average areas dominate over cooler than average ones.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var_id=t2anom&ortho=1&wt=1
Your turn of phrase implies you are trying to rebut my point but your image shows what I said needs to be shown.
(Not that I concede the notion that “balance” is a concept that even applies to climate, nor that ClimateReanalyzer is a reliablle representation of anything.)
I generally agree with your overall point, but you don’t need to “concede” anything. The “climate: is not a real thing, therefore it cannot be “in balance” or “out of balance.”
Earth’s climate is determined by its balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation emitted back to space.
https://research.noaa.gov/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled/
Satellite observations have confirmed a persistent net energy gain (the balance is disrupted). And it’s why warm anomalies now dominate over cold anomalies globally.
UAH satellite maps show the same result of more areas with above average temperatures than below average.
This nonsense has to end. Earth’s climate is NOT determined by anything…
Climate is NOT a thing, therefore it can’t be caused or “determined” by anything.
This graph is useless. Exactly what components are used in the “monthly anomalies”? The mid-range temperature calculated from Tmax and Tmin? Tmax values averaged with Tmin values in a concatenated data set? What is the measurement uncertainty interval for the “monthly anomalies”? Is it greater than the actual anomaly itself?
You need to answer a simple question. Has Tmax increased or has Tmin increased?
If it is Tmax, then your fear of a burning earth is justified. If it is Tmin, then just what is going to happen with respect to cold deaths around the globe?
You are using statistics that are being manipulated to achieve a predetermined goal, the generation of fear. Why don’t you dig further into the data to find out what is happening? I have a suggestion, find out what the relation between radiation and temperature is. Perhaps you will find out that higher temperatures result in higher radiation not less.
“You need to answer a simple question. Has Tmax increased or has Tmin increased?”
You keep asking the same question, and ignoring the answer. In most cases both max and min has increased. I think it would be hard to have a situation where one increases and the other doesn’t.
“If it is Tmin, then just what is going to happen with respect to cold deaths around the globe?”
That isn’t the point. It’s the effect of warming on the environment. Even if you are only worried about the effects on human health, high nighttime temperatures during summer are still a problem. I suspect that in some cases hit nights can be worse than hot days.
In any case, even if you imagine that minimums are increasing whilst maximums stay the same, that would still mean the overall heat during the day increases. You experience the hot temperatures for longer, because you have a flatter temperature profile.
Mate, you’re getting yourself into a tizz over a poofteenth of a C difference in some places around the world, not all.
Have you seen that metric that says if you want to live where it’s 1C cooler than where you are, just move 100 kms north (or south) away from the Equator, and you’ll be in your own ‘goldilocks’ zone?
As I have shown you before, current max temps are not exceeding those in the 30’s/40’s. Whereas the min temps and max temps in the winter are increasing way beyond anything in the past.
The question is which one is raising the average more.
Here is a second issue you never address with time series. How do you remove auto-correlation and seasonality from a trend? Does removing those leave you with a trend caused by unique variable?
“As I have shown you before, current max temps are not exceeding those in the 30’s/40’s. Whereas the min temps and max temps in the winter are increasing way beyond anything in the past.”
Moving the goal posts again. You asked “Has Tmax increased or has Tmin increased?” Not if summer temperatures were currently higher than in the 30s.
What you say is correct, but only if you look at just USA summer temperatures, and then not for all of the US. The dust bowl peaks in the 30s were mainly in central regions.
E.g. here’s the NOAA summer TMax values for the Central region.
There were very high temperature’s during the 30s, and there has been no real warming since the 70s.
Now here’s the same for the South West region.
Not much of a spike during the 30s, and a strong rate of warming over the last 50 years. Summer Maximum temperatures are now clearly higher than they were during the 30s and 50s.
Thanks for clarifying. I always thought that cold temperature deaths were going to be across the animal kingdom but apparently they only apply to humans.
The only thing missing in your red graphic is the hammer and a sicle,my dear co2nrade.
Btw , can you imagine how massive the propaganda is when you need so such red for a degree of warming when you show it to humans who occupy territories with 100 degrees difference.
Another interesting thing about your claim is that the climate system is OUT OF BALANCE.
On a planet with hundreds of millions of years of life and way higher temperatures and co2 concentrations than today.
You neither have the proof that there is anything out of balance nor does nature show any tendency as the planet got greener and the food production is ever increasing = that’s absolutely impossible in an out of balance scenario.
On top of that – it would be absolutely impossible for complex life to develop and exist on a planet where a tiny 0.01% change woulf throw a system out of balance.
The only things out of balance are your braincells – both of them.
But I feel – everyone needs a religion; and you need this substitute aa the opium of the masses ain’t enough.
You need the crack – cocaine.
Btw – climate gases homogenize temperatures.
You know what happens to those very hot/day and cold/night temperatures in the desert.
Once cloud cover and/or moisture comes around the days are significantluy cooler and nights are warmer.
How can such a thing cause extremes.
And how much climate imbalance does the 95% co2 atmosphere of Mars have?
“You need the crack – co2caine.” Made slight change. 🙂
Its hilarious that they can “produce™” all that red, in places where there are basically no thermometers. 🙂
Also funny that CFSR show the Antarctic has a cooling trend.
But CR shows it warmer by a ridiculously large amount.
Also funny is your incompetence.
The chart you shared shows a long term Antarctic trend since 1979, while the Climate Reanalyzer map I posted shows a single day global anomaly.
Maybe pick a new hobby that doesn’t involve reading charts.
You should pick a new hobby that doesn’t include spreading wild paranoia about nothing for nefarious and totally corrupt purposes. Your screwball alarmism is costing the rest of us $trillions. Please post with your full name and address for legal tort redress action.
Trillions is conservative when considering the cost of the climate crisis.
There is no climate crisis.
Its all in your imagination, brought about by brain-washed ignorance.
I’m afraid not, unfortunately.
A non-answer.. showing you KNOW there is no climate crisis. !
Where is it ???
http://web.archive.org/web/20080731114610/tamino.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/the-big-thaw/
Tamino.. roflmao..
No wonder you are so ignorant of reality. !!
Did you know that Arctic sea ice has been basically zero trend since 2007?
Did you know that current levels are way above the extent of most of the last 10,000 years
Did you know that the 1979 extent was up there with the devastating extreme of the LIA that drove out all the Arctic sea life ?
The slight loss in sea ice since that extreme highs of the LIA and 1979, is the exact opposite of a crisis. ..
It is absolutely beneficial to Arctic sea life, some of which is only now returning to the Arctic.
Yes, I am aware and so are scientists.
See Wang, 2025:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63520-0
This study finds that the recent slowdown in Arctic sea ice melt is linked to an internally driven strengthening of the meridional temperature gradient in the subpolar North Atlantic.
The authors emphasize that this pattern is temporary and could last only another decade or two, after which the accelerated pace of sea ice loss driven by greenhouse gas warming is likely to return.
So Funny… The authors go down the “prediction” rabbit hole to join Nostra-Dumb-Ass. !
But yes, the reduction in Arctic sea ice was linked to the AMO.. very closely..
Note inverted axis on sea ice extent.
There is no evidence the El Nino forced warming will continue. (the only warming in the UAH data)
AMO is due to change, then the Arctic will cool again.
I find it bizarre that there are still twits that think having the Arctic chock full of sea ice all year round like in the LIA is good for anything….
Shows a brain-washed miasma, with zero link to reality.
Still a long way to drop before it get anywhere near the Holocene norm.
The ONLY warming in UAH NoPol has come from the 2016 and 2023/24 El Nino events.
For the first 15 years of this century there was very little warming.
You did not understand the paper by claiming it agrees with your implication of a direct mechanism between the AMO and ASI.
What the AMO does is modulate the meridional temperature gradient in the North Atlantic, which in turn enhances baroclinicity and transient storm track activity. Those storms transport heat and momentum upward into the jet stream, when then alters the configuration of the Azores – Icelandic pressure system configuration. The NAO is the primary factor driving long term changes in sea ice variability.
It really depends on the context. In terms of climate variability, the Little Ice Age wouldn’t have been a great time to live. But, in today’s world, the rapid melting of sea ice is definitely problematic, as Tamino’s 06/2008 post explains.
I’ve repeatedly debunked your claim that El Niño causes long term warming. All it does is shift warm water from the deep pool in the western Pacific to the eastern Pacific, temporarily warming a larger portion of the ocean and raising the global average temperature. But when the trade winds return to normal, the water moves back to its original position. It’s just a redistribution of energy, not a permanent change.
Could, is likely, you are an adherent of the Precautionary Principle based upon guesses and not real evidence. I could die tomorrow if I leave my house! It is likely that I will contract a terminal disease if I leave my house!
See how that works? Paranoia is contagious.
Wish I had scrolled down before I commented. You already said what I was trying to say.
Unfortunately, either they do so they’re spreading fear and paranoia on purpose, or they don’t and really believe the end is nigh. I’m not sure which is worse.
I wish it was just fear and paranoia.
From Google AI:
“Arctic sea ice extent has decreased by approximately 40% since the satellite record began in the late 1970s, with the summer minimum extent being the most affected.”
Frok Grok after setting the variables, that it only could use logic reasoning, real measured data and not models, it first gave me an anwser on what the loss ws since using satelites, when I pushed him on the topic if there were other satelites that we ignore, I learned about russion (USSR) satelites, these satelite were being used before 1979, and acoording to Grok purely based on information that we have from those stelites ice loss is about 20 to 25%. still a loss but nothing to worry about.
I always find it interesting that with all AI you forst need to tell it to ignore ideology, models and only focus on reasoning, logig, fact and real measured data and research. Without exception you will get completely different information or at least big differences, and it is never in favor of alarmists. With these settings changed it all of a sudden it doesnt follow consencus anymore…
Down a bit compared to the coldest time period since the Little Ice Age.
The authors present a clear physical mechanism supported by observations and models. Just because the phrasing includes probabilities doesn’t make it guesswork. That is just how scientific conclusions are responsibly communicated.
They propose a mechanism, and you just accept that they have proven their point.
Sad how little you know of the scientific method.
“linked to” does NOT mean “caused by” which is what you are implying. Spreading disinformation.
“could last” means they don’t know and are only guessing, Spreading doubt.
“Likely to return” is pure and unadulterated B.S. Spreading fear.
There is no net greenhouse gas warming in the Arctic. The Arctic serves as a massive heat vent to space. The venting is caused by the presence of GHG’s in the atmosphere. The more the concentration rises, the stronger the emission of energy to space. If ice cover decreases, the heat loss rises dramatically as water is almost perfectly black in the IR range. More sunlight is absorbed by water than ice, but the increase in heat losses directly to space more than makes up for it.
I too laughed when you linked to something from Tamino. You can also find laughable material at Eli Rabbet’s rabbit hole, where science goes to die. You can find more humour to ridicule in Gavin’s Schmidt’s belief that convection heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere stops in the absence of GHG’s.
The CAGW concept is lamentably defective.
More GHG concentrations means less infrared energy escaping to space, thus warming the planet.
Depends on many factors. Up in the stratosphere, more CO2 makes it easier for heat to escape to space.
Sea ice is up compared to the Medieval Warm period and way, way up compared the the Holocene Optimum.
Climate science today seems to be mainly finding explanations for why their prior predictions have been wrong but you should believe climate models.
Note the strong association between US highway traffic deaths and the arctic sea ice minimum. More deaths, more ice. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient is .71, which is a strong correlation, as strong as the correlation (data not shown) between arctic ice minimum and the North Pole temperature anomaly or atmospheric CO2. This is called data dredging.
Old data showing an anomalous covering by an unusual weather event (winds), not temperature: “Second, prevailing wind patterns shifted so that polar ice (which is floating on the arctic ocean) drifted to lower latitudes, making it even more vulnerable to melting.”
Here’s the full context:
“First, the arctic is indeed warming faster than the rest of the planet.”
Only in rapidly expanding towns.
Take Alaska for example.. Most places cooling since 1977…
… but you know which ones carry the weight in their temperature fabrications. 😉
There is no data supporting what you are so desperate to believe.
A degree or two of warming is a 100% good thing for the planet.
How’s the high?
Which high? Daytime high? Nighttime high? Mid-range high?
Adding a day or two to the growing season is highly beneficial for plants and the animals that feed on them.
More CO2 means plants use less water which allows them to grow in places they couldn’t grow before.
There is no downside to more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Funny how exactly zero of the predicted catastrophes have happened, and none appear be in any form imminent either.
The world is doing great and everything is getting better. Even if your religious beliefs won’t let you acknowledge it.
Nonsense, there has been no increase in violent weather.
Warmer weather has saved 10’s to 100’s of thousands of lives.
More CO2 has caused a huge increase in plant life that is making life better for every living thing on the planet.
In other words, it is no better than anecdotal evidence for what is happening long-term.
Here, P Gosselin’s article uses colder than average fluctuations to imply doubt about anthropogenic global warming.
Are you also going to direct your criticism here to P Gosselin?
Why start in 1979? Start with 1957 when the temperature record starts. Globally, 1979 was the coldest in the 40 preceding years.
I was showing my granddaughter (11) some or other alarmist piece in the press that started in 1961 and ended in 2020, I asked why she thought the data started in 1961.
She responded, “Because it was warmer before that?”
Right on. And why does it end in 2020?
“Because it was cooler after that?”
Right again.
Even an eleven year old can figure out that they are being lied to.
Eclang, the long term trend in Antarctica is down, and they are having spectacular cold this month, heading into spring. The sun is going quiet and the continent will in all probability cool further in the coming 20 years.
Your insults aren’t helping your arguments. They only serve to draw attention to the fact you are probably not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I wasn’t the one who brought up the Antarctic time series. That was bnice. He tried to use it to discredit the Climate Reanalyzer map, but he wasn’t even comparing the same type of data.
Antarctic climate trends are not uniform. West Antarctica, where the major ice sheet is located, is undergoing long term warming and ice loss, while East Antarctica seems to have cooled.
It would certainly be interesting if that happened, but the claim that a quiet sun will cool the planet has been made repeatedly over the years by skeptics without ever materializing.
He didn’t just tried, he succeeded.
The cooling trend is exactly what is predicted for the high Antarctic as a result of increased CO2!
Been cooling in the Antarctic for over a thousand years.!
It’s been cooling in the Arctic since the end of the Holocene Optimum, about 5000 years ago. With temporary interruptions about every 1000 years. The previous was 1000 years ago, the current one now.
Yet there is the clanger going all hysterical about warming.
You climate worriers need to get your fantasy straight.
I was responding to quelgeek’s point about media emphasis. If warmer anomalies dominate over cooler ones, as observational data clearly shows, then it’s objectively reasonable that warmer events get more coverage. That reflects data.
Here’s the problem. They don’t.
Wrong. The media does focus more on warmer than average events because they are more frequent. And WUWT constantly tries to spin this as selective deceit. The fact that you’re now denying even that “skeptic” talking point shows how desperate the denial position has become.
Too bad the actual real world data does not support the point you are trying to make.
One day does not make a trend nor establish a long-term statistical abundance.
Global warming is a statistically significant trend.
The only warming in the 45 years of UAH data is from NON-CO2 El Nino events.
There is no sign of any CO2 caused warming in the UAH data..
… or anywhere else.
Continued warming from the Little Ice Age. Still got a ways to go to get back to the warmth last seen during the Medieval warm periods.
Over the last decade or so, there have been more cool records than hot records. The real world is still failing to support the climate alarmists claims.
No it’s Gosselin who needs to get his facts straight!
For example: “This is not supposed to be happening, according to the climate models”, whereas it is supposed to be happening in the high Antarctic due to increasing CO2. For example, I linked a paper above from a decade ago that showed that.
Been COOLING for over a thousand years.
Slight warming trend since 1900.. oops to the CO2 “climate model” conjecture.
Yes, when your modelling isn’t working correctly get busy and change the design and parameters to get the desired outcome.
Like in high school chemistry lab, make sure your experiment matches what the teacher expects so you get a good mark.
It is still not proof of causation.
Your image has a very odd coloring scheme. The index shows that is white on each end, and also white in the middle. It seems to me that this was chosen in order to disguise the factual data and emphasize only the red.
Good thing the climate system is NOT out of balance, which makes the rest of your comment complete B.S.
Most things in nature are more like a pendulum, not a balance.
They swing one way then swing back the other way.
Which is exactly how a system lightly dominated by negative feedbacks operates. 🤷♂️ Climate crisis averted. 😊👍
You can, of course show us where the actual measured temperatures in that bright read section came from 😉
Betting you haven’t got a clue.
The world is still warming up from the LIA. Thank God.
The world is still cooler than it was during the Medieval, Roman, Egyptian and Minoan warm periods and way cooler than the Holocene Optimum.
None of which were caused by CO2.
What is being compared is the forecast temperature anomaly from a weather model with a baseline that is less than the 30-year definition of climate.
The Reanalyzer created some problems in 2024 when the forecast was very inaccurate.
I see our infamous Sophistry 1st Class award winner has returned.
‘One low month and it’s “nail in the coffin of the CO₂ dogma.”’
It isn’t even a low month. It is one cold day in one locatio.
The Met Office trumpets record temperatures in Britain that lasted less than one minute before dropping.
The weather station doesn’t even need to exist – they have fiddle factors to correct for that.
Australia’s BoM uses seconds.
Seconds., or leftovers….
… that’s a good description of most of BoM’s surface sites. !
Mr. Stokes: Did you miss the word ‘recurring”, and the mention of lowest-on-record cold in ’21? Or did you just read the headline, like tonyxtroll, and start typing?
Gosselin said that, with no evidence. The only fact advanced is one cold day.
And CNN’s report on ’21. Won’t bother trying to explain the term “evidence” to you again.
Yes, please don’t. It probably wouldn’t make sense.
We would need a primary school teacher to explain it to you.
Anything else would be too much for you!
No-one here seems to understand about simple facts. Except Bellman, down below. He actually looked up the record, and saw that -61.2C was no-where near a record. Many October days have been colder. Time to start talking about hurricanes again.
And what did CNN say about “record cold winter”? Here is the report:
“For the entire Antarctic continent, the winter of 2021 was the second-coldest on record, with the “temperature for June, July, and August 3.4 degrees Celsius (6.1 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than the 1981 to 2010 average at -62.9 degrees Celsius (-81.2 degrees Fahrenheit),” according to a new report from the NSIDC.
“This is the second-coldest winter (June-July-August months) on record, behind only 2004 in the 60-year weather record at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station,” the NSIDC said.”
Evidence means you actually check.
Mr. Stokes: Evidence isn’t defined as you define it here, but as I said, won’t bother, your fan Eclang can look up our comments and see that you use the term “evidence” like humpty-dumpty, it means what you say blah blah. I’ll just throw this out- if it’s “evidence” did it get there only after you “checked” it, or was it “evidence” even before it’s checked? Misleading evidence is still evidence to one with an open mind equipped with a bs meter.
Now that’s done, here is where you are wrong- the cnn article is evidence, right, now that you checked it? And it says 2d coldest winter (thanks for checking) which is one additional item cited by Mr. Goeslin that supports the articles’ premise, “AGW prediction rebutted by data.” I know Mr. Goeslin is a bomb-thrower, maybe he’s just mocking alarming claims on your side (wasn’t there a siberian heatwave awhile back?). I mostly notice how hard you guys jump against it. Spares me reading CNN garbage.
But the AGW prediction is not rebutted by data, the prediction is that contrary to the rest of the globe the high Antarctic will cool due to increased CO2. That’s the point, Gosselin leads the post with a false premise!
Mr. Phil.: The chirping from the peanut gallery is noted. What you say is classic CliSci and has been put in the dumper here long ago, but that “prediction” is just food for troll who can post links when convenient.
“Misleading evidence is still evidence to one with an open mind”
whose brains have fallen out. False “facts” are not evidence of anything. And everything here turned out to be false. The highlighted “fact”, the record -61.2C on Oct 15, was way off, as Bellman noted. There have been 132 colder October days since 1981. And the “coldest winter”, which you treat as a backup claim, wasn’t. There is nothing left.
Mr. Stokes: So you filter out “facts” that are false (determined false by a consensus??) and move on. Did it enter your mind that you are using that as evidence, to assess the credibility of the presentation ie the article? How do you suppose we assess comments here?
You use the word “evidence” tightly or loosely, as it suits you, consistent with eco-activists who want to stop oil, debate over. I see this when assessing the merits of comments. Evidence. Tell Eclang, he can stop that off-key Bellman- er, bell.
But one hot day in one location and the tipping points have been tipped and the apocalypse is just around the corner.
I know you’re smart. Maybe you should try to consider the logical opposite or inverse (counterfactual?) of any comment you make before you make it. If it’s just as logically and factually true as the comment you want to make, then your comment is irrelevant. But put on your blinders and full speed ahead.
Oh Nick.
Please don’t showcase such hypocrisy as claiming that one COLD day somewhere is inconsequential, when your lot screams climate Armageddon every time there’s one HOT day somewhere.
We don’t.
In fact, many October heat records were broken in NSW just last Wednesday. 41.2C in Taree in October! No-one screamed Armageddon.
And yet, your alarmist lot never wants to acknowledge actual history –
In January 1896 a savage blast “like a furnace” stretched across Australia from east to west and lasted for weeks.
The death toll reached 437 people in the eastern states.
Newspaper reports showed that in Bourke the heat approached 120°F (48.9°C) on three days (1)(2)(3).
The maximum at or above 102 degrees F (38.9°C) for 24 days straight.
Natural history denialism is irrational, Nick.
Observations trump models constructs every day of the week.
There was no Stevenson screen at Bourke until 1908. These temperatures are exaggerated by radiant heat.
Pure conjecture on your part! Show us the evidence that these are inaccurate temperatures. The lack of a screen doesn’t prove that the microclimate being measured is being measured incorrectly. Different doesn’t mean wrong.
Not so! Gosselin specifically said, “It was the coldest October measured at the station since 1981. … This extreme cold is not an isolated event. As the article points out, even CNN reported in 2021 that the continent had experienced its coldest winter since records began.”
Yes, Gosselin said that. He makes stuff up. He says it was the coldest October when October still isn’t over.
“Gosselin specifically said, “It was the coldest October measured at the station since 1981″
In which case, why doesn’t he quote this October value, and explain how he gets this with a week to go.
I suspect this may be a bad translation. The tweet the original article is based on says.
IPCC report predicts such a wide range , anything could happen.
Their prediction are just as meaningless as those of Nostra-dumb-ass. !!
The only warming in the UAH data comes from 3 strong El Nino events,
There is no evidence anywhere of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Tonyx’ exclusion of “a” in the quotation with regard to “nail” is deceptive and misrepresents what is being communicated.
“Der neuerliche Temperaturrekord der Antarktis ist ein weiterer Nagel im Sarg des CO₂-Dogmas.”
Climate Alarmists find it necessary to be deceptive. They can’t sell their product otherwise.
Predictable reaction from troll who only reads headline, starts typing.
Tonyx, you obviously didn’t read the story properly, or you wouldn’t make such dumb comments!
The average temperature at the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station between April and September 2021, was a frigid minus-61 Celsius, the coldest on record at that time. The recent reading is similar because the Antarctic has been cooling for at least 2000 years and no AGW is possible to measure under these extreme conditions.
As for ‘the IPCC forecasts from the 1990s—have systematically overestimated temperature trends. When faced with such real-world deviations, one must ask: are the climate models flawed, or is the CO₂-centric theory of climate incomplete?’ in the article, the answer is clear, both suggestions are true, as there is no climate crisis. The southern hemisphere is warming very slowly at half the rate of the north due to orbital characteristics and less effective cloud cover over land. This has nothing to do with anthropogenic warming, except in urban centers `suffering’ the heat island effect of low albido.
“One low month and it’s “nail in the coffin…”
“… that this recurring cold record…”
Get a dictionary. Look up the word “recurring”.
However, that warming trend rate is NOT at all overwhelming in historical context.
The best measurements available for establishing the global average (yeah, I know but please take that argument somewhere else for now) in a consistent manner, UAH satellite data, shows a linear warming rate of the lower atmosphere of +0.16 °C/decade as measured over 46+ years. (see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/10/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-september-2025-0-53-deg-c )
Now here’s a fun fact for you to consider:
According to the IPCC (!),
” . . . very rapid warming at the start of the Bölling-Alleröd period, or at the end of the Younger Dryas may have occurred at rates as large as 10°C/50 years for a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere.”
— https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/074.htm
Let’s see . . . yeah . . . that works out to a warming rate of about +2.0 °C/decade, or more than 12 times faster than today’s rate. Now that’s overwhelming.
NB: the Bölling-Allerød period began approximately 14,700 years ago, a figurative blink-of-the-eye in Earth’s history.
co2 dogma is correct, you lot invented it….
I had the same feeling about the discovery of all of three mosquitoes in Iceland a few days back. But it seems to have made the headlines in all the usual suspects.
Yet every warm temperature report, even ones that have to be fabricated from made up data is always proof that CO2 is causing disastrous warming.
It’s either hysterical braying, or foot-shuffling silence…
I’ve been a climate (CAGW) skeptic since I first got dial up access to the internet.
But this article is very very poor.
For starters, Australia has posted lots of all time heat records this October. Has the same media that didn’t mention one irrelevant day being cold at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station widely mentioned this either; No.
Secondly, this October, Antarctica as a whole started well above average since 1940, has been no.1 ‘hottest’ for much of the month, and is still in the top few warmest years.
Now knee-jerk down vote if you like, but it won’t change the facts!
Well talking southern hemisphere, in Brazil(and Argentina) it has been unusually cold in the past years during this timeframe- so much that coffeetrees suffered a lot.
While this seems to have happened only a handful of times prior to AGW they’ve been crying now for 5 straight years.
With record cold temperatures all over the place.
Yet Brazil is warming way faster than the average – officially.
And isn’t Australia the place where they hit the all time record by simply ignoring/ cancelling the previous record from 100 years ago?
Yes, the Climate Alarmists want to ignore Australia’s weather history because it doesn’t support their claim that today is the hottest time in history.
Today is Not the hottest time in history. It was just as warm in the recent past as it is today.
Here is the Tmax chart of Australia, demonstrating that it is no warmer today than it was in the recent past::
“Here is the Tmax chart of Australia, demonstrating that it is no warmer today than it was in the recent past”
Your “today” is 13 years ago. And your graph is just showing the hottest month in each year.
Here’s my graph using the more up-to-date data, which still only goes up to the summer of 2018/19.
Here’s a similar graph using Berhely Earth’s provisional high-resolution data set. Note this is for TAvg, not TMax. It goes up to 2021/22, which still misses the last couple of years.
You just know the deniers will point to that high temperature spike circa 1932 and claim it proves temperatures aren’t higher now.
Highest temps in Australia were in the late 1800s, early 1900s.
Until all the recent urban warming, there were also many records highs from the mid 1930s.
Basically everywhere else in the world has raw temperature data showing a peak in the 1930s,40s higher than the period from 2000-2020.
That would be the same 1930s climate spike that most alarmists claim never existed?
No, it’s an anomaly for that time period.
No, its a real measurement..
No more of an anomaly than the spikes from the 2023/24 El Nino event.
Kind of like the 2024 warm anomaly.
It is now 0.5C cooler than the 2024 high point, which makes it cooler than it was in the past.
Today is not the hottest time in human history. And that’s just going by the written record. It was even warmer farther back in the past like in the Roman Warm Period. Another warm period that Climate Alarmists deny occurred. Talk about Deniers!
Great catch of the 2016 El Nino. !!
And all the urban warming effect.
Other than 2024, it looks like your chart shows it was just as warm in the past in Australia as it is today. And of course, the current temperature is cooler than it was in he past.
Thanks for supporting my claim.
Deniers still don’t understand the difference between weather and climate.
Weather is real, climate isn’t. I guess I’m not a denier since I know the difference.
Anthony Watts thinks climate is real.
Says the guy who proclaims every warm record as proof of global warming.
Liar liar pants on fire.
Is Antarctica any the worse for being slightly less extremely cold?
Apparently if we “let” Earth’s temperature increase above 1.5C, it will all melt and drown all life on the planet.
Perhaps they’ve watched the failed movie “Waterworld” one too many times.
Also, cow farts are supposed to somehow matter for the state of Antarctic ice more than, say, the second greatest magma plume right under it.
Clearly you don’t listen to the BBC. There is hardly a day goes by that isn’t “hottest” since records began… and hotter days will get ever more frequent due to the climate crisis.
I completely agree with this. The hypocrisy is sometimes stunning with a small minority of the articles on WUWT. Most articles are high quality but ones such as this are cherry picking to a degree that is often more extreme than those accused of it by skeptics. Fighting polarised argument with equally polarised argument to the contrary doesn’t work – it just muddies the water for those trying to understand things objectively.
“Sees Coldest October in 44 Years”
Obviously not; October is not done yet. Misleadingly, this article is about a single day at a single place.
Where are all the hurricanes, Nick?
Scott-Amundsen does not get hurricanes.
Nice swerve. Most amusing.
What swerve, lol? What was the point of your 3:01 am comment in response to his?
Are all alarmists as clueless as you and Nick?
Maybe. What does the word ‘clueless’ mean in your world?
Use a mirror… you will see it staring back at you with blank, vacant eyes.
Definition:
adjective: clueless
having no knowledge, understanding, or ability.
“you’re clueless about how to deal with the world”
Depends on how “Sees Coldest October in 44 years” is read. If read as “lowest average temperature for October”, you have a point. If read as “lowest minimum temperature(s) in October” then a single day in a single place is valid.
“then a single day in a single place is valid.”
Certainly is valid in “climate hysteria”.. especially if at a busy airport. ! 😉
Needless to say, this news has been frozen out.
In the meantime volcanic activity above and below the ocean is on the rise. What exactly heated all that North Pacific water the past year? And these warmer waters generally end up causing colder eastern North American winters. It’s a chaotic system.. Whac-A-Mole at it’s finest.
I might note also the Polar regions is where heat goes to die. If it is warmer there, it radiates more heat to outer space. A couple of people named Stefan and Boltzmann figured it out a few years ago.
Antarctica is a marvelous radiator to reject the excess energy that keeps arriving with the weather and with the ocean circulations. Same for the Arctic.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=antarctic
Given that alarmism generates way more heat than light…. the poles do their job.
Also those other Poles seem to be doing their job thinking ahead. https://www.nucnet.org/news/poland-s-first-nuclear-project-marks-strategic-shift-towards-north-says-pm-10-2-2025
There is no Miliband in Polish….
And we’re happy about that! 🙂
It is amusing how the Climate Crusader Clan jump on this article to defend their CO2-driven climate dogma. Because the idea that climate mechanisms like stratospheric waves, polar vortex stability, and cloud cover appear to be the actual drivers of weather events challenges their climate religion. Boo hoo.
Some times, I wonder if we should sympathise with Mr Stokes?
But then the relentless torture of the scientific method and of datasets etc has been going on for a very long time in the Mannosphere. If we sceptical types are aware of the real situation, he must be too.
Yes. The poor sot is flogging a dead horse. It’s pathetic. Somebody please give him a cookie.
Yes, it must be disturbing to Nick that all these Climate Alarm claims are not panning out. His whole world view is crashing and burning.
The situation for Climate Alarmists is getting worse every day, despite all the lying about climate going on in the Media. “Flogging a dead horse” is a good description of what is going on. Nick, Bowen, Miliband. Of course, Nick is not destroying his country the way Bowen and Miliband are doing with their Net Zero obsession.
It depends on how you define “destroying his country”? The people in power are directly destroying their country but they had to get voted in in the first place (I think that’s how it works). I assume if Nick votes, he votes for this in Australia, so he may not be destroying his country directly but I think it’s fair to say he he’s an enabler.
It a reflection of the old saying about how the pilot can tell when he is over the target by how heavy the flak is
From the article: “one must ask: are the climate models flawed, or is the CO₂-centric theory of climate incomplete?”
The answer is: Yes.
Both the climate models and the CO2-centric theory are so flawed and incomplete as to be “not even wrong.”
Actually confirms the CO2 theory, as has been known for some time the high altitude Antarctic is experiencing a negative GHE.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749
There the effect of increased CO2 is to increase emissions to space rather than what is observed in the rest of the world.
It’s colder because it’s warmer! Great theories cover all the bases. Since it’s minus 78F in Antarctica, everybody huddle in the cold and dark in mud huts and give all the wealth in the world to George Soros. You know, to save the planet.
Ah ideology. Not even pretending otherwise at this point.
Finally clanger figures out the “climate™” is just a fake ideology. !
Well done. !
Bet he/she will still pretend to itself that it isn’t. !
Nice self awarded “point”. Must feel great. Are you going to frame that reply on your wall?
Mr. 2000: Could this be bellman, using a fresh name to post stale comment?
I don’t think so. Bellman is much more polite.
And more intelligent! (that is not a compliment)
Irony is lost on the left.
Climate is like ‘the average personality of a city.’
While you can meet individual people and observe their actions (just as you experience daily weather), you can never actually encounter the ‘average personality.’ It’s a summary created by statisticians to characterize the patterns of behavior, but it has no physical form, location, or direct existence—only individuals do. The concept helps us discuss and compare groups, but it’s an idea, not something real that you can observe or interact with.
The concept of climate has no objective reality; it is an intellectual abstraction imposed on transient weather phenomena.
Climate does not exist as a discrete entity in the natural world. Only weather events—temperature, rain, and wind—exist physically. “Climate” is merely a statistical summary of those events. Averages have no physical form.
All definitions of climate depend on human conventions such as a 30-year averaging period, geographic boundaries, and selected variables. Change these conventions, and the “climate” changes instantly—proof that it is a product of interpretation, not nature itself.
Because climate is an average over past conditions, it has no present reality. It cannot be seen, felt, or measured in real time—only inferred retrospectively. Something that never exists at any moment cannot be considered a real thing.
Climate does not cause anything; it only describes patterns caused by physical processes like solar energy, ocean currents, and aerosols. Saying “climate causes drought” is circular—droughts define the climate record, not the other way around.
“Climate” means different things to different disciplines—meteorological, geological, political—demonstrating that the term serves rhetorical or modeling purposes rather than denoting a single physical reality.
Yes.
Climates are constructs composed by those humans who have an interest / investment in doing such things.
The best summation of “climates” is that old observation that –
“climate is what you expect, but weather is what you get”.
And as such, there is no such thing as a “global climate”.
Thousands of different localities all around this planet have their own distinct, unique weather patterns & events.
What is the point or practical, real-world value in “averaging” various snippets of “data” recorded in different ways about the goings-on of these thousands of weather behaviors in all the different localities.
And don’t get me started on the PROBITY & PROVENANCE of the purported weather “data” . . .
“climate is what you expect, but weather is what you get”
That is my favorite summation and I think the only true climate definition.🤏🤠
From the above article:
“This directly contradicts the dominant narrative that ‘extreme heat is the new normal’ and challenges the core assumption that the trace gas CO₂ is the overwhelming, all-determining factor in our climate system.”
OK . . . it’s already undergone trial runs in other areas of
problematic“settled” climate science: this extreme cold in Antarctica is actually caused by . . . wait for it . . . global warming!And of course, with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 it’s only going to get worse in the future.
/sarc
That’s why it was renamed “climate change”, so anything fits. Of course, this also results in lazily piling everything together, until «Britain’s climate is becoming very hot, very cold, very wet and very dry. All at the same time»
Cue the climate is fine deniers. They cannot believe it’s going to get cold. We are well into a Grand Solar Minimum, and the next 34 to 40 years will be interesting. I won’t see them of course.
The Climate Catastrophists are basically deniers of natural earth history.
I’ve noticed that geologists don’t seem to be prominent in the ranks of “climate scientists”.
The fact that the climate is fine NOW, doesn’t preclude the idea that we might actually cool, perhaps even as much as the LIA in the coming decades.. We can only hope not.
”Make a joyful noise to the Climate, all the earth! Serve the Climate with gladness! Come into its presence with singing! Know that the Climate, it is God! It is Climate who made us, and we are disciples; we are its people, and the sheep of its pasture. Enter its gates with thanksgiving, and its courts with praise! Give thanks to Climate; bless its name! For the Climate is God; its steadfast love endures forever, and its faithfulness to all generations.” Pagan 100:1-5
Be careful out there, Doug.
God, as Jesus, is reported to have said “but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:29, Bible NIV).
Your “Pagan 100:1-5” may be insufficient compared to “/sarc”. Just sayin’ 😉
Yes the climate models are flawed, yes the CO2 centric theory of climate is incomplete. It’s pretty obvious really I don’t understand the confusion.
Bob, I am confused by your comment.
Just Bob’s?
Yes, just Bob’s (for now).
Your denigrating sarcasm is not contributing anything to the discussion.
There is no question that the climate models are flawed, there is no question that the CO2 centric theory is incomplete. I can’t understand the confusion by the other side that we would question both. It only makes sense to question that which is flawed and or incomplete.
Well said, Bob. I agree with you.
The problem is Climate Alarmists can’t tell the difference between speculation and established facts.
Hmmmm . . . I don’t think the “other side” (which I interpret you to mean AGW/CAGW alarmist) are all that confused by those who see things differently . . . in fact, I will go so far as to say there are adamant that the “deniers” of AGW/CAGW are just wrong when saying that CO2 is not the predominant driver of global temperature.
There’s no surprise here since the mainstream media has long been in the back pockets of governments, organizations, industries, and academic institutions that have been seeking to profit by pushing the climate crisis narrative. And when those same entities make their donations to news and information media contingent on their overhyping the most trivial weather/climate events while downplaying, censoring or ignoring anything that refutes their alarmist theories, the public has to dig deeper to get the real facts.
That is why I have long called the Fourth Estate a Fifth Column.
The Leftwing Media is the most dangerous organization on the planet. At least, for the Western world.
The Leftwing Media lies constantly and people in Democratic countries cannot govern themselves properly if all they get are lies and distortions of reality. Which is exactly what they get from the Leftwing Media.
The Leftwing Media is so influential, it convinced 75 million people to vote for the moron, Kamala Harris, in the last election.
The world would look very different had Kamala Harris been elected. It would have been a disaster. Electing any of these crazy, delusional Democrats to the presidency would be a disaster, but the Leftwing Media does all they can to accomplish this task.
Trump is on the verge of settling another war on his current overseas visits, this time in Southeast Asia. Is that eight, or nine wars he has settled in his first year in office?
The man is unbelievable. How did we get so lucky as to have such a man leading us? The Good Lord must be smiling on us. The Radical Left can go to Hell. I think a lot of them are almost there now (TDS), in the Material World.
You’ve got to be kidding or particularly gullible. Trump’s tarrifs are currently making US producers quite profitable and thus their stock market value is anticipated to increase… by allowing them to increase profit spectacularly by whatever the tariff level is…This is only in the US market…in which U.S. manufacturers were competitive but low profit at pre-tariff levels.
Tarrifs are beggaring neighboring countries by essentially forcing industries which those countries worked hard and spent much time and effort on incentive programs to develop…forcing them to move to the U.S. or lose their biggest market. But it is actually the consumer that pays those cost increases after the foreign average industrial markup of about 7% is reduced to zero by panicking suppliers trying to not-go-broke while their U.S. counterparts have a bonus 35% on top of their regular profits that they can add to what they charge consumers.
Also the US unemployment rate is already half of most western countries and there isn ‘t available skilled or even unskilled labor in the U.S. market to work in these new fantasy factories….and skilled labor cost are high in the U.S. which is why many of those factories Trump is claiming to be “repatriating” were built outside of the U.S. to start with.
Yes the man is unbelievable….having achieved….the largest loss of international respect for the U.S. ever…the largest hidden tax increase on the U.S. consuming public ever….the largest destruction of wealth in surrounding countries and allied nations ever…the largest exhibition of greed for his treasury and even his own personal Gain ever….I could go on but you love the guy cuz your 401k is up…
“On October 15, the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station registered an astonishing temperature of minus 61.3 degrees Celsius…”
“It was the coldest October measured at the station since 1981.”
If they are saying 61.3°C was the coldest October day since 1981, the are just wrong.
There have been many colder October days since 1981, according to GHCN daily. In fact 132 October days have been colder than -61.3°C since 1981. The coldest was on the 5th October 2007, at -72.0°C.
It’s not even the coldest day this late in the season. 8 days have been colder on the 15th or later. Coldest was 19th October 1989, at -63.3°C.
The quote is “October,” not “October day.” That implies the October average.
How can we have an October average when there are six days left?
Irrelevant point you keep on repeating on and on and on and so on… Maybe contact the source for clarification instead of barking up a tree, just an idea for all nickpickers out there.
It’s not irrelevant. As your comment shows, we have a WUWT article where no-one knows what it means.
Sadly that “no-one” is you.
Lern deutsch oder get lost.
Your German is probably better than mine. How would you translate
Do you think “Das ist der kälteste Oktoberwert seit 1981” means “That is the coldest October since 1981”, or “That is the coldest October value since 1981”, where “That” is referring to the temperature for the 15th October, mentioned in the previous sentence?
As a clue, you might want to look at the tweet they quote:
So 1981 had a colder day ? We must be warming…
Why can’t you have an average of a partial month? Do you have information that the remainder of the month will dramatically change the average? Does any temperature time series with missing days need to be dismissed?
Your point is rather meaningless!
We do. The current Antarctic daily temperature anomaly map clearly shows most of the continent running warmer than average. Polar regions experience dramatic short-term temperature swings, so it is premature to assume that additional data won’t affect the monthly average.
If you have the information, then show it in temperature form. We now have four days left, has the average changed?
Here’s the Climate Pulse chart for October.
UAH also shows a similar hot zone over the Antarctic, and says this was the warmest October for the region in their data set.
“Why can’t you have an average of a partial month?”
You can have an average of anything you like, but you can’t say that half a month is the average for the month, and you have to make sure you are comparing like for like. I’ve seen the trick used before, where the average for the first half of the month is compared with previous whole month averages. This is bad during spring when temperatures will usually warm throughout the month.
By this is all irrelevant, given that the original article and article is clearly talking about a single daily value.
“The quote is “October,” not “October day.” That implies the October average.”
The only temperature quoted is for the 15th October. They spin this as the coldest October.
If they mean the coldest average October, why do they not quote that figure? And why make s claim about this October before the month is over?
It would be very misleading to compare the first 3 weeks of October 2025 with the average for the whole of October on previous years, given that October is a warming month.
Your information is not true. The lowest temperature in any day (not average for month) in October since 1981 was – 63.0 C in 1987. There was never -72.0 C in October at this location since opening of the station in 1957.
Bellman is right, and of course Gosselin is hopelessly wrong. The GHCN Daily file is here
TMIN on 5 October 2007 was indeed -72.0. The entry is on line 117047 and reads:
AYW00090001,20071005,TMIN,-720,,,S,
Everything else Bellman said is true.
Appologies, looked at wrong station. Indeed the begining of the October of 1987 (from 1st till 6th) was very cold. Later the temperature increased substantialy to above the typical temperature of October. The (simple arthmetic) average temperature for October 1987 was approximately -55.2C which is 2C warmer than typical average temp at this location.
“Your information is not true.”
Could you point me to your source. I was quoting figures from GHCN. I’ve tried searching for a direct link to the station, but couldn’t find one.
Comment removed
This is what happens when Jerry Brown is not around to point to Antarctica as a reason to get more federal money.