Essay by Eric Worrall
Europeans who complained about a lack of snow a few weeks ago might be regretting getting what they wished for.
Vienna deploys historic icebreaker to clear frozen Danube harbors [VIDEO]
14.01.2026
Vienna has deployed its historic icebreaker, the MS Eisvogel, to clear ice from Albern Harbor and other port basins on the Danube as a severe cold snap grips parts of Europe.
The operation marks the vessel’s first significant ice-clearing mission since 2017, when the harbor waters last froze over. Harbor officials said breaking the ice is essential to protect docked ships and keep navigation channels open for incoming traffic.
The Eisvogel is currently operating in Vienna’s three major port areas, Freudenau, Albern and Lobau, with crews working about every two days to manage ice buildup.
…
Read more: https://tvpworld.com/91024536/vienna-sends-70-year-old-icebreaker-to-clear-danube-ice
A video of a Danube icebreaker in action;
Meanwhile Russians are reporting dangerous levels of snowfall;
Avalanche engulfs Russian ski resort as skiers flee for lives as snowfall turns deadly across nation
Shocking footage captures the moment an entire ski resort vanishes beneath a wall of snow as holiday-makers desperately flee.
Staff writers and The U.S. Sun
January 18, 2026 – 7:46AM
This is the terrifying moment an avalanche thunders down a mountainside in Russia and engulfs an entire ski resort.
Shocking footage captures a towering wall of snow hurtling down Mount Elbrus as holiday-makers desperately try to flee.
As the avalanche closes in, trees and cars vanish beneath the cloud of powder.
One person stands completely transfixed before eventually realising the severity of the situation.
Seconds later, the surging snow reaches the car park.
…
Read more: https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-ideas/ski-snow/avalanche-engulfs-russian-ski-resort-as-skiers-flee-for-lives-as-snowfall-turns-deadly-across-nation/news-story/6fc3bce5fc2e269a7b454abae341b1df
A few weeks ago Europeans were complaining their ski resorts would have to shut down;
‘Pushed to the limit’: Europe’s ski resorts face climate change threat – which country has it worst?
By Andrea Barolini
Published on 04/01/2026 – 8:03 GMT+1Higher temperatures and a lack of snow are forcing Europe’s ski resorts to rethink their business model.
With only a few weeks to go until the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Milan-Cortina on 6 February, the slopes around the ‘pearl of the Dolomites’ are covered in snow. But tourists and skiers aren’t always lucky enough to experience this.
With the climate warming up, snow is often limited to the slopes. Even there, it is only guaranteed by artificial snowmaking, with associated economic and environmental costs that often trickle down into ski pass prices. For many Europeans, this is pushing snow sports increasingly out of reach.
Read more: https://www.euronews.com/2026/01/04/pushed-to-the-limit-europes-ski-resorts-face-climate-change-threat-which-country-has-it-wo
…
We at WUWT call this the Gore effect. Whenever Al Gore shows up to talk about the end of snow, either during or shortly after his speech wherever he appeared would be buried under white climate change. Al Gore apparently showed up to a climate event in Paris last April, does that count?
No word yet on how Europe’s solar panels are helping to keep homes warm this winter.
More good news.
Not for those caught in avalanches. The number of deaths are shocking to me at least.
Being caught in an avalanche is a serious event. I spent 14 months in casts after my experience getting buried, bashed, broken and bruised. 1986-1988 was a while ago, but a memorable time.
It is a small club, and you do not want to be in it. OTOH, you do not want to be in the larger club of dead bodies.
It’s just weather…not magic…it’s science writ large…which is why the alarmists fear it…
Fear what?
Weather is not what the evidence for global warming is based on.
Only real evidence is that any “global” warming is from solar charged El Nino events.
UAH shows that very clearly.
‘Extreme event attribution (also called attribution science) examines how human‑caused climate change has altered the likelihood or intensity of individual events such as heatwaves, floods, or storms.’
Individuals can be attributed to climate change.
So climate change must have caused this cold spell.
What do you attribute this individual event to, as The Science says that we can attribute individual events to climate change?
That’s great news! Next time there is heatwave somewhere you will therefore refrain from attributing it to Global Warming.
We all understand that cold events are just weather while hot events are man made climate change.
You really just can’t help yourself, the lies spew so easily from your rotting piehole.
Oh? Isn’t temperature weather? If not why is it included in weather forecasting?
Temperature is a meteorological (weather) datum used to confect the fiction called Global Mean Temperature Anomaly used to “prove” global warming and that the seas are boiling… something…
Nor should anyone be surprised at this; in fact, it was well-overdue, just as has been on the Canadian Prairies. December and the first half of January featured above-normal temperatures and below-normal snowfall. Now that has abruptly changed after a couple of fast-moving storm systems brought plenty of blowing and drifting snow that have made road travel hazardous. In addition, Winnipeg at 3 pm, Jan. 18 is experiencing a temperature of minus 21 C=6 below zero F with a wind chill of minus 33 F. The rest of the week is forecast to be at least as cold, so where’s this climate change warming trend that’s supposed to shorten and moderate winters. The only place it exists is in the pipe dreams of the alarmists who hope their propaganda will help them benefit financially, while the realists recognize that such temperature swings are just mainly the same old normal.
The ski season in Colorado has been disappointing so far. Those blasts of snow and cold have mostly missed us.
They don’t make snow on CO ski slopes? Better than nothing.
We were in Utah ski country for a wedding about 6 weeks ago–first weekend the ski lifts were open. For a non-skier, the weather was not very nice, but neither was it for the skiers–very little snow and they were trying to make it as fast as they could. Maybe it is better now.
Yes they make snow, and it is better than nothing, but it’s labor intensive and much slower at covering trails than when nature acts.
Woke, ICE-hating, leftist, harboring several hundred thousand unvetted aliens from all over who are sucking $billions from government tits, as in Minnesota, do not deserve snow
It’s a ‘global’ warming trend. You can find it in any global data set you care to consult. Cold weather somewhere over a short period will not alter that trend one jot.
But there is no evidence humans are causing “global” warming.
UAH shows no evidence of human causation..
Surface site are sparce in much off the world, and totally unfit for measuring anything but very local urban temperature changes over time.
There’s no global temperature. There’s no global climate. All places do not change in lockstep.
NOt to worry; some crackpot warmunist will declare the cold is due to warmer arctic weather. Clearly, that really, really bad movie, ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ (2004) is viewed regularly by krazy klimate kultists
There’s nothing ‘global’ about climates or weather behaviors.
Yes there is.
Long term temperature records can be compiled and evaluated and they all show a statistically significant (i.e. highly unlikely to have happened by chance) global warming trend over the past few decades.
Two of them, UAH satellite and NASA-GISS are featured on the side-panels of this very site.
But UAH shows absolutely no sign of any human caused warming.
GISS is a mix of natural warming from the spread of El Nino events, urban warming, and fabrication and “adjustment” and is based on sparce unfit for purpose surface sites, certainly not “global”
Under the IPCC definition of “Global Warming” .. it is not happening.
There’s only constructs.
Based on inputs whose standards of probity and provenance are undisputedly atrocious.
The very UAH data you reference shows a 1-degree F drop in global temperature over the last 2 years. Meanwhile, the CO2 content has inexorably risen for more than a century. How do you explain that without claiming “natural variation? If you do claim “natural variation, I’ll claim the 3-degree F Little Ice Age recovery in the last couple centuries is natural variation, too. We’ll both have the same amount of proof to back up our claims – none.
Temperature, as an intensive property, is widely used in climate monitoring, weather forecasting, and the assessment of long-term climate trends. It is important to recognize that temperature itself does not represent the total thermal energy of a system. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of particles and is not additive. In contrast, energy and enthalpy represent the total heat content and are additive across the system.
If two air masses at different temperatures are combined, the resulting temperature is not the arithmetic mean unless the masses and heat capacities are equal. Multiple studies have demonstrated that the (Tmax + Tmin)/2 method introduces systematic biases:
The arithmetic mean of Tmax and Tmin does not correspond to a physically meaningful energy average. Temperature is an intensive property. Its arithmetic mean does not account for the time spent at each temperature. Temperature does not reflect the actual energy content of the air over the day.
Your points are well taken. However, as George Box so presciently said about computer models, “All models are inaccurate, though some are useful”; one might add, “All air temperature averages are inaccurate, though some are also quite useful”.
For determining thermodynamic heat, temperature is not a proxy.
Both Sefan-Boltzman’s and Planck’s work used black bodies. Both had the assumption that conduction and convection were not involved, only radiative heat transfer.
Once you include conduction and convection, the paths for the movement of heat becomes very complicated. Water vapor’s latent heat is totally hidden from temperature yet moves a considerable amount of heat.
How dare you !! ..
You know that frozen rivers are a sign of global warming !
They need freezing rain on their windmills.
Paging Dr. Viner . . . paging Dr. David Viner, formerly with CRU at University of East Anglia . . . paging Dr. Viner . . . please pick up any white, snow-covered courtesy phone . . . paging Dr. Viner . . .
“The End of Snow, 13 Years On
In 2000, the British newspaper The Independent ran an article about the end of snow, quoting one of the world’s more prominent climate scientist like so:
According to Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”
Strange how all these quotes leave out that he was referring to the south of England and also leave out that he also said “Heavy snow will return occasionally, but when it does we will be unprepared. We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,”.
His prediction was accurate, lots of districts stopped having snowploughs since they were hardly ever used so when some snow did return it caused more disruption.
Hmmm . . . strange how some people ignore relatively recent news such as this public statement of about 2 weeks ago from https://www.bbc.com/weather/articles/c20gjq9g05jo :
“With the UK continuing to be in the grip of Arctic winds, snow has coated parts of the country, from Shetland to the south coast of England over the last few days.”
IMHO, you can’t get further south in England than the “south coast of England”. /sarc
However, there is no simultaneous reporting that such snowfall occurred with Brits being “unprepared” or being “caught out”.
And it has been more than 20 years since Dr. Viner made his now-laughable prediction.
I can can only conclude your definition of “accurate” is far, far different than mine.
Yes a ‘light dusting of snow’ in the south of England! Viner’s reference was to occasional returns of ‘heavy snow’ not ‘light dustings’. The recent heavy snow warnings and disruption to travel were mostly in Scotland and Wales not the south of England. The disruptions in mid-Wales were nothing like the 15′ snow drifts experienced in 1963 for example. Regarding “caught out” apparently you missed this: “In Wales, emergency services have been called to motorists stranded in the snow, with bus services suspended due to “atrocious” driving conditions.” Lack of snow ploughs will do that.
Ummmm . . . you seem to have overlooked your immediately prior assertion about there only being a “light dusting of snow” in the south of England” . . . are snow plows needed for light dustings? . . . who knew (ROTFL!)
BTW, Professor Viner’s 2000 prediction refered to a lack of winter snowfall, such becoming “a very rare and exciting event” . . . he did not distinguish between that snowfall being “light” or “heavy”.
Prrrr, prrrr, busy number.
Not busy…left the phone off the hook.
Quick afterthought. Wonder how many of the younger generations even know what “leaving the phone off the hook” even means.
Pretty serious winter here in New England too. But the climate nut jobs led by the governor don’t seem to notice.
It’s really cold down here in Orlando, FL.
Gotta be due to global warming. 🙂
In Vermont, we have had little snow and only a few days with 0 F temps, thus far.
Right now, 20 F. Enjoying the view of the bird feeder!
About a foot on the ground- after several “mild” snow falls- and I’m not far from you in north central Wokeachusetts. Gonna be in the low numbers this week. My snowblower is 25 years old and I had to use it the last 3 days.
Algore effect. Ha ha. It is uncanny how often that phenomena happens.
Phenomenon
Geoff S, annoyed pedant.
YAC.
Actually, since it happens many, many time .. “phenomena” may be the correct word 😉
Big, fat Al Gore is full of hot air.
The current cold doesn’t match December/January 1984/5 in Europe. A prolonged deep freeze at that time caused depth hoar to form all over the alps triggering avalanches when the next snowfall finally came.
I wondered if it was an early press release with an ironic date, “04/01/2026″. It took a minute to realize it was European.
There seems to be a heavy effort to push the narrative “Yes, the predictions and models were wrong, but it’s worse than we thought!”
However, good empirical evidence for a very likely reason for the recent stratospheric Arctic trends is not mentioned, the perfectly natural Hunga-Tonga eruption..
https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/about/news_and_press/2025-03-27_modulation-of-the-northern-polar-vortex-by-the-hunga-tonga-hunga-ha-apai-eruption-and-the-associated-surface-response.html#:~:text=These%20results%20on%20the%20fascinating,@boku.ac.at)
“It’s cold somewhere at the moment. Whatever happened to global warming?“
Are we really doing this again?
Are we seriously suggesting that because there is cold weather somewhere at a particular moment in time it proves there is no such thing as global warming?
Ignore all the long term trends, the record warm years and look at this squirrel instead!
This is an infant school level of argumentation.
I never said there was no global warming, but having a sh*tload of snow after complaining about the end of ski resorts is kind of funny.
It’s your headline, Eric.
Why the question mark after ‘global warming’?
Why do you conflate what you appear to agree is an obvious and undisputed global phenomenon with regional and local weather events?
Maybe you’re being ironic.
“Why do you conflate what you appear to agree is an obvious and undisputed global phenomenon with regional and local weather events?” Global as in an accumulation of intensive properties? Global as in extrapolation of differing measurement instruments, each with their own uncertainties?
please inform us. 😉
Of course, had Europe been mild this Winter you would have attributed it to GW.
See my remark above concerning hearwaves.
..or even heatwaves
Maybe you’re being moronic.
One thing you should keep in mind is that in a warmer climate, air holds more moisture, which can enhance snowfall when temperatures are below freezing. It’s a different story when you are above that threshold (likely more relevant for much of Europe than for Russia).
Please show us evidence of human cause warming in the UAH data.
Why? When have I ever said that? I don’t know the exact magnitude humans have on global warming, just that they play a role (just like Spencer and Lindzen argue).
Role playing is good fun isn’t it? Especially as to what conclusions to draw. 😉
Its sort of like the boogie-thing under the bed..
Children are SURE that it is there..
But they can never show anyone where it is.
It’s it the models…
Less snow – evidence for GW. More snow – also evidence for GW.
You alarmists are clueless about basic logic.
It’s called conditional reasoning.
It’s called wishful thinking.
Even if it were – it is based on empirical causative science and correlation.
You …. Not so much.
It is obvious who is the one who is “wishful thinking”.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
You’re stupid enough to fall for it.
Its called a “sucker bet” — Heads I win, tails you lose.
It is common sense for those that don’t have linear thinking.
Warm air contains more WV.
When ascending over cold air it will produce more snow than air that was less cold over colder.
Ergo more snow in a warming climate.
NB: only at the boundary of cold vs warm.
That boundary would encompass an area globally that is less than in a colder world.
Thus GW would produce both more snow ( local amounts ) and less snow ( areal extent ).
Why is that so difficult to grok?
More moisture means higher thermodynamic heat. In essence, that means warmer climate. You should explain how a warmer climate cools sufficiently to cause precipitation. You can’t have it both ways, a warmer climate and a cooler climate without something causing the change. Does CO2 both warm and cool?
“You should explain how a warmer climate cools sufficiently to cause precipitation. “
Air cools when it ascends, regardless of background climate state.
The lapse is essentially constant. What you are declaring is the tropopause must raise because the temperatures that cause precipitation aren’t reached until a higher altitude is reached. Any evidence of that?
Except:
— when there are temperatures inversions, which can happen most anywhere
— when there are storms with strong horizontal and/or vertical wind components near Earth’s surface (e.g., thunderstorms, hurricanes, typhoons, derechos, dust storms)
— when there are katabatic winds, common in mountain areas
— when wants to properly distinguish between the dry adiabatic lapse rate and the moist adiabatic lapse rate (such as occurs in the vertical direction above cloud base or when rain is falling in the sky or in the presence of ground fog), with there being about a 10:6 respective difference between the two rates.
These are certainly effects that can happen. Not sure they can make a major change in climate.
I said “You should explain how a warmer climate cools sufficiently to cause precipitation.”
Climate warming is not a transient condition. Climate is a long term condition. There should be evidence such as an altitude change in the tropopause.
Dear God!
Zero knowledge of meteorology ….
Air masses move.
They move against each other.
A warm airmass against a cold results in a jet-stream at around 30000ft (height of max horizontal deltaT) betwixt the two.
Said jet then serves to initiate divergence aloft and hence convergence at the surface.
A depression forms and deepens.
The Low is carried forward with the jet stream.
If it enters a left exit area of the jet then it will deepen and move on a left veering path.
Air exiting the jet in a right exit area will descend and form a high at the surface.
The process of ascent is caused in baroclinic storms by the jet stream “sucking” air upwards and the “atmospheric river” the UKMO calls them “warm conveyors” is ahead of the cold boundary ( cold front ) and gets drawn into the low all the time ascending the thermocline that is the frontal boundary.
Consider yourself informed of on meteorological process that is the formation of frontal precipitation.
Hint: its more complicated.
You list a lot of effects but NO first causes.
Why?
You list a lot of transient conditions but no causes for CLIMATE changes. Note what I said:
Why don’t you address that?
Warmer air CAN hold more moisture. However, when water vapor is supply limited, as it often is in the interior of continents, it may not reach the Clausius-Clapeyron potential.
In Kamchatka, East Russia, there was 18 feet of snow, in one go, a few days ago
The high winds created drifts up to 4th story windows
Any traffic moves between 20 ft high walls of snow.
Wait for melting in Spring
That (obviously) was drifted/blown snow accumulation.
According to this report they actually recieved 163mm of snow (6.4in).
“In December 2025, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, the capital of Kamchatka Krai that encompasses the Kamchatka Peninsula, received 370 millimeters of snow, more than three times the monthly average. From Jan. 1 to 16, 2026, the city received 163 millimeters of snow, with a snow depth of 170 centimeters, and in some areas the snow depth exceeded 250 centimeters.”
https://english.news.cn/europe/20260119/4cfc9850996046f590aab8d04312fa4b/c.html
And the simple fact is that this colder weather is occurring against a backdrop of notably warm European winters this decade.
Examples:
See CNN’s reporting on February 2020, which was unusually warm and snowless (hardly resembling a traditional Russian winter).
“Moscow is usually blanketed in snow for four to five months a year. But this year, Russia’s capital had barely any snow cover in the whole of February, described by local meteorologists as a “once in a century” occurrence. This winter in Russia was the hottest ever in the 140-year history of meteorological observations, beating the previous temperature record from the winter of 2015-2016 by 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit), state-run Hydrometeorological Center of Russia reported Thursday.”
January 2023:
“In Europe, January 2023 was the 3rd warmest January on record. Much of Europe had above-average air temperatures, including the Balkans and eastern Europe, where New Year’s Day experienced record warmth; the Svalbard region also had prominent warm anomalies.”
https://www.foxweather.com/extreme-weather/heat-wave-records-europe-winter
No wonder European skiers are concerned.
“No wonder European skiers are concerned.”
As a skier in the Alps since 1979 I can attest to the following graph …..
Maybe, if you’re lucky, the Alps will reach the point before Otzi was killed. Warmer is better.
I don’t think anyone is saying the earth is not warming since the Little Ice Age…
just that the smidgen amount of CO2 that man’s equipment and operations create have no effect on that warming…man is just way too small a factor to affect the climate changes on this planet.
if the CO2 has increased from 340 parts per million…to 410 parts per million in the atmosphere…what are the 70 parts per million that are no longer in the atmosphere…what molecule has “disappeared”??
I have no idea what this question means, sorry.
If there has been an increase of 70 ppm in CO2 then how has it “disappeared”?
Maybe English isn’t your first language, so I hope that doesn’t come across as rude. It’s not meant to be.
if an air sample 25 years ago had 340 parts per million…it then had some part of nitrogen, oxygen, helium, argon, methane and the other gases…whatever their part per million was…
then the CO2 increased to 410 parts…therefore, the air sample now has less of one or some of these other gases…so what has changed….is the nitrogen content 70 parts per million less? or is it a combination of the other gases… which gas(es) have a lower number of parts to total up to the million ?
when they are measuring the parts of CO2…they must be also measuring the parts of the other gases that make up the atmosphere…so which ones have a lower content?
Since TFN had to have it explained, maybe English isn’t a strength.
Or mathematics!
Deacon, you have to understand that Rusty has a pretty poor grasp of basic concepts.
IIRC it is mainly the O2 concentration that drops by a tiny amount.
“IIRC it is mainly the O2 concentration that drops by a tiny amount.”
There is estimated to be 3 x 10^15 cubic kilometres (1.3 quadrillion) of oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere.
However despite the constant production of O2 by biomass, it is still being depleted by fossil carbon and biomass burning.
So the 70 ppm in question has depleted oxygen by 7 thousandths of 1% to put it in layman’s terms. Wake me up when it reaches a whole 1%.
Apologies, I made an error in that I mistakenly calculated for the whole atmosphere. I later realized that as oxygen is, in round numbers, around 1/5th of the atmosphere the correct figure is ~35 thousandths of 1% depletion. Still not panicking.
Err, there is 3 x 10^15 cubic kilometres (1.3 quadrillion) of it!
And the that has nowt to do with the meaning of my post anyway.
There is estimated to be 3 x 10^15 cubic kilometres (1.3 quadrillion) of oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere.
Unless you specify the pressure, this statement is almost comical in its inaccuracy.
Thanks for revealing your ignorance of Physics. You must work at the UK Met Office.
When you burn carbon it produces heat and carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) via combining with Oxygen ( O2 ) then it is Oxygen that has been reduced in the atmosphere …..
I would love to know the analytical method used to determine the ratio of atmospheric oxygen to nitrogen ratio with parts per billion resolution.
Actually, it is O2 that has been reduced. Combustion does not reduce oxygen into another element, so the amount of O remains the same. O2 is then replenished by plants.
So, the highest estimate I’ve ever seen for the amount humans contribute to total CO2 in the atmosphere is 6%. I think this is the US DOE’s number. So, the other 94% is produced naturally. The majority of this is from volcanoes. Fun fact – event dormant and many extinct volcanoes continue to offgas CO2. So, the amount of O2 taken up by humans burning fossil fuels is at least a factor of 10 lower than estimated previously in this thread. Another thing to keep in mind is that the earths atmosphere is not a closed system. Mass can be added (by Vulcan) or lost via erosion from the solar wind. Another fun fact, the mass of the earths atmosphere has been slowly decreasing since the end of the Cambrian period.
The proportions of the other games in the atmosphere will have declined very, very slightly as the amount of CO2 has increased.
Bloody autocorrect! Gases not games!
PV = nRT or for a fixed volume P = nRT/V
Don’t confuse Banton with real Science.
” infant school level of argumentation”
So just your level of comprehension then.
Depends how you define “global warming”
Under the IPCC definition.. ie human caused… no evidence of any “global”
You have yet to show us any human caused warming in the UAH data.
Yes, your argument is an infants school level one. !
Recent “record warm” have all been because of a major El Nino event, UAH shows that very clearly.
yes, even 2025 was part of the El Nino even, the cool down part.
And probably another El Niño by the end of the year, so we might expect temperatures to rise again.
Yeh. It’s about as stupid as attributing a ‘heatwave’ to global cooling.
Usually what happens in the media is that there is some local period of unusual warmth, or there is some kind of destructive weather pattern, and the coverage suggests, or in some cases states flat out, that this is the consequence of or evidence for human caused global warming. And the coverage is usually accompanied by prophecies of future doom from increased warming.
So people here naturally enough play the tape back. The equally unsound way to play this, from the opposite point of view, is just to argue (with no evidence, just as in the warming cases) that this local cold spell would not be happening in a warming world, or would not be so cold….
None of these events are either evidence for or plausibly related to the largely imaginary global warming. The hot summer in Pakistan a couple of years back was not. The hot UK summer a couple of years back wasn’t. The present cold spell in Europe is not either.
This however is not the fundamental problem with AGW. The real problem is that the activists want to do, at vast expense, things which are both impossible and ineffective. Taking the US or UK or Australia, or all three, or indeed the whole world to wind and solar is not happening and is not going to, and even were it done, it would not, on the activists own theory, have any material effect on global temperatures.
This is the basic problem. Prophesy disaster, then demand things be done which
(a) are impossible
(b) even if possible would have no effect on it.
Its like telling a sufferer from mild bronchitis that he has terminal TB, then telling him to do 300 squats every morning because of it. Without resting. Its idiotic, destructive, irrational…. etc
Or if you like, its like telling unhappy youngsters that they are a different sex from their biology… and then telling them they should have surgery and hormone treatments which will not change their sex anyway.
Perhaps you should check your grammar. What does “global” actually mean? To most people it means everywhere on the globe at once. Climate science LOVES to give traditional verbiage new meaning. Perhaps it would serve you well to explain what you mean when you say “global” in order to expand everyone’s understanding of what you are claiiming.
If you DON’T mean everywhere on the planet, then don’t use the term. When you use the term “global”, you just set yourself up for people to show you how wrong you are when the whole globe isn’t warming at any specific time.
Not just climate science. Common trait of authoritarian leftists in general, as pointed out by Orwell.
+100
No, dogmatic belief that model results are reality is an infant school level of argumentation.
Cold weather — caused by Climate Change®.
Hot weather — caused by Climate Change®.
Rain — caused by Climate Change®.
Drought — caused by Climate Change®.
No matter what happens, it’s bad and caused by Climate Change®.
The best scam evah!
I’d love to hear a Krazy Klimate Kultist explain ‘natural variation’. I guess it doesn’t exist??
It’s just weather.
Is this just weather?
So explain to me why the 1930s (outside your graph) are the warmest on record in the United States?
It isn’t. You are referring to raw US data.
raw, not adjusted
Raw data… you mean the temperature that was ACTUALLY RECORDED… right 🙂
Yes, the temperature data that was collected with multiple systematic errors and biases.
BS.. Yes, most recent temperature are rife with them
Its called urban warming.
Modern temperature readings are likely to have FAR more errors than those collected by fastidious past data collectors.
The pretence that past data is bias is basically just FAKE.
Not according to Dr. Spencer’s analysis:
“The bottom line was that 65% of the U.S. linear warming trend between 1895 and 2023 was due to increasing population density at the suburban and urban stations; 8% of the warming was due to urbanization at rural stations. Most of that UHI effect warming occurred before 1970.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/our-urban-heat-island-paper-has-been-published/
However, this is an important caveat that should be emphasized:
“We used PD data because there are now global datasets, and at least one of them extends centuries into the past. But, since we use population density in our study, we cannot account for additional UHI effects due to increased prosperity even when population has stabilized.
For example, even if population density no longer increases over time in some urban areas, there have likely been increases in air conditioning use, with more stores and more parking lots, as wealth has increased since, say, the 1970s. We have started using a Landsat-based dataset of “impervious surfaces” to try to get at part of this issue, but those data only go back to the mid-1970s. But it will be a start.”
Dr. Spencer’s research only looked at urbanization. The USDA estimates ~8% increase in agriculture land use between 1860 and 2020. That changes the amount of radiation stored in soil, thereby encouraging longer growing seasons and increased heat absorption.
bnice
The UAH global ocean data shows a warming rate of 0.13°C/decade.
It’s highly unlikely for global land surface temperature to be warming at or slower than that number over the modern period (given lower heat capacity of land compared to oceans).
It’s highly unlikely for global land surface temperature to be warming at or slower than that number
Why is the question! Do the oceans absorb less heat from the sun than the land surface? Thermodynamic heat is not just temperature.
What is the mass and specific heat of a square meter of land that is 10 inches deep? What is the mass and specific heat of a square meter of water 10 inches deep?
Your comment has no depth, only regurgitation from some CAGW website.
Can you answer me a question?
Just what percentage of the globe is “urban”?
This isn’t really pertinent to UHI affecting thermometer readings. Look up AW’s papers and studies about poorly sited stations. Reread the threads here about poorly sited stations in the MET database.
List all the UHI microclimate conditions that can have systematic uncertainty. Things like wind, heat sources, humidity, precipitation, surface condition, etc.
“This isn’t really pertinent to UHI affecting thermometer readings.”
It’s absolutely pertinent when claiming that the whole of the global surface temperature record is accused of being contaminated by UHI.
You are experiencing CDS (Climate Derangement Syndrome). Take a deep breath.
Various climates have existed for centuries if not for millennium or more. Climates are not destroyed by subtle changes in temperature. Warmists are apolelectic over a 1/100th of a degree increase over a decade. An increase of 1.5° over a century is ok. 1.8°, or God forbid 2.0° is catastrophic.
It only takes a few stations to change an anomaly average by 1/00ths of a degree. Plus if they are in an homogenous calculation, the extra heat gets spread around.
From a metrology standpoint, temperatures or even anomalies should not be quoted with values below their resolution limit. If I give you 100 pins and a digital micrometer with a resolution of 0.1mm are you going to tell me the average is 15.04287 mm.
Tell us what your university physical lab professor would do if you turned that in as the answer?
You are even more gullible than I thought.
darn graph didn’t attach…
Even NOAA used to show max temps much higher in the 1930s/40s
Yes, we know that the 30’s in the US were hot, because of meteorological and sociological reasons – which I outline below.
… and they in no way invalidate the current ongoing warming of the globe and not just one small part of it.
You seem to have forgotten that the Midwest has suffered periodic droughts at least as severe as the Dust Bowl for thousands of years.
Yes, of course but they didn’t have stupid farmers doing ….
“Farmers’ practices during the Dust Bowl, including extensive deep plowing of native prairie grasses, overcultivation for wheat, and expansion onto marginal lands, stripped the soil of its natural anchor, making it vulnerable to erosion; this was exacerbated by mechanized farming, high demand for wheat, and the severe drought that dried out the exposed, nutrient-depleted earth, causing massive dust storms. “
No one disputes rhe fact that poor agricultural practices exacerbated the Dust Bowl.
The drought in the Desert Southwest in the 1300’s was so severe it extinguished the Anasazi Culture.
On going atmospheric warming is coming only from El Nino events.
In the USA as in MANY other places , it is similar to or slightly cooler temperature than it was in the 1930s and 40s
I’ve told you before, as have others, that the EN part ENSO is one part of an oscillation that spreads solar warmed waters back from where La Ninas pushed it to in the west Pacific, along a Kelvin wave-guide centred on the equator. The cycle of course again switches from the EN warm phase half back to the LN cold phase. It is an Oscillation that results zero sum as far as net heat absobed by the biosphere … as it must be becasue the Pacific equatorial water does not of itself generate any energy. It stores it from the sun and then releases in said cycle.
If it did what you daftly contend then the 1st LoT would be invalidated.
For your elucidation ….
“The primary law of energy is the Law of Conservation of Energy, stating energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form (like chemical, kinetic, potential, heat, light) to another”
If that law was wrong and you correct then, we would have free energy.
You left out, “in a closed system.” In an open system energy can be moved.
Tell us if the Little Ice Age was global or not. If, like most warmists you insist it only affected Europe and North America, then what is occurring is that these two regions are just now catching up to the rest of the globe. Yet the USCRN reference network shows not warming in North America. So is it really just Europe that is causing anomalies to increase at such a large rate. Why is that?
Not (of course to the point but a usual tactic ) but anyway I’ll play the game as I’m bored …
No it was global in extent though most prominent in the places you state.
“The Little Ice Age (LIA) was caused by a combination of factors, primarily major volcanic eruptions that blocked sunlight, leading to global cooling, and periods of low solar activity (solar minima), like the Maunder Minimum. Other contributors included shifts in ocean circulation (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation – AMOC) and even large-scale reforestation after population collapses (like in the Americas) that drew down CO2, creating a complex interplay of natural forces. “
“The Little Ice Age (LIA) was likely triggered by a cluster of major volcanic eruptions, particularly the 1257 Samalas (Indonesia) and 1452 Kuwae (Vanuatu) eruptions, with additional significant volcanic activity around 1275-1300 AD (possibly tropical sources) and the 1600 Huaynaputina (Peru) eruption, creating a feedback loop with sea ice and ocean currents that caused centuries of cooling. These eruptions injected aerosols into the stratosphere, causing short-term cooling that initiated sea ice expansion, which reflected sunlight, weakened the Gulf Stream, and created a self-sustaining climate shift.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G9zKdbdXgAAh4Mc?format=jpg
That is very few “cooling” events to have kept global warming from occurring over several hundred years. NASA says about 300 years and other sites as long as 500 years. You need to come up with a lot more volcanoes to keep the globe cool for that long.
Those are possible and even probable contributors, but not proven.
The Early Twentieth Century was just as warm as today, all over the world, not just the United States.
I’ve posted the charts proving this dozens of times and all you Alarmists have seen them, yet you continue to distort the truth about the Earth’s climate.
it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today. There is no unprecedented warmth today. There is no demonstrated connection between CO2 and the Earth’s climate and weather. In fact there is an anti-correlation: CO2 increased from the !940’s, yet temperatures cooled for decades, to the point that some thought Earth might be entering a new ice age.
They invalidate the “man-made” part of it.
The reason(s) were both meteorological and sociological …
Key Aspects of ENSO and Climate During the Dust Bowl:
Persistent Cold Pacific Phase: The primary driver was cold sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific, often associated with a negative Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and La Niña conditions.
Synergy with Atlantic Temperatures: While Pacific La Niña conditions created the initial drought, it was intensified by warm sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic, creating a “perfect storm” that forced atmospheric circulation patterns to block moist air from reaching the Central Plains.
Duration and Timing: The drought spanned the 1930s, with extreme conditions (1932–1938) following a pattern where almost all climate simulations for that period showed a tendency for dry conditions.
Amplification by Land Degradation: The initial, naturally occurring ENSO-driven drought was significantly amplified by human-induced land degradation (loss of vegetation and topsoil), which intensified the drought and moved it northward.
Resulting Circulation: Strong mid-tropospheric ridging developed over the Great Plains, weakening the Low-Level Jet that normally transports moisture into the region.
Also……
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/07/why-were-the-1930s-so-hot-in-north-america/
“Three multi-year periods of drought unfolded between 1928 and 1942, with virtually no break in between. Much of the topsoil across the central United States simply blew away during those nasty years. The bare landscape allowed for maximal warming from the summer sun, which in turn helped reinforce the deep atmospheric heat that prevailed. Day-to-day weather patterns sometimes pushed the dust and heat all the way to the East Coast.”
“It has only been in the twenty-first century that human populations in these regions of the Northern Hemisphere have experienced heat extremes comparable to the 1930s. This demonstrates that humans influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature and heat extremes through disastrous and unprecedented regional land use practices over the Great Plains, and points to the possibility that future intense regional droughts could affect heat extremes on hemispheric scales.”
Thanks for showing it was warmer in the USA in the 1930s,40s than it is now..
Its only natural !!
“Thanks for showing it was warmer in the USA in the 1930s,40s than it is now..”
I wasn’t actually but, as I said it was hot in the west … for an anthroprogenic reason not involving CO2 …. that would be stupid farming practices …
Again:
“The bare landscape allowed for maximal warming from the summer sun, which in turn helped reinforce the deep atmospheric heat that prevailed. .
You are aware of the concept of albedo?
Chicken or the egg? Which came first, the drought or the bare landscape? You do realize that after harvest, the landscape is pretty bare, especially if the roughage is disked under to encourage additional fertilization.
Are you a farmer do you have any experience in farming?
“Chicken or the egg? Which came first, the drought or the bare landscape?”
Have a read …..
”Human Factors (Man-Made)
Natural Factors
Economic Factors
This “lack of understanding” implies that knowledge existed at that point in time and was ignored or that the farmers were ignorant. That is not the case.
Farmers followed existing practices and did well prior to the drought conditions. They were not privy to weather forecasts that warmed them of developing drought conditions.
Granted, the practices being used at the time contributed to the dust in the storms. However, those farming practices neither contributed to the drought or the storms that occurred.
Even with current farming practices, droughts occur and storms occur and both contribute to farmers losing farms due to crop failures.
If you want to make more accurate arguments you should really study the details of history. Using an AI doesn’t always give you an accurate portrayal. Plus, your link to doesn’t provide anything specific to read. The “human factors” links use cause/effect analysis. You will have a hard time justifying that farming practices CAUSED the EFFECTS of draught and storms.
Which means nothing since it was just as warm around the world at that time, not complicated by the issues you raise for the United States in your effort to depict the 1930’s heat in the U.S. as being unique to the time.
It was not unique. Your “Dust Bowl” explanation doesn’t apply to other hot localities.
Hang onto that worldview hard! Don’t let it go! Otherwise, you will be lost again.
“Which means nothing since it was just as warm around the world at that time”
No not “just as warm” but yes, warm before the intervention of WW2 and it’s aftermath of a large rise in atmospheris arosols duing ramping up of industry.
“The global warming in the 1930s and 1940s, particularly the significant heat in the U.S. Dust Bowl, resulted from a combination of natural climate variability, including shifting ocean currents and solar activity, alongside early, intensifying human impacts like industrial greenhouse gas emissions and land-use changes, which exacerbated regional droughts and heatwaves, setting the stage for the faster warming seen today. ”
“Hang onto that worldview hard! Don’t let it go! Otherwise, you will be lost again.”
I’ll just point out that my “worldview” is that of climate science with the consequent evidence to back it up.
If it changes then so will my “worldview”.
Yours?
An ideological one, that dismisses any scientific evidence (Correlation and causation) as pushed by incompetents or frauds.
I will “hang onto” which is the most common sense option there.
“An ideological one, that dismisses any scientific evidence”
+1
And you dismiss any contrary evidence.
No, the so-called “contrary evidence” is not backed up by sufficient correlation and causation science.
Do you think that your “contrary evidence” was dismissed because climate scientists are frauds or incompetents?
Because I go with the common-sense option and not the conspiracy one.
Your “contrary evidence” of which alternative cause of GW BTW?
Because there have been many posted up on here.
Instead we have a hodge-podge of numerous proposed causes, none of which cut mustard.
If twas so then climate science, which generally produced any evidence that is presnted anyway (and which is commonly re-interpreted without requisite expertise but only ideological motivation) would have have not have rejected it as not having insufficient correlative and causatlve factors.
“Do you think that your “contrary evidence” was dismissed because climate scientists are frauds or incompetents?”
Certainly some are. Especially when they refuse to disclose data, methods, and code, so independent researchers can attempt to replicate their results.
“Certainly some are. Especially when they refuse to disclose data, methods, and code, so independent researchers can attempt to replicate their results.”
Look, there is that element in all parts of society.
But here it discredits the lot it seems.
How is it that if you want to dismiss something, that sort of thing is seized upon?
It is called cognitive dissonance … because you come to the subject with an opinion that you will not change and anything that confirms it merely reinforces it.
Me?: I try to look at stuff pragmatically and with a modicum of common sense.
I accept though that you and many others like you on here cannot do that.
Tis human psychology.
PS: I also have (ex) professional knowledge.
There is NO SUCH F##CKING THING as “correlation and causation science.”
I’ll break it down for your lack of critical thinking …
(Now now calm down)
Causative science is that accepted for radiative and thermodynamical processes.
Vis that that occurs within tri-atomic molecules re their response to Earth’s emitted LWIR.
Correlation is that observed re the atmosphere’s current and long term (1000’s yrs) response to varying CO2 levels.
First, you can’t even be consistent in what you’re claiming. Is it “causation science” or “Causative science”?
Second, there is already a branch of science that deals with the interaction of radiation, molecules and molecular bonds. It’s called “physics.” The fact that you and your climate science buddies need to invent some new, vague name for something and then can’t even be consistent speaks more to your lack of critical thinking, not mine.
“First, you can’t even be consistent in what you’re claiming. Is it “causation science” or “Causative science”?”
Take your pick – you know what I mean – it is explained above.
However you obviously have difficulty …
Science with “causation” with noun before it ..
“causation
https://ssl.gstatic.com/dictionary/static/promos/20181204/pronunciation.svg
noun
“the action of causing something.”
And science with “causative” as the adjective …
causative
https://ssl.gstatic.com/dictionary/static/promos/20181204/pronunciation.svg
adjective
“acting as a cause”.
“Second, there is already a branch of science that deals with the interaction of radiation, molecules and molecular bonds. It’s called “physics.”
Heck, well I never did!
“The fact that you and your climate science buddies need to invent some new, vague name for something and then can’t even be consistent speaks more to your lack of critical thinking, not mine.”
As shown above the consistency is there as both phrases mean exctly the same thing.
Is that nonsense all you could think of to come back and have a go at me for the sake of defending your ideology?
Never mind It’s a common here when the *argument* is lost.
Anway, glad to have been of help with your English comprehension.
We’ve watched them ignore the CERES data for years now. They also ignored the NOAA data used by Miskolczi. Actually, they went back and changed it to meet their expectations. That is fraud.
In summary, the scientific community did not ignore the NOAA data that Miskolczi used, but they did reject his interpretation of that data and the resulting conclusions.
No, it is major El Nino events.. which are not caused by humans.
These cause a spike, then a step up about 6 months later as the warmer surface warmer is transferred from the ENSO region to connected oceans
If you look at periods not effected by major El Nino events.. There is no warming.
(click on graph to de-blur)
If we extended that UAH chart into the past we would see that the 1930’s were just as hot as 1998, 2016, and 2024.
And we would see that the 1880’s are also just as hot as today’s temperatures.
The 1880’s, the 1930’s, 1998, 2016, and 2024, should all be on the same horizontal line on the chart because they are all equally warm, within a few tenths of a degree of each other.
So in reality, it is not any hotter today than it was in the 1880’s, and the amount of CO2 in the air has had no discernible effect on temperatures since the 1880’s.
There is no CO2 crisis.
And the apparent correlation is only valid for about the last 150-years. The correlation fails for longer and shorter time intervals.
(deleted)
Chart is UAH, which starts in 1978. That’s why the chart starts with 1978.
Nothing unusual about that, The last five hundred years temperatures have always fluctuated, and will do in the future.
Last 4.5 billion…
Is colder better?
Yes, it’s just weather. That’s a very small temperature variation over a rediculously short timeline. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, fer Chrissake. Even a 1000 year timeline is rediculously short. And that minor temperature change on your graph wouldn’t even be noticed on a longer timeline.
There have been troughs of low pressure loitering over southern and central Europe, as well as the Great Lakes and New England (and a nearly permanent ridge over the Rockies) this winter. This is probably being caused, at least in part, by a stronger-than-expected La Niña. My advice is, don’t get used to it. Also, don’t blame Climate Change™, as this is weather.
Northern Hemisphere
Pink = < -30°C
White = < -20°C
Blue = < -10°C
Green = > 0°C
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-0.64,74.68,464/loc=-158.903,89.518
Boreal winter 2025/26 was bound to be an above trend snowfall season. The Sun and Earth’s relationship with it guaranteed that outcome.
It is only a taste of the future as the oceans of the NH continue to warm and more moisture is taken into the atmosphere.
At present, the changes in seasonal solar intensity is driving increased poleward advection in both hemispheres. This year the NH was above trend. In the long run, NH will have increasing poleward advection and SH reducing.
The increasing poleward advection is also increasing the retention of ocean heat in the region of the Ferrel Cells in both hemispheres per attached chart due to higher precipitation deepening the thermocline..
Greenland plateau is also experiencing negative thinning. (NASA speak for gaining altitude)
“Greenland plateau is also experiencing negative thinning. (NASA speak for gaining altitude)”
A negative negative thickening. A double negative. Such is NASA-talk.
Last week In the Netherlands solar provided in 5% of electricity production, wind 41%. Martien Visser puts a graph about energy matters on X every day. Worth checking.
It was quite windy last week.
Today in Britain , wind is at 5 GW and gas is at 24 GW, and we are not at the Monday evening peak yet.
Oh. My. Gawd! It is almost like winter or something.
The name ‘eisvogel’ means ‘kingfisher’, the bird that flies back and forth over its stretch of a stream.
Doesn’t it mean “Ice Bird”?
That’s the literal translation, but that’s not what the British call it.
Speaking of news clips, check out this:
https://www.firstpost.com/world/snow-apocalypse-hits-russias-kamchatka-multi-storey-buildings-buried-in-viral-video-13970322.html
The cold and snow is forecast to hit northern U.S. this weekend. Friday/Saturday are expected to be the coldest in 10 years.