September Snow Cover Was Highest On Record In North America

ScreenHunter_3455 Oct. 08 22.43

Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab

h/t to Chris Beal

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

278 Responses to September Snow Cover Was Highest On Record In North America

  1. rishrac says:

    I can see grant money at an all time low. Isn’t there a direct correlation between producing the correct results and grant money? Wait, wait.. I forgot, AGW causes it to snow more… sorry.

    • More likely the grant money causes more “climate science” expeditions to the more northern regions of the continent, which causes an increase in Gore-effect snow in those areas.

      (FYI to readers: as entertaining as that thought may be, I am only half joking about it. I truly have come to believe that the Gore effect is a legitimate phenomenon, because it has been observed so many times, with such a strong signal, and in so many different places. But I don’t believe it is constrained to the whereabouts of Al Gore when he makes climate pronouncements. Rather, I suspect it can strike anyone who has made it a practice to lie about the climate in exchange for money.

      (That’s right, I said it.)


        • ChrisGC says:

          I can’t believe that you posted that silly cartoon.

          After all, it’s 18 years now! 😉

        • Gail I love making fun of you “simpel-folk” who don’t understand science. Are you busy?????

        • Gail Combs says:

          Richard Frascone “Gail I love making fun of you “simpel-folk” who don’t understand science.”
          Gee Richard thanks for telling me I don’t understand science. But you should have told all the companies I worked for since I have run chemistry labs since 1973.

        • ”I have run chemistry labs …”
          “Gail you ran a chemistry class …?”

          Says it all, doesn’t it, Gail? Another strauß outs himself ….

        • Gail you ran a chemistry class and you’re a climate-denier????? WTF???? Are you serious????? How can you teach your students about critical-thinking if you don’t understand the process yourself?????? You need an education. Watch my show. I’ll teach you how to ask questions.

        • philjourdan says:

          idiots cannot read. She said LAB. As in where science is DONE, not taught.

          WTF??? You must be a climate alarmist. You cannot read RF.

        • Freeland_Dave says:

          And we man made global warming deniers, also known as man made global climate change deniers are sick and tired of pseudo scientist world climate specialists lining up in droves with their hands trust forward for free government grant money to tell us all the lies that those in political power desperately want us to believe so that they can remain in power. Many of these so called climate scientists are really no better than a common street walker plying her wares in exchange for the highest amount of money they can get. Excellent cartoon.

        • Freeland_Dave says:

          Gail, don’t be to concerned with those who think that they know and that you are an idiot for not believing in man made global warming. They often like to eliminate the words “man made” which is what the whole ordeal is really all about.

          I had a very long, highly technical position with a very large aerospace corporation that developed virtually all of the sensors and measuring devices these alarmists incorrectly have used to prop up their inconvenient lie.

          First of all the precision of their observations comes into question as the devices used to make their predictions did not exist at the time of their predictions and still do not exist today in any real sufficient quantities to enable the to make any prediction based on the data they have used to foster the idea of such predictions. I know this because I worked in the industry that developed these devices.

          All of this is a smoke and mirrors prediction made from examining some trends based on a total non-scientific examination of date used in computer models with roughly twenty variables of data to work with over a relatively small amount of time and then extrapolated into the future to make their man made global warming predictions, that when they fail to come true becomes man made global climate change predictions.

          If you run your data and do not like the results it’s fairly easy to change the parameters of the computer program to give you the results that you are looking for. It doesn’t really matter to them how the data was collected, when it was collected, where it was collected or what level of technology at the time was employed when it was collected. Garbage in, garbage out. All that is important is that their predictions, real or false, are heard so they can get more government grant monies.

          To make a .1 degree rise or fall prediction or even measurement in the world wide ocean surfaces of our planet, you would have to take one measurement all at the same time for every square foot of ocean at the precision of .01 degrees, repeatedly, in order to make a valid scientific observation with any ring of truth to it. That’s science.

          Plugging numbers that came from measurement devices incapable of that level of precision repeatedly in which many are more than fifty years old and improperly installed by today’s standards into a computer, running a program and thinking that you will come up with valid data is the absolute pinnacle of what is known as junk-science and people like Al Gore are literally making millions off the panic of those who lack the education and training to see the lie for what it actually is.

          Don’t worry that these people don’t believe you. You will eventually become like I am and realize that no matter what your level of expertise you possess those so enamored with their political favorites and what they say will never listen to you. Today it seems our society relishes being lied to and taken advantage of by every smiling politician that tells you they have it all under control.

          I seriously wonder if our culture could long endure hearing the truth in such things. It seems to feed on irrational fears. Guess they are not happy unless they have some man made thing to fear.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Freeland_Dave says: …
          Gail, don’t be to concerned with those who think that they know and that you are an idiot for not believing in man made global warming….”

          Freeland, I am just having fun yanking his chain. Notice how he took the bait and swallowed it proving what an absolute idiot he is.

          I say “.. you should have told all the companies I worked for since I have run chemistry labs since 1973….”
          and the idiot comes back with:

          ..Gail you ran a chemistry class and you’re a climate-denier????? WTF???? Are you serious????? How can you teach your students about critical-thinking if you don’t understand the process yourself?????? ….

          Oh my I haven’t seen such a wonderful example of the complete inability to reason since I read Tamino and company making utter fools of themselves trying to find my ‘Peer-reviewed papers’

          Here is a clue for you idiots. I worked in INDUSTRY. I worked in and INDUSTRIAL LAB and yes I wrote papers and no you will never ever see them. Heck they all had my name removed and a man’s name slapped on so he could get the promotions and Attaboys I actually had one of them start bragging about how he had ‘solved’ a problem until I reminded him WHO he was talking to at which point he turned beet red and slunk away.

          That is one of the mistakes they made, I think the rest of you are bright enough to reason out the other very simple explanation of why a woman might be a bit harder to track than a man.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Richard Frascone,

          I don’t need an education I have had to take 18 credit hours every couple years throughout my adult life to keep my certification…. as an QC engineer not a teacher.

          My last was a very enjoyable graduate level physics lecture with Guest Lecture Dr Happer that was open to the public this September. (My husband, who has a degree in physics, and I both attended)

          Since the lecture is about CO2 in the atmosphere perhaps it is YOU who should educate yourself.

          Audio and slides of Dr. Happer’s lecture are HERE.

          (I down loaded the slides so I can study them at my leisure.)

        • Gail Combs says:

          You also bring up a great point about the precision of the instrumentation. For example the Australian surface station data was TRUNCATED (not rounded) to the nearest digit.

          Besides you can not use the statistics of large numbers it estimate a more precise mean because you are sampling from different populations. In reality the sample size is ONE not hundreds. That puts the error the same as the worst number or Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C)

          Any scientist or engineer worth his salt can punch holes in CAGW if he bothers to look at the information available. That is why the debate is closed and we are called ‘deniers’ they know that in an open debate ‘deniers’ would bury them.

          My hopes are Mother Nature will bury them in several feet of snow preferably before the next election on up to the 2016 election while the low information voters get sticker shock from their high heating bills.

        • Ed Martin says:

          Awesome ‘toon, I can use on the Dems I pick on. They come up with some hilarious pics.

          I was a QC Lab tech for several years, nothing as impressive as what you did.

          Here’s one…

        • John K says:

          discussion with Richard SnowCone is an enterprise of futility…he was paid to lie…..there is no logic in his drivel about climate.
          Oops, time changed during last few seconds – and wind speed, and the temperature – yes, it means climate changed and always will. A simple fact known for millennia……
          NOT ENOUGH REASON TO MAKE ALGOR A MULTIBILLIONAIRE… and SnowCone is just green of envy………………

        • tom0mason says:


      • Somehow we need to fund a study to determine why CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. It has gone up 40% since the start of the Industrial era. Does the increase come from man’s use of fossil fuel or is the increase caused by the earth-warming up due to natural causes? We know that the ocean will release CO2 as it warms. The we need to find out if CO2 is bad for us. We obviously need more vegetation to feed a growing and hungry and improving standard of living. CO2 is not a pollutant; it is necessary for life and it makes up a very small % of the atmosphere (~ .04%).
        Water vapor contributes significantly more to greenhouse effects and we need to survive. So this is not a bad thing. In fact the planet’s temperature was higher before the start of the little ice age. The world say some amount of prosperity then.
        This cold and snow and variation in weather is just weather. To conclude as the IPCC, Algore and the Idiot of all times, Messiah IRS_SMIDGEN Obama, that is caused by Global warming is foolish.

        • Some editorial corrections; 1. Then (not the), we need to find out……. 2.) to feed a growing and hungry (population) who standard of …………. 3.) we need 9IT) to survive…. 4) The world saw (not say) some amount ………….. 5.) Messiah IRS-Smidgen Obama, that the snow is caused by global warming is foolish.

        • ChrisGC says:

          Well let’s see now…….

          The “industrial era” began around 1850 and the estimated world population then was 1,262,000,000 give or take a few million.
          Maybe all that extra CO2 came from the exhalations of the 6 BILLION people we’ve gained since then?
          But no worries, it looks as though Ebola might fix that.

        • Well said our sky is cleaner than in the 60s we have no industry coal burning plants are being shut down .we don’t want to be like china but when our side of the planet freezes china will still be able to grow food

        • jackzig says:

          Yes, and the Earth is flat and if you venture too far out into the ocean you will fall off the edge of the Earth. Oh yeah, the sun revolves around the Earth, did you know that?

        • Freeland_Dave says:

          I do like how you have correctly presented your argument but you failed to make a crucial observation that hammers your point home. Yes, CO2 makes up about .04% of our Earth’s atmosphere. You mentioned that CO2 has increased by 40% but, unfortunately, you didn’t quantify that for the average reader to really comprehend. A 40% increase in CO2 brings the level of CO2 in our atmosphere up from .04% to .051% of our atmosphere a scant .016% more than what it was beore the start of the Industrial era back in the 1800’s, assuming they actually know what it was back then based on the data available and the reasonable precision of that data.

          When presented in this manner it becomes easy to determine that a .016% suspected rise in CO@ density of our atmosphere over a time span greater than a hundred years falls into the “noise” area of such calculations and therefore is meaningless to the argument of global climate change being caused by a small change in CO2 levels on the planet over that period of time.

          But it makes a great platform to ask for more government grant money and politicians to stump with to get elected and maintain their wealth and power now doesn’t it?

        • Freeland_Dave says:

          Gail you bring up a good point regarding AL Gore and his “Inconvenient Lie” shown to our nation’s children who attended public school. What you didn’t mention however is where the film footage of the “Inconvenient Lie” actually came from. Let me help you. A of it was stolen from the Hollywood box office thriller, “The Perfect Storm.” I have oft times wondered why the producers of the film didn’t sue the pants off of Gore for such blatant plagiarism of a science-fiction film under our nations copyright laws. The only logical thing I can come up with is that they were paid off and Al more than likely financed the production.

        • Gail Combs says:

          First you have to determine IF it is increasing at all. The CO2 record is as badly rigged as the temperature record.
          SEEpdfs HERE:

          Layman’s explanation

        • Gail Combs says:

          Chris Columbus
          a couple more by Dr. Glassman at a higher reading level:

          Lots of information on CO2 and peer-reviewed papers explained HERE: (Biology slant)
          They explain what the papers mean in plain English and link the paper so it is a great sight to look through.

          Dr. Tom V. Segalstad has a good site from the point of view of a geologist:

      • Adele says:

        Look in an online Latin dictionary. There’s a word, “algor,” It means “coldness.” God has a sense of humor.

        • David H. Walker says:


          We’re living in interesting times; when hype and drama have become part of the scientific process, and those of us (who’ve worked in technical and scientific circles our entire careers) are no longer allowed to disagree with folks named “algor”.

        • Gail Combs says:

          David H. Walker,

          Yeah, Al Gore with no science credentials what so ever has his Catastrophic Global Warming film showed in all US schools and are told it is gospel, the Science™ is settled, but real scientists and engineers who do not toe the socialist/communist party line are ‘Science™ Deniers’ – go figure.

          Maybe it is time for the parents who have had children psychologically abused (scared out of their wits, nightmares, suicide…) by Al Gore’s move sue the pants off him in a staunchly conservative state. (But wait for a Republican government first and major blizzards.)

        • Thank you, Adele! I did not know that word but I always marveled at God’s sense of humor.

        • tom0mason says:


      • jackzig says:

        Are you talking about the energy companies who contribute big dollars to the feckless Congressmen and Senators? These are the ones who say “I’m not a scientist” when they are questioned about Global Warming. You know the ones I’m talking about, the science deniers and members of the “Flat Earth Society”.

    • Dear Prudence says:

      So, if global warming has now degraded into global cooling, could we be looking at slush funds?

    • nonoe says:

      GW causes larger storms with more precipitation, idiot.

      • You sound like a total moron

      • David Nantz says:

        Global Warming causes snow? Ha Ha Ha

      • sammy4231 says:

        And, warming causes that precipitation to turn white; and remain on the surface of the earth’s crust.
        I understand. Warm snow.
        Thank you.

      • Dear Prudence says:

        Why is it that leftists generally have no sense of humor? Even if the sky truly does fall, which it won’t, the birds are still singing, why can’t you? Dear Prudence, won’t you come out to play?

      • Gail Combs says:

        GW causes larger storms with more precipitation,….
        ERRRrrr, no the actually data shows this is one of the most ‘storm free’ times in history. Low number of hurricanes and low number of tornadoes.

        GW can not cause more storms because the poles are suposed to warm more quickly than the equator so the earth’s ‘heat engine’ slows down.

        However as the earth cools expect storms to increase as the temperature difference between the poles and the equator increases and the ‘heat engine’ speeds up in carrying the heat away from the equator and cool air towards the equator. The jet streams are also going from zonal to a meridional pattern as they move back towards the equator causing extreme temperatures and blocking highs.

        All this has been observed but I am too busy to dig out the references.

        • daveginoly says:

          Actually global warming was supposed to have its greatest effect in the mid-latitudes, but otherwise you’re correct. If you decrease the temperature gradient between the tropics and the mid-latitudes, you throttle back the engine that produces severe storms. The funny thing is, the current decrease in hurricane activity might be because of the slight warming experienced over the latter half of the 20th Century, but because the warmists predicted that warming would create more and more powerful storms (they couldn’t get our attention by saying warming will have beneficial effects – they had to be alarmist) they cannot now backtrack and tell the truth, they have to double-down.

      • JdeA says:

        And greater periods of California drought.

      • or no storms and less rain … or whatever. You cant be wrong with GW on your side ..

      • rishrac says:

        Yea, and where does the cold air come from to cause more snow? Shouldn’t all that latent heat be retained to cause warming, and therefore no snow? And what about all the drought across the mid west worse than the dust bowl? Is that climate or weather? It’s climate change when it suits your purpose and weather when it doesn’t.

      • rishrac says:

        nonoe… stop with the name calling. Your CAGW is falling apart and the only thing you can come up with is to call me an idiot? Tell me where the heat went for the last 18 years?

    • Exactly what happened in the early 1980’s when the consensus of scientists (along with the leftist governments) claimed that we were seeing the start of the “net ice age” and we needed to conserve fossil fuels because they would be running out within decades. Then the money dried up, and the consensus of scientists shifted to the religion and money maker of “global warming”. Considering that the results of the models for the past 15 years have been wrong, in some cases extremely wrong, you would think that they’d be looking for a new line of work. But those pushing the “climate change” religion don’t care about the climate or world, only the money that taxes on fossil fuels will generate. Look who is driving the climate change religion and you find them to be the mostly white, western nations. In the meantime, the rest of the world goes right on polluting.

      • rishrac says:

        Latter day communists and with support of the UN they’ve mounted an awesome propaganda campaign against the US and other western countries. For one, no one in legitimate science calls someone else names for asking relevant questions. I think the parade in NY showed who was really behind CAGW. The remarks that Robert Kennedy Jr made are absolutely abhorrent.

    • Adam says:

      The polar ice caps on Mars melted completely a few years ago now the Northern one has made a little comeback (Check Nasa’s website). So either the Sun was causing the warming or those probes we sent really emit a lot of CO2…j/k

      • rishrac says:

        If I’m not mistaken, I think it was shown that all of the planets in the solar system showed some degree of warming. The response of CAGW was to increase the rhetoric on CO2 and the increased potential disasters, ignored this expect with Venus as an example of runaway GHG. Which is debatable, both Mars and Venus had water at one time and now don’t. They also had a magnetic field and now don’t. An interesting aside is that the earth’s magnetic field has been dropping since it was first measured at the infamous start of the industrial revolution.( which is where CAGW likes to begin or did the correlation between co2 and temps) But that as it may, I still think that most of climate change is related to activities in the sun.

  2. KTM says:

    Yes, but what’s the snow thickness? Anything short of a mile-thick glacier sitting on Chicago is just more proof of man-made climate change.

  3. Don says:

    Looks like the third highest on record for the entire Northern Hemisphere. Only goes to show what all that warming that has been hiding has been up to all this time, making snow.

    • Yes, the Missing Heat is a very shrewd perp. It can make an abundance of snow, and still be long gone by the time the Climate Cops show up!


    • Joe says:

      Don – just remember, during the last major Glacial period, North America was the only continent with ice stretching closest to the equator from the pole… Meaning this is where it will probably be made manifest the most, first, as the Earth cools…

    • Tony says:

      In the graph above… do you have negative area covered by snow? That is like saying OMG not only is there no snow but the land itself disappeared. WTF?

      • Dennis says:

        The graph is based on anomalies. The center line indicates what is “normal”

      • Stan B says:

        Tony, you really need to learn to READ. The graph is not of snow coverage, but ANOMALIES. A big word meaning, basically, difference from some “mean.” So those are numbers above and below the “average” snowfall number (hopefully for a relevant period pertinent to the discussion).

        • Van Anderson says:

          Tony is not to swift, probably due to the wonderful public education system that taught him

        • Gail Combs says:

          YOU should learn to read. The graph says SNOW COVER Anomalies.

          Take the average base number for the month like ’10*.’ If the snow cover was ‘8’ for the month then the ANOMALY was a minus two. In this case the anomaly is about 1.2. That means the amount of snow was about 1.2 million square kilometers above the base average or in our illustration 11.2 million square kilometers. If you know what the base average is you can calculate the actual number.

          However I realize that progressives having taken Common Core math courses and therfore are completely unable to follow this so remember it is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than open it and prove you are a complete dimwit.

          10* = 10 million square kilometers or whatever.

        • Gail, you do realize that Stan B was responding to this Tony, not to Steven Goddard?

          Some of us missed it at first. Names and indentations …

        • Gail Combs says:

          Colorado Wellington ….Some of us missed it at first. Names and indentations …
          That is why I try to remember to use the name and a snippet to identify who and what I am responding to.

          My apologies for my wrong response Stan B

        • Tony says:

          Stan, I can read. You got me that I “missed” the “anomaly” word. However, I have never seen a graph that does not define a number. 0 on the graph is defined as zero square kilometers. If that is the “base line” or “average,” then somewhere in relation to the graph that should be defined. For example, is an extra million square kilometers a huge anomaly if the base line is 2 billion square kilometers….NO. If the base line is 1 million square kilometers then yes it would be a huge anomaly. The graph above means nothing to me if I don’t know the base line.
          I won’t be as abrasive as you but the average described above is not the “average” snowfall number. It is an area covered by snow. The baseline is not defined. We don’t know if it is an average or a mean. Is it an average over two years? All years shown on the graph? A period of years before? We don’t know.
          Van Anderson, meaningful comments only. Your comment is no better than a crappy education system. You didn’t help me understand crap. Here’s a mirror.

        • Tony says:

          I know, I know, the earth is only 510 million square kilometers.

        • Tony, the point I took from the graph is that we have the highest level since 1967. That alone is significant. And it is unaffected by what time period is used for the average, and by what kind of average is used.


      • RickRez says:

        So typical of ‘scientific’ data presentations these days. Why the heck would you go to the trouble to remove some ‘average’ level from the values, instead of just presenting a graph of the true values of snow coverage for the month?

  4. Scott says:

    If that cold had stayed in the Arctic then the sea-ice minimum might have been definitively above 2013 and 2009. Oh well, the much-beloved PIOMAS has turned against its worshipers.


  5. Andy Oz says:

    That is rotten porous snow that will quickly melt away. Where is the multi year snow? Snow volume is the only data that matters and has been spiralling. Global Warming causes it to snow more. Only climate scientists can comment on snow. Now give me a grant.

  6. Mike says:

    Is there any data about summer snow capped mountains? For example some mountain peaks that become snow free during the summer, now had snow all year long.

    Finally, let’s see what happens to the Great Lakes this year. If they freeze over and if it’s earlier than the previous year.

    • Green Sand says:

      The “Daily Lake Average Surface Water Temperatures” are all lower, by 1 to 3c, than at the same time last year:-

      • ice fisher says:

        If a lake is totally frozen over, like St. Clair was last winter, how can it have an average water temperature above 0 degrees C? Looks like the coldest it got was .21 degrees C. That’s liquid water, not solid water. So how come I had to drill thru over 2 feet of solid water to find the liquid? There’s something wrong with that data.

      • bit chilly says:

        looks like it is going to get interesting a lot quicker than the purveyors of doom by 2100 would like. all those climatologists that thought they could stretch the meme to retirement and pension may be in for a shock.

      • John says:

        The surface temps don’t matter because the lake heat is hiding in the deep lake.

        • hank beckel says:

          heat rises

        • Yes, the lake heat is hiding deep in the coldest part of the lake …

        • Michael Cox says:

          But it’s going to come back out and get us any second now… Any second…

        • Robert says:

          Only if Al Gore goes scuba diving will that be a true statement…

        • Stephen Ross says:

          Uh…Lake Superior, the northernmost lake, if I am not mistaken, holds it’s constant temperature at 39F. The other lakes may be hairs and degrees warmer based on various physical and locational positions, but these lakes are inland seas. If you have not been to the northern portions of Lakes Huron and Superior, you are missing not only a fantastic geologic excursion replete with ‘hills’ up to 3,000 feet that rise out of Lake Suuperior and major spectacular water falls that come right down to the road, but you are missing out on what life was like two or three hundred years ago. You are also missing out on viewing the Milky Way and enjoying a night without light pollution and the joy of quiet and solitude. However, it is the power of the rivers and waterfalls, the extreme coldness and force of the rivers, and lakes that feed into the Great Lakes, and the winds that drive down from the great north that add to the severity of the spectacle. However I do not know what kind of heat in the lake you are making reference to John. I was there last weekend, and in consideration of the snow that fell, if Lake Superior had any “heat” hidden in itself, it would have dissipated throughout it’s waters, and the snow would have fallen as rain.
          It takes almost perfect conditions for the ENTIRE lake to freeze over, and last year was one of those almost perfect years, especially considering the blistering cold. Superior only froze to the 90% level. But heat in the lake? Coming from where? Michigan and Ontario are not located over volcanic ‘hot-spots’. Sorry to shatter your ideologically held beliefs.

    • Stephen Ross says:

      Most of the great lakes never freeze completely over. They will freeze at the edges out to a number of miles, but usually they will not freeze, because for instance, Lake Superior, while exceedingly cold in the summer has too much mass to drop it’s core temperature down the last couple of degrees to freeze completely. I know, because I have lived in Michigan all of my life. I will say that as a result of last winter’s hard cold and the freezing of a “good” majority of the Great Lakes, that the water levels are now higher than we have seen in decades, which is a good thing. If we get another winter like last year, the lower portion of the lakes, in particular Lake St. Clair (technically not part of the Great Lakes, but part of them by inheritance so to speak) could find it’s residents being flooded, which has not happened since the mid 70’s.

      • Donna K. Becker says:

        It’s = it is.

        • tom0mason says:

          A typographical error (often shortened to typo) is a mistake made in the typing process (such as spelling, misuse of tense or leaving out a word) of printed material.

          Its the sort of thing that happens on blogs, the meaning is obvious – so just get over it.
          Or are you a gramatical pedant Nazi?

        • tom0mason says:

          Ooops I may have typo’ed myself


    • Gail Combs says:

      Himalaya glaciers gaining mass

      Snow slowly building on Mount Kilimanjaro

      Norway Experiencing Greatest Glacial Activity in the past 1,000 year

      the Perito Moreno glacier in Argentina and Pio XI glacier in Chile are growing and in the Sierra Nevadas the glaciers originate only in the last 700 years, (the Mathis Glaciation.) (Good luck finding references though)

  7. Radioman says:

    Peer review doesn’t work when your buddies funding is tied to your research, justifying focusing conclusions, rather that analysis of facts.

  8. I. C. Winters says:

    Please. I mean, it is more snow than normal, but remember……….it is warm snow.

  9. Robert Hall says:

    Is it global warming or climate change?
    I have lost track.

    • Steve says:

      Now it’s ‘climate disruption’ since the world didn’t warm and the climate hasn’t changed in 17 years. That way they can blame any fart in the breeze on AGW.

    • Stan B says:

      Global Climate Disruption. The only problem is, if Warming is not the Issue, CO2 is not the solution.

    • The Obama administration is now officially calling it Global Change. In fact we had one of the administration goofs commenting here just a few days ago, calling it that. Outrageous.

      • Andy Oz says:

        At least Obama’s propaganda is consistent. I bet this slogan comes back to bite him on the derriere! He will quickly be forgotten, just like Julia Whatshername, and Kevin 07 something or other here in Oz. The only people who are pining for those two disasters are the looney left Greens (8% of the vote).

        • “He will quickly be forgotten”

          We can hope for such a change, but I have to say, unlike other recent American leaders, Obama has a downright cultish following. Perhaps about 26-28% of the population at present. And they are very well conditioned to recognize and ignore rational arguments that go against their leader. And to put it mildly, they will not be amused if he is succeeded by a conservative. They will think of only two things in that event: revenge, and getting him, Michelle, or someone else who has been very close to him and who has his endorsement, back in. Truthfully, I wonder if Australia has ever had a leader quite like that.


    • Clearly, it’s one or the other – but apparently not both at once.

  10. Brenda says:

    The lies of Global warming or Climate change can’t be covered up anymore .

    • And to think they preach this stuff as a matter of fact in our public schools.

    • Freeland_Dave says:

      I hate to disagree with you but yes they can. They are covered up by those who refuse to open their eyes and see for themselves how they have been lied to. It’s really a psychological problem. Most people refuse to admit that they were wrong or made an incorrect decision in their choice of elected politicians so they deny the truth when its so obvious to see. No one really likes being wrong so they deny being wrong and faithfully continue to support the very people who lied to them in the first place and gaining their support with a fraudulent lie. For them to suddenly say they were wrong is something they psychologically are not prepared to handle. This is why, even seeing his massive failure as a president of our nation for the past six years, people still support Obama and his administration. They simply cannot come to the realization that they were wrong so they continue to support such a wrong even when they know in their hearts that they have been systematically lied to.

      • I’ve spoken t quite a few who realize it but would rather have to deal with Obama’s lies than with our truths. That’s another whole kind of mental disorder, and one which we must try to get a handle on if we’re ever to have any hope of changing these people’s minds.


  11. Ice Hiker says:

    From the late 70’s to late 80’s I would hike on Lake Erie ice away from shore. Many were bolder taking snowmobiles & 4×4’s to go Ice Fishing miles out. During college, I once fell through the ice… as did my brother… at the same time about 10′ apart. Fortunately, we had our tough hiking sticks and pulled each other out of good 6’+ hole. Even then, we could NOT see water… fortunately. So, yes… the ice was quite thick. The snow buried cars, trucks and kids waiting for buses as snow plows showered them with snow because nobody could hear them coming… lol. 😮 )

  12. That darn global warming!

    • Al D says:

      Next they’ll be telling us global warming is real, but all that hot air hasn’t reached low enough in the atmosphere to register on thermometers because hot air rises and pushes the heavier cold air to the ground.

      Does that sound like something Al Gore would say? I wouldn’t be surprised if he already did.

  13. T. R. Von says:

    We get all our Snow from the United States, its either coming in from Alaska, or up from New England. Thank God I live in a banana belt…in Atlantic Canada.

  14. mg says:

    Those darn oceans keep sucking up all the global warming!

  15. R says:

    Some people believe that the impact of 7 Billion human beings producing, shipping, and consuming food, burning fossils fuels for convenience travel, burning fuel to keep their environments at home and in the workplace at a comfortable, if not survivable, temperature, transporting exotic foods from far away places simply for their eating pleasure, burning monstrous amounts of fossil fuel for military equipment in training exercises, and for producing fiery and explosive special effects in silly Hollywood movies, and for flying in big jets for extravagant vacations in far away places, have a significant impact on changes in the Earth’s climate. Some do not believe that those human activities have any appreciable effect on the Earth‘s climate. They believe, rather, that natural forces – like the sun and volcanic eruptions- are responsible for any vicissitudes in the Earth’s climate. But if you do believe that sustaining and supporting Billions of human beings and their activities, and their pets and their livestock is the key to climate change, then it is your duty to eat only food that is grown in your neighborhood, to forego that vacation to Europe, South America, Australia, China, or the Caribbean in favor of staying home, to wear warmer clothing in winter and not to heat your home in winter, and go without air-conditioning in summer. Also, eschew movies with special effects, walk to the grocery store, walk to your job, go without pet dogs, cats, and other animals. And eat only vegetables. If blame human beings for climate change and you do all that in efforts to make the Earth better, then you are entitled to advise others. If you don’t do all or most of that, then you have no room to preach to others.

    • Steve says:

      Al Gore called and said STFU 🙂

    • Al D says:

      If you’re on the fence, you can have it all worry free!

      • Anders Niemann says:

        Algore jets all over the place in his big Boeing, rides in limos, and lives in a house-mahal. I guess he doesn’t believe that his actions contribute to Irritable Climate Syndrome.

    • Juli Funk says:

      do all those things and its hard in a COOLING climate having said that still know there is balance whether man dose those things or not meaning your just part of the earth doing what you need to do to survive without us the next asteroid kills everything we where created for something and not big screen tvs

    • Freeland_Dave says:

      What you are talking about can be said in one short sentence.

      Most man made global climate change promoters are nothing more than self-serving profiteers and hypocrites. Al Gore is their leader.

      Oops! That’s two sentences.

    • tom0mason says:

      Some people don’t believe that humans are part of nature.
      Odd that but they do.

  16. Davis says:

    Obama Gored Again!

  17. Scott Kadel says:

    obama can’t even get this right

  18. Could we please get some of that deep snow down here in Texas ?

  19. Pooter McGloot says:

    All the highly respected scientists, scholars, and all around great folks…have told us Global Warming is REAL! Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barrack Obama, Jerry Brown, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and so MANY, MANY more of these trained scientists have proven without the shadow of a doubt that Global Warming is the SAME con games as Climate Change! Except now its Atmospheric Alteration and Stratospheric Shell Games! Want to know the truth about all of this Climate Warming Global Change crap?….FOLLOW THE MONEY!! LOL…

    • Freeland_Dave says:

      Excellent! Now an in depth historical analysis of precisely how Al Gore came to all of his money. Hint. Look closely at what he was up to just prior to becoming Vice President in respect to Occidental Oil. It’s the untold story millions of Americans do not know and precisely why he is now against “big oil” and would love to see that industry totally collapse. I believe if you study that aspect of Al Gore you will easily see what a hypocrite he really is and how he has systematically duped and robbed the world’s people.

  20. brad hodge says:

    Regarding “R” comment above about anyone that knows human caused climate change is a fact loses their right to speak up unless they live a radical life of conservation…. Nice straw man argument. There are extremists on different sides of any conflict, and what you are referring to a just that, extreme. Almost no one pushing for change to reduce human effect on the climate suggests a complete new way of living for everyone, as it is not necessary. Small changes add up: insulate a home, drive a car with better mpg, buy local food when possible and encourage stores to carry it, take a vacation on a plane but don’t fly so far and go coach, etc.

    • Freeland_Dave says:

      No, what he is referring to is a word called hypocrisy. For example, Al Gore telling the world that all of us need to conserve energy while wasting it on his mansion and jetting around the world to spread his “Inconvenient Lie” to the rest of the world for his personal profit. It’s akin to Nancy Pelosi telling us all to conserve when she was Speaker of the House and made twice weekly trips on a private government Air Force Aircraft from DC to San Francisco. If you can’t see that hypocrisy in their leadership of the peoples of our nation then you are truly blind in deed. Sorry but hypocrites should be ignored and actually refused the right to speak simply because they do not practice what they preach. That’s not a straw-man argument, it’s a fact.

    • Gail Combs says:

      brad hodge says: “….Almost no one pushing for change to reduce human effect on the climate suggests a complete new way of living for everyone, as it is not necessary….”
      You are either deluded or telling a deliberate lie to sooth fears.

      Here is the truth straight from the White House:

      The White House
      Office of the Press Secretary

      In light of the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030.

      I did a quicky calculation and with out carbon based energy or nuclear power to take its place, you are looking at not the 1800s but the seventeen hundreds!

      People forget that coal was very much in use in the 1800s and a lot of farm machinery pulled by horse, mule or oxen was factory made. (First Agricultural Revolution) Without coal you are back to charcoal as fuel for forges and metal implements will be very very rare. Solar panels and modern wind turbines can not be replaced using the power they generate so you are back to hydro (If the eco-nuts allow dam building) and old fashion cloth and wood wind mills. And those wind mills would soon be raided for the wood to burn.

      Worse the western high tech people of today do not have the foggiest idea of how to survive without factory made equipment. Even the Amish buy factory equipment and they are the most well adapted to an 1800s lifestyle.

      I posted my calculations on an article by David Appell and his head exploded. He tried to refute what I said but kept tripping over his tongue.

      This is what I posted back in 2011 (with the usual mangling of the URLs)
      We get all types of “Soothing” crap from the propaganda machines and economic model projections about how it really is going to be “painless”
      So Let us look at what real facts tell us.

      The average for the USA is 335.9 million BTUs per person. (Total population: 246,081,000)
      (wwwDOT) or (wwwDOT)

      In 1949, U.S. energy use per person stood at 215 million Btu. epb(DOT)

      The U.S. in 1800 had a per-capita energy consumption of about 90 million Btu. (Total population: 5,308,483) (wwwDOT)

      If the USA reduces its energy consumption by 80% it equals 45.18 million Btu. per person, given the increase in technology and hydro power, lets use the 1800 consumption level of about 90 million Btu. per person.

      What does that mean?
      The site inventors(DOT) helps us figure that out.

      Farmers made up about 90% of labor force  in 1790 and 69% of labor force in 1800. (2.6% in 1990)

      About 250-300 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail in 1830. (This is all by hand not animal power BTW) (1987 – 2-3/4 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels but that takes lots of oil.)

      1810-30 saw the transfer of “manufacturing” from the farm and home to the shop and factory. It wasn’t until the 1840′s that we saw factory made farm machinery, labor saving devices and chemical fertilizers became at all common. It was in the 1860′s that kerosene lamps became popular.

      Also up until the 1850′s dung and wood were the major source of energy. dieoff(DOT)org/page199_files/image002.gif

      In other words for the USA to use HALF the energy per person that was used in 1800 we must abandon ALL factories and 90% of the population must return to subsistence farming using animals if enough farm machinary can be produced.

      Remember in 1800 there was only 2% of the current population in the USA. Solar and Wind just are not going to produce enough power to keep us in anything but a few lights, a few wells and if we are lucky a refrigerator for the entire town. FACTORIES use a huge amount of power and that is why cotton mills and other primitive factories were built on rivers.
      Anyone who tries to tell you differently is talking baffle gab because at present less than 9% of the US labor force is in manufacturing. The USA got rid of most of its really energy intense industry like smelting the ores to make machines. The USA shipped its factories to China and I mean that literally because I knew a guy whose busines was packing up and shipping factories in New England to Israel.

      “Cut CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050???

      What do they plan to do wipe out 75% of the population to do it?

      What no one ever mentions is civilization is built on energy.
      For most of history that energy was from slaves and animals. Only with the advent of machinery did abolishing slavery actually become a viable economic alternative. Get rid of dependable energy and the labor saving machines it powers and you have to substitute human and animal energy. Unfortunately this means a sharp reduction in food production, population and miserable living conditions for all but the select few.

      It only takes a day trying to clear brush from land with loppers and a buck saw to really appreciate a tractor or bulldozer and the harsh reality of what labor saving devices really are all about.

      Here is one (greenie) paper on energy use (It under estimates the pre-industrial ag era energy use drastically) (wwwDOT)

      The above paper has Advanced Agricultural Man as 26,000 Kcal per capita (1850’s) and the technological man of 1970 in the U.S. consuming approximately 230,000 Kcal of energy per day. ~ 8.8 times as much energy consumed) Other sources have the per capita use for the USA as 333.8 million BTUs per person in 2006 before the economy crashed: (wwwDOT)

      The U.S. in 1800 had a per-capita energy consumption of about 90 million Btu. (wwwDOT)

      This is only 3.7 times as much energy consumed NOT 8.8 times If you are talking GREEN you can not use the much lower energy demand in the UK “.. at about 26 million BTU per capita in 1800, and again most of this would have been for heating and cooking. [because] The energy was largely from coal…”

      This “Advanced Agricultural Man” of the greenies is when people were using 250-300 labor-hours to produce 100 bushels of wheat from 5 acres of land with walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, and a sickle, and flail for harvesting by hand. It was not until the 1830’s that you had the reaper, threshing machine, and iron faced interchangable plow invented and the 1940s was when they were manufactured in factories. Once you have factories that energy consumption is going to increase. The change from hand power to horse power (the first American agricultural revolution) was not until the 1860s when methods of attaching animals to farm machinery was developed.

      For comparison in 1987 it only took 3 labor-hours to produce 100 bushels of wheat from 3 acres of land (Ain’t CO2 fertilization great) with tractors, 35-foot sweep disk, 30-foot drill, and a 25-foot self-propelled combine. By 1970 one American farmer was supplying over 75 people with food.

      • rishrac says:

        “The USA shipped its factories to China and I mean that literally because I knew a guy whose business was packing up and shipping factories in New England to Israel. ”

        There is or was a company on Rt 130 in Hightstown, NJ that did just that. While all those people living in other countries start thinking that the Great Satan deserves to be destroyed, they ought to look at the bag of flour that came off the dock. Most of the third world would starve. Only through the US aid program do most of them make it and some only marginally. I am definitely not in favor of returning to the stone age. One other thing, that bright green grass around your house would be gone without a gas lawnmower. Electric just doesn’t cut it. See the Black Forrest fire here in Colorado. Nobody had bothered or forgot that those little 3 foot brick walls around the homes weren’t there for decoration. It was not a royal crown fire. People in the 1800 didn’t have grass around the house because of .. fire.

        The benefits of modern society far out weigh any of the romantic ideals that some might have. There was a famous essay on the comparison between the car and horses. How much land and resources were needed for each. The car was far and away more efficient. Also, the decrease in disease from unsanitary conditions. When CAGW starts with dollar amounts, they should consider what it will cost to take us back. Of course there are a lot of people who would like to take western countries back to the 6th century.

  21. B Cole says:

    Ice was 1,000 feet thick over much of North America during the last major ice age. It came and went without man. AGW is nothing but a political scam by the left. The scam is collapsing now because the manipulated data they used was revealed. Much like THE FOREIGNERS REGIME is collapsing now based on his lies being exposed.

    • bit chilly says:

      i take issue with one point,it being the sole preserve of the left. have a look at who is making the most money out of it,you may be surprised. it is just another useful scare story to extract more money from already hard pressed taxpayers in the developed world and redistribute it to the top one percent.

      all that money going to places like china and russia has to be made up somehow for the greed is good brigade in the west,and it is the taxpayer standing the bill as usual.

    • Al D says:

      The Sahara desert was lush with green less than 11,000 years ago. Then cavemen discovered fire and burned down the joint!

  22. Spiff says:

    As I read this article I remembered that back around 1994 Rush Limbaugh was speaking about Gorbachev and stated that the communist would now co-opt environmentalism as their next vehicle to bring communist controls on the free nations of the world. I am not sure if the idea was original with him, but I find it amazing how accurate the statement was.

  23. Al D says:

    Given how much ice is spreading out from the North Pole, I fully expect the upcoming winter to be much colder than normal and so do the tax-happy leftists. That’s why they’re pushing so hard for a carbon tax. They’re not worried about something as insignificant as CO2 and methane levels. They’re worried about too many of us wising up to their “warming” hoax by next spring to foil their money-grubbing plans.

    As for snowfall, It may or may not be a snowy winter. Some areas may break records while others manage to have a little less snow than normal despite bitter cold temperatures.

  24. Al D says:

    Now that too many of us are wising up to allow the left to stick us with a carbon tax, the only alternative left is to address the real issue – air, land, and water pollution and the sizable increase in all types of pollution an exploding illegal alien population will create right here in the USA, making us the #1 polluter in the world. Nah, can’t do that with all that campaign cash coming in from rich corporations and PAC groups. Gotta perpetrate and perpetuate another hoax.

  25. Don Walk says:

    Yes, but there wasn’t any in Hawaii, Africa, S.E. Asia, Bahama’s, and the Philippines so when you average every country out the snow cover is very low – that PROVES “Global Warming”, e-r-r- I mean “Climate Change”, e-r-r-r-r I mean “Temperature Challenging” is real!

    • Freeland_Dave says:

      Since we can readily see that temperatures have dramatically changed in our Earth’s history, it’s foolish to believe that what we see is caused by mankind and isn’t just what normally goes on with our planets climate and atmosphere. Yes, climate change is real, There is no denial on that aspect. What cause it though isn’t mankind and mankind can’t really do anything at all to change it, slow it or much of anything else except to destroy it with nuclear technologies that would destroy the rest of life on the planet at the same time. Man made global climate change is nothing more than an inconvenient lie.

  26. spike396472 says:

    Global warmingcoolingchange… manmade.

  27. John Fembup says:

    Let’s hope this keeps up, and that the snowmelt next spring fills up GlenCanyon and Lake Mead.

  28. Sean says:

    The real heat starts 3 1/2 years before the return of the King!

    • Freeland_Dave says:

      Good on ya. You at least are starting to comprehend. I know and believe what you say is true. Unfortunately many others do not understand. Much work to be done, too few workmen to gather the harvest. Thanks for your comment.

  29. kitwalz says:

    Bah have you heard of freezer burn. It’s so hot it’s cold.

  30. philjourdan says:

    The earth must be disappearing. We all know that snow is a thing of the past, so part of the planet has slipped into the past.

  31. This is Al-Bore–(GORE)—I demand you re-write this article and tell everyone that GLOBAL WARMING was the reason there was soooo very much snow. Otherwise I will lose out on all of that money!!

  32. Brian D says:

    Lots of snow well south into NW Ontario. Little unusual to have that much snow so far south.

  33. busseja says:

    Harold Camping has more credibility than our scientists. At least when the world didn’t end he said he was wrong. Our scientists have the temerity to look at the data that shows them wrong and say Well 97% of us agree that we are still right. The world is wrong. They sound like the
    testimonials on the super mop commercials..

  34. mamanewton says:

    What nobody seems to understand is the hot air rises to the north pole and pushes the cold air south, thus making us believe it is actually cooling when in reality we are experiencing record warmth. The opposite is happening south of the equator where the cold air sinks thus expanding Antarctic ice sheets to record levels and pushes the warm air towards the the equatorial regions and producing record heat. It all makes sense when you apply Algorian Logic and believe in unicorns.

  35. Don Goldvarg says:

    As far as Global Warming is concerned…it is most definitely a creation of the extreme left money manipulators and control freaks of the early 21st century. Make no mistake about it WE are all in for a long term cyclical GLOBAL COOLING period, which is the consequence of normal ASTROPHYSICAL FLUCTUATIONS that have occurred many times over the earth’s history. These many cycles are caused by excentricities of our orbit around the sun, changing heat energy levels of the sun itself, cloud cover of the earth relative to the cosmic rays hitting the upper levels of our atmosphere from the solar wind, tilt changes of the earth’s axis, redistribution of heat energy in the world’s ocean and subterranean currents, volcanism, etc. that have precipitated the onset of glacial conditions that have existed on this planet over eons of time. As a former meteorologist with the U.S. weather bureau and the Armed Services air weather service, I have studied paleoclimatetology and no amount of CO2 created by humans at this stage of our global society could have ANY real significant effect on our weather. Prepare yourselves for the next period of massive glaciation and global cooling that could last potentially for thousands of years. Modern man must find a way to adapt to these changing conditions or perish.

  36. mongoos says:

    ‘In stunning testimony, under oath, before the U.S. House of Representatives, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, John Beale, a former executive of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed the EPA’s goal is to “modify the DNA of Capitalism.” Put another way, the entire “Global Warming” crusade has been a complete lie from the start — to attack the free market system —  and the people telling this lie KNEW it was a lie when they started telling it!  This former EPA executive is now on his way to jail.’ -Turner Radio Network, Jan. 22, 2014

    ‘In the United States, the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs each year as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.’ -The European Foundation, Dec 15, 2009

  37. For forecasts of the future cooling based not on useless IPCC models but on the natural 60 and 1000 year periodicities seen in the temperature record and using the neutron count and 10Be records as the best proxy for solar activity see

    • tom0mason says:

      Have bookmarked you site.
      I will not be able to comment as Google’s blogspot does not correctly recognize WordPress IDs.
      If only blog providers; WordPress, Squarespace, Blogger, blogspot, TypePad, Weebly, Tumblr, Quora, Ghost, Xanga, LiveJournal, etc., etc., would get together and allow one log-in to carry-over to all the sites and stop being such a PITA about it.
      I know that IN THEORY it is supposed to but in practice it never has on any platform (Windows, Linux, or Apple)

  38. Goraphobiacs just can’t see the solution right in front of them on their elite restaurant tables. They need to ban beer, wine, alcohol, bread, pizza and anything else that uses fermentation to create CO2. They also have to stop dead wood and plant life from rotting, and every form of living creature from digesting food. While they are at it, they mandate that there will be no more forest fires and volcanic eruptions that spew all those GHGs.

  39. Mike says:

    Don’t you love all these conservatives playing “scientist,” because they read something on a blog?It’s cute, like how we used to play cops and robbers as children. But of course we can’t trust the actual scientists, because they went to college for years and years all so they could falsify research to get money to falsify more research. What a sound theory.

    • You sound like a total moron

    • It’s not a theory, Mike. I went to college with the initial idea to be a paleoclimatologist. I had a professor of meteorology tell me exactly what you just wrote, but off the record — that I would need to falsify my research or I would not have a career. Since he showed how other research regarding the temperature record had been twisted by its proponents, at that point I exited the field and went in a different direction.

      According to you, because we are conservatives, I cannot be a scientist, and neither could my professor of meteorology. In other words, conservatism is antithetical to science. I say just the opposite: Marxism is antithetical to science, even though it has made use of science as it saw fit, to promote itself. But in the long run, it is a corrupter of science, just as it destroys much more that is useful and good.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Lysenkoism (Russian: Лысе́нковщина), or Lysenko-Michurinism was the centralized political control exercised over genetics and agriculture by Trofim Lysenko. Lysenko was the leading proponent of Michurianism during the Lenin/Stalin years. Michurin, was a proponent of Lamarckism. Lamarck an 18th century French scientist argued for a theory of evolution where evolution occurs because organisms can inherit traits which have been acquired by their ancestors.

        An example of the discredited theory is August Weismann’s experiment in the 1890s. He cut the tails off of 901 mice in 19 successive generations yet each successive generation had full-length tails. However this did not deter Trofim Lysenko from endorsing the theory since it fit in with the Marxist notion of humans eventually acquiring the traits dear to the heart of socialist/communists. Vladimir Lenin argued that as socialism is replaced by communism, the state would “wither away” as strong centralized control progressively reduces. Engels specifically stated “The state is not ‘abolished’, it withers away.”

        Sort of reminds one of the Climastrologists disinterring Arrhenius theory from the same decade.

        NOTE: unfortunately this transition to a stateless Utopia is still dear to the hearts of the defenders of Lenin. Engel and Marx. The Withering Away of the State

        • Earl P. Holt III says:

          I have a sneaking suspicion that you were educated before the 1990s: Moreover, you were educated at a first-rate college or university, and that you received very high marks.

          I have used Lysenko, myself, to illustrate “science” in the service of Marxist ideology…

        • glenp says:

          “Laws of USE and DISUSE and ACQUIRED characteristics” as I recall (Bio degree)

    • glenp says:

      What I love is all the SHIFERBRAINS LIBERAL LEFTIST ANTI AMERICAN DEM POS’s that seem to ignore 20 years of EVIDENCE of no warming

    • tom0mason says:

      Don’t you love all these scientists playing “politicians,” because they belive some dumb hypothesis formulated by a political activist? It’s cute, like how we used to play cops and robbers as children. But of course we can’t trust the actual politician, because they went to the college of hard knocks for years, all so they could over-ruled by a bunch of adgenda driven academics with no experience of what the real world is and worthless PhD due to their own dishonesty.

  40. thank GOD for global warming…just think how cold it would be without it…

  41. tlarremore says:

    “Global Warming/Climate Change”
    (religion) – A highly profitable and revenue generating human belief system constructed for the control of natural resources and population.

    • Constructed primarily to help the Communist Party USA destroy the United States of America by bankrupting it and building a Communist Dictatorship out of the ashes.

      • Well stated, Edward. Some of us have seen proof of this, but sadly, most still have not.


      • Earl P. Holt III says:

        One cannot understand the aims and purpose of the Radical Environmental Movement without understanding that when the Berlin Wall fell, communists needed “cover” for their suddenly unfashionable ideology: “Red” became “Green”…

  42. Tony says:

    I recommend we all start leaving a carbon footprint like Al Gore! What is the definition of Global Warming anyway??? I know, $$$$$$$$$$$. It’s another scam like Obamacare to screw the American people.

  43. BDPSU says:

    Obviously, this is Global Warming. We must give trillions to the UN(necessary) to somehow fight it.

    Right Libtards?

  44. IMPEACH OBAMA says:

    Lets see..would that be “Global warming” or “Bush’s fault”…

  45. Jim Lively says:

    Looks like the 97% will need to find new jobs.

    All 77 of them

  46. myother says:

    This one is easy. More snow is the result of more mosture in the atmosphere. More mosture in the atmosphere due to global warming.

    • Increased snow cover is due to cold air pushing further south. Do you think that the deep south doesn’t normally have enough humidity for snow to form?

      Have you had your IQ checked recently?

    • Frank K. says:

      “More mosture in the atmosphere due to global warming.”

      Tell that to the people living in California [heh].

      Remember folks…simplistic, phoney pseudo-scientific arguments conflating natural weather events with “global warming” is the cornerstone of modern climate science…

      • TL Thompson says:

        It makes perfect sense: More moisture in the atmosphere is due to global warming. Expanding sea ice in Antarctica (for 35 years, and counting): global warming. Receding sea ice extent in the Arctic: global warming. Horror of horrors: rebound in Arctic sea ice: global warming. Rising surface temperatures: PRIMA FACIE evidence of global warming. Stable surface temperatures for 18 years: Why are we talking about surface temperatures?

        There can be no contra-positive evidence!

        But… The tide has turned! Pay careful attention! The warmists are being let down easy.

    • glenp says:

      that HOT SNOW is a killer

  47. MorrisMinor says:

    When should I expect the Global Cooling argument to re-emerge?

  48. vince says:

    Thanks to global warming, it’s only hot snow.

  49. John Jacobson says:

    Having been a meteorologist for over 40 years, I know the limitations and inaccuracies of the computer models. The problem is that when you make a 20 year climate forecast, it takes 20 years to find out whether you are right or not. These “psuedo scientists” have been making grossly incorrect forecasts for so long, all but the koolaid drinkers know their theories and models are wrong. All you have to do is follow the money. Billions have been spent on this to no avail. When climatologists used to be real scientists, they would have admitted they were wrong and continue to advance the science. Instead they continue to propagate the lies and continue cashing their checks. Increase in Hurricanes? Really. They are at record lows. Ice cover at record highs in the Antarctic. Global cooling?

  50. Earl P. Holt III says:


    There will be a meeting of all those concerned about the issue of Global Warming on January 1st, 2015 at the North Pole. Please dress appropriately…

  51. Michael S. Gallagher says:

    For all you “global warming ” believers, I hope it happens. You will be, like you are now, and like most of the mentally handicapped, fun to watch. I am entertained by those who run around in circles screaming, “FEMA, FEMA, where are you????”.

  52. Defiant says:

    I love how less ice and snow indicate Global Warming…and how MORE ice and snow indicate Global Warming…

  53. Robert Beers says:

    Gail, very nicely stated. What is the most entertaining portion of this page are the comments from folks like Richard who have fallen for the faux science of AGW in spite of ground measurements and actual field work proving the opposite. Again, well done.

  54. If this climate warming doesn’t stop soon, we are all going to freeze to death. What a crook and bull, these so called Scientist are. They have no proof but claim it is settled science. As many know, it was settled science that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Bottom line is these global warmest are the real flat earthers.

  55. tasercrimes says:

    Um: I highly recommend you get in step with the Dear Leader ohKAY???

  56. glenp says:

    BREAK OUT THE SUVs!!!! we need some WARMING NOW!!

  57. glenp says:


  58. MedicineBowCO says:

    The recent years of below average temperatures must be the Almighty’s way of showing the politically and fashion driven “junk science establishment” to be the pernicious, greedy dumb @sses that they are.

  59. mrunpc says:

    The following is ironically from, of all places, Pravda, the former Soviet Union propaganda news organizations. It’s nearly 5 years old and seems to be pretty prophetic as to what is REALLY taking place with the climate:

    Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
    The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

    Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

    Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

    Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth’s orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.


    • Gail Combs says:

      When it comes to snow and ice the Russians have a vested interest in getting the science right.

      Rare snow in the Urals hits crop production Argiris Diamantis did a translation for Ice Age Now (Argiris is a real bloodhound when it comes to sniffing out these foreign language news stories that we never see, so a big Hat tip)
      The scary part is northern USA/Canadian ranchers are saying the same. Frost/freezing at the wrong time can make the feed poisonous to the animals.

      “The quality and energy of the feed will be far from the best.”

      Argiris Diamantis writes:

      According to Itar-Tass press agency, Ural News, the harvesting of the grain – that is not ripe yet – in the mid-Ural area is suspended by “the rather rare phenomenon” of local heavy snowfall, that fell in an area of several dozens of hectares. The quality of the grain will be far from the best.

      EKATERINBURG, October 3. Korr/TASS/George Letov.
      The first snow that fell in Artinskaya district in the west of the Sverdlovsk region, suspended harvesting of grain, said Mikhail Kopytov, minister of agriculture and food of the region. “On this morning was removed 63% of grain. How did you start in the spring of – came only to sow May 12 rainy summer, early autumn, early snow here and wait,” – he said. Heavy snow in these areas of the Middle Urals in early October – a rather rare phenomenon.

      Nevertheless, in spite of the cold and rainy summer Ural farmers managed to procure a lot of fodder – “half can be sold to neighbors”, but the quality and energy of the feed will be far from the best, the minister said.

      As explained TASS Head of Department of Agriculture and the Ministry of seed Peter Shestakov, fallen in an area of ​​several dozen hectares of “very intense, but short-lived snow is not pressed crop, but stopped out in the field harvesting.”


  60. josetoyou says:

    So, the drought in California is history????

  61. Teddy Novak says:

    Global warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.*

  62. rolandotx says:

    what do you real scientists think? is the CO2 increasing becaus ehte planet warmed slightly,or is the planet warming ever so slightly because of the CO2 increase? Which is cause and which is effect?

  63. Dougger says:

    Yes, but it’s warm and changing snow with a hint of disruption.

  64. John K says:

    A lot of snow?? Must be global……a…..b…..a…….well…………………………..ALGOR: tell us what would we a sign of global cooling.
    You friggin’ bag of caca

  65. Richard Crainum says:

    Air conditioners cause Global Warming. Have you ever felt the the air coming out of one? It’s HOT!!! And there are probably at lease 100 million of them. Do the math. Better yet, just use your imagination
    Also, the Sun. Why has no one taken up this hot topic?. I’ve heard from reliable sources that the Sun is, for lack of a better word, hot. I’m also given to understand that it may play a role in the temperature of Earth. However insignificant that role may be.
    The GW solution is therefore simple. Destroy all air conditioners, then Nuke the Sun.
    Easy-Peasy Pacific Island Asianeasy.

  66. Nick says:

    To: Richard Frascone: “Gail I love making fun of you “simpel-folk” who don’t understand science.” This from someone who doesn’t even understand English. There is no such word as “simpel.” Maybe this will help you:

    March 28, 2012
    The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
    NASA Administrator
    NASA Headquarters
    Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
    Dear Charlie,
    We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

    The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
    As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
    For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
    Thank you for considering this request.
    (Attached signatures)
    Jack Barneburg, – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
    Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
    Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
    Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
    Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
    Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
    Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
    Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
    Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
    Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
    Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
    Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
    Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
    Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
    Anita Gale
    Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
    Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
    Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
    Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
    Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
    Thomas J. Harmon
    David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
    Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
    James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
    Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
    Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
    Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
    Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
    Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
    Alex (Skip) Larsen
    Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
    Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
    Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
    Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
    Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
    Tom Ohesorge
    James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
    Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
    Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
    Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
    Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
    Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
    Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
    Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
    Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
    Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
    George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
    Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
    Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

  67. David Appell says:

    Your claim is false. Here are the data:

    For North America:
    Sept 2014: 2.75 Mkm2
    Sept 1972: 2.84 Mkm2

  68. Gail Combs says:

    Tony says: “…..You got me that I “missed” the “anomaly” word. However, I have never seen a graph that does not define a number. 0 on the graph is defined as zero square kilometers. If that is the “base line” or “average,” then somewhere in relation to the graph that should be defined….”
    You are correct the 0 anomaly should be defined on the graph and it is not. I looked all over the website Steve Goddard listed and could not find it which is why I gave up and used 10

    It is probably stuck in a computer somewhere.

  69. The Titanic is definitely starting to turn….

  70. “I don’t mind admitting when I’m wrong”

    Like I said, the ship is starting to turn!

  71. Dr. Mark H. Shapiro says:

    I’d like to point out that during the past month of September there were 459 daily high maximum temperature records tied in the U.S. and 648 daily high maximum temperature records broken in the U.S. during the same month. What does that prove about GLOBAL WARMING or CLIMATE CHANGE? Nothing, just like the record North American snow cover during the same period proves nothing about global warming or climate change. These are short-term measurements from a relatively small part of the earth’s surface. They say something about WEATHER, but nothing about CLIMATE.

  72. Mark H. Shapiro says:

    Looks like my comment was moderated out of existence. Must have been too rational for this crowd.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s