Explaining The Extreme Weather Events That Did Not Happen

MARCH 17, 2016

By Paul Homewood 



Unable to persuade the public that a slightly warmer world is a bad thing, the climate establishment has turned to peddling the myth that global warming is leading to more extreme weather.

There have been a number of studies which have attempted to connect the two. Even then, as I showed with the above AMS attempt a few months ago, most extreme events cannot be linked, and those that are claimed to be are extremely tenuous.

Of course, weather is an impossibly complex affair, and it is inevitable that some weather events may be made more likely or more intense in a warmer world. But, equally, the opposite is also true – that some events are less likely. Naturally, we never hear the absence of extreme weather analysed in this way by the likes of the AMS or Met Office.

So, I invite them to have a go at these examples:


US land falling hurricanes have been at record low levels in recent years, and it is now more than ten years since a major hurricane hit.





There has been a long term decline in both the number of tornadoes, and particularly, the frequency of stronger ones.




Droughts were much more commonplace, prolonged and severe prior to the 1970s.



Summer Heatwaves

There has been a marked absence of extreme heatwaves in recent years, and nothing approaches the run of intensely hot summers in the 1930s.



Bitter Winters

According to NOAA’s albeit highly adjusted data, extremely cold winters are a thing of the past in the US.




As with drought indicators, US rainfall has tended to be greater since the pre 1970 period.

There is no indication, however, of precipitation becoming more extreme since then. The wettest year was 1973.



Regional Precipitation Extremes

National totals can, of course, cover up regional imbalances.The NOAA chart below shows the balance of extremely wet and dry areas. As with PDSI, very dry areas are much less common, while the area of very wet weather is stable.

(NOAA’s graph is not well presented; although it says “December”, it is in fact for all months since 1895. Each bar represents a single month)



The Boulder Clean Power Plan

Posted on by

Screen Shot 2016-02-28 at 8.11.34 PM

So, what they are proposing is this :


Of course they can’t get rid of the other power plant, because this week the wind only blew for a few hours.

Screenshot 2016-02-27 at 08.52.00 AM

NCAR Foothills Lab Weather (english, weekly)

So basically what they want to do is spend huge amounts of money to destroy the environment – and accomplish essentially nothing. The climate of Boulder isn’t changing.


‘Nonsense’: Top Scientists Demolish Alarmism Behind U.N. Climate Summit

Michael Bastasch

A panel of prominent scientists debunked one of the most popular global warming arguments ahead of a major United Nations climate summit to take place in Paris later this month.

The scientists slammed policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as “nonsense,” and they criticized politicians and activists for claiming the world was on the path for catastrophic global warming.

“The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc.  — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point,” Dr. Richard Lindzen, a veteran climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celcius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all,” said Lindzen, who is also a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

President Barack Obama and his activist allies are calling for U.N. delegates to sign onto a global treaty to reduce CO2 emissions. Obama has been heavily pushing for this treaty for the past year or so, even lobbying the Chinese government to sign onto an agreement.

“Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense,” Dr. Will Happer, a physicist at Princeton University, said during the panel Thursday hosted by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation.

“They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path,” Happer argued.

Scientists and environmentalists have added urgency to the U.N. climate summit by arguing 2015 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record based on surface temperature readings. Scientists warned this month Earth has warmed 1 degree Celsius since the late 1800s.

But Lindzen and his fellow panelists said claims of the hottest year on record are “nonsense” because there’s so much uncertainty surrounding surface temperature readings — especially since scientists often make lots of adjustments to weather station readings.

“When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense,” Lindzen said. “This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree.”

“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made,” Lindzen added. “If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree.”

As the world speeds towards Paris, Republicans have ramped up efforts to stop President Obama from being able to carry out his global warming agenda and impose a U.N. treaty on Americans.

Senate Republicans have passed two resolutions opposing carbon dioxide regulations on power plants, and lawmakers introduced a resolution opposed to any U.N. agreement Obama signs onto at the Paris climate summit.

“We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” Dr. Patrick Moore, an ecologist and the co-founder of Greenpeace, said of attempts to fight global warming during Thursday’s panel.

“We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said. “CO2 has provided the basis of life for at least 3.5 billion years.”
Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/nonsense-top-scientists-demolish-alarmism-behind-u-n-climate-summit/#ixzz41PvXmpTl

Millennials Are Well-Meaning but Misguided on Energy Policy

By  February 16, 2016

A recent USA Today/Rock the Vote survey of millennials shows 80 percent of millennials support transitioning to “mostly clean” or renewable energy by 2030. Although their hearts may be in the right place, few millennials appear to realize how much energy their lifestyle actually consumes, where this energy comes from, and how much it would cost to transition to a nation that’s powered predominantly by renewables by 2030.

As a millennial myself, I’m quite familiar with this phenomenon. Many of my peers don’t understand electricity doesn’t just come from the wall; e-mail isn’t necessarily green because it isn’t printed on paper; and a lifestyle that revolves around binge-watching Netflix has a real impact on the environment.

One environmental group estimates U.S. data centers in 2013 consumed an estimated 91 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, the same as the annual output of 34 large (500-megawatt) coal-fired power plants, and estimates are these data centers will consume the equivalent of 50 coal-fired power plants by 2030.

It’s ironic the generation that will consume more energy in their lifetimes than any before them, one that uses energy-gobbling technology for virtually every aspect of their lives—including dating apps, social media, finding a taxi, and even ordering from Taco Bell—can be so oblivious of how much energy they consume and where it comes from.

Most of the millennials I’ve spoken to drastically overestimate the amount of energy generated from wind and solar power in the United States. I am often met with incredulous looks when I explain the United States generates only about 2 percent of its total energy consumption from wind and solar combined and that these two sources of power produce less energy for the nation than burning wood.

Just four sources of energy account for 89.5 percent of the total energy produced in the United States. Thirty-five percent comes from oil, 28 percent from natural gas, 18 percent from coal, and 8.5 percent from nuclear.

These forms of energy dominate the mix because they are the most affordable sources and because renewables simply aren’t ready to be used as the country’s primary power sources. Wind and solar are unreliable; they generate energy only when the wind blows or the sun shines, and we have no way of storing this energy. Think of an electric car with no battery, and you will have an idea of why our power system can’t rely on renewables.

For these reasons, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, estimates the world will still generate approximately 80 percent of its total energy from fossil fuels in 2040.

Germany and some other nations have aggressively pursued renewable energy, and they are paying a big price for it. Consumer electricity prices in Germany are approximately three times as high as prices in the United States, and wind and solar constitute only about 8.9 percent and 5.7 percent of Germany’s electricity generation, respectively.

Although renewables are unlikely to become staples for energy generation anytime soon, it’s not surprising millennials would want to transition to an economy powered mostly by clean or renewable energy; many of us grew up with our teachers telling us the world would soon run out of fossil fuels and we had to prepare for a switch to renewable energy. Those predictions were completely wrong. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, virtually guarantees decades, if not centuries, of oil and natural gas, and it has made theories of “peak oil” a thing of the past.

Surveys and polls are very susceptible to how the questions are worded. When questions offer people a presumed benefit, without discussing the costs or consequences of the policy in question, results are overwhelmingly positive. This was likely the case with this survey. If provided with all of the information, including the disadvantages, of renewables, millennials would likely be less enthusiastic about relying so heavily on renewable energy.

[Originally published at Inside Sources]

Green Electricity in Denmark, Germany, costs three times as much as US

By Joanne Nova

It’s a bit costly trying to control the weather:

“Germany has been paying over $26 billion per year for electricity that has a wholesale market value of just $5 billion (see here).”

That’s $21 billion that could have been spent on health or education that was used instead to feed the Green Machine. A few handy facts to memorize. The cost of electricity per kilowatt-hour:

Denmark, 42c; Germany 40c, and the USA, 12.5c. ( — Forbes)

Wind and solar power supplies 28% of electricity in Germany (is it really that high?) This is what Australia is aiming for?

Industrial energy prices, electricity, germany, US, UK

Europe is a “green energy” basket case. Washington Post

“Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good.”Der Spiegel

Europe’s Energy and Electricity Policies are a Bad Model, Jude Clement, Forbes

“The direct loss of industry because of higher cost electricity is particularly destructive. Manufacturing jobs are very high-paying and the manufacturing business greatly advances nations with a massive “multiplier effect,” where 1 new manufacturing job can create as many as 6 or 7 across the overall economy.

While the manufacturing sector in the EU now employs about 30 million persons directly, down from 37 million 10 years ago, the real devastation is far worse because manufacturing is a building block of a strong economy.”

German Handelsblatt: German Households Getting Crushed By Green Energies To The Tune Of 28 Billion Annually!

Here’s one for the stubborn clingers of green energies like wind and sun. German financial daily Handelsblatt here writes about the harsh reality of these so-called clean, free-for-the-taking energies.

In the earlier days of green energy (some 10 or so years ago, then German Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin famously claimed that the cost of wind and solar energy would be easily affordable – equivalent to no more than one scoop of ice cream a month. Environmentalists like David Suzuki once said in a video, “Hey man, it’s for free!” Nothing could be further than the truth.

The Handelsblatt concedes the real (painful) costs of green energy. It writes:

The costs of the Energiewende [transition to renewable energies] for power cosumers in Germany is now running at 28 billion euros annually. A household with a power consumption of 3500 kilowatt-hours annually is thus paying 270 euros a year for implementing the Energiewende.”

That’s the result Germany’s Institute for Economy (IW) calculated on behalf of the Handelsblatt. North American readers should keep in mind that their household energy needs typically run two or even three times higher than the very conservative figure of 3500 kilowatt-hours a year used by the Handelsblatt, this due in large part to harsher winters and hotter summers.

Website The Irish Energy Blog here presents a chart depicting electricity cost as a function of installed sun and wind capacity for all European countries:


Chart source: irishenergyblog, by BP2015 and Eurostat

The relationship is totally clear: The higher the share of wind and solar power in the power generation, the higher the electricity prices for consumers.

The Handelsblatt cites one industry group representative, Carsten Linnemann: “The consequences of the Energiewende are developing into a dangerous competition factor because it is frightening investors and is costing jobs.”

There’s another sinister side to Germany’s careening Energiewende, the Handelsblatt writes. Because wind and solar power are given the right of way to the power grid over conventional fossil fuel generated power, the conventional plants are forced to run part-time at inefficient levels, which makes them unprofitable. The Handelsblatt continues:

A total of 57 conventional power plants are to be shut down, reports Bild newspaper on Monday, citing figures from the German Power Regulatory Board. That is nine more than at the start of the year. The reason, according to the plant operators, is the lack of profitability due to the Energiewende.”

Of course there will be some out there who will obstinately keep their heads stuck in the sand, and wish all of this wasn’t true.

– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/29/german-handelsblatt-german-households-getting-crushed-by-green-energies-to-the-tune-of-28-billion-annually/#sthash.lCiPuo1n.dpuf


NOTE: In the United States, the Northeast States and California have the highest electricity rates. Regulatory assault on fossil fuels by the EPA would cause rates to double in the next few decades, and drive up the cost of all energy for heating and transportation.

Screen Shot 2016-02-11 at 7.59.45 AM



A groundhog died a year ago November near by back steps. It was followed by the coldest January to February (and snowiest) on record since 1895 here in the northeast and southeast Canada. Yes official government sources in both countries forecast a warm winter.

Sunrise's Swansong

Sad news has come from Canada. The cute and cuddly woodchuck “Winnipeg Willow” expired early on Saturday, January 30. Groundhog Day willow-groundhog

Unconfirmed reports state that Winnipeg Willow was seen drinking heavily on Friday night, and was heard screaming, “I can’t take it any more, I tell you! I’m vermin! I break horses legs with my holes, and can demolish an entire vegetable garden’s worth of spring seedlings in one night! My Momma didn’t raise me to be no teddy bear! But for five years I’ve had to put up with this @%$#&^%,  @#(**&  @#$$^%. I can’t take it! Don’t they know the only time a woodchuck is ever good is in a stew?”

The caretaker could not be reached for comment.

The news that the groundhog died apparently set off panic in Canada’s large community of Global  Warming Alarmists, who have stampeded to the southern border, making it hard for our reporter…

View original post 141 more words

‘Climate change’ lawyers quietly lay groundwork for EPA takeover of U.S. energy

By Michael Bashtach

Environmentalist lawyers have been pushing a legal theory that would give the Environmental Protection Agency cover to regulate every facet of state energy policy — effectively eliminating states’ authority to craft their own regulations.

“Buried in the Clean Air Act is an extremely powerful mechanism that effectively gives EPA carte blanche to tell states to make drastic cuts to their emissions,” Brian Potts, a partner at the law firm Foley & Lardner wrote in Politico Monday.

“This provision, which can now be used thanks to the completion of the Paris climate deal, raises important questions about national sovereignty and states’ rights — questions that Republicans would undoubtedly use to try and kill such a proposal,” Potts wrote. “But the benefits of using this mechanism dwarf those concerns.”

Potts is referring to Section 115 of the Clean Air Act. Liberal legal scholars argue the Paris global warming treaty has triggered this little-known provision of federal law, and now the EPA can launch a full takeover of states’ environmental regulatory agendas.

Section 115 of the Clean Air Act provides an untapped but potent opportunity for achieving many of the United States’ long-term climate change goals,” 13 liberal legal experts wrote in a January brief published by the Institute for Policy Integrity.

Several lawyers working for various environmental law groups want the EPA to use this provision to implement a nationwide cap-and-trade system. Ever since the defeat of cap-and-trade in Congress in 2010, environmentalists have been looking for legal loopholes for the EPA to use to unilaterally impose cap-and-trade on the U.S.economy.

“EPA and the states could implement a Section 115 regime with less difficulty than the current … approach,” the lawyers wrote, “and could instead combine multiple sectors and source types in a single rulemaking that could establish a nationwide, market-based emissions reduction program.”

‘We Saw This Coming’

Attorney Chris Horner isn’t surprised by the arguments coming from these environmental law groups. Horner says President Barack Obama has always sought to use the United Nations agreement in Paris to further his regulatory agenda.

“As we have made plain all along to any who cared to listen, the administration’s intention behind agreeing to the Paris deal was quite transparently to create an argument and a trap for successive congresses and administrations to impose ever-tighter EPA energy rationing rules in the name of catastrophic man-made global warming,” Horner, an attorney with the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Horner has led the charge against the EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan, filing lawsuits and uncovering emails showing the agency’s cozy relationship with environmental activists hoping to push more regulations on businesses. Now, Horner has turned his attention to uncovering the legal implications of Obama’s agreeing to cut U.S. emissions.

“Unlike previous global warming treaties like Kyoto, which had a finite life, Paris — which obviously a treaty on its face — includes an evergreen provision promising new rules every five years,” Horner said, adding the Obama administration is already using the Paris agreement as legal precedent to block challenges by states to EPA rules.

“Going forward, expect those arguments in court and in the media echo chamber to help shield EPA’s rules, and to compel more rules every five years,” Horner said. “‘We’ve promised the world!’ Except, only Obama promised them.”

The Path To EPA Rule

Legal scholars say there are two conditions that need to be satisfied before the EPA can take over state regulatory decisions.

First, EPA needs findings from an international agency showing American pollution is harming public health in other countries. Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, has been listed as a pollutant by the EPA.

“The many reports put out by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the past few decades meet this requirement,” Potts argued. “The U.S. is one of the top greenhouse gas emitters in the world, and its pollution undoubtedly endangers public health and welfare in many other countries.”

Next, EPA must show a foreign country that’s harmed by U.S. emissions has given America “essentially the same rights with respect to the prevention … of air pollution occurring in that country,” according to Potts. This is where the recent United Nations agreement comes into play.

“The Paris agreement satisfies this reciprocity requirement because there are now nearly 190 countries planning to reduce their emissions, at least in part, to protect one another’s health and welfare,” Potts wrote.

Potts even argued the fact that the Paris agreement isn’t legally-binding doesn’t matter. In his words, “nothing in Section 115 requires such enforceability.”

But the Paris agreement can still be derailed by the Senate, even though it’s not seen as a traditional treaty. The Senate can still assert its constitutional power over treaties to derail the agreement before Obama signs it.

“It is the complete failure by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to do its job, choosing instead by inaction to cede its shared constitutional role in the treaty process to be one that exists at the pleasure of the president,” Horner said. “Now it is time for others to take over.”

“If the Senate as a whole does not provide its Art. II ‘advice’ — that Paris requires ‘consent’ to mean anything to anyone — prior to the president’s planned “Mother Earth Day” signature, we might as well disband the committee and agree with Sec. Kerry that the treaty process is dead, that binding us into perpetual, unpopular schemes is now a unilateral function of the executive,” he added.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/01/climate-change-lawyers-quietly-lay-groundwork-for-epa-takeover-of-us-energy-sector/#ixzz3zIWZMLIB

Recap of the Historic El Nino Mega storm

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow


NASA Satellite shows clouds off the coast and heavy snow on land

Often in El Ninos, the winter gets off to a gentle start. December was that including record warm Christmas day. El Ninos like this one turn mean instead of green starting in late January, especially in the Mid Atlantic states.

Remember last year in a weaker El Nino, the green mild start ended abruptly with a big snow the last week of the month and 100 inches fell in the following 39 days. February was the coldest and snowiest on record here. January to March was the coldest ever for the northeast states since records began in 1895 according to NOAA. It followed what had been the 11th coldest winter in the northeast and 2nd coldest March on record here in this part of New England.

This year, arctic air invaded the central and east last week and met up with a classic El Nino storm moving through the south. Snow and ice developed in Arkansas east to Georgia and then the storm turned north. 36 hours of heavy snows set all time records in places. In most cities, more snow fell in one storm than usually occur in the entire season.

Central Park NYC recorded 26.8“, 2nd behind 26.9” in 2006. JFK airport had a record 30.5 inches. Philadelphia reported 22.4″, which was the 6th heaviest in a two-day period in records back to the 1870s.

Screen Shot 2016-01-31 at 5.39.42 AM

In the DC area, Reagan Airport had an unofficial (the snow board and ruler was lost in the snow) 19.4″ inches. second most behind the Knickerbocker storm of 1922 (which collapsed the Knickerbocker theatre).


Inside of the Knickerbocker Theatre after the collapse

The White House had 22 inches. Baltimore had 29.2″ the most ever for a single storm and Dulles had 29.3

The Wall Street Journal estimated the storm might produce $16Billion in lost output to the economy.

Predictably, there is talk this is the result of climate change, formerly known as global warming. They forget the UN, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) (Environmentalists) that now control most universities in the northeast and NOAA in their reports for the EPA had all predicted snow are becoming increasingly rare in the major metropolitan areas. See this fact check by 14 PhD U.S and Canadian scientists on the UCS claims.

Instead, the major cities have been blitzed with heavy snows last few decades, especially the last 10 years. NOAA tracks major metropolitan snow events in the east since the 1950s. The last decade through last winter has amazed with 25 high impact storms (we obviously added a new one this year…and more are likely to follow).



The correlation between heavy snow winters and colder than normal temperatures is very high.

This December was warm and SNOWLESS. It turned much colder this month and the mega storm followed. In many El Ninos, the snows have a very sharp northern edge and indeed we had no snow even as areas to the south were hit hard. That may happen a few times but chances are we will see one or two events that impact us too.

But aren’t we dealing with the warmest year ever for the earth? No both surface based data and satellites showed no warming for over 18 years. This inconvenient fact sent scientists scurrying into panels at the annual professional society meetings the last two years, trying to explain why. If their theories fail, the $10s of billions in grant money could dry up. Though we have shown in peer review papers how natural variations in the oceans, solar and volcanic activity can explain all the bumps and changes the last 120 years, they don’t want to open up that Pandora’s box.

The solution instead was to have NOAA and NASA adjust the surface data they control, by adjusting old years colder.


They then called into question the independently derived satellite global temperatures, which both NOAA and NASA a decade ago said clearly were the most trustworthy. That is because the satellite and weather balloon data were exposing their models’ and theory’s obvious failures and their politically driven adjustments to land surface data.


Why don’t we hear that in the media? Environmental reporters in the media have an agenda, and their Society of Environmental Journalism even has a handbook that tells them to not tell you the whole story and how to attack and discredit any scientists who don’t agree with their view. It is a primer on global warming advocacy journalism.

Having been an environmentalist and conservationist myself, I attended their annual meeting in 2007 and was appalled at what I heard and saw. Dr. Patrick Moore, Ph.D ecologist and co-founder of Greenpeace reacted the same way to radical activists that hijacked his organization. He left the organization. See a brief video here by Patrick Moore https://youtu.be/RkdbSxyXftc. Nobel laureate Ivar Giaeve presents here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

At Weatherbell, our 4300 clients include weather enthusiasts, energy and agriculture traders, winter weather related businesses, retail and transportation pay us to give them accurate short and long-term forecasts and don’t care what we believe about climate or politics (which these days are intertwined). Eisenhower warned about the risk of this kind of political control over science in his farewell address to the nation remembered for his military industrial complex concerns:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

We at Weatherbell correctly warned the 2013/14 winter would be historic near the Great Lakes 7 months in advance when the government forecasts even at the end of November were for a warm winter. Last year we warned the coldest and snowiest weather would shift to the northeast, where again the government forecast warmth. Mild weather will give way to cold again next week. We don’t expect a repeat of last year for extreme snow or cold here in the northeast, but more real winter is likely to return especially to our south.

Hayhoe : Northeast Winters Becoming Less Snowy

Posted on by

When Katharine Hayhoe isn’t lying about Texas drought, she is busy lying about snow in the Northeast.

Screenshot 2016-01-23 at 11.06.24 AM-down


Mayors stupid enough to listen to Katharine Hayhoe are likely to end up unemployed.

Screenshot 2016-01-23 at 11.19.58 AM

And how is her Texas drought working out?

Screenshot 2016-01-23 at 11.15.09 AM


Colder Winters Mean More Snow

To anyone with a higher IQ than a turnip, it should be obvious that snow is associated with cold. But Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth apparently don’t.

Colder winters in New York tend to have more snow. Warmer winters tend to have less snow. All ten of New York’s snowiest winters had below normal or normal temperatures.

Screenshot 2016-01-23 at 09.52.17 AM



There has been no decline in winter snows in winter but a dramatic increase in the number of high impact snowstorms. Of course, the warmists are trying to blame more snow now on global warming because warm air causes more moisture.

Climate Fables vs. Climate Facts

 #1) “Weather turning more extreme?   On the contrary, 2012/13/14 saw tornadoes dwindling, 2014 fewest-ever (annals from 1950), 2013 sank to fewest Atlantic hurricanes since 1983 (http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/27/2013-shatters-the-record-for-fewest-tornadoes-15-lower-than-previous-record/ & http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#3). By contrast, past extremes include 1888, when NY City had a 2-foot blizzard (March) and a longest-ever 14-day heat wave (June) (http://www.examiner.com/article/weather-history-june-26-record-temps-storms-tornadoes-wind-snow-floods), 1900 (Sept.), when a hurricane destroyed Galveston, Texas, killing 8,000 – the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, 1908 (Feb.), when Indian Lake (in NY’s Adirondack Mts.) – then as now free of Urban Heat Island asphalt, cars & tall buildings – plunged to its so far coldest -42F/-41.1C, 1911 (July), when Indian Lake soared to its so far hottest 103F/39.4C…while Painter, Wyoming crashed to a U.S. lowest-ever-in-July 10F/-12.2C, as well as 1913, when Death Valley, California sizzled to a world-record 134F/56.7C (http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2012/10/hottest-place-earth-hint-not-libya/).

#2) “Polar ice shrinking?   Arctic ice rebounded in 2013 to ~160% of the cyclical low hit in 2012 as a result of the mostly warm phase of the Atlantic’s 15-20-year cycle, due to turn predominantly cold by ~ 2020. Antarctic ice keeps setting expansion records, as 99% of Antarctica (minus volcanic Palmer Peninsula) has for 30-plus years been chilling down, currently assisted by the Pacific, which in 2007 entered the cool phase of its 25-30-year cycle (Pacific = 167% Atlantic’s size).

In1912 explorer Mawson found Antarctic Commonwealth Bay ice-free (http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=k-9yJ6-6aEs). Antarctic ice has since grown massively…so Christmas Eve 2013 (Antarctic summer) a ship sent to showcase “disappearing” ice got ice-bound (below) in Commonwealth Bay


(http://www.barrelstrength.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ait_mawson.jpg http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/global-warming-activists-wanted-to-prove-sea-ice-was-melting-but-became-trapped-by-an-inconvenient-truth/story-fni0cwl5-1226793048790)…and even rescue icebreakers were trapped (http://rt.com/news/rescue-icebreakers-antarctic-us-195/).

#3) “Snows diminishing?  No: We’ve already had more East Coast snowstorms this decade (2010’s) than in any before (annals since 1950’s), 4 of the 5 snowiest winters for the Northern Hemisphere hit from 2007/8 through 2013/14, 2012 saw first snow in 112 years freak Egypt’s camels (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cairo-snow-egyptian-capital-sees-2923418), 2013 had first-ever May snow down even to Arkansas (latitude of North African coast), in 2014 Japan doubled its old heaviest-ever (http://www.euronews.com/nocomment/2014/02/17/japan-hit-by-heavy-snowstorms/)(http://www.weather.com/news/snow-japan-snarls-traffic-deaths-20140216), Iran got its worst in 50 years (http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/04/worst-snowstorm-for-half-a-century-hits-northern-iran), on 9/11/2014 Rapid City, S.Dakota shov(el)ed 2 days forward its 1970 earliest-ever snow, Boston’s 110.6” for 2014/15 tops all [annals fr. 1871]). 2014/15’s New England blitz may have been worst since 1717 when folks could leave home only from 2nd floor lee side, implying depths up to 8′ or more. Feb. 2015 students were jumping from 2nd-floor windows into deep snow.” (Weatherbell.com)

#4)   “U.S. & world warming”?   No, National Weather Service (NWS) confirms: Since 1994 Continental U.S. is trending colder in all climatic regions!   Boston’s 2015 Feb. was 2nd-coldest since 1871, Buffalo’s, Cleveland’s & Chicago’s were coldest-ever since 1884, ’71 & ’72. At Saranac Lake, Feb. & March have dished ~43% & ~68% of new cold records since just year 2000! Fewer U.S. heat records set since the 1930’s: 39 pre-1960, just 11 post-1960, but the ’30’s set 23 of our 50 state all-time-highs!   Midwest 90F+ heat is down for ~120 yrs and hit all-time low in 2014 (Weatherbell.com 07/25/2014), all the while CO-2 has climbed and thus bared its irrelevance:


NWS books still flaunt a phantom Tucson, AZ (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/twc/) 1990 “all-time high” of 117F/47.2C…which the NY Times revealed as artifact of a malfunctioning thermometer (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/18/us/in-tucson-it-s-not-the-heat-it-s-the-thermometers.html): a case of Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” data-cooking.

Since the 1940’s, the U.S. has had more cold than heat records, as on Jan. 16, 2009: That day, an Arctic invasion set new all-time-lows in Maine (-50F/-45.6 vs. 1925’s -48F/-44.4C), reported by U.S. Geodetic Survey, then accepted by NWS, and in Illinois (-37F/-38.3C vs. 1999’s -36F/-37.8C), notched on an airport instrument certified just the day before…yet nixed by NWS, trashing science to spare an Illinoisian embarrassment on the eve of his Inauguration.

During an Alaska-wide 2012 record cold wave, a Jim River, AK observer’s battle-tested Vantage Pro2, rated to at least -40/F/C, gamely soldiered on in fast-plunging temps until at 6:34 p.m., with 14 sunless hours to go, its sensor surrendered at -79F/-60.6C. NWS nixed this cold record, too, dissed the thermometer as “not rated for temperature colder than 40 below”…yet its own official instrument at Prospect Creek, site of the 1971 U.S. all-time-low of -80F/-61.1C and just 0.9 miles from Jim River, is also rated to just -40F (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/30/bitter-cold-records-broken-in-alaska-all-time-coldest-record-nearly-broken-but-murphys-law-intervenes/). What justifies NWS use of taxpayer $$ for equipment sure to ensure Prospect Creek will never “officially” break the old -80F record?

Overseas, the events described in #3 above as well as, for example, Germany’s National Weather Service confirm temperatures are heading down.