No sign of global warming as US shivers

Have you noticed?

It is now difficult to find an up to date graph of temperature changes around the world.

Every man and his dog were publishing them when they were rising  but nearly 20 years of a flat line the supply has dried up.

Now we get regular reports in MSM of record highs – “record high in Timbuktu for July” or similar.  Our media lap it up, all proof of the coming ‘climageddon’.

But did you see the information below?  No?  Strange.  No bias.  Just pig ignorance. Or willing subterfuge to hide record lows on the part of a complicit media.

Record setting cold and snow, not global warming, became the norm in November 2014. According to Ice Age Now: 4,856 locations in the U.S. set daily record low-high temperatures in November and another 4,121 saw record lows at least one day in November. For the month as a whole, 94 locations set a new monthly record low and 1,435 locations set an average record low-high temperature for the month as a whole. Indeed, for the year-to-date, nearly 28,000 locations saw record lows during 2014, and another 19,500, locations set record low-daily-highs.   

The Weather Channel reported cities across the U.S. experiencing record daily low temperatures for November, including: Casper, Wyoming: -27 (Nov. 12) and -26 (Nov. 13); Redmond, Oregon: 17 (Nov. 15) and -19 (Nov. 16) each was colder than previous record of -14 (Nov. 15, 1955); Joplin, Missouri: 6 (Nov. 18) bested previous record of 7 (Nov. 29, 1976)

And some cities had record low November streaks: Dallas/Ft. Worth: Six straight days of highs of 45 degrees or colder (Nov. 12-17); and Chicago: 180 straight hours below freezing (late on Nov. 11 until late morning Nov. 19)

The record cold brought with it record breaking ice and snow for many locations in the U.S. For instance, ice brought the earliest end to navigation on the Upper Mississippi River near the Twin Cities according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Blairsville, Georgia received its earliest snow on record on Nov. 1; 0.5 to 2 inches. The previous earliest snow was Nov. 10, 1968 and St. Cloud, Minnesota, received its record heaviest November calendar day snow (13.2 inches on Nov. 10). Gile, Wisconsin got hit with 50.1 inches of snow over a four-day period from Nov. 10-14. This awaits certification as a Wisconsin state snowstorm record.

Areas along the great lakes were especially hard hit by snow with Buffalo Niagara International Airport reporting 88 inches of snow (over 7 feet) from Nov. 17-21. Cities chalking up their snowiest Novembers on record in 2014 include: Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan: 65.4 inches (old record was 46.8 inches in 1989); Rhinelander, Wisconsin: 32.4 inches (old record was 21.5 inches in 1957) and Bangor, Maine: 25.9 inches (old record was 24.6 inches in 1962.

For the U.S. as a whole, Rutgers University Global Snow Lab reports, North America snow cover reached a record extent for mid-November (15.35 million square kilometers), crushing the old record from 1985 by over 2 million square kilometers.


– Heartland Institute



THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • timemagazine

    I am sure the greens and their lame MSM friends will come up with an ” intelegient” explanation for this.

    • JKV

      Well I’m sure they’ll come up with an explanation but don’t count on it being intelligent.

    • Mythrandir

      There is a Scientific explanation – Winter.

  • Disinfectant

    Cold Spring and early Summer in the South Island.
    When it does hit a high as forecast it only lasts about half an hour.

  • cows4me

    The crooks, scam artists and the UN will have to open an office in Death Valley, it’s nice and hot there. They can issue press releases about the killing heat till the cows come home.

  • oldmanNZ

    I always maintained, that, we could have been worst off if we did not increase our CO2.
    Lower CO2 means:-
    Colder weather (if its not cold enough).
    Lower production of food, from vegetables to grass for cows and seaweed for polar bears.
    Higher house price due to low timber supply.

  • Benoni

    Despite the record cold in the U.S.A. it was still a warm month globally as measured by average temperature of the lower atmosphere recorded by satellite. It is interesting that politicians insist on using the thermometer temperatures measured at ground level rather than the accurate and reliable satellite measurements. As time goes on the older ground level thermometer temperatures are get adjusted downward to account for various errors in the record. If it was colder in previous times then it the temperature must have risen to get to our present “warmer” state.

    • phronesis

      It’s an interesting data set and it doesn’t really support the AGW hypothesis. The pre 98 data trend appears stable around about -0.2 and the post 98 data is stable around +0.2. It would appear that the switch in the El Nino cycle in 98 is entirely responsible for recent increases in temperature and there is no reason to believe that the cycle will not reverse.

      • Bob D

        Quite right, we are currently experiencing El Nino conditions, so we expect to have elevated temperatures temporarily.
        Nevertheless, the last two decades show very low warming (less than 0.1°C), despite all predictions that we should by now be seeing very obvious warming (around 0.22°C/decade and accelerating).
        The models were wrong, which is not surprising, since they use climate sensitivity values that were always too high.
        To all alarmists: Please note that even James Hansen, in his seminal papers from 1988 onwards, acknowledges that true climate sensitivity is UNKNOWN, and is simply a “best” guess.
        For “best”, read “most alarming”.

      • Benoni

        There is little increase in temperature after 2002 while a steady increase in CO2 concentration. I suspect that if we get a small temperature increase in the atmosphere then we get an increase in water in the atmosphere (another greenhouse gas) which leads to increased cloud cover which decreases direct radiation from the sun onto the earth. The influence of clouds in the economy of global temperature is uncalculated and a hugely influential unknown.

        • Mythrandir

          You can formulate a trend of statistical significance from 2002. You need 30+ years. Otherwise if you do the math you find the std dev is larger than the slope, which is meaningless. It’s like trying to argue that American’s aren’t getting fatter because you
          measured 12 of them as they walked into a room and found a flat trend.

          • Benoni

            Yes more data over a longer time is always better. But there are other ways to visualise the trend than standard deviation. The trailing average as shown on the graph smooths out the data and shows clearly a steady rise in temperature anomaly from 1979 to 2001 and a horizontal trend from 2002 to 2014. In summary the global warming panickers correlated the increase in CO2 and the temperature between 1979 and 2001 and predicted massive global catastrophe. They have continued to predict massive global catastrophe from 2002 to 2014 even though the temperature has not risen in those 12 years and the simple linked increase of CO2 and temperature rise has been disproven. Global warming panickers are and were wrong ! !

  • JustanObserver

    … “Hey, let’s all go stick our heads in the sand and ignore the truth aye … That way our rear-ends are positioned for appropriate action”

  • Just a thought….

    At least now that ” Peak oil ” is no longer a concern we will have plenty of oil to burn to keep us warm as we : SHIVER ” our way through ” Global warming “

  • Ben

    No sign of global warming in Wellington either. Temperature have been well below average for last month. I would like to know where I can go for a bit of warming.

    • Whitey

      Definitely no sign of global warming here. An ice age, maybe…

  • Horseboy

    To be fair the concept of global warming is not simply an increase in temperatures. Given the way the climate and weather systems work there are extremes at both ends. For instance there is a reduction of sea ice in the Arctic while also being an increase in the Antarctic.

    But again the argument for better energy resources is hijacked by greenies who can barely explain simple scientific ideas and instead rely on the fear of an apocalypse to attempt to bring change.

    We should invest and look to use cleaner energy sources not because of the fear our world will end but because it makes environmental and economic sense in the long term.

    • Bob D

      “To be fair the concept of global warming is not simply an increase in temperatures.”
      I’m sorry I don’t get that. All IPCC AR documents relate to increases in global tropospheric mean air temperatures. Take away steady temperature increase, and AGW ceases to exist.
      Perhaps you mean that there are folk who want to profit from economically unsustainable energy sources, and to do that they need to mandate that those sources receive preferential treatment, but that’s not global warming.

      • Horseboy

        Yeah mean air temperatures may increase but that doesn’t mean that there can’t be record cold snaps in certain areas? I guess what I meant to say is that while mean temperatures increases may exist (natural or otherwise) there may be regional effects of this change not as simple as unusually warm winter, it could result in a colder one.

        • Bob D

          Yes, then I agree, a cold snap in one place doesn’t mean the global average is lower. In fact, this past month is a good example of that.

    • Except there hasn’t been a reduction in sea since in the Arctic…and the predicted ice free Arctic in 2012 is more than two years overdue.

      • Horseboy

        Does this not show sea ice has reduced by about 2mil square km’s since 1979?

        • Will Travers

          That graph is incredibly ‘perfect’ with all the 80s to late 90s above the average and all after that below average! I would like further information or a drill down on the data. Any data that is too good to be true usually is.

        • Bob D

          The Arctic sea ice has decreased, yes, but it’s interesting that the original IPCC Arctic sea ice chart showed that 1979 was a high point. It’s not surprising it’s come down from there.

          Now, of course, that pre-1979 bit is never mentioned.

      • Mythrandir

        Nope. That was a projection made by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski and reported by Jonathan Amos, and a projection not accepted by the scientific community.

  • xennex

    Minimum and maximum atmospheric temperatures are not a good indication
    of global average temperatures. It’s been pointed out many times over
    the years.

    An organization funded by oil and gas companies is probably not the unbiased source you were looking for.

    • phronesis

      Part of the problem with AGW is the ludicrous belief that there is, or could be, an unbiased source.

      • MoggieManiac

        Or the ludicrous belief that humans can actually do something to alter how the earth responds to the sun’s influence, or the sun’s reaction to the source at the centre of our galaxy.

      • Mythrandir

        My unbiased source of information is the science of radiative transfer, atmospheric science, and measurements of the spectra of CO2. All tell me that CO2 must warm the earth. Game over.

        • Benoni

          Exactly how much does the science of radiative transfer say that the CO2 increase will directly increase the temperature by? Is it not a tiny amount which is theorised to be “amplified ” by incredibly high “climate sensitivity”. The flat lining of the satellite temperature record since 2002 during a continuing CO2 increase suggests very low or no “climate sensitivity”

          • Mythrandir

            Without a greenhouse effect, the earth’s average night time temperature would be close to -273’C

            Instead it is closer to 13’C so the difference is almost +300’C

            So far an increase in CO2 by over 40% has increased global temperatures by about 0.75’C, so the scale of the temperature change is about .75/300 or about 0.25% of the total temperature.

            And yes the effects of CO2 are amplified by water vapour and then from the long term effects of a warmer ocean on surface temperatures.

            The climate sensitivity is about 3’C per doubling of CO2, and the temperature will increase by the same amount per doubling. So if 400ppm caused 3’C warming then 800ppm would cause 6’C warming, 1600ppm 9’C warming, 3200ppm 12’C etc, etc.

          • Bob D

            Wow, you couldn’t have got this more wrong.

            Without a greenhouse effect, the temperature would be 255K, or -18°C, not -273°C. The difference is 33°C, not 300°C.

            Since you got the first part wrong, the other calculations are rubbish.

            The effects of CO2 are postulated to be amplified by water vapour, but this is not happening, as shown by the absence of the hot spot above the tropics.

            Your doubling calculations are just confused. It’s the DIFFERENCES that you use for doubling. You can’t say 400ppmv causes 3°C, since 400ppmv is the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere right now.

            If you double the 400ppmv to 800ppmv, then you might in theory get 3°C, if the climate sensitivity guesses are right. But so far they have been proven to be way too high.

    • Doc45

      How right you are. I don’t know why the climate alarmists keep quoting new highs all the time.

      As to Heartland funding the Sierra Club received $25 million from Chesapeake Energy, a natural gas company; the National Academy of Sciences is getting $350 million from BP, the oil company; and Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, has received more money from oil companies to support his annual Delhi Sustainable Development Summit than Heartland has raised from them in all 30 years of its existence. So… should we not believe the Sierra Club, the NAS, or the IPCC?”

    • JKV

      No. Wrong. A good indication of GLOBAL temperatures come from the RSS (Remote Sensing System) satellite temperature record.
      The hiatus period of 18 years 2 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS and still show a sub-zero trend. The correlation between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures has been utterly discredited. The corrupt so-called ‘climate’ scientists knew some time ago that their models were wrong. Remember the ‘hide the decline’ emails from the Univ. of East Anglia? That is why the name of the scam was changed from Global Warming to Climate Change.

      • Mythrandir

        RSS does not measure surface temperatures but does show a strong increase in atmospheric temperature…

        • JKV

          From your graph above, you’ve gone from -.6 deg in 1985 to .2 deg in 2011. My biggest concern is the .7 deg in 1998 when we actually had nice weather. By the way, are these figures seasonally adjusted (Arima 13)? Are you not concerned about the cooling since 1998? This looks to me like the infamous hockey stick Michael Mann thing. Utterly discredited. Good luck with that. He has an upcoming lawsuit with the magnificent Mark Steyn. And he is going to lose. You Climate Mullahs are finished – it is just so sad that the rest of us have to pay for this scam. The saddest thing is the poorest in our society pay for this garbage with their lives. Over 30,000 elderly people died in fuel poverty last winter. But 30,000 people not breathing out CO2 is a good idea?

          • JKV

            Oh and by the way, that was 30,000 people in the Uk alone. You should be utterly ashamed.

          • Mythrandir

            The irony of you attacking a graph directly linked from Denialist Roy Spencer’s blog it quite amusing.
            In any case….

            Your biggest concern is what is the least concern. The .7 deg anomaly in 1998 is just noise (strong “el nino”)

            “Are you not concerned about the cooling since 1998?”

            There is no statistically significant trend since 1998. The time span is too short.

            The rest of your post is just gibberish, confusion and incoherence.

      • Mythrandir

        “Remember the ‘hide the decline’ emails from the Univ. of East Anglia?” – JKV

        Yes. The ‘decline’ was in reconstructed temperatures from tree
        rings in late 20th century. Real temperature measurements showed a rise. All it meant is that at least some of the tree ring data used for paleoclimate reconstructions is unreliable. Many other methods of paleoclimate reconstruction (ice sheets, boreholes, lake sediments, etc. and so on) have been employed since, and they mostly, and independently, converge on a “hockey stick”.

        • iflyjetzzz

          How’s Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph working out? Hint: it isn’t. Yet, AGW cultists STILL view him as a credible scientist. LOL!

          • Mythrandir

            It’s working out very well. Since Mann’s original hockey stick there are now dozens of hockey sticks in the scientific climate change literature, all based on different data sets, from different scientists, and all supporting each other.

          • Bob D

            Actually no. Read “The Hockey Stick Illusion” – this point is well covered there, it requires too much detail to go into in a blog comment.

        • JKV

          If the globe is warming, why is it so cold everywhere? Could it be anything to do with the sun? Have you ever heard of the seasons? You know, when the earth tilts away from the sun and it causes temperature variations far greater than the so-called Bam-Key-Sun talking about a 2 degree variation? This is science looking for funding gone mad. The sun is the major driver of climate, not CO2.

          • Mythrandir

            “If the globe is warming, why is it so cold everywhere?”

            It’s cold where it’s winter, and it’s warm where it’s summer. Hope that helps.

            “Could it be anything to do with the sun?”

            The sun’s output is changing and it has warmed a bit. Enough perhaps to account for 10 to 20 percent of the observed warming since Industrialisation.

          • JKV

            Ah. So you admit that the sun drives the climate! Can you imagine trying to preach to people that the changing seasons were driven by CO2? You would be a laughing stock. No wonder warmists like you are increasingly being held in utter contempt.

    • onelaw4all

      So would you discount information/reports from all institutions funded by “oil and gas companies” ?

      • Mythrandir

        From the Heartland Institute (Libertarian) documents.

        “Effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of
        climate change is controversial and uncertain two key points that are
        effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.” – Heartland

        I wonder what other science these Libertarians wish teachers to
        stop teaching.

        We know that in the case of tobacco, the Heartland Institute would prefer the science linking smoking to cancer be ignored.

        And of course Heartland is only one of hundreds of Libertarian propaganda mills in America that make it their business to lie to the American people 24/7/365

        • onelaw4all

          Thanks for attempting to answer the question posed for the other poster.
          Except you didn’t.

    • xennex
  • Woody

    The low temperatures in North America are proof positive that we are in a period of serious Global warming. Well that is the spin the current crop of charlatans feed us.

    When I was in High School (not recently) the then bunch of “revered climate scientists” had us heading rapidly into rapid and cataclysmic global cooling with food production rapidly dropping with world wide starving being a very real threat if we didn’t all freeze to death first.

    The cause of this frozen apocalypse? You’ve got it, man made emissions, and the explanation for the occasional record high temperatures? You’ve got it again, those highs were the aberrations that just proved we were rapidly heading into the freezer.

    Different singers (or are they), same song sheet, just reading from the bottom to the top instead of top to bottom.

  • Ratchette

    The priority problem facing this planet is population growth.

    • Day Day

      In specific regions, yes. Globally, I would suggest no.

    • kiwibattler

      Water pollution is the planet’s biggest problem……..

    • FreeMack

      The priority problem facing this planet is the raise, by stealth, of socialism!

      Capitalism can harness the creativity of a bigger population – more new ideas is actually better

    • Kapow

      Disagree. The western world is not replacing itself and neither is China. population growth will taper and then probably reverse.

  • Day Day

    Given the basic CO2 heating effect (at the present trace levels) cannot be demonstrated or even calculated in a physical lab experiment. Anyone pushing that idea (no matter who they are) has adopted a position based purely on faith, not calculable physics. Science is not determined by ones faith.

    • Mythrandir

      The basic heating effect of CO2 can’t be demonstrated?

      If your car has had an auto-emissions test, its CO2 emissions were measured by how much heat radiation the exhaust attenuates from a standard source of heat.

      • Cremster

        Doesn’t he say ‘at the present trace levels’?

        The concentration of CO2 in car exhaust is around 800-1000 times that in air so I don’t think you can get away with that.

        Unless you are into homeopathy…

        • Mythrandir

          Whether at trace levels or 800-1000 times that in air the same things happens when a photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule. Your point?

  • HowNow

    To much scaremongering on this thing, which helps those to make money with there “green initiative” business creations. Still debate this with many people I know, and they still seem oblivious to the fact it had to be changed from Global Warming to Climate Change because it’s plain to see it is not warming.

  • dobbyblogs

    A record heatwave doesn’t prove global warming is happening, and a record cold spell doesn’t disprove it. That’s just weather, and the rational argument should be about: is the mechanism plausible (C02 and the various feedback effects) and does the data support it (climate records)? I put myself in the “lukewarmist camp (C02 concentrations affect climate: yes, feedback mechanisms not sure / data doesn’t support

  • axeman

    There is proof that the poles were covered in vegetation so at some point they weren’t covered in Ice and snow. So based on that the planet must have been warmer than what it is now. While we may have a modest affect on climate, it pails into insignificance the power of the sun and the solar system

  • Bartman

    Can someone in the house post-summer recess table an appropriate report and ask the Greens why we’ve had a cooler summer than normal, and if they stand by their statements regarding global warming?

    • Mythrandir

      You don’t need to ask the Greens. It’s called the randomness of weather. Climatologists don’t study weather, they study climate which is the bulk aggregate of weather over multiple decades. Global Warming refers to climate.

      • Doc45

        So why is weather used as the lever to force governments and local councils to make new draconian laws and expensive regulations in the name of climate change? It is the fear of storms, droughts, hurricanes etc from alarmists like the greens and some so called climatologists that drive politicians. Yet there is no evidence of major weather events changing – even the IPCC admit that – except for suggestions that the intensity of some events MAY occur. To the contrary hurricane numbers are going down, droughts stay at the same level, major rain events are at the same level as they have been for decades.
        All we have is rising CO2 as a fact and multiple models that alarmists keep adjusting because they all have overstated warming.

  • Ronnie Cho

    Yeah, your timing on this one is not great.
    From the US Government:
    “Global Highlights
    The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for October, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F).

    The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–October period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.4°F). The first ten months of 2014 were the warmest such period on record.”

    • Doc45

      You have missed the point. The media gleefully report record high temps and ignore record lows. WO was simply putting the record straight.

      • axeman

        With Antarctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere snow cover at a record high, and Arctic sea ice at a 10 yr high, yet the NOAA’s NCDC says 2014 is the hottest year ever.

      • Mythrandir

        The media doesn’t represent the Scientific community. If you want the real story then read the real Science published in reputable Scientific journals.

        • Doc45

          I find the science journals and their collective agencies confusing at best and deliberately misleading at their worst. Two areas of concern, for example, are papers that contain the manipulation of actual temperature records to suit a predetermined outcome in places like Australia, USA and NZ and the papers that purport to counter the work of Henrik Svensmark. All in reputable journals – well, they used to be reputable.

    • Bob D

      The NCDC datasets are based on land and sea surface temperatures that are constantly adjusted using “automatic” techniques that make no allowance for UHI or sheltering and always end up cooling the past (this is a known error that has been pointed out to them, yet they ignore it). So we really have no way of knowing whether the current temperatures are in fact warm or not.

      Far more accurate are the satellite TLT MSU records (we know them as RSS and UAH), and these are available from the late 1970s onwards. They monitor the planet 24/7 and don’t require convoluted adjustments of the past, and they show that this year is about 7th warmest in the 16 years since 1998.

      In other words, pretty average.