by Mila Zinkova
Reassessing The Coldest March by Susan Solomon
On Thursday, 29 March 1912, Captain Scott (1914) made the final entry in his Journal. He wrote:
Since the 21st we have had a continuous gale from W.S.W. and S.W. We had fuel to make two cups of tea apiece and bare food for two days on the 20th. Every day we have been ready to start for our depot 11 miles away, but outside the door of the tent it remains a scene of whirling drift. I do not think we can hope for any better things now. We shall stick it out to the end, but we are getting weaker, of course, and the end cannot be far.
It seems a pity, but I do not think I can write more.
R. SCOTT.
For God’s sake look after our people
A little over two months earlier (17 January 1912), Captain Scott and his companions arrived at the South Pole only to discover that the Norwegians were there first. The Norwegian party led by Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole on 14 December 1911. Extremely disappointed, Scott and his men began their return crossing on 19 January 1912. It was a sad journey. They encountered unusually cold temperatures during March (Scott, 1914; Solomon, 2002). Two members of Scott’s polar party, Edgar Evans and Captain Lawrence Oates, perished before the party camped for the last time
Since 19 March 1912, Scott and two remaining members of the Polar Party (Doctor Edward Adrian Wilson and Henry Robertson Bowers) had been unable to resume their march due to a persisting blizzard. They were only 11 miles (less than 18 km) from the One Ton Depot that had a fresh supply of food and fuel
This Final Blizzard became a matter of controversy nearly a century later. Every so often, a scientific claim becomes so widely repeated that it hardens into “fact,” even when the evidence beneath it consists of… well… let’s just call it creative meteorology. Such is the case with the final blizzard in Captain Scott’s 1912 Antarctic tragedy. Many writers before and after Solomon published her book have claimed that Scott was dishonest or fabricated the weather, but none of them were prominent atmospheric scientists who actually worked in Antarctica. That is precisely why Solomon’s assertions carried unusual weight—and why their scientific flaws matter even more
In The Coldest March, Susan Solomon famously concludes that such a storm was “virtually impossible.” She writes:
Wilson and Bowers met their deaths with the injured Scott, but the scientific constraints of modern meteorology as shown here suggest that their deaths may have been a matter of choice rather than chance. Whether such a choice was made, and whether it reflected their own dedication or an order by a desperate Scott vainly attempting to save legacies rather than lives is a question not for science but for the human heart
This allegation has been widely echoed in popular media. Coverage in The New York Times (Chang, 2001), The Guardian (Glancey, 2001), and the Los Angeles Times (Hotz, 2001), all repeated the quote about “a desperate Scott vainly attempting to save legacies rather than lives”
But here’s the problem: the science doesn’t agree. Not modern satellite imagery, not historical data, not even the meteorological literature available before the book was published.
Zinkova (2025) has shown that the blizzard unfolded much as Scott described. Building on that foundation, this post turns to Solomon’s claims, focusing on the evidence that was overlooked or misinterpreted.
Corner Camp: The New Oracle of Truth?
One of Solomon’s central arguments rests on the assumption that if Corner Camp didn’t have a blizzard, then Scott’s Last Camp couldn’t have had one either. To prove the claim, Solomon (2002 p. 318) presents Figure 68, captioned as follows:
Figure 68. Winds observed at the automated weather station near Last Camp and near Corner Camp (stations 4 and 3, respectively; see map 2) in March 1998. Note that the winds at the two locations closely track each other. The similarities shown have been observed in every strong March blizzard measured on the Barrier in the automated record (since 1984).
To evaluate this claim, I examined AWS data for March 1996—well within the 15-year period Solomon cites (1984–1998). As the graph below shows, the winds at the two sites do not track each other at all in this particular situation. In fact, the graph shows that on March 18, 19, 1996, during a strong blizzard at Scott’s Last Camp, Corner Camp remains nearly calm. And this isn’t an isolated anomaly: several similar cases appear in that same month alone.
In other words, the central premise of Solomon’s argument—“no storm at Corner Camp = Scott must have exaggerated”—collapses immediately when actual data are examined.
The Case of the Selectively Quoted Explorer
In the book, Solomon (2002, p. 311) cites a story from Cherry-Garrard’s The Worst Journey in the World:
The ferocious wind that spirited away the tent of the Cape Crozier party and threatened the survival of Wilson, Bowers, and Cherry-Garrard in July 1911 was a textbook example of a katabatic blizzard. It blew with hurricane force at more than seventy miles per hour, but the trio survived the storm in large part because it subsided in less than forty-eight hours, when the reservoir of cold air was emptied
However, in the same paragraph where Cherry-Garrard recounts his own blizzard experience, he also refers to the accounts of others, noting that “parties which had come to Cape Crozier in the spring had experienced blizzards which lasted eight or ten days”:
I knew that parties which had come to Cape Crozier in the spring had experienced blizzards which lasted eight or ten days. (Cherry-Garrard ,1922 p. 282)
The omission of the “eight or ten days” blizzards in Solomon (2002) is puzzling. Not at the same page but in the same book, Cherry-Garrard (1922 p. 446) describes yet another blizzard. It was an eight days long blizzard at Cape Evans:
“This blizzard lasted for eight days , up till then the longest blizzard we had experienced [at Cape Evans]: ” It died as it had lived , blowing hard to the last , averaging 68 miles an hour from the south , and then 56 miles an hour from the north finally back to the south , and so to calm.“
This record was not obscure. It was not lost. It was simply… not used. An eight-day blizzard at Cape Evans could easily have stretched to ten days or longer at Scott’s Last Camp. The reason is that barrier blizzards strike Cape Evans and the Last Camp simultaneously (Zinkova 2025). Yet when a barrier blizzard subsides, a katabatic blizzard often follows at the Last Camp (but not at Cape Evans), prolonging the storm’s impact (Zinkova, 2025)
A Decade Later
One might hope that, with time, the scientific errors in The Coldest March would fade away quietly. Instead, ten years after the book’s publication, Solomon (2012) repeated the same arguments in a public presentation—now with an additional meteorological flourish. While responding to questions (Solomon, 2012) declared:
The conditions on the barrier are pretty strongly katabatic. I mean, when you have this kind of blizzard, that’s normally what you’re getting, because you’re shielded so well from cyclones moving in from the, from the coast. So it’s a very different kind of meteorology.
The conditions on the Ross Ice Shelf are not strongly katabatic at all, and in the region of Scott’s Last Camp, virtually every blizzard—katabatic, barrier, or cyclonic—is driven by synoptic-scale cyclones or mesoscale cyclonic activity.
It is unclear how this “shielded from cyclones” allegation came about because in her own book, Solomon (2002 p.350) cited the paper by Bromwich and Carrasco titled: Cyclonically forced barrier winds along the Transantarctic mountains near Ross Island.
To claim that the Ross Ice Shelf contradicts the very mechanisms that produce the winds Solomon attempted to analyze. In short, a decade later, the misunderstanding wasn’t corrected.
It was amplified.
The satellite perspective
If anyone still doubts how easily Solomon’s interpretation can be disproved, consider this: a single infrared satellite image is enough to show why her core assumption—that Corner Camp and Scott’s Last Camp always experience storms together—is scientifically untenable. Below is one example (April 15, 2018)
In this infrared frame, a katabatic blizzard is clearly pouring down from the plateau onto the Ross Ice Shelf, slamming directly into the region of Scott’s Last Camp (S). Meanwhile Corner Camp is calm and quiet. This kind of decoupling is routine, not exceptional.
And why does the katabatic flow show up in infrared? Because descending katabatic air warms adiabatically, producing a warmer signature on IR imagery compared to the frigid surface beneath it.
What else do we see in this very same image? A well-defined cyclone over the Ross Ice Shelf driving the synoptic setup. Without this cyclone katabatic winds would not have been able to reach the area of Scott’s Last Camp because they need pressure gradients to traverse the Ross Ice Shelf.
I looked at hundreds of infrared satellite images to learn about every possible situation at the Ross Ice Shelf. On the other hand, Solomon (2002, 2012) relied on a single infrared satellite image—Figure 65 (Solomon, 2002, p.312)—as the basis for her broad meteorological conclusions and her remarkable speculation that Scott may have ordered Wilson and Bowers to die. Apparently drawing her conclusion from a single satellite image, Solomon (2002, p. 317) stated:
“The two locations [Scott’s Last Camp and Corner Cam] are inextricably linked by the basic physics of fluid flow: the southerly wind from the Barrier has no option but to continue on its course until it passes Corner Camp […] “
Yet even this lone satellite image reveals a cyclone, which Solomon seems not to have recognized at all.
Solomon’s misunderstanding of katabatic winds hadn’t shifted even a decade later. In 2012, she told her audience that the Ross Ice Shelf is essentially a flat barrier, and that the wind can only follow the flow because there’s nothing out there to break it up.
Solomon (2002, p. 310) quoted Captain Scott’s Message to the Public, where he rather plainly described “a continuous gale from W.S.W. and S.W.”? That wind direction points to a katabatic flow spilling from Byrd Glacier (Seefeldt et al., 2007).
And, more importantly, a wind coming from W.S.W. or S.W. at Scott’s Last Camp would not detour to Corner Camp, which sits almost directly south. In actuality, the direction and speed of katabatic winds are as variable as the weather systems that drive them, enabling them to traverse long distances across the Ross Ice Shelf. For example, the image below shows a situation in which neither of the two marked locations experienced a katabatic blizzard.
The following image indicates that Scott’s Last Camp was struck by a katabatic blizzard, while Corner Camp remained calm. Notice the cyclone
Solomon’s book did not reference several highly relevant papers on the Ross Ice Shelf airstream. For example, an article by Bromwich, Carrasco et al. (1993), in which the authors described a katabatic wind surge in July 1988 and specifically stated that every site recorded stronger-than-monthly-average winds… except Corner Camp, which apparently opted out of the excitement. Corner Camp (AWS 07 in their article) was the only place that “did not record stronger wind than its monthly average” (Bromwich, Carrasco et al.,1993).
In summary, this cascade of methodological failures in Solomon (2002) ultimately crystallized into a global media narrative that tarred the reputation of Captain Scott.
For those interested in what actually happened—and why the Final Blizzard likely transpired the way Captain Scott described it—my peer-reviewed analysis is available [here]. See also my Youtube [video.] Both explain in detail what the satellite data, the reanalysis, and the historical records actually show—namely, that the March 1912 storm was a straightforward product of synoptic-scale cyclonicic activity
References
Bromwich, D. H., Carrasco, J. F., Liu, Z., & Tzeng, R.-Y. (1993). Hemispheric atmospheric variations and oceanographic impacts associated with katabatic surges across the Ross Ice Shelf, Antarctica. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 98(D7), 13045–13062. https://doi.org/10.1029/93JD00879
Chang K. 2001. How Bad Luck Tipped the Scales to Disaster. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/28/science/how-bad-luck-tipped-the-scales-to-disaster.html. (accessed on 20 August 2020).
Cherry-Garrard, A. (1922) The Worst Journey in the World, Antarctic, 1910-1913. Constable and Company Limited
Glancey, J. (2001). We could be heroes. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/nov/10/historybooks.highereducation1 (accessed 20 August 2020).
Hotz, R. L. (2001). Did Robert Falcon Scott tell the truth? Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-dec-23-bk-hotz23-story.html (accessed 20 August 2020).
Scott R. F. (1914).Scott’s Last Expedition. Smith, Elder and Company, London.
Seefeldt M.W., Cassano J.J., and Parish T. R. (2007). Dominant Regimes of the Ross Ice Shelf Surface Wind Field during Austral Autumn 2005. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 46: 1933–1955, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAMC1442.1.
Solomon, S. (2002). The Coldest March: Scott’s Fatal Antarctic Expedition. Yale University Press.
Solomon, S. (2012). The Coldest March: Scott’s Fatal Antarctic Expedition. https://youtu.be/5LoWsLqcizA (accessed 10 January 2022).
Zinkova, M. (2025). An exceptional March 1912 blizzard (the Final Blizzard) that sealed the fate of Captain Scott and his party. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 57(1), 2522490. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230430.2025.2522490
Gosh, Susan Solomon is distorting the truth to serve her own ends? This is my shocked face …
Thanks as always for posting fascinating analyses, Dr. J.
w.
“Note that the winds at the two locations closely track each other. ”
Using the word “track” or “lock step” is always a give away coming from a scientist. Neither are clear terms with a scientific or mathematical definition. They are weasel words designed to create an impression while being impossible to refute since they are undefined.
Solomon was a key player in the “ozone hole” CFC , Monteal Protocol scam which was the dry-run for the CO2 AGW fraud.
Wait! Actual data was examined?? Isn’t this contrary to the teachings of the Church of Global Warming?
‘The ferocious wind that spirited away the tent of the Cape Crozier party and threatened the survival of Wilson, Bowers, and Cherry-Garrard in July 1911 was a textbook example of a katabatic blizzard. It blew with hurricane force at more than seventy miles per hour, but the trio survived the storm in large part because it subsided in less than forty-eight hours, when the reservoir of cold air was emptied.’ ~ Solomon, 2002
AI reports that- ‘The party was on a winter journey to collect emperor penguin eggs for scientific study, an expedition Cherry-Garrard later chronicled in his classic memoir The Worst Journey in the World. The entry stated Cherry-Girard needed dental work years later from damage to his teeth caused by chattering through the storm that night…
Apparently, the party of three left because they lost to the winds the canvas canopy over the top of the lower row of ice blocks that comprised the igloo and had to survive that night in their sleeping bags that were covered over by snow. Anyone who could’ve, would’ve left the next morning…
I’ll pass on the popcorn
This isn’t vaguely interesting.
Neither is you opinion but you still felt the need to share it.
The evidence is how few are responding to this post. It doesn’t have wide interet.
You sound like my coworker’s 3‑year‑old at the zoo—complaining it’s boring until asked if he expected the animals to dance.
Here’s the deal: a renowned scientist published a book full of errors about the Ross Ice Shelf airstream, tarnishing a famous polar explorer’s reputation. For 25 years, her peers have stayed silent. That’s not neutrality—it’s complicity. Why are some scientific heroes considered untouchable, their mistakes invisible?
I’m disappointed by the few responses to the post, but I’m proud I posted this. Somebody had to point out that the emperor was naked.
Mila notes – “For 25 years, her peers have stayed silent. That’s not neutrality—it’s complicity. ”
Mila – At first glance, your post is an interesting, but small and insignificant tidbit of history, but not a significant finding in the world of climate science. However, it does highlight one of the major deficiencies in climate science community once you pull back a few layers.
A basic lesson taught early in math is cross checking your work. Solve an equation, plug the answer in the formula and work it backwards to see if you got the right answer, there are proofs in geometry, etc.
The silence of Solomon’s peers to her error, seems to run through out the climate science community, especially in the paleo arena. Far too many proxies used in the paleo reconstructions reconcile very poorly to other contemporaneous data which conflict with the conclusions. Yet , there is silence.
John Ridgeway in the prior post hit on the silence of the climate science community with misuse of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties.
Just to be clear – Mila’s comment hits hard on a serious issue that runs deep in the climate science community.
“For 25 years, her peers have stayed silent. That’s not neutrality—it’s complicity. ”
A couple of months ago I read a study (I don’t remember which one) about global groundwater levels. While it was not related to the purpose of the study, it made a statement about GW contributions to GMSLR that was so off the mark that it made me wonder how it passed peer review. If anyone was remotely knowledgeable about the subject it would have been caught instantly. I’m sure if an in depth audit was conducted on all studies, other such egregious errors would be found.
The poorly remembered companion journey to the South Pole and Cape Crozier ones was that of the Northern Party. They wintered over without rations in a snow cave on eastern side of Inexpressible Island. The place is named because of the katabatic wind coming down the Priestley Glacier. They lived on seals they slaughtered on the island’s beach, using them for food, warmth and light. Not content with that, when spring came, they manhauled their sledge 200 miles to the south. to get to the Cape Evans base.
When I visited the area in 1983, the remnants of the seal carcasses were still on the beach and we found the cache of equipment they later left there if another party got marooned in the area. The leader of our group had met Ray Priestley at Cambridge some years before.
I visited BAS a bit later. Got an invite because I had photos of the campsite. They brought out the daily journal the Campbell, the party leader, had kept even will in the snow cave. I didn’t see it myself, but I believe there were entries where he noted the storm that killed Scott even though they were way to the north.
Interesting piece, Mila. Thanks.
Thank you, Bill!
First impression would be that a blizzard would cover a large geographic area, as such, a 00-200 mile wide swath would be expected. On the flip side, tornado’s usually are part of a large front, though the individual tornado’s will be very localized. It would seem that Katabatic systems are very localized based on your commentary.
Any insight in the comparison of the similarities with tornado’s and katabatic blizzard? (my apologies if I am phrasing the question poorly – or even if they are so totally different that there is no similarities)
thanks for any insight.
Pingback: Reexamining Scott's 1912 Antarctic Tragedy and Final Blizzard
Thou shalt not lie…. and I add a codicil, “Thou shalt think clearly and accept the fact that humans err.” These are universal axioms of all people, particularly for scientists, of which I am not one.
Here, “we know” that the party traveled a long way across the most hostile and uninhabitable place on earth, was disappointed not to have won “the race” and died on their return.
I point out that scientists, being human, have the same limitations as other humans but carry the huge burden to tell the truth, to know, in Latin, science. The weather, food, a grant award or the big promotion, ego, popular elections, does not alter this dictate. However, in recent years, we also have learned that some 40% of science papers, the quid pro quo for science advancement are not true.
Most readers know that contradictory facts, are, “.. simply… not used.” and can align this with positions, particularly one definition of climate change, due to trace CO2 in the atmosphere, ”….widely echoed in popular media. Coverage in The New York Times… The Guardian ….. and the Los Angeles Times …”, all repeated the same quote. Far fewer have expertise in katabatic fair flow across the Ross Ice field. All will recognize, “… crystallized into a global media narrative .”
Having engineered two score carbon fueled power plants, after a hand full of degrees and PE Licenses, I can humbly submit this demonstrable fact. Without the use of cheap, plentiful energy derived from carbon combustion, fire, man will die. No alternate energy source, including nuclear, (I did a score, a few prototypes) will meet this survival need.
I again thank Dr. Curry et al, for their contribution to mankind.
This is twice now I’ve read your comments wherein you state that you are not a scientist. Whether it is building a carbon-based energy plant or constructing a proxy analysis of past temperatures, certain rigors have to be observed and mistakes, always present, have to be acknowledged and corrected. You’re a scientist.
When I published my analysis of this blizzard a few months ago, I fully expected Susan Solomon to acknowledge her errors and issue a retraction. She never did, and the reason is now clear. Her silence is necessitated by the numerous prestigious awards her book, The Coldest March, has received, including:
Louis Battan Prize (2001, Adult Category) from the American Meteorological Society (AMS)
New York Times Notable Book (2001)
The Economist (UK) Book of the Year (2001)
The Independent (UK) Book of the Year (2001)
Acknowledging errors would force her to explain to these awarding bodies why her book is, by her own admission, unworthy of the recognition it was granted.
“Acknowledging errors would force her to explain”
Certain climate scientists will eventually face a similar soiled legacy issue—science meets propaganda, the peer reviewed pamphleteers of science—many books will be written on the subject, covering: science/politics/psychology of mass hysteria.
When an object is irradiated, there is the reflection, there is the immediate IR emission, and there is the heat absorption.
The object, when it is not irradiated, exhibits, a much weaker, the regular IR emission.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This is a reply to Joe K’s question (the reply tab isn’t visible in the original post). Katabatic winds and tornadoes originate from entirely different processes, but they share one important feature: both are sustained and propagated by pressure gradients.
thanks
“The two locations [Scott’s Last Camp and Corner Cam] are inextricably linked by the basic physics of fluid flow: ”
Ah, the old “basic physics” ploy. As soon as you say those magic words, on one can argue with what you say. After all, no one wants to be a science denier , do they? Who can argue with “basic physics” ?!
Speaking of complicity for 25 years, how about… MBH98/99/08 (aka, the ‘hockey stick’ graph), a proven fraud. That is Western academia’s complicity with the witch doctors of the AGW Global Warming/Climate Change hoax over the last 27 years, and counting…
My recent comment has not appeared here,
The Global Warming is a natural phenomenon.
It happens because of in our times the Orbital Circumstances.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I would not be concerned that this thread does not have many responders. I have read threads here that I considered interesting and informative that had low comment levels. On the other hand, I have read threads here that had a large commentary, a good portion that was off topic and/or of a personal nature that was sometimes not above nastiness.
The author of this thread makes the point that once a published work reaches some level of consensus that even if wrong, misleading or incomplete it can become difficult for a proper criticism to obtain acknowledgment and recognition.
For examples of the above, one need look no further than published history that is tainted with a political agenda and relies on previous accounts that were never properly challenged because of the dominant intelligentsia thinking of that time. The not infrequent publication of revisionist history that at times changes accepted thinking on an important topic lends hope for the battle that should continue. There remain in my view those out there who, understanding how agendas can affect a publication, are willing to take a second look.
I leave the linked article below as a case in point.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/warren-harding-sinner-hands-angry-progressives
The Left has for years made a cottage industry out ‘hiding the decline.’ MBH98/99/08 (aka, the ‘hockey stick’ graph) is a proven scientific fraud. This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree. There is no proxy for honesty: you either got it or you don’t!
Many of these historical events, some tragic oftentimes involved a bit of luck, good and bad. For instance, the fact that the U.S. avoided a land-falling hurricane this season is a matter of good luck. It could have just as easily been otherwise as it has been for the last 10 years.
Wagathon, individuals, like Judith Curry who are monetarily and/or reputationally compensated for predicting hurricane frequency, might disagree with your reference to luck even when I am certain they do not claim to be infallible or above getting a season dead wrong.
Fyi- none predicted a zero hurricane landfall season. According to AI however, actual predictions for the 2025 season included: as follows:
NOAA: 13-19 named storms, 6-10 hurricanes, and 3-5 major hurricanes.
AccuWeather: 13-18 named storms, 7-10 hurricanes, 3-5 major hurricanes, and three to six direct U.S. impacts.
CSU: 17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, and 4 major hurricanes.
‘The actual outcome of zero hurricane landfalls in the U.S. was a surprising meteorological phenomenon, largely attributed to patterns that repeatedly steered storms out to sea (known as “recurvature”). The season ultimately produced 13 named storms and 5 hurricanes, none of which made landfall in the continental U.S. as a hurricane, a first since 2015.’
It wasn’t that there was no hurricane activity, just the reverse. Where the predictions went wrong is the projected negative consequences to humanity. Sound familiar? Throughout history, global warming has been good for humanity.
The forecast for the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere shows a split into two vortex centers, corresponding to the two magnetic field centers in the north—one over northeastern Canada and the other over central Siberia. Winter will begin in Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/PZ2h4s3C/591815831-1436178211842484-4002472890642337580-n.jpg
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063509554686&locale=pl_PL
Thank you, Ireneusz.
The winter gradually comes down to Greece.
It brings rains with much water!
Look at the distribution of ozone in the stratosphere. Where there is the most ozone, there is dry and very cold Arctic air. Hudson Bay will freeze faster. Ozone is a gas heavier than the air in the stratosphere and descends into the troposphere, creating a wave.
https://i.ibb.co/S469sbTB/gfs-toz-nh-f00-1.png
The animation shows how a polar vortex center forms over northeastern Canada. Arctic air covers the Great Lakes, where the lake effect occurs.
https://i.ibb.co/239GmHcp/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
2025 is on track to be colder than 2024.
2024 Jan +0.80
2024 Feb +0.88
2024 Mar +0.88
2024 Apr +0.94
2024 May +0.78
2024 June +0.69
2024 July +0.74
2024 Aug +0.76
2024 Sep +0.81
2024 Oct +0.75
2024 Nov +0.64
2024 AVG: 0.79
2025 Jan +0.45
2025 Feb +0.50
2025 Mar +0.57
2025 Apr +0.61
2025 May +0.50
2025 June +0.48
2025 July +0.36
2025 Aug +0.39
2025 Sep +0.53
2025 Oct +0.53
2025 Nov +0.43
2025 AVG: 0.49
Jim2:
Not surprising.
There were 3 continuing VEI4 volcanic eruptions in May of this year which spew volcanic SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere, cooling the Earth, plus others whose VEI has not yet been established.
VEI4 eruptions typically reach their maximum amount of cooling effect in about 14-16 months, after which their SO2 aerosols settle out, and it begins to warm up (if there are no other VEI4 eruptions)
See https://tropicaltidbits.com/ocean/analysis
These are satellite measurements, and the anomalies do not take into account changes in circulation at high latitudes. For example, a weak polar vortex means an increase in temperature above the Arctic Circle, where more moisture gets in as a result of changes in circulation. This causes a large increase in anomalies, but at the same time a large loss of heat into space. These anomalies say little about changes in global surface temperature. I find ocean temperatures more telling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
I commented about this previously here:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1468603/daily-global-ocean-surface-temperature/
Appreciate the link, IP, the charts period provided covers 1981-2010.
The following link for SST covers 1982-2025:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1468603/daily-global-ocean-surface-temperature/
2023 was the warmest recent SST year, it represented a strong El Niño year (one of the 5 strongest El Niño events on record); but the overall SST trend paints a different picture.
SST temperature has declined in 2025, down near 2022 levels, but the down trend slope for the year is more severe. Overall SST during the 43 year period trend is decidedly down, despite atmospheric satellite measurements.
Correction: 2024 captured peak SST, 2023 had a higher mean SST. The 2024 peak was a consequence of the 2023 El Niño that started the year with a rapid SST (as rapid as the downward fall of SST the last half of this year.
The green trend line in the link captures the same period that Ireneusz linked to, up to 2010.
The current trend suggests the year ends with an SST at about 20.5, up from 2010’s 20.09 Celsius. Without the strong 2023 El Niño it appears the average SST temperature since 2010 would be roughly flat, but overall, it’s suggestive that the downward trend will be a continuation of the 1982-2010 trend (a longer trend is typically stronger than a shorter trend, especially after accounting for the record 2023 El Niño anomaly).
Actually a long-term trend reversal hasn’t been satisfied. If 2025 SST closes at 20.5ish Celsius then SST will be about .41 Celsius warmer than 2010. So far this only represents a downward bump in the long-term trend line. Is there a trend reversal transition in play, this remains a decadal question.
As jungle notes – there has been a very long term trend of increasing SST. Hurricane intensity and/or frequency is supposed to increase as SST increases.
While there have been short term trends (30-50 year cycles) of changes in hurricane frequency and/or intensity, the long term trend since circa mid 1700’s has been relatively flat, with proper adjustment for observational deficiencies.
in summary – 200+ years of actual data conflicts with the climate models.
Jim2:
Sorry: https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/ocean/analysis
Jim2;
Memory failed me: https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean
Record Cold Keeps Snow On The Ground
The next arctic blast will drop low temperatures into record territory across the mid-Atlantic and Northeast by Friday morning. The I-95 corridor, including Boston, NYC, Philadelphia and D.C. will see lows drop into the teens and 20s and the wind chills will be even lower. The snow from Winter Storm Chan will stick around for a while as reinforcing shots of cold air continue to move in every few days.
https://weather.com/forecast/regional/video/record-cold-midatlantic-northeast-thursday-friday?fbclid=IwY2xjawOdcNZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeD-fZSL-DFlSEMii30GLb1HcVLc2d8Rx-MMPVikZ37BdLNXzFhvtg2S-FYTw_aem_U2P5_theZrI0PK1bEai02A
It is worth realizing that in winter, the troposphere at high latitudes is very thin. Therefore, I am not sure whether the satellite above the pole measures anomalies in the troposphere or in the stratosphere, and the latter can increase rapidly.
https://i.ibb.co/8DqNmHSj/lat-pres-gfs-TMP-NH-f000-1.png
https://i.ibb.co/spGQRyFD/pole30-nh.gif
Current temperature (F) in the Midwest.
https://i.ibb.co/s9KnnPWY/ventusky-temperature-2m-20251204t0900-44n95w.jpg
Within 12 hours, the cold snap will move across the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/wr7JFJCq/ventusky-temperature-2m-20251204t1200-45n90w.jpg
Is it weather or is it climate? If Western academia served the people instead of the politicians, probability theory and data collection would be used to confirm that climate change is completely natural, expected and will happen no matter what humanity does or doesn’t do and act accordingly If it’s mythology then, our collective experience to date has been that we will flush Western civilization down the toilet.
The mythology of the climatists requires that government scientists use probability theories to justify labeling increasing atmospheric CO2 as the likely cause of every affliction imaginable despite evidence it’s always at the small tail end of the curve showing the universe of all possible explanations for such problems. Climatists know full well that after years of useless, senseless and superfluous testing, a causal link between CO2 and every dreaded malady known to a PhD will invariably be proven flatly impossible; but, in the meantime the global warming scam marches on as academia banks more bucks dreaming up phony links to every Earthly vagary.
‘Climate is governed by millions of factors, from the flip of a butterfly’s wing, through volcanic eruptions, the oceans and natural greenhouse gases, to solar activity and meteors.’ (Philip Stott)
Mila, sorry to post something unrelated to your enjoyable essay, but Judith posted this article on X and I thought there might be interest.
“The End of the Climate Cult”, by Matt Ridley
https://thespectator.com/topic/climate-politics-come-down-to-earth/
“The End of the Climate Cult”, by Matt Ridley
https://thespectator.com/topic/climate-politics-come-down-to-earth/
OT: The Russian/Ukraine war has become an increasingly serious situation, the regional threat is understandably putting extreme pressure on the EU.
The following is a headline produced by Pulse Point Report Global, a European political commentary platform “for people who care about the facts but are tired of the noise.”
EUROPE IN SHOCK: Washington Hangs Up! Germany Prepares War with Russia ALONE
The facts in this example represent shallow perceptions of the German people (and a large swath of EU public opinion IMO).
This video is well worth watching to get a vivd sense of the cultural chasm between the EU and their naive expectations of the US.
The video illustrates a stark picture of European disillusionment, based on a self centered, entitled view for how the US should treat them. The US isn’t treating them bad, though the US expects them, the entire EU, to pay an equal share for defense. But for them, if the US was a good ally, we should put a defensive umbrella over them—as we did for the last 75 years—so now they’re saying we’ve abandoned them. The video describes how Germany will have to cut social welfare programs to build up the German military—I’m certain their defense spending will cut into green energy programs too. While the situation is indeed serious, yet still, prepare yourself to be offended.
Without cheap Russian oil, Eurocommunism’s anti-America Green Utopia has hit the wall.
The Republicans mostly forgot Ronald Reagan’s Evil Empire.
An important read on a wider perspective:
https://onesearch.library.northeastern.edu/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma9951414592201401&context=L&vid=01NEU_INST:NU&lang=en&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=Everything&query=sub,contains,Nationalism%20–%20Religious%20aspects%20–%20Christianity,AND&mode=advanced&offset=20
“The Republicans mostly forgot Ronald Reagan’s Evil Empire.”
I disagree George.
There are complex underlying considerations in managing the Russian/West relationship, it’s a tough, delicate balancing act. A President needs to be tough, but also diplomatic. Communication is paramount between nuclear nations.
The daggers thrown at Trump by the Left, that’s he’s a lackey, are preposterous, ridiculous—even scandalous, i.e. “the Russian hoax “during his first term. Trump does indeed charm Putin, but it’s coercive, strategic charm. If one looks at the policy record, not the talk, Trump has been harder on Putin than both Obama and Biden administrations combined. Take for example the Nord Stream Pipeline.
The EU Left went nuts when Trump shut down construction of the Nord Stream Pipeline. Trump believed EU nations would become a “hostage of Russia”. The Left were upset, of course—Germany was the most upset. Though for the EU, happily, the Biden administration lifted these sanctions. Biden stated that removing the sanctions was a matter of national interest, to maintain positive relations with Germany and other US allies in Europe.
Here are a few other sanctions Trump has imposed on Russia:
Rosneft and Lukoil Sanctions: These sanctions targeted Russia’s two largest oil companies, significantly impacting the Kremlin’s revenue sources for military operations.
Cyber Sanctions: Aimed at entities involved in cyberattacks against the U.S., these sanctions were part of a broader strategy to counter Russian cyber threats. (4 entities and 7 individuals, including Yevgeniy Prigozhin were sanctioned)
Magnitsky Act: This act was used to impose sanctions on individuals involved in human rights abuses, reflecting a commitment to address such issues.
Sanctions under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control Act based on the use of a nerve agents in Salisbury
Sanctions for Russia’s support for Venezuela’s Maduro regime (Evrofinance Mosnarbank and related entities)
Coordination with Allies: The Trump administration emphasized the need for coordinated sanctions with European allies to enhance their effectiveness.
Trump has piled sanctions onto Russia’s back since his first term. He also proactively pressured NATO nations to increase defense spending to a minimum of 2%. This was a very wise move, as it turns out. But many of those nations have been dragging their feet (Spains still spends 1.3%). Now Trump, in his second term, has asked all NATO nations to increase defense spending to 5%. Yet many NATO nations have stated they intend to “approach” 5% defense spending by the mid 2030’s. They’re not serious enough, considering what’s going on between Russia/Ukraine. The EU has had a temper tantrum over being further pressured, for them it has alway been the US job to maintain and spend for EU defense, and to provide fantastic trade terms based on the sensibilities of the 75 year old Marshall Plan. A harder slap in the face was on order, they got one. Tough love. The US does love our EU partners, but they need to take responsibility.
So the EU complains that the US is abandoning them, but the US is ramping up defense in preparation for China. The world is bigger than the EU, it’s all dangerous. The EU’s response has been pathetic, whiny, unserious. But I think they get the message now. The US is still very much the EU’s ally, but they WILL carry their weight.
The US is revamping the European theatre, it intends to move more assets from the EU to South America, another smart move to stabilize the region and put pressure on China’s and Russia’s influences in this region, also to shut down the large scale illicit drug trade.
‘So the EU complains that the US is abandoning them…’
Remembering Hillary’s big Red Button, ouch! US has gone the extra mile w/ the ruskies (e.g., trying to cooperate in space exploration) but it just ain’t ever going to work because they hate the West much like the Eurocommies hate America. Even Canada’s puke. The only real ‘friend’ America has is Japan and Vietnam. Even Western Academia hates the US.
Wagathon: don’t tell me that there is a whiff of schizophrenia in that piece. Some of us across the pond have known the US for long decades. Westinghouse, Westinghouse derivatives after WW2, GE in many formats; even the main ‘I’ beam of grandpa’s mule driven water wheel of 1926 had the ‘Bethlehem Steel’ imprint on it (that took some years to figure out whatever it had to do with Christmas – not lack of rain)
The level of schizophrenia is off the charts, it’s almost as bad as a climate change protest, except more dangerous—real, not faux existential. Sober minds must prevail.
Putin is a sociopath, psychopath, a megalomaniac, and more. Push Putin into a corner and he’ll do like all dangerous wild animals do, except he’ll lash out with nukes if he can’t have his way. For him nobody else will either. It’s a reasonable assumption. Because of this, the US and EU NATO forces hitting Ukrainian’s front lines with guns blazing is an invitation to WW3.
The US and EU Left aren’t thinking clearly—”TDS schizophrenia”. Though Trump, and the entire administration do agree that Ukraine deserves to have all its land back, and for Ukraine to get security guarantees. It’s important to understand that a near-term solution doesn’t define a long-term solution. Satisfying the Lefts temper tantrum, the way they’ve described how the West should solve this problem is a very bad idea.
And the problem is more than Russia, it’s also China. China seems to be left out of the equation. I have yet to see a national media exposé describing the geopolitical threat that both China and Russia project—that the entire axis of evil projects. It’s because the Left in many ways still align with China and Iran. It remains myopic politics for many.
China has become extremely overt with its aggression recently. Just yesterday one of its fighters put a missile lock on a Japanese plane, they also projected a 100 ship strong naval fleet in the South China Sea, a show of force. I could go on.
We need to come together sooner rather than later as Western nations. The average citizen doesn’t follow detailed events of geopolitical politics, much of before type information doesn’t make headlines. I’d say most media these days is still sculpting a political message for internal consumption, a continuation of brainwashing. The buildup of the schizophrenic underclass just might kill us all—at least by way of unpreparedness.
Despite TDS, Trump is managing the situation brilliantly. I think the posture of buying time is the correct move. The West needs time to prepare. The biggest underlying point for waiting is the fact that Russia internally is coming apart. They’ve already sold half their gold to fund their war with Ukraine. There’s been some amount of a run on its banks. Goods aren’t flowing in. Russia has essentially become a vassal state to China. China is buying up much of this gold, and they’re purchasing what oil they can get at near cost from Russia—this defines desperation. China is tripling its margin on supplies that Russia needs—they’re squeezing Russia—most likely for the purpose of control, not a complete breakdown.
The best case scenario is that Putin ends the way Mussolini did, that the Russian people turn him, I think there’s some probability for it.
Greetings from Europe. Europe has moved gradually (too slowly, obviously) towards increasing defense expenditure ever since Obama more or less demanded it a decade ago. They all now accept that the US is perfectly within its rights to pull back from the umbrella coverage that served American interests for decades. But they’re not crazy to wish for an organized and phased transition, either.
The Radiative Energy Budget considers the Entire not reflected solar energy absorbed as heat. It is overlooked (in the Budget) the Immediate IR Emission vs Heat Absorption Ability interplay.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Stratospheric intrusion in the US on December 13.
https://i.ibb.co/vbgswtz/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f120.png
Polar Vortex.
https://i.ibb.co/tTtN9QxL/gfs-z100-nh-f24.png
Surface temperature forecast for the Midwest for the morning of December 14.
https://i.ibb.co/Q7mT96tY/ventusky-temperature-5cm-20251214t1500-45n99w-1.jpg
Historical weather events, not models, is the way to go.
Zillow Group Inc. removed climate risk scores from its home listings after a complaint from the real estate industry, despite warnings that the risk still exists.
Climate-risk models are not perfect and can yield different results, with a study showing that 13 different companies rated the same 100 properties with varying levels of vulnerability to flooding and other hazards.
The removal of climate risk scores and the variability of climate-risk models can lead to oversimplification or incorrect projections, potentially depressing the value of assets and distorting market pricing.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-09/real-estate-climate-risk-score-debate-reveals-limits-of-flood-fire-modeling
So what you don’t know can’t hurt you?
Tell that to the insurance companies. The have the history and the models and they are raising the premiums.
Free link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/04/climate/home-insurance-prices-climate-change-readers.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7U8.hHAc.6DkHxemSak5k&smid=url-share
John Ridgeway in this post highlights the failure of the peers of scientists to call out the errors in scientific studies, ie the complacency of of scientists if the study comports with their agenda.
The NY times article you cited is one example. It is an agenda driven advocacy piece with serious logic errors. Quite frankly its an embarrassment that anyone would take the article seriously. Nothing more needs to be said.
The data came from here: https://www.nber.org/papers/w32579
Property Insurance and Disaster Risk: New Evidence from Mortgage Escrow Data
“We develop a new dataset to study homeowners insurance using over 74 million premiums from 2014–2024 inferred from mortgage escrow payments. We document rapidly rising premiums and a doubling of the pass-through from disaster risk into premiums. Using variation in correlated wildfire and hurricane exposure, we show that the increase in the risk-to-premium gradient was accelerated by a repricing of catastrophic risk in global capital markets. Premium increases are capitalized into home values, reducing home price growth by over $40,000 in the most exposed zipcodes. The premium and home price effects are larger in areas facing rising climate risk.”
Not climate scientists, economics.
Jack – did you read the study you linked?
My prior comment stands – simply substitute the NY times with the name of the study. Its an agenda driven advocacy study. Nothing more nothing less. Its not hard to pick up on the advocacy.
“The NY times article you cited is one example. It is an agenda driven advocacy piece with serious logic errors. Quite frankly its an embarrassment that anyone would take the article seriously. Nothing more needs to be said.”
I don’t take anyone seriously if they don’t know the difference between “it’s” and “its”. Nor do I pay much attention to claims of unspecified logic errors coming from an illogical source.
‘Big increases with little explanation’
That’s BS– no one with the wherewithal to own a home in California has any doubt about why insurance rates have risen. It is caused by voters, comprising a majority of all voters, who continue to empower the Democrat party hegemony. In other words, California voters are essentially burning their own houses down.
Wagathon
Attached is a link to a study that was retracted with similar logic flaws as the insurance premium study. Just another example of agenda driven junk science. Both are example of how easy it is to spot junk science when you have a basic background knowledge of the subject. Of course with out the myopic view that inhibits common sense.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0
Wow, Jack. I’m SHOCKED, SHOCKED I say, that insurance companies would use any excuse to raise premiums. Whoddathoughit???
…hard to blame Insurance companies for raising rates the legally allowable limit in a market where so many are leaving California because they’re unable raise rates sufficiently high enough to cover their risks due to the state’s strict regulatory environment. AAA, for instance, has pretty much abandoned it’s property insurance business in California and State Farm, California’s largest property insurer, stopped accepting new applications in ’23.
Joe –
What are the errors?
Josha
Why was the paper retracted?
“Earth’s effective radiating temperature” (commonly Te) is a measured brightness temperature at about 240 W/m^2; Earth’s surface temperature is a measured kinetic temperature at about 288K. No “abstraction” in either.”
the temperature of 255K nowhere in the entire world emits 240 W/m^2.
the 288K nowhere in the entire world emits 390 W/m^2.
The Earth’s CORRECT Effective Temperature Te.correct = 210K, it is also a mathematical abstraction. But it is, at least, a correct mathematical abstraction.
Because, when dealing with mathematical abstractions, we should pay respect to what they relay on, so the abstractions
to get correctly calculated.
Earth’s CORRECT Effective Temperature
Te.correct = 210K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Observation- popular morning news hour on Fox this morning concluded the show with a question that three mostly regular conservative host and guests answer to the best of their ability as the audience participates at home and see if they are right after a commercial break. The question was, which of four gases comprises the highest percent in Earth’s atmosphere- oxygen, carbon dioxide, argon, nitrogen? One said nitrogen and the other two said carbon dioxide. These are comparatively intelligent individuals who themselves (and the network in general) would not be considered, Left-wing Global Warming Climate Change alarmists seeking to curb free enterprise capitalism to save the planet. Despite the obvious collective ignorance displayed on this particular factoid, it’s interesting that many apparently, intuitively understand the political corruption of Western Academia, especially as concerns the AGW conjecture, even without being as scientifically knowledgeable when it comes to some rather basic facts about the world we live in.
“These are comparatively intelligent individuals…”
For Fox maybe.
Obviously Molly’s comment remains outside the Lefts 427 parts per million leaning intellect.
Reminds me of the Streetlight Effect, e.g., mulla Nasrudin looking for his lost keys under a street lamp because the light was better there.
This study was scrapped by Nature and retracted by authors last week due to phony numbers…
https://share.google/T78vgsnFBdbjQ5hhb
The antithesis of the retracted study would be, e.g., Bjørn Lomborg’s estimates of the lost economic value to be trillions of dollars annually as a result of a slavish obedience to the Paris Agreement’s net zero targets.
Perhaps consider it newfound clarity. The Paris agreement is so terribly inconvenient when the entire EU must commit to scraping together massive budgets for defense, from near scratch—for a real existential crises. As far as climate propaganda, no sweat, it can be reverse engineered by very adept pamphleteers.
So what is it all really about? Why all the lying and the accepting of lies? It’s all political. Just replace AGW alarmists’ hypothesized effects on the climate of too many humans producing too much CO2 with the real effects on the socio-economic condition caused by governments spending too many dollars that do not belong to them.
There is Global Warming. The cause is orbital.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
OT: Boom Supersonic is soon delivering ground breaking gas turbine technology that produces 42 MW power. The compact size turbine delivers to its first customer in 2027. Initially it will power AI data centers. Sam Altman, Open AI CEO, is a key investor in the company:
https://viewfromthewing.com/boom-supersonic-pivots-to-powering-ai-data-centers-and-says-billion-dollar-1-21-gigawatt-turbine-deal-will-pay-for-the-jet/
Aviation is actually their core business. Boom Supersonic is building the next generation supersonic airliner “Overture”. It will fly at Mach 1.7, the goal is for a zero carbon footprint from the new revolutionary jet engine design.
Site, and press releases:
https://boomsupersonic.com
The first thing needs to be realized is that Stefan-Boltzmann formula doesn’t apply to terrestrial temperatures.,,
The 15C (288K) do not emit 390 W/m^2, no matter what the
J = σ T^4 W/m^2 calculates!
Also the -18C (255K) do not emit 240 W/m^2, no matter what the
J = σ T^4 W/m^2 calculates!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Test
The problem with commenting is now fixes ($3k later)
thanks – everyone appreciates your efforts
Scott was a dilletante in polar travel, the opposite of Amundsen, who adopted the methods of the Inuit and found the trip to the Pole to be relatively easy. The storm was only the fatal final straw for Scott’s poor preparation and methods, leading his men to their deaths. If there is a parallel to today’s climate issues, he would be the Ed Milliband / Justin Trudeau / (insert name of your choice) of his time, adopting wrong and ultimately deadly technology leading to inevitable catastrophic failure, dragging everyone down with himself.