No Big Storms

December 30th, 2012 at 5:55 pm by under Bill's Blog, Weather

   Kids having fun at Pando Winter Sports Park in the picture, where they are celebrating their 50th year.  With the cool temperatures, ski areas have been able to make snow and have pretty good conditions.  They will continue to be the case for the next week.  Here’s the afternoon Lake Michigan MODIS satellite picture.  Note it’s clear in Wisconsin and south of I-94.  It was also clear in the late PM at Cadillac and Houghton Lake.  Ice is forming in Green Bay.  Shallow Lake Winnebego is frozen over.  The deepest lakes in Wisconsin still have open water (Lake Geneva, Green Lake).  The lake-effect clouds held solid over most areas north of a line from S. Haven to north of Jackson.  We had a dusting of snow last night and there are icy spots on sidewalks, parking lots and a few lesser-traveled roads.  The split jet stream, well north and south of us means that we miss the storms again this week.  We will get occasional lake-effect snow showers, but the factors really don’t come together for any real significant accumulations over most of the area.  There will be scattered snow showers/flurries Monday/Tuesday.   Temperatures will be cool.  The NAM (Caribou) gives G.R.  a high of 34 on Monday, a temperature of 27 at Midnight, temperatures holding in the mid 20s most of Tuesday and a high of 28 on Weds.  It gets a little breezy late tonight/Monday and that will keep wind chills in the teens.   You can see fireworks on New Year’s Eve in Saugatuck, Jackson, Ludington and in Kalamazoo, where there is a big all-evening party around Bronson Park.  Thousands will be in downtown G.R. for the big HOT FM Party with Sylvia Yacoub from THE VOICE.   And…the Lions lost – at least they’ve made ‘em close. The Lions finish a disappointing 4-12 ending with 8 losses in a row.  The Lions had four turnovers, none for the Bears.  Calvin Johnson has a record year, but does not make 2,000 yds.    ALSO:  A new study on the giant tsunami that hit Japan after the big Earthquake on 3/11/11.  The sea wall at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant was 18.7 feet high.  The tsunami at the nuclear facility averaged approximately 47 feet high.  At one point they found that the water climbed to 68.9 feet (21 meters).  If you figure 12.5 feet per story in a downtown building, that would have been a “wave” over 5 1/2 stories high.

Also:  How we build a railroad today.

189 Responses to “No Big Storms”

  1. Tonka says:

    2 1/2 months to go. Michigan winters now remind me a lot of Portland Oregon or Seattle Washington. Is this low snow total a new norm I wonder?

    1. michael g (SE GR) says:

      No. US and northern hemisphere snowcover are both above normal. We’re just in the wrong spot.

      1. big Daddy BC says:

        Snow COVER you’re talking about? What about depth or water equivalence? No one’s gonna buy that we have more snow now than a decade ago.

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          You’re wrong as usual…see the links below in my next comment and this:

          Snowiest winters in G.R.:

          1) 144.1 downtown, 132″ old airport in 1951-52
          2) 107.0 2007-08
          3) 105.2 2001-02
          4) 104.7 1958-59
          5) 101.4 1964-65
          6) 101.0 1970-71
          7) 98.1 2000-01
          8) 96.6 1996-97

          Least snowy winters in G.R.:

          1) 20.0″ 1905-06
          2) 22.4″ 1902-03
          3) 30.1″ 1906-07
          4) 30.3″ 1948-49
          5) 31.5″ 1920-21
          6) 32.6″ 1943-44
          7) 33.2″ 1901-02
          8) 33.8″ 1936-37

        2. phlrnnr says:

          Bill, with so many of the winters with record little snow occurring in the first decade of the 1900s, was that just an extended period of extreme drought? Or did they measure snow differently than they do today? Or possibly some combination?

        3. GunLakeDeb says:

          Yeah – I figure we’re in some sort of “phase” – but from 1901 to 1907 – that’s kind of a long “phase”. I sure hope we’re not in for another decade of low snow totals…..

        4. big Daddy BC says:

          Again, Bill. Local data vs. pan-global data. Big difference. Climate change is a worldwide phenom.

        5. big Daddy BC says:

          Hold on a minute there, Steffen. Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you continue to use the global warming average, it’ll always look average. Climate scientists use the century average. Fact is, it’s hotter than it’s ever been. I can’t help but laugh when you post weatherbell misinformation and then write NASA DATA next to it. Why not go to the source?

          Anyone that spends any amount of time on NASA’s site will see graphics that depict a decrease in arctic ice, Antarctic land ice, an increase in worldwide temps that correlates with a dramatic increase in CO2, a quantified rise in sea level, etc, etc, etc.

        6. Bill Steffen says:

          Do you even read the links you post? Century average? Your link says: “This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures.” The reason the 1951-1980 30-year period is used is to make the graph look the “warmest”. It’s the coolest 30-year period the last 100 years. No one uses the 1951-1980 average today. Now, go find a graph that actually uses a 100-year average.

          Keep in mind that global temperatures have been steady for the past decade: Even the graph you linked to shows that.

          Look at this article:–chart-prove-it.html

          Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

          Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

          ‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

          Read more:
          Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

        7. big Daddy BC says:

          No one uses the ’51-’81 average? Apparently NASA does, and probably for that graphic because they didn’t want to include the climate change data. Once you include decades of warming in the average, you skew it.

          Okay, so a quick search found this comparison to the century average.

        8. Bill Steffen says:

          Again…the only reason to use 1951-1980 is to purposefully select the coolest 30-year period. As I have explained, NOAA, NCDC, NWS all use the most recent 3 complete decades: This lessens the impact of urbanization for one. There’s also a more consistent set of stations (since stations are occasionally moved – new stations come into existence).

          Here’s a NASA graphic that again shows that global temperatures have been steady for the last decade:

    2. Bill Steffen says:

      As of Sunday morning, over 63% of the Lower 48 states had a snowcover with an average depth of 6.3″: That’s more than any 12/30 in the last 10 years. The combination of extent and depth means that the volume of snow on the ground in he Lower 48 states is greater than for any 12/30 in the last 10 years (as far back as I can look at that website).

      Northern Hemisphere snowfall has actually increased in the last decade: and

      Grand Rapids snowiest decade was 2001 – 2010.

      Warmest winter in the last century in G.R. 1931-32. Coldest winter in the last century 1976-77.

      1. Brad (Lawrence) says:

        What was the least snowiest decade?

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          1901-1910, I believe

        2. Slimjim says:

          Yea, I think there were some years when GR did not get more then 20 to 30 inches then.

        3. Slimjim says:

          We had a sunny day down here in Fort Myers FL but it was on the cool side with temps in the mid 60′s right now it’s clear and the temp is 54.. I see that GR is in a bland weather pattern.

      2. arcturus says:

        I’m surprised records go back just 10 years ago. Hard to draw any conclusions based on such limited data. Yet, all said, it doesn’t appear to have made any dent in the drought.

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          The data only goes back 10 years on that website. We’re limited to the years when we’ve had acceptable satellite observations.

          Drought begets drought…we had extensive multi-year droughts in the 1930s and 1950s. The drought of the 1930s was worse than the current drought:

        2. Bill Steffen says:

          Palmer Drought Index by year…showing the drought of 2012 was not as significant as the droughts of the 1930s and 1950s:

        3. big Daddy BC says:

          And what about the droughts of 2010 or 2011 or 2013?? It’s the same drought.

        4. Bill Steffen says:

          The drought isn’t caused by “global warming”.

          Here’s Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, the State Climatologist of Texas:

          “The set-up right now is basically the way it was in the 1950s [when a multi-year drought gripped Texas – the official “drought of record” for water-supply planning]. There is no evidence that climate change contributed to the lack of rainfall, because rainfall has risen over the past century in the state.”

          From this interview:

    3. arcturus says:

      Snowcover itself is meaningless without water equivalent and persistence. A dusting that covers 3/4 of the country lasting one week is far less significant than deep snow lasting months that covers half as much. The people on the Mississippi and Red River valley know this first hand.

      So when people claim *snowcover* is above or below average it’s at best incomplete, at worst, meaningless.

      1. big Daddy BC says:

        Right on, but it doesn’t make headlines apparently.

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          Go here: The figures for Sunday, Dec. 30, 2012 were 63.1% of the Lower 48 states with a snow cover and an average snow depth of 6.3″. You can get figures for any date in the last 10 years. The figures for Sunday are the 2nd greatest snow cover extent of the last 10 years (only 1% behind the 64.1% in 2009 and a tie with 2010 at the highest average depth of the last 10 years. The COMBINED 63.1% snow cover and average depth of 6.3″ would mean that we now have the greatest VOLUME of snow on the ground in the U.S. than any Dec. 30 in the past 10 years (as far back as I can look at that website).

          According to Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, on 2/13/2010 the Northern Hemisphere winter snow extent was the second highest on record, at 52,166,840 km2. This was only topped by the second week in February, 1978 at 53,647,305 km2.

          Here’s current N. American snow cover: and and Asia (also with an above average extent of snow cover:

      2. Brian(Grandville) says:

        Since when has snow cover lasted for months along the Mississippi River, and Red River valley areas. GOOD ONE.

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          This certainly isn’t what the climate profiteers predicted:

          Here’s a good example of a climate profiteer: He didn’t make his 100+ million dollars by providing cheaper energy…in many cases, he didn’t produce any energy at all. You apply for government tax money…you often don’t have to do anything…no risk to you, but you do get a salary or payout of some kind…then you close up shop and move on to the next green energy boondoggle: (They didn’t produce a single battery!) and

          With the money wasted at LG Chem – we could have given scholarships to every engineering student at GVSU.

        2. arcturus says:

          Considering the watershed for the Mississippi and Red River cover nearly half the US, persistent snow cover in some portions of those areas should happen frequently.

        3. big Daddy BC says:

          Climate denier profiteers are making a hell of a lot more money than alternative energy firms. Give us a break. We give those bastards a fortune at the pump, billions in subsidies with our hard-earned tax dollars, and now another fortune in bail outs for drought stricken regions.

        4. Steelie says:

          Good Day,

          One name – Al Gore – how much has he made on false science? How many “green energy” companies have failed that took billions of taxpayer dollars down the drain of failure? Huh…

          The true robber barron at the pump is government. Via taxes they take more out of your wallet than the so called evil oil companies. (Profit drives investment, jobs, and and supports retirement accounts.)

          The majority of the so called “subsidies” primarily go to small and medium sized oil companies to help them in terms of exploration and and so forth. This is supportive of these smaller businesses and the people they employ. Also, a good portion of these “subsidies” for these smaller comnpanies tend to be in the form of tax breaks, unlike dumping billions down the hole for green energy (cough, Solyndra, cough…).

          BDBC – we may disagree, but we have had a few convivial discusions. That said… C (carbon) is not a polutant, never has been. So this entire notiuon of carbon being a danger is just plain silly. Afterall, we term life on this planet as “carbon based”. If carbon were so bad, then most likely we wouldn’t be here, now would we? The same goes for CO2 (carbon dioxide), without it, life on this planet would be quite different. Where would all the trees, plants and flowers be? Huh…? Have nice NYE evening.


        5. Bill Steffen says:

          bidD – you’re link says “FARMERS will get a bailout”…not the oil companies. Much of this is loans that will be paid back or insurance programs that farmers have already paid some money into.

        6. big Daddy BC says:

          Yes. The article is about the bailout farmers require as a result of losses from this, now, three year drought. That’s tax payer cash IN ADDITION to the billions in subsidies we give the fossil fuel giants and doesn’t take the environmental degradation from carbon aerosols, spills like the one in the Gulf and Kalamazoo River, acidification of the oceans, mercury poisoning of the food supply, and habitat destruction from pipelines, platforms, etc. The list goes on and on.

          Spending money to erect pollution-free alternative energy producing mechanisms makes lots of sense. Get the idiot bureaucrats out of the mix and we might get something done. Heck, we might even be able to hand our children a world they deserve.

        7. Steelie says:

          Good Day,

          BDBC – with all due respect, first a simple question: If mercury were such a concern – why then are so many of these so called environmentalists (using the term loosely) pushing us to use these stupid curly cue lightbulbs? Afterall, they contain mercury and when one breaks the area becomes or can be considered as a toxic spill area. In California, for example, you have to have a specialist come in to clean it up for about $3,000. Do you want that in your landfill potentially leaching into your water supply? When a good ol’ incandescent bulb breaks all you need is a broom and a dustpan – not a hazmat team. (Granted, beinbg a bit tongue in cheek, but I think you get the point.) My wife changed almost all our bulbs to the new ones and guess what – my electric bill is actually more than last year. (Granted that has more to do with rates, which are going to skyrocket as Obama promised they would.)

          Did you know… hundreds (if not thousands) of gallons of oil leach into the Gulf NATURALLY every day? The same also happens in the Mississippi Delta where the plants and ecosystem have over the eons developed means by which to adapt, survive and thrive despite the presence of oil. In fact there are even microbes that feast on it. Also, my fishing buddies (many guides) tell me the fishing (coastal for the most part) is better than it has been in a long time.

          I am all for “alternative energy”, if it actually worked, which it plainly does not – yet. The truth of the matter is that oil, gas and coal are still our most reliable, accessable and efficient sources of energy (you might throw Nuclear in that mix too). Not to mention cost effective when compared to so called “green energy” (but Obama is trying to change that). The so called subsidies you are complaining about for the oil/coal/gas sector are actually producing something where as billions of dollars that went to the green sector simply evaporated and produced little if any energy. In other words, a complete waste of money. Heck, it would have produced more energy if used in a wood fired furnace (insert a bit of sarcasm there…) than being wasted on an energy sector that is a proven failure and is not yet ready for the big game. Look, if someone were to figure out cold fusion (for example) tomorrow and the means by which to effectively and efficiently produce and distribute it at a competitive cost, I would be all over it.


        8. big Daddy BC says:

          Actually I agree with you about CF Bulbs. I’ve said that before. Mercury levels are so high in Lake Michigan due to coal fired power plants that it’s now recommended we eat not more than one fish dinner per month. HOLY CRAP, is this the legacy you want to hand our children and grandchildren?

          You’re wrong on multiple levels about fossil fuels. Wind farms are producing lots of electricity. Here in Michigan, the Gratiot County Wind Project, a 212 megawatt wind farm in central Michigan is powering 50,000 homes. They’re actually producing a surplus and selling it across the state line. It’s wind, not coal or oil or natural gas. It’s fricken free, side effect free, and sellable. Don’t buy the lie that it’s too expensive to produce. That’s the lie propagated by fossil fuel barons. Turn the old FOX NEWS off and open your eyes.

        9. Bill Steffen says:

          Wind energy is not “frickin’ free”. It gets massive government subsidies.

          There’s a “production tax credit” that gives windmill operators a $22 tax break for every megawatt hour of juice they produce! $22! During hours of low demand wind producers actually pay grid operators to accept their power, just to get the tax break (which can be “carried forward” and used against future tax liabilities for up to 20 years). It’s quite the deal for the operators (everyone from GE to foreign companies to Al Gore), who then collect large salaries paid with tax dollars that are really borrowed dollars from China that your children and grandchildren will be forced to pay back.

          Wind energy is also dependent on the wind. When the wind isn’t blowing, you’re getting zero energy. On the hottest day of 2012 (July 6), with the temperature over 100 degrees across much of Lower Michigan and air conditioners cranking away at a feverish clip and we were setting records for energy use…the average wind speed in Lansing was 2.5 mph. Those wind turbines were as motionless as Ford Field during the NFL playoffs.

          Look at this map from the U.S. Dept. of Energy: Give it a good look at note the color table in the lower left corner. According to the Dept. of Energy, most of Michigan is poor to marginal for wind energy. The one place where they may be cost-effective is in Lake Michigan and that would present a whole set of new problems, from maintaining them, especially in winter, to the migrating birds that would run into the turbines.

        10. Steelie says:

          Good Day,

          BDBC – at least we can agree on the CF bulbs!

          BTW – did you know that a lot of the mercury in the Great Lakes basin is actually naturally occuring? (Although Dow – Sarnia was a major polluter leading to the mercury crisis of I think 1970.) Mercury (elemental form) itself is not considered a problem as it is almost completely insoluble in water. However, it becomes dangerous as microorganisms transform it into one of, if not its most toxic form – methylmercury (nasty stuff).

          Wind… I know it may seem like an overly simplistic arguement – but if there is no to little wind to spin those turbines, there is no power. That seems like a pretty big Achilles heel. So, where then does the energy come from to power thoses homes and businesses – ol’ reliable fossil fuels. (Or nuclear if that particular grid is supplied by it.) For kicks and giggles, I thought I would take a peek at the current conditions in Gratiot County. A wind of only 8mph right now. Yup, lots of power being produced at the moment…

          While perhaps not a huge difference… the cost per kwh analysis of new power plants that go online in 2016 is as follows:

          Onshore wind – $0.096 p/kwh

          Conventional new coal – $0.095 p/kwh

          Advanced CCGT – $0.063 p/kwh

          Translation – non-subsidized onshore wind is 52% more expensive than CCGT.


        11. whatBillwantstosaybutcant says:

          There is a way to store wind energy btw.

        12. big Daddy BC says:

          Okay, but don’t forget that we’re subsidizing ALL of our energy producers. Let’s compare apples to apples, because the subsidies that coal receives would change those numbers as well. As far as wind being available 24/7, good point, one that’s made often. Your observation about current wind speed probably wasn’t from 200 feet up where the rotor hub is. The answer to that is exactly as you put it. Wind could never be a sole source of electricity, neither could solar or water, but used in tandem with so-called clean coal or natural gas, it would reduce those pollutants.
          That wind farm does produce electricity anytime the wind blows and does store it or send it down the wire for sale. It’s powering 50,000 homes in Michigan right now.

        13. Steelie says:

          Good Day,

          BDBC – If you don’t mind, I will continue the conversation in the “2/3rds of country with snow on the ground” thread as it is newer… Thx.


        14. Bill Steffen says:

          And that $22.00/MWh is indexed and is an after-tax benefit of $34.00. And this does not include the RECs and accelerated depreciation benefits.Common wholesale MISO energy pricing is$30-50/Mwh. Nice gig if you can get it.

  2. Nathan says:

    Got back from vacation! Now I have to shovel :)

  3. Rocky (Rockford) says:

    Get ready – a SNOWSTORM is coming the week of 1-7-13!

    1. Swatz_Zoo(Cedar Springs) says:

      Just in time for the kiddo’s going back to school.

    2. Ned S. (Now in South Holland) says:

      Call me skeptical, but I’ll believe that when I see it. No offense intended.

      1. arcturus says:

        With his batting record lately I would be too.

        1. Tim from Zeeland says:

          Heck, even Ryan Raburn has a better batting avg than Rocky. lol

        2. Rocky (Rockford) says:

          Now that is funny!

  4. Kevin (Marshall) says:

    I think the temperature forecast is a bit off tonight at least in the Battle Creek area. Predicted lows in the low 20′s. It is already 17 degrees.

    1. Cliff (Scotts) says:

      I noticed that as well Kevin. I thought the high today was suppose to be 31 and I don’t think it was above 24 today. Wonder what is making such a big difference that the temps being predicted for the day are off so much.

      1. Bill Steffen says:

        The official high for Dec. 30 was 30 degrees and the official low was 23.

    1. Robert (Plainwell) says:

      yep lies lies and more lies from your side.

    2. Bill Steffen says:

      This is how NOAA views global temperature:

      Here’s Giss data for the past 10 years:

      Here’s HadCrut data for the past 10 years:

      Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

      Read more:–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2Gc2NO3vP
      Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

      1. big Daddy BC says:

        Sorry, Bill. Wood For Trees data is not credible. P-lease. Here’s a much more unbiased source, LOL:

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          Skeptical Science? You’re kidding, right? Skeptical science is one (far-leftist) man’s blog (rant) from Australia! It’s neither skeptical or scientific!

          Readers can go to and make their own decision:

        2. Mike M. says:

          Heh. SS. “Skeptical” science. Run by a cartoonist, John Cook. The go-to propaganda arm of wild-eyed Alarmists ’round the world. Aiming to be what RealClimate was to embarrassed to be. Serving regurgitated pablum to credulous journalists daily.

        3. Mike M. says:

          Wood for Trees is a site that enables climate graph making. Their databases are UAH, Hadcrut4, and Crutem4. And you say they’re not credible? Bwahhahhaahahaha! Big daddy’s incredible ignorance shines through into 2013.

        4. big Daddy BC says:

          Apparently my humor is lost on you, mouth breather. LOL

          If you want to use credible databases, then use them. Don’t use right wing blogs and fossil fuel funded sites. It makes you look desperate.

        5. Bill Steffen says:

          Linking you and humor is like linking Michael Phelps and aquaphobia. Skeptical Science is a far-left cartoonist’s blog. is an impartial data-based graphing organization. Anyone with more than a gnat’s naval of perception and intelligence can see that.

        6. big Daddy BC says:

          Gnats don’t have navals. They’re insects and not mammals, or were you trying to prove your superior sense of humor? LOL Oh, it worked. I laughed.

          Skeptical Science is a site I almost never use because I prefer to beat you with actual scientific sources, not blogs or biased sites and paid-for ‘experts’. Wish you could say the same.

        7. Bill Steffen says:

          You’ve linked to Skeptical Science many times…also to Think Progress and the SEIU bulletin.

  5. Steelie says:

    Good Day,

    4-12… Almost a why bother scenario…


  6. Does anyone know the coldest temperature the state of Michigan has ever recorded and where?

    1. Bnoppe says:

      On February 9, 1934, the temperature in Vanderbilt fell to -51°F (-46°C), The coldest temperature ever recorded in Michigan.

      1. Freezing!! haha thanks! interesting to know

        1. Skot says:

          Where the heck is “Vanderbilt”?

        2. GunLakeDeb says:

          Skot – just south of Wolverine – about 40 miles (?) south of the Mac Bridge.

    2. Mr. Negative says:

      I remember a -20 overnight in GR, maybe 12-15 years ago. Cold enough -

      1. Brian(Grandville) says:

        Now that’s a Negative # Mr. I remember that kind of temp. somewhere in the early to mid 90′s. Must have been before the introduction of the SUV, or the cow, or the moose.

      2. GunLakeDeb says:

        We’ve seen our thermometer hit that a couple of times – but it’s always colder down here in the “bowl” of Gun Lake if the wind is calm.

  7. Bnoppe says:

    Split jet pattern ugh.. Could it possibly get any worst

    1. Scott (west olive) says:

      Ya, big daddy bc could be sitting in your yard in a bathing suit claiming GW. LOL

      1. Mike (Mattawan) says:


      2. joanne says:

        I dont know why, but I just had a picture in my head of Big Daddy squatting over Scott’s (West Olives) face ripping a big one and Scott was denying that he could smell anything, although he was really sniffing hardcore. Bill was in the background yelling sue him, he’s a thug, Indy was drinking Sprites and Fixxer was complaining about the Mexican’s next door. Soon, 20 more people showed up agreeing with Bill, but they were all Bill!

        1. michael g (SE GR) says:

          Way to keep it classy Kev.

        2. Lisa (Caledonia) says:

          Your imagination is disturbing.

        3. bobcat says:

          You are gross joanne.

        4. Mike M. says:

          Big daddy, Kevin, joanne, and arcturus are all the same person.

        5. big Daddy BC says:

          That must mean you, Dan, Paul, and babecat are all the same. I guess we all have multiple personalities. What about Brad, is he Craig James? Dire Floyde is INDY for sure! LOL

          You’re an idiot.

        6. Bill Steffen says:

          Check this out from NOAA. Drought index shows drought of 2012 not nearly as bad as the droughts of the mid 1930s and 1950s:

        7. big Daddy BC says:

          If it’s from NOAA, why are you sending us to a right-wing blog???? LOL

          Let’s not forget that the drought from 2012 stretches back to 2010 and is still going on today.

        8. Bill Steffen says:

          Go here and you can make the graph yourself: It’s the Palmer Modified Drought Index.

          The multi-year droughts of the 1930s and 1950s were worse than the drought of 2012. And the drought of 2012 was NOT caused by global warming:

          Go here:

          In the article, the State Climatologist of Texas says:

          “There is no evidence that climate change contributed to the lack of rainfall, because rainfall has risen over the past century in the state.”

  8. Mike (Berrien county) says:

    Decent amount of snow on the ground here still…. 4-5 inches. Just too bad with all this cold air in place, we can’t manage to build up a nice deep snowpack… like a foot plus or something. Looks cold & dry for the next week though at least. BORING!! :-(

  9. wackyred-allendale,mi says:

    Just got back from Ga. tonight. The most snow I saw was in Ky.The route I took was Interstate 75 then 23 to 96 roads were clear and dry all the way,thank goodness.Happy New Year to all.

  10. Scott (west olive) says:

    Man did the wind pick up!

    1. Scott (west olive) says:

      36 degrees out. Warm spell.

  11. Rocky (Rockford) says:

    I am still hoping for a SNOWSTORM the week of 1-7, however if we don’t have a SNOWSTORM by the middle of the month I would say hang winter up. We could be heading for the WORST WINTER ever! No cold air, no snow storms and very little lake effect. It does not get much worse than this!!!!

    1. Mike (Mattawan) says:

      yep… just watch… after everyone gives up on winter this year… we will be hit with some seasonably late back to back winter storms. (hopefully… haha)

      1. Rocky (Rockford) says:

        At this point that be a miracle!

  12. kevin. w says:

    Man if we go through the whole winter dry like this and then end up turning warm like last spring, its going to be bad news for farmers. This has been the most boring weather since spring of 2011. You watch this spring one week will have a blizzard warning and the next a tornado outbreak.l

    1. Slimjim says:

      That is possible. As for the farmers l long as they get precip they will be fine.

    2. Steelie says:

      Good Day,

      Just last week both warnings were up at the same time only miles apart. Tonados in the Carolinas, blizzard conditions in the Virginias if I remember correctly.


  13. Slimjim says:

    It’s going to be a nice and sunny New Year’s Eve here in fort myers. Low to mid 70′s look good for today. The have a ball drop downtown here we may go down there tonight the forecast is clear with temps in the low to mid 60′s at midnight.

    1. Steelie says:

      Good Day,

      That is a nice area to vacation. My wife and I enjoy the barrier islands… ;-)


    2. GunLakeDeb says:

      Sounds like a lot of fun!!! I’m sure you’re a “standout Michigander” – while everyone is walking around bundled up – you’re in a T-shirt and shorts, basking in the warmth?? ;-)

      1. Steelie says:

        Good Day,

        Hey Deb – still hoping you can get your “sled” on sometime… That said, they are quite acclimated to us down there. Heck, at certain times of year it seems there are more Michigan and New Jersey plates than Florida plates! ;-)


        1. GunLakeDeb says:

          Thanks, Steelie – there was someone out on the lake on a snowmobile tonight, so maybe I can trailer mine down to the boat launch….LOL!! But the iceboaters were out in force today – it’s just amazing how fast those DNs are!!!!!!

      2. Steelie says:

        Good Day,

        Those ice boats are fun to watch! I think you have to have just a pinch of daredevil in you to really push those things to their top speed potential. Whispers still abound about the fabled Chuck Nevitt and the estimated 150 miles an hour he may have reached way back in 1947 on a 42′ ice boat!


  14. Rocky (Rockford) says:

    The GR seasonal total snowfall is a whopping 7.5 inches – we should have about 30 inches by now! I just took a look at all of the models, and the teleconnectors and it does not look good. I am officially back on the SNOW DROUGHT PATTERN and the WORST WINTER in history pattern! I believe that I have a much better chance of golfing in the month of January than seeing a decent SNOWSTORM! Let’s hope that I am WRONG!

    1. Steelie says:

      Good Day,

      Rocky – CPC is is back on the “warmer” train…


    2. Mike (Berrien county) says:

      What’s insane is that a stripe from southern Illinois, southern Indiana, into Ohio have already gotten like around 2 feet or so for the season with several more on the way from tonight into tomorrow. This is indeed a really screwed up pattern!

      1. Steelie says:

        Good Day,

        And what’s “funny” is I am sure they are just as sick of their pattern as the snow lovers are here.


        1. GunLakeDeb says:

          Maybe we should send them some of our unused snowplow trucks??

        2. Steelie says:

          Good Day,

          At this point you might (gasp) have to drive South to go snowmobiling! ;-)


  15. Bnoppe says:

    What a waste of cold air next week

  16. Travis (Oxford, MI) says:

    Have actually had a good little stretch of below average temps here. Bad news: dry as a bone.

    Warmer next week with rain chances.

  17. Nathan (Forest Hills) says:

    Better than warm and dry at least. I would hate it if we were trapped in the southern jet… Btw I have so many weather I turns that I want to share, but I have no idea how to post them. I did send one in, but it apparently didn’t work.

    1. Nathan (Forest Hills) says:

      Typo. It should say weather pictures, not “weather I turns”. Haha, bad typo

  18. SW Kent says:

    Next 3 weeks looking more and more mild.
    I am still predicting a cold and snowy period from about Jan 20th til Feb 10th.

    1. Rocky (Rockford) says:

      It is looking more and more like no decent SNOWSTORMS and we are rapidly approaching the WORST winter in history!

  19. DF (SE Mich) says:

    We have decent snow cover in A2, still about 6-7 inches on my deck. It isn’t going to melt anytime soon.

  20. Barry in Zeeland says:

    I thought the high for today was only going to be 33, yet we just hit 38 a little while ago? Our 1 inch of snow is quickly melting away, more grass showing than snow now. Anyways, happy new year everyone! And may 2013 have even LESS snow than 2012 did!!

  21. Rocky (Rockford) says:


  22. kevin. w says:

    Hey Rocky can you say ahhhhhhhhh to this….

    Worst winter ever already here BUT I just hope we can at least get one good blizzard out of all this don’t you Rocky.

    1. Rocky (Rockford) says:

      1. January is now predicted to have above normal temps? That would add insult to injury.
      2. This just confirms that we are now likely to see one of the WORST or the VERY WORST WINTER EVER!! All this after all of the experts kept talking about the ARCTIC AIR and the impending COLD and SNOW coming! What a joke!
      3. Throw the models out and throw out all types of long range weather forecasts. They are always WRONG.
      4. I am up for a good blizzard or two, however it is looking very, very, very unlikely!! I am ready for some GOLF!
      5. The NO SNOW PATTERN continues!

      1. Steelie says:

        Good Day,

        At least the Japanese model was correct regarding last Winter… ;-)


        1. Rocky (Rockford) says:

          Yes the ever popular and widely used Japanese model!

      2. big Daddy BC says:

        Don’t forget that I was correct last winter and have a bet with Bill regarding this winter too. Looks like I’m gonna win two years in a row. LOL

        1. Rocky (Rockford) says:

          Yes but you will always predict above temps and below snowfall, so you will be correct some time just due to blind luck!

        2. big Daddy BC says:

          Actually, I predicted above average precip as well as above average temps. You’re right, predicting warming while the whole globe is warming seems a no-brainer, but I’m really just making a point here. As far as the precip goes, El Nino modeling seemed to give us a better than average chance at higher snow/rain for the season.

        3. Bill Steffen says:

          You claiming to be a “no brainer”? El Nino modeling? What the heck is that? El Nino isn’t a “model” like the GFS. Global temperature was average in 2012 (+0.041 degree) (NASA data) Would you have forecast above average temperatures in Alaska, where they had one of the coldest years ever (Nome 3.7 degrees colder than average in 2012, and data there goes back to 1909).

        4. big Daddy BC says:

          I didn’t claim that El Nino was a model like the GFS, but models derived by its state when we made the bet in November had it delivering more precip to the northern midwest. I get that you’re angry I’m beating you on all these seasonal forecasts, but don’t get snotty about. Suck it up and try again. I’ll give you another chance this spring.

        5. Bill Steffen says:

          You’re comment above says “El Nino modeling”. It’s not a model. It’s state doesn’t “derive a model”.

          I’m not angry. I’m very happy. WOOD had an awesome year! The stock is up. Biggest revenue year ever…hey, thanks to your union for all the Proposal $$ – you really need to try again…same Proposal…do it again…don’t change a word of it. This time buy banner ads here at my blog. Millions of page views each year…buy banner ads here on the blog.

  23. Mike (Berrien county) says:

    There’s no trusting the models anymore, they completely flip flop every few runs, or sometimes every run. Guessing on whether or not we’re gonna get into a snowy pattern these next few months is like flipping a coin or betting on a craps table or slot machine in Vegas. There’s no way of knowing what’s gonna happen.

  24. Tonka says:

    People get bent on the weather, falling on one side or another about global warming. It reminds me so much of politics that we see today. A weather guru I am not. I can however remember much more snow as a youngster but is that a pattern that’s natural or global warming, I don’t know. I like snow less and less each year. Just like the warmth, fishing, golfing, flowers, etc. anyhow, 2 1/2 months to go or so.

  25. Swatz_Zoo(Cedar Springs) says:

    These pre-paid seasonal residental and commercial plows doing alright, I live in an association and we had to already pay he’s been up once, he made out pretty good last year too. I guess I have time yet to figure out my snow blower and bring it in to be repaired if I do end up taking the engine box off and finding that a mouse chewed my fuel pump, but my husbands thinking that the line fell off, I sure hope that is all it is and all I need to do is put it back on.

  26. Swatz_Zoo(Cedar Springs) says:

    Also, if we aren’t going to have snow or rain I certainly wish if nothing else for more sunshine I don’t care how cold it is outside just let the sun shine!

    1. Hey Swat_Zoo, you think we can finally start fresh on this blog? lol the other posting below this is a trainwreck. Maybe the topic of weather can finally be discusted here. Im hoping so :)

      1. Brian(Grandville) says:

        It’s not easy to get rid of bar flies.

        1. I just don’t understand why Bill doesnt just delete the nonsense postings not related to weather.

        2. big Daddy BC says:

          Because this blog is a tool for his political ideology.

        3. Rocky (Rockford) says:

          No doubt!

        4. Lisa (Caledonia) says:

          Yes, because posts like “No Big Storms” are *so* political. He only delves into politics when other people bring it up.

        5. No S*(t, oh wait that’s the key, NO S*&t LOL

        6. big Daddy BC says:

          Listen, Lisa. The info he conveys here is misleading and often flatly false, whether you see it as weather related or political. Go back and have a look at how many threads exaggerate cold or snow.
          And besides, this entire franchise is a right-leaning corporate puppet. Look at their new ad, the one that looks back at 2012. Nowhere does it mention the labor protests in response to legislative changes in Lansing. No where does it mention the controversy surrounding right to work. No where does it mention the Jase Bolger scandal. No where does it show the controversy surrounding the pipeline. No where does it show the Amway deal with Lansing for millions of tax dollars. What it does end with is one of the crack team, Sterling, I think, questioning Stabenow about why batteries where the batteries are. It’s all right-wing crap. WOOD is the FOX NEWS of West Michigan.

          Sorry, Lisa, but this is all political.

        7. Bill Steffen says:

          It’s about time someone actually asked Debbie Stabenow a probing question. Stabenow and the Federal Government gave LG Chem 151 MILLION dollars. Four years later, they hadn’t produced a single battery! The “employees” spent the day playing on their phones, playing video games…and a few good ones left to go work for charities, rather than waste their time. It’s was a WOOD-TV investigative story that brought to light this unbelievable scam: BigDaddy would have censored the story to keep the money flowing to his cronies.

        8. big Daddy BC says:

          Bill, you’re a corporate tool. Your station is obviously right-biased. The Stabenow piece may have been entirely appropriate, but not more important than the abuse the middle class has endured under this billionaire funded legislature. Your station is remiss in its ethical duty to cover Michigan’s news fairly. You give no time to real issues like Bolger’s illegal activities, Snyder’s shifting of a billion dollars in taxes from the rich to the middle class, the repeated assault on labor, the gutting and privatization of public education, and the legalization of hunting wolves in Michigan. Your station doesn’t cover the news, only the .01%ers version of it.

        9. Bill Steffen says:

          From your far-far left, repressive, regressive perspective, it probably looks that way. But to the average viewer, you’re rants, deceptions and outright lies (like when you said Romney was a polygamist) are about as fringe as Pluto is from the sun in the solar system. You’re of course, entitled to your opinions and your entitled with reason to spew insults and character assassinations across the many blogs, forums and polls that you spend so much time doing. You many get some inward pleasure from your name-calling, but you’re not winning any converts and judging from the trouncing that Proposal 2 took in November (nearly 700,000 people in Michigan who voted for Obama voted against Proposal 2), you’re far from the mainstream. BTW, WOOD spent a lot of time covering Bolger. The media spent virtually no time covering Bernero’s pressure to force the Lansing police to be uncooperative with the Michigan State police, regarding the illegal activity of the unions at the Capitol.

      2. Swatz_Zoo(Cedar Springs) says:

        Highly doubtful, we can always hope but it’s doubtful. I think people are cranky because they are so bored with the weather pattern they have to throw so much HATE around regardless of political status, job status, ect. But what do I know, I”m just a “Lame Duck.”

        1. From what bill said i was full of “nonsense” :/

      3. Kyle, like the saying goes, don’t call a moron a moron, just sit back and let him take care of it by letting him speak.

        1. Yeah i know Mark. I’m not even going to bother getting into it. Just a wast of time. You know for a while i actually looked forward to the weather and watching bill on tv. Not anymore though.

  27. arcturus says:

    Warmest year ever for Grand Rapids –

    Here’s an article about ‘Chasing Ice’ about a global warming skeptic who changed his mind when confronted with the facts.

    1. Rocky (Rockford) says:

      Good stuff.

    2. Mike M. says:

      Someone should have sent that idiot to the South Pole where ice has been above average all year long…

    3. Mike M. says:

      Here’s a hundred years of newspaper stories documenting the “melting of the poles….”

      If your’e a low-information, superstitious peasant you might believe that all that happens in your world is unique and “unprecedented” but you would be wrong. There is nothing new under the sun.

      1. arcturus says:

        Funny how people who simply refuse to accept facts remain delusional even if it hits them in the ass.

    4. Bill Steffen says:

      Note this line from the G.R. Press article that arcturus linked to: “Despite the recent warmth, weather service climatologists said the next decade could see stagnant warmth or even declining average temperatures.”

      1. arcturus says:

        Repeat after me Bill: ‘yes, it WAS the warmest on record for Grand Rapids.’ Let’s not diminish the importance of this stunning fact by quoting speculation.

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          That would be more relevant if the entire world was that warm…it isn’t…global temperature has been average in 2012: (NASA data).

          In fact, global temperature has been steady for the past decade:

          And you’re no expert. Here’s what the experts say: ““Despite the recent warmth, weather service climatologists said the next decade could see stagnant warmth or even declining average temperatures.”

          Plus CO2 emissions in the U.S. are dropping:

        2. big Daddy BC says:

          LOL But the snow in GR is relevant?

        3. Bill Steffen says:

          Since CO2 emissions in the U.S. are dropping: ….I suggest you go to China, Russia and Brazil and make their utility rates “skyrocket” and make their gasoline prices double!

        4. big Daddy BC says:

          Please explain to the viewer how gas prices are derived, because I bet you don’t know. More right-wing gibberish.

          I’ll wait for you to google it.

        5. Bill Steffen says:

          Start here: (government website from a very liberal state)

          Now from Uncle Sam:

          The Federal Government imposes a tax of 18.4 cents per gallon. Michigan imposes the 5th highest tax on a gallon of gasoline, 39.4 cents per gallon: (for a total of 57.8 cents per gallon). Ohio is only 28 cents, so when you drive to Florida, or in my case, Tennessee…I try to wait until I get into Ohio to fill-up, and I try and fill-up as I leave Ohio. Michigan is one of only 8 states that imposes a sales tax on fuel.

          More on the cost of a gallon of gasoline:

          Exxon claims to make just 7 cents profit per gallon. Here’s an answer to the question that seems interesting:

          “They actually make about 8% profit. So if the wholesale price of gasoline is $3.18 a gallon, they would theoretically make .25 cents. In fact, however, the profit earned specifically from the retail sale of gasoline in much lower, and can be as little as 2 cents per gallon. Keep in mind that state and federal taxes add 57.8 cents per gallon in Michigan. Oil companies obviously don’t make a profit on the added sales tax.

          Oil companies’ overall margin is not high for a major industry since most companies shoot for at least 10% profit. The difference, and the reason they make so much money, is that they sell so much of it. They sell gasoline to not only the US but to many of the oil producing countries that don’t have refinery capability.

          It’s puzzling that you rag on only Exxon. I assume you’re biased against an American company. I don’t hear you raggin’ on BP (British Petroleum), (Royal Dutch) Shell, or Citgo (owned by Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. Those 3 sure do a lot of business in the U.S.. Exxon is only 17th on this list:

      2. Steelie says:

        Good Day,

        And was it not that long ago (1970s) when the very same “scientific chicken littles” (insert sarcasm) were running around screaming of the impending doom of a new ice age? How’d that work out? It reminds me of the lyrics to a song that comes up on my internet radio from time to time. To paraphrase:

        If you were to ask a butterfly, that lives for only one day, if the Sequoia it was perched upon was alive it might reply – “Why no. I have been here my whole life and it hasn’t changed”. If you were to ask a human if they thought the Earth was alive they might also say – “Why no. I have been here my whole life and it hasn’t changed”.

        My point is that at best we are experiencing a trend or a temporary pattern shift – so far. Imagine if for a moment you were alive during the Great Dust Bowl? What would your (or the chicken little scientific alarmists) perspective have been? Just let it sink in for a moment. Sometimes these trends stick around for two or three years and then shift to a different pattern. Again – I refer to the predictions of the 70s. Or the “Year without a Summer” of 1816? What would their perspective have been?


        1. big Daddy BC says:

          Hey, Steelie. You realize the architect of that prediction was none other than Bill Steffen’s mentor, Reid Bryson from University of WI. LOL

          It is true that some scientists, like Bryson, blow things out of proportion because it grabs headlines, but anthropogenic warming is supported by every major scientific institution on Earth. There’s no scientific evidence to support your ‘temporary pattern shift’ hypothesis. There’s no evidence to suggest that seven billion people can’t affect the Earth’s climate or that burning 250 million years of carbon over two centuries won’t heat the atmosphere. Fact is, Steelie, you’re out of your league. Read something.

        2. Steelie says:

          Good Day,

          Point taken on Bryson, however, and I quote:

          “There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.”

          Bryson said that, which we have talked about in the past. To simply throw one’s hands up and blame the entirety of the problem on carbon is extremely narrow in scope and vision. Keep in mind, this carbon isn’t just mysteriously coming from nowhere, it existed in our atmosphere previously. There are many other contributing factors that you rarely hear about that I have mentioned on many occasions such as solar activity, our proximty to the sun (our distance changes significantly over long periods of time), volcanic activity, the effect of cosmic rays creating more clouds (clouds/water vapor being the most effective greenhouse gas), ocean currents and salinity, and so on. And let us not forget that we only emerged from the “Little Ice Age” (which lasted nearly 300+ years) a relatively short time ago.

          Furthermore, there is a pesky little thing as meteorlogical history that we can observe through ice core samples, deep ocean silt samples, geological and even archeological evidence show us that the Earth has experienced extreme climate changes in its history, even well before humans ever existed. Which pokes many holes in the assertion that “anthropogenic warming is supported by every major scientific institution on Earth” (theory) becuase it isn’t. Warming and cooling occured, again, before humans ever existed. What, did the dinosaurs drive around in SUVs? (Insert sarcasm.) How about a few others, shall we?

          The Roman Warm Period. Some estimates and studies suggest that temps during the period from 250 BC to 400 AD may have been as much as 2.5*C warmer than today.

          Medieval Climate Optimum. While this period may have been about 0.1*C cooler than today, it was a relatively warm period for the time.

          It should also be noted that humans, historically, have thrived during relatively warm periods and suffered (massive illness and death such as the Black Plague) horribly during relatively cooler periods. That should be cause for reflection.


        3. Bill Steffen says:

          Dr. Reid Bryant said on CNBC “You could spit and cause more damage to the environment than doubling CO2 in the atmosphere”. He was a giant in the field of climate. bigDaddy has to resort to character assassination when he can’t accept the science.

          Here’s something that those who claim that we are being inundated with more storms because of so called “global warming”:

          According to the Storm Prediction Center, there was a record low in the number of tornado and severe weather watches issued for 2012. Since moving into their Norman, OK office in 1997, there has never been as few watches as this year’s 697. 2012 will also finish with nearly 400 less tornado reports than the 7 year average. According to NOAA’s NCDC, 2012 will finish nearly 140 less than the 1991-2010 average.

        4. big Daddy BC says:

          Steelie, I agree with Bryson that CO2 is not the only driver. Methane, water, and land use are also driving warming. I also accept that some cyclical changes like warming and cooling are natural, but have never been observed on the grand scale that we’re seeing today. The so-called medieval warming period was localized and still cooler than we are today. If it were a global phenom, you might have a point.
          Let’s face it, we’re burning 250,000 years worth of stored carbon in just a few centuries and it’s having deleterious effects beyond warming. It’s time to invest in technologies that curb our dependance on fossil fuel barons that rob us at the pump, leverage our tax dollars, and destroy our few remaining wild places.
          And Bill, your defense of the man who started the rumors of a returning ice age in the ’70s and then switched to denying climate change full time is predictable and fruitless. He was no ‘giant’ and certainly not an ‘expert’ the scientific community took seriously.

        5. Bill Steffen says:

          bigDaddy says: “some cyclical changes like warming and cooling are natural, but have never been observed on the grand scale that we’re seeing today”. Obviously wrong…we’ve had both glaciers and palm trees in Grand Rapids.

          The Medieval Warm Period isn’t “so-called”. It was very real and worldwide. Look how hard the Climategate Fraudsters had to work to try and eliminate it (and read the emails – they worked at great length to use a TRICK to HIDE the period. And you have to be politically driven to put your faith in an unscrupulous band that looked a few tree rings in Siberia.

 I think that Dave (the biologist) speaks for a lot of scientists now:
          Dave | February 26, 2011 at 11:37 am | Reply

          “I also have to agree with Jim West. My firm ‘belief’ in AGW had already been undermined by some extremely bad papers about mosquitoes, arthropod borne disease, and the effect a warmer Earth on wildlife (I am a biologist). But, I assumed these were just opportunists jumping on the gravy train and that the problem was with the journal review process, not AGW.

          But the Climategate emails made it all too clear that there was no science at all in ALL these famous papers in Nature and other ‘prestige’ journals. Rather, all the sound and fury appeared to be generated by an unscrupulous cabal eager for grant money, fame, and lots of CO2 generating trips to warm and pleasant spots where they could regurgitate their story to a corrupted press and conniving politicians.

          As far as I can tell now, many of the assumptions of AGW appear to be false, nothing that one reads on climate change from Nature to Drudge is reliable.”

  28. Anyone know if were going to get any snow accumulations tonight? i see snow and advisories off to the south of us. Be nice if we could get something here. I wanna break out my snowblower :D

  29. Rocky (Rockford) says:

    Accumulating SNOW? Not a chance, as this snow is fizzling and all of this energy is moving well to our South. Accumulating SNOW will be a VERY RARE occurrence this winter. You know what they say “there is always next year”! If you want to snow blow you may want to head up to Canada!

    1. arcturus says:

      After that blizzard you called for by or on the 7th of course.

  30. Steelie says:

    Good Day,

    Sorry snow lovers – if this long range pans out, it is not looking good… Maybe better chances for rain to start January than snow:

    ISSUED AT 250 PM EST MON DEC 31 2012







    1. arcturus says:

      Translation: expect no snow on the ground for most of January by this weekend. Wonder how those snow coverage maps will look like by this time next week?

      1. Steelie says:

        Good Day,

        The coverage maps will perhaps look a bit “odd”. Translation – there may be a lot more snow cover to our South than in our own yards. Something of an anomoly one might say…


  31. Ive noticed bill only targets bigDaddy BC. And also as a WARNING, there have been viruses going around from some of these links. Cant pin point which ones but just beware. Other people have found this out. Right Steelie?

    1. Steelie says:

      Good Day,

      Yes. I got hit by a rollover virus of the ransomware variety. (Give the Department of Justice $300 to unlock your computer.) The insidious thing with this type of virus is that you need not click on anything but simply roll over an infected advertisement. In my case it most likely came form an add on this site (sorry WOOD) as it was the only window/site open at the time of infection. Do not try to get rid of this by yourself unless you are extremely well versed in the software or else you will possibly do more damage to your computer. The other bad thing is this virus can also show up when running your computer in Safe Mode. You will need someone who is an expert in using Safe Mode with Command Prompt.


  32. arcturus says:

    Anyone think we’ll have record or close to record warmth again this year? With the climate change upon us there’s a good chance.

      1. big Daddy BC says:

        It does get cold up there. The concern isn’t cold winters, it’s early springs and melting permafrost.

        “An accelerating melt will free vast amounts of carbon dioxide and methane which has been trapped in organic matter in the subsoil, often for thousands of years, the report said.

        Warming permafrost could release the equivalent of between 43 and 135 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, by 2100. That would be up to 39 percent of annual emissions from human sources.

        Permafrost now contains 1,700 billion tonnes of carbon, or twice the amount now in the atmosphere, it said.

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          LOL…Alaska was approx. 2 degrees colder than the century average in 2012! It’s a decade-long trend: “In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.”

          The permafrost there is doing just fine in Alaska…and look what’s going on in Siberia: 123 fatalities from “record cold”. At the town of Oymyakon in Siberia, the AVERAGE temperature in December was -48.8F.

        2. big Daddy BC says:

          How in the heck can you just lie about something you know absolutely nothing about? The permafrost is just fine? The permafrost is melting. Scientists are measuring it.

        3. Bill Steffen says:

          How can the permafrost be melting if the temperature is well below average and cooling. Read this again:

          “In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.”

        4. big Daddy BC says:

          Dude, please. Tell me you understand this. The permafrost is obviously safe when the temp dips, but overall higher minimums and earlier springs are melting the formerly permanently frozen regions.

        5. Bill Steffen says:

          If the AVERAGE temperature is 2.4 degrees colder during the past decade in Alaska than in the previous 3 decades, the permafrost isn’t melting! Spring isn’t getting any warmer!

          Ice roads open early in Canada. It’s colder:

          Last Spring (March, April and May) was 1.3 degrees colder than average in Fairbanks and a whopping 4.5 degrees colder than average in Nome. Spring ain’t comin’ any earlier.

  33. arcturus says:

    With December above average once again how many months has it been above average, average, or below in the past 18 months or so? My guess is 15 above, 3 average, 0 below.

    1. Bill Steffen says:

      Four of the last five months have been average:

      Nov: -0.0°
      Oct: -0.2°
      Sept: +0.2°
      Aug: -0.0°

      Russia: “Coldest winter in decades!” 120 people dead from the “severe cold”

      1. Mike M. says:

        Big daddy’s sock puppet is being beaten like a piñata.

        1. big Daddy BC says:

          Are you beating my pinata again, Mike. Please ask first…pervert.

      2. big Daddy BC says:

        Hey, Bill. Worldwide, we haven’t had an above average month since the 1970s. Where is that data from, Grand Rapids? LOL

        You do realize last year was the hottest year on record for GR?

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          I don’t believe that “we haven’t had an above average month since the 1970s.” That’s nonsense. They have to use “adjusted temperatures” and the 1951-80 average to contrive those numbers. Here’s more on the phony adjustments:

          In other news…the permafrost is growin’ in Greenland: “On December 29 Greenland Summit hit -78F, only five degrees above the coldest temperature ever recorded there.”

        2. big Daddy BC says:

          You can choose to believe or not believe anything you want. A graphic from 2009 that shows some cold doesn’t include the rest of the world, Magoo. How exactly are the numbers contrived? Please explain the statistical adjustments and why they are or are not necessary. And please don’t use Watts as your source. He’s an idiot blogger with no education. You can do better.

        3. Bill Steffen says:

          LOL – Watts would clean your clock. He’s got more relevant education than you have. His blog is awesome…voted best science blog. He’s going on 136,000,000 page views. Readers can go here and judge for themselves: If I can get him here, would you debate him? I can line up the debate at a local college/university. Dr. Maue was just here for the Holidays. Since he’s from Manistee, I might be able to arrange a presentation/dabate from him. We could video your presentation and his and make the video available online. In the meantime, read my link above.

          There are 10 times the number of weather stations now than there were in the 1930s (so actually we should have a 10 times greater chance of setting a state all-time high temperature (how’s that working out: 24 of the 50 states STILL have all-time record high temperatures from the 1930s). To compare, you need to use weather stations that have as close to the same environmental conditions now as they had in the 1930s. That’s hard, because so many weather stations show significant urban heat island effect (being located at airports, where there is considerable concrete and asphalt and lots of plane and vehicle traffic that emits hot air and stirs the air at night to keep cold air settling at the ground).

          Older temperatures have been adjusted downwards and recent temperatures are adjusted upwards. One way to do this is to select certain weather stations that will give the desired result. Note the difference in choosing weather stations in urban areas vs. those in areas that have seen little urbanization: (graphic from the State Climatologist of California).

          If you compare weather stations that have not been urbanized (UHI) and have had reliable data from both the 1930s and the 2000s, you’ll find that the 1930s were warmer than the 2000s at nearly all of these locations. If you look at the warmest years in G.R., of the top 13 years, only 3 have occurred since 1955. The other 11 occurred between 1921 and 1955.

          Speaking of blogs, here’s something interesting from Roger Pelkie’s blog:

  34. Tonka says:

    If we can argue about weather, we can argue about anything I guess. Amazing. Happy 2013.

Leave a Reply