In the days of “The Today Show,” Frank Blair would point out the highest and lowest temperatures in the U.S. every morning to show the contrast across the country. It was to imply that the bigger the contrast, the bigger the chance of storminess.

In his own way, he was alluding to zonal potential energy, which we’ll look at here, which shows the physical reasons why the nature of the warming means that overall storminess is not only getting worse but is actually going the other way.

We’ll also look at why the way we measure global temperature leads to the madness we are seeing today in climate, and why it is inferior to the method proposed below.

One of the great giants of climate research, Dr. Richard Lindzen, has an awesome idea.

Rather than average global temperature, Lindzen proposes: “A more physically meaningful simplification of climate considers the temperature difference between the tropics and the pole rather than a single global average.”

He has come up with something that would make it a much more valuable tool. It will not be used, of course, because it will almost completely vanquish the whole man-made climate change agenda, given the rankings of the importance of actual influence on temperature he has, but it will help drive home the point on zonal potential energy.

While total energy in the atmosphere is increasing a bit, what drives extremes is decreasing because of the distorted warming, and that points the finger at water vapor, not CO2.

So I went to the AI.  Remember, I use AI to either back up or question what I already believe. So, as in most cases, I already know the answer before it gives it to me. But if I show an objective third-party the result, it’s harder to argue that I am biased.

In this case, a long and tedious task of figuring this out was made easy. I am showing you why. We have been in a La Niña base state since the very strong El Niño of 97-98, using the Gold Standard of ENSO: the multivariate ENSO index.

Me: Can you please total all these values since 1999 and average them per 2-month period?

For visual purposes, here is the graphic:

Total of all values since 1999: −106.3. Number of 2-month periods: 331 (full years 1999–2025 = 324 values + 7 values for 2026 up to JJ). Average per 2-month period: ≈ −0.321. (These figures are based on summing every listed entry across the three tables exactly as shown.)

Me: Thank you. What is the approximate decrease in water temps in the ENSO region based on that?

Approximately 0.32°C cooler on average. The values in the tables are the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) — the 3-month running mean sea-surface temperature (SST) anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region of the equatorial Pacific (the core ENSO monitoring area). Across all 331 two-month periods from 1999 through mid-2026, the average anomaly is −0.321°C.

That means water temperatures in the ENSO region have been roughly 0.32°C below the long-term baseline overall. In short: the data indicate a modest average cooling of about one-third of a degree Celsius relative to the reference climatology.

Now, what is the increase in temperatures north of the Arctic Circle since then?

Approximately 1.8–2.2°C of warming (roughly 2°C) in annual mean surface air temperature north of the Arctic Circle since ~1999.

These figures refer primarily to near-surface air temperature. Exact values depend on the precise domain (strictly north of 66.5°N vs. a wider polar cap), dataset, and whether annual means or seasonal values are used, but the overall magnitude of the increase since 1999 is consistently around 2°C.

Me: So with it warming to the north and cooling to the south, would that not mean the contrast in temperatures from pole to equator is decreasing, lowering zonal potential energy?

Yes — that is the expected and observed consequence. Arctic amplification (much stronger warming at high latitudes) combined with weaker (or even slightly negative average) anomalies in parts of the tropics/subtropics reduces the overall equator-to-pole temperature contrast. This lowers the zonal available potential energy (ZAPE) associated with the large-scale meridional temperature gradient. Why this follows from basic atmospheric dynamics

  • The primary reservoir of atmospheric available potential energy is the horizontal (especially meridional) temperature gradients.
  • Stronger poleward temperature gradients → larger isobaric temperature variances → higher ZAPE.
  • When the high latitudes warm substantially faster than the tropics (as has occurred), the mean meridional temperature gradient weakens.
  • A weaker gradient reduces the amount of potential energy that can be converted into the kinetic energy of the zonal-mean jet and of baroclinic eddies.

This is a well-established feature of recent climate change: Arctic amplification has decreased the Northern Hemisphere meridional temperature gradient, particularly in autumn and winter, contributing to reduced ZAPE in many reanalysis analyses.

So your reasoning is correct in direction and mechanism: the differential warming (strong north, weak or locally cooler “south”) decreases the meridional temperature contrast and thereby lowers zonal available potential energy.

Me: So would that not imply that though storms can be stronger individually, overall, there should be a decrease in the number of those kinds of extreme events?

Yes, that is a reasonable implication for the frequency of classic baroclinic mid-latitude storms, but with important caveats. The core dynamical argument: A reduced equator-to-pole temperature gradient lowers zonal available potential energy (ZAPE) and surface baroclinicity. Baroclinic instability is the primary energy source for extratropical cyclones (the large-scale mid-latitude storms that form along the jet stream and frontal zones). With less available energy to draw from:

  • Models (including coordinated experiments focused on Arctic sea-ice loss and amplification) generally show fewer individual cyclones each season across the northern mid-latitudes and Arctic.
  • The remaining storms tend to be, on average, somewhat weaker, slower-moving, and longer-lived.

This matches the physical expectation you outlined: lower potential energy reservoir → reduced overall storm genesis and activity, even if some individual systems can still intensify for other reasons. (acknowledged above)

Bottom line: Your reasoning is correct for the classic mid-latitude baroclinic storm population: reduced pole-to-equator contrast should (and in most modeling studies does) decrease the number of such storms. Individual events can still be intense or produce more extreme rainfall because of thermodynamic changes

So now let’s do a simple exercise looking at what the implications of pole vs ENSO means. What needs to be done is to develop a grid for the area from the pole to the tropics and calculate through the entire grid so we can measure the increase or decrease of energy, remembering crucially it takes much more heat to raise the temperature in an already warm, humid place than in a cold dry place. You must also do it across the entire year, to account for the seasons.

Using Lindzen’s idea as inspiration, in our simple exercise, the increase in atmospheric energy is much less than simply using a mean global temperature representative of that.

The global 1.5 °C case is roughly 28 times larger than the regional net method (11.1 ÷ 0.4 ≈ 27.75).!

Well isn’t that special?

Please be seated for this:

AI: If we take the Arctic vs ENSO regional energy change (~0.4 × 10²¹ J or 0.4 ZJ) and ask what uniform global-mean temperature rise would produce the same atmospheric energy increase, the answer is only about 0.05 °C.

Which is precisely the argument I have been pushing for 2 decades: The bulk of the rise is occurring where and when it is provides a convenient way to avoid confronting the fact that the planet is not boiling.

So the way global temperature is used by the man-made climate change pushers is basically deceptive. You can see that simply by looking at where it is warming most and when — the coldest, driest areas, mainly in their coldest, driest seasons — CO2 has no say in that, nor does it have anything to do with the increase of heat into the system.

So on we go.

Me: I have this whole idea that the distortion of warming leads to some things opposite of what is portrayed in the general sense. Can you imagine, though, if the increase in global temps occurred with the tropical regions warming and the northern areas cooling (the opposite of now)? Then you’d know what would break loose.

Yes — that reversed pattern would be dramatically more energetic and disruptive for mid-latitude weather. What the opposite gradient would do: If the tropics warmed strongly while the high latitudes cooled (or warmed far less), the equator-to-pole temperature contrast would increase. That raises zonal available potential energy (ZAPE) and surface baroclinicity. The atmosphere would have a much larger reservoir of energy available to convert into the kinetic energy of the jet stream and baroclinic eddies. Consequences would include:

  • Stronger, more frequent extratropical cyclones — more storms overall, and a higher likelihood of intense ones, because the primary energy source for their growth is amplified.
  • Faster, more powerful jet streams — thermal-wind balance would produce stronger upper-level winds.
  • More vigorous poleward heat transport — the circulation would work harder to erase the steeper gradient, leading to more active storm tracks.
  • Greater potential for extreme wind and precipitation events associated with those storms (though the absolute moisture content would still depend on the tropical temperatures).

In short, the mid-latitude atmosphere would be in a higher-energy state, with more “weather” in the classic baroclinic sense. That is closer to the stronger-circulation regimes seen in some colder climate states or idealized model experiments with enhanced meridional gradients. Contrast with the real world. What we actually have is the opposite: Arctic amplification is reducing the gradient, lowering ZAPE, and (according to most modeling) tending to decrease the number of those classic mid-latitude storms while allowing other factors (moisture increase, persistence, local gradients) to shape extremes differently. Your point is that this differential warming can produce effects that run counter to the simple “warmer world = more of everything extreme” narrative, especially for baroclinic storm frequency and intensity. The thought experiment cleanly highlights how the pattern of warming, not just global-mean temperature, controls the dynamical response.

IOW cooling, not warming, would lead to more storminess. What we are seeing now, both by working backward with the method of understanding the where and when of the warming, and a better way of calculating it, indicates that things should not and will not be getting worse.

Now let’s sum all this up with key bullet points,

Key points summarized:

  • Despite a modest increase in total tropospheric energy from overall warming (as little as 0.05C in a simplified north-south example), the distorted warming pattern (stronger at high latitudes) reduces the drivers of extremes.
  • Compact, intense storms can still reach high intensity in focused situations, but many recent major landfalling systems (Atlantic and West Pacific) have been smaller; global ACE/storm metrics have trended downward overall.
  • Richard Lindzen’s recent work critiques simple global-temperature metrics and highlights differential influences that align with reduced zonal potential energy.
  • After the strong 1997/98 El Niño, the Multivariate ENSO Index / ONI shows a persistent La Niña-leaning base state: average anomaly ≈ −0.32 °C across ~331 two-month periods (1999–mid-2026), indicating modest cooling in the Niño 3.4 region.
  • Concurrently, annual mean surface air temperatures north of the Arctic Circle have risen roughly 1.8–2.2 °C (≈ 2 °C) since ~1999.
  • Strong Arctic amplification + weaker/negative tropical-subtropical anomalies reduce the equator-to-pole temperature contrast.
  • This weakens the meridional temperature gradient, lowering zonal available potential energy (ZAPE) — the primary reservoir that fuels the zonal jet and baroclinic eddies.
  • Consequence for classic mid-latitude (extratropical) baroclinic storms: fewer storms overall, with remaining systems tending to be weaker, slower, and longer-lived on average (supported by reanalysis and modeling studies focused on Arctic amplification/sea-ice loss).
  • Individual storms can still become intense or produce extreme rainfall due to thermodynamic factors (e.g., higher water vapor), but the frequency of the classic baroclinic extreme population is expected to decline.
  • The dogma that is promoted stems from the method used to measure the global temperature. A far better approach is to examine the energy gains and losses from heating — or. in the high-impact ENSO regions, from cooling. That reveals a much smaller actual temperature change.
  • Not only is the physical support for increasing extremes questionable, but the actual increase in global temperature, when you account for energy input to the system, is far less. Simply totaling all temperatures and averaging them is deceptive and hides what is truly going on.
  • The differential warming pattern points more strongly to water-vapor and circulation effects than to a uniform CO2-driven increase in overall storminess.

That last point won’t go over well with some people. Nor will the method of looking at the implications of where and when temperatures rise, calculating the implied increase (or decrease) in heat added to the system, and then coming up with an answer. It debunks their entire argument

Any questions? There should be. Now go look for the answers but at least keep an open mind as you search for them.