Revised UAH Global Temperature Update for June 2015: +0.33 deg. C.

July 6th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

We discovered there were several days during June when communication problems prevented the transfer of some of the raw satellite data to our computer. This is an update of the June 2015 numbers with the missing satellite data included.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2015 is +0.33 deg. C, up somewhat from the May, 2015 value of +0.27 deg. C (click for full size version):

UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2015_v6

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 6 months are:

YR MO GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2015 1 +0.26 +0.38 +0.14 +0.12
2015 2 +0.16 +0.26 +0.05 -0.07
2015 3 +0.14 +0.23 +0.05 +0.02
2015 4 +0.06 +0.15 -0.02 +0.07
2015 5 +0.27 +0.33 +0.21 +0.27
2015 6 +0.33 +0.40 +0.26 +0.46

Notice the strong warming in the tropics over the last 2 months, consistent with the strengthening El Nino in the Pacific.

The global image for June, 2015 should be available in the next several days here.

The new Version 6 files, which should be updated soon, are located here:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tmt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/ttp
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls


86 Responses to “Revised UAH Global Temperature Update for June 2015: +0.33 deg. C.”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. RW says:

    Thanks for the correction. Maybe this El Nino is starting to show in the data.

    • David Appell says:

      Not a surprise. After all, the predomiance of La Nina conditions has been showing up in the data for over a decade.

    • Bill says:

      Watching the daily temperature anomaly on the Climate Re-analyzer site, the anomaly plunged a few days ago, after having been high from the El Nino during June.

      I believe the cause is the massive fires in Alaska and Canada putting a reflective haze into the atmosphere. 3 million acres and counting in Alaska alone, and western Canada is burning as well.

      • David Appell says:

        Bill: That plunge isn’t real. The guy who runs the Climate Analyzer, Sean Birkel, found an bias in some of the reanalysis data he relies on, and made a correction on July 4th.

        Basically, all the data before that had to be recalculated.

  2. Slipstick says:

    Thank you for the correction. That’s more in line with what I was anticipating, given the hot water bubbling up in the Pacific over the last month. I was a bit surprised by the previous value.

  3. there’s typically a 1-2 motnh lag between surface warming and the resulting tropospheric warming during El Nino. I’ve mentioned this before.

    • Slipstick says:

      Indeed. The “jet” shape started to really become apparent in early May. Thanks again.

  4. dave says:

    The amended figure is up 0.06 C from the previous month.
    RSS – with a slightly different geographical coverage – is up 0.08 C.

  5. Bill says:

    Notice how the NH temperature anomaly is consistently above that of the SH? The global average understates what is going on.

    • Chris Hanley says:

      The global average is what’s going on viz. not a lot.

    • The world has been in a north-warm phase for roughly the past decade, and in a north-warming phase for roughly the previous decade or somewhat more. The AMO or something along these lines seems to shift heat northward or southward. When this whatever is north-warming, it warms the world (or increases global warming) apparently because the surface albedo feedback is more positive in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. When it is south-warming / north-cooling, it detracts from global warming.

      I think something that would be good for the Climate Model Intercalibration Program to do would be to have the CMIP5 models (or CMIP 6 ones when applicable) re-run with feedbacks reduced so that their average trend is warming to some extent slower than the world did from around 1990 to a few years after 2000, and to an equal extent warming faster than the world did since a few years after 2000 – with the median of them still slightly cooler than now. That is because the multidecadal trend in major global surface datasets especially HadCRUT3 looks like it will be a few more years before we get halfway through the pause/slowdown.

      • David Appell says:

        “I think something that would be good for the Climate Model Intercalibration Program to do would be to have the CMIP5 models….”

        CMIP = Coupled Model Intercomparison Project

      • David Appell says:

        “That is because the multidecadal trend in major global surface datasets especially HadCRUT3 looks like it will be a few more years before we get halfway through the pause/slowdown.”

        HadCRUT3 is out-of-date. They are now on version 4, and Cowtan & Way is probably superior to that (since it uses more input data, such as that from UAH).

    • MarkB says:

      Because of the large thermal inertia of the oceans, the land temperature warming trend is significantly greater than the over ocean temperature trend. Since the Northern Hemisphere has about twice the land area as the Southern Hemisphere, the Northern Hemisphere is warming more quickly. You’d see an even more pronounced difference if you were to compare land vs ocean data sets.

      I wouldn’t say that “the global average understates what is going on”. It is what it is, but it clearly isn’t the whole story.

    • David Appell says:

      “Notice how the NH temperature anomaly is consistently above that of the SH?”

      This is expected by theory — since 2/3rds of the globe’s land is in the northern hemisphere, and land is warming faster than the ocean surface (also expected by theory).

  6. jerry l krause says:

    Hi Roy,

    This is relative to your post of 6/30/15—Can Infrared Radiation Warm a Water Body? Part II. First, I commend you for doing an actual experiment. You, Jimc, and I seem to the only ones who indicated any interest in the shield, which is the heart of the experiment.

    In my comment of 6/30/15 at 8:42 PM I asked, why did you not paint a sheet of extruded Styrofoam with high IR emissivity paint to block IR emission from the “coldest” part of the sky? And: How is it that the atmosphere cools below the temperatures of the water? For a cloudless atmosphere has nothing to evaporate.

    The first question was prompted by the observation that the shield had a very minimal effect upon the water’s cooling. Which as a first approximation I would call it no effect. Because I believe I can explain why the shield had such a minimal effect (which somewhat surprised me), I propose, by asking the question, that a second experiment be performed using the same sized sheet, positioned as the previous shield, of extruded Styrofoam painted with high IR emissivity paint. And as a test of my understanding I predict that this shield will drastically reduce the water cooling. Which, if observed as I predict, would seem to refute your conclusion of the first experiment that the water was cooling by evaporation.

    But since I commented about the first experiment, I now see you have not harvested all the information that can be obtained from it. I expect, to insure the same levels of water, that you measured the depth of the water. Hence, if you did not measure the volume of water it took to fill the coolers to this depth, you can refill them to this depth measuring the volume of the water. Using the specific heat of water, you can then calculate the approximate rate of energy loss (due to whatever cooling mechanism) as the water cooled and compare it with the radiation loss predicted with the S-B Law and calculate what volume of water would need to evaporate to produce the same cooling rate.

    But, I consider the observed cooling of the atmosphere, wherever it was being observed, was a quite significant, unintended, result of the experiment. For it forces one to explain the mechanism by which it was cooling. Yes, I know the rate is due to the atmosphere’s much lower thermal inertia than that of water, but the question remains: What is the mechanism cooling the atmosphere? But not only this, the variation of the atmosphere’s temperature (of a degree magnitude instead of a tenth of a degree) illustrates that this temperature variation had a minimum influence upon the shield which you and Jimc question.

    If I could continuously measure and record the water temperatures as you did, I would attempt to duplicate your observations and test my prediction of the result of second experiment.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • fonzarelli says:

      Jerry, i believe i may have been misconstrued a while back when i compared your comments to a james michenor novel… It was intended as the highest of compliments, but may have come across as quite the opposite. Your comments are a refreshing break from the “techno babble” that pervades so many comments. (not that those “techno-babble” comments are not worth while, i’m prone to them myself…) I’ve enjoyed your comments the very most and as far as i’m concerned the longer they are the better. They’re light hearted, descriptive and VERY informative. If we all followed your example the quality of commentary in general would be oh so much better. So, i hope you can accept this apology from an inarticulate boob (me…); i’ll try a little harder in the future to watch how i say things…

      fonzie

      • jerry l krause says:

        Hi Fonzarelli,

        Thank you for the kind words of encouragement. I was not offended by your comment about Michener. I recognize that if something appears to be too long, that it will maybe not get read. I am sure some readers looked at his big books and decided not for me. And they missed good scholarship and writing.

        If you would like to read some really good essays (writing), someone (RF) referred me to the website of Timothy Casey (geologist-1011.com; about.Timothycasey.info). In looking for the address of the first I have just discovered the second. In a scholarly way he has refuted the greenhouse effect without any more apparent success in convincing others than I have had.

        Timothy and I have corresponded, but he has many irons in the fire and needs to pay the bills. So he is busy. Somewhat inspired by his essays and various other reasons I have just begun an essay based upon Newton’s statement: “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” I am sure you are aware that one of my giants is Richard Feynman.

        In Genius, James Gleick wrote: “ ‘What we are talking about is real and at hand: Nature,’ he wrote to a correspondent in India, who had, he thought, spent too much time reading about esoteric phenomena.”

        So, Feynman wrote: “Learn by trying to understand simple things in terms of other ideas—always honestly and directly. What keeps the clouds up, why can’t I see stars in the daytime, why do colors appear on oily water, what makes the lines on the surface of water being poured from a pitcher, why does a hanging lamp swing back and forth—and all the innumerable little things you see all around you. Then when you have learned what an explanation really is, you can then go on to more subtle questions.”

        Roy’s experiment was a simple thing. I am sure it is a reproducible thing. So, can you explain why the shield basically shielded nothing?

        Have a good day, Jerry

    • jerry l krause says:

      Hi Roy,

      April 10, 2015 you proposed a thought experiment involving the cooling of moist soil during the nighttime. (Why Summer Nighttime Temperatures Don’t Fall Below Freezing)

      I have another simple experiment of which I would be interested in learning its results. Which I would do for myself if I could continuously record two, or even one, temperatures. Get a couple of bags of dry sandbox sand and fill one of your coolers with this sand after placing one temperature sensor at the bottom of the cooler. Place the other sensor near the sand’s surface (maybe a centimeter deep). Paint the surface of the sand a flat black. Record the temperatures continuously for several days during day and night if possible, the more the merrier. Show us the results.

      Thank you for beginning to do actual simple experiments.

      Have a good day, Jerry

  7. Mark BLR says:

    Minor point with the “t??glhmam_6.0beta2″ files in the /v6.0beta/t??/ subdirectories.

    All 4 of these files have a first line consisting of :
    ” MONTHLY MEANS OF MID-TROPOSPHERE c46.0beta2″

    … including the ones for the lower-STRATOSPHERE, LOWER-troposphere and TOTAL-troposphere !

    Any chance of updating the code so each output file starts with a line stating which data is ACTUALLY contained in that file ?

    This would help for those cases when I’m looking at files BEFORE the caffeine has kicked in …

  8. Jim O'Hare says:

    Whilst we do all appreciate your efforts, Dr. Spencer, I myself at least do always marvel at the accuracy of these figures, and if they really can be measured to hundredths of a degree Celsius ?

    Even if it is the case that these are truly accurate, then what do such trivial differences actually mean, in the context of the massive difference between night and day temperatures ?

    Again, with regard to the various Jetstreams, and the fact they must cross observation points, even for a satellite, and maybe even especially for a Satellite. With regard to that, isn’t it possible that leaving aside El Nino considerations, that we are otherwise merely measuring to a greater or lesser extent, fluctuations in the Jetstreams ?

    Whilst a Satellite orbits taking many measurements, it can cross the same point in a jetstream many times, even though that point in that jetstream has moved over a different part of the Planet, do you see ? So a cold or a hot point in a jetstream can be measured many times, as the stream fluctuates, and draws warmer or colder air about the Globe.

    So this will lead to false readings. Sometimes warmer, sometimes colder, and in any case I do wonder again about what I can only describe as trivial temperature “anomalies”,
    which I am fairly sure would not be attached such significance, if it were not for the current political imperative to somehow prove, or disprove “Dangerous Climate Change”.

    The great El Nino ?
    We see here in this graph that there is a +3 degrees rise over the past four years …… “oh, the humanities” !
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png

    ….. but is this really so terrible, and can we say that rises in CO2 are responsible for this ? I think not on both counts. Let’s look at this graph over a longer time series.
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/eln-f-pg.gif

    So far it’s only about the tenth warmest in the past sixty years. Even the El Nino itself, do we really understand what causes the switch back to La Nina ? But we absolutely do know this; it has got Zero, Nada, Zilch to do with atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and there is no evidence to show otherwise.

    What these carefully curated and recorded temperatures do show, though, Dr. Spencer, is that there is really no need to panic, and that this is nothing new, even in the past century. These changes are trivial, in my humble, but earnest opinion.

    • Aaron S says:

      For me, el nino is related to global warming and CO2 bc the 97 98 event was a major step up in the global temperature. So now that we are looking at another potential big el nino the pattern afterwards will be significant for understanding the forcing mechanisms at play and if CO2 is warming earth and how much. This is following a simple stair step model where energy accumulates then is released and equilibrates during these events. A big la nina would be particularly interesting. Exciting times.

      • El Nino is an earth bound intrinsic climatic factor which is not going to push the climate into some kind of a new regime.

        The main climate drivers Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability. Geo Magnetic Field Strength ,Land Ocean Arrangements are trending toward colder times ahead.

        In addition the PDO/AMO should trend to a cold phase and ENSO going forward will be featuring less El Nino’s after this one ends, if PDO reverts to it’s cold phase.

      • fonzarelli says:

        Aaron, have you noticed how the ukmo argo data has a downward trend until the solar minimum (half a decade or so ago) and then starts rising with solar cycle 24? I was pretty amazed to see that…

        • Aaron S says:

          Nope can you provide a link so i can look? I will check this time… haha. It would be difficult to assume causation with such a short correlation. What i can say is it is not hard to find 11 yr periodicity in tree rings or annual lake varves. So the solar cycle can force regional climate for sure.

    • David Appell says:

      RSS gives their temperature anomalies to the nearest 0.0001 C.

  9. Remember the 1970’s the temperature trend was down and mainstream forecasted cooler temperatures ahead and a threat for an Ice Age.

    Trend reverses around 1980 and they come up with global warming.

    This time when the trend reverses which is right around the corner I do not think they are going to be able to dismiss there climate stance of slow gradual warming until 2100 or beyond.

    I can not wait to see what they will say once the temperature trend is down, and I wonder how accountable they will be for their wrong climate forecast.

    I intend to make sure everyone will know who forecasted the climate correctly, and who forecasted it wrong.

    NOAA and all of them are nothing more but manipulators trying to keep their asinine AGW theory alive for another day.
    Time is running out.

  10. Thanks, Dr. Spencer. I have updated your graph in my pages.
    I hope http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/ will be corrected soon; it reads “June 2015 Report:”, and shows a small copy of the June 2015 map, but all the links are to the old May 2015 Report graphic.

  11. AARON S HERE IS MY REPLY TO YOUR QUESTION YOU ASKED ME ON YOUR POST MADE AT 11:04PM JULY 8.

    It needs to all be read to get my point.

    The last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest of the Holocene overall.
    Most of the Holocene temperature loss ~-1.5°C has been in the last 3 millennia since 1000BC

    edhoskins says which is spot on.

    Going forward the long term climate drivers Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability (secondary effects),and these factors which moderate the first two factors those being , Geo Magnetic Field Strength (enhancing solar variability when weak)., Land /Ocean Arrangements., Ice Dynamic are all in an overall cooling pattern since the Holocene Optimum.

    The warm periods since the Holocene Optimum being tied to solar variability which is superimposed upon the general climatic trend. MEDIEVAL ,ROMAN warm periods to name two.

    Further refinement to the temperature trend since the Holocene Optimum ,coming from ENSO, PDO/AMO phase and Volcanic Activity.

    I would say all the above when combined and superimposed upon one another can account for all of the climatic changes since the Holocene Optimum – Present Day.

    Therefore going forward the trend in the global temperature should be down as soon as the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends and solar activity in general remains at sub-solar levels which it has been since 2005, and approaches my low average value solar parameters going forward, with a sufficient duration of time at or around these values.

    Solar Flux 90 or less, AP index 5.0 or less, Solar Wind 350 km or less to name some of them.

    These values much above these levels during the maximum of solar cycle 24 through today , although the maximum of solar cycle 24 is very weak, however the balance of this decade going forward should feature these low solar parameter readings as the very weak maximum of solar cycle 24 ends ,and once this is takes place I fully expect the global temperature trend to be in a jig saw down trend.

    The latest temperature data keeps intact what I say in the above which is CO2 has no effect upon the temperature, it is all ENSO,PDO/AMO ,and Volcanic Activity driven (short term climatic factors) which are superimposed over the longer term climatic factors, which I mentioned in the above which now all point to cooling going forward.

    For all the talk about AGW it has done nothing to bring us into a new climatic regime ,we are simply in the same climatic regime post the Dalton Minimum , with climate variability associated with the 11 year rhythmic solar cycle ,pdo/amo phase, volcanic activity and enso.

    For the big picture Milankovitch Cycles(favorable for cooling on balance in contrast to 8000 years ago), the weakening Geo Magnetic Field and the switch from active to inactive solar activity post 2005 will work to bring the climate into a cooler and possibly a climatic regime change, maybe back to Dalton conditions.

    Land /Ocean arrangements so very favorable for cooling ,and the Ice Dynamic in the S.H. becoming very interesting.

    • Aaron S says:

      I understand you and like many aspects of your solar heavy model. But the last century has seen significant warmimg (0.8 degC) in hadcrut4 global data set. This significant warming could escape proxy data set like the holocene construction you cite, but given we have the data today its actually something that begs for explanation bc it is significant and abrupt. I resist the temptation to extrapolate let alone model additional warming from co2 bc there is to much uncertainty and politics got involved. I also agree that the natural forcing mechanisms are in cooling mode except i dont claim to forecast pdo- to be honest it surprised me the flip was this significant, but it is looking more real the longer it persists. In my own solar heavy model i anticipate a moderate el nino followed by a la nina and no major jump in global temperatures. Before the pdo flip i anticipated a strong la nina w cooling after the el nino, but im not so sure so im waiting to see what the data shows. I think the core difference in our views is that i have not excluded co2 as causing some warming but i dont know if it does let alone the sensitivity to doubling co2 bc the suns activity jumped about 1950 and my own research shows there is more to suns impact than TSI so there were multiple warming mechanisms. What i do know is that if there is a 0.2 deg jump in global temp after this el nino like 97 98 (just before the sun shifted back to normal activity) then i struggle to fit the trend to a solar heavy model unless a significant lag is utilized to release stored heat. So the event is finally here we have mostly isolated co2 from the sun’s optimum. For me this event is therefore worth watching bc finally the natural experiment is meaningful. My position has never been no influence by co2 but rather very high uncertainty in the modeling of global temp bc we have had multiple warming factors in phase. Continued warming does not exclude a stronger sun, nor confirm any given ipcc model that neglects a stronger sun. However any model i consider must honor the data. So lets sit back, watch all of roy and christys hard work unfold and enjoy learning.

      • As you say let us see what happens going forward.

        Watch the Southern Ocean/Antarctica which are cooling and can spell the beginning of the end for AGW.

        In the meantime notice how all the attention is being put on El Nino which is an intrinsic earth bound climate entity which will have no lasting effects upon the climate in contrast to what some are saying.

        There is not going to be a step up in temperatures as a result of this latest El Nino.

        I would say the S.H. ice dynamic and S. Ocean temperature is a bigger player when all is said and done.

  12. http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

    Look at the S.H. and I see signs of a PDO shift back to a cold phase. Look E. OF Japan cold pool forming.

  13. correction warm pool possibly starting to form E. of Japan.

    • David Appell says:

      That paper is obviously junk. Not only do they ignore radiative transfer, they write

      “The conventional anthropogenic theory (backed and promoted by IPCC and other national and international organizations over the last 25 years) completely ignores the main physical phenomena of the heat transfer in the atmosphere. In particular, it assumes that the heat transfer in atmosphere occurs exclusively by radiation.”

      which is flat-out raw ignorance.

      • RW says:

        Have to agree with you there, David. I don’t know where they get that, as there seems to be no real reference to it in the paper.

  14. Norman says:

    Roy is not the only scientist working in the field that the fanatics go after.

    Here is a response to a Cliff Mass blog post.

    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/uncritical-mass/

    Here is the credentials of Cliff Mass. A very knowledgeable fellow but what of it. The less informed still like to go after him because he does not toe the “Party Line” strongly enough for them.

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~cliff/cliff.php

    I guess his crime is that he does not attribute the current heat wave and drought in the Pacific Northwest on climate change but natural conditions.

    His logic is very good. The Globe has only warmed slightly but the heatwave is 15 to 20 degrees above normal. That measns other areas are cooler, which he points out in the midwest regions. It all must balance. Heat waves, cold snaps, drouughts and floods are all part of the weather. Just don’t tell the alarmists it has been happening on this planet a very long time.

  15. Larry says:

    Dr. Spencer, you surely are aware of the enormous amount of ignorance that exists about the science of climate change, especially by so many on the left who are content to assume that the “97 percent of climate scientists” claim is the gospel truth. But this will make you cry. On 7/9, Gina McCarthy appeared in a House hearing and was asked a very simple question: what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? She had no idea. There is a video of this, easily findable with a Google search. This is the woman trying to shut down every coal-fired power plant in the nation to save us from CO2!

    • JohnKl says:

      Gina McCarthy and fellow leftists don’t need facts. Since when has climate fraud and hindering access to natural resources for the poor ever required facts? Scary predictions of rapid temperature increases, catastrophic climate collapse, mass extinctions that never happen have deluded many up to now.

      Have a great day!

      • JohnKl says:

        Gina McCarthy may never have made an untrue statement or defrauded anyone but where does the 97 percent figure come from?

        Have a great day!

    • Aaron S says:

      99.9% now… they updated.

  16. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Roy, in the lower troposphere directory the one *.txt file has the right “Last Modified” date, 06-Jul-2015:
    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0beta2.txt

    But the matching file without the *.txt says 10-Jun-2015, doesn’t have June.

  17. David Appell says:

    July 10, 2015 at 11:29 PM

    Wrong. it’s not clear if the LIA was an entry into the next ice age, but greenhouse warming has sharply reversed all that.

    My reply is wishful thinking David.

  18. I have laid out a comprehensive theory which is in direct opposition to AGW theory.

    My theory conforms to the data unlike AGW theory.

    • D o u g    says:

      And how does your “theory” (hypothesis would be a better term as it has not reached the stage of being a theory by a long shot) explain why the temperature at the base of the 350Km high troposphere of the planet Uranus is hotter than Earth’s surface, even though about 30 times further from the Sun? Or does physics work differently on other planets?

      If you want to read a hypothesis that does explain the necessary energy flow it’s at http://climate-change-theory.com

  19. David the test is now we will find out before the decade ends one way or the other in my opinion.

  20. D o u g    says:

    Roy. If you are genuinely interested in quashing the GH hoax then this outlines why the whole basis of what is in climate “Science” is off track because it is based on the radiative forcing paradigm and ignores thermodynamics.

    No one has ever proved wrong the physics presented in my website and the linked papers therein. If you think you have, then you should be able to pinpoint where you think I go wrong in the development from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or why you think entropy would decrease in cases where I have explained why it increases, notably in natural convective heat transfer – which is always driven by increasing entropy, by the way.

    The Sun’s direct radiation to the surface of Earth or Venus, let alone the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus, is nowhere near sufficient to cause the mean temperature to rise on the sunlit side, as it does do on these planets. Such warming is compensating for the inevitable cooling on the dark side. Simple S-B calculations should convince you that you will never get anywhere assuming you can calculate planetary surface temperatures from radiative flux. You cannot add back radiative flux to solar flux in S-B calculations.

    You can’t explain, for example, how the required thermal energy gets into the surface of Venus, because you think only within the paradigm of radiative forcing.

    But the Sun’s radiation can only raise the temperature where it is less than about 400K which is only in the upper troposphere of Venus and above. That radiated energy then becomes thermal energy, but only up there in the upper troposphere. Over the course of four months of sunshine some of that warmed gas passes on its extra kinetic energy to molecules at lower altitudes and so there is apparent heat transfer downwards from cooler to hotter regions because, and only because, entropy is increasing for the reasons I have shown. If you cannot reproduce from memory the diagrams at the foot of the Home page then you have never understood the physics I have correctly explained.

    Such physics is the most vital science in the whole climate debate, and no one has ever proved me wrong by studying what I have written and finding fault therein, even though there have now been over 10,000 hits on the above linked website this year and a $5,000 reward offered ever since my book was published in March last year.

  21. Why should anyone care if the average temperature of our planet varies by a few tenths of a degree from year to year?

    No one lives in the average temperature.

    No one could possibly notice a few tenths of a degree C. change in the average temperature in their neighborhood.

    But when charted on a graph, that only has a range of 1.5 degrees C., these tiny 0.1 degree variations suddenly look like huge mountains and valleys 0– the charts make tiny anomalies seem important, when they are not important at all.

    Why should anyone listen to a climate forecast for 10 or 100 years in the future … when local weather forecasts are not accurate for one week into the future?

    Why would anyone believe our planet had natural climate variations for 4.5 billion years, and then suddenly, in 1940, it is claimed by some people that all natural variations suddenly stopped, and CO2 magically became the only “climate controller”?

    And if we don’t believe that, there are two famous scientists, Al Gore and the Pope, ready to lecture us on climate science, and tell us that in a few years, people will have to take gondolas to their offices on Wall Street.

    The only good news I see is that I never took a ride in the gondolas when I was in Venice — it was unusually cold that day, and the water was very dirty … so now I can wait a few years and take a gondola taxi ride in Manhattan’s financial district.

    I hope Al Gore doesn’t have the gondola concession — he’s made enough money on his climate change scam!

    Climate blog for the average guy:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com

  22. Lewis says:

    Richard,

    You obviously have no concept of power politics, cronyism, the ignorance of the masses or, of some, the NEED to be right.

    Beyond that, the purpose of the AGW crowd is control of the industrial world, the economy and the people. This is seen by the scare tactics associated with the fear of global cooling which slightly preceded the current AGW fear mongering. The answers to that scare were the same as the answers to this one – shut down CO2 contributions to the atmosphere.

    As others point out, the results and, I must suppose desire, are to hurt the economy and keep poor people poor and even on dirt floors.

    You will notice that David A. never answers my question as to why some people would want more cold weather and the associated ice, snow and shorter growing seasons, but rants only about the horrors mans actions visit upon the pristine earth. Bah.

    My personal view is that these people hate themselves and mankind and are using this manufactured fear as a method to assuage themselves of their guilt. Honestly, they are the ones who would be sacrificing virgins in another time. Today, they are intent on starving people to death and making them suffer unnecessary ills.

    Do they actually believe what they preach? See Al Gore.

    I could go on.

    Have a good day.

  23. D o u g   C o t t o n  says:

    Well I wonder if July figures will be down. The East of Australia is experiencing the coldest weather for several decades. All roads over the Blue Mountains (just West of Sydney) are blocked by thick snow this morning (Friday) and no-one remembers anything quite like it.

    The reason why correct physics shows us carbon dioxide has no effect and water vapor cools the surface rather than warms it can be read at http://climate-change-theory.com visited by over 10,000 so far this year.

    • Dr No says:

      I think you mean clouds COOL the surface
      (or do you dispute this fundamental fact?).

      If water vapour cooled the surface then there would be less evaporation, less water vapour and, by your argument, more warming!! Less water vapour also implies less cloud cover and even more warming! i.e. a double whammy.

      Your arguments hold no water !!