UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2017: +0.21 deg. C

July 3rd, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Lowest global temperature anomaly in last 2 years (since July, 2015)

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2017 was +0.21 deg. C, down from the May, 2017 value of +0.44 deg. C (click for full size version):

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months.

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 18 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.55 +0.73 +0.38 +0.84
2016 02 +0.86 +1.19 +0.52 +0.99
2016 03 +0.76 +0.99 +0.54 +1.10
2016 04 +0.72 +0.86 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.53 +0.61 +0.45 +0.71
2016 06 +0.32 +0.47 +0.17 +0.38
2016 07 +0.37 +0.43 +0.30 +0.48
2016 08 +0.43 +0.53 +0.32 +0.50
2016 09 +0.45 +0.50 +0.39 +0.38
2016 10 +0.42 +0.42 +0.41 +0.46
2016 11 +0.46 +0.43 +0.49 +0.36
2016 12 +0.26 +0.26 +0.27 +0.23
2017 01 +0.33 +0.32 +0.33 +0.09
2017 02 +0.39 +0.58 +0.19 +0.07
2017 03 +0.23 +0.37 +0.09 +0.06
2017 04 +0.27 +0.29 +0.26 +0.22
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.32 +0.09 +0.39

NOTE: We have added the Metop-B satellite to the processing stream, with data since mid-2013. The Metop-B satellite has its orbit actively maintained, so the AMSU data from it does not require corrections from orbit decay or diurnal drift. As a result of adding this satellite, most of the monthly anomalies since mid-2013 have changed, by typically a few hundredths of a degree C. The 1979-2017 linear trend remains at +0.12 C/decade.

The UAH LT global anomaly image for June, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.

The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt


410 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2017: +0.21 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Funny how dr spencer goes totally quiet when it dropped in this article but when there is a record warm spike he writes a 10 page blog on how it is warming! Warmest year Evaaaa here we come!

    • Vladimir Paar says:

      Table of monthly lower tropospheric temperature shown by dr. Spencer tells more than a tousand words!

    • Mickey Prumt says:

      Tells about what?
      UAH and RSS data are extremely sensitive to the hypothesis used for their calculation.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Well, one of the things the UAH chart “tells” us is that the atmosphere does not “trap heat”. Notice that after each El Nino spike, the temperatures fell back. The massive amount of heat released by the ocean just kept on going, and going, and going….

        • David Appell says:

          g*e*r*a*n says:
          “Well, one of the things the UAH chart tells us is that the atmosphere does not trap heat.”

          Then why is the surface about 30 C warmer than can be accounted for by the Sun?

          (Try to answer honestly, without insults, diversions and snark.)

          • Laura says:

            “(Try to answer honestly, without insults, diversions and snark.)”

            Ironic…

          • David Appell says:

            That’s twice now Laura that you’ve responded with only snark, and without any scientific content at all.

            You are quickly becoming ignorable….

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie asks: “Then why is the surface about 30 C warmer than can be accounted for by the Sun?”

            Davie, obviously your accountants have something wrong….

          • lewis says:

            David,
            Laura, sweet lady that she is, points out a simple fact, very politely. Personally, I believe she should have used the term – hypocrite –
            just for accuracy.

            Lewis

        • Mickey Prumt says:

          g*e*r*a*n

          “Well, one of the things the UAH chart tells us is that the atmosphere does not trap heat. ”

          Are you trying to tell me that greenhouse effect does not exist ?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The IPPC/CO2/AGW GHE does not “exist”. The atmosphere does NOT trap heat. CO2 does NOT produce warming. DWIR is NOT proof that the atmosphere is heating the surface. “Cold” does NOT warm “Hot”. And, there is NO Easter Bunny.

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            Oh my god ! Really ? I didn’t know that.
            I am learning a lot here. That’s pretty cool.

            Thank you very much g*e*r*a*n.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No problem, glad to help.

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            It’s nice you’re glad to help,
            maybe you can now answer David Appell question above and explain why emission temperature of Earth surface is more than 30 K larger than the 255 K you would necessary get without greenhouse effect.

            Thank you very much for the explanations.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            mickey,

            It has to do with thermodynamics which you would not understand.

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            SkepticGoneWild

            No. Until here, it’s a radiation problem : if atmosphere doesn’t absorb IR (no greenhouse effect) then surface has to emit what is emitted at top of the atmosphere. This is of course not the case and greenhouse effet necessary exists.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Mickey, find the spectrum from Earth as seen at TOA. That will be a start to understanding the mistakes in “Earth’s energy balance”.

          • Svante says:

            Found it!
            https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s2.gif

            The earth has made a mistake? It should be following the red line???

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Svante, do you REALLY believe that it the entire spectrum? So, there are no visible wavelengths going back into space? You can’t see Earth from space?

            I love pseudoscience humor.

          • Svante says:

            What you see from space is reflected light,
            it doesn’t warm the surface.

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            “That will be a start to understanding the mistakes in Earths energy balance.”

            are you telling me that net incoming solar minus reflected solar is not in balance with radiation emitted by Earth at top of the atmosphere ?
            If yes, is it first law of thermodynamics that is wrong or is there another contributor to energy balance not discovered yet ?

            Also, you didn’t explain yet why IR emitted at top of the atmosphere is not equal to that emitted at surface as it should be view that greenhouse effect doesn’t exist.

            Thank you very much for improving my understanding. I can see that you learnt a lot by reading this blog.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Svante volunteers: “What you see from space is reflected light,
            it doesnt warm the surface.”

            So Svante, if the visible light is included in TSI, but not in included in the flux going back to space, would that explain the “energy imbalance”?

            (If your answer is “no”, please show all work.)

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Mickey inquires: “are you telling me that net incoming solar minus reflected solar is not in balance with radiation emitted by Earth at top of the atmosphere ?

            No, what I am telling you is we don’t know how to match “incoming” with “outgoing”. Obviously, 390 Watts/m^2 from surface and 240 Watts/m^2 to space is an intolerable mismatch, unless you like pseudoscience.

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Are you telling us that all incoming solar radiation is balanced by reflected radiation and that Earth is not emitting radiation ?

            Is it all what you learn by reading this blog ?

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            g*e*r*a*n 5:31 PM

            No, what I am telling you is we dont know how to match incoming with outgoing.

            well at top of the atmosphere inciming minus refected has to be equal to emitted, on average.
            Or we have a problem with first aw of thermodynamics.
            Do we ?

            “Obviously, 390 Watts/m^2 from surface and 240 Watts/m^2 to space is an intolerable mismatch”

            So did the Earth made a mistake because doesn’t follow your theory (without greenhouse effect, these flux would necessay be equal)?

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            g*e*r*a*n 5:31 PM

            “No, what I am telling you is we dont know how to match incoming with outgoing.”

            well at top of the atmosphere incoming minus reflected has to be equal to emitted, on average.
            Or we have a problem with first law of thermodynamics. Do we ?

            Obviously, 390 Watts/m^2 from surface and 240 Watts/m^2 to space is an intolerable mismatch

            So did the Earth made a mistake because doesnt follow your theory (without greenhouse effect, these flux would necessary be equal)?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Mickey, i am used to pseudoscience pimps trying to twist my words.

            Here’s what I stated:

            “No, what I am telling you is we dont know how to match incoming with outgoing. Obviously, 390 Watts/m^2 from surface and 240 Watts/m^2 to space is an intolerable mismatch, unless you like pseudoscience.”

            Now, try again.

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            I can understand that you are confused because you can not explain this difference without greenhouse effect and you have decided that greenhouse effect doesn’t exists…

            If atmosphere doesn’t interact with IR then what surface emits would ahve to be equal to what is emitted at top of the atmosphere and surface would have to be much cooler. Don’t you think ?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Mickey asks: “If atmosphere doesnt interact with IR then what surface emits would ahve to be equal to what is emitted at top of the atmosphere and surface would have to be much cooler. Dont you think?

            How do you possibly arrive at that unless you believe the IR interaction with the atmosphere is “warming the planet”? You’re assuming the GHE, then assuming the “proof” of the GHE!

            That type of “reasoning” is pure pseudoscience.

          • Svante says:

            Sorry g*e*r*a*n,
            you already explained the 390/240 discrepancy, no need to say it again:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246314

            You do have a sense of humour!

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            That’s the whole point : greenhouse effect is observed and is this 150 W m-2 difference between what is emitted at surface (at higher temperature than Earth emission temperature) and what is emitted at top of the atmosphere…

          • Svante says:

            Please tell these scientists they have a 60% measurement error.

            “The results show that the bias of global CrIS OLR estimation is within 2 W m−2 and that the standard deviation is within 5 W m−2”.

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0238.1

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            Svante

            150 W m-2 is ok …

            If you want to change subject and speak about radiative imbalance changes, OHC change and sea level rise are your friends.

          • Svante says:

            No, that was in response to g*e*r*a*ns earlier outlandish explanation of the 150 Wm-2:
            “There would appear to be something amiss with how the measurements are taken.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Svante and Mickey, if you like the pseudoscience you have, you can keep your pseudoscience.

            But, to compare outgoing and incoming spectra has NOT been done in any believable way. It would take 1000’s of geosynchronous satellites, in full time synchronization with low-flying aircraft, years to collect any serious data. That has not been done.

          • Mickey Prumpt says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Are you telling me that, in contradiction to your previous comments, you deny that roughly 390 W m-2 are emitted at surface and roughly 240 W m-2 are emitted at top of the atmosphere ? Or are you trying to change subject ?

          • Svante says:

            It’s better than that, the CERES satellites orbit the earth in about 100 minutes, at a 100 degree inclination.
            Terra: https://tinyurl.com/yasgnsh5
            Aqua: https://tinyurl.com/y853s63a
            Suomi NPP: https://tinyurl.com/y8uzcscj

          • Svante says:

            Sorry Mickey, that was in response to g*e*r*a*ns geostationary satellites.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Mickey indicates his confusion: “Are you telling me that, in contradiction to your previous comments, you deny that roughly 390 W m-2 are emitted at surface and roughly 240 W m-2 are emitted at top of the atmosphere ? Or are you trying to change subject ?”

            No, Mickey, there is no contradiction. You are either confused or “grasping at straws”.

            What I am saying is that the mismatch between 390 and 240 is caused by inadequate data, NOT any fictitious GHE.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Svante adds to the humor: “Its better than that, the CERES satellites orbit the earth in about 100 minutes, at a 100 degree inclination.”

            Exactly my point, Svante. Now, where is the corresponding data from the spectrum-recording airplanes also orbiting the Earth in about 100 minutes? (That would require a speed of about 15000 mph!)

          • Mickey Prumpt says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            An error of 150 W m-2 ? Oh my god, this is terrible. I can’t imagine what you think about UAH calculations…

            But you didn’t answer the question :

            Do you agree that if atmosphere was not absorbing radiation due to greenhouse gaz and clouds, surface would necessary emit what is emitted at top of the atmosphere (i.e. 240 Wm-2, which are observed twice : incoming solar + reflected solar and emitted IR… So lucky to get twice the same number with our error of 150 W m-2…) then Earth temperature would have to be on average 30 K cooler ?

          • Mickey Prumpt says:

            sm allcorrection “would have to be at least about 30 K cooler ?” rather than “would have to be on average 30 K cooler ?”

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            In answer to Mickey’s rambling, mostly-incomprehensible, poorly-worded “question”:

            “No”.

          • Mickey Prumpt says:

            So where do you disagree and why ?

            1) If there were no atmopheric constituent absorbing and reemitting IR (i.e. no GHG and no clouds) then atmophere would not interact with IR ?
            2) If no infrared radiation was absorbed and emitted by atmosphere then surface would necessary emit what is emitted at top ?
            3) If albedo was not changed and if surface emitted what is emitted at top then surface would be necessary colder than observed surface ?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            1) Nothing to absorb IR, then nothing to absorb IR.

            2) Yup.

            3) Nope. Conduction and convection would still be in play. The lapse rate would still exist.

          • Mickey Prumpt says:

            1) so I understand that you agree. Great.
            2) so I understand that you agree. Great.
            3) Tropospheric lapse rate and whatever else doesn’t enter the reasonning here view that we already assume what surface is emitting and you have no objection to that (agree point 1 and 2). If surface emits what is emitted at top of the atmosphere (240 W m-2) then emission temperature at surface has to be about 255 K i.e. about 30 K lower than present mean surface temperature. Don’t you think ?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No, surface would remain at 288K. TOA emission would reflect that.

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            Basic radiative transfer calculation tells us that a 288 K surface emits about 390 W m-2. You say that top of the atmosphere would “reflect” that.
            Do you mean that 390 W m-2 would be emitted at top of the atmosphere (i.e. 50 W m-2 larger than incoming solar radiation) ? So do you mean that first law of thermodynamics is wrong and that Earth would emit more energy than it gets ? Thank you for your help .

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “Do you mean that 390 W m-2 would be emitted at top of the atmosphere?”

            No, the TOA would correspond with surface temps. Don’t be confused by the “390”. Averaging does not work well with non-linear equations. Also, there other considerations.

            “So do you mean that first law of thermodynamics is wrong and that Earth would emit more energy than it gets?”

            No, only pseudoscience types believe the 1st LoT is wrong.

            “Thank you for your help.”

            You’re welcome.

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            “Averaging does not work well with non-linear equations. Also, there other considerations.”

            Well we average T^4 here and take the fourth root. Mean T is necessary lower than (mean(T^4))^0.25, so if (mean(T^4))^0.25 has to be about 30 K lower than present mean temperature then mean T will be also 30 K lower than present mean temperature.

            Your new explanation doesn’t work more than the previous ones. Do you try again and explain how a surface with a mean temperature of 288 K can emit 240 W m-2 ?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “Your new explanation doesnt work more than the previous ones.”

            Maybe because I am not trying to explain anything. I am answering your leading, often nearly-incomprehensible questions. Like the one below.

            “Do you try again and explain how a surface with a mean temperature of 288 K can emit 240 W m-2?”

            I thought you implied upthread that the surface emitted 390 W/m^2? Maybe you need to check your averages….

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            “I thought you implied upthread that the surface emitted 390 W/m^2? Maybe you need to check your averages.”

            Yes I do say that surface is emitting 390 W/m^2. This is straightforward from basic physics and this is observed.

            But you agree above (point 1 and 2) that without greenhouse effect, it has to emits 240 W m-2 (just try to understand what you write).

            So I ask you the question : how can it be ? how a surface with a mean temperature of 288 K can emit 240 W m-2 ?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Mickey argues with himself:

            “Yes I do say that surface is emitting 390 W/m^2.”

            “So I ask you the question : how can it be? how a surface with a mean temperature of 288 K can emit 240 W m-2?”

            In the same comment, Mickey advised me to “just try to understand what you write”.

            Hilarious.

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            What I say is that WITHOUT greenhouse effect surface would have to emit 240 W m-2 and you agree with that from comments above. BUT I am not the one here who say that greenhouse effect doesn’t exists. You say that. It’s not my fault if you think that what you are saying is stupid. Don’t you think ?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “What I say is that WITHOUT greenhouse effect surface would have to emit 240 W m-2 and you agree with that from comments above.”

            No Mickey, you are deceiving yourself. There is no proof of the GHE, except in your mind. Just as there is no proof that I “agree with that from comments above”. You choose to believe such things, and I can’t stop you. Living with your delusions is your choice.

            BUT I am not the one here who say that greenhouse effect doesnt exists. You say that. Its not my fault if you think that what you are saying is stupid. Dont you think ?

            No Mickey, you are deceiving yourself again. I don’t think what I am saying is stupid. That’s what you choose to believe You choose to believe such things, and I can’t stop you. Living with your delusions is your choice.

          • ryukidn says:

            Wait .. there’s NO easter bunny??

  2. Just looked at what happened in the record warmth spike of February 2016 dr spencer went belestic! And Now….. cricket cricket

    • Roy Spencer says:

      Yes, I’m a noted shill for the warmists. (eye roll)

      • I am not saying you are dr spencer. You are a Luke warmist. Meaning you don’t totally deny it but don’t totally accept it either. More co2 does indeed cause more warming. The greenhouse affect is real. Problem is the amount of warming gets completely over exaggerated and people aren’t seeing the bigger picture and what’s really causing climate change and that is the sun. I fully appreciate your hard work and dedication into the science. You are a smart man dr spencer. My advice to you is to just be more open minded and not just focus on how much of an effect humans have on climate change and start focusing on the bigger picture. Keep up the good work!

        Signed

        ClimateChange4realz

        • To put my claim in perspective. Climate change is like cooking a recipe. You have the most dominant ingredient and from their you have the less important ones. We tend to focus on one ingredient way too much even as man made climate change deniers without seeing the bigger picture on the main ingredient which totally stands out from the others. In climate change that would be the sun and its affects on the magnetosphere on earth and Galactic cosmic rays. Understand?

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          “More co2 does indeed cause more warming. The greenhouse affect is real.”

          There are some that claim that is “pseudoscience”.

          • Bart says:

            The statements are not strongly coupled. The greenhouse effect can be real without additional CO2 necessarily causing more warming.

            CO2 and other GHGs both heat and cool the atmosphere. Which effect dominates depends upon the state of the atmosphere.

            Both effects are increased by the same proportion by increasing CO2 concentration. If they happen to be balanced to begin with, they stay balanced with increasing concentration. The net impact of additional CO2 is then nil.

          • David Appell says:

            Except we’re interested in the temperature of the surface, not the atmosphere as a whole.

            And that’s increasing rapidly.

          • Roy Spencer says:

            Hmmm. So we can ignore sub-surface ocean temperatures now, too, I guess.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            It’s getting more and more confusing, as the definition of the “greenhouse effect”, GHE, keeps changing. Whenever I use “GHE”, I am referring to the IPCC/CO2/AGW/GHE “nonsense”. That nonsense has NO basis in physics. Consequently, other definitions of the GHE have arisen.

            Some define the GHE as the atmospheric lapse rate. Some define it as the difference between surface and TOA IR. Some believers define is as anything they see, like melting snow–“See that’s the GHE!”

            How people react to the phrase is an interesting study into human behavior.

          • Bart says:

            David Appell @ July 3, 2017 at 4:34 PM

            “Except were interested in the temperature of the surface, not the atmosphere as a whole.”

            They are coupled. That is how the GHE works in reality. It’s not because of simplistic “backradiation” – mean time of collision is much shorter than mean time to relaxation. The surface photons that are absorbed are mostly passed on to other atmospheric constituents. When they do radiate back, it is largely a result of thermalization from those other constituents. Hence, the balance between the forward and reverse thermalization processes is what determines whether the local result of increasing concentration is either heating or cooling, or neither.

            “And thats increasing rapidly.”

            Only, it isn’t. It’s been nearly two decades since any significant warming. The only way you can claim recent warming is by latching onto the recent El Nino, a transient phenomenon that is ebbing quickly. You can try to milk it for all it’s worth (and, you have and will), but it is going to leave you high and dry sooner or later.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            g*an…””The greenhouse affect is real.
            There are some that claim that is pseudoscience.

            It is pseudoscience. The glass in a real greenhouse traps heat by trapping real molecules of warmed air while blocking convective currents that would cool it. There is no such barrier in the atmosphere, which is rife with convective currents.

          • David Appell says:

            Roy Spencer says:
            “Hmmm. So we can ignore sub-surface ocean temperatures now, too, I guess.”

            Roy: Humans live on the surface.

            But if you want to go there — ocean heat content is by far the best way to diagnose a planetary energy imbalance, as Roger Pielke Sr has been pointing out for many years now.

          • AaronS says:

            Dave.
            Ocean heat. A.R.G.O. is the only data set that provides any estimate. The rest has very low confidence. Lets see.

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            Roy Spencer :

            “Hmmm. So we can ignore sub-surface ocean temperatures now, too, I guess.”

            No we can’t. In fact we can’t ignore OHC over the whole ocean (among a lot of other things) as some people do by focusing only on UAH obs-model-ajustments based calculations.

          • Nate says:

            on milking El Nino:

            yes it is a transient phenomena, but it has raised 5 year averages to record levels.

            La Ninas, eg. in 2011-12 were also transient phenomena. Cant ignore one but keep the other.

          • Bart says:

            “yes it is a transient phenomena, but it has raised 5 year averages to record levels. “

            So what? It has nothing to do with CO2. It is a natural, transient phenomenon.

            “Cant ignore one but keep the other.”

            Don’t even know what you are talking about here. Who’s ignoring La Nina, except for the people who are latching on the recent El Nino, and ignoring what will inevitably come after?

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “They are coupled. That is how the GHE works in reality”

            Of course. And it increases surface temperatures while cooling the stratosphere.

            Remember, we live on the surface, not in the stratosphere.

          • David Appell says:

            “Only, it isnt. Its been nearly two decades since any significant warming.”

            Wrong.

            First, 20 years isn’t long enough to diagnose climate change. You’re looking mostly at the noise.

            Even then, the 20-yr trend for NOAA’s surface measurements is +0.17 C/decade. Other surface datasets are similar.

            No warming?

          • AaronS says:

            Dave NOAA man it is a data point but there is uncertainty with it.

            “So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karls thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation. I finally decided to document what I had found”. Bates. NOAA senior scientist.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Hence, the balance between the forward and reverse thermalization processes is what determines whether the local result of increasing concentration is either heating or cooling, or neither’

            Thats sounds sciency, but… what does it mean? What is forward and reverse thermalization?

            How can you get cooling?

          • Nate says:

            ‘So what? It has nothing to do with CO2. It is a natural, transient phenomenon.’

            You dont get ongoing 5 year records, with out a rising long term trend. The transient is riding on the trend, that you iognore.

            And La Ninas produced the downward spikes, that contributed to creating an apparent flatish trend prior.

          • The iddy buddy La Nia we just had has ended a while ago and we are now back to normal. Alarmists who tell you it is because we are recovering from El Nio are just cherry picking another excuse from the man made global warming propaganda tree. Pay no attention to them. The cooling affects of this La Nia should have ended already. Since the La Nia was small they twist it and say it is just a recovery from the record El Nio. That’s all it is. Ha! Nonsense!

          • You may be right. But what’s a claim without any evidence to support that claim.

          • David Appell says:

            ClimateChange4realz says:
            “The iddy buddy La Nia we just had has ended a while ago and we are now back to normal.”

            It’s La Nina. Ideally with a tilde over the second n.

            Monthly climate anomalies don’t march in lockstep. Focusing on short-term numbers is by far the biggest mistake that deniers make. They never learn.

          • Bart says:

            David Appell @ July 3, 2017 at 6:17 PM

            “First, 20 years isnt long enough to diagnose climate change. Youre looking mostly at the noise.”

            The SNR is high enough to resolve a marked inflection.

            “Even then, the 20-yr trend for NOAAs surface measurements is +0.17 C/decade. Other surface datasets are similar.”

            Only because of the recent monster El Nino. What straw will you grasp when it is well and fully over? Besides, we all know the surface data have been corrupted. You know it. You just won’t admit it.

            Nate @ July 3, 2017 at 6:17 PM

            “Thats sounds sciency, but what does it mean?”

            It means that GHG molecules thermalize surrounding molecules, and in turn are thermalized by them, i.e., they exchange energy amongst themselves. If atmospheric molecules are thermalizing IR emitting molecules, and they subsequently emit that energy to space, then the atmosphere is being cooled. If IR emitting molecules intercept photons from the surface, and pass that energy on to the other atmospheric constituents, the atmosphere heats. The net result is a dynamic balance between the two processes.

            “You dont get ongoing 5 year records, with out a rising long term trend.”

            You do when you have a large El Nino. The El Nino is not part of any long term trend. It’s just a transient phenomenon that pops up every so often.

            “And La Ninas produced the downward spikes, that contributed to creating an apparent flatish trend prior.”

            But, even including the El Nino preceding does not change the essentially zero trend characteristic. It has been interrupted by the recent El Nino, but temperatures are fast reverting to the status quo ante. It’s only a matter of time before we are back at square one, and we may even dip below it.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            >> Even then, the 20-yr trend for NOAAs surface
            >> measurements is +0.17 C/decade. Other surface
            >> datasets are similar.

            “Only because of the recent monster El Nino.”

            This is precisely why I’ve been saying — along with WMO — that climatologically significant trends require 30+ years of information.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “But, even including the El Nino preceding does not change the essentially zero trend characteristic. It has been interrupted by the recent El Nino, but temperatures are fast reverting to the status quo ante.”

            Yes, and these temperatures are almost ALWAYS higher than they were 30 years ago.

          • Nate says:

            ‘ If atmospheric molecules are thermalizing IR emitting molecules, and they subsequently emit that energy to space, then the atmosphere is being cooled. If IR emitting molecules intercept photons from the surface, and pass that energy on to the other atmospheric constituents, the atmosphere heats. The net result is a dynamic balance between the two processes.’

            Yes, mostly agree. But ‘then the atmosphere is being cooled’ is always there and necessary to remove heat incoming from the surface, and ‘intercepted by IR absorbing molecules’ to maintain balance.

            Now increase the amount of IR absorbing molecules, more energy is absorbed and the atmosphere heats, until outgoing again matches incoming. (And radiating level rises)

            Your description does not explain how the atmosphere can cool with increasing CO2

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            ‘even including the El Nino preceding does not change the essentially zero trend characteristic. It has been interrupted by the recent El Nino, but temperatures are fast reverting to the status quo ante. Its only a matter of time before we are back at square one, and we may even dip below it.’

            here is had*crut with trend:

            http://tinyurl.com/y8krp6sd

            If you ask statisticians what they see here, not telling them what the data is about, how would they describe it? You might try this with colleagues..

            IMHO they would say this is a linear trend with noise. They might also say the noise has some correlation. What else could they say?

            The recent El Nino and ’98 one are well above the trend, the prior La Ninas ’08 and 11-12 are well below the trend. Just as one would expect. Noise has some large and some small deviations from trend.

          • Bart says:

            “Now increase the amount of IR absorbing molecules, more energy is absorbed and the atmosphere heats, until outgoing again matches incoming. (And radiating level rises)”

            But, more energy is also absorbed from other atmospheric constituents, and radiated away, resulting in concomitant cooling. Increasing concentration increases both the heating potential and the cooling potential.

            Given that CO2 is only a minor portion of the atmosphere, there is a whole sea of atmospheric particles begging it to take on their heat and radiate it away, surrounding the CO2 particles on every side, and not just in the direction of the surface. Which propensity dominates?

            “If you ask statisticians what they see here, not telling them what the data is about, how would they describe it?”

            If they were worth their salt, they would say these data are not stationary, and statistical methods based on stationarity assumptions will not yield reliable results. Time will tell.

        • gbaikie says:

          ” ClimateChange4realz says:
          July 3, 2017 at 11:33 AM

          I am not saying you are dr spencer. You are a Luke warmist. Meaning you dont totally deny it but dont totally accept it either. More co2 does indeed cause more warming. The greenhouse affect is real. ”

          I don’t think ideal blackbody at Earth distance has an average temperature of 5 C. I think it’s about 2 to 3 C.
          The Earth is not uniformly warmed by the sun and that a half or more all sunlight reaching Earth, arrives in the tropics. That the tropical region of blackbody in vacuum receives about 10 Kw hours per day, rest of world on
          average receives about 6 kw hour per day.

          In terms an hourly average;
          10,000 / 24 is 417 watts
          6000 / 24 is 250 watts.
          And blackbody radiating in vacuum in terms of temperature:
          417 watts would have temperature of 292.8 K [20 C ]
          250 watts would have temperature of 257.7 K [-15.5 C].

          Earth which mostly cover with oceans, has ocean average temperature of about 17 C.
          Tropics has average temperature of about 26 C.
          The heat of the tropics which 80% ocean area is transported poleward through ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream. There also large atmospheric transports of heat, called Hadley convection cells.

          The average global temperature is roughly about 15 C. The reason the global average temperature is about 15 C is that regions outside the tropics are warmed by the tropics. And the tropics is about 40% of earth surface and it’s high average temperature, raises the average global temperature number to about 15 C.
          Or outside the tropics doesn’t have a high average temperature, but it’s warmer than it would be due to solar heating alone, due to tropics increases the average temperature- and mostly the tropical heat which is transported makes winters and night times warmer.

          In terms of “greenhouse effect” clouds are major factor, and may cause as much as 50% of this “warming effect”.
          But the main reason earth temperature is warmer than blackbody is due to ocean which absorbs most the energy of sunlight and water has high specific heat.

          • Whether greenhouse affect driven warming is real or not. In my opinion it is real. Physics may say otherwise. Either way. It doesn’t matter. The main point I am trying to get at is humans will never be able to seize control of the climate no matter what we do over the next century due to fossil fuel contributions. We need to take our heads out of the sand and start focusing on the main contributor to climate change and that is the sun and its TSI output and its affect on galactic cosmic rays and the earths magnetosphere

          • gbaikie says:

            “We need to take our heads out of the sand and start focusing on the main contributor to climate change and that is the sun and its TSI output and its affect on galactic cosmic rays and the earths magnetosphere”

            If want to change temperature or control climate [not something I want a government to do or done in general- though
            wouldn’t go the other way and want to outlaw warming some place that needs warming [or cooling some place].
            The starting point should be from space [from orbit].

            Generally I assume the reason climate is vaguely important is due to humans talking about the weather. And human talk about the weather, mainly because they lack anything better to talk about.

            I think NASA should explore the Moon and than explore Mars.
            Some of my friends think NASA can’t and won’t do it- perhaps I am luke warm about it. NASA after decades has failed miserably at it’s job of exploring space, but maybe it simply needs some encouragement. Which can come in variety of forms. For instance I would say what Elon Musk is doing, should add some encouragement even to a bureaucracy.

          • Nate says:

            Your 10kwh in tropics sounds too high. Have some data?

            Even so ocean is good BB radiator. If 26C it is radiating 450W/m2. It is also losing heat by evap and convection. So total closer to 500 W/m2

            Solar, clear sky would be < 400w/m2, but often there are clouds, so << 400 W/m2

            Where is missing input heat?

          • gbaikie says:

            Nate says:
            July 3, 2017 at 7:12 PM

            Your 10kwh in tropics sounds too high. Have some data?

            I am talking about without atmosphere- BB in vacuum.

            “Even so ocean is good BB radiator. If 26C it is radiating 450W/m2. It is also losing heat by evap and convection. So total closer to 500 W/m2”

            Not sure ocean is good radiator. And if water is radiating heat any other water above in the atmosphere will be absorbing the the exact same spectrum it radiates.
            I also think there is low level greenhouse gas effect, involving water gas, and water droplets and perhaps also salt particles have some effect.
            Tropics also cloudy which has typical greenhouse effect.
            The ocean absorbs sunlight in what one call a diffused way.
            Or doesn’t absorb sunlight at the surface, like a rock or ground surface does. It’s warm it’s it’s surface because warmed less dense water rises to the surface, and if water is cooled at surface it becomes denser and is replaced with warmer water below it.
            Water conducts heat poorly:
            Water at 20 C 0.0014 (cal/sec)/(cm2 C/cm) and
            0.6 (W/m K)
            Concrete 0.002 and 0.8
            Aluminum 0.50 205.0 (W/m K)
            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/thrcn.html
            Water is used to transfer but uses convectional heat transfer
            But I would say a good radiator is something conducts heat well like Aluminum, or better Copper.
            Warm water can loss a massive amount of heat from evaporation.

          • Nate says:

            ‘I also think there is low level greenhouse gas effect, involving water gas’

            Yes a GHE is essential and must be large enough to balance the large outgoing energy from the surface. And yes evap is probably quite high, so outgoing is likely > 500W/m^2.

            ‘the atmosphere will be absor*bing the the exact same spectrum it radiates’

            Not exactly the same…there are holes in the absorp spectrum of the sky, though some are filled by CO2. But I agree that the atmosphere is ab*sorb*ing and warming as a result of this, and as a result of conv*ection and water condensation.

            We agree that the atmosphere is warmed, and therefore it GLOWS and emits IR downward to the surface…the missing heat flux.

        • David Appell says:

          How is the sun causing warming? Total solar irradiance has been flat-to-declining in recent decades, and the climate isn’t that sensitive to changes in TSI anyway.

          http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie’s pseudoscience:

            * The Sun does not warm the Earth, CO2 does.
            * The Earth then warms the Sun.
            * Except for when the Sun wants to heat the Earth to 800,000K!

          • David Appell says:

            I noticed you couldn’t and didn’t answer my question.

          • GC says:

            David Appel

            “I noticed you couldn’t and didn’t answer my question.”

            Try the ISCCP data. You will find the answer there, specifically between, but not wholly confined to the latitudes 15 N 15S. Hint – multidecadal modulation in low level cumulus cloud cover.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Why Davie, your own pseudoscience answers all your questions.

          • Bart says:

            “…Total solar irradiance has been flat-to-declining in recent decades…”

            Where do you get that? Your plot shows a strong upward sweep from before 1900 to about 2000.

          • David Appell says:

            Most warming has happened since 1970. As as the data I gave show, the TSI has been flat-to-slightly-declining over that time period:

            http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png

          • Bart says:

            Nope. It rose through 2000. You are confused by all the cycling. Here with some reasonable smoothing based on a selection of time constants:

            http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/TIM_zpspn3fhmed.jpg

          • David Appell says:

            Your data is unsourced, and the site quickly shifted to ads. Classy.

            Why is the 40-yr trend of TSI relevant to how climate is changing lately? Does it take 40 years for a change in TSI to worm its way into the climate?

          • Bart says:

            “Your data is unsourced…”

            It’s your data. I pulled it directly off the site you linked.

            “…and the site quickly shifted to ads. Classy.”

            If you have a better free repository, I’m all ears. I hate the ads, too.

            “Why is the 40-yr trend of TSI relevant to how climate is changing lately?”

            It’s not a trend. It’s the output of thermal relaxation model with the indicated time constant applied to the data.

            “Does it take 40 years for a change in TSI to worm its way into the climate?”

            Quite likely enough, if not more. The thermal mass involved is ginormous.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “If you have a better free repository, Im all ears. I hate the ads, too.”

            Pay for your own site, or start a (free) blog. You can even keep hiding your name.

            “Its not a trend. Its the output of thermal relaxation model with the indicated time constant applied to the data.”

            Ah, hidden calculations.

            >> Does it take 40 years for a change in TSI to worm
            >> its way into the climate?
            ” Quite likely enough, if not more. The thermal mass involved is ginormous.”

            Sunny days aren’t warmer than cloudy days? Or is that because of what happened 40 years ago?

          • David Appell says:

            Have the results of that paper — which is only for Antarctica, not the globe — and not exactly published in a respected journal — been verified and replicated?

          • TSI affects the globe evenly as a whole . It is not variant like global temperature is from place to place. It doesn’t matter where it’s at. Do it on the opposite side of the globe and you’ll come out with pretty much if not the same results. Good attempt to deny me but not good enough.

          • Nate says:

            Bart, there is clearly something wrong with the smoothing of tsi data you show. It looks like 20y ave not centered, possibly worse.

          • Bart says:

            David Appell @ July 3, 2017 at 6:47 PM

            “Ah, hidden calculations.”

            Here they are:

            y(k+1) = y(k) + (1-exp(-Tsamp/tau))*(x(k) – y(k))

            Tsamp = 1 year sample time
            tau = selected time constant
            x(k) = input at step k
            y(k) = output at step k

            Pretty standard, 1st order lumped thermal mass model. It is a discrete time approximation to the differential equation

            dy/dt = (x – y)/tau

            See thermal time constant here.

            “Sunny days arent warmer than cloudy days? Or is that because of what happened 40 years ago?”

            Indubitably, what happened 40 years ago is relevant to the cloudiness experienced today. There are known Rossby waves that take 20 years or more to traverse the Pacific. There are undoubtedly exceedingly long time constants embedded in the Earth’s responses, most of which we have no inkling.

            Nate @ July 3, 2017 at 7:19 PM

            “It looks like 20y ave not centered, possibly worse.”

            Of course there’s a delay. In the real world, there are no instantaneous responses. When you put a pot of water on the stove, does it immediately start boiling as soon as you turn on the heat?

          • David Appell says:

            ClimateChange4realz says:
            “TSI affects the globe evenly as a whole . It is not variant like global temperature is from place to place. It doesnt matter where its at”

            So a change in TSI has the same impact at the poles — where’s it’s dark half the year and the Sun is at a low angle otherwise — than it does in the tropics, where the Sun is always high in the sky??

          • As usual you, like many other warmists on this blog are missing the overall picture by getting caught up in tiny ant sized details that won’t get you anywhere. I was reffering to average TSI. You of course take it as a 1
            Million step mathematical equation that you try to weave your way out of when the exit sign is right in front of your face.

          • David Appell says:

            Still a hidden model. x? y? tau? from where? Physical justification?

            This looks like another of your crazy d(CO2)/dt-like models, made up out of thin air regardless of the data.

          • Bart says:

            x is the data from your link. tau is the time constant indicated on the plot – I used three values, 20 years, 30 years, and 40 years to give an idea of the potential spread.

            Physical justification? You don’t even know the basics of thermal modeling? This is freshman level stuff.

          • David Appell says:

            “x” is the data, not the abscissa??

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Physical justification? You dont even know the basics of thermal modeling? This is freshman level stuff.”

            Sorry, my freshman year did not include thermal modeling.

            So you’ll have to explain your model’s justification.

          • Bart says:

            Not my job. If this is the level you are at, you really should not be part of the debate.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Of course theres a delay. In the real world, there are no instantaneous responses.’

            So, you have done some sort of cheat, to get a result that will fit better your narrative.

            The actual smoothed TSI, peaks in 1950s, then again in 90s.

          • Bart says:

            “So, you have done some sort of cheat…”

            Good Lord. You guys are physically and mathematically illiterate.

            It’s a standard thermal relaxation process, nothing more. What you are suggesting would be a physical cheat.

        • Nate says:

          ‘they would say these data are not stationary’, perhaps, if we showed them earlier data.

          The trend is not, over the long run, stationary anyway.

          They could not conclude, as you inexplicably do, that the data have ‘essentially zero trend characteristic’

          • Bart says:

            Over the past 20 or so years, not including the recent El Nino transient, they have essentially zero trend. Once the transient is well and truly finished, it will have a zero trend for longer than that.

          • Nate says:

            Uhhh…if you have to throw out data to get the result you’re looking for, you’re going to get major points off your lab report.

            Statisticians worth their salt would be appalled..

            For your tossing valid data, and for trying to derive a statistically meaningful trend from too short a span.

          • Bart says:

            Not when its a known transient phenomenon. Why are you trying to pin your hopes on something you know will only be temporary?

          • Nate says:

            Bart, the transient, as you call it, is part of the noise on this noisy time series. So is the 2011-12 La Nina. Cant remove just recent high values of the noise cuz you feel like it.

            If you want remove ALL enso signal by detrending that is ok. Feel free.

          • Bart says:

            Nope. Noise is random and unpredictable. This is a systematic change due to a known systematic source. When it goes up, we know it will come down. And, it is already back down to a level that was matched 30 years ago, and still falling.

          • Nate says:

            Whatever you call en*so cycle, it adds to temp trend a background variation. If you choose to remove it, do so in unbiased way, not just selecting a high value.

            As to 20 y trends: error on slope for uah pm 0.2, on had*cru, pm 0.1, ie comparable or larger than long term trends 0.13, 0.18 respectively.

            Your claim of flat trend has little statistical significance.

  3. Keep up the awesome work with these monthly temperature updates dr spencer! You are doing an amazing job at showing us just how much the planet is warming! And I mean that as a compliment not an insult.

  4. Btw I just spoke to my polar bear friends up in the North Pole. They are laughing hilariously because they can see al gores global warming parade in the distance being rained on by Mother Nature since all the ice caps are gone and the artic is a balmy 90 degrees right now with palm trees sticking out of it! Enjoying the global COOLAID fellas? Well enjoy it while it lasts because the bottle is running low!

  5. Jack Summer says:

    I recommended Dr. Spencer to Limbaugh so warmist not.

    I go here to get a sneak preview of monthly anomolies:
    https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl?r=003

    I also use the site in comments on the WSJ or The Economist (horrible lefty rag).

    If you play with the years you can easily see the pause in warming. e.g. 2004 warmer than now. It is an excellent objective teaching tool– if they will use it.
    The issue has become so politicized and emotional few people think rationally about it.

    Same for Tesla…try convincing a fan they should be careful about buying one. The cars cost 120k and have very poor quality control. Bad paint.. poor alignments of trim.. wheels that snap off (the ball joints too weak for a very heavy car). Mechanical electrical issues in short lemons. The electric Edsel.

    http://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/9085/why-is-teslas-quality-control-still-so-poor

  6. Kevin White says:

    This type of sudden fluctuation in atmospheric temperature is to be expected given that the major climatic variables such as ENSO, PDO, MJO are all pulling in various directions. I would expect that these fluctuations will continue to occur from time to time until a strong ENSO regime either positive or negative is established.

    • Snape says:

      Temperatures are fluctuating, but not between the 30 year mean. When was the last time we saw a – 0.45 anomaly?

      • It is just starting Snape, due to very low solar values starting to come into play. Read the post I have posted.

        • David Appell says:

          Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.
          – Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257

          • Dave you should stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

            Everyone knows who has read my post that my global cooling forecast was based on the sun’s parameters reaching specific low average values.

            Everyone also knows that until recently those low average value solar parameters were not reached.

            But David where is the global warming?

            David why is the S.H below 30 year means today?

            I thought you said CO2 is the climate control knob.

            Next joke.

          • David Appell says:

            I’m just quoting your own words, Salvatore. How can those offend you?

            You wrote then, “All the factors that control the climate are now in….” Your parameters were all in line, you wrote.

          • crakar24 says:

            What I find a little strange is the big drop in temps after an El Nino is usually accompanied by an equal strength La Nina.

            The last time I checked we have been in ENSO neutral conditions for quite some time, clearly there is something else at play other than CO2.

          • David Appell says:

            crakar24 says:
            “The last time I checked we have been in ENSO neutral conditions for quite some time, clearly there is something else at play other than CO2”

            Nobody has *EVER* said that CO2 is the sole influence on short-term temperature trends.

            How many times must this be said?????????? When are you people going to finally understand this?????

          • Crakar24 says:

            DA, what I and others understand is you consistently refuse to accept anything other than CO2 can cause any warming what so ever.

            There are large swathes of Australia currently experiencing record cold temps due to natural variability, the significant drop in global temps as shown in Roy’s data is caused by natural variability but apparently any and all warming since 1970 is global warming.

            Your problem is you have dismissed all other sources of warming so therefore if it does not warm the only logical conclusion is CO2 plays a very insignificant role in climate

          • David Appell says:

            Cracker:

            What has happened to Australia in the last few weeks is utterly irrelevant to global mean surface temperature.

            Is isn’t big enough, and Whatever weather you’re talking about isn’t globally significant. Despite your little world.

            Sorry, that’s just the way it goes.

          • David Appell says:

            Crakar24 says:
            “There are large swathes of Australia currently experiencing record cold temps due to natural variability”

            So it’s just natural variability.

            So what? Who cares?

            That’s noise, not a signal of AGW.

          • Noise? Ha! More alarmist drivel! Just about every long term record that’s been broken is due to climate change but it’s not due to man made co2 like some dumb people claim!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            In Davie’s pseudoscience, any record cold is “natural variability”. Any record heat is AGW.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Kevin…”…such as ENSO, PDO, MJO …”

      MJO??? That’s a new one on me, please enlighten. What happened to the major one, the AMO?

  7. Cloudbase says:

    Thanks for the update Roy.
    While this tread is short and you may see this….can you please point me to a link to the most accurate climate model.
    I notice in the well known graph from John C…that shows all the models and satellite/balloon data…that there is one model or group of models that closely matches the sat/balloon data.
    Any comments on why that model or group works would be appreciated. Maybe a new thread !

  8. https://www.iceagenow.info/sun-might-change-climate/

    This is my take we will soon know as solar should stay very low from this point on against a backdrop of sub-solar activity in general post 2005. A weakening geo magnetic field will enhance given solar activity Prior to 2005(1980-2005) although solar activity was weakening it was still strong enough to promote continued warming

    • ren says:

      “Launched in November 2013, Swarm is providing unprecedented insights into the complex workings of Earth’s magnetic field, which safeguards us from the bombarding cosmic radiation and charged particles.

      June 2014 magnetic field
      Measurements made over the past six months confirm the general trend of the field’s weakening, with the most dramatic declines over the Western Hemisphere.

      But in other areas, such as the southern Indian Ocean, the magnetic field has strengthened since January.

      The latest measurements also confirm the movement of magnetic North towards Siberia.”
      http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Swarm_reveals_Earth_s_changing_magnetism
      http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/cutoff.gif

      • Ren do you have more up to date data on the geo magnetic field?

        • ren says:

          These are very fresh data. Show “cut-off” of cosmic ray particles by geomagnetic field. Visibility is weakening over North and South America.
          http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/cutoff.gif

        • ren says:

          Researchers usually assume that the magnetic field is effectively frozen into the liquid under the surface of the core-mantle boundary (approximately 3000 km below the Earths surface). This means the magnetic field is advected by the flowing liquid (i.e. drifts along with it) over short timescales (< 10 years, say). In reality, the actual interaction between the liquid in the outer core and the magnetic field is far more complex and is currently poorly understood in detail. However, if the simplifying assumption is made that any observed change in the spatial pattern of the magnetic field is due to fluid flow, we can mathematically invert the changes in the magnetic field we measure at and close to the surface of the planet to infer the pattern of fluid flow at the top of the outer core.
          Using several years of magnetic field observations from observatories and satellites can help us build up a picture of what the large-scale flow patterns in the core look like (this is known as a steady flow model). Figure 1 (top) shows an image of the changes of the magnetic field and the flow patterns that could cause this on the core-mantle boundary (continents shown for reference). In the Atlantic hemisphere, the flow tends to be relatively fast, while in the Pacific hemisphere it is slow or non-existent. The change of the magnetic field variation and hence the accelerated flow is about ten times smaller (bottom). This map also shows strong changes in the Indian Ocean, suggesting this is a location of relatively rapid acceleration.
          http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/research/modelling/SVpredictions.html

  9. More details on my thoughts of solar/climate impacts Solar criteria is now moving to the values I had said would be significant enough to cause global cooling, following 10+ years of sub solar activity(2005-present) in general. Duration is now needed for my low average value solar parameters. I am of the opinion that if solar conditions are extreme enough it could move the terrestrial items which govern the climate to threshold values to one degree or another. This is perhaps part of the reason why abrupt climate change has occurred in the past.

    TERRESTRIAL ITEMS

    global cloud cover global

    snow cover/sea ice cover

    volcanic activity major

    sea surface temperatures

    atmospheric circulation

    LOW AVERAGE VALUE SOLAR PARAMETERS NEEDED TO CAUSE GLOBAL COOLING
    SOLAR FLUX SUB 90 IS IN PLACE
    SOLAR WIND SUB 350 KM/SEC GETTING TOWARD THIS

    COSMIC RAY COUNTS 6500 UNITS + IS IN PLACE

    AP INDEX 5 OR LOWER COMING DOWN OF LATE

    EUV/UV LIGHT- EUV 100 UNITS OR LOWER IS IN PLACE- UV LIGHT DOWN

    IMF 4.2 NT NOT REACHED YET ON A REGULAR BASIS.

    SOLAR IRRADAINCE OFF .15% not reached yet.

    All given solar effects enhanced by a weakening geo magnetic field.

    My solar /climatic play is very low sustained solar will result in an increase in the earth’s albedo ,while at the same time lowering sea surface temperatures the result is global cooling.

    One last note the S.H temperatures have fallen below the 30 year means today according to the data from Weather Bell which is extremely good data.

    Where is that global warming Dave?

  10. David Appell says:

    Dont you realize that, the warming that has now ended, that took place last century was one of the weakess warming periods the earth has undergone ,lets take a time period ,of the last 20,000 years.
    – Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
    https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/

  11. David that is the global temperature data (the above chart)that NCEP initializes every six hours for it’s model runs.

    You wanted to know last time ,that is the answer.

  12. Gordon Robertson says:

    I’m surprised. We’re having a heat wave on the west coast of Canada by Vancouver and I thought for sure the global average would hold high.

    I know, I know, local weather is not a good indicator of the global average. When you’re caught up in it there’s a tendency to do that.

    What do you think, ren, any cooling in site for us here in Vancouver?

  13. Mike O says:

    David,
    For someone that only cares about surface temperatures, you sure spend a lot of time on this website. Seems like a full time job.

    • David Appell says:

      MikeO: Do you have some science you want to discuss?

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Davie, I’ve got some science I want to discuss. Show us how the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K, as your guru indicated.

        • David Appell says:

          What were the assumptions under which that calculation was done?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie,

            1) Look up the exact quote, which you provided, then,

            2) Show us how the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K.

            Or, do you just want to keep dodging your won failed pseudoscience?

          • David Appell says:

            You can’t even be honest about that much.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            I’m not “honest” because I caught you in some more of your pseudoscience!

            Hilarious.

          • David Appell says:

            Why can’t you simply be honest about that quote’s context?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie, you keep trying to argue the wording. You have the EXACT quote. All you have to do is show the math to support the quote.

            Unless you can’t….

          • David Appell says:

            Why are you refusing to include the full quote, that places the claim in context?

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            You should end your dishonest tactic. You know what the quote said. It was a hypothetical to demonstrate the effects of Energy IN – Energy Out.

            You certainly know the quote said “IF” the Earth could not get rid of solar input energy the temperature would just continue to rise. I am sure the scientist took the Earth mass, figured out the most abundant elements and worked out a heat capacity basis on how hot things would get. Maybe you do not understand the meaning of the word “if” and you do not understand this is just an extreme demonstration of a concept. You struggle with concepts.

            You look stupid when you keep bringing this up when you know the meaning behind the text. Also it makes you seem very dishonest.

            David Appell. You may have already realized it but g*e*r*a*n pretends that he possesses deep knowledge of physics. Reality is he knows very little, that is why he never links to actual science or explains how he thinks the science works. When he does attempt to explain you can easily see he got all his physics from blog material with his favorite blogger, Joe Postma. Most of what he states is a mirror image of Postma’s distorted physics.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman, do you suspect g*eran is Postma?

          • David Appell says:

            PS: Postma banned me after three comments, I think.

            That’s all it takes…..

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            No I don’t think g*e*r*a*n is Postma. Postma knows actual physics. I think Postma does what he does because he is paid by PSI to post the material. I hope he does not actually believe the material on his blogs as that would be really sad.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Here’s the quote that Davie is trying to ignore.

            “In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 (10)17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earths temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it. ”

            The quote is the first two sentences of a “science” paper that Davie linked to in one of his comments.

            But, as can be seen above, and in other comments, he is warning to run from the quote because it reveals Davie’s addiction to pseudoscience.

          • Snape says:

            G*R*N*

            I would have guessed those numbers are too low, but I’m not going challenge David’s math skills.

            What’s your problem?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Hey Norm, the Con-man, has joined us with more of his rambling comments and fantasies about Postma.

            Hilarious.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, you seriously need to get over your infatuation with Postma. He’s just not into that sort of thing. It’s time for you to move on. Get a pet. I’ve heard weasels make good pets….

          • Bob Droege says:

            Let’s see, 800,000 C after a billion years.

            Compare that to the current trend UAH 6.6 TLT for the life of the metric of 0.123 C per decade.

            0.008 is peanuts compared to that.

            And what about the big IF?

            If the earth had no way to cool.

        • Svante says:

          g*e*r*a*n,
          800000 K gives me a specific heat capacity of 806 J/(kg*K).
          What is your calculation?

          dT = 800000 [K].
          m = 5.97E+024 [kg].
          e = 3.85E+033 [J] (1.22E+017*60*60*24*365*1000000000).
          c = specific heat capacity [J/(kg*K)]

          e = m*c*dT
          c = e/(m*dT)
          3.85E+033 J / (5.97E+024 kg * 800000 K) = 806 J/(kg*K)

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The 800,000K refers to surface temperature.

          • Svante says:

            The paper says “Distributed uniformly over the mass of the
            planet”.

            In a billion years it ought to reach the core? Surprisingly, the specific heat capacity of iron is only 444 J/kg/degK.
            I guess that would change as it turns to plasma.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            And, it gets even funnier as water boils at about 373K!

            Davie believes the Sun can heat the planet to 800000K!

            I love pseudoscience humor.

          • Svante says:

            Water woukd be a small part of earths total mass.

            What is your calculation?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            What is my calculation for what? I have no interest in calculating how much 800,000K would
            raise the heat capacity of Earth’s mass. That is NOT the point.

            Davie has presented one of his pseudoscience papers that claims the Sun could warm the planet to 800,000K. Davie is always asking for everyone else to present the math. I’m just returning the favor.

            Are you trying to support pseudoscience, or ingratiate yourself to Davie? Have you noticed he has fled? Your “hero” ran and left you mired in his *bleep*?

          • Svante says:

            So you have no physics, just a feeling:
            https://tinyurl.com/y7wjbjpe

            I think I’m fine with that introductory remark by Pierrehumbert. 800000K could be just about right.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Svante boasts: “I think Im fine with that introductory remark by Pierrehumbert. 800000K could be just about right.”

            Then you must not understand that 5900K can NOT radiatively heat another surface to 800000K.

          • Svante says:

            Yes, in the real world.

            This was “if Earth had no way of getting rid of it., just like you quoted so correctly.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Svante, maybe a second time will help?

            “Then you must not understand that 5900K can NOT radiatively heat another surface to 800000K.”

          • Svante says:

            Aha, you thought it was a literal prediction!

            No no, it was hypothetical, “if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            So, IF all photons are absorbed; and, IF “cold” can warm “hot”; then you like pseudoscience.

          • Svante says:

            You are already onto the third paragraph of the paper:

            ‘For a planet sitting in the near-vacuum of outer
            space, the only way to lose energy at a significant rate is
            through emission of electromagnetic radiation, which occurs
            primarily in the subrange of the IR spectrum with wavelengths
            of 550 μm for planets with temperatures between about 50 K
            and 1000 K.’

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            I’m sure you believe that has some significance?

            The point being discussed here is that believing the Sun, radiating at 5800K, can warm the Earth to 800,000K is pseudoscience. Even in the hypothetical case of the Earth not being able to cool itself, “cold” can NOT warm “hot”. Except in pseudoscience.

          • Svante says:

            Yes I do!
            The hypothetical part is only in the first two sentences.
            Once you reach the third sentence you are past that,
            and therein lies the reason why we will not reach 800000K!

  14. David the data does not support CO2 being a controlling agent of the climate.

    This month’s results just confirm that fact more not to mention ENSO which has been the controlling agent of the climate over the past 20 years or so not CO2.

    Now we have a prolonged solar minimum– global cooling.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore: ENSOs are natural variations. What role do they have in long-term global warming?

      • In the long term nothing but the oceans have been warm due to the very high solar activity up to year 2005 and all of last century, and the oceans being warm had much to do with the slight global warming of the last century.

        Oceans are now cooling.

      • Dixon says:

        If a few ENSOs get strung together on a small, steadily increasing trend you will get repeated record breaking warmth. That’s what it has to do with global warming. Attribution of that warming is the question.
        Thanks so much to you Dr Spencer for providing the data and suffering the at times inane commentry! I and many others really appreciatw it.

        • David Appell says:

          If, if, if…. Has that actually happened?

          Please don’t ignore La Ninas….

          • Jake says:

            David, serious question here, please don’t provide “snark” (for a guy who asks for no snark, you sure do provide a lot.)

            The magnitude of an El Nino does not have to match the magnitude of the corresponding La Nina, that makes logical sense.

            Could we be seeing, for whatever reason, a series of EN>>LN. Is this statistically possible, say, like losing a long series of poker hands.

            What accounts for the general downward trend of temperatures from c.1940 to c.1980. Is it possible that this type of concept could explain this? Is this a type of natural variation, since CO2 was on the rise during this time period?

          • barry says:

            Could we be seeing, for whatever reason, a series of EN>>LN. Is this statistically possible, say, like losing a long series of poker hands.

            The record shows that they are not 1 for 1 events. Sometimes they happen in pairs, are of differing durations, tend to occur at the same time of year (but not always), and the temporal distribution is uneven, though generally around once every 2-3 years.

            What accounts for the general downward trend of temperatures from c.1940 to c.1980. Is it possible that this type of concept could explain this? Is this a type of natural variation, since CO2 was on the rise during this time period?

            The slope for that period is flat or slightly negative depending on data set.

            ENSO is not considered to be a cause. Atmospheric aersol increase seems the likeliest, bot not only dominant factor. Pre, during and post WWII kicked up a lot of aerosols from intense manufacture, and possibly also from war itself. Some people point to ocean/atmosphere oscillating systems (like PDO/AMO etc), but I’m less convinced by those. Not sure that causes have been pinned down in any case.

            We have fairly good ENSO records from 1950, and less solid data from the late 19th century onward (and even patchier paleo data before that). The ENSO record does not seem to account for the period.

          • Jake says:

            Any explanation why, if the temperature trend during that period was flat or slightly negative, why scientists were thinking “ice age” during the 1970’s?

          • Writing “If” multiple times sir David is a sign of human stupidity. Better watch yourself while you can.

          • barry says:

            Any explanation why, if the temperature trend during that period was flat or slightly negative, why scientists were thinking ice age during the 1970s?

            A handful of scientists thought a mini ice age was imminent because of lower temps in the recent times back then, owing to increased aerosols (this was covered more in the news media of the times). A few more wrote of an ice age a few thousand years in the future. But more researchers during the 70s wrote about global warming than global cooling.

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

          • Svante says:

            Forcing from volcanoes were actually stronger than aerosols 1940-1970, according to tables from the University of Chicago, -0.024 Wm-2 vs. -0.018 Wm-2.
            CO2 forcing was +0.018 Wm-2 so it’s not surprising that temperatures went down.

            CO2 forcing is very weak year to year. It’s just that it adds and adds, and takes a million years to wash out.

          • Svante says:

            Forcing data from here:
            http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/timeseries/

            I should have said GHG instead of CO2, and
            aerosols direct + indirect = -0.012 – 0.008 =
            -0.020 Wm-2.

    • Des says:

      This month’s results?

      Based on the following graphs of decadel UAH anomaly DISTRIBUTIONS (where the top and bottom 10% of months been omitted so we can focus on the BULK of the distribution), when exactly was this pause and how does this months anomaly indicate cooling?

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2v56RP5XU7Gc2FwTDh5b1Y1NXc/view?usp=sharing

  15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zIcR7ZNieE&feature=youtu.be

    David you need to watch this video which makes a strong case as to what really governs the climate and it’s not CO2.

    • David Appell says:

      Do you have any published, peer reviewed science written by experts?

      • David peer review is garbage when it comes to the climate.

      • joe d ‘aleo did the video very accomplished.

        • David Appell says:

          So not peer reviewed, huh? No review of the video by experts?

          Has D’Aleo ever published any peer reviewed science?

          D’Aleo is very far from the scientific mainstream:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%27Aleo#Climate_change

          • David that is how it is if you are not with the fraud AGW you are out.

            David the data going forward will settle this issue once and for all. I believe before 2020.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie, was your “800,000K Earth” peer-reviewed?

          • David Appell says:

            If a scientist can’t get peer reviewed — the basic minimum for claims — he/she’s claims aren’t worth much. The equivalent of junk bonds. D’Aleo knows this as well as anyone.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Davie,
            How’s that “earth heats the sun” peer reviewed paper going?

            LMAO.

          • David Appell says:

            You avoided my question about this. Why?

            The Earth emits radiation in all directions.
            That radiation carries energy.
            Some of that radiation is emitted toward the Sun.

            What happens to the Sun when it absorbs energy-bearing radiation?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Davie, if your pseudoscience teaches you that the Earth warms the Sun, then you should be able to bake a turkey with ice cubes. The rise in temperatures would be much less.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Dear [email protected]$$,
            You don’t seem to understand the radiative heat flow equation where Q can be zero, and an object receiving radiation does not heat up.

            Your pseudo science redefines the 2LOT, 1LOT, and ignores the radiative heat flow equation. That’s how you come up with this wackadoodle idea that the earth heats the sun.

            Find me ANY textbook or peer reviewed paper that agrees with your stupidity, Einstein.

          • Snape says:

            SkepticsGoneWild

            There are two ways to look at this. Both are correct, but the wording is contradictory.

            You are comparing two objects, earth vs sun. David is comparing two situations, earth vs no earth.

            Obviously, the sun sends more energy to the earth than the other way around. Thus, the sun has a net loss of energy (cooling) and the earth has a net gain (warming).

            On the other hand, if the earth were to suddenly disappear, the sun would ever slow slightly cool. This is because the sun receives little or no energy from space, whereas it does receive energy from the earth. Therefore, the sun is warmer because of the presence of the earth when compared to no earth.

          • Snape says:

            SkepticsGoneWild

            There is a net heat loss from a person’s body to the coat he may be wearing (comparing person vs coat). The coat still makes the person warmer than if he wasn’t wearing it (comparing two situations).

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            snake is an amateur at pseudoscience, but humorous nevertheless:

            “On the other hand, if the earth were to suddenly disappear, the sun would ever slow slightly cool. This is because the sun receives little or no energy from space, whereas it does receive energy from the earth. Therefore, the sun is warmer because of the presence of the earth when compared to no earth.”

            “There is a net heat loss from a persons body to the coat he may be wearing (comparing person vs coat). The coat still makes the person warmer than if he wasnt wearing it (comparing two situations).”

          • Snape says:

            G*R*N*

            Both of my comments are accurate, so what do you think is funny?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No, snake, you’re first is inaccurate, and you’re second has nothing to do with the atmosphere. Pretending the atmosphere is a “coat” or a “blanket” is pseudoscience. It just indicates you do not understand the physics of the atmosphere.

          • Snape says:

            G*R*N*

            You think my first statement is inaccurate? Well I guess that settles it then…..lol!

            My second statement? It was an attempt to explain a concept using a familiar example. The idea applies to multiple situations, but not everyone is able to make those sort of connections.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “your” in both places!

            (I will never learn to proofread.)

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Snake,
            The earth gets its warmth from the sun. It is not an energy source. The earth is merely passive. It cannot heat the sun. What you and Einstein are proposing is what’s known as a “perpetual motion machine of the first kind”.

            Identical blackbodies cannot heat each other up, and you and McFly think a cooler object that obtains its temperature from the sun can somehow warm the sun? Totally childish and bogus physics.

          • Snape says:

            SkepticsGoneWild

            Yes, The earth gets its warmth from the sun. It is not an energy source.
            But all the energy it receives gets radiated back into space. This is why the earth has a stable temperature.
            A small portion of this energy reaches the sun (how could it not?).

            So, as you can see, a little of the sun’s energy gets returned to it. This is energy that would have otherwise been lost to space. Space is therefore what I would describe as passive. It returns nothing.

          • Snape says:

            BTW
            When I wrote, “This is energy that would have otherwise been lost to space.”, I was just talking about in the short term.

            In the longer term, all energy emitted by the sun is eventually lost to space. It’s just that a portion of this energy makes a temporary detour (to the earth and back).

          • Snape says:

            SkepticsGoneWild

            What you and Einstein are proposing is whats known as a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.

            Nope. It’s called insulation.

          • Norman says:

            SkepticGoneWild

            I think the problem is the way it is stated. The Earth does not warm the Sun but the presence of the Earth in the system allows the Sun to reach a very slightly higher equilibrium temperature.

            A planet in a solar system reduces the amount of energy that leaves and can be detected by astronomers to find planets (periodic dips in the star output facing Earth).

            If you have one star in a system generating energy at a certain rate and another star is captured by this star and starts to orbit, both these stars will reach a higher equilibrium temperature than the previous state of either. They will not keep warming each other up as you suppose, they will warm up to a point that the increased emission equals the energy they are generating.

            You give an opinion that: “Identical blackbodies cannot heat each other up, and you and McFly think a cooler object that obtains its temperature from the sun can somehow warm the sun? Totally childish and bogus physics.”

            What is your valid source of correct physics that would prove the physics wrong? Wouldn’t if be of more value to supply good valid physics link with your opinion so that people reading your posts can learn? Way too many opinions. It is like a battle to see who is the smartest poster. I would rather learn good physics then listen to your opinion. Without good valid support that is all you give.

          • Snape says:

            Norman

            When people talk about temperatures on the moon, are they referring to the actual surface temperature, or the temperature a few meters above the surface? (We had this same discussion with Flynn a few months ago….but related to earth)

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Norm,
            Blackbody A and B at same temp. Q equals zero. Not an opinion. It’s called the radiative heat transfer equation.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            abNorm,

            Insulation?? LMAO. Per the radiative heat flow equation, 2LOT, and 1LOT, the earth does not transfer heat to the sun. These are LAWS, not opinions.

            By all means, talk to any university physics professor, or find me a peer reviewed paper, or thermodynamic textbook that describes this amazing phenomenon.

          • Norman says:

            Snape

            Since the Moon has no atmosphere the surface would be the only place you could measure its temperature.

          • Snape says:

            Norman

            So when people compare the Earth’s temperature to the moons, it’s sort of apples and oranges (atmosphere vs surface)

          • Norman says:

            SkepticGoneWild

            YOU POST: “Blackbody A and B at same temp. Q equals zero. Not an opinion. Its called the radiative heat transfer equation.”

            I would totally agree with that statement.

            For you other post: “Insulation?? LMAO. Per the radiative heat flow equation, 2LOT, and 1LOT, the earth does not transfer heat to the sun. These are LAWS, not opinions.

            By all means, talk to any university physics professor, or find me a peer reviewed paper, or thermodynamic textbook that describes this amazing phenomenon.”

            I would not use the term “heat” as for what the earth transfers. I would use the term energy. I would also not make the claim the Earth warms the Sun. I would say that the presence of the Earth allows the Sun to reach a very very slight increase in equilibrium temperature than in a system without the Earth.

            Also for textbook support:
            http://tinyurl.com/medk5ps

            Page 385 and 386 describe the process.

            You would agree that the Earth transfers energy to the Sun correct.

            I think I calculated the amount for you on another thread and it was very small, maybe a few millionths of a watt/m^2, I can’t remember the number.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Norm,
            You redefine physics and thermodynamics to suit your own deluded beliefs.

            There is a reason that the term “heat transfer” is used, and not “energy transfer”. Of course you know this. And you know heat does not get transferred from cool bodies to warm ones.

            The only way the sun can rise in temperature is if heat is transferred to it from a body hotter than the sun (2LOT), and radiative heat transfer equation.

            Be happy in your ignorance. I’m done wasting my time with your foolishness.

          • Snape says:

            SkepticsGoneWild

            You don’t understand the concept of insulation, so you don’t understand what Norman and I are trying to explain.

            Your hands are warmer than gloves, right? But when you put gloves on, your hands warm up. It’s not science fiction. It’s not pseudoscience. . People do it all the time and it really works…..Lol

          • Snape says:

            SkepticsGoneWild

            Take a pair of mittens to a physics professor. Tell him, “these
            woolen objects just violated the laws of thermodynamics. They made my hands warmer!”

            He will be stunned and amazed.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            snake, just so you don’t confuse yourself too much, no one is saying mittens will not keep your hands warmer. The atmosphere does NOT keep the Earth warmer. Aided by evaporation, convection, condensation at high altitudes, and radiative heat transfer to space, the atmosphere COOLS Earth.

            But, if you like your pseudoscience, you can keep your pseudoscience.

          • Snape says:

            G*R*N*

            There are two ways to look at this. Both are correct, but the wording is contradictory.

            One is comparing two things: Earth’s surface vs. atmosphere. The other is comparing two SITUATIONS: atmosphere vs. no atmosphere

            1. Comparing two things:
            The Earth’s surface sends more energy to the atmosphere than the other way around. From this, you could say, “the atmosphere COOLS the earth surface”.

            2. Comparing two SITUATIONS
            If the atmosphere were to suddenly disappear, the earth’s surface temperature would decrease. This is because the atmosphere is much warmer than space. (Rate of heat lost to space would be much greater because space is so cold).

            Therefore, Earth’s surface is warmer with an atmosphere compared to no atmosphere.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            snake, consider “situation 3”–The Sun suddenly “goes out”.

            How’s the atmosphere as a “mitten” work for you then?

          • Snape says:

            G*R*N*

            Works just fine. Neither the atmosphere nor the mitten are heat sources. They are insulators.

            No sun, the earth and atmosphere would eventually cool to the temperature of their surroundings – space.

            The person dies, and the hand and mitten would also cool to the temperature their surroundings.

          • Snape says:

            The atmosphere insulates the the Earth’s surface from the frigid temperature of space.

            The mittens insulate a person’s hands from the surrounding air temperature.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            You still don’t get it, snake. (No surprise.)

            With the CONSTANT solar energy, the atmosphere is CONSTANTLY transferring excess heat energy to space. It is NOT an insulator. As you realized, if the Sun “went out”, the atmosphere would very soon collapse. It has no ability to insulate the Earth.

            You won’t be able to understand because you have been taught the GHE. You believe the atmosphere warms the planet. At least, you’re not alone….

          • Snape says:

            G*R*N*

            You wrote, “the atmosphere is CONSTANTLY transferring excess heat energy to space.”

            Not sure what you mean by “excess”.

            In a steady state, the energy recieved from the sun gets returned to space… at the exact same rate.

            When the earth is not in an equilibrium, the rates of input and output are different.

            Are you trying to say heat is not really trapped? I would agree.

          • Norman says:

            Snape

            I read up on it. I think when they talk about Earth’s average temperature they are talking about the surface.

          • Snape says:

            Thanks, Norman!

          • Norman says:

            SkepticGoneWild

            YOU: “The only way the sun can rise in temperature is if heat is transferred to it from a body hotter than the sun (2LOT), and radiative heat transfer equation.

            Be happy in your ignorance. Im done wasting my time with your foolishness.”

            Your point is not correct. Not sure where you studied your physics at but if that is what you were taught, I think they did you a disservice.

            The Sun can also rise in temperature (since it generates its own energy via fusion) if the amount of energy able to leave is restricted. Temperature is based upon both energy IN and energy OUT. If you alter either you will get a temperature change (provided the substance is not in a phase transition). I think you know this. Not sure what your point is. Not sure what is foolishness to you.

  16. Des says:

    Based on the following graphs of decadel UAH anomaly DISTRIBUTIONS (where the top and bottom 10% of months been omitted so we can focus on the BULK of the distribution), when exactly was this “pause” and how does this month’s anomaly indicate cooling?

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2v56RP5XU7Gc2FwTDh5b1Y1NXc/view?usp=sharing

  17. David UV light can change up to 10% and this is the light that penetrates the ocean surface to depths of several meters which has a big influence on the oceans.

    Also under sea volcanic activity can not be over looked.

  18. Neville says:

    There has been a drop in TLT since May of 0.23 c in the UAH V 6 for the globe and a huge drop of 0.4 c in the SH. Why was the drop so great in the SH and where has that heat gone in just 30 days? Just asking?

    2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
    2017 06 +0.21 +0.32 +0.09 +0.39

  19. barry says:

    Probably mentioned in previous threads, but RSS have now updated their TLT record to version 4. Conversely to the UAH update, their revised data resulted in a higher trend for the record (and from 1998).

  20. Neville says:

    RSS V 4 shows a drop of 0.14 c in global temp for June. But SH shows about 0.23 c or 0.17 c less than UAH. Seems a big difference in just 30 days? Of course global temp much higher than UAH , May was 0.63 c and June was 0.49 c= drop of 0.14 c. So why is RSS V 4 NOW so much higher than UAH V 6 AND RSS V 3? Cooking the books?

    http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

    • barry says:

      The have different baselines, Neville. That’s the main reason for the constant anomaly differences.

      Monthly anomalies can have big swings in any data set. RSS and UAH have different processing methods, so there are usually differences in monthly changes, sometimes even in sign.

      • Snape says:

        Nino region is currently quite warm (3.4 is + 0.7 C).

        I’m beginning to wonder if this is the result of an east/west oscillation. Maybe a more general surface warming?

      • barry says:

        General surface warming has little impact on NINO3.4 values, which are detrended against global warming. Nino looking less likely for this year, though recent values have hovered around the Nino threshhold.

        • Snape says:

          Barry

          Why would general surface warming avoid the Nino region? It seems like both sources could affect temperatures there.

          • Snape says:

            Barry

            I think it’s conceivable the values which define nino conditions will eventually need to be adjusted upward to match general warming.

          • Snape says:

            Barry

            Is this what you mean by detrended? Has NOAA already changed the “average” they use to determine the anomaly?

          • barry says:

            I probably misunderstood you. The long-term global trend over decades is detrended as part of the processing for NINO values.

            If you’re referring to general global warmth over the last month or weeks or so, then yes there are other factors (known and unknown) influencing short-term temps other than ENSO, that sometimes cause ENSO threshholds to be reached briefly.

          • Snape says:

            Barry

            Right now the Nino region is warmer than usual. Why is this necessarily due to an east/west oscillation?

            Areas of the ocean’s surface warm and cool all the time, often for reasons unrelated to ENSO. Why not region 3.4?

          • David Appell says:

            I can’t comment here.

            Congratulations, Roy, you’ve succeeded in supressing yet another reply that discusses the science. I hope you’re proud.

          • David Appell says:

            barry says:
            “The long-term global trend over decades is detrended as part of the processing for NI.N_O values.”

            No they aren’t.

          • Svante says:

            “Roy, youve succeeded in suppressing yet another reply”.

            David, that sounds like a conspiracy theory!
            I need very strong evidence to be believe in any of those.

            More likely the site has a spam filter that Roy has no detailed control over.

            The filter seems to be time dependent, when you cut a reply into bits I think you may exceed some maximum message rate.
            I had one message that went through unchanged after a while.

          • David Appell says:

            Svante: I’m not going to get involved with your spam blogs and whatever.

            Good luck.

          • Svante says:

            You are already here.

          • barry says:

            Snape,

            Barry

            Right now the Nino region is warmer than usual. Why is this necessarily due to an east/west oscillation?

            I didn’t say it was. You introduced that idea.

            All I’m saying is that ENSO is not the only factor infuencing short-term variations in surface temperature, whether globally or for the NINO regions. ENSO jhas a prominent signal in short-term temp variation, but that’s not all that is going on, which is why the el Nino/laNina threshholds are long term (7 months), rather than based on a weekly or monthly event.

            So what is happening “now” does not necessarily constitute an ENSO-influenced development.

            As to whatever is making things warm in the NINO3.4 region “now”, I doubt anyone could say.

          • Snape says:

            Barry

            You wrote, “So what is happening now does not necessarily constitute an ENSO-influenced development.”

            Yes. that’s the idea I was trying to get across.

          • barry says:

            Snape,

            Is this what you mean by detrended? Has NOAA already changed the average they use to determine the anomaly?

            Yes. The baseline is a 30-year average updated every 5 years. Every 5 years the most recent 30-year average forms the new baseline.

        • David Appell says:

          barry says:
          “General surface warming has little impact on NINO3.4 values, which are detrended against global warming.”

          Are they? Says who?

          The weekly NINO3.4 temperatures I see are expressed in absolute degrees (C), not detrended degrees:

          http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst8110.for

          • barry says:

            David, the index you linked has both absolute degrees and anomalies.

            NOAA uses a moving 30-year average to calculate departures – the anomalies are the departure from that 30-year baseline. until recently they shifted the 30-year baseline by decade, but IIRC it’s once every 5 years, now. I think BoM does an actual linear detrend, and not sdure about JMA (I’m at work so not looking things up as vigorously as usual).

            The use of detrending (by whatever method) is obvious just by looking at a long-term ENSO graph – there is no trend since 1950 (or longer), whereas the trend is clear in global surface data.

            NOAA’s ENSO chart uses anomalies – the moving 30-year window is also mentioned there.

            http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

          • David Appell says:

            Barry: Neither the absolute temperature or the anomaly are detrended.

          • barry says:

            Checked JMA – they use a sliding 30-year window as well (possibly shifted forward after each complete year).

            You can rummage through some of the details here.

            http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/index/Readme.txt

            And

            http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/

          • barry says:

            Why do you suppose that the long term trend for ENSO is neutral, David, while global temps have trended clearly upward?

          • David Appell says:

            Barry:

            Anomalies, by any measurement group, are NOT detrended.

            Think!! Why would they ever do such a thing??

          • David Appell says:

            barry says:
            “Why do you suppose that the long term trend for ENSO is neutral”

            REALLY??

            Come on, Barry, you’re better than this.

          • Snape says:

            David

            If the Nino region warmed as part of an overall trend, temperature oscillations there would more often be between stronger or weaker El Ninos. Neutral and La nina conditions would be less frequent. To maintain a balance, the average used to determine anomalies would have to be higher.

          • barry says:

            [Fixing formatting]

            Dunno if we’re quibbling over terminology, David, but I’ve provided the information in the links above.

            The temperature anomaly indices for ENSO events (NINO3.4 monthly data) is derived from departures from a 30-year average for the NINO3.4 region (JMA uses the NINO3 region).

            Here’s the key point: the baseline for the anomalies is a sliding 30-year average. The 30-year window is recalculated every 5 years, and the window – the zero line – is based on every succeeding 30-year average.

            IOW, the 30-year climatology shifts forward every 5 years – every 30-year average, whether it’s 1950-1979, or 1980-2009, becomes the new zero line against which anomalies are calculate.

            This essentially removes the global warming trend, which was my point in response to Snape wondering if successive el Ninos will register as warmer in the ENSO3.4 index.

            For proof that there is no long-term trend in the ENSO data, here is an ordinary least squares regression.

            ENSO regression

            The trend is essentially zero.

            That’s because the global warming signal has been removed when constructing the NINO3.4 data set. In the methods described in the links above.

            Here’s the description of the construction by NOAA (linked above):

            “DESCRIPTION: Warm (red) and cold (blue) periods based on a threshold of +/- 0.5oC for the Oceanic Nio Index (ONI) [3 month running mean of ERSST.v4 SST anomalies in the Nio 3.4 region (5oN-5oS, 120o-170oW)], based on centered 30-year base periods updated every 5 years.”

            And from JMA:

            “The SST indices consist of monthly mean SSTs, monthly mean SST anomalies (for the 1981 – 2010 base period), monthly mean SST deviations (for the latest sliding thirty-year base period), and their five-month mean values averaged over the five El Nino Monitoring Regions listed below since January 1949. The latest values are preliminary ones.”

            Don’t know how to be any clearer.

          • barry says:

            Anomalies, by any measurement group, are NOT detrended.

            Think!! Why would they ever do such a thing??

            In order to determine a fluctuation index isolated from the global warming signal.

            The PDO is also derived from detrending Pacific SSTs. They want to establish the fluctuation, not the global warming.

            Here’s the quote:

            PDO is derived as the leading PC of monthly SST anomalies in the North Pacific Ocean, poleward of 20N. The monthly mean global average SST anomalies are removed to separate this pattern of variability from any global warming signal that may be present in the data.

            A different process is used for ENSO indices (see above), but the result is the same – the removal of the global warming signal.

            Which was my point to Snape.

          • barry says:

            It’s a little tough pinpointing methods for baselining the ENSO datasets. This page at NOAA lays out how researchers attempt to remove the global warming signal from ENSO data.

            But heres a problem to consider: if the ocean today is warmer than the long-term average, wont it look like the tropical Pacific is in a permanent El Nio? Wont La Niathe cool phasejust disappear? Will we have to redefine the nature of these influential climate events?

            This goes directly to the point Snape made that I responded to.

            Since ENSO events are identified by temperatures that are warmer or cooler than average, the key question is: whats average? Up until last year, Climate Prediction Center scientists used a 30-year average of the three most recent complete decades, updated in each new decade. So, in the 1990s, for example, they used the 1961-1990 average, and in the 2000s, they used the 1971-2000 average.

            Whenever the time period for the average shifted, all the previous seasonal averages in the table of historic events were re-calculated using the new base period. The routine update was supposed to ensure that at any point in time, the relative strength of all El Nio and La Nia episodes identified in the table was consistenta consistency that is important for research into the influence of these episodes on global and regional climate.

            If the climate werent changing, the differences between any 30-year average would be very small, and the impacts on the apparent strength of historic El Nio and La Nia episodes would be negligible. But over the span of the past century, ocean temperatures have been getting warmer, which means that the baseline for detecting El Nio and La Nia has been shifting.

    • barry says:

      So why is RSS V 4 NOW so much higher than UAH V 6 AND RSS V 3? Cooking the books?

      UAH and RSS have at different times been higher and lower than the other. Some people cry foul whenever a revision goes in a direction they don’t like. Just as some people did when UAHv6 dropped much lower than version v5.6, especially data after 2000.

      Both teams are doing their best to improve their datasets. The conspiracy theorizing that arises each time a revision disappoints one side of the debate or another is inevitable, and after one has witnessed it a dozen times, predictable each time, one learns to disregard it.

    • David Appell says:

      Neville says:
      “So why is RSS V 4 NOW so much higher than UAH V 6 AND RSS V 3? Cooking the books?”

      Is that really all you know how to say?

      Not interested in their methodological differences?

    • Des says:

      You would think anyone who noticed a difference between different data sets would first check the baselines to see if that explained the difference. But if you want to claim fraud, just pretend you don’t understand the concept of a baseline and hope enough readers will be just as ignorant.

  21. Tim Wells says:

    Doesn’t surprise me as the UK has had a terrible summer so far. Half of America appears to be going through winter rather than summer.

  22. If CO2 were causing global warming as claimed why are the global temperatures not higher at this late date?

    We have no major volcanic activity , a neutral ENSO, just coming off a major EL NINO, and yet the global temperature response is not there to show AGW is at play.

    This is only going to become more apparent as we move forward in time in my opinion.

  23. Mick says:

    The surface that is covered in black top and concrete?

  24. Obama says:

    David, please tell my Calif Democrats that no amount of taxes & state regulations (fighting climate change) will have any measurable impact on the meteorological conditions anywhere on earth. Zero climate benefits. None. Zilch.

  25. kingbum says:

    Global warming? Lmao….Global warming caused by CO2 is about to be disproven in real time in about 2 and a half years. Anyone bothered to look at the work by Professor Zharkova here? Oh wait I know everyone is still working on the fallacy that the energy the Earth receives from the Sun is almost constant right? Nobody has done any research into what caused the Little Ice Age and nobody seems to care the Earth has been cooling almost continuously with small breaks in interglacials for billions of years. Now if you believe the theory that the sun is powered by nuclear fission then I guess you wouldn’t accept there’s significant variance in its emitted radiative energy. If you look at it through the spectrum of the Electric Universe and that the Sun is actually powered electrically at the surface everything that is happening now is explained throughly and it’s the only plausible explanation. Conditions on Mars have also been changing and many identical phenomenon has been found going on both planets. You are looking at an Itty bitty piece of a larger picture. Let me put it into context CO2 is a micro organism and the Sun is the very center of the climatic system. There are things outside of the solar system that also effect the total energy output from the Sun. All of it is explained in the electric universe theory

  26. MY contention is very low solar will increase the albedo of the earth and lower sea surface temperatures which will result in global cooling.

    To me this is a very reasonable theory and why some would dismiss this I can’t understand especially when one looks at the historical climatic record and sees how the climate has responded to very low prolonged solar conditions in the past.

    Not to mention all the possible solar/ terrestrial ties which could move the climate into another mode ranging from an increase in volcanic activity , to more global cloudiness ,snow cover, atmospheric circulation changes ,lower sea surface temperatures etc.

    The test is on now and we will know well before 2020.

  27. Mickey Prumt says:

    test

  28. Des, where is all the global warming?

    • Des says:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2v56RP5XU7Gc2FwTDh5b1Y1NXc/view?usp=sharing

      There it is, plain as day. The entire DISTRIBUTION is shifting. You DID realise that the SPREAD of the distribution is greater than the trend, didn’t you. That is what allows deniers to keep up their nonsense of “the pause”.

      And why do you keep starting up a new thread to respond to people? Are you hoping your comments won’t be found?

      • Des you are not paying attention.

        I said global cooling will not occur UNTIL low average value solar parameters are reached following 10 years or more of sub solar activity in general which NEVER has happened since 1980 until now.

        I did not expect any global cooling until the above requirement was meant.

        • Des says:

          Actually it is YOU who is not paying attention TO YOUR OWN QUESTION.

          We were talking about global cooling in ANOTHER thread.

          You started a new thread with the question “where is all the global warming”. I showed you precisely where it is.

          Your response bears no relationship to either your question or my answer.

          • Des here is the deal.

            I say global temperatures will be at or below the 30 year means moving forward from here, you say they will not.

            The data will show us who will be correct.

            Simple to see who will be right and who will be wrong.

          • Des says:

            “The data will show us who will be correct.”

            Yes, and the data I presented in this thread has shown who was correct about the warming up to this point. Yet you refuse to concede that point based on the data. Why is that?

            And I assume you won’t claim to be correct based on just a couple of below average months. According to the distribution I presented, we EXPECT more than one month in every ten to be below average based on chance alone. The fact that we haven’t had one in more than 5 years is a mere aberration, an aberration that will surely be rectified at some point in time WITHOUT a cooling trend.

  29. Year 2017 is when solar started reaching my criteria.

  30. Let me say I have predicted temperatures to be at or below 30 year means for years if the sun reached my low average value criteria.

    DES SAYS

    Yes, and the data I presented in this thread has shown who was correct about the warming up to this point.

    MY REPLY – I never expected the globe to cool up to this point because solar readings were much to high. Only since post 2005 did solar go into an inactive mode and I said at that time 10+ years of sub solar activity n general would be needed before solar had any cooling effects upon the climate in addition to my low average value solar parameters needing to be met after the 10+ years of sub solar activity in general.

    Now this year 2017 the requirements have or are in the process of being met therefore I expect global cooling.

    My studies indicated that post 2005 solar activity would have had a warming effect on the climate not a cooling effect. The cooling mode did not start until 2005 but lag times have to be appreciated hence the 10+ years of sub – solar activity in general is needed.

  31. What’s all this talk about the death of El Nio being responsible for the cooling? Hmmmmmm well it appears that our overly hard working pal El Nio that got us all the way here here is only doing its Job that it was told to do by its boss the sun. To trick gullible people into believing that El Nio absent is what’s causing all this cooling. What’s that smell? Sniff sniff….. Smells like another globull warmist excuse to me!

  32. DES SAID

    And I assume you wont claim to be correct based on just a couple of below average months

    CORRECT

  33. HOW UV LIGHT FROM THE SUN AFFECTS THE ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION PATTERNS

    The F10.7 flux closely follows sunspot area except for an excursion in 2003 during which the F10.7 flux peaks much higher. What could have caused Europe to have had its own heat wave and not affect most of the rest of the planet? Climate does respond to higher levels of solar UV as described by this paper by Haigh et.al, in 2005 which states:

    The results clearly show a weakening and poleward shift of the jets when the sun is more active, again, as predicted by the model studies. The GCMs also predicted a response to higher levels of solar UV in the tropospheric mean meridional circulation. This consisted of a weakening and expansion of the Hadley cells and a poleward shift of the Ferrel cells. It is interesting to note that precisely these features, which are highly correlated with solar activity, have now been detected in NCEPNCAR vertical velocity data (Gleisner and Thejll 2003).

    Now it seems the opposite is happening with EUV dropping rapidly over the last two years as shown by the Lyman Alpha solar index:

    • ren says:

      “Coccolithophores are single-cell algae that cloak themselves in a distinctive cluster of pale disks made of calcium carbonate, or chalk. They play a role in cycling calcium carbonate, a factor in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. In the short term they make it more difficult to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but in the long term – tens and hundreds of thousands of years – they help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and oceans and confine it in the deep ocean.
      In vast numbers and over eons, coccolithophores have left their mark on the planet, helping to show significant environmental shifts. The White Cliffs of Dover are white because of massive deposits of coccolithophores. But closer examination shows the white deposits interrupted by slender, dark bands of flint, a product of organisms that have glassy shells made of silicon, Gnanadesikan said.
      “These clearly represent major shifts in ecosystem type,” Gnanadesikan said. “But unless we understand what drives coccolithophore abundance, we can’t understand what is driving such shifts. Is it carbon dioxide?”

      Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-11-rapid-plankton-growth-ocean-carbon.html#jCp

  34. barry says:

    June anomaly of 0.21C is the lowest global temp anomaly for 2 years?

    But the March anomaly was posted 4 months ago at 0.19C.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2017-0-19-deg-c/

    Mow the March anomaly is 0.23C. There has been an up adjustment since March!

    Let the conspiracy theorizing begin…

    • Barry apparently you don’t seem to know the difference between adjusting for errors in the data set to account for the more accurate data vs purposely adjusting and scewing the data upward so that it shows the wrong data on purpose. I’m sure dr spencer has a realistic explanation for why the data has been adjusted. Ask people who run the surface data and they come up with some bullshit excuse to cover up there stupid agenda.

  35. barry says:

    purposely adjusting and scewing the data upward so that it shows the wrong data on purpose

    Heh, right on cue.

  36. Sean Shields says:

    Only an ignorant fool would make an argument or assumption over such a short period anomaly .