UAH V6.0 Global Temperature Update for June, 2015: +0.31 deg. C

July 1st, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

NOTE: This is the third monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2015 is +0.31 deg. C, up a little from the May, 2015 value of +0.27 deg. C (click for full size version):

UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2015_v6

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

YR MO GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2015 1 +0.26 +0.38 +0.14 +0.12
2015 2 +0.16 +0.26 +0.05 -0.07
2015 3 +0.14 +0.23 +0.05 +0.02
2015 4 +0.06 +0.15 -0.02 +0.07
2015 5 +0.27 +0.33 +0.21 +0.27
2015 6 +0.31 +0.36 +0.26 +0.46

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

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

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

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


30 Responses to “UAH V6.0 Global Temperature Update for June, 2015: +0.31 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Christian says:

    If El-Nino will intensify to 97/98, tropics will run to 1.5K-2K (compare increase arround june in 97 to Max in 98).

    This Year, there is (i think) no chance for a new record year, but next will do it, if there is a 97/98-Event coming.

    • Rah says:

      I don’t think the AMO was in it’s cold phase in 97/98 but it certainly is going that way now. Would that not have some negative effect on warming?

  2. Given my reasoning below and my check list for items that may influence the direction of the climate if the climate does not cool going forward I will reconsider all of my positions.

    First my check off list for the climate trend going forward.

    Solar Variability – favorable for strong cooling and increasing as the maximum of solar cycle 24 comes to an end.

    Geo Magnetic Field – in a weakening mode which should enhance solar effects and contribute to a cooling trend.

    Milankovitch Cycles- in contrast to 8000 years ago more favorable for cooling. N.H. summers now corresponding to aphelion.

    Land/Ocean Arrangements- very favorable for cooling.

    Ice Dynamic- neutral.

    PDO/AMO/ENSO phase going forward should feature the cold phase with more La Nina’s.

    Finally the secondary effects associated with very low solar activity from an increase in geological activity, to a more meridional atmospheric circulation to more clouds as some examples will favor cooling.

    Let me try to approach it in this manner. The shortfall when it comes to climate is many are unable to intergrade all the various factors that are involved when it comes to the climate that will not result in a given item (the sun) changing in a given way resulting in an x climate outcome. Somehow this opinion prevails that an x change in solar variability has to immediately translate to an x change climatic response. In addition lag times need to be incorporated into the equation of the climate.

    I will add, climate regime change, and natural variation of the climate within a climatic regime are entirely two different things. What throws many off is the natural climatic variations within a particular climatic regime. This is what obscures the solar climate connection.
    In addition I will go so far to say the climate can not change into another climatic regime without the aid of solar variability but that does not mean it can not fluctuate within a given climate regime.

    Here are the four factors (Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability ,Geo Magnetic Field Strength ,Land/Ocean Arrangements/Ice Dynamic ) which govern the climate of the earth and give it a beat of 1500 years or so but never in an exact regular cycle.

    The factors that govern the big picture when it comes to the climate are Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability, and these last three, the Geo Magnetic Field Strength of the Earth , Land /Ocean Arrangements/ Ice Dynamic those last three (geo magnetic field, land/ocean arrangements/ice dynamic) determining how effective Milankovitch Cycles and Solar Variability will be when it comes to impacting the climate.

    This explains why the 1470 year climate cycle is there but it varies so much over time.

    In addition the evidence is mounting that the climate changes in sync in both hemispheres which eliminates a redistribution of energy within the climatic system for the reason why the climate changes ,which is on weak grounds to begin with ,and strengthens the fact that it is only changes in the total energy coming into the climatic system that can change it enough to bring it into another climate regime.

    Further I maintain that all Intrinsic Earth Bound climatic factors are limited as to how much they can change the climate due to the total amount of energy in the climatic system they have to work with. Hence, they have the ability to change the climate within a climate regime( maybe plus or minus 1c) but they can not bring the climate from one regime to another regime. They refine the climate.

    Then finally the rogue asteroid impact or maybe super nova explosion some where off in space that at times had a big impact on the climate system which would further obscure or even eliminate at times the 1500 year semi cyclic climatic cycle.

    • RW says:

      Yeah, we know your predictions, but the climate could easily continue to warm by dumb luck alone even if the effect of CO2 is zero or negative. Making predictions as to whether it will warm or cool in any particular decade seems foolish to me, as there are too many influences that we likely don’t know or can’t accurately quantify for even if we do know.

  3. The present El Nino is an Intrinsic Earth Bound climate factor which can change the temperature of the climate within a given climate regime so any rise in global temperatures in response to this current El Nino, does nothing to further the case of AGW theory.

    • mpainter says:

      Agreed, but it will be used to propagate alarmism by all types, from Andrew Desseler to the WaPo.

      • RW says:

        Of course, and the troops will fall for it as usual.

        • sillyfilly says:

          The world knows of ENSO as an oscillation (as defined), but take its impact out of the temperature equation and AGW still remains eminently apparent in any instrumental or satellite record.

          • tonyM says:

            Is that why McKitrick’s paper says that if one adjusts for the PDO shift in the late 1970’s then there has been no statistically significant T increase since then.

            I guess you are saying there is a human thumbprint on T. I wonder what thumb the Romans used. The Vikings, now they would have an exciting thumbprint surely. Please describe.

    • Slipstick says:

      Salvatore, et al, have you ever considered that your long predicted cooling phase actually did occur over the last few years and that it was completely negated by the AGW that you deny exists? Also, take a moment to look at the ’95 – ’02 period on the Dr.’s graph above. Note that the Nina-Nino-Nina ended with the temperature ~0.2 degrees higher than when it started. If there is no warming, how is that possible?

      • rah says:

        Slipstick

        Exactly how much of the increase in temperatures (Not including NOAA, NASA and HADCRUT since they have been found to be “unreliable”) http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html are due to mans activities?

        The AMO is just getting into it’s cold phase. The PDO is most likely towards the end of it’s warm phase. When both go cold at the same time then what do you think is going to happen? (Last time that happened the scare was a coming ice age.) And in the meantime an El Nino is generally followed by La Nina. As a general rule the more severe the El Nino the lower the dip in the following La Nina.

  4. Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
    I have updated your graph in Observatorio ARVAL climate and meteorology pages.

    It seems to me that the long “El Niņito” is making himself noticeable. He might have been erased, but did not go away.

  5. mpainter says:

    Folks,
    Some of you will object, but Roy’s experiment shows that the back radiation as depicted in diagrams like the Kiehl, Trenberth diagram, is baloney.

  6. Richard Cronin says:

    Dr. Spencer –

    I am intrigued by an alternate, but controverial and greatly disputed causation for global warming, as well as the miniscule uptick in CO2. Dr. J. Marvin Herndon has described the GeoReactor — a naturally occurring fission reactor at the core of every planet and the source of stellar ignition (fission causing fusion under sufficient containment).

    Dr. Herndon cites Dr. Paul Kuroda (1956) who first published his concepts of naturally occurring fission in relatively shallow accumulations of Uranium. Such an event was demonstrated at Oklo, Gabon in 1972. The natural migration of heavy fissionables ignited a critical mass reactor approx. 1.8 billion years ago and ran on-and-off for a few hundred thousand years. Ground water served as the neutron moderator.

    The essential premise of Dr. Herndon is that upon planetary and stellar accretion, the heavy fissionables migrated to the core to ignite fission. As fission proceeds in the GeoReactor, the non-fissionables accumulate and dampen criticality (cooling period). Over centuries, the lighter non-fissionables thermally diffuse out and full criticality resumes (warming period). Warming and cooling cycles going back to “Snowball Earth.” The GeoReactor continues thru today as a Thorium-based Fast Neutron Breeder Reactor. Self-limiting on temperature, self-sustaining, and unmoderated. Much the same as Experimental Breeder Reactor II demonstrated at Argonne National Labs (Idaho) 1986 – 1994.

    With fission and the radioactive decay products, all the lighter elements and simple gaseous molecules are produced and migrate to the surface on all planets. The oceans filled with water from below. Supposedly, comets are “dirty snowballs” that filled our oceans. This has been substantially challenged by every probe sent to comets, including the Rosetta mission to 67P c-g. Of course, Neptune and other gas giants are covered by oceans of methane hydrates. The only true “fossil fuel” is coal. With the costs, hazards, fly ash and related issues, coal should be left in the ground. Methane and petroleum are produced via Fischer-Tropsch reactions, at greater depths than coal deposits.

    Plate tectonics hangs by the thread of Beryllium 10, supposedly ONLY produced in the earth’s atmosphere. Expansion tectonics is much more reasonable with the presence of Beryllium 10 produced from below.

    Many, many other terrestrial, planetary, and solar phenomena are made lucid from Dr. Herndon’s concepts. His summary treatise is published in “Current Science”, Feb. 2015. The attached weblink offers an abstract.

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/transdyne-corporations-j-marvin-herndon-presents-fundamental-theory-of-planetary-formation-in-new-indivisible-planetary-science-paradigm-243674091.html

    http://www.currentscience.ac.in/cs/Volumes/106/04/0528.pdf

    Thank you. Richard F. Cronin, Wilmington, DE

    • Erik Magnuson says:

      The reactor would have had to start early in the earth’s history when the mass fraction of 235U was high enough to achieve criticality on fast neutrons and would also have required a substantial percentage of uranium in the georeactor.

      A couple of more comments on the nuclear side, the fuel cycle would more likely would be 238U/239Pu than 232Th/233U – the latter is better suited for thermal neutrons, which would require a very low neutron cross-section moderator. As for power fluctuations, heat transfer from the core would imply convection currents which could sweep away parts of the core.

      I’d also think that any variations in the output of the georeactor would take a l-o-n-g time to reach the surface.

      • dave says:

        The flow of heat from the interior of the earth to the surface is calculated to be 47 terrawatts per year and the input from the sun to be 173,000 terrawatts.

  7. mpainter says:

    Richard Cronin,
    I would point out that it is, generally accepted that radioactive decay is a source of the earth’s interior heat. There is no need to posit a fission reaction to account for interior heat source.

    Also, petroleum is organically derived, and there is convincing roof of that. Petroleum is found at the surface as well as at depth, but not past certain depths.

    • rah says:

      mpainter,

      Did you see this?
      Geologists were surprised to find helium-3 leaking along a 30-mile stretch of a fault zone in the Los Angeles Basin.
      http://www.futurity.org/helium-newport-inglewood-fault-952222/

      • dave says:

        “Geologists were surprised…”

        We should not entirely forget the abiogenetic theory of the creation of hydrocarbons put forward by – among others – the late Tommy Gold.

        • nigel says:

          “…surprised…”

          Etymologically, “held by a stronger power”. Originally the only proper use was to refer to somebody being caught out, as in an ambush.

          Thus Dr Johnson is supposed to have corrected his wife when she found him fondling a parlour maid:

          “Dr Johnson! I am surprised!”

          “No, my dear. I am surprised; you are amazed.”

        • Aaron S says:

          The vast majority of HC are organic. Oil companies use biomarkers to trace them back to specific organic rich source rocks or in unconcentional plays the source rock is actually depleted of the HC that could not migrate out during fracking. If there is mantle derived HC it would be a new play for industry. It is unlikely.

  8. nigel says:

    I am NOT amazed at another month of mild El Nino conditions, and an increase in the radiant energy flow observed by the satellites over the tropical seas.

  9. John Parsons says:

    Looking at Dr. Spencer’s graph, it appears that it’s getting hotter. I wonder why that is. JP

  10. The elephant in the hall way is the reduction in ITCZ cloud mass. With the sun providing 484w at sea level at on the equator on a clear day, reducing the previous 90’/, cloud cover by 30’/, will provide upwards of 100w/m2. So mincing about trying to pin down the odd watt or two seems a tad irrelevant.

  11. bob says:

    slipstick-You asked-Exactly how much of the increase in temperatures are due to mans activities?
    Answer- mans activities account for 0.1% of climate change
    Lane, L.J., M.H. Nichols, and H.B. Osborn 1994: Time series analyses of global change data. Environ. Pollut., 83, 63-68
    (Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases.)
    and
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
    (Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%,if not)
    Combining these 2 factors 0.28% x 0.36 = 0.1008%
    Take care

Leave a Reply