UAH Global Temperature Update for June 2016: +0.34 deg. C

July 1st, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Second largest 2-month drop in global average satellite temperatures.
Largest 2-month drop in tropical average satellite temperatures.

NOTE: This is the fifteenth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here. Note we are now at “beta5” for Version 6, and the paper describing the methodology is still in peer review.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2016 is +0.34 deg. C, down 0.21 deg. C from the May value of +0.55 deg. C (click for full size version):


This gives a 2-month temperature fall of -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record…the largest was -0.43 deg. C in Feb. 1988.

In the tropics, there was a record fast 2-month cooling of -0.56 deg. C, just edging out -0.55 deg. C in June 1998 (also an El Nino weakening year).

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

2015 01 +0.30 +0.44 +0.15 +0.13
2015 02 +0.19 +0.34 +0.04 -0.07
2015 03 +0.18 +0.28 +0.07 +0.04
2015 04 +0.09 +0.19 -0.01 +0.08
2015 05 +0.27 +0.34 +0.20 +0.27
2015 06 +0.31 +0.38 +0.25 +0.46
2015 07 +0.16 +0.29 +0.03 +0.48
2015 08 +0.25 +0.20 +0.30 +0.53
2015 09 +0.23 +0.30 +0.16 +0.55
2015 10 +0.41 +0.63 +0.20 +0.53
2015 11 +0.33 +0.44 +0.22 +0.52
2015 12 +0.45 +0.53 +0.37 +0.61
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.17 +0.50 +0.99
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.09
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.94
2016 05 +0.55 +0.65 +0.44 +0.72
2016 06 +0.34 +0.51 +0.17 +0.38

The rapid cooling is from the weakening El Nino and approaching La Nina conditions by mid-summer or early fall.

As promised just over a week ago, here’s how we are now progressing toward a record warm year in the satellite data:
The June anomaly is well below the dashed red line which represents the average cooling rate required for the rest of 2016 to tie 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record. So far my prediction that 2016 will end up being a new record warm year is not shaping up too well…the cooling we are seeing in the troposphere really is spectacular. Just remember, the temperature anomaly can also temporarily rebound for a month, as it did in late 1998.

The “official” UAH global image for June, 2016 should be available in the next several days here.

The new Version 6 files (use the ones labeled “beta5”) should be updated soon, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere:
Lower Stratosphere:

96 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for June 2016: +0.34 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. D says:

    The recent El-nino allowed non-scientists to falsely claim support for predictions of rapid catastrophic C02 driven warming. Yet it is clear that old IPCC predictions of rapid warming were wrong. Temps are now drifting further from old IPCC-AGW predictions. At what point will professional opinion flip, publicly, whereby a 97% of scientists agree that there is no AGW crisis?

      • mpainter says:

        John Christy has covered that ground thoroughly, David. See his Congressional testimony from earlier this year. Also, Roy Spencer in previous posts. The climate models have egregiously failed to reproduce actual conditions. It will get worse as the trend turns to cooling.

        Or perhaps you mean for your link to be taken as a joke.

        • David Appell says:

          It is generally recognized that John Christy’s graph is bunk. There is a reason it hasn’t been submitted to a peer reviewed journal.

          • mpainter says:

            How goes the indoctrination in the public schools of Oregon, David? Are the little kiddies shaping up? Or do the school authorities have to threaten some of them with sanctions?

          • appell'sajerk says:

            You’re so damn smart; Tell us then, what’s the reason it hasn’t been submitted to a peer reviewed journal?

          • Sunsettommy says:

            Your argument was long ago countered by obvious IPCC per decade warming projection failures. They say it was expected to warm by at least .30C per decade,but UAH satellite data show less than half that rate.

            In 1990,the IPCC projected between .15C -.30C per decade warming but the Satellite data show a .12 C per decade warming rate since 1979.

            Nothing unusual in the longer term,as Dr. Jones stated a few years ago that all the short warming trends from the mid 1800’s have nearly identical per decade warming trend rate of about .16C

            The more accurate satellite data show a SMALLER trend rate from 1979 onward.

            When are you going to admit it,David?

          • Sunsettommy says:

            John McIntire thinks it is Dr. Schmidt who is wrong:

            Gavin Schmidt and Reference Period Trickery

            “Ill show support for Christys method from his long-time adversary, Carl Mears, whose own comparison of models and observations used a short early centering period (1979-83) so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Whereas both Christy and Mears provided rational arguments for their baseline decision, Schmidts argument was little more than shouting.”


            The comments in the thread very illuminating.

          • PA says:

            David Appell says:
            July 1, 2016 at 11:02 PM
            It is generally recognized that John Christys graph is bunk. There is a reason it hasnt been submitted to a peer reviewed journal.

            The hijacking of climate journals by warmunists as noted in the climategate emails explains it nicely.

          • barry says:


            Your argument was long ago countered by obvious IPCC per decade warming projection failures. They say it was expected to warm by at least .30C per decade

            Youre spinning that bull yet again. Youve even quoted the IPCC yourself saying different. Shameless.

            IPCC 2007:

            For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.


            IPCC 2001:

            anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2C per decade over the next few decades


            Youve seen both of these quotes and been given the links. When will you tell the truth?

            We’ll have to wait a decade or two to see if those predictions pan out, so saying they’re ‘failures’ is a little bit premature.

          • barry says:

            It is generally recognized that John Christys graph is bunk. There is a reason it hasnt been submitted to a peer reviewed journal.

            “The hijacking of climate journals by warmunists as noted in the climategate emails explains it nicely.”

            Oh please. Spencer and Christy still submit papers. No one stops them. They currently have at least one submission undergoing review.

            More conspiracy twaddle.

      • Aaron S says:

        David… where is the 97 98 el nino in that plot of observed temperatures?

        Seriously, how did they reduce that monster to a tiny bump?

        • mpainter says:

          With a pencil and eraser.

        • David Appell says:

          Looks right to me.

          According to NOAA’s data on the global average surface temperature, for example, the annual changes are

          1997-1996 = +0.19
          1998-1997 = +0.12
          1999-1998 = -0.19

          This is reflected in the graphs.

          • mpainter says:

            And why is the NOAA crowd under investigation, David? Maybe for this sort of twaddle. UAH data is not so rubbery, is it David?

          • A Reader says:

            David Appell either name the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of gas and atmospheric mixes in chemistry,

            give it’s formula and what each of those factors stand for,

            or you’re another fake chemist who’s too dumb to know how to

            calculate the temperature of air.

            You don’t have any chemistry education or you could answer these questions. You’ve been chased around so long ducking that question you’ve spent months hiding from it.

            What is the name,
            of the law of thermodynamics,
            for solving temperature of gas and atmospheric mixes,
            in gas chemistry?

            Again: either answer that question or you’re just another internet posing fake, passing yourself off as a competent reviewer of science you’re so dumb, you can’t name the law using which someone who DID know how would use,

            to solve for temperature,
            in atmospheric/gas chemistry.

            We’ll wait.

            Get the answers and explain your grasp of gas chemistry thermodynamic law and solving for temperature.

            This is FUNDAMENTALS in gas chemistry.

            What is the name of the law of thermodynamics,

            to solve for temperature in atmospheric/gas chemistry?

      • jim says:

        Hey David,
        We have been waiting years for you to show some actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.

        When are you going to show us that evidence?

        BTW, do you still believe that Katrina was due to man’s CO2:

        “There is no crisis that will change our minds not heat waves in France, not Katrina, not the disappearance of Arctic ice up north.”
        (From an article credited to David Appell at

        BTW, which of those events had never occurred before man’s CO2 became significant in about 1950?

      • jim says:

        How do you explain the fact that the best data we have, the satellites and radiosonde show no warming for almost 1/4 century?

      • D says:

        The graph on your link shows that recorded temps are at the lower end of forecasts. So the high end-rapid predictions are falsified, David. The lower end forecast may still be borne out in years to come. However, the end of the El-nino will take temps to or below the lower bound of past predictions.

        • Chris Schoneveld says:

          How do you falsify the future? Because that is what the high end prediction is: something that may happen in the future.

      • barry says:

        Your argument was long ago countered by obvious IPCC per decade warming projection failures. They say it was expected to warm by at least .30C per decade

        You’re spinning that bull yet again. You’ve even quoted the IPCC yourself saying different. Shameless.

        IPCC 2007:

        “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”

        IPCC 2001:

        “anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2C per decade over the next few decades”

        You’ve seen both of these quotes and been given the links. When will you tell the truth?

  2. I told you fools but you wouldn’t listen to me! Global cooling here we come! Lol lets just see if 2016 is the warmest year on record! I’m just dying to know!

  3. That’s all I’m going to say on this thread! I didnt Come here for an argument I let people form there own opinions on what’s really going on! Peace out suckers!

  4. I’ll see you fools next month when the global temperature falls down even more! I wish you the best of luck dr spencer on your prediction for 2016 being the warmest on record however I don’t bet that your prediction will come true.

    • Don says:

      Even if 2016 turns out to the “warmest”, by what amount? 0.02C? And what would that really portend for the future, other than nothing.

  5. mpainter says:

    More bad news for the poor global warmers, it seems that Ma Nature just loves to torment them. She gives them an El Nino spike and they go “whoopee!” and then she turns it into a coffin nail.

    Slim chance of 2016 as the “warmest yeah evah”, and now we are looking at a La Nina for the next two years, if the 1999-2000 La Nina is any guide. Note that the anomaly then hovered below the baseline, so by the end of 2017 there should be a slightly negative trend. At the present precipitous rate of cooling, we could reach the baseline before December.

    The bottom line is this: a flat or cooling trend extended into the next decade, no El Nino spike-hype for the AGW scare-mongers for ten years or more. It seems that Ma Nature has decided to give AGW a knock in the head.

  6. Jim Dean says:

    Thank you Dr. Spencer. I enjoy reading your posts, especially the back and forth between Dr. No, John, Paul, RAH, Ghung and others -vs- Garan, MPainter, Lewis, Massimo PORZIO, fonzarelli, Salvator Del Prete and others. Extremely entertaining.

    I’m not prone to posting much, my back ground is compressed air and hydraulic systems. My Hydraulic Engineering degree prepares me to understand heat transfer in a confined system using heat exchangers air/oil and water/oil for heat dissipation, however, the heat transfer in the atmosphere is too chaotic for me to make any informed comments about. Your explanations compel me to read more NIPCC reports in which your contributions are quite valuable.

    Thanks again & Kind Regards,
    Jim Dean

  7. geran says:

    We watched the heat from El Nino pass through the atmosphere, on it’s way to space. Now, the atmosphere is cooling. It’s almost as if the atmosphere can’t “trap heat” very well, huh?

    • well, the more it heats, the faster it cools. Always trying to strike a balance. At what temperature than balance occurs, and whether it is changing, is the $64 trillion question.

      • geran says:

        Maybe someone just forgot to close the roof on the “greenhouse”.

        • FTOP says:

          Nice gentle needling Geran. Dr. Spencer has spent significant time incarcerated under the “greenhouse” doctrine. As a Luke-warmest, it is going to take a considerable mountain of evidence to bring him home from the Trenberth energy budget for the earth.

          His work brings a much needed non-partisan view of atmospheric temperatures, and his position that CO2 causes “some” warming probably insulates (pun intended) his UAH temperature data from the kind of attacks in the earlier e-mail he posted.

          That said, I still anticipate the day when he acknowledges that CO2 (at .04%) of the atmosphere has no effect on the earth’s temperature.

          There is just too much conflicting physical properties manifested across our solar system for the Trenberth model to be accurate. Proof CO2 is a non-factor rests in a disjointed set of facts, but if prosecuted together show the CO2 warming position to be unsupportable.

      • PA says:

        Dr Spencer:

        What is the mechanism that is causing the cooling?

        Is outgoing IR increasing, so why?


    • mpainter says:

      The heat is in the oceans as the result of insolation. El Nino is due to a “pause” or diminishment of meridional overturning circulation of the oceans, aka upwelling. The abyssal water, circulating to the surface, acts as a coolant and thus La Nina. When the circulation of the “coolant” to the surface stops, as it does periodically, SST warms under the sun and El Nino results.

      In oceanographic terms, this upwelling circulation is known as Eastern Boundary Currents. In La Nina conditions, this current (the Humboldt) is at maximum force, flowing northwards off of SA and turning west at Peru, flowing along the equator. This activates the Walker Cell circulation, an equatorial easterly which proceeds to amplify the upwelling very considerably. Thus “coolant” is copiously supplied to the surface along the Pacific equator and so La Nina.
      Not a thing that the poor global warmers can do except gnash their teeth. Such a lovely sound☺

  8. Werner Brozek says:

    Will 2016 set a new record for UAH? There are many similarities between 1998 and 2016. There was an extremely strong El Nino which caused records to be set in the beginning of each year. Then there was a drop in 1998 and so far, there is a similar drop in 2016.
    However there are important difference between 1998 and 2016. In 1998, the highest anomaly was in April of 1998 and therefore not surprisingly, the second quarter of 1998 was the quarter with the highest anomaly. In contrast, the highest anomaly in 2016 was in February making the first quarter of 2016 the one with the highest anomaly.
    The difference between quarters 2 and 3 for 1998 for UAH6.0beta5 was 0.165. The difference between quarters 1 and 2 in 2016 was 0.169. Very close!
    There are several different approaches one can use to arrive at the best guess as to whether or not 2016 will set a record. I have decided to give the averages for each of the four quarters in 1998 and the first quarter of 1999 as well as the four quarters of 2016. The first quarter of 1998 will be called 98(1), and so on.
    Here are the numbers we know:
    98(1): 0.536
    98(2): 0.654
    98(3): 0.489
    98(4): 0.257
    99(1): 0.048

    16(1): 0.712
    16(2): 0.533
    And here are my estimates for what we do not know.
    16(3): (0.301)
    16(4): (0.092)
    This gives an average of 0.407 for 2016 putting it into second place between the 0.484 of 1998 and 0.338 from 2010.
    Obviously, I could only give the first two quarters of 2016 and I had to estimate the last two. Feel free to comment on whether you think my methods are good or whether you think they are out to lunch. I took the difference between the following quarters: 4 and 3 of 1998, and 1 of 1999 versus 4 of 1998. Then I applied those differences to quarters 3 and 4 of 2016 and put those numbers in ( ) above for 16(3) and 16(4).
    Then I calculated the average for 2016 based on those numbers and compared that to the 1998 and 2010 averages.

    • Werner, see my latest post. I compute that as long as the rest of 2016 stays below the June value of +0.34, 2016 won’t be a record warm year (and I now think it won’t be). Is that consistent with what you are getting?

      • Werner Brozek says:

        Yes, I do not know the value of 0.34 to 3 significant digits, but using 0.34 for the next 6 months, I get an average of 0.479 for 2016 which is a virtual tie with 0.484 for 1998.

    • Richard M says:

      I think the coming La Nina is almost assured to keep the anomaly below .34 for the next few months. However, the winter is likely to remain warm until sea ice returns to the Arctic. This charts shows why:

      Compare the 1998 and 2016 values and you will see how the winter and summer months affect the global average. Almost no effect in the summer while a quite significant effect in the winter. This is why the 2016 global anomalies were higher than 1998 early this year and are now falling below those values. The El Nino itself is fading in a similar fashion.

      Now, if the AMO shows a major drop along with the coming La Nina and more ice forms in the Arctic then we could see anomalies similar to 1998-99. That would reinstate the pause quickly.

  9. The preliminary GFS based global temperature anomaly estimates also showed a large 2-month drop of -0.33C from UM CCI and -0.27C from WxBELL for April to June 2016. The preliminary UM CCI global surface temperature anomaly estimate is +0.23C, down from +0.42C in May and sharply down from the peak of 0.72C in February. I posted a graph comparing the monthly estimates for UM CCI, WxBELL, and UAH for 2014 through June 2016 here:

    The GFS/CFSR surface temperature anomaly estimates seem to track the TLT estimates better than the GHCN based estimates since 2014. It will be interesting to see how the GHCN based estimates compare for June.

  10. Brian D says:

    Well, my 0.2-0.3 guess was aggressive based on Ch. 6. 0.34 is still a healthy drop though.

  11. Alec aka Daffy Duck says:

    FYI Rush Limbaugh mentioned you and the 2-month drop on his radio show about 10 minutes. I really wasn’t paying attention to the show, he was talk about some ‘the end is near report’ and the mentioned you and the 2-month temp drop

  12. Phillip says:

    At what value has the hiatus lasted the whole of the satellite era?

    • mpainter says:

      In fact, the only warming of the satellite era is the step-up of about 0.3 C seen circa 2000-2002. This warming may be inferred from the record peak of the El Nino of 1998. The temperature trend prior to this El Nino is flat and the trend after 2002 is flat.
      So the temperature record of the satellite era is two flat trends connected by a step-up of about 0.3 C. However, the practice is to plot a trend since late 1997. This has been flat or slightly negative until this last El Nino (the spike-hype). The trend is now tilting back to slightly negative with the current La Nina.

      • AndyG55 says:

        As I’ve said many times before..

        The ONLY warming in the whole satellite era has come from the El Ninos and the normal ocean fluctuations.

        Neither of these is CO2 forced, so that means…..


  13. George says:

    Wots up with the images on this page ?

    I don’t see them. and just get this message is click link =

    “You don’t have permission to access /wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2016_v6-1.jpg on this server.

    Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.”


    • as I’ve mentioned before, the web hosting company has a small limit on cached data, and the image files are by far the largest. I’ve complained about it, and they are working on a solution. In the meantime, I have to manually purge the cache to fix the problem. If traffic gets heavy, it can be only an hour or so before it’s clogged up again.

      • George says:

        You could host images externally at tinypic, postimage or even at google picasa. There a huge choice of external image hosts, and in my experience they are all free of charge.

        I do see the images now though.
        Thanks for explanation, Dr. Spencer.

  14. Earthling says:

    This is sad news, I was hoping for more Glowbull warming.

  15. dave says:

    1997/8…2015/16. It is deja vu all over again. Only difference, this time around I have grey hair.

  16. The recent drop in global temperatures is due to the ending of EL NINO. The recent spike in global temperatures was due to EL NINO.

    CONCULSION – Natural climatic oscillations are in complete control of the global temperatures and CO2 has nothing to do with it.

  17. Trevor marr says:

    Peer reviewed Climate Science is another way of saying ‘job security’ or, ‘collusion’!

  18. RAH says:

    Well the “terrible, horrible, deadly, record setting heat wave” in the desert SW US is certainly over.

    Did a team run to Nogales, AZ. At 07:23 local time on Friday at the 11 mile marker on I-10 heading into Arizona from New Mexico through that table flat desert valley it was 68 degrees, raining, with lakes of standing water as far as the eye could see.

    We delivered at Nogales right on the border then picked up on the North side of Tucson and were headed back east on I-10 by 16:30 local and the temp did not get above 89 deg. F all day.

    Here are a couple of pics I took:

    That’s standing water off in the distance behind that RR embankment.

  19. David Overton says:

    The comments here each month leave me with this feeling: “Start with the hypothesis that CO2 is not affecting global temperatures, and then interpret the new data point to support that hypothesis.”

    Can someone answer this question: what future results would cause you to discard the hypothesis that CO2 is not causing warming?

    For example: if each of the next 12 months exceed the baseline, resulting in at least 30 consecutive months above the baseline and encompassing an El Nino and a La Nina, would that be enough evidence to reject the hypothesis? Or, if we look at decade averages, and find that each decade since the 1980’s was warmer than the one before it, for three decades in a row, would that be convincing? If not, is there another criteria involving future data points that would justify rejecting the “no warming due to CO2” hypothesis?

    • mpainter says:

      it is up to the AGW crowd to prove their hypothesis. It is foolish to try to turn this around and put the obligation of proof on skeptics. And the AGW hypothesis is collapsed for lack of warming. So please return to HotWhopper.

      • David Overton says:

        Thank you for this. Your point gets at something I have been interested in for some time.

        The evidence for global warming, and human causes of that warming, is massive. A good summary is at But I am sure you have seen much more data as well.

        This evidence has led a large majority of climate scientists, in the US and globally, to agree:
        – increasing GHG levels increases temperatures (a basic and long established principle)
        – human activity has increased GHG levels (measurable)
        – temperatures have increased (measurable)

        From this and other considerations, most scientists have concluded that human activity is raising the planet’s temperature.

        And yet I know that some people, including a small percentage of scientists, are not convinced by this evidence. So the question is similar to my first question above: what additional data or evidence would be convincing in your mind? In other words, what developments would be adequate to constitute “proof” to you, beyond what is already observable? I am not trying to be cute or insulting. I am honestly mystified why some intelligent and informed people still don’t accept what appears obvious to so many others. I would appreciate your insights. Thanks.

        • Dave Fair says:

          1910 to 1945 warming equivalent to 1975 to 2003 warming.

          • David Overton says:

            Yes, but from different starting points, right? In other words, a sizable increase from 1910 to 1945, then an increase of similar magnitude from 1975 to 2003, but the later period started at a higher temperature.

            This is from longer term data than that available for satellite measurement, such as at

            I think the basic point is that there are periods of sideways movement, even decreases for short periods, but the overall trend is up. This amounts to about 1 degree C over the past century.

          • fonzarelli says:

            Are you trying to make a point here?

        • mpainter says:

          And the satellite record shows no warming since then. So your “massive” evidence is nothing but massive stupidity, David Overton.

          • David Overton says:

            Interesting logic:
            – Source A provides evidence about a subject, which supports a specific conclusion.
            – Source B may support a different conclusion.
            – Therefore, source A is “stupid”.

            We could easily turn this logic around: Some data suggests that human activity is not affecting the climate. However, other data indicates that it is. So, the first set of data must be “stupid.” I think you would agree that logic does not hold up.

            If you are still up for it, I would be interested in your thoughts on my prior question: what evidence would convince you? I don’t think is it enough to say “I have found some data that supports what I choose to believe, so no additional data can convince me otherwise.” But maybe that works for you, and if so that is ok.

          • fonzarelli says:

            As long as AGW remains an unproven hypothesis, it will be just that… (an unproven hypothesis)

          • barry says:


            A reasonable question. Reasonable replies are hard to come by here.

          • mpainter says:

            Why do you not give a “reasonable reply”, Barry?

      • David Overton says:

        mpainter – it looks like on this site once you get several levels down in the comments there is no longer a “reply” option. Frustrating, because that is just when the conversation gets good.

        I wanted to give you a chance to respond to my last reply, so will paste it here:

        “If you are still up for it, I would be interested in your thoughts on my prior question: what evidence would convince you? I dont think is it enough to say I have found some data that supports what I choose to believe, so no additional data can convince me otherwise. But maybe that works for you, and if so that is ok.”

        i will admit that the science is complex and not always unambiguous. But there is a mountain of evidence for AGW, against a much smaller amount of counter evidence. Still, I know that many people are not convinced, so my question is what additional data would be convincing?


      • David Overton says:

        mpainter – it looks like on this site once you get several levels down in the comments there is no longer a “reply” option. Frustrating, because that is just when the conversation gets good.

        I wanted to give you a chance to respond to my last reply, so will paste the question here:

        “I would be interested in your thoughts on my prior question: what evidence would convince you?”

        Your question above is “it is up to the AGW crowd to prove their hypothesis”. So my question is “what would represent proof to you”? I will admit that the science is complex and not always unambiguous. But there is a mountain of evidence for AGW, against a much smaller amount of counter evidence. Still, I know that some people are not convinced, so my question is what additional data would be convincing to you?


        • A Reader says:

          David I can give you several checks for yourself, to see if you’re worth answering in any of this.

          Tell me the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of gas and atmospheric mixtures.

          If you can’t tell me the name of the law of thermodynamics to find out the temperature of air, then – when I begin to refer to it,

          you’re going to be over your head, even discussing how one calculates temperature of air.

          If you can’t do it, because you don’t know how, you can’t critique it. That’s just how it is.

          I can falsify the green house effect through the fact the sun-side infrared stream in the relevant spectra is five times the earth’s stream of that same light.

          It is impossible for blocking five times as much thermal energy in, to equate warming. That is defined, as cooling.

          Furthermore I can falsify the green house gas effect through usage of the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of atmospheric or gas mixes.

          It forbids it, specifically and formally, through assigning every gas in atmospheric mix, identical energy using the factor you know the name of, if you know the name of the law, of thermodynamics, for finding out temperature of air.

          If you don’t know that law then you’re done.

          Because you’ll have no way of knowing it’s true, or not.

          Furthermore you can falsify the green house effect through summing the total effects of an atmosphere on a sun warmed rock, in a vacuum; just stepping through it all.

          The sun is a broad spectrum yellow fire source, extremely common type energy source, characteristics of heat from sunlight are exquisitely well known.

          The earth: a rock in vacuum. Spinning, it is illuminated by the light of the fire, that is Sol.

          You tell me now any instance you can dream of in which a sun warmed rock,

          having it’s temperature raised as high as it can be without any conduction, any convection, from fluid gas to help heat remove. When all the sunlight warms the rock, in full vacuum, modes of energy in are one: radiant,

          modes of energy out are one: radiant.

          Got the name of that law of thermodynamics to find out the temperature of air yet? We’ll all wait, you continue searching for that. I’ll let you know if you’re right or not, because I’ll start describing how that law specifically forbids there being ANY green house gas effect of ANY kind.

          Now: planet in vacuum, sun warmed rock in vacuum: full temperatures are a function of: a mass, being impinged upon by a full, undiminished light load which thermalizes to whatever amount of heat.

          Now. Add atmosphere. When you add it what is the very first thing that happens? You have added an additional mass.

          What is it’s temperature? Colder than the rock it blankets.

          Tell me now: how does a cold fluid gas blanket warm a rock, to a temperature hotter, than when there WAS no cold blanket?

          You tell me. I’m a 40 year applied biological, atmospheric, and physical chemist, and have a degree in electronic engineering, in a field named radiation communications: modulating or altering radiation so it has an intelligence component laid onto it, then radiating it though the atmosphere, space, & whatnot; combing the radiation emitted, back out – then combing the intelligence off that.

          In other words the same thing as all radios and tvs. The communications for your solar system and mars probes, that sort of thing.

          So you tell me now, how warming a rock in vacuum with fire, then immersing the rock in cold fluid – gas – makes the rock warmer,

          than when there was full light hitting the rock, and
          no cold fluid bath washing heat off into an additional, colder mass.

          Your claim of a green house gas effect just got falsified.

          Furthermore there is a
          known component fraction of sunlight
          never reaches the surface of the earth due to
          fractional species gases in the atmosphere.

          Blue skies from oxygen diffraction/scattering are one of these fractional component loss sources: blue light hits oxygen, we see blue sky, the earth never gets impinged with the blue light seen from outside the planet in photos. The slight blue haze of the atmosphere there’s a couple of individual percent there.

          Now. The big losses due to the atmosphere. What is the name of the family of gases responsible for ten times the losses oxygen is responsible for? What class gases blocks the most sunlight,
          from reaching earth?

          The name of that class gases is the ”Green House Gases” which are responsible for about 20% sunlight energy never reaching earth surface sensors.

          Now – if the atmosphere is stopping 22ish percent light ever even reaching the planet, then that’s what’s called a
          surface energy density

          Created by that additional colder mass, the fluid gas bath.

          When surface energy density is one level and a type gas reduces surface energy density from what it would be, if they weren’t there, that’s called cooling.

          When the green house gases in the frigid fluid gas mix,
          reduce the surface energy density by 20%, that is surface energy density reduction. That is named cooling.


          When the freezing cold nitrogen envelope is conduction washing energy off the surface of the planet, the green house gases are also doing the exact same conduction washing when they touch the surface.

          This form of conduction loss from the surface by the overall nitrogen bath is called cooling. A cold fluid bath, touching a sun warmed rock, cools that rock. I didn’t ask you, I didn’t really opine it, I stated it to you as a professional chemist, and professional radiation electronic engineer.

          These losses to the atmosphere are known as conduction cooling.

          Those first losses caused SOLELY by green house gases: the diffraction losses – that is called diffraction cooling: shading.

          When the conduction losses are going on one gas alone is known for it’s phase change refrigeration cycling where it sits on the surface as liquid or solid and evaporates taking heat with it. It rises convectively bringing other gases with it, taking it’s place at the surface etc as it rises, enhancing standard conduction cooling. This convection effect also accelerated by the phase change aspect are further accelerated through the gas changing phase at the top of it’s rise due to being energized with surface heat.

          When it loses sufficient energy that it’s temperature drops some it changes phase a second time falling to earth much, much swifter than those gases which cool similarly, but don’t contract to become solids falling.

          This falling is not just much faster it also, happens in a cycle each time there is an evaporation/phase change event: the gas changing phase to solid – ice – falling through the nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere, evaporates and rises yet again – and again – many times until finally the AIR COLUMN ITSELF through which the water – the coolant GREEN HOUSE GAS WATER – falls.

          When it is rising to dump energy then falling to evaporate again, the GREEN HOUSE GAS is REFRIGERATING NOT JUST THE SURFACE: but the NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH OVERALL; to further

          do what? COOL the surface, and the atmosphere itself.

          So I have again falsified your heating from green house gases story by showing you green house gases cooling THREE DIFFERENT WAYS through well known mechanisms.

          When that diffraction cooling is going on, blocking incoming sunlight, the GREEN HOUSE GASES are responsible for blocking far, FAR more – ten TIMES more energy – than any
          gas or class of gases.

          So whenever you can refute that you come explain to me how you think the magic heater makes the sky hot when you’re using fire, and we won’t crack a book, we’ll just talk about it like a couple of old pros, teaching chemistry to ten year olds, and if you’re savvy enough to be able to

          name the law of thermodynamics
          for solving temperature of gases,
          name the equation,
          and tell us the names of the factors in it
          and what those factors stand for,

          so we can know, you really have sense enough to be able to do things like – find out the temperature of air on your own, so you know if others are right.

          Because if you can’t calculate the temperature of air then – your word’s worthless regarding someone else’s claim, that they calculated the temperature of air.

          So you help us out here by showing me at least, you’re even remotely able to defend your claims, that there’s a mountain of evidence magic makes the sky hot when people use fire.

          • A Reader says:

            Remember David Overton you told me and people in general ok, that there is a mountain of evidence that magic cold gas, is warming the object it is conductively cooling.

            So here is your and everyone else’s challenge, from me: you tell me one instance
            in all physics literature

            where a light warmed rock,

            is heated in vacuum to it’s highest temp for that amount of light, coming from a source that distance away, – all that being equal,

            you show me any instance of any physics question or physical mechanism existing, where the

            immersion of an object warmed by light,

            is dipped into and washed by frigid fluid many degrees colder,

            to raise the temperature of that object higher, than it was when it’s surface received FULL light load –

            and WASN’T being washed of heat by a FRIGID FLUID BATH.

            So I just falsified your Green House Gas effect right there.

            I challenge you to show one single physics test

            I challenge you to show one single other event in all matter/energy

            where a light warmed rock,
            is HEATED
            by WASHING it
            with FRIGID FLUID GAS
            to a temperature HIGHER
            than when it received HIGHER surface energy load
            and WASN’T being WASHED in FRIGID, TURBULENT FLUID.

            You tell this forum,
            of ONE single instance of that in all physics,

            and just make us believe it.

            Or your claim is falsified.

            Admittedly by a lifetime professional chemist and electronic engineer specializing in radiation mechanics in gas, the vacuum of space, and the solid state compounds comprising the field of two way radiation communications,

            but – we haven’t really even had to open a book here thus far, have we?

            I’m telling you on my authority as the master of all things, natural physics,

            to show me any case in ALL PHYSICS
            where a LIGHT WARMED ROCK
            heated to that temp in VACUUM

            is WASHED in FRIGID FLUID and made WARMER
            through such,

            than when it gained full light to it’s surface
            and WASN’T washed by FRIGID FLUIDS.

            Made WARMER through DOUCHINGS with magical, frigid fluids, is what you claim.

            I said bullshoot and that I don’t have to crack a book to stop you in your tracks.

            Your move, and be convincing. Because you told us all here you are convinced there is a ‘mountain’ of evidence for the

            sun warmed rock,
            being washed by frigid fluids,
            being made WARMER by it than when it was

            being heated with full light load
            and was NOT being washed by the frigid fluid gas bath.

          • David Overton says:

            I am sorry to have put you to this much trouble. I am not a climate scientist, and have not claimed to be. As you are probably aware, most scientists have reached very different conclusions from yours. They would be in a much better position to respond to your points.

            Most people rely on experts for most aspects of their lives – we get advice from lawyers, medical doctors, technicians, etc. I doubt many people in Congress have an understanding of climate science that would enable them to understand anything you have said, and yet they vote on laws related to climate change (and other technical fields they don’t have deep backgrounds in, such as the economy, healthcare and foreign relations).

            In this case, a huge majority of climate scientists have reached conclusions very different from yours. A few examples:
            – American Association for the Advancement of Science –
            – A list of science organizations supporting AGW –
            – Study of climate science views by the National Academy of Sciences –

            And, as you are probably aware, even the minority of scientists who are skeptical about the severity of future warming accept the basic principle that increasing GHG levels increase temperatures. Dr. Roy Spencer does not dispute the idea that that changes in GHG from burning fossil fuels increases the earth’s temperature. He says: “Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankinds burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earths greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface.” ( I think you are in a very small minority on that point.

            I hope you can appreciate my situation, which is similar to most people. A very large majority of climate scientists have concluded that GHG levels have an effect on the earth’s temperature. Even those skeptical that climate change is a serious issue, such as Drs. Spencer, Curry, and Lindsen, fully accept the idea that changing GHG levels change the earth’s temperature. Given a choice between you and virtually every other relevant scientist and scientific organization, it is not a hard call.

  20. Kip Hansen says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    To be clear, your data set is neither the land-based thermometers nor the new ‘apples-and-oranges’ land-ocean index, but simply, and only, satellite-based Global Lower Atmosphere — thus should show something sorta-equivalent-to a gain in atmospheric heat content if rising and a loss of atmospheric heat content if falling?


  21. dave says:

    University of Alabama at Huntsville (and Remote Sensing Systems) analyse other levels of the atmosphere, as well. There are FOUR files which can be accessed above. The files also give regional numbers.

  22. dave says:

    A few updates:

    The “global 2-meter anomaly”, through the first week of July, is “subdued” and not different from June.

    The Accumulated Cyclone Energy for 2016 is much below comparable 2015, and close to 1981-2010 average, so far.

    The National Snow and Ice Data Centre analyses have been resumed, as the satellite difficulties have been resolved.

    At present:

    The ARCTIC Sea Ice, in the middle of its annual melt, is at the level of 2014. The pattern of the last decade is continuing, in which open areas of sea, to the north of Eurasia, have less ice than heretofore, while the Central Arctic Basin is unaffected.

    The ANTARCTICA Sea Ice, in the middle of its annual freeze, is at the normal level for this time of year, per calculations from 1981-2010.

  23. Ann Inquirer says:

    5 months do not make a trend, but I do note that the lower stratospheric temperature has dropped for 5 months in a row.

    Although it has had much fluctuation, it has overall been generally flat for the last 21 years. Its trend is not consistent with AGW theory with persistent falls occurring only on the heels of major low-latitude volcanic eruptions.

    • mpainter says:

      “Its trend is not consistent with AGW theory with persistent falls occurring only on the heels of major low-latitude volcanic eruptions.”
      Presumably, you refer to the stepdowns following El Chichon and Pinatubo.

      Interesting about the cooling. Perhaps these last five months reflect present minimal solar activity.

    • barry says:

      5 months do not make a trend, but I do note that the lower stratospheric temperature has dropped for 5 months in a row.

      Although it has had much fluctuation, it has overall been generally flat for the last 21 years. Its trend is not consistent with AGW theory with persistent falls occurring only on the heels of major low-latitude volcanic eruptions.

      Did we have a major mid-latitude eruption recently?

      Lots of variability. The overall trend is down. The longest period tells the soundest story.

      The last 21 years has a cooling trend, even without the last 5 months included.

      • mpainter says:

        Wrong again, Barry. About as wrong as one can be. There has been no cooling of the lower stratosphere since 1995.

        • A Reader says:

          Well – that’s debatable but what isn’t debatable is that Phil Jones, the world’s number one climatologist, was seen saying in an email to scientist john christie that ”the scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998. Ok it has but it’s only seven years of data (every year since ’99, in ’05) and it isn’t statistically significant.

          It’s also true Phil Jones admitted in his disastrous FEB 2010 Stay Out Of Jail BBC intervew

          that he’d done the math and there had been no warming since 1995, and that there had in fact been some cooling.

          His employer the National Weather Service overseeing his university climate campus demoted him to ‘research’ instead of ‘overall’ management and then in about 2013

          they issued their OWN press release stating there had been no warming for ”the thirteen years previous, to 1998” in their own
          disastrous admission against threat of legal liability,

          ”Met Office: About The Recent Pause In Warming”

          They discussed how they’d written THREE PAPERS explaining how THEY KNOW
          everybody ELSE knows
          it didn’t warm a WHIT since at LEAST 1998.

          The fact is, THOSE green house gas concentrations have increased by a third, with NO warming.

          And YOU remain UNABLE to TELL ME the name of the law of thermodynamics, for solving temperature of gas/atmospheric mixes in chemistry.

          Until you can you remain a posing fake, who being unable to find out the temperature of air, is incompetent to critique those of us who ARE atmospheric chemists and can.

          You have no way of KNOWING which of us is right until you are able to at LEAST tell us the name of the law we use to calculate the temperature of gas.

          And you need to tell this forum what the equation is: what the factors in it mean.

          Or you’re just another posing fake, who can’t even find out the temperature of air to check your SELF. You don’t have a way to check anyone ELSE, either.

          Because authority worship is what had you being taught pot is like heroin, man created the ozone hole, and that until about six or eight years ago, the only really GOOD love, was D.O.M.A. love.

          So your so called ‘authorities’ haven’t got credibility as anything but chemistry fakes having the morals of a giant money worshipping empire.

          Tell me the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving the temperature of air in atmospheric mixes, or you’re a posing fake. Period.

  24. barry says:

    Trend is -0.04C/decade Jan 1995 to Dec 2015.

    As wrong as can be would see a positive trend for that period, I should think.

    It’s not much. And it’s statistically insignificant. But you don’t do statistically insignificant, so I guess we’re stuck with -0.04C/decade.

    • mpainter says:

      Barry: “The last 21 years has a cooling trend, even without the last 5 months included.”

      For stepdowns in the lower stratosphere temperature anomaly, see UAH data, which is comprehensive since 1979. No cooling except at the stepdowns after V5 volcanoes.

    • barry says:

      No comment on the cooling since 1995?

      What volcanic eruption caused the recent downturn of lower strat temps?

      • mpainter says:

        Barry, I’m convinced that you have an impairment of your faculties of comprehension. I addressed the recent cooling immediately above. Do you have a better idea?
        You are a very tiresome fellow, with your uncomprehending comments.

    • An Inquirer says:

      I have a hard time getting excited about -0.04 per decade. The variability around volcanoes greatly exceed that. There is no foreseeable catastrophe coming from that trend.

      • dave says:

        The lowest figure in the satellite record for the lower stratosphere was for the month of November 2000*, in both the UAH and the RSS data series, i.e. ALL of the subsequent 181 months have been higher.

        Therefore we can say – as far as these series are concerned – the REALIZED movement has been (miniscularly) upwards for the whole of the twenty-first century.

        Of course, FIVE seconds of looking at the Chart (RSS provides a Chart) tells you TLS has had inconsequential trends for many years.


        November 2000: -0.72 , June 2016 -0.70


        November 2000: -.9019 , June 2016 -0.7531

      • A Reader says:

        Inquirer it’s your own belief system that has failed. Your intellectual leadership, the ones caught believing a hockey stick generating program was real mathematics interpretation of tree bores.

        It’s your intellectual leadership who got caught claiming the world was going to warm and, that it was going to be catastrophic.

        That started forty years ago.

        Your leadership Gore told us – he consulted the scientists: more, larger storms, great floods, massive weather changes.

        Nothing. Not a f****g thing except the most stable weather in measured, human history.

        With Green House Gases belching into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate, temperatures are barely holding steady at the TOP side of the 30-year half-cycle and now, we’re going into the cooling cycle and it’s gonna get about, .4 THAT way, then back, and forth, until the big chill.

        And there’s going to be no more warming of any consequence. There will however be an ice age destroying everything enjoyable about this warm OPTIMUM time.

        Do you even know the name of the law of thermodynamics for checking the temperature of air or gas, in chemistry?

        Do you have some qualification measuring anything in your life? Because you don’t speak like someone who’s a competent atmospheric specialist, you speak like you majored in drama at school, and decided to be a programmer.

        A programmer like James Hansen, whose programs for modeling the climate don’t include the warming component handled by compression mathematics, hydrostatic equations.

        What is your understanding of the hydrostatic equation component of gas chemistry temperature calculation? Can you check gas chemistry calculations for the hydrostatic component so you are smart enough to know James Hansen’s ‘green house gas’ climate models don’t have it, and instead, claim there is 30 degrees of magic, heating the world up, so when you use fire, it makes the sky get hot?

        I say you don’t have the chemistry education of a college dropout much less a college graduate.

        Because you simply don’t speak like a man who could understand the back of a soap bottle if you read one. You’re not a chemist much less an atmospheric/gas one,

        and I can prove it by challenging you to give us all a real swift discourse on the

        name of the law of thermodynamics, for solving gas temperature

        write the equation,

        name and explain what the factors mean.

        Since you can’t do that your word’s worth someone’s who couldn’t check to see who was right about all this if your life depends on it.


        You simply don’t have the intellectual chops to name the law, tell us the equation, point out the green house gas factor of it or show us all why the law formally forbids there being any green house gas force at all.

  25. nigel says:


    When you run through a checklist you ignore unexceptional readings and move on. If the oil pressure is supposed to be between 40 and 45 p.s.i. and is actually 43.6 you put a tick to make it clear you looked at the guage, but you discard the actual number. However, if the pressure is actually 38.7 you write THAT down for the maintenance guy, and initial it. He may or may not do anything about it…he will make a judgement as to whether it matters.

  26. nigel says:

    “…inconsequential TRENDS [my emphasis]…”

    Even when you DO have trends of consequence, that does not necessarily mean you have the essence of your data – vide “Anscombe’s Quartet.”

    • nigel says:

      F J Anscombe wrote in the American Statistician, Vol 27, No.1,1973:

      “Few of us escape being indoctrinated with these notions:

      (1) numerical calculations are exact, but graphs are rough;

      (2) for any particular kind of statistical data there is just one set of calculations constituting a correct statistical analysis;

      (3)performing intricate calculations is virtuous, whereas actually looking at the data is cheating.”

  27. nigel says:


    If you notice a stock taking off and buy in Month 2 at $150 and the whole game is:

    Month 1 50
    2 150
    3 250
    4 400
    5 100

    the TREND of the data is UP

    (PRICE = 85 + 35 * TIME)

    but the ESSENCE is that you did not notice it was a game of two trends, with an up-trend turning into a down-trend as the insiders decided to fleece you.

  28. marty says:

    Why the f… is everybody fideling around with the old data? where has the “pause” from 1998 until 2015 gone? I don’t believe the temperatures in the past have changed. The only explanation is that the data don’t fit to there expectation. If the data are wrong, than change the data. WUWT says its a “pause buster”

  29. Ola says:


    I am puzzled. If you look at Nasa’s websites, their temperature graphs show something completely different than this website. I thought Dr Spencer’s method was used?! Didn’t he used to work at Nasa?
    Could someone explain me why they are different? If there are different methods, how can someone even dream of coming to a conclusion? We will never even agree on what we observe, so you can’t be right or wrong.

    / O

  30. dave says:

    You pays your money and you takes your choice.

    It is still, IMO,

    “How many angels can dance on the tip of a pin?” stuff.

Leave a Reply