Home/BlogThe Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2025 was +0.36 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the June, 2025 anomaly of +0.48 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through July 2025) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
The 0.12 deg. C drop in global average temperature anomaly since last month was dominated by the extra-tropical Southern Hemisphere, which fell from +0.55 deg. C in June to +0.10 deg. C in July.
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 19 months (record highs are in red).
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.58 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.95 | +0.81 | +1.17 | +1.31 | +0.86 | +1.16 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.26 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.76 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 |
| 2024 | May | +0.78 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.05 | +0.20 | +0.53 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.37 | +0.64 | +0.91 |
| 2024 | July | +0.74 | +0.86 | +0.61 | +0.97 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.07 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.76 | +0.82 | +0.69 | +0.74 | +0.40 | +0.88 | +1.75 |
| 2024 | Sep | +0.81 | +1.04 | +0.58 | +0.82 | +1.31 | +1.48 | +0.98 |
| 2024 | Oct | +0.75 | +0.89 | +0.60 | +0.63 | +1.90 | +0.81 | +1.09 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.87 | +0.41 | +0.53 | +1.12 | +0.79 | +1.00 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.62 | +0.76 | +0.48 | +0.52 | +1.42 | +1.12 | +1.54 |
| 2025 | Jan | +0.45 | +0.70 | +0.21 | +0.24 | -1.06 | +0.74 | +0.48 |
| 2025 | Feb | +0.50 | +0.55 | +0.45 | +0.26 | +1.04 | +2.10 | +0.87 |
| 2025 | Mar | +0.57 | +0.74 | +0.41 | +0.40 | +1.24 | +1.23 | +1.20 |
| 2025 | Apr | +0.61 | +0.77 | +0.46 | +0.37 | +0.82 | +0.85 | +1.21 |
| 2025 | May | +0.50 | +0.45 | +0.55 | +0.30 | +0.15 | +0.75 | +0.99 |
| 2025 | June | +0.48 | +0.48 | +0.47 | +0.30 | +0.81 | +0.05 | +0.39 |
| 2025 | July | +0.36 | +0.49 | +0.23 | +0.45 | +0.32 | +0.40 | +0.53 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for July, 2025, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:
This month’s post is of great importance. It shows strong empirical evidence that the earth’s energy transport process, aka the climate system, is dynamically stable. This is saying that, after the 2023 – 2024 strong water vapour and temperature perturbation, the July point shows regression towards the expected trajectory. A similar regression was evident in response to the 1998 perturbation.
This means that the warmista Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC fable of “amplification through positive feedback by the radiative effect of increased water vapour” does not occur in nature. The “amplifier” is shown to be fake. The true dynamics of the process has no amplification.
This shows that the feedback, properly defined (not as the warmistas bizarrely or perversely define it), is negative. The whole warmista doctrine is blown away by this empirical observation.
Congratulations, Dr Spencer, on your magnificent and decisive assembly of empirical data.
A single month’s anomaly says very little in terms of trends or amplification. Like any other month,this anomaly falls well within the normal variability, and is well within the envelope of the long term positive trend.
Thank you, barry, for your comment. Yes, a single month’s anomaly, considered by itself, says little. But we are looking at a time series. The trend on the relevant time scale for water vapour feedback, shows, as you observe, a return to the “normal”, and is well within the envelope of the longer term positive trend. That is the point. If there were positive feedback, it would have shown itself as a persisting growth of the perturbation. We don’t know the cause of the longer term positive trend, but we don’t need to for this analysis. What matters here is that it wasn’t disrupted by an explosive extension of the perturbation that started in 2022 or 2023. The proposed “amplification” is said to arise from “positive feedback”, which the new data rule out when the sign is defined according to the natural definition.
That response indicates that there has to be damping and significant negative feedback in play in response to a perturbation which IMO was most likely an increase in the upper tropospheric humidity.
Good point, Christopher.
It’s a correction after the perturbation. Earth can handle it.
I was curious if the fall would be as rapid as the rise.
If the La Niña returns we could even see the global anomaly get back to 0.0!
Good point, Clint. La Nina is now the highest probability ENSO condition for next winter.
The current downturn is sure looking like the dissipation of the Hunga-Tonga eruption effects which should continue through 2025. That would likely get us back to a pre-2022 climate state.
CFSR data is showing a similar downward trend in 2025.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2025-08-01.gif
This also means all the climate change hype over the past 3+ years was based on a false premise. There really is no other good explanation for the current cooling.
Finally, we are still hanging on to the AMO warm phase which has now reached 30 years. It is due for a phase change. This could lead to as much as 0.6 C of cooling in the not too distant future.
I hope my humble effort based on 17 years of study of first future energy options and then, realising that what was proposed was a fraudulent moneymaking scheme, concentrating on the climate change that is all attributed to one small effc and dimishing effect of increasing CO2, so all blamed on AGW/enrgy use justification – for the fraud that monetises a non-problem in fact. That nuclear could fix much better.
After detailed consideration of the sensitivity/response of each of the main and obvious natural feedbacks kindly quantified by NASA, that ensure the wafer thin skins of water and atmosphere held onto the huge rock that is Earth by gravity, absorb and then release an equal amount of energy, and how each of these feedbacks will change with temperature, I produced a simple, empirical, dynamic energy balance – such as you suggest.
THe energy balance is maintained by the variability of the 240W/m^2 of LWIR enrgy losses with temperature. This powerful negative feedback to changing temperatures overcomes the tiny radiative perturbations from AGW effects, even if the full Hansen nonsense of 2W per metre per degree Kelvin positive feedback by WV is included.
The net feedback to any radiative perturbation to the whole System is about 9W per m² per degree NEGATIVE feedback. Most of this is convected latent heat that is later lost as radiation from the troposphere, 84W/m^2 that varies by 7% per degree SST so 6W/m^2, the next largest is S-B effect of 1.4% per degree on 240W/m^2 from mostly Tropospheric atmosphere but also direct radiative losses from the surface/ocean. So another 3.4W/m^2 deg K.
For example, the IPCC’s 1.6 W per m² AGW effect since 1850 will have been rebalanced by a temperature rise of about 0.2°C – hence the remaining 1.3° is natural change.
In models the natural change component is simply denied to attribute all change to modeller’s chosen variable, of course. Which is why the models so over-predict the actual change we measure.
Yet the natural cyclical change range, rate and periodicity have been measured and reported many times by people who study natural change. Who knew?
So climate models are complete fraud on the measured facts of nature we know. And the strong natural feedbacks that are a very real, obvious and inherent part of the natural enrgy balance control system can easily hold the balance against the natural radiative perturbations of the Earth’s orbital variability, nearly up to 100W/m^2 over a year at max eccentricity and the Laskar cycles in general. The much smaller AGW is barely noticeabale to this dominant negative feedback control.
In haste….. I hope you find merit in this approach. It’s real, simple to explain, easy to follow. NO models required.
Catt, Brian, An Empirical Quantification of the Negative Feedbacks of Earth’s Energy Balance (January 01, 2025).
Available at SSRN:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5220078
Hello, Brian Catt. I note with comfort that your excellent work corroborates the conclusion, from Dr Spencer’s most valuable empirical data, that the earth’s energy transport process, aka the climate system, is dynamically stable. This blows away the “official” warmista doctrine of “amplification by positive feedback through the radiative effects of increased water vapour”.
The warmista doctrine is propped up by two tricks. One: a dodgy and perverse definition of “positive feedback”. Two: considering the virtual or potential radiative effects of extra water vapour without regard to the evaporative and convective feedback components that are their necessary physical precursors.
I agree that the warming isn’t due to the multiple static shell theory expressed by the Greenplate effect promoted by Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC. But there is a single shell effect.
And there may be an element of a multiple shell effect probably detected by Roy’s work on climate sensitivity that showed negative feedback.
Folks in here have widely recognized that if the atmosphere gets warmer the surface will get warmer. But the Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC calls for atmosphere cooling via their multiple static shell theory. However, cooling of the upper troposphere would cause a destabilization of the atmosphere.
Also when looks at radiation physics a 241w/m2 mean input from the sun results in a mean stabilized temperature of 279K for .3 albedo making the GHE somewhere around 9K.
So what causes the 9K? Latent heat from evaporation of water into water vapor can easily account for that. A physical process that warms the atmosphere.
Total mean incoming solar radiation over appropriate periods of time will change both evaporation and albedo via Milankovic theories of orbital and axial perturbations.
The main short term perturbation is the one that led to the discovery of Neptune where the speed of Uranus in the sky confounded astronomers in that it wasn’t showing up where it was expected to show up on schedule.
In 2023 the earth has been arriving closer to the sun up to 5 days later than 1980 than was expected before this effect was detected in Uranus around 1821. It then took 28 years before they found the cause.
It would be nice to develop a model of earth’s orbital perturbations as that can easily be then used to see how much it effects total mean sunlight variations and predict their effects into the future. I have been grinding away on this with a lot less discipline and zeal that Milankovic had and my access to technology is severely limited. . .but not nearly as much as Milankovic was. I can say there is a strong correlation of the variations we know of in timing of planet positions and the bumps and valleys we see in our temperature and proxy data.
Why can we be sure that the customary Hansen−Schlesinger−IPCC “amplifier” is fake?
The “amplifier” of the customary Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC circuit diagram has a unilateral “gain” circuit element, and it has a unilateral summing junction. Such are artificial engineered devices, and do not occur in the atmosphere. Natural processes are dissipative or reciprocal, practically the opposite of unilateral. Dissipative processes include friction, thermal conduction, and diffusion, involving self-feedback, with negative elements on the leading diagonal of the matrix of rate coefficients. In contrast, the customary “amplifier” circuit diagram excludes self-feedback by setting zero values for the elements on the leading diagonal of the matrix of rate coefficients. This makes the eigenvalues of the matrix either purely real, one negative, the other positive (necessarily dynamically unstable), or both purely imaginary and of opposite signs (necessitating undamped finite oscillatory responses to perturbations). Such dynamics are unnatural and unphysical. That shows that the “amplifier” is fake.
The hard logic to get past on is 1) The persistent argument around here that the surface warms because of a warm atmosphere that has some radiant capabilities; and 2) that these radiant capabilities actually cause a loss of heat such that the atmosphere doesn’t allegedly get hot enough to cool properly.
So to explain this a model is constructed with multiple static layers from a GPE model making it the only such model that works without trapping convection and preventing the mixing of gases in the atmosphere.
Seems to me that because of convection of gases unable to emit low frequency radiation the problem is that the atmosphere would be hotter than the surface without greenhouse gases to cool it. And it would be hotter because the variable input of solar light bringing the potential of a higher atmospheric temperature based upon the heat of the daytime getting trapped in the atmosphere by gases that either emit no IR or only parts of the IR spectrum (i.e. poor full IR spectrum emitters) preventing the atmosphere from cooling.
So there is a requirement for a single layer of radiating gases to bring the surface temperature up to the temperature of the atmosphere where the heat has been trapped by non-IR emitting gases and poorly emitting gases and you have lapse reversals in the stratosphere and thermosphere where you have UV absorbing oxygen species and CO2 can’t counteract that and do there what is claimed for it to do in the multiple static layer model. the problem is the multistatic layer model is in fact individual free floating molecules like a barbarian army or militia without a general staff that runs like the dickens at the first shot.
So what to do? Well you preach that there isn’t another factor that could be causing the warming while doing your best to ignore all other explanations explored by science up to that point.
So the answer on how to convince me otherwise is do your homework.
The proper way to define dynamical stability in the present context is through dynamical systems theory (e.g. ‘Dynamical Systems’ by G.D. Birkhoff (1927), American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI). All the eigenvalues of the matrix of rate coefficients must be negative (or, exceptionally, if complex, must have negative real parts). A single positive eigenvalue will make the process dynamically unstable.
That is a rather theoretical definition, which we can’t directly verify, because we don’t well enough understand the details of the dynamics.
The appropriate empirical definition, according to dynamical systems theory, is that, for dynamical stability, a substantial perturbation should always be followed by a rapid return to the currently expected trajectory of the process. Such a return signifies negative feedback.
On the other hand, positive feedback as defined above would have resulted in a rapid extension of the perturbation. Instead, this month’s new data rule out positive feedback.
Looks like I was correct in saying that https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2025-08-01.gif would well predict the outcome of UAH global temperatures.
You were correct. I suspect if we had more data we would be seeing and increase in cloudiness as the main driver of the cooling. This follows Christopher’s point that we are seeing negative feedback.
The Earth’s climate is slowly returning to its pre Hunga-Tonga eruption state. The only response by the alarmist crew will be to push longer term trends which are still influenced by this temporary warming. They will have no explanation for the cooling.
What are you talking about? Variability is not contested by anyone. Why would anyone have difficulty explaining recent months being cooler than the latest peak in UAH temps?
Are you imagining that someone said the recent high temps are here to stay? What dream are you dreaming about this mythical ‘alarmist crew’?
Thank you, barry, for your comment. Indeed, as you suggest, no clear thinking person will say that “the recent high temps are here to stay”. But there are others who support the “official” warmista Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC theoretical doctrine of “amplification by positive feedback through the radiative effects of increased water vapour”. Their theory predicts the persistence of the recent high temps. Dr Spencer’s data blow that theory away.
WV amplification is about tropospheric WV.
Hunga Tonga injected WV into the stratosphere, and I don’t know of anyone who suggested that this injection would not eventually fall out, nor of anyone who suggested that this had any relation to the WV amplification effect, which is a feedback to tropospheric background temperature.
IOW, I’m not sure what prompts you to conflate two separate issues.
IF the HT WV injection had a significant warming effect (consensus is that it didn’t), NASA and other bodies expected that effect to dissipate in several years, along with the elevated stratospheric WV concentration:
“The excess water vapor injected by the Tonga volcano, on the other hand, could remain in the stratosphere for several years…
The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere and would not be enough to noticeably exacerbate climate change effects.”
https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/
Thank you, barry, for your comment. To get from the sea to the stratosphere, the water had to pass through the troposphere, and to cycle back to the sea, the stratospheric water has to pass through the troposphere. You are right to observe that people haven’t been talking about tropospheric water vapour in this scenario. I think they know that water vapour in the troposphere is such an example of negative feedback that it is hardly in dispute. If there were genuine positive feedback, even the unreported amounts of water vapour that were put and are still being put into the troposphere would have interacted with the increased tropospheric temperature, and triggered the instability.
“If there were genuine positive feedback, even the unreported amounts of water vapour that were put and are still being put into the troposphere would have interacted with the increased tropospheric temperature, and triggered the instability.”
No. Tropospheric water vapour content is determined by temperature and pressure. Once it falls from the stratosphere it rains out in less than a week. That’s why WV is seen as a feedback, not a forcing, to changes in tropospheric temperature. And that’s why there are no measurements of changes in tropospheric WV concentration.
Also, the amount of WV in the stratosphere is far smaller than in the troposphere. While stratospheric WV increased by 10%, the same amount of WV (146 Tg) in the troposphere amounts to an increase of 0.002% (of a total 13,000,000 Tg). The HT WV injection had virtually no impact on total WV content in the troposphere, and would have contributed next to zero warming in that layer of the atmosphere, differently to the stratosphere.
I’m afraid you are alone in trying to conflate these two ideas of tropospheric WV feedback and HT water vapour injection into the stratosphere.
“I think they know that water vapour in the troposphere is such an example of negative feedback that it is hardly in dispute.”
My understanding is that water vapor added to the troposphere increases the GHE, which would be positive feedback.
barry, the HTE can be seen in the UAH graph above. Note the spike in anomalies.
It’s funny that your “consensus” can’t see it. The HTE was able to do what the bogus GHE can’t.
Obviously your “consensus” is jealous….
Poor Clint has no idea what’s being talked about.
barry, if you weren’t such a child I wouldn’t have to explain your own words to you:
“IF the HT WV injection had a significant warming effect (consensus is that it didn’t)…”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1709991
When you grow up, you’ll learn to NOT make false accusations.
In 1937, Soviet census officials were disappeared for reporting numbers Stalin didn’t like.
In 2025, Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because the jobs numbers made him look bad.
Different century, same instinct: if the facts don’t flatter the regime, shoot the messenger and burn the ledger.
An alternative view on this is that successive US governments had removed the voices that didn’t fit the narrative and Trump reinstated them.
That alternative view collapses under even modest scrutiny.
The BLS operates with a long-standing reputation for methodological rigor and independence across administrations of both parties. Its unemployment figures are routinely corroborated by multiple independent sources, including ADP, Moody’s, and private-sector payroll and economic analytics firms.
If a president fires a statistical agency head not for malfeasance or inaccuracy, but for publishing data that conflicts with his preferred narrative, that is not restoring balance; that is undermining institutional integrity. Dismissing verified facts in favor of political convenience is not reform. It is propaganda.
He should keep Biden’s appointment because you think so?
“He should keep Biden’s appointment because you think so?”
Yes, historically these are apolitical appointments that serve 4 y terms. Biden kept his Trump appointee.
There is no good reason to turn the BLS into a political operation.
Indeed this reminds us of the tradition in the Soviet Union, which was to avoid reporting bad news to the leaders, else you could lose your job or be sent to Siberia.
This led ultimately to failures like Chernobyl, and finally the collapse of the Soviet Union.
She was fired for incompetence. Sorry to ruin your TDS fantasies.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/08/bls-has-lengthy-history-of-inaccuracies-incompetence/
You are missing the bigger picture. It wasn’t the latest numbers that led to the firing. It was the updates to the May numbers. Those numbers weren’t even close according to the revision. Trump fired the head of the department because they were reporting junk numbers.
Richard M.
The BLS estimates the employment rate for over 100 million people by sampling “just” ~200,000 people, of necessity, an inaccurate exercise.
The 90% confidence interval for the monthly change in total non-farm employment from the establishment survey is on the order of plus or minus 136,000.
So, the predicted rise of 73,000 jobs in July could turn out to be either a minus 70,000 or plus 200,000, in round numbers.
The discrediting whitehouse.gov propaganda can’t change facts:
” Its unemployment figures are routinely corroborated by multiple independent sources, including ADP, Moody’s, and private-sector payroll and economic analytics firms. “
That really was not the issue for Trump. It was the revision of 1/4 million jobs in previous months, that possibly could have given him more ammo in his fight with the Fed on interest rates for this latest round.
BillyBob
” … the revision of 1/4 million jobs in previous months… ”
Where the heck do you have that from?
Why don’t you present a trustworthy source for your allegation?
Thats ironic Bindidon, the source is the BLS. The revisions for May and June lowered net employment over 250,000. The talk on CNBC today is that the probability of an interest rate cut in September has increased due the soft job market. But I guess we will see next month. My point is that if the numbers were more accurate in May/June, we may have had a different Fed statement this month.
Apos BilliyBob, you were of course right, no idea why I myself rejected what I had seen already :–(
But nevertheless, you shoud put this 250,000 into the correct context.
I tried to explain this to the MAGAmaniacs Clint R and his so dirty insulting acolyte Anderson:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1710208
I suppose one could also relate the Biden/clinton/obama persecutions of all things Trump, as well, to Stalin. But what any of this has to do eith the June anomoly is beyond me.
I think that makes this the 4th warmest July in the UAH record. Well down on the last two years, and slightly below 1998.
How do you see the rest of 2025 turning out?
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2025-08-01.gif
Top 10 warmest July’s
Year Anomaly
1 2024 0.74
2 2023 0.56
3 1998 0.38
4 2025 0.36
5 2022 0.32
6 2020 0.30
7 2016 0.26
8 2019 0.24
9 2010 0.20
10 2021 0.19
8 of the 10 warmest have happened in the last 10 years.
https://i.imgur.com/ICJwTTd.png
My estimate for 2025, based on a simple linear projection, drops slightly to 0.49 +/- 0.10C.
https://i.imgur.com/iJPsby8.png
But I think it’s more likely the projection will drop over the rest of the year.
This month’s anomaly is now just slightly above the long term trend.
https://i.imgur.com/PSW1auq.png
These non-systematic step changes have set up sinusoidal patterns after the step change. The crests of the sinusoids tend to be below the peaks. Curious to see where the trough sets.
Yes, stephen p anderson, indeed, as you observe, the subsequent crests are below the peak. The “official” warmista Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC “amplifier” model says that such oscillations will be undamped; Dr Spencer’s empirical data refute that: they show that such possible oscillations are damped.
What is your prediction for this month?
“The ‘official’ warmista Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC ‘amplifier’ model says that such oscillations will be undamped”
No. WV amplification has nothing to do with interannual variability.
Also “Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC” sounds like the latest pejorative catchphrase empty of meaning but full of bilious rhetoric.
Right now 2 of August 2025, according to Copernicus, from the peak of 18 of November 2023, in terms of surface temperatures, it has decreased 0,66dC globally. From average troposphere, from the peak of April 2024 (+0.94dC), it has decreased 0,58dC. It looks like after Hunga Tonga, temps are returning to the mean, and earth cooling a little bit. Hope it continues in the future.
The surface temperature of the ocean is exactly as it should be at this time of year. In the western Pacific, it reaches 30 C (more can’t because of the pressure near the surface and the increase in convection in these areas).
https://i.ibb.co/1tXPRBz7/cdas-sflux-sst-global-1.png
It’s only one month, but it is a relief to see those gobsmacking temperatures reverting to the long term trend.
Here’s why BLS revises numbers:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbers.htm
The size of the revisions are almost always less than a percent of the total workforce.
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cestn.htm#Benchmarks
Trump and the Repubs are creating a false scandal, presumably based on Trump’s political ego. BLS initial figures are based on 70% of the data, and their revisions climb to over 90% of the nationwide data.
An initial total jobs estimate from 70% of the data that is less than a percent off the final estimate with 90+% of the data is a very good error window.
But because revisions to monthly changes in the labour force are a much larger percentage, they can become a political football. But Trump has gone way beyond the usual politicking and actually attacked the bureau for what happens normally.
The President can have the person of his choosing.
And the rest of us can draw the conclusion of our choosing about his lack of character and competence.
It appears you’ve already drawn your conclusion.
There was no need to fire her. This was an overtly political act of retribution.
And no, the pres cannot simply install whoever they want. It is a senate-confirmed position, and because it is a non-partisan role the senate always confirms with significant majority.
Trump has thrown a tantrum and shown everyone who works in government that he might nix you if you tell a truth that he doesn’t like. Petty tyrant.
She works for Trump. He decides what is necessary.
His ego decided it was necessary to fire her just because he didn’t like the revised numbers. He said it plainly himself – the revisions were done to “make me look bad.” BLS revised as usual and he got upset about the optics.
Since 1884 when it was created, the BLS has made revisions, sometimes large, to the initial report after further data came in. This is the first time in 140 years that a president has fired the head of the BLS.
You keep justifying this unprecedented action by referring to the president’s authority, not by the quality of the decision. This is the very definition of an authoritarian mindset.
In the very same vein:
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/08/03/jeanine-pirro-ex-star-de-fox-news-confirmee-procureure-de-washington-par-le-senat-americain-sur-demande-de-donald-trump_6626393_3210.html
” Former Fox News star Jeanine Pirro, confirmed as Washington’s U.S. Attorney by the U.S. Senate at Donald Trump’s request
This 74-year-old judge, who is taking on one of the most important positions in the country, has written several books in support of the U.S. president and shared conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, which Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden. “
christopher…”This month’s post is of great importance. It shows strong empirical evidence that the earth’s energy transport process….”
***
I agree with your post, I just wish you’d refrain from calling it energy and refer to it as heat. The word energy is proper but it is far too general. What type of energy is being transferred? Also, there is a move afoot to discredit heat as a form of energy and heat is the problem we are facing, not so much a generic energy.
Gravitational energy holds our atmosphere in place as the planet rotates, otherwise Earth could not support life since the atmosphere would drift off into space. There would be no climate without gravitational energy, which creates a force on mass, attracting mass,including atmospheric gases to the surface.
If we say a mass has gravitational energy, it means ‘something’ is attracting the smaller mass to the greater mass of the planet. We have no idea what that something is, which is true of any kind of energy. Thermal energy, aka heat, is a reference to energy associated with atoms, in fact, heat has been defined as the kinetic energy of atoms by Clausius. That can apply to the internal energy within an atom or the kinetic energy of an atom in motion, even to the vibration of atoms in a solid.
Clausius, who is credited with the definition of internal energy in the 1st law, originally defined internal energy as internal heat plus internal work. However, he made it clear that it was the internal heat that is responsible for the internal atomic vibrations that constitute internal work. He was talked into dropping the dual energy designation by Thompson, an egregious error IMHO. Today, we have people talking about internal energy as some mystical entity that is lumped under the generic description of plain energy.
I have argued here with those who insist that heat is a philosophical entity that indicates a transfer of generic energy. They refuse to specify which type of energy is being transferred due to a temperature difference and by definition it can only be heat that is being transferred. Ergo, the modern definition of heat is reduced to a transfer of heat, not thermal energy itself.
We live in confused scientific times.
Temperature is a human definition, based initially on the relative level of heat. The heat in water at the freezing point of water and the heat in water at the boiling point of water were adopted as set points. 0C was designated by Celsius as the freezing point of water and 100C was designated as the boiling point. Linear gradations in between designated temperatures between.
Maxwell, along with Boltzmann, muddied the waters by defining temperature as the average kinetic energy of molecules in a theoretical gas. However, Celsius (1742) and Fahrenheit (1724) had already defined temperature using the freezing and boiling points of water as set points. Clearly, temperature was a human definition and not a natural phenomenon like heat energy. Heat infers atomic motion whereas temperature has a vagueness about it.
Where has all the warming gone?
Long time cooling.
Where has all the warming gone?
Long time no see.
Where has all the warming gone?
To the ocean I hear them say,
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
My apologies to Pete Seeger.
The oceans remain at near record temperatures.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2
And well above the pre 2023 levels.
Click the Anomaly map to see the massive heatwave in the Northern Pacific that we have had for 4 years.
Ho~g~le
In the previous monthly report thread, you copied and pasted the WUWT stuff about Marcott and Mann concerning past reconstructions.
Typical pseudoskepticism mostly based on singular points grossly amplified to a global of course negative appreciation.
*
Feel free to continue this discrediting sequence with the next element in the chain:
Ranking of tree-ring based temperature reconstructions of the past
millennium
J. Esper & al. (2016)
https://www.climatology.uni-mainz.de/files/2016/03/Esper_2016_QSR.pdf
*
” Tree-ring chronologies are widely used to reconstruct high-to low-frequency variations in growing season temperatures over centuries to millennia.
The relevance of these timeseries in large-scale climate reconstructions is often determined by the strength of their correlation against instrumental temperature data.
However, this single criterion ignores several important quantitative and qualitative characteristics of tree-ring chronologies. Those characteristics are (i) data homogeneity, (ii) sample replication, (iii) growth coherence, (iv) chronology development, and (v) climate signal including the correlation with instrumental data.
Based on these 5 characteristics, a reconstruction-scoring scheme is proposed and applied to 39 published, millennial-length temperature reconstructions from Asia, Europe, North America, and the Southern Hemisphere. Results reveal no reconstruction scores highest in every category and each has their own strengths and weaknesses. ”
*
Addendum
Großräumige Temperaturrekonstruktionen
mit Baumringen
Jan Esper (2022)
https://www.climatology.uni-mainz.de/files/2022/11/Esper_2022_AWLM.pdf
Just so we’re clear, Binny, I know the Auditor’s stuff inside out. But if you are to bait Walter as you baited for years our bunch of cranks on two of their three main talking points, you are on your own.
Not my pig, not my farm.
As so often from you, Willard: a completely useless, counterproductive, egomaniacal post.
Will you ever be able to stop yourself from rambling when it makes absolutely no sense?
Lass mich verdammt nochmal in Ruhe!
Warnings can be useful, dearest Binny:
https://climateaudit.org/tag/esper/
But one needs not be tone deaf.
Besides, I was mostly making sure he got the memo about something he was querying earlier.
Carry on.
Willard boy
Who would care what your good old stupid friend Mc Intyre says?
Few really cares about tree rings, Binny, including you. So why handwave to something you do not want to discuss, from another thread that had died? It’s not only ignorant, it’s self-defeating.
You’re on your own, pseudo-luckwarmer. Best of luck.
Ho~g~le
Let me add this comment confirming what I mean with
” Typical pseudoskepticism mostly based on singular points grossly amplified to a global of course negative appreciation. ”
**
Look at your post wrt my evaluation of the German Weather Service’s data:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-february-2025-0-50-deg-c/#comment-1699827
*
You wrote – without having the slightest idea what the people you quote mean:
” A quality control level of 5 is classified as ‘historic, subjective procedures’. ”
*
Did you ever ask the DWD team what they mean with ‘subjective‘, and what it means in exact terms of uncertainty?
Of course you didn’t, Ho~g~le.
*
But the very best comes a bit later, when you dare to write:
” Given this, aligning pre-1980 data with post-1980 data would not be ideal. The document supports this:
“When using the ‘historical/’ and ‘recent/’ directories together, the temporal overlap must be taken into account and that the type of quality control differs.” ”
*
If you were an experienced engineer, you would have compared the two directories, as I did years ago before my first evaluation.
And you would have seen that ‘historical’ vs. ‘current’ has nothing to do with your supposed ‘pre-1980 data vs. post-1980 data’, but rather means ‘fixed, validated’ as opposed to ‘processed, but not yet validated’ data.
For example, on January 8, 2025, the ‘historical’ data for
00044 20070401 20250802 52.9336 8.2370 Großenkneten
ended on December 31, 2023, while the ‘recent’ data began on October 13, 2022.
*
The reason for your ignorance is obvious: you very probably would never bother to open compressed files.
*
For people like you, it would be best not to publish posts that ultimately only reflect your own lack of technical skills.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Nashville is headed into its 27th straight day in the 90s on Monday, which puts this heat wave in rare territory. The National Weather Service says it is the longest streak since 2022 and among the ten longest 90-degree streaks on record for the city.
https://wpln.org/post/peak-heat-expected-in-nashville-continuing-streak-of-90-degree-days/
I wonder why contrarians don’t worry that climate models could have underunderestimNashville’s last two years.
where are you going with this one Willard? all you have said is it is neither unusual or unprecedented, when did the instrumental records begin in Nashville? If they are less than 200.years old, all you are talking about is the odd warm spell in a warmer climate regime.we have little wind forecast for the UK tomorrow,if it blows some ones hat off it will be all over the media.
The last three days it has been in the low 80’s. Not sure where Willard is getting his info. Maybe it is the same people who produced MODTRAN.
Which part of my last sentence you do not get, Ian, and do you realize scientists know Antarctica was a verdant paradise more often than not?
One very big disadvantage of being a selfish asshat is that your beliefs carry no currency.
Yep starting from July 2, all of the rest of July had highs in the 90s.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/nashville/37243/july-weather/351090
This Summer has not been bad at all. Several years ago, we had maybe a half dozen days above 100. This year I’ve not seen any days above 90.
binny…”In the previous monthly report thread, you copied and pasted the WUWT stuff about Marcott and Mann concerning past reconstructions”
***
In their critique of Mann’s data in the hockey stick, NAS disqualified their claims on two points…
1)Mann et al used only one tree ring sample for the 13th or 14th century. Subsequently, NAS raised their base claim to 1600 from 1000 AD, The IPCC were so embarrassed, they raised it to 1850.
2)NAS disqualified their usage of pine bristlecone upon which they proxied the entire 20th century. Ergo, the blade and lower portions of the stick handle were null and void as was most of the 20th century.
When the pine bristlecone began showing cooling in the 1960’s, MBH solved the problem with chicanery. They simply snipped off the cooling proxy data and replaced it with real surface data.
Don’t know how you can defend an egregious alarmist like Mann.
https://climateaudit.org/2006/06/22/nas-panel-report/
Robertson
You are not even able to properly read comments you ‘reply’ to.
Only people as dumb as you or even dumber (if that is possible) can appreciate your clueless posts.
nate…you posted a link to ESTIMATED ocean temperatures. Here are the real, measured temperatures…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Doesn’t look so hot to me without the climate analyzers bright reds and oranges to fool people into thinking the oceans are boiling hot.
Robertson
” Here are the real, measured temperatures… ”
*
Here too you behave, as always, as the ignoramus de service, as always unable to accurately understand the meaning of ‘estimate’, let alone to inform yourself about what is ‘real’ and ‘measured’.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2#info
Atmospheric temperature measurements through evaluation of O2 emissions in the 60 GHz range are based on swaths mostly much broader than the 0.25 x 0.25 degree, and are subject to uncertainty much greater than that for ground-based measurements:
” Satellite-based oxygen (O2) sensing in the lower troposphere is subject to significant uncertainties, primarily due to factors like cloud cover, aerosol scattering, and the inherent challenges of measuring a relatively uniform and abundant atmospheric component. While satellites excel at measuring total column O2, retrieving O2 concentrations specifically within the lower troposphere (the atmospheric layer closest to the Earth’s surface) is more difficult. ”
*
For you and the people follwing your nonsensical posts, anything coming from UAH is by definition ‘correct’.
Gordo! I think Alberta wants to be 51st state.
BACK AT THE RANCH
CMN: An auto parts maker in Detroit just had to layoff 100 workers and shut down a warehouse. The owner specifically blamed tariffs.
STEPHEN MIRAN: It’s always convenient to blame political changes when your business fails
Winning!!!
Friday, Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because he didn’t like the numbers.
Sunday, he said “You know, we’ve cut drug prices by 1200, 1300, 1400, 1,500%. I don’t mean 50%. I mean 1400, 1,500%.”
Wait ’till he finds out that any “cut” over 100% would be a refund!
The thing about the economy that every dictator learns sooner rather than later is that you just can’t hide bad news forever.
But the wildest part about Trump’s innumeracy is he’s covering up the fact that his name is all over the Epstein files, and he’s about to pardon a convicted child sex trafficker to keep his coverup going.
No, he fired her because he believes she’s incompetent. Those are certainly grounds for dismissal.
” No, he fired her because he believes she’s incompetent. ”
Typical, utterly stupid lie of a stubborn MAGAmaniac.
*
The Trump~ing boy:
” In a message on his social network, Truth Social, on Monday, August 4, the President of the United States wrote: “I will choose an exceptional replacement,” after repeating that the data had been, in his opinion, “FAKED” for political purposes to “minimize the success” of his early term. ”
*
The whole world knows that the Trump-ing boy fired Erika McEntarfer just because she dared to release data he didn’t like, but Anderson (you know, the guy who calls me a “Nazi” or “fascist”) will endlessly protect his religiously beloved golden calf.
*
The Trump~ing boy again:
” The president accused Erika McEntarfer of rigging employment figures, without providing any evidence of any data manipulation. Since early 2024, she has headed the Department of Labor’s Statistics Service, which publishes the benchmark figures on employment, productivity, and price indices (CPI) in the United States. ”
*
BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg3xrrzdr0o
Trump fires lead official on economic data as tariffs cause market drop
US President Donald Trump has fired the boss of one of America’s most important economic institutions hours after weaker-than-expected jobs data stoked further alarm about his tariff policy.
On social media Trump claimed that Erika McEntarfer, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), had “RIGGED” jobs figures “to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad”.
*
The US currently experience with the Trump~ing boy the worst president ever, even far worse than Double U or Nixon.
New jobs, as reported by BLS:
Month—–Estimate—–Revision
May—–144,000—–19,000
June—–147,000—–14,000
Incompetence or malfeasance, or both?
The point is — if they can’t do any better than that, we don’t need them.
Drain the swamp!
Of course, the cult kids LOVE incompetence and malfeasance, just look at their fervent support for the CO2 nonsense.
Blinny,
Nazi boy who doesn’t like being called a Nazi but continuously sounds like a Nazi. He can fire her because of the way she looks. That’s his prerogative. But he does believe she’s incompetent and that’s also his prerogative. Typical of a Nazi socialist wanting to keep his Deep State buddies in positions of influence. Why would a German Nazi even care? Because leftists are all one big happy dumb family.
The cult kids hate free-market capitalism. They are the masterminds. They should control the economy, and the atmosphere, and anything else that advances their utopian agenda. Blinny, where is your leftist utopia? Where has it ever been? The Third Reich? Marxist Russia? Cuba? Venezuela? Where?
If Clint R wasn’t a poor ball-on-a-string ignoramus and Anderson a dirty, malfeasant asshole permanently insulting me as a NAZI, they would have a different look at what a liar his idol, the Trump~ing boy, in reality is.
To understand what REALLY happens, they should stop KISS-ing, and consider sources showing a different view on non-farm payrolls, e.g.
https://think.ing.com/uploads/charts/_w800/Julypayrolls.png
Here we clearly can see it: the private sector losses in October and even July 2024 were higher than in both May and June 2025.
*
In the ING report, we read:
” September cut looks increasingly likely even with rising inflation
The mediocre headline figure for July is one thing, but the huge revisions suggest that the jobs market has lost momentum earlier than thought and the pressure from the President for Fed action is only going to intensify after this.
The statements from the two Fed Governors who voted for rate cuts this week – Chris Waller and Michelle Bowman – commented that they felt the Fed was being “overly cautious” with the risk that policy is “falling behind the curve”.
This sentiment is likely going to be felt more broadly within the Fed after today’s numbers, especially with tariffs set to eat into household spending power and corporate profits, thus creating a major headwind for growth. ”
https://think.ing.com/articles/weak-jobs-report-reignites-prospect-of-imminent-us-rate-cuts/
*
It’s astonishing how uneducated the Trump~ing boy, his staff, and his MAGA-obsessed populace are when it comes to economics. They all fail to grasp that the main consequence of rising US tariffs isn’t that America is getting bigger again.
It’s that costs for businesses and consumers in the US are rising, resulting in ever more job losses.
*
But wait: It won’t be long before the cowardly Trump~ing boy once again blames Biden for everything he himself is to blame for.
No Blinny, Trump understands our best hope for continued US prosperity is to bring jobs back to the US. After WWII we were the world leader in manufacturing. And yes, Japanese auto manufacturing forced US manufacturers to do better. They were trained by an American. But US policy after that was to allow foreign countries to export their cheap labor into the US and not allow US goods into their countries. Walmart switched from buy American to kill American jobs. That was crony capitalism, not free-market capitalism. Trump knows we need a fair playing field. Japanese won’t import US rice or beef cattle. The Brits won’t import US cars. Canada has restrictions on US imports. Europe extorts and fines large American companies like Apple and Google. China steals our intellectual property and sends students to spy. Enough is enough.
” The cult kids hate free-market capitalism. ”
*
No. The so-called ‘cult kids’ (1) do not ‘hate’ anything, and (2) understand very well the concept.
Rather do the MAGA-obsessed idiots not understand at all that the Trump~ing boy’s tariff idiocy is the exact opposite of free market capitalism, especially when tariffs on Brazilian products, for example, have nothing to do with economics, but only with the political will to help Jair Bolsonaro, the man who, like him, tried to overturn the democratic elections in his country and stage a coup.
*
What the Trump~ing boy is doing is slowly establishing a dictatorship, which he himself hinted at so unequivocally at a rally during his 2024 campaign:
“If I win this election, you won’t have to vote anymore.”
*
Due to his increasingly dictatorial behavior – something the overwhelming majority of US citizens absolutely abhor – the Republicans will never be able to win the midterm elections.
And for this exact reason, these will very probably not take place – unless he and all these Republicans hopelessly loyal to him are all stopped decisively.
*
The cult clearly is on the other side.
” No Blinny, Trump understands our best hope for continued US prosperity is to bring jobs back to the US. ”
*
This has now become the blatant hallmark of absolute ignorance.
You’re not only evil and filthy enough to constantly insult others in the worst possible way; you’re also stupid and ignorant enough to believe your MAGA idol’s megalomaniac and egomaniacal ‘politics’ could ever lead to jobs returning to the US.
Due to the current tariff hurdles, some somewhat spooked megacorporations will have a short-term economic interest in temporarily relocating some locations to the US.
However, the result will, at best, be the relocation of robots, not human jobs – except for the bloated bureaucracy of these branches.
*
How can you be so childishly stupid, Anderson?
I’m ending this conversation now: Your insulting behavior and the stupidity of your 6.9-liter pickup driver mentality are simply too much.
MAGA made Trump, not the other way around. He’s doing what we want.
Bindi, your TDS is showing, again.
Willard says,one very big disadvantage being a selfish aashat is that your beliefs carry no currency,the truth will set you free,just as i said the BBC rolled out their climate editor on the 6pm news,no mention of past summer storms,Fastnet and others must have alluded him. Its a clown show.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Donald has asked NASA employees to draw up plans to end at least two major satellite missions, according to current and former NASA staffers. If the plans are carried out, one of the missions would be permanently terminated, because the satellite would burn up in the atmosphere.
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/04/nx-s1-5453731/nasa-carbon-dioxide-satellite-mission-threatened
Win! Win! Win!
Republican Karen Notices Climate Change and Demands to Speak With The Manager.
https://youtu.be/HCIhkXh7HBw
Found this quite interesting
https://tinyurl.com/mrx9su3c
D. M. McLean’s historically important study was published 47 years ago, on August 4, 1978. It offered a concise, qualitative narrative of terminal Mesozoic greenhouse conditions and highlighted the potential analogies to AGW.
The paper proposed that the late Cretaceous “terminal Mesozoic” climate was characterized by high atmospheric CO2, global warmth, and extensive greenhouse conditions; ideas that were forward-looking at the time.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.201.4354.401
Overall, McLean’s work is recognized as a pioneering but now superseded conceptual model that helped stimulate decades of high-resolution paleoclimate research.
Did you find something you believe in, Ark? I bet that find doesn’t explain how CO2 can “heat the planet”, huh? Yea,
“CO2 heating” is all beliefs, not science.
If you understood the science, you could easily find something wrong with this:
https://postimg.cc/yJFTRZzW
But, you’d have to know something about radiative physics and thermodynamics….
BACK AT THE RANCH
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy will announce expedited plans this week to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, the first major action by the former Fox News host as the interim NASA administrator.
WINNNNN