Home/BlogThis month I’m adding Australia to the Global, USA48, and Canada time series plots.
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2026 was +0.53 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, which is up from the April, 2026 value of +0.39 deg. C..
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through May 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
A Note on These Tropospheric Temperature Anomalies vs. Surface Temperature Anomalies
It has been a while since I have discussed the main reason why our global monthly satellite-based tropospheric temperature anomalies can sometimes differ by quite a lot from the global monthly surface temperature anomalies. A good example is the last 2 months. In April, our +0.39 deg. C anomaly was statistically identical to the +0.38 deg. C surface temperature anomaly from the NOAA Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS, which I take from WeatherBell.com maps). But then last month (May) the CDAS anomaly went down slightly (+ 0.34 deg. C), while our UAH anomaly went up considerably (+0.53 deg. C). These month-to-month fluctuations in the relationship between surface and tropospheric temperature changes are almost certainly dominated by fluctuations in moist convective heat transfer from the surface to the free troposphere. When there is a burst of extra convection (usually in the tropics), it cools the surface and warms the free troposphere more than normal, which is probably what happened last month (May).
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 29 months (record highs are in red).
| Year | Mon | Globe | NHem | SHem | Tropic | US48 | Arctic | Aust. | Can. |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.57 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 | +0.97 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.94 | +0.81 | +1.16 | +1.31 | +0.85 | +1.16 | +2.45 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.25 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.76 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 | +1.39 |
| 2024 | May | +0.77 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.04 | +0.20 | +0.52 | +0.67 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.36 | +0.63 | +0.91 | +0.19 |
| 2024 | July | +0.73 | +0.86 | +0.61 | +0.96 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.07 | +1.15 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.75 | +0.81 | +0.69 | +0.74 | +0.40 | +0.88 | +1.75 | +1.36 |
| 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 | +1.89 | +0.81 | +1.09 | +0.89 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.87 | +0.40 | +0.53 | +1.11 | +0.79 | +1.00 | +1.61 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.61 | +0.75 | +0.47 | +0.52 | +1.41 | +1.12 | +1.54 | +1.65 |
| 2025 | Jan | +0.45 | +0.70 | +0.21 | +0.24 | -1.07 | +0.74 | +0.48 | +1.04 |
| 2025 | Feb | +0.50 | +0.55 | +0.45 | +0.26 | +1.03 | +2.10 | +0.87 | -0.35 |
| 2025 | Mar | +0.57 | +0.73 | +0.41 | +0.40 | +1.24 | +1.23 | +1.20 | +0.80 |
| 2025 | Apr | +0.61 | +0.76 | +0.46 | +0.36 | +0.81 | +0.85 | +1.21 | +0.45 |
| 2025 | May | +0.50 | +0.45 | +0.55 | +0.30 | +0.15 | +0.75 | +0.98 | +0.81 |
| 2025 | June | +0.48 | +0.48 | +0.47 | +0.30 | +0.80 | +0.05 | +0.39 | -0.22 |
| 2025 | July | +0.36 | +0.49 | +0.23 | +0.45 | +0.32 | +0.40 | +0.53 | -0.23 |
| 2025 | Aug | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.16 | -0.06 | +0.82 | +0.11 | +0.62 |
| 2025 | Sep | +0.53 | +0.56 | +0.49 | +0.35 | +0.38 | +0.77 | +0.30 | +2.44 |
| 2025 | Oct | +0.53 | +0.52 | +0.55 | +0.24 | +1.12 | +1.42 | +1.67 | +2.59 |
| 2025 | Nov | +0.43 | +0.59 | +0.27 | +0.24 | +1.32 | +0.78 | +0.36 | +1.47 |
| 2025 | Dec | +0.30 | +0.45 | +0.15 | +0.19 | +2.10 | +0.32 | +0.37 | -1.86 |
| 2026 | Jan | +0.35 | +0.51 | +0.19 | +0.09 | +0.30 | +1.40 | +0.95 | +1.17 |
| 2026 | Feb | +0.39 | +0.54 | +0.23 | +0.03 | +1.91 | -0.48 | +0.73 | +0.32 |
| 2026 | Mar | +0.38 | +0.33 | +0.42 | +0.07 | +3.74 | -0.48 | +1.14 | -3.17 |
| 2026 | Apr | +0.39 | +0.43 | +0.34 | +0.23 | +1.20 | +0.30 | +0.70 | -0.89 |
| 2026 | May | +0.53 | +0.53 | +0.53 | +0.58 | +0.21 | +0.33 | +0.10 | +0.21 |
| Year | Mon | Globe | NHem | SHem | Tropic | US48 | Arctic | Aust. | Can. |
Time Series Plots for USA48, Canada, and Australia
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for May, 2026 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:
Thank you for this update highlighting the rise in temperatures. This is just the beginning:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Is the Global value of 0.53 correct? I’m not entirely sure how you determine this value… but NH is 0.53 and SH is 0.60, so I would have expected a Global value of around 0.57.
I believe NH means 30N – 90N (maybe 23N – 90N). The global value then comes from NH & SH & Tropics.
The file Lower Troposphere file says the are 0-90. There does seem to be a typo with one of those values.
As Bellmann says, could be a typo. Maybe global value is 0.56 (?)
my mistake… both hemispheres are +0.53.
Bellman June 2, 2026 at 7:53 AM
” The file Lower Troposphere file says the are 0-90. ”
You certainly mean
” GL 90S-90N, NH 0-90N, SH 90S-0, TRPCS 20S-20N
NoExt 20N-90N, SoExt 90S-20S, NoPol 60N-90N, SoPol 90S-60S ”
*
This can’t be correct because in all 2.5. degree grids of all four 6.1 layers (LT, MT, TP, LS) all three bottommost and topmost latitude bands are filled with the undefined data (-9999).
Thus, 82.5S-82.5N IMHO would be more correct.
In Rev 5.6, there was data for 90S-90N.
Yep. All other months Globe is average of NH + SH.
My mistake… the table should have 0.53 for both NH and SH.
I stand corrected!
Significantly, the 3, 4, and 5 year running means just keep on breaking records.
The 3 year running mean is now 0.60, which is 0.33 larger than the previous, non-overlapping record from 2018.
Phew. It’s a good thing no-one’s expecting a “super” el Niño by September on top of the persistent high anomaly.
Elliott Bignell June 2, 2026 at 6:46 AM
” It’s a good thing no-one’s expecting a “super” el Niño by September… ”
*
Sure sure?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Comparing today’s graph to what I saved on April 6 sounds amazing:
https://i.postimg.cc/sXVbBdVp/nino34Mon-060426.png
Well, slightly sure…
“These month-to-month fluctuations in the relationship between surface and tropospheric temperature changes are almost certainly dominated by fluctuations in moist convective heat transfer from the surface to the free troposphere.”
ENSO happily supports that evaluation:
https://postimg.cc/6TpntS9D
I’m away from my laptop this week, but from a quick look through the data file this seems to be the second warmest May, though statistically tied with 1998.
Recent researches show that the average global temperature rise is not a good indicator of climate change. It is the uneven distribution of temperature on the surface that is more critical.
Beyond global mean temperature: increasing asymmetry of global warming in past and future climate change | npj Climate and Atmospheric Science https://share.google/HtF4jkH93SV5qIOB0
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44292-026-00077-7
Clarification: climate change severity may be better defined by considering uneven temperature rise on the surface. The global temperature rise is slow and gives us opportunities to adapt. Uneven warming of the surface produces climatic extremes, which are deadly and catastrophic.
So what’s the weather like on your planet? The current rate of warming is geologically sudden. Native Australian oral history records a rate of sea-level rise at the end of the last glaciation that amounted to the high-tide line moving inland by tens of metres per year. The current rate of warming is far faster than that. How do you plan to move cities by tens of metres per year, pray?
“The current rate of warming is geologically sudden.”
How many warming trends have there been in Earth’s geological history? What were the rates of each? What was the rate of the one that produced seas over western Nebraska, where oyster shells and shark fossils have been found at 3000 ft elevation?
Clint R: “How many warming trends have there been in Earth’s geological history?”
Lots.
Clint R: “What were the rates of each?”
Nowhere near today’s rate, except possibly the aftermath of the Chicxulub asteroid (after a few years of cooling due to atmospheric dust from the impsct). Not even the PETM or the deglacializations can touch the present wsrming rate.
Clint R: “What was the rate of the one that produced seas over western Nebraska, where oyster shells and shark fossils have been found at 3000 ft elevation?”
Who knows? But you’re clearly confusing warming RATE with warm temperature. And obviously oceans were not 3000 ft higher then, instead that land was much lower than today. Earth looked nothing like today. https://news.unl.edu/article/sharks-once-roamed-nebraskas-ancient-seas
Gadden, you realize that all of your answers are based on your beliefs, right?
They don’t even qualify for “Soft Science”!
Nabil, “The global temperature rise is slow and gives us opportunities to adapt”.
Huh? Which planet are you on? This global warming is twenty times faster than the most rapid global warming we’re aware of in Earth’s past, with the possible exception of the aftermath of the Chicxulub asteroid impact 66 million years ago (after a few years of cooling).
The effects on ecological systems are difficult to predict but I’m happy I will not be alive in the 2070s or later.
Gadden, I believe that we and living things around us have already adapted to the observed temperature rise we have had, nearly 1.5 degrees. There is no reason why we cannot adapt to another 1.5 degrees. Climatic extremes, however, are not easy to adapt to. Presently, insurance companies do not cover residential, commercial, and industrial in US states prone to climatic extremes. This mean catastrophy to those who live there, no adaptation is possible.
Yeah, this data point is unexpected and my model was wrong. I was anticipating a trough below the mean (taking everything into account). According to my model, we should currently be at peak La Niña impact in UAH Lower Troposphere temperatures, based on the typical 5-month lag from Niño 3.4.
Looking ahead, this suggests that the upcoming ENSO-neutral period could run above the long-term trend, and a shift to El Niño (ENSO Positive) might produce new record highs. I had been expecting that trough below the mean and its unlikely from here.
[“Looking ahead, this suggests that the upcoming ENSO-neutral period could run above the long-term trend, and a shift to El Niño (ENSO Positive) might produce new record highs.”]
Yes, and what’s more: the intervals between successive record highs appear to be decreasing: roughly 18 years from 1998 to 2016, 7 years from 2016 to 2023, and only 4 years from 2023 to 2027.
The 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption injected about 150 teragrams of water vapor into the stratosphere — roughly 10% extra on top of what’s usually there. As of early 2025, about half had been removed, with a big drop in 2024, but there’s still excess up there. Its tracked with NASA’s MLS satellite and decaying with an e-folding time of about three years now, and expect it to fully return to pre-eruption background levels around 2030. So in 2026, we’re past the peak impact but still not quite back to normal. The initial spread was mostly around the equator before it mixed more widely.
I dont know the connection, but I suspect there is new atmospheric physics in this data given the asymmetrical Llower troposphere response to Nino 3.4 in this el Nino, but its a hypothesis and highly uncertain. Its a fun conversation, but its apparently a trigger word and I dont want to harm in the safe space, so cautious wording.
[“Its tracked with NASA’s MLS satellite and decaying with an e-folding time of about three years now, and expect it to fully return to pre-eruption background levels around 2030.”]
So, what do you expect the global average temperature to do from now until 2030? Do you have a prediction we can test?
Mainstream science projects continued warming driven by rising CO2 concentrations, which seems plausible.
I have also considered the possibility of the Sun becoming more active in the future, contributing to the trend.
Global temperature will continue to rise with CO2 and composite El Nino warming short term. By 2030 it will eventually return to baseline warming from CO2 as the extra water vapor declines, if hypothesis is correct. But the reality is the current El Nino in equatorial pacific, nino3.4, may be enhanced in L Trop. But unlikely like last El Nino.
Its fun to have hypotheses and test them.
If this increased rate is from aerosols then it will continue indefinitely as the atmosphere is now cleaner from regulations
“the intervals between successive record highs appear to be decreasing: roughly 18 years from 1998 to 2016, 7 years from 2016 to 2023, and only 4 years from 2023 to 2027.”
‘Appears’ is right. I can’t do the math, but I would bet someone who could work out the probability would say that the apparent ‘acceleration’ in record highs is highly uncertain.
Clarification: climate change severity may be better defined by considering uneven temperature rise on the surface. The global temperature rise is slow and gives us opportunities to adapt. Uneven warming of the surface produces climatic extremes, which are deadly and catastrophic.
[“Uneven warming of the surface produces climatic extremes, which are deadly and catastrophic.”]
Yes, surface warming is occurring unevenly.
The Arctic is warming substantially faster than the tropics and mid latitudes. This reduces the temperature gradient between the poles and lower latitudes.
This, in turn, is expected to influence the behavior of the polar jet stream.
I stand corrected!
Also, uneven warming is occuring between the Hemispheres, which is believed to contribute to El Nino Southern Oscillation and climatic extremes.
It is interesting to note that the main expected consequence of a strengthening of the greenhouse effect is a reduction in temperature differentials.
Land heats up faster than oceans, and there is a lot more land in the Northern Hemisphere.
phi: “the main expected consequence of a strengthening of the greenhouse effect is a reduction in temperature differentials”
Source?
Also, because 87 percent of the world population have lived in the northern Hemisphere, more anthropgenic waste heat has been rejected in the northern hydrosphere. This has contributed to the warming assymetry between the Hemispheres.
A question about the +0.16 deg/ C/decade linear average increase since 1979 – It seems that it has been stuck there for awhile. Someone or some official body must have decided 30 year periods were required to smooth out temperatures for the calculation of normals. So, what was the value of the linear average increase in 2009 and how has it changed since then? Perhaps a 30 yr trailing average would be better from that point on? Maybe, Dr Roy or someone better at math and not as lazy as me can calculate that. Those commentators on here who are more alarmed about global warming than me might be interested in this as well. Has the 30 yr average accelerated?
it depends on what it does next!
Thomas Hagedorn, if you’re interested in 30-year averages of the UAH data, see the third graph at https://datagraver.com/climate-data-set-uah/
Gadden – that was helpful, but not exactly what I was looking for. I hope you will check back to this part of the string in a few days when I have more time to look at this. Various ocean oscillations seem quite powerful in determining temp changes. I like 30 moving averages to try to smooth them out. I may not be asking the right question. I am looking at the UH data to try to see if there has been ant acceleration of the temp Increase, even though it is slight.
Thomas Hagedorn, check the 30-year average temperature graph I linked to. It’s clearly a convex function, indicating an acceleration of the global warming.
I computed UAH 6.1 LT’s running trend with fixed start in Dec 1978.
The trend starts from a 30-year period Dec 1978 – Nov 2008 at 0.127 °C / decade, and ends from Dec 1978 – May 2026 at 0.157 °C / decade:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rvZPB8OnMU-lQU_E2e6YSBJNA04YRqQq/view
There is an acceleration (the trend has itself an increasing trend) of 0.019 +- 0.001 °C / decade². That’s a lot, to say the least.
Bindi – thank you for your reply. I was busy Sunday, missed your reply, and then jumped right into a new post. That was very helpful.
So, can you help me with projecting this acceleration out? I get involved with trying to explain these things to other non-scientists. You re much less likely to screw that up than me, although it lookspretty simple.
Copernicus and Berkeley Earth report average global temperatures for 2025 at 15C and 59F. My granddaughter is 10. Can you (or someone else) use the trend and its acceleration to project C and F global temps out to when she will be 30 (2045), 50 (2065), and 70 (2085)?
If someone else calculates this, please use bindi’s acceleration or explain why you are using something different. And don’t give me something from the models. They seem to have some flaws.
Thanks to anyone who will respond.
Thomas Hagedorn
I’m quite busy with solar data processing, and will reply as soon as I have some time to do.
Thx.
AI chatbot responses are a mixed bag, but they are currently pretty good at synthesizing answers to well formed questions concerning publicly available data, like “what was the trend of the UAH TLT data over a specific time period?”
https://gemini.google.com/share/c538b9beeca7
I point this out because it both addresses the question if it is asked in good faith and mitigates the possibility that one is perceived as asking questions in bad faith. To the latter, passing out work assignments (aka “sammich request”) is a common tactic used by persons more interested in manipulating other posters than in good faith discussion.
Thomas
” Thank you for your helpful post about temperature acceleration. ”
Thank you in turn for your comment, much appreciated.
*
” Can you (or someone else) use the trend and its acceleration to project C and F global temps out to when she will be 30 (2045), 50 (2065), and 70 (2085)? ”
*
Above all, please do not forget that any projection over such a long period, based on linear trend or polynomial propagation is 100% speculative.
You only need to enter a long series of volcanic eruptions with explosivity index 5,6,7 and encompassing 50 years (as happened in front of the Little Ice Age) and your prediction fails.
Thus, this is just for fun.
*
Here is an Excel graph for UAH data with a linear estimate and a 2nd order (i.e. quadratic) polynomial, both with a function showing how they are computed and thus how the figures can be propagated:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-2e7M-GXWubbPT_PBXNaA3ihPQ3agdpM/view
The right ends show the temperature anomaly values for now – May 2026: 0.35 °C for linear, 0.44 °C for quadratic, all wrt the mean of 1991-2020.
*
When entering the number of months till 2045, 2065 and 2085 respectively in the green resp. red equations, you obtain the following propagations:
– linear:
2045: 0.66 °C
2065: 1.24
2085: 1.55
– quadratic:
2045: 1.10 °C
2065: 2.85
2085: 4.09
All values again above the mean of 1991-2020.
*
As I said: this is just a little game, nothing to be taken seriously.
*
And don’t forget: basing the propagation on an anomaly sytem whose reference period is moved forward every 10 years is bare nonsense, especially when you consider the fact that the temperature increase leads to an increase of the 12-month baselines at reference period change, and hence a corresponding decrease of the anomaly values.
Better would therefore be to rely on absolute temperatures.
Possibly missing explanations…
1. In the equations
y = ax + b (linear)
resp.
y = ax² + bx + c
the variable ‘x’ is the number of months since beginning.
In May 2026, there were 570 months since beginning.
For x = 0 one obtains the intersection of the trend lines with the y axis.
*
2. ” When entering the number of months till 2045, 2065 and 2085… ”
I just see that this might be misunderstood.
Should read:
” ” When entering the number of months since beginning/b> till 2045, 2065 and 2085… “.
Thus one adds to 570 respectively one, two, three times 240.
Bindidon – Thanks for the analysis. Yes, recognize the speculative, “fun” nature of this exercise. And, if you go back to my question, my primary interest was in future absolute temps, not anomalies. Very few people outside of scientists really understand or are interested in anomalies, although I appreciate their usefulness in science. I may present this data to a chatbot and see what absolute temps it cranks out for those years. I have lots of doubts about the predictive abilities of the models, so I thought this exercise might be interesting.
BTW, a retired earth science professor was working on a paper examining the role of lower lever volcanism on the ocean floor (“black smokers” and other phenomenon). We know embarrassingly little about the ocean floor – only about 30% is mapped. In addition to isolated hot spots, we have volcanic mid-ocean rifts across the globe that drive the spreading of the ocean floor. He claims to be able to tie this to temperature changes.
Yes you are right, all people – me included – regularly comparing temperatures like for UAH LT and for surface (or for different UAH layers) are always bound to anomalies relative to the same reference period.
To avoid polemic about surface data being always too ‘hot’, I computed UAH LT’s absolute data for the Globe out of their grid data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XQoFaGUzGXThACXe2yh9xKZwyZ3qs4WP/view
Linear and quadratic temperature increases in case of absolute values
– linear:
2045: 0.68 °C
2065: 1.25
2085: 1.56
– quadratic:
2045: 1.00 °C
2065: 2.42
2085: 3.40
*
Why the linear case keeps nearly constant but the quadratic case show much lower values, I don’t know; mostly it is due to the noise induced by the seasonality (the annual cycle) included in the absolute data.
It depends on what it does next!
It depends on what it does next! https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
Not a scientist and so I just look at the numbers, for the most part. I want to understand how Canada average could increase by 1.1 C while USA declines by .99 C and Arctic is pretty much flat. Given that Canada is between the two and entire northern hemisphere only rose by .1 C, doesn’t that make anyone here suspicious for the input from Canadian sources?
Those Canadians have been blowing a lot of hot air.
martinitony, you seem to be talking about the temperature change (in monthly averages) from April to May in US48 (1.6% of Earth’s surface) and Canada (2% of Earth’s surface). The combination of such a short short time and such small parts of Earth means that the numbers can differ widely. Regional monthly temperature behaviour is totally different from planet-averaged temperature behaviour. The longer the averaging (months, years, decades…) and the bigger the region (country, hemisphere, globe), the clearer the CLIMATE change signal. See for example the 30-year global average (third graph) of the UAH data at https://datagraver.com/climate-data-set-uah/ .
Gadden – great, concise answer. Short term climate is extremely variable. We live in the eastern U.S. – Ohio. Our grandchildren live in the mountain west of the U.S.- Idaho. A strong jet stream can bring hot weather to one region and cold to the other, or vice versa. This is a fairly common aspect of our short term – weeks or maybe a month at a time – climate. The same thing goes with other regions of the world.
Yours and other answers are not really addressing my question. The question is about variances and deviations from the mean. The mean here is not a mean of temperatures but mean of temperature differences from one area to the other. Some of you have programs that can do actual calculations. A cursory look tells you that something appears to be amiss these days. These differences that I drew your attention to are very large if you take a look at the record for several years. I would suggest they lie more than two deviations from the mean and that means if they were random, they happen only about 1 in a hundred months or even less and that should give everyone pause to wonder. Yes, the jet stream is the cause, but it pretty much should always be and yet you can go back over decades and not find such extreme differences. Why is that? That questions is not just answered by “it’s the jet stream.” Why is it the jet stream NOW? Why so much NOW? If I just accept your answers, I am accepting that these are not unusual events and statistics. I don’t like doing that.
Martinitony,
Interestingly, if you look at March, US was a record 3.74 C above average, while Canada was 3.17 C below average.
It seems that the jet stream was keeping all the cold Arctic air in Canada that month, blocking it from the US.
Some here claim that the recent warming is unprecedented. That’s not what the observations say. To go back in time, you have to use temperature proxies, and none of them show any particular behavior over the last century. The belief in a specific modern pattern stems from combining thermometer-based indices with temperature proxies. But that’s an illusion; the two diverge significantly over the common period—they don’t measure the same thing.
phi,
[“To go back in time, you have to use temperature proxies, and none of them show any particular behavior over the last century.”]
Proxies are not expected to reproduce every feature of the 20th and 21st century warming perfectly. Their purpose is to estimate large scale temperature variations over centuries to millennia.
[“But that’s an illusion; the two diverge significantly over the common period—they don’t measure the same thing.”]
In a typical reconstruction, a statistical relationship between proxies and observed instrumental temperatures is developed during a calibration interval.
The reconstruction is then tested on a different overlap interval that was not used for calibration (holdout testing).
If the reconstruction can successfully predict temperatures in the withheld period, that is evidence the proxy contains temperature information.
If the proxy genuinely had no temperature signal, it would fail these verification tests.
The mere fact that proxies and thermometers are different measurements does not imply they are unrelated or incomparable.
The problem is that they diverge in the 20th century, depending on the location, from the first quarter or at the latest from the last quarter of the century. This divergence is comparable with all proxies in the same region. Of course, I’m talking about verified proxies whose high-frequency behavior follows the data from thermometers.
The divergence problem is primarily associated with certain tree ring records. It is not regarded as a universal feature of all paleoclimate proxies.
Many modern temperature reconstructions synthesize multiple proxy types.
“An extensive new multi-proxy database of paleo-temperature time series (Temperature 12k) enables a more robust analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) and associated uncertainties than was previously available.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Kynqora,
No, the divergence is widespread and affects all quality proxies worldwide. See, for example, Briffa 1998.
Multi-proxy studies are simply unverifiable experiments; they should be disregarded, and we should return to the raw data.
> See, for example
Name a second one, phi.
You’ll never guess what I started to play Climateball.
Here’s a hint:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/
Best of luck.
phi,
[“No, the divergence is widespread and affects all quality proxies worldwide. See, for example, Briffa 1998.”]
Briffa 1998 is explicitly a study of tree ring width and maximum latewood density from high latitude regions or high elevation forests in the Northern Hemisphere. It’s not worldwide.
It also does not study ice cores, corals, Mg/Ca proxies, etc.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232785046_Reduced_sensitivity_of_recent_tree-growth_to_temperature_at_Northern_high_latitudes
[“Multi-proxy studies are simply unverifiable experiments; they should be disregarded, and we should return to the raw data.”]
I disagree.
Individual proxy records contain proxy specific uncertainties and very local influences. Combining multiple independent proxies is one way climate scientists attempt to isolate the common large scale climate signal.
And a single proxy record is generally representative of a particular site or region, not the globe.
Kynqora,
No, the data series leaked as part of the Climategate scandal is built on Schweingruber’s complete dataset, which covers the entire extratropical Northern Hemisphere.
No high-quality proxy shows any particular behavior in the 20th century.
The question you should be asking yourself is this: If no observational data points to any particular behavior in the 20th century, if the effect of CO2 on temperatures has no measurable consequences in nature, and if complicated processing involving hundreds of inconsistent observation series is required to extract a recalcitrant signal, is CO2 really the problem?
[“No, the data series leaked as part of the Climategate scandal is built on Schweingruber’s complete dataset, which covers the entire extratropical Northern Hemisphere.”]
Sorry, I don’t understand what this has to do with Briffa 1998. Would you mind explaining?
[“No high-quality proxy shows any particular behavior in the 20th century.”]
That is quite a strong claim.
Scientists usually look for proxies that have a strong and statistically significant relationship with observed temperatures during the instrumental period.
More importantly, I still do not see how Briffa 1998 supports your earlier claim that divergence affects all quality proxies worldwide.
[“The question you should be asking yourself is this: If no observational data points to any particular behavior in the 20th century, if the effect of CO2 on temperatures has no measurable consequences in nature, and if complicated processing involving hundreds of inconsistent observation series is required to extract a recalcitrant signal, is CO2 really the problem?”]
Doesn’t Dr. Spencer think CO2 has a measurable consequence in nature?
Yes, I think there is reason to believe it is a problem.
I don’t know whether CO2 is the dominant cause of recent warming or not. But it could be, and it could lead to a substantial amount of warming in the future.
The uncertainty itself is quite large. The contribution from CO2 could be smaller than many mainstream estimates if factors such as cloud cover variability play a larger role than currently thought. OTOH, it could be consistent with IPCC range, in which case CO2 would be a dominant contributor.
Some people do not find that uncertainty very comforting. In that sense, I can understand why people consider it a problem.
Briffa 1998 simply take the Schweingruber data base which extends to the entire extratropical Northern Hemisphere.
The divergence is significant: https://zupimages.net/up/19/47/ilvv.png
If nature is insensitive to rising CO2 levels, how could CO2 be a significant problem?
So if I am understanding correctly, you are arguing that the Climategate incident revealed something about the underlying dataset that is not disclosed in Briffa’s paper?
That would be a serious scientific integrity issue and could qualify as misconduct.
What makes you confident that Climategate was genuinely a scandal rather than a narrative advanced by bad actors?
Kynqora,
I’m not putting anyone on trial here; I’m simply observing that the proven proxies of temperature don’t carry the CO2 signal.
Nature is clearly unaffected by rising CO2 levels. We can draw a wealth of lessons from this, but that’s not my specific topic here.
> Schweingruber data base
That’s just for tree rings.
Here’s a multiproxy database:
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788
Cranks will be cranks.
[“I’m simply observing that the proven proxies of temperature don’t carry the CO2 signal.”]
Unlike tree rings, ice cores are generally regarded by skeptics as among the more reliable proxies because they preserve information at relatively high resolution:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
Notice the inflection in the early 20th century coinciding with the period of rapidly increasing industrial emissions.
And as the warming progresses, temperatures increasingly depart from the multi millennial cooling trend.
Kynqora,
Ouch! Look at your proxy in Figure 0 to 2000. The temperature rise begins in the early 18th century, peaks in 1950, and cools until the end of the proxy in 1970. CO2 is not involved in the 18th century, and it is generally accepted that the CO2 signal only appeared from the 1970s onward.
Do you realize how much your proxy contradicts you and doesn’t refute anything I’ve written? It’s simply irrelevant.
In any case, I don’t think we can properly assess the quality of a temperature proxy with such low resolutions (20 years) for reasonable calibration over a period of a hundred years at most. MXDs have an annual resolution. Furthermore, ice cores are often difficult to interpret due to gas diffusion.
“This graph is misleading for a number of reasons.”
Clint R, I didn’t even try to answer your questions as they’re impossible to answer. What I did was to ‘address’ them in the context of the discussion.
1. Your question about “how many warming trends have there been is impossible to answer as climate is constantly changing. Some of the most rapid warming trends are the End-Permian (aka ‘the Great Dying’), End-Triassic and the PETM, all of which were much slower than the current 2 degrees C per century warming rate. The deglacializations were on par with the onset of the PETM. After tge Chicxulub impact, there were likely significant warming of high rate as well. We know enough about climate change drivers to rule out a NATURAL global warning at the current rate to ever have occurred, with the possible exception of some huge asteroid impact VERY long ago. (Asteroid impacts first warm Earth (hours, days), then cool (month, years) and then warm again, and this latter warming could rival present-day man-made warming.
2. You asked about the rates of past warmings. All evidence indicates much lower rates thsn the present. See 1 above. Feel free to explain how a natural warming at the present rate could realistically occur.
3. You asked what the warming rate was ~100 million years ago when the land masses that would become North America were huge islands in the ocean. All we can be reasonably sure about was that it was way lower than the present warming.
This isn’t “beliefs”. It’s based on today’s knowledge about what CAN affect Earth’s gloval average temperature over climate-relevant timescales.
Again Gadden, you realize that all of your answers are based on your beliefs, right?
They don’t even qualify for “Soft Science”!
There are knowledgeable people that don’t think Chicxulub was an asteroid. The formation is in an area of big volcanoes, and a lot of evidence points to just another big volcano. Wait for the next “paper”….
In the area of global warming, we know Earth is in a current warming trend. The “consensus” is pretty solid on that, thanks to the work of UAH. But what specifically is causing it is another thing. I’m content with it’s just natural variations, but we know from “Hard Science” that CO2 isn’t causing it.
Gordon (and, by implication, CR):
“There must be a precise temperature for a photon.”
Dumb and dumber.
This “studentb” child stalks me often. Because he has no science, he resorts to false accusations. There’s no way I ever said such a thing, consequently there is no way this child could provide a link with me saying it.
Why he gets to freely comment here attacking those who offer science is another issue….
“by implication”
That is the logical deduction based on your flawed interpretation of the 2loT.
The child gets caught making a false accusation, so he just makes another false accusation.
The cult loves that kind of perversion. The more, the better….
phi,
“Some here claim that the recent warming is unprecedented”
Recent warming is a bit vague. You could mean latest global temperatures or trends.
Some here and many in the literature say that the current rate of warming (last 50 years) is very likely unprecedented. The Earth’s surface temperature has been warmer in the past, such as the previous interglacial 120,000 years ago.
barry,
“Some here and many in the literature say that the current rate of warming (last 50 years) is very likely unprecedented.”
It’s possible but unlikely. Observations over 2000 years don’t have sufficient resolution, and annual proxies show fairly similar warming patterns a thousand years ago.
Source?
We’re talking about global, or NH warming (where studies only use NH data), so I’m unsure what you mean by ‘warming patterns’. When looking at regional climate patterns over the last 2000 years, the present patterns are far more uniform (almost the entire globe warming) than in the past. The MCA, for example has both warming and cooling trends depending on where you pick your proxies.
The lack of resolution contributes to the uncertainty, but you have it the wrong way around. It’s more likely the last 50/100 years are a steeper warming trend than any in the proxy record.
vhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-today-unlike-last-2000-years-climate-shifts
barry,
A hockey stick evolution isn’t just a record slope, but a radical change in behavior. Do you have any observations that validate this exceptional behavior?
Any observation about the center of Earth?
So, no source for your contention? I’ll take it as uncorroborated. My sources corroborate. Check the first link – it’s the PAGES 2K report, which I believe is the largest proxy network there is underpinning the analyses.
I have no idea what your last comment means. It is more incoherent than the first one. There are dozens of studies about the past 2000 years. I gave a couple links, you’re welcome to acquaint yourself with the research there and more besides. Up to you.
barry,
You’re asking me for sources. It’s not up to me to prove that nothing unusual is happening, but rather up to the person claiming extraordinary behavior to prove it.
I’m not asking for reconstructions, but for observations—raw data. I don’t think it will be difficult to find some and offer one or two examples of the extraordinary impact of CO2 on nature.
> It’s not up to me to prove that nothing unusual is happening,
That’s often the excuse for Step 1 – Pure Denial.
phi, I just gave you 2 sources for what I said. I am providing corroboration, you are not. The burden of proof is equal on us. Bye bye.
phi,
As Willard points out, the chart you are referring to is misleading. It would be best for both of us not to refer to it.
[“it is generally accepted that the CO2 signal only appeared from the 1970s onward.”]
If my understanding is correct, mainstream science generally suggests that during the late 19th / early 20th century, CO2 was already contributing to the warming, albeit as a relatively modest and growing influence alongside other factors such as increased solar output and quieter volcanic activity.
Meehl et al. 2003 conducted separate model experiments using greenhouse gases alone, solar forcing alone, and a combination of greenhouse gases, solar forcing, and sulfate aerosols.
The combination of forcings reproduced the observed early 20th century warming more successfully than any individual forcing alone.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/16/3/1520-0442_2003_016_0426_saggfa_2.0.co_2.xml
The paper also mentions multi decadal variability in the Atlantic, which is particularly relevant to Greenland temperatures.
[“In any case, I don’t think we can properly assess the quality of a temperature proxy with such low resolutions (20 years) for reasonable calibration over a period of a hundred years at most.”]
Lower temporal resolution certainly provides fewer calibration points than annual resolution proxies such as MXD.
However, we can also compare it against independent reconstructions derived from different proxy records and methodologies.
As noted in the article, the Greenland composite used by Carbon Brief is broadly consistent with other large scale reconstructions (Marcott).
Independent replication across different datasets and methodologies is hardly something to scoff at.
Kynqora,
“The chart you are referring to is misleading.”
Really? And why is that, please?
“The combination of forcings reproduced the observed early 20th-century warming more successfully than any individual forcing alone.”
Yes, of course. Aerosol forcing is very poorly understood and allows for arbitrary adjustment.
“However, we can also compare it against independent reconstructions derived from different proxy records and methodologies.”
No. We don’t validate one theory by another, one model by another, or one reconstruction by another. We validate through observations.
The fact is indisputable: no observation validates a hockey stick-shaped temperature pattern.
Borehole temperatures are a reliable method of recovering past surface temperatures. They go back at most 500 y. But they show a clear hockey stick.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35001556
Fig 2.
Fig 2
https://www.nature.com/articles/35001556/figures/2
“Borehole temperatures are a reliable method of recovering past surface temperatures.”
This is a perfect example of “cult science”. Give some cultist a borehole and he can arrive at any temperature he wants!
That ain’t REAL science….
[“Really? And why is that, please?”]
Because it is based on a single site in Greenland and cannot be extrapolated to the rest of Greenland, let alone the globe.
Richard Alley is quoted as emphasizing that snowdrifts and other local influences complicate the interpretation of an individual ice core.
[“Yes, of course. Aerosol forcing is very poorly understood and allows for arbitrary adjustment.”]
Uncertainty in aerosol forcing does not automatically make the result arbitrary.
The authors did not just compare global temperatures. They also examined the seasonal and regional responses to the forcings.
One reason I find this paper plausible is that the enhanced early century South Asian monsoon response in the solar residual experiment is qualitatively consistent with observed rainfall trends in India, which were more positive in the early 20th century than later in the century.
That doesn’t prove the mechanism, but it does provide an independent line of support beyond simply matching the temperature record.
Nate,
I assume you’re joking.
Kynqora,
I only provided one graph, and it’s this one: https://zupimages.net/up/19/47/ilvv.png
“Nate,
I assume you’re joking”
Phi, we can assume you have no rebuttal.
FYI
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/02/21/new-study-shows-independent-evidence-of-global-warming/
phi,
I don’t know what that has to do with the reply I just made.
Nate,
Okay. So, it’s simply that you don’t know much about the world of proxies. You’re clearly unaware that borehole temperature can only have a shape similar to a hockey stick, one way or the other. It’s a proxy that carries very little information.
Regarding the Forbes link, I’m asking for raw data, not reconstructions. It’s still strange how you can’t find anything at the observational level.
Kynqora,
I don’t understand you either.
I was responding to your statement: “As Willard points out, the chart you are referring to is misleading.”
I was referring to a chart concerning the Northern Hemisphere, but it was you who provided the link to the Greenland study.
Me: *cites Carbon Brief article*
phi: “Ouch! Look at your proxy in Figure 0 to 2000. The temperature rise begins in the early 18th century, peaks in 1950, and cools until the end of the proxy in 1970.”
Willard: *quotes*: “This graph is misleading for a number of reasons.”
Me: “As Willard points out, the chart you are referring to is misleading. It would be best for both of us not to refer to it.”
“You’re clearly unaware that borehole temperature can only have a shape similar to a hockey stick, one way or the other. It’s a proxy that carries very little information.”
Again with absurd unsupported claims, Phi.
I am quite familiar with how surface temperatures are determined from borehole temperatures. There is certainly no reason for them to only produce a hockey stick.
They produce regional results with various shapes, in some cases cooling.
That’s exactly what I was saying, you don’t know what can be gleaned from borehole temperatures. The resolution, if we can even call it that, is the number of years relative to the present. So the hockey sticks are generated automatically, either up or down.
“That’s exactly what I was saying, you don’t know what can be gleaned from borehole temperatures.”
Non sequitur. The theory linking surface temp to borehole temps is well established.
“The resolution, if we can even call it that, is the number of years relative to the present. So the hockey sticks are generated automatically, either up or down.”
Error bars increase at earlier times. That alone does not produce a hockey stick.
Again, a non-sequitur.
You are just making up nonsense unsupported by evidence.
Nate,
No. You don’t understand the physics of borehole temperatures. The problem isn’t just the margins of error, but the indeterminacy of the temperatures. Several different evolutions can give the same shape to the temperature profile. Do some research.
Phi,
OK, I agree that there is some degree of indeterminacy. It is addressed by putting reasonable constraints on the inversion, such as limiting the output to long time-scale trends, as they did in the paper I cited above.
This produces a highly smoothed surface record, which can be compared in the overlap period with observations.
I dont see how this only produces hockey sticks.
Thomas Hagedorn, OK but if you refer to weather over weeks, months or even a few years, you’re talking about weather, not climate. Climate by definition refers to averages over longer time, at the very least a decade. Thirty years is generally taken as the lower limit.
Of course you are correct.
If you were to remove the interminable arguments on this blog about some basic laws of physics, which, frankly, I don’t understand at a deep scientific level (I am not a scientist, I am very interested in education on climate change) and am not interested in, you would be left mostly with observations of recent changes in weather – a month, a year, even three or four year weather trends – and even regional weather as opposed to global. Then those observations about WEATHER are used to argue for or against st the global warming narrative about CLIMATE. This is one of the reasons I am not concerned about climate change at this point (although I am open to changing my mind if the evidence is there). The scale of the changes in CLIMATE,which is where scientists camp out, and WEATHER, which is what most average citizens, politicians, journalists, and NGO policymakers seem to focus on just seem too small to make much of a difference in living conditions. I have looked at a lot of 30 year temperature normals for major U.S. cities and how they have changed from legacy normals. The changes are barely perceptible over the span of a lifetime. Sea level increase seems to bring the same, tiny (the depth of pennies) result. So, perhaps you and I can join forces and remind others that WEATHER is not CLIMATE.
Hunga Tonga has left the conversation.
Good point, Robert. We need to talk about HTE more, as it is still with us. The water vapor is slowing leaving upper altitudes, but lingering effects could last another year or so. If it’s gone by 2029, that could easily put UAH Global back to 0.0°C by 2030, if not earlier?
https://postimg.cc/5HqnsRxr
I am amazed at how many fortune tellers there are on a science blog. Nonetheless, there are at least 2 very interesting events unfolding. One is the continued dissipation of the 2023-effect — whatever that was. The other is the consensus El Nino that is approaching. The ensemble forecast is very strong. Is it possible that the models might be wrong? It seems unlikely with such a strong consensus. The problem is that, just like hurricane prediction, strength is often difficult to predict. There is no consensus on just how strong it will be.
Tim S, you weren’t able to solve the simple problems.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1744604
You try to sound like you understand science, but you run when given a challenge. It’s like you fear learning.
Boo!
“I am amazed at how many fortune tellers there are on a science blog.”
If you stopped posting there would be one less.
This is to Gadden and Kyngora:
You both appear to be Warmists, yet you’re behaving as adults, not like the cult Kids. So I’m curious about your level of knowledge of the science. For example, do you understand where the “240 W/m²” comes from? That is, what calculation does the CO2 cult use to arrive at that value?
Clint R, before deciding which camp I belong to, you might find a few quotes from the papers I have been citing, and the conclusions I draw from them, worth considering.
“The only previous GMST reconstruction for the Holocene based on multi-proxy data2 showed maximum warmth around 7000 ± 2000 years ago (7 ± 2 ka BP, where ‘BP’ is relative to 1950) followed by multi-millennial global cooling. This cooling trend occurred while the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases were increasing.”
Takeaway: The extent of CO2’s contribution to modern warming remains an active area of research (though there is certainly substantial evidence that it plays an important role).
“The CCM3 has a relatively low equilibrium climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 of 2.1°C when coupled to a slab ocean with implied ocean heat transports, sometimes called a “q-flux” ocean (Meehl et al. 2000).”
Takeaway: The model used in this study (which reproduced not only aspects of the temperature record but also several regional and seasonal climate responses I discussed above) had an ECS near the lower end of climate model estimates and broadly comparable to values often favored by climate skeptics.
Thanks for better explaining your position, Kyngora. You seem open-minded and not yet fully committed to the CO2 cult. So, I want to warn you about some tricks the cult uses.
Responsible adults would agree that temperatures are rising (Earth is in a warming trend). That’s a “known”. But what is causing the warming trend is an “unknown”. The cult would have us believe that CO2 is causing the warming, but they are unable to describe how that can happen.
A morning cup of coffee is usually served very hot. And it can be “known”, without conjecture, how that coffee became “hot”. It may have been from a microwave oven, stove top, coffee maker, or even a campfire. But, we could find out how it became hot.
Now what if someone told you the coffee was hot because of CO2! You seem like someone that might question that. You might ask how could CO2 warm a cup of coffee. The “believers” might answer, “We know the coffee warmed from CO2 because CO2 is rising.” Then you might say “That might just be a coincidence. It does not prove CO2 warmed the coffee”. Then, a room full of “believers” would respond that they “know” CO2 caused the warming. But they would be unable to describe how CO2 could warm the coffee. They just believe it did.
So the first trick to avoid is being distracted by coincidences. Always stick to the basic science — How can adding CO2 to the atmosphere raise surface temperatures? REAL science knows it can’t.
That’s why I asked you if you understand where the “240 W/m²” comes from. That’s an example of how the CO2 perverts science. Just one of their convoluted “tricks”.
[Kynqora, I just realized I’ve been misspelling your “handle”. Sorry, my mistake. I’ve got it fixed now. I’ll finish my thoughts about the “240 W/m²”.]
The “240 W/m²” comes from the imaginary sphere used in cult science. The Solar Constant is first adjusted for albedo, resulting in 960 W/m². That is the flux striking the sphere’s disk. Since the sphere’s surface area is four times its disk area, the 960 W/m² is divided by 4 resulting in 240 W/m². Since the imaginary sphere is assumed to use no energy, the surface emission would then be 240 W/m², resulting in a surface temperature of 255K. So far, there is no perversion of reality. [It’s okay to divide flux is this special case, where the geometry allows, and there are no energy losses.]
The perversion of reality starts when they try to compare the imaginary sphere to Earth. They claim that since Earth’s surface temperature is 288K, and the imaginary sphere’s surface temperature is 255K, then Earth is 33K warmer than it’s supposed to be!
They completely ignore the reality that Earth has oceans, atmosphere, and land area, all with the ability to maintain thermal energy (enthalpy). Earth would have a completely different thermal equilibrium temperature than an imaginary sphere. They’re comparing two different things!
Yeah, it’s tricky. It’s convoluted. It’s perverted. But, it ain’t science….”
So any time you see the cult using “255K”, “33K”, or “240 W/m²”, you know you’re seeing “cult droppings”. Take proper precautions….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
“imaginary sphere”
Do you know of any real sphere, and is it flat?
Clint R, you’re right that the 240 W/m^2 cannot be directly translated into a global average temperature (of 255 K) by applying the Stefan-Boltzmann equation since Earth’s temperature is not the same all over the planet. The average value of T^4 over the planet is simply not the same as the average temperature raised to the power of 4. But you’re making incorrect conclusions from this. You see, Hölder’s inequality (combined with S-B equation) means that the 255K temperature is an UPPER LIMIT to the global average temperature when the average emitted flux from your “imaginary sphere” is 240 W/m^2. In other words, since we know that Earth’s temperature is around 288K, the greenhouse effect is AT LEAST 33K.
Furthermore, the average temperature of almost every single place on Earth is in the range 270K-300K (with only very few percent of Earth outside this range), so the deviation between the ACTUAL magnitude of the greenhouse effect and the simplified 33 degrees value isn’t very large.
Clint R, of course I know where the 240 W/m^2 comes from.
The TSI (Total Solar Irradiance at our distance to the sun) is 1361 W/m^2. The total solar power towards Earth is therefore 1361 x pi r^2 [W], since Earth looks like a disc with radius r and area pi r^2 [m^2] when (hypothetically) viewed from the sun. When dividing this power by Earth’s entire surface (4 pi r^2), we get 1361/4 = 340 [W^2] which is the average solar flux to Earth (before subtracting the flux reflected back to space) . Finally, we need to consider Earth’s albedo and the resulting reflection of sunlight. The reflected sunlight anounts to 100 W/m^2, leaving 340-100 = 240 [W/m^2] which is the solar flux to Earth.
Your “CO2 cult” seems to mean the people who understand climate science basics. The cult would be the science deniers, not people who understand textbook-level atmospheric physics discovered in the mid-1800s.
Would you be a science denier by any chance?
barry,
To help you, here’s an example of raw proxy temperature data:
https://zupimages.net/up/19/48/soa3.png
If you think global temperature trends resemble a hockey stick, if you think CO2 has a decisive effect on nature, you should be able to find measurements that demonstrate this.
If you can’t find anything, it means CO2 isn’t a problem for nature and that these reconstructions are artistic creations meant for gallery display, not for publication in scientific journals.
The chart displays raw polar MXD proxies from 1900, the data set with the well-known divergence issue. Where is the rest of the proxies? Where are the other 19 centuries?
You have shown nothing here that has not been identified and discussed over decades in NH temperature reconstructions.
NH and global reconstructions use many more proxies, different kinds of proxies, and the general results have been corroborated many times with some variation.
You are seeking to raise doubt, not illuminate. I did this round 20 years ago. Please don’t waste my time with these old, hackneyed talking points.
What is interesting is that Nate’s hockey stick doesn’t resemble Michael Mann’s hockey stick. In Nate’s plot every century had warming. The warming also looked like it was accelerating up preindustrial revolution. My questions to Nate are what caused the warming in every century from 1500 to today? What caused the acceleration preindustrial revolution?
What’s even more interesting is that the hockey stick did not show such thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature)
Besides the fact that it wasn’t Mike’s.
Wha?
OK, Williard’s hockey stick.
MBH, Troglodyte. MBH. And that’s just one of them.
The hockey stick is characterized by its shaft, not its blade. And it shows temps dropping *down* to industrial times. The industrial period started earlier than 1850, BTW.
Glad to see you found back your way to the S-word.
Williard,
Are you a girl? Why do you pretend to be a boy? Did you steal “Troglodyte” from a well-known television series? Nate’s hockey stick or your hockey stick doesn’t show that.
Troglodyte,
You can’t spell. You can’t read graphs.
What are you doing here?
Somebody wrote this nonsense:
“We need to talk about HTE more, as it is still with us. The water vapor is slowing leaving upper altitudes, but lingering effects could last another year or so. If it’s gone by 2029, that could easily put UAH Global back to 0.0°C by 2030, if not earlier?”
I am willing to bet that UAH will be greater than 0.0°C
by end of 2026
by end of 2027
by end of 2028
by end of 2029
by end of 2030
Name your price. (Easy money to be made here)
I’ll bet that absent some major cooling event like a massive eruption or asteroid, UAH lower trop temps will not hit 0.0 per the current 1991 – 2020 baseline in 2029 or 2030.
The baseline will be changed to the 2001-2030 30-year period at the end of this decade, dropping all temps downward on the chart. Worth mentioning for the bet.
I’ll put AU$1000 dollars on it. We’ll convert to your currency at whatever exchange rates apply in 2031.
(AU$1000 = US$705.20 right now)
Who believes what they’re saying?
Let’s make it easy for them.
I will offer 10 to 1 that UAH is back to zero by the end of 2030.
Any takers?
In more than a decade here here I’ve never seen a ‘skeptic’ put their money where their mouth is. I’ve offered bets about a dozen times against ‘predictions’ they make. They have no conviction at all.
I’m going to repeat myself because apparently common sense and climate change don’t mix.
If CO2 is a serious problem, we should necessarily be able to detect its effect in observations. This is a minimum requirement. I demand to be shown a set of observations where its signal is visible, and no one is able to provide anything.
Nature appears to be unaffected by CO2.
All I’m presented with are hockey stick reconstructions supposedly based on data where no CO2 signal is detectable.
Whether or not CO2 has an effect on temperatures, I don’t know. What I do see is that its potential effect is certainly too weak to emerge from observations.
The only thing that can be definitively demonstrated is that the recent warming is linked to sunlight:
https://www.zupimages.net/up/26/20/hvhk.png
phi
I already gave you a study that detailed the specific effect CO2 plays in surface warming. You rejected the study, not with any valid points, just plain rejected it.
Here it is again so you can reject it again.
You still think they cannot directly measure IR at room temperature using valid math and scientific principles. That is a hurdle for you to jump, not the science community. If you need detailed explanation of how this is possible I will provide information to IR measuring devices that are fairly accurate. Like being able to tell the correct temperature of cold water that is lower than room temperature. If the science behind the IR measuring devices is flawed it seems it should be unable to provide any valid temperatures that are colder than the instrument and yet they do!
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Norman,
They are assuming the increased CO2 level is causing warming. I’m assuming the increasing surface temperature is causing higher CO2 which is evolving as an integral of temperature. Hey, if they can assume then I can assume. Right?
Norman,
Off-topic. Refer to the discussion in question and don’t twist what I’ve said.
Stephen
You and Norman are both right.
Co2 and temperature have an equilibrium relationship.
Changes in temperature can drive changes in CO2.
Carbon sinks including the ocean and permafrost, release CO2 when the temperature rises and take up CO2 when the temperature falls. Thus a change in temperature can drive a change in CO2. The most recent past example is the start of the Holocene when an orbit driven increase in temperature from 9C to 14C increased CO2 from 200ppm to 280ppm.
Changes in CO2 can drive changes in temperature.
Increasing CO2 reduces the rate of heat loss to space around 15 micrometres and increases the temperature. Equilibrium temperature is reached when increased heat loss through the atmospheric window restores the balance. Past examples include the volcanic eruptions that drove several mass extinctions and the PETM.
The most recent example is anthropogenic global warming. An increase in CO2 from 280ppm to 420ppm has so far increased global temperature from 13.8C to 15C.
The study proves very little if anything. They are claiming some kind of qualitative relationship that is heavily influenced by other things as follows: “sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor”. Sometimes you have to read the text:
“Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.”
Here is the math: 0.2/240 = .00083 or 0.083 percent relative to the “ten percent” in the study. It is not clear how that translates to temperature. The satellite record does not show steady growth of temperature between 2000 and 2010.
What is your analysis and conclusion? Be honest.
phi
I look at your graph then you just need to consider the piece of the puzzle that easily explains your cooling trend.
Here:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/50-years-ago-scientists-puzzled-over-slight-global-cooling
And a graph of SO2 on a global scale. You can see it was at a peak during the cooling your graph shows. Pollution standards reduced the emission rate and the warming picked up again. Your graph actually does show the warming trend matching the increase in CO2 when you remove the SO2 cooling effect to counter the CO2 warming.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so-emissions-by-world-region-in-million-tonnes
Tim S
The article claimed they considered all the sources of downwelling IR and were able to find the 0.2 W/m^2/decade in the data.
This would not make a large difference in surface temperature. Roy Spencer calculates a 0.16 C/decade warming signal. But the signal is there. Other things do alter the course but they did find a real measured signal for the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
““Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.”
Here is the math: 0.2/240 = .00083 or 0.083 percent relative to the “ten percent” in the study.”
Oops! Does Tim strangely think that 240 W/m2 is the “trend” in IR?
He needs think again…or think for the first time.
Ent,
I enjoy watching Clarkson’s Farm on Amazon. Do you ever watch it? I’ve learned that the climate crazies in UK are trying to destroy British farming. Climate crazies are just an extension of socialism. Capitalism stands in the way of socialism. Socialism grows out of envy. Socialists don’t like letting the free market decide. They use government to decide the winners and losers instead of the free market. That’s all this is about. That’s all you are about.
Nate,
I thought you just told us that downwelling radiation doesn’t transfer heat? So now it does?
“Socialists don’t like letting the free market decide. They use government to decide the winners and losers instead of the free market.”
Like this:
“The United States has not built a new utility-scale coal plant since 2013, and many of the nation’s existing plants are more than 40 years old. Since 2010, 330 coal plants have retired and 60 others have announced plans to close by 2031”
“President Trump on Thursday announced $700 million in new federal funding for the country’s struggling coal industry, including money that would help build the first two new coal-burning power plants in the United States in more than a decade.
In recent months, the Energy Department has ordered units at five aging coal plants to stay open instead of shutting down as planned. And Mr. Trump has directed the Defense Department to buy more electricity from coal plants to power military installations nationwide.” NYT 6-7-26
Nobody, not the public, nor the free market, wants to bring dirty, polluting, expensive, coal back.
Similarly:
https://fortune.com/2026/04/29/trump-spent-nearly-2-billion-of-taxpayer-money-to-undo-wind-projects-already-underway-dems-demand-answers/
”
Under a deal made public in March, French company TotalEnergies is getting $1 billion — essentially a refund of its leases for offshore wind projects off North Carolina and New York— if it invests the money in fossil fuel projects instead.”
and
”
The Trump admin paid a French company $1 billion to not build offshore wind farms. Blue states are suing”
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/02/climate/trump-totalenergies-lawsuit-offshore-wind
The President clearly wants to decide the winners and losers in the energy market.
The left has used government to destroy the coal industry. Trump is using government to rebuild it.
Trump is one of the most anti-free marketers of recent presidents. The tariffs alone are the most significant hike in many decades. This is pure protectionism, not letting the market decide. But that’s just the beginning of Trump putting his thumb on the economic scales rather than letting business and consumers duke it out.
There hasn’t been a true socialist in federal government for more than 70 years. The conservative canon on this notion is the equivalent of schoolyard taunts, effective but pig ignorant.
Barry,
If there are tariffs all around the world on US goods, then that is a distortion of the free market. Trump is just playing their game.
“The left has used government to destroy the coal industry. Trump is using government to rebuild it.”
The primary cause of the decline of the coal industry is the free market. Gas from fracking surged and became cheaper than coal. Energy providers voluntarily moved away from coal towards the cheaper alternative.
Trump rolled back liberal policies that put heavier regulations on coal burners in his first administration but the decline continued, because coal couldn’t beat market forces. Clean energy subsidies made wind and solar viable, and now that the renewables industry has grown ad the technology improved, it is competitive even without subsidies. Now, instead of letting the market decide, Trump wants to wind the clock back and shield coal from market realities.
Coal has always been subsidised, even more in the early days and 100 years ago. It takes some explaining, with the history illuminated, why anyone today would further subsidise a more expensive source of energy than gas and renewables. It’s not just anti-free market, it doesn’t make economic sense. I can understand it from a national energy security perspective, where a diverse energy supply protects against shortages, but economically it’s the opposite of free market.
Speaking of national energy security, we’ve just had a fine lesson in the vagaries of oil supply, as if volatile petroleum prices haven’t long given us some insight.
Barry,
You are a plethora of leftist talking points. The energy industry has received no subsidies. They are called investment tax breaks. All industries get them; pharmaceuticals, chips, food, restaurant, banks, technology, mining, etc. etc. So, you’re saying all those industries should get tax breaks but energy companies that you don’t like? Sorry, that’s not the way it works, and we don’t listen to Australians to decide our tax policies.
“If there are tariffs all around the world on US goods, then that is a distortion of the free market. Trump is just playing their game.”
Sure. Just remember next time you moan about ‘leftists’ interfering with the free market that you yourself condone such practises when YOU think it’s justified. In fact, you thought the ‘reciprocal’ tariffs were a great idea – the largest distortion to international markets since the subprime mortgage fiasco of 2008/9.
But it’s not just tariffs, which have actually done damage to some American industries (eg semiconductors, agriculture – he’s had to give money to farmers to patch the losses from retaliatory tariffs – great deal-making Donald), he has redirected capital internally. Even at home he is thumbing many scales rather than letting demand and supply decide. Trump doesn’t give a fig about the free market.
Quit worrying about socialists. They have no power, and are no threat to capitalism.
stephen,
“You are a plethora of leftist talking points. The energy industry has received no subsidies. They are called investment tax breaks. All industries get them; pharmaceuticals, chips, food, restaurant, banks, technology, mining, etc. etc. So, you’re saying all those industries should get tax breaks but energy companies that you don’t like?”
“Like?” No, I pointed out the free-market economic peculiarity of continuing to subsidise an energy source (coal) that’s now more expensive than other sources. I also acknowledged it could be part of a strategy of diversification. I also pointed out that energy providers voluntarily trended towards natural gas because of the economic reality of it being cheaper (abetted but not caused by government regulating coal more heavily), a trend Trump wants to buck.
And like a true partisan dimwit you reduce this to “companies you don’t like.”
And thank you for pointing out the government interferes in the market across industries. Where is your vaunted free-market championing now? More to the point, why is it that the energy sector excites you on this point, but not the other industries? Answer – you’re don’t give a fig about the free market either, it’s just a foil to use to poke at industries or policies Let’s you “don’t like.”
Tax breaks for industry is public money used as a regulatory instrument on the free-market. You tax dollars subsidise tax breaks for business. Tax breaks for coal have been huge and ongoing for more than a century in the US.
As well as tax expenditure, the US fed has continued to provide direct subsidies for coal for about as long, the major part being R&D currently, but over the past century and longer the fed directly subsidised the building of infrastructure and transport for coal. Direct subsidies have been hovering around the $2 trillion mark per annum for the past decade.
You may see my focus on coal in this comment as “dislike.” No, it is to relieve you of disinformation.
For instance, while federal government subsidised coal infrastructure in the early days, it didn’t much fund power plant construction. The cumulative direct subsidies for coal over more than a century is only slightly higher than direct subsidies that exploded since the later 2010s for renewables, adjusted to today’s dollar.
So renewables have had a massive leg up in a very short time frame, compared to the longer slow drip of gov direct expenditure for coal. Government pushed harder on the levers for quicker results for renewables, and did so to help a new technology merge with an existing energy grid largely tailored for coal-generated energy. Renewables are now getting substantially more government assistanceI wonder if you than coal.
The pro-fossil fuel talking point implies that tax breaks aren’t really government subsidies. Of course they are, and the fossil fuel industry has had a massively disproportionate boost over time. Oil and gas have had the lion’s share, even more than coal.
It’s not “dislike,” nor is it preference for renewables that I challenge your ideas. If you’re going to talk about this stuff, at least get your facts straight. Check the hyperlink above for evidence of the direct subsidies for coal (and other sectors), as well as tax expenditure over recent years.
So, I know what you think of subsidising renewables, but I’m curious to know if you consider the historical and current direct subsidisation of the fossil fuel industry to be a market distortion to be frowned upon? Or do you think government help was necessary to accelerate public access to cheap energy in the past?
Barry,
Tax breaks for industry aren’t public money. It is their money. You’re showing your socialist stripes. That is the difference between a leftist and a free market conservative. Fossil fuels aren’t the demon. They are the drivers of capitalism and our economy. I feel sorry for the average Australian. They have allowed themselves to be duped by the left. You have no rights except those bestowed on you by the government. During the pandemic you were a clown show. Your system showed its authoritarian stripes and the people had no recourse. There’s a man on YouTube who silently protests by wearing a placard in city in Australia and the police show up and tell him he has to leave. The placard is “hate speech.” No free speech in Australia as well as many other socialist countries like Britain and Sweden. We don’t want your path. It is a path to tyranny. Of course, if Australia is threatened by China you will come to us to save your sorry asses.
“left has used government to destroy the coal industry. Trump is using government to rebuild it.”
I see, Stephen.
So you are perfectly ok with a socialist govt led by your guy, picking winners and losers in the energy market, as long as you like the picks.
Got it.
stephen,
It’s hard to know where to start to unpack that extraordinarily distorted view of economics, Australia, and of me.
I’ll start with you completely ignoring the fact I linked for you that coal gets $2 trillion in DIRECT subsidies. And that coal has received even more in direct subsidies in the early 20th Century.
I put that down to you being a purely political animal with big blinders.
It’s the reason why you are making a conversation about economics a political hammer. Is that all you can do?
Australia has a conservative party. We have conservative voters. They win half the time. We’re not a ‘socialist’ country. You clearly don’t know the meaning of the word. We’re a mixed economy, with a regulated free market, not much different from the US.
While our free speech freedoms are differently structured, the US is a little more free, but in some cases Australia is. No one gets locked up here for criticising the government. We can trash the ruling party just as freely as you can. Our laws vary state to state, the US has a constitutionally backed free speech protection. Both countries have similar restrictions, such as incitement to violence, defamation, fraud, perjury, etc. Your cartoon view of the situation is based on snippets.
As for tyranny, see to your own backyard. The Australian prime minister does not have nearly the power of the US president in the frame of government, and thus is unable to abuse that power as much as a US president can. The prime minister has far less scope to act unilaterally. The US president can issue decrees in the form of Executive Orders. The prime minister needs to work through cabinet approval and sign off by an executive council and the governor general, The US president is closer to a king than the Australia prime minister. The ‘checks’ on executive power are far stronger here than in your country, and we are witnessing your president push the envelope on presidential authority far further than any prior.
Tax expenditure: the government taxes individuals and corporations equally. That is expected revenue that is public money. When tax breaks are given, that is not a person or a company getting their own money back, that is directing public money which COMES from everyone’s taxes – to select industries.
If the government collects standard tax from a company and then writes a check to subsidise that company, it has exactly the same effect on the public purse as creating a tax break for the same amount. The accounting is exactly the same, the name of the vehicle is different. The federal government operates on a budget. If a corporate sector is granted a $10 billion tax expenditure, the government still needs to fund its operations. To make up for that missing $10 billion, the tax burden must be shifted onto the rest of the public—meaning everyday citizens and unsubsidized businesses end up paying higher taxes than they otherwise would.
It’s political optics: writing a direct multi-billion-dollar government check to a fossil fuel or green energy corporation can trigger public outcry. Passing a “tax deduction” or “credit” makes it sound like the government is simply letting a company keep its own money. It’s an easier sell to the public (and to congresscritters, who like to keep their constituents onside when they pass legislation). Either way, the economic effect is exactly the same. It’s also cheaper to write laws for tax exemptions and credits than set up an agency to disburse money.
But you didn’t answer my question, which I exempted from the idea of tax breaks being subsidies just for you. Hopefully you can wean yourself off the left/right claptrap for a whole post.
I’m curious to know if you consider the historical direct subsidisation of the fossil fuel industry to be a market distortion to be frowned upon? Or do you think government help was necessary to accelerate public access to cheap energy in the past?
Barry,
Again, a plethora of leftist talking points. The coal industry has not received any direct subsidies, even though you did capitalize direct. They get exploration tax credits and development tax credits like all other US corporations. Trump recognizes we need coal. Farmers get subsidies, direct by the way. The President can’t do anything more than the Constitution allows. We didn’t have your lockdowns. We didn’t have your vaccine mandates even though Biden (not Trump) tried. You recognize you don’t have free speech or the right to keep and bear arms. We don’t want to be like you. Yes, you do have conservatives. I love SkyNews Australia. But conservatives haven’t been in power for a long time. Your country is like Britain; conservatives exist but barely hanging on. We don’t want that. You hate capitalism until you need it to save your sorry asses.
Sharp comment, Nate.
Barry,
You don’t see conservatives on the whole or in any significant part supporting this global warming due to fossil fuels nonsense. That’s because it is seen for what it is. It is a way for government to control free market capitalism. Your faux concern about how tariffs are hurting US consumers is laughable. You don’t give a rat’s ass about US consumers. You hate Trump because you can’t control him. He sees socialism (leftism) which is just soft Marxism, for what it is-antithetical to the US Constitution.
Barry is like Scott Pelley, former 60 Minutes host. He’s a leftist but doesn’t know it or admit it.
Troglodyte is like Bari Weiss, a complete tool:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jun/07/scott-pelley-bari-weiss-renee-good-report
An inveterate liar too, most probably.
Is Nate actually confused about basic algebra? Percent increase per decade divide by baseline is a trend. The percent is the increase per decade.
left right left right left right….
What a limited, distorting lens to view things through.
There’s no such thing as center or an independent. An independent is a leftist who won’t admit it. Just accept who you are.
Tim,
The study was clear
“This increase is about ten percent of the trend”
Then you:
“Here is the math: 0.2/240 = .00083 or 0.083 percent relative to the “ten percent” in the study.”
So NO, that is not THE MATH, since 240 is not THE TREND.
You are either confused or trying to mislead people.
There is such a thing as a reactionary centrist, and Pelley is one.
https://bsky.app/profile/michaelhobbes.bsky.social/post/3mnpmqpbfus2p
There is such a thing as a troglodyte:
https://www.propublica.org/article/mark-mcafee-raw-milk-recalls-maha
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_atl_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_atl_1.png
https://i.ibb.co/7xkWWZcz/cdas-sflux-ssta-atl-1.png
Due to the Earth’s position relative to the Sun (aphelion in July), summer temperatures at the North Pole do not rise compared to the 1958–2002 average. The Sun is the primary factor influencing climate change on a timescale of thousands of years.
https://i.ibb.co/PGX4kWCD/daily-ts-2026.png
Polar bears can still hunt on the ice in Hudson Bay.
https://i.ibb.co/4n9nXqZz/masie-all-r10-4km.png
One of the hallmarks of pseudoskeptics is their constant tendency to ignore or discredit anything that contradicts them via irrefutable data.
*
First, a few clarifying words regarding the comparison between the “good” UAH data and the “bad” NOAA or NASA data.
Just as O2 emissions in the 60 GHz range are recorded by extremely precise AMSU instruments aboard polar-orbiting satellites, infrared radiant flux densities have also been determined since 1979 by extremely precise HIRS instruments aboard (sometimes the very same) polar-orbiting satellites.
And just as there is obviously no reason for pseudoskeptics to question the accuracy of UAH’s processing of 60 GHz O2 emissions to derive temperatures – simply because they like the results (due to the low temperatures) – there should likewise be no reason for them to doubt the accuracy of NASA’s processing of infrared emissions just because they dislike the results (which support the dominance of radiative processesin Earth’s energy budget).
*
1. I have already explained the origin of this 240 W/m² figure:
https://archive.data.noaa.gov/climatedatarecords#UMD_ESSIC/OLR_CDR/Daily/OLR-D-CDR_01B-21/
*
As with UAH, the data determined above the atmosphere are incorporated into data grids, where each cell is assigned an infrared radiant flux density value.
This flat grid (for OLR: 1 x 1 de sgree, i.e., 180 x 360 cells) must be mapped onto a sphere (or ellipsoid); therefore, the spherical surface area is calculated for each cell latitude.
Using the OLR grid and assuming a perfect sphere, a grid cell at 45° latitude has an area of 8,743 km² (compared to 8,762 km² for the WGS84 ellipsoid); at e.g. 220 W/m² (which equates to 220 MW/km²), this yields an available power output of 1,923,460 MW – or approximately 1.92 TW – on the day of measurement.
If one sums all these available power outputs and divides the total by the Earth’s surface area, a purely spherical calculation yields an average infrared radiant flux density of 240.37 W/m² for the year 2025, for example; the average across all years since 1987 is 239.56 W/m².
*
The “Chief Ignoramus” failed to grasp this some time ago, so I will state it again: just as a 900 MW power plant delivers 21.6 GWh of energy in 24 hours, the aforementioned cell at 45°N delivers approximately 46 TWh infrared radiation energy on the day the 220 W/m² figure was derived from HIRS measurements.
Summing the values for all cells for each day, and then summing the daily totals for the year, the calculation yields a total energy output (in the form of infrared radiation escaping to space) of 1,076,426,351 TWh for the year 2025.
**
2. And this MUST correspond over a period of say 10 years to the energy supplied by the Sun: cell by cell, hour by hour – during that same year, rather than the 100% figure of 1,361 W/m² everywhere at any time. Otherwise, we are heading either toward a furnace or a frozen snowball.
I will forgo the discussion regarding the variation in solar irradiance across a hemisphere – which effectively halves the total – as that topic has become irrelevant to me since I began analyzing solar data.
It is far more interesting and revealing to analyze the solar radiation actually measured by ground stations; this allows us to see, regardless of the location or year chosen, what remains of that famous 1361 W/m² when averaged over the day and the year.
I have presented a great deal of US SURFRAD, OLR and worldwide BSRN data in graphical form over the past few weeks; here is some new data, this time from the Selegua station (Mexico, lat. 15° N), whose data is accessible in the BSRN (Baseline Surface Radiation Network), for e.g. the year 2020.
Annual data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P5BXl2SBXvemsm24QvjxaC_wbDiBEybK/view
How can the blue average line be so low?
Simply look at the marked differences in the daily data for downwelling solar radiation versus downwelling and upwelling infrared radiation:
Daily data: January 1–7
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j0yewnbibZxwoCegqfUnhGnovUWhC_z5/view
Daily data: July 11–17
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hXqxon8zdPr-9tIDZS6S4psFp02-lNwD/view
*
The annual figures tell an even clearer story. Maximum of downwelling solar:
2020 09 25 1390 (*)
2020 09 07 1338
2020 09 06 1311
Minimum: 0 (yeah, zehro, night is night)
Maximum e.g. of downwelling infrared:
2020 09 05 471
2020 08 20 470
2020 08 02 466
Minimum:
2020 12 27 306
2020 02 03 306
2020 02 03 306
Number of days with less than 10 W/m² of incident solar radiation: 4512, i.e., 52% of the year.
Should anyone consider the solar radiation in Selegua to be exceptional, it should be noted that the average across all 10 BSRN stations whose data I downloaded was 51%.
{ (*) Don’t be surprised by the irradiance values, which are well above the actual maximum value of 1361: This is due to effects such as forward refraction or cloud lensing; values above 2000 have been measured in the Atacama Desert at altitudes above 5000 meters. }
*
This is precisely what pseudo-skeptics cannot accept: While solar radiation is interrupted daily by the night and seasonally depending on latitude, the same does NOT apply to the terrestrial response to it.
Number of days with less than 10 W/m² with downwelling solar: 4512, i.e. 52%
Should anyone believe the solar situation in Selegua is special, sorry: the average for all 10 BSRN stations I downloaded the data of is 51%.
*
If we now look at this budget diagram from 2015:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/6af63d13-c314-46ec-86f3-82254ba4df4e/qj2704-fig-0001-m.jpg
…then there is simply nothing wrong with it, neither the 240 W/m² of averaged infrared radiant flux density at the TOA, nor the downwelling solar radiation, though appearing apparently so low compared to other radiation values.
What pyranometers, pyrheliometers, and pyrgeometers have been measuring for decades should not be called into question without well-founded technical objection—any more than the brightness analyses from UAH based on MSU and AMSU.
But I know: pseudoskeptics always reject numbers not fitting their narrative…
There was a little clash when transferring translated text from Google into the blog’s edit form, things duplicated, others missing.
*
Here are the averages of the BSRN stations I downloaded the data of (from Alert, Nunavut in Canada; over Nauru Island at the Equator; down to South Pole):
downwelling solar: 173 (W/m²)
downwelling infrared: 281
Only four of them had info for upwelling. Thus,
upwelling infrared: 278
is therefore not very informative in comparison to the former.
Bindi, thanks for proving me right again.
The satellites are NOT measuring infrared flux (W/m²) at TOA. They measure “spectral radiance” (W/m²/sr/μm). Then they use a model based on values like the bogus 240 W/m². There is NO valid measurement of OLR. It’s all modeling!
You don’t have to prove me right all the time, but I appreciate your efforts when you do.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
What’s the area of the Earth?
1. Some here don’t have the least idea of on what for emprical models UAH’s trasformations from brightness to temperature are needed…
*
2. ” Then they use a model based on values like the bogus 240 W/m². ”
This is a blatant lie.
*
I read about CERES EBAF years ago, anyone can see it today anywhere, just ask some AI bot.
The instruments measure indeed spectral radiance (W/m²/sr/μm) at specific angles, rather than directly outputting a globally integrated flux, and thir data processing is based on Angular Distribution Models.
Coincident imagers scan the same footprint to determine the exact scene content, such as cloud fraction, aerosol types, and surface properties (e.g., snow, ocean, desert).
Because the Earth does not reflect or emit radiation uniformly in all directions (it is anisotropic), scientists use scene-dependent ADMs to estimate how radiance varies based on viewing geometry (viewing zenith, solar zenith, and relative azimuth angles).
The measured spectral radiance is integrated over all viewing angles to obtain the total shortwave (reflected) or longwave (emitted) flux for that specific scene.
For times when a satellite isn’t passing overhead, algorithms use models to account for diurnal variations (how the reflection/emission changes throughout the day) to establish a daily mean flux.
*
If Clint R had the least idea of how to process the data stored e.g. in
https://archive.data.noaa.gov/climatedatarecords/UMD_ESSIC/OLR_CDR/Daily/OLR-D-CDR_01B-21/OLR-Daily_v02r00_s20250101_e20251231.nc
he would know that the 240.37 W/m² for the year 2025 is not a bogus number used by the scientists, but is on the contrary the result of processing the data stored in the file linked above, which contains for each of the 365 days a 1 degree grid array (180 x 360 cells which all contain the result of the spectral radiance accurately derived for each cell).
I.e. 189.87 W/m² for January 1 at 90S-180W resp. 171.82 W/m²at 90N-180E.
The average of all the 23,783,400 radiant flux density values for 2025 is 224.92 W/m² – a lot below the true value obtained by transforming the flat grid into a sphere or an ellipsoid.
*
But Clint R has, like Robertson and all the arrogant and ignorant pseudoskeptics infesting this blog, NO technical skills of how to compute the final result and contradict what I did, let alone what the scientists did; hence, what remains to him is to discredit, denigrate and… lie.
So are they, the Clint Rs…
Sometimes I feel sorry for Bindi. He’s such a sad case. He wants so bad to stalk me and prove me wrong, but he doesn’t understand any of the science. Like with the Moon issue, he STILL has no viable model of “orbiting without spin”. That means he knows NOTHING about orbital motions.
Here, he first claims what I said was a “blatant lie”, then he goes on to clog the blog to say what I said! (Only in 20 times the words!)
He’s an immature cult child, like the rest. He doesn’t understand the science, and can’t learn. He’s one of the cult kids that has NEVER answered one of my basic physics questions.
I don’t understand why he keeps beating his head against the wall. Immaturity combined with mental illness?
Allow me to remind everyone what Gordon (and, by implication, CR) believe:
“There must be a precise temperature for a photon.”
Dumb and dumber.
This “studentb” child stalks me often. Because he has no science, he resorts to false accusations. There’s no way I ever said such a thing, consequently there is no way this child could provide a link with me saying it.
Just another example of how the cult kids disrespect reality.
Anybody who refers to “CO2 15 micron photons”, by definition, is labelling them with a temperature.
I stand by my claim of “dumb and dumber”.
Making up false definitions is what a cult does to pervert reality.
Thanks for proving me right.
The North Atlantic is cooled by a vast upper-level low-pressure system. Heavy cloud cover prevents the surface from being warmed by solar radiation.
The highest sea surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific occur in a limited area south of Mexico and north of the equator.
https://i.ibb.co/4wB4L5kN/cdas-sflux-sst-global-1.png
Are the temperature increases accelerating?
I am still struggling with this question. I used an AI model for awhile and wasn’t completely satisfied with “our” conclusion: no (or very little) acceleration.
Dr. Roy has been publishing the linear trend since 1979 for awhile. I don’t want to hunt back through all those posts to see what it has been in the past. It is currently +0.16C/decade. I found +0.14C/decade through October 2020. Does anyone have the months when it first went to +0.16C, +0.15C, etc, back to, say, 2009, when we first had a 30 year period? Also, what is the potential error in the measurement? +/- what?
No new analyses and charts/graphs, please, unless they are quite clear. I am not a practicing scientist. Think of me as Feynman’s first year student (or bartender). BTW, whether you are a warming advocate or critic, that is how you have to communicate if you want to change policy.
Thomas Hagedorn
What exactly didn’t you understand what I wrote above for you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1745986
1. The trend for 1978-2008 was 0.13 °C /decade
2. The trend for 1978-2026 is 0.16 °C / decade.
What else do you need?
This is a perennial problem for Republican politicians. Many are climate change deniers because that is what their campaign donors pay them to be.
For US temperature check, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/countries/united-states/average-temperature-by-year. The Thi and Tlo data from 1901 to 2024 are displayed in long table. Here is the data for these two years:
Year—–Thi——Tlo Temperature are °C
2024—–16.8—–4.3
1901—–14.9—–1.6
Change—+1.9—-+2.7
For Thi the temperature increase is: 1.9/12.4 decades=0.15/decade
This value of 0.15° C is very close to your value.
The Extremeweatherwatch website has yet to updated temperature data for 2025 for the countries. However, temperature data for cities is available for 2025.
Apologies for some remarks letting me appear like an arrogant teacher.
What wonders me all the time again is that people can compare temperature trends for
– completely different periods: 1901-2024 versus 1979-2026
– completely different regions (US – I suppose you mean CONUS – versus the Globe.
Moreover, when we speak about ‘temperature increase’, I suppose you mean ‘trend’, a procedure used by everybody, and based on ordinary least squares rather than simply dividing an increase by a time period.
Please look at UAH’s regional and zonal data:
https://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt
There you will see at the bottom the trend for CONUS aka “USA48” till (currently) April 2026:
0.21 °C / decade (versus 0.16 for the Globe).
*
I just uploaded your EW data, and here are the linear trends in °C / decade for (Thi+Tlo)/2 (sat data has only Tavg), within different periods, compared where meaningful to UAH’s time series for CONUS:
1901-2024
EW: 0.11
1979-2024
EW: 0.32
48: 0.19
2000-2024
EW: 0.41
48: 0.24
*
Seems to look a bit different.
Tropical storm over Jamaica.
https://i.ibb.co/cX7mxk1W/goes19-ir-watl.gif
Stephen
You have it backwards. Through campaign donations the companies control the govermnent.
Oh, do you mean like Soros or Singham>
Doesn’t really make much difference who is donating or to which party.
The American political system is corrupt because the politicians at all levels are dependant on campaign donations and the donor then controls what the politician says, how he votes and where the government funding ends up.
As the old saying goes; “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
The USA is probably the greatest country and best political system that’s ever been and ever will be. Is it perfect? No. It is the greatest wealth building, where even poor people are fat. Is it utopia? There is no utopia. Never will be. Socialism is nowhere near utopia. That’s the thing with you leftists, you think you can plan utopia, you can’t. Every socialist system ends in disaster, or they jump back into capitalism so it can save them. Our system has always been about equality of opportunity but utopians demand equality of outcome. Doesn’t work, never will. It goes against human nature. If you took every penny from Elon Musk and kicked him into the streets, within 5 years he’d be a billionaire again. That’s human nature and leftists hate it and thrive on envy and with every word that comes out of your mouths you prove my point.
“The USA is probably the greatest country and best political system that’s ever been and ever will be.”
ROFL.
More fun with “240 W/m²”
[CAUTION, not suitable for children.]
The cult is so obsessed with their bogus 240 W/m² that they even use it as the solar input to Earth, after albedo. So they have no problem replacing Sun with 4 sources equally placed around an imaginary sphere. The sphere is then receiving 240 W/m² at each of four disks, resulting in a temperature of 255K.
That works for an imaginary sphere. There are no violations of physical laws. The cult believes four sources supplying 240 W/m² is the same as one source supplying 960 W/m². But, that does not mean you can keep adding more 240 W/m² and still raise the temperature.
One source supplying 240 W/m² to the imaginary sphere would result in the sphere having a temperature of 180K and emitting 60 W/m².
Two sources each supplying 240 W/m² to the imaginary sphere would result in the sphere having a temperature of 214K and emitting 120 W/m².
Three such sources — 237K, 180 W/m².
Four such sources — 255K, 240 W/m².
Each new 240 W/m² is able to continue to raise the temperature. So the cult believes it will go one forever. However, once the sphere is emitting 240 W/m², an additional 240 W/m² would not be able to increase the temperature. Radiative fluxes don’t simply add.
An arriving flux MUST be greater than the flux being emitted by a surface to raise the surface’s temperature. Believing a lesser flux can raise temperature is one of the many flaws in the CO2 nonsense.
More fun: What temperature would result from four sources supplying 960 W/m² to the imaginary sphere?
Temperature of 361K, emitting 960 W/m².
Clint R
Since you believe all science minded people and those who have actually studied various branches are in some type of cult that you invented, can you verify your claims with an actual experiment. You claim adding more heat lamps to a sphere will not increase its temperature but you provide ZERO evidence. Textbook science, which I have linked you to, clearly states that EMR energy from a colder source will be absorbed by a hotter one. I linked you to a valid textbook and gave you the page numbers. I cannot help you when you claim valid science is a “cult” but will offer NO EVIDENCE whatsover to support your claims.
I can help you here. People who belong to cults blindly believe what authorities tell them to believe (like what you do, make claims with no evidence and that goes against established physics). Your posts are cultish. You make claims with no support and belittle any one who questions your claims. This is what cults do.
The science minded on this blog you insult regularly do support their claims with links and supporting evidence which is opposite of what you do and which is NOT cultish in anyway.
Norman, I’ve told you over and over that if you want me to teach you science, you MUST stop the insults and false accusations. But, like the rest of the cult kids, you can’t learn.
Thanks for proving me right.
Clint R
Sounds like you are admitting to being a cult mind! When I ask for evidence you divert. You do it all the time.
Basically you are clearly saying you have zero desire to provide valid science. You are happy to divert.
Wrong again, stalker.
What I’m saying is I no longer waste time with cult kids that have no respect for reality.
Norman,
Longwave radiation doesn’t warm the ocean. It doesn’t warm land either because the land is warmer. Shortwave IR will warm the ocean. You can’t have a warmer planet heating a colder atmosphere and then the colder atmosphere heating the planet. That would be a perpetual motion machine. If EMR energy could heat a warmer object you could create a perpetual motion machine.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
Clint R
A correction for you. What you rally will not “waste” your time on is providing valid science evidence for your cult claims! Thank me for correcting you Cult Clint!
Stephen p anderson
I am hoping you have more ability to rationally think than our Cult friend Clint R. The atmosphere is not warming the surface!! Look the Global energy budgets. The surface emits around 398 W/m^2 (just an average). The colder atmoshere retuns 340. The effect is not warming. The GHE works because GHG reduce the Net surface energy loss of what would be 398 W/m^2 to 58 W/m^2. Still losing energy so not warming. This allows the average solar input of 163 W/m^2 has a net gain 105 W/m^2 which is removed by the other surface cooling, convection and evaporation.
In your experience you know the air temperature inside a car in summer is much higher than outside air. The inside air is not receiving greater input solar energy but the rate of heat loss is reduced so it gets much warmer. The body of the car restricting heat loss is not warming this air! It acts to reduce heat loss so solar input then results in higher temperature.
Please help me understand why the “skeptics” who post here are unable or unwilling to accept basic established science??
Here’s just one example of how Norman attempts to distort reality: “You claim adding more heat lamps to a sphere will not increase its temperature but you provide ZERO evidence.”
I never said any such thing. What Norman is confused about is my example above about 4 sources each providing 240 W/m² to a sphere. The sphere would be emitting 240 W/m². So a fifth, sixth, or more identical sources would be unable to raise the sphere’s temperature, since it is already emitting 240 W/m².
He can’t understand because he’s never studied radiative physics or thermodynamics. Worse yet, he can’t accept reality.
Cult Clint R
Are you goofy? You state “He can’t understand because he’s never studied radiative physics or thermodynamics. Worse yet, he can’t accept reality.”
I have linked you to textbooks on heat transfer I have studied. What up with your false claims? You are the one who has NEVER studied real physics.
Here:
https://lampinsider.com/how-many-watts-does-a-heat-lamp-use/
So you can buy yourself 6 heat lamps. If you buy a 250 Watt bulb it will not produce more than 250 watts of power. Now surround a globe with one and measure the surface temperature at various points. Add another then keep measuring the surface temperature until you have all six going. Make up a sheet and post your results as what happens to the sphere temperature as you add heat lamps. See if it is limited (eventually you will run out of space to add more but you can post the results of each addition).
You can babble like drunk about your supposed superior knowledge that you can’t support with valid science. I would expect you to do some actual science and demonstrate your knowledge of heat transfer is superior to one such as Tim Folkerts. Rational posters on this blog already know you will not perform any science (such as an experiment). You will keep calling intelligent people cult minded. You will attract a few ignorants like DREMT or Bill Hunter to your made up science. You have convinced zero scientists that you have any real knowledge. Let us see you convince NASA scientists the Moon does not rotate once per orbit (tidal locked). Send them your great idea of a ball-on-a-string and convince them that they are brain-dead Astrologers for thinking the Moon actually rotates.
Sorry Norman, but finding a source on the Internet is not the same as taking a dedicated college-level course. I can tell you’ve never had a real course in thermodynamics. That’s why you have to resort to insults and false accusations. But, I’m immune to such childishness.
Here’s just one example of how you attempt to distort reality: “You claim adding more heat lamps to a sphere will not increase its temperature but you provide ZERO evidence.”
I never said any such thing. You’re fixated on “heat lamps”, which is your attempt to pervert my example. What you are confused about is my example above about 4 sources each providing 240 W/m² to a sphere. The sphere would be emitting 240 W/m². So a fifth, sixth, or more identical sources would be unable to raise the sphere’s temperature, since it is already emitting 240 W/m².
You can’t understand because you’ve never studied radiative physics or thermodynamics. Worse yet, you can’t accept reality. You keep forgetting you have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You have to just keep making up crap.
Keep proving me right.
Norman says:
You will attract a few ignorants like DREMT or Bill Hunter to your made up science. You have convinced zero scientists that you have any real knowledge. Let us see you convince NASA scientists the Moon does not rotate once per orbit (tidal locked).
——————-
Norman obviously disputes the concept of a rotation on an external axis. Indeed the moon does rotate and does so around earth. Norman can’t even get the facts straight much less figure out that both DREMT and I recognize that the moon rotates with the only dispute being where the “true” axis lies. Talk about being an ignorant. Sheesh!
Norman,
You just linked a post to Berkley Earth that is in direct opposition to your claim that it is just “returning the warmth+ but not really warming anything, which doesn’t make sense, thermodynamically.
I asked google AI on an incognito tab:
“If I have 8 suns around a blackbody sphere, each supplying 240 W/m2 to the surface, what flux will the sphere emit?”
Copy and paste that question to an AI, Clint, and do it on a brand new incognito window/tab.
This is the answer I got (minus some of the math):
“At thermal equilibrium, the sphere will emit a flux of 480 W/m2.
Core Assumptions
The sphere is a perfect blackbody.
Absorptivity equals exactly 1.
Emissivity equals exactly 1.
Total power absorbed equals total power emitted.
Suns do not overlap or shadow each other.
Step-by-Step Calculation
1. Calculate the intercepted power per sun:
A sphere of radius R projects a flat cross-sectional disk area to a distant light beam.
[math]
2. Calculate the total power absorbed:
Eight suns each deliver 240 W/m2 across this cross-sectional area.
[math]
3. Determine the emission surface area:
The sphere radiates energy out into space from its entire surface.
[math]
4. Calculate equilibrium emitted flux:
At thermal equilibrium, total power emitted equals total power absorbed.
[math]
= 480 W/m2”
Go on Clint, try it. To keep the answer free of bias, ask it neutrally like I did, in a brand new conversation, incognito.
“Black Body Barry” is back!
Ask your worthless AI, “What the temperature of the sphere would be if surrounded by 8 sources that each provided 300 W/m² to its surface.”
If it again gives you the wrong answer, ask it is 8 blocks of ice could boil water?
I didn’t pay attention to this earlier.
“…8 sources that each provided 300 W/m2 to its surface…
…8 blocks of ice could boil water…”
Emitted flux v absorbed flux…
Oh, McGooo, you’ve done it again!
I think I can help you out, Clint.
Imagine it is our sun irradiating the sphere.
Now completely fill the entire field of view of the sphere with suns. A great sphere encasing the sphere, like a giant cavity.
We all know that the sphere temperature must equal the temperature of the cavity ‘wall’. The sphere must be 5778K.
This is radiative transfer 101, the basic equilibrium in a cavity scenario. If the walls are fixed at a certain temperature, all objects within the cavity must equilibrate to that temperature. They cannot be hotter or colder.
The flux for that temperature is 63,200,700 W/m2. That is what the sphere must emit at equilibrium on this scenario.
AI tells me that 184,260 suns like ours could surround a sphere at 1 AU.
Do you see it yet?
Now start taking away suns one by one.
Each sun removed reduces the temperature of the sphere.
4 suns equipositioned around the sphere do not provide the temperature limit for the sphere. Each sun added makes the sphere warmer, until the temperature of the sphere equilibrates with the surface temperature of the sun/s when completely surrounded.
With your view, we encase the sphere with an enclosure of suns at 5778K, and still the sphere remains at 340K.
Do you see it?
You mean the inconsistency between your two comments?
Yup, I see it.
Do you see it?
If not, you might need a responsible adult to help you.
Clint,
There’s no legitimate way around this very basic equilibrium cavity scenario. If the temperature of the walls are fixed, any object inside must come to the same temperature and radiate the same flux.
Surrounding the sphere with a wall of suns at 5778K must give the sphere the same temperature as the surface of the suns.
The corollary is obvious. As you remove suns the sphere drops in temperature and radiates less and less intensely. Eventually we get down to 4 equipositioned suns each delivering 340 W/m2 to the sphere, and a much lower temperature/flux emitted by the sphere.
Removing suns subtracts from the total radiative flux it absorbs, adding suns increases it.
If you don’t agree with this, could you please explain why?
barry, you’re perverting the problem, just like you attempt to pervert reality. That’s what you have to do to protect your cult.
My comment (above) involved 4 sources each providing 240 W/m² to the sphere. If you change that scenario drastically, you change the problem. That’s the problem with radiative physics and thermodynamics. If you don’t understand what you’re doing, you end up getting in trouble as you did with your AI. You’ve got AI basically saying you can boil water with ice!
You even have a bag of tricks you use to pervert reality — a black body, and the bogus “heat transfer” equation, for example. Others of your cult use “CO2 lasers”, microwave ovens, IR thermometers, and magnifying glasses, to pervert reality.
Now, what perversion will you attempt next?
A good rebuttal to your thesis isn’t a ‘perversion.’, it’s just something you have no answer for.
“My comment (above) involved 4 sources each providing 240 W/m2 to the sphere. If you change that scenario…”
Your comment mentioned an extra 240 W/m2 irradiating the sphere, asserting no effect. I took that assertion to a logical conclusion to demonstrate its falsehood. If what you say is true, 184,000 suns completely surrounding the sphere would provide no more warmth to it than 4. My argument scotched that assertion, as the sphere must be in equilibrium with its environment.
“a bag of tricks you use to pervert reality — a black body”
The sphere in your scenario is a blackbody. If it weren’t it wouldn’t absorb all the radiation from the 4 suns and its temperature would be lower than your solution.
Are you sure you want to say using blackbodies is a trick to pervert reality? You’re unwittingly accusing yourself.
Ad hom really won’t obscure your mistakes here, Clint. It is perfectly clear that you have no answer to this rebuttal.
Fluxes add. See above.
You, and some of you cult, have stepped in it again, blackbody barry.
I usually don’t waste my time debunking such nonsense, but this is worth it. You have revealed your vast incompetence and ignorance. Unfortunately I will have to wait until this weekend to find the time.
Stay tuned….
Clint has been thoroughly schooled.
Unfortunately, he has no time, and needs to crawl away. Though, as usual, he leaves a slimy trail.
A correction: a greybody would respond to radiative input like a blackbody. So your sphere could be a greybody rather than a blackbody, Clint.
However, both constructs are equally theoretical, so your criticism of blackbodies reflects equally on the sphere as greybody too (pun intended).
I was thinking of albedo when I said emissivity. The sphere is a planet in my mind.
Speaking of “cavities” reminds me of this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742689
Barry,
“Surrounding the sphere with a wall of suns at 5778K must give the sphere the same temperature as the surface of the suns.”
And thus, the Clint ‘theory’ is burnt like the surface of the Earth.
Nate comments in the wrong place (quite deliberately).
DREMT tries to distract us from Clint’s ‘theory’ going up in flames by baiting people into relitigating his Zombie arguments, and nost importantly, posting etiguette!
Actually, the dream is to post a comment and get no responses. Sadly that is not possible when I have so many stalkers.
Weird. Post bait, in hopes of getting no response!
Poof goes your credibility, again.
See what I mean?
These comments remind me of a time when I won a conversation. I do hope no one interrupts my perfection by commenting below. I do so hate getting dragged into conversations that I already won.
Yes, folks – barry’s another stalker.
All I want to do is just provide a link so people can read through the discussion, and hopefully learn something.
All I want is for no one to comment on my posts.
A little more for people to read, on the same subject:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1742923
[PUFFMAN] *Repeats one of his silly riddles*
[BARRY] A great sphere encasing the sphere, like a giant cavity.
[GRAHAM] Speaking of “cavities” reminds me of this:
[NATE] Yes, Barry. Puffman’s riddle is a little silly.
[GRAHAM] Go away, stalker!
[BARRY] Yes, Nate. Really silly.
[GRAHAM] ANOTHER STALKER!
*Faints*.
It goes without saying that my biggest stalker would appear, and thus identify himself as a stalker.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Last month FastNet, the AI weather model we’re developing with
@metoffice.gov.uk, predicted the high temperatures of May’s heatwave 84hrs ahead.
It captured the highest midday temperatures more closely than the current operational physics-based global model.
Learn more: bit.ly/47JvdRm
https://bsky.app/profile/theturing.bsky.social/post/3mnu2mcrrjc2o
Meanwhile Sky Dragon cranks can’t make elementary divisions.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Last month FastNet, the AI weather model we’re developing with @metoffice.gov.uk, predicted the high temperatures of May’s heatwave 84hrs ahead. It captured the highest midday temperatures more closely than the current operational physics-based global model.
https://bsky.app/profile/theturing.bsky.social/post/3mnu2mcrrjc2o
Meanwhile Sky Dragon cranks can’t make elementary divisions.
Nate,
This is related to these three characteristics:
1. Smoothing that increases with depth.
2. Regular and significant computational smoothing (one century) that is added to the physical smoothing.
3. The use of a point for the present, which is arbitrary given the smoothing used.
Bindidon – Thank you for your helpful post about temperature acceleration. Can you go way back up in these posts and answer my response? It was around 4:30 AM on June 9. Just asking for a few simple calculations. I could likely try them, but not sure they would be right.
“The USA is probably the greatest country and best political system that’s ever been and ever will be.”
ROFL.
Britain used to be a great country. It reached its apex probably during Victoria’s reign. Now it is a shell of its former self. Britain needed us to defeat the Nazi socialists and then it embraced socialism. Communism worked its way into Britain through the Labour Party. Why would Britain embrace socialism after it worked so hard to defeat it? It was already headed down that path. Staggers the imagination.
No deflection.
Never mind the UK; I want go hear you defend a system in which the fossil fuel lobby can buy a president.
Said president then enriches his family. He uses his Justice Department to harass his political opponents and he fires Senators and officials who dare to disagree with him. He packed the Supreme Court with his own appointees.
His party practices racism and discriminatory voting practices on a scale unheard of in recent history. Both parties practice gerrymandering to fiddle the vote.
Tariffs have damaged his economy by restricting trade and making necessary imports such as rare earths more expensivemore expensive. His enefgy policy discourages the use of cheap and plentiful renewables while encouraging the costliest and most expensive fuel on the planet.
His science policy is demolishing what used to be one of America’s greatest strengths. Finally he
We wont even discuss his egotism, his encroaching senility or his urge to put his name on everything and build monuments to himself.
Overall, the US has become a mockery of a democracy. It’s not yet a dictatorship, but its certainly an oligarchy with Trump as the supreme oligarch.
Entropic Man,
Did you say you don’t like companies and billionaires donating to presidential campaigns? Were you okay with the Harris campaign receiving $1.5 billion Vs Trump getting $350million
Ent,
OK, I get it. You hate Trump. Woo oooh. I don’t even give British politics a second thought. Why are you so interested in US politics if we’re a has been country?
Anon for a reason.
Do you not find it obscene that in the “world’s greatest democracy” people spent $1.85 billion trying to buy an election?
Entropic Man,
What I find obscene is the bias of the media. Joe biden was totally incapable of organising anything. Yet the majority of the media still claimed he was perfect.
The money is a problem but as Trump proved it’s not the whole answer as he had a fraction of what the democrats had and still won. You must be aware in the UK that a lot of union members don’t agree with political funding as it is at odds with their own voting preference.
Of course if you prefer a Chinese style of election then say so.
Also, by the way, these tranches of mail in ballots in California are coming in and can you believe they counted over 10,000 the other day and not one, zero, ballot was for the Republican? How is that even possible? Not one.
No, I dont believe it. Where is this data from?
Trumps been telling his base for months that mail in ballots are terrible and should not to be trusted
No one should then be surprised that his base listened to him, and few voted by mail.
Nor should anyone be surprised that when the majority of mail-in ballots indeed were for Democrats, that Trump would declare there must have been cheating!
And no one should be surprised that his supporters are fooled by this.
We heard exactly the same allegations during the 2020 election and those were debunked in court. So I looked it up.
Yep, a lag in updates to a news service for a candidate is the culprit.
“In fact, the update that showed zero Pratt votes was followed one minute later by another update that showed tens of thousands of votes for Pratt, and none for Bass or Raman.”
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2026-06-05/how-simple-mix-up-fueled-false-conspiracies-about-la-vote-count
Oh, it was debunked by Pravda. OK.
Barry,
So, does Australia allow the counting of ballots that come in after election day?
So, this fact checking and debunking is more leftist propaganda. For instance, if you look up Germany’s mail in ballots, first you have to request a mail in ballot. You either have to do so with a form or in writing. You also have to have a polling card. This essentially verifies that you are who you say you are and is like the old absentee ballot system. This is not mass mailing of ballots. The only reason to mass mail ballots is to allow cheating. Nate and Barry are a couple of lying propagandists.
In the UK registered voters must submit an application to the electoral registration officer. There are time and document requirements for the application. There must be a reason the person cannot show up to the polls on election day. So again, this is like our absentee ballot system. This is not what is happening in California. This is a mass mailing of ballots. What states allow mass mailing of ballots in all elections? California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado.
Stephen, if you dont like having your conspiratorial narratives fact-checked, maybe do it yourself before posting them here.
We will see, Nate. Why don’t you do mail in ballots in Pennsylvania?
Postal voting is commonplace worldwide, it is common to have many of them counted after election day, especially in places with high population density, and it is also normal in many countries to receive them after election day as long as they were posted by election day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting
Trump’s incessant and always debunked claims of election corruption appears to have misled his followers into thinking that postal votes are an aberration and a regular gateway to election fraud.
They are common practise all over the US, even in red states, and worldwide, in order to give everyone the best opportunity to participate in their respective democracies.
Yes, stephen, Australia has postal voting for people who aren’t able to vote in person on the day, and postal ballots can be counted days and even weeks after the election, in order to ensure everyone’s voice is heard.
stephen says: “Why don’t you do mail in ballots in Pennsylvania?”
facepalm
“If you’re a registered Pennsylvania voter, you may apply to vote by mail.”
https://www.pa.gov/services/vote/apply-for-a-mail-in-or-absentee-ballot
stephen, what are the procedures and safeguards in place for mail ballots in California? I’m not American, I believe you are, so you’d know more than I do, and no doubt you’ve taken the time to understand how it works. I know they are automatically mailed out. Then what happens?
“What states allow mass mailing of ballots in all elections? California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado.”
Utah is a red state, and the mass mailout provision was enacted under a Republican legislature. Republicans championed the cause to make voting more accessible for rural areas, military families, and to encourage people to vote.
Or they did it, according to the conspiracy theorists, to rig elections.
Do you realize that both Democrats and Republicans have won election in regions with mailout ballots?
I did a quick google and found that wherever mass mailout ballots have been adopted, there was no sudden shift in election results. Studies show that the only thing that noticeably changed was a modestly higher turnout for elections.
There’s a lot of smoke from MAGA in this issue. Let’s see the actual fires. Let’s see substantive evidence for impropriety rising above the noise about it.
Barry,
Stop deflecting. I never said there was no postal voting. There is no mass mailing of ballots and then counting those mass mailed ballots for days after election day except for California, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Colorado. Certainly not in Australia, UK or Germany. Stop your lying propaganda. You are just one lying machine.
Barry,
You don’t have the benefit of the US in your actions. You Australian leftists have Australia virtually destroyed and so you’re spending time on us. You don’t care if Australia and the US burn down into a pile of rubble as long as you leftists are standing on top declaring yourselves “Kings of the Pile.”
Barry,
So, Utah is changing their law so that mail ballots have to be requested. No more mass mailing. Also, it doesn’t matter that Utah is a red state. I disagree with their mass mailing. It is ripe for fraud.
Australia isn’t ‘destroyed’, you eejit. On scores of measures we have it as good or better than the US.
Australia is consistently ranked more free, more free and balanced journalism, better longevity (6 years more life than Americans), overall health, education (HDI). We rarely have mass shootings, no one shoots up schools, we have one of the highest median health per capita in the world.
The US has slightly better free speech protections, but Joe Aussie can trash the government without fear, as we do al the time.
Our towns and cities are sanitary, we don’t have as large a wealth gap as the US, and no one goes bankrupt from health care. We have mandatory voting, which you may think is ‘unfree’, but guarantees the populace not only participates in elections, but is also better informed. We see it as a civic duty, and it’s one of the reasons we rank higher than the US on the democracy scale.
The US has a higher GDP per capita than Australia, the most powerful military in the world and is a powerhouse in cutting edge technology and venture capital.
Our constitutions champion different ideals. The US constitution champions individual rights and separation of powers. The Australian constitution champions stable democracy and the rule of law largely set by the legislature. The framers trusted parliament to address the rights and protection of the people rather than unelected judges, or the committee that wrote the constitution. Rather than frame the values of the nation in a near immutable document, that task is given to the people through elected representatives.
Neither is better than the other. They each have strengths and weaknesses. I’ve always thought the American constitution is excellent.
“I never said there was no postal voting.”
Oh yes?
“Why don’t you do mail in ballots in Pennsylvania?”
You didn’t know Pennsylvania has mail in ballots. You have no idea what Australia is like.
Utah is a red state with universal mailout of ballots. Explain the conspiracy to rig the election here.
And while you’re at it, are you going to explain what safeguards are in place for mail ballots in California, or would finding out give you a tic?
Stop being a partisan and learn some stuff. Any fool can shout what they heard in their echo chamber.
Barry,
Yes, the Australian Constitution champions government not the individual. It trumpets democracy, which is nothing but mob rule, the whims of the day. The Parliament bestows people’s rights. You as an Australian citizen only have the rights that the current legislature decides. The US Constitution reinforces man’s natural unalienable rights through its Bill of Rights. It protects us from Government. There’s nothing natural about equality of outcome and it doesn’t work long-term as an economic system. Australia survives off of America’s capitalism. For instance, your healthcare system survives mostly off of our medical research, not yours. Same way with the rest of the world. But you want us to be like you. Why? Doesn’t make sense. There would be no one to develop medicine or protect the world from the bad guys.
https://cha.house.gov/the-elections-clause-states-primary-constitutional-authority-over-elections
“Republicans believe that every eligible voter who wants to vote must be able to do so, and all lawful votes must be counted according to state law. Through an examination of history, precedent, the Framers’ words, debates concerning ratification, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution itself, this document explains the constitutional division of power envisioned by the Framers between the States and the federal government with respect to election administration. Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration, the “times, places, and manner of holding elections”. Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate refusal to pass election laws. As do other aspects of our federal system, this division of sovereignty continues to serve to protect one of Americans’ most precious freedoms, the right to vote.”
Concur.
Still can’t work out how to use a search function and check how California’s mail ballot works, stephen?
This was your complaint, it took a second to debunk, and you’ve changed the subject ever since. To topics you are even more ignorant about.
When grown-ups get something wrong, they say so.
I know exactly how California’s mail ballots work you blithering leftist. Why don’t you explain to me California’s Motor Voter registration process? Or how ballots are automatically mailed to “registered” voters? Or how mailed ballots have to be “dated?” Or how long they are counted? Or who Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong is?
“I know exactly how California’s mail ballots work”
Well, that’s great. Then you know the system of checks includes barcode ID, signature verification and random recounts to check the system is working.
You may or may not know that there have been many challenges to the system in court, and that there has been 100% consistent rulings that the challenges either lack evidence, or that they are simply wrong on investigation.
A lot of complaints, no fire.
Just like the 2020 federal election, where courts with judges of all political stripes unanimously found no evidence of widespread fraud.
All very familiar – cry foul and to hell with the facts. You’ve just exemplified that in this discussion.
Trump-appointed DoJ prosecutor checking California election for fraud
“There was a claim circulating on social media about an election night ballot update at the Los Angeles Registrar of Voters where one candidate received zero votes. We reviewed official county records. The claim is false. Each candidate received votes in every update.”
https://x.com/USAttyEssayli/status/2063108426461270199?s=20
Tell me about the checks and balances. How do you register in California? Tell me about the checks and balances on mailed out ballots? (There are no checks and balances by the way, but you go ahead.) Do you think Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong was a lone wolf?
Barry,
Are there large criminal organizations committing crimes in the US? Are they doing it every day? Do you have any evidence that they’re doing it?
Glad you ask:
https://www.ft.com/content/744ea8dc-6d93-4fe9-a5e3-36de4f5d06db
Want more?
One thing Barry is doing is pointing out a significant weakness in our form of decentralized government. It is a weakness in our Republic and ripe for exploitation by the corrupt. One or more states like California don’t have to follow the rules and there is nothing any of the other states can do about it. If one party completely takes over a state or a city like Chicago or New York, then the Federal Government can do nothing. Our system relies on the integrity of all the members. It is very similar to the game of golf. Do you improve your lie when no one is looking? If one party’s mantra is “By Any Means Necessary”, then their agenda is more important than the integrity of the system or the principles we were founded on. The Democrat Party is a party with no principles or one principle and that is the advancement of their utopian agenda.
Bill Essayli, the US Attorney in Los Angelese, who investigated and charged Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, says that there are multiple other investigations similar to the Armstrong case being investigated and believes there will be other convictions. Is this the “no evidence” you were talking about, Nate?
You might also like:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cge0grppe3po
Glad this fraudster was caught.
If this becomes a widespread problem then, maybe California will change its voting procedures.
As you agreed, that is up to the States.
If the Federal Govt tries to take over management of elections, or use ICE to ‘oversee’ voting, or to try to have the Post Office manage who gets a mail-in ballot, you should know that all of these are Unconstitutional.
Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong committed registration fraud. I looked the case up. She wanted money. There was no politics involved. No ballots were sent to be counted. No election rigging.
As you are familiar with California’s ballot safeguards, stephen, you would know that had Armstrong tried to actually send fraudulent ballots they would have passed the barcode check and failed the signature check.
Thanks for confirming that Bill Essayli is, as I said, investigating election fraud in California. A thoroughly good idea for every state in the union! There are always bad actors. Is there widespread fraud? According to a multitude of state and federal audits and reports, these remain exceedingly rare for a country with hundreds of thousands of head to head elections every 4 years (municipal, sherriff, mayoral, congressional etc).
“One or more states like California don’t have to follow the rules and there is nothing any of the other states can do about it. If one party completely takes over a state or a city like Chicago or New York, then the Federal Government can do nothing. Our system relies on the integrity of all the members.”
Utah Republicans are corrupt, too? Inconceivable!
All the states with universal mailout have striven to make the system foolproof. Those states have mandatory, independent audits of their electoral system every election cycle, and implement the recommendations if feasible. Hardly the behaviour of people trying to rig the system.
I thoroughly agree with you that election fraud should be wiped out. I think you should have a federal election commission, operating completely independent of party, like the reserve bank, managing federal elections at least, and possibly congressional and gubernatorial.
Unfortunately, we have this in Australia, and you don’t want to be like us. A pity, as we’ve never detected election fraud with our system, and our elections are widely held by international observers to be one of the most secure in the world. No party controls any state or federal election in Australia. It is inconceivable to us in the 21st century that any party should run a major election.
So I guess you’re stuck with a hodgepodge of electoral systems, most administered by party Republicans or Democrats, all over the greatest country in the world.
Bill Essayli, bulldog for electoral integrity, advises you were wrong about the vote spike that started this conversation.
Will you continue to spread that rumour anyway, or have you taken that correction on board?
BACK AT THE RANCH
The Alabama Legislature had just passed a bill to strip Black Alabamians of a second congressional district — not one where they are in the majority, mind you, but one where they are merely politically within reach of the winning side.
Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter was bullish on the prospect — if only the courts would side with them — and said so in a press conference at the close of the special session.
“It gives us a chance to look at all of them, if we get some reprieve from the courts, so we’ll see how that goes and certainly hope that the Supreme Court will overturn Amendment 14,” he said.
https://link.al.com/public/45636598
Watch this fool walk that back. Oh no, he meant the other Amendment 14.
Almost certainly he’s not alone in his rejection of the constitution and his duty to it. You only say stuff that dumb when it’s supported by the people around you.
“I solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God.”
On review, he didn’t mean what he said. He said it twice, too. He was just very inarticulate.
“The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through May 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).”
And the global figure is?
??
You just quoted it.
How long does this difference exist? Forever?
You’re welcome.
How long does this difference exist?
As above, AI has made it extremely easy to synthesize answers to well formed questions if getting an answer is the objective:
https://gemini.google.com/share/01c93dfb392f
AI is a method of pattern matching. Anything more is speculation.
Answering yes and no is AI at its best.
The AI response was not ‘yes and no’. It explained the difference (adding detail I wasn’t aware of), and affirmed it would continue without ceasing while the planet warms.
For the new information I checked the literature. The hydrological cycle and the lapse rate response over land v oceans do indeed seem to be the primary cause of the land/ocean difference.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/12/jcli-d-12-00262.1.xml
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/14/3/560
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00206-6
Note: though the 3rd link is relating the difference to CO2 warming, the phenomenon arises under warming/cooling no matter what the cause. The difference remains even with short term warming/cooling, such as ENSO events.
“The land-ocean warming contrast is not a temporary glitch; it will exist for as long as global warming continues” Yes.
“The land-ocean warming contrast is not a temporary glitch; it will exist for as long as global warming continues, and will persist even after greenhouse gas concentrations stabilize.” Yes.
“The land will always warm faster than the ocean.” Yes.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2026-06-10.gif No. The protected line is trending downwards towards the last 10 years.
“Answering yes and no is AI at its best.”
You just confirmed that it didn’t answer ‘no’.
Then you posted a link to something different so you could say ‘no’.
You are the epitome of a contrarian. Coherence doesn’t matter, as long as you can be contrary. It’s as predictable as it is boring.
Your link is broken by the way. Don’t bother reposting. You can be contrarian on your own.
The data says no.
And still do ALL the ignorant pseudoskeptics dodge around two evidences:
1. First evidence
NO ONE – except the public relation ‘dis’informers at NOAA – does tell that ‘Backradiation warms the surface’.
That sounds exactly like
” CO2 traps heat. ”
which is shher unscientific nonsense
or
” A positive anomaly means the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly means the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline. ”
which hardly could be a more stupid explanation of how UAH and the rest of the world compute anomalies.
*
2. Second evidence
When you compute the energy reaching the surface AT ANY POINT ON EARTH over a full year, the 1361 W/m² coming from the Sun above the atmosphere ALL TIME 365/6 days per year and 24 hours per day have NOTHING in common with what IS MEASURED at the point – due to DAY VERSUS NIGHT and SUMMER VERSUS WINTER – regardless where that point is on Earth, from the North Pole down to the South Pole.
*
If all these pseudo-skeptics were able to download and analyze the surface radiation data collected worldwide by pyranometers, pyrheliometers, and pyrgeometers, they would quickly realize that while solar radiation is effective for only half the year, infrared radiation is present continuously.
*
Take all seven US SURFRAD stations or ten stations affiliated to the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN), in latitudes from North to South, download their data in different years, and you see, for all of them – hence on their average – that while
– the yearly number of hours with downwelling solar radiation is half that of the number of hours in the year, and consequently the yearly incoming solar energy is half as well,
– the upwelling and downwelling longwave radiation is, while of course modulated according to the solar radiation, day and night, and all the year long, present.
For ten BSRN stations, average radiant flux density of
– downward solar during active hours only (48.5%): 355 W/m²
– downward solar during all 8760 resp. 8784 hours: 180 W/m²
– downwar longwave during all 8760 resp. 8784 hours: 280 W/m²
*
The very best is that while pseudoskeptics do discredit and denigrate all measuring devices and measurement evaluation techniques associated to climate research, not any of them would ask, for example:
” Which industrial applications of pyranometers resp. pyrgeometers do exist? ”
In France for example, pyrgeometers are used – among several other contexts – even for the early detection of radiation frost on vines in high-value cultivation areas producing top-tier Burgundies, Bordeaux and Champagnes.
*
Reminder:
– monthly absolute averages of downwelling solar, upwelling and downwelling infrared for all SURFRAD stations in the US:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jATtF_nsFH91UVKLQbxs4yldxYIc4wsd/view
*
three BSRN stations (Arctic, Equator, Antarctic)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/103bWbIPX7MwZwC42hfr15mcsO5Bu6c6h/view
Bindi Goebells,
Yet again you are promoting the cults falsehoods. When will you ever learn?
The earth doesn’t receive 1361 w/m2 every second of the year unless you believe that the earth orbit is circular. A step up from you believing that the earth is flat, which would be on par with your out dated scientific knowledge.
As an engineer you might even understand that the earth albedo also varies at different places and at different times of the year.
Just the changes in energy received and changes in albedo would create a chaotic system with pseudo trends. You might know how a gas will spread through an oven in your ideal world but we are talking about the real world where people are going to get hurt from your cults evil propaganda.
Bindi can’t make a point. He just slings crap against the wall, hoping something will stick.
He rambles aimlessly about pyranometers, pyrheliometers, and pyrgeometers, infrared radiation, Burgundies, Bordeaux and Champagnes, and SURFRAD, not understanding any of it.
Kids these days….
The stalker QAnon proves once again that he is not only a vile insulter but also a fool who fails to notice that others are perfectly well aware that the 1361 W/m² figure represents an average value, and that solar irradiance fluctuates between approximately 1,300 and 1,400 W/m² due to Earth’s orbit and solar cycles.
*
And since he apparenly lacks a mouth and, as we can all see, can effectively only speak out of his ass, whatever serves as his brain can’t be too far from that filthy location, as evidenced by the sheer stupidity of his post.
*
If he had a bit more brainpower, he would have grasped that the so-called ‘bogus’ 240 W/m² figure – along with all SURFRAD and BSRN data – ALL are averages; consequently, his attempt to sound knowledgeable with his superfluous hint on solar power fluctuation over the year was completely wide of the mark.
Bindidon says:
June 11, 2026 at 8:59 AM
The stalker QAnon proves once again that he is not only a vile insulter but also a fool who fails to notice that others are perfectly well aware that the 1361 W/m² figure represents an average value, and that solar irradiance fluctuates between approximately 1,300 and 1,400 W/m² due to Earth’s orbit and solar cycles.
*
And since he apparenly lacks a mouth and, as we can all see, can effectively only speak out of his ass, whatever serves as his brain can’t be too far from that filthy location, as evidenced by the sheer stupidity of his post.
—————-
Perfect! Now Bindidon can show he isn’t a fawning sycophant by providing a reference to the model that came up with that average that includes what the average was for say 2024. With calculations for all the variations he mentioned above.
Bindi Goebbel,
Your understanding of orbital mechanics is non existent, if it wasn’t then you wouldn’t be pushing your evil authoritarian socialist cult views on to the rest of us. At least you have stopped referring to orbital mechanics as astrology.
Earth will soon be at it’s furthest point from the sun by a few million kilometres. Yet we we will be experiencing the warmest part of the year in the northern hemisphere due to the earth’s tilt a thousand kilometres closer. There is no simple equation that defines the energy input, only crass over simplifications. Yet the cult believes it’s all averaged out!
But evil authoritarian socialists like Bindy expect everyone to believe that a slight increase in CO2 will cause a great calamity. They forget that a different offshoot of Marxism is the CCP who consume 70% of the annual coal production and yet Bindy, Dullard and Entropic Man don’t say a word about the CO2 being burnt.
Marxist coal burning is good,
non-marxist vocal burning bad
Sums up the whole CO2 cult as evil.
” Perfect! Now Bindidon can show he isn’t a fawning sycophant by providing a reference to the model that came up with that average that includes what the average was for say 2024. With calculations for all the variations he mentioned above. ”
*
Yeah…
The Hunter boy is once more writing such incomprehensible gibberish that you’d think he’d downed at least three glasses of bad whiskey beforehand.
But… at least he doesn’t insult like love to do some Fascists on this blog.
*
Instead of asking me, he rather should read for example
(1) a general publication about the matter
Total Solar Irradiance CDR
Odele Coddington (UCol) & al. (continuous)
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/climate-data-records/total-solar-irradiance
and
(2) a no less interesting while local and very specific one
A sub-hourly spatio-temporal statistical model for solar irradiance in Ireland using open-source data
Maeve Upton & al. (2025)
https://arxiv.org/html/2509.21041v1
Bindi Goebbels,
You really dont understand your politics do you. Fascism evolved from Marxism and then Nazism evolved from fascism. Exactly what education have you had? Just look at the earlier personal history of those leaders and what they wrote.
Anyway, your first link as usual proves you don’t understand what is being discussed. Within the first the first paragraph it clearly states that a correction is being made to present the data as 1 au. So not the actual energy being received by earth.
Can you get anything correct?
Anon for Q-related reasons never disappoints:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fascism/FAQ
See especially the point about Mussolini.
Knowledge of what Marx thought of socialists might be required.
Dullard,
Wikipedia is not unbiased. In fact because a lot of activists are unemployed/unemployable usethen they have the time to manipulate Wikipedia. Even the originators have stayed this is a problem.
So don’t quote Wikipedia at me and then expect me to be impressed by the left.
Dear Anon for Q-related reasons,
That FAQ acts as a reminder that you repeat troglodyte tropes refuted a thousand times by myriads of historians.
Your rants are amusing until some take their themes seriously and turn them into this:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2026/jun/13/belfast-southampton-riots-racism-why-is-the-uk-burning
I chose the Grauniad FYEO.
Bindidon said:
“and that solar irradiance fluctuates between approximately 1,300 and 1,400 W/m² due to Earth’s orbit and solar cycles.”
Bindidon only offers up uncalibrated estimates of the solar cycle irradiance changes and suggests it covers all the variables he acknowledged.
But he just skipped over his acknowledgement of earth’s orbit cycles without so much as devoting one word to it mirroring the IPCC corrupt practices.
Such an obvious omission and Bindidon expects it to just fly over our heads.
Orbital variations are an additional element of mean annual insolation in addition to changes in solar irradiance. You spend to much time close to the sun in summer you get a sunburn.
Solar irradiance changes are roughly estimated with limited calibrated measurements to be limited to about 2 watts. . .which if you apply the 6x feedback factor suggested in some models would amount to 12 watts of climate change. Which gives you more than 2 degrees of warming alone since the LIA.
Orbital variations have apparently not been responsibly estimated though they could be responsible for up to 15C climate variations considering feedbacks.
Orbital variations are also known to affect earth’s speed during the course of an orbit. We know that the Naval Observatory measures the effect of this exacted by the moon (per the naval observatory).
During the recent warming period 1980 to 2024 the effect of the moon causes changes in earth’s speed through half an orbit that slows progress through perihelion and speeds it up through aphelion by 5 days.
the IPCC is derelict in not modelling this lunar effect and ignoring physics underlying Milankovic’s work and the conclusion that Jupiter and Saturn are primarily responsible, not to speak of the other other jovian planets for the ice ages that come and go at various levels up to 15c.
the timing of these variations also explains the multi-decadal variations seen in the instrument record that climate modelers can’t duplicate with their CO2-based models. Not to speak of explaining the 10 major Holocene warming peaks of up to 3c seen in ice core data.
And Bindidon just lies about it while at the same time ignoring the fact he just acknowledged it. (“Earth’s orbit and solar cycles”)
Obviously Bindidon lacks the receipts he claimed.
From Engineer to CEO: In Memory of Lee Raymond (1938-2026).
Former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond, an executive who led one of the country’s biggest oil and gas corporations for more than a decade, died in Dallas on Saturday June 6, 2026, at the age of 87.
The former oil executive led negotiations to merge Exxon and Mobil in 1999 to form Exxon Mobil Corp., which is now headquartered in Spring, north of Houston. ExxonMobil is the second most valuable oil and gas company globally by market capitalization (surpassed only by Saudi Aramco), and it consistently ranks in the top 15 of all global corporations by revenue. Among Western “supermajor” integrated oil companies, it is the largest by market cap.
A native of Watertown, South Dakota, Mr. Raymond graduated from Watertown High School in 1956. He received a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering in 1960 from the University of Wisconsin, and a Ph.D. in the same discipline from the University of Minnesota in 1963. He joined Exxon that same year as a production research engineer in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Over the next 16 years, he held positions of increasing responsibility with Exxon Company, U.S.A.; Creole Petroleum Corporation, which was Exxon’s operating affiliate in Venezuela before those facilities were nationalized; the former Exxon International Company, which was responsible for Exxon’s international supply and transportation of petroleum products and crude oil; and Lago Oil & Transport Company, Limited, the Exxon affiliate in Aruba.
He became president of Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. in 1979, and moved to New York in 1981, when he was named executive vice president of Exxon Enterprises. In 1983, Mr. Raymond was named president and director of Esso Inter-America Inc., with responsibilities for Exxon’s operations in the Caribbean, Central and South America. Mr. Raymond was named a senior vice president and was elected to the board of directors of the corporation in 1984. He became president of the corporation in 1987. In 1993, he became CEO succeeding Lawrence G. Rawl and held this post until 2005.
Arklady,
So there was a report out of how many about. No company will be take a report in isolation without having an alternative view being expressed. Anyway, the IPC has removed the extreme scenarios as they were impossible. So this report you use as proof was based on what? Anything remotely possible?
Anyhow, there were many reports on Joe Bidon on his mental decline, his immoral behaviour towards girls and women, his business dealings etc. yet the left did absolutely nothing. So cherry pick much ?
There have been many reports on Chinese slavery, Chinese sponsorship of hacking and attacking the west’s businesses etc. The reports are credible and numerous yet the left politicians do nothing.
Double standards from the left, yet again!
Clint R
I would be considered a glutton for punishment to somehow believe you possess enough logical rational thinking to see the flaw in your own statement.
YOU: “An arriving flux MUST be greater than the flux being emitted by a surface to raise the surface’s temperature. Believing a lesser flux can raise temperature is one of the many flaws in the CO2 nonsense.”
From:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1746074
So you can do a quick experiment to provide evidence that your statement is correct.
Concrete has an IR emissivity of 0.94 so it will work well. At room temperature of 70 F the concrete slab will be emitting about 400 watts/m^2. So based on your above statement, if you have a heat lamp that is generating 250 Watts you will agree it can’t produce more than 250 W/m^2 to the concrete? So if the concrete is emitting around 400 W/m^2 a 250 Watt heat lamp could not possibly warm up the concrete. So get a thermometer, a heat lamp and see if the heat lamp can increase the temperature of the concrete. If the concrete increases in temperature it would indicate your thought process and understanding of physics and heat transfer are not correct and maybe would be wise to read up on the actual science before posting again.
Norman, thanks for sharing your incompetence.
You’re confusing “Watts” with “W/m²”. That’s a common amateur mistake. gordon does the same thing.
The heat lamp, even with no focusing reflector, could be emitting close to 10,000 W/m² at its glass surface. So, within a distance of half a meter, or less, it would have no trouble warming the room temperature concrete.
What perversion of reality will you attempt next?
Clint R
It does not matter what the heat lamp is giving off at all! I do not know why you divert to this point.
It would not be emitting 10,000 w/m^2 to the concrete even if you twist it like a goofy pretzel. You real lack logic and reason at a most basic level. The heat lamp will still only put a flux of 250 W/m^2 on the concrete at its most.
Read your own words again and again.
I will post them for you: YOU: “An arriving flux MUST be greater than the flux being emitted by a surface to raise the surface’s temperature. Believing a lesser flux can raise temperature is one of the many flaws in the CO2 nonsense.”
The flux arriving at the concrete is not 10,000 W/m^2. The flux arriving at the concrete could not be more than 250 W/m^2 if the area of the concrete is one square meter. If you make statements that are incorrect on what you mean than that would be on you to correct.
The cult kids have given me a lot to comment on. But tonight all I have time for is this attempted perversion from Norman:
“The heat lamp will still only put a flux of 250 W/m^2 on the concrete at its most.”
So, according to Norman, heat lamps wouldn’t even be able to melt ice cubes! The food industry will be surprised to hear that….
(More this weekend.)
Norman is supporting the Easter Bunny GPE. The GPE has been completely debunked by textbooks, experts, and experiments. Check out last months UAH update to read all about it. . .again. We are still waiting for Norman and his ilk to bring a single one of those forward in explicit endorsement of the Bunny’s GPE.
Gill still pretends his pet gurus disagree with Eli:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1740662
Starting to feel a little sad for Gill.
See what I mean?
Willard spews out a nonsense response completely lacking support of any textbooks, experts, or experiments.
Bill Hunter
Wrong on all counts. You are just a contrarian crackpot who haunts the blog with ignorant science. What textbook material refutes the GPE?? Both Roy Spencer and E Swanson have done experiments to verify the effect. No amount of evidence will convince crackpots!
Clint R
Then you are saying a 250 watt heat bulb will emit more than 250 watts of power?? Not sure what you are saying here.
No, that is NOT what I’m saying child Norman.
If you would start paying attention to EXACTLY what I’m saying, you might eventually learn some science. But, you can’t. You’re too addicted to your cult.
You make up crap. You make up what you want me to say, then you make up that people have done experiments to “verify the effect”. What effect? If you can’t define/describe the effect, then it does not exist.
Gill keeps asking for sammiches he already got:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/a-simple-experiment-to-show-how-cool-objects-can-keep-warm-objects-warmer-still/
Gill will keep denying he got any sammich.
Almost sad.
Norman claims the Roy Spencer and Swanson experiments establish the GPE but neither come even close to doing so. Instead both do a better job of supporting the MIT textbook process of establishing insulation in a GPE like experiment which rejects the anonymous source, non-experiment, ruminations they want to rely upon.
And of course Willard just keeps on lying about sammiches. There is nothing wrong whatsoever of questioning the legitimacy of an anonymous source and there are no legitimate facts supporting that source.
Gill continues to pretend he has not been served that specific sammich he now requests again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-march-2026-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1744494
Funny, but sad.
Wow Willard the MIT textbook has 307 discussions about plates. Bet you can’t point to a single page/paragraph that endorses or demonstrates how to calculate the Bunny rabbit’s GPE. . .and thats the point isn’t it. . .you said it was about the math and now you can’t deliver anything in support of the bunny rabbit GPE. However you can find calculations in that textbook that delivers the meager results due to emissivities less than 1.0 as seen in experiments including Roy’s, Vaughn Pratt’s, R.w. Woods, S&O and many others.
Gill keeps denying having received the sammich he’s requesting once again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1746359
A little less funny, a little sadder.
And still Willard is all spew and no evidence.
I doubt if even MIT, as perverted as they’ve become, would endorse the bunny rabbit’s nonsense. But, it they did, I’d love to see it.
I can see the headlines now, “MIT proves 2LoT is invalid!”
[GILL] The GPE has been completely debunked by textbooks, experts, and experiments.
[ALSO GILL] And still Willard is all spew and no evidence.
Sad, truly.
Bill Hunter
So where does MIT heat transfer documents support your crackpot contrarian points? I see quite the opposite!
Here:
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
“For body 1, we know that $ E_b$ is the emissive power of a black body, so the energy leaving body 1 is $ E_{b1} A_1$ . The energy leaving body 1 and arriving (and being absorbed) at body 2 is $ E_{b1} A_1 F_{1-2}$ . The energy leaving body 2 and being absorbed at body 1 is $ E_{b2} A_2 F_{2-1}$ . The net energy interchange from body 1 to body 2 is
$\displaystyle E_{b1} A_1 F_{1-2} – E_{b2} A_2 F_{2-1} = \dot{Q}_{1-2}.$”
In the GPE both plates are theoretical black bodies so that all radiant energy is absorbed. In the MIT document, contrary to the false made up cult science of Clint R and others, the energy given off by the colder object is absorbed by the hotter one. This is established physics. Other views are contrarian and if you want to be believed you would have to provide some experimental evidence to support your view. Otherwise it is crackpot cult material. Bill Hunter, if you think the likes of the phony poster who insults everyone he can and posts misleading made up physics is a valid source of anything scientific, you are certainly an ignorant person.
I would like to see your evidence that MIT supports your crackpot claims? I have seen NONE from any of your alleged skeptics (actual crackpots). The likes of Clint R, DREMT, you, Gordon Robertson. If you make claims post links so posters can see where you get your ideas from.
Just a reminder that the GPE’s debunked:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1733329
It is official now:
https://cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso/roni/strengths/
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/figure06.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/figure06.gif
https://i.ibb.co/nsXR7F5V/cdas-sflux-sst-global-1-1.png
Even more astonishing than simply looking at the (uncorrected) NCEP-CFSv2 situation from June 7 is the comparison with the forecast from April 6 — just two months ago!
1. April
https://i.postimg.cc/sXVbBdVp/nino34Mon-060426.png
2. June
https://i.postimg.cc/FKC8NktZ/nino34Mon-070626.png
*
However, even though it has long been known that the MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index) is based on a much larger ocean area (30S–30N, 100E-70W) —and on far more factors than just local sea surface temperature —the biggest surprise is that this index still remained below the La Niña threshold (-0.5) for March/April:
2026 -0.76 -0.95 -1.03 -0.64
We’ll see what MEI tells us for the April/May average.
BACK AT THE RANCH
View of the Kennedy Center after a federal judge in Washington, D.C., declined Donald’s request to temporarily pause an order requiring his name to be removed from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5-d08Y-Vys
Cold spot in the Atlantic. Low ocean surface temperatures in this region. Heavy cloud cover.
https://i.ibb.co/whvmsY5J/ventusky-temperature-500hpa-20260613t1200-52n51w.jpg
Will bears be allowed to hunt on the ice in the western part of Hudson Bay until the end of June?
https://i.ibb.co/svhrNTH6/masie-all-r10-4km-2.png
Allowed?
I didn’t know they need permission.
I read above without suprise:
” Cold spot in the Atlantic. Low ocean surface temperatures in this region. Heavy cloud cover. ”
The post’s author apparently was once more looking for something cold to report about.
He doesn’t seem to have understood that he posted a picture which hardly could have anything to do with surface temperatures… because the cold spot on the picture is at 500 hPa i.e. at an altitude near 5600 meters: a bit above UAH LT’s mean, 100% computed out of the layers MT, TP and LS since beginning of revision 6.0 in 2015.
*
A bit nearer to reality would be for example:
” At 52°N, 51°W (in the Labrador Sea southeast of Newfoundland), the estimated sea surface temperature for June 13, 2026, is approximately 9°C to 11°C (48°F to 52°F). This reflects the typical cold, subarctic water currents of the North Atlantic for early summer. “
https://i.ibb.co/7JLq7VXJ/ventusky-currents-20260613t1500.jpg
0.9 between Crete and Egypt? What’s that?
SST there yesterday: about 24 °C.
Planetary mean temperature increases with the product N⋅cp (rotation × thermal inertia).
Slow rotators like the Moon absorb less heat, while fast rotators like Earth absorb more heat.
The higher N⋅cp product causes more heat absorption, not only the more even heat distribution, but also the higher heat absorption.
When two planets are subjected to the same solar flux, the one with the higher N⋅cp product has a more even the absorbed heat distribution, but also the one with the higher N⋅cp product absorbs more heat, and therefore, because of the combined double effect (more heat absorption and more even the absorbed heat distribution), that planet develops a higher average surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Slow rotators like the Moon… ”
*
C’est ce que, selon quelques éminents apôtres de la religion mondialement connue de la Lune non-rotationelle (Clint R, Robertson, le pseudo-modérateur DREMT, Hunter boy et quelques autres ignorant[e]s), l’on appelle en français tout simplement du blasphème.
Attention: le bûcher n’est pas loin!
*
English:
https://tinyurl.com/23ev539a
A lot to catch up on. The fun starts here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1746074
That comment explains that a surface already emitting a flux can NOT be warmed by a lesser arriving flux. This, of course, destroys the CO2 nonsense. So the cult is in panic.
First to respond was Norman, with:
“You claim adding more heat lamps to a sphere will not increase its temperature but you provide ZERO evidence.”
I never mentioned “more heat lamps” not being able to “increase its temperature”. So Norman clearly understood nothing from my comment. He’s just slinging crap at the wall, hoping something will stick. Norman continues:
“Textbook science, which I have linked you to, clearly states that EMR energy from a colder source will be absorbed by a hotter one.”
Norman never linked to any such thing. He linked to a textbook that used the bogus equation, which is NOT proof of anything, because fluxes do NOT simply add/subtract.
After that, in another comment, Norman is so perplexed he’s denying his own cult’s nonsense:
“The atmosphere is not warming the surface!! “And again, “The effect is not warming.”
Then Norman continues with a car in the Sun, but he’s so uneducated that he doesn’t understand that example has NOTHING to do with CO2. Or that there is no temperature “much higher” if car windows are open!
The cult has been unable to define their bogus “greenhouse effect” for decades. One time its “back-radiation” from CO2 is “warming the planet”. But, when shown that is impossible, the next time, they go to “CO2 back-radiation is keeping Earth warmer than it would otherwise be”. But, that is what the ATMOSPHERE does, not CO2. CO2 emits energy to space. The 15μ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface.
Norman always makes big claims to support his nonsense, “I have linked you to textbooks on heat transfer I have studied”, but falls on his face because his “links” seldom are on the same subject, of if they are, Norman doesn’t understand them!
He links to info about a heat lamp that he can’t understand, then he demonstrates his ignorance. He proposes an “experiment”: Heat a concrete surface with a 250W heat lamp.
He claims that a 250 W heat lamp cannot warm a room-temperature concrete surface because the surface is emitting 400 W/m². Again, he’s confusing “W/m²” with “Watts”. This is a common mistake by the cult, and they can’t learn.
The heat lamp, even with no focusing reflector, could be emitting close to 10,000 W/m² at its glass surface. So, within a distance of half a meter, or less, it would have no trouble warming the room temperature concrete.
Norman makes up his own reality: “It does not matter what the heat lamp is giving off at all! I do not know why you divert to this point. The heat lamp will still only put a flux of 250 W/m^2 on the concrete at its most.”
And this classic: “The flux arriving at the concrete could not be more than 250 W/m^2 if the area of the concrete is one square meter.”
So in Norman’s head, a heat lamp cannot warm concrete! And he finishes with:
“If you make statements that are incorrect on what you mean than [sic] that would be on you to correct.”
So, poor Norman has a lot of correcting to do. Don’t hold your breath….
Clint R
Looks like you need your attention fix. Most of what you post is garbage. I will spend time on just one of your multiple points that is quite stupid (meaning you cannot think or comprehend anything, kind of a mindless zombie).
“The atmosphere is not warming the surface!! “And again, “The effect is not warming.”
I have spent too much time hoping you have a rational mind only to see you have none.
HERE: “The atmosphere is not warming the surface!! “And again, “The effect is not warming.”
That is correct. You have no understanding of the GHE and yet many have explained it to you several times! The only thing warming the surface is the Sun and some geothermal activity. The GHG do not warm the surface, they reduce the rate of cooling allowing the solar input to force a higher surface temperature (similar to any other form of insulation, not that you can understand this at all).
So blab on. You have a few ignorants who follow your stupid posts, the science minded consider you a foolish poster who makes a fool of himself on a daily basis with clown posts.
Wrong again, Norman.
Sun is a constant heater for Earth. You’re confused because day temps are warmer than night temps. But, solar heating is constant.’
Again, it’s obvious you don’t understand any of this.
(I noticed you didn’t mention your other failings.)
What crap will you sling next?
Glad to have you back, Clint! Let’s review.
“One source supplying 240 W/m2 to the imaginary sphere would result in the sphere having a temperature of 180K and emitting 60 W/m2… Four such sources — 255K, 240 W/m2… once the sphere is emitting 240 W/m2, an additional 240 W/m² would not be able to increase the temperature. Radiative fluxes don’t simply add.”
Make the sources just like our sun at 1 AU to an Earth sized sphere. We do this because we now know the temperature of the source, which is critical to the following.
Completely surround the sphere with suns. Now we have the classic cavity equilibrium scenario.
The sphere must equilibrate temperature with the walls of its environment, which is 5778K. This is thermo 101.
Ergo, you must keep adding fluxes beyond the 1360 W/m2 provided by 4 suns to the sphere to achieve equilibrium with the sphere’s environment when it is surrounded by suns. Each added sun is added flux until the sphere’s field of view is completely filled.
BACK AT THE RANCH
In recent months, as Paramount and Netflix vied to buy Warner Brothers, Double Dealing Donald bought stock in all three companies. Now the Justice Department is considering whether to approve Paramount’s purchase of Warner Brothers.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/epic-corruption-plain-sight
Catching up on the never ending nonsense…
Upthread, blackbody barry tried to disprove science using AI. He got AI to provide “evidence” that ice cubes could boil water!
But blackbody barry wasn’t finished. He formed a shell around a planet with 184,260 suns, proving enough suns could bring a planet to sun temperature.
But, that wasn’t even relevant to a fifth 240 W/m² arriving flux being unable to raise the temperature of a sphere already established by four 240 W/m² arriving fluxes.
Kids these days….
“…formed a shell around a planet with 184,260 suns, proving enough suns could bring a planet to sun temperature.
But, that wasn’t even relevant to a fifth 240 W/m2 arriving flux being unable to raise the temperature”
You were going to explain why not. Please lay out your argument.