UAH global temperature for June, up 0.29 °C

Whoops – just realised it was posted twice in this item and the headline has a different temperature to the body

Not from Dr. Spencer.
Looks like an error here?

Where is peer review when you need it 😉

Cold and rainy in Sweden to. Reminds me of the wet and cold summers in mid 60th.

Go, El Nino! (One can hope, can’t he?)

So what does this mean against this Graph,
http://thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/6272-massive-human-co2-emissions-still-unable-to-reverse-natures-global-cooling-over-last-15-years.html

We really, really need to see some sort of cooling from this weak solar cycle…

[REPLY: I’ve been getting much the same impression. You are quick to denigrate the qualifications of people you know nothing about, failed to look at the surface station web site, offered some-what valid criticisms and then harped on them… and people who are NOT trolls do NOT invent a screen name that looks like a real name. In the event that you even think about insisting that your name really is “William Roberts”, let me suggest that your initials are in fact CRM and that the numerals 8-4-3-7 should have some significance for you. Your participation here can be valuable, so please drop the attitude. -REP]
Interesting, so is blackmail standard operating procedure for WUWT moderation? How revolting. A quick scrutinizing of the policy reveals that using my real name is not necessary. It is not a requirement for me to be posting here. In fact, I see numerous contributions by usernames that are not real names. My aggressive questioning of the methods is not precluded by you not knowing my real name, by your own website policy. After all, the peer review process is anonymous. Are you suggesting only people who aren’t interested in using their real names have no valuable contributions? Why are you threatening to reveal my identity [SNIP: No one has to know that much. -REP] for offering valid criticisms that any peer reviewer would make? And for the record, William is my grandfather’s name, and Robert is my father’s name.
[REPLY: Good. Now that I have your attention, the topic is trollish behavior. My description stands. You will also note from our site policy that trollish commenters using public positions and public funds are not guaranteed anonymity. You have a more than adequate and relevant professional record and could make a valuable contribution here. Instead you choose to be hostile, arrogant and petulant. You spoil intelligent suggestions by jumping up and down insisting that they are all of paramount importance. There are a large number of commenters here with far better qualifications than yours who don’t behave so. So, once again, drop the attitude and contribute or take your act somewhere it will be appreciated. -REP]

The anomaly increases in the NH summer and decreases in the NH winter. SH and tropics show no real trend or seasonality. This trend seems to date to around 2000, reversing the opposite trend from the 1970s.
Which is the opposite of what GHG theory predicts. It predicts increasingly warmer winters.
This clearly points to decreased NH clouds from around 2000 being the main climate driver. And by implication increased clouds causing the post 1970s warming.
Likely cause, the shutdown of much of the aerosol polluting industry in Russia around the time of their 1998 financial crisis.
Dr Spencer, has anyone analyse daytime versus night time trends in the satellite record. I’d expect to see the same pattern of increases in the anomaly during the day and decreases at night. Also contrary to GHG warming theory.

The 4th order polinomial is a lovely cyclic curve. Wonder why? (Sarc off)

RichieP says:
July 31, 2012 at 4:43 pm
“The weatherman on the tv here in the UK said “It’ll feel more like February than August” tomorrow. Most of the summer has been like this, just as it has been with the Scandinavians.”
Yes, July is mostly rain nowadays here in Norway. August is the new summer-month here. Funny.

On the first post the table has compressed against the left margin. The table in the second post is more readable. Probably best to remove the first one; its only causing confusion.

“The 4th order polynomial fit to the data”
Fourth order? When did it become forth order? I seem to remember a month or two ago it was third order. Whatever it is, it is wholly arbitrary and should be removed from the plot. Humans are good enough to find their own patterns and by placing a curve over the data it is implied that there is some meaning to the curve. Takeaways at the bottom of the plot, i.e. “is for entertainment purposes only”, only take away more value from the credibility of data.

Unintentionally prescient as it may turn out, as July is looking like being somewhere around +0.29C

“What an odd crusade you have embarked on: the elimination from math and science of regression plots.”
Nah. Actually credibly presenting data is nothing new. It is normally taught along side how to take data. There’s no point in taking credible data if one doesn’t want to present it with the same credibility. Edward Tufte is the current guru of data presentation and he has a nice phrase that is apropos, “…presenters should know their content and respect their audience.” Putting a curve fit from excel over top the data for “entertainment purposes” shows a lack of respect for the audience.
So riddle me this defender of math and science, does the polynomial converge? Is it even a good polynomial? Perhaps it’s not and that’s why the order changes from month to month.