UAH July global temperature – essentially unchanged from June

From Dr. Roy Spencer:

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2014 is +0.31 deg. C, unchanged from June (click for full size version):
UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2014_v5

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 19 months are:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2013 1 +0.497 +0.517 +0.478 +0.386
2013 2 +0.203 +0.372 +0.033 +0.195
2013 3 +0.200 +0.333 +0.067 +0.243
2013 4 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165
2013 5 +0.082 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112
2013 6 +0.295 +0.335 +0.255 +0.220
2013 7 +0.173 +0.134 +0.211 +0.074
2013 8 +0.158 +0.111 +0.206 +0.009
2013 9 +0.365 +0.339 +0.390 +0.190
2013 10 +0.290 +0.331 +0.249 +0.031
2013 11 +0.193 +0.160 +0.226 +0.020
2013 12 +0.266 +0.272 +0.260 +0.057
2014 1 +0.291 +0.387 +0.194 -0.029
2014 2 +0.170 +0.320 +0.020 -0.103
2014 3 +0.170 +0.338 +0.002 -0.001
2014 4 +0.190 +0.358 +0.022 +0.092
2014 5 +0.327 +0.325 +0.328 +0.175
2014 6 +0.305 +0.315 +0.295 +0.509
2014 7 +0.306 +0.293 +0.319 +0.453

The global image for July should be available in the next day or so here.

Popular monthly data files (these might take a few days to update):

uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (Lower Troposphere)
uahncdc_mt_5.6.txt (Mid-Troposphere)
uahncdc_ls_5.6.txt (Lower Stratosphere)

=======================================================

UAH press release:

Global Temperature Report: July 2014

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

July temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.31 C (about 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.
graph072014[1]
Northern Hemisphere: +0.29 C (about 0.52 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.32 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

Tropics: +0.45 C (about 0.81 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

July2014map[1]

June temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.31 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.32 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.30 C above 30-year average

Tropics: +0.51 C above 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

Notes on data released August 5, 2014:

In the tropics, July 2014 was the second warmest July in the 36-year satellite record, only 0.03 C cooler than July 2009 and 0.06 C warmer than July 1998, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. The average temperature in the tropics during July was 0.45 C (about 0.81° F) warmer than seasonal norms for the month.

The global average temperature for July was 0.31 C (about 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, the fifth warmest July in the satellite record.

Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place in Earth’s atmosphere in July was over western Russia near the town of Verkhoturye (one of the oldest Russian towns east of the Urals), where Antarctic winter temperatures were as much as 3.77 C (about 6.79 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest departure from average in July was in northern Norway near the town of Borkenes. Temperatures there were as much as 2.93 C (about 5.27 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.

Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.

The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.

Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.

– 30 —

About these ads

69 thoughts on “UAH July global temperature – essentially unchanged from June

  1. Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place in Earth’s atmosphere in July was over western Russia near the town of Verkhoturye (one of the oldest Russian towns east of the Urals), where Antarctic winter temperatures were as much as 3.77 C (about 6.79 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than seasonal norms.

    Wait a second. Western Russia in an Antarctic winter?

  2. 5 Aug: Washington Times: Jennifer Harper: Paging Al Gore: NASA says that global warming could be ‘on hiatus’
    On Tuesday, NASA’s Langley Research Center atmospheric scientist Norman Loeb presented a talk titled “The recent pause in global warming: A temporary blip or something more permanent?”
    The lecture explores how “global warming may be on vacation,” NASA helpfully explains.
    Uh-oh. Paging Al Gore. There’s even a new term for the phenomenon.
    Mr. Loeb’s presentation offered the most recent research related to a slowdown in surface warming referred to as the “global warming hiatus,” the federal agency says. Over the last 15-years, the global mean surface temperature of Earth has increased at a rate that is roughly one-third of that over the past 60 years, NASA notes…

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/5/paging-al-gore-nasa-says-that-global-warming-could/

  3. We’re due for a fall in termperatures. There may be a La Nina in the next few months. Already there is an Atlantic “La Nina”. When the Pacific one follows then global temperatures could head south.

  4. bit more detail re Norman Loeb lecture:

    NASA Langley Colloquium Committee
    Colloquium: August 5, 2014
    The Recent Pause in Global Warming: A Temporary Blip or Something More Permanent?
    Norman Loeb
    Abstract
    During the past 15 years, the global mean surface temperature of Earth has increased at a rate that is roughly one-third of that over the past 60 years. This slow-down in surface warming has been referred to as the “Global Warming Hiatus”…
    Some view it as evidence that man-made global warming is a myth, while others explain that it is simply due to internal climate variability that is temporarily masking a longer-term temperature trend. This presentation provides a summary and perspective on recent research related to the global warming hiatus…
    Speaker
    Dr. Loeb is an atmospheric scientist in the Science Directorate at NASA Langley Research Center. He is the Principal Investigator of a satellite project called Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES), which observes the Earth’s radiation budget from space…

    http://colloqsigma.larc.nasa.gov/past-colloquium-lectures/all-colloquium-lectures/colloquium-august-5-2014/

  5. In winter, when the polar vortex will be weak (high pressure over the Arctic Circle) temperature quickly will drop continents. Only the direction of the wind from the ocean may increase the temperature. The negative anomalies of ocean temperatures in the south are already too durable.

  6. Climate change deniers risk being relegated to the ash heap of history. Yet despite the scientific consensus (and, yes, there is consensus), there are those that insist on denying that anthropogenic (i.e. human caused) climate change is real and has arrived.

    We know that humans are changing a climate that has been stable for about 10,000 years, and that they are doing this through the unbridled use of fossil fuels (indeed half of all fossil fuels consumed since the start of the Industrial Revolution have been used in the last 30 years).

    From: Glenn McGillivray is Managing Director of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. I guess that makes him a climate expert.

    http://www.insblogs.com/catastrophe/climate-change-deniers-risk-relegated-ash-heap-history/1616

  7. Katherine says:
    August 5, 2014 at 10:55 pm

    Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place in Earth’s atmosphere in July was over western Russia near the town of Verkhoturye (one of the oldest Russian towns east of the Urals), where Antarctic winter temperatures were as much as 3.77 C (about 6.79 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than seasonal norms.

    Wait a second. Western Russia in an Antarctic winter?

    But CAGW can do anything! Even move entire continents!

  8. The very preliminary sea surface temperature update for July is here:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/very-very-preliminary-july-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-update/

    On Monday, I prepared a quick post primarily about the equatorial Pacific that confirms what everybody knows. The warm waters from the Kelvin wave earlier this year have pretty much been consumed, and the sea surface temperatures in the NINO regions are approaching normal conditions again:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/very-very-preliminary-july-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-update/

  9. ES:

    To cut to the chase: your ‘facts’ are flat wrong. We don’t “know” the things you claim.

    If you read this site for a while, you can become educated, and you won’t be emitting nonsense like you did in your comment above. You can learn the truth. IF you want to.

    Regarding the nincompoop you linked to, you say:

    I guess that makes him a climate expert.

    I guess not. Anyone writing for an ‘institute’ with a name like that is shoveling wild-eyed propaganda. If you comment here, you should know that.

  10. Each time that I see , presented on this site, the UAH Global Lower Atmosphere Temperature graphs I cannot help noticing an apparent step change in 2001-2002, by about 0.2 – 0.3C.
    If one allows for the volcanic El Chinchon and Pintaubo cooling events and the “super El nino” warming prior to 2000, then it appears to the un (or ill-) educated mind that the mechanism(s) affecting the observed measurements abruptly “reset” from a lower , fairly stable, state to a higher level in a period of about 1 year , too short to be a response to a slow increase in CO2 concentration in such a short time .
    Surely it is not simply a change in experimental technique or detectors?.
    Is there any other potential, natural, factor affecting these measurements at that particular time period ?
    From other threads we learn of a significant increase in China’s contribution to CO2 and , of course associated pollution, from 2000 onward , but the timescale does not match exactly.

  11. dbstealey says at August 6, 2014 at 1:39 am…
    I do not think that ES was endorsing the “climate expert”.

    I think he was offering up something for fun and ridicule. Just to have a laugh.

  12. I know that UAH does not actually record the temperatures at ground level and it shows, because the northern hemisphere in July was much colder than normal and yet UAH shows it at +0.293.
    Similarly quite a bit of the southern hemisphere has also been cold and UAH shows it at +0.319.
    Are they actually measuring the heat escaping from the surface which is causing the cold conditions?

  13. A C Osborn says:
    August 6, 2014 at 3:22 am

    I know that UAH does not actually record the temperatures at ground level and it shows,

    I’ve read here that UAH is sometimes out of phase with ground temps for a month, up or down, but that it gets back in step.

  14. “In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions.”
    The cause of the surge is solar minimum, a deep lull in solar activity that began around 2007 and continues today. ”

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/ray_surge.html

    Clouds over the oceans will be very much.

    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1965&starttime=00%3A00&endday=05&endmonth=08&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

  15. Thanks for the regular updates.

    However, must ask again – what caused the huge and unprecedented (in the satellite era data) spike in 1998. I don’t believe even a super El Niño contains sufficient energy to produce such a large and rapid global temperature change.

    Your first graph shows a 0.8C spike from early 97 to early 98 and a similar 0.8C decline by early 99. This spike is double the magnitude and less than half the period of any other rapid event on that graph. I didn’t do the math but we’re talking about a massive influx of energy into out atmosphere and I seriously doubt it came from the Pacific Ocean or our sun. And the result is a 0.4C step change in mean temps from the trend prior to 98 (basically flat) to after the 98 spike (again, basically flat trend line).

    I feel strongly this is a mystery that needs to be addressed and solved. And it obviously has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 concentrations!

    Bill

  16. From: Glenn McGillivray is Managing Director of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. I guess that makes him a climate expert.

    To boost profits in the insurance industry, one merely has to overstate the risks.

  17. Land temperatures in July from satellite (it would be good if the NOAA developed this into a reported temperatures series). Very similar to the UAH map.

    Average anomaly was -0.40C in this map versus the 2001-2010 baseline (pretty hard for the NCDC to declare July as an all-time record on land, will most likely be down considerably).

  18. The map has July in the East coast of Australia as being somewhat above normal. I can tell you from personal experience that the region shown has been ball-tearingly cold compared with recent years, with near record snowfalls and many record or near-record low temps.

    Something is screwy.

  19. phlogiston says:

    “We’re due for a fall in termperatures. There may be a La Nina in the next few months. Already there is an Atlantic “La Nina”. When the Pacific one follows then global temperatures could head south.”

    I agree, a strong/long La Nina, similar to the 1954-56 one is due. It’s been 60 years too, since that one.

  20. ES says:
    August 6, 2014 at 12:51 am…….

    Next time put it in quotes or put the “From” at the top of the quote otherwise we might think it’s from you.

  21. With the sustained pause I imagine we are continuing to evaporate a steady flow of heat out of the oceans. I would imagine that the gas light will click on here soon. Eventually we will need to have a recharging event to keep from sliding fairly deep into below global average temps. That means evaporation needs to slow up and the clouds blown away so that ol’Sol can do its job. Trust me, we WANT heat to be hiding in the oceans!

  22. Odd that the monthly figures for 2013 and 2014 included in Dr. Spencer’s post do not consistently match the monthly figures in the “uahncdc lt 5.6.txt (Lower Troposphere)” dataset that he provides a link to. For example, the post shows the February 2014 anomaly at 0.170 but the dataset shows it at 0.18. There are other examples as well.

  23. “Michael says:
    August 6, 2014 at 8:02 am
    Odd that the monthly figures for 2013 and 2014 included in Dr. Spencer’s post do not consistently match the monthly figures in the “uahncdc lt 5.6.txt (Lower Troposphere)” dataset that he provides a link to. For example, the post shows the February 2014 anomaly at 0.170 but the dataset shows it at 0.18. There are other examples as well.”

    and from version to version the past is changed as well.

  24. Edim says:
    August 6, 2014 at 6:11 am
    I agree, a strong/long La Nina, similar to the 1954-56 one is due. It’s been 60 years too, since that one.

    “Due?” Ha! Do you think we pay the slightest attention to your “schedules”, puny humans?

    …Yours truly,
    La Nina and El Nino

  25. The big jump in the tropics is not surprising with the recent ENSO+ conditions. However, I’m not sure why the SH jumped so much especially given all the added sea ice reflecting solar energy. Or, was it the formation of the ice that released much of the energy?

  26. Steven Mosher says:
    August 6, 2014 at 8:07 am

    “Michael says:
    August 6, 2014 at 8:02 am
    Odd that the monthly figures for 2013 and 2014 included in Dr. Spencer’s post do not consistently match the monthly figures in the “uahncdc lt 5.6.txt (Lower Troposphere)” dataset that he provides a link to. For example, the post shows the February 2014 anomaly at 0.170 but the dataset shows it at 0.18. There are other examples as well.”

    and from version to version the past is changed as well.

    But not always in the same direction.

  27. Richard M says:
    August 6, 2014 at 8:12 am

    “given all the added sea ice reflecting solar energy. ”

    Especially all the sea ice that is at a south of 67 degrees around the late June Solstice.

  28. “A C Osborn says:
    August 6, 2014 at 3:22 am
    I know that UAH does not actually record the temperatures at ground level and it shows, because the northern hemisphere in July was much colder than normal and yet UAH shows it at +0.293.
    Similarly quite a bit of the southern hemisphere has also been cold and UAH shows it at +0.319.
    Are they actually measuring the heat escaping from the surface which is causing the cold conditions?”

    The sensors involved measure brightness not temperature.

    Then, you have to use radiative physics ( for microwave) to estimate what the temperature would have had to be in the troposphere to create the signal received in space.

    It’s not a direct measurement of temperature, but rather the output of a physics model ( radiative transfer ) combined with a brightness data at the sensor.

    Hmm think of this way.

    you are looking down into a pool of water. You see a light at the bottom of the pool. That light impinges on your sensor. Now you ask the question: how hot is the lamp at the bottom of the pool. So, you work backwards from the light received at the sensor, you calculate losses for the transmission through water, you get a estimate of the brightness at the source and then you figure out what the temperature of the lamp is.

    Similarly, you receive a signal in space. You use radiative physics ( how does radiation propagate through the atmosphere) to figure out what the state of the source is.

    In microwave you dont have to account for a C02 effect, but radiative physics is a tested, working reliable physical theory. If it didnt work you could not build radars, ir missiles, cell phones, wi fi,
    satellite sensors..

    radiative physics tells us that doubling c02, all other things being equal, will warm the world by more than 1C.

  29. M Courtney says:
    “‘dbstealey says at August 6, 2014 at 1:39 am…
    I do not think that ES was endorsing the “climate expert”.
    I think he was offering up something for fun and ridicule. Just to have a laugh.”

    Glenn McGillivray holds a B.A. in political science from Wilfrid Laurier University, a M.A. in political science from McMaster University, and a graduate diploma in corporate communication from Seneca College. ES was pulling our legs and some of us believed him !!

  30. M Courtney & Solomon Green. And ES:

    If ES was ridiculing ‘climate experts’, then my sincere apologies. I try to be cynical, but sometimes it’s hard to keep up.  ☹

    It’s hard to think straight after reading the link that ES posted. ☺ 

  31. I would post in the Death Valley thread, but too many comments there now.

    The National Weather Service reports Reno, NV, only reached a high temperature of 66 degrees on Tuesday 5 August. The previous record for lowest high temperature was 73 set in 1891,

    FWIW.

  32. Steven Mosher says: August 6, 2014 at 8:22 am
    I am well aware of how the Satellites work thanks, I was using the term “Records Temperatures” figuratively. That I why I take issue with it, because it is a “Modelled” temperature set like BEST final output.
    Not actual measured values.

  33. Steven Mosher says: August 6, 2014 at 8:22 am
    ie it does not relate to what Human beings experience where they are on the surface.

  34. Mosher, I’m not an expert, but my understanding of radiation physics is that there is not a linear relationship between qty CO2 and temperature response (as suggested by your post). That is, past a certain point, adding additional CO2 does not provide a measurable increase in temperature. I believe the IPCC conjectures that there is a linear relationship, despite well known physics/engineering standards to the contrary. Assuming my understanding is correct, can you please clarify why CO2 would have a linear response in the atmosphere, but not in any other application. (If my understanding is not correct, I’d appreciate clarification.)

    Thanks in advance,

    rip

  35. So a few days ago, we had the definitive headline that there has been no warming for 17 years and 10 months. But – as previously discussed – based on the RSS satellite sensing alone:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/

    UAH does not show such a long pause. Its also satellite based sensing. So it looks to me like RSS is favoured by sceptics as it produces the trend they want to see.

    Perhaps Lord M could do his RSS analysis on the UAH data ?

  36. phlogiston says:
    August 5, 2014 at 11:54 pm

    We’re due for a fall in termperatures. There may be a La Nina in the next few months.
    =========================================================================
    I see that as happening next year. The ENSO should fall a bit further in the next 6/7 weeks, and then there will be a slight uptick to positive territory into October. After that it will be back to negative ENSO until the end of December/early January.

  37. ES:

    “Climate Change Deniers risk being relegated to the ash heap of history…”

    Just posted this over at the linked site:

    How can you say with apparent conviction that the climate has been “stable” for 10,000 years (until now, presumably) when there is not a shred of scientific evidence to back that up, and in fact the vast majority of studies (peer reviewed), show just the opposite, including the Holocene Climate Optimum (much warmer than today), followed by cool period, followed by Roman Warming period, followed by Dark Ages cool period, followed by Medieval Warming Period, followed by Little Ice Age, from which we are now essentially recovered. All three previous warming periods were equal to or greater than the current period (look it up), and the Little Ice Age was the source of significant crop failure, starvation, etc., while the Roman Warming Period and the Medieval Warming period were characterized by growth of civilization and population, abundant crops, retreat of glaciers, etc. Look up the studies, and inform yourself. The notion that the climate is stable is just patently false, and if that’s what you base your current alarmism on, then you should educate yourself to the scientific literature.

    Additionally, as is typical, you create a “straw case” for so-called “deniers”. Most of us believe that CO2 has some warming effect, and clearly mankind is producing more (but is a very small source compared to others, such as Ocean out-gassing, animal respiration, etc.). And everybody acknowledges that the climate is changing (see above). What we don’t believe is that CO2 doubling raises temperatures anywhere near the rate claimed by some scientists, and think climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is less than 2C, and maybe less than 1C. We also don’t buy the conjecture by some scientists that increase of CO2-driven temperatures will trigger water vapor runaway warming, which is the only scenario that can make AGW into CAGW.

    Finally, most of us are more concerned in the longer-term future about the return (inevitably) of another Ice Age, even a “little” one, which would be far more catastrophic to our civilization than a few degrees of warming.

  38. “October could be a month of snow and cold weather across the northern Plains and in parts of the northeast Rockies,” Pastelok said.

  39. James Abbott says:
    August 6, 2014 at 11:16 am
    Perhaps Lord M could do his RSS analysis on the UAH data ?
    =============================================================
    Do you have the skill to do an analysis of any of the temp data sets? Or is your skill set in complaining and nitpicking on Lord M,s handiwork.

  40. “The vortex could slip at times, maybe even briefly in September for the Northeast,” AccuWeather Lead Long-Range Forecaster Paul Pastelok said. “There could be a significant shot of chilly air that comes across the Great Lakes region and into the interior Northeast sometime in mid- to late-September.”

  41. goldminor – yes I could do it, but am inviting Lord M to do so in the interests of balance as the much quoted RSS pause is clearly different to UAH but both are satellite sensing. And you are wrong about Lord M’s “handiwork” as I posted re his recent analysis of the 5 major datasets taken together, that he had it about right – a pause from 2002, not the mid-1990s.

  42. Edim says: I agree, a strong/long La Nina, similar to the 1954-56 one is due. It’s been 60 years too, since that one.

    I disagree. There is an 18-year periodic signal in global temperatures, and 1997+18=2015, so I think a real El Nino in 2015 is likely. After that you can have your mega La Nina…

    Rich.

  43. The value for “tropics” went from -0.1 in Feb to +0.5 in June. Interesting that the entire tropical lower troposphere of planet Earth can increase so quickly. Yet the NH shows little change. The SH jumped 0.3 degrees in May, but was nearly stable before and after that jump.
    How does CO2 manage to do that??

  44. “ripshin says:
    August 6, 2014 at 11:02 am
    Mosher, I’m not an expert, but my understanding of radiation physics is that there is not a linear relationship between qty CO2 and temperature response (as suggested by your post). That is, past a certain point, adding additional CO2 does not provide a measurable increase in temperature. ”

    I suggest no such thing.

    And yes there is a saturation point. we are far away from it.

  45. “A C Osborn says:
    August 6, 2014 at 10:53 am
    Steven Mosher says: August 6, 2014 at 8:22 am
    ie it does not relate to what Human beings experience where they are on the surface.”

    Sure it does.

  46. pat says:
    August 5, 2014 at 11:44 pm
    5 Aug: Washington Times: Jennifer Harper: Paging Al Gore: NASA says that global warming could be ‘on hiatus’
    On Tuesday, NASA’s Langley Research Center atmospheric scientist Norman Loeb presented a talk titled “The recent pause in global warming: A temporary blip or something more permanent?”
    The lecture explores how “global warming may be on vacation,” NASA helpfully explains.
    Uh-oh. Paging Al Gore. There’s even a new term for the phenomenon.
    Mr. Loeb’s presentation offered the most recent research related to a slowdown in surface warming referred to as the “global warming hiatus,” the federal agency says. Over the last 15-years, the global mean surface temperature of Earth has increased at a rate that is roughly one-third of that over the past 60 years, NASA notes…

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/5/paging-al-gore-nasa-says-that-global-warming-could/

    Define “permanent” and “temporary.”

  47. H Grouse says:
    August 6, 2014 at 8:19 am

    Richard M says:
    August 6, 2014 at 8:12 am

    “given all the added sea ice reflecting solar energy. ”

    Especially all the sea ice that is at a south of 67 degrees around the late June Solstice.

    The data is for July. Try to keep up.

  48. Steven Mosher says:
    August 6, 2014 at 8:22 am

    radiative physics tells us that doubling c02, all other things being equal, will warm the world by more than 1C.

    Except, all things are never equal in a chaotic system with multiple drivers and feedbacks. Your statement is meaningless … and you know it.

  49. See – owe to Rich says:
    August 6, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    There is an 18-year periodic signal in global temperatures, and 1997+18=2015, so I think a real El Nino in 2015 is likely. After that you can have your mega La Nina…

    Rich.

    What about the strong El Nino in 1982-83? In 2000-2001 we had a La Nina.
    We had another El Nino in 1987-88. In 2005-2006 we had a La Nina.
    Also, in 1979-80 we had Neutral conditions (1997-18=1979)

    I don’t see it, sorry.

  50. ES says:
    August 6, 2014 at 12:51 am ”Climate change deniers risk being relegated to the ash heap of history. Yet despite the scientific consensus (and, yes, there is consensus), there are those that insist on denying that anthropogenic (i.e. human caused) climate change is real and has arrived.

    We know that humans are changing a climate that has been stable for about 10,000 years, and that they are doing this through the unbridled use of fossil fuels (indeed half of all fossil fuels consumed since the start of the Industrial Revolution have been used in the last 30 years).

    From: Glenn McGillivray is Managing Director of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. I guess that makes him a climate expert.”

    Your belief in a scientific consensus is not supported by over 31,000 scientists with a very different view point to you. If you don’t understand that the climate has changed several times in the last 10,000 years, then you are the one in denial of climate change. You are citing from someone who feels the need to attach the word ” Catastrophic” to their identity? This says it all. No, it certainly does NOT make him a climate expert. If he doesn’t establish catastrophe, then he doesn’t get paid.

    Try learning from someone who studies our climate, like Dr. Spencer. I think you will find him to be a breath of fresh air, from the drivel you’ve been taken in by up to now.

    Good Luck,
    Eamon.

  51. James Abbott:

    I recognise that veracity, consistency and logic are not among your strengths, but even by your low standards your post at August 6, 2014 at 1:57 pm is poor.

    goldminor – yes I could do it, but am inviting Lord M to do so in the interests of balance as the much quoted RSS pause is clearly different to UAH but both are satellite sensing. And you are wrong about Lord M’s “handiwork” as I posted re his recent analysis of the 5 major datasets taken together, that he had it about right – a pause from 2002, not the mid-1990s.

    You have yet to demonstrate an ability to “do” anything except make fatuous whinges, so I doubt your claimed ability to conduct a linear regression.

    Your attempt to pretend your latest whinge is about “balance” fails because – as you say – “Lord M” did do a different analysis which included all 5 data sets and gave an indication you like.

    Global warming has stopped despite continuing rises to emissions of CO2 from human activity and continuing increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Live with it.

    Richard

  52. Re:

    As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.

    Question.

    When did these type of measurement become mainstream?
    What is the certainty of the global average value?
    How does it compare with previous methods?

  53. Steven Mosher says:
    August 6, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    Thanks for the clarification. I had understood your post to mean a doubling of CO2 [at any level] would lead to a 1°C rise. Based on your reply, what it is meant is a doubling of CO2 [at current levels] will lead to a 1°C rise.

    Since we know there is a saturation point, how do we calculate what it is? Or, what is the basis for determining the saturation point? This seems to be a topic of some importance to the general AGW theory, and I would like to understand it further.

    Thanks,

    rip

  54. Edim says:
    August 6, 2014 at 6:11 am
    phlogiston says:

    “We’re due for a fall in temperatures. There may be a La Nina in the next few months. Already there is an Atlantic “La Nina”. When the Pacific one follows then global temperatures could head south.”

    I agree, a strong/long La Nina, similar to the 1954-56 one is due. It’s been 60 years too, since that one.

    goldminor says:
    August 6, 2014 at 12:56 pm
    phlogiston says:
    August 5, 2014 at 11:54 pm

    We’re due for a fall in temperatures. There may be a La Nina in the next few months.
    =========================================================================
    I see that as happening next year. The ENSO should fall a bit further in the next 6/7 weeks, and then there will be a slight uptick to positive territory into October. After that it will be back to negative ENSO until the end of December/early January.

    The recent few decades seem to confirm an annual phase-locking of ENSO such that the start of a La Nina cooling of the East Pacific occurs either in summer – and the subsequent La Nina is weak, or at Christmas – and the following La Nina is stronger. Thus if the ENSO index bumps along just above neutral till the end of the year this would make possible a strong La Nina cooling at the start of 2015. This would be similar to the 2007-2008 La Nina which followed a period of several years of near ENSO neutrality – such as we are now also experiencing.

  55. I read on here the other day that the UAH temperature data is in line for a reduction across-the-board, in order to correct a problem that has caused it to be running too hot.

    Does anyone know if this is true, please? If it is true, then it would seem that the graph above is wrong…

  56. It’s easy enough to do the linear regression on the UAH dataset – or at least it would be if the figures were reliable. As one or two others have pointed out, the headline figures in the article differ from those in the referenced dataset. I pointed this out a couple of months ago in WUWT, and also in Dr Spencer’s webite, requesting an explanation, but none was forthcoming.

    However, using what appear to be the most recent figures, one can find a negative slope as far back as September 2008, so nearly 6 years.

    You will also find that the most recent 10-year period (August 2004 to July 2014) is the warmest in the dateset, which started in December 1978, and that if the average anomaly for the first 7 months of the year (0.25 degrees) were to persist for the rest of the year, then 2014 would be 4th warmest, behind 1998 (0.42), 2010 (0.40) and 2005 (0.26)

Comments are closed.