UAH Global Temperature Report: July 2015 – the pause continues

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per decade

July temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.18 C (about 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

JULY 2015 tlt_update_July2015

Northern Hemisphere: +0.33 C (about 0.60 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.03 C (about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

Tropics: +0.48 C (about 0.86 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

June temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.33 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.41 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.25 C below 30-year average

Tropics: +0.46 C above 30-year average

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

the month reported.)

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2015 is +0.18 deg. C, down considerably from the June, 2015 value of +0.33 deg. C (click for full size version):


The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 7 months are:


2015 1 +0.28 +0.40 +0.16 +0.13

2015 2 +0.18 +0.30 +0.05 -0.06

2015 3 +0.17 +0.26 +0.07 +0.05

2015 4 +0.09 +0.18 -0.01 +0.10

2015 5 +0.29 +0.36 +0.21 +0.28

2015 6 +0.33 +0.41 +0.25 +0.46

2015 7 +0.18 +0.33 +0.03 +0.48

Strong July cooling occurred in the Southern Hemisphere extratropics, with a weak drop in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics. The tropics continue to warm with El Nino conditions there.

The global image for July, 2015 should be available in the next several dayshere.

The new Version 6 files (use the ones labeled “beta2″) should be updated soon, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere:



Lower Stratosphere:

Notes on data released Aug. 12, 2015:

The tropics continued to warm in July, although the areas between the tropics and both the Arctic and Antarctic regions cooled from June, said Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in July was in southeastern Kazakhstan near the city of Almaty. The July temperature there averaged 3.33 C (about 6.0 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in July was in the northern Atlantic Ocean off the southeastern coast of Greenland, where the average July 2015 temperature was 3.77 C (about 6.77 degrees F) cooler than normal.

The complete version 6 beta lower troposphere dataset is available here:

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

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 —

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Reddish
August 13, 2015 9:25 am

“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.”
Immediately ignored is what actually happens. The data is sooo inconvenient. for many.

Reply to  Steve Reddish
August 13, 2015 9:59 am

That’s because this Lancet/Roceffeer Foundation report on planetary health in the Anthropocene is the true agenda.
That just came out, but everything the Rockefeller Foundation does dovetials with all their other pushes like Metropolitanism, Regional Equity Plans, and Global Cities. It also fits with something they push called CFSC–Communication for Social Change.

Reply to  Robin
August 13, 2015 10:01 am

Here is a podcast from the same Planetary Health Commission.

August 13, 2015 9:27 am

Sun is looking mighty quiet. Once la nina kicks in, it seems we may well have significant cooling. In real life anyway.
It will be interesting to see what happens next time the satellites show cooling. Can they unadjust surface readings?
I can only wonder how far out of whack things will get when so-called “climate scientists” are busily trying to disprove reality, and it becomes obvious that they are doing so. Will people who have been warmistas begin to change their minds in greater numbers, or will heels be dug in and the Great Science War begin?

Reply to  menicholas
August 13, 2015 10:56 am

“Significant cooling” – none of the CHIP5 models include a coupled solar cycle. What evidence are you relying on to support “significant cooling”?

Reply to  John
August 13, 2015 12:46 pm

What “evidence” do the CHIP5 models rely on? Their models continue to diverge sharply from reality.

Reply to  John
August 13, 2015 12:53 pm

What evidence are you relying on to support “significant cooling”?
Over 100 years of solar cycles that usually end with headlines like “The Coming Ice Age” or “What If Temperatures Keep On Rising?”.
By the time the headlines are SCREAMING the next cycle has usually started. The SCREAMING started a little early this half cycle.

Reply to  John
August 13, 2015 3:07 pm

Well, Simon, in 100 years we have had nothing at all like this cycle.
John, which part of “may well” leads you to believe I am “relying” on anything?
Oh, I get it…you are so used to the scads of reports, analyses and papers screaming alarmist headlines of impending doom, and featuring such key maybe words as “could”, “might”, “is not inconsistent with”, etc…that you suppose I am doing the same, that is, saying “may well” and implying that this translates into “it is already happening and it is worse than we thought”.
However, in ordinary non-alarmist prose, the words mean what the dictionary says they mean.
I am not presuming to know what will happen next.
I only believe that the people who are engaged in a series of WAGs about the climate, dress these suppositions up as inevitable, and have rarely been correct about any of them, will continue to do worse than a retarded alcoholic monkey throwing darts at a board.
So what happens if and when it cools is a reasonable question to wonder about.
What will happen if it does?
Will you answer the question, or refuse to offer any insight into what you personally would consider would constitute enough evidence to render CAGW as a falsified hypothesis?

Reply to  menicholas
August 13, 2015 3:04 pm

The problem is that what you or I experience is primarily the result of the noisy ‘weather’. In our local environment we can not feel 0.8°C or even 2°C warming (or cooling). The noise from ‘weather’ compleatly swamps those small changes. So earth could cool quite a bit, and people would not be able to ‘feel’ the change. So as the Alarmists keep yelling ‘It’s Warming! It’s worse than we thought!”, people will not be able to call BS just based on what they experience localy. People have to look at the global data. Most people don’t care enough to do that.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
August 13, 2015 3:21 pm

Most people do not. Hard to argue with that.
I consider the satellite data to be the most complete and accurate measure of the temperature of the atmosphere, so that is what I look to as a guide. It is not the whole story, but together with polar sea ice, regional long term patterns, and a few other details, it gives enough info to determine a trend…over time.
If, as you say, we even have a trend at all.
If a few degrees Celsius is what constitutes random noise, then there has been no trend at all for quite some time…just randomness. But if this is true, then having rivers such as the Hudson and the Thames freeze over every year by Thanksgiving is just randomness. I think interrupted commerce, failed crops due to unseasonable cold, and towns being crushed by advancing glaciers (like what we had during the LIA) may be what we should consider a “cooling trend”. But that is just me. 🙂
I am in the camp that sees cooling as bad, warming as good, and droughts in CA and other desertish places “normal variation”.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
August 14, 2015 5:13 am

Most people don’t care enough to do that
Why should they? If you cannot feel the change regionally, why does it matter?
For example, we hear that a small temperature rise over 100 years will be bad because our infrastructure is designed for current temperatures. But this ignores that infrastructure rarely if every lasts 100 years, and when it gets rebuilt it will likely be with better, more resilient materials due to technological advances and any change that has taken place will be incorporated into the new design.
As such there is no need to worry or to rush changes today. Ever day, almost every location on earth experiences greater swings in temperature than is predicted for hundreds of years into the future. Our ancestors handled much more significant climate change with much more primitive technology than we have today.
We have become a bunch of climate weenies. Central heating and central air-conditioning hold our houses and offices within 2 degrees of what we consider local optimum, regardless of outside temperatures, and we are worried about a small shift in temperature that is dwarfed by the climate change experienced by our ancestors within the last 20 thousand years.
Are we really saying that our modern technology cannot cope with climate change that is a small fraction of the change experienced by our ancestors over the past 20 thousand years, and that instead we need to revert to near stone age technology to survive?

donald penman
August 13, 2015 9:35 am

Sky news headline: torrential rain and thunderstorms are lashing the UK ,correction torrential rain and thunderstorms are lashing London however London is not the UK.

bit chilly
Reply to  donald penman
August 13, 2015 10:20 am

best place for it in the uk. hope they get ten feet of snow this coming winter as well 🙂

Adam Gallon
Reply to  donald penman
August 13, 2015 11:57 am

A bit rainy here in the Midlands, after a very pleasant day.

Reply to  donald penman
August 13, 2015 2:48 pm

Here in the southwest we were expecting torrential rain but it’s been very patchy and not torrential. The thunderstorms were way in the distance. Normal summer weather during what has been a slightly cool summer so far.

Reply to  donald penman
August 13, 2015 2:59 pm

It’s only just started pissing it down here just south of Nottingham. Must have stopped at Watford Gap for refreshments and to have a bit of a nap.

Gerry, England
Reply to  donald penman
August 14, 2015 2:38 am

They didn’t do that either. We had some rain but there was only one flash of lightning and a rumble of thunder. Nothing fitting that description happened in London. The South Coast seemed to get that with flooding in places and train services affected.

August 13, 2015 9:36 am

No temperatures rise?
You must be mistaken,
Incorrect readings
Must have been taken;
We have global warming,
The science is settled,
So before you report temperatures
Make sure they’ve been fettled!

August 13, 2015 9:44 am

I think this is funny, we all believe there will be some definitive proof in our life times. I actually was silly enough to believe that for a while. Heres the reality, lets say the PDO is negative but is showing positive only short term due to the blob (noise). The AMO is most likely in the negative phase and the sun has gone quiet. None of this will matter, temp does not change dramatically on the short term and even if it did we have no way to actually measure it.
I am a large part of the 241 million visits of WUWT and have read so many articles but we have to face the reality. Nothing anyone writes is going to change the fact that climate is changing but it is changing so slow, that this particular argument will never be won. Even if it turned cooler for a few years, something very natural, the other side would have more excuses than Clinton had Jelly Beans.
Luckily for us, even if the world is cooling, our technology has developed far enough that some areas will decrease in food production and others will benefit from cooler temps….. And everyone will declare victory! That is the sorriest part of this story, we will never face the fact that resources are not being used on the areas that need them the most.

Patrick Hrushowy
Reply to  brian
August 13, 2015 10:02 am

Actually, after the Sunday of prayer in early September, cooling temperatures will be taken as proof that prayer works.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Patrick Hrushowy
August 13, 2015 10:08 am

Yes, James Hansen will proclaim that the power of prayer has changed the CO2 forcing, that all the computer models were right, but now they need to be respecified, that we’re all saved, and go on to write a memoir and fade into history. Very much like Elizabeth I, and the defeat of the Spanish Armada

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  brian
August 13, 2015 10:04 am

The argument might not be won with temperature data, it will be won when things like Rotterdam’s massive adaptation are completed, and the city is ready for a sea level change of 2 feet, but North Sea has only risen 3/8’s of an inch.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
August 13, 2015 10:54 am

A smart government will take relatively sane steps to control the risks as they see them.
I personally think that CAGW is a myth, however I do acknowledge that there is a risk I am wrong but at a low level of risk.
Further the 2ft fortification indicates that they think CO2 abatement will not have any impact so that also is a sane response to what is clearly a reality.
I have lived in Rotterdam and the sea is a constant risk these adoption measures will have value even in the event very modest sea level increase.

Retired Engineer Jim
Reply to  brian
August 13, 2015 12:57 pm

Well said.

Reply to  brian
August 13, 2015 3:29 pm

I think a decrease in the ability to produce food in the regions that currently produce the most of it will not be, in any way, a net wash.
I think it likely that decreasing the productive capacity of the US, and Canada, and Russia, and the Ukraine…will cause some very serious famines.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 14, 2015 5:28 am

decrease in the ability to produce food
why should food production suffer? increased CO2 will increase yields. There is no place on earth that is “too warm” to grow food so long as there is water. If there isn’t water, there is irrigation and desalination. Both of which are entirely practical so long as energy costs are low.
Farmers regularly choose the crops most likely to provide the greatest yield for local conditions. The only real problem is cooling because there are lots of places on earth that are too cold to grow food.
There is virtually zero risk to global food production due to AGW because the warming is predicted to place at the poles, with almost no warming at the equator. The day they can grow tomatoes in central Greenland will be a good thing for Greenland, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen. Baring a “Mr. Fusion” in every household, It is still at best thousands of years in the future.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 14, 2015 10:20 am

I agree with you about warming. The issue I was addressing was cooling, and the comment that if we have significant cooling, it will not matter because some places will then be “just right”, even if the places that are just right now become much less favorable to the point of reducing productive potential.
Besides, I was speaking of the hypothetical anyway. Even if there is a net wash in terms of total Earth surface area able to grow crops, if the newly favorable locations are in places where people are dirt poor and economically backwards, it will likely take some number of years to transfer production to new areas. Since the world has about a thirty day food supply on hand at any given time…it will take too long for some people.
Not rich people or course.
Only those living hand to mouth first.

Reply to  brian
August 13, 2015 9:47 pm

Don’t hang your hat on the current pause. Don’t declare victory if temperatures drop in the near future. Even if we are now headed for the next glacial period, the end of the Holocene, it is not a smooth, continuous straight line down. At some point the temperature will surely rise again. When it does alarmists will become insufferable…crowing, gloating, chanting “we were right, it’s worse than we thought!”. The key is to broaden our horizons. Can we all agree the earth is now in “Icehouse” conditions? Check the poles. Do you see ice caps? Of course, common knowledge. Is this the usual situation? No, “Greenhouse” conditions with no ice caps and forests growing in the polar regions is far more common. Temperatures have been dropping steadily and consistently since the Eocene. The current brutal ice age has plagued us for two and a half million years. We as a species have known nothing else. Are CAGWist saying that trend is being reversed by CO2. Is it so powerful that it will kick the earth out of the present ice age? With all this talk about melting ice that seems to be what they are saying. Let them state it plainly. Is such a thing even remotely possible given earth’s long term, established climate trend?

Reply to  rbissett777
August 14, 2015 5:16 am

And how is it, on net, a bad thing to NOT have vast stretches of frozen wastelands on our planet?
I say it is on net a good thing, if for no other reason than it provides a buffer against a time when continental glaciers once again overspread North America and Eurasia, and mountains everywhere become impassable ice hells.

August 13, 2015 9:56 am

‘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.’
Compare that to the tactics employed by the likes of Phil ‘why should I show you my data’ Jones at HadCrut and Australia’s BoM, who refuse to reveal how they make their ‘adjustments’ to revise past data. It says all we need to know about probity and integrity.

Reply to  cheshirered
August 13, 2015 11:25 am

You point to an aspect(s) of the issue yet fail to see the top down.
The only logical way the IPCC can possibly manage all the inputs requires structured content. XML or SGML require a DTD.
Where is the IPCC DTD and or requirements for submission?
With the DTD and a very simple relationship to confidence, the climate model logic map is obvious.

Reply to  John
August 13, 2015 12:58 pm
Reply to  cheshirered
August 13, 2015 8:03 pm

‘Far from being published and peer reviewed, the methods are secret, and rely on — in their own words — a “supervised process” of “expert judgment” and “operator intervention”. In other words, a BOM employee makes their best guess, ruling in or out the “optimal” choices, making assumptions that are not documented anywhere.’

August 13, 2015 10:03 am

Is Al Gore scheduled to be in Paris for the climate summit? That should ensure interesting local weather. If I were Jerry Brown I would buy Al Gore a cruise ticket to Alaska to help end the warm water blob in the North Pacific Ocean to allow the El Niño winter rains to help with the California drought.

Steve Lohr
August 13, 2015 10:06 am

Brian 9:44. You might be right about no definitive proof, but that isn’t what is needed. This is a perception issue like a marketing brand. Even without “definitive proof”, which is what the warmers have been operating with from the beginning, all it takes will be a few prominent events that change the “brand” reputation. I think we have already seen some of this with the winter hammering the north east for the last couple of years. If you are old enough to remember Chicago in the winter of ’78, the brand image of Chicago city politics changed because of the fallout from a winter storm. These things can turn on a dime with the right PR; even when the proof is nothing but window dressing. Sorry to be so cynical, but that’s the way I think it is.

Reply to  Steve Lohr
August 13, 2015 10:18 am

I am ‘barely’ old enough to remember the Blizzard of ’78, but from a little further east. I get what you are saying, however, I was challenged this morning to explain an article on why 2015 was the year ‘that is the tipping point’. I spent about 2 hours writing a rebuttal when I realized, it just doesn’t matter. There is nothing I can say that will change anything. I explained that 2015 could NOT be the tipping point because 1998 was the tipping point, 2007 was ‘a’ tipping point, 2012 was supposedly a tipping point, and I vaguely remember someone accusing 2014 of being a tipping point. How could 2015 possibly be a tipping point, when it has ‘supposedly’ already happened about 4 times. Yet people still believe this year is the one!
I tried explaining how flawed Prof Hansens math was when he said, sea level would increase by 10′ by 2065 and how it would happen by a 10 times increase in the rate…. Hello Prof, I only have a bachelors and I know to go from 3.2mm per year (questionable satellite data) to 10′ equals 120″ over 50 years, is 2.4″ per year or 67.5mm’s…. ahhh Prof thats 20 times as much increase…. How did this paper make it through peer review?
There is no brand reputation that can be diminished, people have decided and no amount of scientific proof will change anything.

Reply to  brian
August 13, 2015 10:41 am

That’s the problem I am having when trying to discuss this issue in a rational manner with someone within whose mind the matter is already settled. We may as well be conversing with the doorknob. I don’t know the answer to this problem but it is our biggest obstacle.

Reply to  brian
August 13, 2015 10:50 am

You’re a cynical guy, Brian. But, not without cause. People can always rationalize an excuse for why reality appears to be disagreeing with their belief system. None of the Great Questions have been definitively resolved in my lifetime. Many have merely retreated into the shadows, lurking there until such a time as they can assert themselves anew.
Even Communism, which seemed completely and utterly discredited forever after the fall of the Berlin Wall, has made a comeback among people who think, if they can just get the formula just right, and inter alia eliminate all opposition, it will usher in a permanent era of peace and prosperity, the final solution for all time. North Korea can be a lightless hellhole. Venezuela can crash and burn. Cuba can be revealed to be a time portal to the 1950’s. Nothing can so much as even slightly perturb the faith.

Rob Morrow
Reply to  brian
August 13, 2015 11:58 am

The cause for cynicism is huge.
For the average scientifically illiterate meatbag there will never be any proofs or disproofs stated in simple enough terms for them to understand. The main question of climate science is too nuanced. To answer the question “are humans causing catastrophic warming?” one has to be able to answer dozens of other more complicated questions first, e.g. how do water vapor and clouds affect the TOA energy balance? Thusly the average willful ignoramus will always defer their thinking to an authority figure because the concepts involved in answering the questions are beyond their grasp. Their faith in “scientific” authority figures is impervious to the failures of their catastrophic predictions coming to pass. Somehow, each failed prediction serves to strengthen the faith. “Oh, well, Manhattan isn’t flooded today like Hansen said it would be, but now he’s revised his models with new data and he’s really really sure about CAGW now, more sure than before. His estimates are getting better.” is the sort of dissonance-avoidance dance warmists do.
Learned cultural values like religion and racism take a very long time to change. It’s been about 6 generations since the US civil war but racism is still rampant. It may take generations to rid the public psyche of the fear of CAGW. Or the Orwellian trends of today will not abate and the ministry of truth, I mean IPCC, will continue to dominate public opinion by revising the past (a la Mann) and declaring false scientific certainty, and well-meaning warm-hearted empty-headed people will continue to have faith.

Reply to  brian
August 13, 2015 3:27 pm

There are tipping points every time one of these global warming gabfests is held. Tipping money down the drain.

Reply to  brian
August 13, 2015 3:38 pm

The “appeal to authority” model is the dilemma. My sister is an extremely educated doctor, but her profession mandates trust in pharmaceutical clinical trials and other experts who provide guidance. She cannot possibly test every drug or treatment method herself, so she has to rely on experts.
The scienctific consensus lie by the warmists is powerful in our highly specialized society. Many are trained to “trust” experts.
Needless to say our global warming debate was decidedly one sided when I crushed her appeal to authority position.
The usurping of the scientific method by unscrupulous, government funded activists posing as scientists is the second greatest tragedy (behind the carbon trading/tax schemes) of this fleecing.

Rob Morrow
Reply to  brian
August 13, 2015 4:59 pm

Even if there truly were a consensus, history has shown the appeal to authority model is worthless and inherently backwards. A possibly apocryphal quote often attributed to Lord Kelvin in 1900ish: “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement”. To state that their is nothing new to learn is to declare human omniscience on a particular subject, and if it is done without the power to perfectly model/forecast it is pure deluded hubris. Contemporary climate science is nowhere near classical physic’s predictive ability; the dynamics of everyday life could be modeled very accurately without any knowledge of relativity. Anybody who parrots the consensus argument with regards to CAGW fundamentally does not understand how science works to advance human knowledge. Before 1905ish the consensus of the physics community favoured the arrow of time, but that did not make it true, and if they tried to predict the dynamics at relativistic speeds they would have failed miserably. Relativity was confirmed empirically during a solar eclipse. CAGW theories have not come close to empirical observations, hence they should be regarded as incomplete or thrown away entirely.
My experience of many doctors and biologists who do no research is that they are not actually scientists in the enlightened and critical thinking sense, instead they are specifically knowledgeable and excellent at memorization.

Rob Morrow
Reply to  brian
August 13, 2015 6:48 pm

FTOP you made a great point: ignorance of how the scientific method is properly applied in an argument, and in particular with respect to CAGW, is common even among highly educated and otherwise intelligent people. It doesn’t take a conspiracy theory to explain the supposed consensus or the general hysteria surrounding CAGW. A little social psychology with a dash of economics is all it takes.

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  brian
August 13, 2015 8:56 pm

I don’t agree that the “brand” is unassailable. It’s a crap “brand” for a starter.
All brands can be trashed. The best perpetrators are generally the brand owners themselves due to their own arrogance.
In the interim we need to keep it simple.
I always enjoy looking at the audience listening to a warmist arguing with me when I say: “then tell us, why has there been no net increase in average global temperature in over the last 18 years or more when CO2 continues to rise? I thought you lot always held that CO2 is the predominant driver of temperature”.
The brand is assailable. It’s a crap brand. Remember: “the rule of seven”.

Reply to  brian
August 13, 2015 10:25 pm

The current brand, with the associated monastic-like chants is now somewhere between 5 and 20 years old. I’m having a lot of success telling people that they need to keep up with the science as it has changed since there actually was any global warming.

Reply to  brian
August 14, 2015 5:27 am

If you think that, I would say it is your own relative youth and lack of having lived through anything else that makes you believe this is true.
People know when they are freezing cold, and year after year of abnormally frigid winters will change a lot of minds all by itself.
When the only economic disruptions are due to it being too cold and snowy, for years on end, try to convince people they need to fear warmth.
One big disservice that professional climate liars have done is to promulgate the myth that droughts and severe storms are somehow, by themselves, proof of anything other than normal weather…as if it is a new phenomenon to have droughts and storms and “freaky weather”.

Reply to  brian
August 14, 2015 5:29 am

My comment above is in response to Brian at 10:18.

glen martin
August 13, 2015 10:06 am

Interesting map.
I’ve seen lots of graphs comparing the plots from various databases.
Has anyone produced maps comparing them?

Mary Brown
Reply to  glen martin
August 13, 2015 12:19 pm

Ask and you shall receive

Reply to  Mary Brown
August 13, 2015 3:35 pm

I like the “map” at the bottom left the best.
I think he meant maps that were less like graphs and more like “maps”.

Reply to  Mary Brown
August 13, 2015 3:37 pm

Oh, I see. The pics at the bottom are different every time you open it.
Never mind about bottom left.

August 13, 2015 10:32 am

Canada might want to start a new order for icebreaker ships now, just in case. They are not just sitting on the shelf to purchase. An order of dry bulk coal carriers might be useful also for all the coal being moved to buyers of crystal energy.

August 13, 2015 10:46 am
Richard M
Reply to  Resourceguy
August 13, 2015 10:52 am

Maybe this is the reason why NSIDC data is diverging from other sources like DMI. Obama wants to create a publicity event and needs the “official” data to back up the claims.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Richard M
August 13, 2015 12:51 pm

I think we should put arctic data (antarctic, too) in the hands of Scandinavians. They find the cold places too sacrosanct to cook up data about it.

Richard M
August 13, 2015 10:49 am

When is the end of beta for the UAH version 6 data? It would be nice if it became the default data found at and woodfortrees would pick it up.

August 13, 2015 11:11 am

Understand what causes climate change (its not CO2) and you can understand the pause…and the coming downtrend.

August 13, 2015 11:25 am

After the map, the first graph (of monthly data), look at 1988 and the months around there.
The current temps don’t look much worse than they were in 1987-89. We were certainly surviving just fine 30 years ago, things haven’t changed that much.
And as many have pointed out before, this graph can be looked at as one period of a sine wave, with the next cycle going blue (colder), as politically incorrect as that will seem to the alarmists.

Ralph Kramden
August 13, 2015 11:50 am

According to my worksheet the slope of the trend line is zero for the last 18 years and 5 months. It looks like climate change really is a non-problem.

Mary Brown
August 13, 2015 12:07 pm

The Wood For Tree Index (WTI) is the average of GISS, HadCrut, RSS and UAH. I consider it the most robust and least controversial index. Here are the trends in WTI
5 year trend -0.01 deg/decade
10 year trend +0.04 deg/decade
15 year trend +0.07 deg/decade
30 year trend +0.15 deg/decade

Reply to  Mary Brown
August 13, 2015 3:40 pm

Anything that includes the data sets with all of those bogus adjustments is hardly robust. Whatever the hell that even means.
Unless it means “wrong”, I think the ones that are the most correct are best.

Mary Brown
Reply to  Menicholas
August 14, 2015 6:38 am

Robust definitions…
c : strongly formed or constructed : sturdy
d : capable of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions
There are those that criticize satellite data … and they have adjustments, too. Using four different data sets eliminates cherry-picking and combines various methodologies which makes the data more “robust “.
A large bogus adjustment in one data set of a 0.08 deg would only budge the WTI by .02 deg.
Simply picking your favorite puts you on the same scientific bottomland as NOAA who ignores their own satellite data and balloon data and pristine obs data and claims last year was the “hottest ever” by picking just the right data.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 14, 2015 10:23 am

I disagree that thinking that the best data is best puts me in the same boat as those who manipulate the data to say what they want it to say.

August 13, 2015 12:13 pm

A steady .11C per decade looks about right from all the measurement systems.
If that holds for the future it looks like 1.1C per century if CO2 and temperature continues to increase at current rate ( I realize it’s not a linear relationship, but over a century the number is pretty reasonable.)
So in 200 years the CO2 will have doubled from today’s level (400 to 800 at rate of 20ppm per decade).
At the .11C rate per decade the T will increase by 2.2C above today’s level (or about 3.3C above pre-industrial levels). That assumes that the delta-T rate won’t increase with higher CO2 and that delta-CO2 rate won’t increase with increased economic development.
So the “CO2 Sensitivity” would work out to 2.2C based on the last 4-5 decades of data.
That’s well above Professor Curry’s 1.66.
Maybe some cause for long term concern?

Reply to  ponysboy
August 13, 2015 1:45 pm

“Maybe some cause for long term concern?”
The graveyards are full of people that worried about tomorrow,just enjoy what we have today.
Remember the people that used to wear ‘sandwich boards’ saying “The End is Nigh”.

Reply to  ponysboy
August 13, 2015 2:44 pm

It will not be steady. The 1.1C per century is arrived at by aliasing a cyclic variation to a long term trend.
The effect of CO2 is very close to zero,

August 13, 2015 12:22 pm

The warming effect of CO2 is logrhythmic; almost all the warming occurred in the first few dozen ppm. CO2 could rise by another 20%, 30%, 40% or more from here, but any global warming from that rise would still be too small to measure.
This chart shows how even adding a lot more CO2 will not make any measurable difference:comment image

Reply to  dbstealey
August 14, 2015 11:06 am

I’m aware of the logarithmic effect. That’s why I did the rough estimate only based on doubling CO2…..i.e estimating the end point but not trying to determine the non-linear path to get there.
If you follow the equations for the direct effect of CO2, with the CO2 currently halfway to doubling from pre-industrial levels, the temperature increase would be about 70% of the final value when CO2 reaches doubling (about 550ppm).
All scientists agree on the 1C increase for the direct effect from doubling CO2. So the direct effect should have been .7C to date. In fact it has increased 1.0C. We don’t know if the additional .3C (+43%) is due to the secondary effects of CO2 or to some other natural causes. That’s what the most important scientific debate going on today is all about.
Anyway, if we use that data and assume the +43% is the secondary effect, the delta-T effect from doubling CO2 from today’s level to 800ppm would be 2.0C. In the ball park of the projection using Roy Spencer’s data.
Of course two things make that all academic. 1. No one knows the secondary effect or the effect from natural causes. 2. CO2 probably won’t double from today’s level for 200 years, if by then. Long before that happens scientists will have a pretty good answer to number 1.
I’m curious about the source and context of your bar chart. It isn’t consistent with radiation and filtering equations.
It seems to imply that another 20ppm of CO2 will increase T by 1.5C; I’m sure you don’t mean that.
It also looks like the old argument that CO2 is close to a saturation point, but I don’t want to read anymore into it than I should.
Can you explain it?

August 13, 2015 1:05 pm

The LA Times is calling the current El Nino a Gorilla El Nino. Using NOAA as their main source of data, the LA Times has all but declared this El Nino far stronger than the 1997-98 El Nino event. While this may come to pass, I’m wondering if NOAA has jumped the gun. The spike in global LT (lower tropospheric) temps in 1997 was much more drastic than in 2015. Perhaps the plunge in North Atlantic SSTs are offsetting the rise in El Nino induced global temperatures. But, I’m wondering if the high amplitude MJO phase 6 and 7 event we saw in June through early July (which I think was a record) gave a false positive in the true intensity of this year’s El Nino. Usually a phase 7 MJO creates WWBs (westerly wind bursts) very similar to the El Nino Kelvin Waves. Just a thought

Reply to  JP
August 13, 2015 5:56 pm

Yeah, well CBS News is “reporting”

Forecasters with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center told reporters Thursday warming ocean waters nearing North and South America could bring some much-needed rain — along with some other potentially hairy weather — to the region in what one climatologist described as a “Godzilla El Niño”.

Probably “Climatologist Bill Patzert told CBS News.”

Reply to  Ric Werme
August 13, 2015 6:00 pm

Yeah, he’s a fan. Oh July 20:

“A weak El Niño is not the same animal as a Godzilla El Niño,” said William Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena.

August 13, 2015 1:21 pm

Could you please tell me where your troposphere lies (is?)? I happen to live just above the ground.

Reply to  François
August 13, 2015 2:04 pm

François August 13, 2015 at 1:21 pm
Could you please tell me where your troposphere lies (is?)? I happen to live just above the ground.

François if you live “just above the ground” then you live in the troposphere. The Troposphere goes from the surface up to the Tropopause.

Reply to  François
August 13, 2015 6:04 pm

The “Lower Troposphere” per UAH and RSS data is about 12,000 feet or 4,000 meters. It is a moderately different beast than the surface, e.g. heating from El Ninos takes a couple months to show up in UAH data.

John F. Hultquist
August 13, 2015 1:58 pm

Me too. I live at 682.75 metres. How about you?
Doesn’t matter. The troposphere includes us all.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
August 13, 2015 2:09 pm

It lies at grade 1,as you become more advanced at ‘Climastrology’ you can ‘Bluff’ your way up to the Exosphere.

michael hart
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
August 13, 2015 2:15 pm

And the atmosphere is also where greenhouse gases are held to exert their putative effects. What better way to measure such effects, than from a satellite measuring the temperatures in the atmosphere, closer to the first order effects than ground-based thermometers?

Reply to  michael hart
August 13, 2015 10:09 pm

…. not to mention the fabrication of the surface temperature records.

August 13, 2015 2:28 pm

lts been the cooling over NW Russia that has taken my interest recently.
Low pressure has been sitting over northern Russia for much of the month. Am waiting to see if this pattern lasts into the winter and to see what if any effects it has on the high pressure that often settles over this area during the winter. Because the ice sheets over Russia during the ice age suggests that this was a common weather pattern during the ice age at least during the summer.

Reply to  taxed
August 13, 2015 4:10 pm

I posted this elsewhere, but to my mind it ties in with what you posted…..
Three weeks ago, the Greenland ice melt/gain experienced a rapid gain in ice mass and moved above the long term average. At that time, most of the Greenland coastline was showing red = ice mass loss. Three weeks ago was also where Arctic temps, as shown at DMI, took a moderate dip below average and have stayed low in the interim. Then around 10 days days ago the Greenland Ice Sheet page started showing blue mass/gain areas. I would suspect that this is tied in with the dip in Arctic temps from 3 weeks prior. The south end of Greenland is showing the most ice mass gain, which seems odd.
Something else that has caught my attention recently is that in looking at daily temps in many locations around the globe, I have noted that in well over half of worldwide locations the minimum temps are no longer running above average. A 14 day temp observation shows mostly average minimums. On top of that, a moderate % of locations are showing below average highs over a 14 day period. This is a noticeable change as compared to the 9 month period from last Sept through May of this year. I can feel the difference here where I live in Northern California. This is the nicest summer of the last 4+ years, with mainly average temps. There have been a few summer rains. Nighttime temperatures have remained below 60F for much of the summer. This last week the nights have gone down to 50F. Things are cooling down, and this is going to become more noticeable in the upcoming years.

Reply to  goldminor
August 15, 2015 12:28 pm

After talking about the Greenland mass gain in the south end as being shown at DMI, the very next day all of that blue section was gone. What happened between Thursday and Friday that could wipe out the gain that took place over around 7 days? Was there some large scale event that took place on the southern end of Greenland?

son of mulder
August 13, 2015 3:38 pm

The graph is behaving nothing like the 1998 El Nino.Could it be that the current El Nino conditions are causing a pause in what would otherwise be cooling?

Reply to  son of mulder
August 13, 2015 3:46 pm

Considering what a sorry-a$$ job the climate establishment has done of actually studying and understanding what is really going on, there is no way to really be very sure of anything.
That is the real joke.
$29 billion spent per year, by the US federal gubnamint alone, and we actually know less that we might if we just opened a few windows and stuck our heads outside.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 13, 2015 7:14 pm

Yes, I have often wondered what great things we could have discovered if all that time, money, and talent wasn’t being wasted on something that is turning out to look pretty insignificant.

August 13, 2015 4:01 pm

From the latest UAH data, there has been NO warming in Antarctica for the whole record. See

Reply to  kenskingdom
August 13, 2015 5:21 pm

UAH MSU lower troposphere data are represented by the average temperature of the surface
and to about 10 km. Middle troposphere are represented by surface and to about 17 km. TMT gives
more weight to the region between 500 hPa (≈5.5 km) and 200 hPa (≈12 km) where the tropical
warming is expected to be most pronounced according to models
The more general problem is that that the 0-10 km TLT layer isn’t warming, just the 0-0.002 km layer measured by surface weather stations.
This would make the CO2 increase a surface effect and indicate that – if anything – the feedback is negative.
Since the measured downwelling IR forcing is significantly less than IPCC specified value it would appear that much of the “anthropogenic” warming is unrelated to GHG. UHI (Urban Heat Island effect) and CGAGW (Computer Generated Anthropomorphic Global Warming) would be more likely causes.

David A
Reply to  PA
August 14, 2015 3:47 am

Exactly correct PA. CAGW theory dictates that the satellite data should show increased warming above the surface. Instead there is none. GHGs are not causing surface ONLY warming. (WUWT IMV, needs a post on just this simple fact)
Zero GHG warming advocates attempt to explain how human CO2 emissions have FAILED to warm the atmosphere, but instead warmed the surface, especially the ocean SST. (Of course giving additional credence to ship intake and bucket readings over the modern argo floats has helped raise the surface measurements)

Reply to  PA
August 14, 2015 5:35 am

Surface temps are highly contaminated by UHI, and skewed by massive infilling, homogenization, and repeated and ridiculously biased “adjustments”.
Surface data sets are not data at all, they are modelled effects.

August 13, 2015 7:05 pm

General question not really related- On the sea ice page, for the two sea ice extent graphs for the arctic, what it the difference? The NOAA graph always seems to go lower than the Danish graph. I see the 15% note for the NOAA one, but nothing for the Danish plot. Thx!

Reply to  MarkT
August 13, 2015 7:08 pm

Sorry NSIDC not NOAA.

Bennett In Vermont
August 13, 2015 8:09 pm

MOD: Firefox has justification (all centered text) issues, sorry

August 13, 2015 11:49 pm

Who cares about temperatures at an altitude of 4000 m? A few persons living in the Andes or Himalaya? The rest of us (seven billion plus) are below.

David A
Reply to  François
August 14, 2015 3:49 am
Reply to  François
August 14, 2015 5:38 am

If we do not care about the atmosphere, then why is the warmista meme all about supposed “global warming”?
Why should anyone care about the pokes, or the oceans? How many live in the ocean or at the poles?
Answer: Less than live in mountains.

August 14, 2015 5:10 am

Nobody said anything about my query (regarding temperatures at the altitude where we actually live), I may have a point.

Reply to  François
August 14, 2015 5:41 am

As a second and separate response, we should care because the whole myth is based on models which show that CO2 will cause warming. And the models show, and the basic theory demands, that the atmosphere warms, not just the surface.
So lack of tropospheric warming is a direct and complete refutation of the entire idea of CAGW.
That is why.

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  François
August 14, 2015 8:06 am

Do you have a thermometer at your house François?
What does it say to the nearest 0.1°C?
Do you need to wear spectacles to get a reading to that level of accuracy François?
How does it compare to the temperature you took at the same time and the same place in 1998?
Do you have a barometric altimeter at your house François?
At what altitude do you live?
What adjustment factor and homogenisation algorithm do you usually apply to get your final reading?
Does that help?

August 14, 2015 8:38 am

Thanks, Anthony.
I’ll get the UAH July ’15 temperatures map ready for publication in my climate and meteorology pages, as soon as UAH updates

August 14, 2015 11:18 am

Answering “Sceptical Sam”. I had a question. Insults do not help. I am not an epsilon semi-moron, you?

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  François
August 15, 2015 5:07 am

François, I appreciate that you had a question.
My comment was not designed to offend you, but to stimulate you to think and research for yourself the answer to your question.
When you do so you will hopefully see that a 0.74 C° ± 0.16 C° rise in the global average temperature over 100 years is not a change that you or your cat would even notice. Try it. Turn your thermostat up 0.74 C°.
Can you? Does it have that level of adjustment on its scale? Do you notice the difference?
For example today where I live the temperature range was 11.00 C°. It’s Winter. I put a shirt on over my “T”shirt at 5:00pm, and slipped on a light woollen jumper at 8:00pm.
Nobody – especially me – is saying you are an epsilon semi-moron, whatever that is. If you start to think for yourself you will soon understand that you and the rest of us are being fed a massive lie. A massive green socialist authoritarian lie by people who have an agenda that’s related to their quest for power, control and money.

August 15, 2015 3:34 am

I downloaded data from this source:
“Lower Troposphere:
But I can’t interpret the data. Per month there are 10 368 elements. What grid is used? The temperature are obviously anomalies. I think the instruments are measuring temperatures. Where can I find the temperatures measured?

Dennis Mueller
August 16, 2015 3:50 pm
Contrary to the nonsense reported by, 2014 was the hottest year on record and 2015 is almost a sure bet to top that. The uneven climb in global temperatures continues and it is still on the middle track estimated over 25 years ago. Pause, what nonsense!

August 16, 2015 6:20 pm

Planet Earth to Dennis Mueller:
No, 2014 was not the “hottest year evah!!” Even the IPCC admits to the “Pause” (global T has not risen in almost twenty years).
You are getting spoon-fed misinformation from pseudo-science blogs like the one you linked to. They are supporting a political narrative; they’re not being scientific at all.
Instead, follow satellite data — the most accurate global temperature measurements we have:
You can see that 2014 isn’t even close to being the “hottest evah!”
Really, it is amazing to see some folks cherry-pick whatever factoid/assertion fits their confirmation bias, and reject everything else.
They’ve got you believing a Chicken Little story. Only you can change that.

%d bloggers like this: