Spectacular Drop In Global Average Satellite Temperatures

UAH Global Temperature Update for June 2016: +0.34 deg. C

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2016 is +0.34 deg. C, down 0.21 deg. C from the May value of +0.55 deg. C (click for full size version):

UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2016_v6-1

This gives a 2-month temperature fall of -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record…the largest was -0.43 deg. C in Feb. 1988.

In the tropics, there was a record fast 2-month cooling of -0.56 deg. C, just edging out -0.55 deg. C in June 1998 (also an El Nino weakening year). […]
The rapid cooling is from the weakening El Nino and approaching La Nina conditions by mid-summer or early fall.
As promised just over a week ago, here’s how we are now progressing toward a record warm year in the satellite data:

UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection-550x330

The June anomaly is well below the dashed red line which represents the average cooling rate required for the rest of 2016 to tie 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record. So far my prediction that 2016 will end up being a new record warm year is not shaping up too well…the cooling we are seeing in the troposphere really is spectacular. Just remember, the temperature anomaly can also temporarily rebound for a month, as it did in late 1998.
Full post

From the University of Alabama

Global Temperature Report: June 2016

June 2016 was 2nd warmest June in satellite record

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade
June temperatures (preliminary)

tlt_graph_June2016
Global composite temp.: +0.34 C (about 0.61 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.51 C (about 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.17 C (about 0.79 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.
Tropics: +.38 C (about 0.68 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.
May temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.55 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.65 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.44 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.72 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 June 1, 2016:

Although global temperatures fell rapidly from May to June as the El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event fades (see attached graph), June 2016 was nonetheless the second warmest June in the satellite temperature record, trailing June 1998 by 0.23 C, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Compared to seasonal norms, however, June 2016 was the 30th warmest month overall since the satellite temperature dataset began in December 1978.

June 2016 also was the second warmest on record in the Northern Hemisphere (0.51 C compared to June 1998 at 0.60 C above seasonal norms), but the eighth warmest June in the Southern Hemisphere and, despite the El Niño remnants, only the sixth warmest June in the tropics.

Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in June was in the eastern Antarctic, south of the Zhongshan station. June temperatures there averaged 4.24 C (about 7.63 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in June was in northeastern Russia, near the town of Vayegi, where the average June 2016 temperature was 3.40 C (about 6.12 degrees F) cooler than normal for June.

1998v2016_temps JUNE_2016_LT_beta5

The complete version 6 beta lower troposphere dataset is available here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
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 are collected and processed, they are 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 —

Advertisements

115 thoughts on “Spectacular Drop In Global Average Satellite Temperatures

      • Yeah, me. Whenever I read that anglo-saxon

        – human race

        knowing thei’re talking about

        – human kind.
        _________________________________

        Thinking what’s wrong with me.

      • you know the true definition of a racist ? anyone that wins an argument with a progressive.

      • Well, it is interesting that the SAME group of people BEFORE they started their global warming crusade started the free trade movement. So both movements are much the same thing – a march to globalizing and something that will suck the life of industry in the western nations. Free trade decimated the middle class and wiped out manufacturing and the good jobs simply exited those counties that adopted free trade. In fact it was none other than Al Gore that was the “major” crusader for free trade.

        And none other then Bill Clinton that signed the free trade agreement. It don’t take much more then grade school thinking to realize what a sham global warming is, and the SAME reasoning allows one to EASY figure out how silly and crazy free trade is. I mean with a CO2 tax, you going to chase out industry to places like China where they don’t give a dam. And with free trade, it allows this exit of industry and the result is massive unemployed in those western nations – especially among the youth.

        So the Bre-exit vote was one against globalizing and the massive job loss and de-industrialization of those nations that adopted free trade.

        Ross Perot:

        Just see what Ross says above – it all comes true – exactly how stupid can people be? So the Bre-exit vote was not only about emigration – but people actually starting ot think! Free trade been a failed experiment, and everywhere it gone it has destroyed the middle class like locusts eating a field of wheat. And everywhere the greens have obtained control of energy and electricity – we see the same disaster.

        If people here can figure out that global warming is a scam, then giving the same thoughts on free trade you easy conclude the same thing – it been a disaster for western nations. And the smoking gun is the SAME people who won on free trade are the SAME people that are now pushing global warming.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Thanks for that. albertkallal.

        I’m fed up with people banging on about iimigration and Brexit. I have no doubt that immigration was a major issue. (Quite rightly, too.) And I have no doubt that some nasty racist* attitudes have emerged.

        But it looks to me as though there is an attempt to portray the “leave” voters as irrational racists voting against immigrants, and deny that anyone could have any rational objections to membership of the EU.

        (Though an article in the Guardian at least looksed at the class aspect.)

        Let us note that the “leave” vote was strongest among older voters. They are the ones who have had the most experience of the EU and its alleged benefits. The oldest remember the promises of 1972, when Heath took Britain into the Common Market, and the promises of 1975**, when 67% voted “Yes” in the referendum on membership of the EEC. They have seen what those promises were worth, and many have clearly changed their minds.

        Some might think that Britain’s place is in the world, rather than tied to narrow Europe.

        Some of them might also have noted the economic difficulties of Spain, and the economic disaster of Greece at the hands of the EU bigwigs.

        Some might have resented being told what to do by a passing American. (There does seem to have been a steep rise in the “Leave” camp after Obama’s intervention.)

        Some may resent having laws imposed on them by a bunch of unelected parasites*** who live in luxury at British taxpayer expense.

        Some might have doubted the wisdom of trying to drag Ukraine, with its civil war and a non-existent economy, into the EU.

        And some probably just wanted to stick it to the smug bastards who run the show.

        So I think there were far more factors in play than just the immigration issue.

        (*Though to call white British rejection of white Poles “racist” seems like a misuse of the term.)
        (** Yes, I remember these. I was active on the “No” side of the 1975 referendum. I haven’t changed my mind.)
        (*** As distinct from the elected parasites that infest Westminster in somewhat less luxury.)

      • Free trade didn’t decimate manufacturing jobs. Unions did that. Combined with stupid tax policies.
        In the US, there is more total manufacturing today, than there was back in the 70’s. The difference is that automation eliminated many of the jobs.
        Free trade makes everyone wealthy.
        Every dollar that a consumer saves by buying a imported product is used to buy something else, resulting in other areas of the economy growing.
        Imports improve the price and quality of exports, making them more competitive.

  1. Well if it gets much colder and wetter in the Northern Hemisphere, Australia will have to allow in some climate refugees.

    • Bali gets plenty of climate refugees from Australia each winter, Lewis.

    • That’s been happening for years I migrated to Australia from England as a climate refugee ho ho like many others in the 60’s 70’s I wanted to live in a warmer climate – Ironically I moved to Melbourne where we had a 7 month winter last year and this year is off to a cold start also so another long cold winter.

  2. What are some of the consequences of very rapid cooling? Are there implications to ponder that stand out from ‘normal’ cooling rates? Extraordinary change rates can sometimes have extraordinary consequences and I wonder what those might be and when or if we will see some of them.

    • This could be signaling that we are in for a continued rapid decline such as can be seen by viewing any of the high resolution long term temp graphs. My favorite has been this one…https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120709092606.htm

      Notice how rapidly a moderate to strong cooling can take place. I would estimate that some of those drops take no more than several years to plunge to some low point. In my opinion the cyclic clock is due for one of those plunges. Conditions are ripe for this to happen as can be seen when watching the ssta changes over recent years. The cooling phase started in 2006/07 by my estimation, and we are now at the point where the plunge starts. This La Nina should last into 2018, and that will be followed by the solar minimum. All of that means cooling.

      • Tree ring study. They cannot separate the cold, warm, wet, dry signals from tree rings.

      • I have noticed that some do not think much of tree ring studies. Yet this graph, in particular, sparked my thoughts greatly when I first viewed it. It so clearly shows most of the grand minimums and the Warm Periods.It correlates well with other regional graphs, such as the CAS 2K Tibetan study and some others. It led me to visualize a rolling climate wave that moved regionally around the globe. I left several comments saying the same here on WUWT around 9 months before Judith Curry proposed the Stadium Wave. My understanding of a wave effect was due to the JG/U study sparking my thoughts to where I could see all of the long term graphs which I had been viewing over the years flow as if viewing a slide show. The understanding then came to me that during a grand minimum event, the event would interact with the regions of the Northern hemisphere over time, thus a wave effect. It was clear that not every region in the NH would be impacted in the same time frame, but that every region would eventually be subject to the pattern over time. The JG/U graph is what enabled me to start accurately making future projections/forecasts of the weather/climate system.

      • This La Nina should last into 2018, and that will be followed by the solar minimum. All of that means cooling.

        Maybe.

      • rogerknights
        July 2, 2016 at 4:27 am Edit

        Speaking of rapid declines, here are two WUWT threads on the prospects for a 1740-event.

        Given that the the “prediction” was for 2015, we can call this falsified.

      • Falsified for 2015, but still possible in the near future. Although that does not mean that the same depths of cold will be reached. The conditions at the time would have had much to do with the severity of the cold spell. The year 1740 was at the end of the Cold Period and the beginning of the next Warm Period. If a similar event happens in the next 10 years, then it will be occurring during the height of a Warm Period. The resulting cold effects would then be muted by that.

    • Extraordinary consequences….
      Like Al Gore & Mr. Mann saying – sorry we were wrong it’s not CO2 it’s the Sun but thanks for the money we’ll pay it back!!

      I suspect more data fiddling & lies are what’s next; CAGW is a Juggernaut not easily stopped bay a few facts, so adjust the data to fit the belief.

    • there is no such thing as “rapid cooling” anymore ,did you not get the message ? this is only weather/

  3. It may be cooling, but the great winds are blowing across the magical impenetrable barriers at the equator and that’s unprecedented. We’re all doomed unless the vile usurpers and evil coal corporations are defeated. It is known.

    • but the great winds are blowing across the magical impenetrable barriers at the equator and that’s unprecedented. We’re all doomed unless the vile usurpers and evil coal corporations are defeated. It is known.

      Coal burning causes wind?

      • “Coal burning causes wind?”

        No, coal burning doesn’t cause the wind, it just scares the jetstream into crossing the equator.

      • Yeah, but that particular jet stream has always been a little on the nervous and jumpy side anyway, so…

      • Eating beans causes wind. If my cousin eats onion soup, it causes wind. Eating coal might cause wind, or cure it, I am nor sure.

        Eating potato salad and drinking beer causes wind – the kind that causes a lot of (social) damage.

        It appears there are hurricanes, himicanes and brapicanes. Why is the natural world so complicated?

    • That claim has it’s own truth and science ranking:

      Worst science of the year: “‘Unprecedented’: Scientists declare ‘global climate emergency’ after jet stream crosses equator”

      And that “Worst” ranking is against some downright stupid CAGW claims this year.

      June 29th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

      Paul Beckwith has a masters degree in laser optics, which he has somehow parlayed into being a “Climate System Scientist” to spread alarmism about the climate system.

      But his post “Unprecedented, Jet Stream Crosses Equator” suggests he knows little of meteorology, let alone climate.

      A “jet stream” in the usual sense of the word is caused by the thermal wind, which cannot exist at the equator because there is no Coriolis force. To the extent that there is cross-equator flow at jet stream levels, it is usually from air flowing out of deep convective rain systems. That outflow often enters the subtropical jet stream, which is part of the average Hadley Cell circulation…”

      Professional meteorologists enjoyed quite a laugh at Mr. Laser Optics bogus climate claim.

  4. Spectacular ‘drop’ looks a good match of the preceding spectacular ‘rise’, now back to pause, or even more worrying further decline from the pause to a less spectacular but longer lasting Global Cooling.
    Grand Global Temperature Maximum may soon be over, dutifully following its mentor Grand Solar Activity Maximum.

    • “Spectacular ‘drop’ looks a good match of the preceding spectacular ‘rise’, now back to pause,”

      The spectaclar rise of the 1998, El Nino was followed by a spectacular drop of several years length. Like a pendulum, the farther it swings one way, the farther it swings the other way?

  5. My home town of Melbourne Australia went from a near-record hot May 2016 to a near-average June 2016.
    How does global warming theory, intuitively a slow, diffuse, global effect, account for such rapid change? The crossover point from anomalously hot to average here was about May 24th, seen on the daily records of the 5 relevant suburban weather stations I inspected.

    • “How does global warming theory, intuitively a slow, diffuse, global effect, account for such rapid change?”
      It doesn’t. Melbourne was famous for its rapid changes when I was a boy, and AGW doesn’t change that.

      But it’s change from a warmer base. What I note this year is that our Manchurian pears have only recently been losing their autumn leaves. And spring magnolias are already showing.

      • “Nick Stokes July 2, 2016 at 12:31 am

        But it’s change from a warmer base. What I note this year is that our Manchurian pears have only recently been losing their autumn leaves. And spring magnolias are already showing.”

        What warmer base? Are you trying to imply that plants shed leaves and bloom at exactly the same time of year year in year out and any deviation is, somehow, attributed to AGW? Got any proof of that? No, I didn’t think so!

      • Yes and here in NZ we still enjoy the tail of Autumn when it should be very much colder.

        Its all about the center of the anticyclones and where they are locked onto. Melbourne and more generally the east of Australia is enjoying the snow on ski fields that are actually NZ’s. My prediction is they will slide over and reception will return to normal.
        .3C is not detectable by humans when submerged in a 20C daily swing.
        Regardless much hangs on the worlds temperatures over the next 3 years, a return to flat or falling temps will allow the world to resume its remarkable lift from poverty of massive numbers of people.

      • Stokes – “But it’s a change from a warmer base.”

        UAH temps in June were only 0.34C. Hardly a warmer base.

        And then, June 2016 is still being impacted by the El Nino values in March 2016. El Ninos impact the lower troposphere temps by –> TLT C = 0.14 * (Nino 3.4 (3 months previous)) = 0.14 * (1.68C) = 0.240C.

        So your warmer base in June 2016 (adjusted for the El Nino) is only 0.10C.

        I call it what it is – effectively Nothing, Zero, Time to give up this global warming theory.

      • Nick wrote: “But it’s change from a warmer base.”

        From the article: “Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade”

        That depends on what you call “warmer”. The margin of error for a regular thermometer is about one degree F, I believe. We are not talking about a *lot* or warming here.

      • Good work, Nick! You’ ve discovered a new climate proxy. Looks superior to tree rings to me and smells nice.

      • Nick,
        Our Camellia reticulata American hybrids started flowering earlier than others this year, but the Camellia tunghinensis from an expedition to China in 1995 seems delayed. The Osmanthus fragrans will not favour us with its perfume this coming Spring. We expect a good crop of Camellia sisensis var assamica leaves this for that is the plant that gives us our tea leaves upon whose patterns we prognosticate with the usual concern that it is a lousy climate proxy.
        Nick, I mentioned the May-June T drop in the context of an article noting similar drops for global satellites. Has anyone modelled the rate at which T can change or are we left in wonder about mammoths seeming to die suddenly in mid-mouth of vegetation that might have been early, late or normal for the times, but probably also a lousy climate proxy?
        Geoff

  6. It’s very important to understand that the ‘anomaly’ included Arctic and sub Arctic data showing that the temperature in these zones was a dizzying 10˚C above February Averages…ie the temperature was MINUS 5˚C instead of MINUS 15˚C….etc etc.
    The warmer, moisture laden air that caused these ‘record high’ temperatures soon lost its moisture in the form of snow and ice.
    Vast amounts of warm air flowing into Polar Regions in Winter is not WARMING….though it is sold as such to the ignorant and gullible.

    • “Vast amounts of warm air flowing into Polar Regions in Winter is not WARMING….though it is sold as such to the ignorant and gullible.”

      Great point, charles.

  7. I have no time to update this plot, but the relationship seems to be still good.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/30/may-2016-enso-update-the-201516-el-nino-has-reached-its-end/comment-page-1/#comment-2226677
    [excerpt]

    I plotted UAH Lower Troposphere (UAHLT) global temperature anomalies vs Nino34 anomalies and there appears to be a fair-to-good correlation especially for the 1997-98 and 2015-16 El Nino’s, with a ~4-month lag of UAHLT after Nino34.

    It appears reasonable to conclude that global temperatures will fall steeply for the rest of 2016 and then continue to decline for an equal or greater time, but on a flatter trajectory.

    I also predicted net global cooling (defined as colder than +0.2C UAHLT anom) by about mid-2017 based on low solar activity, but hope to be wrong about that. Warm is good, cold is bad – it IS that simple.

    Regards to all, Allan

      • Based on the previously-discussed relationship, I compared the actual UAHLT global anomaly with a projected UAHLTcalc, calculated from Nino34 divided by 3, wherein Nino34 leads UAHLT by 4 months.
        The relationship does not work well during the 1982-83 El Nino, allegedly because of the El Chichon volcanic eruption.
        Note the projection over-predicts to the negative several times, especially after the 1997-98 El Nino.

      • I have taken the above relationship and calculated the UAHLT anomaly (in degrees C) since 1995 from Nino3.4 SST anomaly (dC) where:
        UAHLT = 0.20*Nino3.4SST +0.15

        The best fit equation is slightly different (y=0.14x+0.14) and has an R2 = 0.55 but it tends to shave the peaks so I used this one.

        The fit before 1995 is not as good, but this is still more than 20 years of data and the fit is pretty good, imo.

        The Nino3.4 area is here:

        Apparently this little Nino3.4 area of the ocean leads global temperature by about 4 months – and this may suggest causation. So what primarily controls Nino3.4 temperatures (and global temperatures?) – the Sun? (probably); natural cycles (yes); atmospheric CO2? (highly unlikely).

        Regards, Allan

      • The conclusion for global warming alarmists who want to cool global temperatures is that you only have to cool this tiny area of the Pacific Ocean called Nino3.4 – you don’t have to control atmospheric CO2 and banish fossil fuels and all that – all you need to do is cruise out to this tiny area of the ocean and dump your ice cube trays overboard. :-)

      • Now that is worthy of a grant and more to go forward! It is obvious that el Nino leads to a jump in global temps. It seems likewise obvious to examine how el Ninos develop. The most obvious to me is a cyclical “”preloading” of the Western Pacific surface waters with slightly warmer water. If this is from upwelling it may point to much longer term phenomena within the earth’s climate system. Regardless, as Allan MacRae says, CO2 doesn’t cause one small area of the Pacific to warm ( and then cool!), in advance of the whole planet. The idea is preposterous.

      • Thank you John.

        IF the 4-month projection of Nino3.4 holds true, then UAHLT will decline to +0.2C in October 2016.

        This is significant because +0.2C is, I suggest, the approximate boundary below which global cooling starts – IF global temperatures continue to decline.

        I (we) predicted in an article written in 2002 that natural global cooling would commence by about 2020-2030. More recently I have been predicting that global cooling will commence in 2017 – but the temperature data is sufficiently irregular that any estimate within 5-10 years is probably open to debate.

        This forecast global cooling period is assumed to result from the temperature decline after the big 2015-16 El Nino spike, and the very weak solar cycles SC24 and (again presumably) SC25.

        I am not certain, but I do recommend that the warmists sell all their beachfront properties in Alaska before global cooling sets in.

        Regards, Allan

      • I plotted the same formula back to 1982, which is where I (I think arbitrarily) started my first analysis. Satellite temperature data began in 1979.
        That formula is: UAHLT Calc. = 0.20*Nino3.4SST +0.15
        It is apparent that UAHLT Calc. is substantially higher than UAH Actual for two periods, each of ~5 years, BUT that difference could be largely or entirely due to the two major volcanoes, El Chichon in 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.
        This leads to a startling new hypothesis: First, look at the blue line, which shows NO significant global warming over the entire period from 1982 to 2016. Perhaps the “global warming” observed after the 1997-98 El Nino was not global warming at all; maybe it was just the natural recovery in global temperatures after two of the largest volcanoes in recent history.

        Comments?

    • A few more points:

      I started this analysis in Jan1982 because that is when the NOAA Nino3.4 data starts.
      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices

      Even though Nino3.4 temperatures reportedly have not warmed since Jan1982, global SST’s reportedly have warmed. However, I’m not sure how good the global SST data is and have no time to investigate. There have been so many “adjustments” to the surface temperature (ST) data record, all tending to exaggerate the global warming myth, that the ST data has limited credibility.

      I expect that global cooling will start anytime, even as atmospheric CO2 continues to increase (but more moderately, and CO2 may occasionally decease year-to-year, as it did during the last global cooling period from ~1940-1975.

      I suggest that the myth of humanmade catastrophic global warming will not last much longer, as global cooling will demonstrate that Earth’s temperature is INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2.

      The effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 are entirely beneficial to humankind and the environment. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are not just counterproductive, they are imbecilic. It is difficult to understand how our fearless leaders could have gotten it so wrong – they have relied upon advice from “experts” whose every prediction has proven false to date.

      Regards to all, Allan

  8. Layman’s question: Is the temperature peak after an El Niño and the subsequent rapid fall caused by a belch of heat on its way to space? If not, where does the heat go to?

    • Good layman question, perhaps with no simple answer. Look like much is distriuted in the system, and much is radiated out.
      Here is somthing from NOAA: The 1998–2000 Pacific Cold Episode (La Nina)

      The global climate during most of 1999 was impacted by moderate-to-strong cold episode (La Nina) conditions in the tropical Pacific (Fig. 14). The evolution toward the 1998–2000 cold episode began in early 1998 as the oceanic thermocline (approximated by the depth of the 20 C isotherm) became shallower-than-normal across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific (Fig. 14a). Accompanying this evolution, subsurface temperatures dropped and the volume of anomalously warm water decreased across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific. Nonetheless, SSTs remained well above-average across the eastern half of the equatorial Pacific in association with ongoing very strong El Nino conditions (Fig. 14c). These conditions set the stage for a rapid transition to below-normal SSTs during the first week in May. This transition was triggered by a dramatic return to near-normal easterly winds at lower levels (Fig. 14b), which contributed to enhanced oceanic upwelling that brought cold ocean waters to the surface.

      The La Ninaepisode then became well established by July 1998, and continued to strengthen during September–November 1998 as SSTs dropped to more than 2 C below normal across large portions of the central and eastern Pacific (Fig. 14c). This combination of below-normal SSTs and an anomalously shallow thermocline across the central and eastern Pacific reflected increased oceanic upwelling in association with the establishment of enhanced low-level equatorial easterly winds across the central and east-central equatorial Pacific (Fig. 14b).

      Accompanying this evolution, tropical convection became enhanced throughout Indonesia and the western Pacific, and suppressed [indicated by positive anomalies of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR)] across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific (Fig. 14d). The associated reduction in atmospheric heating between 160 E and the west coast of South America led to a drop in 200-hPa heights throughout that region (Fig. 14e), and to cyclonic circulation anomalies at upper levels which flanked the region of suppressed tropical convection. These cold episode conditions then persisted throughout 1999 and into the year 2000, and significantly impacted global temperature, precipitation and atmospheric circulation patterns in a manner consistent with past cold episodes (Ropelewski and Halpert 1989; Halpert and Ropelewski 1992).

    • IR cooling to space is constantly acting to rapidly cool the troposphere. Convective heating (rain systems) are constantly acting to rapidly warm the troposphere. When the temperature changes rapidly, it’s due to a small imbalance between convective heating and radiative cooling…maybe only a few percent or so. The current cooling is probably best explained as a lack of sufficient convective heating, due to falling SSTs.

      • Well jeez Roy. Your measuring the wrong thing with those satellites. The rain gauge is the seat of true knowledge and insight of the workings of global warming.

        My money would have been on barometers v

    • Actually, the El Ninos are NOT characterized by a belch of heat to space.

      There is actually a huge REDUCTION in the energy being released to space. The extra energy released by an El Nino is held into the atmosphere by the large build-up of thunderstorm clouds in “the Earth’s thermostat region”, the international dateline area in the equatorial pacific. The clouds from as a result of the El Nino or not form as a result of a La Nina

      These time-longitude maps show out-going radiation at the international dateline area going back to 2008. When we are in “Blue”, there is a huge reduction in energy escaping to space. 50 W/m2 or even 60 W/m2 which completely dwarfs any other place on the planet. When it is yellow, an extra 50 W/m2 is escaping to space.

      “Blue” is El Nino and the planet is heating up as 50 W/m2 less energy is escaping to space. It takes a month or two for the clouds to build up and start to hold the heat in and then another month or two for the energy to spread to the rest of the planet with the prevailing storm/wind patterns. This is also the reason for the 3 month lag in global temperatures being impacted by the ENSO.

      The Earth’s Thermostat. Blue is planet heating up, Yellow is planet cooling down. Compare it to the UAH temperatures graph.

      Older charts.

      • What matters is the balance between outgoing and incoming, because those El Niño clouds are probably reducing incoming irradiation through increased albedo.

    • Ben Illis: “Actually, the El Ninos are NOT characterized by a belch of heat to space.”
      I think you made a point for equatorial zones. But I am not so sure when it comes to the global perspective.
      It looks like there was a huge global peak in OLR in 1998, before la Nina had set in.

  9. Looking at the global map, it is obvious that the following text is wrong. Cool and warm should be switched:
    “Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in June was in the eastern Antarctic, south of the Zhongshan station. June temperatures there averaged 4.24 C (about 7.63 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in June was in northeastern Russia, near the town of Vayegi, where the average June 2016 temperature was 3.40 C (about 6.12 degrees F) cooler than normal for June.”

    • I noted that as well. Colour coding for Antarctica showed no warm anomalies whatsoever. Also, the stated SH temp anomaly of .17C translates to .31F, not .79F

  10. The article erroneously refers to “normal” temperature as though such a thing existed. It doesn’t. Some things can be termed “normal” because there is a norm or verifiable standard; human body temperature is normally 98.6F, and a deviation either way by even a few degrees can be dangerous or deadly. The weather has no such norms. It has averages. The reason the article is relevant is that the 30-year average, compared to current and recent readings, can show a direction that temperature is headed, at least for now. That direction is not a norm, any more than the mystic 30-year average or mean is a norm. Deviations from average weather or climate are an everyday occurrence. Norms don’t change; averages do.

    That said, the article is fine, a good one; if I’m reading the top graph correctly, the drop in temperature anomaly has been half a degree in three months. Certainly, here in the wilds of metropolitan Mechanicsville, VA, most of 2016 has been well below average in temperature, and somewhat above average in precipitation, a nice cool spring and summer (except, of course, for two 26-degree mornings in mid- and late April that knocked the daylilies back for a week or so; they are now at peak bloom). May was about 4.5 degrees F below average, and June was almost precisely 2 degrees below; May had the all-time rain record for the month of over 10 inches here. Was all this weather abnormal? No, because norms can’t be set for weather. The weather has been unusual, not to say rare for the rainfall.

    • ” The weather has no such norms. It has averages.”

      If you’re talking about averages over more than a single point, then no, the average is physically meaningless.

  11. Roy,
    Thanks for the prompt update.
    It always amazes me how rapidly the system can transfer so much heat (energy) into space.
    It seems to me that the total amount of energy associated with the UAH temperature measurement (because of the greater total mass included in the measurement?) includes more total energy transfer than that represented by ground station temperature change data. Although sea temperatures might be the big fish.
    Or is the slice of the atmosphere being reported so thin, there is little difference in the mass and total energy involved?

    • It always amazes me how rapidly the system can transfer so much heat (energy) into space.

      It has the ability to dump huge amounts, and it is self regulated by water vapor and dew point, it has no problem dumping any extra flux from co2.
      Remember it drops an average of 18F/night, and it can drop 4F in an hour. And if the humidity is low enough it can drop nearly 40F in a single night.

    • If you get a chance, go camping in the high desert of eastern Oregon or northern Arizona. When the sun goes down, the rate of cooling is stunning. Thin, dry air and porous dry soil mean that radiational cooling will cool the air temperature. You can add to the effect with some wind chill by going for an evening bicycle ride.

  12. And to keep all this in perspective, we should keep in mind that it was hotter than both 1998, and 2016, in the past.

  13. Will 2016 set a new record for UAH?
    There are many similarities between 1998 and 2016. There was an extremely strong El Nino which caused records to be set in the beginning of each year. Then there was a drop in 1998 and so far, there is a similar drop in 2016.
    However there are important difference between 1998 and 2016. In 1998, the highest anomaly was in April of 1998 and therefore not surprisingly, the second quarter of 1998 was the quarter with the highest anomaly. In contrast, the highest anomaly in 2016 was in February making the first quarter of 2016 the one with the highest anomaly.
    The difference between quarters 2 and 3 for 1998 for UAH6.0beta5 was 0.165. The difference between quarters 1 and 2 in 2016 was 0.169. Very close!
    There are several different approaches one can use to arrive at the best guess as to whether or not 2016 will set a record. I have decided to give the averages for each of the four quarters in 1998 and the first quarter of 1999 as well as the four quarters of 2016. The first quarter of 1998 will be called 98(1), and so on.
    Here are the numbers we know:
    98(1): 0.536
    98(2): 0.654
    98(3): 0.489
    98(4): 0.257
    99(1): 0.048

    16(1): 0.712
    16(2): 0.533
    And here are my estimates for what we do not know.
    16(3): (0.301)
    16(4): (0.092)
    This gives an average of 0.407 for 2016 putting it into second place between the 0.484 of 1998 and 0.338 from 2010.
    Obviously, I could only give the first two quarters of 2016 and I had to estimate the last two. Feel free to comment on whether you think my methods are good or whether you think they are out to lunch. I took the difference between the following quarters: 4 and 3 of 1998, and 1 of 1999 versus 4 of 1998. Then I applied those differences to quarters 3 and 4 of 2016 and put those numbers in ( ) above for 16(3) and 16(4).
    Then I calculated the average for 2016 based on those numbers and compared that to the 1998 and 2010 averages.
    While I am expecting further significant drops over the next 6 months, it should be noted that if the June anomaly of 0.34 merely stays that way until December, then 2016 will tie 1998.

      • Assuming a rate of cooling similar to 1998, when will the pause return?

        That is a very good question! The anomaly has to get to 0.14 before the slope will even begin to go down. And the down part was not as low as the high part. Eyeballing it, I would say in 10 months from now. But I could be wrong.

  14. Keep in mind there were two areas of strong evaporation that led to the transfer of energy from our oceans to the atmosphere over the past several months. The obvious one was the Pacific tropics. The not as obvious one was the extra 1-1.5 million square km ice free area in the Arctic. This charts shows why this is important:

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Compare the 1998 and 2016 values and you will see how the winter and summer months affect the global average. Almost no effect in the summer while a significant effect in the winter. This is why the 2016 global anomalies were higher than 1998 early this year and are now falling below those values.

    If the AMO shows a major drop along with the coming La Nina and more ice forms in the Arctic then we could see anomalies similar to 1998-99. That would reinstate the pause quickly.

  15. 1997 to 2016 looks more like a heartbeat within a range rather than warming. A full return to pause status for a second time across a span to (eg) 2018, refutes CO2 as “primary driver” and utterly refutes the “catastrophic” claim.

  16. Looks like you touched on what I’m about to say. This looks to be a much quicker reduction than 1998.

  17. I don’t believe you can measure the temperature of the earth. What a waste of time and taxpayer money.

    There is no doubt that the summers are getting cooler over the last 8 years in the mid atlantic. There is no doubt antarctica is growing fast and that cold air will move north.

    There’s no doubt the sun’s energy towards the earth is diminishing.

    There is no doubt that all of this is natural.

    NOAA needs to be gutted and all taxpayer money needs to cease going to universities for federal studies.

  18. Until the global monthly anomalies drop below ~0.25K and show some persistence at those levels, the troposphere will continue its multi-decadal warming phase, the shorter variations of ENSO notwithstanding.

    BTW, Bill Illis makes a good point here about the LACK of strong OLR during the El Nino phase of ENSO. During that phase the reduced evaporative cooling and mixing of the oceans warms the surface and that warming is transferred to the troposphere primarily by deep, moist, cloud-producing convection near the ITCZ.

  19. I don’t think spectacular, while accurate, is a good description. While the actual effects on food production are hard to predict; I suspect this will affect the food commodities trade and thus the price of food for millions.

    Do we know enough about the el nino/la nina mechanism to know if it is bi-static or does it have a wide range of states

  20. That means, pause-heitus is going to continue for few more years even though CO2 steadily rising..

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  21. One of the reasons people find this all so difficult is because the media talks to the lay person in headlines “Warmest June on Record–unprecedented!” and the scientists talk to us in geek. I struggle and struggle to understand some fine points so I can explain it to those I warmists I choose to have a conversation with–and when it is so very hard for me to understand, how can I have a dialog with anyone else?

    “June 2016 was nonetheless the second warmest June in the satellite temperature record,” and “June 2016 was the 30th warmest month overall since the satellite temperature dataset began in December 1978.”

    Isn’t there a clearer way to get the point across because “seasonal norm” doesn’t explain the distinction to me.

    • Shelly –

      You are right. It is virtually impossible to explain this to the average person such they can appreciate and take on board the critical points. It is difficult enough to explain for those who study it in depth . Usually these records are being broken by a few tenths of a degree and it is questionable if we can even read accurately to this precision. When we take the entire temperature scale of the globe these margins involve splitting straws

      I have said here before that as long as temperature remain relatively stable the alarmists will win the screaming battle – particularly in media, But if an when there is a drop in annual temps for as little as, say, 5 years the general public can switch very quickly and can attack in the opposite direction. They don’t like being fleeced. An example is the dairy fats scare. The ‘experts’ lose a lot of credibility right across the board and people start ignoring any alarmism. How long is the list of carcinogenic foods now? Last I heard it included ALL processed meats

      I would simply say to warmest, “the party is no over until the fat lady sings, the predictions made by all the warmest ‘experts’ have been way off track”.

      I never stopped eating butter and nice marbled steak :-)

      • Thanks for the reply.It really does help. I do cite the fact that the models have been 100% inaccurate but the warmists don’t believe you So there you are. As long as they say, “That’s not true,” you have nowhere to go.

        BTW I never bought the butter debate either! I guess I was a trans fat denier.

      • Shelly – Models have not been 100% inaccurate. What they have got terribly wrong is that they predicted a direct correlation between CO2 rise and temperature. Throughout the 21st century they have been diverging rapidly

        The problem now is that some of the data records ignore a peak in temperature in the 1998 – 99 El Nino yet are including another El Nino peak just gone.. By doing this they can display a rise in temperature over the last 18 years

        You have very little ammunition with this type of practice going on and being published. What I say to such people you refer to is “just wait Boyo” It ain’t over yet”

        The truth is NO ONE KNOWS! That makes it exciting :-)

  22. Quick, someone code a Surface Historical Inference Temporal-Global Climate Model SHIT-GCM , the past must be updated.

  23. Will 2016 set a new record for RSS? (UAH was done earlier.)
    There are many similarities between 1998 and 2016. There was an extremely strong El Nino which caused records to be set in the beginning of each year. Then there was a drop in 1998 and so far, there is a similar drop in 2016.
    However there are important difference between 1998 and 2016. In 1998, the highest anomaly was in April of 1998 and therefore not surprisingly, the second quarter of 1998 was the quarter with the highest anomaly. In contrast, the highest anomaly in 2016 was in February making the first quarter of 2016 the one with the highest anomaly.
    The difference between quarters 2 and 3 for 1998 for RSS was 0.140. The difference between quarters 1 and 2 in 2016 was 0.245. While this is not as close as for UAH6.0beta5, I will make similar calculations.
    There are several different approaches one can use to arrive at the best guess as to whether or not 2016 will set a record. I have decided to give the averages for each of the four quarters in 1998 and the first quarter of 1999 as well as the four quarters of 2016. The first quarter of 1998 will be called 98(1), and so on.
    Here are the numbers we know:
    98(1): 0.624
    98(2): 0.697
    98(3): 0.557
    98(4): 0.322
    99(1): 0.162

    16(1): 0.828
    16(2): 0.583
    And here are my estimates for what we do not know.
    16(3): (0.348)
    16(4): (0.188)
    This gives an average of 0.487 for 2016 putting it into second place between the 0.550 of 1998 and 0.467 from 2010.
    Obviously, I could only give the first two quarters of 2016 and I had to estimate the last two. Feel free to comment on whether you think my methods are reasonably good enough or whether you think they are totally out to lunch. I took the difference between the following quarters: 4 and 3 of 1998, and 1 of 1999 versus 4 of 1998. Then I applied those differences to quarters 3 and 4 of 2016 and put those numbers in ( ) above for 16(3) and 16(4).
    Then I calculated the average for 2016 based on those numbers and compared that to the 1998 and 2010 averages.

      • I think you should just use the graphs that Roy Spencer has created already

        Thank you! What would be even better for the point that I want to make is if I could splice July 1998 to March 1999 on to the present graph that ends in June 2016. Unfortunately, all I can more or less do is what WFT allows me to do.

    • Oops – you were looking at RSS. Your estimate is good enough, I think. If solar activity is involved, half of June 2016 was spot-free. Even if it isn’t, there’s a fair amount of uncertainty in tracking data from 1998, but a lot of people are doing that.

      • If solar activity is involved, half of June 2016 was spot-free.

        There was huge difference between UAH and RSS from May to June. UAH dropped 0.21 but RSS dropped only 0.057. The sun should have affected both equally, so I think the difference lies in the Antarctic where there were huge variations and where UAH has much greater coverage.

      • Werner Brozek on July 3, 2016 at 5:47 pm

        … so I think the difference lies in the Antarctic where there were huge variations and where UAH has much greater coverage.

        Your source about this assertion?

  24. WUWT seems to be on to the same pattern as ever. Show graphs that clearly do show global warming trends. Then simply assert that they show cooling -or whatever. Follow this up with comments by scientific illiterates, who simply assert it is volcanoes – or whatnot – sans evidence, facts, or figures. Barring that, posit a conspiracy. It seems that the goal of WUWT is to convince everyone that AWG sceptics are all cranks. Good job if that is your objective.

  25. DA White

    Define how ( in detail ) the graphs that you state show warming trends, do show such, and fully identify such graphs. Until you can site specific science that makes certain comments here out to be made by illiterates – I suggest you are nothing more than a warmist hack – and lacking in any evidence, facts or figures to support your baseless rant. You are nothing more than a waste of bandwidth !

  26. Sorry for being Captain Obvious but given the upward longer term trajectory…
    Doesn’t:
    Spectacular Drop In Global Average Satellite Temperatures
    Needed to be preceded by:
    Spectacular Rise In Global Average Satellite Temperatures?
    Don’t remember reading that headline here anywhere.

  27. The JMA global surface temperature results are now out for June 2016, and they show: “The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in June 2016 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.41°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.76°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. This is a little higher than the satellite result. Most importantly is doesn’t show any real cooling from the long term trend for June. You can see the results here: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/jun_wld.html

Comments are closed.