UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2016

July Temperature Recovers Slightly from Previous Free-Fall

From Dr. Roy Spencer:

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July 2016 is +0.39 deg. C, up a little from the June, 2016 value +0.34 deg. C (click for full size version):


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


2015 01 +0.30 +0.44 +0.15 +0.13

2015 02 +0.19 +0.34 +0.04 -0.07

2015 03 +0.18 +0.28 +0.07 +0.04

2015 04 +0.09 +0.19 -0.01 +0.08

2015 05 +0.27 +0.34 +0.20 +0.27

2015 06 +0.31 +0.38 +0.25 +0.46

2015 07 +0.16 +0.29 +0.03 +0.48

2015 08 +0.25 +0.20 +0.30 +0.53

2015 09 +0.23 +0.30 +0.16 +0.55

2015 10 +0.41 +0.63 +0.20 +0.53

2015 11 +0.33 +0.44 +0.22 +0.52

2015 12 +0.45 +0.53 +0.37 +0.61

2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84

2016 02 +0.83 +1.17 +0.50 +0.99

2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.09

2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.94

2016 05 +0.55 +0.65 +0.44 +0.72

2016 06 +0.34 +0.51 +0.17 +0.38

2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.30 +0.48

The July pause in cooling as La Nina approaches also happened during the 1997-98 El Nino. I’ve examined a daily time series of satellite data for 2016, and this behavior is due to intra-monthly variations in temperature, probably mostly driven by episodic deep convective activity in the tropics. Depending upon how the calendar months line up with the resulting peaks and troughs in temperature, the result is a rather irregular monthly temperature time series. It can be viewed not so much as a variation in radiative cooling to outer space, but a variation in convective heating of the troposphere.

To see how we are now progressing toward a record warm year in the satellite data, the following chart shows the average rate of cooling for the rest of 2016 that would be required to tie 1998 as warmest year in the 38-year satellite record:

UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection-2-550x330Given the behavior of previous El Ninos as they transitioned to La Nina, at this point I would say that it is unlikely that the temperatures will remain above that projection for the rest of the year, and so it is unlikely that 2016 will be a record warm year in the satellite data. Only time will tell.

The “official” UAH global image for July, 2016 should be available in the next several days here.

The new Version 6 files (use the ones labeled “beta5”) should be updated soon, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere:



Lower Stratosphere:

NOTE: This is the sixteenth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here. Note we are now at “beta5” for Version 6, and the paper describing the methodology is still in peer review.

120 thoughts on “UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2016

      • Charles, these are estimates and not measurements. The UAH and RSS estimates are for the lower troposphere, whereas the others are for the “surface”, which usually means about 2 meters (6 feet) above ground level. All of these estimates come with an uncertainty that I suspect is in the range of about plus or minus 0.3C to 0.5C for the satellite era (since 1979) and probably 0.5C to 1C or more for earlier periods.
        I find it interesting that the satellite estimates seem to track the CFSR/CFVS2 estimates fairly well, at least since 2014. The CFSR/CFSV2 estimates are based on a larger temperature measurement data set than the other surface estimates.

      • They are not. e.g. UAH and RSS do not provide an observation at surface, but a calculation of the air temperature few km above. Only stupid people put them on the same plot.

      • I think that RSS and UAH both measure atmospheric temperature averaging a few kilometres, but with some influence of the cooling stratosphere: But certainly not just the surface.
        Whereas the station based ones measure the surface temperature.
        The latitudes covered is different too. GISS and UAH interpolate the polar temperature to estimate full coverage, whereas CRUT4 and RSS don’t apply to the whole globe. I don’t know the others,
        Those differences will certainly bias the temperatures differently. Different latitudes and altitudes warm differently.

      • Seth on August 1, 2016 at 5:38 pm
        Set /sɛt/ or Seth (/sɛθ/; also spelled Setesh, Sutekh,[1] Setekh, or Suty) is a god of the desert, storms, disorder, violence and foreigners in ancient Egyptian religion.[2]
        – your link is just unreadable. auto drives unasked to graphics.
        – migated to MSword that’s stuff for 2 years out time.
        What’s your point.

      • Seth on August 1, 2016 at 5:38 pm
        lots of data transfer with all that links. sending libraries?

      • @ Seth 5:38 pm.
        As Professor Christy explained in his written submission to the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology in February: “… Unlike the surface temperature, this bulk temperature informs us about the crux of the global warming question – how much heat is accumulating in the global atmosphere … and, this CO2-caused warming should be easily detectible by now, according to models … a very basic metric for climate studies is the temperature of the bulk atmospheric layer known as the troposphere, roughly from the surface to 50,000 ft altitude. This is the layer that, according to models, should warm significantly as CO2 increases – even faster than the surface …”.
        Modelled zonally averaged, equilibrated temperature change with altitude associated with doubling atmospheric CO2 (Lee et al. 2007).

      • Johann Wundersamer asked: What’s your point.

        That the various temperature measurements around the place don’t measure the same thing.

      • Chris Hanley wrote: […] … Unlike the surface temperature, this bulk temperature informs us about the crux of the global warming question – how much heat is accumulating in the global atmosphere … ”

        The data set above is for the lower troposphere, which is supposed to be in better alignment with the surface temperature. As discussed, it’s not the same.
        You’re talking about the TMT data. It’s very different.

      • @ Seth 11:35 pm.
        “I think that RSS and UAH both measure atmospheric temperature averaging a few kilometres, but with some influence of the cooling stratosphere: But certainly not just the surface …”.
        Your comment wasn’t clear, I thought you were trying to make some point like: ‘… the surface record is more reliable because people don’t live at 2km …’ — or something of that nature.
        At ~ 10km altitude there is no amplified warming as predicted by the models.

      • “Whereas the station based ones measure the surface temperature.”
        Usually in Urban heat areas.
        Your point is ???

      • There is no inconsistency between observations and upper tropospheric warming predicted by climate models giving the SST change. See Flannaghan et al 2014.
        And I don’t even speak about the uncertainties of the observations. How do we accurately measure a temperature trend at a given level of the atmosphere with remote sensing ? We don’t…
        You don’t know what you are talking about guys…

    • oz4caster, no explanation from your link why
      estimates. not measurements.
      that information taboo?

      • Johann, estimating the global temperature or temperature anomaly is like estimating the global human population. We have no easy way to directly measure either one. We can only estimate them based on limited samples and extrapolations.

      • oz4caster, thx. already assumed.
        short lecture on estimating global temps?
        However thanks for just return.

  1. I finally got it. After spending weeks auditing land source data and seeing how much NOAA / NASA changes it and how much alarmist ACTUALLY ENJOY saying …. 333 strait months of record (FRAUD) whatever,… I finally got it. NASA can’t get on board with a better system of temp monitoring, satellite, because the main source of global warming is NASA. Almost 0.7 C in my now pretty F-in enlightened opinion.

    • NASA can’t get on board with a better system of temp monitoring, satellite, because the main source of global warming is NASA.

      Surely measuring temperature would yield a better measurement of temperature?
      Especially given you’ve got thousands of instruments, and you can walk up to them and check the calibration?
      That’s got to be less speculative than measuring the intensity of microwave emissions from oxygen atoms at different angles that modelling shows might be related to the temperature, and subtraction from different angles probably allows the attribution of the remainder to a particular part of the atmosphere. But there’s there’s very few instruments, and you have to calculate calibration drift and orbital decay and for a few periods in the satellite history there’s fewer than three instruments in orbit, so you can’t tell which instrument is drifting: so you have to calibrate with the instrumental record. Plus you get sampling bais as the path covers different amounts of land and sea at different times, which have different temperatures, and the microwave emissions near the ocean are also different?
      I mean it’s great to have the RSS and UAH data, as a moderately independent data set, but there’s no ways its a replacement for or anywhere near as accurate as the land based measurements.

      • That’s nonsense. Ground based instruments don’t measure temperatures directly either, and are very limited in the areas they measure. And as has been shown, large numbers are poorly sited. And that’s before the temperatures they do measure are adjusted. And humans make errors all the time in calibrating and reading them. Claiming that a limited, contaminated data that is then adjusted and extrapolated over large areas provides a better estimate of global temperatures than the satellites is either ignorant or arguing from bias.

      • Tim Hammond is a funny guy who doesn’t know that they are adjustment for satellites products too and even more : to get a temperature at a given level in the atmosphere, without a thermometer, you need an empirical law, a model…
        The number of thermometer at ground is clearly enough. Global warming is RELATIVELY homogeneous.
        (and also sea level is rising, and also … )

      • Has everyone forgotten that the satellite measurements are constrained by balloon radiosondes? They eliminate a huge amount of uncertainty from the altitudes attributed to the temperature measurements.

      • Except that they aren’t just land based measurements. And just what is the population density of the areas covered by the sea surface temperature element of the ‘land based measurements’?

      • Tim Hammond August 2, 2016 at 12:26 am
        That’s nonsense. Ground based instruments don’t measure temperatures directly either

        Wait, what? Temperature is not measured directly?
        You might need to explain that a bit.

        And as has been shown, large numbers are poorly sited.

        And has been shown, that does not affect the global mean surface temperature.

        And humans make errors all the time in calibrating and reading them.

        When that’s one instrument generating the global mean surface temperature, it’s a serious problem. When it’s one of a six thousand stations, and the calibration change isn’t large enough to get caught in by the analysis checking for stations that have moved or changed, then it’s going to affect the global mean surface temperature by the weight of approximately one six thousandth as if it were the only instrument.
        This is the value of using many instruments. In the case of a temperature measurement there are also advantages of measuring at one place on the planet, rather than taking a sample that swings from day to night every couple of hours and correcting to what the mean temperature be given that meaurements.

        Claiming that a limited, contaminated data that is then adjusted and extrapolated over large areas provides a better estimate of global temperatures than the satellites is either ignorant or arguing from bias.

        Okay, that seems obviously wrong, but convince me. What is your best estimate in the error of the satellite temperatures? While you’re at it, why have adjustments to the satellite temperatures been so much greater than adjustments to the land temperatures in the last decade? (You know, given your peculiar view of their relative accuracy).

  2. wow, NCEP CFSR and Dr Roy both the same. Was warmest July in NCEP 35 year model initialization . On that record, Year is shoo in for warmest ever

      • If we do nothing, all the signs are that dangerous climate change is one of the safest bets around.
        Yes you do nothing and Monte Carlo is your way to go.

      • Johann, the preliminary CFSR July global temperature estimate is the highest for any month in the CFSR data set going back to 1979. However, I was being sarcastic to call it the highest *ever* for the simple reason that the uncertainty in these estimates is too large to clearly determine whether the top ten or more highest monthly estimates are significantly different from each other. So, no, I don’t really believe it is the highest *ever*, although it is among the highest 20 months, which are all within 0.3C of each other.
        By the way, the annual variation in the monthly CFSR global temperature estimates is almost 4C from the average highest for July to the average lowest for January, and this range dwarfs the estimated monthly temperature anomalies.

    • Year is shoo in for warmest ever

      On Dr. Spencer’s graph, he shows

      average temperature trend Jul-Dec 2016 that would make 2016 tie 1998 for record warmest year

      Is he wrong? The required trend line looks unlikely. yes/no?

    • greenies and crystal meth –
      If we do nothing, all the signs are that dangerous climate change is one of the safest bets around.
      bet around.

    • Most “skeptical” scientists are like Lindzen was – they knew that the figures didn’t actually back their claims. He would only take a bet at 50 to 1 odds in his favour that the temperature in 20 years would be cooler. Which is about the correct odds.
      Plimer, on the other hand, must have started to believe his own talking points. Rudge simply wasn’t well informed about global temperatures. He considered backing out when he learned that 2008 was only the ninth warmest year on record, not the warmest year on record, as he had assumed: but didn’t want to face the backlash.
      The upside is that this might be a revenue stream for the future. Does anyone here think that the mean 2020 temperature will be below the 2001-2010 average?

      • Yes. Or maybe no. What do you think you are proving? Temperatures change. Have you only just noticed that? Its why that’s interesting. Observations are just observations, and guesses about the future are guesses.

      • The Arctic Ocean cooling mechanism as postulated by Maurice Ewing in the 1970s hasn’t kicked in yet.
        Personally I hope to live long enough to see Arctic Sea Ice back down south of Iceland!

      • I do not think that it would be unexpected that after the end of the Little Ice Age. During the first two hundred years of The Modern Warm Period. It would be unexpected for the climatic to grow warmer. What I want to know is how it is significantly different than during the first two hundred years of previous warm periods.

      • I have no idea whether 2020 will be above or below the 2001-2010 average, and nor do you.
        No one knows – the climate is chaotic and CO2 is not a control knob.
        Personally, I hope it gets warmer, as cold kills.

      • David Smith “I have no idea whether 2020 will be above or below the 2001-2010 average, and nor do you.” That represents an evens chance then. It has to be either hotter or lower (if we discount the vary small “on it’s edge” possibility). If nobody has any idea which, then one is as likely as the other.
        In which case you should snap up the 2:1 odds offered as a great offer.

      • “He considered backing out when he learned that 2008 was only the ninth warmest year on record, not the warmest year on record, as he had assumed”
        Does this chart look like any year since 1998, other than 2016 is the “Hottest Year Evah!”?×318.jpg
        The year 1998 was the hottest in the satellite record, and 2016 might surpass it, but might not, either. All the years in between are also-rans.
        Anyone who would make a bet using a NASA-NOAA surface temperature chart as their guide, deserves to lose their money.

      • David Smith. Fair enough. It would be different had you offered a wager yourself. Gambling is usually not a wise thing to do. There are exceptions.

    • I do not know the thought process of Ian Plimer and Sir Alan Rudge, but it surprises me that they would make a bet comparing 2015 to 2008. First question, what measurement of temperature? I would never make a bet based on GISS, HadCrut, or NOAA. There is too much freedom in making adjustments to those temperatures — it is like betting against the Democrat party machine on what the votes will be in Chicago. As long as the other side can manipulate the results, it is a foolish bet. (Furthermore, the adjustments are inconsistent with known climatic phenomena.) Second question: why base the bet on 2008 which was a low point in temperatures in the 21st century? Third question: and why not make an allowance for El Nino which one cannot predict but which inevitably will happen?

    • Yes, Marcus, what kind of a dare is that?! It’s been warming naturally for 400 years. Why should it stop now?

      • The last El Nino year was also warmer than all the other El Nino years on record. Slap we sideways with a wet fish – that means it is getting warmer!

      • Yes, it has gotten warmer, due to the multiple synchronicity of oceanic positive phases. The global oceanic cycles are never in the same phase relationships for ENSO to have identical impacts.
        To say “it’s getting warmer” the data must still be showing an uptick with each reading.

      • seaice1 All through history even if not measured there will be El Nino years warmer than before. 2009-10 El Nino was much cooler than the previous or current. So I don’t see what conclusions can be drawn from comparing El Nino years where the excess heat is the result of heat loss from the ocean and not CO2 in the atmosphere..

    • We’re all doomed, didn’t you know?
      Gore, Mann, and Hansen have all told us we’re going to die in fiery maelstrom, so it must be true.

  3. But, how can 2016 be another record hot year – the third in a row – when Don Easterbrook said yesterday:
    “I predicted that global cooling would set in sometime after about 2000 and that is happening”
    So Don Easterbrook is wrong?

  4. The ENSO 3.4 region cooling hesitated in July. But now(as of August 1) appears to be
    redeveloping(cooling again).

  5. Whether the weather be fine,
    Or whether the weather be not,
    Whether the weather be cold,
    Or whether the weather be hot,
    We’ll weather the weather
    Whatever the weather,
    Whether we like it or not!
    Author: unknown

  6. Here’s a regression of annual global temperature anomalies, calculated as the mean of the Cowtan & Way, HadCrut4, NASA GISS LOTI, and NOAAv3.2 data sets, on atmospheric CO2 concentrations for the years 1850-2015. CO2 measurements from 1850-1958 are from Antarctic ice core data, thereafter from Mona Loa. Temperature anomaly data from 1850-1879 are the means of the Cowtan & Way and HadCrut4 data sets only.

    • ..Yes, the temperatures on that graph has been well “adjusted” to match the CO2. (down in the past, up in the present) !! Neat trick, if you can get away with it…

      • That ‘neat trick’ is called a ‘linear regression’. This regression estimates the relationship between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 as follows: Temperature = CO2 concentration * 0.009079 – 2.920878. The standard error of the regression is .116183, so 68.26% of the time, expect temperature to fall within ±0.116183 C° of the regression estimate, and 95.45% of the time for it to fall within 95.45% of the time to fall within .232366 C° of the regression estimate. This year, for example, the average CO2 concentration will probably come out to around 403.4 ppm, and based on that information alone (in other words, if we didn’t already have temperature data to help us estimate what this year’s temperature anomaly will be), we can estimate that it will be 403.4*.009079-2.920878 = 0.741591 C°, with a probability of 68.26% that it will be within the range 0.625408-0.857774 C°, and with a probability of 95.45% that it will fall within the range 0.509225-0.973957 C°.

      • Now, now Charles.
        Don’t you dare mention natural variation. It upsets the warmists. They hate nature.

    • Marmoset, that’s pretty darned amazing agreement you’ve shown, far better than any of the CMIP-5 models. Why hasn’t this been published?

      • It’s just a simple linear regression of global temperature on the CO2 concentration. It’s not a climate model. It doesn’t include any of the amplifying or stabilizing feedbacks or any of the other forcings that steer the climate. You can see its limitations when you enter a CO2 concentration of 180ppm and it predicts a temperature anomaly of -1.2 C°. Last time CO2 concentrations were that low, the planet was 5 or 6 C° cooler than it is at present.
        I like regressions like this because they put month-to-month climate data in a broader perspective, they show that, as predicted from an understanding of the physical properties of GHGs, increases in CO2 concentrations track with global temperatures, and they provide a reasonably accurate means of predicting the warming we will experience in the coming years.

    • Marcus, you need to do the job for all other things that are changing e.g. sea level.
      You need to work a little more. Sounds a little lazy like this.
      Also, adjustments are there for basic physical reasons. But I guess physic is not something that matter for you.

      • Sea level rise isn’t really changing very much at all. It’s approximately the same rate now as it was back in 1900. The detected change is of relevance to nobody and nothing.
        “Additionally, sea level rise has accelerated in recent years. For the period between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels are estimated to have risen a total of 195 millimetres (7.7 in), and 1.7 millimetres (0.067 in) ± 0.3 millimetres (0.012 in) per year, with a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 millimetres (0.00051 in) ± 0.006 millimetres (0.00024 in) per year per year.”
        Source wikipedia.
        Are you saying that an acceleration of 0.013 millimetres (0.00051 in) ± 0.006 millimetres per year per year is outside of the bounds of natural variability?
        Do you know that sea level was 120metres lower just 20,000years ago.
        And it rose – very rapidly with no human SUV drivers or patio heaters or fracking.
        Now – people are trying to suggest that a year on year acceleration of 0.013mm is “significant”.
        That depends whether we use the word significant in it’s conventional sense.
        The same acceleration projected out over another hundred years would still only add 1.3mm per year to sea level rise rates.
        Who cares? And such a projection would be pure baseless speculation anyway.
        And if it happens, then so what? People aren’t going to lie face down at the shore line for one hundred years and drown on this basis.

      • Concerning the acceleration, you should read Kopp et al 2016.
        That’s say, you agree that it is increasing (you need to go to the second derivative for a deny…), That’s a good step…
        Who care’s ? Well JonA, below, is wondering if Earth is accumulating energy. Sea level is inceasing because ocean accumulates energy (that is observed too….), among others things. And why has it accumulated energy for a long time now ? I let you find the answer….

      • Correlation is not causation. Yes I agree. And so ?
        Adding CO2 increase incoming energy in the climate system for basic radiative reasons.
        Repeat after me.

      • > Adding CO2 increase incoming energy in the climate system for basic
        > radiative reasons. Repeat after me.
        Few people dispute the elementary radiative physics – though I think
        DWLWIR is a nonsense given 70% of the planets surface is a selective
        surface (water). However, your assertion – which I’ll paraphrase as energy
        accumulation (due to predicted flux change) – is only true ALL ELSE
        BEING EQUAL.
        There are many feedbacks and it’s those that are poorly understood.

      • JonA, First, energy accumulation IS TRUE in the observations. Second, convince me that feedbacks are negative i.e. give me consitent explanatino with everything else. You need to work a little more…

      • Toncul,
        If there no negative feedbacks the Earth would have burned to a crisp a long time ago.
        Right, I’m off to the beach for a year to see if I can spot the 3mm sea level rise. Wish me luck.

      • David Smith, there is of course a negative response + feedbacks.
        You need to work a little more.

      • Pork bellies. AGT is well correlated to the price of pork bellies. Records of pork belly prices go as far back as temperature measures, unlike Apple stock. We could attempt a multiple stepwise regression to see if adding the Apple stock price improves the estimate in those years the daya is available though.
        I would need a grant.

  7. July temps are still responding to the El Nino in April which was +1.09C. Since then, Nino 3.4 has declined to -0.55C.
    At least 3 months of further declines in UAH and NCEP to come.(and at least 50 more years of temperature adjustments for the surface to come).
    And let’s not forget the climate model forecasts are in the range +0.8C to +1.0C for the current time period.

  8. It is a wait and see game now that solar conditions are becoming very quiet, taking into consideration the transition to La Nina conditions.
    I want to see how the cooling evolves and the depth of the cooling this time in contrast to past times when the earth transitioned to La Nina conditions versus El Nino conditions when the sun was in a prolonged active state as opposed to now being in a prolonged minimum state. This minimum state which started in 2005, but was interrupted by the weak but still maximum of solar cycle 24 from 2010 to just recently.
    I want to see what happens to the albedo does it increase, even a 1% increase would have significant climate impact.
    Will prolonged minimum solar activity promote a more meridional atmospheric circulation, more global cloud cover ,greater sea ice and snow cover which would increase albedo?
    That is what I want to find out, and that should be the case then the cooling going forward would go beyond just the cooling associated with ENSO transitioning from an El Nino condition to a La Nina condition.
    That is what I am going to monitor providing the sun cooperates and stays very quiet like it is presently and I expect will do so going forward for many years to come

  9. My argument for solar is there must be and is a deviation from solar norm that would impact the climate. I think the question is what is that deviation ? Does solar vary enough to reach that deviation?
    I think as far as solar goes those are the questions because if the sun (EXTREME EXAMPLE BUT MAKES MY POINT) were to go dead we know the climate would be effected.
    So what point off normal solar activity (solar deviation) would a solar impact upon the climate have to be? Is it the values I have come up with? Are they sufficient ?
    I sent the above yesterday but I want to expand a little on the above which is the solar criteria needed to impact the climate according to the data I could gather needs to be slightly below typical values associated with the sun when it reaches it’s lowest values when the sun is in it’s typical 11 year sunspot cycle. In addition duration of time has be much longer.
    Past history does show that when the sun did enter quiet periods such as the Maunder Minimum and Dalton two name the most recent ones global temperatures did go down.
    So I investigated what was the solar criteria during these quiet periods when global temperatures seemingly responded in a downward fashion and concluded the following solar criteria that was present which I will list.
    My Reasoning :
    The sun is now at or near these values and I think duration will be quite long therefore I expect a climatic impact if past history is an accurate indicator. Secondary effects associated with the above solar criteria will accomplish this climate impact.
    GLOBAL CLOUD COVERAGE INCREASING-due to galactic cosmic rays increasing atmospheric circulation changes.
    SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES DECREASING- due to a decline in UV light
    ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION MORE MERIDIONAL- due to a decline in EUV light, ozone changes.
    GREATER SNOW COVERAGE/SEA ICE COVERAGE- due to atmospheric circulation changes.
    INCREASE IN VOLCANIC ACTIIVTY -due to galactic cosmic ray increase and by products of these cosmic rays.
    The upshot of the above is to cause the albedo to increase. Even a .5% to 1% increase in albedo would impact the climate resulting in cooling.
    One can not deny that each and every time solar values reached very low values global temperatures always responded down , always.

    • I’m with you. Let’s wait and see actually what happens. I know it is watching grass grow, but at least we have the satellites and tools in place to see what changes occur and the associated impacts (as long as we can get the actual numbers, not the adjusted ones).

    • I agree with all your points above except “INCREASE IN VOLCANIC (ACTIVITY) -due to galactic cosmic ray increase”…..How do Cosmic Rays affect volcanoes ???

      • Cosmic Rays: The Driving Force in … – Galactic Connection…
        Marcus one more study on geological activity versus galactic cosmic rays and the connection.

      • Marcus the data.
        Another recent research, carried by The Space and Science Research Center in Florida, US, showed strong correlation between solar activity and the largest earthquakes and volcanic eruptions within the continental united states and other regions around the world. The study looked at the data of volcanic activity between (1650 – 2009) and seismic (earthquakes) activity between (1700 – 2009) and then the recorded data was compared with the sunspots record (solar activity).
        The results of this study showed very strong correlation between solar activity and the largest seismic and volcanic events, within the continental US and globally. The correlation for volcanic activity was bigger than (> 80%) and for the largest earthquakes was (100% of the top 7 most powerful) versus solar activity lows. Additionally, the research concluded the existence of a strong correlation between global volcanic activity among the largest of classes of eruptions and solar activity lows. With the 80.6% occurrence of large scale global volcanic eruptions taking place (> VEI 5) during solar activity lows and with 87.5% occurring for the very largest (> VEI 6) eruptions during major solar minimums.

    • Salvatore, I certainly agree. History is very important and simply because we cannot find the reason for something happening doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. I follow Lief’s comments and Willis’s analysis about the influence of the Solar cycle on Earth and I believe they are doing good work; but that means we are not looking in the right place. I find it acceptable to say “we don’t know” where others feel that if they can’t find an explanation that the problem or event does not exist.

      • TALL DAVE , I think the data suggest it is credible.
        With the 80.6% occurrence of large scale global volcanic eruptions taking place (> VEI 5) during solar activity lows and with 87.5% occurring for the very largest (> VEI 6) eruptions during major solar minimums

    • Also – coming up later in the year – Squiggle-Watch, Living with Squiggles, Celebrity Tropospheric Hotspot Hunt, Spaghetti Graph Challenge and Hockey Stick Wars.

  10. After the 98 El-mega-nino, the temps on the graph descended back to zero anomaly.
    Then as many warmists note, the climate seemed to have shifted to a higher level, noisily oscillating around a new higher point, about +0.2.
    Now I was hoping to see the much predicted cooling (Salvatore del Prete, next grand minimum guy…) where the anomaly would again descend to zero or below. But the little blip up on the latest data (I know noise…) makes me curious if we will see a new higher stabilization point, with each mega-el-nino kicking the climate to a higher state.
    Or the next blip could be down again…with a solar minimum dominated trajectory.
    Exciting times to watch. Too bad the surface records are so manipulated that we can’t tell much about what is really happening to our planet.

    • J,
      With those step-change increases anyone would be led to presume the warming is natural. How dare they!

    • No one that I trust has predicted that there would be cooling by now. We must watch for the coincidal negative phases in the northern hemisphere oceans (AMO-PDO-polar, etc.) before expecting any downward notch in the interglacial warming trend similar to the 70’s. If the solar activity drops to the levels which mimic the Dalton minimum, we could see an additional step down to temperatures not seen in a century or more. If all these things happen and the temperature of the earth continues to rise, then GHGs might be responsible but that still is not proof positive. There are too many other possible forcings to consider.

  11. I don’t understand all these speculations about the incoming La Niña, based on actual temperatures or solar cycles or whatsoever.
    Look at the MEI, the Multivariate ENSO Index
    There you see that the two biggest El Niños (1982/83, 1997/98) were followed by rather weak La Niñas in comparison to e.g. the 1972/73 event.
    So the simplest idea is to wait for a while…

    • Newton’s third law apparently has played out on an aeonic scale in the paleoclimate record.
      If mankind can overcome that and truly control the Earth’s temperature, his vanity is justified.

  12. There are no temperatures on that graph. I don’t know if “user experience” is something that ever comes up in research circles, but if you’re going to show the deviation from some annual or monthly temperature, you should tell us what that temperature is.

    • I wasn’t sure how large the monthly variation was (or if it was even material) but according to this it’s actually about 3.8 C. Wow, that’s an order of magnitude larger than the current anomaly.
      [_] Doomed
      [X] Not doomed
      So I guess the temps are variation against the mean for the month. Ideally these graphs should report that number along the x axis, because every month is a departure from a different temperature, and/or tell us the actual temperature.

    • TallDave, Here’ your explanation of the “index” from Klaus Wolter:
      “The MEI is computed separately for each of twelve sliding bi-monthly seasons (Dec/Jan, Jan/Feb,…, Nov/Dec). After spatially filtering the individual fields into clusters (Wolter, 1987), the MEI is calculated as the first unrotated Principal Component (PC) of all six observed fields combined.”
      Pretty fancy shell game, huh?

      • Thanks Pop Piasa, but not really relevant to my concern — I’m just looking to get a better display of the baseline for UAH and other datasets.
        It makes you wonder though — those July El Nino peaks must look a bit different when you don’t filter out seasonal effects, because July is 3.8 degrees hotter than Jan. I wonder if they end up essentially applying a linear filter to a nonlinear amplification in those El Nino years — i.e., if the El Nino peak is always in July, maybe they haven’t really succeeded in removing monthly variations, they’ve just smoothed them.

    • Should this be a reply to my comment just above yours, so I apologize: I was quite in a hurry and forgot to insert info at the end. Pop Piasa was kind enough to complete, but a bit more explanation maybe is wishful/sinful.
      MEI is computed out of six different factors:
      – sea-level pressure (P);
      – zonal (U) and
      – meridional (V) components of the surface wind;
      – sea surface temperature (S);
      – surface air temperature (A) and
      – total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C).
      The computed index
      is not directly related to temperature, pressure or whatever else. You can compare its value during different El Niño phases:
      But it can be also put in relation to temperature records to analyze possible links between them:
      From this I learned much, because I was wondering about the highly different UAH responses to different El Niño phases 1982/83 and 1997/98. An experienced commenter explained this was due to the El Chichon eruption in 1982, which literally neutralized the El Niño effect on the troposheric temperatures.
      A look at MEI’s historical record
      is also interesting.

  13. Roy, I am going to analyze the content of what your temperature graphs tell us and have been telling us for some time. First, the segment from 1979 to the beginning of the rise to the super El Nino of 1998 is an uninterrupted ENSO segment of five El Nino peaks, separated by La Nina valleys. The ENSO oscillation producing it has made one crossing of the ocean for each peak from west to east along the equatorial counter-current. The peak is created when the warm water of this counter-current runs ashore in South America and spreads out north and south along the coast. This spreading warms the air above it, warm air rises, joins the easterlies, and we notice that an El Nino has arrived. The peaks are fairly uniform in height and the distance between them is approximately 5 years. A La Nina is formed after each El Nino peak. That is because water that was pushed ashore must also retreat. A returning El Nino wave is followed by a sea level reduction of up to a meter and cold water then wells up to fill the vacuum. As much as the El Nino warmed the air the La Nina that follows will now cool ,it and the global mean temperature is not affected. There can be irregularities but for the most part the approximately five-year spacing of El Nino peaks is valid throughout the observable global temperature range, as far back as the CET. This system has been active ever since the Panamanian Seaway closed and established the Pacific current system of today. ENSO is not noise and trying to hide it by a running average destroys information. It follows also that talk of an “El Nino-like” Miocene is utter nonsense. My first encounter with the ENSO of the eighties and nineties led me to record the fact that despite the presence of the El Nino peaks the entire temperature platform in the eighties and nineties, to the beginning of 1997, was horizontal and must be considered a hiatus region. I showed that as figure 15 in my book “What Warming?” But IPCC had other ideas and decided to invent a non-existent “late twentieth century warming” for that time slot. GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT3 all joined them and now the official temperature graph shows warming, no hiatus, during the eighties and nineties. I complained but nothing happened so I decided to put a warming about rhis into the preface of my book in 2010 when it went to press. Since then, a little twerp called Bob Tisdale has accused me of inventing the data. This is an insult. The data that my figure 15 was based upon is essentially identical to what you and RSS have shown since the nineties. I also have a NASA publication proving that there was no warming then. Tisdale added insult to injury by submitting an additional bogus graph he claimed was a satellite graph showing warming in the eighties and nineties. Look it up in my paper’s comments in WUWT for last October 29th.
    The second segment I want to discuss is the twenty-first century data in your latest graph. That segment I also showed in my figure 15, up to the year 2009. There were irregularities but the growing El Nino of 2010 convinced me at that time that the 21st century platform would also be horizontal like the previous segment had been. But having been exposed to the current data (July 2016) about it I no longer think so. This is because the temperature history of the 21st century turns out to be a lot more complicated than it seems. The twenty-first century opens with a sudden, unexpected temperature rise of one third of a degree of Celsius. In your figure It begins at the low point of the 1999 La Nina, in only three years raises global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius, and then stops. It is quite impossible for carbon dioxide to perform this maneuver but this is what James Hansen thinks happened. He noticed that nine out of ten recorded temperature highs all happened during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Bingo-carbon dioxide done it! Unfortunately for his simple-minded reaction, carbon dioxide cannot have anything to do with it. First, to start it, you must add carbon dioxide to air. The Keeling curve tells us this did not happen. Then, to stop it, you must bpluck all those absorbing CO2 molecules out of the air. Entirely impossible again. It is clear that carbon dioxide did not do the warming amd this leaves only none alternative: the source of this warming ts warm water left behind by the just-departed super El Nino. of 1998. If this is the case it follows also that there can be no replenishment. Therefore, as time goes on, we must expect the global temperature to slowly cool. This was not obvious to me in 2009 but looking at the complete picture now it is clear that there has been cooling. The presence of the El Nino of 2010 complicates it but there is no doubt that cooling has occurred. If we start measuring temperature at year 2002 (high point), ten years later will be 2012 (the low point). During these ten years global temperature went down approximately 0.27 degrees Celsius per decade. Beyond that, temperature starts to rise again toward the 2016 El Nino. We have just passed over this peak and are wondering what the temperature will do when it is all over. There are several possibilities but the most likely is a continuation of the cooling trend that was interrupted in 2012. By extrapolation, I would then expect the new temperature level to be as low or lower than 2012 was. There is a possibility that after all the inherited warmth is gone temperature will continue the original level of the eighties and nineties, now covered up by fake warming.

  14. What happens when it reaches -0.3 again, as it has so many times in the past?
    Do 97% of scientists go back to school on grants?

  15. As I posted previously, this formula predicts UAH LT temperature ~four months in the future from Nino3.4 index, with an R2 of 0.55 since 1996.
    UAH LT calc. = 0.20*Nino3.4SST +0.15
    Recent 2016 UAH LT calc. using this formula are:
    July 0.49C calc. (vs actual UAH LT 0.39C)
    August 0.37C calc.
    September 0.21C calc.
    October 0.13C calc.

Comments are closed.