Global temperature continues to drop from El Nino induced high

From Dr. Roy Spencer:

UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2018: +0.18 deg. C

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed, and so has the distinction between calendar months.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2018 was +0.18 deg. C, down a little from the April value of +0.21 deg. C:

Some regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 17 months are:


2017 01 +0.33 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10 +0.27 +0.95 +1.22

2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.20 +0.08 +2.16 +1.33 +0.21

2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06 +1.21 +1.24 +0.98

2017 04 +0.27 +0.29 +0.26 +0.21 +0.89 +0.22 +0.40

2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41 +0.10 +0.21 +0.06

2017 06 +0.22 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39 +0.50 +0.10 +0.34

2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51 +0.60 -0.27 +1.03

2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46 -0.55 +0.49 +0.77

2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54 +0.29 +1.06 +0.60

2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47 +1.21 +0.83 +0.86

2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.27 +1.35 +0.68 -0.12

2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.44 +1.37 +0.36

2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.58 +1.36 +0.42

2018 02 +0.20 +0.24 +0.16 +0.03 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18

2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.06 -0.32 -0.33 +0.59

2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.10 -0.13 -0.01 +1.02 +0.68

2018 05 +0.18 +0.40 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.40

The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through May 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.

The UAH LT global anomaly image for May, 2018 should be available in the next few days here.

The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere:



Lower Stratosphere:

269 thoughts on “Global temperature continues to drop from El Nino induced high

      • It had reached a point in 2010 that by mid-April in the UK it was too warm to wear a coat at 07:00 How I wish that was the case in June 2018 ! I do not see anything but colder mornings than ten years ago.

        • BallBounces: Apparently they received snow in Cape Breton yesterday.
          Tuesday I was in Halifax. All the way from near Digby to at least Halifax, the noontime temperature was 4 degrees C! It did rise slightly later in the day.
          It’s been a very cold spring with no significant warming in sight (SW N.S.). Where is all that warming we are supposed to be having?

    • I am reminded of a variation of the old drunkards refrain “It’s Happy Hour somewhere!” The Mid-Atlantic experienced a very cool May overall I don’t keep records but I can recall warm Aprils and months of May indistinguishable from July. But who you gonna believe? The warmest alarmists or your own lying thermometer. They doctor really good data across the pond at East Anglia.

    • Never mind how cold April 2018 was!

      Also, we ONLY have measurements
      made DURING a warming trend
      that started in 1850,
      so new records are to be EXPECTED,
      and are NOT front page news,
      until that warming trend ends,
      and a cooling trend begins,

      Ice core studies show many
      mild warming / cooling cycles,
      typically lasting hundreds of years.

      A warming trend for 150 years
      is not unusual, and +1 degree C.
      warming in 150 years is harmless,
      actually pleasant, because the
      warming is mainly at night
      in the colder, higher latitudes.

        • Well, cold is ‘climate change’ – at least when it’s cold enough to cause problems.

      • “Also, we ONLY have measurements
        made DURING a warming trend
        that started in 1850”

        Even those collected temperatures were extremely sporadic and weren’t anywhere near global, yet they still act as if we have global temperature readings worldwide going back that far…

        • Scotty B:
          A majority of the “temperature” numbers are wild guesses
          for areas of our planet with no thermometers!

          Sounds better when called “infilling”.

          The rest of the numbers are “adjusted” raw data.

          After any adjustment, you no longer have real data
          — just an estimate of what the data should have been
          if measured properly in the first place.

          Sop, there are no real (raw) data at used in compilations
          of surface average temperatures.

          That is also true for satellite data,
          because there are no direct
          temperature measurements.

          But satellite data have
          far less infilling than surface data.

          The people in charge of satellite data,
          well at least Dr. Spencer,
          creates the impression of a real scientist,
          interested in the truth,
          not trying to defend prior predictions
          of catastrophic global warming
          by “adjusting” data to show more warming,
          (like the government bureaucrat
          “scientists” in NASA and NOAA do —
          I would not buy a used car from any of them!)

          The integrity of the people who own / compile the data
          may be more important than the data itself.

          Remember “ClimateGate”?

          My climate change blog:

          • Just wait for the alarmist attacks on Roy Spencer within the next 5 years when UAH data conclusively proves that global warming isnt happening

      • Richard Greene

        “… we ONLY have measurements made DURING a warming trend that started in 1850…”

        HadCRUT4 produce surface temperature data starting 1850. For the first ~80 years of the record there was no trend (very slight cooling, if anything).

        Breaking it down further into the WMO ‘climatology’ period of 30 years, no running 30-year period in HadCRUT4 shows a warming (or cooling) trend greater than +/- 0.1C/dec before the onset of the 20th century. Using annual data, the first 30-year period in HadCRUT4 with a warming trend above +0.1C/dec was 1902-31. The running 30-year warming trend in HadCRUT4 hasn’t fallen below 0.1 C/dec since 1962-91 period and didn’t reach its present level (0.18C/dec) before 1971-2000.

        Contrast the most recent 80-year period in the HadCRUT4 with the first 80-year period shown above:

        Clearly the global warming trend did not start in 1850.

        • Leaving aside the fact that there is almost no data from the Southern Hemisphere in the 1800s such that one cannot even construct a global trend, your data clearly shows the 1860 to 1880 warming trend.

          Phil Jones of CRU and HADCRUT fame, in 2010, is on record as confirming that the recent warming is not statistically different from the 1860 to 1880 warming (or from the 1920 to 1940 warming).

          The warming trend during 1860 to 1880 was some 0.163 per decade, which is slightly greater than the warming trend between 1975 and 2009 of o.161 per decade.


        • Cherry-picking 101!

          There is as Richard says a clear warming trend from 1850 to 1880 followed by a clear cooling trend to 1910. The warming trend to c1940 is conveniently fudged by being split across two diagrams. There is a very slight decline from then until the mid-70s and a rising trend from then on with a hiatus during the first decade of this century. 30-year cycles!

          Better men than you have tried this trick. Please do us the honour of not assuming we are stupid and don’t know how to read graphs properly

    • NOAA says: “The average May temperature across the contiguous U.S. was 65.4 degrees F, 5.2 degrees above average, making it the warmest May in the 124-year record, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. This surpassed the previous record of 64.7°F set in 1934”

      First – one wonders what that 64.7 actually was before they adjusted it down by a degree, or more. Even still, that it’s taking 84 yrs – almost a century – to potentially break a record that old, isn’t a convincing argument for ‘man-made global warming.’

    • According to UAH, lower troposphere above USA48 was 1.93°C above the 1981-2010 base. So seems quite plausible.

    • If it was record warm here….and global temps have dropped
      …it had to be record cold somewhere else

        • Bellman
          Again we see most of the warming anomalies above the sixty latitude’s, except for the EU community.
          Now if heat is leaving the low latitude’s and going to the poles as expected, isn’t this what we should see.
          The satellite era coincided with a warm phase. After the current cooling and then the next warm phase recorded by satellite the hysteria will stop.

          For the first time we have an accurate global understanding of heat source, transport and loss through the poles.
          Marvel at how non chaotic, uncomplicated earths systems are.

          One final point, the word chaotic should be banned when discussing climate science.

          • I take it then that you haven’t studied differential Equations? Atmospheric phenomenon are the very definition of chaotic. Try modeling only two molecules with ideal properties instead of billions of moles of non-ideal gasses with chemical reactions involve. We have a 50 year snapshot on what we “think” is a 60 year cycle plus a 17 year lunar cycle plus el nino’s all influencing the poles. Diff Eq start having problems at 2 molecules and NxN diff. Eq. what we actually have) are notorious to solve (let alone PDE’s which is what we will have in many cases) So, no chaotic is a perfect description and no, we have the beginnings of an approximation of an ” accurate global understanding of heat source, transport and loss through the poles.”

        • Latitude,

          True. Iqualuit, capital of Canada’s newest territory at 63.5 deg. N. Lat. (but not within the Arctic Circle (67.5 deg. N. Lat)) is just reaching going above the freezing point, a month later than “normal”. It snowed in Newfoundland and northern New Brunswick two days ago. The iceberg count in “Iceberg Alley” off the east coast of Newfoundland is off to a slow start.

        • Yes it does, You cannot have a global average of say one degree above long term average and some areas two or three degrees above average, and not have some below average – that’s how averages work!

          • Record warm in one location can be balanced by mildly cold in many locations, it doesn’t require “record cold somewhere else”

          • George Carlin always said “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

      • It felt below average in northern Spain, despite of the graph posted by Bellman below. One of the coldest Aprils of the recent years.

        (edited: I wanted to reply to Bellman)

    • And then we have this… “U.S. had its coldest April in more than 20 years”

      And then we have this… “Australia is in for its coldest winter ON RECORD”

      And then we have this… “Parts of south-east Queensland record lowest February temps on record”

      And then we have this… “London in the snow – Coldest March Day Ever!”

      And then we have this… “Melbourne shivers through coldest start to winter in 36 years, Bureau of Meteorology says”

    • And then we have this… “U.S. had its coldest April in more than 20 years”
      And then we have this… “Australia is in for its coldest winter ON RECORD”
      And then we have this… “Parts of south-east Queensland record lowest February temps on record”
      And then we have this… “London in the snow – Coldest March Day Ever”
      And then we have this… “Melbourne shivers through coldest start to winter in 36 years, Bureau of Meteorology says”
      (refer links in subsequent comment; much further down)
      Eric you confuse weather & climate (and so do your up voters).
      Or are you simply pushing your left-wing view of the World?
      I’d be interested to know . . .

      • Weather makes Climate. I tend to see that if the weather supports “climate change” it’s climate and if it doesn’t it’s just “weather”. Yo have enough weather and it is climate. or define a baseline in decades or better yet centuries that defines climate Or are you simply pushing your view of the world?

    • This time the El Nino downdraft is with solar minimum and declining AMO. The fun is just getting started.

        • El Niños cool the earth by moving energy from the ocean into the atmosphere, where it can be convected toward the top of atmosphere and poles, then radiated into space. La Niñas warm the earth by reducing cloud cover near the equator, thus allowing more energy from the sun to enter the ocean. More El Niños is an indicator of a cooling earth.

      • ResourceGuy,
        Whilst I know what you mean – “The fun is just getting started.” – I would prefer no colder, at least, thank you.

        Are we fully out of the most recent Little Ice Age?
        Warmer nights, in the colder latitudes, would help a lot.

        Yes, I know you and I both wish to go ‘Wugga-wugga-wugga’ at the people-hating watermelons, but I would not want it any cooler . . . . . . .


        • That cooling is much slower than the rate of distortion of the political economy from over reach and bad public policy. The wrong-way signaling that has been in effect for years now while more pressing issues of sovereign debt, aging population pressure on services, and deferred public investment must be stopped. The game of choosing priorities at the whim of political parties with periodic emergency spending often caused by the deferral process itself must be altered.

    • 1 degree in 40 years is massive when there is no major perturbation (volcano, etc) during that time.

      • Not when it is still warming at the same rate it has for the last 150 years. Business as usual

        • Please show me evidence the earth has warmed by nearly 4 degrees in the lasts 150 years. That is what you are implying.

          • nope, that’s not what he implied.
            He just SAID (not implied) that a 1° in 40 years is just the same already seen in the last 150 years. Which it is, indeed. Now, obviously, there also has been cooling periods in the said 150 years.

          • Wrong. Here are his words: “Not when it is still warming at the same rate it has for the last 150 years.” Rate is not an absolute figure, it is an indication of how much a variable changes per unit of time.

          • Of the different understanding of the sentence, you choose the worse and obviously wrong. That’s YOUR doing, not his.
            And since you want to teach, Since you insist on being totally accurate, you better do it right.
            Rate is not “an indication of how much a variable changes per unit of time.” It is “an indication of how much a variable changes per unit of time, at a given time, when a derivative exist…”

      • The warming was 0.13 per decade which means 0.52 degree over 40 years.
        Quite a bit less than one degree wouldn’t you say?

      • Where do you see a 1.0C rise in the last 40 years? The monthly UAH is showing 0.5C in the last 40 years, and some portion of that is natural, most likely most of it.

      • It’s impossible to know that without a large sample of 40-year periods of satellite data. We only have one.

      • Chris wrote:
        “1 degree in 40 years is massive when there is no major perturbation (volcano, etc) during that time.”


        • @Alan Macrae- Willis did a post here a few weeks ago on volcano effects from those two detected at maunaloa Hawaii station. While they showed up as a drop in the incident solar radiation, They could not be seen in their temperature data. I recall the Pinatubo was a VEI6 and one global temperature record showed 0.5 degree drop for 2 years then back up.
          Sandy, Minister of Future

        • Allan, absolutely RIGHT!
          Pinatubo was arguably (by my calculations) the largest volcanic perturbation since 1815, and el Chichon wasn’t far behind. The two of them suppressed the average temperature for 1979-1995 by 0.1C, or about half of the warming between then and 1996-now. That’s by my calculations, on the right-hand side of this poster:

          in which I…
          1. Calculate the theoretical radiative equilibrium effect of volcanos and CO2 for each year.
          2. It turns out that the theoretical effect of volcanoes and CO2 fits almost EXACTLY the warming from 1979 to present.
          3. Subtract the volcanic and CO2 effects from the observed annual temperatures (from Roy Spencer) and what’s left is mostly (57%) due to Nino/Nina.
          4. Putting it back together, a model with equal parts of volcano and CO2 and a noisier dose of ENSO reconstructs 86% (correlation r=0.93 !!!) of the variance of annual temperatures.
          A similar way of looking at it derives from John Christy’s iconic chart, which has appeared several times on WUWT:

          on which the two volcanoes are as obvious as Hillary’s back brace.
          So I added my simple three-part model “prediction” (volcanoes, CO2, ENSO) to it:

          Note: the Christy chart shows 5-year averages, which smooths out a lot of the noise in monthly data and even smooths out Nino/Nina, which have an approximate 5-year recurrence. So it shows the longer-term climate variability, and the volcanic input to that variability.

      • Based on what? The Climate goes up and down all the time and always has done.

        Are you claiming that a one degree rise in forty years is totally unprecedented over the last 30-40,000 years?

    • It’s not T or δT but δT⋅δt⁻¹ which is an unprecedented 200x where the natural forces would have driven Earth’s surface temperature. The linear trend rate +0.13°C⋅decade⁻¹ is 32.5x the mean of the last four glacial to interglacial warming periods. The rate is a threat to extant life adaption and survival. So “less than one degree” was glib, misleading and nescient.

      • Oh Bullsh*t. We have just gone through a warming period after a cooling period after a warming period. Plus we have the benefit of fudged temperatures.

        Let’s see where we are 10 years from now. Better yet, let’s put you in a climate controlled room and see if you can tell us the difference between 20C and 20.13C. We will give you 10 years to decide.

        • You are incorrect and have wandered off topic. This is about the UAH data as presented. Being scientifically illiterate I suggest you refrain from further dialogue as I am not in the habit of having to argue what evidence clearly shows and not what your prejudiced feelings are.

          • Scientia Pracecepta Do you believe and accept that the Little Ice Age happened in England and Europe in the 14-15 hundreds time frame? Do you accept the evidence from China and NZ (and other locations around the globe) that the LIA was a world wide event? They were skating and holding Ice Fares on the Thames and 1/2 of the people in Europe perished due to famine and disease. Mean temps were 2-3C colder than today! Yes or no?

          • There is no belief in science. The climate fiction cult devotees need belief to deny or disdain science that interfere’s with their cult. I’m sure we can have fruitful discussion on this topic once you have brought yourself current on paleoclimatology. I highly recommend PAGES as your starting point:


          • It has been awhile since I have seen a troll here who is so spoiling for a fight as you are. Your arrogance is certainly not helping you win any converts.

          • Most trolls in science blogs aren’t nearly as scientifically illiterate as this one.

          • Indeed, it is true we had a small problem around 1348 (the Black Plague, you know…) now, the Ice fares on the Thames river, that was a bit later. Could you be a bit more precise as to when exactly we had an Ice Age in Europe? Carolus Magnus’s time or tne Napoleonic wars?

          • It really is fascinating how trolls declare that anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid.

          • I only appear as obnoxious in the eyes of the climate fiction cult devotees like yourself because you always receive a thorough schooling from me. How many years now have you been whimpering and peddling the same junk science?

          • Wow, if this guys ego could be harnessed, we could solve the energy crisis.
            Too bad it’s entirely unjustified.

          • @Scientia Praecepta ( Knowledge with Principles) said …
            You are incorrect and have wandered off topic.
            * I assume you have visited this blog before and know that we often wander off topic. Don’t get your knickers in a twist.
            Then you said …
            Being scientifically illiterate I suggest you refrain from further dialogue as I am not in the habit of having to argue what evidence clearly shows and not what your prejudiced feelings are.
            *The other thing you may have noticed is we do not tolerate continued ad hominem attacks. I noticed from your other comments you have a propensity for this. Is this one of the principles that goes with your name ‘knowledge and principles?
            Sandy, Minister of Future

          • Typical nescient, low-educated con fail! Doesn’t know the meaning of ad hominem so misuses and doesn’t know when and how to apply the word, correctly! What is it with right wingers that they can’t figure out simple English lexicon? Did you all skip third grade and take a job?

          • So this guy, in addition to being an ignorant troll, is also a socialist.
            Why am I not surprised.
            BTW, it’s fascinating how it assumes it knows other people’s political persuasions based solely on whether we agree with it or not.

          • @Scientia Praecepta ( Knowledge with Principles) said …
            Typical nescient, *( i am not lacking in knowledge)
            low-educated *(i have a BsEE)
            con fail! *(This doesnt make sense, prissy)
            Doesn’t know the meaning of ad hominem *( means ‘to the man’, i took 2 yrs latin)
            so misuses and doesn’t know when and how to apply the word, correctly! *( I have not misused it and have applied it correctly indeed, prissy.)
            What is it with right wingers that they can’t figure out simple English lexicon? Did you all skip third grade and take a job? *( your social justice warrior stripes and Antifa badge have addled your brains. Get a life.)
            Sandy, Minister of Future

          • I’m not usually pedantic, but in your case, there should be a comma after “illiterate.”

      • We don’t know what’s unprecedented and what isn’t, because proxy data doesn’t have the temporal resolution to show decadal or even larger time frames. And, proxy data often doesn’t really show what is purported.

        • UAH anomaly data are derived from proxies. This is what this article is about.

          • Even if that were true, it still wouldn’t mean that you can compare yearly data to data that has a resolution of decades to centuries.

          • You are inventing a strawman. The linear trend is not comparing yearly data.

          • But, comparing a recent linear trend, created from high-temporal resolution measurements, with scattered points from thousands or even millions of years ago is not valid. If you cannot legitimately make such comparisons, then you are not warranted to make claims of unprecedented recent trends. Have you recently forgotten everything you supposedly learned 60 years ago?

          • Trends are trends … separation in time is not a factor plus we have the same proxies right through the CWP and modern era. You are creating red herrings and strawman in your quest to chase phantoms.

          • Trends are NOT always trends. Sample a sine wave at theta=0 and then theta=90 deg and again at theta=180 deg and calculate the two trends (end-points 90 & 180) and you will get very different slopes. I’m beginning to suspect that your claimed scientific experience/expertise is all in your mind.

          • Two points define a line. Lacking intermediate points, one does not know what the order of the underlying function is. That is, if historical samples are millions of years apart, you have no idea what your linear fit is ignoring. You appear to be lacking in your understanding of mathematics, or are purposely engaging in sophistry.

          • Fascinating, using yearly data to create a trend, is not using yearly data.
            And to think, this guy actually believes that he is smart.

          • Yearly data were not used. Spencer of UAH provided the trend for the satellite era!

          • I’m pretty sure that Jeff was referring to HISTORICAL proxy data. More formally, the temporal resolution of historical proxy data varies inversely with the age of the data. Thus, the farther one goes back in time, the less certainty there is about rates. For someone to claim that current rates are unprecedented shows that they really don’t understand the principles of earth science, no matter how much they puff up and claim to be an expert.

          • Even with more recent proxy data, there is still smearing between the years that serves to filter the response rate.

          • Surface thermometer data are mostly proxies, too… the effect of temperature on electrical resistance in a wire… And on a tiny spatial scale. Microwave emission for a layer of air at the proper wavelengths is directly proportional to temperature, and one measurement represents an average over about 25,000 cubic km.

          • For that matter, measuring the volume change of a fluid in a cylinder is a proxy for the actual temperature. Emission measurements are probably closer to the actual temperature driver than are electrical resistance measurements or volume change.

        • Exactly. We don’t have anywhere near the data needed to make claims about unprecedented or dangerous or even unnatural. We know next to nothing about what the global climate was up to before the age of weather satellites and they are too new to make any trend evaluation.

          The reality is, climate science is in its infancy and the political activists are strangling it in the crib.

          • Off topic prejudiced feelings are not a substitute for science. When you remedy your aliteracy and cure your scientific illiteracy perhaps then we could have a fruitful discussion.

          • @Scientia Praecepta ( Knowledge with Principles) said …
            Off topic prejudiced feelings are not a substitute for science.
            *And you know this by experiment?
            Then you said …
            When you remedy your aliteracy and cure your scientific illiteracy
            I seriously doubt someone posting on this blog is aliterate or illiterate.
            Then you said …
            perhaps then we could have a fruitful discussion.
            I didn’t know lemons and mangoes were talking to each other this season.
            Sandy, Minister of Future

          • There are a plethora of scientifically aliterate and/or illiterate on WUWT. You are a fine upstanding and shining example!

          • Judging from your arrogant, self-righteous responses, I doubt that any kind of fruitful discussion with you is possible.

          • “Judging from your arrogant, self-righteous responses, I doubt that any kind of fruitful discussion with you is possible.”

            You are correct!

            ScientaPraecepta is the longest running and one of the most dishonest alarmist trolls out there. He claims intellectual superiority yet is unable to counter the most simple facts about climate. He ignores empirical measurements and peer reviewed science with legendary cognitive dissonance. Scientific facts are dismissed as lies so he can claim victory with epic hand waving.

            He has stayed at this for so long with the countless hours invested that I’m convinced he is a paid tool.

          • “perhaps then we could have a fruitful discussion”

            A fruitful discussion is not your objective. Character assasination is your aim.

          • Never happened. Lie smarter. A lie makes you look weak, desperate, and disreputable. Why do you bother to write a lie so easy to verify? A more competent liar will make a fabrication that’s harder to debunk.

          • Scientia Praecepta, will you please stop it with the big words. You are showing yourself to be a buffoon.

          • @Tim Maguire said …
            We know next to nothing about what the global climate was up to before the age of weather satellites and they are too new to make any trend evaluation.
            The Thermometer was invented in 1714. The first crude hygrometer was invented by the Italian Renaissance polymath Leonardo da Vinci in 1480 and a more modern version was created by Swiss polymath Johann Heinrich Lambert in 1755.
            Long before satellites.
            Sandy, Minister of Future

          • HINT: thermometers are not needed to measure the earth’s surface temperature. Now, a person with very basic climatology education would know that! So, I presume you have self-identified yourself as scientifically illiterate on the topic.

        • Jeff: spot on.

          S.P. Compared a short term trend with a smoothed long term trend and made a declarative statement about the short term trend ‘being worse’ or words to that effect.

          Similarly, the hockey stick appended very short term smoothed data to a smoothing of at least a century. Such comparisons and appendages are literally meaningless.

          You may have noticed a comment a few days ago claiming ‘there has been no pause’ showing recent decades with temps smoothed over 61 months. Plotting 1 month smoothing, then 21, then 31, then 41 then 51 and finally 61 month smoothing clearly shows how to hide a 15 year pause. So smoothing can provide two tools for misrepresenting the facts: making a short term claim based on long term smoothing, and comparing different smoothed sets. Rather humorously, one can compare 1 month and 61 month smoothing of recent years and ‘prove’ both are invalid by pointing out the obvious differences between the results. It may make a compelling visual, but it doesn’t make a convincing one because such a comparison is unscientific.

      • You are incorrect Scientia. The rate of warming (or cooling) is very dependent on the time frame considered. It is not unusual to see the globe warming or cooling by 0.2-0.3°C in just a few weeks. You cannot compare a rate over a few decades with a rate over a few millennia. Within those millennia there were shorter periods with faster warming and with cooling. So unless you average the same amount of time, you are just engaged in fallacious argumentation.

        But when we look at the warming rate since 1880, what we see is this:

        Peak decadal warming rates during the late 19th and early 20th centuries were the same as now. It is clear that they do not depend on CO₂ levels. There is no threat to extant life from climate change. Your fears are unfounded.

        • You should stay on topic; I am 100% correct as this is about the UAH data set and their linear trend. Haven’t a clue what data you are looking at as you failed to cite.

          NB: I am in no manner endorsing the validity of UAH data in light of its paast history, hidden code and algorithms!

          • No. You are not referring to UAH when you compare its rate of warming to that of deglaciations to endorse unfounded alarmism. It underscores a deep ignorance of what a deglaciation is.

            I am also 100% correct when I say that the same decadal rates of warming we are experiencing were also experienced in the 1880-1940 period, so they cannot be due to CO₂. Look at the graph I put. 0.4°C/decade took place in 1915. Your argument is specious.

          • I suggest you keep your silliness to yourself about what I am ignorant on. Your opinions are meaningless.

            It is indeed possible to compare the rates of warming with modern data. You act as if climatology is decadal – when it’s shortest period for a baseline is 30 years. I could just as easily have used the rates expressed in century or millennia or years. I stayed with what was presented in this article. The fact remains the current warming trend according to UAH data is 32.5x the mean of the last four natural warming periods. Both include the spread of data around the linear trend line. If you wish to respond – stay on topic otherwise you will be ignored for obfuscation and deflection.

          • Scientia Praecepta

            “when it’s shortest period for a baseline is 30 years.”

            A time period plucked out the air by humans.

            Earth doesn’t conform to man’s time line, it’s the other way around.

            And what empirical evidence do you have that a couple of degrees warming will do mankind any harm?

          • It was not sucked out of the air by humans. Climate scientists settled on that period after much debate. It was so designed such that one full solar cycle would be included in the data. This is about the UAH data that was presented. Your questions can be cured by remedying your aliteracy. There’s a mountain of consilient evidence and a tonne or more of published science papers. If you struggle reading science, as most layperson’s do then use google to find a summary or explanation by a reputable source. WUWT, is not a reputable source for a plethora of reasons. Scotland for its wee size has probably produced more modern scientists and inventors than any other part of the globe. Don’t fail your ancestors.

          • “Climate scientists settled on that period after much debate.”

            That is bullshit. Scientists never settle on anything. The WMO issued a recommendation, but they are meteorologists, not climate scientists. If you run a search for “decadal” and “climate change” you will see climate scientists using any period of time. Heck they also talk about climatic effect of volcanoes when the period considered is less than 5 years. Even the IPCC recognizes this in his glossary:

            “Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands of years.”


          • That is bullshit. Scientists never settle on anything.
            Surely the most ignorant statement of the day. A clear winner and champion. I suppose if I opened a textbook on science according to you I would not find settles science. I don’t see any disagreement about the toxcity of arsenic, pH, SI system of units, etc,, etc.

            Baselines have been in science for as long as I have been involved which is close to six decades. Science aims to standardize so that communication is universal, precise and unambiguous. The 30-year baseline in climatology was already in use, albeit not universally, in the 1960s.

            You find the most mundane issues to nitpick which is the antithesis of a scientific mind.

            BTW: you post lower down supports what I wrote about a linear trend using HADCRUT data back to 1900. Thank you!

          • If you look at science textbooks as “bibles” full of “settled science”… you’re not a scientist because you’re not even willing to question what you’re being told by those who came before you. You’re more of a scribe/pharisee than a scientist. People who simply repeat what they’re told, rather than considering well-formed questions are science-cultists, not truly intellectually curious about what it is they’re talking about.

          • Wow, this troll really does have a high opinion of itself.
            In it’s mind, there’s no chance it can be wrong. Eveer.

          • Looks like my personal troll has his panties in a knot again.
            Do you ever tire of telling lies?

          • Chris: I think yours is the funniest comment about S.P.’s ‘provisions of ‘substance’. He provided a lot of substance alright: B.S. And plenty of it.

            Every post contains ad hominem phrases which is easy proof he is not a real scientist. If you, Chris, are going to handle such ‘substance’ I suggest you wear gloves.

          • Scientia, your ignorance transpires from what you say, and I couldn’t care less if you ignore me. I respond to what I want.

            You cannot meaningfully compare UAH data to measurements prior to satellites. They are not the same thing. HadCRUT4 shows warming prior to CO₂ rapid increase after 1950 was not significantly different to present warming, and in no way related to the increase in CO₂ which is very different.


            It is obvious that:
            – The majority of present warming cannot have been produced by CO₂
            – Present warming is not significantly different to early 20th century warming. Phil Jones himself said so.

          • Scientia Pretentious,

            You said, ” Your opinions are meaningless.” If you really believe that, then why are you bothering to post here? Is it that you want an opportunity to insult those you disagree with? You certainly aren’t presenting anything conducive to a dialog, you are just rejecting what you disagree with by insulting the commenters.

            You are quickly making a reputation for arrogance and combativeness that will lead to you being ignored.

          • Sky Praec
            Do you believe in ice ages? Have you ever heard of them? Or does your Jehovah’s Witness like little book of allowed facts and arguments not include anything so blasphemous? Can’t be too careful, praek – one of the elders might be listening in.

          • scientia, beyond a basic understanding of the scientific method i am largely scientifically illiterate . i can however spot a trolling keyboard warrior when they rear their head here from time to time.

          • A skit from Monty Python’s flying circus. That’s where I have heard this crap before.

          • @Scientia Praecepta ( Knowledge with Principles) said …
            You should stay on topic; I am 100% correct as this is about the UAH data set and their linear trend.
            No, you are not correct. Now i have to wonder, are you aliterate or illiterate? Clearly the title is ‘Global temperature continues to drop from El Nino induced high
            Anthony Watts / 4 hours ago’
            Sandy, Minister of Future

          • Anthony gets a participation ribbon for his hair for writing a snappy title. The meat of the article is shown by the sub heading which you ignore being a dishonest climate fiction devotee!

            From Dr. Roy Spencer:

            UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2018: +0.18 deg. C

          • This is not a moderated panel discussion. As has been pointed out above, historically, there has been considerable off-topic commenting. One can sometimes learn from them, if one has an open mind.

            Only a fanatic theist or mentally insane person is certain that they are “100% correct” about anything [sorry Javier!]. This says a lot about your combative stance.

          • The code has been available for many years at NCDC, and the algorithms published. Please get your facts straight before continuing to spread rumors from Leftist websites.

          • Fix your epistemology issues first. Then start again at primary school; 20 years later you might have a chance at understanding the first thing about science.

          • Weak people like yourself project. It is cathartic for you but meaningless to others.

          • OK Chris, you tell us how to create a chart with ten year smoothing that ends in 2018. I am interested to see how you do it.

      • Bloody nonsense. Until the advent of satellite-based temperature observation in 1979, the historic temperature record is a cocked-up mess and is completely unreliable.

        Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1917-1950 are reliable?

        You don’t really expect a rational person to believe that people were making accurate daily observations all over Russia during the Revolution or during the Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad?

        Do you honestly believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable?

        Do you really expect anybody to believe that accurate daily temperatures were recorded in China during the Revolution or “The Great Leap Forward?”

        Do you seriously believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-1975 are accurate?

        Please don’t tell us you think accurate daily temperature recordings were made in Sub-Saharan Africa during any part of the 19th century and most of the 20th.

        Do you really believe that oceanic temperatures from, say 1800-1970 are accurate? ( as we know, the oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface).

        Do you really believe there were accurate daily temperature observations made in the Bering Sea or the Weddell Sea or in the middle of the Pacific at any time before the advent of satellite observations in 1979?

        Are you kidding me?

        All this is even prior to considering the GISS homogenization adjustments or the adjustments made for the UHI effect.

        • John Garrett

          Then there’s unrecorded daily temperatures when people forgot/couldn’t be bothered to take them because it was just an exercise before climate change became an issue.

          Then there’s Stephenson screens all over the world built with different materials, painted with varying types of paint, if they were maintained at all.

          Then, of course, there’s their locations, utterly ignored until the good Mr. Watt’s pointed out that UHI’s/air conditioning units/furnaces/trees/buildings etc. were/are a major problem.

          Then there’s lazy scientists sending the tea boy out to take readings.

          Then there’s the tea boys who didn’t bother going out in the rain/snow/blistering heat and just recorded the previous days temperature.

          Then there’s tall scientists/tea boys who wouldn’t bother bending down to take a thermometer reading accurately. And short scientists/tea boys who did.

          Then there’s ice core samples without the resolution of even a mercury thermometer.

          Then there’s paleo records with even worse resolution than ice core samples.

          Then cabin boys told to chuck a bucket over the side of a ship and take the temperature. If/when he could be bothered/wasn’t too busy/had the education to record temperatures.

          Then there’s the location of the ship when the cabin boy did the bucket chucking. Completely random on any particular journey springs to mind.

          Then there’s the single shipping routes along which the boat, the bucket chucking cabin boy was on, plied. The rest of the oceans going entirely unrecorded other than by random chance.

          As you might guess, I could go on.

          This all leaves an awful lot of room for homogenisation of data over the last few hundred years, yet are expected to believe temperatures can be calculated down to a decimal?

          I seriously doubt they can be relied upon to provide temperatures to within a whole degree.

          But technology came to the rescue, didn’t it?

          Other than calibration of different types of digital thermometers in different countries across different manufacturers.

          Differing protocols for maximum and minimum daily temperatures of between a single second and a minute to the best of my knowledge (Jo Nova has written extensively on this subject).

          Satellites with drift problems, calibration problems, updated models with different technologies on board etc.

          It seems there is more homogenisation than there is accurate, raw data.

          The End.

          • HotScot
            Agreed. The hocky stick occurred along with the satellite era.
            The measurements went from covering a very small part of the earth to all of the surface using a different process.
            What could possibly go wrong.
            The previous method had no chance of adequately recording the equator to pole heat transport. Now it’s called polar amplification.

          • It is also important to understand at what time of the year ocean heat release occurs. It affects where the heat goes to, and the anomaly effects. The same volume of heat release at different times of the year can have a significant impact on anomalies.

          • There’s also the issue of changing buckets over time, canvas, wooden, metal.

            There’s also the issue of ships going faster, giving less time for the bucket to sink before the walking cabin has to pull it back up before walking off the aft end of the boat.

          • All accurate to the 1/10th of a degree and ample for making egregious govt policy of tax and starvation.

        • Oh yes, all of these data-sets are precise to the 1/10th of a degree and we must base govt policy on said statistics. C’mon, get with the LEFTISM already!

        • I’d be more concerned about temperature readings for Sub-Saharan Africa since independence than during the days of the colonial European empires, say, 1880 to 1960.

      • Scientia, it’s chicken little statements like this post full of excrement that irritate me so.

        First, science is completely unable TO SEPARATE OUT NATURAL FORCINGS!!!!! You pulled that 200x number out of a particular orifice.

        Second, anyone with knowledge knows that there is no way to know where temperature will go in the future. Unless, of course, you are that time traveler that, “SNORT”, passed the lie detector exam.

        Third, the degree of confidence you show making such smelly statements tell me that you are either living in mom’s basement or in an ivory tower. Nowadays they are one and the same.

      • So because we can calculate the mean warming rate of the last four glacial to interglacial, we know the fastest per-decade rate the earth has ever experienced in its history?

      • “It’s not T or δT but δT⋅δt⁻¹ which is an unprecedented”
        You claim that δT⋅δt⁻¹ were recorded 200 ago, or that we somehow have a way to reconstruct now δT⋅δt⁻¹ from 200 ago.
        massive LOL, which paint you as a man with total disregard for the most basic facts, and ruin all your comment from the very start.

        “The linear trend rate” … is good for a linear system, which the climate is not. It is CHAOTIC, for god sake, so says the IPCC. the linear trend is just worth nothing.
        massive LOL, which paint you as a man with total ignorance of math (although not the most basic, for truth), and confirm the worthlessness of your comment.

        “The rate is a threat to extant life adaption and survival.”
        This is just silly and wrong. All living being survive very well to 40° change in temperature in day, or even in few minutes, as you would know if you got out of your room sometime. Do you?
        BTW, on this graph you’ll see a +0.8° in 5 years (from bottom 1993 to top 1998). Life adaptation and survival didn’t cared, of course, as no specie caring to live in a narrow temperature band just never made it to present time.
        yet another confirmation of the worthlessness of your comment.

        ” So “less than one degree” was glib, misleading and nescient.”
        So say the ignorant ignoramus ignoramissus “Scientia Praecepta”. Well, just because such ignorant as you says it doesn’t mean this is false, but, forgive us if we don’t trust you.

        • Belief is what gets the scientifically illiterate into trouble. GL is not suitable as a proxy for the planet as it is a maritime island surrounded by the ocean with polar amplitude. The data are suitable for GL regional analyses.

          • We have to believe some data or else we have nothing. What data do you believe? You haven’t presented any data. Greenland is much closer to the USA, Canada, Europe and Asia than is Antarctica. It should be more representative of Climate in the northern hemisphere than is Antarctica. Be careful who you are calling scientifically illiterate. You are using name calling rather than scientific facts. And what are your credentials?

          • I don’t need belief. There is a mountain of consilient evidence with a tonne of published peer reviewed papers.

          • He carries his credentials in his head. He wasn’t willing to even state where he supposedly taught, when asked directly. Something about he would have to kill himself if he told us.

          • Greenland is a bit more than an “island!” One might make similar complaints about peninsulas, or the southern tips of Africa or South America, or even Central America with respect to the influence of the oceans. One has to work with what is available, and a point in the middle of Antarctic isn’t very representative either. “Me thinks she doth complain too much!”

      • I have never seen data for previous interglacial periods that is of sufficient temporal resolution to infer that current dT/dt is 200X what it was then. I would be most interested if you could provide a reference to your data source(s).

        • Neither have I. That is not what I wrote. You may wish to reread my comment and try again!

          • So you are retracting your claim that current rate of temperature increase is unprecedented? Or are you just a hypocrite?

          • Take your time. Be thorough. Then come back and either show where I used the word “unprecedented” or apologize for lying, once again! Please proceed …

            My prediction is that it is a spineless scumbag and it will either stay silent or return and pivot off topic with deflection.

          • You used the word “unprecedented” regarding the rate of increase here
            “It’s not T or δT but δT⋅δt⁻¹ which is an unprecedented 200x ”

            My observation is that “it is a spineless scumbag and it will either stay silent or return and pivot off topic with deflection.” is psychological projection, straw in the eye etc.
            Note you already stayed silence at my previous reply. Checked.

      • Well SP does know how to lie with statistics. It’s mandatory training for AGW trolls these days.
        You can’t compare current rates with the proxies, because the proxies are all low pass filtered.

        • Hello MarkW.

          Below is Felix conversing with this troll.
          recommend you do not feed monkey at zoos or Trolls. Especially ones that are only able to reply at the level of a “Bot”

          June 6, 2018 6:49 pm
          It’s not an opinion, but a fact.

          If what you mean to say, as I suppose is the case, “The Rules of Science”, rather than “Science Rules”, then it’s obvious to even a first year Latin student that the correct formulation is “praecepta scientiam”.

          Attaching the noun “praecepta” to the noun “scientia”, without declension, is a blatantly obvious grammatical error.

          Your medical school must not have cared very much about the quality of your Latin.

          0 ReplyJune 6, 2018 6:54 pm
          In brief, you stuck together two words in the nominative case, one of which must in Latin be genitive.

          Which anyone with even a grade school knowledge of Latin would know


          • What is interesting is that this troll has also claimed to have a BsEE degree, but doesn’t mention an MD.

            So which is the lie, the bachelor’s EE or doctor of medicine? Or did he drop out of med school?

            But, you’re right. Better just not to feed the troll.

      • You rarely see someone put so much effort into non sequitur. Must be the result of brainwashing. This is the most easily squanched of cultist memes.

        Stadial to interstadial temperature change is thought to be up to 12.5 C per century = 1.25 C per decade. 1.25 > 0.13

        The cultist method must be to divide the entire temperature difference with the entire 120,000 year stadial/interstadial cycle.

        • Basic Earth and Climate science failure. Stadials and interstadials are not the same as glacial and interglacials. Come back when you have some knowledge on the topic as there is a one to two orders of magnitude difference in time. And no, there are no 12.5°C⋅century⁻¹ interstadials/stadials or interglacials/glacials. An uneducated rookie and science illiterate strikes again!

      • Scientia Praecepta

        Your original claim at the top is based in UAH data (as presented), as you do realize and accept that, as per the further comments or replies of yours in this thread.

        Please can you tell me whether your claim it is based or not in the first ~30 years of the UAH temp data?

        The other thing when regarding UAH data is that discarding, disregarding and ignoring the longer temp trend data, not the satellite one, subjects your claim and position to an intentional “cherry picking” attempt as per an accommodation of a straw-man argument point served.

        I suspect that you over rely in the first UAH (~30 year) period data in temps,,, is this so…or not?

        Inquiring minds wont to know… 🙂 (if you could bother to explain)

        If you really did rely as per above, in regard to UAH temp data, then you got a very weak point standing on, unless further attempt to explain…..

        Besides, UAH temp data is not “adjusted”, “biased” and not mature enough when the clause of “climate form” or “climate format”, considered in the regard of UAH temp data, very much subject of to short term variability effect….

        Anyway, as far as I can tell if you relying mostly in the first part of UAH data as presented, I very much doubt that you really have a sound argument or case as presented.

        Hopefully you engage with this, provided that you read this first….

        Still, what I think you trying is simply a clever attempt to use a proof of invalidation and falsification, or a proof of nullification of and towards AGW, as a valid support of AGW in a backward and circular reasoning….by relying in the first part of UAH temp data, in a very much “cherry pick” modus operandi manner.

        Oh well I could very well be all wrong in all this, when addressing you and your argument, so please do try to show me where I could be wrong in this, if I am wrong.

        Thank you in advance!

        • Is English not your native tongue? I ask because I don’t fully grasp what you’re trying to express/request. Maybe you should take a few deep breaths and break it down into smaller manageable units for yourself. Or switch to your native tongue – I can do several European languages.

          • Scientia Praecepta


            Oh, ok, my comment maybe too long, but you see, from my position your reply to me, says that you trying and avoid the point I put forward.

            Put simply, the time period you chose to rely in the position of your point made, as per UAH data, coincides with a very significant and strong enough tropical warming signal, as far as I am concerned and my knowledge permits.

            Are you aware of it or not, or am I actually misunderstanding you?

            Which is which?

            Plain simple English.

            Can you answer this simple one question, without this language innuendos of yours.

            Again, the time period you rely on, consist as very much with a significant strong Tropical warming signal as per satellite temp data, again are you or are you not aware of this????? (Tropical, not global)

            Please there is no need for void provocations.

            Thanks again in advance.

            If you still fail to understand my English, please do point out clearly what you fail to understand, if you care or still could bother to reply to this,,,,, but please stop playing silly.


          • Anthony Watts

            You might want to dial back your commenting style a bit, you are getting quite bossy with other commenters.

            Just for clarification, who is the above reply of yours addressed at-to?
            if not much to ask… I am not very clear!


          • I am still not confidant what you are asking! Let me simplify it for you!

            I took the information provided by Roy Spencer and compared it with the mean of the last four glacial to interglacial warming periods, period! What I did is not unusual and freely available information. Hopefully that answers your issues.

  1. Already had 3 people email me with the news there is a hurricane in the Pacific. To which I respond no, there is a tropical storm in Pacific, 65mph wind does not a hurricane make. I fondly remember the hoopla about how the Earth is going to burn up because El Nino. Temps only ever go up, don’t ya know!

  2. Dare I suggest that El Niño has something to do with the Indonesian section of the Ring of Fire? We don’t seem to hear very much about that.

  3. Here in Europe it feels like the temperature drop has been greater.
    In Spain for instance, June is usually hot. But yesterday was almost like winter in several parts of the country. We’ve had many days like this since the beginning of Spring.

    Granted, it may be quite different globally.

    • In general, cold spots and warm spots compensate so there is very little global change. Night and day and the seasons compensate over different parts of the world, so the temperature of the globe is pretty constant. Over the past 5 millennia, the globe has been cooling at a rate of ~ 0.2°C/millenium, and this is a very significant cooling that has made glaciers advance over most parts of the world. Locally or decadal or centennial temperature variations are larger, but the globe is capable of maintaining its temperature very constant over millennia. Deglaciations and specially glaciations happen very slowly and imply changes of ~3-5°C over a period of many thousand years. Clearly what gives the globe its thermal stability are its huge oceans. Global warming is a non-issue. A fad. The next glaciation is ~4000 years away. In the meantime we will have many periods of warming and cooling.

    • In my part of North America. it felt like August last week and it feels like early May this week. I went from considering putting out the pilot light on the furnace to considering turning on the heat in 2 days. That’s the way it goes.

  4. 27 months of cooling that have resulted in –0.2°C in yearly average surface temperature anomaly. Not a record, but not negligible either. The cooling has been slow, about half the rate of the 2015-16 El Niño warming, but there are no signs that it is stopping. The most important thing is that this cooling is not what has been predicted by models.

    I’ll update the figure next month, but is getting awfully close to be outside the 95% range.

    And the Pause is within reach, perhaps in a year:

    • Hi Javier
      Thanks for the temperature chart HadCRUT4 above that shows show the position at Feb 2018 (to be updated) with the reference to 1.5C above per-industrial. This is very rarely shown but is a key alarmist position.

      Temperature charts in anomalies are not well understood especially by lay people. I emailed the head scientist at one of our key weather / climate centers that also advise government and asked, what the base temperature was for the 1.5C alarm and how far are we from the 1.5C point. They did not know, despite being one of the major public alarmists regarding CO2.

      If you ask anyone how close we are to the 1.5C “tipping point” very few would know. I would recommend that this chart be updated for general circulation for all WUWT visitors. I would appreciate an updated copy that includes the model forecasts to present to a newly formed government climate action group hell bent on industrial and farming CO2 constraint.
      With regards
      martin at

    • Can’t you read?
      “Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). ”
      the graph is not about global temperature. It is about global “anomaly”, that is, average of area “anomalies”, themselves difference of area temperature and area average.
      Must be taken with a grain of salt, but not “fake”.

      • Well, they can either put a thermometer on your forehead, or take multiple readings all over your body and take an average. As long as you haven’t been holding a cold beverage in one or both hands, (and drinking said beverage(s)) the average will probably be pretty close to ear temperature of the typical hot head.

        • I see. So for some complex bodies you can take even a single temperature and know that the entire body’s temp is going up, but with the earth there is no temperature and we can’t possibly know if there are any trends.

          Strange world we live in. Fake doctors. There is no body temp.

          • Alley, actually there are many body temperatures. The question is whether any of them (such as rectal temperature) is better at diagnosing the condition of the body than others (such as temperatures of the fingers). The other question is whether an average temperature is superior to a single temperature for purposes of diagnosis. Certainly for a human body, it would seem that a single reliable reading of the core temperature is superior to various temperature readings of appendages. Which leads to an interesting question, which is, “Might a single location on Earth provide a better estimate of long-term temperature changes than many temperatures obtained from a poor sampling protocol and instruments of variable quality and accuracy? What comes to mind is borehole temperatures.

  5. Shhhhhhhh! Greenie heads will ‘splode, and I’m getting sick and tired of all the green goo everywhere! I keep going through bottles of “Goo Gone”.

  6. Simple visual inspection of the UAH temperature chart shows that dangerous man-made global warming is a myth. Global temperatures fell over the period from the mid 1940s to the mid 1970s so apart from a few years in the late 1970s the above graph spans the entire era of alleged man made global warming. According to the UN IPCC’s computer climate models this alleged man made global warming should occur at a slow but steady rate of about 0.2ºC or more per decade.

    It is surely obvious that there no discernible trace of any such slow but steady man-made global warming in the 39-year graph. The rapid fluctuations between warming and cooling are entirely natural as they map onto the ENSO Multivariate Index. Global warming of about 0.4ºC did occur during the 1980s and 90s through the turn of the century, lifting the planet to a new thermal equilibrium which has more or less endured through ups and downs to the present time. However this was clearly due to the ratcheting effect of a series of strong, sunlight-fuelled, warming El Ninos, notably the 1994 95 El Nino which was followed by a very weak cooling La Nina, then the huge 1998 El Nino which was cancelled by its following La Nina but was then followed by another El Nino with a very weak following La Nina. These ENSO events have nothing to do with man made CO2. Note that the warming rate of the 1998 El Nino spike was about 0.8ºC in less than a year, over forty times the predicted rate of man made CO2 warming.

    While climate boffins argue amongst themselves about arcane technicalities like Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, this simple analysis cuts through the fog of uncertainties to give a consensus-busting conclusion that is very hard to dismiss.

  7. So by this new NBER study American kids are getting smarter by the month…..

    American Students Don’t Learn Well When It’s Hot Outside
    Warmer school years reduced test scores, especially for low-income and minority students, study says

    A new study suggests hot weather makes it harder for high-school students to learn, a potentially growing concern in a warming world.

    The study, circulated by the National Bureau of Economic Research in May as a working paper by Mr. Goodman and three other researchers, linked weather-station data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with test data from the College Board, which administers the PSAT to high-school students, usually in the 10th and 11th grade, each fall.

    • That’s why we give the kids the Summer off. We don’t want them to have a heat stroke while reading.

  8. It’s almost +0.5 degrees C. warmer than in 1979.
    That is conclusive proof of runaway global warming.
    Certainly good enough for government work.
    Does anyone know where I can go to get a government
    grant to publish my new climate science paper:
    “Previous Estimates of Climate Change Doom
    Were Too Conservative: Head For the Hills Now!”
    My climate blog:

  9. ENSO , is not the reason why the temperatures of the oceans and the globe as a whole are dropping.

    The REAL reason is due to the very low solar activity we have had for 10+ years now and within this sub solar activity the very low average solar parameters we now have in year 2018. Year 2018 being a transitional year. T his is the first time since the Dalton solar minimum ended that solar is sufficiently low to have a major climatic impact.

    I have been saying this for years. Very low solar equates to overall lower sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo which in turn will equate to lower over all global temperatures. A weakening geo magnetic field compounding the solar effects.

    I have been saying this for years and ENSO is not the answer this time. If anything if you want to talk oceanic influence on global temperatures look to the North Atlantic which has cooled considerably.

    As long as solar stays in the tank this cooling trend will be continuing.

    Climate scientist could not see a change in a climatic trend coming if it starred them in the face. They as a whole are useless, all they do is promote AGW.

    Maybe this can finally put an end to AGW theory which is a shame.

  10. How does CO2 cause El Ninos and La Ninas, warming and cooling of the oceans? If you can’t explain that, you can’t explain the temperature variation, and you can’t blame CO2 for the climate change. Explain the oceans and you explain climate change, and CO2 isn’t involved. Visible radiation warms the oceans, not LWIR. Also, the oceans are recently COOLING. No way can an increase in CO2 cause the oceans to cool.

  11. With the discussion getting into rate of warming or Cooling I would call attention to this recent post by Renee …
    Long term climate change is my concern also, but more immediately, the next 30 winters.
    Up until two weeks ago I was thinking we are coming into a grand solar minimum. But I’ve reconsidered after rereading some articles on skeptic climate blogs. I now believe we entered a ‘Micro- IceAge’ in 2004 when Bob Weber’s fig.10 showed a drop in 10.7 cm solar flux, leading to ocean cooling. I’m calling this a ‘Micro’ because I don’t expect it to last more than solar cycle 24, 25, and 26. Then there will be 7 years to transition back to warmer global temps, but cooler than now, mabe 13 C; say by 2050.
    During the Little Ice Age the temperature dropped about half a degree globally. As you can see from the Delingpole essay, it has dropped by 0.56 degrees already.
    This is what we can expect starting from last Dec; some winters early and extremely cold, some wet cool springs to kill crops, later spring frost dates, some cold summers, and more frequent and severe storms. The storminess index went from 6.5 to 14 during the LIA. This slide into cold is showing up in German weather station records where the last 30 yrs of winter (DJF) are trending -19 dgC per 1000 yrs, much faster than the slow decline to normal glacials, -0.7 per thousand yrs. Also the USHCN chart of summer max for the last hundred yrs shows -13 C per thousand yrs trend. Ground Station solar insolation shows a cooling trend from 2000 of about -10 watts per meter squared per decade. So after this Micro Ice Age we may just keep stair stepping down for the next four thousand years.
    Sandy, Minister of Future

  12. Global temperature continues to drop – I’m sure the Guardian will report this as ‘HOTTEST FIRST TUESDAY IN JUNE – EVER’

    • Those reports from Heller are the funniest things. Unadjusted May 23 temps above 95°F in small-city KS are showing a downward trend.

      What he forgets is that global temps mean global. For every small town declining trend there are 2+ small town rising trends. For every city drop there are 2+ city increases.

      And what’s with Watts pretending that the temps don’t fall between El Nino? I guess he is avoiding showing a trend between El Nino years. Or showing the trend between La Nina years.

      If the Guardian reports on warm temps, it will be for the month for a large portion or the entirely of the Earth. Leave cherry picking to Heller and Watts.

      • A lot of insults being hurled here lately. WUWT and Heller must be over the target.

        Amber, you should go over to Heller’s website and argue with him a little. You might learn something.

        • How it is insulting to point out that a single day’s temperature at a single location is not the globe? Seems that a lot of people are uncomfortable with what some of their heroes are writing.

          Go ahead, graph the El Nino years. Warming. Graph the La Nina years. Warming. Graph urban stations. Warming. Graph rural stations. Warming.

          You would not be able to tell the difference with most of those.

          Seems I hit a nerve with people who aren’t getting that the earth is warming and it’s not the sun.

          Amber, you should go to Heller’s site and see hw many times he posts about a single station.

          • Heller addressed this “Hottest May Evah!” on his website today. You should read it and if you have any questions just ask Tony, he will be able to help you.


            Btw, Hansen 1999 shows 1934 as being 0.5C hotter than 1998, which makes 1934 0.4C hotter than 2016, the supposed “Hottest Year Evah”. So which one is the real “hottest year evah”? Keep in mind that the temperatures have been cooling since 2016.

            Here’s a pertinent quote from Heller’s article:

            “They must have forgotten their standard “the US is only 2% of the planet” line. May did have the highest average temperature on record in the US (a burning hot 66F or 19C) – but it didn’t rank in the top ten for the number of hot days.

            May 1934 had more than twice as many hot days as May 2018. Also note that the previous three Mays were very cool, with May 2015 being the coolest.

            During May 1934, the Dust Bowl regions were close to 110 degrees. This year they struggled to reach 90.”

            end excerpt

            There is no comparison between 1934 and 2018 heatwise. 2018 is a “walk in the park” in comparison.

    • When I look at the time-depth-temperature chart for the north Atlantic from ARGO data, I don’t see solar influence. I see cooling from depth influencing surface conditions.

  13. Seems to be a different story over at NOAA’s CAG. While the departures here (going back to Oct 2017 – leaving out May, as it’s not up yet at CAG), we have: +0.63, +0.36, +0.41, +0.26, +0.25, +0.21.

    @ CAG, the anomalies for the same months are, +0.73, +0.77, +0.81. +0.70, +0.68, +0.84, +0.83.

    Quite a difference.


    UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2018: +0.18 deg. C [for LT = Lower Troposphere]

    Thank you again Roy Spencer and John Christy.

    My note:
    This down slightly from 0.21C in April 2018 but is still 0.18C higher than my prediction of 4+ months ago of 0.0C.

    Isn’t it annoying when the planet just refuses to cooperate perfectly with one’s prediction? 🙂

  15. Thank goodness the long-term trend is still slightly positive. I like a warmer climate regime. Thank you God.

  16. This question is to Mr. Nick Stokes. Nick if you can ever shake your religious fervor we skeptics would warmly welcome you to the truth because you have proved you are an excellent digger of info and fact checker. The problem is that your belief in global warming is blinding you to all the evidence that IT ISNT HAPPENING . My question to you is if the UAH satellite temps now show + 0.18, let us round that up to +0.2 to help the alarmist cause’ Ok that means the full range 2 * 0.2 = + 0.4 increase in ~ 40 years. So 0.1 per decade or 1 C in a century. Since the UAH staellite data dont show any accerelation of warming and moreover it shows cycling of warming and cooling why do you think that this 0.1C increase per decade would get any worse? 1C per century is certainly nothing to worry about and indeed in Canada we would like higher increases in temperature. Nick why do you like things so cold? It is insanity to spend trillions of dollars to make the climate colder than it already is. And that assumes that we can vary the temp by using CO2 as a control knob as you fervently believe. Again why are you afraid of a 1C increase for a 100 year period?

    • ” 2 * 0.2 = + 0.4 increase in ~ 40 years. So 0.1 per decade or 1 C in a century”
      Well, you can’t work out a 40 year trend using just one month’s data. But UAH give the trend on the data file linked, at 0.13 °C/decade. Most other measures are around 0.18 or so in that period. For my part, I think the satellite numbers based on microwave soundings are less reliable.

      But the fundamental issue is, there is a strong scientific argument that adding CO2 to the air will cause warming. We’ve done it, and it warmed. And what we’ve burnt is only a small fraction of the amount that we could burn.

      I’m sure warming would be welcomed in Canada (though maybe not the forest fires). Where I am, we don’t need it, and certainly not the fires. And there are hotter places. But generally, changing the climate is a serious matter, with all sorts of ramifications. You need to think before you do it.

      • Nick,

        Warming since we’ve added CO2 to the air is no different from warming cycles before we enriched the atmosphere with more vital plant food.

        Indeed, for the first 32 years after WWII, we added CO2 steadily, yet Earth cooled dramatically. Then the PDO flipped in 1977, and our planet began to warm slightly. Then in this century, global temperature, as nearly as it can be measured, has stayed flat, but for the 2016 El Nino, the warming effect of which is now being transmitted to space.

        Thus, there is no evidence of global warming caused by increasing man-made CO2 levels. To imagine that conjecture is to commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. All the evidence shows that adding more CO2 has had no effect on temperature, although it has noticeably greened the planet.

        Since there is a (poorly named) “greenhouse effect”, net feedbacks must be negative, which is what should be expected on a homeostatic water world.

        • Only a science historian could make such a basic science error to glibly refer to aerial CO₂ as plant food. CO₂ is NOT plant food! “Food” is properly understood as a SOURCE of Gibbs Free Energy. CO₂ is not that as it has no chemical energy to convert. It is an aerial fertilizer and a necessary building block that plants use to MAKE food from sunlight. CO₂ without the other biogeochemical, photo and temperature autotrophic drivers and the right plant types i.e. C₃ has zero effect.

          • Your idi0tic denial that CO2 is involved in photosynthesis (google is your friend) eclipses and denial of AGW that you jowlflap about. We’re you involved in David Attenborough’s decision to never say the word “photosynthesis” in his entire program about plants on earth? You’re in the same gang of thieves I guess. It won’t work. Most primary school children know that CO2 is needed by plants and all life, a big ask to cover that up.

          • You obviously don’t read as well as the school children or have their knowledge. You are deft at creating strawmen and deflections. Nowhere do I deny CO₂ photosynthesis especially when I wrote “It (CO₂) is an aerial fertilizer and a necessary building block that plants use to MAKE food from sunlight.

            Liar, don’t bother responding – I ignore spineless, pathological lying buffoons like you!

          • OMG, how pedantic. On what planet is ” “Food” is properly understood as a SOURCE of Gibbs Free Energy. “?
            food is understood as a thing you absorb on a daily basis to sustain your life, and that’s it. As wikipedia “Food is any substance consumed to provide nutritional support for an organism. ”
            It is is a nutrient, and CO2 is for plant, it is a food. Period. No matter if it brings energy or require energy to be turned into useful chemical.
            Hell, we even count salad and like as food, while only consuming energy and bringing zero nutrients.
            People just don’t know that “Gibbs Free Energy” even exist. And even people knowing about GFE don’t know what it means; and that includes YOU, it seems to me.

            And you better stop talking as if you knew something about plant biology and effect of enriched CO2 on growth, you obviously don’t. You are again making a fool of yourself

          • Thank you for sharing your vast lack of knowledge. Science uses precise and unambiguous terminology which you consider to be pedantic out of your lack of education and knowledge. And no, CO₂ is not plant food it has zero joules. Try that it is a food on your HS science paper and you will fail!

            Gibbs Free Energy (G) – The energy associated with a chemical reaction that can be used to do work.

          • sarcasm works only in special condition you obviously don’t meet. As it is, you are just, again, making a fool of yourself.
            Actually, CO2 has less than 0 joules as food for plant, since plant (or just every other autotroph, depending on chemical energy instead of light) must process it and bring energy to turn it into sugar. So you fail again, when emphasis on a zero that is a wrong figure. Thank you for proving your pedantry, with emphasis on a concept you can name and link to, but obviously aren’t able to use correctly.

            But you have a point. “Science uses precise and unambiguous terminology”, indeed. And you’ll find out that IPCC is just incapable of stating a precise and unambiguous definition of greenhouse effect. Too bad for a so-called science. Thoroughly looking at latest report I’ll found two incompatible definitions, not precise enough anyway to just answer basic question… So much for your “science”.

          • Deflection and name calling. Not surprised you act the way you claim others do, like, here

            You already did with your answer (that is, lack of!) to the evidence you were wrong, again.
            Now, a sensible man would apology for calling other liar when they actually were truthful, but will you? I have no prejudice… just an educated guess from previous experience.

      • Always a pleasure to read your simple albeit accurate summation. I notice many of the climate fiction devotees like to call themselves skeptics as they write tomes of junk science not realizing that to be a skeptic one needs to be an expert first. Thank you for your steady wisdom and knowledge.

          • You do not have the expertise necessary to put substance behind your drivel. I admire your braggadocio and hopefully you are not too badly hurt when your infantile delusions implode someday.

          • Scientia Praecepta, your comment is from a pedantic young graduate with very high mark. You surely can learn what was taught to you, and perfectly parrot it, and that’s enough for you too feel superior and able to lecture all around. If you had begun to use your brain on your own, you wouldn’t be so, meaning you didn’t, meaning your graduation is not far in time. And you have time to lose here, instead of working or caring for some woman.
            Well, you’ll grow up, at some point. Hopefully.

            The fact is, YOU don’t have the expertise to know whether other have, or not, “expertise necessary to put substance behind your drivel”.
            The fact is, to have expertise necessary to put substance behind YOUR drivel, would require you breaking the forecasting limitation from chaos, a feat currently conjectured impossible and worthy of Field Medal + several Nobel (pretty much all of them, actually) + someone getting the richest man on Earth using your technique. Obviously not true.

          • There more truth in this tried sarcasm that you would, indeed.
            Now show me a sensible definition of greenhouse effect, will you? Should be easy for such a lecturer as you. Not a description, there are plenty of them. A definition, that could be used to answer very basic question of the “is this phenomenon part of GHE, or not?” kind. You won’t, because IPCC doesn’t.

      • sensible comment, but strawman: most people here accept that GHG, including CO2, are a component of heat transfer between ground and atmosphere, and that more of it will result in a warming action.
        The whole point is, whether this warming action is of relevant importance enough to be actually seen. You say it is, but you cannot prove it nor quantify it, and the observed current warming is just alike past warming where the postulated action was absent. So the hypothesis just doesn’t survive Occam’s razor.

      • I know you are well informed Nick, so a question: How will the air temperature trend be able (over the long term) to exceed the ARGO upper (2000m) ocean temperature trend of about 0.3K/century? Because it seems to me that oceans will ultimately dominate and clamp the rate at which the air temperature can rise.

  17. Global warming is a red herring to keep you smart folks occupied while the gentry rape the planet. The damage done by the jackals in power will be long past remedy by the time anyone gets their head out. Global warming will not be a problem when the demand for population control hits the street. Like caribou we have grown to occupy the available food supply (enabled by unlimited cheap energy) and like caribou we will all die off in the coming energy winter. The debate is pointless. Deal with a problem that matters.

Comments are closed.