UAH Global Temperature Report: June 2018

Global Temperature Report: June 2018
Global climate trend since Dec. 1 1978: +0.13 C per decade
June Temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.21 C (+0.38 °F) above seasonal average
Northern Hemisphere.: +0.38 C (+0.68 °F) above seasonal average
Southern Hemisphere.: +0.04 C (+0.07 °F) above seasonal average
Tropics.: +0.12 C (+0.22 °F) above seasonal average

May Temperatures (revised)
Global composite temp.: +0.18 C (+0.32 °F) above seasonal average
Northern Hemisphere.: +0.40 C (+0.72 °F) above seasonal average
Southern Hemisphere.: -0.05 C (-0.09 °F) below seasonal average
Tropics.: +0.03 C (+0.05 °F) above seasonal average

Notes on data released July 2, 2018

The global temperature anomaly for June 2018 changed only slightly from May. Indeed the first six months of 2018 have been steady, varying in a narrow range between +0.26 and +0.18 °C. As noted last month, NOAA’s indication that an El Niño is coming this winter appears on track as we see tropical temperatures continue to inch upward.

The seasonally-adjusted chilliest spot on the Earth was -3.5 °C (-6.3 °F) below average in the Ross Sea off West Antarctica while the relative warmest was +5.1 C (+9.2 °F) southwest of Saskylakh in northern Russia. In addition to northern Russia, other warmer than average regions included northern Europe, most of North America and portions of Antarctica. It was cooler than average in Kazakhstan, eastern Canada, Australia and Argentina.

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

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

The complete version 6 lower troposphere dataset is available here:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

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

— 30 —

Advertisements

174 thoughts on “UAH Global Temperature Report: June 2018

  1. Still high but global temperatures and overall sea surface temperatures are in a down trend in 2018 in comparison to last year. I think year 2018 is the transitional year into a different climate ,either a climate shift similar to 1977 or maybe a climate regime change over the next few years which has not occurred since 1850.

    I also think if the climate does not become cooler now – next few years that it will not occur because right now we have natural factors favoring cooling. Year 2018 being key because solar has met my two conditions which are low average value solar parameters , following 10+ years of sub solar activity in general .

    This is a climate test that is now taken place. Low solar compounded by a weakening geo magnetic field versus increasing CO2 and it’s so called positive feedbacks.

    It is going to be interesting moving forward from here.

    Watching the North Atlantic and adjacent areas with interest because this part of the globe potentially could have a big influence on the climate for the entire globe.

    ENSO is transient and at best I see a very weak El NINO .

  2. Unfortunately the world has only 1 data collecting process on tropospheric temperatures that both sides can agree on. THIS ONE. All others have been tampered with and homogenized beyond believability. So for 40 years the UAH has been collecting statistics. Unfortunately the start date of 1979 was in a cooler period but us skeptics will have to live with that. So since the latest global figure is +.21C over 40 year average, we have to double that since it is a + average. That gives 0.42 over 40 years. Which is 0.105 per decade or 1.05C per century. I can gladly take an increase of 1C per century. The alarmists are going to say that this will increase drastically. We shall see.

    • O.21C is the June 2018 difference from the 30 year (1981-2010) average for June in UAH. As it states at the top of the post, the decadal rate over ‘all’ months in UAH is 0.13C/decade, or 1.3C/century since 1979.

      Like UAH, RSS TLT also collects and processes satellite data to infer tropospheric temperatures. The trend since 1979 in RSS TLT over all months is 1.9 C/century.

      The discrepancy between the trends in the UAH and RSS TLT satellite data sets is far larger than that between any of the surface data sets over the same period. Clearly TLT temperatures are ‘not’ agreed upon, even by their respective producers. One or the other (or both) is wrong.

    • Do you think the previous UAH data set (version 5) was “tampered with and homogenized beyond believability”?

      If UAH 6 is the only set both “sides” agree on, it’s because one side will only accept data that confirms their expectations whilst the other side is prepared to accept there is uncertainty in any global temperature data set and it’s better to look at all possibilities.

      • As always, the choice is to accept or not accept.
        No thought of actually examining the data and methods and coming up with your own conclusion.
        Then again, climate warming has always been based on faith.

          • The problem with that argument is that the uncertainties are not independent. The wide uncertainty margins are the result of things like El Niños and La Niñas, but these are the same for both data sets – so if the trend for UAH should be higher then so should RSS.

          • Indeed. There must be a fundamental flaw in the TLT measurement method used by one of, or perhaps both of, the current satellite producers.

    • RSS recently changed it’s algorithm to increase the trend of their measurements.

      • RSS recently updated to version 4.0 but there’s no evidence that it did so deliberatley “to increase the trend”? Anyone could make the equally unsubstantial claim that UAH recently updated to version 6.0 in order to ‘decrease’ the trend.

        Both groups changed their methods and both published their results in peer reviewed journals. In the case of RSS the trend rose substantially and in the case of UAH it fell substantially.

        Clearly there remains professional disagreement between the various groups about how best interpret satellite data to infer TLT.

        • The RSS version 4.0 update was to add model “data” to the measured temperatures. So they took real data, decided it didn’t have enough warming and added made-up “data”.

          This is just so against science, I can’t understand how they could hold their heads up when this is discussed in scientific conferences.

          • As I said before the climate wars will be fought in the next 18 years over the UAH dataset. IT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN TAMPERED WITH.

            Soon you will see a downward trend in the temperatures. By 2035- 2036 the climate war will be over and the hoax exposed for all time.

          • Alan Tomalty

            “As I said before the climate wars will be fought in the next 18 years over the UAH dataset. IT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN TAMPERED WITH.”
            _________________

            Alan, we’re already on version 6.0 of UAH TLT… “… has not been tampered with.”??

          • The RSS version 4.0 update was to add model “data” to the measured temperatures. So they took real data, decided it didn’t have enough warming and added made-up “data”.
            Rubbish! They added data from two new satellites, METOP-B and NOAA-19. Also NOAA-15 and Aqua showed calibration drifts later in their lifetimes so they were not used after certain dates. New corrections for diurnal drift were also made.

          • It could equally be alleged (falsely, I believe) that UAH v6 replaced UAH v5.6 and is much ‘cooler” because its producers thought the older version contained too much warming.

            The fact that recent changes to both satellite data TLT producers’ data sets produced such radical changes in temperature trends tells us a lot about the reliability of TLT data in general.

  3. Did it wiggle? It did + 0.03C. Oh Dear!
    Quick! Someone alert the catastrophists!!!

    How will we ever adapt????

    • We can’t adapt! We need to ‘curb our emissions’ by _buying_ a green pass before flying. And we need to eat red meat only from ‘organic’ farms. We have only a few months left before the tipping point arrives! Act now! Buy a Hillary2020 button from us.

  4. How much more does the temperature have to drop before we can say that the pause/plateau is reestablished?

      • Not sure how you calculate that. By my calculations if the rest of the year was 0.1°C, the lowest possible trend, from just before 1998 would be 0.617°C / century.

        • A linear trend is useless for understanding the situation. You’re essentially saying that after driving through a long flat valley and going up and over a hill back into the valley that you are still going uphill at such and such a rate. Face-palm.

          Now the real question is where are you now compared to where you were before going up/down the hill. If you make that direct elevation comparison you will then find you really are on the valley floor and are not going up at all. That is known as reality. You need to understand what you are doing.

          For the climate it looks like this:

          April/May/June 1998-2003 .20 C
          April/May/June 2014 .20 C
          April/May/June 2018 .20 C

          Looks like a 20 year pause to me.

          • Richard, nicely put. Why is it that i always stumble and bumble and fumble trying to make the exact same point? (you really know how to stoke a guy’s inferiority complex… ☺️)

          • Richard M

            Continuing your car journey analogy, here’s what the ’20 year pause’ since 1998 looks like, even in the flattest of all the various global temperature estimates:

            https://s33.postimg.cc/wie3kbo3z/UAH_from_1998.png

            Yes, there have been a few flat stretches on the ‘drive’; even a couple of downhills; but that shouldn’t distract from the fact that, over the course of the journey as a whole, the altitude has gradually increased.

          • “over the course of the journey as a whole, the altitude has gradually increased.”

            Shouldn’t the right-hand end of the red line be muc lower by now?

          • As the chart shows, the data are smoothed (12-month running centered). Just the latest 12-month running average temperature. It doesn’t affect the slope of the trend.

          • You seriously see a trend there? Of course programmes can draw lines if you ask them, but people need to step back from their models and actually look at their results.

          • The trend isn’t “asked for”; it’s the least-squares linear regression of the data. It’s an inherent property of the information contained in the chart.

          • DW Rice, you are making the exact mistake I mentioned in my analogy. You are letting the hill (recent El Nino) create an upward trend. Thus, it ends with a value around .4 C while we KNOW that for the last 3 months the average global anomaly has been .2 C. How can that be a valid approach when you can clearly see it is giving you the wrong answer?

            This is the problem with using noisy data for trends. That’s why a better approach is using points and comparing them. That is what I did above. Now, you can argue my comparison points are wrong, but using the El Nino warmth to claim we are warming is clearly a mistake.

          • Richard M

            “… you are making the exact mistake I mentioned in my analogy. You are letting the hill (recent El Nino) create an upward trend.”
            ______________________

            Your analogy period already starts on a very high “hill” Richard. The start period of your data series is the peak of a previous El Nino. You started counting when you were at the top of a previous very high hill.

            Despite that, and with a further 20 years under our belts, we have actually continued to travel uphill. That’s according to the best estimate of even the ‘coolest’ of all the global temperature series.

            You argue that that using recent El Nino warmth to claim we are warming is wrong; yet you use a previous El Nino high to start your data series… Something about cake and eating it…

          • “A linear trend is useless for understanding the situation.”

            Then we have a problem as all the claims of a pause are based upon linear trends.

            “You’re essentially saying that after driving through a long flat valley and going up and over a hill back into the valley that you are still going uphill at such and such a rate.”

            No, what I’m saying is you have a lot of variable data that goes up and down more or less at random, you need a statistical technique such as linear regression to detect a signal from the noise.

            On any measure I find it difficult to see how temperatures are not still going up, the long term trend of UAH data since 1979 is warming at a rate of 1.28°C / century. Current temperatures are more or less exactly where you’d expect them to be if that trend was real.

            By contrast your cherry picking of three months ignores all the changes that take place during your pause as well as the other 9 months of each year. Why take an average of 1998-2003 which includes the extremely a typical April/May/June of the El Niño year 1998, with temperatures at a record 0.65°C, but not include 2017?

            https://i.imgur.com/hqPO2fZ.png

          • Bellman states: “Then we have a problem as all the claims of a pause are based upon linear trends.”

            No, I just showed you a pause not based on linear trends. It is also possible to use linear trends if you can show the noise cancels out. It turns out that is the case of the 1997-2015 pause. You object only because it destroys your biased belief system.

            “what I’m saying is you have a lot of variable data that goes up and down more or less at random, you need a statistical technique such as linear regression to detect a signal from the noise.”

            So, you want to ignore the reality of my analogy and claim that because you can draw a line through my route over the hill that you are correct in saying my car is floating above the ground. Hilarious.

            What is known is that ENSO has a warming effect on the atmosphere. Most also think that ENSO is NOT climate. Including it is EXACTLY the same as my analogy of including the hill in a trend. It is silly and clearly scientific nonsense.

            Using a linear trend to eliminate random noise is fine if you have enough data. It is useless in this case because the noise overwhelms the signal.

            I also did not say April/May/June could not be affected by ENSO noise. That is why I tried to choose ones that were mostly neutral or where the noise tended to average out. It also is a time where ENSO appears to have less of an effect and it is the only data we have after the massive noise from the recent El Nino.

            I also can only chuckle that true believers like yourself want to ignore the 1999-2001 La Nina. Those were also included in my first point.

          • “So, you want to ignore the reality of my analogy and claim that because you can draw a line through my route over the hill that you are correct in saying my car is floating above the ground. ”

            The analogy is not reality, it isn’t even realistic. Temperature graphs do not look like a hill, it’s very bumpy terrain, and impossible to tell which direction you are going in without looking at the big picture.

            Your claim is it makes sense to simply compare individual points and if they are the same say there is no overall change. One problem with this is that a slope can be oscillating and rising at the same time. You can compare a peak early on and say its the same height as a trough later on and claim that that means there has been no rise.

            “I also did not say April/May/June could not be affected by ENSO noise. That is why I tried to choose ones that were mostly neutral or where the noise tended to average out.”

            I wasn’t suggesting you were saying that. My question is why you chose those three months and ignored the rest of the year. Looking at my graph above and you can see that whilst the years 1998 and 2016 were very similar as far as average temperature is concerned, 1998 was much warmer during April to June. It looks suspiciously like you chose those three months because they give you the result you wanted.

            I’m also puzzled why you think it’s OK to average 6 years to get the starting point of the pause, but insist on using individual years for the end points.

          • Bellman – Can we throw out the El Nino warmth? What can we agree about the picture if we do?

            Is anyone looking at the shifts and the changing look of the Rossby Waves? Are you?

          • If we throw out the El Nino warmth then we also have to throw out the La Nina cooling. Something Richard M seems to overlook.

          • DW Rice, I did not overlook La Nina at all. The current months are ENSO neutral. I didn’t include any La Nina months. In the 6 year start period there were 33 months of La Nina and 12 months of El Nino. It was biased low if anything.

            Why is it you don’t want to accept the fact that over the past 3 months the global temperature is no warmer than it was 20 years ago?

          • Bellman, the reason I used 6 years as the start point is because that was a very noisy period and no one year would be viable. However, the average of the 6 years eliminates both the warm noise and the cold noise so gives us a reasonable start point.

            After that all I am doing is showing that we may bounce up and down but continue to remain close to that start point.

            You don’t like it because it doesn’t fit your bias.

          • “However, the average of the 6 years eliminates both the warm noise and the cold noise so gives us a reasonable start point.”

            The average of April-June months for the period you want as a start to the pause was 0.20°C, the average for the previous 6 years was -0.10°C.
            If you are claiming this start vale is representative you need to explain how the earth warmed by almost 0.30°C over 6 years.

            If you use the whole year the starting point is 0.17° compared to the previous 6 years of -0.08°C, a 6 year warming of 0.25°C.

            In either case the Pause starts from an unusually warm point and then stays warm. In my opinion it’s a lot easier to believe that the trend has been consistent and the pause is just the result of some unusually warm, above the trend, temperatures at the start of the 21st century followed by more below the trend years later on – giving the illusion of a flat, but very warm couple of decades.

          • Bellman says: “If you are claiming this start vale is representative you need to explain how the earth warmed by almost 0.30°C over 6 years.”

            Wow, ever heard of Mt Pinatubo? That was also when the AMO went positive. So yes, it is pretty darn easy to explain the mid-90s warming.

            Do you know anything about climate history?

          • “Wow, ever heard of Mt Pinatubo?”

            You were the one claiming a 6year average is enough to filter the noise of the El Niño. If you want to exclude Mt Pinatubo lets look at the 6 years from 1985 – 1990,, the April to June average was -0.098°C, virtually the same as the 6 years including Mt Pinatubo.

            I’ll repeat my graph, do you not notice how much of an outlier 1998 is, compared to the Pinatubo years?

            https://i.imgur.com/hqPO2fZ.png

          • Oh but they were. Every single one of Lord Monckton’s previous “no global warming in X years…” series here at WUWT was based on the linear trend in RSS v3. That’s despite repeated warnings from RSS that it suspected its v3 to contain a known cooling bias.

            When RSS updated to v4 the linear trend went in the opposite direction and Lord Monckton fell silent. It was *all* about linear trends back then. Now days, not so much.

      • So you call the 2016 El Nino an anomaly that should not be used in calculating trends, but are quite happy to use the 1998 El Nino to calculate trends.

        • Chris, you need to look at all of ENSO if you want to get a reasonable result. You can’t just look at El Nino. It appears you want to view the world as always going up hills and never going back down.

          The key to getting a valid answer is to eliminate BOTH sides of the noise problem and find points that can be compared. If you look at the first point I provided, it covers a period where we had 12 El Nino months, 33 La Nina months and 30 neutral. So no, I did not use the 1998 El Nino to skew the result as you implied.

          The problem with the data early in the 20 year period is it was very noisy so difficult to find one year for comparison purposes. So, I used 6 years precisely to minimize the noise problem. Had I only used 1998 (with its value of .65) then you would have had a reasonable complaint. The big question is why you took no time to really understand what I did. It appears you don’t want to understand.

          • But if I do respond to your post, it’s just nonsense. Why look at 3 month intervals? What is your justification for doing that over looking at a long term trend such as what Bellman posted?

          • Chris, the 20 year trend is overwhelmed by noise when you include the recent El Nino period. All you are doing is plotting noise. It’s what you want to believe and clearly you don’t have much of a math background, so you blindly accept it.

            One of the reasons I knew the 1997-2015 trend was reasonable was because I did the work to look at the trend with the noise was removed. I plotted only ENSO neutral months over that period and found they also showed a flat trend. Hence, it was then obvious the noise I eliminated was about half El Nino warmth and half La Nina cooling. By adding in the recent El Nino you would clearly only be adding in warm noise.

            The 3 months I used are the least likely to be strongly affected by ENSO. It is also the only 3 truly neutral months we have had since the big El Nino dissipated. So, comparing them to equivalent periods over the past 20 years should give us some idea what has been happening. It is not perfect, but it is more information.

          • Zazove, that’s right, shorter periods can be found which are not very noisy because they do not include either El Nino or La Nina influence. Is that so difficult to understand?

          • Richard – I see, you have a math background and I don’t. Yet you are saying that a 3 month interval gives a more accurate indication of temperature trends than a 20 year interval. Go ahead and pitch that idea at a conference – please tell me in advance so I can watch you get laughed off the stage.

            Gee, if you are saying that out of 20 years, only 3 months is “noise-free”, perhaps you should accept that regularly occurring phenomena like El Ninos and La Ninas are in fact, not noise, but part of our climate. I would agree with your statement if we were talking about a major volcanic disruption, when those occur only every few decades. Heck, the same “this is noise so let’s get rid of it” thinking can be applied to AMOs, to solar irradiance minima or maxima.

            It’s interesting how skeptics were totally fine with using an El Nino peak in 1998 to say temps have plateaued, but are not OK with El Nino’s being included when doing long term temperature trends analysis. Why is that?

          • Chris, your comment is nothing but silly denial. Trends that start in 1998 also include the 1999-2001 La Nina. I’ve already shown that period eliminates any influence of the 1998 El Nino on trends going forward. Your denial of that fact is actually very humorous. It shows your bias includes denying basic math. Skeptics understand the math. You should be embarrassed you even made such a silly claim.

            The only reason I used the last 3 months is because that is all we have after a very noisy 4 years dominated by El Nino. It also happens to be about the best time of the year to avoid ENSO and AMO noise. I also included other years that were also ENSO neutral and they showed about the same global temperature.

            You don’t want to do that simply because it destroys the claim that we have been warming.

          • No, Richard, only a fool would state that out of a 20 year period of time, only 3 months were “noise free.” Your definition of noise is laughable. El Ninos and La Ninas are regularly occurring climate events, just like AMOs. That is not noise.

            If you don’t like 20 years due to the El Nino/La Nina – fine, go for a longer period. Take Bellman’s plot above, which goes back to 1980. It clearly shows a warming trend. You’ve got nothing, so you resort to 3rd grade caliber techniques like calling 3 months of data proof of a pause.

          • Chris says: “No, Richard, only a fool would state that out of a 20 year period of time, only 3 months were “noise free.””

            Well, since I didn’t say what you claimed I did, your claim is nonsense. What part of referring to the last 4 years did you not understand? I referred to 2014 as well. Face::palm.

            Obviously you can’t refute what I did say and you have no arguments to support your opinions. Hence, the only conclusion is that your views are “faith” based. I find this is very typical with climate activists.

        • No. Not at all.

          I include them both.

          It’s just that the world stopped warming after the 1998-99 El Nino, as it previously had since 1977.

        • Of course nobody used the 1998 El Nino to calculate trends. But that lie is pretty common amongst those who have no use for reality.

          • “Of course nobody used the 1998 El Nino to calculate trends. But that lie is pretty common amongst those who have no use for reality.”

            But they did use 1998?

          • Hahaha. Right – it’s only been the basis of all the “global warming has stopped and temps have plateaued” articles that were posted on WUWT and elsewhere.

    • Not going to happen any time soon.
      I have the Pause at 18 years, 8 months with a value of +0.14 degrees.
      To re-establish the Pause in two years, we need a value of -0.11 deg. steady for 24 months running. This is a colder 2 year average than any time since about 1995.
      Compare and contrast with the current value of +0.21., still well above the value of the Pause.

      • Depends upon from whence you start the “Pause”. If you just regress back from January 2019, you’ll get a significant flat line with the anomaly staying about where it is. Unless my analysis be faulty, which is a distinct possibility.

        But “Pause” is a bogus term. “Plateau” is more accurate, since it doesn’t assume continued warming at the pace from the PDO flip of 1977 until the onset of the super El Nino in ’98.

    • Commie, it depends on how one defines the pause. A zero trend line OR a return to the anomaly at which the earth stopped warming…

      • For your second definition you’d have to say what the temperature was when the earth stopped warming, and say what you mean by the current temperature – do you mean a single month, or a year or a longer term average.

        • Bellman, the first definition has its own warts, too. The anomaly of the pause is somewhere around .2C. We could see slight but extended (in time) cooling below that anomaly and yet trend lines would still indicate warming. OR, we could simply return to that .2C anomaly (forever) and the trend line would always indicate warming. Bottom line is that there exists an anomaly at which the earth did stop warming (be it knowable or not) and once we return to that anomaly then the pause is back. (whether or not it’s back to stay is another matter)…

          • Yes the first definition has warts – that’s what I’ve been arguing for years. The main wart being you cannot choose an arbitrary period, draw a trend line on it and insist the trend is real without seeing it in context. This is especially true if you follow Monckton’s approach of cherry picking the start date to produce the longest non-positive trend and ignoring any significance testing or the obvious discontinuity this pause would mean.

            “The anomaly of the pause is somewhere around .2C. ”

            That seems rather high. The average anomaly between 1998 and 2015 inclusive was 0.14°C.

            “OR, we could simply return to that .2C anomaly (forever) and the trend line would always indicate warming.”

            If temperatures remained at a constant temperature forever it would be eventually possible to demonstrate that there had been a significant change. Until there was a significant change it would be right say there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a pause.

          • Bellman, i say the earth stopped warming circa 2002. That would give us an anomaly of ‘somewhere around .2°C’. (at least we can say that we’ve been no warmer than that save el ninos & other lesser blips)…

          • *and puh-lease, phil. (wherever you are), no need to remind me that ’02 was itself an el nino year!

          • fonzie,

            According to the UAH TLT data you linked to the best estimate trend since 2002 is 0.12C/dec ‘warming’. In the RSS TLT satellite data it’s 0.17C/dec since 2002. In all the surface temperature data sets the warming rate since 2002 shows statistically significant warming (warming rate remains >0 even if you deduct the 95% margin of error from the best estimate). The earth did ‘not’ stop warming in 2002.

            http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

          • What is statistically significant warming? Nobody believes the temperature should stay still, nobody believes it cannot warm through natural variation. The question is, how much can it warm naturally over what period?

            Statistics simply cannot tell you that. It cannot even tell you what is likely unless you can show that your sample of the past is representative of what can happen in the future. But unless you can show that the warming is not natural, you don’t whether your sample is representative of the future. Back to square one.

          • Phoenix44 – yes, temperature blips are frustrating. Trends would be helpful. The problem for humans is that so little warming and cooling causes shifts in semi-permanent circulations, and that phenomena is very difficult to sort out and describe, even after-the-fact. Ocean oscillations ALSO cause shifts and seasonal delays and global circulation coincidences resulting in more severe weather events, droughts and floods.

          • fonzie,

            “I say the earth stopped warming circa 2002. That would give us an anomaly of ‘somewhere around .2°C’.”

            You can certainly find a flat trend between 2002 and 2015, but the average temperature is more like 0.14°C than 0.2°C.

            “(at least we can say that we’ve been no warmer than that save el ninos & other lesser blips)…”

            You are taken 2002 as the starting temperature for the pause, but this was an unusually warm year. You end up with a pause that is far warmer than the proceeding warming period, but also warmer than most of the years during the pause.

            https://i.imgur.com/DvnhfjY.png

          • If temperatures remained at a constant temperature forever it would be eventually possible to demonstrate that there had been a significant change. Until there was a significant change it would be right say there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a pause.

            One has to see this in the context of the theory that is being tested.

            The theory is that CO2 causes warming. That means that whenever CO2 levels rise, their MUST ALWAYS be a corresponding rise in temperature. Temperatures cannot fall, cannot stay the same, they MUST ALWAYS INCREASE. The basic physics and radiative properties of CO2 do not switch on and off, sometimes working, sometimes not.

            That means that for every year when there is an increase in CO2, unless this is accompanied by an increase in temperature, some explanation, consistent with the theory, is required explaining why there was no increase in temperature that year.

            Of course, we all know that in the real world there is natural variation which is simply processes not known or understood that impact upon temperatures. There are other natural events such as ENSO and volcanoes, whilst not fully understood, also seem to impact upon temperature.

            But given the fundamentals of a theory which is based upon the increase in CO2 must always result in warming, and given that the signal is masked and/or attenuated by natural variation and/or natural events such as ENSO and volcanoes, how many years must pass, when there is no warming, for the period of no warming to cause a problem for the theory?

            Is it 5 years, 10, years, 15 years, 17 years, 20 years, etc? What is the period, and why? The answer to this is fundamental to the debate, and this is why the warmists were so desperate to seek to explain why we had observed no warming, putting forward some 50 (or so) reasons seeking to explain away the lack of observed warming.

            What one can obviously say is that the higher one claims the Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is, the shorter period of no warming is required before no warming becomes problematic. The lower the sensitivity to CO2, the longer the period without any warming can be, before a period of no warming becomes problematic.

            The reason why the majority of recent papers on Climate Sensitivity to CO2 have suggested a sensitivity of around 2 degC, or less, per doubling, is because of the recent pause. The recent pause strongly suggests that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 cannot be high. That is perhaps the most significant point to arise from the recent pause.

            Now one must recall that warmists initially suggested that 10 years would be sufficient to make them question the theory, then it was extended to 15 years, and then further increased to 17 years. All these periods have been exceeded by the recent pause.

            But further when one looks at the satellite data there is not just one pause of 15 years plus, but two such pauses. Rarely do you ever see this discussed, but there is no, or almost no statistically significant warming (depending upon what one considers to be appropriate error bounds in the measurements) during the period ~ 1980 to ~ 1995.

            This begs the question what is the chance that one would have two periods of around 15 years plus where there was no statistically significant warming following on from one another just a few years apart? The probability of there being two such periods, is of course low.

            This of course leads to the next point, namely when ENSO and volcanoes are detrended from the satellite data set then there is no statistically significant warming as from its very inception in 1979. the only statistically significant events in the satellite data are natural events such as El Nino, La Nina and volcanoes and there is no trend to CO2.

          • “The theory is that CO2 causes warming. That means that whenever CO2 levels rise, their MUST ALWAYS be a corresponding rise in temperature. Temperatures cannot fall, cannot stay the same, they MUST ALWAYS INCREASE.”

            I don’t know where you get all that from, but it just isn’t true. There are superimposed variations. Analogy is the very well accepted theory that in spring it warms because insolation increases regularly, causing warming. Every day the Sun is a little higher in the sky. But that doesn’t mean that every day is warmer than the next. There is superimposed variation.

          • No-one is comparing July 3rd with July 4th. As you well know. They are comparing July 4th 2018 with July 4th 2017, 2016 and so on. As you well know.

            And yes, we all know you take out natural variation. As you well know. That leaves the increased warming from increased CO2.

            Just stating what we all know it as if we didn’t all know is a waste of electrons.

          • “The theory is that CO2 causes warming. ”

            That’s not the theory I’m testing. The theory I’m testing is that there was warming in the past, and that this stopped, or paused, or slowed down in 1998 or 2002 or whenever. What caused the warming or the slow down is irrelevant – the question is, is the pause real or just a statistical artifact?

          • “This is especially true if you follow Monckton’s approach of cherry picking the start date to produce the longest non-positive trend”

            Monckton worked backward from the current date and stopped when the data indicated an increasing trend. He did not cherry pick that earlier point. For years he explained, in every post he made on the Pause, that his technique did not depend on his choice of a starting date.

          • At least we can all agree that the UAH dataset is what will prove or disprove global warming. The next 18 years will be very interesting . I expect to see blue bars in the coming years. If that doesnt happen then , even I might have doubts that maybe the alarmists are right.

          • The alarmists should speak up now if they dont trust the UAH dataset. All those red bars are looking good for the alarmists, so unless they have proof of tampering then they should admit now that this is where the war will be won or lost, the UAH dataset.

          • “The alarmists should speak up now if they dont trust the UAH dataset”

            As a skeptic I don’t trust any data set to be 100% accurate, all attempts to measure global temperatures will have problems, which is why it’s good that we have a multitude of different data sets using different methods.

            I trust satellite data less than surface data for a number of reasons, including the complexity of the task and the number of times errors have been observed and the number of significant adjustments made to them, but they are useful in giving an independent confirmation of the general surface trend.

            I would tend to assume that UAH is the least likely to be correct as it is so far removed from all the other data sets – but I wouldn’t assume that it is necessarily wrong – and certainly not that it is tampered with.

            The current UAH is useful as a lower bound and useful to use here as people won’t instantly reject the data as fraudulent.

            But if as you seem to be suggesting UAH might suddenly deviate radically from the other data sets, plummeting down when all others are rising, that would raise some interesting questions.

          • Likewise there are those here who are already suspicious and even dismissive merely beacause UAH shows any trend at all.

          • The science is in, its settled, the trend is clear; blue is not coming back. Now it is just how tall the red bars get and how quickly. Wishful thinking is of no help.

          • Roger Knights

            “Monckton worked backward from the current date and stopped when the data indicated an increasing trend.”

            No he didn’t. If he’d done that he’d have had a much shorter pause. Lets use UAH data up to 2015, and assume we need at least 5 years. Going backwards to find the first increasing trend only requires you go back to the end of 2008. So using this approach you could say there had been a pause since the start of 2009 last 6 years.

            What Monckton actually did was to select the earliest start date that gave a negative trend – usually some time in 1996 or 1997.

            “He did not cherry pick that earlier point.”

            So he claimed, but if choosing the start date that will give you the longest possible pause isn’t a cherry pick, I don’t know what is.

            “For years he explained, in every post he made on the Pause, that his technique did not depend on his choice of a starting date.”

            I’m not sure what you mean by that – of course it doesn’t depend on his choice of starting date, the whole point is to select the best starting date.
            Here’s what Monckton actually says in the first post I could find

            “The hiatus period of 18 years 3 months, or 219 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.”

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/03/the-great-pause-lengthens-again/

            I’m not sure why some don’t understand the meaning of – the farthest back one can go and still show a negative trend.

          • RK: ““Monckton worked backward from the current date and stopped when the data indicated an increasing trend.”

            Bellman: “No he didn’t. If he’d done that he’d have had a much shorter pause. Lets use UAH data up to 2015, and assume we need at least 5 years. Going backwards to find the first increasing trend only requires you go back to the end of 2008.”

            That’s how it seems if you eyeball it. Monckton used a “least-squares linear regression” technique, which apparently is how it should be done in science.

            BTW, here’s a link to one of his charts:
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/07/how-they-airbrushed-out-the-inconvenient-pause/

          • Roger Knights

            “That’s how it seems if you eyeball it. Monckton used a “least-squares linear regression” technique, which apparently is how it should be done in science.”

            Yes, as he always insists on spelling out, but that has nothing to do with how he chooses the start date.

          • “stopped when the data indicated an increasing trend”

            If that is not cherry-picking then what is?

          • And then he settles on a start date that gives the longest lowest warming trend.

          • “Monckton doesn’t choose a start date, he starts from now and goes backwards.”

            He goes backwards to a start date. The choice of that start date is explicitly the date that will give the longest pause.

          • Bellman, if a trend is flat then either end of the trend could be the start date. Flat is flat. I still get a chuckle that climate activists can’t seem to understand the concept of La Nina.

          • Richard M,

            Except that “start” will usually be understood to mean the beginning of an event chronologically.

          • In the UAH data for June, we’ve warmed 0.34 degrees C since the decade of 1979-88, when the ten-year June average was -0.15 (rounded). For 2009-18, it was +0.19 (rounded).

            That’s a 40-year rate of 0.34, for a centennial rate of 0.85 degrees, assuming that warming at that pace were to continue, which is unlikely.

            The past decade included a super El Nino.

            https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt

            The anomaly for June 2017 was the same as for 2018, ie 0.21. The anomaly for the previous two years averaged 0.32 (rounded), due to the El Nino. The short term trend at least is cooling.

            So, nothing at all about which to worry. It’s a good thing.

          • UAH June anomalies since the 1998-99 El Nino, degrees C:

            1998: 0.57
            1999: -0.15
            2000: 0.07
            2001: 0.03
            2002: 0.30
            2003: -0.00
            2004: -0.00
            2005: 0.15
            2006: 0.06
            2007: 0.13
            2008: -0.18
            2009: -0.16
            2010: 0.31
            2011: 0.14
            2012: 0.14
            2013: 0.20
            2014: 0.25
            2015: 0.31
            2016: 0.32
            2017: 0.21
            2018: 0.21

            The 21st century Plateau is obvious, before the super 2015-16 El Nino. Also note Los Ninos of 2002 and 2010.

          • Why only look at June temperatures? June has been warming up at a slower rate than other months. June trend since 1979 is 1.0°C / century compared with the trend for all months of 1.3°C / century.

            You say it’s obvious from the figures that June temperatures have plateaued in the21st century. But between 2001 and 2009 there was only one June with a value above 0.2°C and 4 years with an anomaly 0 or less.

            Since 2010 no June has been less than 0.14°C, with 7 years being 0.2°C or more.

            The trend might not be strong (0.76°C / century between 2002 and 2014), but I don’t see an obvious plateau.

          • Because the discussion was about the AMJ quarter.

            The only departures from the flat temperatures were in El Nino years, or those leading up to the 2015-16 super El Nino. The world is now cooling again, after all that built up heat was blown off to space.

            To me, the plateau is obvious in this century. From 1999 to 2012, inclusive, the only departures were the two El Nino years of 2002 (0.30) and 2010 (0.31). All the others fell in the narrow range of -0.18 to +0.15, IOW, either side of 0.00, without a statistically significant trend, but with a slight cooling bias.

            From 2013 to 2016, there was a warming trend, but again associated with the El Nino: 0.20, 0.25, 0.31 and 0.32. But since 2016, as noted, this brief trend has reversed.

          • “Because the discussion was about the AMJ quarter.”

            That’s not really an answer. I was originally questioning why look at only one quarter of each year, and your response is to switch to a single month.

            “To me, the plateau is obvious in this century. From 1999 to 2012, inclusive, the only departures were the two El Nino years of 2002 (0.30) and 2010 (0.31). All the others fell in the narrow range of -0.18 to +0.15, IOW, either side of 0.00, without a statistically significant trend, but with a slight cooling bias.”

            A range of a third of a degree is not that narrow when you are only considering a 14 year period.

            Of course any trend over this period is going to be insignificant, but you are wrong to say there is a slight cooling bias. Looking at just June values in the range 1999-2012 and excluding 2002 and 2010 still shows a slight warming bias. A trend of about 0.66°C / century.

            “From 2013 to 2016, there was a warming trend, but again associated with the El Nino”

            How are 2013 and 2014 associated with this El Niño? ENSO was negative during 2013 and at only became a weak El Niño by the end of 2014.

            If you include 2013-14 the trend is 1.33°C / century, greater than the overall trend.

            The irony is that in insisting on only looking at June dates you end up with a much stronger warming rate than if you did use all the data.

    • Back a few years ago, when the “Great Pause” was all the excitement, it went from 1997 to 2015.
      When people mention “The Pause”, I take it that this is what they mean.
      I have it as 18 years, 8 months, May 1997 through Dec. 2015. Here it is.
      https://s33.postimg.cc/bxh8rslmn/UAH-_Cool5.jpg
      (click to embiggen)
      The pink line is the Pause, the red line on the right side is what the temps will have to do to reestablish the Pause in two years, starting at May 1995, as before.
      As I mentioned, I have the Pause at +0.14, and the red line at -0.11
      The blue line is your standard LLS for the entire data set (excluding my hypothetical 2 year add-on). Slope is +0.13 deg/decade.

      • Imo then, there is a good probability that the plateau/pause will be back in 2 years. The reason being is look at where the last similar drop took place, late 2007 into 2009 the last solar minimum. The solar minimum is once again at hand. Thus it is probable that temps will drop below the zero trend over the next 24 months.

          • No. If El Nino spikes it will make all this twaddle about pauses look all the more silly and desperate.

            [it will also make claims about CO2 driven global warming look silly and desperate – Anthony]

      • “click to embiggen”

        Embiggen, i like that. (is that a real word or did you just make that one up?☺️)
        Trend lines are “cow-pie”. See Richard M’s analogy above about driving o’er a hill. By the time we get back to your hypothetical pause we’d actually be cooling below the pause*…

        *Same sort of thing happened after the ’08 la nina (we didn’t have to wait until the trend line reached zero before proclaiming the pause was gone and that we were warming)…

        • Interesting definition for that. Didn’t know about the humorous part to that, (…Definition of embiggen. embiggened; embiggening. transitive verb. informal + humorous. : to make bigger or more expansive :…”.

        • Embiggen is a perfectly cromulent word.

          You have to watch The Simpsons to get that…

      • Actually the last solar minimum was not the “last” low spot. That occurred in later 2010 into 2011, and here is the reason why that took place. Note on Silso how after a sunspot spike in early 2010 that the count then dropped back down to rock bottom. That was the reason for the last temp drop as seen in the UAH record. The Sun does directly affect temp changes after all.

        http://www.sidc.be/images/wolfjmms.png

        • Goldminor, it was also a two year La Nina (2007-2009). Hard to separate the solar and ocean effects.

          I think it will be very interesting going forward.

  5. We need to wait another 40 years to see what’s really happening with the climate.
    No carbon taxes or renewable subsidies in the meantime.

  6. The cold Oceans in which former “ridiculously persistent hot blobs” in oceanic temperate zones gave us a big warming that was wrongly attributed to a strong El Nino which had a surprisingly low volume of hot water. It was no surprise to the observant that the “Big El Nino” a couple of years ago gave way to what appears to have been the most precipitous drop in temperature on record.

    Now that large cold blobs have replaced former hot blobs, a fair decoupling of climate from ENSO seems to be persisting. All that cold water just south of the equator and the other blobs are doing La Nina-like work while a luke warm equator with a comparatively, modestly tepid Western Pacifuc Warm Pool seems to lack punch.

    • One cold blob surrounds Australia. Probably this should shut the GBR hysteria off for a while. The Reef Grief Group should lunch with the Rare Polar Bear Poop Group for a cry-in.

      • That depends on whether there is a strong El Nino and sea level fall in the western Pacific.

  7. Last month the average air temperature around our little blue marble was cooler than some months in the late 1980s. I can dig it. The early 21st century has become so un-cool.

  8. What is the confidence level of these stated temperatures? I cannot accept these temperatures as exact, as there are errors in each piece of measuring equipment. No-one can ever say that the temperature given is exactly correct. There has to be a confidence range. I wish those in the Climatariat would use them!

    • Whatever the error factor it is the long range trend that is important. If the UAH temps go down for the next 18 years then the climate war is over.

  9. I hope we will see a change to a negative Arctic Oscillation this winter and all the areas in the Northern hemisphere which are now warm will go cold, apart from the recent stratospheric warming it has been positive for a long time and must change soon with the solar minimum approaching.

  10. “All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.”

    Doesn’t this say just as much as taking funding from, say, the oil industry? Aren’t gov’t and gov’t sponsored institutions where global warming religiosity strongly exist?

    • Government scientists. You mean the people who said smoking caused cancer decades before the agencies funded by tobacco did? The people who said we were warming longer before the agencies funded by oil interests did?

      Government or otherwise, the only groups who are fighting the science for a specific goal are those funded by agencies who benefit from sales of fossil fuels. IT would be great if climate scientists were wrong and the next decade cooled. Not going to happen.

      • I remember my dad telling me back in the late 1950s that tobacco was not good for you. I also remember how we used to call cigarettes fags as they slightly fatigued you. Most people understood all of that. As for tobacco being the cause of cancer that only holds true for a small portion of smokers, those most susceptible due either to genetics or other negative health issues. I smoked for 42 years of my life, unfortunately, before quitting 8 years ago. Only true alarmists are dumb enough to use the smoking/cancer analogy in regards to the climate debate.

        • But smokers who kept smoking because of the doubts raised by the industry shills in the face of warnings from government scientists were smoking deniers?

          • Smokers kept smoking because tobacco is addictive. Just like drinkers keep drinking even though there is zero doubt as to the problems which abuse of alcohol will cause for almost everyone. Tobacco does not cause cancer in almost all smokers, by comparison.

      • To Alley – Nonsense. Try comparing funding from radical environmental NGO’s supporting climate change hysteria (hundreds of millions, maybe a billion +) to funding from fossil fuel firms. Try comparing government funding for AGW research and disinformation to funding from private sources for research like NIPCC. Also not close. Stop parroting talking points and learn facts.

        Mr. Watts – you rich yet from your ‘big oil’ checks?

  11. From the article: “The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the SURFACE up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level.”

    Some people claim the satellites don’t measure the temperatures on the surface, but there it is in black and white.

    And I think I saw the other day that balloon measurements confirm the satellite measurements. So much for those claiming the satellites are inaccurate. Do the balloon measurements confirm the Hockey Stick charts?

    • Satellites can measure surface temperatures when there are cloud-free periods. And yes, they align with ground stations. So they do not have a complete picture of ground temperatures, but I would assume enough to know the warming trend at ground level. Troposphere has warmed, stratosphere has cooled.

      Satellite and balloon measurements can confirm the known trend since their inception. So adding in the history of ground temps along with other proxies, we end up with a hockey stick.

      • Not sure how you end up with a hockey stick. There was a nice one going from the early 1900’s through the 1930’s, but then the blade snapped, same for the 1970’s through the 1990’s, but snapped again. And now, with 2016 just barely above 1998, and declining, it doesnt look promising we’ll see another steady run up any time soon.

        As for the long-term hockey stick (Mann’s favorite) you only get that by disappearing the MWP and the LIA. Nice trick if you can figure out how, but not useful scientifically.

    • From the article: “The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the SURFACE up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level.”

      Some people claim the satellites don’t measure the temperatures on the surface, but there it is in black and white.

      Yes as it says the satellites measure the temperature of the atmosphere not the surface.
      Also that statement in the article is outdated, since the new version of UAH MSU the temperature is measured up to about 12 km.
      Peak sensitivity is now at 4km rather than the previous 2 km.
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

    • For all the heat index scares we are hearing about in the media, the weatherunderground is predicting Friday evening lows of 55 degrees F ! (thats about 8 degrees below normal….it’s just weather…)

      Pretty cool, and just barely enough for good tomato growth.

      • a_scientist – the models say that’s the last wave of the spring season.

    • ren – interesting. The arctic air was released down the storm track this last early spring. Points west weren’t cooled because of the configuration of the continent. You can see this in the upper air charts.

      • I live in the west. Spring was delayed by around 2 months as compared to the last 6 years, the latest spring since 2011 for this area. I usually get my first tomatoes by mid June, and they are still several weeks from ripening as of now.

  12. There is a long discussion below about the pause and how long you have to measure to get a realistic trend.

    We all know that the AMO makes a distinguishable pattern in the temperature trend of about 60 years.

    As it is happening that 60 years ago CO2 measurements started at Mauna Loa, the task is quite easy: Compare it to Hadcrut4 and plot the trend:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/trend/plot/esrl-co2/normalise

    0.8°C in 60 years is 0.013 °C per year or 0.13 °C per decade or 1,3°C per century. Same as UHT 6.0.

Comments are closed.