UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2019: +0.38 deg. C

Reposted from Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog

September 3rd, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2019 was +0.38 deg. C, unchanged from July, 2019:

UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2019_v6-550x317

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade.

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 20 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
 2018 01 +0.29 +0.51 +0.06 -0.10 +0.70 +1.39 +0.52
 2018 02 +0.24 +0.28 +0.21 +0.05 +0.99 +1.22 +0.35
 2018 03 +0.28 +0.43 +0.12 +0.08 -0.19 -0.32 +0.76
 2018 04 +0.21 +0.32 +0.09 -0.14 +0.06 +1.02 +0.84
 2018 05 +0.16 +0.38 -0.05 +0.01 +1.90 +0.14 -0.24
 2018 06 +0.20 +0.33 +0.06 +0.11 +1.11 +0.76 -0.42
 2018 07 +0.30 +0.38 +0.22 +0.28 +0.41 +0.24 +1.48
 2018 08 +0.18 +0.21 +0.16 +0.11 +0.02 +0.11 +0.37
 2018 09 +0.13 +0.14 +0.13 +0.22 +0.89 +0.23 +0.27
 2018 10 +0.19 +0.27 +0.12 +0.30 +0.20 +1.08 +0.43
 2018 11 +0.26 +0.24 +0.27 +0.45 -1.16 +0.68 +0.55
 2018 12 +0.25 +0.35 +0.14 +0.30 +0.25 +0.69 +1.20
 2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.35 +0.53 -0.15 +1.15
 2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.04 +0.05
 2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.96 +0.58
 2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.53 +0.50 +0.92 +0.91
 2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.98 +0.38
 2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.90 +0.35
 2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.11 +0.33 +0.87
 2019 08 +0.38 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.23

This makes August, 2019 the 4th warmest August in the 41 year satellite record, behind 1998 (+0.52), 2016 (+0.44), and 2017 (+0.42).

The UAH LT global anomaly image for August, 2019 should be available in the next few days here.

The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt

Advertisements

95 thoughts on “UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2019: +0.38 deg. C

      • …except that air in the lower troposphere should be warming at least as fast as the air near the surface.

      • But their mechanism says that the troposphere will warm near the equator and increase in humidity. If it warms but does not increase in moisture content, then their mechanism is wrong. If it warms all over instead of starting at the equator, again, their mechanism is wrong.

    • It’s definitely good. The further away from glacial conditions, the better. Better biological production too due to both warmth & increased CO2.

    • Sunny, it was expected. The satellite data is still under the influence of the 2018-19 El Nino (there’s about a 3-4 month lag). The El Nino ended at the end of June. This means next month will also see some effect but probably less.

  1. I’d like to see the actual temperatures in Kelvin, not the change in temperature in Celsius. In any case, a “global average temperature” doesn’t tell us anything useful.

    • Why Kelvin and not degrees Celsius? Temperature of 301K, 28 degrees Celsius or 82 degrees Fahrenheit, which is more meaningful?

      • But this is lower troposphere; it’s probably centered at about 250K, with a big range over the altitudes it includes. Whatever units you use, “actual” isn’t meaningful.

      • Actually, putting it in Kelvin makes a very valid point. When you ask somebody how much warmer 71 degrees is over 70 degrees (Fahrenheit) they will give you some lame answer like 1%. The increase in enthalpy (without a phase change) between 70 and 71 is 0.18%. People anchor off of the varying zero degree marks. The only one that makes any sense is absolute zero.

        • Quite right. If you are going to compare temperatures you must use an absolute scale. Also, it avoids the nonsensical idea of negative temperatures.

          • Dunnooo

            Sorry, I have to disagree.

            A. “If you are going to compare temperatures you must use an absolute scale. ”

            Anomalies computed by Roy Spencer and all others not only are departures from a mean; they also are computed such that the annual cycle due to the seasons is removed, by building, e.g. in a monthly time series, monthly departures from the mean of the same month rather than that of all months together (the same being made of course for daily, hourly series etc etc).

            And that is what really helps, e.g. in
            – determining which units increase or decrease more or less than others within a time series,
            or
            – comparing them with other anomalies computed out of time series coming from possibly different contexts.

            A typical example is a comparison made yesterday, of the Canadian Prairies’ surface with the lower troposphere above it:
            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qk8BUgPb4l5hy_URjGPvamgB5dvivSjf/view

            If you would use absolute values, they would be distant by about 24 Kelvin, and you would see only a spaghetti-like up & down picture.

            Let me demonstrate this with a comparison of UAH’s lower troposphere measurements with those made in the lower stratosphere (the absolute values shown in the graphs below are not published by UAH; I had to reconstruct them using their climatology data).

            1. Absolute values
            https://drive.google.com/file/d/16GaarHUs7npnzyN5-wtJ7z0qODSKplVq/view

            2. Absolute values relative to their mean
            https://drive.google.com/file/d/12ntQPUMotlrIUXTYn8721WpD3S0sihjc/view

            3. Anomalies wrt monthly means
            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OO6HpUOvk_N_tC2fUt8wzDDvMzhYM8C_/view

            Look at the clean differences in (3) between LT and LS during and after the greater volcano eruptions (El Chichon 1982, Pinatubo 1991).

            *
            B. “Also, it avoids the nonsensical idea of negative temperatures.”

            What a strange statement! So many scientific and engineering contexts make heavy use of differences between values rather than of the values themselves!

            *
            C. “In any case, a “global average temperature” doesn’t tell us anything useful.”

            Even as a layman who doesn’t need to compare different measurements of global averages for professional reasons, it is of great interest for me to see them, be it in the UAH LT/LS comparison above, or when comparing the global average of e.g. all GHCN weather stations with the global average of UAH’s LT measurements above land:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B8McrkzEHPurLccKTwBTODN2uw0eeeC2/view

            *
            My impression is that lack of knowledge and experience are major causes for unsound skepticism. But it isn’t my job to convince you 🙂

            Rgds
            J.-P. D.

      • John Collis

        because whilst a scientist’s job is to convey complicated concepts to the layman, in layman’s terms, too many scientist’s forget this is their job.

        The concept of water boiling at 100C and freezing at 0C is logical and measurable to the layman. A hot summers day in Europe described as 30C rather than 80+F gives him/her a genuine experiential means of comparison.

        Kelvin means nothing to the common man. And the change in temperature is only meaningful to the layman when represented on an appropriate scale.

        90% of humanity do not understand science. The alarmists understood that a long time ago so communicated climate change in political terms.

        Sceptical scientists are still convinced communicating with 90% of the worlds population, in a language they don’t understand, is a really good idea.

    • It seems to tell it is 0.38K more than it has been. Over land at surface, it’s more. When ppl tell us the cooling is here, I think it is a good remainder there’s cooling only locally and at a limited time scale.

      If you’re not happy with K’s, the warmists are more than eager to tell you what it is in million Hiroshimas.

    • I’d like to see how they’ve arrived at such great precision. I find it hard to believe that the uncertainty is that small.

      • You make a common error that most people make.

        Understand that the average anomaly is NOT an average of all the measurements.
        FORMALLY and mathematically it is a PREDICTION of the unmeasured points.

    • https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html

      “GISS measures the change in global surface temperatures relative to average temperatures from 1951 to 1980. GISS data show global average temperatures in 2017 rose 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 1951-1980 mean. According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C). That would put the planet’s average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C).”

      Book-cooking GISS of course cannot be trusted.

      Whole geologic periods have been a lot balmier than now, with epochs and ages within them toastier yet.

      Average global T for the Cambrian Period has been estimated at 21 degrees C, 20 for the Devonian and 18 for the Cretaceous and Paleogene. No runaway GHE, even for the latter two periods, in which solar power was over 99% of now. During the Cambrian, CO2 level was an estimated 17.5 times higher than now. In the following Ordovician and Silurian Periods, when land plants evolved, the air was enriched by over 11 times with the vital trace gas carbon dioxide, ie plant food, compared to present concentration.

      • John Tillman – September 4, 2019 at 11:57 am

        That would put the planet’s average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C).”

        Average global T for the Cambrian Period has been estimated at 21 degrees C,

        During the Cambrian, CO2 level was an estimated 17.5 times higher than now.

        So, CO2 now is at 408.63 ppm and current average surface temperature is at 14.9 C.

        And Cambrian CO2 was 7,140‬ ppm and average surface temperature was at 21.0 C,

        And life was good and the living was easy …… during the Cambrian Period

          • Almost every metazoan phylum with hard parts, and many that lack hard parts, made its first appearance in the Cambrian

            A lot can happen in 40 million years, the approximate length of the Cambrian Period. Animals showed dramatic diversification during this period of Earth’s history. This has been called the “Cambrian Explosion”. When the fossil record is scrutinized closely, it turns out that the fastest growth in the number of major new animal groups took place during the as-yet-unnamed second and third stages (generally known as the Tommotian and Atdabanian stages) of the early Cambrian, a period of about 13 million years. In that time, the first undoubted fossil annelids, arthropods, brachiopods, echinoderms, molluscs, onychophorans, poriferans, and priapulids show up in rocks all over the world.
            https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/cambrian.php

          • Complex life in the Cambrian was limited to the seas. There were no land plants or animals. There might have been multicellular fungi, but most terrestrical life was microbial.

            The UCB page you cite is out of date. More modern phyla or protophyla have been discovered or recognized in the Ediacaran in this century. During the Cambrian, their members got larger and more mineralized and developed better senses. The Cambrian Explosion was akin to the Triassic Explosion, ie an evolutionary radiation of new forms following a mass extinction event.

          • Although, however, this study by well-known U. of O. geologist Greg Retallack controversially found some more complex life on land during the Ediacaran:

            Ediacaran life on land

            https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11777

            Ediacaran (635–542 million years ago) fossils have been regarded as early animal ancestors of the Cambrian evolutionary explosion of marine invertebrate phyla1, as giant marine protists2 and as lichenized fungi3. Recent documentation of palaeosols in the Ediacara Member of the Rawnsley Quartzite of South Australia4 confirms past interpretations of lagoonal–aeolian deposition based on synsedimentary ferruginization and loessic texture5,6. Further evidence for palaeosols comes from non-marine facies, dilation cracks, soil nodules, sand crystals, stable isotopic data and mass balance geochemistry4. Here I show that the uppermost surfaces of the palaeosols have a variety of fossils in growth position, including Charniodiscus, Dickinsonia, Hallidaya, Parvancorina, Phyllozoon, Praecambridium, Rugoconites, Tribrachidium and ‘old-elephant skin’ (ichnogenus Rivularites7). These fossils were preserved as ferruginous impressions, like plant fossils8, and biological soil crusts9,10 of Phanerozoic eon sandy palaeosols. Sand crystals after gypsum11 and nodules of carbonate12 are shallow within the palaeosols4, even after correcting for burial compaction13. Periglacial involutions and modest geochemical differentiation of the palaeosols are evidence of a dry, cold temperate Ediacaran palaeoclimate in South Australia4. This new interpretation of some Ediacaran fossils as large sessile organisms of cool, dry soils, is compatible with observations that Ediacaran fossils were similar in appearance and preservation to lichens and other microbial colonies of biological soil crusts3, rather than marine animals1, or protists2.

          • Yet a study last year found that some of the enigmatic Ediacaran biota were indeed animals:

            Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals

            https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246

            Fossils of even older proto-sponges, Phylum Porifera, have been discovered.

            At the very least, bilaterians had evolved by the Ediacaran, if not present bilaterian phyla. Kimberella is a bilaterian genus from the period. This slug-like organism fed by scratching the microbial surface on which it dwelt in a manner similar to gastropod molluscs, although its affinity with this group remains contentious.

            https://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/science/origin/03-enigmatic-edicarans.php

          • Ediacaran proto-arthropods or annelids have also been suggested:

            Late Ediacaran trackways produced by bilaterian animals with paired appendages

            https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaao6691

            Abstract
            Ediacaran trace fossils provide key paleontological evidence for the evolution of early animals and their behaviors. Thus far, however, this fossil record has been limited to simple surface trails and relatively shallow burrows. We report possible trackways, preserved in association with burrows, from the terminal Ediacaran Shibantan Member (ca. 551 to ca. 541 million years ago) in the Yangtze Gorges area of South China. These trace fossils represent the earliest known trackways. They consist of two rows of imprints arranged in poorly organized series or repeated groups. These trackways may have been produced by bilaterian animals with paired appendages, although the phylum-level phylogenetic affinity of the trace makers remains unknown. It is possible that the trackways and associated burrows were produced by the same trace maker, indicating a complex behavior involving both walking and burrowing. Together, these trackways and burrows mark the arrival of a new era characterized by an increasing geobiological footprint of bilaterian animals.

          • John Tillman, …… fossils are, in actuality, nothing more than “accidents” that happened.

            The only thing that a recovered fossil proves is that – a specific individual of a specific species of animal, regardless of whether it was alive or dead at the time, was “accidently” entombed in the underlying substrate that preserved one or more of its body parts, in either the original or mineralized form ….. and that said fossil is scientific proof that said animal existed at the “time & place” that said entombed substrate is dated. In other words, ….. fossil dating is just fine, wonderful and CORRECT, as long as an older fossil is not found.

            Remember Otzi the Iceman ….. and the re-dating of the Bronze Age?

            Remember, Tillman, during the decades prior to 1920, there were LITERALY billions of Passenger Pigeons that regularly migrated up and down the Eastern portion of North America, …. and thus I challenge you to locate or discover a fossil that can be accurately identified as being a Passenger Pigeon. Iffen they had gone extinct during the 1st Century AD, would we even know that they ever existed?

          • John Tillman, …… did you see this one, ………….

            The finding of the oldest human skull changes evolution science

            Discoveries all over the world in the last decade have led to a complete rethinking of our evolutionary past. It shows that new fossils do not always support existing hypotheses, and that we must be prepared to change our views and formulate new theories based on the evidence at hand.

            https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-finding-of-the-oldest-human-skull-changes-evolution-science/ar-AAGXhC0?ocid=spartandhp

          • Samuel.

            The last passenger pigeon died in 1914, but her species was effectively extinct long before then.

            It takes a while for fossils to form, yet passenger pigeon fossils abound. More than 130 PP fossils have been found across 25 US states, including in La Brea Tar Pits of Los Angeles, CA. These records date as far back as 100,000 years, during which the pigeon’s range extended to several western states that were not a part of its modern range. The species probably arose in the Pliocene, but at least early in the Pleistocene.

            Oetzi was not misdated because of radiometric dating. His true age was confirmed thanks to radiometric dating, which confirmed observations suggesting an earlier date.

            Estimating the age of fossils does sometimes rely on radiometric dating of strata above and below their position, but so what? If the strata are dated to, say, 67 and 68 million years ago, then the specimen can still be reliably assigned an age of 67.5 Ma +/- 0.5 Ma. Which is close enough.

          • Samuel,

            As is sadly typical of science reporting, the claim of a huge rethinking is an exaggerration.

            The particular find reported in the article changes little. It’s still clear that genus Homo evolved from genus Australopithecus. In fact, they both should be Homo, and would be if we were dealing with any animal other than humans. Many argue that even chimps and humans should be in the same genus.

            What some finds in the past decade or so have challenged is the hypothesis that upright walking emerged on the savanahs rather than while our ancestors were still mainly arboreal. Hardly an earth-shaking change, if confirmed, which is highly iffy. The fact remains that we evolved in an environment transitioning from forest to grassland, with many other African animals similarly responding to cooling climate and drying conditions.

            Whether our feet, legs, joints and pelvises started changing while we were still primarily arboreal or only after we spent more time on the ground is interesting but doesn’t affect the big picture.

          • John Tillman – September 9, 2019 at 3:31 pm

            The fact remains that we evolved in an environment transitioning from forest to grassland,

            OH GOOD GRIEF, …….. nothing makes sense in the evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens other than a close association with an aquatic environment, to wit:

            The evolution of bipedal locomotion, loss of protective body hair and the growth/formation of “sweat glands” over their entire epidermal skin area are just three (3) of the physical attributes that our early human ancestors (the only living sub-species in the Family of Great Apes) acquired during the past two (2) million years, ….. for them to best survive in the environment that they chose to live and reproduce in.

            So, the question is, what was their selected environment like that best suited a bipedal stance or movement, ….. did not require the protection of a heavy coating of body hair, ,,,,, but absolutely, positively required that their entire body surface (epidermis) contain sweat glands that secrete copious amounts of salt (NaCl) containing water (H2O).

            Surely that environment was not a hot, semi-arid African savannah, …. simply because salt (NaCl) and water (H2O) are the two (2) most important, precious resources necessary for pre-human or human survival, ….. and thus it would be highly detrimental to one’s survival if they indiscriminately rid their body of said without an immediate means of replacing said losses. Too little, or too much water (H2O) or salt (NaCl) is a cause of certain death to humans.

            As far as anyone knows, ….. the evolving of “sweat glands” in the epidermis covering of the human body may have specifically evolved for ridding the body of excess salt (that was/is ingested as a result of their primary food source) …… because the retention of too much salt will kill you “deader than a door nail”, There has been more than one (1) human that has died from drinking “salty” water. And a “heat stroke” is the result of “sweating out” too much of the body’s salt content.

            If one is only focusing on or only considering “human furlessness”, …. then I agree, one will not readily see anything particularly aquatic about it. And the same goes for human bipedalism, you won’t see anything particularly aquatic about it either. But you can’t be “focusing on” human furlessness or bipedalism if you are going to apply a kind of “reverse evolution” to determine the environmental “driver” of said attributes. Thus said, one has to focus on the “environmental driver(s)” responsible for the evolved attributes, …… and not the attributes themselves.

            Thus, it is of my learned opinion that human “furlessness” is a direct result of human “bipedalism”. In other words, human bipedalism was the “environmental driver” responsible for human furlessness.

            And I say that because, if our early human ancestors had never evolved the ability of bipedal walking over the course of 300K or a million years, ….. then there would not have been any logical reason (environmental driver) for their body to evolve furlessness. Human bipedalism and furlessness go “hand-in-hand”, no need of one without the other.

            And, the next obvious question that I am sure you will want me to provide an answer to/for is: “And just what is the “environmental driver” responsible for human bipedalism?”

            And the simple answer to the aforesaid question is, ….. our early human ancestors, which eventually evolved to be a sub-species of the Family of Great Apes, established a close association with an aquatic environment by taking up residence on or near the shoreline of a river, lake, tidal zone, estuary or inland sea simply because said body of water (H2O) provided them an easily accessible, abundant supply of high-protein foods that did not require the expenditure of great amounts of time and energy, …… or the use of tools, …. for harvesting said food or for eating of said foods. Life is good …… for any animal species that doesn’t have to spend all their waking hours searching for food and evading predators.

            And bipedal walking evolved as a result of ….. harvesting their food from the shallow waters. It is quite easy to learn to walk bipedally by walking (wading) in water because the water provides buoyancy to easily hold oneself in an upright position. And thus, our early ancestors that were the best bipedal waders/walkers in the water ……. were also the bestest provider of aquatic foods ….. and the bestest food provider got to do the mostest procreating with the females.

            Loss of body hair/fur by early humans resulted in the loss of a protective covering of the epidermis, which meant that it would have been highly improbable for early humans to walk or run amongst or through the brush, weeds, thorns, briars, etc., of the hot/dry African savannahs while looking for tubers or fruits, …… or either trying to catch a prey animal or trying to evade a predator animal ……. without their “bare” skin being cut, scraped, gouged and/or lacerated …. which would have surely resulted in their demise. Loss of body hair/fur also meant a loss of protection from blood-sucking and biting insects that commonly inhabit brushy fields, grasslands, savannahs and hot/humid locales.

            Loss of the majority of body hair/fur by early humans meant that they could more easily walk or wade bipedally in the water when harvesting aquatic foods. Heavy or thick body hair/fur would cause a severe “drag” on quick movements required to capture aquatic prey animals, especially in deep water.

            Humans retained their body hair under their arms and between the legs in their groin area simply because said patches of hair serves the purpose of a “dry lubricant”.

            And humans retained their body hair on their head most likely because of their bipedal stance. It protected their head and brain from the solar irradiance …… as well as providing a “glare reducing” aid or shield when bipedally walking in the water harvesting their food.

            “YUP”, the harvesting of their aquatic grown foods whose remains provided them with a variety of “natural tools” (bivalve shells, spines, claws, fish bones, etc.) that didn’t need any “inventing” by those early humans, …… who just had to figure out how best to use them for other purposes. And they had plenty of “free time” to do their “figuring” ….. because they were not spending all their awake hours searching for food and evading predators.

            It is utterly asinine and idiotic for anyone to claim that our early pre-human ancestors expended 200/300+ thousands of years on the African savannahs, at first evolving to walk bipedally, then to run bipedally, in order to chase down, kill and butcher Savannah living animals in order to acquire a sufficient source of high-protein foods, …… that they required for evolving a large brain and greater intelligence, ……. that was prerequisite to them being capable of “inventing” the tools ….. that was absolutely, positively necessary for the killing and/or butchering of the aforesaid animal protein.

            Cheers, …… S C Cogar

          • Sure, early hominins exploited lake shores and maybe rivers, but they got the fat to make bigger brains mainly from land animals. They didn’t need to run them down at first, but were able to scavenge carcasses, at first using rocks to break long bones and smash skulls, then making stone tools for that purpose.

            They didn’t live in the water, which was teeming with crocodylians. Better to take your chances with the leopards on the land.

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248417304062

            They slept in trees and foraged mainly on the ground.

          • John Tillman – September 10, 2019 at 11:11 am

            but they got the fat to make bigger brains mainly from land animals. They didn’t need to run them down at first, but were able to scavenge carcasses, at first using rocks to break long bones and smash skulls, then making stone tools for that purpose.

            The above is nothing more than a “blue sky dream” conjured up via the childish imagination of college professors who have never attempted to survive on the African savannah, bare-assed naked with only a stick to protect themselves from a predator.

            For every carcass, there is at least five (5) different predator species willing to fight for it. Lions, leopards, cheetahs, vultures, hyenas, etc., with their nose telling them where the carcass is ….. and which can’t be scared off by a defenseless hominid carrying a rock and/or a stick.

            Your “circular reasoning” is laughable, at the very least. Inventing tool (rocks) usage to acquire the necessary animal fat (and protein) necessary for evolving an intelligent brain that was necessary for the inventing of tool usage to acquire the necessary animal fat …… and round n’ round ya go.

            It’s easy to “talk trash”, ……it’s highly dangerous trying to “survive it”.

            Iffen in Alaska, with a high powered rifle and a sharp knife, don’t be fighting a Grizzly or Brown bear to claim a carcass, ……. you probably won’t survive the ordeal.

            Tillman, you don’t have any interest in talking/discussing evolution, …… you want to preach the religion of “consensus science” and expect everyone to believe without questioning.

          • John Tillman – September 10, 2019 at 11:11 am

            They didn’t live in the water, which was teeming with crocodylians.

            Correct, …. they didn’t live in the water ……. and they didn’t live on icebergs that were floating in the water, either. So quit posting asinine comments to distract from your misnurtured, miseducated beliefs concerning the environmental factors that determines “descent with modification” during the evolution of the various species.

            When you are “at-a-loss-for-words”, ….do you also mimic the all-time favorite by claiming that …. “humans didn’t evolve from monkeys”?

            And “NO”, it was foolish for you to claim all streams, rivers, lakes, inland seas and all coastal areas were “teeming with crocodylians”. “DUH”, how many crocodylians fossils have they found in The Great Rift Valley, in the vicinity of where Lucy was found near the shore of an inland sea?

            John Tillman – September 10, 2019 at 12:01 pm

            Acquiring salt was not a problem for hominins evolving in the Rift Valley, the lakes of which are now and were then salt

            Exactly right, John, …. and our early hominin ancestors evolved their H. sapiens attributes during their residency on those lake shores by harvesting the unlimited food supply found in the salty waters and ingesting too much salt in the process, which had to be gotten rid of. Aka: salty sweat from the epidermis.

  2. Thanks for your regular updates Dr. Spencer.

    August 2019 UAH temperature anomaly is below the August UAH El Niño years of 1998 and 2016.

    To put it another way no increase in last 21 years of August UAH temperature anomaly.

    • A proper comparison would be if we were now in a similar monster El Nino of 1998. Australian Bureau of Meteorology says we are ENSO neutral .

    • Larry Hamlin

      “To put it another way no increase in last 21 years of August UAH temperature anomaly.”

      Wrong. You can’t simply compare two arbitrarily chosen anomalies, you must calculate estimates over the period instead.

      The linear trend for the last 21 years (Sep 1998 – Aug 2019) is 0.13 ± 0.02 °C / decade.
      Thus, the increase during that period is a bit over 0.26 °C.
      It’s not much! But it is.

  3. Global temps have been likely propped up by the El Nino conditions that have existed for the period October 2018 to end-July 2019.
    The ENSO 3.4 index anomaly fell 0.4 in June (from 1.0 to ~ 0.6), in July it was up-down with little change (and finished July at ~ 0.55). In August ENSO 3.4 fell a whopping 0.75 to end the month at -0.2.
    The actual ENSO 3.4 index is now below where even the latest ENSO 3.4 models runs says it should be except for the NASA GMAO dynamical model run, a dynamical model run which forecasts a continued 3.4 index fall to -1.0 LaNina conditions by end November 2019. The ensemble average is far off the current mark.

    Along with the ongoing solar minimum, the ENSO indices declines portend an early hard NH winter is ahead, and the beginning of some inconvenient multi-year cooling for the alarmists to handwave and adjust away. It will be hard to justify that though the “warmest ever” alarmist rhetoric when people are experiencing some nasty cold harsh winter weather next December-January-February and the US Democrats running for Prez are telling them how much more expensive their energy needs to become to “fight global warming.”

    • The development of a strong La Nina at this time of year would put some ‘pause’ in the global warming hysteria. They would need to go back to weather weirding and other comic book plots.

    • The lag is up to 4-5 months and El Nino conditions just ended at the beginning of August. The persistent weak trade winds in the far west Pacific is odd though, they seem to be preventing a strong La Nina from forming for years now.

      • Robert, we’ve been under a positive PDO since 2014. I suspect this could be the reason we haven’t seen a La Nina.

        • The reason why we have not seen an La Nina is mainly based on low solar activity.

          ENSO long-term variation is closely related to the secular solar activity variations.
          • Both the intensity and occurrence frequency of El Nino are low at secular solar maximum and high at secular solar minimum.
          • In the 11-year solar cycle, El Nino has a statistically significant minimum one year before solar activity maximum
          • Whatever factors drive El Nino, the conditions in solar max are more unfavourable for its occurrence.

          The main factor that causes El Niño is the Walker circulation that relies on more active solar activity to speed it up.

  4. The line wiggled again… because ‘climate change’!
    Somebody blame this wiggle for causing hurricane Dorian, quick!

    • CdL, I would expect September to be down somewhat as the El Nino effect is lessened. For the NH winter months we see a warming effect from lower Arctic sea ice. ENSO appears most likely to remain neutral.

      So, no major drop in the numbers likely until next year.

  5. Meanwhile, in the 20-year interval from Jan 1979 to Jan 1999, humans released 25% of the total cumulative amount of CO2 calculated to have been released anthropogenically from 1750 to end-2018, but in the 20-year interval from Jan 1999 to Jan 2019 humanity released a much larger percentage of the same cumulative amount: 37%, or almost 50% more.

    Does the trending of UAH satellite-based GLAT show an atmospheric response to this change in the release rate of anthropomorphic CO2? Or even response to the Keeling curve exponential growth of CO2, however originated? In both cases, no, it does not . . . the overall trend is linear.

    So, does anthropomorphic CO2 affect GLAT? No, it does not . . . we have actually performed the necessary experimental test in the actual dynamic system (with all associated feedback mechanisms and complexities) over 40 years and have seen a null result.

    Data source: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions via https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

  6. In my area , August high temps were 3.6 deg F BELOW average ….. low temps were 1 deg F ABOVE average …
    semi rural …. WUWT ?

    • Mojave Desert region here. August highs were noticeably low. I didn’t record them but we had very few days over 100f and none over 105f. Typically August gets many 110f days and a few 115f days. Nighttime lows seemed normal. I know satellite data is suppose to be reliable, but has anyone checked for possible bias in them?

      • Dunnooo:

        We have been geoengineering the planet since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (circa 1850), by introducing dimming anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions into the atmosphere. which peaked at ~ 135 Megatons in the late 1970’s, creating fears of a new Ice Age due to their cooling effect.

        Then we instituted global Clean Air efforts in the late 1970,s, reducing SO2 aerosol emissions to currently around 80 Megatons, and as a result have caused temperatures to rise.

        It is obvious that we have the ability to regulate our global climate simply by adjusting the amount of SO2 aerosol emissions into the atmosphere, although random VEI4, and larger, volcanic eruptions spewing SO2 into the stratosphere could make that rather difficult.

  7. Does the month affect the anomaly? Meaning are some months on average hotter or cooler than other months on a world wide average ?

    • Stevek
      Firstly, I have no idea what is meant by an ‘anomaly’. If you accept an ‘average’ world-wide temperature, you should look at how many Standard Deviations away from the mean the presented temperatures are and the probability of those temperatures happening. I prefer to use z-scores for this if the data can be accepted as a normal distribution.
      Secondly, it depends on what data you are using (obviously). Is it maximum temperatures recorded for a particular area for a month? The MET Office data set from 1853 records Tmax and Tmin for each month.
      I don’t know what you think but for me, this is meaningless. One measurement used to infer a continuous time series for one month is not a reliable indicator of how the data was measured, which data was used or how it could possibly be used to create a world-wide mean for one particular month.
      I have therefore no idea what the above graph is trying to tell me.
      I used the MET Office data for Oxford as a basis for a Python article on http://www.thatsenoughofthat.com
      It shows some warming since the end of the Little Ice Age but it would impossible to predict if June 2020 would be any warmer/cooler than any other month in the data set. But then again, it’s more of a ‘how to use Python’ piece.

    • Does the month affect the anomaly?

      No. The anomaly is calculated on a monthly basis. There are no seasonal biases in the data set.

    • “Does the month affect the anomaly? Meaning are some months on average hotter or cooler than other months on a world wide average ?

      anomalies are easy to understand.

      lets see how they work!

      Take every january for 30 years: Average them for a location ( or the globe, doesnt matter)
      Do this for every month.

      Suppose a location Seoul

      https://www.google.com/search?q=average+weather+for+seoul&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS751US752&oq=average+weather+for+seoul&aqs=chrome..69i57.6066j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

      every month has an average: this is called the “climate” of Seoul

      Its sept: the average LOW is 16C, average high is 26.

      TAVG = 21C

      Suppose sept 2019 the average low is 17C

      The anomaly is 17-16.

      we use anomalies in all sorts of areas, especially if the data is seasonal

      • Not really.
        What you have calculated is a temperature differential and not an average temperature.
        What you could do is make a probability density graph and check for any skew or kurtosis.
        The data points will mostly fall into a normal distribution. Of course, there will be outliers which you may decide to use or not.
        You could then create z-scores for the data. 95% of all data points should fall between +- 2 standard deviations away from the mean. You can work out the p-value for any particular data point.
        Saying that the data point is an anomaly to the mean is disingenuous and misleading.
        A ‘month’ is also an arbitrary length of time for arriving at a data point or a mean for a time series, so that may skew your data.

  8. Low earth orbit is getting crowded enough so that an air traffic controller-like system is needed.

    Even if the Earth is facing catastrophe (it isn’t) and even if the cause of that catastrophe is techno-industrial society burning fuel (it isn’t) continuing that techno-industrial system will give us the capability to place swarms of satellites that can reflect light towards and away from the Earth as we see fit – literally controlling the climate.

    It’s all so tiresome.

  9. Does anyone know if there is a site that regularly updates the UAH monthly data against the IPCC models? There were quite a few graphs floating around pre 2016, then I think the El Niño “muddied the waters”. Seems to me with recent recordings regularly under 0.4 anomaly, that it would be an ugly graph for the alarmists and I would delight in posting on Facebook etc.

  10. Do some months effect the anomaly?

    The satellite used to take these measurements has an orbital repeat period of 16 days. That means the instrument ‘measures’ the temperature (radiance etc) at the spot on earth where you are standing twice per month.

    That is 24 measurements per year at each spot on the earth (the atmosphere above your spot at various altitudes).

    It is not a lot of data, but it is the best we have.

  11. I’ve been reading about the drop in growing degree days (GDD) in the United States this year compared to last. Not sure if anyone has information on this. It sounds like extremes in one direction or the other can halt plant growth. There’s a calculator at this website. When I plugged in my zip code, it showed about 14% drop in GDD from 2018 to 2019 for year-to-date.

    http://www.greencastonline.com/growing-degree-days/home

  12. For those who think / imagine / guess / claim / pretend that the Globe experiences a cooling since 2016, solely because the UAH LT trend for Jan 2016 – Aug 2019 is highly negative (-0.73 ± 0.19 °C / decade), here are some facts.

    1. The trend for the corresponding period of the previous major El Nino, i.e. Jan 1998 – Aug 2001, was even much lower (-1.39 ± 0.28 °C / decade).

    All trends for periods starting with a high value and ending with a lower one are by definition negative.

    *
    2. If you compare the UAH anomalies around the two recent major El Nino periods of same length (56 months):
    – Jan 1997 – Aug 2001
    – Jan 2015 – Aug 2019

    such that all anomalies are made relative to their period’s begin, i.e. by subtracting the Jan 1997 anomaly from all anomalies in Jan 1997 – Jun 2001, and the Jan 2015 anomaly from all anomalies in Jan 2015 – Jun 2019, you see this:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y1zmzMt_1gD5jxCOH13UVYvbocYulbNz/view

    (1) – Though the UAH 2016 peak is, within the original anomaly plot

    https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2019_v6-550×317.jpg?resize=554%2C321&ssl=1

    higher than the 1998 peak, 1997/98 nevertheless was quite a lot stronger than 2015/16.

    There was simply some little warming in between, which was eliminated in the comparison graph above; that gives a better match with the MEI levels for the El Ninos in 1998 (3.0) and 2016 (2.5).

    (2) – Both periods are very similar, with a drop after the El Nino bump, followed by kinda rebound.

    Thus, to speak of a cooling since 2016 is, hmmmh, a bit strange.

    • The UAH satellite data clearly shows that there has been a cooling trend in GLAT from 2016 to present day (both by individual data points and by the 13-month running average).

      The UAH satellite data also clearly shows that same interval and degree of cooling are not statistically SIGNIFICANT when looking at the stochastic-like variations in the full data set over 40 years.

      • Thanks Mr Dressler

        But you did not (want to?) understand what I wrote.
        All you wrote can be applied to the 1997-2001 period.

        What matters is the comparison of the two.

        • How’s that? There is merit to comparing one interval of “noise” to another interval of “noise”? Who knew?

          • How long does a temperature trend have to continue before its signal emerges from the noise? This became an issue during the “Pause”, with ever-shifting statistical goalposts.

            The trend from 1998 to 2019 is less than 0.08 degrees C of warming per decade:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2019/trend

            When would the downtrend from 2016 become significant, if not reversed by a new Super El Nino warmer than 2016 by a tiny fraction, as it was over the 1998 event? But the next SEN might well be slightly cooler. Then what?

            As noted, another 18 years, or even ten or 15, without a hotter El Nino should doom CACA, were it science rather than politics and religion.

          • John Tillman asked: “How long does a temperature trend have to continue before its signal emerges from the noise?”

            I believe this question is better rephrased as “How does one determine the validity of a given curve fit through a given amount of somewhat “noisy” data . . . with “noise” in both the amplitude and frequency domains?”

            I also believe Jamal Munshi and other very competent mathematicians have addressed this question. I am not a statistician, but understand that the answer lies beyond just determining the R^2 value of a linear regression curve fit (linear, polynomial, exponential, logarithmic, etc.) through the entire data set. If I remember correctly one fairly easy test is to divide the data set in half (either randomly as data point ensembles, or by time such as first interval/second interval of the full data set in question), and then to perform the same least-squares curve fit through these two separate sets. If the R^2 values of each fit are nearly identical across both sets, then there are probably sufficient data to have established a valid trend . . . if not, more data is needed or you just conclude the trend cannot be established with any confidence.

            With data that has some quasi-periodic cyclical content (as does the UAH GLAT data set . . . trust your eyes, for they are amazing at picking up QUALITATIVELY on signal patterns!), it is almost mandatory that one has a data group that covers a period as long as—preferably longer-than–twice the period of the longest “cycles” seen in the total data set. Any shorter interval than this and you lose confidence the dependent data group in question is “representative” of any underlying independent parameter variations. For the UAH satellite data presented by Dr. Spencer in the graph in the above article, it appears to me the longest “observed cycle” period is around 5 years duration . . . therefore I would not attempt to claim a trend for any subgroup of data covering less than 10 years.

            Even with this “rule-of-thumb”, you can see there as still some problems . . . visualize sliding a 10 year window along the 13-month running average curve, from left to right, and you will see that liner fits of the red curve within this window will vary randomly across the range of positive slope, zero slope, and negative slope over time.

    • Super El Nino of 1998 was followed by a statistically significant period of practically no warming until 2016 Super El Nino. If a cooling or flat trend should likewise follow the 2016 warm spike, then CACA will be well and truly flushed down the drain.

        • Although by then alarmists might have succeeded in closing down UAH, leaving only the cooked books “surface station” and oceanic “data”, plus RSS, now fully on board with the CACA Borg.

      • John Tillman:

        The “Super El Nino of 1998” was caused by a reported 7.7 Megaton reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions between 1996 and 1997, and the El Nino of 2015-16 was largely caused by a 29 Megaton in SO2 emissions from China, due to a mandatory reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions implemented in 2014.

        You will find that all La Ninas are preceded by increased amounts of atmospheric SO2 aerosol emissions (primarily from random volcanic eruptions), and all El Ninos result from decreased levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.

        There no climate “Cycles” and no “greenhouse gas” warming Our changing average global temperatures are simply the climatic response to changing levels of SO2 aerosol emissions in the atmosphere. As such, their appearance, in most instances, can be predicted.

  13. John Tillman:

    The “Super El Nino of 1998” was caused by a reported 7.7 Megaton reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions between 1996 and 1997, and the El Nino of 2015-16 was largely caused by a 29 Megaton in SO2 emissions from China, due to a mandatory reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions implemented in 2014.

    You will find that all La Ninas are preceded by increased amounts of atmospheric SO2 aerosol emissions (primarily from random volcanic eruptions), and all El Ninos result from decreased levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.

    There no climate “Cycles” and no “greenhouse gas” warming Our changing average global temperatures are simply the climatic response to changing levels of SO2 aerosol emissions in the atmosphere. As such, their appearance, in most instances, can be predicted.

    (This post is directed to John Tillman, who does not appear to be aware of these facts)

  14. John Tillman:

    The “Super El Nino of 1998” was caused by a reported 7.7 Megaton reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions between 1996 and 1997, and the El Nino of 2015-16 was largely caused by a 29 Megaton in SO2 emissions from China, due to a mandatory reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions implemented in 2014.

    You will find that all La Ninas are preceded by increased amounts of atmospheric SO2 aerosol emissions (primarily from random volcanic eruptions), and all El Ninos result from decreased levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.

    There no climate “Cycles” and no “greenhouse gas” warming Our changing average global temperatures are simply the climatic response to changing levels of SO2 aerosol emissions in the atmosphere. As such, their appearance, in most instances, can be predicted.

    (This post is new on this thread, and is directed to John Tillman, who does not appear to be aware of these facts)

Comments are closed.