UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2020: +0.54 deg. C

Reposted from Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog

June 2nd, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2020 was +0.54 deg. C, up from the April, 2020 value of +0.38 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 is +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

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

 YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.14 +1.15
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.05 +0.05
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.59
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.49 +0.92 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.40 -0.61 +0.98 +0.38
2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35
2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.10 +0.33 +0.87
2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.24
2019 09 +0.61 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57
2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.28 +0.31 -0.03 +0.99 +0.50
2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.38
2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
2020 01 +0.56 +0.60 +0.53 +0.62 +0.73 +0.12 +0.66
2020 02 +0.76 +0.96 +0.55 +0.76 +0.38 +0.02 +0.30
2020 03 +0.48 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.09 -0.72 +0.17
2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.34 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
2020 05 +0.54 +0.60 +0.49 +0.66 +0.17 +1.15 -0.15

The UAH LT global gridpoint anomaly image for May, 2020 should be available within the next week 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

290 thoughts on “UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2020: +0.54 deg. C

  1. Its amazing how these are never reflective of my experience here in the central US. May was much cooler than usual around Kansas City, but evidently much warmer somewhere else. Not sure where that would be…

    • Andrew Kerber
      June 2, 2020 at 2:16 pm

      Well, we’re having a very warm start to our winter here in New Zealand this year. It all averages out I guess.

      However, I would much rather see a 1.4C rise per century coming out of an ice age rather than a fall of 1.4C!

        • We had snow on 1 May in Victoria and it has been the coldest wettest start to a year in the last 20 years

          • We had the fireplace on in Woodstock, Vermont, US, on May 31, 2020, and the next morning there was frost on the roof.

            This morning, June 3, the temperature was under 40F on the porch.

    • My thoughts too, I did not really warm up till mid may in the UK, snow was falling near builth wells may 13.

      • But May on the whole has been pretty warm in the UK.

        Mean temperatures about 1°C above the 1981-2010 average.

        • Yep I take it that was unusual for Oregon, the UK drought is over from yesterday, Friday will see my area barley scrape double figures that’s very odd for early June, it’s looking like a week of below average temps even a few days below average for the south east.

          • The poor tulips didn’t know what hit them when overnight low dipped into the 20s F.

        • Similar in Northern California. Lots of rain during May, and more coming in, 3 days of rain forecast for the end of the week. This has been an extra wet spring, and certainly cooler than all previous years with the exception of 2011 when I moved back into the mountains. That was that last cold snap of 2010/11 where UAH temps were below the zero trend line. That was really cold weather all through May in that year.

      • Germany in May was 1.2k below average and we have until now below 0°C night temperatures on ground.

        • At my zip code in middle Tennessee, April & May were below average (-1.9F & -1.8F respectively). June is starting out slightly below average. On the other hand, Jan, Feb, & March were above average.

      • The uselessness of averages, I live near Abergavenny, it was very warm at the very beginning of may, I was working in full chainsaw gear, about 21c daytime max, it was warm but nightime minima were low, around 3-4c , then it cooled off. Then for the last two weeks about 4-6c above average of 18ish c. So is an average of that any use? I would say on average it has been above average….

        • You cant say the uselessness of averages then rely on 2 weeks above average to surgest 3,4 c above average for may that’s a contradiction, with no average taken. mid west Wales had two frost nights in mid may ,upland, at 11c for the mid week day time temps ,with near 0 temps at night, you average that out and may will be cooler than average, there was also a significant wind chill factor as the high pressure system from the east dominated the weather ,UK Wales may was a anomily month . The anomily of snow mid may just N/E of builth wells saw temps drop to 1c day time for 5 hours ,at the same time there was significant snow across Scotland upland.

          This week sees rain and much cooler temps with Friday in my area seeing a 10c drop on temps to what they were on Tuesday yesterday for Wales the next two weeks will be below the average for June,

          Snow gfs early may https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/snow-risk

          Gfs predictions for the next 16 days UK way below any average for June with wide variations all with a below average temp range

          https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/average-uk-temperature

          It will be interesting what MSM report on this

          Allan if your about what do you think?

          • Three nights from now area temps will drop to a forecast 33 F. That might be close to a record for this time of year for this area.

        • The uselessness of averages…

          Averages are quite important when the argument is in effect, “my subjective experience disproves the work of Dr Spencer.”.

          UAH is trying to estimate the average global temperature for May, if you are arguing that the UK weather contradicts the satellite data, it’s useful to know what the average UK temperature was.

          • the UAH measures lower troposphere temps, not 2m above ground temps

            Correct, but people here where trying to imply that their cold 2m above ground experience contradicts the UAH data. Starting with Andrew Kerber saying “Its amazing how these are never reflective of my experience here in the central US.”, followed by you saying “My thoughts too, I did not really warm up till mid may in the UK, snow was falling near builth wells may 13.”

          • To respond to your last comment ( since I can’t reply under it )

            The media/left shovel out ALL their GRETA propaganda on the ground temps as proof of their CAGW theory – all the time. Have a big storm on the ground – “it’s proof of global warming!!!! ”

            This BS is All the time.

            So if others respond in kind – kindly admonish the media/progs too as I feel you’re being unfair here.

            PS it HAS been unusually COLD in my local of eastern ONT Canada. FAR below averages over one week of above average heat. Talk to the crop planters in my area and they’ll tell you how not average it’s been. The cold stunts plant growth. I can easily see that in flora and fauna in my local.

            +2c here a couple nights ago. You know it’s a bad sign when the freshly grown maple leave tips already have gone reddish from the cold. SMH.

          • Cold Arctic outbreaks have been attributed by Judith Curry and others to the loss of Arctic sea ice.
            I know that seems counter-intuitive, but science often is counter-intuitive

            Arctic sea ice loss tied to unusual jet stream patterns
            By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 2:40 PM GMT on April 02, 2012

            Earth has seen some highly unusual weather patterns over the past three years, and three new studies published this year point to Arctic sea loss as a potential important driver of some of these strange weather patterns. The record loss of sea ice the Arctic in recent years may be increasing winter cold surges and snowfall in Europe and North America, says a study by a research team led by Georgia Institute of Technology scientists Jiping Liu and Judith Curry. The paper, titled “Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall”, was published on Feb. 27, 2012 in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, in a press release. “The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents.”

            read more here:
            https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/arctic-sea-ice-loss-tied-to-unusual-jet-stream-patterns.html

          • Jack,

            Except that 2012 was the record low ice year. Not sure any general conclusions can be drawn from that correlation.

            Would have to compare the two next lowest years, 2007 and 2016, which weren’t close.

            Rather, it could be that the late summer Arctic cyclones which produce low ice years are tied to the weather systems that cause outbreaks.

          • @Jack Dale
            2012 was realy the year with a minimum of Arctic ice, but you realised, the ice loss is over ?
            I’m just reflecting about what you would tell us.

          • Krishna

            2012 was a record year for ice extent loss. Th age of the ice is tending down and the volume of the ice is trending down.

            This year’s extent is trending significantly lower than 2012.

          • As the article or rather data states the 2019/20 arctic ice season is not quite the linear nose dive you would have us believe, although low granted

    • Andrew <=== Same comment from Northern Virginia. April and May were downright chilly, and it is only now warming to seasonal levels. The next 10 days will be quite warm, though. 93 F tomorrow, with highs in the mid to low 80s thereafter. I hope it cooks the coronavirus, but good.

      • Dido from penn. been hoping it would finally warm and help dump this stupid virus, but of course it’s been a very cool spring here.

    • I was wondering were I could go to experience that warming. Here we are the first of june and temps are very cool in eastern Ontario.

    • For example
      In Spain, it has been very hot since the second half of May
      Hotter as of Late June
      Not to talk about the winter he had, that if you were under direct Sunlight, you felt it like spring time

      • Miki
        “Late June?” Are you talking about ‘back to the future’ temperatures?

        • “Back to the future Temperatures”…
          We just had(and still have) Temperatures that are not normal in May

    • “Its amazing how these are never reflective of my experience here in the central US. May was much cooler than usual around Kansas City, but evidently much warmer somewhere else. Not sure where that would be…”

      the global average will always differ from the local average.
      and some local averages will always be lower than the mean, while other are higher.
      plus you are more aware of extremes than you are of the mean,
      AND more aware of when your impression DIFFERS than when it coincides with the mean

      information entropy. you are tuned to detect when your personal experience differs from the mean.

      this is why we dont consider your feelings

      • Averaging temperatures from wildly different climate zones is why I don’t consider global temperature anything more than numerology, about as valid as astrology. You simply cannot average bone dry polar temperatures with super moist equatorial temperatures.

        The total atmospheric energy computed from the temperatures at the face height of a human could be a possibly valid number iff I trusted the people doing the computation. I do not. But long term temperature readings from are just that, thermometers in a Stevenson Screen, face height of a human.

        If there is a trend in temperatures, then the best method given the historical records would be to determine trend at each station and then average these trends. This is still like asking a democrat for an accurate vote count given station changes and losses. Hanging chads everywhere.

        This is why I don’t consider so called climate scientists better than astrologers. They will compute the answer they want.

        As proof, the corrections to temperature readings absolutely must reduce the measured increased trend due to the urban heat island effect given the large increase in population. The corrections are false. they do the opposite. There is no honest way out of this conclusion. I really have become bored by the lies.

        • “Averaging temperatures from wildly different climate zones is why I don’t consider global temperature anything more than numerology, about as valid as astrology. You simply cannot average bone dry polar temperatures with super moist equatorial temperatures.”

          Thats why we dont average temperature.

          the only person I know who averages temperatures is Tony Heller.

          I think you dont understand the actual math, because what you describe is not done.

          maybe your cartoon version of what is done could benefit from reading actual code

          • “I think you dont understand the actual math”

            That’s hilarious coming from a “languages” dropout !!

            We all know that BEST average regional expectations 😉

          • How in Pete’s name are the anomalies calculated???????

            Temperatures are AVERAGED first and then are subtracted from some so-called baseline temperature – WHICH IS ITSELF IS AN AVERAGE TEMPERATURE!

            Do *YOU* have some kind of a thermometer that measures in “anomaly” instead of Centigrade, Fahrenheit, or Kelvin?

          • So the average global temperature of land stations is not the average of those temperatures?

        • Usually what is averaged is anomalies, a choice that reduces the problem.
          I say usually because from time to time there’s discussions of an absolute global average temperature.
          Averaging trends from each individual station can work too, with its own set of pros and cons.

          Even a simple operation like computing the anomaly adds error – this is basic error propagation, nothing esoteric there and neither it can be avoided with statistical wizardry.
          It’s hard to tell how errors propagate through the complex calculations used to produce global anomaly series, but with some metrological good practice I’d say that it cannot be better than +/- 0.5 °C.

          • To be statistically correct every average must also include either the standard deviation or the variance. Otherwise you have no idea what the population looks like.
            Anomalies automatically reduce the variance to low single digits because of using individual station baselines. Global absolute temps instead may have a variance of several tens of a degree.
            The question is if averaging anomaly trends of individual stations give you a true picture of absolute global temperature changes. I don’t believe the anomaly process provides an accurate view of what the global temps are doing. For one thing, the process results in an non-reversible number. You cannot compute actual temps at a station from an anomaly. Secondly, reducing the variance to a low artificial number is misleading.

        • Average temperatures, even if presented as anomalies from a baseline, tell you absolutely nothing. Anyone that believes they do drastically failed 6th grade math.

          Climate is determined by the maximum and minimum temperatures of the temperature envelope, not by the average temperature. Average temperature can go up from either the maximum temp of the envelope going up or by the minimum temp of the envelope going up. You simply can’t tell from an average, even if it is expressed as an “anomaly”.

          If you can’t tell from the average what is actually going on then of what use is the “average”?

          The real joke is that AGW climate alarmists trying to tell us that the Earth is going to turn into a cinder because the “average” temperature is going up. They simply can’t come to that conclusion from an “average”.

      • “the global average will always differ from the local average”

        Yep, everything will NATURALLY be a degree or so either way.

      • The gold standard of the climate idiot is that the temperatures where I rest my ass the last month are lower than the global averages, so the global averages must be wrong, or even better, the global averages is a hoax.

    • Spencer’s values are fabricated fudging, not real “measurement” in my view. Here are actual ground and ocean based thermometer readings, unadjusted and no “fudge factors” applied as are heavily applied to Spencer’s so called values:

      http://temperature.global/?fbclid=IwAR1mhZfsFG7WnZYOjTznx_Yvy-_MguXETmvV-cioDlJGGsEqNoWppwAMrUo

      The recorded global temperature for previous years:
      2015 average: 0.98 °F (0.54 °C) below normal
      2016 average: 0.48 °F (0.27 °C) below normal
      2017 average: 0.47 °F (0.26 °C) below normal
      2018 average: 1.33 °F (0.74 °C) below normal
      2019 average: 0.65 °F (0.36 °C) below normal

      ” Temperature.Global calculates the current global temperature of the Earth. It uses unadjusted surface temperatures. The current temperature is the 12M average mean surface temperature over the last 12 months compared against the 30 year mean. New observations are entered each minute and the site is updated accordingly. This site was created by professional meteorologists and climatologists with over 25 years experience in surface weather observations.
      Data Sources

      NOAA Global METARs
      NOAA One-Minute Observations (OMOs)
      NBDC Global Buoy Reports
      MADIS Mesonet Data ”

      Currently: 57.15°F/13.97°C
      Deviation: -0.05°F/-0.03°C
      Stations processed last hour: 68458
      Last station processed: JAGS McCartney, Turks And Caicos Islands
      Update time: 2020-06-03 11:47:27 UTC

        • I do hes comparing apples and oranges ,uahv6 measures troposphere temps were he is compairing near surface temperature

          • B d Clark is misinformed. The Lower Troposphere includes surface data (according to UAH), and up to 10 km in altitude. The “surface” air temperatures (2 m above ground), is within the lower troposphere!

            What Clark suggests is that apples cannot fall from apple trees if I may reverse the analogy… Either the sun heats the ground, which then heats the air, or the sun heats the air which back radiates to the ground (sarcasm). In either case if a multi year trend of one diverges from the other – you have a problem (with one or the other’s data). A problem already identified in Spencer’s own admissions – the radiative sensing by satellites cannot measure the temperature, temperature is inferred from the satellite readings with complex maths and numerous correction factors.

            Ground or buoy based thermometers need no such fudge factors to directly read temperature reasonably accurately.

            I do not doubt that Spencer has done yeoman’s work in teasing data from the satellite record. But RSS gets a different result from the very same satellite data!

            Spencer’s data informs – loosely but is not something any engineer would design a car or a plane or a bridge upon regards accuracy or reliability! Keep that in mind.

            If I may offer a better analogy than apples and oranges – ground based (some 65,000 stations sampled every minute as in the temperatureglobal database) temperature is something you can rely on if critical aspects need determination.

            Let’s use your car’s engine as example. We know with certainty if it is allowed to overheat – you will cause catastrophic damage to said engine – very rapidly these days with aluminum engine blocks and cylinder heads….

            The ground based data is with thermometers – you can directly measure the engine’s temperature say by pressing a thermometer against the thermostat housing of a running engine.

            Spencer’s satellite method uses IR emission – which then reads the engine’s temperature from 100 to 200 miles up. Doubtful any IR instrument can resolve to within 1/2 meter to read the engine temperature, but even if it could resolve the engine bay – which reading are you going to trust to insure your engine does not catastrophically overheat?

            That is my point – the satellite data is unreliable for any critical application – such as destroying our energy intensive society with runaway CO2 warming nonsense!

          • No I’m not misinformed the data is taken from 3 positions/ readings

            The Lower troposphere – TLT (originally called T2LT).The mid troposphere – TMTThe lower stratosphere – TLS

            I’m not surprised there is a difference in results from what you linked too, nor am I disagreeing with the results in your link,

            You dismissed Spencer’s results in a derogatory way, which was uncalled for, Spencer’s results are different because they measure a broader area of data there is no reason to belive they are wrong, were as your results are confined,

            Your the one compairing apples to oranges, both results are valid and combined give a broad truer picture of temps within the result areas.

    • Not sure where that would be…

      In case anyone’s interested the UAH map is now up

      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

      It shows warmer areas include Russia, Western Europe, SW USA, and most of South America Africa and the tropics. Colder areas include Central Europe and Scandinavia, Eastern USA, and Australia.

  2. It’s a very smart chart and and a nice table, but for ignoramuses like me it would be nice to have a few sentences to provide context.

    The first couple of sentences would explain where these readings are taken, and what is the purpose of them. Advise how long this data has been captured (30 years/ 30 weeks/ 30 days?) and whether it is raw data or has been massaged and “interpolated”.

    Then present the data

    Then have a couple of sentences to draw a conclusion, even if the conclusion is simply “we can’t infer any thing from this data yet; we need more months of readings”

    It comes down to “know your audience”

  3. This has been one of the mildest Texas Springs I can remember – but NO it’s worse than I thought. It’s amazing…it’s always worse than I thought.

    I suppose some arctic measuring station right outside a heater vent recorded higher temperatures and these were then extrapolated over 20% of the world.

  4. So, it’ll take hundreds of years to get the several degrees of warming they don’t want us to have, and by the time we are living in the 23rd century, we won’t likely have any oil or coal left anyway.

  5. With Lockdown there have been less particulate emissions. At least here in the UK we could personally tell that the air was clear for two weeks. Ad it’s still not as dusty in the air despite the dryness.

    Less particulates – less nucleation of water vapour – less clouds – less shade – less cooling – less temperature variation – less instability of weather fronts.

    So drier, sunnier, then warmer more stable weather. Exactly what we saw.

    Strange how the cooling then warming since the mid 20th century coincides more with the Clean Air Acts than with the ongoing rise in [CO2].

      • Except that M Courtney lives in the UK, still part of Europe.
        In NSW Australia we had already a dusting of snow last Sunday on the Blue Mountains and beautiful clear cold days.
        The traffic is starting up again and the lockdown is being eased.
        Hopefully you in the USA will settle all the fires and looting and look after your sick and disadvantaged better.
        In Australia the major deaths were in an aged care facility.
        Glad to see you made it so far in the UK, M Courtney.

  6. Well, what I see is a baseline shift from around +0.15 deg from 2000-2015 to +0.30 deg after 2015. I’m not seeing it sink back down to pre 2015 level.

    • That time period has been dominated by El Nino events. The most recent one just ended in May. However, the satellite data lags El Nino events by around 3 months. Hence, May is still influenced by the added heat. We should get a better handle on where we are in August.

      • I’m waiting for the la nina event … not seeing it happen. The dip between the el nino’s didn’t dip very much. But let’s see how it goes 🙂

      • El Niño events from some periods no longer surpass in Temp Their next La Niña period(1980-1990s weren’t warmer than 2000s for example)
        El Niño is no longer the dominant climate driver, it’s just a secondary aspect the reinforces or decreases an already existing growth in Temperature

  7. Here in Southamerica, the fall has been quite warm. We had not have cold days as it suppossed to be

  8. Has anyone other than the skeptic community noticed that the global temperature will likely be way less than 2 C higher a hundred years from now. Extrapolating at 0.14 C / decade would be 1.4 C per century. We’ve got a hundred years to adapt to 1.4 C. We can do it. Yes we can.

    • there is no reason to think that the rate of warming won’t increase given that the rate of increase of CO2
      in the atmosphere is also increasing. And if you wanted to cherry pick a few shorter periods since 2000
      the rate of increase has been about 0.25 per decade and so the earth is well on track to exceed 2 degrees of warming by the end of the century.

      • Over the last 150 years, there has been no correlation between temperature and CO2, why should anyone expect such a correlation to suddenly show up now?

      • No warming from 1998 to 2020, and cooling since Feb 2016, despite steady increase in plant food in the air.

        • Of course you can’t warm up IMMEDIATELY counting from a localised(in time) high peak, otherwise would be impossible
          But there has been warm in the 2nd half of the 2010s from the 1st
          And in the 2010s since 2000s
          And in the 2000s since the 1990s(no matter 1998 El Niño spike)
          That is a clear warming trend!!!

          • “That is a clear warming trend!!!”

            Not if you go by Tmax regional temperature charts. Then you will find the trend is a downtrend.

            The official global temperature record is computer generated science fiction. If you want the true temperatures, you have to look at the Tmax charts. The unmodified ones.

            In the Good Ole USA 1934 had the hottest temperature. Hanson said 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998. And 1998 was only one-tenth of a degree cooler than 2016, the so-called hottest year ever, and that would make 1934 0.4C warmer than 2016, and it’s warmer than subsequent years, right up to today. So, the U.S. is in a temperature downtrend. How does that happen in a CO2 driven climate? And the U.S. isn’t the only one.

            The only thing showing warming is the bogus, official global surface temperature chart that has been turned into science fiction by people with an agenda. And the agenda isn’t science.

          • “The only thing showing warming is the bogus, official global surface temperature chart that has been turned into science fiction by people with an agenda. And the agenda isn’t science.”

            Spencer and Christy at UAH show warming. What is their agenda?

          • You just said that ONLY ONE Max Temp is MORE accurate than a MEAN temp😒😒
            US 1986-2016 Average is far higher than 1901-1960
            Max temps are more or less the same in 2010s than 1930s
            But summer mins(nights), winter Maxs and Mins are far warmer
            Not to talk about 1980-2020 trends compared to 1900-1980 on those same aspects

          • “Spencer and Christy at UAH show warming. What is their agenda?”

            I’m referring to the bastardization of the Eartly Twenthieth Century Warming (ETCW) period (1900 to 1978). The mention of the year 1934 should have been a clue for you.

            I consider Spencer and Christy’s UAH readings to be accurate. Their temperature charts don’t have anything to do with the ETCW and it doesn’t change the fact that 1934, was warmer than any subsequent year in the United States, including this year.

          • “US 1986-2016 Average is far higher than 1901-1960”

            Here you go, Miki. As can be seen, Phil Jones doesn’t agree with you.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/30/what-are-in-fact-the-grounds-for-concern-about-global-warming/

            “Professor Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, admitted in an interview on the BBC in 2010 [12], that “for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different.”

            end excerpt

            Not only was the Early Twentieth Century Warming equal to the warming in the satellite era, it was also just as warm or warmer than the years of the satellite era, all over the world.

            Unmodified Tmax charts tell the real story. Bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global surface temperature readings are science fiction and a fraud on the people of the world.

            Ask yourself why Hockey Stick charts look nothing like Regional Tmax charts. One or the other of the charts is wrong because the two charts are telling a completely different story about the climate.

            All regional Tmax charts resemble each other in that they all show that the 1930’s was as warm or warmer than subsequent years. None of the Regional temperature charts resemble the bogus Hockey Stick chart. Not even close. The bogus Hockey Stick chart is all by itself. Nothing backs it up. It’s a Big Lie perpetrated on humanity.

          • Tom Abbott June 3, 2020 at 2:03 pm
            “Professor Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, admitted in an interview on the BBC in 2010 [12], that “for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different.”

            end excerpt

            He ‘admitted’ nothing of the sort. He was asked a loaded question based on cherry-picked data, he was also asked:
            “B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
            To which he replied:
            “Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”
            He followed it up the following year with:
            “The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn’t significant at the standard 95% level that people use. Basically what’s changed is one more year. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years – and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.
            It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that’s why longer series – 20 or 30 years – would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis.”

        • You are comparing apples to cherries.

          1998 – largest El Nino event in the previous 50 years.
          2016 – strong El Nino event.
          https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

          Current status – ENSO neutral. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html

          Plant food – very funny. N, P, K are plant. This what your lawn looks lie with too much plant food. https://todayshomeowner.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/help-fertilizer-burn-1-brown-spots.jpg

          • Sorry, using the example of someone using fertilizer equivalent to atmospheric CO2 of 100000 parts per million is just silly

            And likely beneath you

            Are you a politician?

          • CO2 is plant food, not like frertilizers.

            In photosynthesis, a photon breaks a water molecule into an H ion (proton) and an oxygen atom. In the dark reactions, the H combines with CO2 to make sugar, ie plant food. CO2 is the essential plant nutrient. It won’t burn your lawn.

            If you don’t know about photosynthesis, you can read all about it on the internet. CO2 is vital and more of it is better. In fact, plants would be happiest with CO2 levels three times their current level.

          • At 550 ppm CO2 the nutritional avalue of food crops is comperomised.
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0253-3

            Increased levels of CO2 result in increased predation by pests
            https://www.pnas.org/content/105/13/5129

            At night plants release CO2
            “It is well known that plants photosynthesise in the presence of sunlight, consuming carbon dioxide, water and energy, and producing glucose and oxygen. The reverse reaction, respiration, goes on all the time, consuming glucose and oxygen, and providing the plant with energy, whilst releasing water and carbon dioxide. During the day, photosynthesis is dominant, so there is a net consumption of carbon dioxide. At night, photosynthesis stops but respiration continues, so there is a net release of oxygen.

            Photosynthesis: 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy → C6H12O6 + 6O2

            Respiration: C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy”
            https://www.picotech.com/library/experiment/plant-measurements-during-day-and-night

          • The 2016 Super El Nino was statistically insignificantly warmer than the 1998 SEN, so it wasn’t the biggest in the past 50 years.

            In between the two SEN, Earth experienced 18 years of sideways temperature, despite steadily growing CO2.

            For 32 years after WWII, our planet cooled dramatically despite CO2 increases. Then, after the PDO flip of 1977, slight warming and CO2 gains happened accidentally to correspond until 1998. Then for 22 years, we’ve gone sideways. Hence not even any correlation, let alone causation.

          • Learn the difference between “previous” and “past”.

            The 1940’s to 1970’s cooling was attributed to the industrial aerosols by Rasool and Schneider, 1971.

            “Abstract
            Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

            The Clean Acts, designed to eliminate smog, resulted in increased warming with the decline of industrial aerosols.

            Spencer shows a 0.14C per decade warming trend. https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

          • I’m comparing an apple with an apple, ie one Super El Nino with the next one, 18 years later, and the curve after each one. Couldn’t be more comparable.

          • Jack Dale– from your referenced PNAS article: Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects. (The hyphens are my emphasis.)

            “Thus,—- increases in atmospheric CO2—- at levels predicted—- to occur in the next half-century—- have the potential—- to increase —-soybean susceptibility—- to invasive coleopterans and reduce the —-predicted increase—- in productivity (3). Elevated CO2—- may affect ——the expression of other soybean defense traits regulated by JA, including serine proteinase inhibitors (30), isoflavonoid content, or polyphenol oxidase activity (31, 32), —–potentially —–rendering plants —more —-vulnerable to herbivores other than beetles and—- leading to even greater losses.—– As well, in other systems, —-elevated CO2 has had diverse effects —–on insects other than coevolved specialist herbivores.”

            I have never seen a better display of the skill of equivocation. And I am supposed to take this seriously now for something that is PROJECTED AND PREDICTED FOR ELEVATED LEVELS TO OCCUR IN THE NEXT HALF CENTURY–despite hundreds and hundreds of documented plant yield increases due to elevated CO2 levels now?

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/21/co2-and-crops-nas-vs-science/

            Go pound salt.

          • We’re trending down right now. I would not bet money that we continue to increase going into the 2020s. Temps can drop quicker than you think. I have seen nothing in the literature on CO2 to give me the impression that it creates some natural floor for temperatures. We know cloud cover dominates CO2 as a factor in cooling or warming. We know geothermal has an influence on ENSO. If AMO and PDO both go negative and if we experience a grand solar minimum at same time, temps will drop dramatically. It could be exacerbated by volcanic activity as well. A lot of ways earth could cool from here and only one trace gas with diminishing logarithmic effect on warming…

          • @Jack Dale
            Look here
            Your suggestion of cooling by aerosols is out of date. The cooling by aerosols is weaker than estimated
            And if cooling by aerosols is reduced, that teduces the
            estimated warming by CO2 too.

          • CO2 is a driver, H2O is an amplifier

            “The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.

            If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.”

            https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

          • Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It controls the Earth’s temperature.” It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect
            And than is there evaporation, that has a cooling effect when it happens.

            Did you read the complte article ?
            Research is still necessary.
            Nothing is fix. Not even, that water vapour has a positive feedback.
            In so far, not an amplier.

          • @Jack Dale
            Tell me one thing, the Mediavel Warm Period, with no extra CO2, what was the temperature driver ?
            Same for the Roman Warm etc, there have been several.

          • The main driver of those Warm Periods can be the Sun
            But this Warming periods farly exceed them with no to slight decline, solar trends

          • CO2 science has a long history of misrepresenting science.

            Here is a classic example. CO2science misrepresents the work of Zunli Lu.
            http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N30/C2.php

            Here is Dr. Lu’s response.

            ““It is unfortunate that my research. .. has been misinterpreted by a number of media outlets,” Lu wrote. “Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”
            https://www.syracuse.com/news/2012/04/su_professor_discovers_potenti.html

            The misrepresentation by the Idsos remains in place.

            Here is the information on the Page2K database, which is far larger.

            “The new, global (Page2K) database gathers 692 records from 648 locations, with data sources covering all continents and oceans. Data were selected and vetted in a collaborative manner by members of the consortium, according to a consistent and transparent set of criteria.”

            Here is their database:

            https://figshare.com/collections/A_global_multiproxy_database_for_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_Common_Era/3285353

          • You haven’r seen the number of papers showing MWP was at global scale.
            Instead you look for one paper, where the existing data were interpreted in a way the author doesn’t like, but that doesn’t change the data, do you understand that ?
            That’s bad for the author, but good for science 😀
            And doesn’t contradict the fact, MWP was global, what ever you may write or believe 😀
            Reading the story I couldn’t stop laughing, not only about the story itself, but about your (predictible) conclusion 😀

          • “We know cloud cover dominates CO2 as a factor in cooling or warming.”

            To add to that thought:

            “It is not too difficult to infer from these numbers that the variation in the radiation budget from a changed CO2 concentration can be compensated for completely without any variation in the surface temperature when the cloudiness is increased by +0.006 or the water vapor content is decreased by -0.07 cm l.e.”

            end excerpt

            In other words, clouds have the potential to cancel out any CO2 warming

            Now tell me again about how much we know about how CO2 works in the Earth’s atmosphere. We don’t know if CO2 warms or cools the atmosphere. That’s how much we know.

            All the numbers attributed to CO2 warmig are speculation.

          • As far as I am concerned your a paid global warmest with a list of warmest propaganda ,you have deliberately deceived the forum of sven’s work, your deliberately arguing through propaganda rather than debate,

          • I’m not calling you names Jack, I’m calling you out for what you are,a global warmest, there is nothing vulgar or derogatory in that remark,

            Your have tried unsuccessfully to destroy sven’s work, producing a warmest rag with a agenda to prove, not read properly or lied about the CERN paper, you did lie about discounting sulphuric acid the CERN paper confirmed it not discounted it.

          • “At 550 ppm CO2 the nutritional avalue of food crops is comperomised.
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0253-3

            “Increased levels of CO2 result in increased predation by pests
            https://www.pnas.org/content/105/13/5129

            Nutritional value of crops is enhanced by more CO2, since there more crops are produced. But because of more carbohydrate, the relative proportion of “protein”, ie amino acids, goes down unless more N be available. No problem. Just add more N fertilizer, in which case not only more tons per acre, but also more protein.

            When there is more food for pests, in the form of higher crop yields, there will be more pests. But we spray for pests, anyway. No need to spray more in order to kill more pests.

            These are the kinds of “problems” which farmers like to have.

          • I would appreciate it if you at least tried to counter peer-reviewed science with peer-reviewed science rather than unsubstantiated assertions.

          • @Jack Dale
            “The IPCC admitts…clouds….”
            Finally yes, the have discoverd clouds, wonder, wonder…
            But what they don’t know, and the are far of an idea, what their impact on climate is, was, or will be.
            In reality, IPCC can’t think farther than 5m field path.

        • No warming from 1998 to 2020…

          UAH shows warming at the rate of 0.11°C / decade since 1998. Not much lower than the overall rate of warming. If you start in 1999 rather than 1998 that rate of warming increases to 0.17°C / decade, which just illustrates the power of cherry picking the start date.

          • It doesn’t matter. The year 1998 is statistically tied with the year 2016 for being the hottest years on record for the (bastardized) global temperature record. And although the trend may be higher, the actual temperatures are lower than in the past. We are sitting at 0.3C cooler than 1998 and 2016 right now. We are currently 0.7C cooler than 1934 (in the USA).

          • The year 1998 is statistically tied with the year 2016 for being the hottest years on record for the (bastardized) global temperature record.

            UAH has 1998 at +0.48°C, 2016 at +0.53°C. Maybe a statistical tie, but it’s rather more likely than not that 2016 was warmer than 1998. If they are statistically ties, then 2019 at +0.44°C was also statistically tied with 1998.

            Which is the problem with using two record years as evidence of no warming. There have been rather more warmer years recently and far fewer cold years. 1998 was an eceptional year at the time. The second warmest year in up to 2001 was 1995 at just +0.07°C. By contrast the last 7 years have all been warmer than that.

            We are sitting at 0.3C cooler than 1998 and 2016 right now.

            Not according to UAH. 2016 was 0.53°C, 2019 0.44°C , average temperature for 2020 so far is 0.55°C.

      • “there is no reason to think that the rate of warming won’t increase given that the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is also increasing.”

        But that’s offset by the logarithmically weaker effect of increasing CO2.

        • And that the plants uptake ever more

          There is no way we ever get to the climactically insane predicted levels

      • Explain 150 years of slow linear sea level rise shown by tide gauges. The only way that happens is Climate Scale0 steady warming for at least 150 years. Oceans drive atmospheric temperatures orders of magnitude more than atmospherics affect the oceans. (Aside: the warming oceans have liberated a lot of CO2 that climate activists attribute wrongly to anthropogenic origins)

        It’s been 70 years of AGW (since 1950) and sea level rise hasn’t accelerated…because the earth’s great big thermometers, the oceans, continue to warm at the same steady rate as they did the 80 years before 1950…before CO2 attribution is possible.

        Any CO2 effect has been lost in the noise of the complex climate.

      • “There is no reason….” ??

        Not true. There are reasons. Only time will tell which “reasons” best describe the real world.

        Reasons include:
        1. Recent history. CO2 has been rising rapidly during the last 50+ years. Temps have been rising slowly. The rise has not been accelerating.
        2. Heat sink effect of the oceans. The air temps cannot rise much faster than ocean temps. The energy budget imbalance indicated by the various models predicts only a slow change in oceans temps….at most. Thus the air temps can only rise slowly regardless of CO2
        3. Possible saturation effects. The retention or trapping of heat by CO2 as the CO2 rises may show a diminishing change with each doubling of CO2 as the part of the IR spectrum that interacts with CO2 becomes substantially absorbed.
        4. Possible negative feedback from increasing thunderstorm-related convection of heat energy from the planet surface to high in the atmosphere—-above much of the CO2, which will mostly concentrate in the lower atmosphere.
        5. Possible negative feedback from increased clouds. As ocean temps rise, evaporation must increase. More H2O then will be in the atmosphere. Certainly a wetter atmosphere will be a cloudier atmosphere….which may slow the warming.
        6. Natural variation may overwhelm or moderate CO2-induced change. There is clearly occasional natural cooling of the climate, from extreme (ice ages) to moderate (the Little Ice Age of 1600-1800 AD) to mild (the cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s). We may or may not be entering such a time now. The science on this is too weak for accurate prediction.

        These are all legit reasons to think that rising CO2 may not result in a markedly warming climate in the next decades. And they all are given without arguing the more basic issue: just how strong a climate forcer is CO2? This is a fact unknown.

        • CO2 has been rising since 1945. During that time, Earth’s global average T, insofar as it can be guessed at (not direcctly measured), fell dramatically for 32 years, then, after the 1977 PDO shift, rose slightly for 21 years, until 1998’s Super El Nino, then trended sideways until 2016’s Super El Nino. Since then the trend has been down again.

          As previously noted, lacking correlation, causation not even theoretically possible.

          • Agreed. I dont think these warmests understand after the spike in temps 2016 el Nino the temp dropped like a stone and then resumed its cyclic nature albeit a downward trend.

          • What does it matter that we are colder than 2016 El Niño. If we are hotter than 1990s El Niño epoch.
            And of is the PDO the main driver of climate RIGHT NOW, show me past PDO changes causing Temperature spikes as this of the past 4 decades

          • Miki, you forget, there is also the AMO, shifting in Jan. 1997 from negative into positive phase.

            1996 1 -0,025
            2 -0,023
            3 -0,022
            4 -0,022
            5 -0,021
            6 -0,018
            7 -0,016
            8 -0,013
            9 -0,010
            10 -0,008
            11 -0,004
            12 0,000
            1997 1 0,003
            2 0,006
            3 0,008
            4 0,009
            5 0,010
            6 0,011

          • “What does it matter that we are colder than 2016 El Niño. If we are hotter than 1990s El Niño epoch.”

            Except we are *not* hotter now than in 1998. The year 1998 is statistically tied with the year 2016 for the hottest year in the satellite era. We are now currently 0.3C cooler than either 1998 or 2016.

            You are being fooled by the NASA/NOAA Data Manipulators who have worked very hard to demote 1998 to a much cooler “look” on their bastardized temperature charts. They did this so that they could declare multiple years that came after 1998, as “the hottest year ever!” so they could make it appear that each subsequent year was hotter than the last, feeding their human-caused global warming narrative.

            They couldn’t do this if 1998 was just as warm as 2016. If they left it like that, then they could not declare any year between 1998 and 2016 as “the hottest year ever!”. So they bastardized the chart and 1998 to enable them to do so.

            But you can still see the truth by looking at the UAH chart which shows 1998 in its proper place among the years, statistically tied with 2016 for the hottest year of the satellite era (1979 to present). If NASA used the UAH chart, they couldn’t be frantically warning about the “hottest year ever!” every year. That’s why they don’t use it. They can’t fool people using the UAH chart, so they create a chart out of whole cloth that gives the CAGW picture they want to present. They are Liars telling a great big lie as part of a political agenda.

    • No
      There’s no reason at all to think Temp growth rates will be linear
      And we already got ~1.2°C warmer since preindustrial times, so we are just 0.8°C left

      • We got into this mess because James Hansen hypothesized that there will be positive feedback that will greatly increase the warming caused by enhanced CO2. Because of Russell’s Teapot the onus is on the alarmists to prove their theory. You can’t shift the burden of proof onto the skeptics. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

        So, what reason have you to believe that the temperature increase will exceed the established trend enough to be a problem?

        • Bob,
          none of the comments claimed that the temperature rise would be a problem. All they
          said was that the trend is such that warming of 2 degrees from pre-industrial times is very likely. Even taking your claim it would only be 1.4 degrees in a century that is still from a 1980 to 2010 baseline and so you need to take into account the warming since the start of the 20th Century. Berkley Earth suggests that there has been 1.2 degrees of warming since 1900 and if you add to that another 80 years at 0.14 degrees per decade to give 2.3 degrees of warming by the end of the century. So your claim that the temperature is “likely be way less than 2 C higher a hundred years from now” just doesn’t stack up.

          • “I will wait and see if you can show where he makes a 4C warming per doubling”

            You quoted it yourself:

            “such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 degrees (rounded to 4 degrees C). “

            It’s log; doubling is 4 too. He spelt that out in his 1908 book:

            “If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°C; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°C. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°C; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°C.”

        • ” James Hansen hypothesized that there will be positive feedback”
          The feedback goes back to Arrhenius (1896), whose numbers were similar to JH.

          • Arrhenius was wrong about the strength of his hypothesized GHE, but right that whatever AGW might actually occur would be beneficial. Callendar concurred. He was disappointed that the GHE he imagined in 1938 was not in evidence before he died in frigid 1960s Britain.

          • “He revised it to a lower number in 1906, a paper warmists constantly ignore”
            An endlessly repeated falsehood. His 1906 paper gave a sensitivity of 4°C/doubling, which is the number that has been quoted in later years.

          • Why do you repeatedly lie about his 1906 paper, you always ignore it in favor of the OLDER 1896 paper, how come?

            Could it be because the 1896 paper has a much higher CO2 warming rate number?

            Snicker….

            “The temperature change in the event of doubling CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was predicted by Arrhenius’ first published paper on the topic, to be potentially as high as 5 or 6 ℃. ”

            Here is what he writes that has the 4 C increase in it from the 1906 paper:

            ” For this related correction, I have used the data of Ångström and Schukewitsch. * The calculations show that a doubling of the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere would correspond to raising the temperature by an average of 4.2 degrees C.

            For this disclosure, one could calculate that the corresponding secondary temperature change, on a 50% fluctuation of CO2 in the air, is approximately 1.8 degrees C, such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 degrees (rounded to 4 degrees C). ”

            https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf

            Stop the lies, he substantially lowered the warming rate in his 1906 paper.

          • “Could it be because the 1896 paper has a much higher CO2 warming rate number?”
            No, The 1896 paper does not have a global warming number at all (OK what is it?).

            The FOS says: “topic, to be potentially as high as 5 or 6℃”

            Yes, you might infer that, but he didn’t say so. So the sensitivity quoted in subsequent years is the figure of 4°C said in that 1906 paper and elsewhere.

          • Nick, when are you ever going to actually quote it from the paper itself?

            I posted the numbers from the 1906 paper that had any numbers near 4C in it., that talks about a warming effect.

            You got the link of the 1906 paper right in front of you, but you didn’t QUOTE from it to what you claim at all.

            I will wait and see if you can show where he makes a 4C warming per doubling, if you don’t I have to assume you are lying.

          • “I will wait and see if you can show where he makes a 4C warming per doubling”

            You quoted it yourself:

            “such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 degrees (rounded to 4 degrees C). “

            It’s log; doubling is 4 too. He spelt that out in his 1908 book:

            “If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°C; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°C. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°C; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°C.”

          • Nick how come you left out part of the quote?

            The bolded parts you leave out:

            For this related correction, I have used the data of Ångström and Schukewitsch. * The calculations show that a doubling of the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere would correspond to raising the temperature by an average of 4.2 degrees C.

            For this disclosure, one could calculate that the corresponding secondary temperature change, on a 50% fluctuation of CO2 in the air, is approximately 1.8 degrees C, such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 degrees (rounded to 4 degrees C). ”

            He never says a Doubling of CO2 in anyway at all, why do you persist in the nonsense?

            He does use the word Doubling when he applies it to water vapor.

            You are being dishonest.

          • Sunset,
            OK, you said:
            “Why do you repeatedly lie about his 1906 paper, you always ignore it in favor of the OLDER 1896 paper, how come?

            Could it be because the 1896 paper has a much higher CO2 warming rate number?”

            I’ve spelt out what he really said. How about some numbers from you. What was that “much higher CO2 warming rate number” in 1896? And what is the corresponding number in 1906? Actual numbers, plase.

          • Ha ha ha

            your willful dishonesty in full bloom, I ASKED YOU that question, which you never answered with evidence, you threw out numbers, but no actual quote and link to it.

            Meanwhile I noticed you suddenly went quiet about the 1906 paper which NEVER supported your 4 C per doubling claim, it never used the word doubling for CO2 at all.

            He used the word DECREASE, to which you think means a 4C warming, which he NEVER says at all.

            Here is what he actually wrote:

            “…For this disclosure, one could calculate that the corresponding secondary temperature change, on a 50% fluctuation of CO2 in the air, is approximately 1.8 degrees C, such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 degrees (rounded to 4 degrees C).:

            Decrease, NOT increase…., not doubling either, not Sensitivity either…..

            The basic CO2 logarithmic scale was not used at all.

            The only time he used the word doubling was for water vapor.

            Give it up, you are looking fooling for trying to put words into his mouth.

          • “He used the word DECREASE, to which you think means a 4C warming, which he NEVER says at all.”
            THis is just dumb. He established in the 1896 paper that temperature is proportional to log [CO2]. That means than if halving CO2 leads to a 4C decrease, then doubling leads to a 4C increase. And he spells that out as clearly as could be in the second quote.
            “On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°C”
            How could that be more explicit.

            But while throwing out accusations of lies
            “Why do you repeatedly lie about his 1906 paper, you always ignore it in favor of the OLDER 1896 paper, how come?

            Could it be because the 1896 paper has a much higher CO2 warming rate number?”
            you totally fail to say what the lie is. You say that one number is higher than the other, but you can’t say what either of the numbers in this comparison is.

      • Be happy not to live in little ice age 😀
        Be happy to be healthier than people was in preindustrial times, be happy to be able to heat you home in winter, be happy you can eat what you want, because of the warmth you have longergrowing season and can harvest more than in colder times when crop is freezing, your water supply is freezing, you have an indoor toilet and you can wash you with warm fresh water.
        What do you fear in reality ?

  9. That same study of Anctartica Vostok ice CO2 Temp record
    Also suggests that CO2 does indeed LEAD further warming in the Arctic.
    Also says after CO2 is released with Temperature increase, its heat keeping property, becomes necessary to further warming

    In addition, we don’t need any other proof to say CO2 leads Temperature than
    1) Knowing it’s a Greenhouse Gas.✔️
    2) Knowing there’s no other variation in Solar Irradiance, Earth rotation… that matches the new warming.✔

    • That’s rubbish c02 only works as a radiant in 3 very narrow bands,were as water vapour operates across the whole spectrum.

      • Yeah, rubbish…
        But that “rubbish” is the same exact study you quote to say “CO2 lags Temperature” 😒😒
        And I don’t care about what spectrum CO2 absorbs, adding more CO2 Will mean absorbing higher quantities of that spectrum

        • I havent quoted any study, the whole premis of c02 warming is the wave lengths it reflects, the absorption band of co2 is only around 8% of the ir spectrum ,thermal emission is broad band radiation and is emitted into space
          The Ghg theory of co2 is greatly exaggerated.

          • Of course you didn’t quote an study
            But that “Temp leads CO2” claim comes from the Vostok ice core study

          • Temperature did lead CO2. Then we figured out how to add the CO2 all by ourselves by burning fossil fuels. We dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes into the the atmosphere increasing the CO2 levels by nearly 50%. Carbon isotope analysis shows that increase to attributable to human activity.

        • Actually, that’s not true. You can’t absorb more light/heat/energy in a particular segment of the spectrum than there IS light/heat/evergy being radiated within that segment of the spectrum. You can’t absorb what isn’t there.

          • Well said Kalashnikat.

            It’s pretty clear that people like Miki have no understanding of the Laws of Physics but can override them by not caring about them (in the world they live in).

        • Ihavent quoted any study, the whole premis of c02 warming is the wave lengths it reflects, the absorption band of co2 is only around 8% of the ir spectrum ,thermal emission is broad band radiation and is emitted into space
          The Ghg theory of co2 is greatly exaggerated.

    • CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is probably responsible for some of the warming since the middle of last century.
      However you are wrong to exclude other known factors that most likely have had an effect since ~1950, ‘off the cuff’ two I can think of:
      # Cloud cover hence solar radiation over the tropics that is mostly oceans:
      https://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif
      # Ocean cycles including the Annual Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) that influences temperatures in Europe, N America and the Arctic:
      https://www.climate4you.com/images/AMO%20DetrendedGlobalAnnualIndexSince1856%20With11yearRunningAverage.gif

  10. Most of the graphs in the update start in 1979. That’s a commonly used start year for global temperature products because many of the satellite-based temperature composites start then.

    Bob Tisdale

    (https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/04/15/march-2016-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-update/ )

    If you use 1998 as a start year (when a super El Niño happened, bumping up global sea surface temperatures) the trend line looks much different:

    The new UAH data show no warming for 219 months, and for the RSS data, it’s 220 months.

    Bob Tisdale (emphasis mine)

    (Source: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/new-uah-lower-troposphere-temperature-data-show-no-global-warming-for-more-than-18-years/ )

    Right up to today, using 1998 as a start year, the UAH anomalies will still not make it appear that there has been meaningful warming. It is only when you start before the effect of the 1998 El Niño that it appears that the lower troposphere is possibly, meaningfully, warming.

    Bottom line:

    Whether or not significant warming is happening, there is, still, no data proving CO2 caused it.

    Further, there is negating evidence (the unskilled/failed IPCC climate simulation models) indicating that CO2 has no meaningful causative effect – at all.

    • ”Whether or not significant warming is happening, there is, still, no data proving CO2 caused it.”

      Because Co2 didn’t cause it.
      The satellite data matches very well with the radiosonde data. Therefore they are both correct for all intents and purposes.
      If you look closely at the balloon chart from 1979 to 2000 and compare it with the sat data covering the SAME PERIOD you can see a very nice match (not perfect obviously) There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature from 1960 to 2000 to be seen because the temp was basically flat lining. if it is there, it is no more than a fart in the wind.
      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JD005753
      https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2020_v6.jpg

      • “The satellite data matches very well with the radiosonde data. Therefore they are both correct for all intents and purposes.
        If you look closely at the balloon chart from 1979 to 2000 and compare it with the sat data covering the SAME PERIOD you can see a very nice match (not perfect obviously)”

        Now we need a comparison of the balloon data to the bogus, bastardized NASA Climate/NOAA global surface temperature charts. They must not match the balloon data because the bastardized charts don’t match the UAH satellite chart. UAH still shows 1998 as a significant year. The bastardized global surface temperature charts do not.

        The Data Manipulators downgraded/cooled 1934 and 1998, to “also-ran” status, in their efforts to sell the “hotter and hotter” Lie of Human-caused Climate Change to the People of the World.

        The ONLY “evidence” these Alarmists have is this bastadized surface temperature chart which does not represent the actual world, as demonstrated by the Regional Tmax charts that show a completely different picture of the history of the Earth’s climate.

        The Regional charts show it was just as warm globally in the Eartly Twentieth Century as it is today. That means we are not experiencing unprecedented warming and CO2 is not the driver of the Earth’s climate.

        The Data Manipulators don’t want you to know that, so they lie to you and do great harm to the whole world by doing so. Dispicable, is what it is. And criminal, if done deliberately. And you know who you are.

  11. Extremely mild May here in central Texas. I’ve lived all of my 58 years in the same city and this is the mildest May I can remember.

  12. I was a bit surprised to see an uptick of May global LT temps despite the developing La Niña cycle, the North Atlantic Cold Blob (NACB-my name for it), and cooling Southern Ocean SSTs, but I guess it can be attributed to the SST/LT lag effect:

    https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/cb/ssta/ssta.daily.current.png

    The strong developing La Niña Cycle will especially soon start cooling global temps for the next 2 years.

    I also think the NACB is the precursor of the Atlantic Ocean its 30-year AMO cool cycle; we’ll see soon enough.

      • Jack-san:

        Look at the SST map I posted…

        Trust your own eyes, not Leftist NOAA bureaucrat hacks with a CAGW agenda…

        • You posted a NOAA graphic. NOAA is a US Department of Commerce agency. They also produce the ENSO discussion.

          • I’m referring to NOAA’s climate models (including their ENSO models) which always have a warming bias.

            It’s amazing how biased bureaucrats can become when their funding is determined by agendas…

            BTW, regarding NOAA’s new Global SST map version, they added a deceitful +-0.2C grey scale to make global SSTs look warmer than they actually are; what a joke…

            If most of the grey areas were light blue (as they were for many decades), global SSTs would look much cooler than the new grey-scaled revision shows.

            What a bunch of hacks.

          • “BTW, regarding NOAA’s new Global SST map version, they added a deceitful +-0.2C grey scale to make global SSTs look warmer than they actually are; what a joke…

            err no.

            they dont look warmer or colder. try as I might I cannot look at the entire map and integrate to the average color. grey represents a near zero value.
            +
            and

          • Steven-san:

            I’m sure some NOAA hack took one look at the new ocean SSTs anomaly map and said, “Oh sh$@t.. look at all that blue….that doesn’t look good… Hmmmmmm…Hey, if we add a +-0.2C gray scale, we can hide a huge portion of all that inconvenient blue.“

      • Looks about 50:50 from our BoM’s projection.
        And since many of the climate models (including BoM’s POAMA one) use an ECS that is ‘way too high I suspect the actual chance of a la Nina is much higher than projected.

        • “use an ECS that is ‘way too high I suspect the actual chance of a la Nina is much higher than projected.”

          models dont use ECS.

          ECS is an emergent property of the model.

          Thats why one of the first tests is to measure the ECS that a model predicts by running
          2 cases:

          4X co2 and a linear growth case

          From those diagnostic runs you can calculate the ECS of a model.

          its not an input. its an output

          • Steven…….if ECS is an emergent property of the model, why has a realistic value for this rather important number still to emerge?

            It’s not like we haven’t spent a lot of time, effort and money trying to establish the ECS but the range of estimated values (or perhaps “emergent” values) for this number is rather large. That implies to me that the models don’t represent reality. But maybe I just don’t understand anything about the amazing complexities of this esoteric topic! I’ll keep the /sarc off……because it’s certain my understanding is far less than many others on this site but it would seem to me that pinning down an accurate value for ECS would be a priority for so-called climatologists.

          • But isn’t there controversy, Stephen, over how they are using this emergent property to calibrate their models? In effect, the ECS may have become the input to the model by becoming the parameter against which model tuning is measured. Something of a self-referencing loop when the ‘emergent’ property of ECS becomes evidence of our catastrophically warming the globe.

          • Isn’t it funny that the new range of ECS from the models for CIMP6 has expanded dramatically from CIMP5. (1.8 – 5.6). It is obvious that the science is not settled! I also expect that due to cloud revisions the programming that determines ECS has had to expand to keep the level of warming increasing.

            Claims that the modelers know what they are doing are ludicrous when they are unable to reduce the ECS to an ever smaller range. As a target shooter if I made a change that increased my groupings I would be disappointed. I would also understand that I don’t know everything instead of doubling down and trying to say this is what I expected so I was correct!

          • models dont use ECS.
            ECS is an emergent property of the model.

            A difference that makes no difference. OK, then the model is screwed up.

    • I think you mean North Atlantic warming hole as described by chicken climate presenters who must name the obvious—cooling.

  13. I wonder how much the restriction on flying has affected temperature? It was very noticeable over the US post 9/11. It might well be responsible for this high reading. And the increadible weather we have had during the lockdown, dry, sunny, and mostly warm.

  14. Dr Roy Spencer provides and important high level comparison using highly sensitive sattelite thermometers. These can,t be altered or changed later. What is important is trendology that shows there is no dangerous temperature increase despite co2 going off the scale.
    The mythology is the same and values can be defended from month to month and from year to year. Even if the absolute values are wrong this is about trends only.

    • “These can’t be altered or changed later.”

      How long do you think it will be after Dr Roys retirement that the satellite temperature records require a continuous adjustment in the ‘correct’ direction?

    • responding to Fireman

      LOL, “satellite thermometers.” No.

      Can’t be altered later? Really? What about the radical revision going from UAH version 5.6 to version 6.0 in 2017 that reduced the warming trend by almost 20%. Much larger restatement of global trends than any surface instrumental dataset adjustment. Of course that is only the most recent restatement of the UAH record.

        • “What do you mean by radical ?”

          That was my question, too. I look forward to the details.

          • I’ve just read back to reread why I wrote “what do you mean by radical ” I’m still very interested exactly what he means ,but he never did come back.

          • “but he never did come back.”

            I had a suspicion that was what was going to happen. It’s easy to *say* “radical”, it’s much harder to prove.

          • What do you mean by radical ?

            Not the original poster, but the changes made to version 6 where pretty fundamental.

            “We describe the major changes in processing strategy, including a new method for monthly gridpoint averaging; a new multi-channel (rather than multi-angle) method for computing the lower tropospheric (LT) temperature product; and a new empirical method for diurnal drift correction.”

            “Many procedures have been modified or entirely reworked, and most of the software has been rewritten from scratch.”

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

        • “What about the radical revision going from UAH version 5.6 to version 6.0 in 2017 that reduced the warming trend by almost 20%.”

          “What do you mean by radical ?”

          Just like he said “reduced the warming trend by almost 20%”.

          Details here.

          • Prior to the RSS and UAH revisions, I recall that RSS was the favoured data set of those who dismissed climate science.

  15. Two significant digits… Are you saying that the error is better than 0.05, Dr. Spencer? Seriously doubt it.

  16. This 41 year picture is really causing even more climate hysteria.
    Next thing the changes in “climate” might even be recognized as changes in “WEATHER”.
    Give me a HOY when Iceland starts growing bananas and pineapples.

    • responding to toorightmate:

      This 41 year picture shows warming at the rate of 0.14C/decade. The pictures of the surface where we live show 0.19C/decade. That is essentially the definition of climate change.

      By the time Iceland starts going bananas, Australia will be uninhabitable.

  17. The ocean cycles know the answer and they aren’t telling. The grouped solar cycles know part of the answer and they aren’t telling. Climate Crusades Inc. and agenda science are confident they have the answer to dispense on you for a fee and not having clear interference by ocean cycles and grouped solar cycles suits them just fine. Time marches on–in a haze and sometimes in the wrong direction.

    • Responding to Paul Nevins. This is the temperature anomaly 25,000 feet in the air as calculated by two Global Warming Skeptics. For April, Spencer was pointing to the second largest 2-month drop in global temp on record. now in May it goes back up, he says nothing. Lost in this is the fact that every month this year has been the first or second warmest on record and the warming trend ticked up indicating an acceleration of warming.

      Even the skeptical scientists can’t deny the planet is warming faster and faster. Only the non-scientists like Tony Heller can do that.

      • Earth is not warming faster and faster. The trend since February 2016 is still down. Even when and if it trends up, it won’t be at an alarming pace. Warmer is better, as is of course more plant food in the air. Arrhenius and Callendar were right that AGW, should it ever actually occur on a planetary scale, would be beneficial.

        Super El Nino of 2016 was statistically insignificantly warmer than that of 1998. No significant warming in 18 years, followed by decline of over four years.

        Record low Arctic sea ice summer minimum remains 2012.

          • I dont think you really get it do you ,if theres been no warming since 2016 then all the bullshit MSM come out with is fake ,every single agenda driven line , we are constantly told of a linear progression of temperature rise,its simply not true.anything the MSM ignore is worthy of telling the people what’s really going , GSM is completely ignored by MSM, the sun and its cycles are the main climate drivers.

          • I really do get it. That is why I can identify a cherry pick.

            On the GSM
            “Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. ”
            https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535

            ” We find that a future GSM in the middle of the twenty-first century would temporarily mitigate the global mean impact of anthropogenic climate change by 10%–23% depending on the GSM scenario. A future GSM would, however, not be able to stop anthropogenic global warming. ”
            https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0059.1

            https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/

            Is it the sun? Nope
            https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
            http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf

            It is also not Milankovitch cycles
            ” Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago.”
            “https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/”

            Nor it cosmic rays.
            “A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.”
            https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119

            No MSM involved.

          • No you dont get it, MSM are biased by observation, they only ever report warming or anything they can ascribe to warming ,MSM environment journalists, are environment activists,,

            As for your nature publications ,nature is not fit for purpose, its peer reviewed process is flawed,it allows paper s particularly ocean temps papers to go through with no peer review Eg nick Lewis finding multiple flaws in basic maths that showed a warmer oceans than they actually are. It’s a disgrace,part of the global warming agenda.

            Your having a laugh arent you solar cycles govern the planets heat up take the less radiation the less heat for the planet, if the sun shuts down this earth would be a cold rock no life at -270c

            As for the SCs we are just in a transition from a minima to a maxima the lowest maxima for 200 years we are already seeing the effects .

          • Svensmark’s hypothesis has not been replicated by anyone. Te CLOUD experiment at CERN, including Dunne et al (2016) has shown there is no mechanism to support his hypothesis.

          • Your just getting worse Jack the link you provided is 2012, my link that confirms CRf cloud nucleation is 2019

            CERN results https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cosmic-rays-clouds

            There not in the business of proving anyone right or wrong there results are independent research, they do by independent means research that incidently proves several correct,

            Your 2012 link is published by a global warming rag, it’s not independent it has a very open agenda

          • Read what you post. Svensmark’s hypothesis depends on sulfuric acid. CERN discounted that and looking at biogenic vapours.

            Your link is about experiments underway; they have not been concludes.

            Duune et al is from 2016.

          • Correction you have lost it, “Although most aerosol particle formation requires sulphuric acid, CLOUD has shown that aerosols can form purely from biogenic vapours emitted by trees, and that their formation rate is enhanced by cosmic rays by up to a factor 100.”

            There confirming sulphuric acid as a catalyst and showing through there research a biogenic catalyst as well,

            Your not reading what’s in front of you Jack, it just shows you have a agenda

          • Not cherry picking.

            I agree however that climate units should be at least 30 years. Here’s how that works for the Modern Warm Period:

            1855-84: Warming
            1885-1914: Cooling
            1915-44: Warming (in US, with best data, hotter than now)
            1945-74: Cooling
            1975-2004: Warming
            2005-2034: Remains to be seen.

          • You must of paid a fortune for that bit of propaganda, did the high priests of global warming give it up willingly, sort of the shock horror presentation the IPCC would present . I know they will have a new one ready for the postponed climate summit.

          • Jack,

            You wanted 30-year units. I gave them to you. Your bogus graphic, without “data” source, doesn’t address the issues raised by your call for 30-year trend lines.

            Of course was warmer in the past decace than in the 1970s, at the end of a three-decade cooling cycle. Earth has been in a secular warming trend since the end of the LIA c. AD 1850-60. But as with al such centennial-scale trends, it has contained countertrend cooling cycles.

            The issue is, was the late 20th century pro-trend warming cycle in any way different from previous such cycles. Answer: No. For instance, compare it with the early 20th century warming. Only 1998 Super El Nino gives away which is which.

            What a pointless cherry pick.

          • Sorry for the typos.

            Unseasonally frio here in Valparaiso, Chile, so am typing with cold fingers.

          • Jack,

            They’re not supposed. They’re observations.

            Oceanic current oscillations. For the NH, the AMO and PDO, arguably connected to the ENSO. Ultimately, solar radiation fluctuations accumulated over time and atmospheric pressure and circulation related to ozone variation induced by UV spectrum share of TSI.

          • So you have no mechanism.

            In science mechanism + correlation = evidence of causal relationship.

            No mechanism = no causal relationship.

          • Early 20th Century Warming from an alarmist perspective (2018):

            The early 20th century warming: Anomalies, causes, and consequences

            https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.522

            Attempts to make the ETCW and subsequent mid-century cooling disappear haven’t yet been fully successful.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/22/virtually-indistinguishable-comparing-early-20th-century-warming-to-late-20th-century-warming/

            The Late 20th Century Warming was of less amplitude and duration than the counter-trend Early 18th Century Warming cycle following the Maunder Minimum low of the LIA. Just as in bear markets, the counter-trend rallies are often more powerful than those during secular bear markets, fueled by short-covering.

          • Jack,

            I told you the mechanism.

            It’s variations in insolation, especially spectrum-specific changes, as modulated by air and sea. The fluctuations are more pronounced in glacial intervals, due to generally lower T and higher albedo.

            But even were the mechanisms not known, the fact remains that recent warming is no different from prior such cycles, thus the null hypothesis can’t be rejected. That means that natural cycles from whatever cause can fully explain observations, even if not understood.

            Factoring in human activities, such as first dirtying, then cleaning skies, irrigation, urbanization, CCNs, etc. have some effect, but minor to negligible on a global scale. Man-made CO2 even more so.

          • Jack,

            I have read it. I cited it to show you that cycles aren’t supposed. They’re recognized even by honest alarmists.

          • I also recognize cycles. I also recognize that human activities have messed up those cycles. Natural cycles would have us cooling, we are warming.

      • “Responding to Paul Nevins. This is the temperature anomaly 25,000 feet in the air as calculated by two Global Warming Skeptics.”

        The UAH satellite measures temperatures from the ground all the way up. The UAH satellite readings are corroborated with the balloon temperature readings which also measure from the ground all the way up. Two different measuring systems saying the same thing.

        We can’t say that about the official bastardized global surface temperature record. It has no corroboration.

  18. I know it’s not satellites but what has been happening to temperature measures at airports since the massive fall in aviation and also UHI in cities with low commuting?

    • Why specifically “measures at airports”? It’s not like airplanes emit more than a minute fraction of their CO2 at the airports themselves…

      For what it’s worth, there likely would be little or no climate signal measured just yet, and especially not in the satellite data which tends to lag surface data by several months.

      • Aircraft emit heat that has been suspected of causing false warming measurements. If offices are not in use then Aircon may be off causing less urban heat and cars etc not adding to warming. signals as much.

        • https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/25/best-of-the-best-critiques/#comment-127781

          Then there is Tilo Reber, who thinks that the UHI paper failed to do what it attempted to do:

          Let’s say the year is 1950 and we are going to put a thermometer in a growing city. But the city is already there and already has a very high built density. So, let’s say that the city already has 1C of UHI effect. Over the next 60 years the city continues to grow, mostly around the perimeter. The UHI effect goes up, and by 2010 there is 1.5C of UHI effect. The thermometer was only there since 1950, so the thermometer will only see the delta UHI change from 1950 to 2010 as an anomaly. So, by that thermometer, the delta UHI effect for that period is .5C.

          Now, in the same year, 1950, we put another thermometer into a medium size town. Let’s say that it has a UHI effect of .1C at the time we put the thermometer there. The town grows over the next 60 years, there is a lot of building that happens close to the thermometer, and by 2010 it has .6C of UHI effect. Again, the thermometer will not register that first .1C as anomaly. But it will register the next .5C as anomaly.

          So, in 2010, what we end up with is that the urban thermometer has 1.5C total of UHI effect, and the rural thermometer has .6C of total UHI effect. But, the delta UHI for both thermometers since they were installed is .5C. It is that .5C that both of them will show as anomaly.

          Now BEST comes along and decides that they will measure UHI by subtracting rural anomaly from urban anomaly. Let’s also say that there has been .3C of real warming over those 60 years. So the rural thermometer shows .8C of warming anomaly and the urban thermometer shows .8C of warming anomaly. BEST subtracts rural from urban and gets zero. Their conclusion is, “either there is no UHI or it doesn’t effect the trend”. But, as we have just seen, .5C of the .8C in the trend of both the urban station and the rural station were UHI.

          With their results, BEST has failed to discover the pre thermometer urban UHI effect, the post thermometer urban UHI effect, the pre thermometer rural UHI effect, and the post thermometer rural UHI effect. They have also failed to discover the UHI addition to the trend in either place. In other words, their test is a total fail. Even if they did their math perfectly, ran their programs perfectly, and did their classification perfectly, their answer is still completely wrong. Why? Because the design of the test never made it possible to quantify UHI. Now, many of you may object to my scenario. But I’m going to post this, get a cup of java, and speak to those objections next.

          Some of you may wonder if it is reasonable to expect a small town to grow at a rate that pushes up the delta UHI as fast as a city. This is where the definitions of rural and urban come in. Modis defines an urban area as an area that is greater than 50% built, and there must be greater than 1 square kilometer, contiguous, of such an area. So, for example, if you have two .75 square kilometer areas that are 60% built, separated by one square kilometer of 40% built, it’s all rural. So the urban standard is high enough that an area must be strongly urban to qualify. The rural standard is anything that is not urban. And that allows for a whole lot of built. 10 square kilometers of 49% built is all classified as rural.

          BEST then goes on and further refines the rural standard as “very rural” and “not very rural”. Unfortunately, they make no new build requirements for “very rural”. The only new requirement is that such an area be at least 10 kilometers from an area classified as urban. But a “very rural” place could still have 49% build.

          This means that you can have towns, small cities, and even some suburbs that are classified as rural. In such areas there is still plenty of room to build and build close to the thermometer. In the urban areas, there is little room to build. So either structures are torn down in the city to make room for new structures, or structures are put up at the edge of the city, expanding it. The new structures being put up at the edge of the city are far from the thermometer and while they still effect it, the further away they are, the less effect they have.

          In the rural area there is still space to grow close to the thermometer. So, in the rural area you can actually have more UHI effect with less change in the amount of build. So, if a rural area goes from 10% built to 30% built it will still be rural and it can have the same UHI effect on the thermometer as the city where most of the new building is around the edges. The urban area may go from 75% built to 85% built around the thermometer, and it may have it’s suburbs growing, but the total effect will be close to that to the rural build.

          All of this is essentially confirmed by Roy Spencer’s paper and by BEST’s own test results.

        • Has he , take a city 5 miles square it consists predominantly concrete ,brick, asphalt, in summer bricks can be to hot to touch asphalt melts all giving off heat radiation, all heated by the sun ,this heat has to go somewhere, its radiated, it’s called a micro environment, that’s why they stick temperature monitors in cities and say look another temp record broken, when in fact a true near surface temperature reading should not be a ambient city temp but a neutral reading away from influences caused by man, you can give a city temp but not lie it’s a true reflection of a areas temp, the differences can be quite large, another con by the global warming agenda, any machine, heating system,cooling system industry,also add heat to the ambient temperature. You multiple this by the number of cities, motorways, industrial complexes, across the world ,there is a net gain .

        • We spoke about airports not UIH, need you glasses (second time I suggest it) ? Or didn’t you pay attention ?
          Read the comments, understand the comments, than start typing, ok ?

        • Consider Las Vegas. In the last century, it was still the eponymous “meadows”.

          Now besides all the concrete, steel, glass, asphalt, autos and industry, you’ve got heating in winter and, especially, cooling in summer. Air conditioning vast interior spaces moves heat from indoors to out, where the thermometers are.

          The energy for all this heat came first from Hoover Dam, then from fossil fuel plants, themselves heat sources even in surrounding rural areas. The lake behind the dam “hangs water out to dry”, increasing humidity and the ability of formerly dry desert air to retain heat.

          Yet BEST finds no UHI. What about rural irrigation heat islands?

          • Jakc,

            Thanks.

            UHIs might not matter much, except that a hugely disproportionate number of “surface” stations are in formerly rural areas, now urbanized.

            Non-CO2 human impacts, eg agriculture, urbanization, water table drawdowns, air quality, deforestation and reforestation, all have more impact than a fourth molecule of plant food per 10,000 dry air moleclues over a century.

            Yet we can’t even know the sign of all human effects taken together, ie whether net cooling or warming.

          • Eliminate that “fourth molecule of plant food per 10,000 dry air moleclues ” and the Earth would be 33C colder.

            We have increased it 50% over that past 2.5 centuries.

      • Do you really think that “son of mulder” was suggesting that concrete and asphalt emit more or less CO2 “since the massive fall in aviation”?

  19. On the ground, in my local- it’s colder than normal. Been that way for the last 4-5 yrs.
    10 yrs ago we were going through 15 cords of wood. ( they had taxed our electric heating bills so high we put in a wood stove)
    Today I have a fire on since it’s only 13c – calling for 19, well be lucky to see 15, average is 24c.
    Lit the wood stove to get the damp out of the basement.
    In August we’ll be getting 30 cords of wood in as that’s what we’re using now.

    So where IS all this ‘extra’ life killing heat?

  20. Jack Dale:

    June 3, 8:45 am.

    You said “The MWP was regional, not global”

    Your reference is completely wrong. The MWP was global. It was caused by a period of very few volcanic eruptions, which have a global effect.

    Conversely, the LIA was caused by increased volcanic activity, and was also global. ALL periods of decreased temperatures in The Central England Temperatures data set, which began in 1650. correlate to the SO2 emissions of a volcanic eruption,

  21. I’m putting this quote down here because the subthread is way too long.

    John Tillman: “But even were the mechanisms not known, the fact remains that recent warming is no different from prior such cycles, thus the null hypothesis can’t be rejected. That means that natural cycles from whatever cause can fully explain observations, even if not understood.”

    John Tillman has just summed up the whole Human-caused Climate Change argument: Natural cycles can fully explain observations, even if not understood.

    The only way for the Climategate Charlatans to overcome this argument was for them to try to erase history and create a bogus, bastardized global surface temperature chart that doesn’t even come close to representing reality, by making it appear that the past was cooler than the present, when in fact, the past, even the recent past, was just as warm as it is today. The unmodified Tmax charts from around the world prove it. CO2 is not the control knob of the Earth’s climate, Mother Nature is.

    Thanks for that insightful quote, John.

    How will the alarmists refute this argument? Probably by posting bogus, bastardized modern-era Hockey Stick charts, because that is the only “evidence” they can show. They have to use a fraudulent Hockey Stick chart to try to change history. But we still have the regional Tmax charts to show the Hockey Stick chart is a lie.

    • For people who don’t know the difference between a bogus Hockey Stick chart and a chart that actually represents the true temperature profile, here is a link to James Hansen’s U.S. surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999) next to a bogus, bastardized, “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart.

      https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

      As you can see, the U.S. chart shows it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today (recall that 1998 and 2016 are tied for the warmest years of the satellite era), where Hansen says 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998. The U.S. surface temperature chart also shows the era of cooling from the 1940’s down through the 1970’s.

      Now notice that not only did the bogus Hockey Stick chart cool the 1930’s to where they look cooler than the present day, and in the process they also disappeared the cool 1970’s when climate scientists were warning about a coming Ice Age. You wouldn’t even know there was a cool 1970’s by looking at the bogus Hockey Stick chart. The Data Manipulators had to do the chart this way in order to make it appear that temperatures were getting hotter and hotter and hotter every decade and were now at the hottest temperatures in human history.

      Except every bit of if is a Big Lie. The unmodified Tmax charts, and charts like Hansen 1999, put the lie to the Hockey Stick charts.

  22. Very chilly on the English south coast, St Leonards to be precise. Very blustery northerly all day. I was working out in the garden and my fingers were numb. Mind you we’ve had record sunshine ever since Covid 19 caused a lock down, but in the strong sunshine its been very pleasant but very cold today

Comments are closed.