August 3rd, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2020 was +0.44 deg. C, essentially unchanged from the June, 2020 value of +0.43 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +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 19 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 +1.14
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 +0.58
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.50 +0.93 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.99 +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 +0.11 +0.34 +0.87
2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.23
2019 09 +0.61 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57
2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.27 +0.30 -0.03 +1.00 +0.49
2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.37
2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
2020 01 +0.56 +0.60 +0.53 +0.61 +0.73 +0.13 +0.65
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 +0.16
2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.33 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
2020 05 +0.54 +0.60 +0.49 +0.66 +0.17 +1.16 -0.15
2020 06 +0.43 +0.45 +0.41 +0.46 +0.38 +0.80 +1.20
2020 07 +0.44 +0.45 +0.42 +0.46 +0.56 +0.40 +0.66
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for July, 2020 should be available within the next few days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
There was a small decline (0.04⪚C) in global surface temperature measured by thermometers (TempLS). Still the second warmest July in the record (after 2019).
So what? Kindly relate a 1 part in 10,000 rise in atmospheric Co2 in 200 years to the supposed maladies repeated 24/7 and how a one part in 10,000 rise influences everything from famine, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones, typhoons and disease? And why is it cooler now than the MWP with Co2 higher?
We are in essence 1C warmer than the LIA therefore – presumption – if the planet spends $3.94 quadrillion on trimming the global average temperature by 1C by 2100 by mitigating Co2 does that mean we revert to the misery of the LIA? Because if Co2 is the temperature control knob then logically that is exactly what will happen.
Would you be happier with extreme cold causing drought, famine, cannibalism, hurricanes, death, misery, endemic hypothermia that mild and subtle warming reducing those natural disasters and making life bearable with the added benefit of fossil fuels allowing disaster relief and the distribution of food to save life?
Especially since CO2 was 540ppm in August deep in the woods of Germany in WW2.
The moronic assumption that our current CO2 levels are the “highest ever” lol.
Was that because of bomb smoke… or what? What is pm in same woods today?
pCO2 varies stongly and rapidly at any given site. It is not a “well-mixed” gas.
“So what?”
You might as well direct that to Dr Roy, the author of this post. Or to WUWT, which publishes the UAH average every month (mostly). If that is worth posting, then why not know what the thermometers down where we actually live are saying?
They don’t meassure climate. They are a proxy for population and land use change.
Nick we can’t trust people to record the true temperature! Especially in Australia. We know that figures are altered.
I’ll give you an example of why I will never believe the ‘highest ever’ hype. I have a weather app which gets it’s data from BOM and have been following local data for many years now. We moved from the city to the country last year and as the temperatures are much colder in winter here I am keen to see just how cold it can get.
I’ll give you an example of yesterday mornings minimum readings, though this occurs regularly. I read the minimum temperature at 7.30 am yesterday and it showed that at 6.30 am the minimum temperature was -1.2 C. Today when I checked the monthly almanac records for yesterday, it’s recorded as -0.4 C. This happens regularly, and the adjusted temperature is only ever higher than the original reading! Why? If you can give me a logical reason I would appreciate it.
The other issue I have is that they don’t record the data in the almanac at the weekend unless we have an ‘anomaly’ high. There are at least eight days of every month with no readings. Why? The actual minimum and maximum temperatures and rainfall figures are all put up every day, yet the weekend figures never appear in the monthly almanac. I check to see how the monthly figures compare to the averaged historical figures and I know the the current month averages are total BS.
I’m making up a chart to keep a record of the data that BOM put out ‘every’ day for my area. I want to see how the total figures averaged,
compare to the posted monthly average, missing eight or more days.
Of course all this is meaningless anyway. The only temperatures that are discussed are the anomaly highs, and they may only attain that temperature for a very short time. Twenty kilometers down the road might be two or three degrees lower, it’s easy to cherry pick weather stations that best suit your objective. You defend and promote the high temperatures of this era and pretend that we’ve never had them before.
We have been lied to so many times it’s going to take a period of truth and integrity be fore we be confident in what you say.
Trust the scientists! Yeah right. People today have no trust in pseudo scientists. Science has gone the way of journalism, just leave out a lot, they won’t know.
When the scientists on this site that you debate regularly are given a voice, then I will believe that science is real. You enjoy the debate, in fact that is how it should be, but it should be open forum debates.
Megs,
It’s very hard to make much of what you are saying when you have got the BoM data via an unspecified app, and then compare with an unspecified almanac.
I wrote a WUWT post here describing how you can track the published BoM results, from the 30-min readings posted within ten minutes of reading time, to the monthly tables, to the global data eventually posted by WMO, and goes into GHCN. I invited anyone who thinks this chain has been tampered with to find an inconsistency. Noone has.
I appreciated that you responded Nick but regardless of your suggestion, how do you explain for instance that today’s figures are different from what was put up early in the day yesterday? I can’t prove to you that it’s different, it’s been changed.
If you are interested in proving me wrong or at least sorting out the reasons for the discrepancies, I could give you the details of the app and the location the data comes from. Even without following it for a few days, you only have to look at last months almanac to see that they’ve averaged the months data with eight days of data missing.
Megs,
It sound to me that what you are talking about is what the app is doing, not what the BoM is doing.
Nick open the ‘Weatherzone’ app, put in Gulgong NSW as your location, scroll down to ‘History’ and open it. Scroll down to ‘Extremes Since Midnight’, today Wednesday 5th August at 6.20am the minimum temperature was -3.8C.
Now scroll down to ‘Past 4 Days’, the minimum temperature for Wed 5 Aug has been changed to -0.7C.
Now scroll down to ‘Month to Date’, and hit ‘Tap to See Details’, you’ll see that the changed temperature has been posted.
There’s a calendar in the right hand corner next to ‘Month to Date’, change it to July 2020, hit the ‘Tap to see details’ again and you will see that there are eight days or so missing over the weekends. The ‘Extremes Since Midnight’ data is posted every day, but it’s not populated on the weekend in ‘Month to Date.’
This wasn’t the case at my previous location. All data fields were complete.
I know that this is painful to you but if there are valid reasons for the changes then you could help regain some of trust that may be as a result of our lack of understanding.
Megs,
Weatherzone is a commercial company, and they may take some liberties with the data in order to provide their clients with what they think is the best estimate. If you want the BoM source for Gulgong, monthly data is here (scroll down for earlier months). The more current data is here. It isn’t an AWS, and I think Weatherzone may have been getting the data you describe from some other location.
Thanks Nick, I’m greatful for the extra information. Weatherzone claims their data comes from BOM. At least you now have an indication of why people don’t trust the information they are given. Incidentally though, our own personal weather station is more in line with the ‘original’ readings that Weatherzone put out.
Still not sure why there is so much missing information, I guess that’s something I’ll have to take up with Weatherzone.
Nick Stokes , the BOM are a joke.
I have to agree Stephen, though, Nick did take the time to respond to me yesterday. Nick implied that the problems I was having with temperature changes in my weather app were due to the fact that it is a commercial app, and have to admit the missing data does irritate me.
The thing is, our home weather station and the commercial app both gave a minimum reading of -4C this morning, and the surrounding countryside was white with frost. Obviously BOM have the final say and they came up with -2.9C Now, our long term average minimum temp for Gulgong in August is 3.4C! That is a huge anomaly! These people always want to hide something, which is why I’m suspicious.
Nick I can’t believe you almost had me at, trust me, I’m from the government. Even if the readings are from different stations in the same area and the BOMs figures are correct that makes the whole temperature thing absolutely meaningless. The variations are so great over a potentially short distance that what you are reporting means nothing. Our temperature can vary 2 or 3 degrees either way from those at Mudgee and they are only thirty kilometers away.
Second warnmest July in UAH_TLT too, but behind 1998 in that case.
Probably around the same as it was in the 1940s…..
and certainly MUCH COOLER than MOST of the last 10,000 years.
Effin freezing here.
Cold In Oz as well, at the moment.
But the hail, sleet and snow is being called ‘an Antarctic blast’ rather than global warming but I’m sure that CO2 will be the cause of the cold.
“Probably around the same as it was in the 1940s…..
and certainly MUCH COOLER than MOST of the last 10,000 years.”
Ummm no, reference please?
Do I need to provide a reference when I claim that water is wet?
MarkW
“Do I need to provide a reference when I claim that water is wet?”
No but you do when you get called on a lie. Although to be fair this one was not your lie( for a change).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/27/mediterranean-sea-was-2-degrees-hotter-during-roman-empire/
I see that Simon is still pushing the belief that anything he disagrees with is a lie.
A real man would apologize, however I don’t expect one from you.
MarkW
“I see that Simon is still pushing the belief that anything he disagrees with is a lie.”
No. Yawn. I believe things that are deliberately said knowing they are not true are a lie. It is not true that this July as much cooler than most of the last 10,000 years. Either fred250 is not the sharpest tool in the shed or he is lying. Which is it.
So Mark, either front up with evidence that I am wrong, or slink back into the corner. Your choice.
” It is not true that this July is much cooler than most of the last 10,000 years. ”
It is true. The early and mid-Holocene was markedly warmer than the present. There are any number of proxies to prove it. Higher treelines, plants growing further north, whales stranding in places where there is never open water now, a green Sahara (=monsoon penetrating further north), higher sea-levels, most glaciers melted away completely, beach ridges on coasts that are permanently ice-bound now, higher Sea Surface Temperatures (faunal, alkenone and TEX86 proxies) and, of course, oxygen isotope data from ice cores:
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/images/drillsitelocation_n4_farver.png
Water is wet, Simon.
tty
Your comment is so wrong I really don’t know whether to feel sorry for you or just laugh
1. Your graph/chart has no reference as to who wrote it or where it is from. It could(and probably is) just be made up on some looneys computer.
2. The chart is at best referencing one tiny point on the planet (Greenland). So what. We are talking global temperatures. No one mentioned Greenland
3. From what I can tell, it does not even show todays temperatures, so how is it on any level a reference.
Sad….
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade”
Not anywhere close to what you and Al Gore had predicted.
Not sure which lower troposphere prediction starting 1979 you’re referring too, but UAH_TLT is not the only satellite TLT data producer. The RSS_TLT trend since 1979 is +0.21 C/decade. The trend in both UAH and RSS is statistically significant and, once uncertainty estimates are added, their trends easily overlap.
So what if it’s “statistically significant”, it’s still a trivial amount of warming.
Beyond that, it still remains unproven that 100% of that warming has been caused by CO2.
Perhaps it is trivial, but ‘statistical significance’ indicates that, in both cases, the warming trend observed in the lower troposphere since 1979, such as it is, is very unlikely to have occurred at random. Something is very likely driving it. It is also consistent with the observed surface warming over the same period.
The trends in the 5 main global temperature data sets since 1979, whether surface or satellite, are all similar. UAH_TLT (+0.14 C/dec) is the coolest, but RSS_TLT (+0.21 C/dec) has actually warmed faster than the warmest of the surface data sets (GISS, +0.19 C/dec) since 1979.
Still not aware of any reference for Ron’s claim that Nick (or Al Gore!) had predicted much faster warming than has been observed since 1979.
RSS modified their temperatures after speaking with some alarmists.
UAH also modified theirs, didn’t they?
The RSS can’t be taken seriously anymore, because it was adjusted to match the bogus surface temperature record. How do I know it’s bogus? Well, that involves going through the complete literature, and reading the discussions on artifacts and what not, and realizing that the entire effort to derive a global temperature never made any sense. Land surface, SST, radiosonde data are all so laughably bad that no serious person would have even considered “adjusting” them in order to derive a composite temperature curve, let alone using the latter to detect the effect of a 100-150 PPM rise in CO2 concentration. In short, the whole thing is a joke. And this is why the boys in the back room are busy coming up with ever more drastic ways to finagle the temperature record – to maintain the illusion that it’s hotter than ever.
Amusingly enough, Phil Jones has even come out and said that there are very few places where on can see a clear rise in temperature – but the global average is highly significant.
You might also check out the “divergence problem” – which makes the whole thing even more ridiculous. (Jim Steele has a good introduction to this particular bit of business in his book, Landscapes & Cycles.)
That is confusing. Some other “Ron” here than me. Well, it’s not such an uncommon name.
Go with your initials like “RGB” at Duke.
Gee Nick.. Isn’t it getting so SCARY HOT all over the world ! WALOR !!!
We are talking fractions of a degree, a MEANINGLESS and totally insignificant change even over the last 100 years.
AND there is absolutely nothing in the way of empirical proof that humans have caused any of it except by localised UHI effects and unwarranted data adjustment.
Where I am it’s gotten distinctly cooler over the last 15-20 years. Global warming is a “elsewhere everywhere” phenomenon, just like the Covid-19 pandemic (HT/RClutz).
The satellite record shows a linear warming trend of whatever. If the signal weren’t noisy, every month’s temperature would be the warmest ever. So what? Do the alarmists always refer to ‘the warmest ever’ just to scare the innumerate?
Quite right. Records don’t tell us much compared with the global warming trend.
But at least now it’s accepted that the warming trend is roughly linear and that all that talk of a Great Pause was just probably just looking too closely at noise.
Roughly linear? Sort of like the Sahara is roughly wet?
Temperature trend goes up, it goes down, it goes sideways. The only thing that has been roughly linear is the rate at which CO2 has been going up.
The temperature trend bears no relationship to the temperature trend. Not in the last 100 years, not in the last 10,000 years and certainly not in the last 100 million years.
MarkW
We only have CO2 instrument data from the early 50s, unfortunately. I charted this alongside global temperatures from GISS. I smoothed both data sets with a 12-month average to remove the seasonal signal of CO2 and ‘normalised’ both to account for the difference in the scale of the respective values. Not a perfect match, but saying CO2 and temperatures “bear no relationship” with one another may be pushing it a bit… https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/every:12/normalise/plot/gistemp/from:1958.21/every:12/normalise
The warming of the 30’s was not accompanied by an increase in CO2.
The cooling of the 70’s occurred while CO2 was climbing.
The pause occurred while CO2 was climbing.
“Temperature trend goes up, it goes down, it goes sideways.”
We’re talking about the satellite era, the last 40 years or so. It’s my contention that the simplest explanation of the data is a linear increase, with year to year variations. If you squint hard enough you can find periods where the trend is negative, and periods when the trends are sharply up, but this doesn’t have much of an impact on the long term trend.
I don’t assume the trend is linear, it may well not be. I just prefer to use the simplest model until such as time as there is sufficient data to establish a significant deviation from linearity.
A few years ago some people where convinced the trend was decelerating, or had stopped. Now it would be just as easy to argue that the rate of warming is accelerating. But it could just as easily be the result of “random” variation, we’ve had a few above-the-trend years, there will probably be some below-the-trend years later.
“The temperature trend bears no relationship to the temperature trend.”
I assume you mean “no relationship to the CO2 trend”. But you’d be wrong, there is a pretty clear correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over the last 100 years.
“The warming of the 30’s was not accompanied by an increase in CO2.” etc.
Almost as if CO2 levels are not the only thing that affects global temperatures.
Trend data in weather are about as useful as trend data in Roulette, Craps, slot machines or the stock market. Unless you know the parameters that cause the trend and have control over them, it may be interesting, but it is useless data for predicting the future. If you don’t know what is causing an observed trend there is no reason to believe that it won’t change magnitude or direction.
..but still cooler than the Medieval or Roman Warm Periods, and far cooler than the Holocene Climate Optimum.
Don’t forget the Minoan Warm Period, which was warmer than the Roman Warm Period. But still less than the Holocene Climate Optimum.
I wonder how warm it was in July during the mid Holocene optimum when trees flourished on what is now tundra? You know, Nick, where it is now too cold for trees to grow because the soil is permanently frozen
There is no such real thing as a “global surface temperature”.
There is a farce that is a collage of UHI effects and data mal-manipulation, (Giss and its stablemates), but those numbers are pure fabrication and nearer fiction/fantasy than actual reality.
You forgot to include “evah.”
Mr Strokes
So what if July was second hottest.
All data are compiled during a warming trend
That began in the 1690s.
Data since the 1880s are expected
To have frequent hottest records
And will continue setting records
Irregularly until the warming trend
Ends and a cooling trend begins.
That means a new record is
Expected news and not the usual
Sales pitch for a coming climate
change crisis. Something that has
Ben claimed for 50 years but never
Shows up. Something people like
To believe in so they can virtue
Signal and claim they want to save
The world for the children.
Platitudes from miserable people
Unable to enjoy the best climate
On our planet in over 300 years.
Best in almost 800 years.
There were some good weather decades after c. AD 1250, but the up and down decline into the LIA began in 2H 13th century. The 14th century was mostly terrible, with famine, war and plague, but climate bad only at its beginning and end. LIA in full swing by 1400.
Last blast of Medieval WP was around AD 1360, at least in East Anglia, based on harvest dates.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wea.2317
“All data are compiled during a warming trend that began in the 1690s.”
What makes you think there’s been a warming trend since the 1690s?
There’s no global data going back that far. CET shows virtually no warming trend between 1690 and 1900.
There are enough proxies to show that the world was colder back then. The whole world, not just Europe.
There are also sufficient proxies to cover the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods, plus the Holocene Climate Optimum.
Low point in CET was 1695, IIRC, which I might not.
Also alpine glacier advance during Maunder Minimum.
Should have said 1690s was coldest decade. Winter of 1739-40 was coldest in the CET.
The notoriously deadly frost of 1708-09 was terrible, too, with baleful historical consequences.
BEllman
CET shows significant warming
Since the unusually cold 1690s.
Anecdotal evidence reflects
Several cooler than desired
Centuries with exceptionally
Noticeable weather during
The Mandel Minimum
Which caused several
Famines in Europe.
I suppose you could say
Warming started 20000
Years ago but most
Proxy studies say the
HOLOCENE optimum
Was slightly warmer
Than today.
The best starting point
For the current warming
Is the late 1600s and
The temperature rise
Was at least 1.5 degrees
“CET shows significant warming since the unusually cold 1690s.”
As you say, it was unusually cold during the 1690s – hence it’s misleading to say there has been a warming trend since the 1690s. As I said, there is no significant warming trend between 1690 and 1900. Specifically the linear trend over that period was 0.09°C / century.
Taking 30 year averages, temperatures at the start of the 20th century were about 0.5°C warmer than at the coldest point of the 1690s, but where about 0.5°C colder than at the pick in the mid 1700s. Current temperatures are almost 2°C warmer than the 1690s.
We are certainly a lot warmer than the 1690s, but there has not been a continuous warming trend starting then, and I cannot see any reason why the current warming is the result of the unusually cold 1690s.
CET temperature is just one location but may be useful for defining a warming starting point msinly basef on anecdotal information and proxy stufied and is better than saying warming from the Maunder Minimum period which makes readers eyes glaze over.
I did not say the warming was continuous it was intermittent.
The warming during the period of the trough of the Great Recession and today was also intermittent during a period of rising CO2.
CO2 data are not accurate before 1958 just a rough estimate from ice cores and average temperature data are far from global before 1979.
But even with imperfect data I know my property in Michigan was covered in ice 20000 years ago, along with all of Canada.
That ice elted with little or no help from CO2.
And climate changinG a degree or two in 100 to 200 years is far from being a crisis.
“I did not say the warming was continuous it was intermittent.”
You said “All data are compiled during a warming trend that began in the 1690s.”. The implication is that the warming we are currently seeing is part of the same trend as the last 300+ years, and therefore might have the same cause. The intermittent nature of the warming makes it more difficult to argue that current warming has the case cause as the warming in the early 18th century – especially when “intermittent” actually means bouncing up and down but not actually moving very much until the 20th century.
All minor warming and cooling since the HCO has been intermittent, with ups and downs. No correlation with CO2 is obvious, except that more comes out of solution in oceans when they are warmer. Natural cycles over the long-term cooling trend don’t differ much.
As noted, the early 18th century warm cycle, coming out of the Maunder Minimum cold cycle, gained more temperature and lasted longer than the late 20th century warming. The latter was practically indistinguishable from the early 20th century warm cycle.
Hence, no CO2 fingerprint detectable. Warm cycles within the Modern Warm Period, including the late 20th century warming show nothing out of the ordinary.
If there have been human effects, others have been more important than increased CO2, such as urbanization, air conditioning, irrigation, deforestation and cleaning the air, after previously dirtying it.
Any effect from CO2 on global average temperature has been negligible. More plant food in the air has been a great boon to plants and the living things which rely upon them.
“As noted, the early 18th century warm cycle, coming out of the Maunder Minimum cold cycle, gained more temperature and lasted longer than the late 20th century warming.”
But there are obvious differences. For one, the former was coming out of the exceptionally cold 1690s. At it’s peak it was comparable with temperature in the mid 20th century in the CET record. By contrast the current warming started only slightly cooler than that. It isn’t really the rate of warming that determined how warm it is, it’s, well, how warm it is. If the same processes that caused the early 18th century warming are the same as caused the late 20th warming, why didn’t it continue until it reached modern temperatures?
Besides as you say we were coming out of the Maunder Minimum. If this was the reason it was so cold in England and other Northern latitudes, it seems likely it was the end of the deep solar minimum that caused the sudden switch back to more normal temperatures that make up the first half of this warming period. But there wasn’t a deep solar minimum in the mid 20th century, so difficult to see how this warming had the same cause.
“The latter was practically indistinguishable from the early 20th century warm cycle.”
Not sure how you come to that conclusion. If we are still talking about the CET, the rate of warming over the first 40 years of the 20th Century was only about half that of the most recent 40 years.
Who’s record, and starting from when? 2018? Actual records, or “corrected”?
1998 was warmer.
1976 was warmer.
1934 was warmer.
Since 1900; my calculation from GHCN and ERSST
Both works of fiction, then. We can’t measure SST accurately now, but you have faith in estimations from 1900? And weren’t they “corrected” due to the use of the wrong type of bucket for sampling?
It is interesting to compare UAH with the various surface data sets from time to time.
Temps holding steady.
In my opinion Mr. Spencer makes one BIG mistake every month.
He should always mention that the current warming trend
started in 1975 and his satellite data start in 1979.
That means his data are unintentionally cherry picked
to make a steeper warming trend — starting in 1975
would be even steeper.
In reality CO2 levels have increased significantly
since the trough of the Great Recession in 1932,
and especially after 1950.
I know there are no decent CO2 level measurements
before 1958 but in fact, CO2 emissions did not
start rising in 1979.
If you WANT to blame all warming on CO2,
which many climate alarmists prefer,
start a CO2 vs temperature chart in 1975
( 1979 is pretty close to 1975).
Of course none of this really matters
because we’ll all be gone
in 12 years, or is that 11 years?
So says perfesser Greta T.
Depression.
CO2 took off after WWII, but the world warmed, 1945-77, when the PDO flipped.
Sorry, meant cooled, despite rising CO2.
The “we’re all doomed” chant in CAGW has been a moving target for 30 years or so.
Before that it was because of CAGC.
Before that it was because of a sheep entrails were a funny colour.
Before that ….
Richard my husband said yesterday that Greta is a puppet, Greta Thunderbird 🙂 I can’t get the image out of my head. So funny.
“his data are unintentionally cherry picked”
That sentence makes no sense. You cannot cherry pick unintentionally. In addition, providing all the data that you have is the exact opposite of cherry picking.
TonyL
Actually over the course of this current decade, starting Jan 2011, UAH (at +0.52 C/dec) has been warming slightly faster than GISS (at +0.48 C/dec): https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2011/plot/uah6/from:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2011/offset:-0.43/plot/gistemp/from:2011/offset:-0.43/trend
The present full decade ending Dec 2020, will be the warmest in UAH by some margin. It’s currently (to July) +0.28C above the 1981-2010 average, versus +0.14C for the previous warmest full decade in UAH, 2001-2010.
“Holding steady”?
So, the natural recovery form the LIA continues. Hopefully it gets as nice as the Roman warm period, with luck, eh Nick?
There have been 4 warm periods over the last 5000 years. The Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern. Each peak has been about 1000 years apart, and each peak has been lower than the previous.
If the trend continues, we will be lucky to get back to the levels of the Medieval Warm Period.
Holocene climate optimum ended c. 5200 BP, followed by Egyptian WP c. 4000 BP and Minoan WP c. 3000 BP. Then Roman c. 2000 BP and Medieval 1000 BP. Roman was cooler than Minoan and Medieval than Roman. The trend is not our friend.
Winter is coming.
It’s really interesting that there has been a warm period just about every 1000 years since the end of the Holocene Optimum, with the previous one being right around 1000 years ago.
Sure looks like the Modern Warm Period came, right on schedule.
This is something I noted as well
Plus, according to ice cores, a rise in CO2 level tends to follow 800 years or so after the rise in temperatures
Could we be in the middle of this cycle?
CO2 does have a part in warming. Does this mean in 800-1000 years, mans CO2 may play a small part in rising temperatures?
Pure conjecture of course, but if our current emissions do play a part in global warming in 1000 years time, we could be postponing the next ice age.
Think of the children!
Nick
It’s time to wake up from your fantasy’s and start looking at what the people you keep defending are doing!
Of course that’s after the data is thoroughly cooked.
Regardless, prior to the satellite era, the error bars on the temperature data are in the 2 to 5C range.
TempLS is the average of the raw data.
So what? I’m talking about the errors, not the average.
Beyond that, taking the average of cooked data, doesn’t improve the data.
Plus the uncertainty of using a few dozen to a few hundred, non-uniformly distributed readings regarding the temperature of the entire planet.
The error bars on the satellite data are usually greater than those in the surface data, especially over shorter periods. This is due to the wider fluctuations seen in the lower troposphere, as opposed to the surface, because of ENSO’s exaggerated effect in the LT.
For instance, since Jan 2011 the trend and error in UAH is 0.53 ±0.42; in GISS it’s 0.51 ±0.34 (both in °C/decade at 2σ): http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
The error bars on the surface stations only covers the instrument itself.
It doesn’t cover errors caused by changes in the area surrounding the station.
It doesn’t cover errors caused by urbanization of many of the stations.
It certainly doesn’t cover the problems caused by there being 2 to 3 orders of magnitude too few surface stations, and the few we do have are mostly concentrated in two small sections of the globe.
What is the optimum concentration of carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere?
Plants would be happy if the levels got back to 1000 to 1200ppm.
Mr. Stokes will never provide an answer to this question.
I can tell you how warm it is. I can tell you it is getting warmer. I can’t tell you whether you will like it.
Non-responsive to the question, again.
LOL, quoting global temperatures to 1/100ths of a degree when individual thermometer temperature records have been adjusted by more than 1.5C .
TempLS uses unadjusted data.
It also uses Urban sited thermometers doesn’t it ?
Still no error bars, therefore pure nonsense.
Hi Nick!
I have added solar radiation as given in ERA5 re-analyses data sets here: https://cfys.nu/GTA.
What is your view on SSR over land?
Parameters are described In a link next to the sets.
Hi Matz,
Good to see the progress there. It isn’t easy to find such maps of solar radiation.
I must confess that I’m not sure what SSR stands for, although I expect it is a measure of solar radiation. I’m not sure what the issue is over land.
Nick, I’ll respond in a mail to you
“Still the second warmest July in the record ”
Why the negative spin, Nick?
Was it not really the second least cold July on record?
(assuming for the sake of discussion that it actually was)
1936 called…they want their hottest year on record back.
“1936 called”
Must have been a local call.
I don’t care which side of the debate you are on, that was a good response.
No doubt, that was a zinger.
All the better to have come from the typically dour Mr. Stokes.
It may have been an excellent zinger, however it was totally non-responsive to the issue at hand. Which is unfortunately, Nick’s style.
I disagree MarkW.
Nick Stoles commented “Still the second warmest July in the record” referring to the global temperature.
Nicholas McGinley responded “1936 called…they want their hottest year on record back.” which relates to the US temperature record.
Nick’s response was spot on in my opinion.
We can agree to disagree.
His original comment, imho, should elicit more of a “so what?” response.
In any case, I am pretty sure I am not the only one to find a slightly warmer than average July, to be decidedly unalarming.
“. . . second warmest July in the record (after 2019).”
Only if you believe that average global LST, derived from thermometer data, is determined to ± 0.01 deg-C (or even to ± 0.1 deg-C) ACCURACY. I do not believe either is possible, considering all the variables involved.
If you based your statement quoted above on Dr. Spencer’s data in the above article, your would have to believe that global average LAT, as measured by satellite observations, is likewise ACCURATE to ± 0.01 deg-C (or even to ± 0.1 deg-C). I do not believe either is possible, considering all the variables involved.
Please note that in the statistical averaging of many data points one can present the average value to as great a PRECISION (i.e., to as many decimal points) as is desired, for example a July 2020 average anomaly of +0.443817625 deg-C, which might be conveniently rounded off to +0.44 deg-C as was done in the above article’s graph.
Precision does not equal accuracy . . . and I seriously doubt there is a scientific basis for asserting the global LAT, as reported by Roy Spencer is accurate to even ± 0.1 deg-C.
It would most useful if Dr. Spencer would at least note on his monthly update charts the degree of accuracy associated with the presented data. Adding in error bars for each month would make the graph harder to read IMHO.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible.” — Aristotle
That is Great !
The current low solar activity historically coincides with a cold snap. And cold snaps, with the resulting famines, spell the demise of Empires. And Western Civilization seems to be in a bit of bind, right now.
Also, according to the models, the sudden drop in CO2 production should have disastrous effects on harvests.
But if the climate has still improved half a degree since 2000, then we have not yet reached the optimal of the modern warm period.
Apparently UK temps for July were 1 Centigrade below the long term average despite having a scorcher of a day on 31 July which of course was the only thing that got talked about by the media.
Wasn’t particularly warm in France either, although not much rain since May. Yesterday snow was forecast for Alps above 2500 metres, don’t know if it happened. 8’C this morning in Department 87.
Have a look to the links provided
Yesterday, Aug. 3., we got 20 cm snow on the “Zugspitze” , 2900m, highest Mountain in Germany and
-2° Centigrade.
The rain in June was abundant for those who got the storms, some areas getting twice as much as normal, but those just outside the storm line have stayed much dryer but still with a lot of cloud cover.
The average rainfall across France for June is at +30%, with Brittany recording their wettest June since 1959. The East and the far North were the driest.
A lot of hail as well further south of you too.
Certainly a cooler than average July in the UK.
But I’m not sure what you mean by the “long term” average. Compared with the 1981-2010 average is was 0.84°C cooler, the first below average month since November last year. But 1981-2010 is warmer than longer term averages.
Surely warmer than 1951-1980 and 1891-1920. Dunno about 1921-1950.
Yes, though not by much. UK July mean for 2020 is 14.3°C. Averages for 1951-1980 and 1891-1920 where both about 14.2°C, so 2020 was slightly above average.
But 1921-1950 was 14.7°C, so 2020 was below that average.
Thanks.
US was hotter in the 1930s than 2010s.
“US was hotter in the 1930s than 2010s.”
So people keep telling me, but it’s only really true if you look at the hot summer days. Winters, and summer minimums where much colder.
But I’m not sure it helps the arguments seen throughout these comments – that it’s good news if the world is getting hotter. The US didn’t do well during the hotter summers, with droughts and poor farming practices leading to dust bowls and depression. It’s also possible that the misuse of the land contributed to the rising temperatures.
Either way it doesn’t make a good argument – the heat was to some extent man made, and it was not the universal benefit some here claim.
If you carefully filter the data to eliminate any data points that don’t agree with the point you are trying to make, you can prove just about anything.
Nice and cool in normally muggy August in the Midwest. I like those solar minimums matching 100 year lows of quiet sun because it did just the same in the summer of 2009. The norther hemisphere thanks you.
I received this letter today and was asked to forward it to Anthony Watts.
Dear Mr Watts ,
As true worshippers of Gaia we write to complain about the material AND most of the comments on your web site.We abhor the amount of SCIENTIFIC articles especially when you PERSIST in featuring Mr Spencer.(We can’t bear to use the term Doctor for him-We would not let him near OUR piles!) What has SCIENCE got to do with true religion? The abuse Our Saviour Greta (sacrilegiously called “Thunderpants ” by some of your correspondents ) is shocking and obviously due to some remnants of the failed Judao-Christian ” movement.HOW DARE YOU. Her High Priests ,The Blessed Ben Santer,Saint Michael of Mann,Geogeous George Monbiot,and even acolytes like “Nice Nick” Stokes also suffer greatly at their hands.
May we remind you” people are DAAYING”(UN\Thunberg edict 2019\20) and ” scientists ” like Spencer,Christy,Lindzen,Frank ,Ball et al (as I think you say) only disturb the SETTLED SCIENCE of Prophet Gore.(We true believers now drop the ugly word “science” and just say “it’s settled.”) Commentators like David Roger Wells ,Javier ,and Eric Worrall,to name but a few,are also not appreciated by we Gaians. We hope you will take these few comments to heart in the spirit of love and friendship that they are offered and STOP TALKING SCIENCE!(Remember, we’re watching you -with love of course)
Yours faithfully,more in sorrow than in anger,
Mr & Mrs Seriously Twee .
Amen /sarc
So 1979 to present, I wonder what else looks linear on one limb of a long-term ocean cycle that is topping out?
The real climate emergency is in pushing through a carbon tax and global transfer of wealth scheme before the AMO turns south and takes some of that linear trend of ocean warming with it. By then a lot more professional climate scammers can retire comfortably….at the beach.
ResourceGuy
Your linked AMO chart, which ends in 2016, isn’t detrended. It’s showing absolute temperatures which are affected by the rise in sea surface temperature independent of the AMO, which is an oscillation.
That’s why it doesn’t look very like the current (properly detrended, presented as anomalies and ending with the latest values) AMO chart published on that sameweb site today:
That brings up the question of detrending a long cycle series with limited turning points in the data series to work with. In other words not all detrending operations are equal and useful. Just because it says detrended does not make it right. In such cases, the unadjusted series is better.
Also, the UAH series itself is a nondetrended series for the same reason–lack of data points and turns points. The smoothing in their chart is not detrending of long period cycles.
There is no such thing as “properly detrended” when you don’t have the data series length and cycle periods to do it adequately. That’s basic common sense for any time series analysis.
I am glad. Warmer is certainly better than colder.
Jim Hansen in April
“This year, 2020, should have record global warmth according to widespread media reports in April. The reports were based largely on a NOAA conclusion that such a record was likely with 75% confidence. April has since come in with record warmth for the month(see map above), although practically the same as April 2016. That should seal the deal, right? ”
and
“The game of predicting near-term global temperature records is of little import. We just want to insure against
public misinterpretation, if, as is perhaps probable, 2020 does not achieve the predicted record”
“Tropical ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) variability is the largest cause of interannual variability of global temperature, but there are other factors.”
And in June
“June 2020 was the warmest June since adequate global data began in 1880, tied with 2019 June. Global surface temperature was 0.93⁰C relative to the 1951-1980 base period and 1.21⁰C relative to 1880-1920”
“The first half year of 2020 is still the 2ndwarmest in the record at 1.12⁰C relative to 1951-1980 (1.40⁰C relative to 1880-1920), but it has moved up close to the same months in2016, which were at 1.13⁰C”
–
Since July 2020 was warmer than July 2016 the 7 months must be ahead? right?
–
Nick’s NCEP/NCAR reanalysis surface temp anomaly area weighted global average made 2020-08-04
shows little change 2020 Jul 0.214 2020 Jun 0.223 but the recent results have concerned some.
“NCEP reanalysis is only getting worse now from month to month. I don’t know why they even keep updating it. It’s complete bunk over Eurasia.”
Recent days global anomaly are of interest as this shows the only recent negative daily value I have seen.
Aug 1 0.077 Jul 31 0.01 Jul 30 0.012 Jul 29 -0.014 Jul 28 0.04 Jul 27 0.113 .
–
” Still the second warmest July in the record (after 2019).” does not seem correct for the index he uses.
Might yet be a good drop in August.
May 2020 broke cold records in much of the US.
As a result, no apples, pears, walnuts, mulberries, etc. on my trees this year.
Sorry about that.
My cousin’s tulips were not happy campers at 20 F and snow.
It’s going to get down below 60F in Oklahoma tonight in August, the hottest month of our year. It’s been cold for several days now, and it’s raining in Oklahoma in August. That’s not too common an occurance. We’ll take all the cool and wet we can get this time of year. 🙂
Totally off topic, got to find a way to change UAH, every time I see it all I think about is a Slick whopwhopwhopping in to pick my tired a$$ out some brush choked LZ. And they don’t even whopwhop anymore. Progress often leaves one rather sad and nostalgic.
I guess a UAH would be a Huey armed with TOW, rocket pods and an auto cannon rather than just door guns.
Where I was, in Honduras, their Slicks mounted double M60 starboard and a free hanger M60 port. At that time all their ships were armed, no dedicated Dustoff birds. They had SA 330 Pumas from Britain and lots of USAAC Hueys, though they had a number of upgraded SeaKnights and old Chinooks. Yea, I see UAH and immediately think choppers, even if the old designations are a bit scrambled anymore.
The A should come first, as in AC-130 or AH-1.
I know, still makes me think of choppers. 😉 Early on it was Utility,Armed, Helicopter in Army designations, then all desigs were made uniform and USAF desigs were the aircraft standard. Army never forgave Hap and LeMay for their “defection” to a new service, just as Navy never forgave Mitchell for sinking a stationary target. Officer Corps, quite fickle and vindictive and never forget a slight, real or imagined.
“And they don’t even whopwhop anymore.”
Yeah, you could hear that Huey “whopwhop” for miles. I was standing outside my house talking to my cousin one day (in the USA after the war) and I told her I could hear a helicopter coming, and she couldn’t hear it, but about a minute later she heard it, and couldn’t believe I could hear so well. I don’t think it is actually hearing it when it’s that far away, it’s more like feeling it. You can feel that whopwhop.
I guess that’s why the military decided to upgrade from the Huey to quieter helicopters.
Yep, there is a private contractor that still operates a couple of two blade rotor Hueys here in western PA, I feel them long before anyone hears them. Miss that smell, too. Kerosene heaters always bring on a vivid image, standing along the flight line in the dark, exhaust filling the air, all rucked up and ready to go do that thang.
Soooo warm….
snow in German Alps, Zugspitze
Snow wall (up to 6 m hight) at the frontier Chile / Argentinia, Pino Hachado
We are all burning…
Cold and wet winter here in Chile.
40 years is too short a period to judge temperature trends.
The attached plot
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14tMkBslz2MLKSRQQ97XXX6ydSlpjuCNS/view?usp=sharing
covers the Hadcrut results from 1850.
It shows that two quite different curves, namely a quadratic and a 1000 year sinusoidal, fit the results equally well and for these 170 years virtually sit on top of each other. But outside this 170 year range they quickly start to diverge.
Also there is a roughly 60 year cycle in the moving average.
These findings are equally applicable to sea level Tidal Gauge readings over this period.
The 1000 year sinusoidal variation may be significant but it does imply an approximate +/-3degree variation over those 1000 years.
No importance to the quadratic fitting is implied, it is used merely to indicate how meaningless it is even over a 170 year period let alone over shorter periods such as the 25 years advocated by the likes of Nerem et al.
The only reason I can see for using quadratic fitting or binomial regression on climate data is that it gives the answers you want to see. Data that is demonstrably full of cycles can surely only be analysed with time series forecasting and its off-shoots, but that never seems to be used. I wonder why, perhaps I have mis-understood something.
Also off topic:
Comments from Valentina Zharkova
Retraction Note: Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale
Am I wrong or is the movement around the baricenter only a minor part of the work and actually negligible when it comes to the general conclusions from the paper?
The only reason I can see for using quadratic fitting or binomial regression on climate data is that it gives the answers you want to see. Data that is demonstrably full of cycles can surely only be analysed with time series forecasting and its off-shoots, but that never seems to be used. I wonder why, perhaps I have mis-understood something.
Since we are in the geologic era with the lowest average temperature and CO2 level in the last 450 million years, I would think that a little warming would be welcome! Sadly a few sociopaths and their “useful idiot” acolytes have wasted billions of dollars and stifled world economic growth to placate their deeply held religious beliefs that humanity is EVIL! Seems like a classic case of projection to me!
If only we could get these religious fanatics out of our schools where they indoctrinate children with their dogma. But if we were really serious about getting religious doctrine out of public schools we’d have prohibit the teaching of Communism; the modern, scientific religion of slavery!
I, for one, am perfectly willing to adapt to climate change; I’m thinking about buying a small swamp cooler for the handful of days when it is actually uncomfortable before our summer monsoon season starts. My tomato plants, on the other hand, are loving every bit of extra warmth and CO2 they can get!
CO2 during LGM was lowest in at least 540 million years, dangerously near C3 plant starvation level.
It now might be slightly higher than the lowest point during the Carboniferous=Permian Ice Age.
If thousandths or hundredths of a degree, with graphs that are zoomed in to these tiny fractions, are inherently dishonest, why aren’t these “products” released with tenths or even halves of a degree? Also, where are the error bars. Please take note that this question is from a plumber, but even the tightest plumbing codes allow 1/4” plus or minus deviance on linear measurements. What deviance is AOK with the climate experts? Maybe there should be a code book to keep all the players inside the lines.
A plumber has to deal with the real, tangible, physical World, and thus understands concepts such as random and systematic errors, and standard deviation. A Climate “Scientist” only works with intangible, unfalsifiable computer models.
La Niña brewing – temps could go downhill soon
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean
In contrast to what the witchhunter of the PIK in Germany predicted 😀 (an El Niño)
No surprise that NASA is such an outlier.
NASA and NOAA’s weather models suck almost as much as their GCMs.
Phil Salmon August 4, 2020 at 12:39 pm
La Niña brewing – temps could go downhill soon
–
The spaghetti chart of forecasts is composed of outliers, Phil.
The one true forecast is the top of the range made by the site owner BOM.
–
Which shows that it is going to be warm although near neutral.
All the rest are just wishful thinking and the worst outlier, predicting La Niña way ahead of the others with no logic is NOAA.
–
Amazing how Nick’s lot get it so wrong while BOM gets it so right.
–
All the Australian weather forecasts are based on BOM.
That is why they are 100% right. (Sarc)
– Where is Dave Middleton when you need him?
–
Why do scientists use .1 degree increments in their global average temps over time and not 1 degree increments? And why use Celsius when most people can’t relate to them? If I were to ever become a scientist/ hobbyist I would use Fahrenheit as I know what 75 F feels like and what 105 F in the dessert feels like.
When I see 30 C I begin to shiver. What gives?
When I look at these graphs with .01 to .3 changes I automatically believe that’s not bad. Example As a Floridian the summertime morning starts at 75 F if temp rose only .2 degrees by lunch that was a cool day.
Same if you see average Temp for the summer rose only .2 degrees. I don’t feel that that’s significant, because I can’t feel that difference.
Brandon,
There is no thermometer used that can measure to the accuracy suggested in the graphs you see, the accuracy of 0.1 is derived mathematically not from an actual measurement, also note none of the digital thermometers used by the BOM are calibrated. If they used 1 degree increments there would be no global warming and no climate change and they would have to find a real job.
Most of the civilised world use centigrade hence why we have C not F.
Regards
crakar24
Global temperature increase since 1880 is > 1 deg C, according to the mean of GISS, HadCRUT and NOAA. Many individual regions of the world have also warmed by more than 1 deg C during the period of instrument measurement. Even Dr Spencer’s UAH lower troposphere data set shows warming of >1 deg C in the air above the Arctic region (60N-90N) and that’s just since 1979. The thermometer-based surface temperatures in the Arctic have warmed +2.8 C since 1979 (GISS). Easily detectable using thermometers calibrated to 1 deg increments.
Why do you believe that a few hundred thermometers, mostly in Europe and N. America, are capable of accurately measuring the temperature of the entire planet?
CET temperature is just one location but may be useful for defining a warming starting point msinly basef on anecdotal information and proxy stufied and is better than saying warming from the Maunder Minimum period which makes readers eyes glaze over.
I did not say the warming was continuous it was intermittent.
The warming during the period of the trough of the Great Recession and today was also intermittent during a period of rising CO2.
CO2 data are not accurate before 1958 just a rough estimate from ice cores and average temperature data are far from global before 1979.
But even with imperfect data I know my property in Michigan was covered in ice 20000 years ago, along with all of Canada.
That ice elted with little or no help from CO2.
And climate changinG a degree or two in 100 to 200 years is far from being a crisis.