by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
New Record High Temperatures and a Weird Month
July 2023 was an unusual month, with sudden warmth and a few record or near-record high temperatures.
Since the satellite record began in 1979, July 2023 was:
- warmest July on record (global average)
- warmest absolute temperature (since July is climatologically the warmest month)
- tied with March 2016 for the 2nd warmest monthly anomaly (departure from normal for any month)
- warmest Southern Hemisphere land anomaly
- warmest July for tropical land (by a wide margin, +1.03 deg. C vs. +0.44 deg. C in 2017)
These results suggest something peculiar is going on. It’s too early for the developing El Nino in the Pacific to have much effect on the tropospheric temperature record. The Hunga Tonga sub-surface ocean volcano eruption and its “unprecedented” production of extra stratospheric water vapor could be to blame. There might be other record high temperatures regionally in the satellite data, but I don’t have time right now to investigate that.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming…
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July 2023 was +0.64 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is well above the June 2023 anomaly of +0.38 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands 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 (1991-2020) average for the last 19 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.06 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.12 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.50 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.28 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.22 | +0.74 | +0.02 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.27 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.25 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.17 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.60 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.46 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.56 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.32 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.50 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.24 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.04 | +0.16 | +0.93 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.14 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.08 | +0.17 | 0.00 | -0.11 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.12 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.16 | -0.13 | -1.44 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.25 | -0.03 | -0.38 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.39 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.06 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.87 | +0.53 | +0.91 | +1.43 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for July, 2023 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy of the unusual July conditions, should be available within the next several 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.txtâ€
Looks like it is heading upwards. Where to?
We’re still thawing out from the Little Ice Age.
The August forecast for much of the NH is cooler, including where I am Highs in 80s and 90s F instead of 90s and 100s. Here last year was hotter.
However I see PHX is still likely to suffer more days over 110 next week.
I’ve been hearing about how terribly hot its been in Phoenix all summer. It has been hotter than usual but, as with every hottest of all time claim, this all depends on the quality of the station where the measurements are being taken.
Yes those records that were broken was in a city of less than a million, now at nearly 5 million and temperatures taken at a Airport with now three runways not one and two very large terminals with equally large parking garages, not a surprise. Add in the Hunga Tonga event and it looks like a perfect storm. One that CO2 was in all probability not part of the equation. Of course you will never hear that from the media.
There’s also a heat dome over the central Andes, heating northern Chile.
During heatwaves periods, the Urban Heat Island effect can enhance the temperature records by 8 to 10°C with respect to the surrounding countryside.
These purported broken records are an illusion intended to make the people panicking.
I ride a motorcycle. I can ride the same span of road and experience different temperature swings. One day, dipping down a valley with tall trees on both sides will result in noticeable drop in temperature, on other days with different wind there will be no temperature difference or sometimes warmer. When nearing my home and crossing the lake, Ill feel a dramatic change in humidity, on other days, with a different wind that all goes away.
These are satellite measurements of the lower troposphere. No station siting involved.
“These are satellite measurements of the lower troposphere. No station siting involved.”
That does *NOT* mean that UAH observations are not affected by UHI. Urban heat goes up as well as out.
I’m in Phoenix and I haven’t been suffering. Enjoying the pool at night. We do have air conditioning you know!
https://holoceneclimate.com/
We are still cooling down since the Holocene optimum.
If we are in the throes of an El Nino, then it will likely go higher, if no El Nino happens, then
it will cool again after the peak NH summer. Overall, this is not predictable just like the models aren’t or should I say can’t..
There’s no way CO2 is to blame for an almost .3C jump over a month. Something natural is behind this.
Definitely.
There are stagnant high pressure systems that are cooking the US south. That will change. It always does. It’s *weather*, not climate.
Yep. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to show evidence.
It’s Aliens
I find it frustrating that “the science” gets in the way of real climate science. Shouldn’t people interested in this field be chomping at the bit to figure out what is happening that would cause a large spike like this? No, they just go “see CO2!” Whether it is weather or some larger phenomenon it seems like this would be an interesting thing to hypothesize about and discover.
Walter:
Here is the answer
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.19.1.1329
Huge eruption only recently that was able to throw large amounts of water vapour into the stratosphere.
I don’t think we can discount a significant warming of the water around that volcano.
Question is, where would that warm water go to, how long would it take, and what effect might it have.
Seems to be deep currents, as well as mid and near surface currents, all going in different directions.
Oceanographer and lots of measurements needed.
It went to the Pacific coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, hence lack of sea ice there now.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45190-3
Want to reconsider the down votes, because, actual science?
But it is very clear that the current anomalies being observed in the climate metrics are not associated with the 3-month-old fledgling El-Nino and has much to do with the volcanic event from 19 months ago.
Why did it take 19 months? What physics explains how a mere 150 MtH2O could have such a significant effect?
It did not take 19 months, the effects became immediate, however this was primarily a Southern Hemisphere event so it was predicted that it would take several months for the excess water vapor and other particulates to distribute throughout the Southern Hemisphere as well as migrating to the Northern Hemisphere.
The image below shows Antarctic sea ice (all years) setting a record low-high last year only a few months after the eruption, and this year will clearly be the new low-high by a wide margin.
One needs to look no further than this in science and consequently, physics to relate cause and effect in this situation. No other rational explanation can explain the (never observed before) sudden change in Antarctic Sea Ice over the last two seasons than the (never observed before) eruption.
When I say “effect” I’m talking about the recent rise in the UAH TLT anomaly. And when I say “what physics explains” I’m not asking what happened; I’m asking how it happened.
And as far as the explanation of the physics, the heat flux leaving the planet had to deal with Stratospheric water vapor on its way into space before the eruption, and now it has to deal with more of it.
We’re headed up from La Niña low of -0.04 anomaly in January. No surprise there.
Direction from here can’t be known, but without another Super El Niño continued heating into the 0.70s and 0.80s is a long shot, even with Tongan water now spread across the stratosphere.
We’ll see in August and September.
The 7.5-year cooling trend is however at risk from the building El Niño and huge 2022 submarine eruption.
The record since 1979 is 0.83 C in 02/2016.
Outer space
Maybe heading upwards towards mid-Holocene temperatures? Long way to go, though.
Like when this tree was growing where today it is too cold for them to grow?
Finally, some much desired Global Less-Coldening.
What is “it”?
(please don’t say “global temperature”, because that’s a construct that has no applicability to the daily lives of any creatures on this planet).
Why can’t I say it? The heading of this article is
“UAH global Temperature update”
You sound like you’re applying for a gig with The Knights Who Say “IT”
Where to? Not to catastrophe. The USDA is still predicting another record global corn harvest this year. They are predicting the same thing for wheat. You want a positive correlation to look at? As CO2 has gone up so has global food production. If CO2 and temperature are correlated and therefore have a causal relationship then the same thing must be assumed for food production. We are about 20 years past Gore’s and the IPCC’s prediction of mass starvation from rising CO2 and temperatures.
So where *is* food production headed?
Looking back over the record, I can see lots of places where it was heading up.
Are you really trying to claim that this recent increase actually proves something.
Did I hear you say it looks like it was heading downwards when it was?
Answer – no. People see what they want to see. Always good for all of us to keep this in mind.
If the mainstream media say “hottest ever” – or anything with “hot” in it for that matter – I just skip past because I know that they will never say anything with “cold” in it. Nick Stokes ditto (what has happened to you, Nick, you used to have some reason now you’re just plain bias). When Roy Spencer says “hot” I’m paying attention because I know he will report it like it is, whatever it is. Could this be Hunga Tonga? We don’t know yet, I think, but here at least we have independent minds trying to work it out. I’m staying tuned.
“Could this be Hunga Tonga?”
It would be a belated response to an eruption eighteen months ago.
Why did an eruption in 1815 cause a Year Without Summer in 1816?
Walter;
Because the dimming SO2 aerosols from the volcanic eruption had circulated around the globe. It takes, on average, 17 months for for the maximum cooling from a VEI4 eruption to occur. This was a VEI7, with a shorter circulation time.
So what,
Are you really saying that oceanic seismic activity has an immediate effect…
.. despite data that shows the 2 year lagged ocean seismic activity corresponds far far better to atmospheric temperatures than CO2 does.
It took awhile, but I was able to track down that graph. It was made by Viterito. I recognize this name because of the fraud that occurred under his leadership.
He was the editor-in-chief for the now defunct predatory journal Environment Pollution & Climate Change owned by OMICS. OMICS, subsidiaries, and personnel were investigated for academic fraud in 2016 and were found to have run as many 700 predatory journals and deceived numerous article authors. A judge ordered the India based company to pay $50 million in damages. Viterito defended his involvement.
And his “scientific” positions defy credulity. He allowed an article that stated that the greenhouse effect cannot be real because the atmosphere does not have a roof like a real greenhouse. Even the most predatory of predatory journals would usually reject that kind nonsense. So this must have been a whole new level of ineptitude on his part.
Good spot.
Thanks. It comes from this publication in one of the journals that was determined to be fraudulent.
I would say we felt the effects of it last year as well. There were many heat records broken and some areas experienced unprecedented snowfall, Houston experienced the coldest temperature of my life at 57 years there. Currently Antarctic Sea ice is at near record low. Initial estimates were that the effects would last for at least 4 years. This is not over by a long shot. The man who wrote this article said that these anomalies are unlikely to be caused by El-Nino because it is too weak and too recent to have this type of global impact and looking at the data, it is very clear that we are experiencing something unprecedented.
To the Moon Alice!
To the Moon!
*pow*
*zoom*
Nick,
Tell us exactly how the increase in CO2 during July caused this anomaly change. Without the evidence that CO2 caused the increase, you have no evidence as to what did cause the increase.
When do the islands get overwashed, Nick?
When shall we expect the refugees?
How exactly are we all going to die?
When comes the sharp rise in sea level?
Well, the oceans are supposed to boil according to the brain trust of climate alarmists so I guess it’s headed to at least 100 C (212 F). Never mind that CO2 was 5 times higher during the Jurassic and temperatures were rather comfortable for the early dinosaurs, only about 5 to 10 C higher than today, a temperature humans could easily adapt to if needed. But apparently there’s an imminent apocalypse or something, though there’s no evidence of it, and CO2 is the reason, the whole reason, and nothing but the reason. Well, who am I to argue with the elite? I mean, the science is settled.
This is obviously a “sudden” event-driven warming.
Only have to look at Antarctic sea ice to realise that.
Now what could possibly have happened recently in the SH ?
Nick,
Had there been a fall of similar size, would you have commented “Looks like it is heading downwards. Where to?”
Maybe you might use even better English, such as “To whence?”
Geoff S
If you want to complain about English you should start by checking the meaning of “whence”. According to the Oxford English Dictionary “whence” means “from what place”. Thus “to whence” makes no grammatical sense whatsoever.
Indeed. The correct archaic would be Whither?
If anyone know “archaic” it would be Nick.. !
“Whither” means “where to”, not “where from”.
Exactly.
Blimey – for once I agree with Izaak Walton! I need to lie down for a while.
Where can I sign up to NEVER see another Stokes post again.
Can someone make that happen?
He is a troll.
If anyone watches ‘What we do in the Shadows”, you realize Nick is an energy vampire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-Eldr7aV74
Start at 4:11
I would not like to see this become a site on which people are silenced merely for having an opposing viewpoint to the prevalent one.
There is plenty of that elsewhere.
Nick Stokes may be very stubborn, exasperating even, but that is not a vice.
He will engage with you if you initiate a dialogue, which is more than can be said about many others.
Where to? Down.
Please tell me whether there will be another solar flare this month or not:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/solarcycle25/2023/07/03/sun-releases-strong-solar-flare-6/
And before that, it was heading downwards.
”Looks like it is heading upwards. Where to?”
What goes up, must come down
The Ethical Sceptic has an idea for the unusual warmth – check out his web site and the essay on global warming.
According to the graph, last July is lower than 2016 and therefor confirms global cooling.
Clearly, we have not thrown enough tax credits and budget transfers to the UN and NGOs to hold down the warming. More drastic measures like borrowing against your next three generations is now required. Pay no attention to that land war in Europe and continue paying us instead. /sarc
Ah ha, maybe it’s all the explosives being detonated in Ukraine that is causing the warming.
Posters here spent the last month inventing excuses for all the new reported surface temperature records in July. UHI, poor station sites, jet efflux at airports, scientific curruption on a global scale… to name but a few.
Well, here we have confirmation from the satellite data, and UAH no less, that July 2023 was the warmest month yet recorded by instruments. What’s the next excuse?
It is not the warmest month. It’s the warmest July anomaly in the dedicated satellite record. It clearly was not suddenly caused by CO2.
As you could see from the graph, had you looked, the warmest anomaly was 0.83 C in February 2016, during Super El Niño conditions.
Posters here gave you convincing reasons last month. You just chose to ignore them.
Did you read what Dr Spencer said?
July is the warmest month globally, so this was also the warmest month on record in absolute terms.
I agree that is less important than the anomaly value, but it’s still a fact.
You find it remarkable that July is hotter than February? Most land stations are in the NH, with 90% of humanity and air conditioning moving warm air from indoors to outdoors.
You’d need to refer that to Dr Spencer, who makes the claim. Bear in mind that there are 2 hemispheres.
As noted, the hemispheres are radically different.
The SH is 81% water, and even more if land ice be added. It has fewer than 10% of Earth’s people.
The NH is 61% land, with more than 90% of its people. It teems with huge cities, creating urban heat islands, and vast farm and forest acreages, including irrigation.
There’s no comparison between heat profiles.
And yet they *INSIST* on jamming the temperature profiles together to create a “global temperature” data set. What they wind up with is at least a bi-modal data set, if not a multi-modal one, where the “average” is totally useless. You can’t tell what is happening to each modal data set let alone what the impacts on the average is from each. And they totally ignore the increase in variance for the overall data set when you create a multi-modal distribution – meaning an increase in the uncertainty of the average.
It’s enough to make anyone using measurements whose civil and criminal liability depends on the reliability of those measurements cry.
It is truly all they have. Without GAT anomalies they would be bankrupt, so they just ignore any flaws in the weaving.
As intellectually honest as “correcting for bias” in historic temperature data.
Everything is relative – even absolute zero. Even with the alarmist’s heat – we are still in a 9-year cooling trend (Jan – Jul data).
I’m trying to decide if your reading comprehension is as bad as this post makes you seem, or if you just hope that like Nick, if through out enough bafflegab, you’ll be able to fool enough people to make your quota.
OK, I’ll just quote what Dr Spencer says and you can explain what I’m not understanding…
Where’d I go wrong?
“Where’d I go wrong?”
Not thinking at all, not learning anything about anything.
A total lack of perspective due to innate gullibility and ignorance.
No understanding that UAH is very short term data showing warming out of the new ice age scare of the 1970s
Not understanding that the planet is still very much in a cooler period of the last 10,000 years, only a degree or so above the coldest period in those 10,000 years.
In other words.. a basic over-arching ignorance of anything to do with the Earth’s climate history.
Strange how Dr. Spencer, who knows a heckuva lot more about climate science than you, seems unconcerned about recent temperatures. Just like the rest of us. No apocalypse, Nails; not soon or ever. Sorry to calm your overactive imagination. You can go back to worrying yourself to death.
I didn’t mention any ‘apocalypse’, you did. So you may wish to reconsider whose imagination is running away with itself.
You are like a panic-stricken little child, repeating “it’s warming, it’s warming” over and over again !
You really seem totally petrified of a tiny bit of warming… out of the coldest period in 10,000 years
WHY ?
None of the global warmth came to the UK in July as we have had the coldest and wettest July in decades. The simple reason is the jet stream has been firing in low pressure systems from the Atlantic for the whole month and still is. Is this ‘unprecedented’? No, I have experienced summers like this before and not just here. I had a fortnight’s holiday in Bavaria where it rained at some point every single day, even on the nicest day. There was even snow on the Zugspitze. What is new from the ‘climate scientists’ is the claim that global warming has changed the jet stream but as usual, without any proof.
Yawn if you lived through the Medieval times, you would be spouting the same drivel you do here since you still fall for the CO2 did its paradigm it truly a sign that you have no idea what is going on.
No he would be burning witches, after all that what his ilk had to blame before CO2.
Burning witches and running around screaming that we needed to repent of [some mundane activities] or God will punish us any day now. Pointing to anything bad (disease, stillborn babies, animal attacks, war, drought, storms etc.) as proof judgment is already upon us and will only get worse.
According to the unthinking advocates of the global warming cult, any increase in temperature is proof that CO2 is finally causing the heating that they have been predicting for 40 years.
Any chance of a translation of this?
Any understanding of you learning to read and comprehend?
Given your lack of reading comprehension previously, it’s hardly surprising that you don’t want to understand this either.
LOL, you have no idea what is going on…….
No only the Medieval times. We can safely add the Roman and Minoan warm periods.
Satellites weren’t around in the 30’s and 40’s. Who knows what they would have shown back then!
They most likely would have shown higher spikes.
Why would you say that when you don’t have any evidence?
There is plenty of evidence that many parts of the world were as warm in the 1930s as now.
It has been posted before, so I won’t bother posting it again, because you will forget it within 30 seconds, and not learn anything from it.
Easy, because the ground based sensors were all showing higher temperature spikes during that time period.
No, but thermometers were and there’s a clear and consistent record. It’s getting warmer.
Yet there are plenty of thermometer readings UNAFFECTED by too much urban warming, that show that 1930/40 was a similar temperature from now.
Again, posting them for you would be a waste of time, because you won’t not learn anything from them, and would continue to parrot your same ignorant comments anyway.
Now you are lying because most people know it has been warming since the 1600’s thus you have nothing new to sell here.
I’m curious…which dataset do use as supporting evidence for the hypothesis that the global average temperature has been increasing since the 1600s?
We have anecdotal evidence. Glaciers, animal migration patterns, and sea level rise.
Do you know of a global average temperature dataset that uses those proxies?
It’s been getting warmer for well over 300 years, and only the last 70 years or so of that warming could have been caused by CO2.
Not that there is any real world evidence that much, if any, of the last 70 years of warming was caused by CO2.
I’m curious…which dataset do use as supporting evidence for the hypothesis that the global average temperature has been increasing for well over 300 years?
Maybe your new name should be UHI denier.
Look at the UAH record. All that UHI warming the air over the mid-Pacific and Atlantic?
We both know what I’m referring to. You are playing dumb. Also, both of those you mentioned have natural explanations.
Mid-Pacific: El Niño
North Atlantic: Excellent analysis right here https://judithcurry.com/2023/07/02/whats-causing-the-extremely-warm-temperatures-in-the-north-atlantic/
“You are playing dumb.”
No, it is NOT an act !
Mid Pacific is an El Nino developing..
Solar energy has also been quite high.
You do know that it is solar energy that warms the tropical oceans, don’t you.
Or are you ignorant of that , as well.
As usual, the terminally brain dead declare that every increase in temperature, no matter how small, no matter how short term is proof that after decades of predicting death just around the corner, they are finally right.
No, the long term trend is also rising, even in UAH.
No, this is a sudden event..
The long term trend in UAH is basically dead flat apart from the effect of two major El Ninos.
Once your little mind can digest that fact, perhaps your apoplectic panic attacks can stop.
Of course there is no evidence that more than a tiny fraction of that warming is being caused by CO2. The world has been warming for more than 300 years, and CO2 increases prior to 70 years ago were very minor.
BTW, please define which long term trend you are referring to.
Since the height of the Medieval Warm period, there is a slight downward trend.
If you go back to the middle of the Holocene Optimum the downward trend is even stronger.
As others have pointed out, it is the highest ΔT. That is no proof that the absolute temperature of the globe has increased remarkably. I’m not sure about UAH, but other surface temperature datasets use anomalies that are calculated by month, using a baseline of the station and not a “global temperature baseline”. The fact that ΔT has had a large increase does not mean the average absolute temperature has changed much.
This was the largest absolute temperature for any month on record for UAH. That’s all Dr Spencer is claiming.
Yet still well below the normal for the last 10,000 years
There is no evidence of any human or CO2 causing this slight spike.
There is no evidence that it is anything but a totally natural response to high TSI with a probable kick-along from the recent volcanic eruption.
So please, try not the panic too much… you will deplete the world supply of nappies.
Posters here spent the last month explaining specific surface temperature records. Do you not understand the difference? That we are all interested in the exact cause of this sudden jump in the satellite record, but anyone with a modicum of physics understands that this is not and cannot be due to CO2?
Well you’re the same guy who insisted the Hunga Tonga event would just disappear by turning into rain in the stratosphere, so I guess the modicom of physics comment is unfair.
“but anyone with a modicum of physics understands that this is not and cannot be due to CO2?”
Which leaves scientifically illiterate nitwits like FN out of the discussion.
Yes, “explaining” why they were all wrong. ‘Nothing to see here’ excuses, each with it’s own often ludicrous handle. Yet here we have UAH stating explicitly that yes, it actually was an exceptionally warm month. The warmest since 1979 at least.
As for Honga Tonga, that event occurred 18 months ago. We’re using it as the explanation for a very hot month a year and a half later? How does your understanding of physics explain that?
Complete ignorance as always from rusty.
No understanding the delayed response of ocean seismic activity, which corresponds very well to atmospheric temperature.
The fact that you think such a huge even as the Hunga eruption would not affect the global weather, shows just how mindless and stupid you really are.
You aren’t really going to pretend, even for a minute, that human CO2 caused the eruption or the warming spike, are you?
Or that CO2 was in any way responsible for this slight warming event
Let’s see your fantasy science explanation…. please. 😉
As I said.. you are too ignorant to join in any rational discussion.
Fascinating how you just dismiss the many scientific discussions over the last few months as just, excuses.
Thank you for admitting that science means nothing to you.
TheFinalNail – just like you don’t seem to understand that it doesn’t rain in the stratosphere (remember how you were confidently and sarcastically “explaining” to everyone for being so stupid on that point?) you don’t understand the difference between these two events.
Yes, there were some hot temps out there. Many of them have explanations that have nothing to do with CO2. If you wish to blame CO2 for things that it can in theory do, go ahead, but don’t make a fool of yourself and blame if for temp readings it could not have possibly caused.
Was July some sort of record? On an anomaly basis almost, on an absolute basis yes. Could CO2 have caused this? No. CO2 increases at about 2 ppm per YEAR which is less than 1/2 of 1 percent per year, and each additional ppm is less effect than the one before it due to CO2 being logarithmic. The Honga Tonga event on the other hand is a one time pulse into the stratosphere which caused a huge increase that we have not studied even in theory, let alone gathered data on. So, could it produce a substantial increase in temps with an 18 month lag? Maybe. I don’t think so. But is it possible? Yes. Are other explanations possible? Also yes.
Keep in mind that Dr. Spencer is insinuating that 150 Mt of H2O may be the cause of the dramatic warming in recent months. To put that into perspective that amount of CO2 is released every 1.5 days by humans. How does your understanding of physics explain how 150 MtH2O can cause so much warming in 19 months, but 38,000 MtCO2 over the same period does nothing?
I’m going to guess that you actually believe that all green house gasses are equal in strength and impact.
Then you have guessed wrong.
He tries really hard to hide what he really believes.
Injection into the stgratosphere rather than the troposphere, where water rains out, make no difference on your alternative planet?
I think it does make a difference. Anyway, if your point is that H2O does not condense in the stratosphere then surely you have anticipating the argument that CO2 does not condense in either the stratosphere or troposphere.
Anyway, my point is that I’m constantly being told that CO2 cannot have an effect because 38,000 GtCO2 is simply too small of an amount. Yet here we are and people are suggesting that a mere 150 MtH2O is the most likely candidate for the high rate of warming over the last few months. Surely you recognize the strangeness of that dichotomy. No?
No. CO2 and H2O are different, as are troposphere and stratosphere.
And most commenters recognize that CO2 has some effect, but so far beneficial. When and if we hit 560 ppm at the end of this century, the equilibrium warming effect might be 1.5 degrees C, not 3.0, let alone 4.5.
bdgwx, if you wish to look foolish, happy to oblige.
Human emissions of CO2 are about 8% of emissions frrom human and natural combined. So the amount per day of CO2 is 12 times larger than you allude to. Mother nature recylcles most of both, so almost everything emitted is then absorbed by photsynthesis. About 2 ppm per year is left over which must be measured against the backdrop of the 430 ppm we currently have. Small and growing smaller because CO2’s effects are logarithmic and so each additional ppm has less effect than the one before it. As the incremental change on an annual basis is tiny, it makes no sense that it could cause such a large change in a single month on its own.
H2O injected into the stratosphere on the other hand is all by itself. We do not know if there are natural processes that will absorb it or if it will just stay there. It is a major change to the water vapour concentration in the stratosphere, and a one time step change at that, not a gradual 0.4% per year increase of steadily decreasing effect. We have not studied or modelled such a thing. We have no measurements, no sensing equipment and no data. So, per Dr Spencer, could it be the culprit. Maybe. We don’t know.
If you still do not understand the difference between these two things then you may take a seat next to the TheFinalNail and perhaps the two of you can talk about how it rains in the stratosphere.
I say it is about 100 MtCO2/day.
100 MtCO2/day * 365 day/yr * 12 = 438 GtCO2/yr.
Note that 438 GtCO2/yr is 56 ppm/yr.
Does that sound right?
Yep. And we can use the Myhre 1998 formula to quickly estimate the logarithmic effect. A 1 ppm increase from 280 ppm is 5.35 * ln(281/280) = 0.019 W/m2. A 1 ppm increase from 420 ppm is 5.35 * ln(421/420) = 0.013 W/m2.
I know.
It’s not by itself. There is other stuff in the stratosphere including CO2. There are natural processes that deplete H2O in the stratosphere. It will not just stay there.
Is your hypothesis that it the amount of a substance is irrelevant and that only the duration of the pulse matters? Is the water vapor increase in the troposphere irrelevant because it occurred over a long period of time? If yes can you provide corroborating evidence?
See Jenkins et al. 2023 for an example of a study and modeling of such a thing.
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/qbo.html
“It’s not by itself. There is other stuff in the stratosphere including CO2. There are natural processes that deplete H2O in the stratosphere. It will not just stay there.”
Exactly what are those natural processes? If it doesn’t rain in the stratosphere then where does the H2O go? Is it converted to something else? Does it diffuse back down into the troposphere? If so how fast does it do that? If the H2O gas volume is higher in the troposphere then in the stratosphere then how much diffusion downward will there be?
If you want to make an assertion like this you need to be able to back it up.
Jenkins 2023 is what tyou are citing? LOL.
Yes. That is what I cited. I’m responding to “We have not studied or modelled such a thing.” by pointing out that it has been studied and modelled.
Well, given that there is no evidence of CO2 causing any warming whatsoever,
And all this H2O went into the stratosphere, while the CO2 is constantly part of the lower atmosphere Carbon Cycle that gives life to the planet.
….. there is no way of comparing anything.
You alarmists are the people claiming an increase from 3 to 4 molecules of CO2 per 10 000 is responsible for the current warming (if that is indeed real).
I think you have me confused with someone else. I’m not claiming that the current warming (assuming we talking about the last few months) is caused by 3 to 4 molecules of CO2 per 10000. The irony here is that many people here are saying it is caused by 1 molecule per 80000 of H2O. I’m the one pointing out the absurdity of that dichotomy.
“in July. UHI, poor station sites, jet efflux at airports, scientific curruption on a global scale…”
Which were all PROVABLY TRUE.
CO2 warming.. still waiting for your evidence
Now explain how CO2 could cause a sudden warming event like this.
It will be funny watching your attempt at more non-science nonsense. 🙂
Liar.
Would “imagining” be a kinder word?
No.. A better description for your comments would be panic-based idiocy and basic all-round ignorance.
You live in your own little AGW fantasy-world bereft of any actual scientific knowledge or understanding
Kinder, but less accurate.
You won’t think that a month out of 522 really changes things very much, will you?
We all agree the world is warming. Having the warmest month toward the end is to be expected.
Bring on the warmth. Steve Case says it best.
Exactly. As long as it’s getting a bit warmer and not colder, I’m happy. Warmth is good, cold kills.
This beats the previous warmest July, from 1998 by 0.26°C.
Noticeable that apart from 1998, all the top 10 warmest July’s have been in the last 14 years, and all of the most recent 8 July’s have been in the top 10.
The pause remains unchanged in length, now starting in October 2014.
Mostly Los Niños years.
I make it an even split:
“As of mid-July 2023, the previously weak El Niño conditions in the central-eastern equatorial Pacific have strengthened gradually to a weak-to-moderate El Niño”
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/
Not all the years have the correct ENSO with July.
The one belows are the correct definition. (the three months that end with July)
2023 0.64 Weak El Nino
1998 0.38 Neutral
2022 0.36 Weak La Nino
2016 0.26 Neutral
2021 0.21 Neutral
2010 0.20 Weak La Nino
2018 0.17 Neutral
https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
El Niños and la Niñas are not things that occur in one specific month – they build up over time. Suggesting that July 1998 was in neutral conditions just becasue the MJJ period had gone negative is meaningless. Clearly July 1998 was hot because of the year long El Niño that preceded it.
The page you and I quoted tells you the strength of the conditions for each year, but as the season crosses the winter each year is written as say 1997 – 1998. Is that strength that I consider to be relevant to temperatures in July.
It is not meaningless because it only takes 3 months for it to adjust.
Why do you persist in comparing apples to oranges, months to years (both averages)? Even comparing Julies doesn’t tell us much, if you want to compare peak months. This especially true for temperature anomalies.IIRC the peak months isn’t a month, but the period of mid-July to mid-August n the NH.So, comparing calendar months is not comparing peak periods.
If you want to compare peaks temperatures you have to look at daily records. Are the absolute numbers and are the events increasing or diminishing?
El Nino of 2019-20 was pretty strong. Look at the UAH graph. It was almost strong enough to break the cooling trend.
But that’s not what determines if the year is an El Niño. It usually takes months before the ENSO conditions filter through to the UAH data.
July 2019 to February 2020 was well into El Niño territory:
https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/march-2020-el-nino-update-puzzle-time
From your source
The month becomes an El Nino when 3 successive months have been +0.5c or above.
It takes 3 months for ENSO conditions to filter through the UAH data.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2015.9/to:2016.2
Peak
2015 OND 2.6 (ONI)
2016 NDJ 2.6 (ONI)
On June 2023 the ONI was 0.5 meaning weak El Nino conditions will now be starting to affect UAH.
UAH isn’t showing ENSO conditions. It’s just showing temperature.
I was basing the strength on this page
https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
2019 – 2020 (that is from JJA of 2019 to MJJ of 2020) was never in an El Niño, though it did get close.
It was an El Niño very weak but the main contributor to the warmth during that time was a sudden stratospheric warming effect.
1 2023 0.64 Weak El Niño
2 1998 0.38 Very Strong El Niño
3 2022 0.36 Moderate La Niña
4 2020 0.31 Neutral
5 2016 0.26 Strong El Niño
6 2019 0.25 Weak El Niño
7 2021 0.21 Moderate La Niña
8 2010 0.20 Moderate El Niño
9 2017 0.17 Neutral
10 2018 0.17 Neutral
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Sorry, please ignore this as I tried to edit/delete as it is wrong. The correct version was posted not long later.
Ok just for giggles take a station somewhere in the US that has a long record and is still rural and said record has not been tampered with. It also has had a declining population and try to tell me that this July was warmer than the 30s. Also that a map of measured temperature in the 1930s and compare against this year. At no time this July did we have every state measure a day in July temperature of over 100 degrees. In the 1930s that happen.
The USA is not the world. It was below average this year in the UK – that doesn’t mean UAH is wrong, just that that’s not where it was hot.
“that’s not where it was hot.”
Ok , so not even “global” warming.. OK !
They honestly don’t get that they are their own worst enemy when it comes to claiming anything “global”!
And they conveniently ignore the fact that not even the UAH is “global”.
Earth has been warming for 400 years. You would expect recent years to be warmer (but not linearly so).
“Earth has been warming for 400 years.”
It has not.
“1650, not the start of the Little Ice Age, but the start of the coldest years midway through, i.e., the First Climatic Minimum” – Wikipedia That looks close to 400 years to me, but if you prefer 350 or even 250 that’s fine by me.
The wikipedia article is based on PAGES2K. Are you okay with that?
Meanwhile you didn’t provide anything better…… thus useless.
Same question to you…are you okay with PAGES2K?
I am.
Meanwhile you didn’t provide anything better…… thus useless.
I’m not saying there is something better. I’m only asking if Mike Jones accepts his own source.
Are you OK with warmng when you are sure warming is going to be catastrophic?
I was thinking, four months ago, that it looked like we were heading down, and wondering if it was the start of a huge downturn that might last 30 years, in which glaciers grow all over the world, the Arctic freezes to 30 feet deep and barely melts in Summer, there are blizzards in places that are not used to them, and that take months to melt, people freeze to death on the highways, and crops fail from awful droughts brought on by colder than normal air.
Like back in the 1970s.
I thought it might occur, and was not good with it.
Because I do not cheerlead for events I think will be unfortuitous.
But all you warmistas seem to operate in the totally opposite way.
Get mad when nothing awful happens. Make up lies when your disastrous predictions fail to materialize, then use those lies to terrorize children and the weak-minded into becoming drugs addicts and committing suicide.
So, are you going to cheerlead for panic and doomsday mongering? Will you say nothing when children are sure they have no future because that is what alarmists preach to them every single day of their lives?
Will you nod sagely and understand completely when people commit suicide because they are gullible lackwits and believe forecasts of doom, and become convinced they live on a poisoned world, and we will all soon be roasted alive?
I don’t consider it to be catastrophic.
There is not going to be a secular downturn until the Earth energy imbalance (EEI) goes negative. Not only is the EEI not negative, it is positive and increasing. [1]
Neither do I. We have that in common.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I don’t get mad when something awful does not happen. I don’t terrorize children. And I don’t lie. Though, I do make more than my fair share of mistakes and I am often wrong.
No. And if you track my posts you know I’m not kind to doomsday mongering.
No. And if you track my posts you know I’m not kind to alarmist preaching.
No. In fact, I’m an advocate for suicide prevention. I don’t think humanity will be roasted alive. And I do not share your position that people considering suicide are “gullible lackwits”.
I feel like I’ve made a good faith attempt at answering your questions. So if I may I would like to request that we steer this discussion back to the science. Do you accept PAGES2K?
OK, I concede that I was lumping you in with other people who share some of your views.
As for pages @K, I am not familiar at all.
I do not bother with echo chambers.
I have found that the conversations are not at all about information sharing when someone with contrary opinions shows up and comments, so I years ago just stopped even glancing at most climate sites.
I never return to a site that removes a comment I have made, so there are numerous skeptic-oriented sites I never look at either.
But as I said somewhere on this comment thread, I do not consider every scrap of info that comes from someone or some site that I disagree with, as being false, necessarily.
Also, it tends to occur somewhat frequently that a skeptic can refute the lame arguments of a warmista using warmista information and graphics.
Kind of like in a court of law when a lawyer posits a logical argument starting with something the opposing counsel has said.
Like, saying, “Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that what (the other guy) has said is true. Even in that unlikely case, his argument falls apart under scrutiny, and the correct conclusion is the opposite of what my opponent has asserted.”
IOW, it is a stronger refutation if one can use the information provided by the opposite side of a debate to show that that other side is incorrect.
I do not accept altered data sets, as a strong general rule, and I think that any person who does accept altered data has no basis for any opinions or ideas that rely on such.
Fruit of the poisoned tree.
Yes!
I know of no other endeavor that allows the “correction” of collected data. When I posted data in a lab journal, it was forever. If it was found unusable, it was marked as such and new data was collected if possible.
There is only one reason that the data changers have and that is to CREATE long records out of what should be a number of short records.
BTW, I do not have a position regarding suicide that is as you say. There are gullible people, and there are suicidal and people suffering from clinical depression, and people who are for many reasons leading lives which are devoid of hope and optimism, or any positive emotional states.
When these overlap, bad things are bound to happen at a higher frequency.
I also happen to know that for every person whjo does kill themself, there are many more who are merely terribly miserable, or who have tried and failed.
For every drug addict who dies of an overdose, there is a far larger number who are trapped in addiction and never do overdose.
And the numbers are growing fast for all these groups.
Kids in school are being force fed an overwhelming, pervasive, relentless, and ongoing message of doom and fear.
Some people are immune to bullshit, even at an early age. Many others are defenseless against it. They are being emotionally and psychologically tortured, and are defenseless against the bullies that they are forced to sit and listen to, all day, five days a week, 200 days a year.
No, Pages 2k is a joke. Run by extremists…
… with a pre-determined outcome.
I’m going to let you pick the fight about PAGES2K being a joke with Mike Jones alone.
Pages2K is an attempt to mimic Mickey’s Hockey Stick by manipulating and mal-adjusting tree and other data.
That was their aim, and after many adjustments, that’s what they got.
Pages2k is a conglomeration of subjective information that is truly impossible to patch together. If you think current measurements have uncertainties in the tenths digit, what do you think the uncertainty in tree rings are? There is simply no way to patch unmeasured data onto measured data with any accuracy whatsoever. A tree ring may show +2 degrees of an anomaly (doubtful and subjective) but there is no way to accurately judge the absolute temperature at which it occurred. Simply trying to “trend” ΔT’s into something resembling a temperature just isn’t possible. That is why a GAT is an unscientific metric to judge the “temperature” of the globe.
The only scientific procedure to do is to go on record as to what you think the perfect global temperature is and apply that to every station. That will give you a “global anomaly” for each station. No one will do that because, god forbid, it would require actual research as to what that perfect temperature would be. Holy Hell would break loose if it was warmer than it is today. At least you would have a metric that indicates how far the earth is from a perfect temperature.
I expect Wikipedia articles on controversial topics to be biased, and sometimes they are too biased to be used realistically. If however an article such as this one has not been too distorted then it’s a useful source because CAGWers tend to accept it. PAGES2K or not, it is pretty much in line with other sources.
So in the future if someone makes the claim that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer globally than today then you’ll support those who challenge the claim using PAGES2K?
Well, that is a distortion. I try to take everything on its merits. I can agree with a person or organisation on one thing and disagree with them on another, and that’s because I haven’t yet found anyone or any organisation that is right about everything or wrong about everything (though some do get close to the latter). I have even agreed with Nick Stokes on something here on WUWT.
A tremendous amount of effort from certain sources has been put into trying to remove the MWP from history or to claim that it wasn’t global. The problem with that is that they go into obvious distortions to try to support the claim. There is pretty compelling evidence of the significance of the MWP and there is pretty compelling evidence that those who try to remove the MWP from history are badly motivated (ie, dishonest). That isn’t absolute proof that the MWP was warmer than today or global, but it is pretty compelling evidence that it is reasonable to regard the MWP as warmer than today and global until someone proves otherwise.
It was not claimed to have been global. [Lamb 1965]
Can you post a link to global temperature reconstruction showing that?
Nobody has removed the MWP. It was a real phenomenon that almost everyone agrees occurred. Mann himself says the MWP was real and even published research with a hypothesis how it happened. [Mann 2002] [Mann et al. 2009]
Mann himself did remove the MWP in his 1998 paper. Mann only used the 2002 and 2009 papers to attempt to show the MWP was a regional occurrence. That didn’t refute the 1998 paper at all.
Read the following for the number of studies confirming that the MWP was global.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.htmx
Your attempt to spin Mann’s papers without even mentioning published peer reviewed papers that have a different conclusion only cements your reputation of being unscientific. A real scientist would admit to and deal with conflicting conclusions.
Information has to be evaluated on the particulars of that information.
Nothing is true based on who said it. No news story that has not even been written yet can be graded for usefulness or veracity, sight unseen, in advance, based on it being sourced from some particular website.
The entire notion is the opposite of scientific.
Nothing is true because of who said it.
And who said something is not evidence, one way or the other, of value or truthfulness, let alone veracity.
Yes, it was cooling from the 1650s down to the end of the 17th century, at least for some parts of the globe. And it’s a lot warmer now. But that does not mean it’s been warming for the last 350 years (as in there has been continuous warming over that period). For much of time from the 17th to the 20th century temperatures were going up and down slightly but with no overall trend.
Indeed. The first 80-years of all the global data sets that start in 1850 (NOAA, HadCRUT, Berkeley) show no warming trend.
“Indeed. The first 80-years of all the global data sets that start in 1850 (NOAA, HadCRUT, Berkeley) show no warming trend”
Translation: After 40 years, my fellow end of the world doomsday catastrophists have managed to alter all of our favorite packs of lying lies to make it appear that there was no change in global conditions during the period that Earth finally emerged from the disastrous Little Ice Age, even though the years around 1850 was a notoriously cold time in all the history books, when such events as the Donner Party cannibalism episode occurred, and 80 years later, the world was in a terrible Depression caused in part by widespread crop failures, and these hot conditions would soon culminate in the Dust Bowl disaster.
You must be the worst warmista liar ever, dude.
Even Mikey Mann says that 1850 was about as cold as it has been in the past 2000 years, and 80 years later was hotter than it has been in 2000 years.
The truth is, almost all warming since the preindustrial period occurred during the period you state had no trend.
Significantly, during this time, there is only one large contiguous area that had anything close to widespread reliable weather data.
According to all of that data*,1850 was very cold, and the 1930s was the hottest period on record to this day.
*Adjusted or altered time series’ are not data, they are misinformation or outright disinformation.
Period of time in which TFN claims there was no trend, using infamous Warmista Hokey Schtick graph from Leftopedia:
That graph is based on PAGES2K. Are you okay with that?
So you admit that Mickey Mann was wrong..
Ok !
NOAA, HadCrud, the Berks….. create whatever they want to show.
Bellman, you appear to have missed the “warmer (but not linearly so)” in my original comment. There was no claim of continuous warming.
I took you to mean the not linear was in relation to recent years. Your exact comment was:
“Earth has been warming for 400 years. You would expect recent years to be warmer (but not linearly so).”
I was responding to your first sentence. It’s not correct to say it’s been warming for 400 years when there are periods of 100 or more years with no warming.
If the warming over the last 400 years has not been continuous, then what’s the point of mentioning it? Whenever I see these sorts of claims the argument is always that this must mean the current warming over the last 50 or so years just the natural result of the warming that started 300 years ago. But that argument makes no sense if almost all the warming over the last 300 years actually happened in the last 100 years.
As an example, take a look at the chart “Geologic evidence (millions of years)” in Wikipedia’s Global temperature record page. Yes it’s Wikipedia again, for the same reasons.
There is a very clear cooling trend over 5 million years. Yet within that period there were many periods of sharply increasing temperatures including the Holocene right at the end. Earth’s climate is non-linear. It is perfectly normal for a period of one trend to have within it periods of the opposite trend. This applies to all periods of any length.
Incidentally, while I am happy to use that Wikipedia chart as an illustration of a general trend, I am not too keen on using it for its detail. That’s because the original authors of the chart, Lisiecki and Raymo (2005), distorted the data to try to align it with what they thought was the underlying cause (read the Discussion in the Wikipedia article). Some years ago, I asked them for the unadjusted data, but received no reply.
“It is perfectly normal for a period of one trend to have within it periods of the opposite trend. This applies to all periods of any length.”
Indeed. But that doesn’t mean you can assume it just happens. The claim is that because it was warming in the early 18th century, then late 20th century warming must just be a continuation of the same process. That is the implication of saying it’s been warming for the last 300 years.
You say there was “no overall trend from the 17th to the 20th century”?
That is utterly ridiculous.
Shall we use the middle of each of those centuries, or the beginning, or the end, or what?
Beginning of one to end of the other?
No matter which we look at, the 17th century, meaning the 1600s, was a disastrously cold period, and by the 20th century, the Little Ice Age was over, and indeed by the end of the 20th, some people were claiming it never existed.
So in the period you specify, it went from about as cold as it has been in the past 8000 years, to nearly as warm as parts of the Medieval Warm Period.
Looks like a trend to me.
Perhaps you meant to say “continuous” rather than “overall?”
Only warmista liars have ever asserted there has ever been a stable period in which temperatures did not change over a long period of time, such as centuries and millennia.
And it sure did take a lot of erasing and book burning and lying to even begin to tell that whopper.
“That is utterly ridiculous.”
Sorry, that should have been 18th century, not 17th.
BTW, I submit as source material, the very first IPCC report, but I can find many others to submit for your approval if you disbelieve the IPCC. Do you disbelieve the IPCC?
?fit=300%2C172&ssl=1
I “disbelieve” that ancient graph, for reasons that have been hammered out over the decades. But even it demonstrates my point. No warming (at least In England) from the middle of the 18th century to the end of the 19th. A 150 year pause difficult to see how the spike that followed the 1690sis responsible for the warming that happened 200 years later.
The warmista position is that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere controls the temperature of the planet.
Anyone who has studied Earth history knows this to be false.
For some reason, or more likely, set of reasons, all proxy evidence of past conditions shows very clearly that there are huge changes at every time scale, in whatever interval one chooses to study.
Since no one has any clear and consistent explanations that show why these changes occurred, it follows that no one knows or can explain all of the trends and changes in trends which have occurred in the past.
Nor has anyone given a cogent reason to suppose that whatever factor or set of factors that was causing all of those changes, is not still operating to continue to do so.
IOW, unless one can explain exactly how and why we had large changes in temperature in the past, operating on many separate time scales, it is scientifically unsound to suppose that future trends can be predicted based on a factor that was not operating during those previous eras.
CO2 cannot be shown to have led changes in temperature at any time and at any scale of time in previous intervals. In fact in some very clear examples, the opposite can be shown to have been the case. Changes in CO2 concentration and temperature recorded in ice cores and benthic foraminifera (among other proxies), show clearly and repeatedly that since the time of the onset of the Late Quaternary Glaciation, changes in temperature have preceded changes in CO2 by many hundreds of years.
Warmistas have in the recent past used ice core data to try to sell their hypothesis as factual, but then it became plainly and undeniably apparent that the ice cores in fact refuted the CO2 leads global temperature hypothesis of warmistas, at which time the whole subject was immediately discarded by them. It is now impossible to even find anyone among the warmistas that is even willing to discuss the subject of the ice core data.
Over a great many time scales, it can be shown that CO2 and temperature are poorly correlated or completely uncorrelated, just as it can be shown that warmer temperatures than exist today have occurred at times when CO2 was very much lower.
It is also the case that no evidence exists whatsoever, besides unevidenced assertions, that warmer temperatures are dangerous, harmful, or bad. The evidence has long been recognized to show exactly the opposite. Cold periods are very bad for life in general, and human endeavors in particular.
And CO2 is not a dangerous molecule, or a harmful one, but is in fact the essential building block of every single molecule in every living thing which has ever existed.
And it is currently not elevated, but very low by all historical standards except the most recent past.
There is nothing harmful about it. Life prospers ever more bountifully as levels of it increase, and life forms that depend on it do best when it is several times higher than present atmospheric concentrations.
Numerous biological, geological, and chemical processes remove it from availability to the biosphere, and this has over many millions of years resulted in a dangerously small and dwindling concentration of it in the atmosphere, recently reversed, quite by accident, by human beings discovery of the utility of fossil fuel energy sources.
It is only the unreasonable notion that any changes wrought by human beings to the existing environmental conditions as being necessarily and by definition bad, that could ever lead anyone to suppose that we have to limit and even lower CO2 in the air.
Such is the degree of illogic employed, that we have reached a state of denial of reality, wherein actual scientists, or more accurately by people who claim to be that, refuse to acknowledge the basic biological reality that all life depends on CO2, that photosynthesis of CO2 and H2O into glucose powers the entire biosphere, and that every other molecule in every living thing is built from those molecules of glucose created by photosynthesis.
You are being too logical. Logical thinking about natural phenomena is not a common trait among climate scientists and CAGW advocates.
By disbelieving that graph, you are dismissing what was known to be true back before this issue became a political one, data sets were altered by people with a particular hypothesis and point of view, and all such information was changed by them to comport with their radical and highly controversial ideas.
I cannot begin to imagine why information manufactured by people with a political agenda, who have a 40 year record of being continuously wrong about every prediction they have ever made, is somehow believed to be truthful, while information compiled over a far longer period of time by researchers who had no agenda besides for accurately documenting and describing what was occurring is rejected as being “ancient”.
Data collected in real time and pertaining to the physical conditions that were observed by highly trained and unbiased individuals, is not ancient.
And nothing was hammered out.
No process having anything to do with science was employed.
This data was inconvenient, as it directly contradicted and disproved the contentions of those who discarded it and replaced it with fabricated information, the only value of which is that it comports with the narrative that those same people invented.
By rejecting it, all you are really saying is it does not fit in with what you have previously decided you want to believe.
And that political propaganda is more important to you than objective data.
There is a not a shred of evidence that what everyone agreed was true at the time, was somehow mistaken.
It was not shown to be wrong, it was simply erased and replaced by fabrications.
“By disbelieving that graph, you are dismissing what was known to be true”
“Knowing” something to be true is not a substitute for data. What is that graph meant to represent, who produced it, what data was used, and why does the IPCC refer to it a schematic?
The graph is a mess. No indication of the temperature scale. Presumably the marks are meant to indicate 1°C, but that isn’t specified and there is no indication of what the base of the anomaly is. There’s a dotted line that represents approximate temperatures at the start of the 20th century, but this doesn’t line up with the middle break point of the y-axis. Meanwhile the x-axis is labelled “Years before Present”, but that’s obviously wrong as the scale is marked in centuries AD.
In fact it seems likely it was based on the work of Lamb, and the later part seems to be a smoothed graph of CET, up to the middle of the 20th century. I’ll attach the 30 year rolling average for comparison.
But in either case my point stands. There has not been continuous warming since the end of the 17th century. Also note that on the IPCC schematic temperatures are now well above the top of the medieval warm period.
True , only for about 200-300 years.
THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT WARMING
Yet still humans die from cold around 10-20 times more often than from heat.
Still retreating glaciers uncovering tree stumps of tree that grew during the MWP and earlier.
More like 300, since the end of the Maunder Minimum.
Evidence of a sudden jump in atmospheric CO2, bellboy?
Evidence that this SUDDEN warm spike is caused by CO2 or human anything in any way shape or form..???
We can’t wait for more of your anti-science nonsense. 😉
I see the inability of some here to argue without using meaningless insults continues unabated.
“Evidence of a sudden jump in atmospheric CO2”
Nobody has claimed there has been a sudden jump in CO2, so why would you expect evidence of it?
“Evidence that this SUDDEN warm spike is caused by CO2 or human anything in any way shape or form..???”
Nobody has claimed the sudden warming is “caused” by CO2 (certainly not me), so why do you want evidence of it. Nobody knows exactly why the last couple of months have been so warm – it’s probably down to a number of factors, and anyone saying they know the one true cause is deluded.
I am wondering if you are unable or unwilling to answer his statements with evidence you dodge over and over, it is boooriiiing!
I did answer the statements. I’ll try to be clearer. There is no evidence for a sudden jump in CO2 because there hasn’t been a sudden jump in CO2. There is no evidence that CO2 caused this month’s spike in temperatures because this month’s spike in temperatures was not likely to have been caused by a spike in CO2.
If people find these answers boring, maybe they should stop asking me so many boring questions.
So, you are admitting that this little spike is almost certainly TOTALLY NATURAL.
With no evidence of any CO2 or other human cause.
Thanks. !
As always you ask what you think are gotcha questions and then draw your idiotic conclusions from the answers.
No. I am not admitting or claiming anything about the current unusual global temperatures. As far as I know, nobody has an explanation for this month. There may be multiple causes natural or other.
Keep in mind that according to Christy et al. 2003 the uncertainty on monthly anomalies is ±0.20 C. That means we cannot eliminate the possibility that a significant portion of this month’s increase is the result of a random effect. So not only has it not been said that the rise is either natural or anthropogenic but that the measurement itself could be biased too high this month.
/yawn/
next…
Well, if you insist.
Here’s the graph of July anomalies.
It is now August, and you are still alive from that terrible July
climateweather waves with inevitable quieting of the “look it is hot very hot” screams as the Sunshine hours is declining towards the early fall which means declining hot days hours.Then when a torrent of record cold gets ignored by you and other 1/2-year worriers it exposes your irrational viewpoint of the world.
I’m sorry, but my skills with graph making don’t extend to plotting next month’s anomaly. This is a post about the current anomaly. Surely it’s on topic to discuss it, and how unusual it is. If August turns out to be unusually cold I dare say we will be discussing it then.
Instead of whining about your lack of tools, go buy yourself a real graphics package.
Could you provide the details of any package that can display data foronths that haven’t happened yet?
Maybe you could recomen it to Spencer. It would be great to know what August’s anomalie is.
Are you saying your linear regressions are worthless for forecasting?
If so, why bother with your trends.
As far as a package, you get a regression equation that draws the line between your data. Are you asking how to get Excel to make calculations for future intervals using that equation?
Your questions are really becoming inane.
What are you whimpering about now? What trends? I’m certainly not going to use a simple linear trend to predict what August will be.
Read the thread. This started because Sunsettommy complained I was still talking about July temperatures when it was now August. At least I think that was his point.
I’m merely pointing out that this article is about the month we have data for and not the next month which is still speculation at this point.
I can’t speak for Bellman though I suspect he would share my sentiment here…If the July anomaly drops below the 1985 value I would definitely notice and discuss it openly.
How do you normalize the weather conditions between 1985 and today? If you can’t normalize between one month in one year with a stagnant high pressure system and the same month in a different year with a stagnant low pressure system then how do you compare the two?
Why should I care about these inane “anomaly” calculations”
The whole thread, starting with the OP, is about anomalies. You probably should skip it.
What is the variance associated with your “average global temperature? Either the variance of the absolute value or of the anomaly will suffice. My guess is that you don’t have a clue meaning you also don’t have a clue as to the uncertainty of the average values you are stating!
He doesn’t know the variance, doesn’t care, and won’t answer.
It’s his religious dogma.
Another trendologist exposes his lack of reading comprehension.
No surprise, really.
If you don”t care about the UAH data, why are you reading this blog? And why are you attacking me for pointing out what that data shows and not Spencer or WUWT for highlighting it?
So you would rather live in a bubble of confirmation bias? I wouldn’t be surprised at that!
Yes I want to live in a bubble of confirmation bias. That’s why I keep using the UAH data set even though it’s the one that I have least confidence on. That’s why I keep trying to debate with those who I most disagree with.
Meanwhile you and Karl is so confident you know that UAH is a fraud that you won’t even discuss it with Spencer.
You just continue to show that you have absolutely no understanding of physical science at all.
The re are two issues with UAH. One is its uncertainty – the same issue as all of the climate models and other data sets.
The other is the concept of a “global average”.
Neither of these make UAH a “fraud”. It is just unfit for the purpose for which the CAGW clique is using it.
UAH is *not* a predictor, it is a record of the past. The past is not prologue. The past is not the future. Even Monckton only uses UAH as a *record* and not as a predictor. He uses that record to deduce physical relationships. It is those physical relationships that can be used to “predict”, but there is even a measure of uncertainty in that because you need to know *all* relationships to create an accurate prediction.
Temperature is not a physical relationship description, it is a poor proxy for anything. We’ve had the capability of converting to using enthalpy for 40 years. But climate science has never once attempted to do so, preferring to use the argumentative fallacy of Appeal to Tradition to continue using past protocols. The reason typically given is “to maintain a long record” but that is just a smoke screen. You could easily do BOTH! The real issue is that no one wants to risk having predictions based on temperature alone invalidated.
Please note that UAH can’t provide for enthalpy measurement because it can’t measure humidity, pressure, or anything else needed to calculate enthalpy at any point in the biosphere.
Yup, yup, yup, and yep.
“Neither of these make UAH a “fraud””
You think UAH publish meaningless figures with no mention of the huge uncertainties, yet don’t think that’s a bit fraudulent?
“It is just unfit for the purpose for which the CAGW clique is using it.”
Very few do make use of it. At best it’s just one data source amongst many. The only people how put it, and it alone, to any purpose are those writing for WUWT. And that’s because it shows the least warming.
“UAH is *not* a predictor, it is a record of the past.”
Why on earth would anyone think it’s predicting the future? There’s a reason why July’s figures are only published in August.
“Even Monckton only uses UAH as a *record* and not as a predictor.”
Well, apart from his realitometer which is trying ot compare the past UAH rate of warming with a supposed modeled rate of warming for the end of the century.
Go look up what the legal definition of fraud is. You obviously don’t know.
More of his psychic projection:
“The only people how put it, and it alone, to any purpose are those writing for WUWT. And that’s because it shows the least warming.”
So literally minded when it suits you. I’m not suggesting you believe a legally defined criminal fraud has been committed. But you’ve been quite keen to throw that word around for all sorts of reasons in the past – infilling data, reporting too many significant figures any adjustment of data.
Oy! Bell-(appropriate adjectives) is back to psychic projections.
If you have discussed it with Spencer, what did he have to say about the uncertainty in his data? Did he accept that the uncertainty of a monthly anomaly is at least ±1.4°C or whatever you are currently claiming. Does he accept that a real scientist will publish all the variance in the data, and that in any case a global average is a meaningless statistic?
Is this all you’ve got? A red herring? I don’t HAVE to discuss it with Christy in order to be able to assert that he is mischaracterizing the measurement uncertainty!
Again, what he is using is the variation in stated values as a proxy for the uncertainty in the measurements. That’s a physical impossibility – something you refuse to admit. It’s part of the meme that you continue to apply, all the while denying that you do: “measurement uncertainty is all random and all cancels”.
The variation in daily temps are a measure of the WEATHER for each day. Weather is *NOT* climate. It’s why months like May and September have wider variations in daily temps – they are the months where you see transitions – from winter to spring, and from summer to fall/winter.
The third week in July this year Kansas was under a high pressure system with high temps. The last week in July Kansas saw a low pressure system begin to move in and temperatures moderate. The average temperature for July, 2023 was a combination of the WEATHER CONDITIONS in existence over that period. Last year, 2022, the weather was different. We didn’t have that stagnant high pressure causing extremely high temps early in the month.
Now, does the fact that the July, 2023 average temp was higher than July, 2022 tell you that we are seeing a warming climate or just that the weather patterns were different for each year?
Your lack of reading comprehension is off the charts:
“you and Karl is so confident you know that UAH is a fraud”
Neither Tim nor I have ever made such an assertion, this is just another example of psychic projection by you.
You just described his values as inane. you think the data has huge uncertainties to the extent that it’s impossible to tell if any month is warmer than any other month, and you say the think it’s measuring, a global average isn’t fit for purpose.
If you believe there’s no useful information in all these monthly anomalies, don’t you think it’s fraudulent to keep publishing them as if they were useful, with no mention of uncertainty?
Clown!
What I have stated many times is that the real uncertainty has not been quantified and is therefore unknown.
And you still can’t read, even after being led around by the nose.
And you have the memory of a goldfish.
The only “anomaly calculations” I was using in that graph where those from UAH.
Duh! You cherry picked all the July numbers and plotted them with connected dots.
This is inane.
But you didn’t say my graph was inane, you said the anomaly calculations were inane.
It makes sense to compare all July values, because then you are comparing like for like – and it’s hardly cherry picking when I’m using all the July figures.
As far as using lines – generally I prefer just showing points as the lines can be distracting, but with a sparser graph it helps to make the flow better. Hopefully nobody here is going to assume that means that there was a continuous change from one year to another.
The alternative would be a bar chart, but that can be misleading regarding the base period in my opinion.
Here’s the same for the month of January, just to avoid the charge of cherry picking.
“It makes sense to compare all July values, because then you are comparing like for like – and it’s hardly cherry picking when I’m using all the July figures.”
As I have pointed out – you are *NOT* comparing like for like. You aver comparing WEATHER, not cli