From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Blog
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2026 was +0.48 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, which is statistically unchanged from the June, 2026 value of +0.46 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through July 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 31 months (record highs are in red).
| Year | Mon | Globe | NHem | SHem | Tropic | US48 | Arctic | Aust. | Can. |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.57 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 | +0.97 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.94 | +0.81 | +1.16 | +1.31 | +0.85 | +1.16 | +2.45 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.25 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.76 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 | +1.39 |
| 2024 | May | +0.77 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.04 | +0.20 | +0.52 | +0.67 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.36 | +0.63 | +0.91 | +0.19 |
| 2024 | July | +0.73 | +0.86 | +0.61 | +0.96 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.07 | +1.15 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.75 | +0.81 | +0.69 | +0.74 | +0.40 | +0.88 | +1.75 | +1.36 |
| 2024 | Sep | +0.81 | +1.04 | +0.58 | +0.82 | +1.31 | +1.48 | +0.98 | |
| 2024 | Oct | +0.75 | +0.89 | +0.60 | +0.63 | +1.89 | +0.81 | +1.09 | +0.89 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.87 | +0.40 | +0.53 | +1.11 | +0.79 | +1.00 | +1.61 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.61 | +0.75 | +0.47 | +0.52 | +1.41 | +1.12 | +1.54 | +1.65 |
| 2025 | Jan | +0.45 | +0.70 | +0.21 | +0.24 | -1.07 | +0.74 | +0.48 | +1.04 |
| 2025 | Feb | +0.50 | +0.55 | +0.45 | +0.26 | +1.03 | +2.10 | +0.87 | -0.35 |
| 2025 | Mar | +0.57 | +0.73 | +0.41 | +0.40 | +1.24 | +1.23 | +1.20 | +0.80 |
| 2025 | Apr | +0.61 | +0.76 | +0.46 | +0.36 | +0.81 | +0.85 | +1.21 | +0.45 |
| 2025 | May | +0.50 | +0.45 | +0.55 | +0.30 | +0.15 | +0.75 | +0.98 | +0.81 |
| 2025 | June | +0.48 | +0.48 | +0.47 | +0.30 | +0.80 | +0.05 | +0.39 | -0.22 |
| 2025 | July | +0.36 | +0.49 | +0.23 | +0.45 | +0.32 | +0.40 | +0.53 | -0.23 |
| 2025 | Aug | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.16 | -0.06 | +0.82 | +0.11 | +0.62 |
| 2025 | Sep | +0.53 | +0.56 | +0.49 | +0.35 | +0.38 | +0.77 | +0.30 | +2.44 |
| 2025 | Oct | +0.53 | +0.52 | +0.55 | +0.24 | +1.12 | +1.42 | +1.67 | +2.59 |
| 2025 | Nov | +0.43 | +0.59 | +0.27 | +0.24 | +1.32 | +0.78 | +0.36 | +1.47 |
| 2025 | Dec | +0.30 | +0.45 | +0.15 | +0.19 | +2.10 | +0.32 | +0.37 | -1.86 |
| 2026 | Jan | +0.35 | +0.51 | +0.19 | +0.09 | +0.30 | +1.40 | +0.95 | +1.17 |
| 2026 | Feb | +0.39 | +0.54 | +0.23 | +0.03 | +1.91 | -0.48 | +0.73 | +0.32 |
| 2026 | Mar | +0.38 | +0.33 | +0.42 | +0.07 | +3.74 | -0.48 | +1.14 | -3.17 |
| 2026 | Apr | +0.39 | +0.43 | +0.34 | +0.23 | +1.20 | +0.30 | +0.70 | -0.89 |
| 2026 | May | +0.53 | +0.46 | +0.60 | +0.58 | +0.21 | +0.34 | +0.10 | +0.21 |
| 2026 | June | +0.46 | +0.54 | +0.38 | +0.57 | +0.64 | +1.01 | +0.38 | +0.99 |
| 2026 | July | +0.48 | +0.68 | +0.27 | +0.85 | +1.14 | +0.53 | -0.22 | +0.78 |
| Year | Mon | Globe | NHem | SHem | Tropic | US48 | Arctic | Aust. | Can. |
Time Series Plots for USA48, Canada, and Australia
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for July, 2026 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here. John officially retired on July 1, 2026, but will continue working as a part-time employee of UAH.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:
Third warmest July in the UAH data.
Here are the top 10 July anomalies.
2024 0.732023 0.56
2026 0.48
1998 0.38
2025 0.36
2022 0.32
2020 0.30
2016 0.26
2019 0.23
2010 0.20
It’s noticeable how much of an outlier 1998 is for the last century. Next warmest 20th century July is 1988 in 20th place with an anomaly of +0.03.
Here’s the graph of July anomalies.
Are you implying that it is now warming more in the Summer than the Winter?
I wasn’t implying anything. Of course if it’s summer in the north it’s winter in the south.
Certainly Europe seems to be warming faster in the summer, but you can;t tell that from my graph.
The regional data was released quicker than usual, so here’s my map of global anomalies for the month.
Here are the top 20 highest anomalies for July 2026 by country.
According to UAH the UK had it’s warmest ever July (since at least 1979), and second warmest month in absolute terms (record is still August 1995).
I can personally vouch for the Ireland figure. Especially at night.
Had to lie on top of the bed with a fan on in the room.
A disturbing image, I know.
Here in America we have air conditioners. They were invented in the U.S. Maybe they haven’t made it to Europe yet.
Air conditioners are in short supply in Ireland, Phil.
Unless an open window and an electric fan count.
AC is insulating you from the impact of warming.
Then it’s doing its job.
As long as you’re okay then ….
Roughly 10x more people die from extreme cold than extreme heat so a warming planet is definitely what we want.
All the previous cold periods in history have been periods of collapsing civilizations and war, famine and pestilence.
So are baths.
According to my code, 27 countries had their warmest July this year.
Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Guyana, Indonesia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, S. Sudan, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Somaliland, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States of America, Venezuela
No country had it’s coldest July.
Finally here are the fastest warming countries for the month of July (1979 – 2026)
and the slowest warming (or in some cases fastest cooling countries) for July.
Interesting that although the UK and Ireland set records this month, they show little to no overall warming for July.
Jesuz Christ.
Can you add the latitude for each country in the list.
Does it not seem odd to you that the uncertainties you show are 30 – 50% of the anomalies? Look at Ukraine the interval is 0.18 – 0.62 °C / decade. That is 0.018 – 0.06 °C / year. Exactly where do measurements of one-hundredths of degree originate?
My research indicates that microwave sounders have a systematic uncertainty of something like 0.2 to 0.4 °C equivalent. Averaging can’t remove these systematic uncertainties.
Notice the number of decimal digits for the uncertainty. That is where values should be rounded to.
“Does it not seem odd to you that the uncertainties you show are 30 – 50% of the anomalies?”
They are not anomalies, they’re trends. But no, it doesn’t seem odd becasue we are talking about small parts of the earth with a high degree of variability. Larger areas will tend to have smaller uncertainties in the trend.
“Exactly where do measurements of one-hundredths of degree originate? ”
From the UAH data set. Each grid cell is given to 100th of a degree – I’m then doing an area weighted average by country – just as I assume Spencer does for his estimates for USA, Canada etc. All given monthly values to 100th of a degree.
But, again, the thing you are are arguing about is not a monthly anomaly, it’s the trend over several decades.
“My research indicates that microwave sounders have a systematic uncertainty of something like 0.2 to 0.4 °C equivalent.”
If they are systematic they won’t affect the trend. Incidentally have you put your research to Dr Spencer? For some reason you keep attacking me for using the one data set that is published in WUWT, as if if it is my responsibility. If you have a problem you need to discuss is with he authors, not me.
“Notice the number of decimal digits for the uncertainty. That is where values should be rounded to.”
They are. Both trend and uncertainty are rounded to 2 decimal places.
“Larger areas will tend to have smaller uncertainties in the trend.”
If only the G’s could snap out of it and accept this immutable fact, it might lay the ground work to proper understanding.
How do you do that, Bellman?
I think Nick Stokes does the same thing.
Very impressive.
A good question, but I don’t have a good answer. It’s a combination of various hacks and trial and error.
I wrote a program to download all the data from the UAH site and put them into a single CSV file. Then I have various bits of R and Tidyverse code to select specific months for each longitude and latitude cell and plot it to a fill contour map, and then overlay a map using a shape file.
I really need to try to streamline the process, and also mean to look at the terra package as an alternative.
So where is the world now with Obama’s 2009 Copenhagen CoP declared “agreed consensus to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius”?
If it was as claimed, a “world consensus” in 2009, when did Obama get rolled and the “consensus” become 1.5 degrees Celsius?
Or has that tidbit of recorded history disappeared into the memory-hole of long past climate conditions that match what we have today, just like Obama’s ‘riveting’ speeches have?
Literally nobody mentioned Obama.
It’s all part and parcel of the same apocalyptic scare story. Otherwise, all the tables and scary graphs of temp. anomalies are meaningless.
So I guess you think Dr. Spencer’s work is meaningless.
Your reading comprehension is atrocious. Let me paraphrase your comment above:
Literally nobody mentioned Dr. Spencer.
Here is your comment above:
temp. anomalies are meaningless.
We are talking about UAH temp. anomalies, after all.
Dr. Spencer is the author of this article.
I didn’t say Dr. Spencer was meaningless. I said using anomalies for apocalyptic scare stories and scary graphs is meaningless. I don’t think Dr. Spencer does that. Too many others do.
I didn’t say that you thought Dr. Spencer was meaningless. I said this article was authored by Dr. Spencer. And it doesn’t matter whether you did or didn’t think he was meaningless. He is still noted as the article either way. If that doesn’t qualify as a “mention” then I don’t know what does.
Thought experiment: Buoys anchored west of UK in a shallow part of one branch of the AMOC register a slow increase in water temperature over a short period of time (small multiples of 30 years)
That can mean that the AMOC, a fraction of the redistribution of energy across the globe from the hotter tropical region to the poles and out into space, is doing more of the cooling in that period of time in that hemisphere. It is a sample of part of a refrigerator system of energy transport and exchange. It says nothing definitive about global warming.
If it were just a redistribution of heat from hotter to cooler parts of the ocean, then why are we seeing a concurrent increase in global ocean heat content?
If the observed heat is coming out of the oceans, how is it that the oceans are also warming?
Not meaningless, but certainly not comparable to surface measurements. There is also the question of measurement uncertainty being properly propagated.
The 2ºC and 1.5ºC numbers were pulled out of “goodness knows where” and have absolutely zero scientific relevance to anything.
They are FAKE, MEANINGLESS numbers
Just like the whole of the CO2 warming scam.
I know where the 2°C number was pulled out of, but the answer is not fit for public viewing.
It’s a drama, I understand 👍🥱🤗
Duhhhhh . . .
Since the first graph in the above article is UAH satellite-derived measurements of GLAT anomalies from a clearly stated constant value (the ’91-’20 average) and since the same UAH data clearly reveals (as is stated) a “global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through July 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans)”, a person somewhat familiar with science and mathematics would naturally suspect more recent measurements will show a greater number of “warmest” temperatures compared to older measurements.
Do you not understand what “anomalies” mean, or is it that you don’t understand that the overall warming of Earth is a characteristic of Earth exiting its last glacial interval only some 13,000 years ago?
“a person somewhat familiar with science and mathematics would naturally suspect more recent measurements will show a greater number of “warmest” temperatures compared to older measurements.”
And the relevance of that to what I said is what?
As global warming proceeds you expect it to be more likely you will get a warmer month, but that doesn’t mean every month will be warmest, or 3rd warmest. The first few months this year eee only 6th or 5th warmest, and it was only a few years ago we had months that were around 20th or so.
If the ranking hints at anything, it’s that we have had a long run of values that have been above the trend. This has resulted in the warming rate increasing and could hint at accelerated warming, and certainly goes against the claims made here of prolonged causes in warming.
“Do you not understand what “anomalies” mean”
Yes, that’s why I prefer to compare specific calender months. Then it doesn’t matter if you are using anomalies or temperatures, the ranking will be the same.
“or is it that you don’t understand that the overall warming of Earth is a characteristic of Earth exiting its last glacial interval only some 13,000 years ago?”
No, that’s your hypothesis. You need to explain how something that happened 13,000 years ago can cause a sudden warming over the last 50 years. And why it’s a coincidence that this warming happens as CO2 is increasing.
Good grief! . . . YOU posted:
“Third warmest July in the UAH data.
Here are the top 10 July anomalies.
2024 0.73
2023 0.56
2026 0.48
1998 0.38
2025 0.36
2022 0.32
2020 0.30
2016 0.26
2019 0.23
2010 0.20″
So, out of 47+ years of continuous annual data, you list eight of the “top ten” highest anomalies as occurring in the last ten years (i.e., since 2016).
Understanding “relevance” 101.
As for your sophomoric statement: “You need to explain how something that happened 13,000 years ago can cause a sudden warming over the last 50 years”,
No, I don’t. You see, a trend of “+0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans)” as measured over 47+years is not sufficient duration to determine “sudden warming” against a geological time scale.
Earth entered the Holocene some 13,000 or so years ago, and you want to draw trend conclusions on less that 50 year of the most recent data???
Here is the ranking using absolute temperature. Notice that it is the same ranking as it is with anomalies.
2024 266.15 K
2023 265.98 K
2026 265.90 K
1998 265.80 K
2025 265.78 K
2022 265.74 K
2020 265.72 K
2016 265.68 K
2019 265.65 K
2010 265.62 K
Whoosh . . . ruffled hair.
“The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through July 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade “
Recent temperature anomalies have mostly been above the long-term trend… even through two La Niñas:
Oh, and there’s a huge El Niño underway too.
The sun rises in the east and the ground gets wet when it rains. You might properly ask, so what? I would properly ask the same thing.
“so what?”
Global warming is accelerating.
You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
He’s right. The acceleration is 0.026 ± 0.009 C.decade-2 k=2.
From absorbed solar radiation increase feeding El Nino events….
…. NOT CO2
And he (and you) know the acceleration to less than 3/100 °C/decade how? and you seriously think it’s a meaningful number?
“And he (and you) know the acceleration to less than 3/100 °C/decade how?”
The Law of Large Numbers.
Random measurement errors tend to average out. Allowing for underlying trends or accelerations to be estimated with greater precision.
Ah, the standard climatology safety zone — “everything is random, Gaussian, and cancels.”
FYI, systematic errors are identified and corrected.
No they aren’t, another climatology misunderstanding of metrology.
Only via calibration against a known can they be corrected, after-the-fact corrections with Fake Data don’t work.
Oh geez…
Are you one of those uncertainty-obsessed people like Tim Gorman or Pat Frank?
I had a conversation with Pat a while back:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/07/04/happy-250th-birthday-america/#comment-4214487
I showed him just how implausible his gigantic uncertainty intervals for land temperature indices are by comparing them with the USCRN, a network that continuously performs a three-way field intercomparison. Each station has three independent temperature sensors measuring the same ambient air simultaneously, so any substantial systematic or random measurement errors should become apparent in their agreement.
NOAA’s Climate at a Glance network agrees remarkably well with USCRN. That’s true for both the national average and individual state averages, as shown in that discussion.
Pat’s response? Basically, “the agreement is suspicious.”
While awarding yourself a trophy you conveniently ignored the simple fact that after-the-fact corrections with Fake Data don’t work...
Why would I deserve a trophy? The data is publicly accessible, and anyone can make the comparison themselves. If a simple, easily reproducible comparison is enough to expose how weak Pat’s argument is, that’s pretty embarrassing.
Only your ego can answer why you needed and deserve to look important, don’t ask others.
That you choose to remain ignorant of basic metrology concepts is also not my problem (along with being stuck in the mud about how after-the-fact corrections with Fake Data don’t work).
I used a heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix model [Zeilies 2006] to compute the uncertainty. It is similar to the technique provided by [Foster & Rahmstorf 2011] and is considered to be one of the most robust trend uncertainty estimators available.
Yes. It is a statistically significant result. In fact it is a 5σ result.
Statistical significance is not real. Nothing has a “statistical significance.” It may be significant to you but I don’t give a sh…
AAAAha ha ha ha.
It’s been rebranded as climate extinction 😉
“Global warming is accelerating.”
I’m not sure this is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Although GW has certainly been accelerating in the relatively short term, I’m not yet convinced this isn’t mostly just a natural variation. There are also certain aspects of AGW theory that just don’t add up. For example, northern and southern extremes of the planet aren’t warming as (comparatively) fast as the theory predicts and ice caps have been more resilient than was expected with a warming planet – especially the melt season minima. Also, the expectation was that the melt seasons would be extended and freeze seasons shortened. This hasn’t happened. The area of study (Global Warming) appears to be exceptionally complex, when all of the possible variables are considered – land use changes (for example) being one of the many issues poorly understood.
And with all this said, it’s still not completely clear whether the moderate warming, and CO2 build-up observed over the past few decades is, on balance, actually a negative impact. The jury is still out. The main problem to my mind, is the mainstream media’s refusal to balance the narrative.
UAH/Dr. Spencer statement, backed up with more than 27 years of data, as given in the above article:
“The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through July 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).”
In comparison, the data supporting your claim of “global warming acceleratimg” is found where, exactly?
“the data supporting your claim of “global warming acceleratimg” is found where, exactly?”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2025GL118804
“In conclusion, our analysis of GMST data after removing the best estimate of the influence of three natural variability factors reduces the noise level sufficiently to reveal a large and significant acceleration of global warming, regardless which statistical method is used. Note that the adjustments reduce the global temperature in 2024 and minimally in 2023 by removing effects of El Niño as well as the solar maximum. The evidence is thus strong that the statistical significance of warming acceleration is not due to outlier years in 2023 and 2024, but that global temperature has departed from its previous path since around 2015″
Noted: “. . . our analysis of GMST data after removing the best estimate of the influence of three natural variability factors reduces . . .
What a laugher! Gotta massage that data to see what we want to see!
It is my claim too. The data can be found here.
Hmmmm, ” here” is a nice tabulation of numerical values, but nowhere therein do a I find mention of things like Urban Heat Island (UHI) contamination of measurement data (worsening with time) and the improper siting of temperature monitoring stations versus that required for Class 1 accurate temperature data (also worsening with time) per strict World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) standards.
I’ll leave to you to consider how the above two factors, as they change with time, could lead to a false perception of “accelerating” warming . . . oh, yeah, and something that the compilers of your “here” data may want to consider . . . that too.
What does the concerns have to do with the UAH TLT data?
UAH measurements include most of geographic area of Earth, including data obtained over large cities and major urban areas suffering from mostly-recent UHI distortion. AFAIK, these areas are NOT “filtered out” of the UAH reported averages for TLT.
Ground and radiosonde (weather balloon) temperature datasets are sometimes used independently to check or compare the stability and behavior of the UAH-derived temperature data, albeit they are not a primary calibration baseline.
Bottom line: you are free to cherry-pick an interval of UAH satellite data so as to claim it shows that “global warming” is accelerating (as you did in your previous post), but such conflicts with UAH/Dr. Spencer’s clear statement that:
“The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through July 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).”
(my bold emphasis added)
That’s a linear rate of change, no acceleration.
The linear fit over 47+ years of measurements looks pretty good to me.
Why would you want to remove warming that really occurred?
You said it yourself. Those have nothing to do with UAH.
I did no such thing. I used every single data point from the UAH TLT dataset…all 571 of them. I did the exact opposite of cherry-picking.
A liner regression doesn’t tell you either way if it is accelerating or not. You have to compute the quadratic regression to determine the acceleration or deceleration rate.
I agree. The line Dr. Spencer drew in his graph matches the one I computed.
Followed by:
“What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”
— The Captain (played by Strother Martin) in the movie “Cool Hand Luke
Which concept would you say is the source of the communication break down: linear regression or quadratic regression? Perhaps I can provide more clarity.
Yes, El Ninos are the cause of the warming… not CO2.
We have been getting a spike + step at each major El Nino, and nothing in-between.
El Ninos get their energy mostly from absorbed solar radiation, which has been increasing for at least the last 25 years.
Yeh, there be dragons here…
The treacherous El Ninos that produce heat by magic!
No magic. The physical processes are well understood.
Yes, they’re understood to redistribute existing heat, not create new heat from nothing.
Unless you can show how that works.
Then why are the climate scammers getting all het up about a coming El Nino, if it isn’t going to cause warming.
You goons really have to get your story straight !! 🙂
No it is NOT MAGIC.. (I’ll leave that to the CO2 warming twits.)…
…it is absorbed solar radiation.. which is has been increasing.
Because El Nino doesn’t “cause” warming. As an oscillation, ENSO can’t produce heat out of nothing, all by itself (except in your magic universe).
It simply moves the available existing heat around between the ocean and the atmosphere.
If the available existing heat increases, then of course El Ninos will produce new record warmest temperatures globally, which is what we see.
As a naive layman I don’t get the March 2026 US vs. Canada anomalies. I get Canada is generally colder than the US, but they have pretty much the same northern hemisphere seasons as we do, and the temp. anomalies generally correlate. Yet, in March the US anomaly was +3.74°C while Canada was -3.17°C, or a total difference of 6.91°C (12.438°F). Without any other knowledge about these measurements I would look at these as potential outlier data points or red flags.
“Without any other knowledge about these measurements I would look at DLALALALALDLALALA”
According to Google AI, that difference is explained by weather:
“March 2026 featured a stark North American temperature split, with the contiguous U.S. experiencing its hottest March on record driven by a powerful western heat dome, while much of interior Canada and Alaska remained locked in near-record cold. [1, 2]”
Now watch the script flip to “the data is bad” as the UAH anomalies keep climbing over the next 9–12 months.
Well yes, the probity of temps “data” IS atrocious, but otherwise, prevailing weather conditions come and go as they always have in the hundreds, thousands of distinct climates all around the world, as they have since time immemorial.
Was a time not that long ago when folks talked about their weather as casual conversation in order to avoid ideology subjects such as politics or religion.
Meantime, global warming / climate change has taken on the same ideological characteristics as religion & politics though, so I guess talking about the weather is now just the same as talking about the subjects they tried to avoid, hey?
Might have something to do about current climate, back then worry about fishery, now whole Gulf might get tropical. This was a negative warm view during high temperature severe drought about oysters without much knowledge about southern Gulf México adaptations of populations and fully aware of oyster high temperature physiology up to 37 degrees C.
Collier, Albert. 1954. A study of the response of oysters to temperature, and some long range ecological interpretations. Convention Addresses National Shellfisheries Association.(1953):13-38.
Other places has periods a lot colder than usual. UAH anomaly has not chnaged.
Heat domes are WEATHER, not “climate”.. and have happened for billions of years.
The only way the atmosphere can get warmer is by the surface absorbing more solar radiation.. which is what is happening.
I wondered about it at the time. My guess would be it’s connected to the Arctic. You saw a similar cold spot over northern Scandinavia.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer. I was just curious because of the magnitude of the difference between contiguous countries (data sets). A brief, visual scan doesn’t appear to show one of similar magnitude since 1979, although a similar one of opposite sign seems to appear around 2010, but not of the same magnitude.
My memory played me false. It was northern Russia where the other cold spot was in March. And not as cold as Canada.
What I was thinking of is that the trend for March, even before 2026, shows a slight cooling in Canada, and a patch of faster cooling north of Scandinavia.
I think when you monitor the atmosphere of land directly under one of the Hadley cell boundaries, which is where the Canadian / US border is located, in close proximity to the Polar cell / Mid-Latitude cell, the temperature profile is very dynamic. However, what you have observed is very different than anything in the UAH record. The attached plot is the USA48, of the Lower Stratosphere ((LS) 50,000 ft.) and the Lower Troposphere ((LT) near surface). Notice how the temperature profile of the LS is almost exactly inverted relative to LT over the last several months, this implies that something in between the near surface and the lower Stratosphere is capturing heat radiating into space.
Isn’t it about time for reasonable people to look at the UAH graph and notice the slope confirming the past 40 years shows a 0.16C/decade temperature increase and that the overwhelming probability is that it will continue to remain so for the next 40 years? By 2066 the nuclear renaissance should be far enough along to reduce the rate.
“Probability” isn’t science. There is no particular reason to think it will continue without knowing why. And the “nuclear renaissance”, if it happens, isn’t going to change anything WRT climate.
Hope as a strategy. I also hope that the prenatal SMR’s arrive alive. that we recycle, and that we take permanent storage seriously that we WILL need (no matter how hard we try to slipper click it away). But work a plan B too – especially with our current position on Hubberts curve.
I would not eliminate the possibility that the trend over the next 40 years will be higher than that of the previous 40 years. Afterall, the trend over the second 20 years of those previous 40 years is +0.32 ± 0.15 C.decade-1. The warming rate is accelerating.
And temperature leads CO2. Well at least according to the ice cores. 😉
It does.
Because that is the natural carbon cycle at work.
Trouble is the natural CC has been over-ridden by anthro. carbon emissions during this last 150 years, which doesn’t show up in ice cores.
Cc has over-riden? Such that natural variation has been eclipsed? Or is it because the “data” is not reliable due to firn?
No – “over-ridden” as in driving modern global temps.
However, the vast reservoir of natural carbon is still at work following temps.
They are not mutually exclusive.
Yes it does. It also lags CO2. It can do both depending on the specific physical processes in play and the timing of their influence. When there is a separate agent acting to catalyze temperature changes then temperature leads CO2. But when CO2 is released independently it catalyzes the temperature change thus causing it to lag CO2.
So it can’t qualify for the null hypothesis since it both leads and lags. OK.;)
Of course it still qualifies for null hypothesis testing.
The trend goes back centuries and will continue for centuries. The warming of the NH will slow when the snow begins advancing southward.
Humans are experiencing the first recorded termination of an interglacial.
The false belief that the trend is driven by CO2 results in the opposite activity to what is required. The correct response to ensure survival of humans in high northern latitudes is energy security. Inevitably some will migrate southward.
We often forget that in the current ice age, all land south of 60S has remained glaciated.
What you are not told is that the solar energy over the tropics has been trending upward since mid 13th century. There are century scale time lags in the response but the tropics are now exhibiting an upward trend in atmospheric moisture.
It’s long past that time.
We are not dealing with “reasonable people”.
This is WUWT.
“Reasonable people” aren’t the ones promoting a 21st century religion (CAGW), complete with doctrines, scriptures (IPCC climate teachings), “Heretics” (“deniers”) and the whole annual gatherings of the faithful.
Now, I’m not one normally inclined to take the piss out of anyone’s religion, unless they start labeling me as a ‘heretic’ (“denier”) of whatever they decided to adopt as their “belief system”.
So all I can say to AGW acolytes about returning some of the abuse I get from them is –
“you started it!”
OK, and what is your view on the fact that UAH is one of the fastest-warming global temperature data sets over the past twenty years?
Do you dismiss UAH as a valid source?
If so, on what grounds?
You don’t get it . No one dismisses UAH as a valid source of information. what they dismiss is your interpretation of its significance and apocalyptic predictions.
Can you point to any apocalyptic warnings I’ve made?
All I’ve been saying is that the world is warming in pretty much the way scientists have been saying it would for decades now and that UAH is further evidence supporting that observation.
You seem to be in agreement.
I get this reaction a lot as well. I have never once made an apocalyptic prediction or comment. I have never once made or insinuated that the warming will be apocalyptic or catastrophic. And if people would for once bother to ask my position on the matter instead of making something up I would simply tell them that I’m skeptical of warming predictions on the high side. My position is and will always be inline with the consilience of evidence. If the consilience of evidence changes then my position will change with it.
Improperly characterizing/extremizing views expressed here, to garner favor, is a popular WUWT poster tact. FYI, even Nick Stokes has cautioned against overamped responses to the 40+ year old, indisputable, accelerating, sea level rise
What he said.
UAh is certainly more valid than the so-called “global AGW fabrication, which are sheer fantasy.
UAH is great, because it shows that all the warming is coming from solar charged ocean based El Nino events.
There is no sign of any human caused warming in the UAH data.
If so, why is the rate of global warming we see in UAH over the past 47 years statistically identical to the rates of global warming seen in all the fabricated and fanciful global temperature data sets?
This is true and I’m still awaiting a valid response to this point!
Is your answer to de-carbonize?
This logic is similar to alarmist logic. It ignores natural cycles. At least you added a question mark. Now consider what happens when the natural 60-70 year cycle is added to the conversation. The 40 year period begins in the cool phase of this natural cycle and moves into the warm phase in the mid 90s. The warm phase has remained.
Seems pretty obvious the 60-70 year cycle explains the warming trend too. However, it is due to change soon. That negates the conclusion of warming “for the next 40 years”.
In fact, there are signs the 60-70 year cycle is starting its next phase transition right now. If so, it should start to show its effect once the current El Nino ends. Stay tuned.
BTW, I’ve been claiming the cool phase 60-70 year cycle will first appear as a higher Arctic minimum sea ice extent. While we will have to wait until September to see this data, the current track is interesting.
Yep, I’ve been keeping a close eye on Arctic Sea ice for decades. As it’s supposed to be one of the clear warming signatures, it was interesting to observe the end of the melt season last year. This year, so far…. seems to have taken even more of an early levelling out. Shouldn’t be hasty though – melt could easily accelerate again before mid September. However, the upper Arctic has been consistently colder than average this year (probably to record breaking extent on the DMI charts) throughout the main melt season, so it stands to reason that as the ice margins recede northwards, melting can be expected to slow more than normal.
Neutral, perhaps this paper will be of interest to you:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2614134123
It’s probably best not to focus solely on the melt season.
Interesting!
Firstly, I don’t think there was anything in my post about focus purely on the melt season. However, it is interesting that it hasn’t at any point shown any signs of extending beyond the Autumn equinox or starting before the Spring equinox. I’m familiar with the latent heat explanation and have referenced it in the past.
Thanks anyway.
Secondly, a couple of decades back when Arctic Sea ice maximums weren’t showing any great decline, we were told to focus instead on the melt season minimum. It appears the goalposts have moved …..again!
However, I’ve always been more in favour of looking more at the whole year anyway….. basically observing the total area under or over the mean line, over the course of the year. Of course, in recent times, (getting in for 2 decades) it has been consistently under the mean. But the rate of decline does seem to have levelled out.
Antarctica is different again, and appears to be much more resilient than the Arctic.
47 years of satellite data collecting and we see +0.48 average deg C of global warming per a multitude of changing techniques and baselines.
Obviously, all efforts to mitigate global warming to 2.0 deg C to avoid disaster are working because at this rate it will take another 141 years of fossil fuel burning to exceed that number. I was told in college that there isn’t enough recoverable fossil fuel left on Earth to last that long.
How did you get the +0.48 C figure for the amount of warming that has occurred over 47 years?
I get +0.75 ± 0.18 C using a linear regression trend.
Only 2 decimal points?
Well, there’s the credibility of your estimation down the gurgler right there.
3 decimal points of 1 degree C is the minimum numerical precision required with temps constructs to have any credibility these days.
(4 or more is even better 🙂 )
Yes. The heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix model [Zeilies 2006] I applied to the data output with an uncertainty of 0.177137511827683 (all IEEE 754 digits included) so I decided to report the value as 0.75 ± 0.18 C with 2 decimals even though the [JCGM 100:2008] guidelines and examples allow for at least one more digit.
I recognize your comments above as flippant which I normally would ignore. But it brings up a good talking point. doonman reported 0.48 C without an explicit uncertainty estimate which, going by the significant figure police here, means he thinks this value has an implied uncertainty of only ±0.01 C which (obviously) is far lower than my estimate. So why did you address your post to me as opposed to doonman?
Because as per this comment of yours –
“The acceleration is 0.026 ± 0.009 C.decade”,
clearly you know that 3 is more than 2, and therefore betterer.
First…that has nothing to do with this thread.
Second…the quote you present there is of 2 significant figures; not 3. It is important to note that the uncertainty was only stated to 1 significant figure though.
Your statistical gyrations are not measurement uncertainty.
Your claims won’t be convincing without supporting evidence.
Not my job to educate climatology shills and trolls about metrology (of which they have zero interest).
The new Monckton Pause extends to 43 months starting in 2023/01. The average of this pause is 0.53 C. The previous Monckton Pause started in 2014/06. It lasted 107 months and had an average of 0.21 C. That makes this pause 0.32 C higher than the previous one.
+0.157 ± 0.037 C.decade-1 k=2 is the trend from 1979/01 to 2026/07 covering 571 values.
+0.026 ± 0.009 C.decade-2 k=2 is the acceleration of the trend.
I have changed my model to use RONI instead of ONI. One interesting thing about this is that the retraining shows a lag of 6 months for RONI as compared to 5 months with ONI.
Cool upgrade!
There is a possibility that the model is going to end up being biased low with the current El Nino. First…it doesn’t use the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) which is relatively high right now and with the acceleration in the warming trend and only using 5 factors I’m not sure the model is capturing the full potential of the UAH TLT response. Second…RONI forecasts are very sparse right now so I’m using a conservative estimate of +2.5 ONI and reducing that by 0.5 to get a RONI peak of 2.0. Many climate models have ONI peaking at or above +3.0 (well above in some cases). Even the IRI dynamic ensemble is around +3.0.
Here is some commentary about those ONI forecasts. +2.8 (from 1877 and 2015) is the highest ONI known to have occurred both with observational and reconstructed datasets. That goes back nearly 1000 years. Even the 1640 event which is believed to have contributed to the Ming Dynasty collapse is believed to have been <= +2.8 ONI. Though in that case the global backdrop was cooler so the El Nino response would have been higher than ONI suggested. Anyway, there is a lot of research that says +3.0 ONI may be a practical upper limit to due to hyper aggressive negative feedbacks. So I’m hesitant to buy into the extreme El Nino forecasts we’ve seen lately. I, of course, am not eliminating the possibility though. Afterall, the current daily ENSO observation is +2.4 which shatters the record for this time of year.
I understand your the skepticism about the more extreme ONI forecasts given the historical record.
At the same time….
the amount of subsurface heat in the equatorial Pacific does seem unusually large.
Yep. Although I’m skeptical I certainly wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
BTW…another day and another tick up. The ENSO 3.4 anomaly is now +2.5 C!
“Cool” update ?
I thought it’s supposed to be all warming 🙂
Your model contains absolutely no reference to the increase in absorbed solar radiation.
It is meaningless. !!
So we are looking at the differences of averages from averages.
I guess someone has to make pretty pictures.
It’s even worse than that. it’s at least averages of averages of averages. Then some other average is subtracted from the whole thing. Then they graph it and say, ooh…look how scary that is.
The essence of trendology — they don’t study climate, but rather trends.
I see that the stupid warmest/alarmists are out in force babbling about hottest year on record or similar crap many here have to face while the simpletons never thought how it was when the same warming rate happened between 1920-1940 time frame when then they would howl this in the warmest year on record crappola then…. the rate is the same then as it is now .16C/decade.
Then when it began to cool down in the early 1940’s and accelerated in the 1960’s that cooled over 1C in just 30 years there was a lot of hand wringing over it….
We are now close to the END of this global warming trend as the inevitable cooling is close as the AMO is soon to go into decline.
I wonder how many climate change cultists will jump out of windows when their scam suddenly comes to an end when the cooling trend begins.
It did not cool over 1 C in 30 years. Like…not even close.
When you say “close to the END” are you thinking next year or something else?
LOL.. these “global temperature” fabrications going back to 1850 are a totally BOGUS. !!
Ocean temperature just do not exist .. that is 70% of the globe…
… and land temperatures are also basically non-existent for most of the globe for most of the first half of the period.
Those land temperatures that do exist are nothing remotely like the fantasy creation that the climate scammers end up with.
Cherry pick. Try not starting the graph from the coldest period in recent history.
I think you responded to the wrong person. I didn’t pick the time period. Sunsettommy did.
Sorry, Didn’t notice him posting a graph but noticed you did. Comment on the graph still stands.
He said: “Then when it began to cool down in the early 1940’s and accelerated in the 1960’s that cooled over 1C in just 30 years there was a lot of hand wringing over it….“
That’s the error bdgwx is responding to. That claim is BS.
Your link is crap as that chart is bogus another Hocket shit chart, why have you people become so freaking stupid these days?
Alterations To Climate Data
Changes to GISS surface temperature from 1981 and 2002 to 2014, have doubled 1890 to 1980 warming.
LINK
Plenty of examples of NASA altering their own charts in the LINK and the changes are big, well beyond statistical errors this is clearly criminal actions going on to hide the well-known major cooling trend from the 1940s to the 1970’s.
And no-one is able to show us where the oceans were measured in any scientific way much before 2005…
The one place that has been measured by actual science based ships is the Canadian Archipelago region. And those measurements show the 1940s peak more than 2ºC warmer than 1990.
Anyway.. the idea that you can scientifically combine urban and airport site “adjusted” once-was-data, with measurements from buckets of water at maybe 2m in a few random spots in the ocean.. is totally ludicrous.
That link missed out the biggest example of “NASA altering their own charts”
Curious though that it has it warming the past!
Now hows about showing us a graph that materially alters the global warming trend due to your “altering their own charts” ?
There is nothing wrong with the data it is correct. The world has experienced a linear warming trend that started in the late 70’s. Did you need help understanding the plot.
“This chart shows two satellite lower troposphere sets (RSS and UAH) and three surface temperature data sets (HadCRUT, GISS and NOAA), 1979-2025, as monthly anomalies all set to the same 1991-2020 base.
All show statistically significant warming. The error margins in all their warming rates overlap.“
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/07/30/the-era-of-decentralized-observation/#comment-4224043
Again, based on data that JUST DOES NOT EXIST
Fake
The coldest period in recent history was from 1900 to 1920. The graph starts at 1850. How is truncate the left side of the graph so that it starts at 1900 instead of 1850 going to help in adjudicating Sunsettommy’s assertion that it cooled over 1 C starting in the 1940s?
I think that we should be blaming someone who was born in the 1960’s.
If you look carefully, you will see that the rate of rise aligns quite well with the cumulative number of breaths that they have taken.
So based on the accepted concept of correlation = causation. Let’s make sure that everyone born in the 1960’s stops breathing.
Of course this is /s. It’s not the cumulative count that’s causing this. But the graph fits the data, you just have to pose a theory that can’t be disproved. Now where is my grant?
Yes, it was around the 1C decline until GISS changed it drastically to nearly no change at all in their many revisions to rub out the well-known cooling run, because they are selling a climate change scam I saw it happen in real time from the late 1960’s onward as the media, scientists and more were deep into the then cooling time.
You are using one of many modern charts that are based on manipulated data as it used to show much bigger cooling dips years ago before the scam run began.
Can you post a link to one of their previous revisions showing the 1 C of cooling for the global average temperature?
Berkeley Earth does not adjust data. That is actually one of the unique things about their method that sets them apart from the others.
I have posted them many times to see them get ignored not going to do it anymore, you are apparently going to lie to yourself because it is well known to honest people that NASA changed their own charts many times which has been shown by several people here in this thread.
What I have learned is people like you are very selective and ignore anything that doesn’t support your delusions thus you never improve while many here does over time because being truthful is a way to grow as a thinker.
NASA changes their chart every month. This is often because new data points are added to the GHCN and ERSST repositories. There are still digitization efforts in which data in the past is continuously being uploaded. This is also be because of occasionally bug fixes and refinements of the methodology they use for computing the global average temperature. We want NASA to incorporate as much data as possible and to improve their methodology. That’s a good thing. It would be unethical at best or even fraudulent at worst if they weren’t doing this.
I’ve given you the floor. This is your opportunity to take it and lay out the evidence showing that the global average temperature really did drop by over 1 C starting from the 1940s. If you cannot or are unwilling to do that then I don’t really have any other choice but to dismiss your claim.
You are being deliberately obtuse as those chart changes spans years apart.
Here is a thread showing this vividly using just NASA charts.
======
Alterations To The US Temperature Record
Excerpt:
This graph of US temperatures was posted by NASA in 1999, showing a strong cooling trend from the 1930’s through the end of the century. The years 1934 and 1998 are circled.
LINK
Not a single graph in that thread shows 1 C of cooling starting in the 1940s or any period for that matter for the global average temperature.
Don’t think the irony of you accusing me of being obtuse and insinuating that scientists are dishonest and manipulative while posting a link to an article from a guy who holds the distinction of being one of the few people banned by WUWT in part because of his dishonesty and manipulations went unnoticed.
HA HA HA, now you are suddenly concerned about accuracy when I made that 1C hook statement when the 1975 NAS chart showed a .8C cooling drop spread which you still didn’t notice despite that it has been published many times over the years some of it right here since it was posted back on March 1, 1975, by NAS
You also ignored his examples of obvious data manipulations in the link show in many charts backed by links.
The change from the 1999 GISS to 2019 GISS is huge, which is blatant data manipulation across 20 years time.
1936 changed from +1.5C to +1.2C in between the 1999 and 2019 GISS charts.
1998 changed from +.9 to +1.4C in between the 1999 and 2019 GISS charts.
Those are massive changes!
You should stop lying about them.
Meanwhile here is another thread that shows it more vividly, it will be interesting how you try to lie you way out of this one.
Alterations To Climate Data
Changes to GISS surface temperature from 1981 and 2002 to 2014, have doubled 1890 to 1980 warming.
LINK
Patently False. There is no graph at the link you posted that shows 0.8 C drop nevermind a 1.0 C drop for the global average temperature.
We can discuss those “manipulations” if you want. But before doing so you’re going to need to understand why nothing you’ve provided thus far shows a 1.0 C drop in the global average temperature. If you cannot understand this trivial concept then you will struggle understanding the far more complex topics like time-of-observation bias, station instrumentation change bias, station location change bias, etc.
A fictitious statistical notion that climatology trendologists thrive on.
AKA Fake Data.
So, can you post a graph that shows those changes (which are extensively documented) have in any way materially altered the GLOBAL trend
And:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q215
“Q. Why are the US mean temperatures in the Hansen 1999 paper so different from later figures?
A. In the Hansen et al. (1999) paper the GISS analysis was based on GHCN data alone; in the meantime, the group working at NOAA/NCEI had taken a closer look at the US data, an investigation that resulted in substantial modifications compensating for station moves, procedural changes, etc. These corrected data were made available as “adjusted USHCN” data. The adjustments are described in the Version 1 section of the following documentation, with a graph showing the effect of each of the five individual adjustments. These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990. They had no significant impact on the global mean. About half of that increase was due to information obtained about station moves (mostly from cities to airports where conditions were generally cooler), the other half from changes in the time of observation (mostly as a consequence of a concerted effort to transition to a uniform time of observation for a whole network of stations). After 1999, GISS replaced the unadjusted USHCN reports by the adjusted reports, and reported on the differences this made in Hansen et al. (2001). A list of all changes to the GISS analysis and their impacts is presented in the History Section.
Yes, the U.S. regional chart clearly shows a 2.0C+ cooling from the hot 1930’s to the 1970’s. The 1970’s show to be as cold as the years from 1900 to 1910.
That is why scientists of the 1970’s were thinking a new ice age might be coming. The U.S. chart was the go-to chart for the period.
Now we have climate alarmists completely ignoring this 2.0C cooling because it destroys their “hotter and hotter and hotter” narrative.
The actual written records put the lie to climate alarmist claims.
They deny reality to keep their worldview going.
They lie to themselves.
Any detective would smell something fishy after comparing the written temperature record to the computer-generated record. One or the other is wrong.
I’m going with the written record. It shows CO2 is not a danger to humans or the Earth. It shows it is not any warmer today than in the recorded past even though CO2 has been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Yeah, the climate alarmists have completely written off the 1970’s cooling scare. It doesn’t fit their narrative so they say it never happened. They are wrong. I was there.
Gosh, how magnanimous of you…
He didn’t actually address my link in any detail which is a sign he knows he can’t address it thus post something else to pretend he did as he pushes what I never talked about, the GLOBAL TREND deflection a common dishonest tactic.
This deflection crap is very common with these climate scammers who press on with their dishonest narrative that has long been shown to be criminally stupid.
Let me get this straight. You claim that the global average temperature dropped by over 1 C starting in the 1940s. I posted a graph of that temperature from an institution that does not perform adjustments on the data which says your claim is false. I invite you to present evidence backing up your claim. You post a link to an article that doesn’t even discuss the global average temperature. And I’m the criminal dishonest scammer who is deflecting?
Oh look, the IPCC shill-person hauls out the hockey stick, filled with Fake Data.
The temperature curve does not match the CO2 curve.
Try comparing the temperature curve with the Total Solar Irradiance at Earth distance. Do the temperature curve and the TSI curve correlate?
“The temperature curve does not match the CO2 curve.”
Oh, really?
“Try comparing the temperature curve with the Total Solar Irradiance at Earth distance”.
OK:
More hockey sticks — RUN AWAY!!
He is being profoundly dishonest here because in a warming world CO2 emission increases when it was a cooling world or a cooling year CO2 emissions would decrease.
This chart shows a longer time frame that exposes the lie that CO2 and temperature changes go hand in hand when no such relationship exist. Heck it was the climate scammers who for years said CO2 levels changed very little for many centuries before “Man Made” global warming caused it to go way up after being in the 260-280 ppm for thousands of years while large global temperature swings occurred.
LINK
They are LYING now because their climate scaremongering scam is now well exposed.
The graph you post there is old. The data ends at 1999. Using the updated Hadley Centre data, which is what [Ljungqvist 2009] used, I added a marker for the 2025 temperature.
Yet more idiotic impossibly tiny “error bars” — FAIL.
You responded to the wrong person. The graph comes from Sunsettommy who posted it here.
No, YOU reposted it, with “updated” Fake Data.
You are fooling no one.
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW……
You are really trying hard to avoid the obvious right in front of your bleeding eyes, which shows ZERO relationship for 2000 years in this “old” chart while YOU whine about the missing 25 years that doesn’t support your delusion anyway.
Did they give you shock treatments to be this stupid?
Lol, you’re projecting.
It is hard to project reality as he ignored the 2,000 year period chart that was right in front of hm.
It appears you may have the same problem.
” he ignored the 2,000 year period chart”
He’s not ignoring anything. He’s literally showing just how far the 2025 Northern Hemisphere average sits above the range of natural variability observed over the past 2,000 years.
Those warm periods were notable, sure, but the scale and speed of what we’re seeing now are in a completely different league.
OMG what are you numbskulls thinking as I am not discussing the 2025 temperature level at all, I am talking about the RELATIONSHIP between the large temperature changes over a 2,000 year period and the flat lining of CO2 levels which was hanging around the 260-280 ppm for thousands of years that is what I keep talking about while you slow thinkers keeps pushing your deflection about something else.
This is what I posted and talked about several times and you still don’t understand it because you are profoundly stupid.
I am always talking about the nonexistent relationship between large temperature changes over a 2,000 year time frame while the CO2 levels shows a flatline in most of that time.
Is your brain turned on yet?
Do you want to have a genuine discussion or not?
Not when you lie about a 2,000 year chart that doesn’t show any relationship between CO2 levels and Temperature changes over the time frame while you pretend that I am opposing your temperature increases argument you are trying to force on me which I never discussed at all.
You are being profoundly dishonest you painted Trollop!
The data in the chart you posted clearly shows a relationship between temperature and CO2. You just can’t see it because whoever made the chart 1) truncated the data 2) reduced the scale of the CO2 axis and 3) didn’t center the preindustrial temperature and CO2. If you fix those three issues the relationship will pop out so plainly that even the most diehard opponent couldn’t miss it.
The fact that your thesis is based primarily on coming up with clever ad-hominems as opposed to coming up with well reasoned arguments supported by the consilience of evidence is pretty devasting to your position.
BINGO.
CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas humanity is emitting, every molecule of CO2 created by combustion also produces an H2O molecule. Doing that in the Tropopause has created a forcing that never stops at any moment there are 10,000+ aircraft in the tropopause around the world. When Trump issued the pandemic flight restrictions in 2020, it caused global aviation to go from 90 billion gallons down to 45 in less than half a year. A triple dip La-Nina occurred and people died in their sleep from hypothermia in Texas the following winter. Trump unknowingly carried out one of the most important experiments to resolve the mystery of the linear warming trend that started in 1977. The attached plot: UAH lower troposphere global temps, aviation exhaust in billions of gallons and CO2 monthly growth.
The difference between H2O and CO2 is that the later is a non-condensing gas whereas the former is a condensing gas. As such the long term average mixing ratio of H2O is broadly pinned to the average temperature of the troposphere in a stable equilibrium. Perturbations above encourage more precipitation. Perturbations below encourage more evaporation. Adding more H2O to the atmosphere sans a separate forcing mechanism that acts to increase the temperature would have little to no impact on the long term average mixing ratio of H2O.
In the lower Stratosphere when the contrails sublimate there is no condensation after that and it does not precipitate out. The additional H2O in the upper atmosphere becomes a matter of physics and radiative transfer, it really does not matter upon your opinion. Since H2O is the only molecule observed perturbing the temperature of the atmosphere, CO2 is of no relevance, and as a forcing has no evidence / supporting data and does not even qualify as a theory. That is another big difference between the two molecules.
That hypothesis is easily falsified by a counter-example. [Tyndall 1861]
You can alter your hypothesis so that it cannot be falsified by appending “…that I would accept” to the end of it.
“The difference between H2O and CO2 is that the later is a non-condensing gas whereas the former is a condensing gas”
Cliffie Clavin time. Certainly not under the range of conditions under discussion. But I have frac’d a plethora of Oklahoma gas wells with liquid CO2 in the ’80s.. We did it to minimize formation damage and clay swelling in the formation. With it’s low viscosity we were limited to tiny proppant concentrations, and it was hazardous – mainly when it converted to dry ice and blocked the frac iron with trapped gaseous CO2 in between. Sometimes had to dodge flying dry ice during rack up.
Those deep, tight, gas plays are all but gone. Replaced with shale gas that you frac with lots of water and low proppant concentrations compared to the crosslinked fluid, high proppant concentration fracs of yesteryear..
You petroleum engineers are both brilliant and brave.
Get a room.
The sarc obviously flew over your composer. bd has probably met enough of us to know that we, as a group, are not “brilliant”. We just doggedly seek constant improvement – which was the real reason behind the “shale revolution”. And liquid CO2 fraccing was not only not “brave”, but was a hazardous, unecomical experiment. The bd RME there is pretty easy to glean.
Petroleum engineers are about the only job where, when you break out, your employer leaves you alone to waste millions.Its how you learn, they believe. Hence, the permission to try everything that we can dream up.
Not interested in your latest word salad, regardless of dressing you dump over it.
“CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas humanity is emitting, every molecule of CO2 created by combustion also produces an H2O molecule. Doing that in the Tropopause has created a forcing that never stops at any moment there are 10,000+ aircraft in the tropopause around the world.”
When I was outside yesterday evening with a mostly clear sky the planes flying overhead were leaving vapor trails comprised of condensed water which gradually broadened as they fell through the atmosphere. Not contributing to the contribution of gaseous H2O concentration.
You are comparing temperature anomaly with TSI at 1au.
Compare temperature anomaly with TSI anomaly at earth distance.
Yes, exactly – over the course of one year. IE: cyclic and therefore cannot be a long-term driver.
You don’t see the variations of the Earth’s orbit when TSI at 1AU is used.
The influence of the planets of the solar system on the Earth’s orbit causes variations in TSI at Earth distance that are not visible with TSI at 1 AU.
I removed the other factors and retrained the model. The correlation is R^2 = 0.04 with just TSI.
And here is what happens when you only include CO2. The correlation is R^2 = 0.56 which is obviously significantly higher than the R^2 = 0.04 from TSI.
The variations in the temperature anomaly curve do not correlate with the co2 curve.
The variations in the temperature anomaly curve correlate with TSI at earth distance anomaly curve.
Make a TSI at earth distance anomaly curve.
It is R^2 = 0.56.
It is R^2 = 0.04
I could. To do that right you’d need to compare against the absolute temperature. When you do that the correlation will be negative since TSI achieves its highest value in January and lowest value in July which is opposite the temperature pattern of highest in July and lowest in January. A naive person might wrongly conclude that the temperature and solar irradiance are inversely related.
I didn’t say you should compare with absolute TSI at Earth distance.
I said TSI at Earth distance anomaly.
You have to first make a climatology curve for the TSI at Earth distance curve. Then make the anomaly curve by taking the difference between the climatology curve and the TSI at Earth distance.
That’s what I did originally. The TSI value you see in the plot above is the anomaly. Given that and your follow up post I was trying decipher an alternate intent.
Anyway, you can see that TSI does explain some of the variation in UAH TLT values. It’s not a very high correlation, but it isn’t zero either. The biggest problem with TSI is that it has almost no ability to explain the upward trend in temperature.
I am using another data source.
Use TSIS/TIM data source. Daily TSI at Earth distance.
https://lasp.colorado.edu/data/tsis/tsi_data/tsis_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
That’s literally what I used.
Why do trend corrections need to be made?
https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite-SIST.txt
I have no idea. I didn’t say anything about correcting any trend. Can you add more context to your question?
I believe the data source you are using uses trend corrections.
The second link is a different dataset that goes much further back in time. I’d have to research it a bit more but the trend correction Kopp is talking about here may be to correct the drift from some of the instruments in the composite.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. Quoted by Mark Twain
This report is from Spencer. I trust the figures not to have been fudged.
I do not accept that a patch of troposphere represents the planet.
Mid-2026 we know that the hemispheres differ and are changing at different rates, we know they differ in how much land surface and ocean surface they consist of.
So, even an accurate and reliable estimate of one layer of planet earth varying in temperature tells us nothing about overall warming, cooling or stability.
And now Soon et al are going to nail down the assertion – carbon dioxide is irrelevant to the ever changing temperature of the planet.
“I do not accept that a patch of troposphere represents the planet.”
Of course it doesn’t.
However over the long course of it’s monitoring of the troposphere it does represent it.
The law of large numbers.
“Mid-2026 we know that the hemispheres differ and are changing at different rates, we know they differ in how much land surface and ocean surface they consist of.
So, even an accurate and reliable estimate of one layer of planet earth varying in temperature tells us nothing about overall warming, cooling or stability.”
Again it is the linear average over (in UAH’s case), 47 years – that tells us about overall warming
As it does (warming) about earlier blooming time of Spring flowers (longer growing season) ….
After reading through the back and forth comments in this thread, your time would be better spent arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Good to see that Dr Spencer has started showing the linear trend on his UAH data. He’s been doing it for a couple of months now.
It makes it easier for people to see the strong warming trend in UAH, which used to be the poster chid of fake climate change skeptics.
Anyone can put a linear trend on a time series plot. A trend line is not data and it provides no additional useful information.
That’s an opinion.
All the climate data sets use linear trends, but you are entitled to your opinion.
It’s not an opinion. linear trend lines are not data. Period.
Of course not; they interpret the data and they are used extensively in science with respect to time series data.
But you know best!
You cannot predict, using a linear regression line, a coupled, chaotic, non-linear system, such as the climate of earth. A linear trend is wholly dependent on the starting and ending positions.
Nobody disagrees with that. But linear trends have significance levels.
The significance level in the UAH trend (and that in every single other global temperature data set, surface and satellite) indicates that there more than 95% confidence that the warming trend is unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.
Something is causing the world to warm up. Time to stop pretending we don’t know what that is, because we do know, and have done for decades now.
Bullshit. Nothing HAS “significance” levels. Significance does not exist. Time to stop pretending YOU know what it is, because you don’t, and you haven’t for decades now.
Of course you can. It might not be as good of a prediction as other methods, but you can definitely do it. Below is a linear regression model trained on the first half of the data and projected forward through the second half. The R^2 = 0.43. It’s not great, but it’s significantly better than the R^2 = 0.04 that you get if you only consider TSI. Anyway, this type of prediction is called a persistence forecast.
I can also make predictions using chicken entrails or tea leaves. Just about as useful and accurate.
I have observed the problems with using linear regression line to a coupled chaotic system.
I found this information about the problem.
He showed the warming trend is .16C/decade which is the same as all the other warming trends back to the 1860’s as per Warmest loon Dr. Jones back in 2010.
The current warming trend isn’t anything unusual in comparison to the past warming trends.
Ok, show me another global temperature data set with +0.2C per decade warming over 47 years before 1979.
(Don’t waste your time, Tommy. It doesn’t exist.)
God didn’t say, “let there be light” in 1979.
All El Nino events, that get their energy from increased absorbed solar radiation
There is NO CO2 based warming in the UAH data.
And the evidence that there has been enough ‘increased absorbed solar radiation’ globally since 1979 to warm both the oceans and the atmosphere simultaneously in a statistically significant way is….?
(Will follow shortly….)
Sorry if it has already been mentioned, but it is noticeable that US48 (contiguous USA) had its warmest July on record in UAH in 2026.
Looks very like 2026 will also be US48’s warmest year on record, barring a meteor strike/major volcanic eruption.
(For the pedantry, I am referring to UAH, which starts in 1979, as far as July is concerned.)
Here is a chart for July in US48 (1979-2026).
Proof that all the recent wild fires are not caused by global warming. Cool.
Caused by arsonists
The increase in arsonists directly correlates with global warming. Therefore, global warming causes arsonists. The noted increase in wildfires is just a proxy for the increase in arsonists.
-No warming in Australia for the last climate data point. = no climate change in the SH.
-All the warming happening in the NH.
-No global warming.
Too easy.
One month isn’t climate.
One month is weather.
Too easy.
Notice all those other cold months that were weather?
Notice all those hot months that were weather?
Notice the linear trend line?
That’s climate.
No, it is not.
Pray tell?
I said the last climate data point which is the last 30 years not one month.
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance and general moronosity.
Too easy!
So you’re effectively admitting that your earlier claim was deliberately false:
“No warming in Australia for the last climate data point.”
Australia has clearly warmed over the past 30 years. The latest data point does not change that.
The irony of you talking about “moronosity” (which isn’t even a word?) while unintentionally conceding that you deliberately misrepresented the data is pretty funny.
Like fish in a barrel.
The temp in Australia as of today is slightly cooler than it was in 1996.
It matter not that some warming occurred during that time. It came back down totally wiping out what came before.
”Moronosity”? I made that up special for Banton. But you can use it for yourself too. It fits.
Literally the “last climate data POINT”
Is a monthly reading.
IE: a point is not 30 years.
You continue to make no sense whilst slinging an ad hom.
How can you draw any data about the climate from one point in time.
Idiot!
Maybe you have special powers which tell you what the climate is doing by the temperature measured last Thursday at 3pm?
IDIOT!
I’m looking at some of the record temperatures from some of the summers in the 1930’s. Very similar to now.
Heh, a few years ago, they used to be higher than now. Amazing what can be accomplished with the correct data adjustments.
1) We have warmed up some since the LIA, and that is a good thing. History, and common sense tells us that humanity, and life itself does better during warm periods.
2) Science cannot say for sure why we have warmed, however we do know that there have been many previous periods of warming (and cooling) so there is no scientific reason to believe that this warming period is any different from previous ones, despite the fervent wishes of the Climate Caterwaulers to blame it on “carbon”.
3) There is zero scientific evidence that man’s CO2 emissions have had anything to do with modern warming. There is a chance that it has affected temperatures in some small way, due to the greenhouse effect, however it is just as likely that whatever slight warming effect they have had is being cancelled out by negative feedbacks. In any case, if said small warming effect is happening, it is much too small to measure, and of no consequence to us, or to the earth whatsoever.
Sorry, Climate Caterwaulers.
“History, and common sense tells us that humanity, and life itself does better during warm periods.”
The “warm periods” you speak of that have occurred during the history of modern humans were indeed via “common sense” mostly beneficial, though also relatively short lived. However should the current warming still have its driver at work and into the foreseeable future: what then?
That is the issue at hand.
Sorry climate contrarians.
Nonsense. The MWP (Little Climate Optimum) lasted about 400 years, from 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D. We are not even into half that. What if it continues? Seriously? So what if it does? And what if we cool instead, which is just as likely if not more so?
Banton is embarrassingly dumb, blinded by his own bias.
Almost creepy.
The “warm periods” you speak of though also relatively short lived.
Short lived? Relative to what?
The MWP lasted around 300-400 years. The RWP similar. The modern ”warm” period is a mere blip so far. You continue, once again, to demonstrate your crushing stupidity. You should stop now.
“Short lived? Relative to what?”
The geological record …. You know – Interglacials.
Oh, and quit with the ad Homs.
”Almost creepy.”
That is what is “pathetic” and “creepy” here.
Additionally the RWP was not global – it only affected Europe and the North Atlantic.
Oh God, make it stop! The barking Chihuahua that does not know what a climate data point is is lecturing me on interglacials!
That’s still THE big “IF” though
IF it continues is what the whole debate about.
IF it doesn’t continue, and the whole thing is turns out to be false, what then for huge swathes of science, political agenda, and media gravy train?
IF on the other hand it proves to be true, and warming continues unabated into the future, then the planet is in much more trouble than with the first IF….!
I believe I’ll be long gone by then anyway and even IF proven false, I believe it will take at least a couple more decades for it all to gradually become relegated to obscurity and just another failed scientific theory.
“I believe I’ll be long gone by then anyway and even IF proven false, I believe it will take at least a couple more decades for it all to gradually become relegated to obscurity and just another failed scientific theory.”
This is the problem – humans dismiss it by saying it wont affect me as it’s too far into the future.
So we don’t consider future generations then?
Sorry, you must get out more (from WUWT) – the theory has been around for over 150 years and thousands of experts have found no fault.
You either accept that whilst looking at the evidence (bearing in mind we cannot simulate the atmosphere in a lab) and see that it is not a coincidence that temps have risen in lock-step with carbon emissions (and lower Stratospheric temps have fallen – which can only happen with a GHE).
Or you think …..
a) That you know better (just coz).
b) it’s all a fraud to get yer tax dollars and install a world socialist gov.
Now which of those things makes more sense? …. in this current atmosphere of taking social media to be the fount of truth – because we can inhabit a Blog that fits our bias, and hence have it reinforced.
That hypothesis is easy to falsify with a counter-example. [Tyndall 1861]
You could alter your hypothesis such that it cannot be falsified by appending “…that I would accept” to it.
It isn’t a hypothesis, it is a fact. No one has ever shown in the real world that our CO2 has warmed the climate. We can only conjecture that it has warmed it by some indeterminate amount. In science, conjecture is your starting point. You haven’t proven anything yet.
You said there is zero evidence. All I have to do is present one example of evidence to prove you wrong. I did that.
This is why I’m thinking what you really meant is that there is zero evidence that you would accept. That might be true. I have no way of knowing.
BTW…science doesn’t work by proving hypothesis. It works by disproving them.
What you presented wasn’t real world evidence. A lab is not real world. BTW, there is no hypothesis. All you have is conjecture. Fail.
A lab is as real as it gets.
Can anyone explain it to me like I am 5 (a 5 year old with an engineering physics degree 😜) why after every El Nino event the UAH temperatures settle down around 0.2 degrees above the last level, creating a staircase effect?
I create the chart here specifically to help people visualize how this happens. The staircase effect is what happens when you superimpose a persistent long-term factor onto transient short-term oscillations.