Category Archives: UAH Satellite Temps

April 2017 Global Temperature Anomaly Up 0.08C

The UAH satellite  global average temperature anomaly went up moderately in April from March’s +0.19° C to +0.27°C.   The Southern Hemisphere and the Tropics led the way, but both are well below the same month’s anomalies in 2016. How low will the anomaly go?

The chart and data are from Dr. Roy Spencers blog.


2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.98
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.08
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.64 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.33 +0.50 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.29 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.31 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.38 +0.37
2016 10 +0.40 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.18 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.26 +0.33 +0.07
2017 02 +0.35 +0.54 +0.15 +0.05
2017 03 +0.19 +0.30 +0.07 +0.03
2017 04 +0.27 +0.27 +0.26 +0.21


UAH Global Tropospheric Temperatures–February 2017

The February global temperature anomaly came in at +0.35C which was up +0.05C from January 2017.  The primary contributor to the rise was the warm spell in the Northern Hemisphere.  The UAH global tropospheric temperatures are shown below:

 This chart is a running centered 13-month average which smooths the “red” line in the chart.  The peak at the time of the El Nino was +0.85C.  The La Nina that often follows an El Nino was hardly significant this cycle. The history of the anomalies since January 2015 through February 2017 is shown below.


2015 01 +0.30 +0.44 +0.15 +0.13
2015 02 +0.19 +0.34 +0.04 -0.07
2015 03 +0.18 +0.28 +0.07 +0.04
2015 04 +0.09 +0.19 -0.01 +0.08
2015 05 +0.27 +0.34 +0.20 +0.27
2015 06 +0.31 +0.38 +0.25 +0.46
2015 07 +0.16 +0.29 +0.03 +0.48
2015 08 +0.25 +0.20 +0.30 +0.53
2015 09 +0.23 +0.30 +0.16 +0.55
2015 10 +0.41 +0.63 +0.20 +0.53
2015 11 +0.33 +0.44 +0.22 +0.52
2015 12 +0.45 +0.53 +0.37 +0.61
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.99
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.09
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.65 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.34 +0.51 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.30 +0.48
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.32 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.39 +0.37
2016 10 +0.41 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.18 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.27 +0.33 +0.07
2017 02 +0.35 +0.54 +0.15 +0.05


NASA Global Warming Research Funding Will Be Cut


The Senate approved a bill to cut NASA’s global warming research that is done by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS). The Bill now goes to the House of Representatives where it is expected to be approved.  President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law.  NASA was created to explore space but it now spends more on global warming.  Former President Obama incredibly told the head of NASA that he wanted the focus to be on Muslim outreach.

NASA will still have a role in global warming research as a good bit of research data is obtained from satellites that they build and operate.   But GISS, directed by Gavin Schmidt, will be eliminated as their global warming research duplicates work being done in other government Departments.

Continue reading

Denying The Climate Catastrophe: Feedbacks (Warren Meyers Essay)

This is the third of six “chapters” of my reblog of Warren Meyers essay on catastrophic climate change.  In the previous posting he discussed greenhouse gases warming potential using just CO2.  Now he looks at the multiplier that the warmers uses to get their scary global temperature forecasts.  This chapter is pretty long but it is vital to understand how the warmers get those elevated, scary global temperature predictions.  Once you understand what they are doing, you will be much more at ease about the global’s future.


We ended the last chapter on the greenhouse gas theory with this:

So whence comes the catastrophe?  As mentioned in the introduction, the catastrophe comes from a second, independent theory that the Earth’s climate system is dominated by strong positive feedbacks that multiply greenhouse warming many times into a catastrophe.


In this chapter, we will discuss this second, independent theory:  that the Earth’s climate system is dominated by positive feedbacks.  I suppose the first question is, “What do we mean by feedback?”


In a strict sense, feedback is the connection of the output of a system to its input, creating a process that is circular:  A system creates an output based on some initial input, that output changes the system’s input, which then changes its output, which then in turn changes its input, etc.

Typically, there are two types of feedback:  negative and positive.  Negative feedback is a bit like the ball in the trough in the illustration above.  If we tap the ball, it moves, but that movement creates new forces (e.g. gravity and the walls of the trough) that tend to send the ball back where it started.  Negative feedback tends to attenuate any input to a system — meaning that for any given push on the system, the output will end up being less than one might have expected from the push.

Continue reading

Observed GlobalTemperatures Well Below IPCC 1990 Forecast

The “pause” in the global temperature rise is at 18+ years. This is disconcerting the warmer scientists because atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) content has been increasing during this period. The warmers have resorted to very poorly disguised attempts to alter the temperature record. Despite their temperature record alterations, the global temperature is well below that forecast by the IPCC in their 1990 report. How much altering of the record must the warmers do to get back in step with the IPCC forecasts? Lord Monckton of Brenchley has posted on the WUWT website “The abject failure of official global-warming predictions”. In his posting he compares land-based temperature organizations and satellite based temperature organizations versus the prediction by the IPCC.

Two charts follow: The first is the UAH plot of global temperatures for an 18 years and 6 months long pause. UAH is a satellite-based record. The second is the RSS satellite based temperatures which differs slightly from the UAH data. The RSS data yields a pause of 18 years and 8 months duration.


UAH Global Temperature Chart Showing Duration of the Pause. The left hand scale shows temperature anomalies (plus and minus) in degrees C. The right hand scale shows atmospheric CO2 concentration in PPM. The heavy blue line is the global temperature trend line for the period In small(er) print in the middle of the chart is the trend line slope. For this chart, the trend is a -0.01C temperature change per century.

Continue reading

Is There A Pause In Global Temperatures?

The “pause”, meaning the lack of global temperature rise in the 21st century, has gotten a lot of attention. The warmers want to deny that it is significant. The skeptics say that it is very significant in that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has been increasing during this period of time. According to the wamer’s theory, global temperatures should have been rising. Last year, some of the keepers of the global temperature records decided they had, had enough of this focus on the “pause”. So they made some bogus changes to the way the temperature was measured and when they were finished, they said—– see there really was no pause. Click here to see how they have tried to pull this off.

There are several global temperature amassing groups. These groups broadly are divided by being ground based or satellite based. The former are dependant on temperatures measured mostly from ground-based stations supplemented by some ocean surface temperature measurements. The ground-based stations are primarily in populated areas. Northern Hemisphere stations predominate. The vast areas of the oceans (75 % of the globe’s surface) are minimally covered. There are also enormous areas of land where population is very limited, or no one at all. In those areas, computers predict the missing temperatures.

The ground station leaders are: (1) (GISS), NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2) (HadCRUT4) the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the land surface air temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. (3) NCEI) NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.

(For those of you with longer memories, yes, the University of East Anglia was the headquarters of the Climategate gang)

The latter group consists of two satellite based global temperature-measuring organizations. Satellites measure radiance in various wavelengths in troposphere. The troposphere extends about 7 miles above the Earth’s surface and the troposphere is where all of our weather occurs. The radiance measurements are translated into temperatures. In 1979, the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) was the first satellite system to begin reading these temperatures. Start up problems are typical with any new breakthrough technology. For example early on there were problems with orbital decay and also with drift.   The UAH promptly made allowances for those problems as they have  with some smaller ones as time has past. The weather balloons (radiosondies) that have been used for many years, show agreement with the UAH satellite measurements. This is confirming proof of the satellite systems high accuracy and because it actually measures temperature across nearly the entire globe, that makes it the gold standard. The other satellite system is the Remote Sensing System (RSS). UAH and RSS have a few differences in how they make their tropospheric measurements, still the resulting temperatures are in close agreement. The satellites measurements cover about 95% of the Earth’s surface eliminating the use of computers to simulate actual measurements, as is the case with the ground based systems.

The illustration below shows the Earth’s atmosphere with the troposphere being the lowest part.


The final player in this drama is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is a branch of the UN. It was created to show how man was causing global warming and what the consequences of that would be. No, the IPCC was not created to examine the science of global warming; the founders had already decided man was the cause. The IPCC is programmed to report on the status of their work about every 5 years or so. The IPCC is often said to be the warmer’s equivalent of the “spoken word.” Most of the mainstream media accepts without question any pronouncement that is said to be from the IPCC—in their mind, it is the ultimate authority. Many major newspapers and science journals (and other media, too) do not allow, in their media, skeptical views, research, questions, letters to the editor, etc.

The IPCC produce temperature forecasts. These forecasts are the basis for catastrophic things that will happen—-flood, drought, snow, sea level, vast migrations of people, etc. —–if we do not quit using fossil fuels.

In the next posting, we will compare the IPCC temperature forecasts to the ground and satellite measured temperatures.










300 Scientists Tell Chairman of the House Science Committee: ‘we want NOAA to adhere to law of the Data Quality Act’

This posting is a reblog of Anthony Watts posting on his site “WattsUpWithThat?”
The issue here is that NOAA, undoubtedly to assist the COP21 Paris meeting participants, manipulated their global temperature record to in an attempt to show that the 18+years of no significant warming (“the pause”) had not really occurred.

Now 300 scientists have sent a letter to Representative Lamar Smith saying that NOAA did not follow the Data Quality Act. This, along with Smiths subpoenas of email communications from those people in NOAA who manipulated the temperature record, hopefully with out the perpetrators of this scam.

Watts Up With That?


The following letter has been sent to Chairman of the House Science Committee, Lamar Smith, regarding NOAA’s “pause buster” data shenanigans that we highlighted back in the summer of 2015.

The issue is with bad data, as Dr. Pat Michaels Dr. Richard Lindzen, and Dr. Chip Knappenberger observed related to the switch from buckets on a rope to engine water inlets for measuring sea surface temperature:

“As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use,”  “Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable.”

I’ll say. As Bob Tisdale and I wrote back in June:

“If we subtract the ERSST.v3b (old) data from the new ERSST.v4 data, Figure 11, we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did.”

“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go…

View original post 531 more words