Home/Blog2024 Sets New Record for Warmest Year In Satellite Era (Since 1979)
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2024 was +0.62 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down slightly from the November, 2024 anomaly of +0.64 deg.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged temperature trend (January 1979 through December 2024) remains at +0.15 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
As seen in the following ranking of the years from warmest to coolest, 2024 was by far the warmest in the 46-year satellite record averaging 0.77 deg. C above the 30-year mean, while the 2nd warmest year (2023) was +0.43 deg. C above the 30-year mean. [Note: These yearly average anomalies weight the individual monthly anomalies by the number of days in each month.]
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 24 months (record highs are in red).
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.06 | +0.07 | -0.19 | -0.41 | +0.14 | -0.10 | -0.45 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.07 | +0.13 | +0.01 | -0.13 | +0.64 | -0.26 | +0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.18 | +0.22 | +0.14 | -0.17 | -1.36 | +0.15 | +0.58 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.12 | +0.04 | +0.20 | -0.09 | -0.40 | +0.47 | +0.41 |
| 2023 | May | +0.28 | +0.16 | +0.41 | +0.32 | +0.37 | +0.52 | +0.10 |
| 2023 | June | +0.30 | +0.33 | +0.28 | +0.51 | -0.55 | +0.29 | +0.20 |
| 2023 | July | +0.56 | +0.59 | +0.54 | +0.83 | +0.28 | +0.79 | +1.42 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.61 | +0.77 | +0.45 | +0.78 | +0.71 | +1.49 | +1.30 |
| 2023 | Sep | +0.80 | +0.84 | +0.76 | +0.82 | +0.25 | +1.11 | +1.17 |
| 2023 | Oct | +0.79 | +0.85 | +0.72 | +0.85 | +0.83 | +0.81 | +0.57 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.77 | +0.87 | +0.67 | +0.87 | +0.50 | +1.08 | +0.29 |
| 2023 | Dec | +0.75 | +0.92 | +0.57 | +1.01 | +1.22 | +0.31 | +0.70 |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.58 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.95 | +0.81 | +1.17 | +1.31 | +0.86 | +1.16 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.26 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.77 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 |
| 2024 | May | +0.78 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.05 | +0.22 | +0.53 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.37 | +0.64 | +0.91 |
| 2024 | July | +0.74 | +0.86 | +0.62 | +0.97 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.06 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.76 | +0.82 | +0.70 | +0.75 | +0.41 | +0.88 | +1.75 |
| 2024 | Sep | +0.81 | +1.04 | +0.58 | +0.82 | +1.32 | +1.48 | +0.98 |
| 2024 | Oct | +0.75 | +0.89 | +0.61 | +0.64 | +1.90 | +0.81 | +1.09 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.88 | +0.41 | +0.53 | +1.12 | +0.79 | +1.00 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.62 | +0.76 | +0.48 | +0.53 | +1.42 | +1.12 | +1.54 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for December, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
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:
Happy New Year.
Same for you he…
Very strange – and slightly worrying that the new record exceeded the previous record by such a large margin.
While alarmists like you may find it concerning, for unbiased and objective individuals, it’s an opportunity for learning and a reminder that the science isn’t as settled as popularly claimed.
Unbiased and objective individuals would seek to explain the seemingly huge jump in warming indicated by Ranked Annual Averages.
Science is always settled unless contradictory evidence of the same quality comes along but then real science changes.
So given this new temperature data trend – what changes need to be made in climate science and by who?
So, what did you learn from the latest yearly data?
What was it about the latest data that specifically reminded you that the “science isn’t as settled”?
Why did the phrase “slightly alarming” indicate to you that professor P is an “alarmist”?
Boy was that nonsensical
I noticed that many climate alarmist are telling people they are worried as if that is supposed to mean something.
CERES may show even further reduction in clouds. Climate alarmist will try and link that to CO2 induced warming because when all you have is a hammer, you get paid by the nail.
A major new study by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah University of Science and Technology finds that, since the pre-industrial era, the observed average climate in the Middle East and North Africa “has warmed by 1.5°C and is on the brink of exceeding 2°C.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2024JD041625
Note that the Saudis get paid by the barrel!
The final annual figure was pretty much locked in over the last couple of months, but it’s still astonishing to see how much of an outlier it is in the graph. Most other data sets are not going to show as much if a discrepancy between this year and last year, though that’s more because they started with 2023 being somewhat warmer than UAH.
Compared with other spikes this still seems very different to me. Starting earlier and cooling less rapidly. I still think we’ll have to wait and see what happens in 2025 before we have a clue as to what’s been happening the last two years.
Compared with other spikes this still seems very different to me
`Because its not real
https://youtu.be/BXfudZK1DEQ
https://youtu.be/VrJiU9BOEBI
There appear to be two warming influences at the present time. The increase in high altitude water vapor and the decrease in clouds. In 2021 December was at 0.16 C and was also in La Nina conditions. This puts the warming influence between .4-.5 C.
I think 2021 will be a reasonable year for comparison over the next 5-6 months. We can see if these effects are dissipating by comparison.
The thicker Sun blocking clouds will come back when galactic cosmic rays can penetrate our magnetosphere again.
Mostly the 2030s.
Very clear, Richard M.
The HTE is slowly dissipating, as indicated by the link you provided months ago:
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/h2o_MLS_vLAT_qbo_75S-75N_10hPa.pdf
There are indeed “warming influences”, just not CO2. CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface.
The H-T Volcano had a slight cooling effect, and it ended by the end of 2023:
MR Schoeberl et al, (2024). Evolution of the climate forcing during the two years after the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 129, e2024JD041296. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD041296
David will discover the truth eventually. His denial and similar denials from the climate cult will disappear along with the HTE warming.
Richard, can you point out the errors in the cited publication?
Ad hom rejections of legit science won’t make your case.
Sorry Nate, climate pseudoscience is nothing but a cult. You won’t find any real science in their sermons.
Then we can safely ignore your science-free rants.
Appell religiously refers to his cult’s nonsense paper, not understanding the first 5 words of the abstract: “We calculate the climate forcing”
“Calculating climate forcing” is cult nonsense. It’s all false beliefs stacked on false beliefs. It all started with Arrhenius claiming he could add CO2 and create energy.
That ain’t science.
“‘Calculating climate forcing’is cult nonsense”‘ sez the person who did no calculation but arrived at a conclusion anyway!
All you guys offer is correlation ‘must equal’ causation, which certainly ain’t science!
Clint R says
“CO2s 15μ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface.”
The second law of thermodynamics is about a thermodynamic system that starts and ends in a state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, that means no macroscopic flows. The earth’s atmosphere is not such, and the second law says nothing immediately about it. On the other hand, the concept of local thermodynamic equilibrium does apply in many atmospheric scenarios. It is generally accepted that, when local thermodynamic equilibrium prevails, and the flows are not too large, then the local time rate of entropy production is positive. That is a kind of version of the second law.
No sensible person, not even warmists I guess, will try to say that “CO2s 15μ photons CAN warm a 288K surface”. What reasonable people say is that an influx of CO2s 15μ photons can slow the cooling of a 288K surface. For us, the question is ‘by how much’? The answer is ‘not enough to have a noticeable effect on the climate’. That’s where the controversy is.
Don’t concede high altitude water vapor without satellite data. You’re going to make Dessler and Soden vert happy if you do.
Interesting. I still think a warmer planet is a better planet, with fewer people dying from the cold.
And CO2 undoubtedly is greening the planet.
There doesn’t seem to be any data showing extreme weather events increasing in number, though there does seem a lot of attribution of weather events to climate change which seems closer to Scientology as actual science.
“Global warming already driving increases in rainfall extremes: Precipitation extremes are affecting even arid parts of the world, study shows,” Nature 3/7/16
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-already-driving-increases-in-rainfall-extremes-1.19508
“Increased record-breaking precipitation events under global warming,” J Lehmann et al, Clim. Change 132, 501515 (2015).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-015-1434-y
Evidence for more extreme downpours:
Papalexiou, S. M., & Montanari, A.(2019). Global and regional increase of precipitation extremes under global warming. Water Resources Research, 55,49014914. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR024067
Here we show that, worldwide, the number of local record-breaking monthly temperature extremes is now on average five times larger than expected in a climate with no long-term warming.
– Coumou, D., A. Robinson and S. Rahmstorf, 2013: Global increase in record-breaking monthly-mean temperatures. Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0668-1.
All of those links just indicate Earth is in a warming trend. That’s all.
Learn some history man, there has been no increased precipitation in the UK, not even close to historic records.there are vast amounts of data that prove the past was wetter and warmer, high water levels from flood events are marked on bridges and buildings all across Europe and the UK, church records record thousands of deaths, whole towns and villages washed away.climate did not start in 1850 or 1979 so why the obsession with those dates?
Ian, the UK is 0.02% of global surface area and uniquely situated in N Atlantic currents.
“church records record thousands of deaths, whole towns and villages washed away.”
Yes we have always had damaging floods, especially before dams and levees etc were constructed.
The question is whether the odds of extreme events changed in certain regions.
How can a tiny addition ‘trace’ gas’ have any effect?
Each part per million of that ‘trace gas’ in the atmosphere represents approximately 7.82 gigatonnes of that ‘trace gas’.
Focusing on 400+ parts per million or 0.04 percent of the atmosphere underestimates just how much ‘trace gas’ is circulating in the atmosphere.
CO2 is required for all life on Earth, but it can’t raise Earth’s temperature.
GHG AGW is a slow continuous phenomenon. Transient temperature excursions have nothing to do with AGW from GHG’s. It is ridiculous to contend otherwise. and ICPP AR6 chapter 12 section 12 reveals essentially no extreme weather trends outside natural variation for everything except temperature, although it would not be unexpected or alarming that some small trends do occur. Certainly the benefits of burning carbon fuels are so great as to be almost beyond our ability to appreciate, and far offset any of these proposed minor extreme weather variations (excluding temperature). and it is true CO2 is a “green” gas that is greening the planet…The plants and animals love this recent human intervention. And the true global ECS is about 2 C, which has been grossly over evaluated for over 40 years by the AGW alarmist propagandists in and out of academia.
It seems the graph cannot be enlarged by clicking on it, Roy.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2024_v6.1_20x9-scaled.jpg
Thanks, Nate, but that’s just through November.
Ok good point.
If you right click on it and ‘open in new tab’ you get the higher res version.
The common appeals to increased stratospheric water vapor and reduced clouds/aerosols have missed the important causative action.
People should not be surprised by the 2024 anomaly as it should already be known that the lower troposphere lags the ocean sea surface temperature by several months.
The 2024 SST average was higher than in 2023.
In 2024 solar irradiance was higher than in 2023, with both years being the highest TSI years in over thirty years.
The ocean warming since 2022 was predicted by me as a function of solar activity above a decadal ocean warming threshold, and it happened.
https://i.postimg.cc/GmTgSCrM/Decadal-Warming-Steps-since-2000.jpg
The 2024 UAH LT anomaly is thus simply following the solar cycle influence on the ocean. The LT anomaly will fall again as the SST declines, following the solar cycle decline. In fact it has already started to do that towards the end of 2024.
Bob, No one really knows how TSI has changed over 30 years. There isn’t consensus on the consensus composites of spaced-based sensor data.
The differences in instrumental composites are fairly minor, not important here. If by “consensus” you expected ‘exactly the same’, why?
The CERES composite reveals that in SC#25 the sun has emitted 23 W/m2 more irradiance by the 60th month than in SC#24. The CERES composite is comprised of SORCE and TSIS-1 TSI data from 2003-2018, and from 2018-now, respectively, managed by Dr. Greg Kopp of LASP since 2003.
He knows what he’s doing.
https://i.postimg.cc/6pTD6F62/Tale-of-2-Cycles.jpg
The rapid rise of this cycle delivered 23/4/5 = 1.15W/m2/year more to the climate in the last five years since this cycle started than SC#24.
Find a stronger climate driver from the past five years if you can.
Your ‘no one knows’ attitude is wrong. It’s not the 1990s anymore.
TSI is well correlated with sunspots. “No one really knows,” seems a little exaggerated.
Both step-ups in sst align better with El Ninos than TSI.
Changes in solar irradiance just aren’t that important over decadal timescales. From the IPCC 6AR WG1 TS.2.2 p67:
“Since 1750, changes in the drivers of the climate system
are dominated by the warming influence of increases in
atmospheric GHG concentrations and a cooling influence
from aerosols, both resulting from human activities. In
comparison there has been negligible long-term influence
from solar activity and volcanoes.”
You can also get an approximation for solar irradiance influence from the Stefan-Boltzmann law for the planet:
S=cT^4
where S=solar irradiance, c=constant (albedo, emissivity, SB constant) and T=temperature (surface temperature or brightness temperature, it doesn’t much matter). Then for T=288 K and S=1360 W/m2
dT/dS = T/4S = 0.05 K/(W/m2)
[K=kelvin]
Appell indicates his confusion about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The relation between temperature and flux is NON-LINEAR, not linear.
He still won’t understand….
Clint, for small variations the linear approximation Appell does is perfectly valid. If the sun should start fluctuating so much that the approximation no longer is enough we are all dead anyway…
David, you genuinely believe that the albedo of the planet has stayed the same? That is so adorable.
Thomas P, if you’re trying to cover up for Appell’s incompetence, you better pack a lunch….
For example, explain his “4” nonsense.
Bob,
The impact of the solar cycles on temperature is easy to check. Smashing the cycles 10-24 to test if there is a systematic increase of global temperatures at the time of the highest solar activity clearly shows that the impact is at best minor. ENSO episodes dominate.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Of7yZ4zPw26ptxB0CqKHkwmJwhZfhgszYsw9O7tdmgk/edit?usp=sharing
Am I missing something?
ENSO isn’t a causative mechanism – it’s an empirical observation, based quite substantially on SST.
My interest in Bob’s work is that he seems to have a predictive mechanism for ENSO based on solar output that makes intuitive sense. That doesn’t make it right necessarily, but it does make it worth investigating.
Unfortunately main-stream climate science was happy to say ‘CO2 did it’ and has ignored proper measurements and thorough understanding of solar activity. Far too many paid scientists seem happy with the idea that oceans are warmed by the air above when they should be worrying about the photons hitting that top meter or so.
No long-term TSI (and ideally broken down by wavelength and global location)? Then you have no real data to aid first principals understanding. That forces Climateers to average day/night/seasons until there is no real signal left to study: except CO2 vs Air Temp which of course tracks quite well because warming water outgasses CO2. They have to correlate fairly well.
ENSO is a cyclic tropical atmospheric/ocean phenomena. It predictably drives a response in global T and other weather variables.
The sun’s cycle is 11 y. That the solar cycle is driving ENSO, with a 3-5 y period, is not intuitive, nor is there an identified mechanism
Dixon,
Yes, you are missing something.
This graph clearly shows no noticeable correlation between sunspots or solar activity and global temperature over the last 15 solar cycles. Therefore, Bobs claim that the high temperatures in 2023/24 can be explained as a function of high solar activity has no basis in the observations from previous solar cycles. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Of7yZ4zPw26ptxB0CqKHkwmJwhZfhgszYsw9O7tdmgk/edit?usp=sharing
Bob states: “In 2024, solar irradiance was higher than in 2023, with both years being the highest TSI years in over thirty years. The ocean warming since 2022 was predicted by me as a function of solar activity above a decadal ocean warming threshold, and it happened.”
However, since short-term temperature variations are closely linked to ENSO (El NioSouthern Oscillation) phases, this indicates no clear connection between ENSO and solar activity.
Sig: “This graph clearly shows no noticeable correlation between sunspots or solar activity and global temperature over the last 15 solar cycles.”
This isn’t quite right. There is a small correlation between solar activity and global temperature as shown, for instance, in Foster/Rahmstorf 2011.
Bob’s issue is that his thesis is based on only the last two solar cycles (24 and 25). If one looks at earlier solar cycles, cycle 24 stands out as noticeably weaker most any cycle of the 20th century and that solar irradiance has generally been on a downward trend since the last half of the 20th century.
The peak of solar cycle 25 did contribute to the record high UAH TLT for 2024, but likely not very much compared to other drivers.
The cyclone that will hit the U.S. Midwest is visible in the tropopause.
https://i.ibb.co/jMNqQ55/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072-1.png
Robert Cutler.
Could you explain how we don’t know how TSI changes?
It would seem to me that knowing how much energy we are recieving from the sun would be a fundamental variable in the climate models. I always assumed that it was measured and factored in.
Surely it is easy to point a spectrophotometer towards the sun and measure the amount of energy at each wavelength wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum and do a simple calculation to work it out?
The hard bit would be modelling how each frequency interacts with the atmosphere and Earth’s surface.
Mark, TSI can’t be measured from earth. There were early attempts to measure it from mountain tops, and from balloons, but the amount of data collected is small, and not without its own controversies.
Satellites were launched in the late 70’s, but the lifetime of a satellite is about one solar cycle, and all of the various satellites don’t agree, and there’s also a gap in time that was the result of the shuttle disaster.
There are different groups that have used different techniques to create a single composite record of the satellite data. These composites don’t agree.
For a bit more info jump to chapter 8 on this web page. This same info is often found in various peer-reviewed papers.
Long-term TSI reconstructions from proxy data (e.g.14C isotopes) have their own set of problems and vary widely. The IPCC uses a TSI reconstruction with the least amount of variability. You can probably guess why.
Sorry, Forgot to include the link.
https://www.heritage.org/climate/report/the-unreliability-current-global-temperature-and-solar-activity-estimates-and-its
Heritage Foundation is a political advocacy enterprise, a poor source for unbiased science.
Anything from science papers?
Heritage Foundation attempts to counter the nonsense from political groups like the IPCC. But, too often they fail because they haven’t taken the time to learn the basic physics.
“There are different groups that have used different techniques to create a single composite record of the satellite data. These composites don’t agree.”
A comparison of these composite records of TSI would be helpful to see how significant these differences are.
Barry, This recent paper provides a good comparison.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/
ad7794
Lets formulate for the Planets Temperatures Comparison THE INITIAL AXIOM.
For two completely identical planets (or moons), which may differ only in size, their respective average surface temperatures (T1) and (T2) in Kelvin, relate as the fourth root of their respective fluxes (Flux1) and (Flux2) in W/m^2:
T1 /T2 = [ (Flux1) /(Flux2) ] ∕ ⁴
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Roy, what do you suppose is causing this protracted temperature spike? The extra 13% water vapour in our normally dry stratosphere resulting from the Hunga Tonga submarine volcanic eruption seems too big a possibility to ignore. What do you think from your vantage point?
I can’t believe the tone of the posts The peak was horrendous and in no way reflected a sudden non existent massive rise in Co2 so the only culprit has to be Hunga Tonga. Also despite that peak falling nicely, people seem to be suddenly panicking where they weren’t when it was higher
Alarmists live every day terrified of some imaginary scam. One day, theyll look back from their deathbeds and realize they spent their entire lives panicking over nothing. Truly tragic but also kind of funny.
Average global Water vapor has been increasing more than twice as fast as possible from just average global temperature increase.
It takes a lot of heat to evaporate water.
The failure to define or describe the most significant event in the history of the satellite record is a glaring failure of science. None of the climate models came even close to predicting this. After more than a year of effort by the best minds in the business, yes, business, of climate prediction, there is no solid explanation. The three most prominent climate predictors, Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann, all claim it is not a “tipping point”. Incremental increase in CO2 is not to blame.
That has not stopped the climate change media from making the most of this. If you wanted proof that climate change is real and already happening, this is it. We have surpassed 1.5 C and beyond. In case anyone thinks this is temporary, we were reminded by the official CNN climate expert, Bill Weir, that 2024 was not only the warmest year in the history of the earth, but it was also the coldest year we will ever see again.
”
The failure to define or describe the most significant event in the history of the satellite record is a glaring failure of science. None of the climate models came even close to predicting this.”
Ugh. Just the usual hyperbole and misinformation from Tim.
Gee I thought the ‘pause’ was the most significant event. What makes this, so far brief, warm excursion significant-er?
Climate models are not designed to predict yearly T variation, only long term trends. For example, they do not predict or know next year’s ENSO states.
And Bill Weir is simply a reporter, not a scientist or climate expert.
Nate, thank you for the compliment. I can always tell what bothers you by the part you leave out. You did not reply directly because people might read the whole thing, and see your comment in context. The ‘pause’ as you state is your problem, not mine. I did not comment on that.
Sometimes a coherent thought requires more than just a sound bite. Here is what you left out:
[After more than a year of effort by the best minds in the business, yes, business, of climate prediction, there is no solid explanation. The three most prominent climate predictors, Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann, all claim it is not a “tipping point”. Incremental increase in CO2 is not to blame.]
I can see why some folks might be embarrassed about Bill Weir, but he is not “simply a reporter”. His official title is Chief Climate Correspondent. He is the face of climate science on CNN. He reports on the science, not just human interest. He presents himself as an expert. There are other science experts in the media making bold statements. CBS News has an entire department making up climate news.
Bill Weir is a reporter who has interviewed climate scientists, who are indeed experts. That does not make Bill Weir an expert, as you claimed, so as to tarnish the actual experts.
The media regularly gets science wrong. And they tend to exaggerate weather phenomena.
I have no idea what ‘tipping points’ you refer to.
Hansen for several years has been predicting climate change acceleration, due to aerosol pollution reductions.
What you declare a ‘glaring failure’ of climate science is, rather, a feature of an active field of science research: the fact that not everything has already been explained.
Nate, according to Bill Weirs wiki page he has a degree in creative writing. So yes you are correct that Bills input on Climate Change should be ignored as overhyped rants of an activist. Bit like Hansens views ought to be gauged by his employment. He worked in a agency that was having it’s budget being reduced by 90% and just so happened to find an invisible
Bogeyman to save his job.
In reply to Anon for a reason’s calumnious comment about Dr. James Hansen:
Education.
BA with highest distinction (Physics and Mathematics), University of Iowa, 1963.
MS (Astronomy), University of Iowa, 1965.
Visiting student, Inst. of Astrophysics, University of Kyoto & Dept. of Astronomy, Tokyo University, Japan, 1965-1966.
Ph.D. (Physics), University of Iowa, 1967.
1-long-paragraph bio
Dr. James Hansen, formerly Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is an Adjunct Professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, where he directs a program in Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. His early research on the clouds of Venus helped identify their composition as sulfuric acid. Since the late 1970s, he has focused his research on Earth’s climate, especially human-made climate change. Dr. Hansen is best known for his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in the 1980s that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1995 and was designated by Time Magazine in 2006 as one of the 100 most influential people on Earth. He has received numerous awards including the Carl-Gustaf Rossby and Roger Revelle Research Medals, the Sophie Prize and the Blue Planet Prize. Dr. Hansen is recognized for speaking truth to power, for identifying ineffectual policies as greenwash, and for outlining actions that the public must take to protect the future of young people and other life on our planet.
Arkady,where did I say that Hansan was uneducated? I didn’t, so why the straw man argument from the peanut gallery?
I did question Hansan motivation, which can lead people to be blindsided by facts and have an almost religious like faith in their position. There is a multi billion dollar industry that is pursing a radical green agenda.
I’m still open minded about the issue. What about you?
Yeah, you should keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.
“He worked in a agency that was having its budget being reduced by 90% and just so happened to find an invisible
Bogeyman to save his job.”
If you are talking about NASA cuts in the mid 70s, when
Hansen moved from studying the atmospheres of other planets back to the atmosphere of Earth, when climate change research was ramping up. A wise move.
Around 1980 he stuck out his neck to measure and explain the 20th century climate record, AND to boldly predict that the amount and timing of the warming in the 80s 90s 2000s and beyond, including the spatial pattern of the warming and the opening of Arctic ocean. His predictions proved accurate.
This is in sharp contrast to the predictions of many climate skeptics after 2000 of flattening (Roy) or cooling, which have not come to pass.
It will be interesting to see what the next few months brings.
It may take longer than “the next few months” and it won’t be particularly interesting, but we’re already well into the start of the next Monckton Pause.
“It may take longer than ‘the next few months'”
And if it does?
Dr. Spencer, in 2010 (~fifteen years ago) you wrote:
Since the PDO has been in a negative phase since 2017 while Global LT temperature anomaly has risen by 2X during that period; do you suppose this indicates that climate sensitivity is greater than you anticipated?
Regards.
Except neither you nor anyone else can know if the current rise reflects a sustained increase or just a temporary deviation.
Wait for few months more to find out.
That is not the question.
The question is about Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, https://ibb.co/w7CmvVg, whether temperature data for the period 2010-2024, combined with a persistent negative PDO, contradict his lower-sensitivity hypothesis.
Or put another way, is his model of the strength of anthropogenic forcing relative to natural variability due for a revision?
This is how 2025 is going to go.
Only took 3 innocuous and scientific comments for Roy to block me again.
Roy is afraid.
David,
Maybe not. Many of us have been having problems posting from our usual IP address. I can only post on my mobile network.
Testing.
Roy blocks me because he’s afraid of what I have to say.
Then stop talking nonsense David.a little constructive thought or curiosity might not come amiss.dont need to be an Oxford Don to come to the conclusion that the climate has improved but still has a long way to go to catch up with earlier warm periods, how long will this recovery last?. no one knows,it may continue for centuries as it did many times in the past,or it may end withing your lifetime, such is the nature of climate.we do not wind the clock that makes those changes.
‘Roy’ doesn’t block you, Appell.
Use the TOR browser which doesn’t transmit the dynamic IP addresses allocated by the server of your Internet provider.
And by the way, Appell: no one is ‘afraid of what [you] have to say’.
You overestimate your relevance by dimensions.
Concorde was nixed as a mass form of transport at least partly over concerns about the impact of it’s emissions in the upper atmosphere.
Where is the concern over rocketry?
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/196aqq7/orbital_launches_by_year_19572023_new_record_in/?rdt=51042
Dixon, Concorde was prevented from flying supersonic over land due to the sonic boom. That cost more than its competitors. The second issue was the crash at the French airport due to a small bit of rubbish causing catastrophic damage. The fleet was grounded during the investigation and then no one wanted to fly on Concorde due to the risk.
There was never any issue due to emissions. So your revisionist view is just plain Willard. Nothing to do with rockets either.
Hello, Anon.
Is there something you’d like to tell me.
Dixon
Are you really worried about a few rocket launches?
How about adding up all the B-52, B-1 and B-2 flights that partly exceed 50,000 feet?
Even a Bombardier Global Challenge 7500 can reach an altitude of about 43,000 feet while crossing the North Atlantic.
The only thing that worries me about climate is how much public money people like you think should be spent trying to understand it and the damage its done to the reputation of scientists.
My point about Concorde is based on old research which pointed out that fuel oxidation products (including water vapour) at cruise altitudes could have significant climate impacts. The fact that the US had the market on commercial passenger aircraft was not lost on those promoting Concorde. This was decades before the tragic Paris crash called time on the, by then obsolete design.
And it wasnt a worry it was a suggestion to look at rockets as a possible cause for unexpected departures from the mean in apparently predictable variables. Thats complex because of the inertia in so many climate variables. Yes, I suspect aviation has a significant impact on climate. Id have had a lot more respect for climate scientusts if they had all given up global air travel when video conferencing became a thing. Id also point out there are big differences in the altitudes we are talking about here but you must know that. Thats why some of us are so convinced that HT must have had an effect on global climate.
Oh how interesting…
Dixon complains about the occasional travel of scientists but is wonderfully silent about
– the billionaires who use their jets every day, sometimes only flying a few hundred kilometers
– the military that flies all over the world all the time
– mass tourism, which causes about a million times more than what scientists, billionaires and the military alltogether manage.
Interesting, really.
***
By the way: interesting too is that after having been able to send a couple of comments using Firefox, I got the next one blocked, causing a ‘403 Forbidden nginx’ output by
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-comments-post.php
This here was sent once more using TOR, a browser which does not communicate the dynamic IP addresses allocated by our providers.
Just bobbing through the posts above, I find it interesting that very few people here are now in denial of the warming and its effects, which most of us now can see and feel.
This contrasts to the outright denial of reality that we saw in previous years and even decades.
Progress is slow, but continuous, when reality starts to bite.
So, according to you, the future is always going to be warmer than the past!
Glad to see you use the word “reality”, Nail.
The reality is CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature.
Climate pron
https://youtu.be/Xi90AI6aw6Y
The ugly truth is seen from the bar plot – the average is not average. Wild manipulation trying to lower the actual warming data. Shame, doc!