APRIL 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.50 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature continues warm: +0.50 deg. C for April, 2010, although it is 0.15 deg. C cooler than last month. The linear trend since 1979 is now +0.14 deg. C per decade.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS 2009 1 0.252 0.472 0.031 -0.065 2009 2 0.247 0.569 -0.074 -0.044 2009 3 0.191 0.326 0.056 -0.158 2009 4 0.162 0.310 0.013 0.012 2009 5 0.140 0.160 0.120 -0.057 2009 6 0.044 -0.011 0.100 0.112 2009 7 0.429 0.194 0.665 0.507 2009 8 0.242 0.229 0.254 0.407 2009 9 0.504 0.590 0.417 0.592 2009 10 0.361 0.335 0.387 0.381 2009 11 0.479 0.458 0.536 0.478 2009 12 0.283 0.350 0.215 0.500 2010 1 0.649 0.861 0.437 0.684 2010 2 0.603 0.725 0.482 0.792 2010 3 0.653 0.853 0.454 0.726 2010 4 0.501 0.796 0.207 0.634
Arctic temps (not shown) continued a 5-month string of much above normal temps (similar to Nov 05 to Mar 06) as the tropics showed signs of retreating from the current El Nino event. Antarctic temperatures were cooler than the long term average. Through the first 120 days of 1998 versus 2010, the average anomaly was +0.655 in 1998, and +0.602 in 2010. These values are within the margin of error in terms of their difference, so the recent global tropospheric warmth associated with the current El Nino has been about the same as that during the peak warmth of the 1997-98 El Nino.
As a reminder, two months ago we changed to Version 5.3 of our dataset, which accounts for the mismatch between the average seasonal cycle produced by the older MSU and the newer AMSU instruments. This affects the value of the individual monthly departures, but does not affect the year to year variations, and thus the overall trend remains the same as in Version 5.2. ALSO…we have added the NOAA-18 AMSU to the data processing in v5.3, which provides data since June of 2005. The local observation time of NOAA-18 (now close to 2 p.m., ascending node) is similar to that of NASA’s Aqua satellite (about 1:30 p.m.). The temperature anomalies listed above have changed somewhat as a result of adding NOAA-18.
[NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT’s are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]
evanmjones says:
May 5, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Thanks man, you’ve given me much to mull over. I really appreciate that. Even, I’ve seen your postings and I think you’re knowledgeable. I have a problem with this….
“What exactly are you measuring?
Microwave reflections.
Are you really measuring the earth’s surface?
No. Lower troposphere. (And other atmospheric layers as well.)”
This tells me the relationship with mercury thermometers on the ground is abstract. The relationship is not well defined. Lower troposphere doesn’t equate to ground. Yet, I see them integrated into the same graphs often. This shouldn’t be. While one can formulate certain one-to-one relationships with microwave readings and mercury pressure, again, they don’t equal. Can you help more? I’m having a hard time with this. IT’S NOT THE SAME. Saying it is 100 degrees in the lower troposphere with microwave readings doesn’t mean much to the pressure of mercury in the glass tube at sea level. What’s the formula? To be clear, I’m not trying to shoot down, I’m trying to understand. I know some will take offense, but I’m not looking to be nice, I’m looking for answers.
R. Gates:
All the heat is coming from the Australian Governments department of Hot Air, otherwise known as the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority, which will be doing absolutely nothing for the next 3 years despite having over 400 staff.
As for the temps: I don’t particularly care if it’s the warmest year on record; alarmists are still yet to conclusively prove by empirical evidence that significant warming is caused by humans, and not by Nature (and I don’t mean the magazine).
I wouldn’t be surprised however, if we now sink into a long downward trend as per Andrew W’s comment. I would be equally unsurprised if alarmists try and pin that on humans.
R. Gates says:
May 5, 2010 at 4:20 pm
“The solar minimum is over, and unless we see some major volcanic activtiy (hundreds of times larger than what we’ve seen in Iceland so far) than the next few years are going to be warmer. The small drop from March to April could very well be from the fading El Nino, but with the solar max ahead of us, we’ve got warming ahead over the next few years as well…”
===========================
Well I have to give R credit on one thing: being “consistent.”
Quite nobody on here can “consistently” jam so many misinformed, half-correct facts, or even just plain old bunk, into one paragraph, as can R.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I’ll check back for answers later………calling it a night.
Peace.
A strange phenom in NE Oregon. No yellow jackets in my open ended pipes and garage eves. Which means no hornets (yellow jackets are their favorite food, besides human flesh). However, I haven’t seen bumble bees this big ever.
la Nada!!!!! Very funny!!!!!
savethesharks says:
May 5, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Quite nobody on here can “consistently” jam so many misinformed, half-correct facts, or even just plain old bunk, into one paragraph, as can R.
Oh come on, Smokey is the champ in that department!
Four questions:
1) Where in the atmosphere does the primary physical phenomenon of the the absorption and retransmission of longwave radiation occur? Or said another way, at what layer of the atmosphere is CO2 at the highest concentration by mass where its greenhouse characteristics will exhibit the largest effect?
2) What percentage of the retransmitted longwave radiation will be directed into space, and what percentage is eventually directed back to the ground?
3) What should the effect of a increasing amounts of longwave absorbing CO2 in the troposphere have on the stratosphere?
4) Isn’t it healthy that someone get on a primarily AGW skeptics site and act as a skeptic about the skeptics? Otherwise, wouldn’t the skeptics just keep agreeing with each other like bobble-headed dolls looking at their own reflection in the mirror?
And a final comment: It’s very hard to discount this graph of sunspot number and global temps:
http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Global temperature and sunspot number
I’ve studied it, and the data that goes along with it for a long time, as I’m sure many of you have. The effect of the long and deep solar minimum is obvious, as is the effect of this past and now waning El Nino, but even if we get a weak solar maximum, as is predicted and if we get another El Nino, say in late 2011 or 2012, it’s hard not to imagine we’ll see some more instrument record global temps. Why is it so difficult for AGW skeptics to accept the basic physical greenhouse effects of increasing amounts CO2?
Interesting that the Antarctic was cooler and the Arctic warmer in comparison to ice extent at both which was “relatively” high in the Arctic and average in the Antarctic.
James Sexton said “Lower troposphere doesn’t equate to ground. Yet, I see them integrated into the same graphs often. This shouldn’t be.”
As mentioned above temperature brightness by the satellite can be measured down to near ground level. It is not abstract, the temperature provided this way wouldn’t conflict with other ways of measuring temperature or else it wouldn’t be used.
Andy
But it avoids the micro- and mesosite issues with ground sensors. And there’s near-full coverage. It’s probably the best measure available.
But, as a downside, if the instruments drift then there is absolutely no way of picking that up. The whole upward trend could easily be an artifact, and we have no way of knowing.
I would actually have more confidence if they were calibrated to direct earth (or atmospheric) measurements once in a while.
For all those people mocking R. Gate for not understanding PDO and cherry picking, I think you should look in the mirror. You will see a straw man looking back at you.
When you hear statements about how the anomaly is cooling when it is +0.5 you have to laugh. I am still waiting to hear why the earth isn’t plunging into an ice age as was predicted by many two years ago. Shouldn’t the recent low solar activity have had an affect on the planet? It appears to have made little difference to global temperatures. Where have all the sun worshippers gone?
In the UAH plot on top og the page there are 2 dips downwards before the so called Mt. Pinatubo Cooling.
-approx 1982
-approx 1985
The 85 dip is lower than the Pinatubo dip.Anyone knows what caused these 2 dips?
@James Baldwin Sexton says:
May 5, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Dr. Spencer, I appreciate what you’re doing But…[cut]….. I need to know more about it before it can be embraced as knowledge.
—————————————————————————————-
No problem, you can buy his new book
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
@R. Gates May 5, 2010 at 9:53 pm
“Why is it so difficult for AGW skeptics to accept the basic physical greenhouse effects of increasing amounts CO2?”
Not difficult at all. I fully accept that CO2 has a greenhouse effect – much less than H2O though.
Increasing CO2 levels will (everything else being equal) lead to a very trivial and beneficial increase in temperatures and will also promote plant growth.
But human CO2 emissions are NOT a problem. Forget tendentious and incompetent computer models and face up to the real world.
Geoff Sherrington says:
May 5, 2010 at 5:04 pm – re California’s innovative but destructive trends.
True. As an outsider (I’m Texan) who lives here (a two-year “temporary assignment” has now extended to 24 years), I’d say your list is too short. Most recently, just yesterday in fact, California adopted rules to greatly restrict the use of ocean water for once-through-cooling on coastal power plants. Seems the greenies are putting the lives of a few fish ahead of the burden on consumers via higher power prices. I have yet to observe or read about a shortage of fish, though.
California’s AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, served as the foundation for the U.S. House bill on cap and trade, and the similar bill now pending in the U.S. Senate. AB 32 (and the federal versions) are based on bad science and will choke the economy while doing absolutely nothing to change the earth’s climate, warmer or colder.
California also implemented strict rules on the smoke from ships calling at the ports – and the USA followed suit closely after. California’s car regulations eventually made it into the federal regs, regarding high gas mileage (the CAFE standards). Car companies are scrambling to comply, and it appears the highway death tolls will skyrocket as light-weight cars are smashed by heavier, older cars. Size matters, at least in automobile collisions. California was also the first (I believe) state to ban smoking in offices and public buildings, then in restaurants and bars, and open-air sporting events. A few other states have followed suit. California (at least in a few places) has banned wood-burning fires in most residences. There appears to be something about smoke that irritates California lawmakers.
California appears to be testing the limits of how far a state can go with deficit financing, with the average deficit running to approximately $2 billion per MONTH, and no hope in sight of changing that. One might consider that, as the world holds its breath watching Greece teeter on the brink of bankruptcy, California’s economy is many times that of Greece. When this state goes insolvent, everyone will know and everyone will feel the impact. It will not be pretty.
There is also a loonie mayor in Los Angeles who decided to replace a huge amount of perfectly good coal-based imported power (from Utah) with renewable energy. The state is complicit in this, as the state requires such coal-based power to be eliminated and replaced with high-efficiency gas turbine plants, or (and this is really rich) force the power plants (in Utah) to install carbon capture and sequestration devices. But the mayor decided that gas-burning plants were not sufficiently green, and requires renewable power. I hope to see the day when that plan is fully implemented, and the resulting high power prices, grid instabilities, and citizen revolts.
California also appears to be an expert these days at exporting jobs to other states, and other countries. AB 32 ensures that California will continue to be a leader in that category.
On a positive note, though, AB 32’s fate is likely (almost certain at this point) to be decided at the ballot box this upcoming November. Perhaps, just perhaps, Californians will lead the nation in rejecting such cap-and-trade laws. No, wait, Arizona already beat California to it on that one.
Still, California gave the world some of the best music of all time, including the Beach Boys, Jan and Dean, and Capitol Records right here in Hollywood where the Beatles had their music released before striking out on their own with Apple records. There are also a few companies that make and sell some nifty gadgets and computer software. The California universities at one time were amazingly good at research and doing cool things, but not so much any more. JPL, the Jet Propulsion Lab and Cal Tech still have some smart guys.
I could go on for pages, but I suspect that Anthony’s readers get the idea. California is truly the land of fruits and nuts – and not the kind that grow on trees. I am very much a stranger in a strange land.
Mr. Gates how come the earth didn’t get cooked when C02 was upto 20 times higher? Also C02 effect is logarithmic right, have you factoured that in? Also is not a rise in C02 a good thing? Seems we were getting somewhat short. Over history C02 is in decline and at 150 ppm plants will get stressed, then there goes my morning orange juice. Now if fossil fuels are contributing to the rise in C02 and if this rise is having a warming effect, what happens when we either run out or quit burning fossil fuels?
“899 says:
May 5, 2010 at 3:48 pm
As a comparison to Mt. Pinatubo, why didn’t the eruption of Mt. St. Helens have any ‘noticeable’ affect on weather?”
Whereas Pinatubo ejected ash vertically, reaching the stratosphere, Mt St Helens blew out horizontally, thus putting far less ash into the upper atmospheric levels.
Also, Pinatubo is an equatorial volcano, so its ash gets distrubuted across both hemsipheres, whereas St Helens is more confined to northern latitudes.
R.Gates: You ask, “Why is it so difficult for AGW skeptics to accept the basic physical greenhouse effects of increasing amounts CO2?”
For me, the answer is that to accept a greenhouse effect from CO2 violates the fundamentals of process control. Engineers world-wide laugh at the concept of CO2 and greenhouse gas effect. see the most widely-read page on my blog at –
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html
and its companion post at
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/chemical-engineer-slams-global-warming.html
When the climate science is consistent with process control, then you will have something worth discussing. Climate scientists have a very long way to go on that.
Also, until AGW proponents take proper account of albedo, especially due to clouds, their science is doomed to failure. Same for heat released in the higher altitudes from rain storms. Same for wind and its effects on temperature measurements. Dust in the wind also has major effects, yet is not a part of any model I have heard of.
Finally, the entire historical temperature record is corrupt, as Chiefio has shown in marvelous detail. My own feeble efforts showed that hadCRUT3 published data for the USA lower 48 states has essentially zero warming. What little warming appears there is easily explained by population growth and Urban Heat Island effects. (see sowellslawblog and hadCRUT3 temperatures)
This is shaping up to be the hottest century on record in the current millennium.
R. Gates says:
May 5, 2010 at 9:53 pm
The reason we don’t accept the basic physical greenhouse stuff is that we don’t actually live in one!
Question: Would all trolls working in government positions please raise their hands? This means you….
R. Gates wrote: “Why is it so difficult for AGW skeptics to accept the basic physical greenhouse effects of increasing amounts CO2?”
And why is it so difficult for AGW proponents to accept the fact that ENSO and global TLT is not linear?
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html
BTW: The long term TSI reconstruction in your solar link is outdated.
The accepted scientific paradigm is global warming due to the presence of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.
Is there anything in Dr. Spencer’s article that is inconsistent with this paradigm?
A: No.
R. Gates: The solar minimum is over, and unless we see some major volcanic activtiy (hundreds of times larger than what we’ve seen in Iceland so far) than the next few years are going to be warmer. The small drop from March to April could very well be from the fading El Nino, but with the solar max ahead of us, we’ve got warming ahead over the next few years as well…
I really hope you’re right, nothing would be better than having warming ahead of us for the next few years. But unfortunately I don’t think you’re a psychic, so there’s still a possibility that we have some years of cooling ahead of us.
RobertM says:
May 5, 2010 at 5:07 pm
And if you take out all of the fraudulent adjustments there has been no warming at all. Furthermore if you actually adjusted for UHI correctly we would be looking at a negative number….
This is the UAH satellite record which is being discussed. Could you explain what the UHI effect might be?