UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly increased again in April, 2012, to +0.30°C., with warming in both Northern and Southern Hemispheres, but slightly cool conditions persisting in the tropics (click on the image for the full-size version):
The corresponding April anomaly from RSS, using a common baseline period of 1981-2010, is considerably cooler at +0.21°C.
The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.
Here are the monthly stats:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2011 01 -0.010 -0.055 +0.036 -0.372
2011 02 -0.020 -0.042 +0.002 -0.348
2011 03 -0.101 -0.073 -0.128 -0.342
2011 04 +0.117 +0.195 +0.039 -0.229
2011 05 +0.133 +0.145 +0.121 -0.043
2011 06 +0.315 +0.379 +0.250 +0.233
2011 07 +0.374 +0.344 +0.404 +0.204
2011 08 +0.327 +0.321 +0.332 +0.155
2011 09 +0.289 +0.304 +0.274 +0.178
2011 10 +0.116 +0.169 +0.062 -0.054
2011 11 +0.123 +0.075 +0.170 +0.024
2011 12 +0.126 +0.197 +0.055 +0.041
2012 01 -0.090 -0.057 -0.123 -0.138
2012 02 -0.112 -0.013 -0.212 -0.277
2012 03 +0.110 +0.129 +0.092 -0.108
2012 04 +0.295 +0.411 +0.179 -0.120
As a reminder, the most common reason for large month-to-month swings in global average temperature is small fluctuations in the rate of convective overturning of the troposphere, discussed here.
And as I link almost every month…
My monthly sea surface temperature anomaly update for April is also showing an uptick:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/april-2012-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
[Please ask him directly on his own blog at http://www.drroyspencer.com – wuwt is not your message delivery bunny ~ mod]
One thing I’ve learnt since watching global temperatures, is that whenever you see a pattern, whenever you think you can predict what is going to happen …. you find you can’t.
So here’s my prediction:
Because we’ve seen warming which must be natural … it must go down.
On the other hand, there’s an underlying amount of warming that should happen due to increasing CO2 … so it will warm.
But statistically its random, so there’s as much chance of it going up as down … so it will be flat
… but since the law of global warming prediction is that as soon as one thinks one knows what its all about, one is proven wrong …. my prediction that it is unpredictable will be proven wrong and it will (appear) predictable.
And they wonder why the ancients used to think the (weather) gods played with them!
Another La Nina coming?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/sstanim.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
Edim,
With warm water pooling off the coast of Central America, it looks more likely to be leaning towards El Niño rather than La Niña conditions, surely?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2012.png
Where are the are the error bars?
What is the size of the statistical error on each data point?
How is it determined given that one is averaging over different spatial positions?
A great deal of data processing goes into producing this plot, in terms of taking various systematic effects into account, so what is the size of the total systematic error on each data point?
In other words, the total uncertainty in the systematic corrections to the data.
Or do the authors claim to know the global temperature to within +/- 0.01C as the plot appears to imply?
While I’m at it, the competing NASA/GISS/Hansen global temperature plot:
http://s18.postimage.org/m38q251lz/global_temperature_NASA_GISS.png
How can any claim to know to within +/- 0.1C what the global temperature was back in 1880?
The hypothesis of global warming appears to depend entirely on this claim.
Will it go higher in May?
Where has the global cooling gone?
Can it be the sun?
Perhaps its those cosmic rays?
Maybe it is CO2 as background warming after all.
Correction re NASA/GISS/Hansen global temperature plot:
http://s18.postimage.org/m38q251lz/global_temperature_NASA_GISS.png
Those grey bars are not error bars but “5 year means”.
So again, where are the error bars?
How can any claim to know to within +/- 0.1C what the global temperature was back in 1880?
The hypothesis of global warming appears to depend entirely on this claim.
Climate science – the only field of science wherein error analysis is apparently optional.
I dont believe it, The average max was 5.8°C COLDER this April here than it was last April.
So the basic point is that the global temp anomaly, a cranky idea in itself, is basically zero.
Spencer and Christy reply to the critism in the Po paper recently announced in the press.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
DWR54 says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:40 am
Edim,
With warm water pooling off the coast of Central America, it looks more likely to be leaning towards El Niño rather than La Niña conditions, surely?
This El Niño has been struggling to form for some months. In a PDO neg situation it could just fade very suddenly and drop back to a La Niña. On verra.
I missed that earlier post which Roy links to concerning the effects of changes in the rate of convective overturning.
Those changes are the Earth’s thermostat in operation and over shorter timescales constitute the normal system reaction to variability in the rate of energy release by the oceans.
Over the longer term there are similar air circulation changes in response to ANY forcings which affect the energy content of the atmosphere. That includes any effects from more CO2.
So, as others above have pointed out, more GHGs will allow the air to hold more energy but due to the dominance of water on the surface of our planet any extra energy in the air gets immediately converted to latent heat of evaporation and is transported upwards for earlier radiation to space than would otherwise have occurred.
In effect an increase in the size or speed of the water cycle raises the effective radiating height without the system energy content needing to increase at all. Thus no change in surface temperature. The S-B equation should not be used to back calculate the surface temperature from a point within an atmosphere.
That is what stabilises the Earth’s equilibrium temperature whatever disruptive forces are thrown at it.
The cost of that stability is changes in the air circulation pattern and cyclical shifts in the permanent climate zones.
So, in theory, more CO2 would have an effect on the air circulation but given the huge scale of similar effects from short term oceanic and long term solar variability the effect of CO2 can be safely ignored.
Willis Eschenbach’s thermostat hypothesis was almost right but he failed to extend it to the entire globe and link it to latitudinal air circulation shifts.
Bob Tisdale is right about ENSO as an energy redistribution process but fails to extend it to the entire globe and across centuries thereby linking ENSO to long term latitudinal air circulation shifts.
Svensmark is right about the potential for GCRs to provide more condensation nuclei but fails to show how that could influence latitudinal air circulation shifts.
Roy’s variable month to month data is proof of the system operating effectively.
Typhoon says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:50 am
Perhaps you can hear the sound of celestial harps and Terpsichore instructing myriads of Cherubim and Seraphim in joyful dance, performed to the tune of “give me that old time religion”, on a severely restricted, rounded, metallic floor.
Who needs error bars when you have conviction?
DWR54 says: “With warm water pooling off the coast of Central America, it looks more likely to be leaning towards El Niño rather than La Niña conditions, surely?”
Except the warm water that fuels an El Nino comes from the western tropical Pacific, not the east. The pocket of warm water in the east could upset the trade winds, though, which would then lead to an El Nino.
Stephen Wilde says: “Bob Tisdale is right about ENSO as an energy redistribution process but fails to extend it to the entire globe and across centuries thereby linking ENSO to long term latitudinal air circulation shifts.”
Your claim that my research fails at something does not sit well with me, Stephen. That wasn’t something I wanted to read while having my first cup of coffee this morning.
First, for more than three years, I have been illustrating the effects of ENSO on global surface temperatures. You’ve commented on those threads, so you know those posts exist. Second, as you’re aware, I use satellite-based sea surface temperatures for that. And as you are also aware, sea surface temperature data before the satellite era is riddled with problems because the source data is so sparse. So there is no means for anyone to show the impacts of ENSO on global surface temperature as I do during the century before the satellite era, let alone centuries (plural) that interests you since there is NO observations-based data prior to the mid 19th century. Third, I present the effects of ENSO on surface temperatures because that is the metric most people understand and rely on. It is only you, Stephen, who has interest in “long term latitudinal air circulation shifts.” I certainly do not.
We’ve been through this before, Stephen, and each time I have suggested to you that YOU do your own research. I’m not going to do it for you. Your complaint that my research has failed to illustrate what you would like me to present confirms for all that you have not bothered to fully research the topics that interest you or it illustrates to them that you aren’t capable of doing so.
Now I’ll finish that cup of coffee and start the day over.
Typhoon says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:50 am
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2012.png
Where are the are the error bars?
What is the size of the statistical error on each data point?
How is it determined given that one is averaging over different spatial positions?
____________________________
Go ask Dr. Spencer or just start reading at: http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Kelvin Vaughan says:
May 10, 2012 at 1:11 am
I dont believe it, The average max was 5.8°C COLDER this April here than it was last April.
_______________________________
Kelvin, compare the <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png"NINO2.4 SST index that Edim kindly pointed out to Spencer’s graph above. It more or less follows SST. (Not a surprise to most here on WUWT)
Dunno about the error on each data point, but my favourite image of what the data points might look like on these sorts of graphs is this one by Grotch after Lindzen:
http://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/global-temperature-graphs/slgrotchafterlindzen/
(I can’t verify becasue I cant find an original published source)
Gail Combs says:
May 10, 2012 at 4:01 am
Kelvin, compare the <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png"NINO2.4
Thanks for the link Gail. I tried but it said :
The page you requested was not found on this server
“Your claim that my research fails at something does not sit well with me, Stephen. ”
Sorry Bob. I just meant that in the sense that your research doesn’t extend to the areas I mentioned. I did not mean to imply that you had been unsuccessful at anything.
You have made it clear to me that you choose not to extend your research because of the inadequacy of the available data which is a perfectly respectable choice on your part but not one that I feel obliged to follow.
The data coming in is fitting very well with my propositions so far.
I only mentioned it in order to clearly distinguish my work from yours. Likewise my references to Svensmark and Eschenbach.
No personal or professional criticism of any of you was intended.
Of more interest is an exercise where a standard sheet of graph paper is used where each square represents a degree C. WIth temperatures over the Earth varying from say – 50degC to +50degC the 0deg C line is along the center of the page. Now using a fine pencil plot the average temperature adjusted by the anomalies in the average as in the graph above. Now add error lines above and below the temperature line.
Now show the plot to an average person and try to get them excited about the variation in ‘global temperatures’.
Gail Combs says:
May 10, 2012 at 4:01 am
Got it now from Edim’s post Gail Thanks.
blackswhitewash.com says:
May 10, 2012 at 1:22 am
So the basic point is that the global temp anomaly, a cranky idea in itself, is basically zero.
___________________________
Yes The whole flap is about counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet we are going to completely wreck our economies and revamp our entire world political system ( Agenda 21 ) to “protect Mother Earth from those nasty humans”
The “Calculated” change in “Global” temperature is less than 1C and based on badly sited thermometers in the US (Anthony’s Surface Stations Project ) and shoddy, inaccurate Australian temperature records (joannenova.com is down for maintanance) as well as bias temperature adjustments.
The whole blasted mess has been political from the start. From Oil mogul/World Bank advisor Maurice Strong who chaired the UN’s First Earth Summit in 1972 (he chaired Rio too thanks to Bush) to Shell and BP initial funding of CRU to World Bank employee Robert Watson as IPCC chair from 1997 to 2002. Watson is currently the Chief Scientist/ Senior Adviser to the World Bank for Sustainable Development (Agenda 21.) A lesser know figure is Ged Davis former VP of Shell who was facilitator of the last IPCC emissions scenarios. (found in Climategate e-mails)
You do not have to know a darn thing about science to see the scam, all you have to do is follow the politics and see who is reaping large bennies from the scare. Dr Evans sums it up nicely in Climate Coup – The Politics.
Ian W says:
May 10, 2012 at 4:47 am
Of more interest is an exercise where a standard sheet of graph paper is used where each square represents a degree C. WIth temperatures over the Earth varying from say – 50degC to +50degC the 0deg C line is along the center of the page. Now using a fine pencil plot the average temperature adjusted by the anomalies in the average as in the graph above. Now add error lines above and below the temperature line.
Now show the plot to an average person and try to get them excited about the variation in ‘global temperatures’.
I was told by a statistician once that any graph that does not show the zero axis is biassed.