Dr. Roy Spencer reports:
Our Version 5.5 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2013 is +0.10 deg. C, down from +0.18 deg. C in March (click for large version):
Not surprisingly, the cooling appears to be confined to the Northern Hemisphere…the global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2012 1 -0.134 -0.065 -0.203 -0.256
2012 2 -0.135 +0.018 -0.289 -0.320
2012 3 +0.051 +0.119 -0.017 -0.238
2012 4 +0.232 +0.351 +0.114 -0.242
2012 5 +0.179 +0.337 +0.021 -0.098
2012 6 +0.235 +0.370 +0.101 -0.019
2012 7 +0.130 +0.256 +0.003 +0.142
2012 8 +0.208 +0.214 +0.202 +0.062
2012 9 +0.339 +0.350 +0.327 +0.153
2012 10 +0.333 +0.306 +0.361 +0.109
2012 11 +0.282 +0.299 +0.265 +0.172
2012 12 +0.206 +0.148 +0.264 +0.138
2013 1 +0.504 +0.555 +0.453 +0.371
2013 2 +0.175 +0.368 -0.018 +0.168
2013 3 +0.183 +0.329 +0.038 +0.226
2013 4 +0.103 +0.119 +0.087 +0.168
If the right to left order of the measurements are right, it looks like the southern hemisphere is the lowest temperature at 0.087 degrees vs 0.119 for the NH.
That’s a little awkward for the alarmist cause considering we are currently El Niño/La Niña neutral.
We surely felt these strong cooling trends for the four months of 2013 here in New England.
But how should we understand the unusually high anomaly in January 2013 (for Global, NH, SH and Tropics)? As noise in the measurements, or as something meaningful (e.g., related ENSO, sun’s output, etc)?,…….but yet so very brief?
Now you have gone and done it for sure . . The believers have been told by Al Gore [flunked out of Seminary school – BA in Political science?] and the GRANTOLOGIST consensus of Grant money thinkers that the many single point data sites create a GLOBAL [entire] warming or cooling. It is all the same says Grant Doctor Gore.
And for those looking for the monthly link to the Preliminary Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly update:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/preliminary-april-2013-sea-surface-temperature-anomaly-update/
Regards
As we see cooling we also see Warmists head off into the deep blue sea. The Good Ship Global Warming is morphing into a submarine, hiding from the sharp shooting submarine destroyers otherwise known as the sceptics. Round 5 ding, ding.
ThinAir says:
May 4, 2013 at 2:58 pm
“But how should we understand the unusually high anomaly in January 2013 (for Global, NH, SH and Tropics)? As noise in the measurements, or as something meaningful (e.g., related ENSO, sun’s output, etc)?,…….but yet so very brief?”
Let me hazard a guess. The main effect of a quiet sun is to remove the temperature inversion at the winter pole. This allows arctic air to move southward, guided over the continental land masses by blocking from the high pressure systems over the oceans. The oceans themselves and the tropics are not much affected (may see some compensating warming). An active sun produces increased UV which heats the stratosphere which produces the temperature inversion. Under active conditions this has the effect of bottling up the arctic air and preventing it from moving southward. The overall radiation balance is approximately maintained, but the northern land masses get a few degrees colder.
Last sentence: Under quiet conditions the overall radiation balance is approximately maintained, but the northern land masses get a few degrees colder.
UAH appears to be somewhat tracking actual NH temps….
Do you not think that the warm-mongers might just be starting to get a wee bit worried? Or are they still in denial?
The cold isn’t done with the US / NA just yet either ; if you have access to the ECMWF, check out the latest run – for May 13th – 14th time slice, sub 5100m on the 500-100 Mb thickness ; that is really cold for mid May! Will be interesting to see if it verifies – that will certainly break some more cold temp records if it does.
who decided where that zero line was…..
….move it up high enough and we’re below “normal”
In reply to pochas & ThinAir,
pochas says:
May 4, 2013 at 3:32 pm
ThinAir says:
May 4, 2013 at 2:58 pm
“But how should we understand the unusually high anomaly in January 2013 (for Global, NH, SH and Tropics)? As noise in the measurements, or as something meaningful (e.g., related ENSO, sun’s output, etc)?,…….but yet so very brief?”
This paper explains the mechanisms by which the solar magnetic cycle changes affect planetary cloud cover. In general, all else being equal for a simple typical solar cycle (solar cycle 24 is a special cycle that occurs roughly once in 1450 years.) when the solar magnetic cycle is very active, there are fewer low level clouds over the ocean and the albedo of the low level clouds over the ocean is less in the higher latitudes. Less clouds and clouds with a lower albedo causes the planet to warm. As noted in the paper due to mechanisms this affect occurs at higher latitudes.
In addition when the solar cycle is active there are more cirrus clouds. Cirrus clouds are the high wispy clouds. The cirrus clouds warm the planet particularly in the winter at very high latitudes due to the green house affect particularly in the winter.
It is interesting that attached paper notes that changes to solar magnetic cycle also changes the Rossby waves that affect path of the jet streams (we observed this in 2012/2013) and also changes the severity of winter storms (We will likely start to experience the super winter storms next winter.) The sudden and unexplained change to the jet streams that we are observing is consistent with the mechanisms.
If you have a look at the attached I can explain the mechanisms in more detail. If I understand the mechanisms we are going to experience either the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle or a Heinrich event due to abrupt stopping the solar magnetic cycle. A solar observation to support the assertion that we are going to experience the cooling phase of D-O cycle or a Heinrich event would be the abrupt and unexplained termination of the solar magnetic cycle. (i.e. No sunspots and the solar magnetic cycle is flat lining.)
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate
Observations of changes in cloud properties that correlate with the 11-year cycles in space particle fluxes are reviewed. The correlations can be understood in terms of one or both of two microphysical processes; ion mediated nucleation (IMN) and electroscavenging. IMN relies on the presence of ions to provide the condensation sites for sulfuric acid and water vapors to produce new aerosol particles, which, under certain conditions, might grow into sizes that can be activated as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Electroscavenging depends on the buildup of space charge at the tops and bottoms of clouds as the vertical current density (Jz) in the global electric circuit encounters the increased electrical resistivity of the clouds. Space charge is electrostatic charge density due to a difference between the concentrations of positive and negative ions. Calculations indicate that this electrostatic charge on aerosol particles can enhance the rate at which they are scavenged by cloud droplets. The aerosol particles for which scavenging is important are those that act as insitu ice forming nuclei (IFN) and CCN. Both IMN and electroscavenging depend on the presence of atmospheric ions that are generated, in regions of the atmosphere relevant for effects on clouds, by galactic cosmic rays (GCR). The space charge depends, in addition, on the magnitude of Jz. The magnitude of Jz depends not only on the GCR flux, but also on the fluxes of MeV electrons from the radiation belts, and the ionospheric potentials generated by the solar wind, that can vary independently of the GCR flux. The roles of GCR and Jz in cloud processes are the speculative links in a series connecting solar activity, the solar wind, GCR, clouds and climate. This article reviews the correlated cloud variations and the two mechanisms proposed as possible explanations for these links.
Down, yes. But “significantly” in what sense?
The other lot already write more than enough over-dramatic or misleading headlines.
They will retreat back behind their sandbags (universities) for a little hate filled pep talk to calm the nerves of the students expecting a career in climate doom.. Their brothers and sisters that have gone on to careers in politics, mass media and journalism will pop off a few smoke grenades so they can make a break for cover..
With their welfare check and careers at stake, never mind the reputations of the universities themselves..
They will never surrender.. Like most fanatics, you either have to bulldoze the entrance of the cave or burn them out..
Not a very pleasant situation eh..
Our schools have become left wing political hothouses and they have no intention of changing a single thing.. The entire climate scam and all of its supporters from pseudo scientists to pseudo journalists all the way to pseudo politicians can all be traced back to the building that put those letters behind their name.. There are no checks and balances anymore because they all come from the same leftist political finishing school..
Respect for the degree, professional conduct, Sorority brother and sisters, mashed together with political indoctrination gives us our new elite class thats so lost in group think that its become a abomination on the backs of the general public..
Professionals do not undermine other professionals. That would defeat the entire purpose of higher education. Us and them, elite and common.
The sooner you realize this climate war is really a class war, the sooner we can get on with winning this thing.
Not surprisingly, the cooling appears to be confined to the Northern Hemisphere
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
May 4, 2013 at 2:44 pm
If the right to left order of the measurements are right, it looks like the southern hemisphere is the lowest temperature at 0.087 degrees vs 0.119 for the NH.
I know it sounds contradictory, but it is not. It is like the difference between “warming” and “being warm”. The northern hemisphere went from 0.329 to 0.119, so it underwent cooling, right? And the southern hemisphere went from 0.038 to 0.087, so it underwent warming, right? But despite these changes, as you say, the southern hemisphere is still cooler relative to the latest 30 year average.
P.S. Dr. Spencer had April up before the others had March up for Hadsst2, Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4. Does anyone know what is going on with these?
Wow, NH down but less than 2/10 degree C after such a winter and record cold spring in the NH. To knock it down 0.5C I guess we have to have NY harbour freeze over as it did in 1780 and the early 19th Century. In the earlier freeze, heavy cannon were hauled across the ice from Jersey City to NY. How far away are we from that kind of “ice extent”?
I see explanations for NH temp in Jan 2013 at 0.55 C – the whole globe is away up for that month. This has got to be spurious. I see some 1000 word explanations above – a little too wordy to convince me.
ThinAir writes “But how should we understand the unusually high anomaly in January 2013 (for Global, NH, SH and Tropics)?”
Based on absolutely nothing, a SSW event started at the beginning of January. My guess is that this had something to do with the January temperature reading
Oh no! You know what this means!
Less…
…transactional…
…s3x…
(Ain’t s3x always a kind of transaction?)
ThinAir says:
May 4, 2013 at 2:58 pm
We surely felt these strong cooling trends for the four months of 2013 here in New England.
Believe me, we felt them here in Old England too.
Data set is too short, and being corrected on the fly.
Can’t imagine the difficulties involved.
The ENSO switched from a small El Nino (peaking late-August and early November) to a small La Nina (peaking early January 2013). The peak La Nina was about -0.41C in January and the 3 month lag of global temperatures to the ENSO means that April, 2013 will probably be the low point for temperatures for awhile.
December and January UAH temps were also influenced in an unusual way by the typical 1-2 week oscillation in temperatures that occurs. There was enough of a down cycle in December lasting long enough to influence the monthly temperature to a lower-than-it-should-have-been number while there was enough of an up-swing oscillation in January to influence the January monthly number to a higher number than it really should have been.
Generally, we have been cooling since early October and the low point for now is probably reached.
Ryan Maue’s chart (based on the NCEP CFSv2 surface temps) seems to be pretty accurate on daily time-scales.
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2012.png
You can compare this to the daily UAH temps over the same time-frame (but ending in March, the daily numbers for April are not available yet).
http://s8.postimg.org/fhnk3hudh/Daily_LT_UAH_12_13_Mar13.png
Jeff L: Here (http://www.instantweathermaps.com/ECMWF-php/showmap-ecmwf.php?run=2013050412®ion=USA&var=HGT_500mb&hour=216) is a free link to the 500mb heights on the latest Euro… sub-5200m in Minnesota… that’s amazingly low for this time of year. You can click through the options on the website and see the 850mb temperature at hour 240, which has a significant portion of the nation below freezing about 5000 feet up (extremely rare in May).
William Astley says:
May 4, 2013 at 4:48 pm
William – Has this paper been published ? If so , in which journal?
Pearse,
If you look at ocean oscillations, the cooling has only just begun. It will get much worse, unfortunately. For a guess as to when we will see dramatic ice like NY harbor, 10 years. Oklahoma had an all-time record cold a few years ago. All time lows are a function of radiative cooling. This should have been impossible according to current CAGW theories.
“Jimmy Haigh. says:
May 4, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Do you not think that the warm-mongers might just be starting to get a wee bit worried? Or are they still in denial?”
Still in denial I’d guess.
They’ll probably say. “that’s what they expected.AGW causes cooler temperatures.” Since they now claim AGW causes colder Winters. 🙂
Not sure I’d use the term “significantly” but I’ll take any downward trend of any magnitude to make sure 2013 is yet another year we do not break 1998’s record….
Snowed in north Arkansas, south Missouri last night, from what I saw on radar. Pretty unusual for May. NOAA posted an alert for cold funnels and more near record cold temperatures tonight. Beagle boy has me in Pennsylvania chasing bunnies so I’m waiting to hear back from folks on the Ozarks plateau about the weather conditions at home. Cool night yet was a beautiful warm day in PA.
Interesting: 2007 was cold not Arctlc ice low. Delayed reaction?
Needs 0.35C drop by beginning 2014 to worry warmists.
Yep, snow in Arkansas and Oklahoma.
Arkansas’ First Ever Occurrence of Snow in May – AccuWeather.com
http://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/arkansas-first-ever-occurrence/11699506
http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/winter-storm-achilles-20130430
Hate touch-spelling.
2007 was global cold but Arctic ice also hit record low. Is this showing a time delay or a cause-effect disconnect with global temps, I.e. Arctic ice loss is not dominantly due to temps but other, say, sunshine/cloud cover/Pacific-Bering Sea currents?
As expected from surface data in North America and Europe. Absolutely dominant PDO appears to again be allowing “La Nina-Like” conditions to redevelop. It’s happening every year now. Expect active Atlantic Hurricane Season.
+ 0.1 C anomaly is “cooling?” That’s as bad as our enemies’ reasoning.
And they are enemies. They are trying to choke off the source of Life (CO2) and cause food shortage with corn ethanol, and froze people to death this winter for lack of warmth.
Lady Life Grows says:
May 4, 2013 at 7:14 pm
+ 0.1 C anomaly is “cooling?” That’s as bad as our enemies’ reasoning.
And they are enemies. They are trying to choke off the source of Life (CO2) and cause food shortage with corn ethanol, and froze people to death this winter for lack of warmth.
====================
it is worse than you think, they are relying on faulty information.
Hummmm,,,,, seems we will see some interesting Arctic Ice stats coming to a warmist near you soon……
Do you think any of them will see it? 😉
In reply to:
Jeff L says:
May 4, 2013 at 5:49 pm
William Astley says:
May 4, 2013 at 4:48 pm
William – Has this paper been published ? If so , in which journal?
Yes.
The paper in question is a review paper of the science and was published in the set of AGU review papers.
http://www.agu.org/books/gm/v141/141GM22/141GM22.shtml
It has been known for sometime that solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with cyclic climate change. It appears the sun is causing the cyclic climate changes. See for example the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles during the current interglacial, captured in the Greenland Ice sheet data. The D-O cycles have a periodicity of 1450 years (discrete plus or minus 500 years, 950 years, 1450 years, and 1950 years). The late Gerald Bond has able to track 23 of the D-O cycles and found that solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with all of the D-O cycles. What is not known is how the solar magnetic cycle changes cause what is observed.
As it appears the sun is moving in the strange magnetic cycle that causes either a D-O cycle or a Heinrich event we may have an opportunity to directly observe the mechanisms.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1999/QuatSciRevvGeel/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf
“The role of solar forcing upon climate change”
When solar activity is high, the extended solar magnetic field sweeps through interplanetary space, thereby more effectively shielding the Earth from cosmic rays and reducing the production of 14C. Low solar activity lets more cosmic rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere, producing more 14C. So the 14C record is a good proxy for the solar radiant output (Bard et al., 1997).
However, explaining the observed changes in 14C concentration by production-rate variations alone is too simple an assumption, the more so when rapid 14C concentration changes appear to be coincident with significant changes in climate.
However, if we observe sudden, major 14C increases like the ones starting at c. 850 cal. BC and at c. 1600 AD (about 20 per mil), it is hard to imagine any change in the global carbon cycle that can bring about such a drastic fast change, simply because there is no reservoir of carbon with higher 14C concentration available anywhere on Earth. Even a sudden stop of the upwelling of old carbon-containing deep water could not cause the sudden (within decades) 14C concentration increases that are documented in the dendrochronological records. So, if we observe that such a sudden 14C increase, which must be caused by a production increase, is accompanied by indications for a change towards colder or wetter climate, this may indicate that solar forcing of the climate does exist. In theory, increased production of cosmogenic isotopes can also have a cause of cosmic origin such as a nearby supernova (Sonnett et al., 1987). We consider this scenario unlikely, and note here that events such as the 850 cal. BC peak are present in the dendrochronological curve with a periodicity of about 2400 years (Stuiver and Braziunas, 1989; see below).
“A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases… most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) … the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations.”
“… we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change.”
Last 40 kyrs
Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)… “conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records
MattN says:
May 4, 2013 at 6:05 pm
Not sure I’d use the term “significantly” but I’ll take any downward trend of any magnitude to make sure 2013 is yet another year we do not break 1998′s record….
The anomaly in 1998 was 0.419. For the first four months this year, the average is 0.241. This means the average for the last eight months has to be 0.508 to equal the 1998 mark. And keep in mind that for every month that 0.508 is not reached, the later months need to be higher to make up for it.
Even if a 1998 type El Nino started to set in tomorrow, it would be at least 4 or 5 months for the maximum ENSO reading to be reached. Then it would take at least 3 more months for the high ENSO to be reflected in Earth’s temperature. How hot would November and December then have to be to set a new record? In my opinion, the odds of setting a new record in 2013 are extremely remote.
wbrozek;
P.S. Dr. Spencer had April up before the others had March up for Hadsst2, Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4. Does anyone know what is going on with these?
>>>>>>>>
They have to wait for UAH and RSS to publish first so they can determine how much adjusting they can get away with before looking foolish?
It’s entertaining, when the warming has stopped, to hear “Team” climate scientists blaming it on La Niña?
Why did they then not blame the warming we had 1980-1998 on El Niño?
What is the “Team” logic?
Dr Spencer, could you please provide a link to the data? I am particularly interested in annual as well as monthly averages. Thanks.
Sou says:
May 4, 2013 at 9:20 pm
Dr Spencer, could you please provide a link to the data? I am particularly interested in annual as well as monthly averages. Thanks.
I am not Dr, Spencer, but see:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/uah-v5-5-global-temperature-update-for-december-2012-0-20-deg-c/
Thank you, wbrozek. I think the headline to this article is overstating things just a tad. Probably some sub-editor taking liberties 🙁
I really want a negative PDO cycle combined with some strong, consecutive Niñas and a less active sun over the next couple decades just for the sole purpose of being able to mock the $#!T out of SkS’s stupid “Esacalator” smugness. Even if their dumb linear trend continued (which, let’s be honest, is incredibly unlikely considering it was boosted by both positive ocean cycles and an active sun) it would hardly be justification for them constantly bitching and moaning about the world burning its way towards catastrophe. If we hover around avg. 1980-2010 temp. until, say, 2030 I think we’ll finally start seeing quite a few abandoning ship.
So temperatures are back to where they were in 1983.
This is not what Hansen predicted five years ago. However this is what Bastardi predicted five years ago.
While I tend to feel a person is going out on a limb, and a bit crazy, to even try to predict the future weather of this amazing planet, I do try to give credit where credit is due.
So who does a layman trust more? Hansen or Bastardi?
Even though the Sun is Quieter than usual, it is still pumping UV at a rate of average 120 units [10.7 cm Flux is a great proxy]. 100 to 120 units are holding the Earth’s temperature at a nearly constant level.
See http://www.solen.info/solar/ . The major cooling won’t start until the units average 70 to 100.
When the PO [Pacific Gyre portion http://en.wikipedia.org wiki/File:North_Pacific_Subtropical_Convergence_Zone.jpg ], temperature anomaly drops from ~+2.8C to +0.0C the temperature future will be bleak for North America.
See http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif , location W150, N40.
****
wbrozek says:
May 4, 2013 at 5:20 pm
P.S. Dr. Spencer had April up before the others had March up for Hadsst2, Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4. Does anyone know what is going on with these?
****
They understand that they need to at least show a similar drop or rise as the sat record (or they’d be completely unbelievable), so they wait until the sat records come out to “fine-tune” the surface records.
Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
The UAH global temperature record is the only one that is credible.
I update monthly in my pages.
Real Data is crucial in understanding climate change. My impression is that Dr. Spencer does not get much grant money from the government. Carry on Dr. Spencer….I have growned to trust your monthy reports wether the anomalies are high or low.
My position on Climate change is that Humans can change climate…..But our understanding of climate science is at an early stage. Real data is important.
This hasn’t ended the more than 16 years of statistically insignificant temperature change, has it? In fact, it could be deemed another slight reduction. I wonder how long this temperature plateau will last and when it ends, which way will be go?
Correction: “…will it go?”
William Astley says:
May 4, 2013 at 7:58 pm
A note of caution about the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. In the following paper on Holocene climate variability,
http://elearning.zaou.ac.zm:8060/Science/Oceanography/Encyclopedia%20of%20Ocean%20Sciences/Holocene%20Climate%20Variability.pdf
there is a reference at the top of page 1214 of research by Wunsch suggesting that periodic paleo-climate events with a 1500 year periodicity might be an aliasing artefact”:
One cautionary note is that Wunsch has suggested a more radical explanation for the pervasive 1500-year cycle seen in both deep-sea and ice core, glacial and interglacial records. Wunsch suggests that the extremely narrow spectral lines (less than two bandwidths) that have been found at about 1500 years in many paleo-records may be due to aliasing.
The 1500-year peak appears precisely at the period predicted for a simple alias of the seasonal cycle sampled inadequately (under the Nyquist criterion) at integer multiples of the common year. When Wunsch removes this peak from the Greenland ice core data and deep-sea spectral records, the climate variability appears as expected to be a continuum process in the millennial band. This work suggests that finding a cyclicity of 1500 years in a dataset may not represent the true periodicity of the millennial-scale events. The Holocene Dansgaard-Oeschger events are quasi periodic, with different and possibly stochastic influences.
Reference: Wunsch C (2000) On sharp spectral lines in the climate record and millennial peak. Paleoceanography 15: 417-424.
Later in the paper by Maslin et al., figure 6 on page 1216 is a nice presentation of the state of knowledge of the reasons behind climate variability over a wide range of timescales.
UAH global temperature, down significantly
===========
I’m going to take exception to the use of the word “significantly” when talking about fractions of a degree. We are talking about miniscule amounts when compared to daily, day-to-day and seasonal temperature fluctuations.
Only in climate science do we look at small chaotic fluctuations and try and extrapolate them linearly into the future and arrive at nonsense answers. If we extrapolate the 10C of natural warming that takes place each morning, this is some 1.5 Million C of warming per century!! We are all doomed.
beng says:
May 5, 2013 at 6:46 am
They understand that they need to at least show a similar drop or rise as the sat record (or they’d be completely unbelievable), so they wait until the sat records come out to “fine-tune” the surface records.
=========
Amazing that NASA GISS has all these satellites in orbit, yet builds its temperature records using surface thermometer data. That in itself tells you everything you need to know about GISS. It is producing a political document, not a temperature record.
If GISS was in fact interested in accurate temperature data, they would be using satellites to accurately sample the entire planet, rather than a crude Hodge-podege of surface stations subject to adjustments on top of adjustments on top of adjustments.
I was hoping for an El Nino to break the drought in the SW US. Oh well … 🙁
Lady Life Grows says:
May 4, 2013 at 7:14 pm
+ 0.1 C anomaly is “cooling?” That’s as bad as our enemies’ reasoning….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The word is “cooling” not cool.
This is the same sort of mistake cause by imprecise use of language that Gerald Roe corrected in his 2006 paper, In defense of Milankovitch
Who’s in charge of the widget? Today is May 6th. Surely by now we should have a handle on the April anomaly. Very definitely by now we should know what the March CO2 was. This is not a happy situation. If it’s a question of someone not having three minutes every month to update the latest figures, gee I’m sure I can manage.
There’s that four letter word; “significantly” , well maybe four sill apples !
Maybe it’s down significantly, relative to the possible error in the measurement (see the error bars); me neither !
Well if it was down 20% of the p-p range, it could be called significant. See that 1.0 degree C jump from 1997-1998; now that is a significant event; this isn’t.
Notice how averaging seriously changes the facts.
Love the UV mechanism theory.But dont you have it backwards?
Recently UV was very high,while the Arctic was leaking cold with a jetstream heading south.
“ThinAir says:
May 4, 2013 at 2:58 pm
“But how should we understand the unusually high anomaly in January 2013 (for Global, NH, SH and Tropics)? As noise in the measurements, or as something meaningful (e.g., related ENSO, sun’s output, etc)?,…….but yet so very brief?”
Let me hazard a guess. The main effect of a quiet sun is to remove the temperature inversion at the winter pole. This allows arctic air to move southward, guided over the continental land masses by blocking from the high pressure systems over the oceans. The oceans themselves and the tropics are not much affected (may see some compensating warming). An active sun produces increased UV which heats the stratosphere which produces the temperature inversion. Under active conditions this has the effect of bottling up the arctic air and preventing it from moving southward. The overall radiation balance is approximately maintained, but the northern land masses get a few degrees colder.”
OK, a challenge for y’all. Estimate the May UAH fugure.
I’m saying zero or a bit below. (between 0 and -0.1)