Will the forecasted El Niño later this year produce a new record? Spencer comments.
June 10th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2014 is +0.33 deg. C, up from April (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 17 months are:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2013 1 +0.497 +0.517 +0.478 +0.386
2013 2 +0.203 +0.372 +0.033 +0.195
2013 3 +0.200 +0.333 +0.067 +0.243
2013 4 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165
2013 5 +0.082 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112
2013 6 +0.295 +0.335 +0.255 +0.220
2013 7 +0.173 +0.134 +0.211 +0.074
2013 8 +0.158 +0.111 +0.206 +0.009
2013 9 +0.365 +0.339 +0.390 +0.190
2013 10 +0.290 +0.331 +0.249 +0.031
2013 11 +0.193 +0.160 +0.226 +0.020
2013 12 +0.266 +0.272 +0.260 +0.057
2014 1 +0.291 +0.387 +0.194 -0.029
2014 2 +0.170 +0.320 +0.020 -0.103
2014 3 +0.170 +0.338 +0.002 -0.001
2014 4 +0.190 +0.358 +0.022 +0.093
2014 5 +0.329 +0.326 +0.333 +0.173
This is the 3rd warmest May in the satellite record:
1998 +0.56 (warm ENSO)
2010 +0.45 (warm ENSO)
2014 +0.33 (neutral)
John Christy thinks the coming El Nino will give us a new temperature record, since it is superimposed on a warmer baseline than the super El Nino of 1997-98. I’m not convinced, since we are in the cool phase of the PDO, which favors weak El Ninos (like 2009-10).
As we finish up our new Version 6 of the UAH dataset, it looks like our anomalies in the 2nd half of the satellite record will be slightly cooler, somewhat more like the RSS dataset….but we are talking small adjustments here…hundredths of a deg. C.
The global image for May should be available in the next day or so here.
Popular monthly data files (these might take a few days to update):
uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (Lower Troposphere)
uahncdc_mt_5.6.txt (Mid-Troposphere)
uahncdc_ls_5.6.txt (Lower Stratosphere)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ouch! formatting went wrong again!
I intended this
It is the truth which cannot be stated if the AGW hypothesis is to be used as excuse for political actions, and that is why people such as Abbot falsely proclaim
Sorry.
Richard
‘..The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2014 is +0.33 deg. C, up from April..’
So does this mean that the ‘pause’ is over and global warming has returned?
According to RSS temperatures are warming at a rate of +.123 degrees C per decade.
According to UAH the rate of warming is 0.14 degrees C per decade.
So Lord Monckton’s favoured data set is not that much behind the UAH numbers.
richardscourtney and dbstealey: If you are seriously suggesting that the rise in CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution is not human induced you really need to take a reality check. We can calculate to a reasonable level of accuracy the amount of CO2 emitted by human society and work out the response of the oceans and biosphere. The numbers are sensible. We KNOW that the rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is driven by human society. The Keeling Curve
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
shows the rise nicely, including the annual “biosphere breathing” cycle.
Also, dbstealey please cite your evidence for CO2 being “harmless” per se. At low concentrations it may be, but not as concentration increases – as the astronauts on the Apollo 13 mission found out.
The effects of increased CO2 levels on adults at good health can be summarized:
normal outdoor level: 350 – 450 ppm
acceptable levels: < 600 ppm
complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 – 1000 ppm
general drowsiness: 1000 – 2500 ppm
adverse health effects expected: 2500 – 5000 ppm
slightly intoxicating, breathing and pulse rate increase, nausea: 30,000 ppm
above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50,000 ppm
unconscious, further exposure death: 100.000 ppm
Abbott says:
…If you are seriously suggesting that the rise in CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution is not human induced…
Whoever said that part of the rise in harmless, beneficial CO2 was not done by human activity? It is, and a very good thing, too.
Next, the hyper-alarmist Abbott says:
…please cite your evidence for CO2 being “harmless” per se. At low concentrations it may be, but not as concentration increases – as the astronauts on the Apollo 13 mission found out.
As usual, Abbott gets the Scientific Method backward. The onus is not on skeptics to prove a negative. The onus is on alarmists to show that CO2 causes global HARM. They have failed. Thus, CO2 is ipso facto “harmless”.
Get with the program, Abbott. Your mental convulsions make no sense.
James Abbott:
At June 12, 2014 at 4:17 pm you say
I really do understand that you belong to a group who “KNOW that the rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is driven by human society”.
And I also understand there is a larger group who “KNOW” Santa Claus uses a magic sleigh to deliver Christmas Presents.
As I said in my post at June 12, 2014 at 12:41 am
You say you “KNOW” none of that observed rise is natural. You may be right. So, please give me some cogent evidence that would convince me of what you “KNOW”.
You are good on assertions but devoid of evidence pertaining to causality. Importantly, as dbstealey says at June 12, 2014 at 10:45 pm
Richard
Its very difficult debating with people who fail to accept the most basic of accepted scientific facts.
So according to dbstealey, CO2 is harmless and it does not matter how much we put in the atmosphere and according to richardscourtney we may not be responsible for the rise in concentration anyway.
I did provide evidence that shows both of you are wrong, its just that your pre-determined – and amazing – positions are not influenced it seems by any sensible evidence.
One thing I can agree with richardscourtney on – Santa Claus. And why ? Because there is no evidence that he exists. His position in our society is entirely a product of false belief and commercial interest. Sounds familiar ?
I don’t see a separate post for the monthly update to GISS, May was the warmest in the record, and spring 2nd warmewst.
Re the deep ocean excuse: How can heat hide there without raising sea levels through thermal expansion?
James Abbott:
At June 13, 2014 at 3:57 am you assert
Indeed, it is “very difficult debating with people” such as you “who fail to accept the most basic of accepted scientific facts”.
You say you have provided “evidence” that
(a) dbstealey is “wrong” when he points out that there is no evidence that increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration is harmful
and
(b) I am “wrong” when I point out that there is no cogent evidence for a mostly human or a mostly natural cause of the recent increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I have searched the thread and failed to find the “evidence” you say you have provided. Please be so kind as to reference where you provided it or provide it again.
Please note that this is very important because the formal literature contains no “evidence” for an influence of CO2 on the warming climate; none, zilch, nada. Three decades of research conducted world-wide at a cost of over US$5 billion per year has failed to find any such evidence. Ben Santer tried to claim he had found some such evidence in the 1990s but it was soon discovered that his so-called “fingerprint” was an artifact of his only using some data from near the middle of a time series. You will be awarded at least one Nobel Prize if you have discovered such evidence so please don’t be too bashful for you to say where you have provided it .
Richard
James Abbott says:
One thing I can agree with richardscourtney on – Santa Claus. And why ? Because there is no evidence that he exists. His position in our society is entirely a product of false belief and commercial interest. Sounds familiar ?
Replace “Santa Claus” with “Catstrophic AGW”, and we have a winner!
There is no evidence that CAGW exists. Its position in our society is entirely the product of false belief, and it is motivated by government grant money. Sound familiar?
James, I think you’ve got it!