Global temperatures have dropped 0.5° Celsius in April according to Dr. Ryan Maue. In the Northern Hemisphere they plunged a massive 1°C . As the record 2015/16 El Nino levels off, the global warming hiatus aka “the pause” is back with a vengeance. He writes:
Some good news to end April, global temperature anomaly has fallen to only +0.1°C today (snapshot) … graphic is like stock market trace
Global Ocean Temperatures Drop To Pre-El Nino Levels
Despite NOAA’s Denial, A Growing Number Of Studies Confirm the Global Warming Hiatus
Despite widespread denial among climate activists, a growing number of scientific research papers in recent months have confirmed the global warming hiatus, trying to explain its possible reasons (for the latest studies see here, here and here). The latest study claims that the Southern Ocean played a critical role in the global warming slowdown.
h/t to the GWPF
Dr. Roy Spencer says while there was a plunge at the surface, the lower troposphere is still holding warmth, but what is clear is that the effects of the El Niño are over:
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2017 was +0.27 deg. C, up from the March, 2017 value of +0.19 deg. C (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.98
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.08
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.64 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.33 +0.50 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.29 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.31 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.38 +0.37
2016 10 +0.40 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.18 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.26 +0.33 +0.07
2017 02 +0.35 +0.54 +0.15 +0.05
2017 03 +0.19 +0.30 +0.07 +0.03
2017 04 +0.27 +0.27 +0.26 +0.21
The UAH LT global anomaly image for April, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated soon, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We had a terrible April here on the US West Coast. Finally, a few days of warmth to kick off May. Until Th … then … back to more dreary conditions again.
Dreary, cold, rainy and windy, even here in the Intermountain West.
Alarmist: Come on, the heat has gone into the oceans!!!
Denier: But if it goes into the oceans it will take thousands of years for the energy balance that you calculated to heat them a couple of degrees. So we got lots of time to wait and see.
Alarmist: NO, I meant the heat only goes into the atmosphere and just the very surface of the oceans.
Denier: But with no heat in the oceans how will the oceans rise without thermal expansion?
Alarmist: NO you are not listening, we separate out our arguments so that we can win each one independently but if you insist on putting them together and pointing out contradictions then we fall back to, “97% of scientists bla bla bla” and good old character assassination so no one will take you seriously. So we still win. Have a nice day.
Denier: Crap, I didn’t know that was how it worked, silly me.
This is all [ridiculous]. It cooled from 1940 to 1975 and now has rebounded back to 1940 temperatures. Someone needs to explain how human co2 is involved…
That’s easy Mark, if people don’t manufacture CO2 in their blood they stop breathing and die. Then there is no measurement of temperature and all that is left is the climate models still running on the computers powered by nuclear energy. So, NO CO2>NO PEOPLE>NO AGW
Bad Andrew “Mat, the line squiggled downward. Isn’t that cooling? Or is everything warming no matter which way the line goes?”
Yes it is so long as you compare it with a temperature lower than the squiggly line eg pre-1998.
Until the temperature drops below 1998 then all that changes is the rate of warming. That rate is falling and will do so even if the line temperature still. That is because the longer the temperature “pauses” the lower the angle of the trend line (from 1998) on the graph is.
“Yes it is so long as you compare it with…”
Oh I see. As long as you compare it THIS way. So why 1998? Is there no history before then?
Andrew
This is too funny:
http://www.breitbart.com/environment/2017/05/01/monster-snowstorm-colorado-climate-change/
During the round of protests about global warming this event was cancelled because of the severe snowstorm warning.
“The event, organized by local environmentalist group 350 Colorado Springs, was also a protest against the Trump administration’s policies on climate change.
“However, the march was postponed until Sunday after weather forecasters predicted heavy snowfall and possible blizzards.”
It’s not real unless HuffPo says so.
I’m waiting for the warmists to claim that the measures taken so far in relation to reducing emissions is starting to impact on the climate as evidenced by this latest fall in temperature.
Given the volatility of monthly anomalies, it’s much too early to infer any substantial change in longer-term climatic status for the globe. In the LT data, the anomaly continues to fluctuate around ~0.25 C. Noteworthy change would require, at the very least, a sojourn of several months consistently below that level. We have not seen such behavior for nearly a decade now.
Temperature has been flat for at least the past 20 years. Here are the Aprils, a good month to choose as in the spring and by chance to height of the 1998 El Nino, which awards an automatic extra “Warmer” YoY change. Please note lack of trend:
1998: 0.74 Warmer
1999: 0.01 Cooler
2000: 0.05 Warmer
2001: 0.20 Warmer
2002: 0.23 Warmer
2003: 0.15 Cooler
2004: 0.14 Cooler
2005: 0.33 Warmer
2006: 0.07 Cooler
2007: 0.14 Warmer
2008: -0.13 Cooler
2009: -0.01 Cooler
2010: 0.32 Warmer
2011: -0.04 Cooler
2012: 0.11 Warmer
2013: 0.05 Cooler
2014: 0.11 Warmer
2015: 0.08 Cooler
2016: 0.71 Warmer
2017: 0.27 Cooler
Ten Aprils warmer than the previous year’s April and ten cooler. For the past decade, six cooler Aprils and four warmer, despite the super El Nino last year.
Given the rise in CO2 during these two decades and the previous five or six decades, during most of which time the globe cooled, AGW can be considered well and truly falsified. Or would be if “climate science” were actually science.
By chance “to include the” height. Sorry.
1) Wait for the temporary effect of the super El Nino to wear off. As noted above, 2016 was just 0.09 degree C warmer in its peak month than the 1998 super El Nino, with flatness between them. IOW, no statistically significant warming for at least 20 years.
2) GISTEMP is a pack of lies, so doesn’t count.
Oops! Forgot to mention that starting in 1997 is bogus, since that was a cool year. Its April anomaly was -0.26. I said 20 years, not 21.
Nope. I’m right right now.
A gain of 0.09 degrees C in 18 years is not statistically significant, as I said. Hence, no trend.
In any case, even if you consider that tiny increase to be SS at some confidence level, how can a rate of 0.5 degrees C in a century be a worry to any sane person?
I should have said Spring in the NH and Fall in the SH. Same applies to both seasons, being neither hot nor cold.
Emissions have risen ,but the increasing biomass sinks have been wiping the airborne fraction out …Mother Earths appetite …stimulated . Any way another “pause” to think about ! I found this about a week ago cross referencing on the increasing marine phytoplankton ..enjoy !
–
From: Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake
“Since the start of the twenty-first century, however, the airborne fraction has been declining (−2.2% per year, P=0.07; Fig. 1b), despite the rapid increase in anthropogenic emissions (Fig. 1b).”
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428/figures/1
If you plot just Aprils for the last twenty years, the trend is still up.
It is up in just ENSO years. It is up for just April. It is up for all months. The trend is just up.
Roscoe May 1, 2017 at 6:50 pm
As I already pointed out, that is 21 Aprils, and 1997 was unusually cold, so it’s a cherry pick.
We have been paused essentially since the start of a warm AMO. Remind me again of what happens when the AMO turns cold again?
Same principle applies. To be 20 years, I need 20 Aprils. April 1997 was a freak, colder than any subsequent April by .13 degrees C, ie -0.26 v. -0.13 in 2008, ie twice as negative an anomaly.
No need for you to keep trying. You can’t get a statistically significant plot.
Here’s mine:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1998/plot/uah6/from:1998/trend
The lack or trend is my friend.
Starting point bias AND data set bias and you still get an uptrend.
We had a pause. The overall trend clearly is up.
Obviously, I can’t do that using annual data.
But if you plot a trend from April 1998 to April 2017 in monthly data, it will look more like the one I posted. As I said, using 1997 is cherry picking, due its coolness.
1998 is cherry picking due to its warmness
Virtually any period of time to the present using a robust data set (WTI) shows a clear warming trend
so does this
“We had a pause.”
AGW is intermittent, then. If it stops once, it will stop again.
Andrew
No, if your premise is “in the past 20 years”, then April 1998 IS the starting year. You can reject the premise for other reasons, however, changing the time frame to 21 years is not conforming to the original premise of “the past 20 years”.
You are wrong.
UAH6 only goes through October 2016. It appears many people are unaware of this problem.
20. He is counting ONLY Aprils. Use your fingers and toes. You will find 20 Aprils from April 1998 to April 2017.
1st grade math.
“Good news”??? I prefer it when it is warmer! (And history has shown that civilisation advances and living standards improve when it is warmer.)
To the climate cultists it’s unequivocally bad news because they are longing for their cherished climate catastrophe millenarianist-style, behinds they so want to be right — for a change.
I thought I typed ‘besides’ but this computer has a mind of its own.
New to posting here , has this been reviewed ? The other “pause” ? In Airborne CO2 .. bio mass increases ,absorbing CO2 . from the air,much faster than predicted .. If this effect continues to rise ,who needs /Paris ? .
Excerpt ‘
“Since the start of the twenty-first century, however, the airborne fraction has been declining (−2.2% per year, P=0.07; Fig. 1b), despite the rapid increase in anthropogenic emissions (Fig. 1b)”
From: Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake
–
Figure 1: Changes in the airborne fraction and the CO2 growth rate.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428/figures/1
–
If already covered , on WUWT ,send a link ,please ..you guys are usually way ahead of the curve ..
If of interest, since 2008 I’ve maintained a rolling monthly update of temperatures at the 32 oldest weather stations in Western Australia and compared the results with averages recorded at those locations in the late 19th to early 20th century.
My update yesterday showed the averaged minima across WA from May 2016 to April 2017 was 0.1C warmer than the consistent baseline average circa 1900. Averaged maxima were 0.36C warmer, resulting in a mean temp 0.23C warmer than a century ago.
Compared to the 12 months of 2013, the averaged minimum in WA at the 32 stations in the 12 months to yesterday was 1.13C cooler and average max was 1.11C cooler. WA hasn’t been anywhere near this chilly since my circa 1900 comparisons began with the 12 month average to March 2009.
Sea surface temperature anomalies in the Indian Ocean to the west and the Southern Ocean to south of WA have consistently been from 1C to 2C below the NOAA baseline average since early last year. BoM data suggest the September 2016 monthly mean temperature averaged from WA’s 25 ACORN station was the coldest on record for that month.
Yesterday’s calculation of the 12 month rolling average had a start month of May last year, by which time the late 2015 El Nino heat had pretty well been washed out, and it’ll be interesting to see if the chill continues.
According to the BoM, the south of WA had well below average rainfall in April with the north and interior of the state above average. Officially, the statewide maximum was 0.15C above average and minima were 0.33C below average. i.e. the mean temp in WA was -0.09C below average in April.
The Eyre weather station abutting the Southern Ocean had its lowest April mean daily minimum temperature since records began 57 years ago.
According to the most recent ACORN data, the mean temperature across WA was -0.07C below the 1961-90 average in the six months from September 2016 to February 2017.
Cold here in northeast Texas
Lots of hail and tornados from cold fronts blowing through
I am from down under , down the bottom of down under, autumn, it is bloody cold at night, plenty of rain and wind, many days not pleasant. Where is this global warming we are told about, my Harley is rusting in the shed from lack of use.
you KNOW the gig is up when the NSIDC is forced to admit that the arctic is again within 2 SD of mean while heir Trump is in office. and, of course, while the danes claim arctic temps are…..average.
Let’s do the best cherry picking we can…
Pick the hottest el Nino month for the start. April 1998.
Now, choose the coldest data series you can find. That is UAH.
Amazingly, still warming trend.
Roscoe, since the 1998 El Nino is followed by 3 La Nina years there is no way it can be a cherry pick. You get all or none. Simple math. The trend is the same from 1998 as it is from 2001.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2015/trend
You also seem oblivious to the fact that your links return the following error ….
This site can’t provide a secure connection
i53i.imgup.net sent an invalid response.
You also clearly don’t know WFT does not track UAH6 after 10/2016.
You really should try and get your act together.
Sorry for the broken link. Worked fine yesterday.
I would love it if somebody here would post a trend line of global temperature data that is negative with the following parameters…
…at least 3 years in length
… ending at the current time
… in the fossil fuel era
I can’t find one. All periods with all data in the fossil fuel era have rising temperature trends.
I clicked on the link to data. Works fine for me.
We internally calculate Wood For Trees (WTI) using simple average of GISS HadCrut UAH RSS
Did WTI drop UAH from their calculation as of Oct 2016? Why? Did they replace it with something else?
Richard M …
I thought I did the best cherry-picking possible starting from the hottest el nino month in 1998. But you are an amazing cherry picker… posting a graph from the height of 1998 el nino to the bottom of the trough in 2015 before the 2016 super el nino. Impressive.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2015/trend
Try generating a graph… any graph longer than 3 years in the fossil fuel era that ends in 2017… that shows a negative trend line.
“Simple math. The trend is the same from 1998 as it is from 2001.”
The trend changes every time you change the period of data which, of course, makes cherry picking very possible as you have proven so astutely.
Roscoe, its actually ever so slightly negative going back from 2016.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2016/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2016/trend
You repeatedly say this is cherry picking but there are two important points about this. At the time in 2016 it wasn’t cherry picking, it was simply looking backwards from the “present” for “as far as one could” to see how far one could go with no warming. That no longer applies and it is now a cherry pick to choose the period.
But more importantly Ben Santer did an analysis of warming trends as seen in the GCMs and found that for unforced runs, it was very unlikely that 17 years of satellite observations could pass with no warming because the unforced model runs didn’t show it 95% of the time. The period (cherry picked or not) represents a period of observation that the models didn’t predict because they always showed warming.
The period of 18 years of zero warming (or slight cooling) no matter how its chosen, falsifies the models.
All those trolls above are wrong of course, because our no-significant warming period is calculated BACKWARDS from the present. ‘Cherry-picking is not possible, it just runs as far as it can. Trolls, you are out of your depth. Now, back under your bridge….
Of course cherry picking is possible. The temp trend depends on start date and data set.
Can you demonstrate a period of time, going backwards, where the trend is not positive?
CO2 is a plant food
Prove it’s not !
Yes, CO2 is a proven plant food. I said nothing about CO2
Such a silly statement. Almost a silly as: Oxygen is animal food. Meaningless.
“Can you demonstrate a period of time, going backwards, where the trend is not positive?”
In other words, you cannot.
Silliest – Experiencing a global temperature.
Late spring snow damage to USA wheat causes s record increase in wheat futures on the Chicago exchange:
https://www.iceagenow.info/wheat-futures-surge-freak-snowstorm-blankets-midwest/
That’s a record that matters.
Up to 100 million bushels of production will be lost.
According to the old Chinese saying. “there is only one reality and that is hunger”.
Damn! There goes my bread budget! How much is that going to drive up the cost of raisin bread??? And in France, they’re having a frost on the wine vines. Does the mean the end of Beaujolais Villages?
The vanilla bean crop just took a hard hit, and prices are expected to soar.
Zero Hedge is not a reliable source.
The markets today show no follow through:
https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/jo_gr110.txt
I’ve been noting consistent, and rather spectacular cold across Russia, all of Europe and the Mediterranean throughout April in the twice daily NCEP GFS outputs. Looks to
continue. With unseasonably chilly conditions spreading to the Eastern U.S. in May.
Some good news to end April, global temperature anomaly has fallen to only +0.1°C today (snapshot) … graphic is like stock market trace.
Ain’t that good news!
“Amazingly, still warming trend.”
And this is the reason Warmers dismiss the squiggles. Their marketing m.o. is to use a generalized trend as their sales pitch. Of course, a generalized trend could be caused by many different things. So the more general you choose to get, the farther away from science you go.
Andrew
Well the warming trend is up, it’s probably natural and has nothing to do with CO2 but denying it makes you the other side of the same coin aka warmists.
why is it “probably natural?”
naturally caused by what?
decadal ocean cycles. Alters the distribution of water vapor across the various land masses, and min temps just follows dew point temperature.
It’s “natural” until we find the real scientific reason since obviously CO2 is not the cause.
mountainape5,
I’m not denying a warming trend. But a generalized warming trend by itself (no context or verifiable explanation) doesn’t really mean anything. If you believe the squiggly lines indicate something (I don’t necessarily think they do) there’s lots of warming and cooling squiggling going on that needs a scientific explanation, and climate science doesn’t provide any. It provides speculations. Big deal. Any half-wit can do that.
Andrew
I do make notes on daytime temps, especially when they seem to lag behind the ‘average’ (and they do now, consistently, and I’m in northeastern Illinois). I also note when I start the furnace and when I shut it off. It’s May 2nd, the furnace is still on, and it was snowing in Wisconsin when I got up this morning.
Now, about that wheat problem: is that hard red winter wheat? That’s rather durable, starts sprouting in late January or February, but I guess it depends on where it’s planted. At least the cost of butter is down.
if you only make notes when temperatures are below average, aren’t
you getting a biased
picture?
With no La Nina currently this indicates that the strong El Niño recently has not caused a step up in global temperatures and may in the near future cause a step down. The energy loss from the El Nino to the atmosphere and eventually space, does look greater than the energy intake over the recent period.
That’s odd… usually around this time of the month, the UAH numbers and analysis are re-posted.
So, instead of seeing the UAH analysis, and an increase in April of 0.08C over the March number, we get this.
Odd.
any port in
a storm
Why odd?
March-April Change in UAH Temperature Anomaly, Degrees C
1998: 0.27
1999: 0.03
2000: 0.06
2001: 0.15
2002: -0.01
2003: 0.00
2004: -0.21
2005: 0.14
2006: -0.09
2007: -0.12
2008: 0.01
2009: -0.04
2010: -0.19
2011: 0.14
2012: 0.15
2013: -0.05
2014: 0.02
2015: -0.09
2016: -0.02
2017: 0.08
Nine coolings or negative anomalies, one no change, five warming single hundredth digits and five warming double hundredth digits, ie positive anomalies. This year’s change isn’t unusual. Five of the 20 years showed more warming from March to April.
april’s temperature anomaly increased according to uah.
if maue wants a say, he can try and publish his methodology in the peer reviewed literature.
and let’s not pretend that one month defines a “pause.” jesus, talk about desperate.
Why the 13 Month Moving Average on Satellite Data?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/why-the-13-month-moving-average-on-satellite-data/
Four and 13-month moving averages are used in financial market analysis, too. Thirteen includes both the latest month and the same month in the prior year.