Global Temperature Update for April, 2018

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2018 was +0.21 deg. C, down a little from the March value of +0.24 deg. C:

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed, and so has the distinction between calendar months.

Some regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 01 +0.33 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10 +0.27 +0.95 +1.22
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.19 +0.08 +2.15 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06 +1.21 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21 +0.89 +0.22 +0.40
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41 +0.10 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39 +0.50 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51 +0.60 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46 -0.55 +0.49 +0.77
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54 +0.29 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.66 +0.59 +0.47 +1.20 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.26 +1.35 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.44 +1.36 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.12 +0.58 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.24 +0.16 +0.03 +0.91 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.24 +0.39 +0.10 +0.06 -0.33 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.10 -0.13 -0.01 +1.02 +0.68

The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through April 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.

The UAH LT global anomaly image for March, 2018 should be available in the next few days here.

The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, 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


In other news, Dr. Ryan Maue reports:

Advertisements

176 thoughts on “Global Temperature Update for April, 2018

  1. @ryan
    April was abnormally cold for Europe as well.
    You guys still have not got things right. It is globally cooling.
    Big cold is coming for SH this winter due to various factors.

      • its funny how we kept hearing stories of how cold it was in england yet on this map it was above the 30 year average?

      • In the UK we had 3 days where the temperature reached 28 C but the rest of the month was cold. Those 3 days were something like 21 C above the following few days. It was a freak few days caused by a southerly track of the jetstream.

      • @ son of mulder …that then caused warm surface winds from around Germany to flow west through France on the 13th, 16th, 17th ending on the 18th when the surface winds shifted.

      • In England the (field) hockey season finished a month late, last week for us, due to the number of iced off match days. A pretty good indicator of colder than usual weather. Could also quote central heating days. Up on a typical winter

      • where in the uk did it actually hit 28 c outside of central london ? it certainly got nowhere near that during that period in many other places.

      • Bitchilly, I know but it had the effect of raising the month’s average temperature to make it seem like a warm month consider 3days x 21deg (boats rose everywhere) above the rest / 30 days = 2 deg C approx increase in average. AGW says there was only about 0.8 deg C increase sind the start of the industrial revolution. Hence a significant affect.

      • Bob boder May 1, 2018 at 11:32 am

        its funny how we kept hearing stories of how cold it was in england yet on this map it was above the 30 year average?

        It was above average. We’ve had a several above “normal” Aprils in the past 20 years so have become accustomed to them. April is not a warm month. April 2018 was a fairly cloudy month but this kept the overnight minimum temperatures elevated.

      • ‘ First, I asked Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, whether the recent extended winter was related to global warming. Shaking his famous “ghost stick”, and fingering his trademark necklace of sharks’ teeth and mammoth bones, the loin-clothed Belcher blew smoke into a conch, and replied,

        “Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.” ‘

        http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/6/19/here-come-de-heap-big-warmy.html

      • Yes, re UK April temperatures, the mean CET max for April excluding the 18th to 22nd was 11.9 degrees, 0.8 degrees below the 1981-2010 mean, but the heatwave of 18th to 22nd averaged 21.1 degrees, 8.4 degrees above the mean, so overall it was 0.7 degrees above the mean.

        Weird month. Disappontingly cold, except for the short warm spell.

        Rich.

    • It surely was cold in Europe but not colder than avarage.. thats the point.. But it will be the next 3 years.

  2. Four months in a row, and it has not moved a bit.
    I had expected a fairly large drop, but it seems things are not cooling off that fast. Having four months so tightly clustered together is fairly uncommon in the UAH data set.
    People who are expecting the Big Cooling have to wait another month.

    • All that open water in the Arctic is resulting in a lot more heat being transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere?

    • Looking at four month periods for the full data set, 13 of 470 periods (2.8%) have a difference of 0.06 degrees or less between the minimum and maximum for that period, as is true for the most recent four month period. There are also 3 five month periods with a variance of 0.06 degrees or less, but none when you get to six months. This makes it seem likely that it will pick a direction soon, although it could be a gambler’s fallacy to assume that…

  3. From the article: “Global temperatures for April 2018 continue above normal globally with very notable exception of North America.”

    What is normal? If we drop two-tenths of a degree more, will that be normal (the zero line on the chart)?

    Was that drop in temperature for April only for North America?

    • Some large areas across the Eurasian continent started warming early in April, and that warming increased after the second half of the month, according to my daily pics. Otherwise the SH was average looking, no noticeable above or below temps. So the Eurasian continent was the moderating influence. The oceans did cool a bit, and that likely explains the drop.

      • That warming was linked to warm surface winds flowing northeast from the Caspian Sea, which then crossed to Central Eurasia, then north into the Arctic waters.

      • goldminor
        Yes the warmth did come up from Caspian Sea thanks to the splitting and looping of the jet.
        But the most interesting part was what was happening in the Arctic. Because thank’s to increased Jet stream activity within the Arctic. This large mass of warm air quickly lost its heat and by the time it had flowed around the Arctic and moved south again down across N America it was bitterly cold.
        lt was this that was a key factor to the low temps in N America.

      • Thank you! I hate the stupid use of terms like “normal” or “anomaly,” both of which suggest there is something “abnormal” about the *weather* which is the furthest thing from the truth. Not only is there nothing “unusual” or “anomalous” or abnormal” about the weather, but warmer is BETTER, period. People should be THANKFUL if the weather is “warmer than average,” and should be HOPEFUL that it will CONTINUE TO BE SO. The alternative (cooling) will be a HELL of a lot WORSE!

      • Dang. The El Niño effects have dissipated.
        Guess we’ll just have to laugh our way through another round of excuses for the renewed “pause”.

      • Yes, I come from the health statistic field, and it was beaten into me very early in my 30 year career: the proper term for “abnormal” is “statistically atypical”.

        Which we know current temps are not.

      • Exactly.
        Look at the zero line, which represents the average of all of the individual months (or so one might assume) during the years stated.
        How many months fell right on that center line?
        It appears to me that very few did.
        Very few months were average.
        Which means that average is abnormal, not normal at all.
        It is ridiculous to say that something that almost never happens is normal!

      • The “normal” temperature is not a value to be computed to a decimal place. It should be considered a “smear” pattern — a range approximating the expected temps for a given time of year. The “normal” or “average” high around here in May is 70-85F (and the local TV weather kiddies, showing their warmist bias, go ape-shit if the forecast high is a couple of degrees above “normal.”). Claims of higher precision than are justified by the quality of the data seem to be the basis for the Climate Change™ deception.

      • The satellite data starts as we come out of a below “average” cold period. Smoke and mirrors

    • The tropics cooled, too. You can see where it went… to the north pole, and from there… to space.

      • Yup, all indications that things are going to cool, not warm, in the future. IOW, bad news, but not the fault of human fossil fuel emissions (but you can rest assured that whatever happens, it’ll be blamed on humanity anyway).

  4. 0.1 degree catastrophic global warming increase since … 1986-87-88.
    0.1 degree catastrophic global warming increase since … 1990-91-92.
    0.1 degree catastrophic global warming increase since … 2001-2007.

    That would be your sensitivity of global temperature to CO2 – The rest is the usual 60 year short cycle (NO, I don’t what causes it) on top the long cycle 900-1000 year pattern we’ve seen since before the Romans.

    • If Earth was a patient and a doctor looked at those results he would conclude ‘within normal limits” not worry about it and move on.

    • All within the COLOSSAL margins of error in the “measurements” as well.

  5. The ocean temps are really the only thing that counts and precede land temps both up and down. The SH waters are overall warmer but going into winter. A weak El Niño is likely in the tropical Pacific later this year but the tropical Atlantic has cooled.

    It’s a slow-motion dance here. My guess is we continue down a bit as the delayed effects of the La Niña are felt. After that hard to say. Of course if we get a volcano to go off all bets are off.

    • rbabcock
      Why should ocean temps “precede land temps both up and down.”? Because of the greater thermal inertia of water, I expect water temps to lag land temps.

      • Clyde, rb may be referencing research by Ole Humlum, who after looking at lags in the records concluded:
        “It is instructive to consider the variation of the annual change rate of atmospheric CO2 together with the annual change rates for the global air temperature and global sea surface temperature (Figure 16). All three change rates clearly vary in concert, but with sea surface temperature rates leading the global temperature rates by a few months and atmospheric CO2 rates lagging 11–12 months behind the sea surface temperature rates.”

        The quote comes from GWPF 2017 State of the Climate report. The study report is The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

    • rb: Note that there is no real western Pacific warm pool. Warmish water (but not too warm) is getting wedged northerly and southerly and swathes of cold water from the polar regions have been angling equatorward. You are likely correct that any movement into El Nino territory will be weak. This wide mass of cool water at the equator is lingering like the El Nino did before it.

  6. Well that map also indicates below average for half of S America, most of Africa and much of Russia. And if anyone tells me the U.K. was warmer than average in April then I will send the men in white coats to go and get them.

      • Clim: The anomalies should be measured against 60 years, not 30 years. The warming from 1981 was starting at the bottom of a 30yr long cooling period that had scientists worrying about global cooling during the 1970s. This would show that over half the warming was just warming up to what it was in the 30s and 40s. But that suits promoters of a hyper-warm climate to start the baseline series in a hole. Indeed, from 1900 to the peak in mid 1930s-1940s was much more rapid warming than from 1940 to 2000. This is what caught up to them with the Pause which was predicted by a few scientists and it isn’t played out yet. I bet they will switch over to 60yr baseline after they anguish over this battling languishing temperatures.

    • “And if anyone tells me the U.K. was warmer than average in April then I will send the men in white coats to go and get them.”

      Can’t speak for the rest of the UK, but unless there’s a huge adjustment, CET will finish well above average. Average for 1981-2010 is 8.5C, provisional for 2018, up to 29th, 9.8C. Even if they drop a degree of the final figure it’s going to be above average. Not too surprising when you consider temperatures two weeks ago.

      • bitchilly,

        I was assuming steve wasn’t talking about mid troposphere temperatures. But as the map in this article shows, UAH has the troposphere above the UK above average as well.

      • Also, a lot of the above average values came from the minimums. Maximum UK temps were 0.6°C above average, minimums 1.4°C.

    • Steve I totally agree with ups
      Bellman if your figures are accurate why am I so ******* cold? And the soil is cold as well. Good grief even “Gardeners World” made reference to a late spring.

  7. It would be great to see this mapped onto a Peter’s Projection so one can compare areas. There’s an awful lot of tropical cooling to offset the exaggerated high latitude warmth.

  8. Looks like the NCEP hot spots are Arctic and Antarctic where we have limited coverage, or am I wrong?

    • Yes, as usual, they can “infill” with non-existent so-called “data” to guarantee the “warming trend” will continue.

    • Strange how the biggest positive anomalies are in the Arctic and Antarctic, where there are the fewest thermometers.

      • Strange how the biggest positive anomalies are in the Arctic and Antarctic, where there are the fewest thermometers.

        This is a satellite measurements, thermometers are not involved.

    • I second that. By eye the pause looks like c16 years, but Monckton does a proper calculation using the data and least-squares. Squeak up, Christoper!

      • I second that. By eye the pause looks like c16 years, but Monckton does a proper calculation using the data and least-squares. Squeak up, Christoper!

        No – the trend since 2002 isn’t flat. The 13 month running mean will give you a clue about that. You can just select a local max from 2002 and compare it with a local min form 2018 and claim there is a no trend. I make the trend since Jan 2002 about 0.12 deg per decade.

      • “Are you sure? Only a long pause is interesting.”

        If history repeats itself, he will start when there are 7 years of rapid cooling.

    • Using Monckton’s definition of a pause, and assuming he would switch from RSS 4 to UAH 6, the pause is currently 3 years and 1 month old, as the trend since then is negative.

      If you want longer you can go back to 1997, but then you get a trend that is +0.71°C / century.

      Of course, non of this has had any appreciable effect on the underlying trend.

      • Quite right. And extrapolating a little further, if anomalies in UAH stay at this level until the end of the year, then the most recent mini-pause will creep over 4 years in length. The trend starting at any of the previous 428 months will remain positive.

        However, lovers of Monckton’s carefully cherry-picked Long Pause are in for a disappointment, UNLESS, the anomaly drops to -0.57 next month, and stays there until December, in which case we will see him piping up. That will bring the trend since December 1997 to below zero, and he will be able to proclaim a 21-year pause.

        Any bets?

  9. Literally ALL the anomaly is in the Arctic and Antarctic. Oh there is a few warmer pockets in Australia and Europe but they are not enough to offset the extreme cold in North America.

    Sooooooo, I have some questions.

    1. If not for that nice warm pocket in the Beaufort Sea and the warm pockets in the Ross Sea and the Weddell Sea, what would the anomaly be for the month of April?

    2. Where did that warmer (not warm, this is anomaly after all) air over the arctic and Antarctic come from? Specifically?

    3. Look at all that cool anomaly in Africa and South America at the equator. Does a cool anomaly equator and a warm anomaly poles have an explanation?

  10. So will the heavy rain winter of 2016/17 lead to a temp spike over the next 3 to 4 months due to clear sky phenomenon, or is the only reason why global temps typically spike within approximately 20 months after West Coast heavy rain winters due to the solar cycle coming off of the minimum and moving to a first peak? In this case there is no way that solar can be involved as the minimum is just getting underway, and it is now 15 months since the winter of 2016/17.

    • Conclusion to the above, global temps will either fall or rise from here depending on the true cause of the 20 month temp spike after the theoretical West Coast flood cycle, imo.

  11. Looks like no warming since 1998. Massive increases for 2016 and 1998, and smaller increases in other years, but many years below the 0.2 degree positive anomaly. More and more it looks like the temperature ratchets up a bit and then is – roughly – constant for 20 years or more.

  12. Still warm but colder then last year. Do not forget the 1981-2010 averages are high in comparison to earlier periods.

    I still say by the summer of 2018 global temperatures will be at a 0 deviation from the 1981-2010 averages but to get to say some serious cooling is taken place the global temperatures at a minimum would have to fall to -.20c or more below the 1981-2010 averages.

    Global overall sea surface temperatures are trending down, now slightly below +.20c deviation from averages as opposed to north of +.30c deviation from the averages this past summer.

    • So you are predicting an anomaly of 0.0 degrees by this summer?

      A zero anomaly, bad for my garden maybe, but needed to stop this AGW scare.
      But real evidence that the pause has returned will be some anomalies of -0.25 or so.

      And a definitive cooling would be some anomalies of -0.5.

      Any predictions for those numbers? When?

      • Meh, we won’t see -0.2. I’d be surprised by any negative value. A statistical analysis might reveal what is expected without an asteroid strike.

      • Well, I certainly expect to never again see a negative anomaly.

        No matter what the weather might actually do.

      • Take a look at the long term trend from at least 1800. Then remember that the data is crap outside N. America, Europe and a few major centres in the Southern Hemisphere. Evaluate that gradual rise in temperature and then assume a reversion to that trend line.
        Zero man made change, gradual and beneficial warming for most of the planet. Multiple shorter term natural variations within that long term trend. Nothing we can do and nothing to worry about yet.
        Try to figure out what warning signs to be aware of that will precede the next glaciation and what we can do about that, because that is the very real, longer term threat. Not this piddly bit bit of beautiful warming.
        Oh yeah, the Socialists, too. Worry about the Socialists because they are on then verge of taking the field with the most dangerous operating manual in history.

    • Since your graphic starts at the 80th latitude northward, the other warm area must be between 70N and 78N above Russia between the East Siberia Sea and the Laptev Sea, in the area of the New Siberia Islands.

      Probably Russian measurements from a thermometer that was moved indoors to prevent it from freezing and make it easier to read without putting on a coat and going outside (;-)

      • Probono: Soshulists don’t mind the lies of other soshulists, but the western ones are not as good at it. There is an adoration of China by the Champagne soshulists and China is trading off on that goodwill by doing nothing, indeed they are busy building coal plants even in Africa and Russia is piping China gas. They believe we are fools.

      • probono May 1, 2018 at 1:23 pm
        maybe the answer is here:

        “Russia is the fifth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Yet the plan it submitted under the Paris agreement to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 is one of the weakest of any government and actually permits Russia to increase carbon pollution over time.”

        And such is the Farce that is called the Paris Agreement

  13. Both the anomaly graph and the anomaly map continue to bother me, especially when used in the news media and on the internet. Most people do not even understand what temperature anomalies are. For most people they only see the word “temperature.” A graph that ranges from -0.7 to +0.9 C with anomalies ranging from -0.5 to +0.88 C also accentuates any deviation from the average. How many people know what the Earth’s average temperature is? If I tell you it is getting hotter with no perspective/ no real reference you have one vision. If I tell you the average is 14 degrees C (57 F) you have a completely different view of any problem. We are not really talking about any great change in the Earth’s average temperature, especially when the extremes are from +56 degrees C to -88 degrees C. The map shows parts of the Northern Hemisphere at +5.0. If the Arctic average winter temp is -50 then -45 is still pretty dang cold and nothing much is melting. It makes a huge different in people’s perception of the problem depending on how it is presented and graphs, charts and maps are often the most potent. The Wall Street Journal put out a little book on how to read and also how to use graphs to make a point as well as how graphs are misused.

    • Why dont we never get the absolute temperatures and depicted at a properly scaled global map (not in K but say -20 to 45 C, 15 C being the color white), is it too difficult?

      • ChrisB, Apparently it is too difficult. Of course for the CAGW crowd it would never do since it would not make global warming appear to the average person as a catastrophic threat.

      • Other than 0C being freezing (32F) and 273K (273.15K) are the same Freezing Point of Water.
        Each additional 1C or 1K are equal measures … 1K above freezing is 1C above freezing, 10K above freezing is 10C above freezing

      • “Why dont we never get the absolute temperatures and depicted at a properly scaled global map (not in K but say -20 to 45 C, 15 C being the color white), is it too difficult?”
        You wouldn’t see -20 to 45 °C for UAH. These are lower troposphere temperatures. When they used to produce a daily global average in absolute, the temperatures were about -26°C. Basically, for satellite temperatures, “absolute” reflects the altitude at which they are measuring, not climate.

      • That cannot be right: I know for a fact that I evaporate every single time it gets any more that purple hot.
        And I have not evaporated yet.

  14. Maybe the Quiet Sun Solar Wind isn’t sending enough carbon to the Earth. This would cause a reduction in the amount of CO2 formed in the atmosphere; thereby, causing a CO2 shortage. This would, according to CO2 theory, result in cooling.

    sarc…

    • “I’ve come to accept I’m simply too average to understand how stupid an average global temperature is.”

      There, fixed it for you. ;-D

    • Me too. I am still trying to find the average temperature for the inside of my house. Any tips on how I do that?

      • John: its easy. If you want a warming house, take all measurements near heating ducts. If you want a cooling house, take all measurements near cold water pipes. If you don’t get what you want simply adjust the numbers.

    • I guess the average is pretty high, well over 1000K integrated over the volume of the Earth.

      • “This is because polar air, particularly in winter, is very dry, and therefore small changes in enthalpy drive large changes in temperature.”
        -Javier, below

        There is your answer about the reality of an average. It works only to some extent.

  15. The map by Dr. Maue may be accurate, but is very misleading. It’s a Mercator projection…ie the North Pole and the South Pole are spread all the way across the map. If each are pulled back into a single location depicting reality, the amount of red in the Arctic and Antarctic is much less alarming.

    • Murray Snyder May 1, 2018 at 9:37 am
      The map by Dr. Maue may be accurate, but is very misleading. It’s a Mercator projection…ie the North Pole and the South Pole are spread all the way across the map. If each are pulled back into a single location depicting reality, the amount of red in the Arctic and Antarctic is much less alarming.

      It is not a Mercator Projection, it looks more like a Patterson.

    • Dr. Maue’s map shows a large red/brown (warm) area north of Siberia, and a large blue/green (cold) area north of Greenland, Svalbard, and western Russia. Due to the high latitude, the distance between meridians is very small, and both areas are relatively small and close to each other.

      Regarding the cold snap over North America, if April showers bring May flowers, what do April snowstorms bring? Lousy crops?

  16. If 0.2C is all the alarmists can point to as a global warming increase on the average for a 40 year period of heavy man made CO2 production; doesnt this disprove the CAGW theory? What happens if the satellites result gets back to 0 anomoly? When will the alarmists admit we don’t have a problem?

    • I count around 44 ppm over the last 21 years added into the atmosphere. So agreed, where is the warming from that huge record setting increase.

    • They’ll claim adjustments,,,. And go back to surface records with all their adjusted and homogenized data sets with GISS in the lead,..

      • i thought the warming in the troposphere was supposed to be 3 fold over the surface temps ? anyone claiming to measure the earths average temp over the course of a year to 0.2c is kidding themselves on ,imo.

    • Statistically speaking, .2C is within the margin of error. Well within. But people are still trying to tell us that we MUST embrace CAGW.

      You know, in the corporate world, an engineer would get fired for that sort of malfeasance.

      Just sayin’.

    • FWIW, I don’t think there is a problem but your analysis is a bit screwed. The ZERO anomaly doesn’t relate to the start of the data. It is the mean temperature for the 1981-2010 period. If you look at the graph the longest period when the temperature anomaly is above ZERO as much of the time as it is below is in the mid to late 1990s, so we can say, broadly speaking, that April 2018 is about 0.2 deg C warmer than it was 20 years ago. But we still need to be careful about drawing too many conclusions from this months or previous months reading since we don’t know if this the true background temperature anomaly or if we are currently in a dip.

    • This would be proof positive of a malign heat “intelligence” that is finding ways to dodge the CO2 molecules in the air to get to space. The Exxon knew theory of evil corporatism and tax milking predicts this.

    • Most of that warmth (?) is due to the +AMO which is also why you see the warmer values in the Arctic. This effect is minimized over the summer months. It will be interesting to see if we can keep ENSO neutral conditions this summer as that should give us a truer reading.

  17. Give it time. Cooling is on the way from below and above.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    http://climate4you.com/
    a) Time-depth temperature diagram along 59 N, 0-800 m depth, across the North Atlantic Current.
    b) Average temperature along 59 N, 30-0W, 0-800m depth, corresponding to the main part of the North Atlantic Current, using Argo-data.


    Noting repeat of cool summer in 2018 from 2009 episode

  18. While I realize local weather isn’t climate, we’ve had a long, cold winter here in the upper Midwest of the NA. Most lakes are still ice covered which means they will set all time records for latest ice out. Our fishing opener is going to a tough one. :-)

  19. The coldest month in to months! Must be “global cooling” caused by humans holding their breaths all at once to stop emissions. Let’s try it again- all at once now!,..

    • @Bob Weber – Greetings from the Big Mango (BKK).

      A a few days ago Allan MacRae asked us to take a guess about these questions …

      Q: Will the six years from 1Jan2018 to 1Jan2024 be colder or warmer than the previous 6 year period, and by how much in degrees C, on average? Why?

      A: My guess is UAH LT will be 1.0 to 1.5 dg net cooler, primarily because of deep cold ocean upwelling with help from low solar activity. (Your charts reminded me about oceans strong effect- tnx)

      This was a couple days ago so today I went to wood for trees and did I trend on UAH from 2016 to 2018. The trend was 0.15 C per yr.
      So after six years that would be 0.90 C.

      NB- the Little Ice Age on several charts looks to be .5 degrees C lower than global average. So with .15 starting at 2016 by the end of 2018 that will be .45 … Just sayin …

      Then I noticed a chart stored in my tablet of September temperature in Germany for the last hundred years. What caught my eye was very cold Septembers. The average was about 13.3 C and the cold Septembers were 10.3 C. They were at 1930, 1950, 1974, and 1996. So I would predict one for 2018 also. These were at the end of even solar Cycles number 16 number 18 number 20 number 22 and number 24. Stay tuned.

      Sandy, Minister of Future

  20. Monthly global anomalies have important deviations that I suspect are due to the way the anomaly is calculated and not to real temperature changes.

    The very clear seasonal component in the global anomaly that can be appreciated in the figure above (black sinusoidal) is due to polar anomalies being positive at both poles for the October-to-April months and negative for the April-to-October months. The following figure shows it:

    I am not sure yet of the cause of this seasonal component in anomalies, only that it appears to be ignored by everybody.

    The weight of polar temperature changes on the global average is disproportionate. Polar temperatures can change rather quickly by 6-10 K dwarfing changes anywhere else. This is because polar air, particularly in winter, is very dry, and therefore small changes in enthalpy drive large changes in temperature.

    I would expect May-to-September temperatures to be in the lower side of the red range in the first figure (black dashed). 2018 should be cooler than 2017.

    The media reported:
    2016 – warmest year
    2017 – a top 3 warmest year
    2018 will be a top 5 warmest year

    Looks like a cooling trend to me. Expect some fun if we get to a top 20 warmest year.

  21. Dr. Spencer,
    Thank You (!) for providing these regular updates. Your hard work is appreciated!
    While I often ‘make light’ of the global warming meme, that in no way reflects on your dedicated and professional presentations here and elsewhere. Salute!

  22. I have been re-reading a short book, originally used in teaching, by Tjeerd van Andel– “Science at Sea, Tales of an Old Ocean” (W. H. Freeman 1980). It is a reasonable overview of climate, productivity, geology, dangers of cold, possible human effects, and how the scientific community operates. It is often properly cautionary about science.

    From a section – What is a Significant Climate Change?
    “…if we had been around when the dinosaurs became extinct, technology would probably have had to accept the responsibility.”

    From a section – Present and Future Climates: Controversy and Confusion.
    “It is not too surprising then to find a great deal of controversy among experts … ….Unfortunately, periodicity of a complex phenomenon is easy to fake, especially when the timing of the events is somewhat uncertain so we can shift them back and forth a little to make them fit better. ”

    I remember those days of rational experts, still a few around.

    • The problem is that Richard Feynmann died. If he was still living, this whole farce of global warming would quickly die just on his say so. He was that much of a giant. Michael M. Modest the world authority on Radiative Heat Transfer could quickly end the hoax but he is too cowardly to enter the discussion.

  23. Where is the word EVAH!! In this article? Monthly and yearly temperatures cannot be stated without that word. Tsk tsk

  24. lts been a very interesting month for studying how changing weather patterns can lead to shifts in climate.
    What was most interesting was the large amount of cooling in N America. Because l understood what the new factor was that helped to caused it, that l had not known before.
    lt helped to cast more light on the weather’s role to ice age formation and why N America became bitterly cold with thick ice sheets.

  25. It is an observational fact that there is correlation between mid-ocean seismic activity and El Niño events and global warming.

    It is an observational fact that for some unexplained reason there was a 200% increase in mid-ocean seismic activity for the entire warming period as compared to the previous cold period.

    The increase in mid-ocean seismic activity occurs two years prior to the El Niño event.

    The largest increase in mid-ocean seismic activity in the record (240% higher than the highest previous peak in the lower period), occurred two years prior to the 2016 El Niño event.

    There must be a physical explanation as to what could cause the mid-ocean seismic activity to increase by 200%.

    As I noted in another thread the current geological paradigm is missing a mechanism to move the tectonic plates and cannot explain mountain formation (and a number of basic geological observations), for example the Andes and Rocky Mountain ranges.

    The current geological paradigm is a heat-based mechanism: to supply the force move the plates to cause earthquakes.

    The standard paradigm for the heat-based system is if the plates move more now and there are hence more earthquakes now, there will be less earthquakes in the immediate future. Based on the standard paradigm mid-ocean earthquake frequency entire planet should vary within narrow limits.

    Prior to the observation that the mid-ocean earthquakes increased by 200%, the standard belief was that it is not physically possible for the frequency of earthquakes to increase by 200% for a long-term period.

    It was believed that earthquake occurrence was/should be statistical (random, chaos), due to the random release of the plates

    The limited variability of earthquakes is based on the assumption that the plates are moved by heat and there is no mechanism that could suddenly cause heating to increase or suddenly decrease.

    And even if there was a mechanism to increase heating in the earth: the heating would be regional, not for the whole earth.

    And lastly even if there was a means to increase heating of the earth, due to the mass of the earth, the effects would be very, very slow and changes would occur over long periods of time, not a ramp up of two years.

    https://www.newgeology.us/presentation21.html

    Plate Tectonics: too weak to build mountains

    “In 2002 it could be said that: “Although the concept of plates moving on Earth’s surface is universally accepted, it is less clear which forces cause that motion. Understanding the mechanism of plate tectonics is one of the most important problems in the geosciences”8. A 2004 paper noted that “considerable debate remains about the driving forces of the tectonic plates and their relative contribution”40. “Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift died in 1926, primarily because no one could suggest an acceptable driving mechanism. In an ironical twist, continental drift (now generalized to plate tectonics) is almost universally accepted, but we still do not understand the driving mechanism in anything other than the most general terms”2.”

    “The advent of plate tectonics made the classical mantle convection hypothesis even more untenable. For instance, the supposition that mid-oceanic ridges are the site of upwelling and trenches are that of sinking of the large scale convective flow cannot be valid, because it is now established that actively spreading, oceanic ridges migrate and often collide with trenches”14. “Another difficulty is that if this is currently the main mechanism, the major convection cells would have to have about half the width of the large oceans, with a pattern of motion that would have to be more or less constant over very large areas under the lithosphere. This would fail to explain the relative motion of plates with irregularly shaped margins at the Mid-Atlantic ridge and Carlsberg ridge, and the motion of small plates, such as the Caribbean and the Philippine plates”19. .

    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/have-global-temperatures-reached-a-tipping-point-2573-458X-1000149.pdf

    Two previous studies, The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming (CSARGW) and the Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming: 2016 Update (CSARGW16), documented a high correlation between mid-ocean seismic activity and global temperatures from 1979 to 2016 [1,2]. As detailed in those studies, increasing seismic activity in these submarine volcanic complexes is a proxy indicator of heightened underwater geothermal flux, a forcing mechanism that destabilizes the overlying water column.

    This forcing accelerates the thermohaline circulation while enhancing thermobaric convection [3-6]. This, in turn, results in increased heat transport into the Arctic (i.e., the “Arctic Amplification”), a prominent feature of earth’s recent warming [7-9]. .

    there is a 95% probability that global temperatures in 2019 will decline by 0.47°C ± 0.21°C from their 2016 peak. In other words, there is a 95% probability that 2019 temperatures will drop to levels not seen since the mid-1990s.

    • Please explain the inconsistency and provide the warming agent present when geothermal flux was lower.

      • Bob,

        You are thinking as if this is an argument as opposed to a hard scientific physical paradox which should bring the scientific community’s and the scientific public’s full attention.

        There are very large (planetary) unexplained physical events.

        The cause of the El Nino was not the sudden increase in mid-ocean seismic by 200%.

        We are sitting here like dumbies and not asking what the heck could cause the sudden impossible (from the standard geological paradigm), increase in mid-ocean seismic activity?

        There is only one physical possibility.

        As I stated before the sudden increase in mid-ocean seismic activity was caused by a sudden increase in the rate of crystallization of the liquid core of the planet.

        As the core of the planet contains roughly 5% by weight of liquid CH4, that CH4 is released when the liquid core of the planet crystallizes.

        The extruded liquid CH4 is immediately pushed to the surface of the planet by the core pressure. This release of CH4 to the surface of the earth, started with the start of crystallization of the planet roughly 700 billion years ago.

        The above mechanism explains the Cambrian explosion of life as there would be and was a sudden increase in continental land and the start of mountain building, as well as the growth of the planet’s oceans.

        As maybe a couple are aware there was a sudden impossibly large change to the geomagnetic field at the same time as the change in to the mid-ocean seismic activity.

        There needs to be a physical explanation as to the sudden change in the geomagnetic field and the increase in the rate of crystallization of the liquid core of the planet. There is again only one possibility.

      • I could believe in what is said about the core of the planet but how can I when really it’s still unverified to a large extent. The rest of it is something that depends on the first part so who can know. Always something to think about.

    • There is no need to conjure geothermal flux as an ENSO driver as it is evident TSI caused the 2015/16 ENSO, and prior top of solar cycle ENSOs. Here is the recent ENSO in Fig 17, and the TSI influence on ENSO indices from the past 4 solar cycles:

      • Yup. Stronger sunshine heats the tropical Pacific more than weaker insolation. Who knew?

        Also, relatively stronger UV affects the ENSO-regulating trade winds via change in atmospheric pressure due to ozone.

        Plus, the Arctic and Antarctic affect tropical circulation. When the Arctic oscillation (AO) is in its warm phase, tropical trade winds are stronger. Conversely, trade winds are weaker during the cold phase of the AO.

      • Bob,

        I thought TSI changes were too small to explain the phenomena.

        What is the mechanism?

      • Now that many TSI issues are practically a thing of the past, meaning now the TSI range in the modern era has been fairly well established, it’s possible to answer such that question more meaningfully than in the early part of the record when different instruments gave disparate results leaving scientists a mess to sort out.

        The wrong assumption is the standard IPCC solar view, which is based on the faulty idea that the temperature can’t be controlled by it because the S-B eqn says so, which predicts a small impact from TSI. The faulty assumption is right there: no allowance for the sub-surface energy storage time from these small changes, leading to the ignorance of the accumulation effect I found. The daily accumulations are small and do not violate S-B on a daily basis.

        The almost 0.6C maximum rise in HadSST3 in monthly data in SC24, valley to peak, would be about an order of magnitude too much just assuming the peak TSI. However everyday activity acts incrementally within S-B, either accumulating or depleting energy as TSI level changes over time, above or below 1361.25W.

        Look how small the daily changes are:

        Solar energy absorbed sub-surface in the tropical ocean is always either accumulating or depleting OHC as the sunlight changes in strength throughout the solar cycle. The underlying assumption is 1 au TSI either warms or cools the ocean at a certain level over time, analogous to phase change temperature thresholds like the freezing and boiling points of water.

        Example of TSI warming/cooling above/below SORCE 1au TSI warming line:

    • Your “Newgeology” link by Fischer is as wrong as wrong can be. Tectonics not only can but does build mountains. No “weakness” has ever been observed.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andean_orogeny

      Building the Andes did begin about 200 Ma, when Pangaea started splitting up during the Early Jurassic. It sped up some 30 Ma because of a change in Pacific Ocean plates.

      “In the Oligocene the Farallon Plate broke up, forming the modern Cocos and Nazca plates ushering a series of changes in the Andean orogeny. The new Nazca Plate was then directed into an orthogonal subduction with South America causing ever-since uplift in the Andes, but causing most impact in the Miocene. While the various segments of the Andes have their own uplift histories, as a whole the Andes have risen significantly in last 30 millions years (Oligocene–present).”

    • Yes here in England on May 1st when l left for work at around 5.30am this morning there was frost on my car’s windscreen and l live in the middle of a town.

  26. Oh Canada, Oh Canada..
    The Laurentide Ice Sheet is coming for you .

    … in a few 10,000 years.

  27. https://www.iceagenow.info/magnetic_reversal_chart/

    The above is the evidence or data which shows how magnetic reversals or excursions can be tied into the climate of course takng solar activity into much consideration.

    It is not just TSI , but also the speed of the solar wind (ap index), galactic cosmic rays ,and changes in EUV light , combined with what the geo magnetic field is doing that I think changes the climate.

    It changes the climate by first lowering the overall sea surface temperatures which is in response to mostly reductions in UV light and Near UV light wavelengths because those wavelengths penetrate the ocean surface to much greater depths then the other wavelengths.

    Now it also changes the climate by causing a slight reduction in albedo, by first all increasing cloud coverage and snow coverage due to a more meridional atmospheric circulation tied into changes in EUV light , and I think an increase in galactic cosmic rays.

    Here is the catch it is not only the increase in the amounts of galactic cosmic rays but where they are directed (latitude)and that depends on where the geo magnetic poles are located, as well as the strength of the geo magnetic field. Right now it is fading quite rapidly while the N. Magnetic pole is racing toward Siberia.

    In addition weakening magnetic fields may also cause a reduction in albedo due to an increase in explosive volcanic activity. This due to an increase in muons a by product of galactic cosmic rays which excites the calderas of these types of volcanos.

    So what am I looking for going forward? An increase in major explosive volcanic activity, an increase in global cloud coverage/snow coverage and a reduction in the overall sea surface temperatures. This being concurrent with weakening solar/geo magnetic fields.

    This to me is the best explanation against the backdrop in the big climatic picture of Milankovitch Cycles, ocean /land arrangements, the initial state of the climate ( that being how close is the climate to begin with to glacial /inter -glacial conditions when these changes I mentioned take place), consideration of asteroid impacts which throw the whole climatic system into chaos when they randomly occur, the super nova situation in the relative neighborhood of the earth which would greatly influence the amounts of galactic cosmic rays concentration that could enter the earth ‘s atmosphere as magnetic fields weaken.

    This is not a simple one cause one effect explanation but rather a myriad of many factors, and this is why it is so hard to see the correlations when changes are minor.

  28. Evidence-free fanciful assertion #1

    William Astley

    There is only one physical possibility.
    As I stated [asserted] before the sudden increase in mid-ocean seismic activity was caused by a sudden increase in the rate of crystallization of the liquid core of the planet.
    As the core of the planet contains roughly 5% by weight of liquid CH4, that CH4 is released when the liquid core of the planet crystallizes.
    The extruded liquid CH4 is immediately pushed to the surface of the planet by the core pressure.

    Skeptical doesn’t mean gullible.
    Show us your evidence.

    Evidence-free fanciful assertion #2

    Salvatore Del Prete:

    In addition weakening magnetic fields may also cause a reduction in albedo due to an increase in explosive volcanic activity. This due to an increase in muons a by product of galactic cosmic rays which excites the calderas of these types of [explosive] volcanos.

    Muons excite calderas. Sounds fascinating!
    But where is the evidence for that?

    • Yup – plenty of arm waving on this topic. I am not convinced that ENSO events require any change in external forcings. It is quite likely just warm/cold cells and water/wind currents in/over the ocean going through cycles. The ocean is never going to absorb or emit energy at a constant rate.

      Simple logic :-)

      Regards

      M

  29. Ultimatety we know almost nothing, except that climate changes. Earth is part of the totality of the solar system, gravitational forces, orbital variations, sun changes, etc. etc. AGW is a “religious” apocalyptic belief system. Man the sinner, loss of paradise, doom and damnatiion, us as the judge and the condemned. Hubris.

    • Despite al my predictions and reasons why /how the climate may change you are correct when you say we know almost nothing except the climate changes.

      From all the evidence I have researched I think it has to do with solar/geo magnetic field strengths by I could be wrong against the backdrop of Milankovich Cycles, and ocean/land arrangements, etc..

      I said this in my previous post . Scroll up some to see it.

  30. Well…colder..warmer..i remember the winters in the 1980.. and the times we could watch an really nice dutch event called the ( Elfstedentocht ) and if THATS what we are heading towards then i say…juist let it get colder..nothing wrong with that..i am stil alive right?
    Its the Earth cycles..its really obvious..the young scientist juist dont remember the old days and think only in numbers from a short period of time.
    I really think all the climate fuzz is overated

  31. My cheap contribution: I check when 5 trees blossom outside my windows in Madrid. This year, they are 11 – 15 days later than 2017. So Spain was definitely cold in late winter / spring, as is shown by Ryan Maue’s chart. Also, several Spanish ski stations have had their longest or 2nd longest seasons in 50 years.

  32. All the surface data is manipulated all the time (on a daily basis).

    There is not reason to believe the Met offices of any country, and even less for the “climate scientists” and their constant reconstructions proving nothing. The data is not fit for purpose, and we have known that for decades (Hansen et. el). It is debatable that the very idea of a global anomoly value has any more meaning than the standard deviation of numbers in a telephone book (McKitrick et al.)

    Weather and climate happen – deal with it

Comments are closed.