From Dr. Roy Spencer:
UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2018: +0.18 deg. C
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2018 was +0.18 deg. C, down a little from the April value of +0.21 deg. C:
Some regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 17 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 +0.20 +0.08 +2.16 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06 +1.21 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.27 +0.29 +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 +0.22 +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 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47 +1.21 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.27 +1.35 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.44 +1.37 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.58 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.24 +0.16 +0.03 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.06 -0.32 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.10 -0.13 -0.01 +1.02 +0.68
2018 05 +0.18 +0.40 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.40
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through May 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for May, 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
This question is to Mr. Nick Stokes. Nick if you can ever shake your religious fervor we skeptics would warmly welcome you to the truth because you have proved you are an excellent digger of info and fact checker. The problem is that your belief in global warming is blinding you to all the evidence that IT ISNT HAPPENING . My question to you is if the UAH satellite temps now show + 0.18, let us round that up to +0.2 to help the alarmist cause’ Ok that means the full range 2 * 0.2 = + 0.4 increase in ~ 40 years. So 0.1 per decade or 1 C in a century. Since the UAH staellite data dont show any accerelation of warming and moreover it shows cycling of warming and cooling why do you think that this 0.1C increase per decade would get any worse? 1C per century is certainly nothing to worry about and indeed in Canada we would like higher increases in temperature. Nick why do you like things so cold? It is insanity to spend trillions of dollars to make the climate colder than it already is. And that assumes that we can vary the temp by using CO2 as a control knob as you fervently believe. Again why are you afraid of a 1C increase for a 100 year period?
” 2 * 0.2 = + 0.4 increase in ~ 40 years. So 0.1 per decade or 1 C in a century”
Well, you can’t work out a 40 year trend using just one month’s data. But UAH give the trend on the data file linked, at 0.13 °C/decade. Most other measures are around 0.18 or so in that period. For my part, I think the satellite numbers based on microwave soundings are less reliable.
But the fundamental issue is, there is a strong scientific argument that adding CO2 to the air will cause warming. We’ve done it, and it warmed. And what we’ve burnt is only a small fraction of the amount that we could burn.
I’m sure warming would be welcomed in Canada (though maybe not the forest fires). Where I am, we don’t need it, and certainly not the fires. And there are hotter places. But generally, changing the climate is a serious matter, with all sorts of ramifications. You need to think before you do it.
Nick,
Warming since we’ve added CO2 to the air is no different from warming cycles before we enriched the atmosphere with more vital plant food.
Indeed, for the first 32 years after WWII, we added CO2 steadily, yet Earth cooled dramatically. Then the PDO flipped in 1977, and our planet began to warm slightly. Then in this century, global temperature, as nearly as it can be measured, has stayed flat, but for the 2016 El Nino, the warming effect of which is now being transmitted to space.
Thus, there is no evidence of global warming caused by increasing man-made CO2 levels. To imagine that conjecture is to commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. All the evidence shows that adding more CO2 has had no effect on temperature, although it has noticeably greened the planet.
Since there is a (poorly named) “greenhouse effect”, net feedbacks must be negative, which is what should be expected on a homeostatic water world.
Only a science historian could make such a basic science error to glibly refer to aerial CO₂ as plant food. CO₂ is NOT plant food! “Food” is properly understood as a SOURCE of Gibbs Free Energy. CO₂ is not that as it has no chemical energy to convert. It is an aerial fertilizer and a necessary building block that plants use to MAKE food from sunlight. CO₂ without the other biogeochemical, photo and temperature autotrophic drivers and the right plant types i.e. C₃ has zero effect.
Your idi0tic denial that CO2 is involved in photosynthesis (google is your friend) eclipses and denial of AGW that you jowlflap about. We’re you involved in David Attenborough’s decision to never say the word “photosynthesis” in his entire program about plants on earth? You’re in the same gang of thieves I guess. It won’t work. Most primary school children know that CO2 is needed by plants and all life, a big ask to cover that up.
You obviously don’t read as well as the school children or have their knowledge. You are deft at creating strawmen and deflections. Nowhere do I deny CO₂ photosynthesis especially when I wrote “It (CO₂) is an aerial fertilizer and a necessary building block that plants use to MAKE food from sunlight.”
Liar, don’t bother responding – I ignore spineless, pathological lying buffoons like you!
OMG, how pedantic. On what planet is ” “Food” is properly understood as a SOURCE of Gibbs Free Energy. “?
food is understood as a thing you absorb on a daily basis to sustain your life, and that’s it. As wikipedia “Food is any substance consumed to provide nutritional support for an organism. ”
It is is a nutrient, and CO2 is for plant, it is a food. Period. No matter if it brings energy or require energy to be turned into useful chemical.
Hell, we even count salad and like as food, while only consuming energy and bringing zero nutrients.
People just don’t know that “Gibbs Free Energy” even exist. And even people knowing about GFE don’t know what it means; and that includes YOU, it seems to me.
And you better stop talking as if you knew something about plant biology and effect of enriched CO2 on growth, you obviously don’t. You are again making a fool of yourself
Thank you for sharing your vast lack of knowledge. Science uses precise and unambiguous terminology which you consider to be pedantic out of your lack of education and knowledge. And no, CO₂ is not plant food it has zero joules. Try that it is a food on your HS science paper and you will fail!
Gibbs Free Energy (G) – The energy associated with a chemical reaction that can be used to do work.
http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/fyp/stone/tutorialnotefiles/thermo/gibbs.htm
sarcasm works only in special condition you obviously don’t meet. As it is, you are just, again, making a fool of yourself.
Actually, CO2 has less than 0 joules as food for plant, since plant (or just every other autotroph, depending on chemical energy instead of light) must process it and bring energy to turn it into sugar. So you fail again, when emphasis on a zero that is a wrong figure. Thank you for proving your pedantry, with emphasis on a concept you can name and link to, but obviously aren’t able to use correctly.
But you have a point. “Science uses precise and unambiguous terminology”, indeed. And you’ll find out that IPCC is just incapable of stating a precise and unambiguous definition of greenhouse effect. Too bad for a so-called science. Thoroughly looking at latest report I’ll found two incompatible definitions, not precise enough anyway to just answer basic question… So much for your “science”.
LOL – real stupidity racing to the bottom!
Deflection and name calling. Not surprised you act the way you claim others do, like, here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/global-temperature-continues-to-drop-from-el-nino-induced-high/#comment-2372460
You already did with your answer (that is, lack of!) to the evidence you were wrong, again.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/global-temperature-continues-to-drop-from-el-nino-induced-high/#comment-2373065
Now, a sensible man would apology for calling other liar when they actually were truthful, but will you? I have no prejudice… just an educated guess from previous experience.
(yeah, nick, we can flip a coin as to whether or not we’ll get warming)…
Always a pleasure to read your simple albeit accurate summation. I notice many of the climate fiction devotees like to call themselves skeptics as they write tomes of junk science not realizing that to be a skeptic one needs to be an expert first. Thank you for your steady wisdom and knowledge.
Stokes is capable of as much junk as you are…
You do not have the expertise necessary to put substance behind your drivel. I admire your braggadocio and hopefully you are not too badly hurt when your infantile delusions implode someday.
Scientia Praecepta, your comment is from a pedantic young graduate with very high mark. You surely can learn what was taught to you, and perfectly parrot it, and that’s enough for you too feel superior and able to lecture all around. If you had begun to use your brain on your own, you wouldn’t be so, meaning you didn’t, meaning your graduation is not far in time. And you have time to lose here, instead of working or caring for some woman.
Well, you’ll grow up, at some point. Hopefully.
The fact is, YOU don’t have the expertise to know whether other have, or not, “expertise necessary to put substance behind your drivel”.
The fact is, to have expertise necessary to put substance behind YOUR drivel, would require you breaking the forecasting limitation from chaos, a feat currently conjectured impossible and worthy of Field Medal + several Nobel (pretty much all of them, actually) + someone getting the richest man on Earth using your technique. Obviously not true.
You are an expert in gobbledygook and gibberish!
There more truth in this tried sarcasm that you would, indeed.
Now show me a sensible definition of greenhouse effect, will you? Should be easy for such a lecturer as you. Not a description, there are plenty of them. A definition, that could be used to answer very basic question of the “is this phenomenon part of GHE, or not?” kind. You won’t, because IPCC doesn’t.
sensible comment, but strawman: most people here accept that GHG, including CO2, are a component of heat transfer between ground and atmosphere, and that more of it will result in a warming action.
The whole point is, whether this warming action is of relevant importance enough to be actually seen. You say it is, but you cannot prove it nor quantify it, and the observed current warming is just alike past warming where the postulated action was absent. So the hypothesis just doesn’t survive Occam’s razor.
I know you are well informed Nick, so a question: How will the air temperature trend be able (over the long term) to exceed the ARGO upper (2000m) ocean temperature trend of about 0.3K/century? Because it seems to me that oceans will ultimately dominate and clamp the rate at which the air temperature can rise.
Hurricane ALETTA
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floaters/02E/flash-vis-long.html
Global warming is a red herring to keep you smart folks occupied while the gentry rape the planet. The damage done by the jackals in power will be long past remedy by the time anyone gets their head out. Global warming will not be a problem when the demand for population control hits the street. Like caribou we have grown to occupy the available food supply (enabled by unlimited cheap energy) and like caribou we will all die off in the coming energy winter. The debate is pointless. Deal with a problem that matters.