UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2019: +0.44 deg. C.

By Dr. Roy Spencer

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2019 was +0.44 deg. C, up from the March, 2019 value of +0.34 deg. C:

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

2018 01 +0.29 +0.51 +0.06 -0.10 +0.70 +1.39 +0.52
2018 02 +0.25 +0.28 +0.21 +0.05 +0.99 +1.21 +0.35
2018 03 +0.28 +0.43 +0.12 +0.08 -0.19 -0.32 +0.76
2018 04 +0.21 +0.32 +0.10 -0.14 +0.06 +1.01 +0.84
2018 05 +0.16 +0.38 -0.05 +0.01 +1.90 +0.13 -0.24
2018 06 +0.20 +0.33 +0.06 +0.12 +1.10 +0.76 -0.41
2018 07 +0.30 +0.37 +0.22 +0.28 +0.41 +0.24 +1.49
2018 08 +0.18 +0.21 +0.16 +0.11 +0.02 +0.10 +0.37
2018 09 +0.13 +0.14 +0.13 +0.22 +0.89 +0.22 +0.28
2018 10 +0.20 +0.27 +0.12 +0.30 +0.20 +1.08 +0.43
2018 11 +0.26 +0.24 +0.28 +0.45 -1.16 +0.67 +0.55
2018 12 +0.25 +0.35 +0.15 +0.30 +0.24 +0.69 +1.21
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.15 +1.15
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.04 +0.06
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.96 +0.59
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.50 +0.92 +0.91

The UAH LT global anomaly image for April, 2019 should be available in the next few days here.

The new Version 6 files should also be updated at that time, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere:
Lower Stratosphere:

98 thoughts on “UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2019: +0.44 deg. C.

  1. Maybe w/a slight warming, my lot can escape the not-uncommon killing frost this May.

  2. Pretty much what was expected as the current El Nino continues to hold on. Very possible the El Nino will now hold on through the summer. Naturally, this will be used by the alarmists to claim another “hot” year.

  3. Doesn’t this “graph” become a horizontal nearly flat line if you
    expand the vertical scale to include + or – 10 degrees C ??
    Also, what is the magnitude of the “error” in calculating
    global temperature to a 0.1 of a degree C accuracy ??

      • Depends on your time frame. For the last few months it’s been warming. For the last 3 years it’s been cooling.
        What is about you AGW acolytes and the need to cherry pick the data?

      • Except when it’s getting cooler… The graph goes up and down not a solid straight line up… The rate of warming has decreased from the back half of the graph as compared from the front half.. also a . 4 degree rise is not dire

      • And in the time of the data “its been getting” warmer, but 100% due to ENSO, not CO2.

      • So Mosher Do you agree that this is the only temperature data that both sides trust?

      • Is it? The graph doesn’t show that – a downward slope on the average is cooler. And warmer than what? When it was cooler? Well that’s a trivial statement. Warmer than it should be? You know what it should be how?

      • “its getting warmer”

        Still way below the Holocene average.

        A mere bump above the freezing cold of the Little Ice Age.

        Let’s all pray that the temperature continues to climb , or at least that it doesn’t start to drop too far.

        That really would be catastrophic for the planet’s population

  4. The current El Niño is making itself felt in surface temperature. It should evolve towards a La Niña by late fall to next spring. I consider it likely that we might get a 2-year Niña that might return temperature values to Pause levels.

    • According to the UAH update the Arctic was +0.92 C warmer than average for the month in April. It’s right there in the table from the article.

  5. With the current El Nino resulting in heat coming out of the planets biggest heat storage facility(Pacific Ocean), why wouldn’t temperatures be going up at the receiving end of the heat(atmosphere) right now?

    • Mike,

      Do you mean why isn’t outer space heating up? This is the ultimate destination of surface heat leaving the surface as photons consequential its thermal emissions which are proportional to T^4.

      Surface heat as emitted photons either passes through the transparent window directly into space or are intercepted and delayed by clouds and/or GHG’s with a residence time in the atmosphere of between milliseconds and days. About half of this delayed energy supplements the radiant balance at TOA while what remains supplements the radiant balance at the surface where it’s added back to the energy stored by the surface, only to be re-emitted later as another photon. It’s this other half of the energy returned to the surface that offsets the 620 mw/m^2 of additional surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing above and beyond the 1 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 that would be characteristic of the Earth if there was no atmosphere, i.e. the Earth would behave as a black body much like the Moon.

      • co2isnotevil – “Surface heat as emitted photons …”

        Now explain how Earth sheds heat in waves rather than photons.

          • [In physics and chemistry, wave-particle duality holds that light and matter exhibit properties of both waves and of particles. A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the inadequacy of conventional concepts like “particle” and “wave” to meaningfully describe the behaviour of quantum objects]

          • Thomas,

            The way to interpret the wave/particle duality relative to a photon is that it can be considered a Quantum Mechanical particle or a propagating electromagnetic wave per Maxwell’s equations. Both models work.

            There is a subtle difference between the EM representation of a photon and that of an antenna driving planar EM. The resonant impedance of an antenna is ideally matched to the impedance of free space, Zo = sqrt(u0/e0) = 377 ohms. The resonant impedance of a photon is much higher, at Zo/a = 51K ohms, where a is the fine structure constant, but it still propagates through free space whose intrinsic impedance is a consequence of the speed of light. If you’re familiar with the concept of a resonant circuits Q, the Q of the LC resonant model of a photon is 1/a = 137.

            Despite this significant difference, planar EM waves can also be consistently modeled as photons (particles) and photons can be consistently modeled as planar EM waves. Are photons exactly the same as planar EM radiation? It really makes no difference as both can be legitimately modeled as either.

            The required resonant impedance of a photon can not be Zo because the photons energy is constrained by the Planck Equation and this much energy must also be stored in its LC resonant model, where LC resonance is another consequence of Maxwell’s Equations. The energy stored in the 377 ohm free space resonance associated with propagating planar EM is not similarly constrained. The photons equivalent resonant impedance can be derived by setting the Planck Equation equal to the energy stored in a capacitor whose impedance at the photons resonant frequency becomes Zo/a.

            This shows how the fine structure links the wave representation of Maxwell’s Equations to the particle representation of Quantum Mechanics. When you dig deeper to connect the required resonant impedance of a photon to the geometry of the space-time it occupies, the fine structure can also be considered a scalar metric of space-time curvature quantifying how the geometry of a photon can be modeled as being curved and then un-curved in sync with the photons frequency in order to manifest the required L and C as the energy bounces between them without violating the speed of light and/or varying e0 and u0. In this context, the fine structure constant also links Quantum Mechanics to General Relativity.

          • There is a conceptual problem with photons because most view them as radiating energy in all directions – simply not possible for EMR to transfer energy against the potential gradient.

            Just stick with Maxwell’s equations and understand that matter interacts with the E-M field at discrete energy levels.

            A key point you seem to have missed is that the speed of interaction in the E-M field is solely a function of the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. In a vacuum that is commonly referred to as the speed of light.

          • RickWill,

            You can’t explain the energy emitted and absorbed by the electron shells of atoms and molecules without considering the packetization of energy i.e. photons, which we can even measure one at a time.

            It’s a collection of photons that are going in all directions where each one goes in a single direction. It’s this collection that exhibits duality with a propagating EM field. The dual representations of an individual photon as a discrete particle or as a wave quantifiable with Schrodinger’s Wave Equation is what’s important to quantum mechanical wave/particle duality.

            I know what you’re trying to say and I’m not completely convinced than EM radiation emitted by antennas is emitted as photons either, but I’m completely convinced that it can be accurately modeled as such and that Quantum Mechanics makes no sense without them. I’m equally certain that the silicon chips in your computer wouldn’t work if Quantum Mechanics was that wrong.

            I definitely didn’t miss that the speed of light is related to e0, u0 and Zo and this is why a locally warped geometry occupied by the photon makes more sense as e0 and u0 are what they need to be relative to the reference frame of the photon while this reference frame is decoupled from that of the space-time it’s traveling through. In fact it must be, otherwise inertia would prevent it from traveling at c.

            As implied by E=mc^2, the space-time curvature associated with mass is interchangeable with energy. There appears to be a way to express photons as a different organization of the same space-time curvature that manifests particles with mass. After all, where does the space-time curvature manifesting gravity go after matter and anti-matter are annihilated? I think it must comprise the resulting photons and I have a way to show how it can.

      • You seem to be neglecting the Energy contained in the Photons, anybody who says they are all the same must explain how UV, Short Wave and White Light have so much more energy than LWIR.

  6. The ‘Global Temperature’ estimate, means absolutely nothing, yet so much seems to hang on it. Pure folly.

  7. So, a rise of about 1.1 degree C. per century (assuming this trend continues)? Do I read that right? If so, how bad is that?

    • trp: How bad is 1.1C/century?

      Bad enough to trigger a mass extinction, or something.

      Meanwhile, on Earth, the Carbon Cycle of Life is more robust by relaxing the lone throttle with increased atmospheric CO2.

    • The observations in the last 20 years do not support the assertion that there will be future increases in planetary temperature.

      The fact that there is an unexplained pause (or is it the end of warming?) in warming is still valid.

      The warming we have seen recently is the same magnitude and is in the same regions (in the past cycle warming periods that were always followed by cooling periods, the high latitude regions warmed the most and there was more warming in the high arctic) as past cycle warming.

      The arctic warming has stopped. The cult of CAGW are no longer breathless predicting the end of summer sea ice in the Arctic.

      In addition, the temperature records pre-1997 does not support the AGW theory. For example, there was unexplained Northern hemisphere cooling of 0.6C 1958 to 1963 that started the is there another ice age coming discussions.

      According to Starr and Oort (1973), about 175,000 measured monthly temperatures for “92% of the atmosphere” indicated that the Northern Hemisphere cooled by -0.6°C during 1958-’63.

      We need cooling of 0.5C to change the conversation from how much future warming there will be, to what caused the original warming and why is there cooling.

      • The earth has been gradually warming for 150 years. No one has yet presented convincing arguments that a long term cooling trend is about to begin. So when in doubt, predict the current warming trend will continue.

        The only truly definitive evidence that a long term cooling trend is occurring will come when the thirty-year running average of GMT turns down and then remains in a continuously downward trend for another thirty to fifty years.

        A year ago in early 2018, over on Judith Curry’s blog, I asked Javier to offer a prediction as to when he thought the permanent inflection point might occur, assuming his own theories concerning GMT’s cyclic behavior were applied.

        His answer was that it happens roughly in the year 2200.

        As long as the current warming trend continues, however small it might be, the debate over AGW will continue. If Javier’s analysis holds water, this means we have another two-hundred years to assess and debate the true dangers of climate change.

        Have at it. If nothing else, this never-ending debate will keep our minds active and the muscles in our typing fingers strong.

    • According to UAH it’s currently a rise of 1.3 degree C. per century (since 1979) but with caveat that it could be 0.6 per higher or lower per century than that.

      UAH has by far the lowest estimate of recent warming of all the global temperature data sets.

  8. It’s all interesting……it’s cooling, it’s heating. It’s a cycle, no it’s CO2, no it’s the sun. No it’s our position in the galaxy

    I have no idea but these are great times…

    • Depends who you ask.

      Not that long ago some were predicting rapid global cooling due to (variously) reduced solar output and/or changes to the PDO/AMO. Think David Archibald (the sun) and Don Easterbrook (the PDO) circa 2008.

      Around the same time the IPCC predicted (they prefer ‘projected’) continued warming at about ~0.2 C per decade for the next ~20 years. The warming rate in all global data sets (including from UAH) since 2008 is currently >0.2 C per decade.

      • The warmists are now clutching at straws .
        The world has not warmed as the doomsayers predicted and no one has proven or produced proof that the fluctuations in the earths temperature record in the last 80 years has not been the result of natural cycles .
        No scientist has proven that CO2 can control the climate on this planet.
        Increasing CO2 may cause a very small amount of warming , but positive water vapour feed backs have to come into play to produce a rise in temperature more than .5 degree Celsius.
        The theory of positive water vapour feed backs is a theory that has not been proven simply because more water produces more clouds and more clouds are impossible to model accurately .
        From the warm blip in the 1930s and 40s the planet cooled and I will remind you the the scientific consensus in the 70s was we were heading for an ice age .
        The satellites were launched in the late 70s and the small amount of warming since then takes us back to the warmth of the 1930s and 40s
        I am sure that the true surface temperature of the planet after allowing for the urban heat affecting the record , has warmed less than half an a degree Celsius in the last 80 years which is probably within the margin of error.
        Warm is certainly better at night and in the winter which is where most of the very small warming is happening .

  9. So from 2002 to 2015, C02 increased by roughly 30ppm and did not do anything. (go figure) It did nothing for the decade starting in ’87. Now how much has been added sine 2015? 5 or 10ppm and it’s suddenly causing the current trend to kick off? I don’t buy it. All I can see is a jump of 0.2 degrees from ’98, and a lot of indefinable noise along with it.

  10. As a person that reads to learn and rarely comments, a question I haven’t seen addressed. What is the cyber security level of the data? There are only trillions of dollars riding upon it.

  11. The real issue is CO2. Does this warming mean we need to upend civilization in pursuit of zero carbon emissions world wide? That’s what the activists will say so that’s why this subject is so touchy….

  12. Obviously not April in the American northeast……we’re double digit below average.

  13. It looks like we only have several centuries to adapt. Or quite possibly adaptation won’t be necessary either.

Comments are closed.