Reposted from Dr Roy Spencer’s webite
June 3rd, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2019 was +0.32 deg. C, down from the April, 2019 value of +0.44 deg. C:
Various 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 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 +0.09 -0.14 +0.06 +1.01 +0.84 2018 05 +0.16 +0.38 -0.05 +0.01 +1.90 +0.14 -0.24 2018 06 +0.20 +0.33 +0.06 +0.12 +1.11 +0.76 -0.41 2018 07 +0.30 +0.38 +0.22 +0.28 +0.41 +0.24 +1.49 2018 08 +0.18 +0.21 +0.16 +0.11 +0.02 +0.11 +0.37 2018 09 +0.13 +0.14 +0.13 +0.22 +0.89 +0.23 +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 +0.25 +0.69 +1.20 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 +0.05 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 2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.98 +0.39
The UAH LT global anomaly image for May, 2019 should be available in the next few days 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
Gut Gott, 0.32C! Like the proverbial frog, we’re being boiled alive & don’t realize it.
The current very weak El Niño has already crashed and burned and will likely officially end in October of this year followed by around a year of ENSO neutral conditions.
The next La Niña cycle will likely be a strong one and should officially start by around the end of next year, and I expect UAH6 to eventually fall to -0.2C in 2021, while CMIP5 projections at +1.2C—oh, my…
The NAO already seems to have started its 30-year cool cycle, which means the AOO, PDO and AMO will soon follow.
A 50-year Grand Solar Minimum may also have already started, which will likely add to global cooling from 30-year ocean cool cycles…
By the end of Trump’s second term, CAGW will become a laughingstock.
The tide has definitely turned on the silly CAGW religious zealots.
Off thread but what stays with me is the description of Switzerland during the Little Ice Age. Glaciers advancing over farmland a gunshot range a month . Everyone starving to death.
Lionheart-san: Your point isn’t off thread at all.
The Little Ice Age actually lasted from 1280~1820 and was caused by 4 Grand Solar Minima (GSM): Wolf (1280~1350), Sporer (1450~1550), Maunder (1645~1715) and Dalton (1780~1820).
During the Wolf GSM, 25% of Europe’s population was wiped out due to: brutally cold and long winters, very short growing seasons, droughts, floods, and frost loss, which caused devastating famines.
Two years after the Wolf GSM ended in 1350, the Black Death wiped out 50% of Europe’s remaining weakened population….
This past winter was bitterly cold in many Northern US states with many areas experiencing the latest planting start since agricultural records started in 1800, which is strange given that we’re in an El Niño cycle, which usually causes milder winters…
Ironically, the terrible flooding and tornadoes the US is experiencing this Spring (which many Leftist hacks are blaming on Global Warming) were actually caused by record-breaking snow melt, frozen ground and abnormally large and cold northern fronts mixing with southern warm fronts..
I think a string of brutally cold winters caused by the current GSM and 30-year ocean cool cycles will end the insipid CAGW scam—one the biggest and most expensive government hoaxes in human history…
Peaches were late this year, and in lower quantities than normal. Granted I’m just going off what I see at my local Sam’s, but it was still annoying because I love those peaches.
Whoever brought this extended cold weather needs to give me back my global warming.
I guess that’s why they shipped them out extra green this year to bridge the gap.
You can tell how large the peach harvest has been by having a gander at the peaches at your local store?
That is very clever trick.
You cannot have more precision in the results than in the data. Assuming the original values are correct, the number is +0.3 deg. C.
Joe
“You cannot have more precision in the results than in the data.”
That’s right. But the published data’s precision is 2 datdp:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2019_6.0
Here are the results for the global average surface temperature for May 2019, which appears to be the thirdd warmest May on record: https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-may-2019
And, how far back does ‘on record’ go? Oh, to 1979. Just like UAH, but a different metric, arrived at using a completely different methodology.
For comparison, according to UAH Lower Troposphere, 5th warmest May.
Highest Anomalies vs the 1981-2010 baseline:
1998 0.64
2016 0.53
2017 0.44
2010 0.41
2019 0.32
Steven Fraser
” Just like UAH, but a different metric, arrived at using a completely different methodology.”
No. Not the ‘completely different methodology’ makes the difference, but the fact that surface and that place of the lower troposphere measured by UAH are completely different places.
While UAH measures 264 K on average for 1981-2010, surface average is at 288 K for that period.
Thus the average measurement height for UAH is, according to a lapse rate of -6.5 K/km, around 4 km. It is at many places even higher.
Why should two so different places show the same stuff?
The correlation between the global UAH land-only series and GHCN daily is amazing, but sea surfaces and the lower troposphere above them are very different.
Bindidon: I don’t disagree with you. What I meant by ‘different metric’ is ‘measures a different thing’. You itemized the differences, which I did not.
New research from the University of Oxford shows that global temperature changes since the beginning of the industrial age are the result primarily of human contributions and volcanic activity, rather than “natural cycles.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190522120501.htm
Mark, I do not think that is a good summary of the conclusions of the paper. Their paper is an investigation of the role of unforced oceanic temperature cycles in global temperature. Their conclusion, based on the results of the model they used, is that known forcings can account for ‘almost all’ (97-98%) of the observed temperature changes. In the words of the principal author:
“The idea that oceans could have been driving the climate in a colder or warmer direction for multiple decades in the past, and therefore will do so in the future, is unlikely to be correct.”
This paragraph in the article makes a much different claim than you do.
Going to the Abstract of the paper itself: The title is ‘A limited role for unforced internal variability in 20th century warming. ‘ ( at https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1 ), we find the following tidbits:
– “Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV) is found to be primarily controlled by external forcing…”
– “SST biases and imprecise forcing responses explain the putative disagreement between models and observations during the EW [Early Warming, 1910-1945] period.”
The first of those bullets is the principal result of the paper, saying that the AMV (misattributed according to them as an Oscillation) is due primarily to external forcing. The second bullet is their attribution statement: There have been SST biases and imprecise understanding of the forcing responses. Those have led to the putative (claimed) disagreement between models and observations during the early 20th C warming period. The gist of it: SST values were biased, and others understood the forcings incompletely (incorrectly).
Meanwhile the Waterloo temperature report from UW arrived. May was about 0.7 C below the long term average, cold for the 4th month in a row.
Rainfall is well above average (again) and the lows were noticeably lower than usual (1.1 C). There were no freezing nights, but that was a fluke as it hit 0.5 at the station.
The never-ending winter seems to have finally departed. I send this report from hot and humid Malaysia where there is very little frost these days.
Can anyone tell me how many months of May have been warmer than this past May reported here, according the UAH data since 1979?
1998: 0.64
2016: 0.54
2017: 0.45
2010: 0.41
2019: 0.32
OK, thanks.
Out of curiosity, do you by chance have a list of every May since 1979?
You can open the full Lower Troposphere result set at
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
All the months, not just May.
No chance needed here, knowledge about what is where should be enough I guess 🙂
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
There you can find anything about UAH, not only May anomalies for the Globe!
For May 2019 data, please be patient for one or two days until Roy Spencer updates the time series on Internet.
Cold spring in southern Ontario for sure. Soil has been too cold for beans and corn.