UAH Global Temperature Update for February 2020: +0.76 deg. C

Reposted from Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog

March 2nd, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2020 was +0.76 deg. C, up considerably from the January, 2020 value of +0.57 deg. C.

This is the warmest monthly anomaly since March 2016 (+0.77 deg. C), and the warmest February since 2016 (+0.86 deg. C), both due to El Nino warmth. Continuing weak El Nino conditions are also likely responsible for the current up-tick in temperature, as I recently demonstrated here.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2020_v6-550x317

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 14 months are:

 YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 
 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 +0.35 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +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 +0.40 -0.61 +0.98 +0.39
 2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35
 2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.11 +0.33 +0.87
 2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.24
 2019 09 +0.62 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57
 2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.28 +0.31 -0.03 +0.99 +0.50
 2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.38
 2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
 2020 01 +0.57 +0.60 +0.53 +0.62 +0.73 +0.12 +0.66
 2020 02 +0.76 +0.96 +0.55 +0.76 +0.38 +0.02 +0.30

The UAH LT global gridpoint anomaly image for February, 2020 should be available in the next few days here.

The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:

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

Advertisements

161 thoughts on “UAH Global Temperature Update for February 2020: +0.76 deg. C

    • If the Voeikov axis is really gone for good, we are going to face a new climate on our planet.
      This winter was the phase transition.

    • It’s the damn chemtrail program being run by all the advanced countries. Vapor increases warming…duh.

    • Very happy to have had a mild winter in Europe this year. That has enabled me to reduce my carbon footprint by not burning all the dead wood I normally burn to heat my home.

      Of course that’s “carbon neutral” so it does not really count but I feel so good about being a good carbon citizen ! The more I can say “carbon”, the more I feel I’m securing the future of the planet for our children.

      Children are made of carbon so we need to save all the carbon we can to make more children.

        • Well, I agree with Jack Handy…we should save the earth for our children, but not for our children’s children, because children shouldn’t be having sex. 🙂

          rip

      • Greg “ That has enabled me to reduce my carbon footprint ……

        But all for naught ……. because the 2016 Feb-Mar El Nino left a great big “carbon footprint”.

        Article excerpt:

        The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2020 was +0.76 deg. C, up considerably from the January, 2020 value of +0.57 deg. C.

        This is the warmest monthly anomaly since March 2016 (+0.77 deg. C), and the warmest February since 2016 (+0.86 deg. C), both due to El Nino warmth.

        The warm waters of the aforesaid El Nino caused an increase in the SH Summertime (March) outgassing of CO2, to wit:

        Mauna Loa monthly atmospheric CO2 ppm
        —— mth ————- CO2 ppm .. mthly increase
        2016 2 2016.125 404.12
        2016 3 2016.208 404.87 +0.75
        2016 4 2016.292 407.45 +2.58 due to the March El Nino
        2016 5 2016.375 407.72 +0.27

        2017 2 2017.125 406.46 +0.
        2017 3 2017.208 407.22 +0.76
        2017 4 2017.292 409.04 +1.82
        2017 5 2017.375 409.69 +0.65

        2018 2 2018.125 408.32 +0.
        2018 3 2018.208 409.41 +1.09
        2018 4 2018.292 410.24 +0.83
        2018 5 2018.375 411.24 +1.00

        2019 2 2019.125 411.75 +0.
        2019 3 2019.208 411.97 +0.22
        2019 4 2019.292 413.32 +1.35
        2019 5 2019.375 414.66 +1.34

        2020 1 2020.042 413.40
        2020 2 ……ERSL… 414.12 lower tropospheric temperature up +0.76 deg. C
        2020 3 ………………….. but no effect on CO2 ppm
        2020 4
        ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

    • I’ve started cultivating my truck patch in SE PA USA. Tired of hot house tomatoes.

    • Phew! What a scorcher!…..as the Tabloids traditionally say in the UK when the weather occasionally rises above blood-chilling.

      • There’s a train approachin’
        Her name is Global Coolin’
        No one is preparin’
        They’re all a-fixed on a gal named Corona
        Two they are, black swans
        Givin’ up your gas they say will fix it
        But swans don’t care
        Global coolin’ is a coming’.

    • Why? As of March 1, arctic ice extent is above every year of the last 10 except 2013 and is tied with 2012.
      The canary seems to be singing fine.

      I don’t make predictions for the future, I just look to the actual observed data (real).

      • Thank You so much, the only prediction I like to make is that all the predictions will be wrong or changed to meet reality.
        “Carpe Diem”

      • The Polar vortex (strat and trop) were strong and unmoving this winter.
        That (by definition) keeps cold air locked up there.
        Hence a greater freeze-up, relative to recent years.

      • Frenchie77

        “I don’t make predictions for the future, I just look to the actual observed data (real).”

        This is the correct approach, and so do I:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-rIi_Ml6yinPkUWPDFPz4VEy9BUX4fZL/view

        The same data plotted in daily anomaly form (wrt 1981-2010) is interesting:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/19I6WWxw-xavC0H7K7tS_Ocef8BE2gzcs/view

        I hope 2020 will continue that way, instead of suddenly getting tired like did 2012! This warmth in the Arctic really should stop.

        But… all other things remaining equal, I’m afraid the canary won’t be singing that long.

        A few local cold spots excepted, the Arctic ocean and land surface temperatures are simply too high.

        Source:
        ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/

        Rgds
        J.-P. D.

        • Bindidon,
          I don’t know where your data originates and the colorado page doesn’t load for me.

          I just used the sea ice page link off to the right just above the solar page. Again, no predictions, just simple statements of fact. If the sea ice page is wrong, well so be it, wouldn’t be the first time that one data source disagrees with another.

          Plus, I really don’t agree with the premise that the arctic is a CO2 canary. However, I didn’t want to start a two point post.

          • Frenchie77

            “I don’t know where your data originates…

            Indicated below ‘Source’.

            “… and the colorado page doesn’t load for me.”

            The please go to

            https://nsidc.org/data/g02135

            (you find such locations only by using Google’s search)

            Cick there on ‘ftp’, then in the popup subwindow ‘north’, ‘daily’, data’, and here you are:

            ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/

            There you see the 1981-2010 daily climatology, and the data itself.

            The same stuff exists for the Antarctic (‘south’).

            ” If the sea ice page is wrong, well so be it…”

            Nobody pretended that ever.

            “… , wouldn’t be the first time that one data source disagrees with another.”

            Indeed! A processing of HadISST1’s 1° grid data for 60-90N shows a bit different.

            “Again, no predictions, just simple statements of fact.”

            The data shown in the two graphs shows what exists, ni plus ni moins.

            Rgds
            J.-P. D.

          • Frenchie77

            “Plus, I really don’t agree with the premise that the arctic is a CO2 canary.”

            I can’t recall having mentioned that CO2 guy.

          • Bindidon,
            Is there something wrong with the data points that I stated? I don’t get it, you seem to have an issue with them but I don’t know what that issue is because you aren’t saying.

            Mar 1, highest now in the past 10 years except 2013 and tied with 2012. Is that wrong?

            Don’t like that date, well we can wait til mid-summer and look again.

          • Frenchie77

            I think you fully misunderstood my first reply to you.

            It was all but a critique; my anomaly graph was rather a confirmation of what you wrote concerning 2020 being (these days, however) a lot more icy than most of its predecessors in the last decade.

            My comment was just a hint on the hope that 2020 would not behave as did 2012 (a strong ice rebuild followed by a very great ice loss).

            In our common native tongue, we like to say: “Ne jamais vendre la peau d’un ours avant de l’avoir abattu”.

            “Don’t like that date, well we can wait til mid-summer and look again.”

            Exactement! I’ll even wait till October.

            I won’t continue posting comments here: many of my comments appear about 8-9 hours after I sent them to the blog.

            This is simply boring and counterproductive. Reminds me the behavior of German ‘communists’ in the former East Germany!

            Thx for communicating.

            Rgds
            J.-P. D.

          • OK, I misunderstood.

            I would encourage you to not stop commenting, even if there are moderation delays. This is one of the few sites where actual discussion occurs. It is also a reason why moderation is needed as there are many who would otherwise just post nonsense and attack.

            If you can’t post here, where else can you really post and discuss?

        • Well, the Arctic is near the average, while Russia is enjoying a very mild winter. I think the truth is the world is still warming and the pace of warming is not going down. It is a lot less than what you might think if you read the Guardian, but still it is clearly warming 2ppm and 0.15C a year. You wouldn’t notice it without extremely accurate satellite measurements, but once we have them, we can definitely say there is nothing to worry about.

          Unless, of course, you think -60°C is nice Siberian weather.

          Here, in Southern Finland, the snow line is maybe 200km north from the normal, so lots of people do worry. I’m confident we will have lots of snow during the coming decade. If I could *predictit*, I’d say there will be at least one record snow in the next 10 years, and one very cold one once the NAO state changes.

          What buggers me is this : average surface T here (and median T) depend on inversion. Inversion is common and biases medians a lot. A little wind can change the readings and we’d think that is global warming. But it is not, it is just mixing.

        • Frenchie77

          To be honest, I prefer to discuss with a few people at Roy Spencer’s blog:
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/

          especially on the monthly temperature reports reblogged here.
          *
          Some commenters here simply are too arrogant for me.

          Most of them never did manage to process any climate data, but they know you must be wrong.

          And some comments posted here concerning AS bushfires, or the management of the SARS-CoV2, etc were simply insane. Ignorance is something very bad.

          If you feel well with all that: why not staying here?

          Rgds
          J.-P. D.

    • If the Arctic is the canary in the coal mine we won’t be getting any coal out of the Arctic in the near future. The last two years summer minima have been no lower than it was in 2007 when Al Gore and the IPCCCP starting screaming about its imminent ice-free summers.

      Wang and Overland (2013) “expected” Arctic to be ice free “before 2020”. We just missed yet another naive linear projection of a non linear climate system.

      https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

      Anyway climate alarmists have many “the canaries” to chose from, as soon as one fails to fall off its perch they find another one to worry about.

  1. Another sane assessment by Dr. Spencer…..we need someone of similar gifted intelligence down-under, assisting and complimenting the capable Senator Roberts…

    • An interesting series of wrong decisions, allowed because the opposition parties have been smashed by people voting for Brexit. Huawei, letting the Chinese intelligence services into our communications system, Hinkley C, letting foreign firms gain experience at our (enormous) expense. HS2, a way of getting rich businessmen to meetings in London instead of sending emails.

      And now they’ve found a way of repaying their landowner supporters by giving them the right to directly tax the old, the poor and the sick. Never trust a Tory.

      Don’t blame me, I voted NO TO SUNNICA, a solar panel firm set up to build a 3,500 acre monstrosity.

      JF

    • How much sun even falls there in the winter. Most unlikely. More likely extremely leaky communal heating systems and poorly lagged stream pipes close to meteo stations in the towns, not outside.

      RF is a major gas and oil producer, they can burn as much as they want.

      No sign of that massive Russia/Poland hotspot on satellite data so it’s probably faulty ground data.

      • So were those “leaky communal heating systems” not there last year?
        Or last decade?
        30 years ago?
        And as such the anomaly would take that into account.
        This just when UAH confirms that this last Feb was anomalously warm in the NH?

  2. How does one know that that entire graph, 1979 to now, is not simply a slice of upwardness on a sine curve that will soon turn down? Surface temps are subject to a sine wave of about 35 years duration.

    See, this is the problem with recent measurement tech. The baseline is so short, you can’t tell see the truth.

    Not to mention, how to validate that satellite readings from 1979 are co-equal in validity from current?

        • Something odd about the PDO
          PDO oscillates from year to year affected by the QBO, elNino, laNina, high and low solar activity, etc. but in longer term, as the 15 year moving average (MA) shows it has a distinct multi-decadal oscillation.
          So far so good.
          This graph
          http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PDO-MA.htm
          shows about two cycles of the PDO, but the second one matches well the first one only as a mirror image (note inverted red time scale).
          How this could possibly happen?
          I can think of one logical explanation: the PDO multi-decadal oscillation is result of astronomical events, whereby the Earth is approaching some specific planetary configuration towards 1961 but subsequently is drifting away from it (just musing of an idle mind, a no sane scientist would agree to).

    • “How does one know that that entire graph, 1979 to now, is not simply a slice of upwardness on a sine curve that will soon turn down?”

      It’s satellite measurement. And 1979 is when it started.
      Roy publishes them every month. It probably will ” soon turn down”
      WUWT normally republishes it every month or you can go here:
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/

      So, first day or so, every month, depending weekends or holidays.

    • Agreed, never mind eating less meat, eating less everything would be a good start for most of the developed world : India is now fat. Sadly, their primitive culture, based on poverty, still regards fat as beautiful !

      In poor countries fat means rich, and “rich” is beauty in all cultures around the world at all times.
      India and Asia, fair skin is beautiful : most western, ie rich.

      200y ago white skin was beautiful in Europe. Now a good tan is beautiful. Each in its time was a sign of being wealthy. Before the poor were in the fields and has weathered skin. Now they are in the factories and never see the sun.

      The one thing that never stops being ‘beautiful’ is MONEY.

    • ” remember everyone tomorrow is World obesity day . Obesity is now a problem in every country in the world and effecting a third of the world’d population and increasing! ”

      I believe I read somewhere that for every pound of fat on your body, your heart has to pump an extra one mile of blood vessels.

      So if you have a weak heart, it would be in your interests to lose as many pounds of fat as you can.

      And, of course, if you are healthy it would be a good idea not to put on those extra pounds in the first place.

      I think you would have to run several miles to work off the calories in a donut. My solution would be to not eat the donut in the first place and save myself a lot of running. 🙂

      You can drop a lot of weight quickly with the Atkins diet. It’s easy but you have to cut out the sugar completely. You lose the weight quickly so you can have a little sugar after you finish losing the weight. In moderation, of course. You should consult your doctor before trying this diet, though.

  3. Whats the thermal lag of the oceans, absorbing SW and releasing it years later? Something is driving this, and it isnt the sun or CO2.

    • Why couldn’t it be CO2?

      In fact, why couldn’t it be CO2 in combination with ocean heat release? Following each recent El Nino there appears to be an uptick in the baseline temperature. This suggests heat (energy) loss to space is being slowed or impeded by ….. CO2 perhaps?

      I’m now convinced that CO2 is causing an increase in the mean altitude of energy emission to space which means energy is being emitted from colder regions. This results in a reduction in the rate of emission which creates an imbalance between incoming solar energy and outgoing LW energy’

      Incoming greater than Outgoing = Warming.

      Arguing that CO2 has no effect is pointless. It clearly does (see emission spectra) but we need to how big the effect is or will be. There is still some debate about climate sensitivity.

      • Agreed, there should be some effect from CO2 unless there are very strong neg. f/b ( which is not impossible ).

        I think it is simplistic to say ENSO “causes” warming, it is just part of the system, is an effect, not the cause.

        The current double bump can not be explained as being caused by one El Nino , neither can the double bump pattern which is clear throughout the record. It seems to repeat about every 7.2 years if you measure it.

        Early 90s bump was suppressed by Mt P, later bump was boosted by El Nino , which itself was probably a feedback reaction to enormous volcanic cooling.

        It currently looks like a pretty symmetric pair is forming in the current period.

        • I think it is simplistic to say ENSO “causes” warming, it is just part of the system, is an effect, not the cause.

          ENSO doesn’t cause overall warming. El Nino simply releases ocean heat into the atmosphere. I am suggesting that CO2 is slowing down the loss of this heat to space so we are seeing a permanent uptick in temperature after each major event.

          It currently looks like a pretty symmetric pair is forming in the current period.

          Hmm – not sure about that. Following the 1997-2000 El Nino/La Nina cycle the UAH background (neutral) anomalies settled at around 0.2 deg C. It looks likely that 0.4 deg C or higher could be the new ‘baseline’.

          • El Ninos don’t release heat from the ocean, it decreases heat from being absorbed by the ocean in the first place. El Ninos are actually global cooling events, because the vast majority of thermal energy on the planet surface is in the oceans, not the atmosphere.

            The stepwise upticks are from a +PDO – an occurrence of more positive than negative ENSO over a period of time. Once the PDO flips negative then we will see stepwise decreases in global temperature and the new Chicken Littlism of the day will be back to global cooling.

          • Do you think we will see a zero (or even negative) anomaly in the next 10-120 years, the ways we saw a few from 2008-2012?

          • Robert W Turner March 3, 2020 at 12:31 pm

            El Ninos don’t release heat from the ocean, it decreases heat from being absorbed by the ocean in the first place

            Right – but the effect is to warm the atmosphere rather than the ocean.

        • How could it be ocean heat release when all evidence suggests ocean heat content has increased, at both 0 – 700m and 0 – 2000m depths, over the period of observed surface warming?

          That doesn’t mean some of it can’t be released. Heat capacity of water is many times greater than that of the atmosphere. A relatively small ocean burp can warm the atmosphere quite significantly.

          The ENSO cycle effectively involves heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere and vice versa but you can still have net warming of both overall.

          • John Finn

            “That doesn’t mean some of it can’t be released. Heat capacity of water is many times greater than that of the atmosphere. A relatively small ocean burp can warm the atmosphere quite significantly.”
            _______________

            That still doesn’t provide an explanation for the observed long-term increase in ocean heat content concurrent with the observed surface warming (alongside a slight decline in solar output over the same period).

            “The ENSO cycle effectively involves heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere and vice versa but you can still have net warming of both overall.”
            ________________

            Is there any explanation of where the energy required to warm both the surface and the oceans over a sustained period, in the absence of any increase in solar output over that period, comes from?

          • TheFinalNail March 3, 2020 at 5:40 am

            That still doesn’t provide an explanation for the observed long-term increase in ocean heat content concurrent with the observed surface warming (alongside a slight decline in solar output over the same period).

            What are you banging on about? I never said it did explain it If you read my original comment I said that the recent UAH temperature uptick could be due to a combination of ocean heat release and CO2.

            The overall warming (land + bulk ocean) is probably largely due to CO2. However natural cycles will determine how that warming is distributed.

            Read what I wrote – not what you think I wrote.

          • John Finn,

            Sorry, misread. Was referring to Matthew Sykes’s comment re long term release of stored solar heat from the oceans. This happens of course, but it couldn’t be the sole cause of long term surface warming without a detectable reduction in ocean heat content. When both oceans and surface are warming over the long term, and with no increase in solar output, then plainly increased greenhouse gases are the prime suspect.

        • Increase cloudiness keeps winters warm, as well as the night’s (minimum daily) temperatures. It is likely that reduced solar activity in the last few months has resulted in rise in the the neutron count ( link to last 12 months and more clouds, kept NH winter warmer than usual.
          To some extent this is true for the last 40 years, often but not always, fall in UAH coincided with high sunspot number (fall in neutron count, clearer winter skys)
          http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/UAH-SSN.htm
          things are far worse than expected /sarc

          • The ground never really froze much around here, so moisture was evaporating for much of the winter just like summer and we had those puffy white summer cumulous clouds that you normally don’t see. A lot of big lakes didnt freeze over either, so instead of those lakes being 10F at the icy surface they were 33F.

          • Just an eyeball observation but here in Western Canada I would say we have ha a very cloudy winter and quite mild. This is a area that generally sees a lot of sun ( East of the Rockies) and when we get extreme lows of _30C or colder it is always with a high pressure system and not a cloud in sight. Although it has been mild we haven’t had much snow so far. Not unusual to get half our snow in March, though. Above freezing this week and that is pretty unusual but not “unprecedented”.

          • I think he wants you to explain why CO2 is a factor today when it was just as warm in the 1930’s, according to those charts, as it is today, while CO2 was not a significant factor in that warming, according to the IPCC.

            Something other than CO2 caused the 1930’s warming, according to the IPCC. Today’s warming is no warmer than the 1930’s, so there is a possibility that the warming today is caused by natural forces, like it was in the 1930’s, since today is no warmer than the 1930’s.

            Do I have that about right, Mike?

          • I think he wants you to explain why CO2 is a factor today when it was just as warm in the 1930’s, according to those charts, …

            Those charts tell you nothing about how warm it was in the 1930s. They are simply showing the individual warmest max temperatures during summer months in specific locations, – not global temperature, not all year round temperature, not average temperature. Also, they only go up to 2013.

            Today’s warming is no warmer than the 1930’s …

            Those charts don’t support that claim. Look at the China one. Half of the 1930s where maxing out at 25.5°C. The last 10 years where all above that. Similar with the Australian one. Most of the 1930s was below 35°, most of the 21st century was warmer.

          • “Those charts tell you nothing about how warm it was in the 1930s. They are simply showing the individual warmest max temperatures during summer months in specific locations, – not global temperature, not all year round temperature, not average temperature.”

            No surface temperature chart shows all those things because they are all regional temperature charts. The only “global” charts are the fraudulent Hockey Stick charts and the UAH satellite chart that actually measure the whole globe.

            The fraudulent Hockey Stick is produced by using the regional temperature charts and then putting them through a computer to make a global average. A fraudulent global average.

            The regional unmodified temperature charts tell the true story of the climate: that the 1930’s were just as warm as today. The fraudulent Hockey Stick chart is just a big, computer-generated lie meant to make people think we are experiencing the hottest temperatures in human history..

          • Tom and Bellman,

            “Those charts tell you nothing about how warm it was in the 1930s”

            The rock of long-term temperature is USHCN, with 100 Million data points of TMIN/TMAX over 120 years. This data has been adjusted by NOAA for siting and other bias. It is the bible.

            http://theearthintime.com

            There is no ambiguity about the issue of higher temp in the 30s/40s – it was warmer. And that temps are falling now – 2019 the second lowest ever.

            Any other claim of abnormal warming or cooling – in the US or globally – has to address the question “Why did 100 million USHCN recordings not see it.”

          • The regional unmodified temperature charts tell the true story of the climate:…

            Those regional charts are taken use the same data sets (BEST) as the ones you call fraudulent.

            … that the 1930’s were just as warm as today.

            Except, as I said, they don’t show that. They are only showing a small section of each year, only showing maximum temperatures, and even then don’t seem to show that maximum summer temperatures where warmer in the 30s than they are today.

            If you don’t like any of the global data sets, what evidence do you have that the 1930s where just as warm as today? Those charts certainly don’t prove it.

          • Bellman …

            >>> Only showing data for the USA, which was hot in the 30s. <<>> But I’m not sure how you are calculating the average. <<>>> Your charts don’t agree with NOAA’s <<<<<
            That function only generates anomaly output. That is far inferior to graphs from full plotting of source material, 100 million pure data points. In order to evaluate an anomaly graph generated at the window, I would need extensive, full, detailed download of all the underlying data. SInce I am already calculating on that, what is the point? Non.

          • I am not sure what happened to the format … here’s the response …

            “Only showing data for the USA, which was hot in the 30s.”
            Since the USA data is the only massive, consistent, long term dataset, it serves as proxy for the world, which has nothing remotely to match it. The obverse of the claim I just made? “If you claim some abnormal warming globally, why did NOAA’s ushcn 100-million datapoint dataset not see it?”

            “But I’m not sure how you are calculating the average.”
            I sum all the TMAX monthly reportings for each of the 120 years, and divide by the number of (non -9999) reportings. That accumulates to 50 million datapoints each for TMAX and TMIN.

            “Your charts don’t agree with NOAA’s”
            That function only generates anomaly output. That is far inferior to graphs from full plotting of source material, 100 million pure data points. In order to evaluate an anomaly graph generated at the window, I would need extensive, full, detailed download of all the underlying data. SInce I am already calculating on that, what is the point? None.

          • Bellman

            I’m a bit late in this discussion.

            But you might have a look at another discussion, between windlord-sun and me, starting here:

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/28/la-nina-may-form-in-the-equatorial-pacific-ocean-later-this-year-and-if-so-it-could-have-wide-ranging-ramifications/#comment-2927998

            You will see that commentator windlord-sun presented there already a CONUS TMAX time series manifestly based on a monthly averaging without any gridding.

            I never construct time series out of station data distributed over greater surfaces without gridding, especially when the station distribution is uneven.

            But it is evident: I can produce and plot ungridded data as well, e.g. for TMAX in CONUS:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lSCB4ScZ_MF_LPhXwTjb5o-iFA0-15SG/view

            You see that the graph is quite similar to windlord-sun’s:

            http://theearthintime.com/

            Here too, the Golden Thirties are in this case perfectly shown atop, as expected by those skeptics who pretend that any graph showing them below today is by definition flawed.

            And the top ten of a descending sort of the time series shows no year after 2000…

            But when you perform gridding, you first average station data into grid cells encompassing these stations.

            The consequence is that the competition of stations with few stations around them with stations having many stations around them, as is the case without gridding, is now replaced by a competition among grid cells.

            In CONUS, the GHCN daily data set has many more stations than USHCN (about 18000 stations instead of about 1200, about 7000 of them being on average active during the satellite era.

            The station distribution among 2.5 degree grid cells is in CONUS extremely uneven: while the topmost cell (centered around 43.75N – 78.75W) has over 360 stations, the bottommost populated cells have only less than 20 stations.

            The 20 topmost of the about 170 CONUS cells give together over 5000 stations.

            Without gridding, regions with higher/lower temperature will be overrepresented when they contain many stations: the temperatures of regions containing few stations simply disappear in the monthly averaging.

            With gridding, a 2.5 degree grid cell with e.g. 17 stations has the same ‘voice’ as a cell containing over 300.

            Here is a chart showing TMAX for CONUS with preliminary averaging in grid cells:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PhQQpErrQtYRvxUW6znkRXofizfFb8VR/view

            You clearly can see the difference. The same happens with TMIN.

            TMIN for CONUS, ungridded:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JyYaIvM1DvDP1GKT6Xo2L3AO0kK1XrUP/view

            and gridded:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNAH7gli06t5Er0WvpDWENJSvv5iQ-nO/view

            I still await his comments: he did not reply to my comments in the La Nina guest post thread.

            Data source: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
            Own data processing

            Rgds
            J.-P. Dehottay (no professional scientist, layman interested in climate)

          • “I sum all the TMAX monthly reportings for each of the 120 years, and divide by the number of (non -9999) reportings. That accumulates to 50 million datapoints each for TMAX and TMIN.”

            All well and good ….. except that will give a skewed answer.
            Area weighting needs to be applied.
            As stations cease reporting over time the area weighting of the whole will become skewed.
            Stations have to be balanced geographically/topologically.
            In the USA for instance more western stations have stopped reporting than east and the result is weighting the mean towards eastern stations … biasing colder.

            IOW: Apples NEED to be vs apples my friend.

            BTW: that is what Heller/Goddard does. To come up with a fake result.
            Which is lapped up here.

            Go to Nick Stokes’ site to learn how it should be done.
            Moyhu.com

          • windlord-sun,

            I sum all the TMAX monthly reportings for each of the 120 years, and divide by the number of (non -9999) reportings.

            That’s what I suspected, and as Anthony Banton says, it’s going to give you biased results. It’s especially a problem when you’re looking at a large country like the USA with wildly different climates and are using absolute values rather than anomalies. The number of data points you have is irrelevant if the sample is biased.

            Since the USA data is the only massive, consistent, long term dataset, it serves as proxy for the world, which has nothing remotely to match it.

            I’m skeptical of the claim that US historic temperatures are superior to anywhere else, but even if they are, the USA is not a good proxy for the rest of the world, especially in the 1930s. Is there any evidence that Europe, for instance, suffered the same conditions during the 30s as the USA?

            Out of interest I checked the UK temperature records from the Met Office. Average max temperatures during the 1930s were 12.1°C. It was slightly warmer during the 1940s, but the last two decades have averaged 13°C and 12.9°C.

          • Anthony Banton

            “Area weighting needs to be applied.” Yes, I am well aware that NOAA considers it necessary. It is their construction of a scheme. Many have lapped it up. I have 100 million reasons why it is erroneous.

            “Apples NEED to be vs apples [snarky offer of friendship redacted.]”
            The apples are 100 Million TMAX/TMIN direct measurements in the US over 120 years. It is NOAA who is trying to plant plums in the vast orchard and still get apples

            “As stations cease reporting over time” Translation: as NOAA no longer publishes recordings from 400+ stations, thus aborting the continuity and consistency of the fundamental record.

            There is no question who is lapping up what construction of reality.

            All well and good ….. except that will give a skewed answer.
            Area weighting needs to be applied.
            As stations cease reporting over time the area weighting of the whole will become skewed.
            Stations have to be balanced geographically/topologically.
            In the USA for instance more western stations have stopped reporting than east and the result is weighting the mean towards eastern stations … biasing colder.

            IOW: Apples NEED to be vs apples my friend.

            BTW: that is what Heller/Goddard does. To come up with a fake result.
            Which is lapped up here.

            Go to Nick Stokes’ site to learn how it should be done.
            Moyhu.com

          • Bellman

            What counts is consistency and continuity. What counts is observing the trend — not as a straight line, not as an “anomaly,” but as a river, a sine curve, as I have pointed out. A 120-point graph of 50 million datapoints is an organic trend compilation, not a declaration of a one magic number. That is the fallacy inherent in NOAA’s anomaly-processing approach.

            Your skepticism of this gigantic compendium is an example; you are implying you don’t necessarily trust that 1200 stations have measured and/or reported the precise, exact temperature. But that does not matter. Over 100 million readings, some are a trifle too high, some a trifle too low on a given day or even for the entire history of a single station. The randomness of this effect cancels its significance, because the significance is in the organic trend, not the magic number.

            “…the USA is not a good proxy for the rest of the world…”
            Well, if you are making a claim that there is abnormal warming or cooling globally, why does NOAA’s adjusted 100-million dataset of direct measurement US TMAX/TMIN not reflect it?

          • “Area weighting needs to be applied.” Yes, I am well aware that NOAA considers it necessary.”

            It is necessary, indeed, blindingly obviously so, as basic stats/maths tells everyone who have the skills and lack the confirmation bias and D-K syndrome you display.
            Oh, and along with the conspiracy ideation.
            Not uncommon on here.

          • windlord-sun,

            you are implying you don’t necessarily trust that 1200 stations have measured and/or reported the precise, exact temperature.

            No. I’m implying that regardless of how accurate any of the stations are, you cannot compare the average US temperature from one time period to another if the 1200 stations are not in the same place.

            Over 100 million readings, some are a trifle too high, some a trifle too low on a given day or even for the entire history of a single station. The randomness of this effect cancels its significance, because the significance is in the organic trend, not the magic number.

            It doesn’t matter a jot how many readings you have if the readings are not evenly distributed across the country and that distributions changes over time.

            Well, if you are making a claim that there is abnormal warming or cooling globally, why does NOAA’s adjusted 100-million dataset of direct measurement US TMAX/TMIN not reflect it?

            It does to an extent reflect it. If the world warms it’s likely that the USA will warm with it. But local variation can mean that the USA is not in lock step with the globe. This means the converse is not necessarily true – if the USA is warm in one year it does not prove the rest of the world has warmed to the same extent.

          • Bellman

            Why would the stations not be in the same place? Millions of recordings from stationary stations. They don’t jump around.

            “…evenly distributed across the country and that distributions changes over time.”
            An even distribution does not matter, if (as I am claiming) it is only the organic trend that matters. The stations don’t move, they report for a century, and any abnormal warmth will show up. You don’t need to have that “magic number” if you are not performing anomaly-processing. And you don’t need gridding.

            “It does to an extent reflect it. “
            No. Look at my graph again. There is no sign of abnormal warming in the ushcn 120 years of TMAX records, 50 million data points. It’s just a gently rolling sine curve as expected for natural perturbation, with a downward Holocene impetus overall. This fact stands as the backstop for anyone claiming that there is abnormal warming in the world: if you claim it, why does the abnormal warning not show up in the ushcn data? This backstop is very heavy. It is impossible to claim abnormal global warming and also that “it did not touch the United States 1200 stations.” Challengers must reconcile their claim with this.

          • Anthony Banton

            Wow, throwing trite and vapid insults when pinned and evading.

            I’m impressed this blog tolerates it.

            I’ll just whistle past your door, Mr Banton, laughing with the motto of the blog …
            “Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you.” – Andrew Breitbart

          • windlord-sun

            Why would the stations not be in the same place?

            Individual stations may not literally move, but the distribution does. If a station in hot part of the country was reporting in the 30s but not today the average goes down. If a station that wasn’t around in the 30s now reports from a cold part of the country the average goes down. Effectively a station has moved to a colder part of the country.

            No. Look at my graph again. There is no sign of abnormal warming in the ushcn 120 years of TMAX records, 50 million data points.

            As I think I’ve established, I don’t trust your graph. Others, who I trust more than you to know how to calculate a national average, all show more warming in US temperatures. But even if the US has been cooling, it still wouldn’t prove there was no warming elsewhere.

            Your graph would indicate that the US has been rapidly cooling since the turn of the century, yet every global data set, including UAH, shows the globe warming over that period. Either every other data set, including UAH, is wrong, or it is possible for the USA to cool whilst the rest of the world warms, or just possibly your graph is wrong.

          • windlord-sun

            Again, my last comment on the thread is missing. It manifestly contained too many links.

            And again, I propose that you learn a bit – if not from Nick Stokes, then from Clive Best:

            http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9242#comment-20199

            This is just one head post of him in the area of… area weighting, there are many many others.

            What is evident is that once you do that weighting through a grid, you soon discover that the next step then is… to interpolate, because you ‘see’ in your data that avoiding it leads to a relevant bias, due to each empty cell in fact obtaining as value the average of all non-empty cells, as pretty good explained by… Nick Stokes.

            Good luck!
            J.-P. D.

          • Bindidon

            “And again, I propose that you learn a bit – if not from Nick Stokes, then from Clive Best:”

            Again, I don’t need to learn about gridding, homogenization, interpolating, anomaly-processing. It is not lack of knowledge on my part that I deny (irony) these. I am making a rational claim that this approach is fallacious for analysis of global temperature trend. I have enunciated what I (and many others) contend is better: graph the raw data and observe the organic trend curve.

            As per my last post to you here, I am performing a join-and-compare of GHCN vs USHCN stations, and a mapping of GHCN-CONUS TMAX to see if NOAA agrees with itself. This may not be completed today.

            ~windlord-sun

        • It’s not rocket science
          chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf

        • windlord-sun

          My last comment to your discussion with Bellman wasn’t published, as well as others.
          This is simply too boring and – yes: somewhat disrespectful – for a person aged over 70.

          If you have interest in continuing our discussion, you are welcome to do it as you proposed at Roy Spencer’s site, but better here:

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2020-0-76-deg-c/

          No one would, on Roy Spencer’s blog, let me wait hours for my comments to be published, let alone would they silently vanish.

          Rgds
          J.-P. Dehottay

          • Bindidon,

            I did not “propose” to discuss it on that other blog. I just found out that you started up a subthread with a counter to my project there, out of the blue. Did you expect to debunk me elsewhere without me finding out? And if you wanted to discuss it over there, why are you steering me away from where you already stirred it up?

            I find that sometimes my comments do not post immediately here, but that they will appear in a short while. I suggest you don’t put it down to some conspiracy theory against you. Or rudeness.

            I’ll respond here to Bellman and Banton.

        • windlord-sun

          ” I did not “propose” to discuss it on that other blog. I just found out that you started up a subthread with a counter to my project there, out of the blue. ”

          What’s that for a ridiculous idea?

          “Did you expect to debunk me elsewhere without me finding out? And if you wanted to discuss it over there, why are you steering me away from where you already stirred it up?”

          Again ridiculous! I found it interesting to communicate our discussion at Roy Spencer’s blog because some commenters there never come to WUWT.

          “I find that sometimes my comments do not post immediately here, but that they will appear in a short while. I suggest you don’t put it down to some conspiracy theory against you. Or rudeness.”

          I don’t want to post on a blog where I send a comment at 2 AM GMT and don’t see it on the next morning at 11 AM GMT. Basta ya!

          Conspiracy or rudeness? Jesus. Who are you to suppose such a nonsense about me, Sir? (No woman known to me behaves like you.)

          I have now extracted the 1218 available USHCN stations out of GHCN daily and do the same work with these stations. It interests me.

          If you are interested, yo will see the result at Roy Spencer’s blog.

          You pretended to challenge me? Then start to understand what I wrote:

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2020-0-76-deg-c/#comment-2930628

          … and follow Anthony Banton’s smart suggestions!

          J.-P. D.

          • J.-P. D.

            I read what you wrote. I understand everything about your approach. I also read Anthony Banton’s smart suggestions, but I won’t be following them. I have already posted my response to both as follows: gridding and anomaly processing of a derived baseline is a wrong approach to detecting if there is any abnormal heating or cooling of the earth. You have to simply plot the data and observe the organic trend.

            When you extract the daily records from GHCN for USHCN, are you going to plot them verbatim, or perform an anomaly process? Because I have the dailies and will be comparing usncn to the ghcn versions, looking for variance.

        • Bindidon J.-P. D.

          Just a note: it is 1:37 PM Wednesday here in California. I am done for the day with this project, will pick it back up 20 hours from now …

          I am parsing GHCND-CONUS TMAX dailies and will graph tomorrow.

          If you wish, I would be glad to interact with you on that other blog. However, I will be posting my results here as well.

          ~ windlord-sun

        • windlord-sun

          By writing:

          “… gridding and anomaly processing of a derived baseline is a wrong approach to detecting if there is any abnormal heating or cooling of the earth.”

          you definitely underlined your ignorance of simplest matters.

          How is it possible that you don’t understand that averaging
          – 360 stations all located together in a cool corner
          with
          – 36 stations in 9 other warmer corners of 4 stations each
          automatically results in a cooling bias?
          *
          Here is a chart made by John Christy some years ago, posted by Roy Spencer, and demonstrating Christy’s view about ‘No substantial warming’ (he of course meant the US):

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017-550×413.jpg

          A commenter soon asked for a similar picture of the Globe, and I did the job, using GHCN daily instead of USHCN.

          1. CONUS

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGV5LfKw_lFKNdZMlq15ZHz6sA1CA294/view

          2. Globe (first attempt)

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GMuNs9ptRzDd7KxFQbKv0o5ySR5VNc9b/view

          I thought ‘ Hmmmh: CONUS and the Globe, so similar? 6 % ~= 94 %? Strange.’

          I then compared for the first time the US stations and… Jesus! ~18000 stations vs. ~18000 stations.

          3. Globe (2nd)

          I made a plot of GHCN daily’s ‘Globe minus CONUS’ station set:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UcLK3usYjICeHeAsAb5ivcusW0Y0EdNe/view

          At that point I definitely understood that without area weighting, the Globe looks like CONUS’ backyard.

          4. Globe (3rd)

          Here is the plot with area weighting:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFdltVVFSyDLPM4ftZUCEl33GmjJnasT/view

          It was soon evident that the problem with CONUS vs. Globe would exist at other places as well.
          *
          Sorry Sir, too boring. You remind me too many other commenters who knew everything better.

          J.-P. D.

          • windlord-sun,

            A quick look at the latest UAH monthly temperature values for the globe, the US and Australia immediately shows that what happens over 3% of the global surface does not necessarily indicate what is happening over the entire globe.

            https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

            2020 Jan -> Feb

            Global: 0.57 -> 0.76
            USA: 0.73 -> 0.38
            AUS: 0.66 -> 0.30

            No, the US is not a sound temperature proxy for the whole globe.

            The UAH 40-year trends for the globe, the US and Australia are:

            0.13 C/decade
            0.17 C/decade
            0.18 C/decade

          • Barry,

            Please supply the number of direct measurement recordings that were compiled for globe-not-US and Australia, that are the basis for your claim.

            Additionally, your response to my claim about the 100-million recording US dataset not being the proxy for the world … my claim has a second part to it, as follows: if you claim abnormal global warming, why did the NOAA-adjusted uschn and ghcnd not detect it? Because they do not show abnormal warming, as follows …

            http://theearthintime.com

            Cheers,

            ~ windlord-sun

          • windlord-sun,

            Let’s be clear about what I am discussing with you, as you have introduced a couple of points that did not come from me. This is the clasim you made that I am challenging:

            “Since the USA data is the only massive, consistent, long term dataset, it serves as proxy for the world”

            I showed you the UAH values for 2 consecutive months for the globe and for the US (and Australia). The US evolution from one month to the other is the opposite of the globe for Jan-Feb. US is not a good proxy – even if you have a billion measurements concentrated there – because the average temperature of the globe is not a uniform quantity. Different places with different temperature profiles contribute to that average.

            You asked me how many measurements are made by the UAH satellite measuring system. For a single month there is a million measurements made globally with an error of 0.01C

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C0847%3APARVOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2

            As the USA is 3% of the global area measured by satellites, one month of temperatures taken over the US by the satellite instruments UAH relies on amounts to about 30,000 measurements with a (regional) error of 0.1C (see link above). These measurements are unaffected by UHI or station moves. This is sufficient precision for me to make my point.

            Which is, that a local region of the globe does not necessarily follow the same trajectory of the whole globe, nor even the same trend. The earth has extremely variable topography – even the hemispheres exhibit variety in evolution of temps.

            UAH NH 40-year trend : 0.16 C/decade
            UAH SH 40-year trend : 0.11 C/decade

            Each of those trends is made of the data of 240 million measurements. Half a billion measurements in all. The number of measurements available is not an argument against the variety of temperature evolution in different parts of the planet.

            INo, the US is not a temp proxy for the globe. Mean temps have warmed, like the globe, but the particulars between each vary. Summertime maximums were hotter in the US in the 1930s than recent, but that’s not the case for the whole globe.

            BTW, those hot summertime mximums in the US have not been adjusted away. They are still there in the smaller-sample adjusted data.

            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/tmax/3/8/1895-2020?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000

          • Barry

            Whoops, yes, my fault, I was moving too fast. We are talking apples and oranges. My claim refers to direct measurement of surface temperatures, not satellite. At this time, in this thread, I have no comment on the validity of meshing the two.

            However, my secondary claim stands: if the entire 120+ year 100-million (Max+Min) dataset of US recordings does not show any abnormal warming or cooling, how can anyone claim abnormal warming or cooling for “the globe?” You’d have to contend that the non-US world record is correct per whatever system of measure you are using, and the US is completely anomalous.

          • Not at all. All I have to do is contend that 3% of the global surface is not a perfect proxy for the whole globe. Then I have to show it, which I’ve done. I showed that 2 entire hemispheres of the globe do not have exactly the same temperature evolution, using half a billion measurements.

            Half a billion measurements is the answer to the premise of your argument – which is that more measurements make a better proxy. Your arguent is falsified, because a huge number of measurements show that not even one half of the globe is a perfect proxy for the other.

            The USA could have 10 sextillion temperature measurements daily for a hundred years, and that would not make it a good proxy for the globe. You have to show that the US is a good proxy for global in some other way. I don’t see how you are going to do that when you’ve rubbished data collected everywhere else in the world. You are stuck with assertion only, unfortunately.

      • “Why couldn’t it be CO2”?
        That’s just it.
        After more than 40 years of kicking this hypothesis into every crevice of society with endless nonsense “science” and propaganda and indignant children and petulant activist opportunists like Mikey Mann, the sensitivity hasn’t been tightened up one iota and the role of CO2 relative to water vapour and cloud cover and the sun and cow farts hasn’t even been established.
        The whole field of endeavour has been a colossal waste of money and time. And that’s before the human damage of much higher energy costs are calculated.
        All for something we just don’t know and seems to be beneficial.

        • Climate Sensitivity is the only issue which is up for debate. I think it’s at the lower end of the IPCC range.

          That said, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and warming will continue. Solar activity, the PDO, the AMO or any other ‘O’ is going to change that.

          • Robert W Turner March 3, 2020 at 12:21 pm

            Back radiation hypothesis is physics standing on its head.

            Energy is radiated from colder objects. An object doesn’t decide not to emit radiation just because it is colder than an adjacent warmer object.

            CO2 radiates energy to space but the rate of emission will be lower if it emits from a higher COLDER level of the atmosphere, i.e. the height of the effective radiating layer increases. This creates an imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation – and the Earth will warm

      • Because physics. CO2 does not have magical thermodynamic properties like the climatstologists pretend.

        • “Because physics. CO2 does not have magical thermodynamic properties like the climatstologists pretend.”

          Says who?

        • Because physics. CO2 does not have magical thermodynamic properties like the climatstologists pretend.

          There isn’t a single serious sceptical scientist who thinks you are right. Read my response above and try to understand that there is nothing “magical” about CO2 properties.

  4. There are still some who make jokes about the subject, of course there are others who make jokes about their own mother’s death.

        • Oddly enough the computer prediction resulting from water vapour feedback turns out to be wrong. That’s what the hotspot prediction was all about. No hotspot means no WV feedback, which means half the projected rate of warming which means no need for panic.

          JF

        • Well fancy that and how does it get deposited on the ice caps and places like Greenland in the Ice Ages perfessor? You know the one Hallett Cove geology in South Australia shows was there around 15000 years ago before the melting for some 8000 years that raised the sea level 130M at an average rate of 16.25mm/yr when Fort Denison tide gauge in Sydney Harbour is only showing 0.65mm/yr now.

          Do the computer models reckon that was down to aboriginal cooking fires and traditional burnoffs to flush out game? Do the climate changers think they can sprinkle some fairy dust on that lot of greenhouse gas to cool us down and run their pet solar panels?

  5. There is about a 5~6 month lag before ENSO 3.4 SSTs are exhibited in UAH 6.0 global temps.

    There was a brief spike in ENSO 3.4 SSTs in Sept~Oct 2019, so it makes sense this event is just now showing up in UAH 6.0 global temps.

    ENSO 3.4 SSTs have continued to fall since November, so March and April UAH global temps may remain at current levels or even rise a little, but after May, UAH 6.0 global temps will very likely fall for over a year as we enter the next La Niña event later this year.

    We’ll see soon enough.

  6. If we are concerned about global warming the solutions are fairly simple (and much cheaper than rejigging our entire economy).
    1. Build artificial barriers between Iceland and Faroe Islands. This would trap sea ice in the Arctic similar to how Russia and Alaska trap ice in the Chukchi Sea.
    2. Build a couple of large pumps in the Pacific in order to artificially circulate water from the deep ocean to the surface.
    Between these two projects it would be pretty simple to drop the temperature of the earth a couple of degrees. I am not for the above suggestions, as I think initiating another ice age would be a stupid decision. The only thing I am suggesting is that if we wanted to cool the earth the process is pretty obvious.

    • I think the operative idea is to destroy the economy and assist the human race to go extinct. Then whatever happens with the environment won’t matter as we won’t be here to blame each other. It’ll be natural!

  7. You’d think the alarmists would have learned their lesson. They always get excited when a few warm anomalies show up. Then, when they disappear they brood and disappear for awhile. This warm period is not going to end well for them. You see, there are really two more probable choices here.

    1) It cools right back down and hence was simply a combination of non-climate related factors.
    2) The warm anomalies continue but show no future increase. Essentially, exactly what happened back in the early 2000s.

    The latter case will give a lot of support to those who view ENSO as the cause of the warming we’ve seen. Having an almost identical reaction to a 2nd super El Nino would make it very difficult to assign this warming to GHGs.

    My own opinion is we will see 1). The warming is due to the combination of multiple warming effects which will fade away and return us back to where we’ve been for the last couple of decades.

    a) 2019 El Nino conditions
    b) The dissipation of the North Pacific blob.
    c) The strong polar vortex keeping cold air from flowing into the sub-Arctic NH.

    I won’t have to wait long to see. If I am right we should see the return to the baseline by this summer. Always willing to learn.

  8. The warmer the better. As a result of this mild (NOT warm) winter in the central Appalachians, along w/low heating bills & easy travel, there was only one brief power-outage back in Dec from an ice-storm.

  9. So confusing, below normal anomalies and temperatures for Northern Alaska for both January and February in multiple locations by as much -12f and N.Hemp goes up?
    Not seeing it?

    • A large swath of Russia/Siberia was warmed by surface winds moving northeast from around the Caspian Sea. Temps went from well below freezing to as high as minus 20s F in areas. That is a big temp change over a large region.

  10. The “up-down-up” swing of the 1998-1999 el Ni~no was followed by higher temperatures than preceded it. Now that the “up-down-up” swing of the 2015-2016 el Ni~no has had some years to evolve, it looks like a similar increase in global mean temp has followed it. Now we need patience for the next 15 years to see whether a new plateau or other consistent increase is in fact occurring. Diverse predictions and scenarios have been written for the 2020-2030 decade or so; maybe it will become clear which are best and which are worst.

  11. *** Anomaly: something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected ***

    Is the +0.76 deg. C difference in relation to a past arbitrary average something that is not “standard, normal, or expected”?

    Climate realists would argue that the answer is no.

    The word “anomaly” in itself has a connotation of abnormality. A more neutral term could be used, such as:

    distance from average
    deviation from average

    • Bernard

      You are right! I don’t like this word ‘anomaly’ at all. In many papers, you see ‘departure from the mean’ instead.

      This is not an isolated case, even if I cannot think of a similarly idiotic term at the moment.

      Rgds
      J.-P. D.

    • goldminor

      In a few days, the last countries will have reported their data to NOAA, and I will then download GHCN daily again. We’ll see what the Siberian stations tell us.

      Rgds
      J.-P. D.

    • “Here is a look at the February warming across much of Siberia”
      You can see the actual GHCN station readings on the map here. It was very warm, at least as much as January.

      • It was above average because of the surface winds. January also saw similar wind patterns.

  12. Why do we spend so much time looking are what everyone knows is unrepresentative and biased surface temperature data when 20 years ago the ice core data showed temperature surrogate change precedes CO2 concentration change? The chemistry and physics of the atmosphere and oceans did not change in the 1950s.

    And if your temperature stations show a dramatic jump in temperature between January and February and it is all due to a supposed heat wave in Siberia, your temperature data is obviously junk. A dramatic northern hemispheric warming in February just isn’t possible. Did the hidden deep ocean heat teleport to to eastern Siberia? The more is see of meteorology the more I am convinced it is a pseudoscience like sociology.

  13. “Why do we spend so much time looking are what everyone knows is unrepresentative and biased surface temperature data when 20 years ago the ice core data showed temperature surrogate change precedes CO2 concentration change? The chemistry and physics of the atmosphere and oceans did not change in the 1950s.”

    Dear, oh dear.
    “Biased” is the opinion of denizens here..
    That’s not “everyone”.
    We are discussing the UAH LT temp series.
    Not the surface one.
    Temps rise both before and after a CO2 pulse.
    Depends on which comes first (the rising temps or the CO2 pulse).
    In rising GMSTs ( orbital forcing) it lags.
    In that case it is a feedback.
    When humans add it it precedes (obviously).
    In that case it is a driver.

    “The chemistry and physics of the atmosphere and oceans did not change in the 1950s.?

    No, what changed was mankind ramping up industrialisation via the burning of fossil carbon.

    “A dramatic northern hemispheric warming in February just isn’t possible.”

    There hasn’t been one. The NH has been anomalously warm all winter.
    UAH LT Dec 0.56, Jan 0.57, Feb 0.76.
    Nor has there been any “dramatic warming” in the surface record….

    https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/data/freq/days.png

    “The more is see of meteorology the more I am convinced it is a pseudoscience like sociology.”
    And I have “thoughts” that make me convinced about people who make comments like that.

  14. I would like have more exposure to charts that eliminate the periods of El Nino and La Nina effect and which recognize the importance of the years 1880, 1914, 1944, 1974 and 2004 because they appear to be the changeover dates between 30 year periods of continuous warming and thirty year periods where the end of period temperature is no higher than the beginning year temperature. I also realize that the years I have mentioned are not necessarily the exact beginning and ending years for particular periods but are my best estimate based on my reading of the temperature charts I have seen. I also fail to see the value of trend lines which begin within a period and extend across the end of that period into the next period. This practice draws attention away from the presence of the thirty year periods of alternating warming and pause in warming.

  15. I would like to see a temperature chart or charts that eliminated the effects of known El Nino and La Nina activity. The cause of these effects are known and are apparently not the cause of slow warming observed since 1880. Their presence complicates the ability to observe the manner in which the slow warming is occurring. I would also like to see more attention given to the importance of the changeover from the periods of continuous warming and periods where the temperature at the end of the period was no higher than at the beginning of the period. The use of trend lines from the middle of of one period to the next appear to distract attention from the period changeovers and indicates a lack of appreciation for the importance of the presence of these alternating periods of warming and pause in warming.

Comments are closed.