UPDATE: Changed emphasis from Northern Hemisphere extratropics to entire Northern Hemisphere (h/t John Christy)
In April, 2020, the Northern Hemisphere experienced its 2nd largest 2-month drop in temperature in the 497-month satellite record.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2020 was +0.38 deg. C, down from the March, 2020 value of +0.48 deg. C.
The Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly fell from +0.96 deg. C to 0.43 deg. C from February to April, a 0.53 deg. C drop which is the 2nd largest 2-month drop in the 497-month satellite record. The largest 2-month drop was -0.69 deg. C from December 1987 to February 1988.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 has now increased to +0.14 C/decade (but remains statistically unchanged at +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 16 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 +0.49 +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 +0.10 +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 2020 03 +0.48 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.09 -0.72 +0.17 2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.34 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
The UAH LT global gridpoint anomaly image for April, 2020 should be available within the next week 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
Source: Dr. Roy Spencer
From the Alabama State Climatologist, Dr. John Christy:
Global Temperature Report: April 2020
Global climate trend since Dec. 1 1978: +0.135 C per decade
April Temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.38 C (+0.68 °F) above seasonal average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.43 C (+0.77 °F) above seasonal average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.34 C (+0.61 °F) above seasonal average
Tropics: +0.45 C (+0.81°F) above seasonal average
March Temperatures (Final)
Global composite temp.: +0.48 C (+0.86 °F) above seasonal average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.61 C (+1.10 °F) above seasonal average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.34 C (+0.61 °F) above seasonal average
Tropics: +0.63 C (+1.13°F) above seasonal average
Notes on data released May 1, 2020 (v6.0)
Seasonally-adjusted temperatures dropped a bit in the tropics and northern hemisphere from March values leading to a global temperature departure from average of +0.38 °C (+0.68 °F). As indicated last month we suggested that the drop is due in part to the cooling of the central Pacific Ocean. Recall that in the latter months of 2019, a weak, warm El Niño like event occurred which aided in warming up the atmosphere for a few months but that impact is mostly exhausted now. The two-month drop in the Northern Hemisphere temperature of -0.53 °C is rare – exceeded only once in the 497-month history when the hemisphere cooled between the 1987 warm El Niño and the cold 1989 La Niña. The NH temperature dropped -0.69 °C between December 1987 and February 1988.
The region with the warmest departure from average was a large hot spot in central Russia in the Krasnoyarsk Krai region. The peak occurred near Vorogovo at a remarkable +6.4 °C (+11.4 °F) above average. As is usual, when it’s very warm in one place, there are usually a series of alternating cold and warm regions in the same latitude belt, reflecting a somewhat
stationary pattern. This month the pattern indicates three warm peaks (Central Russia, Gulf of Alaska and Europe) with three cool areas in between (Sea of Japan, Canada and western Russia.) Moving eastward from the peak in central Russia to the cool area in central Canada we find the coldest departure from average near the Prince Albert National Park in
Saskatchewan with a -3.3 °C (-6.0 °F) anomaly.
Besides the locations mentioned above, warmer than average conditions prevailed in the Caribbean Sea, Eastern Antarctica and western Australia. Cooler than average temperatures were found in the southern oceans.
The conterminous U.S. experienced its coolest April since 1998 being -0.59 °C (-1.06 °F) below the seasonal average. April U.S. temperatures have a large range though, being as cool as -2.54 °C (1983) and as warm as +2.08 °C (1981). Alaska was warmer than average in April, so that the 49-state mean temperature departure was not quite as cold as the 48-state value being -0.24 °C (-0.43 °F). [We don’t include Hawaii in the US results because its
land area is less than that of a satellite grid square, so it would have virtually no impact on the overall national results.]
The remarkable warmth of the lower stratosphere that was linked to the aerosols from the Australian fires last year is apparently fading. The global departure from average for this layer was +0.00 °C in April, down from +0.32 °C last month. Even so, April’s temperature was the warmest since the volcanically-induced warming in 1993 after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.
Source: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
All very nice, but what happened to CO2 levels while all this was going on?
Is the decrease mainly by day or night? Is this the influence of fewer contrails?
I see you haven’t received any answer. But I also have the same question. Did the anomaly in the average temperture occur because maximum temps went down or because minimum temps went down? It makes a big difference in what we perceive as “climate”.
Here is an interesting graph:
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to:2021/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2021/trend
It shows that the warming trend of the oceans is exactly the same as that of the air.
Because of the enormous size of the oceans, it follows that the heat moved from the oceans to the atmosphere and not the other way around. You get that?
As Einstein said:
Nothing happens until something moves.
100 ppm CO2 is not going to move anything much at all….
Great graph Henry!
Very good, Henry. The oceans have been the driver of the warming. Now, the tougher question. What has been warming the oceans
RM: As one who has a little exp with big fire and welding one possible answer might be our planet is a big glob of molten, hot, radioactive metal. Not to speak for Henry but I think he thinks it might be UV. In my world, both are very plausible plus whatever else we can’t imagine. What is not plausible is the Gore theory. No one has yet to show me the math on the Gore thing…they try but the energy never balances = numerical lie. Amusing that curious kids point out that the core of the planet matters to the surface. Most mass and heat balances of the “atm system” depict the ground as a field of zero energy flux. Never seen a field of zero engery flux anywhere in nature. And though I’ve not seen it I believe that those who say energy flux betwixt two planes separated by hard vacuum still exhibit quantum flux of energy, call that faith if you will but it fits the larger scheme that I can sense:
https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-what-would-happen-if-the-earths-core-went-cold-107537
meiggs,
Another possibility I’ve read about has to do with the planet’s global ocean circulation (MOC). If you change it in a way that reduces upwelling cold water then the mixed layer should warm. The SSTs in Henry’s graph are determined by the temperature of the mixed layer. In theory a slowdown in the current should accomplish this.
Naturally, this then would lead to the question of what causes the slowdown. One thought is changes in rainfall over the Amazon and Congo river basins leads to changes in the amount of fresh water that flows into the Atlantic driving down the salinity. Interesting topic. Too bad it will never be investigated by anyone associated with climate science.
RM: Good point. Mass and volume of the ocean compared size of the few thermo-meters stuck in it or looking at it from above may imply that observed warming does not represent heat addition from above or below. Simple mass flux in 3D field thats got a lot more time than human history to figure out what it’s gonna do next. I get that and realize that salt content can’t be neglected. But that said, I still that guy Arthur Viterito is still on to something. And, yes, no relevant study will be carried out by gov owned and operated researchers. I think that guy Darwin did good science because he was self funded for example.
Hi Richard
Julian Flood mentioned that in fish nurseries they add a small amount oil in the ponds to keep heat in.
I think this is what happened to our oceans.
Organic pollution.
We need a scientific institute investigating the problem.
The way I understand it, you only need a few molecules to prevent the heat from escaping the water.
On positive note:
It appears we are coming out of the SC24 solar minimum, roughly of the same length and depth as the last one.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/SSN-23-24-min.htm
Pacific is prepared to La Niña. It is just waiting for the solar wind to increase.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2020&month=04
ren
ENSO is an oceanic oscillation and is driven by internal coupled fluctuations. It does not require external forcing. It is however periodically forced by the annual cycle. But the Humboldt current is a bigger factor than solar.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/264/5155/72
We also need a jet stream along the equator to lower the surface temperature.
I think people are erroneously trying to point at a single explanation for the drop. The measurement is a proxy of a wildy complex dynamic system, there is never a ‘single’ reason for any movement. The system also oscillates; so given the recent peak you would simply expect it to swing back towards the “average”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillation
In response to:
“I think people are erroneously trying to point at a single explanation for the drop.”
It is not a math problem. It is not a modeling problem.
We are ignoring the goal of ‘physics’… and we are ignoring physical changes that logically absolutely must be connected. i.e. No coincidences.
There must be a ‘physical’ explanation …. For everything that happens.
Park analyzing and modeling temperature. That path/task/strategy has not solved this problem.
Assume there is a physical cause for the temperature changes. The alternative is a model that has tipping points…
The cause of planetary temperature changes must be big, physical, and it is something that everyone has missed.
The sudden unexplained changes in surface temperature (which are regional) and cyclic…..
…. correlate in time, with sudden increases and decreases in the rate of spreading of the ocean tectonic plates at mid-ocean ridges all over the planet. Magma comes up out of the earth at many of the mid-ocean ridge zones. This up movement of magma is what creates the plates.
In fact, the rate of increase and decrease of the speed of spread of the mid-ocean ridges leads by two years the surface temperature changes.
Logically the fact that one large planetary change leads the surface temperature change by two years, tells us….
That the cause of the surface temperature changes….
….is what is physically causing the rate of spreading of the ocean plates to increase and decrease.
The force that is moving the plates must be big and due to the constraints of earth, it must be simple… to model unlike modeling the surface temperature.
The problem is not how to model the force that is moving the tectonic plates apart, but rather what is its nature.
And there has been as sudden unexplained changes to the geomagnetic field that correlates in time with the ocean plate movement changes.
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/have-global-temperatures-reached-a-tipping-point-2573-458X-1000149.pdf
Two previous studies, The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming (CSARGW) and the Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming: 2016 Update (CSARGW16), documented a high correlation between mid-ocean seismic activity and global temperatures from 1979 to 2016 [1,2].
As detailed in those studies, increasing seismic activity in these submarine volcanic complexes is a proxy indicator of heightened underwater geothermal flux, a forcing mechanism that destabilizes the overlying water column.
This forcing accelerates the thermohaline circulation while enhancing thermobaric convection [3-6]. This, in turn, results in increased heat transport into the Arctic (i.e., the “Arctic Amplification”), a prominent feature of earth’s recent warming [7-9].
Clearer skys so more heat lost at night?
When it is warming, people call it weather.
When it is cooling, people call it climate…
Bass-ackwards.
What of those of us, that just sit back and enjoy the show.
Hoping to glean a bit of knowledge from all the machinations.
What is actually the uncertainty of these numbers? Especially given that Dr. Spencer doesn’t understand uncertainties, as it had become clear in his dispute with Dr. Frank.
Obviously then, the correct answer is “No one is sure.”
NM: I’m for sure that’s for sure.
Now is the time whem the people who argued “it is too short of a timeframe to see a difference in CO2 concentration” will suddenly claim “reduced CO2 during COVID-19 lockdowns cooled temperatures!”
Did I hear someone mention “repeat of Maunder Minimum”? Or perhaps it was “repeat of Little Ice Age”?
Does Wuhan virus cause Global Cooling?
Could someone explain to me why they think atmospheric CO2 levels would fall just because CO2 emissions have fallen.
If I turn on a tap (faucet?) full on to fill a bucket of water then turn it down to a slower flow – what happens?
1/ Does the level of the water fall.
2/ Does the level of water continue to rise – albeit at a slower rate.
Easy. We are not looking for the Keeling Upslope to stop going up. To “stop.” we are just saying there should be some abnormal “ding” in the upslope.
After 3-4 months?
The net effect of human CO2 emissions is a ~2 ppm increase per year. If emissions declined by 50% over the year (unlikely) it would reduce the increase to ~1 ppm. It would be virtually impossible to detect any slowdown in growth in April.
That amounts to an admission that human-release CO2 is so tiny a factor, all claims that it causes any disturbance to temperature, let alone catastrophic warming and climate emergency, are falsified. Do you agree?
Windlord: agreed, human CO2 amounts to a net zero in the great scheme of things. If it’s truly risen from the alleged base line of 280 ppm then: 417-280=137 ppm rise in ~150 yrs. 137/150 = 0.91 ppm/yr. Based on the C14 carbon cycle paper I accept 8% of human (ACO2) as part of that. So 0.91*0.08 = 0.073 ppm/yr ACO2. I think us monkeys are not much compared to other sources like the ocean full of cracks at the tectonic plates emitting vast quantities of natural (nCO2).
And if that’s not convincing enough even Michael Moore said CO2 was not the problem…strange days these.
Hi meiggs,
Now let’s get that guy to sanction safe modern fission reactors including thorium, and to tell all Greens to pour their hearts, souls, and money into realistic fusion. Bring our star to earth. To make energy too cheap to monitor.
Windlord: I’m all for it but as the lock down clearly shows the people are not in control.
Power will never be free. Taxation will never cease to be what it is, slavery.
Yeah, I got carried away there. I write fiction with positive attitudes and I depart the plane of reality often
Wishful thinking. Proving that a one month change is too small to see does not prove that the same rate of change continued over 50 years is also too small to see.
@ur momisugly MarkW
“Proving that a one month change is too small to see does not prove that the same rate of change continued over 50 years is also too small to see.”
That is one of the craftiest sentences I ever read. Actually, I’ve read it about five times. It is dark to me. Therefore, I won’t respond to it. Say it another way if interested.
Meanwhile, if human release of CO2 is such a big deal, and humans abruptly cease 5-20% of their release for six weeks or so, then it should be reflected in the vaunted precision measurements at Mauna Loa and elsewhere. Just a ding. Just a tiny deviation, down in the deep noise which is so well documented, should be noticed.
The more time goes along and the reduction in human essissions remains repressed, the more dramatic that logic becomes.
I fail to see how you can’t understand the sentence, it’s quite clear.
Let’s try to simplify it.
Let’s say the change in rate of CO2 accumulation for April is 0.1ppm. On the chart in question, that large a difference can’t be seen.
Now extend that same rate change over 50 years. You now have a difference of 60ppm. That can easily be seen.
JF: it’s not that simple. Your bucket has trillions upon trillions or more moles of holes in it. What your thought experiment shows is human contribution to the bucket is irrelevant despite what ol’ Gold Bars Gore says.
The faucet is still ON minus close to zero ACO2.
CO2 in not static in the atm, that’s warmista propaganda. It’s part of a dynamic process driven by simple inorganic chemistry and complex biology and I am sure other variables. Look at the CO2 swings in the norther hemisphere, saw tooth. Those little teeth represent more C than humans emit in an entire year by an order of magnitude. And the amplitude of the teeth is increasing which I interpret to mean biomass on the the planet is doing quite well, thank you.
Sadly, this will be used to reinforce Climate Change Alarmism. The headline will read:
“Global Emissions Lockdown Ends Record Temperature Rise”
A tiny fluctuation and so much noise about nothing.
The warming trend is still accelerating.
Where ? Any source `?
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 has now increased to +0.14 C/decade…”
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 has now increased to +0.14 C/decade”
So it increased from 0.13C to 0.14C. I’m guessing that is within the margin of error of the measuring instrument. Not significant.
Tom A: using NOAA ave temp for my hood the T trend is flatter even than that:
I recognize that the NOAA numbers are doctored.
linear trend, Asheville NC ave T
yr
1869 54.7 F
2019 56.5 F
1.8 dT, F in 150 yrs
0.012 F/yr
Wow!
Alex, I see you are treating noise as signal. You are going to be so disappointed when the noise disappears.
NOAA is a proven manipulator of data along with many other monitors. The common goal is to show man made global warming. 2 month human activity curtailed = 2 months of lower temps. See proof! Problem is it would take months if not longer for ant like human activity to move the Earths temps. If anything this is caused by low solar activity, no sun flares.
Jack: 70’s last summer in Hotlanta happened b4 the crockdown. 13″ up on rain fall here for the year. The math on that latent cooling load is significant. It was cooling before the crockdown but, agreed, the spin will be dat da CV saved duh planet.
It’s cold in Ozzie
https://www.iceagenow.info/snow-piling-up-in-southeastern-australia/
https://www.iceagenow.info/record-cold-to-sweep-across-south-east-australia/
Apart from the last few days in the south east, for April most of the continent has been way above average.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=meananom&period=month&area=nat
Its getting cold folks. The new Grand Minimum seems to be upon us at last. Time for Renewables to show what they can do. I am looking forward to Climate Change activists freezing their behinds off while they loudly complain about global warming. You will come to wish we had more CO2 in the air.
RH: mo’ CO2 won’t matter. Less H2O would help cool things off but like CO2 hard to get by without that stuff.
Meanwhile here in Australia our winter is arriving early with snow falling on the alps and the coldest and wettest April for quite a long time. Mind you much needed rain fall though.
“the coldest and wettest April”
No it wasn’t, most of the country was much warmer than average.
The 2 sigma expression of measurement accuracy of the mole fraction of CO2 in air is unlikely to be better than +/- 1 deg C.
People seem to calculate 0.2 ppm as their expectation of the virus emission reduction effect.
Does not compute. Go back to start. Geoff S
GS: I got 0.1 ppm based purely on mass (independent of T) which is same number as 0.2 in context but I never left start from the git go.
I’m too dense to follow the 2 standard deviations as it relates to mole fraction CO2 and +/-1 deg C.
Please elucidate if you have the time, seems like an interesting point if I could only comprehend it…
Are you saying the mole fraction calcs used to arrive at alleged CO2 atm ppm are significantly skewed by errors in atm temperature assumptions/measurements (“corrected” or not)?
meiggs
Apologies, I wrongly used deg C units instead of ppm when describing the likely accuracy of measurements of CO2 in air. Geoff S
GS: 10-4, got it and agree, thanks. The resolution of ppm measurements is at best problematic even without the political bias. Sorta like atm temperatures quacked out by the TV. That’s why I have my own thermo-meter but don’t have the technology to monitor CO2 on my own or I probably would. That said, there’s nothing wrong with the weather, it’s been great for decades now.
Meigs & Windlord:
Michael Moore defended his movie’s takedown of the renewable industry in an interview where he
emphasized his ( and Jeff Gibbs & Ozzie Zehner) real reasons: anti-capitalism, anti-growth/consumption and over-population. He was always just using the “climate crisis” as a means to an end (kill Wall St).
He thinks COVID has shown the Greens how to destroy capitalism and reorder society: just
have government 1) shut the economy down, 2) give people only what they “need” rather than what they want, and limit population (although MM & JG seemed to profess not to want to actively depopulate the Earth the COVID lost of life was to them a plus).
The only thing missing from the interview was the word “comrade”. Scary stuff.
BZ: MM is a capitalist. No idea what his stance on pop control is.
The sacred cow in the room of this sort of discussion is only half the monkeys on the planet can give birth and that can’t be questioned or controlled acc to the msm.
So, the politics are irrelevant. The matri-arky rules. Yes, they occasionally liquidate their own kind but that is rare. Invasion of the Americas and fire raids in Germany and Japan spring to mind.
But, be that as it may, I’d guess with a name like Bill you and your kind are expendable. Comrade or not.
MM is only a capitalist if you believe that having money makes one a capitalist.
It is elementary that to do a scientific examination of CO2 in the air, you collect as much measured data as you reasonably can and need, probably starting with the most detailed data, in this case daily or hourly observations.
With considerable effort, I have obtained daily digital CO2 mole fractions from Mauna Loa personally from Ralph Keeling, for many years including 2020 to mid March. Also, about 22 March I downloaded similar data from an NOAA site that I can no longer find, presumed gone non-public.
That covers Mauna Loa, Ralph Keeling emails much appreciated.
I have been unable to access any other daily, digital CO2 data from other major locations for year 2020 to date, say to end of March. This includes Barrow Alaska, South Pole, Cape Grim Tasmania.
There are maybe 100 more locations where CO2 is measured routinely. I have tested some like Baring Head in New Zealand, no such data obtained.
It is easy to gain an impression that these measurement authorities (Ralph Keeling excepted) have no intention of letting scientists like me from the general public, have access to this type of data. Some have refused, using stupid reasons that might not stand a Court challenge.
So, when people here give their opinions about what Corona virus is doing to atmospheric CO2, I ask how they can possibly be wise and scientific when (unless they have special access to data) they have no useful numbers to work with. Many times I have castigated people for using belief instead of science. Is this another case of make believe science?
In any case, why have the authorities who curate their national CO2 measurements adopted this attitude of DO NOT RELEASE DATA TO THE PUBLIC. The public pays them to measure it, in the expectation that they can study it (with rare exceptions of national security).
I though that institutional scientists had learned a valuable lesson from the widespread backlash to that extraordinary email from Phil Jones in 2004-5 to my friend Warwick Hughes. You know, the one including “Why should I make my data available to you, when your aim is to find something wrong with it?
Is it time for others to ask the authorities why their measurements are being gatekeepered, not kept up to date, have unexplained missing data, have few proper error estimates, are generally useless to the inquiring public in the way that the institutions involved with the Corona virus outbreak were caught flat-footed, in the way that a number of named climate researchers are still resisting calls to release their data and so on?
What is wrong with these people? Why are they acting anti-science? Geoff S
Wonderful comment Geoff
Would the CO2 data be from something like this? https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/data/index.php?category=Greenhouse%2BGases¶meter_name=Carbon%2BDioxide
Paul C,
Only if you have trouble understanding English language.
Show me how you downloaded daily digital CO2 mole fractions for Jan Feb Mar of 2020 for any station apart from Mauna Loa, the useful data for looking at theorised Corona virus related changes.
Oh, now you see the problem? Geoff S
I see a lot of folks are trying to tie this drop to the sun. The problem is there was a corresponding rise over the preceding 6 months. We are right back where we were last summer. And, last summer we were already in the current solar minimum.
More likely, this blip (rise and fall) is due to two unrelated factors:
1) The yearly bump seen during the NH winter months due to the reduction in Arctic sea ice.
2) The end of the Pacific Blob (the heat had to go somewhere).
Keep in mind that 1) still had some influence in April and will further drop over the next 5 months. we are also still under the influence of El Nino conditions in the Pacific which should lead to further drops when those conditions end.
Hopefully, the El Nino ends soon so we get a chance to see where the baseline climate sits. If it returns to where it was in September 2018 it will be very bad news for alarmists.
It’s flipping freezing in Victoria (by our standards). If it was the first of July, it wouldn’t raise an eyebrow, but this is early and it’s come on the broken back of a long drought. Of the last five weeks, only fourteen days have been free of rain, giving rise to local floods.
My father always spoke of 1956 being exceptionally wet with a brand new, massive irrigation reservoir filling far, far faster than was ever predicted. Of course, that can’t happen now, not because Professor Flannery said dams would never fill again thanks to anthropogenic climate change, but because we don’t build dams any more, drought or no drought. I guess that’s why we call ourselves the ‘clever country.’
The winter of 1955/56 was a big flood year for the Pacific Northwest. Heavy rains hit from San Francisco all the way up into Washington. The center of the storm was around Southern Oregon. Far Northern California rivers and streams raged high.
Funny if late 20th century warming turned out to be all about high altitude aircraft and not CO2, after all.
And right on que the all time CO2 high was broken yesterday and now stands at 418.02 – The Manmade theory must be busted by now as Zero effect from the Covid lockdowns
TimBo: Well, MM did say CO2 was not the problem….rather prophetic, eh?
From the very beginning on the msm this whole china virus thing smacks of a hustle/experiment run by the nwo.
Perhaps MM has insider info…