Reposted from Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog
December 1st, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2020 was +0.53 deg. C, essentially unchanged from the October, 2020 value of +0.54 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).
For comparison, the CDAS global surface temperature anomaly for the last 30 days at Weatherbell.com was +0.52 deg. C.
With La Nina in the Pacific now officially started, it will take several months for that surface cooling to be fully realized in the tropospheric temperatures. Typically, La Nina minimum temperatures (and El Nino maximum temperatures) show up around February, March, or April. The tropical (20N-20S) temperature anomaly for November was +0.29 deg. C, which is lower than it has been in over 2 years.
In contrast, the Arctic saw the warmest November (1.38 deg. C) in the 42 year satellite record, exceeding the previous record of 1.22 deg. C in 1996.
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 23 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.14 +1.14
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.03 +1.05 +0.05
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.58
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.49 +0.93 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.99 +0.38
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 +0.34 +0.87
2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.23
2019 09 +0.61 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57
2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.27 +0.30 -0.03 +1.00 +0.49
2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.37
2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
2020 01 +0.56 +0.60 +0.53 +0.61 +0.73 +0.13 +0.65
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 +0.16
2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.33 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
2020 05 +0.54 +0.60 +0.49 +0.66 +0.17 +1.16 -0.15
2020 06 +0.43 +0.45 +0.41 +0.46 +0.38 +0.80 +1.20
2020 07 +0.44 +0.45 +0.42 +0.46 +0.56 +0.40 +0.66
2020 08 +0.43 +0.47 +0.38 +0.59 +0.41 +0.47 +0.49
2020 09 +0.57 +0.58 +0.56 +0.46 +0.97 +0.48 +0.92
2020 10 +0.54 +0.71 +0.37 +0.37 +1.10 +1.23 +0.24
2020 11 +0.53 +0.67 +0.39 +0.29 +1.57 +1.38 +1.41
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for November, 2020 should be available within 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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fred 250,
Although I agree with some of your arguments, e.g.., that the temperature data sets have been adjusted in rather arbitrary ways, I find your personal attacks reprehensible.
Stick to the facts without the name calling.
Jerry
“I find your personal attacks reprehensible.”
I find your namby-pamby SJW “feelings” comment reprehensible. !
Do you seriously think we are NOT in a war for our survival !!!!!
fred250,
Oh please. When you act like you are doing it is not becoming. You are being emotional and not scientific. If your arguments are truly factually based then they will speak for themselves. By acting as you are you are lowering yourself to their level. Point out logically irrefutable facts and let them squirm. That is what Steve McIntyre did and tore their hockey stick and proxy arguments to shreds.I suggest you read the manuscript I mentioned above. I laid out the mathematical theories that the climate modelers have ignored (abused) and then the result that their global climate models are nonsense cannot be refuted.
Jerry
YAWN !!
Stop trolling
Charles Rotter,
Are you deleting some of my comments?
Jerry
Not to my knowledge. You have my email if you want a faster response.
Charles,
Why have you not stopped Fred250 from using such incendiary comments?
Jerry
fred250,
We are not at war.
We are suppose to be in a scientific discussion about opposing viewpoints. If you are a scientist, act like one
and discuss the issues logically and without emotion. You might read some of Steve McIntyre’s approach
to arguments about the hockey stick or proxies. He carefully laid out the mathematical flaws in the approaches used in those studies and subsequently gained wide respect for his honesty and thoroughness.
Jerry
“We are not at war.”
Really !!
Tell that to the US Democrats and the green agenda socialist.
They are using the anti-CO2 nonsense to pull down society as we know it..
If that’s not war, what is it. !
Seem you are another far-leftist apologist. !
Fred250,
Clearly you are an extremist and not a scientist as indicated by your rantings about
politics. Unfortunate because you have some valid points but do not know how to express
them in an unemotional scientific manner. No point in trying to help you.
Jerry
Clearly , you are one to lie down and let the far-left socialists just roll all over you.
Your choice. Be a wimp, don’t stand up for your self.
And STOP the moronic trolling !!
This is addressed to Fred250, Lloydo, MarkW, Simon et al:-
When I try to get people to look at the GW facts I point them to WUWT and invite them to comment on what they read there.
When they tell me that they have looked at WUWT and found that a lot of the comments consist of name-calling and that therefor they don’t take the site seriously, I can only agree with them when I see diatribes of ad hominae like your contributions to this paper.
Please stop name calling and making disparaging replies and stick to the science.
hear! hear!
Oldseado
This is exactly why I was trying to rein in Fred250’s rhetoric
and direct him.to Steve McIntyre’s site or my manuscript.
Jerry
Fred, why is the temperature on Earth’s moon wildly different than on Earth?
ATMOSPHERIC MASS.
D-Oh !!!
Fred250,
Shame on you.
Jerry
Shame on YOU, Gerry.
If you don’t think the atmospheric mass and the oceans are the major difference…
… NO-ONE can help you !
Stop your childish trolling !
Perhaps YOU would like to have a try…. or not.
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?
Fred250, How do you know that the question might have been posed by an elementary student?
Instead of a.helpful scientific response you flamed
the person. Shame on you.
Jerry
Trump_Clone,
1. Do you have any hard scientific evidence that there is no global warming from CO2 other
than calling people names?
2. I am not a warmer but there are some disturbing climate change signs, e.g., the jet stream has moved further North. The scientific question is whether this is from natural variability or not. And you cannot claim it is one or the other by your rants.
Fred, will you go so far as to admit that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas?
Here is graph of models vs the measured temperature. This is from NASA
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
ROFLMAO
They “adjust ” the temperature data then PRETEND it matches.
You have to be JOKING !!
Not science of ANY SORT.
fred250,
You need a more scientific response. What happened if the models were started before 1970
with the same parameterizations? Recall that they used to start the models centuries earlier and made the same claims. Why suddenly now are they starting the models so much closer to the current day? Is that because the longer runs were deviating from reality too much so they have retuned the parameterizations for the shorter runs so the runs look more realistic? Ask them what changes they have made to the parameterizations and other tunable parameters from the previous longer runs with clear scientific documentation. Given that the global models are all using the wrong atmospheric dynamical system of equations (a mathematical fact), what has been done to the models to make them fit the observed data during the period 1970-2000 (tunable parameterizations)? And given that the models are simulating a fluid closer to molasses than air because of the physically unrealistical excessive dissipation needed to overcome the use of discontinuous parameterizations how can the results be related to the real atmosphere? Have them answer these questions first because I think that will be sufficient to make the game they are playing obvious. Then you can argue about the obs data.
YAWN !
A new sort of troll.
Interesting !
No, responses to these clowns need to be short and sharp.
They DO NOT understand anything else.
Fred250,
I am more than willing to compare my credentials to yours. Why don’t you use your real name if you
are such a great scientist? Hiding behind an alias
you have the nerve to call me a troll.
Any reader can compare my response to yours about the nasa graph to determine who is closer
to the correct scientific response.
Jerry
YAWN !
Junk data is junk data.
First rule of science
Try to learn.
And how petty is that, wanting to compare credentials.
All you have produce is a load of waffle.
I LAUGH at you. !
STOP TROLLING !!
Fred250,
Since you.are a self claimed expert on everything
hiding behind an alias, please explain the mathematical Bounded Derivative Theory by Professor Heinz Kreiss. No one should believe anything you say until you reveal your true identity and credible scientific credentials.
Jerry
Fred250,
Since you so love politics, I will now refer to you as Trump_Clone.
You use capitalizations exactly like he does, you attack anyone that disagrees with you
exactly like he does and even attack some that try to help you exactly as he does. How many times have you used the word troll? I rest my case.
Jerry
AndyG trying to ruin another blog. My advice is ignore him and report him to the moderators. There is no place for this in any blog
Gee Aye,
So it is fine for Trump_Clone (Fred250) to make incendiary comments such as this:
Clearly , you are one to lie down and let the far-left socialists just roll all over you.
Your choice. Be a wimp, don’t stand up for your self.
And STOP the moronic trolling !!
To continue the analogy Trump_Clone uses observationa data when it suits his needs
but when it does not
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
he states that the obs data is junk.
Trump calls Fox news real news because it suits his needs but calls the rest of the media fake news because it does not.
Any similarities?
Trump_Clown is just getting a taste of his own medicine so he stops his rants and sticks to more civil comments and scientific facts.
Jerry
Being new to this sile I do not understand this argument. How NASA can tune predictions that were already published? When I asked for obs vs prediction chart I had in mind a comparison between predictions of, say, 2010-1019 temps made in 2005 and the actual observations for that period.
email corrected–mod
Jim,
Before accepting something that is published as fact, carefully investigate the assumptions that have been used to produce the results. See my response to fred250. But as an extra precautionary example, on Steve McIntyre’s site I introduced a simple example showing that if one is allowed to choose the forcing (tunable parameterizations) in a time dependent system, then one can produce any solution one wants even if the time dependent system is the wrong one. This is exactly what the climate modelers have done.
The modelers need to answer the questions I [posed in the response to fred250 in a clear documented manner and not just provide output.
Jerry
Jim,
A famous quote by von Neumann:
I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.
Jerry
Jim,
A famous quote by John von Neumann as recalled by his friend:
I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.
The modelers have more than 5 parameters to play with.
Jerry
“with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
Yeah, that doesn’t work going forward, just for going backward.
Jim,
A famous quote by John von Neumann as recalled by his friend:
I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.
The modelers have more than 5 parameters to play with.
Jerry