May 2nd, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2022 was +0.26 deg. C, up from the March, 2022 value of +0.15 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands 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 (1991-2020) average for the last 16 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.49 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.12 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.29 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.30 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.26 0.08 0.07 0.32 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
2021 10 0.37 0.46 0.27 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.06
2021 11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.50 -0.43 -0.29
2021 12 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.03 1.62 0.01 -0.06
2022 01 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.24 -0.13 0.68 0.09
2022 02 -0.01 0.01 -0.02 -0.24 -0.05 -0.31 -0.50
2022 03 0.15 0.27 0.02 -0.08 0.21 0.74 0.02
2022 04 0.26 0.35 0.18 -0.04 -0.26 0.45 0.60
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for April, 2022 should be available within the next several 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.
Perhaps one of the biggest arguments against the CAGW hypothesis is the current UAH 6.0 warming trend is 0.13C/decade from 1979~2021, which is also it exactly the same as the HADCRUT warming trend from 1913~1945, which is the last time the PDO/AMO ocean cycles were in their respective 30-year warming trends, and during a time when human CO2 emissions were relatively minimal compared to emissions over the past 42 years.
CO2 is not the climate control knob: ENSO, solar cycles, PDO/AMO warm and cool cycles, Milankovitch cycles, natural variation, Little Ice Age recovery, sunspot activity, volcanism, air pollution particulates, cloud cover flux, ocean current flux, etc., all have impacts on the complex global climae system..
I’m not sure how you can claim that PDO was in the same phase during those two periods.
Source: https://psl.noaa.gov/pdo/
Graph shows 10 year rolling average of ERSST V5 PDO monthly data.
Nor am I sure how you establish the exact time frame where the AMO was in the same phase.
Data: https://www.psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/AMO/
Here is a better PDO INDEX chart form 1900 showing the PDO warm cycle from 1913~1945.
ENSO flux does create some noise to the data set, but this graph shows an obvious PDO warm cycle from 1913~1945 which contributed to a global warming warming trend of around 0.12C/decade, which is similar to the PDO warming enjoyed during the 1979~2015 PDO warm cycle.
Please also note the 1945~1979 PDO cool cycle which created such significant global cooling, it led many scientists to hypothesize we were entering a new Ice Age…
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/5/jcli-d-12-00264.1.xml
Not sure why you think your “better PDO INDEX” helps your case. It shows a warming PDO throughout your first period and a cooling PDO throughout most of your 1979-2015 period, though your graph only goes up to 2007.
You are right about CO2 not being the control knob. But it is still a control knob.
Why do you think UAH did not hit -0.2 to -0.3 C?
Probably for the same reasons, if we had had it, UAH would not have done that in the late 1930’s. Contrary to CliSciFi teachings, the world’s climate did not begin nor end in the late 20th Century. And prior to the development of fraudulent hockey sticks there were climate variations throughout the Holocene and for all of history before, for whatever reasons, the Gods shat out Man. BTW, we should curse the Gods for giving us the UN IPCC and Michael E. Mann along with every politician that has ever been born.
SAMURAI predicted -0.2 to -0.3 by April of this year. That’s what I was referring to.
CMIP 6.0 predicted the global temp anomaly would be 1.35C by now, but just a few months ago, it was -0.01C…
Yes, a year ago, I predicted the rare double-dip La NIna cycle could cause UHA6.0 to hit -0.2~-0.3C, providing it was a strong one, but it turned out to be a weak one although a long lasting one…
Which is closer? CMIP6.0 projections of 1.35C by now or my prediction of -0.2C~-0.3C during a strong La Nina cycle…
Can anyone explain to me why the CFIS April anomaly is so different as in much colder? I was expecting April to come in substantially lower than March.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
Disregard. I just realized the graph I posted is surface and UAH is atmospheric.
Your graph is showing daily anomalies for April between +0.8 and 0.3 approximately. Converted to the same base line as UAH that would be around +0.6°C and +0.1°C. Doesn’t seem the UAH April anomaly of +0.26°C is much warmer than CFSR.
A better question might be why UAH has been somewhat cooler than CFSR in the months before April.
The derivative is trending down any way you slice it. This would appear to be at odds with high ECS atmospheric optics scenarios.
I guess you could argue it would be trending down more rapidly over the past 20 years, but there is evidently an increasing discrepancy between emissions scenarios and ECS concepts.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/derivative/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/derivative/trend
I just noticed that the trendline sits at +0.22 C. The April anomaly is +0.26 C or 0.04 C above the trendline. That means the April anomaly data point has caused the trend to increase albeit only slightly and for one month. What is remarkable about that is that it comes at a point where we would normally expect La Nina’s effect to be at a maximum. And this was a double-dip La Nina at that. The last time we had 3 consecutive seasons in the La Nina phase was Mar-Apr-May of 74, 75, and 76. That means it has never happened in the period of record for UAH. Wouldn’t that be something if the La Nina went 3 consecutive seasons in the Jun-Aug-Sep of 20, 21, and 22?
Miskolczi showed this is all silly buggers . . .
to meet an extended Hansen 1988’s “business as usual” emissions scenario temperature projections by 2032, the slope would have to increase to ~2 degrees per decade over the next ten years, or more than ten times the rate so far
believe for AR1 midpoints the requirement is more like 1.5 degrees over the next decade
AR5 shows about 2 degrees of warming from 1979 to 2032 for the middle scenarios (fig 12.5), so it only requires around five times the current rate over the next 10 years, but of course it’s basically the 1988 and 1991 projections moved forward 20-30 years so will likely keep getting less accurate over time at the same rate the older ones did
future predictions seem likely to follow a similar pattern of simply pushing the warming out further