UAH Global Temperature Update for March 2020: +0.48 deg. C

April 1st, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2020 was +0.48 deg. C, down substantially from the February, 2020 value of +0.76 deg. C.

The northern extratropics (poleward of 20 deg. N) experienced the 12th largest drop in tropospheric temperature out of the 495 months of the satellite record. For those interested in speculating regarding reasons for this, it could not be from reduced CO2 emissions from the response to the spread of COVID-19; to the extent that recent warming has been due to more CO2 in the atmosphere, the radiative forcing from extra CO2 would not change substantially even if all CO2 emissions stopped for a full year.

Another possibility is reduced air travel reducing the amount of jet contrails in the upper troposphere, which I am not going to discount at this point.

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 15 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 +0.38 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.05 +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 +0.11 +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
 2020 03 +0.48 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.09 -0.72 +0.17

The UAH LT global gridpoint anomaly image for March, 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


501 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for March 2020: +0.48 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Richard M says:

    About as I expected. Still had El Nino conditions across the tropics this winter but the winter Arctic warming is starting to fade and the Pacific hot spot has pretty much dissipated.

    Since El Nino conditions are still hanging around this will keep the trend higher for a few more months.

    I still expect a drop over those next few month until we get back to the 21st century baseline of around .15 later this summer.

    • Craig T says:

      The average global anomaly for the 21st century is 0.19C, with only 3 months of the last 5 years below 0.2C. The Multivariate ENSO Index shows October/November was the minimum 0.5 to be considered an El Nino, with the rest of the winter neutral. We’ll see what September brings.

      • Mick says:

        0.2 C ? whats the margin of error? I suspect that in reality, its much higher than the number itself.

        • bdgwx says:

          I’m not sure what the margin of error is for monthly anomalies. The standard deviation for this time period is 0.19C. And to be pedantic I believe the 21st century starts in 2001. The average from 2001 is 0.20C which is slightly higher than 0.19C from 2000.

        • bdgwx says:

          Totally forgot to include in the standard error. It is +0.19C +/- 0.01C using the standard error of the mean with an sd of 0.19C and 232 samples.

          • bdgwx says:

            Doh…wish I could edit posts. From 2000 it is +0.19C +/- 0.01C, but from 2001 (start of 21st century) it is +0.20C +/- 0.01C. Hopefully no more typos or mistakes on my part…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bdgwx, please stop trolling.

        • barry says:

          From memory the error for monthly anomalies is 0.1C.

          My memory is quite sound 90% of the time.

      • Bindidon says:

        Each time there is a small drop in UAH’s monthly anomaly report wrt the previous month, you see the super predictor Richard M trumpeting

        ” About as I expected. ”

        As usual, Richard M, you did not correctly predict anything: you simply guess and pretend.

        About a year ago you predicted a cooling which of course never happened. You always find a nice excuse, but… hmmmh.

        *
        A delicious detail: including the newest anomaly (though by 0.28 C lower than the most recent one) has let the linear estimate grow from previous 0.134 +- 0.007 C / decade up to now incredible 0.135, woaaah.

        Stats are funny.

        • bdgwx says:

          If April comes in at +0.44C or higher then the trend bumps up to +0.14C/decade if using 2 significant digits and standard rounding rules.

        • barry says:

          I’ll make a prediction I’m willing to bet $1000 on if anyone will take me on.

          The UAH lower trop temp trend will get to 0.14 C/decade within the next 5 years.

          For another $1000, the UAH temp lower trop tem trend will crack 0.016 C/decade in the next 10 years.

          I think I’m being very conservative, but people here seem convinced it’s going to cool over the next 20 yrs or so, so I’m hoping they’ll put up.

          Or offer their own cooling bet?

        • barry says:

          Specifically, the mean trend will crack 0.14 C/decade or higher in the next 5 etc…

        • Richard M says:

          Bindidon, my predictions are always dependent upon El Nino conditions. The fact El Nino conditions persisted over most of the Winter and back all the way to September 2018 means I made no prediction.

          Why do you lie?

          • bdgwx says:

            So what is your prediction for the next 5 years?

          • Ebsi.A.pp.ell says:

            No, there were not El Nino conditions over the winter.

            Average ONI since JJA 2019 = 0.33, firmly in ENSO neutral territory.

            It has been, however, the warmest ENSO-neutral season in UAH’s record, so far. (Period ends with MJJ.)

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Bannedvid, please stop trolling.

      • Joe says:

        The oceans are still too warm overall, they govern global temperature.

      • Richard M says:

        Craig T, NOAA ONI disagrees with your claims. We had El Nino conditions for most of the winter as I stated.

        https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

        In addition, the Nino 1-2 area has been above normal which means a lack of upwelling cold water.

        Using an average anomaly value over the entire 21st century is not useful without accounting for ENSO. Once you correct for ENSO the average is reduced a little which is why I stated .15.

        • Craig T says:

          The ONI is based only on SST anomalies in the Nino 3.4 region while MEI includes surface zonal and meridional winds. Even using the ONI, El Nino conditions were weak (never breaking 1) and ended in June 2019.

          How are you “correcting” for El Ninos? Is there a correction for la Ninas? The average ONI value Jan 2000 to Dec 2010 is -.10 while the average Jan 2000 to present is 0.002. The first 10 years of this century had more la Ninas than El Ninos but now they have averaged out.

    • Midas says:

      Richard
      The 13-month running average is higher than at any time in the 2016 El Nino. In what sense would you “expect” that mere “El Nino conditions” (in other words, not even a weak El Nino) would result in higher temperatures than for a Super El Nino?

      • Richard M says:

        Midas, the El Nino has worked in concert with the dissipation of the Pacific hot spot. Need to look beyond the ordinary at times. That energy had to go someplace.

        In addition, the length of the El Nino conditions comes into play. One factor often missed is the extended time without any strong La Nina has led to a lack of upwelling cold bottom water. In fact, even during recent neutral conditions the upwelling of cold water has been muted. This has probably been due to the +PDO conditions over the past 6+ years

        The net is the mixed layer warms and shares that warmth with the atmosphere. My comment assumes we would soon move into a more normal neutral situation with upwelling cold water.

        Most people ignore the influence of this cold water and just look at warming factors. It all works together.

        • Midas says:

          So why has this not led to (average) temperatures this high at any other time in the 125 year surface record, and certainly not in the 41 year UAH record? Do you have any data which indicates that your excuse-conditions have not existed at any time in that period?

          • Richard M says:

            Very simple, Midas. The combination of the solar inertial motion warming and the the grand solar maximum of the 20th century led to warming of the oceans. Now we have experienced positive AMO and PDO conditions for a high percentage of the last 40 years. Add in a little for the increase in air traffic and a decrease in low clouds (ISSCP). All of these lead to a natural warming influence.

            Why do climate alarmists continue to deny natural climate factors?

          • bdgwx says:

            There is no SIM warming. Solar grand maximum? Yes, of course. Up to about 1960. Thereafter? Nope. TSI has remained constant and even waned in recent decades yet the Earth energy imbalance has increased while the warming accelerated.

            I’m not an alarmist so the question wasn’t posed for me. But I’ll answer anyway. Neither I nor any reputable climate scientist deny natural climate factors. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. We opening embrace them because they are essential in formulating a consistent theory of how global mean temperatures change. Furthermore, CO2 and CH4 are natural climate factors themselves. So why would I or anyone deny their role?

    • Among other reasons, I think the global temperature anomaly is returning towards its average of the last several years because of the time of year. Even for a given magnitude of ENSO (or what it was two months prior), its effect seems to me as being greater towards the first couple months of the year, especially February.

    • Da.vid.App.ell says:

      There haven’t been El Nino conditions this season (started JJA).

      This is, so far, the warmest ENSO-neutral year in UAH’s LT record.

  2. Eben says:

    Chaotic system does not need a “reason” for going up and down it just does

    • Anderson Wallace says:

      “Chaotic system does not need a “reason” for going up and down it just does”
      Totally incorrect. Chaotic merely means that there are too many variables that can possibly be accounted for to make exact long term predictions. Weather patterns are completely a product of those countless variables. The process is entirely deterministic, and not the product of the “whims” of chaos.

      • Eben says:

        OK Ahynshtahyn

      • Mark Miller says:

        This is incorrect. “Chaotic” in mathematics means that the behavior or dynamics of the system depends very sensitively on the parameters or initial conditions, not on how many variables there are. A classic example is the double pendulum. It is a completely determinstic system in that the dynamics are completely described by the initial condtion, but accurate long term prediction of the dynamics is impossible because they depend so sensitively on the initial condition.

        There are many cool youtube videos of double pendulums.

        • Anderson Wallace says:

          Chaotic
          mathematics : having outcomes that can vary widely due to extremely small changes in initial conditions

          This is what I was talking about. Numerous small changes can produce results that cannot be predicted without a range of uncertainties. Regarding weather, chaotic does not mean random or without cause.

    • Amazed says:

      MM, AW,

      You are sadly mistaken. There is no minimum change to initial conditions which may cause chaotic behaviour. Look it up. Even the change in the position of a single photon is enough. A photon’s location cannot be precisely determined. Look up the uncertainty principle.

      Learn some physics. Alarmist wishful thinking is not enough. Just stupid.

  3. bdgwx says:

    This brings the trend up to +0.1346C/decade.

    • gbaikie says:

      But more accurately, +0.13 per decade.

      Or the trend is not long enough or precise enough give number in terms of thousandth of degree.
      Or it’s simply wrong/misleading or inaccurate to state such exactness when there little chance it could that accurate that one would state such number as a trend.
      But if you could give an error bar then such “data” could be included in the error bar.

      • bdgwx says:

        0.1346C/decade +/- 0.0068C/decade is what Excel’s LINEST says.

        If April ends up being +0.48C as well then this changes to 0.1351C/decade which means a bump up to +0.14C/decade could be on the horizon if standard rounding rules are used.

      • Midas says:

        You really should learn the difference between “accuracy” and “precision”.

    • Richard M says:

      bdgwx, I’m more interested in the 5,000 year trend. What you are referring to is noise.

      • bdgwx says:

        This site and the UAH dataset is probably not going to be of much interest to you then.

      • gbaikie says:

        –bdgwx, I’m more interested in the 5,000 year trend.–

        It seems if humans were not a factor, I think everyone would assume that 5000 years trend would not change much. Assuming the wasn’t something else “big” happening in the time.

        So, our Ice Age will continue. And unlikely to have much effect if entering glaciation period of our Ice Age. Not much different than last 5000 years which had cooling, but could have more Little Ice Age and perhaps longer Little Ice Ages and a bit worse, but not huge mile high glaciers and sea levels dropping more than 10 meters.

        Or in 5000 years we might be approaching the warmest part of interglacial periods, but unlikely get to warmest period of warmest interglacial periods of the past, so in terms sea level rise as much as 2 meter rise, but likely to be less.

        But if include humans doing things, I don’t think you can rule out humans travelling to different star systems. Which is very, very difficult to do. A walk in the park compare to changing Earth global climate to anything humans might want- so what would humans 5000 years in future, might want? If want to live in glacial periods, that what they we get. If want to live in hothouse global climate, again, that’s what happens.
        With humans you can’t predict what they do in the next hundred years, though one can predict that human might do what they have been doing and our “modern miracle” was an weird aberration- rather than common expectation of “progressivism” or progressivism which merely goes in wrong direction- such as world ruled by AI {and that is bad- end of world type bad, DOOMED. Though one could say that we are already, there].

        Anyhow, I want accurate climate prediction for next 20 years.

  4. Scott R says:

    The arctic is the coldest it has been since 2005. This makes sense as during the NH summer, the earth is slightly farther from the sun compared to it’s normal aphelion position. This is due to the fact that Jupiter and Saturn on this side of the solar system cause the sun to move away to balance. Cold winters in the arctic are a function of less ice melt in the summer. Also, I see the snow mass is still above the average winter peak.

    https://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg

    I’m just going to just go ahead and say I predicted this sudden drop last month. Here is my comment from March 3rd:

    NoExt looks just like what happened in Feb 2016 during the super enso. This may not be an official ENSO, but the tropics are warmer than they were during the official ENSO and the NH mid latitudes sure responded like that this winter. Will it take the hard post enso drop again? Stay tuned.

    When the tropics drop as this ENSO cycles ends (which is on a 3.6 year, 11 year cycle, expect more global temperature drop.

    • Eben says:

      You have to make correct predictions at least 3 month in the row before you can even think to brag about it, the probability a fall would occur from the second highest peak of the data set was like 100 to one

    • Bindidon says:

      Scott R

      1. ” Cold winters in the arctic are a function of less ice melt in the summer. ”

      Neither war the 2019/20 winter edition cold in the Arctic, let alone was there less ice melt in the summer!

      Look at the Arctic sea ice extent anomalies:

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

      We can identify on the graph the melting season with the months Jun / Jul / Aug / Sep / Oct, right?

      Here is the average absolute value for sea ice extent for these five months:

      2017: 7,152 (Mkm2)
      2018: 7,115
      2016: 6,962
      2019: 6,624

      2012: 6,534

      *
      2. ” Also, I see the snow mass is still above the average winter peak. ”

      You have been shown your misinterpretation often enough.

      The snow mass increase is due to the snow becoming wetter and wetter when the temperature above the clouds becomes too warm. Wet snow is way heavier than cold, dry snow.

      Here is a similar graph showing the snow cover:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ff4FW4I2xpkfkBZcGnvrLstPHvo3zUcB/view

      If the winter had been cold, the black line showing the snow cover in the NH would have moved pretty good above the blue mean.

      J.-P. D.

      • Scott R says:

        Bindidon,

        It is a 60 year cycle. The cooler summers SLOWLY increase the intensities of the winters as the ice builds. I’ve told you this before that you are not going to reverse a 40 year trend overnight. A good proxy would be to study the 1960-1980 mid century cooling period and the ice that built during that time.

        Why do I insist that summers impact the winters? Well, the sun is not even out in the arctic winter, so summer by default must be the controlling factor. Obviously the ENSO cycle also plays a roll. Amazing that the arctic can be this cold without a la nina isn’t it? Please check to see how long it has been yourself.

      • Scott R says:

        Still showing snow extent anomalies I see. It misleads a person to think that the 2019 October low was worse than 2012 but is wasn’t. The ice min was in 2012. 8 years ago.

        Also I didn’t notice it before but your selection of the mean is 1981-2010, so is Rutgers. Knowing that there is a 60 year cycle, your period to decide the average is not long enough and it is biased. You started the period at the very end of the mid century cooling. The 70s, 80, 90s, were colder than average. The 60s, 2000s, 2010s, warmer than average. So you biased the average to be colder than it should be.

        • Bindidon says:

          Scott R

          ” Still showing snow extent anomalies I see. ”

          Of course! Why should I manipulate anybody by misusing the fact that wet snow is heavier than dry one? If this winter had been so snowy as does suggest the snow mass plot: why then was the snow surface smaller?

          *
          ” It misleads a person to think that the 2019 October low was worse than 2012 but is wasn’t. The ice min was in 2012. 8 years ago. ”

          Sorry, Scott R. Again, you are wrong.

          You manifestly don’t realize the difference between SIDADS’ daily and monthly data.

          1. The least daily anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010 were, in Mkm2:

          in 2012, Oct 10: -3.142
          in 2019, Oct 16: -3.195

          Look at their daily data (absolute values and climatology), build the anomalies using the two data sets, and come back here again.

          2. The least monthly averages of daily anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010 were, in Mkm2:

          in 2019, Sep: -2.09
          in 2012, Oct: -2.46
          in 2019, Oct: -2.67
          in 2012, Sep: -2.84

          One can really loose precious time with you: because if we don’t contradict your wrong claims, you think you were right.

          • Scott R says:

            Bindidon,

            Here is why mass matters- sea level rise, the largest concern from the AGW community does not care if the snow is wet or dry.

            Anyways, you are wrong about the snow being wet. Most of the mass of this snow is in the high arctic (not the Ohio valley) where it hasn’t reached melt temperatures in months. 7 weather stations in Greenland recorded their lowest ever temperatures this winter. You have a strong and healthy polar vortex. Pretty much the opposite of what your side said would happen.

            Anyways, go ahead and keep telling me about the anomalies in October when the sun is down and how important they are instead of focusing on how much snow is in the high arctic between April – mid September when it actually matters to albedo.

    • barry says:

      Aww, Scott, you’ve been predicting drops for months. You were bound to be right some time. All you had to do was wait.

      “The arctic is the coldest it has been since 2005.”

      True! Let’s get some context.

      https://i.imgur.com/FwR1eBh.png

      Feb to March was a drop of -0.74 C!

      “This makes sense as during the NH summer, the earth is slightly farther from the sun compared to its normal aphelion position. This is due to the fact that Jupiter and Saturn on this side of the solar system cause the sun to move away to balance.”

      So we can see a bunch of other drops in the Arctic temp record, even bigger ones than March 2020. Let’s see when they happened…

      Jan-Feb 1979: -1.6 C

      Apr-May 1982: -0.82 C

      Dec-Jan 1988/89: -1.96 C

      Feb-Mar 1998: -0.92 C

      Mar-Apr 2002: -1.15 C

      Nov-Dec 2004: -0.92

      True story. I didn’t look for and cherry-pick these particular months. I did a line plot and just picked any year which had a low hanging anomaly for the Arctic.

      I don’t think this spread has much predictive power.

      • Scott R says:

        barry,

        I’ve been predicting it to get colder on several timeframes. The 60 year cycle is ending (slow change). The 3.6 year, 11 year cycles in the tropics will be ending. The 42 year cycle is ending. The amplitude of the 3.6 year cycle is very large, and we are in a peak right now.

        Then you have the response of the NH to warm tropics in February. The call I was referring to in this post specifically, is the call that the Feb heat would not last, and it would look like 2016. I called out the Noext number had shot up to everyone before it had been posted, and it had. Now you will see a big drop this month once the number is posted. This is because the Feb spike had nothing to do with GHG, and everything to do with a natural el nino cycle.

        Since the temperatures in the arctic cycle on a 60 year time frame inline with the AMO, it makes a lot of sense that the 80 and 90s saw more cold arctic readings than 2000s and 2010s. The fact that we have one reading like this with no la nina should raise eyebrows. Its a sign that the cycle has reversed.

  5. MrZ says:

    Thanks Roy!
    That IS a drop. I thought less pollution would bring the temp up.
    Here is a WEB based application that makes your data come alive.
    https://cfys.nu/GTA

    Unfortunately I have no manual yet but I trust clever people on this site can figure it out.

    Start by selecting a dataset. I have UAH, RSS and a beta version of re-analysis data from ECMWF, ERAv5. Lennart Bengtsson is helping me out with ERAv5 so please understand it is still in beta mode. I am not on his knowledge level by far yet. I also have GHCNM data but restricted to the 1979-2020 period.

    Enjoy!

  6. Nate says:

    Roy,

    Can you explain the jet contrails comment. Why do jet contrails produce warming rather than cooling?

    Thnx.

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      Same as thin cirrus clouds, their greenhouse effect (reduction of IR escaping to space) is larger than their solar albedo effect.

      • Mick says:

        Back in the 70s, didn’t they claim that particulate pollution was causing the cooling?

        • Craig T says:

          Particulates don’t keep IR from escaping into space.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nor does CO2. If anything, it facilitates the escape of IR to space.

          • bdgwx says:

            DREMT, Then why do space based radiometers see a sudden drop in IR when water vapor moves between the warm surface and the radiometer?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That’s right, GHGs absorb or scatter IR. They also emit IR. Nowhere is heat being “trapped”. Did you have a point?

          • bdgwx says:

            Space based radiometers record less IR in the presence of WV; not more, not the same, but less. Where do you suppose that missing IR went if it didn’t get scattered back toward the surface or thermalized?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No reduction in total OLR.

          • barry says:

            Let’s get specific. Radiometers see a drop over time of OLR in the specific bands associated with greenhouse gases. The study linked is a broad spectrum IR measurement over time, confirming that the planet is getting warmer.

            Let’s get a quote from the paper:

            “Compared to the pre-industrial period, the increase of Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) primarily CO2 reduces the OLR; this represents a positive (heating) radiative forcing…”

            And another:

            “The OLR has been rising since 1985, and correlates well with
            the rising global temperature…”

            Gets the gears turning, don’t it?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It certainly ought to.

          • bdgwx says:

            Yes. We know broad spectrum OLR is increasing. That paper is not inconsistent with the fact that when WV moves between the warm surface and space based radiometers the radiometers see less IR in the portion of the spectrum that WV is active. Nor is the paper contradictory to the fact that GHGs trap infrared radiation on select bands. The paper also tells you why global average OLR is increasing despite having increased GHG suppression.

            My question stands…where do you suppose this missing IR (that which is blocked by WV) goes if it does not get thermalized or scattered back toward the surface?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “…with the fact that when WV moves between the warm surface and space based radiometers the radiometers see less IR in the portion of the spectrum that WV is active.”

            Not quite the same thing you were trying to imply initially, though, is it? All the radiometers show is that GHGs absorb, scatter and emit IR. Again…so what? Total OLR is increasing.

            “My question stands…where do you suppose this missing IR (that which is blocked by WV) goes if it does not get thermalized or scattered back toward the surface?”

            There is no “missing IR”. Try thinking about it this way:

            https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/#comment-6070

          • bdgwx says:

            Not quite the same thing you were trying to imply initially, though, is it?

            It is the same thing. You can certainly fault me for not spelling it out the first time and assuming you knew what I meant. I’m a quick learner though. I’ll be sure to spell it this time.

            All the radiometers show is that GHGs absorb, scatter and emit IR. Again…so what?

            The so what is that CO2 does not facilitate the escape of IR (in the bands that CO2 is active of course). It does the opposite. It impedes the escape of IR (in the bands that CO2 is active of course) to space. Nor does H2O or anything other GHG facilitate the escape of IR (in the bands that those gas species are active of course). They do the opposite. They impede the escape of IR (in the bands that those gas species are active of course) to space.

            Total OLR is increasing.

            Yes. It is. And the paper tells you why. The paper also tells you that GHGs reduces the OLR (in the bands that CO2 is active of course).

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You can keep saying “in the bands that those gas species are active of course” until the cows come home. It does not equate to “less IR is leaving the planet” when the exact opposite is true! Total OLR is increasing.The

          • bdgwx says:

            If your assertion is that WV does not impede the escape of IR (in the bands in which WV is active of course) then how do you propose that space based radiometers are able to track it? And how did engineers build such devices using understanding that you reject?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Irrelevant, since total OLR is increasing. Take a look in the comments immediately beneath this article:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/what-do-16-years-of-ceres-data-tell-us-about-global-climate-sensitivity/

            This has all been discussed before.

          • barry says:

            There are lots of papers verifying the fact that OLR in the spectra associated with GHGs has dimished over time…

            https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/

            …even while the total IR spectrum shows an increase over time bnecause the globe has warmed.

            Believe it or not, these are not mutually contradictory.

            A 2016 review paper captures the proposal from 40 years ago, later verified.

            “In their work, Madden and Ramanathan mooted the possibility of using spectrally resolved satellite observations of the ERB to provide this attribution, suggesting that whilst increasing CO2 should reduce the outgoing energy within its absorp.tion bands, the expected associated surface heating should enhance emission within more transparent regions of the spectrum.”

            https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5

            Review papers are always worthwhile reading to get a good handle on the topic.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’m well aware of such papers, barry, since, as I said, this has all been discussed before. All you had to do was follow the link, and read through the comments…

          • barry says:

            Thank you for the invitation to read through an article and 426 comments from cranks and others.

            Let me be succinct.

            The article doesn’t speak to the issue at hand in this subthread.

            To the 426 comments – go fuck yourself.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Calm down, barry. If you had paid attention, you would have noticed I referred only to the comments immediately beneath the article. Kristian does a good job of explaining how the available data provides evidence against an enhanced GHE, whilst Geoff has some good commentary on why that is.

      • Midas says:

        Roy, feel free to chime in in response to your mimicker’s comment.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Des, feel free to please stop trolling.

          • Midas says:

            Who was the one who was complaining about others jumping in uninvited on his comments addressed to others?

            Is there any chance you have an untainted recollection of that?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So you decided to jump in again…

          • Midas says:

            Yeah – I felt comfortable jumping in on my own comment.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The comment where you jumped in the first time? OK.

          • Midas says:

            As I pointed out, YOU are the one who was complaining a couple of months ago about jumping in on other’s comments, not me. Simply pointing out your recurrent hypocrisy.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, I was commenting about being stalked…by one commenter in particular, as a matter of fact. They know who they are.

      • Alex Ask says:

        I think this is very interesting what the complete shutdown of the global economy does to all the various climate measurements. The jet contrails is very interesting. One would expect it to be colder, but sunnier. I know weather isn’t climate, but here in the UK we had one of the coldest nights of a very warm winter a few days ago. The forecast going forward is much warmer though as the wind reverts to the west.

    • Gilbert H says:

      Contrails are interesting possibility, but waste heat is too. Comparison to 2008 temperature drop is also interesting. I like CO2, my grass grows better, and my chickens are happier.

  7. studentb says:

    Interesting.
    A linear fit to the data extrapolated to 2100 yields a warming of about +1.8 deg.
    A second order polynomial fit to the data yields a warming of about +2.5 deg.

    • bdgwx says:

      That’s pretty interesting. I wonder what the linear and polynomial fits are for RSS?

      • Bindidon says:

        bdgwx

        Please start your Excel or Libre Office Calc, download RSS4.0 LT data, produce a line chart, click on the line and let the guy produce a 2nd order polynomial mean with function output.

        It tells you in the chart something like

        f(x) = a x2 + b x + c

        X is around 960 (months till 2100).

        I did something similar yesterday for COVID-19 in the US for the recent days:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KysiWXwQWYlFLK-angmiX7bCUjdN-Rf5/view

        J.-P. D.

      • spike55 says:

        While you continue think you can extrapolate a linear fit on climate, or any data, way out passed the range of the data..

        …. You will remain a student.

        • studentb says:

          …unless, of course, you have good reason to expect the response to be linear (or whatever) but don’t know the exact coefficients. Then extrapolation is justified. Everyone should be aware that the modelled response of temperatures over the 21st century is non-linear. Therefore I am justified.

          However, I have not considered error bars since I am interested it the magnitude of the difference between a linear and non-linear fit to the extrapolated values.

          …you can thank me for the lesson.

        • Bindidon says:

          ” . You will remain a student. ”

          And so the great professional spoke down to us.

    • Scott R says:

      studentb,

      Have you ever considered adding a sin function to your model? It particular, a 3.6 year, 60 year would be a good place to start. I have also found 11 year, 42 year (x2 one is offset) cycles if you are interested at all. I’m willing to share my research and what data sets to use to find the cycles.

      • studentb says:

        I am sure you could find a reasonable fit to the data by combining 4 sin functions with 4 different phase lags. But there are 2 problems:
        1. you have 8 choices to make. Therefore the statistical significance of any fit will be negligible. If you keep adding in more and more functions, you could end up with a near-perfect fit – but one which was meaningless.
        2. There is no reason to expect global temperature anomalies to follow a sine function to any great extent. The science says solar -related variations have negligible effect.

        • Scott R says:

          studentb,

          Please look at the 3.6 year cycle in the ocean tropics for starters. Basically you would be adding the ENSO to your equation. Why not do that at least?

          I would argue if you truly want to know the forcing from GHGs, you have to put the SIN functions in. Failure to add natural cycles will lead you to the wrong conclusions. We owe it to the folks setting public policy to get this right.

          • studentb says:

            I have repeated the analysis with a 3.6 year function and phase lag of 10 months which maximizes the fit with the data.
            The resultant extrapolated fits are +1.4 at 2100 using a linear trend and +2.4 using a polynomial fit.
            i.e.not much difference.
            This is expected since the ENSO-type signal, by itself, has no trend.

  8. Craig T says:

    “Let me summarize the Trump administration/right-wing media view on the coronavirus: It’s a hoax, or anyway no big deal. Besides, trying to do anything about it would destroy the economy. And it’s China’s fault, which is why we should call it the “Chinese virus.”

    Does all this give you a sense of déjà vu? It should. After all, it’s very similar to the Trump/right-wing line on climate change.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/opinion/coronavirus-trump-response.html

    • Craig T says:

      I posted that before I saw Dr. Spencer has made 4 posts on Covid 19.

    • Tim S says:

      The hoax is the hype, not the effect in question. The virus hoax is that Trump is to blame for … fill in the blank. I do not think he has ever said the virus itself is not real. The response will be debated for a long time, but the political bickering should be expected, and your political bias seems rather obvious. More important is the fact that unlike the response to the virus, Trump’s words have no effect on either the climate or the scientific study. Policy is a different question that is always going to be political and debatable.

      • Bindidon says:

        Tim S

        Somebody wrote a list of Trump’s COVID-19 statements since beginning, but I lost the link.

        This isn’t as good but good enough:

        https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/factchecking-trumps-coronavirus-press-conference/

        • Eben says:

          Trump recognized early on that democrats will spin and blame him personally for anything and everything bad about the pandemic as their next hoax. They instantly twisted his words into a claim he said the virus was a hoax , then started to blame him for everything happening about the pandemic , just as he predicted.

          The truth will out in the next elections anyway

          • Arless McGee says:

            Eben,

            In February Trump gave Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

            Two weeks ago Limbaugh claimed Covid-19 equals the common cold.

            Trump needs no help from the Dems, he does it all by himself.

          • Midas says:

            In February Trump DID say Covid was no different to a common flu.
            Whether or not he actually used the word “hoax”, by making that statement he is calling the scientists liars. That is no different to calling the severity of the virus a hoax.

          • Craig T says:

            Trump did say this:
            “Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus, you know that right? Coronavirus, they’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs. You say, ‘How’s President Trump doing?’ They go, ‘Oh, not good, not good.’ … And this is their new hoax.”

            When asked what he meant, Trump said “I’m not talking about what’s happening here; I’m talking what they’re doing. That’s the hoax.”

            There’s plenty of Far Right sites calling Covid 19 a hoax to allow the government to control people’s lives. (Sound familiar?) Others, including Trump, said it was a hoax that the government wasn’t taking all the actions needed to prevent a health disaster. Just like it’s a hoax that Trump is ignoring the upcoming climate disaster.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          https://tinyurl.com/uz7ol2o

          “The World Health Organization (WHO) tried to calm fears of a pandemic on Jan. 14 by repeating China’s claim that coronavirus was not contagious among humans.”

      • Nate says:

        Trump takes credit for any success (or imagined ones) of the country or his administration, whether he contributed or not.

        When it fails, he looks for someone else to blame, usually Obama, other countries, but often his own team.

        Can any of the Trump supporters find an instance where he took responsibility for his administration’s failures?

        Seriously? Anyone? The buck stops nowhere.

        He predicted that our country was gonna get tired of winning.

        He tried to ignore the pandemic for two months, insisting it was under control, and going away.

        And now, as a result, the US is winning on number of COVID19 cases!

        We’re beating China, Russia, Japan, S. Korea, everyone. By a lot!

        Soon we’ll be winning on deaths from it.

        He was right, we’re gonna be tired of winning.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          What failures?

          You believe the reports coming out of China?

          Nate, a true believer, and King of the obfuscators.

          • Norman says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            Sometimes I agree with Nate but on this one I totally agree with you.

            What comes out of China is total junk. Too much into making the State look good and not in trying to portray reality!

            You look at Worldometer and China shows just 35 new injections, that with over a billion citizens. South Korea, who is probably doing the best job possible of containment, still had an increase of 89.

            Nebraska, with just 246 known cases had more injections than the entire Nation of China with 36 new infections.

            Our intelligence if finding out that China is certainly lying about the numbers. Other reports suggest up to 500,000 dead or more.

            If Nate believes anything coming out of China or uses it in a post to denigrate the Trump Administration, he is certainly NOT going to get any support from me on such a poor tactic.

            One thing about he US and Trump is that we do not seem to be lying about what is going on. Trump said he had minimized the threat early to try and prevent panic, but in the background he was stopping travel from China and later Europe and the Left Wind fanatics criticized him for both these moves. The Chief Doctor praised the moves as lowering the rates of infection (which seem very bad now).

            I can accept Trump was trying to downplay the threat to reduce panic as he explained in his Press Conference since his actions were doing much louder talking.

            With such low numbers for China, it is either they are totally dishonest or they found a cure and are waiting to eliminate some Global Competition before releasing it to the world for huge profits. Not much makes logical sense otherwise.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Good comment, Norman.

            We all should tone down the rhetoric on this issue. Nobody knew enough about what was going to happen with this virus and possibly still don’t.

            Of course Trump doesn’t want to lose an election because of it, but there is certainly a lot of people concerned that shutting down the country/world will make it hard to make a comeback. We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

          • barry says:

            No one knows the truth on China, except maybe the Chinese government. I’m no more inclinded to believe them than an unpublished US intelligence dossier. Neither have a stirling track record.

            That’s how skepticism is. You don’t lean into a preference when information is sketchy, second hand etc.

            “One thing about he US and Trump is that we do not seem to be lying about what is going on.”

            Who is “We?”

            “We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.”

            Who is “We?”

          • Nate says:

            “If Nate believes anything coming out of China or uses it in a post to denigrate the Trump Administration, he is certainly NOT going to get any support from me on such a poor tactic.”

            I do believe some countries like S. Korea, were able to handle the problem by early and effective action: massive testing-based quaranteening.

            Relative to these countries, we have failed.

            I dont believe numbers out of China, but I do believe reports from journalists there who see a relaxing of lockdowns and the closing of temporary hospitals.

            The pattern of the growth and decay of new cases in China are similar to those in S. Korea.

            There has been independent research tracking people’s movements in China by cell phones and seeing its effectiveness in containing the spread.

            “was stopping travel from China and later Europe”

            Continually pointing to this policy as a success when the domestic numbers here are exploding is quite silly.

            Falsely stating that he knew this was a pandemic early on, while also falsely stating that we had no idea how bad it was in January-February in China, when the Senate Intel committee knew quite well.

            Did he not pay attention to intel? Shocking.

            His administration closed the White House Pandemic planning office in 2018.

            When asked about this he claiming someone on NSC did it. Then later claimed it was fake news.

            “We didnt do that. That turned out to be a false story,” Trump said when asked about it by John Roberts of Fox news.

            And, I noticed no one was able to answer my question: when did he take responsibility for any failures?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate just can’t help himself. There’s no cure for Trump derangement syndrome.

          • Nate says:

            As weve come to expect from Chic, factless, feckless loyalty to his tribe.

          • Nate says:

            Uhgggh, anybody watch the Trump Covid press conference today?

            Check it out.

            Anybody inpressed by his answers?

            Apparently unless reporters lavish praise on the govt performance, they are lower life forms.

            Meanwhile we should actually thank the press for doing its job, that they cant do in China, of holding govt accountable.

  9. Rob Mitchell says:

    Many thanks to Dr. Spencer for his quick March global temperature update. COVID-19 didn’t get in his way.

    As a retired 40-year operational aviation/marine weather forecaster, I have a question for the atmospheric scientists here. What is going on in the Arctic? The temperature anomalies are considerably lower there than the rest of the earth so far in 2020. I was wondering if the Arctic is functioning as an efficient “heat exhaust vent” during the past 3 months for some reason, and that it might be a leading indicator for the rest of the earth during the next year or two.

    Or, is this just a purely random chaotic event and it basically doesn’t mean anything.

    • Bindidon says:

      Rob Mitchell

      ” What is going on in the Arctic? The temperature anomalies are considerably lower there than the rest of the earth so far in 2020. ”

      *
      You recently wrote similar things about Arctic sea ice extent.

      Here is the list of the most recent Arctic land anomalies wrt 1981-2010, generated out of raw GHCN daily stuff (about 900 stations with sufficient baseline data):

      2019 1 0.18 (C)
      2019 2 1.81
      2019 3 3.56
      2019 4 1.76
      2019 5 1.41
      2019 6 1.13
      2019 7 0.36
      2019 8 0.87
      2019 9 1.31
      2019 10 2.06
      2019 11 1.47
      2019 12 1.47
      2020 1 0.97
      2020 2 1.45

      And for UAH’s Arctic anomalies, the recent months have let the trend drop from 0.254 C / decade down to horrifying 0.248 C / decade.

      Since Roy Spencer prints only 2 digits after the decimal point, you wouldn’t have noticed it.

      *
      What exactly do you mean?

      *
      Btw I expressed, in my last reply to you, some hope that this year, Arctic sea ice would fairly recover. That was in February, and at that time, the sea ice extent looked good, moving up near 2012.

      But now:

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

      Zoom into the graph, and look at the black line.

      Rgds
      J.-P. D.

      • Rob Mitchell says:

        Some hope Bindidon? Hope for what? I’m not hoping for anything. I just like to look at the monthly numbers Dr. Spencer is kind enough to share with us. I do have an interest in the Arctic because I used to work in Alaska several summers from 2007 to 2015.

        Are you making some kind of commentary about the UAH data by comparing it to the GHCN data? That isn’t exactly an apples to apples comparison is it?

        I just noticed that the recent UAH Arctic temp anomalies are certainly lower than the rest of the earth. A lack of contrails was mentioned as a possible cause. I kind of doubt that. But if that ends up being the reason, then I would think contrails has more of an affect on human-caused global warming than our CO2 emissions.

        • Bindidon says:

          Rob Mitchell

          ” Some hope Bindidon? Hope for what? ”

          I told you already about that la<st time.

          I simply hope that Arctic ice loss everywhere (land sheets, sea ice) sometime will stop.

          Because this permanent melting is, according to oceanographers, the cause for an increase of atmospheric perturbations in the Atlantic.

          This has had a strong influence on our weather here in Northern Germany during the last decade:
          – no winters anymore;
          – wind, wind, wind.

          I don't think it's good, even if be appreciate mild winters.

          J.-P. D.

        • Bindidon says:

          Rob Mitchell

          ” Are you making some kind of commentary about the UAH data by comparing it to the GHCN data? That isn’t exactly an apples to apples comparison is it? ”

          Well I would agree with you if I was comparing raw absolute LT data with that of the surface, that would be like comparing pineapples with bananas.

          But if you use anomalies aka departures, all computed wrt the same reference period, you remove a substantial amount of these differences (beginning with a 24 K temperature difference) an can therefore concentrate on differences shown by residuals.

          And then it becomes interesting to compare

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QzCHgraMC2KgEwW_w4hsk2jGOsU6aJ3L/view

          with

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x299XgxQ1yBap38CfYwQvflobC6qngoI/view

          All apples, but of different varieties.

          The same thing, this time made by comparing UAH LT over ocean and sea surface records like HadSST3 gives you again apple-to-apple comparisons, but differing in a different way.

          But… I don’t expect anybody to be interested in such details.

    • barry says:

      Rob, it’s essentially random. An occasional large swing is business as usual.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2020-0-48-deg-c/#comment-453824

      I don’t think I caught all the large drops. Here is the data for you to check if you like.

      https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo

  10. Mark Wapples says:

    I expected about half a degree drop due to the lack of airoplane contrails. Simply as I have looked up at the night sky on clear nights the stars have been clearer this last two weeks.
    The lack of IR radiation has allowed the heat to escape at night.

    • bdgwx says:

      IPCC AR5 list aviation induced RF as +0.05 W/m^2. This is pretty small relative to the net radiative force and current energy imbalance. I’m wondering if there would be enough signal-to-noise to notice especially considering the stratosphere saw yet another increase and that the Australian wildfire smoke might be having an even larger effect…assuming the smoke hypothesis explains the recent stratospheric warming that is.

      • Leitwolf says:

        “IPCC AR5 list aviation induced RF as +0.05 W/m^2”

        Right, but there is just so much warming (although temperature records can amplified..) that can be attributed to CO2 OR contrails. And while not even the IPCC can deny anymore contrails are causing AGW, they have every interest to down play it to secure their CO2 narrative.

        The problem is simple: CO2 can not do it, while contrails have to do it.

    • Scott R says:

      The February number was just inflated due to the warm ocean temperatures in the tropics… when you have el nino type conditions, we have seen this before where NH winter gets a boost in Feb (see 2016) and quickly fades as winter ends because el nino does not impact the NH summer the same way.

      The ocean tropics were actually warmer during this unofficial el nino than the official el nino last year. So it is not just the 3.4 region that is important. It’s the tropics as a whole.

  11. Mark Wapples says:

    Rob people forget the amount of air traffic that actually take the shortest route over the arctic. They see the earth as Mercator’s projection and not as a globe.

    There as been a significant reduction in the high level cloud over the arctic in the first three months of this year.

  12. Midas says:

    It’s hilarious watching deniers rejoicing in a drop to +0.48.

    • barry says:

      Heretic. The Great Global Cooling has finnnnnnnally begun.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Where are you watching that? Sounds funny.

    • Richard M says:

      What was really hilarious, Midas, was watching alarmists celebrating last month as if it was going to persist into the future. You and your fellow cultists now look a little foolish.

      • Midas says:

        Richard, if you were to actually look at my comment from a couple of months ago, I stated that there is no way these anomalies will remain this high. Apparently you like your straw man arguments.

      • barry says:

        “What was really hilarious, Midas, was watching alarmists celebrating last month as if it was going to persist into the future.”

        Except that didn’t happen and you just completely made it up.

        Why did you do that?

      • bdgwx says:

        You can throw my hat in the ring as a poster that predicted a monthly decline as well. In fact, I think a negative anomaly is still possible…maybe even likely.

        • Da.vid.App.ell says:

          bdgwx says:
          “In fact, I think a negative anomaly is still possiblemaybe even likely.”

          why?

        • bdgwx says:

          Because excursion of -0.33C below the trend line have occurred 15 times before. The trendline is at about +0.33C right now. The lowest excursion was -0.43C below the trendline so if we use history as a bound for what is possible then we can say that a negative anomaly is possible for another 5-7 years.

  13. Leitwolf says:

    Looks promissing, doesn’t it?

    Well, given this March 2020 update is the average of the whole month (right?) we may expect more to come. So far things seem all well in line with expectations.

    Another noteworthy detail is, that we see plenty of record lows these days in Europe. Sure there is a huge contribution by weather to this (with cold polar air masses), but that alone is not so uncommon and will not yield record lows per se. Especially not with “global warming” in the background.

    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Foesterreich.orf.at%2Fstories%2F3042097%2F&sandbox=1

    However with the loss of contrails, all the “global warming” is virtually undone, plus we have of course an increased temperature spread so that the lows turn even lower.

    If you are curious how I know what I believe to know, there are some ressources, though a bit outdated by now, which fairly well explain the logic behind it all.

    I guess the most notable and simplest smoking gun is still the result on the cloud/temperature correlation over the Aleutes, a region where according to NASA clouds were massively cooling..

    https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/aleuten1.png
    https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/aleuten2.png

    As we can see, actual METAR records are telling us the opposite story. Clouds are warming the Aleutes, just as they are warming everywhere. This fact is like scratching nails on a chalkboard to the “GHE” theory. Earth is held warm by clouds, GHGs play a minor role!

    Also, the higher up clouds are located, the stronger their warming effect is. Once this is understood, it is easy to see what effect contrails need to have, and what effect CO2 can not have. Then this also perfectly explains where and when we saw AGW, which is starting in the 1970s mainly in the NH!!!

    Ok..

    https://de.scribd.com/document/414175992/CO21

    And I used this here as a log for more accute findings. Regrettably this is regularly getting spammed by some troll(s).

    https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/clouds-are-warming-earth-not-so-much-ghgs-d6-e2748.php

  14. Midas says:

    “Looks promissing, doesnt it”

  15. Robert Ingersol says:

    The biggest one month drops are likely to be associated with the highest anomalies in the preceding month. True in this case. Even with this drop, March was one of the highest anomalies in the UAH record and the 13 month running average is still creeping toward an all-time high despite the lack of a strong el Nino event.

    Of course the Climate Science Deniers will play this up, just like the do whenever the global temperature drops. When it goes up again (and it will… soon) we will get the rationalizations.

    But here is the thing. Kevin Cowtan calculates that the long term trend from UAH v6.0 went from 0.133 to 0.135 C/decade after the February results were posted. That sounds like a number that should be rounded to 0.14. Might go to 0.136 when this March data hits. When will Spencer report that?

    http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

    • bdgwx says:

      The trend is +0.1346C/decade right now. April needs to come in at +0.44C or higher for the trend to be reported as +0.14C using 2 significant digits.

      • David_Ap.pell says:

        You can’t specify the trend to 4 significant figures.

        What’s the uncertainty on your trend number to, say, 2-sigma. Include autocorrelation.

        • bdgwx says:

          Excel’s LINEST function said 0.0068C/decade. What conditions are required before the trend can be reported as +0.14C/decade?

          • Da.A.pp,ell says:

            You didn’t report the trend to 2 significant digits, you reported it to 4 significant digits.

            Big difference.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Bannedvid, please stop trolling.

          • bdgwx says:

            DA, yes I did. And for good reason. If I had reported to 3 significant digits I would have had to post +0.135C/decade leaving readers to question why I didn’t round up to +0.14C/decade. Or if I posted to 2 significant digits it would be +0.13C/deacde leaving readers to believe that we may be further away from a bump up to +0.14C/decade than we really are. The intent of my post was rather obvious. Surely you understood the intent. And surely you are able to compute value to 2 significant digits in your head quite easily. And it doesn’t matter what the 1-sigma error is on it. If the raw calculation comes out to 0.1351 or whatever it still gets reported as +0.14C/decade regardless of what the error is. We are really close to point…possibly 1 month away even.

  16. Bindidon says:

    For those who have serious difficulties in keeping in mind the difference between weather and climate – especially when the temperatures fall down a little bit, here is a ‘healthy’ comparison.

    Weather station ‘Schoenefeld’ near Germany’s capital Berlin

    1. Dec 2019 – March 2020 (nearly no winter, a tiny cold end of March)

    https://tinyurl.com/u9b39n9

    2. Dec 2012 – March 2013 (winter)

    https://tinyurl.com/qmst9qz

    Warmistas aren’t so very useful people, but… Coolistas are far worse.

  17. barry says:

    Richard M

    “I still expect a drop over those next few month until we get back to the 21st century baseline of around .15 later this summer.”

    Is that anomaly meant to be just for a single month, or will that be an average of a few months?

    “get back to”

    And stay? Graze the bottom for a moment? And head on down?

    I mean, I’ve predicted that surely we must see a negative anomaly some time in the future. That’s just statistically likely even in a warming world. So it’s saying very little.

    We used to have an informal sweep at what the next monthly anomaly might be. I think that’s about as useful as guessing whether the end of the year will be colder or warmer.

    It’s warmer with el Nino, cooler with la Nina. Beyond that, picking at the ENSO tea leaves doesn’t seem to be very meaningful.

  18. D__Ap.pell says:

    Excellent cherry picking.

    But the averages of averages are a different matter.

  19. Da.vid.App.ell says:

    The acceleration of the UAH LT data is now 0.023 +/- 0.013 C/dec^2 (1-sigma).

    The current dT/dt is +0.18 C/decade.

    • Midas says:

      The large relative tolerance in your first figure, especially given that it is only 1-sigma, should be telling you that you can’t state that the current rate of change “is” anything.

      There is simply not enough data to determine a meaningful “acceleration”. How can you tell? If we had a reasonably strong La Nina for the next 12 months, resulting in an average UAH of +0.1, that acceleration would be almost wiped out.

      • D.A.pp.ell says:

        False.

        It’s easy to calculate the percent by which the trend number is significant.

        Want to do that?
        Or do you want me to do that for you?

        • Midas says:

          Why don’t you instead insert data for the next twelve months with an average of 0.1 and see what happens to this acceleration.

          And there was nothing in my comment which demanded that condescension.

          • Amazed says:

            He doesn’t need a reason to be condescending. He’s a fool.

          • OR.rep.aa says:

            why not just calculate the acceleration and its 2-sigma uncertainty? Too simple?

          • Midas says:

            Have you been banned again Mr Apple?

            I’m not interested in its uncertainty. I’m interested in its predictive ability. My suggestion will illustrate how low that is.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Bannedvid, Des, please stop trolling.

          • Midas says:

            So now you dislike me attacking Davis Apple’s nonsense.
            Interesting.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Des, please stop trolling.

          • Midas says:

            You always have to return to your Clayton’s comment.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I don’t have to, it’s just you keep trolling, so…

          • Midas says:

            Interesting that you should understand what “Clayton’s comment” refers to …

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Not really, context is a giveaway, and Google helps.

            Now, please stop trolling.

          • Midas says:

            Funny how you are always able to respond to a comment within 10 minutes. Do you have anything else going on in your life?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yep.

            Now, please stop trolling.

          • Midas says:

            Someone who is able to refresh this page every 5 minutes for hours on end most definitely does not have anything else going on in their life.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Words said in response.

          • Midas says:

            You forgot to begin that sentence with “meaningless”.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Meaningless words said in response to meaningless words.

          • Midas says:

            “Why dont you instead insert data for the next twelve months with an average of 0.1 and see what happens to this acceleration.”

            So sorry you are not capable of taking meaning from those words.
            Did you note that the meaning disappeared from this thread the moment you entered it?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’m sure you’re right.

  20. Da.vid.App.ell says:

    You know deniers have lost the argument when they are afraid of a few little comments by those quoting the science.

    Roy’s legacy.

  21. Tom Burwell says:

    I’ve been looking at the site https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom and it’s been showing the arctic anomaly as very warm for the past month, whereas the data here has the arctic for March 2020 as relatively cold. Assuming both data sets are accurate, why is the Arctic so warm at the surface, but cold in the troposphere?

    • Midas says:

      That question could be applied to any part of the earth, and the other way around. April 2018 was the 13th coldest April in the US record. Yet the UAH anomaly was practically zero. Given that no one disputed the fact that the US was very cold that month, it shows the limited value of this UAH data.

      • Amazed says:

        I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you! Predicting the future from the past works better with a different set of historical data? Care to predict coronavirus deaths (country by country) from what has already happened? Not enough data?

        I didn’t think so.

        • Midas says:

          And now it is your turn to practise condescension.

          I’m trying to find the part of my comment where I referred to prediction. I was referring to analysis of PAST temperatures. Your response appear to bear no relevance to my comment.

          Further, your comments look like those of an ostensibly-banned commenter.

    • Bindidon says:

      Tom Burwell

      ” Assuming both data sets are accurate, why is the Arctic so warm at the surface, but cold in the troposphere? ”

      The problem is not so much at the accuracy level. Both probably are equally.

      But while at the surface most data sets converge in their interpretation and evaluation of temperature data (stations, buoys), there is high divergence in the interpretation and evaluation of the O2 microwave soundings, between
      – UAH6.0
      and
      – all others (I know of RSS4.0, and of NOAA STAR).

      While UAH6.0 LT shows e.g. for March 2020 -0.72 C wrt the mean of 1981-2010 in the Arctic, RSS4.0 LT has 0.81 C wrt the mean of 1979-1998, i.e. 0.43 C wrt the mean of 1981-2010.

      That’s a difference of 1.15 C.

      UAH and RSS differ by a lot, especially in the Arctic. The linear estimates in the LT above the Arctic (60N-82.5N) for 1979-2020, are as follows (in C / decade):
      – UAH6.0: 0.26 +- 0.02
      – RSS4.0: 0.47 +- 0.02

      I’ll come back downthread with a few charts showing how UAH6.0 differs from RSS4.0, whose TLT data has more in common with surface data than with UAH6.0’s. Hmmh.

      J.-P. D.

      • MrZ says:

        Hi Bindidon.
        Long time no talk.
        You should really look here https://cfys.nu/GTA about this topic.
        You can compare both sets with a preliminary ERA5 re-analys set and also against each other.

        • Bindidon says:

          MrZ

          I had a look at your job some days ago, well done.

          It’s time now for you to provide for consistent help info.

          But… why should somebody use it, when he likes to do the same himself?

          And… what about things like

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

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nMqjTy4vtwwR3HUX_kiARXnGQuLkDk_n/view

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VxPFlXEvnzEvQRdBmWKLdvMiQmr7JwDP/view

          I’m interested in more than temperature measurement.

          What I miss in all sites like yours (WFT, moyhus’s trend viewer, Cowtan’s trend computer) is the ability to be ‘open ended’, i.e. to accept external data processed exactly in the same manner as the ‘internal’ data sets.

          I think KNMI has such an entry, but I’m not sure.

          Bonne continuation!
          J.-P. D.

          • MrZ says:

            Thanks for responding Bendidon.
            I get your point. However my approach is “anything gridded” and I am working on a possibility to also view and process local files. If you noticed the ERAv5 dataset, it was actually parameterized by one of the most merited guys in the business, Lennart Bengtsson, using an open interface that is in the works.

            My main purpose is to let people without programming skills view and and make up their own minds without any filters or editors in-between.

            I don’t know if you tested but in relation to the Qs above and the lack of a manual.
            After loading the UAHv6.0 dataset.
            Longitude and Latitude can be dynamically selected under Map Controls. Best is to move South latitude to 60N. Everything is calculated in realtime as you move the slider.

            I can confirm, and you can, following those steps; -Your 0.26C/dec calculations for UAH is about right. Now try RSSv4…

            Everybody with an interest in understanding the numbers should go here: https://cfys.nu/GTA

          • Bindidon says:

            MrZ

            ” Your 0.26C/dec calculations for UAH is about right. ”

            You are really funny!

            This number isn’t mine: the spreadsheet calc tells, with 3 datdp:
            0.255 +- 0.020

            (In Roy Spencer’s data file still ending on Feb 2020, the trend is 0.25)

            Are you satisfied?

          • MrZ says:

            That wasn’t my point at all!

            Roy is right and so is the app.
            If you had actually tried in the app you would have known. But that is not my point, your answer is, but unintended from my side.

            Have a look, the truth resides here: https://cfys.nu/GTA

          • Bindidon says:

            MrZ

            I recently forgot to update the linear estimate data blocks in the UAH spreadsheet.

            The trend now reads, from Dec 78 till Feb 20:
            0.252 +- 0.020 C / decade.

            As you manifestly implemented a processing of UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data, I generated just for fun a time series for 60N-82.5N out of their data.

            My trend is:
            0.242 +- 0.019 C / decade.

            The comparison with Mr Spencer’s original data:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZaBx2RGC2TlqZCiarHY6F7fTBPqmoxCS/view

            Could be worse… And how does yours look like?

            J.-P. D.

          • Bindidon says:

            MrZ

            My compliments, your evaluation imho is better.

            I have some differences up to +- 0.05 C here and there which might be due to a different latitude weighting formula.

            Great job.

            J.-P. D.

          • MrZ says:

            And for the audience (if any) here is the graph http://cfys.nu/graphs/Bindidon20200403.png
            Note that my starting month is Jan 1979.
            I am cheating a bit because the app does all 10368X492 months grid cell calculations on the fly 8-). I do COS(LAT*PI/180) for each lat divided by cells with data times COS(LAT*PI/180). This was an area I had to play with before nailing it.

          • Bindidon says:

            MrZ

            Wow! Sometimes strange things happen. The previous version started at 57.5 N instead of 60N.

            The chart was corrected below the Google Drive link

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZaBx2RGC2TlqZCiarHY6F7fTBPqmoxCS/view

            (what a dangerous feature, allowing for crazy manipulations).

            The remaining differences might be due to different integer-FP conversions between the two processings.

            I did not understand your latitude weighting procedure.

            But with mine (downloaded from the net 4 years ago) I’m no longer satisfied:

            Tweight[i in n:m] = sum(Ti * cosrad(i)) / sum(cosrad(i))

            because I now see that it can’t work for single bands… Oh Noes.

          • MrZ says:

            Bindidon!
            I actually think your formula looks OK.
            I try to describe in words how I do it.
            In a 5 deg grid you have 144 longitudes and 72 latitudes
            Every grid cell contributes with TxCOS(latitude*PI/180)
            You get 72 buckets with 144 T results each
            Each bucket of Ts should be multiplied by its COS(latitude*PI/180) weight

            In the app I make an array of 72 weights to avoid slow Cosine calculations. I use the latitude of the midpoint of the cell ie 90 to 85 becomes 87.5.
            I then process band by band and multiply the Ts with corresponding number in the array and add the result to the total.
            I also add the weight for every cell to my divider, hence the divider does not end up as 144 but as 144xCOS(latitude*PI/180)

            A good test is to do an unweighted average on a latitude band and compare with a weighted. It should be the same since all points in a band is on the same latitude. But the band contributes only with COS(latitude*PI/180).

            My method can be simplified when you know you only have one member in each cell. But I made it generic so that I can use the same when converting grid from small to larger or for stations where you have a random number of working stations in a grid cell.It also allows me to mask land/ocean without any other thought than turning certain cells on or off.

    • Bindidon says:

      Tom Burwell [ctnd]

      ” … why is the Arctic so warm at the surface, but cold in the troposphere? ”

      As written above, how cold it is in the troposphere depends on who measures.

      In the following, LT means ‘lower troposphere’, and MT means ‘middle troposphere’

      Here are two graphs comparing, for the satellite era, UAH and RSS data.

      1. UAH6.0 LT vs. RSS4.0 LT vs. GISS (surface)

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_uhmz5hrh6kW2BQ29C8F2ooycJ6og3uJ/view

      As you can see, after having been above RSS4.0 and GISS until about 2003, UAH disconnects from both, and moves down with the temperature estimation anomalies.

      2. UAH6.0 LT vs. RSS4.0 MT vs. NOAA STAT MT

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fN_nPyop1v06GB7cCcsdPJaoxM34qzHp/view

      Surprise: UAH6.0 LT has a far better fit to the MT level of both ‘concurrents’ RSS and NOAA STAR!

      This has been pinpointed by several people. It seems to be due to different opinions concerning two NOAA/NASA satellites. Some say ‘the one is good, the other has it wrong; the others say the inverse.

      The best is IMHO, until the technical dissent is cleared, to keep a pragmatic attitude, and to build the mean of all data…

      J.-P. D.

      • MrZ says:

        Good points!

        But why not let the reader find out for him/her self?
        Here https://cfys.nu/GTA every inch of what you say is proven fact.

        BTW, MT is included in the ERAv5 re-analysis data.Take a breath and have a look.

        • Bindidon says:

          MrZ

          Please manage for a good online help & manual.

          • MrZ says:

            We really shouldn’t rais our voices as we are in the same tiny team. I take your point. In Sweden I released the app with a video. I should maybe do the same here. I am also thinking about having popups in the app in the next release. A popup that people can turn off as they get more experienced.

          • MrZ says:

            Are you in Germany Bindidon?

          • Bindidon says:

            Yes.

            Gute Nacht… It’s now over 3 AM @ GMT+2, time to shutdown a bit.

          • Mrz says:

            You are right.
            Send me your email in the apps feedback form and Ill send you a link to an early version where local data can be read.

      • MrZ says:

        It was late yesterday and I did not get a chance to conclude.
        UAH is the most trouthful satellite dataset.

        • Bindidon says:

          MrZ

          ” UAH is the most tr[o]uthful satellite dataset. ”

          I have no interest in such superficial comments based on simple-minded guessing.

          Write a scientific paper comparing UAH, RSS and NOAA STAR, and come back here when you got it finished.

          J.-P. D.

          • MrZ says:

            If you send your email as I proposed youll be able find out for yourself. Or you can can download and process a few pressure levels from the ERA5 set. If you can get anywhere near RSS in any single layer or in any combination I withdraw my comment. And yes there are papers but I did not write them.
            Lets not be hostile I have the files prepared and waiting for you…

          • MrZ says:

            BTW, You also find 5 pressure levels in the app. With the link I am offering you can combine them anyway you want dynamically.

          • Bindidon says:

            MrZ

            ” UAH is the most tr[o]uthful satellite dataset. ”

            Full respect is due of course to ERA5 !!!

            https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/era5-atmospheric-reanalysis

            even if one wonders how reanalysis data sets like those of ECMWF and WeatherBELL can differ so much at +2 m above ground.

            I only used ECMWF at surface until now, and will download lower pressure data these days.

            *
            But… if we compare, in the LT, UAH6.0 and RSS4.0 with the RATPAC-B radiosonde data at 700 hPa, we obtain this:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-X8IZffFYQQwha_QCj_Gmj776KS3GbqD/view

            and see one more time UAH disconnecting down from the other two series around 2003.

            Source for RATPAC-B (monthly combined):

            https://tinyurl.com/s64fmf4

            J.-P. D.

          • MrZ says:

            Sorry I missed this response.
            From what I have heard and read almost all radiosondes had a SW update in 2010 that caused a warming shift. One of the purposes with re-analysis is to filter out the outliers and when combining ALL sources UAH is less of an outlier than many others.

            If you want to check the quality in the ERAv5 calculations please enjoy this video. It is their humidity set for 850hPa in next version of my application depicting the Katrina hurricane event. They know what they are doing with their math.

            https://cfys.nu/videos/Katrina2005%40850hPa.m4v

          • Bindidon says:

            MrZ

            ” From what I have heard and read almost all radiosondes had a SW update in 2010 that caused a warming shift. ”

            Sorry, MrZ.

            This reminds me your thoughts about differences between
            GHCN V3’s unadjusted and adjusted variants.

            I have compared the two variants five years ago and found nothing wrong there.

            Of course: people influenced by the biased comparisons made by Heller aka Goddard have their own ‘opinion’ about that.

            So what!

          • MrZ says:

            Still picking on my misspelling 😎

            Well unfortunately there is a big difference even looking at the period from 1979 till now

            Version 3 Adjusted vs Raw: https://cfys.nu/videos/GHCNMAdjvsRaw.png
            Version 4 Adjusted vs v3 Raw https://cfys.nu/videos/GHCNMv4AdjvsV3Raw.png

            You can check for yourself in the app. https://cfys.nu/GTA

            I shall admit though that gridding station data is not an easy task with all the data gaps there are. I use a simple method but the same for all ground station data sets. A brilliant Mr Stokes in Australia has an interesting approach with a Gauss-Seidel method that fills in the blanks. I have added support for his method but its not in my datasets yet.

            I don’t think we will ever agree on this. Why not use ERAv5 as the base and check how different institutes compare.

            On the radiosonde SW update I think Mr Roy Spencer can confirm if he reads this and find such debate useful here.

            BTW, you did not comment on the video…

        • bdgwx says:

          Which pressure level from ERA did you use to compare to UAH?

          • MrZ says:

            We used a combo of five 1000,850,700,500 and 300.
            You can view them individually and the result in the app I linked above.

          • bdgwx says:

            Your site is pretty cool.

            For UAH-TLT I believe it is best to compare at the 700/500mb level average.

            For RSS-TLT I believe it is best to compare at the 850/700mb level average.

            Someone please correct me if I’m wrong about those levels for UAH/RSS.

          • MrZ says:

            Thank you bdgwx!
            Yes I think you are right about UAH and 1000hPa also contributes largely to their set. With RSS I don’t know. One (layman) conclusion is though that if you have higher trends than any individual pressure level across the re-analysed set you must have used different weighting for different years or your data selection is drifting away from the mean for some reason.

          • Mrz says:

            My English was worse than usual…
            Last sentence is maybe clearer like this.

            One (layman) conclusion is though that if you SHOW A higher TREND than any individual pressure level across the WHOLE re-analysed set you must EITHER have used different weighting for different years OR your DATA SOURCES ARE drifting away from the mean for some OTHER reason.

  22. Qbbsu.ap_p.el_l says:

    DREMT:

    How does CO2 facilitate IR emission to space?

    Be very, very, very specific. Like, show the science

  23. Eben says:

    Please , stop engaging in retarded circular did too did not with banned epple creep, you will only make yourself look this anyway
    https://i.postimg.cc/brsTScRP/think-tank.png

  24. Galaxie500 says:

    Can someone remove Mike Amazed Flynn and his tedious comments. Cheers

    • Bindidon says:

      Galaxie500

      His boring comments are not as unbearable as Eben’s, which clearly indicate a fecal-fixed psyche.

      Rgds
      J.-P. D.

      • Amazed says:

        There is a simple solution. Don’t read what you don’t want to. It’s not too hard. Who is Mike Flynn? Does he even exist?

    • Amazed says:

      It appears your attempts to coerce others into doing as you wish are not going well. If you start your own blog, you can ban whomever you wish. Have you thought of that?

      • Midas says:

        Roy Spencer HAS banned you. Multiple times. This is HIS blog.
        Showing utter disrespect for his wishes, you keep returning under difference pseudonyms.

        Please, go to New York, run your hands down every public banister you can find, then slowly pick your nose with each of your 12 fingers.

        • Amazed says:

          M,

          You are deluded. You seem to have a fixation about a non-existent person. What business is it of yours, anyway? Have you appointed yourself as Dr Spencers minder?

          How about I pick your nose instead using your fingers? Are you mad?

          • Midas says:

            Funny how Mikey always used to address people with only their first initial.

          • Amazed says:

            M,

            Oh I see. So the author of the James Bond novels is actually named Mikey? Who was M? Who was Q? You idiot. Do you base your alarmism on the same sorts of assumptions?

          • Midas says:

            And you sleep at the same time as Mikey!
            You’re fooling no one mate. You don’t have the ability to disguise your vile, insipid personality.

          • Amazed says:

            M,

            You are delusional. Who is Mikey? Why are you so concerned about someone who doesnt seem to exist? What has any of this to do with climate change? Nothing at all, thats what! Get a life.

          • Midas says:

            I bet you voted for ScoMo-ron, Mikey.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Des, please stop trolling.

  25. Bindidon says:

    This site sometimes is very interesting, and it is not only due to the blogger’s head posts: some commenters are very experienced, and I like to read them.

    The problem is, however, that the blog gets more and more polluted, mostly by people injuring others or writing nonsense.

    If that would not result in a huge amount of Javascript programming, I would implement a surrounding web site able to hide, from other sites’ threads, all visitors whose ‘output’ disturbs me!

    That would be great. The very first uses of this filter would be this blog and WUWT, of course.

    J.-P. D.

    • Eben says:

      Go make make your own Bindidong chit chat

    • Amazed says:

      B,

      Why do you choose to feel disturbed? Do you have a particularly fragile ego? Do you feel superior to others?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”I would implement a surrounding web site able to hide, from other sites’ threads, all visitors whose ‘output’ disturbs me!”

      That’s the alarmist MO, if you don’t like what someone has to sat that does not agree with you, try to block him via peer review, IPCC reviews, etc.

    • Eben says:

      At least the creep Appel made his own “Quack Soup” blog , even though nobody goes there so he keep coming here screwing up this one

      • Bindidon says:

        And… what do YOU do here?

        You write all the time insulting, brainless comments without having a clue of anything, let alone would you try to contribute to somewhat.

        Why do you write here?

        Why don’t you write your brainless, fecal blah blah at WUWT?

        It’s because you are not courageous enough to do. Anthony Watts isn’t as tolerant as is Roy Spencer, and you cowardly misuse that fact.

        • Amazed says:

          Why don’t you just take a running jump at yourself? Who appointed you the decider-in-chief? Go and play with your spreadsheets, and pretend you can predict the future. Or spend the time trying to understand physics, although I doubt you have the mental capacity.

  26. angech says:

    “The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2020 was +0.48 deg. C, down substantially from the February, 2020 value of +0.76 deg. C.“

    How could/should one interpret this in terms of global surface temperature anomaly equivalent.
    I.e. comparing to so called surface station measurements?

    Are they theoretically the same possible value or extremely close?
    In other words is the average temperature value being measured at LTT similar to earth surface or several degrees lower and more volatile in its range ability?

    • bdgwx says:

      That’s a great question. I’ll try to chime in. Maybe someone with knowledge can correct me where I’m wrong.

      So over the long term there is a clear correlation between UAH-TLT and surface temperatures. However, the correlation on a monthly basis is weaker. Often times UAH-TLT and SFC move in opposite directions even.

      The reason is because UAH-TLT and SFC are measuring different things. UAH-TLT is much higher up in the atmosphere. I don’t remember exactly how high up but I think it is somewhere in the 700-500mb range. And that’s the other thing. UAH-TLT is measuring the mean temperature over a significant depth of the atmosphere as well. It is also partially sampling the stratosphere though I suspect the contribution from that high up is only a minor percentage of the overall weighting though.

      Another interesting aspect of the difference is that UAH-TLT tends to be a bit more sensitive to ENSO cycles. I’m not sure why this is.

      For comparsion…UAH-TLT changed by -0.28C from 2020/2 to 2020/3 whereas the NCAR/NCEP reanalysis changed by -0.22C. In this case the changes were correlated well, but that is not always the case…again…because they are measuring different things.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Another interesting aspect of the difference is that UAH-TLT tends to be a bit more sensitive to ENSO cycles. I’m not sure why this is.”

        The heat engine of tropics is transported at higher elevation?

    • Bindidon says:

      angech

      ” How could/should one interpret this in terms of global surface temperature anomaly equivalent.
      I.e. comparing to so called surface station measurements? ”

      First of all: why ‘so called’ ?

      *
      The average absolute temperature of the lower troposphere in those regions observed by the satellites used by UAH and other teams is about 265 K i.e. -24 C, what makes them de facto hard to compare with absolute temperatures measured at surface.

      Assuming a lapse rate of -6.5 C / km in the troposphere, these -24 C correspond to an average altitude of about 4 km.

      That is one of the reasons why anomalies (i.e. departures from a common mean) are preferred:

      https://tinyurl.com/y48o7d-ch

      (please remove the hyphen between ‘d’ and ‘c’ before clicking).

      Here you see that even if the anomalies out of satellite readings behave similar over decades to those observed at surface, they nevertheless can differ heavily within short periods.

      There is no reason to expect any equality of anomaly values computed out of temperatures at 4 km altitude to those computed out of temperatures at the surface.

      The best example was recently CONUS (February 2019), above which UAH computed an anomaly of -0.02 C but the anomalies computed at surface were nearly 2 C lower for this same month.

      J.-P. D.

      • angech says:

        Thanks all
        “The reason is because UAH-TLT and SFC are measuring different things. UAH-TLT is much higher up in the atmosphere.“
        bdgwx
        Ok I get that it measures a deeper surface layer. I presume it still incorporates the mass of most of the energy trapped in the particles at that layer of the earths surface so is still a reasonable estimate and also the most accurate of the satellite data sets available. So called skin readings from other sites fail to mention that they average possibly 4 kilometres of air columns for their data which is strongly affected by clouds ( read unreliable).


        “I.e. comparing to so called surface station measurements? ”First of all: why ‘so called’ ? *”
        Bindidon
        Ok.
        You obviously have a good understanding of the topic which makes your comment a worry.
        It is a specious Comment, ie superficially plausible that you might not understand my comment but in actuality you do.
        To recap what we both know as an absolute fact, surface temperature measurements are both adjusted from what is actually measured see Zeke, and made up by estimations rather than measurements anywhere from at least 10 to 60% of so called sites around the world.

        Not knocking it, one has to do estimations where one does not have data.
        But you either put up a surface temperature of known measurements at known sites, compiled, accurate but very uninformative or you label it as a guesstimation. Satellites have data for the bulk of the world atmosphere. Surface temperature has minute spots.
        Does that re affirm what you already know?
        Surface station measurements as presented to us are indeed “so called” no matter how bravely you defend an undefendable tenet.

        “The average absolute temperature of the lower troposphere in those regions observed by the satellites used by UAH and other teams is about 265 K i.e. -24 C, what makes them de facto hard to compare with absolute temperatures measured at surface.”

        See, I can agree with you when you use facts

        “Assuming a lapse rate of -6.5 C / km in the troposphere, these -24 C correspond to an average altitude of about 4 km.“

        Are you sure? My quick estimation is 15 C at surface minus 4x 6.5 C equals a temperature of -11C at 4 Km elevation
        The lower troposphere itself is presumably an average as the height of the troposphere itself is extremely variable with latitude. Your figure of -24C fits with a height of 6 Kilometers?

        Anyone able to help sort this out?

  27. Eben says:

    The Elnino Lanina cycles causes global temperature swings around 1C on 3-5 years scale
    The multidecadal oscillations causes the same 1C swings on about 80 years cycles
    That’s how I make my predictions.

    The UAH data set contains exactly one half of AMO cycle starting from bottom to top peak at present,

    The straight line projectors geniuses draw a straight line through it into 2100 to make their predictions and then call me a clown.

    https://i.postimg.cc/4dkcTMH4/amo.png

    This is related to my previous predictions post but because of the flood of zsh!tposts the continuity is broken.

    • Svante says:

      Yes, Berkeley Earth says:
      https://tinyurl.com/ry5rpgp
      “Since 1975 [to 2013], the AMO has shown a gradual but steady rise from -0.35 C to +0.2 C”.

      Here’s the AMO temperature impact factored out:
      https://tinyurl.com/uh45jwj

      Other evidence suggest the AMO is secondary to other forcings.

      Of course CO2 wins in the long term because the AMO is just an oscillation.

      • Amazed says:

        The AMO is not a “forcing. It is just a name for certain temperature observations. Thinking it affects anything is just stupid. About as silly as calling the temperature of water a forcing. Learn some physics, clown.

    • Nate says:

      “The Elnino Lanina cycles causes global temperature swings around 1C on 3-5 years scale
      The multidecadal oscillations causes the same 1C swings on about 80 years cycles”

      1C for ENSO? Whats a factor of 2 or 3 among friends?

      1C for AMO?! Whats a factor of 5 among friends?

      • Eben says:

        I can spell it out for you
        There are 4 swings of around 1 degree within 5 years periods , plus others 0.8 but hey I said 1.0
        Do you see them now ??? You might have to take off your hockey stick glasses to see them.

        85-88 up 0.9
        93-98 up 1.2
        97-99 down 1.0
        12-17 up 1.1

      • Nate says:

        If you think single month spikes are significant, have at it.

        Just noise IMO.

        The 13 mo ave has much smaller swings for ENSO, < 0.5 C typically.

        AMO much tinier.

      • Amazed says:

        N,

        You are as silly as your fellow clown. CO2 wins nothing. It has temperature. Just like everything else. I know you don’t accept reality. Try using CO2 to heat your house.

        • Midas says:

          Do volcanic aerosols cool the planet?
          “Try using volcanic aerosols to cool your house.”
          See where your twisted “logic” leads.

          • Amazed says:

            Are you really stupid enough to believe you can cool a planet with volcanic aerosols? See where your foolishness leads? No matter what diversions you try, you still can’t avoid the non-heating properties of CO2.

          • Midas says:

            All of your buddies here “believe” that volcanic aerosols have the ability to cool the planet. It’s one of the few things everyone here agrees on … except you.

          • barry says:

            Temporary global cooling resulting from aerosols spewed by massive volcanic eruptions is not controversial anywhere. Who is this guy?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That’s because they scatter solar energy.

            Scattering, as opposed to the ab.sorp.tion/emission effect that supposedly CO2 works by.

            Two very different processes. So, “believing aerosols can cool” does not equal “believing GHGs can warm”.

          • Midas says:

            Please read your buddy’s post, and my response to it.
            You missed the whole point. As usual.
            But thanks for disagreeing with him about the cooling effect of aerosols, thus confirming my previous post.

          • Midas says:

            Barry,
            This guy is Mike Flynn.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I was responding to your 12:49am comment, Des. No point missed, here.

            Yes, Amazed said they don’t cool. Well, they don’t cool like a refrigerator, they cool via insulating from the heat of the sun.

          • Amazed says:

            M,

            You are an idiot. CO2 heats nothing. Volcanic aerosols are just your attempt to avoid addressing the fact that CO2 has no heating power whatsoever. Volcanic aerosols do not cool the Earth, any more than clouds, night or winter. Cooling is just a body losing energy faster than it is replaced. There are no cold rays.

            Your stupid attempts to continually avoid reality just indicate how deluded you are.

            By the way, I am not Mike Flynn (whoever he is), nor am I Napoleon or the Archangel Gabriel. You are obviously floundering about, trying to excuse your warped belief system.

          • Nate says:

            ‘I’m not Mike Flynn’ But I am his clone-bot.

          • Midas says:

            I accept that Mike Flynn was probably not your real name.
            It was probably just another of your fake names, naming yourself after your criminal Trump-licking hero.
            Nobody is fooled by you and your boorish rants, which sound the same whatever name you chose to use.

          • barry says:

            Whoever it is, they are so obviously a blowhard I’ve got to wonder why anyone bothers responding. There’s zero substance in all their posts.

          • Midas says:

            Well – we’re both guilty of responding. It’s just so difficult not to feel superior to such a nutjob.

          • Eben says:

            The low IQ posters outperformed themselves again

          • Amazed says:

            So, a CO2 blanket makes things hotter, but a volcanic aerosol blanket makes things cooler. If you had lots of both, in equal quantities, the temperature would remain the same?

            Do you feel foolish? You certainly look foolish. The magical blanket that heats and cools simultaneously! Oh dear.

          • Midas says:

            Very good Mikey! You understand! Burning fossil fuels also releases sulphate aerosols which is masking a fraction of the CO2 warming. Your only mistake is to believe that both effects work equally by volume – that was a bit silly wasn’t it Mikey, given they are different effects. But when we get a large tropical volcanic eruption, the added aerosols can overcome the greenhouse effect and cool the planet for a couple of years. Now, if you want to learn more about this, there is this thing called Google – perhaps you’ve heard of it.

          • Amazed says:

            You idiot. Did I say anything about volume? You just cant help yourself putting your words in my mouth, can you? Are you still claiming that a CO2 blanket makes you hotter, but a blanket of a different material makes you cold?

            Maybe you could try to learn to read. Who is this mythical Mikey? Why are you so terrified of this invisible person? Are you certain you could heat your house by filling the roof space with CO2, and cool it by using volcanic aerosols (about which you know precisely nothing)? What a dill!

          • Midas says:

            No Mikey, I don’t think either of those things regarding roof-filling. No more than I believe covering myself with a blanket one micron thick is going to warm me, just because a blanket of normal thickness does. So who then is putting words in whose mouth? Have you learned how to use Google yet? InfraSol anyone?

          • Amazed says:

            Try a 50 micron space blanket. Cool you down much? More than a 100 micron space blanket?

            Clown.

          • Midas says:

            What point do you believe you are making by tossing up random numbers, Mikey?

          • Amazed says:

            What are you talking about, Minibrain?

          • Midas says:

            What are YOU talking about, S4B?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Des, please stop trolling.

        • angech says:

          Try using CO2 to heat your house.

          Your house, and the world surface, is already heated, to some extent, by CO2.
          And other GHG like water vapour.

          Like having insulation really.
          You do use some insulation do you?
          Why?
          Insulation doesnt seem to heat your house either, using your argument.

  28. Svante says:

    For Gordon, on NSAIDs and COVID-19:
    https://tinyurl.com/s4o4uaq

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      svante…”For Gordon, on NSAIDs and COVID-19:”

      Interesting premise but it’s what they don’t say that is the problem, IMHO.

      They never mention dosage of Aspirin in these kinds of articles. Some people take upward of 3000mg of Aspirin a day for problems like arthritis and at that level it likely causes the destruction of prostaglandins to the point the stomach lining is affected.

      Prostaglandins play a significant role in maintaining the lining of the stomach that prevents stomach acids from burning through to the outer lining of the stomach. If the inner lining gets broken down things can get very serious, especially if the acid eats its way through to the peritoneum. A friend of mine died from that.

      In the article at your link they concede that the doses they administered in 1918 were what we’d consider toxic today. I just saw a figure for toxicity and it’s rated at 150 mg/kg of body weight. If you only weigh 50 kg, the toxicity should be 150mg/kg x 50 kg = 7500 mg. If you are 100 kg it works out to 150mg/kg x 100 kg = 15,000 mg.

      That’s a heap of Aspirin considering a standard dose is 325 mg. For the 50 kg person it comes out to 7500mg/325mg = about 23 x 325 mg tablets. For the 100 kg person it’s 15,000mg /325mg = about 46 tablets.

      I think the average person would have issues at a much lower dosage. One of the symptoms is tinnitus and I have gotten that from fairly low dosages like 4 x 325 tablets taken over a short period.

      The guy in the article admits the NSAIDS with covid19 is speculative and has never been tested. I think if you have a fever of 105F the aspirin won’t do you a whole lot of good. My appendix burst and I had a fever of 105F and I can tell you its an ethereal experience.

      Ironically, it was Aspirin that saved my butt the night before being admitted to hospital. I had gone in to emergency complaining of extreme gut pain but I had no fever at the time and the prognosis was inconclusive. They gave me muscle relaxants and sent me home but they proved to be useless.

      I had some Aspirin 292 with codeine and I called in to ask if I could take a couple. They said go ahead. I took them and the pain was gone to the point I could sleep well. Next night I had my appendix pulled after sweating badly all day in hospital with a serious fever. Of course, it was the codeine that killed the pain but you can’t get straight codeine that easily without Aspirin.

      I hardly think that taking a couple of 325 mg Aspirin is going to affect covid19 adversely.

      • nurse ratchet says:

        We also removed half his brain – but to no effect.

        • Amazed says:

          Dimwit. Is that the best a loony alarmist can do? Pathetic.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          nurse crotchrot…”We also removed half his brain but to no effect…”

          typo…I meant the phantom covid19 virus. It still hasn’t been scientifically isolated and photographed.

          With my immense IQ, you could remove 7/8ths of my brain and my IQ would still exceed yours by 150 points.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Roberston

            Why oh why do you need to keep lying. What do you gain from your dishonest personality. You think everyone else is lying and dishonest. The entire scientific world, the entire medical world. You know why this is. It is because of your own dishonest mind. You can’t see how much of a liar you are so you see it in absolutely everything around you but yourself.

            You have been given links to the virus photographed via electron microscope. Continue to lie if it satisfies you. Why you do this constantly only you know.

            Again for you. It won’t matter though you are so dishonest you will ignore this and peddle your false notions over and over. You never tire of lying and making up false informtion.

            https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-images.html

          • nurse ratchet says:

            I will take that as giving permission to our doctors to do just that, the next time we have to sedate you. By your own words, you will not miss those 7/8ths. It may, in fact, improve your cantankerous demeanour.

          • Amazed says:

            You need to get out of the basement. Stand up to your mother, but resume your medication. Keep trying to get a job. Somebody will employ you, I’m sure. Maybe cleaning toilets?

  29. Snape says:

    Super interesting.

  30. Leitwolf says:

    In Europe it is almost as temperatures fell of a cliff once air travel stopped. Sure, a big part of it is weather, since cold air masses from the arctic moved “down” into Europe. However, if the Arctic “donated” some of its cold to Europe, then why did temperatures fall off there too?

    Anyhow, these data look quite interesting. Here you can check the temperature anomaly for Austria over the first months of 2020.

    https://www.zamg.ac.at/cms/de/klima/klima-aktuell/klimamonitoring/?param=t&period=period-ym-2020-02&ref=3

    JAN: +2.6°C
    FEB: +4.1°C
    MAR: +0.9°C
    APR: -2.2°C

    Note: the first half of March was just as warm as january and february. In the second half then, after the travel ban, temperatures fell below average and stayed there since.

    • Midas says:

      And of course there MUST be causation here and not simply coincidence.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      leitwolf…”if the Arctic donated some of its cold to Europe, then why did temperatures fall off there too?”

      In winter, when there is little or no solar input to the Arctic, it gets cold air from the stratosphere, which is much lower at the Poles than at the Equator. You might say that the frigid Arctic air we get further south is from the stratosphere.

      That’s not always the case since Arctic air does not always extend as far south as 50 degrees North. However, it must affect the cold air across Canada in winter. The further one gets from the ocean in Canada, the colder it gets, as a rule of thumb. Winnipeg, in central Canada, 1500 miles from the west coast, and at about 50 degrees latitude, gets some of the coldest temperatures at that latitude in Canada.

      In winter, Winnipeg can get as cold as -50C whereas Vancouver, at 50 degrees latitude, and on the ocean, barely ever dips below 0C. The cold in Winnipeg must surely be affected by the Arctic air since it gets plenty of Sun all day long in winter.

    • Nate says:

      “once air travel stopped”

      Might also be clue that you should buy Lotto tickets now.

  31. Snape says:

    Completely OT,
    but a funny question just came to mind – how would you measure the ambient temperature of air exposed to direct sunlight?

  32. Scott R says:

    Both the arctic and the Antarctic are below baseline. -0.72 and -0.26. The ocean tropics retreated from 0.77 back to 0.63, but still very elevated. Remember, the tropics still return to sub baseline. It is completely possible to have the globe go below baseline. All we need is 1 solid down beat la nina, and I’m telling you guys it’s coming soon. The question is… how far below baseline will the next down wave (with a beat of 3.6 years) take us? Back to global baseline? -0.2? If I’m right it will happen over the next 1 1/2 – 2 years.

    By the way, I see NoExt also dropped like a rock just like I said it would. We still have more down power in the tropics to go… wait for it…

  33. Snape says:

    Scott R.

    – 0.20 seems reasonable to me. The May, 2018 anomaly was only + 0.17, and that was a neutral month (following a weak la nina).

    But how much did that low anomaly affect the long term trend?

    • Scott R says:

      Snape,

      The long term UAH linear trend does not provide any useful information about what the future holds. There was nothing linear about the climate before we humans showed up, and there is nothing linear about it now. We can verify other longer datasets and confirm that at least there are 60 year cycles in the arctic, Antarctic, and 42 year cycles in the tropics. The 11 year cycle, the 3.6 year cycle. Actually, there are 2 different 42 year cycles in the tropics (one is offset). I contend that we need to add these cycles to calculate AGW. I’m not sure if these cycles are enough to explain the mini ice age or if there is another cycle. Still working on it. Cycles over 60 years and under 12000 are certainly possible, but I am honestly not satisfied with the data resolution, length of observations to make any kind of assumption about it at this time. Certainly the GSM must fall in between to 60 year cycle peaks. You can’t put a Yoshimura cycle in the middle of a GSM it doesn’t work that way. Either way, we are due for at least a drop similar to 1960-1995 cold over the next 35 years.

  34. Snape says:

    @Amazed

    It was a dumb question. My thinking was this, which at the time seemed like a catch-22:

    If you place a thermometer in the shade, it measures the temperature of air in the shade, not air exposed to direct sun.

    If you place a thermometer in direct sun, you will not get an accurate reading of the ambient air temperature.

    • Amazed says:

      You are right. It was a dumb question. So how do climatologists do it? Ask one. A good question might be to ask what a thermometer in a Stevenson screen actually measures.

      The temperature of the air, do you think?

  35. Snape says:

    @Scott R

    [The long term UAH linear trend does not provide any useful information about what the future holds.]

    What if I gave you a sequence of observed measurements –

    1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10…….

    – and asked you to guess what number would come next?

    Would your guess be a random number, as in 873, 127932, 92, or 9999?

    Or would you go with what seems obvious?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”Or would you go with what seems obvious?”

      If you look at the UAH record over the past 40 years, there have been many instances where the temperature increased as you have suggested then reverse direction.

      • Eben says:

        Don’t fall for their straw-men , they have full barns of them

      • Midas says:

        John’s house is at the top of a gentle slope.
        One day John had a maths problem to ponder. He paced backwards and forwards, 20 paces down the slope, 20 paces up the slope, all the time with his head down, deep in thought. He did this for a whole day, and at the end of the day he looked up expecting to see his house. It was 500 metres in the distance.

        How far away is the UAH ‘house’?

        • Amazed says:

          Minibrain,

          You are floundering. Time to start talking about blankets, and similar silly things. Blankets that warm, blankets that cool, houses, slopes . . . Your head is firmly jammed up your backside by the look of it.

          • Midas says:

            Benthic Mike,

            Far Cough.

            Cheers.

          • Amazed says:

            Minibrain,

            Do you have to practice appearing stupid, or does it come naturally?

          • Midas says:

            Mimicry Benthic Mike. Thanks for being a great teacher.
            I see you still refuse to deny voting for ScoMoron.

          • Amazed says:

            Minibrain,

            Still floundering, I see. Try changing the subject. You will still appear stupid. Clown.

          • Midas says:

            As I said Benthic Mike, Far Cough.

            Cheers

          • Amazed says:

            Minibrain,

            Is that the best you can do? Pathetic.

          • Midas says:

            Yet to see you do better, Benthic Mike Flynn.

          • Amazed says:

            Why should I reduce myself to your level, Minibrain? I am happy to leave you in charge of exercising pathetic stupidity. Its all yours. Enjoy.

          • Midas says:

            I have already reduced myself to your level, Mikey.
            If you want to raise the level, how about you start. Do you think you can post a comment free of bile?

          • Amazed says:

            Good for you.

          • Midas says:

            Your idea of reducing your comment to just 3 words to remove the bile ALMOST worked! ALMOST. Perhaps go a little further along that path.

          • Amazed says:

            Have you considered seeking treatment for your delusional condition? Who is this Mikey you are fixated on? Enjoy your interaction with your imaginary person. Keep avoiding reality if you find it too confronting. I wish you well.

          • Midas says:

            Hahaha, you were so triggered, you responded without even checking if I had called you Mikey again.

          • Amazed says:

            Who is this Mikey to whom you refer? What is triggering? Are you more insane than I surmise?

    • Amazed says:

      The long term UAH linear trend gives no useful information about the future. Your stupid question reveals the sort of witless thinking used by people who cannot properly frame a reasonable query.

      What if I gave you a series of corona virus daily deaths, and asked you to guess when everybody on the planet would be dead? Keep being stupid. It suits you.

    • Scott R says:

      Snape,

      Why would you through out an argument like that? I’m trying to have a serious conversation with you.

      Two can play at that game. Suppose you had monthly temperature readings for January, February, March, April, May, and June. No other information. When would we reach boiling temperature according to your linear climate model?

      Anyways… you can see what happens to linear models on shorter timeframes than the 40 year UAH dataset. They have no predictive power because they ignore the short term cycles.

  36. Gordon Robertson says:

    Is it possible that variations in certain bands of the solar spectrum are raising the satellites readings? Apparently the scanners are pointed to ‘cold’ space as one part of a calibration process. What if ‘cold’ space has a variable temperature and what if the solar wind changes and produces more or less of the electron/proton plasma it ejects?

    As it stands, we are talking about variations in temperature of a few tenths C, and I’m wondering if there is enough of a solar variance to affect that significantly.

    It seems to me that solar radiation is averaged at TOA and does not take into account variations in the spectrum. Undetected variation in the UV band or above could have a far greater effect on satellite telemetry than variations in the IR band, yet the average could be much the same.

    • nurse ratchet says:

      Apologies everyone. He is hallucinating after the operation.

      • Amazed says:

        Dimwit. Another slimy alarmist pretending to be superior.

        • nurse ratchet says:

          Inferiority complex? We have cures for that also.

          • Amazed says:

            Waving your toy stethoscope at your reflection in a mirror is no cure for your inferiority complex. But if you think it is, who am I to disagree?

          • nurse ratchet says:

            In your case, the first step is to clean up your language. It really is the hallmark of a little man with a chip on his shoulder.

          • Amazed says:

            Ratty,

            You really are a pretentious little alarmist, aren’t you? Missing a few pawls off your pretend ratchet? Try a brain transplant, and learn some physics. Or you could just keep acting the fool.

          • nurse ratchet says:

            A very small man. Why don’t you stop digging?

          • Amazed says:

            Ratty,

            Is that all you can do? Wishful thinking? No physics? No stupid analogies?

          • nurse ratchet says:

            And petulant. Just like that man-child Donald Trump. What is it with you guys?

          • Midas says:

            Mikey – yet to see ANY physics from you, yet you demand it from someone else.

            Let me try something here: aren’t.

          • Midas says:

            As I already knew – when you type an apostrophe directly, you see an apostrophe. It only appears as nonsense when you copy-paste.

          • Amazed says:

            Minibrain Midas,

            You can find out about physics for yourself, can’t you? Or do you consider me a great expert, and wish me to teach you?

            I get the impression you think you know more than I. You obviously think I am someone else, so I wonder why you want me to provide instruction to someone who cannot comprehend simple English.

          • Amazed says:

            Ratty,

            Does your psychobabble give you a warm feeling? Does it overcome your obvious envy of your betters? Hmmmm.

          • nurse ratchet says:

            Go ahead – keep digging little man. It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

          • Midas says:

            Benthic Mikey,

            I earned my Physics degree (a BSc) 35 years ago at Sydney Uni.
            Your turn …

            Cheers

          • Eben says:

            You should go back to Sydney Uni return your degree and ask for your money back – You’ve Been Had.

          • Amazed says:

            Minibrain,

            Unless you achieved 100% in every subject, you demonstrated that, try as you might, you were unable to understand or retain all you were taught. This is typical. A Canadian colleague of mine, working on his PhD, said jokingly – BS – Big Shi*, MS – More of the Same, PhD – Piled higher and Deeper.

            I found the learning starts, not ends, with the degree. How about you?

          • Midas says:

            Benthic Mike Flynn,

            By your failure to respond to my request, you are admitting to never having studied for a post-secondary physics degree. Most likely, you also didn’t study senior physics at school. You can’t claim to understand physics if you have never learned it in the first place.

            If your “knowledge” has never been tested for accuracy by scientists, then it is merely your belief that you “understand” it.

            Apparently you believe you can get an understanding of Physics off the internet. If not, where has your “knowledge” come from?

            I KNOW you will not provide a direct answer to that last question.

            Cheers

          • Amazed says:

            Whatever. I suppose you also KNOW the sun will come up tomorrow. Good for you. You are still an idiot. Thank you for your interest.

          • Midas says:

            Benthic Mikey, your Clayton’s response signifies confirmation that your only physics “knowledge” comes from the internet. There are also articles on brain surgery on the internet – perhaps if you read them you can become a qualified brain surgeon, Dr. Nick.

          • Amazed says:

            Minibrain,

            Whatever you say.

        • Amazed says:

          Keep it up, Ratty. It might make a difference to someone, do you think? What about Minibrain Midas? He has managed to convince himself I am someone else! Just like you, apparently.

          • nurse ratchet says:

            Little man – What’s with all the meaningless questions? Add the adjectives babbling and incoherent to the list. This is typical behaviour from unintelligent, confused, and frightened people.

          • Amazed says:

            Come on, Ratty. More psychobabble? Are you writing a list and checking it twice? Are you sure you are not suffering from the delusion that you are Santa Claus?

            Just another erratic instance of the usual nutty psychobabbler tribe.

  37. Bindidon says:

    For some ‘leader’ wolves, desperately seeking for little bits of cold in Europe these days

    1. A non-winter in Northern Germany, ending in a little bit of cold

    Dec / Jan / Feb / Mar 2019/20:
    https://tinyurl.com/u9b39n9

    2. A winter in Northern Germany (the last to deserve this name)

    Dec / Jan / Feb / Mar 2019/20:
    https://tinyurl.com/qmst9qz

    3. It’s a bit early to download the 30 GB GHCN daily stuff, as not all stations did report their data for end of March yet.

    Till end of February, the average of the 900+ Arctic stations having reported data looks like this:

    2019 1 0.26
    2019 2 1.82
    2019 3 3.80
    2019 4 1.78
    2019 5 1.34
    2019 6 1.03
    2019 7 0.25
    2019 8 0.69
    2019 9 1.18
    2019 10 1.59
    2019 11 1.34
    2019 12 1.47
    2020 1 1.37
    2020 2 1.54

    In a few days, we will see where in the Arctic ‘did temperatures fall off there too’.

    • Bindidon says:

      Ooops typo

      2. A winter in Northern Germany (the last to deserve this name)

      Dec / Jan / Feb / Mar 2012/13

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”For some leader wolves, desperately seeking for little bits of cold in Europe these days…”

      Why does your ego drive you to poorly replicate the data of others on your cheap Excel spreadsheets? And why are you still pushing GHCN after they slashed 90% of their real data since 1990 while replacing it with climate model GIGO guess-work?

  38. Bindidon says:

    Some highly knowledged ‘commentator’s base their ‘prediction’s on desperately trivial stuff that makes no sense for any prediction.

    An example:
    https://i.postimg.cc/4dkcTMH4/amo.png

    It has been shown so often in this blog that the detrended AMO make sense only to show a cyclic behavior within AMO’s original data (which was named ‘undetrended’ [sic] to make things clear because all people think the detrended AMO is the original).

    The original AMO data is what you have to consider when trying to predict future temperatures.

    *
    Here is a comparison, for 1880-2020, of
    – the Sun Spot Number record
    – Had-CRUT4.6 Globe
    – AMO undetrended

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wdF3gWcSwzxOLOFm5qHeR6VTBaD4XjKn/view

    { Yearly data was chosen here because a chart of monthly plots would be totally illisible. }

    Yeah, this is how AMO really looks like.

    As shown by the 11 year running means, it will certainly move down due to its inherent, cyclic behavior, but at the same time it will also keep raising: this you see best when observing the polynomial mean and comparing it to that of Had-CRUT.

    I could have added a plot of JMA’s Ocean Heat Content for 1950 till today.

    *
    The plot of the detrended (monthly) AMO data however has some merit: it shows the enormous influence of the 1877/78 edition of El Nino, which is also very well visible in the Had-CRUT data.

    J.-P. D.

    • Scott R says:

      Bindidon,

      You seem to see 1 forcer in these datasets when there is multiple. That is falsely leading you to add a linear trend prematurely. For instance… by including the two 42 year cycles and the 60 year cycle, the raw AMO data is easily explained.

      1974 was the bottom of the last 60 year cycle, but at that time, what I call 42 year cycle B was peaking.

      1913 was the bottom of the previous 60 year cycle. What I call 42 year cycle A was peaking at that time, but was slightly offset from the bottom – less of a save than what happened in 1974.

      So for both of the last 2 lows, you had competing cycles preventing the drop to go deeper.

      The situation becomes very complex. In fact there are actually 2 different 60 year cycles. One adds more heat to the arctic, and one adds more heat to the Antarctic. The arctic wave is always first, followed by the Antarctic. In the last 22 years we have a rare alignment of waves that concentrated all the energy to a short period.

      1998 60 year cycle A peak
      1998 42 year cycle A peak
      2016 42 year cycle B peak
      2020 60 year cycle B peak

      Now we have to pay for our surplus because we will not have any of these waves at all for 20 years. Note the A waves are dominant. So we are going from 4 intermediate waves in 22 years to no intermediate waves in 20 years. That will matter.

      • Eben says:

        You have barely two cycles there but hey two is enough to call it a “trend”, draw a straight line through it and into 2100 – for the straight line projectors

    • Bindidon says:

      Incredible but true: instead of reading text and observing charts, some ‘commentator’s prefer to lay down their narrative instead:

      ” You seem to see 1 forcer in these datasets when there is multiple. That is falsely leading you to add a linear trend prematurely. ”

      Neither did I ‘see’ any forcer, let alone did I mention any linear trend: on the chart you see

      – 11 year running means
      – 3rd order polynomial means.

      BECAUSE linear trends namely are here absolutely useless.

      Always this cyclomania, based on guessing and nothing else.

      Jesus is that boring.

      And then, if that had not been enough nonsense, this:

      ” You have barely two cycles there but hey two is enough to call it a “trend”, draw a straight line through it and into 2100 – for the straight line projectors ”

      Ignorant, useless polemic instead of discussion.

      • Scott R says:

        Bindidon this was obviously a continuation of our ongoing discussion regarding your refusal to look at a cycle on the intermediate time frame. The heart of the matter is you do not understand the AMO cycle at all. It is not built on 1 cyclical forcer where there is a linear, man made trend underneath. The situation is far more complex than that. The evidence of the two 42 year cycles in the tropics is VERY good. The evidence of the 60 year cycle in the AMO is also very good.

        • Bindidon says:

          Scott R

          I understand two things very good:

          – the AMO has a 60 year cycle;
          – any 42 year cycle in the AMO is no more than your invention.

          • Scott R says:

            Bindidon,

            The 60 year cycle shows up best in the north Atlantic data because the north pole is very sensitive to the barycenter movement. Changes in the barycenter do not impact the amount of energy that the tropics receive because the north and south poles react to the 60 year cycle differently and the waves interfere in the tropics. The tropics are more sensitive to the solar cycle. The 11 year la nina down beat is 3.6 years offset from the solar min. 3.6 years is the 3rd harmonic of the solar cycle. The earth seems to resist the energy flows from the solar cycle similar to an electric circuit.

            The best way to see the 42 year cycle is to look at the UAH tropics, ocean. You can also find the pattern in the hadstt3 data. I will try to explain this again to you… In the tropics you have several cycles:

            1. 3.6 year cycle
            2. 11 year cycle
            3. 42 year cycle A (blue)
            4. 42 year cycle B (green)
            5. 42 year cycle C (red)

            https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2978029612216242&set=a.595762113776349&type=3&theater

            Both the 42 year cycles and the 60 year cycles add to or suppress the 3.6, 11 year cycles. By looking at the same 3.6 year cycle within the 11 year cycle, you can see a pattern of low, mid, high, mid low repeating every 42 years. The blue and red waves are only offset by 3.6 years while the green is offset by exactly 1 1/2 solar cycles. Curious isn’t it?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Some highly knowledged commentators base their predictions on desperately trivial stuff that makes no sense for any prediction”.

      Why is it so difficult for you to look beyond your conditioned mind to see something new being offered? If your statement above is aimed at me and my query as to whether certain frequency bands in the immense EM spectrum could be warming satellite telemetry, then you missed my point.

      When solar radiation reaches the TOA, it is averaged. The value of 1340 W/m^2 is an average of overall solar frequency intensities. On that spectrum, the more intense radiation frequencies are near the upper bottom of the averaged curve yet those frequencies of UV and beyond contain more more intensity.

      You have yo understand that Planck’s EM intensity curve is based on probability, not actual measurement. The shape of the curve with visible light frequencies in the centre at the highest intensity ranges are based on the probability that those frequencies will contain more energy than the upper and lower frequencies.

      We can measure 1340 W/m^2 at TOA but we can’t tell much about the content across the spectrum from that number. We can guess, using Planck’s curve but we cannot be sure that the more intense frequencies at the UV range and beyond are not varying with solar radiation.

      When an AMSU receiver is pointed at deep space to calibrate its low end, we don’t know what it is seeing for brightness temperature. I don’t know if there are on-board circuits monitoring that measurement. I am only asking if it’s possible that something is going on with the solar wind, or other solar phenomenon that could cause temperatures to remain elevated since 2016.

      It makes no sense that GHGs would cause relatively extreme warming since 2016, after 18 years of a flat trend, then maintain the global average at such a high level.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        You still need to mislead and peddle false information. You are so much into dishonesty you don’t recognize when you are telling a lie.

        Here is one: “When solar radiation reaches the TOA, it is averaged. The value of 1340 W/m^2 is an average of overall solar frequency intensities.”

        NO IT is NOT THE AVERAGE. It is the TOTAL amount of energy that each frequency contributes. Where do you get this “average’ nonsense from. Making up false statement is a pattern with you and you will not change it. I guess pigs love to roll in mud.

        And you make the stupid claim: “We can measure 1340 W/m^2 at TOA but we cant tell much about the content across the spectrum from that number. We can guess, using Plancks curve but we cannot be sure that the more intense frequencies at the UV range and beyond are not varying with solar radiation.”

        Scientists have many actual measured spectrum of solar energy. It is not a “guess”.

        Here is one. You can find many if you look or read actual science material.

        https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-solar-spectrum-measured-at-1-AU-from-the-Sun-above-the-Earths-atmosphere-Air-Mass_fig3_268004306

        Keep making up your false and fake news. You should join Main Stream Media. You love the fake news!

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo the expert in electrical stuff, apparently missed the most basic fact about the MSU/AMSU instruments. They measure only at microwave frequencies/wavelengths around 53-57 GHz, not visible, UV, etc. And, your continued denialist claim about no warming for 18 years from 1997 ignores the facts about El Nino.

        Gordo, if you don’t do your homework, you will continue to fail.

        • Amazed says:

          E,

          And how much energy is contained in those frequencies you mentioned? In your haste to denigrate another commenter, you completely misunderstood what he wrote.

          It is literally impossible to measure the total amount of solar radiation impinging upon the Earth system. This would require a receiver of infinite bandwidth. No problem to alarmists – they posit one way insulators, an Earth constantly lit by average sunlight, average sea levels measured to thousandths of an inch from 300 miles away. Dreamland.

          • Ball4 says:

            “It is literally impossible to measure the total amount of solar radiation impinging upon the Earth system. This would require a receiver of infinite bandwidth.”

            You must be amazed these receivers actually exist. More precisely an ambient temperature active cavity radiometer with absolute accuracy of 0.01% measuring relative changes in total solar irradiance to less than 0.001%/year.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”More precisely an ambient temperature active cavity radiometer with absolute accuracy of 0.01% measuring relative changes in total solar irradiance to less than 0.001%/year’.

            Once again, an active cavity radiometer, aka pyrheliometer, is an instrument that averages the entire spectrum with a thermopyle. A thermopyle cannot single out a portion of the EM spectrum, all it can give you is an average of all frequencies. On top of that, a thermopyle favours certain frequencies. If you looked at the response curve of a thermopyle you’d see it peak in a certain frequency range. Therefore it would have to be compensated to get your 0.001% accuracy.

            Since the Sun is an immense body, I seriously doubt that a measurement taken at TOA on Earth is representative of the entire radiance spectrum of the Sun. The Sun is not like a 1500 watt tungsten element heater, it is a wildly varying source of energy ranging over a million degrees at least, from core to surface. And it’s radiance changes over an 11 year cycle.

            I think the 1340 W/m^2 value came from someone applying the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to the Sun at one AU. I doubt that any one has carefully measured it under all conditions. To do that would require an instrument sitting between the Earth and the Sun at TOA. Neat trick, if you can do it.

            There are idiotic response curves for thermopyles on the Net that show a flat response across the entire visible spectrum. That’s a neat trick considering a thermopyle cannot distinguish one EM frequency from another.

            A thermopyle is made of atomic nucleii and electrons like every other form of mass/matter. The electrons that convert the EM frequencies to heat are frequency sensitive, If one frequency excites them more than others, then other frequencies will have little or no effect on them. That response is hardly the basis for claiming a near-infinite bandwidth response for a thermopyle.

            Of course, you could sit there and measure the response to each EM frequency from the microwave range through to the xray range but I doubt if anyone has been stupid enough to do that. There are billions of individual frequencies to measure.

          • Amazed says:

            B4,

            Fool. A device capable of measuring an infinitely wide bandwidth is impossible to construct. You are just demonstrating your ignorance of the basic laws of physics.

            You should immediately inform the WMO to stop wasting time and money on testing and assessing radiometers. They seem to believe that different instruments are needed to accurately measure different wavelengths emitted by the Sun. Does your mythical ambient temperature active cavity radiometer respond to equal intensities from x-rays and visible light? VLF radio waves? The Sun emits all these.

            You are just another gullible alarmist.

          • Ball4 says:

            “all (thermopile) can give you is an average of all frequencies .. a thermopyle (sic) cannot distinguish one EM frequency from another.”

            The programmer for Gordon bot should learn that to do a proper average of all frequencies one must distinguish one EM frequency from another. The laughs just keep on coming.

            “I doubt that any one has carefully measured it under all conditions. To do that would require an instrument sitting between the Earth and the Sun at TOA. Neat trick, if you can do it.”

            This neat trick was accomplished previously by the SORCE Team now the TSIS-1 Team with essentially the same design ambient temperature active cavity radiometer instrument. Updated and refined on current TSIS-1 for improved accuracy.

            “you could sit there and measure the response to each EM frequency from the microwave range through to the xray range but I doubt if anyone has been stupid enough to do that.”

            That would be the stupid (Gordon term) TSIS-1 solar Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) instrument which measures solar spectral irradiance (SSI) from 200 nanometers to 2,400 nanometers (96 percent of the TSI). As Dr. Sagan would write, billions and billions of frequencies. Spectral data is important because separate items in the earth system react to different frequencies.

          • Ball4 says:

            “A device capable of measuring an infinitely wide bandwidth is impossible to construct.”

            Dr. Planck and collaborators managed to construct several of these devices way back in the 1890s to demonstrate they are not impossible to construct and came up with a formula containing 3 ! constants of nature over an infinite bandwidth. You would be amazed! Go ahead, try it, just plug in any frequency.

            “Does your mythical ambient temperature active cavity radiometer respond to equal intensities from x-rays and visible light?”

            Yes 100% of the sun’s emission spectrum, that’s why they call the result TSI. And Total Irradiance Monitor instrument is not mythical, it’s on station at the moment. Just be amazed.

          • Amazed says:

            B4,

            As I said, you should inform the WMO of the seller of your mythical instrument. X-rays were not known until around 1895. What date did Planck et al. construct their x-ray measuring device? Give me a date, and Ill supply some other forms of radiation unknown at the time.

            You are as dim as ever. Grandiose claims of the impossible. You cannot even provide any details of your mythical receiver, can you? All in your imagination.

          • Ball4 says:

            A date? Details? Reality provided & found for free online by quoting Dr. Planck: “See among others H. Rubens und F. Kurlbaum, Sitz. Ber. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin vom 25. Okt., 1900, p. 929. Ann. d. Phys. 4, p. 649, 1901.” Be amazed at what can be learned about their receiver.

            Though I expect Amazed will decline the opportunity or at very least abuse it. Just plug in any frequency, at any temperature, of X-ray, UV, IR, visible, or “some other forms of radiation unknown at the time” to obtain non-zero energy distribution fn. Have fun!

          • Amazed says:

            Nope. No answer, as usual. No details of the wondrous infinite wide band receiver. B4 is just another delusionary alarmist.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”NO IT is NOT THE AVERAGE. It is the TOTAL amount of energy that each frequency contributes. Where do you get this average nonsense from”.

          How would you measure that total energy Mr. Rocket scientist? You cannot measure it one frequency/wavelength at a time, you use a device that averages the total power over the entire spectrum.

          Your problem, Norman, is that you have no experience with real instruments and how they measure power over a frequency range. A rusty old mercury thermometer hanging on a wall averages the kinetic energy of air molecules that bombard the glass tube containing the mercury. The mercury does not respond to one molecule at a time.

          I was reading Planck’s speech to the Nobel committee and he claimed it’s not possible to measure energy. That’s what I have been claiming, you can only measure the effect energy has on a mass or matter. If you have EM from the Sun, with a broad range of EM frequencies, any instrument we have must average the effect each frequency/wavelength of that EM has on an instrument detector.

          If you leave a container of water in the Sun early in the morning of a summer day, before the Eastern horizon dips below the Sun to reveal it, as the day goes on, EM from the Sun will be absorbed by the water and its temperature will rise. A thermometer stuck in the water will reveal the temperature. It cannot measure the energy of each ray of solar energy at each frequency/wavelength, it can only measure the average effect all of those frequency/wavelengths have on the water.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          swannie…”Gordo the expert in electrical stuff, apparently missed the most basic fact about the MSU/AMSU instruments. They measure only at microwave frequencies/wavelengths around 53-57 GHz, not visible….”

          I was not talking about the O2 emission frequencies measured by the AMSU, I was talking about the effect of solar radiation on the calibration of those instruments. From what I gather, the scanner is pointed to space to get a lower set point then at a known hot source to get an upper set point. I am asking if variations in the cold set point due to variations in solar radiation (at certain frequencies in the spectrum) or changes in the solar wind could affect the AMSU instrumentation calibration enough to skew the readings slightly higher than normal.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, The electronics of the MSU/AMSU instrument can only measure the radiance in a narrow window of wavelengths. Solar variation, such as that during the sunspot cycle, appear to be primarily in the UV range, not the very cold temperature of the cosmic background radiation.

          • Amazed says:

            E,

            Appear to be . . . . Why dont you know? Are you sure you are ignorant, or happy enough just to appear to be ignorant.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”The electronics of the MSU/AMSU instrument can only measure the radiance in a narrow window of wavelengths”.

            Swannie, you’re still missing my point. I’m not talking about the signal received by the AMSU unit, I am talking about the calibration of the AMSU unit. It regularly recalibrates, I presume to get a set point for the high and low temperatures.

            That has nothing to do with solar EM getting into the receiver, it’s about the effect variable solar radiation at certain frequencies, or the variations in the solar wind, ‘might’ have on the calibration, since the receiver is pointed to deep space to get a cold calibration temperature.

            Many systems depend on a reference signal. For example, a colour television signal includes a 3.58 Mhz signal along with the video/sound information for use at the receiver. The receiver locks onto the 3.58 Mhz signal to synchronize itself. If that 3.58 Mhz varies a little bit, face colours could change to green or blue, since colour information is modulated by phase difference with the 3.58 Mhz signal.

            I am guessing that the calibration of the AMSU receiver could be put off by a small variation in deep space temperature. I have no idea how well insulated the calibration probe is from the solar energy, I’m sure it’s well insulated. But what if the plasma in the solar wind changes temperature slightly, or an increase in a frequency band of the EM radiation heats up the body of the satellite?

            I don’t have the answers, I’m just asking. I am sure Roy could explain it easily but I’m sure he’s a busy man.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, The instruments are “self calibrated” by including views of a heated target and deep space at different positions of the scan cycle. There’s no separate “calibration probe” and, yes, it was later learned that the instrument temperature changes between day and night sides of each orbit, which required correction, as I recall.

            You really should try to read the literature…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            E. Swanson, please stop trolling.

  39. Eben says:

    Time for a little climate shystering catch-up

    https://youtu.be/oFFyVVyE2Z8

    • Amazed says:

      Oh no! Banning CFCs made the ozone hole bigger! The correlation is obvious – after banning CFCs, largest ozone hole ever measured, appears! Quick – reintroduce CFCs. Shrink the hole!

      Nice video. Thanks.

  40. Eben says:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2020-0-48-deg-c/#comment-453568
    extended

    Climate is a Chaotic system, it does not need an reason or external forcing for going up and down, it just does it.

    The Einstein wannabees here that dispute it and the data slicers and dicers who keep insisting they can pin every move up or down on something somebody or something did don’t have even basic understanding of fizzix .

    Here is some children programming that will explain it to you

    https://youtu.be/p_yOueFMe7c?t=1578

    • Midas says:

      It is the deniers who try to come up with an excuse for every warm month, such as tornadoes and Australian bush fires. We are concerned only with the rising trend. Single-month variation is not climate.

      • Eben says:

        Go attaching your idiotic comments to somebody else’s posts

        • Amazed says:

          You have noticed the alarmists simply reject reality. No problem. Reality will eventually reject them, whether they like it or not. Minibrain Midas lives in a world of his own.

        • Midas says:

          In what way is my comment “idiotic”? Which part is not factual?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            midas…”In what way is my comment idiotic? Which part is not factual?”

            You are referencing a brief trend since 2018 that followed an 18 year flat trend till 2016, that followed an 18 year cooling period (anomalies below baseline). Even at that, the 2016 EN peak showed a gradual cooling till 2018 when it suddenly began rising again.

            Personally, I think NOAA became alarmed with the decline after 2016 and fudged the satellite data it hands over to UAH to show a warming. They did it with the surface record, why not the sat record?

          • Amazed says:

            It is idiotic because you wrote it. Which part of that do you not understand? Do you intend to follow Eben’s advice, or just continue being gratuitously offensive?

          • Midas says:

            No Gordon, I am referring to the entire trend since 1979. Only you guys want to slice and dice.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Midas…”I am referring to the entire trend since 1979. Only you guys want to slice and dice”.

            You have to slice and dice it to get the context of the data right. Although UAH claims a 0.13C/decade trend since 1979, in their reports, like the 33 year report, they go into different ranges in more detail. They explain the cooling from 1979 till about 1997 as being caused by volcanic aerosols, and if that is factored out, the trend changes to about 0.09C/decade.

            That’s right, if you reduce the negative trend the overall trend decreases. That should indicate clearly that the overall trend is an average that includes an 18 year flat trend. It will be affected adversely with the recent relatively high anomalies since 2016.

          • Amazed says:

            Minibrain Midas refers to the entire trend since 1979. What an idiot. Why not 1978 or 1980? What is magical about 1979? I am unaware of any physical law which involves any particular year. This is the province of delusional alarmists.

          • Midas says:

            Someone who has been commenting here for a long time under different aliases does not know when the UAH data set begins.

          • Midas says:

            Gordon,

            There was no cooling from 1979 to 1997. The UAH trend for that period was +0.09C/decade. You have misinterpreted the meaning of that number.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Des, please stop trolling.

  41. A. SMITH says:

    I believe your data is skewed due to excess humidity in the atmosphere from the oceans as a sustained lower solar output draws out more moisture. Just like any scenario when air temperature is cooler than water surface temperature. .. we are in a sustained El Nino situation. Rain rain and more rain….. that’s all we seems to get in our forecasts these days. Wettest year on record.

    That warm humid air rising from the Pacific surface water induces the negative phase of the Arctic oscillation.

    oh well… what do I know? we’re all going to die from Corona virus now.right? what’s next?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      a. smith…”Rain rain and more rain….. that’s all we seems to get in our forecasts these days. Wettest year on record”.

      Where are you located? I live in the Vancouver, Canada area, an area on the West Coast, known affectionately as the ‘Wet’ Coast. Normally we get lots of rain but this winter has been colder than normal. I’ll trade in the cold any day for a warmer climate and rain.

      One would think a combo of wet climate and sub-zero cold would bring snow. Hardly any. We get snow on the local mountains with an elevation of 4000 feet but nothing in the city or region.

      • Ball4 says:

        A. Smith: Right? Well, first you have to test positive to cv19. Then at least according to Ann Coulter 4/8 who apparently asked someone in the know:

        “What exactly constitutes a “coronavirus death”?

        It turns out a person with Stage 4 lung cancer and a bullet through the heart will be counted as a “coronavirus death” if he also tested positive for the disease, OR merely exhibited symptoms associated with it (symptoms that are coextensive with the flu and pneumonia).”

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Ball 4…”t turns out a person with Stage 4 lung cancer and a bullet through the heart will be counted as a “coronavirus death” if he also tested positive for the disease…”

          Bally, don’t tell me we are agreeing on something? ☺

          If you’re saying what I think you’re saying, we are ramping up to a travesty of medical science. I posted a link earlier to a doctor in Minnesota who is complaining about the pressure put on medical personnel to sign of deaths as being due to covid19 even though they obviously died, as you described, as long as they have tested positive for covid.

          The same thing was done with HIV. If you died of TB and just TB, you were claimed to have died of TB. If you also tested positive for HIV, you were claimed to have died of AIDS, since TB is listed as an AIDS opportunistic infection.

          My biggest fear with this contagion is that the poobahs in charge will ramp up the number of deaths related to covid so they can have the public so scared they will follow any stupid instructions they offer.

          Our Prime Minister has gone off the deep end with computer model projections. He is now talking about precautionary measures such as intermittent social distancing even when the contagion passes, to stave off the possibility of a recurrence.

          I think he has forgotten that he has a minority government and in the next election we’ll boot his butt out of office if he doesn’t come back to Earth.

          • nurse ratchet says:

            GR: “Bally, dont tell me we are agreeing on something? ”

            Careful, the fact that somebody on this planet agrees with you on a topic may be too great a shock.

          • Amazed says:

            Ratty,

            Psychobabbling. No substitute for reality.

        • Amazed says:

          B4,

          And people should care because . . . ?

  42. studentb says:

    Denialist Fred Singer has passed away at 94.
    “…while Dr. Singer’s early career was respectable, his climate work was deeply flawed.
    None of the scientific claims he made stood the test of time.”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      student b…”Denialist Fred Singer has passed away at 94.
      “…while Dr. Singer’s early career was respectable, his climate work was deeply flawed.
      None of the scientific claims he made stood the test of time.”

      Too bad, Fred will be missed. As for you, try jumping off a high bridge, I don’t think you’ll be missed.

      No one has proved Fred wrong.

      • nurse ratchet says:

        Removing most of your brain has had no effect I see.

        • Amazed says:

          Ratty,

          Still in your fantasy world, I see. Do you often dream of having power, and torturing people? Maybe strutting around in a WW2 SS uniform, wondering why people snigger at you behind your back? Carry on psychobabbling. Have you been using your imaginary electrodes on your imaginary enemies recently?

  43. studentb says:

    Denialist Fred Singer has passed away at 94.
    “…while Dr. Singers early career was respectable, his climate work was deeply flawed.
    None of the scientific claims he made stood the test of time.

    • Amazed says:

      Which scientific claim are you talking about? Or just being stupid for fun?

      • studentb says:

        Try this one:
        “Unlike the land surface, the atmosphere showed no warming trend, either over land or over ocean according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data.”
        Who is stupid now?

        • Amazed says:

          You of course. What part of his statement are you disagreeing with?

          • studentb says:

            no warming trend in any data set?
            Come on! Surely you are not that stupid?

          • citizenkane says:

            Hey- studentb
            He is more likely blind, like that poor old 94 year old under my feet at the moment.
            Jiggety jig , jiggety jig!

          • Amazed says:

            s,

            Dont put words in his mouth, thats just alarmist stupidity. Which satellite and independent weather balloon data are you complaining about? What part of the atmosphere? What length of time?

            Provide some data that fits his criteria. And of course you cant. That is because you are ignorant as well as stupid.

          • Amazed says:

            c,

            That would be about your style. Kicking a 94 year old while hes down. Alarmists seem to revel in pointless and impotent threats. No guts at all. Unless you are in a crowd of similar defective sociopaths.

          • studentb says:

            Which? What? What?
            You will have to ask Fred – he made the silly statement.
            But I forgot, he has passed on so you can’t.

          • Amazed says:

            S,

            I’m asking you to justify your words. Of course, you can’t.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          studentb…”“Unlike the land surface, the atmosphere showed no warming trend, either over land or over ocean according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data.”

          I have heard nothing out of Fred for at least 5 years and he likely made that statement 10 years ago. Whether 5 years ago or ten what he was saying was true. The IPCC admitted in 2013 that no warming trend had been detected in the 15 years from 1998 – 2012.

          Their data came from papers based on Had-crut who gets their data from NOAA. Even NOAA showed a flat trend over those 15 years, causing Kevin Trenberth to lament in the 2009 Climategate fiasco that the warming had stopped.

          It was not till a few years after the IPCC admission that NOAA started to fudge the SST retroactively to show a warming trend over that 15 years. Any warming trend you see now, well after Fred’s claim, was from fudged surface data. UAH showed no trend over that period, from 1998 – 2015, some 18 years.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo repeats the old denialist claim using now out of date cherry picked data from 1998 thru 2015. Wake up and smell the coffee, it’s not 2015 any more.

            Starting a trend calculation for UAH LT data with the big El Nino bump in 1998 gives a minimal trend for the years 1997-2015, 0.015K/dec. But, if one calculates the UAH LT trend between 2000 and 2015, the result is 0.045K/dec. Then, to show the impact of the next El Nino bump, the trend from 2000 thru 2017 is 0.14K/dec. Similarly, for the LT NH data, 1997 thru 2015 is 0.036K/dec, 2000 thru 2015 is 0.073 and 2000 thru 2017 is 0.173K/dec. For the entire record from 1979 thru March 2020, the global trend is 0.13K/dec and the NH trend is 0.16K/dec.

            BTW, ALL those results indicate positive warming. For comparison, the RSS results for their TLT 1979-March 2020 are: Global, 0.211K/dec, NH, 0.258K/dec…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            E. Swanson, please stop trolling.

      • studentb says:

        He also denied the link between smoking and lung cancer.
        Was paid by the tobacco lobby.
        But he was a non-smoker.

        • citizenkane says:

          I am looking at his gravestone now. It says; “died of embarrassment”.
          Jigety-jig!

        • Amazed says:

          Usual alarmist idiocy. Refuse to believe Newtons Laws because Newton was an alchemist and predicted the end of the world on various dates? You are probably stupid enough.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          studentb…”He also denied the link between smoking and lung cancer”.

          Again, when Fred made that claim, it was in the 1960s era. Back then, you’d be run out of town if you suggested smoking cigarettes was harmful.

          Richard Lindzen also made a statement that no scientific proof exists that second hand smoke is harmful. I have always been a non-smoker but I cannot prove him false. I lived through the era where people smoked openly in restaurants and bars and it was miserable. Can’t claim it caused me any harm although I was never in bars and restaurants for as long as waiters and waitresses.

          Context, it’s always about context. When you take statements out of context you can infer anything. Same with the trend from 1979 – 2020. It’s is claimed to be 0.13C/decade but how do you explain a 15 years flat trend in a 4 decade x 0.13C/decade trend? With 18 years below the baseline?

          • bdgwx says:

            It’s is claimed to be 0.13C/decade

            That’s not some random number Dr. Spencer came up with. It is quite literally the slope of the linear regression trendline. I maintain my own spreadsheet and can corroborate Dr. Spencer’s value of it just like everyone who has as well.

            but how do you explain a 15 years flat trend in a 4 decade x 0.13C/decade trend?

            With 18 years below the baseline?

            A linear regression provides the best match to the data using a linear slope. In other words it is the slope of the line that minimizes the difference between the line itself and the data point for each x value. Picking any other slope will yield a poorer match to the data. It is what it is.

        • studentb says:

          It was rumoured he also indulged in astrology – but I cannot prove it false.

    • citizenkane says:

      Good riddance. Another ancient denialist dinosaur bites the dust. We should be rid of them all within 10 to 20 years.

      • Eben says:

        The warmists alarmists no class scum is well known for dancing on peoples graves

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        idiot kane…”Good riddance. Another ancient denialist dinosaur bites the dust. We should be rid of them all within 10 to 20 years”.

        I can understand such ignorance from an idiot like you but not from one of the poobahs at the IPCC. When skeptic John Daly died, Phil Jones of Had-crut and a Coordinating Lead Author at IPCC reviews applauded his death in the Climategate emails. He also claimed that he and his partner Kevin would block skeptical papers from IPCC reviews.

        Goes to show how lacking in class climate alarmists can be. They’re not much different than the clowns in the medical science profession who ruined Peter Duesberg’s career for claim HIV is a harmless virus. He was right. Now those same idiots are creating hysteria with this covid nonsense.

  44. Eben says:

    Here is the upcoming below the zero line planetary temperature dip

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif

    • Midas says:

      From the BOM:

      “While most of the eight international climate models surveyed by the Bureau indicate central tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures in the NINO3.4 region will remain at ENSO-neutral levels through the southern hemisphere winter, one model exceeds the La Nina threshold during June, and another two models have reached or approached the threshold by September.”

      The three models which predict El Nina this year are:
      (1) NASA – the strongest of the three
      (2) NOAA – your link
      (3) BOM itself

      The other five models which all predict NINO3.4 going below average, but not reaching the La Nina threshold are:
      Meteorological Service of Canada, ECMWF, JMA, Meteo France, UK Met Office.

      I tire of people saying something WILL happen in a particular year. Like ren saying that Winter 2019-20 in the US WILL be a very cold winter, and getting it completely wrong. There is a higher than average change of getting a La Nina, and that is all we can say.

      • Eben says:

        Which part of “Go attaching your idiotic comments to somebody else’s posts” you don’t understand ”

        Go post to Appel’s Quack Soup blog

        • Midas says:

          Which part of FREE SPEECH do YOU not understand.
          You are not a moderator. If you can honestly find something offensive in my post, complain to Roy Spencer.

      • studentb says:

        Let’s test the confidence of Eben.
        I will bet bet $10 that the July NINO34 will be greater than zero.
        If I am wrong I will give/donate $10 to the charity of your choice.
        And vice-versa.
        A simple bet which I will honour if Eben agrees to it.

    • studentb says:

      Wrong. The graph refers to the NINO34 region. It does not refer to planetary/global temperature.

  45. Thanks in favor of sharing such a nice thinking, piece of writing is nice, thats why i
    have read it entirely

    my web site; Xialis Rx – Get Stronger And Last Longer! | SpecialOffer

  46. alexask says:

    Looking at the sea ice extents. Arctic 2020 is running behind 2019. Antarctic seems broadly in the middle of the last decade.

Leave a Reply