As usual, here are last months satellite temperature anomalies – not because they are best data set for this stuff but because they are the one that engenders the fewest pointless arguments.
The green line is my addition, otherwise this graph is from here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/
As per the last goodness knows how long, the moral is – natural cycles exist but they don’t explain global warming. Things have cooled after EL Niño peaks but the ‘cool’ of 2018 resembles the ‘hot’ of the 1980s and early 1990s. Why, it’s almost as if things have got systemically hotter over the decades.
Apparently, it is disproportionately cold in North America at the moment but the globe, in general, remained warm. 2017 as a whole was warm – once again one of the warmest years on record and the hottest year on record without an El Niño event.
I usually put up the UAH satellite temps (not because it is the best data set but because it is the set that the denialist should in principle accept as correct if they had any commitment to rationality) and here they are:
As I’ve pointed out, current anomalies are comparable with the EXTREMES of the previous 2000 to 2015. This should be alarming to those who have previously been claiming that it was all due to natural cycles.
Most months I show the UAH Global Temperature update. As I’ve explained before this is not neccesarily the best way of tracking global warming but it is the one, that in principle, puts the best case forward for the denialists. Produced by a climate change ‘skeptic’ and using a process that doesn’t use weather stations and is not an artefact of an urban heat island effect etc etc.
After last months spike there is a dip back down but as the green line I’ve added shows this ‘low’ relative to the past few years represents the kind of anomaly that was a ‘high’ for most of my lifetime.
The skeptical/non-global warming/its-all-natural hypotheses (such as they are) predicted rapid and substantial cooling in the wake of the highs at the end of 2016 – sufficient to bring temperatures back to the baseline level. Nearly a year on and temperature anomalies are still running consistently higher than most of 21st century – itself a period of record warmth.
I’ve been posting most months the UAH satellite lower tropospheric anomalies not because this is the best or most accurate way of tracking global warming over time but because this is the record that the Global Warming denialists should (in principle) agree is correct. It isn’t based on ground based weather stations, it should be independent or urban heat island effects and the guy who does the number crunching (Roy Spencer) is a regular contributor to the denialist milieu.
Having said all that, the data for October looks so high that I’m a bit sceptical – maybe there has been an error?
The anomaly isn’t quite as high as the late 90’s El Nino nor as high as the 2016 El Nino but otherwise it is very high. Yet we don’t currently have El Nino conditions in the Pacific.
So I don’t know. Maybe Roy Spencer has got his maths wrong again or we really should be freaking out even more than the level of freaking out that we should be doing but aren’t…because if that’s the new normal…shit…
The UAH-Global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly – posted not because it is better or more accurate than other temperature records but purely because in theory it should be the one that global warming denialists have the least issue with.
Is this what the new post-El Nino normal looks like? Because it looks warm. In the 1980s, last month’s middling, unremarkable temperature anomaly would have been a record breaking high. In the 1990s, the figure was only reached during an El Nino event.
This is the latest graph for the UAH sattelite (lower tropospheric) temperature anomalies.
I added the orange line to make it easier to see how the latest result compares with past results.
As I’ve explained before, other data sets may be better than this one but I like to point at this one precisely because in principle it is the record more favoured by global warming denialist/contrarians. In reality they tend to shop around for whatever data set suits their argument of the day but the UAH set has the advantage of not being based on ground weather stations and is maintained by Dr Roy Spencer who is sympathetic to their viewpoints.
To recap: the denialist narrative was that 2015/2016 was just a natural occuring cyclical blip of high temperatures caused by a El Nino. The empahsis is on the “just” – in reality that was a powerful El Nino event but global warming contributed. What’s the difference between the two claims? The denialist predicted that there would then be a massive drop big enough to bring those average temperatures down to historically normal levels. As we can see that isn’t what happened – after temperatures peaked there was a decline but the new ‘low’ is comparable with old ‘highs’.
Does that mean there might not be further falls in temperature? No, temperatures will fluctuate but the long term trend keeps going up and ‘natural cycles’ just don’t work as an explanation of that trend.