Average temperatures fell 0.1C in April to a value of 0.85C relative to the 1961-1990 baseline. This results in an annual average after the 4 months of 0.94C.
Monthly global temperature data updated for April 2023
The developing El Nino seems to have stalled in April
There is evidence of an El Nino effect but if anything it has weakened since March.
Finally a lot of fuss is being made of a higher than normal temperature fluctuation in the North Atlantic. The water being up to 1C warmer than normal
This is what the SST data (HadSST4) shows. The data do not support such exceptionally high water temperatures in the North Atlantic.
Average temperatures for April over North Atlantic.
Dear Clive: What can be the root cause of this T-increase of N-Atlantic? is it an artefact? Why isn’t it supported by HadSST4?
Do you have a scale for the HadSST4 data? And have you actually done the integration? I’ll note that May is approximately days 120-150, which I eyeball as being about 0.8 degrees. If I put a baseline of 1982-2011 into the gisstemp map (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/), and I eyeball, I estimate 1/3rd in the 1.0 to 2.0 bin, 1/3rd in the 0.5 to 1.0 bin, and 1/3rd in the -0.2 to 0.5 bin (with a tiny bit in the -0.5 to -0.2 bin). So if I assume the midpoint of each bin, thats 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.1 = 0.85. So that’s pretty consistent?
Unless HadSST and ERSST are substantially different?
My colour scale for temperature anomalies goes from -10C to +10C. I don’t see anything strange for the N. Atlantic. Neither does Climate Reanalyzer.
They use a far scarier colour scheme though.
You can find the SST anomaly in their menu but I don’t understand their analysis.
Clive
I noticed that you included the sea surface temperatures (HadSST4).
I have analyzed that data just as I have for the HadCRUT4 data.
I first assume that CO2 is driving the bus. I get the result shown below.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhhMs3QIJ-TcfXVRiEBQ?e=ShAFyB
I then combine natural cycles with CO2 and get the following result.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhhMs4vhwMHic0pohipA?e=sbUlap
The correlation coefficient is 0.98. Note that the 67-year cycles overwhelms the importance of CO2 and cases a dip in temperature. How could CO2 be driving the bus.
The following figure is a close-up. It shows that the 209 and 67-year cycles peak. The pause line and the negative trend are cased by the decline in these two.
Both my be absent for a period with the forthcoming El Nino but they may return after a short period.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhhMs5SgEcr4vDIzFSmg?e=48Kr3i
The next figure is a projection based upon the cyclical analysis. it is similar to the one I had for HadCRUT4.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhhMs6UqH9IhWNh86t4w?e=GtVru4
The following figure shows how the models work with the measured data.
Even the lowest value of ECS needs to be lowered to fit the measurements.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhhMs7B2M0ctgZ2kvFOA?e=DYqGfO
Nice.
There clearly is an El Nino/La Nina cycle.
There could be a longer ~ 50 year PMO/AMO cycle
There is also clearly a CO2 induced warming trend enhanced with urbanisation/ deforestation etc.
The CO2 greenhouse effect is a very good thing as it maintains temperatures at a comfortable 15+ C for life to flourish. Without greenhouse gases the temperature would fall to -20C !
Sure its Co.2 Stored Co-2. The thing that is not new or different in the cycle. Sure, we should go electric… Or non-buffered green. Say no to thorax nuclear. Spend billions in the impossible fusion without big solar gravity.
Ignore things like methane, water vapor and a little thing like Sulfur Hexafluoride… Which Never are mentioned. Co-2 is not the why. Milankovitch and galaxy cycles. Ignore them. Meteorites etc.
Chop down half the rain forest in Brazil and everywhere else kill as many big land and water grazers as you can. And pump up all aqua furs. Multiply from less than 1 billion to 8. Make it political and imagine you can change things globally. Make it taxable Start measuring close and not multilevel grid style do avarige by day.
A hoax. Supported by the way science get funding. Those Scientist who worship the biggest price. Which was created out of vanity and blood of a mass murderer who enhanced an explosive. Please do not oppose your teacher and make them feel foolish. That is the system.
That’s when a volcano says puff. Or a tectonic plate says click. And all global warming locura changes over night.
It’s a hoax. Like big bang and Emc2. We are fooled. Quantum cats.
Because just explain me how can a whole planet drop in temperature so much in that a short amount of time. Did the sun power down ? Or collecting data is flawed.
Clive, you wrote, “This is what the SST data (HadSST4) shows. The data do not support such exceptionally high water temperatures in the North Atlantic.” I must confess confusion. If a data set [SST(HadSSt4) ] show something, then how can the (presumably same) data set not show that same thing?
Also, I went to ClimateReanalyzer and looked at “SST Anomaly” and it looks pretty darn warm to my eye.
The data you analyze is air temp or SST or a combination? I wonder because the air temp map on ClimateReanalyzer looks (again, to my eye) very similar to yours, but their SST Anomaly is quite different from both and their air temp.
Clive, I do not get this.
These sort of plots appear every day on Twitter for temperature and ice.
You say Climate Renalyser does not see the same thing even though Climate Reanalyser seems to be given as the source of the plot. Is that so?
I went to Climate Reanalyser and could not find any plots like this. I could not even find any 2023 data.
Are these plots just made up?
John, Climate Reanalyser is based on NOAA’s weather forecasting model. So it gets normalised each day to the actual temperatures, clouds, rainfall, winds etc.
If you go to the website ( https://climatereanalyzer.org/ ) then the first thing you see is the current daily average. Then I think they archive everything/ I assume that the temperature “anomaly” is relative to some multi-year average value but it doesn’t define it. You can access the “anomaly” data on the left hand side.
I went to Climate Reanalyzer, then today’s weather maps, then the SST anomalies… it definitely looks like if you were to integrate across the north Atlantic (which is 0 to 60 degrees N according to the Leon Simons plot you show, which is equator to Iceland) I would eyeball that at about 2 degree C warming from the 1971-2000 baseline that they use. Obviously, there was some warming between 71-2000 and 82-2011 from the Leon Simons plot that would bring that number down, but I don’t see anything inconsistent between Climate Reanalyzer and the Leon Simons plot.
OK, eventually I found it, thanks.
So yesterday SST World was 0.7°C warmer than the same date in 2004. Does not really seem like we need to panic.
You stated, “SST World was 0.7°C warmer than the same date in 2004. Does not really seem like we need to panic.” I am curious at what SST World should we “panic”, and when it is time to “panic” what would “panic”?
My opinion on this is that temperature measurements fluctuate a great deal, from region to region and from day to night.
It is clear that the “iconic GMST” increases by 0.2°C per decade on average, so the SST World increase corresponding to this average would be 0.4°C rather than the 0.7°C it is. In Arctic Siberia it is well know it has increased by 4°C in the same period.
So this recent sea rise it not unusual somewhere on the Earth.
No need to panic about these changes, we should concentrate on putting in place long-term actions to fix problem. Certainly not imply the whole world should change something in a rush next month because of this plot.
Hi Clive,
Is this not the global temperature update for May? I thought April was 0.96.
Isn’t the warm water at higher latitudes from the last El Niño, working its way towards the poles?