Scroll To Top

Friday, May 6, 2016

Troposphere temperatures for April and muttered excuses from deniers at WUWT

Sou | 6:59 PM Go to the first of 31 comments. Add a comment

The troposphere temperatures are out for April 2016. The lower troposphere as UAH v6 beta 5 and RSS TLT v3.3. As last month, this report also covers RSS TTT for the troposphere.

In all records, the April global anomaly is lower than it was for February and March. In the lower troposphere (UAH and RSS TLT only) the April data is lower than it was in 1998. In RSS TTT, April is the hottest April in the record.

Troposphere temperature (RSS TTT v4) chart

Last month I posted the TTT data from RSS which is now at version 4. TTT seems to be more of the troposphere than TLT (that is, it has a greater vertical profile) with less of the stratosphere than the mid-troposphere data (TMT). Hover the cursor (arrow) over the plots to see the data points, trend etc.

The chart below is the average of the 12 months to April, from May 1979 to April 1980, through to May 2015 to April 2016. Some caution is warranted because months to the end of 2016 are likely to be cooler on average than the first months of this year (2016).
Figure 1 | Troposphere temperature for 12 months to April (TTT). Anomaly is from the 1979-1998 mean. Data source: RSS
TTT is a multi-channel combined product made by calculating a linear combination of TMT and TLS. TTT = 1.1*TMT - 0.1*TLS. This combination has the effect of reducing the influence of the lower stratosphere, as shown Figure 3. In the simpler TMT product, about 10% of the weight is from the lower stratosphere. Because the lower stratosphere is cooling at most locations, this causes the decadal trends in TMT to be less than the trends in the mid and upper troposphere. TTT was proposed by Fu and Johanson, 2005.

While on TTT, here is the chart just for the month of April. It is just a tad hotter than April 1998:
Figure 2 | Troposphere temperature for the month of April only (TTT). Anomaly is from the 1979-1998 mean. Data source: RSS

Lower troposphere

The rest of the charts are from UAH beta v6.5, so they can be considered not as up to date as the TTT charts from RSS. I say that because even though there isn't a more recent version of UAH than beta 6.5, it is almost identical to the old version of RSS v3.3, so is likely to also be updated at some time (UAH have been slow to respond in the past. It could be anything from months to years before a more accurate version is released. That's assuming RSS v4 is more accurate.) I won't bother posting RSS TLT v3.3 - it's quite close to UAH.

The chart below is the average of the 12 months to April, from May 1979 to April 1980, through to May 2015 to April 2016.

Figure 3 | Lower troposphere temperature for 12 months to April. Anomaly is from the 1981-2010 mean. Data source: UAH

Below is the UAH chart for the month of April only for each year going back to 1979. The anomaly was 0.71 °C above the 1981-2010 mean, which was 0.03 °C lower than the previously hottest April in 1998:

Figure 4 | Lower troposphere temperature for the month of April only. Anomaly is from the 1981-2010 mean. Data source: UAH

Comparing recent El Nino years

Below are charts comparing El Nino years with this current El Nino for RSS (TTT) and UAH lower troposphere. The lower troposphere might or might not have peaked in February. In 1998 the peak was in April.

Figure 6 | Troposphere temperature for selected El Nino years (TTT). Anomaly is from the 1979-1998 mean. Data source: RSS

Figure 5 | Lower troposphere temperature for selected El Nino years. Anomaly is from the 1981-2010 mean. Data source: UAH


From the WUWT comments

This is a selection of comments from the WUWT copy and paste of Roy Spencer's latest article about the UAH lower troposphere record (archived here). There was the usual speculation about the reappearance of a "pause".

emsnews is confusing the start year of the satellite record, 1979, with the base period for anomalies (which is 1981-2010 average for UAH)
May 5, 2016 at 6:41 pm
They keep on using 1979 as the base for all these graphs about how hot it is today. !979 here in Upstate NY was like Siberia during the Napoleon invasion: bitter cold.

benben poses a challenge to WUWT readers:
May 5, 2016 at 10:18 am
haha, man I should go back and find all the WUWT commenters claiming that there is no global warming at all and that everything showing any warming is based on doctored temperature records.
Now even Dr. Spencer’s results show record warming. It would be really good if some of those commenters would come out of the woods now and at admit that they were wrong.
Yes, they may still claim that ‘it doesn’t matter’. But so many people swore that there was no warming at all, while now clearly there is. So. Looking forward to all the hat eating! ;)

I'm guessing Paul Homewood likes the 1997/98 El Nino but wants to ignore the 2015/16 El Nino
May 5, 2016 at 10:28 am
I take it you don’t understand El Ninos? 

ShrNfr says something about enthalpy, though I haven't any idea what point he was trying to make:
May 5, 2016 at 10:34 am
The concept of enthalpy is probably foreign to him too. 

Jim asks benben if he does realise that the world warms by magical bounces from little ice ages. It's one thing to be seen as opinionated, arrogant and condescending, it's another to be seen as opinionated, arrogant, condescending and wrong. (I'm guessing benben knows better than Jim):
May 5, 2016 at 11:27 am
You do realise there are natural warming cycles, and we are in a long term one since the Little Ice Age? Hence some warming is to be expected on long term trends (ie ones that pre-date any effect man could have with CO2 emissions?)

Steve Reddish gives away the fact that doesn't bother reading most comments at WUWT:
May 5, 2016 at 11:28 am
benben, I’ve not seen any WUWT posters saying there has been no warming at all. All agree there has been cumulative warming since the LIA, with repeated periods of cooling and lulls in that warming trend. I only saw claims that the last 18 or so years have not warmed, despite a continued increase in atmospheric CO2. 
P.S. There is no “party line” among skeptics, only among CAGW adherents.

john harmsworth confesses that he doesn't understand physics or the greenhouse effect, and presses his conspiracy theory in a rather vulgar fashion:
May 5, 2016 at 11:42 am
Temperatures have been rising since at least 1800, Benben. Where were you getting gas for your SUV back then. It’s nothing to do with CO2 and we can’t stop it. We don’t even understand it. A bunch of pathetic models have been created by idiots lined up for billions in free money and they can’t even doctor the data enough to make them work out. Just look at the facts, man. Don’t you feel like you’re trying to push a fat man up a ladder and he keeps crapping his pants? 

MarkW ignores the fact of recent "hottest evers" and says he's waiting for the ice age to cometh, or a gigantic La Nina, or something. (Yes it will be interesting to look back on these sort of comments six months from now, won't it.)
May 5, 2016 at 12:04 pm
benben, I know you are being paid to make warmistas look stupid, but dang, do you have to be so good at it?
Everybody was saying a year ago that the coming El Nino would cause a big temperature spike, just as every previous El Nino has done.
Do you really believe that after hiding for almost 20 years, CO2 warmth suddenly jumped out and caused more warming in 6 months than had been seen in over 40 years?
I’m waiting for the coming La Nina to cause a big drop in temperature, then we can drag out all these posts and use them to taunt benben and our other warmistas. 

benben wrote a polite, appeasing comment to the people who didn't reject the warming, and said he was talking to the (other) climate conspiracy wackos at WUWT. He wondered where they'd disappeared to. His pleasantness drew the ire of a bullying WUWT moderator (who tried the usual WUWT intimidation tactics, and who was conspicuously absent when John Harmsworth was posting). The mods' bolding was his, not mine.
May 5, 2016 at 1:57 pm
You guys have short memories. Back when the satellite records showed no significant warming at high altitudes, but all the land/ocean based records did show significant warming, there were A LOT of posters saying that it was a massive scam and that the only reason there was any warming at all was because of fraud.

Now the satellite records show some pretty strong warming as well, these conspiracy theorists are not commenting (where are you when I need you DBstealy?).

So obviously, all you guys that said there was warming, but argue that it’s not significant, or not due to CO2, this message was not meant for you as I’m not commenting on that here! So no need for angry comments. Although I understand that being angry on the internet is a big hobby for some, so keep at it if it makes you happy I guess.

[benben doesn’t have the skills to be able to separate warming in both the satellite and surface record from the recent record el nino induced warmth. Once the el nino disappears (and its already on its way out), temperatures will fall. benben’s point is moot, just ignore him, because he’s posting from Yale under a fake name and email, and you can always tell a Yale man, but you can’t tell him much -mod] 

benben, presumably having observed that most people at WUWT post under an alias, wrote:
May 5, 2016 at 3:04 pm
Mod I believe the word you’re looking for is ‘alias’, not fake.
The el nino increases temperature every 4 years, but one el nino peak should still be the same as all the other ones, if there was no baseline warming. Which clearly there is.
But sure, lets see what the temp looks like in a year or so.
Greetings from rainy New Haven :)

afonzarelli has noticed that the potty peer has been absent for some time now:
May 5, 2016 at 3:46 pm
Hold your horses, big ben… wait patiently for the el nino to run its course along with the ensuing la nina. And after all is said and done, and we see some net warming at then end of the day, THEN you can go round showing all those short sighted “watties” your fine peacock feathers. On the other hand, should lord monkton resume posting his pause graphs, then it is the watties who will be showing YOU… 
dbstealey (who used to moderate and post at WUWT as a sockpuppet, not just an alias, as DBS, DBoehm, Smokey etc) said this today - and he keeps harping on the point over and over and over again and again
May 5, 2016 at 6:57 pm
benben says:
Once again: name those people. Or ar you just making up fictitious statements again?

dbstealey a couple of years ago
October 1, 2013 at 10:51 am
...That being the case, explain why there is NO ocean warming. ...

And dbstealey in the same thread (my emphasis):
October 1, 2013 at 7:48 pm
jai mitchell cannot produce any empirical evidence at all showing measurable changes in temperature due to human emissions. Neither can anyone else.
That is not to state conclusively that AGW cannot exist. It is certainly possible. But if it exists, it is such a small forcing that it cannot even be measured. Therefore, AGW should be completely disregarded for any policy decisions.
If something is too small to measure, it is hardly science

Of course dbstealey isn't the only one to deny the world is warming. Some WUWT-ers , like David S and Gloateus Maximus, have said at WUWT that they think that the 1930s were hotter than now!

Matt Bergin is one of several who take a point to point (month to month) comparison, rather than look at the whole picture (see Figures 1 and 3 above)
May 5, 2016 at 11:42 am
Yeah Benben as per usual your statement is “Much ado about nothing” Only 0.117 degrees since 1998 which will disappear when the La Nina follows next year and the pause comes back. 

Paul Jackson makes up stuff about what Ben Santer's paper found. He's got it twisted. The scientists found that "temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature":
May 5, 2016 at 11:57 am
“haha, man I should go back and find all the WUWT commenters claiming that there is no global warming at all and that everything showing any warming is based on doctored temperature records.
What was typically said is that there was no significant warming for the last 18 years, and the 18 years is significant because Ken Santer said If there were no warming for 17 years, then AGW would be disproved. 

John Finn quibbled with Paul Jackson, but didn't refer to the paper:
May 5, 2016 at 1:27 pm
What was typically said is that there was no significant warming for the last 18 years, and the 18 years is significant because Ken Santer said If there were no warming for 17 years, then AGW would be disproved.
I doubt if Santer did say that mainly because it isn’t true. The sensitivity of the climate to CO2 might be called into question with an extended period no no warming but that does not necessarily invalidate AGW theory. 

bazzer1959 put up a silly plot that was labeled as the temperature of Central England, with a green arrow drawn crudely across it, and a plot labeled CO2 overlaying it, and some line up the top saying what was "predicted", and wrote:
May 5, 2016 at 12:30 pm
This is the world’s oldest temp record. See the green line? Still think it’s CO2…since 1659? Really? Way before the internal combustion engine, ship engines, cement works. Still think it’s CO2? 

Compare his chart with this one, which shows what's been happening to Central England temperatures these past few decades and centuries:

Figure 6 | Decadal temperatures for Central England as an anomaly from the twentieth century mean. Data Source: UK Met Office Hadley Centre

Paul suggests that bazzer1959 could have provided better information:
May 5, 2016 at 2:20 pm
Um that’s the temperature in England. For the sake of honesty, shouldn’t you point that out? Just in case someone thought it was a global temp. record?

Bellman also makes some points about the silly HadCET chart posted by bazzer1959
May 5, 2016 at 5:28 pm
Why on earth are you shrinking the temperature record to a small section of the graph and overlaying it with a graph of human CO2 emissions which has been stretched to 6 times the size of the temperature?
Why not compare with CO2 levels?
Why draw a single linear trend line for the entire 350 years, when it’s obvious the temperatures have not been rising linearly?
And finally, how do you get that red dotted line at the top, labelled “climate model prediction”? Which models have predicted annual Central England temperatures would rise to 17C?

Deniers aren't getting many wins at WUWT today. Michael Jankowski tried to score against Bellman, writing:
May 5, 2016 at 4:52 pm
I think I remember you…are you the guy who couldn’t grasp the concept of extending a trend backwards and was always claiming the data was cherry-picked? The claim you could never comprehend was that there was no global warming in the past “x” months and “y” days, not that global warming was non-existent and going to be that way forever and ever. And the data you’re looking at…well, if you had paid any attention, the current peak was well-anticipated by posters on this according to El Nino strength and history (most notably 98-99). So maybe you should have paid more attention to the posters here instead of your strawman.
I apologize if I have confused you with another idiot.

Bellman shot back with:
May 5, 2016 at 5:58 pm
I think I remember you…are you the guy who couldn’t grasp the concept of extending a trend backwards and was always claiming the data was cherry-picked?
I expect you are thinking of me. Though I didn’t have a problem with the concept of extending a trend backwards, I just couldn’t understand why anyone thought it made a difference.
For example I can now extend the trend backwards over RSS data, to see that the rate of warming since November 2007, (8 years and 6 months) has been rising at over 3.5 C per century. That would be an example of cherry picking. I deliberately looked backwards to find the longest period I could that was rising at such a rate and ignore the fact it ends (or starts) with an El Nino.

SAMURAI turns his wish into an altered reality in his own mind, as if it's already happened the way he thinks it will, and writes:
May 5, 2016 at 10:20 am
Nino3.4 is crashing, as it did following the peak of the strong 97/98 Super El Niño, and La Niña conditions could start as early as November of this year.
By next month, UAH temp anomalies should start reflecting this El Niño collapse, and should fall precipitously over the next 18 months as La Niña conditions cause global temps to fall.
By the end of 2017/early 2018, a flat global temp trend from the middle of 1996 should reappear, extending the “hiatus” to 21 years….
CAGW is so screwed.

TA gives benben a gift to pass onto dbstealey, saying how cold it's getting, but I don't think he took it. Some people are incapable of seeing the world as it is:
May 5, 2016 at 10:50 am
So we are still in the 1930’s-1998 temperature downtrend.
We could break out of this downtrend, but it hasn’t happened yet. February 2016 broke the downtrend, but the temperature is lower now, and feels like its going to go lower to me.
We seem to be having a very mild spring in the central U.S., consistent with the mild weather in the 21st century. I’m talking tornadoes mostly here. We can still get some hot summer temperatures, tornadoes or no tornadoes, but that still doesn’t change the fact that the weather is less extreme today.
2016, and all the 21st century years have to be cooler than in some previous decades, if we go by the “extreme climate events equals a hotter atmosphere” formula.
There is no comparison to the benign weather we have experienced in the 21st century compared to the really extreme weather that was experienced in the 1930’s and 1950’s. It was hotter then than now.
Even if the current 1930’s-1998, temperature downtrend line is broken, the temperatures would still have to exceed the 1930’s maximum in order to be characterized as unprecedented. And even then, that’s no guarantee that humans had anything to do with the heat, since it got that hot before, naturally, without human help.
What’s that 1930’s maximum figure? I don’t know. Ask the Climate Change Gurus. They are the ones with the database. See Climategate emails for details.
All I know is the Climate Change Gurus said the 1930’s was hotter than 1998, and they had to conspire to hide this information and make it look like the Earth was in a warming trend when, in fact, it was, and is in a cooling trend. Clever little conspirators aren’t they. Look at all the damage they have done.

What is he talking about. Does anyone know where TA gets his weird notions? Perhaps he's confusing the USA with the world. There were some hot years in the USA in the 1930s, but they've been well and truly beaten in recent years. This is what's happened globally:

Figure 7 | Surface temperature showing the average for selected periods. Data source: GISS NASA


  1. reading those comments they really do have blind spot over cherry picking data, especially start and end points

    it's like the Happy Days episode where the Fonz simply can't utter the word "wrong"

    there is more science in one episode of The Big Bang Theory and the entire WUWT blog

  2. Looks to me as if Benben is heading towards the WUWT moderation sin bin, where your comments are unaccountably delayed for 24 hours so you cannot effectively engage in any debate with the inmates.

    1. When I got that treatment after a brief bout at WUWT, i started sending my posts in as single word posts so they all ended up in the moderation bin. mod actually concatenated and posted one of them, with a warning that i should not come back and was in the process of being "outed".

    2. I think I have been banned completely. I could get around it, but why bother attempting a discussion on a blog with dishonest intentions.

      Let them have their ever-shrinking echo chamber.

    3. Even posting under one's real name like I do doesn't help when the message is one they don't like. dbstealey once mentioned "in passing" something about knowing my general location. I posted my full mailing address and invited him over.

      I haven't tried posting there in a while, I was apparently blocked for a time but Nick Stokes informed me that Anthony had put it down to some Wordpress issues. I just can't be bothered with them right now, life's too short.

    4. I only posted at LOL, WHUT?! a few times, say... 5 or 6 years ago. I recall the last time quite vividly, when I agreed with the idea, posited by the science article du jour that was being ripped to pieces by the LOL, WHUT?! sycophants, that we could melt a significant portion of Greenland by 2100 if we continued with BAU.

      Attack dog Richard Courtney informed me in no uncertain terms (as seasoned readers of that esteemed site will appreciate he is inclined to do) that it couldn't possibly happen because Greenland is shaped like a bowl under all those kilometers of ice, so the meltwater would all just collect in the middle. I then asked if he had ever heard of moulins, and then it just proceeded to go downhill from there (pun intended). Meh.

    5. WUWT is not WHUT, which is the name of my twitter haandle.

    6. I was banned after outing some dbstealey shenanigans. He'd been editing his posts and then denying it. I think this happened shortly before he lost his moderating rights. I like to think I played a small part. :)

    7. A sane and honest blog owner would realize that RS Courtney and dbstealey are liabilities.

    8. I suspect that every single numpty who is still clinging onto climate change denial at this stage is a liability, in everything they do, to everyone unfortunate to live and work alongside them.

      But yes those two people are 'special' in that they are also extremely nasty individuals. And I suspect that Anthony, whose courage has failed him before now, does not have the guts to stop them. I'd go so far as to guess that dbstealey's loss of moderation rights was due to the objections of the other moderators.

  3. That CET graph has been a bugbear of mine since James Delingpole used it to "refute" AGW in the Daily Telegraph.

    1. logic and reality are like laxatives to these muppets

      once posted - it is not long before the crap come out

      well done btw

    2. I don't consider James Delingpole an honest reporter. He has been nailed to the wall a number of times.

    3. You mean soundly and utterly debunked? And they just keep repeating the same tired old canards? No problem with the Deniersville Central crowd; it's like Groundhog Day and Whack-A-Mole all rolled into one.

    4. Dealing pole doesn't do reporting. Heaven forbid that he had to speak to normal people and find things out. He's an interpreter of interpretations, which is about the only honest thing I've ever known him to say. If I may be permitted to pimp my own blog, I did a piece on his latest drivel

      In case it is not obvious, I find him a snivelling little weasel, the journalistic equivalent of the one that stopped the LHC last week.

    5. Damn you autocorrect. Dealing pole = Delingpole

    6. Dealing pole = Delingpole

      Ha ha. I thought 'Dealing pole' was intentional, and was going to ask if I could borrow it :-) Though, it did occur to me that 'pole' should have been capitalised if that was the case. Go figure.

    7. Bad timing. That link I posted was working yesterday, but now seems to be blocked by a telegraph robots.txt file. Obviously a major conspiracy to hide the truth.

    8. I see that though the original article by 'Dealing Pole' is still available on his blog:

      The link to the centrepiece of the article, that vexing CET graph, is broken. However, since the denizens of the deniosphere are so fond of linking to each other's drivel, I found the CET graph here by following the 'Climate Cycles Change' link in the article:

      (oddly enough, the 'C3' does not stand for Climate Cycles Change, but rather the overtly libertarian-sounding 'Climate Conservative Consumer'. But then, the likes of Dealing Pole are never very worried about accuracy, are they?)

      And there's the CET graph in all its full size glory.

    9. Now, Catmando -- Weasels are simply woodland creatures trying to survive and feed their young.

      Delingpole, by contrast, is Delingpole.

      I think comparing him to weasels is entirely unfair to weasels.

    10. "I think comparing him to weasels is entirely unfair to weasels."

      Fair point. They are stoatily different.

      Boom, boom.

    11. Yes, I should have mentioned that the Delingpole article was mostly a cut and paste from 3C, but with some added smugness.

  4. On a side note I fiend it a tad frustrating that the rabid right wing seem to have appropriated the world "libitarian" and Liberty

    The implication being that anything other than their brand of "libitarian ism" somehow means you are pro tryanny

    I see myself as a libitarian in that, where so ever possible I should be free to live my life as I see fit

    But I also believe governments and institutions do have a place

    These loons paint it as an either / or

    1. I'd like to re-brand the current version of Libertarianism as "The New Irresponsibility", myself.

    2. In most of the world 'libertarian' was the label applied to the anti-Communist left. 'Libertarian socialist' specifically. But in the last few decades the term's now been hijacked by the insurgency that's gutted the Republican Party; Free Market™ zealots and/or anti-Science, anti-reality delusionists and/or the Defiant Oppositional 'you're not the boss of me' brigade.

      Many are so fond of Libuuuurty™ that it might necessitate the creation of a large number of concentration camps to house all its many enemies...

    3. So called 'libertarians' of the far right kind, seem more like self-absorbed 5 year old brats who don't like being told 'no' to me.

    4. In reality libertarianism as claimed by the Kochs et al means the freedom to pollute. The Kochs did object to Dubya's kidnap, imprisonment and torture program, but not sufficiently to make them into Democrats.

    5. I'm reading Jane Mayer's Dark Money at the moment, and I must say, it paints the likes of the Koch brothers in an extremely bad light. If it becomes general public knowledge what they have done to the environment, and how many employees they've killed all in the name of extreme greed and self interest, I think they may be in for a very rough ride here on in. That is... if the general public can tear itself away from Keeping Up with the Kardashians for long enough to give a rat's arse.

      In any event, I just hope the various state AGs will take the time to read this book. It's a well documented account of systematic crimes against humanity - mostly fueled by tax free donations to various libertarian think tanks who do their dirty work/lobbying for them. Non-profits are supposed to be non-political? You have got to be joking!

  5. Let's say that the el Nino driven LT temp peak this year was indeed in February. Temperatures should then fall, on average, over the remaining 10 months of the year. How quickly might they fall and what impact might this have on 2016 setting a new annual LT record?

    The rate of decline in the 10 months following the 1997-98 peak was -0.77 C/yr in UAH and -0.69 C/yr in RSS (April 1998-Feb 1999 in both cases). Let's say these rates of decline happen again over 2016. Then, considering the monthly values already published, I think 2016 would *still* set a new annual record in both UAH and RSS. The UAH anomaly would be 0.50, beating 1998 by 0.02; RSS would be 0.63, beating 1998 by 0.08, if my sums are right.

    In order for 2016 'not' to set a new LT annual record, temperatures for the rest of 2016 would need to decline at rates considerably faster than those rapid rates seen in the 10 months following the 1998 el Nino peak. This is why the WUWT regulars are so anxious for the early onset of a la Nina. I suspect they will be disappointed even if they get their wish.

  6. These nice graphics from Ed Hawkins showed up via Mike Mann in my Facebook feed this morning.


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.