Sunday, April 5, 2020

March global surface TempLS down 0.151°C from February.

The TempLS mesh anomaly (1961-90 base) was 0.898deg;C in March vs 1.049°C in February. This was less than the fall in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis base index, which was 0.2°C.

The prominent feature, as with the winter months, was a band of warmth stretching from Eastern Europe through to E Siberia and China. While most of the US was warm, N Canada was cold, as was Antarctica and South Asia.

Here is the temperature map, using the LOESS-based map of anomalies.

As always, the 3D globe map gives better detail.

This post is part of a series that has now run since 2011. The TempLS mesh data is reported here, and the recent history of monthly readings is here. Unadjusted GHCN is normally used, but if you click the TempLS button there, it will show data with adjusted, and also with different integration methods. There is an interactive graph using 1981-2010 base period here which you can use to show different periods, or compare with other indices. There is a general guide to TempLS here.

The reporting cycle starts with a report of the daily reanalysis index on about the 4th of the month. The next post is this, the TempLS report, usually about the 8th. Then when the GISS result comes out, usually about the 15th, I discuss it and compare with TempLS. The TempLS graph uses a spherical harmonics to the TempLS mesh residuals; the residuals are displayed more directly using a triangular grid in a better resolved WebGL plot here.

A list of earlier monthly reports of each series in date order is here:

  1. NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis report
  2. TempLS report
  3. GISS report and comparison with TempLS


  1. Nick,

    Thanks for your work over the years. I looked at the wood for trees “Short-term cycles in temperature compared with CO2” example. Is it possible to filter or adjust that somehow to take ENSO into account? I know someone who is using a similar method to “prove” that CO2 lags temp thus disproving AGW (cross-correlation), but I don’t have any statistical knowledge to quickly show him he is wrong. Can that site show the effect ENSO has? I know you've (and others I think) written about this, which is why I remember.

    1. Anon,
      It is possible to filter out ENSO to a reasonable extent. Tamino (eg here) has done a lot on that. There are recent posts by Roy Spencer, where he tries to show that the recent reduction in emissions is not reflected in ENSO-adjusted CO2 ppm. I think his ENSO adjustment may be as good as can be expected, but still leaves far too much noise to hope to see the effect of a short period of reduced emission (despite what he thinks). I don't think I could do any better filtering.

      In terms of your discussant and lagging, I think the idea is misconceived. There is an effect where warming causes CO2 to later outgas from the sea; people do wrongly claim that observation of this in deglaciation disproves global warming. Likewise with current short term cycles. But it doesn't disprove AGW; it is just something else going on in a complex world. The basic AGW proposition is that if you burn FF, it puts CO2 directly in the atmosphere (which can hardly be disputed). This CO2 will then cause warming. The CO2 from short term cyclical warming would also in turn cause some warming, but there is too little of it for that to be noticeable. FF burning is slow but inexorable, and the total amount after years dwarfs those fluctuations.

    2. The lagged integral response of CO2 sequestration precludes any (non-temperature related) short-term decline from occurring.

    3. BTW, Roy Spencer has no official connection via exclusive NASA contracts to process satellite data out of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL-- even though that's what lots of people assume.

      He does it as a grift, just like all the other Trump MAGAs.

  2. Thanks Nick. What he has done as far as causation is concerned is similar to Soares and Humlum I think and I am familiar with the criticism there. Whether it is ENSO (or similar mechanisms) or biosphere or both it seems as though temp can lead CO2 when you look at the short term. It appears to me his mistake, among others, is the Humlum mistake; that is, differencing on periods of a year or less leaves you the low level CO2/temp noise and eliminates the slow, inexorable, effect of pumping CO2. At least that's what I understand as a non-stats guy. Thanks for taking the time respond and for the links.