Sorry for delay posting this month, but we’ve been considering how (or if) to go forward with open threads and comments. Looking at the multitude of constructive comments on the “End of blog comments” thread, it’s clear that many people appreciate the possibility of comments here, but that too often it disappoints by devolving into tedious bickering. There were many theories for why! Without necessarily subscribing to any particular diagnosis (there are many that capture some elements of what happens), we have decided to continue with comments for the time being, but with a few modifications.
To encourage people to post less often, but more substantively, we will limit commenters to one comment a day (so make it count!). Additionally, we will try to enforce a ‘one comment, one point’ rule to avoid people just cramming ten comments into one. Moderation of insulting, abusive, or just tedious comments will continue. Think more ‘Letters to the Editor’ than graffiti on the bathroom wall. This will hopefully also allow for more engagement from the RC scientists.
Back in the day, one of the goals of setting up the ‘Forced Variations’ threads was to segregate the more contentious arguments around solutions into one place, but that seems to have run it’s course. Thus we are going to revert to a single open thread, with a slightly broader climate theme than previously. Comments on generic political arguments or other issues that are not directly tied to climate will still be excluded.
We will let this play out for a couple of months and then reevaluate. Let us know what you think.
So with no further ado, let this month’s open thread begin…
The ERA5 re-analysis has been posted for April showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.28ºC, down on March’s +0.39ºC anomaly and roughly as per Jan (+0.28ºC) & Feb(+0.28ºC).
April 2022 becomes the 6th warmest April on the ERA5 record (below 2016, 2020, 2019, 2018 & 2017 but above 2010, 2021, 2007, 1998, 2015, 2005 & 2015. April 2022 becomes the 56th highest all-month anomaly on record.
In terms of the start of 2022, after 4 months it remains as 5th warmest.
…….. Jan-Apr Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.55ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.43ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.30ºC
2018 .. +0.27ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.23ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
2021 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 5th
2015 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.16ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 14th
2005 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 10th
2014 .. +0.06ºC … … … +0.11ºC … … … 9th
We have had solar since 2013. Reporting is with the Enphase Energy Enlighten system. I recently printed a report showing an increase in yearly production from 2018-2021. We are on the east side of central Vancouver Island in Bowser, BC. These are the numbers: 2018: 6,345.5kWh; 2019:6419.9kWh; 2020:6,527.8kWh; 2021:6,642.3kWh. I was somewhat surprised by the numbers with an annual increase.
I am wondering if there are any studies correlating the production of solar power as indicative of the state of the environment. Companies like Enphase would probably share data for researching.
While a +0.06C is technically important, the reality is it is hard to relate to. Solar production relates directly to location and a “relatable” value $$$ albeit small for our system. Have you considered analysis by area using information from local solar production?
I’ll let scientists comment on any possible climate related cause for your most fortunate outcome. If your solar panel count ,orientation or shading conditions have not changed it may be Enphase over-the-air upgrades that have incrementally assisted energy harvesting. Because Enphase does not ‘string’ panels together, their inverters are quite efficient in managing partial shading conditions.
It’s also possible that drought conditions on Vancouver Island have contributed to additional sun hours.
Enphase collects output data from all systems installed in your area. It will not take a major effort on their part to understand if your observations are typical or atypical of similar systems near your installation.
Interesting. Seems to fit with the studies showing increasing insolation on the NA West Coast due to changes in clouds.
I have been with you a long time and consider this publication, continuing education from some of the best climate scientists on the world. That being said, two coments to put forward. Beyond the body of each editorial, the comments often add or flesh out details pertaining to the climate conditions making the entire reportage that much easier to understand and appreciate. Even the contrary comments have value in revealing mistaken interpretation of data.
The second thought is the affirmation of this editor and others opinion on the character of abusive and generally negative commentary. Attitude and affronted comments take away the value and worth of Real Climate. For all those who cannot contain their ego’s and attitudes…Go somewhere else with your soapbox. Please leave what is a world treasure, RealClimate, unblemished by unsubstantiated values and personal attacks of all nature.
**The second thought is the affirmation of this editor and others opinion on the character of abusive and generally negative commentary. Attitude and affronted comments take away the value and worth of Real Climate. For all those who cannot contain their ego’s and attitudes…Go somewhere else with your soapbox. Please leave what is a world treasure, RealClimate, unblemished by unsubstantiated values and personal attacks of all nature.**
Well said. I would like to add that keeping commenters from repeatedly posting spam and false information has led to a degradation of the quality of comments and ideas. People (understandably) get put out and frustrated when bad actors like KIA et al clog up the thread with nonsense and debunked science. It’s tedious to have to continually scroll past all that to get to the quality comments and ideas. I want to learn something new when I visit this site. Thanks
From the Guardian:
Global heating could stabilize if net zero emissions achieved, scientists say
This gives the wrong impression that if “net-zero emissions” were to be achieved, then the Earth’s Energy Imbalance would be zero (setting aside the steady flow of heat from the molten core).
At net-zero emissions (and stabilised surface temperature), the Earth would have an energy imbalance which would be heating oceans, melting ice and thawing permafrost, but not increasing Earth’s average surface temperature.
The Earth would still be warming (i.e. accumulating heat) and there would be consequences. e.g. sea-level rise, dying oceans and permafrost feedback.
“Warming stabilizes” is not only inaccurate: It stops grown-up discussions of the aftermath of “net-zero”.
Can we ask Prof Mann to be more precise with his language?
Re: Geoff Beacon, May 8
The net-zero emissions means a DROP in the atmospheric CO2 (since some of the natural sinks keep removing CO2 even when we stopped adding it). Then, as Hausfather explains:
“This falling atmospheric CO2 causes enough cooling to balance out the warming ‘in the pipeline’“. Hence Mann’s conclusion: “warming stabilizes within a couple decades”
And if we maintain net-zero, or even better if we move into negative emissions, the atm. CO2 will continue dropping – causing cooling that after these “few decades” becomes larger than the pipeline warming. And dropping surface temperatures make the water vapour and sea-ice albedo positive feedbacks, which in the past amplified the warming, now amplify the cooling.
Both Mann and Hausfather see it as a good thing:
Mann: “What this really means is that our actions have a direct and immediate impact on surface warming. It grants us agency, which is part of why it is so important to communicate this current best scientific understanding.”
Hausfather: “The main takeaway for me is that this is good news, because it means that how much warming happens this century and beyond is up to us.”
And which counters the doomers, who knowingly or unknowingly demotivate everybody by implying that t is too late: since we are already locked into a massive warming, then no point doing anything – let’s enjoy what we have, while it lasts, and “After us, Deluge”. This time around – quite literally.
And actually, Geoff’s original story was pretty clear in making that same point:
Yes. Stabilized increases is nonsensically suicidal. This is why NetZero gets trashed by the more systemic thinkers.
Geoff,
You’ve brought up this point in the past, and I think I said then that I agree with you about imprecise, or careless, or sloppy language… whatever you want to call it. But you have to be careful as well if you want to critique the professionals and demonstrate better communication.
I try to avoid “warming” altogether, and stick with “increase in the energy in the climate system”; if you put them together as you did then you are engaging in a definition debate rather than discussing the physics.
I’m still not sure if you understand that once you stop increasing CO2, the “energy imbalance” is temporary. There will be some new equilibrium state, with a higher energy content for the climate system as a whole, for the new “constant” (slowly reducing) CO2 number.
So what we are talking about is the period between stopping the increase of CO2 and reaching that new equilibrium state.
I’m not sure, but It sounds like you are thinking that some “tipping point” has already been reached, where “feedbacks” like permafrost and ice melt become permanent forcings. (Perhaps you could clarify that in more precise language).
But if that is what you are suggesting, it’s contrary to how I understand the physics, and I think the consensus would agree.
Thanks Zebra
How long does it take for the Earth to reach this equilibrium state and to stop increasing its heat content?
Isn’t it several centuries?
During this time, seas keep rising, storms intensify and oceans keep dying ???
I know I’ve said some of this before but are there any clear explanations of post net zero conditions from the climate experts – explanations, which policy makers can understand?
I worry that net-zero is just not good enough and net-substantially-negative is necessary.
Geoff,
I don’t know what detailed analysis is available for the different projected scenarios… maybe someone else can give a reference.
But a couple of points:
1. Whatever happens after you stop the increase in CO2 is so much better than what happens if it continues, that it seems pointless to worry about it, because as a pessimist I think even just getting to that zero point could take centuries… I would be happy if it were just one century.
2. On the optimistic side, the (continuing) energy increase after zero additional CO2 is not necessarily going to produce the identical list of negative effects, which is where I think you may be going astray. As Piotr points out, you may well see ice and snow in various contexts increasing, and so increasing albedo. And, if land temperatures are indeed stabilized, the risk of melting permafrost goes away.
So, as is often the case, the correct answer is: “it’s complicated”.
“And, if land temperatures are indeed stabilized, the risk of melting permafrost goes away.”
I don’t think this is true. What we “think” is going to happen with those things in the future is not fact, it’s forward-looking and, since we’ve never been here before, at best an educated guess, so I find it inaccurate to state that as a declarative. Many effects that were once expected at much higher CO2 levels are already happening. I see no reason to assume we are getting that perfectly accurate today.
Given we are likely to be at 450 CO2, minimum, before we are done. the assumption NetZero equals stabilization is a dangerous and far from certain assumption.
Geoff Beacon,
Although it is as zebra says being “complicated”, I think you are correct to mention the “several centuries” to reach an equilibrium state, if that is not an under-estimation for equilibrium with a future constant global SAT.
There are obviously things today that are a long way from equilibrium with the present level of warming. Not least of these is sea level that under SSP1-1.9 (which sees global temperature peaking by 2050 in AR6 fig SPM8a) is modelled with SLR still increasing strongly a century after 2150 (AR6 fig9.27). The full stabilising of sea level will take over a millennium. (IPCC AR5 talked of 2.3m SLR/ºC warming, so with the 0.25m SLR we’ve seen so far, we can expect 14x more of it at a +1.5ºC equilibrium). Additionally if the warming is enough to destabilise the Greenland ice cap, that will continue to melt down for quite a few millennia before equilibrium.
So if the deep oceans & ice caps require warming to reach equilibrium at present levels (and we can add permafrost to that as it is also going to keep melting for awhile), those warming fluxes are resulting in on-going the cooling of some parts of the surface which would thus logically undergo warming as equilibrium is reached, And in the icy bits, we can also imagine some associated albedo feedbacks as well.
So if there is some areas warming but the global average is steady or cooling, there would then have to be other areas experiencing a compensating level of cooling greater than the global average.
Geoff,
I think the main issue with a comment like Mann’s in the Guardian is that it’s a bit of a red herring. The net zero proposition by any date this century is a useless thought experiment that should be presented as such and not like anything actually achievable.
I also don’t see how the term ‘irreversible’, frequently used to describe ongoing tipping points, suddenly seem to have vacated the dictionary when a thought experiment like Mann’s is being used to describe a possible equilibrium within a few decades.
I am just as baffled as you are.
Peter,
I agree that net zero this century is unrealistic. However:
Geoff’s original comment was correct about imprecision of language, and as I pointed out to him, if we want to criticize that we have to be better disciplined ourselves.
There’s no such thing as an “ongoing tipping point“. Think about it.
People seem obsessed with this idea of positive feedback without understanding what it means. It doesn’t mean that if one square meter of permafrost melts releasing CO2, the melting of all the rest is now “irreversible!!!”.
As far as I know, nobody (among the professionals) thinks we are anywhere near such a condition. Permafrost is contributing some fraction of the total CO2 increase. If you remove anthropogenic sources, so that the total is constant or slowly diminishing, the system as a whole will continue to gain energy for a while… it doesn’t all go to the permafrost. You have to look at the physics of the particular variable in question. If it is correct that land surface temps don’t increase, how does the energy get to the permafrost? And similar reasoning can be applied to sea ice and snow and glaciers re albedo.
I would argue that to reach an actual “tipping point”, where natural forcings through positive feedback would be irreversible, we would be long past the point of no return anyway.
So if you are indeed a pessimist like me, you should understand my point #1 to Geoff.
I must add that also
There seems to be record cherryblossom and “Kron- år” crown year Picea abies L. blossom. That sign corresponds surely with crown- year of apples about everyb 5th year., Malus domesticus and x- domesticus. But that will take solid rain further in the season because until now in Mars & April it has been record draught. It is cathastrophy in the electyricity prices due to this and to Putin.
All should be in order in Ukraina this year due to proper snow in that region earlier this spring, snow even in Tyrkia and over Westfalen. As it looks, it may be a crown- year of wines.
If they could only behave in the climate.
Northern Norway has got quite enormeous of snow with avalanches. The more snow, the better for them. It shurly melts and rushes out each time.
This is a comment from me on the theme long-term weather forecasts and the connections between weather forecasting and ongoing climate change. I have sent it to the publishers of the blog severe-weather.eu , but thought it maybe could be of some interest here too.
Since june 2021 there has been a more and more persistent drought in Southern and especially Southeastern Norway. Already in late september 2021 the water flow in the rivers here was the lowest ever measured (measurements of this began in the early 1950s) and except october 2021 (which had a little above normal precipitation) and february 2022 (almost normal precipitation), all months have had below to very far below normal precipitation. March and April 2022 had no precipitation at all, the driest ever measured for 122 years. Despite all the changes in AO, NAO, time of year etc. the weather patterns have been extremely persistent: almost all precipitation falls in the western/coastal regions of Norway from around 62 degrees N and northwards until around 70 degrees N and 25 degrees E in northernmost Norway. All low-pressure systems move either in a northwestern direction along the coast, or they move to the south and east of Southern Norway.
This seems to be dependent on an extremely persistent high-pressure ridge strechting from Northern France/South Britain to Southern Norway. What now wonders me, is that both these and some other weather patterns (which I mention below) seems to be trending in the same direction in the years since mid 2015, even if the factors that you always mention like the strong polar vortex, the AO, the NAO, La Nina/El Niño etc. are not the same at all.
One such pattern since mid 2015 is that it is persistently colder than normal in the region between Baffins Land/Labrador and western parts of Greenland below the Arctic circle, while warmer to exstremely warmer and drier than normal in especially southern parts of Scandinavia and the european mainland/Great Britain. Especially in the summer and late spring this is the case, but also in the winter. Most extreme were the summers 2015 and 2018-21. It doesn’t matter if we have El Niño like 2015-16 (-17 “superficial El Niño”), neutral conditions or La Nina like 2020-22 (and now maybe 2023?), positive NAO (most of the time in winters since 1996) or negative (mainly in the summers, but not so much since 2017). The brakedown of the strong polar vortex this year in March hasn’t changed the weather pattern in these regions at all, and frankly the forecasts for spring and summer this year mentioned in your postings since March are all just the same, the high-pressure ridge mentioned above is just in the same position all the time, and the temperature and precipitation pattern the same.
That being the case, I wonder if not some other factors are beginning to overwhelm the ones which your writings about long-term forecasts focus upon. These factors could be: 1) more meltwater from especially western parts of the Greenland ice sheet cooling the waters between Baffins Land/Labrador and Western Greenland and thus cooling the air masses in this region, maybe slowing of the Gulf Stream system doing the same (one branch of the North Atlantic Stream going south of Greenland has been weakening since the late 1970s, among other things destroying the cod-fishing in Western Greenland), 2) retraction of the polar sea-ice-cover in the Barents Sea and warming of the seas in Northern and Western parts of Europe (not quite consistent with weakening of the Gulf Stream system…), 3) very strong warming of the Middle East, South Asia and Northern Africa in the summers especially which has also been persistent for decades now (and strangely never explained in the litterature, it seems to me) and 4) maybe a pattern in the gradual spreading of greenhouse gas emissions with the Westerlies from the main industrial and densely populated regions in Eastern USA, Western Europe, Middle East and South Asia? Since the CO2-level in the troposphere is now higher than in at least 15-25 million years my thought is that maybe we are entering a different mode in the global wind and temperature patterns, and this is altering some weather patterns that are not dependent on the El Niño/La Nina, NAO, AO, polar vortex/sudden stratospheric warming episodes etc. as these have been acting until fx. around 1990?
Another point here is that the warming seem to warm the continents more than the oceans, this is well-known and in accordance with climate modelling. One consequence seem to be more precipitation along parts of the coast and over the oceans, while the regions with continental climates become more dry. As far as I know this is also in accordance with climate modelling results, please correct me if I am wrong. Now I wonder if the tendency towards more drought in larger parts of the continents, fx. here in northern Europe in the years since 2014 is related to this.
I hope this is within the new rules for commenting. Any comment would be very welcome.
Hr Johansen
Now it is raining again and we have planted potatoes. The very reliable indicator Prunus padus L is not yet at blossom, but it blossoms in Drøbak. The Storm.no weather forcast says light steady moderate rain in Oslo after 20. mai.
They have had snow and rain back in southern Russia and Ukraina in Mars-April.
So I believe that it is the fameous “polar vortex” the Jet- stream or Midgardsormen- Jørungandr, that lies around the world biting itself in the tail by weak van der waals forces and makes snaky meanders. It is said that those meanders will be more stable as the climate heats up.
I take this for the best explaination yet.
At the moment, the NAO index barometric pressure in Reykjavik dividet through the barometric pressure at the Azores seems to turn and change over.
Yes, here in SE England we seem to have swapped our maritime climate for a wet and dry one (again). Only two days of useful rain in the last five weeks here in W Sussex. Met Office have upgraded the wildfire risk in Surrey to amber. This is the third consecutive prolonged dry spell in spring, interspersed with wet or very wet periods (winter 2019/20 very wet and mild, summer 2021 wet in SE England).
No rain forecast in my home town for the next week at least. Quickly consuming stored rainwater on my allotment to keep transplanted crops alive. One benefit of the persistent dry weather is the slug activity is well below normal.
I need to get to grips with how to grow UK crops in a UK climate that seems to have lost much of its high frequency variability and in recent years seems to be heavily influenced by these blocked weather patterns.
Dear Sirs, I just thought of something. If Methane gas and a bunch of other industrial gases are far worse global warming things than just carbon dioxide, when jet aircrafts travel through the sky, do their jet engines suck in a lot of these extreme-warming gases and destroy them? We had a “Little Ice Age” back in Shakespeare ‘s time, when that Krakatoa volcano erupted, and emitted so much Methane gas, which creates countless sunlight reflecting droplets floating throughout the Earth’s atmosphere, cooling it and diming the sunlight so that vital food crops don’t grow, and famine was everywhere! If we do have another massive volcanic eruption like that, which does the same thing, could some kind of jet aircraft burn up the excess Methane gas up there so at least our food crops keep growing?
Re: Robert G Schreib Jr , May 8.
1. Methane is a greenhouse gas, so it warms Earth, not cools it. It didn’t create “countless sunlight reflecting droplets“. The cooling was due to SO2.
2. Volume of air going through jet engines is miniscule compared to the volume of troposphere, so is the ability of jets to “burn the excess CH4”.
Thank you for taking time to change the comment policy. Let’s hope it will work for the benefit of us all.
Straightforward and highly impactful climate solution: Austria is offering a climate ticket valid for all public transportation countrywide. Price 1095 EUR/year or 3 EUR/day.
https://www.railtarget.eu/passenger/bb-austria-released-klimaticket-multi-pass-for-all-platforms-including-rail-anywhere-in-the-country-for-3-eur-1059.html
Go ahead and ask your elected officials for a similar offer in the US. While doing it, remind them that we deserve a contemporary passenger rail system in America, including high-speed rail. As rail is the cleanest means of mass transportation, another climate solution.
Price 9 EUR/month or 0,3 EUR/day
https://www.berlin.de/en/news/7443153-5559700-9euro-ticket-for-public-transport-to-sta.en.html
The cost to the state are estimated €2.5 billion / 3 months.
In many places, its capacities will probably also have to be increased – which is specially good news for citizens in rural regions. After the first 3 months (6-8/2022) we will see how many car drivers would switch to public rail and bus transport – and how much Russian fuel could be saved with it.
Economic, positive effects can also be achieved by shifting freight transport to rail or, for example, by setting a speed limit on german highways.
Hr Schürle
The railway anywhere stands and falls wityh the railway restaurant. I have seen that in Holland and it rules anywhere. If that is the place where you meet and invite your business class guests, then the railway is OK and in order. If not, you rather buy a new car.
Speed limits in Germania have allways been obvious.. In the East, and even in the west.
Very happy to see that “Unforced Variations” lives on!
But the 1 post a day is going to make useful conversations virtually impossible. Let’s hope the evaluation period leads to choosing moderation over limitation or these boards will be of little use and they may as well just make their posts and leave it at that.
Well, there’s my one.
Yes!
Volcano Tonga ejected huge amounts of water into the upper stratosphere. Some scientists estimate the release at 100 megatons. The water vapor concentration is the highest at 25 hPa for at least the last 20 years. What effect on the climate should be expected?
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1562573/v1
https://twitter.com/simoncarn/status/1505678985556107264
[Response: Undetectable. These reported effects are very localised (in comparison, Pinatubo had an -3 W/m2 effect on the *global* radiative forcing). – gavin]
Question for Moderators:
Does the one-per-day limit and other policies apply to UV only?
It seems that the “Demarcation” thread, which could have led to an interesting discussion, has been buried under the usual blah-blah-blah of repetition, among the usual suspects, with the usual personal stuff, and certainly not on the topic itself.
It is the topic posts like that, that you people produce, which are the most interesting and educational here. To me, it doesn’t make sense to police UV but let those be destroyed.
Study on geoengineering that seems quite useful: “Risk–risk governance in a low-carbon future: Exploring institutional, technological, and behavioral tradeoffs in climate geoengineering pathways.” Published in the Risk Analysis Journal. It includes a wide definition of geoengineering: Carbon capture and utilization and storage;, Afforestation and reforestation; Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage; Biochar; Soil carbon sequestration or enrichment; Ocean iron fertilization; Enhanced weathering and ocean liming or alkalinization; Direct air capture; Blue carbon and seagrass; Ecosystem restoration; Space mirrors; High altitude sunshades;
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.13932
Yup. Saw that. Says exactly what one should expect if one practices risk analysis: The highest risks lie with tech-based responses, the lowest with N-bS.
This isn’t rocket science, which begs the question, why do so many either not get this or ignore this?
Rhetorical question.
@nigelj – ” Space mirrors ”
What does a space mirror have to look like in order to withstand cosmic radiation and space debris for many years ?
Which area does it have to shade in order to generate a cooling radiative forcing of e.g. -1W/m² ?
” High altitude sunshades “
Can these sunshades also be natural clouds that would result from additional artificial irrigation ?
Do clouds pose any unknown risks to humans and/or nature ?
Why do many of the experts in climate geoengineering want to improve the albedo of the sky when improving the albedo on the earth’s surface would be much easier, cheaper and faster to do ?
(brighter cities, agriculture, …better albedo for any outdoor product designed by humans)
I can respond to at least some of those questions. The orbital debris and radiation environments are going to depend on the particular orbit in which they are deployed. If the devices are deployed in Earth orbit, presumably, you’d want equatorial orbit. At low altitudes, the radiation environment is dominated by protons, but you often have to deal with atomic oxygen and a lot of orbital debris. Protons get worse as altitude rises to a few thousand km above Earth’s surface. In part, this is why you don’t have a lot of orbital debris. In Geostationary orbit, the electrons are pretty fierce–and for a sunshade, you don’t have any shielding.
If instead of Earth orbit, you put the sunshield at L1 (an attractive option), it’s have to be huge, but it would maximize effectiveness by being between the Sun and Earth. Here, the radiation environment is dominated by occasional solar particle events. Not much orbital debris here.
No matter where you are, you’d need the ability to keep your station–so the shade would have to have propulsion, avionics,…
The reduction in usual suspect noise has already turned Friday the 13th into an auspicious date for National Jumping Frog Day
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/05/district-of-columbia-to-celebrate.html
GISTEMP has posted its LOTI numbers for April showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.82ºC, well below March’s +1.04ºC anomaly and down on Jan (+0.91ºC) & Feb(+0.89ºC) as well.
April 2022 becomes the 7th warmest April on the GISTEMP record (was 6th in the ERA5 reanalysis), below April 2016, 2020, 2017, 2018 & 2010 but above 2014, 2007, 2015, & 2021. April 2022 becomes the -75th highest all-month anomaly on record in GISTEMP (56th in ERA5).
In terms of the start of the year, after 4 months 2022 in GISTEMP (like ERA5) remains as 5th warmest.
…….. Jan-Apr Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.25ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 1st
2020 .. +1.17ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 2nd
2017 .. +1.06ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +1.01ºC … … … +0.97ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.92ºC
2015 .. +0.86ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.84ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 9th
2007 .. +0.80ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 12th
2021 .. +0.77ºC … … … +0.84ºC … … … 7th
2002 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 16th
2014 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 8th
The IRI/CPC ENSO Forecast through recent months has been showing increasing likelihood of La Niña conditions stretching to the end of the year with the likelihood of an El Niño shrinking very low.