UAH global temperature, down slightly for November 2012

2012 in Perspective so far on Six Data Sets
Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.
With the UAH anomaly for November at 0.281, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.281)/11 = 0.156. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66.
With the GISS anomaly for November at 0.68, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.62 + 0.68 + 0.68)/11 = 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for October at 0.486, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.217 + 0.193 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.475 + 0.477 + 0.448 + 0.512+ 0.515 + 0.486)/10 = 0.411. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
With the sea surface anomaly for October at 0.428, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.428)/10 = 0.336. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555.
With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for October at 0.518, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.288 + 0.209 + 0.339 + 0.526 + 0.531 + 0.501 + 0.469 + 0.529 + 0.516 + 0.518)/10 = 0.443. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The 2011 anomaly at 0.399 puts 2011 in 12th place and the 2008 anomaly of 0.383 puts 2008 in 14th place.
On all six of the above data sets, a record is out of reach.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 2 months to 15 years and 11 months. NOTE: WFT is down at the moment so I can only give you the latest I have.
1. UAH: since September 2004 or 8 years, 2 months (goes to October)
2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November) But see * below.
RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 11 months (goes to October.)
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.1/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.66/trend
*In light of the importance of the 16 years lately, I would like to elaborate on RSS. If you hate nit picky stuff, just ignore this part. The slope for 15 years and 11 months from January 1997 on RSS is -4.1 x 10^-4. But the slope for 16 years and 0 months from December 1996 is +1.3 x 10^-4. So since the magnitude of the negative slope since January 1997 is 3 times than the magnitude of the positive slope since December 1996, I believe I can say that since a quarter of the way through December 1996, in other words from December 8, 1996 to December 7, 2012, the slope is 0. This is 16 years.

I’m sure it’s just me, but reporting anomalies seems to lose information about the data set. In this case, I don’t know what the base value is (I could look it up), so I really don’t know the magnitude of the anomaly. Is it ~0.2 % of the base number? What is its relative magnitude?
This prevents the reader from really understanding the problem. I understand the convienence for the cognizant, but showing anomalies to civilians or (gasp) politicians can really bias their perspective.

D.I.,
Good question. The alarmist crowd likes to use 0.1ºC increments because it makes the y-axis look scary, when it is just a small temperature fluctuation.
Here is a chart with a normal y-axis. Not so scary, eh?

Thanks for the replies,Anthony said, “It is an anomaly graph, where zero represents the baseline period normal”
What is the ‘normal’?,why do these graphs not show it?
If I was to draw a graph at school with no ‘Legend’ It would be a ‘Fail’.
Thanks D Boehm,the X,Y, Scam I am aware of but not the 0.0 with no reference.
Thank you for replying.

D.I.,
You might be interested in this chart. They lie with charts by using the zero baseline trick.
Study the bottom two charts in the link for a minute or two, and you will see how they show a scary acceleration in temperature. But it isn’t real, it is an artifact of a zero baseline chart. The trend line chart at the bottom shows reality: the globe is warming steadily along its long term warming trend line, with no recent acceleration.
NOAA, GISS, and the other government agencies constantly use zero baseline charts to fool the eye into believing that there has been recent acceleration in global warming. But that is wrong, as the past sixteen years of no warming confirm.

Thank you for your replies,
Anthony said “It is an anomaly graph, where zero represents the baseline period normal”.
But what is the ‘Normal’? It’s no good drawing Graphs if some of the Information is missing,If I drew a graph when I was at school without a ‘Legend’ it would be a Fail.
Thanks D Boehm,I am aware of the X,Y,Scam and I see it is applied to many a Graph, but this so called ‘non-reference’ to 0.0 really gets me down,as a ‘layman’ that is.
Thanks again for your Input on this.

Thanks D Böehm,
I am well aware of the Skull-duggery of the so called ‘Graphs’ with just that little bit ‘Missing’, i.e. ‘Legend’, no reference to Baseline ect, but for so called Scientists to put out Graphs with no full explanation is (In my opinion), a disgrace.
Thanks for links.

Thanks to all who responded to my original request,
so what Is 0.0 on the Graph and who determined it?

Werner, Its guys like you, Anthony, and quite a few others who keep me from feeling like there might be something wrong with me. Your kind of analysis of this data can be used to refute the nonsense of CO2 induced warming. Thank you for tying it all up in an easy to understand analysis.