February 2013 global surface temperature – at normal

Dr. Ryan Maue posted one of his WeatherBell analysis maps on Twitter today, and the result is no Headline maker, it is simply “normal”.

He writes (image follows):

February 2013 global temperature anomaly compared to 1981-2010 mean: -0.001°C or 1/1000th of a degree below avg.

Feb2013_NCEP_2mGlobal temperature

It will be interesting to see what the other climate data sources show for February.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate data and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

108 Responses to February 2013 global surface temperature – at normal

  1. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Wow. Where would we be without CAGW?

  2. RACookPE1978 says:

    Well, if it were not for CAGW, I guess we would be

    ….. near normal temperatures!

    Speaking of the Modern Warming Period, will its peak be “now” – at the 2000 – 2010 maximum of the latest 60 year cycle since the Little Ice Age?
    Or at the peak of the NEXT 60 year short cycle maximum in 2060-2070?

    or the one right afterwords, in 2120-2130?

  3. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Thanks, Ryan. I guess normal is the new normal …

    All the best, nice tweet,

    w.

  4. Lance says:

    Just added up my Feb, and we were 3.7C above normal (23 years only), but looks just about bang on where I live (southern Alberta)…but 3rd warmest Feb that I have….AND I’LL take it any year!!!

  5. darknova306 says:

    It’s worse than we thought, obviously.

  6. Tez says:

    So that is 32 years without warming. Pachauri’s 30 to 40 year AGW breaking trend has now been reached.

    My guess is he will deny that’s what he meant by what he said, then go on to deny that climate change is quite natural.

  7. Jimmy Haigh says:

    I watched a short report on the BBC this morning about record snowfall in Japan. I knew it was coming… and there it was: “Some scientists say this couldbe because of global warming?”. I couldn’t stop myself from swearing loudly at the TV and thus earning a glaring and disapproving look from Mrs Haigh.

  8. D.B. Stealey says:

    Just The Facts,

    Thanks for that link. I always enjoy your charts and graphs, being a big believer in visual aids. Lots of folks’ eyes glaze over at the mere mention of a .pdf file. A good chart conveys the information in a way that stays with the reader.

    Now that global ice cover is back to its long term average, declining polar ice is another failed prediction of the alarmist crowd. So far, they’re batting 1.000 in failed predictions.

  9. James says:

    but but 30 of the last 30 years were the hottest on record (given records started 30 years ago! :)

  10. Phobos says:

    HadCRUT4 just posted their January data today: 9th-warmest January in 164 years.
    Odd that it should be that high….

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.1.1.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt

  11. Phobos says:

    D.B. Stealey says: “Now that global ice cover is back to its long term average,…”

    What is your definition of “long term average?”

  12. Phobos says:

    [snip - off topic rant - mod]

  13. Phobos says:

    Tez says: “So that is 32 years without warming.”

    What possible statistics are leading you to believe THAT???
    Please clarify.

  14. A.D. Everard says:

    Will normal be the new normal? I somehow doubt it. Somehow, someway, some loony will spin this into a panic. “Oh no! This isn’t right! It must be caused by global warming ‘cos it couldn’t possibly be like this otherwise.”

    Maybe I do the alarmists a disservice. If so, I apologize to all alarmists. Maybe not even they would go that far. So, I guess they’ll just ignore this piece of normal and wait for the next piece of rain, snow, cool weather, warm weather, dry weather, meteorites, giant jellyfish, small mammals, oh yes, and Mexicans, or any of the rest of the crazy things they can point to and blame on CAGW.

    I wish the believers would just once blink and actually think about what they are being told… Actually, I think many of them are.

  15. Hector Pascal says:

    Jimmy Haigh

    We’ve just hit a new record (breaking last winter’s record) with snow 2.4 metres deep on the ground, and more than 16 metres measured as daily snowfall. These numbers are quite normal for the heavy snow areas in Japan. What was unusual this winter was the onset. Normally the serious snow starts in the last week of December. This winter it started in the first week of December, so we’ve had an extra three weeks.

    There’s a mountain town north of us (in Miyagi Prefecture) where they have over 5 metres. That’s serious. The 2.4 metres we have here can be managed, but my back, arms and shoulders are sore. I’m looking forward to spring. The forecast is for snow later today.

  16. policycritic says:

    Just The Facts,

    Thanks for the link.

  17. Taphonomic says:

    Just The Facts says:
    “Global Sea Ice Area is about average too:”

    Actually global sea ice has been slightly above average for a few days.

    Northern Hemisphere is curently slightly below average (at 0.283 miliion sq. mi. below average),
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
    while Southern Hemisphere has been above average for more than a year and is currently at 0.602 million sq. mi. above average.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png .

    Gotta put the “GLOBAL” in global warming.

  18. Bob Tisdale says:

    I wonder when GISS, and UKMO, and NOAA for their global temperature products will start using 1981-2010 as base years for anomalies as recommended by the WMO. Probably never.

  19. Martin says:

    Thanks for that. What more proof do we need that 97% of scientists are just plain wrong. How long will it take for governments to admit to this fraud? With the arctic ice recovering so quickly this year and the sun dimming we are on the verge of an ice age. It won’t be long now for people to wake up they’ve been hoaxed.

  20. ossqss says:

    Normal is not allowed any longer. We need a new word…. (SARC)

  21. RockyRoad says:

    Phobos says:
    February 28, 2013 at 8:37 pm

    HadCRUT4 just posted their January data today: 9th-warmest January in 164 years.
    Odd that it should be that high….

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.1.1.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt

    The earth’s been climbing out of the LIA since ~1860. 164 years ago was 1849, so what you observe is normal.

    Or are you going to somehow convince me CO2 began in earnest in 1849? Or 1860?

    I can’t wait to see your evidence. Oh, and everything else you mention or refute or argue is meaningless if the cornerstone of your theme, CO2 Caused The Warming, is null and void.

    And believe me, it’s null and void.

    Or believe me not; Mother Nature is in control here, not your exhaust pipes, although a greening biosphere is to be celebrated.

  22. Theo Goodwin says:

    Phobos says:
    28, 2013 at 8:37 pm

    Well, they had to keep it in the Top Ten. PR, you know. In Virginia, it was just about normal. In other words, it was seriously unpleasant and I will be glad when d*mn*d winter is over. I will be even gladder when I can return to central Florida – where I was meant to be.

  23. Phobos says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    “I wonder when GISS, and UKMO, and NOAA for their global temperature products will start using 1981-2010 as base years for anomalies as recommended by the WMO. Probably never.”

    Why should they?
    The difference is just a constant, easily calculated.

  24. Phobos says:

    RockyRoad says: “The earth’s been climbing out of the LIA since ~1860. 164 years ago was 1849, so what you observe is normal.”

    What is causing this “climbing?”
    And how much longer will it continue? (Please show your work.)

  25. Phobos says:

    Theo Goodwin says: “Well, they had to keep it in the Top Ten. PR, you know. In Virginia, it was just about normal.”

    Where can I find the state-wide statistics for Virginia for Jan-2013?

    And is it your claim that Hadley deliberately altered the number for PR purposes?
    What is your evidence of this?
    UAH also showed a very warm month for the LT. Did they too alter the numbers?

  26. Theo Goodwin says:

    Phobos says:
    February 28, 2013 at 9:24 pm
    Theo Goodwin says: “Well, they had to keep it in the Top Ten. PR, you know. In Virginia, it was just about normal.”

    “Where can I find the state-wide statistics for Virginia for Jan-2013?”

    Typical Alarmist presumption. Do not ask me for anything.

  27. Steve Oregon says:

    My immediate response was hey the new normal is normal. But as I scrolled down preparing to post it there’s Willis.
    Willis Eschenbach says:
    February 28, 2013 at 8:09 pm
    Thanks, Ryan. I guess normal is the new normal …
    All the best, nice tweet,
    w.

    I feel compelled to out normal him? Tough task.

    Now that things are normal again, (whew! thank God) are we supposed to start over and whatever observations show over the next 20 years we should pretend it’s going to accelerate and lead to our doom?
    Because that is the new normal?

  28. John F. Hultquist says:

    I must be getting the wrong map or something. I see a USA that is colder than it is supposed to be, with greens and blues. That’s below normal, right?
    How is that possible? Maybe it has something to do with this: “I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children … this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” [B. Obama, 2008]

    “generations from now” – in only 5 years. Remarkable. Back to my room now.

  29. Darren Potter says:

    A Mann named Michael: Sky is falling, Sky is falling, global temperatures are Normal. Oh my, there goes all our GW Alarmist funding…
    /sarc

  30. John F. Hultquist says:

    Phobos says:
    February 28, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    “Why should they?
    The difference is just a constant, easily calculated.

    I suppose it would helpful to state what that “constant” is then. Although each every-10-year-update produces a new “constant” – but then, that’s not a constant, is it? I think that would be called a variable – “Quite so.” Besides, how does knowing this number make a correct visual presentation (map) out of an incorrect one? Why not just make a correct map – worth a thousand words?

    Anyway, insofar as an arithmetic mean is pulled toward the extreme values we can expect that by including the hot temperatures of the 20-00s the mean for comparison (calculation of anomaly) would be higher and the anomalies lower. I realize you know that, but some statistically challenged readers might not. Here’s the key idea:
    “The mean has one main disadvantage: it is particularly susceptible to the influence of outliers.”
    https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/measures-central-tendency-mean-mode-median.php

  31. Lesley McKay says:

    Phobos says:
    February 28, 2013 at 9:19 pm

    Bob Tisdale says:
    “I wonder when GISS, and UKMO, and NOAA for their global temperature products will start using 1981-2010 as base years for anomalies as recommended by the WMO. Probably never.”

    Why should they?
    The difference is just a constant, easily calculated.
    ————————————————————
    And of course Joe Public will grab pen and paper and calculate?

    Which planet are you on?

  32. rogerknights says:

    Phobos says:
    February 28, 2013 at 8:39 pm

    If global humidity is increasing, but winter temperatures are still below freezing, what would you expect but more snowfall in winter…?

    1) That’s not what was expected by the majority of warmists before snowfall kept up.
    2) Is humidity rising? I read somewhere that it was falling. (But maybe that was in the upper layers.)

  33. Darren Potter says:

    Given the following Great news:
    “February 2013 global temperature anomaly compared to 1981-2010 mean: -0.001°C or 1/1000th of a degree below avg.”
    Should we not be hearing calls for Celebration from the Greenies, GW Climatologists, our respective Governments, and U.N.’s IPCC? Isn’t this the kind of news they would all greatly welcome? As in no need for – radical actions, infrastructural changes, society/living modifications, draconian taxes, trillions in new spending, or panicked quest for cheap clean power.

    The crickets chirping tells us all we need to know about the aforementioned entities and their true agendas. Global Warming was a huge Con, a global Scam that gave each of the entities what they wanted – grants, funding, taxes, control, and power over citizens of planet Earth.

  34. pottereaton says:

    “(Please show your work.)”

    Please show how it is anything other than normal. That it is anything other than a phase.

  35. pat says:

    MSM rushes into the next meme:

    1 March: Australian: AFP: Carbon dioxide and warming lock-step in last Ice Age
    Writing in the US journal, Science, a team led by French glaciologist Frederic Parrenin looked at ice from five deep drilling expeditions in Antarctica…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/carbon-dioxide-and-warming-lock-step-in-last-ice-age/story-e6frg8y6-1226588345935

    28 Feb: NYT: Justin Gillis: Study of Ice Age Bolsters Carbon and Warming Link
    A meticulous new analysis of Antarctic ice suggests that the sharp warming that ended the last ice age occurred in lock step with increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the latest of many indications that the gas is a powerful influence on the earth’s climate…
    The latest paper was led by Frédéric Parrenin of the University of Grenoble, in France, and is scheduled for publication on Friday in the journal Science…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/science/earth/at-ice-age-end-a-smaller-gap-in-warming-and-carbon-dioxide.html?_r=0

  36. Steven Mosher says:

    [snip - arguing about an off topic issue with a rant - mod]

  37. davidmhoffer says:

    Phobos
    Why should they?
    The difference is just a constant, easily calculated.

    Then why did the WMO make the recommendation? Perhaps you could read it and report back on why you are wrong?

    What is causing this “climbing?”
    And how much longer will it continue? (Please show your work.)

    Well actually temps have been “climbing” for about 400 years since the LIA at pretty much the same rate, but have tapered off in the last few decades despite CO2 increases. Why? (Please show your work)

    and is it your claim that Hadley deliberately altered the number for PR purposes?
    What is your evidence of this?
    UAH also showed a very warm month for the LT. Did they too alter the numbers?

    Apparently you fail to understand the difference between reporting the data and spinning the data out of context for PR purposes. On second thought, based on your commentary in this and other threads…. I think you do.

  38. Day By Day says:

    Rockyroad–didn’t know Phobos was being sarcastic until I read your answer–he wrote, HadCRUT4 just posted their January data today: 9th-warmest January in 164 years. Odd that it should be that high….

    Because I do think its odd. I posted all the record lows for January and December over on Spencer’s site–I simply can’t understand how there have been so many bitterly cold countrys week after week for two months and then have them reported on the warm side of the anomaly—I truly don’t get it. Russia had record cold, India, Japan, Alaska, Germany, Asia, china, –bitterly cold Dec and Jan– and the globe was warm? For heaven’s sake–we made an all time record in the NH–91 below zero! http://publicpost.ru/theme/id/3284/oymyakon (granted that was this month–but still its indicative of what’s been happening this winter)

    Something is not right. And the explanation of more high records than low and higher low records isn’t going to cut it in the face of so many record lows reported.

  39. HB says:

    Phobos, how about you tell us why you think its odd that Jan was the 9th highest? And pls show the link to global humidity? You seem to have endless time to spend on this, so please share your leanings.
    Thanks in advance

  40. Peter Pond says:

    Well, here in Australia, today’s big news according to our BOM (Met Bureau) and ABC (Govt owned media), is that we (Australia) have just had our hottest summer on record (due to an extended heatwave in mid-January). The BOM official making the announcement was happy to add that if CO2 emissions continue at their present rate, this record heat will become the new “normal” for Aussie summers. No mention of cold winter temps in the northern hemisphere, of course.

    Moreover, with the remnants of cyclones (hurricanes) on both east and west coasts currently dumping large amounts of rain and providing widespread cloud cover, temperatures have dropped to very unseasonably low levels in many areas of this country.

    In my many decades of experience of Australian summers they are all hot (except when they aren’t). The real concern here is not the hot summer temperatures per se, but how much rain we get and where it happens to fall.

  41. NZ Willy says:

    I’m calling out “Phobos” as a paid spammer, albeit an academic one. Maybe even a name we all know. Hmm, Phobos – Deimos – Mars – ???

  42. ferdberple says:

    Phobos says:
    February 28, 2013 at 8:39 pm
    If global humidity is increasing, but winter temperatures are still below freezing, what would you expect but more snowfall in winter…?
    ===============
    You mean clouds don’t you? Increased clouds? You can’t have snow without clouds, regardless of the humidity. And with increased clouds you get increased albedo and reduced solar radiation reaching the surface and increased cooling. Negative feedback. And increased snowfall is the evidence.

    The climate models have it wrong. They ALL assume positive feedback without any observational justification, when common sense tells you that life would have gone extinct on earth long ago when CO2 levels much higher than at present. If GHG theory is correct, the high levels of CO2 only 10 million years ago as compared to the present would have cooked all life on earth.

    I’m happy to report this didn’t happen, which goes to show that in climate science, there is nothing quite so rare as common sense.

  43. cui bono says:

    Phobos – whatever nits you choose to pick, the fact remains that the 21st century has not seen the warming predicted by the models, AGW theory or spokesfolks for the ‘consensus’. Nor was this predicted by any of the above.

    Something needs to change in the light of this, dontchathink?

  44. oldfossil says:

    Thank you Phobos for asking probing, pertinent questions. There’s too much groupthink going on here. This is not SkS. Contrary views are indispensable for a healthy, informed debate.

  45. ferdberple says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 28, 2013 at 10:52 pm
    [snip]
    =============
    The difference between WUWT and the snivelers at Real Climate. At RC they don’t have the gumption to at least let everyone know they snipped your comment. They simply delete the comment – but strangely leave in the replies to your comment.

    How folks can reply to a censored comment at RC puzzled me until it became obvious. RC is manufacturing their own replies internally. How low is their popularity, how irrelevant their science, when they need to manufacture their own traffic?

  46. Mario Lento says:

    OK – Wait a minute… The trend for global sea ice has been in a slight decline over the entire record. But the long term average value is LOWER now than it used to be. If you drew a trend line through the entire series, that line would have a slope to it. The “average” line by definition has no slope since it shows the average of all data. Am I worried about this variability in climate… no.

    OK – anyway, I do not deny that the climate changes. However, we should be skeptical of those who say CO2 is driving the climate in a measurable way. Let’s be careful here!

  47. Steve B says:

    Here in Oz there was one news service that said we had the hottest summer evah and another news service said we had the wettest summer evah. So does that mean we have moved closer to the equator??

  48. David L says:

    Okay the temps are normal, but what about all the EXTREME weathrer going on everywhere. That’s the true signal of AGW, /sarc

  49. Mindert Eiting says:

    John F. Hultquist at 10:18 pm. Once I analyzed the GHCN data using medians in stead of means. The results were that surprising that I did not believe my eyes. Are there examples in the literature? The outlier issue may be decisive.

  50. Don’t you love Phobos?
    The way he/she/it slipped in that little Warmist jibe…’please show your work’.
    Let me respond thus:

    Michael Mann, please show your work.
    Keith Briffa, please show your work.
    Mr Pauchuri, please show your work.
    UK Met Office…please show your work.
    James Hansen, please show your work….etc etc ad nauseum.

    Climategate Fudge anyone?

  51. Green Sand says:

    Hector Pascal
    “We’ve just hit a new record (breaking last winter’s record) with snow 2.4 metres….”

    The Sea of Japan and surrounding waters have been cold (anomaly) for the majority of the NH winter, still showing below normal now:-

    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

    Good luck Hector, I trust you do not need to wait too much longer for the onset of spring.

  52. Anders Valland says:

    Phobos,
    according to the Earth System Research Laboratory at NOAA there has been an increase in specific humidity at ground level of about 0.4g/kg since about 1950. Is this the expected rise that is required to accomodate the IPCC central value for climate sensitivity?
    Source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

  53. D.B. Stealey says:

    Phobos says:

    “What is your definition of “long term average?””

    The red line.

  54. D.B. Stealey says:

    NZ Willy says:

    “I’m calling out ‘Phobos’ as a paid spammer, albeit an academic one.”

    I agree, NZW. He is spamming the threads.

    [Reply: thread-bombing violates site Policy. Fair warning for 'Phobos'. — mod.]

  55. BruceC says:

    @ A.D. Everard: February 28, 2013 at 8:42 pm:

    Maybe I do the alarmists a disservice. If so, I apologize to all alarmists. Maybe not even they would go that far. So, I guess they’ll just ignore this piece of normal and wait for the next piece of rain, snow, cool weather, warm weather, dry weather, meteorites, giant jellyfish, small mammals, oh yes, and Mexicans, or any of the rest of the crazy things they can point to and blame on CAGW.

    You forgot the earthworms.

    @ Peter Pond; February 28, 2013 at 11:02 pm

    Well, here in Australia, today’s big news according to our BOM (Met Bureau) and ABC (Govt owned media), is that we (Australia) have just had our hottest summer on record (due to an extended heatwave in mid-January). The BOM official making the announcement was happy to add that if CO2 emissions continue at their present rate, this record heat will become the new “normal” for Aussie summers. No mention of cold winter temps in the northern hemisphere, of course.

    If I heard correctly on the radio, today – 1st March, was the coldest March day recorded for 13 years.

  56. Hector Pascal says:

    Phobos says:
    February 28, 2013 at 8:39 pm

    “If global humidity is increasing, but winter temperatures are still below freezing, what would you expect but more snowfall in winter…? ”

    As this seems to be in reply to Jimmy Haigh’s comment on record Japan snowfall, let me expand.

    In winter, a blocking high (just dicoverd by PIK, yay) forms over central Siberia, and very cold, very dry air descends flows over much of Asia from that.

    The second part of the system are the low pressure cells which in winter track from SW-NE along the length of the Japanese archipelago. These draw the dry Arctic air flow from the NW across the Sea of Japan, where it loads with moisture before dumping it as snow on Honshu and Hokkaido. North Americans will recognise this as the Lake Effect.

    An important difference between North America and Japan is the Sea of Japan is much warmer than the Great Lakes, and the fetch is much longer. Therefore Japan sees huge volumes of winter snow. The volume of snow we get depends entirely on the number, the strength and the persistance of the low pressure cells. The snow is not related to “global humidity”, rather the volume of water in the Sea of Japan, and its temperature.

    I will speculate that the snowfall records we are seeing may relate to the negative PDO. Warmer water in the Western Pacific increases the temperature difference wrt continental Asia and may increase the number of low pressure cells. I don’t know. Formal snowfall records only go back to about 1960. Far too short (for me at least) to be able to tease out a correlation.

  57. BruceC says:

    Sorry, should have included the East Coast around Sydney & the Hunter.

  58. Jimbo says:

    Antarctic sea ice extent above ‘normal’.
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

    Arctic temps below ‘normal’ and dropping. (north of the 80th northern parallel)
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Snowfalls Co2 fluffy stuff is no longer a thing of the past, kids have an idea what it is. And a global temperature standstill of 16 years and counting.

    This is really becoming a cat and mouse game. Imagine if Warmists back in 1998 could see into the future and where we are today. Their only cause of real ‘concern’ would be the Arctic. Yet doubts must creep in about everything else. Would they have nailed their flags to the mast?

  59. Tenuk says:

    Steve B says:- “Here in Oz there was one news service that said we had the hottest summer evah and another news service said we had the wettest summer evah. So does that mean we have moved closer to the equator??”

    No. It means the equator has moved closer to you, just as the Arctic circle has moved closer to me here in England. Just normal changes to climate zones in response to a ‘quieter than normal’ sun…

  60. Peter Miller says:

    I think it is time to remind everyone of the great alarmist heresy:

    Natural climate cycles.

    Natural climate cycles dominate our planet’s climate, they always have and they always will. Man’s influence on climate in recent times is probably measurable – if we knew how – but it is no more than a mildly interesting phenomenon.

    A huge parasite industry has developed to hype up this mildly interesting phenomenon. The geological record clearly demonstrates the concept of CAGW is complete BS, which is why it is almost impossible to find a non-government geologist who believes in ‘global warming’. I suppose there is no need to remind anyone any more that those in government and quasi-government organisations are required to sing from the official hymn book, or there will be employment consequences.

    How long will it be before historians compare CAGW to the black tulip mania of 1637? In CAGW terms, perhaps 2013 will be the equivalent of 1637 in black tulip terms. Let’s hope so.

  61. Jimbo says:

    Phobos says:
    February 28, 2013 at 9:22 pm

    RockyRoad says: “The earth’s been climbing out of the LIA since ~1860. 164 years ago was 1849, so what you observe is normal.”

    What is causing this “climbing?”
    And how much longer will it continue? (Please show your work.)

    Yes, I also want to know what was “causing this “climbing?”” between ~1860 to 1940?
    [Note: When did the IPCC state that man's co2 started having a discernible effect? - after 1960 - if memory serves me].

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=5620

  62. Steve B says:

    BruceC says:
    March 1, 2013 at 1:07 am

    “If I heard correctly on the radio, today – 1st March, was the coldest March day recorded for 13 years.”

    And there I was thinking 30 years. The pounding rain muted the radio a bit, maybe a lot.

  63. richard verney says:

    Europe has had a cold February.

    Where I live in Spain it has been very cold compared to previous years. I note from the Map that Europe appears to be between 1 to 3 degrees below normal. Where I live in Spain, I would concur that it has been 3 or so degrees below normal. At 10 o clock, I have already put the fire on. At the end of February/March, in previous years, I might not have needed the fire at all, and certainly would not have put it on until after sun down say at 7 to 7:30 pm.

    Yesterday, we had 3 typhoons over the sea. It was a spectacular sight seeing the sea being ripped up into the atmosphere. I spoke to many people and no one could remember a previous occassion when one could see 3 typhoons at the same time. A rare event, but only weather.

  64. tango says:

    sydney had two very hot days last summer the rest of summer was normal or cold enought to have the heater on 1/3/2013 very cold and wet as for the left wing CSIRO they should be ashamed of them selves

  65. JJBMKI says:

    @Martin February 28, 2013 at 8:57 pm:

    Not 97% of scientists, 97% of ‘Climate Scientists’. This is a very important distinction. Amongst these, the number only represents those who responded to a survey asking if they believed the world had warmed (regardless of anthropogenic influence). Respondents numbered less than 100. Scientists in every field have a whole range of opinions on CAGW; the degree of warming; whether it presents a problem and so on. What are known as ‘Climate Scientists’ – the ones who present themselves as activists, are generally semi trained statisticians who would almost all lose their shirts if the CAGW scare failed, hence are driven (and not necessarily consciously) to only acknowledge and present cherry picked data, make tenuous connections between weather / climate events, hugely exaggerate certainty in measurement and simulated predictions, and reverse the laws of cause and effect. Not that this in itself necessarily indicates they are wrong, but the data as a whole indicates that they probably are.

    Your post seems odd to me, and not far off the reverse of the alarmist claim that all sceptics are right-wing conspiracy theorists. One of the central tactics of CAGW alarmists is to try and win the scientific community around to their side by painting opponents as somehow ‘anti science’. This creates an ‘us and them’ attitude towards sceptics which ensures that the wider scientific community is unlikely to even consider, let alone address valid sceptical arguments. Sceptics, assuming their comments are real, should be very careful not to let their annoyance at being misrepresented play into this and become a real ‘them’ with which to alienate scientists.

  66. richard verney says:

    Jimmy Haigh says:

    February 28, 2013 at 8:21 pm
    ////////////////////////////////////////////
    Bearing in mind that there has been no further warming these past 17 or so years, how could that event be caused by global warming? Why were we not seeing such events in 1998 when temperatures peaked or in the couple of years that followed. Surely if global warming was the cause, we would have expected to see more extreme events in the period of say 1997 to 2000.

    There appears to be a logical disconnect somewhere.

    It would be fair enough for the BBC to report that ‘Some scientists say this could be because of global warming’, but if they want to report that, they should (for the sake of objectivity and balance)at the same time report that the UK MET Office and the head of the IPCC have both confirmed that there has been no statistically significant warming these past 17 years. Then the viewer is informed and can draw a conclusion on the significant of each statement.

  67. Mindert Eiting says:

    Peter Miller at 1:34 am: ‘How long will it be before historians compare CAGW to the black tulip mania of 1637?’. There are some painful examples in history but not this one. The tulip mania was a bogus market in early Dutch capitalism. It was not created by a government that needed a bogus market/science in order to control the populace. When it collapsed, some people lost their money. Happens all the time.

  68. richard verney says:

    Peter Miller says:

    March 1, 2013 at 1:34 am
    ////////////////////////////////////////////
    I am tempted to agree with the thrust of your comments. I too suspect that man has had some influence but I suspect that this is for the main part local and not global. Building a dam, deforestation, irrigation of crops over a large area, the building of concrete cities with UHI, all may well have contributed to some local impact on climate to some small degree.

  69. richard verney says:

    Phobos says:
    February 28, 2013 at 9:19 pm

    Bob Tisdale says:
    “I wonder when GISS, and UKMO, and NOAA for their global temperature products will start using 1981-2010 as base years for anomalies as recommended by the WMO. Probably never.”

    Why should they?
    The difference is just a constant, easily calculated
    //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    Phobos, I note your logic.

    Using the same logic, please explain why we do not use as a 30 year base figure from which to calculate anomalies, say a 30 year average taken at the time of the Holocene optimum, or say around the Minoan, or Roman warm periods?

  70. Hector Pascal says:

    Green Sand

    Thanks very much for the image. I hadn’t seen that. I know where the missing heat from the Sea of Japan is: it’s lying as a phase change in my bailiwick. I showed it to the memsahib. She was impressed.

  71. philjourdan says:

    One-one thousandth? Can it get more normal than that?

  72. aaron says:

    It’d be nice if we had some data on the thickness and age of ice in arctic at various locations and depths from before people started crying that the sky was melting. I’d be suprised if much of the ice is older than 80 years. I bet the ice fluctuates mostly with PDO and the satellites just happened to start at a peak.

  73. Alvin says:

    What is “normal” and who gets to determine what that is?

  74. Elizabeth says:

    Phobos sounds greek anyway January was quite warm for ALL temp reportng agencies. Its FEb thats “normall”

  75. Andy W says:

    Phobos says:
    “What is causing this “climbing?”
    And how much longer will it continue? (Please show your work.)”

    Go on then Phobos – you tell us how much longer you think it will continue and what you think caused the start of the climb (SUVs in the 1890s?).
    You have to give a specific number of years that you believe the climb will last for, so that you can be held to account in future. I’m going to be generous of spirit and not even ask you to “show your work” for the length of time you have computed. You can’t say fairer than that.

    NB As someone already said above: why aren’t greenies like Phobos rejoicing at the fact that the temperature is not climbing at the exponential rate that Jim, Al and the IPCC told us would happen? It’s because Phobos and his/her ilk are really ‘disaster junkies’ who aren’t happy unless there is something they can blame on evil capitalists.
    It’s also rather ironic/laughable that these afore-mentioned greenies spend their time screaming about ‘Big Oil’ on the blogs they access, using computers encased in plastic made out of fossil fuels, powered by the electricity from power stations they claim are ‘killing the earth’. Hypocrites.

  76. William Astley says:

    The extreme AGW paradigm requires global cooling to explain a return to normal average global temperature.

    In the past when the solar magnetic cycle when into a deep minimum there was global cooling, It will be interesting to hear the imaginative story that will be fabricated to explain global cooling if and when there is more evidence of global cooling. It is significantly more difficult for the extreme AGW paradigm pushers to explain global cooling as opposed to a lack of warming.

    It is interesting that the geomagnetic field is showing signs of significant change. The field strength in the vicinity of the South Atlantic anomaly is 30% less than the main field. The northern geomagnetic pole is moving toward Russia at 50 kilometers a year.The planet cool when there is a significant reduction in the geomagnetic field and when the geomagnetic field alignment is significantly off set from the axis of planetary rotation.

  77. AMSU is running at about 0.3C higher than this time last year, suggesting a UAH figure of about 0.3C, roughly back to where they were in Oct/Nov.

    Meanwhile I’m still waiting for HADCRUT numbers for Jan!!

  78. Michael Schaefer says:

    richard verney says:
    March 1, 2013 at 2:51 am

    Yesterday, we had 3 typhoons over the sea. It was a spectacular sight seeing the sea being ripped up into the atmosphere. I spoke to many people and no one could remember a previous occassion when one could see 3 typhoons at the same time. A rare event, but only weather.
    —————————————————————————————————————
    I suppose, you mean tornadoes – or water hoses, as we call them in Germany, if they happen to occur over water – rather than typhoons, don’t you?

    A very rare and spectacular sight, nonetheless!

  79. David says:

    And while we’re at it – the extent of Arctic sea ice looks – er – NORMAL – according to the JAXA and NORSEX satellite-sourced graphs – which of course faithfully identify both freezing AND melting…
    (P.S. Here in the UK its STILL bloody cold..!)

  80. thelastdemocrat says:

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

    Arctic ice for the recent day or two has not been this high in the past several years.
    This is quite a slow arctic death spiral.

  81. thelastdemocrat says:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    Uh-oh – arctic ice crossing into the zone of 2 sigma from 1979-2000 avg.
    If this year’s line approaches the avg line, they will have to redefine how the line is calculated again, just like they did one day before the lines crossed last years.
    That is my weather prediction.

  82. RACookPE1978 says:

    No, it crossed into that 2 sigma zone of the “average” arctic sea ice extents a long many weeks ago.

    Now, its approaching (getting close to) the 2000-2010 average line.

    This all after a record low extents in September.

  83. Jimbo says:

    Phobos says:
    February 28, 2013 at 8:37 pm

    HadCRUT4 just posted their January data today: 9th-warmest January in 164 years.
    Odd that it should be that high….

    Perhaps Dr. Roy Spencer can help.

    Above-average moist convective heat transport from the ocean surface to the atmosphere appears to have led to sea surface cooling, and tropospheric warming, in January 2013.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/apparent-reason-for-january-2013-tropospheric-warmth/

  84. RockyRoad says:

    Phobos says:
    February 28, 2013 at 9:22 pm

    RockyRoad says: “The earth’s been climbing out of the LIA since ~1860. 164 years ago was 1849, so what you observe is normal.”

    What is causing this “climbing?”
    And how much longer will it continue? (Please show your work.)

    You’re pretty good at deflection and selective editing there, Phobos (and then tying to play the part of my “perfesser” by requiring to see my work, which role you obviously are not)–because the ball is in your court: In the post you responded to, I continued with:

    Or are you going to somehow convince me CO2 began in earnest in 1849? Or 1860?

    I can’t wait to see your evidence. Oh, and everything else you mention or refute or argue is meaningless if the cornerstone of your theme, CO2 Caused The Warming, is null and void.

    And believe me, it’s null and void.

    Or believe me not; Mother Nature is in control here, not your exhaust pipes, although a greening biosphere is to be celebrated.

    See, the null hypothesis is that mother nature has been controlling temperatures from the get-go, so if you question that, it is YOU that has some explaining to do and a bunch of work to show.

    Because you have a very difficult hole to climb out of. For example, Jimbo above indicates even the IPCC states that man’s CO2 started having a discernible effect after 1960. So what caused the warming from the LIA to at least 1960?. Here’s your ultimate answer:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/

    And if we look at temperature trends (sans wooden, but the inferrence on today’s temperatures gets really bad if you include tree ring data), today’s warming is nothing unusual at all and certainly not the results of CO2. I refer you to:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Holocene,Historicandrecentglobaltemperatures.pdf

    especially Figure 11 of the above reference (by Briffa), which demonstrates that if one eliminates CO2-contaminated temperature proxies (tree rings), the remaining (more accurate) proxies show a MWP that was consistently much warmer than today’s temperatures (even with the fudge factors, called “homogenization”, climsci people apply). And read the conclusions of the study–they’re damning for the CAGW crowd.

    So the ball is still in your court, Phobos–show us that CO2 caused the warming from 1960 to the Present, even though it’s nothing out of the ordinary (i.e., it can be considered “natural”, caused by Mother Nature, etc. etc. because it isn’t unprecedented at all). You must disprove the null hypothesis which requires that you show us YOUR work.

    Or agree that CO2 is not a significant influence on today’s temperatures (and a huge benefit, I might add); that man is not controlling the environment with his use of fossil fuels; that you are therefore not a member of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Genocidal Warmista crowd that’s responsible for the death of millions of struggling/starving humans by artificially inflating foodstuff prices by pushing facinorous CO2-related policies, and we’ll let it go at that; you’re off the hook.

  85. Gary Pearse says:

    Jimmy Haigh says:
    February 28, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    I watched a short report on the BBC this morning about record snowfall in Japan. I knew it was coming… and there it was: “Some scientists say this couldbe because of global warming?”.

    Visit the Sea Ice page here at WUWT and let’s see how “warming” stands up. Four or five years ago, Japanese Arctic ice tour folks were complaining that, where once the sea ice could be viewed on a short trip by sea, it now required many days to reach the ice. Well, now the ice has reached them in spades. It is jammed up along the entire north coast of Hokkaido and has muffin-topped over the sides and along the coast of North Korea. This is 100% ice cover – no floating ice hopping needed. It totally envelops Sakhalin Island just to the NNW of Hokkaido. You can walk from PRK to Detroit on ice if the spirit moves you. Also, look at the deep cold North of 80 as per the Danish plot:

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicennowcast.gif

  86. John F. Hultquist says:

    Alvin says:
    March 1, 2013 at 4:29 am
    What is “normal” and who gets to determine what that is?
    . . . and

    Mindert Eiting says:
    March 1, 2013 at 12:31 am

    About “normal”

    I do not know if the update to the “normals” as described below will make a difference but with folks reporting results to 3 or 4 decimal places it would be principled and appropriate to follow the standards agreed upon. This would fit with many of the Richard Feynman quotes we have seen here on WUWT – something like ‘ scientists should investigate all the reasons why their results might be wrong’ or ‘don’t try to fool anyone, and you are the easiest one to fool’, ‘if your results don’t match your theory, the theory is wrong’, and so on. [You can look up the originals.]

    Since the mid-1930s there has been an established international agreement to calculate “normal” temperature and precipitation using a 30-year average. After a year ending in zero (0) a new set of “normals” is calculated and used until another decade has passed. The idea was to provide a simple basis for comparisons that folks could personally relate to.

    For example, go to the link below and you can see three periods, namely 1961-1990, 1971-2000, 1981-2010. These are shown on the left side. The table on the right shows 1948-2012 for a summary. The computer era has changed things some but when a TV or radio station reports the weather they will be comparing the day’s numbers to the 1981-2010 period.
    http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wa7473
    The idea was to have a reference period that an adult could relate to. A person, say age 40 to 50, would have “normals” associated with his or her teenage and young adult years. It seemed to make sense to the folks that were interested in how weather records should be tallied and reported. There was no serious intention that these data would be used in the name of CAGW.
    The World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Meteorological_Organization
    . . . was preceded by the (IMO)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Meteorological_Organization
    I think the manner of defining normals was established in 1935 at the Warsaw Conference of Directors (see above link for some history).
    Note that these are international with many member countries so many folks will have to agree to changes.

  87. Jim Ryan says:

    It’s worse than we thought. The temp should be much higher given AGW, but the climate disruption caused by AGW has been so severe that we are starting to see cooler months like this. The climate is in an abnormal, chaotic state due to AGW. Indeed, the very failure of predictions generated by AGW models is very powerful evidence that those models are correct.

    Henceforth, any weather unexpected by AGW models should be taken as prima facie evidence in favor of those models.

  88. Steven Mosher says:

    the comment that was snipped merely pointed out that the chart shown NCEP CFRS
    was the result of a model.

    See the chart posted in this post. That is the result of a model.
    My comment was on topic and pointed people to the papers and documentation.

    I pointed folks to the documentation to the model and the radiative physics core that it used.

    I then explained that if people accept the results of the model, they implicitly accept the physics

  89. talldave2 says:

    These “extreme average” events are the strongest proof yet of global warming.

  90. phlogiston says:

    Phobos says:
    February 28, 2013 at 8:37 pm
    HadCRUT4 just posted their January data today: 9th-warmest January in 164 years.
    Odd that it should be that high….

    About right for about 9 years after the natural oscillatory temperature peak in 2003-2005 – now its downhill for a while.

  91. Ian Hoder says:

    Tez says: “So that is 32 years without warming.”

    I have to agree with Phobos on this one. Just because you have one month where the anomaly is below a baseline from 1981 to 2010 in no way implies there hasn’t been any warming for 32 years.

    I’m skeptical of CAGW but let’s stay within reality. The Earth has been warming up, just not as quickly as the alarmists have predicted.

  92. RobRoy says:

    The eerie stability of the climate and hyper-normalcy of sea ice is just terrifying. I recommend all concerned youth sterilize themselves for Mother Earth.
    (Obvious sarcasm, I hope.)

  93. See http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:2013.09/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013.09/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:2013.09/mean:13
    The HADCRUT4 trend since 2002 is now (2013.08) near -0.5°C (-0.9°F) per century.
    I just posted the new graphic. HADCRUT3 is still just up to 2012.84.

  94. Theo Goodwin says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    March 1, 2013 at 8:42 am

    “I then explained that if people accept the results of the model, they implicitly accept the physics”

    Your comment was just fine until the last sentence. I don’t suppose “the physics” would include one or more well confirmed physical hypotheses about forcings or feedbacks? If so, please copy one from the model and show us. Models are one thing and well confirmed physical hypotheses are another.

  95. Theo Goodwin says:

    Jim Ryan says:
    March 1, 2013 at 8:32 am

    “Henceforth, any weather unexpected by AGW models should be taken as prima facie evidence in favor of those models.”

    Excellent work. You have shown that you are qualified to be a professor of CAGW or a commentator on msnbc.

  96. A comment on the color scale. The -7 pastel is too easily confused with -1. The -8 blue is too close to -2.

    The upshot is that the Eastern Siberian -10 to dark blue does’t look enough different than the -2 offshore and over China.

    The same problem exists with the pastel at +11.
    Hmmm…. +7 is a LOT darker than -7. I have a problem with that.

  97. Walter Dnes says:

    All the major sources showed a well above average January, including UAH at +0.506. As a hobby, I do a linear regression with the daily temps and the UAH monthlies. My projection for February is for UAH to come in at +0.260.

  98. D.B. Stealey says:
    “Now that global ice cover is back to its long term average, declining polar ice is another failed prediction of the alarmist crowd”

    But But But… It only matters in the Arctic… and only in Summer…

  99. Paul Carter says:

    With normal global temps in Feb 2013, it’s not looking good for James Powell’s wager that he made against skeptics in November 2009.
    “I’ll bet any of them that five years from now our global temperatures will be higher than they’ve been,” he said. “If that’s not true, then there’s something fundamentally wrong with the science and our understanding of it.”
    It’s down to 21 months to go and it’s not going his way. See http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/11/climate_skeptics_meet_james_po.html

  100. Steve Oregon says:

    Bingo!

    Has Mosher has revealed the fatal flaw of alarmists? Their central crime against science?

    Mosher, “I then explained that if people accept the results of the model, they implicitly accept the physics”

    Theo Goodwin pointed out the obvious,
    “Models are one thing and well confirmed physical hypotheses are another”.

    I’m just a curious layperson, but IMO this seems to be Exhibit A in the case against the alarmist’s most central AGW argument.

    Their “purposefully mendacious” [Watts] acceptance of their “models=proof of physics” is the trip wire that blows their case.

    Hey Mosher,
    Nice try. Your low brow attempt to conscript skeptics into becoming accomplices in your crimes by way of some twisted “implicit acceptance” is a sloppy fail that backfired.

    What you have done is provide the rope to hang your invented science..

  101. john coghlan says:

    i just love it when alarmist trolls like “phobos” show up here. they start out strong, disagreeing with everything and very rapidly run out of steam and disappear when they are called out.

  102. Redress says:

    Peter Pond says:
    February 28, 2013 at 11:02 pm

    It seems there may be a serious problem with the Perth weather stations recording devices.
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/

  103. Girma says:

    Note also in the above graph that the secular global warming rate is about 0.1 deg C/decade, which is half IPCC’s 0.2 deg C/decade.

  104. Matthew R Marler says:

    Stephen Mosher: I pointed folks to the documentation to the model and the radiative physics core that it used.

    I then explained that if people accept the results of the model, they implicitly accept the physics

    I am glad that you retried.

  105. Mario Lento says:

    Mosher writes: I then explained that if people accept the results of the model, they implicitly accept the physics.
    ++++
    What if nature does not accept the results of the model?

Comments are closed.