November 2013 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Update

In addition to their monthly global land-ocean temperature index (LOTI) data, GISS also lists quarterly and two annual (December to November and January to December) data. (Source here.) The annual GISS December to November LOTI data for 1998 to 2013 are shown below. Of those 16 years, 2013 ranked 6th, tied with 2006 and 2009, according to GISS. Global surface temperatures are still not cooperating with climate models, but, then again, surface temperatures never have agreed with climate models.

0 GISS LOTI N-D 1998-2013

Annual (D-N) GISS LOTI

Global surface temperatures are still stalled in the post-1997/98-El-Niño era. They are patiently waiting for another strong El Niño to release a batch of sunlight-created warm water before they resume their step-like climb in Trenberth-declared “big jumps”.

Back to your regularly scheduled update:

Initial Notes: This post contains graphs of running trends in global surface temperature anomalies for periods of 12+ and 16 years using NCDC global (land+ocean) surface temperature data. They indicate that we have not seen a warming halt this long since the early-1970s (12-year+ trends) or late-1970s (16-years+ trends).

Much of the following text is boilerplate. It is intended for those new to the presentation of global surface temperature anomaly data.

Most of the update graphs in the following start in 1979. That’s a commonly used start year for global temperature products because many of the satellite-based temperature datasets start then.

GISS LAND OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX (LOTI)

Introduction: The GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data is a product of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Starting with their January 2013 update, it uses NCDC ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data. The impact of the recent change in sea surface temperature datasets is discussed here. GISS adjusts GHCN and other land surface temperature data via a number of methods and infills missing data using 1200km smoothing. Refer to the GISS description here. Unlike the UK Met Office and NCDC products, GISS masks sea surface temperature data at the poles where seasonal sea ice exists, and they extend land surface temperature data out over the oceans in those locations. Refer to the discussions here and here. GISS uses the base years of 1951-1980 as the reference period for anomalies. The data source is here.

Update: The November 2013 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.77 deg C. It warmed (an increase of about 0.17 deg C) since October 2013.

1 GISS Update

GISS LOTI

NCDC GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES

Introduction: The NOAA Global (Land and Ocean) Surface Temperature Anomaly dataset is a product of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). NCDC merges their Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 3b (ERSST.v3b) with the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) version 3.2.0 for land surface air temperatures. NOAA infills missing data for both land and sea surface temperature datasets using methods presented in Smith et al (2008). Keep in mind, when reading Smith et al (2008), that the NCDC removed the satellite-based sea surface temperature data because it changed the annual global temperature rankings. Since most of Smith et al (2008) was about the satellite-based data and the benefits of incorporating it into the reconstruction, one might consider that the NCDC temperature product is no longer supported by a peer-reviewed paper.

The NCDC data source is usually here. NCDC uses 1901 to 2000 for the base years for anomalies.

Update: (Note: the NCDC has been slow with this month’s update at the normal data source webpage, so I’ve used the value listed on their State of the Climate Report for November 2013.) The November 2013 NCDC global land plus sea surface temperature anomaly was +0.78 deg C. It increased 0.15 deg C since October 2013.

2 NCDC Update

NCDC Global (Land and Ocean) Surface Temperature Anomalies

UK MET OFFICE HADCRUT4 (LAGS ONE MONTH)

Introduction: The UK Met Office HADCRUT4 dataset merges CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST3 sea-surface temperature (SST) dataset. CRUTEM4 is the product of the combined efforts of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. And HadSST3 is a product of the Hadley Centre. Unlike the GISS and NCDC products, missing data is not infilled in the HADCRUT4 product. That is, if a 5-deg latitude by 5-deg longitude grid does not have a temperature anomaly value in a given month, it is not included in the global average value of HADCRUT4. The HADCRUT4 dataset is described in the Morice et al (2012) paper here. The CRUTEM4 data is described in Jones et al (2012) here. And the HadSST3 data is presented in the 2-part Kennedy et al (2012) paper here and here. The UKMO uses the base years of 1961-1990 for anomalies. The data source is here.

Update (Lags One Month): The October 2013 HADCRUT4 global temperature anomaly is +0.47 deg C. It decreased (about -0.07 deg C) since September 2013.

3 HADCRUT4 Update

HADCRUT4

155-MONTH RUNNING TRENDS

As noted in my post Open Letter to the Royal Meteorological Society Regarding Dr. Trenberth’s Article “Has Global Warming Stalled?”, Kevin Trenberth of NCAR presented 10-year period-averaged temperatures in his article for the Royal Meteorological Society. He was attempting to show that the recent halt in global warming since 2001 was not unusual. Kevin Trenberth conveniently overlooked the fact that, based on his selected start year of 2001, the halt had lasted 12+ years, not 10.

The period from January 2001 to November 2013 is now 155-months long. Refer to the following graph of running 155-month trends from January 1880 to May 2013, using the NCDC global temperature anomaly product. The last data point in the graph is the linear trend (in deg C per decade) from January 2001 to the current month. It is basically zero. That, of course, indicates global surface temperatures have not warmed during the most recent 155-month period. Working back in time, the data point immediately before the last one represents the linear trend for the 155-month period of December 2000 to October 2013, and the data point before it shows the trend in deg C per decade for November 2000 to September 2013, and so on.

4 155-Month NCDC Trends

155-Month Linear Trends

The highest recent rate of warming based on its linear trend occurred during the 155-month period that ended about 2004, but warming trends have dropped drastically since then. There was a similar drop in the 1940s, and as you’ll recall, global surface temperatures remained relatively flat from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s. Also note that the early-1970s was the last time there had been a 155-month period without global warming—before recently.

198-MONTH RUNNING TRENDS

In his RMS article, Kevin Trenberth also conveniently overlooked the fact that the discussions about the warming halt are now for a time period of about 16 years, not 10 years—ever since David Rose’s DailyMail article titled “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it”. In my response to Trenberth’s article, I updated David Rose’s graph, noting that surface temperatures in April 2013 were basically the same as they were in June 1997. We’ll use June 1997 as the start month for the running 16-year trends. The period is now 198-months long. The following graph is similar to the one above, except that it’s presenting running trends for 198-month periods.

5 198-Month NCDC Trends

198-Month Linear Trends

The last time global surface temperatures warmed at the minimal rate of 0.03 deg C per decade for a 198-month period was the late 1970s. Also note that the sharp decline is similar to the drop in the 1940s, and, again, as you’ll recall, global surface temperatures remained relatively flat from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s.

The most widely used metric of global warming—global surface temperatures—indicates that the rate of global warming has slowed drastically and that the duration of the halt in global warming is unusual during a period when global surface temperatures are allegedly being warmed from the hypothetical impacts of manmade greenhouse gases.

A NOTE ABOUT THE RUNNING-TREND GRAPHS

There is very little difference in the end point trends of 12-year and 16-year running trends if HADCRUT4 or NCDC or GISS data are used. The major difference in the graphs is with the HADCRUT4 data and it can be seen in a graph of the 12-year trends. I suspect this is caused by the updates to the HADSST3 data that have not been applied to the ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data used by GISS and NCDC.

COMPARISON

The GISS, HADCRUT4 and NCDC global surface temperature anomalies are compared in the next three time-series graphs. The first graph compares the three global surface temperature anomaly products starting in 1979. Again, due to the timing of this post, the HADCRUT4 data lags the GISS and NCDC products by a month. The graph also includes the linear trends. Because the three datasets share common source data, (GISS and NCDC also use the same sea surface temperature data) it should come as no surprise that they are so similar. For those wanting a closer look at the more recent wiggles and trends, the second graph starts in 1998, which was the start year used by von Storch et al (2013) Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? They, of course found that the CMIP3 (IPCC AR4) and CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) models could NOT explain the recent halt.

The third comparison graph starts with Kevin Trenberth’s chosen year of 2001. All three of those comparison graphs present the anomalies using the base years of 1981 to 2010. Referring to their discussion under FAQ 9 here, according to NOAA:

This period is used in order to comply with a recommended World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Policy, which suggests using the latest decade for the 30-year average.

6 Comparison Since 1979

Comparison Starting in 1979

###########

7 Comparison Since 1998

Comparison Starting in 1998

###########

7 Comparison Since 2001

Comparison Starting in 2001

AVERAGE

The last graph presents the average of the GISS, HADCRUT and NCDC land plus sea surface temperature anomaly products. Again because the HADCRUT4 data lags one month in this update, the most current average only includes the GISS and NCDC products. The flatness of the data since 2001 is very obvious, as is the fact that surface temperatures have rarely risen above those created by the 1997/98 El Niño.

8 Average

Average of Global Land+Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Products

CLOSING

Happy holidays to all you happy holidayers!!

About these ads

43 thoughts on “November 2013 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Update

  1. About those NOAA claims of “hottest November evah”, I had a look at their land-only map here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps.php?imgs%5B%5D=map-land-sfc-mntp&year=2013&month=11 and was surprised how bad the coverage is. Africa is mostly grey. In fact, many tropical areas are not covered, and on WeatherBell’s November map (http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_112013.png) many tropical areas have a quite strong cold anomaly. Where the “world was boiling” was in central parts of Russia, where temperatures were just slightly above freezing when they’re usually well below freezing in November.

  2. November was unusually ‘warm’ in Mongolia. Minus 20 to minus 30 at night and as high as minus 5 in the daytime. Quite pleasant in the capital. Unfortunately humidity was high so there was some ice fog. Wind was hard on the face! I am sure it will settle down, way down, in the next few weeks.

  3. Unless these alarmists change model assumptions they will always diverge from reality. How long before they realize how wrong they are?
    Thanks Bob and have a merry Christmas and prosperous New Year.

  4. I am flummoxed at the continuing high degree of belief in GW models that mostly don’t match the data. We’re living in an alice-in-wonderland world.

  5. NOAA and NASA claim the November 2013 global temperature was the warmest November on record. But satellite data disputes this claim. I think the land based temperature correction factors are probably in error.

  6. @- Richard Barraclough
    “Or it could equally well be the satellite algorithms which are in error…..”

    Until Christy and Spencer release their methods and code it is impossible to audit and find out….

  7. @Richard Barraclough

    ..Or it could equally well be the satellite algorithms which are in error…..

    Nonsense! If the real world does not comply with our mathematically perfect algorithms. REALITY is in error…. :)

  8. Richard Barraclough says: “Or it could equally well be the satellite algorithms which are in error…..”

    Richard, (if number one) if the global “adjustments” to land surface air temperature data are similar to the USHCN data, and (if number 2) if the adjustments continue into the recent decade, then the corrections make up a large portion of the warming:

    Yes, I know those are two big ifs, but I simply wanted to show those adjustments to the USHCN data to put things in perspective.

    The graph is from the NOAA webpage here:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

    Regards

  9. David in Cal says:
    December 18, 2013 at 5:14 am

    I am flummoxed at the continuing high degree of belief in GW models that mostly don’t match the data. We’re living in an alice-in-wonderland world.

    Make that “malice in blunderland”!

  10. the corrections make up a large portion of the warming:

    ===========
    there in a nutshell is man-made global warming, published on the governments own webs-site.

    0.6F in warming over the past century is due to the adjustments. Almost exactly the amount of warming that the IPCC says unexplained and therefore must be due to humans. Well, the proof is in that graph. The unexplained warming is due to humans. Due to biased adjustments of the data.

    The researchers expected temps to rise, so when they made corrections, they sub-consciously made these in a biased fashion, in line with their expectations. For example, they noticed errors when the temps were too low, but not when they were too high, so they only corrected the low errors while leaving the high errors.

    Sort of like when you go to the store and discover a price error in the scanner price. Have you ever seen an error where the price is too low? no, you will only find errors that are too high, because the staff are biased to correct errors that are too low and you are biased to find errors when the price is too high.

    It is how humans work. We have a subconscious bias in everything we do, acting in the direction of our own self-interest, and we are blind to this bias because it operates below the level of consciousness. This affects everything we measure and correct, including the temperature records. Thus the need for double blind controls in record keeping systems (accountants and auditors must be independent). The temperature records violate this requirement, and bias is inevitable.

  11. rogerknights says: “Make that “malice in blunderland”!”

    That would make a great title for a book.

    [Oops, should have checked. That is the title of a book.]

  12. You really have to wonder if a cooling trend would ever be detected when the needed “adjustments” are continually be applied in an upward direction.

  13. Dear Bob. Thank you for educating we hangers-on in the mechanics of sea-surface temperature and the effects of naturally varying phenomena upon the climate all year. If it wasn’t for your input on this vital area of Climate science I certainly would be none the wiser. May I wish you and yours a Happy and Peaceful Christmas and a Fulfilling and Prosperous New Year.

  14. ferdberple says:
    December 18, 2013 at 6:31 am

    the corrections make up a large portion of the warming:

    ===========
    there in a nutshell is man-made global warming, published on the governments own webs-site.
    —————————————————-
    But, why isn’t it called man – made up – global warming?

  15. Bob Tisdale says:
    December 18, 2013 at 6:33 am

    rogerknights says: “Make that “malice in blunderland”!”

    That would make a great title for a book.

    [Oops, should have checked. That is the title of a book.]

    Book titles can’t be copyrighted, so it’s OK to re-use one. (Not that I was aware of my duplication before I made it.) Here’s another great book title for the doings of the CACA Cult (I it have in mind for a compilation of essays in another field, but you or any other contrarian can use it too): No Fool Like a Wise Fool.

  16. ferdberple says:
    December 18, 2013 at 6:31 am
    …………
    The researchers expected temps to rise, so when they made corrections, they sub-consciously made these in a biased fashion, in line with their expectations. For example, they noticed errors when the temps were too low, but not when they were too high, so they only corrected the low errors while leaving the high errors.

    Sort of like when you go to the store and discover a price error in the scanner price. Have you ever seen an error where the price is too low? no, you will only find errors that are too high, because the staff are biased to correct errors that are too low and you are biased to find errors when the price is too high.

    It is how humans work. We have a subconscious bias in everything we do, acting in the direction of our own self-interest, and we are blind to this bias because it operates below the level of consciousness. This affects everything we measure and correct, including the temperature records. Thus the need for double blind controls in record keeping systems (accountants and auditors must be independent). The temperature records violate this requirement, and bias is inevitable.

    There ought to be a place on this site for “The Best of WUWT” comments like the one above. It would make a great impact on visiting journalists, etc.

    it could be split into 100 (or more) categories and subcategories. I’ve already got a 12,000 page Word document of good quotes I’ve copied from WUWT. Others probably have similar collections. Maybe the task of curating the Best-Comments-Place could be assigned to a volunteer–preferably someone who is already running a contrarian blog. (Not me, IOW–I’m too preoccupied with other stuff.)

  17. GISS is plain old fraud.
    I compared stations from the Iceland MetOffice with GISS

    Stykkisholmur, Iceland

    Keflavik, Iceland

    Akureyri, Iceland

    Teigarhorn, Iceland

    Holar Hornafirdi, Iceland

    Grimsey, Iceland

    [Grimsey data has also been shifted in time, see:
    ]

    Reykjavic, Iceland

    Vestmannaeyja, Iceland.

    Iceland Met Office

    Stations used by GISS in the Iceland region.

  18. I compared stations from the Iceland MetOffice with GISS

    Stykkisholmur, Iceland

    Stykkisholmur, Iceland

    Keflavik, Iceland

    Keflavik, Iceland

    Akureyri, Iceland

    Akureyri, Iceland

    Teigarhorn, Iceland

    Teigarhorn, Iceland

    Holar Hornafirdi, Iceland

    Holar Hornafirdi 3

    Grimsey, Iceland

    Grimsey B

    [Grimsey data has also been shifted in time, see:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/7360644@N07/with/11243544705/%5D

    Reykjavic, Iceland

    Vestmannaeyja, Iceland.

    Iceland Met Office

    http://en.vedur.is/

    Stations used by GISS in the Iceland region.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/find_station.cgi?dt=1&ds=14&name=&world_map.x=332&world_map.y=66

  19. @- ferdberple
    “The researchers expected temps to rise, so when they made corrections, they sub-consciously made these in a biased fashion, in line with their expectations. For example, they noticed errors when the temps were too low, but not when they were too high, so they only corrected the low errors while leaving the high errors.”

    Or in the case of the UAH satellite record they expected a falling temperature so applied a correction in the wrong direction until the disparity became so great that others noticed and corrected their mistake.

    However no amount of graph errors or mistaken corrections can cause the ice melt, sea level rise and shift in growing regions and seasons that validates the basic message of the many observations that confirm almost a degree C of warming over the last century.

  20. We have an interesting paradox or two that is brought up by plot 5.

    First paradox – during the period 1920-1950 the global temperature trends were up, up, up, although there was no CO2 to ‘blame’. CO2 levels were below 310 ppm and not increasing at a very high rate. How can this then be explained? What caused the temps to go up? If temperatures can increase for 3 straight decades and we could not blame CO2 THEN, how can we be sure that CO2 is causing ANYTHING NOW? Maybe something else caused temperatures to rise in the 1970′s – 2000 time period, just like in the 1920-1940 time-frame.

    Second paradox – anthropogenic (human caused) CO2 levels have never been higher than they are today, about 400 ppm, and have never been increasing at a rate as high as today. If this is the case, why the heck is the trend of the earth’s surface temperatures ZERO right now? (just like is was in 1900, 1904, 1915, and 1949 back then CO2 levels were relatively flat.) If increasing CO2 causes relentless global surface temperature increases, uh, where’s the warming?

  21. Walter Allensworth says: “First paradox – during the period 1920-1950 the global temperature trends were up, up, up, although there was no CO2 to ‘blame’. CO2 levels were below 310 ppm and not increasing at a very high rate. How can this then be explained? What caused the temps to go up? If temperatures can increase for 3 straight decades and we could not blame CO2 THEN, how can we be sure that CO2 is causing ANYTHING NOW? Maybe something else caused temperatures to rise in the 1970′s – 2000 time period, just like in the 1920-1940 time-frame.”

    Thanks, Walter. That was discussed in the first post that I linked. See the discussion under the heading of A MAJOR FLAW IN THE HYPOTHESIS ON HUMAN-INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING.

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/model-data-comparison-with-trend-maps-cmip5-ipcc-ar5-models-vs-new-giss-land-ocean-temperature-index/

    Regards

  22. At what point are we going to start talking in terms of Global Temperatures dropping since 2005? 7 years of dropping temperatures is getting to be more than weather.

  23. And here I thought November was unusually cold. Apparently that was only true for North America (for which the anomaly was indeed lower in November). I guess we have to brace ourselves for another several weeks of screaming Chicken Littles using “the warmest November ever and the warmest non-El-Nino year ever!!!!!” as a rallying cry. Great. If these numbers are to be believed (adjustments pending, I’m sure), they appear to be rather unfortunate.

  24. I can’t believe the jokers arguing about the satellite data set. If you think Christy and Spencer are the devil then use one of the other satellite sets – they all show about the same thing.

    The methodology behind the satellite measurements are, without argument from anyone with any sense, generally better than the surface temperature sets the NOAA uses. Are any of the warmists on record actually saying the surface record is better?

    I understand they think they are doing everyone a favor keeping the surface record so we can compare versus past results, but it’s not terribly helpful now. It’s clearly measuring something different than the satellite data, and IMHO it’s probably measuring the human impact on the temperature around the sensors.

    Once there is a world wide Reference surface temperature network with high quality sites like the one in the US and they exclude the crap sites, I’ll start paying attention to the surface number again. But even then, why? Satellite is just better.

  25. @ckb and some others?
    I see no one realizes, that the satelites mesures something else than the surface stations.
    The surface stations measures TEMPERTURES AT THE SURFACE.
    The satelites measures TEMPERATURES OF THE WHOLE LOWER TROPOSPHERE.

  26. Splice says: “I see no one realizes, that the satelites mesures [sic] something else than the surface stations.”

    And I see that Splice doesn’t realize that 70% of the global coverage of surface temperature measurements are not from “surface stations”, but from sea surface temperature data. BTW, the vast majority of us here understand the difference between surface temperature data and lower troposphere temperature data. And I believe, if you’d bother to look, you’ll also find numerous papers presenting both surface temperature anomaly data and lower troposphere temperature anomaly data side by side.

    Enjoy your holidays.

  27. Michael D says: “So as soon as NOAA stopped adding corrections, the temperature leveled off?”

    Are you sure than NOAA is no longer “adding corrections”?

    Regards

  28. ferdberple says:
    December 18, 2013 at 6:31 am
    the corrections make up a large portion of the warming:

    ===========
    there in a nutshell is man-made global warming, published on the governments own webs-site.

    0.6F in warming over the past century is due to the adjustments. Almost exactly the amount of warming that the IPCC says unexplained and therefore must be due to humans. Well, the proof is in that graph. The unexplained warming is due to humans. Due to biased adjustments of the data.

    The researchers expected temps to rise, so when they made corrections, they sub-consciously made these in a biased fashion, in line with their expectations. For example, they noticed errors when the temps were too low, but not when they were too high, so they only corrected the low errors while leaving the high errors.

    Sort of like when you go to the store and discover a price error in the scanner price. Have you ever seen an error where the price is too low? no, you will only find errors that are too high, because the staff are biased to correct errors that are too low and you are biased to find errors when the price is too high.

    It is how humans work. We have a subconscious bias in everything we do, acting in the direction of our own self-interest, and we are blind to this bias because it operates below the level of consciousness. This affects everything we measure and correct, including the temperature records. Thus the need for double blind controls in record keeping systems (accountants and auditors must be independent). The temperature records violate this requirement, and bias is inevitable.
    ++++++++++++++
    I notice when the price is too low, and do correct errors. I’d hate for someone to get in trouble because I under paid. That said, I completely agree with what you say based on climate scientists as a whole. Especially within the ranks of… well you know who.
    I did not mean to distract from the well written points you made.

  29. @Bob Tisdale
    The large part of posts here is a ridiculous discussion about that: if surface measurements are right and November was warmest or satellite measurement are right and it wasn’t. Most probably both are right. No one stopped this discussion, that’s why I think no one realized.

    PS: I see some people don’t realize that the sea surface is still a surfce.

  30. Neo says:
    December 18, 2013 at 6:43 am

    You really have to wonder if a cooling trend would ever be detected when the needed “adjustments” are continually be applied in an upward direction.

    Global average temperatures actually rise when the earth enters an ice age. Not a lot of people know that … I read it in Nature somewhere.

    /sarc

  31. It might be worth noting that there have been statements by climatologists in Russia and Germany (both reported, as I recall, on NoTricksZone) over the last several months arguing that we may be entering a Little Ice Age. This makes the statements of Trenberth et al. even more peculiar; they’re not just shutting out all those unwashed “deniers” but some portion of their own field as well.

    It’s pretty obvious by now that the consensus only exists among the consenting. This means, I guess, that it can continue for as long as they can remain standing.

  32. This is the result of the last 10 years of China and India pollution. Someone must stop them before it’s too late.

    [Really? . . if you intend to be facetious it would require more subtly than this . . mod]

Comments are closed.