Midyear Prognosis For Records in 2014 (Now Includes June Data)

yearly_activity[1]

Guest Essay By Werner Brozek, Edited by Just The Facts:

It was my intention to include all June data, however the June anomaly for Hadcrut3 is running really late again. However, Hadcrut3 has been tracking Hadcrut4 very closely, so assuming Hadcrut3 goes up as much in June as Hadcrut4 did, the WoodForTrees Temperature Index (WTI), would be unchanged in June.

Furthermore, the two satellite data for July show basically no change from June. As a result, it would be reasonable to assume that GISS and Hadcrut3 will also show no change or they will cancel each other out.

It is easy to calculate what average anomaly is needed for the rest of the year in order to set a new record. However it is easier than usual at the half way point in the year. One needs to take the average anomaly at the midpoint which is on row 15 of the table. Then one has to subtract this number from the average of the record high year. This number is on row 4 of the table. Then one has to add this to the record anomaly. I have done this for the six data sets I am covering in addition to UAH version 5.6 as well as WTI. WTI is a combination of Hadcrut3, UAH version 5.5, GISS and RSS. UAH and RSS are satellite data that determine temperatures not too far above Earth’s surface. Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4 and GISS cover surface data on Earth. Hadsst3 covers sea surface temperatures.

For WTI, the average so far is 0.231 when assuming June and July are the same as May. The 1998 record anomaly was 0.351. So the average over the next 5 months needs to be 0.519 or higher to set a record. This number has only been passed once, namely in February of 1998. That means that every monthly record from August to December needs to be broken to set a record. The graphic at the top shows WTI from 1997. The green line shows what WTI must average for the next 5 months to break the 1998 record. It will not be enough to simply reach that line in any given month. And if the August anomaly is below the green line, then the green line moves higher for the four remaining months. I believe the 1998 record for WTI is safe this year.

For UAH version 5.5, the average so far is 0.206. The 1998 record anomaly was 0.419. So the average over the next 6 months needs to be 0.632 or higher to set a record. This number has only been passed twice, namely in February and April of 1998. That means that every monthly record from July to December needs to be broken to set a record. I believe the 1998 record for UAH version 5.5 is safe this year.

For UAH version 5.6, the average so far is 0.242. The 1998 record anomaly was 0.419. So the average over the next 6 months needs to be 0.596 or higher to set a record. This number has only been passed twice, namely in February and April of 1998. That means that every monthly record from July to December needs to be broken to set a record. I believe the 1998 record for UAH version 5.6 is safe this year.

For RSS, the average so far is 0.253. The 1998 record anomaly was 0.550. So the average over the next 6 months needs to be 0.847 or higher to set a record. This number has only been passed once, namely in April of 1998. That means that every monthly record from July to December needs to be broken to set a record. I believe the 1998 record for RSS is safe this year. (RSS Update: The July value is 0.350. So the remaining five months now need to average 0.946 which has never been reached.)

For Hadcrut4, the average so far is 0.534. The 2010 record anomaly was 0.547. So the average over the next 6 months needs to be 0.560 or higher to set a record. This number has been beaten fairly often in the past. As well, it has been passed in each of the last three months. I believe the chances for a Hadcrut4 record this year are 50/50.

For Hadcrut3, the average so far is 0.489 assuming that changes in Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4 were similar in May and June. The 1998 record anomaly was 0.548. So the average over the next 6 months needs to be 0.607 or higher to set a record. This number has been passed several times in 1998 and on a few other occasions. However since El Nino has fizzled out for now, I do not expect a record in 2014, but I do not believe it can be ruled out completely either.

For Hadsst3, the average so far is 0.420. The 1998 record average anomaly was 0.416. So the average over the next 6 months needs to be 0.412 or higher to set a record. The June anomaly of 0.562 set an all time record for Hadsst3 beating the previous high of 0.526 set in July 1998. With such a high June anomaly, combined with a need for an average of only 0.412, Hadsst3 seems guaranteed to set a record this year. However satellite data for SST seem to tell a different story. See: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/07/2014-global-sst-not-looking-like-a-record-so-far/

For GISS, the average anomaly so far is 0.647. The 2005 record anomaly was 0.659. So the average over the next 6 months needs to be 0.671 or higher to set a record. This number has been beaten fairly often in the past. As well, it has been passed four times this year already. I believe the chances for a GISS record this year are 50/50.

In the parts below, as in the previous posts, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix.
The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on several data sets.
The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets.
The third section will show how 2014 to date compares with 2013 and the warmest years and months on record so far.
The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.

Section 1

This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 6 years and 1 month to 17 years and 10 months.
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since November 2001 or 12 years, 8 months. (goes to June)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 13 years, 8 months. (goes to June)
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 13 years, 6 months. (goes to June)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since February 2001 or 13 years, 5 months. (goes to June)
5. For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since March 2001 or 13 years, 4 months. (goes to June)
6. For UAH, the slope is flat since June 2008 or 6 years, 1 month. (goes to June using version 5.5)
7. For RSS, the slope is flat since September 1996 or 17 years, 10 months (goes to June).

The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the upward sloping blue line indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly.

The actual numbers are meaningless since all slopes are essentially zero. As well, I have offset them so they are evenly spaced. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 17 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on various data sets.

The next graph shows the above, but this time, the actual plotted points are shown along with the slope lines and the CO2 is omitted.

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

Section 2

For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website <a href=”http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html”. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.

On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 21 years.

The details for several sets are below.

For UAH: Since February 1996: CI from -0.005 to 2.338
For RSS: Since November 1992: CI from -0.007 to 1.853
For Hadcrut4: Since November 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.184
For Hadsst3: Since June 1994: CI from -0.003 to 1.656
For GISS: Since September 1997: CI from -0.027 to 1.198

Section 3

This section shows data about 2014 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the six data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst3, and GISS.
Down the column, are the following:
1. 13ra: This is the final ranking for 2013 on each data set.
2. 13a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2013.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that two of the data sets have 2010 as the warmest year and four have 1998 as the warmest year. (At least this was the case before June. However the volatile GISS has now put 2005 ahead of 2010.)
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5.mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year. Note that this does not yet include records set so far in 2014 such as Hadsst3 in June.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0.
8. sig: This the first month for which warming is not statistically significant according to Nick’s criteria. The first three letters of the month are followed by the last two numbers of the year.
9. Jan: This is the January 2014 anomaly for that particular data set.
10.Feb: This is the February 2014 anomaly for that particular data set, etc.
15.ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months. However if the data set itself gives that average, I may use their number. Sometimes the number in the third decimal place differs slightly, presumably due to all months not having the same number of days.
16.rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have if the anomaly above were to remain that way for the rest of the year. It will not, but think of it as an update 30 minutes into a game. Due to different base periods, the rank is more meaningful than the average anomaly.

Source UAH RSS Had4 Had3 Sst3 GISS
1.
13ra
7th 10th 8th 6th 6th 7th
2.
13a
0.197 0.218 0.487 0.457 0.376 0.60
3.
year
1998 1998 2010 1998 1998 2005
4.
ano
0.419 0.55 0.547 0.548 0.416 0.66
5.mon Apr98 Apr98 Jan07 Feb98 Jul98 Jan07
6.
ano
0.662 0.857 0.829 0.756 0.526 0.93
7.
y/m
6/1 17/10 13/5 13/8 13/4 12/8
8.
sig
Feb96 Nov92 Nov96 Jun94 Sep97
Source UAH RSS Had4 Had3 Sst3 GISS
9.Jan 0.236 0.262 0.509 0.472 0.342 0.68
10.Feb 0.127 0.162 0.304 0.264 0.314 0.43
11.Mar 0.137 0.214 0.540 0.491 0.347 0.68
12.Apr 0.184 0.251 0.643 0.592 0.478 0.71
13.May 0.275 0.286 0.584 0.539 0.477 0.76
14.Jun 0.277 0.345 0.620 0.575 0.562 0.62
15.ave 0.206 0.253 0.534 0.489 0.420 0.65
16.rnk 6th 7th 3rd 2nd 1st 3rd

Sources: UAH, RSS, HadCRU4, HadCRU3, HadSST3, GISS

If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 5.5 was used since that is what WFT used.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.5.txt
For RSS, see: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
For Hadcrut4, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
For Hadcrut3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3-gl.dat
For Hadsst3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3-gl.dat
For GISS, see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

To see all points since January 2013 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below.

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January 2014. This makes it easy to compare January 2014 with the latest anomaly.

Appendix

In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.

RSS

The slope is flat since September 1996 or 17 years, 10 months. (goes to June)
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since November 1992: CI from -0.007 to 1.853.
The RSS average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.253. This would rank it as 7th place 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. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.218 and it is ranked 10th.

UAH

The slope is flat since June 2008 or 6 years, 1 month. (goes to June using version 5.5 according to WFT)
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since February 1996: CI from -0.005 to 2.338. (This is using version 5.6 according to Nick’s program.)
The UAH average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.206. This would rank it as 6th place if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.662. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.197 and it is ranked 7th.

Hadcrut4

The slope is flat since February 2001 or 13 years, 5 months. (goes to June)
For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since November 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.184.
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.534. This would rank it as 3rd place if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.547. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.829. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.487 and it is ranked 8th.

Hadcrut3

The slope is flat since November 2000 or 13 years, 8 months. (This goes to June, but this is an estimate, as are the other numbers below.)
The Hadcrut3 average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.489. This would rank it as 2nd place 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 go back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.457 and it is ranked 6th.

Hadsst3

For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since March 2001 or 13 years and 4 months. (goes to June).
For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since June 1994: CI from -0.003 to 1.656.
The Hadsst3 average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.420. This would rank it as 1st place if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.416 prior to 2014. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in July of 1998 when it reached 0.526. This is also prior to 2014. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.376 and it is ranked 6th.

GISS
The slope is flat since November 2001 or 12 years, 8 months. (goes to June)
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since September 1997: CI from -0.027 to 1.198.
The GISS average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.65. This would rank it as third place if it stayed this way. 2005 was the warmest at 0.66. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.60 and it is ranked 7th.

Conclusion

Trying to figure what is going to happen six months in advance is something like trying to figure out who will win an election when half the votes are counted. Some of the time it is obvious, however surprises can always occur. In a few months from now, the picture for any present close calls should be much clearer.

P.S. UAH July Update:

The July anomaly for version 5.5 was 0.221. As a result, the average for the first seven months is 0.208 and 2014 would rank in 6th place if it stayed this way. The time for a slightly negative slope increases to 6 years and 2 months, from June 2008.

GISS July Update:

The July anomaly was 0.52. As a result, the average for the first seven months is 0.64 and 2014 would rank in 3rd place if it stayed this way. The time for a slightly negative slope decreases to 9 years and 11 months, from September 2004.

Hadsst3 July Update:

The July anomaly was 0.552. As a result, the average for the first seven months is 0.439 and 2014 would rank in 1st place if it stayed this way. The time for a slightly negative slope took a huge hit, decreasing to 5 years and 5 months, from March 2009. However the time for statistically significant warming decreased by 2 months to August 1994, or an even 20 years. (C.I. = -0.014 to 1.666)

RSS July Update:

The July anomaly was 0.350. As a result, the average for the first seven months is 0.267 and 2014 would rank in 6th place if it stayed this way. The time for a slightly negative slope decreased slightly to 17 years and 9 months, from November 1996.

Hadcrut3 is still not in for June! Does anyone know why? Thanks!

About these ads

19 thoughts on “Midyear Prognosis For Records in 2014 (Now Includes June Data)

  1. This number has only been passed once, namely in February of 1998. That means that every monthly record from August to December needs to be broken to set a record.

    Or every number needs to be ‘adjusted’ to set a record. That’s it then. We will see a record warm year at the same time as evreybody feels a record cold year. Easy.

  2. If a moderate El Niño develops the GISS temp and maybe others will likely set a record this year. (Right?)

  3. rogerknights says:
    August 23, 2014 at 1:52 pm
    If a moderate El Niño develops the GISS temp and maybe others will likely set a record this year. (Right?)

    It is almost too late for an El Nino later this year to have much further influence since it takes a few months for the effects to kick in. However GISS and Hadcrut4 are basically on the verge of setting a record any way, even without an El Nino. There is no way that any of the satellite data sets will set a record in 2014.
    This brings up the question of adjustments alluded to by Stephen. If Hadcrut4 and GISS set records, but RSS and UAH remain in sixth place, it would look rather odd. I know satellites and ground based records measure different things, but with the lapse rate, if one sets a record, the other should not be far behind.

  4. There is always adjustments that change the historical calculations as well. With these, anything is game.

  5. The adjustments alluded to are also made to past temperatures which would drop the previous highs. Does this show up now ie is the 1998 and 2005 figures currently used ie now different from when they were set .
    If not, obviously why not?
    It would seem an extremely odd programme that drops the past and is calculated daily (Zeke) that would somehow be able to maintain 1998 and 2005 as pristine.
    Can Werner or anyone else confirm that?
    His stated past highl yearly highs should not be stable figures.

  6. I really wish the site would have an acronym list. It’s very frustrating when people won’t define their terms on first reference, out of an assumption that “everyone” knows.

  7. angech says:
    August 23, 2014 at 3:45 pm
    Does this show up now ie is the 1998 and 2005 figures currently used ie now different from when they were set .

    We should allow some adjustment in January for the previous year since some numbers from China for example may come in late. But other than that sort of thing, all data sets except GISS maintain their 1998 and 2005 records as stated. However new versions come out from time to time with different numbers. For example, Hadcrut4 replaces Hadcrut3, Hadsst3 replaces Hadsst2, UAH version 5.6 replaces version 5.5, etc. The new version will often have different numbers for 1998 and 2005. But once these numbers are given, they stay that way. However Hadcrut4 was an exception since they had major adjustments shortly after it came out. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/12/met-office-hadley-centre-and-climatic-research-unit-hadcrut4-and-crutem4-temperature-data-sets-adjustedcorrectedupdated-can-you-guess-the-impact/

    But as for GISS, they are something else! For example, in January this year, 1998 was 62, 2010 was 67, and 2005 was 66. Today, 1998 is 61, 2010 is 66, and 2005 is 65. But last month, 2005 was also 66. And it turned out that last month, to 3 significant digits, 2005 was actually in first place. But in all other months this year, 2010 was in first place.

  8. Perhaps where the title says “now includes June data” you meant July data? There are also a few other places in the article where “June” should be replaced with “July” (not all of them though). Please check.

  9. I respond to myself… no, it is correct, as incredible as it seems Hadcrut3, in Aug 24th, still has no June data. Perhaps they are discontinuing it?

  10. Nylo says:
    August 23, 2014 at 6:51 pm
    Perhaps where the title says “now includes June data” you meant July data? 

    I know what you mean. ☺
    When I wrote the post, Hadcrut3 for June was not in yet, and it still is not in! So I waited, and in the meantime, other data sets showed up for July so I wanted to give you the most up to date information at the time this article was published. As for the June data, note that the table includes all June anomalies that I had or estimated in the case of Hadcrut3. I could not say July data yet since Hadcrut4 is not in for July yet.

    P.S. As you say, they may be discontinuing Hadcrut3.

  11. Joseph Bastardi says:
    August 23, 2014 at 7:06 pm
    what about NCEP which is most accurate and is reflective more of satellite era data

    Thanks to justthefacts, I found out that NCEP means
    “National Centers for Environmental Prediction”.

    But I must confess I do not know what you are asking. Perhaps justthefacts can help?

  12. Werner Brozek says: August 23, 2014 at 7:24 pm

    I found out that NCEP means
    “National Centers for Environmental Prediction”.

    But I must confess I do not know what you are asking. Perhaps justthefacts can help?

    NCEP offers several surface temperature analysis and reanalysis products, including NCEP GODAS Ocean Analysis, NCEP Operational Analysis, NCEP Marine, NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis, NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Products Derived at PSD, NCEP/DOE Reanalysis II, all of which sare available here:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/tables/temperature.html

    Nick Stokes has a bunch of NCEP products on his climate plotter;

    http://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/climate-plotter.html

    but not their temperature products, WFT doesn’t have any NCEP products;

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/

    nor does SkS:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

  13. justthefactswuwt says:
    August 23, 2014 at 4:46 pm
    Jake J says:August 23, 2014 at 4:02 pm
    I really wish the site would have an acronym list.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/resources/glossary/

    —–

    I could not find Hadcrut or Hadsst in the WUWT glossary. Shouldn’t all the temperature data-set acronyms be in the glossary?

    Also, the following is listed for GISS:
    “GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Columbia Univ, NYC. Dr. James Hansen)”
    Shouldn’t Hansen’s name be replaced with that of Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt, who is now the Director?

  14. Louis says: August 23, 2014 at 8:16 pm

    I could not find Hadcrut or Hadsst in the WUWT glossary. Shouldn’t all the temperature data-set acronyms be in the glossary?

    Yes, added i.e.:

    HadCRUT Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit – Temperature
    HadSST Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit – Sea Surface Temperature

    Also, the following is listed for GISS:
    “GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Columbia Univ, NYC. Dr. James Hansen)”
    Shouldn’t Hansen’s name be replaced with that of Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt, who is now the Director?

    Yes, updated i.e.:

    GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Columbia Univ, NYC. Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt)

    HadCRUT Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit – Temperature
    HadSST Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit – Sea Surface Temperature

    Thank you

  15. “There are two major global indices of temperatures that incorporate station data: CRU and GISS. Both rely to different extents on the data from NOAA’s GHCN. A large proportion of the GHCN network is composed of the USHCN.
    Werner,
    if GISS incorporates USHCN then Zeke says that adjustments have to be made backwards and downwards in the past even on a daily basis if available.
    Further all the data is adjusted data.
    Does this not make a new yearly record exceedingly suspicious if you can point to a higher 1998 in the past on their own past records and invalidate GISS from comparisons against the other “real data” records.

  16. angech says:
    August 24, 2014 at 2:04 am

    Does this not make a new yearly record exceedingly suspicious if you can point to a higher 1998 in the past on their own past records and invalidate GISS from comparisons against the other “real data” records.

    When it comes to adjustments, I agree that some are useful. For example, if we have readings in the past that were always taken at 12:00 AM and 12:00 PM and we may know that on the average December 15 day for example, the high value is 2 C warmer and occurs at 2:00 PM and the low value is lower by 3 C and occurs at 6 AM.
    However what makes no sense to me is why there are continuous adjustments to 1998 values, 16 years later. Every time they adjust, are they not admitting that all previous adjustments missed the mark somehow?
    As for 1998, GISS has it in fourth place and Hadcrut3 in first place.

Comments are closed.