By Phillip Gentry, UAH
Globally, 2012 was ninth warmest of the past 34 years; In the U.S., 2012 sets a new record high temperature Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade December temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.20 C (about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year averagefor December.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.14 C (about 0.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.26 C (about 0.47 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
Tropics: +0.13 C (about 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
November temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.28 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.30 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.27 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.17 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released Jan. 3, 2013:
Globally, 2012 was the ninth warmest year among the past 34, with an annual global average temperature that was 0.161 C (about 0.29 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 30-year baseline average, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. 2012 was about three one-hundredths of a degree C warmer than 2011, but was 0.23 C cooler than 2010.
Eleven of the 12 warmest years in the satellite temperature record have been been since 2001. From 2001 to the present only 2008 was cooler than the long-term norm for the globe. Despite that string of warmer-than-normal years, there has been no measurable warming trend since about 1998. The long-term warming trend reported in the satellite data is calculated using data beginning on Nov. 16, 1978.
1979 through 2012
Warmest to coolest
1. 1998 0.419
2. 2010 0.394
3. 2005 0.260
4. 2002 0.218
5. 2009 0.218
6. 2007 0.202
7. 2003 0.187
8. 2006 0.186
9. 2012 0.161
10. 2011 0.130
11. 2004 0.108
12. 2001 0.107
13. 1991 0.020
14. 1987 0.013
15. 1995 0.013
16. 1988 0.012
17. 1980 -0.008
18. 2008 -0.009
19. 1990 -0.022
20. 1981 -0.045
21. 1997 -0.049
22. 1999 -0.056
23. 1983 -0.061
24. 2000 -0.061
25. 1996 -0.076
26. 1994 -0.108
27. 1979 -0.170
28. 1989 -0.207
29. 1986 -0.244
30. 1993 -0.245
31. 1982 -0.250
32. 1992 -0.289
33. 1985 -0.309
34. 1984 -0.353
(Degrees C above or below the long-term norm.)
While 2012 was only the ninth warmest year globally, it was the warmest year on record for both the contiguous 48 U.S. states and for the continental U.S., including Alaska. For the U.S., 2012 started with one of the three warmest Januaries in the 34-year record, saw a record-setting March heat wave, and stayed warm enough for the rest of the year to set a record.
Compared to seasonal norms, March 2012 was the warmest month on record in the 48 contiguous U.S. states. Temperatures over the U.S. averaged 2.82 C (almost 5.1° Fahrenheit) warmer than normal in March; the warmest spot on the globe that month was in northern Iowa. The annual average temperature over the conterminous 48 states in 2012 was 0.555 C (about 0.99 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms.
Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest area on the globe throughout 2012 was central Mongolia, where temperatures averaged about 1.39 C (about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms. The warmest area was north of central Russia in the Kara Sea, where temperatures averaged 2.53 C (about 4.55 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms for 2012.
Compared to seasonal norms, over the past month the coldest area on the globe was eastern Mongolia, where temperatures were as much as 4.55 C (about 8.19 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms. The “warmest” area was off the coast of the Antarctic near South America, where temperatures averaged 3.79 C (about 6.82 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms for December.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
The processed temperature data is available on-line at:
vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Stevo says:
“Does not that make it the 3rd coldest in the last ten years ???”
I have often wondered why even scientific skeptics insist on labeling the coldest years of the decade as ‘the 8th warmest of the last 10 years.’ ‘The 3rd coolest’ makes more sense.
As Werner Brozek shows, there has not been any acceleration of global warming. The long term global warming trend has remained at ≈0.35ºC per century. Recently, global warming has stalled.
Despite the rise in harmless, beneficial CO2, the global warming trend since the end of the LIA has remained the same. Therefore, CO2 has had no measurable effect. RIP AGW.
“should be interesting to watch them respond as the sun goes quiet and the temps ”
Uh Uhhh! Sorry Steven, wrong guess, would you like to go for double jeopardy where the scores can really change? (With apologies to Bruce Willis…)
###########################################
Sorry, look at sun spots we are coming close to a max, so the sun has yet to go quiet. See max is when the hump is high and decline is in the valley. We are at least 5 years away from the min.
get it? max is high. min is low. and if we get a long period of quiet ( what I was actually referring to ) then you will really see the solar nuts heads explode.
I don’t know Mosher’s real angle, but most of the evidence is pointing to very little human contribution to warming. But as more and more proof comes out, he’s digging his hole deeper and deeper. Is it something personal a “solar nut” said to him?
It would aid my comprehension of these anomalies if the actual value in degrees C, of the 30yr mean, was somewhere in the text.I click on the source, can’t locate this number.
Am I looking right at it and not seeing?
I am beginning to regard these anomalies as anoma-lies , as in a deliberate ruse, an information free distraction.
A real number attached to the estimated mean, the error range of this monthly guess, would do wonders for my evaluation of the deviations significance.
Only in government are people expected to nod and agree when they do not understand.
Sorry but anomalies are not information, without the mean being stated.
From what I have gleaned over the Xmas break, from WUWT August 2012 archive, from Richard Courtney 2010 Brief to UK govt, prompted by The Chiefio, Do Temps have a mean?, these discussions of warming and its significance may be pointless bafflegab.
So say it isn’t so and show a statistically ignorant fellow where this number lies.
Is one picture worth more than a thousand words
from the latest IPCC report?
Maybe yes, maybe not
but still it tells a lot .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.htm
@Steven Mosher says: January 3, 2013 at 11:41 am
Why should anybody be comforted that your prediction on the sun was wrong. How does this give us more confidence on your predictions for the climate?
Steven Mosher says: January 3, 2013 at 11:41 am
James Ard says: January 3, 2013 at 11:53 am
Steven, James is right, STOP DIGGING!
James, Steven’s problem is that he constantly bases his argument and pejoratives on the assumption that the admitted radiative properties of a trace gas will have a significant effect on ‘global temperature’. You’ll notice that most of his comments are either about the future according to his world view, or about models. ‘Real’ evidence appears to elude him and yet he tries to hide behind appeals to his own authority. Not entirely what the ‘scientific method’ is all about…
and so, where does 2012 rank in the Holocene ? … about 8,000th hottest ?
Is this the best their temperature fudging can do? Or have they become so obvious in their “adjustments” they don’t dare push it any further?
Steven Mosher says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:41 am
Nobody’s heads are going to explode, Steven–unless you’re directing the next ghastly ad for 350.org or something.
“Get it?” (Just quoting you)
(badabing!)
James Ard says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:53 am
I don’t know Mosher’s real angle, but most of the evidence is pointing to very little human contribution to warming. But as more and more proof comes out, he’s digging his hole deeper and deeper. Is it something personal a “solar nut” said to him?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you believe that CO2 is the climate control knob, the IPPC chart of components of radiative forcing has CO2 and CH4 as the main controllers of the temperature, then you can not give solar any room at the table.
Those who think the sun has some effect on the climate are quite willing to agree there is no single control knob and that water vapor, clouds, oceans and atmospheric effects also play a part.
If you are going to defend the IPCC’s position then you are going to defendthe position that the sun has very little effect on the climate about the same order of magnitude as aircraft contrails.
Please see: AGW Bombshell? A new paper shows statistical tests for global warming fails to find statistically significantly anthropogenic forcing… for perspective. HO HUM…so the 40’s were bitter cold, the 20’s were WARM (anecdotally), so were the 1880’s. SIGNIFICANCE…
Steve Mosher –
Yes, sunspots are nearing a maximum. A glance at Hadcrut3 with the sunspot record will show you that temperature tend towards low when sunspots are low, though the effect isn’t strong. When sunspots are low, TSI is low, so the lack of direct heating is consistent with the temperature correlation. Also, when sunspots are low, Galactic cosmic ray flux is high because the sun is quiet and the low Solar Field doesn’t shield the planet as much. The cloud seeding effect on albedo makes that also consistent with low temperature on sunspot lows. If we get a long period of quiet, it will be cold (like the Maunder minimum).
Can you explain what you are getting at, if it differs from this?
500 million years ago we had 15 times today’s levels of CO2…around 5,700ppm+. Did we burn up or green up? We greened up. As CO2’s ability to create heat diminishes as you stack it up it is clear we do not have an issue, so will the AGW crowd please put away your 34 year old playstations and learn to put things in perspective. Whatever is going on is nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide. It makes plants grow and they can’t get enough of the stuff…lovely jubbly as we say in the UK…yum yum…..got anymore CO2?…as the tomato said.
If I’m not mistaken RERT, Mosher thinks the runaway warming from increasing co2 will outweigh any miniscule effects your weak sun may have on temperatures. Proving once and for all that the IPCC has been telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
drbob has hit the nail on the head…..2012 is the 8,000th warmest in the Holocene. And thats just this Holocene!
Globally, 2012 was ninth warmest of the past 34 years – This means in plain English = It is a Global Cooling trend!!!!
Ouch Mosher writes “get it? max is high. min is low. and if we get a long period of quiet ( what I was actually referring to ) then you will really see the solar nuts heads explode.”
But obviously isn’t aware that a “quiet” sun has been measured to produce much less UV but more Visible. Thats right Mosher, a quiet sun actually heats up the earth at ground level with more energy in the visible ranges…or at least thats the conclusion of Haigh et al
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
So if the sun goes “quiet” and the earth heats up then thats what I’d expect. I’d also expect the stratosphere to cool with any reduced UV, falsely giving the appearance of the “CO2 fingerprint” at work.
Now we dont have enough data to be sure of this by any stretch, but its important to be aware of all the effects that have been measured (ie real data) occurring in our climate.
The current solar high is pretty damn low, Steven, in case you had not noticed!
But that’s not how my models work!
Since the models don’t work this way, this cannot be true.
/snark
Chris R. says:
January 3, 2013 at 10:56 am
To oldfossil:
The increases are not enough to be statistically significant.
Thanks Chris R. for attempting to answer the awkward question in my post, but “statistically [in]significant” isn’t a very satisfying explanation to a skeptic’s skeptic like myself.
In the absence of other replies, may I assume that “16 years of no warming” is just another urban legend that has gained currency through frequent repetition?
oldfossil,
Sixteen years of no global warming is factual. That is what creates such consternation among the alarmist crowd: not only has there been no acceleration of global warming, but for the past 16 years global warming has stopped.
It is hard to argue that AGW matters under these circumstances.
Werner Brozek @ur momisugly 10.20. Thank you for that analysis. In point 3 you say you went to a site to calculate the figures but did not actually say what the site was. Could you please give us a link to the site. Thanks.
Ross: See
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
If you wish to verify any such as RSS for yourself, put in 1990 for the start date; put in 2013 for the end date; click the RSS button; then click “calculate”. The second number needs to be larger than the first number in order to have the possibility for a slope of 0.
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
It’s there RossP, just above the ‘If you wish to verify’ statement. RSS Trend: 0.130 ±0.132 °C/decade (2σ).
Using their own graph, NO warming for 23 years.
Hehe.