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.
@oldfossil,
When talking about trends, statistics is important. I’m not qualified to tell you why! LOL my best understanding is due to averaging the temperatures “error” is created. Statistically speaking, when you have an average, you have an error bar around that average. So, a slight trend up or a slight trend down means statistically no change.
Sorry WB, you answered RossP as I was replying.
BTW, I’m using the SkS / David Appell approach of NOT using ‘Autocorrel {t} period’
We’ve just started heading down in temperature now.
The 3 month lag with respect to the ENSO means that temps will go down for at least another 3 months. UAH will be closing in on 0.0C anomaly by April which will be close to -0.5C below the IPCC forecasts in AR4 and AR5.
Should this trendline come to pass (which looks even more likely now that the ENSO is heading into La Nina territory by the Spring), the climate model forecasts will be SO far off that the IPCC will have to recognize that something is wrong.
A make or break 6 months is coming up folks.
Philip – I have to straighten you out on how to report temperatures in the satellite era. First, there was a step warming caused by the super El Nino that raised global temperature by 0.3 degrees. It started in 1997 and was complete by 2001, a stretch of only four years. That step warming was the only warming during the entire satellite era and there has been no greenhouse warming whatsoever. The only reason those warm years you list are warm is that they sit on top of the high temperature platform created by the step warming. You must not average temperatures on one side of that platform with temperatures on the other side as you are doing – that average makes no physical sense. The first seven years after the step warming were a horizontal platform that was followed by the 2008 La Nina. That is the one whose cooling Trenberth could not fathom. We are now back to ENSO oscillations but it is not clear how they will settle down for the long haul. In the meantime, compare apples with apples and group the twenty-first century temperatures separately from what went on before. And as always, pay attention to ENSO phases: they can influence temperature by as much as half a degree or more.
“UAH v5.5 Global Temperature Update for December, 2012: +0.20 deg. C.”
“Our Version 5.5 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2012 is +0.20 deg. C.”
See UAH V5.5 Global Temp. Update for December 2012: +0.20 deg. C. (January 3rd, 2013), http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/uah-v5-5-global-temperature-update-for-december-2012-0-20-deg-c/
The December anomaly is 0.08 deg. C less than for November 2012.
Mosh’ , for historical reasons I’d like to take you seriously but cropping off the bit you got wrong and then posting a snarky reply does look a bit dishonest:
“By the end of 2012 the stupid meme of “global warming” stopping will be over.”
That was correctly attributed to you wan’t it?
“Solar nuts” really doesn’t tell me much about who we are supposed to join you in despising.
SN= all climate is due to SSN ?
SN= TSI matters?
SN= current lack of warming is “only” because of unusually lot solar activity masking CAGW?
SN= sunny days are warmer than cloudy days?
SN= maybe there is more to climate than CO2?
SN= None of the above?
Since you seem to have somewhat jumped the gun on the demise of this stupid meme, that gives us a little more time to poke fun at them before they’re forced to admit the game’s up.
So that we can better coordinate the mocking, could you please help me with how to identify the “nutters” ? Hell, I may even be one, I need to know.
Thanks.
Thank you Werner and BruceC –I should have read more carefully. Fancy a ScepticalScience tool providing that info !!!!
Quite frankly, seeing we are still, hopefully, climbing out of the the LIA, and considering that urban heat effects can add as much as 3-4C to a local temperature, I am amazed at the lack of records that have been set recently. I would have expected far more.,
Maybe it isn’t getting as warm as we thought. !!
Are we over the peak already? Darn
I wish WUWT would not publish this data as it gives sustenance to the AGW brigade. They will point to the hottest 12 years all being occurring in this century (year 2000 was the only year in this century not to be in the top twelve with 1998 still holding number one position).
Then they will look for reasons to explain this, and as we all know they use the old chestnut, carbon dioxide because it is a greenhouse gas and increasing in concentration in the atmosphere. It would be better for all concerned if WUWT didn’t publish this material but leave it up to the pro AGW sites to spruk their own cause.
P. Solar
[““By the end of 2012 the stupid meme of “global warming” stopping will be over.”
That was correctly attributed to you wan’t it?”]
Yes, here is the link:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/june-uah-0-369-c-hot-hot-africa-hot/#comment-99112
@Gail
There are so many competing candidates for making a contribution to global warming that there is getting to little space for CO2 to matter much. On the ascendancy are black carbon, solar+multiplier(s) and solar wind-induced ozone at different altitudes. Prof Lu here in Waterloo places a lot of stock in Antarctic ozone and its modulation. Those who have elevated CO2 to pre-eminence are experiencing a let-down. It’s OK. All it means is undoing the wasteful rulings on emissions and their pointless, self-inflicted harmful consequences (largely economic).
“get it? max is high”
This last one… not so high ! Sort of a “clayton’s” maximum.
Pleeeeease says:
January 3, 2013 at 4:41 pm
“I wish WUWT would not publish this data as it gives sustenance to the AGW brigade. ”
Oh, Pleeeeease!
The main reason I like this site is it gives the real deal (I’m not talking about comments). If the seas have evaporated I will read about it here and I will give it credance. If Big Fat Al tells me the seas have evaporated , I’m so sure he’s bullshitting me that I don’t even waste time checking.
P.Solar, I agree the moral high ground is to provide balance, but we are dealing with a mainstream media that is completely biased backing the AGW proponents at every turn. By WUWTpresenting both sides, it would appear that the AGW arguments are correct as there is nothing out there to present a credible alternative.
I suggest that you look up other sites like skeptical science if you want an alternative view. Please leave this site as the last bastion of alternative ideas on AWG.
““I wish WUWT would not publish this data as it gives sustenance to the AGW brigade. ”’
Can’t see why. The data shows that nothing much is happening..
CAGW looks pretty much like a NON-EVENT !!
RossP says:
January 3, 2013 at 4:33 pm
Thank you Werner and BruceC –I should have read more carefully.
I cannot really blame you since for some reason, all other links stood out in purple, but this one just blended in. However if any one knows of other sources for this data for 95% significance, I would be interested in knowing it. Thanks!
Early days but the meme, of every decade being hotter than the last, is not holdng up so far for the 2010s.
This decade is running cooler than the ‘noughties’ average so far.
Alan
Andyg55, because you can’t see anything, doesn’t mean someone won’t draw attention to the fact that 11 of the top 12 hottest years occurred in the last 12 years. People can use this as evidence that AGW is happening. Not all people share your analytical skills and will come same conclusion.
Pleeeeease says:
January 3, 2013 at 4:41 pm
I wish WUWT would not publish this data as it gives sustenance to the AGW brigade. They will point to the hottest 12 years all being occurring in this century
What does the W stand for? It is “WARMING”, not “BEING WARM”. As I have shown above, to the nearest year, and on three data sets, there has been NO warming for 16 years.
And on five data sets, there has been no 95% statistically significant warming for between 17 and 23 years.
Last year Michigan lost a good deal of its fruit crop after the Feb/Mar early spring followed by the normal freezes in April. Then the corn got incinerated in June and July. Bad year for farmers here.
Note that the planet has been much warmer frequently during the geologic past [we are currently at the top of the chart].
This is a relatively cool period, and a couple of degrees warmer would be entirely pleasant. The past warming peaks lasted hundreds of millions of years, and were up to 8ºC warmer than now with no ill effects.
AGW is such a minor forcing that it can be completely disregarded. It is a scare tactic that is based largely on pseudo-science. AGW is actually nothing but a conjecture; an opinion. There is really nothing to worry about regarding AGW. It is so minuscule that it cannot even be measured.
What is astonishing is the $7 – $8 BILLION in federal grants that are wasted every year on ‘climate studies’. It is pure anti-science pork, which could be funding real science instead of perpetuating the bogus AGW scare. Scientists in non-climate fields should be raising hell over being starved of funding, while the climate gravy train rolls on year after year.
.
trafamadore says: “Last year Michigan lost a good deal of its fruit crop after the Feb/Mar early spring followed by the normal freezes in April. Then the corn got incinerated in June and July. Bad year for farmers here.”
So, what’s your point?
Regardless of the climate, my current reality is an air temperature of 1 deg F outside my window as I write this. Cold temperatures such as those we are currently experiencing here in NH are very dangerous to those exposed, unlike the supposed “dangers” of CAGW…
P. Solar says:
January 3, 2013 at 4:31 pm
My advice to you is to do what I am doing as a new year’s resolution and that is to not respond to Mr. Mosher’s posts here at WUWT…maybe someday, his posts will be coherent, interesting, and less filled with ad homs and snark, but for now…
“Not all people share your analytical skills and will come same conclusion.”
There are always maximums at the top of a curve.
The AGW bunch can interpret things as they like, doesn’t make them correct, just look more stupid later.
WUWT should stick to presenting the facts and data , as they are, regardless of which way they might be interpretted.
This is NOT a propaganda site like many of the warmist sites , and it should not act like one.
Werner, people with a limited grasp of statistics would dismiss your statement. What they see is the last 12 years are the hottest (bar one exception), than any comparable period before. Therefore, by presenting this evidence, WUWT is promoting the concept that the earth is warming.
Looking at the data which shows that not only was it the ninth warmest in the past 34 years, but that it has been the eighth warmest year since 2000 reminds me of an old Soviet joke about Pravda and the accuracy of its reporting:
The Soviet and British ambassadors in Paris challenged each other to a race in order to show which country was more physically fit. The British Ambassador won. The London Times reported that the British Ambassador beat the Soviet Ambassador in a foot race. Pravda reported that the Soviet Ambassador in Paris finished second in a foot race and the British Ambassador finished second from last.