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.
AndyG55
Eucla max recorded temp….. 47.9 °C (118.2 °F) on 3 January 1979 ie. right at the beginning of the warming scare.. NOTHING since.
The 86 Euclans just got themselves a new max record: 48.2 °C. Let’s hope it is the end of polynomial disintegrated global warming for the Euclans.
It is not all bad. Euclans can fry eggs by putting the pan out in the sun. Cheap. Quick.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CFUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweather.yahoo.com.au%2Flocal-climate-history%2Fwa%2Feucla&ei=WFzmULmXOY-ImQWM4YAY&usg=AFQjCNHAB36UYnGB5UxvXYw6GMq0EanZKA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dGY
AndyG55
“So, the US doesn’t count? Really?”
No, not significantly.
Wrong.
Transposing the immortal words of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, in relation to international climate policy The US is the firstest and the mostest.
If the US gets climate policy right, the rest of the world will follow.
Pleeeeease says:
January 3, 2013 at 9:09 pm
I’m not going argue for or against Werner’s comments. Your earlier messages said that this months anomaly should not be reported at WUWT because the Warmistas would spin it. Of course they will. Anti-warmistas will spin it too. The frigging data point is what it is: A data point in a series. From the baseline of the series, the newest data point is higher. That’s all the post from UAH said and it should be reported as just that. Trying to hide that number is just wrong.
Imagine not reporting what the DJIA is today because “someone” doesn’t want others to spin it. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is a calculation. It might mean something and it might not and if you compare it to the past 30 years, both are higher now. Maybe we shouldn’t report unemployment numbers because someone will spin it. All of those examples are ‘questionable’ calculations, and some will be revised as new data arrives or processes are used. Like the number of weather stations used to calculate global temperature, the DJIA is adjusted with new companies entering to replace others. Doesn’t matter whether You or I agree with the choices made. The number is what it is.
“I am having such a hard time understanding how so much cold still causes the warmest December.”
Hansenian statistics
Watcher “has been on steady course doing so since temps have been measured around the 1880s. ”
Yep, no anthopogenic signal AT ALL !!!
Day by day, good list. We need that sort of information to counter the ‘number of warm records broken’ meme that the AGW crowd keep coming up with. I wish I had your list back in July when Reuters reported15,000 warm records were broken, but of course that was in summer and your list only came out in December.
AndyG55 says:
January 3, 2013 at 4:37 pm
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. !!
——-
The Wikipedia article on the LIA notes several facts that contradict your assertion:
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report (TAR) of 2001 describes areas affected by the LIA:
“Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries…”
“The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the 19th century or early in the 20th century.”
–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Gosh, aren’t people who do actual research that contradicts urban legends *annoying*??
Werner Brozek says:
January 3, 2013 at 10:51 am
Matthew W says:January 3, 2013 at 9:57 am“9th warmest of the past 34 years”So?????
And with 2011 coming in at 10th place and 2008 coming in at 18th place, three of the last five years were not in the top 8. That indicates to me that any warming that may be occurring for whatever reason is certainly NOT catastrophic!
——-
This is yet another example –among many here by commenters–of cherry-picking to make a point that’s scientifically invalid:
“…three of the last five year s were not in the top 8 [the cherrypicking]…[so therefore] any warming that may be occurring…is certainly NOT catastrophic [the invalid conclusion based on a long-term context].”
Of course it isn’t catastrophic. I haven’t read of any real climate scientists claiming that over a 10-, 16- or even 20-year period that the warming trend is “catastrophic.” The long-term trend indicates, according to models* that are quite accurate, that catastrophic consequences will occur…again over the long term.
This is not only cherry-picking data to make an invalid/untrue point in a long-term context, but a misleading source of fuel that promotes ignorance among skeptics.
A qualified scientist wouldn’t make such claims based on such limited data. There simply isn’t enough data, over a long enough period, to reach such conclusions.
*In case someone wants to counter with the debunked “models are inaccurate” claim, check the evidence: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Dale says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:30 am
“There was a report in the Herald-Sun yesterday from the Aussie BOM stating that 2002-2012 in Australia was the 5th warmest 10 year period on record and that 2012 wasn’t that warm here. Do you think I can find that article now? Nope, probably removed for being inconvenient.”
Here’s the BOM report:
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20130103.shtml
Quote: “Globally, 2012 was ninth warmest of the past 34 years.”
After my calculations, this puts 2012 just slightly above the average of the past 34 years. after all, we are talking 0.14 degrees Celsius here! Omygod, we’re all goinna fry! Not…
Also, there is a clear trend for cooling visible in the trend over the past 10 years.
I bet, 2013 will be called “the tenth warmest year of the past 35 years”.
So what gives?
Pleeeeease says:
January 3, 2013 at 5:25 pm
>>
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 quite happy to “leave” this site as it is , it was you that was asking for a change in policy.
I don’t think you idea of not publishing data you think does not support your views will get much traction around here.
Keep track of all the global temperature datasets here.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/category/global-temperature-updates/
If ENSO remains neutral, the temperatures for the next few months should be comparable with 2001-2, the last time ENSO conditions were neutral for a long period.
Current UAH figures suggest temperatures are about the same as then.
‘9th warmest in the last 34 years..’
Surpirised the ‘warmists’ haven’t jumped on that to state that it was the ‘9th warmest on record’ – ‘climate’ having actually started, as everyone knows, in 1979…
Henry@werner
if you plot the ranking’s results from 1992,
1992 -0.289
1993 -0.245
1994 -0.108
1995 0.013
1996 -0.076
1997 -0.049
1998 0.419
1999 -0.056
2000 -0.061
2001 0.107
2002 0.218
2003 0.187
2004 0.108
2005 0.26
2006 0.186
2007 0.202
2008 -0.009
2009 0.218
2010 0.394
2011 0.13
2012 0.161
you do get a reasonable binomial plot
which seems to have peaked around 2007.
However, that would seem far too late a peak, according to my own data set.
RSS seems to be more correct, showing a decreasing trend from 1998
The linear trend from UAH from 1998 is opposite that of [RSS].
I cannot figure out why this is so.
Henry says
sorry that should be
the linear trend from UAH from 1998 is opposite that of RSS.
I cannot figure out why this is so.
Pleeeeease says:
Pleeeeeese note that at this site you do not need to say the same thing in 8 separate posts for the average reader to understand your point.
to illustrate the point I am making
i.e. why I say UAH must be wrong
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2013/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2013/trend
@RACookPE1978 says:
>To the contrary, there is a very real possibility that “CO2 IS responsible for the late 20th century warming” … but not because of the its much-hyped and research greenhouse gas effects and their exaggerated (always positive!) model-driven feedbacks.
OK…. how exactly?
>Rather, consider whether the earth’s land-only albedo – land, tundra, evergreen and pine forests, deciduous forests, fields, jungles, steppes, grasslands and grapevines – has “gone greener” by perhaps 5-8% over the past 50 years. All that would be required is a small change from 0.31 to 0.33 for example.
What has that got to do with CO2? CO2 fertilisation? The shrinking of the Sahara desert means a lot more ‘dark matter’ in the form of grass and shrubs but that is hardly caused by CO2, it is caused by the cyclical shift in the desert/Sahel line.
>…as fertilizer, water, and CO2 that now available.
Well, I get your point but that is not a dominant change in my view. Increased plant growth by area, maybe, but that is from climate cycles not really CO2. The difference in absolute growth rates (which varies with plant type) is still quite small and definitely could not have been responsible for the warming that is supposed to be driving the process. What came first? Warming then CO2 then growth? In that order? I think I agree.
>Would not more green mass increase albedo over every square kilometer capable of bearing life, but not change extreme deserts and mid-continent (high, dry, desolate bare rock) deserts and extreme mountain ranges?
Well, yes, but it is the consequence of warming, not the dirver of it. One could argue that once it is started it is self-reinforcing. Same as once warming starts at the end of an ice age, the released CO2 drives further warming. It is possible, but the limiting effect of melting ice absorbing CO2 starts to dominate towards the end of the melting. This effect is visible in the ice core samples. In fact so is hte warming kicking off the CO2 rise. What we know for sure is that we do not know for sure, and that CO2 from human emissions is very minor in the whole scheme of things even if CO2 is a major player.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
January 4, 2013 at 7:01 am (responding to my comment pointing out the CO2 drivers that increase albedo via greater plant growth)
I think you missed the entire point: EVERY plant and plankton alive now on earth is growing 8% to 27% faster, greener, and taller because of the increase in CO2 over the recent years: exact increase depend on type of plant and leaf (I, II, or III) but every chlorophyll-using living thing is producing more energy and sugars and plant growth because of the increase in CO2 – some also because of the 1/5 of one degree of heating that we have, but all because of the CO2 increase.
Now, it doesn’t matter whether that CO2 is fossil-fueled released (man-caused) volcanic, or sea-water-heating … it is in the atmosphere and is being used.
Additional farm-fertilized plant growth is also happening as we produce nitrates and phosphates, but that is minor but only important locally, such as crops and river runoff. Present, you can’t ignore it, but not a global affair. Further, in the mid-Canada and mid-Siberian tundra and forest, there is no artificial fertilizer being released. 8<)
If you look at global CO2 distribution, CO2 REDUCES as the northern hemisphere westerly winds cross the land of America, Europe, and greater Russia-Siberia. This is because of the plants sucking it out of the air. Such removal would "cancel" the supposed OC2 released by industries and automobiles – since it is being MEASURED going down as the winds cross industrial areas (that are shared with plants by the way), but increases where CO2 is NOT being sucked out into plants: the Sahara, the Gobi, the US deep southwest and great basin, the mountains of Turkey, Mongolia, and India. One of the lowest CO2 areas is jsut east of the Amazon basin for example ….
Watcher:
It pleases me that your trolling is failing because your points are so silly that nobody bothers to address them, especially when you cite the laughable SkS and the Connelly-corrupted wicki as your sources.
I am now responding to your posts solely to ensure that any uninformed onlookers are not misled by your twaddle, and I hope everybody will continue to ignore your silly posts.
The nature of your points is demonstrated by, for example, your post at January 4, 2013 at 12:25 am where you cite the TAR as saying
OK, Mastermind, then please tell us
(a) how it is known that the LIA ended in the latter half of the 19th century or early in the 20th century?
and
(b) if it did then end, when will the warming that is recovery from the LIA end?
and
(c) what will global temperature be when recovery from the LIA is completed?
Don’t cite wicki’s version of the TAR: quote the TAR and reference where the TAR says what you claim. And don’t provide any more of your copy-and-paste twaddle from propaganda sites until after you have provided the required clarifications which I list as (a) to (c).
If you do provide the clarifications then you will have contributed to the thread.
All copy-and-paste trolls are a nuisance and – so far – your posts are wasting space on the thread.
Richard
Well, at the very least, we’re now focused on the satellite records & correctly ignoring any of the doctored surface records. Even the warmers don’t say much about the surface stations any more. That’s an improvement…
Pleease seems like a rather decent attempt at a concern troll.
If his/her suggestion were followed, WUWT could be more easily dismissed as an anti-science propaganda blog. They already try to do that – why give the claim credence?
henry@werner brozek
do you know why the trends of these two satellite data is exactly opposite ?
(I am trying to locate the error in UAH because it puzzles me
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2013/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2013/trend
there must be an obvious reason but I am missing it…
Compared to most other data sets, UAH is reading consistently too low.
I would therefore (again) say that UAH has issues with calibration, which still have not been sorted out (if I go by current woodfortrees’s data)
linear trend from UAH from 1998 is opposite that of RSS.
I cannot figure out why this is so.
Presently, UAH is using version 5.5, however a more accurate version 6 has been in the works for a while, but it is not completed. Hopefully it will narrow the gap when it is done.
From Dr. Spencer on January 3, 2012:
“I’m making very good progress on the Version 6 of the global temperature dataset, and it looks like the new diurnal drift correction method is working for AMSU. Next is to apply the new AMSU-based corrections to the older (pre-August 1998) MSU data.”