2013 was 4th warmest year in the satellite era
From University of Alabama, Hunstville.
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
December temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.27 C (about 0.49 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.27 C (about 0.49 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: +0.06 C (about 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
November temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.19 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.16 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.23 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.02 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Global map for December:
For the year:
Notes on data released Jan. 3, 2014:
2013 was the fourth warmest year in the satellite era, trailing only 1998, 2010 and 2005, 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. The warmest areas during the year were over the North Pacific and the Antarctic, where temperatures for the year averaged more than 1.4 C (more than 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal. There were small areas of cooler than normal temperatures scattered about the globe, including one area over central Canada where temperatures were 0.6 C (about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the 30-year norm.
Global average temperature
(Departures from 30-year norm, degrees C)
1. 1998 0.419
2. 2010 0.398
3. 2005 0.260
4. 2013 0.236
5. 2002 0.218
6. 2009 0.209
7. 2007 0.204
8. 2003 0.187
9. 2006 0.186
10. 2012 0.170
11. 2011 0.130
12. 2004 0.108
13. 2001 0.107
14. 1991 0.020
15. 1987 0.013
16. 1995 0.013
17. 1988 0.012
18. 1980 -0.008
19. 2008 -0.009
21. 1981 -0.045
22. 1997 -0.049
24. 1983 -0.061
25. 2000 -0.061
26. 1996 -0.076
27. 1994 -0.108
29. 1989 -0.207
31. 1993 -0.245
34. 1985 -0.309
Compared to seasonal norms, in December the warmest area on the globe was the northeastern Pacific Ocean, where the average temperature for the month was 4.91 C (about 8.8 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. The coolest area was in central Manitoba, near Lake Winnipeg, where temperatures in the troposphere were 5.37 C (almost 9.7 degrees F) cooler than seasonal norms.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
As part of an ongoing joint project between UA Huntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy 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 —
Dr. Roy Spencer’s report:
The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2013 is +0.27 deg. C, up from +0.19 deg. C in November (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 12 months are:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2013 01 +0.496 +0.512 +0.481 +0.387
2013 02 +0.203 +0.372 +0.033 +0.195
2013 03 +0.200 +0.333 +0.067 +0.243
2013 04 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165
2013 05 +0.082 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112
2013 06 +0.295 +0.335 +0.255 +0.220
2013 07 +0.173 +0.134 +0.211 +0.074
2013 08 +0.158 +0.111 +0.206 +0.009
2013 09 +0.365 +0.339 +0.390 +0.189
2013 10 +0.290 +0.331 +0.250 +0.031
2013 11 +0.193 +0.160 +0.226 +0.020
2013 12 +0.265 +0.273 +0.257 +0.057
Tonyb says:
January 4, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Look Tony I have already said I was sorry and I don’t want to get into some sort of flame war over a misunderstanding but if you look properly, I was not addressing and quoting you, I was addressing and quoting a poster called ‘Climatereason’ I don’t know whether that is you as well but if it is perhaps you should not be posting under two names to avoid confusion.
Alan
Werner Brozek says:
January 4, 2014 at 11:37 am
Richard M says:
January 4, 2014 at 5:23 am
Looks reasonable but then that begs the question of why there was such a large amount of evaporation at that time. Any ideas from anyone?
Is it possible it was windier than normal, or that we had more cyclones, etc?
I think the biggest anomaly was in the North Pacific. Certainly that could have evaporated a lot of water, However, we often have warm anomalies over the oceans without this big of temperature rise. It could simply be an outlier based on the chaotic nature of our atmosphere. It would be nice if someone actually had a hypothesis. But I guess climate science is still so immature that this is not possible.
The big problem is what we have seen here. Alarmists start claiming 2013 was one of the warmest without admitting that the January+ anomaly was the big reason.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/poorer-countries-climate-change-case?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
Anyone else read this Moronic Rubbish.
regards
richardscourtney says:
January 4, 2014 at 2:51 pm
It’s quite simple Richard. Mann’s hockey stick ends in 1998. The graph dbstealey posted ends in 1855. He left out all the recent modern warming as shown in this graph that goes up to 2009.
http://i2.wp.com/hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klarge.png
richardscourtney says:
January 4, 2014 at 12:41 pm
climatereason:
So, according to Steven Mosher when they don’t have data”for locations in 1790″ they ‘predict’ data for 1790 it using assumptions based on data from 2013. If you don’t have the data from 1790 then you don’t have the data from 1790. Whatever Steven Mosher wants to claim, any algorithm which “predicts” the missing data is ‘making stuff up’.
—
That incredible, I’m constantly amazed at the level of asinine corruption of method, technique and analysis we are witnessing. When the first IPCC report came out in 1992 I could hardly believe anyone in Palaeo-science was actually taking it seriously (I mean, did they actually read this report?!) but when I realized they were I foresaw what terrible damage and impairment would be done to science, and its reputation, among lay-people and media.
And it’s all taken place as expected, the whirlwind of the fools continues to produce ‘research’ papers that actually get published rather than discarded out as brazen scientific frauds.
This ‘Steven Mosher’ critter is clearly manufacturing ‘data’ here, and pretending it’s equivalent to actual recorded observations, and someone who deliberately does that should be horse-whipped back to sensibility (if that’s even possible). He certainly should be completely condemned for it and run out of the Discipline.
I wonder what he thinks the word ‘Discipline’ actually refers to, with regard to science method and research?
Martin says:
“It’s quite simple Richard. Mann’s hockey stick ends in 1998. The graph dbstealey posted ends in 1855.”
Wake up, Martin. Global temperatures have been declining. That was my point.
Furthermore, Mann’s chart has been thoroughly debunked by McIntyre and McKitrick. That is why the IPCC can no longer publish it.
And the IPCC LOVED Mann’s chart, which was visually alarming. Very scary. But, it was bogus. Ever since M&M debunked Mann’s methodology, the UN has been forced to use [equally bogus] spaghetti graphs.
As we see, Mann’s Hokey Stick chart does not include the recent global temperature decline. Of course, none of this matters, since Mann cherry-picks only a short time frame out of the 10,700 year Holocene. We see that current temperatures are significantly lower than the past 10 millennia — when CO2 was much lower.
Try to use your noggin, Martin. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. You’re just scaring yourself, exactly like Chicken Little did when the acorn hit her on the head.
Finally, your second chart above shows recent dates that are not reflected in the chart data. The graph goes almost to 2010 but the “1855” has no corresponding place on the chart.
TB says:
January 4, 2014 at 4:30 pm
Box of Rocks says:
January 4, 2014 at 12:48 pm
TB says:
January 4, 2014 at 12:26 pm
WRT to your experiment…
So we can calculate how much energy the CO2 will aborsorb and then with proper instrumentation we can then measure that energy given off, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes. And I believe it is done both by ground (down-welling) and satellite (emitted to space at TOA).
No I was talking about your experiment…
What units of energy do you propose to use?
Richard M says:
January 4, 2014 at 5:46 pm
Alarmists start claiming 2013 was one of the warmest without admitting that the January+ anomaly was the big reason.
At the present time, the anomaly for 2013 is 0.236 and it is in 4th place being colder than 1998, 2010 and 2005. If we ignore the January number, the average is 0.213 and only 2002 in addition would be colder so the rank would be 5th. A single month does not always make much difference as its effect on the whole year is diluted by a factor of 12.
Looks like we need some help here:
[off-topic. Mod]
So, we have a .27C anomaly over an arbitrarily chosen 30 year period on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old. ppphhttttt.
Wake me when we have 4.5 million years worth of data. That would show a trend.
Alan Millar
I cant see any sign of your apology but that is ok, in long threads it is difficult to read all the comments and put them into context.
Climatereason is my web site in which you will find my numerous fact based sceptical articles, mostly on the way that historic temperatures are constructed.
all the best
tonyb
@dbstealey
My proposal: one troy ounce silver coin if no written agreement signed between us.
If you’d like to sign a written agreement then much higher values are possible.
Provide your e-mail for futher discussion (we have to discuss which data series we, El-Nino definition etc.)
@wbrozek
Since 1998 we had already 15 years with Earth’s average radiative imbalance >1 Watt/m^2. It’s enough to heat >100 meters of water depth and >100 meters of ground depth by 1 Celcius degree. The only thing needed now to have a record is no (or little) oceanic water convention (and no large volcano eruption simultaneously, but this much I’m ready to risk).
Hey Splice – how much energy is released or available in your 1 Watt/m^2?
At what altitude is that 1 Watt/m^2 at?
Thanks.
Splice,
Hold yer horses there, cowboy. There are parameters that need to be agreed, re: wbrozek and Box of Rocks — and I can add several more of my own.
Anyway, you wrote:
“I could bet large money…”
One ounce of silver is not ‘large’. You also commented:
“…all ‘skeptics’ will reject this proposition. No of them believes their own claims (that the warming have stopped).”
Why the quote marks around skeptics? I think that global warming has stopped, because that is what the real world data tells us. Belief has nothing to do with it. Facts are what matter.
What, you don’t believe global warming has stopped? Why not? Is your belief stronger than empirical evidence?
R. de Haan says:
January 3, 2014 at 1:33 pm
Had we have satellites in the 30′s….. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/january-3-1935-roses-and-daffodils-blooming-in-britain/
!932 was a hotter January in Central England with an average maximum of 9.5°C against 1935’s
7.1°C. In Central England January 2013 had average maximum of 6.1°C.
Splice says:
January 4, 2014 at 12:18 pm
“I could bet large money that the year after nearest future El Nino will be warmest on record. Unfortunately all “skeptics” will reject this proposition. No of them believes their own claims (that the warming have stopped).”
The claim of sceptics is that the warming has stopped at least for the moment and that it what the global temperature data sets show. Ironic that people like yourself are relying on El Ninos to try and prove your CAGW rubbish when apparently the alarmists incorrectly believe ENSO has no influence on global temperatures after the immediate event has ended.
Even if the next strong El Nino occurred in the next few years and caused global temperatures to beat the global yearly record by 0.1c or so how does that show the warming is at catastrophic levels? All it shows there is still a insignificant amount of warming and at that rate global temperature will rise no higher than 0.85c by 2100.
You do realize that 1 W/m2 would only warm 100m ocean depth to about 1c if it was shortwave radiation from solar energy.
Splice says:
January 5, 2014 at 2:48 am
“>It’s enough to heat 100 meters of ground depth by 1 Celcius degree.”
If UV cant penetrate through human skin how can it penetrate through 100M of ground? Ever heard of permafrost in sub-arctic regions and the ground remains frozen solid because the sun has little/no influence.
@Matt G
Record high temperature after next future El Nino is not the only bet I’m ready for.
Alternativly: we could bet the decade 2010-2019 will be at least 0.05C warmer than 2000-2009 or next ten years (2014-2023) will be at least 0.05C warmer than previous (2004-2013).
I don’t want to prove anything. I just want to earn some money from people which are so stupid that they belive that the warming have stopped (unfortunately it seems skeptics who claim the warming have stopped don’t believe their own claims).
>1W/m^2 is a radiative imbalance (difference between outgoing and incoming energy). It’s enought for me to be almost sure I will win those bets.
@Matt G
I’m here not to explain the thermal energy exchange processes too. Sorry.
Splice;
>1W/m^2 is a radiative imbalance (difference between outgoing and incoming energy). It’s enought for me to be almost sure I will win those bets.
>>>>>>>>>>
The issue isn’t if the temperature will be higher. The issue is by how much, and how much of the change can be attributed to which factors. This bet is fruitless because there is no way to resolve it one way or the other by any measurement criteria we currently have data for.
Box of Rocks says:
January 4, 2014 at 7:37 pm
TB says:
January 4, 2014 at 4:30 pm
Box of Rocks says:
January 4, 2014 at 12:48 pm
TB says:
January 4, 2014 at 12:26 pm
WRT to your experiment…
So we can calculate how much energy the CO2 will aborsorb and then with proper instrumentation we can then measure that energy given off, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes. And I believe it is done both by ground (down-welling) and satellite (emitted to space at TOA).
No I was talking about your experiment…
What units of energy do you propose to use?
W/m^2
Look up Beer Lambert Law
@dbstealey
1 ounce is the amount I could bet without any document signed. If higher we have to sign some kind of agreement.
Because they aren’t true skeptics – they don’t believe their own claims (that the warming have stopped).
@Splice – please document where skeptics claim that warming has stopped for the future.
And only a fool bets with a man unwilling to reveal his identity.
Splice says:
January 5, 2014 at 10:50 am
“>1W/m^2 is a radiative imbalance (difference between outgoing and incoming energy). It’s enought for me to be almost sure I will win those bets.”
With numbers this small the experimental errors are larger than this claim. I was just pointing out you understood that the 1W/m2 difference was only due to long wave radiation then it wouldn’t do what you claimed.
I don’t know how global low cloud with behave in future so for that reason difficult to say if there will be further warming, but going on solar activity and stabilizing of low global cloud levels temperature may cool a little over the next decade. The PDO already moving negative and the AMO should follow in about 10 years time. One thing I don’t trust are the data keepers of surface temperature data. You wouldn’t be as confident if for example still used HADCRUT3.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend
@davidmhoffer
“The issue is by how much, and how much of the change can be attributed to which factors”
For me it’s not the issue because I don’t want to discuss it (at least not here). I want to find a skeptic who believes that the warming have stopped to bet with.
@Matt G
No – you just don’t understant how sum of signal and noise behaves when signal goes up and noise goes down. One of simptioms of such a situation you could see below:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1978/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1978/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1978/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend