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
I agree. Sprite = Troll with bad manners and a childish demeanour.
@richardscourtney
No links to your publications in scientific peer-revied literature, no link to IPCC document about pause you claim exists. I still think you are laying about almost anything – also about that you are making no claims.
But maybe instead you’d like some money from me – just take one (of more) of bets I proposed.
We could also agree that if you lose we will bet identically about next decade (i.e. 2020-2029 will be warmer than 2010-2019) if you believe direction of future trend will is random.
I could bet because I know there is a signal which is going up, just sometimes the noise is going down which causes sum of them not to increase. And I think you know that too, just you are making opposite claims you don’t believe in.
@RichardLH
… but you won’t bet. You don’t believe that the warming has stopped too.
Splice says:
January 6, 2014 at 4:47 am
@RichardLH
… but you won’t bet. You don’t believe that the warming has stopped too.
I have been trying to get some sense out of what it is you want to bet about. So far all we have is that you seem to believe that you have a better handle on science, data and the future than everyone else here. And that you want to bet that you do. But nothing concrete or definitive.
Have you even bothered to look at the graphs I provided. Have you bothered to answer any of the questions put to you? Are you anything other than a troll?
Splice:
So you want to bet that the purple line in the graph below (CO2) is the main component of temperature trends going into the future?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.35
Good match from about 1970 on, less so before that and most probably less so after 2013.
@RichardLH
For purpopose of the bet there is no matter what is the source of the signal which systematically goes up. I’m looking for a “skeptic” who believes that such a signal stopped to go up or doesn’t believe such a signal exist
It could be fitted differently, for instance:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.0075/offset:-2.45
But its all just very rough aproximation: co2 scale should be logarithmic not linear, there existed increases in concentration of other gases like methane, N2O, HCFCs etc.
Spice:
“It could be fitted differently, for instance:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.0075/offset:-2.45”
Indeed it could. However there is just one small problem with that simplistic conclusion. That is the level of CO2 concentration before 1840. There is no question that the temperature was higher for about 100 years prior to that point in time (and that the 1840-1880 low point was the last of a set of low points about 100 years apart stretching back through the whole of the Little Ice Age).
We are now in the (cyclic) recovery from that series of low points. This can be seen by the blue line in the referenced graphs.
Are you claiming that CO2 exhibited a similar cyclic pattern back in time or are you agreeing that insufficient allowance has been made for natural components?
When do you expect this particular 100+ year cycle to stop, at what level and why?
@RichardLH
“before 1840. There is no question that the temperature was higher for about 100 years prior to that point in time ”
Most reconstructions show lowest temperatures about year 1700 ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png ) and no of them shows 60-year cycle traces.
I don’t think it’s a cycle, I think it’s a result of radiative imbalanse, it will stop when radiative balance is restored.
Splice;
I don’t think it’s a cycle, I think it’s a result of radiative imbalanse, it will stop when radiative balance is restored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At equilibrium, the radiative balance before CO2 doubles is precisely the same as the radiative balance after CO2 doubles. Look up Stefan-Boltzmann Law and study it until you understand it. Then you’ll be well on your way to understanding how the GHE actually works instead of how you think it works. You’ll also have an inkling of why the bet your propose would prove nothing either way. If you want to learn the science, I suggest you cease berating richardscourtney and start asking him some questions. You will quickly learn that he is one of the most knowledgeable and able scientists active in this forum.
I believe I have found the probable cause for the upward (positive) correction of the baseline temp of 0.3°C in 2002. The Aqua Satellite was launched/came on stream in 2002 and all other satellite “adjustments” were based on it as it maintains its altitude.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/
Something to note from the page is: RANDOM WALK which is NOT specified (ie margin of error):
For instance, since there have been ten successive satellites, most of which had to be calibrated to the one before it with some non-zero error, there is the possibility of a small ‘random walk’ component to the 30+ year data record.
ALSO
“NOT MUCH BETTER THAN 1 DEGREE”
Because of various radiometer-related and antenna-related factors, the absolute accuracy of the calibrated Earth-viewing temperatures are probably not much better than 1 deg. C. While this sounds like it would be unusable for climate monitoring, the important thing is that the instruments be very stable over time; an absolute accuracy error of this size is irrelevant for climate monitoring
THERE YA GO, FROM THE HORSES MOUTH!
Splice says:
January 6, 2014 at 9:11 am
“Most reconstructions show lowest temperatures about year 1700 ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png ) and no of them shows 60-year cycle traces.”
Indeed, I was pointing out the ~100 year cycle. The 60 year cycle is only visible in the thermometer record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
“NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[7] ”
[7]^ “Glossary I-M”. NASA. Retrieved 28 February 2011.
@davidmhoffer
You are talking about this absurd some “extremist skeptics” say, that the radiative transfers and temperatures in atmosphere with no GHG will be identical as in atmosphere compound from GHG only? That there is no such a thing like greenhouse effect?
richardscourtney didn’t even noticed that this internet articles http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/shock-news-global-warming-bypasses-even-the-first-100-meters-of-ocean/ is extremally ignorant (or what I suspect he noticed but decided to lie about this), and as I see he doesn’t believe his own claims (that the warming has stopped, that IPCC has wrote that the pause took place etc.) otherwise he would take my bet propositions.
Nevertheless I’m here not learn or taech anything (there are better places to do that). I’m here to find a sceptic who believes their own claims (that the warming has stopped) and will take my bet proposition.
James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:43 pm
Thanks davidmhoffer and Mario Lento
You say that global temperatures have a low sensitivity to changes in CO2. So rather than a zero decrease in temperature you would presumably say a small decrease ? if so, how much ?:
+++++++++++
Have you read anything? Anything at all? You want a simple answer, but do not want to understand what’s going on.
Trying to find the CO2-only heating signal in climate is difficult because the incremental effect is so small at these concentrations. Anyone who tells you the increase in CO2 is what caused most of the observed heating in the 20th century has got it wrong. The models are the only evidence that there is a strong CO2 signal.
You see, James Abbott, you need to tell us the answer and show evidence proving your answer is correct in light of the new evidence. The IPCC and the world now are explaining why they were wrong, and you have not caught on yet.
philjourdan says:
January 6, 2014 at 7:48 am
@James Baldwin Abbott:
Rather than use descriptive words (or reference the discredited Monckton)
Discredited? Again, links. I know he has been slandered. I have yet to see him discredited.
So you make up facts as you go along to maintain your meme?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Look Phil – I’m sorry (in a way) to link to this. But you really should be aware of both sides of the story.
On this forum, I will say, I am firmly neutral on the matter.
At least until I have heard what Lord Monckton’s response to the following Videos is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo
And look, I’m just providing the message … and not making it.
@T.B, – bang, bang! You’re dead! 😉
Actually these videos have been covered before – right here (or on Joanne Nova’s site – I forget which one), when Monckton basically rebutted this rebuttal.
But that also highlights a pertinent issue. Or issues.
#1 – The videos are first attacking his credentials, not discrediting what he has said. Unless you are relying on an appeal to Authority, those are non-sequiturs. Splice said discredited. No, your evidence shows a questioning which Monckton did address in his response.
#2 – These videos are actually an attempt to kill the messenger, in this case Monckton. Notice they are attacking his “bonafidies”. As for the content of what he is saying, they are debating it (in a constructive way once they get past the attacks on his character). However, they have not discredited what he said.
I have seen the videos, and appreciate your response to me. And while they do add some doubt to Monckton’s arguments, they are not discrediting him which is the challenge for the taped tape.
And no apology necessary. As I have said before, I hate being wrong more than I love being right. So I am very careful in what I claim and question.
@RichardLH
So we have one 120-year cycle started in 1650, one 80-year cycle started in 1770 and 60-year cycle in instrumental record and no traces of similar cycles before 1650.
And you don’t believe a cycle ends now, as you don’t want to bet if that temperature will go up in the near future.
Meanwhile I know that we have a signal and the grow of temperature will continue and I want to bet.
Mods:
The anonymous troll is posting lies and smears.
The only way for me to address this is for me to engage in this thread being about me instead of its subject.
Is it not possible to stop this barrage of lies from the troll?
I recently returned to posting at WUWT having withdrawn because I was targeted by a team of trolls. If my presence is again going to result in threads being deflected from their subject then the only sensible action is for me to again withdraw.
And if me then who next?
Richard
Splice says:
January 6, 2014 at 10:07 am
“Nevertheless I’m here not learn or taech[sic] anything (there are better places to do that). I’m here to find a sceptic who believes their own claims (that the warming has stopped) and will take my bet proposition”
Now if we can just get down to what your bet is and the science it is based on……
Mind you, I am NOT a sceptic, I am a scientist (amateur) and practicing logician (professional).
I analyse data, nothing more.
@richardscourtney
Maybe you’d like to get some money as compensation? Just take one of my bets. If there is no signal that is constantly going up you will win with me (with my own weapon!): if not the bet that 2010s will be warmer than 2000s then the bet that 2020s will be warmer than 2010s (second bet could be for double value).
Splice:
You have yet to address anything I have said but – instead – have posted lies about me. Indeed, you have yet to make any truthful and/or valid statement in this thread.
In my post addressed to you at January 5, 2014 at 12:37 pm I wrote
Your only response to that was to provide a series of lies about me including the ridiculous lie that I don’t “believe” what I wrote because I am not, I have not been, and I refuse to be a gambler
Give your evidence for AGW and apologise for your lies or clear off.
Richard
Splice says:
January 6, 2014 at 10:29 am
“@RichardLH
So we have one 120-year cycle started in 1650, one 80-year cycle started in 1770 and 60-year cycle in instrumental record and no traces of similar cycles before 1650.
And you don’t believe a cycle ends now, as you don’t want to bet if that temperature will go up in the near future.
Meanwhile I know that we have a signal and the grow of temperature will continue and I want to bet.”
Hmmm. Comprehension not good then?
We have indications of a ~100 year cycle, mostly in proxy data that has a poor time/value resolution. We have a visible 60 year cycle in the higher resolution data (thermometer and satellite) and indications of the continuation of the ~100 year cycle that the proxy data indicates in those also.
You express surprise that the low resolution, proxy, data does not show the 60 year cycle. Me, I would expect that to be the case.
You completely fail to answer the major point I made, that is, if the rise since 1840-80 is mainly caused by CO2 how do you explain the cyclic nature of the period before then or did CO2 vary cyclically also similarly to cause it there also?
Do you think that the rise since 1840-80 is all CO2 related or do you accept that at least some of it has to from other causes and, if so, in what magnitudes would you split it?
Shouting that the purple line in the below is ‘what done it’ does not show much logic or reasoning in your conclusions. (I have aligned it better so that all the rise is all from CO2 for you).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.006/offset:-1.93
Splice says:
January 6, 2014 at 10:07 am
@davidmhoffer
You are talking about this absurd some “extremist skeptics” say, that the radiative transfers and temperatures in atmosphere with no GHG will be identical as in atmosphere compound from GHG only? That there is no such a thing like greenhouse effect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I said no such thing. But you said in your comment that you are not here to learn anything, so further explanation of how the GHE actually works versus how you think it works is likely fruitless. When I talk to warmists scientists, their explanation of the GHE is identical to my own. This should give you pause. If you would actually learn the science, you’d understand why your bet cannot be either articulated or resolved in any meaningful fashion. I’d take some of my time to explain it to you, but in light of your refusal to learn anything, I’m guessing that is pointless. I suggested a starting point for you which you can find in any physics text book or with a simple on line search in order that you confirm the facts from an entirely neutral source of your choosing. But you don’t even want to do that.
Friends:
At the egregious troll hiding behind the cowards screen of anonymity writes at January 6, 2014 at 10:47 am
This despite my having twice told it that nobody can know how the “pause” will end.
I first told the troll this in my post addressed to it at January 5, 2014 at 12:37 pm where I wrote
Anyone who did take the bet would only win if the “pause” ended with cooling and if the “pause” ends with warming then that proves nothing.
The troll has nothing except lies, smears and bluster. I asked it for one shred of evidence to support its superstitious belief in AGW but it has avoided that while demanding that I take a silly bet.
Richard
Splice says:
January 6, 2014 at 10:47 am
@richardscourtney
Maybe you’d like to get some money as compensation? Just take one of my bets. If there is no signal that is constantly going up you will win with me (with my own weapon!): if not the bet that 2010s will be warmer than 2000s then the bet that 2020s will be warmer than 2010s (second bet could be for double value).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The earth has been warming since the last ice age. I’ve no reason to believe that this long term trend has changed. I have no reason to believe that the trend has been influenced to a significant degree by CO2. I have no reason to believe that ten years hence the temperature will be higher, lower, or the same that it is now. I have substantial reason to believe that all of these are possibilities of roughly equal proportion. My reasons involve a solid understanding of how the GHE actually works, and the role of natural variability. Hence, I’d be a fool to take a bet that any of these outcomes is more likely than any other. So would you. The difference between us is that I am well aware of why I’d be a fool in this regard, while you have, per your own statement, decided to remain so out of ignorance.
@RichardLH
Science has many bases and the internet blog is not the right place to do scientific discussions.
That’s why I’m here in another purpose – to change my knowladge (that warming didn’t stop) into money. I just need to find someone who believes warming stopped – unfortunately it seems a lot of skeptics claims the warming has stopped but hardly any of them believes their own claims.
@Splice –
Apparently David Hoffer is correct, you are rolling in your ignorance and using it as a merit badge.
You can opine that the warming will resume. You can opine that we have warmed to CO2. However, you cannot opine or state as fact that warming has not stopped as of this time. (the present). Since all measurements (note the term) so indicate. So your statement about “find someone who believes” is moot. No one here “believes”. But most here, who do not ascribe to a state of permanent ignorance, do know that it has indeed stopped. is the stop permanent? No one here has proclaimed such prognostication prowess save you. But all here are at least aware of the current facts that show indeed it has stopped at the present.
perhaps instead of trying to lose your money, you would be better served by actually learning something for once in your life.
Splice:
In your post at January 6, 2014 at 11:17 am you say
Let me correct that for you
And you will do that if somebody with honour to pay-up were sufficiently gullible as to take your silly bet then lost it.
But there is no reason to think you will pay-up if you lose. Indeed, why would anybody think an anonymous liar would honour a bet?
Are you posting from Nigeria?
Richard