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
Splice says:
January 6, 2014 at 4:07 pm
@RichardLH
Blah, blah.
One interesting feature that I have noticed regards the ENSO causing 0.5c of the recent warming. I have discussed that the mechanism involves increased solar energy from reducing global low cloud levels. This fuels the energy for El Ninos and the step up in general ocean surface temperatures by warming ocean surface currents moving around the world, that relates to global temperatures.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.5/trend/offset:-0.05/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:1996.5/trend/offset:-0.05
The graph below linked before only adjusts for global low clouds, but something really interesting is shown.
The difference up to the current time between global data and adjusted global data represents 0.5c This is exactly the same amount the graph above claims how much warming both strong El Ninos have contributed to global warming during this period. Could this be the scientific evidence that puts both these links together and agree on the change involved?
There is 0.1c warming taking into account when both graphs go back a bit further and this I cant account for any natural factor,
RichardLH,
No joke.
Splice, a few details from the policy page, here:
Strangely enough, the part about the idea of the blog being to facilitate the placing of wagers is missing. So we got it that that’s what you want. It doesn’t look like you’ve got any takers. It’s long since gotten stale. From past experience I know the moderators here generally err on the side of leniency, so why not quit while you’re ahead.
Splice;
I’m really not interested to learn which one of you accepts which set of those claims and which of them rejects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, you keep saying you’re not here to learn anything. Guess your serious.
You’re hear to put words in skeptics mouths (you provided a list of them).
This is a science site. Skeptics who profess beliefs such as those you have listed are generally squashed by the regulars in short order. You’ll find very few of what you are looking for here. They’ve either been educated, or they have gone away. Skeptics are not the ignorant foolish marks you seem to believe.
For the record, the only person I know of who has actually entered into a bet with a warmist as a consequence of a discussion on this site is me. I won. I won hands down going away. Mr R Gates not only refused to make good on the bet, he scurried away to post his blather on another site as he was simply too embarrassed to continue on this one.
@richardscourtney
Did you understend what I’ve written? My proposition it to meet and sign agreement in London (UK)? I’m rather often there and I’ll be there rather often in London in near future.
@Mark Bofill
@davidmhoffer
From my point of view this page is pathological science ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science ) page, so there is no use learning or teaching here.
If I found some astrology page where some of users claim “the season change cycle has stopped” I would enter there and propose a bet (for example a bet that second quarter of the year will be warmer than first, and third will be warmer than second), but not to learn or teach, not even to answer how it’s possible I know future changes of temperatures.
That’s why I’m here.
Simply I see “next few cards are red” and want to change this into money.
Friends:
At January 7, 2014 at 2:17 am Splice continues in attempt to conduct a scam.
He/she/they/it writes
Of course I “understend” (sic) what the scammer is attempting, and I have explained it (e.g. at January 6, 2014 at 1:58 pm).
DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THE CROOK.
The so-called bet is being offered by an anonymous liar who is asking for somebody to deposit an amount of silver or gold as a ‘stake’. Anybody who were stupid enough to do that would certainly lose whatever they deposited whether or not they ‘won’ the bet.
Richard
Splice says:
January 7, 2014 at 2:17 am
“That’s why I’m here.
Simply I see “next few cards are red” and want to change this into money.”
In that case I suggest you find a site that supports what you are after. This site, and most if not all of those who post on it, are not interested in your, rather childish, method of propagating or defining your beliefs.
Just because you believe that a ‘bet’ somehow demonstrates the level of belief or truth that is present in others about a subject does not make it so (except perhaps in your mind only).
philjourdan:
Your post at January 7, 2014 at 5:19 am concludes saying to Splice
I write because I am concerned that your statement (which I quote) may tempt somebody to think Splice is willing to lose money. Indeed, it has become clear that the ignorance which Splice repeatedly proclaims is part of his attempt to attract suckers willing to take his so-called ‘bet’.
The so-called bet is a scam. Everybody needs to be warned that the scammer is after their money whether or not they ‘win’ the bet.
Richard
And hows that been working out for you so far? Made any money here yet?
Buddy, you’re not here to make money. You are here to be annoying.
Tell you what, prove me wrong. All it takes are these two things:
1. Share your identity. Nobody cares about what droolmonkey the sockpuppet thinks.
2. Give us some predictions. Show us your power, how clearly you see those cards are red. Temps for next month, like they do at Lucia’s. Temps for next year. Trend for next 5 years. Stuff like that. Trust me – if you can demonstrate your power to make accurate predictions, I will apologize handsomely to you and listen very closely indeed to every word you have to say on the matter.
Till then, you’re a mindless sock puppet who’s trying to be annoying.
@richardscourtney
You apparently didn’t understand as you were writing about Nigeria AFTER I said to do that in London. You apparently don’t understand that my proposition is to deposit in third-party safe, (access to the deposit will require allowance of the both sides of the agreement or winning the bet). And you apparently didn’t understand that I’ve written that it’s only my initial proposition – the conditions could be different if you propose other ones.
@philjourdan
This doen’t work that way. If today’s average temperature was lower than yesterday’s you couldn’t say “the season change mechanism has stopped”.
Someone could say it’s warming, because the year 2013 was warmer than 2012. You could say warmig stopped based on more years than two, and someone could say it’s still warming as last decade (2004-2013) was much warmer than previous one (1994-2003).
Almost always you could choose period short enough to have warming/stop/cooling – whatever you want to have.
We have warming when warming signal is going up, even when it’s masked because of noise going down.
This signal still is going up, that’s why I’m ready to bet and I’m sure I will win.
And I’m almost sure “sceptics” here realizes that too, they just claiming things they don’t believe in, thats why they don’t want to bet.
@Splice – Apparently Richard Courtney is correct and you have no clue what you are talking about. We are not talking about seasons. We are not talking about year to year changes. We are discussing a 15-17 year period, which matches the run up to the hysteria of 1998 (actually it is longer as in 1981, they were still screaming about the impending ice age).
No warming in 17 years. The warming has stopped. Will it remain start up again? Your guess is as good as mine (not really as you do appear to be completely knowledge-less through your own choice). But as of now, it has stopped. The reasons may be simple, complex, many or few. But the FACT remains. Facts are precious beasts in science and very rare. in this case, you apparently just are ignorant of what is a fact and what is conjecture. Your conjecture is that this hiatus is merely a pause. But it is not a fact. And not all the gold in Fort Knox will make your conjecture a fact. Time may well make your conjecture a fact, but at this point you have no clue.
Best to stop doubling down on ignorance and learn some things. You are demonstrating a religion of global warming. You have yet to demonstrate any scientific knowledge of that subject.
@RichardLH
@Mark Bofill
Bet could demonstrate that someone doen’t believe things he says (“put your money where your mouth is”). And yes – it could be annoying for those who trust such a person.
I’ve already written that the source from which I know temperatures will be higher next decade is similar as source from which I know temperatures will be higher next quarter of the year.
I don’t know next quarter’s temperatures – I just know they will be higher. Identically as with next decade’s temperatures.
@Splice – again your ignorance is demonstrated. A compulsive gambler is not demonstrating his faith. He is merely suffering from a sickness. betting is not a demonstration of faith. It is merely boasting. Like my team will beat your team. Idle boasts since neither of us can affect the outcome.
You have a 33% chance of winning. You seem to think that is good odds. That is your choice. But it proves nothing. And anyone taking a bet with an anonymous person is just plain stupid. All the people that you are responding to are posting under their own names. Except you. Hiding behind anonymity is not having faith in your convictions.
@philjourdan
I don’t intend to lern anything on THIS PAGE as from my point of view it’s pathological science page.
Identically I don’t intend to learn anything on astrology pages.
There are simply better places to learn
I’ve written that already.
@Splice – if nothing else, trying to “lern” how to spell. We realize that your faith prevents you from learning, but at least learn that much.
Splice says:
January 7, 2014 at 6:21 am
@RichardLH
“I don’t know next quarter’s temperatures – I just know they will be higher. Identically as with next decade’s temperatures.”
So please do everybody here a big favour, go away and come back after ‘next quarter’ (or better still ‘next decade’) and show us poor mortals then how right you were even though (sob, sob) you couldn’t find anyone to bet with before that time(as though the ‘bet’ had some real meaning outside of your own head).
We will then all listen very carefully and apologise for our inability to understand your obvious genius earlier.
You are all to generous to Splice.
Note: He is asking you to break the law.
He is asking WUWT to facilitate breaking the law.
This is entrapment but in the Court of Public Opinion that will make no difference.
In many territories it is illegal to enter into gambling contracts with minors. Splice has not officially identified themselves but has provided no evidence that they are an adult.
Why take the risk unless they identify themselves and are over 18 or 21 (depending on region)?
Mods: Consider your legal position.
Friends:
At January 7, 2014 at 6:08 am Splice writes:
Please note that this is more evidence that Splice is a scammer.
DO NOT BE FOOLED INTO TAKING THE SO-CALLED ‘BET’.
And note what he says
1.
Splice said he VISITS London and would be willing to meet there.
2.
Splice does not say where he is operating from or who/what he is.
3.
His grammar and spelling suggest he is not English.
4.
Details of the “Third Party” who would hold the deposit are absent but Splice says
so Splice can take the deposit within minutes of it being deposited.
5.
And Splice is willing to change the “conditions” of the bet if that will encourage somebody to be suckered into taking the bet.
It is hard to imagine a more blatant internet scam. DON’T FALL FOR IT.
Richard
For those who wish a simple guide to how temperatures might evolve into the near future I have added some simple additions to one of my earlier plots.
The upper dotted line is a ‘return to the linear trend’ model.
The lower is a ‘flat line’ going forward.
2020 should be far enough to determine which one we are then closer to (or even below – who knows) 🙂
http://snag.gy/N4pUQ.jpg
Friends:
Splice says at January 7, 2014 at 6:21 am
That is bafflegab intended to entice suckers.
Next quarter’s temperatures will be higher.
Each and every year global temperature rises by 3.8°C from January to June and falls by 3.8°C from June to January.
This happens because the Southern Hemisphere (SH) is covered by more water that the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and water is a greater heat sink than land. So, the seasonal variation is greater in the NH than the SH, and the global temperature is the average of the temperatures in the NH and SH. Hence, global temperature is at a maximum in NH summer and a minimum in NH winter.
The global temperature anomaly has only risen by ~0.8°C over the last century, so next quarters’ temperatures will be negligibly affected by global warming or cooling. Therefore,
it is certain that next quarter’s will be higher
because this quarter is NH winter.
Do not be taken in by the internet scammer. He is now posting stuff intended to entice the uninformed to take his/her/their/its bet.
Richard
Droolmonkey,
I make no claim about what future temperatures will be. I know it’s difficult for a mindless sockpuppet such as yourself to grasp, since you are devoted to your doctrine of not learning anything, but among those of us who are sentient what you are doing is known as knocking down a strawman.
But this becomes interesting.
Is that temperature or temperature anomaly that you know will be higher? Over next quarter huh. According to what temperature data set?
Finally droolmonkey, give us your identity if you want respect.
Friends:
I have made posts at
January 7, 2014 at 5:34 am
January 7, 2014 at 6:42 am
and
January 7, 2014 at 7:01 am
They are all stalled in moderation. If they appear I will draw attention to them because thery make an important point.
Richard
Courtneys,
I wouldn’t worry, I don’t think anyone here is that stupid. I’m just indulging in my usual bad habit of troll baiting. 🙂 Everybody’s got a vice.
Thanks Mark Bofill. I doubt anyone is dumb enough to fall for it… but it only takes one fool and the trap is sprung.
Also, for the record, I have had absolutley no communication with my father on this topic (or anything else for about a week) – except reading WUWT.
Splice;
Bet could demonstrate that someone doen’t believe things he says
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But Slippery, we’ve already told you that we don’t believe the things you claim we believe. We offered to educate you on that point, but you claimed you’re not here to learn anything. You’ve already learned that we’re not going to take the bet because we don’t adhere to the beliefs that you attribute to us… yet still you persist.
So either you’re an idiot chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, certain that it exists, or, you have an agenda you are pursuing and your claim to know what we believe simply serves that agenda. Either way:
set/splice=ignore
Splice says:
January 7, 2014 at 6:26 am
@philjourdan
“I don’t intend to lern anything on THIS PAGE as from my point of view it’s pathological science page.”
Ah…. another warmist who is privy to the true knowledge about the Earths climate.
Well Einstein you will have no problem answering the following very relevant questions. Indeed you will be positively champing at the bit to educate the poor deluded souls on here.
However, I will make a prediction. You will NOT answer the questions at all and most likely will disappear from this thread never to be seen again, just like James Abbott before you.
1. What if man had not contributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, what would the current global temperatures be?
2. Would those temperatures and CO2 levels be better or worse for mankind currently, would there be less of us or more of us?
3. How would plant life be doing, seeing as most higher life forms are ultimately reliant on the abundance of plant life for their existence?
4.. How would global sea ice, glaciers and other potentially ice covered areas be doing and if different, would this be a good or bad thing for life on Earth?
4. What would your preferred level of atmospheric CO2 level be, given that most plant life evolved to take advantage of the much higher CO2 levels prevalent then and are currently relatively CO2 starved?
5. What would be your preferred global temperature and how does Mankind ensure that it is maintained, as you seem to believe strongly that we are currently controlling it?
6. How long do you think Mankind can continue to control global temperatures, if indeed we are currently, as you believe? Please be reasonably specific, which shouldn’t be a problem for you, as you seem to feel strongly that you have a good handle on the mechanisms of this so called control.
Alan
Friends:
My posts have which were trapped in moderation have been released posts and – as I said I would – I now drawing attention to them.
I thank the Mods for their work.
These are the time stamps of and links which jump to the released posts.
January 7, 2014 at 5:34 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/03/global-temperature-report-december-2013/#comment-1527734
January 7, 2014 at 6:42 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/03/global-temperature-report-december-2013/#comment-1527797
January 7, 2014 at 7:01 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/03/global-temperature-report-december-2013/#comment-1527818
Richard
TB says:
January 5, 2014 at 3:26 pm
Lars:
When we have an El Nino – the warm Equatorial E Pacific waters warm the atmosphere via latent heat release from convective action – then the SST’s cool to a La Nina state and the convection cycle weakens – so less heat available to transport to the atm. This is cyclic and adds NO net extra heat to the atmosphere. It cannot unless the warm cycle is greater than the cold, and in that case the heat must have come from deeper waters, as it’s not the Sun.
Sorry for answering late was busy these days.
Yes, El Nino and La Nina do influence the climate and am happy to see more people now start to appreciate natural climate variability. Before this, “all the warming was coming only from CO2” was the meme.
You are wrong with the cyclic explanation adding no net warming to the atmosphere, as they do release more heat from the oceans or absorb more heat into the ocean in certain periods of time.
you further say:
Deeper waters are warmed via a net inflow of energy because in the La Nina state the waters are subject to more SW absorption than in the El Nino state (clearer skies) and this extra heat gets mixed to depth in the Equ W Pacific as it sinks and mixes via turbulence before up-welling along the Chilean/Peruvian coastline etc.
The heat in the oceans is always coming from the sun, even the deep water (unless you take into account the heat coming from the Earth core.
(SW absorbtion= sun rays)
In a La Nina state warm waters are accumulated by the wind, whereas in El Nino state the warm water wins against the wind, creating its own atmospheric circulation as a mater of speaking.
Also oceans have enormous thermal inertia due mass and high specific heat (~4x air ) so then a 1C rise transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans would only mean a rise of temp there of 1/4000th that – so that would be 0.00025C
Yes, it is known the oceans have enormous heat capacity, etc, however it is added and released based on thermodynamic laws. The waters releasing heat need to be warmer to release it. A minimal 0.00025°C warming of the waters will not increase the temperature of the air above with 1°C due to it, even if heat capacity would be enough. It will increase the temperature minimal, based on the laws of thermodynamics.
The heat needs to travel somehow and the warmist now claim suddenly the oceans decided to absorb all the heat. “The ocean ate my global warming.”
The warming of the oceans – as measured – is significantly below the calculated heat as is shown by the models.