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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If there is such a thing as a 60 year cycle then using a 30 year average for the negative half of the 60 year cycle and then claiming that 2001-2013 are the warmest years is … well … entirely expected. With the positive peak of a 60 year cycle centered around 2005 anything other than 12 of 13 years being 2001 or later would be very unusual – like 1998 which shouldn’t be there (we all know why it is an exception). It seems as though the world is unfolding as it should.
Zero Kelvin is zero.
Any anthropogenic signature here is indiscrenable.
The variations in this graph are noise.
The RSS trend shown from 1979 to 2013 appears to be about .5C per 34 years,) Theis trend is no different from what we Earthlings have enjoyed since the Earth began its recovery from the “Little Ice Age”.
No CAGW catastrophe here.
CO2 is only good.
The Earth needs more.
Can someone please explain, how the “global avg” is being calculated? It looks to me, as if the tropics do not take part in this calculation? Global always equals (NH + SH) / 2
2013 12 +0.265 +0.273 +0.257 +0.057
for example in december 2013: GLOBAL = (0.273 + 0.257) / 2 = 0.265
If I averaged Northern Hemisphere temperatures over 6 months of the year – November through April – and then claimed that July, August and September were all “well above average”… climate scientists would see that as proof the world was warming.
Had we have satellites in the 30’s….. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/january-3-1935-roses-and-daffodils-blooming-in-britain/
Unfortunately, I live in the blue spot in the middle of North America.
So thats more sceptic predictions sunk:
2013 4th warmest in the satellite record
Surface temperatures set to come in again in top 10, possibly top 5
Solar activity not fading away – currently in line with NASA forecast
No sign of much (wished for) global cooling
Arctic sea ice remains well below mean
Sea level continuing to rise
That leaves Antarctic sea ice to cling to ?
@James Baldwin Abbott – WHAT Skeptic predictions? Is that your wishful thinking? Or do you have links?
Time for all you sun nuts and PDO fans to place your bets.
we are at solar max.. If the sun is the cause then its time to make predictions
Anthony,
“Warm globally, cool locally!”
I made this saying up for the eco-nuts based upon another one that’s very similar and they believe it.
How is it possible that it could be so warm yet we see a huge increase in the amount of ice at both poles??? Is there a lag in observations and actual climate changes we aren’t seeing? Shouldn’t cooling, both ocean and air, precede increased ice formation or is it the other way around? Is someone fudging the data? Maybe it’s the Earth’s magnetic field that is driving ice formation?
When will we see cooling (ocean and air) parallel or catch up to the icing trend?
-Jack
So this tweaked me to start looking at the satellite margins of error:
funny but the data (as expected) is well hidden in the various site. Whoda thunk it?
so for this data the published margin of error IS …..The margin of error associated with this temperature is ±0.13°F (0.07°C).
But according to reports there are 0.5°C variances, that two satellites are 1.0°C outside of normal variations, that the equipment varies in accuracy depending on wave length used, whether over land, sea, ice, etc
It depends on cloud cover, oxygen content, satellite orbit height, ie satellites fall and are boosted back up.
If you read the temperature anomalies (worked into the global average) they are specific to certain regions – so how does a snowy reflective winter compare to a no snow one? How does a ice covered sea compare to a open sea. Again there are a billion variables that are magically munched into a “trend” inside of 34 years. I think not. This data means NOTHING. Its noise well inside normal variation.
This should make the link work (if it is a good link)
Chris Hayes complains of Drudge fueled snow trolling on Global Warming http://washingtonexaminer.com/msnbcs-chris-hayes-complains-of-drudge-fueled-snow-trolling-on-global-warming/article/2541532#
why does Antarctica show all positive anomalies for Dec when it was recently reported that the lowest temperature ever recorded happened there last month?
Abbott says:
“No sign of much (wished for) global cooling”
James, wake up.
And your comment about Antarctic ice is as lame as Arctic ice cover.
I cannot break thru James Abbott’s religious belief, but for rational readers, this chart of the past 8,000 years shows that the current “carbon” scare is nonsense. How many ‘hockey stick’ shapes can you count in the chart? Ten Twenty? More?
The recent mild global warming event is as natural as prior warmings. There is no difference. And it appears that this warming episode has run its course.
Since you get your data from NASA, any chance it is “pre-cooked” Hansen and Gavin?
to propose any truly scientific hypothesis without accurate data is patently absurd and nothing more than enthusiastic guesswork,
I propose therefore, we always discuss climate records as PS (post Satellite) and BS
strike: You seem to have confused SH and NH as referring to the *extratropical* parts of those hemispheres. They refer to the entire hemisphere, including each hemisphere’s half of the tropics.
But more specifically, the global average is the cosine of the latitude weighted average of all gridpoints from 85S-85N. This obviously includes the tropics.
Jack Hydrazine said
How is it possible that it could be so warm yet we see a huge increase in the amount of ice at both poles???
So whats your source for there being “a huge increase” in ice in the arctic ?
Greenland is losing net ice mass and sea ice extent is currently close to 2 SDs below the 1981 – 2010 mean
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
and has not been above the area mean (apart from slightly and for a few days) for 11 straight years
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
LT said:
It looks like UAH continues to deviate from the other global temperature datasets. Something seems off.
Here is a comparison between RSS and UAH in excel
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tko5zoqpa618eus/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.xlsx
Graph here:
It seems that both RSS and UAH started off at the same level but then UAH cooled down while RSS warmed up soon afterwards. nowadays they merge together again. However that previous behavior had huge impact on years ranking.
Maybe the two institutes shoud sort things out a bit.
My fabulous boyfriend works in agriculture and has been sharing with me data about number of hot days and number of cool nights. Turns out 2013 not only had quite a few hot days beyond a crop’s tolerance level but it also had more cool days than this crop can tolerate. So it isn’t necessarily so that warmer days means global warming. Hot days and cool nights can mean low humidity levels, which would also be an indicator of cooling.
An interesting side note: cooler days during the growing season also paired up with warmer nights, which would be an indicator of warming trends.
My point is that one metric alone, such as averaged global temperatures does not necessarily indicate global warming or cooling.
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1963955
Error ranges of these estimates, if we do not apply information that indicates some data sets contain noticeable trend problems, are at least ±0.05°C decade-1, which needs reduction to characterize forcing and response in the climate system accurately.
More interesting news!
James Abbott,
From your own link:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/12/Figure4b-350×280.png
The Antarctic has ten times more ice than the Arctic. That is why global ice cover is normal.
You’re only scaring yourself.
dbstealey
I am fully awake thanks and thats how I read, as you did, the fact that 2013 was the 4th warmest year in the satellite era according to the report that prompted this thread from the University of Alabama, Hunstville. Dr. Roy Spencer’s anomaly plot also shows absolutely no evidence of cooling:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/dec2013graph-1.png
Nor do the 3 main global surface temperature data sets – unless they are manipulated – such as is commonly done by starting around 1998 (one of your graphs).
Your claims in that
“I cannot break thru James Abbott’s religious belief, but for rational readers, this chart of the past 8,000 years shows that the current “carbon” scare is nonsense. How many ‘hockey stick’ shapes can you count in the chart? Ten Twenty? More?
“The recent mild global warming event is as natural as prior warmings. There is no difference. And it appears that this warming episode has run its course.”
are rediculous.
The religious beliefs in this debate are displayed by those who seek to undermine the science because of their fundamentalist predetermined position – that they don’t “believe” climate change is happening.
And as you don’t think carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is important, tell us what would happen if we modelled the atmosphere with CO2 taken out ? From your position there would presumably be no temperature change ?
@James Baldwin Abbott – “Undermining” the science by questioning it? I guess in your world, when a scientist makes a proclamation, it is gospel and no longer allowed to be questioned? So how’s that flat earth and phlogiston doing for you?
last I checked, religions hated questioning. Science embraces it.
Justin Hoffer says:
January 3, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Someone forgot to tell Winnipeg. We had the 6th coldest December on record, coldest since 1933 and New Years Eve hit -48 with the wind chill.
I hear we made headlines across Canada.
But that’s not climate. That’s weather. It’s only climate when it’s hot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tell that to Moscow, E Siberia, Alaska, most of Europe and into Russia as far E as the Urals – just for the NH.
No, it’s only climate when it consists of the whole planet and lasts for around 3 decades.
Otherwise it is indeed “Weather”.
FYI: you can, and more importantly MUST have cold at the same time as warm.
Sorry it’s just how it works.
@Rob
Totally agree. Noise. I’ve been following AGW for quite a while now and there are always errors in measurement being corrected for. Error corrections almost always go in the direction of reducing past temperatures and increasing current ones. If you read about Satellite error and correction that have occurred over the years, they all seem to have the effect of increasing the temperature trend. I’ve pointed this out to some warmists and they’ve always assured me “it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just the way the dice happened to roll”. Well I think they are only half-right. I agree it’s not a conspiracy, it’s selective focus. If a trend agrees with their desired outcome, they look no further. If a trend disagrees with their desired outcome they spend a lot of time looking for why the data must be wrong. We see this in action with urban heat island (UHI) effect and with satellite measurements. Because UHI would increase temperature trends and therefore a correction would reduce the trend, they are quick to conclude that UHI is not a factor (nothing to see here, move along). However, satellites were not cooperating initially. The results were not what they wanted, so they put in an inordinate amount of time looking for why the data must be wrong. Since satellite measurements have so many factors to them that could significantly effect the trend, it didn’t take too much effort to find a reason why they needed to be ‘corrected’ upwards. Mission accomplished.
It would be far too tedious and unrewarding, (but interesting if someone else did it), to look into all ‘corrections’. How many corrections increased the trend? How many decreased it? Is the distribution of corrections statistically likely? (I very much doubt it).
Considering that ‘trends’ are so small and insignificant it doesn’t seem much of a stretch to me to think that the tiny trends we do see are quite a pure fabrication of ‘corrections’. The ‘real’ trend could very well go the opposite direction! Unfortunately we never know in our lifetime. It will be up to scientists of the future to look back and go ‘tsk tsk’ at the naivety of past ‘corrections’ and feel superior about (as every new generation seems to do).