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.
I listened to the report that 2013 was the hottest year ever in Australia, I can only go by my own vegie garden where my tomatoes have failed to set fruit and cucumbers have failed to grow because of the lack of heat.
Pamela Gray says: cooler days during the growing season also paired up with warmer nights
On the prairies this is a normal cloud cover during the day gives cooler days but warmer nights as less heat escapes. The opposite is also true as clear days are hotter but cool off more at night as the heat is allowed to escape.
The abc here in australia are obsessed with the hot weather we are getting in qld at the moment.They spent most of the news talking about it no mention of the extream cold in the us.At one point in the show they had a [so called] weather expert on and with great joy he said it has not been this hot since 1889 scary scary we are all going to fry.My question is what made it so hot in 1889?it was not SUVs and air con, trust me the weather is no different now than it was in the 1950s.When will this global warming madness end?so we can stop spending billions of dollars on stupid research projects like that fiasco in antarctica with there ship stuck in the ice that they claim is not there.
dbstealey perhaps its you that needs to wake up !
You said, referring to sea ice:
“The Antarctic has ten times more ice than the Arctic. That is why global ice cover is normal.”
Where do you get that from ?
Arctic sea ice is currently about double antarctic sea ice area. Comparing past maxima and minima in north and south they are similar in terms of ice area.
Wow, it’s hard to see the big global warming surge of the 1990s – it’s all blue. I guess behaved differently than summers. I’m impressed how little influence the cold weather we’ve been having in much of Canada in December along with the galloping arctic and antarctic ice extents. I was in Dominican Republic for December and it seemed cooler to me than usual, too, and of course we had snow in Israel and Egypt.
Marcos says:
January 3, 2014 at 1:59 pm
why does Antarctica show all positive anomalies for Dec when it was recently reported that the lowest temperature ever recorded happened there last month?
—-
Marcos, the low temperature was reported last month but it was from a measurement taken a couple of years ago. It was discovered by analyzing the vast amount of historical data that is (was) generated.
James Abbott says:
“You said, referring to sea ice…”
James, wake up. I never mentiond “sea” ice. You simply invented a strawman, and then knocked him down. Bravo! Whatta guy!
But next time, pay attention to what I wrote — not what you assumed I wrote.
I’ll be out for a while. In the mean time, run along to SkS or wherever you get your pseudo-science talking points, and stock up! We can continue this discussion later. I am always willing to debate someone who believes that “carbon” is gonna getcha. ☺☺☺
James Abbot says: 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.
James how can you call measurements within margin of error a “trend” let alone science. You are the climate denier as you cannot see outside of a very very small climate box.
34 years of satellite with many many documented errors and “corrections” does not constitute a level of confidence. Historically the planet (pre man induced CO2) has varied well outside of the temperature movement we are seeing. Where I live ( Canadian Prairies ) the temperature variations year to year have remained the same relatively speaking -40 to +30°C. This is the EXACT reason I started to doubt what was being told to me by the “scientists” and the IPCC
The story did not match the reality. If the equipment I design was criticized for temperature variations (inside a very small closed system) of 0.27 or even 2.7°C I would laugh the critic out of the room. The variables of measured satellite temperatures fall well outside of this 34 year chart. (you have to dig to find the info and the data) even if the “trend” was 1 full degree, or a degree and a half would it really be an issue compared to 50 to 600 year history? Would it?
Chart out 100 years full scale (ie about -45°C to +45°C)
This data means absolutely nothing, its not a trend considering published error margin and measurement issues of satellites. This has nothing to do with religion or bias or anything else.
The equipment and the variables cannot begin to give a baseline, an error margin nor a trend yet. If the world spent 10 times the money on each satellite and doubled or even tripled the amount orbiting and recording data and came up with the exact same data line it would still mean nothing.
James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 2:39 pm
dbstealey perhaps its you that needs to wake up !
You said, referring to sea ice:
“The Antarctic has ten times more ice than the Arctic. That is why global ice cover is normal.”
Where do you get that from ?
Arctic sea ice is currently about double antarctic sea ice area. Comparing past maxima and minima in north and south they are similar in terms of ice area.
++++++++++++++
James: Ice area does not tell the whole story. Antarctica has thickness that the Arctic does not have. It’s a continent after all, whereas the Arctic ice floats in “relatively” warmer water than the land temperature of Antarctica.
What I see from looking at the graph is that the temps are essentially the same as 2002. And no warming since at least 1998. That’s where we stand. This doesn’t jive with the climate models that show things taking off into the stratosphere by now. CO2 has gone up sharply, and temps remain flat.
Rob says:
January 3, 2014 at 1:09 pm
Gareth Phillips says:
“The point is Richard, the trend remains upwards”
The entire 34 year variation cannot constitute a “TREND” in the perspective of the planet. This is absolutely ZERO information. (perhaps its giving us variation parameters)
perspective people perspective
Go to the hardware store, pull out every single thermometer and see what the variation is.
Hi Rob, I have a sneaking suspicion the instruments used to record this data are a lot more specific and calibrated than a hardware thermometer.
I was reading about climate history before the present cAGW fraud became the money-maker that it has become. Back in those days we were told that there was a “little ice age” that lasted from about 1300 to 1850 or so.
I read a lot of writings by a fellow named H.H. Lamb. He told me that we had been warming up ever since the end of the little ice age and that was a good thing. He outlined past ups and downs and so I was not surprised when the “new ice age” scare was put to bed by a period of warming just as I will not be surprised when the climate cooling blows the current fraudsters out of the water yet again.
Let me see now; the CO2 in the atmosphere has gone over 400 ppm which was supposed to trigger runaway heating that would fry us all. Well, the best we can do is say that we have “hotter years” with measurements to the hundredth of a degree? Son of a Bee, I think some folks missed “precision” and “accuracy” lessons in middle school.
Anyway, I love the reports of “hottest year ever” since it just makes the common Joe on the street crazy as he battles snow and ice and airplane cancellations.
By the way, I hear it was massive heat that trapped those poor “climatologists” down at the south pole. To that I say, Penguin Droppings.
Given the contours over Australia do not seem to average out to a 1+ degree anomoly over the 2013 calendar year, can anyone explain how the BOM claims that it was 1.20 degrees C hotter? Eyeballing the map, it appears to be average of 0.6DegC, or half of the anomoly claimed by the BOM warmists.
dbstealey in the spirit of giving each other friendly suggestions, can I suggest you get some basic science learning under your belt.
Have a read on subjects such as greenhouse gases, radiative forcing, Earth’s energy balance. Also, have a browse of the history of science to see when it was that CO2 was recognised as a greenhouse gas and when the first published papers looked at what increasing global CO2 concentration could lead to.
Meantime, you clearly were referring to sea ice as you posted this link to back your point
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/12/Figure4b-350×280.png
which sure looks like a sea ice graph to me.
James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 2:28 pm
“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 ?”
I perceive CO2 as being like this
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
“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.”
Antarctica warmer than normal?? But how can that be when that iced in ship proved global warming is all a hoax?
We know that super el nino adds a constant level to the temperature setting up a new “normal: about .2 degrees warmer.
If you calculated the anomalies from that base you would get an almost flat record since the super el nino.
Let’s adjust this UAH reading of +0.236C for the known natural variables.
The AMO index is going to average about +0.200C for the year and its influence is 50% so net impact of +0.100C to UAH.
The ENSO including the 3 month lag has an average of -0.14C for the year (very neutral in ENSO terms) and its influence is 15% so an impact of -0.02C.
Solar Irradiance is hard to determine now since the SORCE TSI instrument failed but it appears to be around +0.3 W//2 (the top of the solar cycle) and its influence is 10% so +0.03C from solar.
No volcanoes of any impact.
So adjust the +0.236C of 2013 to +0.137C to account for natural variables.
1979’s adjusted value is -0.180C.
Very hard to get excited about +0.31C or so of warming over 34 years when global warming theory predicted it would 1.28 times 0.2C/decade (lower troposphere at the level UAH measures at is predicted to warm by 1.28 times the surface predicted rate of 0.2C/decade in the theory) or +0.94C.
One-third the predicted rate.
RichardLH you miss the point entirely.
Try this:
It is claimed by many sceptics that CO2 in the atmosphere is unimportant. dbstealey appears to believe that referring to the “carbon scare” and that recent warming is “normal” ie not associated with rising carbon dioxide concentration.
So – what would happen if we modelled the atmosphere with CO2 taken out ?
Take out all of the current 400ppm. If CO2 is not important in defining temperature, then presumably there will be no temperature change ?
I am yet to see a sceptic answer that question.
@James Baldwin Abbott:
Again, links please? I can say that alarmists claim CO2 is causing cancer. But then that would just be an OPINION, especially since I provide no evidence of such sophistry. You claim a lot. You have yet to produce any evidence.
Did someone open the valves on the massive CO2 storage tanks in outback Australia after Abbott won the election? Is that the explanation for this years record in Australia? :p
James Abbott;
Take out all of the current 400ppm. If CO2 is not important in defining temperature, then presumably there will be no temperature change ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
Well James, while I will allow that there are a small number of skeptics that would say such a thing, that isn’t true of the majority of us. Of course temperature would be different, probably a lot of other things as well. I don’t pretend to speak for all skeptics, but the majority of us are quite conversant in the radiative physics as they apply in this case. My position, and that of a great number of skeptics, is that while CO2 is quite obviously a GHG, with properties that can easily be quantified in a laboratory setting, the cumulative effect in the atmosphere as a whole yields a sensitivity far lower than presumed in the climate models themselves.
In fact, the mainstream peer reviewed science by the elite climate scientists of the world for more than a year now has been focused on explaining the shortfall between sensitivity as calculated by the climate models, and observations. No longer do they try and assert that the models are right, they only attempt to explain why they are wrong. So much so, that as Christopher Monkton pointed out in a recent thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/
even the IPCC is now proposing a sensitivity to CO2 far below what is calculated by the models.
Summing up, the physics, for those of us who actually studied it, never supported a sensitivity high enough to be alarming. What is happening now is not skeptics claiming that CO2 has no warming effect. Only that the sensitivity is too low to be alarming, and the observational data vindicates us on that point.
Can someone please tell me how this squares with the idea that there’s been no global warming for the last 17 yr’s?
James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:01 pm
dbstealey in the spirit of giving each other friendly suggestions, can I suggest you get some basic science learning under your belt.
Have a read on subjects such as greenhouse gases, radiative forcing, Earth’s energy balance. Also, have a browse of the history of science to see when it was that CO2 was recognised as a greenhouse gas and when the first published papers looked at what increasing global CO2 concentration could lead to.
Meantime, you clearly were referring to sea ice as you posted this link to back your point
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/12/Figure4b-350×280.png
which sure looks like a sea ice graph to me.
+++++++++++++++
Please stop conflating meaning. The sea ice extent, your link, shows is that both sea ice areas are not hugely different and share opposite seasons. The Antactic sea ice area has been growing over time, and the Arctic sea ice area has been diminishing, though creeping back a small bit to pretty close to the norm.
The statement that Antarctica has 10 times more ice has to do with VOLUME not sea ice area. And you know that! This banter and name calling is counter productive.
The argument between us is on how much of an effect CO2 has. Most skeptics do NOT say that CO2 has no effect. Warmists believe it’s effect is huge and blame most every weather event or short term upwards trend on CO2. Skeptics believe it is very difficult to find the signature of CO2’s effect, especially when upwards trends go away.
For example, most warmists believe most of the 0.6 K warming last century was due to increased CO2. That’s not based on science it’s based on politics and ideology. And you know that!
Ian S says:
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.
I’m tired of the REAL climate deniers (those that fail to admit and/or see that the planet has climate (weather) variation. The variations are way outside of our measly time perspective.
You cannot measure withing that variation and call it a trend. It just means your time perspective is way too small.
This one was interesting because when I read 0.27°C my mind automatically went “so what?”
I started to google “Satellite temperature margin of error”
Why is it always with the equipment used for “climate change” data its really really hard to ferrit out accurate data.
I design equipment that requires pressure, temperature, and flow data.
One of the first things I NEED to know is what is the margin of error. Does it “fit” within what my parameters are. Do I care if i get a temperature reading that is 1,2 or even 5°C out over a span of -40 to 100°C.
So we have satellites several miles up with orbital variations of what?
They are recording microwave readings against atmospheric oxygen that varies how? What is the error margin in the readings.
How is the location of the measurement affected? ie tropics have large error margins.
Cloud effect readings, water effects readings, land and sea and ice affect readings.
The global climate range is what? -65°C to +45°C for the majority of the earth. Each region have year to year variations of +/- 5°C depending on the “weather” trend of the year. and this is all fitted into a convenient little box called “global average temperature” and this temperature over 34 years shows a variation of .8°C
WHY DO I CARE? Over my lifetime, over my fathers or his or my great, great, great Grandfathers in the 1700’s relatively speaking NOTHING has changed. There’s been good years and bad years, wet years and dry years, cold years and hot years.
I love science, I love rocketry and space, I love technology, I love data and facts.
This ANNOUNCEMENT of 0.27°C is ludicrous in its lack of importance.
The chart goes from -0.7 to +0.8 with a 13 month trend line that falls within -0.4 to +0.4
This is 1.5°C or 0.8°C within a world that has a span of -65°C to 45°C and 34 years within 150 to 600 plus years of large variation.
It nothing (less than error) within nothing in a ridiculously short time span for the data being measured and logged.
RichardLH
January 3, 2014 at 1:22 pm
slight variation on your plot RLH:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/derivative/scale:100/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/from:1925/scale:100/derivative/trend
Now I’m suggesting we should believe HadCRUT4, that was your choice. But looking at the derivative tells us more about rate of change since it is , well , the rate of change.
This record does seem to lend itself to being modelled as a cycle plus non cyclic change. Since we appear to be near the peak, I’ve roughly picked the last peak in 1925 to give a full cycle to fit a linear rise to. This data clearly shows an increasing rate of change (accelerating warming).
Note I’ve had to x12 the “derivative” since it appears that WTF.org is just giving us the monthly difference in temp , not the derivative (dT/dt) in the graph units which should be K/year.
The cyclic part is about 60 years , 1.8 K/ca peak-to-peak. (ca = century)
Looking at the linear component (ie we’ve effectively remove the cycle as Steve from Rockwood suggested) :
The rate of change at the end of filter in 1993 is about 0.85 K/ca increasing at 0.35/0.60=0.58 K/ca/ca
1955+60=2015 so we should be approaching the next minimum in the rate of change about now if we continue that cycle and linear increase in rate of change. The min will be at about zero rate of change.
Zero rate of change is “haitus” / “pause” or whatever you like.
So if you choose to believe HadCRUT4’s various “corrections” , within the next five years we will start to see warming begin again, assuming the trend and the cycle are persistent climate patterns that will continue.
I derived 0.7 K/ca/ca from several data sets here:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=523
That results in +1.54K rise above 1840 baseline by 2050 ( x2CO2 est) .
So if we want to adopt the dubious idea that temperatures would have been flat since 1840 and that this quadratic rise is CO2 based AGW we get a climate sensitivity of 1.5K per doubling. That is a close to Nik Lewis’ result IIRC, presumably based on the same questionable assumptions.