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
richardscourtney says:
January 4, 2014 at 6:11 am
Stephen Richards:
January 4, 2014 at 5:25 am
—————————
No need for a flame war. Its just the way I look at it.
Total atmospheric CO2 = ~400ppm and total anthropogenic CO2 = ~13ppm. Is this correct? If so, it would seem that squabbling over the effect of an additional 13ppm of CO2 on a global mean temperature that is measured – alarmingly – in tenths of a degree is pointless. I’m sure well all have a room that needs painting instead. Or something.
@wbrozek
All three are wrong. The right reason you could see below:
@MattN
You could see it too:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/from:1978/to:1999/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend
– RichardLH says:
January 3, 2014 at 1:22 pm
Steve from Rockwood says:
January 3, 2014 at 1:10 pm
“Or a simpler way is to tell us what the amplitude of the 60 year cycle is so that we can remove it.”
An outline guide to magnitude and phase (only two cycles so it is imprecise at best) is
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720 –
Or, we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
It seems probable that we will continue to recover from LIA, for more than a century.
It’s possible we will get dip, or pause, in the slow upward trend one sees if you remove 60 year cylce, but one can’t realistically expect to see it, within 10 year from now. Nor could see it significant warming, even if CO2 were warming [which not indicated in above graph].
So in terms of climate vs weather, we will not find anything resembling a CO2 “fingerprint”
in less time than about 10 years [regardless of what happens in next 10 years].
One could say there is a strong indication that the “greenhouse effect theory” has already
been disproven, though it’s possible some of effect has been hidden by “noise”, so a doubling
of CO2 causing 1 C of warming or less, is not been definitely disproven. If one support idea of 2 or more C of warming from doubling CO2, it doesn’t look good for that belief.
So parrot may be drugged or sleeping. But it’s not chirping. And will likely remain resting for
a decade or two- if the maggots don’t eat it.
@wbrozek
@MattN
Or even better:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/from:1978/to:2002/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/trend
Bill Illis:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at January 4, 2014 at 6:14 am.
I very, very strongly agree that there is no need for a flame war. Indeed, I wrote my post because I was offended at the flaming post (which was aimed at you).
If people disagree with views of you, me or anybody else then that is good provided they explain the disagreement. This engenders discussion from which we may all learn. But merely saying someone’s view is “is clown stuff. Stupid to the point of imbecilic.” is abusive and serves no useful purpose.
The recipient of such flaming is inhibited from replying because that is likely to create a flame war. Hence, offended onlookers (in this case, me) need to ask the flamer to provide an argument to substantiate the abusive words.
Richard
gbaikie says:
January 4, 2014 at 6:28 am
“Or, we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age.”
The most likely is a cyclic recovery as demonstrated by the blue line below (which just removes the 60 year cycle) given that there was a drop to the latest of the many low points in the Little Ice Age.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720
The recovery cannot be a linear trend as is so often assumed/derived/drawn. It must have been some form of cyclic event as the blue line hints.
One or two people seem to have latched on to the idea of temperatures following a 60-year cycle. So how do today’s temperatures compare to those in the early 50’s?
The Central England Temperature (CET) had just ended a period of slight warming, and was about to cool for a couple of decades. Perhaps vaguely similar to today, BUT generally about 0.5 C colder than today’s levels.
The GISS dataset shows very small variations from year to year in the 1950’s, but again, the anomalies were about 0.5 C below today’s values.
HadCrut4 shows a similar pattern, also with anomalies also 0.5 to 0.6 C below those of today.
So, whatever cycle might be discernable, it hasn’t resulted in 1950’s conditions in the 2010’s – or whatever we call this decade (I saw a suggestion that we follow the “noughties” with the “onesies”), but hardly catastrophic warming either at about 1 degree per century.
The following are 15 year (1998-2013) linear trends of each month of the year for Contiguous US temperatures as calculated by the NCDC/NOAA Climate at a Glance web page
JAN -1.49 F/decade (declining)
FEB -2.64 (declining)
MAR +1.39 (rising)
APR -0, 22 (declining)
MAY -0.58 (declining)
JUN +1.18 (rising)
JUL +0.28 (rising)
AUG +0.03 (flat)
SEPT +0.09 (flat)
OCT -0.58 (declining)
NOV -0.75 (declining)
DEC -0.70 (declining)
Summary
7 months are declining, 2 months are flat, and 3 months are rising
WINTER AND FALL are DECLINING TEMPERATURES
SPRING AND SUMMER are RISING TEMPERATURES [spring is almost flat]
12 MONTHS JAN-DEC -0.16F/decade (flat)
There is no global warming in UNITED STATES. Why are we even talking about Co2 levels, global or hemispheric temperatures? If anything we should be concerned about the impact falling temperatures in United States on infrastructure, farming, increased tornado risks, heating oil stocks, winter storm damage as the oceans cool further over the next 30 years
Richard Barraclough says:
January 4, 2014 at 7:07 am
“Perhaps vaguely similar to today, BUT generally about 0.5 C colder than today’s levels.”
As the referenced graphs show quite clearly – you are quite correct. However none of what you said indicates what the likely trend will be for the next few years. Care to tell us what your predictions are?
Meanwhile, back to reality, those poor Canucks now have to endure “Frost Quakes” along with the bitter cold:
‘Frost quakes’ wake Toronto residents on cold night
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/frost-quakes-wake-toronto-residents-on-cold-night-1.2482615
AGW sure does manifest itself in strange ways! Warm is cold. GK
-The recovery cannot be a linear trend as is so often assumed/derived/drawn. It must have been some form of cyclic event as the blue line hints.-
Yes there are many cycles.
I would say the Little Ice Age is part of cycle, and obviously part of larger the interglacial cycle. And Glacial and interglacial are cycles within our current Ice Box climate or the big, millions of years long Ice Age.
I would say it’s impossible to get linear warming or cool tread.
Or one say it this way, any linear warming or cooling will result in cycles. One has a constant warming, translating to cycles, AND you have cycles which are *causing* warming [and cooling].
One could say, generally, that long cycles must involve things like an ocean, though ocean cycles has shorter cycles and particularly in regard to regional [parts of ocean have shorter cycles]. Whereas the atmosphere tends to have shorter cycles, though one have an assemble of cycles creating longer cycles. But basically the atmosphere is weather, and ocean is climate and global climate.
juan slayton says:
January 3, 2014 at 9:27 pm
Here’s one that claims an 11% increase, with a 1% increase for every 10 ppmv rise in atmospheric CO2:
http://catholicexchange.com/the-increase-in-co2-is-boosting-world-food-production
It has additional links that support the hypothesis, one in particular that descrbes in detail the utilization of CO2 from burning various fuels to boost greenhouse production.
General information here:
http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php
I haven’t been able to find the link claiming the 15% increase, but I shall keep looking for it.
The point is we’re actually experiencing the benefits now, as opposed to mere conjecture regarding the impact future CO2 increases might have on global temperature. (CO2 has increased in the past 17 years but temperature? Not so much!)
Hi RichardLH,
I wish I knew! If I had to wager my own money on it, I would go for a flat trend for the next decade, on the balance of nothing more than my own gut feel. Say the next 10 years within 0.1C of the last 10. I remember cold snowy winters with nostalgic fondness, and would love more of the same, but (in the UK, at least), this one has been a real disappointment, with its endless south-westerly winds, despite excited predictions of extreme cold a few months ago (mostly by the Daily Express, it has to be said)
Cheers
G. Karst says: 7:30 am
Meanwhile, back to reality, those poor Canucks now have to endure “Frost Quakes” along with the bitter cold:
Another media BS thing
It was an ice storm, everything is covered in ice
When a sheet of ice expands and [lets] go of the house it’s on it create[s] a huge bang (noise) inside the house
It is NOT the sound of the ground expanding.
People that are new to this weather don’t know it’s just ice so they call the police etc.
“The religious beliefs in this debate are displayed by those who seek to undermine the science because of their fundamentalist predetermined position …”
Tell that to the Global Warming Alarmists who bowed down before Mann’s Hockey Stick and went forth evangelizing Gore’s sermons of evils of CO2. While ignoring science and physics that showed CO2 could not cause their prophesied catastrophic Earth melt down.
Tell that to the Global Warming Alarmists who worshiped false computer models of Earth’s climate. While their Bishops cherry picked weather stations and their Popes upwardly adjust data once written in stone.
RichardLH says:
January 4, 2014 at 3:48 am
Apart from a slight 0.1 offset between the two they are showing basically the same thing AFAIK
This is true. The discrepancy I was thinking of was with respect to the time for a zero slope.
John Finn says:
January 4, 2014 at 3:56 am
UAH is the one in which we had the most trust and I see no reason why that should change.
This needs to get resolved somehow. Ray has an interesting comment on Dr. Spencer’s site with respect to Antarctica numbers.
“The average RSS S. Polar anomaly for 2013 is -0.075c, whereas the average UAH S. Polar anomaly (11 months) is +0.256c.”
See this for the rest of his comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/uah-v5-6-global-temperature-update-for-dec-2013-0-27-deg-c/#comment-98776
Gail Combs wrote, “In other words the MSM and politicians are providing cover fire while their buddies (Crony capitalists) take our money and running.”
===============
Yes, that’s basically correct, except I prefer the term crony Crapitalists, instead of “capitalists”…
Under free-market principles, solar/wind power wouldn’t really exist except as a very tiny niche market, as they are too inefficient, expensive, intermittent and diffuse to be competitive with conventional power sources.
The sooner free-market principles are restored, the better off the world will be….
Governments have already directly and indirectly squandered $trillions of taxpayers’ money on the now disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis.
Rob aka flatlander says:
January 4, 2014 at 8:06 am
I don’t really think the subject is worth arguing but your points are fairly weak:
No the ice storm was back at Christmas… current -20C temperatures.
Certainly accounts for some of the loud noises but Canadians are quite used to that sound when it thaws (it didn’t thaw last night).
If there is one thing Canadians are totally familiar with… it is the sight and sounds of winter’s snow and ice.
I am not ruling out the possibility that ground suddenly heaving (frost expansion), tree trunks exploding, expansion contraction forces create loud noise and vibration (quake). I am not saying your wrong, but I am not convinced. GK
So 98, 05 and 10 were high because of the preceding 97/98, 04/05 and 09/10 ENSO events.
That means that 2013 is the highest year with _no_ ENSO event, preceding or otherwise, which is something of a record.
richardscourtney says @9:53 pm
Rob aka flatlander: Please inform on how to obtain some of the “big oil” funding which you imply exists.
Roy spencer, Anthony W@tts, Bob tisdale, Richard
Sorry guys I too am on the handout line up for such cash
My locally tax dollar funded guru/profit David Suzuki says so…
It must be right! Lol
The IPCC crew is funded out of misappropriated carbon tax dollars.
Have you noticed lately how many government budget expenses are justified with the term climate change added to them. It’s like an automatic stamp of approval if you add the words.
The public is being bilked out of billions for this sharade that has NO checks or balances or required proof to the things it says.
Like wise pharma companies, oil companies, chemical companies can do all the research they want, but we know the research is biased to information they WANT to put out. If the find something they don’t like they are not required to release that info.
The IPCC is the EXACT same way, it releases statements only on what appears to support Global Warming, they have hijacked the term Climate Change and Climate Denier
The climate has always changed ( ain’t no friggin ice age glaciers on my house today )
Climate Denier would seem to suggest one who denies NATURAL climate variation.
The IPCC mandate is to say the planet is warming because of humans, they are to report that and tell us what we need to do as the human race with that
So far all they can do is put out very twisted reports and policies that have nothing to do with what the climate reality is involving CO2 wether natural or man made and how the overall temperature of the planet is increasing or decreasing.
These satellite statements are very telling in that the “trend” means nothing inside of error margin of the equipment and if you actually look at the data for each huge region of the planet some are up some are down its moving continually year to year all over the place.
It’s like counting a handfull of worms as they slither around in your fingers and fall back into a bucket
Locally I know my temperature varies year to year, but never exceeds its known boundaries
I also know that the arctic (northwest passage) has been with way less ice than currently and way more ice than currently
I don’t think we can pollute this planet continually and get away with it. The solution to pollution is NOT dilution.
But there is no evidence our CO2 emissions are doing anything worth sacrificing billions of dollars for in the way we have been doing.
Currently, we are talking about subsidies and funding of research that deserves being called ‘obscure’ because they are fiddeling the numbers. And we are talking about changes of about one-third of a degree C. But nobody, afaik, has interviewed those who ought to know best and can probaby assess the consequences of these minor changes: the Inuit and the tribes in northern Siberia. These, I suppose, could by means of their tales and the experiences of their eldest, plus their present observations tell best if the climate is deteriorating in a way that affects their environment. A serious field of studies for Ethnologists and Anthropologists, I suppose. I understand that this is not hard evidence, but what happens if their tales confirm the Medieval Warm Period in a different way?
Pippen Kool says: at 8:53 That means that 2013 is the highest year with _no_ ENSO event, preceding or otherwise, which is something of a record.
No pippen 0.27 deg above average on equipment that has error margins well out side of that in a climate that varies from -65 to +45 mostly in a system of fudged together temperature scans means absolutely nOThIng
Pippen Kool says:
January 4, 2014 at 8:53 am
“So 98, 05 and 10 were high because of the preceding 97/98, 04/05 and 09/10 ENSO events.
That means that 2013 is the highest year with _no_ ENSO event, preceding or otherwise, which is something of a record.”
The question is not where we are, but rather where we are going. So is your prediction for higher temperatures next year (on average) or lower and why?
G karst
Do you live in Canada?
Where this is happening?
I’m 48 and have live all across Canada
The ground has never quaked from ice
Only ice on things
I thought he was from Fairbanks…
Anthony, the chart up top (the way it is plotted) is interesting since it really shows a record of two halves either side of the 1998 el Nino event. Can you or anyone else provide a brief summary of the favoured explanations for this? The lower troposphere got a little bit warmer and has stayed that way for 15 years.
My own “feeling” about solar cycles is that this is a two speed system. An instantaneous response to a change in spectral output and a delayed response – maybe 10 to 30 years – while the climate system adjusts to a new configuration of amongst other things, the sub polar Jet. I think there may be significant risk of European winters becoming periodically much colder.
This post, building on work of Clive Best, has proven popular with you readers, hope you don’t mind me posting the link again…
On Energy Matters: The Ice Man Cometh