UAH Global Temperature Update for December 2020: +0.27 deg. C

From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog

January 2nd, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2020 was +0.27 deg. C, down substantially from the November, 2020 value of +0.53 deg. C.For comparison, the CDAS global surface temperature anomaly for the last 30 days at Weatherbell.com was +0.31 deg. C.

2020 ended as the 2nd warmest year in the 42-year satellite tropospheric temperature record at +0.49 deg. C, behind the 2016 value of +0.53 deg. C.

Cooling in December was largest over land, with 1-month drop of 0.60 deg. C, which is the 6th largest drop out of 504 months. This is likely the result of the La Nina now in progress.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 24 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.14 +1.14
2019 02 +0.37 +0.46 +0.28 +0.43 -0.03 +1.05 +0.05
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.58
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.49 +0.93 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.99 +0.38
2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35
2019 07 +0.38 +0.32 +0.44 +0.45 +0.10 +0.34 +0.87
2019 08 +0.38 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.23
2019 09 +0.61 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.13 +0.75 +0.57
2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.27 +0.30 -0.04 +1.00 +0.49
2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.37
2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
2020 01 +0.56 +0.60 +0.53 +0.61 +0.73 +0.12 +0.65
2020 02 +0.75 +0.96 +0.55 +0.76 +0.38 +0.02 +0.30
2020 03 +0.47 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.08 -0.72 +0.16
2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.34 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
2020 05 +0.54 +0.60 +0.49 +0.66 +0.17 +1.15 -0.15
2020 06 +0.43 +0.45 +0.41 +0.46 +0.37 +0.80 +1.20
2020 07 +0.44 +0.45 +0.42 +0.46 +0.55 +0.39 +0.66
2020 08 +0.43 +0.47 +0.38 +0.59 +0.41 +0.47 +0.49
2020 09 +0.57 +0.58 +0.56 +0.46 +0.96 +0.48 +0.92
2020 10 +0.54 +0.71 +0.37 +0.37 +1.09 +1.23 +0.24
2020 11 +0.53 +0.67 +0.39 +0.29 +1.56 +1.38 +1.41
2020 12 +0.27 +0.12 +0.32 +0.05 +0.56 +0.59 +0.23

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for December, 2020 should be available within the next few days here.

The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt

4.6 19 votes
Article Rating
140 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Tillman
January 2, 2021 3:00 pm

La Nina kicks in with a vengeance!

But El Nino lingered after its Feb peak, so, as I suggested would be the case, 2020 registers as the second warmest year in the UAH record, pipping out Super El Nino 1998, but losing to Super El Nino 2016.

Still the downtrend from Feb 2016 is intact. Feb 2021 will mark five years and counting.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Tillman
January 2, 2021 6:49 pm

“2020 registers as the second warmest year in the UAH record, pipping out Super El Nino 1998, but losing to Super El Nino 2016.”

Which means all three years, 1998, 2016, and 2020 are all within the margin of error of the measuring instrument, so we really don’t know which one is the warmest of the three.

1934 was warmer than all of them by about 0.4C.

Loydo
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 2, 2021 10:03 pm

“1934 was warmer than all of them by about 0.4C”
Basing your opinion on what?

LdB
Reply to  Loydo
January 2, 2021 11:34 pm

What difference would it make you can’t analyze 36 data points on a graph so it’s always going to be a mystery to you.

meab
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 9:26 am

LoyD’oh,

In 2008, GISS (the US Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the part of NASA responsible for temperature measurements) listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931 in that order. 
 
In 2009, after a detailed scientific review, GISS was forced to amend the list and 1934 became the warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931.  1934 used to be listed by GISS as hotter than 1998 and hotter than 2006. Even 1921 was hotter than 2006.
 
Apparently, it just wouldn’t do for 1934 to be listed as the hottest year on record; people would be less inclined to believe in the climate crisis scam, so GISS rewrote the list again in 2010 with the new order being 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921, and 1999. Somehow, 1934 dropped below 1998 and 2006 and 1921 dropped below 2006.

With all the unsubstantiated changes that GISS has made to this list – NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ANY CONFIDENCE IN IT AT ALL, especially since anyone can easily see from the current list of State-wide, all-time high temperature records in the US that the 1930’s were far hotter than the present. 

If you haven’t figured it out, LoyD’oh, it’s adjustments all the way down.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  meab
January 3, 2021 5:27 pm

“In 2008, GISS (the US Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the part of NASA responsible for temperature measurements) listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931 in that order.”

Thanks for that history, meab.

This was NASA Climate’s effort to make it appear as though we were living in the warmest period in human history by making 1998 warmer than 1934. They did this in an effort to sell the Human-caused Climate Change narrative.

They subsequently did the same thing to 1998, that they did to 1934, that is, they demoted it from the warmest year since 1934 to a nothing-special year in order to call subsequent years “the Hottest Year Evah!. They called 2014, the hottest year evah!, and then they called 2015, the hottest year evah!. But if you look at the satellite temperature chart you will see that neither 2014 or 2015 were hotter than 1998.

Before NASA started messing with the temperatures, their 1998 and the satellite’s 1998 had similar readings. But NASA couldn’t say “Hottest Year Evah!” and scare people, if they left 1998 hotter than subsequent years so they cooled it in their computers for political purposes.

I would describe these procedures as Deliberate Fraud on the people of the world. I think it’s a criminal act.

meab, you seem to have a detailed handle on the history of these events. I would love to hear a report on NASA’s and NOAA’s subsequent bastardizations of the temperature record and the demoting of 1998 from the most significant year in the period, to an also-ran, by computer manipulation. You can’t trust anything these guys do with the temperature record!

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 1:22 pm

The data

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 5:03 pm

“Basing your opinion on what?”

On James Hansen’s sayso, among others. Hansen said 1934 was the hottest year in the Twentieth Century and it was 0.5C hotter than 1998. That would make it 0.4C hotter than 2016.

And if you look in the Climategate emails you will find another mention of 1934 being 0.49) hotter than 1998.

You can also look at this US surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999):

comment image

And Hansen says this on his NASA webpage:

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

“in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934”

Thanks for asking, Loydo. 🙂

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2021 6:10 pm

@NASA needs to fire Columbia U @NASAGISS because they think we are at +1.3°C anomaly right now. Rubbish.

We are only at ~+0.3°C to the proper baseline of 14°C. Maybe GISS thinks 13°C is the correct baseline? Cancel them. Stay with UAH.

Robertvd
Reply to  Loydo
January 4, 2021 5:48 am

The question should be if Hippos would be able to live in the Thames today
https://toriherridge.com/2014/09/10/when-hippos-swam-in-the-thames/

Redge
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 2, 2021 11:42 pm

Wasn’t that just in the USA, Tom?

Not that it matters – a little extra warmth is very welcome

Last edited 8 months ago by Redge
Archer
Reply to  Redge
January 3, 2021 1:04 am

Iirc it shows up in British records as well.

Redge
Reply to  Archer
January 3, 2021 1:07 am

I’m not so sure, Archer, do you have a link?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Redge
January 3, 2021 8:15 am

Wide areas of the globe saw very high temperatures in the 30’s. Higher than today.

Redge
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 3, 2021 8:24 am

I’m not doubting you Tom, just asking for a link

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Redge
January 3, 2021 5:45 pm

I think I have just what you are looking for, Redge:

Tmax charts

US chart:

comment image

China chart:

comment image

India chart:

comment image

Norway chart:

comment image

Australia chart:

comment image

All these unmodified, regional surface temperature charts show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, just the same as what the US surface temperature chart shows.

When all the regional surface temperature charts from around the world have the same temperature profile, then I would submit *that* is the temperature profile of the whole world.

In this case, the temperature profile shows the world is not experiencing unprecendented warming as the Alarmists assert. If there’s no unprecedented warming then that means CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere and we have nothing to fear from it.

Redge
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 3, 2021 11:44 pm

Unmodified and definitely not unprecedented

Cheers Tom

Redge
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 3, 2021 11:47 pm

I love WUWT

Sensible discussion and knowledge sharing

Last edited 8 months ago by Redge
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Redge
January 3, 2021 5:38 pm

“Wasn’t that just in the USA, Tom?”

Yes, it *was* just in the United States (and Canada).

I can’t say that other nations on the planet had that high a temperature at that particular time, but if you look at all the unmodified, regional surface temperature charts from around the world, they all show a similar temperature profile, where the Early Twentieth Century was just as warm, or in the case of the U.S., warmer, than the present day.

So, athough exact temperature matches should not be expected around the world, the matches are close enough that we can tell ourselves that CO2 has very little to do with the temperatures, and we don’t need to concern ourselves with controlling it.

There is a lot more CO2 today than in the 1930’s, yet it is no warmer now than then, and in fact, the regional surface temperature charts show the world is in a temperature downtrend.

CO2 is not a problem.

No fraudulent Hockey Stick Charts = No CO2 crisis.

All the other charts, the ones recorded by human beings in every region of the Earth over the last few hundred years show that the world is not overheating and CO2 is therefore, not a problem.

Reply to  John Tillman
January 3, 2021 3:57 pm

Good to see the “wobble” coming out of this historically close relationship.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/26/why-do-the-hadsst-sea-surface-temperatures-trend-down/#comment-3152278

This formula works reasonably well back to 1982, which is the limit of my data availability.

UAHLT (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth 

See Figs. 5a and 5b in this paper:
CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
Allan MacRae, 15Jun2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/

The relationship has been a bit wobbly just recently – there seems to be an additional source of heat that is not accounted for in this formula.

Best personal regards, Allan

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 3, 2021 4:13 pm

So in December 2020 Earth was only 0.27C warmer than the 30-year baseline (1981-2010). OK people, be very afraid!
You’re all going to burn up, deserts will consume the Earth, coastline cities will be inundated, the seas will boil and your martinis will evaporate – the end of life as we know it!
There is only ONE SOLUTION: “The Great Reset”. You must renounce all your wealth (send it all to me), and live like a Chinese serf for the rest of your days – secure in the knowledge that you have saved the planet for future generations of innumerate imbeciles.

ChrisB
January 2, 2021 3:05 pm

Roy,

You’ve indicated that “linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade”. I was wondering if you could also specify the 95% confidence intervals for this slope.

Thanks
Chris

fred250
Reply to  ChrisB
January 2, 2021 3:38 pm

Except the data is anything but linear. !

Richard M
Reply to  ChrisB
January 3, 2021 6:44 am

Satellite data is way to short and dominated by noise (ocean cycles). A linear trend is meaningless unless you can find a way to correct for all the noise.

I believe the Christy/McNider paper tried to do this with ENSO and volcanoes but still did not take into account the PDO, AMO and salinity changes.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/29/study-no-acceleration-in-global-warming-climate-sensitivity-to-co2-too-high/

RickWill
January 2, 2021 3:07 pm

A little more realistic relative to the surface temperature particularly for the tropics.

The surface temperature of the global oceans is thermostatically controlled within tight limits.

UAH does not claim to be a surface temperature but it is difficult to explain why it would depart from the surface temperature over the decades without there being some measurement artefact.

Also interesting that the maximum energy input occurs in December or January each year and that tends to align with the coolest temperature for each cycle.

John Tillman
Reply to  RickWill
January 2, 2021 3:08 pm

We’re nearest the Sun right now,

RickWill
Reply to  John Tillman
January 2, 2021 3:14 pm

Exactly – highest energy input but the UAH LT temperature data cooler than it has been for at least the last 10 months. It appears inconsistent!

John Tillman
Reply to  RickWill
January 2, 2021 3:55 pm

Appears, but isn’t. The water-heavy Southern Hemisphere is angled toward the Sun and the land-heavy NH away.

RickWill
Reply to  John Tillman
January 2, 2021 4:46 pm

Correct again – it the time of the year when the planet actually increases its energy uptake rather than losing it and yet the UAH LT temperature is cooler than previous months.

John Tillman
Reply to  RickWill
January 2, 2021 4:58 pm

That’s because 2019 was an El Nino year, but now we’re switching to La Nina mode. Next year will start out cooler than last year.

MarkW
Reply to  RickWill
January 2, 2021 5:17 pm

If the distance from the sun was the only thing that impacted the planets temperature, you would have a point.
The reality is that there are many things that impact temperature, and on a month to month basis, many of them are much more important than these very small changes in TSI.

gbaikie
Reply to  MarkW
January 2, 2021 7:05 pm

South hemisphere has been about 1 C cooler than northern hemisphere despite having more ocean area and absorbing more sunlight. People have arguing about why this the case for over century. One reason is warmer southern waters cross equator and warm northern hemisphere.
And probably has to do the Antarctic continent and the ocean circulation around it.

MarkW
Reply to  gbaikie
January 2, 2021 8:48 pm

The amount of energy absorbed by water depends on the latitude. A lot is absorbed near the poles, very little is absorbed near the poles.
The Antarctic is many, many degrees colder than the Arctic. That’s got to be a huge part of any difference.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
January 2, 2021 8:54 pm

“A lot is absorbed near the poles, very little is absorbed near the poles.”

???

Do you want to change that ??? 😉

David A
Reply to  MarkW
January 2, 2021 10:33 pm

The SH summer allows the earth to recieve plus 90 watts a sq’meter, hardly a small change in TSI. Yet the SH summer is a bit shorter. Please see my post a few posts above for a more detailed discussion of why the atmosphere cools despite such a large TSI increase.

David A
Reply to  RickWill
January 2, 2021 10:23 pm

Rick, the atmosphere is a thin sandwich between the Sun, and the oceans, which hold vastly more energy than the atmosphere.

So yes, we have plus 90 watts per sq meter in the SH summer, absolutely dwarfing the tiny, at most plus 2 W-SqM CO2 induced greenhouse affect. Yet the planet appears to cool. What actually cools? Not the planet! Just the atmosphere.

David’s law; only two things can change the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, either a change in energy input, or a change in the resedince time of energy within the measured system. ( Earth’s land, oceans and atmosphere.)

So, in the S.H. summer the increased TSI in the Waterworld S.H. is increased, yet much of this energy is lost to the atmosphere, as it penetrates the oceans, up to 800′, and is lost to the atmosphere for the residence time that said energy stays beneath the surface. What is the residence time of disparate WL solar energy entering the oceans. I have been unsuccessful in finding it, yet suspect it varies from days to years depending on WL, cloud cover, clear sky humidity, water turbity, etc… However we can surmise a great deal more energy enters the oceans and is lost to the atmosphere for a time during the S.H. summer, then during the S.H. winter.

Yet in the S.H. summer – NH winter, the much great Land mass with its ice and snow reflects a great deal of incoming TSI, thereby shortening the residence time of said TSI.

So yes between shorter residence time insolation in the NH, and longer residence time insolation into the SH Greenhouse Liquid oceans, the atmosphere cools, yet does the Planet ( earth, waters, atmosphere) gain or lose energy in the SH Summer?

A very good question, yet unfortunately our scientists are to busy creating new ways to blame you SUV for everything to definitively answer that question.

Last edited 8 months ago by David A
SMagee
Reply to  RickWill
January 3, 2021 5:47 am

There is a lag between the heat being absorbed in the ocean and it showing in the atmosphere. This lag is easyly several months

Robert Austin
Reply to  RickWill
January 2, 2021 5:47 pm

Northern hemisphere winter albedo?

Reply to  John Tillman
January 2, 2021 5:22 pm

The aphelion and perihelion show how surprisingly little difference insolation makes. The climate clearly has powerful adaptive responses. And the CAGW narrative is only about insolation and straining out a few watts/m3. A disconnect with reality.

RickWill
Reply to  Phil Salmon
January 2, 2021 6:56 pm

And remember the insolation is inversely related to the square of the distance. There is around 80W/sq.m difference in the peak insolation during the annual orbit.

The sea surface temperature is constrained at the bottom end by sea ice formation and the top end at 32C when the surface is cooling due to high cloud.

The bottom chart in this pair show how the atmospheric window squeezes shut if the sea surface temperature could be heated by some internal means to 34C. It would be under perpetual cloud. There would still be cloudburst but there would never be clear sky. There would be massive loss of heat through OLR. The radiative balance point is around 30C.

CloudBurst.png
MarkW
Reply to  Phil Salmon
January 2, 2021 8:49 pm

aphelion and perihelion also show that there is very little difference in insolation between the two points.

David A
Reply to  MarkW
January 3, 2021 6:33 am

90 watts per sq meter is not ” very little”

Bellman
Reply to  RickWill
January 2, 2021 3:32 pm

Also interesting that the maximum energy input occurs in December or January each year and that tends to align with the coolest temperature for each cycle.

They’re anomalies not temperature. Even if December and January were the hottest months each year there’s no reason to suppose the anomalies would be bigger. In any event the hottest months of the year are in the Northern Hemisphere summers, due to land warming faster than ocean.

RickWill
Reply to  Bellman
January 2, 2021 5:01 pm

Have you got the values for the monthly adjustments from the actual measured data?

RickWill
Reply to  Bellman
January 2, 2021 5:11 pm

I checked the actual data:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/irss_tlt_0-360E_-90-90N_n_2015:2020.png
It shows the minimum temperature occurs when TOA insolation is its its peak. You are probably correct that the land is easier to warm up than an ocean. Also the oceans are thermostatically controlled so resist warming up.

It is quite obvious that this temperature has little to do with what occurs on Earth’s surface. Still interesting to understand why it is drifting relative to the actual surface temperature.

David A
Reply to  RickWill
January 3, 2021 6:38 am

With out knowing the seasonal flux in Ocean Heat Content, we don’t know if earth gains or loses energy during the SH summer.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
January 3, 2021 4:24 am

Wait a minute. Anomalies supposedly show warming/cooling trends. Are you saying there has been no warming in the SH? I can’t think of any other explanation for your observation.

BTW, that IS one of the problems with anomalies. They are only good if the baseline temps used to extract them are accurate. They also hide much of the change that happens in the atmosphere. The atmosphere works on absolute temps and absolute energy, not on some perceived “change” in the values.

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 3, 2021 9:45 am

Are you saying there has been no warming in the SH?

I’ve no idea why you’d think that. The warming trend in the SH is around 1.1°C / century, compared with 1.6°C / century in the NH.

David A
Reply to  Bellman
January 3, 2021 6:35 am

Are you not only measuring the atmosphere?
What happens to the ocean heat content during the SH summer? Have you quantified it?

Last edited 8 months ago by David A
OweninGA
Reply to  RickWill
January 2, 2021 5:54 pm

I would check its trends against individual station raw reported data on the point graphic. I actually think it lines up better with the station data, but for some odd reason (sarc) diverges from the homogenized final products…I wonder what might cause that?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RickWill
January 2, 2021 7:02 pm

“UAH does not claim to be a surface temperature but it is difficult to explain why it would depart from the surface temperature over the decades without there being some measurement artefact.”

Perhaps it is because those surface temperature records are constantly being adjusted for political purposes. The year 1998 shows to be the second warmest year in the satellite record, but NOAA/NASA demoted 1998, and do not now show it as the second-warmest year. They did this so they could claim that 2014 was “the Hottest Year Evah!, and then each year afterwards, they declared that year to be the hottest year evah!, and now they claim last year was the second hottest year.

NASA and NOAA have been adjusting the surface temperature record in order to make it fit the Human-caused Climate Change narrative.

If you look on the satellite chart, it will show that 2014 and 2015 were *not* the hottest years evah!.

The official surface temperature record is a bastarized record created to sell a political agenda. It’s no surprise that it doesn’t match up with the satellite record.

So which one should we depend on? Well, the balloon data corrolates with the satellite data, so I guess that means it does not correlate with the bastardized surface temperature record.

We should go with what the balloons and the satellites say, and ignore what the climate alarmists say.

RickWill
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 2, 2021 8:01 pm

I have compared the UAH LT data for the Nino34 region going back to 1980. That region is thermostatically controlled so has not changed during the satellite era; per attached. By comparison, the UAH LT data shows an upward trend for the same region. There is something amiss with the UAH dataset compared to the actual surface temperature.

Screen Shot 2021-01-03 at 2.59.57 pm.png
Tom Abbott
Reply to  RickWill
January 3, 2021 5:54 pm

That sounds like a legitimate question.

fred250
January 2, 2021 3:37 pm

Not surprised Australia has had a large drop in temperature.

Its been a very ordinary, cloudy and rainy December here in the mid Hunter…..

… and most of the East coast, where most people actually live.

Last edited 8 months ago by fred250
RegGuheert
January 2, 2021 3:40 pm

Question: Next month will the reference temperature change from the average of 1981 through 2010 to the average of 1991 through 2020? TIA!

Bellman
Reply to  RegGuheert
January 2, 2021 3:49 pm

I hope not, given how confused some get with the different base periods in different data sets.

For the record the average 1991 – 2020 anomaly was +0.14°C, so you would have to subtract that much from each months anomaly.

Drake
Reply to  RegGuheert
January 2, 2021 3:52 pm

My question: Why would you not use the full record instead of just 30 years to set the baseline? And add the new information annually!

John F Hultquist
Reply to  Drake
January 2, 2021 4:06 pm

Because by international agreement, since ~1935, the comparisons are by 30 year averages – called “Normals”.
See: <a href=”https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate-normals”><strong>Climate Normals</strong></a>

Note that this situation was accepted before modern computers, was intended to give a comparison for middle aged folks, and was not designed for the “climate science” as now practiced.
Adding data annually would disrupt an 85 year system. Anyone is able to get additional data and calculate averages, but then comparisons with previous “climate normals” would introduce new issues.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Drake
January 3, 2021 4:42 am

This may be a stupid question, but why not just use a rolling 30 year average of monthly data and forget anomalies. We are fast approaching the time when this would give a much more accurate assessment of what the actual changes are that we are experiencing. It would be much easier to use correct scientific treatment of data such as significant figures. I don’s think it should replace local and regional assessment, which is what SH vs NH is because that is important for determining “climate” operation.

fred250
Reply to  RegGuheert
January 2, 2021 4:54 pm

The period 1981-2010 isn’t a bad period to use as a reference.

It picks up most of one leg of the AMO, which is a strong driver of Arctic and NH temperatures.

comment image

This was drawn a few years ago, but you can see why temperatures are above the average of that reference period .. ie we are still very much in the top period of the AMO.

Notice how low the late 1970s was.. also a time of extreme sea ice in the Arctic.

Last edited 8 months ago by fred250
Steen Rasmussen
Reply to  RegGuheert
January 3, 2021 9:01 am

I would very much apreciate we could have the actual absolute temperature added which equals to the 1981-2010 average. The mean temperature of the Earth should be 15C(288K) – but what is the average we a comparing to? My guess (based on NOAA data) is close but not exceeding 288K

Kind regards
SteenR

Bellman
January 2, 2021 3:41 pm

Big cool down. This was the 7th warmest December in the record, the lowest monthly ranking of the year. 2020 finishes technically the second warmest year on record, but could be considered a statistical tie with 1998.

I’ll be very surprised if 2021 wasn’t quite a bit cooler than 2020.

Reply to  Bellman
January 2, 2021 5:27 pm

Yes it seems December was the evuh-snatching month. Without it they were on track for another record Year.

Bellman
Reply to  Phil Salmon
January 2, 2021 6:07 pm

We were not on track for a record year – at least not in the UAH data set. It would have taken a record breaking December by some margin, to have made 2020 warmer than 2016.

fred250
January 2, 2021 3:46 pm

Said I’d update the Arctic UAH graph.

comment image

RegGuheert
Reply to  fred250
January 2, 2021 4:00 pm

Thanks for the graph. I can’t say that looks very credible. Did something (El Nino?) dump a bunch of heat into the Arctic in Jan 2016, but at no other time (like in 1998)? If so, why only then?

RegGuheert
Reply to  RegGuheert
January 2, 2021 4:30 pm

Just to answer a part of my dumb question: 1998 is NOT shown on Fred250’s graph.

Any chance you could include more of the past so that we can see if this effect happens at any other time?

Bellman
Reply to  RegGuheert
January 2, 2021 4:58 pm

Here’s the data from the start to November 2020.

comment image

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
January 2, 2021 5:05 pm

Here’s the data as a line graph from 2000

comment image

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 2, 2021 6:12 pm

Yep you can clearly see the jumps in 2005, 2010, 2015, followed by cooling

Just as I said.

How about you add December to your graph. !

Last edited 8 months ago by fred250
Bellman
Reply to  fred250
January 3, 2021 8:04 am

Another version of the graph with December 2020 added.

comment image

I’ve also added a linear trend line. Whether you see it as a good fit is up to you. The trend is around 2.4°C / century.

And here’s the graph covering the UAH data.

comment image

Trend is pretty similar at 2.5°C / century.

Steve Keohane
Reply to  Bellman
January 3, 2021 8:23 am

What is the sigma or Std. deviation, 1-2°C?

Scissor
Reply to  RegGuheert
January 2, 2021 4:32 pm

That jump in 2016 is dramatic, but re: 1998, the graph begins in 2000.

fred250
Reply to  RegGuheert
January 2, 2021 4:41 pm

Actually, there wasn’t any rise at all at the 1998 El Nino

The step change came in 1995, after a cooling period between 1980 and 1995

If you look at the graph above you can see a jump in 2005, followed by cooling.

Each little jump in, 2010, 2012, 2014 is also followed by cooling

El Nino seems to have rather variable effects in the Arctic.

No doubt that the 2015 event had a massive effect, that has been slowly dissipating.

comment image

ps.. I find it much more interesting to look for patterns within the data rather than looking at overall linear trends

Linear trends are only useful when something is obviously close to being linear….. so not climate data.

That is why the massive averaging, in-filling, UHI effects and homogenisation smearing of the surface data, makes it totally meaningless.

The whole process totally destroys any meaningful data.

Last edited 8 months ago by fred250
RegGuheert
Reply to  fred250
January 2, 2021 5:29 pm

Thanks! It looks quite a bit more believable with the additional data and the omission of the linear trendlines. Instead, it now looks like a very gradual, slightly undulating rise with a couple of jumps that revert to the trend after a few years.

Thanks again.

fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 2, 2021 6:26 pm

What is interesting is that there were a couple of anomalous points in the early 1980s, that were less cold than any time except the peak of the 2015 El Nino effect.

Are they real, or just hiccups in data retrieval /calculation.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  fred250
January 3, 2021 7:08 am

Linear regression trends of different population (individual station data) have certain assumption that must be met in order to be accurate. Global Average Temperatures meet none of them. Read about stationarity, homoscedasticity, and heteroscedasticity trending. Also about combining populations with different variances, i.e. the variance grows which means less meaning to a mean.

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
January 2, 2021 4:57 pm

Your graphs a little out of date. October and November where both over 1°C.

angech
Reply to  Bellman
January 2, 2021 5:10 pm

One of the most intriguing parts of the Climate debate is how people on both sides blindly follow some past concepts and argue vehemently about others using precepts that may not be right.
There are many contrary things in Climate science that do notwork in the obvious way.
Today I wish to discuss the concept of World Temperature rises going up and down due to the effects of El Nino, La Nina.
Standard cause and effect.
Mentioned by Dr Roy Spencer.
The starting point to arguing whether these changes augment or distort Climate warming and as to whether there actually is
global warming or merely natural variation.
My contention is that neither El Nino or La Nina actually do anything.
They simply reflect where the heat currently is, they do not cause a temperature rise or fall.
Thus a La Nina actually reflects the fact that the earth’s sea and atmosphere is cooling.
An El Nino reflects that the earth’s sea and atmosphere is heating up.
In so doing there is a natural change in the temperatures of the oceans as they are part of the system gaining or losing energy,
not causing it to happen.
[Part of an article sent to WUWT not good enough to publish but very relevant]

David A
Reply to  angech
January 2, 2021 11:51 pm

May I suggest you study Bob Tisdale’s work on this.

angech
Reply to  David A
January 3, 2021 5:07 pm

thank. Bob can be a bit wordy but does good work.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 2, 2021 6:17 pm

October and November where both over 1°C.

Which is exactly what is shown in my graph

Having trouble reading a basic graph?

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
January 2, 2021 6:49 pm

Sorry, my mistake.

It’s my data that is not up to date as I hadn’t included the December value in this post.

Last edited 8 months ago by Bellman
fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 2, 2021 6:59 pm

apology accepted. 🙂

I did have to double check my graph, though….. Its Sunday over here. !

January 2, 2021 5:05 pm

Thank you.

January 2, 2021 5:26 pm

Who is still a geothermal denier?

http://phzoe.com/2021/01/02/heat-flux-in-the-sun/

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Zoe Phin
January 2, 2021 6:17 pm

Zoe, WTFoxtrot? mixing geothermal with thermal conductivity of hydrogen in the Sun ? Reading your stuff makes the reader dumber….Here’s one for you, did you know that the center of the Earth is a couple of hundred degrees hotter than the surface of the Sun ? Go fact check…

Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 2, 2021 6:24 pm

How predicable …
Doesn’t bother calculating heat flux through the sun …
Do you dispute that there is one? How would you figure it out? Either way will support my main point.

RickWill
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 2, 2021 8:03 pm

I bet you clicked the link – do not entertain this troll.

Reply to  RickWill
January 2, 2021 9:18 pm

Rick, do you have a counter argument?
Do you even understand what I’m saying?

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
January 2, 2021 6:48 pm

The Sun has NOTHING to do with geothermal anything, dopey.

Yes, heat flows from higher temperatures to lower temperatures..

…. basic physics.

Reply to  fred250
January 2, 2021 6:51 pm

The sun’s emission has nothing to do with its internal heat flux?

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
January 2, 2021 7:00 pm

The Sun has NOTHING to do with geothermal anything, dopey.

Reply to  fred250
January 2, 2021 7:06 pm

The sun doesn’t have an internal heat flux, i.e. “solar-thermal”, that can be compared to geothermal? Weird. Please explain how a temperature gradient in the sun avoids heat flow.

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
January 2, 2021 8:08 pm

Poor Zoe,

…… doesn’t even know what the prefix “geo-” means

So sad. !!

At least we agree that heat flows from warmer to cooler.

Hence geothermal cannot be heating the bulk of the oceans, because the deep temperatures are cooler than the surface temperatures.

comment image

And can’t be heating to 0ºC where permafrost reaches temperatures of -20ºC

Or in deserts that can regularly drop to negative temperatures overnight, only to warm up once the SUN appears.

Siberia must be REALLY glad the current ground surface is geothermally heated to 0ºC. (or is your fantasy that it heats to 4-5ºC)

comment image

Must be a massive heat flux from the ground to 2m, hey ! 😉

Last edited 8 months ago by fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 2, 2021 8:17 pm

Fred,
So you don’t think the sun emits alot despite its small internal heat flux?

Why are you repeating the same talking points from another thread without posting my responses?

Last edited 8 months ago by Zoe Phin
fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
January 2, 2021 8:56 pm

Poor little zoe…… STILL hasn’t figured out what “geo-” means

Thinks it relates to Sun ?

Quite bizarrely hilarious…… like most of her posts.

And why would I bother with your previous run-around anti-science posts ?

Last edited 8 months ago by fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 2, 2021 9:10 pm

Fred,
Did I ever use the label “geo” to refer to the sun’s internal heat flux? No I did not.

Did you even get above 500 on your SAT Verbal?

Try to follow the analogy …

Solar internal heat flux -> emission
Earth’s geothermal heat flux -> emission

Got it?

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
January 2, 2021 11:05 pm

Yes you did,

Your very first babble was about “geothermal denial”…

… and you linked duirectly to another babble about the Sun

You don’t even know what you said yourself, that is how CONFUSED and IGNORANT you are.

Heat flows from warmer to cooler

Hence geothermal cannot be heating the bulk of the oceans, because the deep temperatures are cooler than the surface temperatures.
comment image
And can’t be heating to 0ºC where permafrost reaches temperatures of -20ºC

Or in deserts that can regularly drop to negative temperatures overnight, only to warm up once the SUN appears.

Siberia must be REALLY glad the current ground surface is geothermally heated to 0ºC. (or is your fantasy that it heats to 4-5ºC)

comment image

Must be a massive heat flux from the ground to 2m, hey !

David A
Reply to  fred250
January 2, 2021 10:49 pm

In order to figure out the energy content of geothermal in the oceans one must know the input, humm ? 2/3rds of the planet with a million or so volcanoes, a percentage of which are active, and the residence time of said input, which can be many years or decades possibly centuries. What is the mean residence time of geothermal into the oceans? How much geothermal is in the oceans? I don’t know. Anybody?

fred250
Reply to  David A
January 2, 2021 11:16 pm

We have a pretty good idea where geothermal can make a significant difference.

comment image

Only a crass fantasy-driven idiot, thinks it heats the ground to 0ºC in other places, (or does the anti-reality clown say 4-5ºC ?)

The evidence of permafrost down to -20ºC, severely negative surface temperatures in deserts, negative ocean gradient (cold at the bottom, warm at the surface) proves that no such thing happens on most of the Earth’s surface.

andy in epsom
Reply to  fred250
January 2, 2021 11:33 pm

So much bitterness. Did Zoe refuse to date you or something? you are acting more bitchy that an ex-boyfriend.

Reply to  fred250
January 2, 2021 11:36 pm

For the last time …
0C is a globe-wide average! If you want to see geothermal by latitude, go here:

http://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/

Don’t forget to look at diagrams provided by GEOPHYSICISTS in my link. Do you deny what geophysicts show?

If you want a map, it’s here:
http://phzoe.com/2020/03/13/geothermal-animated/

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
January 3, 2021 1:54 am

Working with theoretical “averages” is climate alarmist NONSENSE

Having to bend and swerve and run around like a headless chook in search of “excuses”…… is NOT SCIENCE.

If your low-level anti-science theory does not match reality

It is not even WRONG.. it is just NONSENSE.

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
January 3, 2021 1:55 am

Please link to scientific reality.

… not childish meanderings.

David A
Reply to  fred250
January 3, 2021 12:12 am

I was just hoping to get the discussion going on a slightly different track. Zoe appears somewhat one tracked, and my questions on the amount of geothermal within the oceans area a different track.

In general I see room for the 3 to 4 C of the deep oceans to partially related to geothermal, due to decades, perhaps even centuries of accumalated input. ( After all, the energy is cumlitive relevant to residence time.) The residence time of energy on land entering the atmosphere is hundreds of times shorter then geothermal entering the oceans, and the mean geothermal flow to land is likewise slower and reduced due to the thicker crust.

So, in my view, Geothermal, sans volcanism, has almost zero affect on atmospheric heat, other then the affect on ceans to moderate both heating and cooling of the atmosphere.

However this balance between geothermal in the Earth’s land crust, and the atmospheric T, is what sets the permafrost depth in the colder latitudes.

Quite honestly I really don’t know what Zoe is trying to assert.

Last edited 8 months ago by David A
Reply to  David A
January 3, 2021 12:20 am

“has almost zero affect on atmospheric heat.”

Literally true. But the question is energy and temperature in the atmosphere.

“Quite honestly I really don’t know what Zoe is trying to assert.”

Backradiation needs frontradiation, and its source is geothermal. The atmosphere is not an energt source, but a sink.

So much more info on my blog.
It’s a paradigm changer, so I expect deniers to uncritically stick to their proscribed script.

Good luck! Thx

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
January 3, 2021 1:51 am

If the FACTS don’t match your theory.

Your theory is WRONG

Attempting to bend the FACTS to suit your misguided theory is UNSCIENTIFIC

It is the way climate alarmists operate.

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
January 3, 2021 1:59 am

“and its source is geothermal.”

WRONG

There is no geothermal release from the oceans .

The temperature gradient in the oceans, which take up 70% of the Earth’s surface is the wrong way to allow that to happen.

BASIC SCIENCE……. which seems to totally elude you.

Please tell us how geothermal cause up radiation when the 2m temperature is -40C ?

Your mindless conjecture DOES NOT MATCH REALITY.

It is WRONG !

David A
Reply to  fred250
January 3, 2021 6:44 am

If there is zero geothermal release from the oceans, what happened to the billions of years of geothermal input? Energy cannot be destroyed, so where did it go.

( Not arguing Zoe’s argument here, just asking a question.)

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  David A
January 5, 2021 8:12 am

David A asked a good question: “What happened to the billions of years of geothermal input?”

It has gone into two main physical processes.

First, at Earth’s “surface” (taken to include the sensible atmosphere as well as the floors of all oceans), the geothermal energy flux is currently miniscule compared to solar insolation: the ratio is about 0.087 W/m^2 to 890 W/m^2, assuming Earth’s average albedo is 0.35 (but Earth’s albedo can drop down to 0.30 when there is very little average cloud coverage). That’s a ratio of about 1:10,000.

This geothermal-to-solar flux ratio has probably been somewhat stable over the last billion of so years, but was undoubtedly significantly lower in the several billion years following Earth cooling to the point of having liquid water on its surface . . . adjusting for that is “left as an exercise for the student”.

So, most of the geothermal energy input to Earth’s total energy “balance” has been and continues to be continuously radiated to deep space (which happens by day and by night from Earth’s surface and atmosphere), as has most of the solar energy input, thus resulting in Earth’s current, balanced and stable, average surface temperature.

In the second physical process, a relatively small amount of geothermal energy is separately used (more properly, temporarily “stored” when considering time periods of millions to billions of years) in the latent and sensible heat of the ice-liquid water-water vapor hydrological system that dominates temperature control on Earth’s surface as it cycles through various hothouse-to-icehouse climate extremes.

Last edited 8 months ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Zoe Phin
January 3, 2021 10:14 am

Zoe Phin foolishly posted: “The sun doesn’t have an internal heat flux, i.e. ‘solar-thermal’, that can be compared to geothermal? Weird.”

No, not weird at all. The Sun has nuclear fusion of hydrogen occurring over the innermost 24% of its photosphere radius, with resulting continuous generation of energy. The Earth does not have any nuclear fusion occurring at any internal radius.

Last edited 8 months ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
January 3, 2021 1:26 pm

You’re not addressing the tiny flux from this internal solar fusion.

P.S. Mainstream science says 50% of Earth’s geothermal is from NUCLEAR. The other 50% is from original creation.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Zoe Phin
January 3, 2021 3:23 pm

Zoe posted: “You’re not addressing the tiny flux from this internal solar fusion.”

Well, “The core of the Sun is considered to extend from the center to about 0.2 to 0.25 of solar radius . . . Inside the 0.24 solar radius is the core which generates 99% of the fusion power of the Sun.” (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core )

Um, “tiny”, you say. Really? Next you’ll be claiming that the Sun really doesn’t radiate very much power . . . go ahead, go for it! 

Also, you obviously cannot distinguish nuclear fusion (in the Sun) from nuclear fission (in the relatively small amount of radioactive material remaining inside the Earth).

Unfortunately, you are far, far beyond my capability to help you understand science.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
January 3, 2021 3:28 pm

Yeah, tiny. The energy is huge! but the flux is tiny. Can you address what is argued rather than red herrings?

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
January 4, 2021 3:41 am

So huge that there is NO TRACE OF IT in permafrost,in most of the oceans, in the deserts at night.

Only shows itself when the SUN is present.

You are getting very pathetic, little girl.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Zoe Phin
January 4, 2021 1:18 pm

Poor Zoe, struggling in so much confusion and misunderstanding, and yet not even willing to search out answers by herself.

Flux is some quantity transferred per given time interval across a given area normal to the flow vector. The Sun has a total luminosity of 3.8E26 watts. That’s total energy emitted per unit time. The surface area of the Sun’s photosphere (its visible diameter) is 6E18 m^2. Therefore, the energy flux at the visible “surface” of the sun is about 6.3E4 kW/m^2.

One can also derive the same answer by considering TOA solar insolation at Earth’s average distance from the Sun is about 1.37 kW/m^2, and scaling by the square of [average-Earth-distance-to center-of-Sun/Sun photosphere radius]: 1.37*(1.5E11 m/7E8 m)^2 = 63,000 kW/m^2.

Of course, the energy flux gets progressively higher as one goes from the “surface” of the Sun down to outermost surface of the core, which is the source of the Sun’s radiated energy.

And you think that 63,000 kW of energy passing through a 1 meter by 1 meter cross-sectional area is a “tiny” flux? Really???

As for events happening on Earth, there is no energy flux, when overaged over a hemisphere and originating within the Earth itself, that comes anywhere close to the energy flux coming from the Sun:
“The geothermal heat flux from the Earth’s interior is estimated to be 47 terawatts and split approximately equally between radiogenic heat and heat leftover from the Earth’s formation. This comes to 0.087 watt/square metre, which represents only 0.027% of Earth’s total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 terawatts of incoming solar radiation.” (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#:~:text=Earth's%20energy%20budget%20accounts%20for,components%20of%20Earth's%20climate%20system. )

I do believe that 0.027% qualifies as “tiny”.

This is what is being argued . . . Reading Comprehension 101.

P.S. Well, I hope this was worth my one last shot.

Joel L Hammer
January 2, 2021 7:45 pm

I downloaded this data this week and plotted it.
The cumulative positive deviations from the 1980-2010 average ALL occurred during the administrations of Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama. Since 1980, the R’s have been in the WH for 24 years, and the only D’s 16 years. I think that pretty much settles it.
Since we follow the science, I think the path forward is clear.

SAMURAI
January 2, 2021 8:46 pm

Finally, the La Niña global cooling cycle kicked in.

It turned out the current La Niña cycle wasn’t as strong as some models predicted, however, it was still one of the strongest in 10 years, and may still cause UAH global temp anomalies to hit -0.1C~-0.2C by April.

Watch Leftist CAGW scare mongers deceive the public and attribute the La Niña global cooling to the COVID19 economic lockdowns, so they can try and instigate CAGW lockdowns in the future…

Leftists are so truly evil…

Loydo
Reply to  SAMURAI
January 2, 2021 10:35 pm

Finally… 7th warmest December in the record, long term trend steadily rising at 0.14C/decade…cooling kicked in. Clutch at straws much Samurai-san?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 2, 2021 11:07 pm

Much COOLER than nearly ALL the last 10,000 years

Less than a degree above the COLDEST PERIOD in those 10,000 years…

Only person sucking on straws, is YOU, Loy-CCD

Is that how your helpers feed you ?

Last edited 8 months ago by fred250
SAMURAI
Reply to  Loydo
January 2, 2021 11:25 pm

Loydo-san:

Ranking years is a foolish and deceptive practice by the Left during a cycle of natural global warming we’ve enjoyed since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, since which, the beneficial warming trend has been around 0.05C/decade…(oh, the humanity,,,)

Since the end of Holocene Maximum about 8,000 years ago, global temps have been cooling as Milankovitch cycles slowly transition to the next glaciation period….

Most of the increased global warming trend since 1980 is attributed to PDO and AMO cycles entering their respective 30-year warm cycles and Super El Niño events, not because of the already disconfirmed and silly CAGW hypothesis…

in the not too distant future, both the PDO and AMO will enter their respective 30-year cool cycles again, and global temps will naturally begin to fall, despite record levels of manmade CO2 emissions, thus exposing the nefarious CAGW hypothesis as one of the most expensive and destructive Leftist scams in human history.

ironicman
Reply to  Loydo
January 2, 2021 11:58 pm

The +AMO weakens by early 2021 and the PDO goes negative which should at the very least provide us with another hiatus in world temperature.

Richard M
Reply to  ironicman
January 3, 2021 6:39 am

The PDO tends to be negative during La Nina events and positive during El Nino events. As such it is hard to say where it will end up when ENSO becomes neutral. My thinking is a 2 year La Nina will lead to a switch back to the negative phase.

The AMO is different. My own personal opinion is a switch to negative in 2024. That would mean it is weakening as you indicated.

Richard M
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 6:31 am

Sorry, we do not have anything resembling a “long term trend”. What is it with science deniers like Loydo? A mathematical trend over the very short satellite era (which is completely dominated by ocean cycles) is meaningless.

I realize you are completely brainwashed and have no ability to think for yourself. You should at least try once in awhile. Instead you “Clutch at straws”.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 9:52 am

The current trend has been consistent since about 1964. See the graph from Hansen’s data here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/

ResourceGuy
Reply to  SAMURAI
January 3, 2021 12:45 pm

Bingo Samurai!!

I predict a coordinated assault on satellite data when that happens.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  SAMURAI
January 5, 2021 8:31 am

SAMURAI posted: “It turned out the current La Niña cycle wasn’t as strong as some models predicted, however, it was still one of the strongest in 10 years.

In fact, if you examine the graph of the Multivariate ENSO Index available at https://www.daculaweather.com/4_nino_graphs.php , you’ll find that statement to be false.

Matthew Sykes
January 3, 2021 3:00 am

If it goes below zero and stays there for a year or so then CO2 will have been taken out of the frame fully.

beng135
January 3, 2021 8:48 am

December in the central Appalachians (US) about as avg as a month can get. Year-end total rainfall near avg too.

But, but, but, the experts say we’re already past the tipping point……

Gordon A. Dressler
January 3, 2021 9:53 am

In the above article, Dr. Spencer states: “Cooling in December was largest over land, with 1-month drop of 0.60 deg. C, which is the 6th largest drop out of 504 months. This is likely the result of the La Nina now in progress.”

Perhaps, but for the last year of looking at the WUWT ENSO meter on the right-hand side of this continuously-updated webpage, I’ve not seen the meter drop below the -1.5 level, which says the me this last La Nina has been pretty mild compared to previous ones.

I’m wondering if instead it might be more directly related to the very quite Sun conditions we’ve experienced over the last year, which some say may presage a near-future Maunder Minimum/LIA climate onset.

angech
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
January 4, 2021 1:54 am

Highest SOI of 17.4 in last few years so was weak, is weak, but is stronger than anything else for a while. Would be nice if it kaste$ but it never does when you want it to

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  angech
January 5, 2021 11:44 am

“… is stronger than anything else for a while.”

Definitely not true if you examine the graph of the Multivariate ENSO Index available at https://www.daculaweather.com/4_nino_graphs.php .

January 3, 2021 9:56 am

With a sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) event brewing above the Arctic, the northern hemisphere’s winter will get colder yet:

https://watchers.news/2020/12/23/major-sudden-stratospheric-warming-january-2021/

Clyde Spencer
January 3, 2021 9:57 am

The December 2020 tropics anomaly is quite anomalous at 0.05 deg C — about an order of magnitude less than the two-year average!

ResourceGuy
January 3, 2021 11:30 am

Okay, it’s turning down a little later than I thought, but it is coming (down) just in time to highlight the wrong way bets of the Paris Agreement hucksters in full exposure. Enjoy the 70s temps on the way down to the 20s.

ResourceGuy
January 3, 2021 1:04 pm

Biden accomplishments after one year:
1) Re-joined Paris Agreement
2) Declared global warming problem solved as the satellite data shows. Victory!
3) Hunter making paternity payments on time.
4) Solved COVID-19 with 8 more stimulus payments and 50 million IOUs for the midterm elections.
5) Collected Nobel Prize after first week in office
6) Hired the rest of the MSNBC crew and NYT.

angech
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 3, 2021 5:37 pm

Saw this comment at Roy’s site ” Regarding NASA GISTEMP, Karsten Haustein, the guy who runs the Daily Global Temperature website, has predicted (on Twitter) an exact tie between 2016 and 2020.”

Replied
Wish you were right
GISTEMP would have to drop by more than Roy’s UAH for that to hold true.
Still no claims of absolute warmest year ever yet and they usually start well before this if there is any substance to it.

 Global surface temperature anomalies(relative to 1880-1920)in2016 and 2020.
Global Warming Acceleration 14December 2020
James Hansen and Makiko Sato
“Record global temperature in 2020, despite a strong La Niña in recent months, reaffirms a global warming acceleration that is too large to be unforced noise –it implies an increased growth rate of the total global climate forcing and Earth’s energy imbalance. Growth of measured forcings (greenhouse gases plus solar irradiance) decreased during the period of increased warming, implying that atmospheric aerosols probably decreased in the past decade.There is a need for accurate aerosol measurements and improved monitoring of Earth’s energy imbalance.November 2020 was the warmest November in the period of instrumental data, thus jumping 2020 ahead of 2016 in the 11-month averages(Fig. 1). December 2016 was relatively cool, so it is clear that 2020 will slightly edge 2016 for the warmest year, at least in the GISTEMP analysis.”

%d bloggers like this: