2013 Global Temperatures

[ORH_wxman]

Basically I think the cry over one month of NCDC temps being anomalously higher is a waste of time. Its not statistically signifigant in the scheme of month to month variations. If they came in with something like a +0.80C temp, then it might be interesting, but otherwise....meh, not that abnormal.

[Jonger]

What is wrong with sfc temps?

 

They are tracking satellite temps fairly closely. Even if you believe they might be a little bit biased warm (due to subjective corrections with UHI/TOBS/etc), its not going to make a huge difference. They are around +0.15C per decade during the satellite era while satellites are around +0.13C per decade. So were talking about a difference of only 10-15% or so.

 

 

I have my doubts too about some of the adjustments made prior to the satellite era, but even if you go back and try to dissect them, you will have trouble realistically altering the trend by more than about 10-15%. So its mostly a nitpick rather than a major game changer.

 

Oh, I agree with the overall trend. They also both show a flat line since the late 90's. Its a shame we don't have satellite temps going back further, I just don't like comparing surface temps in 2013 to surface temps in 1900.

 

For this particular discussion it might be irrelevant anyhow, I'm just trusting the less extreme UAH anomaly more than the surface anomaly.

[ben4vols]

Well, there are many adjustments made to the Surface datasets, and are legitimate, such as the TOBS bias correction. As tacoman pointed out, the difference isn't necessarily the anomaly, but the placement. GISS/UAH/RSS were 11th-14th warmest. NCDC's 3rd warmest seems a bit too warm. I think that HadCruT4, when it comes out for May, won't be quite as warm as NCDC.

 

They have a century long baseline though which has much more contamination (both natural and man made) and has much more "cooling" influence do to the long term cooling of past temperature measurements.  Also when you view the adjustments it isn't a surprise that they came in at 3rd warmest.  To me, it is a worthless database due to the biased adjustments. 

[skierinvermont]

They have a century long baseline though which has much more contamination (both natural and man made) and has much more "cooling" influence do to the long term cooling of past temperature measurements.  Also when you view the adjustments it isn't a surprise that they came in at 3rd warmest.  To me, it is a worthless database due to the biased adjustments. 

 

Go away. Your lies have no place on this forum.

[bluewave]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/5#temp

 

 

Note: The data presented in this report are preliminary. Ranks and anomalies may change as more complete data are received and processed. Effective September 2012, the GHCN-M version 3.2.0 dataset of monthly mean temperature replaced the GHCN-M version 3.1.0 monthly mean temperature dataset. Beginning with the August 2012 Global monthly State of the Climate Report, released on September 17, 2012, GHCN-M version 3.2.0 is used for NCDC climate monitoring activities, including calculation of global land surface temperature anomalies and trends. For more information about this newest version, please see the GHCN-M version 3.2.0 Technical Report.

*The GHCN-M version 3.1.0 Technical Report was revised on September 5, 2012 to accurately reflect the changes incorporated in that version. Previously that report incorrectly included discussion of changes to the Pairwise Homogeneity Algorithm (PHA). Changes to the PHA are included in version 3.2.0 and described in the version 3.2.0 Technical Report. Please see the Frequently Asked Questions to learn more about this update.

 

 

Note: GHCN-M Data Notice

 

An omission in processing a correction algorithm led to some small errors on the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly dataset (GHCN-M v3.2.0). This led to small errors in the reported land surface temperatures in the October, November, December and Annual U.S. and global climate reports. On February 14, 2013, NCDC fixed this error in its software, included an additional improvement (described below), and implemented both changes as GHCN-M version 3.2.1. With this update to GHCN-M, the Merged Land and Ocean Surface Temperature dataset also is subsequently revised as MLOST version 3.5.3.

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/shooting-from-the-hip/

 

 

One more time: the May 2013 difference is on the high side, but so are a lot of other months. Certainly this month’s difference is not “irreconcilable.”

And by the way, the average difference is only 0.006 deg.C, but on average NCDC is higher than GISS, not the other way around as Watts claimed.

Perhaps a correction will be forthcoming.

 

 

http://www.washington.edu/news/2012/05/07/new-research-brings-satellite-measurements-and-global-climate-models-closer/

 

 

One popular climate record that shows a slower atmospheric warming trend than other studies contains a data calibration problem, and when the problem is corrected the results fall in line with other records and climate models, according to a new University of Washington study.

The finding is important because it helps confirm that models that simulate global warming agree with observations, said Stephen Po-Chedley, a UW graduate student in atmospheric sciences who wrote the paper with Qiang Fu, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences.

[The_Global_Warmer]

CFS has gone positive.  Very slightly. With the daily anomaly reaching above .2C.  Pending on how long that stays up will say how much June will warm before the Month is up.

 

I highly doubt it can make it up to .100 or so.  I would guess it would reach about .050 or so if it stays above normal.

 

It will probably be between 0.020 and 0.030.

 

 

 

[ORH_wxman]

The weatherbell maps would need to get to about +0.10C to expect a GISS anomaly of 0.60C or greater. Unless its an outlier month with the spread.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The weatherbell maps would need to get to about +0.10C to expect a GISS anomaly of 0.60C or greater. Unless its an outlier month with the spread.

 

 

Even though currently the daily anomaly has shot up to almost 0.30C it would still be unlikely even if it stayed there until the end of the month.

 

It would also be not logical to assume the May spread will be similar in June. 

 

My only idea is Antarctica weighs CFS down a few hundredth's.  But i can't prove it.

 

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Global SST's have gone back up a bit.  If ENSO warms it will likely go up to .25 to .30C.  If it actually warms to near a a NINO then probably over .30C

 

 

[Snow_Miser]

CFS Global Temperatures shouldn't change all that much from here on out, maybe a few hundredths of a degree either way.

 

Right now it's at +0.03 Degrees C. Using a 0.5-0.55 Degree C conversion to GISS, this should give a most likely value between 0.53-0.58 Degrees C for the June Anomaly.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Daily anomaly going back down abruptly.

 

[ORH_wxman]

Month to date at +0.03C on weatherbell which would correspond to a most likely GISS value between 0.55-0.60C or so. Though possible still for as high as something like +0.65 or as low as +0.50.  

 

I'd be shocked of something outside that since we have only 5 days left in the month. The avg won't change much more.

[LithiaWx]

Anomaly up to .038 on weatherbell

[The_Global_Warmer]

Is this going to reach the surface?

 

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Four days left.   0.75C is probably about as high on here as June can get if it keeps the .20 to .30C daily anomaly's going.  It can also flip quickly the other way and knock a few tenths off. 

BV

[Snow_Miser]

Four days left.   0.75C is probably about as high on here as June can get if it keeps the .20 to .30C daily anomaly's going.  It can also flip quickly the other way and knock a few tenths off. 

BV

 

I think you mean 0.075 .

 

0.05+/-0.02 Degrees C is my guess for the final anomaly on CFS. It should be interesting to see if the standard 0.5-0.55 Degree C anomaly change will apply here, or if it will be an odd month.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Does anyone know what it was for previous June's vs GISS and NCDC?

 

We can look at there spatial anomaly's and see if we can draw any comparisons.

[Snow_Miser]

I'm doing this quickly so I don't have time to crunch all the data until a later time...but to at least go back about to 2011 (and if someone wants to go back further, it could help):

 

2011:

 

January: -0.13 (0.59 colder than GISS)

February: -0.15 (0.60 colder)

March: -0.06 (0.64 colder)

April: +0.02 (0.59 colder)

May: -0.10 (0.58 colder)

June: 0.00 (0.54 colder)

July: +0.09 (0.61 colder)

August: +0.05 (0.64 colder)

September: -0.03 (0.55 colder)

October: +0.02 (0.58 colder)

November: -0.09 (0.59 colder)

December: -0.05 (0.49 colder)

 

2012:

 

January: -0.16C (0.53 colder)

February: -0.14 (0.53 colder)

March: -0.11 (0.60 colder)

April: +0.10 (0.50 colder)

May: +0.15 (0.55 colder)

June: +0.09 (0.50 colder)

July: +0.05 (0.46 colder)

August: +0.10 (0.47 colder)

September: +0.08 (0.59 colder)

October: +0.22 (0.50 colder)

November: +0.19 (0.49 colder)

December: -0.08 (0.52 colder)

 

2013:

 

January: +0.08C (0.53 colder)

February: 0.00 (0.51 colder)

March: +0.02 (0.57 colder)

 

 

 

There seems to be some variance here but the difference is usually between 0.50 and 0.60...only 7 of the last 27 months fall outside that range and usually only by a few hundreths when they do. So I think the weatherbell maps can probably give us an idea to within about 0.05 of the GISS monthly anomaly if we take the weatherbell map and add 0.55 to it. If we did that, we would never be wrong by more than 0.09 on GISS at least going back to the beginning of 2011. If someone wants to go back further and see if it stays consistent, their page is here:

 

http://models.weatherbell.com/temperature.php

 

 

GISS data here:

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

Friv, this is Will's post a while back. There was a 0.5 and a 0.54 anomaly difference in 2011 and 2012 for June, FWIW. In 2010 the difference was 0.52.  

[ORH_wxman]

Is this going to reach the surface?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some of it will, but it depends how much. Last year, the subsurface warmth was actually more impressive and that never panned out. We did get a monthly anomaly for ENSO as high as +0.75C occurring in August last year, but it fizzled very quickly.

[The_Global_Warmer]

So there continuity there except the overall range.

[LithiaWx]

Up to .05c on weatherbell

[Snow_Miser]

CFS should finish with +0.06 for the month of June.

 

That would give a most likely anomaly of 0.56-0.61.

[Jonger]

Up to .05c on weatherbell

Can you dig up an image of that map from this day last year?

[Snow_Miser]

Can you dig up an image of that map from this day last year?

 

This is through June 30th last year, which had an anomaly of +0.09.

 

 

GISS had a +0.60 anomaly for June 2012. That would equate to a 0.51 anomaly difference.

[Jonger]

Amazing flip in the arctic from year to year. Looks like Antarctica is eating quite a bit more warmth right now than the arctic. That's -80 or so in central Antarctica instead of -85.

[Snow_Miser]

Amazing flip in the arctic from year to year. Looks like Antarctica is eating quite a bit more warmth right now than the arctic. That's -80 or so in central Antarctica instead of -85.

 

The flip in the PDO is also equally impressive.

 

Also of interest is the cool "horseshoe" like pattern in the North Atlantic corresponding to cooler temperatures in the Arctic.

[Snow_Miser]

Looks like it will finish off as exactly +0.06.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

I find the ENSO region of interest.

 

It's clearly cooler this year.  But the CFS temp difference will be 0.026C or so for June.

[Snow_Miser]

We've finally gone back negative on the Daily CFS Temperature anomalies.

 

[AvantHiatus]

I've been using this global temperature anomaly map and it uses the same base period as the Weatherbell maps (1981-2010). Why is there such a large difference between the anomalies?