2013 Global Temperatures

[The_Global_Warmer]

Interesting GISS once again an outlier with extreme warmth compared to the satellites, which dropped a lot for November from around .3C anomaly in October. 

 

 

And yet UAH is set to finish 4th or 5th warmest on it's record.

 

GISS is set to finish 6th.

 

Using only UAh time period GISS is still 6th and UAH is 4th.

 

 

So how exactly is GISS a warm outlier?

[The_Global_Warmer]

No matter how you slice it, global temperatures are simply warmer than most would like or expect (based on their regional experience) and will continue warming if the climate forecasts are correct. More importantly, a mere 0.2 C or less separates the top 5 warmest years.

 

On GISS only a 0.05C or so separates the warmest years.

[donsutherland1]

Eh, I don't think it's quite that simple. I believe NCDC uses close to the same data as GISS and is therefore usually pretty close to them. I would say we will have to wait for HadCRU4 as well.

It's just one piece of data that can offer corroboration. If the NCEP reanalysis, NCDC dataset, HadCrut, and GISS all indicate November was warmer than October, I believe one can be fairly confident in that outcome.

[The_Global_Warmer]

CFS is at .20C for the dailies as of Dec16th00z.  .154C for the month.  .70C on GISS. 

 

 

As long as OHC is at record levels temps will follow behind it.  This should be expected to happen and it is.

 

 

ENSO shows no cooling off in sight.

 

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's just one piece of data that can offer corroboration. If the NCEP reanalysis, NCDC dataset, HadCrut, and GISS all indicate November was warmer than October, I believe one can be fairly confident in that outcome.

 

Obviously the difference is simple. tacoman can't help but try and bring bs into this. Where the hell was Tacoman in January calling for UAH as a outlier?  a .50C while GISS was only .63C?  Oh my. 

 

How about September they are both warm.  October GISS is cooler while UAH is warm.  November UAH is cooler while giss is warm.  So what is the problem here? 

 

 

 

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 +0.159 +0.227 +0.018

 

GISS;

63   51   60   48  56   60  52   61   73   60   77

[tacoman25]

 

Obviously the difference is simple. tacoman can't help but try and bring bs into this. Where the hell was Tacoman in January calling for UAH as a outlier?  a .50C while GISS was only .63C?  Oh my. 

 

 

 

Calm down.

 

I wasn't the one saying anything about outliers. I know better than to make a big deal of monthly differences between satellite/land sources. I actually pointed out that GISS correlates well to the AO...miss that part?

 

I also pointed out that it's not as simple as "GISS vs. the satellites" depending on what NCDC shows. It makes more sense to compare all of the land sources together, including HadCRU4.

 

Finally, I pointed out that GISS has been the warmest global temp source over the past 10 years. Is what it is.

[donsutherland1]

From the NCDC release this morning:

 

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20^th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F).

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global

[Jonger]

The average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces during November 2013 was record highest for November in the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20^th century average.

 

That other headline really made it sound like we just had our warmest month ever.... Apparently it was 6th highest.

[skierinvermont]

 

 

That other headline really made it sound like we just had our warmest month ever.... Apparently it was 6th highest.

 

Conspiracy !!?!>!>!!#$#!!*)

 

It could be interpreted both ways. But the more probable interpretation also happens to be the correct one. 

[donsutherland1]

The average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces during November 2013 was record highest for November in the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20^th century average.

 

That other headline really made it sound like we just had our warmest month ever.... Apparently it was 6th highest.

The headline I posted was from NCDC. Yes, it was the warmest November, not month, on record. Both GISS and NCDC had the warmest November on record.

[Jonger]

I never suspected it was a conspiracy, especially from Don. It was just an erroneously worded headline from the NCDC, they left our 2 words and that changed A LOT.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

So NCDC is 4th on record for the year so far.  UAH is 5th.  GISS is 6th.  With one month to go.

 

 

So where is this GISS warm bias?

 

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year-to-date (January–November) was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20^th century average of 14.0°C (57.2°F), tying with 2002 as the fourth warmest such period on record.

 

[skierinvermont]

I never suspected it was a conspiracy, especially from Don. It was just an erroneously worded headline from the NCDC, they left our 2 words and that changed A LOT.

 

nov.jpg

 

No it doesn't change the meaning and it wasn't erroneous. The original headline can be interpreted as the warmest November or warmest month ever, but the better interpretation is still probably warmest November which is the intended meaning.

 

If I say "The temperature in St Louis today set a record high" would you interpret that to mean the highest temperature ever or just a record high for today?

 

No doubt, you would correctly interpret it as the former despite the fact that I did not say "The temperature in St Louis today set a record high for today"

 

 

I believe that is how NCDC has always phrased their headlines. And anybody not looking for conspiracy theories will likely interpret the statement correctly, even though technically and out of context it could be interpreted differently.

[Jonger]

No it doesn't change the meaning and it wasn't erroneous. The original headline can be interpreted as the warmest November or warmest month ever, but the better interpretation is still probably warmest November which is the intended meaning.

 

If I say "The temperature in St Louis today set a record high" would you interpret that to mean the highest temperature ever or just a record high for today?

 

No doubt, you would correctly interpret it as the former despite the fact that I did not say "The temperature in St Louis today set a record high for today"

 

 

I believe that is how NCDC has always phrased their headlines. And anybody not looking for conspiracy theories will likely interpret the statement correctly, even though technically and out of context it could be interpreted differently.

 

 

There are two times when that was stated in the release, once with the "for November" and once without.

 

Its a bad headline... Stop being a homer.

 

I even mentioned it was the 6th highest month, so I made no attempt to gloss over that it was a very warm month.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Jonger once said the NCDC releases there monthly updates with a warm bias.

 

if it's warm it's early, if it's cold it's late.

 

 

Now he is trying to say they are misleading headlines.

 

Incredible.  Maybe you should get checked for Schizophrenia.

 

I would hate to see how paranoid you are about things tthat would give you a real reason to be.

[Jonger]

Jonger once said the NCDC releases there monthly updates with a warm bias.

 

if it's warm it's early, if it's cold it's late.

 

 

Now he is trying to say they are misleading headlines.

 

Incredible.  Maybe you should get checked for Schizophrenia.

 

I would hate to see how paranoid you are about things tthat would give you a real reason to be.

 

Leaving out "for November" completely changes the meaning in the English speaking world.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

It reads clear to me.  And pretty much everyone.  You are only reaching and doing this because you have nothing else to speak about here.

 

 

You knew the topic today would be the record November warmth once NCDC confirmed GISS and UAH. 

 

You have your local cold. Be happy with that stop trying to ruin this forum.  If you have something to add that is pertinent to the discussion please feel free to speak up.

[skierinvermont]

There are two times when that was stated in the release, once with the "for November" and once without.

 

Its a bad headline... Stop being a homer.

 

I even mentioned it was the 6th highest month, so I made no attempt to gloss over that it was a very warm month.

 

So you are telling me that if I say "The temperature in St Louis today set a record high" means that an all time highest temperature ever was recorded because I didn't say "The temperature in St Louis today set a record high for today"?

 

If your understanding of english grammar were correct, then there have been a few thousand all-time record highs announced on this weather board in the last few years. Is that what you actually believe every time somebody says "Central park set a record high today"?

[PhillipS]

So you are telling me that if I say "The temperature in St Louis today set a record high" means that an all time highest temperature ever was recorded because I didn't say "The temperature in St Louis today set a record high for today"?

 

If your understanding of english grammar were correct, then there have been a few thousand all-time record highs announced on this weather board in the last few years. Is that what you actually believe every time somebody says "Central park set a record high today"?

 

Jonger is just picking at nits because he doesn't have anything of substance to post.  He's really no different than the grammar and spelling nazis.  Just a weak and pitiful attempt to stir up controversy.

[donsutherland1]

I never suspected it was a conspiracy, especially from Don. It was just an erroneously worded headline from the NCDC, they left our 2 words and that changed A LOT.

 

nov.jpg

IMO, the text could have been clearer. For those like me who read all the monthly reports, I knew that the text was referring to the warmest November on record according to NCDC data. However, I ran the issue by a few friends last evening who do not read the NCDC reports and a number thought that the report was referring to the warmest month (not November) on record. If the report is aimed at the general public, a little more precision can't hurt.

[skierinvermont]

IMO, the text could have been clearer. For those like me who read all the monthly reports, I knew that the text was referring to the warmest November on record according to NCDC data. However, I ran the issue by a few friends last evening who do not read the NCDC reports and a number thought that the report was referring to the warmest month (not November) on record. A little more precision can't hurt.

 

Yes, it could definitely have been clearer because right now it could mean either. In context, and to those who read the report regularly the interpretation is easier.

[donsutherland1]

Yes, it could definitely have been clearer because right now it could mean either. In context, and to those who read the report regularly the interpretation is easier.

I agree. When I posted the quote, I had not thought about other interpretations, as I understood the context from the whole report.

[Jonger]

I'm not surprised it was the warmest November, but at first glance I thought we just had our warmest month on record and was caught off guard. To those who read every report, I'm sure it was understood, but had it been the warmest month on record, how much different would the wording be?

It's a minor issue and I don't suspect the NCDC was intentionally being dishonest, but for public consumption the two words "For November" would probably avoid my similar reaction.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk

[The_Global_Warmer]

Jonger is just picking at nits because he doesn't have anything of substance to post.  He's really no different than the grammar and spelling nazis.  Just a weak and pitiful attempt to stir up controversy.

 

Dude loving snow is serious business. 

 

Look at how much flack the OPI guys took leading up this winter.  All because of the fear of the predicted 1.64 AO+.  Even though a near record or record EPO has saved at least the first 2-3 weeks of the winter.  That fear of a wall to wall AO+ was stout.  Not just on americanwx.com but my local board went nuts about it posting crap from some Joe Bastardi groupie who claimed the NAO would be a -.77 this winter(third lowest since like 1980). 

 

I tried to explain the basis for the OPI and that Cohens work backed it up.  I provided all 6 links that were provided here.  Didn't matter. 

 

 

Well so far the NAO has been positive almost the entire month of December.  It is projected to run positive through December.  So we will need a huge drop in Jan/Feb to attain a -.77 DJF NAO.  Which is not gonna happen.

 

 

 

The AO has been positive all December so far.  It's way up there again and will stay high for the forseable future. Way to go OPI guys!

 

 

 

 

 

My point is good science always wins.  This is the same reason we know the global temps are moving above previous levels.  We know it may not  be explosive but we have tracked this stuff(OHC, ssta, pdo, solar, Ghg forcing) long enough to know that a stagnent period or coolng ain't happening.

 

 

What is left to do but move the goalposts if you can't come to grips with this.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not surprised it was the warmest November, but at first glance I thought we just had our warmest month on record and was caught off guard. To those who read every report, I'm sure it was understood, but had it been the warmest month on record, how much different would the wording be?

It's a minor issue and I don't suspect the NCDC was intentionally being dishonest, but for public consumption the two words "For November" would probably avoid my similar reaction.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW

 

It could be clearer. I'm just saying that it can be interpreted both ways as written. 

[chubbs]

Taking a running 60 month average UAH has been at record levels for several months. Surface temperature series are not at records by this metric but GISS is getting close.

[PhillipS]

There is a new post on Tamino's Open Mind blog about the record November anomaly [link].  The post also talks about different statistical smoothing  techniques, their strengths and weaknesses, and how using the wrong approach can give terribly misleading results.  Here is the long-term plot of November anomalies and the smoothed trendline:

 

 

It's probably just my old eyes but I don't see any hiatus in the long-term warming trend for November.  It would be interesting to see similar plots for each month and look for seasonal patterns.  Anybody know a source for these plots?

[ineedsnow]

Just curious how we are suppose to know this for sure.  a 100 years ago we didnt even know if there was a hurricane or not in the Oceans half the time! I dont see how it is possible to go this far back with temps of the ocean. Not trying to troll the thread but would love to know?

From the NCDC release this morning:

 

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20^th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F).

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global

[ORH_wxman]

Just curious how we are suppose to know this for sure.  a 100 years ago we didnt even know if there was a hurricane or not in the Oceans half the time! I dont see how it is possible to go this far back with temps of the ocean. Not trying to troll the thread but would love to know?

 

 

There's enough data to get a reasonable idea. The ocean temps have much larger error bars further back, but the land temps are pretty solid and they are not independent of eachother so values can be infered from the covariance. The North Atlantic has pretty good SST data going back to the 1800s as well.

[ineedsnow]

Thanks for the response was always curious about that

There's enough data to get a reasonable idea. The ocean temps have much larger error bars further back, but the land temps are pretty solid and they are not independent of eachother so values can be infered from the covariance. The North Atlantic has pretty good SST data going back to the 1800s as well.