NCDC Releases Nov 2013 Global Climate Report

[Ratty]

It's worse than ever, again ...... says the NCDC's monthly summary

According to NOAA scientists, the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was the highest for November since record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 37th consecutive November and 345th consecutive month (more than 28 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average November global temperature was November 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985.

Most areas of the world experienced warmer-than-average monthly temperatures, including most of Eurasia, Africa, and South America, plus parts of the North Atlantic Ocean, the southwest Pacific Ocean, and the Indian Ocean. Much of southern Russia, northwest Kazakhstan, south India, southern Madagascar, parts of the central and south Indian Ocean, and sections of the Pacific Ocean were record warm. Meanwhile, northern Australia, parts of North America, southwest Greenland, and parts of the Southern Ocean near South America were cooler than average. No regions of the globe were record cold.

[sigurdur]

Will have to examine the methodology in the above report.

[Ratty]

Dec 19, 2013 2:47:21 GMT sigurdur said:

Will have to examine the methodology in the above report.

Methodology: "It's worse than we thought."

NOAA Goes Full Fraud

[cuttydyer]

Looks frightening until you take a peek at the decadal trends...

RSS MSU lower trop. global mean:


RSS MSU lt (land only) global mean:


HADCRUT 4 global mean:


HADSST3 global sea surface temp anom:

[karlox]

Starting at 1979 this one completes our view on scope of Global Temp trends?

[nautonnier]

Karlos,

Redraw that graph with the span of temperatures experienced on Earth on the Y axis say minus 50C to plus 50C and the X axis the same as you have it there. Better yet give the gullible warmers a chance and make it from 1750. Now add error bars to the measurements of at least +/- 0.5C (if you can see that). Then ask what all the fuss is about.

[karlox]

Jan 19, 2014 10:12:58 GMT nautonnier said:

Karlos,

Redraw that graph with the span of temperatures experienced on Earth on the Y axis say minus 50C to plus 50C and the X axis the same as you have it there. Better yet give the gullible warmers a chance and make it from 1750. Now add error bars to the measurements of at least +/- 0.5C (if you can see that). Then ask what all the fuss is about.

Think I know what you mean Nautonnier. UAH Global Mean Temp Anomaly of + 0.27ºC by itself implies little and could either depict an scenario where large positive temps anomalies areas are balanced by strong large negative temp areas -affecting humans largely- or either an equally balanced planet scattered with some small positive or negative anomalies. So THAT FIGURE or alike has little sense to me...
Take one-day 30Dec global surface anomaly map which illustrates below the case (Antartica and North America presenting large negative temps anomalies)

[cuttydyer]

Jan 19, 2014 16:42:27 GMT @codewhacker said:

Cutty:

So are you suggesting 10 years of a down trend disprove AGW?

Hi Code,

Nope, I believe in AGW but I think that the 15-17 years of hiatus demonstrates that the models have got Earth's climate sensitivity very very wrong + the influence of the Sun is being drastically underestimated.

I suspect that at the end of solar cycle 26 we'll discover that global temp increase due to AGW is virtually immeasurable - an insignificant drop in the bucket.

Solar acitivity over the last millennia:

[sigurdur]

Jan 19, 2014 16:44:26 GMT @codewhacker said:

Yep:

I'm missing all the obvious hints and outright matter of fact statements being made by the rest of you. I I believe in AGW but part of me wants not to.

There is no question that there is AGW. Physics shows this. The caveat is climate sensitivity. With that in mind, I am not certain that the change in CO2 has much of an impact as the climate seems to adjust to counter the effect of CO2. It is beginning to look like there could even be a less than 1.0C warming.

[nautonnier]

Jan 19, 2014 18:47:36 GMT sigurdur said:

Jan 19, 2014 16:44:26 GMT @codewhacker said:

Yep:

I'm missing all the obvious hints and outright matter of fact statements being made by the rest of you. I I believe in AGW but part of me wants not to.

There is no question that there is AGW. Physics shows this. The caveat is climate sensitivity. With that in mind, I am not certain that the change in CO2 has much of an impact as the climate seems to adjust to counter the effect of CO2. It is beginning to look like there could even be a less than 1.0C warming.

There is no evidence at all that CO2 causes any warming in the real atmosphere. It is a radiative gas so even without radiation from the ground CO2 would be radiating heat energy it had received as sensible heat by collision with N2 and O2 molecules which are not radiative. This aspect is always forgotten.

The simplistic CO2 absorbs infrared and re-emits it therefore it warms the atmosphere reminds me of a discussion a LONG time ago....which has the same I'll have large fries with that level of logic..

Actual Physical Law: Objects cannot move in two directions at the same time. They decelerate then accelerate in the opposite direction.

Therefore when a fly hits the front of an express locomotive there is a finite period when the locomotive is stationary while (what is left of) the fly reverses direction....

[sigurdur]

CO2 in the lower atmosphere is basically neutered by H2O vapor. It only has an effect when H20 vapor gets very thin. That is why there has not been a pronounced effect from increased CO2, at least in my humble opinion.

[karlox]

Jan 19, 2014 16:43:03 GMT @codewhacker said:

Karlox:

Your post sounds like you believe in AGW?

I used to believe and "bought" the whole AGW pack a few years ago. Nowadays I believe AGW theories have failed to predict present Global Climate fluctuations, failed to predict any EL NIÑO-LA NIÑA decadal or even anual forecast, same with Espace Weather and Solar Cycle 24... and many examples of misuse of modern and much more complete met set data in a global com civilization, such as predicting major hurricanes or droughts or assigning CO2 direct responsability for major weather events that are clearly part of Earth´s climate "normal" behaviour... So, even I take it for granted humanity does affect climatic trends we are much furhter than told of being able to understand the range and scope of such influence except perhaps for local scenarios (heat islands, extensive farming and/acquifers overexploitation...). Above all I believe mankind has much bigger issues to be concerned about, including land and ocean expoiling and dumping, rain forest destruction, cheap energy needs, crony capitalism everywhere, finantial institutions ruling this Global world and democracy dimming... or the 20 richiest persons in Spain -as an example- holding as much weath as 20% of the rest of 46 millions people and getting even richer during this crisis. So what does this unique global +0.27ºC figure really means to an average folk? Nothing.

[sigurdur]

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2541599/Is-mini-ice-age-way-Scientists-warn-Sun-gone-sleep-say-cause-temperatures-plunge.html

Is a mini ice age on the way? Scientists warn the Sun has 'gone to sleep' and say it could cause temperatures to plunge

2013 was due to be year of the 'solar maximum'
Researchers say solar activity is at a fraction of what they expect
Conditions 'very similar' a time in 1645 when a mini ice age hit

[Pooh]

Again, the issue is not just "whether". The other issues are "how much" and "when". Just to be nasty, add "which direction".