Annals of Global Warming: January 2014 ranks 4th warmest January since 1880


Wonk Blog at the Washington Post headlined,

Last month was one of the warmest Januaries ever. No, really

And so it was.

Caption from AGU Blog: This is why the global temperature is not taken in your backyard in January. When you average the entire globe for an entire year, a much different picture emerges. NASA Aqua satellite image of a cold and snowy Mid-Atlantic Wednesday morning.

Caption from AGU Blog: This is why the global temperature is not taken in your backyard in January. When you average the entire globe for an entire year, a much different picture emerges. NASA Aqua satellite image of a cold and snowy Mid-Atlantic Wednesday morning.

Information from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of NOAA:

Global Highlights:

  • The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for January was the warmest since 2007 and the fourth warmest on record at 12.7°C (54.8°F), or 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). The margin of error associated with this temperature is ± 0.08°C (± 0.14°F).
  • The global land temperature was the highest since 2007 and the fourth highest on record for January, at 1.17°C (2.11°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F). The margin of error is ± 0.18°C (± 0.32°F).
  • For the ocean, the January global sea surface temperature was 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F), the highest since 2010 and seventh highest on record for January. The margin of error is ± 0.04°C (± 0.07°F).

Introduction:

Temperature anomalies and percentiles are shown on the gridded maps below. The anomaly map on the left is a product of a merged land surface temperature (Global Historical Climatology Network, GHCN) and sea surface temperature (ERSST.v3b) anomaly analysis developed by Smith et al. (2008). Temperature anomalies for land and ocean are analyzed separately and then merged to form the global analysis. For more information, please visit NCDC’s Global Surface Temperature Anomalies page. The January 2014 Global State of the Climate report includes percentile maps that complement the information provided by the anomaly maps. These maps on the right provide additional information by placing the temperature anomaly observed for a specific place and time period into historical perspective, showing how the most current month, season, or year-to-date compares with the past.

Temperatures:

In the atmosphere, 500-millibar height pressure anomalies correlate well with temperatures at the Earth’s surface. The average position of the upper-level ridges of high pressure and troughs of low pressure—depicted by positive and negative 500-millibar height anomalies on the January 2014 map—is generally reflected by areas of positive and negative temperature anomalies at the surface, respectively.

January 2014 Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius

January 2014 Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius

January 2014 Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature Percentiles

January 2014 Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature Percentiles

The combined global land and ocean average temperature during January 2014 was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average. This was the warmest January since 2007 and the fourth highest since records began in 1880. This marks the ninth consecutive month (since May 2013) with a global monthly temperature among the 10 highest for its respective month. The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean surface temperature during January 2014 was also the warmest since 2007 and the fourth warmest since records began in 1880 at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above average. The Southern Hemisphere January 2014 temperature departure of +0.55°C (+0.99°F) was the warmest since 2010 and the fourth warmest January on record.

During January 2014, most of the world’s land areas experienced warmer-than-average temperatures, with the most notable departures from the 1981–2010 average across Alaska, western Canada, Greenland, Mongolia, southern Russia, and northern China, where the departure from average was +3°C (+5.4°F) or greater. Meanwhile, parts of southeastern Brazil and central and southern Africa experienced record warmth with temperature departures between 0.5°C to 1.5°C above the 1981–2010 average, contributing to the highest January Southern Hemisphere land temperature departure on record at 1.13°C (2.03°F) above the 20th century average. This was also the warmest month for the Southern Hemisphere land since September 2013 when temperatures were 1.23°C (2.21°F) above the 20th century average. Some locations across the globe experienced departures that were below the 1981–2010 average. These areas include the eastern half of the contiguous U.S., central Canada, and most of Scandinavia and Russia. The most notable cold anomalies were in Russia, where in some areas the departure from average was 5°C (9°F) below average. Overall, the Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature was 1.17°C (2.11°F) above average—the warmest January since 2007 and the fourth warmest since records began in 1880.

Select national information is highlighted below. (Please note that different countries report anomalies with respect to different base periods. The information provided here is based directly upon these data):

  • France’s nationally-averaged January 2014 temperature was 2.7°C (4.9°F) above the 1981–2010 average, tying with 1988 and 1936 as the warmest January on record.
  • Spain experienced its warmest January since 1996 and the third warmest since national records began in 1961, with a temperature of 9°C (48.2°F) or 2°C (3.6°F) above the 1971–2000 average.
  • The January temperature in Switzerland was 2.4°C (4.3°F) above the 1981–2010 average—the fifth warmest January since national records began 150 years ago.
  • Austria experienced its fifth warmest January since national records began in 1768. The nationally-averaged temperature was 3.3°C (5.9°F) above the 1981–2010 average. However, in some regions across the southern parts of the country, the temperatures were the highest on record. In Klagenfurt, the temperature departure was 5°C (9°F)—the highest since January 1813.
  • China, as a whole, recorded an average temperature of -3.4°C (25.9°F) or 1.6°C (2.9°F) above average during January 2014. This was the second highest January value, behind 2002, since national records began in 1961.
  • In Argentina, persistence of extremely high temperatures across central and northern parts of the country resulted in several locations setting new maximum, minimum, and mean temperature records for the month of January.
  • Warm temperatures engulfed much of Australia during January 2014. Overall, the national average mean temperature was 0.91°C (1.64°F) above the 1961–1990 average. This was the 12th highest January temperature since national records began in 1910. Regionally, the January 2014 temperature ranked among the top 10 warmest in Queensland, Victoria, and South Australia.

Across the oceans, temperature departures tend to be smaller than across the land surfaces. According to the percentiles map, much-warmer-than-average conditions were present across parts of the Atlantic Ocean, the northeastern and western Pacific Ocean, and parts of the Indian Ocean. Record warmth was observed across parts of the northern Pacific Ocean (south of Alaska), parts of the western Pacific Ocean, south of South Africa, and across parts of the Atlantic Ocean. Overall, the global ocean surface temperature in January was +0.46°C (+0.83°F)—the warmest since 2010 and the seventh warmest on record.

More at the NCDC/NOAA site.

Warming denialists will scream about these data.

More:

About these ads

17 Responses to Annals of Global Warming: January 2014 ranks 4th warmest January since 1880

  1. Blackflag says:

    “you’re wrong and warming doesn’t occur” are at best, simply ignorant.”

    Again, you can’t stop the disingenuous arguments. Such arguments are fundamental to you and your ilk’s zealotry.

    Warming OBVIOUSLY occurs.
    HUMANS do not cause it.

    Like

  2. Blackflag says:

    “That is the probable result if we don’t stop global warming.”

    Where did you get this nonsense from?
    How did you measure this probability?

    Yeah, I thought so…..

    Like

  3. Blackflag says:

    “Anthropogenic climate change will persist for many centuries.”
    Nonsense. This is modeling and long shown to be disreputable.

    “Further action is required to address remaining gaps in information and understanding.”

    Gaps? As if the body of work is almost complete?

    No. There is very little we know about climate, but one thing we do know is humans are irrelevant in any influence on it.

    Like

  4. Blackflag says:

    “he scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.”

    This is no different from what I said, Ed.

    It is a mandate, and they seek to find anthropocentric causation, and there is none.

    Like

  5. Blackflag says:

    …. as such does NOT investigate the reasons for climate change.

    And, the conclusion, man does NOT influence climate in a measurable way.

    Like

  6. Ed Darrell says:

    IPCC’s “mandate” is to study WHETHER human actions affect climate, and if so, how, and how significantly.

    See: http://www.ipccfacts.org/history.html

    IPCC History

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations Organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to assess “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” Review by experts and governments is an essential part of the IPCC process. For its first task, the IPCC was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies.

    The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Since then, the IPCC has remained the most important source for the Convention’s scientific, technical and socio-economic information. The relationship between the UNFCCC and the IPCC has become a model for interaction between science and decision makers. Several attempts have been made to establish a similar assessment process for other environmental issues.

    What unique features help the IPCC succeed in its mission?

    • Its reports are policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.
    • The IPCC emphasizes scientific integrity, objectivity, openness and transparency
    • Reports go through a rigorous review process that involves many experts around the world, and is open to all member governments.
    • The success of the IPCC also depends on the enthusiasm and cooperation of thousands of experts from all regions of the world that have contributed over the years to the preparation of IPCC reports as authors and reviewers.

    For more information, visit: http://www.ipcc.ch.

    Earlier Assessment Reports

    The Third Assessment Report (TAR), completed in 2001, concluded in its first Working Group report that, “In light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Furthermore, it is very likely that the 20th Century warming has contributed significantly to the observed sea level rise… and widespread loss of land ice.”

    The Second Assessment Report (SAR), issued in 1995, provided key input to the negotiations which led to the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1997. One of its main conclusions was: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

    The First Assessment Report (FAR), completed in 1990, played an important role in establishing the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the UNFCCC which provides the overall policy framework for addressing the climate change issue. In its scientific findings the FAR concluded:

    1. “Anthropogenic climate change will persist for many centuries.”
    2. “Further action is required to address remaining gaps in information and understanding.”
    3. “There is continuing imperative to communicate research advances in terms that are relevant to decision making.”

    Like

  7. Dan Pangburn says:

    ED – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some politicians and many others mislead the gullible public by stubbornly continuing to proclaim that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is a primary cause of global warming.

    Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.

    CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now (through December, 2013) increased since 2001 by 27.18 ppmv (an amount equal to 30.37% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; December, 2013, 398.31 ppmv).

    The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat (5 reporting agencies http://endofgw.blogspot.com/). Graphs through 2013 have been added..

    That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 27.18 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.

    Like

  8. Dan Pangburn says:

    Ed – CO2 is a ghg but its effect is saturated so rational change to the current level has no significant influence on average global temperature (AGT). I discovered this in 2008. It is made public at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html .

    A year of research later I discovered what does drive AGT and have refined that finding since then culminating in the AGWunveiled paper.

    Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with measurements, it’s wrong.

    Like

  9. Ed Darrell says:

    You want humans to return to prehistoric lifestyle where merely a few hundred thousands beings can exist.

    That is the probable result if we don’t stop global warming. Our ports, our rail lines, our roads, will become unusable. As crops fail, people will starve – perhaps some nations will war on other nations to take resources.

    It will take time, but if we do nothing to fight climate change, human populations will be reduced to a few hundred thousand, if that many.

    No human has ever survived a century with CO2 as high as it is now. No human has ever survived a century with temperatures warming at the rate they are now, nor as high as they are now. It’s a helluva a gamble to think we might, a gamble wise people won’t make.

    Like

  10. Black Flag® says:

    Dan,
    Exactly.
    However, the IPCC mandate is to find a human cause, hence, IPCC will not address this component at all (nor water vapor, etc.)

    People like Ed do not understand this – that the IPCC by design ignores natural causation and seeks to find human. You find what you seek – hence, they make up stories that humans are the cause, not nature.

    But such a thing requires making up stories since it is not based on science.

    Like

  11. Black Flag® says:

    No.
    The point of the interglacial period is warming.
    Warming is not accelerating – indeed, we are currently “lower” then the peak. And your claim of “5 million years” is wrong.

    Your argument of CO2 is utterly wrong. Your idea that nature is “overwhelmed” is absurdly wrong.

    You hate humans, not I. You want humans to return to prehistoric lifestyle where merely a few hundred thousands beings can exist.

    Like

  12. Ed Darrell says:

    You are arguing wet sidewalks causes rain.

    More apt: I’m pointing out that the sidewalks are wet, telling you the sprinkler system is set incorrectly and was the cause, because it hasn’t rained in too many weeks.

    After slipping and falling on the wet walk and complaining that there are now water spots on your car, you’re telling me the sidewalk isn’t wet.

    We’ve watched the signs of warming hard for over a century. We have historic data that can give us year-by-year discernment back 10,000 years in most cases, but hundreds of thousands of years in several cases. Since World War II, some scientists have been working hard to find mechanisms that might push climate one direction or another. Especially after the temperature fluctuations started their dramatic upward march, scientists have worked hard to eliminate those causes that can be eliminated, in the classic scientific search of disproving hypotheses, and the classic Sherlock Holmes method of eliminating all those things that are impossible.

    We’re down to greenhouse gases, and the data show this alarming-to-the-sane trend in CO2, as a result of human burning of fossil fuels.

    Critics bounce around from claiming the thermometers all lie, to offering weak-tea counter culprits for the cause in the rise in temperatures. Meanwhile, the planet keeps warming, weather keeps causing more and more disasters, CO2 keeps rising, and the predictions on those facts made 30 years ago now appear to have been in error — the warming is faster, and the damaging effects are more severe.

    I am put in mind of the “skeptics” who argued for a decade or more that Jim Hansen was a madman, or a liar, cherry-picking an observation he had made about how the Westside Highway in Manhattan would be lapped by the tides, or underwater, as an effect of global warming. ‘Can’t happen; oceans aren’t rising that high; storms can’t be that severe,’ the critics and skeptics said — your fellow travelers here. Steve Goddard ridiculed the claim no fewer than 23 specific times, with all the calumny Dunning Kruger Effect blinders could invite.

    And there we were, in October 2012, watching the Westside Highway underwater.

    Don’t tell me I’m wrong. I’ve already learned that on this issue, those who say “you’re wrong and warming doesn’t occur” are at best, simply ignorant.

    Show us the cooling, the dropping oceans, the rebuilding glaciers, the spring retreating from its sprint toward February, the retreat of plant hardiness zones, the return of the monarch butterflies, the increasing alkalinity of the oceans, the moderating weather — something more than off-putting snark.

    Like

  13. Dan Pangburn says:

    The two primary drivers of average global temperatures accurately (R2>0.9) explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).

    CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers.

    The drivers are given at

    http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/

    Like

  14. Ed Darrell says:

    BF, at this point of the “interglacial” period, we should be cooling. We’ve been through a couple of sun cycles that should have cooled the planet.

    But despite these natural cycles, Earth continues to warm, at an accelerating pace, way beyond where it’s been in the human past.

    In short, our dumping garbage in the air, especially CO2, has overpowered the natural cycles.

    No human has ever survived a century that ended with CO2 above 350 ppm — maybe never survived a decade like that.

    The last time the planet was this warm was about 5 million years ago. How did humans fare then, BF? Any idea?

    The hatred of humans and the human race by warming denialists is truly, truly ugly.

    Like

  15. Black Flag® says:

    Nonsense, Ed.

    You are arguing wet sidewalks causes rain.

    And, the disingenuous argument.

    The Earth has been warming for, oh, roughly 100,000 years – didn’t notice we are in the interglacial period?

    You pretend this fact means it is human caused.

    Like

  16. Ed Darrell says:

    More “up is down” claims from the denialist wing, eh?

    Seriously, if you want to establish that global warming is not happening, all you’d have to do is read the thermometers, and report the results.

    Of course, that’s what NASA does.

    Like

  17. Black Flag® says:

    Disingenuous argument does not catapult your position into truth.

    Anthropogenic Climate (whatever) simply has no scientific merit.

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,224 other followers

%d bloggers like this: