Temp anomaly for October = 0.69C

I have combined GHCN V3 data with HadSST3 to calculate the  temperature anomaly using the same timebase as HADCRUT4, using my Spherical Triangulation algorithm. The resulting global average value is 0.69C. The spatial temperature distribution is shown below.

Spatial temperature distribution. Triangular elements are the average temperatures of their vertices. Vertices are station/SST measurements

The global V3C/HadSST3 average is 0.69C which is up from the HadCRUT4.6 value for September (0.54C). The CRUTEM4 station data for October are not yet available. However any  discrepancy will likely be rather small, as demonstrated  below.

V3C (red) has been updated for October 2017. CRUTEM4 stations (blue) for October are not yet available. Normally these are released at the beginning of the following month (Dec)

The annual average for 2017 based on the first 10 months is 0.74C which would make 2017 cooler than 2016 and roughly the same temperature as 2015.

I’ll calculate the HadCRUT4.6 equivalent value when the station data become available.

Update: As requested – Here is the temperature distribution viewed from the Southern Indian Ocean.

This entry was posted in AGW, Climate Change, NOAA, UK Met Office and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Temp anomaly for October = 0.69C

  1. Ron Graf says:

    Clive, this is very impressive. Are you possibly also considering creating an interactive tool like Nick Stokes has here?

    Checking his graphic for Oct 2017 against yours you can see the individual station influence.

    Using Nick’s tool I find the behavior of the temperature anomalies on island stations particularly interesting. One would think that tiny islands would have their anomalies controlled by the ocean around them but they more often than not randomly contrast with the sea around them. This could only be demonstrating the poor precision of stations. There is no physical explanation I can see unless someone else has one.

    I applaud both of you.

    • Clive Best says:

      Yes Islands always seem to be warmer than the surrounding oceans.
      I did actually once have an interface using flash which allowed to plot the trends from any weather station. Browsers started blocking Flash because it was seen as a security threat. However you can see some of it here
      Maybe all CRUTEM4 stations will even appear here (wait a few seconds and click to enable flash)

      [kml_flashembed publishmethod="static" fversion="8.0.0" movie="/world/world.swf?data_file=/world/hadcrut4-stations.xml" width="600" height="400" targetclass="flashmovie"]

      [/kml_flashembed]

      • Clive Best says:

        It doesn’t work in comments. I put the same thing up as a new post. The trouble is that Flash is not properly supported by modern browsers, probably for security reasons.

  2. Ron Graf says:

    I notice on Nick’s interactive trend by station tool that when you select a long trend (1937-2016 for example) every island lights up red against the sea. Is this evidence of consistent non-climate artifacts in the record or a physical effect? I would have to guess the former, especially looking at the USA looks like a mess.

    • Nick Stokes says:

      Ron,
      The monthly data is unadjusted (GHCN); with the trend data, you can choose. The “red islands” is notable in the 1937-2016 period, but varies for others. Unadjusted data does have uncorrected non-climate effects, and with monthly data, this is often not the present data, but something that happened between the anomaly base period and now. Some but not all of that gets fixed with adjustment, as you can see with trend.

      The US issue is partly TOBS, and gets better with adjustment. But it is still messier than Europe.

      • Ron Graf says:

        Nick, I compared the ad_1937-2016 radio box selection as well as the un_1937-2016. It seems to be the case in either selection that Islands contrast with the sea and the USA is a mess. What am I missing?

        • Nick Stokes says:

          Ron,
          As I said, adjustment is only partly effective. I think the US data does reflect real problems, possibly because of volunteer collection. Also the density makes it look worse (though Europe is dense too).

        • Ron Graf says:

          Swapping adjusted for unadjusted for 1907-2016 warms the USA, (as expected to reverse TOBS,) but why does Australia warm with adjustment? Why does the Australian continent warm less than the oceans around it? One would expect anomalies generally higher on land and thus proportional to areas of land mass. The oceans, having the constant overturning of 1000-year-old deep water should have the least 100-year anomalies.

          Nick, your tool is what is needed to study the homogeneity of the stations, ships, buoys and proxy studies once all the readings and meta-data are digitized. Does BEST share their data, adjustments and metadata?

          Do MSUs/AMSUs and IR satellites or sondes have their data addressed to grid location? If so, it would be amazing to compare them all. Not only could quality be their quality be controlled but also the CMIP models could be compared on local dynamics to validate their physics and tuning. Cities could be studied for UHI by the hundred instead of by one.

  3. nobodysknowledge says:

    Thank you for your good work.
    Could you also show anomalies of the other half of the earth?

Leave a Reply