January 2019 global average temperature remains unchanged – 0.73 C

Global averaged surface temperature for January 2019 was 0.73C using my spherical triangulation method merging GHCNV3 with HadSST3. This is unchanged since December 2018. The baseline used is always 1961-1990.

Monthly temperatures since 1998.

The Northern Hemisphere is shown here.

Temperature distribution Northern Hemisphere. Siberia is warmer than December while N.America is cooler.

and here is the Southern Hemisphere.

Souther Hemisphere shows high Australia temperatures while Antarctica is actually colder than normal.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to January 2019 global average temperature remains unchanged – 0.73 C

  1. Lou Maytrees says:

    Thanks for your interesting graph Clyde. To a non scientist your Spherical Triangulation Method seems to show that, much like after the 1998 El Nino, the Earth’s surface temperature has ‘bottomed’ out two years later and that after the 2016 El Nino we are now +.5*C warmer than the 2000 bottom.

    In only 19 years that equals an average of more than +.25*C warming per decade even with a ‘pause’.

    • Clive Best says:

      Yes – El Niño gets everybody excited about the warmest year ever, but then the average settles back to an underlying gradual trend. Some people are predicting a modest el Niño in 2019 but we will see.

      • Lou Maytrees says:

        Yes, very much agree about a 1998 or 2016 El Nino skewing the underlying trend in some folks minds.

        And my sincere apology on the braindead typo Clive, only a nutter like me could accomplish something like that.

    • OleKlemsdal says:

      The year 2000 with a relatively strong Nina is not a proper startpoint for computing your 0,5 increase in 19 years, is it?
      In fact, if you as an alternative start in 2001, a year that is also a year with a weak Nina, HadCRUT4 reports the annual anomaly to 0,441, which compares to 0,595 in 2018 – also a year with a weak Nina. Then you end up with an increase of 0,154 in 17 years, or 0,09 per decade.
      One can argue that neither of these ‘cherrypicking’ comparisons are any good, but I think the one you chose is the worst.

  2. Pingback: January 2019 global average temperature remains unchanged – 0.73 C – Climate Collections

  3. Lance Wallace says:

    For “temperature” do you mean “anomaies”?

    • Clive Best says:

      Yes – every temperature index uses anomalies. These are relative to the station averages from 1961-1990 – the same as HadCRUT.

      If you used absolute temperature you would get a completely different result because it depends on the coverage for each year.

      • Lance Wallace says:

        The absolute vs anomaly issue is interesting in one way–the amazing (to me) difference of about 3 degrees C in the various General Circulation Models in their bedrock estimate of absolute temperature today. Some years ago I downloaded the results from the models on KNMI and made one mistake–I meant to download the anomaly calculations and instead got the absolute temperature results. This showed as I recall that the models ranged from about 12 C to about 15 C in their estimates of absolute global temperature. One immediately sees that one model might find that a particular area is above freezing whereas another model would find it was below freeezing. This would lead to different predictions about the subsequent behavior of each region. I’ve not seen much discussion of this issue.

  4. Lance Wallace says:


  5. Bryce Payne says:

    Seems like there is some comparisons of apples to oranges in all the various models and anomalies. For example, are the exact same set of stations reporting data for all the compared years (i.e., beginning in 1961). If so, how many stations are vs. were there for any given year in any given model or anomaly calculation? If one were examining a specific and fixed set of stations, it might be reasonable to assume that “normal” variations at specific sites might wash out over a reasonable number of years to provide a clear trend in mean annual temperature for the area covered by that set of stations, which might or might not have a consistent relationship to mean annual global temperature. It seems to be pushing credibility to hold that a comparison of monthly means for sets of stations that have (I presume) changed over time in number, geographic distribution, etc. would be more than remotely reliable at the level of resolution being presented, sought or needed with respect to trying to assess climate change/global warming. Frankly, I am profoundly concerned that we are on an unstoppable train of anthropogenic environmental alterations of the earth, including atmospheric, none of which appear to be in the ultimate interest of humanity, but the prolonged agony of the fascination with temperature data of dubious consistency in measurement, timing, geographical distribution, etc. seems to be like a gathering of specialists arguing whether the patient is ill by insisting on determining the severity of the patient’s fever, or if he even has one.

Leave a Reply