November global surface temperature down 0.05 C

HadSST3 data for November is finally available so that I now could update my global temperature 3D calculation based on GHCN V4 for the land data. There was a small drop in temperature from the peak value of 0.95C for October to 0.90C in November. Here is the spatial temperature distribution.

The images show the triangulation of measurements with each triangle coloured by its area weighted temperature for each vertex.

Recent monthly trends are as follows.

Monthly global temperatures based on V4C and HadSST3

The annual average remains more or less unchanged at 0.84C, making 2019 the second warmest year after 2016. This ordering is unlikely to change when we include December.

This entry was posted in AGW, Climate Change, NOAA. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to November global surface temperature down 0.05 C

  1. Alex says:

    What if the temperature rise was simply due to the loss of ecosystems? In their absence, sun light is converted into heat – instead of living fauna and flora – and reverted back into the atmosphere?

    • Frank says:

      Alex: There is a fair amount information and research into “energy crops”, plants that can be harvested and converted to fuel. Making ethanol from corn, sugar cane or possibly someday switch grass or biodiesel from oily crops like rape seed. David MacKay gives you some idea of how much energy is stored by plants that are prized for their ability to convert photons into stored chemical energy. 0.5-1.0 W/m2 is about as good as plants get from SWR averaging about 165 W/m2 and they make no use of 333+ W/m2 of DLR.

      https://withouthotair.com/cD/page_283.shtml
      https://withouthotair.com/cD/page_283.shtml

      Of course, not all parts of energy crops is suitable for being converted to fuel and that process is inefficient. Wikipedia has an article on photosynthesis efficiency with a range of values 0.1 to an upper limit of 5%. You can speculate about what fraction of the planet has experience ecosystem loss and then guess how much chemical energy is no longer being stored by plants.

      Finally the IPCC estimates the radiative forcing from changes in land use, which I may incorporate both changes in surface albedo and chemical storage. The total land use forcing change is about +0.1 W/m2, with about half of this occurring since 1950 and only 0.01 W/m2 in the past three decades. Total radiative forcing has been rising at about 0.4 W/m2/decade for the past half-century.

      • Alex says:

        Sorry, I was incomplete. It is true that plants&living animals do store energy from the sun, as a result of biomass production. But I think it is minimal (a few kJ/g), compared to the incoming energy (1kJ/s/m2). What vegetal cover does is transforming liquid water into vapor, without raising local temperatures significantly. Then, through convection, the vapor rises into the atmosphere and release energy back into space when transitioning to water again.

        The surface temperature of a barren soil in summer is 20C more than the one covered with vegetation. A quick black body estimate results in 20/30% more heat released into the atmosphere. On a 1km2 land, that’s about 300MW. All of it being absorbed by the atmosphere, with little chance of leading to more rains (desert landscapes). So this mostly contributes to a net temperature increase of the planet.

        And take crucial note that 100% of arable lands used for cultivation are without significant vegetal cover. The soils are destroyed, there’s no endogenous plants or life in there, besides what the farmer planted. If you don’t believe me, take a hike in a corn field next summer and see for yourself. Even soy beans and wheat, if you push the stems, and look at the soil, it’s just a dead substrate. Compare this to untouched land or forests.

        The IPCC are just a bunch of idiots, who have forgotten what Feynman said “i don’t care if your theory is beautiful, if it doesn’t fit experiment, it’s just incorrect”.

        The IPCC assertion that CO2 is the primary contributor to climate change which in turn results into the disappearance of life on earth is absolutely false. If it were true, then the CO2 concentration during the Cambrian era would have been far lower than what we have now.

        My guess is that life on earth is being destroyed, and therefore the earth surface converges towards a dead soil in thermodynamic equilibrium with and incoming radiation of about 1kW/m2. All of which heats up the lower atmosphere (while when there is life, water vapor releases this energy in the upper atmosphere (~10/20 km), with minimal increase of the lower atmosphere temperature).

Leave a Reply