Feb 2023 Global temperature was 0.89C

A slight rise in global average for February to 0.89C .

The reason for the slight rise seems to be because La Nina has finally faded away!

Triangulation of temperature measurements. This shows areas of above and below normal values (1961-1990 average)

All results can be downloaded

About Clive Best

PhD High Energy Physics Worked at CERN, Rutherford Lab, JET, JRC, OSVision
This entry was posted in AGW, NOAA. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Feb 2023 Global temperature was 0.89C

  1. Hugo says:

    Accuracy in the grid.
    Plots. High against low devide by 2

    In reference to where… all close to cities.
    What is the grid.
    What is the actual grid. All planet ?
    Connected to temperature,

    They changed the reference points. Closer to cities.
    There is no way to have a global spot temperature reference.
    Tell me what is the grid reference.

    A 1 by 1 kilometer grid ? All planet.
    And then in hight.
    There is a 10 meter hight grid a 100 meter grid a 1000 meter grid ?
    Tell me. Air temperatures over cities. over land.
    They can not measer everest..hight.
    Its all compromised data,
    High value devided + low value diveded by 2….. pfff.
    Who would cientifically accept that.

    There is no warming,
    There is change
    Earth is a closed system.
    Co-2 and hydro carbons did not exceed which was ever there,
    its only converted.
    Changed. Nothing else.
    And the stellar position. Has way mote influence.

    A Closed system. that is what earth is.
    The sun ans stellar psition i ss the difference.
    local carbon more or less is good,
    We want warm not Cold.

  2. Jim Franklin says:

    That graph is meaningless without reference points or trend lines. The GMT was 0.89°C in Feb 2023 – Really if the GMT was only 0.89°C at anytime we would be colder than at any point in the last 530 million years.

    Now if you say it was 0.89°C above or below a reference point that will make sense, but you also need to justify the reference point. According to records for the 20th Century, the Global Mean Temperature was 13.9°C, so if you are using that as the baseline for the reference system, then the actual GMT is 14.79°C which is 0.89°C above the baseline.

    Science communication must be clear and unambiguous without room for error (as far as knowledge allows anyway). This is not about believing in or not the theory of AGW, it is about ensuring science communication is correct – there are many on both sides of the fence who have fallen over as a result, not to mention researchers in history.

    • Clive Best says:

      Yes of course .

      It should be called the global mean temperature anomaly !
      All it really says is that the average temperature averaged over the surface of the earth is 0.89C higher then the 30 year average temperature between 1961 and 1990.

  3. grumpyjoesblogJoe Brannan says:


    I thought it would be an interesting exercise to compare the GCHN data with the UAH Lwr Trop satellite data. I’ve produced a plot overlaying the two which might be worth a discussion with your readers. Is there a way to upload the plot to your comments?

  4. Joe Brannan says:


    I tried to post a short comment earlier. Perhaps it has gone into moderation? Basically I wanted to upload a chart comparing GCHN and UAH T anomalies for discussion, but don’t know if I can do that directly. If you could let me know how I can get the chart to you I’d be most grateful.

  5. Clive Best says:

    sorry yes I was out all day. now you should be able to comment freely !

  6. Joe Brannan says:

    Hi again Clive, I wondered what you would make of a comparison of the GHCN data you post versus the UAH satellite data provided by Roy Spencer. I plotted them against each other and arbitrarily superimposed the first few years of data so that the two datasets overlay i.e. I have aligned them to show roughly the same anomaly. The anomalies then match for quite well for the next ~20 years after which the GHCN series gradually drifts higher until ending about 0.3-0.4 degrees C higher present day. I know these datasets are not measuring quite the same thing but the change in gradient after about 2003/4 is nevertheless intriguing. I remember there used to be much debate about the so-called ‘pause’ in warming in the first 15 years or so of the century. I think subsequent iterations of the GHCN data gradually eliminated the pause but it is still there in Spencer’s satellite data. Many sceptics have expressed concern that the adjustments to GHCN have artificially increased the temperature gradient fuelling alarm at the rate of warming. If however you view Spencer’s data from, say, the 1998 El Niño the heating looks entirely benign.

    I will try to upload my chart which is in png format, but it did not work last time I tried. If it does not appear could you suggest how I can upload it.

    • Clive Best says:

      Sure. In a comment you can simply insert the image by adding a link to it on a line on its own.

      Here is an example where I just use the URL to the UAH data plot:

      It should appear above here

  7. Joe Brannan says:

    /Users/Joe/Desktop/Screenshot 2023-03-31 at 12.23.54.png

    • Joe Brannan says:

      Sorry Clive too tech unsavvy to post a file from my own mac. Cant paste png or ppt. What else?

      • Clive Best says:

        Here it is !

        They show similar trends but GHCN appears to warm faster in recent years. There is a difference in that UAH measures the temperature at some altitude in the atmosphere, whereas GHCN is surface data from weather stations and buoys. Over the years the land surface groups have converged on methods that increase the global average (kriging, homogenisation etc). Models however warm even faster !

  8. Maria says:

    Slight changes are massive in reality. In a blink of an eye it becomes unbearable

Leave a Reply