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.
About Clive Best
PhD High Energy Physics
Worked at CERN, Rutherford Lab, JET, JRC, OSVision
This entry was posted in Uncategorized
. Bookmark the permalink
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’.
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.
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.
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.
Pingback: January 2019 global average temperature remains unchanged – 0.73 C – Climate Collections
For “temperature” do you mean “anomaies”?
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.
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.
Absolutely ! The models all disagree about the absolute temperature. Using anomalies saves their skin.
I also once calculated the average absolute temperatures from the station data
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.
“The Earth has a fever.” -Al Gore.
Carbon Dioxide Absorption Power and the Greenhouse Gas Theory
Eddie Banner firstname.lastname@example.org
Global warming is certainly happening and much has been written about the Greenhouse Gas effect and it’s claimed warming of the Earth’s surface. The ideas have been based on the ability of molecules of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere to absorb infrared photons of 15 micron wavelength, but very little, if anything, has been published about the power which can be handled by the atmospheric carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, GHG advocates claim a “radiative forcing” of about 2 Watts per m2 at the Earth’s surface. The following calculations show that this GHG theory cannot be correct.
Consider a standard column of the Earth’s atmosphere, based upon an area of 1 square metre of the Earth’s surface.
The number of molecules in this column (1) is 2.137*1029
So at the current concentration of carbon dioxide, 400ppm, the number of molecules of carbon dioxide is (400*10-6 )*(2.137*1029 ) = approx 8.5*1025
From the HITRAN database (2), the ability of the CO2 molecule to absorb a 15 micron photon is given by its absorption cross-section, which is 5*10-22 m2 per molecule. (Note that this database gives the value in cm2 ).
So, in an area of 1m2 the number of molecules required to absorb 1 photon is 1/(5*10-22) ; that is 2*1021 CO2 molecules per m2
But there are 8.5*1025 molecules of CO2 in the column.
So the number of photons which can be absorbed is (8.5*1025) / (2*1021)
= 4.3*104 photons per m2
Now, the energy of a 15 micron photon (3) is 1.3252*10-20 Joule
So the energy absorbed by all the CO2 in the column = (1.3252*10-20) * 4.3*104 Joule
= 5.7*10-16 Joule per m2
This process can be repeated many times per second because the excited CO2
molecule can release its energy by collision with any molecule in the atmosphere, ready to absorb another photon of the right energy. The mean free path in air at atmospheric pressure (760 torr) is about 0.1 micron, and the molecular velocity is 465 m.sec-1, and so the mean time between collisions is about 2*10-10 second. So the process can be repeated about 5*109 times per second.
Therefore, the maximum power which the carbon dioxide (at 400ppm) can handle is (5*109)*(5.7*10-16) Joule per second per m2, that is approx. 3*10-6 Watts.m-2
Whereas the Greenhouse Gas theory requires about 2 W.m-2 , which is about 700,000 times the power available. This seems to show that the Greenhouse Gas Theory is not valid.
The sun warms the earth, not CO2 and not H2O. Infra red radiation to space cools the earth and the surface temperature is the balance between the two. Convection and Evaporation move heat up through the atmosphere generating a lapse rate which ends at the Tropopause. GHGs like CO2 and H2O at different heights absorb and emit IR photons at the lapse rate temperature. If you double CO2 then there are more molecules absorbing 15 micron photons, so the height where they emit to space gets higher and usually cooler. So slightly less photons get out to space than before and as a result the surface has to emit slightly more to balance energy. So you’re right that CO2 does not absorb the 2 W/M2. Instead it is sun which provides the extra 2W/m2 needed for the surface to balance energy.
see : The CO2 GHE demystified
Thank you for your excellent, informative response to my post.
I take your point about the extra power from the Sun required at the Earth’s surface to balance the overall energy. But the energy must be emitted to space for the balance to be achieved. This can only be done by infrared radiation from GHG molecules absorbing and emitting photons. Carbon dioxide will serve very well as an example in my post, and I think I have shown that at the current concentration in the atmosphere the output can be only about 3*10^-6 W.m^-2.
This is because of the very small CO2 absorption cross-section, and the very small energy of an infrared photon, in spite of the high collision repetition rates.
Doubling the concentration would double this, of course, but it is still insignificant.
Yes, but I think you are forgetting how the convective/latent heat energy flow changes to compensate. This is impossible to calculate but works a bit like a pressure cooker. Heat will escape to space via IR radiation from the surface, top of clouds, H2O and CO2 through whatever is the most efficient. It certainly doesn’t all escape via CO2 IR to space. Only a small fraction in the 15micron band is affected by CO2. Any so called “trapped” heat by doubling CO2 is thermalised and escapes throughout the black-body spectrum. Just that fraction emitted by CO2 rises in height to colder levels.
And yet the Sun is experiencing its weakest Solar Cycle in a century and according to some we are entering a Maunder Minimum which, of course, supposedly is cooling the planet so how is it possible that the Sun has been warming the Earth at more than +.2*C per decade for the past twenty years?
The Sun is at its weakest in a century yet the Earth continues to warm rapidly. How does that work?