3) The main
actual warm anomaly is at the Antarctic margin.
Not exact matches
Ranked
warmest years in the series going back to 1914 are: # 2006 9.73 °C # 2003 9.51 °C # 2004 9.48 °C # 2002 9.48 °C # 2005 9.46 °C Mean temperature, sunshine and rainfall for regions of the UK compared with the long - term average UK regional averages for 2006,
anomalies with respect to 1971 - 2000 Region Mean temp Sunshine Rainfall
Actual [°C] Anom [°C]
Actual [hours] Anom [%]
Actual [mm] Anom [%] UK 9.7 +1.1 1,507 113 1,176 104 England 10.6 +1.2 1,638 112 8,51 102 Wales 9.9 +1.0 1,534 113 1,420 99 Scotland 8.3 +1.1 1,300 112 1,652 109 N Ireland 9.6 +1.0 1,409 115 1,156 104
For example,
anomalies are correlated over fairly large distances: If it was
warmer than average in NYC this year, it was also likely
warmer than average in Boston and Montreal and Philadelphia even though the
actual average value in this different cities might be fairly different.
You can't deduce anything using heat conduction from
warm waters above because you'll find it's so tiny that would take ~ 125,000 years to
warm / cool the depths to same as surface following a surface MST
anomaly if there were no currents bringing cold water through, so obviously the
actual warming from waters above is 99 % + by fluid mixing.
I like this week for that because the
anomaly was cool across most of the country while the
actual temperature still fairly
warm.
When it is
warmer than the climatological average (and therefore a positive temperature
anomaly) in a particular location, it is generally also
warmer than average over hundreds of kilometres — corresponding to the mean synoptic weather pattern — even though the
actual temperature may be quite different from location to location.
Converting the
anomalies to the
actuals, GIStemp in 2002 had Global Mean temperature in 1880 at 13.89 oC, and by March 2010 this had fallen to 13.76 oC, i.e. colder, not
warmer, as your comment claims, thereby exaggerating the apparent
warming since 1880.