WMO Reasoning behind Two Sets of “Normals” a.k.a. Two Periods of Base Years for Anomalies

Most of us are familiar with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)-recommended 30-year period for “normals”, which are also used as base years against which anomalies are calculated. Most, but not all, climate-related data are referenced to 30-year periods. Presently the “climatological standard normals” period is 1981-2010. These “climatological standard normals” are updated every ten years after we pass another year ending in a zero.  That is, the next period for “climatological standard normals” will be 1991-2020, so the shift to new “climatological standard normals” will take place in a few years. 

But were you aware that the WMO also has another recommended 30-year period for “normals”, against which anomalies are calculated? It’s used for the “reference standard normals” or “reference normals”.  The WMO-recommended period for “reference normals” is 1961-1990.     And as many of you know, of the primary suppliers of global mean surface temperature data, the base years of 1961-1990 are only used by the UKMO.

Basically, in simple terms, “climatological standard normals” are for what we might expect at a given time in a given location. On the other hand, the “reference normals” are for how things have changed since the reference period.  That way politicians, activists, and eco-profiteers, etc., can whine about how climate has changed and ask you to pay for it…as if we should expect climate not to change.

We can find a simple and easy-to-understand discussion of the reasons for two sets of “normals” in the WMO document titled WMO Guidelines on the Calculation of Climate Normals (2017 edition), linked here, 725 KB .pdf.  There they write (my boldface and brackets):

5. APPLICATION ASPECTS

5.1 Why calculate both climatological standard normals and reference normals?

As mentioned above, climate normals serve two major functions: as an implicit predictor of the conditions most likely to be experienced in the near future at any given location, and as a stable benchmark against which long-term changes in climate observations can be compared.

In a stable climate, these two purposes can both be served by a common reference period. However, as discussed in The Role of Climatological Normals in a Changing Climate (WMO, 2007), for elements where there is now a clear and consistent trend (most notably temperature), the predictive skill of climate normals is greatest if they are updated as frequently as possible. A 1981–2010 averaging period is much more likely to be representative of conditions in 2017 than the 1961–1990 period. On the other hand, there are clear benefits of using a stable benchmark as a reference point for long-term datasets, both in practical terms (not having to recalculate anomaly-based datasets every 10 years), and in terms of communication – an “above average” year does not suddenly become “below average” because of a change in reference period.

[Wouldn’t that be terrible? To have to list and show the global surface temperature anomaly for a recent year as being “below normal”, as if that would’ve happened in a while.  See Figure 1 below.]

The quote continues:

As these two primary purposes of climate normals have become mutually inconsistent in terms of their requirements for a suitable averaging period, WMO has decided that both should be calculated (subject to availability of data). While the best predictive skill would be achieved from updating climatological standard normals every year, it is recognized that this would be impractical for many countries, and hence it has been decided that these should be updated every 10 years, with the next update due after the end of 2020.

Figure 1 includes Berkeley Earth annual global surface temperature anomalies from 1988 to 2017 using the “climatological standard normals” base years of 1981-2010; and the “reference normals” base years of 1961-1990, which is used by the UK Met Office; and also the base years of 1951-1980, which have been adopted by NASA GISS and Berkeley Earth as their standard base years; and, last but not least, 1901-2000, which is used by NOAA NCEI for their global surface temperature data.

Figure 1

As you can plainly see, the base years used for anomalies do not impact which year was warmest or coolest. The base years only impact how far above “normal” the supplier can claim a year has been.  Not surprisingly, NOAA NCEI uses base years, 1901-2000, that provide the highest values above “normal”.

And that brings to mind something that will cause a slight shift in topics to global surface temperatures in absolute form:

“To be clear, no particular absolute global temperature provides a risk to society, it is the change in temperature compared to what we’ve been used to that matters.”

Of course, the above quote comes from Gavin Schmidt, who is the Director of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies. It is from a 2014 post at the “Climate science from real climate scientists” blog RealClimate, and that quote comes from the blog post Absolute temperatures and relative anomalies (Archived here, just in case.). So not to be accused of quoting Gavin out of context, I’ll present the full paragraph. The topic of discussion for the post was the wide span of absolute global mean temperatures [GMT, in the following quote] found in climate models.  Gavin wrote (my boldface):

Most scientific discussions implicitly assume that these differences aren’t important i.e. the changes in temperature are robust to errors in the base GMT value, which is true, and perhaps more importantly, are focussed on the change of temperature anyway, since that is what impacts will be tied to. To be clear, no particular absolute global temperature provides a risk to society, it is the change in temperature compared to what we’ve been used to that matters.

Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense knows that, annually, the local ambient temperatures where they live vary much more than the 1-deg C change in global surface temperatures that data show we’ve experienced since preindustrial times and way much more than the 0.5-deg C additional change in global mean surface temperatures the UN has set its sights on trying to prevent in the future.

So, to put things in perspective, as a simple example—for a well-known country—let’s plot the long-term monthly variations in surface temperatures, not anomalies, and compare them with global surface temperature anomalies, which is how global mean surface temperatures are normally presented. The country I’ve chosen for this example is China, the most-populated country on Earth. The data we need are available from Berkeley Earth. Their monthly global mean land+ocean surface temperature anomaly data are here, and the near-surface land air temperature anomaly data for China are here along with the all-important monthly surface temperature factors for converting the anomalies into absolute form. (Thank you, Berkeley Earth!) The comparison runs from January 1900 to August 2013, when the data for China ends at Berkeley Earth. See Figure 2. The annual variations in surface temperatures in China average 28.2-deg C for the period of 1951-1980 and those annual variations dwarf the long-term rise in global surface temperatures, about 1-deg C.

But, but, but, I can hardly see the changes in the red curve, the global surface temperature anomalies.

Exactly.

Figure 2

In other words, the gazillion people living in China have been used to annual variations in temperatures that are far, far greater than the wimpy little 1-deg C warming the Earth has experienced since the end of the pre-industrial period—far, far greater.  Also, the average annual variation in monthly surface temperatures for China is more than 56 times greater than the additional 0.5 deg C rise in global surface temperatures the UN is now pushing to avoid.

Hmmm, I really feel a series of posts coming on with lots of reference graphs.

NOTE REGARDING MY USE OF THE TERM ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE

The term Absolute is commonly used by the climate science community when discussing Earth’s surface temperature when they aren’t using anomalies. See the quote from Gavin Schmidt above or refer to the FAQ webpages of the global surface temperature data suppliers.

[End note]

That’s it for now. Have fun in the comments and enjoy the rest of your day.

STANDARD CLOSING REQUEST, WITH AN ADDITION

Please purchase my recently published ebooks. As many of you know, this year I published 2 ebooks that are available through Amazon in Kindle format:

And please purchase Anthony Watts’s et al. Climate Change: The Facts – 2017.

To those of you who have purchased them, thank you very much. To those of you who will purchase them, thank you, too.

Regards,

Bob

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in Global Warming in Perspective. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to WMO Reasoning behind Two Sets of “Normals” a.k.a. Two Periods of Base Years for Anomalies

  1. Dave Fair says:

    Thanks, Bob. But, then again, you aren’t a real scientist.

  2. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thanks, Dave. That made me laugh. As if climate science was real science. Climate science would be better said to be real global politics.

    Cheers,
    Bob

  3. Dave Fair says:

    Hee … hee.

    Its a shame that one must go to WUWT to get others’ comments. I do try to get them to visit your site and buy your books.

  4. Bob Tisdale says:

    Dave, thank you for everything you do.

    Cheers,
    Bob

  5. Terry D. Welander says:

    A 30 year period of measurement for changes is ridiculous because Earth is over 4 billion years old. Another organization, WMO with no credibility; thinking 30 years of measurement increments can provide anything of use. Million year increments with 10,000 year increments during anomalous times is probably the only useful climate measuring increments. Where do these people get their ideas from? They do not appear to be using any reality. And it is necessary to compare data over 4 billion years of Earth in order to identify trends and any anomalies. Who will straiten these people out? Or it is necessary for climate geologists to provide a record through rock dating with the amount of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, and miscellaneous gases in the rock to provide a facsimile of climate for any given time period during the over 4 billion year life of Earth; even the last one billion years is probably not enough for a complete climate picture of Earth. Keeping in mind humanities current input to Earth is 2.4 watts per sq. ft of Earth surface. Nasa’s energy budget for Earth is 344 watts per sq. ft. from the sun. Climate changes due to change in Earth’s orbit from near circular (1977) to the most elliptical in around 77,000 years has a change of 5 watts per sq. ft. to Earth’s surface. The point being during the over 4 billion year life of Earth Climate changes have likely been 10 to 20 watts per sq. ft.; and only need to be dug out of the climate changes registered in rocks to have a meaningful and accurate picture of Earth’s climate. A current 30 year picture of climate is useless and a waste of time; what government seems to be good at doing; missing the point and wasting time; which wastes tax payer funds.

  6. Bob Tisdale says:

    Terry, you wrote, “A 30 year period of measurement for changes is ridiculous because Earth is over 4 billion years old.”

    You obviously missed the fact that the WMO is a meteorological (weather) agency, bot a paleoclimatological one.

  7. Terry D. Welander says:

    Bob, So why would a weather organization be commenting on climate? So the problem is more basic than I have stated. WMO talks about climate and should not because it is a weather organization. The fault is with WMO talking about climate when everything says it is not their expertise; being weather people only. Though; you would think a weather organization would have
    a better picture than short term norms only that they site. Can you or do you know anyone or yourself who will explain this short sightedness to WMO? Paul Douglas, weatherman in metro MN explained the situation in simple terms: weather is real time and immediate only; climate is long term; very long term. So I know of one weather person who understands the difference between
    weather and climate and is a weatherman; so there is hope. A 30 year norm is very, very short term or a weather observation only; meaning WMO is using the wrong terms or using the term climate when they should not be. If you can help WMO out to be more explicit and more
    precise with their terms; would make a lot of people very happy.

  8. Bob Tisdale says:

    Terry, you started your last comment with: “Bob, So why would a weather organization be commenting on climate?”

    Are you serious? Or are you wasting my time for some other reason? By definition, climate is weather averaged over periods of 3 decades or more. Consider also that member countries might want to list climatic conditions for tourism reasons and they all needed to standardize on time periods to use for references. Apparently you did NOT bother to read and comprehend the attached WMO document.

    Terry, because you insist on wasting my time, you’re comments temporarily will automatically wind up in the spam filter. I don’t bother to read what’s there. I just press the delete button.

    Adios for now.
    Bob

  9. Pingback: “…it is the change in temperature compared to what we’ve been used to that matters.” – Part 2 | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  10. Pingback: “…it is the change in temperature compared to what we’ve been used to that matters.” – Part 2 | Watts Up With That?

  11. Pingback: “…it is the change in temperature compared to what we’ve been used to that matters.” – Part 2 |

  12. Pingback: “…it is the change in temperature compared to what we’ve been used to that matters.” – Part 3 | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  13. Pingback: “…it is the change in temperature compared to what we’ve been used to that matters.” – Part 3 |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s