I’m sure the press will make this into a much bigger story. This today from NOAA News. The choice of “hottest” in the title is interesting. We should ask our Canadian friends if it was “hot” during March, since Canada seems to be leading the world in “hotness” according to the NOAA image. – Anthony
NOAA: Global Temps Push Last Month to Hottest March on Record
The world’s combined global land and ocean surface temperature made last month the warmest March on record, according to NOAA. Taken separately, average ocean temperatures were the warmest for any March and the global land surface was the fourth warmest for any March on record. Additionally, the planet has seen the fourth warmest January – March period on record.
The monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis, which is based on records going back to 1880, is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides government, business and community leaders so they can make informed decisions.
Global Temperature Highlights – March 2010
Temperature anomaly is the difference from average, which gives a more accurate picture of temperature change. In calculating average regional temperatures, factors like station location or elevation affect the data, but those factors are less critical when looking at the difference from the average.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA/National Climatic Data Center/NESDIS)
- The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for March 2010 was the warmest on record at 56.3°F (13.5°C), which is 1.39°F (0.77°C) above the 20th century average of 54.9°F (12.7°C).
- The worldwide ocean surface temperature was the highest for any March on record –1.01°F (0.56°C) above the 20th century average of 60.7°F (15.9°C).
- Separately, the global land surface temperature was 2.45°F (1.36°C) above the 20th century average of 40.8 °F (5.0°C) — the fourth warmest on record. Warmer-than-normal conditions dominated the globe, especially in northern Africa, South Asia and Canada. Cooler-than-normal regions included Mongolia and eastern Russia, northern and western Europe, Mexico, northern Australia, western Alaska and the southeastern United States.
- El Niño weakened to moderate strength in March, but it contributed significantly to the warmth in the tropical belt and the overall ocean temperature. According to NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, El Niño is expected to continue its influence in the Northern Hemisphere at least through the spring.
- For the year-to-date, the combined global land- and ocean-surface temperature of 55.3°F (13.0°C) was the fourth warmest for a January-March period. This value is 1.19°F (0.66°C) above the 20th century average.
- According to the Beijing Climate Center, Tibet experienced its second warmest March since historical records began in 1951. Delhi, India also had its second warmest March since records began in 1901, according to the India Meteorological Department.
Other Highlights
Download additional information and resources.
Download PDF (Credit: NOAA/National Climatic Data Center/NESDIS)
- Arctic sea ice covered an average of 5.8 million square miles (15.1 million square kilometers) during March. This is 4.1 percent below the 1979-2000 average expanse, and the fifth-smallest March coverage since records began in 1979. Ice coverage traditionally reaches its maximum in March, and this was the 17th consecutive March with below-average Arctic sea ice coverage. This year the Arctic sea ice reached its maximum size on March 31st, the latest date for the maximum Arctic sea ice extent since satellite records began in 1979.
- Antarctic sea ice expanse in March was 6.9 percent below the 1979-2000 average, resulting in the eighth smallest March ice coverage on record.
- In China, the Xinjiang province had its wettest March since records began in 1951, while Jilin and Shanghai had their second wettest March on record. Meanwhile, Guangxi and Hainan provinces in southern China experienced their driest March on record, according to the Beijing Climate Center.
- Many locations across Ontario, Canada received no snow, or traces of snow, in March, which set new low snowfall records, according to Environment Canada.
Scientists, researchers, and leaders in government and industry use NOAA’s monthly reports to help track trends and other changes in the world’s climate. This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers with critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the oceans to surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
MartinGAtkins; thanks, you responded appropriately to Anu who is nothing if not busy and subtle with his[?] use of official data tools. Anu says this:
“Did I mention the different baselines ? 2000-2008 vs. 1971-2000”
That was my point Anu, the March 2010 has more cool anomalies than the base period post 2000, so how can it be the warmest on record?
A couple of other crucial points; the use of anomalies is a recipe for distortion and manipulation and is possibly most responsible for the AGW hysteria; anomalies are variations from a base period mean; if that base period is in a cool period then anomalies before and after which are in [naturally] warm periods will be distorted and show a false trend. GISS and Hadcrut have used weightings of 0.24 and 0.15 respectively but that simple tool ignores natural factors like volcanoes and PDO as this graph shows;
http://i26.tinypic.com/2hmpw6r.jpg
The blue line is the temperature trend with PDO removed and the green line is the Hadcrut base line trend.
Finally Anu has a shot at the ‘myth’ that temps have been going down since 1998; explain this Anu:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/from:1998/to:2010
David M Hoffer,
>Hmmm… hasn’t golf been around for like 300 years or more?
>I don’t suppose the club records for opening day would be
>available that far back? Because that would make for an
>interesting climate proxy, would it not?
Our club opened about 80 years ago. I asked the question…and so far have received no answer…about when the record earliest opening day was. April 8 is earlier than any date in the past 10 years, which tells us little or nothing.
But it is historical fact that the 1930s were a hot decade here in Alberta. Any daily record that happens to get broken by our UHI-tainted devices these days seems to be from the 1930s, or occasionally the 1880s.
Concerning baselines, but it’s rather more prudent and accurate to include the year in the baseline you’re using to compare against, otherwise it doesn’t make much sense, unless you warp the context out of proportions.
How about this for a baseline:
1871-1900
No? Why not?
bubbagyro; thanks for the heads up about Anu; I guessed as much and have had some experience with such luminaries as sod and good old luke. Anu’s point about heat below 700 metres in the oceans is a crucial one because with not enough warming being shown atmospherically and on land the AGW alarmists need the pipeline effect and equlibrium sensitivity to validate their cockeyed theory. Cointegration has knocked ES around but the deep heat issue needs to be resolved. As for El Ninos getting hotter, this is the Modoki revisited and as usual Bob Tisdale has done some good work on this AGW scary scenario:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/there-is-nothing-new-about-el-nino.html
mikael pihlström (14:25:34) :
tobyglyn (18:51:42) :
… and to whom it concerns
The category of the blog is climate news; if you want to talk about the
weather, it is nice and I enjoy your comments from different places,
getting a synchronous sweep of a large area!
But, if you draw conclusions on GW or AGW based on this news you are
not helping. There is no chance for a fruitful discussion if the distinction
betrween weather and climate is not observed.
Not the most observant are we? From the header above…
Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watt.
Anecdotal reports on the weather probably shouldn’t be used to draw conclusions about the climate, but since a number of the reports appear to be in direct contradiction of the data on the climate anomaly map, they may suggest a cause for reasonable doubt of its efficacy. They also reinforce the point made by myself and several others on a number of occasions that no one ever gets to experience climate, just weather. That whatever transpires with the climate now or at any point in the future is unlikely to be detectable in the random noise of the weather wherever you happen to live.
Spector (11:23:42) :
John from CA (09:15:24) : “An international law needs to be passed limiting climate science to colors that do not use Red.”
Unfortunately, I think there is still so much support for the catastrophic global warming hypothesis, especially in international organizations, I expect the possibility of passing any law controlling this type of propaganda is probably quite low.
=================
I agree but its very sad to see Science organizations stoop to this level of sensationalism. As far as Cap and Trade goes, I think we’ll see a major shift in Congress after the election in November. Everyone is fed up with all the hysteria and foolishness.
Earlier in this posting I mentioned that I was looking for a graph of arctic ocean temperatures. I did some further searching and believe that the graph that I wanted was: http://i38.tinypic.com/142a0rt.jpg
which I found at:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/2007-spike-in-arctic-ocean-sst.html
I’d like to bring attention to this graph, for I do not believe that it has received the attention that it deserves. Just today on CBC radio I heard an interview with Bill McKibbon in which he brought up all the usual warmist assertions about sea level rise, melting arctic ice with, I believe, special mention of the “melting” of 2007 that was really due to wind blowing the ice S into the Atlantic. I’ll alert the program producers of the “warm” arctic waters in 2007, though they seem impervious to the input of factual knowledge that goes against their preconceived dogma.
IanM
Thank you for the weather report.
The WWF is seizing upon the warmer than normal March 2010 temperatures, and spinning it into Global Warming. A local radio station played a soundbite a few days ago of a WWF “scientist” claiming that “trees are now budding two weeks earlier than previously, due to global warming.” This is just another blatant lie by the WWF, who is attributing to global warming what is no more than an unusually warm weather pattern lasting for almost three weeks, in March 2010, in the USA. A local online climate report near my location has reported that March 2010 was 4.7 deg F warmer than normal. An unusual weather pattern? Yes! Global Warming? Bollocks!
[SNIP – another unbelievably foul mouthed comment from a pro AGW New York City coward that won’t give a name, nor a valid email address. The comment is logged, passed on to Roadrunner with your IP address, with a complaint for your abusive and disgusting language. Your IP is permanently banned, and your future comments will now automatically be logged. Have a nice day.]
bubbagyro (14:38:44) :
Cohenite, Dave, et.al.:
Most of us have learned to stop responding to Anus remarks some while ago. He (she, it?) just makes up stuff out of whole cloth, or makes truth sausages (many lies stuffed inside he skin of a truth). It is a waste of time to do the research to refute the Anus missives.
Just a heads up, FWIW. This is just my honest take. He writes as a teenager might, who has tired of the Gameboy.
Isn’t that special, Bubba gets his azz kicked, and then tells his friends not to tangle with the big bad Anu.
Spelling it “Anus”, as usual, in his mature, non-teenager way.
Oh wait, didn’t the Moderator yell at you about this and threaten to delete your comments completely ?
Reply: This is your first and last warning. Do not make up rude nicknames for other commenters or be deleted in entirety. ~ ctm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/12/the-new-math-ipcc-version/#comment-367260
bubbagyro (18:46:53) :
Stick to lamenting about your avocado tree – old men like yourself shouldn’t tangle with younger, stronger minds. At least cohenite drinks some coffee once in awhile…
Why don’t you spend your time trying to get Ernst-Georg Beck published in a real Journal ? That will help your cause more than all your weak Comments put together.
Um, what does it look like with respect to a 1950-2010 base period, or, say, 1920-2000? What’s magical about 1971-2000? Do they want us to believe there were not functional thermometers in 1920?
@ur momisugly Anu (14:41:12) :
That graph was only five years worth of data from some unnamed source. So, let me ask: Really? That 5 year trend explains everything for you? I thought five years was not significant in terms of climate? It is now, or only when smoothing over inconveniences? Do I need to go get a new rule book? Mine is from the winter when all that snow was piling up everywhere, is it obsolete now that the snow is gone?
Kamloops BC had a very nice March but only the days were warm and nights were close to freezing at times. This was a welcome change from last year when I was seriously thinking of moving south after a winter off seeming to do nothing except shoveling my driveway over and over again. Good thing I didn’t since I heard from people in Florida that we were often warmer here than they were this winer. It was rainier than usual but well within normal climate variability for this area.
What I didn’t see were poppies starting to come up in March whereas 10 years ago or so they would start up in late February (and of course die with the first frost). This tells me that the soil temperature is not anywhere close to what it was back then. I’d be doing some recordings with the USB temperature monitors but have to find a source of appropriately sized 3.6 V batteries first:-(
Slightly OT,
But I bet the Catlin Arctic Survey folks are glad it was so toasty warm.
You have to see this video, somebody is going to get hurt.
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/news.aspx?newsid=61
Comical!!!
@ur momisugly Anu (14:41:12) :
One other question. If that heat made it down into the oceans that far, how did it get past ARGO without being detected?
JT (22:43:05) :
Slightly OT,
But I bet the Catlin Arctic Survey folks are glad it was so toasty warm.
You have to see this video, somebody is going to get hurt.
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/news.aspx?newsid=61
Comical!!!
I’ ve got a couple questions concerning that video. The team is supposedly three people, but the video shows three in the water, so who’s shooting the vid? And how did they manage to shoot the people getting in the water and then be there to shoot them getting out on the other side?
According to the Beijing Climate Center, Tibet experienced its second warmest March since historical records began in 1951.
But Tibet isn’t shown with a big red dot. Surely if it is the hottest ever, its anomaly should be positive?
This does not inspire confidence!
cohenite (15:51:14) :
A couple of other crucial points; the use of anomalies is a recipe for distortion and manipulation and is possibly most responsible for the AGW hysteria; anomalies are variations from a base period mean; if that base period is in a cool period then anomalies before and after which are in [naturally] warm periods will be distorted and show a false trend.
I couldn’t agree more. This is the problem with statements by agencies that that ice/temps/precipitation levels are above or below normal, when they should state they are above/below the anomaly and state the calculated anomaly period.
It’s true that anomaly information can usually found in the documentation but there is no excuse for the commentary to then go on to describe the data as being above or below normal.
There is of course an added layer of uncertainty in that missing data may have been estimated and form components of the anomaly. If this is poorly done it can distort the entire data set and thus any derived trend.
Finally Anu has a shot at the ‘myth’ that temps have been going down since 1998; explain this Anu:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/to:2010
This is why I cautioned Anu about declaring a trend dead on limited data ranges. The difference just one year or a few months can make can swing a trend to show a different story.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/to:2010
Dave Wendt (17:22:26) :
“They also reinforce the point made by myself and several others on a number of occasions that no one ever gets to experience climate, just weather.”
Dave, it is dangerous way of thinking. When, the next Ice age comes, are
you getting to experience weather or climate? It only needs 5-7 degrees (C) change in global mean temperature – and then the people you refer to will
say, ´’oh it’s so much less than the difference than between early morning and mid-noon any summer day in Texas.
MartinGAtkins; as well as base period taint there is the need to correlate temperature trend beginning and starting points with discernible and verifiable physical events; in that respect Fig 1 from WG1 FAQ3.1 is a travesty;
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/image102.jpg
And easily rebutted;
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/_res/AR4_FTS_6_25yr.jpg
For an interesting look at temperature trends connected to real physical events David Stocwell’s paper is worth reading:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf
Dave F (21:07:56) :
@ur momisugly Anu (14:41:12) :
That graph was only five years worth of data from some unnamed source.
No, it was six years from a named source.
I said “This graph is from Figure 11a:”
http://www.euro-argo.eu/content/download/49437/368494/file/VonSchukmann_et_al_2009_inpress.pdf
I gave the .gif separately so you could see it quickly.
So, let me ask: Really? That 5 year trend explains everything for you?
It is important not as a “trend”, but because it shows the importance of measuring the ocean to greater depths. The Argo data for the upper 700 meters shows stalled warming. The Argo data for the upper 2000 meters shows continued warming over the same period.
Try to understand why that is important. Currents in the ocean move in 3D – heat mixing can shuffle heat through one layer to another. The movie theater can fill up, even if the number of people in the lobby is constant.
I thought five years was not significant in terms of climate? It is now, or only when smoothing over inconveniences?
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
They’ve been looking at ocean heat content for many decades. Only recently could they look down to 2000m (the new Argo floats).
Do I need to go get a new rule book? Mine is from the winter when all that snow was piling up everywhere, is it obsolete now that the snow is gone?
I don’t think more books will help you – try an energy drink.
You have to be awake when you think about these things. It’s not like watching TV or talking about sports.
Dave F (23:18:30) :
@ur momisugly Anu (14:41:12) :
One other question. If that heat made it down into the oceans that far, how did it get past ARGO without being detected?
The 2000 m ocean heat content data is from Argo float data. Read the citation I gave above.
The floats were designed to look at the deeper ocean, because they expected those depths were important:
http://w3.jcommops.org/FTPRoot/Argo/Doc/Argo_new_brochure.pdf
@ur momisugly Anu (08:28:35) :
Try to understand why that is important. Currents in the ocean move in 3D – heat mixing can shuffle heat through one layer to another. The movie theater can fill up, even if the number of people in the lobby is constant.
0-700 layer is not showing signs of warming because…? The heat is instantly passing this layer and moving deeper into the ocean? And this is an oceanwide phenomenon because…? And the heat will rise up and overthrow the cold world above when…?
I don’t think more books will help you – try an energy drink.
You have to be awake when you think about these things. It’s not like watching TV or talking about sports.
Although you are right, I do get distracted, it does have some similarity to talking about sports. I am trying to keep track of where the goal posts are.
Dave F (09:03:45) :
And the 0-2000m layer is showing constant warming because… ? You don’t think the oceans warming worldwide in the upper 2000m because of radiative imbalance caused by CO2 in the atmosphere is important because… ? You have no problems with 2D areas being warmer or cooler in their multi-year heating (Atlantic basin vs. Pacific basin vs. Indian basin, for example), but think it is strange that ocean layers have intricate multi-year heat flow patterns because… ? You can’t visualize well known ocean currents like the thermohaline conveyor belt, carrying heat along the surface for thousands of miles and diving to the depths in one small region of the upper Atlantic basin because… ? It is hard for you to understand that this diving heat doesn’t “instantly” pass this upper ocean layer but flows within a well known ocean vertical current because… ? You think ocean heat that dives to lower depths will never surface at the other end of the closed loop current because… ?
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Maybe the upper 100 meters shows even less long term warming. Or 50 meters. Maybe we should focus on that, and wonder about all that “missing” heat. Maybe the layer from 100m to 200m is cooling, worldwide. Why bother with all the data, when a subset might be more to our liking ?