March was 3rd warmest month in satellite record

From UAH: Global Temperature Report: March 2016


Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade

March temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.73 C (about 1.31 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.95 C (about 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.52 C (about 0.94 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.

Tropics: +1.09 C (about 1.96 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.

February temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.83 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +1.17 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.50 C above 30-year average

Tropics: +0.99 C above 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

Notes on data released April 4, 2016:

March 2016 was the warmest March in the satellite temperature record and the third warmest month overall, when compared to seasonal norms, as the El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event continues to warm the tropical atmosphere, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. While the record high set in February 2016 was driven by exceptionally warm temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, temperatures in March were pumped by a broad band of warmer than normal air that girdled the tropics entirely around the globe.


While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere cooled 0.22 C (almost 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit) between February and March (compared to seasonal norms), temperatures in the tropics were 0.1 C warmer during that same time.

Globally, the average temperature anomaly in March (+0.73 C) was 0.1 C cooler than February, and very slightly cooler (0.01 C) than the previous record high set in April 1998 (+0.74 C), during the so-called “El Niño of the century.”

As expected, while the El Niño continues to pump heat into the atmosphere, this event hasn’t been powerful enough by itself to push the atmosphere to new record highs. Without the kind of transient heat spikes aided by fluctuating weather patterns in the high latitudes, such as were seen in February, this El Niño may continue to fade. The February anomaly might stand out as an anomalous spike in the dataset rather than part of an ongoing trend.

The warmest months in the satellite temperature record are:

Warmest Months, Global

How much warmer than seasonal norms

Feb.  2016    0.83 C

Apr.  1998    0.74 C

Mar. 2016   0.73C

Feb.  1998    0.65 C

May  1998    0.64 C

June 1998    0.57 C

Jan.  2016    0.54 C

Aug. 1998    0.52 C

Mar.  2010    0.50 C

Jan.  1998    0.48 C

Mar.  1998    0.47 C

Feb.  2010    0.47 C

Warmest Marches, Global

How much warmer than seasonal norms

2016  0.73

2010   0.52

1998   0.47

2004   0.35

2007   0.26

2002   0.24

1991   0.23

2005   0.19

2015   0.17

1988   0.16

Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in March was over south central Greenland. March temperatures there averaged 5.19 C (about 9.34 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in March was over the Ross Sea, north of Marie Byrd Land in Antarctica, where the average March 2016 temperature was 3.04 C (about 5.47 degrees F) cooler than normal for March.

The complete version 6 beta lower troposphere dataset is available here:

Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:

As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.

The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data are collected and processed, they are placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.

Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 4, 2016 11:49 am

The question is – when will the pause reappear? With the inevitable cooling after the el Nino, I would expect the regressively calculated pause to be back by the end of the year.

george e. smith
Reply to  ralfellis
April 4, 2016 12:57 pm

Well only third warmest; we’re already in a cooling trend !
I don’t think the Monckton Pause ever ends; but I guess it can go to zero months or maybe one month.
Has Christopher given us a recent run of his algorithm; or did it just all fade away except for the grin ??

Reply to  george e. smith
April 4, 2016 6:57 pm

The Pause is unlikely to reappear before early 2018 or late 2017: certainly not this year unless there is a huge drop. Monthly anomalies give a trend of +0.15C/100 years since December 1997, and 12 month means give a pause (<+0.1) since June 1997. See

Reply to  ralfellis
April 4, 2016 1:20 pm

“when will the pause reappear?”
Here’s a way to think about it. Here is a WFT RSS plot since mid-1997:
The regression line currently is about 0.26°C in 2016 and near flat. Every new month above that increases the trend, which became positive in Feb. The trend increase is proportional to the new residual (excess over 0.26). It won’t start decreasing until temperatures go below 0.26. And then, for the trend to go negative, the cumulative sum of deficits (below 0.26) since Feb 2016 would have to exceed the sum of excesses which is currently building fast. Not this year, maybe never (and not within the life of RSSv3.3).

Green Sand
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 4, 2016 3:14 pm

Over the last 4 months a whole lot of sub sea (-150m) ocean has come over all neutral.
Whither which way next?

Reply to  ralfellis
April 4, 2016 1:21 pm

I calculated this previously based on RSS. I don’t think we’ll see the pause re-appear much before the end of next year unless this is a very cold la nina. (I appended the ’98 ’10 to the RSS data for the period 2016-18 – i.e Jan’98-Dec’00 for Jan’16-Dec’18 likewise for ’10)

Reply to  Hoplite
April 4, 2016 1:23 pm

I am betting on a very cold la Nina. This el Nino is fading very fast.

Reply to  Hoplite
April 4, 2016 1:34 pm

No word on the RSS TLT for March yet it would seem. Feb was 0.9736 which was huge.

Reply to  Hoplite
April 4, 2016 1:51 pm

Yes also have my doubts about just how long this present warming will last.
With the Hudson Bay area running cool and with NH jet stream pattern at the end of this week, that looks to have come straight out of the ice age. My betting is that this warming will not last as long the AGW crowd will hope.

george e. smith
Reply to  ralfellis
April 4, 2016 1:44 pm

Why is it so difficult (same as hard) for readers to understand, that what Prof. John Christy, and Dr. Roy report on monthly under the UAH (That’s TEXTure for University of Alabama; Huntsville), are the results of an observational (measurements) regimen, that they have described in detail many times; so we all should know exactly what they are doing.
And what they are doing is really not any different from what Lord M of B has been doing on a monthly basis; which is to follow an algorithm that they have never kept secret.
Now what the UAH team does, is decidedly more complex than the Monckton Algorithm, but their recipe, is as rigid as his, but if they do make occasional methodological upgrades; say to UAH 2.01, they tell us what they upgraded, and why.
Now anyone can look at the results which UAH give out every month or all the time, just as RSS, and GISS and the other groups do.
Anybody can use ANY of these data dumps from any of the groups, and use that to assert any consequence they choose to.
But that is an extension beyond the reportage of already known data, that John and Roy release.
I suppose we (or anybody else) can critique what UAH does (Not me, I’m a total ignoramus when it comes to understanding even second hand what they do, but I do believe it).
I don’t know either of those scientists, although I did have a pleasant e-mail exchange with Prof Christy a long time ago (re ocean buoy data).
But I don’t have any reason to believe that they are not using every opportunity to hone the measurement regimen they follow to keep it as close to reality as they know how to do.
But in the end, all WE can make of any monthly report they issue, is that this is what their algorithm gives as a result.
So far as I know, it isn’t prohibited for anyone else who can collect data from any satellites up there, to concoct their own periodic report on what they can filter out of such data. I for one, have no idea how to relate any of the five or more fairly well known Temperature anomaly sets to any of the others, and I don’t really care that I don’t know that.
I don’t even have any of those stations on my radio, so I come to WUWT to find out what they are all saying.
But I don’t recall either Christy or Spencer ever saying that the sky is falling or that everything is AOK.
So I don’t get why some readers here think the UAH periodic reports are anything to get worked up over. It’s only slightly more detailed than the 6PM news telling me what the daily high and low Temperatures were for Sunnyvale, yesterday. I can’t refute it, so I take it as it is, and I am going to do exactly nothing as a consequence of what was reported.
Some folks are just too nervous for their own good.

Reply to  george e. smith
April 5, 2016 12:20 pm

Nicely said. I don’t have as much issue with the data as the theory that some/all of the warming is due specifically to CO. If the CAGW crowd told me that the rise in temperatures was due to pollutants in the air as well as extended evaporation and heat rejection from industrial plants, etc. etc. and so forth, I could cope. But this myopic focus on carbon (they really mean CO) is only a tool to help their allies and punish their opponents.

Reply to  george e. smith
April 5, 2016 12:43 pm

My bad – I meant CO2, not Co. Long day.

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  ralfellis
April 5, 2016 7:48 am

The answer is – it won’t.
Just as the large peak in temperature in 1998 enabled December 1997 to be so resilient as the beginning of a negative trend, so the current peak will stop the same thing from happening again – at least for all reasonably feasible anomalies over the next few years.

April 4, 2016 11:50 am

beats the h$ll out of freezing to death…. 😉

Reply to  Latitude
April 4, 2016 6:13 pm

Also of dying almost any way.
The jump in global mean surface temperatures in the last few months is not a good sign for those that hoped that the climate sensitivity was overestimated by models though.

April 4, 2016 11:59 am

Surface (and LT) spikes like this are about as representative of average global temperature as a rogue wave is of a sea state.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
April 4, 2016 6:26 pm

As are hiatuses in surface and LT warming.
The question is what does the longer term trend show?
Right now? It looks like about 1.5°C per century, for the satellite era.

Reply to  Seth
April 6, 2016 6:42 am

We should not forget that WFT did not integrate UAH6.0beta5: the data you plotted is UAH5.6, quite a bit ‘warmer’… and out of date.
RSS3.3 actually is the better satellite choice when using WFT:
According to Kevin Cowtan (univ. of York, UK)
the trends for the period are:
– RSS: 0.128 ±0.064 °C/decade
– GISS: 0.166 ±0.040 °C/decade

Patick B
April 4, 2016 12:03 pm

One more time – how can you possibly announce such “results” without including properly calculated margins of error. Then once you have margins of error, how does the ranking look? Lots of tied months?
No science without margins of error. You can’t understand anything if you don’t know what you measured.

John Robertson
Reply to  Patick B
April 4, 2016 12:33 pm

Same complaint from me.
The fabulous fantasy number ,of an estimated average global temperature for one month, expressed as 0.01 accurate, in units of difference from “All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)”.
Beggars the imagination that there might be meaning in these anomalies.
We are studying noise.
The actual signal ?
What is the best we can know?
That the error range is plus or minus Xdegreees C about our estimated benchmark.(with its own uncertainty)
Thus any squiggles within that range may or may not be information.

george e. smith
Reply to  Patick B
April 4, 2016 1:08 pm

Statistics doesn’t give margins of error. The result is always exact.
It is in the human imagination of what it means, that there can be a margin of error.
There is NO prediction of what the very next measured data point is likely to be; in fact there is no prediction that it will either equal the very most recent data point, or it will be greater than that point, or it will be less than that data point.
Do you understand that it reports solely on what is already known, whether that means anything or not. NO predicted or projected future data can be derived from the existing known data. We can only wait and see what tomorrow will bring.
Of course, some people believe that you can take it on faith, that something will happen in the future, based on what has already happened and been observed.
Only Mother Gaia, who has already seen EVERYTHING that has happened, could possibly compute what will happen next, if that is even possible, but why would she bother, when the next thing to happen, may happen as soon as 10^-43 seconds from now; so then she will know what it was. We have only seen a pittance of what has already happened.

Reply to  george e. smith
April 4, 2016 4:22 pm

“Of course, some people believe that you can take it on faith, that something will happen in the future, based on what has already happened and been observed.”
Indeed. I am fairly confident the sun will rise tomorrow, although I must use inductive reasoning to make so bold a prediction.

Patrick B
Reply to  george e. smith
April 4, 2016 6:57 pm

George, I make my living parsing words, but I have no idea at all what you are trying to say.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
April 6, 2016 11:15 am

Well Patrick B,
English is the only foreign language I have ever studied, apart from one year of German, I was required to take.
So I’m sorry that You and I can’t communicate.
Now you see, I make MY living doing SCIENCE (mostly Physics) and MATHEMATICS, which it seems are both foreign to you.
And I’m far to old to learn English now.
Perhaps you could learn some science and mathematics to close the communication gap.

April 4, 2016 12:04 pm

March 2016 was the warmest March in the satellite temperature record and the third warmest month overall, when compared to seasonal norms,

So it is NOT the third warmest month but the third largest “anomaly”.
Let’s get our facts right. The hottest months are the ones which are …. hottest.

Reply to  Greg
April 4, 2016 12:10 pm

Due to the land bias of the NH and physically unrealistic idea of adding land and sea temperatures togethher, this means the “hottest” global averages are in the hottest months of the NH.
This is obviously a clear indication of bias and the physical non reality of trying to average temperatures of different media.
We now have an international treaty supposed to limit a non physical metric by controlling the radiative forcing due a trace gas.
The fact that the said metric is not a physical measure of the integrated forcings seems to have escaped everyone’s notice for about the last 30y.
But don’t worry all this is based on known physical laws.

Reply to  Greg
April 6, 2016 7:15 am

You seem to keep so very convinced by your (sorry: rather poor) guest post at Prof. Curry’s Climate blog that you did not check a major aspect: this post of Anthony Watts here solely concerns the lower troposphere’s brightness measured by satellites at an average altitude of say 5 km.
What you furthermore simply ‘forget’ is the fact that to the land ‘bias’ in the NH corresponds a sea ‘bias’ in the SH. So averaging them can’t be such a problem.
And what you definitely underestimate is the other fact that the interface between sea and ice is even much more difficult to master.
That’s the reason why the Berkeley Earth group publishes two datasets instead of one:
– one with air temperature above sea ice;
– one with water temperature below sea ice.
Within the text file you find the following information:
% The ocean component is based on 327576738 instantaneous
% water temperature observations
% Estimated Jan 1951-Dec 1980 global mean temperature (C)
% Using air temperature above sea ice: 14.762 +/- 0.049
% Using water temperature below sea ice: 15.299 +/- 0.049

Smart Rock
April 4, 2016 12:08 pm

Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts</blockquote)
Of course, those aren't special interest groups, are they? Gosh, no.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Smart Rock
April 4, 2016 12:09 pm

Got the blockquote wrong again!

Reply to  Smart Rock
April 4, 2016 12:12 pm

that’s OK, how smart is a rock expected to be ? 😉

george e. smith
Reply to  Smart Rock
April 4, 2016 1:12 pm

Well my Pet rock has never ever made a mistake. But it has made some very tasty Stone Soup.

Reply to  Smart Rock
April 4, 2016 4:25 pm

Do I take it that UAH data is now in doubt because it is funded by grants and contracts?

Reply to  seaice1
April 4, 2016 4:47 pm

Was there a time it was not so funded?

April 4, 2016 12:11 pm

I guess the only good thing about all this is all the expected screaming about us roasting to death was expected and now as the El Niño is dissipating, the Sun is moving into a quiet phase and the decadal cycles are starting to point toward a colder than normal cycle .. they will have nothing left to scream about. After everything, we are still less than 1 deg C above normal.
I know they will keep trying but realistically they can only fudge the numbers so much in a year, plus the last “adjustment” they made was too obvious; I don’t think they can do another one.. but I may be wrong.

Joe Crawford
April 4, 2016 12:13 pm

From the NOAA website ( “In the United States, counties directly on the shoreline constitute less than 10 percent of the total land area (not including Alaska), but account for 39 percent of the total population.”
If warming is so bad why does almost half (39%) of the U.S. population now live close to the ocean? I’ll bet it’s not all fishing, shipbuilding and dock work.

April 4, 2016 12:28 pm

Presumably at one point in time many millions of years ago all the limestone and marble molecules were present as CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. In addition before wood and leaf digesting fungi evolved all the vegetation that became our fossil fuels used the atmospheric CO2 to produce plant tissue. The point I am trying to make is that since our planet is a closed system then all the CO2 that is now combined with Calcium Oxide to produce calcium carbonate, must have been in the atmosphere at the same time until plants evolved to change the CO2 to Carbon and Oxygen. GW by CO2 must have been historically a great deal higher than it is now. So unless the output of the Sun has varied there should be no effect by CO2 on the climate. Is this too simplistic a view?

Reply to  Andrew Harding
April 4, 2016 4:28 pm

Yes. Just because the effect might have been greater in the past does not mean that there will be no effect today.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Andrew Harding
April 4, 2016 4:45 pm

It’s not simplistic but a little incomplete.
The sun’s power declines by one percent for each 110 million years you go back in time. So, 550 million years ago, just before the Cambrian Period of the Paleozoic Era of the Phanerozoic Eon, the sun was 95% as powerful as now. But CO2 was almost 17.5 times as plentiful in the air, at 7000 ppm or more. Yet there was no runaway GHE then or earlier, when CO2 was even higher.
Before the onset of photosynthesis in the Archean Eon, CO2 levels might have been as high as 300,000 ppm, with solar output around 75% of present radiance.
Catastrophic runaway GHE, ie the “Venus Express”, is a fantasy of the fevered imagination of Hansen and his fellow raving loons.

Reply to  Andrew Harding
April 4, 2016 5:43 pm

Carbonaceous chondrites [meteors/meteorites that contain carbon compounds] were probably part of the original building blocks of our blue planet.
Most of the carbon that they brought with them is stored in the earth’s mantle and core.
90% of the planet’s carbon is in the mantle
Even a very CO2 rich atmosphere would have only ever contained a small proportion of the planet’s carbon

Reply to  Andrew Harding
April 4, 2016 10:15 pm

Are you automatically excluding the abiotic origin of petrochemicals? Russians seem to have done pretty well w the theory.

Reply to  Penelope
April 5, 2016 3:41 am

No, to be quite honest I think it more likely that oil is the product of some unknown physical mechanism. Coal though is different, many millions of years ago trees grew, died but there were no fungi or bacteria to cause the dead wood to rot, so they literally piled up, with new growth struggling through. Eventually the dead wood was incorporated into strat and compressed to become one of the several types of coal, depending upon how much heat and pressure the seam was subjected to.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Penelope
April 5, 2016 9:45 am

No evidence of abiotic oil has been found, although simple hydrocarbons exist on other bodies in the solar system.
More likely, deep oil comes from subterranean microbes in the crust rather than from geological, non-biological processes. Coal and natural gas are almost certainly entirely biotic in origin, ie true fossil fuels, as is most if not all crude.

Tom Halla
April 4, 2016 12:29 pm

By this UAH database, it looks like the temperature is indistiguishable from flat since 1998.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 4, 2016 4:33 pm

And indistinguishable from rising significantly since 1997, 1996, 1995, 2001, 2002 etc, etc etc.

Brett Keane
Reply to  seaice1
April 4, 2016 9:37 pm

When you claim significance, seaice1, you overdo it severely. But that is a troll’s job, of course.

Reply to  seaice1
April 5, 2016 1:36 am

Brett Keane. You are correct – this was a clumsy use of the word significant, as I havwe not performed any significance tests for each individual year. I should have said indistinguishable from rising since 1997, 1996, 1995, 2001, 2002 etc etc. Thank you for pointing that out. Not so much thanks for then troll comment.

April 4, 2016 12:32 pm

This kind of reporting always gets to me. “Warmest March.” SO WHAT!
It seems to me that a warm northern summer (JJA) and a warm southern summer (DJF) are the only times that extra heat would make any negative difference. Near the equinoxes, who would notice, and in the hemispheric winters, fewer lives would be lost from freezing to death, there would be less home heating oil required,and there would be less snow to shovel.
I expect that many people would agree with me, as measured by the number of Americans who have migrated from the cold north to the warm south.

Reply to  Bob Shapiro
April 4, 2016 10:19 pm

Besides, how do you get that “normal” average except by having temperatures both above & below it? It’s like having ALL the children in Lake Woebegone be “above average”.

Reply to  Bob Shapiro
April 5, 2016 1:58 am

Bob, I think you’ll find that the explosion in population of the sourthern USA coincided with the availability of air conditioning. See, e.g.
As to your larger point, it’s called “Global Warming” not “Bob Shapiro’s Neighbourhood Warming” which you might want to consider before posting next time around. It seems that there’s a lot more people in the world than in Bob’s Neighbourhood, and billions of them live where it’s already too hot, and depend on natural resources and ecosystems which are at risk.

Reply to  JakartaDean
April 5, 2016 4:16 am


It seems that there’s a lot more people in the world than in Bob’s Neighbourhood, and billions of them live where it’s already too hot, and depend on natural resources and ecosystems which are at risk.

The world’s poor living in those areas of (current) greatest warmth, are specifically those who WILL BE KILLED BY the CAGW hype and the artificially-high energy prices and artificially-created energy restraints DEMANDED by your CAGW fears. YOU are the ones actually killing millions, and condemning billions to deliberately-shortened lives of utter squalor and misery without pure water, sewage, highways, power, food preparation, harvesting, planting, safe storage, and processing. YOU are the ones creating the problems by YOUR exaggerated fears of CO2 that IS helping their lives.
Tragically, the fuel and energy restrictions YOU demand will not affect future global average temperatures at all, but will only serve to harm the world’s poor, and enrich the world’s corrupt governments. And enrich the self-called “scientists” who those governments fund and encourage.

April 4, 2016 12:34 pm

“March was 3rd warmest month”
Not in the world of the real temperatures. In the 350 year long march of Marches in ‘this green and pleasant land’ (central England to you and me) this happen to be a just above average March of Marches.

Reply to  vukcevic
April 4, 2016 12:50 pm

You seem to have overlooked “in the satellite temperature record”; the posting says no more than that.

Reply to  Slipstick
April 4, 2016 1:13 pm

Hi there
No I have not, just an old-fashioned engender a bit skeptical of the satellite measurements through clouds, fog etc. Anyway the ground measured CET provides data for the daily max-min, I have no idea how often and when the satellite is overhead in England, not to mention various technical ‘niceties’ involved.

Reply to  Slipstick
April 4, 2016 1:15 pm

that should be ‘engineer’, the auto-spelling checker isn’t my friend.

Reply to  Slipstick
April 4, 2016 4:35 pm

vukcevic- are you suggesting that ground based temperature measurements are superior to satellite ones?

Reply to  vukcevic
April 4, 2016 6:08 pm

Love your chart, vukcevic! Yes, it covers more than the satellite era, but why limit ourselves to a partial record, when we have such a beautiful chart to look at?
Let’s look at the whole temperature picture instead. If we do, we will see that we have been in a cooling trend since the 1930’s. 2015 is the “Hottest Year Evah!”? I don’t think so.
Would love to see a comparison of 1930’s to 1998 to 2010 to 2015, like was done in this post.
I see that “green and pleasant land” was mighty hot in England in 1936. It was record heat in the U.S. at the same time, too (and in China and Russia and Australia). This is another indication that the heatwaves of the 1930’s were global in nature, IMO.

Reply to  vukcevic
April 4, 2016 10:47 pm

UAH is about lower troposphere. It’s a huge column of air somewhere between the surface and a point upper in the atmosphere. It’s not comparable with surface temps, but complements the measurements. Thus there’s some kind of pausing in the lower troposphere. Actually, if one measures temps higher in the atmosphere they trend lower, because of the accumulation of GHGs and the heat they reflect below.

April 4, 2016 12:57 pm

Does anyone report the warmest Monday at lunchtime? Just wondered.

Reply to  Resourceguy
April 4, 2016 2:06 pm

… And then correct it for time of day … and then report it as adjusted for day of year/season so we can understand the anomalous difference(s) to the “average monday” … but that would just be silly.

April 4, 2016 1:07 pm

I find all the “this means nothing” naysaying amusing, especially when it is from the same people who use the very same dataset as evidence of a “pause” (which did not, by the way, occur in the oceans, hence the large atmospheric temperature spike from the El Nino).

Reply to  Slipstick
April 4, 2016 4:58 pm

Slip, nice to see you… Haven’t seen too many “lost sheep” from dr spencer’s blog wandering around here. He actually posted his monthly update here on the first. I hope he does that every month and answers some questions that people have. It felt like old times (though 100% cotton free)…

Reply to  afonzarelli
April 4, 2016 5:12 pm

Nice to see you as well. I’m still reading Dr. Spencer’s blog; almost always interesting.

Reply to  Slipstick
April 5, 2016 2:32 am

You say:

I find all the “this means nothing” naysaying amusing, especially when it is from the same people who use the very same dataset as evidence of a “pause”

The IPCC stated that the ‘Pause’ was signifcant and dozens of papers were publshed to provide possible explanations of its existence.
Please state where you think the IPCC says “this means nothing” because I wish to cite it.

April 4, 2016 1:28 pm

Looking ahead to April am expecting there to be noticeable cooling over NE North America plus also some cooling in northern Europe. The out brakes of cold air into NE North America look set to last at least into the middle of the month. While with the amount of blocking going on over the northern Atlantic/Greenland mid month. That looks set to keep things cool in northern Europe.

David S
April 4, 2016 2:56 pm

I know that highlighting that this is the third warmest month since the start of satellite data may be of interest but it adds nothing to the climate debate. Unless one extends the analysis to the 19th century and assesses the pre industrial CO2 days and post CO2 days the comment is in fact largely irrelevant to the debate and in fact misleading in the hands of Warmists. Wasn’t the temperatures experienced in the 1930s and 1890s higher than those experienced today? So what benefit to the overall debate ( discussion) is the fact that the last 2 months have been 2 of the warmest in a limited time set?

Reply to  David S
April 4, 2016 4:38 pm

“Wasn’t the temperatures experienced in the 1930s and 1890s higher than those experienced today?”
No, not according to the data we have. Do you have a data set that says otherwise?

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  seaice1
April 4, 2016 4:46 pm

Lots of data show higher temperatures in the 1930s than now, but the books have been cooked beyond recognition.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  seaice1
April 4, 2016 4:51 pm

For instance, check out maximum state temperature records from the 19th century through the 1930s:

Reply to  seaice1
April 4, 2016 6:45 pm

April 4, 2016 at 4:38 pm wrote:
[David S wrote:“Wasn’t the temperatures experienced in the 1930s and 1890s higher than those experienced today?”
seaice1 wrote: “No, not according to the data we have.”
The data you refer to must be the adulterated NASA-NOAA temperature data. You are correct that the NASA-NOAA data show the 1930’s as much cooler than today, but we all know that is a BIG LIE! Or most of us, anyway.
seacice1 wrote: “Do you have a data set that says otherwise?”
Here you go:
You can find all sorts of charts there that show the 1930’s was hotter than 1998. But I guess if you dismiss vukcevic’s chart, then you probably won’t like the charts on this webpage either, because they pretty much say the same general thing: The 1930’s was hotter than any year that has come afterwards.
And if you need an expert to verify that the 1930’s was hotter than 1998, we can turn to none other than Hansen, who said 1934 was hotter than 1998, before he conspired with other climate scientist charlatans/criminals to modify the surface temperature records and erase the fact that the 1930’s was hotter than any subsequent year. If the 1930’s is hotter, then that blows up their human-caused global warming/climate change theory, so they changed the temperature record to make it conform. Where’s RICO when you need it?
This temperture data modification was done in order to make it look like the Earth’s atmosphere was getting hotter and hotter with each passing year, to assist them in perpetrating the fraud that humans are causing the climate to behave abnormally because humans burn fossil fuels.
This, plus NASA’s prestige has pretty much convinced the gullible in the world, that the climate charlatans are right. Unfortunately for them, the thermometer is not cooperating with them, at least not much. They may be able to falsify some history, but they can’t falsify the data going forward, so the time of fudging the figures is over.
These rewriters of the surface temperature record have done great harm to humanity. They better hope the temperatures rise in the future.

Reply to  seaice1
April 5, 2016 1:44 am

Gloateus Maximus, I am talking about global temperatures. TA, sorry, there may be data within the website you point me to, but please give some guidance of where to find it. You have pretty much explained that it is likely to be local anyway.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  seaice1
April 5, 2016 9:50 am

April 5, 2016 at 1:44 am
Not just the US, but most other land areas were warmer in the 1930s than now. The gatekeepers have wickered the ocean “surface data” and adjusted the land observations to such an extent that their product is science fiction, worse than worthless for any purpose but alarmism to achieve their agenda, including funding. The switch to electronic thermometers also upped average T, as has the spread of cities (crooked UHI adjustments make city sites warmer rather than cooler!) and clearer skies. There is nothing left for an AGW signal.

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  seaice1
April 5, 2016 5:37 pm

For the Central England Temperature (CET), the average for 1930 to 1939 was 9.62 degrees C. The average for 2000 to 2009 was 10.37 degrees.
And where did the 1890’s spring from in this discussion?. Their average was 9.18
The rolling 120-month average went above 10 degrees for the first time in 1997, and has been continuously above that level ever since.

Reply to  seaice1
April 6, 2016 7:05 am

Gloateus Maximus,
So you are saying that we have no data thta can say either way whether it was globally cooler in the 1930’s or 1890’s?

Reply to  seaice1
April 6, 2016 8:11 am

TA, Gloateus Maximus and some others all make the same mistake: to confound the US situation with that of the entire planet. 1934 was the hottest year in the US, but ranges in the planet’s list at position 49.
Another source of confusion is the fact that both NASA GISS and the NOAA measure the temperature anomalies they communicate wrt baselines differing from that of UAH (1981-2010):
– NASA GISS: 1951-2000 (same as Berkeley Earth)
– NOAA: 1901-2000
HadCRUT4 is baselined at 1961-1990, Japans JMA at 1971-2000 (internal data only).
That means that one has to subtract from any of their communicated data about 0.43 °C to make them comparable to values communicated by e.g. Roy Spencer.

Reply to  David S
April 4, 2016 11:41 pm

“You can find all sorts of charts there that show the 1930’s was hotter than 1998. ”
For the US, precluding recent years, yes.
But, guess what the G in AGW stands for?…..
“The data you refer to must be the adulterated NASA-NOAA temperature data. You are correct that the NASA-NOAA data show the 1930’s as much cooler than today, but we all know that is a BIG LIE! Or most of us, anyway.”
I’m sorry but this statement says far more about the utterers mindset than anything close to climate science.
The world runs on cock-up and not conspiracy.
Comparing apples with apples over a long dataset such as the global temp one obviously requires homegenising data to account for instrument and observational practise changes..
The biggest change has actually been to warm the past with the ocean ship v buoy changes (reducing GW). The old US practises seem unique to them and resulted in a warming bias as often a max for one day would be recorded for a following, cooler day.
And then we get the hypocrisy of (to quote Curry) – “it’s the best data we have”, err no. RSS now v4.0. UAH now V6.something. They are continually being “adulterated … but it’s OK because they show a cooler trend, of and we “can trust them. Not Carl mears it seems anymore.
Oh and BTW they “measure” the temp over a depth of the troposphere centred on 650mb (~12,000ft).
Not the surface. Apples and bananas.

Reply to  Toneb
April 4, 2016 11:48 pm

I have to chuckle at Toneb’s desperation. There is nothing being observed that is either unusual or unprecedented.
But Toneb is desperately trying to show that climate catastrophe is right around the corner. As if.
Give it up, Toneb, you are just not credible. At all. Who pays you, anyway?

Reply to  Toneb
April 5, 2016 12:06 am

“Give it up, Toneb, you are just not credible. At all. Who pays you, anyway?”
Just what I was thinking of you my friend when I read your hand-waving reply.
Those that inhabit the rabbit-hole and all that, eh?
You will find the real world is above ground.
I know you wont take my advice – it comes with the D-K ness, but give up – you are sounding increasingly desperate and are only likely to convince the converted.
But if you’d like to provide evidence that GLOBALLY temps were higher in the ’30’s, then I am all ears.

Reply to  Toneb
April 5, 2016 12:18 am

No one pays me, snowflake. And as usual you deflect from the real question: is what we observe outside the bounds of natural variability?
Since the answer is an unequivocal No, there goes your wild-eyed alarmism.

Reply to  Toneb
April 5, 2016 4:00 am

If you say so db.

Reply to  Toneb
April 5, 2016 8:16 pm
TA wrote:“You can find all sorts of charts there that show the 1930’s was hotter than 1998. ”
April 4, 2016 at 11:41 pm replied:
“For the US, precluding recent years, yes.
But, guess what the G in AGW stands for?…..”
Well, the temperature figures for the 1930’s, used in your chart above, are U.S. figures, are they not? So NASA can mix apples and oranges (U.S. temps and Global temps) for their chart, but we cannot?
Compare those two charts I copied. The profile change/fraud between the two is evident. You have vukcevic’s “real temperatures” chart, and the one seaice1 provided where NASA has turned the chart into a sway-backed horse, centered on the 1930’s.
As for the 1930’s heatwaves and other extreme weather not being a global phenomenon, I think the anecdotal evidence is pretty overwhelming,IMO.
Of course, we didn’t have satellites back then, and NASA and NOAA have done their best to distort the written record, but all you have to do is read the newspaper headlines from the 1930’s, to understand that they were experiencing extreme hot weather all over the globe.
Allow me to provide a sample so you get the feel for the decade of the 1930’s:
1933: Rare Hurricane Slams Into South Africa
1933: Bitter Winter Weather In Russia & Europe: Snow Causes Wolves To
Attack Train
1933: West Australian Heat Wave – “Severest In History”
1933: Heat Waves, Floods, Droughts, Famines Plague China
1933: Spain’s Heat Wave: 130 Degrees In Shade
1933: Heat Wave Causes New Jersey Road To “Explode”
1933: Hottest June In U.S. History – Heat Wave & Drought
1933: 21 Perish During Texas, Louisiana Tornado & Hail Storms
1933: Drought In South Africa – “Worst Outlook For 50 Years”
1933: Flooding In China Kills 50,000
1933: India’s Ganges River Bursts Its Banks – Widespread Flood Damage
& Fatalities
1934: 80% of U.S. Suffers From Drought Conditions
1934: “Heat Wave In China Kills One In Every Thousand”
1934: Antarctic Has Incredible Heat Wave – 25 Degrees Over Zero
1934: February Tornado Strikes Several U.S. States
1934: World Wide Drought & Heat Causes Vast Majority of Alps’ Glaciers
To Melt
1934: Iowa Heat Wave In May – Pushes Temps Over 110 Degrees
1934: All 48 U.S. States Over 100 Degrees During June
1934: 14 Days of Above 100°F Temps Kill Over 600 Americans
1934: South African Drought Severely Hits Farmers
1934: Nebraska Temperatures Soar To 117 Degrees
1934: Drought, Heat, Floods, Cyclones, & Forest Fires Hit Europe
1934: British Drought Stunts Hay Growth
1934: Worst Drought In England For 100 Years
1934: 7 Days of Incessant, Torrential Rains Cause Massive Flooding In
Eastern Bengal
1934: Global Warming Causes 81% Of Swiss Glaciers To Retreat
1934: Canadian Crops Blasted By Intense Heat Wave
1934: “South African Floods Are Unprecedented”
1934: Typhoon Hits Japan Followed By A Massive Tsunami
1934: Record Heat And Drought Across The Midwest
1934: China’s Fall Crops Burning Up During Drought & Heat
1934: Five Million Americans Face Starvation From Drought
1934: Adelaide, Australia Has Record Dry Spell
1934: Gigantic Hailstorm Blankets South African Drought Region
1934: Drought And Sweltering Heat In England
1934: Record Heat Bakes Wisconsin – 104°F
1934: 20 Nebraskans Succumb To Unprecedented 117 Degree Heat
1934: Poland Swamped By Floods – Hundreds Perish
1934: 115 Degrees In Iowa Breaks Record
1934: 115 Degrees Reached In China In The Shade – Heat Wave Ruining
1934: Majority of Continental U.S. Suffers From Drought Conditions
1934: Severe Northern Hemisphere Drought Causes Wheat Prices To
1934: Extreme U.S. Winter Weather Leaves 60 Dead In Its Path
1935: Severe Wind Storm Lashes Western States With 60 MPH Gusts
1935: Florida Burns Its Dead After The Most Powerful Hurricane In US
1935: “The Worst Dust Storm In History” – Kansas City
1935: Worst Drought Since 1902 Has Queensland, Australia In Its Grip
1935: “50 Dust Storms In 104? Days
1935: France Cooked By Heat Wave
1935: Tropical Windstorm Strikes Texas With 85 MPH Gusts
1935: ‘Black Dusters’ Strike Again In The Texas Dust Bowl
1935: India Hit With Extreme Heat Wave – 124 Degrees
1935: Heat Wave, Drought & Torrential Rains Cause Misery In Europe
1936: “Niagara Falls Freezes Into One Giant Icicle”
1936: February Was Coldest In U.S. History
1936: Italian Alps Glacier Shrinks: WWI Army Bodies Uncovered By
1936: Ice Bridge In Iceland Collapses From Heat Wave & Glacier Melt
1936: Violent Tornadoes Pummel The South – 300 Dead
1936: Dust, Snow & Wind Storm Hit Kansas Region In Same Day
1936: Unprecedented Heat Wave In Moscow
1936: Ukraine Wheat Harvest Threatened By Heat Wave
1936: 780 Canadians Die From Heat Wave
1936: Iowa Heat Wave Has 12 Days of Temperatures Over 100 Degrees
1936: Heat Wave Deaths In Just One Small U.S. City: 50 Die In
Springfield, IL
1936: Missouri Heat Wave: 118 Degrees & 311 Deaths
1936: Ontario, Canada Suffers 106 Degree Temps During Heat Wave
1936: Alaska’s 10-Day Heat Wave Tops Out At 108 Degrees
1936 : Record Heat Wave Bakes Midwest; “Condition of Crops Critical”
1936: Midwest Climate So Bad That Climate Scientist Recommends
Evacuation of Central U.S.
1936: 12,000 Perish In U.S. Heat Wave – Murderous Week
1936: Single Day Death Toll From Heat Wave – 1,000 Die
1936: Iceland Hurricane Sinks Polar Research Ship Filled With
1936: Severe Drought & Disastrous Floods In Southern Texas
1936: 20,000 Homeless In Flame Ravaged Forests of Oregon
1936: Northern California Seared By Forest Fires Over 400-Mile Front
1936: Tremendous Gale & Mountainous Waves Pound S. California – 7
Persons Missing
1936: Glacier Park Hotel Guests Flee As Forest Fire Advances – Worst
Fire In Years
1936: Iowa Christmas Season Heat Wave Sets Temperature Records – 58
We don’t have anything like this kind of weather going on here on Earth at the present time. Our current weather patterns are very benign compared to the 1930’s. No extreme heatwaves in the 21st century, with the exception of 2010 (U.S.), very few hurricanes and tornadoes, not much of anything of an extreme nature going on.
It’s a little ironic, if you think about it. We have all sorts of Alarmist predictions of extreme heatwaves and extreme droughts in our near future, accompanied by melting glaciers, unprecendented numbers of mega-hurricanes and tornadoes, which will all come about *in our future* if we don’t stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, so they claim.
But if you read those dire Alarmist predictions of our future and compare them with what actually happened in the 1930’s, you will see that what the Alarmists are predicting for our future, has already happened in the 1930’s: extreme heatwaves lasting for years; extreme doughts; record numbers of hurricanes and tornadoes; glaciers around the world melting, etc. Nothing like that is happening today.
The reason these extreme weather events happened in the 1930’s and not in the 21st century, is because it was *hotter* in the 1930’s than it is today. How could it be otherwise?
And there is no evidence that humans caused the heat of the 1930’s.
If we ever do get as hot as the 1930’s, then we will probably experience pretty much what they did back in that time. But even if we do, that doesn’t necessarily mean the cause of the heating was from humans. It wasn’t the case in the 1930’s.
So, how much hotter do we have to get to match the 1930’s? Apparently, we are not there yet. 🙂

Reply to  Toneb
April 5, 2016 9:34 pm

Toneb, I posted a long reply to your post, but it seems to have gotten lost. I’ll check later and see if it ever shows up. Made some good points, I thought. “)

Reply to  David S
April 6, 2016 7:52 am

Wasn’t the temperatures experienced in the 1930s and 1890s higher than those experienced today?
W.r.t. the average temperature between 1981 and 2010
– the 1890 era was 0.750 °C lower
– the 1930 era was 0.250 °C lower.
The actual mean temperature (average of 5 surface and 3 lower troposphere) is about 0.5 °C higher than the 1981-2010 average.
Maybe you are misinterpreting the fact that e.g. 1934 was considered be the hottest year in the recent US history; but in fact, in the list of hottest years at globe’s level, that year is as position 49…

April 4, 2016 3:16 pm

What they all compare this to is the Little Ice Age which the warmists now announce, never happened or rather, is ‘normal’ whereas the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm eras are not normal and indeed, never happened!

Gunga Din
April 4, 2016 3:37 pm

So was March as warm, warmer, or cooler than the CO2-based Climate Models projected?
Heat happens. Cold happens. Always has. Always will.
Man has changed that how?
(Profitable theories are not proof. Especially when the profits dictate the theories.)

April 4, 2016 4:36 pm

I am not criticizing this post at all. Fully expect this to happen when El Nino happens on top of the present temperature plateau.
However, I checked Hadcrut and found that these same kind of climate headlines could have appeared in the years around 1940.
1937: Hottest September in history
1938: Second Hottest March in history
1938: Second Hottest April in history
1938: Hottest October in history
1939: Hottest June in history
1940: Hottest May in history
1940: Hottest July in history
1940: Hottest September in history
1940: Hottest December in history
1941: Second Hottest April in history
1941: Hottest June in history
1941: Hottest July in history
1941: Second Hottest August in history
1941: Hottest October in history
1941: Hottest November in history
1941: Third Hottest December in history
1942: Hottest January in history
1942: Second Hottest May in history
1943: Second Hottest October in history
1944: Hottest January in history
1944: Third Hottest February in history
1944: Second Hottest March in history
1944: Hottest May in history
1944: Hottest June in history
1944: Hottest July in history
1944: Second Hottest August in history
1944: Hottest September in history
1944: Third Hottest October in history
Unfortunately for many millions of people, climate change was not the biggest threat to mankind at that time.

April 4, 2016 4:42 pm

March was 3rd warmest month in satellite record

RSS is out for March and it is similar. Here are the 4 warmest RSS anomalies:

Feb.  2016    0.978 C
Apr.  1998    0.857 C
Mar.  2016   0.842C
Feb.  1998    0.736 C

(I am aware of the fact that error bars are not mentioned with the values to 1/1000 C and that the average July was warmer in terms of absolute temperatures than any warm February, March or April.)

April 4, 2016 4:53 pm

It’s all normal. All perfectly normal. The wide swings, the floating average, etc. in an evolutionary model with extended semi-stable states. Perhaps if the question was framed with a scientific reference and a human-oriented perspective.

April 4, 2016 9:00 pm

Just after having posted last night that RSS for March wasn’t out yet I see it this morning. However, I am puzzled by one thing which maybe someone can explain. Previously I had downloaded Jan & Feb 2016 as 0.6628 & 0.9736 (downloaded maybe 4 weeks ago or so). This morning with the updated series I see Jan & Feb now being reported as 0.6655 & 0.9781. Why have they been changed does anyone know and is this normal?

April 4, 2016 10:52 pm

I expect the February reading for 2016 to stand as the peak of 2016 in comparison to April for 1998, because the current El Nino is fading earlier in time-of-year than the one of 1997-1998.
Notably, 1998 had a strong February. Also, every month from September through March has the current El Nino having global temperature above the same month of 1997-1998. Please tell me of any exceptions –

Johann Wundersamer
April 5, 2016 3:42 am

george e. smith on April 4, 2016 at 1:44 pm
asks 267 mill. readers of WUWT
out of earth population ~ 7 bl. ::
Why is it so difficult (same as hard) for readers to understand.
interesting question. interesting if and what good for answers.

Johann Wundersamer
April 5, 2016 3:51 am

Johann Wundersamer on April 5, 2016 at 3:42 am
george e. smith on April 4, 2016 at 1:44 pm
asks 267 mill. readers of WUWT
out of earth population ~ 7 bl. ::
Why is it so difficult (same as hard) for readers to understand.
interesting question. interesting if ANY and what good for answers.

April 5, 2016 5:17 am

5″ of snow here in eastern Massachusetts yesterday, 19º F at 7 AM EDT this morning.
“April is the cruelest month.” —T. S. Eliot
/Mr Lynn

Tom in Texas
Reply to  L. E. Joiner
April 5, 2016 8:59 am

Gloateus Maximus says:
April 4, 2016 at 4:51 pm
For instance, check out maximum state temperature records from the 19th century through the 1930s:
This was good information. when looking at Texas, (ALVIN) THE PRECIPITATION you see 42+ inches of rain. what causes that here is when a front stalls, often happens, and a tropical shows at the same time, you receive a training effect of rain fall. you will also see it happen when tropical storm ALLEN, the following year turn sand pits into Red Adair park. later the park change the name. no unusual here in this part of the country. Back in the 70’s, about every june 7th through 21st you could count on the freeway feeder roads flooded. Weather comes and Weather goes.

Jay Hope
Reply to  Tom in Texas
April 6, 2016 7:35 am

‘Weather comes and weather goes’, tell that to a warmist!

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  L. E. Joiner
April 5, 2016 10:06 am

NOAA tried to change the state high and low records, but the states fought back.
Did you see this WUWT story:
Yessir, it’s all about the weather.

Phil B
April 5, 2016 7:26 am

I’m wondering how the middle east managed to be above average temperatures for March when Saudi Arabia and Oman both received record snowfalls, and Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Yemen received record rainfall in the month.
Now I imagine that I am missing some factor (night time mins are higher due to unreasonable cloud coverage?), but would how is that factor possibly large enough to overcome the fact that it was snowing in freaking Saudi Arabia in March?

Proud Skeptic
April 5, 2016 9:00 am

My grandson saw the most snow he has ever seen this last winter. He is almost three.
Having the warmest March in a thirty five year satellite record is pretty meaningless, isn’t it?

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
April 5, 2016 10:01 am

I think you are drawing attention to the fact that 35 years is not very long in the grand scheme of things. In which case the answer to your question is that it is not meaningless. It tells us what is happening now. We must put it into perspective of the “natural variations” that we do not know enough to explain. A 3 year local trend (or record) will usually be unexplainable. A 35 year global trend is long compared to the fluctuations we would expect, and may be explained.
So the 35 year satellite record is not meaningless, but it does not tell the whole story either. It is a meaningful part of the story.

April 5, 2016 9:11 am

The title sounds like a warmunist headline — except that they’d “adjust” the data so they could claim ” “Warmest month OF ALL TIMES !!! ”
It’s actual silly to for a headline to say “3rd warmest month” … with only 35 years of data, and all the measurements made DURING a rising trend … and then comparing a near-EL NINO peak month with most months not affected by an EL NINO at all.
Of course there will be new records, or near records, if we ONLY have measurements made during a rising trend and we are still in that RISING trend — so what? — that’s what rising trends do.
Real news would be several years WITHOUT a new record, or near-record, temperature.
In addition, the month of March 2016 should only be compared with a comparable month in the El Nino cycle — one month after the 1998 El Nino peak might be one good comparison.
A fair comparison of two EL NINO peaks compared:
Feb. 2016 +0.83 C
Apr. 1998 +0.74 C
The fact that the 1998 EL Nino peak was only 0.1 degrees C. different than the apparent 2016 EL Nino peak (well within reasonable measurement error estimates) would be worth writing about.
Two big El Nino peaks 18 years apart, and only a surprisingly small 0.1 degree C. difference.
That’s news to me.
The amount of time “deniers” spend studying the monthly average temperature to the nearest one tenth of a degree is puzzling to me.
I would consider a change of less than 0.5 degree to be “noise” — random variations no one would ever notice if not for articles like this one — I doubt if most people would even notice a change of 1 degree C.
I think average temperature to the nearest one tenth of a degree is one of the most useless statistics ever compiled … and unfortunately also one of the most dangerous statistics ever compiled, because of needless reactions to it — needless counter productive reactions to slight warming, which is actually good news for humans, but treated by many people as a symptom of a coming climate catastrophe !
Tenth of a degree changes should not matter … unless you are a warmunist and want to use small rises by extrapolating them into “proof” of the dreaded runaway global warming iyou’ve been predicting since the 1970s.
No one should care about the monthly average temperature.
Even an annual average temperature is not very important.
If the crop growing season was declining – that would be important.
If green plants were growing slower, that would be important.
If Antarctica ice was melting at an unusual rate, that would be important.
If sea level was rising at an unusual rate, that would be important.
The fact that the March 2016 average temperature
is +0.1 degree C. warmer than the May 1998 average temperature
(both are the month after an EL NINO temperature peak)
is not worthy of a headline, or article.
With 4.5 billion years of climate history to study,
where average temperature for 99.999% of that time
is from very rough climate proxy estimates,
I wonder why is the average temperature in March 2016
is considered important enough to have its own article?
Climate blog for non-scientists
No ads. Free. No money for me.
A public service

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 5, 2016 11:55 am

Richard Greene
Had a look at your site (and wish I hadn’t wasted 2 minutes of my life). I don’t mean to be rude, but it is cutting edge nonsense. I mean look at the first graph you use. It is utterly meaningly. Has anyone ever explained the concept of scale to you?

Reply to  Simon
April 6, 2016 8:35 am

I think you didn’t grasp RG’s message: there is no problem of scaling here.
It is what you obtain when using absolute temperatures (actually around 15 °C) instead of deltas wrt a baseline.

Reply to  Simon
April 6, 2016 1:03 pm

Like measuring the weight of a feather with bathroom scales. A totally misleading waste of time and a clear indication he has no idea.

Reply to  Simon
April 6, 2016 3:17 pm

No idea: maybe. I rather think of no experience.
Typical for people who do not understand why we use deltas of absolute values rather than the latter themselves.
Maybe they don’t know that while the global mean surface temperature is about 15 °C, that of the lower troposphere is about -9 °C… and that these two levels of measurement, though distant by 24 °C, nevertheless give us surprisingly well correlating information.

Reply to  Simon
April 9, 2016 1:00 pm

The chart represents a series of about 130 ordinary thermometers and clearly shows how little the claimed very rough estimate of average temperature has been in the past 130 years.
You should be thanking me that the chart on the first page scared you off — your mind is obviously closed — you have bought the ‘world is going to end from climate change’ malarkey.
You probably also showed yourself to be a leftist — desperately scared of opposing viewpoints — launching character attacks in the first sentence of your comment – since leftists do not debate their beliefs!
If you have a problem with my website, pick one sentence related to climate change that offends you and refute it.
I guess you can’t refute anything … but just wanted to complain about the vertical scale / range used for an accurate chart based on government data (data from Obama’s government — from your hero’s favorite bureaucrats!)
If you want to argue that climate change is not 99% leftists politics — we can debate the effect of politics on the “science” — that is only my opinion as to why the science is so bad.
The chart on the first page presents GISS data correctly, in a visually unbiased way.
You don’t like the range of temperatures used for the vertical axis of the chart ?
Well, “my” chart is a lot less deceiving than a chart with a one degree range — the type of chart you must love — making tiny temperature variations look like huge mountains and valleys.
I suppose when a weather man says the high temperature will be 71 degrees that day, you call the TV station and complain you want that in tenths of a degree?

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 6, 2016 7:13 am

“I wonder why is the average temperature in March 2016 is considered important enough to have its own article?”
It is in April 2016 – maybe not at other times. See “the news” -full of recent events that are not particularly significant in the grand scheme of things.

Verified by MonsterInsights