World had fourth warmest January

Feb 20, 2014 by Seth Borenstein

The globe cozied up to the fourth warmest January on record this year, essentially leaving just the eastern half of the United States out in the cold.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Thursday that Earth was 1.17 degrees warmer last month than the 20th century average. Since records began in 1880, only 2002, 2003 and 2007 started off warmer than this year.

Almost all of Africa, South America and Australia and most of Asia and Europe were considerably warmer than normal. China and France had their second warmest Januaries. Land in the entire Southern Hemisphere was hottest for January on record.

While more than half of America shivered last month, it was one of the few populated spots on Earth cooler than normal.

Explore further: World experiences hottest November in 134 years

3.8 /5 (41 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Warm West offsets cold East, makes average January

Feb 13, 2014

For those who shivered through January, this may be hard to believe: Nationwide, the average temperature for the first month of the year was about normal because a warm West offset a cool East

Long-term climate warming trend sunstained in 2013

Jan 22, 2014

NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the ...

Recommended for you

Coal-rich Poland ready to block EU climate deal

13 hours ago

European Union leaders meeting in Brussels to set their new greenhouse gas emissions plan are facing staunch opposition from coal-reliant Poland and other East European countries who say their economies would ...

EU leaders seek last-minute climate deal

18 hours ago

European Union leaders came under pressure Thursday to strike a deal aimed at bolstering Brussels as a trailblazer in fighting global climate change as negotiations went down to the wire.

User comments : 22

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

aksdad
2.5 / 5 (16) Feb 20, 2014
Meaningless information, don't you think? To predict global warming, long term trends matter, not data from a single month. NASA GISS and UK Met Office HadCRUT4 show annual and 5-year running means to identify trends.

The real message behind statements in the last few years like "fourth warmest January on record" is the increasingly desperate attempts of global warming alarmists to bring attention back to themselves. Public interest has waned dramatically in the last few years as, coincidentally, global warming has paused (for roughly 15 years). See these graphs:

UAH satellite:
http://nsstc.uah...._bar.png

NASA GISS:
http://data.giss....ig.A.gif

HadCRUT4:
http://www.cru.ue...RUT4.png

Time scale varies, but notice no statistically significant warming since the El Niño of 1998. The 5-year mean in NASA and HadCRUT4 graphs looks some warming after 1998, but compare the yearly peaks.
gregor1
2.3 / 5 (16) Feb 20, 2014
Meaningless information, don't you think?

Well no. It's intentional disinformation.
Sinister1812
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2014
It has definitely been warm here, too. It's still in the 30+ degree range, and it's February.
alfie_null
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2014
Meaningless information, don't you think? To predict global warming . . .

There was no mention of climatology in the article. Most of us can make that distinction, even if you apparently can't.

What _are_ your creds, BTW? We see your cherry-picking, but like nose-picking, it carries little weight here.
Birger
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2014
Here is some meaningful information: While you Americans got to experience a cold winter, we in Europe had a warm winter.
In Umeå, most of January and February had temepratures above freezing in a place where in the 1980s it would be oscillating berween -10 and -20, with periods of -25. We used to be able to drive cars across the Bothnic sea ice to Finland, for Chrissake. That kind of sea ice is simply not around these years.
And parasites like ticks arrived here in the nineties, as winters allowed their eggs to survive for the first time. And the forest is colonising parts of the mountains that previously were high-altitude tundra, leaving the reindeer with less grazing areas.
I dare you to check out these changes. They can be verified.
Cocoa
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2014
What is staggering to me - is that anyone can look at this data http://www.cru.ue...RUT4.png - and then expend energy trying to deny that the globe is warming (as askdad and gregor do above).

Just look at the period 1940 to 1980. Obviously there is a plateau - or even a drop in temps. Then eye ball the whole graph!!!! Of course this is not "meaningless information" , or "intentional disinformation".
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2014
Some parts of Africa were warmer than usual? Sure, it has it been predicted by the models --"Equatorial Amplification" -- is this some kind of new effect?

What people want to have is a reliable temperature record, free of UHI effect (land), and calibration issues (satellite). Do we have such absolutely reliable weather stations? Sure, here are the two:
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf
Is there any reason to emphasize these stations over the others? Of course: warmists predicted more rapid temperature raise at the poles, so it is natural to look there (rather than in Africa).
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2014
"4406 U.S. record cold temperatures in January – 1073 Snowfall records"
http://www.climat...records/
aksdad
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2014
Cocoa, thank you for pointing out the cooling from 1940 to 1980. Also notice the cooling from 1880 to 1910. Overall, there is a general warming trend since 1850, but how about before 1850? Have a look.

10,000 years from Greenland ice core proxies:
http://climate4yo...omeC.gif

450,000 years from Antarctic ice core proxies:
http://climate4yo...20BP.gif

The ice core data shows repeating cycles of warming and cooling (ice ages). We live in a warm and hospitable period. If the pattern repeats, eventually the earth will cool again over tens of thousands of years. You can see from the graphs that the only one that may have any predictive power is the ice core graphs. The others show no repeating patterns. It is impossible to predict what global temperatures will be like 100 years from now despite the IPCC's "high confidence" in the climate models that have consistently been wrong.
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2014
@aksdad; so what are you, some kind of denier or troll? First was there a cooling 1940 to 1980? If there was, why are we hotter now than 1940? Perhaps you didn't read the graphs correctly. Here it is again;

http://www.cru.ue...RUT4.png

If you look at that image and all of the blue, it was colder year to year all the way back to 1850 than it was 1980. In 1980 (the zero line) it stutters and the grows exponential. So looking at @Cocoa's URL, you have it wrong.

Since that was wrong, everything else you say is suspect, typical of the American AGW deniialism we all see so often on science boards. Further you claim;
It is impossible to predict what global temperatures will be like 100 years from now despite the IPCC's "high confidence" in the climate models that have consistently been wrong.
Another claim by an anti-science rightwing AGW denier! The models of IPCC are easy to reproduce and have be vetted by the best scientific minds.
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2014
Hay Ghost,
"4406 U.S. record cold temperatures in January – 1073 Snowfall records"

http://www.climat...records/

Are you sure you wanted to post that URL. The site is a rightwing CFACT website of anticlimate propoganda.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2014
Hay Ghost,
"4406 U.S. record cold temperatures in January – 1073 Snowfall records"

http://www.climat...records/

Are you sure you wanted to post that URL. The site is a rightwing CFACT website of anticlimate propoganda.
So does that automatically mean the info is wrong? You'll find it all over the place. Are you a fashion whore? Next time I will post something from Perez Hilton for you.
keithkfisher
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2014
The significance of this "data point" is that it is an amalgam of data across the entire globe and that it should be seen with the previous world monthly averages charted. The last time the world average temp was less than the world average temp for the whole 20th Century was February 1985. As this article from 2010 discusses along with an accompanying quote from the article.

http://www.scient...-normal/

"Frankly, I was expecting that we'd see large temperature increases later this century with higher greenhouse gas levels and global warming," Stanford climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh, who headed up the research, said in a prepared statement. "I did not expect to see anything this large within the next three decades."

Global Warming/Climate change has been progressing as much of the worst case scenarios have predicted.

Cocoa
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2014
@askdad
Cocoa, thank you for pointing out the cooling from 1940 to 1980.


You are very welcome. The point of highlighting the graph that you referenced - was to show that we are clearly in a period of warming. Do you think that scientists are not aware of the temperature proxies of the past? Here is a more comprehensive one for you. http://en.wikiped...ions.png

The point remains that we are currently in a warming trend - see - http://en.wikiped...ison.png

Yes - surface temps have not risen in a straight line - is that news to you? There have even been periods of surface temp cooling. But the graph you referenced clearly shows we are in a warming trend. And what is the driver of that trend? It is not enough to say 'temperatures have been warmer in the past - so nothing to look at here.' Please answer the question - what is the driver of the current warming trend?
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2014
Ghost says,
So does that automatically mean the info is wrong? You'll find it all over the place. Are you a fashion whore? Next time I will post something from Perez Hilton for you.


More like the later. That URL goes on to others and then others and pretty soon your web experience is infested with rightwing diatribe. Ok, that and the info is bias. On your offer from something Perez Hiltion; please do. She probably knows more about global warming than you.
Her tan shows it.

Haha. just kidding. I'm just saying your URL points to a denier site. (*Click on it at your own risk *).
Actually I see now it doesn't even exist. Freeken loser rightwingers can't even get facts correct.

FastEddy
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2014
Meaningless information, don't you think?

Well no. It's intentional disinformation.


Correct. Intentionally misleading in order to (re)generate more and larger rakeoff of g'ment tax revenues. The global worms are constantly promoting an agenda that they hope will be self generating, semi-automatically self funding and self aggrandizing.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2014
Intentionally misleading in order to (re)generate more and larger rakeoff of g'ment tax revenues.

@FastEddy
personal conjecture without proof
links? supporting data/evidence? Justification?
The global worms are constantly promoting an agenda that they hope will be self generating, semi-automatically self funding and self aggrandizing

intentionally inflammatory personal conjecture
please provide evidence/proof/justification?
Howhot
5 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2014
I said;
Haha. just kidding. I'm just saying your URL points to a denier site. (*Click on it at your own risk *). Actually I see now it doesn't even exist.
I want to make a correction. My copies of that URL don't work. Ghost's URL (in the original post) works fine. I went back to look at that site and it gives a world of info as to how much the deniers are spending in dollars to keep this debate about global warming going. If you drop to the top page, there are at least 70 sites linked that are anti-environment, anti-global warming, Dr's of denial, or anti-science kooks and nuts. If you figure it costs on average about $200,000/year per site to run and staff, that nearly $14 million minimum on denier website. Since there is no advertising that I saw, you know their funding came from somewhere in the form of 501c's. Ie; they are funded by dark money to push global-warming denialism, anti-science, and many forms of rightwing ignorant HORSE SH**.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2014
Howhot I am laughing at their "survey" - talk about leading questions to get an answer you want lol! Check it out:

2014 National Global Warming Survey

Do you believe that human activities are making the weather a threat to mankind's survival?

Yes, and we must counteract it by any means necessary.
No, this issue is over-hyped.
Not sure.

Do you believe that the available scientific evidence supports a theory of humans causing global warming?
Yes, the science is settled and the debate is over.
No, the science is flimsy and far from settled.
Not sure.

Do you believe that the government should impose costly new laws and regulations to try to halt the progression of alleged catastrophic climate change?
Yes, catastrophic climate change is real, and our government must attempt to stop it. If that means imposing new laws and regulations that drastically increase energy prices,

And so it goes! Once you complete this "survey" you get taken immediately to a "please donate" page. What BS!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2014
More like the later. That URL goes on to others and then others and pretty soon your web experience is infested with rightwing diatribe. Ok, that and the info is bias. On your offer from something Perez Hiltion; please do. She probably knows more about global warming than you.
Her tan shows it.
Uh dude Perez Hilton's a popular gay guy on the interwebz. And as it turns out he is also a source for the latest AGW info. So it MUST be fashion.
http://mobi.perez...kipK9LCQ

-Always pays to check .
FastEddy
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
RE: NOAA budget.

Never in history have government expenditures or increasing taxes changed the weather.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
RE: NOAA budget.

Never in history have government expenditures or increasing taxes changed the weather.


So what, you think pulling up every article associated with climate and saying this will make your statement somehow more witty than the first two times you said it? Do you have a point to make, or are you just bored and trolling for your entertainment?