April global temperature tied for highest since 1880, NOAA reports

May 20, 2014
Two bathers enjoy the water in the public bath Strandbad Wannsee on April 18, 2014 in Berlin

April was historically hot across the globe, tying with 2010 for the highest average temperature since 1880, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Tuesday.

"The globally averaged temperature across land and ocean surfaces tied with 2010 as the highest on record for the month," NOAA said in a statement.

The planet last month was 0.77° Celsius (1.39° Fahrenheit) hotter than the 20th century average.

Central Siberia saw temperatures more than 5 Celsius (9 Fahrenheit) above average.

Britain saw its third warmest April since record-keeping began in 1910, and Australia observed its seventh hottest April over the same time span.

Meanwhile, much of the United States and Canada saw cooler than average temperatures for the month.

"This contrast is an example of how a globally-averaged temperature can differ from a single smaller region," NOAA said.

The last time global April temperatures fell below the 20th century average was in 1976, the agency said.

Explore further: World experiences hottest November in 134 years

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

June Earth's hottest ever: US monitors

Jul 15, 2010

Last month was the hottest June ever recorded on Earth, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday, amid global climate warming worries.

Recommended for you

Historian unearths origins of Mexico's water crisis

2 hours ago

A historic three-year drought has left California bone dry. But the state, along with much of the Southwest, is not alone in its water crisis. Mexico, too, is facing a severe water shortage, and Stanford ...

Nepal to end rescue operation on trekking route

6 hours ago

Nepal was wrapping up rescue operations in its northern mountains Monday, saying all the hikers believed to have been stranded on a trekking route by a series of deadly blizzards are now safe.

Major breakthrough could help detoxify pollutants

20 hours ago

Scientists at The University of Manchester hope a major breakthrough could lead to more effective methods for detoxifying dangerous pollutants like PCBs and dioxins. The result is a culmination of 15 years of research and ...

User comments : 20

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vietvet
3.2 / 5 (11) May 20, 2014
Posted 7 hours ago and no noise from the deniers?
aksdad
1.7 / 5 (12) May 20, 2014
So? It's called an "anomaly" for a reason. It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't indicate a trend. If you look at the January, February, March anomalies, they show what appears to be either no trend at all or a dramatic cooling trend. Look at anomalies for the rest of the year and they show the same cooling trend or non-trend for almost every month.

http://www.ncdc.n...s/global

It's consistent with the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for the last 17 years since the El Niño of 1998. There are predictions that with this year's El Niño we'll see some warming, but we won't know for several months. Meanwhile, the "pause" continues...
aksdad
1.9 / 5 (13) May 20, 2014
That's "skeptic" Vietvet. It's what scientists are supposed to be until observations match their theory. So far, the theory of dramatic, devastating global warming and sea level rise caused by humans doesn't match observations.

A graph from the IPCC Fifth Assessment (AR5), 2013 working group, showing observed temperatures compared to the global climate models' projections:

http://www.climat...g1-4.jpg

Extend the observations horizontally to the right for 2 more years (this shows only through 2012). What it says is the models' sensitivity to CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are overstated...a lot. In other words, the current theory is wrong.

Sure warming has happened and may continue for a while, but apparently not nearly as much is caused by humans (or can be stopped by humans) as we've been told. Same with predictions about sea level rise, hurricanes, droughts, "extreme" weather, etc.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) May 20, 2014
So? It's called an "anomaly" for a reason. It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't indicate a trend. If you look at the January, February, March anomalies, they show what appears to be either no trend at all or a dramatic cooling trend. Look at anomalies for the rest of the year and they show the same cooling trend or non-trend for almost every month.
No, but having the same anomaly covering 382 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS is not an "anomaly" notwithstanding any denialist rant to the contrary. Why is it askdad, that every month has an article describing how it is yet another month with above average temperature, and you make the same general comment? How many months in a row do you need?

It's consistent with the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for the last 17 years since the El Niño of 1998.
A zombie argument, previously disproved. Why are you working so hard to deny the obvious?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) May 20, 2014
That's "skeptic" Vietvet. It's what scientists are supposed to be until observations match their theory. So far, the theory of dramatic, devastating global warming and sea level rise caused by humans doesn't match observations.
No he had it right, it's denialist.

DO you understand the difference between a "prediction" and a "projection"?

Extend the observations horizontally to the right for 2 more years (this shows only through 2012). What it says is the models' sensitivity to CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are overstated...a lot. In other words, the current theory is wrong.

Sure warming has happened and may continue for a while, but apparently not nearly as much is caused by humans (or can be stopped by humans) as we've been told. Same with predictions about sea level rise, hurricanes, droughts, "extreme" weather, etc.
Any actual science to back up that statement? Where do you live again? Let me guess, its in the Northern Hemisphere, mid latitude right?
aksdad
1.7 / 5 (12) May 20, 2014
Maggnus, please show us where the "zombie" argument is rather than expecting us to rely on your say-so. Here's satellite telemetry for global temperatures from UAH:

http://nsstc.uah....2014.jpg

Notice any warming since 1998? That's because it's not there.

Thermometer temperatures from HADCrut4:

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

Still not there. So who's the "denialist"?

Please show us your 382-consecutive month anomaly so we can see what you're talking about.
aksdad
1.7 / 5 (12) May 20, 2014
Any actual science to back up that statement?


Maybe you didn't notice the link I helpfully provided. It's to the IPCC AR5. The globally recognized "experts" on global warming? Have another look.
Pejico
May 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rockwolf1000
4.6 / 5 (9) May 21, 2014
The global temperatures do apply to composite temperature of both land, both marine water, but the temperature of air stagnates due to heat content anomaly (the heat is generated in bulk of water, not with absorption of surface layer). Compare the http://hockeyscht...ans.html (every comment without relevant link will be ignored in reply, so you even don't bother to argue somehow else)


Ok here you go. http://www.google...60,d.cGU
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2014
Maggnus, please show us where the "zombie" argument is rather than expecting us to rely on your say-so.
http://www.wunder...num=2374 ; http://www.yalecl...warming/ Your foolishness is the result of cherry-picking evidence.
Here's satellite telemetry for global temperatures from UAH:
What do you think that graph shows?

Still not there. So who's the "denialist"?
You are.

Please show us your 382-consecutive month anomaly so we can see what you're talking about.
Ok. "April marked the 38th consecutive April and 350th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average." https://www.ncdc....ov/sotc/
Pardon me, I exaggerated slightly, only 350th consecutive, not 382.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) May 21, 2014
Any actual science to back up that statement?


Maybe you didn't notice the link I helpfully provided. It's to the IPCC AR5. The globally recognized "experts" on global warming? Have another look.
Oh, your cherry picked graph? Yea I saw it; what do you think it shows?
Pejico
May 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2014
Ok here you go
These climatic discussions are all just about private feelings of their participants. Is the need of matter of fact argumentation a sign of narcissism?
No, it's about the evidence provided by scientific study versus the blithering contrarianism of denialist conspiracists.
rockwolf1000
4.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2014
Ok here you go
These climatic discussions are all just about private feelings of their participants. Is the need of matter of fact argumentation a sign of narcissism?

Not really, but you and I have both been reading Phys.org for years now, and they have run hundreds of articles on AGW. If you need evidence you can simply use the search function they have provided. If you don't agree with the articles here, there are a bunch of other websites you could adulterate with your own personal conjectures, which are many.
aksdad
1.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2014
Still not very convincing, Maggnus. From the Yale Forum link you provided which is titled "Examining the Recent Slow-Down in Global Warming":

Global surface temperatures have warmed more slowly over the past decade than previously expected.

Actually, warming has pretty much stopped since about 1998 as you can see yourself. Does that mean the pause will continue indefinitely? Not necessarily, but it does indicate that the acceleration in warming that alarmists fret about is non-existent so far.

Looking at paleoclimate temperatures from proxies you can easily see--if you accept the accuracy of the proxies--that there have been several periods of relatively "rapid" warming equal to or greater than those we've seen in the last century, long before human CO2 could be blamed.

FYI, my links are to internationally recognized primary sources on global temperatures; ie., not "cherry picked". Yours tend to be from blogs that try to explain away what I can see with my own eyes.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (8) May 21, 2014
Tied since 1880.
What was the high before 1880?
aksdad
1.6 / 5 (7) May 21, 2014
The NOAA is a great resource for global climate date, however the occasional NOAA press release about "4th warmest January" and "hottest April" are misleading. As I pointed out above, it's simply a statistical trick that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't indicate a trend. Have a look at their website and try February to see why there was no press release about February temperatures.

https://www.ncdc....ov/sotc/

Try some other months just for fun. Of course current temperatures will occasionally be the "highest on record" even though there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 17 years. We're still warmer than the 20th century average, but that's also because the baseline is the 20th century average. If you picked the baseline as the 21st century average, the "records" would be far fewer.

Will it warm again? Possibly, especially since this is an El Niño year.
aksdad
2 / 5 (8) May 21, 2014
Bottom line: the recent 17-year pause in global warming is evidence that:

1. The climate models have overestimated climate sensitivity to CO2.
2. What warming has happened so far is neither unprecedented nor catastrophic.
3. The human contribution to warming, while still uncertain, is less than the climate models have estimated.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2014
That's "skeptic" Vietvet. It's what scientists are supposed to be until observations match their theory
@aksdad
no. he had it right. and scientists ARE skeptics, it is people like YOU who SEE the information and the SCIENCE and STILL DENY the issue that are "deniers"...
a SKEPTIC would accept empirical data and move on
These climatic discussions are all just about private feelings of their participants
@Zephir
no, it is about SCIENCE and actual data vs people who ignore the facts and make spurious unsubstantiated claims based upon blatant stupidity, as well as their inability to do simple searches for ACTUAL data, rather than adhering to the biased ranting of a non-scientific BLOG ... the question SHOULD be: why don't they just go where they are welcome and talk to their own kind? they must like punishment, OR
and more likely
they are being PAID to spread FUD as well as stupidity, lies, and anti-scientific posts
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2014
Still not very convincing, Maggnus
@aksdad
you see? even in the face of empirical data you cling to ANYTHING that might hint that your faith in your religion, in this case it is anti-warming, is real. This is a defense mechanism because if you were to actually admit that empirical data, it would mean your faith is wrong, and therefore undermine your reality. You live for your belief, and are willing to skew ANY data to fit YOUR faith, which is NOT skepticism, but denial
again, the DENIAL of empirical data for the sake of a belief is NOT skepticism.
What warming has happened so far is neither unprecedented nor catastrophic
personal conjecture based upon stupidity (as you've been shown the error here many times already)
The human contribution to warming, while still uncertain, is less than the climate models have estimated
personal conjecture with NO EVIDENCE
please provide the study that is peer reviewed backing this claim... you would get more attention that way
Egleton
4.5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2014
A big thank you to the deniers for providing the gallows humour. You never fail to step up to the plate.
sennekuyl
5 / 5 (7) May 26, 2014
Maggnus, please show us where the "zombie" argument is rather than expecting us to rely on your say-so.
http://www.wunder...num=2374
Pardon me, I exaggerated slightly, only 350th consecutive, not 382.

This practice of deniers posting evidence the globe has warmed over the past 17 as if it were evidence the globe hasn't be warming is bewildering [if one assumes the interaction is honest based.]

I keep hoping one of them will register that a slower rate does not mean stopped and .5 - .12 global average rise of temp over that period is ... global warming. But no; we [they] yell and scream 'See! It stopped!'

Anyway mostly just want to say thanks for the persistence of refuting.