Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Post Carbon

Last month was hottest March on record

Juliet Eilperin

Scientists at both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies have concluded last month ranks as the hottest March in recorded history.

NOAA concluded Thursday the combined global land and ocean average surface temperature in March were 1.39 degrees Fahrenheit above the twentieth-century average.

NASA's Goddard Institute made a similar finding earlier this week, concluding the combined global land-surface air temperature readings show March was a record-breaking 1.9 degrees F above the twentieth-century average.

"This is more impressive evidence that the oceans and atmosphere are rapidly warming, increasing such risks as massive sea level rise," said Rafe Pomerance, president of the advocacy group Clean Air-Cool Planet.


Juliet Eilperin

 |  April 15, 2010; 12:49 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Linda Rozett is API's communications czar | Next: Senators will unveil climate bill April 26


Please report offensive comments below.

NOAA and NASA and thoroughtly politicized lap dogs, who will say anything to get increased funding.

Hottest in recorded history? And how long have people been systematically, accurately recording temperatures? Are we yet today?

Posted by: silencedogoodreturns | April 19, 2010 12:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One of the reasons that temperatures for the last ten years have been so much warmer is due to a transition to METAR based temperature reports and a shift to getting much of the land surface weather information from airports.

As reported at www.wattsupwiththat, it has become much easier to drop minus signs in the weather record. NOAA/NASA made a correction to Finland's reported warm temperatures just after releasing them because skeptics compared the actual cold weather in Finland to the NOAA reports and questioned it. NOAA's explanation was that minus signs were dropped from the reported temperatures so that -30 became plus thirty, for example.

The same web site has now reported that this error is easy to make, isn't being caught by anything resembling quality control at NOAA, and may very well become the reason for so many strange results in the temperature record.

Garbage in produces garbage out, and the NOAA/NASA ground station temperature records come from temperatures that were sloppily measured and sloppily adjusted. This mess is not likely to be corrected without external pressure from media, Government, or maybe Congress, but the skeptics will continue to apply heat, and the water will eventually boil.

Posted by: AGWsceptic99 | April 17, 2010 11:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The numbers are different because what they're measuring is different. NOAA looks at "global land and ocean average surface temperature." NASA looks at "global land-surface air temperature." There's more on the linked Web sites about how these ways of measuring the Earth's temp differ from one another.

The observational evidence for climate change due to carbon dioxide isn't based on models. For instance, the layer of the atmosphere where CO2 accumulates is warming and expanding. If warming were caused by other factors, we'd see a different warming pattern.

More here:

Aaron Huertas
Press Secretary
Union of Concerned Scientists

Posted by: ahuertas | April 15, 2010 4:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Which is it, 1.39 or 1.9 F degrees above the 20th century average? Also, are they discussing the raw temperature data, or are they discussing the massaged data that their black computer programs produce by mystical methods?

But, most important-why should we care? After all of the time and money spent on investigating the climate, there still is no observational data that show that carbon dioxide is contributing significantly to the increasing warmth. We have only the output from relatively naive (relative to the complexity of climate) numerical models, none of which has ever successfully fore cast climate temperature.

Posted by: snorbertzangox | April 15, 2010 1:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company