Posted on 05/16/2008 7:06:23 AM PDT by qam1
This past month was the coolest April in 11 years for the lower 48 United States, and fell into the lowest twenty-five percent of all Aprils based on records going back to 1895, according to an analysis by NOAA's national Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
The average April temperature, 51°F, during April was one degree below the 20th century mean, and was the 29th coolest, or 86th warmest, based on preliminary data.
The combined average global land and ocean surface temperatures for April ranked 13th warmest since worldwide records began in 1880.
U.S. Temperature Highlights
Fifteen states, all in the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Mid-Atlantic regions, were warmer than average. New York ranked third warmest and Rhode Island, fourth warmest. Sixteen states, all west of the Mississippi, were cooler than average. Washington state ranked second coolest and Oregon fifth coolest. The monthly temperature for Alaska was 1.2°F (0.66°C) below average, the 43rd coolest April on record.
The varying temperatures kept the nation's overall temperature-related residential energy demand for April near average, based on NOAA's Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index.
....
Global Highlights
April's combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.74°F (0.41°C) above the 20th century mean of 56.7°F (13.7°C).
Continued weakening of La Niña, the cold phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, occurred during April. The global average ocean surface temperature in April was the ninth warmest on record, with a monthly anomaly of 0.59°F (0.33°C) above the 20th century mean.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncdc.noaa.gov ...
Well, well, isn’t that “inconvenient?”
UAH
0.015
RSS
0.08
NOAA
0.42
Looks like the data's been Hansenized.
3rd warmest April in New York? They are either lying or on crack
So, .74F times 5/9 is correct as .41C, as a measure of DIFFERENCE.
If I said that the temperature was .74F, then it would be about -20 C (The familiar 5/9 times F, -32).
The math is correct as stated.
Because it's how many °'s above the average not the actual temperature.
Every 1° change in C will give you a 1.8° change in F
So if you are above by 0.41°C --> 0.41° * 1.8 = 0.738°F
the 0.74F (0.41C) are deltas (differences) and so are calculated using 5/9ths ratio C = 5/9 F. The constant drops out when calculating differences.
thanks...I think.
thanks
The econuts will say that this is a consequence of CO2 emmissions that we just haven’t figured out yet - shoehorning this into the “climate change” meme. The reality is shown here: www.spaceweather.com Still no sunspots. Cold weather to follow...
Update: Three new sunspots MIGHT be forming. Have had a few false starts before this cycle, so we’ll have to wait and see. Could be a good sign, though.
Clearly it isnt. Freezing point for water in Farenheit is 32 degrees. In Celsius it is zero. So anything above zero in Celsius (i.e. above freezing temp of water) MUST be above 32 in Farenheit as well. This isnt even close.
A quickie rule of thumb for translating celsius to farenheit in your head is to double it and add 32. It's not perfect but its a lot easier to do in your head than the real formula. So using that approach, .41C would be about 33 degrees F (.41*2+32=32.82). In fact it's actually 32.738 F when you do the correct formula. The article has a typo, they turned "32.74" into "0.74".
Hey, I see that I missed the boat on the 32 factor. Differences don’t need the factor, I was mistaken because I didnt notice that they were a delta factor. Oops! But other than that I was dead on! Partial credit, please! Umm...please?
(Sorry, brain hiccuped. Cycle 23 started in March 1996, making it now just over 12 years old.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
