NOAA: April warm, dry over much of nation; second-warmest April since 1880 globally

May 16, 2002 — Periods of record to near-record warmth and drier than normal conditions in April led to worsening drought in many areas of the United States, while beneficial rains fell in drought-affected areas of the Northeast. (Click image for larger view of NOAA's state temperature ranking from Nov. 2001 through April 2002.)

Preliminary data indicate that the average temperature in the contiguous United States was the 9th warmest on record for the month of April, and the second warmest globally since records began in the late 1800s, according to NOAA scientists.

Although April began with cooler than normal temperatures across much of the U.S., record warmth affected many cities from the Plains to the East Coast during the middle of the month. Daily high temperatures more than 15 degrees F (8 C) above average during this period contributed to an average monthly temperature of 54.6 degrees F (12.6 C) in the contiguous U.S., 2.6 degrees F (1.4 C) above the 1895-2002 long-term mean (based on preliminary data), the 9th warmest April since national records began in 1895. April temperatures in Alaska were cooler than average, 2.1 degrees F (1.2 C) below the 1961-1990 mean. The data come from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

For the month as a whole, temperatures were much above average in many states from Arizona to Florida and along the eastern seaboard as far north as Connecticut and Rhode Island. A record warm April occurred in North Carolina, South Carolina and New Mexico and three other states (Florida, New Jersey and Rhode Island) had their 3rd warmest April. Above normal temperatures have persisted throughout a large part of the central and eastern U.S. since late last year, most notably in the Midwest and Northeast. The November-April 2001/2002 six-month period was the record warmest in 16 states from Iowa to New England.

The continued anomalous warmth coincided with below-normal precipitation in parts of the U.S. which led to worsening drought conditions for some of the most severely affected regions of the country. Although a series of storms brought much-needed rainfall to parts of the Northeast and some improvement in drought from northern Virginia to Maine, the persistence of severe to extreme drought required the continuation of drought emergencies in many cities along the northeastern seaboard. Drought severity at the end of April was the worst since the extreme drought of the mid-1960's in parts of the region.

Below to much-below average precipitation occurred across most southern-tier states in April. Conditions have steadily worsened throughout a large part of the Southwest following a winter of very low snowfall totals that left snowpack levels at less than 50% of average in much of the region. By month's end, extreme drought covered a large part of the West from Montana to New Mexico and Arizona. The past seven months have been the driest October through April on record in Colorado, and the excessively dry conditions have led to numerous wildfires and concern that the 2002 wildfire season may be extremely active.

Montana has experienced some of the most severe drought conditions in the nation. In parts of the state, the drought began more than four years ago and the persistence of below-average precipitation and warmer than normal temperatures throughout much of the period led to a level of drought severity worse than any recorded in more than a century. The conditions have made dry-land farming extremely difficult in parts of Montana and many other states in the western U.S. Conditions on more than half of the range and pasture lands in Montana, Colorado and Arizona were rated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in early May as poor to very poor with more than 75 percent of the range and pastures in New Mexico rated poor to very poor. The extended drought also led to numerous dust storms from Montana to Colorado, resulting in incidents of brownouts and loss of topsoil. However, soil conservation programs implemented since the Dust Bowl era of the 1930's have prevented the recurrence of the devastating soil losses that occurred during that period.

The average global temperature for land and ocean surfaces combined (based on preliminary data) was 1.0 degree F (0.6 C) above the 1880-2001 long-term mean, the second warmest April for the period of record which began in 1880 (the period of reliable instrumental records). The warmest April occurred only four years ago during the last El Niño episode. Warmer-than-normal sea surface temperatures were observed throughout most of the equatorial Pacific during April, and a slow evolution toward a weak to moderate El Niño episode is likely to continue throughout the remainder of 2002. (See NOAA news release at http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s905.htm.

For the global ocean surface as a whole, the average temperature was 0.8 degrees F (0.4 C) above the long-term mean, the 2nd warmest April since 1880. The land surface global temperature was 3rd warmest, 0.5 degrees F (0.3 C) less than in 1998 and slightly less than the average April temperature in 2000.

Two of the past four months (January and March) were the warmest such months on record, and for the year-to-date four-month period (January-April), the combined land and ocean global temperature was 1.3 degrees F (0.7 C) above average, slightly less than the record warm four-month period of 1998. Global temperatures have increased at an average rate of approximately 1 degree F (0.6 C) per century since 1900, but the rate of warming during the past 25 years is almost three times higher.

Uh, noooooooo.... For the month of May, Cleveland, OH averages 0.1" and max snowfall is 2.1", according to Cleveland Intl Airport a trace of snow has been recorded for the month (that is below normal snowfall for May in Cleveland). Contrast that with Detroit were average snowfall is a trace (we've gotten that), and max snofall is 6". By the way normal heating degree days for Cleveland is 250 (cooling degree days: 33). Thus far Cleveland has had 242 heating degree days, for the season 5179 (or 925 below normal), and no cooling degree days have been logged (16 below normal), but for the season 37 cooling degree days have been logged (14 more than normal).

O.k. this wasn't very easy, and it seems that meteorological data is something kept quite close to the vest and considered national security available on code-word need to know basis only (sheesh) in your neck of the woods.

Anyway, for Hagerstown (best I could do, buddy), MD the average temp for May was: 58.5 Deg. F. (3.9 Deg. F. below normal). There have been 137 heating degree days, 2 more than normal. Seasonal total is 4258 heating degree days (1068 above normal). Cooling degree days for May is 12 (or 46 below normal), seasonal cooling degree days totals 65 or 7 above normal).

Seasonal totals are year to date.

The "record" I referred to was the late date of recorded snowfall....sorry if I wasn't clear about that! It was the late date, not the amount, that was the record, and I guess it just makes up for the week or so of really nice weather we had in April! (no record-breakers, though, hehe!)

Caveat: I got that "stat" from the Plain Dealer...still, it has been pretty darned COLD around here, and wet, and we are all complaining about it...maybe it's just a slow news day...

Out of curiousity, how much snow did you get this year? And how many days were the natural ice rinks skate-able?

I grew up in central Wisconsin, and according to my friends, this was an abysmal winter for winter sports. I know that here in Maryland we had hardly any snow at all.

They are correct. We didn't get much snow. We had one snowstorm around Christmas and that was it. The temperature fluctuated a lot too. We'd get a few days of freezing weather, then up to 35 degrees for a few days, then freezing again. But it made the skiing much nicer.

Global warming is, as a matter of scientific fact, occurring.

Depends on what you mean. Its warmer than it was 600 years ago, but still several degrees cooler than it was 1000 years ago. The current trend is for a slightly warmer northern hemisphere, but a slightly colder southern hemisphere. But the trends are highly dependent on which data you choose. The NOAA has been funded to find data to support the global warmers and did exactly that. If you choose the data from weather stations in the US that are not near large urban centers, we are in a cooling trend.

Carbon dioxide is not an important factor in driving global temperature because any affects it might have are swamped by water vapor. Its been recognized as a secondary secondary greenhouse gas for over 40 years. That means when the temperature goes up, there's more carbon dioxide. When the temperature goes down, there's less carbon dioxide. But most gases behave this way.

One simple weather model that helps explain why the earth's temperature has been so stable over the last couple billion years is the water cycle. If the earth heats up, more water vapor is stored in the atmosphere. At some point the cloud cover becomes sufficient to reflect enough sunlight into space to cool the planet. The earth cools. Water vapor rains (or snows) out of the atmosphere. The earth heats up again, etc., etc.

And one last tidbit - industrial nations on this planet are carbon dioxide absorbers, not emitters. The US removes one third of the carbon dioxide from the air that passes over it from the Pacific to the Atlantic. The study that established this was published in the November Science in 1998. Don't hold your breath waiting to see this info on the evening TV news.

Carbon dioxide is not an important factor in driving global temperature because any affects it might have are swamped by water vapor.

?? A lot of what you're saying is just not true. This one is particularly fascinatingly not true. Satellite photos show ozone depletion at just the levels where carbon dioxide *will* rise -- of course fighting various natural elements as it does. When, most unfortunately, many rocket scientists were laid off and re-engineered, some of them starting doing weather science with NOAA. I know such a guy. He's a rock-solid conservative and an excellent scientist. He believes carbon dioxide is causing global warming. I have a science degree from a very good university and can't be easily tricked/condescended to by psuedo-science statements such as the above that make no sense.

The really interesting question is why why conservatives want to fight science on this: there's plenty of political room here about *how much* warming there is and *whether* we really need to do anything about it. It's just a fact that many affects of global warming are good, such as increased agriculturally beneficial planting times along our Northern border. But this effort to confuse politics with science -- nah, it makes us too much the enemy of Galileo. Let's not persecute the science on this one.

I can't resist, one more thing:
The NOAA has been funded to find data to support the global warmers and did exactly that. If you choose the data from weather stations in the US that are not near large urban centers, we are in a cooling trend.

Well, for the government conspiracy crowd (and there's too much of that here) will eat this one up, but once again I'm not an idiot and don't bother making such broad declarations. I can't resist adding that this statement is very interesting in light of the very carefully controlled scientific peer-reviewed science that NOAA has done. One of the things -- Mission to Planet Earth -- involved sending weather balloons to *a representative* strata of the atmosphere to see precisely at what altitudes what's happening. They get the creation of ozone and breakdown at the altitude consistent with whether rising carbon dioxide would meet it. Not, e.g., from volcanic ash.

I once had the misfortune of attending a Smithsonian Institution lecture by some of these NOAA weather scientists -- who I assure you, despite whatever you apparently think about the gov't being out to get you -- are generally not a Democratic group of guys, where there was an annoying type of conservative in the audience. The type, unlike me, that wants to turn their political viewpoint like a laser on not Democrats, but scientists!! And this guy was asking repeatedly about Mount St. Helen ash etc etc. And I'll never forget, the third time he asked, the most eloquent, eloquent response from the scientist. It was kind of like this:

The science tells us this is not true. And history tells us this: in the long run, science wins these debates.

Only he said it better. I can't remember exactly. But it's precisely my point: don't politicize the science here. Politicize our response to by all means. But this psuedo-science gunk you recite, really, you're not going to fool anyone who's informed. And you do a disservice to conservatism. The real place to form a conservative consensus on this issue is whether any of the science data means we all have to rush out tomorrow and go solar etc. There's plenty of political and economic arguments on why we shouldn't. But you just look silly, and make other conservatives look silly, fighting science on this one. Science wins these.

I brace myself for the predictable oh-you-poor-person-you've-been-fooled-by-the-liberal-government-weather-scientists response. That's the problem with debating with a conspiracy theorist. You have like zero chance of persuading them. Someone should do a study on that . . . .

You'll be eager to explain to me . . . .

Why not at all. Put it is definitely consistent with carbon dioxide as the cause of ozone depletion -- and not just at the south pole, to a lesser extent at the North pole. There's a lot of data on why this is so as a result of carbon dioxide (and in fact was predicted before they could visually confirm via satellites in Mission to Planet Earth). There's tons of established scientific data on this.

As the NASA website puts it:

[T]he link between CFC's and Ozone depletion, and the major factors creating the antarctic ozone hole, are considered by most researchers to be well established facts. Scientific models of the atmosphere are being constructed in order to assist scientists in looking for other factors in Ozone depletion, evaluate their importance and predict what may happen to our atmosphere in the future.

Check out the here or go generally to http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/polar.html for more bibliographic data.

Again, I do emphasis: this is well-established fact recognized by people such as my die-hard Republic re-engineered rocket scientist who does climatological work now. There's plenty of good honest conservative positions in this debate and I don't attempt to disown you from taking one. But I truly worry that we embarass ourselves and our cause if we don't get the science right. The Earth *is* round.

I think it's great that you and your friends have all this unseen data at your fingertips. Unfortunately the ozone hole at the south pole results from the eruptions of Mt. Erebus, not CFC's. This volcano has been spewing tons of chlorine containing compounds over Antarctica for over 3 million years.

Why am I not surprised that you don't seem to know anything? You must be another feelgood lefty trying to be trendy by calling yourself a conservative. I can't wait to hear about your sources for the model that ties "ozone depletion" to global warming. You do know this thread was about global warming don't you?

Unfortunately the ozone hole at the south pole results from the eruptions of Mt. Erebus.

Volcanic ash and the consequent chemical reactions in the atmospher which *do* occur have been excluded as a cause. Sampling of where the chemical reactions that occur in association with ozone depletion -- what strata of the atmosphere -- by NOAA weather balloons have led to this result. It's on a link to the sites I gave you, but, hey, why confuse your mind with scientific facts.

But if you can't beat science, I think then you should call me "trendy" and a "lefty" and all kinds of names I would find injurious if spoken by some one informed on this issue. I'm surely not a lefty. I'm a conservative. And not just the type that posts away into cyberspace: I'm a very active member of these local DC Freeps. I've given you links to NOAA and NASA websites where real scientists post the result. You respond with untrue declarations and name calling. I'm afraid I must declare myself the winner. A lot of conservatives, the informed ones, kinda resent people who say they're conservative coming in and saying the Earth is flat. It would be *much* better if you spent your time pointing out that we have few alternatives, that solar is prohibitively expensive, that we need to expand oil leasing rights and do more off shore, and that we have to, in short, balance ecological interests with other legitimate concerns. Off-shore oil drilling is much safer and cheaper, even year by year, but many federal laws and regs restrict it anyway.

I'm not a lefty. I'm a conservative, even about global warming: I just don't fight science on the cause of it. But I don't think the solution is to go back and live in a pre-industrial era. If more conservatives would deal with the public policy issues and stop saying the Earth is flat, it would be better for our cause.

Galileo was right.

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.