Browse By

“No Global Warming”? April 2015 was the 3rd warmest April on Record for Planet Earth

Marc Morano of the Exxon-funded and Chevron-funded website Climate Depot declared in April 2015 that “There is no global warming crisis! … now going on almost two decades of no global warming.” Echoing the same theme, Nancy J. Thorner of Lake Bluff, Illinois wrote a letter to the editor of the Madison-St. Clair Record complaining that schools are teaching children that global warming is real when really, she claims, “there has been no global warming for 18 full years.” Kentucky Commissioner of Agriculture James Comer is running for Governor of Kentucky on a platform of denying the existence of global warming, while taking campaign money from coal and oil operators (example | example | example | example | example | example). In an April 2015 debate, Comer declared flatly that “We’ve had a very severe winter this year with 12-inch snows, so there is no global warming.”

Let’s set aside Comer’s confusion between local weather and global temperature for a moment and ask what temperatures were doing in April 2015, while these three individuals were airing the “no global warming message.” Over the weekend, new data released by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies indicate that across the globe, April 2015 was the 3rd warmest April in the 135-year NASA record.  The following are the ten warmest Aprils for the globe in that record:

#1: 2010
#2: 2014
#3: 2015
#3: 2007 (tied)
#5: 2005
#6: 1998
#7: 2012
#8: 2011
#9: 2000
#10: 2004

And here are the ten coolest Aprils for the globe in that record:

#1: 1913
#2: 1911
#3: 1904
#4: 1910
#5: 1917
#6: 1907
#7: 1894
#8: 1918
#9: 1908
#10: 1913

Looks like a pattern, doesn’t it?  Just in case you think I’m picking extremes to prove my point, let’s look at all the global temperature levels for the month of April across all the years in the NASA dataset:

NASA GISS Global Temperature DData for the month of April, 1880 to 2015

If you’ve been funded by the coal and oil industries, this pattern is called “no global warming.”  What do you call it?

20 thoughts on ““No Global Warming”? April 2015 was the 3rd warmest April on Record for Planet Earth”

  1. M says:

    Editor comment: Please don’t just cut and paste links into comments, M. In the future, we won’t just note these, we’ll delete them. It’s not because of the content of the links, but because we expect commenters to write like human beings. That means words, in sentences, should be used.

    1. Mark says:

      Did you notice that M’s link goes to a post that’s more than 5 years old? Is that the best the climate change deniers can do?

  2. Ella says:

    California would welcome his “…12″ snows…”. The Sierra Nevada Mountains have suffered a loss of snow pack this year (from 5′ in the past to, currently, bare ground) that is fueling the water deficit in California. It seems like weather extremes are the rule now, not the exceptions of the past. While climate change is not being promoted, local weather forecasters are terming some of these events as “the new normal” and continuing on with business as usual. It must be easier on the general population, than having to make a decision based on so many different views. What seems important to the oil industry (other than making horrendous amounts of money) is how history will view there part as the future becomes the present. CO2 it seems, no matter where it comes from, is a major contributing factor:, proving that climate change, through heating, is happening over the long term.

  3. Ella says:

    I don’t know if this is alright to share, but I subscribe to the LA Times. “Alice&Shelby” sent this news along to me today that is pertinent to this subject., and this one,, illustrate how climate change is effecting not only regionally, but nationally and possibly global markets.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Ella, it’s absolutely cool to post links — as long as you talk about them. M has been just posting links without content, which isn’t helpful.

  4. ella says:

    Here’s another thought on global warming that is more serious. Consider that both Russia and the USA are exploring newly opened routes through the melted Arctic. Of course trade is being considered, but the major use at this time is for military expansion. It has been so before in human history. Just consider the fabled Northwest Passage that explorers died trying to find when we first explored this continent. It was finally found in the Arctic after the ice pack melted enough. We can now circumnavigate the globe by water.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Going with that scenario, the idea of a new battlefield opening up isn’t something that I look forward to.

  5. ella says:

    Are you familiar with Jacques Cousteau? Not his son, but the father. He did a submarine video under the Arctic that is stunning. I don’t know if it is possible to get the uncut version any more, but they found something in the bottom ice of the frozen Arctic sea that makes my skin crawl. It is very timely and pertinent.

  6. Gary* says:

    The most comprehensive and accurate means of measuring global temps is via satellites. What GISS publishes is based on highly adjusted and rather sparse, often estimated data. They refuse to present the data that would allow others to reproduce their work. Their data keeps diverging from the other global measures, and actually contradicts history more and more. It even contradicts what GISS published just a few years ago. Most of the increase they show in the last 20 years is due to adjustments, not actual temp.

    Don’t just assume the numbers are accurate, because it comes from what historically has been a respected organization. It is still a government agency. You need to look at all the data.

      1. J Clifford says:

        So, if I’m reading this right, what error there was in measurements of surface temperature actually tended to UNDERestimate maximum temperatures, not to exaggerate them.

        1. Gary* says:

          J. Actually, no. Errors are by definition unknown. And while the claim is always that the errors are accounted for, it clearly isn’t. How do you properly adjust the data from these official USHCN following sites:

          According NOAA’s own grading system, only about 10% of the USHCN network conforms to their own standard. About 75% have errors >2C. Their own acknowledgement of this led them to create the USCRN, a well distributed set of sites that are not subject to site issues, and therefore don’t’ need “corrections” to the data. That data shows a flat trent since 2000. I believe this network is providing useable data.

          And as I said before, nearly 40% of the data in the GISS output is now based on infilled data. That is, data that is no longer being collected is “estimated”. You can’t define the error here.

          1. Jim Cook says:


            You’re talking about U.S. data. This article is talking about global data. The U.S. does not equal the world.

          2. Gary* says:

            Directly from the article:

            “Q1: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?”

            The U.S. has the best historical network in the world. It gets worse trying the estimate in most of the world. A good portion is infilled. But if the U.S. has issues, good luck with Africa and the arctic. That is one of the reasons satellites are preferred.

          3. Jim Cook says:


            Let me be clearer. This article, the one I wrote, is talking about global data. The **USHCN** refers to U.S. data. The U.S does. not equal the world — and U.S. temperature trends are not the same as global temperature trends. The term “global warming” refers to warming around the globe. The term “global warming” does not refer to U.S. warming.

        2. Gary* says:

          What’s also interesting is how the adjustments have changed over the years. Look at the U.S. Data and compare 1934 (dust bowl) and 1998.

          Versus today:

          So, instead of being 0.5C cooler, 1998 is now 0.1C warmer than 1935. Everything I see and read indicates 1935 was hotter. All accomplished through adjustments.

          1. Jim Cook says:

            Why is it interesting that estimates have changed over the years? Here is the basis of changes in estimates, thoroughly explained:

            And to repeat: This article, the one I wrote, is talking about global data. The **USHCN** refers to U.S. data. The U.S does. not equal the world — and U.S. temperature trends are not the same as global temperature trends. The term “global warming” refers to warming around the globe. The term “global warming” does not refer to U.S. warming.

          2. ella says:

            It’s easy to lose track. For instance, it was 122 degrees in India yesterday and the trend is prolonged. People are dying from the heat as they did in the EU a few years back. The current information on the El Nino is that it will be a mild one, but that may change. Even though parts of the USA may be cooler than average this year, due to El Nino, other parts of the world are baking. California may be dry because of weak El Nino’s, but in strong years the state is flooded.

            El Nino is expected to be strong more often due to climate change. The cycles have become more erratic over the past few decades illustrating a possible link between El Nino and climate change. Given that global temperatures effect rainfall and agriculture, they also effect sea surface temperatures, which cause a shift in the temperature of the thermocline.

          3. Jim Cook says:

            Thanks for the comment, Ella. I agree that it’s easy to lose track of the difference, especially when leaders like Senator Jim Inhofe go on TV to throw snowballs from the Washington, DC area to supposedly disprove “global warming hysteria,” like he did in February — –. While NOAA’s U.S. climate report released last week confirms that 10 Northeastern U.S. states did experience unusual coldness in the first four months of 2015 — see — NOAA’s global climate report also released last week shows that the same period was one of record heat globally — see for details.

  7. ella says:

    It does seem that most of the adjustment was to counter error in cooler temperatures, both land and oceanic. It adjusted historical records up a little, seeming to lower overall increase over time. Still an increase, just not as much. The major problem is there are not reliable recording stations in as many areas of this country. The southeast and south for instance. Cooler readings at night do not mitigate daytime heating increase, rather illustrate a more rapid loss of heat overnight. With that thought, consider that daytime increase in heating could be caused by an increase in solar heating. That would seem to be caused by a loss of atmospheric cover. That was not mentioned, it just pops out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!