I'm not going to argue that March 2024 hasn't departed way to the warm side (because it has so far and most certainly will end that way), but I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the bolded text.
Take a hypothetical (admittedly extreme) scenario where the first half of March is departed -30 degrees, and the last half, +30 degrees. If you've binned the data by the month, you'd end up with a mean departure of 0 degrees. However, the statement, "March had a mean temperature that did not depart from the historical mean, therefore the temperature for the month of March was not anomalous, historically.", seems fundamentally untrue. You had crazy temperature swings and record breaking periods of hot and cold! You just don't see that at a monthly resolution.
To produce a mean you have to bin the data in some timeframe though, and I guess monthly makes just as much sense as any other timeframe.
I guess what I'm saying is that using mean temperature as a hard descriptor of how anomalous a month was temperature-wise is unsound. Or kinda pointless, I dunno.
Shit, this is really just semantics I guess. Anyway, I'm not a met, just a dumbass, so, two cents, yadda yadda.