Global surface temperatures likely to set new record this year

COLLEGE STATION There's very good evidence the same factors contributing to the drought the El Nio-La Nia cycle - have temporarily stalled global warming, according to a Texas A&M University climatologist.

[SpaceBlues]

Silly, irresponsible writing. The title is correct though.

[Fair Game]

SpaceBlues wrote:

Silly, irresponsible writing. The title is correct though.

If we get an El Nino. Almost inevitable when the next El Nino comes. By mid-decade, moderate El Ninos should be surpassing the super El Nino of 1998, even in the satellite and HadCrut records.

[PHD]

The spacedoutblues calls them silly and irresponsible writing and to date refuses to post its peer reviewed published work. There you your dismissed again.

[SpaceBlues]

likely - more than 60% [per IPCC]

[SpaceBlues]

US drought situation ...

Current
http://www.droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
Summary included under the map..[scroll down]

Seasonal Outlook
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_...
[Also scroll down for summary]

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

likely - more than 60%[per IPCC]

The spacedoutblues calls them silly and irresponsible writing and to date refuses to post its peer reviewed published work. There you your dismissed again.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

SpaceBlues wrote:

Silly, irresponsible writing. The title is correct though.

I find it disheartening that a climatologist would make the same mistakes as the most clueless of anti-science trolls.

First point. AGW has NOT stalled. AGW is about the thermal balance between the sun and emissions to space. It is affected ONLY by solar insolation (how much energy is input) and the thermal barrier to IR of the atmosphere (greenhouse gasses mostly)which increase the necessary surface temperature to ensure that OUTFLOW of energy is in balance with solar insolation. The temperature of the SURFACE (say 60 meters of soil, or 800 meters of ocean) is the main 'heat sink' here, not air which makes up only about 3% of the mass warmed by AGW.

We use air temperature as a PROXY for the land and ocean temperature. But air temperature is subject to 'noise' from climate oscillations, and in the case of the CRU assessment, inadequate instrument records in the polar regions. That it 'stalled' in the graph is unremarkable and not significant.

Two factors caused this 'anomaly' in only the AIR temperature. One is the increased exposure of COLD ocean waters to the air, causing a real decline in air temperature (but not surface temperature).

This affects ALL global temperature assessments based on meteorology, including those of the US, Japan, etc.

The second is specific to the CRU measurement which shows an exaggerated anomaly caused primarily from the inadequate coverage of the arctic regions where the strong La-Nina moves some of the global thermal energy, causing the parts that ARE measured to be cooler.

But even climatologists are human. I wonder if he just 'simplified' for public consumption or is unaware of these points?

[PHD]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
I find it disheartening that a climatologist would make the same mistakes as the most clueless of anti-science trolls.

That would be the reason why you just don't get it. See its scientific science fiction clueless trolls like your---self.Your dismissed go away.

[SpaceBlues]

SpaceBlues wrote:

US drought situation ...
Current
http://www.droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
Summary included under the map..[scroll down]
Seasonal Outlook
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_...
[Also scroll down for summary]

Important post, not spam or clueless.

This was in the national evening news today. Half of the USA under some drought situation as shown in this post.

http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/noaa/noaa.gif

Fargo??

http://www.weather.com/sports-rec/march-madne...

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Important post, not spam or clueless.
This was in the national evening news today. Half of the USA under some drought situation as shown in this post.
http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/noaa/noaa.gif
Fargo??
http://www.weather.com/sports-rec/march-madne...

Are you serious? No one here will consider any of your cut and paste post after years of useless scientific science fiction babble that you post daily. Hay half empty the other half of the USA is under a flood watch.

[litesong]

fetid feces face flip flopper fiend wrote:

Are you serious?

No one takes 'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' seriously.

[litesong]

litesong wrote:

No one takes 'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' seriously.

'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' can't ask a proper scientific question because it never had science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Of course,'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' never had any other science or mathematics training.

At least,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' tried math calculations, tho only a few attempts ended in errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' has never attempted math calculations, which prove that its proficiency in math is worse than that of 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver'.

[SpaceBlues]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
No one takes 'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' seriously.

True.

It attacks on personal terms to get a reaction. A pitiful penny.

[SpaceBlues]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
I find it disheartening that a climatologist would make the same mistakes as the most clueless of anti-science trolls.
First point. AGW has NOT stalled. AGW is about the thermal balance between the sun and emissions to space. It is affected ONLY by solar insolation (how much energy is input) and the thermal barrier to IR of the atmosphere (greenhouse gasses mostly)which increase the necessary surface temperature to ensure that OUTFLOW of energy is in balance with solar insolation. The temperature of the SURFACE (say 60 meters of soil, or 800 meters of ocean) is the main 'heat sink' here, not air which makes up only about 3% of the mass warmed by AGW.
We use air temperature as a PROXY for the land and ocean temperature. But air temperature is subject to 'noise' from climate oscillations, and in the case of the CRU assessment, inadequate instrument records in the polar regions. That it 'stalled' in the graph is unremarkable and not significant.
Two factors caused this 'anomaly' in only the AIR temperature. One is the increased exposure of COLD ocean waters to the air, causing a real decline in air temperature (but not surface temperature).
This affects ALL global temperature assessments based on meteorology, including those of the US, Japan, etc.
The second is specific to the CRU measurement which shows an exaggerated anomaly caused primarily from the inadequate coverage of the arctic regions where the strong La-Nina moves some of the global thermal energy, causing the parts that ARE measured to be cooler.
But even climatologists are human. I wonder if he just 'simplified' for public consumption or is unaware of these points?

My guess is the former ... if the writer did not mess up his words.

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>My guess is the former ... if the writer did not mess up his words.

More and more that’s all the "spacedoutblues” has more and more diarrheas.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>My guess is the former ... if the writer did not mess up his words.

Or both. Simplifying for the masses and then having that simplification distorted by the reporters.

[SpaceBlues]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Or both. Simplifying for the masses and then having that simplification distorted by the reporters.

Possible.

Another thing, there's no bathroom here for the troll above.

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Possible.
Another thing, there's no bathroom here for the me the troll above.

More and more that’s all the "spacedoutblues” has more and more diarrheas.