Warmest May on record

[gslack]

Now this is the fellow that Limpbaugh considers to by his climatologist.

May 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.53 deg. C. Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remains warm: +0.53 deg. C for May, 2010. The linear trend since 1979 is now +0.14 deg. C per decade.Tropics picked up a bit, but SSTs indicate El Nino has ended and we may be headed to La Nina. NOAA issued a La Nina Watch yesterday.

In the race for the hottest calendar year, 1998 still leads with the daily average for 1 Jan to 31 May being +0.65 C in 1998 compared with +0.59 C for 2010. (Note that these are not considered significantly different.) As of 31 May 2010, there have been 151 days in the year. From our calibrated daily data, we find that 1998 was warmer than 2010 on 96 of them

Interesting.... I found this on that page you linked to.... Same article matter of fact..

In the race for the hottest calendar year, 1998 still leads with the daily average for 1 Jan to 31 May being +0.65 C in 1998 compared with +0.59 C for 2010. (Note that these are not considered significantly different.) As of 31 May 2010, there have been 151 days in the year. From our calibrated daily data, we find that 1998 was warmer than 2010 on 96 of them.

LOL, dude why don't you ever actually read what you post? you like getting made a fool of?

 

[G.T.]

Slack, you're either that dumb, or you didn't read the post you quoted. He had already pasted that part of the article.

 

[gslack]

Slack, you're either that dumb, or you didn't read the post you quoted. He had already pasted that part of the article.

Uh yeah, and you are either THAT dumb, or you don't comprehend the written word well either....

The entire premise made by the title is negated and made false by the articles words... get it? Hence telling him he doesn't read what he posts...

Now since I don't know you, and you obviously know squat about me, perhaps starting out calling me dumb when you don't grasp the post well isn't the best course of action....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yep, the lab experiment was done in 1858 by Tyndal. But no way Frank is going to admit it.

He added 200PPM CO2? Yeah? You sure about that?

Or are you putting your finger on the scale and talking about 200,000 or 400,000 PPM.

Do you even know what your hypothesis is?

Can you state it?

 

[G.T.]

Slack, you're either that dumb, or you didn't read the post you quoted. He had already pasted that part of the article.

Uh yeah, and you are either THAT dumb, or you don't comprehend the written word well either....

The entire premise made by the title is negated and made false by the articles words... get it? Hence telling him he doesn't read what he posts...

Now since I don't know you, and you obviously know squat about me, perhaps starting out calling me dumb when you don't grasp the post well isn't the best course of action....

What do you think he meant by that part about Limbaugh? Just curious.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now this is the fellow that Limpbaugh considers to by his climatologist.

May 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.53 deg. C. Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remains warm: +0.53 deg. C for May, 2010. The linear trend since 1979 is now +0.14 deg. C per decade.Tropics picked up a bit, but SSTs indicate El Nino has ended and we may be headed to La Nina. NOAA issued a La Nina Watch yesterday.

In the race for the hottest calendar year, 1998 still leads with the daily average for 1 Jan to 31 May being +0.65 C in 1998 compared with +0.59 C for 2010. (Note that these are not considered significantly different.) As of 31 May 2010, there have been 151 days in the year. From our calibrated daily data, we find that 1998 was warmer than 2010 on 96 of them

Interesting.... I found this on that page you linked to.... Same article matter of fact..

In the race for the hottest calendar year, 1998 still leads with the daily average for 1 Jan to 31 May being +0.65 C in 1998 compared with +0.59 C for 2010. (Note that these are not considered significantly different.) As of 31 May 2010, there have been 151 days in the year. From our calibrated daily data, we find that 1998 was warmer than 2010 on 96 of them.

LOL, dude why don't you ever actually read what you post? you like getting made a fool of?

Hmmm................

 

[westwall]

Is it warmer than when there were no polar ice caps and the Western US was under the Great Inland Sea?

No, but what's your point? I don't want to see those times. Humans evolved during a relatively cooler era of earth's history. Why the Age of the Dinosaurs or some other epoch would have anything to do with today, is beyond me, except to serve as a distraction for the deniers when they can't answer the real questions.

Well if we're going to use a little history lets see what the history books tell us of life when it was warmer in the past...like during the Roman Warm Period. We know that during that time EVERYTHING was better. Food supplies were abundant, people lived much better lives than earlier (when it was cooler) and this continued for as long as it was warm. And it was warmer then than today.

Now how about the Medieval Warming Period? Well once again even the temperatures were warmer then than they are today, there was prosperity. Land that had not benn arable since the Roman Warm Period was suddenly productive again and once there was prosperity for mankind.

Sounds pretty good to me. Why do you folks want it to stay cold?

 

[Ravi]

Is it warmer than when there were no polar ice caps and the Western US was under the Great Inland Sea?

No, but what's your point? I don't want to see those times. Humans evolved during a relatively cooler era of earth's history. Why the Age of the Dinosaurs or some other epoch would have anything to do with today, is beyond me, except to serve as a distraction for the deniers when they can't answer the real questions.

Well if we're going to use a little history lets see what the history books tell us of life when it was warmer in the past...like during the Roman Warm Period. We know that during that time EVERYTHING was better. Food supplies were abundant, people lived much better lives than earlier (when it was cooler) and this continued for as long as it was warm. And it was warmer then than today.

Now how about the Medieval Warming Period? Well once again even the temperatures were warmer then than they are today, there was prosperity. Land that had not benn arable since the Roman Warm Period was suddenly productive again and once there was prosperity for mankind.

Sounds pretty good to me. Why do you folks want it to stay cold?

Using debunked arguments is pretty silly. What do you guys have some data base of nonsense that you fall back on over and over and over again?

 

[Old Rocks]

Never. All ol' Walleyes and Suckee... have is unsubstanciated yap-yap.

 

[konradv]

Is it warmer than when there were no polar ice caps and the Western US was under the Great Inland Sea?

No, but what's your point? I don't want to see those times. Humans evolved during a relatively cooler era of earth's history. Why the Age of the Dinosaurs or some other epoch would have anything to do with today, is beyond me, except to serve as a distraction for the deniers when they can't answer the real questions.

Well if we're going to use a little history lets see what the history books tell us of life when it was warmer in the past...like during the Roman Warm Period. We know that during that time EVERYTHING was better. Food supplies were abundant, people lived much better lives than earlier (when it was cooler) and this continued for as long as it was warm. And it was warmer then than today.

Now how about the Medieval Warming Period? Well once again even the temperatures were warmer then than they are today, there was prosperity. Land that had not benn arable since the Roman Warm Period was suddenly productive again and once there was prosperity for mankind.

Sounds pretty good to me. Why do you folks want it to stay cold?

The difference is that we weren't pumping 60 million tons of CO2 into the air DAILY, back then. It's not about the absolute warmth itself, but the potential amplification of warmth by addition of higher than natural for our times levels of CO2 and other GHGs.

 

[konradv]

BTW, the middle of the US WASN'T an inland sea during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. How about sticking to one line of reasoning and/or one time period? You seem to be confused as to earth's natural history and believe all eras are the same regarding warming. You couldn't be further from the truth. Things change, e.g. The Industrial Revolution, making the argument about what happened millions of years ago pointless, because underlying conditions have changed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Have you noticed that Old Rocks never states his AGW hypothesis?

I'd say it was odd, but I know it's because he can't say that it's: Tiny changes(200PPM) in CO2 causes immediate changes in Earth's climate.

 

[gslack]

Slack, you're either that dumb, or you didn't read the post you quoted. He had already pasted that part of the article.

Uh yeah, and you are either THAT dumb, or you don't comprehend the written word well either....

The entire premise made by the title is negated and made false by the articles words... get it? Hence telling him he doesn't read what he posts...

Now since I don't know you, and you obviously know squat about me, perhaps starting out calling me dumb when you don't grasp the post well isn't the best course of action....

What do you think he meant by that part about Limbaugh? Just curious.

The limbaugh part? Well he has been claiming for a while now that spencer is limbaughs climate expert or whatever.... other than that Don't care.. I don't listen to talking heads...

All of which has nothing to do with the OP or its claims..

 

[Big Fitz]

Never. All ol' Walleyes and Suckee... have is unsubstanciated yap-yap.

Like you've given us nothing but fraudulent yap-yap and bullshit in the place of science. Yes, these are charts... they have no relation to reality but models say... blah blah blah Ginger, blah.

 

[driveby]

The Associated Press: May the heat be with you _ another record month

(AP) – 16 hours ago WASHINGTON — And the heat goes on: It was the warmest May on record.
Worldwide, the average temperature for the month was 58.6 degrees Fahrenheit (14.8 Celsius), the warmest May on record, back to 1880.
That was 1.24 degrees F (0.69 C) warmer than average for the month as the planet's temperature continues to climb. Atmospheric scientists generally attribute the rising readings to the greenhouse effect, with man-made chemicals added to the atmosphere trapping heat from the sun that previously would have gone back out into space.
This year has also marked the warmest January-May period on record, according to the report from the National Climatic Data Center, an arm of the government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Looking at just the United States, May temperatures were near average with cooler-than-normal temperatures in the West balanced by warmer-than-normal readings East.

The Chris role is not becoming on you .......

 

[Big Fitz]

You deny that CO2 traps radiation? Where's the extra gas above historical averages coming from , if not from man, considering that we emit more in a day than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year?

0.04% of atmospheric composition. Of which we produce 0.06% of it. Yeah, it's a threat.

I found it interesting when recently I learned that professional greenhouses pump up their CO2 content to bout 1400ppm. The plants love it and not a single worker has experienced ill effects. what're we predicted to get up to in our most fevered imagination? 360? 420? Oh noes! We're all gonna .... oh wait.. no we're not.

How's that water vapor problem coming along? About 4% total atmospheric composition with a far higher green house gas effects. Have we been able to stop the damage it's doing to the environment?

Well Fritz, this has been explained to you before. But here we go again. By the way, if you are a schoolteacher, I am damned glad that I never had such an incompetant teacher.


Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

"Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. If you get a fall evening and the sky is clear, heat will escape, the temperature will drop. If there's cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour and the temperature stays warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at noon 52°C. By midnight, it's -3.6°C. It's caused because there is very little water vapour in the atmosphere and is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas." (Tim Ball)

What the science says...
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.

Thank God. I'd hate to have held you back from 3 times on this point. You seem incapable of critical thinking, only regurgitation from the frauds who you like most.

Please explain to me then how water vapor's natural tendency to condense cools the atmosphere dramatically and then precipitate out, sequestering some while then the drier atmosphere then evaporates the rest, which then causes more cooling. You can observe this after every rainstorm quite readily in some form or another. Shouldn't the temperature remain warm because it's original heating causing it to rise to colder areas of the atmosphere causing condensation and precipitation not harm or change the heat of the CO2? Huh... I don't see this basic fact of nature refuted by your bogus model talking points. I see a bunch of crap about it, but that's all.

Maybe I don't read no sci-libberish too good. Mebbe u shuld skewl me a thin oar tew.

You're too busy looking at faulty models and not enough time watching the sky for yourself crockiepoo.

Don't you have a BP official to burn at the stake?

 

[Ravi]

The Associated Press: May the heat be with you _ another record month

(AP) – 16 hours ago WASHINGTON — And the heat goes on: It was the warmest May on record.
Worldwide, the average temperature for the month was 58.6 degrees Fahrenheit (14.8 Celsius), the warmest May on record, back to 1880.
That was 1.24 degrees F (0.69 C) warmer than average for the month as the planet's temperature continues to climb. Atmospheric scientists generally attribute the rising readings to the greenhouse effect, with man-made chemicals added to the atmosphere trapping heat from the sun that previously would have gone back out into space.
This year has also marked the warmest January-May period on record, according to the report from the National Climatic Data Center, an arm of the government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Looking at just the United States, May temperatures were near average with cooler-than-normal temperatures in the West balanced by warmer-than-normal readings East.

The Chris role is not becoming on you .......

I'm not convinced either way but I have to admit that the real nutbars are the denialists like dud, et al. They are almost interchangeable with the troofers.

 

[westwall]

No, but what's your point? I don't want to see those times. Humans evolved during a relatively cooler era of earth's history. Why the Age of the Dinosaurs or some other epoch would have anything to do with today, is beyond me, except to serve as a distraction for the deniers when they can't answer the real questions.

Well if we're going to use a little history lets see what the history books tell us of life when it was warmer in the past...like during the Roman Warm Period. We know that during that time EVERYTHING was better. Food supplies were abundant, people lived much better lives than earlier (when it was cooler) and this continued for as long as it was warm. And it was warmer then than today.

Now how about the Medieval Warming Period? Well once again even the temperatures were warmer then than they are today, there was prosperity. Land that had not benn arable since the Roman Warm Period was suddenly productive again and once there was prosperity for mankind.

Sounds pretty good to me. Why do you folks want it to stay cold?

Using debunked arguments is pretty silly. What do you guys have some data base of nonsense that you fall back on over and over and over again?

The only people being debunked are you warmers...or don't you read the papers anymore? I could see why what with all the bad news descending on your little religion.

Here is a graph generated from NCDC ice dore data, and yes it is peer reviewed (by non tainted scientists).

C3: U.S. Climate Data Reveals Past Global Warming Far Exceeds Modern Temperature Change

And your very own Dr. Phil Jones of CLIMATEGATE infamy admits the MWP was warmer than now

Jones feels not so unusually hot, after all | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

So who's been discredited?

 

[westwall]

No, but what's your point? I don't want to see those times. Humans evolved during a relatively cooler era of earth's history. Why the Age of the Dinosaurs or some other epoch would have anything to do with today, is beyond me, except to serve as a distraction for the deniers when they can't answer the real questions.

Well if we're going to use a little history lets see what the history books tell us of life when it was warmer in the past...like during the Roman Warm Period. We know that during that time EVERYTHING was better. Food supplies were abundant, people lived much better lives than earlier (when it was cooler) and this continued for as long as it was warm. And it was warmer then than today.

Now how about the Medieval Warming Period? Well once again even the temperatures were warmer then than they are today, there was prosperity. Land that had not benn arable since the Roman Warm Period was suddenly productive again and once there was prosperity for mankind.

Sounds pretty good to me. Why do you folks want it to stay cold?

The difference is that we weren't pumping 60 million tons of CO2 into the air DAILY, back then. It's not about the absolute warmth itself, but the potential amplification of warmth by addition of higher than natural for our times levels of CO2 and other GHGs.

The difference is it was hotter without our input. Occams Razor says the warming we are experiencing (well actually there has been no warming since 1998 and that was admitted to by your very own Dr. Jones yet again) is entirely natural as well.

 

[westwall]

BTW, the middle of the US WASN'T an inland sea during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. How about sticking to one line of reasoning and/or one time period? You seem to be confused as to earth's natural history and believe all eras are the same regarding warming. You couldn't be further from the truth. Things change, e.g. The Industrial Revolution, making the argument about what happened millions of years ago pointless, because underlying conditions have changed.

Who said it was? Crusader Frank was refering to an earlier time than that pardner.....try reading his post again.