On Mar 19, 1:54*am, Meteorologist wrote:

OK Crunchy, but I've removed the other groups from the header so that
the usual nutcases don't follow you, OK?

"•Atmospheric general circulation may have been 'unusually land-
locked,' such that cold air masses intensified over NH land masses,
and preventing movement of those same air masses which might have
cooled the ocean surface.

It may, as the report says. It also may not.

•The amount of heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere, primarily
in the tropics, always follows a quasi-monthly oscillating "pattern."
This is why a monthly up-tick in tropospheric temperatures is usually
followed by a down-tick the next month, and vice-versa.

It didn't February was warm.

•Warm El Nino conditions in the Pacific Ocean may be influencing,
directly and indirectly (e.g., via "teleconnections"), the conditions
in the Lower Troposphere and SSTs as well."

It may, though the authors don't appear to have read Adam Scaife and
his team's work at the Hadley Centre, which shows a higher probability
than they feel of that being the case.

I don't quite get what you are trying to show here Crunchy. you've
gone to an anti-GW and pretty extreme denialist blog, whose "core
principle" number one is (quote) "Global climate is always changing in
accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual".
This blog has suggested a couple of possible reasons for a warm
January, though it really is struggling if they are all it can come up
with. The blog goes on to quote and link to Roy Spencer, at length,
who has struggled himself to explain the warmth. That warmth has now
extended through February and into March and the blog conveniently
misses the fact that this warmth didn't start in January, but began to
intensify as far back as last June.

What are your thoughts on why it is currently so warm Crunchy? Don't
scrape around for a denialist blog to quote from; give us your views.

On Mar 20, 10:04*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
On Mar 19, 2:39*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Mar 19, 1:54*am, Meteorologist wrote:

OK Crunchy, but I've removed the other groups from the header so that
the usual nutcases don't follow you, OK?

Stop playing games; I restored the other groups.

I took them off again, as anyone who posts here should: see the group
charter (again).

I don't quite get what you are trying to show here Crunchy.

You must stop this practice of yours. *Otherwise, I
will stop conversing with you for good. *From now on, I
suggest you call me David.

You don't converse with me, or anyone else Crunchy. You cross-post
information from denialist blogs, demanding discussion from others and
never, ever, giving your take on anything. I dearly hope that's a
promise to stop posting here, as I will always call you Crunchy. It's
a nice name and no harm is meant.

I decline because you must go first. *Then and only then
will I promise to give you my views. *When will you ever
learn? *It's my way or the highway...

Shucks; it has to be the highway then: bye!

David Christainsen