|
|
Post by handyman on Apr 24, 2011 6:31:16 GMT
Approaching 1' of rain for the month of April here in Ohio. That is foot, not inch.
Records on the verge of being broken for the month and we have yet another week to go.
There's been more land flooding than I have ever seen in person.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 24, 2011 17:52:16 GMT
Thermostat, I don't have a 'twitter' mentality as you do since I can see both the 'forest' and the 'trees,' unlike some who play with dubious climate graphics pretending to know what they are talking about. You have a lot to learn about the world's climate system and its weather but you won't learn anything from ideology and ignorance. Astromet, Fair enough. But this is what I challenge. Can you provide a concise, articulate statement of the point you want to make? or not? Think about it. Think about what? I've provided more than enough for you that has not only been concise and articulate - but have done so at length, despite your 30 second soundbite needs Thermostat. You will not learn anything of the Earth's climate and weather with a 'twitter' mentality and are only wasting your time with man-made global warming ideology - a total lie. Is that 'concise' and 'articulate' enough for you? |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 24, 2011 17:54:15 GMT
Approaching 1' of rain for the month of April here in Ohio. That is foot, not inch. Records on the verge of being broken for the month and we have yet another week to go. There's been more land flooding than I have ever seen in person. All the snowfall over winter along with the heavy rains on the northern tier of states has made for a very wet spring I'm afraid Handyman. Things will dry out much more in May, then June which will help things after the recent lunar perigees and high tides of the last three months. |
|
|
|
Post by handyman on Apr 25, 2011 18:03:27 GMT
Another one for you, Astromet... Seems the all-time monthly rain record in our area was set in January 1937, and we are on pace to break that. If my calculations are correct, that was 74 years ago. 74/2=37 years, so that would put the standing record very close on the time line of the last great warming phase as where we are now in the current warming phase. If that is so, then we have more proof. Here is the article local news article listing the record rainfall totals: www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/april-rainfall-record-set-heavy-rain-expected-1144732.html |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 25, 2011 18:14:35 GMT
handyman:
The current active pattern accross the corn belt/spring wheat belt does not bode well for upper end production. Canada is also affected, so we are talking a huge huge area of intense ag production.
And with the dollar falling because of the current admins spend till you die policies, expect inflation to rear its ugly head soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 26, 2011 2:27:18 GMT
thermostat: The link to temps you provided has some serious errors in it. I know it is the 1979-2000 base period, but even with that taken into account it is in error. At least for the USA where I live. Being they can't even get the host country temps right, I am not sure they can get any temperature correct. Wouldn't put a lot of stock in that link anymore, sorry to say. Sigurdur, You write, "The link to temps you provided has some serious errors in it." I linked the US noaa. ... they have some srrious errrors? www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201103.gifSigurdur, wow! that is quite an accusation. Can you tell us forum members why you make this assertion? Please elaborate. Are you actually questioning the monthly noaa global temperature reports? Why, exactly? (the scientific imperative is on you to explain such an accusation, after all.) |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 26, 2011 2:28:28 GMT
thermostat: The link to temps you provided has some serious errors in it. I know it is the 1979-2000 base period, but even with that taken into account it is in error. At least for the USA where I live. Being they can't even get the host country temps right, I am not sure they can get any temperature correct. Wouldn't put a lot of stock in that link anymore, sorry to say. Sigurdur, You write, "The link to temps you provided has some serious errors in it." I linked the US noaa. ... they have some serious errrors? www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201103.gifSigurdur, wow! that is quite an accusation. Can you tell us forum members why you make this assertion? Please elaborate. Are you actually questioning the monthly noaa global temperature reports? Why, exactly? |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 26, 2011 2:35:34 GMT
thermostat: The link to temps you provided has some serious errors in it. I know it is the 1979-2000 base period, but even with that taken into account it is in error. At least for the USA where I live. Being they can't even get the host country temps right, I am not sure they can get any temperature correct. Wouldn't put a lot of stock in that link anymore, sorry to say. Sigurdur, You write, "The link to temps you provided has some serious errors in it." I linked the US noaa. ... they have some serious errrors? www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201103.gifSigurdur, wow! that is quite an accusation. Can you tell us forum members why you make this assertion? Please elaborate. Are you actually questioning the monthly noaa global temperature reports? Why, exactly? You've made it clear Appeal to Authority is a legitimate scientific method, so why bother asking? In case you really actually care about facts and aren't afraid to have your little bubble burst, read on. is.gd/3S5bhp |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 26, 2011 2:37:10 GMT
Astromet. Oh long winded one, this link shows global temparature anomolies for March 2011 www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201103.gifThis is recent global weather. Astomet, are you trying to talk us all to death? Is that your strategy? Weather varies from time to time, day to day and year to year, as we experience it. Climate change happens over longer periods of time. Ever hear the expression, 'can't see the forest for the trees'? Thermostat, I don't have a 'twitter' mentality as you do since I can see both the 'forest' and the 'trees,' unlike some who play with dubious climate graphics pretending to know what they are talking about. You have a lot to learn about the world's climate system and its weather but you won't learn anything from ideology and ignorance. astromet, For all of your verbiage, you have yet to show that you understand much of anything about climate. You present yourself as a verbose denialist. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 26, 2011 2:47:57 GMT
Thermostat, I don't have a 'twitter' mentality as you do since I can see both the 'forest' and the 'trees,' unlike some who play with dubious climate graphics pretending to know what they are talking about. You have a lot to learn about the world's climate system and its weather but you won't learn anything from ideology and ignorance. astromet, For all of your verbiage, you have yet to show that you understand much of anything about climate. You present yourself as a verbose denialist. Sigurdur, wow! that is quite an accusation. Can you tell us forum members why you make this assertion? Please elaborate. Is your knowledge of issues with the surface temperature record so sparse you have to ask the question in that manner? |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 26, 2011 3:02:39 GMT
astromet, For all of your verbiage, you have yet to show that you understand much of anything about climate. You present yourself as a verbose denialist. Sigurdur, wow! that is quite an accusation. Can you tell us forum members why you make this assertion? Please elaborate. Is your knowledge of issues with the surface temperature record so sparse you have to ask the question in that manner? magellan, What question with the surface temperature record do you have? But more broadly, could you frame your 'objectionism' in light of recent observed arctic melting, stratospheric cooling, increasing ocean heat content, global glacial decline, rising sea levels, and other indicators of human impact on climate which you are so determined to deny? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 26, 2011 3:04:36 GMT
thermostat: The link to temps you provided has some serious errors in it. I know it is the 1979-2000 base period, but even with that taken into account it is in error. At least for the USA where I live. Being they can't even get the host country temps right, I am not sure they can get any temperature correct. Wouldn't put a lot of stock in that link anymore, sorry to say. Sigurdur, You write, "The link to temps you provided has some serious errors in it." I linked the US noaa. ... they have some serious errrors? www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201103.gifSigurdur, wow! that is quite an accusation. Can you tell us forum members why you make this assertion? Please elaborate. Are you actually questioning the monthly noaa global temperature reports? Why, exactly? Thermostat: Yes, your link has serious problems in it. For starters, in the USA, where NOAA has red it should be blue.....a vast majority of it. North Dakota for example ranged from -6.1F to -7.3F below average for March. Minnesota was very similiar. South Dakota was -5.0F for March. Michigan was below for March. Iowa was below for March...The NE of the US was below for March. IN fact, these areas have been wayyyyyyy below since December of 2010. Even Arizona was below for March, yet it is red. The map does NOT paint an accurate picture of the USA. IF it can't even do it for the host country......imagine what it is doing via non host countries. The best emperical evidence I can give you as to what is happening here is look at the crop report part of this blog. Curious George posted from DTN....which is a farm reporting site. Note the delays in planting. Most of the delays are caused by it being too cold...and also wet. Something smells in Denmarck......and it isn't the fish. I take no glee in watching this unfold......I am dismayed to say the least. And YES, I understand the anomoly years very very well. That is always the next thing........the basis of the graph is not what you think......well.....it is exactlyyyyy what I know. And to be very frank.......after the stupid rulings from the EPA as of late, and the remarks of President Obama about putting all coal plants out of business.....and the general tone of the current administration......I have NO faith in the integrity of anything put out while this outfit is in office. They lie so often that it has become virtually impossible to find something truthful as of late that they have said or promoted. I don't know if other nations are as informed nor as well educated as the general public of the USA is......but it would seem that they are not. Their critical thinking ability seems to have left. I think the difference may be in that they relied on the USA to do their thinking for them and are out of the habit of actually examining anything. In our current situation over here, there is a lot of anger at the continued lieing, the slants, the sleaze that occurs anymore on a daily basis. We now have the NRLB sueing Boeing because they built a factory in South Carolina. WE now have the EPA trying to usurp ND in how coal burning elec plants are run. IT is a huge HUGE mess. And to top it off, we have state climatologists, who DO speak, that are shaking their heads and wondering.........where in the hell do they come up with these numbers? Mine is one of them. President Eisenhower warned us, and the world, about fed funding for scientific research. That the gravy train, per se, would result in poor science. I can see now that he was totally correct in his analysis of what happens. The backlash against the stupid is as stupid does has started in the USA. I do think it will spread worldwide. The predictions that recieve press keep being falseified. You can only lie so long.....before the truth comes out. It is coming out in spades now as the fringe is ruining climate science. I want true climate science, understanding etc to succeed. I think once it matures to a credible science that it will be a boon to manking. In its current form.....and as presented...calling people who don't go along with the idiots deniers....only serves to show how little the people advocating severe economic disruption really have. It is amounting to nothing. Where are the hurricanes.....where are the floods of epic proportions.....where are the heat waves? They aren't here. The floods of Pakistan are not out of the historical realm. The heat wave in Russia last year was not as bad as previous heat waves. Remember Tchaivosky? He couldn't write at the court of the Queen one year because the smoke from the fires was so horrific. The temps were so hot.....he left. Even Australia.......what a joke those predictions have turned out to be....... Anyways, you can tell I am angry. I am angry at the insistence that some think that they are emperically correct......when they are using a damn model to prove themselves correct. And the models sure as hell are notttttt correct.......as to causeation NOR correlation even anymore. Open your eyes to the world, observe what is happening. That is all I can say. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 26, 2011 3:09:26 GMT
Sigurdur, wow! that is quite an accusation. Can you tell us forum members why you make this assertion? Please elaborate. Is your knowledge of issues with the surface temperature record so sparse you have to ask the question in that manner? magellan, What question with the surface temperature record do you have? But more broadly, could you frame your 'objectionism' in light of recent observed arctic melting, stratospheric cooling, increasing ocean heat content, global glacial decline, rising sea levels, and other indicators of human impact on climate which you are so determined to deny? Thermostat.....the arctic melting is nothing new at all. PLEASE post reliable data that the stratosphere is cooling. I have read one paper within the past year that went through so many gyrations to try and prove that it was cooling that it was a funny paper. I did the math the author was trying to use to prove it.....and the math didn't add up. Increasing OHC.......source.........nothing I have read in the past two years shows increasing OHC.....in fact......every metric shows DECREASING OHC. Rising sea levels? Are you daft man? Sea level increase has flattened.....I wouldn't want the rate of rise from 3,000 years ago. And glaciers? OF course they are shrinking. IT is warmer...has been for a couple of hundred years. Take a look at Glacier National Park.....why in prob another 30 years it will be in the same condition that it was 800 years ago......sheeeeesh. Please study a bit of history will you? |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 26, 2011 3:16:47 GMT
magellan, What question with the surface temperature record do you have? But more broadly, could you frame your 'objectionism' in light of recent observed arctic melting, stratospheric cooling, increasing ocean heat content, global glacial decline, rising sea levels, and other indicators of human impact on climate which you are so determined to deny? Thermostat.....the arctic melting is nothing new at all. PLEASE post reliable data that the stratosphere is cooling. I have read one paper within the past year that went through so many gyrations to try and prove that it was cooling that it was a funny paper. I did the math the author was trying to use to prove it.....and the math didn't add up. Increasing OHC.......source.........nothing I have read in the past two years shows increasing OHC.....in fact......every metric shows DECREASING OHC. Rising sea levels? Are you daft man? Sea level increase has flattened.....I wouldn't want the rate of rise from 3,000 years ago. And glaciers? OF course they are shrinking. IT is warmer...has been for a couple of hundred years. Take a look at Glacier National Park.....why in prob another 30 years it will be in the same condition that it was 800 years ago......sheeeeesh. Please study a bit of history will you? |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 26, 2011 3:18:19 GMT
magellan, What question with the surface temperature record do you have? But more broadly, could you frame your 'objectionism' in light of recent observed arctic melting, stratospheric cooling, increasing ocean heat content, global glacial decline, rising sea levels, and other indicators of human impact on climate which you are so determined to deny? Thermostat.....the arctic melting is nothing new at all. PLEASE post reliable data that the stratosphere is cooling. I have read one paper within the past year that went through so many gyrations to try and prove that it was cooling that it was a funny paper. I did the math the author was trying to use to prove it.....and the math didn't add up. Increasing OHC.......source.........nothing I have read in the past two years shows increasing OHC.....in fact......every metric shows DECREASING OHC. Rising sea levels? Are you daft man? Sea level increase has flattened.....I wouldn't want the rate of rise from 3,000 years ago. And glaciers? OF course they are shrinking. IT is warmer...has been for a couple of hundred years. Take a look at Glacier National Park.....why in prob another 30 years it will be in the same condition that it was 800 years ago......sheeeeesh. Please study a bit of history will you? But more broadly, could you frame your 'objectionism' in light of recent observed arctic melting, stratospheric cooling, increasing ocean heat content, global glacial decline, rising sea levels, and other indicators of human impact on climate which you are so determined to deny? LOL! Aside from the factual deficiencies, could anyone imagine someone actually apply that logical fallacy in a formal debate and expect to get a way with it? The debate team would kick them out. |
|
