In case anyone has missed it, we had a heavy and long winter, with lots of snow. We now have a heavy and long spring, with lots of rain. When the atmosphere is warm it holds more moisture. When it is cooler it sheds the water in the form of rain.

In the winter, it sheds its water in the form of snow and ice.

I have stated in other threads that the Sun is in a quiet period. It was ramped up in activity in the years leading up to 2000 and has since quieted down.

You can research the history of the Sun's activity at http://spaceweather.com/ Today, we have 5 sunspots facing earth. That is up from the 1 or 2 of recent months, but, it is still well below the activity 10 years ago.

The cooler weather leads to more rain and more storms. The Global Warming conspirators alleged that warmer conditions would creat more storms, but, for most of the planet, the opposite is true. If we have a new ice age, it will be accompanied by lots of rain and snow storms. As it stands, we have a problem here in Canada. If the rain doesn't stop in the next 2 weeks, the farmers won't be able to get on the land to plant. This is the sort of thing that will happen if we go into an ice age again.

I don't know if we will get to an ice age, but we have a Global Cooling problem nonetheless.

Read up at http://www.climatecooling.org/

Arn

Gimme global warming back, I could go for a swim right now.

Al Gore does not share your findings.

Probably more like a "little ice age", which was decades of unusually cool weather. Not as bad as a full-blown ice age, but it can be damaging enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

(careful, the temperature graph they use has been debunked. Wikipedia is notoriously pro-global-warming)

quote Originally posted by fierobear: (careful, the temperature graph they use has been debunked. Wikipedia is notoriously pro-global-warming)

So are most credible sources and scientific organizations in terms of believing in Climate Change.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: So are most sources and scientific organizations who want to keep receiving their funding.

All better.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: All better.

I was under the impression that researchers studied climate no matter what it was doing. But feel free to follow the money to those uber rich scientists and researchers.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: All better.

Yeah, I'm not even going to bother with newf. Been there, done that, don't like to waste my time.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Yeah, I'm not even going to bother with newf. Been there, done that, don't like to waste my time.

Good, I think we've been through it plenty of times and it's clear we are not going to sway eithers Opinion.

I see that the OP is submitting that we had a heavy and long winter with lots of snow and now have a heavy and long spring with lots of rain. I'm not sure what heavy is but are those claims for the globe or for a country or Province/state I wonder?

quote Originally posted by newf: Good, I think we've been through it plenty of times and it's clear we are not going to sway eithers Opinion. I see that the OP is submitting that we had a heavy and long winter with lots of snow and now have a heavy and long spring with lots of rain. I'm not sure what heavy is but are those claims for the globe or for a country or Province/state I wonder?

Besides, didn't he watch the movie "The Day After Tomorrow"? Maybe we are nearing that critical desalinazation point... Everyone head south!

So now you are quibbling over the term "heavy" As in "heavy weather" as in "heavy rain" as in "heavy winds"

Ask the folks in Joplin, or North Dakota, or Manitoba about the term "heavy".

Arn

quote Originally posted by newf: Good, I think we've been through it plenty of times and it's clear you are not going to sway my Opinion. Not even with facts.

Here, fixed it for you.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: So now you are quibbling over the term "heavy" As in "heavy weather" as in "heavy rain" as in "heavy winds" Ask the folks in Joplin, or North Dakota, or Manitoba about the term "heavy". Arn

You could read what I asked again if you wish to answer. I asked a question that had nothing to do with the term "heavy".

I didn't quibble over anything, I just didn't know what you meant by Heavy winter or Heavy spring. "Heavy rains" or "heavy snowfalls"? Yes.. but never heard it used to describe a season....yeeesh... my bad, cool your jets.

quote Originally posted by newf: So are most credible sources and scientific organizations in terms of believing in Climate Change.

quote Originally posted by newf: I don't care what you choose to believe in terms of this or anything else but don't try to sell your opinion as fact or try and paint anyone who doesn't agree with you as wrong.

Your facts are disputed.

This isn't a belief to be interpreted. It is fact. Farmers in the affected areas can't plant their crops. They need dry weather to dry out the ground. They need warm weather to germinate the seed. Them's the facts.

The scientific information posted on Spaceweather is not disputed. It is the count of sunspots and solar storms. The figures can't be fudged, and don't lie. The fact is that the sun is in a lower activity level. The fact is that it produces less heat. That, in turn means that we (earth) don't get what it can't give.

If the sun doesn't pick up this year, we'll have another long, cold, and heavy winter next season.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Your facts are disputed.

Please explain.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: ...Do the farmer problems extend to the globe itself or specific areas? Is this trend shown by global temp and precip readings?

The UK just had the coldest and wettest winter in many years.
Haven't heard anything about China, Southeast Asia, or Japan. (But then, they're in the news for other reasons.)

quote Originally posted by Raydar: The UK just had the coldest and wettest winter in many years. Haven't heard anything about China, Southeast Asia, or Japan. (But then, they're in the news for other reasons.)

Well that solves that mystery. Thanks.

http://www.chinadaily.com.c.../content_9358854.htm

Yes they have significant cooling on the Asian Continent

Arn

quote Originally posted by newf: So are most credible sources and scientific organizations in terms of believing in Climate Change.

Credible scientific organizations don't "believe" anything. They simply analyze and present data.

In the middle of the African continent, at around the equator, we have the biggest desert in the world. Very low rainfall.

The moisture laiden air from the Atlantic just doesn't drop any moisture there due to the heat. It holds its moisture.

In Canada, in the middle of the continent, we have violent winter storms. They dump large amounts of snow and in the spring and fall we have lots of rain with ups and downs. In July, in the heat of summer, we have less rain. Why? Because it is just too hot and dry to rain.

Hot weather leads to less rain normally, with the tropics being the exception due to their rain forests and all the moisture they produce. That is the reason the rains in the tropics are in the evening, when it cools down. The air can't hold the moisture.

The last ice age was an ice age because the precipitation that fell, fell as snow. And, there was lots of precipitation.

All I am saying is that as a general rule of thumb, hot and dry go together. Cooler and wet go together.

So with the cooler weather these past few months we've had big snow fall amounts, followed by big runoff and rainy spring weather. It is part of a cooling trend. This affects the whole Northern Hemisphere to one degree or another.

Remember Europe had many deaths due to cold this past winter. Asia has its problems too.

This is part of a general cool down.

Arn

NASA current data report

Global Highlights

* The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for April 2011 was the seventh warmest April on record at 14.29°C (57.76°F), which is 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F). This was also the 35th consecutive April with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20th century average.

* The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.38°C (0.68°F) above the 20th century average of 16.0°C (60.9°F) and the 11th warmest April on record.

* The April worldwide land surface temperature was 1.12°C (2.02°F) above the 20th century average of 8.1°C (46.5 °F)—the 6th warmest on record.

* For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 13.08°C (55.66°F) was the 14th warmest January–April period. This value is 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average.


from
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

quote Originally posted by ray b: NASA current data report Global Highlights * The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for April 2011 was the seventh warmest April on record at 14.29°C (57.76°F), which is 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F). This was also the 35th consecutive April with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20th century average. * The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.38°C (0.68°F) above the 20th century average of 16.0°C (60.9°F) and the 11th warmest April on record. * The April worldwide land surface temperature was 1.12°C (2.02°F) above the 20th century average of 8.1°C (46.5 °F)—the 6th warmest on record. * For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 13.08°C (55.66°F) was the 14th warmest January–April period. This value is 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average. from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

When they say on record, when did they start taking accurate temperature records of the worldwide ocean surface temperature and land temperature?

I'm just trying to get a reference here.

Don't forget NASA was in on the scam. They were after Government funding in a big way and very supportive of Gore.

Their data has been roundly denounced by other scientists and they use the same flawed heat sink weather stations that have been the source of screwed data.

Why ask NASA to be weathermen? Why not ask meteorologists and oceanographers?

Arn

Here is a link to show the complexity of trying to gauge Ocean temperatures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik..._surface_temperature

There is so much widely varying data due to changing conditions that it is virtually impossible to average.

Remember when the UN predicted millions of weather refugees? Remember when the UN was predicting islands being submerged by 2010? Yeah right, next thing is they are going to say the Chinese are making up the sea ice that is keeping their ports unusable. And remember, there are no drowning polar bears. either

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 05-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Please explain.

I would say credible is a subjective description. I believe there are credible scientists who believe other causes are behind the change in climate.
I don't understand why there is such a rush to judgement.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: When they say on record, when did they start taking accurate temperature records of the worldwide ocean surface temperature and land temperature? I'm just trying to get a reference here.

there are older ship records but they are spotie
real global is modern sat data 1971-2000 is the avg

btw the sats are NASA the NOAA does the post collection work

if you donot trust NASA/NOAA temp data records
please be sure your tinfoil hat is on correctly
as the man from mars will beam you up otherwise

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: http://www.chinadaily.com.c.../content_9358854.htm Yes they have significant cooling on the Asian Continent Arn

And they are expecting 1-6 million N. Koreans will starve to death this year because of the extended winter they had.
Prepare for global warming and you will parish because of global cooling.

Part of NASA's directive from the Obama Administration is to study Global Warming.
The Administration believes GW is fact, therefore NASA will only report data that supports that position.
NASA is not an impartial entity - it is a government agency that serves the goals of the current administration.

quote Originally posted by ray b: NASA current data report Global Highlights * The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for April 2011 was the seventh warmest April on record at 14.29°C (57.76°F), which is 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F). This was also the 35th consecutive April with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20th century average. * The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.38°C (0.68°F) above the 20th century average of 16.0°C (60.9°F) and the 11th warmest April on record. * The April worldwide land surface temperature was 1.12°C (2.02°F) above the 20th century average of 8.1°C (46.5 °F)—the 6th warmest on record. * For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 13.08°C (55.66°F) was the 14th warmest January–April period. This value is 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average. from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

quote Originally posted by ray b: there are older ship records but they are spotie real global is modern sat data 1971-2000 is the avg

So they really can only accurately gauge from 1971, what about the million or so years before 1971?
( The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.38°C (0.68°F) above the 20th century average of 16.0°C (60.9°F) and the 11th warmest April on record.)
So this the 11th warmest April since 1971, WTF does that prove?

^ LOL exactly!!! what kind of credible scientific survey would use a sample of 40? Hell even chewing gum companies survey more than 40 dentists.
There are 307 million Americans, If I asked 40 Americans if global warming was real, and 23 said no, would you accept that result?

Nasa is also a government entity fighting for funding from a hostile administration.

[This message has been edited by Scottzilla79 (edited 05-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Don't forget NASA was in on the scam. They were after Government funding in a big way and very supportive of Gore. Their data has been roundly denounced by other scientists and they use the same flawed heat sink weather stations that have been the source of screwed data. Why ask NASA to be weathermen? Why not ask meteorologists and oceanographers? Arn Here is a link to show the complexity of trying to gauge Ocean temperatures http://en.wikipedia.org/wik..._surface_temperature There is so much widely varying data due to changing conditions that it is virtually impossible to average. Remember when the UN predicted millions of weather refugees? Remember when the UN was predicting islands being submerged by 2010? Yeah right, next thing is they are going to say the Chinese are making up the sea ice that is keeping their ports unusable. And remember, there are no drowning polar bears. either

Whose data for temps and precip is it that you are using then?

quote Originally posted by ray b: ...if you donot trust NASA/NOAA temp data records please be sure your tinfoil hat is on correctly as the man from mars will beam you up otherwise

Well, they must be true. They were from government entities, and they were posted on the internet.

Right?

quote Originally posted by ray b: there are older ship records but they are spotie real global is modern sat data 1971-2000 is the avg btw the sats are NASA the NOAA does the post collection work if you donot trust NASA/NOAA temp data records please be sure your tinfoil hat is on correctly as the man from mars will beam you up otherwise

No it's not that ******* . I trust NASA/NOAA's data.

So when you say the 11th warmest on record, we can reasonably say that it's been the warmest since 1971?

We can use the spotty inaccurate once dating back from the 1700's I guess. Even Benjamin Franklin did some ocean temperature recordings.

But a true reference would be using the same or equivalent the same over time, the same spots and accurate measurement equipment.

They stated that Ocean temperature recording was 1971 and Land temperature is 1961.

So when they say that it's the 11th warmest on records, they are saying that it's the 11th warmest since 1971.

Footnote you forgot:

The January–April 2011 Blended Land and Ocean Surface Temperature Anomalies in degree Celsius January–April 2011 map of temperature anomalies shows that, for the first four months of the year, anomalous warm temperatures were present over much of the world, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across central Canada, the northern United States, western Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, extreme southeast Asia, and most of Australia. The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for the January–April period was the 14th warmest such period on record. This value is 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average. Separately, the worldwide land surface temperature ranked as the 17th warmest on record, while the worldwide ocean surface temperature ranked as the 11th warmest January–April on record.


So are you are still licking Al Gore's butt?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The Administration believes GW is fact, therefore NASA will only report data that supports that position.

Is there a void of data for the Bush years or other "unsupportive administrations"?

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Prepare for global warming and you will parish because of global cooling.

quote Originally posted by newf: Is there a void of data for the Bush years or other "unsupportive administrations"?

You know what I wouldn't doubt there was less evidence for it in those years.
Every other arm of the government adjusts to whos in the big chair.

Was it the nasa temperature gauges that were found in the dumbest places, like one that was mounted directly over a built in BBQ grill?