Windmills along the lake

[Rose]

Originally Posted by ITD

Global Warming caused that snow, there is nothing global warming can't do.

Global warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not, could cause some regions, such as the British Isles, to become cooler.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Rose

Global warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not, could cause some regions, such as the British Isles, to become cooler.

Is the "science settled" on anthropogenic global warming Rose?

[Yankee]

I ran across this a while back. A well respected massachusetts aerospace company is taking its ducted fan technology used in commercial jet engines and applying it to wind turbines: http://www.flodesign.org/clients.html

This is a really cool application of existing technology. There's two advantages over conventional propeller type wind turbine design: 1) a similar power level generating ducted fan design is smaller, and they can be placed closer together and 2) more importantly it will operate efficiently at both higher and lower wind velocities.

For those who wish to learn about the technology, I've attached 2 white papers published by Flodesign that discuss the aerodynamic theory.

Or watch this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8Si-74IcrQ

It will be interesting to see if this alternative design takes off. There are other companies that are introducing similar ducted fan designs.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Here are some more pictures of global warming from about 1970. I am about 6' 2" in this picture.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Rose

Well, it's settled in my mind, but I know there's no use in trying to make my point here. Now I must go prep to teach my college-age students what greenhouse gases do.

Presenting your opinions as facts to your students is exactly what is wrong with our education system!

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by Yankee

Presenting your opinions as facts to your students is exactly what is wrong with our education system!

I believe that is what you are doing, Yankee. The scientific community has more consensus on human caused global warming than on most other issues. If Rose is teaching college-aged students about greenhouse gases, that's because she's committed to teaching them science, not ideology, which is what your position appears to be.

A few years ago I was in Tanzania, which is definitely a third world country. I decided to go to the National Museum. The museum was four rooms total, one of which was on evolution. Despite looking like it greatly needed a face-lift, the think I marveled at was that their display on evolution was more accurate and up-to-date than many states allow their children to be taught - due to false ideology.

More power to anyone trying to lift the veil of ignorance from the youth of this world who will be inheriting the mess we leave to them due to our collective unwillingness to open our eyes. Look at social security - we are stiffing our children who will pay the bills for the moeny we use. Its pretty much the same (except a lot worse) in terms of the environment, because we will be leaving them a vastly degraded environment that may not be repairable.

[jrc]

Unfortunately for civility and science the theory of AGW has become a religion and the politics involved make further discussions difficult.

I'm dropping out of this discussion, I'm impressed that Rose has a mind open to discussion, even if she disagree's with me. I find that most AGW true believers cannot engage in rational thought and just parrot back a list of things they don't like and how they are either caused by AGW or cause AGW or both. Talking to them is like trying to convince the Jehovah's Witness who comes to my door that the Bible is fallible, you can't reason with blind faith.

One last comment, we all hear that AGW or now Climate Change is unpredictable, and some places will heat and some will cool, some wetter some drier. But the one constant is that it is always bad. It never causes anything good, even by accident.

[trfour]

Originally Posted by jrc

Unfortunately for civility and science the theory of AGW has become a religion and the politics involved make further discussions difficult.

Mind you all, I haven't any collage degrees, I do however have some years on me...
Planet, ( as in Planet Earth ), did not necessarily mean that any of our great geniuses could just jump in and shape it, ( plan it ) in any fashion that they fancied. Politics has tried and failed, and as far as I can see, Mother Nature has and will prevail.

Now and yes, we try our best to improve what we can to preserve all that we have cherished in our life times and to pass on to others. Just remember that absolute control is frivolous!

May we all keep learning, and thank you for listening,

Terry
_________________________________

[Cobalt 25]

It would seem as though few of us will be changing our minds in the near future concerning this issue.

When I read posts citing localized cold snaps as supporting their belief in the fallacy of climate change, I can certainly see the wisdom of recognizing the impossibility of reason. Weather is not climate.

Even the fact that 2010 was one of the warmest years on record plus the last decade containing some of the warmest years on record isn't enough, by itself, to conclusively prove the point. But all the rest of the scientific data certainly is.

As a former teacher, I commend Rose for sharing with her students information that will help them make decisions to guide our planet in the future.

Peter

[trfour]

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

Weather is not climate.

Peter

That is why they are spelled differently. What is CLIMATE? Climate is the overall picture of weather. = weather's Mom has always been Mother Nature, and she rules. She is the windmill that graces and powers all of the sail boats here in the Lakes Region, and beyond... ... And I am also very thankful for www.winnipesaukee.com

Now, being born and brought up here in New England ( for the most part ) I found out early and became a weather nut. Just to let Y'All know, just how much I am enjoying this thread soooo!


Terry
____________________________________

[Pineedles]

Insulting people will never win the battle, no matter how and mighty some folks talk. There are a lot of FACTS that are in dispute. "Scientists" that lie about these supposed "facts", will never be good sources of information. People who quote these "facts" have no credibility. IMO.

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Insulting people will never win the battle, no matter how and mighty some folks talk. There are a lot of FACTS that are in dispute. "Scientists" that lie about these supposed "facts", will never be good sources of information. People who quote these "facts" have no credibility. IMO.

Title of a private message from Pineedles to me about Global Warming/Climate Change" a while ago:

"Get out of town"

Well, it's not (necessarily) insulting, but it doesn't come across too friendly, or tolerant.

Pineedles must not have read the results of the scientific watchdog agency report, which after investigating all the data, found that the Climate Scientists had NOT lied. They do sound rather arrogant - a common character flaw, but not dishonest. While some "media" like Fox News (sic) may have reported they had lied, that doesn't make it so. Fox is not known for its retractions of its false claims.

Actually, even I think there is some chance that global warming that we see is not primarily caused by human activity. I'm not a climate scientist. I think other factors (sun activity, long term cycles, volcanic eruptions, etc.) may have a major impact. However, the trained climate scientists are near unanimous - not just US scientists, by around the world, that all data suggests human activity is the crucial element today. So I think my lack of being 100% convinced is probably the same sort of fantasy that most posters here seem to hold - that if we just say we don't believe it, maybe we are not responsible for knowing about our planet's death of its life support systems due to our unwillingness to change our behavior.

[SIKSUKR]

Al Gore called and he's looking for a co host with Kieth Olberman on his radio station.Looks like we have a few here that view the world through their eyes only in that same light.What scares you people so much that you feel you have to stop all talk of differing opinions?I welcome the others opinions and viewpoints especially if it disagrees with mine.How else does a democracy come to a decision?What burns my butt here is when I'm told that the fianl answer is in and I am somehow a persom with my head burried in the sand because I don't agree.Pretty scary scenerio.Sounds more like Middle East dictatorship to me.

[ApS]

"I cannot limit my lectures to well known facts."

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

However, the trained climate scientists are near unanimous - not just US scientists, by around the world, that all data suggests human activity is the crucial element today.

• Still, I prefer "warm" to "cold", especially as there is little we can do about it without costing even more unemployment.

• Windmills will reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources—without raising the costs of our food—something in which the entire Department of Energy has failed. (in)

• It was Trained Climate Scientists who were unmasked to have "cooked their books". It pays to be them—Follow The Money.

[ApS]

I would have preferred that you answer my last comment:

• It was Trained Climate Scientists who were unmasked to have "cooked their books". It pays to be them—Follow The Money.

Originally Posted by Rose

"You made an erroneous conclusion based on your assumption that as someone who believes in anthropogenic global warming, I cannot limit my lectures to well known facts. There was no inference...you decided to create one. Talk about condescending. Guess what...I can. What I wrote is exactly what I taught them, and nothing more."

Writing that "I can" isn't the same thing as saying "I fully expect to".

Originally Posted by Rose

Do not misquote me like that again.

The quote was intentionally left "unattributed"—but welcome back to the discussion.

How about that misguided venture to alter the records—and how that deception enrichened Universities and scientists—both?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I would have preferred that you answer my last comment:





Writing that "I can" isn't the same thing as saying "I fully expect to".


The quote was intentionally left "unattributed"—but welcome back to the discussion.

How about that misguided venture to alter the records—and how that deception enrichened Universities and scientists—both?

Or the years and years of raw data that was "interpreted" then destroyed to "save space" by a renowned University (UAE) who's studies provide a cornerstone for AGW.

[JPC]

I know most of you have a ton of snow in your back yard and for that reason discount global warming. I saw this article today. Please don't shoot the messenger


Extreme winter weather linked to climate change
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent, Reuters
12 hours ago


WASHINGTON — This winter's heavy snowfalls and other extreme storms could well be related to increased moisture in the air due to global climate change, a panel of scientists said on Tuesday.
This extra moisture is likely to bring on extraordinary flooding with the onset of spring in the Northern Hemisphere, as deep snowpack melts and expected heavy rains add to seasonal run-off, the scientists said in a telephone briefing.
As the planet warms up, more water from the oceans is evaporated into the atmosphere, said Todd Sanford, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. At the same time, because the atmosphere is warmer, it can hold onto more of the moisture that it takes in.
Intense storms are often the result when the atmosphere reaches its saturation point, Sanford said.
This year, a series of heavy storms over the U.S. Midwest to the Northeast have dropped up to 400 percent of average snows in some locations, said Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground.
The amount of water in that snowpack is among the highest on record, Masters said.
"If you were to take all that water and melt it, it would come out to more than 6 inches over large swaths of the area," Masters said. "If all that water gets unleashed in a hurry, in a sudden warming, and some heavy rains in the area, we could be looking at record flooding along the Upper Mississippi River and the Red River in North Dakota."
That tallies with projections by the U.S. National Weather Service, which last month said a large stretch of the north central United States is at risk of moderate to major flooding this spring.
SPRING CREEP
Spring floods could be exacerbated by spring creep, a phenomenon where spring begins earlier than previously.
"We've documented in the mountains of the U.S. West that the spring runoff pulse now comes between one and three weeks earlier than it used to 60 years ago," Masters said. "And that's because of warmer temperatures tending to melt that snowpack earlier and earlier."
In the last century, global average temperatures have risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (.8 Celsius). Last year tied for the warmest in the modern record. One place this warmth showed up was in the Arctic, which is a major weather-maker for the Northern Hemisphere, according to Mark Serreze, director of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.
One driver of this winter's "crazy weather," Serreze said, is an atmospheric pattern known as the Arctic Oscillation, which has moved into what climate scientists call a negative phase.
This phase means there is high pressure over the Arctic and low pressure at mid-latitudes, which makes the Arctic zone relatively warm, but spills cold Arctic air southward to places like the U.S. Midwest and Northeast.
This negative Arctic Oscillation has been evident for two years in a row, the same two winters that have had extreme storms and heavy snowfalls.
It is possible, but not certain, that the negative Arctic Oscillation is linked to warming of the Arctic, which is in turn influenced by a decrease in sea ice cover throughout the region.
The only underlying explanation for these events is climate warming due to heightened greenhouse gas levels, Serreze said.
(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)
(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2011. Check for restrictions at: http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

[ITD]

Originally Posted by JPC

I know most of you have a ton of snow in your back yard and for that reason discount global warming. I saw this article today. Please don't shoot the messenger


Extreme winter weather linked to climate change
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent, Reuters
12 hours ago


WASHINGTON — This winter's heavy snowfalls and other extreme storms could well be related to increased moisture in the air due to global climate change, a panel of scientists said on Tuesday.
This extra moisture is likely to bring on extraordinary flooding with the onset of spring in the Northern Hemisphere, as deep snowpack melts and expected heavy rains add to seasonal run-off, the scientists said in a telephone briefing.
As the planet warms up, more water from the oceans is evaporated into the atmosphere, said Todd Sanford, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. At the same time, because the atmosphere is warmer, it can hold onto more of the moisture that it takes in.
Intense storms are often the result when the atmosphere reaches its saturation point, Sanford said.
This year, a series of heavy storms over the U.S. Midwest to the Northeast have dropped up to 400 percent of average snows in some locations, said Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground.
The amount of water in that snowpack is among the highest on record, Masters said.
"If you were to take all that water and melt it, it would come out to more than 6 inches over large swaths of the area," Masters said. "If all that water gets unleashed in a hurry, in a sudden warming, and some heavy rains in the area, we could be looking at record flooding along the Upper Mississippi River and the Red River in North Dakota."
That tallies with projections by the U.S. National Weather Service, which last month said a large stretch of the north central United States is at risk of moderate to major flooding this spring.
SPRING CREEP
Spring floods could be exacerbated by spring creep, a phenomenon where spring begins earlier than previously.
"We've documented in the mountains of the U.S. West that the spring runoff pulse now comes between one and three weeks earlier than it used to 60 years ago," Masters said. "And that's because of warmer temperatures tending to melt that snowpack earlier and earlier."
In the last century, global average temperatures have risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (.8 Celsius). Last year tied for the warmest in the modern record. One place this warmth showed up was in the Arctic, which is a major weather-maker for the Northern Hemisphere, according to Mark Serreze, director of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.
One driver of this winter's "crazy weather," Serreze said, is an atmospheric pattern known as the Arctic Oscillation, which has moved into what climate scientists call a negative phase.
This phase means there is high pressure over the Arctic and low pressure at mid-latitudes, which makes the Arctic zone relatively warm, but spills cold Arctic air southward to places like the U.S. Midwest and Northeast.
This negative Arctic Oscillation has been evident for two years in a row, the same two winters that have had extreme storms and heavy snowfalls.
It is possible, but not certain, that the negative Arctic Oscillation is linked to warming of the Arctic, which is in turn influenced by a decrease in sea ice cover throughout the region.
The only underlying explanation for these events is climate warming due to heightened greenhouse gas levels, Serreze said.
(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)
(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2011. Check for restrictions at: http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

Like I said, is there anything GW can't do???

From a 1974 Time magazine article:

"Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example."

[JPC]

I should have just posted the link for the article.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...LIMATE-WINTER/

[ITD]

Originally Posted by JPC

I should have just posted the link for the article.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...LIMATE-WINTER/

As should have I:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

[Newbiesaukee]

If your point is that scientists have been wrong in the past, I could not agree more.

A lot of what we thought 35 years ago turns out to be not quite what we expected. This is how science works. The scientific tools we have now with computer models, etc. far surpass what we knew then and we are more likely closer to the "truth" now than we were 35 years ago.

As a physician, I had to continue to take refresher courses to keep up with new advances. It would be unethical to practice medicine based on what we knew 35 years ago.

I think the same is true of any profession or activity based on knowledge...from rocket science to home building.

My point is, any true scientist would agree it would be the height of arrogance to state anything with certainty at any point in time. But we only can deal with the best information that we have at any one time. In science, it is more likely that what we know now is closer to the truth than what we knew then. And by sticking to scientific principles and open-mindedness, we will know more in the future than we know now.

[Gearhead]

This discussion reminds me of the Monty Python call-in skit about farming. Someone called with a question about CEREAL PRODUCTION IN THE EEC, and the host told him, "I'm sorry, we're only taking calls about farming." and hung up. It still makes me laugh.

[JPC]

Originally Posted by Gearhead

This discussion reminds me of the Monty Python call-in skit about farming. Someone called with a question about CEREAL PRODUCTION IN THE EEC, and the host told him, "I'm sorry, we're only taking calls about farming." and hung up. It still makes me laugh.

Speaking of wind mills, on my way to work this morning I saw that the Mobil Station on Rt101A near exit 7 is up to $343/gal. After the initial investment of putting up wind mills, wind is free (cheap power vs. Middle East oil). If all hell breaks loose in the Middle East then $5/gal is not that far off.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Rose

Well, it's settled in my mind, but I know there's no use in trying to make my point here. Now I must go prep to teach my college-age students what greenhouse gases do.

Rose is all done trying to make her point here.

Originally Posted by Rose

You made an erroneous conclusion based on your assumption that as someone who believes in anthropogenic global warming, I cannot limit my lectures to well known facts. There was no inference...you decided to create one. Talk about condescending. Guess what...I can. What I wrote is exactly what I taught them, and nothing more.

I'm out as well since some people here prefer to do nothing but make false accusations and refuse to see that they were wrong in doing so. Seems like a trend in this forum, no matter what thread it is.

Rose is out of here now

Originally Posted by Rose

I know I said I was out, but I do check for just this type of deception on the part of others. Acres per Second quoted me (and in such a way that when I quote him it doesn't show up...how convenient) as saying,

"I cannot limit my lectures to well known facts."

Since you decided to quote only half of my sentence, I will provide the full paragraph.

"You made an erroneous conclusion based on your assumption that as someone who believes in anthropogenic global warming, I cannot limit my lectures to well known facts. There was no inference...you decided to create one. Talk about condescending. Guess what...I can. What I wrote is exactly what I taught them, and nothing more."

Do not misquote me like that again.

Rose knows that she said she is out of here BUT

Originally Posted by Rose

I said I'm out of the debate, and I mean that.


You're as bad as some of my students...do you read for content? What does the last sentence in my paragraph say? "What I wrote is exactly what I taught them, and nothing more."

Rose said she’s out of the debate and she means it this time

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Rose is all done trying to make her point here.
Rose is out of here now
Rose knows that she said she is out of here BUT
Rose said she’s out of the debate and she means it this time

Well Rusty, if you were being questioned, and your posts were being parsed and quoted out of context, would you return to the thread to try to clear the air?

For me, it is an easy answer...I would.

[jrc]

Come on, I disagree with AGW, and Rose believes in it, but this piling on is just silly.

Rose is teaching about the greenhouse effect, a well known, non-controversial description of how the sun warms the whole earth in a manner similair to how the sun warms a greenhouse.

No one questions the effect, the disagreements come when you discuss changes to the effect and causes of the changes.

I will not re-enter the AGW discussion but this vendetta against Rose is just wrong. She clarified her comments, let it drop.

[SIKSUKR]

Agreed. As a member that has made his opposite views clear, I welcome Rose and anybody else's differing opinions. Unlike other members, I welcome debate and not being told all the answers are in. That in my mind is not up for debate.

[Rusty]

IMHO a good teacher should have knowledge on the subject matter, good communication skills (including listening), and patience.
A good teacher doesn’t take on a debate and then throw the towel in four times because someone has different views on the subject.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Originally Posted by Rose

I said I'm out of the debate, and I mean that.



You're as bad as some of my students...do you read for content? What does the last sentence in my paragraph say? "What I wrote is exactly what I taught them, and nothing more."

You are both spending so much time blowing so much air you could both power a windmill.

[NoBozo]

Remember the New Math..? If 70% of the students in the class believe that 2+2=5, then It Is So. . It would be hurtful to the self esteem of the majority of the class to correct them with the truth. After all, they will figure it out sooner or later, right?

You can't carry on a reasonable and logical conversation with people who arrive at a "scientific" conclusion by Consensus. Consensus is a refusal to accept responsibility for ones Own conclusions, because Consensus is NOT Your Own conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------
Consensus: (Taken from Wikipedia) The Bold is mine.

"Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia, but in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability. Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages" .
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I take full responsibility for stating here that Science/Math is NOT driven by Consensus. 2+2=4 ...no matter how you FEEL about it.

Feel free to look up the word Editorial. NB

[tis]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Insulting people will never win the battle, no matter how and mighty some folks talk. There are a lot of FACTS that are in dispute. "Scientists" that lie about these supposed "facts", will never be good sources of information. People who quote these "facts" have no credibility. IMO.

Perfectly said, Pineedles!

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Rose

The Earth's atmosphere is largely transparent to solar radiation, so it is absorbed by the Earth's surface. This energy is then emitted by the Earth in the form of longwave infrared radiation. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are the two primary "greenhouse" gases in the Earth's atmosphere, and are excellent absorbers of radiation at this wavelength. This energy heats the air, and increases the rate at which it emits energy to space and back to Earth. This warms up the surface and results in greater emissions from the surface and keeps the average temperature of the Earth about 59 degrees F warmer than if it didn't occur. So if it weren't for greenhouse gases, we'd be wishing for global warming...and that's a fact.

See what happens when you assume something? But that's easier to do than asking me what I meant by what I said. And that's what's wrong with our education system...we're teaching kids to look for the easiest way to get through.

Thank you for the rather unneccessary and condecending 6th grade primer on natural science. Needless to say you miss my point. Again, I agree that human civilization is a factor in the planets climate but it is an inconvenient truth that you all but eliminate any possibility that there are other variables in the equation, or even that science knows what the equation is.

Please look at other periods in the Earth's geologic past. Even limit yourself to the last recent epochs and you'll see that there were long stretches of time where the H2O and CO2 levels in the atmosphere were much greater. Furthermore, we've only had the technology a few decades to accurately measure the variations in the sun's intensity. And I for one do not believe that we have all the answers regarding the effects of the sun's output, or the effect of infrared wavelength energy absorption in the atmosphere and therefore its propensity for climactic change.

With an increase in greenhouse gases, however they get into the atmosphere, do we really know their effects? Will the planet get warmer or colder?

And I've assumed nothing, and I do not need to ask what you meant. Your post clearly states that you will teach your students what greenhouse gases do while you strongly infer that despite the ongoing climatological debate you have decided to "teach" your students what you think instead of presenting all sides as an educator should do.

Like JRC I will now also bow out of this debate as I find it as distasteful as debating politics.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Yankee

Like JRC I will now also bow out of this debate as I find it as distasteful as debating politics.

Yankee: Please DO NOt Bail Out of this disscussion. You have the ability to put this into words... that make sense. NB

[trfour]

Originally Posted by Rose

Global warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not, could cause some regions, such as the British Isles, to become cooler.

A Rose is a Rose is a Rose is a Rose. May I add that She and Her Great wealth of knowledge is, has and always will be respected and enjoyed here!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...70N2HN20110124

Also, WSI's meteorologists are predicting a notably cold spring for the entire Northern United States this year, 2011.

Keep up the great work Rose, We love you!
Terry
_________________________________