Windmills along the lake

[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.

[NoBozo]

The Global Warming Spy Satellite riding on a NASA Rocket didn't make it to orbit. SNAFU. I wonder what that's all about..??

Not trying to make trouble...just trying to encourage thought.. NB

Time Sensitive Link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...03-04-07-48-04

[trfour]

And Yes!... Not so easy for Rocket Science either... Up's and downs abound here on Earth. The lessens learned FROM OUR GREAT Teachers 'Shore helps.
The final word however comes from above us all. Just keep that in mind as well.

We try to, and we live and learn from our mistakes. Look above and we may get another shake.
Terry
____________________________________

[SAMIAM]

Al Gore's 1/2 a billion $$ satellite now sleeps with the fishes !

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Al Gore's 1/2 a billion $$ satellite now sleeps with the fishes !

Sam that was Excellent. There hasn't been much to smile about lately but that made me laugh out loud. NB

[Rose]

This BS has just made it clear that my time here is a waste. Some of you are willing to stop and think and listen (as I was of jrc's opinion and he of mine, and I appreciate that), but others are just mindless fools who don't want to think for themselves and want to maintain the status quo because it suits their lives as they currently experience them. Too bad you're screwing over your progeny. Congratulations. You make the country weaker by not educating yourselves and thus thinking for yourselves.

[Jonas Pilot]

Never Argue With A Fool – They Will Drag You Down To Their Level, Then Beat You With Experience!

[NoBozo]

ROSE: We can only HOPE.......................ROSE..C'mon..lighten up. Life is short and there are issues that each of us are passionate about but you can't let it OBSESS you.. NB

[NoRegrets]

Don't go Rose or others. Even though our votes may cancel each other the debate is lost when personal snipes get to you.

I am not a fan of the Global Climate game. I feel it is a program engineered by elitest politicians for their own personal financial gain. It also conviently diverts focused attention on the goings on in government.

I believe the real issue is concentrated pollution that is created by the numbers of people in the world.

[MAXUM]

The whole climate change debate has gone of for years, I for one think the whole premise that ANY of it is man made is a bunch of garbage. It's a whipped up fantasy to create a "crisis" for the government to "solve" or in more exact terms waste more tax payers dollars to force unwanted regulation down our collective throats to lock in more money for them to further waste. It's a vicious cycle. Point being, since the last ice age the plant has been warming up, looking back in history before the ice age the planet was a much warmer place than it is today. Why should we not expect it to return to that state naturally? Stupid.

Now to the point of renewable and alternative energy, sure it's a great idea and in theory makes sense. In reality it has a LONG way to go before it can readily compete with cheaper and more dependable fossil fuels. Does that mean completely abandoning further exploration of renewables? Of course not, but to suggest the idea pushing these very expensive and not as efficient solutions makes little to no sense when the country is going broke. If the private sector wants to develop this stuff, great, let the feds give companies massive tax incentives to do so and see where science takes it. I'm sure that in time solutions will come about that can readily compete with what we have today, but no that's not good enough. The whacko tree hugging liberals figure that they can, with the stroke of a pen they can make laws that will advance this process come hell or high water, not even taking under consideration what that means to the average Joe who ends up footing the bill.

[SAMIAM]

Couldn't have said it better,Maxum........many of us disagree on this issue and we've all made a "pokes" at each other but for Rose to call people mindless fools simply because they don't agree with her brings respectful debate to a very low place.I hope Rose keeps her word and fades into the (smoggy from all of our automobiles) sunset.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Rose

This BS has just made it clear that my time here is a waste. Some of you are willing to stop and think and listen (as I was of jrc's opinion and he of mine, and I appreciate that), but others are just mindless fools who don't want to think for themselves and want to maintain the status quo because it suits their lives as they currently experience them. Too bad you're screwing over your progeny. Congratulations. You make the country weaker by not educating yourselves and thus thinking for yourselves.

I take that back. I was hoping to offer an olive branch and the benefit of the doubt but looks like I was right on this case too. If you don't agree with me then your a mindless fool who can't think for themself? The elitism on the gw side is astounding. The true colors come out when questioned at all.

[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