On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 00:23:11 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:35:05 -0500, Gray_Wolf wrote:

Yes indeed! I'm very suspicious about anything the government promotes.
They lie about everything, every time!

Agreed - much better to trust the oil and coal companies :-)

Though you may not really believe it, you're right. At least they
provide a good product for a fair price. Government does neither.

We are really getting out of the little ice age.

They are finding mines and towns that were under ice in Greenland.
Vikings lived there.

The Hudson Bay in Canada used to have
trading ships from England and France come down and exchange goods.

The French fur trappers all traded that way.

The ships that were frozen into the ice when the large 'lake' that
opened into the arctic ocean froze over. Now with the thaw, the ships
are being discovered as treasure troves of timely goods.

If it was always frozen, then trading ships for Hudson Bay would never
have gotten there and Hudson Bay trading company would never have been
there.

The little ice Storm really hit us in 1888. It was winter for two years
long - no spring, summer or fall. Froze cattle on their feet. That was
bad. It is just now backing off from the bad days of back then.

Martin

On 3/15/2015 4:35 PM, Gray_Wolf wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 21:57:15 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/24/2015 7:59 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:44:15 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/24/2015 7:36 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

Global Warming is soooo 1990's

Look for a temperature anomoly map. While it's true that the Northeast
is getting slammed, most of the planet is currently hotter than
normal. That's why it's called "global" warming and not "the Northeast
this month" warming.



Well you can be picky, take a look at Antarctica. It has been "Normal
Cold" in SE Texas for the past 10~15 years. In the 90's it was warmer
in the winter than normal but it has returned to record setting lows
again as it was in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. In the 90's it was unusual
to see temps drop to the 30's in Houston. I have seen it in the 20's
pretty often in the past 10 years.

I think the warming thoughts are simply a result of being able to
process way too much information, with computers, and not getting a real
sense of what is going on. I suspect that had we had the same
information and computers 200 years ago we would not see anything out of
the ordinary today.

The evidence says that it's another way of increasing taxes.

Exactly, follow the money.

Yes indeed! I'm very suspicious about anything the government
promotes. They lie about everything, every time!

On 03/15/2015 09:23 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
We are really getting out of the little ice age.

They are finding mines and towns that were under ice in Greenland.
Vikings lived there.

The Hudson Bay in Canada used to have
trading ships from England and France come down and exchange goods.

The French fur trappers all traded that way.

The ships that were frozen into the ice when the large 'lake' that
opened into the arctic ocean froze over. Now with the thaw, the ships
are being discovered as treasure troves of timely goods.

If it was always frozen, then trading ships for Hudson Bay would never
have gotten there and Hudson Bay trading company would never have been
there.

The little ice Storm really hit us in 1888. It was winter for two years
long - no spring, summer or fall. Froze cattle on their feet. That was
bad. It is just now backing off from the bad days of back then.

Martin

On 3/15/2015 4:35 PM, Gray_Wolf wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 21:57:15 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/24/2015 7:59 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:44:15 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/24/2015 7:36 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

Global Warming is soooo 1990's

Look for a temperature anomoly map. While it's true that the
Northeast
is getting slammed, most of the planet is currently hotter than
normal. That's why it's called "global" warming and not "the
Northeast
this month" warming.



Well you can be picky, take a look at Antarctica. It has been "Normal
Cold" in SE Texas for the past 10~15 years. In the 90's it was warmer
in the winter than normal but it has returned to record setting lows
again as it was in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. In the 90's it was
unusual
to see temps drop to the 30's in Houston. I have seen it in the 20's
pretty often in the past 10 years.

I think the warming thoughts are simply a result of being able to
process way too much information, with computers, and not getting a
real
sense of what is going on. I suspect that had we had the same
information and computers 200 years ago we would not see anything
out of
the ordinary today.

The evidence says that it's another way of increasing taxes.

Exactly, follow the money.

Yes indeed! I'm very suspicious about anything the government
promotes. They lie about everything, every time!



....and in another billion years, warming will be so bad that all life on
earth will be extinguished. In 5 billion years, the earth will be
incinerated by the sun. Reducing our carbon footprint won't mean
diddly. In between now and then, climate change will yoyo with or
without humans.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 3/15/2015 11:53 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 03/15/2015 09:23 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
We are really getting out of the little ice age.

They are finding mines and towns that were under ice in Greenland.
Vikings lived there.

The Hudson Bay in Canada used to have
trading ships from England and France come down and exchange goods.

The French fur trappers all traded that way.

The ships that were frozen into the ice when the large 'lake' that
opened into the arctic ocean froze over. Now with the thaw, the ships
are being discovered as treasure troves of timely goods.

If it was always frozen, then trading ships for Hudson Bay would never
have gotten there and Hudson Bay trading company would never have been
there.

The little ice Storm really hit us in 1888. It was winter for two years
long - no spring, summer or fall. Froze cattle on their feet. That was
bad. It is just now backing off from the bad days of back then.

Martin

On 3/15/2015 4:35 PM, Gray_Wolf wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 21:57:15 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/24/2015 7:59 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:44:15 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/24/2015 7:36 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

Global Warming is soooo 1990's

Look for a temperature anomoly map. While it's true that the
Northeast
is getting slammed, most of the planet is currently hotter than
normal. That's why it's called "global" warming and not "the
Northeast
this month" warming.



Well you can be picky, take a look at Antarctica. It has been
"Normal
Cold" in SE Texas for the past 10~15 years. In the 90's it was
warmer
in the winter than normal but it has returned to record setting lows
again as it was in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. In the 90's it was
unusual
to see temps drop to the 30's in Houston. I have seen it in the 20's
pretty often in the past 10 years.

I think the warming thoughts are simply a result of being able to
process way too much information, with computers, and not getting a
real
sense of what is going on. I suspect that had we had the same
information and computers 200 years ago we would not see anything
out of
the ordinary today.

The evidence says that it's another way of increasing taxes.

Exactly, follow the money.

Yes indeed! I'm very suspicious about anything the government
promotes. They lie about everything, every time!



...and in another billion years, warming will be so bad that all life on
earth will be extinguished. In 5 billion years, the earth will be
incinerated by the sun. Reducing our carbon footprint won't mean
diddly. In between now and then, climate change will yoyo with or
without humans.


And the real tragedy in 5 billion years is that Bill Gates will have run
out of money. ;~)

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 22:10:17 -0400, krw wrote:

Agreed - much better to trust the oil and coal companies :-)

Though you may not really believe it, you're right. At least they
provide a good product for a fair price.

You are just pulling my chain, right? You can't possibly really believe
that. Next thing I know you'll be telling me about the benevolence of
the pharmaceutical companies :-).

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:38:36 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 22:10:17 -0400, krw wrote:

Agreed - much better to trust the oil and coal companies :-)

Though you may not really believe it, you're right. At least they
provide a good product for a fair price.

You are just pulling my chain, right? You can't possibly really believe
that. Next thing I know you'll be telling me about the benevolence of
the pharmaceutical companies :-).

Well, they keep me alive so I can help you keep government alive. ;-)

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 08:43:53 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 3/15/2015 11:53 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 03/15/2015 09:23 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
We are really getting out of the little ice age.

They are finding mines and towns that were under ice in Greenland.
Vikings lived there.

The Hudson Bay in Canada used to have
trading ships from England and France come down and exchange goods.

The French fur trappers all traded that way.

The ships that were frozen into the ice when the large 'lake' that
opened into the arctic ocean froze over. Now with the thaw, the ships
are being discovered as treasure troves of timely goods.

If it was always frozen, then trading ships for Hudson Bay would never
have gotten there and Hudson Bay trading company would never have been
there.

The little ice Storm really hit us in 1888. It was winter for two years
long - no spring, summer or fall. Froze cattle on their feet. That was
bad. It is just now backing off from the bad days of back then.

Martin

On 3/15/2015 4:35 PM, Gray_Wolf wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 21:57:15 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/24/2015 7:59 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:44:15 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/24/2015 7:36 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

Global Warming is soooo 1990's

Look for a temperature anomoly map. While it's true that the
Northeast
is getting slammed, most of the planet is currently hotter than
normal. That's why it's called "global" warming and not "the
Northeast
this month" warming.



Well you can be picky, take a look at Antarctica. It has been
"Normal
Cold" in SE Texas for the past 10~15 years. In the 90's it was
warmer
in the winter than normal but it has returned to record setting lows
again as it was in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. In the 90's it was
unusual
to see temps drop to the 30's in Houston. I have seen it in the 20's
pretty often in the past 10 years.

I think the warming thoughts are simply a result of being able to
process way too much information, with computers, and not getting a
real
sense of what is going on. I suspect that had we had the same
information and computers 200 years ago we would not see anything
out of
the ordinary today.

The evidence says that it's another way of increasing taxes.

Exactly, follow the money.

Yes indeed! I'm very suspicious about anything the government
promotes. They lie about everything, every time!



...and in another billion years, warming will be so bad that all life on
earth will be extinguished. In 5 billion years, the earth will be
incinerated by the sun. Reducing our carbon footprint won't mean
diddly. In between now and then, climate change will yoyo with or
without humans.


And the real tragedy in 5 billion years is that Bill Gates will have run
out of money. ;~)

Whew! I thought you wrote 5 *MILLION* years. I was getting worried!

On 2/24/2015 1:23 PM, Leon wrote:
On 2/24/2015 11:54 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
I'm about fed up with winter this year! Here's an excerpt from the local
on-line newspaper... (BTW - January was only marginally better than
February).




"Syracuse had already broken two cold temperature records this month, and
now it's time to add one mo the most days below zero in a calendar
year.

"This is the 20th time this year that we have dropped below zero,
which is
an all-time record," the National Weather Service reported. That number
might grow with several below-zero days forecast this week, the weather
service said.
February 2015 will also likely break two other records: coldest month on
record and first month in which the temperature never rose above
freezing.

Records date back to 1902."


snip

And to think - we started off this winter season with a green
Christmas...
Where is that freakin' Global Warming stuff that I keep hearing about?

It is all about you.

It would help if you had some understanding of the jet stream and how it
effects the weather. What happens is that when the polar jet stream
loops south it brings arctic frigid air down with it.

All weather is driven by temperature differences, and so is the jet
stream. As the arctic warms and sea ice melts, the arctic further warms
as dark water absorbs more of the suns heat than the far more reflective
sea ice. Warmer arctic waters lead to a less powerful jetstream, one
that because it is weaker wanders more. And when it wanders and loops
and even breaks off "polar vortexes", Syracuse gets a drubbing.

Sea ice is at such lows as to open up the northwest passage. That can't
be denied. The jetstream has been very loopy.

People that expect a 1 degree increase to be absolutely uniform across
the planet are clueless. Weather is a complex system driven by
temperature differences. Expect more erratic weather, in fact most
Republicans now believe the climate is changing:

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-...climate-change







Global Warming is soooo 1990's


--
xyz

Which is to say, folks agree the Climate is changing, NOT that those nasty homo sapiens are causing it. Climate change is a normal part of the history of the planet. In fact, there were greater swings in the global climate before those nasty, industry driven, critters ever appeared on the scene.

Deb

On 4/28/2015 5:29 AM, Dr. Deb wrote:

Which is to say, folks agree the Climate is changing, NOT that those
nasty homo sapiens are causing it. Climate change is a normal part
of the history of the planet. In fact, there were greater swings in
the global climate before those nasty, industry driven, critters ever
appeared on the scene.

Deb


Exactly, the climate changes daily in my back yard, always has and
always will. One cannot deny that. That would happen with no living
thing on earth.

On 4/28/2015 6:29 AM, Dr. Deb wrote:

Which is to say, folks agree the Climate is changing, NOT that those nasty homo sapiens are causing it. Climate change is a normal part of the history of the planet. In fact, there were greater swings in the global climate before those nasty, industry driven, critters ever appeared on the scene.

Deb


The two sides cannot agree if man is part of the change. I'd think it
would have some effect as we change the land from forest to crop filed
or from field to strip mine. Burning fuel may be part of it, though
some heat is lost to outer space.

I think a lot of it is cause by Al Gore flying around in his jet telling
people to not burn fossil fuels like his 10,000 sq. ft. house does.

On 4/27/2015 5:53 PM, pentapus wrote:

Sea ice is at such lows as to open up the northwest passage.

So, why do you think it was named a "passage"?

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

"Dr. Deb" wrote in
:

Which is to say, folks agree the Climate is changing, NOT that those
nasty homo sapiens are causing it. Climate change is a normal part
of the history of the planet.

Well, what you say is true. It's possible that Man is a cause
of climate change, in part or in total, and it's possible he
isn't. It's also possible that climate change may be beneficial
in some ways, or it may not.

But just suspose for a moment that Man is responsible in part
for climate change, and that the change is, mostly, harmful.
Would it not be wise to try and understand those causes, and
implement ways to correct them?

John

On 4/28/2015 1:59 PM, John McCoy wrote:
"Dr. Deb" wrote in
:

Which is to say, folks agree the Climate is changing, NOT that those
nasty homo sapiens are causing it. Climate change is a normal part
of the history of the planet.

Well, what you say is true. It's possible that Man is a cause
of climate change, in part or in total, and it's possible he
isn't. It's also possible that climate change may be beneficial
in some ways, or it may not.

But just suspose for a moment that Man is responsible in part
for climate change, and that the change is, mostly, harmful.
Would it not be wise to try and understand those causes, and
implement ways to correct them?

John



Perhaps not. It has been said that hurricanes are more powerful and
more frequent because the sky's are clearer and the oceans heat up more
from more unfiltered sun lightas a result. This is us trying to fix
something that takes care of itself. ;~)

John McCoy wrote:
"Dr. Deb" wrote in
:

Which is to say, folks agree the Climate is changing, NOT that those
nasty homo sapiens are causing it. Climate change is a normal part
of the history of the planet.
Well, what you say is true. It's possible that Man is a cause
of climate change, in part or in total, and it's possible he
isn't. It's also possible that climate change may be beneficial
in some ways, or it may not.


I was overlooking a beautiful lake the other day, and I thought
to myself, if people could build housing and subdivisions literally on
top of the lake, it would already be done.



But just suspose for a moment that Man is responsible in part
for climate change, and that the change is, mostly, harmful.
Would it not be wise to try and understand those causes, and
implement ways to correct them?

John

On 04/28/2015 12:24 PM, Bill wrote:
John McCoy wrote:
"Dr. Deb" wrote in
:

Which is to say, folks agree the Climate is changing, NOT that those
nasty homo sapiens are causing it. Climate change is a normal part
of the history of the planet.
Well, what you say is true. It's possible that Man is a cause
of climate change, in part or in total, and it's possible he
isn't. It's also possible that climate change may be beneficial
in some ways, or it may not.


I was overlooking a beautiful lake the other day, and I thought
to myself, if people could build housing and subdivisions literally on
top of the lake, it would already be done.

Already has been done - a long time ago to present and into the futu

http://www.seattleafloat.com/




--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:15:08 -0500, Leon wrote:

Perhaps not. It has been said that hurricanes are more powerful and
more frequent because the sky's are clearer and the oceans heat up more
from more unfiltered sun lightas a result. This is us trying to fix
something that takes care of itself. ;~)

Lots of things are "said". How about a reference to a climate expert?

Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 04/28/2015 12:24 PM, Bill wrote:
John McCoy wrote:
"Dr. Deb" wrote in
:

Which is to say, folks agree the Climate is changing, NOT that those
nasty homo sapiens are causing it. Climate change is a normal part
of the history of the planet.
Well, what you say is true. It's possible that Man is a cause
of climate change, in part or in total, and it's possible he
isn't. It's also possible that climate change may be beneficial
in some ways, or it may not.


I was overlooking a beautiful lake the other day, and I thought
to myself, if people could build housing and subdivisions literally on
top of the lake, it would already be done.

Already has been done - a long time ago to present and into the futu

http://www.seattleafloat.com/

True images of beauty...

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Perhaps not. It has been said that hurricanes are more powerful and
more frequent because the sky's are clearer and the oceans heat up
more from more unfiltered sun lightas a result. This is us trying to
fix something that takes care of itself. ;~)

As I live in the pointy end of Florida, I've had reason to
study up on hurricanes. The short answer to your question is,
no-one knows what the effect of a warmer climate would be on
hurricanes.

In general, warmer water leads to more and stronger hurricanes.
2005, the year of Katrina, Wilma, and too many hurricanes to
name (*) was marked by unusually warm water in the Atlantic
and Gulf. But there have been years since then with unusually
warm waters, and fewer than usual hurricanes.

The strength of a hurricane is also dependant on the warmth
of the waters it passes over. A warmer climate should lead
to stronger hurricanes, but a warmer climate also leads to
stronger trade winds (as is seen with the El Nino weather
pattern), which suppresses and weakens hurricanes.

Hurricanes are very sensistive to winds blowing at different
speeds at different altitudes (what they call "wind shear").
A warmer climate may increase the strength of upper level
winds, which would tend to prevent hurricanes forming.

The factors which determine a hurricane's path, especially
when it's forming, aren't all that well understood. A
warming climate might change the pattern of high pressure
over the Atlantic, encouraging hurricanes to head north
over the Atlantic (or into New England) rather than west
into the Carribean or Florida.

In other words, too many interrelated things going on to
really predict what climate change might do.

John

(* literally too many - the Hurricane Center ran out of
letters of the alphabet, and named the last few using
Greek letters)

On 4/28/2015 2:24 PM, Bill wrote:
I was overlooking a beautiful lake the other day, and I thought
to myself, if people could build housing and subdivisions literally on
top of the lake, it would already be done.

It has.

http://www.tripchinaguide.com/public...1008104752.jpg

I saw it 50 years ago.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 4/28/2015 6:25 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:15:08 -0500, Leon wrote:

Perhaps not. It has been said that hurricanes are more powerful and
more frequent because the sky's are clearer and the oceans heat up more
from more unfiltered sun lightas a result. This is us trying to fix
something that takes care of itself. ;~)

Lots of things are "said". How about a reference to a climate expert?



This is a case of putting 2+2 together.... common sense, I have heard it
on the weather channel and or Discovery channel also. But seriously this
makes much more sense than most other claims about the atmosphere.
Hurricanes do become stronger with warmer waters and the depth of the
warm water has to be quite considerable to not cool too rapidly as the
water evaporates. Direct unfiltered sun light works best.

On 4/29/2015 6:38 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 4/28/2015 2:24 PM, Bill wrote:
I was overlooking a beautiful lake the other day, and I thought
to myself, if people could build housing and subdivisions literally on
top of the lake, it would already be done.

It has.

http://www.tripchinaguide.com/public...1008104752.jpg


I saw it 50 years ago.


ROTFL ;~)

On 4/29/2015 6:38 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 4/28/2015 2:24 PM, Bill wrote:
I was overlooking a beautiful lake the other day, and I thought
to myself, if people could build housing and subdivisions literally on
top of the lake, it would already be done.

It has.

http://www.tripchinaguide.com/public...1008104752.jpg


I saw it 50 years ago.


I think I saw that on an old James Bond movie.

On 4/28/2015 7:25 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:15:08 -0500, Leon wrote:

Perhaps not. It has been said that hurricanes are more powerful and
more frequent because the sky's are clearer and the oceans heat up more
from more unfiltered sun lightas a result. This is us trying to fix
something that takes care of itself. ;~)

Lots of things are "said". How about a reference to a climate expert?

----
Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change
is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earths
climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth
century a sign of intelligence.

Richard Lindzen - atmospheric physicist
----

Just the fact that the alarmists went from global cooling, to global
warming, and now to climate change in just the last 50 years makes it
obvious they have no clue what they are talking about.

Jack - expert on bogus religious zealots and the socialist pukes taking
advantage of their misguided convictions...
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

Swingman wrote:
On 4/28/2015 2:24 PM, Bill wrote:
I was overlooking a beautiful lake the other day, and I thought
to myself, if people could build housing and subdivisions literally on
top of the lake, it would already be done.

It has.

http://www.tripchinaguide.com/public...1008104752.jpg


I saw it 50 years ago.


A friend of mine used to say that anytime there is a "conflict" between
man and nature, especially animals, the animals lose. He sided with
nature believing that people are arrogant.

On 4/28/2015 7:49 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Perhaps not. It has been said that hurricanes are more powerful and
more frequent because the sky's are clearer and the oceans heat up
more from more unfiltered sun lightas a result. This is us trying to
fix something that takes care of itself. ;~)

As I live in the pointy end of Florida, I've had reason to
study up on hurricanes. The short answer to your question is,
no-one knows what the effect of a warmer climate would be on
hurricanes.

In general, warmer water leads to more and stronger hurricanes.
2005, the year of Katrina, Wilma, and too many hurricanes to
name (*) was marked by unusually warm water in the Atlantic
and Gulf. But there have been years since then with unusually
warm waters, and fewer than usual hurricanes.

The strength of a hurricane is also dependant on the warmth
of the waters it passes over. A warmer climate should lead
to stronger hurricanes, but a warmer climate also leads to
stronger trade winds (as is seen with the El Nino weather
pattern), which suppresses and weakens hurricanes.

Hurricanes are very sensistive to winds blowing at different
speeds at different altitudes (what they call "wind shear").
A warmer climate may increase the strength of upper level
winds, which would tend to prevent hurricanes forming.

The factors which determine a hurricane's path, especially
when it's forming, aren't all that well understood. A
warming climate might change the pattern of high pressure
over the Atlantic, encouraging hurricanes to head north
over the Atlantic (or into New England) rather than west
into the Carribean or Florida.

In other words, too many interrelated things going on to
really predict what climate change might do.

John

(* literally too many - the Hurricane Center ran out of
letters of the alphabet, and named the last few using
Greek letters)


Ain't cut'n'past grand?

I am of the form belief that the biggest reason that there are more
named storms is simply because of the technology.

1. Back before the 60's, before powerful computers and satellite
imagery, we simply did not have the capabilities to spot every storm
that came off of the African coast and or many of those that developed
between here and there. So I am sure we missed countless storms.

Now we see most all of them and count every one of them whether they
become a hurricane or not.

2. The weather service has spent a fortune on new equipment and
technology. They "have" to justify that expense and will report any
blip on the screen as a potential hurricane.

3. I think in general there is more data available that no one has
determined as to it's actual relevance. Yes there has been a rapid warm
up in the norther hemisphere. The calendar says it is summer. The
local reporter is standing in the rain at the curb of the street in
boots just short of waders. The water is about 2 inches deep and
flowing towards the drain and this is described as treacherous.

On 4/29/2015 8:21 AM, Jack wrote:
On 4/28/2015 7:25 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:15:08 -0500, Leon wrote:

Perhaps not. It has been said that hurricanes are more powerful and
more frequent because the sky's are clearer and the oceans heat up more
from more unfiltered sun lightas a result. This is us trying to fix
something that takes care of itself. ;~)

Lots of things are "said". How about a reference to a climate expert?

----
Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change
is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earths
climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth
century a sign of intelligence.

Richard Lindzen - atmospheric physicist
----

Just the fact that the alarmists went from global cooling, to global
warming, and now to climate change in just the last 50 years makes it
obvious they have no clue what they are talking about.

Jack - expert on bogus religious zealots and the socialist pukes taking
advantage of their misguided convictions...

follow the money... ;~)

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:-
:

Ain't cut'n'past grand?

How now? I typed all that mess letter by letter... :-)

I am of the form belief that the biggest reason that there are more
named storms is simply because of the technology.

1. Back before the 60's, before powerful computers and satellite
imagery, we simply did not have the capabilities to spot every storm
that came off of the African coast and or many of those that developed
between here and there. So I am sure we missed countless storms.

Now we see most all of them and count every one of them whether they
become a hurricane or not.

2. The weather service has spent a fortune on new equipment and
technology. They "have" to justify that expense and will report any
blip on the screen as a potential hurricane.

I agree with both of these, especially the first (altho, back
in the days of sailing ships the government collected a lot
of data on winds at sea, and there's a surprising amount of
information on hurricanes from the 1880s to the 1920s)

And in fairness to the NHC, while they have inflated the
number of hurricanes, they've also become vastly better at
predicting where they're going over the last 20 years.

John

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 9:42:16 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
On 4/28/2015 7:49 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Perhaps not. It has been said that hurricanes are more powerful and
more frequent because the sky's are clearer and the oceans heat up
more from more unfiltered sun lightas a result. This is us trying to
fix something that takes care of itself. ;~)

As I live in the pointy end of Florida, I've had reason to
study up on hurricanes. The short answer to your question is,
no-one knows what the effect of a warmer climate would be on
hurricanes.

In general, warmer water leads to more and stronger hurricanes.
2005, the year of Katrina, Wilma, and too many hurricanes to
name (*) was marked by unusually warm water in the Atlantic
and Gulf. But there have been years since then with unusually
warm waters, and fewer than usual hurricanes.

The strength of a hurricane is also dependant on the warmth
of the waters it passes over. A warmer climate should lead
to stronger hurricanes, but a warmer climate also leads to
stronger trade winds (as is seen with the El Nino weather
pattern), which suppresses and weakens hurricanes.

Hurricanes are very sensistive to winds blowing at different
speeds at different altitudes (what they call "wind shear").
A warmer climate may increase the strength of upper level
winds, which would tend to prevent hurricanes forming.

The factors which determine a hurricane's path, especially
when it's forming, aren't all that well understood. A
warming climate might change the pattern of high pressure
over the Atlantic, encouraging hurricanes to head north
over the Atlantic (or into New England) rather than west
into the Carribean or Florida.

In other words, too many interrelated things going on to
really predict what climate change might do.

John

(* literally too many - the Hurricane Center ran out of
letters of the alphabet, and named the last few using
Greek letters)


Ain't cut'n'past grand?

I am of the form belief that the biggest reason that there are more
named storms is simply because of the technology.

1. Back before the 60's, before powerful computers and satellite
imagery, we simply did not have the capabilities to spot every storm
that came off of the African coast and or many of those that developed
between here and there. So I am sure we missed countless storms.

Now we see most all of them and count every one of them whether they
become a hurricane or not.

2. The weather service has spent a fortune on new equipment and
technology. They "have" to justify that expense and will report any
blip on the screen as a potential hurricane.

3. I think in general there is more data available that no one has
determined as to it's actual relevance. Yes there has been a rapid warm
up in the norther hemisphere. The calendar says it is summer. The
local reporter is standing in the rain at the curb of the street in
boots just short of waders. The water is about 2 inches deep and
flowing towards the drain and this is described as treacherous.

2 inches of water is described as treacherous?

Let's see that local reporter do what this guy does at about 0:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue2gcyT4fc4

On 4/29/2015 12:56 PM, John McCoy wrote:
I agree with both of these, especially the first (altho, back
in the days of sailing ships the government collected a lot
of data on winds at sea, and there's a surprising amount of
information on hurricanes from the 1880s to the 1920s)

On that same note about data. 50+ years ago, navigating the shores of
Australia and New Zealand in a motor vessel, many of our navigation
charts had Cpt James Cook's name on them.

Charted in the late 1700's, it was amazing at how accurate they were.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 4/29/2015 12:56 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:-
:

Ain't cut'n'past grand?

How now? I typed all that mess letter by letter... :-)

LOL and your style seemed to change too.


I am of the form belief that the biggest reason that there are more
named storms is simply because of the technology.

1. Back before the 60's, before powerful computers and satellite
imagery, we simply did not have the capabilities to spot every storm
that came off of the African coast and or many of those that developed
between here and there. So I am sure we missed countless storms.

Now we see most all of them and count every one of them whether they
become a hurricane or not.

2. The weather service has spent a fortune on new equipment and
technology. They "have" to justify that expense and will report any
blip on the screen as a potential hurricane.

I agree with both of these, especially the first (altho, back
in the days of sailing ships the government collected a lot
of data on winds at sea, and there's a surprising amount of
information on hurricanes from the 1880s to the 1920s)

Certainly but I have to wonder how out dated the information was for
useful warnings. By the time that information became available the
weather was nice for cleaning up the destruction. ;~)


And in fairness to the NHC, while they have inflated the
number of hurricanes, they've also become vastly better at
predicting where they're going over the last 20 years.

John


Yes but unfortunately, especially along the Texas coast, the weather
guys on TV get so exited at the possibility of a cloud becoming a
hurricane they almost **** themselves.

I will never forget, Dr. Neil Frank embellishing the forecast of
hurricane Rita in 2005. This storm came on the heals of Katrina that
hit New Orleans a month earlier. The Houston citizens were already on
edge but this guy should have been brought up on some king of charges.
His embellishment of the forecast absolutely caused countless
unnecessary loss of lives.

I can still see and hear him indicating that Houston was going to be a
direct by Rita. It was a fire and brimstone moment. Houston was going
to receive a direct hit and the results were going to be
catastrophically devastating.

Anyway the storm hit Beaumont and Houston really did not see anything of
the storm. The storm was pretty bad for Beaumont but nothing like what
the Dr. predicted for Houston.

There was a mass exodus from Houston days before the projected hit.
"Millions" of people literally gridlocked all highways leaving Houston
and sat in their cars for 24~48 hours on average. Most all ran out of
gas sitting in line trying to get away from Houston.

It is not a new concept that you run from rising water but shelter in
place from the winds. Many people died of a multitude of reasons,
mostly because of panic, sitting in their cars, and at leas one buss
that caught fire while sitting in gridlock.

Dr. Neil Frank left the local station shortly after and little has been
heard from him since, at least by me. Good riddance.

On 4/29/2015 1:53 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 9:42:16 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
On 4/28/2015 7:49 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Perhaps not. It has been said that hurricanes are more powerful and
more frequent because the sky's are clearer and the oceans heat up
more from more unfiltered sun lightas a result. This is us trying to
fix something that takes care of itself. ;~)

As I live in the pointy end of Florida, I've had reason to
study up on hurricanes. The short answer to your question is,
no-one knows what the effect of a warmer climate would be on
hurricanes.

In general, warmer water leads to more and stronger hurricanes.
2005, the year of Katrina, Wilma, and too many hurricanes to
name (*) was marked by unusually warm water in the Atlantic
and Gulf. But there have been years since then with unusually
warm waters, and fewer than usual hurricanes.

The strength of a hurricane is also dependant on the warmth
of the waters it passes over. A warmer climate should lead
to stronger hurricanes, but a warmer climate also leads to
stronger trade winds (as is seen with the El Nino weather
pattern), which suppresses and weakens hurricanes.

Hurricanes are very sensistive to winds blowing at different
speeds at different altitudes (what they call "wind shear").
A warmer climate may increase the strength of upper level
winds, which would tend to prevent hurricanes forming.

The factors which determine a hurricane's path, especially
when it's forming, aren't all that well understood. A
warming climate might change the pattern of high pressure
over the Atlantic, encouraging hurricanes to head north
over the Atlantic (or into New England) rather than west
into the Carribean or Florida.

In other words, too many interrelated things going on to
really predict what climate change might do.

John

(* literally too many - the Hurricane Center ran out of
letters of the alphabet, and named the last few using
Greek letters)


Ain't cut'n'past grand?

I am of the form belief that the biggest reason that there are more
named storms is simply because of the technology.

1. Back before the 60's, before powerful computers and satellite
imagery, we simply did not have the capabilities to spot every storm
that came off of the African coast and or many of those that developed
between here and there. So I am sure we missed countless storms.

Now we see most all of them and count every one of them whether they
become a hurricane or not.

2. The weather service has spent a fortune on new equipment and
technology. They "have" to justify that expense and will report any
blip on the screen as a potential hurricane.

3. I think in general there is more data available that no one has
determined as to it's actual relevance. Yes there has been a rapid warm
up in the norther hemisphere. The calendar says it is summer. The
local reporter is standing in the rain at the curb of the street in
boots just short of waders. The water is about 2 inches deep and
flowing towards the drain and this is described as treacherous.

2 inches of water is described as treacherous?

Let's see that local reporter do what this guy does at about 0:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue2gcyT4fc4


LOL.. SHEEEEEIT

I just knew you were going to show the one where the Today show switched
to a woman reporter sitting in a canoe showing the flood waters and a
person or two walking between her and the river in water about 10" deep.
Matt Lauer called her on that one and was cracking up laughing.

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:21:48 -0400, Jack wrote:

Lots of things are "said". How about a reference to a climate expert?

----
Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change
is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earths
climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth
century a sign of intelligence.

Richard Lindzen - atmospheric physicist


John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that
progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there
are "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as
Dick Lindzen is."

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:46ydnQeDBKqbytzInZ2dnUVZ5g-
:

On 4/29/2015 12:56 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:-
:

Ain't cut'n'past grand?

How now? I typed all that mess letter by letter... :-)

LOL and your style seemed to change too.

Probably because half way thru I forgot where I was going
and started over. I do that a lot.

Certainly but I have to wonder how out dated the information was for
useful warnings. By the time that information became available the
weather was nice for cleaning up the destruction. ;~)

Oh, it was useless for warnings, and wasn't intended for
them. The government of the time was interested in knowing
what latitude the trade winds were, and how strong, at
different times of year.

The side effect, tho, is that the tracks of many hurricanes
in that era can be recreated with reasonable accuracy.

And in fairness to the NHC, while they have inflated the
number of hurricanes, they've also become vastly better at
predicting where they're going over the last 20 years.

Yes but unfortunately, especially along the Texas coast, the weather
guys on TV get so exited at the possibility of a cloud becoming a
hurricane they almost **** themselves.

Oh hell yes, the TV weatherfolk are useless. Between working
themselves up into a frenzy beforehand, and then doing stupid
things when a storm actually shows...I recall a crew up in WPB
filming either Frances or Jeanne in 2004 - they were under a
parking deck on the lee side of an office building, and the
guy goes "we're going to step out here and see what's happening",
and as he does a sheet of metal siding blows past his nose at
about 40mph. "ah, I think we'll stay behind the building for
a while..."

at leas one buss
that caught fire while sitting in gridlock.

I recall that - it was a bus full of old folk from a nursing
home, many of whom had oxygen bottles. Needless to say, once
the fire started there was little hope of stopping it.

Never really understood how people got that panicked, either.
Once you get away from Baytown and the rest of the east
Houston area, it really doesn't look like much of it is
at risk for deadly flooding.

John

On 4/29/2015 7:47 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:46ydnQeDBKqbytzInZ2dnUVZ5g-
:

On 4/29/2015 12:56 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:-
:

Ain't cut'n'past grand?

How now? I typed all that mess letter by letter... :-)

LOL and your style seemed to change too.

Probably because half way thru I forgot where I was going
and started over. I do that a lot.

Certainly but I have to wonder how out dated the information was for
useful warnings. By the time that information became available the
weather was nice for cleaning up the destruction. ;~)

Oh, it was useless for warnings, and wasn't intended for
them. The government of the time was interested in knowing
what latitude the trade winds were, and how strong, at
different times of year.

The side effect, tho, is that the tracks of many hurricanes
in that era can be recreated with reasonable accuracy.

And in fairness to the NHC, while they have inflated the
number of hurricanes, they've also become vastly better at
predicting where they're going over the last 20 years.

Yes but unfortunately, especially along the Texas coast, the weather
guys on TV get so exited at the possibility of a cloud becoming a
hurricane they almost **** themselves.

Oh hell yes, the TV weatherfolk are useless. Between working
themselves up into a frenzy beforehand, and then doing stupid
things when a storm actually shows...I recall a crew up in WPB
filming either Frances or Jeanne in 2004 - they were under a
parking deck on the lee side of an office building, and the
guy goes "we're going to step out here and see what's happening",
and as he does a sheet of metal siding blows past his nose at
about 40mph. "ah, I think we'll stay behind the building for
a while..."

at leas one buss
that caught fire while sitting in gridlock.

I recall that - it was a bus full of old folk from a nursing
home, many of whom had oxygen bottles. Needless to say, once
the fire started there was little hope of stopping it.

Never really understood how people got that panicked, either.
Once you get away from Baytown and the rest of the east
Houston area, it really doesn't look like much of it is
at risk for deadly flooding.

John

Remember Rita was on the heels of Katrina and Rita was a cat 5 storm at
one time. TV coverage from Katrina was still unfolding. Add to that Dr.
Neil Frank was a respected weather guy up until that episode. We left,
about 30 minutes ahead of the crowd, 2 1/2 days ahead of the forecast hit.

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 6:17:19 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
On 4/29/2015 1:53 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 9:42:16 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
On 4/28/2015 7:49 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Perhaps not. It has been said that hurricanes are more powerful and
more frequent because the sky's are clearer and the oceans heat up
more from more unfiltered sun lightas a result. This is us trying to
fix something that takes care of itself. ;~)

As I live in the pointy end of Florida, I've had reason to
study up on hurricanes. The short answer to your question is,
no-one knows what the effect of a warmer climate would be on
hurricanes.

In general, warmer water leads to more and stronger hurricanes.
2005, the year of Katrina, Wilma, and too many hurricanes to
name (*) was marked by unusually warm water in the Atlantic
and Gulf. But there have been years since then with unusually
warm waters, and fewer than usual hurricanes.

The strength of a hurricane is also dependant on the warmth
of the waters it passes over. A warmer climate should lead
to stronger hurricanes, but a warmer climate also leads to
stronger trade winds (as is seen with the El Nino weather
pattern), which suppresses and weakens hurricanes.

Hurricanes are very sensistive to winds blowing at different
speeds at different altitudes (what they call "wind shear").
A warmer climate may increase the strength of upper level
winds, which would tend to prevent hurricanes forming.

The factors which determine a hurricane's path, especially
when it's forming, aren't all that well understood. A
warming climate might change the pattern of high pressure
over the Atlantic, encouraging hurricanes to head north
over the Atlantic (or into New England) rather than west
into the Carribean or Florida.

In other words, too many interrelated things going on to
really predict what climate change might do.

John

(* literally too many - the Hurricane Center ran out of
letters of the alphabet, and named the last few using
Greek letters)


Ain't cut'n'past grand?

I am of the form belief that the biggest reason that there are more
named storms is simply because of the technology.

1. Back before the 60's, before powerful computers and satellite
imagery, we simply did not have the capabilities to spot every storm
that came off of the African coast and or many of those that developed
between here and there. So I am sure we missed countless storms.

Now we see most all of them and count every one of them whether they
become a hurricane or not.

2. The weather service has spent a fortune on new equipment and
technology. They "have" to justify that expense and will report any
blip on the screen as a potential hurricane.

3. I think in general there is more data available that no one has
determined as to it's actual relevance. Yes there has been a rapid warm
up in the norther hemisphere. The calendar says it is summer. The
local reporter is standing in the rain at the curb of the street in
boots just short of waders. The water is about 2 inches deep and
flowing towards the drain and this is described as treacherous.

2 inches of water is described as treacherous?

Let's see that local reporter do what this guy does at about 0:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue2gcyT4fc4


LOL.. SHEEEEEIT


That clip includes the 2 of my 3 biggest fears: heights and water. All it needed was a big snarling dog and I probably would have crapped my pants. ;-)

DerbyDad03 wrote:


That clip includes the 2 of my 3 biggest fears: heights and water.
All it needed was a big snarling dog and I probably would have
crapped my pants. ;-)

I watch these things and my stomach does somersaults just as if I were
actually there.

--

-Mike-

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 8:48:13 PM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:46ydnQeDBKqbytzInZ2dnUVZ5g-
:

On 4/29/2015 12:56 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:-
:

Ain't cut'n'past grand?

How now? I typed all that mess letter by letter... :-)

LOL and your style seemed to change too.

Probably because half way thru I forgot where I was going
and started over. I do that a lot.

Certainly but I have to wonder how out dated the information was for
useful warnings. By the time that information became available the
weather was nice for cleaning up the destruction. ;~)

Oh, it was useless for warnings, and wasn't intended for
them. The government of the time was interested in knowing
what latitude the trade winds were, and how strong, at
different times of year.

The side effect, tho, is that the tracks of many hurricanes
in that era can be recreated with reasonable accuracy.

And in fairness to the NHC, while they have inflated the
number of hurricanes, they've also become vastly better at
predicting where they're going over the last 20 years.

Yes but unfortunately, especially along the Texas coast, the weather
guys on TV get so exited at the possibility of a cloud becoming a
hurricane they almost **** themselves.

Oh hell yes, the TV weatherfolk are useless. Between working
themselves up into a frenzy beforehand, and then doing stupid
things when a storm actually shows...I recall a crew up in WPB
filming either Frances or Jeanne in 2004 - they were under a
parking deck on the lee side of an office building, and the
guy goes "we're going to step out here and see what's happening",
and as he does a sheet of metal siding blows past his nose at
about 40mph. "ah, I think we'll stay behind the building for
a while..."

at leas one buss
that caught fire while sitting in gridlock.

I recall that - it was a bus full of old folk from a nursing
home, many of whom had oxygen bottles. Needless to say, once
the fire started there was little hope of stopping it.

Never really understood how people got that panicked, either.
Once you get away from Baytown and the rest of the east
Houston area, it really doesn't look like much of it is
at risk for deadly flooding.

John

A few months ago I received a letter from the company that holds my mortgage informing me that my property is located in a FEMA designated Special Flood Hazard Area. If I didn't provide proof of flood insurance by a specific date, they were going to buy the insurance for me and add the premiums to my monthly payment.

My house is located on top of a steep hill, with an elevation that is 155' higher than a large bay and one of the Great Lakes which is about a mile away. It would take a flood of biblical proportions for the water to reach my house. Houses within just a block or two would be completely submerged before my house even got damp.

When I called them about the letter they said "Sorry, that letter was sent to the owner of every single property we hold the mortgage on. Feel free to disregard it."

It took them over 3 months to formally acknowledge the error in writing. I wonder how many people actually bought flood insurance based on the initial letter. I wonder if they can get reimbursed for the premiums and any cancellation charges. "Your honor, the big, bad insurance company threatened me. I'm not a flood expert, so I believed them."

On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 10:05:25 AM UTC-4, Mike Marlow wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:


That clip includes the 2 of my 3 biggest fears: heights and water.
All it needed was a big snarling dog and I probably would have
crapped my pants. ;-)

I watch these things and my stomach does somersaults just as if I were
actually there.


....and you also lean back in your chair, right? BTDT

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 4/29/2015 7:47 PM, John McCoy wrote:

Never really understood how people got that panicked, either.
Once you get away from Baytown and the rest of the east
Houston area, it really doesn't look like much of it is
at risk for deadly flooding.

Remember Rita was on the heels of Katrina and Rita was a cat 5 storm
at one time. TV coverage from Katrina was still unfolding. Add to
that Dr. Neil Frank was a respected weather guy up until that episode.
We left, about 30 minutes ahead of the crowd, 2 1/2 days ahead of the
forecast hit.

Yeah, I guess all of that plus total unfamiliarity with
hurricanes would do it. In South Fla we tend to forget
most people have never experienced a hurricane, and don't
think about them every year.

But realistically, most of Houston is ~45 feet above sea
level (according to Wikipedia), storm surge flooding is
not an issue. It's 9 feet above sea level where I am,
and I don't worry about storm surge (mostly because I'm
12 miles inland, historically storm surge has not gone
more than ~3 miles inland around here).

I drove along TX12 from DeQuincy to Vidor not too long
after Rita, and was surprised that there wasn't more
evidence of the storm. I suspect, tho, that if I'd
gone thru Lake Charles it would have looked more like
the Pascagoula - Gulfport stretch of I-10.

John