Warm water causes extra-cold winters in northeastern North America and Northeastern Asia

So, then, does that mean that if the THC (thermohaline circulation, aka great ocean conveyor) were to shut down due to excessive freshwater from icecap melt, Europe would become colder but the northeast US would become warmer?

Hmm As the globe warms, does the increase in temperature of ocean water create colder and colder winters, somehow bringing on an ice age? Sounds crazy but who knows.

"Europe would become colder but the northeast US would become warmer?"

No the opposite. If the ocean circulations were to stop based on this model it would mean the eastern coast would retain more heat, thus sucking down more cold air from the north keeping the eastern coast colder.

So, then, does that mean that if the THC (thermohaline circulation, aka great ocean conveyor) were to shut down due to excessive freshwater from icecap melt

There have been several articles on this site that say ocean sediment cores indicate that fresh water does not shut down the ocean conveyor in either the atlantic or pacific. They say that there is no evidence for increased stratification either. Keep in mind that there is relatively recent evidence for the effects of massive amounts of fresh melt water entering the oceans. The paleo record for this is relatively good.

Computer model?

We know how accurate those aren't.

Wow. They sure keep digging to explain away all their false prognastications.

First, it was AGW causes drought and desertification! Then, it was AGW causes rain and floods! Now, it's AGW causes cold and snow!

Is there anything left AGW doesn't cause? Can I claim AGW ate my tax returns?

So scientists have been studying global warming for 15+ years or so, and immediately after a notably cold winter they discover that global warming causes cold winters.

Physics, mathematics, and chemistry are 'hard' sciences--we can understand their rules well enough to make accurate predictions. Psychology and climatology are soft sciences because, although we understand the fundamental rules upon which they are based, they are unpredictable because of many missing and low-precision variables, and because they are chaotic. The only variables we have in climatology with any notable degree of precision are satellite temperature measurements, and they show a simple correlation between the recent increase in solar output and Earth temperature.
Please understand that there are notable ignoble powers that drive AGW regardless of science:
1. A desire of 'scientists' for funding
2. A jealousy of perceived wealth of industry
3. ..and of the west
4. A desire of rulers to control industry

We know how accurate those aren't.

You do? How would you know?

They sure keep digging to explain away all their false prognastications.

This isn't a "false prognostication"; it is a case of explaining why Europe's west coast is much warmer than North America's east coast, and NA's west coast much warmer than Asia's east coast at the same latitudes. But you probably didn't read far enough to figure that out; you probably just regurgitated your knee-jerk denier BS right after you read the heading.

the recent increase in solar output

There has been no such thing.

The physics of the atmosphere and the atmosphere - ocean interaction has been studied extensively for over 100 years. The computer models just incorporate those physical phenomena in varied degrees of accuracy. Therefore discounting the output of these computer models is like discounting the validity of 100 years worth of physics backed by experimental data. Oh btw, most of the advanced aircraft, cars, trains etc are studied extensively using only models and validation of those models with a few experiments. Wonder if that causes you to stop driving or flying.

Scientists and others have been trying to discount numerical climatology since the 50's without much success. Wonder why!!!

This isn't a "false prognostication";

Right. This is the inconvenient facts which refute previous prognastications.

it is a case of explaining why Europe's west coast is much warmer than North America's east coast, and NA's west coast much warmer than Asia's east coast at the same latitudes.

And this article just serves to demonstrate how climate scientists oversimply this inherently chaotic and complex system. There's no such thing as a single cause for weather.

This is the inconvenient facts which refute previous prognastications.

So now climate simulations are "inconvenient facts", rather than unreliable models? Funny, how the truth is in the wooden beam lodged within the eye of the beholder... Also, FYI the correct spelling is "prognOstications".

There's no such thing as a single cause for weather.

Which is exactly why weather can't be reduced to a simple analytically solvable equation, and is best simulated numerically. Complex dynamical systems tend to be like that.

And even though it's also the case with the subject matter of this article, the article itself isn't talking about WEATHER. It's talking about regional CLIMATE (which is another way of saying weather averaged over large time spans.) And, it has only a tangential relevance to GLOBAL CLIMATE (or, AGW -- where the 'G' stands for 'Global').

So now climate simulations are "inconvenient facts", rather than unreliable models?

No. The weather/climate record is the inconvenient facts, and the climate simulations are the unreliable prognostications.

...the article itself isn't talking about WEATHER. It's talking about regional CLIMATE...

Okay. There's no such thing as a single cause for climate, either.

The weather/climate record is the inconvenient facts

In what possible way could these particular facts be construed as 'inconvenient'?

and the climate simulations are the unreliable prognostications

In what possible way could these simulations be construed as 'prognostications', when all they're doing is explaining a phenomenon post-hoc? As for 'unreliable', I suppose you have a better explanation for the particular spatial pattern and magnitude of those temperature differences?

Okay. There's no such thing as a single cause for climate, either.

Awesome. Now let's just get you to finally distinguish regional climate from global climate, and my work here is finished.

...the article itself isn't talking about WEATHER. It's talking about regional CLIMATE...

Okay. There's no such thing as a single cause for climate, either.

True, however a small example for you:

I heat my house via two methods, steam radiator heat and a pellet stove.

Now if I set the furnace and don't adjust the setting I can change the temperature on demand in the room using the pellet stove and vice versa.

Now let's say I vary the furnace at a known interval by 5 degrees. I can still control the temperature of the room, on demand, using the pellet stove.

This example is merely to show how when you know the cycles of the variables you can measure and account for them, getting a result of the entire system.

Unless you can quantify an unknown aspect and show the impact of it, you'll be entirely unable to derive a point from this line of reasoning.

In what possible way could these particular facts be construed as 'inconvenient'?

The dire predictions of the AGW "scientists" (particularly early predictions of endless drought and desertification) simply haven't held up.

In what possible way could these simulations be construed as 'prognostications',...?

They're commonly cited in the dire predictions (often regarding long term drought, desertification, sea level rise, etc.).

I suppose you have a better explanation for the particular spatial pattern and magnitude of those temperature differences?

Yes, in fact I do. Here's a clue to its complexity: What causes the sea temp differences, to begin with? Basically, they're posing the question: Why do other planetary atmospheres tend to be banded, but not Earth's? Think about it.

...distinguish regional climate from global climate...

"Global" implies an irrelevant average. It says nothing about livability.

Unless you can quantify an unknown aspect and show the impact of it, you'll be entirely unable to derive a point from this line of reasoning.

What, and you don't think the weather outside your home impacts your room temperature (and need for heat)? See? You completely failed to understand the underlying complexities.

The dire predictions of the AGW "scientists" (particularly early predictions of endless drought and desertification) simply haven't held up. ... They're commonly cited in the dire predictions (often regarding long term drought, desertification, sea level rise, etc.)

So let me get this straight. Long-term projections haven't held up in the short term? Why, that's earth-shattering. Where's the Nobel Prize committee when you need 'em?

What causes the sea temp differences, to begin with?

What causes currents in North Hemisphere to circulate clockwise? Uh, that would be a combination of convection and the Coriolis effect. Next question, please...

other planetary atmospheres tend to be banded, but not Earth's? Think about it.

Because Earth is rather unlike a gas giant, but more similar to Mars or Venus?

"Global" implies an irrelevant average.

Yes, it does imply an average (eureka!) Irrelevant how?

It says nothing about livability.

Really? NOTHING?

So let me get this straight. Long-term projections haven't held up in the short term? Why, that's earth-shattering. Where's the Nobel Prize committee when you need 'em?

You're attempted strawman fails miserably. Where, in my statement, did I write "long-term?"

What causes currents in North Hemisphere to circulate clockwise? Uh, that would be a combination of convection and the Coriolis effect. Next question, please...

Another strawman. Now you're asking and answering your own question.

Because Earth is rather unlike a gas giant, but more similar to Mars or Venus?

Another strawman non-answer.

Yes, it does imply an average (eureka!) Irrelevant how?

Earth's climate zones are quite various and unique. To lump them all together would be to paint a falsely homogeneous (ergo irrelevant) picture.

Really? NOTHING?

In the context of AGW effects on local climates, yes.

Correction:

So let me get this straight. Long-term projections haven't held up in the short term? Why, that's earth-shattering. Where's the Nobel Prize committee when you need 'em?

You're attempted strawman fails miserably. My use of "long term" was in regards to continuous drought, desertification and significant sea level rise, that should be evident and ongoing, now.

Some examples:

http://www.massli...ons.html

http://www.freere...01/posts

Where, in my statement, did I write "long-term?"

Uh, I QUOTED it. Put on your glasses, and try again.

Now you're asking and answering your own question.

Didn't you inquire about the origin of the Gulf Stream?

Another strawman non-answer.

Are there atmospheric stripes on Mars or
Venus? You're the one who has thought deeply on the issue. Please enlighten me.

Earth's climate zones are quite various and unique.

And all immune to climatic disruption?

In the context of AGW effects on local climates, yes.

Distortion of radiative balance has no effect on local climates in a complex and interlinked dynamical system that is the global climate?

My use of "long term" was in regards to continuous drought, desertification and significant sea level rise, that should be evident and ongoing, now.

NOW?? Most of the IPCC predictions target circa 2100. Are you communicating to us from the future?

Here's a ScienceDaily article:

"There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

http://www.scienc...4956.htm

Here's one that nicely describes why climate modeling is inaccurate:

http://theresilie...-science

Here's one about failed mountain flora predictions:

http://www.gazett...dictions

And here's a blog entry with lots of citations that I found interesting:

http://oneutah.or...warming/

More predictions biting the dust:

http://blogs.news...ictions/

Anyway, there's a lot of information on the failures of AGW predictions.

Uh, I QUOTED it. Put on your glasses, and try again.

I did. Read the correction I subsequently posted.

Didn't you inquire about the origin of the Gulf Stream?

Vaguely, but only in as it affects sea temp differences. You're avoiding the broader context.

Are there atmospheric stripes on Mars or
Venus?

Smart aleck. Generally, yes.

http://en.wikiped...eruv.jpg

http://en.wikiped...0124.jpg

Mars' atmosphere is too thin to visualize in this way, but here's a climate map:

http://en.wikiped...ones.jpg

It's also important to note that mars has seasons, but the seasonal temperatures from year to year are highly predictable:

"...every northern spring and early northern summer yet observed were identical to within the level of experimental error..."

http://en.wikiped...perature

And all immune to climatic disruption?

Strawman. What's that have to do with your contention concerning the importance of the global average?

Distortion of radiative balance has no effect on local climates in a complex and interlinked dynamical system that is the global climate?

Sure, but it doesn't describe these effects. Historically, a warmer earth is a greener earth, so the global effect could generally be a good thing.

NOW?? Most of the IPCC predictions target circa 2100.

Strawman. When did I mention current IPCC predictions? I specifically stated: "(particularly early predictions of endless drought and desertification)"

Are you communicating to us from the future?

Are you really this stupid?

There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.

Arguing that current climate models might be missing additional positive feedbacks in the system (and thus underestimating eventual warming that will result from a doubling of CO2.) I'll grant you, it's possible.

Here's one about failed mountain flora predictions

"Failed" only in areas that got wetter. No mention of effect on areas that got drier, or stayed the same hydrologically.

And here's a blog entry with lots of citations that I found interesting

There's a lot of lying in that post (some of those predictions actually have panned out.) As its last statement, it actually asserts that CO2 levels in the atmosphere haven't risen for 160 years. That's downright Orwellian.

More predictions biting the dust

No matter how much politicians insist on it, accurate local climate predictions are still impossible with current state of computer technology.

You're avoiding the broader context.

Which is?

What's that have to do with your contention concerning the importance of the global average?

Current models can't accurately resolve local climate details; they can resolve the global average with reasonable confidence. That doesn't mean there won't be local effects; to assert the opposite is just plain foolishness.

Historically, a warmer earth is a greener earth

Not all of it. And "greener" doesn't necessarily mean better. How would you like more blizzards in the winter, more floods from melting snow in spring, more erosion along streams and river banks, more mudslides, more algal blooms near river deltas and ocean shores, reduced ocean productivity, expansion of swamps & mosquito populations, etc.?

When did I mention current IPCC predictions?

Perhaps when you started railing against "AGW" in general?

Anyway, what does ANY of that have to do with the article above?

Anyway, what does ANY of that have to do with the article above?

Strawman. Is this all you have? Why did you cease talking of planetary climate models? Because I demonstrated you were WRONG, perhaps?

Strawman argument:
1.Person A has position X.
2.Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
2.Quoting an opponent's words out of context i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
5.Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

http://en.wikiped...traw_man

Any of that sounding familiar?

If you can't stay in context, then ther's no point to continuing.

Strawman. Is this all you have?

As soon as you finally let me know what your actual problem is with the article above, or what your actual argument is attempting to be, I will try to address it. So far, you've been flailing all over the place, and not making any sort of a coherent point about anything.

Remember, unlike you I'm not omniscient, and can't read your mind. Express yourself.

What, and you don't think the weather outside your home impacts your room temperature (and need for heat)? See? You completely failed to understand the underlying complexities.

Then enlighten us, because as so far it appears you do not understand complex systems. Even a simple two vector system appeared to be utterly ignored by your linme of reasoning. If I have this incorrect, show me where.

Strawman. Is this all you have?

As soon as you finally let me know what your actual problem is with the article above, or what your actual argument is attempting to be, I will try to address it. So far, you've been flailing all over the place, and not making any sort of a coherent point about anything.

Strawman. It's you that's been misdirecting the argument and falling into incoherency. For example:

Why did you cease talking of planetary climate models? Because I demonstrated you were WRONG, perhaps?

Are you communicating to us from the future?

Are you really this stupid?

Remember, unlike you I'm not omniscient, and can't read your mind. Express yourself.

It seems you really ARE this stupid!

Why did you cease talking of planetary climate models?

When did I? We're still talking about global averages projected by models, are we not?

It seems you really ARE this stupid!

It seems you have absolutely no sense of humor. Brain injury?

Then enlighten us, because as so far it appears you do not understand complex systems. Even a simple two vector system appeared to be utterly ignored by your linme of reasoning. If I have this incorrect, show me where.

See? Here's a perfect example of you ignoring data you don't possess. You completely fail to understand the importance of the circumstances of the room.

When did I? We're still talking about global averages projected by models, are we not?

Strawman. You brought up "global averages." The article is decidedly about local climates and NOT global averages.

Why did you you bypass this:
"

Didn't you inquire about the origin of the Gulf Stream?

Vaguely, but only in as it affects sea temp differences. You're avoiding the broader context."

Why did you misdirect the conversation to Mars and Venus to begin with? And, why didn't you acknowledge that you were wrong about Mars and Venus and return to the point of this part of the conversation, which was to respond to the question:

"Why do other planetary atmospheres tend to be banded, but not Earth's?"

It seems you have absolutely no sense of humor. Brain injury?

As it's evident you can't retain the context of a conversation, I would suggest the brain injury is yours.

The article is decidedly about local climates and NOT global averages.

My point exactly. Yet somehow you found the article (and the study it describes) to be "inconvenient" to global modelling in particular, and "AGW" in general. You still haven't explained why that should be.

Why did you misdirect the conversation to Mars and Venus to begin with?

You asked about atmospheric stripes. These are only conspicuous on gas giant planets. Earth isn't very similar to either Jupiter, or Saturn. It does have Hadley circulation bands, but they don't form conspicuous stripes. And what do such circulation bands -- which run parallel to the equator -- have to do in your mind with temperature differentials between east and west shores of continents at the same latitude, which were the subject of the above article and study?

My point exactly.

Liar. You misdirected it to "global averages."

Yet somehow you found the article (and the study it describes) to be "inconvenient" to global modelling in particular, and "AGW" in general. You still haven't explained why that should be.

Liar. I said the article's contentions were oversimplified.

You asked about atmospheric stripes. These are only conspicuous on gas giant planets. Earth isn't very similar to either Jupiter, or Saturn. It does have Hadley circulation bands, but they don't form conspicuous stripes. And what do such circulation bands -- which run parallel to the equator -- have to do in your mind with temperature differentials between east and west shores of continents at the same latitude, which were the subject of the above article and study?

Why are you running another strawman? When did I say crcualtion bands have something to do with coastal temperatures. I specifically implied otherwise.

You misdirected it to "global averages."

Shall I quote you to yourself, then? Here you go:

"Is there anything left AGW doesn't cause? Can I claim AGW ate my tax returns?"

If you wish to argue with yourself, I won't stand in your way.

Why are longitudinal flows generally unique to Earth?

Are they really? And of what relevance are longitudinal flows to latitudinal temperature differentials between regional climates?

When did I say crcualtion bands have something to do with coastal temperatures.

Why did you bring up atmospheric bands, then?

You misdirected it to "global averages."

Shall I quote you to yourself, then? Here you go:

"Is there anything left AGW doesn't cause? Can I claim AGW ate my tax returns?"

Really? You see "global averages" in there? Wow. I must have gone blind!

If you wish to argue with yourself, I won't stand in your way.

Well, there's no arguing with you, obviously.

Why are longitudinal flows generally unique to Earth?

Are they really? And of what relevance are longitudinal flows to latitudinal temperature differentials between regional climates?

Finally, an intelligent question. To bad it's too little, too late.

When did I say circulation bands have something to do with coastal temperatures.

Why did you bring up atmospheric bands, then?

To demonstrate that Earth's climate isn't like that.

/facepalm/

WHAT POINT were you trying to make with your atmospheric bands, uba? I really, genuinely, don't get what you're trying to say. But maybe you don't either...

Really? You see "global averages" in there?

"AGW" stands for Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming. And the "Warming" refers to climatic averages.

I must have gone blind!

I won't exclude the possibility without further examination...

To bad it's too little, too late.

Too late for what?

Earth's climate isn't like that.

Isn't like WHAT?

/facepalm/

Yeah, tell me about it.

WHAT POINT were you trying to make with your atmospheric bands, uba? I really, genuinely, don't get what you're trying to say. But maybe you don't either...

It was to show that worlds with banded atmospheres generally don't have lattitudinal climate differences. So obvously, understanding why Earth's atmosphereic circulation is different, is key to understanding why we have lattitudinal climate differences.

Earth's relatively unique longitudinal flows are the "delivery boy" for these climate variatiations. But, the underlying cause of these flows is much more complicated than the article would suggest.

http://en.wikiped...features

"AGW" stands for Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming. And the "Warming" refers to climatic averages.

Strawman. You're taking this completely out of context. The article was referring to localized climates and their relation to AGW, and so was I.

I won't exclude the possibility without further examination...

At least I'm not seeing things that aren't there...

Too late for what?

To late to even hope you'll carry an honest conversation.

Isn't like WHAT?

Like worlds with banded atmospheres, which feature consistent latitudinal climates.

@PinkElephant:

As it's apparent your intentions here are dishonorable, I no longer feel obliged to continue with this conversation.

worlds with banded atmospheres generally don't have lattitudinal climate differences.

Even gas giants (like Jupiter) can have persistent cyclones (like the Great Red Spot) featuring notably different conditions than the rest of the atmosphere at the same latitude. But that's at best tangential to the discussion (I hope.)

understanding why Earth's atmosphereic circulation is different

Lots of reasons. Most conspicuous being Earth has continents and oceans.

Earth's relatively unique longitudinal flows...

explain the consistently outsized difference between east vs. west shores, how? In North America, at least, arctic air intruding onto the continent over the Great Lakes region is quite well known and established. Plus:

this is the first time anyone has shown how the mechanism causes cooling that extends west of the heat source. ... also explains why the cold region is just as big for both North America and Asia, despite the continents being so different

The article was referring to localized climates and their relation to AGW, and so was I.

WHERE was AGW -- or anything related to AGW -- mentioned in the article? Quote, please.

At least I'm not seeing things that aren't there...

Are you sure?

Uba,

What is your vested interest in the discussion? Is it scientific integrity? Preventing taxation? Preventing global pollution? Preventing the dissemination of scientific theory? Forwarding a different scientific theory?

I ask because it appears no one can or has been able to put this into context properly for you. I'd like to do so in order for you to make up your own mind on the topic.

Uba,

What is your vested interest in the discussion? Is it scientific integrity? Preventing taxation? Preventing global pollution? Preventing the dissemination of scientific theory? Forwarding a different scientific theory?

I ask because it appears no one can or has been able to put this into context properly for you. I'd like to do so in order for you to make up your own mind on the topic.

It's two-fold.

First, I'm making the point that climate scientists use grossly oversimplified models.

And second, I'd like to discuss the dual latitudinal climate cases discussed in the article and examine further their underlying causes.

It's two-fold.

First, I'm making the point that climate scientists use grossly oversimplified models.

And second, I'd like to discuss the dual latitudinal climate cases discussed in the article and examine further their underlying causes.

Neither of which answer my questions.

Let me rephrase so it's a bit clearer. What is your vested interest in discussions on climate?

First, I'm making the point that climate scientists use grossly oversimplified models.

There is a difference between "simplified" and "grossly oversimplified". Any sufficiently complex system exhibits a spectrum of dynamical effects, some of which are quite large, and others comparatively small. When constructing computer models with constraints imposed by limited hardware, scientists analyze all the known properties of the system and rank the various dynamical aspects. As first priority, they model the first-order effects. Then, second-order. And perhaps third-order. Beyond that, any additional details are added only as resources allow.

The study described above is exemplary of first-order modeling. Here, the major effect is the longitudinal temperature gradient created by a longitudinal narrow region of warm water (the Gulf Stream.) Second-order effects might arise due to topography of continents and ocean shorelines -- that will be the next model they construct.

Neither of which answer my questions.

Let me rephrase so it's a bit clearer. What is your vested interest in discussions on climate?

I find your implication rather disagreeable.

As you posed the question, may I presume then that you have a vested interest? How so?

There is a difference between "simplified" and "grossly oversimplified".

I know, which is why I chose my phrasing carefully. To even suggest "the culprit is warm water off the eastern coasts of these continents" as the root cause for latitudinal climate differences, is a gross oversimplification.

The study described above is exemplary of first-order modeling.

a.k.a. gross oversimplification.

To even suggest "the culprit is warm water off the eastern coasts of these continents" as the root cause for latitudinal climate differences, is a gross oversimplification.

Now go ahead and explain why you think so. What do you understand that professionals in the field do not?

Neither of which answer my questions.

Let me rephrase so it's a bit clearer. What is your vested interest in discussions on climate?

I find your implication rather disagreeable.

As you posed the question, may I presume then that you have a vested interest? How so?

No implication of you having an inability to understand. I tend to be a bit verbose, and that can confuse other participants regardless of their intellect or ability with the language. In short, sometimes I don't phrase the question properly.

In any event, my vested interest is the health and well being of future generations of human beings.

Now I ask because I find your implied stance on established scientific principle and methodology to be rather disagreeable.

Now go ahead and explain why you think so. What do you understand that professionals in the field do not?

See? there you go again with the fallacious argument. Right out of the box with an ad hominem attack. Unless, you presume to know who I am and what I do for a living. Do you?

Seriously, can you even HAVE a civil discussion?

you presume to know who I am and what I do for a living

I know what you DON'T do for a living. You're obviously no expert in climate science...

can you even HAVE a civil discussion?

I will, as soon as you answer this question, previously posed to you:

"WHERE was AGW -- or anything related to AGW -- mentioned in the article? Quote, please."

No implication of you having an inability to understand.

This sentence is an excellent example of our difficulties. It appears to be an ad hominem attack on my intellect. It looks like you meant to write:

"My only implication is of you having some difficulty understanding my questions and intentions."

Is this a correct interpretation?

...sometimes I don't phrase the question properly.

The written language is quite limited and generally lacks inflection and non-verbal nuances. Proper phrasing is critical.

In any event, my vested interest is the health and well being of future generations of human beings.

Okay. I feel that way too.

Now I ask because I find your implied stance on established scientific principle and methodology to be rather disagreeable.

If I'm disagreeable, it's because I find fault with the methodology. It's too often more conjecture and speculation, than principled scientific investigation.

I know what you DON'T do for a living. You're obviously no expert in climate science...

Oh brother. Yet another ad hominem attack. Why am I not surprised?

can you even HAVE a civil discussion?

I will, as soon as...

Apparently not. Seriously... are you always like this?

Yeah there's no talking to you.

Yeah there's no talking to you.

What's up with that? Are you actually peeved that I'd rather discuss the science, than bat strawman arguments back and forth with you and PinkElephant? Seriously?