From the University of California – Santa Barbara
In what might be the first study to report continuous measurements of net CO2 exchange of urban vegetation and soils over a full year or more, scientists from UC Santa Barbara and the University of Minnesota conclude that not only is vegetation important in the uptake of the greenhouse gas, but also that different types of vegetation play different roles. Their findings will be published July 4 in the current issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research – Biogeosciences, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.
“There has been little research of this type in the urban landscape,” said Joe McFadden, an associate professor in the UC Santa Barbara Department of Geography, and a co-author of the study. While continuous CO2 measurements have been made in natural ecosystems all around the globe, only in the past few years have researchers attempted to use them in developed areas such as cities and suburbs, which often contain large amounts of green space.
“The net exchange of CO2 between the land and the atmosphere is determined by the balance between things that release CO2, such as burning fossil fuels and respiration of living organisms, and the uptake of CO2 by plant photosynthesis,” said first author Emily Peters, from the University of Minnesota.
Using a method of measuring CO2 exchange that involves placing sensors high above the ground to record tiny changes in CO2, temperature, water vapor and wind, McFadden and Peters set out to monitor the suburbs just outside of St. Paul, Minn., a place with distinct seasonal changes and enough rainfall for plants to grow without irrigation.
“The question was: Can we see what the green space is doing against the backdrop of human activities?” said McFadden.
The researchers found that typical suburban greenery, such as trees and lawns, played significant roles with respect to CO2 uptake. For nine months out of the year, the suburban landscape was a source of CO2 to the atmosphere; but during the summer, the carbon uptake by vegetation was large enough to balance out fossil fuel emissions of carbon within the neighborhood. Compared to the natural landscape outside the city, the peak daily uptake of CO2 in the suburbs would have been at the low end uptake for a hardwood forest in the region.
However, the activity of the vegetation also differs by type, according to the study.
“Lawns’ peak carbon uptake occurred in the spring and fall, because they are made up of cool-season grass species that are stressed by summer heat,” said Peters, “while trees had higher CO2 uptake throughout the summer.” Evergreen trees maintained their CO2 uptake for a longer period of time than deciduous trees because they keep their leaves year-round; deciduous trees lose their leaves in fall and winter.
The study was funded by NASA and is a “first step” toward quantifying the role of vegetation in extensive developed areas, like suburbs, which are the parts of urban areas growing most rapidly in the country. Potential uses for this type of research include urban planning –– where land use and vegetation choices are major decisions –– and policy decisions based on reducing greenhouse gases.
There are a couple of caveats to consider before deciding to lay out the turf or make any big changes in urban tree planting, McFadden noted. The amount of CO2 taken up by vegetation in the suburban area was not enough to balance out, or “offset”, the total amount of CO2 released by burning fossil fuels over the course of the year. “Unfortunately, far from it,” said McFadden, “We will still need to find ways to lower our carbon footprint.”
Additionally, in more arid places like the western United States, where irrigation is a must for lawns and landscaping, the delivery of water comes with its own cost in carbon, as water is pumped from elsewhere. McFadden says further projects in California urban areas are underway.
“This study just gives us a lens into what the green spaces in developed areas are doing,” he said.
###
The amount of CO2 taken up by vegetation in the suburban area was not enough to balance out, or “offset”, the total amount of CO2 released by burning fossil fuels over the course of the year.
In other words there will still be an abundant supply of CO2 for plants and plants don’t have to worry about running out.
“Living organisms” don’t include vegetation? Hmmm
This reminds me of a Douglas Adams Hitchhiker-ism: The Maximegalon Institute for Slowly and Painfully Working Out the Obvious
I thought that NASA was supposed to researching how to get people to Mars, but no, let’s find out if plants need CO_2 to grow. Maybe it will help them get to Mars.
I’m breathlessly awaiting the release of this shocking paper! So, let me see if I’ve got this right……… plants take in CO2 with a process they call photosynthesis? And, trees and grasses have different uptake rates and periods. Hmm, I wonder if weeds may also? Maybe that’ll be their next study!!!
I really should be happy, at least they’re acknowledging reality.
(bold mine)
“[…] but during the summer, the carbon uptake by vegetation was large enough to balance out fossil fuel emissions of carbon within the neighborhood. […]
[…]Additionally, in more arid places like the western United States, where irrigation is a must for lawns and landscaping, the delivery of water comes with its own cost in carbon, as water is pumped from elsewhere. […]
I think I just heard Lord Monckton’s ickle birdies chirping. Carbon; harrumph!
P.S. How does this study further NASA’s goal of Muslim outreach? I’m just not seeing it in this study. I thought all NASA studies had to include two phrases now; “due to climate change” and “as it affects the Muslim community.” Maybe they’re in the full paper.
Our tax dollars at work.
Their next study will probably be something really scientific like… ‘when the sun sets it gets dark outside’…
Emily Peters measures photosynthesis on trees in a suburban neighborhood from a……… ‘cherrypicker’.
Good to know they’re catching up to the stuff i learned in elementary school. Next step junior high sciences. GO TEAM!
The White House and NASA believe NASA’s mission to be ‘Muslim outreach.’
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/07/white-house-nasa-defend-comments-about-nasa-outreach-to-muslim-world-criticized-by-conservatives/
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/02/nasa-plans-more-outreach-to-muslim-countries.html
Nexct steps: 1) stimulus funds for homeowner tax credits for favored plants, 2) high speed rail projects to local nurseries, 3) more study grants
Is is possible someone has the source of this study mixed up? I think it came from a seventh grade science class at an alternative school for the less able. I mean didn’t we learn this stuff in like fourth grade?
And as a result of this study Smart Growth Zoning akak Agenda 21, will have the “Scientific Basis” to fine those home owners and businesses that do not have enough of the “RIght” (or is it left) type of plants on their property.
@TomG:
Obviousness aside, the following is actually worded correcly —
“…and respiration of living organisms, and the uptake of CO2 by plant photosynthesis”
Plants do respire, and so would be covered by “living organisms” in this context. We just don’t think of it much because of the (usual) net gain by Ps.
Conclusion: We just measured this for fun. No matter what result we got, we’d still know that the only possible solution is to rip civilization to shreds, send all jobs to China, and send all money to Wall Street.
“This study just gives us a lens into what the green spaces in developed areas are doing,”</i? he said.
_________________
I view the last line as revelatory, indicating that this article is an announcement that the process has begun to put numbers next to all of the photosynthetic processes vis a vis urban artificial processes.
For those who will inevitably decry the waste of more gov't money, I would say, all monies spent by the US gov't. on scientific study may be money down a rat hole, especially the agenda- driven kind of research which appears to have become the norm, but the amount spent is nevertheless insignificant in light of the govt's payments to individuals and payments on interest.
In the humid zones of the developed countries, there are many areas where land has reverted from agriculture to forest. This is a result of the commoditization and globalization of food. Vast irrigated factory farms in semi arid (sunny, warm) climates have become the main sources of many crops. It’s a double whammy of reforestation meanwhile, elsewhere, creation of environments with more biomass than existed in nature.
Tom G(ologist),
Plants respire too, so are not excluded by the statement,
Why is this result unexpected and important? I suspect that Luther Wu (10.37 AM) is on to something.
The assumption here and basis for the study is there is a problem and they will use the cover of the university to prove a need to engineer the restructuring of where and how we live.
Gail Combs says:
June 27, 2012 at 9:49 am
And as a result of this study Smart Growth Zoning akak Agenda 21, will have the “Scientific Basis” to fine those home owners and businesses that do not have enough of the “RIght” (or is it left) type of plants on their property.
________________________________________________________________________
Olen says:
June 27, 2012 at 11:07 am
The assumption here and basis for the study is there is a problem and they will use the cover of the university to prove a need to engineer the restructuring of where and how we live.
_______________________________________
After what we have been seeing from mankind up until now, one could say: it would be exceedingly foolish, not to keep an eye on ’em.
Another study that is not new at all. We were doing urban heat island (UHI) studies in Winnipeg, Manitoba in the late 1960 sponsored by the Manitoba Environmental Research Council. We identified the dramatic difference in temperature and other conditions in treed city parks that were only one city block square. Oke and others had similar results in Hamilton and Vancouver.
We also carried out air sampling studies across the city to determine air particulates and pollen to compare with the UHI results. This work was triggered, was were some of the first awareness of heat island effect by the work of Kratzer in the Ruhr Valley in the 1930s.
The role of trees in modifying climate is enhanced by their ability to cleanse the air. It was well known that certain species survived the urban environment better than others. In England the Plane Tree was chosen for urban environments, especially London because the bark peeled and shed the pollution every year.
http://www.2020site.org/trees/plane.html
I was keynote speaker at the first North American conference on urban forests also held in Winnipeg. I promoted establishment of a department of flora and fauna for the city of Winnipeg with little success.
I gave a public presentation on the role of trees affecting the climate and cleansing of air in the urban environment using the example of Winnipeg at the invitation of the Manitoba Lung Association. This presentation preceded a presentation by Jane Goodall of chimpanzee fame. (It was a rare opportunity to be a warm up act for chimpanzees)
I spoke as a dinner speaker at the University of Toronto to protest the closing of the Department of Forestry – the theme was a tree in the city was more important than those in the countryside.
More proof of the damage down to advancing climate research by the IPCC.
“The net exchange of CO2 between the land and the atmosphere is determined by the balance between things that release CO2, such as burning fossil fuels and respiration of living organisms, and the uptake of CO2 by plant photosynthesis,”
Give this man a degree in tautology….sheesh. We needed a study to tell us that???
“Compared to the natural landscape outside the city, the peak daily uptake of CO2 in the suburbs would have been at the low end uptake for a hardwood forest in the region.”
That means that there’s enough excess CO2 to run some algae ponds in the city to produce the oil needed for the cars.
And it means that something must import carbon into the city, otherwise the cars and heatings couldn’t provide the excess CO2.
Maybe there’s a correlation with those bulky trucks constantly driving around with names like BP or Shell on them.
The study might not be new, but it does help. Among other things, it will likely help advances estimates of atmospheric CO2 residence time toward a lower figure than some of the absurdly long spans used in the IPCC’s preferred climate models.
Lawns on every urban rooftop! (Then there’s that drainage thing and the original intended purpose of the roof. There’s always something.)
No wonder scientists are held in diminishing regard.
I eat a lot of carbon! Does that mean I am helping to save the planet?
Jaye Bass says:
June 27, 2012 at 11:39 am
“The net exchange of CO2 between the land and the atmosphere is determined by the balance between things that release CO2, such as burning fossil fuels and respiration of living organisms, and the uptake of CO2 by plant photosynthesis,”
Give this man a degree in tautology….sheesh. We needed a study to tell us that???
Burning of fossil fuels only accounts for ~5% of CO2 output 95% of CO2 is from natural sources. Once a forest is mature (i.e. the growth is very limited) it can become a net producer of CO2. So the slanted implication that the main source of CO2 is anthropogenic is incorrect and meant to keep the team happy.
is this important?
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/235035-rep-sullivans-vanquisher-global-warming-needs-clearer-evidence
Wow. Lots of misplaced derision here. The point is not that plants are part of the CO2 cycle, the point is that — and this is important — the climate folks hadn’t bothered trying to measure or quantify it before. Where “quantify” is the polite form of the pejorative “model”. The first consequence of this is:
1. Climate science has not, as yet, finished modelling the CO2 cycle. Sources, sinks, buffers, etc.
If this were economics, the prior condition would be the same as speaking about MV=PQ, average pay periods for employees, and then completely ignoring the Federal Reserve system. eg. Complete bunkum. So kudos for these folks doing the gritty work of basic research and attempting to move things to Climate Science from the current condition of Climate Seance. And it is an explicit admission that it is Climate Seance or this would not be stated as a: “first step.”
2. That urban vegetation ‘offsets’ fully one-quarter of the local CO2 production within a cityscape per annum.
This is just a restatement of the conclusion of the paper. But if we refer to a post from this site “3% of Earth’s landmass is now urbanized”, from Dec. 23, 2010 then we may draw some obvious conclusions. To wit, if 3% of the earth’s surface is only capable of offsetting one-quarter of it’s annual carbon production, then we only need an additional area equal to 9% of the Earth’s landmass to completely offset the carbon production from city centers. But in a study from 2008[1] we find that fully 11% of the earth’s landmass is used for crop-production alone. Not simply vegetation, but food for consumption. And so we know that human food production alone is sufficient to fully offset the excess urban CO2 production on an annual basis.
This paper, if it is to be believed, fully exonerates the A in AGW. And we should all be raising a good cheer for *finally* seeing some basic science being performed.
[1]Ramankutty, N.; Evan, A.T., Monfreda, C. and Foley, J.A. (2008). “Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000”. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 22: GB1003
So, one of the results concluded it is cold in St. Paul, MN for most of the year and green things don’t particularly like it. Boy these folks are really smart …
OTOH, since I grew up in the Twin Cities I could have told them that for a lot less money.
I didn’t read the study but did they mention that if the planet warms it will be warmer longer in these kind of northern areas. That will lead to increases CO2 usage by plants. Probably not, they wouldn’t want to imply there’s any kind of negative feedback at work.
Thank you Maus for injecting some common sense and perspective to these comments. There is far too much derision and flippant commenting on what should be considered fundamental quantitative science… the very thing many derisive commenters hold against many who mention or attempt climate change forecasts. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Let’s also not forget that this is a press release, notorious for simplifying science to death and frequently skipping over some of the more pertinent rationale for doing the research.
It would appear that education authorities need to get their act together, especially in the US and UK.
Paramount is the need to eradicate any form of propaganda, especially on the subjects of environment and climate, which modern teachers seem to ram in the ears of their pupils without any regard to truth, honesty or reality. In part, the teachers themselves are to blame, but they have been bombarded with similar drivel at their colleges.
The second item on the agenda that needs to be reinstated forthwith is some basic ‘old-fashioned’ teaching, which not only includes some basic arithmetic, reading and writing, but, leaping ahead (!) also such principles as the carbon cycle.
Maus says:
June 27, 2012 at 1:01 pm
“… ”
______________________
You’ve made some great points!
Your statements are earth- shattering for their creative implications and should be kicked off with a “New Comprehensive Plan”. There is an obvious need for more grants to study just exactly which percentage of landmass we need (9%, 11% or ?%) to implement ‘The Plan”, which could lead to new green jobs and growth of the new Carbon Offset Land Use Credit and Payment Plan and a whole bunch of new industry which means jobs, jobs and more jobs.
This plan would undoubtedly supply much- needed money to the smallest- of- the- small
land owners and other ‘little guys’.
Power to the people!
(This plan should not be expected to cause even more of a land rush by the world’s billionaires than we are already experiencing, anyway.)
Does this mean that if I don’t go mow my lawn that I’m helping to save the planet?
(the dog ate my sarc tag)
Hmmmmmm ….. if they are just studying and measuring this now, how did The Wizard of COz make his predictions?
Maybe CAGW the oceans won’t boil the oceans afterall!
PS If the oceans are going to boil away, how is the sea level going to rise?
@Maus: I like your arithmetic!
Tim Ball said:
I am shocked! I distinctly remember several years ago when the EPA told Atlanta to cut down all of their urban trees in order to help it meet the clean air standards. This was around the same time the Blue Ridge mountains had failed to meet those same standards. I was waiting for the EPA to require North Carolina to clear cut them.
Joe
Why does this article remind me of my 5th grade science book from the 60’s?
So does this leave the door open to the idea that if we add more plants, and irrigate landscaping in more arid areas, we will not only lower the local and hence the global temps, by virtue of the increased rain fall from the increased secondary moisture and tree generated ions that help to increase precipitation? Thus helping to moderate the extremes in weather and climate, by the addition of more greenery where it is now lacking.
By the use of intensive agriculture for food crops, replanting forest for lumber and pulp cropping and better management, by turning as much tree volume into (long term CO2 storage) lumber as possible instead of letting trees rot or burn, we can stabilize the climate with out “carbon taxes” or quotas on miles driven.
As the USA is carbon neutral, or a net sink for carbon dioxide as it is now, just doing what is environmentally sound is all that is needed to “save the environment” and man can be the good husband to his own yard, farm, or local forest as a contribution, with out donating to the large extensions of the WWF, Sierra club, Greenp*ss, and the other corrupted from the inside mega foundations. It would be better to direct your attentions and limited funds to the local habitat to increase the local greenery diversity, that will create homes for creature diversity, to allow the balance of nature to return to your own neighborhood.
The whole “teachings of the Christ” thingie, was about respecting and helping your friends and neighbors achieve independence, and not to be subservient to large uncaring greedy central controlling governments or churches.
Urban planners have been studying the effects of vegetation on urban areas for a long time. This is an interesting paper on the subject.
http://hokulea.soest.hawaii.edu/ocn435/classes/papers-class12/Taha-10.pdf
It also identifies the cause of UHI. Lack of evapotranspiration from plants.
Note that urban areas generally have a higher albedo than surrounding areas, and vegetation has a lower albedo than urban landscapes. Albedo determines the heat or energy gain from solar insolation.
So, urban areas have higher temperatures, despite the fact they retain less solar energy, because of their lower humidity.
Demonstrating the absurdity of trying to determine if the climate is warming by measuring surface temperatures.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/skyonics-twist-on-carbon-capture-turns-co2-into-baking-soda/17059?tag=nl.e660
capture in NaHCO3
““The net exchange of CO2 between the land and the atmosphere is determined by the balance between things that release CO2, such as burning fossil fuels and respiration of living organisms, and the uptake of CO2 by plant photosynthesis,” said first author Emily Peters, from the University of Minnesota.”
I can’t help myself:
Really, let’s be honest – just HOW MUCH money did it take to for them to come up with that conclusion? A 3rd grader knows that.
Steve Garcia
@David Thomas Bronzich June 27, 2012 at 2:54 pm:
“Why does this article remind me of my 5th grade science book from the 60′s?”
My point exactly.
Steve Garcia
“aerial lift truck”? “Cherry-picker” in the UK and Oz.
All they did was quantify the exchange for different species of plants in situ, lots of uses for the output data some positive, but still any data can be used to push an agenda if displayed in the right context. Both hopes and fears have been expressed already in this thread of the possible motives and uses for their collected data results.
Thank you, quite nice post.
NASA now:
“The researchers found that typical suburban greenery, such as trees and lawns, played significant roles with respect to CO2 uptake. For nine months out of the year, the suburban landscape was a source of CO2 to the atmosphere; but during the summer, the carbon uptake by vegetation was large enough to balance out fossil fuel emissions of carbon within the neighborhood.”
Me two weeks ago (how am I doing so far?):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/global-warming-splodeified/#comment-987456
Take a look at the observed Rose Park data in Salt Lake City:
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30
This daily CO2 data profile is very interesting.
Please examine the Daily CO2 and Weekly CO2 tabs for all measurement stations.
These are current CO2 readings taken in May 2012.
Peak CO2 readings (typically ~470ppm) occur during the night, from midnight to ~8am, and drop to ~400 ppm during the day.
1. I assume that human energy consumption (and manmade CO2 emissions) occur mainly during the day, and peak around breakfast and supper times.
2. I suggest that the above atmospheric CO2 readings, taken in semi-arid Salt Lake City with a regional population of about 1 million, are predominantly natural in origin.
IF points 1 and 2 are true, then this urban CO2 generation by humankind is insignificant compared to natural daily CO2 flux, in the same way that (I have previously stated) annual humanmade CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to seasonal CO2 flux.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
IF these results are typical of most urban environments (many of which have much larger populations, but also have much greater area, precipitation and plant growth), then the hypothesis that human combustion of fossil fuels is the primary driver of increased atmospheric CO2 seems untenable. Humanmade CO2 emissions are lost in the noise of the much larger natural system, and most humanmade CO2 emissions are probably locally sequestered.
There may be some large urban areas (perhaps in China) where concentrated human activities overwhelm natural CO2 daily flux, but on a global scale these areas are miniscule.
In winter, when plant growth is minimal, concentrated human activities may also overwhelm natural CO2 daily flux.
Our grade-school science books frequently failed to mention the biggest emitter of carbon- the decay of dead plants. Every atom of carbon taken out of the air by photosynthesis during the plant’s lifetime goes back into the air as CO2 from the decay of the plant, except where the plant is eaten, or is buried in whole or in part.
This is what makes forests carbon stores, not carbon consumers.
The news release here makes no mention of this fact at all.
If NASA don’t know by now that plants use CO2, during the hours of daylight, then they don’t deserve to get to Mars.
Maus says: June 27, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Wow. Lots of misplaced derision here. The point is not that plants are part of the CO2 cycle, the point is that — and this is important — the climate folks hadn’t bothered trying to measure or quantify it before…
This paper, if it is to be believed, fully exonerates the A in AGW. And we should all be raising a good cheer for *finally* seeing some basic science being performed.
Maus understands the importance of this work.
Some of the rest of you… … not so much.
Read the full Maus post at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/27/new-study-demonstrates-the-role-of-urban-greenery-in-co2-exchange/#comment-1019746
The great comedian Shelley Berman put it all into a famous monologue.
Humans breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Plants, however, breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen.
So no matter how good or evil you are, every time you breathe, you make a little flower happy.
Legalize Marijuana. It is a carbon sink.Save the planet.
It’s been a day and I’m still ticked off by the use of “carbon” instead of CO2 by the researcherand whoever wrote the release.
Didn’t Beck already take care of urban CO2 measurements?
Leo Morgan says: June 28, 2012 at 12:19 am
“Our grade-school science books frequently failed to mention the biggest emitter of carbon- the decay of dead plants. Every atom of carbon taken out of the air by photosynthesis during the plant’s lifetime goes back into the air as CO2 from the decay of the plant, except where the plant is eaten, or is buried in whole or in part.
This is what makes forests carbon stores, not carbon consumers…”
Yes Leo, but Earth’s biomass can increase or decrease, depending upon factors such as temperature, moisture , and atmospheric CO2. Trees store carbon for long periods of time and grow throughout their lives. Perhaps “carbon banks” is a better term, although “carbon stores” will also suffice.
Please examine the following animation of seasonal variation in global atmospheric CO2 and try to find the hand of mankind in this display of nature’s beauty and power – I cannot and I suggest that you won’t either.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
Also, we know that Co2 variations lag temperature changes at all measured time scales, so BOTH SIDES of the rancorous “mainstream global warming debate rely upon the premise that the cause (rising CO2) lags in time the effect (Increasing temperature). This is a logical leap with which I am not at all comfortable.
Also, there has been no net global warming in 10-15 years despite continued increases in atmospheric CO2.
Maybe there is more to this scientific question than either side of the mainstream debate is prepared to consider.
Maybe, for example, temperature primarily drives CO2, not CO2 drives temperature.
I came to this conclusion and documented my hypothesis in 2008.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
Murry Salby spoke about the same conclusion in ~2011 and added further evidence to support this hypothesis.
Sydney Institute: Salby Aug 3, 2011
http://youtu.be/YrI03ts–9I
Maus says (June 27, 2012 at 1:01 pm): “This paper, if it is to be believed, fully exonerates the A in AGW. And we should all be raising a good cheer for *finally* seeing some basic science being performed.”
Do you really believe your simplistic analysis? How many power plants or concrete plants or other large CO2 emitters are there in the neighborhood measured in the study? How about none? Do you think the measurements of increasing CO2 on the top of Mona Loa is made up?
What’s up with this site? Most incredibly ignorant and fear driven set of comments I’ve wasted time on in a while.
[Moderator’s Observation: This is apparently your first comment here and all you can manage is snark and derision. Your comment is absolutely data free… so many questions, so few answers…. but definitive judgements from an anonymous authority. Well done, Sir! -REP]
[SNIP: That sure looked like an assault on a fellow commenter. This is your second comment and you are on your way to setting a record. Check the site policy here and either conform or get lost. -REP]
[SNIP: Site policy is here. We are not interested in whether you have been welcomed, or tossed out of, far classier sites than ours. Snark gets snipped. So far you’ve offered nothing that talks and everything that walks. -REP]