A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale…

Svensmark has a new paper and it is a doozy:  Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds (full text PDF).

The major conclusion: “A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale…”

This paper confirms 13 years of discoveries that suggest a key role for cosmic rays in climate change. It links observable variations in the world’s cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help generate atmospheric aerosols.

This is important, because it confirms the existence of a sun-earth atmospheric modulation mechanism for clouds and aerosols. It is seen in an event called a Forbush Decrease, which A Forbush decrease is a rapid decrease in the observed galactic cosmic raycoronal mass ejection (CME). It occurs due to the magnetic field of the plasma solar wind sweeping some of the galactic cosmic rays away from Earth. Here is what the Oulu Neutron Monitor plot looked like during such and event on May15th, 2005:

Cosmic ray flux monitored by the Oulu Neutron Monitor

When the CME hit Earth, the magnetic field of the CME deflects the Galactic Cosmic Rays and the secondary particle flux (Neutrons) decreases. In this graph there is also another Forbush decrease visible, which was caused by another, not that powerful flare, which CME passed Earth a few days before this event.

See more from CosmicRays.org Now at last, a linkage has been established on earth showing such events affect cloud cover and aerosols. Luboš Motl gives a good summary ina post from a  few days ago, shown below.

Forbush decreases confirm cosmoclimatology

By Luboš Motl

Recall that cosmoclimatology of Henrik Svensmark and others postulates that the galactic cosmic rays are able to create “seeds” of low-lying clouds that may cool the Earth’s surface. A higher number of cosmic rays can therefore decrease the temperature. The creation of the cloud nuclei is caused by ionization and resembles the processes in a cloud chamber.

The fluctuations of the cosmic ray flux may occur due to the variable galactic environment as well as the solar activity: a more active Sun protects us from a part of the cosmic rays. It means that a more active Sun decreases the amounts of low-lying clouds, which means that it warms the Earth.

Because the low-lying clouds remove 30 Watts per squared meter in average (over time and the Earth) or so, one has to be very careful not only about the very existence of the clouds but also about the variations of cloudiness by 5% or so which translates to a degree of temperature change.

A systematic effect on the clouds – e.g. one of the cosmic origin – is a nightmare for the champions of the silly CO2 toy model of climatology because the cloud variations easily beat any effect of CO2. Two alarmists, Sloan and Wolfendale, wanted to rule out Svensmark’s theory by looking at the Forbush decreases, specific events of a solar origin named after Scott Forbush who studied them 6 decades ago, involving the plasma. However, their paper was incorrect.

In April 2008, this blog (The Reference Frame) published the following relevant article:

Sun-climate link: a reply to Sloan and Wolfendale.

Sloan and Wolfendale complained that no cosmoclimatological signal could have been seen during the Forbush decreases, i.e. short episodes when the activity of our beloved star decreases the amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth. However, Nir Shaviv explained that it should be expected that such a signal is not seen in the averaged monthly data they had used.

In order to see the “tiger in the jungle”, using Svensmark’s words from a press release

Cosmic meddling with the clouds by seven-day magic

that will be published tomorrow (I am allowed to read it now because my uncle lives in Melbourne which already has August), and in order to separate these clean effects from the huge meteorological noise, one needs to increase the temporal resolution to several days and also cover the whole globe to dilute the effects of local weather.

Newest paper

Tomorrow, on August 1st, 2009, Geophysical Research Letters will publish a new paper by Henrik Svensmark, Torsten Bondo, and Jacob Svensmark:

The People’s Voice (summary of the paper)

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds (full text).

When you click the second link above and obtain an error message, press alt/d and enter to reload the URL: without a direct external link, the PDF file will be displayed correctly. Or open the Google cache as PDF-like HTML.

Svensmark and his collaborators have looked at 26 Forbush events since 1987 (those that were strong according to their impact on the spectrum seen in the low troposphere where it matters): most of them occur close to the solar maxima (in the middle of the 11-year cycles). The observations with a much better temporal resolution imply that the mass of water stored in clouds decreases by 4-7%, with the minimum reached after a nearly 1-week delay needed for the cloud nuclei to get mature. Roughly three billions of tons of water droplets suddenly disappear from the atmosphere (they remain there as vapor, which is more likely to warm the air than to cool it down).

An independent set of measurements has also shown that the amount of aerosols, i.e. potential nuclei of the new clouds, also decreases. All these “strength vs decrease” graphs display a lot of noise but the negative slopes are almost always significant at the 95% level (with one dataset being an exception, at 92%, which is still higher than the official IPCC confidence level that climate change is mostly man-made).

Each Forbush decrease can therefore warm up the Earth by the same temperature change as the effect of all carbon dioxide emitted by the mankind since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. While you might think that such an effect is temporary and lasts a few weeks only, it is important to notice that similar variations in the solar activity, the solar magnetic field, and the galactic cosmic rays take place at many different conceivable frequencies, so there are almost certainly many effects whose impact on the temperature – through the clouds – is at least equal to the whole effect of man-made carbon dioxide.

18 votes

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
rokshox

And here’s a link to the RC dismissal of this paper.

Gene Nemetz

…after a nearly 1-week delay needed for the cloud nuclei to get mature. Roughly three billions of tons of water droplets suddenly disappear from the atmosphere…
Take that and put it in your Funkin-Wagnall!
I guess using averaged monthly data wasn’t such a good idea, huh.

Gene Nemetz

RC
RealWho?

A Wod

RC is the real climate website, which is pro AGW

Mac

Reads like Svensmark’s Cosmic Rays theory has traction.
Maybe, just maybe, science is beginning to re-discover the more important changes in this planet’s climate are all due to natural processes.
Not before time!

kim

I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
==================

3X2

RC knee jerk (and unlike the CO2 cult / climate link, which is of course settled science)

(…) There are still a lot of hurdles that remain before one can call it a proof.
One requirement for successful scientific progress in general, is that new explanations or proposed mechanisms must fit within the big picture(….) It’s typical of non-experts not to place their ideas in the context of the bigger picture.

Well, the RC knee jerk tells me that the paper has some considerable value. Just my “non-expert” view of course.
FOR SALE : second hand CO2 sensor and an assortment of thermometers. Best offer secures.

Pierre Gosselin

RC accuse Svensmark of cherry-picking, but fail to support it. Not that RC would stoop to cherry-picking themselves. That’s beyond them. Rather they stick to revisionism, adjustment and suppression. But that isn’t working either, as every climate indicator is now trending contrary to what their models predict.
1. global atmospheric temps are declining,
2. ocean temps are declining,
3. record lows are being set globally,
4. ice caps are expanding, .
5. dissent in the scientific community is soaring, etc.
Now, even German scientists are abandoning the AGW fantasy in droves:
http://www.climatedepot.com/

James

Isn’t this affect to frequently and is too short lived to account for long term climate change? It’s an interesting hypothesis but I don’t see how it can account for long term climate change and in fact the article doesn’t even pretend to do this.
Interesting idea none the less, not really convinced about it myself, I’d imagine there are plenty of nucleation sites already in the atmosphere and this is unlikely to be the limiting step for cloud formation.

tallbloke

Gene Nemetz (23:59:24) :
RC
RealWho?

Righteous Carbonists?
Nice one Svensmarks et al. You can’t keep a good theory down.

sylvain

I’ve contacted Nir Shaviv about the paper that RC introduce at the end of the post:
Here is what he said:
—–Message d’origine—–
De : Nir Shaviv
Envoyé : 4 août 2009 01:52
À : Sylvain
Objet : Re: New paper promoted by realclimate
Hi Sylvain,
Here is what I think of melott et al.: (I will add it to sciencebits at some point…)
Cheers,
— Nir
1 – Melott assumes only one pattern speed for the spiral structure, and therefore do not consider the dynamics which shows that it is a pattern composed of 2 spiral arms with one pattern speed + 4 arms with another. It so happens that they coincide at this point in time. e.g., look at this paper: http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/%7Eshaviv/articles/NaozShaviv.pdf (full ref: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007NewA…12..410N ) It also happens that the 2-armed structure is almost co-rotating with the solar system.
In fact, assuming that the milky way has a very complicated pattern (different number of arms, very antisymmetric, etc., and assuming that it can rotate like a rigid pattern with one pattern speed, for many 10^8 years, is unrealistic.
2 – The Melott analysis is not consistent with the Spitzer reconstruction, nor it is consistent with the CRF variations observed in Iron meteorites. (Spitzer: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASP..121..213C Iron meteorites: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003NewA….8…39S )
3 – The Melott analysis is based on the spiral arm reconstruction of Englmaier et al. However, there are a few critical problems with the way they do it. In particular, they assume there is an arm in a region in which they see no arm in the density plot, and they ignore an arm passage through a region where the gas map shows a clear elongated concentration. This can be seen in the attached figure (it is composed of the original density plot + arms denoted by Englmaier et al., plus the solar system trajectory according to Melott et al.. Note the location of the solar system is not exactly the same!!! The yellow dots denote passages according to Melott et al., including a passage through something which was dented as an arm but without the density concentration to support it. The red dot denotes a passage through an arm like condensation but not denoted by Melott.
4 – Melott et al. don’t inlcude additional effects on the trajectory, that the potential is not cylindrically symmetric (the arms introduce something of order a 10% correction. They also don’t include the effect of orbital parameter diffusion.

Richard Jones

The main RC criticism of the paper is that no “robust” (?) mechanism is proposed for why there is a time lag between the decrease in cosmic ray flux and the decrease in water cloudiness. Seems like sour grapes as the RC team clearly don’t like the implications of what is essentially an observation, not a model. That aside the very interesting thing is that next time there is a sierious Forbush Decrease the cloud scanners will be alerted and the Svensmark hypothesis suggests that 5-9 days later there will a decrease in cloudiness. An actual testable hypothesis! Hooray!

Don Keiller

The speed of RC’s dismissal of Svensmark’s paper suggests panic to me.

Micha

[snip]
Try again when you have something constructive to contribute. ~ charles the moderator

Pierre Gosselin

BTW, RSS is out for July.
+0.39, 3rd warmest in 31 years…

VG

I’m sure Leif is trying to think this one through! Who knows he may agree at last that there may be some link. I tend to agree with his point of view though. Any messiness with the sun would really exterminate us quite quickly it needs to be extremely stable to support life on earth? (philosophy again.. sorry)

Erick Barnes

Pretty exciting stuff. Hopefully this will convince hardcore AGW’ers of the need to let go of the old paradigm and get on with science rather than using fear to wrench funding out of the government.
Also, it seems RC is getting a bit nervous. 🙂
from RC …
The paper is based on a small selection of events and specific choice of events and bandwidths. The paper doesn’t provide any proof that GCR affect the low clouds– at best -, but can at most only give support to this hypothesis. There are still a lot of hurdles that remain before one can call it a proof.
That had me rolling. Funny that RC should even mention proof of any variety as they don’t require it of themselves.
Thanks to Anthony and all who are fighting the good fight to bring sanity to climate science.

VG

But caveat: Small changes in sun activity (ALL, TSI, magnetic etc..) may after all slightly change climate on this planet ie ice ages warming periods etc…

rbateman

Solar wind is a measurement. GCR’s are a measurement. Sunspot area is a measurement.
Climate models are not measurements, they are computer code invented by programmers to serve a purpose. They can only process the data from measurements in the way in which the programmer specifically designs the model to do.
When you compare measurements to measurements, you get results.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin6.htm
Even whole spot to US temp 1880-1999 is a fair fit, rough as it is.

Michael Ronayne

On the Junk Science Forum, I have posted a compendium of charts of current Cosmic Ray activity from Neutron Monitoring Stations that provide real-time or near real-time graphics. Some of the stations suggest that we may have reached cosmic ray maximum in May 2009 but the signal is not that strong or not at all convincing just yet; also, several of the stations which showed slight dips in the last few months may be headed upward again as the Sun goes back to sleep. The Oulu and Moscow stations are now reporting cosmic ray activity at historic highs for the respective stations.
http://forum.junkscience.com/index.php?topic=397.0
The graphics will link to the original websites and Oulu and Moscow displays can be adjusted by the viewer. As I find new stations with useful displays, I will update the JSF post. The graphics will update as the sponsoring website updates their data, so you can check back periodically to follow current Cosmic Ray activity.
Michael Ronayne
Nutley, NJ

papiertigre

Pierre Gosselin (02:38:04) :
BTW, RSS is out for July.
+0.39, 3rd warmest in 31 years…

Must be that darned Siberia flaring up again.
Or is it that there’s an ‘historic’ vote on climate legislation pending?
RSS wouldn’t fudge the numbers for a cheap headline (well cheap is the wrong word if cap and trade gets passed) , would they?

“One requirement for successful scientific progress in general, is that new explanations or proposed mechanisms must fit within the big picture(….) It’s typical of non-experts not to place their ideas in the context of the bigger picture.”
Errr …. no! The requirement for successful scientific progress is that the big picture MUST include all the mechanisms – proposed, proven OR unknown – to reflect reality. Scientific progress is only achieved when the “big picture” is altered to fit the discovery of new mechanisms (e.g. the discovery that the earth revolves around the sun not vice versa – which totally altered the “big picture” of the universe).
Scientific progress is actually denied when the “big picture” takes precedence over newly discovered mechanisms. That statement from RC is the alarmist equivalent of the Catholic Church’s denial of Copernicanism.

Vincent

RC = Roman Carbonist, possibly.
RC ==> Gavin Schmidt. Is this the same Gavin Schmidt who work is so ‘robustly flawed’: See Scaffeta’s debunking of Schmidt on WUWT.
“Isn’t this affect to frequently and is too short lived to account for long term climate change?”
A Forbush event is just a tool to confirm the hypothesis. It is not being offered as an engine for global temperature changes. Svensmark has hypothesised that during grand solar minimums, the increase in GCR influx will lead to a few percentage points increase of low level clouds. The time span of such minima as Dalton certainly are certainly long enough to effect climate on a multi decadal time scale. The flip side to the reasoning is that high solar activity has the opposite effect and could account for a significant part of the post 1980 global warming.
“Interesting idea none the less, not really convinced about it myself, I’d imagine there are plenty of nucleation sites already in the atmosphere and this is unlikely to be the limiting step for cloud formation.”
This was RC’s original complaint a few years ago. However, they have offered no evidence for this assertion. How do you measure saturation of cloud condensation nucleii? What level equates to saturated? I don’t think there is any data on this. Yet, as Svensmark is putting forward GCR’s as a model then it is encumbent upon him to deal with these questions. Just like the AGW crowd do – not.

Allen63

My simple physical model indicated historical temperature data could be “explained” by sunspot data from the 1700s to now (with a delay and smoothing caused by the physics of the situation). I found that the sun could account for all but about 0.2C of the temperature change since circa 1850.
Problem was, I had/have no mechanism for the change in energy received by the earth. I figured it would be something other than the raw solar energy changes which seem to small.
Hence, I am very interested in potentially credible studies that propose other mechanisms and provide supporting observational and experimental data.

Robinson

The speed of RC’s dismissal of Svensmark’s paper suggests panic to me.

Indeed, all of the criticisms RC levelled at Svensmark’s paper can also be levelled at any number of AGW papers, including those written by GS himself. It seems to me that there is no validity in his criticisms either, because Svensmark is not demonstrating a full, complete model but simply adding incrementally to our understanding some facts that are consistent with his general hypothesis. This is in contrast to the Warmists, who rather too frequently dismiss facts that don’t fit their hypothesis. If the question is, “why does it take 5 – 9 days for the clouds to appear”, then the answer is further investigation, not outright dismissal.
RC’s response demonstrates just how anti-science these commentators have become.

dorlomin

So where is the heat hiding?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/a-simple-analogy-on-climate-modeling-looking-for-the-red-spot/
And why were the 50s not the warmest decade of the 20th centuary
http://kickthemallout.com/images/Misc/SunSpotActivityChart.jpg
Oh wait sorry my bad. We only ask question about the CO2. Everything else is real science. 😉

Urederra

I don´t usually post OTs but I think this is a must read.
From The treehugger The best way you can go green is to have fewer children.
No comments needed.

UK Sceptic

I can’t comment on the theory because I don’t have the scientific nous. However, I can appreaciate the fall-out at RC. I really love to see them twitch…

Ronaldo

Pierre Gosselin (01:42:28) :
Thankyou for drawing attention to the German item of news.
The letter to Angela Merkel is powerful stuff, signed by 67 leading scientists and 189 concerned active citizens – many of these latter also indicate scientific training and affiliations.
It’s a good read.

Pearland Aggie

I’m glad to see this getting some attention. This has been an interesting hypothesis for me since Svensmark had a documentary on Discovery channel circa ~2000.
Speaking of solar influences on climate and cloud formation, does anyone know what happened to the SOHO page? It hasn’t updated since 7/28. I was unable to find any notes under the Operations page about what might be going on.

the_Butcher

It’s been very rainy and cloudy from last winter here in Southern Europe where we usually have clear skies almost all the time.

RogerinVA

“Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized: In the first it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self-evident.” – Arthur Schopenhauer (German Philosopher, 1788-1860)
Third stage coming soon.

James (01:48:50) wrote: quote Interesting idea none the less, not really convinced about it myself, I’d imagine there are plenty of nucleation sites already in the atmosphere and this is unlikely to be the limiting step for cloud formation. unquote
Google NASA ship tracks and see. The limit on oceanic stratocu seems to be CCN numbers which means that various influences can modulate the cloud cover — remember that less than 5% reduction in this cover equals or exceeds CO2 forcing including the proposed water vapour amplification.
I will spare you the swivelly-eyed oil/surfactant pollution theory of global warming, but just wait, its time is coming….
JF

Stefan

Urederra (04:35:09) : From The treehugger The best way you can go green is to have fewer children.
Simplistic thinking applied to complex systems, methinks. Just saw an article in the papers about how China is now facing a demographics bomb as all the single children grow old before China has been able to develop enough to support them. They’ve acquired a First world problem without the First world wealth to deal with it.
I’m starting to believe that nature itself controls the reproductive urge and tunes it to suit the material conditions it is living in. Trying to deliberately control and engineering this with laws may seem like the obvious right thing to do if you’re a greenie, but we’re about to see how that’s worked out for China.
Greenies really don’t as a whole understand complexity.

grumpy

It is interesting that RC apply this criterion to other explanations but not to AGW supporting papers. tic
“One requirement for successful scientific progress in general, is that new explanations or proposed mechanisms must fit within the big picture, as well as being consistent with other observations. They must also be able to explain other relevant aspects.”
My comment (below) is waiting on moderation but I’m not holding my breath for it any time before Hansen’s 250ft sea level rise happens. ( the last comment before I posted was #95)
Is this why the AGW alarmist bandwagon in Australia led by Minister Penny W(r)ong keep changing their story???? Because the furphy that they sold us to accept the CPRS isn’t consistent with the observations.

Pierre Gosselin (02:38:04) :
BTW, RSS is out for July.
+0.39, 3rd warmest in 31 years…
Tell that to the stunted crops out in the field. This has been the coldest summer around here in a long long time. I think we maybe hit 31C once this summer. We routinely hit 38-40C at least for a few days each summer here. Not this year.
The downside to cold weather is that commodity prices are going to go up (laws of supply and demand) which is not good when the US is going through a recession.
We need the sun to wake up, and blow some of the clouds away to help warm things up. Svensmark’s theories are showing how true that metaphor really is.
This paper from Svensmark is another brick in their hypothesis – an observation of cause and effect. RC attacks it for not providing enough of a mechanism of action. Isn’t that the way real scientists do things? First they observe, then they hypothesize, then they test that hypothesis with experiment and more observation. Svensmark made brilliant observations – that galactic cosmic rays affect cloud formation. Critics of the observation said there wasn’t a strong enough signal in the observed data. Now he’s answered the critics with these new observations using strong events that show clear atmospheric responses to variations in the GCR flux. This isn’t cherry picking – this is pulling a strong signal out of the noise to prove there is correlation. Now it’s up to Svensmark, or someone else more expert in the field to show why there is a 5-7 day lag in the response – the actual mechanism of action – to put another brick in the wall.
Exciting times – we’re living in them.

Paul R

Clouds rule and Svensmark and Eschenbach have the most natural theories. I hope they’re both proven right and a bigger picture emerges and exposes the true aerosols in all this.

Mac

We are at the start of a process that will eventually establish a Natural Theory of Climate Change, one that will overwhelm the AGW hypothesis and see it eventually dumped in the scientific trash.

Charlie

dorlomin (04:32:46): “And why were the 50s not the warmest decade of the 20th centuary… Oh wait sorry my bad. We only ask question about the CO2. Everything else is real science. 😉
Svensmark isn’t claiming a complete theory with settled scientific consensus that explains everything. He reports what he has observed.
He’s doing science the way it is supposed to be done. Observations. Theories. Discussion. More observations. More theories. Repeat as necessary.

layne Blanchard

A search on changes in ultraviolet and solar minima turned this up: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-sun-global-cooling_2.html

Patagon

James (01:48:50) :
Svensmark gave an excellent talk at my university recently. They showed a long term study, comprising at least the two last glaciations. There was an excellent correlation between GCR and global temperature on those time scales. it should be published, may be a google scholar search will show it.

Soon the AGW theory will reside next to the ice is coming of the 70s.
It’s like the AGwers never heard of Occam’s Razor, but then they can’t tax the universe, can they?.

Patagon

Stan (03:48:27) :
Scientific progress is actually denied when the “big picture” takes precedence over newly discovered mechanisms. That statement from RC is the alarmist equivalent of the Catholic Church’s denial of Copernicanism.
It is exactly like that. Climate Alarmism have managed to recreate an anthropocentric climate system, where climate responds to the virtues and sins of man, and earth will be punished for his sins.
More sober and skeptical scientist are trying to return climate to its heliocentric orbit, which is where it belongs.
Here is an excellent and much wider analysis of the first position by J. Brignell

jsuther2013

For those unfamiliar with UK jargon, as put forth by UK skeptic, the word ‘nous’ possibly should have an ‘e’ on the end and is pronounced to rhyme with ‘house’. It means ‘smarts’.

From the article:

“t is seen in an event called a Forbush Decrease, which A Forbush decrease is a rapid decrease in the observed galactic cosmic raycoronal mass ejection (CME).”

Could you rewrite that sentence please, it makes no sense to me.

Kevin Kilty

Certainly intiguing. With all due respect, though, Luboš Motl isn’t quite right when he suggests that this “…resembles the processes in a cloud chamber.” In fact, this is probably how the folks at RC are thinking, and why they immediately pointed to the five day delay as significant.
In a cloud chamber the condensible gases are saturated or even supersaturated. The ionization tracks from cosmic rays and other particles act as condensation nuclei themselves and the result is an almost instantaneous condensation into a visible track. The five or more days delay in the effect here becomes suspicious immediately if one thinks of the cloud chamber analog. In fact, here the mechanism is more complex. The aerosols in mind are sulfur compounds also possibly sea salts neither of which are near saturation.

Jim

**************************
Vincent (03:57:57) :
RC = Roman Carbonist, possibly.
RC ==> Gavin Schmidt. Is this the same Gavin Schmidt who work is so ‘robustly flawed’: See Scaffeta’s debunking of Schmidt on WUWT.
“Interesting idea none the less, not really convinced about it myself, I’d imagine there are plenty of nucleation sites already in the atmosphere and this is unlikely to be the limiting step for cloud formation.”
How do you measure saturation of cloud condensation nucleii? What level equates to saturated? I don’t think there is any data on this. ********************************
I know instruments exist to measure microscopic particle size and can estimate concentration. Shouldn’t aerosols show up in the scattered spectrum of sunlight? Could there be way to measure them from space??

Jim

***************
Charlie (05:49:59) :
Svensmark isn’t claiming a complete theory with settled scientific consensus that explains everything. He reports what he has observed.
He’s doing science the way it is supposed to be done. Observations. Theories. Discussion. More observations. More theories. Repeat as necessary.
***********************
I agree with you 100% on that. The Real Climate article on this was so lame it was comical. They demanded that it have a 100% complete physical theory and also that the paper explained to the T how it fit into the “big picture.” They need to look at their own papers IMO. What a bunch of clowns.

Jimmy Haigh

Paul R (05:22:52) :
Well said Sir!