Nicola Scaffetta sent several people a copy of his latest paper today, which address the various solar TSI reconstructions such as from Lean and Rind 2008 and shows contrasts from that paper. While he suggests that TSI has a role in the temperature record, he also alludes to significant uncertainty in the TSI record since 1980. He writes in email:
…note the last paragraph of the paper. There is a significant difference between this new model and my previous one in Scafetta and West [2007]. In 2007 I was calibrating the model on the paleoclimate temperature records. In this new study I “predict” the paleoclimate records by using the solar records. So, I predict centuries of temperature data, while modern GCMs do not predicts even a few years of data!
Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007 By Nicola Scafetta
Abstract
The solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change is analyzed by using an empirical bi-scale climate model characterized by both fast and slow characteristic time responses to solar forcing: and
or
. Since 1980 the solar contribution to climate change is uncertain because of the severe uncertainty of the total solar irradiance satellite composites. The sun may have caused from a slight cooling, if PMOD TSI composite is used, to a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used. The model is calibrated only on the empirical 11-year solar cycle signature on the instrumental global surface temperature since 1980. The model reconstructs the major temperature patterns covering 400 years of solar induced temperature changes, as shown in recent paleoclimate global temperature records.
Excerpts from the Conclusion (from a pre-print provided by the author)
Herein I have analyzed the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. A comprehensive interpretation of multiple scientific findings indicates that the contribution of solar variability to climate change is significant and that the temperature trend since 1980 can be large and upward. However, to correctly quantify the solar contribution to the recent global warming it is necessary to determine the correct TSI behavior since 1980. Unfortunately, this cannot be done with certainty yet. The PMOD TSI composite, which has been used by the IPCC and most climate modelers, has been found to be based on arbitrary and questionable assumptions [Scafetta and Willson, 2009]. Thus, it cannot be excluded that TSI increased from 1980 to 2000 as claimed by the ACRIM scientific team. The IPCC [2007] claim that the solar contribution to climate change since 1950 is negligible may be based on wrong solar data in addition to the fact that the EBMs and GCMs there used are missing or poorly modeling several climate mechanisms that would significantly amplify the solar effect on climate. When taken into account the entire range of possible TSI satellite composite since 1980, the solar contribution to climate change ranges from a slight cooling to a significant warming, which can be as large as 65% of the total observed global warming.
…
This finding suggests that the climate system is hypersensitive to the climate function h(T) and even small errors in modeling h(T) (for example, in modeling how the albedo, the cloud cover, water vapor feedback, the emissivity, etc. respond to changes of the temperature on a decadal scale) would yield the climate models to fail, even by a large factor, to appropriately determine the solar effect on climate on decadal and secular scale. For similar reasons, the models also present a very large uncertainty in evaluating the climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 atmospheric concentration [Knutti and Hegerl, 2008]. This large sensitivity of the climate equations to physical uncertainty makes the adoption of traditional EBMs and GCMs quite problematic.
About the result depicted in Figure 6, the ESS curve has been evaluated by calibrating the proposed empirical bi-scale model only by using the information deduced: 1) by the instrumental temperature and the solar records since 1980 about the 11-year solar signature on climate; 2) by the findings by Scafetta [2008a] and Schwartz [2008] about the long and short characteristic time responses of the climate as deduced with autoregressive models. The paleoclimate temperature reconstructions were not used to calibrate the model, as done in Scafetta and West [2007]. Thus, the finding shown in Figure 6 referring to the preindustrial era has also a predictive meaning, and implies that climate had a significant preindustrial variability which is incompatible
with a hockey stick temperature graph.
The complete paper is available here:
Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks to discussions on another thread I now accept that I should not have referred to the oceans as capable of generating energy independently of solar input but rather accumulating energy or dissipating energy to the air independently of variations in solar input.
Either way the ocean energy content does not show a close correlation with solar variability over periods of less than centuries.
Nasif Nahle (08:48:53) :
Isn’t the standard theory weird, tricky and paradoxical?
The Standard Model is fully vindicated, both neutrino measurements and helioseismology show that the Sun is just as standard theory says it should be [to high accuracy]. And I don’t need to hear your opinion about that, I have already capitulated completely in my quest for educating you about this. No more, please.
Geoff Sharp (22:55:15) :
A post by anna v on another thread shows how NASA seems to think there might be climate implications by fluctuating levels of plankton…
“The science is far from settled…”
If we look at MSA (which is solely produced from DMS) from an icecore we see some interesting problems.
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/msaicecore.jpg
maksimovich (16:05:26) :
It looks on that information that there is a reduction in DMS as the TSI or UV increased. Sort of goes against the NASA story. I find it amazing that there is data in this area in ice cores.
Geoff Sharp (17:20:46) :
maksimovich (16:05:26) :
It looks on that information that there is a reduction in DMS as the TSI or UV increased. Sort of goes against the NASA story. I find it amazing that there is data in this area in ice cores.
If we look at “singularities” in the historical record eg around 1880″s we can see the inverse relationship of volcanic attenuation of SW radiation and a positive response in MSA. Also if we observe the decrease in MSA (or divergence of the correlation) in the recent ( post war) record this is conjucent to ozone depletion or UVB amplification n ogreat “mysteries” here.
Leif Svalgaard (14:45:33) :
Nasif Nahle (08:48:53) :
Isn’t the standard theory weird, tricky and paradoxical?
The Standard Model is fully vindicated, both neutrino measurements and helioseismology show that the Sun is just as standard theory says it should be [to high accuracy]. And I don’t need to hear your opinion about that, I have already capitulated completely in my quest for educating you about this. No more, please.
Ok! You’ve got tired of showing your Achilles Heel, that is, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics; I understand your sentiments, though I have not experienced them, yet.
maksimovich (17:40:10) :
If we look at “singularities” in the historical record eg around 1880″s we can see the inverse relationship of volcanic attenuation of SW radiation and a positive response in MSA. Also if we observe the decrease in MSA (or divergence of the correlation) in the recent ( post war) record this is conjucent to ozone depletion or UVB amplification n ogreat “mysteries” here.
Interesting…so if this theory has validity it means man may have had a hand in global warming by reducing plankton numbers through changes to ozone and perhaps also due to polluting the marine environment. Seems more plausible than what the IPCC and others tell us.
Leif Svalgaard (12:13:48) :
“I’m not fishing for credibility. And you have not demonstrated any errors. If and when you do, I’ll be glad to accept.”
Here is a brief list of some of your errors taken from this thread:
1. You maintain that thermal energy is heat when thermal energy is the portion of a systems internal energy called kinetic energy.
2. You maintain that heat is stored when heat is energy in transit and cannot be stored.
3. You maintain that the solar corona does not have limits and cannot be considered a thermodynamic system when anything in the Universe possessing mass is a thermodynamic system. You refuse to accept that the boundaries of a thermodynamic system may be invisible as some researchers have postulated. For example, the solar corona has mass because it is composed of protons, neutrons and electrons, neutrinos, positrons, etc. It does not have a visible boundary; nevertheless, it is certainly possible to distinguish where the corona begins and where it ends; the clue is the temperature. The outer band, where the temperature does not exceed 1 million Kelvin, sets the outer limit. The inner band, where the temperature begins to exceed 1 million Kelvin, sets the inner limit.
4. You maintain that there are no barriers in the solar corona, but ignore the Helmet Streamers – those magnetic barriers which maintain particles in the solar corona. For these charged particle to escape into outer space, those barriers have to be cracked open. And that is precisely what happens when the solar winds blow.
5. You maintain that protons, neutrons and neutrinos do not emit energy. Which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, because those particles have motion.
6. You maintain that there is no thermal energy (kinetic energy) in the solar corona, but then fail to explain how it is that the solar corona has temperature when temperature is the measure of the kinetic energy of the particles.
tom (19:44:17) :
You maintain that heat is stored when heat is energy in transit and cannot be stored.
This is sloppy terminology but not worth weeks of back-and-forth commentary. The working definition in the climate literature is temperature * heat capacity. (I happen to be among those who think that delta “heat content” does not strictly have to equal the “heat flux”, but whatever…)
tom (19:44:17) :
5. You maintain that protons, neutrons and neutrinos do not emit energy. Which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, because those particles have motion.
You are as far gone as Narif. And rely on the same vague concepts. “emit energy” for example. Consider your thermodynamic system that consists of a little sphere around a neutrino. Outer boundary is the sphere. Inner boundary is .. [never mind the inner]. For the system to “emit energy”, energy must be leaving the system [the sphere], thus the neutrino must be losing energy thus move slower and slower if it has energy by virtue of it having motion. But already Galileo knew that this is not the case.
Pseudo-Science relies on the subtle misdirections. The original question was if a neutrino ’emits electromagnetic radiation’, now that has been broadened to ’emits energy’. So you must specify what form of energy is being emitted. The rest of your list is equally ambiguous. But the same goes for you as for Narif: ‘to far gone’.
Leif Svalgaard (01:17:23) :
Leif’s Law: If it doesn’t fit my agenda and I cannot change the record it must be Pseudo_science.
This could be my last post in this thread on this topic.
It is common that when we talk about particles we think they are not interchanging energy with their environment or with other particles. They are so small that we often think they are not driven by the fundamental laws. Nothing farther from reality. Fundamental laws were once asymmetric. Currently they are symmetric and act over all kind of systems in this universe, whether those systems are symmetric or asymmetric.
Let’s travel a bit towards the past, 13.8 billion years ago, some 10^-37 seconds before the exponential inflation started. Imagine a superhot bubble of plasma with a temperature above 3000 K, high enough as to prevent the synthesis of complete atoms. Protons, neutrons, electrons, positrons, electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos, tau neutrinos, muons, tau, quarks, etc. constituted that superhot quantum soup. The density of that bubble was high, so the collisions among those particles were frequent and the energy of a particle was transferred to another particle. Behind each collision and after the exponential inflation, photons were released towards the walls of the bubble, while others were absorbed by other particles. Many of those “free” photons traveled at c speed towards the tridimensional space and continue traveling still now in straight trajectories toward us (CMBR). The soup cooled down and the expansion decelerated. Could any physicist think on the veracity of the theory described if he/she believed that particles don’t emit and absorb photons, which are the carriers of electromagnetic force? How could the emission of photons could be possible if particles cannot emit energy?
Something very important is that the energy has not “charge”, as Leif is trying to make us believe. Photons has not charge either. Neutrinos has not charge, but Leif has made them -without mass- also, i.e. Leif has dismissed the classification of particles.
I have to say that I don’t believe in “singularities” and “paradoxes”. Those concepts don’t go with me neither with reality. I sustain that there are not “singularities” and “paradoxes” in the Universe, but only in humans’ mind. I do believe that the origin of the known Universe was from a false void bubble which was created from another father-universe. (Alan Guth. 1997). Anyway, the true origin of the Universe is 100% independent of my individual, personal or scientific viewpoints.
When I said, “Perhaps I believe in [this or that system]”, I was not trying to stand opposed to any theory, but trying to say that the real natural systems are absolutely independent of my beliefs or desires. Nature would be as it is, whether I believe one thing or another.
And here the big problem and major mistake of us comes into view: If we have not a feasible explanation for an observed phenomenon, we resort to “weird, tricky, paradoxical” hypothesis and explanations; like the concentration of gas in the center of the solar system, for example. It is not that I believe or not in this hypothesis, but the hypothesis is weird, tricky, paradoxical and absolutely opposed to the observed trajectories in the Universe. It’s more natural to think that the Sun is not completely gaseous, including for explaining the existence of those magnetic traps in the solar corona which prevent the particles escape freely towards the deepens of the 3D, unbounded, infinite space.
Cheers!
oms (23:44:10) :
This is sloppy terminology but not worth weeks of back-and-forth commentary. The working definition in the climate literature is temperature * heat capacity. (I happen to be among those who think that delta “heat content” does not strictly have to equal the “heat flux”, but whatever…)
It’s not sloppy terminology. It is correct scientific terminology. We cannot say a horse is a monkey.
I think the confusion emerged when someone confused “heat” with “thermal energy”.
Nasif Nahle (09:28:32) :
Fundamental laws were once asymmetric. Currently they are symmetric
The other way around: they were once symmetric, now that symmetry is broken.
How could the emission of photons could be possible if particles cannot emit energy?
Charged particles can emit electromagnetic radiation. Neutral particles cannot. The original question was whether the protons in the solar corona emit light – “what is the luminosity of the corona at a total eclipse”, remember?. And the answer is no. The light we see comes from photons from the photosphere which are scatted off from electrons, light a searchlight on a foggy night. The protons in the corona do not radiate, not because Hydrogen atoms cannot radiate, but because protons are not Hydrogen atoms, so there are no electrons that can jump orbitals and emit light.
Neutrinos has not charge, but Leif has made them -without mass- also, i.e. Leif has dismissed the classification of particles.
When Fermi introduced neutrinos they were thought to be massless particles. Very recently, we have to give them a very tiny mass if we want to understand neutrino oscillations within the standard model.
like the concentration of gas in the center of the solar system, for example. It is not that I believe or not in this hypothesis, but the hypothesis is weird, tricky, paradoxical and absolutely opposed to the observed trajectories in the Universe.
Any large gas cloud will contract under its own gravity and form stars. There is nothing weird etc about this. The “observed trajectories” is another PS idea of yours [or rather of the fringe websites where you pick things like this up]
It’s more natural to think that the Sun is not completely gaseous, including for explaining the existence of those magnetic traps in the solar corona which prevent the particles escape freely towards the deepens of the 3D, unbounded, infinite space.
It is not magnetic forces that prevents escape of particles, but solar gravity, just like it is the Earth’s gravity that prevents our atmosphere from escaping. If the Sun did not have a magnetic field there would be no solar wind and no escape of anything.
Dr. Svalgaard
Sometimes I wonder at your patience, but perhaps I have become more testy in my old age.
But I would add two points. Yes the laws are assymetric as on a classical view they must be. That is because the universe is a naked singularity and therefore has to be handed, either right or left as you might prefer to think of it. But symmetry cannot be maintained. It is also why of course there can be no naked singularity inside this naked singularity which is why black holes must obey the second law of thermodynamics and do.
This is the irreversibilty of the arrow of time.
As for neutrinos we had an inkling that they might have mass, albeit tiny, back then: but physics has moved on a bit since.
Incidentally I noticed to my amazement on the Reference Frame that there appear to be some physicists who do not believe in the second law, and consequently the arrow of time: the most basic building block of modern physics.
It made my jaw drop.
Kindest Regards
Leif,
There is a good question here that I would like to see answered. What is it that allows a hydrogen nucleus in the photosphere to radiate while one in the corona does not? Or, if neither can radiate, then what process does a photon or gamma ray go through as it travels toward the surface? We know it does not travel at light speed, so what is impeding it?
Leif Svalgaard (11:10:22) :
Nasif Nahle (09:28:32) :
Fundamental laws were once asymmetric. Currently they are symmetric
The other way around: they were once symmetric, now that symmetry is broken.
Where the laws of physics do not work?
http://www.phys.utk.edu/witek/NP621/symmetries1.pdf
I think you’re talking about systems, not laws. The laws are symmetric, systems in the universe are not symmetric.
The asymmetry of the laws occurred once during the cooling of the Universe when barions were produced intensively:
SYMMETRY: Three indistinguishable interactions and three indistinguishable particles. Rotational invariance.
SPONTANEOUS RUPTURE OF THE SYMMETRY (HIGGS’ MECHANISM): Symmetry is broken. Three distinguishable interactions and three distinguishable particles. Three distinguishable rotational trajectories.
LOW ENERGY PHYSICS: Three distinguishable interactions, three distinguishable particles. Three fundamental speeds of light and three fundamental spatial trajectories
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS: Phase transition at high temperature; symmetry is reestablished. Rotational invariance. The subjacent laws of physics make no distinction among neutrinos, electrons and quarks.
How could the emission of photons could be possible if particles cannot emit energy?
Charged particles can emit electromagnetic radiation. Neutral particles cannot. The original question was whether the protons in the solar corona emit light – “what is the luminosity of the corona at a total eclipse”, remember?. And the answer is no. The light we see comes from photons from the photosphere which are scatted off from electrons, light a searchlight on a foggy night. The protons in the corona do not radiate, not because Hydrogen atoms cannot radiate, but because protons are not Hydrogen atoms, so there are no electrons that can jump orbitals and emit light.
http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/rmf/no481/RMF48109.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVN-4G94F1C-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=994617771&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=66f0aed4b3b52a0acf4359184ddce01b
Loss of neutrino’s energy: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0256-307X/24/7/020/
http://www.worldscinet.com/mpla/24/2411n13/S0217732309000577.html
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1996ApJS..102..411I/0000411.000.html
Neutrinos has not charge, but Leif has made them -without mass- also, i.e. Leif has dismissed the classification of particles.
When Fermi introduced neutrinos they were thought to be massless particles. Very recently, we have to give them a very tiny mass if we want to understand neutrino oscillations within the standard model.
I agree.
like the concentration of gas in the center of the solar system, for example. It is not that I believe or not in this hypothesis, but the hypothesis is weird, tricky, paradoxical and absolutely opposed to the observed trajectories in the Universe.
Any large gas cloud will contract under its own gravity and form stars. There is nothing weird etc about this. The “observed trajectories” is another PS idea of yours [or rather of the fringe websites where you pick things like this up]
What you say is what I say in my article on the Solar System Origin. However, isn’t it a weird, tricky and paradoxical hypothesis? 🙂
It’s more natural to think that the Sun is not completely gaseous, including for explaining the existence of those magnetic traps in the solar corona which prevent the particles escape freely towards the deepens of the 3D, unbounded, infinite space.
It is not magnetic forces that prevents escape of particles, but solar gravity, just like it is the Earth’s gravity that prevents our atmosphere from escaping. If the Sun did not have a magnetic field there would be no solar wind and no escape of anything.
I agree. However… Answer this in one hour. I’m leaving out for lunch.
a jones (11:43:17) :
that there appear to be some physicists who do not believe in the second law, and consequently the arrow of time: the most basic building block of modern physics.
The second law [and thermodynamics in general] is valid for a collection of particles, and becomes less and less applicable for smaller or smaller systems, e.g. in the end for a single particle, where it is meaningless.
There are a lot of professional scientists of every type who seem to have abandoned basic principles for some new fangled speculative relativism. It’s very confusing for the rest of us who just try to get a grip.
Whom to believe is becoming a lottery.
Nasif Nahle (12:05:32) :
I have given up on you. This latest post shows again that you have no idea whatsoever of what you are talking about.
Loss of neutrino’s energy
Of course, neutrinos can lose energy. But they don’t do it by emitting electromagnetic radiation.
What you say is what I say in my article on the Solar System Origin. However, isn’t it a weird, tricky and paradoxical hypothesis?
No, it is a natural consequence of the law of gravity.
Another hallmark of the pseudi-scientist is the excursions into exotic corners [false vacuum, neutrinos, etc] as straw men to divert attention from the issue at hand.
Got back to the unanswered paragraph from Leif’s post:
Nasif Said: “It’s more natural to think that the Sun is not completely gaseous, including for explaining the existence of those magnetic traps in the solar corona which prevent the particles escape freely towards the deepens of the 3D, unbounded, infinite space.”
Leif said: “It is not magnetic forces that prevents escape of particles, but solar gravity, just like it is the Earth’s gravity that prevents our atmosphere from escaping. If the Sun did not have a magnetic field there would be no solar wind and no escape of anything.”
I answered: “I agree.” Nevertheless, the closed magnetic lines of the magnetic field are the regions of the solar corona where plasma gets confined and accumulated. Helmet streamers are active regions where plasma is denser than in other regions… Bah! I’m speaking with a solar physicist who must know every detail on this. Anyway… The plasma which forms the solar corona is ejected through coronal magnetic holes. If it was gravity alone which maintains the plasma confined to the corona, well… Our Sun is not a black hole, the solar corona either, OK? The second law of thermodynamics works here and there and over every system in the whole universe.
I have not had yet news about a rupture of the fundamental laws’ symmetry.
Dr. Svalgaard
I must dispute. You suggest that the second law becomes less applicable at smaller and smaller scales so that in the case of single particle it becomes meaningless.
From a classical standpoint I would say that in such a case it is not the second law that becomes meaningless but rather it is the concept that a single particle can exist in this universe unaffected by all the other particles in the universe that has no meaning.
Kindest Regards
Leif Svalgaard (13:00:04) :
Nasif Nahle (12:05:32) :
I have given up on you. This latest post shows again that you have no idea whatsoever of what you are talking about.
Loss of neutrino’s energy
Of course, neutrinos can lose energy. But they don’t do it by emitting electromagnetic radiation.
Isn’t it a contradiction on what you said that neutrinos don’t interact with other particles? Where the lost energy (from neutrinos) goes to? Yes, I know, to the gravity field; however, have you thought by means of which process? Radiation, of course, i.e. emision of photons.
What you say is what I say in my article on the Solar System Origin. However, isn’t it a weird, tricky and paradoxical hypothesis?
No, it is a natural consequence of the law of gravity.
I disagree absolutely on your viewpoint. Law of gravity would take the heaviest materials just to the center, not to a median region.
Another hallmark of the pseudi-scientist is the excursions into exotic corners [false vacuum, neutrinos, etc] as straw men to divert attention from the issue at hand.
Leif!!!!! What are you saying? False void (or false vacuum) is the heart of the Inflationary Theory!!!
pochas (11:58:32) :
There is a good question here that I would like to see answered. What is it that allows a hydrogen nucleus in the photosphere to radiate while one in the corona does not?
Electromagnetic radiation comes about when a charged particle is accelerated. Most of the F10.7 microwave radiation, for instance, is generated by electrons being deflected by other charges in the solar atmosphere. To generate light we can see [rather than very weak radio waves] requires a very large acceleration, e.g. from particles moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light. They don’t do that in the solar atmosphere [but do in supernova remnants and in the core of the Sun]. Consider now an ordinary Hydrogen atom. It consists of a proton surrounded by an electron in an ‘orbital’ cloud. Left to itself it does not radiate, but is stable. Now, excite the atom and move the electron out to ‘higher orbital’. This is an unstable situation and the electron will return to a lower ‘orbital’ very shortly. In doing so, it is accelerated very strongly and emits visible light whose quanta will have an energy equal to the difference in energy levels of the two orbitals. If you remove the electron [heating the corona to millions of degrees ionizes the atom] and dilute the material [expansion because of high temperature], the electrons are no longer bound to orbitals around the proton and so do not quantum jump from an orbit to the innermost orbit emitting light in the process. You see, it is not the protons that emit light, it is the electrons when they jump. Not bound, no jumps, no light.
Or, if neither can radiate, then what process does a photon or gamma ray go through as it travels toward the surface? We know it does not travel at light speed, so what is impeding it?
This is a different issue. A gamma ray is created at the Sun’s core and moves a short distance at the speed of light. Then it is absorbed by a proton [heating it] and a bit later re-emitted, only to be absorbed and re-emitted zillions of times before the energy finally works it ways to the surface. The process takes about a quarter million years. And it is not the same photon that makes it out, it only ‘lives’ between emission and subsequent absorption.
BTW, strangely enough, the light from the photosphere does not come from neutral Hydrogen atoms [then it would red H-alpha light], but from negative Hydrogen ions, i.e. from atoms that have captured an extra electron.
Leif Svalgaard (13:00:04) :
I’ll not comment any further on your misconceptions of exotic physics, that is quite hopeless.
“No, it is a natural consequence of the law of gravity.”
I disagree absolutely on your viewpoint. Law of gravity would take the heaviest materials just to the center, not to a median region.
A feather and a lead bullet fall with the same speed in a gravitational field, so a feather and a lead bullet at the outskirts of the cloud would both fall together, side by side, towards the center. Few people today [but, apparently, some] believe that heavier materials fall faster [as Aristotle thought]. Perhaps your disagreement here shows how much credibility on the attach to any of your statements.