I recall a conversation I had with Dr. Bob Carter at a restaurant in Townsville, QLD after our public presentations there in June 2010 where he lamented the fact that many of the AGW proponents and many of his critics, “really don’t integrate the earth’s geologic timeline into their critical thinking”. I’ve had dozens of similar comments posted on WUWT. It only takes one look at this graph from Lorraine Lisiecki’s most recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters to get a handle on the geologic timeline of CO2 in recent Earth history. The title and x axis annotations are mine. Compare the peaks of CO2 and Sea Surface Temperature change over the last 1.5 million years.
Figure 3. Proxy comparison. (top) pCO2 (red) [Petit et al., 1999; Monnin et al., 2001; Siegenthaler et al., 2005; Lüthi et al., 2008 , Dd13CP−NA 2 (blue), alkenone concentration (green dashed) [Martínez‐Garcia et al., 2009″], boron‐based estimates with error bars (black dots [Hönisch et al., 2009]; gray circles [Tripati et al., 2009]; triangles [Seki et al., 2010]), and alkenone d13C estimates (squares) [Seki et al., 2010]. Dd13CP−NA 2 and alkenone proxies are scaled to ppm using the mean and standard deviation of pCO2 from 800–0 ka. (See auxiliary material for ODP 1090 age model.) (bottom) Changes in Dd13CP−NA 2 (blue), WEP SST [Medina‐Elizalde and Lea, 2005], and a tropical SST stack (purple) [Herbert et al., 2010] with trend reduced by 0.29°C/Myr to match the WEP. Dd13CP−NA 2 is scaled to °C using the standard deviation of the SST stack from 500–100 ka. – click for larger image”]
Granted, there’s not enough resolution on this graph to see the present (at far left) clearly, and I’m sure there will be arguments complaining it doesn’t show the current measured CO2 ppm value, at ~390ppm, but I’m not posting this to try to dispel current measurements, only to help others gain an understanding of the longer geologic record. Here’s the abstract and conclusion, along with another graph of interest:
Abstract: (emphasis mine)
A high‐resolution marine proxy for atmospheric pCO2 is needed to clarify the phase lag between pCO2 and marine climate proxies and to provide a record of orbital‐scale
pCO2 variations before the oldest ice core measurement at 800 ka. Benthic d13C data should record deep ocean carbon storage and, thus, atmospheric pCO2. This study finds that a modified d13C gradient between the deep Pacific and intermediate North Atlantic (Dd13CP−NA2) correlates well with pCO2. Dd13CP−NA 2 reproduces characteristic differences between pCO2 and ice volume during Late Pleistocene glaciations and indicates that pCO2 usually leads terminations by 0.2–3.7 kyr but lags by 3–10 kyr during two “failed” terminations at 535 and 745 ka. Dd13CP−NA 2 gradually transitions from 41‐ to 100‐kyr cyclicity from 1.3–0.7 Ma but has no secular trend in mean or amplitude since 1.5 Ma. The minimum pCO2 of the last 1.5 Myr is estimated to be 155 ppm at ∼920 ka. Citation: Lisiecki, L. E. (2010), A benthic d13C based proxy for atmospheric pCO2 over the last 1.5 Myr, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L21708, doi:10.1029/2010GL045109.
That minimum pCO2 920,000 years ago of 155ppm comes dangerously close to the value at which photosynthetic function shuts down, said to be around 140-150ppm. Earth came close to losing its plant life then.
Here’s another graph, again annotated by me, showing her data:
Figure 2. Comparison of pCO2 (gray) [Petit et al., 1999; Monnin et al., 2001; Siegenthaler et al., 2005; Lüthi et al., 2008 with (top) benthic d18O (black) [Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005 and (bottom) Dd13CP−NA 2 (black). Glacial stages are labeled by MIS number. In Figure 2 (bottom), pCO2 has been smoothed with a 2‐kyr boxcar filter.
I also found this passage of interest:
An anomalous phase relationship between ice volume and pCO2 may explain why these two warming events [Termination 6 (535 ka) and MIS 18 (745 ka)] are weaker than most Late Pleistocene terminations. During both “failed” terminations, the initial d18O change is approximately half the amplitude of most Late Pleistocene terminations; d18O spends ∼20 kyr at intermediate values of 3.8–4.2‰ and then briefly returns to more glacial values before achieving full interglacial conditions ∼40 kyr after the initial warming. The Dd13CP−NA2 lag during these two failed terminations suggests that full deglaciation requires an early pCO2 response.
This is along the lines of Andrew Lacis CO2 knob idea, but it is clear that CO2 isn’t fully in control, but one of many control knobs for climate. There’s also some discussions about the role of polar ice in climate regulation:
The initial trigger for terminations and the mechanistic link between pCO2 and northern hemisphere ice volume remain controversial [e.g., Huybers, 2009; Denton et al., 2010]. Variability in the phase between d18O and Dd13CP−NA2 supports the hypothesis of Toggweiler [2008] that glacial changes in pCO2 are controlled by southern hemisphere processes only weakly linked to northern hemisphere insolation and ice volume. However, tighter coupling between the hemispheres appears to develop at ∼500 ka, as suggested by smaller phase differences between Dd13CP−NA 2 and d18O (Table S3), an increase in pCO2 amplitude, and the phase lock between Antarctic temperature and northern hemisphere insolation during the last five terminations [Kawamura et al., 2007].
Conclusions
[19] In conclusion, Dd13CP−NA2 correlates well with ice core pCO2 from 800–0 ka and reproduces many features of the pCO2 record. Comparison of Dd13CP−NA
2 and pCO2 suggests that marine and ice core age models [Lisiecki and Raymo,
2005; Parrenin et al., 2007; Loulergue et al., 2007] differ by ≤2.7 kyr at terminations. Within the marine sedimentary record Dd13CP−NA2 usually leads d18O by 0.2–3.7 kyr at terminations but lags by 3–10 kyr during “failed” terminations at 535 and 745 ka. Thus, an early pCO2 response appears necessary for complete deglaciation, and pCO2 appears less tightly coupled to northern hemisphere ice volume before 500 ka. [20] Several proxies that correlate with pCO2 (Dd13CP−NA2 , South Atlantic productivity [Martínez‐Garcia et al., 2009], and WEP SST [Medina‐Elizalde and Lea, 2005]) and a carbon
cycle box model [Köhler and Bintanja, 2008] suggest that glacial pCO2 minima do not decrease during the MPT. Moreover, the minimum pCO2 concentration of the last
1.5 Myr is estimated to occur at 920 ka. Dd13CP−NA2 gradually shifts from 41‐kyr cycles to 100‐kyr cycles from 1.3–0.7 Ma but shows no secular trend in mean or amplitude over the last 1.5 Myr, whereas tropical SST records suggest warmer glacial maxima before 1.3 Ma [Herbert et al., 2010]. This likely indicates that at least one of these proxies is affected by factors other than pCO2 before 1.3 Ma; thus, additional high resolution proxies are needed.
======================================================
The thing to bear in mind is that these are proxies, not empirical measurements, and there’s no error/uncertainty shown. Of course at the present, we have ~ 390ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that is nothing I dispute, not does any other skeptic I know of. What is clear from this study though is that our current period of increased CO2 is riding on the back of natural variability of CO2 concentration, which has been observed to occur with regularity over the past 1.5 million years. Of course the question arises as to how much the present concentrations will affect our slide into the next glaciation, if at all. If we are lucky, our “geoengineering” of the planet with some extra CO2 may very well be a lucky break for humanity. Notice that those peaks in CO2 and SST, the most recent of which is the very brief period of the rise of man, are quite short compared with the much longer periods of cooler temperatures.
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard, who has the full paper here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ammonite says:
November 13, 2010 at 2:08 pm
John from CA says: November 13, 2010 at 11:25 am Are the daily CO2 readings and trends at Mauna Loa related to Industrialization, Urbanization, and environmental conditions in South America?
Hi John. The increase in CO2 concentration being measured a Mauna Loa is due to the net burning of fossil fuel (coal, oil, gas) across the entire planet, of which South America is a contributor. Historically North America has been the major player.
========
Ammonite,
This isn’t logical. The readings at Mauna Loa are daily measurements that should reflect changing conditions yet they are presented as if they reflect “Global” trends. IMO, there is something very wrong with a graph that shows such a consistent pattern and trend.
W h y d o e s a t m o s p h e r i c C O 2 r i s e
source: http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
“Most “new” CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time. The ppmv-amount of the lag at a given time has increased according to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. [Schimel 94, p 43] [Siegenthaler]”
…”atmospheric carbon monoxide with a lifetime of about 2 months [Novelli], or methane with a lifespan of 10+ years. Their roles as atmospheric carbon reservoirs are minor, both eventually end up largely as CO2 [Prather 94/95].”
“The average annual increase of CO2 went up from about 0.9 ppmv/year during the 1960s to about 1.5 ppmv/year during the 1980s. The annual CO2 growth rate has kept fluctuating since the start of direct measurements in 1958. Many fluctuations appear to be related to El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events. The drop of the CO2 growth rate between late 1991 and late 1993, however, cannot be directly linked to an ENSO event. The rise of atmospheric methane and of nitrous oxide temporarily slowed down at about the same time. Mt. Pinatubo’s 1991 eruption may have played a role, but the matter is not settled. [Heimann] [IPCC 95, p 75-6] [Prather 95, p 87-8] [Schimel 95, p 80-2]”
Carbon Monoxide from [SA] Biomass Burning
MOPITT: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1144
“This pair of images shows levels of carbon monoxide at the atmospheric pressure level of 700 millibars (roughly 12,000 feet in altitude) over the continent of South America, as observed by the Measurements Of Pollution In The Troposphere (MOPITT) sensor flying aboard NASA’s Terra spacecraft.”
MOPITT Images: http://www.eos.ucar.edu/mopitt/dataimages/index.html
Mauna Loa Observatory ppm data and charts related to my last post:
Monthly mean atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii
source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
“The carbon dioxide data, measured as the mole fraction in dry air, on Mauna Loa constitute the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. They were started by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 at a facility of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Keeling, 1976). NOAA started its own CO2 measurements in May of 1974, and they have run in parallel with those made by Scripps since then (Thoning, 1989). The black curve represents the seasonally corrected data.”
John from CA says:
November 15, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Ammonite,
This isn’t logical. The readings at Mauna Loa are daily measurements that should reflect changing conditions yet they are presented as if they reflect “Global” trends. IMO, there is something very wrong with a graph that shows such a consistent pattern and trend.
There is little difference between the trends of the 10 “baseline” stations measuring CO2 from near the North Pole (Alert) to the South Pole. See the “carbon tracker”, where you can see the graphs and download the data of many stations (baseline and others) at:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/ or the data of the baseline stations directly at:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
The “baseline” stations were choosen to have a minimal influence of local/regional CO2 sources/sinks. The main variability in the NH is caused by the seasons: highest values around the trend due to vegetation decay in late fall, winter and early spring, sharp reduction when the mid-latitude forests start to grow their leaves and further in summer and early fall. Increase again in late fall, winter and early spring. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004_4s.jpg
The seasonal amplitude is far less in the SH, more ocean and less vegetation…
Mauna Loa still is in the NH (about 20 N) and reflects the mid-altitude NH CO2 levels, already largely mixed by the trade winds. Local sources and sinks are all near-ground and when these reach the altitude of Mauna Loa (3,400 meter) most differences are already leveled off.
Rests the lag between the NH and the SH: about 90% of all human emissions are released in the NH. The ITCZ slows down the exchange of air masses (including CO2) between the hemispheres, which causes the lag of the SH. Not that this is very important: even with a 1-2 years lag, the difference in yearly average between all baseline stations is not more than 5 ppmv, while the trend is already over 60 ppmv since the accurate measurements at the South Pole (as first) started:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg
Why Mauna Loa is used as “global”? It simply is the longest continuous record and there is little difference between the official “global” record (which is the average of several sealevel baseline stations) and that of Mauna Loa.
In addition:
The 1992 dip in increase rate of CO2 is due to the Pinatubo eruption: partly due to a temperature drop of about 0.6°C, which increases the absorption by colder ocean waters, partly due to increased vegetation growth. Seems contradictory, but the stratospheric dust of the eruption caused scattering of incoming sunlight, which made that leaves that were normally in the shadow of other leaves for direct sunlight now had more light from different directions for photosynthesis.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
Thanks,
They do adjust the data to coincide with NH reads and they adjust the readings for the CO2 from the nearby volcano. By the time they are done adjusting the measurements, they end up with a trend they apply to global conditions.
If you look at the daily measurements, you’ll discover the monthly values are not based on full daily readings for the month. In the extreme case I listed above, one month was based on measurements from 2 days with a curious resulting value.
If I’m reading the circulation patterns correctly, Mauna Loa is downwind from South America and South America is downwind from Africa. If the mixing takes 1-2 years (I’m assuming they are referring to Antarctica in the study), and the readings are daily in Mauna Loa (thus influenced by events in SA), shouldn’t we anticipate seeing a far more dynamic monthly and chart trend result?
Ferdinand,
What I’ve been alluding to Is the Heart of the Issue.
I have the greatest respect for Anthony Watts and Judith Curry (in the same breath).
Anthony and Judith seek the same prize but from starting blocks opposed in direction yet defined by the same distance during the same “Race”.
The data needs to add up and what the “Science Isn’t Capable of Defining” Needs to be stated and understood.
The Most amazing part “so far” is the willingness of the world (for the first time in history) to decide to agree.
UN IPCC was stupid and was doomed to fail yet the idea is long overdue — the logic of integrating global data for analysis was a “baby-step” — one needs to crawl before walking — it “Should”get fun from here if we do ; )
I find it interesting that Dr. Carter laments his critics “really don’t integrate the earth’s geologic timeline into their critical thinking”
Given that when he references periods further back, 500m years BP and the high CO2 levels vs temperature he invariably fails to mention the host of things that were different about the planet, the position of the continents, different currents (due to the previous), little land based life i.e very different albedo and most importantly the likely output of the Sun was lower by several percent, the current drop in solar output during solar minimum is less than 0.01%.
John from CA says:
November 15, 2010 at 3:08 pm
They do adjust the data to coincide with NH reads and they adjust the readings for the CO2 from the nearby volcano. By the time they are done adjusting the measurements, they end up with a trend they apply to global conditions.
They don’t adjust anything. They only don’t use data which are obviously contaminated by the local volcano or by upwind conditions for averaging. But even if you include all the data, contaminated or not, that doesn’t change the yearly average nor the trend with more than 0.1 ppmv. Here a comparison of the raw, unadjusted, hourly averages and the monthly averages only based on “selected” data, deemed “background” for Mauna Loa and the South Pole:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_mlo_spo_raw_select_2008.jpg
But be aware of the scale! If you plot the same values on full scale, both are near straight lines…
Monthly averages are based on at least 10 days of valid daily averages (with at least several consecutive hours of background readings), otherwise the month is “missing”. For convinience, if one month in a year is missing, the missing month is infilled with a curve fitting algorithm, based on the seasonal curve plus growth over 4 preceding years. Two missing months in a year makes a missing year.
The procedures for measuring, calibrating and selecting the data at Mauna Loa (and all baseline stations) are detailed here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
And Mauna Loa is definitively in the NH for CO2 levels, as also the seasonal trend shows: opposite to the much smoother South Pole (and other SH) data. The mixing in one hemisphere is far more rapid than between the hemispheres: days to weeks within the same altitude band for each hemisphere, weeks to months for exchanges between altitudes in the same hemisphere and 1-2 years between the hemispheres. See e.g. the distribution with altitude of the seasonal amplitude in the NH:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_height.jpg
I’m sorry guys, but when I see graphs like that, I want to scream. Graphs like that imply some great precise information that just simply isn’t real.
YES, some dataset was used, and those lines are real, based on the AVERAGE of what little data they have for those very ancient times.
But where are the error bars?
Every data point used was not only +/- some amount in the Y-direction, it also had a good deal of +/- in the X-direction. And we here at WUWT know that even if we accept the X-direction as given, the Y-values are based on sporadic and isolated proxies that are not proven to be reliable one-to-one indicators of temperatures or (probably) CO2 levels. We all know that many of those individual data points are representing centuries, one data point on the entire globe in many cases, and that data point the only one in perhaps a thousand or more years.
So such squiggly lines make me ill. They SELL the graph as something precise, when in fact it is anything but.
John from CA says:
November 15, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Ferdinand,
What I’ve been alluding to Is the Heart of the Issue.
I have the same respect for Steve, Anthony, Judith and several others.
In the case of CO2 measurements, I have the deepest respect for the late C.D. Keeling, who has devoted his life to use the best available methods, the most rigorous quality control and fighting near continuously against administrations which would end his work as not important. Read his autobiography here:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/keeling_autobiography.pdf
A really fascinating read!
One can only hope that one day the temperature measurements all over the world were quality controlled in the same manner…
His successor, Pieter Tans from NOAA, is as good very open if you have any questions regarding the data or procedures.
BTW, just found back a poster with the atmospheric circulation at Mauna Loa: second from top, left in the poster:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/changingcarbon.pdf
Master or Doctor Engelbeen,
Did you check their research “disclaimer” before posting about their data and its potential relevance?
Respectfully,
John from CA
OMG!!! — Master or Doctor Engelbeen, Please forgive my comment(s) if offensive — it wasn’t my intent.
“In the case of CO2 measurements, I have the deepest respect for the late C.D. Keeling, who has devoted his life to use the best available methods, the most rigorous quality control and fighting near continuously against administrations which would end his work as not important.”
Respectfully Yours,
John from CA
Master or Doctor Engelbeen,
I simply wish to know why the Science has been “Dumbed Down” and therefore has NO relevance in logic!!!
; )
This is likely to become a “Thing”; )
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 15, 2010 at 5:05 pm
“They don’t adjust anything. They only don’t use data …”
CHECKMATE ; )
“John from CA says:
November 15, 2010 at 12:05 pm
The drop of the CO2 growth rate between late 1991 and late 1993, however, cannot be directly linked to an ENSO event. The rise of atmospheric methane and of nitrous oxide temporarily slowed down at about the same time. Mt. Pinatubo’s 1991 eruption may have played a role, but the matter is not settled.”
I agree with
“Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 15, 2010 at 2:30 pm
The 1992 dip in increase rate of CO2 is due to the Pinatubo eruption: partly due to a temperature drop of about 0.6°C, which increases the absorption by colder ocean waters,”
As stated, the colder oceans could absorb more of all gases. The oceans have a huge suface area and if they cooled 0.6°C, it would not take a long time for the upper 10 or 20 metres to absorb one or two extra ppm of CO2 or other gases. This in no way contradicts earlier reports of an 800 year time lag between higher temperatures and higher CO2 readings in ancient times. If the air got warmer by a few degrees due to a Milankovitch cycle, it could well take hundreds of years for the added heat to reach the bottom of the ocean. Then it could take hundreds of more years for the CO2 deep in the now warmer ocean to make its way to the surface. And the graphs in these cases show changes of 100 ppm from 180 to 280 ppm. But changes of only a single ppm may only take weeks.
Continuing the GAIA theme further – the biosphere was “spooked” by the CO2 concentration lows reached during the current glacial period at the glacial maxima – CO2 levels below 200 ppm which approached levels where photosynthesis – the fountain of ecosystem primary production – would become constrained. So the GAIA response was to evolve intelligent apes which would burn wood and fossil fuels to restore atmospheric CO2 to safe levels, as we are now successfully doing.
John from CA says:
November 15, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Master or Doctor Engelbeen,
Did you check their research “disclaimer” before posting about their data and its potential relevance?
I have a BSc degree in industrial chemistry, but half my working life was as a MSc grade process automation engineer in a large chlorine/VCM/PVC plant. Now retired.
Over thirty years interested in climate items, after reading a book about the influence of the sun on earth’s climate, even earthquakes and wars (human “climate”)…
I suppose that your objection is for:
These values are subject to change depending on quality control checks of the measured data, but any revisions are expected to be small.
Well that indeed is a question of rigorous quality control: calibration mixtures are continuously used every hour to calibrate the apparatus and to calculate the CO2 levels by comparing the voltage readings of the air flow with the readings of the calibration mixtures with known composition. But the calibration mixtures themselves are calibrated too, before and after use over several months. If one sees a change over time, all measurements done with these calibration gases are recalculated, which is easely done as the raw voltage data (since the digital age) were archived. For the first decades, that is more work, as the data were charted as analog values on long continuous paper rolls. Even so, in most cases recalibration changes are very small, in the tenths of ppmv’s.
The largest correction ever needed was when was discovered that the apparatus did give a different voltage reading if the same CO2 level was in a CO2-air mix than in a CO2-N2 mix. The latter was used for calibration mixtures at first, for fear that oxygen would react with the steel containers and deteriorate the composition. All equipment at all stations was recalibrated with the new CO2 in dry air calibration mixtures and the CO2 levels adjusted accordingly.
Further, your objection against:
“They don’t adjust anything. They only don’t use data …”
in this case is unfounded. Contrary to some “hide the decline” scientists, all the data still are available (four stations even online for hourly averages: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/ ).
The rules for inclusion or exclusion of data for averaging are clear and predate the data gathering. No after-the-fact change of the rules. The main point is that they (and we) are interested in background/global CO2 levels, not in what the local disturbances are.
If one is interested in estimating the volcanic emissions, measure near the vents. If one is interested in CO2 fluxes in vegetation, measure under and over the leaves. Both are done in several places. The disturbance of Mauna Loa data even was used to estimate the CO2 releases from the local volcano over time…
And last but not least, the average and trend doesn’t change with more than 0.1 ppmv if the local outliers are included or not. Even if in one year there is a slight under- or overestimate, that is captured in the trend over the next year(s)…
“”””” jorgekafkazar says:
November 13, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Crispin in Washington DC says: “….Solar cells may [soon] reach +60% efficiency (development announced last week).” “””””
So who was it that made that announcement of nothing ?? I hereby predict that Solar cells may reach 95% efficiency.
But I don’t say when nor what they will cost to make.
And that will be high volume automated factory production cells; not hand tweaked R&D lab cells; nor do I say how long their mean time to failure will be.
“”””” Dave Springer says:
November 13, 2010 at 2:50 pm
jorgekafkazar says:
November 13, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Currently photovoltaics are 2-3 times the cost nuclear power. Natural gas is close to half the cost of nuclear.
The efficiency of photovoltaics is largely irrelevant as space to place them is not a limiting factor. The critical metric is cost per megawatt hour. “””””
Well Dave I think you have it exactly backwards. PV energy is limited by the Solar Constant; so it is totally area dependent.
And even if the Federal Government simply gave the land for free to the promoters of PV solar; they still have to build large area structures that can withstand 150 year storms and the like. It costs real money to cover large areas with structurally sound constructions; even if they do absolutely nothing.
I would say that the ONLY thing that matters in PV solar is cell conversion efficiency; since that is what determiens the area. The cost of the panels is trivia compared to the installation costs; and then of course there are the maintenance costs of keeping huge areas clean of debris, and sandstorm erosion and the like.
The toy ones that people put on their roofs are one thing; but a PV solar farm is something else. In silicon valley; they won’t let you put up a system bigger than I believe 3 kW on your house; well PG&E doesn’t want any competitors.