Dr. Will Happer of Princeton wrote “The Montreal Protocol to ban freons was the warm-up exercise for the IPCC. Many current IPCC players gained fame then by stampeding the US Congress into supporting the Montreal Protocol. They learned to use dramatized, phony scientific claims like “ozone holes over Kennebunkport” (President Bush Sr’s seaside residence in New England). The ozone crusade also had business opportunities for firms like Dupont to market proprietary “ozone-friendly” refrigerants at much better prices than the conventional (and more easily used) freons that had long-since lost patent protection and were not a cheap commodity with little profit potential” (link).
Even James Lovelock agrees. James Lovelock formulated the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment. He later became concerned that global warming would upset the balance and leave only the arctic as habitable. He began to move off this position in 2007 suggesting that the Earth itself is in “no danger” because it would stabilize in a new state.
James Lovelock’s reaction to first reading about the CRU emails in late 2009 was one of a true scientist:
“I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn’t want to do anything else other than be a scientist. They’re not like that nowadays. They don’t give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science.
I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.
Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.”
On a March 2010 Guardian interview, Lovelock opined:
“The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing…We do need skepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.”
Will Happer further elaborated:
“The Montreal Protocol may not have been necessary to save the ozone, but it had limited economic damage. It has caused much more damage in the way it has corrupted science. It showed how quickly a scientist or activist can gain fame and fortune by purporting to save planet earth. We have the same situation with CO2 now, but CO2 is completely natural, unlike freons. Planet earth is quite happy to have lots more CO2 than current values, as the geological record clearly shows. If the jihad against CO2 succeeds, there will be enormous economic damage, and even worse consequences for human liberty at the hands of the successful jihadists.”
LIKE GLOBAL WARMING THE DATA DOESN’T SUPPORT THE THEORY
The ozone hole has not closed off after we banned CFCs. See this story in Nature:
Scientific Consensus on Man-Made Ozone Hole May Be Coming Apart
As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
STILL COMING
Yet like the cultists whose spacecraft didn’t arrive on the announced date, the government scientists find ways to postpone it and save their reputations (examples “Increasing greenhouse gases could delay, or even postpone indefinitely the recovery of stratospheric ozone in some regions of the Earth, a Johns Hopkins earth scientist suggests” here and “Scientists Find Antarctic Ozone Hole to Recover Later than Expected” here.
“The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date.” Dr. John Brignell, Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton, on Number Watch (May 1) PDF
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ge0050 says:
January 8, 2011 at 9:49 am
“The Precautionary Principle tells us that we should never bathe, because the single biggest cause of accidents and death in the home is the bath. Baths should be outlawed, or heavily taxed, with a cap on new bath construction. Those houses that do not install baths should be able to sell their rights to build a bath to those houses that want to install a second bath. This will create a market for baths and new opportunities for employment.”
Geo. you have not got to the lowest common denominator. The correct position is that the majority of accidents occur in the home, such that the precautionary principle dictates that we should ban homes. We should all live in government controlled hostels where the health and safety executive can supervise us and make sure that we do not do anything that may risk causing us harm.
Joe D’Aleo says:
January 8, 2011 at 9:26 am
The generic attack has been centered on chlorinated compounds in general. The removal of freon from albuterol inhalers was a travesty and has cost many lives, since the replacement propellants don’t work very well as drug clumping prevents adequate dosing. To apply the Montreal ruling to inhalers containing piddly amounts of freons was borderline criminal.
With DDT and afterwards the chlorinated pesticides, they were all sequentially banned. The replacements were pyrethrins and nerve poisons, e.g. the malathion class, both classes which are potent allergens and sensitizers to allergens. Chlorinated pesticides had no immunological potential, and were harmless to mammals. Indeed, GIs in WWII used to dust themselves with pure DDT powder for lice.
The chlorinated’s substitution coincides with increased allergies of all types. We never heard of widespread peanut and other allergies up until the 80s. There were only a handful of allergists in the 50s and 60s, but today they are everywhere, and asthma is increasing by leaps and bounds. Look up cross sensitization in immunology for the complete explanation. This is another of the myriad examples of the Law of Unintended (or sometimes Intended?) Consequences.
Did Rachel Carson and the greenies sentence us to immunological armageddon? Maybe I am being too paranoid—let me spray some more Raid around the basement, I think I saw a cricket…
Jack Simmons says:
January 8, 2011 at 10:46 am
“At least 192 chemical reactions occur between substances in the upper stratosphere, along with 48 different, identifiable photochemical processes, all linked through complex feedback mechanisms that are only partly understood.”
Thanks Jack. I had discovered that there were lots but had given up counting.
Suffice it to say that that supports my posts very effectively.
What we should be looking at is the ozone destruction/creation balance above the stratopause. It is a matter of chemistry and not radiative physics at all. Radiative physics is only relevant to the way the system responds to the chemical forcings.
Atmospheric chemistry responding to aolar variations changes the vertical temperature profile for a pressure redistribution at the surface and the consequent cloudiness/albedo effects alter the balance of the global energy budget with the oceans as a variable modulator. Voila.
ems: one types ‘not’ far more often that ‘now’ and the T is much easier to reach than the W.
Your Friend, Typus Deus.
=============
Richard Verney,
Molecular motion and other forces lead to efficient mixing.
See this real old citation.
http://books.google.com/books?id=YCEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=diffusion+of+heavy+gases&source=bl&ots=NOqZsg2H-s&sig=mcgJ2d6GdC1_SecC6ExEf8GRXpk&hl=en&ei=wrgoTd_hKMOC8gbgt9jOAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBDg8#v=onepage&q=diffusion%20of%20heavy%20gases&f=false
You can see it yourself with liquids and solids. Given enough time, sugar (which is heavier than water) will dissolve (even without stirring) and make a uniform aqueous solution. Although under certain circumstances (very high concentrations and absolute stillness), stratification can be observed, with any bit of disturbance and “normal” movement, the uniformity will be maintained.
A combination of molecular motion and turbulence leads to uniform mixing of gases in the atmosphere as long as the gases remain below their saturation pressure.
This is not in dispute by any branch of science, and real measurements show the presence of heavy gases in the upper reaches of the atmosphere.
Well, I’m glad to see finally someone is putting pen to paper regarding the older bit of alarmism. Looking at the pretty pictures at the top, once again we see a respiration, or a sine wave, if you will, or a cycle! As was noted earlier, we only became mindful of it when we had a chance to measure. We don’t know if it isn’t suppose to be there, its insane to postulate. As noted also, the propellants in the inhalers were changed and significantly increased in price. I would put the cost much higher than a few dollars made by unscrupulous companies. People died because of these frauds. Of course, its difficult to blame the drug companies and GE and all the rest. If they started to research and found the science to be questionable, how many alarmist would jump up and lump them with the tobacco industry? Just about all of them. Just like today, the myth that energy companies are behind the skepticism is stated on a daily basis. They happen to be very much excited about the prospects of putting a premium on CO2 emissions.
John M said:
“With regard to your comments about stratospheric cooling, I would be interested in whatever you’ve found with regard to observed vs. modeled stratospheric temps.”
Never mind the models, this is reality:
During the late 20th century warming trend the stratosphere was observed to
cool and that was also supposed to be in accordance with AGW. However since
the 90s that cooling has ceased and the stratospheric temperature trend is now
one of slight warming:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
“The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited.
This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming
since 1996.”
Cooling stratosphere when the sun was active. Cessation of cooling and slight warming when the sun becomes less active.
AGW theory requires a warming of the entire atmospheric column when the sun is more active. It didn’t happen so CO2 and CFCs were fingered as the culprits.
CO2 is now out of the frame because CO2 continues to rise despite the change in stratospheric temperature trend.
CFCs are nominally still in the frame because the Montreal Protocol led to a reduction so that could still be blamed. But ask yourself. At the time did anyone ever blame the stratospheric cooling at a time of active sun on CFCs – ALONE. ?
No, of course they didn’t. Far too implausible. So scrub CFCs too and all we have left is solar effects on upper atmospheric chemistry.
And that goes for both stratospheric temeperature trends AND ozone hole trends.
So, essentially all of the actual scientific content in this post is based on one Nature story from 2007 describing one scientific article (and, by the way, not having anything close to the title that Joe D’Aleo gave to the link above) and, as John M has pointed out, superceded by a more recent 2009 Nature story saying that a new study concluded that the 2007 study was wrong: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090507/full/news.2009.456.html
That is pretty thin support with which to base the claim “LIKE GLOBAL WARMING THE DATA DOESN’T SUPPORT THE THEORY” on!
And, yet, it was never claimed that the ozone whole would close off very quickly once CFCs were banned. And, the second article refers to a revised estimate that it will take until 2068 rather than ~2050 for the recovery to occur. Unless these scientists time-traveled into the future, it seems unlikely that this revision was based on the fact that it had not yet recovered as expected.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the recovery is significantly off-schedule. In fact, this article from 2006 suggests the recovery is starting to occur in line with what models predict and the one puzzle is why it seems to be occurring a bit faster than expected in the lower part of the stratosphere (while the upper stratosphere recovery is basically right on what is expected): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060527093645.htm
As yoda might say: “Impressed with the science in Joe D’Aleo’s post, I am not.”
BTW, it was intended to prohibit the refrigerant R 134a from 1st Jan 2011, and the replacement R 1234-yf is FLAMMABLE. If you are driving a car and need new coolant for your A/C, you might get R 1234-yf. It looks like the industry doesn’t switch on the intended date but will take a while. Reason for the switch is of course the greenhouse gas properties of R 134a.
I would strongly recommend against crashing your car after this replacement. Also, keep a hammer nearby so you can smash windows to jump out of your car before you burn to death, or alternatively, keep a pistol nearby, like WW I pilots who would shoot themselves to evade the painful death by fire.
Here’s an article that mentions the switch; it doesn’t talk about the flammability.
http://aftermarketbusiness.search-autoparts.com/aftermarketbusiness/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=698274&pageID=2
The industry will surely keep silent about this. The German ADAC tested the new refrigerant last year, and it ignited when coming into contact with the hot motor parts.
The history of refrigerant switches is driven by all the alarmist agendas; see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane
“History
1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane first appeared in the early 1990s as a replacement for dichlorodifluoromethane (R-12), which has ozone depleting properties.[6] 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane has been atmospherically modeled for its impact on depleting ozone and as a contributor to global warming. Research suggests that over the past 10 years the concentration of 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane has increased significantly in the Earth’s atmosphere, with a recent study revealing a doubling in atmospheric concentration between 2001–2004.[7] It has insignificant ozone depletion potential (ozone layer), significant global warming potential (100-yr GWP = 1430)[8] and negligible acidification potential (acid rain).”
There seems to be some disagreement between posters here about the motive for the banning of CFCs.
Some accuse big business of promoting a ban to enable them to replace cheap, low profit materials with expensive patented high-profit alternatives.
Others seem to imply that it was a ‘dry run’ by the environmental lobby for further global agreements to regulate private industry.
That Du Pont and others resisted the scientific case made by the environmental lobby until they had alternatives indicates that the environmental lobby were the prime movers in this global regulation.
Their main evidence was the observed reduction in ozone levels during the Antarctic spring when previously the return of sunlight had increased the ozone levels.
CFCs were blamed for the additional photochemistry that was causing this depletion.
I am not sure that the thread essay absolves CFCs or offers any alternative explanation for the observed depletion of ozone.
James Lovelock: “Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but…”
Whilst I agree with the overall message behind what he is saying, it pains me that he can’t seem to resist lapsing into such idiocy. Firstly, he clearly doesn’t even understand the definition of the word “literally.” Secondly, he follows a blatantly religious statement with the contradiction that he is “not religious.”
So I say to James: please, would you just stick to the bloody science and leave the emotive bullshit to the politicians. You are damaging science, as politicians have damaged politics.
Look at the environmental movement as a self organizing system. Over the past forty years it has gained significant organized power or buffering. As this system gained energy it attracted more and more rent seeking adding to system stability. Science is but one small component of this complex system that now touches most aspects of our daily lives and forms a large part of our belief systems. The biggest mistake we make is thinking any scientific “proof” can generate the force needed to overcome this system’s stability.
As an example- Many environmental issues are part of an overall ideology and contrary information causes cognitive dissonance, information theory says we can never get the public’s attention long enough to undo the “incorrect” facts and then argue the “correct” facts. Regulatory Theory says the agencies will organize and promote the culture that formed it. Crisis theory says the Public believes the first message it hears with respect to a crisis and is resistant to all future contrary messages. Look at the financial resources of the NGOs. Look at the incentives of the media, academia, legal etc. How do diffuse interests survive?
We are the diffuse interest. We have less resources- we have less tools, we are behind the information curve, we have lost academia and we have no government agency promoting our interests. I put little hope in any one study no matter how much “proof”. I’m old enough to have been on the ground during the DDT “debate” and acid rain. Scientific evidence meant nothing in the face of the pressures allied against it. I’ve just watched a bill contrary to everything we know pass in New Jersey designed to “protect our estuaries” that will set back any recovery hope decades. (It claimed increased development and the associated fertilizer runoff was killing a bay despite the fact both nitrogen and chlorophyll a have been trending down for the last 50 years by their own data. )
We need to focus not on why the science is ignored but how. Environmental groups think strategically- we do not. We continue to lose. We need a system analysis.
I’ve said it before but I don’t mind saying it again. Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts are giant heroes whose efforts on behalf of Truth and Humanity are enormous and humbling to the rest of us. There is no one on this planet that I admire and respect more than I do Joe and Anthony.
Stephen,
I’m not sure who you’re arguing with. Who ever said that stratospheric cooling in only due to CFCs?
As I understand it, stratospheric cooling is supposedly due to GHGs (which include CFCs) and ozone depletion (caused by CFCs). The reference you provided says
I’m interested in how this is modeled in order to test whether the modeling makes sense. I can’t do that by simply ignoring the models.
John M.
You make my point for me. No one ever said that stratospheric cooling at a time of active sun was down to CFCs alone, it was supposed to be mainly from CO2 but CFCs as well.
However Leif Svalgaard certainly said to me that he thought the cooling mesosphere was down to CFCs.
However CO2 is now out of the frame because CO2 continues to increase yet the stratospheric temperature trend has changed.
So to be consistent any AGW proponent now has to change his position and aver that the stratospheric cooling trend must have been caused by more CFCs alone. That is how they can now suggest that the recent warming trend is due to less CFCs alone.
So not only do CFC’s have to cause a change in trend to warming on their own but also they have to first overcome a supposed continuing and increasing cooling trend from even more CO2.
We both know that is nonsense, don’t we ?
So, John M, the logical implication is that CFCs were the sole (or overwhelming) culprit as regards global temperature changes and that CFCs are now under control so presumably we can stop worrying about CO2 ?
AGW theory is in a bit of a knot isn’t it ?
Did anybody get as far as reading the last paragraph of the Nature article?…
‘Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”’
Or do you discount the bits you don’t like?
In 2002. I was tasked with determining whether to shut down the UARS spacecraft program. One of the justifications for keeping it operational was that it was one of the prime data source for Ozone Hole monitoring. When presented with the record of ozone hole max/min extent, it was obvious that “the Hole” somehow was ignoring all the hype, the “science” and the politics. Since I knew the person who “discovered” the Hole, I asked him about it. The answer was that the Hole was real, but the “science” was pure hype. His theory was that it was a natural occurrence that varied on a periodic basis based on factors that were never later pursued. He was NOT the person who was credited with discovering the Hole – that person stole the credit by pubishing first.
OT, but fun.
A mosquito was heard to complain
That a chemist had poisoned his brain
The cause of his sorrow
Was para dichloro
Diphenyl trichloro ethane.
From the Liu and Weng paper linked it appears that stratospheric temperature changes, the fall up till 96 and the small rise since, correlates best with the ozone levels than any measured variation or trend in solar UV emissions.
Meanwhile there is an unexplained cooling and contraction of the thermosphere layer above the stratosphere.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
Quotes from the Lovelock interview:
F-ing Christ, folks. Back when this was all happening, I KNEW down to my bones that this was all WRONG, that the science could not possibly have been done right in so short a time, that they had all jumped to a bogus conclusion.
Good science BEGINS with the kind of glimpse that began the CFC scare – bit it cannot stay at that level and BE science. Science is proving those glimpses/intuitive leaps beyond a shadow of a doubt. NOTHING I saw at that time was even close to convincing. That Lovelock says this AFTER ALL THIS TIME, the sack of mierda, is TERRIBLE. Where was he THEN?
No kidding. Curies and Maxwells and Laplaces don’t grow on freaking trees. Those minds that lead the way – WHERE ARE THE GREAT ONES FROM THIS GENERATION AND THE PREVIOUS ONES? They have been muddled down with the rest, fighting for government grants. What a terrible thing for the human race, to blend the mediocre in with the great and get a lot of so-so’s.
THIS IS WHERE BAD SCIENCE ORIGINATES.
The worst thing that ever happened to science was the Manhattan Project. The history of science can be divided into two periods – pre-Manhattan and post-Manhattan. Guess which one had all the great discoveries?
A: Looking at the period since November 2009, we can see how far in that direction things have gone at UEA.
B: Isn’t he even listening to himself? Their incentive is to keep the government money flowing, not to correct themselves. Their idea of good science is to enable more grant money – that is why they are so aligned with the great funding magnet Michael Mann.
I can tell you from my work in R&D and engineering in general that the FIRST thing you need to do with a new study is to identify the TOUGH parts, the ones that can screw you all up, and then set to getting them nailed to the wall – before you EVER start putting together the entirety of the study. You have to do that because until those things are known, you don’t know squat about what you are dealing with. For them to go forward with any of this KNOWING that this great unknown is out there is TERRIBLE science!@&$% Shame on them. And shame on Lovelock for not holding their FEET TO THE FIRE, long ago. WTF???
This is patently unbelievable for Lovelock to bring up “cry wolf” and plaster the skeptic’s wall with it, when the entire global warming thing is all about crying wolf. He had just gotten done saying how the models were not possibly correct and couldn’t do any of the predictions successfully that they had been tasked with. And he had just said how much they had lied their arses off about the CFC/ozone hole thing, and then he points at the SKEPTICS and says WE are the ones crying wolf? My god, the man is so convinced he can’t see the frying pan from the fire. (Yes, I know, that is mixing metaphors… intentionally so.)
Holy crap, Batman! Is this man Anglo-centric or what? The U.N. created to control the BRITS? This is like months after some guy named Adolf brought Armageddon to most of the civilized world, right? And he is thinking it was all about HIM and his sort? No wonder the man found his way to the top of the eco ego ladder – it is all about HIM and his kind.
This can ONLY be addressed to the warmers – that they know they cannot speak out with the truth, because (as I read him) if they soft-pedal or are not “on board” with their every pronouncement, their funding will be cut.
Yes, we need to abdicate to an Uncle Adolf sometimes, just because Lovelock and his kind didn’t get their way. Notice he wasn’t saying this before Climategate, when the warmers had the bandbox to themselves. NOW that the skeptics have a voice that is being listened to, LET’S NOW GO FIND A DICTATOR, just to shut them the hell up and get back on track. Sometimes in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s people used these same arguments about controlling the Jewish people, who were getting to uppity.
And if the wind farms don’t work, what is the green alternative? They don’t have one. Every green technology has been a failure, with too little out for the energy or money put into it. All they can do is point at oil and say how ugly and horrible it is, but they don’t have a viable alternative. That is true now, just as it was 30 years ago with solar panels. And if they don’t have a viable alternative, they should STFU and focus on recycling.
Sorry this was so long.
It seems that Lovelock is an idiot egotist who has to keep inserting himself into the dialog, just so we all keep remembering he is still alive, kind of like Ralph Nader. It’s time we all forgot him.
“Although Catastrophic Anthropogenic Ozone Suppression (CAOS) is settled science, the fact is that the hole isn’t closing on schedule, and it’s a travesty that we can’t account for the missing ozone.”
With apologies to Kevin Trenberth. 🙂
Stephen Wilde says (January 8, 2011 at 10:27 am): “Who is to say that the ultimate intent of Gaia is not a world with far less diversity and with a single supreme species that in due course learns how to restrain population growth voluntarily and is entitled to use the Earth’s vast resources freely in the meantime?”
Or Gaia got tired of being splattered by space debris and tried to engineer intelligent symbiotes to protect her.
OK, she got Al Gore instead, but it was a good try.
I have begun collecting the “Oh, sh*t!” moments in science. I call them collectively “Science does it again.”
In the CFC/ozone hole, we have another new member:
The hubris of “Look to us for all the answers in our field, because we know everything,” turns – but only for a moment – to, “We humble little sciences are just learning at the feet of nature.”
After they look surreptitiously around a bit and figure that no one is looking anymore, they go back to pontificating about how expert they are. . . and the world keeps turning.
Stephen Wilde
“AGW theory is in a bit of a knot isn’t it ?”
Looks like someone is, anyway.
Again, the cooling stratosphere is presumed to be from both GHGs in the troposphere and depleted ozone in the stratosphere. The conventional wisdom is that the recovering ozone is enough to offset the continuing increases in CO2. Decreasing levels of CFCs are what lead to the recovering ozone. The decreasing levels of CFCs impact the total GHGs in the troposphere only slightly. I don’t know if that theory holds together quantitatively, but it’s not unreasonable. I do know that the stratospheric temperature data doesn’t quite make sense (I guess we agree on that?).
I’m trying to get at this quantitatively without just flailing around. I had hoped you might have had some quantitative information that would help me critique the conventional wisdom better.
Whatever agreements we have or don’t have I can’t comment on, since I’m not really sure what your point is. Whether or not you have something on solar activity I don’t know. It would me nice to see Leif’s specific comments about that.