UPDATE: Below is Peter Hadfield’s response in entirety, submitted Feb 7th, 2012. I’ve made only some slight edits for formatting to fit. Comments are open. – Anthony
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Various You-Tube videos by a former “science writer” who uses a speleological pseudonym “potholer54” sneeringly deliver a series of petty smears about artfully-distorted and often inconsequential aspects of my talks on climate change. Here, briefly, I shall answer some of his silly allegations. I noted them down rather hastily, since I am disinclined to waste much time on him, so the sentences in quote-marks may not be word for word what he said, but I hope that they fairly convey his meaning.
For fuller answers to these allegations, many of which he has ineptly and confusedly recycled from a serially mendacious video by some no-account non-climatologist at a fourth-rank bible college in Nowheresville, Minnesota, please see my comprehensive written reply to that video at www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org. The guy couldn’t even get his elementary arithmetic right – not that the caveman mentions that fact, of course.
The allegations, with my answers, are as follows:
“Monckton says he advised Margaret Thatcher on climate change. He didn’t.” I did.
“Monckton says he wrote a peer-reviewed paper. He didn’t.” The editors of Physics and Society asked me to write a paper on climate sensitivity in 2008. The review editor reviewed it in the usual way and it was published in the July 2008 edition, which, like most previous editions, carried a headnote to the effect that Physics and Society published “reviewed articles”. Peer-review takes various forms. From the fact that the paper was invited, written, reviewed and then published, one supposes the journal had followed its own customary procedures. If it hadn’t, don’t blame me. Subsequent editions changed the wording of the headnote to say the journal published “non-peer-reviewed” articles, and the editors got the push. No mention of any of this by the caveman, of course.
“Monckton says the Earth is cooling. It isn’t.” At the time when I said the Earth was cooling, it had indeed been cooling since late 2001. The strong El Niño of 2010 canceled the cooling, and my recent talks and graphs have of course reflected that fact by stating instead that there has been no statistically-significant warming this millennium. The caveman made his video after the cooling had ended, but – without saying so – showed a slide from a presentation given by me while the cooling was still in effect. Was that honest of him?
“Monckton says Greenland is not melting. It is.” Well, it is now, but for 12 years from 1992-2003 inclusive, according to Johannessen et al. (2005), the mean spatially-averaged thickness of Greenland’s ice sheet increased by 5 cm (2 inches) per year, or 2 feet in total over the period. The high-altitude ice mass in central northern Greenland thickened fastest, more than matching a decline in ice thickness along the coastline. Since 2005, according to Johannessen et al. (2009), an ice mass that I calculate is equivalent to some six inches of the 2 feet of increase in Greenland’s ice thickness over the previous decade or so has gone back into the ocean, raising global sea levels by a not very terrifying 0.7 millimeters. According to the Aviso Envisat satellite, in the past eight years sea level has been rising at a rate equivalent to just 2 inches per century. Not per decade: per century. If so, where has all the additional ice that the usual suspects seem to imagine has melted from Greenland gone? Two possibilities: not as much ice has melted as we are being told, or its melting has had far less impact on sea level than we are being invited to believe.
“Monckton says there’s no systematic loss of sea-ice in the Arctic. There is.” No, I said that the 30-year record low ice extent of 2007 had been largely reversed in 2008 and 2009. The caveman, if he were capable of checking these or any data, would find this to be so. In fact, he knew this to be so, because the slide I was showing at that point in his video, taken from the University of Illinois’ Cryosphere monitoring program, shows it. Of course, the slide was only in the background of his video and was shown only for a few seconds. Since that particular talk of mine the Arctic sea ice has declined again and came close to its 2007 low in 2011. But it is arguable from the descriptions of melting Arctic ice in 1922 that there may have been less sea ice in the Arctic then than now.
“Monckton says there has been no correlation between temperature and CO2 for the past 500 million years. There has.” Well, there has in the past few thousand years, but the correlation since the Cambrian era has been spectacularly poor, as the slide (from a peer-reviewed paper) that the caveman fleetingly shows me using at that point demonstrates very clearly. For most of that long period, global temperatures were about 7 Celsius degrees warmer than the present: yet CO2 concentration has inexorably declined throughout the period.
“Monckton says a pre-Cambrian ice-planet shows CO2 has no effect on climate. It doesn’t.” No, I cited Professor Ian Plimer, a leading geologist, as having said that the formation of dolomitic rock 750 million years ago could not have taken place unless there had been 300,000 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere: yet glaciers a mile high had come and gone twice at sea-level and at the Equator at that time. Professor Plimer had concluded that, even allowing for the fainter Sun and higher ice-albedo in those days, the equatorial glaciers could not have formed twice if the warming effect of CO2 were as great as the IPCC wants us to believe. At no point have I ever said CO2 has no effect on climate, for its effect was demonstrated by a simple but robust experiment as long ago as 1859. However, I have said, over and over again, that CO2 probably has a much smaller warming effect than the IPCC’s range of estimates. The caveman must have known that, because he says he has watched “hours and hours” of my videos. So why did he misrepresent me?
“Monckton said there had been no change in the Himalayan glaciers for 200 years. There has.” No, I cited Professor M.I. Bhat of the Indian Geological Survey, who had told me on several occasions that the pattern of advance and retreat of these glaciers was much as it had been in the 200 years since the British Raj had been keeping records. That is very far from the same thing as saying there had been “no change”: indeed, it is the opposite, for advance and retreat are both changes. Why did the caveman misrepresent me?
“Monckton says only one Himalayan glacier has been retreating. Many have.” No, I mentioned the Gangotri and Ronggbuk glaciers as being notable examples of glacial retreat in the Himalayas caused by geological instability in the region. To discuss one or two retreating glaciers is not the same thing as to say or imply that only one or two glaciers have been retreating. Why did the caveman misrepresent me? It is this kind of intellectual dishonesty that permeates the caveman’s cheesy videos. He has not the slightest intention of being accurate or fair. If he had, he would surely have mentioned that the IPCC tried for months to pretend that all of the glaciers in the Himalayas would be gone by 2035. The IPCC’s own “peer-reviewers” had said the figure should be “2350”, not “2035”, but the lead author of the chapter in question had left in the wrong figure, knowing it to be unverified, because, as he later publicly admitted, he wanted to influence governments.
The caveman says I misquoted the lead author who had left in the erroneous date for the extinction of the Himalayan glaciers, but here is what that author actually said in an interview with the Daily Mail: “We thought that if we can highlight it [the erroneous date], it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.” For good measure, he said I had misquoted Sir John Houghton, the IPCC’s first science chairman, who had said that unless we announced disasters no one would listen.
Sir John, too, tried to maintain that I had misquoted him, and even menaced me with a libel suit, until I told him I had a copy of the cutting from the London Sunday Telegraph of September 10, 1995, in which he had said, “If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster”, and that I also had a copy of an article in the Manchester Guardian of July 28, 2003, in which Sir John had luridly ascribed numerous specific natural disasters to “global warming”, which he described as “a weapon of mass destruction” that was “at least as dangerous as nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, or indeed international terrorism”. Perhaps the caveman didn’t know any of this, but here’s the thing: I do not recall that he has ever bothered to check any of his “facts” with me (though, if he had, I wouldn’t have known because he lurks behind a pseudonym and, even though I am told he has revealed his identity I have no time to keep track of the pseudonyms of people who lack the courage and decency to publish under their own names).
“Monckton says Dr. Pinker found that a loss of cloud cover had caused recent warming. She disagreed.” No, I drew the conclusion from Dr. Pinker’s paper, and from several others, that cloud cover does not remain constant, but waxes and wanes broadly in step with the cooling and warming phases respectively of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I did not misrepresent Dr. Pinker’s paper in any way: I merely used it as a source for my own calculations, which I presented at the annual seminar on planetary emergencies of the World Federation of Scientists in 2010, where they were well received. Less cloud cover, particularly in the tropics, naturally warms the Earth: the point is surely uncontroversial. If one removes the influence of this natural warming phase from the record since 1976, it is reasonable to deduce that climate sensitivity based on that period is much lower than the IPCC thinks. Strictly speaking, one should study temperature trends in multiples of 60 years, so as to ensure that the warming and cooling phases of the PDO cancel one another out.
Frankly, that’s quite enough of these dull allegations. There are others, but they are all as half-baked and dishonest as these and it would be tedious to deal with each one. You get the drift: the caveman is a zealot and we need not ask who paid him to watch “hours and hours” of my YouTube videos to realize from these examples that his videos are unreliable. More importantly, it would interfere with my research: I hope shortly to be in a position to demonstrate formally that climate sensitivity is unarguably little more than one-third of the IPCC’s central estimate. My objective is to reach the truth, not to distort it or misrepresent it as the caveman has done.
He concludes by challenging his small band of followers to check the scientific literature for themselves to establish that the Earth has been warming and that CO2 is “largely responsible”. Of course the Earth has been warming since 1750: I have at no point denied it, though that is the implication of the caveman’s statement.
And of course there are scientists who say CO2 is “largely responsible” for the warming: that is the principal conclusion of the IPCC’s 2007 report, reached on the basis of a fraudulent statistical abuse: comparison of the slopes of multiple arbitrarily-chosen trend-lines on the global-temperature dataset falsely to suggest that “global warming” is accelerating and that it is our fault. Not that one has ever heard the caveman utter a word of condemnation of the IPCC’s too-often fictional “science”. But it is also reasonable to mention the growing band of scientists who say CO2 may not be “largely responsible” but only partly responsible for the warming since 1950. Would it not have been fairer if the caveman had pointed that out?
Climate skeptics have come under intensive attack from various quarters, and the attacks have too often been as unpleasantly dishonest as those of the caveman. Also, there is evidence that someone has been spending a lot of money on trying malevolently to discredit those who dare to ask any questions at all about the party line on climate.
For instance, after a speech by me in in the US in October 2009 went viral and received a million YouTube hits in a week (possibly the fastest YouTube platinum ever for a speech), a Texan professor who monitors the seamier side of the internet got in touch to tell me that someone had paid the operators of various search engines a sum that he estimated at not less than $250,000 to enhance the page rankings of some two dozen specially-created web-pages containing meaningless jumbles of symbols among which the word “Monckton video” appeared.
These nonsense pages would not normally have attracted any hits at all, and the search engines would normally have ranked them well below the video that had gone platinum. The intention of this elaborate and expensive artifice, as the professor explained, was to ensure that anyone looking for the real video would instead find page after page of junk and simply give up. The viral chain was duly broken, but so many websites carried the video that more than 5 million people ended up seeing it, so the dishonestly-spent $250,000 was wasted.
At one level, of course, all of this attention is an unintended compliment. But no amount of sneering or smearing will alter two salient facts: the Earth has not been warming at anything like the predicted rate and is not now at all likely to do so; and, in any event, even if the climate-extremists’ predictions were right, it would be at least an order of magnitude more cost-effective to wait and adapt in a focused way to any adverse consequences of manmade “global warming” than it would be to tax, trade, regulate, reduce, or replace CO2 today.
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
==========================================================
Note: for anyone who wishes to see what this is about, you can see “potholer54” aka Peter Hadfield on Monckton at YouTube here – Anthony
UPDATE: Here is Peter Hadfield’s response in entirety, submitted Feb 7th, 2012. I’ve made only some slight edits for formatting to fit. – Anthony
Response from Peter Hadfield:
In January, Christopher Monckton criticized me on WUWT after I made a series of videos exposing errors in most of his claims. I have asked Anthony Watts for the opportunity to respond in kind, so that we can put Mr. Monckton’s verbatim assertions up against the documentary evidence he cites.
At first I was puzzled as to what Mr. Monckton was responding to in his WUWT guest-post, because he failed to address any of the rebuttals or the evidence I showed in my five videos. Then I realized he must have watched only the last video in the series, including a light-hearted 30-second ‘mistake count’. So in this response I am going to deal with what Mr. Monckton actually said, as shown and rebutted in my videos, rather than what he thinks I think he said, and what he thinks I rebutted.
Mr. Monckton doesn’t claim to be an expert, and neither do I. All I can do is to check and verify his claims. So the question is whether Mr. Monckton has reported the sources he cites accurately in order to reach his conclusions. I have made it very easy for you to check by playing clips of Mr. Monckton making these assertions in my videos, then showing images of the documentary evidence he cites. Since this response is text I will write out Mr. Monckton’s assertions verbatim and quote the documentary sources verbatim (with references in the body of the text.) References to the relevant video (linked at the bottom) and the time on the video where they are shown, will be shown in square brackets.
ON THE COOLING EARTH:
Since Mr. Monckton failed to address the evidence, but implies I was duplicitous in my timing, let’s see what my video actually showed. In a speech given in Melbourne in February 2009, Mr. Monckton said: “We’ve had nine years of a global cooling trend since the first of January 2001” [Ref 1 – 4:06] — and St. Paul in October 2009: “There has been global cooling for the last eight or nine years” [ibid.].
So in my video, the period Mr. Monckton was talking about was clearly identified in his own words, as well as in the graphs he showed, and I showed the dates the speeches were made, and the studies I cited covered the same period.
[“Waiting for Global Cooling” – R. Fawcett and D. Jones, National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, April 2008]
[“Statisticians reject global cooling” — Associated Press 10/26/2009 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/]
ON THE MELTING OF GREENLAND:
Again, let’s deal with what Mr. Monckton actually said, which is what I rebutted. In a speech in St. Paul in 2009, Mr. Monckton cited a paper by Ola Johannessen, and told the audience: “What he found was that between 1992 and 2003, the average thickness of the vast Greenland ice sheet increased by two inches a year.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM 11:40)
No, he found no such thing. Johannessen said he only measured the interior of Greenland above 1,500 metres [1 – 11:59] In fact, he specifically warns that the very conclusion Mr Monckton reaches cannot be made: “We cannot make an integrated assessment of elevation changes… for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, including its outlet glaciers, from these observations alone, because the marginal areas are not measured completely…. ” [“Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland” Ola M. Johannessen et al, Science November 2005]
ON THE LOSS OF ARCTIC ICE:
Mr. Monckton claimed there is no long-term systematic loss of ice in the Arctic, and I rebutted this with studies showing a decline in Arctic summer sea-ice extent since satellite measurements began in 1979. [1 – 8:20 onwards]
Mr. Monckton’s response: “I said that the 30-year record low ice extent of 2007 had been largely reversed in 2008 and 2009.”
So, as I said, he did not tell his audience there had been a 30-year decline. Quite the opposite – he said there was no long-term decline. Mr. Monckton showed his audience a slide covering just three years, referring to the 2007 low as a “temporary loss of sea ice” which had recovered by 2009. Then he told them: “So we’re not looking at a sort of long-term systematic loss of ice in the Arctic.” [1 – 8:27]
ON THE CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES SINCE THE CAMBRIAN:
Mr. Monckton’s conclusion about a lack of correlation rests entirely on a graph showing CO2 concentration and temperature over the last 500 million years [3 – 0:04]. The graph uses temperature data from Scotese and CO2 data from Berner. Neither researcher supports Mr. Monckton’s ‘no correlation’ conclusion. On the contrary, Berner writes: “Over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the greenhouse effect.” [“Geocarb III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time” — R. Berner and Z. Kothavala, American Journal of Science, Feb 2001]
How so? Because paleoclimatologists have to factor in solar output, which has been getting stronger over time [3 – 4:45]. If the rising curve of solar output is compared to global temperatures over the phanerozoic (500 million years) there is a similar lack of correlation. But it would be absurd to draw the conclusion that the sun therefore has no effect on climate.
So when gradually rising solar output is taken into account there is a very clear correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, and the source of Mr. Monckton’s data points that out. So does another senior researcher in the field [“CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate” — D. Royer et al, GSA Today, March 2004].
ON THE PRE-CAMBRIAN ICE PLANET:
Again, let’s look at what I showed in my video, which was a clip of Mr. Monckton himself, speaking in a debate:
“750 million years ago, a mile of ice at the equator, ice planet all round, therefore at the surface 300,000 ppm of CO2. Will you tell me how that much CO2 could have been in the atmosphere and yet allowed that amount of ice at the equator?” [3 – 5:17]
Since Mr. Monckton thinks this is a puzzle for climatologists, let’s go through the well-understood explanation step by step.
Mr. Monckton agrees with the experts that the frozen planet was due to very weak solar output (about 8% less than today.) And he agrees that the high albedo (reflectivity) of this white surface would have reflected most of what little solar warmth the Earth did receive.
But he doesn’t seem to accept that volcanoes would have continued releasing CO2 into the atmosphere of this frozen planet over millions of years, and that this eventually warmed the planet enough to unfreeze it [“CO2 levels required for deglaciation of a ‘near-snowball’ Earth” T. Crowley et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 2001]. He cites no peer-reviewed research showing why paleoclimatologists are wrong. (No, the opinion of “a leading geologist” is not the same thing.)
ON HIMALAYAN GLACIERS:
Mr. Monckton writes in his WUWT response: “the pattern of advance and retreat of these glaciers was much as it had been in the 200 years since the British Raj had been keeping records. That is very far from the same thing as saying there had been “no change””
Then let’s look at what Mr. Monckton actually said to his audience in St. Paul:
“The glaciers are showing no particular change in 200 years. The only glacier that’s declined a little is Gangoltri.” [3 – 10:20]
So is it a pattern of advance and retreat? Or no particular change? Or only one glacier retreating? Which?
In his WUWT resp onse, Mr. Monckton went on to say: “To discuss one or two retreating glaciers is not the same thing as to say or imply that only one or two glaciers have been retreating.”
But you DID say it, Mr. Monckton. Here it is again: “Only one of them [Himalayan glaciers] is retreating a little and that’s Gangoltri.”
ON MISQUOTING MURARI LAL:
Speaking about Murari Lal, the man behind the IPCC’s 2035 disappearing glaciers fiasco, Mr. Monckton told his audience there was: “….an admission that he [Lal] knew that figure was wrong but had left it in anyway because he knew that the IPCC wanted to influence governments and politicians.”[4 – 3:50]
This is not even borne out by Monckton’s own source, cited in his response, which is a quote from Lal in the Daily Mail about the 2035 date: “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.” Nowhere does Lal say he knew the figure was erroneous.
MISQUOTING SIR JOHN HOUGHTON:
Mr. Monckton claims Houghton wrote this in the Sunday Telegraph of September 10, 1995: “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.” [4 – 5:50]
And I maintain Houghton wrote: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accident.”
Who is right? Well, both Mr. Monckton and I have exactly the same source [Sunday Telegraph, September 10, 1995], but I actually show an image of it in my video [4 – 7:24]. Take a look. Even though it turns out my quote is correct and Mr. Monckton’s is clearly a gross misquote, he still insists in his WUWT response that he got the quote right.
ON HIS CLAIMS ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE SUN…
Mr. Monckton showed and quoted an extract from a paper by Sami Solanki: “The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episodoes on to come.” [5 – 1:21 onwards]
That could suggest the sun is a likely culprit for recent warming. But why didn’t Mr. Monckton tell or show his audience what Solanki wrote in the very next line?
“Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.” [“Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the last 11,000 years” — S.K. Solanki et al, Nature Sep 2004]
ON THE ROLE OF THE SUN IN RECENT WARMING:
Mr. Monckton said: “The solar physicists – you might take Scafetta and West, say, in 2008, they attribute 69% of all the recent global warming to the sun.” [5 – 3:48]
No, they don’t. In my video [5 – 4:32] I showed the actual document Mr. Monckton refers to (an opinion piece) where Scafetta and West wrote: “We estimate that the sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in the Earth’s average temperature.” [“Is climate sensitive to solar variability?” Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West, Physics Today March 2008]
I hope we all understand the difference between “69%” and “as much as 69%.” But what about all those other “solar physicists” who purportedly support Monckton’s position? Well, they don’t. Solanki’s figure is up to just 30%, Erlykin less than 14%, Bernstad 7%, Lean ‘negligable’and Lockwood –1.3% [5 — 4:40]
[4:41 “Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?”– S. K. Solanki and N. A. Krivova, Journal of Geophysical Research, May 2003]
[“Solar Activity and the Mean Global Temperature”
A.D. Erlykin et al, Physics Geo 2009]
[“Solar trends and global warming” — R. Benestad and G. Schmidt, Journal of Geophysical Research” July 2009]
[“How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006” J. Lean and D. Rind, Geophysical Research Letters, Sep 2008]
[“Recent changes in solar outputs and the global mean surface temperature. III. Analysis of contributions to global mean air surface temperature rise” — M. Lockwood, June 2008]
Mr. Monckton then asserts that the International Astronomical Union (IAU) agrees with this conclusion (that the sun is largely responsible for recent warming.) After he had been confronted during a TV interview with the plain fact that it didn’t [5 – 5:49 “Meet the Climate Sceptics” BBC TV Feb 2011], Monckton gave a reason for the error in his WUWT response:
“I cited a paper given by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at the 2004 symposium of the IAU in St. Petersburg, Fla, but put “IAU” at the foot of the slide rather than Dr. Abdussamatov’s name.”
Maybe so. But that doesn’t explain why Mr. Monckton continued to make exactly the same claim elsewhere. At St. Paul he said:
“Most solar physicists agree [that the sun is largely responsible for recent warming]. The International Astronomical Union in 2004 had a symposium on it, they concluded that that was the case.” [Monckton rebuttal – WUWT 16:27]
And in his film ‘Apocalypse No!’ a slide headed ‘International Astronomical Union Symposium in 2004’ was shown to an audience, along with its main conclusions. Third on the list, Monckton read: “The sun caused today’s global warming.”
Monckton told the audience: “This is not my conclusion, this is the conclusion of the International Astronomical Union Symposium in 2004. This is what they said, this is not me talking here.” [Monckton rebuttal – WUWT 16:34]
Mr. Monckton has to accept that this claim is completely spurious. This is why he dislikes detailed examinations of his sources. While he takes every opportunity to debate on stage, where his speaking skills are essential and his assertions can’t be checked, an online debate is far tougher, because every paper and fact CAN be checked. So come on, Mr. Monckton, let’s debate this on WUWT to see which of us has correctly read your sources.
The rebuttals I made are not “inconsequential aspects of my talks” as Mr. Monckton claims; they include almost every major topic he covers, from the melting of Arctic and glacial ice, to the role of the sun and the correlation between CO2 and temperature. His only recourse in his WUWT response was therefore to call me names, attack my character and my competence, and question my financing and my motivation… anything but answer the documentary evidence I presented. And then he adds one more error — a ridiculous claim that I asked my “small band of followers” to “check the scientific literature for themselves to establish that the Earth has been warming and that CO2 is “largely responsible.”
Since I can’t establish that myself, I certainly wouldn’t advise other amateurs to have a go. So I ask Mr. Monckton to cite the source for this claim, sure in the knowledge that once again we will see a yawning gap between what the source actually says (in this case, me) and what Mr. Monckton claims it says.
References: (Hadfield’s own videos)
1 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
2 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
3 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo
4 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA
5 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Checking back I see that…
minor says:
“This is your time to stand up like a man and show how these predictions have not occurred…”
Ah. I see. So we are supposed to prove a negative now? BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT! Wrong. The onus is entirely on minor to show that the endless failed predictions of climate disruption are taking place. That’s how the scientific method works: someone makes a prediction based on a conjecture or a hypothesis, and everyone stands back to see if it happens or not. So far, none of the alarmist predictions are occurring. But thanx for playing, and Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.☺
And el Stupido still does not understand the null hypothesis! Amazing. Here, I’ll give him the definition once more to help him out: The null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data.
But he still won’t understand, because understanding that definition takes some thought. Kevin Trenberth understands, though. That’s why he insists like a spoiled child that the null hypothesis must now be changed to help him out – thus transferring the onus onto skeptics to prove a negative. Trenberth understands very well that the null hypothesis deconstructs all the doomsday predictions of the CAGW cult, so naturally he wants to game the system. That’s what the alarmist crowd does.
It is truly amazing that Jose still cannot understand what the null hypothesis means or how it works, but it is clear that he doesn’t. The definition is there; he just cannot put it together. It’s simple, really: if the parameters of the Holocene are exceeded [global temperature, hurricanes, floods, natural disaster deaths, droughts, typhoons, etc., then the null hypothesis is falsified. But as climatologist Roy Spencer points out: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” In other words, no one has falsified the null hypothesis. Which means that nothing out of the ordinary is happening, as much as the wild-eyed alarmist crowd craves a disaster they can pin on CO2. But it just ain’t happenin’. The planet is absolutely falsifying the alarmists’ nonsense.
Anyway, the three stooges now seem to be reduced to only two. They can continue to argue here with each other that Down is Up, Ignorance is Strength, and CO2 Causes Climate Disruption. Deluded, yes. Evidence-free, yes. But they are arguing based on religious True Belief, so their cognitive dissonance will not allow them to see reason. But for me, I’ll be at the current Gleick threads. I notice that very few alarmist apologists are there defending Gleick’s admitted egregious wrongdoing. But you folks are hiding out here. With this thread almost seven weeks old and only two stooges left still impotently trying to overcome the refutations of their easily debunked beliefs, if they’re not too frightened I invite them to drop by the Gleick threads and try their hand at carrying Gleick’s water. I predict they will crash and burn there just like they have here.
So there’s your challenge, kids. Let’s see you try to defend Gleick. Because you’ve clearly lost the debate here, based on facts, the scientific method, and the null hypothesis.
Smokey>> “The null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data.”
Supposedly, you were talking about AGW, right?
We cannot refute the null hypothesis for AGW. I’ll repeat the reasons.
We have no idea what expected data is because we cannot run another experiment where the A in AGW doesn’t burn fossil fuels so we could then measure temperatures.
We can’t rely on history for 2 reasons. One, the variables are not matching up with historical accounts. In particular, CO2 has likely not been this high in at least many hundred thousands of years. Two, we don’t really know how the Earth has been in the past. We surmise, but there is significant doubt on many details we think we know and there are obviously many details we don’t even claim to know.
In other words, we don’t have a control for our experiment, essentially because there is only one Earth to test upon and because we can’t turn time backwards to undo the past or even to measure it carefully, so it is not possible to refute the null hypothesis for AGW.
Conversely, we also can’t prove the opposite, that AGW is false. The reasons are essentially the same, we can’t conduct the proper experiment with control in order to see if a difference exists.
In short, we can’t repeat the experiment or confirm that a similar experiment was carried out, so we can’t compare measured data with expected data. We can’t prove AGW. We can’t disprove AGW. The best we can do is to lay on the evidence that would support it and that would contradict it in order to help people identify risks and manage them.
>> Trenberth understands very well that the null hypothesis
Since I joined the conversation, I have not seen a link to Trenberth discussing the null hypothesis in the context of AGW. I am curious as to what he has said on this topic.
>> if the parameters of the Holocene are exceeded…
As pointed out a second minute ago, this is not the null hypothesis to (what I imagine you mean by) “AGW”. For the null hypothesis, as you correctly defined/quoted, we need both expected results and measured results. We need a control or the equivalent, and we don’t have one.
The hypothesis isn’t that it’s never been this hot in the past. AGW is about how that temperature is achieved. Looking towards the past guesstimates of values, as you propose, doesn’t test the crucial cause-effect claims of AGW.
>> I notice that very few alarmist apologists are there defending Gleick’s admitted egregious wrongdoing.
Why do you want people discussing science to go and argue that a lapse in judgement admitted by an individual actually wasn’t a lapse?
BTW, I think this “egregious wrongdoing” may have been much less severe than the much larger scale “theft” of emails dubbed “climategate” and its cost to innocent parties.
Yes, I assume you likewise won’t defend the revelation of those private “climategate” emails to the degree you think they were a similar or worse threat to individuals’ safety, a violation of their privacy, and exposed no significant wrongdoing.
>> Because you’ve clearly lost the debate here, based on facts, the scientific method, and the null hypothesis.
I think this is one of those moments where hopefully we’ll agree to disagree.
>> In particular, CO2 has likely not been this high in at least many hundred thousands of years.
Before you decide to jump on this, let me point out some things.
The effects of CO2 on temperature, as theorized, are neither instantaneous nor entirely define temperatures. There are many other variables that would have to coincide in order to have a “control”. A very important variable is the sun.
Of course, and let me repeat, we have basically guesses as to what earth global average temperatures were in the time before 1850. For 1850, there is a large error margin. The further back we go from that, the more the uncertainty. Mann doesn’t know. McIntyre doesn’t know. No one knows, and the best guesses have significant error bars.
>> BTW, I think this “egregious wrongdoing” may have been much less severe than the much larger scale “theft” of emails dubbed “climategate” and its cost to innocent parties.
Truth be told, I would not be a good judge on which was worse because I have followed neither of these two “peek-a-boos” very much. I think “climategate” brought out much more laundry than this last one, but I don’t know most of the details of what were revealed in either.
There’s a tongue-in-cheek petition I would like you to sign, Smokey.
***
Petition to Commit to Putting Our Money Alongside Our Mouths by Ignoring Alarmist Weather Forecasts:
We, the undersigned weather forecast skeptics, acknowledge that hurricane, tornado, earthquake, blizzard, drought, temperature swing, and other alarmist weather forecasts are based on failed, incorrect weather models so do hereby pledge to utterly ignore each and every such future alarmist weather forecast.
***
If you want to ignore error bars in climate models, you probably also want to ignore them in weather models. If we ignore the “cones” around hurricane predicted paths and other error bars, we would realize the truth that all weather models and alarmist weather predictions fail..
.. so ignore them.
You probably have seen this.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vj-0imOLw
Jose-X.. Do you ever read your own posts before you press the button? I just have and that is five minutes of my life wasted on reading gibberish that I will never get back again. Thanks a lot.
Disko Troop,
I’m truly convinced that Jose_X is mentally disturbed. Really. I’m not name calling; he posts all the time, three or four separate responses to a comment of mine, he doesn’t seem to be employed [or he’s posting on the sly from work], he’s apparently fixated on every fact I present, arguing and nitpicking about them over and over, as if that will change the facts… and he STILL doesn’t understand the null hypothesis! Amazing.
[snip. Calling others “deniers” is a pejorative that violates site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
Like all warmists, Smokey, it’s important to have the last word. In their way of thinking, that means that they’ve won.
I’m inclined to think that commenters like Jose_X are in fact “tag” committees intent on thread bombing and blog disruption.
Smokey, it seems the underpinning of your Theory of the Null Hypothesis that Disko and Mark were helping you finalize is about to collapse.
“Was Einstein wrong – or was the cable loose?” http://news.yahoo.com/einstein-wrong-cable-loose-020614484.html .
This means you will not be returning to the 1930s. You will not be switching Popper’s manuscript. You will not be tricking your mom to marry the rich, smart guy with the good build. … In short, you will not be rewriting history.
Sorry.
[OK, we aren’t going to agree too much on climate science or the null hypothesis, so I thought I’d divert the subject a little.]
Odd how a simple post asking Smokey to shortly and concisely list 5 or less 3 would be better examples or evidence against GW and that should all the examples be refuted or shown not to be valid to ask him to no longer post was not posted, Odd, odd indeed. I mean anyone who knows how to cut and paste can post paragraph after paragraph of junk and link after link of nonsensical garbage. Either this site cares about the truth or doesn’t.
Most everyone wants to claim that they care about truth, because that lends them more credibility. Saying that you’re scientific is even better — because that’s the best type of understanding. We rarely, if ever, say that we are deceiving ourselves, yet self-deception seems to be at the heart of the human condition.
Most people hate uncertainty, and want to believe in the veracity of their world. Ironically, those who climate to be all about truth are likely to believe things are true because that is how they ought to be. It is far too confronting to question your own beliefs. So the mind proactively filters disconfirming information, and negative emotions ensure that we never really contemplate it. Instead, we just beat down the negative feelings, and this results in the ego defence mechanisms. It is much more comfortable to project back the incoming message then let someone dismantle your world view. This happens almost instantly in the brain, and the pleasure-reward system reinforces the neural pathways: righteous indignation feels like power, and self-questioning is miserable defeat. And so research shows that the stronger and more credible the counter-evidence shown, the more strongly people report certainty in their beliefs.
Much of the brouhaha you see on this website is about fear of a a very real particular type of control-freak-environmentalism. The science must surely be wrong, since admitting AGW is too dangerous. Obviously the scientific facts no longer matter. Not by a long shot.
I encourage you to argue with skeptics. Hope you have fun doing it. However I have one recommendation. You have said “Either this site cares about the truth or doesn’t”, and I agree with the sentiment; however, don’t fall for black-and-white thinking. It is a cognitive obstacle. It stops you from seeing that skeptics really believe that they are all about truth, and that cognitive mechanisms really prevent them from seeing any self-deception. Basically, they /feel/ right, so they must be about truth.
I would recommend a book (not on AGW) called “Vital Lies, Simple Truths” that it a gentle introduction into the underlying hidden mechanisms that we all deal with. Nobody is immune, including you and me, so look into your own part in this morass. And /everytime/ you make a black-and-white statement, it is worth asking yourself “is the opposite true?” and then looking for counter-evidence, and then watching your mind. And then count yourself one of the lucky ones.
Smokey says:
February 22, 2012 at 10:38 am
You made the claim that “after a 40% increase in harmless, beneficial CO2, exactly none of the alarmist predictions have occurred. That is a monumental FAIL” which means you should know what the predictions are and have facts to show they did not occur? But really you don’t know anything about anthropogenic global warming, my comment asking you to prove “something” was a mocking statement from which you so gracefully proved true. We all know what you think smokey, cherry picking La Nina cooling events and claiming it nullifies global warming, truly pathetic. The most outrageous part of this whole one sided clown show is you are fully aware CO2 will raise the temperature of the planet, but throw in a La Nina and the obvious fact the oceans don’t heat up over night and hey presto CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. I can see it now, you putting a bottle of water in the fridge and taking it out a minute later wondering why it is not cold??. “Hey Vanna this parting gift doesn’t work”…. The only prediction is warming. It is a guaranty and has not stopped!! (http://tinyurl.com/c5a2dyt)
The old cloud argument, Roy as do others think that due to a reduction in cloud cover over the last couple of decades the planet has warmed. They repeatedly say “we just don’t know” when stating this. This argument has not been disproved as of yet, but lacks any real viability due to the observation supporting increased greenhouse effect. Increasing CO2 and in turn more downward infrared radiation is the bases for anthropogenic warming. The observations that prove increased warming are occurring due to the greenhouse effect is the stratospheric is expected to cool and it is Jones et al. (2003). The tropopause is expected to rise which it has Santer et al. (2003). The layers above the stratosphere are expected to cool and contract and they are Laštovička et al. (2006). More warming during the night, Alexander 2006. None of this would be happening if the warming was being causing by cloud cover reduction. The last point is the simple fact that climate scientists know that the clouds are reducing and letting in more solar radiation (http://tinyurl.com/6m9a9nd), they just account for it as a natural forcing.
Again with the Holocene?? Anthropogenic warming does not have to exceed anything, if it is warming the planet then we have to look at the consequences and act. As I stated before, all past climate change has been accounted for as shown in countless studies:
CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate — D. Royer et al, GSA Today, March 2004 (http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/GSA_Today.pdf)
CO2 forced climate thresholds during the phanerozoic, Dana L. Royer 2005 (http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf)
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature, Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind and Reto A. Ruedy, 2010 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract
Science has finetuned its understanding of natural and anthropogenic forcing (http://tinyurl.com/8abdqk4) and has determined that man is increasing the temperature of the planet (http://tinyurl.com/77w296t). This was the same conclusion for all the studies (http://tinyurl.com/6r8fdbc). This is why Spencer and Lindzen keep on publishing papers with low climate sensitivity values, they want to try and prove that CO2 is not increasing temperatures. But you only have to look at their work to see they are always wrong (which I have shown) and are just publishing these papers to give skeptics the ability to debate. Even though we all know they got it wrong. I would like to say they got it wrong on purpose but in reality they just used very simple studies which never capture the total value of climate sensitively. On purpose or not they know the science community is going to reject their findings and prove them wrong. The science is overwhelming regarding climate sensitivity (http://oi43.tinypic.com/vd0nki.jpg)
Firstly who cares?? Heartland Institute is just a company that gets the job done for whoever is paying them. It is all about accepted science in the peer reviewed literature. If what Gleick did is found to be wrong then he will have to deal with that, but that does not change his scientific work or his future work or any other scientific work. On a personal note I think what he did was pointless, we all know what the Heartland Institute does and what he found we already knew. I am lost to understand what he was hoping to find.
I was under the impression that this posting thread was re-purposed specifically to facilitate direct point-level interaction between Christopher Monckton and Peter Hadfield regarding Monckton’s alleged roadshow of disinformation. I notice that Monckton has resumed contributing primary postings and commentary on WUWT. Is there an estimate as to when Christopher Monckton might begin the defense of his integrity? It is my opinion that there is plenty of incontrovertible evidence that Monckton may be accurately describes as, in American parlance, a man of “all hat, no cattle”. Scanning through this thread, and through Christopher Monckton’s newest contribution, it seems a very large percentage of WUWT posters just love hats and are likely vegetarians.
I look forward to Christopher Monckton’s issue-focused reply and interaction with Mr. Hadfield. I just hope it happens this year.
Jose_X still doesn’t understand the null hypothesis. It doesn’t say what he says it says.
Next, minor 9985 has not refuted any of my facts, or my hypothesis. Therefore his comment is simply his opinion; a conjecture. All those un-clicked links, eyes glazed over, that I felt like Sisyphus, having repeatedly disposed of evrything claimed. If Mr Minor would like to select any specific issue, he may begin. Take your best shot.
Finally, LeMorteDeArthur is certainly a humorist. He thinks skeptics must in effect, prove a negative. That is not the scientific method. Skeptics have nothing to prove. The alarmist crowd has staked out its position: rising CO2 will cause a tipping point ending in runaway catastrophic global warming. As if. A warm planet is a fortunate and beneficial event for the biosphere. Civilization flourished during warm periods: the Medieval, the Roman, the Minoan Optimum, and other Warm periods, which happen far apart. We’re very lucky to be in one now.
I’m amazed at the number of comments attacking Peter (Potholer54) for his rebuttal of Mr Munckton. As far as I can see he has provided a clearly reasoned argument with cited references. The truth of the claims made by both sides can be established simply by checking these references. This isn’t an argument based on opinion, this is a black and white issue, has mr Monkton or Potholer misrepersented the research.. With the evidence having been provided it seems clear to me that it falls in Peter’s favour and that there are so many people unwilling to accept that is a great concern.
Good work Peter, keep at it.
dbstealey says:
February 24, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Have you changed your name? Because I cant find a post by you in this thread.
Is it one comment as you say, or is it more than one comment? Are you also saying that you don’t check facts when they are given to you? How could you know I have not “refuted any of [your] facts” if you have not check any of my sources??
But you have not posted anything??
I have a good number of comments in this thread. You are welcome to point out anything that I have said which might be wrong. Unlike Monckton am willing to accept if I have got something wrong. To give you a head start I stated that the urban heat island effect had contributed a little to global warming, but it would seem that this not true. It has most likely contributed nothing.
But if you want a specific issue, how about Monckton and all his outrageous mistakes which have been documented by Hadfield. This is what the thread is about.
Major9985,
“Because you’re a skeptic, this information means we should disregard the models, when in reality it means the complete opposite.”
You still fail to understand, you seemed to think that if models predict precipitation extremes, but had less precipitation than the observations, that it means the models deserve some credit. While under representing precipitation increases does not just make the models suspect when projecting droughts or desertification, it doesn’t stop there. They are under representing the water cycle, a key negative feedback in the climate system, and thus their temperature projections are also suspect.
“You are welcome to point out anything that I have said which might be wrong. Unlike Monckton am willing to accept if I have got something wrong.”
Hmmm, it is worth a try. Are you willing to accept that the Nat Geo 1 year video you posted and I responded to earlier might be wrong?
Whoops, that should be the Nat Geo 1 degree C video. Apologies.
Martin Lewitt says:
February 25, 2012 at 1:37 am
My main points regarding your comment was that the models are getting most of it right, the only flaw that you are pointing out is a half of observed precipitation increase. But the scientific study that I referenced shows that there is more extreme rain fall in the summer but less in the winter per the observations. What this suggests is if there was a La Nina causing drought that was to occur during the winter which has been shown to have less rainfall, the drought could be worse. You should also back up your claim that the models have not predicted the droughts in the United States accurately. Because you simply saying they are caused by La Nina not El Nino really does not make sense. Just because the droughts are caused by a cooling La Nina does not mean there will be fewer droughts in a warmer world.
Some key facts regarding the models is they have accurately predicted the last hundred years (http://tinyurl.com/8xds9wq) and even though your reference “Wentz et al. (2007)” showed that precipitation had increased more than predicted it also found that water vapor had increased as expected. As water evaporates it rises into the atmosphere, and eventually returns to Earth in the form of precipitation. This is what is increasing and as the paper states it is unclear what this will do to global warming or climate sensitivity. So to state the models are wrong is premature. More studies are going to have to be done on the effects of increased precipitation. Also most of what I said is based on hard facts such as rising oceans, retreating glaciers, migration due to warming. All of this is on track.
Due to the effects of precipitation on global warming not understood as yet, we can’t say the earth will cool or warm due to the models underestimating it. The models are predicting water vapor at the right amounts and this type of water has a positive feedback, not a negative.
In all fairness you brought up a good point that needs to be looked at more, but I cant disregard the models due to this observation. They only have a 90% accuracy claim associated to them and are really just a guide to what to expect.
Major9985,
First of all, models, are you going to admit you are wrong about “accurately predicted the last hundred years” like you promised? Even when fitting the the last 100 years (not predicting), they are not accurate about the precipitation.
“The models are predicting water vapor at the right amounts and this type of water has a positive feedback, not a negative. ”
It is the “net” feedback that is important to sensitivity. Water vapor does have a positive feedback, but getting a positive feedback from increased water vapor right, while getting the negative feedback from more turns of the water cycle wrong, is a “bias”, not “accurately”. Even if the models were accurately representing the climate to the better than 0.1 W/m^2 to attribute the 0.58 W/m^2 (per Hansen) energy imbalance (which they aren’t), matching the past “accurately” but with incorrect sensitivity does not give valid projections.
You can’t have an informed opinion on this without familiarity with the model diagnostic literature, and enough knowledge of nonlinear dynamics to understand its implications, which you obviously don’t have. You should admit you are wrong as you boasted you would, contrasting yourself with Lord Monckton, instead of trying to spin things.
Martin Lewitt says:
February 25, 2012 at 5:37 am
You asked if I think the Nat Geo 1ᵒC video had not accurately predicted the future due to less precipitation being modelled compared to observations!! And I have explained myself.
If you want to link a paper that explains the modelling of temperatures over the last hundred years is wrong, by all means do. And I would also like to see this paper or another that shows the precipitation for the last hundred years was also modelled wrong.
I have explained the science to you from what I have been able to research regarding it, even Spencer explains little is known about precipitation http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/14/spencer-on-water-vapor-feedback/
You should admit you are wrong, this is all still up in debate and more research has to be done on the implications of more precipitation then modelled. And for you to compare my referencing of IPCC models and explaining the paper which you link as saying they had no idea what this meant to global warming as to what Monckton has done, is disgusting. I think it is ridicules to think Wentz et al. (2007) paper means we should bin all the models. Grow up.
Major9985,
“You asked if I think the Nat Geo 1ᵒC video had not accurately predicted the future due to less precipitation being modelled compared to observations!! And I have explained myself. ”
The Wentz paper is just one of numerous model diagnostic results, I cite it because it easily shows the models and fearmongering about droughts are not credible. I don’t see how “Spencer explains little is known about precipitation”, justifies your spamming the forum with Nat Geo videos, presumably for their fearmongering content. On the contrary, your spinning with “little is known” doesn’t support Nat Geo’s drought content at all.
Your “explaining” of the paper, doesn’t explain how correlated bias in all the models under representing the increase in precipitation by more than factor of two, makes the drought and other fearmongering credible.
All the AR4 have correlated surface albedo bias reported by Roesch that amounts to more than 3 W/m^2 globally and annually average, more than 5 times the energy imbalance. Camp and Tung found that none of the models represent more than half the amplitude of the signature of the solar cycle detected in the observations. Lean also found poor representation of the signature of the solar cycle, although of lesser amplitude than Camp and Tung. The models disagree with each other by nearly a factor of 3 in climate sensitivity, that they all “match” the 20th century global temperature statistic has been diagnosed as main due to differences in poorly understood levels of aerosol forcings.
Of course models are poor regionally and in the troposphere temperature profile. You just don’t have a leg or explanation to stand on. Still awaiting your vaunted acceptance that you were wrong.
Martin Lewitt says:
February 25, 2012 at 9:57 am
These climate models are predictions, and every day they get better (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/mo01100t.html). After reading how all the models failed to predict precipitation over the last hundred years (http://www.climatewiki.org/wiki/Precipitation_and_Global_Climate_Models), I have to say they really are failing in this regard. But as Spencer said in the link I gave “we don’t know very much about how the efficiency of precipitation systems changes with temperature.” this is where the debate is at present. My referencing IPCC models is not “wrong”.. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the IPCC. I try my best to not talk about models, I find it bizarre how they think equations can replicate nature. Wentz even points out a simple decrease in wind speeds predicted by the models could be the reason for lower precipitation levels. One thing I am going to say I was wrong about, I was wrong about how accurate I thought climate models were. After looking into it in more detail they have a long way to go.
major9985,
“These climate models are predictions, and every day they get better (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/mo01100t.html).”
No they don’t. Their development cycles average 3 to 5 years, and diagnostic studies to figure out if they really are better, take another year. We haven’t seen much published since the Fourth Assessment Report that was using new models than those in that report. Schmidt, et al’s method can correct for the type of correlated error we have been discussing.
“If you have a problem with it, take it up with the IPCC.”
I have. I participated in the AR4 Working Group I draft review, and just completed the first phase of the next draft review, but nothing I’ve discussed relies upon information from this last review.
“One thing I am going to say I was wrong about, I was wrong about how accurate I thought climate models were. After looking into it in more detail they have a long way to go.”
We done, you have stood up.
One thing to watch out for, when reading the IPCC and other reports of model results, is not just whether they review the diagnostic literature, and discuss its implications for their results, but whether they actually estimate the error range of their results. The IPCC does not. People commonly assume that the range of projections reported by the IPCC is an error range. It is only a range of the unadjusted results of all the models, for a range of future forcing scenerios. There is no adjustment for or assessment of the implications of the documented correlated error when they report the projections.
I am a supporter of the model science. I hold out hope that the impact of perturbations in the various climate forcings can be projected. But I think it is probably two model generations away.
Best wishes,