Guest post by Dr. Norman Page
1 The IPCC’s Core Problem
The IPCC – Al Gore based Anthropogenic Global Warming scare has driven global Governments’ Climate and Energy Policies since the turn of the century. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted on uneconomic renewable energy and CO2 emission control schemes based on the notions that it is both necessary and possible to control global temperatures by reducing CO2 emissions. All this vast investment is based on the simple idea that as stated in the IPCC AR4 report:
“we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.”
These values can only be reached by adopting two completely unfounded and indeed illogical assumptions and procedures:
1. CO2 is simply assumed to be the main climate forcing .This is clearly illogical because at all time scales CO2 changes follow temperature changes.
2. Positive feedback from the other GHGs – notably water vapour and methane is then added on to the effects of CO2 and attributed to it. Obviously, in nature, the increase in CO2 and Humidity are both caused by rising temperatures. It is also impossible to have a net positive feedback because systems with total positive feed back are not stable and simply run away to disaster. We wouldn’t be here to tell the tale if it were true.
From its inception the IPCCs remit was to measure Anthropogenic Climate Change and indeed Climate Change was defined as Anthropogenic until the 2011 SREX report when the definition was changed.The climate science community simply designed their models to satisfy the political requirements of their funding agencies. – Publications, academic positions,peer approval , institutional advancement and grants were unlikely to be forthcoming unless appropriate forecasts of catastrophic warming were dutifully produced. The climate models have egregious structural errors and ,what is worse, in their estimates of uncertainty the IPCC reports for Policymakers simply ignored this structural uncertainty and gave policy makers and the general public a totally false impression of the likely accuracy of their temperature forecasts.It is this aspect of the AGW meme which is especially unconscionable.
The inadequacy, not to say inanity, of the climate models can be seen by simple inspection of the following Figure 2-20 from the AR4 WG1 report.
Figure 1 from IPCC AR4
The only natural forcing is TSI and everything else is anthropogenic. For example under natural should come such things as eg Milankovitch Orbital Cycles,Lunar related tidal effects on ocean currents,Earths geomagnetic field strength and all the Solar Activity data time series – eg Solar Magnetic Sield strength, TSI ,SSNs ,GCRs ,( effect on aerosols,clouds and albedo) CHs, MCEs, EUV variations, and associated ozone variations and Forbush events. Unless the range and causes of natural variation are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to calculate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.
The results of this gross error of scientific judgement is seen in the growing discrepancy between global temperature trends and the model projections. The NOAA SSTs show that with CO2 up 8% there has been no net warming since 1997, that ,the warming trend peaked in 2003 and that there has been a cooling trend since that time.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
The gap between projections and observations is seen below
Fig 2 ( From Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) )
2, The Real Climate Drivers.
Earths climate is the result of resonances between various quasicyclic processes of varying wavelengths. The long wave Milankovich eccentricity,obliquity and precessional cycles are modulated by solar “activity” cycles with millennial centennial and decadal time scales .These in turn interact with lunar cycles and endogenous earth changes in Geomagnetic Field strength ,volcanic activity and at really long time scales plate tectonic movements of the land masses.The combination of all these drivers is mediated through the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems to produce the earths climate and weather.
To help forecast decadal and annual changes we can look at eg the ENSO PDO, AMO NAO indices and based on past patterns make reasonable forecasts for varying future periods. Currently the PDO suggests we may expect 20 – 30 years of cooling in the immediate future.Similarly for multidecadal, centennial and millennial predictions we need to know where we are relative to the appropriate solar cycles.The best proxies for solar “activity”are currently ,the Ap index, and the GCR produced neutron count. The solar indices are particularly important for their past history these can be retrieved from the 10 Be data.
In a previous post on http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com on 1/22/13 – Global Cooling – Timing and Amount(NH) I have made suggestions of possible future cooling based on a repetition of the solar millennial cycle. Here I point out for the modellers the value of using the Ap index as a proxy measure of solar activity. Compare the Northern Hemisphere HADSST3 Temperature anomaly since 1910 with the AP index since 1900 . Because of the thermal inertia and slow change in the enthalpy of the oceans there is a 10 – 12 year delay between the driver proxy and the temperature.
Fig 3 – From Hadley Center
Fig 4 From http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
There are some good correlations .The 1900 and 1965 Ap lows correspond to the NH temperature minima at 1910 and 1975 respectively . The 1992 Ap peak ( Solar Cycle 22) corresponds to the 2003 temperature high and trend roll over- and as shown in the previous post referred to above might well represent the roll over of the millennial solar cycle which brought the Medieval and Roman warming peaks. The NH is used because it is more sensitive to forcing changes and its greater variability makes correlation more obvious.
As a simple conceptual model the Ap index can be thought of as simple proxy for hours of sunshine especially when mentally integrated over a 10 -12 year period. See Wang et al
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.pdf
As far as the future is concerned the Solar Cycle 23/24 Ap minimum in end 2009 is as low as the 1900 minimum and would suggest both a secular change in solar activity in about 2006 and a coming temperature minimum at about 2019/20. This change is also documented for TSI by Adbussamatov 2012 http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
Fig 5.
As a final example for this post the following figure from Steinhilber et al http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
shows the close correlation of successive Little Ice Age Minima with cosmic Ray intensity.
CONCLUSION :
It is now clear that the Ap/GCR/10Be data are the best proxy measures of the Earth’s temperature driver over millennial centennial and decadal time scales. The best way of forecasting the future is to predict future solar cycles at these wavelengths keeping in mind the Earth’s magnetic field strength and obliquity trends over longer time periods.
3. The Response of the Modellers, IPCC and Political Alarmists.
The modelling community and the IPCC have both recognized that they have a problem. For example both Hansen and Trenberth have been looking for the missing heat and generating epicycle type theories to preserve their models.Hansen thinks it might have something to do with aerosols and Trenberth first wanted to hide it down the deep ocean black hole. Death Train Hansen is a lost cause as far as objective science is concerned but Trenberth has always been a more objective and judicious scientist and has recently made excellent progress in discovering a real negative feedback in the system. see
He says:
This is an encouraging start and its inclusion would improve models significantly. Clearly it would reduce very substantially the currently IPCC calculated temperature sensitivity to CO2 . He now also needs to add into the models the iris effect of the GCR modulation of the global incoming radiation flux via clouds ,possibly related natural aerosols, and resulting albedo changes on global temperatures.When this is done the sensitivity to doubling CO2 will be 1 degree or less similar to separate calculations by Lindzen, Spencer and Bjornbom:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-confirms-findings-of-lindzen.html
The IPCC ‘s response to the lack of warming is seen in the SREX 2011 report. they say
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.
In other words they realized that they could no longer scaremonger on the basis of the trend and so in that report and in the forthcoming AR5 they have chosen to concentrate on “extreme” events to promote their scaremongering anti CO2 policy agenda while keeping unchanged their climate sensitivity calculations. The core alarmists Hansen, Mann, McKibben and Romm and their MSM ,Celebrity and Political acolytes including Obama are simply following the IPCC script with their ever more hysterical predictions of future extreme disasters as the current earth obstinately refuses to warm up.
The AR5 Summary for Policymakers is currently in draft form.Obviously Trenberth and his associated modellers cannot restructure the models in time to change the science section but perhaps they could at least insist that the final report makes proper allowance for the structural uncertainty in the model outcomes .
CONCLUSION:
Trenberth’s latest work implies that when it is incorporated into the climate models the entire CAGW scare will collapse.
The only effect of increasing CO2 will be to ameliorate slightly the coming cold temperature trend and to help world food production by its fertilizing effect on crops.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steven Mosher;
Note this: it is a GENERAL PROPERTY of the system. What’s that mean? that means when we talk about sensitivity we are talking about the response in temperature to ANY change in radiative forcing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Steven, this statement is dead wrong and the rest of your explanation that follows it is wrong as a result. A change in radiative forcing from the sun changes the amount of energy input to the system. A change in radiative forcing from CO2 changes the amount of energy being put into the system by precisely ZERO. In the case of CO2, the change is in terms of WHERE in the system energy is concentrated at any given time. A change in forcing from CO2 CANNOT be directly extrapolated to surface temperatures.
THAT is standard physics. As documented by the IPCC, as explained in discussions between me and scientists as diverse as rgbatduke, richardscourtney and joel shore. If you won’t take my word for it then please, get in touch with one of them and get your physics straightened out.
Dr. Svalgaard,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question. You have taken the full measure of the uncertainty monster, I see.
And as for Mark Cates’ comment, your guess that I am a stealth warmist is well wide of the mark. As a fellow engineer, I tend to build logic trees around fact-based claims, and the logic tree for CAGW is big and messy and anthropogenic CO2 emissions is buried at the bottom of a minor branch. Dr. Svalgaard’s response to my question actually look a lot like the top level of that logic tree.
lsvalgaard says:
Jim G says:
February 21, 2013 at 7:03 am
variable does not correlate well at one, or even several, given data points in time with the climate is not a valid disproof of that variable’s ability to influence climate
“The shoe is on the other foot: if you claim a causal relationship you have to show that there is one, preferably with a plausible mechanism.”
I then conclude that you are in agreement with those that believe that CO2 has NO influence upon climate, but is itself a result of climate fluctuations.
Baa Humbug says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:50 am
The only effect of increasing CO2 will be to ameliorate slightly the coming cold temperature trend
CO2 can do no such thing. CO2 is a coolant.
===========
correct. Without GHG only the surface can radiate energy to space to cool the planet. This requires that the surface warm so that incoming and outgoing energy match.
By adding GHG to the atmosphere, both the surface and atmosphere can radiate to space. The portion that the atmosphere radiates to space via GHG is thus removed from the surface, lowering the surface temperature.
Back radiation from GHG is thought to warm the surface. But what is ignored is that back radiation is only 1/2 of the story. GHG is radiating the same amount to space, which in the absence of GHG would need to be radiated to space by the surface. The surface can only increase the amount it radiates to space by warming, which means that GHG actually cools the surface.
This is why we have a lapse rate, why the atmosphere cools with altitude. Without GHG the atmosphere would warm with altitude, which is observed in the region above the GHG layers.
HenryP says:
February 21, 2013 at 5:34 am
(remember the unwritten rules of the blog here: if you do not answer it is assumed you admit to being wrong or having been wrong)
No, some stuff is simply not worth responding to.
Jim G says:
February 21, 2013 at 8:07 am
I then conclude that you are in agreement with those that believe that CO2 has NO influence upon climate, but is itself a result of climate fluctuations.
Of course CO2 has some influence [as Mosh says ‘basic physics’], so believe it has NONE is silly [or worse]. The question is ‘how much’?. The same with the Sun. On time scales that we care about, both those influences are low enough that we shouldn’t panic or draw unwarranted conclusions.
Leif,
Ok, so talking about proof, send me an ounce of dark matter, I’ll pay the shipping.
Gail Combs says (quoting dr S)
As it turns out, this amount of ionization affects the formation of condensation nuclei required for the formation of clouds in clean marine environment.
Henry says
Hi Gail!
I think I must say that I doubt this.
Some may disagree on the best fit for my data
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
but we still have to live with the actual results of my statistical analysis i.e. the -not so thin – blue line, here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
This blue line suggests we are cooling, globally, and a natural consequence of that would be some shift of condensation of water vapor (e.g. cloud formation/ precipitation) from higher latitudes to somewhat lower latitudes.
This is why I explained that places like England and Holland and Washington DC run opposite the wave, i.e get warmer. When earth is cooling globally: they get warmer. Without that increase in cloud cover they would have been cooler….
So, within a certain band of latitude (remember the flooding of the Nile?) you get more clouds in a cooling period, naturally. More people live at lower latitudes so they will hardly notice this “climate change” except for the more clouds, rain and snow. Places like Anchorage and others at high latitudes will really be cooling off quite a bit from now onward. (for results : see my tables quoted earlier on this post.
leif says
No, some stuff is simply not worth responding to.
henry
You lose. I win. As usual : let’s face it: you cannot even get one person on this blog to agree with you. You should actually maybe try to understand the things that I write.
henry@leif
are you Mosh?
(seeing that he behaves like you)
Jim G says:
February 21, 2013 at 9:19 am
send me an ounce of dark matter, I’ll pay the shipping.
I’ll send it for free. How would you see it? Hint: weigh the seemingly empty envelope.
How do you know that the star Sirius exists? By paying for shipping an ounce of Sirius matter all the 8.6 light years?
You will have to wait a bit too before becoming convinced that Sirius actually exists. How about from the Andromeda Galaxy?
HenryP says:
February 21, 2013 at 9:28 am
You lose. I win.
You are rapidly moving into the ‘not worth to answer’ category.
Leif I think it would be useful if participants in this discussion stopped using solar “activity” and instead referred separately to first the SSN (TSI) and then GCR , 10 Be or Ap data. The first measures what the sun is putting out while the latter measure the Iris effect of the clouds caused to a large extent by the changing solar magnetic field on incoming GCRs. To me there is little doubt that Shaviv is more or less right. The Iris effect seems to have the largest effect on climate. Look at Fig 3 and 4 above. As mentioned in my post there is a good general 20th century match allowing for the lag time. The 20th century peak on your red curve is at the Cycle 22 max and is the highest point on the entire chart.Look at the NGRIP data in the Berggren paper you referred to. The correlation of the high Be flux with the Maunder and Dalton minima is incontrovertible as is the Be low with the 18th century warmth from about 1730 on and the generally falling trend and low flux values in the 20th century. I dont know what the TSI was doing for much of time frame – but the percentage variation in TSI is much less than the variation in incoming GCRs which is why the latter is the controlling influence on climate at decadal,centennial and millenial time scales.
As you rightly point out the Ap number during the 23 /24 minimum in late 2009 was down to 1900 levels which is why I will make a testable prediction that by 2019 -20 NH temperatures could well be surprisingly cool perhaps even 0.8 below current levels – though that seems a shocking amount even to me.
leifS says
You are rapidly moving into the ‘not worth to answer’ category.
henry says
I don’t believe it. You are Steven Mosher…
REPLY: wrong Henry – its Leif, and he’s right – Anthony
HenryP;
let’s face it: you cannot even get one person on this blog to agree with you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Henry,
I rarely comment on Leif’s remarks. But I frequently follow his links to verify his claims. I find little to disagree on with him once I’ve looked at his information in detail.
Henry@David
surely you must see that leif and steven always claim that the net effect of more CO2 is that of warming, rather than cooling – based on RADIATIVE PHYSICS – t€and hat EVERYONE must understand this, but when you ask for the proof i.e.the actual measurements from tests – you get no answers, other than:
You are rapidly moving into the ‘not worth to answer’ category.
You be the judge, David.
Dr Norman Page says:
February 21, 2013 at 9:55 am
I think it would be useful if participants in this discussion stopped using solar “activity” and instead referred separately to first the SSN (TSI) and then GCR , 10 Be or Ap data.
Since the solar magnetic field is what is responsible for variations in SSN, GCRs, 10Be, and Ap, these indices are not separate. They all move together.
The first measures what the sun is putting out while the latter measure the Iris effect of the clouds caused to a large extent by the changing solar magnetic field on incoming GCRs.
Since all solar indices are just manifestations of that same magnetic field your statement is clearly not correct. In particular cosmic rays and the magnetosphere do not know about clouds [there are none where the effects occur]. Hence no Iris effect.
To me there is little doubt that Shaviv is more or less right.
One cannot discuss science with people who has little doubt.
As mentioned in my post there is a good general 20th century match allowing for the lag time
No, look at cycle 19 and the cooling the following 10-20 years.
the variation in incoming GCRs which is why the latter is the controlling influence on climate at decadal,centennial and millenial time scales.
Again, one cannot meaningfully debate with people who believe in ‘incontrovertible’ [the science is settled] ‘evidence’. The cosmic ray data is very much in doubt [ http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4989 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2675 : “This is a particular problem for historical projections of solar activity based on ice core measurements which assume a 1:1 correspondence. We have made other tests of the correspondence between the 10Be predictions and the ice core measurements which lead to the same conclusion, namely that other influences on the ice core measurements, as large as or larger than the production changes themselves, are occurring. These influences could be climatic or instrumentally based” ] and is contaminated by climate itself [as even Berggren et al. note].
As you rightly point out the Ap number during the 23 /24 minimum in late 2009 was down to 1900 levels which is why I will make a testable prediction that by 2019 -20 NH temperatures could well be surprisingly cool perhaps even 0.8 below current levels – though that seems a shocking amount even to me.
What would you do if your prediction fails? Believe in CO2? ‘incontrovertible evidence’ is a tough vise to be in, with very little wiggle room.
Steve Mosher, you gave a clear answer above. I am skeptic who has complete believe in radiative physics. I consider you to be a climate maven and as such I would really appreciate you views on a couple of points you made.
“And what do we know. we know its not zero. If you increase watts, we get warmer. yes some ups and downs, yes it can cool if watts are stored for a period in the ocean, but in the end the energy has to balance out. And yes, it could be non linear.. all possible.” – Are you aware of credible evidence that these so-called missing watts are in fact stored in the deep ocean. I read what Trenberth said, but are you convinced?
This question is not in your post – do you believe [from] Vostok analysis and others that CO2 lags temperature by 100-800 years. If so, why not? If so, what do you attribute the most important negative forcing that is responsible for prevention of run away warming over the millennia?
Lastly, with regard to sensitivity, detection and attribution what is view on thoughts recently discussed by Annan?
http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/the-inevitable-failure-of-attribution.html
lsvalgaard says:
February 21, 2013 at 7:41 am
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 7:10 am
These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years
This [wrong] meme is still going around [probably will forever as long as it serves someone’s purpose]…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I said before take it up with the Physicist who is agreeing with the reconstructions. I have never see you over at Sciencebits.com going head to head with Dr. Niv Shaviv on the issue.
Shaviv however did counter your objections when other brought them to his attention. His rebuttal is Torquemada – the data torturer “Yes, I pulled finger nails until the data said “I give up, I give up!” o.k., now seriously….”
I suggest others follow the rest of the discussion about this issue in the comments over there. No one has cornered the market on ‘truth’ and that includes Dr. Svalgaard and Dr. Shaviv so we should look at ALL the data, hypotheses and arguments.
Re “climate science community simply designed their models to satisfy the political requirements of their funding agencies”
My sister-in-law worked in a UK university. As she put it: In order to get funding, Global Warming had to be in the project. eg “The Mating Habits of Red Squirrels and how they will be Affected by Global Warming.” without “Global Warming” in the research, funding was hard to come by
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 10:48 am
Shaviv however did counter your objections when other brought them to his attention.
Well, he deflected the objection pointing to another torturer [Holgate]. No serious counter there.
No one has cornered the market on ‘truth’ and that includes Dr. Svalgaard and Dr. Shaviv so we should look at ALL the data, hypotheses and arguments.
No one has cornered the market on ‘nonsense’ either and a large amount of what purports to be ‘arguments’ belong to that market.
Leif The NGRIP data referred to certainly does correlate withMaunder and Dalton minimums and later 18th century warmth as anyone who bothers to check can see for themselves , I suppose you can only mean that you don’t believe the data as presented. As to cycle 19 the highest peak in the Ap data is about 1958. Given a ten year delay NH temperatures were still high in1968. The Ap low in 1965 matches very well with the Temperature low in 1975 – I dont see any problem there.
I doubt that clouds and magnetosphere are concious at all but I assume that you think Svensmark
is completely wrong.
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 10:48 am
“This [wrong] meme is still going around [probably will forever as long as it serves someone’s purpose]…..” As I said before take it up with the Physicist who is agreeing with the reconstructions.
As I said before people will agree with the wrong data as long a they serve their purpose. Does that also apply to you?
Dr Norman Page says:
February 21, 2013 at 11:08 am
Leif The NGRIP data referred to certainly does correlate with Maunder and Dalton minimums and later 18th century warmth as anyone who bothers to check can see for themselves , I suppose you can only mean that you don’t believe the data as presented.
Nothing wrong with the data. I take it that you did not go to the trouble to read the references I provided you with. There is great doubt about what the ice core data shows. Climate, volcanic eruptions, instrumental difficulties all combine to muddy the waters. The fact that cosmic ray modulation during the Maunder Minimum was even more vigorous than today [Berggren, her Figure 2d] should give everybody pause.
As to cycle 19 the highest peak in the Ap data is about 1958. Given a ten year delay NH temperatures were still high in 1968. The Ap low in 1965 matches very well with the Temperature low in 1975 – I dont see any problem there.
Northern Hem Temps: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A3.gif
began their decline in the 1940s and continued down until about 1978. Cycles 18 and 19 [from 1945-1965] were some of the highest cycles on record, so I do see a problem. Yogi Berra’s immortal words: “If I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it” work in reverse too, and all too well..
I doubt that clouds and magnetosphere are conscious at all but I assume that you think Svensmark is completely wrong.
what nonsense remark is that? cosmic ray intensity and magnetospheric activity are determined by factors where clouds do not come into consideration as there are no clouds where those things take place. About Svensmark: he resurrected an earlier suggestion by Ney and initially had an interesting correlation [and mechanism]. Later data have however invalidated his theory [as so often happens in this field], but both he and his ardent followers still cling to it [go Figure – but this is a common human failing to refuse to give up a belief that gives them comfort].
@Theo Goodwin 12:09 pm
Bayes’ work can teach you about weaknesses in your betting behavior. It cannot teach you anything about the world that exists independently of you.
That is a most interesting perspective. I’m going to let that percolate a while.
Talbott, William, “Bayesian Epistemology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), .
Let’s agree from the start that Bayesian analysis can be done stupidly or improperly. The use of box-car uniform prior’s to update CO2 sensitivity estimates is without any merit, IMHO.
But it begs the question whether a Bayesian updating process CAN be used to improve the estimates of the mass of a proton, the mass of the Earth, or the gravitational constant. I don’t see why it cannot be used.
However, in the end estimates of physical properties and behaviors are basic inputs into engineering and financial decisions. At this point, people are involved and placing their bets. To place these bets without a proper Bayesian context seems to me to be foolhardy.
Thanks for the philosophical puzzle, Theo.
anthony says
REPLY: wrong Henry – its Leif, and he’s right – Anthony
henry@Anthony
Note that Leif quoted the last part of my post that I had addressed to Steven M.
and not to him Leif.
I had added this last sentence only because I never get any replies from StevenM
Nevermind that, if Leif had answered the questions I had posed to StevenM.
But instead he chose to imply with that selective quote to indicate that my post to StevenM contained nonsense.
Seeing now that you (Anthony) say that he (Leif) was right,
then can I ask you Anthony, instead of :Leif or StevenM, to answer me on my post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/20/its-the-sun-stupid-the-minor-significance-of-co2/#comment-1229527
seeiing as that they (StevenM and Leif) simply refuse to answer?
thanks!
Henryp;
You be the judge, David.
>>>>>>>>>>>
My judgment is that Mosher’s physics is weak, Leif’s is strong. They may draw the same conclusions, but for different reasons. It isn’t a simple subject matter. If you have been paying attention, I call Mosher on his weak physics, Leif I learn from.