Weekend Open Thread

open_thread

I’m taking the weekend off, as I need to do some climate unrelated work, which is physical, and always good for the soul, and I need to spend time with my family, who often get neglected due to the amount of time I put into this blog.

Guest posters are welcome to post stories.

Feel free to discuss topics within site policy.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Edohiguma

Heard today that Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to run for POTUS in 2016. He said he’s ready to start lobbying to change the Constitution and also preparing a lawsuit.
Clearly he’s not content with running Califailure into the ground.

I’ve added some Antarctic ice and sea data level analysis since I last posted in a weekend thread.
http://www.climatechangedebates.com
Still planning to add more kinds of analysis and eventually add wildfire, drought, hurricane data, as well as make it look prettier and eventually add graphs. Slow work in progress, feel free to critique.

DirkH

Edohiguma says:
October 19, 2013 at 12:05 pm
“Heard today that Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to run for POTUS in 2016.”
Dis shall be de moment ven se ocean stopped to rise and se planet began to heal. Kome viz me if you vont to live.

Jesus Green

Peer Review.
Not climate related but interesting. A biologist called Michael Eisen, at UC Berkeley and an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute says in his own words:
“In 2011, after having read several really bad papers in the journal Science, I decided to explore just how slipshod their peer-review process is. I knew that their business depends on publishing “sexy” papers. So I created a manuscript that claimed something extraordinary – that I’d discovered a species of bacteria that uses arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus. But I made the science so egregiously bad that no competent peer reviewer would accept it. The approach was deeply flawed – there were poor or absent controls in every figure. I used ludicrously elaborate experiments where simple ones would have done. And I failed to include a simple, obvious experiment that would have definitively shown that arsenic was really in the bacteria’s DNA. I then submitted the paper to Science, punching up the impact the work would have on our understanding of extraterrestrials and the origins of life on Earth in the cover letter. And what do you know? They accepted it! ”
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439

Luke Warmist

The Coming Unobtanium Crisis
 As retirement draws ever closer, I’ve arrived at a new means of supplementing my income, and hopefully avoid the job as a Walmart greeter.
 After examining all the data carefully, it appears the time is right for the newest global threat to life as we know it, and that is the release of Unobtanium into our atmosphere and water by our mere existence. I’ve chosen Unobtanium, since all the other good GHG’s and trace elements have already been by taken by other groups, and I didn’t want something that hasn’t worked out so well for them.
 The first order of business was to recruit my chief modeler, 11 year old Tommy B. from Grand Rapids. Tommy was first runner-up in the regional Lego competition, so he’s uniquely qualified for this position and brings keen insight to the task ahead. He will construct two models, one for runaway warming, and a second for runaway cooling. This is crucial, inasmuch as nobody knows at this point which direction it will eventually strongly trend. I’m shipping 2 flats of cherries to be used in these models, since they are essential to reinforcing which ever postulate we wish to advance. When the models are completed, they will be  cryogenically stored in the vessel next to the one that contains Ted Williams’ head.
 Next, I’ve brought in an onionchronologist, who will reconstruct climate data by onion ring proxy. Now I know what you’re thinking, that an onion can only give you about 6 weeks worth of data at most, but not to worry, Tommy’s models will faithfully hind-cast thousands of years in the past, and forecast hundreds of years into the future.
 As part of the public relations angle, I’ve been watching “B-movie babes who were hot 30 years ago”, and making up my short list of candidates to handcuff themselves to the White House fence, along with yours truly.
 The simple logistics of the matter dictated that I purchase several cases of talking points, and I got the best available. Micro-honed and ready to imbed themselves into those lacking intellectual curiosity, they activate whenever the wearer is speaking. Glassy eyes and a little drooling are the only side effects which will go largely unnoticed in today’s political climate.
 Concurrent with that I also set out to procure some coal mine canaries for press releases. I had no idea they would be so difficult to find. Apparently the unemployment rate for these little guys is less than half a percent, and demand is going up, what with the UN group doubling down on their warming meme.
 On my way to the community center to write this, an ash blew off my expensive imported cigar and set my straw man alight in the front seat of my Prius. I was forced to pull over and leave him smoldering against a fire plug, muttering his last words “denying women their reproductive rights”…. I had little worry of pollution, since straw men are constructed of mostly hot air and lofty platitudes. When I replace him, I’m getting the new X-10 model, the same one the administration uses, because it’s completely invulnerable to media scrutiny.
 I realize this is not going to be an easy task to move to the front of the line with a new catastrophic narrative.  I shall have to battle acidic oceans, methane balls exploding, and heat mysteriously disappearing into the depths, but I still think I’m on fairly safe ground since Unobtanium, like dark matter and phantom heat, cannot be observed.
 As much as I’d like to stay and chat, I have an Esperanto class at the community center shortly.
Yours in his new career,
Luke Warmist

pochas

Edohiguma says:
October 19, 2013 at 12:05 pm
“Heard today that Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to run for POTUS in 2016. He said he’s ready to start lobbying to change the Constitution”
GLORIOSKY!! Then we can elect idiots from the whole world!

Jesus Green

Peer Review.
Not climate related but interesting. A biologist called Michael Eisen, at UC Berkeley and an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute says in his own words:
“In 2011, after having read several really bad papers in the journal Science, I decided to explore just how slipshod their peer-review process is. I knew that their business depends on publishing “sexy” papers. So I created a manuscript that claimed something extraordinary – that I’d discovered a species of bacteria that uses arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus. But I made the science so egregiously bad that no competent peer reviewer would accept it. The approach was deeply flawed – there were poor or absent controls in every figure. I used ludicrously elaborate experiments where simple ones would have done. And I failed to include a simple, obvious experiment that would have definitively shown that arsenic was really in the bacteria’s DNA. I then submitted the paper to Science, punching up the impact the work would have on our understanding of extraterrestrials and the origins of life on Earth in the cover letter. And what do you know? They accepted it! ”
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439

pochas says:
October 19, 2013 at 12:51 pm
You’ve already elected the World’s Most Famous Kenyan, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

geran

Wow, I was going to try to be funny, but there is no way I can compete today!
I will have to try some sciency stuff–
If you have an “ideal” absorber the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, you can use Stefan-Boltzmann directly, with no “adjustments” other than albedo.
For example: S = (sigma)T^4
Use S = 1365 W/m^2, and albedo of 0.3 (“New” S now = 955.5 W/m^2)
Then T = 360K (87ºC, 188ºF)
Wait, maybe that is kinda funny….

Jon

Use Google translator on this? It’s UNFCCC not conform and will be shortly be removed?
http://www.svalbardmuseum.no/nyindex.php?id=15&kategori=3

Jon

Norwegian to english

Jesus Green

BTW.
The wheels have definitely come off the CAGW band wagon. Dr. Mann has a picture of him with all four plus the spare at: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/index.php

Reviving the most robust and helpful philosophy of science, and related ideas in politics and economics. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=rafe+champion

DougS

Good for you Anthony. It is a beautiful day down here in the SF Bay area. Wonderful Indian summer were having. Gonna fire up the old backhoe and do some work on the farm, best to you and your family.
Doug

Jon says:
October 19, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Use Google translator on this? It’s UNFCCC not conform and will be shortly be removed?
No problem, after some 10+ trips to Scandinavia, mainly Norway, decided to learn Norwegian…
But interesting story anyway. Not only in Svalbard some plant debris from 1100 years ago – the warm Medieval Period – comes out from under the ice, but also from Svartisen (Norway mainland) and from under glaciers in Austria human artefacts are found that are 3000-6000 years old, proving that the glaciers were much shorter in these periods…
Mange hilsener fra Flandern/Belgia

CRS, DrPH

I offer a thoroughly enjoyable article from the Chicago Tribune! The opening graphic is a hoot!
This article concludes:

Finally, it’s way past time to come to terms with a true climate crisis, one where political agenda-driven liars, statistical manipulators and demagogues are permitted to misrepresent facts without vociferous challenges from the science community they purport to represent. That’s a terribly costly man-made disaster that has absolutely no excuse.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-nsc-the-true-global-warming-crisis-is-the-fibs-20131015,0,791749.story?page=1

There was a very interesting comment made on one of Bob Tisdale’s threads a few days ago, by Hunter (don’t know who you are, sorry):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/will-their-failure-to-properly-simulate-multidecadal-variations-in-surface-temperatures-be-the-downfall-of-the-ipcc/#comment-1447452
The point made is that, just as early Christianity had to adapt away from an expectation of the imminent Second Coming of Jesus, so the Alarmists will surely adapt in order to survive. Perhaps this will prolong the agony of their influence beyond what many people, myself included, currently think.This lead to a sudden realisation of the importance of falsifiability in any belief structure. I have written more on this on my own blog:
http://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/true-believers/

David L.

Have fun spending all that Koch funding this weekend! /bigsarc!

Jesus Green, that’s an excellent article on peer review. I’ve bookmarked it for future reference. Thanks.

Mark

Changing tracks here just a little, I’ve asked this before but never had a convincing reply: What exactly is the human contribution to increased atmospheric CO2?
I’ve anywhere from 100% (unlikely) to as little as between 6% and 12%. Is there a supportable data based number?
Mark

Duke C.

Tim Osborn has posted an engaging comment regarding CO2 forcing at Climate Audit. It’s surprising to see a charter member of the Hockey Team venture in to enemy territory. 🙂
http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/#comment-443928

DC Cowboy

Anthony, you should spend more time with your family, not less. As they say, “Nobody sits up on their death bed and says, “I wish I had spent more time at work.”

page488

Luke Warmist – one of the best satires I’ve read in a long time. I loved it. Thanks!

Mark says:
October 19, 2013 at 2:11 pm
What exactly is the human contribution to increased atmospheric CO2?
A few generations of skeptics have discussed that for several years up to today…
I have written a few contributions to the answer, which are here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/why-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-1/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/20/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-2/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/16/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-3/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/24/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-4/
In my opinion some 95% is caused by humans, 5% by the temperature increase since about 1850.
But that was and is heavily contested by a lot of skeptics on this site, but supported by a lot of others and for once, by most in the scientific community, including Fred Singer, Lindzen and other skeptical scientists…

Luke Warmist

Mark says:
October 19, 2013 at 2:11 pm
: “What exactly is the human contribution to increased atmospheric CO2?
I’ve anywhere from 100% (unlikely) to as little as between 6% and 12%. Is there a supportable data based number?”
The number I see quoted most often is in the 2-4 percent range, but sadly I can’t cite anybody/anything. This makes my observation anecdotal which is always highly suspect.
(……now I’m wondering what the real number is.)

Zaphod

Can anyone help?
I’m an engineer, not a scientist. For 30 years I’ve relied on New Scientist to keep me in touch.
I am seriously disappointed with NS in recent years. They are totally sold on the CAGW religion, plus they’ve gone all arty, and Social Sciencey. NS has sold its body. They are just courting passing trade in the newsagent’s shop with misleading covers and headlines. I just don’t trust the editor any more, and I don’t want to give them my money.
I’d cancel the subscription, but I don’t want to be completely out of the loop.
There must be something on the internet that’s equivalent, a one-stop shop with general science for the intelligent layman.
Suggestions?
ps Anthony, I love WUWT! I owe you a lot.
[Here is another science site: http://www.world-science.net Not a recommendation, I only just found it myself. — mod.]

Mark Bofill

Anybody bored and want to educate me on the paleo argument for high climate sensitivity? My understanding of the argument is that it goes like this: look at the paleo record. CO2 was high and temperature was high, so there. Is there more substance to the argument than that?
Actually, I get that there’s a little more than that. The argument goes that something minor perturbed temps upward, CO2 increased, and therefore temps increased. Does anyone know of a walk through that shows the math in a reasonably understandable way?
BTW – I’m not looking for an argument, I’m looking to understand an argument. Please don’t open fire on whoever answers, assuming anyone answers.
Thanks in advance.

Nial

“Heard today that Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to run for POTUS in 2016.”
I thought you had to be born in America or of American parents to be the President?

cynical_scientist

With regard to Schwarzenager lobbying for a change to the constitution to enable him to be POTUS, surely there are more urgent priorities for reform.
How about fixing the broken senate filibuster rules which essentially completely break democracy. How about a line item veto to cut back on the extent of back room dealing and pork clauses riding through in omnibus legislation. How about looking at instituting proportional voting for one of the houses. How about a single transferrable vote system in the presidential primaries. Why is it possible to get the constitution amended to deal with Schjawrzanagers trivial petty and self-serving desire to stand for president whereas it is not possible to address serious structural issues. The US system of government is currently dysfunctional. Does anyone honestly think that a foreigner being unable to stand for president is the biggest problem?

Ferdinand, how many languages do you speak? Also, while you make a good case for anthro CO2, that is not the final part of the debate. The last step is answering the question: does CO2 matter?
CO2 is a minor trace gas. We know it is beneficial, because life could not exist without it. If it dropped below 200 ppm we would have big problems. But the entire debate over “carbon” is predicated on the belief that CO2 will cause runaway global warming. If its only effect is a degree or so warming per doubling, then the alarmist crowd loses the debate. It is not worth arguing over something like that, because there aren’t enough fossil fuels to double CO2.
So the central question remains: does CO2 matter?
Based on empirical evidence, the answer is clearly: “No.”
Whether you agree or disagree, I would like to read about it.

milodonharlani

Mark Bofill says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:33 pm
There is no paleoclimatological argument for high CO2 temperature sensitivity in any time frame. Sometimes higher T happens to correspond accidentally with intervals of elevated CO2, but more often not. CO2 follows temperature, although it might have a slight positive feedback effect.
From c. 1977 to 1996, rising CO2 coincided with rising mean global temperature, if heavily “adjusted” data sets are to be credited & if Earth’s T can indeed be taken to precisions of fractions of a degree C. But from c. 1944 to 1976, falling T coincided with rising CO2. From c. 1910 to 1943, flat, falling to ever so slightly rising CO2 coincided with rising T.
Farther back in our current interglacial, there was not much more CO2 during the Medieval, Roman, Minoan & Holocene Optimum Warm Periods than during the intervening Little Ice Age, Dark Ages & other Cold Periods. During the preceding glaciation, CO2 was perhaps 100 ppm lower than during the Holocene, because colder oceans hold more of the gas.
In the prior interglacial, which was a lot warmer than the Holocene, CO2 got up to perhaps 330 ppm, if ice core data are to be believed.
Going way back millions, tens of millions & hundreds of millions of years, CO2 concentrations of thousands of parts per million were associated with T both warmer & colder than now.
There’s no significant long-term correlation, although warmer climate will eventually lead to a little more CO2 in the air & colder to less at equilibrium, if that’s ever achieved. But CO2 levels higher than tens of parts per million have negligible effect on temperature, since the so-called greenhouse effect is logarithmic.

Amatør1

Jon says:
October 19, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Use Google translator on this? It’s UNFCCC not conform and will be shortly be removed?
http://www.svalbardmuseum.no/nyindex.php?id=15&kategori=3

No, it is about different kinds of glaciers at Svalbard, of which 60% is covered in ice.

milodonharlani

dbstealey says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:49 pm
Whether the human contribution to the present beneficial level of CO2 in dry air be 16 ppm or 100 ppm doesn’t matter to global mean T. CO2 contributes insignificantly to raising T above concentrations much lower than 280, 380, 480 or 580. It does have an important effect at levels under 100 ppm. Above that, it’s just more plant food. When it reaches tens of thousands of ppm, at it might start impacting how the planet now works by meaningfully lowering the relative abundance of oxygen. Some humans can begin feeling minor effects (like headaches) of CO2 around 1000 ppm (as in real greenhouses) & suffocate before 50,000 ppm.

Fred

Rumour has it the ObamaCare website disaster was caused by a Team of U Penn climate scientists moonlighting as web developers.
Makes sense. If you could screw up the climate models so badly, if you could invent the Infamous hockey stick and pass it off as science, then you could be the fools that so screwed the pooch on ObamaCare.

Mark Bofill

milodonharlani says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:57 pm
——————
Thanks, although that’s not really what I was after. Let me phrase my question another way. I can go to SkS and look up the apologetic. I find a reference to Shakun et al 2012, which apparently relied on models. Ok, this isn’t what I was looking for. I was hoping somebody could point me towards a warmist study or argument with math that can be followed by humans that purports to validate the argument that the paleo record shows high sensitivity.
Basically, the reason I care is this. I’ve never heard a paleo argument that didn’t amount to handwaving. If there is some other substance behind this argument (other than GCM’s, which I don’t consider substance anyway) even if it’s not correct I’d like to understand what it is. This is what I’m really getting at.

Rud Istvan

Mark Bofill, I studied a number of those papers including the flawed Knutii review from if I recall correctly 2009. All cited in the climate chapter of my book. Following a thumbnail sketch.
ECS includes long term feedbacks like change in land albedo from change in vegetation that might take a century to fully respond. There is no definition of the open period. A hundred years? A thousand? Several energy balance and observed heat/temp studies (not paleo) say most feedbacks take place ‘quickly’ (less than 15 years or so) and all those are pretty much captured in TRS. (Dr. Curry and I had a three month tussle on this before she posted my comments on ECS on her blog last year.) So use your imagination on what the long lag feedback remainder might be, and how significant.
What the paleo studies do is take two well separated time points or periods (centuries to millennia) with causative variable and dependent variable start and end. Causative is of course CO2. Dependent is some paleoproxy or proxies for temp. They look at the change over the interval, ignore transient fluctuations, and calculate ECS from delta T/ delta CO2.
In addition to the obvious uncertainties in measurement, there are wonderful cherry picking possibilities in choice of start and end times and in proxies for T.
While I am only qualified to judge as a critical thinker, the best of these studies (no obvious start stop or cherry pick problems) always seem to come out plus minus an ECS of 2. The worst ( obvious issues when the papers are read carefully) always seem to come out about 3 or a little higher. Read the Knutti survey review on ECS and you will be able to see all of this at work in practice to justify 3′ when the real answer seems to be between 1.5 and 2. My bock gave 1.9 as my then best guess. Several studies this past year lead me to revise that down toward 1.7 if I were to rewrite it now.
Regards

George Steiner

Mr. Mark are you sure that is what you want to know. The increase can be 100 human contribution, but the proportion of the total CO2 that is the human contribution is very small.

Mark Bofill

Rud,
Thanks, this is what I was looking for.
Much obliged. 🙂

Jimbo

Since this is an open thread I have to warn folks about the Australian fire being blamed on global warming or climate change. Now I hear that police are investigating military activity being a possible cause, as well as two girls seen trying to light a camp fire. This makes me recall the green who set of one of the worst fires in Israeli history because she was told that burning toilet paper was more eco-friendly. This fire was also blamed on global warming. You can’t make this up my friends.
SHOOT FIRST, ASK QUESTIONS LATER. This is the new motto for journalists.

Christian Science Monitor
“Raging Australian wildfires raise questions about climate change, emergency preparedness”
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/1018/Raging-Australian-wildfires-raise-questions-about-climate-change-emergency-preparedness
————————————-
BBC
“Australian bush fires: Military probes link to Lithgow blaze”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24592450

Janice Moore

Dear Mark (@ 2:11pm today),
Note: Ferdinand Englebeen does not represent the views of most of the skeptic scientists who post on WUWT.
Moreover, he is resoundingly refuted by Dr. Murry Salby in the video below.
Dr. Murry Salby, Hamburg, Germany, April 18, 2013

In the above video, I think you will find the answer to your question at:
[36:34] Native Source of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr
[37:01] Native Sinks Approximately* Balance Native Sources – net CO2
*Approximately = even a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2
Hoping that was helpful,
Janice

davideisenstadt

Fred says:
October 19, 2013 at 4:09 pm
umm fred…that would be penn state, not u of penn.
u of penn is too busy with their hospitals HUP, and CHOP, and the wharton school to go grant grubbing on the retail level that penn state does. sorry.

Jimbo

Jesus Green says:
October 19, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Peer Review.
Not climate related but interesting. A biologist called Michael Eisen, at UC Berkeley and an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute says in his own words:
“In 2011, after having read several really bad papers in the journal Science,….

Here is what you left out.

OK – this isn’t exactly what happened. I didn’t actually write the paper. Far more frighteningly, it was a real paper that contained all of the flaws described above that was actually accepted, and ultimately published, by Science…..

I don’t know or care who is right, but the way you present it is not very clear.

Nature
‘Arsenic-life’ bacterium prefers phosphorus after all
Transport proteins show 4,000-fold preference for phosphate over arsenate.
http://www.nature.com/news/arsenic-life-bacterium-prefers-phosphorus-after-all-1.11520

Del Cowsill

Well, it looks like the NSIDC is up and running again and the Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is starting to get humorously/freakishly above average in my opinion…http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

Luke Warmist

Janice Moore says:
October 19, 2013 at 4:25 pm
“Dear Mark (@ 2:11pm today)…..”
Thanks from me as well.

milodonharlani

Rud Istvan says:
October 19, 2013 at 4:13 pm
IMO, ECS isn’t that high now, but in any case, there can be no single number, even for the specific doubling from ~280 to 560. When CO2 went through those levels in the Paleozoic or Mesozoic, the effect wasn’t the same. The Cretaceous is a big problem for CACA, since its apparent warmth would require an ECS of 6.0, 7.0 or more at much higher concentrations than now, the effect of which would have to be less, due to the logarithmic nature of CO2 warming (most of which occurs at low concentrations).

jorgekafkazar

Fred says: “Rumour has it the ObamaCare website disaster was caused by a Team of U Penn climate scientists moonlighting as web developers.”
U. Penn.? or Penn. State? Surely you have a link, Fred. Or were you just trying to be funny?

el gordo
DR

Recall POTUS said raising the debt ceiling doesn’t increase the debt. The Treasury Dept was simply using accounting tricks until an agreement was reached to eliminate the debt ceiling for ~90 days so the process can repeat, Obama will demand unconditional surrender, the media will place 100% of the blame on the Republicans (not that they aren’t culpable for spending); wash, rinse repeat. This was all planned out long ago.
This is the first president in my lifetime that up front said he (and Harry Reid) would not negotiate for anything, only unconditional surrender. In fact, he once said the opposition would have to ride in the back.
U.S. debt jumps a record $328 billion — tops $17 trillion for first time
The next 12 months will not be good news for the U.S. QE2Infinity will of course continue inflating assets (stocks) and create a new housing bubble, but the dollar is headed toward irrelevancy as China buys up the gold and waits for the right time to dump U.S. bonds thereby quickening the death of the dollar. Already the reserve status of the dollar is showing signs of deterioration as more and more countries are bypassing the dollar to trade direct currencies. It’s only a matter of time.
If Obama had a city, it would look like Detroit.
On Obamacare, from a software engineer’s POV
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/20064

Alan Robertson

david eisenstadt says:
October 19, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Fred says:
October 19, 2013 at 4:09 pm
umm fred…that would be penn state, not u of penn.
u of penn is too busy with their hospitals HUP, and CHOP, and the wharton school to go grant grubbing on the retail level that penn state does. sorry.
________________________
Best way to tell them apart? Just remember- State Pen, not Penn State

Janice Moore

Dear Luke Warmist — you are so very welcome. (btw, Mark never responded to me. Sigh. — that made your acknowledgement doubly gratifying — THANK YOU)