By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
I have just had the honor of listening to Professor Murry Salby giving a lecture on climate. He had addressed the Numptorium in Holyrood earlier in the day, to the bafflement of the fourteenth-raters who populate Edinburgh’s daft wee parliament. In the evening, among friends, he gave one of the most outstanding talks I have heard.
Professor Salby has also addressed the Parliament of Eunuchs in Westminster. Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to talk to our real masters, the unelected Kommissars of the European tyranny-by-clerk.
The Faceless Ones whose trembling, liver-spotted hands guide the European hulk of state unerringly towards the bottom were among the first and most naively enthusiastic true-believers in the New Superstition that is global warming. They could have benefited from a scientific education from the Professor.
His lecture, a simplified version of his earlier talk in Hamburg that was the real reason why spiteful profiteers of doom at Macquarie “University” maliciously canceled his non-refundable ticket home so that he could not attend the kangaroo court that dismissed him, was a first-class exercise in logical deduction.
He had written every word of it, elegantly. He delivered it at a measured pace so that everyone could follow. He unfolded his central case step by step, verifying each step by showing how his theoretical conclusions matched the real-world evidence.
In a normal world with mainstream news media devoted to looking at all subjects from every direction (as Confucius used to put it), Murry Salby’s explosive conclusion that temperature change drives CO2 concentration change and not the other way about would have made headlines. As it is, scarce a word has been published anywhere.
You may well ask what I might have asked: given that the RSS satellite data now show a zero global warming trend for 17 full years, and yet CO2 concentration has been rising almost in a straight line throughout, is it any more justifiable to say that temperature change causes CO2 change than it is to say that CO2 change causes temperature change?
The Professor headed that one off at the pass. During his talk he said it was not global temperature simpliciter but the time-integral of global temperature that determined CO2 concentration change, and did so to a correlation coefficient of around 0.9.
I had first heard of Murry Salby’s work from Dick Lindzen over a drink at a regional government conference we were addressing in Colombia three years ago. I readily agreed with Dick’s conclusion that if we were causing neither temperature change nor even CO2 concentration change the global warming scare was finished.
I began then to wonder whether the world could now throw off the absurdities of climate extremism and develop a sensible theory of climate.
In pursuit of this possibility, I told Professor Salby I was going to ask two questions. He said I could ask just one. So I asked one question in two parts.
First, I asked whether the rapid, exponential decay in carbon-14 over the six decades following the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests had any bearing on his research. He said that the decay curve for carbon-14 indicated a mean CO2 atmospheric residence time far below the several hundred years assumed in certain quarters. It supports Dick Lindzen’s estimate of a 40-year residence time, not the IPCC’s imagined 50-200 years.
Secondly, I asked whether Professor Salby had studied what drove global temperature change. He said he had not gotten to that part of the story yet.
In the past year, I said, four separate groups haf contacted me to say they were able to reproduce global temperature change to a high correlation coefficient by considering it as a function of – and, accordingly, dependent upon – the time-integral of total solar irradiance.
If these four groups are correct, and if Professor Salby is also correct, one can begin to sketch out a respectable theory of climate.
The time-integral of total solar irradiance determines changes in global mean surface temperature. Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic-ray amplification, which now has considerable support in the literature, may help to explain the mechanism.
In turn, the time integral of absolute global mean temperature determines the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here, the mechanism will owe much to Henry’s Law, which mandates that a warmer ocean can carry less CO2 than a colder ocean. I have never seen an attempt at a quantitative analysis of that relationship in this debate, and should be grateful if any of Anthony’s readers can point me to one.
The increased CO2 concentration as the world warms may well act as a feedback amplifying the warming, and perhaps our own CO2 emissions make a small contribution. But we are not the main cause of warmer weather, and certainly not the sole cause.
For the climate, all the world’s a stage. But, if the theory of climate that is emerging in samizdat lectures such as that of Professor Salby is correct, we are mere bit-part players, who strut and fret our hour upon the stage and then are heard no more.
The shrieking hype with which the mainstream news media bigged up Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda, ruthlessly exploiting lost lives in their increasingly desperate search for evidence – any evidence – as ex-post-facto justification for their decades of fawning, head-banging acquiescence in the greatest fraud in history shows that they have begun to realize that their attempt at politicizing science itself is failing.
Whether they like it or not, typhoons are acts of God, not of Man.
I asked Professor Salby whether there was enough information in the temperature record to allow him to predict the future evolution of atmospheric CO2 concentration. He said he could not do that.
However, one of the groups working on the dependence of global temperature change on the time-integral of total solar irradiance makes a startling prediction: that we are in for a drop of half a Celsius degree in the next five years.
When I made a glancing reference to that research in an earlier posting, the propagandist John Abraham sneeringly offered me a $1000 bet that the fall in global temperature would not happen.
I did not respond to this characteristically jejune offer. A theory of climate is a hypothesis yet to be verified by observation, experiment and measurement. It is not yet a theorem definitively demonstrated. Explaining the difference to climate communists is likely to prove impossible. To them the Party Line, whatever it is, must be right even if it be wrong.
The group that dares to say it expects an imminent fall in global mean surface temperature does so with great courage, and in the Einsteinian spirit of describing at the outset a test by which its hypothesis may be verified.
Whether that group proves right or wrong, its approach is as consistent with the scientific method as the offering of childish bets is inconsistent with it. In science, all bets are off. As al-Haytham used to say, check and check and check again. He was not talking about checks in settlement of silly wagers.
In due course Professor Salby will publish in the reviewed literature his research on the time-integral of temperature as the driver of CO2 concentration change. So, too, I hope, will the groups working on the time-integral of total solar irradiance as the driver of temperature change.
In the meantime, I hope that those who predict a sharp, near-term fall in global temperature are wrong. Cold is a far bigger killer than warmth. Not that the climate communists of the mainstream media will ever tell you that.
“Every year for since the start of the Mauna Loa record, C’ – Ea has been negative (i.e. the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 has been less than anthropogenic emissions) in which case En – Un must also be negative,”
Does that follow ?
Suppose that all or nearly all human emissions are being absorbed by the energising of the local or regional biosphere AND that due to solar induced warming of oceans and warming of soil on land or CO2 rich water returning from the thermohaline circulation the natural environment is currently a net source.
We see no sign of ‘excess’ CO2 downwind of human sources but lots downwind of sun warmed ocean surfaces in the subtropics.
rogerknights says:
November 10, 2013 at 2:44 pm
And who’s “Higher Authority” was “Monckton of Brenchley” elected by?
The monarch (to his ancestor).”
The monarch has no power (In reality). If that were true what you are suggesting is some sort of royalist dictatorship. We have moved on from those times.
“John Whitman says:
November 10, 2013 at 11:30 am”
Totally agree!
@edim, so you are arguing that the natural environment is causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 whilst taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere each year than it puts in?
@Stephen Fisher wilde writes “does that follow”, yes it is a direct consequence of algebra, if C’ – Ea = En – Un, then if Ea > C’ then En > Un. If you accept the equation, and the laws of algebra, then you need to accept the logical consequence. The equation is merely a restatement of the principle of conservation of mass, which seems a pretty reasonable assumption to me.
If the natural environment were a net source (emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere than it take up each year) the atmospheric CO2 levels would be rising faster than anthropogenic emissions because both mankind and the natural environment would be net sources. The observations tell us that this is not the case.
“Brandon Shollenberger says:
November 10, 2013 at 9:45 am”
Well said that man!
son of mulder:
Your post at November 10, 2013 at 3:31 am says in total
And at November 10, 2013 at 4:18 am Cheshirered explains why there is an apparent dichotomy between warming ocean and decrease in alkalinity. This link jumps to his/her post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1470938
I write to explain “how Henry’s law, a warming ocean and the decrease in alkalinity of seawater fit together”.
Salby’s views of the carbon cycle reprise views published in one of our2005 papers
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
However, as many know, Ferdinand Engelbeen and I strongly disagree about our interpretations of the carbon cycle. He provides his opinion in his post at November 10, 2013 at 7:52 am, and this link jumps to his explanation
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1471078
I also disagree with Bart. Ferdinand asserts that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, Bart asserts it is natural, and I don’t know if it is anthropogenic or natural in part or in whole but I want to know.
At November 10, 2013 at 4:24 am Patrick says:
That depends on what one means by “bogus”.
The reason for the asserted pH change is that there is equilibrium between the CO2 in the air and in the ocean surface layer. If the chemistry of the ocean surface layer were constant then Henry’s Law decrees that a rise in temperature would alter this equilibrium to increase the CO2 in the air. And the temperature has been rising (intermittently) for centuries as the Earth warms from the Little Ice Age. Almost all the CO2 is in deep ocean so any reduction to CO2 in the surface layer could be replaced by CO2 exchanges between (a) air and ocean surface layer and (b) ocean surface layer and deep ocean.
However, the chemistry of the ocean surface layer changes. As the CO2 in the air increases then the result is more CO2 in the ocean surface layer and this reduces the pH of the ocean surface layer. This effect is mitigated by the carbonate buffer.) Hence, NASA calculates the very small change of ocean surface layer pH of ~0.1 in response to the increase of CO2 in the air, and assumes the additional CO2 is the anthropogenic emission.
But the calculated pH change is an equilibrium effect. Almost all the CO2 is in the deep ocean. If the CO2 upwelling from deep ocean reduces surface layer pH (e.g. because it contains sulphur or nutrients from undersea volcanism) then that would alter the equilibrium to CAUSE the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. And this pH change would not be mitigated by the carbonate buffer. It is important to note that the anthropogenic CO2 is trivial when compared to the CO2 in the deep ocean so, if the atmospheric rise is caused by surface layer pH change, then the anthropogenic emission is too small for it to have a significant effect.
Please note that this possibility alone refutes the silly mass balance argument.
Furthermore, the equilibrium change as the CAUSE of the rise is atmospheric CO2 concentration fits available evidence much better than any other explanation.
Firstly, it provides an explanation of why the ice cores show atmospheric CO2 concentration following temperature by ~800 years. The CO2 which enters deep ocean at times of higher temperatures takes ~800 years to be transported by the thermohaline circulation prior to returning to the ocean surface layer.
Secondly, it matches the form of the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
As can be seen in the link, in each typical year the atmospheric CO2 rises then falls in a saw-tooth form. This is not consistent with the sinks saturating: there is negligible reduction to the sequestration rate as the sinks approach saturation prior to net sequestration reversing to become net emission. And the rate of net sequestration is so large (more than 100 times the annual increase to anthropogenic emission) that it is clear the sinks could sequester ALL the total CO2 emission (both natural and anthropogenic), but they don’t. If the sequestration equalled the total emission of each year then there would be no rise of atmospheric CO2 emission over each year.
This saw-tooth oscillation and annual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is consistent with a change to equilibrium between the air and ocean surface layer. The seasonal oscillation is consistent with temperature variation altering the equilibrium in accordance with Henry’s Law. And the annual rise is consistent with the annual rise being a slowly changing equilibrium induced by altered ocean surface layer pH possibly as a result of volcanism altering nutrients (so biological activity) and sulpur in the ocean surface layer.
Also, the possibility of rapid pH changes in the ocean surface layer as a result of pulses of sulphur and/or nutrients entering the ocean surface layer is a possible explanation for the peak in atmospheric CO2 concentration reported in the data collated by Beck.
Richard
“If the natural environment were a net source (emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere than it take up each year) the atmospheric CO2 levels would be rising faster than anthropogenic emissions because both mankind and the natural environment would be net sources”
Not if there is an energised local or regional biosphere sink dealing with our emissions concurrently with a global solar induced increased oceanic source.
The mass balance proposal doesn’t take into account that separate parts of the natural sinks and sources can be of opposite sign to one another.
That is why some went on to use the isotope ratio as an alternative approach but that has flaws as well especially since the precise global balance of different isotopes from different biological and geological sources has not been fully described.
@Stephen Fisher wilde O.K., so do you disagree with the equation C’ = Ea + En – Un. Are you saying that the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is not given by the difference between total annual emission from all sources (whatever they may be) and total annual uptake by all sources (whatever they may be)?
With the Henry’s law, and outgassing, and temperature dependance, and tropical oceans, and seething active volcanoes, Hawaii is about the last place on Earth that an honest broker would place a co2 monitor.
Unless you have an agenda, and aren’t really looking for answers.
Makes me wish climatologists would go back to snatching retirement checks from pensioners.
Ooops! This is a correction.
I wrote
But the calculated pH change is an equilibrium effect. Almost all the CO2 is in the deep ocean. If the CO2 upwelling from deep ocean reduces surface layer pH (e.g. because it contains sulphur or nutrients from undersea volcanism) …
But I intended to write
But the calculated pH change is an equilibrium effect. Almost all the CO2 is in the deep ocean. If the water upwelling from deep ocean reduces surface layer pH (e.g. because it contains sulphur or nutrients from undersea volcanism) …
Sorry.
dikranmarsupial:
re your post at November 11, 2013 at 5:58 am.
Nobody is disputing your equation: viz.
C’ = Ea + En – Un
But people who think about it know it is meaningless because “total annual emission from all sources (whatever they may be) and total annual uptake by all sources (whatever they may be)” cannot be quantified and they are not constant from year to year.
The ‘mass balance argument’ assumes they don’t vary in unknown ways, but they do vary in unknown ways.
Richard
dikranmarsupial says:
November 11, 2013 at 5:58 am
I’m simply pointing out a scenario whereby En-Un need not currently be negative.
Going back to the evidence that Ice Core samples present in terms of the Co2 lag against temperature rise there can be no correlation with recent times when Man has emitted huge amounts of it with less than convincing short term consequential temperature rise and Fred Singer even must be wrong in proposing that Co2 in itself can drive Global Temperatures in an upward direction.
What could ever overcome the eventual temperature rise following de-glaciation if the Co2 .it caused to be released was a driver in itself.
It could even be of the very opposite nature given time.
Chris Wright
As you will know instrumental CET goes back to 1659. I have subsequently reconstructed it to 1538.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
The anomaly is now around 0.3C . This a quite extraordinary drop-although it comes from a high level. If you listen to the BBC you may hear ‘Farmers today’, whereby a decade ago Farmers were planting all sorts of exotic fruits, they now seem to be digging them up.
CET has a small allowance for UHI. I suspect that it should be larger and the notable hump is exaggerated somewhat, but there has still been a significant decline that other data sets will possibly follow.
In the meantime you might like to send your MP my little graphic-which others at WUWT have utilised
http://climatereason.com/Graphs/Graph11.png
It takes quite a genius to deliberately jack up prices just as temperatures start plummeting. Add in uncertainty of supply and you have a potent combination of problems that the UK govt needs to address.
tonyb
Richard S Courtney The mass balance analysis does not assume that the sources and sinks are constant from year to year. Indeed if you follow the link to the figure I gave in my post, you will find that the mass balance analysis shows that there is considerable variability in En – Un from year to year and that En – Un is also steadily growing more negative. This would be rather difficult to explain if En and Un were constant (note I did point this out at the end of my post, but assumed it would be Bart that would make this objection).
Similarly the mass balance analysis does not try and quantify En or Un, but it does provide a constraint on the difference between En and Un. If you accept the equation and the laws of algebra, you must logically accept that if C’ < Ea then En < Un.
If it makes it easier, express the equation as
C'(i) = Ea(i) + En(i) – Un(i)
where C'(i) is the change in atmospheric CO2 in year i; Ea(i) is total anthropogenic emissions during year i; En is total emissions from all natural sources during year i and Un(i) is total uptake by all natural sources during year i; The algebra and the conclusions are unchanged.
@Stephen Fisher wilde, It would help if you would give a direct answer to the question in order for me to understand your point of view. Do you accept the equation or not?
david:
In your post at November 11, 2013 at 6:19 am you assert
Please define what you mean by “huge”.
Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 to the air for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activity.
Richard
“@edim, so you are arguing that the natural environment is causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 whilst taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere each year than it puts in? ”
Yes.
dikranmarsupial:
It would be helpful to discussion if you did not put words in my mouth and refute ‘red herrings’ of your own imagining.
At November 11, 2013 at 6:24 am you write
I did NOT say that!
At November 11, 2013 at 6:09 am I wrote
My statement that
“The ‘mass balance argument’ assumes they don’t vary in unknown ways, but they do vary in unknown ways.”
is NOT the same as
“The mass balance analysis does not assume that the sources and sinks are constant from year to year”.
Richard
dikranmarsupial says:
November 11, 2013 at 6:24 am
Work it out for yourself dk.
What happens to your equation if local and regional sinks energise to remove our emissions whilst at the same time sun warmed oceans increase release of CO2 to the air and the latter is greater than the former ?
“Whether they like it or not, typhoons are acts of God, not of Man.”
There is no scientific evidence for a Deity to be the cause of typhoons (or anything else for that matter). Typhoons are acts of Nature.
dikranmarsupial:
For the benefit of onlookers, I write to explain that the dispute between us is not merely semantic.
The issue is that it is not possible to determine a ‘known’ from two ‘unknowns’.
As illustration I cite the famous Drake equation which purports to estimate the number of alien civilisations in our galaxy. Wicki gives this good explanation of it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
The Drake equation seems ‘sciencey’ but it is meaningless because it consists of unquantified parameters.
The ‘mass balance argument’ seems seems ‘sciencey’ in the same way but it is similarly meaningless because it consists of unquantified parameters.
Richard
richardscourtney
OK, but it doesn`t matter if it cannot be proven that Mans Co2 emissions are responsible for the known increase in atmospheric Co2 over recent times and which may not even register on the Ice Cores that may be drilled out in the distant future but the issue, as I went on to describe it, is simply whether the increased Co2 levels can be sensibly considered to be the driver of a temperature increase which may well have passed its peak already when the History of Ice Cores has nailed it to be a “Cart”,in effect,.
The climate is thermal physics problem, and Salby’s work doesn’t have any thermal physics in it. What Salby’s work is, is mechanics via parameterization. This can identify relationships for you, such as CO2 being a result of temperature change, but then you have to go back and see what this implies for the underlying thermal relationships. What it implies, and successfully, is that CO2 doesn’t affect or drive temperature. Salby’s work doesn’t use feedback to temperature from CO2, and it doesn’t need to, and it doesn’t come up.
So now, go back and re-evaluate what this implies for the thermal physics which is typically assumed for the climate. Think about existing thermal systems, such as the Rankine Cycle, and what they have to say about the thermal physics assumptions in the climate. In other words, why and how does CO2 have no effect on temperatures…if CO2 is “supposed” to have an effect on temperatures? Is reality wrong, or are other assumptions wrong?
You’re all kind of missing the point, but if you get the point, THEN you can take a step towards a theory of climate.
re.Nor does it omit CO2. I actually accept GHGs as having a role in atmospheric circulation but given that the so called greenhouse effect is a result of the kinetic energy required to be at the surface to hold the gases of the atmosphere off the surface it is inevitably a consequence of atmospheric mass and not the radiative capabilities of GHGs.
To say that I am incorrect in that assertion you must invalidate the Gas Laws which contain a term for mass but not for radiative characteristics.
Given that the greenhouse effect is a matter of mass and not radiative characteristics how far do you think our emissions could shift the climate zones?
Dear Stephen,
And here, you are simply ignoring (some of) the correct physics. That the ideal gas laws omit radiative characteristics is a failure of the ideal gas laws to be precisely correct, to in fact be an idealization, not reality. Physics is full of these idealizations. The first correction one makes to the ideal gas laws — that postulate elastically interacting “hard sphere” atoms or molecules in their second least complicated derivation (the kinetic theory derivation is simpler still and just ignores the means of internal interaction and postulates the equipartition theorem without deriving it)) is to include a longer range interaction and one obtains e.g. a van der Waals gas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_equation
This is the simplest gas equation capable of nonlinear behavior and hence describing a phase transition, and is still a substantial idealization. One can do better still using an actual intermolecular potential based on quantum theory, e.g. a 6-12 Lennard-Jones potential and the proper theory of statistical mechanics, but this too neglects external radiative coupling and is an idealization. All of the gases described by these idealizations, with no radiative coupling, would never cool if placed in a container with perfectly transparent walls in outer space, and that is surely not the case.
As has been repeatedly pointed out on WUWT by all of the people that actually understand physics, if one points a spectrograph upward at night, one measures not only downwelling radiative energy but a lot of downwelling radiative energy. This energy is not coming from outer space, it is coming from the atmosphere. We completely understand where it is coming from at the quantum mechanical level, we completely understand how it got there in the first place. None of this is particularly mysterious. Trying to build a model for the Earth’s climate that completely omits the simple fact that the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — predominantly water vapor, carbon dioxide and ozone in roughly that order — are strongly radiatively coupled in the LWIR band that dominates the thermal radiation from both the surface and the atmosphere itself to outer space as the only cooling mode of the planet (aside from absolutely negligible outgassing at the TOA) is doomed to failure — not only failure, but failure to the point where nobody who understands physics will take you seriously even if you make valid points elsewhere.
The correct way to proceed — even if you want to use the ideal gas law to describe the local relationship between P, V and T in parcels of the atmosphere — is to solve the radiatively coupled Navier-Stokes equation (or better yet, equations, one set for the atmosphere and one for the ocean and maybe even the magnetohydrodynamic equations for the sun as one technically has to predict the future state of the sun, the ocean and the atmosphere all together to predict the future state of the climate, and even this is probably an incomplete description although the omitted physics at this point may or may not have negligible impact). This is almost absurdly difficult. The plain old non-radiatively coupled NS equation is already so difficult to solve that mathematicians cannot even prove that solutions always (in general) exist. One can always try to discretize the medium and solve it numerically (and this is precisely what GCMs are) but there are countless problems with the numerical solutions reflecting the essentially chaotic nature of the motion, the tendency for neglected fluctuations at all length scales to grow and lead to widely divergent future states. Which is precisely what GCMs ALSO do, and is one of many reasons that they aren’t terribly reliable as predictors of the future. The problem is compounded by the fact that one can almost never say that neglected physics is truly negligible — if it alters the nonlinear couplings even a little bit it can lead to dramatic changes in the distribution of future states. There are numerous simple numerical examples of solutions of chaotic systems that illustrate all of these points.
If you leave radiative coupling out, the atmospheric gas will only cool at the surface of the Earth, because in that case only the surface of the Earth will be able to radiate energy away to space. Since warm air rises (due to buoyancy forces) and since air, once warmer than the surface, will be unable to lose heat once it has lifted away from the surface and will always be displaced and held aloft by cooler air underneath, the atmosphere would promptly invert — coolest at the bottom, hottest at the top, and a nearly smooth gradient from coolest to warmest. In other words, the tropopause would drop until it was much, much closer to the surface, maintained only by diurnal differential heating and the equatorial-polar gradient. All of the temperatures one obtains from this oversimplified circulation would be incorrect, as well, since they would simply leave out the clearly observable BOA downwelling radiation — the surface would cool directly to space at the unblocked blackbody rate. This is all empirically false as TOA and BOA spectrographs clearly and absolutely unambiguously demonstrate. An incorrect model is most unlikely to lead to correct conclusions.
But you still miss my main point. If you want to leave out radiative coupling in your hypothesis, that’s your privilege although it means that your model is a particularly nonphysical idealization and IMO is certainly going to be egregiously wrong. Regardless, you cannot just assert and argue for your model in words. That’s the point I was trying to make. You have to build an actual, computable model with your assumptions incorporated and show that it is quantitatively correct. After all, we’re all quick to trash the GCMs because they do the right thing (solve a computable model) and get the wrong answer. Should we not pay even less attention to an assertion that hasn’t been tested as a computable model to see if it gives the right answer?
rgb
@climatereason
I wonder how you could reconstruct CO2 if you only had data from Manoa Loa from 1950?