This paper suggests a terrestrial impact on cloud cover from the interplanetary electric field (IEF) via the global electric circuit. A primer video on the GEC is below.
Clouds blown by the solar wind M Voiculescu et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045032 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045032
Abstract
In this letter we investigate possible relationships between the cloud cover (CC) and the interplanetary electric field (IEF), which is modulated by the solar wind speed and the interplanetary magnetic field. We show that CC at mid–high latitudes systematically correlates with positive IEF, which has a clear energetic input into the atmosphere, but not with negative IEF, in general agreement with predictions of the global electric circuit (GEC)-related mechanism. Thus, our results suggest that mid–high latitude clouds might be affected by the solar wind via the GEC. Since IEF responds differently to solar activity than, for instance, cosmic ray flux or solar irradiance, we also show that such a study allows distinguishing one solar-driven mechanism of cloud evolution, via the GEC, from others.
Introduction
There is high interest today in quantifying the solar contribution to climate change. Despite the progress in understanding the processes driving the Earth’s climate, quantifying the natural sources of climate variability, especially regarding solar effects, remains elusive (Solomon et al 2007, Gray et al 2010).
Although climate models are highly sophisticated and include many effects, they are not perfect and observational evidences are modest and ambiguous. Empirical evidences suggest a causal relationship between solar variability and climate, particularly in the pre-industrial epoch (Bond et al 2011), but possible mechanisms are unclear and qualitative. The balance between reflected radiation from space and Earth at different wavelengths contributes to temperature variation in a significant manner (Hartmann et al 1992), thus cloud cover play a major role in the terrestrial radiation budget. Modeling cloud contribution to climate at different spatial and temporal scales is probably the most challenging area of climate studies (Vieira and da Silva 2006). Despite increasing number of solar-cloud studies, there is no clear understanding of solar effect on cloud cover. Indirect mechanisms are proposed that would amplify the relatively small solar input and could explain solar-related variability observed at different time scales (from days to decades) in various cloud parameters, as for instance cloud cover (Udelhofen and Cess 2001, Marsh and Svensmark 2000, Voiculescu and Usoskin 2012) or cloud base height (Harrison et al 2011, Harrison and Ambaum 2013).
One indirect mechanism relates to the fact that the solar spectral irradiance varies significantly in the UV band, whose effect is limited to the stratosphere, thus a stratosphere–troposphere–ocean coupling, ‘top-down’ effect, is required (Gray et al 2010, Meehl et al 2009, Haigh et al 2010). Another mechanism relies on possible variations of atmospheric aerosol/cloud properties, affecting the transparency/absorption/reflectance of the atmosphere and, consequently, the amount of absorbed solar radiation. Two possible physical links have been proposed: one via the ion-induced/mediated nucleation by cosmic ray induced ionization (CRII) (Dickinson 1975, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen 1997, Carslaw et al 2002, Kazil and Lovejoy 2004, Yu and Turco 2001) and the other via the global electric circuit (GEC) effects on cloud/aerosol properties (Tinsley 2000, Harrison and Usoskin 2010). The former mechanism might be hardly distinguishable from noise, especially at short-term scale, as demonstrated using in situ/laboratory experiments (e.g., Carslaw 2009, Kulmala et al 2010, Enghoff et al 2011, Kirkby et al 2011) and statistical studies (e.g., Calogovic et al 2010, Dunne et al 2012). Opposing, studies of Svensmark et al (2009), Enghoff et al (2011), Svensmark et al (2013), Yu et al (2008) have shown that an impact of ionization on new particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) exists. Thus it is possible that the CRII-nucleation mechanism operates at longer time scales, but it might be spatially limited to the polar stratosphere (Mironova et al 2012). On the other hand, the GEC-related mechanism may be important (e.g., Tinsley 2000, Harrison and Usoskin 2010, Rycroft et al 2012), particularly for low-clouds and some links have been shown to exist between atmospheric electricity properties and cloud evolution/formation (Harrison et al 2013).
Since all solar drivers correlate to some extent, it may be difficult to evaluate which driver or combination of drivers is the best candidate for cloud cover modulation. An attempt to differentiate between solar irradiation (total or UV) and CRII effects on cloud cover has been made by Kristjánsson et al (2004), Voiculescu et al (2006, 2007), Erlykin et al (2010), who showed that various mechanisms might act differently at different altitudes and geographical locations. However, the GEC is affected by the solar activity in a different way, via the interplanetary electric field (IEF), so that only positive IEF plays a role, while negative IEF does not. Positive IEF corresponds to a interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) with a southward component, or negative z-component, which favors a direct energy transfer from solar wind to the magnetosphere and to ionosphere. For negative IEF (positive z-component of the IMF) the transfer is much less efficient and only a very small percentage of the solar wind energy is transferred to the magnetosphere (e.g. Dungey 1961, Papitashvili and Rich 2002, Siingh et al 2005). Thus, in contrast to other potential solar drivers which are expected to exert a monotonic influence, IEF is expected to affect clouds only when IEF is positive. This feature has a potential of separating the IEF effect from other drivers. Here we present results of correlation studies between the interplanetary electric field (IEF) and cloud cover, which might indicate the most probable mechanism that might affect cloud cover. We discuss here mainly results obtained for low cloud cover (LCC), but we also refer to middle- (MCC) and high-clouds (HCC).
Conclusion
Here we present a result of an empirical study showing that there is a weak but statistically significant relation between low cloud cover at middle–high latitudes in both Earth’s hemispheres and the interplanetary electric field, that favors a particular mechanism of indirect solar activity influence on climate: global electric circuit affecting cloud formation. We show that all characteristics of the relationship are in line with what is expected if the interplanetary electric field affects cloud cover via the global electric circuit:
(1) the low cloud cover shows a systematic correlation, at interannual time scale, with positive interplanetary electric field, at mid- and high-latitude regions in both hemispheres;
(2) there is no correlation between low cloud cover and interplanetary electric field in tropical regions;
(3) there is no correlation between low cloud cover and negative interplanetary electric field over the entire globe.
As an additional factor, cosmic ray flux may also affect cloud cover in the presence of positive interplanetary electric field. No clear effect of cosmic ray flux during periods of negative IEF was found.
Similar, but less statistically significant results were found also for middle and high cloud cover, suggesting that the primary effect is on low-clouds. The fact that the found statistical relation exists only for the periods of positive IEF and not for negative IEF disfavors other potential mechanisms of sun–cloud relations at mid–high latitudes, such as via ion-induced/mediated nucleation or UVI influence. However, the latter might work at low–mid latitudes. Although this empirical study does not give a clue for an exact physical mechanism affecting the clouds, as discussed above, it favors a particular solar driver, solar wind with the frozen-in interplanetary magnetic field, that affects the global electric current system at Earth. The result suggest that further research of solar-terrestrial influence ought to focus more also on this direction.
=============================================================
The paper is open source, see it here:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045032/article
Related: No increase of the interplanetary electric field since 1926 (Sager and Svalgaard 2004)
Related articles
- Claim: Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows (wattsupwiththat.com)
vukcevic says:
December 27, 2013 at 11:03 am
Variables are there and the actual numbers will be published, then anyone can do statistics, if so inclined; however statistical analysis of errors and estimate of statistical significance do not make any difference either there is a causal link or there is not !
This is like saying that there is a 50% chance that I win the lottery: either I win or I do not.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
“Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status” … “those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience usually dispute the characterization”.
You fully qualify.
Re: “The only real judge in science is whether observations agree with theory [and especially with predictions made with such]. Science is the embodiment of the utmost critical thinking and progress depends on creative thinking [constrained by the reality of observations].”
Ah, so what you’re saying is that you view the scientific method as just one single process with just one set of values. And yet, in making that determination, you’ve ignored the fact that asking questions and developing models exhibit two competing sets of values. When we ask questions — if our interest is to ask good ones — then we must go out of our way to value creative and critical thinking, and we must relax our immediate need for accuracy in order to come up with new promising ideas. Your approach to science tends to value the process of elaborating models, which values a fit between observations and theory (accuracy). But what you’re still struggling to grasp is that your decision to view the scientific method as just one single process is biasing your entire approach to science towards the elaboration of existing models. You perceive that a choice must be made — between being “scientific” and not — and this perception that there is only one process at play in the scientific methodology then undermines your ability to to ask good questions. By mistaking these two very different processes — one fundamentally intended to diverge and the other to converge — as if they should exhibit the same set of values, you’ve created the very problem which you then must solve: A lack of innovation and creative solutions.
If you had simply spent some time away from your intense focus upon science itself, you might read about the process of innovation. Talk to a designer you might run into about how they do innovation. What they will tell you is that they switch between these two distinct processes of divergence and convergence. This cycling back and forth between these two very different states of thinking is absolutely fundamental to the process of originating and elaborating new ideas. Science is not somehow unique in this regard. It follows the same patterns of innovation we see everywhere else.
Here’s a thought: Have you considered that ALL models go through a stage of infancy where they are vulnerable to arguments that they have not been elaborated? What makes the Electric Universe model unique? Are you picking on it simply because it’s a new idea?
Re: “Where you go wrong is to assume that “our most cherished ideas will inevitably fail to lead anywhere”. On the contrary, we proceed to the deeper layers from the bedrock of the current ones.”
But, then you seem to be simply ignoring the instances which don’t make your case — like aether, spontaneous generation, and a very lengthy list of ideas which have simply been abandoned over time.
Are you aware that parallax only works to 1% the diameter of the Milky Way? All distances beyond that are inferred based upon the theory itself. Does it really make any sense to ascribe the same level of certainty to cosmology as it does to our more terrestrial endeavors? Have you ever, for instance, contemplated how exactly a person might disprove the notion of a black hole? Each time that new features are observed, they are simply integrated into the theory. Do such problems ever invite you to question the underlying science itself?
Chris Reeve says:
December 27, 2013 at 12:55 pm
When we ask questions — if our interest is to ask good ones — then we must go out of our way to value creative and critical thinking, and we must relax our immediate need for accuracy in order to come up with new promising ideas.
Not at all. We ask questions to improve the accuracy, so we must sharpen the need for accuracy from the outset.
you’ve created the very problem which you then must solve: A lack of innovation and creative solutions.
Again, not at all. Science is not innovation. Mother Nature sets strict limits within which we must stay. Einstein once said it clearly when he wondered whether God had any choice in fashioning his Creation.
This cycling back and forth between these two very different states of thinking is absolutely fundamental to the process of originating and elaborating new ideas.
Again, not at all. New ideas are with very few exceptions born out of discrepancies between new data and old ideas or of new data without old ideas explaining them
Here’s a thought: Have you considered that ALL models go through a stage of infancy where they are vulnerable to arguments that they have not been elaborated?
No, a new model is by definition better than the old one from the very beginning. That is why it was made.
What makes the Electric Universe model unique? Are you picking on it simply because it’s a new idea?
What makes it different [not unique, there are other bad stuff out there, e.g. Creationism] is that it never has made any quantitative predictions and is in blatant disagreement with observations.
But, then you seem to be simply ignoring the instances which don’t make your case — like aether, spontaneous generation, and a very lengthy list of ideas which have simply been abandoned over time.
These ideas were steps on the way to where we are now. Without them we would be nowhere.
Are you aware that parallax only works to 1% the diameter of the Milky Way? All distances beyond that are inferred based upon the theory itself. Does it really make any sense to ascribe the same level of certainty to cosmology as it does to our more terrestrial endeavors?
But nobody does that. Each step on the ‘distance ladders’ is carefully connected and calibrated to the previous steps. And everywhere we look we see the same laws of nature operating.
Have you ever, for instance, contemplated how exactly a person might disprove the notion of a black hole? Each time that new features are observed, they are simply integrated into the theory.
I don’t think you have any idea about this. The theory does not allow any old arbitrary feature. One potential problem that is unresolved is the lack of reconciliation with Quantum Mechanics. But both General Relativity and QM have survived all our clever tricks of finding flaws.
Do such problems ever invite you to question the underlying science itself?
To question the underlying science one must first KNOW the underlying science. And scientists are constantly examining and questioning the ‘accepted’ paradigm in the hope of finding that it breaks down. Everybody wants to prove Einstein wrong.
lsvalgaard says:
December 27, 2013 at 11:27 am
………
If this is such a rubbish, why so much hassle with the ‘pseudoscience’, just say it is a “worthless rubbish”.
But, of course you would, if it was not self-evident that it is not, so you roll out hubristic hilarious hysterics :Pseudo-science is indeed scary whenever it rears its ugly head. The purveyors of such are providing a deplorable shadowy disservice., strait out of 1950s ‘suppression of ideological subversion’ manual.
End of another day, end of another pseudo-discourse.
Thank you again Dr. Svalgaard. It’s been a pleasure discussing the solar wind with you. Perhaps the particle density at the heliosphere is insufficient to organize as you say, I don’t know. Plasma is said to operate similarly at various scales, that’s why I ask the questions, to get a better picture of the reality as we know it today.
As the sun moves through the galaxy, the Earth moves in space too, so the same principles you spoke of in your chimney smoke example (excuse me while I go stoke the fireplace…) might apply to the solar wind around the Earth, right? Earth and the heliosphere are both immersed in an ever-changing magnetic environment.
As the solar system flies though the galaxy, the leading edge of the heliospheric bubble will stream electrons, protons, and hydrogen towards the trailing edge (because at 0 km/sec, they have no more forward momentum), and would that not create electric currents? Hubble photos are full of twisted filaments at many scales, and the heliosphere trailing edge (magnetotail) might look like many of those space photos at the right wavelengths. Presently I have no information to believe the sun recycles electrons or protons from the heliosphere boundary. Perhaps it recycles “charge” at some foundational level.
Again, the electric weather I will be talking about in the future is what happens in our atmosphere as a result of solar wind impacts of photons, protons, and electrons, and I would be remiss to miss any chance to better understand solar wind dynamics and their implications. Thanks for being here. I’ll be back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
Reblogged this on Head Space and commented:
Informative article of interest
Chris Reeve says: – …
Chris: – An epistemological tour de force, pretty well everything you’ve written here at the thread’s end. I admire your elegant description of the ‘cycling’ of scientific research between divergence and convergence to advance theoretical understandings, much akin to Thomas Kuhn’s thought in this area. And no, one does NOT need to be an ‘expert knower’ of any particular science to participate in this process; it is in fact often the very obstacle that prevents such advance, the history of science being rife with examples.
Sorry Dr Svalgaard – I’ll appoint myself an ‘independent arbiter’ and pronounce that it’s clear Chris has a background and rigour of thought that outclasses your self-analysis of what constitutes the process of scientific advancement. This is in no way any comment on your skills in your own discipline, elucidating and refining existing paradigm.
There’s an old expression, “does the fish know it is in water?” The very arguments you bring forward to support your position clearly evidence, to the neutral observer, the very thought processes and bias towards status quo of which Chris tries to warn against, as being little conducive to scientific breakthrough.
Bob Weber says,
… “I’ll be back”
Thank you for bringing forward many of the questions that trouble me, in regards conventional astrophysics response to the reality of the burgeoning EU worldview’s emergence on to the scientific stage {well, more properly, RE-emergence – as much of the ‘bedrock’ has been laid down well over a century ago}. And kudos to Dr Svalgaard for engaging very competently in presenting that conventional position, of course.
I look forward to your future postings, focusing more on the reality and implications of electrical interactions between near-space and our terrestrial sphere.
vukcevic says, …
Thank you for clarifying the ‘backstory’ of the longstanding debate between you and Dr Svalgaard, and what you endeavour to bring forward here. I’m not sure I can quite appreciate your standing aside from the whole EU thing, but do respect your right to do so. That it is ‘pseudo science’ it clearly is most certainly not; more like a huge Question Mark smack in the middle of our path to knowledge and understanding of ‘how it all works’.
To All – Don’t know if someone has brought this to this forum’s attention already: –
I’ve been following the ‘non-scientist’ (what’s that?) fellow who produces the 3min daily ‘world and space weather reports’ on Youtube and who’s audience has grown to the hundreds of thousands in but a couple of years. (158,000 subscribers) (not the only solar weather clearing site I follow, that said)
Ben is very respectful and measured in his opinions while he attempts to offer pathways to tools for self-education to his audience. He obviously follows and respects Professor Svalgaard’s work, having recently linked to the Doctor’s recent appearance at the AGU discussing the “weak sun”, though I suppose the respect might not be ‘reciprocal’ (would be interested in hearing Dr Svalgaard’s thoughts on his diligent work). I would do him a tremendous disservice to attempt to describe his developing predictive theory of tectonic disturbance as influenced by changes in activity of Our Sun [namely by coronal holes, CME’s and planetary alignments, mostly] – go look if you are interested – but statistically he is surpassing 80% accuracy in predicting +6.0 Earthquakes. Pretty Impressive. http://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers
Eyes Open. No Fear.
David Ball says:
December 27, 2013 at 4:09 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
Just as EU.
vukcevic says:
December 27, 2013 at 2:28 pm
If this is such a rubbish, why so much hassle with the ‘pseudoscience’, just say it is a “worthless rubbish”.
‘pseudo-science’ is a subset ‘of worthless rubbish’ but has the additional quality of being insidious especially when peddled incessantly.
Tiburon says:
December 27, 2013 at 6:22 pm
I admire your elegant description of the ‘cycling’ of scientific research between divergence and convergence to advance theoretical understandings
No matter how elegant, it is nevertheless dead wrong. Might I ask how many scientific discoveries either one of you have ever made? I have made some, and know the process in-and-out. To make a discovery you do not first lose the accuracy and adopt a ‘woolly’ stance. On the contrary, you sharpen and focus the view to drive up the accuracy.
A little cinematic drama this evening? (and fun!)
“Do not allow yourself to cheat” (rough translation from the Russian which is in itself much fun to read.
When I first saw this a year ago, the hackles on the back of my neck stood up, and my eyes watered. Y’know? That feeling you get when all the pieces just seem to fall into place?
My take-away – we never come back to the same place twice…and apparently, we’re definitely ‘on the way to….somewhere’.
Tiburon says:
December 27, 2013 at 6:58 pm
the hackles on the back of my neck stood up, and my eyes watered. Y’know? That feeling you get when all the pieces just seem to fall into place?
If that is so, no wonder you are taking in by Vuk’s nonsense. My eyes also watered, but from sadness over how low the scientific literacy of many of the general public have sunk.
Dr Svalgaard – Would insight into the internal psychology of another human being count as “a discovery”? Derived through linguistic and syntactical analysis? If so, guess I’d have to count one (1), this very evening!
But perhaps you would say that too is the realm of ‘pseudo-science’, being, umm…not of YOUR discipline?
As much as anyone I suppose, I’m deeply uncomfortable having my assumptions challenged. I’ve said as much, in different ways, above. But how else to grow? To not stagnate?
One of my areas of study was in the area of the ‘history of science’, lo some 40 years ago now.
I got good grades. To answer a question with a question: – how many courses have you taken, papers written (let alone published), in this area? None?
Well, unlike you, I’m not led to invalidate your expressed opinion because you haven’t done so.
I try to take everything I meet and learn of, “on the merits”. OK?
And yes, I’m ‘reacting’ a little, not ‘responding’. So shoot me. Your last comment was specifically what I was talking about earlier on this thread, Leif (may I call you Leif? I’m David).
It’s rude to attack people in the way you just did, as well as argumentatively fallacious.
It’s hard to learn to think clearly, takes a lot of work. I do not pretend that I’m even a beginner in the process – I just recognize it is a necessary process, and one that I was NOT taught in school, nor, extrapolating, were any of my contemporaries save perhaps a few truly Classically educated.
Much a ‘lost art’.
Sorry for any ‘sting’ – but I’m not taking it back this time.
DR SVALGAARD!!!!
That last little youtube ditty was meant as Friday Fun! I’m a trained musician and happen to like “Two Steps From Hell” and the piece of vid was elegantly staged, given likely done on a laptop. There’s some interesting ‘food for thought’ in it, too (what? the Sun DOESN’T move through the local Galaxy??) – but can you distinguish between the serious, and a joke? Geeeeeze!
I have to do some reading so won’t be here to reply. I’m not ‘running away’ or doing troll-ish driveby. Lighten up everyone! (me too…I know I know)
Tiburon says:
December 27, 2013 at 7:24 pm
One of my areas of study was in the area of the ‘history of science’, lo some 40 years ago now.
I got good grades. To answer a question with a question: – how many courses have you taken, papers written (let alone published), in this area? None?
Here is a recent one: http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf or this one http://www.leif.org/research/SOHO-23,%20Updating%20the%20Historical%20Sunspot%20Record.pdf
It’s rude to attack people in the way you just did, as well as argumentatively fallacious.
So be it. The truth is rarely appreciated.
Sorry for any ‘sting’ – but I’m not taking it back this time.
Your stings are mild. An honest sting is better than a lame taking-it-back.
Tiburon says:
December 27, 2013 at 7:28 pm
but can you distinguish between the serious, and a joke?
From your comments it is at times hard. I thought your post was in character, well aligned with your other comments.
Tiburon says:
December 27, 2013 at 7:24 pm
As much as anyone I suppose, I’m deeply uncomfortable having my assumptions challenged.
I am not. This is a normal situation for any scientist. Assumptions, claims, findings, what have you, are challenged every single day. One simply meets the challenge the best one can. Science is self-correcting and if one’s assumptions have merit they will prevail [for a while], and if not, they are best buried and forgotten. There is no stigma attached to that [for most scientists – although some may be more human in that respect than others].
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” – Tolstoy
David Ball says:
December 27, 2013 at 8:22 pm
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions …”
Perfect characterization of the EU cult. You are very perceptive today.
Tiburon, I appreciate your supportive comments. Please remember how gracious and open Dr. Svalgaard was here in giving of his knowledge and opinions.
Bob Weber says:
December 27, 2013 at 8:57 pm
“Tiburon, I appreciate your supportive comments. Please remember how gracious and open Dr. Svalgaard was here in giving of his knowledge and opinions.”
You are very welcome, Bob. And Yes, I will remember and appreciate. Thank you.
I take no pleasure in the {somewhat facetiously described} “discovery”, earlier referred.
To all, a Good Night, and Best of the New Year. May we all find in Peace and Joy, that which we are truly seeking. ds
Alan McIntire says:
December 26, 2013 at 7:28 am
Old’ un’ “climate change”, and Luke Warmist’s typo, “cmimate change” led me to a new
portmanteau word to describe deliberate, unethical manipulation of date to get the climate change results you want” “crimate change”
——————————————————————–
Ah the Chinese perspective, “crimate change”.
As the end December is near, the SIDC non smoothed monthly SSN looks like ending on at about 80.
Since this is solar related thread, before I proceed take a note of the following :
What is shown in the link below may be by some considered as numerology and pseudo science.
In less than 10 days time, it is exactly 10 years since publication of my solar formula approximation. According to some of the above statements the proof of an idea as scientifically valid it is its predictive ability. So you may ask, how did ‘solar formula’ do according to this metric? Well, you can see here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Call it coincidence, numerology or whatever you wish, but may I remind you that at the time the top NASA scientists (Hathaway and Dikpati) were predicting SC24 as the highest ever.
vukcevic says:
December 28, 2013 at 7:07 am
Call it coincidence, numerology or whatever you wish, but may I remind you that at the time the top NASA scientists (Hathaway and Dikpati) were predicting SC24 as the highest ever.
They were as wrong as you are for cycle 20 and 10. So, both their and your ideas fail in predictive [or even descriptive] ability. This is the predictable fate of ‘predictions’ based on faulty science [them] and no science [you]. In addition you should not use the non-smoothed monthly SSN for comparison. If you do the maximum was 97 back in 2011. Hathaway at least has the honesty to admit he was wrong. You still have to get to that point.
[Duped. Should the earlier comment be deleted? Mod]
[Duped. Should the earlier comment be deleted? Mod]
yes.