Steve Milloy
But USA Today can’t do emissions math and misses the point.
Here’s my tweet:
Here is the USA Today ‘fact check’: Web | PDF.
First, USA Today acknowledges that the graph in the tweet is correct and April 1895 was warmer than April 2023.
Next, USA Today erroneously disputes my observation about the “1,000% increase in industrial era atmospheric CO2.”
But the pre-industrial era atmospheric CO2 level is estimated as 280 parts per million (ppm). By 1895, it is estimated to be about 293 ppm and now it is about 424 ppm.
Since the preindustrial era, about 144 ppm of CO2 has been added to the atmosphere. But by 1893, only 13 ppm had been added. If you subtract the 1893 addition from the 2023 addition of industrial era atmospheric CO2, you get 131 ppm of industrial era atmospheric CO2 added between 1895 and 2023. As 131 ppm is roughly 10 times 13 ppm, industrial era atmospheric CO2 has increased 1,000% from 1895 to 2023.
While NOAA’s statement that industrial era atmospheric CO2 has increased 50% over pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 is correct, that is not relevant to the point in question — i.e., since 1895, industrial era atmospheric CO2 has increased 1,000% yet April 2023 was cooler than April 1895.
The rest of USA Today‘s argument over my interpretation of the April 1895 to April 2023 comparison is just that — i.e., argument — not a “fact check.”
The emissions-driven global warming narrative is that every emission warms the planet. But that certainly was not the case as between April 1895 and April 2023, now is it?
The only question in “fact checking” is “is it orthodox?”, not “ is it true”.
All of the Journalists I knew in college were poor at math.
Nowadays a lot of the science majors are poor at math. That doesn’t mean they aren’t good at falsifying and manipulating numbers.
I knew very few aspiring journalists, but they were very poor at reality, especially mathematics.
Most were extremely frustrated aspiring fiction writers rejected by everyone except for college newsletters.
After starving for awhile, they take their pitiful imaginations to news publications and broadcasts.
Yes, April in the USA48 has not warmed so much, although Milloy showed the mean, not the trendline:
However, April is a cherry-pick. Other months warmed more
You do realize that the NOAA data is adjusted. Of course since about 2005 or so NOAA has to deal with the CRN data. No surprise there is no trend in the data since NOAA feet are held to the fire with the CRN.
I’m showing the same data Milloy showed.
Milloy’s argument is stupid. That data is corrupted and cannot be relied on thanks due UHI and sitting issues. Both are facts. Your purposely misleading argument is based on inflated data.
Of course. And it’s not the raw data for the US.
“No surprise there is no trend in the data since NOAA feet are held to the fire with the CRN.”
Usual reminder that CRN is currently showing a warming rate of 0.31°C / decade since 2005.
Bellman, please give us your data source for that outlandish claim. CRN shows no such decadal value. In fact it is close to the UAH lower troposphere decadal increase estimate.
Well, here is one incontestable source, Willis, writing at WUWT, no less. Though it is 2017:
“Trend = 0.6 ± 0.9 °C/decade, p-value = 0.31”
In fact, I get a current value of 0.52±0.25°C/decade
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/ann/12
I make the trend based on annual averages 0.564°F / decade, which translates into real money as 0.313°C / decade.
Of course it’s not statistically significant, given it only covers 18 years, and there are large year to year variations. But it’s wrong to just say there is trend.
You’re right. I forgot data was in F.
I wondered about that. I think the website has an annoying habit of downloading the data in F, even when you’ve set it to C.
Here’s the same but using monthly data.
Trend is 0.29°C / decade.
NOAA publish USCRN alongside ClimDiv data for comparison, updated monthly.
The rate of warming in ClimDiv since Jan 2005, the month the CRN data begin, is currently +0.39C/dec. In CRN it’s +0.52C/dec over the same period.
The adjustments applied to the ClimDiv data by NOAA actually reduce the US surface temperature trend relative to the “state-of-the-art ultra-reliable” CRN stations.
Nail they use it to correct the horrible ClimDiv data. There’s no way any homogenization of these terrible weather stations (96% corrupted by sitting problems, UHI) can give the same results as stations located faraway from humanity no parking lot, concrete in sight. You use logic and it makes sense.
Willis Eschenbach quotes Anthony Watts as stating that the CRN stations represent “state-of-the-art ultra-reliable” US surface data.
WUWT features the CRN data on its side-bar (without the trendline, of course).
Yet, over the same period (2005-present) CRN shows faster warming than the supposedly corrupted ClimDiv stations used by NOAA to update their monthly US surface record.
How do you explain that if the warming isn’t real?
Figures should be in F, not C. Point remains: CRN is warming faster than ClimDiv.
Final Nail
Using CRN data, select “average anomaly,1-month scale, all months”
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0
Result is NO WARMING over the CRN station record (2005) so claims of .5 C per decade are simply nonsense.
That’s the data I used.
As I pointed out above, the +0.52 figure should be in F, not C. Even so, there’s a warming trend in the CRN data of +0.52F per decade.
Prove this to yourself by downloading the CSV file at that site and using the spreadsheet to find the trend (‘linest’ function in Excel). The trend since 2005 in ClimDiv is +0.39F/dec and in CRN it’s +0.52F/dec.
So both data sets show warming, but the ‘pristine’ CRN data set shows more warming than ClimDiv, not less.
Here’s a chart of that data. You’ll notice it’s the same as the CRN chart on the WUWT side bar, apart from the trend line, which WUWT chooses not to include for some reason…
Their adjustments probably didnt go back into 1890s….. that will be fixed soon enough
You mean the adjustments that reduce the US surface temperature warming trend relative to CRN?
I risked community ire by upvoting NS’s comment because the comment uses actual data.
In a statistical way, it seems unlikely that 130 years of upward force could allow for downward progress, unless EITHER the upward force were too small to matter OR another force pushed downward.
130 years is a long time on human scale – humans seem to be built to last less than 100 years. (in this case if temperature caused crappiness then any real person would experience about the same amount of crappiness at the end as they did at the start).
NS makes a valid point. Just one that is orthogonal to the one Milloy makes.
The horror!.
~ 1 degree F higher temp just in my lifetime.
I don’t know how people can survive in such hellish conditions.
The consensus says you MUST view it as an emergency! /sarc
It is what it is- maybe- but by using the word “emergency” it reduces the meaning of that word compared to REAL emergencies- like a plane crash, an epidemic, any war, a dwelling on fire. The mere fact that the alarmists exaggerate the significance of a trivial change in temperature while greatly exaggerating the side effects like wild fires, floods, droughts, hurricanes (with little evidence) is what turned me against their perspective. Having worked outdoors for 50 years- I think there has indeed been a trivial increase in temperature here in Woke-achusetts- and I love it! It’s an improvement, not an emergency- so I now consider alarmists to be extremely crazy religious whack jobs. 🙂
This is no different to the entire land mass north of 40N. Temperature rising dramatically in JANUARY.
Few people appreciate how this occurs. It is the result of more heat transfer from oceans to land. It inevitably results in higher snowfall, which is continuing to set records across the northern hemisphere.
Rather than demonising CO2 the climate prognosticators should be asking why is January warming the most? And why is there more snowfall?
Answer those two questions and they will begin to understand what has occurred 4 times in the last 400,000 years. We are on the verge of entering a new era of glaciation in the same circumstances at the 4 other times.
June sunlight in the NH increasing gives rise to higher August SST leading to more water vapour in the atmosphere in September that gets drawn over cold land in November then drops out as snow. But it takes another 3 months before the NH oceans reach their minimum temperature in the annual cycle so the snow keeps coming until the land warm ups and advection slows down.
The other interesting aspect of the plot is that the first 50 years increased as much as the last 50 years so there is nothing new in the recent trend.
Indeed, July/August is warmest. Driven by Albedo changing amount of sunlight at surface most likely.
https://reality348.wordpress.com/2021/06/14/the-linkage-between-cloud-cover-surface-pressure-and-temperature/
Thanks for the pointer. I’ll read it after I do some chores outside.
“The other interesting aspect of the plot is that the first 50 years increased as much as the last 50 years so there is nothing new in the recent trend.”
Not true. The trend for first 50 was 0.25 F/dec; for the last 50 was 0.47 F/dec.
Edit, changed C to F
What was the trend for the middle 50 from 1930 to 1980?
-0.22F/dec
So the 40ppm increase in CO2 from 1930 to 1980 caused the USA to cool.- interesting, a negative correlation for 50 years. after a positive correlation.
How does any of that relate to CO2 concentrations?
Your comment is dishonest because he was talking about a SINGLE month, April:
bolding mine
You didn’t disprove anything.
Here are the trends of the other months, in °F/century
Jan 2.05
Feb 2.87
Mar 2.65
Apr 0.95
May 0.98
Jun 1.37
Jul 1.24
Aug 1.22
Sep 1.2
Oct 0.87
Nov 1.64
Dec 2.19
April is second lowest
Surely you must wonder why CO2 selectively warms some months more than others.
February is leading the pack. It must be a hellish month to be living in the USA. It has already breached the IPCC’s sacred 1.5C tipping point.
That’s why annual/decadal averages are a better guide than single months.
Quite obviously, Nick’s cherry picked dates are superior to Milloy’s cherry picked dates.
Nick Stokes,
How does any of that relate to CO2 concentrations?
Nitpick Nick’s distraction nitpick of the day!
I wonder why anyone would be discussing April? Shamelessly cherrypicking the most recent complete month!
Some entitled gentleperson had some brain fart, got fact-checked by another worthy, that got mentioned in the gossip pages, and now we have to figure out
what it all means!!!
I get it Nick. It’s OK for alarmists to claim any given record is the ‘hottest ever’, so as to push the mass hysteria they rely on for their dough.But when the scam is exposed, we go straight to statistical averages. Change the game and say the same.
PS Here in the Limousin France, temperatures are flat, though rainfall is poor. Yet old people come up to me during a singularly cold May and tell me it is the ‘hottest ever’. They believe everything they are told. It is a disgrace.
Semantics! Twisting the facts seems to be attractive to alarmists! I wonder why? Do they realise what thin ice they are walking on?
Tempest in a teapot. Both April 1895 and April 2023 are just weather. Especially when spring (NH) and fall (SH) weather can be so variable year to year. There is no valid point to be made about CO2 induced climate change by this comparison by anyone—including Milloy.
But the contretemps does show USA Today to be generally clueless about climate matters. Else they would have made my valid point, not the mistaken one they made.
I disagree because after 130 years of tiny changes in one direction, one would reasonably expect a noticable change in that same direction. Neither the chart’s start date nor its end date looks especially cherry-picked.
Add to that, Rud, over that long period not one extreme climate metric has deteriorated; not hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves, tornadoes nor wildfires. Nada. And SLR is continuing its slow rise that has held since the end of the Little Ice Age. So, who gives a shit about wiggles on some graph?
“who gives a shit about wiggles on some graph?”
answer: spoiled and very weak minded people who don’t know what a real problem might be- they’re in panic mode- what would be good for them is to face a real emergency in their lives
I love it, how as time goes on, the warmunists are more and more WRONG! HA HA HA!
I love C02, good for me and good for you!
“… pre-industrial era atmospheric CO2 level is estimated as 280 ppm and now it is about 424 ppm … about 144 ppm of CO2 has been added to the atmosphere.”
I do math and science. The “fact checkers” did their math in a more readily understood way: _total_difference_ divided by _original_quantity_ times 100 percent.
The argument here is not math, which you both executed correctly according to different formulae. The argument is about what the words “industrial era atmospheric CO2” mean. “Them” picked a literal reading.
“The “fact checkers” did their math in a more readily understood way: _total_difference_ divided by _original_quantity_ times 100 percent.”
Exactly! We don’t like it when the “Warmists” exaggerate and obfuscate and it’s important, IMO, that we demonstrate that our arguments don’t need such artifice.
But this isn’t, again, in my opinion, a simple matter of how one “defines” how percent differences are calculated.
Seems to me that the phrase “industrial era atmospheric CO2” refers to the time frame of interest . . . more words are needed to show that the analysis is only considering the atmospheric CO2 attributable to industrial activity.
So, given two points in time within the “industrial” era (which began before 1895 and which continues), namely 1895 and “today,” KevinM, above shows exactly how one “ordinarily” calculates the percentage change.
Anyway, that’s what I think.
“While NOAA’s statement that industrial era atmospheric CO2 has increased 50% over pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 is correct, that is not relevant to the point in question”
Really? So the claim is that only the increase in CO2 since the industrial era should have any effect on temperatures?
Yeah.
The folks living pre-industrial era had a lot more to worry about than what the atmospheric CO2 level was.
Like, would it drop to below-plant-sustaining level.
Like, would their freshly planted crops, in the spring, freeze from a late frost- as happened here in Woke-achusetts, killing some of my newly planted tomatoes and flowers- and even killing new leaves on native trees, which is something I’ve never seen in my 50 years as a forester. So, after seeing these plants freeze- I read in the MSM about the f*****g climate emergency! Of course the late frost isn’t even mentioned in the MSM and if it was, it’d be blamed on the f*****g climate emergency!
Isn’t that what people have been arguing about for the last 30 years?
Which people?
As far as I’m concerned the only argument is how much warming is caused by a doubling of CO2, not how much is caused by a doubling of CO2 on top of the existing pre-industrial level.
The amount of surface warming caused by a doubling of CO2 is unknowable. CO2 is a bit player in the massive transfer of energies that make up our climate. For example, minor changes in cloud cover overwhelm any radiative impacts of changes in CO2 concentrations.
Adaptation to whatever changes nature throws at us seems the wisest course. Wrecking Western economies in a futile effort to reduce measurably increasing CO2 emissions by the bulk of mankind is insane. It ain’t happening.
“The amount of surface warming caused by a doubling of CO2 is unknowable.”
That’s why it’s argued about. But nobody apart from here has claimed what matters is the proportional increases above 280 ppm.
But, for some reason, they are very focused on creating proportional decreases, relative to some arbitrary year.
Really?
I heard the science was settled.
not to mention the inevitable military consequences of having a wrecked economy
CMoB and you, for a start. Regular as clockwork 🙂
The only field observations available start around 1850, at a nominal 280ppm.
There are lots of confounding factors, which make it all a bit challenging.
I’ve never argued that a temperature rise should be proportional to the increase in CO2 above 280ppm. I’d be surprised if even Lord Monckton has said such a thing.
Agreed, the baseline CO2 concentration is arbitrary, but any doubling has to start from a non-zero baseline.
We happen to have sparse, but somewhat accurate and precise temperature and CO2 concentration figures dating back to around 1850.
We could choose a baseline CO2 concentration greater than 280ppm, but we have no field observations lower than 280 ppm.
In a lot of ways, some other arbitrary start date, temperature, and CO2 concentration would be superior because of less sparse temperature readings. Perhaps the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s 1910, when Stevenson screens were standardised. Perhaps 1979 with the satellite atmospheric temperature readings.
However, both of those have shorter (albeit less uncertain) records.
Interestingly enough, the Law Dome Atmospheric CO2 Data (NOAA Paleoclimatology program) from year 1010 until 1978 show that the CO2 concentrations remained remarkably steady, centered at ~280 ppm +/-4ppm, for almost 8 centuries since the records begin during the Medieval Warm period, until the end of the 18th century that was probably the coldest peak of the Little Ice Age. CO2 concentrations only began climbing inceasingly from the year 1795 until now, though the industrial era was still to begin almost one century ahead.
If we assume that the global temperatures difference between the warmest and the coldest years of this 8 century period were about 3°C, there is utterly no correlation with the CO2 concentration.
The answer according to sound physical principals is right around zero. The fact you ignore the evaporative cooling effect and only consider the additional energy absorption will never give you a correct answer.
Lots of missing of the point in the comments. It’s not a question of whether you or I accept the idea of the greenhouse effect, or how we know how much CO2 there was before industry.
My point is just that quoting the 1000% rise figure and claiming it is “relevant” figure, when describing the amount of warming since 1895, is a strawman argument if no theory of global warming claims warming would be proportional to that 1000% rise.
It isn’t a strawman. Your argument is not logical.
As CMoB has pointed many times, if CO2 causes warming, then the 280 ppm must be part of the common signal in 1850. Consequently, the additional CO2 above 280 ppm must account for the entire amount of warming since.
The strawman argument is that the 280 ppm caused no warming and that only above that amount did warming start. If you want to say that anthropological CO2 is causing the warming, then you must limit yourself to the increase in CO2 and the corresponding increase in temperature.
“As CMoB has pointed many times,”
Not a good start to an argument.
“if CO2 causes warming, then the 280 ppm must be part of the common signal in 1850.”
If by “common signal” you mean the warming caused by greenhouse gases, then yes – that’s the whole point of the greenhouse gas theory.
“The strawman argument is that the 280 ppm caused no warming and that only above that amount did warming start.”
Yes, that would definitely be a strawman argument.
“If you want to say that anthropological CO2 is causing the warming, then you must limit yourself to the increase in CO2 and the corresponding increase in temperature.”
and you still don’t get the point. The issue ios why the author of this article, and presumably you, think that a “1000%” value is more relevant to how much warming will be expected, rather than the 50% value.
If you had started a bit earlier when CO2 was only 286ppm, you would be talking about a 2000% increase, or if you started when it was 281ppm, you could talk about a > 10000% increase. Would you expect any of these values to indicate how much warming would be predicted?
Who was it who said “I’ve never argued that a temperature rise should be proportional to the increase in CO2 above 280ppm. “?
Is anyone actually going to try to justify the relevance of the 1000% figure?
Maybe “proportional” wasn’t the best choice of word. But the point is, knowing that there has been a 1000% increase in CO2, whilst ignoring the actual value, tells you nothing about how much warming would be predicted. Say you knew that the ECS was 3°C. What would that 1000% rise mean in terms of the predicted warming at equilibrium? You can’t possibly tell, unless you know what that is in terms of the total concentration.
The 1000% is just somebody playing silly buggers with statistics.
It’s true, but not particularly relevant.
That’s a 1000% increase in the increase, isn’t it. The increase increased from 13 to 131, or some such.
“but not particularly relevant”
Thanks. That’s my entire point.
You were going on about the increase above 280ppm earlier, which is relevant.
The 1000% was just trolling. At least, I hope it was just trolling.
He seems to spend a lot of time trying to justify the claim, if it was just trolling.
Maybe the idea that you can draw any conclusions by comparing US temperatures in two different months was also a troll. It’s all junk science whether he believes it or not. .
If somebody can publish a paper about home runs increasing as a result of warming in a cherry-picked 20 year period, he might as well troll using 1 cold month.
There is more than enough junk science to go around.
From the article: “First, USA Today acknowledges that the graph in the tweet is correct and April 1895 was warmer than April 2023.
“There is considerable variability in the graph, but it shows April 2023 was cooler than April 1895.”
And notice that the temperatures were just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as they are today. No “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick profile on this chart.
April 1908 was colder than April 2023. By his logic, someone could say that proves emissions driven warming. April 1983 was much colder than April 2023; therefore someone can say that the current warming is rapid and can only be driven by emissions. See how bad those arguments are? Same logic used by Milloy.
USA Today Fact Check, how humorous.
USA Today has ‘Fact Checked’ the Babylon Bee. USA Today has 0 credibility when it comes to ‘fact checking’, regardless of the facts, or veracity of the claims, being checked.
The Bee has more checkable observations than USA Today.
And most of the other establishment media.
Also, we must ask if the April 1895 temperature was indeed hotter than in April 2023. Wheter statistical analysis can show if we are looking at noise in the data, or a real effect with a low probability of it being just noise.
In August last year WUWT kindly posted Part 1 of a 3-part series on the topic of uncertainty as understood in this type of temperature comparison. By the third part, the Audience had formed into combat groups who argued for over 800 comments.
Should we add more comments here?
For my part, I would assess the odds of temperatures in 1892 over USA48 being known to better than +/- 2 deg F (2 sigma, assuming normal distribution, which it is not).
Sadly, there is no way to re-measure. Geoff S
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/24/uncertainty-estimates-for-routine-temperature-data-sets/
The “hoax” is presenting single lines on graphs with “average” temperatures.
Yep, and of course all the trendologists showed up en masse to defend their imaginary lines.
Neither party comes out of this exchange very well, but Milloy comes out of it far worse. His arguments are confused and fallacious.
USA Today seems to have misunderstood the silly point he was making. He claimed a huge percentage rise in industrial emissions. Which is true, but shows nothing, since no-one thinks its the percentage rise in industrial emissions that is the driver of warming, so whether this correlates with warming or not shows nothing.
USA today seems to have thought he was claiming a huge rise in emissions, driven by industry. One can understand why they thought this, but it was careless reading. They are right of course to say that atmospheric CO2 is 50% higher.
The argument he should be making is to plot the level of atmospheric CO2, which all activists agree is the driver, against some proper measure of temperatures for the period. But he does not do this.
He picks a month, April, and compares 1895 to 2023 to claim that the temps have not risen. He then plots the mean of the monthly temps from 1895 to 2023 in support of this. But its irrelevant to the claim, what would be more sensible is the trend line. Though even that, for one month, would prove nothing.
He says “As 131 ppm is roughly 10 times 13 ppm, industrial era atmospheric CO2 has increased 1,000% from 1895 to 2023.”
This is either totally confused or totally wrong or both. Industrial era atmospheric CO2 ought to mean the level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the industrial era. This has not increased by 1000%, and his calculation does not show it has. It went from 280ppm to 424ppm, and that isn’t 1000%.
He concludes from this nonsense that emission driven warming is a hoax. Its not, its real, its small, its not in the least alarming, and that is shown by the observation based studies and estimates.
Nonsense like his does the cause of rational appraisal of the current climate hysteria a grave disservice.
Both figures are correct. It an obtuse reading to suggest that one is correct and one is not.
Total atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 to 424. Ok, so what? Is it wrong? No.
“Industrial CO2” has increased from 13 to ~131, or 1000%. Ok, so what? Is it wrong? No.
It is similar to what CMoB argues. If CO2 increases temperatures, then the 280 ppm must have caused a temperature increase. That is the baseline. Consequently, the INCREASE of CO2 has caused a temperature increase since 1850! So the increase of anthropogenic CO2 has gone from 13 to 131, a 1000% increase. This is a better measure of what increased anthropogenic CO2 does to temperature.
““Industrial CO2” has increased from 13 to ~131, or 1000%. Ok, so what? Is it wrong? No.”
It’s not wrong, just irrelevant. And when someone quotes it in relation to warming and uses the word “despite”, it is misleading.
“If CO2 increases temperatures, then the 280 ppm must have caused a temperature increase.”
Indeed.
“Consequently, the INCREASE of CO2 has caused a temperature increase since 1850!”
That’s the theory.
“So the increase of anthropogenic CO2 has gone from 13 to 131, a 1000% increase.”
And how does the greenhouse effect know which molecules are natural and which anthropogenic?
“This is a better measure of what increased anthropogenic CO2 does to temperature.”
How is it? If you compared today’s CO2 with the amount before any anthropogenic emissions, you could say there was now an infinite increase. Would that mean you would expect much more warming than when you compared it to the level in 1895?
Your argument is facetious. The whole purpose of Netzero is that if we eliminate anthropogenic CO2, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will reduce to 280 ppm over time, thereby returning us to both the proper amount of CO2 (280 ppm) and the correct temperature of the globe as it was in 1850.
Your argument includes the assumption that the increase is “natural CO2 + anthro CO2”. If natural CO2 is increasing also, why are we just kicking the can down the road? Sooner or later it will put us at the same point we are now.
The whole mess is illogic piled on illogic.
“The whole purpose of Netzero is that if we eliminate anthropogenic CO2, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will reduce to 280 ppm over time”
Do you have a reference for that? I would have thought it unlikely CO2 would return to pre-industrial levels any time in the foreseeable future.
“Your argument includes the assumption that the increase is “natural CO2 + anthro CO2”.”
Then I’m not explaining my argument very well, or you’re not understanding it. I don’t see any reason to assume “natural” CO2 is or will increase. But whatever, the point is the net rise in CO2 since the pre-industrial era has to be seen in the context of the pre-industrial levels, not as a thing on it’s own. Hence an increase of 50% in CO2 is a more relevant figure than a 1000% rise in just the bit that has been added since the pre-industrial era.
You can keep distributing all you want, but you still haven’t explained why you think that 1000% figure is useful or meaningful.
The amount of energy per dimensional ton (35 cubic feet of sea water) is the same at sea level on both dates.