We've known about this for years. It's only just gotten the attention of the media, who tend to ignore things to can see no use for them.

The Sun has always been growing hotter, do it so from the day it lit up. It was cooler in the past, and it will be hotter in the future. Along the arrangement of land and water, axial tilt, when in the orbit the equinoxes and soltices, and other things it's all contributory to Earth's climate. It's not a case of one thing or another, it's one thing and another (and another and another and another...).

Though I suspect people will still be arguing the matter while they sip their pina coladas under palm trees up in Nova Scotia.

I'll point out for the benefit of the readers that I have already shown why this information about the solar constant is irrelevant to global warming. Mr. Simon doesn't understand that explanation, so he continues repeating his error.

Froblyx, you'd better check your calculations again. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation the temperature at the Earth's surface is proportional to the fourth root of the solar flux. If solar radiation increases, so does the Earth's surface temperature. A simulation that ignores this isn't describing the real world ...

Froblyx, you'd better check your calculations again. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation the temperature at the Earth's surface is proportional to the fourth root of the solar flux.

OK, I'll do the math for you. We start with the data point that the solar flux has increased by 0.05% since 1979. That's a factor of 1.0005. The fourth root of 1.0005 is approximately 1.000125. Therefore, the Earth's temperature should have increased by 1.000125 x 300K, or about 0.04K. This is much smaller than the observed rate of increase. Ergo, the increase in solar flux is far too small to be responsible for the observed global warming.

Satisfied?

Alan Kellogg & Michael Brazier,

Yes, in general the Sun's luminosity has been known to vary. The "Maunder mininum" is a much-discussed topic in that regard.

But the relevance of this to the current global warming is what has been dismissed - and correctly so. The variation that Willson points out is well within the previously known limits (0.1% variance since 1988), which in turn is much too small to explain the observed global warming, as Froblyx has calculated.

M. Simon,

I must say I am disappointed at the original posting, in which you give the impression that Willson's research supports the idea that variation in the Sun's luminosity is the real explanation of current global warming.

You quote the article at www.space.com extensively. But you fail to include a key point in that very article:
"The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were maintained for a century or more."

So this change cannot have anything to do with what has been happening over the last 30 years - where we've seen an increase of about 0.7 degrees Celsius.

Now, Mr. Simon, did you:

- Not notice this point, in the very article you were quoting so heavily? or
- Think that you knew the meaning of Willson's work better than he did? or
- Think that no one would read the original article?

I would be interested in an explanation.

Froblyx: "Satisfied?"

No, you misread the article. It said the solar flux has increased by .05% per decade since the late '70s; that is, for each of the three decades since 1977, the solar flux at the decade's end was 1.0005 times what it was at the beginning. Therefore the flux now is 1.0005^3 times what it was in 1977, and we must multiply 300K by 1.005^(3/4), giving an expected rise of 0.11K.

Neal King has been good enough to inform us that the actual rise in temperature since 1977 was 0.7K, so 15% of the actual rise must be attributed to Solar variation. I put it to you that dismissing 15% of the observed rise in temperature as "irrelevant to global warming" is clearly unwarranted.

Michael,

I do not believe it was .7 K in 3 decades.

I believe that figure was the rise in the last 100 years. (actually estimated as .6 +/- .1 K)

However, solar input is estimated to have risen .5% in that time.

Which gives a rise of about .4 deg K or 2/3s of the estimated rise.

Nir Shaviv estimates the cloud/solar magnetism effect adds another .1 deg K bringing the total solar effect up to 80% of the observed rise.

Given the errors all around I'd estimate that the solar effects account for 60% to 100% of the total rise.

Bjorn Lumborg estimates that through natural evolution of technology we will be off fossil fuels by aroud 2065 to 2100.

I see no point in strangling the world economy for energy to accomplish something technological evolution will accomplish in the required time frame.

In fact strangling the world economy will slow down the rate of technological evolution.

One of the possibilites for that evolution is:

Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion

My personal estimate of the likelyhood of the above working (after looking at the engineering problems) is in the range of 1% to 10%. Still the risk reward ratio is right and the project ought to be funded at least to the tune of $5 million to verify the fundamental physics.

And yet despite the global wariming alarums there is no ground swell to get anything like that done. Or any of the several other similar low cost approaches to fusion.

Then you have a number of solar scientists saying that there is a 300 year solar cycle and we are at the peak. You know what that means: solar output is set to decline.

In fact we may already be seeing the decline.

Global temperatures have been declining since 1998, except for an anamalous peak in 2004. However, since 2004 temperatures have been declining on the same (linear) trend line established in the 1998 to 2003 period.

It would be really interesting to find out what caused the 2004 peak. There is information there.

"It said the solar flux has increased by .05% per decade"

Thanks for correcting my error. Yes, that would make the total increase due to the increase in TSI about 0.11K. You argue that this is large enough to deserve some consideration, and I agree. So I went back and looked at the original article and I noticed three things about it:

1. The graph on which the statements are made is not much to go on. Yes, if you draw a line from one minimum to the next minimum, you get an increase of 0.05%. But if you draw a line from the first peak of the data to the last peak of the data, you get a decrease of about 0.04% over 24 years. That's the danger with extrapolating from cyclic data.

2. The article dates from 2003. Thus, it is not news. The IPCC report did in fact take this information into account; a graph showing Willson's data (as well as data from other sources) appears on page 189 of the IPCC report as Figure 2.16. Here are some statements in the IPCC report that directly address this question:

"The increase in excess of 0.04% over the 27-year period of the ACRIM irradiance composite (Willson and Mordinov, 2003), although incompletely understood, is thought to be more of instrumental rather than solar origin (Frolich and Lean, 2004)."

"Independent, overlapping ERBS observations do not show this increase; nor do they suggest a significant secular trend (Lee et al. 1995). Such a trend is not present in the PMOD composite, in which total irradiance between successive solar activity minima is nearly constant, to better than 0.01% (Frolich and Lean, 2004). Although a long-term trend of order 0.01% is present in the SARR composite between successive solar activity minima (in 1986 and 1996), it is not statistically significant because the estimated uncertainty is 0.026% (Dewitte et al, 2005)."

Thus, Simon gives us only part of the story. Just to make sure, I googled Willson and his research and found many references to the 2003 piece, but nothing after that other than the refuting paper by Frolich and Lean. This suggests the Willson had no good response to their paper, or that he has abandoned that suggestion because his latest data contradicts it. Or perhaps I have not found a later paper by Mr. Willson.

3. In the 2003 article, Wilson suggests that the results from the 2006 solar minimum will clarify the matter. And in fact, Wilson's own data from 2005 clearly shows that the 2006 minimum is already lower than the 1996 minimum -- meaning that the trend is now going down.

Thus, the claimed long-term increase in TSI is in fact unsupported by data. If you have any doubts about this, just read the IPCC report, Section 2.7.1, "Solar variability".

"It said the solar flux has increased by .05% per decade"

Thanks for correcting my error. Yes, that would make the total increase due to the increase in TSI about 0.11K. You argue that this is large enough to deserve some consideration, and I agree. So I went back and looked at the original article and I noticed three things about it:

1. The graph on which the statements are made is not much to go on. Yes, if you draw a line from one minimum to the next minimum, you get an increase of 0.05%. But if you draw a line from the first peak of the data to the last peak of the data, you get a decrease of about 0.04% over 24 years. That's the danger with extrapolating from cyclic data.

2. The article dates from 2003. Thus, it is not news. The IPCC report did in fact take this information into account; a graph showing Willson's data (as well as data from other sources) appears on page 189 of the IPCC report as Figure 2.16. Here are some statements in the IPCC report that directly address this question:

"The increase in excess of 0.04% over the 27-year period of the ACRIM irradiance composite (Willson and Mordinov, 2003), although incompletely understood, is thought to be more of instrumental rather than solar origin (Frolich and Lean, 2004)."

"Independent, overlapping ERBS observations do not show this increase; nor do they suggest a significant secular trend (Lee et al. 1995). Such a trend is not present in the PMOD composite, in which total irradiance between successive solar activity minima is nearly constant, to better than 0.01% (Frolich and Lean, 2004). Although a long-term trend of order 0.01% is present in the SARR composite between successive solar activity minima (in 1986 and 1996), it is not statistically significant because the estimated uncertainty is 0.026% (Dewitte et al, 2005)."

Thus, Simon gives us only part of the story. Just to make sure, I googled Willson and his research and found many references to the 2003 piece, but nothing after that other than the refuting paper by Frolich and Lean. This suggests the Willson had no good response to their paper, or that he has abandoned that suggestion because his latest data contradicts it. Or perhaps I have not found a later paper by Mr. Willson.

3. In the 2003 article, Wilson suggests that the results from the 2006 solar minimum will clarify the matter. And in fact, Wilson's own data from 2005 clearly shows that the 2006 minimum is already lower than the 1996 minimum -- meaning that the trend is now going down.

Thus, the claimed long-term increase in TSI is in fact unsupported by data. If you have any doubts about this, just read the IPCC report, Section 2.7.1, "Solar variability".

Frob,

If you are right and solar output is decreasing shouldn't we be pumping out CO2 in order to maintain temperatures?

BTW this site takes a long time to load (compared to most - I blame all the comments) don't hit the post button more than once.

I'm going to change your second post to "unpublished". If I make an error give me a heads up.

Neal asks about:

You quote the article at www.space.com extensively. But you fail to include a key point in that very article: "The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were maintained for a century or more."

I left that out for a reason.

The reason is quoted in the piece I wrote. There is evidence that the solar output has been increasing at that rate for more than a century.

So that calls into question the temperature dip (or at minimum stagnation) from about 1940 to 1970. CO2 and presumably solar output were rising and yet temperatures declined for 30 years.

What caused it?

There is information there.

After that period the temperature rise resumed the pre-1940 trend line. Pre 1940 is considered to be an era when man was not pumping out significant CO2.

The decline in solar output was predicted by solar scientists, however it was not expected for another 5 to 10 years. Given that the prediction was based on a 300 year cycle with the usual noise and influence from other solar cycles I'd say the solar guys were doing a pretty good job.

Again if solar output is going down and if CO2 increases retain more heat shouldn't we applaud and encourage more CO2 in the atmosphere?

Do we want another "little ice age" with its massive starvation?

Neal,

The models were developed from 100 years of data using the .1% variability of the sun giving CO2 sensitivity a certain value.

If the sun has varied more than that over the data collection time then CO2 sensitivity is wrong and something else is causing the temperature rise.

This is a test

Michael Brazier,

wrt your posting of
Michael Brazier·May 22, 2007 11:31 PM
So if we accept the calculation of 0.05%/decade as giving rise to a temperature increase of 0.11-degrees, this would leave 85% of the change unexplained by solar variation.

This is in-line with what Solanki said: As an extreme upper limit, variation in solar luminiosity could account for at most 30% of the temperature change since the 1970s.

That means 70% of it needs explanation. Greenhouse effect, anyone?

M. Simon:

0.5% in 100 years? I don't think so.

In several places above, you pin a lot on the figure quoted above. However, I believe it is ill-founded. Why?

- I doubt it because of the statement in the article itself: "The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were maintained for a century or more." Note the usage of the subjunctive: this indicates that the statement is either contrafactual or speculative. The way I read it, the implication is that there is no reason to believe that this rate had been maintained, otherwise he would have said "That is enough... because the rate of change was maintained..."

- On the other hand, you are going back to the statement: "...a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies."

combined with

"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today."

What's wrong with that? Well, he hasn't said that it was going up at the same rate for that century - and that's important. If it goes up at a very slow rate for a century or more, and then goes up at the fast rate for the last 3 decades, that's not going to be enough to push up to 0.5%.

OK, so this is splitting grammatical hairs. How can we decide what was really meant?

Well, as it turns out, I found a research report covering the same work (and a link to the article) at the site of the NASA / Goddard Institute of Space Sciences, where Willson works: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/

I'll quote a few selections to focus the attention (but you can find the whole thing at the URL):

"Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said."

along with

"Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect."

Two things I'll point out in this passage:
- The persistent usage of the subjunctive. That means he can't say it happened, he can just say what would have happened if it had happened.
- They're now going to begin looking for this effect. That rubs home the point that they haven't found it yet.

And in fact, if you look at the actual article, there is absolutely no data that relates to anything earlier than 1978. So whatever Willson said (or possibly, did not say - you know how inventive journalists can be) about a century of solar activity, it has nothing to do with the measurements upon which his article is based.

So I see here absolutely nothing that contradicts my original claim of 0.1% variation in solar luminosity since 1988; and no reason to believe that this variation in the last 100 years has been anywhere close to 0.5%.

Neal,

How about the solar/cloud effect? Has that been included in the models?

Was Solanki's result included in model adjustments?

I'm still waiting for an answer on CO2 vs temperature in the Cretaceous. How do the models handle that?

So far each new IPCC report has reduced the sensitivity of climate to CO2. With luck these new adjustments will be included in the Fifth Assesment.

I estimate that by the Eighth or Tenth Assesment the Models will be much closer. Depending on what they leave out.

BTW I will have a bit on what they leave out soon.

You can sharpen your swords by reading an advanced copy here:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/05/more-uncertain.html

I'm still waiting for an explanation of the cooling since 1998.

I'm still trying to find out if the models include the 300 year solar cycle. Which is either peaking or has just passed the peak.

I'm still waiting to hear about what should be done about China. Politically it is not feasible to get Americans to agree to carbon caps without getting China on board. That was the stumbling block for Kyoto.

It is my opinion that if you want to reduce man made CO2 in the atmosphere there will be no political fix. The only solution is technological A source of electricity cheaper than coal fired plants with no CO2 outputs.

Any candidates?

M. Simon,

wrt your post of
M. Simon·May 23, 2007 12:55 AM

Temperature rise
- Over the last 100 years, the overall increase has been about 0.6 degrees.
- Due to a dip in temperature between 1940-1970, the rise from 1970 until the present can still be 0.7 degrees.
- The dip is well-modeled as due to sulfate aerosols from the unscrubbed combustion of coal.

"Solar input estimated to have risen 0.5% in that time": As discussed above in
Neal J. King·May 23, 2007 06:59 PM, that is not true. Or, at least, Willson's work does not support it.

Shaviv: A lot of people are skeptical about Shaviv's conclusions: see for example http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.html

Global temperatures: There was a sharp peak in 1998, which was an El-Nino year. Since 2000, it's been rising reasonably steadily, although you have to smooth the curve, which is kind of noisy. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Froblyx,

I agree with you that the claimed increase of 0.5% didn't happen.

I also believe that Willson didn't claim it.

As you can see in my post above:
Neal J. King·May 23, 2007 06:59 PM

M. Simon,

wrt your post of
M. Simon·May 23, 2007 06:54 AM

C-O2 sensitivity:
If the 100 years of data are wrong, then I agree that results derived from them would need to be revised.

However, nothing discussed so far convinces me that there is any case for believing that they are seriously wrong. As discussed in detail above
(Neal J. King·May 23, 2007 06:59 PM),
Willson was at most speculating (without any data) about what might be the case if the assumptions were wrong. I don't know what he can do to double-check data from pre-satellite periods: We don't have time machines, and I don't believe he's thought of any new proxy-temperature methods. Even if they're able to establish a trend continuing into the future, that doesn't challenge measurements in the past.

M. Simon,

wrt your posting of
M. Simon·May 23, 2007 07:10 PM

- Solar/Cloud effect: In general, clouds introduce a major source of uncertainty in modeling, because they could do a lot of different things. I think they bracket the results by seeing what happens when they make a range of assumptions about the impact.

- Solanki's results included: His analysis is based on solar intensity measurements, as were the models.

- C-O2 in the Cretaceous: What was the problem? (I have enough to do fighting my own battles; I don't follow all of the others.)

- With each version of the IPCC report, the uncertainty has dropped. That may or may not result in the average impact dropping. I wouldn't bet on it, frankly. New effects will be included when they're accepted as plausible mechanisms for what's going on.

- 1998: Weather is a complicated & noisy signal. No one on the climatologists' side of of the discussion has been expecting a monotonic increase or decrease in anything. There are lots of natural cycles.
Analogy: a grandfather clock that is tilted slowly towards the left. The pendulum will still be swinging back and forth, even as the average position moves leftward, until the bob strikes the wall on the left.

- 300-year cycle: I don't know, I haven't heard of it. But if it's part of accepted science, they've included it. Why wouldn't they?

- China: That's a political issue, not a scientific issue. My point of view: If we decide, as a society, that the problem is real, I don't think that people should waste much time on this issue. When a house is burning down, this is not the time to argue about what percentage of the fire insurance each roommate owes.

- Solutions: Solutions are harder than diagnosis. The sooner we can agree on the diagnosis, the sooner we can focus on the solutions - wholeheartedly.

Neal,

Did you see this:

A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth, going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson said.

I posted it in the piece. You can read it above. You must have missed it. Compelling evidence of course is not definite. However, it fits with the solar guy's 300 year cycle theory. So let us see. We are currently at or near a peak. Subtract 150 years from today's date and you get what? 1857. Which is about the date the solar guys use for the start of the current upward trend.

The sun is a G type star. Some G type stars appear to have output variations of .6%. Quite close to the estimated .5% rise for our sun over the last 100 to 150 years. I wouldn't discount it. It fits in with what astronomers know about some G type stars. Are there any astonomical papers included in the IPCC? Then you add in the cloud amplification factor and the results here on earth would exceed that .5% number.

CO2 in the Cretaceous? A decline from 2,200 ppm to 800 ppm while the temperature rose at the beginning of the period by 7 deg C and then held steady at 22 deg C for most of that time while CO2 was declining.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

In fact except for one minor blip to 23 deg C 22 C seems to be an upper bound for the temperature of the earth going back 600 million years.

During that period CO2 was as high as 7,000 ppm. About 20X what we see today.

The lower bound seems to be the current temperature. Which would say that we are not far from ice age conditions.

http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/1/3/3

It is thus thought that sunspot number is a good proxy for solar irradiance changes, and historical variations in this number have led to a belief that the total variation of solar irradiance over time scales of thousands of years is unlikely to exceed 1%. This assumes that no non-magnetic related effects are likely to show up in the longer time scales.

The other way to approach the problem is to examine a sample of solar-like stars for irradiance fluctuations. When this is done, the Sun does appear to be abnormally quiet. A recent report suggests that the average G type (solar like) star shows a 4% irradiance variation over decadal time scales(9). Further, this variation may well be due to non-magnetically related activity, and is thus a phenomenon that we do not see at present in our Sun.

Using differential Str�mgren b, y photometry, we monitored the brightness variations of 41 program stars and their 73 comparison stars from 1984 through 1995. The predominantly main-sequence program stars spanned ranges of temperature and mean chromospheric activity centered on solar values. About 40% of all the stars showed measurable variability, typically at levels below 0.01 mag (∼1%), on both night-to-night and year-to-year timescales. The variability correlated with mean chromospheric activity and advancing spectral type. We present differential light curves and statistical descriptions of our observations.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v485n2/35548/35548.html

So a long term variation on the order of .5% for our sun is not out of the question based on looking at other similar stars.

Neal King: have you heard of the "residual fallacy"? It's a common invalid argument from statistical data, in which a researcher notices a large disparity between two populations -- average salaries of males, and of females, say -- and then subtracts off contributions to that disparity from a list of innocent causes. When it turns out that the list doesn't account for the whole disparity, the researcher blames the residue on a favorite collective sin, and publishes a summons to purification ("we must end discrimination against women!")

M. Simon is accusing the IPCC of falling for a residual fallacy -- taking the observed rise in temperature, subtracting from it the expected rise from a list of other causes, and ascribing what remains to the rise in CO2 concentration. And the adjustments in the IPCC Assessments to the impact of CO2 levels -- smaller in each successive edition -- shows the fallacy of such reasoning: it conflates the effects of unknown causes with the effect we want to measure. Following the residual fallacy always means overstating the danger.

By the way, China isn't going to stop burning coal and oil, no matter what we "as a society" may choose to do; and while that holds true, nothing the West does will keep the CO2 concentration from rising. If the IPCC's science is right, we're in a classic tragedy of the commons, in which everyone's perfect knowledge of the coming end only hastens it. The only hope we have is that the IPCC is wrong ...

Michael,

First. Thanks for clarifying my point from a statistical point of view. Excellent.

By the way, China isn't going to stop burning coal and oil, no matter what we "as a society" may choose to do; and while that holds true, nothing the West does will keep the CO2 concentration from rising. If the IPCC's science is right, we're in a classic tragedy of the commons, in which everyone's perfect knowledge of the coming end only hastens it. The only hope we have is that the IPCC is wrong ...

Despite the fact that I'm an AGW sceptic I do believe that if the AGW folks were serious they would not be advocating hair shirt solutions.

They would be pushing research that could get us out of the "mess" economically i.e. at lower cost than what got us into the "mess".

Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion

Now the fact that this kind of research seems to be of no interest to the sky is falling AGW people suggests that the real agenda is not the prevention of global warming by human CO2 production, but something else.

It looks to a lot of folks like the real agenda is power and control.

Michael, I think you are reversing the logic with your point about the residual fallacy. In fact, the first approximation theory says that increasing CO2 should cause increasing temperatures. It's what we would expect to happen. The climatologists are working hard to eliminate other possible contributors to make certain that the observed temperature rise is due to CO2 as theory predicts. They're nailing down the basic theoretical expectation, not randomly fishing for it.

I strongly agree that this is a tragedy of the commons problem and that China will eventually render all other efforts pointless. It's a great shame; had we jumped onto Kyoto as the first step and then pursued additional treaties, we might have been able to get the momentum going in time to accomplish something. With each passing year that we stonewall, our chances of getting anybody else do anything dwindle.

Lastly, I'd like to ask you about this statement:

And the adjustments in the IPCC Assessments to the impact of CO2 levels -- smaller in each successive edition --

Can you document that? My impression is that each succeeding report has said, basically, "We're even more certain than we were previously, and it looks worse than we though previously."

frob,

Getting people to give up their standard of living is tough. Very tough.

Did you read my post on German resistance? Did you comment on it?

So if you can't get the changes you want by command and control why aren't you championing technological solutions?

In addition there are voices from the third world that say they will not give up the chance for a better life NOW to headoff some disaster 50 to 100 years hence.

So I ask again. Why isn't there much call for a tecnological solution from the AGW folks. i.e. for a non-carbon lower cost way to make electricity?

Why is the only solution put forth (Kyoto style) a call for governments to IMPOSE a solution i.e. put a gun to people's heads?

I don't get it. Unless AGW is only a smoke screen.

Frob,

I just looked up the First Assesment. You are correct about temperatures. No change.

Yet the models in 1990 were clearly inadequate.

And the models get revised to improve them yet the numbers predicted haven't changed. I'd say that was suspicious.

One thing that has changed is the rate of ocean rise. It was revised down.

we shall see if the new cloud data affects the numbers. If not we are most certainly dealing with fraud. Not the first time in science.

Frob asks,

- 300-year cycle: I don't know, I haven't heard of it. But if it's part of accepted science, they've included it. Why wouldn't they?

Well it would mean lowering the anticipated temperature rise. We are told that the .6 C rise over the last 100 years is all man made.
Yet if the solar guys are right about 1/2 that rise is due to increased solar input. Add in the solar/cloud stuff and the CO2 induced rise is smaller yet.

If the sun is responsible for just half the rise attributed to CO2 and the solar output is now declining then we are likely to see zero change by 2100. In other words the added CO2 may be preventing a little ice age.

Which would mean that Kyoto is the wrong thing to do.

Let me also note that the first IPCC stated that the anticipated rise is equal to natural variation and may in fact not be caused by CO2.

Neal has the answer for what to do about global warming:

Temperature rise - Over the last 100 years, the overall increase has been about 0.6 degrees. - Due to a dip in temperature between 1940-1970, the rise from 1970 until the present can still be 0.7 degrees. - The dip is well-modeled as due to sulfate aerosols from the unscrubbed combustion of coal

The answer to global warming is to take the scrubbers off the coal plants.

BTW to claim that the rise of .7 deg from 1970 is a significant unprecidented CO2 signal when man was depressing the signal with emissions is disineguous.

The signal merely reverted to the trend line. Which says the real CO2 signal is .6 deg. over a century.

Kind of playing climate porn with the data aren't you? The scarier the better I suppose.

Some of us don't scare worth a damn.

Neal says,

I agree with you that the claimed increase of 0.5% didn't happen. I also believe that Willson didn't claim it. As you can see in my post above:

Reading comprehension down?

Here is what Willison said (you can read it above in the post or the referenced article):

A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth, going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson said.

Now what the heck did he mean by that?

BTW more than a century fits in with the well known 300 year solar cycle. Just to make it obvious: 150 years up. 150 years down.

Neal says:

Willson was at most speculating (without any data) about what might be the case if the assumptions were wrong. I don't know what he can do to double-check data from pre-satellite periods: We don't have time machines, and I don't believe he's thought of any new proxy-temperature methods. Even if they're able to establish a trend continuing into the future, that doesn't challenge measurements in the past. --

Jeez how do you reconstruct the past? Is it only a valid reconstruction when AGW folks do it?

However, I'll let Willison explain it to you:

A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth, going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson said.

Now is his reconstruction of the solar magnetic field right or wrong?

The solar magnetic field is data. Correct or not? The sun's magnetic field increases with solar activity. Correct or not?

http://physics.usc.edu/solar/history.html

So we have good measurements from 1907 (aprox) on.

Now for the indirect methods:

Published in the June 10 issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters (Elsevier, volume 199, issues 3-4), Sharma's study combined data on the varying production rates of beryllium 10, an isotope found on earth produced when high-energy galactic cosmic rays bombard our atmosphere, and data on the past variations in the earth's magnetic field intensity.

With this information, Sharma calculated variations in solar magnetic activity going back 200,000 years, and he noticed a pattern.

Over the last 1 million years, the earth's climate record has revealed a 100,000-year cycle oscillating between relatively cold and warm conditions, and Sharma's data on the sun's magnetic activity corresponded to the earth's ice age history.

"Surprisingly, it looks like solar activity is varying in longer time spans than we realized," says Sharma. "We knew about the shorter cycles of solar activity, so maybe these are just little cycles within a larger cycle. Even more surprising is the fact that the glacial and interglacial periods on earth during the last 200,000 years appear to be strongly linked to solar activity."

Sharma's calculations suggest that when the sun is magnetically more active, the earth experiences a warmer climate, and vice versa, when the sun is magnetically less active, there is a glacial period. Right now, the earth is in an interglacial period (in between ice ages) that began about 11,000 years ago, and as expected, this is also a time when the estimated solar activity appears to be high..

http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0606022.htm

So Neal are you going to throw out all the Be10 proxy data? I thought that was kind of important to climate science.

Get your buds at RealClimate to work on this pronto! I look forward to their/your explanation.

Should be a doozy.

Neal says:

- Fusion: AGW people are climatologists. With all the best will in the world, what do climatologists know about nuclear fusion?

Not enough evidently. Especially when it comes to the sun.

However, I'm not asking you or the climate folks to become plasma physicists or even plasma engineers. That is my job.

I'm merely suggesting that a look into it might be a good idea as a cheaper non-CO2 soucre of energy would be a good way of solving the CO2 problem (if you think there is a problem). Me? I think cheap energy is good for humans and a small low weight low cost fusion plant would be very good for space travel.

In case you haven't looked here is a good place to start. If you passed high school physics you ought to be able to understand this. And if not. No matter. Dr. Bussard makes the political/AGW implications obvious as well.

Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion

Yes China was supposed to overtake us in CO2 in 2009. However, it appears they are ahead of schedule. You can look it up.

BTW there is no need to internalize the cost of coal if the energy source (wind, fusion) is competitive with out such internalization. Which fusion can be and wind will be in another generation (of wind turbines) or so. The learning curve on wind is a reduction in cost per kwh of 2/3s for every doubling of turbine size. In fact it is the same cost curve coal went through for the same reason. Bigger plants are cheaper to build on a kwh basis.

- "If the solar guys are right": You're talking about a handful of people: Shaviv, Abussamadov (?), Svensmark. Their evidence doesn't hang together. I'll bet against them - at least until they come up with real evidence..

Evidently you have not surveyed the field well. That can bite you if you don't watch out. CERN is set to do confirmatory experiments on the cloud bit and the 300 year solar cycle is a well known part of solar science.

I'm not surprised the IPCC did not consult with solar scientists. it would ruin their game plan.

Really you should do some research on the sun. It is a fascinating subject. Google awaits.

"I strongly agree that this is a tragedy of the commons problem and that China will eventually render all other efforts pointless. It's a great shame; had we jumped onto Kyoto as the first step and then pursued additional treaties, we might have been able to get the momentum going in time to accomplish something."

Froblyx, how exactly would that have worked? Do you suppose China would be so impressed by our vows of poverty that they would gladly imitate us, resign themselves to greater poverty than ours, and take the thought that they and we have saved the planet as consolation? If so, where did you get the idea that China is ruled by altruists? Or that China's rulers rate the world's approval higher than wealth and power? I've seen no signs of either motive in the Communist Party of China.

Michael, China would not be motivated by altruism but it would be motivated by group pressure. Many nations (I'm sad to say) anthropomorphize their diplomatic relations, and Chinese society is VERY different from Western society in its decision-making processes. The group makes the decision and the individual who stands against the group is ruined. If China perceives itself to be standing against the nations of the world, it will alter its behavior.

OK, Froblyx, you picked the second choice: that China's rulers rate the world's approval higher than wealth and power. Again, I see no evidence of this in China's diplomatic relations, and there is evidence against it: every nation in the world has expressed disapproval of the PRC's treatment of Tibet, yet that disapproval hasn't softened China's policy at all.

The fact is, this type of moral suasion only really works on Western powers, the USA most of all. Expecting China to be swayed by it is expecting China to be like the West, not different from it ...

Michael, Chinese foreign policy has changed dramatically in the last ten years. China has been a diplomatic offensive, and the whole approach has been to make nice to lots of people in order to nail down access to resources. As part of this China has been engaging in all sorts of "global public citizen" activities to burnish its image. They are spending lots of money in foreign aid projects to help things along. One of the most striking changes in Chinese foreign policy has been its new attitude towards territorial disputes such as the Spratly Islands. Whereas previously it was all bluster and chest-thumping, now it is Mr. Multilaterism.

China's refusal to contemplate autonomy for Tibet springs from Chinese calculations of the impact such a policy would have on the country as a whole. They're worried about everything falling apart, and they fear that granting autonomy to Tibet would be the first step in that process. You see a grasping imperialist where they see it in terms of survival.

frob,

Grasping imperialism to insure survival.

Where have I heard that story before?

And what is the most important resource China is looking for? Access to oil. Now what do you suppose they are doing with that oil? I claim they are going to use it as fuel and add to the global CO2 burden.

The only way out is a technological fix. Because politics will not solve the problem. There is no way to harmonize all the interests involved.

BTW I don't recall your commenting on the German's problems with carbon taxes.

M. Simon:

"increase in output goes back to 1868"
The problem I have with accepting this:
"A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth, going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson said."

is that there is no citation that I can check for this. This is important, because when I look at the www.space.com article you post, and compare that to NASA's presentation of the same research at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2003/Willson_Mordvinov.html , I get completely different emphasis and views of what is going on. And when I look at Willson's paper at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Willson_Mordvinov.pdf , there's absolutely no mention of this. So I'm rather dubious about taking it seriously: I'm more inclined to believe that the journalist overstated his case. It happens a lot: and if the word "current" is dropped, the whole thing loses its force.

Solar Magnetic Field
You cite an article on magnetic fields and the Sun. Where does it say anything about a value for increase in luminosity? Where is the number? Qualitative results are not enough in this case.

100,000-year cycles for Sun's magnetic activity
For the sake of discussion, let us stipulate that it is true.

What does that have to do with a 0.5-degree change that has happened over a 100-year period? Your source doesn't give an estimate of the temperature range, so let's guess: 10 degrees (probably way way too high). Over 100,000 years, so a rate of increase of 10/100,000 = 0.0001 deg/year. Whereas the current rate is 0.5/100 = 0.005 deg/year. So, as I had thought: this is a factor of 50 times too high. Oh, wait, let's take into account that a full cycle would be 100,000, so it's only increasing over a quarter-cycle. That means the rate should be 4 * 0.001 = 0.004 deg/year, which means the GW rate is only a factor of 12.5 times too fast. So the proposed mechanism fails to meet the basic requirement: It doesn't effectuate the observed change fast enough.

Cretaceous
OK, so the C-O2 went down but the temperature went up. Well, no climatologist ever said that C-O2 is the only factor affecting temperature, in fact until recently it's just been a feedback loop. The issue for GW is, What's been happening in the past 100 years, and why? And when you take into account C-O2, unscrubbed coal burning, volcanoes and the known solar variation, you get a pretty good match: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm . So I don't see why you think there's a challenge there.

0.5% variation, longterm
The basic question is, Is C-O2 responsible for the GW we see? What could happen "longterm" does not have any implication for this question. And ignoring the measurements made on the Sun directly in favor of generalized results from the population of G-type stars doesn't make a lot of sense: Do you estimate the growth rate of your child by looking at his/her periodic height measurements, or by consulting the average for school-age children? We have a lot better measurements of the Sun than we have of the other stars. The measurements indicate a 0.1% variation since 1988, not nearly enough to explain the GW during that period.

China
The issue of "what to do about China" needs to be kept completely separate from the question of "Is GW happening" and "Is it due to C-O2". The one question is policy, the second question is science. Let's not mix them up.

That said, I will point out that there have been articles recently highlighting statements made by Chinese officials about the dangers of GW - to China. In the end, China will act because it is in China's best interest, not because of public or internatinal pressure. But it would help if the U.S. would take a leadership position, because China also doesn't want to be the party "holding the bag".

"Models improved, numbers didn't change"
That doesn't ring true: As you stated yourself, the numbers for sea-level rise changed. And it sometimes happen that an improvement in the model does not give rise to a significant change. They did, after all, bracket their calculations the first time, as well as subsequently. In fact, the change is that the degree of uncertainty keeps decreasing.

Unscrubbed coal as the solution
Actually, this has been suggested, as an act of desperation. Most folks think that it's kind of dangerous to solve a pollutive problem by adding a different kind of pollution: like combatting uppers with downers, drugwise. The rationale for it is that, if you stop inputting the coal (sulfate aerosols specifically), it will drop out fairly quickly, in a few years.

I don't know what you think is disingenuous. Overall, the increase was 0.6 degrees. There was a dip in the middle, while unscrubbed combustion of coal was happening. When it stopped, the heating increased to what was appropriate for the amount of C-O2, and the temperature began to rise again. What's your issue?

Fusion au Bussard
It's not possible for me to evaluate this on the basis of the information provided. Bussard seems to be well-connected and generally quite knowledgeable about fusion research, but beyond that I can't say.

M. Simon:

"increase in output goes back to 1868"
The problem I have with accepting this:
"A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth, going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson said."

is that there is no citation that I can check for this. This is important, because when I look at the www.space.com article you post, and compare that to NASA's presentation of the same research at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2003/Willson_Mordvinov.html , I get completely different emphasis and views of what is going on. And when I look at Willson's paper at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Willson_Mordvinov.pdf , there's absolutely no mention of this. So I'm rather dubious about taking it seriously: I'm more inclined to believe that the journalist overstated his case. It happens a lot: and if the word "current" is dropped, the whole thing loses its force.

Solar Magnetic Field
You cite an article on magnetic fields and the Sun. Where does it say anything about a value for increase in luminosity? Where is the number? Qualitative results are not enough in this case.

100,000-year cycles for Sun's magnetic activity
For the sake of discussion, let us stipulate that it is true.

What does that have to do with a 0.5-degree change that has happened over a 100-year period? Your source doesn't give an estimate of the temperature range, so let's guess: 10 degrees (probably way way too high). Over 100,000 years, so a rate of increase of 10/100,000 = 0.0001 deg/year. Whereas the current rate is 0.5/100 = 0.005 deg/year. So, as I had thought: this is a factor of 50 times too high. Oh, wait, let's take into account that a full cycle would be 100,000, so it's only increasing over a quarter-cycle. That means the rate should be 4 * 0.001 = 0.004 deg/year, which means the GW rate is only a factor of 12.5 times too fast. So the proposed mechanism fails to meet the basic requirement: It doesn't effectuate the observed change fast enough.

Cretaceous
OK, so the C-O2 went down but the temperature went up. Well, no climatologist ever said that C-O2 is the only factor affecting temperature, in fact until recently it's just been a feedback loop. The issue for GW is, What's been happening in the past 100 years, and why? And when you take into account C-O2, unscrubbed coal burning, volcanoes and the known solar variation, you get a pretty good match: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm . So I don't see why you think there's a challenge there.

0.5% variation, longterm
The basic question is, Is C-O2 responsible for the GW we see? What could happen "longterm" does not have any implication for this question. And ignoring the measurements made on the Sun directly in favor of generalized results from the population of G-type stars doesn't make a lot of sense: Do you estimate the growth rate of your child by looking at his/her periodic height measurements, or by consulting the average for school-age children? We have a lot better measurements of the Sun than we have of the other stars. The measurements indicate a 0.1% variation since 1988, not nearly enough to explain the GW during that period.

China
The issue of "what to do about China" needs to be kept completely separate from the question of "Is GW happening" and "Is it due to C-O2". The one question is policy, the second question is science. Let's not mix them up.

That said, I will point out that there have been articles recently highlighting statements made by Chinese officials about the dangers of GW - to China. In the end, China will act because it is in China's best interest, not because of public or internatinal pressure. But it would help if the U.S. would take a leadership position, because China also doesn't want to be the party "holding the bag".

"Models improved, numbers didn't change"
That doesn't ring true: As you stated yourself, the numbers for sea-level rise changed. And it sometimes happen that an improvement in the model does not give rise to a significant change. They did, after all, bracket their calculations the first time, as well as subsequently. In fact, the change is that the degree of uncertainty keeps decreasing.

Unscrubbed coal as the solution
Actually, this has been suggested, as an act of desperation. Most folks think that it's kind of dangerous to solve a pollutive problem by adding a different kind of pollution: like combatting uppers with downers, drugwise. The rationale for it is that, if you stop inputting the coal (sulfate aerosols specifically), it will drop out fairly quickly, in a few years.

I don't know what you think is disingenuous. Overall, the increase was 0.6 degrees. There was a dip in the middle, while unscrubbed combustion of coal was happening. When it stopped, the heating increased to what was appropriate for the amount of C-O2, and the temperature began to rise again. What's your issue?

Fusion au Bussard
It's not possible for me to evaluate this on the basis of the information provided. Bussard seems to be well-connected and generally quite knowledgeable about fusion research, but beyond that I can't say.

M. Simon,

I've been trying to post comments the last 2 days. Is there some reason they're not showing up?

Neal,

Not that I know of.

As far as I know I'm up to date on at least reviewing your comments.

None are being held for moderation.

M. Simon,

I'll try doing this in two postings, to see if I can get past the monitoring function. This first one is on the scientific issues:

"increase in output goes back to 1868"
The problem I have with accepting this:
"A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth, going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson said."

is that there is no citation that I can check for this. This is important, because when I look at the space.com article you post, and compare that to NASA's presentation of the same research (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2003/Willson_Mordvinov.html), I get completely different emphasis and views of what is going on. And when I look at Willson's paper (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Willson_Mordvinov.pdf), there's absolutely no mention of this. So I'm rather dubious about taking it seriously: I'm more inclined to believe that the journalist overstated his case. It happens a lot: and if the word "current" is dropped, the whole thing loses its quantitative force.

Solar Magnetic Field
You cite an article on magnetic fields and the Sun. Where does it say anything about a value for increase in luminosity? Where is the number? Qualitative results are not enough in this case.

100,000-year cycles for Sun's magnetic activity
For the sake of discussion, let us stipulate that it is true.

What does that have to do with a 0.5-degree change that has happened over a 100-year period? Your source doesn't give an estimate of the temperature range, so let's guess: 10 degrees (probably way too high). Over 100,000 years, so a rate of increase of 10/100,000 = 0.0001 deg/year. Whereas the current rate is 0.5/100 = 0.005 deg/year. So, as I had thought: this is a factor of 50 times too high. Oh, wait, let's take into account that a full cycle would be 100,000, so it's only increasing over a quarter-cycle. That means the rate should be 4 * 0.001 = 0.004 deg/year, which means the GW rate is only a factor of 12.5 times too fast. So the proposed mechanism fails to meet the basic requirement: It doesn't effectuate the observed change fast enough.

Cretaceous
OK, so the C-O2 went down but the temperature went up. Well, no climatologist ever said that C-O2 is the only factor affecting temperature, in fact until recently it's just been a feedback loop. The issue for GW is, What's been happening in the past 100 years, and why? And when you take into account C-O2, unscrubbed coal burning, volcanoes and the known solar variation, you get a pretty good match: Check the IPCC TAR (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm). So I don't see why you think there's a challenge there.

0.5% variation, longterm
The basic question is, Is C-O2 responsible for the GW we see? What could happen "longterm" does not have any implication for this question. And ignoring the measurements made on the Sun directly in favor of generalized results from the population of G-type stars doesn't make a lot of sense: Do you estimate the growth rate of your child by looking at his/her periodic height measurements, or by consulting the average for school-age children? We have a lot better measurements of the Sun than we have of the other stars. The measurements indicate a 0.1% variation since 1988, not nearly enough to explain the GW during that period.

M.Simon,

Just now I tried to post the first half of what I had before. I got:

"Classical Values
Thank you for commenting.

Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

Return to the original entry
Search"
at
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/words.cgi

Something is screwy.

Your first post showed up in my e-mail without a request for moderation.

The second requested moderation. (which I did).

===

Sorry - my fault. I missed the first request for moderation.

I don't keep normal hours (I'm generally a night hawk) so at least until Eric gets back approvals may be eratic (he normally catches the ones I miss).

This is the 2nd part, for politico-economic issues:

China
The issue of "what to do about China" needs to be kept completely separate from the question of "Is GW happening" and "Is it due to C-O2". The one question is policy, the second question is science. Let's not mix them up.

That said, I will point out that there have been articles recently highlighting statements made by Chinese officials about the dangers of GW - to China. In the end, China will act because it is in China's best interest, not because of public or internatinal pressure. But it would help if the U.S. would take a leadership position, because China also doesn't want to be the party "holding the bag".

"Models improved, numbers didn't change"
That doesn't ring true: As you stated yourself, the numbers for sea-level rise changed. And it sometimes happens that an improvement in the model does not give rise to a significant change. They did, after all, bracket their calculations the first time, as well as subsequently. In fact, the change is that the degree of uncertainty keeps decreasing.

Unscrubbed coal as the solution
Actually, this has been suggested, as an act of desperation. Most folks think that it's kind of dangerous to solve a pollutive problem by adding a different kind of pollution: like combatting uppers with downers, drugwise. The rationale for it is that, if you stop inputting the coal (sulfate aerosols specifically), it will drop out fairly quickly, in a few years.

I don't know what you think is disingenuous. Overall, the increase was 0.6 degrees. There was a dip in the middle, while unscrubbed combustion of coal was happening. When it stopped, the heating increased to what was appropriate for the amount of C-O2, and the temperature began to rise again. What's your issue?

Fusion au Bussard
It's not possible for me to evaluate this on the basis of the information provided. Bussard seems to be well-connected and generally quite knowledgeable about fusion research, but beyond that I can't say. I'll see if Indrek contacts me with anything substantive.

re:Cretaceous.

Are you telling me that CO2 works differently now than it did then?

Or that man made CO2 is special?

If a volcano spews CO2 it works one way and if men burn coal in electric plants it works another? That is a stretch.

BTW I was unaware that volcanos were part of a feedback mechanism. Please explain.

M. Simon,

It is not that the properties of C-O2 have changed, but that we have introduced a source of C-O2 that has been hitherto non-existent: combustion of fossil fuels.

In all times, C-O2 has contributed to the greenhouse effect. So:
more C-O2 => increased radiative forcing
=> higher global avg. temp. (GAT),
if all else is equal

And, in all times, an increase of temperature would lead to an increase in atmospoheric C-O2. Why?
- defrosting of tundra
- reduced solubility of C-O2 in the oceans
- increased respiration of critters

So:
higher GAT => more C-O2

So in looking at the GAT vs. time and C-O2 vs. time charts, you will see that an increase in T is followed by an increase in C-O2. That is consistent with the following sequence:
- Something (could be the Sun, could be orbital forcing, could be cosmic rays) gets the GAT to increase.
- The increase in GAT leads to an increase in C-O2.
- The increase in C-O2 in turn supports a further increase in GAT.
- This feedback amplifies the original increase in GAT, but does not go to infinity, because the impact of the C-O2 is only logarithmic.

What we humans have introduced into this scene is the ability to increase the amount of C-O2, without a preceding increase in GAT. So the sequence is:
- Increase in C-O2 leads to increase in GAT (all things being equal).
- Increase in GAT will further increase C-O2.
- Further increase in C-O2 will further increase GAT.
This process will also stop at some point, for two reasons: a) The impact of C-O2 is still only logarithmic; and b) We will eventually run out of fossil fuels to burn.

So the "rules" of how C-O2 acts in the world haven't changed. What's new is that we can add C-O2 to the system independently of what is happening with GAT.

Notes:
- Notice that I'm explicitly pointing out that there are causes for increase in GAT that are independent of C-O2. That's not contradictory to my position on the last 100 years. I've never said that these other influences CANNOT happen, I've said that, to the best of our knowledge, they don't seem to be implicated in what's happened in the last 100 years. Whereas C-O2 seems to be highly implicated.
- I've never said anything about volcanoes being part of a feedback cycle. Where do you get that?
- Perhaps volcanoes have been an important source of C-O2 in the distant past. The USGS states that global C-O2 input from volcanoes is 1/150 of what is generated from combustion of fossil fuels, on an annual basis.
- However, the behavior of C-O2 is the same whether it's source is fossil fuels or volcanoes. I don't see that I've said anything that would question that.