tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2386751242894464625..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Heat sinking, temperatures rising in the US of ASouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24406240819451052342017-05-01T07:28:49.303+10:002017-05-01T07:28:49.303+10:00Ah! thank you, I couldn't resist continuing my...Ah! thank you, I couldn't resist continuing my own 'work' on it so am hoping it won't be in vain & I eventually get something to critique.KatyDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62107931147136735352017-04-28T09:42:50.996+10:002017-04-28T09:42:50.996+10:00Hi Katy, according to something I saw recently, Ev...Hi Katy, according to something I saw recently, <a href="https://chat.hotwhopper.com/discussion/240/evan-jones-is-alive-and-well-still-plugging-away-at-those-stations-data-wont-be-long-now-prom" rel="nofollow">Evan Jones says</a> they are still hoping to publish a paper but haven't finished their analysis yet (what is it, <a href="https://archive.is/drCs0" rel="nofollow">at least five years down the track</a>?). <br /><br />Would be strange if they could get it published anywhere decent, especially if the data still stops in 2008.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1493512104282117792017-04-28T07:38:30.209+10:002017-04-28T07:38:30.209+10:00Has this study produced a paper yet? Or was the 20...Has this study produced a paper yet? Or was the 2015 AGU poster the last of it?KatyDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40303232275060061622014-05-20T13:20:38.384+10:002014-05-20T13:20:38.384+10:00What you are saying is that they considered the po...What you are saying is that they considered the possibility but, seeing nothing wrong, they applied it.<br /><br />I'd have been more interested in the reason for the data spread in the first place. But all the efforts simply went towards making those differences disappear. And disappear they certainly did. <br /><br />Then when Leroy (2010) came along they did not re-rate the stations, which would have brought out the problem then and there. They were already using Leroy (1999); it's not as if they never heard of Leroy.<br /><br />Be that as it may, they applied it wrongly. And when you deconstruct, the problem sticks out a mile.<br /><br />I am saying, quite simply, that the poorly located stations have significantly lower trends than well sited stations over the warming period from 1979 - 2008. That's after accounting for all the objections -- TOBS-bias, moves, MMTS conversion.<br /><br />After homogenization, the well sited stations and the poorly sited stations have identical readings. You pointed that out yourself back in 2012 if you will recall. Well, we agree. They do.<br /><br />The only problem arises when it turns out that the poorly sited stations were adjusted 0.01C/decade lower and the well sited stations were adjusted 0.14C/decade higher.<br /><br /><br /><i>And your story of 20% good and 80% bad stations directly leading to adjusting good stations to bad ones is also too simple. You list the frequency of every class in your last comment.</i><br /><br />Yes. The differences are quite stark. The 20% sing +0.185C/decade and the 80% sing +0.335C/decade.<br /><br />I would expect the badly sited stations to be adjusted down a notch and i would expect the well sited stations to be adjusted through the roof.<br /><br /><i>Surely it would be rather artificial to expect classes 1 and 2 to have exactly the same artificial trend and classes 3, 4 and 5 to have the same wrong artificial trend.</i><br /><br />Emphatically no! Not in the slightest. I would expect the badly sited stations to be adjusted down a notch and I would expect the well sited stations to be adjusted through the roof. Which is exactly what happened.<br /><br />After adjustment, the outliers will be like the majority, because that's what homogenization <i>does</i>. It's what it's <i>for.</i> And if the majority has a systematic defect, then the result will be wrong and the correct (minority) data will be adjusted to look like the majority result -- again wrong.<br /><br /><br />That after the application of an algorithm that identifies outliers ans brings them into conformity with the majority.<br /><br /><i>It seems more natural to assume that if there is a problem, it gradually becomes worse, the worse station classes become. In that case you would notice problems as you would see gradual inhomogeneities in many difference time series of one station with its neighbours.</i><br /><br />And in this case the gradual divergence just happened to be between well and poorly sited stations. Fancy that. And there is the tipoff NOAA missed. They never looked at the stations most strongly adjusted for a commonality. Well, the "defect" appears to be that they were well sited.<br /><br />I know how smart these guys are. But the mistake they made here is one that takes experience to identify. It caused them to adjust in exactly the wrong direction.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22632696019283904782014-05-20T01:43:19.428+10:002014-05-20T01:43:19.428+10:00Evan Jones: "They only looked at what homogen...Evan Jones: <i>"They only looked at what homogenization effects would be on a basically good dataset. They failed to account for its effects on a bad dataset. They didn't even consider the possibility."</i><br /><br />One of the most common problems of the climate "sceptics" is that they assume that scientists are stupid. If you need that assumption, you most likely have to study the scientific literature more.<br /><br />They did consider the possibility. It is known that when the majority of the stations has a gradual inhomogeneity, the algorithms do nor work. They do work when all stations have break inhomogeneities or when some have a gradual inhomogeneity. If there were a break every year, the methods would also not work. <br /><br />They just think that such problematic situations are not common and that their methods thus on average improve the usefulness of the data for trend analysis. <br /><br />You have not convinced me yet that there was a gradual inhomogeneity in the USA in the 1990s. <br /><br />And your story of 20% good and 80% bad stations directly leading to adjusting good stations to bad ones is also too simple. You list the frequency of every class in your last comment. Surely it would be rather artificial to expect classes 1 and 2 to have exactly the same artificial trend and classes 3, 4 and 5 to have the same wrong artificial trend. <br /><br />It seems more natural to assume that if there is a problem, it gradually becomes worse, the worse station classes become. In that case you would notice problems as you would see gradual inhomogeneities in many difference time series of one station with its neighbours.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2826615235922486412014-05-11T03:53:00.455+10:002014-05-11T03:53:00.455+10:00I see I failed to address the satellite data. (Als...I see I failed to address the satellite data. (Also a bit more.)<br /><br />I agree there are the problems with LT satellites, particularly because of the necessity to sacrifice lookdown capability for a wider sweep (resulting in poor polar coverage). And I am sure we all remember the problems with satellite drift that was resulting in spuriously reduced trends. And then RSS and so on and so forth. And, after the dust all clears, UAH is running noticeably higher than RSS.<br /><br />But that is LT and not surface. Dr. Christy hypothesized some time ago that warming should be ~20% greater in mid latitudes for satellite than for surface. He was perplexed that this discrepancy never appeared in the data. But there it was, it didn't. (Thinking back to the Menne and Fall et al. days.)<br /><br />Furthermore, After Watts et al. (2012 pre-prelease which started all this mess) we drew criticism from William Connolley that while it might be expected for our results to be 20% below but we were way on the bottom end of that, and I had to agree there was a discrepancy.<br /><br />One of his posters also made a remark to the effect he would not believe the results until all station moves were dropped, so I resolved to improve on that using the new HOMR metadata. So we now address all three issues, adduced by criticisms of the pre-release: moves, TOBS, and MMTS.<br /><br />By the way, MMTS adjustment seems small, but the effect on Tmax and Tmin in are quite large (as per Menne, which we use as a basis) and produce fascinating results and explains much. It is quite necessary.<br /><br />As a result of these corrections and continually improving Google Earth #B^) our Tmean trend results are ~19% higher than the W-2012 results.<br /><br />It now turns out we are 25% below UAH (and less so for RSS) if I have my numbers straight.<br /><br />P.S., All of this has been said before in various places, but this is the concatenation. The only breaking news story I have for you is that I made lots and lots of copy edits for the 2012 pre-release that somehow did not make it into the actual release. #B^UEvan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89893581115202561442014-05-11T01:00:30.505+10:002014-05-11T01:00:30.505+10:00I see I failed to address the satellite issue.
I...I see I failed to address the satellite issue. <br /><br />I will take this to the bottom of the thread and do so.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19408101397572262552014-05-11T00:51:07.986+10:002014-05-11T00:51:07.986+10:00I see I missed one of your questions:
What is the...I see I missed one of your questions:<br /><br /><i>What is the breakdown of temperature trend across different site classifications? Are all "non-pristine" site classes equally different from Class 1/2 sites? What is the make-up of your 4 out of 5 "badly located" sites - are they all class 5 or are a decent proportion Class 3 or 4</i><br /><br />Here is the breakdown:<br /><br />Class 1: 7%<br />Class 2: 15%<br />Class 3: 34%<br />Class 4: 30%<br />Class 5: 14%<br />Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13631425392574240832014-05-10T03:05:51.685+10:002014-05-10T03:05:51.685+10:00Thus you could only remove those stations that hav...<i>Thus you could only remove those stations that have a break (or a very short gradual trend) and not the ones that have a gradual trend over the entire decade (due to your unexplained amplification).</i><br /><br />Well, this part I still think is being dome backwards. Inhomogeneous results occur all the time and can be quite correct if there is nothing wrong with the sensor. Sometimes it just gets colder or warmer in that neck of the woods. The data is still good, break or no break. The disparities (assuming they are not artifacts) are simply a part of the song. ("Melodies decaying in sweet disonnence . . . into the ever Passion Play.")<br /><br />But, having said that, Mosh and crew do exactly that. They will certainly plug our Leroy (2010) results into their BEST methodic and see how it comes out. Those results will be interesting. (Currently, they are using the obsolete, fatally flawed Leroy, 1999.)Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4729985702132129432014-05-10T03:04:05.499+10:002014-05-10T03:04:05.499+10:00Thus I am looking for the rule that produces an &q...<i>Thus I am looking for the rule that produces an "exaggerated trend" on decadal scales. Why would problems with micro-siting exaggerate the trend on decadal scales?</i><br /><br />Here's what I think it is. Call it the Delta Sink rule. Works for both a warming and cooling trend (both will be spuriously exaggerated).<br /><br />As it warms (or cools), the Δtemp between the heat sink and the air surrounding the sensor diverges. Therefore, at Tmin the release of heat is proportionately greater (or lesser) and also earlier (or later) in the heat sink release process at Tmin by the end of the study period than it was at the start. This produces a disproportionate trend effect.<br /><br />Therefore, a 1C offset in 1979 becomes a 1.5+ offset by 2008.<br /><br />In a cooling phase, the process reverses itself, and cooling is exaggerated. That is demonstrated by the data from 1998 to 2008.<br /><br />So, having looked at the hypothesis from opposite sides of the coin and seeing it operate in both directions, the hypothesis appears astoundingly robust.<br /><br /><i>We already know it does not do so on annual scales. The year to year variability of the homogenized data is well matched by the climate reference network. </i><br /><br />We are looking at decadal trends over 30 years. What may have error bars so large it is meaningless, tightens up and defines itself over time.<br /><br />ΔTrend is a direct function of the ΔTemp produced by homogenization. Trend cannot be anything but a reflection of the data.<br /><br />As the data is adjusted from year to year, the trend effect simply falls into place. <br /><br /><i>The year to year variability of the homogenized data is well matched by the climate reference network. </i><br /><br />That is because CRN has only been in operation a few years. There has been no overall trend since then. Heat sink effect is a trend amplifier. When there is no trend to amplify, there will be no divergence.<br /><br /><i>I would expect that the information on the station history, which you got by calling the custodians of the stations, is more reliable for the recent past as for the 1990s.</i><br /><br />I obtain the history of moves and TOBS from NCDC/HOMR. USHCN metadata going back to 1979 is quite excellent; it has improved dramatically. Someone in NCDC made a good hire. Pimp my USHCN!<br /><br />So we do that quite systematically.<br /><br />Besides, all the metadata does is dictate to us which stations we drop. Clean and simple. And the stations we do drop have even lower trends than the ones we do not drop; other than that they show the same results.<br /><br /><i>That is why I would like to encourage you to at least detect inhomogeneities by comparison with neighbouring stations.</i><br /><br />Agreed. I think we would not find what you suspect, but that is the way to find out. A good subject for followup.<br /><br />First we must construct. Then we shall deconstruct. Besides, if we don't do it, someone else will. You make a good recommendation. Good top-down thinking.<br /><br /><i>If the effect is just as strong in such a dataset without stations with an artificial jump as in your current one, that would make the statistical result a lot stronger.</i><br /><br />Yes. Too much for this paper, but definitely worth a look going forward. Rome wasn't burnt in a day.<br /><br /><i>I would still be interested in an explanation about what causes such an amplification, however.</i><br /><br />I gave you my own wargamer's assessment. It all comes down to the Δt of the sink vs. the ambient temperatures over time in the presence of a real trend (either cooling or warming).<br /><br />There may be some fiddling with the details, but we do have a physicist on the team to address that exact question.<br /><br />Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12631398475806521682014-05-10T03:00:21.634+10:002014-05-10T03:00:21.634+10:00I will have to answer in chunks. (BTW, thanks agai...I will have to answer in chunks. (BTW, thanks again for this invaluable interaction.)<br /><br /><i>Strategic games are a lot of fun. At the nice thing is that you can create the rules yourself. That is somewhat of a problem with reality.</i><br /><br />Do the rules write the war, or does the war write the rules? If you are not doing it the second way, you are doing it wrong. At least in terms of simulation. Not a lot unlike science, actually.<br /><br />What games developers (and the designers, if they are good) can tell you is how a rule can affect a game system under unimaginably different practical (or not) conditions during playtest. And if an artifact appears, they can nail it then and there.<br /><br />That's what the homogenization designers failed to do. They only looked at what homogenization effects would be on a basically good dataset. They failed to account for its effects on a bad dataset. They didn't even consider the possibility.<br /><br />A game developer worth half his salt would never have missed that. Heck, <i>I</i> am a game developer (and designer). And I did not miss that. #B^)<br />Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24308872121401439242014-05-09T21:57:30.906+10:002014-05-09T21:57:30.906+10:00Strategic games are a lot of fun. At the nice thin...Strategic games are a lot of fun. At the nice thing is that you can create the rules yourself. That is somewhat of a problem with reality.<br /><br />Thus I am looking for the rule that produces an "exaggerated trend" on decadal scales. Why would problems with micro-siting exaggerate the trend on decadal scales? We already know it does not do so on annual scales. The year to year variability of the homogenized data is well matched by the climate reference network. <br /><br />I have an idea, but it does not relate to the quality of the measurements, but to a difficulty of your study. I would expect that the information on the station history, which you got by calling the custodians of the stations, is more reliable for the recent past as for the 1990s. Thus the last few years, your approach of doing without decent homogenization might still be acceptable, not too many non-climatic changes will be missed. However, the more you go back in the past the more problems you get with non-climatic changes that are forgotten.<br /><br />That is why I would like to encourage you to at least detect inhomogeneities by comparison with neighbouring stations. You do not have to correct the data, if you fear that this least to smoothing, but just detect the stations that have a clear non-climatic jump in them. You could use SNHT, it detects both breaks and gradual trends. Thus you could only remove those stations that have a break (or a very short gradual trend) and not the ones that have a gradual trend over the entire decade (due to your unexplained amplification).<br /><br />If the effect is just as strong in such a dataset without stations with an artificial jump as in your current one, that would make the statistical result a lot stronger. I would still be interested in an explanation about what causes such an amplification, however.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24945200927981325332014-05-09T14:23:29.746+10:002014-05-09T14:23:29.746+10:00I would be surprised if you could give a mechanism...<i>I would be surprised if you could give a mechanism that could do that, especially a mechanism that did not work the last decade, but only in the 1990ies.</i><br /><br />Of course it wouldn't have any effect over the last decade of atmospheric/surface non-warming. there is no trend to exaggerate. That's the point, isn't it?<br /><br />It was the '90s that saw a strong warming trend. That's when your difference pop out. If you know what to look for, it sticks out of the data a mile.<br /><br />I am not a mathematician. But I am a wargame designer and developer. I roll in the mud with numbers. I can pick up a random bunch of them in each hand, heft them and tell you which one is heavier every time. <br /><br />And I am telling you that you have a fatal design flaw, here. You don't get these results with straight dice unless the process is screwy.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24732219797452117212014-05-07T13:25:11.905+10:002014-05-07T13:25:11.905+10:00I'll add (to BJ) that I am concerned with the ...I'll add (to BJ) that I am concerned with the correct readings. Whatever sensitivity (or other) recalc. results from that . . . results from that. The idea s to get it right and let the chips fall where they may.<br /><br />Note well that we did not suppress our Fall et al. results. We published even though the results disputed our hypothesis. <br /><br />The followup disputes the Fall et al. results, but that is because we now use the upgunned Leroy (2010) ratings as opposed to the older Leroy (1999), which considered only distance to heat sink and not its area.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85959655169565584232014-05-01T15:07:35.934+10:002014-05-01T15:07:35.934+10:00What you are calling heat source we are calling wa...What you are calling heat source we are calling waste heat. Yes the two have different effects. <br /><br />Leroy's definition of "heat source" covers what we refer to as "heat sink" (see the paper). We distinguish between heat sink and waste heat and use those terms.<br /><br />Waste heat may actually dampen trend, particularly at Tmax. It raises the offset, of course, but the trend can be swamped. Waste heat tends to be more variable.<br /><br />Heat sink is a steady influence. The overwhelming majority of poorly sited stations are subject to heat sink and only a small handful are exposed to waste heat.<br /><br />Those stations exposed to waste heat are usually Class 5 stations and this may explain the lower Tmax trends of Class 5 stations (they have elevated Tmin, however.) Class 5 trends are higher than Class 1\2, but are lower than Class 3&4.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8858526547244439962014-05-01T14:37:48.375+10:002014-05-01T14:37:48.375+10:00"We rate for heat sink and heat sink only.
W..."<i>We rate for heat </i><b>sink</b><i> and heat </i><b>sink</b> only<i>.<br /><br />We are only rating according to what Leroy (2010) considers to be a heat </i><b>source</b>."<br /><br />You do realise that they are two completely different things, don't you?Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41984594055778681032014-05-01T11:16:28.196+10:002014-05-01T11:16:28.196+10:00To clarify:
To apply to all of the above, we are ...To clarify:<br /><br />To apply to all of the above, we are not rating according to shade, vegetation, or ground angle. We do not even know how the stations would be rated in these other categories. <br /><br />We rate for heat sink and heat sink only.<br /><br />We are only rating according to what Leroy (2010) considers to be a heat source. We would never remove a low-trend poorly sited station because it had a low trend. And likewise, we would not remove a station if it is well sited and has a high trend. That would be cherrypicking and the results would be a travesty.<br /><br />If a station passes muster for siting and TOBS it is included not matter what its rating or trend.<br /><br />We may do a followup on these other factors and maybe even deconstruct Leroy a little and examine the pieces (Different cases of Class 3, etc.). I have tagged a number of the considerations here as possible feed for followup. Plus a few I haven't mentioned, such as altitude. But we cannot address all of this at once in one paper.<br /><br />I look forward to examining all of these issues.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43495815658285791612014-04-29T10:30:23.536+10:002014-04-29T10:30:23.536+10:00Actually, I addressed the Arctic issue in the othe...Actually, I addressed the Arctic issue in the other thread. But I prefer not to address it here.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74350357612503842132014-04-28T12:00:25.538+10:002014-04-28T12:00:25.538+10:00It appears primarily at Tmin. For some reason, the...It appears primarily at Tmin. For some reason, the object radiating the heat will release disproportionately more heat as temperatures increase over time.<br /><br />Perhaps it is related to the rate it takes for a heat sink to release its heat. A heat sink releases it heat the colder the surroundings. It has still not completely done so by Tmin. and that is why your Tmin. reading will be too warm. That explains the reading but does not explain the trend.<br /><br />What I think is going on is that as temperature rises the heat sink is earlier in its cycle of heat release when Tmin arrives. That means it is releasing heat disproportionately faster. This creates a spurious amplifying effect to the trend of a poorly sited during a period of warming.<br /><br />This also creates a spurious amplifying effect to the trend of a poorly sited during a period of cooling, as the phase of release is increasingly closer to completion at ATmin.<br /><br />Bottom line: Poor microsite causes stations to exaggerate both warming and cooling trends. The only reason that the net effect of microsite is a warming bias is that it has occurred during a net warming phase.<br /><br />That is what I think is going on. That's me. I do not know what a physicist would make of it. But that's my hypothesis: The warmer it is the earlier in the sink's release cycle it is at Tmin.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75729447839356702462014-04-28T10:45:45.288+10:002014-04-28T10:45:45.288+10:00Not addressing ECS in this thread.
Not addressing ECS in this thread.<br /><br />Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27339237916218446612014-04-27T21:40:24.290+10:002014-04-27T21:40:24.290+10:00Awww, thanks :)Awww, thanks :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9294712284645478742014-04-27T19:47:30.915+10:002014-04-27T19:47:30.915+10:00"In order for a warming trend to be exaggerat..."<i>In order for a warming trend to be exaggerated there must be a very real warming trend to exaggerate in the fist place.</i>"<br /><br />Which begs <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/heat-sinking-temperatures-rising-in-us.html?showComment=1398514770009#c1952536261432590824" rel="nofollow">the question</a> for <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/hotwhopper-competition-best-name-for.html?showComment=1398314454589#c7500011706248522025" rel="nofollow">a third time</a> - do you realise that your insistence that the warming is less than that described by the consensus climatology directly implies that the biosphere, cryosphere and hydrosphere are profoundly more sensitive to warming than indicated by mainstream science?<br /><br />And that this is a Very <b><i>Very</i></b> Bad Thing Indeed?Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67949010527186788892014-04-27T19:18:35.220+10:002014-04-27T19:18:35.220+10:00Sorry Sou, I worked my way up from the end of the ...Sorry Sou, I worked my way up from the end of the thread and saw and responded to Victor's comment before I even noticed yours.<br /><br />And you know that you <i>always</i> have my gratitude... ;-)Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56382191277029798082014-04-27T15:11:31.486+10:002014-04-27T15:11:31.486+10:00What, no thanks to me? (just kidding)
Glad you fo...What, no thanks to me? (just kidding)<br /><br />Glad you found the missing comments.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20286445882446214702014-04-27T13:29:20.498+10:002014-04-27T13:29:20.498+10:00Thanks Victor, it was a matter of "load[ing] ...Thanks Victor, it was a matter of "load[ing] more comments" several times before the missing comments appeared.<br /><br />All is well in the world (except for climate change denialism and other human insanitiesm of course...).Bernard J.noreply@blogger.com