Weeder Gander said...
(I had written)I see that you engage in the usual blather of the know nothing Left when you can't answer a question...
I did, but you choosing to ignore my answer doesn't mean it didn't exist.
(I had written)Shorter, the politically correct answer is that it was warm enough for Greenland to be green, and without any cars to blame, it has to have been a "local" thing.
What part of
"records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2]
don't you understand?
(I had written)"I'll stick with the sun. Waxing and waning as it has done for millions of years...
Try Occam's Razor.
It slices your argument."
Not if you actually understand the science:
Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined.
Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.
This is almost a year old:
“Recent estimates (Figure 9.9) indicate a relatively small combined effect of natural forcings on the global mean temperature evolution of the seconds half of the twentieth century, with a small net cooling from the combined effects of solar and volcanic forcings”
Here's a list of the fly-by-night lefty organizations that believe in AGW with their reasonings:
A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[23]
US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[36]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[37]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[38]
American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[39]
Care to apply Occams' razor to this?:
Oreskes, 2004
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[40] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
March 22, 2008 4:09 PM
I see that now that we know Global Warmig is a hoax, you have decided to call it "temperature change."
As for science, shall we look at your qualifiers?
"Some uncertainty remains.." Do tell.
"but it looks like..." Oh, really?
"In the judgment of most..." Why am I not surprised?
"consensus of the..." Is that the same consensus that, at one time, stated that the earth was flat??
" The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues...." Not true..as the head of the IPPC acknowledges.
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Link
And then: "American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists."
This is, at best, total horseshit to keep money flowing to people vested in studies and the politics of transfering wealth from the haves to the have nots.
I repeat. A theory is a theory no matter how many people believe in it. The temperature increase has stalled at the same time man is pumping more carbon d into the air.
That's game, set and match.
From the Wiki:
ReplyDeleteOne predicted effect of an increase in solar activity would be a warming of most of the stratosphere, whereas greenhouse gas theory predicts cooling there [42]. The observed trend since at least 1960 has been a cooling of the lower stratosphere[43]. Reduction of stratospheric ozone also has a cooling influence, but substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s.[44] Solar variation combined with changes in volcanic activity probably did have a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since.[1] In 2006, Peter Foukal and other researchers from the United States, Germany, and Switzerland found c]no net increase of solar brightness over the last thousand years. Solar cycles led to a small increase of 0.07% in brightness over the last thirty years. This effect is far too small to contribute significantly to global warming.[45][46] A paper by Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich found no relation between global warming and solar radiation since 1985, whether through variations in solar output or variations in cosmic rays.[47] Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, the main proponents of cloud seeding by galactic cosmic rays, disputed this criticism of their hypothesis.[48]
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued
The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005.[1]
The latter from the Wiki, BTW.
This is, at best, total horseshit to keep money flowing to people vested in studies and the politics of transfering wealth from the haves to the have nots.
People can't be 'vested' in studies, if you understood how grants and research funding worked, you'd know that scientific studies are funded on a project-by-project basis, and your last statement sounds paranoid, as though I were a have not threatening your very existence because you are a have.
Confirmation
Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the community when it has been confirmed. Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the science community. Researchers have given their lives for this vision; Georg Wilhelm Richmann was killed by lightning (1753) when attempting to replicate the 1752 kite-flying experiment of Benjamin Franklin.[31]
To protect against bad science and fraudulent data, government research granting agencies like NSF and science journals like Nature and Science have a policy that researchers must archive their data and methods so other researchers can access it, test the data and methods and build on the research that has gone before. Scientific data archiving can be done at a number of national archives in the U.S. or in the World Data Center.
I repeat. A theory is a theory no matter how many people believe in it. The temperature increase has stalled at the same time man is pumping more carbon d into the air.
The use of the word theory, when talking about science and scientific theory, is different from the ordinary use of the world. Didn't you know that?
Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
BTW:
None of the effects of forcing are instantaneous. The thermal inertia of the Earth's oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects mean that the Earth's current climate is not in equilibrium with the forcing imposed. Climate commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) would still occur.[22]
Human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the concentration of various greenhouse gases, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. Molecule for molecule, methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but its concentration is much smaller so that its total radiative forcing is only about a fourth of that from carbon dioxide. Some other naturally occurring gases contribute very small fractions of the greenhouse effect; one of these, nitrous oxide (N2O), is increasing in concentration owing to human activity such as agriculture. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[27] From less direct geological evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last attained 20 million years ago.[28] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, in particular deforestation.[29]
Hope you learned something new!
heh
ReplyDelete"Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the community when it has been confirmed"
Your problem is that it has not been confirmed that man made GW exists.
And, as the link shows, we have ten years of cooling or 6 years of no increase.
A theory is a theory until its proof can be duplicated. GW can not. It was, is and will remain a theory that is especially attractive to those who enjoy panic.
Your problem is that it has not been confirmed that man made GW exists.
ReplyDeleteIs that why the scientific acadamies and other authorities I cited state that AGW is real?
And, as the link shows, we have ten years of cooling or 6 years of no increase.
No, you've linked to unsupported blatherings by someone who isn't a climate scientist and haven't refuted the findings I've listed here and in the other thread you've already referenced in your post.
is and will remain a theory that is especially attractive to those who enjoy panic.
You do know something about enjoying panic, I'll grant you that.
hehe - Perhaps you missed this from your beloved IPEC:
ReplyDelete"Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Has he now become wrong???
It appears that you are relying in old, and false, data.
Please try and keep up.
You'll need more than a second-hand quote that doesn't have any figures to go with the assertions made by the interviewee.
ReplyDeleteAs to why the temperature doesn't have a linear response to the increasing amts of GG in the atmosphere:
None of the effects of forcing are instantaneous. The thermal inertia of the Earth's oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects mean that the Earth's current climate is not in equilibrium with the forcing imposed. Climate commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) would still occur.[22]
"None of the effects of forcing are instantaneous. The thermal inertia of the Earth's oceans and slow responses of..."
ReplyDeleteThen you are saying that whatever is causing the cooling that has been observed and not disputed by your man in the UN.....
started before 1998...
OK.... I don't care when it started. It disproves your fearful predictions.
Then you are saying that whatever is causing the cooling that has been observed and not disputed by your man in the UN.....
ReplyDeleteThere is a long-term warming trend for the period 1905-2005 and more recently:
March 15, 2007 The December 2006-February 2007 U.S. winter season had an overall temperature that was near average, according to scientists at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Precipitation was above average in much of the center of the nation, while large sections of the East, Southeast and West were drier than average. The global average temperature was the warmest on record for the December-February period.
Cooling trend?
The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2007. The year 2007 was eighth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2001. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre. The record is being continually up-dated and improved (see Brohan et al., 2006). This paper includes a new and more thorough assessment of errors, recognizing that these differ on annual and decadal timescales. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century.
No, this is what our man in the UN,
Rajendra Pachauri, said:
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.
"One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
He added that sceptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. "There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash," he said.
And he said this in 2005:
He also cited alarming measurements, first reported in The Independent on Sunday, showing that levels of carbon dioxide (the main cause of global warming) have leapt abruptly over the past two years, suggesting that climate change may be accelerating out of control.
He added that, because of inertia built into the Earth's natural systems, the world was now only experiencing the result of pollution emitted in the 1960s, and much greater effects would occur as the increased pollution of later decades worked its way through. He concluded: "We are risking the ability of the human race to survive."
And this is what the IPCC report stated:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
It disproves your fearful predictions
"One may dodge folly without backing into fear."
heh
ReplyDeleteYou are cheery picking.
The issue is simply that this has bucked the warming trend for 10 years.
At what pointb will it become Global Cooling???
I think I'll play these.
"Increased output from the Sun might be to blame for 10 to 30 percent of global warming that has been measured in the past 20 years, according to a new report.
Increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases still play a role, the scientists say.
But climate models of global warming should be corrected to better account for changes in solar activity, according to Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West of Duke University.
The findings were published online this week by the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Scientists agree the planet is warming. Effects are evident in melting glaciers and reductions in the amount of frozen ground around the planet.
The new study is based in part on Columbia University research from 2003 in which scientists found errors in how data on solar brightness is interpreted. A gap in data, owing to satellites not being deployed after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, were filled by less accurate data from other satellites, Scafetta says."
The issue is simply that this has bucked the warming trend for 10years
ReplyDeleteYes, that why last year the eighth warmest on record, because it took place during a cooling trend.
I'm not surprised that you choose something published 2.5 years ago to make your point, and then accuse me of 'cheery picking'
Here's from 2006, a year later:
Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming
September 13, 2006
BOULDER—Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States, Switzerland, and Germany.
The review, led by Peter Foukal (Heliophysics, Inc.), appears in the September 14 issue of Nature. Among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR’s primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation.
“Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness,” says Wigley.
Reconstructions of climate over the past millennium show a warming since the 17th century, which has accelerated dramatically over the past 100 years. Many recent studies have attributed the bulk of 20th-century global warming to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural internal variability of Earth’s climate system may also have played a role. However, the discussion is complicated by a third possibility: that the Sun's brightness could have increased.
The new review in Nature examines the factors observed by astronomers that relate to solar brightness. It then analyzes how those factors have changed along with global temperature over the last 1,000 years.
Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun’s surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae. The sunspots act as thermal plugs, diverting heat from the solar surface, while the faculae act as thermal leaks, allowing heat from subsurface layers to escape more readily. During times of high solar activity, both the sunspots and faculae increase, but the effect of the faculae dominates, leading to an overall increase in brightness.
The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae affect the Sun’s brightness. Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.
To assess the period before 1978, the authors used historical records of sunspot activity and examined radioisotopes produced in Earth's atmosphere and recorded in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. During periods of high solar activity, the enhanced solar wind shields Earth from cosmic rays that produce the isotopes, thus giving scientists a record of the activity.
The authors used a blend of seven recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past millennium to test the effects of long-term changes in brightness. They then assessed how much the changes in solar brightness produced by sunspots and faculae (as measured by the sunspot and radioisotope data) might have affected temperature. Even though sunspots and faculae have increased over the last 400 years, these phenomena explain only a small fraction of global warming over the period, according to the authors.
Indirect evidence has suggested that there may be changes in solar brightness, over periods of centuries, beyond changes associated with sunspot numbers. However, the authors conclude on theoretical grounds that these additional low-frequency changes are unlikely.
“There is no plausible physical cause for long-term changes in solar brightness other than changes caused by sunspots and faculae,” says Wigley.
Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed.
About the article
Title: "Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate."
Authors: P. Foukal, C. Frohlich, H. Spruit, and T.M.L. Wigley
Publication: Nature, September 14, 2006
Hehe
ReplyDelete"Curiously, something that's rarely mentioned is that temperatures in Greenland were higher in 1941 than they are today. Or that melt rates around Ilulissat were faster in the early part of the past century, according to a new study. And while the delegations first fly into Kangerlussuaq, about 100 miles to the south, they all change planes to go straight to Ilulissat -- perhaps because the Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing."
WP Link
"A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70."
Averages, averages. Who has the averages?
Link
I'll see your glacier and raise you with this:
ReplyDeleteThe effective rate of change in glacier thickness, also known as the glaciological mass balance, is a measure of the average change in a glacier's thickness after correcting for changes in density associated with the compaction of snow and conversion to ice. The map shows the average annual rate of thinning since 1970 for the 173 glaciers that have been measured at least 5 times between 1970 and 2004 (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). Larger changes are plotted as larger circles and towards the back.
All survey regions except Scandinavia show a net thinning. This widespread glacier retreat is generally regarded as a sign of global warming.
During this period, 83% of surveyed glaciers showed thinning with an average loss across all glaciers of 0.31 m/yr. The most rapidly growing glacier in the sample is Engabreen glacier in Norway with a thickening of 0.64 m/yr. The most rapidly shrinking was Ivory glacier in New Zealand which was thinning at 2.4 m/yr. Ivory glacier had totally disintegrated by circa 1988 [1].
but, there is no global warming, because a few blue spots of glacial advancing exist on the planet.
Did you forget this from your WP link?
It's wrong to deny the obvious: The Earth is warming, and we're causing it.
So you quote someone who believes in AGW to make what point?
Averages, averages. Who has the averages?
You could inform yourself by looking .
Oh, and about Ms. Marohasy, you can find more here:
You can, however, see that the last two years have registered very slight falls in average temperature. Does that mean Marohasy has a genuine point? In fact, if anything it reinforces the fact that human-generated greenhouse gases continue to exert a significant upward impact on global climate. The last two years have seen the combination of a significant La Nina event (which has a downward impact on global temperature just as an El Nino has an elevating impact) and the bottom or solar minimum of the 11 year sunspot cycle. These are two major drivers of climatic fluctuations, so you would expect to see a major fall in global average temperatures back towards the 1960s average if, as the denialists assert, increases in human-generated atmospheric greenhouse gases are having little or no impact on climate.
Instead, the fall has been tiny and the cumulative increase caused by the increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the like remains starkly evident. Indeed it was the undeniable reality of the miniscule scale of the flattening and drop, when it should have fallen markedly if the denialists were right, that two or three years ago convinced me personally of the reality and scale of global warming having previously been moderately skeptical of major warming claims.
People like Marohasy, however, are unconcerned with making objective assessments of the evidence. Their game is to use whatever superficially plausible arguments they can in an attempt to mislead people who can’t or won’t examine the evidence for themselves and prefer to see the broad scientific consensus (that human-generated warming is a reality and a serious threat) as merely the self-interested exaggerations of a small group of unprincipled grant-seeking scientists being touted by a sinister conspiracy of lefties and greenies intent on undermining capitalism (or some such bizarre fantasy).
BTW:
ReplyDeleteWell, as you know, the Investor's Business Daily has as much as 100 lies on every page so when I read that, I naturally wondered what Tapping really said. Fortunately, tgirsch was on the case, and contacted Tapping to see if the IBD report was accurate. Tapping replied:
Thanks for the message. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.
It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.
It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.
Yawn.
ReplyDeleteSee word "opinion."
Then see dictionary.
And I especially loved:
"It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious."
Reminds me of the joke about the guy who fell off the top of the WTC.
AS he passed the 100th floor he assured everyone that things were going well.... so far.......
BTW - What do you have to say about Schneider?