Are we starting to cool: the case for the last three months

[Bobby]

You just cannot say that our long term climate is cooling due to 3 cool months can you? Climate is something that's measured over many years or decades. If we have 5-10 quite cool years I may accept cooling, certainly not now, especially considering we've had the 2nd warmest year ever in the UK, the warmest ever 2 year period in 2005-2006 and the warmest ever 3 year period (2005-2006-2007) ever.

[Stratos Ferric]

You just cannot say that our long term climate is cooling due to 3 cool months can you? Climate is something that's measured over many years or decades. If we have 5-10 quite cool years I may accept cooling, certainly not now, especially considering we've had the 2nd warmest year ever in the UK, the warmest ever 2 year period in 2005-2006 and the warmest ever 3 year period (2005-2006-2007) ever.

Indeed, apart from which all the recent spell has managed is to haul things back down to trend. We were lower than trend around 18 months ago, and that didn't herald the beginning of cooling either. Never say 'never', but I think there's a lot of whistling in an ever warmer wind going on on here.

[Stratos Ferric]

The latest update: not great reading for those who hung their coat on the peg marked "beginning of a long cooling trend". To say the least, that peg is now looking shaky.

As mooted in my commentary last month, the 6 month dip bottomed out in pretty much the same place as the one that ended around two years ago. If February is another warm 'un then I think this particular peg well and truly drops off the wall.

[Hiya]

The latest update: not great reading for those who hung their coat on the peg marked "beginning of a long cooling trend". To say the least, that peg is now looking shaky.

As mooted in my commentary last month, the 6 month dip bottomed out in pretty much the same place as the one that ended around two years ago. If February is another warm 'un then I think this particular peg well and truly drops off the wall.

You wouldn't be insinuating that two warmer than average months in a row constitutes a renewed upward trend would you?

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

You wouldn't be insinuating that two warmer than average months in a row constitutes a renewed upward trend would you?

Ah, but in turn, 9 months of cool months doesnt make a trend either

I think this thread would need to run for at least a few years to be able to find a conclusion.

Actually Hiya, you've made me think (It takes a lot to do that). How long would it take to constitute a trend? 1 year, 1 month, 10 years, 25 years?

[Stratos Ferric]

Ah, but in turn, 9 months of cool months doesnt make a trend either

I think this thread would need to run for at least a few years to be able to find a conclusion.

Actually Hiya, you've made me think (It takes a lot to do that). How long would it take to constitute a trend? 1 year, 1 month, 10 years, 25 years?

There's a good few in another place on N-W for whom, even if you offered up a thousand years of aligned movement, would still refuse to believe that there's a trend if that direction were opposed to the one that they would prefer.

[Stratos Ferric]

You wouldn't be insinuating that two warmer than average months in a row constitutes a renewed upward trend would you?

The number of warm v cold months is a sideshow. The moving average temperature simply builds from the cumulative temperature divided by the number of periods used to build that cumulative score. We've had six cool months; January wipes out around a third of what was lost. Much of that cool simply removed 'above trend' warmth. SInce Nov 2005 coldmonths have outnumbered warm, but we've hardly made a big deny in rolling CET: it's dropped by around 0.2C in that time. To drop further, with the sole exception of April to come, months are going to have to come in below levels that last year were very low by recent standards. If that happens, then there might be just cause for speculating that things have plateaued, but as things stand right now, and particularly if February comes in above par, then my conclusion will firmly be - as my instinct already is - that all we're seeing is background oscillation against a steadily rising mean. I keep saying it, the inter-annual variation in weather, and with it annual mean temperature, has a much larger amplitude than the rate of overall climate change. Much of the hubris on here from people seeing the headline numbers and assuming we're not warming overlooks this fundamental point. Hence my point that the real test of warming or cooling is to check each month with the one that occurred twenty or thirty years previously. If the result is constantly warmer then the only conclusion can be that the climate is warming.

[noggin]

There's a good few in another place on N-W for whom, even if you offered up a thousand years of aligned movement, would still refuse to believe that there's a trend if that direction were opposed to the one that they would prefer.

Now that is pure speculation.

[Stratos Ferric]

Now that is pure speculation.

No it isn't, one or two have actually gone in type on here saying as much in the not too distant past. However, you know that I firmly believe that if more sceptics / doubters committed their line in the metaphorical sand beyond which they WOULD accept warming then it might help ease the tensions in the debate. I have made perfectly clear in this thread what it would take to convince me that we are not warming.

[TEITS]

I have made perfectly clear in this thread what it would take to convince me that we are not warming.

I tell you what SF, I may in the past have doubted whether we are warming but my view has certainly changed and im now convinced this is occuring.

When I first joined this forum I suggested our lack of cold spells was down to bad luck but we can't use this excuse anymore. The harsh reality is the warming has caused an accelerated warming during our winters. The reasons are very clear IMO and that is warmer SSTS, greater energy in the PFJ, PFJ being further N. Also have you noticed in recent years how we always see stratospheric cooling around November causing a positive AO during the winter months?

I am now of the opinion that the only way our climate will cool is either, changes in the gulf stream, volcanic eruptions, very low sunspot activity. If none of these above occur then our climate will continue to warm and snow will become restricted to higher ground.

Some members might be surprised by my post but the harsh reality has only just hit me.

Edited February 4, 2008 by THE EYE IN THE SKY

[Sno' problem]

I tell you what SF, I may in the past have doubted whether we are warming but my view has certainly changed and im now convinced this is occuring.

When I first joined this forum I suggested our lack of cold spells was down to bad luck but we can't use this excuse anymore. The harsh reality is the warming has caused an accelerated warming during our winters. The reasons are very clear IMO and that is warmer SSTS, greater energy in the PFJ, PFJ being further N. Also have you noticed in recent years how we always see stratospheric cooling around November causing a positive AO during the winter months?

I am now of the opinion that the only way our climate will cool is either, changes in the gulf stream, volcanic eruptions, very low sunspot activity. If none of these above occur then our climate will continue to warm and snow will become restricted to higher ground.

Some members might be surprised by my post but the harsh reality has only just hit me.

I think you are just voicing what most of us are reluctant to believe, but this is beginning to become too consistent to ignore. (I would love to believe differently, but the more I learn, the more it seems to make sense).

I am IN NO WAY an expert, but as TEITS points out, things have changed far too much in the past 30 odd years, (my living memory), that despite the natural cold/warm rhythm of historical fact (ice ages coming and going etc...), things are moving far too quickly to be able to put down to anything other than our abuse of our natural resources/surroundings!

I know that this may all sound a bit over the top, but I am listening to my head, not my heart anymore.... I hope that I am wrong, but it is getting to the point that i am thinking of getting rid of my car. (Partly cos of Ken "effing" Livingstone, but generally because I can't justify it any more - impossible to park, move anywhere etc...)

Sorry to be a downer, but have to agree with TEITS' point!!!!

WE CAN CHANGE THINGS!!

(By the way... I ain't a Hippy, (or am I????))

[The watcher]

To see a proper trend in this i'd think at least 3 years of statistics needs to be built. The average temperatures for each month should be used to work an average yearly temperature, then this temperature should be compared to the year befores mean. Thats best way to record this for if each years mean rises compared to years before, its an upward trend, if it drops more (even slightly) its a cooling trend. Keep it simple and avoid possibility of mistakes.

[Anti-Mild]

I tell you what SF, I may in the past have doubted whether we are warming but my view has certainly changed and im now convinced this is occuring.

When I first joined this forum I suggested our lack of cold spells was down to bad luck but we can't use this excuse anymore. The harsh reality is the warming has caused an accelerated warming during our winters. The reasons are very clear IMO and that is warmer SSTS, greater energy in the PFJ, PFJ being further N. Also have you noticed in recent years how we always see stratospheric cooling around November causing a positive AO during the winter months?

I am now of the opinion that the only way our climate will cool is either, changes in the gulf stream, volcanic eruptions, very low sunspot activity. If none of these above occur then our climate will continue to warm and snow will become restricted to higher ground.

Some members might be surprised by my post but the harsh reality has only just hit me.

Last Thursday it snowed quite heavily here for 5 hours and by 9pm on Thursday we had less than 1cm. By Friday lunchtime it had all gone.

It's hard to admit that to myself let alone a forum but I agree with everything you have said Dave! I said to myself at the start of the winter that there was no way that it would be as bad as 06/07 but if anything it has been worse. Until we get more normal SST's in the Atlantic then I fear that every December we will have a raging PFJ combined with a cold stratosphere and a +ve AO and no chance of prolonged, or even semi-prolonged, cold/snow.

I asked the question to the forum last year if it was still possible to have a <1c month and I said yes, as did many others. Now, I don't think it is possible to have a <3c month, which is a horrible thing to admit, and I'm sure I would not be alone in that opinion.

I am still unsure whether the warm Atlantic is down to AGW or natural variation, but whichever it is, until it reverts to normal then there is no way that low lying areas will get anything other than transient snow.

[acbrixton]

I asked the question to the forum last year if it was still possible to have a <1c month and I said yes, as did many others. Now, I don't think it is possible to have a <3c month, which is a horrible thing to admit, and I'm sure I would not be alone in that opinion.

AM, I suspect that a sub 1.0 month is all but impossible now: in the first half of the 19th century there were 13 such months

in the period from 1900 to 2007 there were 16

in the last 50 years only 7

in the 'even larger teapot' (the period from 1987/8 on wards) none.

Sub 3.0 months in the even larger teapot are rare too: only 5 such months all of which were in the period 1987/8 to 1996/7.

Sub 4.0 months in the even larger teapot number 13 but only 4 of which occurred in the last 10 years.

I do not think that we are yet at the stage where a sub 3.0 month is all but impossible...

regards

ACB

[Stratos Ferric]

AM, I suspect that a sub 1.0 month is all but impossible now: in the first half of the 19th century there were 13 such months

in the period from 1900 to 2007 there were 16

in the last 50 years only 7

in the 'even larger teapot' (the period from 1987/8 on wards) none.

Sub 3.0 months in the even larger teapot are rare too: only 5 such months all of which were in the period 1987/8 to 1996/7.

Sub 4.0 months in the even larger teapot number 13 but only 4 of which occurred in the last 10 years.

I do not think that we are yet at the stage where a sub 3.0 month is all but impossible...

regards

ACB

Despite being widely pilloried, particularly fron the usual suspects, I did put the analysis up (as I have tended to do in recent autumns) to address precisely this point. For all intents and purposes I really don't think a sub 4 winter month is worth betting on: you would nowadays lose far more often than you would win. I agree that in theory it could still happen when viewed against recent trend, but I think sub 3 is, alas, now behind us. I keep caveating "perhaps one last hurrah", but with each failing year even this seems superfluous. When I first started this discussion line four or five yearas ago on SlowWatch, I was taking what I thought was a fairly extreme view. Even I have been staggered at just how quickly the character of our winters has changed. Today in central London felt like early April: I had to remind myself it's February 6th. Twenty eight years ago we were on the cusp of the most memorable snowfall of my life. More fell in the forty eight hours that commenced a few days later than has fallen in the entirety of this century to date at Stratos Towers.

Secretly I had hoped that this year might deliver something: it is the last of the previously reliable winter cold cycles (Philip's 22/23 year cycle), though my own 16 year cycle returns in 2011. As Philip once said, just when you think you've found a reliable pattern, it gets scuppered by events.

[Terminal Moraine]

My belief ( or is it a desperate hope? ) that the current warming is a temporary fluctuation is now tested almost to breaking point.

I would never deny that the climate has warmed, there are far too many hard statistics saying otherwise, but I had thought it would 'correct' itself, as happened after the warming of the 1720s and 1730s or the 1920s and 1930s.

I still hold out the tenuous hope that 2011 or, at the outside 2013, will provide some sort of watershed moment but the emphasis is firmly on 'tenuous'.

Even the highly anomalous decade of the 1730s managed to produce 7 sub 4c months and 4 of those were sub 3c.

The 1920s had 9 sub 4c months and the 1930s, 12. So far this decade there have been 4 sub 4c months and, not including this month, there are 4 to go; 6 if you bend the rules and stretch the decade into Jan/Feb 2010.

It seems highly unlikely that all of those will return a CET lower than 4c and so the inexorable increase in warmth over the past 20 years has nudged us into uncharted territory.

I'm beginning to think it will take some sort of climatic switch, whether internally or externally driven, to alter the situation and that without one, it's a case of waiting for the next step change upward as the warmth increases.

Still, 2011 hasn't arrived yet and we all know that it's more likely that a cold winter occurs in an odd numbered year, and 2009 is just around the corner......

The indefatigably optimistic T.M

[Anti-Mild]

Despite being widely pilloried, particularly from [sic] the usual suspects.......

I must admit Stratos, that I tended to view you as an extreme mild ramper, and often saw you as one who derived a great deal of schadenfreude from the idea that cold and snow were behind us, although I was less vociferously opposed than others. Now, I believe that you were simply more far-sighted, or perhaps realistic, than the rest of us. I used to lump you in with Devonian and the like as one who had an almost rabid adherence to the impending climate disaster, but upon closer inspection I now believe that you were/are just less blinkered than most (me included).

However, I still believe that you and WiB purposefully wind each other up !

AM

[Earthtrasher]

I think you have to look at the world, not just CET and consider periods of more than 30 years.

Since 1975 or so up tp 1998 there had been a prolonged period of higher than average sunspot numbers and stronger El Nino events both of which are involved in global warming.

To get a better idea of the scale of human influence we need to see whether it is possible for global warming to continue at any significant rate in the face of reduced sunspot activity and more frequent La Nina conditions.

The present is the first time in 30 years that we have both low sunspot numbers and La Nina conditions and it does appear that the global temperature has dropped in the past 12 months.

Western Europe in winter has not yet shared in that cooling but last summer failed to be as warm as expected after the very warm start to the year. Much of the Southern Hemisphere together with the US, Middle East and China have seen cooler than average conditions recently.

Over time any warming of the Pacific from El Nino feeds into the Atlantic and I suspect that current high Atlantic SSTs are a result of past Pacific warming. If the current La Nina lasts long enough I expect to see the Atlantic start to cool.

The warmer than average Atlantic SST is probably implicated in the Arctic melt last summer due to the warmer water moving up into the Arctic Circle. However I tend to the view that open water in the Arctic increases cooling rather like a bald man going out in the winter without a hat. The water from southern latitudes is warmer than the atmosphere in the Arctic even in summer so a lack of ice cover lets more heat escape into space. That may be why, less than 6 months later we have much more snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere than for many years past.

In the next 2-5 years we should see good evidence, even in the UK, as to whether natural cycles are still in control or whether we really might have disrupted them.

As long as we had warming at the same time as high sunspot activity and an active El Nino it was not possible to discern the extent of any anthropogenic component. We should soon be able to do so.

[Stratos Ferric]

...Over time any warming of the Pacific from El Nino feeds into the Atlantic and I suspect that current high Atlantic SSTs are a result of past Pacific warming. If the current La Nina lasts long enough I expect to see the Atlantic start to cool.

The warmer than average Atlantic SST is probably implicated in the Arctic melt last summer due to the warmer water moving up into the Arctic Circle. However I tend to the view that open water in the Arctic increases cooling rather like a bald man going out in the winter without a hat. The water from southern latitudes is warmer than the atmosphere in the Arctic even in summer so a lack of ice cover lets more heat escape into space. That may be why, less than 6 months later we have much more snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere than for many years past.

In the next 2-5 years we should see good evidence, even in the UK, as to whether natural cycles are still in control or whether we really might have disrupted them.

As long as we had warming at the same time as high sunspot activity and an active El Nino it was not possible to discern the extent of any anthropogenic component. We should soon be able to do so.

Certainly agree with the general premise, and as I keep saying there is absolutely no reason why natural cooling cannot be juxtaposed against simultaneous background warming. Indeed, to answer one of Jethro's challenges around how to quantify the AGW portion, reading in the cooling from similar phases in the past and superimposing the global drop in temperature then against the current change would allow a "netting off" of the AGW element.

I'm not sure Pacific feeds to Atlantic quite so immediately or reliably as you suggest. There is a slow deep level flow that connects the longitudinal hemispheres, but no direct flow. The Atlantic responds to a different immediate engine.

Re the loss of ice aiding cooling, that I'm afraid is wrong. The analogy with a human breaks down because a human converts food to heat energy, and is therefore an energy source. The earth by comparison is essentially a black body (this is a slight simplification but it will do here), and warmth or cold at the surface is a function of energy balance. Therefore, loss of ice is a warming effect, and quite demonstrably so, because inbound energy is now absorbed that previously was reflected away. Watch how a field of snow melts on a sunny day if you doubt that. Once even a small patch of ground is exposed the rate of melt increases dramatically.

However, you're quite right re visibility of effect, with ONE caveat. El Nino is partly driven by surface wind patterns, and they by global macro-circulation flux. If the changing climate alters the macro circulation then apparent drivers (though perhaps really just symptoms) of surface temperatue may themselves be modified.

In the same way that some on here take the view, misguidedly in my opinion, that the failure of our winters is just bad luck with synoptics, so might a tendency to increased El Ninos be more fundamental than a mere misfortune.

...

However, I still believe that you and WiB purposefully wind each other up !

AM

Who?

[Earthtrasher]

Re the loss of ice aiding cooling, that I'm afraid is wrong. The analogy with a human breaks down because a human converts food to heat energy, and is therefore an energy source. The earth by comparison is essentially a black body (this is a slight simplification but it will do here), and warmth or cold at the surface is a function of energy balance. Therefore, loss of ice is a warming effect, and quite demonstrably so, because inbound energy is now absorbed that previously was reflected away. Watch how a field of snow melts on a sunny day if you doubt that. Once even a small patch of ground is exposed the rate of melt increases dramatically.

I know that is the general view but I'm not so sure and it may be that you can nail it for me.

We are only talking here about an area of water that was previously ice covered and deciding whether the warming effect from a loss of albedo is greater or smaller than the loss of heat from the newly exposed water into space. The effect of sun onto land is therefore a distraction.

Even in summer the power of the sun in the Arctic is low and has a weak effect in heating the body of water directly so the albedo effect would be smaller than further south.

In contrast in most of the Arctic circle the water is much warmer than it would otherwise be as a result of advection from southerly latitudes via the Gulf Stream.

Once one removes the obstacle to direct radiation from water to space (the obstacle being the ice cover) then it seems likely that the loss of heat to space from the now exposed and warmed water would exceed the loss of incoming solar insolation resulting from the reduced albedo.

Are there any measurements comparing the heat budgets of the two effects ?

It's particularly relevant to the past 3 months because there has been much increased northern hemisphere snowfall this season and the satellites apparently show a 0.5C reduction in global temperature over the past 12 months.

It would also be a mechanism for reducing Atlantic temperatures from their current elevated levels.

[Stratos Ferric]

I know that is the general view but I'm not so sure and it may be that you can nail it for me.

We are only talking here about an area of water that was previously ice covered and deciding whether the warming effect from a loss of albedo is greater or smaller than the loss of heat from the newly exposed water into space. The effect of sun onto land is therefore a distraction.

Even in summer the power of the sun in the Arctic is low and has a weak effect in heating the body of water directly so the albedo effect would be smaller than further south.

In contrast in most of the Arctic circle the water is much warmer than it would otherwise be as a result of advection from southerly latitudes via the Gulf Stream.

Once one removes the obstacle to direct radiation from water to space (the obstacle being the ice cover) then it seems likely that the loss of heat to space from the now exposed and warmed water would exceed the loss of incoming solar insolation resulting from the reduced albedo.

Are there any measurements comparing the heat budgets of the two effects ?

It's particularly relevant to the past 3 months because there has been much increased northern hemisphere snowfall this season and the satellites apparently show a 0.5C reduction in global temperature over the past 12 months.

It would also be a mechanism for reducing Atlantic temperatures from their current elevated levels.

I think you overlook the fact that in the summer pole the sun shines for 24 hours a day. Yes, radiation is lower per unit area, but this is compensated for by persistence.

You're also assuming a lot in your penultimate paragraph. Does cold follow snow, or snow follow cold?

Atlantic temperatures are currently far less elevated than they have been for 2-3 years I think.

Re the heat exchange mechanism: albedo indicates energy reflected back to space at the inbound wavelength. Having open water allows conduction and convection to occur, but the process here is one of transfer of energy from one state to another. It's a rather different thing to transfer heat from ocean to atmosphere (the energy still exists) that it is to have never have received the energy in the first place.

[Earthtrasher]

I think you overlook the fact that in the summer pole the sun shines for 24 hours a day. Yes, radiation is lower per unit area, but this is compensated for by persistence.

You're also assuming a lot in your penultimate paragraph. Does cold follow snow, or snow follow cold?

Atlantic temperatures are currently far less elevated than they have been for 2-3 years I think.

Re the heat exchange mechanism: albedo indicates energy reflected back to space at the inbound wavelength. Having open water allows conduction and convection to occur, but the process here is one of transfer of energy from one state to another. It's a rather different thing to transfer heat from ocean to atmosphere (the energy still exists) that it is to have never have received the energy in the first place.

Heat transferred from ocean to atmosphere does not just stay there. It gets radiated into space from both poles.

Over the course of each year excess heat from the equatorial sun gets moved via ocean and air currents to the poles where there is a net loss of heat to space resulting in an approximate planetary equilibrium. If warm water from southern latitudes is advected into the Arctic circle it will heat the atmosphere around the north pole and increase heat loss to space.

Much more heat will be transferred from ocean to atmosphere and then into space if there is no ice cover.

From what you say there seems to be no definitve indication as to whether loss of Arctic ice cover leads to a net cooling effect greater than that accepted as being caused by the albedo effect resulting from ice cover. It is always assumed that the reduced albedo from ice loss increases an overall net global warming. I am yet to be convinced.

Warm water without ice cover within the Arctic circle must greatly enhance the radiative process both from water to atmosphere and from atmosphere to space during the period that the ice cover is absent.

Edited February 9, 2008 by Earthtrasher

[Earthtrasher]

I think you overlook the fact that in the summer pole the sun shines for 24 hours a day. Yes, radiation is lower per unit area, but this is compensated for by persistence.

Still not necessarily enough to offset the extra heat released by a larger area of warm water where there was previously ice cover. If there is evidence either way I'd be interested to see it. Don't forget that the albedo effect of just the portion of the ocean that anomalously has no ice cover would be pretty minimal anyway due to it being a small part of the total Arctic area at a very high latitude with weak sunlight even if it is 24 hours a day. During the period of time that the sun is above the horizon much of that time it is too low in the sky to have a substantial effect.

You're also assuming a lot in your penultimate paragraph. Does cold follow snow, or snow follow cold?

The process of heat transferring from ocean to atmosphere also involves considerable evaporation of water. Hence the greater snowfalls around the northern hemisphere this season as a result of increased Arctic and sub Arctic humidity.

[Stratos Ferric]

I know that is the general view but I'm not so sure and it may be that you can nail it for me.

...

ET, if it [loss of polar ice] weren't a warming effect then perhaps you can explain why periods of low polar ice are taken, in the historical record, to equate to periods of warmth globally?

Your assessment of flux seems to be making some pretty large assumptions. Yes, there is a net flus from equator to the poles, but much energy is lost en route, hence the thermal gradient is fairly steady polewards: it doesn't suddenly drop off a cliff. The fact remains, more reradiated energy is retained (by the atmosphere) if the oceans are ice free, and in addition less inbound energy is reflected. Any reradiated energy is at a shorter wave length than inbound solar energy. This is the whole point of the debate re GHGs: they absorb energy at shorter wave-lengths. Hence, losing ice starts to have a positive feedback NOT a negative one.

If you go Google for a few minutes you'll be able to find all the pictures showing typical annual flux. If I remember correctly the energy budget is actually constant the world over: the main driver of surface variation is angle of attack. The J/m2 at the equator is obviously different to the J/m2 at the poles.

Your argument re heat released by the open water would stack up IF all the energy was lost to space. It isn't. In any case, more inbound energy is also absorbed. This is why there is a strong argument for a positive feedback mechanism around polar ice loss.

Not sure the evaporation of water at the poles will be significant in NH snowfall this winter. By far the biggest driver of humidity is evaporation from warm waters, not only are evaporation rates higher, the air - being warmer - can hold far more moisture. The cause of any increase in snow in the NH (and I'm not sure there actually is any more than normal overall) will likely be lower temperatures rather than increased humidity per sé.

...

Warm water without ice cover within the Arctic circle must greatly enhance the radiative process both from water to atmosphere and from atmosphere to space during the period that the ice cover is absent.

Wavelength of the radiated energy is the vital point.

[eddie]

An interesting topic you have brought up here Earthtrasher. I would tend to agree that open water during the permanent darkness of an arctic winter would result in more heat radiated away from the earth into space than an ice covered ocean.

I would expect over a whole year though that loss of albedo would mean a net increase of ocean/atmosphere energy content despite loosing more in the winter.

Edited February 11, 2008 by eddie