Jump to content
Winter
Local
Radar
Snow?
IGNORED

No AGW or normal temperature changes.


Iceberg

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset
Posted

This has been raised several times before, Sceptics claim that the last few years of stable temperatures and the current drop are signs that AGW is not occuring, or at the very least is not occuring at the magnitude raised by the IPCC. I understand this, I don't agree with it but it's certainly a view point that I have respect for. There is also the theory that temperatures should always go up under AGW.

I'd be interested to hear why people take the above stance, but from somebody who agree's with AGW theory my point is as follows.

Climate can and always will go up and down I've attached a paper by jones which has the following diagram. I am not looking at the start and end line or the trends per se, because I don't really want an arguement about manipulation but the global anomalies are very interesting.

The Spike in 1998 is very very clear, hence why when looking at trends we say it should be ignored.

You can see the climate varies and drops of the magnitude see in the last 18 months are part and parcel throughout.

Global Warming will NOT prevent these drops from occuring. It does not wipe out seasonal or yearly variability, what it does do is raise the baseline which is why the drops are still above the normal temperture baseline.

The theory of year on year increases isn't something that any of the models predict. See the attached picture as well. Variations up and down are clearly predicted. This is in line with current measurements.

I am not saying that the current relative cooling over the last 18 months argues for AGW or Against just that it does not in it's current state prove anything other than that seasonal and yearly variability does exist. Something I think everybody agrees with.

hope this makes sense.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html

  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted
  • Location: Harrogate, N Yorks
  • Location: Harrogate, N Yorks
Posted
This has been raised several times before, Sceptics claim that the last few years of stable temperatures and the current drop are signs that AGW is not occuring, or at the very least is not occuring at the magnitude raised by the IPCC. I understand this, I don't agree with it but it's certainly a view point that I have respect for. There is also the theory that temperatures should always go up under AGW.

I'd be interested to hear why people take the above stance, but from somebody who agree's with AGW theory my point is as follows.

Climate can and always will go up and down I've attached a paper by jones which has the following diagram. I am not looking at the start and end line or the trends per se, because I don't really want an arguement about manipulation but the global anomalies are very interesting.

The Spike in 1998 is very very clear, hence why when looking at trends we say it should be ignored.

You can see the climate varies and drops of the magnitude see in the last 18 months are part and parcel throughout.

Global Warming will NOT prevent these drops from occuring. It does not wipe out seasonal or yearly variability, what it does do is raise the baseline which is why the drops are still above the normal temperture baseline.

The theory of year on year increases isn't something that any of the models predict. See the attached picture as well. Variations up and down are clearly predicted. This is in line with current measurements.

I am not saying that the current relative cooling over the last 18 months argues for AGW or Against just that it does not in it's current state prove anything other than that seasonal and yearly variability does exist. Something I think everybody agrees with.

hope this makes sense.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html

Strangely for a sceptic (or should I say heretic as my real fight is not against science but the hijacking of science by an idealism) I broadly agree with you :) . The sudden drop from 2007 to 2008 is no more an indicator of trend than the precipitous drop from 1998 to 1999. If you stand well back a general upward trend from the Victorian period is clear to see - but of course overlaying a CO2 graph and citing correlation means causality is where the real debate lies. Not many on these threads deny we are warmer now than 150 years ago, but why is the big question.

I would counter the suggestion that you should ignore 1998 as this is just as valid as the rapid warming observed in the 1870s - it is as dangerous to start excluding data as it is to modify it to make it support your case.

My personal opinion is that we are at a turning point, but have not yet conclusively made that turn. Should the temperature graphs only show negative anomalies for the next year and then turn back on their previous path it would be very compelling as we should now have a decent period of cooling from solar and ocean cycles. Unfortunately I feel the pressure to act drastically may pre-empt the confirmation of the 21st Century trend and I am as afraid of the consequences of incorrect actions as any global warmer - just in the opposite direction.

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Posted
The sudden drop from 2007 to 2008 is no more an indicator of trend than the precipitous drop from 1998 to 1999.

And the mathematics backs up this assertion wholly.

It's about seperating a signal from noise. In this case the signal is global temperature increasing at a notional rate of 0.2C/10yr (??), and the noise is normal natural variation of orders of magnitude more such as ENSO, diurnal, seasonal, amongst other factors.

The only way to determine the signal is by very long trends. Even the ones in current usage may not be long enough, imo. Indeed, when Hansen was rabbiting on about it in the early 1980s I would assert that he was too early to draw such a conclusion, being, that probably, in about 2-5 years from now, the conclusion will become statistically verifiable (or otherwise!) and a consensus, if it turns out to verify, will no longer be required.

Clearly every ten years 0.2C makes not a gnat's difference. Over a century, the 2C makes a whole load of difference.

And therein lies the rub.

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Posted
And the mathematics backs up this assertion wholly.

It's about seperating a signal from noise. In this case the signal is global temperature increasing at a notional rate of 0.2C/10yr (??), and the noise is normal natural variation of orders of magnitude more such as ENSO, diurnal, seasonal, amongst other factors.

The only way to determine the signal is by very long trends. Even the ones in current usage may not be long enough, imo. Indeed, when Hansen was rabbiting on about it in the early 1980s I would assert that he was too early to draw such a conclusion, being, that probably, in about 2-5 years from now, the conclusion will become statistically verifiable (or otherwise!) and a consensus, if it turns out to verify, will no longer be required.

Clearly every ten years 0.2C makes not a gnat's difference. Over a century, the 2C makes a whole load of difference.

And therein lies the rub.

Absolutely right! Imo.

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
Posted
Absolutely right! Imo.

Dont worry - at that rate you will be long dead before that effects you.

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Posted
Dont worry - at that rate you will be long dead before that effects you.

What insight.

Who mentioned worrying?

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Posted
Dont worry - at that rate you will be long dead before that effects you.

I'm worried - Dev has actually agreed with something I've written. Off to A&E for a coronary check ...

Posted

Hello all, I'm a newbie to this forum and I've found it quite informative and entertaining so far.

I think there are several things worth pointing out about this latest temperature drop:

1) Temperatures have returned to the same levels as the last major temperature drop (1999). All previous, non-volcano induced drops of the past 30 years have been warmer than the drops that preceded them.

2) In relation to the first point, the years leading up to this latest drop did not feature a steady upward climb. If you look at every other period between temperature drops, temperatures are climbing.

3) Temperatures dropped faster than any previously recorded drop, including the rapid transistion from strong El Nino to strong La Nina in late 1998/1999 (one would think this drop would be faster).

4) Speaking of ENSO, if one removes the ENSO effects from the temperature trends, it is clear that something changed in the past 10 years.

post-8551-1215717985_thumb.jpg

The question is not whether temperatures have leveled off the past 10 years, it is why? ENSO fluctuations are not the reason, so what could it be? I don't buy that it's just "noise"...there should be some actual scientific explanation for such a trend reversal.

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Posted
I don't buy that it's just "noise"...there should be some actual scientific explanation for such a trend reversal.

A trend measures the gradient of a signal. Nothing more nothing less. One method of 'smoothing' the signal is using the least sum of squares which helps one see through noise and establish a trend.

If you talk of trends you are talking of analysis of a signal. If you are talking of signals, then you must also consider noise.

Posted
  • Location: Worthing West Sussex
  • Location: Worthing West Sussex
Posted
Hello all, I'm a newbie to this forum and I've found it quite informative and entertaining so far.

I think there are several things worth pointing out about this latest temperature drop:

1) Temperatures have returned to the same levels as the last major temperature drop (1999). All previous, non-volcano induced drops of the past 30 years have been warmer than the drops that preceded them.

2) In relation to the first point, the years leading up to this latest drop did not feature a steady upward climb. If you look at every other period between temperature drops, temperatures are climbing.

3) Temperatures dropped faster than any previously recorded drop, including the rapid transistion from strong El Nino to strong La Nina in late 1998/1999 (one would think this drop would be faster).

4) Speaking of ENSO, if one removes the ENSO effects from the temperature trends, it is clear that something changed in the past 10 years.

post-8551-1215717985_thumb.jpg

The question is not whether temperatures have leveled off the past 10 years, it is why? ENSO fluctuations are not the reason, so what could it be? I don't buy that it's just "noise"...there should be some actual scientific explanation for such a trend reversal.

Welcome Smithers!

One question: what does "ENSO Corrected" mean?

Posted
A trend measures the gradient of a signal. Nothing more nothing less. One method of 'smoothing' the signal is using the least sum of squares which helps one see through noise and establish a trend.

If you talk of trends you are talking of analysis of a signal. If you are talking of signals, then you must also consider noise.

Yes, and I find ten years a long enough time to distinguish between "noise" and "trends". Why? Because there are no prior ten year periods during the warming signal that can be equated with this one. If it is noise, it should appear periodically. Show me another flat ten year trend during a +PDO/+ENSO phase the past 100 years. In addition, there should be some sort of scientific explanation for the "noise"...if there is not, then can we not discount the previous ten year trend (1988-1998) as just noise as well? We must have some faith in the accurracy of global temperature readings, or else there is no way to be certain of any trends.

Welcome Smithers!

One question: what does "ENSO Corrected" mean?

Hi, thank you!

It just means they have removed the ENSO (El Nino or La Nina) signal from the temperature trend. Many people used to accuse skeptics of cherry-picking if they started a graph from 1998 because that year featured a huge El Nino that rapidly warmed the globe. However, when the ENSO signal is removed, the ten year trend is still basically flat.

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Posted
Yes, and I find ten years a long enough time to distinguish between "noise" and "trends". Why? Because there are no prior ten year periods during the warming signal that can be equated with this one. If it is noise, it should appear periodically. Show me another flat ten year trend during a +PDO/+ENSO phase the past 100 years. In addition, there should be some sort of scientific explanation for the "noise"...if there is not, then can we not discount the previous ten year trend (1988-1998) as just noise as well? We must have some faith in the accurracy of global temperature readings, or else there is no way to be certain of any trends.

Hi, thank you!

It just means they have removed the ENSO (El Nino or La Nina) signal from the temperature trend. Many people used to accuse skeptics of cherry-picking if they started a graph from 1998 because that year featured a huge El Nino that rapidly warmed the globe. However, when the ENSO signal is removed, the ten year trend is still basically flat.

Hi there ... yes, no one, with an ounce of sense, is going to argue that the last ten years shows a flat trend, but the question is, is it a long enough period to look for the much AGW hypothesised signal of 0.2C/10yr (??)

Well, by taking relatively simple mathematics it isn't. Excluding all ENSO, and other factors (not as easy as one might imagine, but I did see a report on real climate recently where you can see how it could be done) the natural variation over a ten year period is highly likely (>99.9%) to be more than 0.2C. If you take such a ten year period, therefore, knowing full well that what you are looking at could simply be a natural signal, you are commenting on noise. Whilst in and off itself it may be significant to, say, solar scientists, it really doesn't say a great deal about the AGW hypothesis in either a positive or a negative way.

Indeed, if you are looking for natural causes, you'd want to rule out any underlying warming trend so that your fourier analysis has a greater chance of returning a 'more useful' frequency analysis! The inverse holds too!!

Let's assume that natural variation is measured at, say 1C over ten years. I have no idea what or if there is such a figure. If you are looking for a signal of 0.2C then you must use a trend of at least 50 years (0.2C * 5 = 1C) to account for the natural variation. Preferably, more; orders of magnitude, more (as you have quite correctly implied, there are more factors than ENSO at work, naturally). I think you'd be able to get a natural variation by looking at paleo records, say, over 200 years, and getting a std dev from it - as a ball park figure. I haven't done it.

The point is - no one is arguing whether or not the last ten years is flat. It clearly is. What the argument is, is whether or not it is significant, and, whether we all like it or not, it's a waiting game, now; we have to wait for the data to come in.

Welcome to the forum :lol:

Posted
Hi there ... yes, no one, with an ounce of sense, is going to argue that the last ten years shows a flat trend, but the question is, is it a long enough period to look for the much AGW hypothesised signal of 0.2C/10yr (??)

Well, by taking relatively simple mathematics it isn't. Excluding all ENSO, and other factors (not as easy as one might imagine, but I did see a report on real climate recently where you can see how it could be done) the natural variation over a ten year period is highly likely (>99.9%) to be more than 0.2C. If you take such a ten year period, therefore, knowing full well that what you are looking at could simply be a natural signal, you are commenting on noise. Whilst in and off itself it may be significant to, say, solar scientists, it really doesn't say a great deal about the AGW hypothesis in either a positive or a negative way.

Indeed, if you are looking for natural causes, you'd want to rule out any underlying warming trend so that your fourier analysis has a greater chance of returning a 'more useful' frequency analysis! The inverse holds too!!

Let's assume that natural variation is measured at, say 1C over ten years. I have no idea what or if there is such a figure. If you are looking for a signal of 0.2C then you must use a trend of at least 50 years (0.2C * 5 = 1C) to account for the natural variation. Preferably, more; orders of magnitude, more (as you have quite correctly implied, there are more factors than ENSO at work, naturally). I think you'd be able to get a natural variation by looking at paleo records, say, over 200 years, and getting a std dev from it - as a ball park figure. I haven't done it.

The point is - no one is arguing whether or not the last ten years is flat. It clearly is. What the argument is, is whether or not it is significant, and, whether we all like it or not, it's a waiting game, now; we have to wait for the data to come in.

Welcome to the forum :lol:

Hi, Village Plank, thanks for the welcome.

I agree that the longer the flat period persists, the more mathematically certain we can be that it is not just noise within the greater signal.

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Posted
Hi, Village Plank, thanks for the welcome.

I agree that the longer the flat period persists, the more mathematically certain we can be that it is not just noise within the greater signal.

Well, the predictions for the world-class agencies are that we are looking at about a two year flat or dropping climate. If I recall, correctly, that'll be the MetO, too.

In about five years time, I think it'll be worth sitting up and taking notice. In about 10 years time it'll be statistically very significant, and in 20 years time it'll start the debunk of the AGW hypothesis. That's seven years more than the 13 year dry solar cycle. I expect snow at Christmas, in Kent, 'soon' but it still says nothing about AGW either way. It is always a barometer of credibility to those who look for events (say a five year trend) over basic mathematical statistics to prove a theory either way.

And both camps are guilty of it. Watch out for glacial melt, ice cap melt, super-cold locally cold winters. You could attribute them to either camp, and they still say nothing about AGW -particularly watch for anyone who calls as a single event as evidence. Evidence, of AGW, comprises of a long term trend of a frequency of extreme events related to a warm climate. Nothing else will do. The converse is also true. A cold Chinese winter is irrelevant; but, if the frequency, over a long period of time, increases, then it becomes significant.

That is, unfortunately, the reality of the extent of warming of the last 30 odd years. In 20 years time, if it's been cooling for another 20 years it'll still be a 50/50 proposal for AGW.

I wonder if I'll live long enough to see the answer?

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset
Posted

A flat last 10 years...umm...... Below are the warmest years on record globally.

The ten warmest years, in descending order, are 1998, 2005, 2003 and 2002 (tie), 2004, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1999, and 1990

7 of these are in the last 10 years.

So lets look at them in the other order it goes 1999 2001, 2004, 2002, 2003 and 2005 I think there is fairly conclusive evidence that the upward trend continued until 2005, it's arguable that the slight decline has started since 2005.

Enso adjustments are extremely variable depending on who is doing the adjustment, the effects of enso cannot be agreed on, It's a very interesting area but I am not sure I support the work that Thompson did other than as a curiosity.

We know that 2006 was not that warm, 2007 and 2008 both had/have La Nina events.

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Posted
A flat last 10 years...umm...... Below are the warmest years on record globally.

The ten warmest years, in descending order, are 1998, 2005, 2003 and 2002 (tie), 2004, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1999, and 1990

7 of these are in the last 10 years.

Oh dear.

The last ten years have had a flat trend. Full stop. No more evidence needed, the data's in. No-one said they were cool. You can 'urm' all you like, but it does pay to read.

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset
Posted

Just try to clear this in my head.

If 2001 was warmer than 2000 and 1999

and 2002 was warmer than 2001,2000 and 1999

and 2003 was warmer than 2001, 2000 and 1999 and as warm as 2002

and 2004 was warmer than all the previous years except 2002 and 2003

and 2005 was warmer than any year that preceded it.

How come there is no upward trend for the first 5/6 years ?. I have admitted that since 2005 temps have stood still and gone down in the last 18 months but I must be missing something. I fully admit that the upward trend had slowed and might not be much but it was still upward. since 2006 we have had low solar activity and La nina. ack natural climatic variations.

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Posted

Hrmph.

The minute you are saying 'any year that preceded it' you are no longer talking about 'the last ten years'.

Here's the chart from the HadCRUT dataset. Looks flat to me. Even added a 20 period moving average for you ... I can't see what the argument is about. The last ten years, has been flat! (I am, of course, ignoring the high beginning, and low ending for obvious 'lets not have row about this' reasons)

post-5986-1215765218_thumb.png

Is the last ten years significant? Well, there's an awful lot of chat about that above.

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset
Posted

See your point VP we must be talking about very small amounts then that have made various years warmer.

So maybe we can agree that the dip at the end is not signficant (Yet !).

But what about the lengthy flatish bit. natural variations cancelling each other out ?, small variations that have been cancelled out by AGW ?.

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Posted
See your point VP we must be talking about very small amounts then that have made various years warmer.

So maybe we can agree that the dip at the end is not signficant (Yet !).

But what about the lengthy flatish bit. natural variations cancelling each other out ?, small variations that have been cancelled out by AGW ?.

I'm arguing that the ten years is insignificant so the dip at the end is even less so! I think I said it above (or I meant to say it) that if someone wants good statistical evidence for a cool down then they have to be prepared to be in a waiting game. For years. Otherwise a cooldown proposition is simply a prediction.

(EDIT: so claims about a flat climate for the last ten years are verifiable, but not, in my opinion, particularly significant :doh: )

Posted
I'm arguing that the ten years is insignificant so the dip at the end is even less so! I think I said it above (or I meant to say it) that if someone wants good statistical evidence for a cool down then they have to be prepared to be in a waiting game. For years. Otherwise a cooldown proposition is simply a prediction.

(EDIT: so claims about a flat climate for the last ten years are verifiable, but not, in my opinion, particularly significant :) )

That seems reasonable. The only reason I suggest the flat trend might be significant is that 1) it was not expected by AGW proponents (they may tell you otherwise, but it's simply not true), and 2) there is not other flat trend like it since global warming supposedly accelerated after 1977.

But yes...a waiting game it is.

Well, the predictions for the world-class agencies are that we are looking at about a two year flat or dropping climate. If I recall, correctly, that'll be the MetO, too.

In about five years time, I think it'll be worth sitting up and taking notice. In about 10 years time it'll be statistically very significant, and in 20 years time it'll start the debunk of the AGW hypothesis. That's seven years more than the 13 year dry solar cycle. I expect snow at Christmas, in Kent, 'soon' but it still says nothing about AGW either way. It is always a barometer of credibility to those who look for events (say a five year trend) over basic mathematical statistics to prove a theory either way.

I would argue that it would start to debunk the AGW hypothesis much earlier than that. After all, the 2007 IPCC report predicted that at least half of the years between 2009-2015 would be warmer than 1998. Clearly, they expect no prolonged halt in the temperature rise.

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Posted
After all, the 2007 IPCC report predicted that at least half of the years between 2009-2015 would be warmer than 1998.

Yes, if that's true, it's quite clearly erroneous, and a very silly thing to say even based on the evidence available on the day. I reckon someone probably took too much notice of the output of a computer model.

Posted
  • Location: Ayton, Berwickshire
  • Weather Preferences: Ice and snow, heat and sun!
  • Location: Ayton, Berwickshire
Posted

Not sure if anyone on here has come across Mr. Pielke before, but he makes some interesting observations worthy of debate on this link.

Pielke

One claim refers to heat bias, I think he may be talking about the heat island effect of expanding large cities which may not adequately have been factored in by IPCC.

Posted
I'm arguing that the ten years is insignificant so the dip at the end is even less so! I think I said it above (or I meant to say it) that if someone wants good statistical evidence for a cool down then they have to be prepared to be in a waiting game. For years. Otherwise a cooldown proposition is simply a prediction.

(EDIT: so claims about a flat climate for the last ten years are verifiable, but not, in my opinion, particularly significant :) )

How do you explain the huge increase in manmade CO2 and no increase in temps for the last ten years.

The computer modelling has been shown to be totally bogus.

Posted
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada
Posted

Nobody said this would be easy, right?

Skeptic and proponent alike should consider the following, then say what they think.

If the AGW theory is valid, then it should imply a warming of all types of air masses. There might be some room for diffferent rates of warming due to the dynamics of these different air masses. In other words, to put it in an easy to visualize context, your warm southeast to south continental air masses should arrive warmer than before. Your easterlies should be less cold than before. Your polar northwesterlies should be milder than before.

In North America here, we might expect the same sort of thing adjusted to our different climatology. In all likelihood arctic air masses would be affected the least because they might form under identical conditions to pre-AGW climate and move in rapidly before they had time to modify.

So that leaves another variable, frequency of air masses. You could have a climate in which all the old air masses were identical now to fifty years ago, but arrived in different frequencies.

From what I've seen, even as a skeptic, the latter is not the case. There is some substance to the former argument. Air masses seem relatively warmer under identical upper conditions so something is warming them up at the surface. The question is, whether that something is greenhouse gas emissions, vastly different albedo on regional scale (parking lots all over the landscape) -- a variant of the expanding UHI arguement, or is it feedback from natural variation, a steady rise in environmental temperature so that a Pacific air mass reflects a warmer Pacific, an Atlantic air mass a warmer Atlantic, a polar easterly a warmer Baltic, but none of this really due to greenhouse gas so much as pattern shifts.

I think it is two-thirds of one (natural) and one-third of the other (greenhouse), but that doesn't stop the external forcing or random variability from dealing a different deck of cards once in a while, more frequent colder air masses (that are not quite as cold as before) so that the average goes down. Since it is unlikely that the whole hemisphere is cooling in this regime, it is likely some effect of placing most of the ridges over mid-ocean and most of the troughs where weather stations are located, on land mostly.

That's what it looks like to me, I am not that blown away by either the warming of the 1990s or the plateau slight cooling if you wish of the last decade. These are no more impressive to me than the wild ride of the 1970s or the flat warmth of the 1980s (as experienced on my side of the Atlantic) or your version of the wild ride from 1982 to 1988.

I find a lot of these changes over-hyped when I look back and see some of the things that lie half-forgotten in the old weather records, and I have to say, if we just randomly set the time machine to 1911 or 1933 and turned the media and the IPCC loose on the weather happening then for a decade or so, we would have just the same sort of doom and gloom scenarios. The weather has always been bouncing up and down with these subtle background trends that always seem to lie just beyond both predictability and the sort of real-world effects that sell newspapers. In other words, the more it changes, the more it stays the same.

But you have to sympathize with Joe Q. Public who is being asked to accept some pretty stark contrasts, on the one hand, he has experts, politicians, gurus and pretty girls reading the news all begging him to save the planet, then he wanders out into the street (in Winnipeg, let's say) and finds that a cold rain is blowing sideways past his face while his thermometer tells him it is all of 14 degrees, and his newspaper weather section says the record high was 41 in 1936.

This is the sort of thing that gives "global warming" a bad name.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...