tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.comments2017-06-23T14:09:57.407+10:00moyhuNick Stokeshttps://plus.google.com/103029875534779648576noreply@blogger.comBlogger7886125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-14182221430009579042017-06-23T14:09:57.407+10:002017-06-23T14:09:57.407+10:00Yes, that is a good way of doing it. Anything that...Yes, that is a good way of doing it. Anything that is topologically equivalent to a sphere can more easily have the right natural frequency behaviour. <br />Nick Stokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-69428757133329834872017-06-23T03:50:42.163+10:002017-06-23T03:50:42.163+10:00What's interesting about these kind of spheric...What's interesting about these kind of spherical transformations is that they can significantly simplify problem solving. I have an example of simplifying Laplace's derivation of the primitive equations along the equator here:<br /><br /><a href="http://contextearth.com/compact-qbo-derivation/" rel="nofollow">http://contextearth.com/compact-qbo-derivation/</a><br /><br />The realization of the earth's equatorial latitude (phi) varying due to the mutual interaction with the nodal orbit of the moon and sun provides a huge simplification to the equations. This is what amounts to a clever ansatz defining the time-varying equatorial path with the greatest lines of attractive force. If one applies this simplification, Laplace's tidal equations reduce to a closed-form analytical solution. If one doesn't simplify, the equations remain underdetermined and difficult to deal with. And I think that's why they can't make sense of behaviors such as QBO.<br /><br />That being said, the issue that I am certain people will have with this formulation is that it appears that it's fiddling with the space-time continuum by having one of the spherical rotational axes (the latitude) vary with time. That makes it qualitatively similar to the Lorentz transformation. I don't necessarily have a ideal answer for this other than how it may help to understand the observed dynamics. By allowing the equatorial latitude to slightly vary in cyclic fashion, is the simplification worth the understanding we get from this formulation? <br />@whuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-56704589210438748962017-06-19T07:04:53.071+10:002017-06-19T07:04:53.071+10:00Follow on to this post http://contextearth.com/201...Follow on to <a href="http://contextearth.com/2017/06/03/enso-forcing-validation-via-lod-data/" rel="nofollow">this post http://contextearth.com/2017/06/03/enso-forcing-validation-via-lod-data/</a><br /><br />If one thinks that wind is the forcing agent for ENSO and not angular momentum variations, consider the following physics of tidal forcing: Imparting a 1 millisecond slowdown (or speedup) on the rotation of the earth with a surface velocity of almost 500 meters/second over the course of a couple of weeks (a fortnight) will result in an inertial lateral movement of ~ 1/2 a meter in the volume of the Pacific ocean due to Newton's first law.<br /><br />This does not seem like a big deal until you realize that the thermocline can absorb this inertial impulse as a vertical sloshing, since the effective gravity is reduced by orders of magnitude due to the slight density differences above and below the thermocline. This is reflected as an Atwood number and shows up in Rayleigh-Taylor instability experiments, e.g. <a href="http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/368/1916/1663.full.pdf" rel="nofollow">SEE THIS PAPER</a><br /><br />With an Atwood number less than 0.001 which is ~0.1% density differences in a stratified fluid, the 0.5 meter displacement that occurs over two weeks now occurs effectively over half an hour, or alternately is 1000X more sensitive than an unstratified volume. Either way, its an elementary scaling exercise to evaluate the impact.<br /><br />So intuitively, one has to ask the question of what would happen if the ocean was translated laterally by 1/2 a meter over the course of a 1/2 an hour? We know what happens with earthquakes in something as basic as a swimming pool or as threatening as a tsunami. But this is much more subtle because we can't obviously see it, and why it has likely been overlooked as a driver of ENSO.<br /><br />All that math modeling of ENSO described in the first link works backwards to this point. The actual forcing working on the earth's rotation can lead to the response shown, both in the dynamic sense of precisely tracking the measured ENSO time-series and now in terms of a physical order-of-magnitude justification.<br /><br />This effect is real and not imagined, and so should be accommodated in ENSO models.<br />@whuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-84481989090616123502017-06-19T03:21:58.383+10:002017-06-19T03:21:58.383+10:00This paper "Recent progress and review of iss...This paper "Recent progress and review of issues related to Physics Dynamics Coupling in geophysical models"<br />https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.06480.pdf<br /><br />They say at the end <i>"Probably the most sensitive parameter is the time step."</i><br /><br />That is true if the forcing is not strong and the problem relies on uncertain initial conditions. If the forcing is strong and the response is stable and converges, that forcing flows through to the response as clear as a bell irrespective of the chosen time step. For example, allowing a 60 Hz hum to enter an amplifier's input stages will certainly result in a 60 Hz hum visible in the output.<br /><br />So what do they recommend?<br /><i>"One option is to reduce the equation set, as in section 5, which then renders the generation of a reference solution more straight forward and allows for more rigorous mathematical analysis. Another option, as discussed in section 6, is to reduce the complexity of the GCM. Obviously the balance has to be right. Oversimplification does not challenge the coupling as the real model would, overly complex setups make the analysis intractable."</i><br /><br />So why don't we do this? <br /><br />And that coupling may not be coupling but a common mode response to other external factors, such as a gravitational forcing. I have shown how the ocean (via ENSO) and atmosphere (via QBO) respond to precisely the same lunar forcing.<br /><br />Contrary to what Mr.Browning says, it appears that the consensus climate science community is well aware of the issues. I really think there will be a path forward if we start with the obvious candidates to model, i.e. ENSO and QBO.<br />@whuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-47283262033322356062017-06-18T01:25:00.044+10:002017-06-18T01:25:00.044+10:00Elsewhere Olof questions whether Gerald Browning i...Elsewhere Olof questions whether Gerald Browning is a talker or a doer.<br /><br />The issue with scientists such as Browning is that they create these complex worlds of math that they live in during the course of their career and are surprised that nothing ever comes of it. In his case, Browning doesn't ride into the sunset but instead stirs the pot by claiming :<br /><br /><i>"Climate Models<br /><br />1. the climate models are based on the wrong set of differential equations, i.e., the hydrostatic equations instead of the well posed multi-scale hyperbolic system or the well posed reduced system (Browning and Kreiss 2002).<br /><br />2. The use of the hydrostatic system leads to columnar heating for the vertical velocity. In order to reduce the noise introduced by the point wise (lat,lon) heating, an unrealistically large dissipation must be applied and this reduces the numerical accuracy of the spectral method by two orders of magnitude (Browning, Hack and Swarztrauber and ECMWF plots shown on this site).<br /><br />3. For a model based on the hydrostatic system the accuracy of the numerical approximation is destroyed by the boundary layer parameterization within a matter of days (Sylvie Grsvel et al. on this site).<br /><br />4. There are no mathematical or numerical justifications for running a numerical model beyond the point where numerical accuracy is lost, let alone when it is based on the wrong equations and inaccurate parameterizations.<br />"</i><br /><br />Who knows, maybe he is right about all this. Yet, I doubt anything will come of it even if he is listened to. All the correct math in the world won't matter if one hasn't set down the right premise and that it can be applied, as in applied math leading to applied physics. <br /><br />Pierre-Simon Laplace was probably more responsible than anyone for Browning's consternation when he created his set of hydrostatic tidal equations in 1776. These equations are a reduced form of the complete set of primitive equations that go into every GCM developed, but also can be simplified to the extent that they can be used for applied physics. The ultimate example of this is how the tidal equations reduce to almost nothing (i.e. input forcing => scaling transform => output) when applied for straightforward tidal analysis.<br /><br />Something slightly more advanced than the reduced complexity of tidal analysis is likely what goes into ENSO and QBO analysis. We don't have to listen to Browning, but take the path of Laplace and iterate from there. Browning was likely down in the weeds from when he started decades ago and never really emerged.<br /><br /><br /><br />@whuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-34935004603309006462017-06-17T00:20:43.044+10:002017-06-17T00:20:43.044+10:00For my past ENSO simulations, I have been inferrin...For my past ENSO simulations, I have been inferring the gravitational forcing due to the long-period lunar cycles. I did this by combining monthly/fortnightly/mixed Draconic and Anomalistic factors to achieve a best fit to the ENSO time-series. This is similar to how ocean tidal analysis is performed.<br /><br />But more recently I found a more direct way to produce the lunar forcing, which is via measures of the length-of-day (LOD) variations. This gives us the equivalent cyclic angular momentum (AM) variations in the earth's rotation resulting from the gravitational ebb and flow. The delta AM then generates the forcing resulting in the sloshing of the ocean's thermocline (and also atmosphere for the wind proponents).<br /><br />In the figure below, the upper time-series is the modeled ENSO from a fit from 1880-1980, and the bottom is the extrapolated LOD used for the fit scaled against the actual LOD. That is expanded on an out-of-band interval measured from 2000 to 2003.<br /><br /><a href="http://imageshack.com/a/img922/6999/yC88BH.png" rel="nofollow">http://imageshack.com/a/img922/6999/yC88BH.png</a><br /><br />No one else is working this angle, which I find mind-blowing considering how much effort is put into modeling orbital variations for paleoclimate studies.<br />@whuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-74691599498622092892017-06-16T23:11:51.317+10:002017-06-16T23:11:51.317+10:00ENSO ONI, last update: +.4; JIASO PDO, May update:...ENSO ONI, last update: +.4; JIASO PDO, May update: .88; AMO, May update: .32... looks like Eastern Pacific may cool... but .89 ℃ is obviously exceptionally warm coming off the 2016 La Niña. Tropical Tidbits shows Niño 3.4 at +.484 for today, so the Eastern Pacific has not yet started cooling, which is what some of the models were predicting for June.JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-10308696002968302722017-06-16T22:24:14.993+10:002017-06-16T22:24:14.993+10:00As you said, there may be again, as in the last ye...As you said, there may be again, as in the last years, a 'June and July are much colder than average in Antactica' thing. This may depresses the global temperature a bit. If Jun17 is only 0.73 (0.05 colder than last year, as NCEP so far (my forcast would give 0.86+-0.14)), then my forecast goes down from 0.93+0.06 to 0.89+-0.05 for 2017.Ulinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-37211170492823422812017-06-16T20:03:11.840+10:002017-06-16T20:03:11.840+10:00"June looks like being cooler, which reduces ..."June looks like being cooler, which reduces the likelihood of 2017 exceeding 2016 overall."<br />It was unlikely from the start that 2017 may exceeding 2016. But it may more likely exceeding 2015.Ulinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-17859360960131821422017-06-16T19:35:13.814+10:002017-06-16T19:35:13.814+10:00I update my prediction using data up to May17.
J-D...I update my prediction using data up to May17.<br />J-D17 0.93+-0.06<br />JJA17 0.89+-0.12<br />SON17 0.95+-0.14Ulinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-11072501608314689472017-06-16T08:18:42.541+10:002017-06-16T08:18:42.541+10:00The fact that May isnt warmer than April, like in ...The fact that May isnt warmer than April, like in the reanalyses, seems to be caused by cool SST. In the met station only index, Gistemp dTs, May is 0.11 C warmer than April, and the warmest May ever..Olof Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18244733455655978307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-70534812125593718452017-06-16T08:10:27.526+10:002017-06-16T08:10:27.526+10:00Bindi, Nice work with the adjusted/unadjusted comp...Bindi, Nice work with the adjusted/unadjusted comparison. The Berkeley earth team have made similar conclusions (and produced a raw land-only dataset):<br /><br />https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/843799201544900608<br /><br />The effects of adjustments are small and not what sceptics believe. The mainly natural warming before 1950 has been increased by adjustments, whereas the AGW after 1950 has been reduced by adjustments. <br /><br />This also disproves the common claim that adjustments are done to fit observations with models, because the raw dataset actually fits slightly better with models than the adjusted<br /><br />Regarding the station list above, there has been an accidental rounding error with the dot-numbered US station. The right station code is 351.765Olof Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18244733455655978307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-69021932784256789332017-06-16T06:52:07.308+10:002017-06-16T06:52:07.308+10:00"even though my averaging does not contain an...<i>"even though my averaging does not contain any latitude cosine weighting"</i> <br />Area weighting is necessary in the case where a region is behaving differently to the rest. Then you need to make sure that it makes a proportionate change to the average. If a region is incorrectly weighted, but behaving like the average, then the weighting doesn't matter.<br /><br />That is why properly weighting the Arctic is important (per Cowtan and Way). Africa is also poorly covered, and wrongly weighted in HADCRUT, but that has little systematic effect, because it is not doing anything different.<br />Nick Stokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-85949996939826719182017-06-16T04:55:17.168+10:002017-06-16T04:55:17.168+10:00Hello Nick, many thanks for your pretty good job o...Hello Nick, many thanks for your pretty good job of extending Olofs idea from UAH to GISS.<br /><br />GISS grid data isn't available as text file (like is e.g. JMA's), and I still don't want to enter the netcdf level; thus your effort is twice welcome.<br /><br />But e.g. at WUWT I had to experience, when showing little extrapolations of Olofs idea, some remarks like "That what we know is partly redundant does not mean that interpolating what we don't know is correct".<br /><br />Maybe you find some little time in teaching why latitude weighting has to be used when processing gridded data... I of course understand the principle, but not its necessity.<br /><br />And anyway I'm wondering why my averaging of UAH or JMA grid data fits so exactly to their own averaged output, even though my averaging does not contain any latitude cosine weighting :-)<br />Bindidonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-62543799843794107002017-06-16T02:34:36.731+10:002017-06-16T02:34:36.731+10:00Thanks again Olof.
... and the GHCN adjustment a...Thanks again Olof. <br /><br /><i>... and the GHCN adjustment also results in some smoothing between nearby stations.</i><br /><br />You are right, but when considering the chart below, you certainly will agree that the adjustments are very small:<br /><br />http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170615/r3uc76lk.jpg<br /><br />{ There will be some bias in your mind: I don't perform any latitude weighting for grids because for me, temperatures are temperatures, regardless the latitude of their measurement. I would understand cosine weighting if we were comparing solar irradiance per grid cell or the like. }<br /><br />There is huge polemic sustained by interested people about the differences between the two GHCN variants. <br /><br />But these people solely talk about GHCN stations whose trend for the adjusted record surpasses that of the unadjusted one, but never about the inverse:<br /><br />http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170615/bb8imqwv.jpg<br /><br />Bindidonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-15975382577195276162017-06-14T21:54:42.830+10:002017-06-14T21:54:42.830+10:00Sure, here are the WMO station codes given by KNMI...Sure, here are the WMO station codes given by KNMI Climate explorer (the one with a dot is US "near WMO")<br />1001<br />7434<br />61036<br />61901<br />68906<br />89022<br />21432<br />50745<br />98325<br />94203<br />93615<br />89611<br />71924<br />351.77<br />91285<br />91943<br />85585<br />88963<br /><br />You may notice that "near" (the 18 points) can be a little bit stretched out in the empty southern oceans..<br /><br />Also, I just saw that some noise can disappear with a more rigorous treatment of missing data. The link above is live so the chart may change slightly when/if I have time...Olof Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18244733455655978307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-20638591167855293002017-06-14T09:18:43.178+10:002017-06-14T09:18:43.178+10:00Thanks Olof, good idea!
Could you publish the lis...Thanks Olof, good idea!<br /><br />Could you publish the list of the 18 stations you selected (the 11-digit station ids will suffice of course) ? Bindidonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-7362303963501541122017-06-14T08:27:57.507+10:002017-06-14T08:27:57.507+10:00Nice with all interest in these statistical exerci...Nice with all interest in these statistical exercises... <br /><br />As far as I understand the satellite readings are binned in 2.5 degree cells, with no additional smoothing of data, so the gridcells are independent of each other. It's different with the Gistemp grid, the 1200 km interpolation smooths the field, ERSST data is interpolated and smoothed, and the GHCN adjustment also results in some smoothing between nearby stations. But I still believe that there is more noise in surface data than in troposphere data.<br /><br />Anyway, I have tried to take this 18 sample thing one step further towards pure and independent data. In the following chart I have used unadjusted station data from GHCN, picking one station near each of those 18 gridcells, with as little data gaps as possible during the recent 60 years (further back there is a lack of antarctic data ):<br />https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewadDRWSVQzel93RzA<br /><br />Well, there is some noise compared to gistemp loti, but the global warming signal is quite clear.. <br />Olof Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18244733455655978307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-23343494998047973622017-06-14T08:08:12.230+10:002017-06-14T08:08:12.230+10:00I'm so terribly sorry to disappoint you, JCH! ...I'm so terribly sorry to disappoint you, JCH! I'm all but a fan of trick zones of any kind:-)<br />Bindidonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-59911640840332376062017-06-14T06:35:34.123+10:002017-06-14T06:35:34.123+10:00Bindidon - come on, you've used some sly trick...Bindidon - come on, you've used some sly trick, right? JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-31403349493872546802017-06-14T06:29:05.532+10:002017-06-14T06:29:05.532+10:00Hello Nick, Olof & alii,
I don‘t know if this...Hello Nick, Olof & alii,<br /><br />I don‘t know if this comment will be published I sent at Climate Audit, so I send a copy to moyhu in addition :-)<br /><br />*<br /><br />This comment does not primarily focus on Nick Lewis' head post.<br /><br />After having read the entire sequence of Gerald Browning's reactions to Olof R’s 18 point sparse data experiment with UAH's 2.5° grid dataset, I'm not quite sure wether or not he really understood Olof’s intention.<br /><br />And maybe he still did not exactly found out what was its real origin (at least before Nick Stokes published a piece of R code referring directly to the UAH grid source).<br /><br />Olof did not use any model nor did he smooth anything. Of course: he used yearly data, what led to unnecessary criticism; that's the reason why I will use monthly time series instead.<br /><br />The UAH 2.5° grid dataset for the lower troposphere everybody can find in the files<br />http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.1978_6.0<br />through<br />http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2017_6.0.<br /><br />The same structure exist for other atmospheric layers.<br /><br />These datasets consist, for every year, of a 12 month sequence of 144 x 72 = 10,368 grid cells representing the entire planet.<br /><br />But UAH in fact publishes valuable data for the range 82.5S – 82.5 N only: the three latitude stripes near each pole do not contain anything useful. Thus the interesting area is here restricted to 144 x 66 stripes = 9,504 grid cells.<br /><br />As I saw Olof’s 18 point example for the first time at WUWT:<br /><br />https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/18/berkeley-earth-record-temperature-in-2016-appears-to-come-from-a-strong-el-nino/#comment-2401985<br /><br />I was very impressed, and wanted to do a similar job, but by directly processing the UAH data instead of using KNMI's Explorer.<br /><br />And instead of repeating Olof's experiment with 18 evenly distributed points, I preferred to take 32, 128 and 512 UAH grid cells, and compared their monthly time series with what I obtained out of the entire 9,504 cell set.<br /><br />What of course is nearly equivalent to UAH's Globe data you find in column 3 of<br /><br />http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt<br /><br />The linear trend difference between the two is below 0.01 °C / decade, so my UAH grid data processing can't be that wrong.<br /><br />Below you see a chart (made using good ol' Excel) comparing the plots obtained from the monthly data of the different subsamplings (32, 128, 512 grid cells) with that of the entire 9,504 cell set, for the period dec 1978 to dec 2016:<br /><br />http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170613/h3w3mmbb.jpg<br /><br />It is amazing to see how good 512 cells fit to the whole grid (though they sum up to not much more than laughable 5% of it); and even the approximations using only 32 or 128 cells are already quite impressive as well.<br /><br />Thus Olof's UAH and Nick's GISS subsampling approaches are imho correct and show that the real consequences of the planet's surface measurement undersampling are somewhat overestimated.<br /><br />*<br /><br />Let me show this with a similar test, this time using GHCN unadjusted data, for which both deviations from the mean, and above all the linear estimate, are way above GISS' data.<br /><br />http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170613/xy8dbrh8.jpg<br /><br />In red you see a global average of all 7,280 GHCN land stations worldwide; in green a subsampling generated by allowing only one (randomly chosen) GHCN station per 5° grid cell to contribute to the average.<br /><br />Apart from the fact that here as well, the subsampling's linear trend for 1880-2016 differs from the complete set by less than 0.01 °C / decade, their 60 month running means are amazingly similar.<br /><br />And as the oceanic surfaces not only show cooler trends than land surfaces but are in addition more homogen, adding ERSST data to GHCN’s would make the two plots certainly even more similar.<br /><br />J.-P. Dehottay alias Bindidon<br />Bindidonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-36475512384556672972017-06-14T01:44:54.626+10:002017-06-14T01:44:54.626+10:00Punching down?Punching down?j fergusonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05188939085463962922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-79403018939398183372017-06-14T00:11:24.363+10:002017-06-14T00:11:24.363+10:00Although those commenters at ClimateAudit appear w...Although those commenters at ClimateAudit appear well-credentialled, it also appears they can't tell the difference between solving partial differential equations and doing spatial interpolation. Why is that? Are they one-trick ponies that are so involved in their own research topic that they have lost the ability to do any other flavor of applied math? Are they simply unable to intuit anything?<br /><br />The other explanation is that it may be impossible to make any headway with them, since they operate under a political agenda, not a scientific one. And it may be that they are just toying with you. In that case what's more important is that they convince their followers with their sophistry and not you. <br /><br />The third possibility is that they are suffering from emeritus-syndrome, "going emeritus". <br /><br />At some point it ceases to be fun as it's the equivalent of punching down.@whuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-55206616344997233752017-06-13T22:48:17.339+10:002017-06-13T22:48:17.339+10:00Good grief, the Pat and Jerry show... where's ...Good grief, the Pat and Jerry show... where's the manuscript? Lol.JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-47261543514162309812017-06-13T21:44:43.439+10:002017-06-13T21:44:43.439+10:00Thanks, Erik,
I'm not sure how I messed that u...Thanks, Erik,<br />I'm not sure how I messed that up, but I hope it is fixed now.Nick Stokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.com