Green Myth-Busting: Greenland was Once Green
Greenland MYTH: When Eric the Red and his Viking buddies settled Greenland, it was a lush pastoral paradise fit for farming and raising animals.
Facts: As climate change skepticism has developed into a full-blown industry, a number of myths have filtered out about historical patterns of warming and cooling: just mention the “Little Ice Age” or the “Medieval Warm Period” to your favorite skeptic, and let ‘em go…
As a history buff, I always found today’s myth fascinating. As Coby Beck at Grist notes, Viking leader Eric the Red gave Greenland its name not because it was lush and green, but because he wanted folks back home to think it was:
Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red (was he red?), who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He thought you should give a land a good name so people would want to go there! It likely was a bit warmer when he landed for the first time than it was when the last settlers starved due to a number of factors — climate change, or at least some bad weather, a major one.
But it was never lush, and their existence was always harsh and meager, especially due to the Viking’s disdain for other peoples and ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate, side by side with Inuit who easily outlasted them. They starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish! (Note: this was not a typical European behavior, and is a bit of a mystery to this day.)
The issue here, of course, really isn’t Greenland’s name; it’s the idea of a Medieval Warm Period that skeptics claim was comparable to the present day in terms of the average temperature (or even warmer!). By extension, ice melts on Greenland aren’t that big a deal: it’s happened before.
Coby has thoughts on the Medieval Warm Period, and points to information from NOAA. RealClimate, the blog for anyone interested in hardcore climate science, also presents a number of reasons why the perception skeptics have about the Medieval Warm Period are likely incorrect.
Greenland wasn’t green in the tenth century… and we don’t want it to become green this century…
October 19th, 2007 at 7:23 am
‘motie,
Reinstating a post that went "missing"
Well actually, your “clearer statement” is still like; “uh” material to me, but I’ve figured out that it probably relates more to your Aug 21, to which I responded in part 2 of my Aug22, as pasted next: “YOU [‘motie] SAID: Re example 1: I’m curious to hear if there were any remarks or questions about Mann’s graph? During the review process or later? There ought to have been plenty, since you claim it’s _the IPCC_ who are deceptive UNQUOTE.
I [BobFJ] wish I could, but UNFORTUNATELY, the 1999-2001 peer review information is hidden. However, the 2005-2007 review comments have been obtained under FOI. Despite that the hockey-stick was deleted in the 2007 IPCC report, there was a surprisingly voluminous remnant vocal activity concerning its history, and “where do we go from here”. I’ve pasted below a dozen expert comments that cover a range of different viewpoints, from chapters 1 & 6 in WG1.” END of PASTING.To summarize; in line with YOUR REQUEST, I gave you a neat dozen examples, they being independent criticisms of the type REQUESTED by YOU, and then you issue forth with these three great wisdoms that follow, as if you had TOTALLY FORGOTTEN what your original posit was: (groan)YOU SAID: Aug. 22: “…As to the rest of your post, I really don’t see what I am supposed to see. This seems like a scientific discussion. Many scientists with different views are trying to agree on a single wording. I really don’t see what I’m supposed to be excited about.” Sep. 18 The problem from your point of view is that this is normal scientific probing, and in no way the “let’s sink the ship” disputing you imply. You have to understand what constitutes a normal scientific discussion to understand what you are reading…..Sep. 27: ”…What you read and quote is normal scientific debate, such as occurs over any subject. Then you misconstrue this as meaning “you’re nuts, your theory is off the charts!”. In order to analyze the meaning of a scientific debate, you have to be aware of how scientific debates are conducted. From your analysis of this particular debate it is rather obvious that you could benefit from further study.Well actually, I DID NOT ANALYZE or discuss the twelve examples as you imply, and am baffled how you made the quantum leap from YOU ASKING ME if anyone else critically commented on MBH99, to then lambasting me for providing such to you in the form of a small sample range of pasted quotes from the independent IPCC expert reviewers in 2005-2007. You might conclude in the case of example 1 of 12, because I did add a simple comment {thus below}, that it was in your view an ANALYSIS, but actually the comment was only added because I thought that the necessarily careful subtlety exercised by Esper, in which he quietly criticized the IPCC preferred Dendro’s (Mann & colleagues) might escape you. My apprehension was that it requires some knowledge of background context and cogitative power and appropriate thought-time to understand it. (and you have NOT adequately exhibited any of these abilities so-far)…. (BTW Esper is not a native English speaker): This alert comment of mine to you, was hardly me discussing or concluding anything, or trying to sink the ship whatever it was you were rambling on about, you ‘ole fruitcake! Jan Esper COMMENT 1: 6-1313: {BobFJ comment: Following is a very important comment from the large semi independent Swiss dendro group. In effect, it is quietly implying under veil, (not wanting to rock the fragile boat of their dendro-industry), that MBH99 should not be in chapter 6- paleo-data, but in chapter 1-HISTORY!}As with the Soon and Baliunas paper, I [Jan Esper] do not see the point to spend a full paragraph on
the McIntyre and McKitrick critique on MBH99. The IPCC report is certainly not the
place to defend a single paper (Mann et al. 1999), particularly since this (admittedly
pioneering) record is now aligned {= buried in & compared} with several other reconstructions as done in Figure 6.8b. I suggest to either remove this paragraph, or alternatively spend one sentence on the work by McIntyre and colleagues saying that some of the methods applied in MBH99 are
criticized. Alternatively, it seems more relevant to discuss some reasons for the difference
in low-frequency loading (and thus T amplitude) between the records shown in Figure
6.8b, with the differing detrending methods applied to tree-ring data likely being a major
source for these differences. The new study by D’Arrigo et al. (2005) would perhaps be a
good starting point to highlight the impact of tree-ring detrending on the course of long-term
T reconstructions. In their work, D’Arrigo et al. clearly show that “standard”
detrending techniques result in reduced T variations reconstructed over the past
millennium (admittedly similar to MBH99), whereas the application of RCS (“a statistical
technique designed to produce ring width chronologies in which evidence of long-
timescale climate forcing is better represented, lines 31-32 on page 29) results in a
reconstruction indicating more low frequency loading and thus more T variance over the
past millennium. A paragraph addressing the seemingly differing low frequency loadings
of the reconstructions shown in Figure 6.8b would be rather relevant, and should not be
written as a critique of a single record, but rather as a perspective indicating future paths
in paleoclimatology. [Jan Esper] RESPONSE by lead IPCC authors: Noted – see edited text You ‘motie appear to be ignorant of the background to this, so I quote the IPCC report paragraph that embarrassed Esper, but in its final form in Ch. 6. paleo-data. (rather surprisingly, not in Ch. 1 History). Esper recommended it should be either removed or drastically shortened, It should be noted that two very common rather cynical grounds for IPCC denial of any unwelcome expert comments was one of: a) Rejected: due insufficient page space, OR b) Rejected: not applicable to this chapter. (Americano = period) (Anglo = full stop) (translation = ***k-off) Per IPCC: ####“McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,b) raised further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998) method, principally relating to the independent verification of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis. The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C; for further discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005).“#### The various problems with this UNUSUALLY LENGTHY paragraph per IPCC topic are, because of the size of the topic, that it unavoidably leaves out a lot of detail, because of a need for brevity, and then it virtually STOPS short at the point where the hockey-stick becomes totally discredited. For instance it does not mention the errors or misrepresentations of Wahl and Amman, or the action taken against Mann by “Nature”, or the ludicrous use of Bristlecone-pines, etc. Thus the fable is kept alive that the hockey-stick is robust. Because you are a dedicatee of the “realclimate” website, (= Mann and colleagues, the authors of both frauds), I can almost hear your howls of protest from here!
However, you may possibly be enlightened if you go back to the ####paragraph#### above, and very carefully re-read the 12 examples in my Aug. 22, in the context of that paragraph. Crease thy brow over a period of not minutes, but days, or even weeks. Put some effort into it. Spring forth from the captivity of IPCC dogma…..R E L A X Be thou not arrogant that YOU can control the climate….just as the Mayans could not by increased human sacrifice! Sleep tight ‘motie, BobFJ
October 19th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Themotie/Jason/Reasic
Visitors may wonder what Max is talking about….here is a reinstatement of the missing post:
Here is a presentation from a whistleblower from the Australian Greenhouse Office, which I recommend you to read, but very, very carefully….no use glossing over it….spend real-time in TRYING to UNDERSTAND it.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/evans.pdf
Please, BobFJ
October 19th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Hi themotie,
Have not heard from you in a while.
I sent you 5 blogs regarding IPCC 2007 SPM errors. I had to resend 4 of these since they got removed from the site. Now 2 of those that I resent have again been removed.
The suspicion arises that they are being censored over and over again because they point out where IPCC is ignoring actually measured and reported data in its claims regarding past climate change. The errors cover pretty much all of IPCC’s alarming claims, so that if these were corrected there would not be much scare factor left at all, which would be difficult for a true disastrous AGW believer, like yourself, to accept. The claims state that:
1. Antarctic Ice Sheet receded from 1993 to 2003 (it actually grew)
2. Greenland Ice Sheet receded from 1993 to 2003 (it actually grew)
3. Rate of sea level rise accelerated 1993-2003 over earlier 20th Century rate of rise (it actually slowed down)
4. Northern Hemisphere snow cover receded in latter part of 20th Century (it did not since 1988)
5. Warmth of last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years (denies MWP)
6. Solar forcing is less than 1/10th of CO2 forcing (unfounded claim, ignoring all but direct solar irradiance)
7/8. Discrepancies between surface and tropospheric (satellite) temperature record have been reconciled (the published records show this is not true)
9. UHI effect on surface temperature record is negligible (it is significant)
10. Globally averaged water vapor content has risen since 1980s (it has not)
11. Intense tropical cyclone activity has increased in latter half of 20th Century (it has not)
12. Severe weather events have increased in latter half of 20th Century (they have not)
I am going to make one more attempt to send you the 2 blogs which covered all the above with references, etc., and I hope to get your reaction.
Best regards,
Max
October 19th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Re Max’s Oct.19 to Jason Leggett:
Nicely put Max!
I agree that the hockey-stick should be “totally retired”, in terms of scientific value, but I feel strongly about one aspect of it that MUST not R.I.P! That is, that despite that Mann et al, the authors of it, placed strong caveats on its relevance to the Medieval Warm Period, (MWP), the IPCC seized on it as “Manna”, and splashed it around everywhere as unconditional FACT in their 2001 reports and media releases, in order to successfully convince the world-gullible, that current warming is unprecedented. Yet Mann et al had clearly stated SPATIAL limitations; for instance; although they inferred whole of Northern Hemisphere proxies, 3 out of the 12 indicators were actually from the Southern Hemisphere, and none of the 12 could represent the ~75% of the Earth’s surface covered by water. Also, a mix of ice-core data together with high latitude and/or high altitude tree-ring growths, (assumed to be sites that have millennial-stable winter snow, cloud cover, and more), do not sensibly represent the well populated areas during the MWP. Mann et al also clearly stated TEMPORAL limitations. These include that 9 out of the 12 indicators were tree-ring growth proxies that can only be calibrated to MODERN temperature data AND modern growth rates. The most obvious temporal problem in inferring annual and diurnal temperatures is that such trees have substantial dormant periods during which they obviously cannot indicate temperature. A further puzzle is that although past temperature inferences rely on calibration to modern temperature and growth rate data, embarrassingly, since ~1960, growth rates show an unexplained downward divergence. (still known as “The Divergence Problem”, and was known as far back as 1997)
How pray can the Hockey-stick be claimed as FACT by the IPCC to cancel the MWP, when contrarily past crop records show vineyards hundreds of kilometres further north than practical today in Europe….MWP tree remains above the current tree-lines, including California….A much warmer South Africa….and much, much, more.
WHY THIS STUFF SHOULD NOT BE LEFT TO R.I.P IS THAT THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THE IPCC EMPLOYED DECEPTION TO GAIN POLITICAL VICTORY. The question then remains as to what other “science” reported by the IPCC is manipulated to suit their dogma.
(Whilst other far more urgent matters are neglected, involving immense suffering to many millions of PEOPLE, that could be radically corrected if governmental priorities would sensibly consider HUMANITY )
In their 2007 report, the IPCC spent an unusual amount of paragraph space explaining the hockey-stick controversy, but curiously it stopped short of the important later bits that actually demolished their position! On Oct.19 I reinstated a post of mine that “went missing”. It is located about half way up the blog, where it should be, but dated Oct. 19. Part of it gives more stuff on this, as will also a careful read through from the top of this blog thread.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Sorry,
further to my post of 2:12 pm, I’ve been in the process of changing my name from BobFJ to Black Wallaby (= an Australian beastie) and screwed-up in my reference to an earlier post of mine in the last para. It should be: FROM BobFJ Oct 18,11:32 PM (blog time) and is located about half way up this thread.
October 20th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Further to my post above; if anyone is confused by ‘motie referring to IR in his para.4, and me in reply to EMR, they are not really different.
EMR (Electro Magnetic Radiation, or Light), in the context of the discussion is more correct, but ‘motie refers to IR, which is an abbreviation for “Infra Red Light”. IR as intended by ‘motie is thus correctly the important part of the EMR that we were discussing, when we understand it as being a casual abbreviation of part of the spectrum of light. (which is part of the spectrum of EMR)
October 20th, 2007 at 9:10 am
‘motie,
Browsing through, I notice (as curently displayed, apparently) that in response to my substantial post of Aug. 22 @ 9:39 pm, you picked-out a minor point, and ignored all the much bigger stuff, concerning a sample dozen expert critiscisms of the lead-authors ideology in their 2007 report. Quite apart from the critiques themselves, if you carefully and fairly study the nuances of the few lead-authors responses, whom are considered to represent the thousands of IPCC scientists, that maybe something ain’t quite right! Rather astonishingly two very curt critiscisms were from Suzan Soloman herself!!!!!!!!!! Denken sie ‘motie!
October 21st, 2007 at 8:03 am
Message 3 to Themotie
Here is another one I sent you that got lost.
Hi once again, themotie
Here comes the next installment of questionable IPCC statements and claims, as I promised you.
7. IPCC bases its global temperature anomaly and trends on the surface record alone (p.5), ignoring the more comprehensive tropospheric temperature measurements by UAH satellites, which show significantly lower anomalies (lower by around 0.3 deg C) and lower trends (lower by about 0.04 deg C/decade) than the surface record, even though the greenhouse effect should start in the troposphere, not on the surface. Compare the official published records: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 and http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html
8. IPCC claims that discrepancies between the surface and satellite temperature records have been “largely reconciled” (p.6), even though these discrepancies clearly still exist (see 7 above).
9. IPCC states that the effect of the urban heat island (UHI) effect of exaggerating the temperature anomalies in the surface record are “real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006 deg C per decade and zero over the oceans) on these values” (p.5). This claim ignores many studies from all over the world, which show that this effect is substantial (median value of 0.06 deg C per decade), not local and would reduce the temperature anomaly by 0.3 to 0.5 deg C, putting the surface anomaly in line with the tropospheric anomaly from satellites, if corrected for this effect (see 7 above). Note: In addition to two studies made for the USA by Karl (1998) and Kalnay/Cai (2003) several studies world wide have been referenced by climate scientist Douglas Hoyt on Roger Pielke’s website on March 29, 2006 (comment 16) http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/03/23/new-paper-on-solar-climate-forcing/
Around two-thirds of the weather stations, mostly in remote and rural locations in northern latitudes and many in the former Soviet Union, were shut down between 1975 and 1995, with over 60% of these shut down in the 4-year period 1990-1993; this coincides exactly with a sharp increase in the calculated global mean temperature (particularly in the Northern Hemisphere), giving additional credence
for a significant UHI effect. For a graph showing this correlation see:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
Finally, meteorologist Anthony Watts has examined around one-third of the 1,221 weather stations making up the U.S. Historical Climatology Network and published the results. Of those examined, more than half fall short of federal guidelines for optimum placement. Some examples include weather stations placed near sewage treatment plants, parking lots, and near cars, buildings and air-conditioners - all artificial heat sources which could affect temperature records, providing physical confirmation of a root cause for a significant UHI effect on the record.
http://www.surfacestations.org/downloads/USHCN_stationlist.xls
10. IPCC states (p.7) that: “The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold.” This claim sounds pretty definite but it ignores studies on global atmospheric water vapor trends from satellite measurements over the period 1996-2006, which show increases in some regions and decreases in others, with the conclusion that “For the whole globe the increasing trend is non-significant when taking into account the 1997/1998 El Nino event, which is seen in the globally averaged data as strong positive H2O amounts from September 1997 to March 1999.” It also ignores the findings of the 2006 report from the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (Smith et al.), which states that for the period 1979–2004 precipitation trends “have spatial variations with both positive and negative values, with a global-average near zero.” If greater amounts of water vapor were present in the atmosphere, the evaporation/transpiration of water vapor into the atmosphere and thus the precipitation would have to increase when averaged globally and over a long enough time period. The study shows that global average precipitation has not changed significantly in the period thus providing additional evidence that water vapor concentration has not increased measurably from 1980 to 2004 as claimed by the IPCC.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025393.shtml
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11761/2007/acpd-7-11761-2007.pdf
11. IPCC claims more intense tropical cyclone activity in the latter part of the 20th century, linking this to AGW (p.9). The actual record shows a decrease, both in the USA and elsewhere.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/index.html
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070109/20070109_15.pdf
12. IPCC makes claims linking AGW with increased droughts, floods, heat waves and other extreme weather events in the late 20th century, claiming a “51% likelihood” that this is true, and then adding the caveat that this is “based on expert opinion rather than attribution studies” (p.9) (in other words, it’s an unsubstantiated “50-50 guess” posing as a scientific observation). No comprehensive data are available for extreme weather events on a global scale but, for comparison, the actual record shows there has been no recent increase in US tornado activity due to global warming, but a significant decrease instead. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/killers.html
More to come, themotie…
Regards,
Max
October 21st, 2007 at 8:04 am
Message 3 to Themotie
Here is another one I sent you that got lost.
Hi once again, themotie
Here comes the next installment of questionable IPCC statements and claims, as I promised you.
7. IPCC bases its global temperature anomaly and trends on the surface record alone (p.5), ignoring the more comprehensive tropospheric temperature measurements by UAH satellites, which show significantly lower anomalies (lower by around 0.3 deg C) and lower trends (lower by about 0.04 deg C/decade) than the surface record, even though the greenhouse effect should start in the troposphere, not on the surface. Compare the official published records: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 and http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html
8. IPCC claims that discrepancies between the surface and satellite temperature records have been “largely reconciled” (p.6), even though these discrepancies clearly still exist (see 7 above).
9. IPCC states that the effect of the urban heat island (UHI) effect of exaggerating the temperature anomalies in the surface record are “real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006 deg C per decade and zero over the oceans) on these values” (p.5). This claim ignores many studies from all over the world, which show that this effect is substantial (median value of 0.06 deg C per decade), not local and would reduce the temperature anomaly by 0.3 to 0.5 deg C, putting the surface anomaly in line with the tropospheric anomaly from satellites, if corrected for this effect (see 7 above). Note: In addition to two studies made for the USA by Karl (1998) and Kalnay/Cai (2003) several studies world wide have been referenced by climate scientist Douglas Hoyt on Roger Pielke’s website on March 29, 2006 (comment 16) http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/03/23/new-paper-on-solar-climate-forcing/
Around two-thirds of the weather stations, mostly in remote and rural locations in northern latitudes and many in the former Soviet Union, were shut down between 1975 and 1995, with over 60% of these shut down in the 4-year period 1990-1993; this coincides exactly with a sharp increase in the calculated global mean temperature (particularly in the Northern Hemisphere), giving additional credence
for a significant UHI effect. For a graph showing this correlation see:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
Finally, meteorologist Anthony Watts has examined around one-third of the 1,221 weather stations making up the U.S. Historical Climatology Network and published the results. Of those examined, more than half fall short of federal guidelines for optimum placement. Some examples include weather stations placed near sewage treatment plants, parking lots, and near cars, buildings and air-conditioners - all artificial heat sources which could affect temperature records, providing physical confirmation of a root cause for a significant UHI effect on the record.
http://www.surfacestations.org/downloads/USHCN_stationlist.xls
10. IPCC states (p.7) that: “The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold.” This claim sounds pretty definite but it ignores studies on global atmospheric water vapor trends from satellite measurements over the period 1996-2006, which show increases in some regions and decreases in others, with the conclusion that “For the whole globe the increasing trend is non-significant when taking into account the 1997/1998 El Nino event, which is seen in the globally averaged data as strong positive H2O amounts from September 1997 to March 1999.” It also ignores the findings of the 2006 report from the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (Smith et al.), which states that for the period 1979–2004 precipitation trends “have spatial variations with both positive and negative values, with a global-average near zero.” If greater amounts of water vapor were present in the atmosphere, the evaporation/transpiration of water vapor into the atmosphere and thus the precipitation would have to increase when averaged globally and over a long enough time period. The study shows that global average precipitation has not changed significantly in the period thus providing additional evidence that water vapor concentration has not increased measurably from 1980 to 2004 as claimed by the IPCC.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025393.shtml
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11761/2007/acpd-7-11761-2007.pdf
11. IPCC claims more intense tropical cyclone activity in the latter part of the 20th century, linking this to AGW (p.9). The actual record shows a decrease, both in the USA and elsewhere.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/index.html
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070109/20070109_15.pdf
12. IPCC makes claims linking AGW with increased droughts, floods, heat waves and other extreme weather events in the late 20th century, claiming a “51% likelihood” that this is true, and then adding the caveat that this is “based on expert opinion rather than attribution studies” (p.9) (in other words, it’s an unsubstantiated “50-50 guess” posing as a scientific observation). No comprehensive data are available for extreme weather events on a global scale but, for comparison, the actual record shows there has been no recent increase in US tornado activity due to global warming, but a significant decrease instead. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/killers.html
More to come, themotie…
Regards,
Max
October 21st, 2007 at 8:11 am
Hi ‘motie, further to my Oct 2 @12:45am, in which I wrote:
"YOU ‘motie ACTUALLY said above: [Aug 27@ 5:47 pm] “Heat can be two things: energy in the form of EMR and kinetic energy. There is no such thing as “HEAT” separated from these”.
I’m [BobFJ] thinking of hanging these words in elaborate calligraphy in an expensive golden frame and non-reflective glass, centrepieced on my lounge wall! Wow! UNQUOTE.
I was however delaying such action, wondering if you might subsequently tell me that I got(ten) something wrong, but you have not advised anything contrary to date, which is rather unusual for you. (oh thou speedie Gonzales)
I’m still amused enough to do what I proposed, but the art-work’s significance would be greatly enhanced if you could advise the universiry or mail-order firm whatever, from which you graduated in physics.
It would be just lovely, as a conversation-piece on my wall, at dinner parties etc, if you could provide such information!
R E L A X ‘motie….BobFJ/Black Wallaby