2010-11-03 13:12:15Basic Rebuttal 46 Scientists Can't even predict the weather right.
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
76.164.173.162

deleted see below

2010-11-03 13:27:46
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
76.164.173.162
see below- totally revised.
2010-11-03 21:03:54
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I think you need to change the first paragraph.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I also think you are expecting to much from a 20 year forecast??
You can estimate the trajectory of the climate, but making any weather forecast in 20 years is a waste of time.

Was this in the original rebuttal?

2010-11-03 23:28:12
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.39.22

dansat:

"Climate and weather are two different aspects of the atmosphere."

This does not make sense.

 

2010-11-11 08:30:32Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105
I think it would be effective to use the following analogy

"People often say that weathermen cannot predict the weather a week from now so how can we know how the climate will behave in the future, this ignores the difference between weather and climate, take for example that a climatologist would be able to tell you that the winter is cooler than the summer."

or some better written variant...
2010-11-19 16:37:33
steve.oconnor

steve.oconnor@hotmail...
203.166.51.62
hi dan - I think the graphs are too technical for a basic version and your explanation is a bit long-winded and round-about. sorry. do have another crack though!
2010-12-02 09:13:49 Basic Rebuttal 46 Scientists Can't even predict the weather right.
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
76.164.173.162

OK, point taken. Too technical for a basic. Do you all feel the graph is too much as well? (Sorry it has taken so long to reply but it has been a crazy month). Ready to get this finished over the next couple of days.

 

Dan

2010-12-03 18:04:39Basic Rebuttal 46 Scientists Can't even predict the weather right.
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
24.236.95.172

 Here is a totally revised version that is much sorter- comments??

 

This claim is based more on an appeal to emotion than fact. The inference is that climate predictions, decades into the future, cannot be possibly right when the weather forecast for the next day has some uncertainty.


The statement itself is incorrect. Synoptic weather forecasts of temperature and precipitation are actually accurate about 90% of the time. Reliable forecasts of general conditions are now possible up to 7 days into the future.

Atmospheric science students are taught that "weather is what you get and climate is what you expect". This is why this common skeptical argument doesn't hold water. Climate models are not predicting day to day weather systems. Instead, they are predicting climate averages. 

The Earth and it's ecosystems respond to both weather and climate. Flash floods occasionally hit the Utah desert, but the climate of the region makes large rain loving oak trees unlikely.

 

2010-12-05 08:49:20
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.240.43

Dansat,

Think "synoptic" doesn't belong in a basic rebuttal, and perhaps you've truncated this rebuttal too much. Given that this "argument" is a variation of the weather vs climate canard, perhaps the distinction between the two requires some clarification.  

 

2010-12-05 11:05:29Basic Rebuttal 46 Scientists Can't even predict the weather right. revision3
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
24.236.95.172

 Good point Rob- Synoptic is changed to "daily"

This claim is based more on an appeal to emotion than fact. The inference is that climate predictions, decades into the future, cannot be possibly right when the weather forecast for the next day has some uncertainty.


The statement itself is incorrect. Daily weather forecasts of temperature and precipitation are actually accurate about 90% of the time. Reliable forecasts of general conditions are now possible up to 7 days into the future.

Atmospheric science students are taught that "weather is what you get and climate is what you expect". This is why this common skeptical argument doesn't hold water. Climate models are not predicting day to day weather systems. Instead, they are predicting climate averages. 

The Earth and it's ecosystems respond to both weather and climate. Flash floods occasionally hit the Utah desert, but the climate of the region makes large rain loving oak trees unlikely. 

A change in temperature of 7 degrees from one day to the next is barely worth noting when you are discussing weather. When the Earth's AVERAGE temperature was 7 degrees cooler than the present, ice sheets a mile thick were on top of Manhattan. 
2010-12-05 17:27:05
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.180.109.194

dansat

I don't know if this helps at all. Just an analogy that might illuminate things.

My swimming pool  is low so I put a hose in the pool to start filling it. Small hose, Large pool. It is going to take a while. Then my son kicks a ball into the pool and the dog leaps in after it. Waves, higher levels, etc. I obviously can't predict what is going on. But come back in a couple of days and the pool will be full. And the dog will be asleep on the porch (any references to Bill Clinton here are only marginally unintentional).

 

2010-12-05 18:34:24Thnx Glenn
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
24.236.95.172

OK, Now I see where everyone is wanting to go with this. I've worked as a forecaster for 30 years and perhaps I am too close to the trees to see the shape of the forest here. Your analogy is excellent and will add it in.

 

Dan 

2010-12-05 18:40:02How does this look?
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
24.236.95.172

This claim is based more on an appeal to emotion than fact. The inference is that climate predictions, decades into the future, cannot be possibly right when the weather forecast for the next day has some uncertainty.


The statement itself is incorrect. Daily weather forecasts of temperature and precipitation are actually accurate about 90% of the time. Reliable forecasts of general conditions are now possible up to 7 days into the future.

Atmospheric science students are taught that "weather is what you get and climate is what you expect". This is why this common skeptical argument doesn't hold water. Climate models are not predicting day to day weather systems. Instead, they are predicting climate averages. 

A change in temperature of 7 degrees from one day to the next is barely worth noting when you are discussing weather. When the Earth's AVERAGE temperature was 7 degrees cooler than the present, ice sheets a mile thick were on top of Manhattan. 

A good analogy of the difference between weather and climate is to consider a swimming pool. Imagine that the pool is being slowly filled. If someone dives in there will be waves. The waves are weather, and the average water level is the climate. A diver jumping into the pool the next day will create more waves, but the water level (aka the climate) will be higher.

Climate researchers use models developed to predict the water level in the pool,not the waves. 
2010-12-09 16:20:23#46- So what do all think about the last revision. Tried to keep it very basic.
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
24.236.95.172

Comments welcomed!


dan 

2010-12-09 19:19:17
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.180.130.151

Dan

This is pretty good for the basic level.

One key point is that climate models vs weather models/forecasts are based on differing physics - longer term aggregate behaviour vs short term, nearly instantaneous behaviour. Unfortunately, this is way, way too complex to convey in a basic rebuttal. Thus the use of analogies instead.

Maybe just add something.

The last line "Climate researchers use models developed to predict the water level in the pool,not the waves. "

instead maybe

"Weather forecasts are based on models that are like predicting the height of the waves in the next few seconds, while Climate forecasts are based on models that predict the AVERAGE water level in the pool when you get out of bed tomorrow. "

This encapsulates the difference between climatalogical models vs meteorological models. Also, since weather forecasts aren't done by 'researchers' but that guy in a suit in the TV, painting climate as being by done by 'researchers' downgrades it in the eyes of Joe Public. This puts them on an equal footing. Sadly, it's all psychology.

2010-12-10 12:38:38
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
24.236.95.172

I like, except that weather forecast models are equal to climate models research wise. In many ways the physics is even more complex (for now). I get your point though and will take a look at the end of it and rework it some.

I was looking for a better end to it. Just did not feel right. 

Dan 

2010-12-12 15:46:07Made some changes based on Glenn's comments and to clarify a bit more. (This basic response for #46)
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
24.236.95.172

This claim is based more on an appeal to emotion than fact. The inference is that climate predictions, decades into the future, cannot be possibly right when the weather forecast for the next day has some uncertainty.


The statement itself is incorrect. Daily weather forecasts of temperature and precipitation are actually accurate about 90% of the time. Reliable forecasts of general conditions are now possible up to 7 days into the future.

Atmospheric science students are taught that "weather is what you get and climate is what you expect". This is why this common skeptical argument doesn't hold water. Climate models are not predicting day to day weather systems. Instead, they are predicting climate averages. 

A change in temperature of 7 degrees from one day to the next is barely worth noting when you are discussing weather. Seven degrees, however, make a dramatic difference when talking about climate. When the Earth's AVERAGE temperature was 7 degrees cooler than the present, ice sheets a mile thick were on top of Manhattan. 

A good analogy of the difference between weather and climate is to consider a swimming pool. Imagine that the pool is being slowly filled. If someone dives in there will be waves. The waves are weather, and the average water level is the climate. A diver jumping into the pool the next day will create more waves, but the water level (aka the climate) will be higher as more water flows into the pool. 
 
In the atmosphere the water hose is increasing greenhouse gases. They will cause the climate to warm but we will still have changing weather (waves).  Climate scientists use models developed to predict the average water level in the pool,not the waves. 
2010-12-12 22:12:01
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.105.47

A comment about the diver in the pool: When he's in the water, the water level will also be higher, which complicates your analogy.

Probably better to have him jump into and then get out of the pool: then the water level will reflect only the water added by the hose.

2010-12-12 23:00:08Some constructive criticism
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.154.195

Dan, you refer to the weather forecast for the next day but I don’t think this fairly represents the contrarian argument. I think their actual premise is “we can’t predict the weather two weeks from now”. This is true, because weather is a chaotic system and small errors in initial conditions accumulate over time. The problem with the argument is not the premise, but the inference that “therefore we cannot predict the climate”. This conclusion does not follow, for the reasons you explain – because climate is the average of weather and not chaotic.

A good example of this is that we cannot predict whether 22 June will be warmer than 21 June, we can predict that in the Southern Hemisphere 21 December will be warmer than 21 June (and vice versa for Northern Hemisphere). In the latter case there is an external forcing affecting the climate – the seasonal cycle associated with the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt.

2010-12-13 00:39:34
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.105.47

Another example:

- Weather prediction: "It will rain on M, W and F in week 35 of year X"

- Climate prediction: "It will rain for about 3 days in week 35 of year X"

So if it rains Tu,  Th and Sat in week 35, the weather prediction would be completely wrong, but the climate prediction would be completely right.

2010-12-16 23:06:15
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Glenn:

"One key point is that climate models vs weather models/forecasts are based on differing physics - longer term aggregate behaviour vs short term, nearly instantaneous behaviour."

I thought the UK Met Office used the same model to do weather and climate??

Although I think they are the only organisation that does.

2010-12-16 23:11:19
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Dansat:

Are there any research/metrics that you can reference that show weather forecasts are correct 90% of the time??

2010-12-23 10:54:38Everyone sees this myth differently it seems
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
76.164.173.162

I think everyone seems to interpret this claim a bit differently. The general gist as I understand it is that if forecasters cannot make an accurate forecast of the weather the next day, then making a forecast of temperature 100 years from now is a ridiculous effort.

The goal I think is to explain that weather and climate are not the same. I think it should also be pointed out that in general forecasts are quite accurate. I am looking for the 90% accuracy number I mentioned. It's in a NOAA or AMS report I have somewhere!

Since this is a basic rebuttal, I do not want to over complicate the explanation. Explaining that weather is the wave motion on top of climate seems to be a good way of doing it. Am going to take another look at it with the comments in mind.

 

Dan

2010-12-23 13:21:25
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.224.245
I think everyone seems to interpret this claim a bit differently. The general gist as I understand it is that if forecasters cannot make an accurate forecast of the weather the next day, then making a forecast of temperature 100 years from now is a ridiculous effort.

Dan, that's how I see it. Of course "skeptics" shift the goalposts when that little canard is eviscerated. My 2 cents worth.

- point out the myth of weather forecasts being wrong most of the time is bogus. Include your reference.

- brief explanation that climate is the averaged weather over a long time-frame.  

- analogy, be it the rolling of dice, flipping of a coin or whatever.

- Climate models are projecting the "average weather" in the future, not any specific day. That's why the are so accurate.

Get her published & move on to the next one.   

 

 

 

2010-12-23 15:12:52
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
68.188.192.170
I agree with Rob, you're done for a basic rebuttal (K.I.S.S. principle). 

Just need a visual hook (based on my sales & science teaching experience); gotta have some eye-candy.

Good job, Dan.

 

 

2010-12-23 17:30:38
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.180.17.176

Yep, this is good.

I Luv Analogies & Examples - takes things down to the basic psychology level which is what Basic Rebutals are about.

2010-12-23 17:57:07
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
68.188.192.170
Forgot the thumb-y!
2010-12-23 20:28:05
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.197.238
Oh yeah.
2010-12-30 07:54:24
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.214.59
Ready to go.
2010-12-30 09:30:04Change analogy
villabolo

villabolo@yahoo...
64.183.42.52

The phrase "weather is what you get and climate is what you expect" might confuse readers on a basic level. They may construe the word "expect" as being uncertain.

I suggest the following simple explanation. "Weather is a detailed, local and short term prediction. Climate refers to basic worldwide and long term predictions. Climatologists cannot predict whether it rained in Hawaii on June 1st 10,000 BC but they can predict whether or not it was raining a lot or a little back then."

2010-12-30 13:18:17Here are some final tweeks based on some good feedback.
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
24.236.95.172

This claim is based more on an appeal to emotion than fact. The inference is that climate predictions, decades into the future, cannot be possibly right when the weather forecast for the next day has some uncertainty.


The statement itself is incorrect. Daily weather forecasts of temperature and precipitation are actually accurate about 90% of the time. Forecasts accuracy out to 5 days has actually doubled since the 1970's.

Atmospheric science students are taught that "weather is what you get and climate is the weather you expect". This is why this common skeptical argument doesn't hold water. Climate models are not predicting day to day weather systems. Instead, they are predicting climate averages. 

A change in temperature of 7 degrees from one day to the next is barely worth noting when you are discussing weather. Seven degrees, however, make a dramatic difference when talking about climate. When the Earth's AVERAGE temperature was 7 degrees cooler than the present, ice sheets a mile thick were on top of Manhattan. 

A good analogy of the difference between weather and climate is to consider a swimming pool. Imagine that the pool is being slowly filled. If someone dives in there will be waves. The waves are weather, and the average water level is the climate. A diver jumping into the pool the next day will create more waves, but the water level (aka the climate) will be higher as more water flows into the pool. 
 
In the atmosphere the water hose is increasing greenhouse gases. They will cause the climate to warm but we will still have changing weather (waves).  Climate scientists use models to forecast the average water level in the pool, not the waves. A good basic explanation of climate models is available in Climate Change- A Multidisciplinary Approach by William Burroughs. 
 
Source: AMS Policy Statement on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. Bull. Amer Met. Soc.,79,2161-2163
 
2011-01-04 18:28:02Weather forecasts
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.166.150

Dan, I still think you need to acknowledge that weather forecasts two weeks out are impossible because any differences in initial conditions accumulate over time. Otherwise you leave yourself open to the accusation that you are making a straw person argument (even though the main point you make is valid). I suggest you also remove the second paragraph for the same reason – it’s not incorrect to say we can’t forecast the weather two weeks from now.

2011-01-07 15:24:47I agree with Jim. Better without the second paragraph. I think that removes the argument about synoptic forecasts.
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
24.236.95.172

This claim is based more on an appeal to emotion than fact. The inference is that climate predictions, decades into the future, cannot be possibly right when the weather forecast for the next day has some uncertainty.

Atmospheric science students are taught that "weather is what you get and climate is the weather you expect". This is why this common skeptical argument doesn't hold water. Climate models are not predicting day to day weather systems. Instead, they are predicting climate averages. 

A change in temperature of 7 degrees from one day to the next is barely worth noting when you are discussing weather. Seven degrees, however, make a dramatic difference when talking about climate. When the Earth's AVERAGE temperature was 7 degrees cooler than the present, ice sheets a mile thick were on top of Manhattan. 

A good analogy of the difference between weather and climate is to consider a swimming pool. Imagine that the pool is being slowly filled. If someone dives in there will be waves. The waves are weather, and the average water level is the climate. A diver jumping into the pool the next day will create more waves, but the water level (aka the climate) will be higher as more water flows into the pool. 
 
In the atmosphere the water hose is increasing greenhouse gases. They will cause the climate to warm but we will still have changing weather (waves).  Climate scientists use models to forecast the average water level in the pool, not the waves. A good basic explanation of climate models is available in Climate Change- A Multidisciplinary Approach by William Burroughs. 
 
Source: AMS Policy Statement on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. Bull. Amer Met. Soc.,79,2161-2163
2011-01-07 15:32:58I added a new paragraph in place of the 2nd paragraph before. If everyone is happy, I'll send it to John.
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
24.236.95.172

Thanks all for the help. I think it turned out to be a good basic response to the myth. 

 **

This claim is based more on an appeal to emotion than fact. The inference is that climate predictions, decades into the future, cannot be possibly right when the weather forecast for the next day has some uncertainty.

In spite of the claim in this myth, short term weather forecasts are highly accurate and have improved dramatically over the last three decades. However, slight errors in initial conditions make a forecast beyond two weeks nearly impossible.   

Atmospheric science students are taught "weather is what you get and climate is the weather you expect". This is why this common skeptical argument doesn't hold water. Climate models are not predicting day to day weather systems. Instead, they are predicting climate averages. 

A change in temperature of 7 degrees from one day to the next is barely worth noting when you are discussing weather. Seven degrees, however, make a dramatic difference when talking about climate. When the Earth's AVERAGE temperature was 7 degrees cooler than the present, ice sheets a mile thick were on top of Manhattan. 

A good analogy of the difference between weather and climate is to consider a swimming pool. Imagine that the pool is being slowly filled. If someone dives in there will be waves. The waves are weather, and the average water level is the climate. A diver jumping into the pool the next day will create more waves, but the water level (aka the climate) will be higher as more water flows into the pool. 
 
In the atmosphere the water hose is increasing greenhouse gases. They will cause the climate to warm but we will still have changing weather (waves).  Climate scientists use models to forecast the average water level in the pool, not the waves. A good basic explanation of climate models is available in Climate Change- A Multidisciplinary Approach by William Burroughs. 
 
Source: AMS Policy Statement on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. Bull. Amer Met. Soc.,79,2161-2163
2011-01-07 17:21:14You need to differentiate your temperature units (F vs C).
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
130.36.62.142

You need to differentiate your temperature units (F vs C).

 

Would be nice to have some graphic  to spice it up.  Perhaps John can suggest one?

2011-01-22 08:25:49Yes, I am going to fix units
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
76.164.173.162

and am looking for a pic already. I will then submit it to John later tonight. Sorry It has taken so long folks. I work as a forecaster here in AL and we are having the most amazing winter on record.

 

Dan

2011-01-22 17:59:50
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
24.236.95.172

This claim is based more on an appeal to emotion than fact. The inference is that climate predictions, decades into the future, cannot be possibly right when the weather forecast for the next day has some uncertainty.

In spite of the claim in this myth, short term weather forecasts are highly accurate and have improved dramatically over the last three decades. However, slight errors in initial conditions make a forecast beyond two weeks nearly impossible.   

Atmospheric science students are taught "weather is what you get and climate is the weather you expect". This is why this common skeptical argument doesn't hold water. Climate models are not predicting day to day weather systems. Instead, they are predicting climate averages. 

A change in temperature of 7º Celsius from one day to the next is barely worth noting when you are discussing weather. Seven degrees, however, make a dramatic difference when talking about climate. When the Earth's AVERAGE temperature was 7ºC cooler than the present, ice sheets a mile thick were on top of Manhattan! 

A good analogy of the difference between weather and climate is to consider a swimming pool. Imagine that the pool is being slowly filled. If someone dives in there will be waves. The waves are weather, and the average water level is the climate. A diver jumping into the pool the next day will create more waves, but the water level (aka the climate) will be higher as more water flows into the pool. 
 
In the atmosphere the water hose is increasing greenhouse gases. They will cause the climate to warm but we will still have changing weather (waves).  Climate scientists use models to forecast the average water level in the pool, not the waves. A good basic explanation of climate models is available in Climate Change- A Multidisciplinary Approach by William Burroughs. 
 
Source: AMS Policy Statement on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. Bull. Amer Met. Soc.,79,2161-2163
2011-01-22 18:30:09
dansat
dannysatterfield@mac.com
15
24.236.95.172

What does everyone think of using the image from Meehl et.al with the following image title:

Record highs are an example of extreme weather, but an increase in record highs versus record lows is a symptom of a changing climate. From Meehl et al.* 

 

This claim is based more on an appeal to emotion than fact. The inference is that climate predictions, decades into the future, cannot be possibly right when the weather forecast for the next day has some uncertainty.

In spite of the claim in this myth, short term weather forecasts are highly accurate and have improved dramatically over the last three decades. However, slight errors in initial conditions make a forecast beyond two weeks nearly impossible.   

Atmospheric science students are taught "weather is what you get and climate is the weather you expect". This is why this common skeptical argument doesn't hold water. Climate models are not predicting day to day weather systems. Instead, they are predicting climate averages. 
A record high is an example of weather. Increasing numbers of record highs is a symptom of a changing climate. From Meehl et. al
 
A change in temperature of 7º Celsius from one day to the next is barely worth noting when you are discussing weather. Seven degrees, however, make a dramatic difference when talking about climate. When the Earth's AVERAGE temperature was 7ºC cooler than the present, ice sheets a mile thick were on top of Manhattan! 

A good analogy of the difference between weather and climate is to consider a swimming pool. Imagine that the pool is being slowly filled. If someone dives in there will be waves. The waves are weather, and the average water level is the climate. A diver jumping into the pool the next day will create more waves, but the water level (aka the climate) will be higher as more water flows into the pool. 
 
In the atmosphere the water hose is increasing greenhouse gases. They will cause the climate to warm but we will still have changing weather (waves).  Climate scientists use models to forecast the average water level in the pool, not the waves. A good basic explanation of climate models is available in Climate Change- A Multidisciplinary Approach by William Burroughs. 
 
Source: AMS Policy Statement on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. Bull. Amer Met. Soc.,79,2161-2163
*Image source: Meehl, G. A., C. Tebaldi, G. Walton, D. Easterling, and L. McDaniel (2009), Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S.Geophys. Res. Lett.36, L23701, doi:10.1029/2009GL040736.
 
2011-03-11 07:24:18a point about predictive accuracy
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.160.33.83

I like this article.  However, a train of thought based in Shannon entropy* leads me to a point you may wish to cover.

 

Weather forecasts improve in accuracy every time we learn something new about climate systems.  Behind every better weather model is a better understanding of climate.  A weather model can show you that snow in the U.K. in August is virtually 100% unlikely.  But only a climate model can show you why.

 

The Shannon entropy bit - not for a basic rebuttal:

Weather can be predicted with great accuracy over a long time frame provided that the climate of a region is fairly stable.

For example: a prediction in May that it will not snow before November is likely to be 100% accurate in most temperate Northern climates.

 

* No need to look it up.  Just think of how context helps you understand a badly photocopied text.  Redundant (i.e. surplus)  information in a system helps an observer to guess the next item in a series of items.  A forecast of no snow in summer makes use of the climate information that is so much a part of common knowledge to a weatherman's viewers that it need not be mentioned.

 

I'll try to come back soon and give you a thumbs up, whether you add in my suggestion or not.  Adding to the shine is one thing - polishing the paint off is quite another. :)

2011-03-11 07:26:26apologies
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.160.33.83

I'm new here.  You don't need my 'thumbs up'.  Ah, well.  Live and burn - or is it crash and learn?