As an outsider looking in to Science, you will come away with the conclusion that "Man is Causing Global Warming".  

No one will tell you otherwise.    But that doesn't mean that a lot of people, or scientists, think otherwise.   Then again, who are you -- and why are you eating the free bagels and cream cheese at our seminar?

Nobody wants to get burned at the stake...or miss eating his steak...if it can be helped.

Restore the Kuomintang!

A question. Was the debate about climate change and the number of hurricanes, or climate change and hurricane intensity and water content, or both?

Not sure, Edward. Some say that as a result of climate warming there should be more hurricanes and that those hurricanes would be more intense. Then folks get bogged down in whether a hurricane strikes the US and whether a "fish storm" really matters (a fish storm usually forms over the Atlantic and dissipates without a landfall). Intensity is also measured about five different ways. -sam

Onward through the fog

A question. Was the debate about climate change and the number of hurricanes, or climate change and hurricane intensity and water content, or both?I think all of them.  After seeing Landsea's presentation, I concluded that it's very difficult (because of data quality issues) to make statements about past trends in hurricane numbers or intensity --- or the number of intense hurricanes.  I think it's also unclear exactly how much of an increase in either numbers or intensity we can expect from global warming.  

It's a wide-open problem at the present time.  And I think what you'll see is the funding will go up for this research because of the uncertainty ... the opposite effect of that claimed by the skeptics.

Good point about climate change and hurricanes being a major research issue, one I hope is expanded much more. It's not just the scientific lack of understanding as much as the fact that about half the US population lives within 50 miles of the coast (something like that). Some of those coastal areas such as resorts are approximately a billion dollars a mile on the beach front. I am sure that hurricane insurance is a good part of a trillion dollars. If you look at what Katrina did to the US, a fairly localized storm that didn't even hit New Orleans, you'd get an appreciation for the kinds of money we have at risk.  -sam

Onward through the fog

The IPCC's statement that there is a trend in hurricanes in the late 20th and early 21st centuries in indisputable ... everyone familiar with the data agrees that we are now in a period of intense cyclone activity after several decades of low activity.

The debate is about what's driving that cycle.  The IPCC's statement that it's "likely" there's some human component gives that statement a 66% chance, which is quite a weak statement given that the standard for confidence in science is 95%.  You could argue that it should more like 50-50, but 66% vs. 51% is a nit (like most skeptic arguments).

Finally, the statement that cyclones will get more intense in the future is again the very weak "likely," which is reasonable given the large uncertainty in the models.

Once again, the IPCC emerges unscathed.

Andrew implied that Chris Landsea should not be on the Inhofe 400 list.  And below is the relevant entry on the Senate Report.  Clearly, Chris Landsea is a skeptic of the IPCC, the Clarion and "gold standard" of climate change.  As to his actual views on whether Human cause of global warming is as serious as claimed by the IPCC, or grey rather than black, that might be interesting to research.

"Atmospheric scientist and hurricane expert Dr. Christopher W. Landsea NOAA's National Hurricane Center who served as a UN IPCC as both an author and a reviewer and has published numerous peer-reviewed research noted that recent hurricane activity is not LINKKed to man-made factors. According to a February 23, 2007 article in Myrtle Beach Online, Landsea explained that "the 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years and 1900-1905 was almost as bad."  Landsea asserted that it is therefore not true that there is a current trend of more and stronger hurricanes. "It's not a trend, it's a cycle: 20-45 years quiet, 20-45 years busy," Landsea said.  He did say that a warming world would only make hurricanes "5 percent stronger 100 years from now.  We can't measure it if it's that small."  The article said Landsea blamed Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, for "persuad[ing] some people that global warming is contributing to hurricane frequency and strength."  (LINKK) Landsea, who was both an author and a reviewer for the IPCC's 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after becoming charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns," Landsea wrote in a January 17, 2005 public letter. "My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy," he continued. "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound," Landsea added. (LINKK)"

Once again, the IPCC emerges unscathed.

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea
Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclo nes more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading trans cripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current sc ientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead auth or; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, whic h is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Cl imate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation---though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements---would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely,
Chris Landsea
17 January 2005

Black Wallaby-

You're back from climate audit?  I guess that means you've given up trying to convince them of your ridiculous thermodynamic ideas.

People have been trying to take down the IPCC for over ten years.  The problem is that, when you read the written reports, it's statements turn out to stand up quite well to scrutiny.  See the exchange between me and Max up above ...

Andrew wrote:

"Black Wallaby- You're back from climate audit?  I guess that means you've given up trying to convince them of your ridiculous thermodynamic ideas."

Nope, you guess wrongly, and I'm enjoying it over there. I don't come here often because my own computer SEEMS to be blacklisted on this site. I'm using that of a friend at this moment.

Hey Andrew, I'm glad to see that you have cut-back and a bit softer on the ad hom's
Cheers, and take it easy

Hi Andrew,

On February 7 you wrote:
"After seeing Landsea's presentation, I concluded that it's very difficult (because of data quality issues) to make statements about past trends in hurricane numbers or intensity --- or the number of intense hurricanes.  I think it's also unclear exactly how much of an increase in either numbers or intensity we can expect from global warming."

As I understand this, you agreed that one could not make any "statements about past trends in hurricane numbers or intensity --- or the number of intense hurricanes".

Sounds pretty clear to me.

A few hours later, on the same day you wrote:
"The IPCC's statement that there is a trend in hurricanes in the late 20th and early 21st centuries in indisputable ... everyone familiar with the data agrees that we are now in a period of intense cyclone activity after several decades of low activity."

This sounds like a complete waffle from what you said earlier.

Which of your two statements do you really support
·    very difficult to make statements about past trends versus
·    a trend...is indisputable

Regards,

Max

past trends in hurricane numbers or intensity --- or the number of intense hurricanes.What I meant was that it's impossible to confidently attribute the past trends to human or natural causes.  

Hi Andrew,

I will be away for a week with no computer access.

Maybe one of your other friends, such as Black Wallaby, might carry on our exchange.

Otherwise I'll be back after February 16.

Regards,

Max

Read Kerry Emanuel's 2005 Nature paper --- there's a clear trend observed.  Your continued assertion that there's no trend simply shows you are not familiar with the relevant literature.  Not surprising since you're also not familiar with the literature linking CO2 to global warming and the literature on feedbacks.  At least you're consistent.

No, Andrew, just because you say something does not make it true. You also have absolutely no notion which "relevant literature" I am "familiar with".  This is pure supposition on your part, and a bit arrogant, at that.

I have shown you a very recent reference that clearly states that there is no actually observed, unusual, long term trend.

Playing your game, you give me a reference to an "outdated" 2005 report, and I have given you a reference to a late-2007 report which "supercedes" your outdated report.

Get serious, Andrew.

We are not goint to play the "my report is better than your report" game.  It is just too silly.

There is no real trend other than the multidecadal swings that have been occurring since records were started. And even if you, as an otherwise respected "climate scientist", say it over and over again that is not going to make it true, Andrew.

Sorry.

Bye for now.

Regards,

Max

Max-

You've said about the IPCC:
There's no evidence in the IPCC that CO2 is linked to today's warming
There's no evidence in the IPCC supporting positive feedbacks
And now this rubbish about hurricanes

The reason I rarely respond to you (and I'm kicking myself for responding to your comment up above) is that you just don't have any grasp of the relevant research on the issue of global warming.  You only see what you want to see.  

At this point, I think I'll leave it up to the lurkers on this thread to determine for themselves whether you're worth listening to.

Hi Andrew,

So you make an untrue claim about hurricane trends, you get shot down with a couple of reports (from 1998 and 2007) that contradict your claim, and now you feel you have to switch the subject away from your false hurricane trend claim to something totally different to save face.

And you are kicking yourself for having responded to my rebuttal of your claim, with the justification that I do not "have any grasp of the relevant research on global warming".

That's a cop-out, my friend.  I would have thought that you, as a respected climate scientist could hold your own in a debate concerning the facts and not have to resort to this type of obfuscation and double-talk.

The problem is, Andrew, you make silly claims that you cannot back with facts, and when these get exposed, you switch topics.

You'd do better sticking with what you really know than getting into areas (like tropical storm activity and trends) where you are not an expert.

Then you have the arrogance to say that I only see what I want to see.  Did you see the November 2007 report on hurricanes which I cited?  Or did you not "want to see" it?

Come on, Andrew.  Grow up.  Swallow your arrogance and admit you were wrong when you switched your story from your first reasonable position of "I concluded that it's very difficult (because of data quality issues) to make statements about past trends in hurricane numbers or intensity --- or the number of intense hurricanes" to your second claim "that there is a trend in hurricanes in the late 20th and early 21st centuries in indisputable ... everyone familiar with the data agrees that we are now in a period of intense cyclone activity after several decades of low activity."

You should have stayed with your first story, because, unlike the second story, it is true.

You lost this one, Andrew.

If you want to discuss this topic further, I'll be back in a week.

If you want to cop out and "leave me to the lurkers", that's your choice. But that would be a clear admission of defeat on this topic.

Bye for now,

Regards,

Max

it just ain't true.  The statements in the IPCC report remain the appropriate summary of our knowledge.  Your studies are ludicrous ... Bill Gray??  1998??  Nice try.  Here's my suggestion: try reading the the actual peer-reviewed literature for a change (which does not include your 2007 study).

As a side note I have always found it funny how the skeptics keep claiming that the old temperature records are unreliable or old observations are unreliable unless it is about the hurricane debate. all of a sudden they can claim with great certainty that this is all part of a natural multidecadal cycle. All of a sudden the old data is completely reliable.

Amusing.

Another amusing thing is how the skeptics parse syntax with lawyerly precision ("ahhh, but that's not exactly what you said ...") until you point out the care that the IPCC uses in its statements, such as the carefully defined words like "likely".  

When they get out-lawyered, the skeptics switch to talk about "weasel words" and say that the actual words in the IPCC don't matter, it's the IPCC's "hidden agenda" ...  

Priceless.  

Hi Andrew,

Now you've got your surrogates, like MarkUK, jumping into the fray, to try to help dig you out of the hole when you have lost the debate.

To your silly argument "When they get out-lawyered, the skeptics switch to talk about 'weasel words' and say that the actual words in the IPCC don't matter", I can only say that the IPCC said that the models provide no evidence for changes in either frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones.

And, even more important than the "models", the observed facts also do not show any evidence for an increase, as the report I showed you clearly confirmed.

Sorry, Andrew, with all your squirming, trying to discredit reports that do not support your own opinion and getting surrogates (like poor confused MarkUK) into the act, you have lost this debate because your claim is a lie.

As a climate scientist you should be ashamed of yourself for such unscientific behavior.

Stick with the facts, Andrew, and you will be better off.

Regards,

Max

Hi Andrew,

As I told you earlier, I am away for a week.

I suggest you cool off during this time and revert back to your original (reasonable) position on hurricanes and AGW, rather than getting your "lurkers" into the act or blathering on about the myth of "peer-reviewed literature" versus actual observed facts.

You said one thing at the beginning of this thread, and then you changed your story.

IPCC does not even support your stand, Andrew.

There is no "trend" other than the well established multidecadal swing.

Those are the facts, Andrew, no matter how much you squirm and try to deny them.

Stick to the areas where you are a true expert, and stay away from those where you really have no expertise to offer.

Regards,

Max

Here's another one for you, Andrew.

AGW aficionados (like yourself) love to use the "peer review" argument to give their viewpoint credibility.

Now I am going to write a detailed report that concludes (based on scientific evidence plus some sort of "model studies") that Andrew Dessler does not know what he is talking about when he disputes the studies of Chris Landsea or William Gray on hurricanes.

To give my statement the desired credibility, I am going to ask jabailo to act as my editor.  He should pick 4 peer reviewers to give my study the proper credibility based on "peer review".

Jabailo, being totally unbiased, is going to pick Black Wallaby, Brian Valentine, Chris Schoneveld and Sammy Owl as the "peer reviewers".

Voila!  I have a "peer reviewed" study.

It's truly great how "peer review" works!

Max

Hi Andrew,

Consider this (as Black Wallaby has mentioned to you before).

A wonderful example of how the hallowed "peer review" process works (or doesn't work) was in Michael Mann's discredited "hockey stick" study.

Bye for now,

Max

A surrogate for Dr. Dessler? Thank you very much. I see that as a great compliment.

Bye for now

You'll be back...

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

Poor Max ... looks like he's blown a gasket.  I suppose that explains his ludicrous argument against peer review.  He seems to think that the author of the study gets to pick his peer reviewers.  People familiar with science know it doesn't work that way.

Given some of his other statements (e.g., "there's no evidence of positive feedbacks"), I shouldn't be surprised that he'd be so confused about other issues of science.

Andrew,
In your post immediately above, you misrepresent Max manacker twice, that is 2 out of 2 in your latest wisdom:

Concerning peer review, he is not against it, but makes a cynical comment that it is famously unreliable.  For instance, I can cite that rediculous peer reviewed Fig 1 after the lead author Trenberth of IPCC WG1 2001 and 2007. (K & T 1997)

As for your assertion that he says there is no evidence of positive feedbacks, that is grossly deceptive. He has for instance listed some feedback mechanisms where the jury is still out on their sign. Are you able to give a reference to where he has made a claim of the type that you have just asserted?
In addition to the IPCC stating that some feedbacks have a low level of understanding, I can cite that contrary to what your beloved RealClimate may argue about Galactic Cosmic Rays having no effect on cloud formation, CERN are not of that opinion.  Over 50 scientists are assembled in a massive international cooperation over a 5-year plan.

LegumeSam and MarkUK,

It is so precious to see such wonderful deepfelt and constructive thoughts being contributed to the debate.

Keep it up guys.  I hope you won't be terribly disappointed if things turn out to be less bad than you hope.

Hi Joe,

This study that you cite, pray is it peer reviewed?  If you consult with Andrew on that matter, he will inform you that it can be ignored if it is not.

Anyhow, don't worry, you, Mark UK, and beanbuddy would not qualify in the said study, because non of you comment in any way that contributes to the debate.

BTW, what were you saying before?....your lofty opinions on human rights?

puppy poop on the sidewalk by Dr. Dessler.  Impossible to ignore and even harder to explain.

I'm currently trying to train a 9-week old Jack Russel (Parson) to poop outside my cave.
Not easy!
Even harder to train a Dessler

Well maybe impooooosible with a Dessler

There is no difference between manacker and black wallaby. Its the same person with a different sign on name. They are sock puppets.

The writing style is the same. Both make comments in poetry. Manacker makes a point of writing "bye for now" or saying he can't make comments for the next week. As soon as manacker does this immediately black wallaby starts commenting.

Black wallaby at first didn't make any comments, just sent e-mails in to Dr Dessler claiming that black wallaby was being blocked from commenting. Soon after manacker was submitting comments he claimed were from this other person black wallaby.

Manacker claimed to be from Switzerland, and black wallaby claimed to be from Austrailia, but then mancker claimed to be from Missouri. Manacker slipped up when he tried to establish an alibi.

Apparently trolls get paid not just by the comment, but also for inventing people to make comments.  

The only reason that I respond to lovely Jo is to show how very UNSCIENTIFIC her guesswork is.  Max lives in a different time-zone to me, I think about 10 hours apart currently.  It might be possible for her to check the range of message times between Max and me if it is important for her to know.

Whilst Max has said he is from the USA, there is plenty of evidence that he lives in Switzerland with his wife.
Whilst I come from Hampshire in England, I have lived in Melbourne, Australia since 1979, and can prove it if it is important for her to know.

If it is important for Jo to confirm that my computer could only access Gristmill to read, but not to post, then she should Email Grist tech support and ask if they recall their Email exchanges with me over the problem.  She could also check with Andrew as to why HE OFFERED to post for me, given the problem at the time.

I could also direct her to another site or two where I encountered Max and Jabailo commenting on similar matters.  It was from there that I asked both of them to share in on-posting some of my comments to Gristmill.  Again, if it is important, I could provide more details.

Lovely Jo could also ponder why I should wish to operate by proxy posting, when it is much simpler to do so directly.  Her conclusion is nonsense.

She could also compare the writing content and styles of Max and me and detect several differences, including Max's use of quaint Americanisms.  You may also have noticed that if I forget to change spell-check to Americano, when using word processor, some English spellings like sceptic, programme and colour can be found.  I also tend to be more sarcastic than Max, and less of a gentleman one might say.

She may also have noticed that my original sign-on name was Black Wallaby, but there have been others, which include Blck Wallaby, black.wallaby or Black.Wallaby.  These were registered user names with unique passwords and Email addresses.  These were from different computers whilst the access problem from my own computer continued.  That problem has since been fixed, and I'm now able to use my own computer and original name.

Yes, when Max was away, I upped my input, simply because he was away, to make up for the absence of his excellent input.  Pray what is strange about that.

Sorry Jo, if this is the standard of your analysis, it is hard to take you seriously on anything

Joe Sixpack wrote:

"Global warming has got to the point where joe sixpack can figure it out without a degree in atmospheric physics. Last summer we had two hurricanes in the gulf ramp up from a squall line to Cat. 4 in under 24 hours. If they had headed north instead of west or southwest the Gulf coast would have been caught flat footed.

Everybody "knows" that hurricanes just don't spin up in 24 hours but there it did it twice. So you can sell your denialist lies in dumbf#kistan but thinking people aren't buying."

So your example proves AGW?

Do the extreme winter events around the place, most notably in China with DESTRUCTION of the power grid also prove AGW?

Pangolin and Lovely Jo;  If you click the "Support Grist" tab top of page you will see that there is a means offered for you to donate cash to this excellent site.

If you Email Tech Support, and say that you will make a recommended minimum donation to Grist of $35, if they can show that the computer(s) of Black Wallaby and Max Manacker are located in two different countries, I'm sure that they will assist.

The answer, which has already been stated, is available in our registration details, eg our computer IP's

Fair enough Pangolin and Lovely Jo, I wouldn't either, but use your imaginaaaation, and frame the question to Tech. Support such that you don't have to part with cash.

Oh BTW did you notice the little clue on another thread that Max gave to you "lawyers" (?) with a non-universal German word.  I worked in Cologne on-and-off for about two years back in the 60/70's but only know the meaning of 'doppel'.  Max wrote:

"PS But I am not a "Doppelgänger" for Black Wallaby, even though I often agree with his "words of wisdom" on this and other sites."

Did you notice the funny little dot thingies over the 'a'? I think it is called an 'umlaut', or would that be a line over the a?.  I don't know how to do that without a some trouble.  (Why would I bother?) Do you, with a USA keyboard?