Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States. I was going to say nominate. To introduce the key revolutionary of the 20th century, our president, Ronald Reagan. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. And now that I won't be doing it for myself, after January, I think I will start raising a holler that they ought to get rid of that law, because it's an infringement on your right to vote for who you want to vote for. President Lorenzo, John Engler, Governor Romney, Rana. And thank you Jack Kemp for that great introduction. And now ladies and gentlemen, it's no surprise that Jack Kemp is here in Michigan talking to all of you with his characteristic vigor and honesty and excitement. Jack Kemp, who was first campaigning on the idea of tax cuts back in the 70s. He had an enormous impact on government policy and American politics. And Jack, for just a young fella, you've had a brilliant past, but I'm willing to predict in your case the best is yet to come. I'd like also to add a special thanks to the bands performing today.  Now you don't mind my calling you kids, do you? My age, I think I can. All right. Now, incidentally, will all of you young people promise me you'll do all of America proud and just say no to drugs? Well, as you've been told already, I'm here today on behalf of a great candidate for the presidency of the United States. But before I even mention his name, I want to ask each one of you, will you give George Bush the kind of support he needs in the Congress by sending Doug Carl to Congress? And will you help George Bush by putting Jim Dunn in the United States Senate? And it's great to be back here at McComb Community College. A college that is the third-biggest institution of higher learning in this great state. A kind of college that lives up to its name because it's the pride of this community just as it's the pride of Michigan. And yes, it's great to be in Michigan again. I'm here because I love your people and I love your state. Future. Well, that's another reason I've come here today. We're now at the end of a long political journey that marks for me my last campaign as an office holder. Nancy and I are so proud to have had the chance to serve all of you in Washington. And I'm proud to be here in Michigan and McComb County with a special word, what I hope is an uplifting word to all of you in the closing hours of this campaign. It's always something to get out of Washington and on the campaign trail and get the chance to see Heartland America and all of your hopeful shining faces. You know, it wasn't so very long ago that all I had to do to start an unfriendly campus riot was show up. And now on campaign stop after campaign stop in state after state, I've seen so many young Americans like yourselves coming out to say hello. And today I just wanted all of you to know how delighted and grateful I am for that. If you ask me, as Robert Palmer has been singing recently, you are simply irresistible. That's why I'm glad to be here today and why I've been so glad to be on so many campuses around the country. You see, people my age do deeply believe that it is our duty to turn over to you the same opportunity and freedom that our parents and grandparents handed on to us. And when we look at you, when we see your openness and your enthusiasm for America and for life itself, it gives us heart, the kind of heart it's taken to fight and win this long campaign. George Bush has that kind of heart. He has it because he cares about your future. He knows how far we've come in the past eight years, and he doesn't want to see it squandered or thrown away. Throughout our history, whenever this great and blessed land has searched for true leadership, it has found it and this year is no exception. I've worked more closely with George Bush these two terms than with any other member of the administration. I've seen him keep a cool head in hot crises. I've seen his leadership and vision. I've given him some of the most sensitive and difficult tasks that we've had, and he has never let me or the country down. When you ask who led the fight to lift excessive regulations off the shoulders of America's economy, or who reassured our allies about deployment of INF missiles and set the stage for the INF Treaty, or who ran the initial policy meetings that led to our rescue of Grenada, or when you ask which candidate for president is on your side and America's side, George Bush, is that man? When I mentioned first that those excessive regulations, that was one of the first chores I gave him, I asked him to head up a task force to see how much we could reduce the federal regulations imposed on the people. Well, they finished their task, and I think you might like to know that the regulations that they eliminated have led to a savings of paperwork imposed on you and on communities and states for the federal government that we estimate amounts to 600 million man hours a year of paperwork that you don't have to do. You know, I have a little incident that explains what it used to be like when there was all that paper, but there was a fellow in Washington, this is absolutely true, whose position was to receive papers and documents and then decide where they were to go in the government. And one day he received one that was classified secret, but it came to him, so he read it, decided where it should go, initialed it, and sent it on. 24 hours later it came back to him with a memorandum attached that says you weren't supposed to see this. He erased your initials and initially erasure. Now, George Bush knows the importance of the values expressed in the Pledge of Allegiance. He cares that courts won't allow children in public schools to open their day with a simple, silent, voluntary prayer. He believes that we must have judges on our courts who interpret the law and don't try to legislate, who care not just about the rights of the criminals, but about those of the victims of crime. And that's just why I want George Bush to be the next President of the United States. You know, I once said that he was a great Vice President, but I know and I've seen that it didn't come easily. George Bush is a man of action, a man accustomed to command. The Vice Presidency doesn't fit easily on such a man, but George Bush is also a patriot, so he made it fit and he served with distinction no one has ever matched in that position. And that's why I'm here today to bring home the simple fact that all the progress we've made is on the line. Today's activities are part of a get out the vote campaign. And I just want to tell each one of you to go to the polls on Tuesday and get your friends to go to. To cash there and your votes for George Bush. And again, to remember your great congressional candidate Doug Carl and a man who will make a great United States Senator Jim Dunn. You see, way back in August on the day I arrived in New Orleans for the Republican Convention, I said the one thing George Bush and our party had to do was get our message out to the people who live in places like Macomb County. The people who gave us our great victories in 1980 and 1984. And I noted a line by our opposition that very few people had noticed. A line in which George Bush's opponent said this was an election about competence, not ideology. Well, I said then that that line was nothing but a smokescreen to hide the liberal agenda the opposition was going to force on Americans if it was elected. And that's why everywhere I've gone, I've said that from top to bottom, from president to Congress to local office, especially here in Michigan, the election this year is a referendum on liberalism. Or whether we let George Bush's opponent take America where America doesn't want to go. Yes, the choice before the American people this year is just as clear as it was in 1980 and 1984. A choice between on the one hand liberal policies of tax and spend, economic stagnation, international weakness, and always, always blame America first. And on the other hand, what we believe, the policies of limited government, economic growth, individual opportunity, a strong defense, and always I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. The fact is a lot of Democrats around the country are saying that their party leadership has swung so far to the left, so far out of the mainstream, that the national democratic leadership has lost touch with the rank and file of the Democratic Party. Now, I'm a former Democrat and I have to say I didn't leave my party, my party left me. Now, whether it's their opposition to voluntary prayer in school, support for gun control, or the left wing judges appointed in a state like Massachusetts, or a weak need defense policy, their views can only be described by the dreaded L word, liberal, liberal, liberal. At once proud party of hope and affirmation has become the party of obstruction and negativism. The party of FDR and Harry Truman has become the party of McGovern and Carter and Mondale and Dukakis. The party of yes has become the party of no. Well, the liberal leadership of the Democratic Party in Washington has been saying no to the rank and file Democrats of Michigan. And now it's time for you to start saying no to them by saying yes to George Bush and the entire Republican ticket. You know, violent crime has fallen significantly since 1981 because George and I put criminals on notice. We said make a false move and the next sound you hear is the clang of a jail cell door slamming shut. But in this election, one of the candidates believes that no matter how horrible or brutal the crime, he opposes capital punishment. But have you asked me, there are no Americans braver and no citizens more precious than the men and women who guard us, our state and local police. George Bush and I stand behind them all the way as I know you do. And that's why George and I believe that for horrible crimes, like a drug dealer who murders a policeman in cold blood, that kind of killer deserves and should receive the death penalty. And then there's the issue of defense. Look at the accomplishments of the last eight years. We're once again respected in the world. Our armed forces are strong and America is at peace. We and our NATO allies stood firm in the face of Soviet missiles pointing at the heart of Europe and Asia. And Mr. Gorbachev got the message. He did business because he knew we meant business and we still mean business. None of our triumphs, no, not one would have happened if the liberals had had their way. There would have been no INF Treaty or rollback in Afghanistan or democratic revolutions around the globe. They opposed rebuilding our military defenses. And even today, they want to cancel out two carrier battle groups from our Navy. They have a defense policy only a McGovern could love. And what they plan for the Navy is so bad that by the time they get finished, Michael might have to row the boat ashore. They opposed the liberation of Grenada. They opposed the blow we struck against terrorist Libya. They opposed our policy of helping freedom fighters advance the cause of liberty around the world. George Bush and I did all these things and I'll tell you proudly right now we both do every single one of them over again. But they're proposing and not the defense policies of a Harry Truman or an FDR. The liberals have stolen the Democratic Party away from its heritage. As I say, I know because I once was one of them. And the truth is that when the left took over the Democratic Party, many rank and file Democrats like me who were inspired by FDR and Harry Truman, took over the Republican Party. So I want to ask those of you, some people called Reagan Democrats, to join with me and come home with me today. Come home to me and George Bush. I just happened to think America's on a roll. We've just received the October unemployment numbers. And I'm delighted to report it's 5.2%. That's the best it's been in more than 14 years. And this is the message we're going to be taking to every home in America. The future is bright and is getting brighter because we've been bringing good jobs and hopes and opportunity to all the citizens in this country. In just the month of October, we Americans created 323,000 new jobs. That brings the total number of jobs we've created in this country since the recovery began nearly six years ago to 18.4 million. And let me also add, I thought this might want to interest the people in Macomb County, that for the first 10 months of this year, average domestic auto sales are up from 1987. We've got to do all we can to get our message out. We must guard against complacency and overconfidence. This election isn't over yet, not by a long shot. And as Winston Churchill once said, we must continue the struggle until victory is won. Now let me take a little opinion poll of my own. Will you make sure to turn out for the Republican ticket for state legislative candidate Steve Zinner, David Jay, Bob McDonald, Bob Parakis, Roman Kilchitsky, and Terry London on November 8th? Will you give the next president the Congress he needs by voting for Jim Dunn and Doug Carl on November 8th? Will you send a message to the liberal leadership of the Democratic Party in Washington by voting for George Bush? Yes, my friends, when you accept the blessing of every American, that's the right to vote. When you go into that voting booth, you're not only choosing the direction this country will take for the next four years.  It's critically important that the fate of our great nation be placed in the capable, strong, and still gentle hands of a man who's been a hero in war and a leader in peace, a friend to me and to all Americans. Yes, there's only one man I trust to bring this country forward, ever forward, toward its destiny of greatness. And so I ask you on November 8th to make George Bush the next president of the United States.  Will you go out and win this one for the Gipper? Thank you all, and God bless you all. Mr. President, you've set out the challenge to continue the Reagan Revolution by delivering the Reagan Democrats to Vice President Bush. We have with us today, Mr. President, a man who can help make that happen. We want you to meet one of the staunchest, most outspoken, Reagan Bush Democrats in Macomb County. He's a conservative Democrat, an independent thinker, and he's proud of it, and he's proud of his support for you and the Vice President. We're proud to have him on his side. Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, a man who's a household name in Macomb County, a true leader, my colleague, State Senator Gildanella, for a presentation. Mr. President, thank you so much for being with us in Macomb County again. As you know, Macomb County has a claim to fame which we are proud of. We are the home of Michigan's Reagan Democrats. Though I am a conservative Democrat and one who thinks independently, I am still a Democrat. But one who feels his party, his national party, has let him down as they have many other Democrats right here in Macomb County. On issues like taxes, crime, national security, and family values, our national party and previous candidates like George McGovern and Walter Mondale have taken such ultra-liberal positions that they have left millions of Democrats in search of an alternative candidate. John Kennedy, who went as to pivot a straight Democratic ticket in 1960, said that anyone who expects blind loyalty expects too much. Because of that, I became a Reagan Democrat and I am proud to be a Reagan Democrat. But Mr. President, there is an important election next Tuesday and I want you to know that on Tuesday, this Reagan Democrat and a whole lot of other Reagan Democrats in Michigan are now going to become Bush Democrats. Thank you for rebuilding America and for restoring our strength and pride and especially for making Macomb County feel like we really have a friend in the White House. Mr. President, I would like to make a presentation symbolizing Democrats for Bush. Tell the story of this to George. He's going to be a very happy man. But I'm so grateful to you for what you have just said and what all of you are doing. Again, I thank you all very much. This is a great day.


TfNN, headline news update. Tommy O'Brien coming to live from TFNN, 10 AM Eastern time on Monday morning, 30 minutes into the trading day. We'll get paired up, not having my mic on, shame on me. There we go, starting things off, S&Ps up 24 points, trading at 28.53, NASDAQ up 96 points, trading at 88.65, the Dow up 151, trading 23,810, oil shaping up to be the story of the week yet again, oil just from last night. Looked like we had some stability yesterday with oil being, excuse me, yesterday. Last week, Friday, oil settling between about $16 and $18 for Thursday and Friday trading. But guess what, futures open last night, crude prices trade from almost $17.00. We just got an 11 handle, 11.88, the low on crude within the last hour, crude prices trading at $12.53, gold contract, negative $3 at $17.32. And as the market trades higher, we get a low VIX that we haven't seen since the beginning of March. The VIX trading at $34.37, jumping over to a daily chart of the VIX for some context. There you see that we are back to the volatility that we saw in early March slash late February, when things really started to accelerate and the market saw the potential for this market to fall apart. The VIX trading up to $85 and now we're back to $34.30 right now this morning on VIX. Big week this week for earnings in the market, jumping over to the action that we have going on. And the story of the earnings, there's your headlines in terms of getting Google, Alphabet, there on Tuesday, Facebook and Microsoft on Wednesday. We also get Tesla and Boeing on Wednesday and then Amazon and Apple, the two giants on Thursday, let alone other companies, GE, Pepsi, NXPF to the bell today, Kraft Heinz, Estee Lauder, Honeywell, Colgate Palmolive and the Clorix company, all on Friday. What else you get is you all still get a Fed meeting beginning tomorrow, wrapping up with an announcement and press conference on Wednesday, should be interesting to see what Fed Chairman Powell has to say. Stay tuned folks, come back at 10 o'clock with Tom, of course, Fast Market by TD Ameritrade and Thinkorswim at 11, Basil Chapman at noon, Steve Rhodes, Dave White, Tom O'Brien all this afternoon. Stay tuned folks, we'll be right back.


So I'm going to be talking about the influence of 21st century climate change on Southwest precipitation, and in particular California precipitation, and how internal variability changes rain and snow, and with it the predictability. So California is in a drought, and it's a big deal for us in California. It's one of the most severe droughts on record, largely attributed to record lows and precipitation, and records in high temperature. That's led to very stringent water restrictions by the governor, and that's affected our everyday lives. It's also affecting the agriculture industry, which of course affects the state's economy. So you hear about this every day in the news in California, and you hear about it probably every week in the national news. And you can Google it, California drought, any day, and you'll get some new news story. I read that a couple of nights ago, and I got some story in LA Times. This one in particular, the mandate on California water cuts slated to continue if drought persists. And so what this particular article says is if the drought continues on through January, the water restrictions are going to be extended another six to eight months. And so the reason why they think it might end in January is because of the big old Nino that's coming. But so the point is this big news in California, but California's experienced drought before in the past, and the Western U.S. has experienced drought before in the past. So here's a plot, a reconstruction from Ed Cook's paper 2004 from a collection of tree rings throughout the Western U.S., showing the percent of the Western U.S. under drought, where the higher values indicate drier than normal conditions, and the lower values indicating wetter conditions. And this reconstruction goes back to 800 up to the present. And you can see that around 1,000 years, you start getting a lot of high values associated with the mega droughts. And then over time, these mega droughts don't seem as prevalent, and you start getting more dips in this time series associated with poluvials. And then if you actually focus on this last interval, last 100 years, you can see that maybe there's a slight increase that's occurring too. So if you have a lot of mega droughts that occurred around the medieval climate anomaly and you have a slight increase that's occurring in the last 100 years, you might want to make an assumption maybe that these periods where the northern hemisphere is really warm or associated with large mega droughts or drier conditions in the Western U.S. and maybe over California as well. And that seemed to be the case for the CMEF-3 projections in the 21st century. But then CMEF-5 came along and said, no, no, no, not so fast. And so what's applied here is the wintertime precipitation for the RCB 8.5 scenario. So this is a collection of 78 different models. So it's the 30-some models that go into the IPCC projections with all their ensemble simulations. And what it shows is, so the blue color show wetter conditions, and the reds and oranges show the drier conditions. And you can see that on average they show during the wintertime, it's wetter in the 21st century, if you believe the models. So you might look at this and say, okay, this is great news for California, great news for California residents, and definitely good news for the water resource managers that have to deal with maintaining the water supply. But that might not be exactly the case. So here's a slide that came from a talk from the AGU Chapman Conference last spring on California drought. This is from a talk given by Janine Jones, who's one of the top water resource managers in California. And so she lists certain questions that the water resource managers aren't asking, she's presenting to a bunch of scientists. So I'll just go ahead and list them. So how much water will it take to end the drought? Can we close the water budget? What caused the drought? How can drought monitoring be improved? And anything containing the word drought index. And so the scientists didn't really like this slide very much. Reason why is because scientists love asking these types of questions when it's related to drought. So then you might ask, okay, well, what kind of questions are they asking in the water resource managers? So what they're asking for is, at the beginning of the season, how much water will we get this season? And in the middle of the season, how much more water will we get? So they're really looking for better predictions. So California precipitation is very seasonal in the sense that it doesn't really rain or snow at all in the summer time.  And it's really the wintertime snow up in the Sierra Nevada mountains that we really care about because it's the water infrastructures built on the wintertime snowpack. So for this talk, I'm mostly going to be talking about December, January, February precipitation over California. So in a very simple sense, you can break down wintertime precipitation in California between a predictable component and a non-predictive component. So the predictive component is something we've all been talking about the last couple days. Pacific sea surface temperatures and maybe to a lesser extent, Atlantic sea surface temperature influence on California precipitation. The very, the most common and well-known relationship would be the El Nino or Enso relationship. So in general, during El Nino conditions usually leads to rainier winters over California and La Nina conditions usually relate to drier than normal conditions in the state. But then there's also internal variability, which can be quite large for California. So one good example of that would be in 2010, the winter of 2010, 2011, very strong La Nina in terms of the Pacific, tropical Pacific SSTs. But over the last few decades, that was actually one of the rainiest winters over California. So this non-predictive component can be quite large. So the question is, as the 21st century gets warmer and maybe California gets wetter, how do these two components change? So you can imagine over the course of time, this internal variability maybe get reduced and that might help the predictive component. In other words, that would be good for water resource managers. Another possibility is the internal variability might increase, which would make these seasonal predictions even worse. So we'll take that last scenario, increase internal variability, and use that as our hypothesis. So our hypothesis would be changes in the 21st century will cause an increase in atmospheric internal variability in terms of California wintertime precipitation. So how are we going to quantify that? And so this will be very much a review for what we've heard mostly. So imagine we have six ensemble simulations, we're going to use ensemble simulations to quantify the internal variability over time. So imagine we have six ensemble simulations and this is results for the six different members showing projections in winter precipitation. Reds indicate drier conditions, blues indicate wetter conditions. And then you can quantify the forced response by taking the mean, the ensemble mean, the trend analysis. And if you want to calculate the internal variability of one of these members, say this fifth member right here, you take that member, subtract out the forced response and you can quantify the internal variability. So you look for this particular case, internal variability is quite high over Northern California, which is a region that we care about for our problem. So it's really just the variability around the forced response. So imagine we have a variable, this can be temperature, precipitation, whatever, and over time you have a linear trend in the 21st century. So that would be your forced response. So imagine you have one case where you have three different ensemble simulations and there's an ensemble's disagree a little bit, or they disagree a lot, a beginning portion of the 21st century. Then over time they start to agree a little more over time. Then you have a second case where the opposite occurs, where they agree a little bit more towards the beginning of the time period. But over time they start to differ quite a bit more. So that would be more consistent with what our hypothesis would be, an increase in internal variability. So the method we're going to do is we're going to take two different chunks of the time series, two different chunks of the 21st century, take the early 20 years, so the first 20 years of the simulation, it's actually 2006 to 2025. And then we're going to take the surface forcing, the SSTs and the CIS conditions from RCPA 8.5 simulations and run a series of AMIP simulations. So we're going to use an atmospheric general circulation model and force it at the surface with sea ice and sea surface temperatures. And then we're going to do the same thing for the last 20 years and then look to see how the variance changes for precipitation over California. Okay, so the model that we're going to use for this is called the global spectrum model. It's actually called isoGSM. It's actually got water isotope traces in it. But I'm not going to be showing any isotope results. So it's a T62 resolution, run it at about two and a half minute time steps. And there's about 28 vertical layers in the atmosphere. So it also has a land model, it has the NOAA land model. And it's been, one of the good things about GSM is there's been a few studies that have validated the precipitation over California pretty extensively, mostly with precipitation and using the isotopes that are built into the models. So we have a pretty good confidence that the model does pretty well over our study region. Okay, so like I said, we're going to take the first 20 years and we're going to choose two different models. We're actually going to, in the future, what we're currently doing is using more CMF5 models to do these experiments with. But the results I'm going to show today are just for the GFDLCM3 and the IPSL CMF5LR simulations. So again, these are RCP 8.5 scenarios. We're going to run it. We calculate the seasonal cycle, SSTs and CIS distributions. And so it's just a repeating seasonal cycle over and over in these simulations, these AMIP simulations. So we're going to do three different runs of each one of these cases, so each one of these models for the early 20th century. And do it, run it for 50 years and we're going to do it three times. So it's really 150 years of modeled simulations. Let's see. And then we're going to do the exact same thing, but for the last 20 years, for these same models. We're going to do it both with and without the CO2 and methane and greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to quantify how much of the variance is due to the actual surface forcing and how much of it is actually related to actually putting the greenhouse gases directly into the atmosphere. And then eventually what we're going to do is we're going to calculate the variance, simulated precipitation variance and we're going to use an F test of variance to test the, well, not the variance actually changes. Okay, so just to give you some sort of sense of what the model does. So here's the results of the E21 GFDL simulations. So like I said, there's three different runs and they run for 50 years. And this is just calculating DJF precipitation for this box region right here over California. And you can see that the model for these three different cases, the mean precipitation is roughly about the same. It's about 3.9 millimeters per day. But there's quite a bit of variability. In fact, you see all these large variations. There's no changes to the surface forcing. The only changes is really in the essence of the initial conditions are different. So you get a lot of variability about this mean. But you can actually treat each one of these simulation years as a different model realization and put these onto a histogram. And so that's what's done here. So here's the histogram. The thin line here is actually the histogram. And then the thick curve is the Gaussian fit to the histogram. So it's really the, but it's really the shaded region that we're going to focus on. So the shaded region is the variance about the model mean, I guess. And so the variance here is 1.7 millimeters per day. Okay, so that's good. But when you compare that with the late 20th century, you can see the distribution shifts a little bit. So in addition to a slight increase in the mean, there's also an increase in the variance. It goes from 1.7 millimeters per day to about 2.3 millimeters per day. It's about 35% increase in variance. But when we performed an F test on each one of these two sets of data, we found that the probability is only about 0.07. So it's not quite at the 95% confidence level. But if you put CO2 and methane and the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we find the variance actually increases quite a bit more. In fact, it goes from 1.6 now to 3.1 millimeters per day. So almost a doubling of the variance. And when we performed the F test, it was significantly different at the 99% confidence level. So that's a GFDL case. So what we found for the GFDL cases, there was an increase in the internal variability. For the APSL case, here's the early 21st century. What we found relative to GFDL is the precipitation is higher and the variability itself is actually higher. But when we actually force it with the last 20 years of the 21st century, we find that the variance increases for both with and without the CO2 and methane gases. So what that's saying for both of these cases is that something going on in the surface forcing that's causing the internal variability to increase. And then sometimes, or at least for the GFDL case, adding the greenhouse gases actually increases the internal variability even more. So I'll admit I haven't totally diagnosed why this would be the case. Obviously, it has something to do with the surface forcing differences. So what's applied here is the SST differences for the winter time for the two cases. Left shows the GFDL. The right shows IPSL. Oranges and yellows show like the regions where there's warmer SSTs. There's warmer SSTs everywhere because it's the RCP 8.5 scenario. But if you compare these two, you don't see in terms of the Pacific Ocean temperatures, you don't see a pattern that's really that consistent. Maybe you have something coming off the Eastern North Pacific, but there's really not a consistent pattern. One thing that really stuck out to me maybe was that they all have these sea ice laws. So maybe this has something to do with Arctic amplification. And there have been studies that have looked at Arctic amplifications and how that changes the jet stream and how the changes in the jet stream might affect things like weather and climate extremes. So when you look at the jet stream, so here's just the general geopotential height at 200 millibars for the GFDL case early 20th century or early 21st century. And you can see that there's a permanent ridge right along the coastline and then there's permanent troughs on either side of it. And if you subtract this out from the late 21st century case, you can see how this changes over time. And you see that this ridge, of course, right here actually gets even stronger. And there's a dip to the left and a dip to the right or to the east or to the west and the east. So what this shows is that what jet stream is actually getting wavier. And maybe this is has something to do with increases in internal variability. But this is all sort of I'm not totally solving this quite yet. But anyway, back to our hypothesis. We have hypothesized that changes in the 21st century will cause an increase in atmospheric internal variability in terms of California wintertime precipitation. And we haven't done a complete set of simulations, but our results thus far would indicate that this is true. But going back to why we even care about this to begin with, will this affect California water resource managers? And our results say that seasonal precipitation in California might become more difficult to predict in the 21st century just based on our results. So there are some limitations in our approach here. Very simplified AMIF simulations. But our results would suggest that the seasonal predictions will become more difficult. So I'll leave it there.