Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Next
Comments 4951 to 5000:
-
Atom at 20:15 PM on 18 December 2021We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
This question may be off topic, but I'm not used to posting anything here. I'm interested to know what is the prevailing thinking about the lack of any change or signal in global CO2 levels as a result of the decline in CO2 emissions in 2020.
-
John Hartz at 02:26 AM on 18 December 2021We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
Suggested supplemental reading:
Scientists discover ‘surprising’ cause of Europe’s little ice age in late medieval era
Change in ocean currents – similar to phenomena seen today – likely cause behind substantial cooling, US scientists say.
by Harry Cockburn, Climate, The independent (UK), Dec 16, 2021
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/little-ice-age-ocean-currents-b1976776.html
-
MA Rodger at 09:45 AM on 17 December 2021It's albedo
blaisct @108,
You talk of a "correlation in figure 2(f) CERES 20 years 2 (aka Loeb et al 2021)" which I find most odd as I see no correlation there. The figure 2(f) simply presents an attribution of the increasing IEE 2005-20, the sum of the attributions presented in figs 2(d) & 2(e). I thus fail to see any "conflict" between Fig 2(f) & fig 1. The total of the attributed components presented in fig 2(f) (+0.41Wm^-2/decade) is also the trend for the data shown in fig 2(c), CERES data which differs from fig1 only in that it covers a slightly extended period. I am thus not seeing any "conflict".
And do be aware that the "in situ" (data which is in the main Ocean Heat Content data) is presented as a check on the CERES net values. If there was not a good fit between the OHC & CERES data, the CERES data would be seen as le robust with its use within the analysis thrown into some doubt. So the view that CERES should show less trend than "situ data if GHGs were a significant effect" doesn't stack up at all.Loeb et al (2021) is saying that CERES shows an increasing trend in downward radiation of +0.65Wm^-2/decade, part balanced by an increasing trend of +0.24Wm^-2 upward radiation, yielding a net downward EEI trend of +0.41Wm^-2. And a 'Partial Radiative Perturbation Analysis' attributes this net EEI trend almost entlrely to factors directly or indirectly resulting from AGW, these factors being:-
+0.25Wm^-2/decade due to cloud albedo (which will comprise a reduction in cloud fraction and an indirect aerosol effect which presumably will be negative through this period).
+0.31Wm^-2/deacde due to increasing water vapour (this due to global warming).
+0.22Wm^-2/decade due to "other" effects (dominated by increased GH gases as well as a small solar variation which would have been negative through the period).
+0.18Wm^-2/decade due to secreasing surface albedo (this shown in polar and mountain ragions and thus again a product of global warming reducing ice/snow cover.
+0.01Wm^-2/decade due to a reduced direct aerosol effect.
-0.53Wm^-2/decade due to a warmer planet increasing outward radiation.I do not see any correlation between albedo and global temperature, certainly not in Loeb et al (2021). Perhaps you could explain where you see it.
These EEI trends acting since 2005 have collectively added some 0.7Wm^-2 to the EEI over the period to a start-of-period EEI of 0.4Wm^-2. Finally there is a concern that these 2005-20 trends are perhaps not representitive of the long-term trend. One factor not addressed by the analysis is the potential for significant short-term effects due to the situation prior to the period (thus the start-of-period EEI of 0.4Wm^-2 may be a poor start point). Loeb et al do consider short-term effects acting during the period 2005-20 that may abate long-term, specifically the PDO.
-
blaisct at 01:39 AM on 17 December 2021It's albedo
MA Rodger @107
Thanks for your comments. The correlation in figure 2(f) CERES 20 years 2 (aka Loeb et al 2021) to GHG was noted but it is in conflict with the extremely good fit of CERES data to in situ in figure 1 CERES 20 years 2 which should show a smaller slope (of the statical fit) than the in situ data if GHGs were a significant effect. The conflict could be explained by the GHG if their effect on cloud formation is so strong that the GHG effect can not be seen in Figure 1 only the cloud effect can be seen; or that the GHG data in Figure 2(f) is confounded with another variable. With just 20 years of data, we can’t tell yet.
My biggest takeaway from the reports in @106 was finally seeing a correlation to albedo that fit the observed temperature rise over 20 years. You are right in that this is only 20 year and not the 150 years of concern.
The unproven theories at the bottom of @106 are just possible theories of unknown significance that may explain the Figure 1 correlation. I put them there incase someone had someone data on the subject. -
BaerbelW at 15:31 PM on 16 December 2021The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
The Conspiracy Theory Handbook is now also available in Polish as the 13th available translation.
-
MA Rodger at 21:07 PM on 15 December 2021It's albedo
blaisct @108,
I would strongly suggest that you take the assertions regarding the underlying causes of trends in EEI set out in the papers you call "Earthshine 20 years" (aka Goode et al 2021) and "CERES 20 years 1" (aka Dübal & Vahrenholt 2021) with a large pinch of salt. Their speculations about the reasons for the EEI data are entirely unsubstantiated.The third paper you cite as "CERES 20 years 2" (aka Loeb et al 2021) is a more considered analysis as it uses a modelled analysis (setout in its section 2.3) to derive the underlying causes of recent trends in EEI. Shown in their Fig 2f, Loeb et al find the overall EEI trend is dominated by 4 positive and 1 negative factor. You appear not to grasp that the positive factor "other" is the GHG forcing (with a small negative contribition from solar forcing through the period 2002-20). Also the water vapour factor results from a GHG forcing feedback. Thus your speculation doubting the contribution of "any AGH global warming mixed In with the TOA (red) data" is entirely misplaced. And do note that this is the change in EEI through the period. An EEI had been established by GHG forcing prior to this period while the analysis looks solely at the trends (ie changes) 2002-20.
Simply I do not see Loeb et al (2021) anywhere "express doubts on the current understanding of climate change."I find most of the latter part of your comment most bizarre. I refrain here from explaining where you appear to be in error as you do run such a long way with your theorising. But if you wish such explanation, do say.
-
blaisct at 05:08 AM on 15 December 2021It's albedo
Once again thanks for your comment (MA Rodger and the editor) and the additional papers on the subject. I will try to do better with the links.
The earlier data I was referring to was earthshine 10 years and CERES 10 years which showed that the data for the earths albedo was very noisy and flat. The flat part was what was expected for anthropogenic greenhouse gas , AGH, global warming. My initial understanding of AGH radiative forcing was that AGHs absorbed radiation (got hot) and that the higher the AGH concentration (at constant radiation) the more heat it could hold back thus the temperature would increase but the energy in vs out of the zone where this occurred would be the same (albedo would be flat). My understanding has been expanded to include: AGHs hotter temperature will reduce humidity and thus reduce cloud cover, expose more earth surface to the sun thus reduce earths albedo; therefor, albedo vs time for AGHs may not be flat.
The new (new to me) data I sited Earthshine 20 years showed a decrease albedo from both earthshine and CERES data – my only interest is this report was the agreement with earthshine an CERES data. The editor’s link CERES 20 years 1 and another link CERES 20 years 2 provided a lot more CERES data with different analyses. These three papers are the first time I have seen data showing a decrease in albedo (increase in TOA radiation) vs time. If all climate change was due to AGHs this graph would be flat. Using the CERES 20 years 2 graph for TOA radiation out. (of the three links I chose this one because it has the In Situ data (earth surface temperature)) one can see the good correlation between In Situ data and CERES data
Figure 1
“Comparison of overlapping one-year estimates at 6-month intervals of net top-of-the-atmosphere annual energy flux from the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System Energy Balanced and Filled Ed4.1 product (solid red line) and an in situ observational estimate of uptake of energy by Earth climate system (solid blue line). Dashed lines correspond to least squares linear regression fits to the data.”
. If there was any AGH global warming mixed In with the TOA (red) data it would have a slope lower than the In Situ data. The report CERES 20 years 1 did look for the AGH flat line signal and found it in the “Clear Sky” LW (long wave) data but nowhere else (1 of four graphs).
Two of these reports put a lot of emphasis on clouds decrease (new to me). (Decrease in cloud cover increased surface exposure to suns radiation and heats the earth more.) The report CERES 20 years 2 also found correlation to Water vapor, trace gases, surface albedo, as well as clouds. Both of these reports express doubts on the current understanding of climate change and make recommendation to further understand what is causing cloud cover to change.
While this new data is interesting and worth following up on it is still very noisy (low R^2) and another 20 years would be better.I recognize that AGH global warming would promote other forcing including reduce clouds, reduced ice, reduced snow cover all exposing more surface to direct rays of the sun. Other man-made albedo changes can do the same thing. Here are two examples that may relate to the new papers.
Let’s start with the “heat island effect”, UHI. While the global warming from UHI’s lower albedo is small it does have observable effect on cloud formation, CERES 20 years 2.
“Figure 3
Attribution of Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System net top-of-atmosphere flux trends for 2002/09–2020/03. Shown are trends due to changes in (a) clouds, (b) surface, (c) temperature, (d) combined contributions from trace gases and solar irradiance (labeled as “Other”), (e) water vapor, and (f) aerosols. Positive trends correspond to heat gain and negative to loss. Stippled areas fall outside the 5%–95% confidence interval. Numbers in parentheses correspond to global trends and 5%–95% confidence intervals in W m−2 decade−1.”
When air rises from a UHI it is hotter than the incoming air without a source of moisture to saturate it; so, it leaves as dryer air. This air generally rises and moves to the east. Look at figure 3 (a) and see the lower cloud formation change off the coast of east USA, Tokyo, and downwind Europe. With time (1880-2021) the UHI does not get hotter but it gets bigger thus the volume of low moisture air gets bigger. I am not going to argue the significances of the albedo part of UHI other than to recognize it is lower than 1 W/m^2 but not zero. What UHI is not given credit for is what happens downwind to this hotter low humidity air. Does it cool the ocean, reduce the snow line, melt ice, or reduce the cloud cover down wind, since this hot dry air should rise the clouds should be the first target. I can also see a chain of events: Hot low moisture air (from AGHs, UHIs, or other land changes) rises and go downwind, reduces cloud cover, over water the sun heats the ocean, the hotter ocean currents circulate to the poles, and melt some ice.
I’ll leave the quantification of this observable (figure 3 (a)) new (to me) correlation to others. A new UHI contribution to GW will be the albedo effect + the lower cloud effect + any other.
Second, is land use changes such as forest to crop or pasture land or grass land to crop land. Albedo decrease in grass land to crop land change is documented in Grass to Crops. Forest to crop land change increase in albedo is documented in Forest to Crops. Over 205 years the paper Global albedo study calculates that all the pluses and minuses add up to little change in albedo from land use changes. It is assumed (by me) that decreased albedo of a parcel of land means an increase in temperature and vs/vs. The study Amazonia Forest to Crops shows that increasing albedo does not always mean cooler temps. This report shows that when rain forest was replaced with crop land that the temperature increased, the rain decreased, and the cloud cover decreased. The Figure 3 (e) above shows bright red spot for “water vapor” (I assume that is change to lower humidity) in Amazonia. This is not an uncommon effect from replacing forest with crop or pasture land. The report Forest study observes that forests vs crop/pasture conversion gets warmer as the conversion gets south of 35’N latitude.
This unintuitive (to me) observation that an increase in albedo does not always result in a decrease in temperature can be explained by moisture. The resulting temperature depends on a constant enthalpy (total heat in the air= gases + moisture). Enthalpy is usually determined by the albedo (higher albedo lower enthalpy vs/vs); therefore, land exposed to the same albedo (enthalpy) can have a wide range of temperatures depending on the moisture (relative humidity) of the albedo (enthalpy). This relationship has been captured in a psychrometric chart,(Sorry for the poor quality of this chart)
Example of a rain forest conversion to crop land: Start out with a rain forest at 25’C (bottom scale) go straight up to 90% humidity curve; this is our hot humid rain forest. If we convert this rain forest to crop land with a higher albedo, we move to a lower enthalpy line (anyone will do). The constant enthalpy line run diagonal (upper left to lower right). If the moisture is maintained at 90% the temperature will drop as expected for the higher albedo. Following the same enthalpy line (same albedo) go to a lower humidity curve that may result (and does in Amazonia) and one will see the temperature will increase (even to above the starting rainforest temperature at very low humidity).
A concern is how NASA and the IPCC pair surface temperature data with relative humidity and albedo. The three all connected in enthalpy. A misunderstanding of climate change could occur if Amazonian (rain forest to crop land) high albedo, high temperature, lower humidity type data was included in correlations with Canadian (forest to crop land) lower albedo, cooler temperatures, high humidity, type data. Does anyone know if this has been looked at? The report CERES 20 years 1 has looked at ocean enthalpy correlations. I have not seen any land enthalpy data. -
David Hawk at 01:16 AM on 15 December 2021How machine learning holds a key to combating misinformation
There seem to be two important points in the posted statement. The first favors the capability of machine learning. The second illustrates a belief in the value of more efficient fact-checking, and that such will better expose wrongful information, thus making the world a better place. I would suggest two books for review, one for each topic of false hope in the science that brought us climate change.
1. Shockwave Rider, John Brunner, 1975: somewhat of a bible for hackers that used its terminology for their purposes. Brunner makes an important distinction between artificial (machine-based) intelligence and natural (nature-based) intelligence. With this he outlines an eternal weakness always found in machine-based anything as it is presented in science fiction, thus carrying over into presentation of science fact.
2. On Bullshit - Harry Frankfurt, Princeton U Press. 2005: A philosophical doorway into why fact-checkers are to become irrelevant to general public discourse. Speakers/writers that intend to lie once cared about lies and how best to cover their basis up, as in science articles with weakness but purpose, yet need to be withdrawn. That has now changed. Such personalities with immortality complexes now work to create systems of lies. These are tightly bound into bundles where concern with the true and false are replaced by emphasis on anything it takes to persuade the listener/reader. You will see why this became one of Princeton U Press's best selling books. It explains why politics has changed, and why we should avoid problem solvers that act like German leadershp of the 1930s. They came to ban discussion of "politics, off topic comments and ad hominem" statements, or anything else that questioned their assumed basis for their statements of the central problem of the society supporting them. (My keynote lecture to the annual meeting of the Leibnitz Society in 2007 was on this use of a qualifier in England that year, and no longer in Germany. Now its widely used in the US.)
Yes, discourse on the when, why and where of climate change has evolvled since the work of Eunice Foot in 1856, but those are noise factors, not a basis for the essential change that humans over 20 years old are not prepared to make.
This comes from my 1979 book at the University of Pennsylvania, then its 2019 reprint "Too Early, Too Late, Now what?. That book illustrated why politics are key, where a political point of view defines your relations with nature, each other and self. The two year study it was based on, with 20 companies and 6 govenments, illustrated why analaytic politics would make regulation of climate change irrelevant to the problematique; the system of problems, not a narrow problem from whatever you decided to analyze that day.
Moderator Response:[BL] Repeated posting about the same book from the 1970s deleted. You have been warned about this before.
-
Nick Palmer at 00:33 AM on 15 December 2021How machine learning holds a key to combating misinformation
John - you wrote "It turns out these were the least common forms of climate misinformation. Instead, the largest category of climate misinformation was attacks on scientists and on climate science itself."
I agree that smearing the science and scientists has indeed been the predominant form of denial/pathological scepticism for a long time - it's what I've found from my own experience tackling the toughest exponents, however I think the mechanisms they use to achieve the 'smear' are still the old tried and true 'Skepsci' favourites - Soon's 'it's the Sun', Climategate, Briffa's Yamal tree rings, Curry's 'uncertainty monster', Mann's hockey stick PCA's, Svensmark's cosmic rays, Morner on sea level etc. etc., although the originators are not nowadays mentioned by name so often these days - they don't need to be - their 'sceptical' objections have become established as canon in the denialosphere. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:26 PM on 14 December 2021How machine learning holds a key to combating misinformation
Machine learning is only as good as the annotation of the examples. I doubt that the team of "climate literate" volunteers can do that objectively. Do they really understand climate policy? The lackluster recall for the "climate solutions won't work" suggests another problem: drift. ML performance is also determined by the sample set and using the 1998 to 2020 corpus, because that's the data you happen to have gathered, causes a problem.
Examples of contrarian climate solution claims from 1998 are not similar to examples from 2020 (and vice versa) because climate solutions have changed too much. A related problem shows up in the further analysis of contrarian funding. Cato, as just one example, has changed a lot from the days of climate contrarian Pat Michaels to the current climate policy writings which appear to be headed by a lawyer writing about policy. The bulk of the paper appears to be a rehash of those old grievances, and not a precise critique of what is actually wrong about so-called contrarian policy.
-
John Hartz at 03:44 AM on 13 December 2021Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Suggested supplemental reading:
Nuclear Fusion: Why the Race to Harness the Power of the Sun Just Sped Up
Fusion companies have now raised $2.3 billion in investment, believing they can begin producing unlimited amounts of zero emissions energy by the 2030s.
by Tom Wilson & Ian Bott, Financial Times/Inside Climate News, Dec 8, 2021
-
sekwisniewski at 21:46 PM on 12 December 2021Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
EU scientists at JRC examined nuclear from the do-no-significant-harm perspective for the purpose of including it in preferential, environment-oriented financing and I found it a good, comprehensive overview that may answer OP's questions.
"Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)"
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125953
Moderator Response:[PS] Link fixed. Please learn how to make links yourself with the comment editor.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:32 AM on 11 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
swampfoxh @22,
I wish you the best of luck in getting a helpful change of mind from policymakers by delivering "new information" or "a different presentation of information" to policymakers (decisionsmakers).
My observation is that the attitude (beliefs and interests) of voters and the resulting "set of elected policymakers" matters far more than "the provision of information to policymakers".
The threat of misleading marketing attacks on a political competitor can powerfully influence the choices they make (the power of misleading marketing is real and significant).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:09 AM on 11 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
swampfoxh @22,
Under the items found by a search on SkS for "agriculture" you will see a November 9, 2021 item by Evan called "The Keeling Curve: Part III".
That article appears to contain a lot of information that is similar to the points you have shared regarding agricultural climate change impacts.
I recalled reading about the topic recently. And I suspected it had been here on SkS. But I needed to look a little to find it.
I look forward to seeing what new information the study you are referring to provides.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:31 AM on 11 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
swampfoxh @22,
Thank you for clarifying that "I noticed that, so far, no one on this thread has commented on the present number of domestic bovines ..." was not meant to be what it can be understood to imply.
I am certainly not the most familiar or best able to point you to what you are seeking on this website. But as a regular reader/user of SkS I am aware of the following which may help you find what you are looking for.
- Check out this SkS item from 2020 "A Skeptical Science member's path to an experiment on carbon sequestration"
- Use the Search feature on SkS to search for "agriculture". There are 12 related "Skeptic Arguments" found, and many Blog Posts, that may interest you.
- Searching for "livestock" finds 3 related "Skeptic Arguments" (a subset of the 12)
- A variety of other searches like "cattle" also find items that may be of interest that are not found by the "agriculture" or "livestock".
- You can also use the "Search" feature on SkS and search for RedBaron, the individual the first article I pointed to is about, expanding the search to include "Comments".
My primary interest is increased awareness and improved understanding of what is harmful and understand how to help reduce harm done and develop sustainable improvements for global humanity. I regularly visit Skeptical Science to learn. I occasionally comment when the situation motivates me.
Climate change impacts caused by the developed and developing ways of living are likely the most significant impediment to achieving sustainable improvements of living conditions for humans, particularly sustainable improvements of conditions for the least fortunate.
Skeptical Science is very informative on the matters it focuses on which are well described by the website header statement: "Our mission is simple: debunk climate misinformation by presenting peer-reviewed science and explaining the techniques of science denial."
The science denial aspects of this website are particularly helpful. They help me appreciate the diversity of denial and misrepresentation that happen when people resist learning more about something that contradicts their developed interests and beliefs. And the developed socioeconomic-political systems have developed a lot of "interests and beliefs" that need to be robustly contradicted and corrected by increased awareness and improved understanding.
-
MA Rodger at 08:48 AM on 10 December 2021It's albedo
blaisct @104,
The paper you obtain the Figure 3 from is Goode et al (2021), the latest in a series of papers (spawned by Flatte et al 1992) which have been trying to establish Earthshine measurements as a useful data source. There is a distinct lack of rigour within the work as well as a worrying denialistic flavour to it. The paper linked in the moderator Response @104, Dübal & Vahrenholt (2014) suffers from similar problems but does use the latest CERES data which Goode et al fails to use.
As for the cause of the reduced cloud cover identified within the CERES data, it is a known feedback from AGW. This Yale E360 article from 2020 explains. -
swampfoxh at 05:34 AM on 10 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
One Planet...
No, I was not looking for anyone to introduce the topic of animal agriculture in this particular thread, I was inquiring if this Skep/Sci forum had a body of materials on the topic that I might not, previously, have noticed. I don't usually comment on Skep/Sci as I am pretty well tied up as a climate science writer and am forced to look at a lot of materials to support my offerings/editorials, etc. The Human Development Report (2020) has not struck me as "on point" to the matter of Global Warming/GGEs, ecological change etc etc. That's just my own two cents worth. If my initial comment, above, has generated all of this conversation, my apologies for taking up y'all's time. I will, however, be sure Skep/Sci gets a copy of the first published study I referred to, above. I think it will be quite a useful piece of work in the hands of our decisionmakers.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:46 AM on 10 December 2021Gerrymandering is a climate problem
nigelj,
Many sources (potentially hundreds) confirm the understanding you present, that the richest portion of the global population is significantly higher harmfully impacting per-person than people who are less wealthy.
But it is important to understand that there is a differentiation within any "general group". Some of the richest, but likely not the majority, strive to live less harmfully than their peers, and less harmfully than those who are less wealthy, even though it admittedly is "a competitive disadvantage in the competition for perceptions of superiority" for them to do that (people like Al Gore can have lower impressions of wealth than their peers because of their choice to try to have less harmful impact).
The same can be said about the importance of differentiating within Republicans (some like Liz Cheney stand out positively, and many Republicans who have recently left politics, like Jeff Flake, stand out tragically), and Democrats (some like Joe Manchin stand out negatively).
My understanding is that there are harmful over-consuming people in almost every nation on the planet (a few Island nations and places like Bhutan may be exceptions to that). So it is even incorrect to target a nation or region of a nation or to excuse everyone in a low impacting region. The harmfully selfish deserve to be the targets. The more harmfully wealthy and powerful a person is the bigger a target for correction they deserve to be. And diplomacy and gentle cajoling are unlikely to influence the wealthiest and most powerful members of the harmfully selfish group. Reducing their ability to maintain their developed perceptions of superiority, with peer penalties like sanctions, are required to get them to be less harmful (revolutionary actions by the less fortunate has a history of not really working out as sustainable improvements and usually causes massive harm to the poorest.)
What can be pointed out is the total harmful impact of the harmfully selfish in any group or region or nation for comparison to other groups, always keeping in mind that the Total Group Impact is not equally attributable to its members. The highest harming portion of any group needs to be targeted for correction by the portion of that group that is able to effectively penalize them, because the threat of penalty can sometimes be enough to get the more harmful people to "learn to change their mind."
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:41 AM on 10 December 2021Gerrymandering is a climate problem
swampfoxh @4,
I did not say the wealthy were harmful. But, to be blunt, someone making-up that interpretation is understandable (making-up stuff is the refuge of those who resist learning).
I do say the wealthy need to be required to prove they deserve their status by being leaders, providing examples of living more sustainably and less harmfully than others who would be expected to aspire to be like the Leaders or develop to be superior to the current Leaders. Suggestions?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:24 AM on 10 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
Rabbit meat having only 2 g of fat per 100 g of meat sounds like an excellent meat as long as the consumer is aware that they are getting very little fat with the meat. The low fat content means that even if all of it is harmful fat there is less harmful fat than many other meat options.
The following reasonably reliable resource (Canada's Government of Northwest Territories) would appear to contradict the claim that rabbit meat is a poor source of nutrition.
And this Washington Post article "From fish to bacon, a ranking of animal proteins in order of healthfulness" presents the case for the benefits of low fat content in meat (get healthier fat from other sources or eat the meat with lower content of harmful fat and higher content of helpful fats.
An important point is that it is wasteful to eat more than 4 oz (100 g) of meat in a meal. Many sources indicate that even a high performance athlete's digestion will only extract the protein benefit from 4 oz of meat. Many sources indicate the body will only process 30 g of protein from a meal. And 3 to 4 oz servings of meat contain 30 g of protein (100 g of rabbit meat contains 30 g of protein).
Also, nutrition Guides call a meat serving 3 oz. And, aligned with what swampfoxh points out, the Washington Post article refers to research indicating that "... consuming just two to four servings per month of fish and two to four servings per month of poultry can provide benefits ...".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:43 AM on 9 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
swampfoxh @20,
I noticed how this thread's content has primarily been responses to your initial comments.
Now you claim that your addition of "animal agriculture" should have been introduced by someone else for some reason ... what reason would that be?
My interest in the promotion of the pursuit of all humanity living sustainably as a part of the robust diversity of life on this planet includes concerns about grain production as well as bovines. Specifically, my concern would be having all the collective impacts be within safe global impact boundaries (refer to the Planetary Boundaries understanding which is aligned with the SDGS and is presented as part of the understanding presented in the 2020 Human Development Report).
btw, Tongue-in-cheek, but semi-seriously: Outlawing any harmful impacts from the actions of the wealthiest and most powerful 1% of the global population would be more beneficial than "outlawing industrial agriculture". And I would support "industrial agriculture" that is more aligned with achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and limiting impacts exceeding Planetary Boundaries than "non-industrial agriculture" that is less aligned with achieving those objectives. In other words, I do not believe new technological developments are "de facto improvements" but new technological developments can be sustainable improvements.
-
blaisct at 07:22 AM on 9 December 2021It's albedo
The data presented earlier in this thread has been updated in document Earth's Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine
Figure 3
“Earthshine annual mean albedo anomalies 1998–2017 expressed as reflected flux in . The error bars are shown as a shaded gray area and the dashed black line shows a linear fit to the Earthshine annual reflected energy flux anomalies. The CERES annual albedo anomalies 2001–2019, also expressed in , are shown in blue. A linear fit to the CERES data (2001–2019) is shown with a blue dashed line. Average error bars for CERES measurements are of the order of 0.2 .”
This new data shows a good agreement between earth shine data and CERES satellite data one can also add the earth’s temperature for this time to this graph and fined good agreement with the albedo (+0.4'C or 0.8 W/m^2 in 20 years). The implication is that the earths albedo change can account for all the temperature rise over this time period. The document suggest that this albedo change was possibly due to reduced cloud cover. Leaving the question what caused the reduced cloud cover.Moderator Response:[BL] edited picture for width, and shortened link, to preserve page formatting.
Your posting history here has previously required frequent intervention from moderators. Please read the Comments Policy and make more effort to abide by it.
Your reference to "data presented earlier in this thread" is too vague and meaningless.
Your reference to a title "Earth's Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine" is insufficient to allow readers to easily find the source of your information.
There is a possibly more recent paper here: Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020 that covers a similar topic, and this paper has been discussed at another blogs such as the following:
No, it probably isn’t mostly due to changes in clouds!
The implication is that your "implication is that the earths albedo change can account for all the temperature rise over this time period" is lacking evidence and is mostly likely wrong.
-
nigelj at 06:28 AM on 9 December 2021Gerrymandering is a climate problem
Swampfox @4 I couldn't find anything analysing whether democrats or republicans buy more electric cars.
Wealthy people do have more carbon emissions than lower income people. There are numerous studies for example:
"World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%"
"The statistics are startling. The world's wealthiest 10% were responsible for around half of global emissions in 2015, according to a 2020 report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute"
However I dont see any point demonising / blaming the rich, and that won't change behaviour. It needs a bit of diplomacy and gentle cajoling.
Moderator Response:[BL] Shortened links that were causing page formatting issues.
-
nigelj at 06:10 AM on 9 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
Swampfox @6 & 7. Thanks. You are making more sense now and it does raise questions about whether rabbit farming is of any real use. Just dont make sweeping claims that rabbit meat is all protein when there is some fat, although a quick check shows its very little about 2 grams per 100 grams. You are right most appears to be in the brain, and I can assure you under no circumstances apart from extreme starvation would I be eating rabbit brains.
-
swampfoxh at 06:04 AM on 9 December 2021Gerrymandering is a climate problem
nigelj
As you like. Not being a Democrat or a Republican, I've no skin in this game. But looking up the "far more likely to buy elctric cars" is different than the evidence that the actual buyers fall into a social-economic category comfortably dominated by Republicans. Of course, that proves nothing with the actual polling question addressing political affiliation, which as I look back on it...didn't. So you have my mea culpa.
I don't see a connection between wealth and being harmful. I do see a connection between ignorance and bad conduct, including picking up your own trash and buying McDonald's hamburgers, etc. I think it risky to bottle up the "rich" into a handy "controlling people" group and flail at them until the masses turn and smite them, because since they are much less than 1% of the global population their "climate footprint" can't amount to much. "Climate footprint", seems to me, has nothing to do with socio-economic status, or power status (for that matter). It's behavior.
-
swampfoxh at 05:34 AM on 9 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
nigel
One more quick thing. As you probably are aware, an animal, generally, just won't eat anything. Certainly, coprophagic organisms like domestic dogs are fairly happy eating other dog's excrement, but even here, not all dogs are "big" on foreign excrement and very few eat their own waste. Nature seems to have a sort of guard against an animal eating a certain substance...and some say such discrimination is a survival instinct.
Your particular experience with rabbit meat is one shared by many people...yuck! To speculate, to develop a hypothesis, to investigate the evidence and to formulate a testable theory about a "natural" safeguard against a "food" that a particular organism should consume or avoid could be a key to longevity. Why do some "turtles" live so long. Why do humans live much shorter lives than their telomeres might otherwise predict? Food (ingestion) choices? Is "rabbit" really unfit for human consumption?
-
swampfoxh at 05:14 AM on 9 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
nigelj
The 5.6 grams of fat per 100g of "rabbit" is a value arrived at by the rabbit-raising industry. The location of the majority of this "fat" is the rabbit's brain, which is not likely to be served to humans as "food". Yes, I think it unlikely that First World countries would "do a lot of rabbit", but these critters are still "rodentia", and unlikely to gain any more market value than they ever have in First World countries. Still, the risk of protein poisoning from rabbit meat is a caution most nutritionists voice. This might mean rabbits are best left as the nuisance in nature, they and their relatives, the rats, have been since the dawn of civilization.
Since I don't have time, at present, to go out and look for the peer reviewed source you and SkepSci require for conducting dialog on this site, I withdraw my allegations as "un-evidenced".
Regards,
Swampy
-
swampfoxh at 04:45 AM on 9 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
I noticed that, so far, no one on this thread has commented on the present number of domestic bovines (1.544 billion, world-wide) that, lined up, nose to tail, would wrap the planet at the equator...(along with humans)... another hundred times.
Is industrial animal agriculture off the table of discussion and I'm just not aware that contributors to this site consider this topic of little concern? I am a participant in a peer review of a new study on animal agriculture's impact on the climate. It is, frankly, a shocking piece of work. The peer reviewed references supporting the study are thirty-five pages long. Essentially, industrial animal agriculture and its products are shown to be responsible for 34% of GGEs and another average 33% of at least eight crucial environmental problems: desertification, deforestation, europhication/contamination of fresh and salt waters, wild animal and plant habitat loss, species extinction, risky land use conversions, a number of human health maladies (beyond heart, artery and genetic malformation), outsized fresh water use... and refrigeration/freezer energy usage/transport, storage, waste disposal and spoilage.
Curiously, the outlawing of industrial animal agriculture would be the shortest route to a significantly measurable reversal of adverse climate change, because conversion to a plant based diet could be made simultaneous to the elimination of animal agriculture...making the transition essentially painless, (some may say: tasteless).
We expect the study to be published in mid-spring 2022. Until then, is this topic worth an in-depth discussion on this site?
-
nigelj at 16:30 PM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
swampfoxh
Yes cutting the human population from 8 billion to 1.5 billion would reduce environmental prolems quite substantially (all other things being equal) but I dont see how we can do that quickly. You can't line people up and shoot them, and enforced one child policies can have unintended side effects and will never happen in democracies.
Western countries already have easily available contraception and most people are choosing to have relatively small families, about two children. The high income people that consume most and have the biggest environmental impacts are actually those who are already having the smallest families. Bear that it mind. Low income people around the world arent causing many CO2 emissions, but they do contribute to conversion of natural wilderness to farmland and the consequent loss of biodiversity.
A fertility rate of two children is slightly below replacement rate and will cause population to fall to two billion people eventually probably about five centuries time. A fertility rate of 1.5 over the next decade or so will take it to two billion people by about the year 2300 (I played with this on a population calculator).
The trouble is most people like to have two children minimum for obvious reasons and it may be difficult to persuade them to have just one.
Because our options to reduce population are limited in the short term, we have to think about per capita consumption and like OPOF says its the high income group that do consume the most. However shifting that wont be easy. I really get a bit pessimistic about this.
The issue isn't really about population versus consumption either. Its about both issues and how we can realstically move the dial on each one. Its useful to think about it mathematically:
"I = (PAT) is the mathematical notation of a formula put forward to describe the impact of human activity on the environment."
"I = P × A x T"
"The expression equates human impact on the environment to a function of three factors: population (P), affluence (A) and technology (T). It is similar in form to the Kaya identity which applies specifically to emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide."
-
nigelj at 15:59 PM on 8 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
Swampfox
"Rabbit meat is all protein."
Wrong. You cite no specific source for this with an internet link. I gave you sources with links stating rabbit meant contains fat and one was a nutrionist. Other souces say much the same. Rabbit contains approximately 5.6 grams fat per 100 g about the same as a lean cut of chicken or pork.
Yes the human body needs fats and more than a rabbit can provide alone, but nobody is suggesting people in a place like America live on a diet exclusively of rabbit. You would eat other more fat rich meats as well, or get fats from other sources. Although to be honest I tried rabbit once and didn't much like it.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:01 PM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
swampfoxh,
Again (ad nausium, but I will repeat as required, though not on every comment string), the population problem is being addressed by the pursuit of understood helpful objectives like the Sustainable Development Goals (and the Millennium Development Goals that preceded them). If that effort can be improved, By All Means Provide Suggestions (read the 2020 Human Development Report to better understand some of what is already understandable and suggested).
The problem that is not being effectively addressed is the harmfully over-developed, and continuing to grow, consumptive ways of living "enjoyed" by a small portion of the global population setting bad examples for others to aspire to develop to match or exceed. Suggestions - other than deflecting to claim that the problem is the total human population?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:44 PM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
swampfoxh,
I share the concern that humans need to adapt to live as sustainable members of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet. And I focus on the need for the portion of the population that is percieved to be more advanced or superior to be living in the most sustainable ways, setting the best examples for others to aspire to (and others can be expected to be tempted to aspire to develop to live like those who are perceived to be superior).
I believe the number of domestic cats and dogs in the USA is even larger than the massive number you have presented.
My starting point was the AVMA Pet ownership statistics based on the 2017-2018 U.S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook. That source says 58 million cats (plus 76 million dogs). And that would be a "low number" because it excludes feral domesticated cats and pets that don't get taken to vets.
Other sources like Petpedia indicate the USA feral cat population is an additional 70 million cats.
But the 2 million "Pet Horses" in the USA are also a significant concern. I am not sure of the comparative levels of impacts between Cats, Dogs and Horses. But I sense that mass ratio is a reasonable basis.
The average cat is 10 lbs (range of 5 to 25 lbs). Medium size dogs weigh 20 to 60 lbs. A horse weighs 900 to 2000 lbs. So pet horses appear to be the Biggest part of the Pet Problem in the USA (back to the richest being the biggest problem).
-
swampfoxh at 13:33 PM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Let's take another view of the size of the human biomass. If we lined up everybody, shoulder to shoulder at the Equator, we could wrap the human race around the planet about a hundred times. Another view of the current global presence of 1.544 billion "cows" wrapped around the Earth at the Equator would be another hundred times. This combined biomass is our main problem. Suggestions?
-
swampfoxh at 13:25 PM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
A similar issue to the dog and cat population problem is the human population problem. There are almost 8 billion people in the world. The planet's estimated carrying capacity, considering what we have already used up, is about 1.5 billion at current rates of consumption and current volumes of human carbon footprints. This will have to be addressed, sooner than later. Sooner is a painful short time from today. Suggestions?
-
swampfoxh at 13:10 PM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Semantics again. I use the dictionary definition of "radical" to mean "fundamental". Others use radical to mean "wild eyed whacko" or something similar. Some of us environmentalists strive to deal with the fundamental life services of the environment. We adhere to the notion that the environment is not easily manipulated by humans...that we should adapt to the "natural" environment in which we find ourselves, like other animals do, and stop altering "nature".
As to cats and dogs. There are 63 million of these critters in the US alone. A reduction of at least 62 million would be a prudent aid to environmental wellbeing.
-
swampfoxh at 12:49 PM on 8 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
Perhaps it is my use of the term: nutritional value. While protein can be called a nutrient because it is used by the body to build muscle structures, human bodies need fats for energy production. Lipids are 1 of 6 essential components in animal life forms and are essential in an every-day diet. Protein is needed, of course, but in infrequent amounts. Animal organisms can do without protein for extended periods (like starving prisoners of war) but fat intake is a daily dietary need for humans.
-
swampfoxh at 12:34 PM on 8 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
Go to literature not published by commercial agricultural interests. Rabbit meat is all protein. Routine periodic consumption of this animal causes protein poisoning which can and eventually will kill you. In regions of the world where food options are scarce, rabbit is a consumption item because it is plentiful since rabbits breed like rabbits (humor intended). Nutritionists in First World countries do not recommend eating rabbit because they provide no fat, which is required in the human diet. Rats are rodents, of course, as are rabbits. We should not eat rats either, for much the same reason: protein poisoning.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:07 PM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
scaddenp,
I wasn't comprehensive or specific enough in my earlier responses.
There is probably a lack of research findings regarding bird kills by off-shore wind turbines because the evidence quickly disappears and there are very few observers of the turbines seeing it happen. It would probably take some serious government interest and investment to set up a rigorous methodology for doing the research into that issue.
This is something that would potentially be researched if there are declines in bird populations that are serious enough to attact significant global government research funding (like so many other harmful developments, investigate after it is too late). However, the on-shore evidence and understanding of bird kills should be expected to extend to off-shore locations where the evidence almost immediately disappears.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:28 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
scaddenp,
More specifics regarding the negative impacts of off-shore wind turbine installations may not be avaialable because the industry promoting and building them is affected by the legacy of the developed economic game that encourages evasion of rigorous investigation of potential harm.
Government money should be flooding into better understand the potential harm of all new approved developments and all the already developed stuff. But that is not popular or profitable.
There are very few instances of sustained government leadership that has acted in helpful, but economically unpopular and unprofitable, ways. That explains any lack of investigation and reporting of harm and potential harm. There will likley be a lot learned about the harm done by the most popular and most profitable (lowest cost) actions attempting to address the climate change problem, not just the later learning of negative impacts of off-shore wind turbines.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:18 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
scaddenp,
Regarding bird kills, the book "Rebuilding Earth" makes reference to the September 6, 2014 article in The Treehugger by Michael Graham Richard, with the most recent update of the article (Oct 23, 2020) here
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:48 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
nigelj @8,
Turbines over water immediately adjacent to the consumers they power would work, provided that bird migration patterns and marine impacts are avoided. More remote power generation to overcome the delivery losses from remote power generation produces more impact, unless it is done to avoid marine and avian (or any other negative) impacts.
Having to do more or pay more to avoid harmful impacts is "correct economics". Moving a harmful problem away from human sense or thought, by distance or into the future, is simply unethical no matter how much more popular or profitable that may appear to be.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:40 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
scaddenp,
Many sources address the bird kills by talll buildings.
This CNN report is only one of many on the subject.
The major concern is buildings lit up at night. But, as mentioned in the article, daytime bird strikes can also happen because of reflective glass covering a building or plants next to windows fooling the birds.
-
nigelj at 06:00 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
OPOF fair points, but putting wind turbines offshore might still be better overall, where its practically feasible from an electricity supply perspective. Its likely going to reduce bird strike problems, and would definitely reduce insect strike problems, and does virtually eliminate the visual problem. Offshore wind farms do not seem to have too many negative impacts on ocean ecosystems. Refer:
www.dw.com/en/how-do-offshore-wind-farms-affect-ocean-ecosystems/a-40969339
-
scaddenp at 05:49 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Does the book cite research to back the problem of tall structures on bird routes? Can you give me the cites please? I would say outright that it is over-generalization and certainly doesnt bother all species.
This 2021 literature review doesnt seem to find any insurmountable problems but does emphasize the importance of planning and mitigation.
-
nigelj at 05:43 AM on 8 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
Swampfox could you please provide proof of your assertion that rabbit meat contains low nutritional value for humans, because 1) it defies basic commonsense and 2) a quick google search shows a vast quantity of credible publications stating rabbit meat has a particularly high nutritional value for humans. The first three hits are below:
www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/22711.pdf
www.livestrong.com/article/342037-nutrition-in-rabbit-meat/
foodstruct.com/compare/rabbit-meat-vs-chicken-meat
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:29 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
nigelj,
Teresa Coady's book I referred to also points out that tall structures along any migratory bird route is a problem, even off-shore. In addition, marine impacts of off-shore human developments also need proper consideration. Otherwise, putting wind turbines off-shore is just another harmful development akin to "moving coal power plants out of the city" which is the UnSolution of "Problem moved away - perhaps even being more harmful but out of sight so Okay?"
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:16 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
nigelj,
The term "radical environmentalist" is problematic. It can mean anything. I would support the "radical environmentalists" being the ones deciding what happens if they are "radical" by including "Social" considerations in their pursuit of increased awareness and improved understanding of what is going on and the application of their learning to pursue the end of social and environmental harm done by human developments and make amends for harms that have already been caused.
I agree that people should be concerned about the harmful impacts of human development, including harm done to birds.
But the focus of that bird concern deserves to be on buildings that are more than, say, 6 stories tall. There are plenty of easy to access resources explaining that tall buildings kill lots of birds, especially the glass covered ones, especially if they have inside lights on at night. It is likely that a tall building kills more birds than an equally tall wind turbine. So it may be that it would be less harmful for tall buildings to be replaced by 6 storey buildings with wind turbines above them (and the total harmful impacts of building and operating shorter buildings would also be less than the impacts of the tall buildings - "Rebuilding Earth" by Canadian Architect Teresa Coady, is the most recent item I have read that includes this type of information as part of the understanding of how to address the climate change problem and many other problems caused by human development).
But the biggest killers of birds are domesticated cats. And that relates to a "population problem of concern" than can and should be acted on - Reducing the harm of pet over-population. Some domesticated animals are helpful. But many pets cause harm and increase demand for resources. Reducing the harmful impacts and consumption caused by unnecessary Pets could be a helpful step while the human population problem is brought under control by the continued pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals through the next 40 to 50 years (peak global population may occur in the 2060s).
But even if the human population problem is controlled, the problem of harmful over-consumption by the highest consuming and most harmful portion of the population could persist, even becoming a bigger problem as the total global population declines.
So the real problem/solution is reducing the harmful over-consumption that some humans have developed a liking for. Free choice to believe and do whatever a person wants is not a solution. It is a problem. Reduced the energy demand will reduce the amount of harm done by "required" power generation systems like wind turbines.
The wealthiest are the ones who can afford to live the lowest energy consumption lifestyle. The required global fundamental understanding needs to be that the wealthiest and most powerful should be required to prove they deserve to be wealthier and more powerful by living with less benefit from harmful actions than those who are less fortunate. Wealthier or more powerful people should not be Freer to Choose to be more harmful, even if they can afford it or abuse their power and influence to get away with it.
That "Winning by harmful pursuers of status" is an Age Old Problem. But problems can only be solved by increased awareness of the actual fundamental problem.
Radical environmentalists could be the solution, depending on what type of person that term actually refers to.
-
swampfoxh at 23:55 PM on 7 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
I wasn't sure where to start with the above essay, so much of it is grasping for straws. 0.6% of the land necessary to erect solar power grids, then employed for the reasons listed, is itself a discussion about nothing at all. We would be better off just planting trees on an equivalent area on the other side of town, or converting cattle grazing land to riparian. As far as raising rabbit goes, current nutritional science has proven that eating rabbit is equivalent to eating rats, insofar as nutrient values are concerned. There are no nutrient values in rabbit meat...not for humans. Regarding bee habits, we beekeepers know that bees enjoy sunshine and love the floodplain of rivers as forage areas, although they will harvest the nectar of flowering trees, especially tulipfera species which cannot grow under a solar panel. My apologies, I could go on about several other points made in this post, but my essay is long enough as it is. ...someone else's turn.
-
nigelj at 11:33 AM on 7 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Don't let radical environmentalists decide what electricity generation gets built, because nothing would get built. Solar power looks relatively benign environmentally. Wind turbines are more problematic because of the big visual footprint on hills that some people dont like, and they kill insects and some birds, lets not pretend otherwise. The solution is really to locate them offshore, something central governmnet should require by law, maybe 50% offshore and gradually increased from there.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:09 AM on 7 December 2021Book Review: Saving Us by Katharine Hayhoe
UniteHumankind @6,
I understand the intention, but yes, it is very silly. To have any validity, a poll must be taken on a representative sample. Many precautions enter in the rather complex selection process that allows for a representative sample. In your case, not only that is not the case, but you are even down to attempt overcoming a manipulation of the poll with a counter-manipulation maneuver. What validity can the poll have? Close enough to zero to be negligible.
Prev 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Next
