CDZ What I think I know about Global Warming/Climate Change

[flacaltenn]

Which BTW puts the US on the LOWEST emission scenario speculated by the IPCC reports since about 2005.

We've DONE our part.. WITHOUT massive global wealth redistribution or a domestic carbon tax.. No pants crapping 6 to 8 DEGF by 2100..

And according the IPCC version of the science, if America was the ONLY player, should put us a trajectory of flattening temp rates soon.. LOL..

Problem solved. End of discussion... Thread closed..

Just kidding about the thread close part...

 

[flacaltenn]

In the end though nuclear is not the solution.

So what is "the solution?"

Wind, solar, local energy production, or some other technology yet to be developed. As I said 1 mishap on average every 20 years involving an energy source that has harmful effects for periods measured in millennia should give a person pause don't you think?

So should we wait for this other technology to be developed? (Wind, solar and local energy production are obviously insufficient.)

P.S. Which do you consider to be a greater threat: Nuclear power or Global Warming?

Actually no. I already conceded that nuclear power is probably better than the non-renewable options. I just stated that nuclear is not a good long term solution. Not saying it's not usable in the interim.
As to renewable energy being insufficient. There are plenty of countries who are putting resources in renewable energy and for whom those sources are beginning to displace conventional energy production.

In the end though nuclear is not the solution.

So what is "the solution?"

Wind, solar, local energy production, or some other technology yet to be developed. As I said 1 mishap on average every 20 years involving an energy source that has harmful effects for periods measured in millennia should give a person pause don't you think?

So should we wait for this other technology to be developed? (Wind, solar and local energy production are obviously insufficient.)

P.S. Which do you consider to be a greater threat: Nuclear power or Global Warming?

Actually no. I already conceded that nuclear power is probably better than the non-renewable options. I just stated that nuclear is not a good long term solution. Not saying it's not usable in the interim.
As to renewable energy being insufficient. There are plenty of countries who are putting resources in renewable energy and for whom those sources are beginning to displace conventional energy production.

Solar is a DAYTIME peaking technology.. It "displaces" nothing for the other 16 hours on the clock. At 10PM in places like Cali, the DEMAND is 80% of the noon peak. So you NEED a primary generation capacity for those other 16 hours or when it rains, snows, gets cloudy..

Wind is even worse. It takes several DAYS off at a time. Even needs to be SHUT DOWN if it's TOO windy. It's even worse in predictability than solar. A utility can't call up a wind farm and contract for 40Mwatts for a week starting next Monday, so they can take down a Nat gas plant for maintenance.

Don't know WHY the public has latched on to the hype.. These are SUPPLEMENTS -- not ALTERNATIVES.

And if you FORCE them into grid at more than 10 or 20% of capacity, you're gonna be a net energy IMPORTER from some neighboring state or country that has a better designed generator capacity.. They are being INSTALLED because govts are FORCING them in thru $Bills in subsidies and energy credits. Like they forced a govt created market of curly que CFL bulbs onto a market that was heading for LEDs.. When's the last time you saw a CFL bulb for sale at the supermarket NOW???

 

[flacaltenn]

I see some weird web site Scandal: Germany Darkens…Blocks EU Bid To Collect (Embarrassing) ‘Energy Poverty’ Data! that looks like an attack site. Can't be relied on, but it plays the 'embarrassment' game

But I find some facts here: German wind output to increase in 2018

German wind output to increase in 2018
13 December 2018 by Craig Richard

Renewables are expected to cover 38% of gross electricity consumption in Germany in 2018, according to preliminary figures, up two percentage points from last year, with grid upgrades also on the horiz

So you skipped the REAL news about the failure of launching 'green" electricity because of questionable sources and launched right over to "windpowermonthly.com" for a straight story... Sad....

Renewables aren't just solar and wind.. It's includes hydro and a lot of "biomass" furnaces... (Read that -- burning garbage to save the planet).. And the numbers that advocates use (like in your link) is INSTALLED CAPACITY.. Solar and wind typically operate at 1/3 of their installed capacity because the sun only shines efficiently for about 8 a day (less in Germany) and the wind only blows on about 1/3 of days. The bragging numbers are not ACTUAL production..

So -- you being the "free market" kinda guy -- lemme tell you how this unfolds. For every MWatt of wind/solar that you put on grid -- you need an INSTANTANEOUS "back-up" generator like hydro or gas or nuclear or coal or you need to IMPORT that back-up from neighbors. So you're paying for TWICE the generation capacity that you actually need. And actually, that gas, hydro, coal, nuclear plant is really your PRIME generator, but the govt FORCES YOU to idle your plant when the wind decides to blow or the sun shines or the snow melts off the solar panels in winter.

So -- being a capitalist, you'll understand if investors don't WANT to put money into a mega nat gas plant that the government is only gonna allow to run about 60% of the time. While you have to pay for the same labor, maintenance costs.

Ever see a daily production for a 1st class offshore wind farm? These used to be available all over the web in the early 2000s and most have now been taken down to avoid embarrassment. This one is a Danish field that is in one of richest wind fields in the world... Keep in mind it's rated capacity is 600,000..

Wanna see German solar production in the wintertime?? LOL...

I have only seen tons of Wind farms in California and Washington

all over farm country and/or high desert locations

Not sure I trust all the web sites and partisan on sides of this issue debated on the web and in print

I've seen people involved attack NASA
that is guaranteed to lose me

So -- you're learning something about wind by LOOKING at a daily performance chart of how UNreliable it actually is.. Good...

Other thing you should learn is if you're troll me from GW to GW thread accusing me of dissing NASA when I never really did --- you need to HEAR FROM NASA who are not "GW activists in labcoats" on why they AGREE with me..

Former Astronauts & NASA Employees Letter on Global Warming

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years


Worked at NASA HQ -- Kennedy Space Center for 18 months. Preparations for Shuttle program... Never dissed NASA once... (except on the handball court at the gym).

 

[JBvM]

Work at NASA HQ -- Kennedy Space Center for 18 months. Preparations for Shuttle program... Never dissed NASA once...

diss them every time you deny what they say is part of a conspiracy

 

[flacaltenn]

Work at NASA HQ -- Kennedy Space Center for 18 months. Preparations for Shuttle program... Never dissed NASA once...

diss them every time you deny what they say is part of a conspiracy

Just like those top NASA scientists and astronauts did in the Letter you read above? Betcha ass I did.

Because that little cavern of snakes at NASA GISS even diss the very fleet of weather satellites that provide the most COMPLETE and accurate readings of the Earth's temperature. It's ironic because their name stands for Goddard Institute of SPACE science. And THESE GW zealots prefer reading thousands of land/sea based thermometers with sporadic coverage to the PRECISION paths and coverage of satellites.

Because they can COOK the temperature records going back to 1800 every day of week in order stir up fear and panic with the public and political leadership.

It's a lot more nuanced than you made it out to be when you were trolling me isn't it???

 

[JBvM]

Work at NASA HQ -- Kennedy Space Center for 18 months. Preparations for Shuttle program... Never dissed NASA once...

diss them every time you deny what they say is part of a conspiracy

Just like those top NASA scientists and astronauts did in the Letter you read above? Betcha ass I did.

Because that little cavern of snakes at NASA GISS even diss the very fleet of weather satellites that provide the most COMPLETE and accurate readings of the Earth's temperature. It's ironic because their name stands for Goddard Institute of SPACE science. And THESE GW zealots prefer reading thousands of land/sea based thermometers with sporadic coverage to the PRECISION paths and coverage of satellites.

Because they can COOK the temperature records going back to 1800 every day of week in order stir up fear and panic with the public and political leadership.

It's a lot more nuanced than you made it out to be when you were trolling me isn't it???

HA!

But come on, a grand conspiracy by scientists? To what end?

 

[flacaltenn]

Work at NASA HQ -- Kennedy Space Center for 18 months. Preparations for Shuttle program... Never dissed NASA once...

diss them every time you deny what they say is part of a conspiracy

Just like those top NASA scientists and astronauts did in the Letter you read above? Betcha ass I did.

Because that little cavern of snakes at NASA GISS even diss the very fleet of weather satellites that provide the most COMPLETE and accurate readings of the Earth's temperature. It's ironic because their name stands for Goddard Institute of SPACE science. And THESE GW zealots prefer reading thousands of land/sea based thermometers with sporadic coverage to the PRECISION paths and coverage of satellites.

Because they can COOK the temperature records going back to 1800 every day of week in order stir up fear and panic with the public and political leadership.

It's a lot more nuanced than you made it out to be when you were trolling me isn't it???

HA!

But come on, a grand conspiracy by scientists? To what end?

There's certainly SOME political motivation, but I don't rely on that. For instance the IPCC is first and foremost a political body, not a scientific organization. And most of their grand meetings end in a 3rd world begging contest for redistribution checks from the 1st world.

But there is no SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY "grand conspiracy".. There's just a handful of camera hog activists who RUN to the media with tremendous exaggerations of the ACTUAL science, so the media can use their IMAGINATIONS to paint the most awful, fearful interpretation of the Earth's "runaway dead planet" future. That's where the TV news does those graphics of the oceans boiling away or the media invents 2000 CURRENT calamities that are primarily driven by Global Warming.

Climate scientists don't like that. Again from Bray and von Storch 2012 to 2015 survey of the field, MAJORITY practicing in this field believe there's been considerable distortion of the science to the media and politicians.

You need help interpreting the "consensus" on THAT questions? Vast majority don't think the public has been given a CLEAR view of the GW science.. Believe it's been distorted. And that handful of zealots in the community are responsible for vast majority of misrepresentation of facts and what's known or settled.

 

[JBvM]

You need help interpreting the "consensus" on THAT questions? Vast majority don't think the public has been given a CLEAR view of the GW science.. Believe it's been distorted. And that handful of zealots in the community are responsible for vast majority of misrepresentation of facts and what's known or settled.

first time I've heard anyone go that route. congratulations. Is that a vast majority of scientists and climate scientists?

 

[JBvM]

NASA poses a question: Is the sun to blame?

Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Interesting links...
NASA says
On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.


The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:

 

[flacaltenn]

You need help interpreting the "consensus" on THAT questions? Vast majority don't think the public has been given a CLEAR view of the GW science.. Believe it's been distorted. And that handful of zealots in the community are responsible for vast majority of misrepresentation of facts and what's known or settled.

first time I've heard anyone go that route. congratulations. Is that a vast majority of scientists and climate scientists?

If you mean the Bray and von Storch surveys --- it's only completely vetted climate scientists that answer those questions. Last version of it had about 150 questions about every ASPECT of Climate Science. There IS no settled science, no simple ass consensus, and likely no Catastrophic type of CChange expected by actual scientific method.. OPINIONS do creep in, but the ability to predict catastrophic events 20 or 50 years hence is not a science yet..

 

[JBvM]

You need help interpreting the "consensus" on THAT questions? Vast majority don't think the public has been given a CLEAR view of the GW science.. Believe it's been distorted. And that handful of zealots in the community are responsible for vast majority of misrepresentation of facts and what's known or settled.

first time I've heard anyone go that route. congratulations. Is that a vast majority of scientists and climate scientists?

If you mean the Bray and von Storch surveys --- it's only completely vetted climate scientists that answer those questions. Last version of it had about 150 questions about every ASPECT of Climate Science. There IS no settled science, no simple ass consensus, and likely no Catastrophic type of CChange expected by actual scientific method.. OPINIONS do creep in, but the ability to predict catastrophic events 20 or 50 years hence is not a science yet..

I've been reading up - some of my notes - I'll come back later and explain what I take away from it


2004 - https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/557e/b03f23ba36dbd45f801e6bf64e32d34d2a82.pdf


2013 -
In 1991, Western Fuels Association
conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was
to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact)’


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf



2012 Hansen NASA guy? -

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/37/E2415.full.pdf

James Hansen (a) Perception of climate change
James Hansen (a), Makiko Satoa (a), and Reto Rued (b)

(a) National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY 10025; and

(b) Trinnovim Limited Liability Company, New York, NY 10025
Contributed by James Hansen, March 29, 2012 (sent for review March 4, 2012)


Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[Pilot1]

It is a huge hoax, and scam. That's why they have to go back and alter temperature data, and use cooked assumptions to get the outcome they want. Scientists are biased due to their funding and incentivized to find false problems were there are none. Many sold their ethics for another year's funding, or tenure.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is a huge hoax, and scam. That's why they have to go back and alter temperature data, and use cooked assumptions to get the outcome they want. Scientists are biased due to their funding and incentivized to find false problems were there are none. Many sold their ethics for another year's funding, or tenure.

There USED to be excellent tracking between the satellite temperature measurements and ground based thermometers. But they have been rapidly diverging as GISS/NOAA/other world agencies search for ways to get "warmer" results. A few years ago, NOAA resurrected the 18th Century method of including "ship intake water" temperatures to get a boost in ocean warming. And they DID THAT by giving those sparse and inexact readings the same WEIGHT as their own fleet of modern ocean buoys...

 

[forkup]

It is a huge hoax, and scam. That's why they have to go back and alter temperature data, and use cooked assumptions to get the outcome they want. Scientists are biased due to their funding and incentivized to find false problems were there are none. Many sold their ethics for another year's funding, or tenure.

As opposed to those scientist who are paid directly by energy companies? You know what I find interesting.... this entire argument is almost exclusively fought in the US and almost right on party lines too. The rest of the world has accepted global warming as fact.What does that tell you? Is it a global conspiracy? Or might it just be one political party in one country, desperately trying to keep donors happy, that help them to get elected ?

 

[Pilot1]

As opposed to those scientist who are paid directly by energy companies? You know what I find interesting.... this entire argument is almost exclusively fought in the US and almost right on party lines to. The rest of the world has accepted global warming as fact.What does that tell you? Is it a global conspiracy? Or might it just be one political party in one country, desperately trying to keep donors happy, that help them to get elected ?

The Energy Companies sell me a product that I voluntarily buy. It works, is efficient, and fairly priced. They do the heavy lifting to get it, refine it, distribute it, and sell it. They aren't trying to TAX (forcibly confiscate) me for just about ALL my activity, and all the products I need, for a nebulous reasons with no evidence, and predictions that never come true.

 

[forkup]

As opposed to those scientist who are paid directly by energy companies? You know what I find interesting.... this entire argument is almost exclusively fought in the US and almost right on party lines to. The rest of the world has accepted global warming as fact.What does that tell you? Is it a global conspiracy? Or might it just be one political party in one country, desperately trying to keep donors happy, that help them to get elected ?

The Energy Companies sell me a product that I voluntarily buy. It works, is efficient, and fairly priced. They do the heavy lifting to get it, refine it, distribute it, and sell it. They aren't trying to TAX (forcibly confiscate) me for just about ALL my activity, and all the products I need, for a nebulous reasons with no evidence, and predictions that never come true.

I'm sure it's an answer to something, just not to my questions. You were implying that scientists all over the world were falsifying their result to get funding or tenure. I pointed out that the debate, (if you can call it that) is fought almost entirely in one country, along a party line. One country that allows corporations to directly sponsor political campaigns. I was therefor implying that a more reasonable assertion, to "the entire scientific community is corrupt", would be that the position that Global warming is a hoax, propagated by large sections of the GOP was not a reasonable assertion founded on examining the available evidence. But rather an attempt to accrue funds from the energy lobby.

 

[Pilot1]

It isn't just in one country. Have you seen the people in France, and other European countries protesting Climate Change and Carbon TAXES? The French government had to back off on them due to the protests. People are realizing it is just a government scam and excuse to extort more taxes from people.

What are governments that ARE collecting climate change and carbon taxes doing with the money? How is it helping climate change, and how are they measuring it as the climate changes naturally anyway?

 

[forkup]

It isn't just in one country. Have you seen the people in France, and other European countries protesting Climate Change and Carbon TAXES? The French government had to back off on them due to the protests. People are realizing it is just a government scam and excuse to extort more taxes from the productive.

Actually I'm Belgian, right next to France. What people are protesting is not carbon taxes. It is high fuel prices. People here don't tie it to global warming. Just to over-taxation. Especially because, like in the US, big companies get big tax breaks. Trying to tie;" people are protesting high taxes on fuel" to, "people don't believe in global warming" fails, on both form and substance. Anyway you still aren't addressing the meat of the premise.

 

[william the wie]

It isn't just in one country. Have you seen the people in France, and other European countries protesting Climate Change and Carbon TAXES? The French government had to back off on them due to the protests. People are realizing it is just a government scam and excuse to extort more taxes from people.

What are governments that ARE collecting climate change and carbon taxes doing with the money? How is it helping climate change, and how are they measuring it as the climate changes naturally anyway?

Governments are protection rackets that try to eradicate all other criminal gangs on their turf to the purported net benefit of the victims. As long as that claim is defensible there is peace but Obama blew up that claim with his Obamacare overreach but the Ds haven't got the message.

 

[forkup]

It isn't just in one country. Have you seen the people in France, and other European countries protesting Climate Change and Carbon TAXES? The French government had to back off on them due to the protests. People are realizing it is just a government scam and excuse to extort more taxes from people.

What are governments that ARE collecting climate change and carbon taxes doing with the money? How is it helping climate change, and how are they measuring it as the climate changes naturally anyway?

I see you added a few sentences. I can't speak for all governments just mine. They are using the money to subsidize things as home renovation. The idea being that homes that need less energy to heat are more environmentally sound. They use it to subsidize solar paneling on housing. They use it to subsidizing people using their bikes to go to work. They are upping the taxes on diesel fuel since they want to encourage people to use normal gasoline. Etc. etc. As to your second question. Yes climate changes naturally, but in nature one can establish a reason for that change to. Here the reason is man made activity. One can measure the content of the atmosphere using ice cores.