Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 9:35:46 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Several users have made allegations that I am a rube, a crackpock etc. I have been accused of being a shill for the oil companies. I have been accused of be stupider than dirt, and not having a fundamental understanding of the issues.

Its funny when your beliefs and character are so intense that it allows you to demonize people that you don't know.

The truth of it is much different. I have studied this area more than 30 years. When the original changes to ground weather stations were made - I downloaded copies of the data. When Nasa changed the satellite data I had copies of the original data.

I've read the ice core studies in antartica, and the tree rings studies. I've read cern's research and svenmark's.
I maintain subscriptions to more than a dozen air quality magazines; I work in the field of air quality. I'm a modest environmentalist - in other words - clean the air, clean the water. I've done a great deal of work on aerosol formation, including modeling aerosol dissipation.

I've read each IPCC report cover to cover, as well as almost all the referenced works - certainly more than 20,000 pages by this point. I've read the entire dumps from Climate Gate. I've read the (falacious) report on polar bears (record numbers btw), as well as reports on artic sea ice. Antartic snow fall. Radiation levels in ice and mud cores.

By this I do not mean to imply that I'm an expert. At the same time, I'm not an idiot on his first ride to the rodeo, either. It is a sad thing when your 'science' functions by denigrating or surpressing sceptics.

And yet it is perfectly clear that this is what Phil Jones, Hansen, Sunstein, and many others have done. Jones and Michael Mann attempted, generally successfuly, to suppress research at odds with AGW. Hansen, Sunstein, Gore have all advocated punishment to those that disagree with AGW.

It is also clear that there has been a great deal of fraud in the AGW movement.
For example when Michael Mann famously invented the hockey stick. (Which is now proved wrong, btw).
When the groundstation temperature records were falsified.
When NASA changed the satellite records.
When the IPCC science on melting himalayan glaciers came - not from science - but a environmental press release.

These are not allegations - these are established record that has been proven.

It is also clear that there is bias in the workings of the IPCC. More than 2/3s of the scientists involved in the lastest were members of WWF, Sierra club - or other environmental groups. It is also clear that the formulations relied on unpubished or unpeer reviewed articles.

It is clear that the climate models - the temperature rises that were predicted in the 2007 IPCC have not taken place.

It is perfectly clear - that there are climate mechanisms involved which are more and/or different than that proposed by the IPCC model. I've provided links where both CERN and NASA said those exact things. Cern in the case of aerosol formation, nasa in the case of the net contribution of CO2 to AGW.

Generally, I don't mind the calumny, as I think that it weakens the public case for AGW. I think the public generally understands that if one side has to resort to name calling - well those are the actions of a bully, or someone threatened.

But I'd like to make the offer that we have a perhaps more constructive discussion of the science involved by all sides. I am willing to live by that - I wonder if each of you are?

It would be fun to come up with a wiki of global warming, pro and con, that could track the science in each area.




< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 9/30/2013 9:37:36 AM >

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 9:50:54 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Frankly, it would make more sense to me that CO2 would cause global cooling to tell you the truth, while I could see some heat retention at early stages (such as clouds provide) I think that at high enough concentrations it would act like a half silvered mirror. But that is me.


I think it contributes in unknown ways to climate change, but whether that includes heating or cooling, it seems to early to tell and there is not enough information, or plausible theories either way.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 10:03:05 AM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I think [c02] contributes in unknown ways to climate change, but whether that includes heating or cooling, it seems to early to tell and there is not enough information, or plausible theories either way.



What?? Are you saying the IPCC report is inaccurate?

Say it ain't so, Joe. Say it ain't so! You ain't been reading The Daily Caller have you? Say it ain't so!



_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 10:45:24 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I've read each IPCC report cover to cover, as well as almost all the referenced works - certainly more than 20,000 pages by this point. I've read the entire dumps from Climate Gate. I've read the (falacious) report on polar bears (record numbers btw), as well as reports on artic sea ice. Antartic snow fall. Radiation levels in ice and mud cores.

Then why repeat so many provable lies?
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming
http://www.sejarchive.org/pub/SEJournal_Excerpts_Su08.htm
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 10:48:59 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I think [c02] contributes in unknown ways to climate change, but whether that includes heating or cooling, it seems to early to tell and there is not enough information, or plausible theories either way.



What?? Are you saying the IPCC report is inaccurate?

Say it ain't so, Joe. Say it ain't so! You ain't been reading The Daily Caller have you? Say it ain't so!





NO, I am saying no such thing, I am saying that the Daily Caller is asswipe, top to bottom.

Dance worm, dance.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 10:52:49 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline 		[Never mind]

<sheesh>

< Message edited by crazyml -- 9/30/2013 10:54:33 AM >

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 11:01:35 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
For example when Michael Mann famously invented the hockey stick. (Which is now proved wrong, btw).

So what is wrong with the hockey stick graph?

Do you deny the dendrochronology temperature data?
Or do you deny that dendrochronology data lost accuracy in the middle of the 20th century? Do you even know why?
Or do you deny the accuracy of the surface station data?

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 12:12:55 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Frankly, it would make more sense to me that CO2 would cause global cooling to tell you the truth, while I could see some heat retention at early stages (such as clouds provide) I think that at high enough concentrations it would act like a half silvered mirror. But that is me.


I think it contributes in unknown ways to climate change, but whether that includes heating or cooling, it seems to early to tell and there is not enough information, or plausible theories either way.


Blink.

I actually agree with this Ron - and its one of the things that I've been saying. At low levels it may contribute to heat retention - and high levels cooling.

Nasa's paper said pretty much the same thing.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 12:26:59 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
For example when Michael Mann famously invented the hockey stick. (Which is now proved wrong, btw).

So what is wrong with the hockey stick graph?

Do you deny the dendrochronology temperature data?
Or do you deny that dendrochronology data lost accuracy in the middle of the 20th century? Do you even know why?
Or do you deny the accuracy of the surface station data?





Yes, I do deny the accuracy of the surface station data.

Ground stations are required to have strict limits on nearby land, exposure to direct sunlight etc. So in an attempt to normalize the data adjustment factors are applied.

A review of all US ground station normalization factors found that the normalization factor applied was 2x larger than appropriate.
So, rather than just saying I'm an idiot - have you at least read any of the science critical of those ground station factors?

Additionally, you can make temperatures say anything you want them to say by selective choice of ground stations. Have you read any reviews on the statistical validity of the ground stations? There have been at least two papers on that as well.

This is on top of the climate gate scandal where phil jones took the ground station data, applied a corrective fix, and then destroyed the original data. So at this point it is impossible to say what the non normalized data would show.

I don't have time to debate the other factors at the moment. I have read more than one paper on tree rings - and a least two papers posting on why the tree ring data is anomalous.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 12:27:22 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		The original paper that came up with the 'global warming' which every clown is confusing with climate change, in 1957 ended in a question mark. As in; maybe?

Now, we are stuffing great levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, if we look at venus which has a high co2 atmosphere the thing is a stifling 460 celsius (and heavy acid rains from sulfuric acid clouds) so that speaks to one side of it, if there is a causality.

Now, I am saying we are still casting about in the dark what this actually means for us, we see evidence of this and empirical data of that....... we don't really know what it is going to do, but we know that most of our manmade messes dont end up working a lot of good on the planet, love canal, oil spills, mercury in the water, and cant think of much man made stuff that is cleaning up our world around us.

My whole deal is that when we shit, we wipe our ass. I would hate to think we make this planet unlivable in hell, even 10,000 years when we could have done something about it today.

Yeah, (think Lewis Black, here. . . ) Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, we don't know; we just don't know. I will err on the side of conservancy.

Wrong or right, you kick putin in the nuts, he by god is gonna do something. You throw ton after ton of bad shit in the air, it will do something. . . so to say what me worry, isn't proper.

And that is about as clear and reasonable a stance as I can take. Given what we don't and do know.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 9/30/2013 12:30:47 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 2:46:24 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		And I agree with all that too.

I agree that companies should not throw pollutants in the air, and that they should be required to clean them. Same with water, and land use. We should steward the land, and care for the animals.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 2:53:09 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		So, we all want a pigs ass to be pure pork. How do we get there, its not free to do this, and those who are profiting from these messes need to expense cleaning them up.

That may not be scientifically formulated, and while I agree that the earth can clean up some horrible shit over aeons, I have to breath around 12-18 times a minute or more, and draw about 10 sextillion per. So I cant wait for the universe.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 2:57:21 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I've read each IPCC report cover to cover, as well as almost all the referenced works - certainly more than 20,000 pages by this point. I've read the entire dumps from Climate Gate. I've read the (falacious) report on polar bears (record numbers btw), as well as reports on artic sea ice. Antartic snow fall. Radiation levels in ice and mud cores.

Then why repeat so many provable lies?
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming
http://www.sejarchive.org/pub/SEJournal_Excerpts_Su08.htm
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/




Once again, none of your quotes say what you represented them to say.

In fact let me quote your third article:


" Today, polar bears are among the few large carnivores that are still found in roughly their original habitat and range--and in some places, in roughly their natural numbers.
Although most populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between the populations. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures."

Which is a statement I concur with. Nowhere do your sources site polar bears dying from lack of sea ice. Let me give you some additional quotes.:..




"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations 'may now be near historic highs."

. Scott Armstrong of The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; Kesten C. Green of Business and Economic Forecasting, Monash University; and Willie Soon of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, published their findings in 2008, arguing that the claims of declining population among polar bears are not based on scientific forecasting principles.

Scottish scientist Dr. Chad Dick, of the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromso, after researching the log books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, believes the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. According to his research findings, he concluded, "the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change."

Award-winning quaternary geologist Dr. Olafur Ingolfsson, professor from the University of Iceland, has conducted extensive expeditions and field research in both the Arctic and Antarctic. "We have this specimen that confirms the polar bear was a morphologically distinct species at least 100,000 years ago, and this basically means that the polar bear has already survived one interglacial period," Ingolfsson said.

"This is telling us that despite the on-going warming in the Arctic today, maybe we don't have to be quite so worried about the polar bear," according to a report published by U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.


If the world is actually feeling threatened that polar bears might cease to exist at some future point of time, why are they still being subjected to legal hunting? And even if only the native populace holds the right to hunt polar bears why is monitoring inadequate to track the hunting by non-natives?

http://www.ibtimes.com/polar-bear-population-higher-20th-century-something-fishy-about-extinction-fears-821075

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 9/30/2013 2:58:32 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 4:11:14 PM   
leonine


Posts: 409
Joined: 11/3/2009
From: [email protected]
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Frankly, it would make more sense to me that CO2 would cause global cooling to tell you the truth, while I could see some heat retention at early stages (such as clouds provide) I think that at high enough concentrations it would act like a half silvered mirror. But that is me.
It may be you, it certainly isn't science, which is simple. There is no known mechanism for CO2 to cause cooling, unless it somehow becomes IR-opaque at low concentrations. (If you have evidence for this, the scientific community would love to hear from you.)
quote:



I think it contributes in unknown ways to climate change, but whether that includes heating or cooling, it seems to early to tell and there is not enough information, or plausible theories either way.

The theory of AGW was formulated 50 years ago. All the evidence collected since then has confirmed it, which is why it is now the scientific concensus outside the paid denier coterie. How many more decades and how many more centimetres of sea level rise do you want before you agree it's been long enough?

_____________________________

Leo9


Gonna pack in my hand, pick up on a piece of land and build myself a cabin in the woods.
It's there I'm gonna stay, until there comes a day when this old world starts a-changing for the good.
- James Taylor

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 5:15:08 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: leonine

The theory of AGW was formulated 50 years ago. All the evidence collected since then has confirmed it, which is why it is now the scientific concensus outside the paid denier coterie.

Thumping the IPCC Report, and dismissing disagreement as heresy, is behavior more suited to Sunday morning television.

K.

(in reply to leonine)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 5:18:28 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
For example when Michael Mann famously invented the hockey stick. (Which is now proved wrong, btw).

So what is wrong with the hockey stick graph?

Do you deny the dendrochronology temperature data?
Or do you deny that dendrochronology data lost accuracy in the middle of the 20th century? Do you even know why?
Or do you deny the accuracy of the surface station data?





Yes, I do deny the accuracy of the surface station data.

Ground stations are required to have strict limits on nearby land, exposure to direct sunlight etc. So in an attempt to normalize the data adjustment factors are applied.

A review of all US ground station normalization factors found that the normalization factor applied was 2x larger than appropriate.
So, rather than just saying I'm an idiot - have you at least read any of the science critical of those ground station factors?

Additionally, you can make temperatures say anything you want them to say by selective choice of ground stations. Have you read any reviews on the statistical validity of the ground stations? There have been at least two papers on that as well.

This is on top of the climate gate scandal where phil jones took the ground station data, applied a corrective fix, and then destroyed the original data. So at this point it is impossible to say what the non normalized data would show.

I don't have time to debate the other factors at the moment. I have read more than one paper on tree rings - and a least two papers posting on why the tree ring data is anomalous.

Your own sides skeptics already said there is no problem with the ground station data.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/station-quality-may-20.pdf

So since that is very complete and conclusive there are no more problems with the graph it is clearly not proved wrong.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 5:20:29 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I've read each IPCC report cover to cover, as well as almost all the referenced works - certainly more than 20,000 pages by this point. I've read the entire dumps from Climate Gate. I've read the (falacious) report on polar bears (record numbers btw), as well as reports on artic sea ice. Antartic snow fall. Radiation levels in ice and mud cores.

Then why repeat so many provable lies?
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming
http://www.sejarchive.org/pub/SEJournal_Excerpts_Su08.htm
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/




Once again, none of your quotes say what you represented them to say.

In fact let me quote your third article:


" Today, polar bears are among the few large carnivores that are still found in roughly their original habitat and range--and in some places, in roughly their natural numbers.
Although most populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between the populations. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures."

Which is a statement I concur with. Nowhere do your sources site polar bears dying from lack of sea ice. Let me give you some additional quotes.:..

So you agree this statement is a lie "I've read the (falacious) report on polar bears (record numbers btw),"

Why go on after agreeing with me?

< Message edited by DomKen -- 9/30/2013 5:22:54 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 5:22:43 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: leonine

The theory of AGW was formulated 50 years ago. All the evidence collected since then has confirmed it, which is why it is now the scientific concensus outside the paid denier coterie.

Thumping the IPCC Report, and dismissing disagreement as heresy, is behavior more suited to Sunday morning television.

K.

How about the many thousands of journal articles in support of the theory?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22climate+change%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_sdtp=

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 6:05:49 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

How about the many thousands of journal articles in support of the theory?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22climate+change%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_sdtp=

Maybe you should have a look at those links.

The first references the IPCC.
The second is a letter which states:

We are keen to contribute to your Review, but the terms of reference are so broad that it is difficult to judge how we might assist most effectively...

The third references the IPCC.
The fourth references the IPCC.
The fifth is a report of the IPCC.
The sixth came up Not Found.

The seventh observes that if the data are correct, there is nothing we can do about it.

Nordhaus examines several different approaches to climate-change policy: no controls, economic optimization, geoengineering, stabilization of emissions and climate, and a ten-year delay in undertaking climate-change policies. Among these, there is a modest advantage of an efficient policy over no controls or a ten-year delay, while the three stabilization options would impose significant net costs. Overall, Nordhaus observes, the analysis reveals that even with major technological breakthroughs and stringent controls, the momentum of past greenhouse gas emissions coupled with great inertia in climate change policy will lead to an inevitable rendezvous with massive climate change.

The eighth is a report of the IPCC.

K.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC - 9/30/2013 6:25:15 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

How about the many thousands of journal articles in support of the theory?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22climate+change%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_sdtp=

Maybe you should have a look at those links.

The first references the IPCC.

Maybe you should read those links.
The abstract for the above article only mentions the IPCC in this sentence.
{quote] Climate model studies since the Working Group I Third Assessment Report (TAR; IPCC, 2001) give medium confidence that the equilibrium global mean temperature response to a given RF is approximately the same (to within 25%) for most drivers of climate change.
So is this study invalid since it references a point in time that other researchers will be familiar with?

Now again your claim was that
quote:

Thumping the IPCC Report, and dismissing disagreement as heresy, is behavior more suited to Sunday morning television

I presented many thousands of journal articles and now you seek to handwave them all away because many mention the largest organization of scientists coordinating research on the very subject they discuss? Shall we discuss football but dismiss anything that mentions the NFL next?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109