NP Rank:
Climate change; is it for real or are we being mislead?
By, Uwe Paschen.
Climate change is on many peoples mind these days and some do wonder whether it is for real or if we are being mislead?
One may first have to define climate change. Climate change is any change from a given point of reference or an average of a period of reference wish would be either higher or lower then the point of reference, wish would be either colder or warmer then the point of reference.
The earth climate underwent many changes over the past billion years. Some of those drastic changes may have been caused by major natural disasters such as meteorite impacts on the earth. One of those major impacts is believed to have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, but this we can not say with absolute certainty, since other factors may very well have caused this massive extinction.
The last mini ice age or also called Little Ice age, that we underwent in the 17th century seems to have been caused by several factors coming together, for one, it was a period of enhanced volcanic activity. In the past two centuries, we have seen how volcanic activity can affect climate. After the eruption of Tambora in April 1815, the Earth cooled for at least two years with 1816 being recorded in many places as the Year without a summer. Cooling was also observed after the eruptions of Krakatau in 1883 and Pinatubo in 1991, although not as extreme as the cooling associated with Tambora.
Also the Solar observation of the 18th century suggest a decrease in solar activity, this does however not explain the onset of the Little ice age, since this one started in the 14th century and lasted until the 19th century. Further, the little ice age was limited to the northern hemisphere, the over all average temperature of that period was only one degree Celsius below normal.
In the period of the little ice age, in wish Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples. This colder weather affected agriculture, health, economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature. Increased glaciation and storms also had a devastating affect on those that lived near glaciers and the sea. The growing season changed by 15 to 20 percent between the warmest and coldest times of the millennium. That is enough to affect almost any type of food production, especially crops highly adapted to use the full-season warm climatic periods. During the coldest times of the Little Ice Age, England's growing season was shortened by one to two months compared to present day values.
Some do point out with good reason, that just before those drastic climate changes we had a period of massive overpopulation, great Empires, countless wars and massive deforestation conducted by the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Inca, Aztec and Chinese Empires. All making an accumulative impact on the earth environment and its ecological balance. Systematic burning of large Forest areas was practiced by most, in part to make room for farm land, but also to harvest wood for the construction of buildings, ships and to dismantle rebel groups that used the woods to hide and made the roads unsafe and expensive to police.
Europe lost 60% of its forest in that era, after the 16th century massive reforestation was practised in Europe, still it never recovered from the losses. In North America over 80% of all wood land has been clear cut in the past two centuries and not restored, this is adding to a great lack of CO2 filters we need.
Today though, we are faced with several more factors and our present climate change is far greater and faster then any thing humanity has witnessed so far on a global level.
We do burn fossil fuels, clear cut forest, and pollute the waters and the air with toxins and worth. We are also totally overpopulated. Yet, some claim that all this can not have any negative impact what so ever and persist that it is all the sun’s doing…
Well, granted we do know rather little, even though we behave as we where gods and all mighty. Our arrogance and shortsighted thinking may very well be our undoing. Why we see some argue that Humans cause only 3% of all CO2 produced. That is true, if we only count what we produce directly our self’s. However, once we add the CO2 caused by Man made activities and pollution such as clear cutting a forest and overfishing or destroying a coral reef. Then our human contribution is almost a quarter of all CO2 produced and should we take a deeper look into the missing trees and oceans wild life that can no longer absorb the CO2 because we simply destroyed them. Then our impact is even greater.
Now, I personally worry less about the CO2 then I do about the O2 that we destroy or rather lock up in the CO2 and in other forms such as C3H5(NO3)3 nitro-glycerine or O2 H2O 2e-→HO2.sup.- OH- Peroxide. The use of the Oxygen atom can be fund in many application and combination. The more it is used the less there is available. Why in part, our oxygen levels are falling. For instance, the more we burn energy the more oxygen is being locked away in form of CO2 and other combined Atoms. This oxygen became available in the air and made life possible on earth thanks to photosynthesis. The photosynthetic source of oxygen was probably in operation as long ago as 3.8 billion years.
Once the photosynthetic oxygen source exceeded the rate of supply of reduced minerals exposed by erosion and weathering, the accumulation of oxygen in the ocean and atmosphere could be controlled only by reaction of oxygen with reduced organic material. This stabilization mechanism still operates today. This balance has been compromised though, due to Human pollution and excessive burning of fossil fuels, wish leads us to an oxygen depletion of the atmosphere. At the time of the first homosapian the Oxygen levels of the air was 35% compared to 22% at the beginning of the 19th century and 20.9% today.
Why is this relevant? Well, should the level of oxygen in the air keep on falling and go bellow 19%, then we would simply start to suffocate. This is why Climate change, pollution and CO2 absorption do matter. This may be of greater concern to the next generation, then it is to the presently ruling baby boomer generation. Those BB are on their way out and won’t have to worry to much longer. Never the less, it is that generation of baby boomer that plays with the lives of the next generation, yet they wound be held accountable for it nor will they have to suffer the consequences of their abuses.
Now, the trouble with Climate change or global warming, is that it may cause an Ice age as well, at least in parts of the world, such as Europe and this due to the potential collapse of the Golf stream, wish allows for the moderate climate that Europe enjoys in its western and northern parts. This Golf stream is depended on the gravity of the Sea water and this one will change with even the smallest change in sea levels, wish will affect the golf stream almost instantly.
The Earth is a rather complex planet with delicate balances that allows life to exist and strive. It does not take much to upset this balancing act nor to destroy all life, as we know it.
A coral reef for instance does not tolerate any temperature changes be on and above one single degree Celsius nor can it survive a change in the PH of the water be on one point either way. Yet, that Coral reef contributes greatly to our biodiversity and balancing the climate, for one it is a great absorber of CO2.
Should the coral reefs dye out, as they seem to, we would then face another chain reactions of further genocidal events.
Life on earth has evolved and learned to deal with many variables such as the cycles of the sun and moon or even Comets and other cycles for wish it has fund ways over millions of years to compensate.
Humans are however, one factor the earth has not had near enough time to compensate for. We are the once that can tip this delicate balance with our irresponsible actions and life stiles.
Ironically the greatest opposition to this debate and for any change in reducing our pollution and cleaning up our planet comes from North America wish is coincidentally also the greatest contributor to the problem over the past two centuries and the one that has done the least to counter this pollution as well.
The leaders in Environmental technology and implementation are in Europe and Asian, This however, is not enough. Even China the US favourite scapegoat has invested more into renewable energy and to counter pollution over the past ten years then North America did.
What will we tell our grand children when they ask us where all the wild life has gone to and why we are having trouble breathing? Or when they are wondering why Grand Pa or Grand Ma did not do any thing to counter the destruction and death of the diversity of life on Earth but went on in stead driving SUVs and playing ignorant all the wile screaming for more cheep oil to be burned in their cars and houses?
I wonder how we will be able to justify all this to the coming generations?
Crowd Power
-
Uwe Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan
Recommendations (113)
-
Barry ORegan
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada -
Barbara McPherson
Nanaimo, Canada -
Emilio Lizardo
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States -
Merry Rebel
Glasgow, United Kingdom
-
jjenet
Ilford, Essex, United Kingdom -
Susan Marie Kovalinsky
Ledgewood, New Jersey, United States -
danesller0127
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia -
everchanging
Phoenix, Arizona, United States -
YankeeJim
Arlington, Virginia, United States





Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (51)
at 07:56 on December 8th, 2009
Paschen, when i was but a lad, we were taught that we were entering a new ice age, with all the attendant calamities that would ensue. There were books written, lectures given, magazine played it up.
I see a re-run of sorts going on. Same attitudes, same type of 'science" used, etc.
Just a guess, based on reason - and experience - we need to give it time. If twenty years from now the climate is doing what it should do, if man-made global warming is true, then we can act.
To run off and act on the little we know, with the compromised data we have, with our paltry knowledge of the mechanics of climate and climate change, is premature, and quite possibly folly.
at 09:14 on December 8th, 2009
Sadly we do not have twenty years nor the luxuries of taking such a risk. Should we wait another twenty years, by then we wont have a chance left.
BTW, I said climate change and pollution not necessarily nor solely Global warming.
Pollution and its effects are already causing major problems and illnesses. The sea is dying due to over fishing, pollution, PH changes and that is where most of our oxygen comes from.
I do respect your opinion, I can not agree with you though, nor do I think that our Grand children will either. We have to do what ever is humanly possible to clean up what ever pollution we put out there and to stop polluting as fast as humanly possible.
After all, is it not better, wiser, smarter and cheeper to be safe rather then sorry?
We have only one Earth to live on...
at 15:35 on December 8th, 2009
If we had acted on "global cooling", based on the information we had at the time, there would be no discussion on global warming. The entire environmental movement would have been laughed out of existence. The same will be true for the current discussion.
Better to use wisdom now. Learn from history....it is a good and wise teacher.
at 19:33 on December 8th, 2009
Like I said in the post, Climate change is not necessarily one way or the other, even Global warming can cause an ice age in parts of the world.
We know very little and the issue is complex. However, we do know that our pollution has caused countless extinction and a rise in cancer rates as well as a rise in radio activity the planet over.
We also know that our pollution is changing the acid levels of the air and water and we can observe and confirm this with lab test that this pollution causes a slow death of many very important species in our ecosystem.
The debate, may that be climate change or the environment at large is about about us humans stopping to pollute and changing our ways so we may no longer have a negative impact that may cause our own demise one day but become a responsible and constructive part of the ecosystem rather then a destructive form of cancer that kills all life and lives like a ravaging mindless pest.
The bottom line is that there is only one earth and we have only one chance. We can not afford to be irresponsible nor can we justify it either.
at 07:17 on December 11th, 2009
Dear Uwe
I have read your article with great interest. My husband and I are now for 2 years in Zambia and have seen many changes in a short period of time. Here I must say, my husband lived in Zambia and Zimbabwe before for 30 years, from 1948 to 1980. He has seen a beautiful forested country basically turning into something close to a desert. Rapid population growth and hanging onto old farming practices (slash and burn, chitemene) are unsustainable.
We have formed an organisation OSCAR (Organic Solutions and Conservation for Agricultural Results), which is registered in Zambia as Project OSCAR Community Service Society Zambia. We are showing people different ways of farming and caring for the environment. Our hope is that future generations will be more sensitive to the environment. Without balanced biodiversity there is no hope of food security. We are all one. Our life depends on nature, but nature does not depend on us. Human population has destroyed the balance on this planet and beyond.
To come back to the climate change. Particularly this last dry season we experienced unusual gusty, windy condition more or less every day. People in this country do not take record of weather conditions, which would make us aware like an early warning system. Another big problem is charcoal burning, not only as a use for the home but more as a lucrative income for some people. Charcoal from Zambia is sold in most neighbouring countries, in the Middle East and possibly other countries we don't know about. To help with minimizing the use of charcoal we encourage people to use a small multi-fuel-combustion stove, which uses small finger-size dry sticks, husks, grass in bundles and much more. Interested people can contact us via this site to get more information. The stove is a very simple unit, which can be build with hand tools and some sheet-metal. We also encourage people to grow extra fast-growing bushes, which can be constantly harvested, for fuel wood. Our project is situated at a school and we train old enough children in planting and growing indigenous fruit trees as well as exotics. Because of the deforestation the water levels have subsided dramatically and we hope by growing the trees and share the little water for planting we can help natural water supply/levels recover. In the meantime we harvest rain water, which normally would be run-off as result of land degradation, and recycle water in a healthy manner.
We are possibly not able to bring nature back to what it was but we can help the environment to recover. We might not see the results in our life time but we have to think about the future generation. It is the responsibility of each of us to look after and care for the environment.
Kind regards Anja Baker
at 02:40 on December 13th, 2009
Thank you for the read and comment here Anja Baker.
The stoves you are talking about are those from the GTZ? In the 70s and 80s the GTZ did try to introduce such stoves in the Sahel region. To reduce the consumption of fire wood.
I am not sure if you are aware, but Char Coal is far more efficient and environmentally friendly there for then burning raw wood or grass.
Further, you can make very good char coal with grass and form it into a patty of sorts with some water and then dry it. It causes less CO2 over all then composting it or burning it directly.
The process is rather simple and does not require much more then and old steel barrel, a steel pipe and some sand of clay.
The best thing is that the heat given of the char coal is far better then from raw wood and easier to use since it takes very little char coal to heat or cook efficiently.
at 01:36 on December 14th, 2009
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Dear Uwe
Thank you for the reply and the suggestion with the grass. We will keep it in mind and try it in our workshops.
The Peko Pe stove has been improved on efficiency for more then 20 years now by Mr Paal Wendelbo. It is a small and simple combustion unit made out of two metal rings. The inner chamber is filled with dry sticks or other dry biomass. Gasses produced in the burning process move through small vents of the inner ring into the space between the chamber and the outside wall, moves up, is directed into the flame to be used up in the burning process, which can reach 600 to 700 degrees Celsius. Charcoal might be efficient to use, but the production of such is the environmental concern. First of all, one ton of dry high value wood from the last remnants of the forest is giving about 250kg of charcoal. About 90 % of household energy comes form wood and charcoal. In many cases the people use the three stone fire to cook on (sure you know the method), which is even worse. How long will people be able to get wood? How long will we have forests? There is a high demand on any kind of wood in Zambia. The pine plantations are not producing enough. Timber is not getting seasoned anymore because of the high demand. This little burner unit is a simple solution for most of the energy needs. It can burn with 600 to 700 degrees Celsius. No tree needs to be cut down. Dry sticks and twigs is all one needs to use the Peko Pe. There is no soil erosion. The trees are left in the ground. Only dry wood and trimmings are used to be cut and properly dried for fuel. Don't you think these are important points to look at.
We look at the big picture. Everything is interconnected. One doesn't go without the other. We are not saying that charcoal should not be used anymore, it has got it's place too. I am sure you know the importance of the trees for our livelihood. I haven't got any University Degrees or Honours. The environment is my greatest interest and concern, because we all depend on it. My knowledge comes from information like your articles, reports from the climate change groups around the world and books, i. e. "Tree crops a permanent agriculture" by J. Russel Smith.
We have been in Zambia for more then two years now and basically any time of the year one can see the haze from fires and burning of charcoal all around. Respiratory and eye problems have increased immensely. The Peko Pe stove will make a big difference for peoples health and the environment. The forests have a chance to recover. Many people in Central and Southern Africa depend on the forest for their livelihood, food from the trees and shrubs, medicinal purposes. The forest is also habitat for animals, which play a vital role in our lives for meat (even so I am a Vegetarian), for hides etc. Biodiversity is totally out of balance on the whole planet. We are doing our little bit to help the environment.The more people use the stove we promote the more our environment can improve again. By the way I am a "tree hugger".
Kind regards, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
at 08:47 on December 14th, 2009
The stove you mentioned, the Peko-Pe Stove is a bio mass gassier, I do not think that wood or rather char-coal would work to well with that stove.
Through out most of Africa methods used to heat and cook in addition to an exponential population explosion have caused for major deforestation and irreversible damages of the ecosystem.
Why the GTZ, the BMZ, JICA and other have tried to introduce simple yet very efficient solar stoves and efficient bio gas stoves in many areas.
The process is slow though and hindered by politics and wars as well as other factors.
Now the char coal should be a lot more efficient then the numbers you gave me the conversion from raw wood should give at least Under average conditions, 100 parts of wood yield about 60 parts by volume. This can even be greater with modern char coal production wish is not expensive. Same as your stove, it can be done with recycled steel.
Making char coal is a very delicate operation and in order to be successful should be handled by professionals. A well experienced char coal collier can get a yield of 90% of the wood.
You are doing a great job there.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
David MacMac (not verified)at 08:42 on December 20th, 2009
But this scam has nothing to do with cleaning up the pollution. The companies polluting the most will continue polluting by swapping carbon credits. This is the main vehicle to tax and regulate everything we do. prison planet dot com covers these and other lies of the globalists' New World Order.
at 10:02 on December 8th, 2009
There is about 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans in the form of CO2 and carbonic acid, bicarbonate and carbonate ions as exist in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, having "absorbed about one-third of all human-generated CO2 emissions to date. Gas solubility decreases as the temperature of water increases and therefore the rate of uptake from the atmosphere decreases as ocean temperatures rise.
Most of the CO2 taken up by the ocean forms carbonic acid in equilibrium with bicarbonate and carbonate ions. Some is consumed in photosynthesis by organisms in the water (as algae), and a small proportion of that sinks and leaves the carbon cycle. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere has led to increasing acidity of seawater and there is some concern that this may adversely affect organisms living in the water.
The rich 20% can't stop world's 5 billion poor people from burning the trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have easily available. There is no chance for durable reduction in global emissions, because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast. The other 80 percent of humanity desperately needs cheap energy because they are meanwhile part of the same global economy. Foolish enough the west is having them producing even more by outsourcing their production, loosing their jobs in the process, and let them discharging more carbon faster. Poor countries all around the globe do have the largest energy source within reach in the form of carbon, about a trillion ton of cheap and easy accessible coal.
The only solution that will work is to provide the 80% with cheaper energy without carbon emission, than they obtain from coal. Simply the most sensible alternative is developing ultra cheap carbon free energy. This would mean beating the price of coal used to generate electricity at under 3 cents per kilowatt-hour.
In mind comes renewable energy from the power of wind, the sun, or tidal wave, you name it. But besides being carbon emission free, all these technologies are not cheap enough. No carbon-free fuel or technology comes remotely close to the under 3 ct/KW except nuclear energy.
at 02:31 on December 12th, 2009
Pim thanks for the visit, you should read some of my previous posting on this, the oceans can no longer do their job because of our pollution, why the Ocean is now starting to release more carbons and absorbs less.
http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/earth-oxygen-levels-are-dropping-plankton-save-humanity
http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/eating-fish-kills-saving-our-oceans
http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/reality-worse-then-prognosis-latest-ipcc-report
http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/desperate-farmers-dying-environment
http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/revenge-gaia-humanity-under-attack
All those postings are directly linked with this issue and why the oceans are dying. You will find many links in those post and references as well as, well documented research and facts. Sorry to burst your bubble.
at 12:47 on December 8th, 2009
Really good piece Paschen, thanks for the read.
at 02:12 on December 13th, 2009
Thank you Amy & Roy.
at 15:11 on December 8th, 2009
Nature sometimes disguises human damage. For instance, in the Atoll islands where the USA conducted nuclear blasts for 12 years, much evidence of this is no longer visible as the oceans washed away the radioactivity into oblivion. While Geiger counters still pick up some radioactivity from sandstone, for instance, mostly it is gone.
Why are the people who have returned to the Atolls getting sick with apparent nuclear-induced sickness?
Palm trees and other fruit bearing plants are absorbing radioactive material. Coconut milk is full of radioactive material, and that is what island people eat.
So you wonder, if trees can withstand it, why can't people? I don't know the answer.
at 02:34 on December 13th, 2009
That is a good example of our impact and long term consequences of such impact.
And this is only one single case. The oil spills in the oceans and water ways as well as those on land have equally long as well as devastating impacts. Further we have air pollution and much much more.
The over all radio activity of the earth has dramatically increased since WWII so has air and water pollution. Leading us to an increase of 300% in cancer rates, not to count other diseases.
And this does not take into account countless species that have been extinct due to our pollution and many more that are on the verge of extinction.
at 05:19 on December 13th, 2009
You still have me worries about suffocation--I really appreciate you excellent description in this post.
at 23:25 on December 13th, 2009
You are not the only one. The 20.9% is the average over all. In some areas we are already dangerously close to 19%.
Medically speaking, Humans can not live to well with less then that, and for us to evolve and adapt would take many generations, meaning we are running out of options and time.
There for it would be far better for us to change what we can and that would be our habitats and cleaning up the mess from previous generations so that future generations may live and this with as much ease as we did or do today.
at 18:39 on December 8th, 2009
It used to be called global warming. That is until the data began to indicate a cooling trend. Now its called climate change.
at 04:38 on December 12th, 2009
It was called many things over the past 40 years, what we can measure indicates a warming of the Ocean and some land areas and a cooling of other area.
We have a rise of 30% in natural disasters linked to atmospheric and temperature changes over the past two generations.
There are some detailed explanations in the links I gave in the comment above if you are interested snuffysmith, thank you for read and interest here.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
AYHNUM (not verified)at 17:37 on December 9th, 2009
cop 15 planet change, WAKE UP PEOPLE Global Psychotic Killers run the planet. They are the Nazi's Man has little effect on what the sun wants to do, and most of the time its Cold. in the last 15k years the output has been high. Thus Civilization, if it cools off, and it will, we will go into ice age, the earth is 90 percent of the time in an ice age. The Globalists in cop 15 just want to rob kill and distroy it is their nature. tell your senator to NEVER sign a treaty itssmoking.com
at 02:45 on December 13th, 2009
I am not certain what this is all about "AYHNUM"(not verified)
You may have to be more specific and please no adds nor any SPAM.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Bingohanzat 00:44 on December 10th, 2009
Good article :-)
at 03:15 on December 13th, 2009
Thank you for the visit and input from Denmark, Bingohanz.
at 14:37 on December 10th, 2009
well composed thoughts and well expressed in the written language,
good work Paschen!
I agree with your article, the earth can restore and re-balance itself more than we give it credit, what we perceive as a crisis may be a temporary shift to restore balance, it is difficult for us to understand the real picture of what is going-on from our position and to see forest from the trees.. (pun intended : )
at 03:13 on December 13th, 2009
I concur that the earth may be able to restore it self, no matter how much we pollute, the question though would be whether humanity will still be around then or would simply have extinct it self thanks to our destructive life stiles and pollution.
We are behaving like ravaging mind less pest and not like intelligent and responsible creatures with beneficial values to the ecosystem.
It may be time for us to evolve.
at 19:00 on December 11th, 2009
Hi Paschen !
at 04:41 on December 12th, 2009
Good to see you around Emilio, hope you are well. Thank you for dropping by.
at 05:48 on December 12th, 2009
My bigger concern is how the situation is being hijacked at the "elite" business level where we have no democratic representation. Financial securitization of pollution as a means to control it through capitalism may be an intuitive way to enforce laws by channeling free-market incentives but I would much prefer the older, simpler and less obscure method of tax levies.
Already I hear Goldman Sachs will soon be trading in carbon cap futures and once again it appears the middle-men of commerce will be digging their long fingers into the pot of the real economy ripping out chunks of resources expressed as dollars to pile into their virtual pots of cash. They need to do this, of course, because they create nothing of value themselves despite the diligent rhetoric crafted by their teams of PR reps and lawyers. The need to endlessly plunder the effort of others is their only source of income and nothing, not even our global future, is more sacred than that next bonus.
at 09:10 on December 14th, 2009
hidflect, I was intrigued by your comment, I do agree with the Tax levies that you bring up here.
I do however have one problem with the claim that there is a lack of democracy, For the industrialised Nations at least for the most part and even for countries like India, all the representatives have been elected by the people and those governments had an environmental agenda drawn up in form of a manifesto before they where elected.
Japan's new government for instance has a strong and ambitious agenda that was build in into its manifesto long before the elections, same for Germany, France, and other countries.
There for I would say that the process has been more then democratic so far.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
katrina22 (not verified)at 14:50 on December 12th, 2009
Oh, blah, it's all a hoax. It's proven but not reported that the world is not any warmer than before, if anything it's a bit cooler.However, who cares? Even if the world is warming, it's obviously not very fast and don't you think all the evolutionists should agree that people will adapt and evolve just fine? hahahaaa