Solution: Increase Ocean Evaporation (<4% of CO2 Reduction Cost)
Guest poet by David R. Motes, November 10, 2022
Climate change is real and cycles over Earth’s geologic history. We are in a global warming trend for the past 140+ years. Contrary to prevailing climate theory, this man-made warming trend is primarily driven by a CO2 induced Evaporation Reduction (ER), not CO2 Green House Gas (GHG). The CO2 driven ER is irrefutably an 11 factor larger Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW) driver than CO2 GHG. AGW is indeed driven by CO2, just not CO2 GHG as theorized, but rather CO2 ER. Per the chart below, the tropospheric relative humidity steadily decreased 0.13%/year since 1970, requiring a similar precipitation and ER, which generated the measured temperature increase. The proposed ocean evaporation solution (shown in photo below) costs <4% of current GHG solutions and only ~2.4% of the US federal budget. This paper only uses consensus scientific data, facts, and diagrams provided by various CO2 GHG proponent sites such as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), NASA, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency), and the IEA (International Energy Agency) to make the calculations presented.
Global relative humidity has fallen steadily across the troposphere since prior to 1970. The photo on the right is a proposed floating ocean evaporator.
The full 33-page paper pdf including all calculations, discussions, details, explanations, figures, references, a 2-page abstractand David’s email may be viewed or downloaded at docdroid.com. The 5 main quantified facts along with a proposed new cost-effective solution follow:
1. Warming will reverse only when the above relative humidity decrease is reversed.
Relative humidity drives precipitation and evaporation which is responsible for absorption of 24% of the solar energy reaching the earth’s surface per the NOAA solar energy balance below. Evaporation transports this energy to the upper troposphere for radiation to space. 1. This ER radiative energy imbalance (watts/m2) from the above 0.13%/year relative humidity decline is calculated to be an 11 factor higher than the IPCC CO2 GHG energy imbalance. Thus, the CO2 GHG energy imbalance is relatively small in comparison. 2. Even the fossil fuel energy release (watts/m2) is a 3.2 factor higher. 3. This same ER generates a calculated temperature rise 4.0 times more than the actual measured temperature rise using the IPCC Climate Sensitivity factor. These quantitative comparisons between ER science and CO2 GHG theory are this paper’s most convincing calculations.
2. Above Evaporation Reduction is 81% generated by a CO2 induced 0.70%/year plant Water Use Efficiency (WUE) increase.
In the photosynthesis reaction, higher CO2 concentration allows plants to use less water (WUE increase), causing less evapotranspiration. Per the Hydrologic Balance above, a significant 15% of evaporation is from plant evapotranspiration. Man generated the atmospheric CO2 increase, causing the WUE increase, yielding less evaporation, resulting in our global warming.
3. Plant biomass increases / decreases caused by solar elliptical cycles drove the below irrefutable 800k year geologic correlation between CO2 and temperature, not CO2 GHG. Temperature increases decreased plant biomass which increased CO2. As calculated in the linked paper, the solar elliptical cycles increased temperatures by 10oC, which caused a 46% humidity decrease, which reasonably caused the 33% plant biomass decrease, causing the measured CO2 increase from 180 to 280ppm. Conversely, per the IPCC’s max factor, CO2 GHG contributed at most 17% of that 10oC temperature rise, and CO2 GHG theory has no plausible source for that CO2 increase.
4. Water vapor is 192 times stronger GHG than CO2 when you factor in both infrared absorbances and atmospheric concentrations. Yet, CO2 GHG proponents continue pushing CO2 causation rather than water vapor
5. Calculated energy and temperature impacts from CO2 GHG are much smaller than CO2 ER. An insignificant 123 ppm CO2 GHG increase did not increase temperatures by a significant 1.5 °C since the 1880 fossil fuel expansion. However, that same CO2 increase from 292 to 416 ppm (42% CO2 increase since 1880) did greatly increase photosynthesis and plant WUE which quantitatively drove the measured 1.5 °C AGW.
Moreover, CO2 GHG theory is a rather simplistic, unquantified, problematic theory that does not fit CO2 / temperature historical correlations and cannot be modeled directly using GHG infrared absorbances. In the linked paper, 9 CO2 GHG theory problems are graphically presented and discussed in detail, all resolved by ER science.
The implementation advantages of our proposed ocean evaporation above over the prevailing CO2 emission reduction plans follow:
- Ocean evaporation uses proven, reliable technology that is substantially more cost effective: <4% of the current CO2 GHG solutions and only ~2.4% of the US federal budget. This cost comparison is this paper’s second most convincing calculation.
- Other advantages- Higher success probability, simpler, uses existing technology, no detrimental side effects, and more environmentally friendly.
- CO2 Emission reduction will certainly fail by focusing on the 1%/year annual contribution while completely ignoring the 99% existing atmospheric CO2, per the Carbon Mass Balance below.
Our paper focuses on engineering calculations, versus the hereto date presentation of GHG data and theories. The authors calculated and quantified the many impacts using peer-reviewed consensus scientific data and then summarized these facts in a logical explanation in the link provided below. This fresh chemical engineering perspective from a high-altitude sheds new quantified insights on the old climate change subject. These engineering calculations identify the new root cause of AGW, revealing a much more cost-effective and greener solution (a paradigm shift). Again, click the 33-page paper pdf at docdroid.com for all the details.
David Motes is a 44-year professional chemical engineer residing in Houston, TX.
38 responses to “Veteran Chemical Engineer: CO2 Evaporation Reduction 11 Times Larger Global Warming Driver Than CO2”
How could you possible confuse CO2 with H2O?
“Humidity” is H2O, NOT CO2.
Water vapor in the atmosphere averages 1.5% or ~15,000 ppmv.
The paltry annual increase of ~1.4 ppmv CO2 is insignificant.
Moreover the IR spectra of both gases show water vapor to be four or five times more effective at absorbing IR heat.
COVID shut down the global economy and the trend in atmospheric CO2 wasn’t altered one iota. That message should be the very first statement made in any global warming discussion.
Global CO2 emissions are estimated to have fallen -4.6% in 2020, mainly in the Spring, which is not a large amount.
Agreed, CO@isLife ….
This very original and creditable embellishment of what appears unfortunately to be ordinary hackneyed CAGWH cliché, keeps all the problems of its source – the profound inconsistencies and impossibilities poured into the IPCC’s “greenhouse” edifice, a political not scientific body of belief.
The standard CAGWH narrative confronts such observed difficulties as CO2 concentrations following temperature change, currently by 3 to 9 months, and thus not causal (7 research citations omitted), carbon dioxide’s predominant 99.83% solar-irradiance interactivity (Witteman, 2021) peaking at ~193K or 80 Celsius degrees below water’s freezing point, or that warming, if any, and by fossil fuel burning, the major human transgression, offset by simultaneous aerosol production (Salby, 2012; Rasool & Schneider, 1971), such that Rasool & Schneider advised against using fossil fuels to stave off a perceived ice age because they were coolants.
An escape from merely burnishing the standard fright narrative is to consider more robust, probing science. See: Anderson, Charles R., “Why greenhouse gas theory is wrong – An examination of the theoretical basis,” https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2015/03/why-greenhouse-gas-theory-is-wrong.html ; Gerlich, Gerhard, & Ralf D. Tscheuschner, “Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics. “ International J. of modern physics B, v. 23, No.3 (2009), 275-364; Kramm, Gerhard & Ralph Dlugi, “Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact,” Natural Science, 17 Oct. 2011, v. 3, pp. 971-998. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.2011.32124
In the chart shown in the article the greatest change in RH is at the 300 mb altitude. At 700 mb, near the surface, the change is less. Note that there are no plants growing at the 300 mb altitude. This suggests that efficiency of precipitation is at work here, the Svensmark theory, cosmic rays. Note that 1991 marked a low for cosmic ray count for recent history, and cosmic ray counts have been generally increasing ever since. Could this have anything to do with the high altitude decreasing RH, while at low altitudes it has remained relatively constant?
[…] Veteran Chemical Engineer: CO2 Evaporation Reduction 11 Times Larger Global Warming Driver Than CO2 […]
Cold out there tonight.
One of the best reads ever.
Evaporation reduction will warm the atmosphere, not greenhouse gas effects, increased concentration of carbon dioxide gas becomes a driver.
When in doubt, quantities can provide answers, solutions, proof positive.
After 100,000 years, at one inch of moisture accumulation on Antarctica per year, you’ll have 100,000 inches of snow and ice, fresh water trapped and isolated in the hydrologic system. The hydrologic cycle is a closed system. Any reduction of ice on Antarctica will be the calving of ice at the grounding line into Antarctica waters. Some evaporation will happen, but not a lot.
Fossil water has increased the amounts available for use, produced water from oil exploration, mining, amounts to 667,000 barrels for every one million barrels extracted, something has to be done with that water, it is brine, basically, so you have to have disposal wells.
Hydraulic fracturing and carbon dioxide goosing of wells produces more oil just as hydraulic fracturing of water wells produces more well water, you open up the flow.
I digress. Whales thank us for using petroleum and not them as an energy resource.
In 20,000 more years, there might be another 20,000 inches of moisture accumulated on the Antarctic continent, 120,000/12 is 10,000 feet.
Before the melt of the ice sheet from the last ice age, the Wisconsonian ice sheet, Antarctica’s ice sheet would have been less than what it is now, the melt more than likely increased the amount of ice covering Antarctica.
Not necessarily so, but the logic works. Quantities work there too. Subtract 18,500 inches not accumulated on Antarctica, the total then would have been approximately 81,500 inches deep.
A Polar climate that definitely packs a punch, influences much of the weather around the globe. The driest climate on earth and has most of all of the fresh water.
An irony, you have to accept facts, they don’t budge.
At last somebody who can calculate and reason (an engineer); alas a lone wolf in the flock of consensus mainstream “scientists”.
[…] Veteran Chemical Engineer: CO2 Evaporation Reduction 11 Times Larger Global Warming Driver Than CO2 … […]
This is total alt-science claptrap.
This does not belong at this website.
Water vapor in the troposphere depends on air temperature.
Higher air temperature = higher percentage of water vapor.
Warm air can possess more water vapor (moisture) than cold air, so with the same amount of absolute/specific humidity, air will have a HIGHER relative humidity if the air is cooler, and a LOWER relative humidity if the air is warmer.
“the solar elliptical cycles increased temperatures by 10oC, which caused a 46% humidity decrease, which reasonably caused the 33% plant biomass decrease, causing the measured CO2 increase from 180 to 280ppm.”
Increased atmospheric temperatures cause a water vapor increase. And that has nothing to do with an alleged 33% plant biomass decrease. The change of atmospheric CO2 from about 180ppm from about 20,000 years ago to about 280ppm in 1850, was caused almost entirely by the +4 degree C. ocean warming, per Henry’s Law.
“An insignificant 123 ppm CO2 GHG increase did not increase temperatures by a significant 1.5 °C since the 1880 fossil fuel expansion.”
No one made the claim that the +135ppm (not +123ppm) increase of atmospheric CO2 was caused the +1.1 degrees C. (not +1.5 degrees C.) warming since 1850. It is only claimed that CO2 caused most of the +0.7 degree C. warming from 1975 to 2022. There were too few manmade CO2 emissions before 1940 to matter. And no warming from 1940 to 1975. So the Climate Howlers only focus on 1975 to 2022. Some claim all the warming from 1975 to 2022 was from CO2, with no proof that is true.
“CO2 Emission reduction will certainly fail by focusing on the 1%/year annual contribution while completely ignoring the 99% existing atmospheric CO2, per the Carbon Mass Balance below.”
The current annual net CO2 emissions are +2.5ppm per year, which is six tenths of a percentage point increase to the current 415ppm, not 1%. The increase is entirely from manmade CO2 emissions. The rest of the CO2 — the 99.4% — is stable and not a factor for future climate change — only the CO2 increase is of interest.
“CO2 GHG theory is a rather simplistic, unquantified, problematic theory that does not fit CO2 / temperature historical correlations”
The Historical correlations of manmade CO2 emissions and global average temperature are entirely from 1975 to 2022 — 47 years. Manmade CO2 was not a cause of measurable global warming before 1975. Is the author is thinking about the CO2 temperature relationship in prior centuries, perhaps in the ice core record? For natural causes of climate change that warm th oceans, CO2 outgassing is a RESULT of natural climate change, not a CAUSE.
I realize this comment disagrees with the article, hurting my chances of it getting published … or staying published. But this theory is claptrap.
“Water vapor in the troposphere depends on air temperature.”
This is absolutely correct !
As far as I am aware there are doubts about the level of CO2 in the past. Whatever he may have been personally I accept that Arrhenius was a damn fine chemist and I take his figure of 295 p.p.m. in 1895 as accurate. (that means an increase of 120 to the current level of 415). Can you reference to an accurate figure of 280 p.p.m. in 1850 A.D. please? And I suggest that if the Earth is warming then the oceans would be outgassing CO2 adding to the measured level. This seems to correlate with the staggered annual cycles of CO2 in both hemispheres with the seasons.
And if human emissions before 1950 were negligible what caused the rise in temperature (as noted by Callendar in 1938)? And there was a drop in temperatures after 1950 until 1977 so any claim of 0.77℃ rise after 1977 would include some recovery of that before that cooling (1950-1977) — and a rise of 1.1℃ must as a minimum mean 0.33℃ before 1950. So your claim at best is a rise of 0.33℃ resulted from a 15 p.p.m. rise in CO2, and a rise of less than 0.77℃ from a rise of 105 p.p.m. of CO2.
“And I suggest that if the Earth is warming then the oceans would be outgassing CO2 adding to the measured level.”
You could suggest but you would be wrong.
The oceans are net CO2 absorbers. If they are warmer they will absorb less CO2, but they are still net absorbers.
There was a roughly estimated global warming of at least +2 degrees C. since the cold 1690s during the Maunder Minimum. +3 degrees C. based on the three Central England weather stations. Of that roughly +2 degrees C. warming, only the +0.7 degrees C. warming since 1975 could be blamed on manmade CO2. That would be a worst case estimate for CO2 — we actually don’t know what percentage of the warming since 1975 was caused by CO2. But there is strong evidence CO2 was a factor.
The northern hemisphere’s carbon dioxide levels are higher because most CO₂ sources (such as vegetation and fossil-fuel-burning installations) are mainly found in the north, whereas CO₂ “sinks” such as oceans are predominantly in the southern hemisphere.
When plants are growing, photosynthesis outweighs respiration. As a result, plants take more CO2 out of the atmosphere during the warm months when they are growing the most. This can lead to noticeably lower CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
280ppm is the high end of the 180ppm to 280ppm range in the ice core data.
There are no accurate CO2 measurements before 1958. Fortunately, there was also not much CO2 emissions before 1950, especially before 1940. Climate change before 1940 had to be 100%, or close to 100%, natural. The 1940 to 1975 global cooling has almost been “erased” from the historical temperature record. The focus is on the +0.7 degrees C. since 1975. But even that is not very important because CAGW predictions are for a faster rate of global warming in the 1975 to 2022 period. Forecasts are unrelated to past observations.
CAGW predictions are for a faster rate of global warming THAN in the 1975 to 2022 period. Forecasts of future global warming (fantasy) are unrelated to past observations of global warming (reality).
Yes, I had noticed that the models forecasting (fantasy) global warming were way above what was reality. What I am concerned with is the wide assumption that past climate based on those claims e.g. that the temperature in the late Jurassic MUST have been warm because the CO2 was 2700 p.p.m. and the Ordovian
also because the CO2 was about 3,000 p.p.m. when esp. in the latter there is evidence of an ice age (disputed, then “explained” by cooler sun and/or shorter days). And O18/O16 ratios may not determine absolute temperatures but they do indicate substantial variations (blamed on Milankovitch cycles rather unconvincingly) and there are certain individuals boosting AGW but lacking somewhat in ethics.
Climate change seems to me to involve feedback cycles.
CO2 is astrong greenhouse gas for the first 100ppm but a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm. As the CO2 level increases is becomes less and less potent as a greenhouse gas. The high levels of atmospheric greenhouse gas in the past were cause by outgassing from warmer oceans. Atmospheric levels of CO2 were a RESULT of ocean warming, not a CAUSE. You would think more CO2 in the atmosphere would cause additional warming — a positive feedback to ocean outgassing — but not much of a positive feedback when the relevant radiation wavelengths for CO2 are so close to be saturated.
A warmer troposphere will have the positive feedback of holding more water vapor, but something limits hat positive feedback or else we’d have had runaway global warming. Ny best guess is a troposphere holding more water vapor develops more clouds, blocking more incoming sunlight.
This theory is based on the supposition that the Earth’s average temperature is increasing , there is reason to doubt the tampered with temperature data .
Every temperature compilation, including UAH satellite data compiled by two non-government volunteer Ph.D. scientists, show warming since the 1970s.
For every increase of 20 degrees Fahrenheit, the relative humidity decreases by 50 percent.
100 degrees F with a relative humidity of 50 percent means a 100 percent relative humidity at 80 degrees F. Rain.
The anvil forms at the top of the thundercloud.
At 60 degrees F and a relative humidity of 50 percent, a drop in temperature to 40 degrees F will have a relative humidity of 100 percent, some rainfall occurs, depends upon the cloud cover, might be 50 percent chance of precipitation or only 20 percent.
At 50 percent relative humidity with the temperature at 40 degrees F, a drop in temperature to 20 degrees F will have a relative humidity of 100 percent again, translates to snow.
That is why it is relative humidity, it is temperature dependent.
The greenhouse effect of water vapor depends on absolute humidity
Absolute humidity is a RESULT of changes to the temperature of the troposphere.
As a registered Professional Engineer (Chemical) the author of the article lost me when I noted the solar energy balance diagram. There is no radiation from the atmosphere to the surface and there are no greenhouse gases (IPPC definition).Two simple statements 1/ the lapse rate (environmental on Earth about 6.5K per 1000m) means everywhere in the atmosphere it is colder than the surface 2/ the 2nd law of Thermodynamics which basically states heat only flows from hot to cold.
However, evaporation is important as water vapor forms clouds as vapor condenses into water particle and these in turn in colder parts form ice. The water and ice can reflect radiation from the sun and absorb radiation which reduces the solar energy getting to the surface. This later energy averages 168 W/m2 which is balanced by a) evaporation 78 W/m2 b) convection 24 W/m2 and c) radiation window as found be satellites see (https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2015/09/
“there are no greenhouse gases (IPPC definition)”
I estimate that false statement puts you in a less than 0.1% minority
Climate Science – Crackpot Division !
Richard, firstly you did not read what I wrote -the lapse rate means it is colder everywhere in the atmosphere than at the surface (note temperature on top of Mt Everest), secondly you give no indication that you have any understanding of thermodynamics, thirdly I suggest that you are not you are not a qualified Chemical engineer who has experience in thermodynamics, heat&mass transfer, chemistry, fluid dynamics, psychrometry, instruments and control etc
I suggest sometime you should look at the Chemical Engineering handbook, learn something, and keep personal thoughts to yourself.
Yes, but he has strongly held opinions, passionately delivered. If that doesn’t trump education and professional experience, I don’t know what does. //s//
The truth about climate science trumps chemical engineering claptrap.
Absolute humidity is a greenhouse gas that affects the climate
Absolute humidity is the RESULT of changes to the temperature of the troposphere. Those are climate science facts.
Man-made warming is NOT primarily driven by a CO2 induced Evaporation Reduction (ER). Evaporation is the process that changes liquid water to gaseous water (water vapor). Water moves from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere via evaporation.
Absolute humidity is INCREASING as the troposphere warms. INCREASING absolute humidity means evaporation is INCREASING, not decreasing, as the author falsely claims.
“The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report states total atmospheric water vapor is increasing 1 to 2% per decade.) For every degree Celsius that Earth’s atmospheric temperature rises, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can increase by about 7%, according to the laws of thermodynamics.”
SOURCE OF QUOTE:
Richard, please point to where on this chart “absolute humidity” hurts you?
(BTW, It IS in the room with you now. Can you feel it?)
“For every degree Celsius that Earth’s atmospheric temperature rises, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can increase by about 7%, according to the laws of thermodynamics. ” R.G. quoting NASA
Would those be the “laws of thermodynamics” that you don’t believe in, Richard?
” The truth about climate science trumps chemical engineering claptrap.“ – R.G.’s uninformed opinion
I hate to be the one to break it to you, Richard, but “the laws of thermodynamics” are the basis of the “chemical engineering claptrap” that you think so little of.
All these models means SHIT… Another evidence!
Climate models fail to capture strengthening wintertime North Atlantic jet and impacts on Europe
It does keeps us entertained and provide the OWNERS & Billionaires the perfect excuse to screw with us.
The troposphere, thanks to its density, is not transparent to infrared radiation, and the denser the troposphere layer, the more solar energy it retains, of which, in the case of Earth, about 50% of solar radiation reaches the surface. The more water vapor in the air, the more solar energy the troposphere captures. Therefore, the reduction of water vapor in the air in summer increases the surface temperature, in winter the opposite, as Central Europe will soon find out (just as North America is currently finding out).
Central Europe must be ready for a sharp Russian frost from the end of this week. Winter in North America will not let up. The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will split into two centers in line with the distribution of the geomagnetic field in the north. One center will be over Canada, the other over Siberia.
North America needs large amounts of CO2 quickly.
It’s just the Sun.
During La Niña, the amount of water vapor decreases, and the temperature anomaly at two meters was negative all winter in the Southern Hemisphere.
Commentators, I am the author, David Motes. I agree with all your facts, but disagree with many of your opinions. I encourage you to click iside the article above (or the paste below) and read the 33-page paper on docdroid which will address almost all your issues. I concentrate on calculations, not data and a theory. If the concept can not be calculated, it probably has no validity. For example, the oceans average only ~5% saturation. Conclusion- Heating the ocean 10oC does not desorb CO2. This and many more calculations and debunkings are in the link. I appreciate your interest. David.
David, I commented above. I forgot to put a figure on the radiation window which is 66 W/m2. This value as you see in the article on my site has been measured by satellites and agreed by Dr Trembath (although he has not corrected his cartoon on global energy. There is no radiation from the atmosphere to the surface. The atmosphere radiates to space as the Earth turns.
Note I am a registered professional engineer in Australia. I have considerable experience with measurements of heat transfers and have designed burners for various fuels (coal, gas, waste oil, crushed carbon anode waste etc). to improve flames and radiation transfer. I have made many measurements of CO2 including CO2 in the atmosphere. I am on the editorial board of an International journal. As a reviewer I have rejected papers that make false or unsubstandiated assumptions. References in articles are only useful if the reference is based on described actual measurements.
Sorry, I have to used a made up name but I have a Professor daughter whose reputation on the world stage I wish to protect.
” Sorry, I have to used a made up name but ….” – cement a friend
I wouldn’t even tell them that.
Question – you say the atmosphere doesn’t radiate. I don’t see how it’s possible that “no” radiation occurs, but even if it does, then saying it doesn’t would be legitimate if by that you mean “it does, but it’s negligible.”?
Thx in advance.
Yonason, the 2nd law of thermodynamics indicates the atmosphere can not radiate to the Earth Surface but the atmosphere does radiate to space. CO2 can absorb radiation of a wavelength 14.8 micron from the surface (which is negligible in the spectrum of radiation as well as the insignificant amount of CO2). This energy is then radiated to space or transferred by collisions to other gases. Methane does not absorb any radiation from the Earth surface (which radiates at wavelengths longer than its absorption point (around 8 micron). However methane can absorb tiny amounts from the sun but it then re-radiates to space. H2O (g, l and s) in the atmosphere is colder than the earth surface. It also radiates to space.
…was to you, c.a.f.
Sorry ‘bout that.
That’s consistent with what I remember from when I took a heat & mass transfer course (early 80s). Since you are working successfully in the field, and aren’t writing anything contradictory to what I learned (at a time when there was negligible activism distorting reality), I think you are well enough informed to be a trustworthy witness.
PS – I remember once having to calculate how, when the atmospheric temp was above freezing, the ground temp could get to below freezing on a cloudless night, due to radiation to space. Funny how they never had us calculate how much the warmer air kept the ground from freezing, due to radiation from air to ground. I guess it was just an oversight on their part. //s// 😁
For Richard Greene…
I.e., if warmer air doesn’t add heat to colder ground, how is colder air going to add heat to warmer ground?