Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 Next
Comments 66851 to 66900:
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:28 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
"Is there definitive proof that the effect of the GHGs is enough to override the orbital factors as we should be heading into another glacial period?"
That would depend on what your meaning of "definitive proof" is. Try Tyrrell 2007 and updated info found in Tyrrell 2011:"the next ice age (or the next several ice ages) may be avoided"
-
apiratelooksat50 at 06:12 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Rob at 35 The tide rises and ebbs due to the influence of the gravitational forces of the moon. There are other factors involved that create the "noise". If we apply that analogy to the temperature/Milankovitch cycle connection then the orbital forcing correlate with the moon's gravity. Other factors along the way are the noise. That would include GHGs. Is there definitive proof that the effect of the GHGs is enough to override the orbital factors as we should be heading into another glacial period? Thanks for you civil tone and I am willing to listen. -
Alexandre at 06:12 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
OT: Very funny song from some Australian chaps: Denial Tango. This verse pretty much sums up the denial attitude: "I'm skeptical of everything I just don't wanna know" -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:59 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Muon at 29 and DB at 32 That's pretty funny. Just make sure you aren't becoming this guy. -
Daniel Bailey at 05:49 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
apiratelooksat50 says:"When the temperature in red begins to match the CO2 in blue, I will concede."
It already has begun to do so. Perhaps you missed the graphic Tom Curtis has so thoughtfully provided for edification purposes in Comment 10 above?"It is going to take quite some time before we can say for sure."
Actually, we can tell that it already has. You continue to argue, with no supportive evidence, that "It's Not Us". That you repeatedly choose to deny the science, as a science teacher, is both ironic and revealing. You are simply trolling now. Everyone: I suggest we no longer continue to feed this troll. -
scaddenp at 05:46 AM on 9 January 2012Models are unreliable
If the temperatures end up outside the range of the models, then that would be interesting. Remember every model run represents a possible future climate given those forcings. I would expect Ar5 to be better absolutely. It will probably reflect ongoing research into the aerosol effect and size of current aerosol forcing. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:26 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
33, Pirate,CO2 is a player, but not the driver.
This is false, and a mere assertion on your part. We've been over the science on this, and you made no effort to refute it. Do you have a case to make that supports your contention? Something that amounts to at least a little more than "gee, this has never happened before, so it can't be happening now"? -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:34 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
apirate... The "sawtooth pattern" you see in the longer geologic record is actually much more similar to the tide example being used. There is a known forcing causing those changes. With the tide it's the moon orbiting the earth. With the glacial-interglacial cycles it's the rather more complex pattern of Milankovitch cycles. What's being explained by the video is the noise over the signal in both of these cases. As the moon "forces" the sea level to rise the noise over the signal is the waves coming in. Some big ones, some small ones, but over time all leading to a rise. As orbital factors "force" the climate out of a glacial cycle there is noise over the signal of warming and cooling occurring along the way, but all with a trend toward warming. With climate today the "force" is us through our changing the radiative properties of the atmosphere with the burning of fossil fuels. That creates the trend. Within that trend there is the variation. That trend will only change and begin coming down when the forcing changes direction. -
muoncounter at 04:11 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
pirate#33 "I am not conflating the two." Conflation: ... the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one does often produce error or misunderstanding, as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts. You took an example of pseudo-random variations about a long term trend and an example of forced variations and stated, "it's classic sawtooth pattern shows pretty much the same movements as the video clip." Your words, "pretty much the same" seem to me to treat the two as if they are one. Such apples and oranges comparisons are of no value to the teaching of science; in fact, they lead to logical fallacies. "Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is." As a science teacher, you should be aware of the dangers in modeling this behavior. -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:50 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Muon at 23 No, I am not conflating the two. I am extending the concept to long term instead of short term. In your mind, what is forcing the variation in the sawtooth graph? TC at 24 No to your first paragraph and yes to your second. Tmac at 26 I plainly stated that CO2 is a positive forcing that is increasing. DSL at 27 Do you think there is not a natural cycle? There certainly is one – look at the graph. Humans have only been radically altering the planet for a very short geological time. DB at 28 When the temperature in red begins to match the CO2 in blue, I will concede. It is going to take quite some time before we can say for sure. In the meantime we should all be doing the “right” things as I’ve posted before. Including, but not limited to: conservation and developing new energy sources. Muon at 29 The Earth’s temperature certainly rises and falls because it must. CO2 is a player, but not the driver. Sweet at 30 I am saying that CO2 and temperature interact in a complicated way. All you have to do is look at the lag. So, no to the presumption of your last paragraph. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:28 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
muoncounter Indeed, apiratelooksat50's defense is as porous as that of the Detroit Lions. Basically, the point is to chase the guy with the ball to the end zone repeatedly, with the hopes that he eventually gets tired and stops. Essentially the football version of how to catch a knuckleball. -
Tom Curtis at 03:14 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
michael sweet @30, you have over interpreted the graph. The temperature indications are for local, Antarctic temperatures, not global temperatures. Daniel Bailey's equivalent graph @28 is scaled for global temperature changes. Further, GHG forcings only represent about 45% of the total forcings going from glacial to interglacial, with the rest coming from albedo changes. Therefore the expected temperature change from the increase in CO2 is well short of of 12 degrees C. -
michael sweet at 02:58 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Pirate: it is still not clear what you are claiming. If you mean that temperature and CO2 are linked, which the data in the graphs you posted supports, then Tom's graph here shows that we should expect a temperature rise of about 12C (!!) from the current CO2 level. How high will it have to go before you are worried? Or are you suggesting that the temperature is not linked to CO2 at all and we should expect the previous glacial cycle to continue? Can you provide a cite to support such an extraordinary claim? -
muoncounter at 02:38 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
DB, pirate's failed 'tides must ebb' analogy actually reveals a wide hole in his defensive line. Tides rise and fall because they must - not because of random perturbations; tides are 'forced.' Temperature rises because it must - it is forced by the physical environment. CO2 is a massive change in that environment. What environmental change does pirate envision - on a time frame comparable with the recent warming - that will force temperatures back down? Or have we come back to those 'natural cycles'? An argument as lucid as 'the Great Pumpkin'? -
Daniel Bailey at 02:17 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
Agreed, DSL. Bulla was here simply to troll for reactions. -
Daniel Bailey at 02:13 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
For the lay reader, apiratelooksat50 has a background in teaching science at the high school level in the US, plus a professional career in environmental science. For over a year he has been following an agenda of "It's not happening", "It's not us", "It's not bad". Now he has seemingly moved on to the "It's a natural cycle" meme. My take on his most recent comment above is that he has carefully crafted his statement to imply that, since all the previous 'oscillations' of Temps and CO2 showed lockstep integration of peaks & valleys that somehow, mystically, temps will 'drag down' CO2 (because, surely, with his background he cannot be intimating that the well-understood radiative physics of CO2 do not apply to fossil-fuel-derived CO2, can he?)... If so, his comment is crafted on presumption. The presumption that CO2, normally acting as a feedback of temperatures, can not also act as a forcing (which it can) on temperatures. Therefore, one can only infer at what the temperature response will eventually be to the rise of CO2 that mankind has caused (the rate of which is higher than anything during the last 255 million years, covering multiple mass extinctions):
-
DSL at 02:09 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
As someone who works closely with language every day, let me strongly suggest that "bulla" is not being honest with his/her "dialect." It would be extraordinary if someone actually managed to misspell some of the words bulla has misspelled in the way that they are misspelled. Bulla is most likely a troll looking for someone to go "ivory tower" on him/her. -
DSL at 02:04 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
When and why, Pirate, will it ebb? Sometime after humans stop pouring GHGs to the atmosphere? Or in the next 20 years, due to some as-of-yet-undiscovered natural cycle? -
tmac57 at 01:58 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Pirate#22- It is disingenuious to extend the analogy in the manner that you did.For that comparison to hold,there would have to be no other positive forcings in the level of the ocean other than the moon's gravity.Are you denying that CO2 is a positive forcing that is increasing? -
Tom Curtis at 01:51 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
As pirate has raised the issue of the basis of the saw tooth pattern of the dog's wanderings, the following is the smoothed annual values of the GISS global-land ocean temperature index from 1992 to 2010 for comparison:
The resemblance to the dog's path is striking. However, no part of the video's logical point depends on that comparison. However, as Muoncounter notes above, comparison of the pattern with forced variations operating over thousands of years entirely misses the point.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:42 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
apiratelooksat50 @22, so your point was to show that "the overall pattern stays the same" in the same way that the overall pattern of CO2 levels has stayed the same:
Is that right? Or was your point that the overall temperature pattern will stay the same even though humanity have radically altered the level of one of the main forcing agents?
-
muoncounter at 01:42 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
pirate#22, Are you conflating forced variation (what you call the 'classic sawtooth pattern' of glacial cycles) with the pseudo-random tendencies of a dog on leash? Forced variation is not 'perturbation.' This was about short-term variation on an underlying trend, which has nothing to do with the graphs you post. The tide will indeed ebb, because it is driven by the interaction between the moon and the earth. The appropriate analogy here would be: What would the tides look like if we added substantial mass to the moon? -
apiratelooksat50 at 01:34 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
The point of the graphs I posted were to show the long term patterns and trends as the original post and video showed. Especially the longer graph with it's classic sawtooth pattern shows pretty much the same movements as the video clip. The Earth's temperature oscillates over time in a fairly regular pattern. Sure, there are perturbations within the overall movements. Certainly CO2 is a GHG. Certainly human activities affect CO2 levels. But, the overall pattern stays the same. And, FWIW the tide on that beach with the cartoon dog is going to ebb. We can't forget that. -
bulla at 01:32 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
is it that you are challenged buy the usumptioms that i posercuteModerator Response: [muoncounter] Given that you feel free to 'override the known laws of physics,' not a bit. Further comments of this sort will be deleted without discussion. Adieu. -
bulla at 00:54 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
so now we have it from the horses mouth atomics is not a scienceModerator Response: [muoncounter] Atomic science is a science. 'Atomics' was used by Asimov in the Foundation series as a catch-all for anything using atomic power.Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum. Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing. Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
bulla at 00:51 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
your usupition of my comments being of low quality that dosent leave much room for you, given the world wide understanding of your fraternaty which is at a bottom low of crdability, below on the ratings world wide of used car salesmenModerator Response: [muoncounter] Repetition of nonsensical claims does nothing for your credibility. Nor does continual misspelling. Enough. -
Tom Curtis at 00:50 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
bulla @24, a google scholar search for "atomics" turns up the term as a part of trade names only, so yes, atomics is not a science (nor an English word). -
muoncounter at 00:46 AM on 9 January 2012Models are unreliable
Tristan#474: 'Ensemble mean' is not a prediction; a difference between actual and mean does not imply systemic error. -
Tom Curtis at 00:46 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Shoyemore @20, it is certainly possible to show that CO2 forcing and temperature rise have been co-integrated over the last 40 years, and more accurately that GHG forcing plus anthropogenic aerosol forcing and temperature rise have been co-integrated over the course of the 20th century. I refer you again to the discussion of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) where I believe this discussion would more properly belong. (It is not off topic here per se, but a more detailed mathematical discussion is more appropriate in a thread discussing a detailed mathematical treatment.) With regard to your attempted link @14, I believe there was a problem with your html code. Your @15 and my @16 where cross posted. -
Tom Curtis at 00:33 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
I should note that bulla's post of 9 Jan, 00:27 AM is the 28th post of similar low quality, all in violation of the comments policy that the moderators have had the displeasure of having to deal with. I personally want to thank them for their sterling efforts in keeping the threads from becoming clogged with this utter tripe, thereby allowing coherent discussion to flourish. -
Tom Curtis at 00:28 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
Moderators, can I request that Bulla @21 be allowed to stand so that casual readers can see just the sort of ridiculous, slanderous drivel that Bulla vomits forth, and understand full well why it is in complete violation of the comment policy, and justifiably removed. -
bulla at 00:25 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
your fraternaty has been show over and over again to be so wrotten to it very core of its existance and that even your own peare review has said that 85% of papers submitted are Ither lyes or plagerized or just plain faulserfied -
shoyemore at 00:15 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
skywatcher #17, I accept completely the consequences of this elegant animation. I was just point out possible variations of the scenario, which make it more interesting. Tom Curtis #16, I know the subtraction of the paths in the case of cointegration would not be a random walk. That is exactly the point I am making. Is it possible to show that CO2 and temperature rise are cointegrated? PS I gave the link in #15. The problem is the link itself, not me.:) Obviously, I did not make myself clear initially. -
Tom Curtis at 00:02 AM on 9 January 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
Carbon500 @140 refers to this graph:
As noted by Rob Painting @141 notes, the record shows rising tropospheric and surface temperatures, and declining stratospheric temperatures as is predicted by the models for an increased greenhouse forcing. The rate of rise of temperature at the surface is consistent with that predicted by the models, which same models predict large, and potentially disastrous rises in temperature in the 21st Century with ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases. So, having conveniently referred us to solid evidence ongoing, and dangerous global warming, Carbon500 presents us with the full body of "skeptic" counter evidence:
"I don't think so."
I must admit, I had never considered the full weight of that evidence before. I will alert the IPCC of this astonishing evidence so that it can be included in the AR5 - anonymous internet guy doesn't think so. With evidence that incontrovertible, it is no wonder "skeptics" have not been convinced by actual physical evidence for the case for global warming. -
Rob Painting at 23:44 PM on 8 January 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
So the lower atmosphere and surface temperature are increasing, and the lower stratosphere temperature is decreasing. That's what one would expect with an enhanced (increased) Greenhouse Effect. You have a problem with that? Or is yours one of linear extrapolation? Hopefully I'm not responding to another Doug Cotton sockpuppet. -
Tristan at 22:24 PM on 8 January 2012Models are unreliable
Thanks for the responses. If it turns out that the 2011-2030 temperatures are markedly lower than the ensemble mean predicted, this suggests a systemic error in the way temperature was being forecasted in '07. I will be interested to see how the AR5's predictions compare to AR4's. Undoubtedly another 5 years of science and temperatures would have shed even more light on the nature of the climate's response to emissions. -
Carbon500 at 22:16 PM on 8 January 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
The IPCC state in 'Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis'(p21) that there is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system. They say 'Key uncertainties include aspects of the roles played by clouds, the cryosphere, the oceans, land use and couplings between climate and geochemical cycles.' Since 1958, CO2 has increased by 75 molecules per million of dry air. Now take a look at P38 of 'Climate Change 2007'. Four graphs show surface, trophospheric and stratospheric observed air temperatures since measuring began at Mauna Loa. Portends of CO2 induced doom? I don't think so. -
boba10960 at 22:07 PM on 8 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
I think the original source of the images in @3 is the Global Warming Art gallery of Robert A, Rohde, as noted by Rob H @8. The gallery contains a number of images that serve as a useful resource. As noted by Tom Curtis @9, the first image in @3 emphasizes an important point, namely, that no single record (e.g., GISP-II ice core) provides an accurate representation of global temperature. Note in particular the wide range of temperatures in the early Holocene among records from different regions. Just because Greenland experienced rapid warming in the past, or the fact that Greenland experienced temperatures in the early Holocene that exceeded temperatures that occur there today, cannot be used as evidence that the entire Earth experienced such rapid warming or warm temperatures. Excellent video by Teddy TV. -
bulla at 21:40 PM on 8 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
I thought I made it very clear that climate ghange is indeed very realModerator Response: [Rob P] - Please note the comments policy. If you wish to discuss something firmly grounded in climate science, then good. Pseudo-scientific bafflegab is not science. -
Tom Curtis at 19:51 PM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Sapient Fridge @35, all four BEST papers were submitted to a peer review with the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmosphere" in October, 2011. That means they are currently undergoing review, but have not yet been published in their final reviewed form. That can take a year or more, but I suspect it will be much quicker in this case. Somebody who has published with JGR-A may be able to give you a better idea of the likely time from submission to publication. -
Sapient Fridge at 19:31 PM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Does anyone know if the BEST paper is going to be peer reviewed? I've seen lots of comments saying it isn't peer reviewed but it's not clear if that's a temporary status. -
Tom Curtis at 18:35 PM on 8 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
bulla @19, you cannot be sent any more emails requesting your comments as you were never sent any emails requesting your comments to be begin with. I must say I am growing tired of this childish game by deniers in which they turn up, post obviously off topic comments in the expectation of being moderated for violation of the comments policy, and then lie about what happened to them. In Bulla's case they have gone one further by posting entirely nonsensical comments. The requirements for posting here are simple. In essence they come down to two requirements - by relevant and be polite. Apparently that is too onerous a task for deniers who would rather rely on irrationalism, and abuse. -
JoeTheScientist at 13:05 PM on 8 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
Fast breeders are more expensive to utility companies, not "economically non-feasible". Their costs do not reflect the costs of disposing of massive amounts of waste, which are picked up by taxpayers (and would be 100x lower with fast-breeder tech). I like thorium molten-salt technology, which was piloted and then dropped (although I hear China is pursuing development). It can't melt down (fuel cools & solidifies over the weekend), and it can't be used to make bombs, and generates much less high-level waste, plus thorium reserves are greater than U235 and U238. However, it needs more development. But this is off topic. On-topic: So THAT'S why I'm hearing "cold predictions" popping up - the bogus "it's sunspots" claim! -
Rob Honeycutt at 12:57 PM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
What you have to realize is that Watts is he can't accept the BEST findings. Regardless of what he said he'd accept he really can't accept the BEST findings because his entire "business" is based on not accepting them. Think about it. What would happen to his website and his following if he up and said, "Dang, it seems I really have been wrong all along." He doesn't have a business. He's hitting the streets looking for new employment. I think he made that statement because he was arrogant and deluded enough to believe that the results would turn out his way. -
Tom Curtis at 12:40 PM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
RyanStarr @31: 1) Anthony Watts problem with release before peer review consists entirely in the fact that he did not like the results. We know this because he has very happily trumpeted results from other papers which have been released without peer review without complaint, so long as they give a message he likes. Indeed, he regularly posts "scientific" articles on his blog which have not, and will not even be submitted for peer review on his blog. If he truly believed in the value of peer review, where those articles disagreed with peer reviewed science (as they nearly always do), he would insist that they be submitted for, and pass peer review before he published. 2) His objection to the 60 year time period is also almost certainly spurious. BEST have released all their data, and Anthony certainly has all the surface station data, as he collated it. It follows that he could easily either repeat the BEST analysis over 30 yrs himself, or persuade somebody with sufficient mathematical skill (such as Jeff ID) to do so, thereby establishing the basis of his objection. That he has not done so is a tacit admission that the 60 year time period does not significantly effect the results. It follows that he has merely seized on that as an excuse to ignore results he does not like. -
muoncounter at 12:33 PM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
RyanStarr#31: A bogus criticism at best. What peer-reviewed evidence do you and/or Watt$ present for BEST not 'doing science by the regular process' (whatever that even means)? And under what bizarre set of rules is the use of a 60 year period 'a basic failure'? That would seem to be the case only among those who raise cherry-picking to a fine art. No, what neither Watt$ nor you (apparently) accept is that BEST has made his petty objections of station siting and urban heating moot. Even a reputable science blog would have accepted that he was wrong and moved on. But when you don't get the answer you want, criticize the methodology and/or the people who did the study. What makes this award-winning behavior is that it is pure unvarnished hypocrisy. -
RyanStarr at 12:12 PM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
The claim that Mr Watts "thought [BEST] would prove his anti-warming beliefs" is pure speculation. Anthony provides grounds for his concerns and acknowledges his stance is at odds with his previous statement, "I would accept their findings whatever they were, but that was when I expected them to do science per the scientific process." "When BEST approached me, I was told they were doing science by the regular process, and that would include peer review. Now it appears they have circumvented the scientific process in favor of PR." And more specifically in relation to BESTs 60 year time period, "I see this as a basic failure in understanding the limitations of the siting survey we conducted on the USHCN, rendering the Muller et al paper conclusions highly uncertain, if not erroneous." He adds he would accept the result (one result?) if they used a 30 year period. -
Jose_X at 10:30 AM on 8 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
When new trends appear to be establishing themselves, we should ask ourselves why? Can we explain it with past effects and cycles? Has a new driver/variable recently been thrown into the mix that appears to explain the new trend? Mainstream CO2 warming theory fits well into what would otherwise be more puzzling. -
Doug Hutcheson at 10:16 AM on 8 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
A new acronym is emerging: fossil fuel-funded think tank = ffftt. It is pure coincidence that ffftt is the sound of methane or CO2 escaping from confinement ... -
skywatcher at 10:08 AM on 8 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Shoeymore @14 tries desperately to avoid the consequences of accepting this simple and elegant animation...
Prev 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 Next
