Oh please no. ... and of course they can see the light of day.

Putting some in a water butt is decidedly medieval and cruel. Please don't do it. ...

Well, the green plastic of the water butt does let in a surprising amount of light. There's 200 litres or so but I guess the water surface is a little restricted for keeping the water oxygenated...

It does seem to be a very productive home for mosquitoes...



... Oh, ok then, I'll keep with the polystyrene floaters and the thin layer of old engine oil!


;-)

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

OK, so you have done zero research and are just putting in glib comments here... But its good to ask.

The ice cores that are taken are from areas where there is steady and measurable snowfall over many centuries. The rate of ice accumalation and climate details can be measured from the ice core itself down to a monthy basis going back thousands of years. The deepest cores go back thousands of years.

The ice cores have also been cross-referenced against tree ring data for trees. Old trees preserved in bogs and elsewhere have pushed the tree ring data to be a continuous record going back thousands of years also.

However if there was ever any warming stage such as now then there would be years missing due melting. I am no expert but this is logic.

[quote]
Worldwide significant events such as volcanos can be detected and measured beyond just measuring climate change.

[quote]All the most significan inputs and outputs are now very well known and measured or deduced. What is left unknown for directly affecting temperature is now down to very small levels.

That is why human activity sticks out so very very clearly.

Ok then, if all significant inputs and outputs are known, how do you measure heat and pressure miles down into the earths core?



And now for my personal thoughts of global warming...
If you have a greenhouse including vents with 100 space heaters with say 30000BTU outputs its not the gas that increases heat its the heat generated. Say thats around 1850... In 2005 more heat generating items like cars, heaters,other unknown heat sources etc. causes the effect of another 100 space heaters of the same output to be added.

Could global warming be just the simple fact of we are creating more heat than there used to be?
Or could it be some unknown factor such as another dimention or again the earths core or maybe even an event in a black hole causing some unknown effect.

Keep an open mind.
It could be humans or it could be something else.

~BoB

P.S. Thanks Martin for the good debate.
P.P.S ML1 Thanks for the article. I read the other sun article when tired and it didnt sink in.

---

Do you Good Search for Seti@Home? http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=888957
Or Good Shop? http://www.goodshop.com/?charityid=888957

So if it's a good idea to reduce our dependance on non renewable sources of energy ( which I am sure that most folks would agree with ), then WHY are so many folks determined to use scare tactics ( the OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF WE DON'T SPEND TRILLIONS crowd ) to try to make the point??

Hammering us with messages about the NEED for us to reduce our dependance on foreign oil would ( IMO ) be a much better way of getting people to actually DO something. Rather than pounding them with " scientific claims " that some other " scientist " is going to refute anyway?

Honestly, the more reading one does, the more confused a person can get due to the differing views. What is sometimes comes down to is simply picking a side.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

However if there was ever any warming stage such as now then there would be years missing due melting. I am no expert but this is logic.

No. The antarctic is always cold and it always snows in any given year. The relative concentrations atmospheric gases and their isotopes are preserved in bubbles trapped between the snowflakes as they are compressed from above by further snowfalls. In this way a continuous and complete record of atmospheric ingredients is preserved, going back to at least 650,000-million years.
The reason that we can't go back any further is that the ice flows like treacle but very very slowly, perhaps a few metres a year. A million metres is 1000km.

Ok then, if all significant inputs and outputs are known, how do you measure heat and pressure miles down into the earths core?

Pressure is a function of depth and the weight of the matter above. It is a linear relationship. Water has a density of 1000kg per cubic metre, so the pressure at a depth of 1m is 1000kg per square metre, plus the weight of the atmosphere above at 14.7 psi or 101kpa. (101,000 pascals (Newtons per sq meter)/9.81 = 10,295 kg per sq metre.
So pressure at 1m depth in water is 1000 + 10,295 kg per sq metre.

at a depth of 10 metres, pressure is 10,000 + 10,295 = 20 tonnes/sq m (29.4 psi)
at a depth of 20 metres, pressure is 20,000 + 10,295 = 30 tonnes/sq m (44.1 psi)
at a depth of 1000 metres, pressure is 1,000,000 + 10,295 = 1010 tonnes/sq m (1484 psi)
at a depth of 10000 metres, pressure is 10,000,000 + 10,295 = 10010 tonnes/sq m (14714 psi)

Now do the same calculations instead for rock with perhaps a density of 2500kg per cubic metre and you get the pressure at depth. You can see that these pressures quickly get unimaginable.
Temperatures are known to increase in deepest mines, but to get deeper temperatures scientist use seismology, as the speed of sound in molten rock is dependent on temperature. So when there is a big earthquake, it reveals the Earths internal structure just like X-raying a human.

Could global warming be just the simple fact of we are creating more heat than there used to be?

No. The heat we produce is still millions of times less than the heat received by the sun. The temperature of the Earth is in equilibrium -- heat received = heat lost, and results in an average temperature. If insulation is improved then the average temperature will rise until heat received=heat lost. Venus is an extreme example.

We are just a small ball sitting in a vacuum with a thin skin that acts like a jacket that stops the temperature at night dropping to -200C and increasing to 100C by day.
The atmosphere warms up during the day and releases its heat during the night. Some goes to space, and some goes back to Earth (thankfully). If the concentration of CO2 increases, then more heat is radiated back to Earth, less heat escapes and the average temperature will rise. Methane is 23 times more effective at this than CO2, but doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long.

Tiny changes in this equilibrium can cause big changes. A degree or two may not seem like much, but to many species that depend on enzymes working at a very narrow range of temperatures, it can mean the difference between life or death, or all-male or all-female offspring. Any one of a billion possible failures in the machinery of life can spell extinction.

Or could it be some unknown factor such as another dimention or again the earths core or maybe even an event in a black hole causing some unknown effect.

Keep an open mind.
It could be humans or it could be something else.

Minds, like parachutes work best when open. But there isn't anything else that can be responsible. The massive change in CO2 concentration exactly coincides with our population boom and the rape of coal/oil reserves, and it is no coincidence that global temperatures are rising.
For every degree increase in average global temperature, the poles average temperature increases much more, and the arctic ice is already starting to disappear. The effects of GW can be seen, felt and measured all over the world.

I think this will help you.

Andy.

Oh please no. ... and of course they can see the light of day.

Putting some in a water butt is decidedly medieval and cruel. Please don't do it. ...

Well, the green plastic of the water butt does let in a surprising amount of light. There's 200 litres or so but I guess the water surface is a little restricted for keeping the water oxygenated...

It does seem to be a very productive home for mosquitoes...



... Oh, ok then, I'll keep with the polystyrene floaters and the thin layer of old engine oil!

;-)

Cheers,
Martin

Ha, ha. I'm sure the frogs will enjoy their solitude and won't panic when they think the bath is being emptied as the tomatoes are being watered again.

---

flaming balloons

So if it's a good idea to reduce our dependance on non renewable sources of energy ( which I am sure that most folks would agree with ), then WHY are so many folks determined to use scare tactics ( the OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF WE DON'T SPEND TRILLIONS crowd ) to try to make the point??

It may be because that is what they believe. They believe in a 'tipping' point, which may come soon, and we're all going to be dead dodos unless...

But we get 'belief' mixed up with evidence and views based on evidence. There is no evidence 100% to prove either which way, and scientists use what evidence there is and state their views.

It's not a religion where you adopt a belief and stick to it no matter what.

---

flaming balloons

...It may be because that is what they believe. They believe in a 'tipping' point, which may come soon, and we're all going to be dead dodos unless...

No belief...

We know of various very scary 'tipping' points that we know we are getting very close to the criticality.

Just like with earthquakes, we can't predict exactly when. There's enough prediction of the 'how' and the aftermath that... It is very scary, and very soon.

I used to consider that climate, like many other Earth long term processes, changed on "geological" timescales. Recent evidence has completely changed my view for that. We are seeing drastic climate change events that are on the timescale of just a few years...


It is very rare and very extreme to see Scientists publishing extreme articles, and what's more, for other leading Scientists to agree enough to let them!

Now, how to sway the politicians and Big Business quickly enough now to avoid them burning their own feet off and our feet with them?

Unfortunately, I suspect that there is big business to be made in generating a calamaty. Even more unfortunate, once some of the tipping points have tipped, there is no turning back to our present comfortable living.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Now, how to sway the politicians and Big Business quickly enough now to avoid them burning their own feet off and our feet with them?

Unfortunately, I suspect that there is big business to be made in generating a calamaty. Even more unfortunate, once some of the tipping points have tipped, there is no turning back to our present comfortable living.

Regards,
Martin

This is certainly enough to make me positive about making moves towards averting such calamity; doing what I can and influencing where I can (like here even). If it all turns out to be a false alarm, "if", then the benefit of what we have done to deal with Climate Change/Global Warming will still have been worth doing, as outlined by MajorKong a few posts back.

---

flaming balloons

We know of various very scary 'tipping' points that we know we are getting very close to the criticality.

Martin, my gut feeling is that we have already reached a tipping point.

If all the powerstations and cars in the world stopped today, we're still committed to another 1-2 degrees rise.

I don't think humanity has it in them to make the necessary commitment. A reversal is needed, not cuts!

Andy.

Emissions don't make Europe happy

Europe's carbon emissions have risen markedly over the last 40 years, but the extra fuel use has brought little increase in happiness, a report says.

Written by the New Economics Foundation (Nef), it says that reducing social inequality and energy consumption are key drivers of improved wellbeing.

Iceland has the highest ratio of wellbeing to emissions, with the UK 21st out of 30 countries assessed.

A Nef report last year rated Vanuatu as the happiest nation on Earth.

The ratings are based on its Happy Planet Index (HPI). Countries score points for how happy citizens rate themselves to be and how long they live, and lose points for their per-capita carbon output.

"Countries like Iceland... demonstrate that living within our environmental means doesn't mean sacrificing human wellbeing," said Nic Marks, founder of Nef's Centre for Wellbeing.

"By learning from the differences between European countries and copying best practices, we believe it will be possible to both greatly reduce our carbon footprint and increase our wellbeing."

Consuming trend

The European countries with the lowest per-capita carbon footprint are either those which generate substantial amounts of energy from renewables, such as Iceland and Sweden, or former members of the Soviet bloc whose economies are still rebuilding, such as Latvia and Romania.

Across the continent, our per-capita carbon footprint has risen by 70% since 1961, Nef calculates, while life expectancy has increased by about 8% and self-reported happiness hardly at all.

Scandinavians, Icelanders and the Swiss are the happiest people in Europe, while the unhappiest seven are all former Soviet-bloc states.

Britain has the fourth highest per-capita carbon output on the continent, while scoring on the middle tiers for wellbeing and longevity.

A recent BBC survey showed that Britons were happier in the 1950s than we are today, despite a threefold increase in wealth.

"Countries that have most closely followed the Anglo-Saxon, strongly market-led economic model show up as the least efficient," commented Nef's policy director, Andrew Simms.

"These findings question what the economy is there for. What is the point if we burn vast quantities of fossil fuels to make, buy and consume ever more stuff without noticeably benefiting our wellbeing?"

Based on its analysis, Nef's prescription for happy European countries with low per-capita carbon footprints includes measures such as:

• mandatory short-term targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions
  
• reducing inequalities in income, education, health and social opportunity
  
• using the emerging science of wellbeing as a driver of policy
  

---

flaming balloons

....

• mandatory short-term targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions
  
• reducing inequalities in income, education, health and social opportunity
  
• using the emerging science of wellbeing as a driver of policy
  

Yes, Yes, Yes.... Now if here in Australia we could just get stodgy old Johnny Howard to Understand this.... Maybe he hasn't been to Europe Enough.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

Ok then, if all significant inputs and outputs are known, how do you measure heat and pressure miles down into the earth’s core?

Pressure is a function of depth and the weight of the matter above. It is a linear relationship. Water has a density of 1000kg per cubic metre, so the pressure at a depth of 1m is 1000kg per square metre, plus the weight of the atmosphere above at 14.7 psi or 101kpa. (101,000 pascals (Newtons per sq meter)/9.81 = 10,295 kg per sq metre.
So pressure at 1m depth in water is 1000 + 10,295 kg per sq metre.

at a depth of 10 metres, pressure is 10,000 + 10,295 = 20 tonnes/sq m (29.4 psi)
at a depth of 20 metres, pressure is 20,000 + 10,295 = 30 tonnes/sq m (44.1 psi)
at a depth of 1000 metres, pressure is 1,000,000 + 10,295 = 1010 tonnes/sq m (1484 psi)
at a depth of 10000 metres, pressure is 10,000,000 + 10,295 = 10010 tonnes/sq m (14714 psi)

Now do the same calculations instead for rock with perhaps a density of 2500kg per cubic metre and you get the pressure at depth. You can see that these pressures quickly get unimaginable.
Temperatures are known to increase in deepest mines, but to get deeper temperatures scientist use seismology, as the speed of sound in molten rock is dependent on temperature. So when there is a big earthquake, it reveals the Earths internal structure just like X-raying a human.

a) How long have measurements been taken of this temperature?
b) What about heat from friction?
c) Earthquakes sound don’t always travel straight nor does it travel through all patches of earth at the same time. (i.e. colder rock means faster travel but then the spreading out of the wave will cause the effect of similar temperatures when really it may not be.)

Minds, like parachutes work best when open. But there isn't anything else that can be responsible. The massive change in CO2 concentration exactly coincides with our population boom and the rape of coal/oil reserves, and it is no coincidence that global temperatures are rising.
For every degree increase in average global temperature, the poles average temperature increases much more, and the arctic ice is already starting to disappear. The effects of GW can be seen, felt and measured all over the world.

I think this will help you.

Andy.

So now you’re saying that the ice is disappearing? So if this warming has happened before how will we know from the ice? We won’t.

Could global warming be just the simple fact of we are creating more heat than there used to be?

No. The heat we produce is still millions of times less than the heat received by the sun. The temperature of the Earth is in equilibrium -- heat received = heat lost, and results in an average temperature. If insulation is improved then the average temperature will rise until heat received=heat lost. Venus is an extreme example.

The temperature is not in equilibrium and it never will be. It is in constant change. There are warming periods and cooling periods not caused by any human influence.

On the other hand think of heating our homes. Every time the heaters come on heat is lost into the earth. More heat absorption into the earth. Isn't this what we are complaining about causing global warming?

Also if we are releasing more heat it is as if the sun has a higher output.
Therefore: Does Heat received + heat created = heat lost ?
If heat received = heat lost then we add a microscopic number as heat created it still creates a warming effect.

1000000 + 0.000001 /=/ 1000000 (/=/ means does not equal)

Methane is 23 times more effective at this than CO2, but doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long.

The cattle population releases the most methane and last I've heard is that this population is increasing.

Also in the Bermuda triangle there is huge methane deposits that I’ve heard are releasing more methane gas than usual.

Hey here is an idea... Instead of carbon credits, lets make methane credits.
Cattle and humans are only allowed one fart per day, if they want more then they can buy the credits for more.


~BoB

---

Do you Good Search for Seti@Home? http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=888957
Or Good Shop? http://www.goodshop.com/?charityid=888957

... Hey here is an idea... Instead of carbon credits, lets make methane credits.
Cattle and humans are only allowed one fart per day, if they want more then they can buy the credits for more.

Both are needed. Use 1x methane = 62x CO2?

There is quite a problem from cattle and also from human refuse landfill.

The cattle problem can be reduced by feeding them better (less methane burped). Landfill can have the gas piped to do something more useful with it.

More of the greenhouse gasses story can be found here.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

a) How long have measurements been taken of this temperature?
b) What about heat from friction?

Irrelevant - these are constants.

c) Earthquakes sound don’t always travel straight nor does it travel through all patches of earth at the same time. (i.e. colder rock means faster travel but then the spreading out of the wave will cause the effect of similar temperatures when really it may not be.)

As I said, seismic activity provides an Xray of the Earth. Again, irrelevant to global warming.

Only volcanic activity has any effect, and every indication is that average activity has been fairly constant over the last few million years. Bursts of volcanic activity produce temporary effects - the CO2 is reabsorbed into the oceans, sulphate particles cause global dimming and precipitate out after a few months causing the temperature to rise again.

Our CO2 emissions are so extreme that they are beginning to saturate the oceans and preventing more CO2 from being absorbed. In addition to potentially sterilising the oceans, another significant burst of volcanic activity will produce a lot of gases that won't be absorbed in time and will contribute even more to GW once the sulphates have subsided.

So now you’re saying that the ice is disappearing? So if this warming has happened before how will we know from the ice? We won’t.

In the Arctic - yes, and has been disappearing for the last couple of decades.

Snow as *always* fallen in Antarctica in all climate conditions so there will always be an ice record of atmospheric composition - at least while the continent occupies 'pole position'

The temperature is not in equilibrium and it never will be. It is in constant change. There are warming periods and cooling periods not caused by any human influence.

Equilibrium is not the same as static equilibrium. Heat radiated always equals Heat received and the average temperature adjusts according to the efficiency of the insulation.

On the other hand think of heating our homes. Every time the heaters come on heat is lost into the earth. More heat absorption into the earth. Isn't this what we are complaining about causing global warming?

No! That heat is lost again very quickly.

Also if we are releasing more heat it is as if the sun has a higher output.
Therefore: Does Heat received + heat created = heat lost ?
If heat received = heat lost then we add a microscopic number as heat created it still creates a warming effect.

1000000 + 0.000001 /=/ 1000000 (/=/ means does not equal)

Yes. But the heat we produce is very very tiny in comparison to the energy received by the sun, which warms the land and sea and partially retained by CO2 and other gases. Like putting on another pullover - if you increase the insulation the temperature will rise until heat radiated=heat input

The cattle population releases the most methane and last I've heard is that this population is increasing.

Yes, and this is a very serious problem - mainly caused by Americans love of hamburgers (beefburgers!). Trees are burnt to make land for the cattle to satisfy this demand, carbon is released and ecosystems destroyed.
Each cow produces around 500 litres of methane a day.
So, eating less beef can help the environment a lot and prevent the destruction of the rain forests essential for all our survival.

Also in the Bermuda triangle there is huge methane deposits that I’ve heard are releasing more methane gas than usual.

Methane hydrates - the huge pressure forces the methane to combine with water and form a kind of ice. If these deposits come loose and float to the surface as a result of underwater landslides or other disturbances then that could create a world wide disaster.

Study Finds That Global Warming Doubles Number Of Hurricanes

"Boy, are we having some funky weather here in England. At the moment it’s quite chilly here, while in other parts of the country there are flooding problems. Meanwhile, in the European continent people have died from the heat this summer. Crazy stuff."

---

flaming balloons

Meanwhile, in the European continent people have died from the heat this summer. Crazy stuff.

Tell me about it... Jan 2006 were icebergs floating down the Danube in Budapest. This year there wasn't any snow and temps were 10 degrees C above average for practically the whole winter. Now summer heat records were broken on 3 consecutive days, at over 40 degrees and people were dropping like flies. Completely unbearable. Luckily many blocks of flats have enclosed courtyards, and this design helps to keep the temperatures down in summer, but go on to the street and it was murder. Some people were even using umbrellas against the sun.

The climate sure is suffering more extremes everywhere.

a) How long have measurements been taken of this temperature?
b) What about heat from friction?

Irrelevant - these are constants.

c) Earthquakes sound don’t always travel straight nor does it travel through all patches of earth at the same time. (i.e. colder rock means faster travel but then the spreading out of the wave will cause the effect of similar temperatures when really it may not be.)

As I said, seismic activity provides an Xray of the Earth. Again, irrelevant to global warming.

Only volcanic activity has any effect, and every indication is that average activity has been fairly constant over the last few million years. Bursts of volcanic activity produce temporary effects - the CO2 is reabsorbed into the oceans, sulphate particles cause global dimming and precipitate out after a few months causing the temperature to rise again.

Our CO2 emissions are so extreme that they are beginning to saturate the oceans and preventing more CO2 from being absorbed. In addition to potentially sterilising the oceans, another significant burst of volcanic activity will produce a lot of gases that won't be absorbed in time and will contribute even more to GW once the sulphates have subsided.

So now you’re saying that the ice is disappearing? So if this warming has happened before how will we know from the ice? We won’t.

In the Arctic - yes, and has been disappearing for the last couple of decades.

Snow as *always* fallen in Antarctica in all climate conditions so there will always be an ice record of atmospheric composition - at least while the continent occupies 'pole position'

The temperature is not in equilibrium and it never will be. It is in constant change. There are warming periods and cooling periods not caused by any human influence.

Equilibrium is not the same as static equilibrium. Heat radiated always equals Heat received and the average temperature adjusts according to the efficiency of the insulation.

On the other hand think of heating our homes. Every time the heaters come on heat is lost into the earth. More heat absorption into the earth. Isn't this what we are complaining about causing global warming?

No! That heat is lost again very quickly.

Also if we are releasing more heat it is as if the sun has a higher output.
Therefore: Does Heat received + heat created = heat lost ?
If heat received = heat lost then we add a microscopic number as heat created it still creates a warming effect.

1000000 + 0.000001 /=/ 1000000 (/=/ means does not equal)

Yes. But the heat we produce is very very tiny in comparison to the energy received by the sun, which warms the land and sea and partially retained by CO2 and other gases. Like putting on another pullover - if you increase the insulation the temperature will rise until heat radiated=heat input

The cattle population releases the most methane and last I've heard is that this population is increasing.

Yes, and this is a very serious problem - mainly caused by Americans love of hamburgers (beefburgers!). Trees are burnt to make land for the cattle to satisfy this demand, carbon is released and ecosystems destroyed.
Each cow produces around 500 litres of methane a day.
So, eating less beef can help the environment a lot and prevent the destruction of the rain forests essential for all our survival.

Also in the Bermuda triangle there is huge methane deposits that I’ve heard are releasing more methane gas than usual.

Methane hydrates - the huge pressure forces the methane to combine with water and form a kind of ice. If these deposits come loose and float to the surface as a result of underwater landslides or other disturbances then that could create a world wide disaster.

The real problem--if there is a slight rise in temperature--is that re-radiation into space at night (which cools the earth from the heat of the day)--can be blocked by "clouds". These are primarily water vapor--soot, dust and other componds may also help retain heat, many by fostering cloud formation. CO2 has an extrodinarily small effect when compared to water vapor. Remember that we came out of the last ice age not so long ago without any great amount of C02 production by mankind.

Compared to cloud cover and cyclic variations in the sun's energy, CO2 is a miniscule effect.

In Illinois you can still see the moraines where the last glaciers stopped

---

...Compared to cloud cover and cyclic variations in the sun's energy, CO2 is a miniscule effect.

Very clearly wrong.

See:
The role of water vapor

Please read at least both the paragraphs there.


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

and this too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg

The West Coast Convergence for Climate Action
Wednesday, August 8th - Tuesday, August 14th

6 days of low-impact living and high-impact action near the mouth of the Columbia River in Skamokawa, Washington.

With extreme weather, massive species extinctions, and melting ice caps becoming a more dire reality each day, it is high time for us to come together to take firm actions against the root causes of climate change.

Today, with large fossil fuel development projects planned at the mouth of the Columbia River, this iconic waterway is ground zero in the global struggle against the violence of the energy industry and for a livable climate future.

The West Coast Convergence for Climate Action will be situated near a community that is fighting a proposed Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal on the Columbia River. Currently, LNG development is being met with local, community-based resistance due to the immense safety risks, environmental destruction, local economic impact, and social injustice related to this foreign fossil fuel. We are working with and supporting many of the local residents in their campaign against LNG, as well as with activists resisting dams, highway expansions, nuclear and other forms of dirty and unjust energy.

The convergence will be a space for celebration, for kids and families, a place to socialize with friends old and new. We intend to show that less energy intensive, less "stuff-centered" living is not just more environmentally friendly, but that less can be so much more FUN!

---

Account frozen...