Post by Dr. Ryan Maue (cross posted at my Policlimate)
“Must watch TV: Nye expounds on theory of racism”
Much “debate” has erupted in the liberal mainstream media concerning the effects of global warming on Hurricane Irene. With a few notable exceptions (Henry Fountain awesome), many of the journalists butchered the science and generally constructed disjointed narratives that quoted a variety of favorite experts which left me wondering why they even bother (Politico). Rush Limbaugh provided a compelling alternative explanation for the hurricane hype: “Politics is part of everything. The weather’s been politicized; the climate’s been politicized…Both Obama and the media were hoping for a disaster to revive his presidency and help prove climate change theory…The New York Times is trying to say that this violent hurricane is indeed indicative of global warming. It was a tropical storm when it left New York.”
But Bill Nye takes the “anti-science” crusade to a new level by showing up on Fox Business with my KFI 640 Saturday friend Charles Payne and embarrassing the hell out of himself. Once you watch the video and read the transcript, you will be left in amazement at his utter lack of comprehension of the topic at hand on national television! But, alas, Media Matters thinks Nye owned Payne (h/t to Andrew Revkin to Tweeted this). And CBS News headlines it as a story! Unbelievable!
The left actually thinks Bill Nye is a brilliant ambassador for their brand of global warming alarmism — a legitimate guy that understands the science and can articulate an explanation. However, Nye has no credentials or expertise with respect to global warming and hurricanes, at all. Not one iota.
Video is embedded or to go to CBS News and watch the Fox Business embedded video there. “Heady stuff, but Nye receives my respect for retaining his patience in outlining a life’s worth of work in a six-minute segment.” says Andrew Nusca. He has no idea that what Bill Nye is saying is disjointed and amateurish. Intricacies? Nye got almost everything wrong.
I transcribed my own transcript from the first 3 minutes of this (all I could take). Emphasis — bold and italics are my comments.
Charles Payne: While hurricane Irene brought more than just wind damage and flooding to the east coast, it’s revived a national debate as to whether global warming might be causing an increase in hurricanes and other extreme weather. In fact a recent cover story in Newsweek declared that this kind of wild weather may be quote “the new normal”. Here with insights on this is Bill Nye, otherwise known as the science guy.
Ok Bill, I’m going to come right at you. Um…Hurricane Irene – proof of global warming?
Bill Nye: Oh, I don’t think the word proof is what you are looking for – evidence of, a result of, yeah, yeah. Now here’s what the people will tell you that run these climate models. Now everybody, the word model in this usage is a computer program. A very sophisticated computer program. So you take data from satellites about the thickness of clouds and the extent of cloud-cover over the sea. You take data about the temperature of the sea surface. You take data about the existing weather say in North America or the Gulf of Mexico as this storm moves into it. Then you compute how much rain fell out of it, how much energy must have been put into it to create that much rain. It takes many months to analyze an event like Irene. Now the climate colleagues that I have will not tell you today that Irene was evidence or a result of climate change but check in with them about March next year after they have a few months to collect all of these millions and millions of data from weather services and satellites and compile them and run a climate model and show that Irene was a result of the world having more energy in the Earth’s atmosphere.
(Ryan: First of all, charitably, I think Nye is confusing a real-time operational weather forecast with a climate model. Climate models do not assimilate satellite observations of a given event — and it wouldn’t take months and months to compile the data. I have everything sitting on my server which generates my old FSU weather map page. Check back with them in March — that’s when they’ll have their climate model results back proving Irene was the result of more energy? This is a pretty unconventional way of doing climate or extreme event attribution. Bill Nye follows the “anti-scientific” method: I’ll give you the answer now, and then in 6-months, check back when I have the proof. )
CP: But here’s the thing here bill, ever since Katrina, right, we’ve heard that every year the hurricane season is going to be more devastating and apocalyptic, and the reality is we haven’t seen that. So how can Newsweek say “hey, this is a new normal”? is that irresponsible – is there any science behind that?
(Ryan: this is a great question by Payne. Since global hurricane activity — the number of storms, hurricanes, and Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) is at historical lows — collapsing since Katrina — as I showed in my recent GRL peer-reviewed paper, how on earth can you attribute one hurricane (Irene) to climate change.?)
BN: well there’s a lot more science behind that than just saying it’s not. But, uh, that aside. That’s only 6-years – in geologic time in terms of climate events, is not very long. Furthermore there is a lot of debate about this cool thing or remarkable thing is that the Sea-surface in the Pacific gets warmer, in the Pacific Ocean! Okay, tens of thousands of nautical miles away. As that gets warmer, it will strangely serve to decapitate certain hurricane or cyclonic storms off the coast of Africa – and actually get a few fewer hurricanes.
(Ryan: no kidding Nye, however, you haven’t come up with any science. Nye then launches into a tortured explanation of the El Nino Southern Oscillation warm phase — El Nino where the waters in the tropical Pacific cyclically become anomalously warm. But, it’s not “tens-of-thousands nautical miles away” — that’s more like the distance to the moon. There is actually little consensus in the climate community about the future of El Nino as the planet slowly warms. The CMIP3 models used for the IPCC AR4 report fail to reproduce historical ENSO events or variability, and therefore are useless prediction devices for the future. We already have a pretty good handle on the “teleconnection” effects of El Nino and La Nina on Atlantic hurricane development with research pioneered by Dr. Bill Gray and furthered by Dr. Phil Klotzbach who produces Colorado State’s seasonal hurricane forecasts. 2011 is a neutral-to-building La Nina year, so we should expect weaker vertical shear in the Main Development Region of the tropical Atlantic. It’s bizarre that Nye brought up El Nino which contradicts his original assertion that Irene was evidence of global warming.)
CP: But Bill, that’s not…
BN: This is another thing that’s very hard to show.
CP: But the Pacific Ocean, getting warmer, but that’s not from man.
(Ryan: excellent point again Charles. The tropical Pacific does not have a strong global warming signal over the past 30-years, which is due to the cyclical nature of ENSO on 2-7 year time scales. Our sea-surface temperature (SST) records get worse as you go backwards from the beginning of the satellite era in 1979. Nye has no answer.)
BN: (waving hands): you’re acting that you are dismissing those things like they they are not relevant.
(Ryan: Nye is defeated, and he knows it. After wagging his finger like Judge Judy, he pretty much has spent his arsenal of facts on this issue.)
CP: I’m not dismissing it, but you have so much information, I want to get to all of it. Are you saying though that it’s manmade, though?
BN: Well the world is getting warmer, uh, everybody, the world is getting warmer. I believe the debate is whether humans are causing it…Do we not agree that the world is getting warmer?
(Ryan: The world is getting warmer — so Irene has to be influenced by global warming. Maybe Irene did NOT reach its maximum potential because of global warming — has anyone considered that. Why must ALL of the climate change effects be a certain sign? Why didn’t Irene reach Category 5? Why did it weaken so fast if the SSTs were so warm? This is where the real tropical cyclone researchers will take over from the media hacks, and, yes, they will come with an answer in March. But, they will follow the “scientific” method and not the “I’ll get the proof later” Bill Nye “anti-science” method.)
CP: I have no idea. Someone told me that it’s warmed 1-degree over the past 100-years. I’ll take their word for it.
(Ryan: Charles is right.)
Show continues to talk about racism and shows the Al Gore “racism” clip – but Nye then really goes off into a different realm discussing that. I’m convinced that Fox News booked Nye knowing that he would butcher the science, and force me to write this post.
ACK!!!!
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 31, 2011 at 6:17 am
James Sexton says:
August 30, 2011 at 10:26 pm
(For Bill Nye six years is too few to show lack of hurricane activity, but one storm is enough to prove AGW)
Nice!
=========================================================
Thanks AAM, and it was nice, but, I can’t take credit. That was our friend Matt that I was quoting.
DAV:
With respect, I think you missed the point polistra made at August 30, 2011 at 4:36 pm when he wrote:
“Correlation isn’t all you need to imply causation. You need correlation plus a firm mechanism.”
Your reply at August 31, 2011 at 10:53 am says;
“Not true. It’s possible to establish causation without knowing the how and why of the mechanism. Years ago people noticed the sun warms the environment without knowing how it could do so. In fact, I’d venture to say that knowledge of cause/effect more likely than not precedes research into the mechanism.”
The issue was whether or not correlation indicates causation. It was not whether a mechanistic explanation is needed to establish causation.
In your illustration, direct exposure to the Sun provides warmth and that warmth is reduced when a cloud passes in front of the Sun. Indeed, any shade from the Sun’s rays reduces warming. This effect of shade is the direct evidence that “the sun warms the environment” and not any correlation.
On its own correlation says nothing about causation. But observation of a correlation may suggest a causal relationship is worthy of investigation if a plausible causal effect can be postulated. Proof of a causal mechanism that creates the correlation would be definitive proof of the causal relationship.
Importantly, absence of correlation proves a causal relationship does not exist.
Richard
So, essentially, he is either an evil bastard communist-like who knows he’s wrong but spews the CAGW propaganda anyway, or he is the oblivious ignorant bastard choosing to act like an evil communist, believing he’s a good guy spewing the CAGW propaganda anyway.
He appears to have a screw loose either way, and I base my conclusions on observations of his apparent bottle lunacy. :p
davidmhoffer says:
August 31, 2011 at 9:57 am
R. Gates;
Hurricanes are part of the climate system, meaning multiple interrelated causes and effects, and you could no more separate greenhouse gases from the existence of hurricanes on earth then you could, separate the whales from the existence of oceans…they all infer each other. Again, no greenhouse gases on earth, no hurricanes.>>>
So…you’re saying that whales cause the oceans? Or that the oceans cause whales? Or that it would be impossible to take all the whales out of the oceans to see what happens as a result? You babble on about chaos theory and three body problems and then introduce an example so ridiculously inapropriate to either those concepts or the topic at hand that it ony shows how little you understand any of what you pretend to.
The real question is this: Do you know how silly you look and just don’t care, or are you so drunk on AGW nonsense that you don’t even know that you look silly.
_____
If you can’t understand how whales are related to oceans, and that in fact, even if you’d never seen a whale, you could infer the existence of whales by studying the oceans in detail, then its not surprising to me that other issues related to chaos and complexity are beyond you as well.
So too, the existence of hurricanes can be inferred from the totality of the climate system, such that, even if you’d never seen a hurricane, you’d understand that there would need to be some mechanism that removes heat from the equator to the poles and from the oceans to the atmosphere, and all the other dynamics that hurricanes are involved in, and so, you could infer the existence of hurricanes by studying the climate system. Obviously, (but perhaps not obvious to you), if there were no greenhouse gases, there’d be not much heat to move from the oceans, as they’d be frozen pretty solidly.
mkelly says:
August 31, 2011 at 8:11 am
Below is the composition of Jupiter’s atmosphere. From Wiki.
89.8±2.0% hydrogen (H2)
10.2±2.0% helium
~0.3% methane
~0.026% ammonia
~0.003% hydrogen deuteride (HD)
0.0006% ethane
0.0004% water
No CO2. Water almost nonexistant. Ninety-nine per cent plus is non GHG. So RGates what should we call the large storm on Jupiter if not a hurrincane. If it is a hurricane how did it get there without GHG’s?.
______
Would be doubtful in the large storm on Jupiter was created by the same dynamics as hurricanes on earth. As far as I know, there’s no liquid ocean and no ocean-atmosphere boundary in which heat is dissipated. Take away earth’s greenhouse gases, and hurricanes would go away as well, and probably the only life forms would be living deep under the frozen layers of the ocean where liquid water might still exist, or perhaps deep underground caves, but the surface of the earth, without greenhouse gases, would be pretty devoid of life…perhaps much like Jupiter’s Europa.
What is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth? This gas also covers 2/3rds of the earth as a liquid. The oceans are the very greenhouse “gas” you are talking about. They don’t warm themselves, the sun beats down on them and water evaporates to form the only greenhouse gas that matters, water vapor. Your example is meaningless because humans contribute virtually nothing to the overall cycle of water vapor into the atmosphere, and water vapor was not made out to be a gigantic political boogeyman. This was a strawman you just threw out there.
But of course, now, you get to “the issue”…
You cannot have zero level of greenhouse gasses on earth until the oceans freeze solid or boil away, it is not possible. It’s not possible because water is the primary greenhouse gas. The reason for this is that water has much more energy modes than CO2, and can thus hold more energy in the form of heat than CO2, to say nothing of it’s absorption spectrum difference. Now you’re supposing that increasing a minor greenhouse gas somehow has a primary effect on increasing water vapor creation in the atmosphere which is a primary driver of the creation of hurricanes (when the sun does most of that anyway)… and then supposing that the amount of increase of this minor greenhouse gas from humans (which is itself a subset of the overall increase of this gas concentration in the atmosphere) can be directly responsible for changes in hurricane behavior.
Do you not see how insane that sounds?
You see, everything you said relates fine if you’re talking about water. If humans were dumping hot water vapor into the air at a rate faster than the oceans already do, I might believe you. But you’re relating the effects of a subset of a subset of a minor player in the greenhouse gas spectrum, and then giving credence to the idea that altered behavior of storms the size of continents can be attributed to the human part of that equation. That is insane.
DirkH says:
August 31, 2011 at 6:18 am
R. Gates says:
August 30, 2011 at 8:16 pm
” Again, no greenhouse gases on earth, no hurricanes.”
R. Gates, we can agree on that. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so no greenhouse gases on Earth implies an Earth devoid of water and oceans; as a hurricane is powered by the hydrological cycle, a hurricane would then be impossible.
But that’s not what you wanted to imply; you wanted to somehow connect CO2 and hurricanes. And that is of course unnecessary, as 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, this completely suffices; CO2 is, as usual, a bit player.
____
CO2 is hardly a “bit player” in the dynamics of the atmosphere. To believe such, in any manner, is to completely not understand what is going on with the planet earth. Take away CO2, and the earth becomes, quickly, an snowball earth, frozen from pole to equator. Seriously, those of you in doubt of this really need to understand the difference between a Condensing and Non-condensing greenhouse gas. As the earth cools, more water vapor is condensed, and then it gets cooler, and more water vapor is condensed, until all, or nearly all the water vapor is wrung out of the atmosphere. For a quick article on this, read:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
This is not propaganda, but science. Pull yourself away from Fox News long enough to read a bit.
Jeremy says:
August 31, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“The oceans are the very greenhouse “gas” you are talking about.”
____
Take away all those little “bit player” CO2 molecules from the atmosphere, and we get a snow-ball earth, pretty quickly. CO2 is GAS the keeps this from happening. Water Vapor would quickly condense out of the atmosphere, and we’d get colder and colder and then pretty much all life on the surface would cease to exist. There’d probably be some life under the frozen ocean surface or deep underground in caves, etc. But without CO2 as a GAS in the atmosphere, earth turns to a snowball.
R. Gates;
“Again, no greenhouse gases on earth, no hurricanes.>>>”
Oh horse puckey. I earlier posted the atmosphere of Jupiter. No CO2. Water virtually non-existent. 99%+ of the atmosphere non-GHG’s. Yet the largest storm in the solar system that sure looks like a hurricane resides on Jupiter.
Some who doubt how quickly earth would turn to a snowball planet without the “bit player” CO2 in the atmosphere, should also read:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html
But of course, we’ve got at least one potential Presidential candidate who wouldn’t want you to listen to this propaganda put out by those disreputable climate scientists. How did Amerika come to this?
Nobody knows exactly how gravity works, either.
But the point about correlation and causation not being the same thing stands.
R Gates,
“And you do not understand complexity or chaos or the basic “three body problem”. Hurricanes are part of the climate system, meaning multiple interrelated causes and effects, and you could no more separate greenhouse gases from the existence of hurricanes on earth then you could, separate the whales from the existence of oceans…they all infer each other. Again, no greenhouse gases on earth, no hurricanes.”
So, greenhouse gases affect hurricanes because the climate system is ‘complex’ and ‘chaotic’? Well, if ghg’s are part of the complexity, then why must you conclude that they will increase hurricane intensity?
Actually, the opposite should be the case. Hurricanes are not driven by average temperature but by temperature gradients, which is why Mars and Jupiter have strong – super hurricane strength – winds, despite having lower average temperatures. Do you think that hurricanes would stop on a snowball Earth? With no greenhouse gas, heat would rapidly radiate away leading to frigidly cold night time temperatures compared to day time, and a very high temperature gradient. Strong winds would result, although there would be no rainfall, obviously.
R Gates:
If CO2 was removed from the atmosphere – all plant life dies (no food) – ocean heat sink maintains equatorial temps – bacteria rapidly eat rotting dead vegetation (equatorial zone) – and rapidly replace CO2 with methane – a much stronger GHG – temperatures normalize, methane decays to CO2… and we are back to where we started. See! Anyone can tell a fairy tale.
My question is: What is your motivation or agenda in spouting such blatant dogma? GK
GK says to Gates:
“What is your motivation or agenda in spouting such blatant dogma?”
It’s probably the dime a post he’s getting paid.☺
That’s a very interesting and completely unfalsifiable claim. That means it is worthless. Enjoy your continued wading into philosophy outside of the realm of science.
Vince Causey is right, temperature gradients power hurricanes. And the gradients are steeper during glaciations. Prof Richard Lindzen notes:
Robert E. Phelan wants to know what are my “metrics” for calling Irene a “powerful storm”. The term seems justified to me by the facst that it killed 18 people, caused severe flooding in the Katskills and southern Vermont (places not usually bothered by tropical storms) and caused billions of dollars in property damage overall. And it was a hurricane for most of its career — a very big and powerful one. It can’t be dismissed even though it wasn’t Katrina.
Questions for Prof. Lindzen — what is the “ample evidence” that the Earth’s temperature at the equator has been stable for the past billion years? It would have to be proxy data, and not even the staunchest defenders of the hockey stick are wiling to trust proxy data that far back in time. And there is plainly visible evidence that the Earth’s temperature at the equator has risen sharply in the past few decades– witness the rapid disappearance of tropical glaciers in the Andes. Peru, which has had 70% of the world’s tropical glaciers in the past, has experienced such a loss that a number of its hydroelectric plants are running at 20% of capacity; and the moss that Alpacas live on is dying, which will eventually force the Quechua Indians to leave the mountains — where they have lived for centuries. And the glaciers have not “sublimated” — they have melted.
Philip N. says:
“And it was a hurricane for most of its career — a very big and powerful one.”
“Most of its career” was over the ocean. And yes, it was very big in extent. But not all that powerful over land, despite the endless hype.
I was onboard a ship near Kauai in Hawaii a few months after Iniki passed through. We could see literally hundreds of concrete building pads up the side of the island. They all had houses on them, but Iniki blew the houses away. Irene was big geographically, but it wasn’t all that powerful.
Also, September 10th is the peak of the hurrican season. Hurricanes happen every year. The difference now is that the MSM narative says that they are the result of AGW. Scientifically knowledgeable people know that a warmer planet will produce less intense hurricanes because of the lower temperature gradient. Unfortunately, most of the public, including the believers in CAGW are scientific illiterates who unquestioningly believe the TV talking heads, and other propaganda outlets like Scientific American.
R. Gates;
If you can’t understand how whales are related to oceans, and that in fact, even if you’d never seen a whale, you could infer the existence of whales by studying the oceans in detail, then its not surprising to me that other issues related to chaos and complexity are beyond you as well>>>
You just don’t quit, do you? Both feet shoved in your mouth and just open wider! Go for the knees! Go for the knees! I can tell by studying the oceans that whales exist, so I must conclude that by studying the climate that hurricanes exist? CO2 exists? You exist? What?
OK Mr. “I understand chaos and complexity and you don’t”, how about an explanation?
Your original inference was that whales relate to the ocean in the same way that CO2 relates to hurricanes. So…Let’s accept for a moment that changes in CO2 affect hurricane strength. Can you please explain how that is analogous to whales and the ocean? No twisted up references to vague theories of this that or the other thing that you pontificate about your expertise in but never produce a shred of evidence for. No appeals to authority, no links to irrelevant articles, not excuses about what I or anyone else is too stupid to understand.
Just an actual explanation, presented logically, in as many words as you need. Start with explaiing calculus if you have to , or the laws of motion, but stop with the sneering from atop the mountain upon the poor peasants unable to understand the Truth that your Intellect reveals. Put up or shut up.
Philip N.,
Ask Prof Lindzen yourself, I just saved his quote. If you think he was winging it, I’d check out his CV first. And you’re mistakenly conflating Peru with the equator, which crosses Ecuador.
And your preposterous claim saying that “plainly visible evidence that the Earth’s temperature at the equator has risen sharply in the past few decades” isn’t based on satellites or thermometers, is it? By “risen sharply,” I presume you mean more than the natural 0.7°C rise over the past century and a half. Provide verifiable global temperature data if you want your claim to be taken seriously. This isn’t real climate or skeptical pseudo-science, you know. You get called on baseless claims here.
Glaciers come and go, and CO2 has nothing to do with it: click As you can see, for millennia there were no glaciers at all, at a time when CO2 was only around 280 ppmv.
Also, nice scare story about the poor alpacas being run out because their favorite moss is declining. I’ll add that one to my globaloney file.☺
[snip – over the top against Mr. Nye – Anthony]
Smokey,
Prof. Lindzen’s CV is impressive, but that’s not what I wanted to see. I wanted to see the “abundant evidence” about temperatures at the equator over the past billion years.
I think I already knew that Peru is not Ecuador, or at the equator. I mention Peru only because I am from Columbus, and have had the opportunity to talk to people at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, who have been studying Andean glaciers in Peru for almost thirty years now.
The glaciers in the Andes are melting at a rapid clip — photographs of the glaciers taken a 20 or 30 years ago show how dramatic and rapid the ice loss has been. The researchers at the BPRC are taking as many ice cores from the glaciers as they can, as quickly as they can, because there won’t be much left of the glaciers before long. They are analyzing some of the ice cores to determine the levels of CO2 trapped in them, but storing at least half of them for the next generation of glaciologists to look at; otherwise, the next generation would have nothing to work with.
As for the Alpacas — they cannot survive without moss and water, both of which are disappearing rapidly; and the Quechua Indians cannot survive without the Alpacas. Eventually, there will be no more Alpacas and the Quechua will have to move off the mountains, ending up no doubt in the slums of Lima, or in some of the desperately poor villages along the coast, such as San Bartolo.
These changes have taken place within the time that the BPRC has been studying the glaciers of Peru. Of course, it may have nothing to do with CO2. It must have something to do with warming, though; the glacial ice is melting into water, not sublimating into water vapor.
Philip N.:
At August 31, 2011 at 2:28 pm you say;
“Questions for Prof. Lindzen — what is the “ample evidence” that the Earth’s temperature at the equator has been stable for the past billion years? It would have to be proxy data, and not even the staunchest defenders of the hockey stick are wiling to trust proxy data that far back in time.”
I cannot answer for what Richard Lindzen would say, but I point out that proxy data are not needed.
A negative feedback prevents tropical ocean surface temperatures rising above 305K (i.e. present maximum ocean surface temperature). This was first discovered as long ago as 1991
(ref. Ramanathan & Collins, Nature, v351, 27-32 (1991) )
and has been confirmed by several studies since then.
More heat input induces more evapouration (that removes heat from the ocean surface) and causes clouds (that shield the ocean surface from the Sun’s rays). So, the sea surface temperature at the equator is ‘fixed’ for situations of both much more and much less thermal input.
Simply, the temperature at the tropics is bumping against an upper limit, and it would be very surprising if the Earth’s temperature at the equator had not been stable over the past billion years.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says: August 31, 2011 at 11:29 am On its own correlation says nothing about causation. But observation of a correlation may suggest a causal relationship is worthy of investigation if a plausible causal effect can be postulated.
True if only two variables are involved. An experiment is a deliberate insertion or alteration of variables. This is only expedience as any additional information lying about might be useful (your tree shade for instance). It is the inter-correlation of all of the information that is the proof and not the additional information itself or the means of gathering it. Semantics perhaps. You may or may not discover the mechanism of cause along the way. There are algorithms that can discover/determine causation and I assure you those algorithms have no idea what the mechanism is.
For more information I refer you to Judea Pearl’s excellent book: “Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference” available at Amazon (I see there is an earlier edition available as well).
http://www.amazon.com/Causality-Reasoning-Inference-Judea-Pearl/dp/052189560X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314831936&sr=1-1
Proof of a causal mechanism that creates the correlation would be definitive proof of the causal relationship. Importantly, absence of correlation proves a causal relationship does not exist.
Both very true.