What could possibly go wrong?
By John Fialka, E&E NewsJan. 23, 2020 , 10:00 AM
Originally published by E&E News
BOULDER, COLORADO—The top climate change scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said he has received $4 million from Congress and permission from his agency to study two emergency—and controversial—methods to cool the Earth if the U.S. and other nations fail to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
David Fahey, director of the Chemical Sciences Division of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, told his staff yesterday that the federal government is ready to examine the science behind “geoengineering”—or what he dubbed a “Plan B” for climate change.
Fahey said he has received backing to explore two approaches.
One is to inject sulfur dioxide or a similar aerosol into the stratosphere to help shade the Earth from more intense sunlight. It is patterned after a natural solution: volcanic eruptions, which have been found to cool the Earth by emitting huge clouds of sulfur dioxide.
The second approach would use an aerosol of sea salt particles to improve the ability of low-lying clouds over the ocean to act as shade.
This technique is borrowed from “ship tracks”—or long clouds left by the passage of ocean freighters that are seen by satellites as reflective pathways. They could be widened by injections of vapor from seawater by specialized ships to create shading effects.
Research in both techniques, Fahey emphasized, are recommended in a forthcoming study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine titled “Climate Intervention Strategies that Reflect Sunlight to Cool Earth.”
But in a sign of how controversial the topic is, Fahey recommended changing the nomenclature from geoengineering to “climate intervention,” which he described as a “more neutral word.”
Fahey also emphasized this is not an approval to move forward with geoengineering. Rather, it’s to prepare the U.S. government for a political decision if the world fails to adequately limit the rise of global warming.
“Geoengineering is this tangled ball of issues and science is only one of them,” he said.
“One of the things I’m interested in doing is let’s separate the science out,” he added. The idea is to give policymakers a clear view of how a hurry-up bid to save the planet would work.
Even then, the results likely wouldn’t be immediate. Fahey showed slides and graphics that noted that a Plan B might take until the next century to complete the cooling.
Still, better science might “buy time” to improve the efforts, he said.
There would be drawbacks, he noted, after being asked by a researcher whether injections of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere might reduce seafood by acidifying the oceans.
“When you put aerosols up into the atmosphere, it does a lot of things,” Fahey, a physicist, responded. “That opens up this whole menu of things that you’d have to worry about.”
He said other aerosols such as calcite or titania “might have less impact, but nobody knows. We want to look at them in the laboratory.”
Several smaller nations have complained that the use of aircraft to inject aerosols into the atmosphere might alter the weather or destroy the ozone layer, which protects humans from some of the more harmful radiation from sunlight.
Fahey suggested that a scientific approach would require solving a list of unknowns, including tests to find out what’s in the stratosphere today and how to get aerosols to spread there homogeneously. Another likely area of research: unintended consequences.
“We have to use atmospheric observations to find out what we’re doing,” he added.
At the moment, the government has no planned experiments and NOAA’s authority does not extend into the stratosphere. But there is a bill in Congress called the “Climate Intervention Research Act” that would broaden its jurisdiction.
“There could be more than $100 million attached to this, I’m told,” he explained.
HT/Peter B
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I was wondering why this was given the green light, even though its dangerous? And could cause more problems then the climate scam…
$100 million, I sense a lot of “s#&te” will be written in these reports to get every penny of the tax payers $100 million dollars😐
But there is a bill in Congress called the “Climate Intervention Research Act” that would broaden its jurisdiction.
“There could be more than $100 million attached to this, I’m told,” he explained
The research is in the planning stages, and realize that on the experimental scale any effects would be orders of magnitude smaller than that from a small volcano.
It’s not so much what we don’t know but what we don’t know we don’t know.
We can’t look for potential negatives if we don’t realize they could be negatives in the first place.
“It is patterned after a natural solution: volcanic eruptions, which have been found to cool the Earth by emitting huge clouds of sulfur dioxide.”
It’s really patterned after the effect of big chimney, worldwide sulphide ore smelting (all basemetals and with some iron ores) that was cleaned up over the period from late 1970s through the 1980s. Added, the pre-auto catylist smog which we cleaned up during the same time period.
We’ve already done that research! Remember evil humans ‘killed’ a b’gillion lakes with acid rain, never to recover. Oh the the big smoke did coincide with the 40s-70s “Ice Age Cometh” and when the job was done, temperatures moved back up in the 80s and 90s almost to the 1930s _40s warmth (before the homogenes got hold of temp records and added on to it). Very telling that NOAA didn’t mention this.
I was wondering why this was given the green light, even though its dangerous? And could cause more problems then the climate scam…
AGW gets worse….. /sarc
It wasn’t given the “green light”. It looks like this is money to research the feasibility of such endeavours. Hopefully saner minds will win out and this will be binned.
Don’t count on that happening.
A change to a more climate hysterical administration would pave the way for the full enchilada.
The camel has his nose in the tent…
Let’s put an astronomer on the review committee!
Definitely scary. Glad I’m 78. Hate to see what these bozos will try md do to the planet.
Dan Sudlik:
Nothing scary about it.
We have been geoengineering the Earth ever since the start of the industrial Revolution, when we began burning fossil fuels and introducing Anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions into the atmosphere.
They peaked at ~ i36 Megatons in 1979, and the Earth cooled down so much that there were fears of a return to the Little Ice Age,
Then in the mid-1970’s, we began Clean Air efforts to reduce SO2 aerosol emissions, and temperatures predictably began to warm up, causing the anomalous warming that has occurred since then.
Replacing some of that which we have removed will solve our warming problem
Burl Henry January 29, 2020 at 6:44 am
…Replacing some of that which we have removed will solve our warming problem
Warmer weather is NOT a problem.
Contact. Warmer weather is generally welcomed most of the time. While global warming sounds a bit more dangerous, climate change has no ring of fear about it so the latest term ‘Climate breakdown’ whatever that is might do the job.
“Climate breakdown and the global crisis of environmental degradation are increasing violence against women and girls, while gender-based exploitation is in turn hampering our ability to tackle the crises, a major report has concluded.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/29/climate-breakdown-is-increasing-violence-against-women
Correct Steve – Warmer weather is NOT a problem.
But cooling weather is…
THE REAL CLIMATE CRISIS IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS COOLING, AND IT MAY HAVE ALREADY STARTED
By Allan M.R. MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 27, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/
The claim that all of the cooling of the 70’s was from SO2 is as crazy as the claim that all of the warming since 1850 is due to CO2.
Burl,
Warming problem?? REALLY???
Last summer, it took my peach trees a full MONTH longer to ripen than the year before–all because of the cold summer weather!
Most days were 5 to 7 degrees cooler then predicted they’d be by the weather service!
Many wheat fields in my area never ripened and were not harvested!
So I have no idea what “warming problem” you’re referring to–except the false, politicized propaganda you’re falling for!
Time for a reality check! Otherwise, we might find ourselves in a human-induced global famine because we’re too stupid to understand or recognize the evil forces arrayed against us!
RockyRoad January 29, 2020 at 7:28 am
…Last summer, it took my peach trees a full MONTH longer to ripen than the year before–all because of the cold summer weather!
Summer maximums in the eastern half of the USA-48 have, for many of those states, been dropping since the 19th century, others for the last 80 years.
…and I live in the middle of the western half of the USA, so the temperature decline appears to be pervasive.
If this trend continues, I may not get fruit this coming summer! Time to plant carrots and potatoes, instead!
The ice-age farmer has a Grand Solar Minimum Growing Degree Tool —-plug in your Zip-Code and see how bad 2019 was:
http://iceagefarmer.com/ggd/
Growing Degree Days are a measure of heat accumulation used by professionals provide best case outlook as to plant’s pace to maturity.
My GDD dropped 17.2% last year! No wonder my peaches too an extra month to ripen compared to the year before!
A more pragmatic approach would be to find a way to introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere. The commensurate increase in global food production, and the buffer delaying and mitigating the coming cooling cycle are just two benefits.
Yes, indeed!
Experts say from 15 to 25% of global foidstuff production come from the increase we’ve seen in atmospheric CO2 over the last 50 years!
That is one of the primary reasons the world hasn’t experienced massive famine!
Burl Henry:
We did not introduce “Antropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions to the atmosphere”. Gaseous SO2 was emitted into the atmosphere and is now emitted when certain grades of coal and oil are burned. Most of the SO2 in the troposphere is absorbed by water vapor and falls in the form of acid rain, so that its impact on the climate is negligible. Formation of SO2 aerosols is possible at low temperatures only (boiling point is -10oC), usually during volcanic eruptions with the release of gases at high altitudes. The decisive role in lowering the temperature is played by emissions of solid particles (soot, ash, volcanic ash, etc.), which block solar radiation.
Aleks:
You are mistaken:
The conversion of SO2, in the presence of moisture, to H2SO4 (the SO2 aerosol) is very rapid.
According to NASA, both stratospheric and tropospheric SO2 aerosols “reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching the Earth’s surface, cooling, it”
Its effect is NOT negligible! ALL El Ninos are caused by reductions in the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
With respect to the effects of the solid particles which you mention THEIR effects are negligible, since they quickly settle out of the atmosphere, while SO2 aerosols circulate around the globe.
There is no conclusive evidence that anthropogenic SO2 emissions had any influence on world wide temperatures. It does seem to have lowered the pH of local precipitation that may have caused health issues for forrests.
Burl: The “geoengineering was pretty puny in 1750. From Wiki:
“In 1750, the population of the world was 629 million people. By the year 1950, the population had increased to 2.52 billion.”
The above figures are the reason more scientifically sensible people officially marked 1950 as the beginning of significant warming (most of this latter population fig. was growth in unindustrialized countries). Did you know the goal posts were pushed back to 1850 only in the 2015 IPCC report? And this was to bankroll the 0.6C of warming to the “noble cause” in the face of projections of warming that had proved 300% too high in the new millennium.
Gary Pearse:
I agree that the geoengineering was pretty puny in 1750. Very little SO2 in the atmosphere at that time–annual emissions were less than 1 Megaton per year, did not reach 2 Megatons until 1850, 9 Megatons by 1880–and peaked at ~ 136 Megatons 1979, accompanied by cooling.
Now we have reduced them to ~80 Megatons, accompanied by warming.
16.
As for SO2, the problem to be reduced with the clean air act, was the increasing amount of acid rain which was supposed to have been affecting the forests.
Was it not the particulate matter from the volcanoes that caused a reflective effect? The SO2 gas would absorb some radiation from the Sun and reradiate it in all directions? Most likely, being a very small level compared to CO2 which is a small fraction of that for H2O, it would have little effect on temperature. If you want to decrease the Green House effect, do some very stupid process like reducing water vapor.
As I have boringly repeated on numerous occassions, we want to fix an alledged problem by putting stuff into the atmoshpere to stop things happening that have apparently been caused by Humans putting stuff up into the atmosphere; Makes sens to this old engineer,……..NOT! When will the crazy stop, if not, can someone tell me what they’re smoking/snorting so I can get some? AtB
PS: Anyone got any idea what the next suoer-scare story is going to be, when all others have never come to fruition, you guy & gals know, the nuclear Holocaust, the Chemo/Biological warfare, the Global cooling of the 60s-70s, now the Globul Warming of the 80s to date??? No evidence that any of them happened so far! Cold murky & misereable down here in Cream-Tea country this morning, still waiting for these endless hot sunny days to kill me!
Russ George, et al, (Planktos, Inc.) already tried a bit of geoengineering. Iron Sulphate was spread over areas of ocean, in hopes of sequestering CO2 by causing large phytoplankton blooms.
His efforts were deemed a failure by the MSM and others, because when the blooms ahppened, they were quickly gobbled up by higher orders of the food chain.
In fact, some saw his efforts as immensely successful (despite their claims to the contrary,) and quickly moved to ban all such efforts via moratoriums, etc. Despite the ban, George tried his experiment again, around Northern pacific waters around British Columbia, with resulting record salmon harvests, for the area.
PNW salmon “runs” refer to the number of salmon returning from the Pacific Ocean to spawning rivers. Note that for every 1,000 salmon smolts that enter the ocean, only 3 return to the river. Therefore slight changes in ocean conditions can greatly affect return numbers.
That being stipulated, there is NO evidence that iron sulfate dumping off BC had any effect. None, zero, nada.
Instead there is overwhelming evidence that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has enormous effects on salmon runs. We are in the cool Eastern Pacific phase of the PDO, have been since 2011, and runs have responded to that. See
https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/ca-pdo.cfm
A quote from that site:
Since 2013, we’ve observed the highest adult returns of fall Chinook salmon since 1965, which is likely attributed to the strongly negative PDO phase beginning in 2011.
Your link given, clearly shows a correlation between salmon returns and the PDO.
Data developed after a number of ocean Fe fertilization tests, have shown an increase in phytoplankton blooms, over widespread areas. Just the previously mentioned effort West of BC, resulted in a bloom of an area > 25,000 Km2.
It might be simplistic to think that increasing the base structure of the entire food chain, has no effect on predator species, higher up the ladder, regardless of correlations with other phenomena.
As with any other of humanity’s efforts, there will likely be unintended consequences, so caution while acting on a grand scale should be advised.
No such caution has been shown by any promoters of the idea of catastrophic man made climate change, with their calls for at best, increasing reliance on “renewable” energy and at worst, returns to medieval conditions and drastic reductions in human populations.
Such advocates would have no qualms whatsoever, undermining any efforts to ameliorate climate conditions, if those efforts actually worked and undercut attempts to gain wealth and power by those who continuously and stridently point at planetary apparitions, while reaching into everyone else’s pocket.
It appears the lunatics may actually win. I have serious doubts on where humanity will be in 30 years time.
Fighting vicious wars over the last remaining livable strip of land as the ice encroaches from north and south. Trying to keep greenhouses pumped full of CO2 to grow plants which can no longer survive in the CO2 depleted atmosphere, while politicians are calling for increased taxes on water vapor.
Philip: The politicians have the remaining livable stips as was always planned. No taxes needed. The useful idiots are now slaves to those whose lies they worshipped.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/28/global-dissatisfaction-with-democracy-at-a-record-high-research-says.html
The title of the article says it all.
We now have lots of experience with wind and solar, mostly bad. example
The realization is dawning on more and more people that wind and solar can’t work. My hope is that the promise of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) will satisfy the public demand that we ‘do something’ until the CAGW fraud has run its course.
grief ? Where are you ??
The permit for three wind turbines in the Butzbach municipal forest granted by the Giessen Regional Council on 12 October 2018 is illegal. After the discussion meeting on 22.01.2020, the permit was revoked by the Administrative Court on 28.01.2020. The environmental association Naturschutzinitiative e.V. (NI) had taken legal action against the State of Hesse primarily because in its opinion the permit violates European law. For example, exceptions to the ban on killing wasp and buzzard were permitted which are not compatible with the European Birds Directive.
“This ruling is an important milestone for European nature and species conservation and in Germany,” said Harry Neumann, regional chairman of the Nature Conservation Initiative e.V. (NI). The environmental association was successfully represented by the law firm Habor, Göttingen.
More information will follow as soon as the reasons for the ruling are available.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
German source
Where is grief ?
He wouldt tell you other things 😀
The permit for three wind turbines in the Butzbach municipal forest granted by the Giessen Regional Council on 12 October 2018 is illegal. After the discussion meeting on 22.01.2020, the permit was revoked by the Administrative Court on 28.01.2020. The environmental association Naturschutzinitiative e.V. (NI) had taken legal action against the State of Hesse primarily because in its opinion the permit violates European law. For example, exceptions to the ban on killing wasp and buzzard were permitted which are not compatible with the European Birds Directive.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
German source
A thorough fleecing of the people.
Last year – Developing countries demand repayment from the Western world for altering the climate unintentionally and causing weather disasters….
Next year – Developing countries demand repayment from the USA for altering the climate intentionally and causing weather disasters….
I’m applying for a grant to paint all of the UK roads and pavements white, my company of which I am the non-executive chairman will be employing 1000 climate science graduates to do the work. It is estimated that a repaint will be required every couple of years, job for life.
Use 1-inch brushes and employ even more.
Don’t close the road while the painting is going on, to help solve the over population problem.
Q-tips.
You might need 2 colors of paint since white lane markers will no longer be visible.
Vuk: If you wait long enough, it’ll snow. It doesn’t get whiter than that, right? Your problem is that you don’t want the snow to melt. So, you need a transparent insulator. What better than the miracle gas CO2, best insulator in the known universe, right? And you can see right through it, right? So the streets will stay white, right?
But how do you keep the CO2 in place? Look man, I’ve already solved a bunch of BIG problems for you. Your turn to do part of the work.
Just remember, when the grant money to flesh out this concept comes rolling in, part of it is mine.
Given enough time I am sure they will find an “accidental” way to kill us all.
Apart from the stupidity of the ideas, do we even have enough of any of this to pump into a 5 quadrillion ton atmosphere to effect any changes (I think that is the size of the atmosphere I read once)?
What is Fahey’s geoengineering plan to warm the planet?
Global cooling seems to be as likely as warming, given the ~7000 year downtrend in global temps.
Planning to modify our atmosphere to halt natural processes is evidence of megalomania in these geoengineering scientists.
interesting they admit that contrails DO affect the skies..
that was pretty damned easy to see when 9 11 got the planes down and the skies were clean and clear blue briefly
just 3 or 4 planes flying over my rural area on a clear sunny day are enough to create a high level light mist dimming the sunshine for the rest of the day
These methods would be temporary requiring continuous injections into the atmosphere.
I like Iron fertilization, seeding the oceans with iron to promote plankton growth. This would remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This would/could buy the world time to find ways to reduce CO2 production.
It might work within 12 years and thus save the planet.
Or, alternatively, strip so much CO2 from the atmosphere that the plants all die. You pays your money and takes your choice.
Save the planet from what? Why would anyone want to reduce CO2? Idiocy!
I think this quote from the 70’s rock band Blue Oyster Cult is appropriate here:
History shows again and again
How nature points up the folly of man
Godzilla!
We are going to reintroduce acid rain to save the planet ?
Ka equivalent rating: Sulphuric Acid H2SO4 is 1.0 x 103 which is 2.27 Billion times stronger than Carbonic Acid CO32- is 4.4 x 10-7 (which is quite pleasant to drink – soda water – common to all fizzy drinks – is as “bad” as it gets).
So H2SO4 acid rain represents a threat 2.2 billion times worse than man’s CO2 production and to save humanity from the ravages of CO2 we are going to add more sulfuric acid ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_dissociation_constant
Someone explain the logic of this madness.
Ken Irwin:
Inject it high over the ENSO region, and Acid Rain should not be a problem
100 million reasons for it.
“Someone explain the logic of this madness.”
Exactly, come on Ken, get woked. There is absolutely no intention of doing anything. The trillion dollar industry is about talking about it. Jeeeez, even a 16-year old autistic, possibly retarded girl could figure that one out.
Silly me !
That’s chump change if you’re a senator’s kid.
We are going to reintroduce acid rain to save the planet ?
As I said above: AGW gets worse /sarc
Waldsterben is no problem compared to GCC
I would suggest a test volcano in Boulder.
Engineers showed us what a lab explosion looks like while trying to melt ashflow tuffs during the money gold rush days to study Yucca Mountain, before it became politically dormant. They forgot about the volatile components of rocks in the furnace.
ResourceGuy
I hadn’t heard about this. Can you give me a link about it?
That was before the internet but I knew about it from others in the Geol. – GeoEng. – Mine Eng. Departments at the time.
Norman Blanton January 29, 2020 at 6:49 am
…and thus save the planet.
We need to be saved from the climate lunatics.
Faustian nonsense! King Cabute’s courtiers will applaud from their graves
However a controlled experiment might be interesting . Do this above Kirabati perhaps but then winds would blow all your reagents hither and thither and also beware of chaos and butterflies.
If the greenies really want a more sparsely populated planet and if their apocalyptic scenarios are correct then business as usual will wipe out 6 billion of us randomly selected.
On the other hand if so called “deniers”like me are correct thn the deindustrialisation that XR want will wipe out 6 billion of us carefully selected by a UN super bureacracy who allocate the precious resources to the great the good and their cronies. Personally I prefer the former .
Just to finish on a cheery note -75 anniversary of liberation of Aushwitz and some people want to recreate it on a planet wide scale.
And there are people out there that actually fear GMO’s but are all in for this. Doublethink and flat out stupidity are the major threat to this planet….
An excellent point Sheri. We can’t trust man to tinker with our food but we can trust him to tinker with the air we breath. I swear Public Schools grade on a stupid scale. The worse your score the faster you advance to a Federal Loan Guaranteed college indoctrination. Where they offer degrees in “Things That Just Ain’t So.”
Courses Include: Making Protest Messiahs, Protest Messiahs -Real or Imaginary?, How to score government grants, Sailing the Planets Oceans for fun and profit. How to create imaginary hobgoblins.
Extra curricular activities include: Organizing Protest marches, Sign making for Protesters, How to sneak attack using pepper spray,
Post Graduate studies: Building a Social Media presence for Hobgoblins, Grants for Hobgoblins: how to score the big money with a B. Careers in Yellow Journalisming: How to promote Hobgoblins. Careers in Education: Primary School – dumbing down the individual, Secondary School – building ignorant into consensus groups, High School to College: Indoctrination or How to convince consensus groups of Hobgoblins. Post Graduate: Slaying hobgoblins with other peoples (taxpayers) money.
Sheri
More than half of adults have IQs less than 100. There are a disproportionate share who go into politics.
Swalwell comes to mind. I’m surprised that man can walk “on two”.
On the effects of sea salt particles, how much of such is injected into the atmosphere during extreme weather events?
Go to a beach on a onshore windy day. You can see the salt spray as a fine mist. Much of that will dry and be lofted by turbulence up to the cloud base. A big storm will produce uncountable trillions.
Global temperature is controlled by strato-cumulus cloud — my contention is that we have reduced wave breaking by light oil smoothing of the oceans and hence cloud formation. One to two percent reduction in cloud cover is enough to explain all the warming. It also explains Wigley’s blip.
JF
Seriously stupid ideas now being paid for by national government.
There are so many real everyday issues that need funding and sorting without looking for globally dangerous experimentation.
Why is it always megalomaniacs and lunatics that strive to find the final solution…?
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
It (the atmosphere) ain’t broke.
Call it Project Mars.
Indeed there is an emergency :
those guys are bonkers mad.
All of this based on the CO2 miracle molecule, the unproven retainer of the earth’s collected heat. Where is the real proof?
It can pretty much be shown in a laboratory and with some further calculation that a tube containing 400 ppm CO2, then increased to 800 ppm CO2, with an IR input of 240 watts/sq. M will warm by 1.2 degrees C, if perfectly insulated from its surroundings. In the real world, the heat convects away from that laboratory tube, eventually released to outer space, and the temperature rise in the tube is about a tenth of a degree. In “ climate model world” the 1.2 degrees is tripled because of water vapour humidity increase at 1.2 degrees warmer ground level temperature. This leaves one questioning which parts of the experiment are analogous to Earth’s atmosphere.
simplified version here. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk
Doubt it. Never seen such an experiment do anything other than show massive amounts of CO2 provide some warming over no CO2.
DMacKenzie
What happens in the initial experiment of doubling the CO2 if the tube also contains a few percent of water vapor?
What you are saying is complete nonsense. Show me these alleged laboratory experiments. It doesn’t match up with my calculations based on specific heat. The video is complete nonsense. Those cameras don’t ‘read’ 15 microns. There is no way CO2 would ‘hide’ a peak of 8 microns. The reason the camera dimmed is possibly, because there was a coating of paraffin or something on the lens.
If you buy into that nonsense you should go back to middle school .
The best science US bureaucracy can buy – from the deep state, by the deep state. Your tax dollars hard at work.
If it all goes wrong we can always hang Fahey from the hooyuck.