6 billion?

[divemaster]

concerning anthropogenic CO2 and warming trends:

edward asks:

Please feel free to provide citations for contrary opinions.

1. Most of the warming observed in the last century occurred prior to 1938, well before the marked increase in greenhouse gas levels. Human Impacts on Weather and Climate (1992).

This is a very famous graph in climate circles, with a pronounced temperature spike before 1940, and what is probably natural variability since then.

“It is tempting to attribute the past century’s warming to the increase in greenhouse gases. Because of the natural variation of temperatures, however, such an attribution cannot be made with any degree of confidence.” Science 244, 1041-1043 (1989)

---

Some reports show that the hottest years on record in the last century were all during the 80s; however,

2. The Tiros II satellite data showed no significant warming trend in the 80s (usually thought to be the start of the current greenhouse warming). Science 247, 1558-1562 (1990).

and

3. An examination of temperature and precipitation data collected from over 6000 stations found no significant warming trend between 1895 and 1987. Geophysical Research Letters 16, 49-52 (1989).

and

4. Attempts of satellite correlation of ground measurements have not supported the more dire warming predictions/measurements. Sound and Fury Cato Institute 1992, and Science 247.

I realize much of the above is 10 years old; and that measuring historical data is hard to nail down. However, satellite technonlogy looking at the specific time period in question (the 80s) seems to back these statements up.

---

5. From Philip Abelson, assistant editor of Science: “If the global warming situation is analyzed using the customary standards of scientific inquiry, one must conclude there has been much more hype than solid fact.” Science 247.

---

Computer models are often used for climate prediction; however, getting accurate readings is difficult, as the answers are only as good as the data fed into them.

6. "All too often we find modelers comparing their predictions to the results of other models rather than to the actual past. In The Greenhouse Effect, 1992.

7. Woods Hole scientist Andrew Solow states that “the modela are not only bad–that you can’t rely on them as forecasting tools–but that when they’re used to forecast greenhouse warming, they tend to be systematically too hot.” The Greenhouse Effect.

8. Climate computer modeler Michael Schlesinger has said that “due to modeling problems, confidence in detecting the greenhouse effect is down near zero” and that “modelers have been coupling their atmospheric model to a pretty hokey ocean. We all have. But you have to have less confidence because of that.” Science 244, 1041-1043 (1989).

9. Climatologist David Parker of the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research says that the more parameters one keeps trying to correlate with warming, the greater the probability that one will fit the global temperature curve by chance. Science 254, 652-653 (1991).

---

I’ll stop here, but I have a lot more information, especially concerning the workings and limitations of computer climate models, and how policy decisions are being based on a very shaky set of assumptions.

Are the citations I’ve provided the end-all and be-all for the issue? Of course not. The debate has progressed since the 80s and early 90s, but the underlying issues are the same. And it is a side that rarely gets media or public attention.

[John_John]

akats

And the pre-industrial worker was a slave to the land. Women had no sowing machines (I rather suspect that you meant “sewing”, but the misspelling is a fortuitous one), but sowed by hand those same 12 to 14 hours a day.

Your assumption is correct. Thanks for pointing out the comedy of my spelling error. Yes, pre-industrial age people were sowing, while industrial people they were sewing.

Would you agree that 12 hours of sowing on your own land, at your own pace, for your own consumption is preferable to sewing 12 hours for someone else for pennies? I don’t mean to sound like a luddite evangelist; obviously some machinary has been a godsend to the world.

But, a moment, we divert too far form the original topic, OVERPOPULATION.

---

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

[John_John]

c&p from Drivemaster[[[[4) Attempts of satellite correlation of ground measurements have not supported the more dire warming predictions/measurements. Sound and Fury Cato Institute 1992, and Science 247.]]

drivemaster

I realize much of the above is 10 years old; and that measuring historical data is hard to nail down. However, satellite technonlogy looking at the specific time period in question(the 80s) seems to back these statements up.

---

drivemaster c&p[[Computer models are often used for climate prediction; however, getting accurate readings is difficult, as the answers are only as good as the data fed into them. ]]

Yes, getting the full honest picture is very helpful.

From the New Scientist
August 15, 1998

The Heat Is On
Jeff Hecht

Skeptics have lost their main foothold in the global warming debate

**ONE of the last props supporting critics of theories of global warming is crumbling. Satellite data which suggested the Earth’s lower atmosphere is cooling were a red herring. No one was aware that the satellites were slipping from their orbits and giving misleading readings, scientists say. **

The data in question come from several satellites called microwave sounding units, operated by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They seemed to show that the Earth’s lower troposphere, at an average height of about 3.5 kilometers, had cooled at a rate of 0.05 degrees C per decade since 1979.

The average surface temperature is increasing by around 0.13 degrees C per decade, while the lower stratosphere, just above the troposphere, is cooling by about 0.5 degrees C per decade. This matches predictions of greenhouse computer models.

But the models did not predict cooling in the lower troposphere, so the apparent cooling has been a sore point for climate researchers (see Greenhouse wars, New Scientist, 19 July 1997, p 38). Greenhouse skeptics have hailed it as a fatal flaw in theories of global warming.

But Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, became suspicious of the satellite data, because they also showed the lower troposphere was cooling much more than the middle troposphere. “That result was puzzling,” he says.

“It didn’t agree with anything.” Both balloon observations and greenhouse warming models had suggested there should be more cooling at higher altitudes.

Wentz and his colleague Matthias Schabel found that no one had accounted for the gradual slippage of the satellites from their orbits over time. Atmospheric friction would have dragged the satellites down - especially during 1979 to 1983 and 1989 to 1992 when the Sun was particularly active, making the lower atmosphere more dense.

On average, the satellites would have fallen in altitude by 1.2 kilometers every year. These orbit changes would have altered the angles at which the satellites viewed the atmosphere. Taking these changes into account, Wentz and Schabel found that the mysterious cooling trend was actually a warming trend of 0.07 degrees C per decade (“Nature”, vol 394, p 661).

“The effect is real,” agrees John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who had earlier reported the cooling trend.

However, he says that in checking Wentz’s analysis he found three factors which compensate for the orbital decay, leaving an overall cooling of 0.01 degrees C per decade.

Christy’s recalculations have not been published or peer reviewed. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center of Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, says it is “totally ridiculous” that Christy claims to have found “another correction, which happens to compensate”.

The satellite cooling data have been among the strongest arguments against global warming. Balloon observations have recorded a slight cooling at the same altitude, but the results were blurred by a large margin of error. Diane Gaffen of the NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory in Silver Spring, Maryland, says that all measurements suffer because they were designed for weather forecasts; what we need, she says, is detectors designed for monitoring global climate.

In a related paper in this week’s “Science”(vol 281, p 9300), James Hansen and his colleagues at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York say they believe the new data will stand the test of time. “The issue should no longer be whether global warming is occurring but what is the rate of warming, what is its practical significance, and what should be done about it,” they say.

For more science news see http://www.newscientist.com.

---

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

[jab1]

A man is using the World Wide Web to complain about technology.

Is that irony or is it something else?

---

Fighting my own ignorance since 1957.

[John_John]

A man is using the World Wide Web to complain about technology.
Is that irony or is it something else?

That would be hysterical. That is a funny observation, Jab, but it is not true. I do not rail against all technology and have said so. The topic got switched from overpopulation to machinery, progress and the industrail revolution. Phewwwwww

What was said, and the example I used , was that too many biillions of people will lead to more machinery, waste, pollution and the taking of open space. Believe me, I depend on the food processor, car, plane,boat and many other things you can name that adds ease to life. The bigger question is, A FEW BILLION MORE PEOPLE WOULD WANT THE SAME THING AND THAT WOULD IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT TOO MUCH.

---

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

[Akatsukami]

Yes, indeed, the full and honest picture ought certainly to be used.

---

“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

[edward]

Divemaster-

The underlying issues might be the same, but the data has become much better since 1992. Your cites are all from the late 80’s/early 90’s. Much of what they claim is contradicted in the current literature.

Akatsukami-

Ahh, the satellite data. The Nature paper from Wentz and Schabel is regarded as a seminal event in global climate change predictions, correcting the data from Spencer and Christy. I hadn’t seen the rebuttal by Spencer. I did a citation search for Spencer and couldn’t find a published rebuttal. In addition, Christy has made an additional set of corrections that show an overall warming trend of 0.03 and 0.10 C +/- 0.06 C per decade. However, it doesn’t appear that this data has been published either (it was quoted by a different researcher in Science, 1998, 281, 1948). Christy apparently now agrees that the "satellite data are compatible with a slight warming trend. The discrepancy between satellite temperatures and model predictions of moderate greenhouse warming “isn’t that large,” "

I must admit that I’m not up to speed on the most current research. Does anyone have any current references that have been published contradicting the evidence for (not fact of) global warming?

[Sam_Stone]

I’d like to add that even the worst-case scenarios have the global temperature rising by only 1.8 degrees over the next century. While that would certainly have environmental effects good and bad, it doesn’t sound like a global disaster. It may even turn out to be a net benefit. As I recall, global warming so far has really manifested itself in warmer nighttime temperatures. Is that correct?

[John_John]

The culprits of global warming seek to distort the facts. More world population means increased global warming.
Scientists confirm that global warming has begun

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international body made up of over 2,500 scientists, has concluded by consensus that "… the balance of evidence suggest that there is a discernible human influence on global climate. " The IPCC projects global warming will have severe impacts on human health, natural ecosystems agriculture, and coastal communities. The full text of the IPCC’s scientific reports can be found on their web site.

Like the tobacco industry, the corporations that produce carbon dioxide pollution are seeking to deny the truth. Rather than admit that our increasing dependence on coal, oil, and natural gas is altering our climate, those who produce these fuels, along with the powerful auto industry, are spending millions of dollars in an effort to discredit the IPCC and global warming. Claiming that global warming is nothing more than an “alarmist” hoax, they have set out to buy the kind of “science” they want. Their efforts have not succeeded in fooling the American people, but some powerful lawmakers are listening to these industry-funded “climate experts.”

---

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

[divemaster]

Your cites are all from the late 80’s/early 90’s. Much of what they claim is contradicted in the current literature.

Agreed, if we are only talking about the actual data (although I would use the word ‘evolved’ rather than ‘contradicted’). The point I was trying to make was more universal, and that will never go out of date.

The paper I wrote was actually for a scientific ethics class, as part of my master’s program. The focus of the paper was how science can be manipulated by the media and politics (and even some scientists). Ergo, the impression I was hoping to make here was not so much that global warming is absolutely not occurring, but that

1. Interpretation and public perception of the data can be influenced by media presentation.

2. Research grants can be affected by the political climate, slanting the direction of research.

3. Policies can be enacted based on shaky or even totally inaccurate assumptions.

For example, A British climatoligist (Chris Folland) has said "The data don’t matter; we’re not basing our recommendations upon the data; we’re basing them upon the climate models."

This type of mindset should absolutely not have a place in scientific debate. If there is one thing scientists should agree on, it is that everything starts with the data; measured, tested, and if possible, replicated information.

Unfortunately, the line is becoming too blurred between science and political advocacy, which is why I have such a hard time with the organizations J-J keeps trotting out as authoritative references (see my previous posts).

Here is another quote. Although lengthy, I feel it sums up quite nicely the dichotomy between science and politics.

“On the one hand, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of couse, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. This ‘double ethical bind’ that we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest.”

(emphasis mine).----climatoligist Stephen Schneider

Honesty should never be sacrificed or “balanced” in the name of effectiveness or advocacy.

And dissenting scientific views should never be hushed up. As reported in the New Republic:

Lately, Al Gore and the distinguished biologist Paul Ehrich have ventured into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports, in Gore’s words “undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take.”

(emphasis mine)

Why should anyone assert that dissenting views ought not to be heard? Especially so-called ‘liberals’ who usually rail against any kind of censorship.

Again, this is why people like J-J, who only listen to information from advocacy groups; and the general public, who tend only to listen to the media (which reports in whatever way sells more papers; and I would submit that imminent global apacolypse is the winner in this case) are doing themselves a disservice.

[Akatsukami]

edward, possibly we are using the word “refute” differently here.

If I could show that, e.g., the data that unquestionably support global warming were incorrectly or corruptly gathered, that evidence would, in my opinion, *refute>/i> the evidence. With evidence that shows that global warming is not occuring, I would say that the former evidence is contradicted, but not refuted.

SFAIK, although the collection of evidence that supports global warming (the CRU and GISS data sets are probably the two major examples here) has been questioned, it has not been refuted. However, both the TIROS-N satellite data and the radiosonde data have contradicted it.

Now, therefore, can we say that global warming may be occuring? Yes, I think that we can; unless and until that evidence is refuted, not merely contradicted, I think that we must admit the possibility. Can we even say that global warming is

probably* occuring? Yes, I think that in every colloquial and mathematical sense of of the term, it is probable. Can we say that it is occuring? No, I do not believe that that can be said.

John John, your slip is showing again. (Over-)population cannot be divorced from technology; our evidence is that the carrying capacity of the world can vary by at least three orders of magnitude, and that the carrying capacity of a particular piece of land can vary by more than that, depending on the technology applied by people to the land and its inhabitants. Your recent C&P essays show a preference for pre-indutrial technologies, mixed with a mystic belief in an idyllic state of nature which is somehow to spiritually satisfying to those in it that they overlook the pain and death that are happening to themselves and those around them.

Back to edward again, I agree with you entirely that the mechanism must be shown, and be shown to be believable, to back an assertion that the carrying capacity of the world, or part of it, is X. I believe also, however, that during this thread, no such mechanisms have been discused, indeed, they have been dismissed out of hand, by those who would see the world population much smaller and much poorer than at present. It has been asserted, without evidence, that the existing mechanisms of population management are inadequate, that certain unspecified but effective mechanisms can be concocted, and that all other mechanisms (e.g., of food distribution) are impossible of implementation and, even if they were, not to be thought of on quasi-religious grounds.

I proposed (copying from another, as I said at the time) a “TrillionWorld” scenario, purporting to show that the “carrying capacity” of the world was approximately 1 trillion humans (and appended a caveat of my own calculation indicating that it might well be much lower, “only” about 160 billion). I suggest that exploring the implications of that scenarios, and the things that are necessary for it to be carried out, is more profitable than to shake one’s head and mutter a Lewisian “Can’t happen here” (although I do not assert that you have behaved in this way).

Back a last time to John John: as you ought to well know, the IPCC is not made up of “over 2,500 scientists”, but of about 500 scientists and 2,000 staffers without scientific training. If we are to go by the popular vote, however, then I offer the votes of over 19,200 scientists who support the following statement:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

---

“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

[edward]

Divemaster-

I completely agree with you in that science is manipulated for various purposes. I think we’ve seen enough examples of that in this thread. However, I took issue with the fact that you provided citations about global warming from older literature which has been superseded and/or corrected by current research. And now you’re claiming you provided these cites to support the different argument that interpretations of science can be variable. To quote your own post: “Interpretation and public perception of the data can be influenced by media presentation.” I think ignoring current literature to make a point is an example of this.

You make an excellent point in your last paragraph:

Again, this is why people like J-J, who only listen to information from advocacy groups; and the general public, who tend only to listen to the media (which reports in whatever way sells more papers; and I would submit that imminent global apacolypse is the winner in this case) are doing themselves a disservice.

This is why I think it is important to actually go back to the science behind the debate (which is in no way certain) in order to form an opinion.

Akatsukami-

although the collection of evidence that supports global warming (the CRU and GISS data sets are probably the two major examples here) has been questioned, it has not been refuted. However, both the TIROS-N satellite data and the radiosonde data have contradicted it.

Minor quibble- the TIROS-N data does not refute the warming trend, but rather supports it. Read my previous post about the Wentz/Schabel correction, the Spencer corrected correction, and the Christy correction. At least, this is as much as I can discern from the primary peer-reviewed literature. I haven’t seen any contradictions from the radiosonde date- I’ll look for it.

Can we say that it (global warming) is occuring? No, I do not believe that that can be said.

parantheses mine

It can’t be said, and never can be said. One can only disprove in science. Again, the prepoderance of peer-reviewed evidence supports (does not prove) a global warming trend of 1.5 to 4.5 C over the next century.

As to the petition project, I can just as easily provide a link to an opposite group of scientists: Union of Concerned Scientists. What does this exercise demonstrate? Anyone with an agenda can set up a webpage. It’s important to look at the source behind the information.

Looking at the Petition Project: first, it is signed by 19,200 total, not19,200 scientists. 16,800 have science degrees, two thirds of these considered advanced degrees. “2,388 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists” signed, as well as “4,963 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences.” 17,300 of the signatories have been independently verified, 1,900 have not. A paper is posted on the site giving a detailed argument as to why rising carbon dioxide levels have “produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature.” In fact, it is claimed that “Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates.” A science citation search revealed that this article hasn’t been published. The professional background of the signatories is not given (except for a supporting letter from Frederick Seitz, former president of of the NAS and Rockefeller). 16,800 scientists is a lot, but it would be helpful if more information was given, and a bit more science behind their claims. The sponsoring body, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, seems a bit out of the mainstream, based on their webpage.

I’ll let someone else criticize the Union of Concerned Scientists. It’s important to note that the majority of mainstream, peer-reviewed papers support the notion that global warming is occuring. One can find all sorts of web pages that say one thing or another, but at least look at where the information is coming from.

[Akatsukami]

edward writes:

---

Can we say that it (global warming) is occuring? No, I do not believe that that can be said. [ quoting me ]

It can’t be said, and never can be said. One can only disprove in science.

Then I think that we have a fundamental disagreement on what consists “science” here.
A beaker of water can have its temperature measured, and we can say, “This water is at so-and-so many degrees Celsius”. (Speaking strictly, we should say, “This water is at so-and-so many degrees, plus-or-minus so-and-so degrees, Celsius”. That, however, is a minor quibble.) Is that process of measurement “science”? I would contend that it is not. If we were to collect many such beakers, and say, “All of these beakers have temperatures of such-and-such, except those, which have temperatures of thus-and-so; we hypothesize that that is because the latter beakers were taken from a tropical ocean current, and we can perform this experiment to (not) give support to our hypothesize”, that, I contend, would be science.
Now, the question of whether global warming is now occuring is, according to its proponents (and to me, in fact), not a question of science per se, but of measurement; we measure the Earth’s temperature today, measure it again the same time next year, and, if the difference between the two measurements be positive, global warming is occuring. Naturally, there is significant difference between measuring the temperature of a beaker of water and measuring the temperature of a planet; the latter case has certain difficulties not present in the former. I contend that the data not do support the notion that global warming is now occuring; specifically, the error of the measurements made is greater than the proclaimed increase. Thus, my assertion that it is not proven.

As to the petition project, I can just as easily provide a link to an opposite group of scientists: Union of Concerned Scientists . What does this exercise demonstrate? Anyone with an agenda can set up a webpage. It’s important to look at the source behind the information.

Just my point. As I am sure you will recall, my offer of that information was in reply to another poster’s assertion that the backing of the IPCC’s statement WRT global warming by 2,500 signatories gave it the status of, if not gospel, at least an epistle. As I said, if the truth (or otherwise) of that statement is to be determined by popular vote, then I believe that I have numbers on my side. Of course, neither of us agrees that scientifc truth is determined by popular vote.

“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

[tracer]

John John wrote:

Like the tobacco industry, the corporations that produce carbon dioxide pollution are seeking to deny the truth.

Yeah! All those corporate employees, going around exhaling CO[SUB]2[/SUB] into MY air! How dare they!!

[John_John]

akats

John John, your slip is showing again. (Over-)population cannot be divorced from technology;

Yes, that is one of the points I was laboring to make. We just differ on the interpretation of that fact.

With more billions of people, the need to have more technology, and its resultant waste, is harmful to the environment. YOU seem wedded to the myth that there is better living through excess production of goods for the masses, more output of chemicals, alternative use of open, unspoiled land and world density as a viable way of life. Do you not see that billions more people would increase global warming? Don’t you think the need for more technology to deal with the billions would also cause more global warming?

Again, you fail to address my question of why China chose to limit population expansion beyond its present replacement level.

Also, Akats, your NASA figures were shown to be inaccurate due to slippage of the orbital track. See my post above.

---

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

[John_John]

Drivemaster

Again, this is why people like J-J, who only listen to information from advocacy groups; and the general public, who tend only to listen to the media (which reports in whatever way sells more papers; and I would submit that imminent global apacolypse is the winner in this case) are doing themselves a disservice.

Drive, I do listen to both sides, but what I find from the other side is a lot of distortion of data, misinterpretation and a head in the sand approach to the impending dangers of overpopulation, global warming and destruction of pristine land. There is a causal relationship between overpopulation and global warming.

If the groups you disparage had not alerted the world to the dangers you minimize, the world would be worse off than it is now. I also believe that truth should not be sacrificed for the sake of advocacy, from anyone.

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

[VegForLife]

Drivemaster

After 6 long pages, does anybody need any more evidence that John was the subject of, “Why Johnny Can’t Read.”?

Rich

[jab1]

Go to: http://cnn.com/NATURE/9910/28/climate.change.enn/ to see how they’ve determined that the climate probably underwent rapid change even before man discovered fire. If it can change on its own, why do you think Man’s activity is necessary to change it? Current warming may be a natural trend or part natural and part artificial. More study is needed. See below.

The arctic ice cap seems to be getting thinner. Go to: http://cnn.com/NATURE/9911/17/arctic.enn/index.html

---

Fighting my own ignorance since 1957.

[John_John]

Vegetables

After 6 long pages, does anybody need any more evidence that John was the subject of, “Why Johnny Can’t Read.”?
Rich

Could someone please tell me what this dimbulb has to offer in this thread?

---

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

[John_John]

jab

to see how they’ve determined that the climate probably underwent rapid change even before man discovered fire. If it can change on its own, why do you think Man’s activity is necessary to change it? Current warming may be a natural trend or part natural and part artificial. More study is needed.

I would agree that it could be part natural weather cycles, part exacerbated by overpopulation. There are current, reliable studies that show that huge and dramatic climatic changes have occured on Earth eons ago. Yes, it could be a normal occurance, but surely a few billion more people would have a sizable effect of this planets warming.

---

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille