It's hard to know who to believe.

[amishmanish]

it's so simple, yet you seem to want to make it complicated

• the year 1800: 0.03% CO₂
• the year 2020: 0.04% CO₂

that's an easy to understand difference of 0.01%. or an increase of 100 parts per million, if you prefer.

I think anyone who followed the math at this point can see who wants to bamboozle, and who's trying to make it easy to understand.


Why would anyone want to make it hard to understand, or start to throw insults around?

Fine. Let us not worry about the Maths. Lets look at the logic of the non-alarmist viewpoint you are supporting. I request you to help me understand your viewpoint.

You are essentially saying that in 1880 CO₂ was only 0.03% of atmosphere. In 2019 it is only 0.04%. According to you, this should not be taken very seriously. We can safely wait for it to reach maybe 0.5% or 1% and then we could be concerned. Till then we have all this other 99% of atmosphere which is Not CO₂ and is completely fine and survivable.

This is maybe also the reason you feel that saying "An increase of 300 PPM to 400 PPM is a 33% increase" is alarmist. Please let me know if i understand this correctly.




 

[1714941137]

1714941137

[1714941137]

1714941137

[1714941137]

1714941137

[1714941137]

1714941137

[Carlton Banks]

Fine. Let us not worry about the Maths.

yes, let's not.

although it is a little strange that the pair of you are continually saying:

"3 + 1 = 4 is incorrect, 3 + 1 = 33%"

You are essentially saying that in 1880 CO₂ was only 0.03% of atmosphere. In 2019 it is only 0.04%.

ok. It's not just "according to me", but according to every credible climate scientist

According to you, this should not be taken very seriously.

didn't say that
 

This is maybe also the reason you feel that saying "An increase of 300 PPM to 400 PPM is a 33% increase" is alarmist. Please let me know if i understand this correctly.

all I said was "3 + 1 = 4", to which you 2 both replied "no, it's 33%"


you consistently evaded the point that 33% increase sounds like a large increase, but it's a large increase in a very small number. which is strange behavior for people who think that facts are important, and who purport to be presenting a fact-based argument.

I presented a fact, and you both kept trying to divert away from that fact by manipulating the argument. And yet you apparently agree that the fact I presented is indeed factual.

[SaltySpitoon]

And yet you apparently agree that the fact I presented is indeed factual.

It is not, you are doing math wrong. https://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+calculate+percent+change

0.0000000000000000000000000003 to 0.0000000000000000000000000004 is a 33% change, as is the case with 0.03 to 0.04 or 0.0003 to 0.0004

What you are doing is incredibly dishonest, as I refuse to believe that even you believe what you are saying. This isn't a case where we are doing a difficult problem and came to two separate answers, you are being deceptive by using incorrect math that again, its blatantly obvious to everyone with a middle school education.

percent implies a change, an initial and final value and what fraction of the initial value must be added to reach a final value. Again, not hard math. You are arguing that the scale of the initial and final numbers matters. Percentages are not additive like whatever you are trying to do.

Please tell me how its deceptive if we do the math correctly? I would expect that 99.99% of people here absolutely understand what I'm saying when I say there has been a 33% increase in CO2 between the time scale we've been discussing assuming a change from 300ppm to 400ppm.

*Edit*

First, lets keep in mind that we haven't talked about a single controversial topic to this point, we haven't talked about global warming at all, just what is a percent. The reason I'm irritated with you, is that our conversation started when I asked you where you were getting your figure from and presented an example with a 15 year chart and data that I snagged online as to why I was confused by your statement. You accused me of being misleading for some reason, and at that point I assumed you were talking about some other metric besides atmospheric concentration so I asked you to elaborate. Instead, you went on a personal attack when I apologized for misunderstanding you about how it was all some ploy to trick you and others. Then come to find out, I wasn't misunderstanding anything, you were just doing (and are still doing) math incorrectly and making incorrect statements. You've accused me of intentionally misleading others when the sole source of confusion is your own lack of understanding of simple mathematics which you can easily look up online to see that I'm correct. I'm being petty about all of this because of the consideration I showed you only to have it thrown back in my face, and its due to the absolute lowest common denominator of misrepresentation.  

[Carlton Banks]

3 + 1 = 33%

interesting, do please tell us all again

[SaltySpitoon]

3 + 1 = 33%

interesting, do please tell us all again

4 is 33% of 12, but 0.0004 is also 33% of 0.0012 I guess? Do I need to show my work, or will you believe me? In case you didn't find the math for dummies book solution to your problem, here you go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6-0MwmCpE8

I think that there is a problem where its hard to know who to believe, but more so because everyone has a platform to let others know of their revolutionary ideas, even if they are outright wrong. People seem to love the idea of "us" versus authority, when in a lot of cases, authority just means the best at their topic. What you consider common sense doesn't make it right.

My major point in posting in this thread originally was that the difference in knowing who to believe today versus long ago is that today there are an uncountable number of platforms one can get disinformation from people who think they know what they are talking about. This has been a great example.

[Carlton Banks]

let's try again


atmospheric CO₂ has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 200 years. The increase is 0.01%


It's impossible to argue with that statement, and the math literally proves it.

Yet you continue to pretend that the nominal difference figure does not exist, and that if you keep repeating the percentage change figure over and over again, that the nominal difference is a fantasy?


You're a liar, @SaltySpitoon, you know exactly what I mean and are continuing to play dumb


answer this question without prevarication:

you keep re-stating the percentage change figure. Percentage change of what?

the answer is the percentage change in nominal difference, which you keep pretending is my own private delusion you lying toad

[SaltySpitoon]

let's try again


atmospheric CO₂ has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 200 years. The increase is 0.01%


It's impossible to argue with that statement, and the math literally proves it.

Yet you continue to pretend that the nominal difference figure does not exist, and that if you keep repeating the percentage change figure over and over again, that the nominal difference is a fantasy?


You're a liar, @SaltySpitoon, you know exactly what I mean and are continuing to play dumb


answer this question without prevarication:

you keep re-stating the percentage change figure. Percentage change of what?

the answer is the percentage change in nominal difference, which you keep pretending is my own private delusion you lying toad

Its not your private delusion, I'm sure there are plenty of other kids out there right now having trouble with percents.

I know exactly what you are saying, and I'm just saying that you are wrong. You are mathing poorly and making statements that are untrue. % implies as a fraction. Parts per million in our case. Saying there is an increase of 0.01% means that there is an increase of 1 part per 10,000 of whatever the initial condition is. A 0.01% increase of 3 results in 3.0003. A 0.01% increase of 300 parts per million (0.000300) means you'd have 0.00030003 not 0.000400, which is incorrect.

atmospheric CO₂ has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 200 years. The increase is 0.01%

The increase is 33%. You can say that an increase from 300ppm to 400 ppm is 100ppm over the last 200 years, that is correct. What you are saying is misleading for this purpose. Lets say that instead of 300ppm to 400 ppm we have 300 to 400 ppb so 0.000000300 to 0.000000400. The change is still 33% however you'd be stating it as 0.00001% which dilutes all meaning from the statistic. We have percents to help us recognize the significance of change.

I've pointed you towards more than a few resources at this point. I'm just going to assume you are dense and let anyone else that feels like trying to help you pass your upcoming math quiz contribute. I really wanted you to get that shiny gold star, but I don't have time to help you solve your brain problem if you aren't looking for help. I think you may have better luck with your argument here: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751&page=1
they spent 129 pages arguing how many days there are in a week.

[Carlton Banks]

ok then, the difference is 0.01%


you're making pathetic semantic arguments, really


answer the following question:


which is actually the driving factor in the greenhouse effect? is it:

• the percentage change in CO₂
• the proportion of CO₂ of the whole

(anyone will tell you it's the proportion of the atmosphere, the change can be from any starting point. there's a colossal difference between a 1% increase in 99% and a 1% increase in 0.99%)


you're banging on and on about the percentage increase, when it's not even relevant to the greenhouse effect anyway.

the absolute amount is what actually matters, remember, the figure I keep posting, the one you keep disingenuously saying doesn't exist, despite it being a step in the calculations to the irrelevant figure you keep repeating

tl;dr the change doesn't matter, the amount does. if it's changing, then how much it changes to is what matters

[Carlton Banks]

(I predict a reply "the percentage increase is the only factor, the increase measured as a percentage is the only thing that's changing"
or "no, the difference is 33%")


how are you measuring the percentage change if you keep pretending the absolute difference doesn't exist?


your charge of "can't do basic math" is a joke, in order to hold your position, you're having to avoid using addition and subtraction (the most basic mathematical concepts that even the simplest animals understand) so that you can trick readers into thinking that the absolute difference in 2 measurements does not exist

you're a joke, SaltySpitoon. You literally cannot be serious with this BS.

[SaltySpitoon]

Absolute difference is completely useless without some type of scale of the significance of 1 unit. I'm not arguing that 400 ppm - 300 ppm = 100 ppm is incorrect, but you can either represent that as a 100ppm increase or a 33% increase, not a 0.01% difference which would be 1.0001 x the initial amount. That is the proper representation. Representation of scientific data is a big deal, you are trying to make an argument, but your argument is completely invalid until you begin to represent your data correctly.

If you could represent it the way you intend to, it seems like your argument is that 100ppm is a small number and is therefore insignificant. By that logic I could say 300 ppm is an equally insignificant number, so CO2 plays no role in our atmosphere. We know that isn't the case, it plays some measurable affect on earth's temperature. If 300 played X effect on temperature, its fair to expect that 400 will play 1.33X effect on however CO2 contributes.


0.000000070 Kg of botulism is enough to kill you. The difference between 0.000000070 and 0.000000140 is only 0.000000070.

If I tried representing something the way you have, I'd be fired and laughed out of the scientific community, so its not me playing word games or just being petty about, "you know what I'm saying man". (redundant disclaimer: I'm not involved in climate science) Get your statements in order and then state them. You can't claim anything based on incorrect math.

[Carlton Banks]

I'm not arguing that 400 ppm - 300 ppm = 100 ppm is incorrect

you've been saying something that sounds very like that half a dozen times.

I am glad you have finally conceded the point, will you take back what you said about basic math, seeing as I demonstrated very early on that I know how to calculate both the percentage change and the absolute difference?

You claimed me doing a simple subtraction was actually an inept attempt at calculating the percentage difference, but it's plainly obvious that you were trying to use a tactic to confuse people that couldn't follow the math (which, as you yourself said, is so basic that almost nobody would have been confused)

but you can either represent that as a 100ppm increase or a 33% increase, not a 0.01% difference which would be 1.0001 x the initial amount. That is the proper representation.

I'm saying neither, and I have been consistent in doing so


Below, you are agreeing with my argument:

0.000000070 Kg of botulism is enough to kill you. The difference between 0.000000070 and 0.000000140 is only 0.000000070.

it is the absolute amount as part of a whole causes the problem, from either botulism or CO₂


again (see if you understand this yet):

the change doesn't matter, the amount does. if it's changing, then how much it changes to is what matters

the real question is: is 400ppm CO₂ (i.e. 0.04%) dangerous?

[amishmanish]

This is where the argument about you calculating the percentage wrongly actually started:

parts per million means "how many parts within 1 million parts", i.e. a proportion of a whole (and no different to a simple percentage figure)

• 300 parts as a percentage of 1 million is: 300 / 1,000,000 * 100 = oh, whaddya know, 0.03%
• 400 parts as a percentage of 1 million is: 400 / 1,000,000 * 100 = oh, whaddya know, 0.04%
• the difference between 0.03% and 0.04% is: 0.04 - 0.03 = no way, it's 0.01
• 0.01 as a percentage of 0.03 is, as you say: 0.01 / 0.03 * 100 = 33%

I amply illustrate above that there are 2 relevant ways of measuring change in CO₂, absolute change (100 parts per million, equivalent to 0.01%), or the percentage rate of change (the proportion of 100 parts per million of increase in relation to a 300 parts per million baseline)
--snip--

@SalySpitoon your argument is cherry picking, manipulative nonsense. and anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics can see it plainly

The math is basically settled that if someone asks that How much has CO2 concetration increased from pre-industrial levels, they will quote the 20-40% figure depending on what baseline you take. Check this BBC report that quotes "has increase by about 40%".This report says "20% increase in less than 40 years"

Lets put it to rest as it really doesn't matter how the motley three of us look at the figure in this rather non-descript corner of the BCT forum.

Lets just agree that if you can accuse us of saying that "it is alarmist to show 300 PPM to 400 PPM as a 33% increase", then you can be similarly accused of supporting those who want to continue polluting the environment by saying that "Hey, its not a problem, Carbon has only gone up by 0.01%".

The real question as you say is:

--snip--
the real question is: is 400ppm CO₂ (i.e. 0.04%) dangerous?

Which is what i wanted to ask from your discussion on percentage increase not being a problem when i said:

--snip--
According to you, this should not be taken very seriously. We can safely wait for it to reach maybe 0.5% or 1% and then we could be concerned. Till then we have all this other 99% of atmosphere which is Not CO₂and is completely fine and survivable.

This is maybe also the reason you feel that saying "An increase of 300 PPM to 400 PPM is a 33% increase" is alarmist. Please let me know if i understand this correctly. 

So yeah, the three of us have been wasting our breath on the percentage argument.

When you say whether this is dangerous or not, that is when we get to that stage of climate skepticism that says, "Hey its just not hot enough yet". The basic infographic on any climate report I have seen quotes the worldwide observations like reduced polar ice caps, Receding Glaciers, Erratic Weather patterns. I have spent at least 2 decades seeing the summers getting harsher and watching people face drought conditions. So when i see that report and match it with my personal experience as well as what Discovery/ NG shows on the receding polar ice caps, I go, oh well, maybe it is increasing.

I am interested in knowing that what makes you think that 0.04% (+0.01 or 33% increase.. )is not dangerous. We have to consider that if emissions keep increasing at the same rate, this percentage of the total will increase resulting in the 1.5 deg celsius temperature increase that needs to be adhered to as per consensus. What is the harm in erring on the side of caution when its supposedly the planet's inhabitability which is at stake?

Like I keep asking and you keep ignoring, What is the solution from your side of the non-alarmist debate. What sources are you referring to? Are there any or you are just feeling colder as years pass by like I feel warmer here around the tropics..?? LOL..

Also, Should I start a separate topic on this if @Saltypitoon and you would be interested AND if we can stop hurling insults and expressing skepticism at each other's mental faculties...??LOL..

[Carlton Banks]

The math is basically settled that if someone asks that How much has CO2 concetration increased from pre-industrial levels, they will quote the 20-40% figure depending on what baseline you take. Check this BBC report that quotes "has increase by about 40%".This report says "20% increase in less than 40 years"

that's as vague/wrong as you are, and so really proves my point that if you're not careful with the language describing the statistic, then you will end up misleading readers

so, for the millionth time now, I will make it clear:

• CO₂ increased from 0.03% to 0.04% since the 1800's, a difference of 0.01%
• that difference, expressed as a percentage, is 33% (0.01 is 33% of 0.03)

do you understand this yet?

(in before "no, the increase was 33%, you're totally wrong" )

you can be similarly accused of supporting those who want to continue polluting the environment by saying that "Hey, its not a problem, Carbon has only gone up by 0.01%"

how could you come to that conclusion, when I didn't say it


why are you putting words in my mouth? you don't need to do that, unless there's something wrong with your argument

[notbatman]

...[snip]...

what sort of scientist does that? loses a court case, a civil libel case which he instigated, by refusing to present the evidence that proves his case? what sort of science cannot withstand the scrutiny of a courtroom?

Astrophysics, geology, paleontology, archeology, theoretical physics, psychology & psychiatry just to name a few "modern" sciences that don't adhere to the scientific method and can't withstand even modest criticism.

...[snip]...

RE climate, just take a look at the very abundant public data. There is no "planet B"

I hate to break it to you, but there's no "planet A" either.




"I’m pleased to announce that on this Shavuot/Pentecost, the 9th of Sivan, that the judge presiding over a civil court case in which I was being sued for the amount of $15,000, ruled in my favor and sided with the evidence I presented." -- https://www.stolenhistory.org/threads/2019-court-case-globe-vs-flat-earth.1338/

[Carlton Banks]

^^^^


you see, you guys literally need flat-earthers to support your argument, this is clever stuff



Carlton: 3 + 1 = 4
climate doomsday breathing tax people: no no no, 3 + 1 = 33% 33% 33% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Carlton: 3 + 1 still equals 4, unfortunately
flat-earther: why that's right, 3 + 1 = 4! The earth is flat


laaaame

[amishmanish]

^^^^


you see, you guys literally need flat-earthers to support your argument, this is clever stuff



Carlton: 3 + 1 = 4
climate doomsday breathing tax people: no no no, 3 + 1 = 33% 33% 33% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Carlton: 3 + 1 still equals 4, unfortunately
flat-earther: why that's right, 3 + 1 = 4! The earth is flat


laaaame

Seriously..?? Whatever dude! Nobody needed the flat-earther..You are the one quoting him so apparently, you did.

[Viper1]

atmospheric CO₂ has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 200 years. The increase is 0.01%

The "difference" is 0.01 as you've said. But that's is not how much it's increased. It's increased by 33%. Well.. I guess what I should say is that the percentage increase is 33% which would be more accurate.

Here. I'll do the math for you.. 0.04 - 0.03 / 0.03 = 0.33 or, 33%. Saying it's 0.01% "increase" as opposed to difference, is usually what people do when they want to mislead someone into thinking it's not as big as it is.

As per the OP and "who to believe", a couple documents were leaked awhile back from internal reports for Exxon and Shell. Both of them outlined the same sort of stuff that the climate change people have been saying. That was in the 80s and the reports said that we wouldn't be able to really tell until the turn of the century or within 5-30 years as the oceans might delay temperature increases etc. Those companies have known what was coming for a long time so it's "entertaining" to see them fund some of the anti climate change groups etc while at the same time, very slowly and quietly moving into more green industries and also related ones that are impacted by increases in CO2 etc. The info is out there for anyone to dig up on their own as I did.

[philipma1957]

Hence, Parallel targets of solar energy are desirable.

I don't totally agree with this

The storage technology for renewable energy is both required and immature (it's very immature considering how old the energy storage field is), if significant proportions of energy production is to be changed to renewable sources. It's the ideal, but until then, renewables are best used to smooth out peaks in demand, as that supply profile matches what the tech is actually capable of in the actual real world

You are absolutely right that Storage isn't mature enough to allow renewable sources to cater to base load requirements on their own. That is why we still need Coal/Gas fired plants. Yet, I meant it in a developing country context that why these parallel targets are necessary.

This is an on-going debate in India. Power equipment manufacturers have their order-books spread thin as Govt. has slowed down funding for conventional power plants owing to their climate change commitments. I believe USA under Trump pulled out of the agreement to safeguard mining, automobile jobs. Its much tougher for India to do so.

The problem with India and China is the sheer concentration of humanity here. The detrimental health effects are proving to be a huge healthcare cost in Indian cities. Indian planners have to balance between the need for additional power against the environmental/healthcare costs of going ballastic on conventional power plants.
Like I said earlier, Indian plants are more polluting compared to the well-managed power plants that Jet Cash is mentioning. The coal quality is low with a higher sulphur content, lower calorific value resulting in higher ash content. Compared to western/ European plants, few have Desulpharization or Catalyitc converters to take care of SOX/ NOX (Which as Carlton pointed out have severe immediate health effects). Investments in this direction have just started and that too is big business. Hope you can see why parallel renewable targets are important for a country like India.

I didn't refer to the use of solar panels, but the replacement of productive arable land with solar farms.

That reply was more towards Fish as he pointed out carbon footprint of manufacturing solar panels and batteries, and then you said, "I agree that batteries"..Well.. LOL..You are right about the need for a middle path here. (Better management of conventional plants). I am not on the Climate change denial side which I guess even you are not, though it seemed to me that you are because of "Solar isn't renewable".

We probably disagree on the reasons and the ways to mitigate that. (Let me know if am judging this correctly.)
For the dilemma on science, when it is not known who is right, maybe we could look at the motivations. Those who deny climate change typically belong to the established coal, petroleum, automobile industries. It is but natural that they don't want anything to eat into their substantial profits. I feel that the renewable supporters (not the renewables industry) are the under-dogs here.

We have sufficient non-arable land to cover with Solar panels that will not lead to the affects that you are concerned about. In India, there are plans to install solar panels along railway tracks. There has already been efforts to use Water Canals for this purpose. Even train coaches with solar panels installed on roofs to cater to Lighting usage. So, Allow me to say that for incremental improvements, space is not the constraint.

Then again, most city-based pollution comes from automobiles. Consumer level actions like Roof-installed solar panels, battery vehicles can go a long way in reducing pollution in cities. Isn't that a desirable action? If someone denies it by saying that CO2 isn't that bad, which side should I err towards?

I bolded the most important line in the entire thread.

This is the cause of all the pollution/global warming and the solution is simple showers and oral sex . A world wide reduction in population caused by lots of oral sex.

Once we shrink the worlds population to 4 billion a lot of the other problems leave us.

Of course we all know it won’t happen this way. What will happen is massive flooding and death over the next 50 years.

[Carlton Banks]

atmospheric CO₂ has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 200 years. The increase is 0.01%

The "difference" is 0.01 as you've said. But that's is not how much it's increased. It's increased by 33%.

completely depends on what you mean when you use the word "increase"

Well.. I guess what I should say is that the percentage increase is 33% which would be more accurate.

I agree, and that's exactly what I've already said

Here. I'll do the math for you.. 0.04 - 0.03 / 0.03 = 0.33 or, 33%. Saying it's 0.01% "increase" as opposed to difference, is usually what people do when they want to mislead someone into thinking it's not as big as it is.

no, the other way round.

when you mix "percentage change" (0.01%) and "percentage change in the percentage change" (33%) together, THAT's confusing.

As per the OP and "who to believe", a couple documents were leaked awhile back from internal reports for Exxon and Shell. Both of them outlined the same sort of stuff that the climate change people have been saying. That was in the 80s and the reports said that we wouldn't be able to really tell until the turn of the century or within 5-30 years as the oceans might delay temperature increases etc. Those companies have known what was coming for a long time so it's "entertaining" to see them fund some of the anti climate change groups etc while at the same time, very slowly and quietly moving into more green industries and also related ones that are impacted by increases in CO2 etc. The info is out there for anyone to dig up on their own as I did.

link?

the real facts are that the whole anthropogenic climate change argument cherry picks facts and statistics to make a "case", and apparently uses semantic sleight of hand expressing statistical statements now too

• if you look at temperature from 1960-2020, it increases. We're all gonna die!!!!1
• but if you look at temperature from 1920-1960, it decreases, from a higher peak than 2020

• if you look at ocean level from 1800-2020, it increases. Dooooooom!!!!!1
• but if you look at ocean level from 10,000 BC to 2020 AD, it increases (at the same rate)

The climate change people are full of these nonsense presentation strategies, and they wouldn't need to do it if their argument had any legs to stand on

[Viper1]

no, the other way round.

when you mix "percentage change" (0.01%) and "percentage change in the percentage change" (33%) together, THAT's confusing.

It's really not all that confusing. For some reason you've taken 0.03% and 0.04% and put those out there with no clear context as far as I could see i.e. 03% of what? That's a percentage of volume and so the misleading statement is to say it's increase by 0.01% and is designed to make the layman see it as a tiny number. 33% is the correct scientific way of stating that increase.

link?

I already said you can find it for yourself if you care enough to get the knowledge. I was looking for something else related to the oil industry and stumbled across it. I downloaded the documents and would have to go searching again to find the site. You can do that yourself. I will note you didn't include links to your data sooooooo...

• if you look at temperature from 1960-2020, it increases. We're all gonna die!!!!1
• but if you look at temperature from 1920-1960, it decreases, from a higher peak than 2020

You cherry picked information and one can only assume you did it to mislead, or you read information that was designed to mislead you. You failed to point out that the temperature increased prior to that period and then after it as well. Although I would have to say the time frame I found did not match yours but that's beside the point.

I want to know the real truth and have looked at what both sides of this argument have said. While those that promote climate change tend to exaggerate parts of it, I have yet to see anything from the other side that has convinced me they're the ones that are right. More often than not I find statistics being blatantly twisted to fit the narrative. Couple years back the climate change deniers were all hyped up about some report that "proved" the math was wrong. I read the report and just had to shake my head as it was clearly written in order to give that group talking points in order to convince people that would never understand it, but it sure sounded reasonable. But from a scientific standpoint it completely failed to prove that the underlying methods the scientific community uses were flawed.

I can see how this will go though. So I'll just end this with you and say good luck to you.