Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?
Quote: 98ClubsThe extreme angle is that TREES are the worst CO2 polluters
That's not really true and comes from an intentionally sensationalist way of misrepresenting an issue. Trees are not CO2 polluters, they remove CO2 from the atmosphere by splitting it into oxygen, released back, and carbon, used to build the tree. That carbon is eventually stored in the soil as peat or coal.
It is only the destruction of trees that causes CO2 to be released. As the temperature increases, it causes the biomass of tropical rainforests to decrease. The carbon that these trees consisted of is then recombined with oxygen in fire or decay and released as CO2.
The conclusion from this is not that "trees pollute", but rather that the greenhouse effect has positive feedback, not negative as thought in the 20th century. This applies, at least, in the short and medium term (long-term feedback could still be negative if temperate areas are transformed into rainforests - but we're talking about likely post-humanity timescale here).
Quote:Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, [James] Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
#hockeystick
Quote: QuadDeucesQuote:Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, [James] Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
{Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.” }
This is the grandfather of climate change, he came
up with the Gaia theory. Now that he's back tracked
on a lot of his predictions, the Green's are
ignoring him. There's no money in telling the truth.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: QuadDeucesQuote:Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, [James] Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
{Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.” }
This is the grandfather of climate change, he came
up with the Gaia theory. Now that he's back tracked
on a lot of his predictions, the Green's are
ignoring him. There's no money in telling the truth.
Come on Bob, just listen to the scientists. You have to be a kook to disagree. Don't be a denier. Sell your car, pay more taxes, and save the planet!
Quote: kenarmanThis report from the Meteorlogical Office of the United Kingdom has come to the conclusion that global warming has been on pause for 16 years.
Yet 'every' scientist in the world supports GW, according to
the whacko Left. Amazing.
They took the data from one year (1997) which was an unusually warm El Nino year and compared it to 2013. In otherwords they took end points in data to say that global warming has stopped.
When you look at the long term trend of the last 70 years the warming trend is obvious. That's why most scientists with an ounce of understanding of how climate works believe in climate change.
Right wing policies somehow trump the laws of physics.
Quote: boymimboThat's why most scientists with an ounce of understanding of how climate works believe in climate change.
[crickets]
Let me suggest some easy homework: Actually bother to read *both* sides of this issue. That is, find an article or two written by actual scientists, not something massacred by a mainstream media journalist. And if you're about to suggest that one can't trust scientists, then toss out what you think the scientists at the Met Office said, too.
BTW, depending on how you measure it,
9 warmest years have all occurred since 1998
13 warmest years have happened in the last 15
You'd also do well to check out the summary of scientific opinion on climate change.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
Let me suggest some easy homework:
[more crickets]
(this dead horse ain't gettin up, you can quit beating it)
Quote: MichaelBluejay
Let me suggest some easy homework: Actually bother to read *both* sides of this issue. That is, find an article or two written by actual scientists, not something massacred by a mainstream media journalist. And if you're about to suggest that one can't trust scientists, then toss out what you think the scientists at the Met Office said, too.
I for one have read both sides, and whether you believe it or not most realists on the issue have. We just choose to use logic than listen to the "shut up and listen to the scientists!" line that GW believers demand people do. We have memories that include global-cooling alarmism, we know temps have changed over the millions of years and we know that to say the last 20 years being warm constitutes no meaningful trend on a 4.5 billion year old planet.
We know the "scientific consensus" once said the earth was flat and the center of the universe, and to deny that would possibly get you killed. And we see the same thing happening today in a more gentle way when one questions global warming.
The easiest way to tell how bogus AGW is as an idea is just notice every "solution" is a tax or a freedom-grab.
Quote: AZDuffman
The easiest way to tell how bogus AGW is as an idea is just notice every "solution" is a tax or a freedom-grab.
Its better than that. The 'rich' countries are
supposed to pay the 3rd world crap holes
for ruining their quality of life with warming
up the planet. Don't hold your breath, time
for a more creative scam.
One truth is the same: as the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases occur, the more of the sun's energy is absorbed by the atmosphere. That truth is pretty irrefutable as anyone in chemistry or physics can easily verify this. And the source of the increase is human activity. Anyone with a calculator can figure out the global output of greenhouse gases and tie it to the global records.
Now, the challenge for climate scientists is to figure out how climate will respond. With no other factors, the obvious solution is global warming. But there are plenty of other factors which are more difficult to measure: absorption of carbon by the oceans, the change in the earth's albedo due to different ice and cloud coverage, the change in ocean currents, changes of solar output, atmospheric ash caused by volcanos, and contribution of other man-made particles to the atmosphere.
As the models get more complex and can take more inputs, the forecasts change. Scientists will naturally attempt to tie the historical record to the observations they get, and matching the predictions to observations infer that the forecast is accurate.
Weather forecasters do this all the time, and in particular, the National Hurricane centre. They look at past seasons and try to improve their models in order to do better predictions in the future. There's nothing wrong in doing this - it's science.
-----------------------
I guess politically we can compare climate change solutions to smoking. Most scientists believe that smoking is bad for you, but there are a few still that extol the health benefits of smoking and state that the costs of smoking are much lesser than advertised because people die earlier, saving on social security payouts. Politicians penalized smokers by taking away their freedoms and taxing smokers. Sound familiar?
Most scientists like to be separated from the politics so that they can do their work. Unfortunately, some scientists also have to petition for funding in order to continue to operate. This leads a few scientists to create faulty work so that their funding can continue. You see this happening in every industry by every type of scientist for every cause that they have be it biology, medicine, chemistry, astronomy, social science, psychology, sociology, or physics.
The solution to climate change are just as complex. Anything that modifies behaviour will be seen as a restriction on freedom or a tax grab, because well, it is. What the right doesn't realize that these grabs have been going on for years. Cars have for a long time been subject to MPG standands. Gasoline changed from leaded to unleaded for environmental reasons. Cars in many urban areas are subject to annual smog checks.
But it doesn't make it bogus.
1. How "Global Cooling" was going to take us all out
2. That we only had 30 years of oil left (that was around 30 years ago, btw)
In gambling, I've had some crazy occurrences as most probably have had on this message board- crazy good and crazy bad- which can be calculated into hundreds of thousands or millions: does that mean the game was rigged?
I would say if anyone on either side of the argument states they are 100% certain that their case is correct, then they're letting their personal or political beliefs cloud their judgment.
Quote: AZDuffmanI for one have read both sides, and whether you believe it or not most realists on the issue have.
Okay, then what is the *actual* scientific position on the issue the Daily Mail reported, rather than the Daily Mail's position?
Quote:We just choose to use logic than listen to the "shut up and listen to the scientists!" line that GW believers demand people do.
No, you're only too happy cling to the few scientists who support what you want to believe -- or whom you *think* support what you want to belie
Quote:We have memories that include global-cooling alarmism
Then you're actually advertising how little you've been paying attention, as global cooling *never* enjoyed widespread scientific support. You've mistaken Time magazine for a science journal.
Quote:we know temps have changed over the millions of years and we know that to say the last 20 years being warm constitutes no meaningful trend on a 4.5 billion year old planet.
Then here again, you're advertising how little you actually know about the subject, AND you've demonstrated that you *haven't* actually read both sides of the issue.
Quote:We know the "scientific consensus" once said the earth was flat and the center of the universe, and to deny that would possibly get you killed.
Wow, you couldn't have this more backwards. It was the *scientists* who said that the earth was spherical and revolved around the sun, and were persecuted for it, not the other way around.
Quote:The easiest way to tell how bogus AGW is as an idea is just notice every "solution" is a tax or a freedom-grab.
Right, thousands and thousands of scientists are secretly in on this conspiracy. Right.
The entire caveman population worldwide each bought a Prius, and tossed out their incandescent bulbs in favor of CFL's to illuminate their caves.
Since everyone was driving a Prius, and using CFL's, the earth cooled dramatically.
The earth was soon covered with ice. This is the most recent ice age we read about in elementary school.
All the surviving cavemen eskimo people soon grew tired of freezing their asses off, bought large gas guzzling SUV's, and switched back to incandescent bulbs.
Thanks to SUV's and incandescent bulbs, earth's temperatures warmed, ending the ice age.
2. There was a point where there was only 30 years of oil left at the current price of oil. When oil went up in price, alot more viable sources of oil appeared, including shale and the sands of Alberta, which are much more costly to produce (around $50-$60/barrel). If the price of oil went down below $50/barrel again, there would be a massive shortage because most of the oil on this planet that was producable at costs below this has been mined. As well, techonology to find oil has improved dramatically. Canadian oil sands were struggling because the price was heavily discounted vs world prices (up to 40%).
I am not 100% certain that global warming is occurring, and I've got the degrees in Physics and Meteorology to do the unbiased work necessary. That said, I am certain on the assumptions I made in an earlier post. I am certain that the increases in greenhouse gases are human-based, and I am certain that more energy is being absorbed by our atmosphere as a result. I don't have access to climate models that take into account the other factors. I can read and have read the articles by both scientists and skeptics and always find fault in the skeptic argument because their bias is obvious. That doesn't mean that there isn't bias in the scientist articles -- it might not be as obvious or detectable.
As I've said before, I've been affected by bias in the scientific community. It happens. Professors, especially those who are not tenured yet, need to get published. There's a huge financial incentive to be tenured, so I absolutely can see, and have seen, biased articles appearing. But these articles need to get past peer review first, which catches most of this chaff.
Quote: boymimbo1. Global Cooling was never going to take us all out.
I agree- but it didn't stop people from spreading that fear. You can go back to alarmist statement after alarmist statement on this and related subjects that prove to be false, given time.
Quote: boymimbo
2. There was a point where there was only 30 years of oil left at the current price of oil. When oil went up in price, alot more viable sources of oil appeared, including shale and the sands of Alberta, which are much more costly to produce (around $50-$60/barrel). If the price of oil went down below $50/barrel again, there would be a massive shortage because most of the oil on this planet that was producable at costs below this has been mined. As well, techonology to find oil has improved dramatically. Canadian oil sands were struggling because the price was heavily discounted vs world prices (up to 40%).
I agree- but the argument was, even then, to hop on the "green bandwagon" as there isn't any other option- which turned out to be false.
Quote: boymimbo
I am not 100% certain that global warming is occurring, and I've got the degrees in Physics and Meteorology to do the unbiased work necessary. That said, I am certain on the assumptions I made in an earlier post. I am certain that the increases in greenhouse gases are human-based, and I am certain that more energy is being absorbed by our atmosphere as a result. I don't have access to climate models that take into account the other factors. I can read and have read the articles by both scientists and skeptics and always find fault in the skeptic argument because their bias is obvious. That doesn't mean that there isn't bias in the scientist articles -- it might not be as obvious or detectable.
As I've said before, I've been affected by bias in the scientific community. It happens. Professors, especially those who are not tenured yet, need to get published. There's a huge financial incentive to be tenured, so I absolutely can see, and have seen, biased articles appearing. But these articles need to get past peer review first, which catches most of this chaff.
Fair enough- and I'm not directing any of my general comments at you, but in general, it seems like we'd be better off if people's motivations were clear on the subject. I would assume in increase in nuclear energy production and natural gas production would reduce green-house gasses, but those solutions don't seem to be at the top of lists for those passionate about global warming or climate change or whatever it's being called. As you say, and as we can all agree, that as bias exists, we shouldn't be too quick to just assume 100% correctness on certain ideas.
Quote: boymimboAs I've said before, I've been affected by bias in the scientific community. It happens. Professors, especially those who are not tenured yet, need to get published. There's a huge financial incentive to be tenured, so I absolutely can see, and have seen, biased articles appearing. But these articles need to get past peer review first, which catches most of this chaff.
I actually totally agree on your last point boymimbo, what we disagree on is how seriously this effects the presentation of the issue. We all learned in university that the easy way to get good grades was to parrot back the professors lecture. This means that few students today will be taking an anti-global warming position because they would be hard pressed to get the marks they need. If you want to continue on and become a tenured professor the problem becomes worse. Tenure is approved by a committee of your peers in the same discipline. These committees are generally an 'old boys club' who only allow in like minded people and not someone who might upset the apple cart and take an opposite position. Tenure originated so that professors/scientists could go in an original directions without interference from the established community or government. It is now probably the biggest stifler of original thought in most departments since original thinkers are weeded out long before they attain tenure.
The giant worldwide conspiracy now includes scientists, liberal media "reporters," and cargo ship companies all trying to fool us into thinking the ice is melting.
Quote: renoDue to melting ice, Arctic freight shipping has quadrupled in the past year. As of Friday, 204 ships had received permits this year to ply the Northern Sea Route, which connects East Asia to Europe via the waters off of Russia’s northern coast. Last year, just 46 vessels made the trip. Two years ago, the number was four.
The giant worldwide conspiracy now includes scientists, liberal media "reporters," and cargo ship companies all trying to fool us into thinking the ice is melting.
The ice is melting....the ice is melting.....run for the hills!
Quote: reno
The giant worldwide conspiracy now includes scientists, liberal media "reporters," and cargo ship companies all trying to fool us into thinking the ice is melting.
The ice has been melting for 10,000 years. It used to extend halfway down North America.
Historically warmer is better!
I have no comment on whether we are accelerating this process.
Quote: MichaelBluejayThe global cooling idea was advanced by only a tiny handful of scientists, and never enjoyed broad scientific support. In other words, exactly like the global warming skeptics' position. It's funny that the skeptics always bring up global cooling, not realizing that they're actually describing themselves.
This comparison is a little unfair because the global warming skeptics were (for the most part) also skeptics of global cooling. OTOH, the global warming/cooling supporters all come from the same end of the political spectrum. The fact that more people believe in global warming today compared to global cooling years ago just shows you how effective liberals have become in getting others to buy their nonsense.
Quote: renoThe giant worldwide conspiracy now includes scientists, liberal media "reporters," and cargo ship companies all trying to fool us into thinking the ice is melting.
It's not even the real conspiracy. The only reason for their existence is to protect the REC, a far more powerful group that sits just one tier above the deepest nameless conspiracy.
By mass-publicizing these theories that essentially imply as self-evident the long-debunked geoid world theory, they provide a target and a buffer to shield the deeper tiers. Anyone launching common sense attacks will be first offended by GWC, and attack them - and they'll have to do so without addressing the underlying geoid fallacy! - buying REC another decade to invent and market yet another disposable shield.
crisis in 2008. Now no country has any money to
waste on moronic cause celebs like GW, they can't
even pay their people who get pensions. So now
the 'sky is falling' crowd will have to find something
new to scare the money out of the suckers.
Quote: Beethoven9thThe fact that more people believe in global warming today compared to global cooling years ago just shows you how effective liberals have become in getting others to buy their nonsense.
Oh, I thought most people believed in global warming because they were listening to the scientists. Now I see it's that because they were listening to *liberals*. I stand corrected.
Quote: MichaelBluejayOh, I thought most people believed in global warming because they were listening to the scientists. Now I see it's that because they were listening to *liberals*. I stand corrected.
"Scientists who believe in global warming" = "liberals"
These two groups are pretty much one and the same. They've just gotten better over the years at promoting their agenda.
Quote: Beethoven9th"Scientists who believe in global warming" = "liberals"
These two groups are pretty much one and the same. They've just gotten better over the years at promoting their agenda.
It would be interesting to see what percentage of self-described liberal scientists and self-described conservative scientists subscribe to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Without bias, you would expect the same percents in both groups but in reality, I doubt this would even remotely be the case.
Quote: MichaelBluejayOh, I thought most people believed in global warming because they were listening to the scientists. Now I see it's that because they were listening to *liberals*. I stand corrected.
Al Gore is a scientist? When did this happen?
Quote: MichaelBluejayOh, I thought most people believed in global warming because they were listening to the scientists. Now I see it's that because they were listening to *liberals*. I stand corrected.
People, liberals or not, don't give a crap about scientists and non-scientists. We have freedom of faith for a reason.
People listen to parties; communities; cliques. It's the natural behavior of primates as highly social animals. We listen to other humans, not to the content and the logic of their words.
Take a look at car clubs. When the authority figures of a club or just online forum diss PDK and promote stick, you'll see other members do the same, and even newer members gradually begin to follow. When they go double-clutch themselves, you see other members talk about cost and weight tradeoffs and how they'd like it too.
Liberals and progressives say science is good. Therefore, their leaders market everything they believe in as science. It may be good science, it may be bad science, it may just look like science. That's just a marketing strategy.
The few times they tried to actually use science - well, if they liked it, they'd go to tech schools for college, not humanities.
And as for religion - how many people, for the past century, turned to Xtianity because they read the Bible and were very impressed? Religion is imprinted with parents' behavior and social cues, only much later do the kids learn what it's even about.
So the answer is, just about as many as the people who were convinced in the presence or lack of anthropogenic global warming through personal unbiased secondary research, rather than through subconsciously accepting their clique's position on the subject.
Actual scientists are a superminority and only a tiny fraction of them is working in the appropriate field or took personal interest in it to know anything about it for themselves. And it's never researchers who get screen time, it's administrators, and more specifically ones picked by the political cliques to promote their particular agenda.
No one except a few specialists and concerned souls gives a crap as to whether anthropogenic global warming is real. (Though we know it is, the debate is about the extent, but no one gives a crap about that either.) If you vote left, it's real, if you vote right, it's not, and that's something people do care about.
us all. Remember when that was the Libs big
reason to scare everybody? My wife hasn't used
hair spray since 1987, she saved the planet I
think..
Quote: EvenBobI'm still waiting for the ozone hole to destroy
us all. Remember when that was the Libs big
reason to scare everybody? My wife hasn't used
hair spray since 1987, she saved the planet I
think..
Even in 1987 hair spray did not hurt the ozone.
I once knew a liberal who was against ozone destruction and against global warming. But he did not understand the so-called causes of either from each other. I find the guys who go deer hunting know 100Xs as much about the environment than the "activists"out there.
Quote: EvenBobThe worst thing to happen to GW was the financial
crisis in 2008. Now no country has any money to
waste on moronic cause celebs like GW, they can't
even pay their people who get pensions. So now
the 'sky is falling' crowd will have to find something
new to scare the money out of the suckers.
Once again EvenBob sticks the landing. Perfect 10 on the post. Cigarettes will be in vogue when a nuclear bomb goes off.....now that's global warming.
Quote: P90Liberals and progressives say science is good.
Hopefully they'll never say otherwise. Any scientist worth their salt won't always get results they like or wanted to see, and if the results keep not fitting a political ideology it's not science that needs to change.
Quote: rxwineHopefully they'll never say otherwise.
Won't make a grain of difference.
Quote: rxwineAny scientist worth their salt won't always get results they like or wanted to see, and if the results keep not fitting a political ideology it's not science that needs to change.
It's a different scientist or science PR guy that gets screen time, that's all.
Quote: TheBigPaybakIt would be interesting to see what percentage of self-described liberal scientists and self-described conservative scientists subscribe to the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Try these:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120221/republicans-santorum-romney-gingrich-climate-scientists-scientific-consensus-skeptics-kerry-emanuel
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-coming-gop-civil-war-over-climate-change-20130509
As one would expect, Republican scientists are a lot more informed about climate change than Tea Party extremists (who think they know more about science than actual scientists).
Quote: MichaelBluejayYou guys a real hoot. First you eagerly gulp down what the Daily Mail *said* the Met Office's position on warming was, and assumed it was reported completely accurately, without bothering to look up either what MO *actually* said or what scientists are saying about the issue. (One would think that the promo for "8 Tiniest Celebrity Breasts" at the bottom of the article was a tiny clue that you weren't actually reading a science journal, but there you go.) Next, it's astounding that while you bash science and scientists out of one side of your mouth, you're only too eager to lay claim to any of the tiny minority of scientists who support the non-warming position -- or in this case, who *seem* to support it. In other words, you cherry-pick your science and your scientists.
Let me suggest some easy homework: Actually bother to read *both* sides of this issue. That is, find an article or two written by actual scientists, not something massacred by a mainstream media journalist. And if you're about to suggest that one can't trust scientists, then toss out what you think the scientists at the Met Office said, too.
BTW, depending on how you measure it,
9 warmest years have all occurred since 1998
13 warmest years have happened in the last 15
You'd also do well to check out the summary of scientific opinion on climate change.
If you don't like my first link to the report Michael than how about the my link below for 'The Guardian' is that a reputable enough paper for you. If you want to bother googling you can find a link on the report for your own favoritie paper. If you scroll down the link to the 2 graphs you will find that the report says that the expecting amount of warming (using their own average of the range) by 2020 has dropped from .8 degrees to .5 degrees. That is a significant change from the 'sky is falling' projections of a few years ago and of many still today. The bottom line is we are far from being smart enough yet to forecast the changes or predict what the effect of any single item is. You allude to the so called fact CO2 and temperature increase are increasing in proportion to each other. That decreasing increase rate must mean that we have reduced our CO2 output.
We know so little still about how our planet operates that we can not be that confident of any current theory. If you look up the latest research on forests, done on the Amazon jungle, it is now showing that almost all the of the O2 produced during the day is absorbed back in the night. The real net gain is from the microbes in the ocean at the delta. So much for the theory that trees provide our oxygen.
Michael I don't dispute that the planet is warming but it has been for thousand of years. The Mediteranean has risen a couple of meters since the time of Christ did humans cause that? Maybe, but not by burning fossil fuels.
GRAPHS
Many, if not most, scientists do their research without a thought to their political views or biases. Both sides of the political fence know of the potential of global warming and climate change because they listen to the scientists, but both sides differ greatly on what to do about it, because their political ideologies are different. There are plenty of climatologists out there. Any meterologist or anyone with a degree in physics or environmental sciences can understand ALL of the science that goes into the climate debate. It isn't rocket science. It's climatology, which is a bit of basic chemistry, thermodynamics, earth sciences, and physics.
Kernarman is right on one thing: we know so little still about how our planet operates. What is clear is that the increased atmospheric CO2 increases the absorption of energy into the atmosphere. What is also clear is that the increased CO2 is anthropologic in nature. The simplist climate models back in the 70s could only account for CO2. They couldn't consider ocean currents, ocean absorption, albedo changes, and all of the other factors that change the global energy equation because (1) there was no data and (2) computers were not powerful enough to complete predictions. Times have changed, and predictions can only get better. And the Met's report which every skeptic seems to hang their hat on shows that their latest models show a decrease in the amount of predicted global warming, which is a good thing. It means that the models have gotten better and have taken into account more factors than simply CO2.
It doesn't mean that the planet is out of the woods. It means that humans have more time to reverse what we've done.
And EvenBob, the entire world got rid of CFCs and went to non-ozone depleting refrigerants, like R-22 for air conditioners to reverse ozone depletion in the atmosphere, and guess what: the science was right. It's working, but there is still a large ozone hole over Antarctica that won't close up, they say, until about 2050.
Quote: thecesspitBob's wife did save the world.
I thought as much. That wascally ozone was no match for her..
The evidence for this was through a 30 year study from 1982 to 2011. It also shows that because we are using less land for farming, nature is allowing native trees and plants to return to the former farm lands. The reason we use less farmland than we did in 1960 and are able to feed twice as many people is all in thanks to the use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are used in the production of fertilizers used in farming.
Nature will take it's course and there's nothing we can do to stop it.
Nature has thrived regardless of what we may have done.
And I believe it will continue to do so.
I haven't read the majority of comments but I'd be happy to answer questions on the general subject. But, global warming is real, it's human-caused, and most of us in the scientific community take it seriously.
Would you say this is accurate?
