Nobel Prize in Physics Awarded To Scientists Whose Work Helps Predict Global Warming (washingtonpost.com) 103
The Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded half of the Nobel Prize in physics jointly to Syukuro Manabe of the United States and Klaus Hasselmann of Germany for modeling Earth's climate and predicting global warming. From a report: Giorgio Parisi of Italy won the other half of the prize for describing fluctuating physical systems on scales from atoms to planets. The three scientists were honored "for groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of complex physical systems," Goran K. Hansson, secretary general Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, told reporters in Stockholm.
Get the popcorn ready... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
These folks simply can't help themselves by inserting politics into every aspect of their daily lives. Can't imagine what it would be like to live with someone like that, regardless of their political leanings.
Re:Get the popcorn ready... (Score:5, Interesting)
So far, you're the only person that has said any of that (not any conservative), so maybe you might want to examine your *own* prejudices and beliefs WRT to what and how others think?
Or maybe people within a group that has earned a bad reputation should stand up to the bad apples instead of blaming the rest of the world for how they're viewed.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
We're going to see lots of angry slashdot conservatives commenting soon here about how this is politically biased against them and how certain they are that global warming is a hoax. Will this article set a new 2021 record for most comments?
Just pat them on their heads, give them their ivermectin and a glass of warm milk and send them on their way.
Other links (Score:3)
the linked article is pay-walled so
Not hard to find not-paywalled links: [google.com]
https://www.reuters.com/lifest... [reuters.com]
https://cen.acs.org/people/nob... [acs.org]
https://wcpn.ideastream.org/ne... [ideastream.org]
I'm happy to see Syukuro Manabe win. His work in the 60s pioneered the global circulation models used today to understand pretty much all planetary atmospheres (not just Earth).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Get the popcorn ready... (Score:4, Insightful)
All I'm seeing is the usual: People *SEEING* angry ideologists. Even when, like in your case, there literally were no other comments! ;-)
But hey, I wrote a comment below. So now you can "SEE" an angry ideologist in it. Even if it's literally the opposite of that. But hey, I don't wanna ruin your fun!
Re: (Score:1)
You didn't. [slashdot.org]
Because there was no question that they were coming, even if you want to pretend that it was somehow in doubt.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Repost: So now we're going to downmod every post that points out that the original poster was correct? Man you guys are cowards, in addition to to being wrong.
You didn't. [slashdot.org]
Because there was no question that they were coming, even if you want to pretend that it was somehow in doubt.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Did you just invent an idea in your own mind? And then project that idea on others? And then criticize The Other for what you invented in your own mind? Seriously? This passes for political discourse?
Remember when the lobotomy, the worst surgery in history, won Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1949 for the "discovery of the therapeutic value of lobotomy in certain psychoses"? [youtu.be]
Re:Get the popcorn ready... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? This passes for political discourse?
No. This is Slashdot, remember? Quite good for anything technical - especially if it's uncontroversial - but hopelessly juvenile for anything involving politics.
Re: (Score:2)
+1.753 Realistic
Re: (Score:2)
This post deserves a mod score in the octuple digits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Get the popcorn ready... (Score:2)
We're going to see lots of angry slashdot conservatives
Not until this article is posted at least one more time.
Re: (Score:1)
Prediction vs measurement [Re:Get the popcorn...] (Score:2)
No, but what, I, as classic liberal, shall bitch about - how precise are his predictions/models?
Is it 5 sigma? Cause if not, GTFO, shit is political.
Whose predictions?
Are you talking about Manabe? (remember? The guy who just got the Nobel prize that we're discussing?)
If you take his 1967 value for climate sensitivity (change in temperature as a function of carbon dioxide) and insert 2020's measured carbon dioxide value, Manabe and Wetherald 1967's model says you would expect 2020 temperature to average 0.82 C higher than 1966 temperatures. Fitting the GISS temperature data to a trendline gives 0.93 C above 1966. Pretty good, considering the Manabe and
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Get the popcorn ready... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why give them a Nobel prize?
Because the prize was given for their developments to
simulation theory. Climate modelling was just an example.
Re: (Score:2)
Not much activity on the story so far. I think you've misjudged today's conservatives.
They don't know or care what this Nobel Prize thing is about, even though they do like dynamite.
Re:Get the popcorn ready... (Score:5, Informative)
1. World temps are rising, albeit slowly, as measured across time-spans of decades.
True, although "decades" is a slow timescale for a human, on climate timescales (centuries/millennia) it's quite sudden; so, very much not slowly. There's a classic xkcd [xkcd.com] that visualizes this really well. And this is slashdot, so one must cite any relevant xkcd :)
2. However, they are rising no more than can be sufficiently explained by cycles of solar activity.
Simply wrong here. Climate tracks orbital mechanics and solar activity quite well... until the last couple hundred years, when it suddenly goes off the rails (see your point #1). This is one of the main reasons current changes are attributed to humans (your point #3). The other being the very tight correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels, which match human output levels this go round (vs. distance past cases where outbreaks of vulcanism were the culprits).
Poking around, lots of NASA and NOAA sites with details, but surprisingly enough wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has one of the better-crafted pages with the graph I've most often seen used to show this.
Combining the orbital stuff and solar cycle is done here in this NASA plot [nasa.gov]. The "it's really taking off in the last few decades, when solar conditions say it should be going the other way" is really obvious here.
Here's one of many places [nasa.gov] (this one NASA again) where you can compare CO2 to temperature, both recently and int he distance past.
3. Humans probably have very little, if anything, to do with it.
The current warming episode nailing the human-induced CO2 levels and not something else says otherwise.
4. On balance global warming is a good thing, although the benefits, and the harms, are unevenly distributed, and the current nation-state model will likely prove unsustainable in light of the need for people from negatively impacted regions to move to neutral and/or positively impacted ones.
This is out of my wheelhouse (physics, data analysis), so I've nothing to contribute here.
5. There are other very good reasons to try to reduce fossil fuel emissions, insofar as can be done lawfully (i.e., without injuring the life, liberty, or property of ANYONE). So I'm fine with those efforts, but, again, only so long as they are lawful.
The thing that amps up discussions about policy debates is that they change what's lawful. As a scientist, all I can hope for is that what's actually going on is used to inform such policy debates, rather than misinformation or hyperbole.
6. Those who insist that we need to stop reproducing, or stop using energy, or whatever, can set an example by doing the same themselves. They have NO lawful right to inflict their delusions on anyone else.
See above. a) When new laws get passed, they're lawful; b) in this case, anthropic global warning with some serious side effects (that as you say, could disrupt the whole nation state model) is far from delusional. In fact, I'd argue that it's ostrich-head-in-the-sand level delusional to NOT be concerned about this.
Re: (Score:3)
> 4 On balance global warming is a good thing, although the benefits, and the harms, are unevenly distributed, and the current nation-state model will likely prove unsustainable in light of the need for people from negatively impacted regions to move to neutral and/or positively impacted ones.
On balance, with a bit of tongue in cheek: If you put your head in the oven and your feet in the ice, on balance (on average) your bodily temperature is ok.
In 2021 the year average temperature of the US might fine,
Re: (Score:2)
The scientists say, "We've been warning about climate change for about 50 years or so; it's just that people are not willing to accept the fact that they have to act now" to prevent the worst effects of climate change.
Here is a significant point that is missed in the discussion: They did NOT say carbon or emissions reduction. Acting to reduce warming does not necessarily mean greenhouse gas emissions.
What is to be done is for another study. Reductions may, or may not, be the best or only action.
Re: (Score:2)
They did NOT say carbon or emissions reduction.
Well, arguably they did not say "or". They did say carbon emissions reduction (where "carbon" is shorthand for CO2, methane, CFCs, and other anthropogenic green house gases). See e.g. IPCC 1992 Policymaker Summary of Working Group III (Formulation of Response Strategies) [www.ipcc.ch]: "recognition of the need to develop strategies to absorb greenhouse gases, i e. protect and increase greenhouse gas sinks; to limit or reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions; and to adapt human activities to the impacts of climate c
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to the Nobel laureates, not the IPCC. However, if that is the case, it displays very narrow-minded thinking, considering only a single method of tackling global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to the Nobel laureates, not the IPCC.
Aha. You might have mentioned that before. You would also have been wrong. See e.g. the 2015 Mainau Declaration [mainaudeclaration.org] (originally signed by 36 participants at the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting): "Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change."
However, if that is the case, it displays very narrow-minded thinking, considering only a single method of tackling global warming.
You are shifting the goalpost. And shifting it into the swamp. I gave you the link to the First Assessment Report and a quote that proves
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your considered reply. But I still have a question. What are the broad spectrum of measures? I see only reducing emissions by various means, so one measure. I know you could add coping strategies, but I don't count that as it does nothing for the warming itself. Again, what measure besides reducing emissions?
Re: (Score:2)
I see only reducing emissions by various means, so one measure. I know you could add coping strategies, but I don't count that as it does nothing for the warming itself. Again, what measure besides reducing emissions?
What else do you expect? There are various measures noted that can contribute to the accounting and reduction of GHG emissions. If you take your view to the extreme, you can always say "reduce global warming is only one measure". If you are looking for geoengineering proposals, you might need to look at a later IPCC report (but I've not looked through all the volumes of the FAR). But the very idea of "we cannot control this one global process, so let's add a few more" seems to be a very dubious idea.
Right wing idiots on cue [Re:Get the popcorn ready (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, right on cue. Libertarians, conservatives, whatever: people with a right-wing political agenda who have an ideological disagrement against (some of the) possible solutions to global warming, but realize it's easier to simply attack the science, because they know that most people don't know much about science.
If you cherry-pick the right start/end dates, then sure, there is global warming.
Nope. Please go look at actual data and stop parroting the denier blogs you get your opinions from.
Cherry-pick other ones and there is global cooling instead.
Yeah, the right wing used to do that, but not so much any more. You have to do a lot of contortions to cherry pick dates to pretend that the trend is cooling, and that cherry picking just doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny, so the deniers have mostly stopped trying that argument.
Whichever best suits the narratives of those who control the media.
That has been the right-wing narrative recently, probably because it was so heavily pushed by Donald Trump's unrelenting attacks [theguardian.com]: it's all the lying media!
I've lived long enough to have seen manufactured crises around both (cooling,
Another right-wing talking point. Also false. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... [ametsoc.org] https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
and warming). And I'm smart enough to know that both are BS, because climate is always changing,
True, but irrelevant. This change is understood, it global, it is fast compared to most earlier global changes, and we are causing it.
that is nothing new, we'll need to adapt, but we've been adapting and will continue to do so. My take, in a little more detail. 1. World temps are rising, albeit slowly, as measured across timespans of decades.
You just said that data showing temperature rising was "cherry picked". Now you're saying it's real. Right the second time.
The time scale of decades is also right.
2. However, they are rising no more than can be sufficiently explained by cycles of solar activity.
Bullshit. Stop reading idiotic denier blogs. We measure solar activity. There are aspects of climate and weather that we don't understand, but one thing that is very well substantiated by data is that solar activity does not account for the observed warming. Period. End of story. We have measurements.
Quitting the commentary here-- I despise politically-driven science deniers (which, whether you know it or not, is what you are), but as for your comments on what do to-- that's more sliding into opinions. As long as people stop attacking the science, I'm good with debating opinions on what to do, if anything.
Re: Right wing idiots on cue [Re:Get the popcorn r (Score:2)
Sensationalizing [Re: Right wing idiots on cue] (Score:2)
The media indeed wants to sensationalize everything. That's what grabs eyeballs. "Long term trend continues for the long term!" just doesn't engage.
El Niño still gets discussed. It's cyclical, though, so over a long term it averages out. The media is bored with it, since it's not really new, but if you read beyond the front page, it still gets mentioned. https://news.google.com/search... [google.com]ño
Re: (Score:2)
because climate is always changing, that is nothing new, we'll need to adapt, but we've been adapting and will continue to do so.
That's a cheezy cop-out. "We'll adapt", which is true and false. Yes, we adapt when forced. But hey, if the gas price goes up, people do adapt but they whine and bitch and blame political parties and blame their neighbors and blame the Saudis and blame everyone but themselves. But they adapt. Parents die due to back medical care, they adapt but they also bitch and complain and try to change the broken system. The house gets burned down in a wildfire, we'll adapt, but also sue the electic company and de
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. And while climate modelling is vital neither the physics nor the methadology is ground breaking. In fact it could be argued its just as much software engineering and certainly doesn't deserve a nobel prize.
Re: (Score:1)
On the other hand, these climate researchers only won half a Nobel Prize. Maybe that is a recognition that climate modeling isn't real physics.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Nobel prizes seem to be rather random. Hell, Obama got a prize for just getting elected back in 2008.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately a lot of ivory tower academics are left leaning and seem to have a subconscious urge to demonstrate their political viewpoint at every opportunity whether it makes them look like fools in the process or not.
Re: (Score:1)
As someone who works at one of the national labs, I can vouch for that. In spades.
Your tax dollars at work!
Re: (Score:2)
The Peace Prize is entirely political, and is awarded by a different agency than awards the "real" Nobel prizes in the sciences and medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
It may come as a surprise, but the Nobel Prizes are awarded by committees made up of people. People have biases and axes to grind.
Re:Not really what the physics award is for... (Score:5, Informative)
And once again you prove that you have no clue about any subject you decide to comment on:
Here's the thing with all the Nobel Prizes in sciences and medicine: They should, as much as possible, benefit humanity in a practical application. Yes, that is part of the stipulations in the will, and thus set the rules for the Nobel Foundation, which in turn set the rules for the committees. Occasionally, you get some purely theoretical research, but that's more a case of slipping through the cracks, because it's both against what Nobel wished, and the rules for the Prizes.
As for the categories, they are going by the old meanings, when the fields weren't as clearcut as they are now, and also, the laws governing Foundations make it very hard to change the rules governing the Foundations, to reduce the risk of plundering the assets(something that was a problem in the late 1800's and part of early 1900's).
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, this is really informative. Like most people, I had Nobel prizes associated with the perceived general importance of the research, but it is indeed benefit to humanity that matters:
https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-will/ [nobelprize.org]
One area where adhering to this spirit rather than literal words of the will may be a problem is the peace prize, where the committee often chooses a candidate with potential to do good and it often turns out to be ridiculous in retrospect.
Re:Not really what the physics award is for... (Score:4, Informative)
You seem rather to have taken you source of information in this rather poor account of the real physics prize: half of it went to Parisi for his work on complex systems, which is traditional theoretical physics.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Parisi's portion was for work he did on the dynamical theory of spin glasses. That's pretty physics-y.
-JS
Re:Not really what the physics award is for... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is hardcore physics. Heat transfer, wind dynamics, evaporation cycles, etc. What do you think that is if not physics?
Re: (Score:1)
It is hardcore physics. Heat transfer, wind dynamics, evaporation cycles, etc. What do you think that is if not physics?
A Chinese Commie hoax mixed with a lefty plot to make us eat bugs...
Well that's what Fox tells me.
They know science right?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It appears to me that one purpose of the Nobel prizes are to highlight what they feel is the most impactful research or other activities, not necessarily the most challenging or impressive research. In this case they are highlighting the use of physics research to improve our understanding of climate change, which appears to be something the climatology industry is hoping would be done more often [nature.com]. And with human efforts to mitigate and reduce our impact on the world's climate likely being the defining aspe
Better climate models are definitely needed (Score:2)
Even as an armchair/enthusiast geologist, it can be a bit frustrating to use some of our existing climate models, which produce wildly different predictions by design. I am speaking of the "what-if" climate models: what if we continue on with climate policy X, then what might happen? How about we assume policy Y?
Are these models useful? Well ... it depends on what you're trying to do. If what you're trying to do is predict where to best spend policy money, sure. But if what you want to understand is how a d
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that there is a feedback loop (humans) that is probabilistic and variable per region rather than mechanical, that is based on both political and economic climates. There is no obviously easy solution to this other than to try every probable permutation and map the different outcomes.
Re: Better climate models are definitely needed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely correct, although as with Y2K, typically they'll then complain that 100% of those who hit the brakes never drove over any cliffs. Still, that's no reason not to shout warnings when they're needed.
Re:Physics? (Score:4, Informative)
"describing fluctuating physical systems on scales from atoms to planets" ya dumdum
Re:Physics? (Score:5, Interesting)
What does climate science have to do with physics? If there was any doubt the Nobel Prize has jumped the shark...
You could have come off as sarcastic if it wasn't for the "jump the shark" comment. Physics is the study of matter, energy, and the laws of nature. It has an impact on literally every other branch of science. For instance when you are dealing with organic systems, if you are working on the cellular level then biologists are mostly involved but if you are researching at the atomic level then physicists are doing the heavy lifting. Same for climatologists, who work mostly at the level of weather patterns. But when you start studying the formation of weather patterns at the atomic level, physicists are usually assisting. Or at least physicists should be, although it appears even within the field of climatology they feel physicists should be more involved [nature.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Your butt hurts so badly you can probably get your doctor to prescribe the good painkillers.
The real citation (Score:1)
The Nobel Prize website has the public press release [nobelprize.org] and the actual scientific background [nobelprize.org] (PDF) for those who want to know more than generic explaining-science-to-uninformed-readers news reports.
-JS
What's the rest of the story? (Score:2)
Neither the title, the summary, nor even the linked article, describe how the theoretical predictions actually came true. These elderly scientists have been working in their fields for 50-60 years. For Manabe to win the award now, 50-60 years ago his model must have made several clear, defined predictions which we have seen come true, while not making clear, defined predictions which did not come true. That's the "money shot" of any theoretical model -- when it makes predictions about observable systems the
Re: (Score:1)
Surely they didn't give out Nobel prizes these days simply for making predictions?
They gave one to Obama for less
Re: (Score:2)
They gave one to Obama for less
Different people. The "peace" prize (who have such a great track record that one of the most recent winners is busy trying to commit genocide in Ethiopia) is a different batch of people from a whole different country (Norway), compared to the "real" Nobel prizes in sciency fields in Sweden.
Re: (Score:2)
They gave Trump a Time Magazine cover for the cost of a Photoshop license.
Re: (Score:1)
They're not winning the prize for having predicted current conditions 60 years ago. They're winning the prize for coming up with a model that takes 50 years worth of historical weather data and spits out current conditions.
Ah. I wish the article had bothered to explain that distinction, because it's important.
That retrospective hindsight approach is good for building and testing a theoretical model. But the summary and article kept referring to "predictions", which for 99% of people in everyday conversation means "a statement made in the present, about something unknown that will happen in the future". If you come up with a model that can take the past 10 years of tennis matches and correctly tell you who won Wimbledon this y
Re: What's the rest of the story? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The predictions were made between 45 and 55 years ago and came to pass. Hope that helps.
My commentary is, again, on the writing of the ./ summary and the linked story. If someone gets a Nobel Prize for building a prediction engine, it seems bizarre to not give a clear example of a prediction made by that engine which later came true. The GP AC replied to say that this isn't that kind of prediction engine - no predictions were made 45 and 55 years ago, Rather, the models were created, have now been fed already-known data, and calculated a conclusion which matches our already-known observable p
Re: (Score:2)
A physics-based model [Re:What's the rest...] (Score:2)
They're not winning the prize for having predicted current conditions 60 years ago. They're winning the prize for coming up with a model that takes 50 years worth of historical weather data and spits out current conditions.
Ah. I wish the article had bothered to explain that distinction, because it's important.
The article did not explain it that way, because that statement is incorrect.
Manabe and Wetherald's work was physics-based modeling, it was not based on historical data or on hindsight. They numerically solved the radiative/convective heat transfer of the atmosphere, accounting for the wavelength-dependent infrared absorption by greenhouse gasses carbon dioxide and water, and the convective heat transfer of the atmosphere.
That retrospective hindsight approach is good for building and testing a theoretical model.
Right. What Manabe and Wetherald did was the theoretical model, not the "retrospective
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for the correction. It's a shame this stuff wasn't clear in the summary or the article the submitter/editors chose to link.
They made no attempt to predict how much CO2 would be put into the atmosphere by humans in the future. Their prediction was, if in the future the carbon dioxide increases by a factor of X, the equilibrium temperature will rise by a factor of 2.25 log_(base 2)X.
This is the kind of thing I was expecting to see, paired with the actual point where the Manabe model's predictions were confirmed. Something like, "In 1973 Manabe refined a model which predicted the earth's temperature will rise 2 degrees if atmospheric CO2 were to double. In 2017, CO2 levels reached that number, and in 2018 surface temps were indeed 2 degrees warmer than in 197
Re: (Score:1)
Yet the /. summary and linked article don't take the simple step of mentioning what is the most important part of the science - the confirmation part.
I count three times their models were confirmed and I just quickly skimmed the article. Also, there work is the foundation for most other models, plenty of which have been confirmed.
Re: (Score:1)
Yet the /. summary and linked article don't take the simple step of mentioning what is the most important part of the science - the confirmation part.
I count three times their models were confirmed and I just quickly skimmed the article. Also, there work is the foundation for most other models, plenty of which have been confirmed.
The article does not point those out. There is nothing where it says something like, "Manabe's model in 1975 predicted that XYZ conditions would exist in 2015, and we saw XYZ conditions come to pass a couple years ago."
For example, the article cites this as the crucial part of Manabe's work:
The work led to a crucial finding: “If you double the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, the surface temperature would increase by two degrees Celsius,” said Yale University physicist John Wettlaufer.
It does not actually tell us how the Prediction-Confirmation circuit was closed; something like: "This crucial finding was reached in 1975. By 2015 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere had doubled, and the surface temper
Re: (Score:2)
You know the results of all of the climatic models without looking at the results? Amazing!
You understand how global warming works without comprehending that there is localized cooling? Less amazing, that's a fairly common piece of ignorance.
WSJ article permalink (Score:5, Informative)
The OP posted a link to a Washington Post article.
If you can't read it here's a free link to a Wall Street Journal article:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/n... [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Climate prediction models are really just economic predictions models
Manabe's work was a model of the temperature and the radiative and convective heat transfer of the atmosphere. If you want to say "a temperature model is really just an economic prediction" you can say that, I guess, but that statement makes no sense.
(keep in mind that the results of the model were published in 1967, decades before the issue became politicized.)
so the prize should have been awarded for that regardless of the fact that economic predictions never come true.
But the temperature predictions do come true, and in this case, did.
It's a sad day (Score:2)
More politicization of the Nobel Prize. Of course, all Nobels are political at least within their field, with some actively campaigning and lobbying. But this one is going to sully the Nobels even further, even if it is deserved.
Re: (Score:2)
Alfred Nobel made a huge fortune in armaments. When a newspaper mistakenly printed his obituary, he was shocked by what he read. So he made plans in his will to set up annual awards for people contributing to peace and other pursuits which "conferred the greatest benefit to humankind."
The Nobel Prize was political from before its start.
Wouldn't one prediction be the closest? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how it works. You start with assumptions, like how much carbon humans will put into atmosphere, and for every set of assumptions you generate *thousands* of predictions, arriving at a statistical distribution.
To evaluate the accuracy of those models, you don't pick the model that most closely resembles what actually happened; you choose the model whose assumptions most closely resemble what people have actually done and see whether what happens falls with within the confidence intervals of that
lol (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)