[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Ukraine - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Aug 11, 2022 - 12:55pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ColdMiser - Aug 11, 2022 - 12:47pm
 
PASS THE BEER - Proclivities - Aug 11, 2022 - 11:54am
 
So... what's been happening here lately? - Coaxial - Aug 11, 2022 - 10:59am
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Proclivities - Aug 11, 2022 - 10:35am
 
Wordle - daily game - Proclivities - Aug 11, 2022 - 10:16am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - GeneP59 - Aug 11, 2022 - 10:13am
 
Trump - kcar - Aug 11, 2022 - 10:06am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Aug 11, 2022 - 10:04am
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Aug 11, 2022 - 9:54am
 
How to Use RP? - kcar - Aug 11, 2022 - 9:53am
 
Republican Party - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Aug 11, 2022 - 9:20am
 
Got Road Rage? - Red_Dragon - Aug 11, 2022 - 8:12am
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Aug 11, 2022 - 7:52am
 
RightWingNutZ - Red_Dragon - Aug 11, 2022 - 5:53am
 
>>>>>>Knitted - Antigone - Aug 11, 2022 - 2:37am
 
RPeep News You Should Know - ScottN - Aug 10, 2022 - 10:26pm
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Aug 10, 2022 - 10:22pm
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 10, 2022 - 9:34pm
 
India - Red_Dragon - Aug 10, 2022 - 4:36pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Aug 10, 2022 - 4:08pm
 
godnarb: the Lunchurch - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 10, 2022 - 11:24am
 
Health Care - miamizsun - Aug 10, 2022 - 9:11am
 
Peace - thisbody - Aug 10, 2022 - 8:59am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - black321 - Aug 10, 2022 - 7:01am
 
Derplahoma! - sunybuny - Aug 10, 2022 - 6:02am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - GeneP59 - Aug 9, 2022 - 4:37pm
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - KurtfromLaQuinta - Aug 9, 2022 - 4:19pm
 
MQA Stream Coming to BLUOS - robin2 - Aug 9, 2022 - 11:47am
 
RPeeps who would have a sense of humor if they were not s... - miamizsun - Aug 9, 2022 - 10:14am
 
Things that make you happy - GeneP59 - Aug 9, 2022 - 8:47am
 
unusual time signatures - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 9, 2022 - 8:26am
 
Best/worst white reggae/ska/rcksteady - thisbody - Aug 9, 2022 - 6:54am
 
More reggae, less Marley please - thisbody - Aug 9, 2022 - 6:48am
 
Media Bias - Red_Dragon - Aug 9, 2022 - 6:34am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Aug 9, 2022 - 5:40am
 
Things Forgotten. - Steely_D - Aug 8, 2022 - 10:24pm
 
Things You Thought Today - oldviolin - Aug 8, 2022 - 7:28pm
 
It's the economy stupid. - miamizsun - Aug 8, 2022 - 6:41pm
 
Cheney, Dick - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 8, 2022 - 10:36am
 
Joe Biden - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 8, 2022 - 10:18am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - GeneP59 - Aug 8, 2022 - 9:56am
 
Food - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 8, 2022 - 9:56am
 
John Lennon's Jukebox - thisbody - Aug 8, 2022 - 4:55am
 
Portishead S. O. S. - geoff_morphini - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:43pm
 
Environment - Red_Dragon - Aug 7, 2022 - 6:51pm
 
Automotive Lust - R_P - Aug 7, 2022 - 1:48pm
 
Ridiculous or Funny Spam - Steely_D - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:47am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:18am
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:13am
 
China - haresfur - Aug 7, 2022 - 9:00am
 
Tech & Science - Red_Dragon - Aug 6, 2022 - 3:17pm
 
The Abortion Wars - black321 - Aug 6, 2022 - 8:39am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - BlueHeronDruid - Aug 5, 2022 - 8:37pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Aug 5, 2022 - 12:58pm
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - Aug 5, 2022 - 10:09am
 
Least Successful Phishing Scams - geoff_morphini - Aug 5, 2022 - 9:19am
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - miamizsun - Aug 5, 2022 - 7:09am
 
Favorite Flags - Proclivities - Aug 5, 2022 - 6:33am
 
Afghanistan - Red_Dragon - Aug 5, 2022 - 5:29am
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Aug 4, 2022 - 7:34pm
 
What are you listening to now? - westslope - Aug 4, 2022 - 3:00pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Aug 4, 2022 - 2:01pm
 
Art Show - Proclivities - Aug 4, 2022 - 11:48am
 
Breaking News - westslope - Aug 3, 2022 - 5:06pm
 
Saudi Arabia - westslope - Aug 3, 2022 - 4:45pm
 
Congress - Red_Dragon - Aug 3, 2022 - 2:19pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Aug 3, 2022 - 2:00pm
 
Message To Lucky - black321 - Aug 3, 2022 - 12:03pm
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - miamizsun - Aug 3, 2022 - 11:40am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - sirdroseph - Aug 3, 2022 - 10:39am
 
Manbird's Episiotomy Stitch Licking Clinic - KEEP OUT - geoff_morphini - Aug 3, 2022 - 9:08am
 
Infinite cat - Red_Dragon - Aug 3, 2022 - 7:36am
 
Flower Pictures - haresfur - Aug 3, 2022 - 7:13am
 
Favorite Beauty Products - Tried and Tested! - Proclivities - Aug 2, 2022 - 10:58am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 112, 113, 114, 115  Next
Post to this Topic
dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 9:33pm

 miamizsun wrote:

M, how can you say that this obvious corruption means nothing? I must respectfully disagree.

There is more here.

You do realize how much money this carbon tax will generate right?

In Japan estimates are running $1400 & $8600 per household annually.

I don't deny that there is a major problem with pollution and climate change, I'm just questioning the legitimacy of the data, how much is due to man, and why they're going to tax the pants off of us.

Listen, any time corrupt government(s) get involved and wants to help us take care of an issue by taxing us, I get worried. Their track record speaks for itself.

If climate change is such a big deal, why don't they stop the wars, stop the bailouts for their "too big" to fail buddies and focus on taking care of a real issue?

Isn't it obvious government's priority is taxing, borrowing and spending?

I'm just asking....

I have a feeling we're about to take it in the a$$, and somehow the government/corporatists are about to ca$h in again.

Peace
 

There is justified cynicism, and then also woefully misplaced cynicism.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 9:30pm

 dionysius wrote:


Sorry, I don't know Portuguese.

And the email "scandal"—proves nothing. Zilch. Does nothing to invalidate science being done all over the world, not just in one small organization. There is no smoking gun, not one than can clean up all the smoking chimneys. This is a venial sin next to the mortal one of climate change denial. Look past this well-intentioned error to the much bigger error beyond it.

The hard choices do have to be made. That's why there is a denial movement, to delay (because it cannot be prevented, ultimately) the hard political and economic decisions. Denial is in the short-term interests of a few who are heavily invested in the present carbon economy. The carbon tax and cap-and-trade will benefit us all, in the long run. We have to see that short-term inconvenience is necessary for long-term welfare and, well, survival. For the natural world as well as us.

 
M, how can you say that this obvious corruption means nothing? I must respectfully disagree.

There is more here.

You do realize how much money this carbon tax will generate right?

In Japan estimates are running $1400 & $8600 per household annually.

I don't deny that there is a major problem with pollution and climate change, I'm just questioning the legitimacy of the data, how much is due to man, and why they're going to tax the pants off of us.

Listen, any time corrupt government(s) get involved and wants to help us take care of an issue by taxing us, I get worried. Their track record speaks for itself.

If climate change is such a big deal, why don't they stop the wars, stop the bailouts for their "too big" to fail buddies and focus on taking care of a real issue?

Isn't it obvious government's priority is taxing, borrowing and spending?

I'm just asking....

I have a feeling we're about to take it in the a$$, and somehow the government/corporatists are about to ca$h in again.

Peace

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 9:19pm

 jadewahoo wrote:

Whoa. You say those names like you have actually read them.
?
 

When I was young and stupid. Now that I am old and stupid, I recognize their fatuity.
Manbird

Manbird Avatar

Location: Owl Creek Bridge
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 9:19pm

 dionysius wrote:


You don't have to respond to every crazy pet conspiracy theory out there. You're already right. You don't have to give Immanuel Velikovsky, Madame Blavatsky and Erich von Däniken the time of day. Let crank scholarship eat itself.
 
Is that chariots of the gods bloke? Jeez I haven't thought about him since I read that book when I was 15. 
fuh2

fuh2 Avatar

Location: Mexican beach paradise
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 9:17pm

 miamizsun wrote:

M, I was referring to the hapless screw ups/CRU you speak of, here is a list with some of their emails with some parts bolded. I just can't look past this type of thing, especially when there is so much riding on it.(a worldwide tax of mythic proportion)

I'm very concerned they're going to use something like this (obviously manipulated data/evidence) to ram this "carbon tax" through and "f" us royally.

Regards

What do you prefer, a carbon tax that could be used to create millions of green industry jobs (like putting solar on every roof in America), or runaway global warming?   Now THAT is when we will be truly royally f'ed. 

————————————————————————————- 

Runaway Global Warming-
A Climate Catastrophe in the Making

What is runaway global warming, or "runaway heating"?

Runaway global warming is the accelerating (and soon to be unstoppable) chain reaction caused by release of the Arctic's vast stores of the very potent greenhouse gas (GHG), methane. The Arctic methane is released as the result of global warming heating the Arctic. That is called a positive carbon feedback.

This is as close as we've come to a literal End of the World Doomsday scenario. It is the single most catastrophically dangerous effect of global warming to all life on Earth.

The Arctic is already warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Regions in Siberia (where most of the carbon is) are warming even faster.

 
jadewahoo

jadewahoo Avatar

Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 9:16pm

 dionysius wrote:


You don't have to respond to every crazy pet conspiracy theory out there. You're already right. You don't have to give Immanuel Velikovsky, Madame Blavatsky and Erich von Däniken the time of day. Let crank scholarship eat itself.

 
Whoa. You say those names like you have actually read them.
?

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 9:02pm

 miamizsun wrote:

M, I was referring to the hapless screw ups/CRU you speak of, here is a list with some of their emails with some parts bolded. I just can't look past this type of thing, especially when there is so much riding on it.(a worldwide tax of mythic proportion)

I'm very concerned they're going to use something like this (obviously manipulated data/evidence) to ram this "carbon tax" through and "f" us royally.

Regards
 

Sorry, I don't know Portuguese.

And the email "scandal"—proves nothing. Zilch. Does nothing to invalidate science being done all over the world, not just in one small organization. There is no smoking gun, not one than can clean up all the smoking chimneys. This is a venial sin next to the mortal one of climate change denial. Look past this well-intentioned error to the much bigger error beyond it.

The hard choices do have to be made. That's why there is a denial movement, to delay (because it cannot be prevented, ultimately) the hard political and economic decisions. Denial is in the short-term interests of a few who are heavily invested in the present carbon economy. The carbon tax and cap-and-trade will benefit us all, in the long run. We have to see that short-term inconvenience is necessary for long-term welfare and, well, survival. For the natural world as well as us.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 8:48pm

 dionysius wrote:

How "obviously"? If you have "evidence of collusion" (with whom?), then give us a link to it, or something. Who is the more credible and acknowledged source?

(edit:) Anyone seriously interested can go to: http://www.ipcc-data.org/ There are many, many folks working on this besides the hapless screwups in East Anglia.

 
M, I was referring to the hapless screw ups/CRU you speak of, here is a list with some of their emails with some parts bolded. I just can't look past this type of thing, especially when there is so much riding on it.(a worldwide tax of mythic proportion)

I'm very concerned they're going to use something like this (obviously manipulated data/evidence) to ram this "carbon tax" through and "f" us royally.

Regards

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 7:56pm

 fuh2 wrote:


From what I understand, in 1998 there was an unusual global temperature spike that has not been matched until 2007.
The Carbon Industry PR machine has used that spike to try to show temperatures are now declining. The last 14 years are the hottest on record and the Himalaya glaciers are now 300-400 vertical feet lower than they were in 1920's.

The world pumps 28 BILLION TONS of CO2 into the air every year which is why atmospheric CO2  is increasing 2% a year.  CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas.

Before the industrial revolution began the atmosphere was at 275 Parts Per Million CO2. It is now 390 PPM and many climatologists agree that we have to get it back down to 350 PPM to keep climate change from spiralling out of control.

 

You don't have to respond to every crazy pet conspiracy theory out there. You're already right. You don't have to give Immanuel Velikovsky, Madame Blavatsky and Erich von Däniken the time of day. Let crank scholarship eat itself.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 7:53pm

Beaker wrote:
Check around - throwing out original source data just isn't done.

Sure it is. Try archiving an ice core for twenty years.

I'm looking forward to what a whole bunch of sunlight will bring to the facts and claims as laid out by the warmists.

Sure, but be prepared to be right back where we started. Being a sloppy codesmith or a belligerent partisan or even a dishonest scientist doesn't make your conclusions wrong.

fuh2

fuh2 Avatar

Location: Mexican beach paradise
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 7:51pm

 Beaker wrote:
 
 
I'm looking forward to what a whole bunch of sunlight will bring to the facts and claims as laid out by the warmists.
 

From what I understand, in 1998 there was an unusual global temperature spike that has not been matched until 2007.
The Carbon Industry PR machine has used that spike to try to show temperatures are now declining. The last 14 years are the hottest on record and the Himalaya glaciers are now 300-400 vertical feet lower than they were in 1920's.

The world pumps 28 BILLION TONS of CO2 into the air every year which is why atmospheric CO2  is increasing 2% a year.  CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas.

Before the industrial revolution began the atmosphere was at 275 Parts Per Million CO2. It is now 390 PPM and many climatologists agree that we have to get it back down to 350 PPM to keep climate change from spiralling out of control.
BasmntMadman

BasmntMadman Avatar

Location: Off-White Gardens


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 7:01pm

 Beaker wrote:

Pardon me, but perhaps you've missed the news that the research "data" much of the IPCC conclusions are based upon is a bunch of hooey.

Oh, and the 'peer-reviewed' scientists over at the UEA's CRU aren't able to offer up their data for independent analysis.  It seems they deliberately deleted it. 

Climate change data dumped

So much for scientific repeatability to assure us their calcs are accurate.

Everything output by the CRU and New Zealand's NWA is suspect.  It all needs to be re-done, by a fresh set of eyes..  All of it.  And open-sourcing the data wouldn't hurt either.
 

The original, raw data were thrown out to save room in a move to new quarters in the eighties, long before global warming was such a charged issue.  It's also before the current director of the CRU was in charge. Says so right in the linked article.  

The raw data may be lost, but the methods of processing it must be known, and the people who did it may well still be around, so I doubt that the trail to the original data is completely obscured. 

And when it's re-done and shows the same thing, then there will be some other noisy denunciation of it, because of...anything.  There's never going to be perfection in research. 

Open sourcing will have to be applied equally to the opponents of AWG as well as proponents.  If one side's confidential correspondence is revealed, then so should the other's.  That will be interesting.  The sword cuts both ways.



dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 4:23pm

 miamizsun wrote:

I'm curious about the IPCCs credibility, I don't doubt that there is good data and good science involved, but obviously there is some evidence of collusion.
 
How "obviously"? If you have "evidence of collusion" (with whom?), then give us a link to it, or something. Who is the more credible and acknowledged source?

(edit:) Anyone seriously interested can go to: http://www.ipcc-data.org/ There are many, many folks working on this besides the hapless screwups in East Anglia.


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 4:17pm

 dionysius wrote:

Hi Jeff!

No, not all all difficult to say. No one doubts that cycles in solar radiation occur, and that they have affected terrestrial climate in the past. But it takes many thousands of years for such variations in solar radiation or orbital attitude to achieve significant change. The relative speed of the warming points towards human causality. It's happening too quickly to be natural.

Read the Scientific American article, and its debunking of the solar radiation hypothesis:

"Astronomical phenomena are obvious natural factors to consider when trying to understand climate, particularly the brightness of the sun and details of the earth's orbit, because those seem to have been major drivers of the ice ages and other climate changes before the rise of industrial civilization. Climatologists, therefore, do take them into account in their models. But in defiance of the naysayers who want to chalk the recent warming up to natural cycles, there is insufficient evidence that enough extra solar energy is reaching our planet to account for the observed rise in global temperatures.

"The IPCC notes that between 1750 and 2005, the radiative forcing from the sun increased by 0.12 watts/square-meter-less than a tenth of the net forcings from human activities (1.6 W/m2). The largest uncertainty in that comparison comes from the estimated effects of aerosols in the atmosphere, which can variously shade the earth or warm it. Even granting the maximum uncertainties to these estimates, however, the increase in human influence on climate exceeds that of any solar variation."



 
I'm curious about the IPCCs credibility, I don't doubt that there is good data and good science involved, but obviously there is some evidence of collusion.

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 4:01pm

 miamizsun wrote:
First, I'd like to see this "de-politicized", most politicians are people we pay to lie to us. Politicians(both parties) should be out of this altogether. Opposing something because of another party's take on it makes zero sense.

I like others here want to see the evidence, all of it, and put it through the rigors. I'm also more concerned with pollution than climate change, we can deal with water better/easier than poison.

I'm wondering what caused the planet to go through its cycles before we were here(short of a cataclysmic event). We see glacial striations all over the place, glaciers receding and forming thousands of years ago, yet we weren't using fossil fuels to any extent then.

I tend to think that it is mostly caused by the sun(in all of its flux) and man plays a minor part, much less than hyped. Lots of articles like this which suggest warming coinciding between mars and earth for example, are solar induced phenomena.(this is an older article, but I think that this type of data may gaining traction)

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

It is difficult to say.

Regards

 
Hi Jeff!

No, not all all difficult to say. No one doubts that cycles in solar radiation occur, and that they have affected terrestrial climate in the past. But it takes many thousands of years for such variations in solar radiation or orbital attitude to achieve significant change. The relative speed of the warming points towards human causality. It's happening too quickly to be natural.

Read the Scientific American article, and its debunking of the solar radiation hypothesis:

"Astronomical phenomena are obvious natural factors to consider when trying to understand climate, particularly the brightness of the sun and details of the earth's orbit, because those seem to have been major drivers of the ice ages and other climate changes before the rise of industrial civilization. Climatologists, therefore, do take them into account in their models. But in defiance of the naysayers who want to chalk the recent warming up to natural cycles, there is insufficient evidence that enough extra solar energy is reaching our planet to account for the observed rise in global temperatures.

"The IPCC notes that between 1750 and 2005, the radiative forcing from the sun increased by 0.12 watts/square-meter-less than a tenth of the net forcings from human activities (1.6 W/m2). The largest uncertainty in that comparison comes from the estimated effects of aerosols in the atmosphere, which can variously shade the earth or warm it. Even granting the maximum uncertainties to these estimates, however, the increase in human influence on climate exceeds that of any solar variation."




miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 3:50pm

First, I'd like to see this "de-politicized", most politicians are people we pay to lie to us. Politicians(both parties) should be out of this altogether. Opposing something because of another party's take on it makes zero sense.

I like others here want to see the evidence, all of it, and put it through the rigors. I'm also more concerned with pollution than climate change, we can deal with water better/easier than poison.

I'm wondering what caused the planet to go through its cycles before we were here(short of a cataclysmic event). We see glacial striations all over the place, glaciers receding and forming thousands of years ago, yet we weren't using fossil fuels to any extent then.

I tend to think that it is mostly caused by the sun(in all of its flux) and man plays a minor part, much less than hyped. Lots of articles like this which suggest warming coinciding between mars and earth for example, are solar induced phenomena.(this is an older article, but I think that this type of data may gaining traction)

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

It is difficult to say.

Regards

I thought this was good.

Climate Change - the Scientific Debate


Welly

Welly Avatar

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 12:02pm

Interesting!


oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 11:15am

 dionysius wrote:


What does this even mean?

 

Doesn't mean anything, Mark. Not a thing...I use big words to make myself sound smart. I said it was my opinion, but what do I know. Take it or leave it.
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 11:14am

 dionysius wrote:


The two are intimately related in a whole complex of bad human behaviors that damage the natural world. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is itself a form of pollution that (for instance) increases the acidity of the oceans, dooming coral reefs and associated ecosystems. Deforestation is not itself pollution, but is the destruction of (a) habitat for many, many animal and plant species, and (b) one of our main carbon sinks, the destruction of which makes a bad problem worse. *Etc., etc.* History will not judge us kindly if we do not act soon and act decisively to curb our bad habits.

 
Everyone wants simple answers to complex questions. We are now paying for hundreds of years of bad behavior, financially, ecologically, educationally. Whatever the causes, we must stop our bad behavior anyway, if we want anything left for our grandchildren.

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 11:12am

 oldviolin wrote:

My point was / is, that if we can address the realities of pollution in general, then the arguable pretensions of the effects of human attributes to climate change will be addressed. My opinion.

"Here we go round the prickly pear..."
 

What does this even mean?
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 112, 113, 114, 115  Next