Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling

-edited

Those promoting CO2 as the reason for global warming are hucksters and those taken in by hucksters.

Please consider NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun Activity.

“We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

The new data is coming from NASA’s Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry or SABER instrument, which is onboard the space agency’s Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite. SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a vital role in the energy output of our thermosphere, the very top level of our atmosphere.

“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” said Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.

The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today.

If all of this seems as if NASA is contradicting itself, you’re right — sort of. After all, NASA also reported last week that Arctic sea ice was at its sixth lowest level since measuring began. Isn’t that a sure sign of global warming?

All any of this “proves” is that we have, at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system. So when mainstream media and carbon-credit salesman Al Gore breathlessly warn you that we must do something about climate change, it’s all right to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that we don’t have the knowledge, skill or resources to have much effect on the Earth’s climate.

Incredibly Complex Systems

See the problem? Alarmists take one variable, CO2 that is only a tiny part of extremely long cycles and make projections far into to the future based off it.

When I was in grade school, the alarmists were worried about global cooling. Amusingly, I recall discussing in science class the need to put soot on the arctic ice to melt it to stop the advance of glaciers.

​The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report said we have only 12 years left to save the planet. It triggered the usual frantic and ridiculous reactions.

NBC News offered this gem: “A last-ditch global warming fix? A man-made ‘volcanic’ eruption” to cool the planet.” Its article proclaimed, “Scientists and some environmentalists believe nations might have to mimic volcanic gases as a last-ditch effort to protect Earth from extreme warming.”

Geo-engineering: Ignoring the Consequences

Watts Up With That discusses Geo-Engineering: Ignoring the Consequences.

From 1940 to almost 1980, the average global temperature went down. Political concerns and the alleged scientific consensus focused on global cooling. Alarmists said it could be the end of agriculture and civilization. Journalist Lowell Ponte wrote in his 1976 book, The Cooling.

The problem then was – and still is now – that people are educated in the false philosophy of uniformitarianism: the misguided belief that conditions always were and always will be as they are now, and any natural changes will occur over long periods of time.

Consequently, most people did not understand that the cooling was part of the natural cycle of climate variability, or that changes are often huge and sudden. Just 18,000 years ago we were at the peak of an Ice Age. Then, most of the ice melted and sea levels rose 150 meters (490 feet), because it was warmer for almost all of the last 10,000 years than it is today.

During the cooling “danger,” geo-engineering proposals included:

* building a dam across the Bering Straits to block cold Arctic water, to warm the North Pacific and the middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere;

* dumping black soot on the Arctic ice cap to promote melting;

* adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere to raise global temperatures.

Taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere,” as advocated by the IPCC in its October 8 news conference, is also foolish. Historic records show that, at about 410 parts per million (ppm), the level of CO2 supposedly in the atmosphere now, we are near the lowest in the last 280 million years. As plants evolved over that time, the average level was 1200 ppm. That is why commercial greenhouses boost CO2 to that level to increase plant growth and yields by a factor of four.

The IPCC has been wrong in every prediction it’s made since 1990. It would be a grave error to use its latest forecasts as the excuse to engage in geo-engineering experiments with the only planet we have.

​Global Warming Errs Badly

Next, please consider Extreme weather not proof of global warming, NASA on global cooling

To understand the great confusion about global warming or climate change, my most lucid guide has been Dr. Richard Lindzen — a former Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT and member of the US National Academy of Sciences — and his now famous lecture for the Global Warming Policy Foundation last October 8.

In just a number of segments of his lecture, Dr. Lindzen crystallized for me why the church of global warming errs so badly in its dogma.

Global warming promoters fostered the popular public perception of the science of climate change as quite simple. It is that here’s one phenomenon to be explained (“global average temperature,” or GAT, which, says Lindzen, is a thoroughly unscientific concept). And there’s one explanation for it: the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

GAT is only one of many important phenomena to measure in the climate system, and CO2 is only one of many factors that influence both GAT and all the other phenomena.

CO2’s role in controlling GAT is at most perhaps 2 percent, yet climate alarmists think of it as the “control knob.”

Most people readily confuse weather (short-term, local-scale temperature, humidity, precipitation, wind, cloudiness, and more) with climate (long-term, large-scale of each) and think weather phenomena are driven by climate phenomena; they aren’t.

Consequently, as Lindzen says, the currently popular narrative concerning this system is this: The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1 to 2 percent perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable — carbon dioxide — among many variables of comparable importance.

Big Chill

Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?

Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at ). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.

The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998. If someone is tempted to argue that the reason for recent record cooling periods is that global temperatures are getting more volatile, it's not true. The volatility of monthly global average temperatures since 2000 is only two-thirds what it was from 1880 to 1999.

None of this argues against global warming. The 1950s was the last decade cooler than the previous decade, the next five decades were all warmer on average than the decade before. Two year cooling cycles, even if they set records, are statistical noise compared to the long-term trend.

My point is that statistical cooling outliers garner no media attention. The global average temperature numbers come out monthly. If they show a new hottest year on record, that's a big story. If they show a big increase over the previous month, or the same month in the previous year, that's a story. If they represent a sequence of warming months or years, that's a story. When they show cooling of any sort—and there have been more cooling months than warming months since anthropogenic warming began—there's no story.

Bombarded With Garbage

Of course you did not know that unless you follow NASA, Real Clear Markets, or Watts Up With That.

Meanwhile, everyone is constantly bombarded with total garbage like Al Gore's claim Migrant Caravans are Victims of Global Warming.

And of course, the media is fawning all over AOC's "New Green Deal" hype as she too is a believer the World Will End in 12 Years if we don't address climate change.

The Guardian and the Intercept are both happy to promote this nonsense as of course the entirety of mainstream media.

Alarm Bells

When I was in grade school we had major alarm bells over global cooling. In high school it was population growth. Then came food shortages followed by peak oil.

Now the crisis du jour is global warming.

It's always about something!

CO2 Derangement Symptom

Watts Up With That accurately labels global warming hysteria as the CO2 Derangement Syndrome.

That's an excellent synopsis of the current state of affairs so please give it a good look.

Finally, even if you still believe man-made global warming is a threat, please ponder the notion that governments will not do anything sensible about it.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (122)
No. 1-49
abend237-04
abend237-04

Control knob indeed. There is a control knob and it is being studiously ignored by the chicken little climate crowd: The Sun. Anyone wanting to know earth temperature trends need look no further than Mar's polar ice cap: If it's growing, we're cooling and if it's shrinking, we're warming, but there's no fun and little grant money in it. Better action in hyping an atmospheric trace gas moving from 0.25% to 0.4% during the industrial age. Now you're cooking with gas!

BornInZion
BornInZion

Americans can only influence one government to address CO2 production directly: The government of the USA. But the biggest producers of CO2 are China and India. Are we able to persuade them to forgo their dreams of a third world lifestyle? Those two countries alone dwarf our carbon footprint even now. Will we be able to likewise suppress the yearnings of the peoples of Africa and South America as well? There is better chance that we could design an exercise program for pigs that will get them to fly! Should Americans reduce their CO2 emissions to zero (A silly idea as we would have to stop breathing) even then it wouldn't come close to solving the trend. If this is the case, all efforts and treasure spent on CO2 reduction would be better allocated to mitigation of the effects of climate change that will inevitably unfold.

WCVarones
WCVarones

I'm no Global Warmist, but the NASA guys are talking about cooling of the thermosphere. They haven't talked about cooling of the lower layers of the atmosphere. "The New American" is pulling a dirty trick.

AWC
AWC

I got 99 problems, and worrying about the weather just ain't one of 'em.

As for others, they can volunteer to pay their carbon tax tithe and hope to be "Beamed up" before the fire and brimstone, or flood, or whatever sweeps the globe clean.

shamrock
shamrock

I don't think it is accurate to say there was a consensus on global cooling. There were some of course, but not 98%. In any case, they fixed the global cooling problem by reducing the pollution that was blocking the sun.

gregggg
gregggg

Put a windmill in front of AOC's mouth and the hot air will power the entire DC area.

Mike Deadmonton
Mike Deadmonton

So sorry you are poorly trained in the sciences to be taken in by charlatans.

You may want to look at the real NASA site for info.

This site discusses how Martin's discussion was taken out of context.

Trained as a chemist, I am comfortable with the greenhouse theory. The increase in CO2 was so well documented, I don't know of any credible source who disputes that most of the contribution is from man.

I personally think we need to be more concerned about methane. It is increasing like CO2 and in the short term, is approximately 80x more effective at trapping IR than CO2. Methane is being released as the arctic warms (along with agricultural activity).

I am of the opinion that we will not stop the 2 C climate warming by the turn of the century. When I really worry, I think that enough methane could be released quickly enough to start run away warming (say like Alexandria OC).

However, real climate scientists believe it is very unlikely we will have runaway climate change. So take comfort that real climate scientists do believe it is unlikely we will have a runaway climate event (does unlikely mean 1 in 100 chance? Better odds then the lotto).

The other great news is how the oceans had absorbed most of the CO2. The pH shift has been enough to stress shell fish and coral.

You may have cold weather right now from the vortex, but we are only in the negative teens (Celsius). We used to have cold snaps -40 about 30 years ago. Then we had cold snaps of -30. Now are cold snaps are -20.

Don't listen to my anecdotal information, read work from people educated in this area if you want to form a learned opinion.

Webej
Webej

Congratulations Mish. Quoting a news rag without scientific standing, getting some cherry-picked half-baked story (what will be the effect of thermospheric cooling 500km up on the ocean and ground temperatures in the near term??). All the mythical talking points are hit on the way: the Maunder minimum (not global), the anecdotal "it used to be global cooling", IPCC models are always wrong (they are in fact quit accurate), etc etc. The effect of solar activity cycles has long ago been studied and quantified by astronomers and physicists.

Ossqss
Ossqss

But about all that extreme weather stuff? Not so much. Have a peek at the data in this well done cited summary.

abend237-04
abend237-04

If a PhD, or any degree, conferred anchoring and confirmation bias immunity, I'd take the holders a lot more seriously...if they bring data. What I see them with, however, is advanced skills in data mining and spin. One day, the story is that ocean temperature has risen 0.18 degree F in the past century. The next day, it's "precipitous increases in ocean temperature." I pretty much stopped paying attention to them all after watching Bill Gray being shouted down a few years back by teen college students rebuking him for not toeing their academe handler's partyline on global warming.

JonSellers
JonSellers

Mish, you're deeply, deeply wrong on this. You are a smart guy, so take the time to understand what a green house gas really is and how it works. If you really understood that, you wouldn't be quoting the folks you're quoting. And you'd know why you shouldn't be.

abend237-04
abend237-04

Yeah, I come here for the latest group-think. Decades around high performance computing and useless climate models has left me yearning for the simple answer. Finally, Al Gore has it. He even invented the internet.

Mish
Mish

Editor

I modified the ending by adding one hyphenated word "man-made"

JohnH
JohnH

Mish,

I don't see a link to the source for "NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun Activity". The quoted comments could easily be taken out of context. Can you verify the accuracy of those comments?

"The New American" looks like a Republican propaganda site, and probably isn't credible.

I agree with you that the global warming narrative is pure BS, but if we want to convince believers, the science presented needs to be solid.

Have you ever shared about this with Chris Martenson?

I stopped reading his otherwise very good blog a long time ago because of all the climate change BS. I suspect too that his peak oil narrative is wrong, just because I know how he thinks, though I have no evidence to support my assumption.

bradw2k
bradw2k

The first problem with the controversy is rarely discussed: that the "global average temperature" is not even a thing, it is a statistic -- a massively derivative statistic of measurements which have significant margins of error. The idea that tiny variations in this one statistic can tell us anything significant about the changing state of an entire planet borders on the absurd.

JanNL
JanNL

And biomass, windmills and solar panels to the rescue. Total madness.

themonosynaptic
themonosynaptic

Stick to systems (e.g. the economy) you just mostly don't understand Mish, instead of making a fool of yourself with systems that are completely beyond your knowledge.

Realist
Realist

”NASA expects global cooling” Wow. Talk about misleading. You are doing your readers a disservice Mish. You quote an article from a biased publication that uses one piece of data from NASA that mentions one factor that can lead to cooler temperatures in the thermosphere, while ignoring the huge amount of data from NASA that says global warming is happening. I am truly disappointed. I thought you were better than that. Kudos to Mike from Deadmonton, Webej, Jon Sellers, and themonosynaptic, who all made comments that I might have added as well.

Realist
Realist

”Finally, even if you still believe man-made global warming is a threat, please ponder the notion that governments will not do anything sensible about it.”

First; man-made global warming is indeed a threat which will exact a significant cost.

Second; the government does indeed make bad decisions which waste a lot of resources; such as the US Government Military sticking their nose in dozens of other countries, while killing many innocents each year.

Third; I would definitely support a US Government which cuts its military spending that damages other countries and use that money to help solve a real problem that has been identified by the scientific community.

Fourth; I would hold that government in higher esteem than someone who denies that the problem exists and instead publishes quack science to try to prove his point.

St. Funogas
St. Funogas

First, I have no opinion one way or the other about man-caused global warming, I've never taken the time to look into both sides of the story. Someday I will. But in the meantime, I wish the Global Warming Church members would stop calling everyone who does not belong to their cult "Deniers". Most of us are actually Don't Give a Shitters. Which is why I haven't looked at the data yet.

Global Warming is ultimately, and solely, about CONTROL and the latest fad to scare me into giving up my freedoms. So whether global warming is man caused, or man-assisted, or completely Mother Nature doing her best, I don't care. Nobody is going to use it as an excuse to get me to give up my liberties until they point a gun at my head. Global warming is just the latest craze to drive the sheep into a frenzy so we divide ourselves into pros and cons, bashing each other's heads in while the Elitists who run this planet get away with murder. It's fear mongering at its best; there is no better way to control the masses than fear.

The few die-hard global warmers I know are hypocrites. I can give them a long list of things they could do to decrease their carbon footprint in a big way, but it's far too inconvenient. Amish and Mennonites have a very tiny carbon footprint and Global Warming Church members would do well to emulate their lifestyle. But that's far too inconvenient. So those of you telling the rest of us to decrease our carbon footprint while your own is so huge, I call you all hypocrites. Americans have enjoyed a high lifestyle for generations and now that it's the former Third World's turn, you want to deny them all the toys and luxuries you had. Hypocrisy to the max.

Mother Nature was doing just fine before Man came along and she'll continue doing just fine long after we're gone. We are just another of her curious experiments and we'll go extinct someday just like the other 99% of her experiments. Will I give up one ounce of my freedom to to try to delay the inevitable? Hell no. As individuals, Humans are the greatest thing that ever happened to this planet. As a species, we are such completely hopeless sheep that the sooner we go extinct, the better.

Kenth
Kenth

Curious-Cat
Curious-Cat

Mish - your point is well taken. Here's a great book that talks about why so many extreme theories are publicized and why so many scientific papers turn out to be irreproducible. It's not a conspiracy. It's human nature.

Mish
Mish

Editor

Excellent comments from Curious Cat and St. Funogas

Please read them and think!

Realist
Realist

Mish. Please look at the science and think. Not the quack science you are promoting. Excellent comments from Deadmonton, Webej, Jon Sellers, and themonosynaptic, who all made comments that I might have added as well.

Realist
Realist

I agree that St. Funogas at least admitted he ”didnt give a shit” because he hadn't looked into it. You, on the other hand, disappoint me.

killben
killben

Martin Armstrong had been posting for a long time that the global warming crowd were barking up the wrong tree and that it was global cooling that we need to worried about now. He talks of crop failure and food shortage that could arise due to that. Now that it is the cooling that is of concern these global warming crowd will simply turn around and say that this is what they have been saying all along. I am in St. Funogas's camp.

Realist
Realist

An excellent article. Thank you Jackula.

stillCJ
stillCJ

Editor

Seemed like everything was fine until the VW Dieselgate Scandal, and all those nitric oxide emitting cars were banned.

KidHorn
KidHorn

Global warming is real. All things being equal, if you add greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, things will warm up. So far, the warming has been about 1C(1.8F). Nothing to get alarmed over. And far less than what's been predicted by the global warming fear mongers. Who, I suspect, have little actual understanding of the thermodynamics of black bodies. Because if they did, they could easily see that their predictions are absurd from very simple calculations.

Their worst case scenario is a runaway greenhouse effect where global warming produce more greenhouse gasses that lead to more global warming etc... . A positive feedback loop. But what they fail to recognize is that as the earths surface warms, it will emit more infrared radiation that will far outweigh any effect from a runaway greenhouse event. Blackbodies emit radiation in proportion to their absolute surface temperature to the 4th power. Maybe if they took graduate level classes in heat transfer and/or thermodynamics, like I have, instead of meteorology, they would understand this.

ksdude
ksdude

Ocasio is Obamas replacement if you haven't noticed. I fully expect her to be be running for president. She doesn't know anything except for how to .run her mouth which is very dangerous. Just like Obama. She showed up with the UN's agenda 21 2030 papers stuffed in her back pocket. We better figure out a way to get out in front of this one. I am 100% serious.

Grumblenose
Grumblenose

What concerns me is the deliberate use of loaded language and selective use of scientific results and data in reporting by much of the media. A great example is the Guardian talking about "excess heat" going into the oceans. They give you the data measured using the "Hiroshima atomic bomb" energy unit, which doesn't exist in any scientific context. But it sounds scary right? An atomic bomb's worth of energy added every second (or whatever)!

In reality the data was measured as ocean temperature by the Argos floats that have been monitoring global oceans for about 15 years. They are reporting a five hundredths of a degree temperature increase over ten years (top 2km of the ocean, global average). At that rate (if it continues) it would take 200 years for a 1 degree temperature change. We would have (necessarily) transitioned away from fossil fuels long before then.

WildBull
WildBull

Realist: You describe how science should work. As Yogi Berra said "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they aren't." From personal experience, here is how it works:

Manager:"Our customer wants to know if we can measure X. Can we do it?"

Scientist:"Yes we can, but only under conditions Y and Z. But, those aren't the customer's conditions."

Manager:"Take data that shows we can make the measurement."

Scientist:"OK, but it can only be done under conditions Y and Z."

later...

Scientist:"Here is the data taken under conditions Y and Z."

Manager:"This looks really good. I'll give it to the customer."

And off the data goes, bereft of any reference to conditions Y and Z.

This crap happens anywhere that money or power are involved, which is everywhere. Always go back to the original research. See if the experimental conditions are relevant to the case to which they are applied. See who sponsored the research and decide if the results are self-serving. BEWARE.

A few years ago the source code to one of the climate models got released on Wikileaks. In that there were comments about reducing the effect of a couple of very warm years around 1943. This was because these years reduced the slope of the temperature rise. Don't try to tell me that this sort of thing doesn't happen in science.

Be a Realist

WildBull
WildBull

I think the earth is a bit less than 6000 years old, and shaped like a tortoise shell.

WildBull
WildBull

I just saw on the evening news tonight a 20 second piece that claims that congenital heart defects are caused by climate change, though the mechanism hasn't yet been identified. SCIENCE!!!

awc13
awc13

"please ponder the notion that governments will not do anything sensible about it."

also ponder, what if man caused global warming was real. also ponder what if the only solution was to decrease taxes and decrease the size of government. do you think that we would be seeing the political push for a government solution?

bradw2k
bradw2k

"governments will not do anything sensible about it"

The best way to deal with the dangers of nature shall continue to be what it has always been: industry and production. Fossil fuels will be keeping people warm tonight -- regulations, not so much.

FloydVanPeter
FloydVanPeter

Cool: smaller gov good for climate?

MorrisWR
MorrisWR

Mish, I recall the same hysteria in Earth Science back in the late 70’s. Peak oil and annew ice age were true scientific facts pushed by the public schools. Any scientific argument against the paranoid rantings of people who wish to steal our money is put down as “quack science” as someone stated here in a different comment section. I am starting to believe Americans are either brain-washed or perhaps just too lazy to study the data themselves. Perhaps they just do not understand scientific methods. They are blinded by science...

gregggg
gregggg

This one say it all pretty much:

pgp
pgp

Yes lets argue some more about global warming... forget the fact that the oceans are being poisoned with particulate plastic, that the insects are dying or that zooplankton concentrations are declining while sea life has been ingesting mercury for decades. Forget the fact that people living in cities are more likely to get emphysema or that we all live with some form of lead poisoning. Clearly the tonnes of crap we spew into the atmosphere and environment are doing no harm at all.

Maybe we should consider the big picture instead of fixating on numerical minutia... the problem is simple: Too much pollution, too many people on a planet that is ultimately too small to handle it all.

numike
numike

Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get Robert Heinlein

Advancingtime
Advancingtime

The horrific wildfires blowing throughout America's western states and California, in particular, have raised the concern of many people as to the type of situations we may see in the future. It has become obvious that our busy world often overlooks and even discounts these events that may prove to be the "canary in the coal mine."

If mankind is in any way responsible for climate change it will take years or even decades to make a difference after we alter our lifestyles. Sadly, efforts and pain to reset our course will not take place until the pain becomes unbearable, More on this subject in the article below.

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer

Trump knows his days are numbered . At some point the economy will crater in the next 2 years and he will be gone. We are at 110% debt to GDP now and rising. Extending and pretending can only work for so long.

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer

Yes. A consumption based economy will do us all in at some point. It is like in planet of the apes where mankind destroys himself. These things do go in long cycles. Even our existence. Recently an object entered our solar system and continues to violate the laws of inertia and physics and behave like a giant spaceship. We will find out in about 70 years what it is. If we are around that long.

domain
domain

Nothing attracts the disciples of climate change quite like an article questioning the climate change religion.

"Pure blasphemy I tell you! How dare anyone not take up my cause!"

Pffft, booooring. Play your own hand of cards and walk the talk. But leave the rest of us alone to live our lives. I'm so tired of the fake outrage, the identity politics (deniers vs. believers) and people trying to force me to take up a cause on their behalf.

If you look at the main outcome of the climate change religion and how it has organized itself into an extortion racket, you should be able to quickly understand what the intention was in the first place. An easy racket.

Fred The Head
Fred The Head

The Malthusian Doom mongers have been wrong since 1800, and will continue to be wrong

Andysyd
Andysyd

I think a more interesting play is insurance companies and how they are pricing in climate variability. Maybe nothing yet but will be interesting to see.

What is more troubling is the current Anthropocene extinction event. If you turn everything into housing and farms and shrink wild spaces around the globe then you will get unintended consequences.