Our cooling world

[MHz]

The oceans must really be warming up for there to be so much more ice than usual in the Antarctic.

Is this an example of your quality of 'facts', it covers 30 years and the 'subject' spans more than 1,000,000 years or more at a time. Since the South Pole is surrounded by water it will never get the same amount of ice as the north gets.

Pay attention here because that whizzing sound you can hear are facts going by you and you aren't catching a single one. The chart below is the same as yours but this one admits that it is based on averaging the whole ocean so the poles cold be getting colder (obviously as that is what the 'facts' show so a rise would mean the heat is coming from someplace else. There is 40,000 miles of oceanic rift on the planet, there is no 'facts' that say they all have to expand at the same rate, you know like the 'facts' point to.

 

[DaSleeper]

I especially like comparing the "shadow" that Venus and Mars cast to sun spot activity. ESPECIALLY since Mars is in an oribit further out from the sun than ours. ROFLMFAO....unfu cking believable.

Gerry....Don't discourage the fool (although I'm sure it can't be done)
Seems to me that waldo and him deserve each other....:lol:

 

[Walter]

Since the South Pole is surrounded by water it will never get the same amount of ice as the north gets.

You're right. In 2014 the Antarctic (south) reached almost 17million square kilometers of ice and the Artic (north) about 15 million square kilometers of ice at their respective acmes. I bow to you're superior knowledge.

 

[MHz]

This is the winter ice in the north, to get the extent of the whole area that is cooling you need to include the land areas that are also snow covered and that is the 'iced over area'. The south can't spread out that far, nothing says the ice can't be higher as the south has elevation that may cause things like lake effect snow. If the north has 3x the area as the south then the south needs to pile the ice 3x higher and then both have the same amount.

If snow covers a 4,000 mi square in the north in the winter then that whole area is part of the 'ice-cap' Walter. Is that also somewhat factual? (16,000,000)

Don't discourage the fool (although I'm sure it can't be done)

Admitting your score is '0' would seem to mean you are the one asleep at the wheel.

 

[waldo]

The oceans must really be warming up for there to be so much more ice than usual in the Antarctic.

In 2014 the Antarctic (south) reached almost 17million square kilometers of ice and the Arctic (north) about 15 million square kilometers of ice at their respective acmes.

again Walter? Again, you're trying to flog the Antarctic sea-ice extent? Why just 3 days ago you did this exact same thing and I replied with a rather lengthy post that closed with this question: "c'mon Walter! When are you finally going to stop this continued denier play of yours over Antarctic sea-ice extent?". Apparently, you still have... an itch... to scratch! :mrgreen: I'll keep replying in kind to highlight images that speak to:

- the normal/typical yearly melt of Antarctic sea-ice extent... almost to its entirety showcasing there is no Antarctic multi-year ice accumulation concept (as exists within Arctic sea-ice).

- the Antarctic ice mass change (decrease)
​

these images:

of course Walter, you're (purposely) trying to draw some type of meaning, equivalency, relationship, etc., between Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice extent (where the Arctic is dramatically decreasing over a long-term melting trend) and the Antarctic where an increase in sea-ice extent has been seen in the last couple of years... which, again (as you know) has been attributed to warming... and, again (as you know) melts to essentially its entirety every year.

Walter, do you think it actually makes sense to try to equate... draw equivalencies... between sea-ice across the earth? Care to offer your thoughts on this and presume to attempt to draw some equivalency, some relationship between the Arctic and Antarctic? I wonder what the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center would say about your attempt in his regard, hey Walter?

Question: Why don’t you publish a global sea ice extent number?

NSIDC Answer: The combined number, while easy to derive from our online posted data, is not useful as an analysis tool or indicator of climate trends. Looking at each region’s ice extent trends and its processes separately provides more insight into how and why ice extent is changing. Sea ice in the Arctic is governed by somewhat different processes than the sea ice around Antarctica, and the very different geography of the two poles plays a large role. Sea ice in the Arctic exists in a small ocean surrounded by land masses, with greater input of dust, aerosols, and soot than in the Southern Hemisphere. Sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere fringes an ice-covered continent, Antarctica, surrounded by open oceans. While both regions are affected by air, wind, and ocean, the systems and their patterns are inherently very different. Moreover, at any point in time, the two poles are in opposite seasons, and so a combined number would conflate summer and winter trends, or spring and autumn trends, for the two regions.

​

again, Walter... let me reinforce the key point you continue to (purposely) ignore concerning Antarctic sea-ice makeup as essentially made up of single-year ice (which, again, melts almost to its entirety each year):

Scientists suggest it's principally first year sea-ice... and deformed sea-ice. You know, the kind of ice that regularly melts in a subsequent years melting phase. And, as you know Walter, Antarctic sea-ice typically melts, almost to it's entirety, each and every year.

Assessment of Ice Type: First Year versus Multiyear Floes

All of the surveyed floes are most likely to be first year (FY) floes based on multiple lines of evidence (Table S1, Fig S1, S2). While in most cases MY ice is distinguished from thinner FY ice by the deep snow cover, thick ice and high freeboard, discrimination is more difficult in our case where the FY ice was also thick and heavily deformed and most floes had a deep snow cover. This evidence includes imagery showing lack of ice in the region at the end of the previous summer, ice morphology, ice properties, and snow cover characteristics.
​

now, again Walter... it keeps being stated for you, yet you continue to ignore the scientific based reasons put forward as to why the Antarctic sea-ice extent has been increasing the last few years:

1 - the warming ocean is causing slightly fresher sea surface water around the margins of the continent’s melting ice shelves; additionally rain and snowfall increases are also freshening ocean water. These changes are altering the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea and coastal land ice:

Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions

The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity,and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979–2004 and the extended period 1948–2004
​

2 - ozone levels decreasing over the Antarctic with an accompanying increase in the strength of cyclonic winds,

3 - this increasing cyclonic wind strength which, in turn, creates polynyas (open water areas) that freeze to increase sea-ice


again, c'mon Walter! When are you finally going to stop this continued denier play of yours over Antarctic sea-ice extent?

 

[DaSleeper]

again Walter? Again, you're trying to flog the Antarctic sea-ice extent? Why just 3 days ago you did this exact same thing and I replied with a rather lengthy post that closed with this question: "c'mon Walter! When are you finally going to stop this continued denier play of yours over Antarctic sea-ice extent?". Apparently, you still have... an itch... to scratch! :mrgreen: I'll keep replying in kind to highlight images that speak to:

- the normal/typical yearly melt of Antarctic sea-ice extent... almost to its entirety showcasing there is no Antarctic multi-year ice accumulation concept (as exists within Arctic sea-ice).

- the Antarctic ice mass change (decrease)
​

these images:

of course Walter, you're (purposely) trying to draw some type of meaning, equivalency, relationship, etc., between Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice extent (where the Arctic is dramatically decreasing over a long-term melting trend) and the Antarctic where an increase in sea-ice extent has been seen in the last couple of years... which, again (as you know) has been attributed to warming... and, again (as you know) melts to essentially its entirety every year.

Walter, do you think it actually makes sense to try to equate... draw equivalencies... between sea-ice across the earth? Care to offer your thoughts on this and presume to attempt to draw some equivalency, some relationship between the Arctic and Antarctic? I wonder what the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center would say about your attempt in his regard, hey Walter?

Question: Why don’t you publish a global sea ice extent number?

NSIDC Answer: The combined number, while easy to derive from our online posted data, is not useful as an analysis tool or indicator of climate trends. Looking at each region’s ice extent trends and its processes separately provides more insight into how and why ice extent is changing. Sea ice in the Arctic is governed by somewhat different processes than the sea ice around Antarctica, and the very different geography of the two poles plays a large role. Sea ice in the Arctic exists in a small ocean surrounded by land masses, with greater input of dust, aerosols, and soot than in the Southern Hemisphere. Sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere fringes an ice-covered continent, Antarctica, surrounded by open oceans. While both regions are affected by air, wind, and ocean, the systems and their patterns are inherently very different. Moreover, at any point in time, the two poles are in opposite seasons, and so a combined number would conflate summer and winter trends, or spring and autumn trends, for the two regions.

​

again, Walter... let me reinforce the key point you continue to (purposely) ignore concerning Antarctic sea-ice makeup as essentially made up of single-year ice (which, again, melts almost to its entirety each year):

Scientists suggest it's principally first year sea-ice... and deformed sea-ice. You know, the kind of ice that regularly melts in a subsequent years melting phase. And, as you know Walter, Antarctic sea-ice typically melts, almost to it's entirety, each and every year.

Assessment of Ice Type: First Year versus Multiyear Floes

All of the surveyed floes are most likely to be first year (FY) floes based on multiple lines of evidence (Table S1, Fig S1, S2). While in most cases MY ice is distinguished from thinner FY ice by the deep snow cover, thick ice and high freeboard, discrimination is more difficult in our case where the FY ice was also thick and heavily deformed and most floes had a deep snow cover. This evidence includes imagery showing lack of ice in the region at the end of the previous summer, ice morphology, ice properties, and snow cover characteristics.
​

now, again Walter... it keeps being stated for you, yet you continue to ignore the scientific based reasons put forward as to why the Antarctic sea-ice extent has been increasing the last few years:

1 - the warming ocean is causing slightly fresher sea surface water around the margins of the continent’s melting ice shelves; additionally rain and snowfall increases are also freshening ocean water. These changes are altering the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea and coastal land ice:

Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions

The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity,and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979–2004 and the extended period 1948–2004
​

2 - ozone levels decreasing over the Antarctic with an accompanying increase in the strength of cyclonic winds,

3 - this increasing cyclonic wind strength which, in turn, creates polynyas (open water areas) that freeze to increase sea-ice


again, c'mon Walter! When are you finally going to stop this continued denier play of yours over Antarctic sea-ice extent?

There you go.........

 

[MHz]

I didn't see any data on the elevation of the ice on the land areas and how much it raised and lowered during the seasons. I would not promote what falls as snow on the coasts stays on the coasts. If that is drifted into the interior then the elevation rises. 1M (average rise) would be how many cubic miles of ice?

 

[Walter]

If snow covers a 4,000 mi square in the north in the winter then that whole area is part of the 'ice-cap' Walter. Is that also somewhat factual? (16,000,000)

I'm only posting about see-ice not the ice-cap on the Antarctic continent.

 

[Zipperfish]

and again, you're speaking to some "bastardized' form of sensitivity that doesn't align with any formal definitions of same. If you're going to speak to transient you can't simply take a snapshot on the current observational data without first determining that center point off the doubling CO2 level and averaging off that…

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are talking about here, wiht the "centre point." The climate sensitivity is defined mathematically.

Solve for lambda and that's your climate sensitivity.

and that's still 160ppm from today's approximate level. And then, again, you speak to feedbacks which brings the discussion away from transient and back to ECS. Again, declare the sensitivity you're speaking to and your understanding of the IPCC range figure that coincides with it... as again, you appear to be pulling facets from different definitions. When you say you don't buy the IPCC numbers... and you, yourself, bring forward uncertainty reference to an example long-term feedback influence, it's questionable how you could argue for 'the lowest of the low' sensitivity. Certainly you're not suggesting permafrost melting wouldn't be a strong positive feedback... surely you're not, right?

OK, you're just repeating points you'v made earlier here.

 

[waldo]

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are talking about here, with the "centre point." The climate sensitivity is defined mathematically.

Solve for lambda and that's your climate sensitivity.

OK, you're just repeating points you've made earlier here.

'centering' was a reference to your liberal mixing of definitions, which presumes to arrive at a TCR based on AOGCM model simulations... and I'm still not clear whether you presume to speak to ECS or TCR. I suggested you explicitly state that and include the appropriate min/max/likely range the IPCC attaches, respectively, to each. Again, you can't presume to speak of TCR (if that's what you're really doing) and include the numerous references to feedbacks you have. Equally, if you truly wish to focus solely on TCR (sans significant feedback influences) you can't simply look to the observational record and the current CO2 ppm level (which hasn't yet doubled)... which is what you did. My understanding of the definition of TCR===> the annual mean global surface temperature change at the time of CO2 doubling... following a linear increase in CO2 forcing over a period of 70 years.

 

[taxslave]

again Walter? Again, you're trying to flog the Antarctic sea-ice extent? Why just 3 days ago you did this exact same thing and I replied with a rather lengthy post that closed with this question: "c'mon Walter! When are you finally going to stop this continued denier play of yours over Antarctic sea-ice extent?". Apparently, you still have... an itch... to scratch! :mrgreen: I'll keep replying in kind to highlight images that speak to:

- the normal/typical yearly melt of Antarctic sea-ice extent... almost to its entirety showcasing there is no Antarctic multi-year ice accumulation concept (as exists within Arctic sea-ice).

- the Antarctic ice mass change (decrease)
​

these images:

of course Walter, you're (purposely) trying to draw some type of meaning, equivalency, relationship, etc., between Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice extent (where the Arctic is dramatically decreasing over a long-term melting trend) and the Antarctic where an increase in sea-ice extent has been seen in the last couple of years... which, again (as you know) has been attributed to warming... and, again (as you know) melts to essentially its entirety every year.

Walter, do you think it actually makes sense to try to equate... draw equivalencies... between sea-ice across the earth? Care to offer your thoughts on this and presume to attempt to draw some equivalency, some relationship between the Arctic and Antarctic? I wonder what the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center would say about your attempt in his regard, hey Walter?

Question: Why don’t you publish a global sea ice extent number?

NSIDC Answer: The combined number, while easy to derive from our online posted data, is not useful as an analysis tool or indicator of climate trends. Looking at each region’s ice extent trends and its processes separately provides more insight into how and why ice extent is changing. Sea ice in the Arctic is governed by somewhat different processes than the sea ice around Antarctica, and the very different geography of the two poles plays a large role. Sea ice in the Arctic exists in a small ocean surrounded by land masses, with greater input of dust, aerosols, and soot than in the Southern Hemisphere. Sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere fringes an ice-covered continent, Antarctica, surrounded by open oceans. While both regions are affected by air, wind, and ocean, the systems and their patterns are inherently very different. Moreover, at any point in time, the two poles are in opposite seasons, and so a combined number would conflate summer and winter trends, or spring and autumn trends, for the two regions.

​

again, Walter... let me reinforce the key point you continue to (purposely) ignore concerning Antarctic sea-ice makeup as essentially made up of single-year ice (which, again, melts almost to its entirety each year):

Scientists suggest it's principally first year sea-ice... and deformed sea-ice. You know, the kind of ice that regularly melts in a subsequent years melting phase. And, as you know Walter, Antarctic sea-ice typically melts, almost to it's entirety, each and every year.

Assessment of Ice Type: First Year versus Multiyear Floes

All of the surveyed floes are most likely to be first year (FY) floes based on multiple lines of evidence (Table S1, Fig S1, S2). While in most cases MY ice is distinguished from thinner FY ice by the deep snow cover, thick ice and high freeboard, discrimination is more difficult in our case where the FY ice was also thick and heavily deformed and most floes had a deep snow cover. This evidence includes imagery showing lack of ice in the region at the end of the previous summer, ice morphology, ice properties, and snow cover characteristics.
​

now, again Walter... it keeps being stated for you, yet you continue to ignore the scientific based reasons put forward as to why the Antarctic sea-ice extent has been increasing the last few years:

1 - the warming ocean is causing slightly fresher sea surface water around the margins of the continent’s melting ice shelves; additionally rain and snowfall increases are also freshening ocean water. These changes are altering the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea and coastal land ice:

Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions

The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity,and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979–2004 and the extended period 1948–2004
​

2 - ozone levels decreasing over the Antarctic with an accompanying increase in the strength of cyclonic winds,

3 - this increasing cyclonic wind strength which, in turn, creates polynyas (open water areas) that freeze to increase sea-ice


again, c'mon Walter! When are you finally going to stop this continued denier play of yours over Antarctic sea-ice extent?

Soon as you admit globull warming is a scam. Since you are in full denial mode that your religion is a fraud I expect it will take some time.

 

[waldo]

Soon as you admit globull warming is a scam. Since you are in full denial mode that your religion is a fraud I expect it will take some time.

about all you have to say is "globull"... is "scam"... is "fraud". Easy for you to say... much for difficult for you to actually present substantiation to that end. Which is why you have never attempted to do so. Which is why you continue to simply say nothing more than... "globull"... "scam"... "fraud".

 

[taxslave]

about all you have to say is "globull"... is "scam"... is "fraud". Easy for you to say... much for difficult for you to actually present substantiation to that end. Which is why you have never attempted to do so. Which is why you continue to simply say nothing more than... "globull"... "scam"... "fraud".

You have presented all the evidence required to prove our case.

 

[waldo]

You have presented all the evidence required to prove our case.

"our case"... "your case'??? I've yet to see you present "your case"... still waiting for that one! Again, all you have to offer is blather commentary where you can't rise above saying nothing more than what you always say: "globull", "scam", "fraud".

 

[DaSleeper]

"our case"... "your case'??? I've yet to see you present "your case"... still waiting for that one! Again, all you have to offer is blather commentary where you can't rise above saying nothing more than what you always say: "globull", "scam", "fraud".

Good Post but no charts???

 

[Zipperfish]

'centering' was a reference to your liberal mixing of definitions, which presumes to arrive at a TCR based on AOGCM model simulations…

The definition of climate sensitivity is in the equation. I arrived at the climate sensitivity based on observable evidence. I didn't use GCMs. I think you're just repeating yourself at this point.

 

[MHz]

I'm only posting about see-ice not the ice-cap on the Antarctic continent.

Fair enough. How about the depth, the majority of the ice is below water you could have more ice overall with a smaller surface area if the ice was deeper. Are the depths taken into consideration.

 

[waldo]

The definition of climate sensitivity is in the equation. I arrived at the climate sensitivity based on observable evidence. I didn't use GCMs. I think you're just repeating yourself at this point.

you have a strong aversion to actually detailing what sensitivity you're speaking to... TCR or ECS or ??? I provided the 'textbook' definition of TCR... although I'm still not clear from what you've stated that this is really what you're speaking to. Care to answer the simple request (now repeated for at least the 3rd time) to explicitly state what sensitivity you're addressing... and what your understanding is of the related IPCC value for min/max/likely range associated with that? And... if you're truly relying simply on observational data (temp and CO2 ppm), and your focus is transient... why were you repeatedly speaking of significant feedback influences? And... if you're truly relying simply on observational data (temp and CO2 ppm), in regards the 'textbook' definition of TCR I provided, how did you presume to arrive at your stated opinion concerning a low(er) sensitivity figure?

I'm only posting about see-ice not the ice-cap on the Antarctic continent.

if you simply continuing to drop a C&P reference to Antarctic sea-ice extent... is you 'posting' about it... why do you continue to ignore the lengthy post responses provided to you that clearly question/detail:

- why you presume to draw equivalencies between the Arctic and Antarctic

- why you presume to ignore the reasons provided to you for a couple of recent years growth in sea-ice extent... reasons that speak to, in part, a warming influence in that regard?

- why you presume to not provide any interpretation of your own as to why the Antarctic sea-ice extent has increased... while repeatedly speaking sarcastically to 'warming causing ice to form"

- why you presume to ignore the fact Antarctic sea-ice extent melts per norm, almost entirely, year-to-year.

- why you presume to ignore the fact no like Arctic concept of significant multi-year sea-ice exists within the Antarctic exists

- why you presume to ignore the significant long-term trend in decreasing Antarctic ice mass
​

 

[Zipperfish]

you have a strong aversion to actually detailing what sensitivity you're speaking to... TCR or ECS or ??? I provided the 'textbook' definition of TCR... although I'm still not clear from what you've stated that this is really what you're speaking to. Care to answer the simple request (now repeated for at least the 3rd time) to explicitly state what sensitivity you're addressing... and what your understanding is of the related IPCC value for min/max/likely range associated with that? And... if you're truly relying simply on observational data (temp and CO2 ppm), and your focus is transient... why were you repeatedly speaking of significant feedback influences? And... if you're truly relying simply on observational data (temp and CO2 ppm), in regards the 'textbook' definition of TCR I provided, how did you presume to arrive at your stated opinion concerning a low(er) sensitivity figure?

TCRs are, by the IPCC definition, average over 20 years. ECS is idealized solution wherein all feedback effects reach homeostasis.

The climate sensitivity I calculated is the climate response over the time of the instrumental record, since 1880 or so. So that would be a transient climate response, although over a much greater time range than envisioned in the IPCC (20 years). The did not "presume" that climate sensitivity, nor is it an opinion. It is simply lambda in the asociated equation solved for CO2 given past and present CO2 concetnraitons and the observed temperature change. You could perform this calculation yourself. Let me know if you come up with a different result.

 

[DaSleeper]

you have a strong aversion to actually detailing what sensitivity you're speaking to... TCR or ECS or ??? I provided the 'textbook' definition of TCR... although I'm still not clear from what you've stated that this is really what you're speaking to. Care to answer the simple request (now repeated for at least the 3rd time) to explicitly state what sensitivity you're addressing... and what your understanding is of the related IPCC value for min/max/likely range associated with that? And... if you're truly relying simply on observational data (temp and CO2 ppm), and your focus is transient... why were you repeatedly speaking of significant feedback influences? And... if you're truly relying simply on observational data (temp and CO2 ppm), in regards the 'textbook' definition of TCR I provided, how did you presume to arrive at your stated opinion concerning a low(er) sensitivity figure?



if you simply continuing to drop a C&P reference to Antarctic sea-ice extent... is you 'posting' about it... why do you continue to ignore the lengthy post responses provided to you that clearly question/detail:

- why you presume to draw equivalencies between the Arctic and Antarctic

- why you presume to ignore the reasons provided to you for a couple of recent years growth in sea-ice extent... reasons that speak to, in part, a warming influence in that regard?

- why you presume to not provide any interpretation of your own as to why the Antarctic sea-ice extent has increased... while repeatedly speaking sarcastically to 'warming causing ice to form"

- why you presume to ignore the fact Antarctic sea-ice extent melts per norm, almost entirely, year-to-year.

- why you presume to ignore the fact no like Arctic concept of significant multi-year sea-ice exists within the Antarctic exists

- why you presume to ignore the significant long-term trend in decreasing Antarctic ice mass
​

Whatsa Matter.....No charts???