Slashdot Mirror
Norwegian Study: Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared
Numerous news outlets are reporting the findings of a study from the Research Council of Norway — a government agency — which concludes that (in Bloomberg's version) "After the planet's average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized." The New York Times' Dot Earth blog offers some reasons to be skeptical of the findings.
An oil-producing country says that burning oil is okay. News at 11.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
www.climatedepot.com
Don't let the facts get in the way of your insane 'global warming' belief system.
Oh, sorry - it's called 'climate change' now, isn't it... Idiots.
It's real! Panic!
Even if it's not real, the world will be a better place if you panic!
Frankly, I don't give a crap what the world will be like for my great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren. If they're too slow to get out of the way of a 500 year long rising tide, screw em.
DENIERS, BUUUUUUUURN THEM!
Wait wait. How do we know they are deniers?
Because they look like it!
Yes, but, we have to prove it.
Uuuh... they're made of oil... so they float?
Yes, and what else floats?
Ducks?
Yes, so fetch me a duck and I get my scales out....
For god's sake, it's just one more piece of analysis. If true, it will be followed up on, if not, it will be followed up on with corrections.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
A peer reviewed study that doesn't quite jive with the prevailing line of thinking appears in the prestigious journal Nature.
But don't worry, some blogger says it may not be correct. Alarmist Rejoice!
Stop believing, start judging facts,
and the best thing:
ASK people who work for insurance companies, then they will tell you a story about their one century spawning statistics and how close many predictions match our climate situation of today. And why they predict that the climate change is real and well 90% is man made, and well some is cow made.
There is Global Warming(tm) and if we do not give the United Nations more power to apply Global Taxes then The World Is Going To End. Make no doubt about it, folks: The whole "global warming" scam as nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with a grab for power and taxes. I realize that many people are so propagandized that they are unable to contemplate this information. To those of you who believe in the "global warming" propaganda, please consider this: Do we have to give the United Nations the power to tax the world in order to solve this "problem"?
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
the 'reasons to be skeptical' weren't by a journalist and had a bit more meat than "doesn't *quite* fit the received wisdom and thus is fodder for the deniers".
There are probably hundreds of studies that try to estimate the climate sensitivity. Most get numbers between 2 and 4 degrees per doubling. This one got 1.9. So?
This study finds warming at the low end of the IPCC projections. Other studies find warming at the high end of IPCC projections. There is uncertainty, and that why the IPCC publishes a range - but this study is not outside the published range. If this study is right then we will be committed to 2C of warming by 2050. We are trying to stay below 2C to avoid hitting some of the more worrisome tipping points and impacts.
Hopefully this study is right. If so then there is a chance that we can get off of carbon based fuels before we hit the tipping points. I wouldn't bet my kid's future on this one study though.
Norwegian study vale + French study value + German study value + Australian study value + .....
Then divide by N and you have the "truth".
Ten years is too short time for any conclusion.
in the 70s we were all going to die from a new ice age due to nuclear power! How could a "scientist" possibly be wrong?! I mean "scientists" allover the world (well really the ones in the US) proved without a doubt that nuclear energy was causing a new ice age that was going to kill us all! And they used "science" so they had to be 100% correct right? I mean they used the word "science" so how can it be wrong?
Then "scientists" proved global warming was going to kill us all! And they used "science"!
And now more "scientists" are using "science" to say it isnt as bad as that?
A "scientist" wouldnt ever use "science" just for grant money or to get their name in the news would they? No because we all know that every "scientist" is honest, pure of heart, selfless and only interested in the truthful facts to further mankind as a whole!
Or maybe "science" is just bullshit for the most part and none of them really know what they are saying. Maybe global warming is just a natural phase of the earth we cant prevent or stop or help because its something that naturally happens as an event. I hate to tell you "scientists" but earth is not static and nature isnt some linear line that never changes course.
Not like we have world or national governance that can do anything about it.
The US government can't make a budget or run a money system of their own creation -- yet you think they can absorb science, understand it, and react to it in an effective fashion?
Such things only exist so that there can be sides for people to join and so there can be issues to argue about.
And we should all piss our pants if someone publishes that its slightly higher or slightly lower than expected? Laughable.. argue on children.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
I think the NYT's reporting is very telling here. His first reaction on January 26th is that it's not peer-reviewed, and therefore must be treated skeptically. A knee-jerk reaction that since the report doesn't confirm his existing beliefs, he must wait until others do his work for him and tell him whether the report deserves consideration or not.
Note what Reno Knutti, a Swiss climate scientist, told the NYT:
"there was little warming over the past decade despite a larger greenhouse gas forcing."
Now who's denying what, again?
So 100% is man made. Since those are not free cows. They are man-owned, man-bred, mad-used cows.
NYT cosmopolitan climate fags gotta simper and drool whenever crossed. They need AGW like an open azzwhole needs AIDs.
The so-called "global warming deniers" are to be scorned, ridiculed, and otherwise have their professional reputations destroyed by any means necessary but it's just fine and dandy to be skeptical of this study.
Quickly looking at the story, the conclusion I HAVE to come to is AWG proponents have lost. Their viewpoint is either AWG is so horrible and so far along that there is nothing we can do about it, so why would we even bother? Or, if they become reasonable at this point and say, like this article attempts to, that it isn't so bad that there is something we can do about it, the anti-AWG people will destroy them with pointing out their previous lies (Gore's hockey stick graph comes to mind).
So its either unavoidable, or the AWG people lied to the point where no one will ever listen to them again. Either way we do nothing. Let this be an object lesson, but really you should have learned this in elementry school with "Peter and the Wolf". I guess that just shows AWG people are unable to be reasonable and have pushed everyone who isn't a wacko like them so far against them they will never become mainstream.
Congratulations on defeating yourselves.
Norway is one of the richest countries in the world... it has the second highest GDP per capita. Norwegians enjoy an incredibly high standard of living across the board... there is very little wealth-disparity and almost no poverty. Education is free and health-care is universal. It's a good life! And it's all largely thanks to oil, of which Norway has lots. Over 55% of Norway's GDP comes directly from petroleum. Imagine if you and all your fellow citizens had half of your assets invested in oil companies and depended on those investments for half of all your income and half of all your future retirement... in Norway that's the reality.
I wouldn't accuse the scientists of Norway's research council of fabricating data or anything, but they can't help but have a strong bias.
due to solar and (lack of) el nino cycles coinciding. Its quite temporary and we're already coming out of it.
and not news reporting, but in journalism it's a truism that anytime a title ends in a question mark, the answer is "no."
The title of the paper in question: “Global warming less extreme than feared?”
It's doubtful their study will hold up to scrutiny. After reading the actual study, they're using a simple climate model to feed a Baeysian statistical model to generate their results, which fails to take into account numerous factors. This seems exceptionally weak, especially since a few years of data can drastically alter the results. For example, if the last ten years had a few strong El Ninos that gave a warming signal stronger than the expected signal, their model could be made to show warming beyond even the worst IPCC projections. And if you applied their methodology to a decade where some slight cooling took place (like the late 60's to early 70's), it would appear that by this time we would be well on our way to an ice age by now. That's an incredibly wide error margin, and more than enough to cast doubts on their results.
~X~
the paper makes no challenge to the proposition that GW is occurring and is indeed anthropogenic, only that it us perhaps somewhat less severe than other recent estimates indicate.
So why again are the climate change deniers crowing in "vindication?"
Lets ignore the predictions of the article, as they were not part of the study (which is the ONLY thing you seemed to notice)
Temperature leveled off in 2000 despite CO2 levels raising the entire time. THAT is the FACTS of the study and require no modeling and no guessing, just measurements. Now having listened to AWGers for years, that should never happen. If there is a SINGLE DISPROVABLE aspect of AWG, it would be temperatures not raising when CO2 does raise.
This is a perfect example of AWG making a claim and it being disproved. Scientific method through and through.
You aren't thinking, as your parent post asserted would happen.
Sun.
It isn't a *debate* as to whether it rises in the morning.
It rises.
Ships.
It isn't a *debate* as to whether it crashed into the rocks.
It did. Or not.
But idiots (such as yourself) think that there MUST BE debate.
Titanic had officers who "debated" whether there was a risk of crashing into an ice floe. Look what happened when they "debated" this...
But you don't care for the actions required.
Therefore, because you know you're on a loser with the idea of "disproving" climate science, demand a "debate".
Fiddling with yourself while Rome burns, as it were.
Rather odd that you sign off with "you do not think" when that's precisely what you displayed in that post.
And they WILL "appear" to have leveled off despite CO2 increasing the whole time.
See "Going down the up escalator" on SkS:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html
GLOBAL BAKING, which seems to be more to the point.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
While I don't necessarily doubt that the action of sulphates on condensation could mitigate global warming it should be noted that that action would most likely produce more acid rain.
they are certainly scientific facts.
Methane Clathrates exist and it is a scientific CERTAINTY that they will create a tipping point.
Don't you know what "conditional stability" means? Scientifically?
No, you're just SPECULATING that it's all a big con, therefore all the problems are nonexistent, so you can forget it all.
You say that like an Insurance Company doesn't have a financial incentive to raise rates to compensate for imaginary risks.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I bet he's just spinning in his grave right now, he used the wrong animal to experiment with, and what's more he wouldn't have had to remove the brain.
If there was one global Insurance Company monopoly, sure.
There isn't one. And competition in insurance industry is one of the fiercest in the world. Especially for major projects that also need most insurance against weather issues.
Until recently I believed the human-induced global warning narrative. On closer inspection of the data there are several aspects that need to be examined:
Global temperature increase data: The data shows that global warming is correct at least since the 17th Century (when there was a 'mini-ice age', possibly due to volcanic activity). This is undeniable. However, if you go back to data from two thousand years ago it appears that the climate is actually cooler than it was two thousand years ago. Please look at the data (and note that the trend is a very slight cooling over 2000 years):
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-climate-northern-europe-reconstructed-years.html
Human induced warming: The narrative given to us is that human activity in the form of burning fossil fuels has caused the supposed warming. If this was the case then we would examine the data and expect to see a carbon dioxide rise (CO2) from humans burning fossil fuels and then the temperature would rise as a result. In fact we see the opposite, we see that the CO2 rise *follows* the temperature rise, not precedes it. This means there is something wrong with the narrative that human-induced CO2 emission is causing global warming because the data does not support this. Here's the data
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/
Global warming models: Much of the global warming information is based on 'extrapolations' (projections) of short-term trends. Looking over the last hundred or two hundred years and projecting will result in temperature rise estimates that are alarming. Looking at the long-term data results in projections that are far less alarming (which this Slashdot thread is talking about; and I am also trying to inform you about). The other thing about models is that they are iterative and are subject to all sorts of instabilities. From what I know some of the models also were rather crude in the fact they didn't take into account many significant effects, like the eccentricity of our orbit etc, which results in periodic changes in solar radiation levels. Having a model is always better than no model - but that doesn't mean the model you have corresponds to reality, it only corresponds to our best guess. I know, as a astrophysicist turned IT guy used to make scientific models all the time - they are tricky beasts and most people (even those graduate students making them) don't always understand their limitations very well.
Vilification of scientists: scientists who where skeptical of the data are being vilified. Their careers are being destroyed and they are ridiculed for saying, "Hey, the data suggests something else than the human-induced global warming narrative" despite this being not only consistent with, but *required by* the Scientific Method. These scientists are labelled by the media as "climate change deniers" when in fact they agree with recent climate warming, disagree that human-released CO2 as the primary agent for the warming, and disagree that the climate has gotten warmer over the last two thousand years. All of these positions are supported by the data (as far as I can see). The media is especially bad at mocking the scientists who "don't follow the (Liberal) Party Line" despite the courage of those scientists to not cave in (which would be easier) and follow the scientific evidence as they see it. The US mainstream media
" The New York Times' Dot Earth blog offers some reasons to be skeptical of the findings."
Why is it that everyone seems to accept the findings that man is doing all this harm to the planet people tend to accept it. When someone says oh we aren't doing as much damage to the planet as we thought then there is someone right there saying oh there is reasons to be skeptical of the findings. Give me a break. At this point the people who are pushing the whole man made global warming argument are sounding like the guy on the street corner with the sign that says "Jesus is coming are you ready?" There have been people predicting the end of the world for a millennia now. When is it that we started listening to them and ignoring the facts?
Why to be skeptical of the findings?
The main reason they doubt it is because it contradicts quasi-religous dogma.
-Styopa
This study doesn't say anything about the "severity" of the phenomenon but is a statistical modelling of the sensitivity of the surface temperature to the concentration of co2. In other words, the rate of the warming. However, it is written : "When the researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center applied their model and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will most likely be 3.7C, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis. But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a “mere” 1.9C." That doesn't look to be a very solid model ...
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
How DARE they suggest such a thing??!!?!?!?
I have been to Norway (January). They could use some Global Warming.
WTF else could a "Dump Ape" be?!!
sunspot activity indicates we're in for some global cooling
which will counteract the obvious global warming our CO2 output is producing
so the debate will get shattered
then, in a decade or two when sunspot activity picks up, the temperature and violence of the atmosphere will shoot back up, and we'll be totally caught by surprise
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You mean a climate study (that is critical of aaalll the other scientists in the world who have been screaming things have, thanks to VERY recent evidence in the last few years not to mention last year which saw huge droughts, storms, and heat (Australia had to come up with a new colour for their frickin'
weather map it was so hot), gotten far, far worse), from the Norway who's entire economy derives from oil?
What a co-inky-dink.
the problem with climate study in general is there are literally millions of possible variables to affect global climate. are there things we can do to prevent it? possibly, it's also entirely possible that there is nothing we can do to stop it. it all depends on the variables a study takes into account. I'm not a denier, and I do think there are things we should be doing to lessen our impact on the environment. Climate change is a very new science, there are a lot of factors we don't know about, and new factors come into play in each new study. It's still science, proving and disproving hypotheses is the foundation of the scientific method. Shutting down the findings of a study because you don't believe in it is as short-sighted and self-serving as creationists denying the evidence of evolution.
I actually like seeing more studies being done on this, rather than just towing the party line...
frankly...
the more studies the better.
I am just going to say this every time global warming is discussed from now on:
The climate change debate is a giant distraction that only serves the interests of those destroying the environment.
At first it was 'is it happening?' then it was 'are we causing it?' and now we have discussions about the magnitude and the exact quantification, about whether it is a debate or not, about whose fault it is.
Scientists have been saying for decades now 'we are destroying the environment we live in, it is unsustainable and if we don't curb this trend it will become critical.'
Finding a new way to argue about one specific element of this problem is just another way of avoiding discussing the many things we already know are a problem, and finding solutions. The debate used to be about deforestation, fish stock depletion, groundwater and ocean pollution, unsustainable farming practices etc. After the climate debate is done and settled someone will come up with a new thing to argue about, maybe radio frequency or visible light pollution, or whatever, who knows. The point is we know we are doing things wrong, we have known for ages, why are we still arguing about it?
These are the facts: The proliferation and industrialisation of the human race is having massive consequences for the earth and the environment, the changes are cumulative and usually either detrimental or unpredictable in their effects. These changes are greatly exacerbated by the unsustainable, greedy and ultimately unnecessary excesses of our consumerist society.
Does anyone want to dispute these facts? Does anyone wish to make the claim that it would be better to exactly quantify in perfect detail every aspect and facet of each of the ways in which we are causing harm before taking any steps whatsoever to rectify any of them?
Can we start doing something about it some time soon, please?
So does this make the New York Times a Global Warming Stabilization denier?
This is one study showing that there is a discrepancy between simulations and reality. However, the variations defined together with the simulation make current predictions and current results still match. The difference has already been discussed by many scientists (not only by that Norwegian report), it can be caused by several different temporary effects. First, at certain increase of temperature the ration between melting ice and new snow can change. This results in more liquid water. If you have ice t 0C and you want water at 0C you have to add a lot of energy. Second, air pollution of certain developing countries increased much more than predicted (actually pollution changes where not added to the models so far, as human pollution in the past was never that massive on a global scale). Third, men made changes in land use where also not considered in the present scale. All these effects can add up to a temporary stop in increase.
Wow, you're really out there. Where do you get your data?
- Norway has invested its savings abroad to avoid any oil related flukes. That's why Norway now owns 1% of the world's shares!
- The oil & gas sector represented 25% of Norway's GDP in 2011.
The study referenced hasn't even been officially published. Perusing the comments, I see is religious zealotry from both sides. You don't need a college degree to understand the reasons that climates (plural) are changing and that, globally, it's getting warmer. Educate yourself.
While the public argues, science goes on. Researchers aren't wasting time addressing whether climate change exists, they are focused on understanding and predicting its effects as well as developing mitigation strategies.
Is anyone here old enough to remember the ozone hole? CFCs? Well, that problem was (mostly) fixed despite the inconvenience of finding new refrigerants. Switching energy platforms will also be inconvenient but I, personally, hope the public just gets the fuck with it and does so soon.
Disclaimer: I am an instrument technician & integrator for an atmospheric research laboratory. (read: I know what I'm talking about.)
Howdy howdy howdy
I was told that the science was settled, and that we were going to fry very shortly . Does this mean that it isn't?
Two weeks ago we had massive fires across about a quarter of the continent.
But that's alright because the fires are being put out by a cyclone/rain depression.
We're in Brisbane surrounded by flooding which has gone from the top of the cape
and is now going down into N.S.W.
For you small minded people that's over 3000 Km in a week.
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/synoptic_col.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/viewer/index.shtml
and it's still going down the coast probably run out to sea tomorrow
down N.S.W. south coast, but it's still pissing down here.
If you have your head where the sun don't shine,
I don't expect you will notice the drastic weather.
The only good thing about global warming is the surf is only going to get better.
Cyclone swells.
Go well
Right ringers in the US will wanna pounce on this screaming SEE I TOLD YOU SO, but then they will have to embrace a "European" idea, and they all hate European things. What do?
Arctic, North Pole, Ocean, Covered with Ice. Antarctic, South Pole, has a continent called "Antarctica" covered with ice.
is actual fact independent of scientific consensus?
The problem with this common question is that way too many people do not understand what the word "fact" means in a scientific context. Outside of axiomatic systems we don't have any "facts", we only have observations, also note that the fundamental axioms of mathematics are assumptions agreed by "consensus", not fact.
"Scientific consensus" is just the modern term for what Karl Popper called "the republic of science". It means that no single authority/observation/calculation has the strength of "scientific fact" (or "well established science" if you prefer). At no point in the process of strengthening a "scientific fact" does it become "actual fact", but that's ok because we do not pursue science as a path to absolute truths, we pursue it because of its track record of utility to mankind (and the 'fact' that humans are more curious than the proverbial cat).
As for the "flat world" canard, the well known skeptic Asimov had something to say about that in his short essay The relativity of wrong.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Interesting read:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html
Any study of climate change that doesn't take into account the effect on ocean temperatures caused by about 5000 active underwater volcanoes is flawed from the beginning.
Know of any?
The DefCon folks have the right idea. Although with discussions of global warming, as with anything political, sometimes it's almost too easy.
Looks like Pres. Obama is the first Slave To Service the Global Ponzi Scheme.
And a card caring participant.
I will not be jumping in line.
XD
When ice melts, it absorbs as much energy as it would take to heat an equivalent mass of water by 80 C. During the melting process, the temperature remains constant at 0 C. While melting, any energy added breaks the hydrogen bonds between ice (water) molecules. Energy becomes available to increase the thermal energy (temperature) only after enough hydrogen bonds are broken that the ice can be considered liquid water. The amount of energy consumed in breaking hydrogen bonds in the transition from ice to water is known as the heat of fusion.
"This study was sponsored by the... Norwegian Orange Growers Council?"
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
What a shame. I'm freezing here and no warming ? Come on people. Global warming was my last hope !!!
JAM
I don't call it global warming anymore, because that term misleads one into thinking that the planet is just getting hotter. I call it climate change, but even that's not a really good term.
Warming is a secondary problem to what is actually happening. If the temperature was just rising slightly everywhere species and ourselves could adapt [plants will have a harder time because the temperatures get hotter at higher latitudes while the photoperiod (hours of sun) stay the same].
If we accept the premise that CO2 emissions are causing more of the sun's energy to be trapped in our atmosphere (the greenhouse effect - I believe this to be true), then what this amounts to is a physics problem. More energy is being transferred(captured) into a chaotic system of weather (hot and cold fronts).
If you inject energy into a system, up to a point that system will absorb the energy. At some point however, it will start to destabilize, it will need to get rid of that excess energy. How we will see that manifest is probably as extremes of weather: more intense hurricanes (hi Sandy), monsoons will drop more rain, cold fronts will also get colder (we are melting ice at the poles), and chinooks will happen with more frequency/intensity. The last two of these are particularly troubling... last year there was a week in the middle of winter where the weather warmed up significantly in Michigan, the grapes started to thaw and grow leaves thinking it was spring time, and then old man winter returned with a vengeance and wiped out the entire state crop for the year.
My opinion is my own, based on deductive logic... I don't care what studies say and I don't know what it will mean for us in the near and long term (maybe higher food prices, maybe people have to move inland a bit)... But we can't continue to cause the capture of energy into a chaotic system and expect that the output to be the same or inline with historical values.
-G
I'd like to say something.
I don't care.
I don't care if the globe is getting warmer or colder, I don't care if humans caused it, I don't care if CO2 forcing is greater or lesser than guessed, I don't CARE.
I want enough solar panels on my roof to power my whole house. You know why? Because I want to be energy independent. REAL energy independence. Not this fake "independence" they talk about when they're talking about countries. Real independence, free of privatized utility companies who will jack up rates whenever they can beg, borrow, or bribe a public utilities commission into letting them do it.
And here's the worst part of the whole mess: the technology required is available, right now. It's not some lab bench curiosity. It's off the shelf. Real, manufactureable, see it, touch it, lick it if you want, carry it home hardware. The only problem is the high cost per watt.
They tell me that cost is dropping. Call me when it reaches parity (or just a little more) with what I pay now.
Until then, SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT THE CLIMATE.
... is so stupid he cannot deal with a half-inch rise in sea level using 22nd century technology.... he deserves to suffer; Darwin at work.
That's a new one on me, and how exactly will this occur?
If some areas right now are too COLD to grow crops, I wonder what effect global WARMING might have?
cough *retard* cough
Norway circa 1900: pisspoor country of fishermen struggling to feed their families through the freezing winters
Norway circa 1990: largescale underseas oil and natural gas field drilling brings in revenue in excess of what oil sheiks see
Therefore, I would guess norwegians are HONESTLY saying global warming is a hoax, a non-issue and green wet dream. They have no vested interest in spinning the hydro-carbon market at an even higher RPM...
I may not be a climate scientist, but I'm a fully trainined Operational Researcher and cost accountant. The UK Stern review is a travesty of a good economic analysis; there are serious methodological flaws, starting with the discount rate.
What I found most distressing is that these cannot be explained away as "accidental" errors. Stern is not an idiot, but makes so many trivial "mistakes"; many hidden quite deeply, and always in one direction. I'm good enough to tell the difference between errors and subterfuge in this field; and Stern follows pretty much how I would do it, if that was my brief. Stern is clearly attempting to mislead, and the dishonesty makes me question the ethics of the rest of the AGW crowd in areas outside my discipline.
STOP! STOP! We're making the world a better place for the wrong reason!
OK, so when do we get our Freon back?
http://imgur.com/s19MOMd