Monday Was Hottest Recorded Day on Earth: 'Uncharted Territory' 136
World temperature reached the hottest levels ever measured on Monday, beating the record that was set just one day before, data suggests. From a report: Provisional data published on Wednesday by the Copernicus Climate Change Service, which holds data that stretches back to 1940, shows that the global surface air temperature reached 62.87F (17.15C), compared with 62.76F (17.09C) on Sunday.
Earlier this month, Copernicus found that global temperatures between July 2023 and July 2024 were the highest on record. The previous record before this week was set a year ago on 6 July. Before that, the previous recorded hottest day was in 2016, according to the Associated Press.
Earlier this month, Copernicus found that global temperatures between July 2023 and July 2024 were the highest on record. The previous record before this week was set a year ago on 6 July. Before that, the previous recorded hottest day was in 2016, according to the Associated Press.
Brother, life's a bitch... and she's back in heat (Score:5, Informative)
Marry and reproduce
Conform
Stay Asleep
No Independent Thought
Submit
Buy
Watch TV
No Imagination
Do Not Question Authority
THIS IS YOUR GOD (seen on a dollar bill)
Obey
Re: (Score:2)
They Live 2: Congressional Cattle
Re: (Score:1)
*Not my joke. I stole it from the interwebs pipes.
Re: (Score:2)
Their "hand" being 5 Jokers, which in Congressional Poker is the highest value.
Re:Be afraid! (Score:5, Interesting)
We used to think that when Vesuvius erupted, everyone in Pompeii was buried in their houses or going about their business. Now we know that was only about 13% of the population tried to ride it out and got buried; most people evacuated and survived.
Faced with a crisis, any human population will respond in an "all of the above" manner, with some people fleeing at the first wisps of smoke to others who sit in their houses as the volcanic bombs drop, convinced this will blow over if they just don't pay any attention to it. This guarantees that in a scenario like Pompeii, someone will make the right choice, even if nobody can know in advance what that is.
And that, from an evolutionary standpoint, was about as good as any critter could manage until humans invented science. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, that event was literally 10x larger than Vesuvius, in a more densely populated area, but it had less than half the deaths because volcanologists recommended evacuations weeks in advance. This saved literally tens of thousands of lives. But there's always going to be a few -- 847 in the case of Pinatubo -- that died because they simply refused to listen [usgs.gov] to science.
Now if you listen to climate scientists, they aren't spreading gloom or doom; they're actually telling us that things we do now will make a difference to what experience in the future. But for some people that's an unwelcome message.
Re: (Score:3)
But for some people that's an unwelcome message.
The welcomeness of the message for climate deniers is proportional to how much it will cost them vs the ability to blame it on others. The defeatist attitude of "why should I turn my A/C temp higher when there's Chiiiiiinaaaaaaa." Some people regardless of whether they think something is real or not will always want to be the last person to make a difference.
Tragedy of commons played out on a global scale.
Re: (Score:2)
"If I can't drive a pickup truck bigger than my garage, then the terrorists win!"
Re: (Score:3)
It's not necessarily irrational to prefer things not to change. What's irrational is to be unwilling to consider relatively small changes *now* to avoid being forced to make bigger changers *later*. The whole reason we need to reduce the speed of climate change is to, as far as possible, preserve the status quo.
If you wanted to change people's lifestyles radically and quickly, just for the *sake* of change, the most effective thing you can do is spread climate change denialism. The atmosphere doesn't ca
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with calling your example irrational. There are many rational explanations for why you want to make bigger changes later. Just like there are rational reasons to live life selfishly.
The idea of tragedy of the commons is born out of rational thinking. What we need is "collective" thinking vs selfish thinking not attempting to consider the rationality.
Think of climate change in this way: I am a well off wealthy middle-class westerner. Despite my efforts to limit my emissions I still am quite a big
Don't forget - give to the Trump Bible Company. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Insulting people really helps your climate change arguments......Hint: it's not working
This was an anonymous coward trolling for some flames. He got a reaction, so it's apparently working.
If I had mod points, I might waste one to -1 flamebait it, even though he's an AC, but of the random garbage trolls emit, this is barely significant.
Trolls gotta troll [Re: Be afraid!] (Score:2)
Well, you'd seemed to imply that this had something to do with "his climate change arguments".
I don't think it does; trolls are trolling just for the sake of trolling and getting reactions, not to actually make any real arguments. Can't even guess whether this has anything to do with his actual opinions; likely he also spews anonymous flames pretending to be a right wing idiot.
But some people invite insults. (Score:2)
You're suggesting we lower ourselves ... (Score:2)
... to their level. I'm down with that. I mean, what could go wrong?
PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
...emphasis on "recorded"... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
You must have been corrected countless times by now with the reasons your comment is misinformation when made without sufficient context, as I presume this isn't the first time you've posted something like this... Yet you persist.
Is it wilful ignorance or just stupidity?
Re: (Score:1)
So it is your contention the world was never hotter before they started recording this particular data set in 1940? Seriously?
As a brief example, at one point, before 1940, a significant portion of the US mid-west was a huge dust bowl... do you think the readings from that area in that period, when combined with the other readings around the world might have raised the "world temperature" to be above Mondays world high? Maybe, maybe not, we don't know, because comparable data from any period before 1940 isn
Regional is not global [Re:...emphasis on...] (Score:5, Informative)
As a brief example, at one point, before 1940, a significant portion of the US mid-west was a huge dust bowl...
Not really a "significant portion" of the US. A region centered around the Oklahoma panhandle (this map [wikipedia.org] shows the extent.)
do you think the readings from that area in that period, when combined with the other readings around the world might have raised the "world temperature" to be above Mondays world high?
First, on a global scale, the "dust bowl [wikipedia.org]" wasn't significant. But more to the point the current article is about global temperature, and the characteristic of the dust bowl was drought, not high temperatures.
Maybe, maybe not, we don't know, because comparable data from any period before 1940 isn't available.
Data from the dust bowl era and before was included in the historical temperature reconstructions. The Copernicus site was given in the article we're talking about; check it out for details.
Correction [Re:Regional is not global [Re...]] (Score:3)
e.g., NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) [nasa.gov]
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature [ucar.edu]
NOAA [noaa.gov]
Berkeley Earth has a good graph comparing four of the historical temperature reconstructions, including error bars: https://berkeleyearth.org/wp-c... [berkeleyearth.org]
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
"World temperature" is a number that's sole purpose is to alarm non-scientists, nothing more. No weatherman ever reported the daily "world temperature" and the only people using "world temperature" are the fund raisers at climate charities, knowing the calculated "world temperature" doesn't influence any real-world decisions, except decisions to donate to a charity.
Donate to a charity? That's a rookie move. The real criminals use this to raise taxes and limit freedoms, growing the size and influence of governments so they can divert subsidies into their pockets and into the pockets of their friends.
Then as the government grows they do as little as they can to show they are doing something but not so much that people can see any significant reduction in CO2 emissions. If the governments of the world wanted to lower CO2 emissions by large amounts then they'd be build
screed [Re:...emphasis on "recorded"...] (Score:3)
Donate to a charity? That's a rookie move. The real criminals use this to raise taxes and limit freedoms,
Except they don't. Even if carbon taxes were enacted (and for the most part they haven't been), proposed carbon taxes are absolutely trivial compared to existing tax.
And, exactly what freedoms have been actually limited by people saying "we have to deal with climate change"? Uh, that's right: none. There are real, existing threats to freedom around the world, Climate change is not one of them.
From here your post goes into a canned pro-nuke screed. Which actually I don't object to, but you don't need to s
Re: (Score:2)
You're still a drivelling idiot. Nucular power ain't gonna fix any of the things you say it will. Multiple govts have looked into it & decided it isn't feasible for them. You know, consulting with people who actually understand what it takes & how much it costs to make nucular power work in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
You must have been corrected countless times by now with the reasons your comment is misinformation when made without sufficient context, as I presume this isn't the first time you've posted something like this... Yet you persist.
Is it wilful ignorance or just stupidity?
What needs corrected? I mean, I'm all for taking the current climate situation seriously, but it only hurts the overall cause to deny truth when it's not conforming to your preferred narrative. The Earth has actually been quite a lot hotter than it is now. This is a factual, true statement. The post even includes the qualifier "we just didn't record then." Calling that post misinformation just makes you seem the ignorant one. Ignoring truths we don't like is a good way to end up right where we are. I don't
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth has also been colder. And it started as molten rock.
And was a little bit later molten rock again.
Your post, without context, is mindless denialism of the current state of the global climate and humanity's part in it.
And you know it, and don't care.
So again... Ignorance or stupidity? Maybe that's too binary... It could be a combination of the two.
This is an OR, not an XOR. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth has also been colder. And it started as molten rock. And was a little bit later molten rock again.
Your post, without context, is mindless denialism of the current state of the global climate and humanity's part in it. And you know it, and don't care.
So again... Ignorance or stupidity? Maybe that's too binary... It could be a combination of the two.
I wasn't the OP here. I was responding to the knee-jerk response that "the Earth has been hotter" is misinformation. Inconvenient is not "mis" information. Any of those other points would fall in the same category. Address the actual issue, rather than labeling it with some trigger word just because we don't like it. Throwing labels around like that when they don't truly apply is laughably silly if we're trying to have a true conversation. But if the ultimate goal is not conversation, but continuing to stok
Re: (Score:2)
The goal of saying "the Earth has been hotter before" is to imply there's no problem now. That's misinformation.
And yeah, I don't have any patience left for people playing that game.
Re: (Score:2)
The goal of saying "the Earth has been hotter before" is to imply there's no problem now. That's misinformation.
And yeah, I don't have any patience left for people playing that game.
That's a conclusion you jumped to. Misinformation is lies. Labeling anything you don't like misinformation is being a toadie for the people that want information to be impossible to decipher so they can ride roughshod over the country. Precision should matter is such discussions. Somebody says, "The Earth has been hotter before," you can't just go, "Misinformation." and wipe your hands of it. You can instead point out the obvious, because unfortunately the obvious isn't so obvious after years and years of p
Re: (Score:1)
Your boos mean nothing to me, I’ve seen what makes you cheer.
Ahhh, go burn your crosses. (Score:2)
After all, it's not like it'll warm up the globe or anything, right?
Christians. Jeez.
Re: (Score:2)
actually i've been upvoted
Zero is less than two, last time I checked
Re: (Score:1)
Re:...emphasis on "recorded"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever the dragonflies and lizards were coping with 200 million years ago has nothing to do with anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but we can always just move around to the new habitable areas right? Oh wait as soon as people move they are labelled as migrant criminals coming to rape your kids and the country is being "invaded". We meant "we" can move not those other people we don't like right? /s
Your point really doesn't emphasise enough that we're too dumb as a collective species to resolve this. Hell we've had the possibility of solving global starvation for decades yet it's been an ongoing battle for 60 years. Humans faced wit
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but we can always just move around to the new habitable areas right? Oh wait as soon as people move they are labelled as migrant criminals coming to rape your kids and the country is being "invaded".
Yeah. Climate-driven migration is going to be the cause great geopolitical conflict, including open warfare.
It's even possible we've seen the first example of this already. The Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS and the ensuing refugee crisis were largely caused by a massive drought in Syria which forced millions of Syrians to move from former farmland into the cities, idling millions of young men. Whether that drought was caused or exacerbated by climate change is unknowable, of course. But, expect a l
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever the dragonflies and lizards were coping with 200 million years ago has nothing to do with anything.
It absolutely is relevant. How else would we know to be afraid of something if we never knew it existed? Just because Life survived those conditions, that doesn't mean humans will. We really kind of need the environment to stay stable in order for us to survive. Knowing what happened millions of years ago is useful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Humans much less mammals didn’t exist then either. The problem isn’t the temperature rising, the problem is the rate of rise. Seeing changes that once took millennia are now taking a century.
Miss the good old days, ole_timer? (Score:2)
Back when truth was simple and came from the Holy Mother Church? Back when burning crosses was just an exercise of free speech? Back when we knew that separation of church and state was just for them foreigners, not for us 'Muricans?
The Earth still goes around the Sun.
The earth has been way more uninhabitable. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: ...emphasis on "recorded"... (Score:2)
When it was hotter, it was too hot for most of the life that currently exists. It also heated slowly, giving life a chance to adapt. That is a disingenuous false equivalency to the rapid heating that is provably due to human influence.
Re: (Score:2)
...the earth has been way way hotter, we just didn't record then...
Oh, you're *way* understating your case. During the Hadean Eon, 4.6 to 4 billion years ago, the atmospheric temperature was hot enough to melt tin. Water *vapor* couldn't exist either without being dissociated into diatomic hydrogen and oxygen. In fact after the collision that created the moon, Earth's surface temperature was hot enough to melt, not just iron, but the Inconel alloy used in rocket engines.
I'm sure these interesting contextual facts about the Earth's natural geologic variability will be
Re: (Score:2)
i mean come on, 4.5 billion years ago the earth was so hot it was molten, so what's the problem amirite
"Recorded history" (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds so much more impressive than "the past eighty years."
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The editors would like you to live in fear and not reproduce.
It's embarrassing.
Here's an actual interesting climate science paper to make up for it:
https://link.springer.com/arti... [springer.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's adorable you think the editors are pushing such a extreme agenda. That the editors are actively wanting people to live in fear rather than giving us updates and further supporting evidence for a massive problem human civilization is facing and that many are still in utter denial over.
Some people will come up with anything to keep their world view I guess... Maybe they're vampires too, that's why those evil lefties want abortion access, so they can drink the blood of the unborn!
Re: (Score:2)
The mercury thermometer and Fahrenheit scale were invented in 1714. I’d like to believe after the first century of use they would have some manner of precision.
Re:"Recorded history" (Score:4, Informative)
The article specifically says that they're comparing back to only 1940.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re:"Recorded history" (Score:4, Insightful)
Conveniently, late 1930s had a major heat wave.
Trendlines don't care about your single datapoint. But even if they did, nothing in the 1930s exceeded what we have now. The article only looked at a graph going back that far. We have data well back into the 1800s that shows we still are breaking records, and they don't care if you continue to choose not to believe it.
Re:"Recorded history" (Score:4, Insightful)
I've seen this meme crop up only very recently, and it's spreading like climate change enhanced wildfire among all the usual loonies.
America had major heatwaves in the 1930s. But as most non Americans (and plenty of Americans) know, America is not the whole world.
Re:"Recorded history" (Score:5, Informative)
The article specifically says that they're comparing back to only 1940.
Conveniently, late 1930s had a major heat wave.
Conveniently, there are other historical temperature graphs that go back to the 1800s, e.g., here [noaa.gov]. Globally, no, the 1930s were not hot compared to present day.
One day at a time :) (Score:1)
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Ohh, even hotter than the Sunday before? news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Yes, as stated in the very first line of the summary: "...beating the record that was set just one day before".
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many days in a row it would take before the denialists agree that there's a problem.
Having said that, I think it needs to be normalized for days of the year. If each corresponding day is trending hotter than the corresponding days, then we are seriously fscked... I sure hope this is merely the seasonal peak for summer in the northern hemisphere. If so, then one bad year isn't too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many days in a row it would take before the denialists agree that there's a problem.
I'm not a denialist, but indeed, it's true that no one day, even a record-setting hot day, is in and of itself really evidence of climate change. Since the trend is upward, random variations are more likely to set records on the right side of the curve than at earlier times, but still, climate is the long-term average, not the short-term variations.
But humans love to see records broken. When a record's broken it's news. "The average global temperature is steadily rising, just like it's been for the entiret
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. "It has not been this hot globally for as long as we have records (and as far back as I direct indicators show for all of human history)" is a pretty strong indicator that either the average or the swing have increased.
We know it's the average, but even if it was the swing it would be significant. Even a fraction of a degree in such a large system is a big deal. Where I live the temperature changes annually to go just as far below freezing as it does above, but if you shift that range just a
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are supporting my position that it needs to be normalized by date of the year? Not "last Monday was a new record" but something like "that was the hottest July 22nd ever recorded". Where did yesterday rate relative to other July 26es?
Locally, we had some horrific weather yesterday. They just confirmed the death of one of two policemen who disappeared when they were trying to rescue someone... I'm not saying that it's a good thing when officers die in the line of duty, but it's kind of nice that
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder how many days in a row it would take before the denialists agree that there's a problem.
I believe what feeds the denial the most is the actions of politicians that speak so loudly on global heating. If sea level rise is threatening coastal cities then politicians that try to get people concerned on sea level rise should not be buying houses by the sea. If travel by airplanes is bad for one's "carbon footprint" then politicians need to set an example and take a bus or train for their travels than fly. If eating beef is bad because of the methane produced by cattle then I had better not be se
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how many days in a row it would take before the denialists agree that there's a problem.
I believe what feeds the denial the most is the actions of politicians that speak so loudly on global heating.
"Politicians are untrustworthy, therefore don't trust scientists" is not good reasoning.
13 Fox-Approved Ways of Looking at a Blackbird (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Blackbird? I suppose you could measure the global temperatures using infrared camera mounted on a SR71, but it would be expensive using all that special fuel.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Lies, damned lies, and statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
You clearly have not thought in terms of trends, or in looking beyond a given region when looking at the data. Any given place will have years that are warmer or colder, but when you look at the trends, as well as looking at things from a global perspective and not just local, you start to see why EVERYONE should be concerned. You also may not have looked at things from a, "how quickly things happen" perspective as well.
So, the concern about warming is due to how quickly things are happening. If it is caused by humans or not is almost incidental, because it is HAPPENING, so, people need to actually do something about it. Work should have started on sea walls around major cities to keep the rising sea levels from flooding cities, or doing SOMETHING. Denial about what is happening is wonderful if you don't want anyone to actually DO something.
You ate paint chips as a child, didn't you? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
In other news, loud, dumb American thinks America is the whole world.
I quite like America, so I'd be much obliged if you stopped embarrassing your fellow citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Article says hottest day for the entire world.
Cites local heatwaves as some kind of gotcha.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
What about 1936 North American heat wave [wikipedia.org] and 2012 North American heat wave [wikipedia.org]?
We are talking about global temperatures, not regional...
Not really. The linked article is based on this site [copernicus.eu].
In turn, it is based on the model proposed by this paper [wiley.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so how would you propose to measure the average temperature of the entire Earth without using a statistical model of some kind?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that you can't even speak coherently about the problem without reference to models.
If you demand a model-less empirical measurement of the Earth's temperature, you need to define what that means -- without reference to any kind of model. If you can't specify what you're asking for, you're just spouting nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Output of a model is always anapproximation with degree of uncertainty, when you make claims based on a model you have to state that level of uncertainty. My understanding is that "hottest day on earth" produced by that model is well within its uncertainty [medium.com], which makes TFA claims a deliberate lie.
Hall of records (Score:4, Insightful)
"... in recorded history... ", but the records only go back to 1940 when the records were lost as the hall of records melted away.
Have they ever heard of Significant Digits? (Score:1)
So they are gathering temperatures with 4 significant digits, but historical data at best was 3 and often just 2. These clowns should have taken a high school chemistry class before they start publishing nonsense.
The climate controversy, although not a hoax is a vehicle for total control by the few. If you like freedom and liberty, then the climate alarmists are your enemy. That by itself should be enough for anyone who is not a "useful idiot" to oppose political solutions to what is a scientific problem
Re:Zero point one one (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, the "world temperature" is calculated from how many simultaneous readings around the world, and has it been taken from the same number of locations for the past 84 years using the same devices?
There is extensive literature documenting the measurements used, how the various organizations calculate historical temperatures, and documenting the error bars in their calculations, why don't you try looking at some of these? This particular news article is from the European Copernicus Climate Change Service [copernicus.eu] reconstructions, but there are six other major weather and atmospheric science organizations doing similar work to choose from (not to mention numerous regional agencies).
Then you could, instead of asking sarcastic questions the answer to which are in literature available on the web, you could comment based on some actual knowledge.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, he could have been in the Navy and realized that ships for hundreds of years, long before the USA even existed, have been taking depth readings and temperature measurements of the air and the ocean. We have reliable data over very long periods to look at. I know for a fact that the US Navy takes these measurements very seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
*Citation needed
Re: Zero point one one (Score:1, Troll)
Try Google
Citation given.
Re: (Score:2)
Applicable citation not found. Epic fail, @subie.
Re: (Score:2)
Try Google
Citation given.
Says the person who knows they cant support their own argument so now is gambling on shifting the burden.
The burden of citation is on the person making the claim so it's up to you to support your own argument.
Citation given [Re: Zero point one one] (Score:2)
There is extensive evidence that shows many of those devices are in terrible locations that don't properly measure the temperature.
*Citation needed
Try Google. Citation given.
"Google it" is not a citation. This one is tricky, but you can find it if you know the right search terms.
But, when you do figure out the right search terms, you find that there was in fact criticism of the accuracy of historical temperature measurements due to the location of thermometers, these criticisms were taken seriously, they were analyzed, and addressed.
Citation? Narrowing down to just one of the groups analyzing temperature, Berkeley Earth, their paper discussing this is here: https://berkeleyea [berkeleyearth.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure attack the method based on zero evidence because it challenges your beliefs or makes you feel uncomfortable.
Again I must repeat this. It's the rate of change, not the fact that change is happening. The mercury thermometer was invented over 300 years ago. You think they only gained precision around the time WW2 ended?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, convert degrees into calories. (Score:2)
Re:what about the Viking warming period ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Earth has indeed been warmer (no, global warming will not extinguish life on Earth)... but not in the timeframe over which human civilization has existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for confirming that yes, the average has increased.
Do you even listen to yourself?
Please convert degrees to calories. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MTG is hot in the sense that she screams at you if you try to turn down the thermostat! No, no. For your personal safety, please look elsewhere. I know you like stupid women but there are other flounders in the sea.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, no wonder you post AC, I wouldn't want my name associated with that post either. Ick.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that this is supposed to be a place where intelligent people can have a discussion.
Re: Speaking of hot.... (Score:2)
Unfortunately that attracts trolls who feel smart if they can make smart people angry. This is inherently stupid because it's easier to destroy than create, but if they were smart they wouldn't be trolls.
Re: Speaking of hot.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MTG is *already* spitting on you can calling you scum!
For RBG, you could have a very entertaining and thoughtful discussion on so many topics. Even being deceased she has more active brain cells than MTG.
Re: (Score:2)
The scientists didn't say this. The dumb media reporters said it. Those that can, do. Those that can't, write innaccurate stories about what the others did.
Re: (Score:1)
So, like I said - SHUT UP, TWERP!
twerp has a roald dahl quality to me i dont know why
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming got renamed to climate change. For this to be proper climate change, we should also have yearly news <<like omg, the coldest evar recorded, we<&apostrophe>re all gonna die!!11!1!!one>>
"Climate change caused by global warming" would be even more accurate.
Climate change emphasizes that the change includes other aspects of climate than just temperature, e.g., timing and intensity of monsoons, droughts, changes in wind patterns, and so forth.
Without those we should probably go to global warming. It is easier to relate to.
Yeah, works for me.
Re: (Score:2)