Page 98 of 351
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:56 am
by jhu72
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:20 am
PB,
Curry at least is in the right ball park of being a former scientist.
Hurricane specialist.
However, any scientist who says she won't publish in peer reviewed journals, loses me, period, end of story.
Curry is indeed a real - in the past scientist. She fell off the wagon when in the late 90's the temperature rise (measured) actually paused, and essentially went side ways for a decade or so. This was not a feature of the climate models at the time. This was a few years later found to be an artifact of oceanic sequestering of CO2, above a certain partial pressure the oceans increase their uptake rate for CO2. This has since been incorporated into the models. The models now track the measured temperature's much better. Curry has never recognized this fact, it was proving too useful to her ego (she was gaining notoriety and dollars) to remain a contrarian. Her objection to models is now based on a twenty year old glitch, since corrected.
Denier "scientists" can basically play one of two games. They can refuse to publish in peer reviewed journals or they can "tone it down" in peer reviewed journals. "Tone it down" meaning stay away from the pseudo science in peer reviewed venues, Curry can't or won't do this so her scientific reputation suffers. Guys like Spencer, "tone it down" and continue to get published on the edges of the science, saving their bat beans crazy nonsense for their blogs, popular media and fan boys.
What is regrettable is the scientific publishing business actually has brought this onto itself while having the best intentions to address a real problem with the peer review system. The expense of peer review and shortage of reviewers as the numbers of scientists and engineers increased.
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:02 am
by Peter Brown
yet more on Judith Curry:
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/link.pdf
Why would you and jhu72 reference a male-dominant fantasy grant-seeking blog with no female staff members? Oh sorry, they do have two out of 50, both one-named anonymous lol.
My point is serious scholars (Curry has been 'peer-reviewed' in over 180 articles and studies; she doesn't seek 'peer-reviews anymore' because she says it has become a ritualized stoning to death by the mad grant-seekers of the CC/GW racket; I have heard her speak and she is dead-on correct about this; she is also incredibly impressive in person, knows her stuff cold, and generates fervent opposition not because she is wrong but because she is no bs in her analyses) are far more nuanced in their analysis than the enviro-fundamentalists. Curry is a serious skeptic of the causes not the actual data. Feel free to trash her though
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:15 am
by foreverlax
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:37 am|
PB,
If the data supported this notion that the "Earth is just fine", we'd chill out with you.
And, hey, maybe you're correct that there still would be some wing nuts that just want to crush capitalism. There've always been some of those types, just as there's always been some 'flat-earth' types who wish to deny science and data.
To dismiss the impact of the rapid spread of mankind on the Earth is simply arrogant and foolish.
Measure it, study it, take care to be responsible stewards of the blessings we've been granted.
If that means we need to find ways to mitigate or reverse a particular impact, figure out how to do that most efficiently, considering all other impacts.
Measure and study, take care.
That goes for the immense waste going into the sea and into landfills, pollution in the air, destruction of habitats necessary for many species, or climate change impacts. Whatever impacts mankind's enormous spread across the globe has or may have, pay attention, address them.
Whether you believe in God or not, we are blessed with the capacity to think, to create, and to consider moral responsibility.
Use these blessings.
I'm an optimist; I certainly don't worry about the future; the future for my kids and their kids will be significantly better than I had it, and my life has been significantly better than my grandparents. I've never missed a winter of killer skiing and I never will in spite of the CC/GW crowd's fervent desire that I do.
if you truly like data, you should look at global poverty rates over the last 50 years, infectious disease deaths over the last 50 years, at overall quality of life issues just for yourself in your own lifetime (trust me your car today is way safer than when you were born, same with aviation). Heck, just go into the deeper weeds and look at the diapers industry...I kid but I don't: diaper technology today is 100x better and less expensive than 50 years ago! Your grandkids appreciate advancements even if you don't.
Might I suggest an author and climatologist of some renown called Judith Curry? You might learn what actual CC/GW nuance is.
GW/CC began as a cause , next became a movement and is fast becoming a racket. The racket looks like this . Several trillion dollars of CO2 abatement monies sloshing around : one third goes to bureaucrats and academics and pols that design and advise and manage the programs ; one third sticks to the kleptocrat third world nations in the UN who will loot 'compensation' monies for their lost growth and other troubles (it ends in Swiss banks, who become huge buyers of dollar/swiss repo contracts enabling doofus' like me to borrow money at rates far lower than I should, so thanks, I guess); and one third will be used for harebrained schemes that will have no effect on anything but the bottom lines and pockets of the cronies who "Do Something!!!" (think AOC favored companies and non-profits littering Brooklyn and Queens).
YOU.ARE.BEING.USED.
Correct!!
Direct from the
Factfulness quiz, which measures how accurate your view of world's condition(s) is to reality
"monkeys choosing answers at random consistently outguess teachers, journalists, Nobel laureates and investment bankers." .....1700 people took the quiz in 14 countries and scored on average, 2 out of 12.
- global poverty has gone from 50% in 1966 to under 10% in 2017.
- immunizations of 1 year olds has gone from 22% in 1980 to 88% in 1916
- 97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. Global climate experts believe that, over the next 100 years, the average temperature will get warmer.
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:25 am
by jhu72
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:02 am
yet more on Judith Curry:
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/link.pdf
Why would you and jhu72 reference a male-dominant fantasy grant-seeking blog with no female staff members? Oh sorry, they do have two out of 50, both one-named anonymous lol.
My point is serious scholars (Curry has been 'peer-reviewed' in over 180 articles and studies; she doesn't seek 'peer-reviews anymore' because she says it has become a ritualized stoning to death by the mad grant-seekers of the CC/GW racket;
I have heard her speak and she is dead-on correct about this; she is also incredibly impressive in person, knows her stuff cold, and generates fervent opposition not because she is wrong but because she is no bs in her analyses) are far more nuanced in their analysis than the enviro-fundamentalists. Curry is a serious skeptic of the causes not the actual data. Feel free to trash her though
If she is a serious scientist -- she will submit to the peer review process. She is changing no minds that matter by avoiding it. To change the game you have to play the game. The pseudo scientist always claim its the process, the "man is keeping me down." Sometimes that does happen, but it is not a feature of the system. If she or anyone else has the right idea, they will get through over time.
.. and exactly how would you know??
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:36 am
by runrussellrun
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:27 am
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 6:16 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:18 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:40 pm
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:22 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:43 pm
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:26 pm
holmes435 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:17 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:44 am
Wait a minute...aren't the glaciers melting and polar bears dying and we need to abandon beachfront houses because rising sea levels? I can not keep on top of the changing rules here.
The rules haven't changed, but I am sorry if you can't keep up. The "it's cold so global warming isn't real" schtick is at least a decade old and has been explained ad infinitum.
And yes the glaciers are melting and polar bears are dying and my neighbors are jacking their houses up on stilts and putting removable flood walls in front of their doors and garages.
Because Chittenden Resovoir floods..................................
Wonder why our 25 year old beachfront property in South Carolina hasn't had any issues...except of course during hurricane season? Seems my study of 25 years via my eyes, drinking beers on the beach, and walking around should be quite suitable...no spreadsheet or data sets needed.
Ocean rise over last 25 years has been 3 inches. That's an average. Could you tell if the ocean rose by 3 inches. I doubt most people could without very determined effort. Tributaries are easier.
The true meaning of jhu72's post:
lyingeyes.jpg
And yours translates to "ignore the data, listen to the idiots who tell you what to think"
Sadly MD you are now coming across as one of the idiots who are trying to tell me what to think. When you can explain to me what the hell it is we are trying to prevent. Cancel that... that means a War and Peace diatribe from you that you are so very famous for. I forget that when you are conversing with a republican of some sort, what is the point? Maybe Mittens has time in his busy schedule for you to shine his shoes? You know how you moderates roll.
Hey MD... is there a Hall of Fame out there for popular moderates? In my world a moderate is a person without the intestinal fortitude to have an opinion based in a core set of values. You are the folks that wet your finger, stick it up into the wind and determine what it is you believe. So in your simple minded republican world... we can stop what planet earth will do.
Was I addressing you, cradle?
But ok, you don't like "moderates", particularly Republican moderates.
Nor people who prefer data over wishful thinking.
When you say "data", what do you mean?
You, and others, dismiss my NOAA bouy research. That's data. From a reliable source, no?
THIS bouy:
https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_histo ... tion=41004
1981: Warmest/highest water temp for the entire year was 29.2 degrees C, or
84.56 degrees F. (in June none the less ??? )
https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/view_text_fil ... al/stdmet/
2018 :Warmest/highest temp for the entire year was 30 degrees C, or
86 degrees F (August 7th )
https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/view_text_fil ... al/stdmet/
______________________________________________
HALLOWEEN is today
1981, the warmest water temp for bouy 41004 was 25.6 C/
78F.
In 2018, the warmest water temp recorded for bouy 41004 was 24.3 c/
75.74 .....
... 2.3 degrees "cooler" than almost 40 years ago.
__________________
Keep in mind that :
-data collection instruments have improved, I am assuming
-data recording went from one reading an hour to 6, 1981 to 2018. That is 24 per day versus 144 per day.
-buoy data is only decades old (4)
______________
Conclusions ?
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:41 am
by Typical Lax Dad
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:36 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:27 am
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 6:16 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:18 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:40 pm
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:22 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:43 pm
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:26 pm
holmes435 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:17 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:44 am
Wait a minute...aren't the glaciers melting and polar bears dying and we need to abandon beachfront houses because rising sea levels? I can not keep on top of the changing rules here.
The rules haven't changed, but I am sorry if you can't keep up. The "it's cold so global warming isn't real" schtick is at least a decade old and has been explained ad infinitum.
And yes the glaciers are melting and polar bears are dying and my neighbors are jacking their houses up on stilts and putting removable flood walls in front of their doors and garages.
Because Chittenden Resovoir floods..................................
Wonder why our 25 year old beachfront property in South Carolina hasn't had any issues...except of course during hurricane season? Seems my study of 25 years via my eyes, drinking beers on the beach, and walking around should be quite suitable...no spreadsheet or data sets needed.
Ocean rise over last 25 years has been 3 inches. That's an average. Could you tell if the ocean rose by 3 inches. I doubt most people could without very determined effort. Tributaries are easier.
The true meaning of jhu72's post:
lyingeyes.jpg
And yours translates to "ignore the data, listen to the idiots who tell you what to think"
Sadly MD you are now coming across as one of the idiots who are trying to tell me what to think. When you can explain to me what the hell it is we are trying to prevent. Cancel that... that means a War and Peace diatribe from you that you are so very famous for. I forget that when you are conversing with a republican of some sort, what is the point? Maybe Mittens has time in his busy schedule for you to shine his shoes? You know how you moderates roll.
Hey MD... is there a Hall of Fame out there for popular moderates? In my world a moderate is a person without the intestinal fortitude to have an opinion based in a core set of values. You are the folks that wet your finger, stick it up into the wind and determine what it is you believe. So in your simple minded republican world... we can stop what planet earth will do.
Was I addressing you, cradle?
But ok, you don't like "moderates", particularly Republican moderates.
Nor people who prefer data over wishful thinking.
When you say "data", what do you mean?
You, and others, dismiss my NOAA bouy research. That's data. From a reliable source, no?
THIS bouy:
https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_histo ... tion=41004
1981: Warmest/highest water temp for the entire year was 29.2 degrees C, or
84.56 degrees F. (in June none the less ??? )
https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/view_text_fil ... al/stdmet/
2018 :Warmest/highest temp for the entire year was 30 degrees C, or
86 degrees F (August 7th )
https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/view_text_fil ... al/stdmet/
______________________________________________
HALLOWEEN is today
1981, the warmest water temp for bouy 41004 was 25.6 C/
78F.
In 2018, the warmest water temp recorded for bouy 41004 was 24.3 c/
75.74 .....
... 2.3 degrees "cooler" than almost 40 years ago.
__________________
Keep in mind that :
-data collection instruments have improved, I am assuming
-data recording went from one reading an hour to 6, 1981 to 2018. That is 24 per day versus 144 per day.
-buoy data is only decades old (4)
______________
Conclusions ?
Uummm...You are smarter than the scientists because you noticed those measurements?
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:43 am
by RedFromMI
From the WaPo series on places where the temp has already risen over 2 degrees C:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... te-change/
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:44 am
by runrussellrun
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:56 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:20 am
PB,
Curry at least is in the right ball park of being a former scientist.
Hurricane specialist.
However, any scientist who says she won't publish in peer reviewed journals, loses me, period, end of story.
Curry is indeed a real - in the past scientist. She fell off the wagon
what wagon? when in the late 90's the temperature rise (measured) actually paused, and essentially went side ways for a decade or so. This was not a feature of the climate models at the time. This was a few years later found to be an artifact of oceanic sequestering of CO2, above a certain partial pressure the oceans increase their uptake rate for CO2. This has since been incorporated into the models. The models now track the measured temperature's much better.
Perhaps, but WHO uses this "newer" model ? Curry has never recognized this fact, it was proving too useful to her ego (she was gaining notoriety and dollars) to remain a contrarian.
So NO money to be made going along to get along ? Her objection to models is now based on a twenty year old glitch, since corrected.
Denier "scientists" can basically play one of two games.
What are they denying ? Be specific . If it's that an increase in average temp is no big deal, why are they wrong? Because some backcreek you fished has different mud patterns? guess you don't sail They can refuse to publish in peer reviewed journals or they can "tone it down" in peer reviewed journals. "Tone it down" meaning stay away from the pseudo science in peer reviewed venues, Curry can't or won't do this so her scientific reputation suffers. Guys like Spencer, "tone it down" and continue to get published on the edges of the science, saving their bat beans crazy nonsense for their blogs, popular media and fan boys.
What is regrettable is the scientific publishing business actually has brought this onto itself while having the best intentions to address a real problem with the peer review system. The expense of peer review and shortage of reviewers as the numbers of scientists and engineers increased.
Why is it never peers (plural) review? Is my understanding that it only takes ONE peer to review an article/paper incorrect?
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:47 am
by runrussellrun
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:41 am
Uummm...You are smarter than the scientists because you noticed those measurements?
That's 12 words of snark, not ten. You can do better.
Anyone else have another conclusion other than snark?
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:48 am
by runrussellrun
holmes435 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:41 am
And? Thanks for proving the point that we're seeing more extreme weather patterns.
More extremes?
Tell that to the Donner family
You guys and your belief that the earth is only 150 years old (recorded history/weather )
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:49 am
by Typical Lax Dad
The Pats scoring will be down this Sunday....so their average scoring at the end of the season will be down from last year....?
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:54 am
by runrussellrun
What the heck does sand stone cliff erosion have to do with fake temp data annual average increases ?
and....can the lying WashPost provide pictures of "sea ice" around the Magdolin Islands in the St. Lawrence sea way? (must have been what trapped our new Navy ships )
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:56 am
by runrussellrun
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:49 am
The Pats scoring will be down this Sunday....so their average scoring at the end of the season will be down from last year....?
Get an A and a F, average is a "C"..........and your point is?
SNARK.....
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:59 am
by jhu72
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:44 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:56 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:20 am
PB,
Curry at least is in the right ball park of being a former scientist.
Hurricane specialist.
However, any scientist who says she won't publish in peer reviewed journals, loses me, period, end of story.
Curry is indeed a real - in the past scientist. She fell off the wagon
what wagon? when in the late 90's the temperature rise (measured) actually paused, and essentially went side ways for a decade or so. This was not a feature of the climate models at the time. This was a few years later found to be an artifact of oceanic sequestering of CO2, above a certain partial pressure the oceans increase their uptake rate for CO2. This has since been incorporated into the models. The models now track the measured temperature's much better.
Perhaps, but WHO uses this "newer" model ? Curry has never recognized this fact, it was proving too useful to her ego (she was gaining notoriety and dollars) to remain a contrarian.
So NO money to be made going along to get along ? Her objection to models is now based on a twenty year old glitch, since corrected.
Denier "scientists" can basically play one of two games.
What are they denying ? Be specific . If it's that an increase in average temp is no big deal, why are they wrong? Because some backcreek you fished has different mud patterns? guess you don't sail They can refuse to publish in peer reviewed journals or they can "tone it down" in peer reviewed journals. "Tone it down" meaning stay away from the pseudo science in peer reviewed venues, Curry can't or won't do this so her scientific reputation suffers. Guys like Spencer, "tone it down" and continue to get published on the edges of the science, saving their bat beans crazy nonsense for their blogs, popular media and fan boys.
What is regrettable is the scientific publishing business actually has brought this onto itself while having the best intentions to address a real problem with the peer review system. The expense of peer review and shortage of reviewers as the numbers of scientists and engineers increased.
Why is it never peers (plural) review? Is my understanding that it only takes ONE peer to review an article/paper incorrect?
I have never sat on a peer-review (grant application) board with less than 20 reviewers (frequently more). This an interdisciplinary peer-review. I am sure climate review boards do work the same way. The applicate is given every advantage to make their case. If it is felt that one or two or three reviewers are unreasonably withholding their approval those reviewers are replaced by others in the community and the application is reconsidered by the new board. I have never heard of, or seen a peer review board made up of one reviewer.
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:00 am
by holmes435
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:18 am
And btw, species dying off should not be something to disturb you beyond perhaps sadness; species die off because evolution never stops; those species were never destined to continue nor thrive. Man does not choose evolution's winners; nature does. What god takes, he gives. Something else better conditioned takes the loser's spot. This is true in sports and life.
You've got your head in the sand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... activities
Lots of those species were thriving.
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:06 am
by runrussellrun
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:59 am
I have never sat on a peer-review (grant application) board with less than 20 reviewers (frequently more). This an interdisciplinary peer-review. I am sure climate review boards do work the same way. The applicate is given every advantage to make their case. If it is felt that one or two or three reviewers are unreasonably withholding their approval those reviewers are replaced by others in the community and the application is reconsidered by the new board. I have never heard of, or seen a peer review board made up of one reviewer.
It sounds like there is no "official" process to claim peer review than?
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:16 am
by jhu72
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:06 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:59 am
I have never sat on a peer-review (grant application) board with less than 20 reviewers (frequently more). This an interdisciplinary peer-review. I am sure climate review boards do work the same way. The applicate is given every advantage to make their case. If it is felt that one or two or three reviewers are unreasonably withholding their approval those reviewers are replaced by others in the community and the application is reconsidered by the new board. I have never heard of, or seen a peer review board made up of one reviewer.
It sounds like there is no "official" process to claim peer review than?
Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is a highly (written) process driven discipline. Largely subject matter independent.
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:23 am
by RedFromMI
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:16 am
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:06 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:59 am
I have never sat on a peer-review (grant application) board with less than 20 reviewers (frequently more). This an interdisciplinary peer-review. I am sure climate review boards do work the same way. The applicate is given every advantage to make their case. If it is felt that one or two or three reviewers are unreasonably withholding their approval those reviewers are replaced by others in the community and the application is reconsidered by the new board. I have never heard of, or seen a peer review board made up of one reviewer.
It sounds like there is no "official" process to claim peer review than?
Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is a highly (written) process driven discipline. Largely subject matter independent.
We are speaking of two sorts of peer review - that for obtaining grant funding (almost always a large group effort in the sciences) and that used for determining worth of publication. The latter is much smaller, but always involves one or more editors, who have proven their worth in science, plus at a very minimum of two experts in the particular subfield being presented. If there are any questions over the review process, more are involved to make sure.
When you are first starting out as a researcher, you will not be involved in the peer review process for any publications. Only after you have achieved some success in both publishing and usually obtaining grants will you get involved at that level.
Grant application review boards/committees generally require even more seniority and respect within the field to become part of.
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:24 am
by Oldbarndog
Wish we could move on from the constant fixation with temperature and focus on pursuing the means to utilize resources in a way that will leave my grandkids with cleaner air and water, safe food sources and the means to earn a decent living. To lock into one data point and downplay or minimize the rest as both sides push agendas is ridiculous. Regardless of your position on CC/GW, is there any logical reason why this can't happen?
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:30 am
by Typical Lax Dad
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:56 am
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:49 am
The Pats scoring will be down this Sunday....so their average scoring at the end of the season will be down from last year....?
Get an A and a F, average is a "C"..........and your point is?
SNARK.....
What about the mid term and finals? Kid going to end up with a C based on just those two data points? Hey Dad, I’ll stop drinking and get my grades up!