Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
Decided to turn up did you? Ready for those salient facts? :) Here is one: We have added about 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since preindustrial times. During that time the earths temperature has risen by (accoring to the IPCC) 0.6`C Even if you attribute all that rise to CO2 (which is difficult since you have to discount the natural forces that raised temperature for the previous 150 years) then that rise is in line with laboratory experiments, which show a doubling of CO2 will lead to a 1`C rise in temperature. Since this rise is well below the stated danger limit of 2`C there is no need for action, and in fact, along with CO2 increasing crop yields, should be welcomed. (Note that computer models use positive feedbacks to quadruple the effect of CO2, and effect clearly not evident in the rise to date). So lets sumarise. Warming of the globe is a very different thing to the catastrophic warming touted by some scientists. Yes, the globe has been warming (since 1750) and will probably continue to do so. This is not refuted except by complete lunatics. However also note that the globe has been cooling for 10,000 years (Greenland and Vostock ice core data). OK, that is two salient facts. Perhaps three. But I am sure you can see themn as irrefutable. :) (Oh, and one further thing. The BEST study, which has validated the NOAA, HADCRUT and GISS surface station station series has not dealt with the very obvious fact that many surface stations are badly sited.) ==edit== I see Mr Bigmouth stil hasnt got the cojones to respond. Perhaps the salient facts are making him choke? :)
============================== Nothing to say.
Could someone explain something to me please.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
We have added about 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since preindustrial times.
If that is the case then - and here's the question - has the Earth's atmosphere increased in volume; i'e is it thicker now than it used to be OR has the composition of the atmosphere changed; i'e has the amount of oxygen/nitrogen reduced as the amount of C02 has increased? This is something that has had me pondering for a long while.
Why can't I find a signature that I can stick with? Are they all gone?
-
Could someone explain something to me please.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
We have added about 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since preindustrial times.
If that is the case then - and here's the question - has the Earth's atmosphere increased in volume; i'e is it thicker now than it used to be OR has the composition of the atmosphere changed; i'e has the amount of oxygen/nitrogen reduced as the amount of C02 has increased? This is something that has had me pondering for a long while.
Why can't I find a signature that I can stick with? Are they all gone?
Volume is dependent on the energy in the atmosphere, aparently the height the stratosphere extends to varies, based on this. However, by taking carbon from the ground and putting it in the air we must have increased its mass.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
The Earth's surface really is getting warmer, a new analysis by a US scientific group set up in the wake of the "Climategate" affair has concluded.
The study is by Berkeley Earth Project[^], an 'independent' group who were set up and funded by climate change sceptics. Who'd have thunk it.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Could someone explain something to me please.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
We have added about 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since preindustrial times.
If that is the case then - and here's the question - has the Earth's atmosphere increased in volume; i'e is it thicker now than it used to be OR has the composition of the atmosphere changed; i'e has the amount of oxygen/nitrogen reduced as the amount of C02 has increased? This is something that has had me pondering for a long while.
Why can't I find a signature that I can stick with? Are they all gone?
Well, if we take carbon and burn together with oxygen from the atmosphere it creates the same amount in molecules of CO2 as the amount of O2 it uses. If you know the Ideal Gas Law[^] you know that the volume will stay the same if the temperature stays the same. So the weight of the atmosphere will go up. But whether the volume goes up or down is a political question you'll have to answer yourself. ;-)
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
Well, if we take carbon and burn together with oxygen from the atmosphere it creates the same amount in molecules of CO2 as the amount of O2 it uses. If you know the Ideal Gas Law[^] you know that the volume will stay the same if the temperature stays the same. So the weight of the atmosphere will go up. But whether the volume goes up or down is a political question you'll have to answer yourself. ;-)
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
Well, if we take carbon and burn together with oxygen from the atmosphere it creates the same amount in molecules of CO2 as the amount of O2 it uses.
Ok. I can understand that. So, if we are converting 02 to CO2 by burning fossil fuels and the like, and we, as a species, are reducing the amount of oxygen generating plant life (deforestation) are we not in danger of suffocating ourselves? Or are there other ways in which atmospheric oxygen is generated? My point is, are we not in danger of suffocation long before climate change makes the planet unbearable?
Why can't I find a signature that I can stick with? Are they all gone?
-
How are those salient facts digesting? With difficulty or are you stil living in denial? :laugh:
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
Well, if we take carbon and burn together with oxygen from the atmosphere it creates the same amount in molecules of CO2 as the amount of O2 it uses.
Ok. I can understand that. So, if we are converting 02 to CO2 by burning fossil fuels and the like, and we, as a species, are reducing the amount of oxygen generating plant life (deforestation) are we not in danger of suffocating ourselves? Or are there other ways in which atmospheric oxygen is generated? My point is, are we not in danger of suffocation long before climate change makes the planet unbearable?
Why can't I find a signature that I can stick with? Are they all gone?
Deforestation is a problem in many ways, but it isn't a problem concerning CO2 levels. All the carbon that is bound to organic mass is released back to the atmosphere again when it's decaying. So forests are making plus minus zero concerning the CO2 levels.
Ben Breeg wrote:
My point is, are we not in danger of suffocation long before climate change makes the planet unbearable
What comes first, lack of oxygen or toxic levels of CO2? Anyway, the CO2 levels when the dinosaurs roamed the planet [^]was up to ten times higher than today depending on who you choose to believe. And we know that plant growth is increased considerably when the CO2 levels go up, which is the reason many greenhouse farmers are having artificially raised CO2 levels in their greenhouses. This accellerated plant growth was probably the reason the dinosaurs became so big, they had enough food. My point with this is that a higher CO2 level isn't necessary a problem in the large picture, it will be balanced by a larger biomass. In the smaller picture it might of course be a problem, I for an example live in a harbour town. For other people it might be something good. Especially when you think about the fact that we are approaching 7 billion people. Then a better plant growth is something good when we have to feed them. And if we want to lower the amount of CO2, this can only be done one way, by removing biomass from the cycle. Which happens for example in peat bogs. Another way would be to dig down paper instead of recycling it. And just to make it clear, I am against the use of nonsustainable energy resources, not because of the CO2, but because of all the other poisons we are releasing into the nature our kids will be living in.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
How's that dead horse of yours, up and about now? ;P [Edit: Pithiness]
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
ict558 wrote:
How's that dead horse of yours, up and about now?
Nay lad, nay (pronounced neigh). :) What I hate is Nagys drive by foul mouthing, and then total utter inability/lack of manliness, in not entering into a debate. Typical GW supporter. Only argument thay have is as hominem attacks. Still, I derive much pleasure from their continued feebleness in debate, shows they have nothing. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Chiropractic is B.S. when they do things like 1) sell homeopathy, vitamins and other crap 2) perform cervical manipulations (especially without giving due informed consent for risk of vertebral artery dissection and stroke) 3) advise on medical issues unrelated to their field, such as alternative vaccination schedules or eschewing vaccinations etc. 4) offer routine 'adjustments' and diagnose 'subluxations' 5) imply that 'disease is based in the spine' etc. Chiropractic is evidence based when they 6) perform spinal manipulation for lower back pain And that's about it. Pseudodoctors with 4 year pseudodegrees practicing pseudomedicine for gullible patients with big wallets. Spinal manipulation could just as easily be done by physiotherapists without all the hullaballoo.
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
he for one has an MD
This is the Internet, how would we know?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I certainly wouldn't consider him unqualified to talk about medicine
If his bedside manner is anything like his web site manner, I certainly wouldn't consider him 'qualified' to practice it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He appreciates the value of a formal education because he's been through one of the toughest
Ooh. Will I be cured if I touch the hem of his garment? Come on - he's just a Maintenance Engineer with a bigger set of manuals.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
and deals all the time with people who think that reading a bit about it on the Internet is as good.
So do (in my case, did) we all. However, some doctors are happy to encourage patients to understand their illness and its treatment. My daughter's neurologist, for example. (Pre-Google though, she had to reference dead tree libraries.) It saved her from being prescribed contraindicated drugs by his assistant. (Surprisingly, that young man didn't mind being corrected by a 16 year old 'non-scientist', perhaps he skipped the Arrogance modules in Med. School.) BTW: I, like many others on this site, have worked with scientists. Also, I have had some 10 or so GPs (family doctors). From this very small sample, I can unscientifically say that GPs ain't scientists - as I said: Maintenance Engineers, with bigger manuals. (And nowadays, they can pretend to be reading your records, whilst desperately Googling your symptoms. ;) )
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
ict558 wrote:
This is the Internet, how would we know?
Well, I can't know for sure, but I have no reason to doubt him and several reasons to believe him.
ict558 wrote:
If his bedside manner is anything like his web site manner, I certainly wouldn't consider him 'qualified' to practice it.
So you're saying that only 'nice guys' can be doctors? I mean, I'm sure he is a nice guy, but I prefer professional and competent over nice.
ict558 wrote:
Ooh. Will I be cured if I touch the hem of his garment? Come on - he's just a Maintenance Engineer with a bigger set of manuals.
So you're saying that med school isn't tough? You think if you had a bunch of medical textbooks you could treat people as well as he can?
ict558 wrote:
However, some doctors are happy to encourage patients to understand their illness and its treatment. My daughter's neurologist, for example. (Pre-Google though, she had to reference dead tree libraries.) It saved her from being prescribed contraindicated drugs by his assistant. (Surprisingly, that young man didn't mind being corrected by a 16 year old 'non-scientist', perhaps he skipped the Arrogance modules in Med. School.)
What's your point?
-
ict558 wrote:
This is the Internet, how would we know?
Well, I can't know for sure, but I have no reason to doubt him and several reasons to believe him.
ict558 wrote:
If his bedside manner is anything like his web site manner, I certainly wouldn't consider him 'qualified' to practice it.
So you're saying that only 'nice guys' can be doctors? I mean, I'm sure he is a nice guy, but I prefer professional and competent over nice.
ict558 wrote:
Ooh. Will I be cured if I touch the hem of his garment? Come on - he's just a Maintenance Engineer with a bigger set of manuals.
So you're saying that med school isn't tough? You think if you had a bunch of medical textbooks you could treat people as well as he can?
ict558 wrote:
However, some doctors are happy to encourage patients to understand their illness and its treatment. My daughter's neurologist, for example. (Pre-Google though, she had to reference dead tree libraries.) It saved her from being prescribed contraindicated drugs by his assistant. (Surprisingly, that young man didn't mind being corrected by a 16 year old 'non-scientist', perhaps he skipped the Arrogance modules in Med. School.)
What's your point?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
So you're saying that med school isn't tough?
Certainly not. Memorising such a large 'set of manuals', the diagnostic techniques, and the science that underpins them is a considerable feat. My point is that his role is that of a Maintenance Engineer - not a scientist. The 'hem of his garment' snark was due to my experience of the failings of GPs, all of whom had been through Med. School.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You think if you had a bunch of medical textbooks you could treat people as well as he can?
Not my point at all. He has the bunch of medical textbooks, the medical journals, etc. Those are his maintenance manuals.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
So you're saying that only 'nice guys' can be doctors? I mean, I'm sure he is a nice guy, but I prefer professional and competent over nice.
I wasn't referring to his 'nice'-ness. Merely that too much arrogance can lead to poor diagnoses.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What's your point?
Would WristiSlaps respond in the same way to a 'non-scientist' patient?
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
jschell wrote:
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Your "hypothetical" scenarios cannot exist in the real world as it applies to the automobile market.Are you seriously that dence. What part of "Hypothetical" do you not understand? It is not wether it is real or not. It is about what happens if it is... Let me put this in idiot terms. IF you were smart, would you continue to come back here with no facts and no argument? Well I think it is clear this is also fantasy, but it can still be answered. That is the point of using Hypothetical cases[^]. If you do not understand this then do not respond to the case with "that can't happen".
jschell wrote:
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is close to being owned.
The automobile market - not even close. Far, far from close.
Please name the people who owns the following companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry#By_manufacturer[^]
Then name who owns these companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_car_brands[^]Not sure why you are quoting me... I was quoting your statement. You said it. Not me. No more point in arguing that one. You gave in already :)
jschell wrote:
I ALREADY said that price fixing exists. What I SAID was that for your example to work it would have had to been done in a market that was owned (or involved thousands of people) and it would have had to exist for decades at least. And that NO ONE knows about it.
And guess what your example proves every single point that I made.
At the time that it occurred Microsoft owned the market (ignoring the rest of the world by the way in which there were competitors not impacted.)
It did not last for decades.
And it is certainly known about - becaCollin Jasnoch wrote:
Are you seriously that dence. What part of "Hypothetical" do you not understand?
I understand that they do not apply to the discussion. No more so than if you claimed that demons from hell were running the companies.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Not sure why you are quoting me... I was quoting your statement.
You said "It is close to being owned." Which is exactly what I quoted. If you misspoke then you should make it clear. Although nothing that followed that suggested that you understood that the automobile market is not close to being owned by a single entity.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Always fail -> Nope. Looks like I provided a case where MS made out like a bandit.
Err...it failed because it is no longer going on and because the public knows about it.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Microsoft did NOT own the market. Have you ever heard of SunSystems or Apple?
You brought up DeBeers as an example of a monolithic entity that owns an entire market as an ANALOGY to the automobile market. My presumption is that you actually understood how much of the market that company controls, why it controls it, how it maintains that control, and why it is allowed to continue to control it in that manner. In contrast to what it would take for the automobile industry to suppress a 'better' car based on entity owning the market. No entity does. Since there is some confusion at this point...your analogy is not apt. It is not comparable in a vast number of ways to the automobile market. I was merely trying to demonstrate how lacking your analogy was. Since that is obviously pointless I will just reject it out of hand.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
What the frick does battery improvement over the last 30 years have to do with it
Don't know what to tell you there. You introduced Durcell into the conversation. You introduced battery lifetime as well. Presumably you thought those were relevant.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Simply put, you buy a battery for you remote, RC Car, Flashlight, Dildo, whatever and you NEVER in your entire life would need to buy another one for it.
So lets see... First that has nothing to do with what I sa
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Are you seriously that dence. What part of "Hypothetical" do you not understand?
I understand that they do not apply to the discussion. No more so than if you claimed that demons from hell were running the companies.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Not sure why you are quoting me... I was quoting your statement.
You said "It is close to being owned." Which is exactly what I quoted. If you misspoke then you should make it clear. Although nothing that followed that suggested that you understood that the automobile market is not close to being owned by a single entity.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Always fail -> Nope. Looks like I provided a case where MS made out like a bandit.
Err...it failed because it is no longer going on and because the public knows about it.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Microsoft did NOT own the market. Have you ever heard of SunSystems or Apple?
You brought up DeBeers as an example of a monolithic entity that owns an entire market as an ANALOGY to the automobile market. My presumption is that you actually understood how much of the market that company controls, why it controls it, how it maintains that control, and why it is allowed to continue to control it in that manner. In contrast to what it would take for the automobile industry to suppress a 'better' car based on entity owning the market. No entity does. Since there is some confusion at this point...your analogy is not apt. It is not comparable in a vast number of ways to the automobile market. I was merely trying to demonstrate how lacking your analogy was. Since that is obviously pointless I will just reject it out of hand.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
What the frick does battery improvement over the last 30 years have to do with it
Don't know what to tell you there. You introduced Durcell into the conversation. You introduced battery lifetime as well. Presumably you thought those were relevant.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Simply put, you buy a battery for you remote, RC Car, Flashlight, Dildo, whatever and you NEVER in your entire life would need to buy another one for it.
So lets see... First that has nothing to do with what I sa
You talk of 'real' world yet you clearly do not live in it. You critisize my arguments, yet provide no actually facts or logical reasoning for that matter. My examples have been concrete facts and hypothetical situations. Of which both you are unable to discuss on other than claim they are not related. You are clearly a horrible debater. Unless you want to come back with non opion statements move a long nothing else to see here. As I said before, leave the debating to the big kids.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
You talk of 'real' world yet you clearly do not live in it. You critisize my arguments, yet provide no actually facts or logical reasoning for that matter. My examples have been concrete facts and hypothetical situations. Of which both you are unable to discuss on other than claim they are not related. You are clearly a horrible debater. Unless you want to come back with non opion statements move a long nothing else to see here. As I said before, leave the debating to the big kids.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You critisize my arguments, yet provide no actually facts or logical reasoning for that matter.
The fact that you couldn't follow it does not lead to that statement. I didn't need to do much since you kept providing examples that supported me and contradicted you. In reading from your first response I really like the fact that you start out by claiming that the market will not adjust and then provided your Durcell example which is as specific example of a market doing just that. It specifically supports what I said. 1. Competitive markets are in fact competitive. 2. Innovations that produce a 'better' product do in fact make it to the market. 3. This specifically contradicts your claims that innovation is suppressed when it is seen as negatively impacting total product sales. Contradicts it in a big way since longer battery life has been a primary market driver for at least a decade and probably two. And spans the entire market as well.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You critisize my arguments, yet provide no actually facts or logical reasoning for that matter.
The fact that you couldn't follow it does not lead to that statement. I didn't need to do much since you kept providing examples that supported me and contradicted you. In reading from your first response I really like the fact that you start out by claiming that the market will not adjust and then provided your Durcell example which is as specific example of a market doing just that. It specifically supports what I said. 1. Competitive markets are in fact competitive. 2. Innovations that produce a 'better' product do in fact make it to the market. 3. This specifically contradicts your claims that innovation is suppressed when it is seen as negatively impacting total product sales. Contradicts it in a big way since longer battery life has been a primary market driver for at least a decade and probably two. And spans the entire market as well.
Are you seriously that dence?
jschell wrote:
I didn't need to do much since you kept providing examples that supported me and contradicted you.
You apparently can't read then.
jschell wrote:
In reading from your first response I really like the fact that you start out by claiming that the market will not adjust and then provided your Durcell example which is as specific example of a market doing just that. It specifically supports what I said.
Again are you really that dence? For one, this was a hypothetical situation. Therefore you can not use the 'outcome' of it as evidence, for it has not happened. For two, my argument was it will not be released due to profit decline. Learn to read before hitting the post button.
jschell wrote:
1. Competitive markets are in fact competitive
Ahhh... Thats like saying Blue is blue so I must be right. My point was the competition gets squashed out. Again, learn to read before hitting post (I re-iterate... Maybe it will help you :))
jschell wrote:
Innovations that produce a 'better' product do in fact make it to the market.
Nope. You still have not provided any evidence disproving what I have said or facts I have given. I gave you many examples of larger companies squashing competition ragardless of their innovations. Have you ever heard of Patent Trolls? Guess not. Simply put you are dead wrong here. I have given you ample evidence supporting it yet you have provided no counter evidence.
jschell wrote:
This specifically contradicts your claims that innovation is suppressed when it is seen as negatively impacting total product sales. Contradicts it in a big way since longer battery life has been a primary market driver for at least a decade and probably two. And spans the entire market as well.
Again, you don't get it. It is not about 'longer' battery life. It is about 'infinite' battery life. It is the same principal as service providers that offer a "Life-Time" membership. It seems like a good idea to both parties at first, but as time goes on it is a guarenteed loss. TV-Replay is an example of this. They offered lifetime membership to users quite a few years ago. It basically was paying 2 years worth of service up front and you
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
sell homeopathy
Thats a homeopath, not a chirppractor. In fact the AECC does not teach homeopathy.
Fisticuffs wrote:
vitamins
I see, so vitamins are crap are they? Lack of Ascorbic acide does not cause scurvy, vitamin D rickets? Have you published any papers on this or are your opinions just empty?
Fisticuffs wrote:
perform cervical manipulations (especially without giving due informed consent for risk of vertebral artery dissection and stroke)
Malpractice is unfortunately common in all medical fields but does not negate its efficacy.
Fisticuffs wrote:
advise on medical issues unrelated to their field, such as alternative vaccination schedules or eschewing vaccinations
Not taught by the AECC.
Fisticuffs wrote:
offer routine 'adjustments' and diagnose 'subluxations'
Entirely necessary and beneficial in many cases.
Fisticuffs wrote:
imply that 'disease is based in the spine'
etc.This is not taught by the AECC.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Spinal manipulation could just as easily be done by physiotherapists
And very effective they are too.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Heh. What for? He's got it allllll figured out. He's worked in engineering, and had family doctors, so he knows everything about the profession already - doctors are like engineers and don't need to be able to think scientifically or do science, medicine is really just about memorizing a bunch of books and facts, patients in real life are treated exactly like you would treat someone online, and I'm probably not a real doctor anyway, I just play one on the internet. Did I miss anything? :D
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
The fact is that I'm not a climate scientist and ultimately my opinion on the raw data or cherry-picked studies is worth nothing.
The fact is that you are not a psychologist either, so "It's a broad psychological phenomenon - the less someone knows about something, the more people [they] are likely to overestimate their knowledge of it." is also worth nothing. (Otherwise: The less one knows about people, the more one is likely to over estimate one's knowledge of them, would also hold true.) Pip, pip, Doc!
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
ict558 wrote:
The fact is that you are not a psychologist either, so "It's a broad psychological phenomenon - the less someone knows about something, the more people [they] are likely to overestimate their knowledge of it." is also worth nothing.
Yes, I have received no training in and know absolutely nothing about psychology or human behavior to successfully practice medicine. It is in no way relevant at all to what I do every day and I have no experience dealing with people who think they know more than they do because they happened to read a little bit about it on the internet. Congratulations, genius - you got me.
- F
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Entirely necessary and beneficial in many cases.
Crap. As chiros describe them, subluxations are a made-up disease. Routine adjustments have no value.
- F
I hope you have a bad back one day, one where your legs go numb, where you have sciatica, where you have involuntary muscle contractions due to it. Where you cant wal for more than a few hundred yards, and cant sit for more than 20 minutes. You will then know just how effective chiropractic is.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
I hope you have a bad back one day, one where your legs go numb, where you have sciatica, where you have involuntary muscle contractions due to it. Where you cant wal for more than a few hundred yards, and cant sit for more than 20 minutes. You will then know just how effective chiropractic is.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
You will then know just how effective chiropractic is.
Personally, I wouldn't lecture an M.D. on the effectiveness of a medical procedure. He actually did make an allowance for spinal manipulations to treat lower back pain.
