What We Can and Can't Say About Global Warming and Hurricane Dean
Hurricane Dean at landfall early this morning, image courtesy of the Weather Underground.
Now we see why the ancient Mayans built their cities inland from the coasts.
Early this morning, Hurricane Dean slammed the Yucatan as a still-intensifying Category 5 storm with sustained winds upwards of 165 miles per hour. Dean required some troubling readjustments of our hurricane records, and as a result, we may hear some serious chatter today about the relationship between these intense storms and global warming.
For that reason, the purpose of this post is to lay out what we can and can't reliably say about Hurricane Dean. The upshot is this: We have to be careful what we claim and how we claim it, but even so, Dean fits into a worrisome pattern.
Here are the key records that Dean either broke or otherwise affects:
1. With a minimum central pressure of 906 millibars, Dean was the ninth most intense hurricane ever observed in the Atlantic basin (for comparison Hurricane Katrina's minimum pressure was 902 millibars).
2. That 906 millibar pressure reading was at landfall, making Dean the third most intense landfalling hurricane known in the Atlantic region and the first Category 5 storm at landfall since 1992's Hurricane Andrew.
3. When measured by minimum pressure, six of the ten most intense Atlantic hurricanes--Wilma, Rita, Katrina, Mitch, Dean, and Ivan--have occurred in the past ten years.
We can't blame any one hurricane event on global warming directly. Nevertheless, the information above is certainly consistent with the idea advanced by some scientists that global warming is causing an intensification of the average hurricane. We're apparently seeing the strongest hurricanes recur in the Atlantic with a higher frequency than before -- or at least, than we've ever been able to measure before.
Measuring systems weren't as good in earlier eras, you see -- a fact that makes our records somewhat impeachable. A "record" is only what's recorded, after all. And so skeptics will inevitably quibble with our imperfect data and challenge it. There might well have been a storm much stronger than Dean 200 years ago -- we just don't know.
Nevertheless, if you look at the data we have, Dean fits into a very troubling pattern and context. Moreover, the present data, with all their admitted imperfections, aren't all we have to go on. There's also the theoretical expectation that hurricanes ought to intensify, for basic thermodynamic reasons, as global warming adds more heat to the oceans. Add together this theoretical expectation with the new records today and, well, anyone would be justified in feeling pretty worried by Hurricane Dean.
Dean was also the strongest hurricane anywhere in the world so far this year -- and by far the strongest at landfall. We can only hope that somehow, the damage is lighter than expected as the storm tears across the Yucatan today and then prepares to cross the Bay of Campeche and make a second expected landfall in mainland Mexico.
For a further and more detailed discussion of Dean in its Atlantic and global context, see my "Storm Pundit" post at The Daily Green, available here.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It's amazing how global warming deniers tend to dominate these threads. They seem to be really motivated. I wonder why? But never mind all that. Global Warming is a big threat. Bigger than terrorism maybe. We seem to think it's OK to act if we even suspect that someone is thinking about committing an act of terrorism. So why do we hesitate to act when we suspect that humans might be causing global warming? As the hawks like to say "Should we wait until we're attacked first?" Well should we?
Ha! That's funny, nice try. The difference is, with terrorism they can just send some kid they don't know off as cannon fodder, with Global Warming they might have to get rid of the Suburban or move out of the McMansion.
I think they are paid shills for the fossil fuel corporations, who search every day for articles, posts and blogs that talk about GW so they can sidetrack and confuse as much as possible.
Remember, those fossil fuel corporations are raking in the money right now, so they can pay lots and lots of trolls to do their dirty work.
It IS dirty, too.
splash,
Of course they are!
The White House offered $10,000 each to these "concerned" parties for anything pointing AWAY from GW as the cause of extreme weather.
http://www
http://www
Google “white house””global warming”$10,000 - 141,000 HITS!
Look energy efficiency is a good thing WITHIN limits. We do not need a bunch of energy Nazi's running around telling everyone how to live any more than we do not want any particular religion running around telling everyone how to live.
Suggestions, debate, and persuasion are fine enough but you do not have the right to stuff the global warming thing down anyone's throat.
I want to see us be energy independent. I hate the fact that we are giving money to the Saudi scum, that ape Chavez, Mexico, or even Canada. We have plenty of energy. We need to find clean efficient ways to use the coal and oil we have.
We need to build more wind plants and make more usage of solar. God knows we have enough geothermal energy at Yellowstone and Long Valley Caldera in California to power a huge chunk of the countries' electric grid.
Maybe a national system of grants or tax cuts to lower and lower middle class families who own ancient homes in so many of the older cities to make their homes energy efficient (new furnaces and a/c units, new windows, energy-saving siding and cladding, new wiring, insulation installation).
How about a tax reduction or grant and fee hike system that rewards people to get rid of older cars in favor of newer, energy-efficient ones and penalyzes those who don't.
Hey, if some one was going to give me a "once every 7 years tax free year or a $10,000 grant (whichever is less)" to buy a new car, I'd buy a hybrid and get rid of my antique Maxima.
I like the idea of a preemptive climate change challenge. And George Soros should front a $1 billion to the first to succeed.
Where are focus should be is locating the pre-historic SUV's responsible for ending the lastice age. Im just sayin.
Today, 8/21/07, was the COLDEST DAY EVER IN NYC--59-degrees. The average temp. is 82.
Gore's 'man-made global warming' = Bush's 'Saddam's got weapons of mass destruction'.
'Man-made global warming' is the biggest crock of crap that the counter-culture ever tried to get over on the consumer.
SanTha,
I don't know...
Sounds like some pretty extreme weather you got there, buddy....
Record, you say?
Santha,
Also, prtty sneaky plan we got to "get over on the consumer" ....to get them to CONSUME LESS?
Exactly, how does that work, friend?
Thank you.
Most scientist who endorse man-made global warming are not climate scientists. The sun is getting hoter. The earths rotational axis has changed. Other planets are getting hotter. CO2 does rise after temperature does. Hurricanes become less frequent with an overall warmer planet. Polar ice has melted less than 1% and it is only during summer months.
All of those things are scientific facts. But they conviently find there way out of many climate studies. Then come in the extremist who use the "you must be and idiot defense." You know the one where it's man's fault and for you to think otherwise is just childish. That's like saying if you're against the war you're unamerican. It's childish. We have only been recording hurricane intensity for less than 100 years. We have do idea what kind of storms devastated land in the past. Once again extreme enviromentalists only choose a particular past rather than the whole thing.
Richandler: "Most scientist who endorse man-made global warming are not climate scientists
This one is pure assertion, not a "scientific fact." Source? Citation?
"The sun is getting hoter."
Yes, solar radiance is increasing by about .01% per decade, if I recall correctly. Not enough to make a measurable difference in global mean temperature over the last 50 or even 100 years. In the short term solar radiance will increase as we are just beginning the next ~11 year sun spot cycle.
"The earths rotational axis has changed."
Yes, and it will continue to change, both in degree of tilt and in the direction of the tilt (wobble), and Earth's orbit will become more elliptical, ultimately taking us into another *real* ice age (as opposed to a faux "little" one), unless the planet warms sufficiently to overcome the effects of these orbital Milankovetch cycles.
"Other planets are getting hotter."
Some are, none of them from an increase in solar radiance, since there hasn't been any beyond that mentioned above.
continued.
...continu
Richandler: "CO2 does rise after temperature does."
It can, such as at the end of an ice age, when increased solar insolation due to the above Milankovetch cycles begins the warming, but then the CO2 induces even greater warming. Short circuit the process by injecting billions of tonnes of fossil carbon into the atmosphere and CO2 will *lead* temperature.
"Hurricanes become less frequent with an overall warmer planet."
They could, if it becomes warm enough such that there is very much less difference in the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. I don't think you'll like the other side effects much, though. Say goodbye to Florida and much of the eastern seaboard, for instance.
"Polar ice has melted less than 1% and it is only during summer months."
I think your figure is very much out of date. You also overlook the fact that each winter the ice refreezes to a lesser depth, which is part of the reason why more and more is melting each successive summer.
"All of those things are scientific facts. But they conviently find there way out of many climate studies."
Sorry, but increases in solar insolation due to long term increases in the solar constant, the sun spot cycle, and the Milankovetch cycles are very much included in climate studies, as are the well known and experimentally confirmed greenhouse mechanism of CO2, hurricanes, which transfer vast quantities of heat from the tropics to the upper latitudes, and polar ice, which reflects incoming solar energy back into space.
But thanks for stopping by and demonstrating how little you understand about that which you so freely express your opinion on.
Well said!
Ex-man,
YES!
Thank you.
So you were holding back, saving up to blast EVERYONE out of the water at once!?
Beautiful!
What continues to confuse me is the corporate whores have to breathe air and drink water too. They too shall perish with us "little people" when catastrophe strikes.
They'll own all that beach-front property in the Himalayas.
I say keep burning everything we can get our filthy hands on and just see what happens. I call it Preemptive Climate Challenge. It's kind of like invading a country you know nothing about just to see if anything good happens. Worked so well with Iraq that we should try it with the entire planet. I mean God will never let anything really bad happen to His children will he?
How we could make a bigger mess of it, I'd like to know?
Oh that's right. We evolved nukes.
I miss being able to burn my trash outside, but not this much.
Do they burn trash outside in heaven?
Pax,
M.
"Do they burn trash outside in heaven?" - Marioth
No, they ship it to China and let THEM do it. ;)
Here is a simple question to all your global warming naysayers. Whereas I don't have the numbers available, I think it is safe to conclude that at least 80% of the serious scientists working on the climate conclude that not only is the planet warming at an alarming rate, but humans are making a significant contribution to this crisis. That means that approximately 20% of the working scientists would be skeptics, and included among these skeptics are some very intelligent people. In addition, that also means that there is only a (very) large majority and not a consensus. My question and/or challenge for any if not all of you naysayers is to provide some positive to this debate, which means tell me why I should weigh the work of the 20% over that of the 80%. Anyone dare to respond?
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
-Marcus Aurelius
Every great scientist, at one point found himself in the minority. Scientific "consensus" did not accept Plate Tectionics until fifty years ago, even thought the theory is almost a hundred years old. Evolution, Relativity, and Heliocentric Theory, were all minority opinions when they were released.
80% of Americans believe in God. Does than mean he's real?
TS,
If you say so: 80% believe in a "creator" as does every society on earth (I'm told.)
A creator might be physics, the cosmos, math, nature, a man on a throne, a huge clockwork, a little blue guy, or.....?
If you exist you were created. If you were created there is a "creator"?
The question is not "is there a god", but rather "Is there a YOU?"
Well, is there?
You need to do better than that. Arguing that many great scientists were once in the minority is very cute and fun. I'm much more interested in the evidence.
There is truth to your point and I don't really disagree with it. However, wouldn't a naysayer point out that the majority is not always right? The majority of the world's scientists thought the world was flat for quite some time. Admittedly I don't know the numbers on this (I doubt anyone does), but I have to assume that the economic cost of implementing all of the changes necessary to effect the changes needed to "stop" global warming would be significant. If the 80% end up being wrong, that would be a heavy price to pay for their error. We know for certain that agreeing with the 80% would result in this sort of burden. We don't know for certain that agreeing with the 20% would result in any burden whatsoever. All that being said, I would still agree with the 80%.
I agree with you about the naysayers. I just think that they would do some real good if they were able to demonstrate why their experts are better than the 80%. Doubters have always existed, and quite a few have proven quite valuable to the course of human history. It is still their burden to bring the rest of us along with them, something I've yet to see from the global warming naysayers. Regarding stopping global warming, it will indeed be quite painful to do so. I don't even think we could; our best course is to lessen its impact on all of us.
Indeed, the more I think about it, the more annoying the naysayers are. Many of them claim that those who accept that the earth is warming are fascists, wanting to control and weaken the American economy. I've yet to meet anyone, who thinks this way.
What might we say to the 20%ers?
Should one stop believing in evolution if 20% of "so-called" scientists stopped believing?
Aren't here some "very intelligent people" telling us:
THE SURGE is working?
That all chosen people will be taken up "in the twinkling of an eye"?
That the planet is less than 6,000 years old?
(How's that?)
Pretty good.
Why are any of you buying into this 80/20 b.s. in the first place? It's more like 6 dissenters out of 1,600. This is a red herring.
I was trying to err on the side of extreme caution in order to make a point. I want to see more than "hot air" coming from the naysayers. If they are so certain that their minority of "experts" are correct, and that the "80%" are full of it, then it is their burden to provide some evidence. Not a red herring, more like calling them to show their cards.
Philistine writes: It's more like 6 dissenters out of 1,600
Link please.
What I've seen indicates It's actually more than 20% of climate scientists that are skeptics.
Because we're "good" Democrats.
phil,
Frankly, I "buy into it" out of gratitude that they didn't grab some number like 17.83666% as it floated by.
phil,
Talk about a "red herring"!
Here’s the metamorphosis of the 80/20 ratio:
Actually, Anotherunh
TIMMYSLAGLE then came along with: "80% of Americans believe in God. Does than mean he's real?"
(I was able to prove that God WAS real, and I hoped I’d never hear from TS again.)
After that,
TIMMYSLAGLE came back with: "Can we accept 20 / 80 now?"
No one, not EVEN TimmySlagle EVER seriously proposed the 80/20 until Timmy’s comment above, at which point it became a SERIOUS STATISTIC, with TS actually believing it as gospel (pardon the pun).
At that point he was so caught up in this fantasy that he actually seemed wholeheartedly to believe it was real.
You suppose this is how all the bogus info and spurious numbers get started?
WOW! Should we contact SKEPTIC magazine?
BB,
Please re-consider accepting this. There is nothing in it that hasn't already been accepted in comments on this very page.
Thank you.
I'll dare. The skeptic 20% provide real scientific rebuttal to the global warming alarmists who are morphing into pseudo religion. The reaction to the discovery by climate audit of errors in the temperature record is illustrative. I do recommend for both believers and skeptics the website http://www
When NYC is inundated by 30 feet of water from a "modest" CAT 3 storm, who will care who's fault it is?
When Florida, Holland, Bangledesh and other sea-level communities disappear from history, who will waste time debating who's fault it is?
And when New Orleans and other areas in the Gulf of Mexico, including uncounted oil platforms, and the vital Houston Channel, come under continuous bombardment by landfalling CAT 5 storms, will we really care who's fault it is? One does not snap one's fingers to rebuild infrastructure. It takes years and years.
The water is coming, and it will not be daunted by stubborn humans addicted to magic-thinking. Time to plan for the ongoing disaster recovery that will be this world's mission in this century.
We cannot afford another single day of any war. I've been watching the tropics closely since 1980. CAT 3 storms were supposed to be rare, yet everything now spins up to CAT 5. Soon, we will need CAT 6. Had the Yucatan not gotten in Dean's way, he was headed up to Micth-like speeds exceeding 180mph. Total erasure from history, that.
When Miami is erased, will we finally get it?
Pax,
M.
ok, you've sufficiently mongered all of our fear....Co
And hopefully common sense as well....
Sorry you feel that way. What I wrote does not scare me one bit, so any fear has to be manufactured elsewhere.
What I wrote was reality. The whole debate over who is at fault and to what extent is meaningless. Wasted effort. Won't solve a single engineering problem, nor resurrect a single extinct speices. We are amid the Fifth Great Extinction in our planet's history, and it began long before there were weather satellites. Thousands of years, I would say. Shall we blame the Cavemen?
Hurricane Katrina was a deal-changer, the storm that illustrates a dangerous convergence of events. Consider:
1. The first tendrils of water from global warming flooded New Orleans, and will do so again. If the city floods one more time, will it be rebuilt? Two more times, and will the Saints stay in N.O.? The water will eventually come to stay. Towns smaller than N.O. will simply cease to exist.
2. The reaction of our government to Katrina tells us when the water comes, we'll be on our own. Change "Katrina" to the disaster of your choice, and nothing changes the equation.
3. The cost of the (alleged) War on Terror assures that even if 2. was malleable, we will not be able to afford it. The cost of sea walls for coastal populated areas breaks the bank before you finish it for even one state.
Now, should you be afraid of that? Only if you are prone to letting fear rule your life, I suppose. But the fear is a choice. I recommend letting it go. We have bigger fish to fry. Facing the facts is a good place to start.
Because the water is coming regardless.
Pax,
M.
Meanwhile the Oil companies are ready for War over the Oil under the North pole.
What about Solar energy. What if all the money spent on Bush's Wars was spent putting solar panels on American homes.
Oh well. Its gonna get much worse folks.
The relevant issue is not the impact of global warming on daily weather--most people understand the link between warmer water temperatures and hurricane intensity. Rather, the controversy is over the CAUSE of global warming: human activity or natural phenomenon. Over this point there is much controversy and despite what Al Gore thinks, the debate is not over. For too long the left has dominated this issue with near hysterical reporting on any and all weather phenomena that appeared out of the ordinary. Heck, even ordinary weather gets lumped in as proof that the end is near, prompting calls for immediate governmental intervention. Fortunately, more scientists have recently begun looking at the other side of the equation and debunking many of the contemporary theories masquerading as fact. Open, objective, two-way debate has been lacking in this global warming discussion. It is long past time to reign in the “lemmings to the cliff, consensus as science” approach and get back to real scientific debate.
This comment is beautifully written. I agree that there isn't much controversy over the sheer facts of global warming.
As to the "causes," that's where you lose me.
Would it kill us to cut down our use of fossil fuels and try to alleviate the greenhouse effect? That's not just hysteria from the Left, it's good common sense.
But you really write well,cct1984. Seriously
"It is long past time to reign in the “lemmings to the cliff, consensus as science” approach and get back to real scientific debate."
Translated: science that supports what you already believe.
Oh, and if I understand things correctly, the controversy is not over whether global warming is caused by either human activity or natural phenomena. It's over how much human activity is contributing to global warming.
The "debate" is entirely manufactured by entities with vested interests such as Exxon Mobil. Among CREDIBLE scientists, there is virtually NO debate - average temperatures have spiked over the past twenty years, this corresponds with a spike in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that this increase is mostly man-made. Scientists who dispute this are all "affiliated" with entities supported by producers of fossil fuels, the burning of which PRODUCES greenhouse gases. Man-made global warming has been among the most studied subjects in the scientific world, and consensus has been reached. Those of you who choose to disbelieve should wake up and smell the methane.
Apt name Philistine
I read an article yesterday discussing the large (majority)concensus against Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity that he issued in 1905 - turns out the majority was incorrect. Einstein also said "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for being".
The minute that debate ceases over a complex issue or problem like global warming, is the minute that the scientific process ceases as well.
Bottom line...we do need to be good stewards of the planet. We need to find alternatives to fossil fuels and not just for environmental reasons. The US as always will develop the technology to lead the world in developing solutions.
So, relax and try to understand that all the hot air that you and your fellow crisis mongers generate is not helping matters.
Actually, lemmings don't drown themsleves.
Just a myth.
It isn't the US that is developing tese technologies. It is European countries like Germany and france. America is so far behind it thinks it's first. As usual.
What theories have been debunked? Who debunked them? Did the debunkers submit their arguments to peer review? Where has two way debate been lacking? Are the conclusions reached by 1000 intenational scientists really debunked by postings from unknown bloggers?
The Martians are actually DOING SOMETHING about Martian warming rather than engaging in windy ideological arguments!
pedant - "The Martians are actually DOING SOMETHING about Martian warming rather than engaging in windy ideological arguments!"
Now THAT is funny! :D
The point of the post was to rationalize the response to this story in regards to global warming. While I think that there are strong indications that there are changes in Earth's climates and that the scale of human activity probably is a factor, I think that to draw any conclusion from a hurricane or even a single hurricane season is weak evidence.
In another era, when unusual weather, earthquake, or celestial activity was noted, it was thought by some to be proof of the fury of the gods. You can bet that the subject of difficult natural phenomena is still in sermons all over America.
There is no species on the planet more dedicated to living as long as possible than humans. And no matter what happens climate mutation-wise, the majority of us will survive. It may be ugly for a while, but we ain't no stupid dinosaurs. At least those of us who spend more time preparing for a bad case scenario than arguing over "if" and "who" aren't.
Humans are incredibly fragile creatures. It would be outrageous to claim that we are more robust than most other animals, let alone plants. We succeed by shaping and controlling our environment. We survive because we've gradually tuned our environment to fit our sensitive requirement.
But what happens when our gradual tuning process gets out of hand? What happens when we stop being modest about it and start using our technology to exploit our environment to our full capability? What happens when we stop taking what we need and start taking whatever we can get?
For the much of the history of humanity, our habitat has been almost entirely shaped by natural forces like pressure, time, and temperature. Until the last few centuries, the extent to which humans shaped their environment has been insignificant. A blip in the ecological scheme of things.
Controlling our environment has worked really well for a few thousand years. But recently, it's gotten too easy. We can shape our environment in radical ways with modest effort. Take a look around, whether you live in a city, suburb, or rural area. Do your surroundings look natural to you?
We're turned our planet into a freak of nature for the sake of our comfort. Let us not be surprised when nature starts acting freaky in return. We release massive amounts of energy that have been concentrating over millions of years. Let us not be surprised when that energy translates into climate events of massive proportions.
Let's hope we didn't get in over our heads. Because my theory on climate change is that it doesn't matter who's fault it is, because if it's happening, we're screwed. I don't think we can gradually reshape our way out of this one.
Besides, we'll probably self-annihilate before things get really bad due to climate change. Society will drop all pretense of civility when there's either way too much water or way too little depending on where you are.
Man and his hubris.
Common problem is you can' predict weather from day to day so there is little credibility with these arguments. Also, there is a difference between global warming and man caused global warming.
I remain skeptical because of the scientific evidence that Mars is warming and its ice caps receding and temps on Venus appear to be higher. Man could not have caused that.
True...in fact a recent article in Sky and Telescope pegs 50% of the warming observed in the last 100 years to the SUN.
Plus, we are emerging from an ice age and the current average global temp of 52 degrees is only 10 degrees warmer than the predicted average global temp in an ice age (42 degrees) and much less than the predicted average global temp of 72 degrees at maximum.
I'm a weather buff-I looked up the 1995 season when I saw that NOAA was reusing "Humberto". 1995's Humberto formed in August as well-funny how we managed to get all the way to H by this time that year. TS Dean in 1995 was in July
It never ceases to amaze how global-war
Think about how much our world has changed since the industrial revolution. The changes initially were confined to those areas where the revolution was occurring - IE urban centers of "industrialized" nations. Over time, even the rural areas of "industrialized" nations, and urban centers of "developing" nations saw some of these changes.
Think "smog" on a global scale. IMHO, it's just a matter of time.
I cannot find a single article that says the sun is it, people are not a factor. Some say the sun may be more invovled than believed, by they ALL say that the sun alone CANNOT account for recent change. Of course the sun affects the climate. But none of the articles I read claim to refute the theory of human influence (except of course a typical Rush Limbaugh distortion). Plus, once we have established the influence, if indeed there is ever consensus, it would be far too late. As I stated above, what is the downside to cleaning up the air and reducing pollution?
Actually, ALL warming comes from the sun.
That's "news"?
I remain skeptical because of the scientific evidence that Mars is warming and its ice caps receding and temps on Venus appear to be higher. Man could not have caused that.
Well, dah
What ever the cause - there is a certain climate in which humans can exis. Natural or human causes aside, we need to stop it or slow it by removing human contributions.
Straw man Buddy-and standard denier talking points.
Biggest factor in warming/cooling is fluctuations in planetary orbit. Tilt and distance from the sun. That data is accounted for-and sunspot cycle also-eleven years I think-when readings are taken.
We're talking one or two degrees yearly average temp difference between ice age and periods of warming.
The ecosystems of Venus, Earth and Mars bear very few similarities. Their orbits are obviously vastly different. Attempting to draw comparisons among them is a fool's errand.
This is sad.
I find it interesting that the global warming alarmists are quick to discount anything that might weaken their arguments while putting their faith in statements like "could" happen, "might" happen, "some say", "some predict" ect, etc. I predict this fear mongering has just about run its course and will soon backfire as a nation weary of all this doom and gloom will say enough.
"I remain skeptical because of the scientific evidence that Mars is warming and its ice caps receding and temps on Venus appear to be higher. Man could not have caused that."
To put into another context, you could use your logic to proclaim that there are millions of natural deaths each year, therefore there is no murder. Would you like to try your hand as a defense attorney?
"To put into another context, you could use your logic to proclaim that there are millions of natural deaths each year, therefore there is no murder. Would you like to try your hand as a defense attorney?"
Huh??? Your way off course with that analogy.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
