New Paper: Recent Energy Balance of Earth (Knox and Douglass)

[ORH_wxman]

You were the one that said the paper is a major problem for AGW. That's wrong because 1) it's not a long enough data period 2) it is directly contradicted by other studies which are not addressed

It seems stupid to me to publish yet another study which is essentially identical to Loehle 2008 and Willis 2008, that adds nothing new to the debate, and which has already been addressed by Leuliette 2009 and C. 2009.

IF it wasn't proved incorrect...difference of words there.

[Kelvin Wave]

Oceanic Heat Content is calculated as the integral of ocean temperature anomalies (typically mean = 0 deg. C) multiplied by the density over a specified depth. This is then multiplied by the specific heat capacity of the ocean.

For those who don't believe me: http://godae.bom.gov.au/oceanmaps_analysis/ocean_hc/info.shtml

I can't find any sources online that explain how OHC is calculated. Anybody have a link? The authors of the paper you link don't explain it (unless I missed it), which is annoying. Regardless, even though the rise in this quantity has stopped in the past six years, you still need to explain the rise in sea level measured by both satellite and surface gauges. If it isn't thermodynamic expansion related to positive heat flux, then what is it?

http://www.membrane....exjason2004.jpg

[skierinvermont]

IF it wasn't proved incorrect...difference of words there.

True - I edited that part of my post out too late.

[nzucker]

Show me a single study that says 0-2000m OHC is falling with a statistically significant trend. I've asked 3 times now. Otherwise your entire post is just trash talk.

I didn't say it was falling. But the chart you posted clearly shows a decline in the anomaly/heat accumulation of the earth after Winter 2007. That matches the observed lack of warming in the surface, the observed lack of warming in 700m OHC, etc. This all makes sense when we start to think about the solar minimum and what's been happening with our climate. In any case, why even bother using the chart to bolster your argument if you think the measurements are all flawed? You use a few years to justify warming but then say the years that show cooling are just bad measurements. It's hypocrisy. Will is telling you the same thing.

You can't just discount the Knox/Douglass study because you don't like its conclusions. Interestingly, you used to look for evidence to support the skeptic point if you but now you have turned to the mainstream and just discount whatever doesn't fit in with IPCC 2007. Why the sudden change, Andrew? If you are a skeptic, why not stick to your guns?

Sure the oceans have accumulated heat in the last 30 years, and that matches the rise in RSS/UAH/HadCRUT/GISS of .14C-.16C/decade of warming. We're not talking about the extreme long-term trend because everyone is certain the Earth has warmed since the 1970s, even the skeptics. But the real question is: Has the warming started to plateau? Why aren't we seeing bigger rises in surface temperatures consistent with IPCC modeling since 1998 if we keep dumping carbon into the atmosphere? Why do OHC measurements seem to confirm this leveling off?

This is the chart NASA uses, and they're plenty pro AGW...definitely shows a plateau:

[skierinvermont]

It seems strange to me that Knox and Douglass state that "Schuckmann 2009 which shows 0-2000m OHC is rising, needs further study"

but then they go on to claim that the earth is not accumulating heat as Trenberth says it is.

The data doesn't support that conclusion since they have incorporated no data for below 700m.

They question the accuracy of TOA .9W/m2 measured energy imbalance on the basis of 0-700m OHC alone. The data doesn't support the conclusion at all.

[nzucker]

And in addition the data in the study does not support the conclusions. The data says 0-700m OHC is falling. Ok even if it is, that does not support their conclusion that the earth is not accumulating heat as Trenberth says it is. They do not address the fact that OHC is rising rapidly at 2000-700m. Their data does not support their conclusion.

Their paper acknowledges the rise in 2000m OHC, they say this is an interesting point, but they conclude that this doesn't answer all of the missing heat the planet is supposed to be accumulating through radiative imbalance.

Trenberth also confirms this with his quote....he doesn't know where the heat is, and I'm sure he's seen the rise in OHC at 2000m.

Also, if it's only the deep oceans warming, who really cares? We live at the surface...

[Kelvin Wave]

Also, did anyone notice that in 3 of the 4 methods they used, the margin of error was not contained in the negative numbers?

[nzucker]

It seems strange to me that Knox and Douglass state that "Schuckmann 2009 which shows 0-2000m OHC is rising, needs further study"

but then they go on to claim that the earth is not accumulating heat as Trenberth says it is.

The data doesn't support that conclusion since they have incorporated no data for below 700m.

They question the accuracy of TOA .9W/m2 measured energy imbalance on the basis of 0-700m OHC alone. The data doesn't support the conclusion at all.

I think they are saying it seems illogical 0-700m is cooling but 0-2000m is warming. Does this mean more heat is being lost to outer space, which will eventually allow the entire planet to cool as warm anomalies in the deep ocean are mixed into the upper ocean and radiated? Does this even make sense given the La Niña conditions in 07-08?

I also believe they are suspicious of measurement error since the different sources have shown different values for OHC, and Schuckmann seems to be on his own in measuring the 2000m OHC anomaly which is probably a more complex process which requires more confirmation from multiple studies.

[skierinvermont]

In any case, why even bother using the chart to bolster your argument if you think the measurements are all flawed? You use a few years to justify warming but then say the years that show cooling are just bad measurements. It's hypocrisy. Will is telling you the same thing.

That is not what I am doing at all.

First of all the 5 year trend for 0-2000m has much more significance than a 1 year trend at 0-2000m. 5 years isn't very long, but it is better than just looking at 1 year which seems completely obtuse to me.

2) 0-2000m is more comprehensive than 0-700m.

3) There is strong disagreement between studies of 0-700m OHC.

4) I am not even claiming that the 5 year 0-2000m trend is a long enough period to examine. It would be better to look at 10 or 15 years. You are putting words in my mouth.

[skierinvermont]

I think they are saying it seems illogical 0-700m is cooling but 0-2000m is warming. Does this mean more heat is being lost to outer space, which will eventually allow the entire planet to cool as warm anomalies in the deep ocean are mixed into the upper ocean and radiated? Does this even make sense given the La Niña conditions in 07-08?

I also believe they are suspicious of measurement error since the different sources have shown different values for OHC, and Schuckmann seems to be on his own in measuring the 2000m OHC anomaly which is probably a more complex process which requires more confirmation from multiple studies.

First of all we don't KNOW 0-700m is cooling the last 5 years. There is disagreement there.

Second of all it is quite possible that over a period as short as 5 years 0-700m cooled while 0-2000m rose.

Third, their data still does not support their conclusion. You cannot claim that the earth is not gaining heat when all you have examined is 0-700m OHC.

[skierinvermont]

Their paper acknowledges the rise in 2000m OHC, they say this is an interesting point, but they conclude that this doesn't answer all of the missing heat the planet is supposed to be accumulating through radiative imbalance.

Trenberth also confirms this with his quote....he doesn't know where the heat is, and I'm sure he's seen the rise in OHC at 2000m.

Also, if it's only the deep oceans warming, who really cares? We live at the surface...

LOL the Trenberth quote was made BEFORE the study of 0-2000m OHC was made possible by ARGO. Why do you keep making so many blatant errors?

Second of all, as I have explained to you multiple times... IF the study of 0-2000m OHC (Schuckmann 20009) is accurate, it accounts for ALL of the "missing heat." The study does not address this at all.. they don't "conclude" anything regarding 0-2000m OHC.. they ignore it.

[nzucker]

First of all we don't KNOW 0-700m is cooling the last 5 years. There is disagreement there.

Second of all it is quite possible that over a period as short as 5 years 0-700m cooled while 0-2000m rose.

Third, their data still does not support their conclusion. You cannot claim that the earth is not gaining heat when all you have examined is 0-700m OHC.

If the Earth is apparently warming so radically and dramatically, why is there disagreement as to whether the oceans are gaining and losing heat? Doesn't this disagreement imply that we're probably talking about very small changes that aren't such a threat to humanity as originally presented? I feel that we'd be obviously gaining heat if we were having this massive warming that was going to melt all the ice sheets, cause massive floods and droughts etc. The fact that OHC is even being debated, with many studies showing it falling over the last few years, shows how uncertain we are of the severity of global warming.

Second, isn't the surface temperature the most important, followed by the 0-700m OHC? Who really cares what the temperature is at 2000m in the ocean? We can trap heat in the oceans for a long time with a -PDO/-ENSO cycle, especially if it's being pushed really deep beyond 1000m. This would probably mitigate most of the effects of AGW besides sea level rise, which is likely to be on the order of 1 foot/century, not 20'/century as Hansen claims.

[nzucker]

LOL the Trenberth quote was made BEFORE the study of 0-2000m OHC was made possible by ARGO. Why do you keep making so many blatant errors?

Second of all, as I have explained to you multiple times... IF the study of 0-2000m OHC (Schuckmann 20009) is accurate, it accounts for ALL of the "missing heat." The study does not address this at all.. they don't "conclude" anything regarding 0-2000m OHC.. they ignore it.

There were no figures for OHC at 2000m before Schuckmann? I mean, I assume Trenberth knew the deep oceans must be warming some. Sorry, I didn't realize this was the first such study.

They do talk about the deep ocean studies in this quote: "If FTOA > FOHC, “missing energy” is being produced if no sink other than the ocean can be identified. We note that one recent deep-ocean analysis [16], based on a variety of time periods generally in the 1990s and 2000s, suggests that the deeper ocean contributes on the order of 0.09 W/m2. This is not sufficient to explain the discrepancy." (Knox + Douglass)

[Kelvin Wave]

Another fun fact is that it takes a lot longer for warmth to travel down in the oceans than it does in the atmosphere. 1300 meters is a long way for heat to travel through the ocean. It's not surprising that there is a discrepancy.

First of all we don't KNOW 0-700m is cooling the last 5 years. There is disagreement there.

Second of all it is quite possible that over a period as short as 5 years 0-700m cooled while 0-2000m rose.

Third, their data still does not support their conclusion. You cannot claim that the earth is not gaining heat when all you have examined is 0-700m OHC.

[skierinvermont]

If the Earth is apparently warming so radically and dramatically, why is there disagreement as to whether the oceans are gaining and losing heat? Doesn't this disagreement imply that we're probably talking about very small changes that aren't such a threat to humanity as originally presented? I feel that we'd be obviously gaining heat if we were having this massive warming that was going to melt all the ice sheets, cause massive floods and droughts etc. The fact that OHC is even being debated, with many studies showing it falling over the last few years, shows how uncertain we are of the severity of global warming.

Second, isn't the surface temperature the most important, followed by the 0-700m OHC? Who really cares what the temperature is at 2000m in the ocean? We can trap heat in the oceans for a long time with a -PDO/-ENSO cycle, especially if it's being pushed really deep beyond 1000m. This would probably mitigate most of the effects of AGW besides sea level rise, which is likely to be on the order of 1 foot/century, not 20'/century as Hansen claims.

OHC is being debated because the measurement period is so short. The data is not precise or accurate enough for 5 year trend analysis yet. Using 10 or 15 years of data reveals a strong upwards trend.

Of course surface warming is the most important. Studies of OHC are simply important from a scientific standpoint of tracking how much energy the earth is accumulating. The deep oceans continued to accumulate heat steadily this decade. Surface warming took a pause for numerous reasons, but as long as the earth continues to accumulate heat it will return.

[skierinvermont]

There were no figures for OHC at 2000m before Schuckmann? I mean, I assume Trenberth knew the deep oceans must be warming some. Sorry, I didn't realize this was the first such study.

They do talk about the deep ocean studies in this quote: "If FTOA > FOHC, “missing energy” is being produced if no sink other than the ocean can be identified. We note that one recent deep-ocean analysis [16], based on a variety of time periods generally in the 1990s and 2000s, suggests that the deeper ocean contributes on the order of 0.09 W/m2. This is not sufficient to explain the discrepancy." (Knox + Douglass)

Yes but they completely ignore the fact that Schuckmann 2009 directly contradicts their conclusion that the earth is not accumulating heat.

[nzucker]

OHC is being debated because the measurement period is so short. The data is not precise or accurate enough for 5 year trend analysis yet. Using 10 or 15 years of data reveals a strong upwards trend.

Of course surface warming is the most important. Studies of OHC are simply important from a scientific standpoint of tracking how much energy the earth is accumulating. The deep oceans continued to accumulate heat steadily this decade. Surface warming took a pause for numerous reasons, but as long as the earth continues to accumulate heat it will return.

The oceans are showing a pause, though, too. This coincides with what we know about surface temperature and its plateau in the 1998-2011 time scale. Doesn't it seem logical that both phenomena are linked to a reduction in warming? Even NASA, which is quite pro-AGW, shows a decrease in the heat anomaly accumulated by the oceans. This speaks volumes to me, especially since the plateau parallels what the satellites show for global surface temperatures.

And surface warming shouldn't have taken a pause...CO2 was increasing rapidly, the AMO was at record positive levels, the ONI averaged positive, etc....we should have been warming at least .2C/decade, if not more considering how the natural factors coalesced with the man-made ones.

[nzucker]

Yes but they completely ignore the fact that Schuckmann 2009 directly contradicts their conclusion that the earth is not accumulating heat.

But the Schuckmann study is on its own...it doesn't have any confirmation. Considering the measurement disputes, we don't really know. The measurements showing no warming at 700m level have more evidence than that showing warming at 2000m, so we have to go with that for now.

Numerous measures of 700m OHC and surface temperatures show a plateau. This is my point.

Also, deep ocean heat content is more removed from societal/ecological consequences of AGW. This is my second point.

[Kelvin Wave]

That's not true. To say that the surface warming shouldn't have paused is to completely miss the idea of how the atmosphere works. There are MANY factors which contribute to the overall surface warming, and AGW is only one. It pauses when other factors (for instance solar variability or climate variability) are equal but opposite magnitudes as AGW.

Think of the surface warming as being forced by many forcing terms. T = F1 + F2 + ... Fn... AGW is only ONE of those Fs... the important part is that without AGW the Fs would be natural, AGW is the man made forcing term, and that is why it's of concern.

The oceans are showing a pause, though, too. This coincides with what we know about surface temperature and its plateau in the 1998-2011 time scale. Doesn't it seem logical that both phenomena are linked to a reduction in warming? Even NASA, which is quite pro-AGW, shows a decrease in the heat anomaly accumulated by the oceans. This speaks volumes to me, especially since the plateau parallels what the satellites show for global surface temperatures.

And surface warming shouldn't have taken a pause...CO2 was increasing rapidly, the AMO was at record positive levels, the ONI averaged positive, etc....we should have been warming at least .2C/decade, if not more considering how the natural factors coalesced with the man-made ones.

[nzucker]

That's not true. To say that the surface warming shouldn't have paused is to completely miss the idea of how the atmosphere works. There are MANY factors which contribute to the overall surface warming, and AGW is only one. It pauses when other factors (for instance solar variability or climate variability) are equal but opposite magnitudes as AGW.

Think of the surface warming as being forced by many forcing terms. T = F1 + F2 + ... Fn... AGW is only ONE of those Fs... the important part is that without AGW the Fs would be natural, AGW is the man made forcing term, and that is why it's of concern.

The IPCC's position is that all other factors are much less influential than AGW and shouldn't have much of a long-term impact on the projected rise of .2C/decade accelerating to .25C/decade. With the radiative forcing of CO2 of 3.7W/m2 and limited changes in TSI, there shouldn't be much precedent for cooling. I agree with you in theory, but there's been an ignorance of these natural cycles which have reduced their importance in the minds of many. However, if we continue not to warm this decade, the IPCC is going to be in deep doo-doo no matter how you cut it.

[skierinvermont]

But the Schuckmann study is on its own...it doesn't have any confirmation. Considering the measurement disputes, we don't really know. The measurements showing no warming at 700m level have more evidence than that showing warming at 2000m, so we have to go with that for now.

Numerous measures of 700m OHC and surface temperatures show a plateau. This is my point.

Also, deep ocean heat content is more removed from societal/ecological consequences of AGW. This is my second point.

Schuckmann does have confirmation. Sea level continues to rise steadily and this is a proxy for OHC once you subtract out mel****er from glaciers and ice sheets. Studies of steric sea level rise confirm total OHC is continuing to rise. Besides you can't ignore a study simply because it is the only one that shows something unless you have something that contradicts it. You don't. If you want to ignore Schuckmann 2009 you need to read it and present evidence it is wrong.

In addition there is no more evidence for what is happening at 0-700m than for 0-2000m. They're all based off ARGO.

There are also numerous studies that show 0-700m OHC is rising.

The studies which show 0-700m OHC plateauing do not have statistical significance.

[nzucker]

Schuckmann does have confirmation. Sea level continues to rise steadily and this is a proxy for OHC once you subtract out mel****er from glaciers and ice sheets. Studies of steric sea level rise confirm total OHC is continuing to rise.

In addition there is no more evidence for what is happening at 0-700m than for 0-2000m. They're all based off ARGO.

There are also numerous studies that show 0-700m OHC is rising.

The studies which show 0-700m OHC plateauing do not have statistical significance.

A sea level rise of a couple feet every few centuries due to warming at 2000m in the ocean is not sufficient to harm humanity greatly. I think this threat, more than others, is exaggerated.

Also, I don't need statistical significance to be concerned about the implications of the studies showing cooling/plateauing in 700m OHC because it matches up nicely with surface trends and what I believe about the solar minimum and new climate coming, so that's significant enough to me. I'm a member of the general public that needs to be convinced through hardcore evidence and proof, not "Well the heat is missing", not "Well the Earth must be warming but the oceans and surface aren't, but maybe it's just a bad measurement". All of this is unimpressive and hurts the cause of making AGW a pertinent public policy issue. If you can't see that, you're blind.

[Kelvin Wave]

The IPCC will never be spot on because they rely on computer models. If I recall correctly, none or almost none of the models used in the last IPCC report were even coupled to the ocean...

If you want to look at AGW, you need to look at actual data, not the projected data. Even if the IPCC projections are dead wrong, that doesn't mean the there is no AGW.

The IPCC's position is that all other factors are much less influential than AGW and shouldn't have much of a long-term impact on the projected rise of .2C/decade accelerating to .25C/decade. With the radiative forcing of CO2 of 3.7W/m2 and limited changes in TSI, there shouldn't be much precedent for cooling. I agree with you in theory, but there's been an ignorance of these natural cycles which have reduced their importance in the minds of many. However, if we continue not to warm this decade, the IPCC is going to be in deep doo-doo no matter how you cut it.

[skierinvermont]

A sea level rise of a couple feet every few centuries due to warming at 2000m in the ocean is not sufficient to harm humanity greatly. I think this threat, more than others, is exaggerated.

Also, I don't need statistical significance to be concerned about the implications of the studies showing cooling/plateauing in 700m OHC because it matches up nicely with surface trends and what I believe about the solar minimum and new climate coming, so that's significant enough to me. I'm a member of the general public that needs to be convinced through hardcore evidence and proof, not "Well the heat is missing", not "Well the Earth must be warming but the oceans and surface aren't, but maybe it's just a bad measurement". All of this is unimpressive and hurts the cause of making AGW a pertinent public policy issue. If you can't see that, you're blind.

So you are using 5 year trends which lack statistical significance to call into question mainstream AGW conclusions? Seriously? Is this a joke?

The fact is OHC has been rising steadily for decades and now you claim there is "missing heat" because of a 5 year trend which 1) is not statistically signficant 2) is contradicted by other studies of 0-700m OHC which show warming and 3) ignores 700m-2000m OHC and 4) which is contradicted by steric sea level rise

wow...

[nzucker]

So you are using 5 year trends which lack statistical significance to call into question mainstream AGW conclusions? Seriously? Is this a joke?

The fact is OHC has been rising steadily for decades and now you claim there is "missing heat" because of a 5 year trend which 1) is not statistically signficant 2) is contradicted by other studies of 0-700m OHC which show warming and 3) ignores 700m-2000m OHC.

wow...

You used to question mainstream AGW conclusions but then decided to stop being skeptical. Why?

The fact is that multiple sources show a leveling off of temperatures in the latter part of the past decade. Can you understand how this would be unconvincing to the general public when you're trying to show that rapid and accelerating warming is happening and will continue? This goes from UAH/RSS data to OHC data. This is not in line with what the IPCC said. Of course, it's a short time scale and it doesn't prove anything for sure...we just have to wait and see how much we fall out of the confidence interval before deciding if IPCC conclusions and methodology need to be reformulated. But it's definitely a victory for skeptics that surface warming has plateaued and numerous 700m OHC measurements show declines. This trend should get worse as the La Niña/-PDO intensifies and the solar minimum becomes deeper...this will cause even more deviance from IPCC projections, and I think we can all agree here.

We are not talking about decades...everyone knows the Earth warmed from 1978-1998. We are trying to figure out why there has been a slow-down in warming since then...Is it the solar minimum? The PDO? Aerosols reentering the atmosphere? You can't deny that many sources of temperature data show this plateau effect, Andrew, and that it's going to influence public opinion whether you like it or not. It's also a bit concerning when one of our top climatologists is talking about "missing heat" that can't be found. If we can't definitively confirm it exists, we have to suppose it is not there.

[ORH_wxman]

The IPCC will never be spot on because they rely on computer models. If I recall correctly, none or almost none of the models used in the last IPCC report were even coupled to the ocean...

If you want to look at AGW, you need to look at actual data, not the projected data. Even if the IPCC projections are dead wrong, that doesn't mean the there is no AGW.

I don't think anyone except for the most insane kooks claim there is absolutely zero AGW...the question is just how significant it is....there is some building evidence that shows perhaps solar/ocean cycles and maybe even cosmic rays have had some impact on temperatures on more than just a minor level.

There needs to be study into this area because thats how the science evolves and becomes more accurate.

[nzucker]

The IPCC will never be spot on because they rely on computer models. If I recall correctly, none or almost none of the models used in the last IPCC report were even coupled to the ocean...

If you want to look at AGW, you need to look at actual data, not the projected data. Even if the IPCC projections are dead wrong, that doesn't mean the there is no AGW.

I am not saying there is no AGW...I am saying the projections of the IPCC regarding future warming are exaggerated and misleading. I don't think anyone denies carbon emissions warm the atmosphere to at least some extent.

[skierinvermont]

You used to question mainstream AGW conclusions but then decided to stop being skeptical. Why?

The fact is that multiple sources show a leveling off of temperatures in the latter part of the past decade. Can you understand how this would be unconvincing to the general public when you're trying to show that rapid and accelerating warming is happening and will continue? This goes from UAH/RSS data to OHC data. This is not in line with what the IPCC said. Of course, it's a short time scale and it doesn't prove anything for sure...we just have to wait and see how much we fall out of the confidence interval before deciding if IPCC conclusions and methodology need to be reformulated. But it's definitely a victory for skeptics that surface warming has plateaued and numerous 700m OHC measurements show declines. This trend should get worse as the La Niña/-PDO intensifies and the solar minimum becomes deeper...this will cause even more deviance from IPCC projections, and I think we can all agree here.

We are not talking about decades...everyone knows the Earth warmed from 1978-1998. We are trying to figure out why there has been a slow-down in warming since then...Is it the solar minimum? The PDO? Aerosols reentering the atmosphere? You can't deny that many sources of temperature data show this plateau effect, Andrew, and that it's going to influence public opinion whether you like it or not. It's also a bit concerning when one of our top climatologists is talking about "missing heat" that can't be found. If we can't definitively confirm it exists, we have to suppose it is not there.

Yes.. it is too bad that the general public is too stupid to understand science. Agree strongly there. What does that have to do with the actual science itself?

I thought we were debating the science, not whether the public will be persuaded by it.

The fact is.. there is no good evidence of "missing heat" this decade. Steric sea level continues to rise (proxy for OHC), Schuckmann 2009 shows 0-2000m OHC is rising, there is no statistically significant evidence one way or another because the time period is too short. We know the earth is accumulating heat because we are measuring that the earth is accumulating heat from the top of the atmosphere using satellites. We simply don't have precise enough measurements to detect where the heat is going on timescales of 5 years or less. When you use statistically significant timescales of 10 or 20 years we can track where the heat is going and we know the earth is accumulating the expected amount of heat.

[nzucker]

wow...

Once again, stop with the condescending tone.

The majority of the American public doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming seriously...they may be dumb but the Climategate scandal, lack of recent warming, and very cold/snowy winters have all had their impact.

For example, when you see this, are you going to worry more about incorrect measurements in 2000m OHC or heating your home and staying safe?:

This is intended as a bit of a joke but it's relevant in the fact that the weather hasn't changed much in the eyes of the public, and winters have become progressively harsher since 2007 in the United States and Europe. This isn't what Bill McKibben and David Parker told us, my friend.

[skierinvermont]

I thought we were debating the science, not what public opinion will or will not be. It's like you are lording it over the scientists that the general public doesn't believe them, even though the science is strong.

This thread went from you claiming there is "missing heat" to giving up on that given all the evidence to the contrary, to simply claiming that the general public will be tricked by short term studies which lack significance and are not comprehensive.