Q: Scientific backing of Al Gore quote in July 18 NYT article?

[Jason Grillo]

“We know how to fix this,” he said. “We can stop the temperatures going up worldwide with as little as a three-year time lag by reaching net zero,” he said. “And if we stay at true net zero, we’ll see half of the human-caused CO2 coming out of the atmosphere in as little as 30 years.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/climate/al-gore-on-extreme-heat-and-the-fight-against-fossil-fuels.html

Particularly curious about the source of his claim that half of human emitted CO2 will come out of the atmosphere "in as little as 30 years", assuming we get to (and stay at) Net Zero.

[Shannon A. Fiume]

Hi Jason,

That second part, "And if we stay at true net zero, we’ll see half of the human-caused CO₂ coming out of the atmosphere in as little as 30 years.”

seems unsubstantiated for cumulative CO₂. I think he's referring to year to year change of somewhere in the neighborhood of 36 GtCO₂, which would be somewhere about 10GtCO₂. Most net-zero modeling with CDR has about 10ish GtCO₂. The sources for these would be at the IPCC IIASA db: https://data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/iamc-1.5c-explorer, and look for the scenarios with CDR.

Cheers,

~~sa

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAEi6Z8wKC4ZTuQX2QtLB%2BpzsbkcYqU3BJwCLV_kTzBodd8-sRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
Shannon A. Fiume
sha...@autofracture.com | +01.415.272.7020
http://www.autofracture.com/research | http://www.autofracture.com/opencarbon
https://linkedin.com/in/safiume | Go Carbon Negative!

[Govindasamy Bala]

Yes, the second part is incorrect "And if we stay at true net zero, we’ll see half of the human-caused CO₂ coming out of the atmosphere in as little as 30 years.”

The ocean will continue to take up CO2 on centennial timescales and the atmospheric CO2 would very slowly come down....

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/8b4231ab-9743-e674-150d-4bdce4426695%40autofracture.com.

--

With Best Wishes,

-------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Bala
Professor
Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore - 560 012
India

Tel: +91 80 2293 3428; +91 80 2293 2505
Fax: +91 80 2360 0865; +91 80 2293 3425
Email: gb...@iisc.ac.in; bala.gov@gmail.com
Google Scholar
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dan Miller]

Human-caused CO2 emissions is about 2.4 trillion tons (about half of that remains in the atmosphere after oceans, soils, and plants take up excess CO2).  The oceans sequester about 10~12 GT of our 40~50 GT-CO2 of emissions each year and will continue to sequester that amount after we get to net-zero (and it will drop over time as the ocean gets more in balance with atmosphere).  But 11 * 30 = 330 Gt at the best case and that is 14% of our total emissions.

Continued ocean uptake will reduce atmospheric CO2 by about twice that but the benefit is canceled out by the “warming in the pipeline”, i.e., the Earth Energy Imbalance.  So temperatures will not drop even though the oceans continue to take up CO2. Roughly speaking, whatever temperature we are at when we finally stop emitting CO2 is the temperature we have for the next 1000 years (assuming no CDR and SRM).

We need massive CDR (~40 Gt/year or more) to get back to a safe climate in 30~60 years.

Dan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/8b4231ab-9743-e674-150d-4bdce4426695%40autofracture.com.

[Shannon A. Fiume]

Indeed, yes, if we don't do any scaled CDR and SRM, or other albedo modification after reaching the soonest net-zero and running till century's end.

To take care of all of cumulative CO₂, we'd need CDR somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 GtCO₂ per year from now till about mid century then drop the CDR rate down to about 25 GtCO₂ till 2100.  https://doi.org/10.31223/X5K37C (Front loading removal post net-zero brings CO₂ concentration and temperature down the fastest to mid-century to avert further climate damages, then mid-century to 2100, the slower path to 0ºC avoids a temperature rebound seen in the nonlinear removal pathways.)

We need massive CDR (~40 Gt/year or more) to get back to a safe climate in 30~60 years.

This is assuming we want a better climate than 1.5ºC and to reach nearly 0ºC over 1720-1800 mean. That lower target isn't what consensus science is looking into. Although I can't read that article, I'm quite sure consensus sci isn't looking into this since there are no other works besides my own to reach 0ºC in Zoomer's lifetimes.

The other closest work for 1ºC by 2100 that was recently published: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000234, Prof C. Breyer and their team found rough yearly rates for about 40GtCO₂ from mid 2060s to 2100, post a swift path to net-zero (accomplished via scaled renewables and massive emissions reductions).

Best,

~~sa

[David Hawkins]

Let me take a stab at summarizing my non-scientist's understanding of the carbon cycle processes involved.  And those who actually know this stuff perhaps will weigh in with any corrections.

We have observations over the last roughly half=-century that support a conclusion that CO2 equaling about half of annual anthropogenic emissions are removed from the atmosphere to land and ocean sinks.  So as anthro emissions have increased, the flux from the atmosphere to lands and the oceans has increased by about half the amount of the increase in annual emissions.

The assumption is that when and if anthro emissions are reduced, the enhanced flux from the air to the lands and oceans that occurred during the period of increasing anthro emissions will persist for some time after anthro emissions have peaked and declined, thus resulting in a drawdown of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Further, the assumption is that the enhanced air-to-land -and-sea flux will continue for some time after anthro emissions reach zero or net-zero.  This will result in a continuing drawdown of atmospheric concentrations.

Some details I would like to know more about:

What information are scientists drawing on to estimate the rate and duration of the enhanced flux once anthro emissions begin to decline?

What are the principle mechanisms that resulted in the enhanced flux during the period of growth in anthro emissions?  I assume fertilization effect for biomass and partial pressure differences for ocean uptake. Other processes?  And how are these mechanisms assumed to operate once anthro emissions decline and then reach zero?  

Does introduction of large-scale CDR complicate the quantification of the persistence of the enhanced flux?

David

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/8b4231ab-9743-e674-150d-4bdce4426695%40autofracture.com.

[Bruce Parker]

An analysis of the data for the 400+ scenarios in the “IPCC 1.5°C Report” shows a very strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 PPM and cumulative net CO2 emissions from 2020 to 2100:

 

 

With atmospheric CO2 at currently at about 420 PPM, “half of the human-caused CO₂ coming out of the atmosphere” requires atmospheric CO2 to be reduced to 350 PPM (=420 – (420 – 280)/2).  Based on the “trend line” in the above (or attached) graph, cumulative CO2 emissions from 2020 to 2100 would need to be about -300 GTCO2  to get to 350PPM in 2100. Since emissions 2020-2023 will be about 200 GTCO2, about 500 GTCO2 + all future net CO2 emissions will need to be removed from the atmosphere to reach 350 PPM in 2100.

 

Cum Net CO2 (GTCO2)	-300	-200	-100	0	100	200	300	400	500	600	700	800	900	1000	1100	1200
CO2 PPM	351	360	368	377	386	395	403	412	421	430	438	447	456	465	473	482

 

Bruce Parker

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/8b4231ab-9743-e674-150d-4bdce4426695%40autofracture.com.

[Jason Grillo]

Thanks all!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/000001d9ba55%24496e9270%24dc4bb750%24%40chesdata.com.

[Robert Chris]

Apologies for re-opening this thread.  I have been asked to draft a response to Gore and this thread has proved extremely useful.  However, I wonder if there's something we've missed.  Just to be clear, what Gore is quoted as saying is:

if we stay at true net zero, we’ll see half of the human-caused CO2 coming out of the atmosphere in as little as 30 years.

'If we stay at net zero' implies that we've already reached net zero.  He doesn't make any reference to the trajectory towards net zero but the most demanding case is the notional sudden cessation contemplated in the Zero Emissions Commitment discussed at length in AR6 - see Fig. 4.39.  This is taken from MacDougall et al 2020 Is there warming in the pipeline.  The graph indicates that 30 years after cessation, atmospheric CO2 has dropped by 60ppm.  It is currently at 423ppm, 145ppm above its pre-industrial level usually taken to be 278ppm.  That is a reduction of 41%, a little short of 'half' but not so much short that it would be sensible to make a big deal about it.

There is an argument that MacDougall et al's work is methodologically unsound but that is highly technical and not one to hit Gore with.  It's perfectly reasonable for him to regard the IPCC as a credible authority on something like this.  Our concerns about the IPCC need to be pursued elsewhere.

It doesn't make sense to interpret his comment literally because total human emissions (including from land use change) are of the order of 2,400GtCO2, half of which is 1,200GtCO2 and that corresponds to 155ppm.  That would take us back to below pre-industrial and that is clearly not what he intends.

I conclude that as a political statement, if not a scientific one, the utterance above is sufficiently true that it is not worth taking issue with it.

That said, his statement is objectionable for other reasons, in brief because we'll run out of road long before we get to net zero.

Does anyone have any objection to my reading of this?

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAEi6Z8yvkNaZsfs%2BtLyJ6OB0f-q2T0pX1mz5kNxGkirtXtf5Fw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas]

Hi Chris,

The one tool still in our pocket is tipping collapses and further warming. I may have a path to get to Al through the new Sierra Club director Ben Jealous. This net zero science is wrong, but we can't tell Al that because who are we to say? Others say something better, that Al likes more, that fits Al's decades-old narrative, that Al is going to repeat.

What he cannot argue against however is tipping collapse science and the point of no return. Classic systems collapse science says we can avoid tipping if we remove the perturbation to the system that caused the collapse to activate before the point of no return (Hansen 2008 and 2017, Lenton 2109, McKay 2022, Rockstrom 2023.) Al can't argue against the reality that the delay has been too long, and that Earth systems are in collapse. He needs to understand the difference between tipping as used in climate science findings, and tipping responses, that includes activation and the irreversible point of no return. It is the point of no return that academic findings cite. The lead up to the point of no return is Earth systems collapse activation, as per Lenton 2019; tipping activation.

The challenge for Gore and almost everybody else, is that delay has caused what climate scientists have been warning about for decades: tipping is now active and the solutions are now quite different from before. Tipping does not stabilize unless we restore our climate. Further warming to 1.5 C means irreversible tipping is locked in, with feedback emissions that far exceed humankind's.  Future emissions eliminations, because of delay and tipping now being active, do not change our future path. Existing warming has caused tipping to activate and it completes with no further warming. As Hansen 2008 states, some overshoot is acceptable, as long as we return to within the temperature range of the Holocene, or within the natural variation of our old climate where our Earth systems evolved, before the point of no return.

The path to Al:  Ben Jealous, Sierra Club's new Executive Director, met with Al recently. The Club has not yet fully embraced our new 1 C target. I am hoping Ben can drive this forward, but I have not seen any encouragement yet. I have a call in to the Lonestar Sierra Club Chapter ExCom member who reported on this meeting between Ben and Al (I am on Lonestar ExCom too and heard about this meeting at our last board meeting this past Sunday) to see if there is a path to not only facilitate the Club in fully embracing our new policy we adopted three years ago, but a path to get to Al too.

It's going to be September before I can move on this as me and the boss are about to launch on filming walkabout to finish the sequoia burn film. I would like to keep abreast of what you are doing with Al, and maybe we can collaborate, or at least trade notes. For example - who charged you with writing about the NYT article?

Instagram filming logs daily - Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton

Extreme heat in Austin. It is 97 at 11:41 am at my favorite station on Barton Creek at SH71 on the SW side of town. Normal 20th Century 100-degree days per year is 10 to 11 per year. The current 5-year average is 47. It hasn't rained more than a few hundredths since the first week of June. Nowhere near normal.
-Melton

Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/9184dc09-038f-e474-6a97-9cb72df5b6c0%40gmail.com.

[Robert Tulip]

Hi Robert

 

The Zero Emission Commitment argument that Gore relies on is “the potential additional warming after a complete cessation of net CO2 emissions,… is taken to be zero ±0.19°C” (AR6 WG1 5.5.2.2.4).   This is contradicted by Randers & Goluke (Nature 2020) who present an earth system model showing self‑sustained rising temperature even if anthropogenic emissions stop now.  Their model shows global temperature rising for many centuries, irrespective of how fast humanity cuts emissions. They cite three factors: self-sustained thawing of the permafrost caused by methane release, lower surface albedo caused by melting ice and snow, and higher humidity caused by higher temperatures, with this threshold triggered at warming of 0.5 °C above  pre-industrial.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/9184dc09-038f-e474-6a97-9cb72df5b6c0%40gmail.com.

[Jason Grillo]

Hi all, Jack Sullivan in AirMiners posted this source from Al Gore's TED Talk video here:



Video link: https://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_what_the_fossil_fuel_industry_doesn_t_want_you_to_know

Cheers,
Jason Grillo

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/03b301d9c84c%24e6f8e040%24b4eaa0c0%24%40yahoo.com.au.

[Shannon Fiume]

Hi Jason & all,

Deep respect to the former VP & his staff, I think it's a misquote. A google search for Shindell and the year returns press and articles on methane and particulate matter in the latter half of the year. I can't find anything related to CO₂ with that exact wording.

Sincerely,

~~sa

————

Shannon A. Fiume
sha...@autofracture.com | 415.272.7020

http://www.autofracture.com/research | Go carbon negative!

On Aug 19, 2023, at 11:47 AM, Jason Grillo <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:



Hi all, Jack Sullivan in AirMiners posted this source from Al Gore's TED Talk video here:

Thanks all!

 

<image001.png>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAEi6Z8wnzjH7Vx-qdrBcYmDY3bMPwpK%2BbHvq8J%2BJoMUe3a7ZRA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Miller]

Let’s see. Oceans absorb about 12~15 Gt/year of excess CO2 from the atmosphere and will continue to do so even after we stop emitting CO2. Assuming 15 Gt/yr and no reduction over time as the oceans heat up and come into CO2 equilibrium with the atmosphere, 30 years would be 15 * 30 = 450 Gt (best case). The manmade amount in the atmosphere now is about 2400 Gt *0.45 = 1080 Gt, so on the optimistic side it is close (41% - same as Robert calculated), but more likely it will be about a third.

But in any case, temperatures will not drop (and may increase) once we stop emitting. The continued uptake of CO2 by the oceans is offset by the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) which can be thought of as warming in the pipeline.  In addition, warming due to reduced manmade aerosols is offset by cooling by reduction on short-term GHGs (e.g., methane) in a zero emissions scenario.

As Hansen has pointed out, the long-term warming can cause further warming by melting ice caps and other effects, so temperatures may continue to go up unless we take active measures.

Also, reducing emissions to net-zero by 2050 will likely not stop an AMOC collapse which, according to the recent Nature paper, is expected(!!!) around mid-century. The only way to prevent that is by using SRM to quickly stop melting of Greenland and the Arctic.

The bottom line is that we need CDR at scale and intentional SRM soon to avoid >2ºC warming and an AMOC collapse, either of which would be catastrophic.

Dan

On Aug 19, 2023, at 11:47 AM, Jason Grillo <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all, Jack Sullivan in AirMiners posted this source from Al Gore's TED Talk video here:

Thanks all!

 

<image001.png>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAEi6Z8wnzjH7Vx-qdrBcYmDY3bMPwpK%2BbHvq8J%2BJoMUe3a7ZRA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Tulip]

Copying offline discussion on ZEC figures to CDR list.  Mike MacCracken said he had not sent to the list as he is not a member.

 

Mike says in email below that Drew Shindell’s statement applies to model results for (a) a large pulse injection of say 1000 GtC and/or (b) a simulation that has emissions rise per a growth scenario and then go instantly to zero emissions when 1000 GtC emissions are reached. 

 

These are not realistic scenarios so have no bearing on an actual effect of achieving net zero emissions in the alleged Zero Emission Commitment.

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 12:58 PM
To: Shannon A. Fiume <sha...@autofracture.com>; Jason Grillo <jason...@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>; Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Q: Scientific backing of Al Gore quote in July 18 NYT article?

 

Right--as I understand it, they mix results from two different types of simulations.

1. The pulse injection or sudden zero stop results--yes temperature stabilizes. I've tried to explain the confusion about saying additional 50% cut.

2. Real scenario runs and Mike Mann saying warming stops pretty quickly, which I guess would not be the case if only GHG were CO2, but if other species concentrations drop, this balances, they say, the lack of ocean reaching equilibrium, etc.

Mike

 

On 8/19/23 10:11 PM, Shannon A. Fiume wrote:

Hi Mike,

Ok, I misread what you originally wrote, sorry about that.

The only 1000 Pg pulse injection studies I know about are the ZEC paper.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2987-2020

Despite model variation, and reductions and likely reestablishing equilibrium in CO₂ concentration (https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/2987/2020/bg-17-2987-2020-f07-high-res.pdf), temperature plateaus for the 1000 GtC:

https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/2987/2020/bg-17-2987-2020-f05-high-res.pdf

Do they know it isn't the smoking gun they think it is? I'm not sure how comparable 1000 Pg pulse injection is compatible to our situation if those models don't have all the math to accurately model real life melting.

Wild, yeah he also had more recent announcements in '21 on both methane and particulate matter.

Thanks again Mike,

~~sa

On 8/19/23 6:18 PM, Michael MacCracken wrote:

Hi Shannon--I had an email exchange with Drew about it. I don't think that it was Drew that did the modeling studies. Al Gore has for a long time dropped in to visit scientists and get their views and I imagine it came up when AG was visiting Drew talking about short-lived species and their lifetimes, etc., which Drew had an article in Science about regarding the conclusions of a panel he chaired that prepared a report for UNEP (copies attached), namely that sharp reductions in emissions of short-lived species could cut warming by half a degree by 2050. This would have also been the time of the model experiments and I'd imagine he sent AG a memo on this, not something necessarily public at the time.

Best, Mike

On 8/19/23 8:44 PM, Shannon A. Fiume wrote:

Thanks Mike,

Yes, I realized Al Gore said the quote both in the Ted talk and the NY times article, what I was saying is I can't find the original reference from Prof Shindell making any claim during that time for CO₂. I think that Gore's team misquoted Prof Shindell, unless someone can find the quote. I did find Prof Shindell making similar statements about methane given it's short half-life, but not CO₂.

Right, you're rehashing what we already pointed out, between Bruce's null findings and others.

It has to be a misquote, unless someone can reach Prof Shindell and he provides the reference.

Regards,

~~sa

On 8/19/23 5:20 PM, Michael MacCracken wrote:

Hi Shannon--He said it, at least, in a speech in Davos a year or two ago, in the NY Times (article attached) and in his talk to those on a Climate Reality phone call perhaps 2-3 weeks ago.

Due to query from Jason, Al Gore's expert scientist at a couple of his leadership training sessions, I've done a bit of looking into it. You perhaps did not get my response as I don't think I'm in the Carbon Removal Group and so did not copy them on the response to Jason. I've copied it below:

 

 

HI jason--Sorry not to get back to you after your initial iquiry. After checking with Drew, etc., this statement applies to model results for (a) a large pulse injection of say 1000 GtC (so one of the limits IPCC talks about, and/or (b) a simulation that has emissions rise per a growth scenario and then go instantly to zero emissions when 1000 GtC emissions are reached. And all these results are saying is that the airborne fraction is about one-half. Well, interesting and true, but this is what everyone has been sort of assuming (or calculating) for all the various emissions scenarios.

What the quote mistakenly makes it sound to those in the field is that the airborne fraction will drop from one-half that all are already using to one-quarter when world reaches net-zero--and this is just not the case. To get to an airborne fraction of one quarter, the excess CO2 would have to at least mix through the deep ocean (a thousand years or more) and into the long lived soil carbon (again, over a thousand years) and even this might not do it.

So, this is a big misunderstanding and I've sent messages to Gore's staffer on this--not yet a good response. It is unfortunate but I understand good runs have not been made of realistic cases where one has emissions drop to near zero and then a long tail to net zero nor really well with realistic drops in emissions of short-lived species. And because some short-lived gases have significant forcings, it could be that their forcing drops more than the small CO2 addition increases the forcing, so not really clear when warming will stop compared to getting to net-zero. It basically will all determine on the timing of emissions reductions in each species, some actions limiting peak warming that is reached and some affecting when warming starts to reverse.

Mike

 

 

 

On 8/19/23 5:59 PM, Shannon Fiume wrote:

 Hi Jason & all,

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/454F8D2A-BA83-49CA-A965-2EFECBCEAADE%40autofracture.com.

-- 

Shannon A. Fiume

sha...@autofracture.com | +01.415.272.7020

http://www.autofracture.com/research | http://www.autofracture.com/opencarbon

https://linkedin.com/in/safiume | Go Carbon Negative!

[Michael Hayes]

Robert, et al.,

The above seems to be beyond the scope of the STEM, policy, and socioeconomics of CDR. Getting to zero emissions can be helped by some CDR methods as some can produce renewable energy supplies, convert smokestack emissions, even possibly freeze sea water and produce food as coproducts and such multiplexed CDR methods should be top priorities within the CDR field. However, the above exchange seems more of an issue of confronting the FF industry rather than being specificly related to CDR. Confront away against the FF industry, yet the entire field of CDR is largely ignored in the above discussion, and marine specific CDR options are simply absent. So much for 71% of the planet's surface resources.

From an oceanic view, from a cryospheric view, the excess heat that is already baked into the Ocean will likely take many human generations to play out even with zero emissions happening tomorrow....by noon. The view that environmental stability rest just beyond gaining zero emissions is likely not supportable in a post tipping point world. Tipping points are now falling like dominoes. 

Looking for mutually supportive, technically linkable, CDR methods, emissions reduction techs, renewable energy production/distribution methods, reasonable SRM methods along with robust marine cooling tech, even new forms of agriculture as a coordinated planetary system of systems maintance routine is needed. That level of global scale system of systems engineering/management may one day be possible with virtually unlimited university, industry, international policy, and widespread socioeconomic support, I'm an optimistic technologist. Yet, how does the above discussion directly contribute to, or challange, the current understandings within the STEM, policy, and socioeconomics of the speciality of CDR? This is not a general 'geoengineering' list, it is specific to CDR STEM, policy, and socioeconomics.

Best regards 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/013a01d9d314%247539f700%245fade500%24%40yahoo.com.au.