Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Has the Age of Chaos Begun?

By Mike Davis, Tomdispatch.com. Posted October 8, 2005.


While we wait for the oft-predicted tipping point in the war on Iraq, an actual tipping point has been creeping up on another front -- climate change.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The genesis of two category-five hurricanes (Katrina and Rita) in a row over the Gulf of Mexico is an unprecedented and troubling occurrence. But for most tropical meteorologists the truly astonishing "storm of the decade" took place in March 2004. Hurricane Catarina -- so named because it made landfall in the southern Brazilian state of Santa Catarina -- was the first recorded south Atlantic hurricane in history.

Textbook orthodoxy had long excluded the possibility of such an event; sea temperatures, experts claimed, were too low and wind shear too powerful to allow tropical depressions to evolve into cyclones south of the Atlantic Equator. Indeed, forecasters rubbed their eyes in disbelief as weather satellites down-linked the first images of a classical whirling disc with a well-formed eye in these forbidden latitudes.

In a series of recent meetings and publications, researchers have debated the origin and significance of Catarina. A crucial question is this: Was Catarina simply a rare event at the outlying edge of the normal bell curve of South Atlantic weather -- just as, for example, Joe DiMaggio's incredible 56-game hitting streak in 1941 represented an extreme probability in baseball (an analogy made famous by Stephen Jay Gould) -- or was Catarina a "threshold" event, signaling some fundamental and abrupt change of state in the planet's climate system?

Scientific discussions of environmental change and global warming have long been haunted by the specter of nonlinearity. Climate models, like econometric models, are easiest to build and understand when they are simple linear extrapolations of well-quantified past behavior; when causes maintain a consistent proportionality to their effects.

But all the major components of global climate -- air, water, ice, and vegetation -- are actually nonlinear: At certain thresholds they can switch from one state of organization to another, with catastrophic consequences for species too finely-tuned to the old norms. Until the early 1990s, however, it was generally believed that these major climate transitions took centuries, if not millennia, to accomplish. Now, thanks to the decoding of subtle signatures in ice cores and sea-bottom sediments, we know that global temperatures and ocean circulation can, under the right circumstances, change abruptly -- in a decade or even less.

The paradigmatic example is the so-called "Younger Dryas" event, 12,800 years ago, when an ice dam collapsed, releasing an immense volume of meltwater from the shrinking Laurentian ice-sheet into the Atlantic Ocean via the instantly-created St. Lawrence River. This "freshening" of the North Atlantic suppressed the northward conveyance of warm water by the Gulf Stream and plunged Europe back into a thousand-year ice age.

Abrupt switching mechanisms in the climate system - such as relatively small changes in ocean salinity -- are augmented by causal loops that act as amplifiers. Perhaps the most famous example is sea-ice albedo: The vast expanses of white, frozen Arctic Ocean ice reflect heat back into space, thus providing positive feedback for cooling trends; alternatively, shrinking sea-ice increases heat absorption, accelerating both its own further melting and planetary warming.

Thresholds, switches, amplifiers, chaos -- contemporary geophysics assumes that earth history is inherently revolutionary. This is why many prominent researchers -- especially those who study topics like ice-sheet stability and North Atlantic circulation -- have always had qualms about the consensus projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world authority on global warming.

In contrast to Bushite flat-Earthers and shills for the oil industry, their skepticism has been founded on fears that the IPCC models fail to adequately allow for catastrophic nonlinearities like the Younger Dryas. Where other researchers model the late 21st-century climate that our children will live with upon the precedents of the Altithermal (the hottest phase of the current Holocene period, 8000 years ago) or the Eemian (the previous, even warmer interglacial episode, 120,000 years ago), growing numbers of geophysicists toy with the possibilities of runaway warming returning the earth to the torrid chaos of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM: 55 million years ago) when the extreme and rapid heating of the oceans led to massive extinctions.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Mike Davis is the author of "Monster at Our Door: The Global Threat of Avian Flu" (The New Press) as well as the forthcoming "Planet of Slums" (Verso).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Shaky Conclusions
Posted by: kkorzon on Oct 8, 2005 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Less than 1,000 years ago, the Norse were grazing cattle in Greenland. Their former pastures are covered with ice or can only support moss and lichen instead of grass.

How much Arctic sea ice existed then? No one alive today has any idea.

I don't doubt that human activity affects climate, but no scientist can accurately determine what the globe's climate was like throughout human history.

Take ice cores as an example. Scientists use these cores to guess at what the climate was like in the past.

Let's say that 121,000 years ago, there was a 1,000-foot-deep layer of ice somewhere. Let's say that 120,000 years ago, a warm period melted half that ice before the warm period ended and accumulation resumed.

What happens to the core? Half the ice that accumulated before the warm period is now gone, melted away during the warm period. There's now a gap in the record.

There's no way to determine what happened to the earth's climate from ice that's no longer there.

Another example is the jungle of Central and South America. Archeologists are now realizing that pre-Columbian America was vastly more populated than previously believed. In the 1960's it was believed that the pre-Columbian population of North and South America was around 4 million people. Now, estimates range from 30 to 200 million.

Over 90% of the native population died within 100 years of the arrival of Europeans from various diseases. Bartolome de las Casas, writing in the 16th century, detailed the reduction of the native population of the island of Hispanola from millions to hundreds in less than 30 years.

Much of what today is now jungle threatened by development was farmland 600 years ago.

When scientists predict that the deforestation that is rampant in Central and South America will have dire effects on the Earth's climate, they are ignoring the fact that the large parts of the area were deforested not so long ago.

Don't get me wrong. Such deforestation is not a good thing. It's wrong now and was wrong then.

My overall point is that scientists survive on funding. To get it, they need to write in absolutes. Writing that investigation is needed because "maybe this could lead to something" is not as likely to get them funding as writing "definitely this will lead to something."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Shaky Conclusions Posted by: evermind
» RE: Shaky Conclusions Posted by: kkorzon
» Shaky thinker Posted by: monkopotamus
» RE: Shaky Conclusions Posted by: Angry Blue Planet
» RE: Shaky Conclusions Posted by: kkorzon
» AMERICAN ROULETTE Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Shaky Conclusions Posted by: yukon_jack
» RE: Shaky Conclusions Posted by: andyc
» RE: Shaky Conclusions Posted by: jenlindnerr
» Darling, scientists don't "guess" Posted by: fleurdelamer
Heads in the sand
Posted by: Michiganman on Oct 8, 2005 8:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It amazes me the number of people who think global warming is a myth. Like the above poster they seem to think scientist are making this all up to get attention, like some kind of bad boy syndrome......pitiful

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Heads in the sand Posted by: aonghus36
I'm wise so science is wrong
Posted by: monkopotamus on Oct 8, 2005 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a great article but how sad that so many people are willingly stupid, attacking science whenever there's a perceived crack in the proofs. With little education or critical thinking and with lots of pseudo-logic, people seem to want to prove they're wise and that counts for more than research and clear thinking. So what. Self-proclaimed experts are a dime a dozen these days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm wise so science is wrong Posted by: peritonlogon
Crush ideology
Posted by: desertrat on Oct 8, 2005 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first poster in this thread makes some excellent points. Posters following seem to fall into an all to common pattern, preferring ad-hominem attacks rather than reasoned discourse. Those who disagree with the contentions of the first poster should bring facts to the table which can support their assertions. For example, the existence of disconformities in ice cores should be trivial to establish or debunk.

Issues relating to climate change and the science behind it are too important for us to allow discourse about them to be clouded or polluted by politics and ideology. We must continue to reach out to those who are ill-equipped or ill-disposed to understand the very real challenges facing all of us with patience, temperance, and humanity. Ultimately our ability to meet these challenges will be in direct propotion to the degree we are able to come together to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Crush ideology Posted by: nickptar
» RE: Crush ideology Posted by: kingfelix
» RE: Crush ideology Posted by: kkorzon
» RE: Crush ideology Posted by: jenlindnerr
» RE: Crush ideology Posted by: Angry Blue Planet
» RE: Crush ideology Posted by: crusty
If you'll pardon the injection of a bit of levity...
Posted by: sgtmartin1 on Oct 8, 2005 10:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
into the discussion. You might enjoy the latest theory on solving the crisis:

Today on EWM: Scientific Shocker: Study: Euthanizing Right-wing Pundits would Solve Global Warming

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's bull. Posted by: nickptar
brave new world
Posted by: kablooie on Oct 8, 2005 5:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
perhaps a new movement is in order -- something along the lines of "Mutha Nature gonna smite your ass" and pointing out to the warring religions of the world that, hey, it doesn't matter what goes on in the 'afterlife' if you can't buy or steal a gallon of water in the here and now.

Hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, nasty germs -- what will the old gal come up with next, and how will monotheism seek to prevail?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Science vs. The Public Relations Campaign
Posted by: stormrider on Oct 8, 2005 7:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A 'tipping point' means that the climate system has switched gears. Warming in the arctic is set to continue and will likely be irreversible. Hurricane intensity in the subtropics is set to increase. Heat waves in mid-latitudes will continue. For policy makers, this means that these events (killer hurricanes, for example) should be treated as 'normal', not as "extremely unusual'. If you want more detailed climate science, try http://www.realclimate.org and the links contained therein. It is best to realize that the science is incredibly complex, and has certain limitations. For example, noone is ever going to be able to tell you where it will be raining more then a week or two in advance; this depends on 'initial condition of the system'; however average rainfall years from now might be computable in terms of 'boundary conditions of the system'. This is understandable if you consider a Las Vegas roulette wheel; noone knows what the next spin will bring, but the house knows it will come out on top every year.

We are certainly 'in the tube' - today's warming trend will continue - the scientific question is, how intense will it get? (Over the next hundred years, that is). Actions taken today will not affect the climate tomorrow, but will show effects over decades. The correct action to take is to minimize the use of fossil fuels and develop renewables to replace some (debatable) fraction of current energy use (70% would be good). This will not be easy or inexpensive, but keep in mind the world is running out of cheap oil as we speak - and the situation isonly going to get more, not less volatile (read: more wars) as demand increases and supply shrinks.

Taking action means that the current economic and political situation will be turned on its head; fossil fuel and energy corporations will suffer massive loss of market share. Not desiring this, they hire PR firms to cloud the issue with the goal of protecting their market share and preventing the emergence of renewable competition. Fairly simple to understand; it is called business strategy, not conspiracy theory. We can all be certain that a certain fraction of postings on this subject come from the PR industry, as do a certain fraction of news stories, etc. That's how PR is done these days - behind a screen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nonlinearity is the key
Posted by: Blue Heron on Oct 8, 2005 10:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really think that humans can sometimes be too clever for thier own good, making crass assumptions and really being pseudo-intellectual when it comes to such arguments. I thank God that unlike us, and our narrow way of thinking, nature is truly 'nonlinear' in every respect, dealing us the harsh lessons we need to get us out of our tiny, tired heads for a change. Galaxies are spiral, as are female cycles and the nautilus. Perhaps if we were to change our way of thinking to follow a similar pattern, we'd be a lot less destructive. I consider myself to be a pretty bright person overall, yet do not feel I need to arrive at all of my conclusions in a predominantly (read militantly) linear fashion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, a map is not the territory Posted by: Sojourner
Global Warming Denying Trolls
Posted by: gp on Oct 8, 2005 11:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, Global Warming Deniers have gone from absolutely denying that global warming even happens, to accepting that it happens, but it is mainly due to natural causes, and so there is nothing humans can to stop it. They use pseudo-scientific claims, and flimsy arguments to support their opinions, like saying that "the decomposition of granite releases more CO2 than humans".

kkorzon's brothers in arms, Rush Limbaugh and Sen. James Inhofe have put forth claims similar to those kkorzon posted here. And they have both been thouroughly debunked.

For a primer on global warming, check out the Wikipedia --not the most authoritative source, I know, but has plenty of links to sound scientific sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

From the Wikipedia:
The scientific opinion on climate change, [...], is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"

Here are some sites with sound scientifc information:

US Natural Resources Defence Council
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp

US Environment Protection Agency
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf

National Environmental Trust
http://www.net.org/warming/causing.vtml

If you want to know what the private sector in the US is saying and doing about global warming, check out these sites: (I could not paste the direct links, so you will have to use the "Search" tool to look for "global warming")

American Electric Power (This is US' largest power company)

"AEP´s decision to join the Pew Center on Global Climate Change Business Environmental Leadership Council represents an extension of our activities to address the concerns about global climate change on a voluntary, proactive and cost-effective basis"
http://www.aep.com/newsroom/


Exelon Corp (A Fortune 500, and one of the US' largest electric utilities)

"At Exelon, we accept that the science of global warming is overwhelming. We accept that limitations on greenhouse gases emissions will prove necessary."
http://www.exeloncorp.com/search

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An objective view from Canada
Posted by: neilemac on Oct 9, 2005 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A legacy of abrupt change.
Our notorious David Suzuki has been informing Canadians of climate change and causes for decades. Too bad Americans get caught up in the illusion of invincible religion which presently robs them of accepted science elsewhere on the planet. The moron in the WH called for a day of prayer after the fact in response to the 'act of god' Katrina, only to be answered by another 'act of god' Rita. See how debunking science for religion isn't working. All you whom continue to stick your heads in biblical sand, ignoring the planet's history [which outdates humanity by millenia], are already doomed to expedite global catastrophy. Take of the striped blinders, they're cutting into America's collective common science, er sense. namasté

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An objective view from Canada Posted by: peritonlogon
» PLEASE FORGIVE OUR WAHOOS Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: PLEASE FORGIVE OUR WAHOOS Posted by: peritonlogon
» RE: PLEASE FORGIVE OUR WAHOOS Posted by: peritonlogon
most farmers will tell you....
Posted by: Farmertim on Oct 9, 2005 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not that we are the sages of the day or the fact we have been saying this for some time now, but, things have shifted as they relate to our ability to grow a crop, hence climate change should be called more like, "climate instability".
We as farmers have always dealt with the mood swings of mom nature but things as they are now have become wildly irrattic and norms are out the window.
One article that should be liked to this article is the "out sourcing of our food" which has strong parrellels to why out sourcing of our US food supply need to happen in the first place.
Other than a race to the floor in on farm purchases the industry seem to be playing the odds by moving production to off shore locals due too in part from the inability to produce a given amount of anything on our soil any more.
Yes agribussiness and its ability to ruin soil structure may help in the swings of climate change, but its religous use of fossile fuels to move far away food to the shores of the states and then inland is more of the equation.
Most downfalls of any society has been due to the loss of its agriculture base.
We as a society saw its agriculture slash and burn forests, deplete soils and move on to new forests and do the same.
We simply have moved that practice oversees and in doing so advance the natural cycles of long time global climate change and we may pay for that practice, or at least our great grand children will.
The soil is a very sensitive organism, to think the earth is any different leads to what we soon shall face.
If we don't begin to support local bio-based agriculture with what energy we have left, all the studies in the world won't make a difference, either for or against climate change, and those who said it would'nt happen will starve right along with those who knew it would.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

money on more research shouldn't be an issue
Posted by: Smiggsy on Oct 9, 2005 11:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evidence of global climate change may be the problem, but the problem here is too much rhetoric.

The comments above remind me of a bizzare sort of scenario. Its like the earth is a boat & we are troubled by the possibilty of the ship sinking. Whilst everybody argues about how fashionable it might be to wear a life bouyancy vest - nobody really notices if the ship is actually sinking. Similarly the science or spin is really worthless unless it all benefits toward a valued & proactive outcome. This means less debate & more effort put towards thorough research & comprehensive undersrtaning of the global climate change.

Money, grants & research spending shouldn't be an issue of the topic. Every persons future life is at stake. How totally incompetent our gov'ts are when they spend more on chem-oil, defence & space research when disasterous climate events seem to be the single biggest threat to global survival & security.

In this instance the article serves well to raise awareness. Like most above seem to agree, best to educate yourself with the all the science. Ignore the general hype, trends & media & be proactive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a more important tipping point than any other
Posted by: rini on Oct 9, 2005 3:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This dwarfs Iraq (despite the fact that it is a huge human tragedy.)

Scientists have been talking about this for three or four decades. Why haven't we listened? Yes we are selfish and shortsighted. But the answer is even deeper. You cannot see climate change or the global ecosystem because of its large scale. We did not evolve to worry about things such as this. We instinctively buy huge SUV's because they protect our family from a car accidents (among other things). This direct physical threat is easy to understand. Protecting one's family from something as nebulous as climate change is not intiutive. Unfortunately, it may be even more important. How plastic our are nervous systems? How quickly can we adapt? Well, we are going to be challenged over the next century. I have a feeling that we don't know the least of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

global warming. What?
Posted by: Ingarose on Oct 9, 2005 7:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While global warming is rerious, most Americans who live pay check to pay check cannot be bothered with all the scientific efidence. Therefore, they will listen to the so called experts from the right or the left and in the end who ever screams louder and more often will get their ears. Right now Bush and Rush have the upper hand and the democrats are trying to warm up in a kiddy pool so they don;t have to jump into the ocean of the real debate.
We Americans like real action, quick and fast. Anything like global warming is way too boring to most of us and that's why the right wing pundits get away with it until it bits them into the butt and even then they will still refute the evidence.

So I say, just keep driving your SUV's , heat up your super swimming pools, run your air conditioners way too cold and live the good old life until it finally keeps crashing down. And then its probably still not global warming but something the left or American haters have cooked up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global warming or not...We need to move away from fossil fuels anyway
Posted by: CatDad on Oct 9, 2005 8:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one issue where I cannot follow the conventional leftist orthodoxy. I cringed when global warming was blamed for Katrina. As a previous poster alluded to, the earth has have some very drastic climate changes in the past 10,000 years. There is some compelling evidence that global warming is taking place, yet I don’t think that there can be a system of objective scientific measurement to say that a particular event, like a CAT 5 hurricane, is a direct result of global warming. Regardless of global warming, it is critical that we make the transition anyway from fossil fuels which are increasingly in short supply…and located in highly volatile regions of the world.

Now, what are the chances of this happening with an administration which has a resolving door relationship the oil/natural gas industry? Zilch….the Bush and the Royal Saud Dynasties have too much to loose in a move away from fossil fuels.

When I think of the money this nation has wasted it nearly brings me to tears. Nearly half a trillion dollars on the space shuttle program…a program that the head of NASA now claims was a failure. Now these goons want another “prestige” moon landing ($250 million…which will invariably balloon to at least half a trillion if approved. The Iraq War…no comment necessary…half a trillion on that one. What about that money being used in a “Manhattan” type project to force the big three automakers to build hybrid cards, as well as assisting in the development of alternative energy technologies? Not with this sleazy, big-oil government of corruption and cronyism baby…

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has the age of chaos begun
Posted by: martin2 on Oct 9, 2005 8:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi-i remember years ago not sure when (60's or 70's) maybe.
a govrnment official or a scientist made the remark "WHOEVER CONTROLS THE WEATHER WILL CONTROL THE WORLD" and i have been thinking a lot about that statement lately
MW

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Has the age of chaos begun Posted by: jenlindnerr
a possibly simple solution
Posted by: pleaseplanttrees on Oct 15, 2005 1:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not just plant as many trees everywhere there is a space dig up grave yards cremate those people get rid of every golf course and plant trees also why don't we start building massive pipelines to desert areas from the sea then distill the water get the salt out and start coverting deserts into man made forests. I know it will cost money but trees are proven to absorb carbon dioxide and lower temperatures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kill the Killers
Posted by: morrison on Oct 15, 2005 10:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the united states is mostly to blame for the present predicament, china should somehow be talked into bankrupting the us by cashing in its dollars, our hired killers posing as leaders should all be rounded up and shot as should remaining republicans still willing to identify themselves as such, all oil refineries should be dismantled letting the societal chips fall where they may and all should fall into the hands of communities. who in the hell needs governments which freud said have the singular purpose of legitimizing acts of barbarism that would never be committed by the individual and controlling the means to commit those acts. the moron bush has put the final nail in the coffin-- how fitting. all this evolution only to be done in by an inferior specimin-- delusional, sociopathic, dumb, psychotic-- an ass hole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]