text:
Is Australia a net source, in terms of carbon dioxide, or a net sink?
By Don AitkinNovember 27, 2019Other
This question troubles some people, and on this website, and on many others, you'll find contradictory answers: it's a net SINK! No, it's a net SOURCE! My past position was that by and large Australia was a net sink, though since we export a lot of coal, we've passed on some of our GGE to other countries. In short, I don't think it's a question of enormous significance. But others are sure that it is, so I thought I should do some more work on the subject and provide interested readers with a little background.
Let's start with the notion of sinks and sources. Carbon sinks are natural systems of some kind — plants, soils and oceans — that take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it. A carbon source is what you might expect it to be: a volcano is one example, human activity in burning fossil fuels is another, while cement-making, deforestation, crop-growing and farming animals are four other examples. We ourselves pump out carbon dioxide (and some methane, too) every time we breathe out or pass wind. In a model world, sinks and sources finally balance each other in net terms. So plants use C02 for photosynthesis and release it through respiration, oceans take up and release carbon dioxide, as do soils.
The bit that is different is the human addition, only about half of which seems to be taken up. The other half is added to what there is already in the atmosphere, about 400+ parts per million. Most land, most people and most industry are in the northern hemisphere, so the northern hemisphere is a bigger source of human GGE than the southern. Because carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas, it is not long before the proportions are much the same in each hemisphere. Oh, there is a jagged edge to the growing carbon dioxide line, as in the growing season of the northern hemisphere the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is consumed at a rapid rate, slowing down in the northern winter.
That's the background. I haven't filled the page with tables, graphs or numbers, because all this is reasonably well known, and I think uncontroversial. Once Australia signed up to the Kyoto Protocol it became necessary for us to measure where carbon dioxide was being generated by human activity, otherwise the whole business of carbon- offset trading couldn't operate for us. So we set to with a will, and Australians are good at this type of task — we did the world's first modern census. The IPCC had already set out what it wanted, so we followed that pattern.
After a few years those entrusted with the work thought it would be a good idea to include the whole Australian land mass as the foundation for their database, and did so. If I'd been part of the team I would have agreed. The IPCC was not interested in whether Australia was a net sink or a net source, and our people didn't explore that question either.
The blogosphere controversy, nonetheless, is about whether or not Australia as a whole is a source or a sink. If it is a source, then for alarmists it is imperative that we reduce our GGE; if it is a sink, then it doesn't really matter, unless you think that Australia should be leading the world — and some do. The Australian National Greenhouse Accounts for the first quarter of this year show a tiny increase from the first quarter of 2018. I can't copy things from the pdf, but Figure 4 at page 7 shows that electricity generation produced a third of our GGE, transport nearly a fifth and agriculture a seventh. The puzzle lies in a category called LULUCF, meaning 'Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry'. LULUCF is the only area where the outcome is negative, that is, a decrease in GGE. The decrease was only 19.4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, while human-induced emissions were more than 550 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Does that mean Australia is a net gigantic source? I shook my head at the ratio. It just didn't seem to make good sense.
Yet the truth is that I don't know. If you look up LULUCF you will find that it refers to 'direct human-induced changes in carbon stocks'. I'm quoting here from the IPPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF. At once there is a quandary. I take it that a state forest, of which Australia has a large number, is a forest in LULUCF terms, even if no logging takes place (and only a tiny proportion of our forests is logged). But what about a national park? You can't log them, and if you could the only area that was 'forest' would be the area set aside for logging. The same would apply if some part of a national park were open to mining, for uranium, for example. We have a lot of national parks and other like areas, nature conservancies, wild-life reserves, special habitats and the rest. They do not seem to me to be examples of 'human-induced changes in carbon stocks'.
What about public land not elsewhere defined? My memory is that in England, to take that example, there is no public land, as we understand it. In England it is Crown land, and it is not available to you. But Australia has a hell of a lot of land that is just land (technically it is Crown land too, but not in the English sense). Public land is owned by the Commonwealth, a state government or a local council. There may be things you aren't supposed or allowed to do there, like collect timber, or light fires or dig for oil without a licence. But it's not farmland, there are no fences, it isn't being 'used' in any productive way; in my view it would be drawing a long bow to say that it is being 'managed'. So is it part of LULUCF or not? What about roadsides and railway edges? What about mangroves (11,500 square km)? What about IPAs (indigenous protected areas)? There are 48 million hectares of them. And so on. Most of the arid inland Australia is public land, and much of it is a mixture of scrub and grassland. Australia, unlike the countries of the EU, is a big place, and a lot of that land is neither freehold or leasehold. Is public land included, and what would all that mean?
You can get a sense of all this by going to The Australian National Greenhouse Accounts paper Australian Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Projections to 2030 of September 2013. There doesn't seem to be a more recent such publication The first thing to be aware of is that just about every number is an estimate of some kind, inferred from something else, or modelled. Satellite data are the basis ofthe Full Carbon Accounting Model (FullCAM), which estimates the biomass of vegetation on lands across Australia, the carbon stored in above and below ground vegetation and soil, and emissions resulting from land management activities.
Second, while there's a sense of 'human-induced' in the reference to land management in that quote, there's no division between natural and managed. It is as though the whole Australian land mass is the field of this paper. You would think that, for example, the great Australian soil mass, of 7.7 million square kilometres, is either gaining or losing carbon dioxide in net terms, but I can't find an estimate about whatever is happening to it. There is nothing about mangroves, 18 per cent of the Australian coastline. While there is legislation to protect them, does anyone 'manage' mangroves? I don't think so, from what I have read.
So I rang up, and talked to a helpful guy from the Department of Environment and Energy who agreed that I was asking difficult but interesting questions. He directed me to the 350 pages of Volume Two of the National Inventory Report 2017, published earlier this year. This is a splendid account of what is known and modelled, with wonderful maps, comprehensive tables and easy-to-understand text. Unfortunately, it does not anywhere answer my question, and indeed it hardly refers to 'human-induced changes to carbon stocks' at all.
To repeat, asking whether or not Australia is a net sink was not the job of our clever people. Having said that, it also seems that those concerned forgot about the need to distinguish between what naturally occurs and what human activity has done. I'm not blaming them, it wasn't quite their job, but it is an awkward lacuna from my point of view. It's reminiscent of the IPCC's failure to distinguish the natural from the human-induced in global warming.
So, is Australia a sink or a source? My tentative answer is that no-one knows. But this is a progress report, and I'll keep on working at it. In the meantime, someone else might come up with some answers, and I might have missed something blindingly obvious. It happens to us all.
Karabar says:
Why is this relevant? One of the biggest reasons we are saddled with the superstitious nonsense about 'gerbil worming' is that discussion inevitably reverts to who and how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere, when the ratio in the atmosphere compared with that in the seas is about 1.5% and is determined by Henry's Law and nothing else. The planet and its atmosphere is in no way similar to a 'greenhouse' and non-condensing gases play no role in the weather. In addition, the hypothesis that 'warming' is a result of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere can be easily and completely disproved because said 'warming' is a fallacy.
The entire issue is tantamount to discussions 500 years ago as to whether werewolves were more ferocious than vampires. Eventually, as the cooling that arises from cyclical changes in the sun, or when the poles shift in 2045, the entire hoax and sham will finally be acknowledged.
This is a very good post Don and you are a very thorough fellow to say the least.
Don't forget that the CSIRO states that the SH is a net sink and the NH is the net source and that's good enough for me for now. Today about 0.8 bn people are in the SH and about 6.9 bn people in the the NH or about 6.1 bn more to provide that net co2 source.
Walter Starck says:
Some interesting figures regarding Australian emissions:
For the period 2006–2015, only 45% of anthropogenic emissions are estimated to stay in the atmosphere. Estimated uptake from the land accounted for 30% of emissions and 25% was by the oceans.
Global GHG emissions for 2016 = 36 Gt
Australia GHG emissions for 2016 = 0.41 Gt
55% natural uptake of 36 Gt global emissions = 19.7 Gt. Assuming all nations are credited for a share of oceanic uptake proportional to their land area, Australia's share of natural uptake = 1.0 Gt. Considering uptake by land area alone, Australia's share of natural uptake would still be 0.54 Gt.
(Note: A study published in Science several years ago on CO2 uptake by soil in desert areas found uptake comparable to moderately vegetated areas. The mechanism is unknown.)
No matter how you figure it, Australia appears to be a net CO2 sink. This is also affirmed in global CO2 monitoring by the Japanese Ibuki satellite. The high per capita emissions for Australia is a red herring. Australia appears to be the only advanced economy that is a CO2 sink. We are absorbing emissions from other nations and should be receiving an emissions credit. Obsessing over our emissions and saddling ourselves with the highest electricity prices in the world is beyond stupid.
Chris Warren says:
This is a con:
"Assuming all nations are credited for a share of oceanic uptake proportional to their land area, "
This is false:
"No matter how you figure it, Australia appears to be a net CO2 sink."
All that "is beyond stupid."
Under present policies no OECD nation will ever be a net sink while ever new (additional) suburbs and transport corridors are introduced over previous grass or farmland.
The figures cited are readily available and not controversial. Labels and assertions are only argumentum ad ignorantia. Offer some opposing evidence and there will be something to debate.
The onus is on you to substantiate your claims. Not make claims (which have no evidence) while declaring others as "beyond stupid".
You reap what you sow. You are the epitome of "argumentum ad ignorantia."
Boambee John says:
Excrpt that almost the first thing that happens when a new suburb is occupied is (relatively) mass planting of lawns, annual plants and shrubs. Depending upon the relative age of the cleared vegetation, the new suburb could rapidly become a sink.
Mike Burston says:
PLants photosynthesise more efficiently with enhanced CO2 levels. In arid climates such as Australia that means they can manage with less water, hence we're likely a net sink. NASA imagery supports this
michael mills says:
plants exhale Oxygen not CO2 and lose moisture vie transpiration. I am more worried about the reduction in atmospheric Oxygen than CO2 nonsense.
Plants exhale CO2 and oxygen. I am more worried about CO2 than any other nonsense.
Sorry, above should read that the total world population is 7.7 bn people, 6.9 bn in the NH and 0.8 bn in the SH.
That means that NH is 8.63 times the pop of the SH and NH is about 276 times the pop of Australia.
We could also include Australia's very large exclusive economic zone ( EEZ) and it is one of the largest in the world and includes parts of Antarctica and the cold southern ocean.
See discussion at the govt link. Prof Bob Carter mentioned this on a number of occasions.
Here is Willis Eschenbach's 2014 WUWT post about the IBUKI satellite details on co2 sinks and sources.
Argentina, Brazil and Australia are the largest sinks, see fig 3. But add in our EEZ and we would be the largest sink.
Whether this is fair or not is another matter.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/the-revenge-of-the-climate-reparations/
Here again is Chief scientist Dr Finkel testifying before the Senate about Australia's co2 emissions.
We could reduce all of our emissions to ZERO and it would make NO difference.
I could testify that if I paid no tax, that it would make no difference.
Fortunately more intelligent folks can see the fallacy here – but not denialists.
As I understand it – LULUCF only concerns deforestation, aforestation and reforestation from 1990. So public land or roadsides and railway edges that are unchanged since 1990 are not part of LULUCF calculations. There are supplementary aspects but it seems this is left to national governments to include or not.
Developing a new suburb in Canberra over previous grassland, bush or farmland (as at 1990) is an increase in CO2 emissions (or a decrease in CO2 sink).
Removing trees and grass from Northbourne Av and replacing with concrete tramlines is a decrease in CO2 sink.
The trees, on Black Mountain, unchanged from 1990, are not part of LULUCF even though they may absorb CO2.
If I am right – then this LULUCF regime fixation on 1990 is the Achilles Heal of GHG accounting because much of global warming was caused by pre-1990 activities.
JMO says:
Yes Chris you made a good point about individual tax payments. But would you pay extra tax and wreck your finances in the knowledge a far richer taxpayer ( say second richest in the land and certainly not a developing one ) has somehow been given Carte Blanche ( by no less than the former world's most powerful man) to not pay until 2030? So, fine, you pay your tax according to the law or agreement by the ATO – no more no less. Same with our agreed Paris commitment – 26-28% reduction by 2030; no more no less.
You mentioned about Canberra. It was our loony Green left who DEMANDED a late 19th-early 20th relic to trundle along Northbourne Ave for their support in the ACT Legisltative Assembly and in full knowledge that hundreds if not a thousand beautiful trees will be killed – yes "killed". The tram has cost nearly $2bn ( up from $650 million estimate). They have done the same all over Canberra, thousands of trees got the chop. And they have the temerity to call anyone, or any residents association who oppose these developments as ludites or knuckle draggers. I did vote Green sometimes instead of Labor, but never never again. Take it from me they are hypocrites and dangerous people. For the first in my life I voted Liberal at the last ACT elections and will do it again in 2020. I cannot believe it had come to this- but that is life.
And since you love using the word "denialist", I can use another "d" word – doomster. The idiotic climate doomsters cannot or refuse to acknowledge the hypocrisy of this loony Green/ Labor ACT toy government. These climate doomsters absolutely refuse to answer 2 questions – where is the empirical evidence that the CO2 molecules (NOT carbon atoms) are the main or only cause of the warming and, accept they were WRONG on each and everyone of the prothoria of doomster predictions made so far. And boy, have kept a list of them. And do not go on about the science is settled, settled science is 1 theory,1 model and it works; not 107 odd and none work.
Finally, you have 2 choices, if the climate doomsters are right then there is nothing you, I or we can do. China, India and USA will not stop emmitting to save the planet. So you can worry, moan and fear the next 10 -12 years. Or, say no, the doomster predictions have shown to be completely wrong, the sceptics and denialists are right and enjoy life; NOT worry about emissions, temperatures and every weather event. If noting else, you would have enjoyed 10-12 years before the sky glows red and we are all fried.
Hint, it ain't going to happen, so stop being a prat and cease using the word "denialist".
Actually there is a third choice.
Those who are absolutely convinced that anthropogenic CO2 is the problem shoukd accept the reality that China, India and other developing nations will continue to increase their emissions at a faster rate than developed nations can reduce their emissions, and focus instead on adaptation to the inevitable (as they see it) disaster. Future increases in CO2 levels are inevitable, regardless of the hopes of the IPCC and others.
The first step in adaptation must be provision of reliable, continuous, affordable electric power to enable civilised life to continue. Thisis not feasible with renewable power and storage sources at their current level of development. If fossil fuel sources are as damaging as the true believers claim, to only realistic option for a nation like Australia, with limited potential hydro power sources, is nuclear power.
Next, we must have reliable water supplies. If electric power is the destructive force claimed, then desalination plants are not the solution. More storage (as different to hydro power) dams are essential.
Finally, we need some Dutch engineers to advise on construction of sea walls, again if the true believers are correct about sea level rise.
Even if CAGW turns out to be grossly exaggerated, the power sysyems and new water storage will not be wasted, while the sea walls need not be built until the risk is clear.
Tezza says:
But most human emissions of greenhouse gasses have been post-1990, so those comparatively minor pre-1990 emissions must have been particularly potent. Or perhaps other natural forces were more powerful. You'd have to wonder ….
"As I understand it – LULUCF only concerns deforestation, aforestation and reforestation from 1990. So public land or roadsides and railway edges that are unchanged since 1990 are not part of LULUCF calculations."
First, glad to see that you have taken up my point from the bushfires thread, about LULUCF not covering the entire continent.
Second, it is important to note in this debate that LULUCF is a legal technicality for Kyoto and later accounting purposes, it is NOT the complete Australian CO2 sink. The areas outside LULUCF also have photosynthesising vegetation that absorbs CO2, and adds to the sink total.
To prove that Australia is not a nett CO2 sink, you will have to estimate the total of non-LULUCF sinks and add it to the LULUCF total, then compare to our emissions.
If you conducted yourself without your Neville-language such as;
ludites
knuckle draggers
I would consider your claims but in fact you are the dangerous "prat".
Doom is on the agenda if GHGs continue to accumulate – there is no alternative.
Doomsters is inappropriate as the correct term is "antidoom-sters".
If doom was not a likelihood consequence, noone would be concerned about global warming.
True. As long as China, India and others continue to increase their CO2/GHG emissions at a faster rate than developed nations can possibly reduce theirs, then, if you are correct about the central position of these gasses in climate (a point of dispute), then the doom you forsee might be inevitable.
But the logical response is not to continue to destroy our economic capacity to help ourselves, but to look to adaptation to change. See my post above.
Bryan Roberts says:
"Doom is on the agenda", and has been on the agenda for at least the past twenty years. But Tuvalu, Kiribati, and Mauritius are still securely above the waves.
But they can't be! They are the sacrificial icons, except that they are refusing to die. Breaking news: no-one cares.
Bryan Roberts
Why would you change my statement "Doom is on the agenda if GHGs continue to accumulate" to merely;
"Doom is on the agenda"?
Are you saying that if GHG's continue to accumulate, that parts of Tuvalu, Kiribati, and Mauritius will not be under water?
If so, what magic are you relying on?
Why the dirty trick?
Chris, I can quote whatever parts of your statement I like, if they help me make my point. It is an indisputable fact that the small Pacific nations show no signs of disappearing (see Bureau of Meterology Pacific Sea Level Bryan RobertsMonitoring Project), and will not disappear any time in the forseeable future.
Yes of course you can selectively quote to suit yourself. This is the only way you can paddle your canoe.
Low lying islands will disappear when sufficient land ice melts. This is indisputable.
Indeed it is indisputable. Please provide your forecast of how long it will take for "sufficient land ice" to melt. No need for excessive precision, to the nearest 50 years will be adequate.
Sorry, no. Researchers at the University of Auckland have shown that the land area of the island nations has actually increased, despite whatever sea level rise has actually occurred.
"A University of Auckland study (Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations, Paul S. Kench, Murray R. Ford & Susan D. Owen) examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu's nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery. The paper claims that local sea level has risen at twice the global average (~3.90 + 0.4 mm.yr-1). That translates to about six inches over the 43-year period. However, the study found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, increasing Tuvalu's total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average. "
So, Manhattan might disappear, but Tuvalu will almost certainly survive LOL.
Cherrypicking
Is your definition of cherrypicking summarised as "any research that doesn't agree with your beliefs"?
How are you going with cherrypicking some research to respond to my question "Please provide your forecast of how long it will take for "sufficient land ice" to melt. No need for excessive precision, to the nearest 50 years will be adequate."
Damn cherrypickers are everywhere.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/fact-check-is-the-island-nation-tuvalu-growing/10627318
Chris, since you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary (there isn't any), I cannot be accused of 'cherry-picking'. I am simply reporting a published article. You can deny their conclusions if you wish, the way you dismiss any other data that do not fit your narrative.
At this stagemyou are relying on the "magic" of computer models for your claims about inundation of islands, and for the rest of your forecasts of "doom".
So far, those models do not have a solid record as forecasting tools, as even NASA has admitted.
Have a chat to Bill Burrows
https://www.beefcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Vegetation-Management-in-Queensland-Background-notes-for-State-MPs-Dec-20152.pdf
Boxer says:
Don, you appear to be entangled in the definition of a "forest".
Forest is a vegetation type and has no relationship to ownership or the degree of management. Vacant crown land, managed or commercial state forest, any of the conservation reserves and parks (this group tending to be left to their own devices until they are flattened by wildfire), and private forested land are all the same in terms of being "forest". The boundaries between forest, woodland and heathland are fairly vague in common usage, though there may be ecologists here who can provide technical demarcations.
In the context of carbon accounting the definition is very broad and can include various forms of "tree", all the way down to the large shrubs like eucalyptus mallee. I am a bit rusty on all this because I didn't take a enough notice of some of the details when I worked alongside this area, as I thought it was a prime example of how playing with numbers and semantics could be used to make rent seekers rich. However if you want to pursue it, I am sure there is someone inside the FullCAM community who can give you the full run down. I think the contact you made was the wrong person because I am absolutely sure there are numerous people who understand the FullCAM model, and I am reasonably sure it would be based heavily upon satellite imagery. Of course once these people understand your position on CAGW, they will think of you as immoral, and may either brush you off, or humour you until their next meeting approaches. After all, their salaries are paid by the global warming panic industry, and in my own experience they will assume you are in the pay of The Fossil Fuel Industry, while being quite oblivious to their own vested interests in the matter. They will even deny having a vested interest, which shows how adaptable is the word "denial".
In carbon accounting, everything from soil carbon through to tall native forests, including pasture, crops, regenerating brigalow, farm revegetation, commercial plantations, harvested/regenerated native forest, and the hallowed Old Growth Forest (a vibrant swell of organ music in the background) is in the mix. It is an area populated by earnest and well motivated scientists, confused bureaucrats, outright exploitative rent seekers, and every variation in between. There is inevitably a lot of interpolation and extrapolation – I remember listening to a conversation where a scientist related how appalled a bureaucrat from our fair capital was when he (the Canberran) realised that the soil carbon numbers being thrown around in national public debate at that time were based upon two (2) paddocks. I am sure it's more than 20 paddocks now.
I have a concern about carbon accounting that relates to the perception that a forest is a carbon sink. A recently planted or regenerating forest will certainly accumulate carbon, but only compared to the quite recent preceding point in time where it was disturbed (which is why it is now recently planted and/or regenerating). Sometimes this can be a process that moves carbon into storage – say if a forest is harvested and the wood is used in long term structures, and then the forest regenerated. But "carbon forests" are not harvested, or only sometimes anyway. They are storing carbon that was sequestered underground millions or years ago, so it is only reasonable to assume that carbon forests will last a similarly long time.
An unharvested forest will reach maturity in time, and from then on it is no longer a sink. A mature forest is in balance, where the rate of photosynthesis is equal to the rate of carbon emissions from plant respiration and decomposition or combustion of natural losses, losses such as leaf fall, bark shedding, limb fall, fire, tree senescence and death. A major source of carbon emissions from forests is the process following disturbance (natural or human) where regeneration of large numbers of trees leads to self-thinning, where most of the young trees die as a minority of the most competitive individuals dominate the stand and consume most of the resources. No forest actually lives forever. There may be some vegetation types in the world underneath which peat is accumulating over thousands of years, as it used to during the Carboniferous, but this would be a very minor effect with our current relatively low levels of atmospheric CO2.
So we see well-meaning people tick the box on their airline booking to have their emissions offset. This money then goes off to employ people to do all sorts of things, like plant trees on farms. Some seedlings survive, and some are eaten by the sheep. The plantings grow up and in my experience they are always planted too densely, so after a decade or two competition becomes so severe that large proportions of the trees die as the "carbon forest" starts to self-thin. Now and then an escaped stubble fire sweeps through, CO2 is emitted, and everything is reset to the beginning. Auditing all this is a perpetual cost and I wonder if it even happens. If you thought some of the bluegum forest investment operations were Ponzi schemes ….
Or the money goes off to pay traditional land holders in a developing country to not log a bit of forest that they were really and truly were going to log. Is it assumed that this forest is a carbon sink? Because it isn't if it's mature. I am sure all this is managed as well as an Australian carbon forest, so sooner or later the traditional owners will convert the forest to a palm oil plantation because that will pay them some real money and they will be able to see their children get an education. That's what nearly all of us would do.
Boxer, thank you for this most interesting account of the forest. I don't think I am entangled in it. Rather, LULUCF is about 'direct-human-induced changes to carbon stocks'. So 'forests' should appear in LULUCF when something is done in them through human activity that leads to a change in carbon. But, as you say, there's a lot going on in forests of all kinds that is not due to human activity, and the changes thereby produced ought not to be in LULUCF. Nonetheless they affect whether or not Australia is a sink or a source.
As far as I can see there are no measurements other than from satellites that would allow us to say anything with real confidence. Certainly we cannot use LULUCF as a proxy.
I wish more folks were aware that:
"An unharvested forest will reach maturity in time, and from then on it is no longer a sink. ".
Additionally, any new plantings must surely be replacing trees that covered the land before European settlement and are very unlikely to be an offset of fossil fuels.
However harvesting wood and using it for bridges, buildings, sleepers etc. is a legitimate carbon sink, provided the source woodland regrows.
Regarding the new plantings on cleared land, it appears to just be a case of setting a baseline date and then measuring or planning on changes since that date (1990?)
The practice of using cleared farmland as a baseline or pre-existing condition, ignoring the fact that a lot of farmland previously carried woodland, forest or native scrub (heathland) is common, even if a bit arbitrary. Europe was once timbered from one side to the other, but clearing was well under way before Europeans came to Australia, so I think we are in plenty of company on that score. Similarly, no one talks about the conservation issues around clearing and species extinction in Europe in the distant past. Over there, it all happened before anyone was measuring these things, whereas Australia and other "new world" countries are often blamed for having terrible extinction records.
This kind of double dipping and clever accounting is rife – I gather Germany uses the fall of the Berlin Wall and the global financial crisis to make the maximum use of widescale closures of East German factories (for economic reasons) to gain green credits for reducing CO2 emissions. In Oz, Canberra virtually confiscated private commercial land use rights in parts of Qld and NSW by banning clearing (which is actually the repeated re-clearing required to maintain pasture). Farmers were not compensated for this loss of production, but we use the regrowth to make our carbon accounting look good.
All this creation of artificial markets to achieve some other benefit is where the commercial bottom-feeders are found. Just stir up money into the air where it is easy to get at, scoop up as much cash as you can, and then sell up and move on to the next muddy pond.
"Must surely" is an evidence free assumption. You need to go back to descriptions by early settlers that there was very little undergrowth in areas where the (photosynthesising) undergrowth is now thick. Try Bill Gammage, The Biggest Estate on Earth for some introductory reading.
Sounds like a good argument for logging old growth forest?
Peter E says:
Setting aside some of the debate above, which wanders well away from the subject, this is a fascinating question. I doubt that I'll begin work on the subject but I would be interested in any conclusions. Meantime, this whole column and the comments could usefully be brought to the attention of those sections of the media who are open to debate (Chris Kenny, Andrew Bolt and others). What I have drawn from the above is that it reinforces the Chief Scientist's comment that Australia makes little difference. So in my view we should withdraw from Paris and rapidly decrease remaining subsidies to renewables, leaving the market to decide how we should get our energy.
Yes Peter E we should withdraw from Paris or Dr Hansen's "fra-d and BS" fiasco ASAP and stop wasting billions $ on stupid S&W for a guaranteed ZERO return.
BTW here's a great new video starring Steyn, Watts, McIntyre and McKitrick as they pull apart the super expensive cult of the last 30+ years. These very intelligent blokes make a great case for doing nothing about so called CAGW and the sooner the better.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/27/apocalypse-deferred/
Kneel says:
Likely, the best case would be a "results based" exercise.
Windmills and solar panels are nice enough I suppose, but do they achieve any reduction in CO2?
Given the tonnes of steel and concrete needed for construction of wind or the high temperatures and chemicals needed to make a solar panel, plus the additional grid capacity that has to be built, and the approximate 10 year lifetime of these things, it seems unlikely they even break even – any of them.
So even if i were to accept that CO2 is a problem (I'm not convinced it is), the solution doesn't appear to be renewables – despite massive investment, and subsidies that tripled the price of electricity, Germany increased it's CO2 emissions. Even worse, the "green jobs" creating windmills have now been moved off-shore because energy is too expensive in Germany. Looks like all pain for no gain.
The Royal Academy of Engineering now warn that Ex Reb are destructive and they don't support much of the new technology etc that would overcome so much of their so called CAGW.
https://www.thegwpf.com/extinction-rebellion-are-destructive-and-unsupportive-royal-academy-of-engineering-warns/
They also say that the sky is the limit, but this won't bother these ignorant fools or their supporters on this blog. Does anyone think that these fools care about data/evidence or new technology or the scientific method? No these destructive fools would rather STOP DEVELOPMENT and waste endless trillions $ on a guaranteed ZERO change to temp or climate by 2100 and way beyond. Here's the GWPF coverage of their report.
"Ahead of a new report, calling for the rapid scaling up of Britain's engineering biology sector, experts said that scientists and engineers were on the brink of solving many of the major problems linked to climate change and environmental pollution.
But they said many protesters were simply unaware of how much was already being done to tackle global issues, such as the development of specialist materials to clean up the oceans, green fuels, bugs being engineered to churn out biodegradable plastics, meat alternatives and even environmentally friendly hair dye.
Speaking about Extinction Rebellion at a briefing in London to launch the report, Ian Shott, Chair of the Enterprise Committee, at RAEng said:
"They are in danger of being somewhat destructive rather than creative and supportive of the solutions that are available.
"If some of that energy could be redirected that might be helpful.
"We now have the opportunity to design new materials and solutions from first principles, so the sky is the limit."
Neither China nor India will stop increasing their CO2/GHG emissions within the timeframes sought by the IPCC and its acolytes. Therefore, IF the alarmists are correct, the only rational action is adaptation. Even if they are not correct, the steps towards adaptation (see one of my posts above) will still be valuable.
Remember when the Oreskes fool called Dr, Hansen, Bill Gates etc DENIERS? Of course they wisely promoted Nuclear energy.
They were deniers because at the Paris conference they accurately told the world that S&W would never be a base-load, reliable form of energy to power the world.
This was Dr Curry's summary of the Oreskes slur in 2015.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/16/the-new-climate-deniers/
Here is a recent talk with Prof William Happer and his laid back style is compelling compered to the screaming and yelling from some of the Ex Reb kiddies and the ongoing climate porn from the clueless Greens, Labor left , MSM etc.
A new low in obscenity from Neville.
Does this mean that you disagree with Prof Happer? Perhaps you might offer some evidence to support your disagreement.
spangled drongo says:
Evidence! Evidence!
When has our blith ever produced any evidence?
BoyfromTottenham says:
A lot of talk here about land being a CO2 source or sink, but my geology textbook says that the oceans contain about 1000 times more CO2 per m2 than land, and a small change in temperature will cause large amounts of CO2 to be absorbed or out-gassed. We all know from a day at the beach that the top metre or so of ocean waters in the mid latitudes heat up every day and cool every night, and of course vary with the seasons. As 70% of the earth is ocean, surely this effect alone would account for far more CO2 sourcing and sinking that the remaining 30%?
Here's more about the co2 emissions fra-d and con trick. Nearly all the increase in emissions over the last 30+ years have come from China, India and developing countries, yet the OECD countries are expected to cough up 100 bn $ a year after 2020. YES that's 100 bn a year. Fair dinkum who signed us up to this lunacy?
China now warns that failure to pay these so called reparations will put at risk the entire program to fight their so called CAGW.
This from China the country that is by far the world's largest emitter of co2 and generates 66.7% of their TOTAL energy from coal, while the USA now generates just 17.1% of TOTAL energy from coal. See IEA data, I've linked to many times.
Australia should pull out of this fra-dulent circus ASAP and refuse to pay one cent in compensation for any of this silly nonsense.
Don't forget that the Concordia Uni study ( Mathews et al) attributed just 0.006 c of the global temp increase since 1800 to Australia.
Just think of the scientific+ health+ engineering+ farming breakthroughs etc since that time and the very high life expectancy enjoyed now by the rest of the world.
That average life expectancy today for the world's 7.7 bn people is about 70 years and China's average life expectancy today is about 76 years.
In 1800 average life expectancy for the 1 billion people alive then was under 40 years of age.
Exceptions were the UK and Holland, but by only a few years. Here's the link to their reparations madness.
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/china-says-developed-countries-lack-political-will-on-climate-goals?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=aeba9b2a77-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_11_29_02_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-aeba9b2a77-20137121&mc_cid=aeba9b2a77&mc_eid=2206e9995b
Neville – 'Fair dinkum who signed us up to this lunacy?' Your question may have been rhetorical but our stupid pollies signed up for this lunacy over a decade ago, followed by more stupids in every federal parliament since, that's who. Any yes, none of them as far as I can remember had the cojones to call out this for what it is – a huge con job on the developed world, orchestrated by the UN. When the hell are they going to wake up!
Unfortunately thousands of scientists, governments, international organisations, non-Murdoch journos, and millions in the street are asking:
When the hell are you going to wake up!
Still waiting for evidence!
Well, at least you finally woke up to the reality that LULUCF does not represent the entirety of the Australian CO2 sink.
When will you wake up to the reality that the GC models, upon which you base your forecasts of future disaster, have essentially no useful forecasting ability? Even NASA has acknowledged that reality.
Once the incapacity of the models is accepted, the only worthwhile actions are those that produce real benefits in any climate scenario at reasonable cost. Reliable electric oowerk HELE or nuclear, water storage to support an expanding population, and modest continuing, open minded, research.
reliable electric power!
Fat fingers.
Gosh even Rudd's wife is on par with her dopey husband when she talks about their CAGW.
She thinks that the Coalition govt have caused some of the fires in NSW. It seems they should have done more, yet Dr Finkel tells us that we could cease all emissions and it still wouldn't make a difference.
So why are these people so keen to display their ignorance and total lack of simple logic and reason?
Let's face it, the simple sums couldn't be easier to understand. How much further do we have to dumb it down just to suit the Rudds and other clueless lefties?
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/therese-rein-goes-wild-scott-morrison-caused-fires/news-story/85be989d05535b7cdf3c89a50fa8c293
Whether Australia is a sink or source of GHG emissions appears to have hit an exposed nerve of climate change belief. If it is a sink the entire structure of urgency and righteousness presented by the Climatists becomes effectively infested with white ants. The responsibilities for Australia are also greatly diminished and scepticism becomes the side of reason and moderation.
The response of The Climatists has been revealing in several important respects:
•	That they feel threatened enough to angrily swarm into a media space they otherwise studiously ignore is telling.
•	That they offer no opposing evidence but rely entirely on pejorative labels, blanket dismissals and personal denigration is indicative of belief based on emotional satisfaction not on reason and evidence.
•	The tactic of demanding evidence that is readily accessible, then categorically dismissing it or ignoring it while switching onto an entirely different demand is a familiar one commonly resorted to by various faith-based beliefs in the face of opposing argument for which they have no answer.
•	That those who profess to be so deeply concerned with the threat posed by Climate Change never find hopeful interest in a possibility anything may not be as dire as they claim but respond only with anger and rejection, makes apparent their fundamental commitment is to the existence of the problem itself rather than to any actual effect it might have.
So, what is it that makes a belief in Climate Change so appealing regardless of meager supporting evidence with high levels of uncertainty, sundry conflicting evidence and repeated failures of predictions as well as exposures of scientific malpractice?
The answer is simple. There is much to be gained. For academics of almost any discipline CC affords fulsome public recognition and generous research funding. For the media it offers drama, controversy and conflict. For activists it presents a popular cause, public attention and healthy contributions. For politicians it panders for votes at low risk and for commercial interests there is a promise of lucrative subsidies.
For all and sundry there is also the appeal of a delicious sense of moral and intellectual superiority for no personal cost or effort but simply for avowing acceptance of the latest one true faith. The appeal for many has been irresistible, especially third-rate academics and others whose aspirations greatly exceed their ability.
For some political groups, there is also the quest for power over the lives of others, to be wielded by a self selected "elite" that includes themselves (of course).
See the statements by Guterres, Figueres and various other UN, EU, IMF and World Bank luminaries about changing the world economic system and redistributing wealth.
You are correct BJ, but I also agree with Walter and I'm sure he fully understands what motivates some silly left wing people.
But without doubt the so called mitigation of their so called CAGW is the greatest and most expensive con and fra-d in human history.
Just look up the data/ evidence using all the PR studies available. Then check out the NASA co2 data since the LIA and 1800 to 1988 and 1988 to 2019 to easily prove the case.
The data now proves that it's China, India, Asean etc , soaring ahead and leaving the flat-lining OECD a long way behind.
See my comment above directed to Chris, stating that the only things Australia should be doing are actions that "produce real benefits in any climate scenario at reasonable cost. Reliable electric power, HELE or nuclear, water storage to support an expanding population, and modest continuing, open minded, research."
Strangely, no response!
I should have been clearer.
I agree with you and Walter about the carpetbaggers who have jumped onto the climate change bandwagon.
However, I think thaf we can more readily survive the financial depredations of those political, academic and business carpetbaggers than we could survive the brutality likely to follow a dictatorial regime determined to punish those deemed to be the "eeeevil deniers", and determined to reduce tha human "footprint" on the planet BAMN.
More evidence that the watermelons are trying to wreck the world. Or just more stupid, leftist ideology to further change things and reduce our freedoms for a guaranteed ZERO change in climate for 100 years and beyond.
Of course the cost of their fra-dulent change will be horrendous and would require more dictatorial power country by country. But will the people wake up to this idiocy before it's too late? I hope so.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/01/delingpole-greta-the-teenage-climate-puppet-goes-full-marxist/
Chris has never acknowledged that his preferred solution, which involves stopping the increase in world population, and then decreasing that population, can only be achieved in the time frames that alarmists claim are essential by the use of dictatorial power.
Given this trash talk: "watermelons are trying to wreck the world. Or just more stupid, leftist ideology to further change things and reduce our freedoms "
Are you a right-wing nutter?
The word you are groping for is "realist".
Seems that the rhetorical strength of CAGW or simple Climate Change is inadequate. Via Arthur Chrenkoff, an ad agency has pondered the problem and produced suggestions:
"Global Meltdown, Global Melting
These options are subtle brand shifts from "global warming," yet they deliver a more negative image. The names signal that ice caps are melting, but also create a more visceral image in the mind — that real feeling of "melting" when it's too hot outside. A meltdown is a disastrous event that draws from the ultimate terror of a nuclear meltdown, an apt metaphor for global destruction. In naming, we call metaphorical names "suggestive names," and they are one of the most popular types of names.
Climate Collapse, Climate Chaos
Good brand names instill a clear message or even a direct call to action. Perhaps that's why climate change isn't powerful enough: "Change" sounds so neutral. However, there's nothing neutral about collapse or chaos. Both are states of events that you absolutely want to avoid. They ask each of us to do what it takes to avoid collapsing or descending into chaos. They both also use alliteration — using the same letter or sound at the beginning of connected words — a naming trick proven to enhance memorability.
Boiling Point, Melting Point
Arresting brand names often capitalize on vivid visual associations. They refer to a tipping point that we're catapulting toward and must find a way to avert. Because a boiling point is the point at which liquid vaporizes, it brings forth imagery of rivers, lakes and oceans boiling and disappearing. "Melting Point" paints a clear picture of solid matter melting. As glaciers melt and disappear, so does our way of life.
It's time to take the gloves off and stop pretending. Sometimes a brand name needs to be hyperbolic to truly capture hearts and minds. If we don't take massive action now, Earth will be uninhabitable — an irreversible barren wasteland. Plants and animals will die. Humans won't be able to survive extreme weather like floods, droughts and fires. If we don't change, we won't even be able to spend time outside. "Scorched Earth" paints the direst picture of what's to come and what we must avoid and is likely the edgiest brand name from our exploration."
It isn't clear which of these won the ad agency's prize, or if all are to be deployed in a mass attack on rationality.
Believe it or not this is the top Dem contender running for President in 2020. IOW he's leading the pack.
And of course he believes in all the extreme CAGW nonsense as well.
Latest LT temp from denialist Spencer, should send shock waves through honest "skeptics".
November 2019 figure of 0.55 is the highest November result on record.
This represents an ongoing rise of well over 1C per century which means that today's ice melt is now unstoppable and we need to plan for a new world where all ice has liquified.
The happiness denialists crow about from past growth based on fossil fuels, has come at the cost of utter misery for many more in the future.
If CO2 concentration continues to increase – future LT temps can only rise.
That reminds me, have you yet prepared your estimate of how long it will take for sufficient land ice to melt to flood low lying islands? To the nearest 50 years would be adequate.
But could you also provide your estimate for how long it will be until we have "a new world where all ice has liquified." In this case, to the nearest 100 years would suffice.
PS, what is your evidence (other than GCMs that NASA does not consider to have any reliable forecasting capability) for the statement that "today's ice melt is now unstoppable"?
PS, Will Steffen et al have offered a broad estimate in Nature:
"Thus, we might already have committed future generations to living with sea-level rises of around 10?m over thousands of years."
Quick maths, 10 m is 10,000 mm. "Thousands of years " being plural implies at least 2,000 years. Steffen et al are suggesting rises of around 5 mm pa. Still frightened? Are you seriously proposing to destroy the world economy for this?
That, of course, is all based on modelling, which is known to lack useful forecasting capability!
"today's ice melt is now unstoppable and we need to plan for a new world where all ice has liquified"
If you seriously believe this, which I doubt, what is your plan?
Whatever it takes to ensure that CO2 concentrations level off or better yet start to decline.
This may well need new industry and population policies with appropriate subsidies, supportative mechanisms, and infrastructure.
The combination of "Whatever it takes" with a call for "new … population policies" fills me with dread. Perhaps you could expand on the kind of population policies you consider both appropriate and effective.
Dr Curry provides a summary as a lead up to COP 25, Madrid Spain. Many good points and sound reasoning, but today deaths from extreme weather events have dropped by at least 95% ( Lomborg 99%, Shellenberger 99.7%) since 1920. Look up the data for the 1.8 bn in 1920 compared to the 7.7 bn today and THINK about it. I know thinking isn't a strong component of the daily routine for some people, but we should always live in hope.
https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/02/madrid/#comments
Curry would be better employed ensuring that her grandchildren know how to swim.
As long as they can at least crawl, they will be able to keep ahead of any sea level rise that occurs in their, and their grandchildren's, lifetimes.
You are rapidly descending into incoherent catastrophe speculation.
More clueless virtue signalling or how NOT to save the world from their so called CAGW. Poor Greta probably thinks it's wonderful and so will the umpteen thousands of delegates/ parasites at COP 25.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7743223/Yacht-skipper-wiped-carbon-emissions-saved-Greta-Thunbergs-sail-Atlantic.html
But you are the right-wing parasite.
Watch and listen to this silly woman at the EU parliament. How do you get these fools to understand proper data and evidence when they even deny the IPCC reports?
Of course Dr Pielke had the same problem trying to school Obama and his so called Science adviser????? Holdren.
But it's wonderful to see the informed scientists present trying to educate her, although I think she would find this is way beyond her understanding and firmly blocked by her religious beliefs.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/there-is-no-climate-emergency-the-truth-that-drove-a-lib-dem-doolally/?fbclid=IwAR2o3rtNab0OshO67e6Hl_8m4UYL6I3162bJ1BsQ62VwnPfaC0NaqZ-woX8
Your silly religious beliefs are amusing – please keep it up.
The extensive snow cover over the USA and NH from late NOV to early DEC is very impressive.
I talked to a mate who just returned from the US and he said it was bloody cold in the Big Apple and real brass monkeys weather.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/03/early-snow-cover-record-set-for-usa-a-foot-of-snow-in-25-states/
Did someone get out on the wrong side of bed this morning?
You really have to feel sorry for our fringe denialists now.
All their fantasies are collapsing whether fantasy 1 – the world is cooling, fantasy 2 – warming has paused, fantasy 3 – sunspots cause warming, and now the fantasy 4 – Australia is a net sink has collapsed.
So denialists, without a shred of evidence then started prattling on trying to move the goal posts so that they could inject the concept "net sink" by fraudulently adding in Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). They are running an extreme right-wing agenda against the interests of future generations.
Evidence adverse denialists should look at the evidence and according to the US government's NCBI, if you include Australia's EEZ, Australia still remains a net source.
See Figure 2 – here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550387/
It illustrates "The sum of all these sources and sinks represent Australia's net CO2 emissions (shown by the dashed black line)."
The whole concept of including EEZ's is a braindead project as it would mean that small island states – Malta – Fiji – Ireland – Sri lanka, could emit practically unlimited GHGs while claiming they are net sinks.
This just shows how incompetant and science-phobic our denialists are.


I spend quite a bit of time on the road every year. Participating in the shows and fairs across the country allows me to showcase my work, but most importantly it lets me meet people that are interested in what I make. From Chicago to Miami, I'm forever grateful to you who stop by my tent to say Hello, wearing an L Fabrika shawl, or a scarf you got from me years ago... Knowing that you love my work keeps me going.


text:
The 1983–84 Serie A season was won by Juventus. It was a tight championship, with reigning champions Roma providing strong opposition to the Bianconeri, who obtained the point they needed by drawing 1-1 against Avellino on 6 May, taking the title with one match to spare.

Teams
Milan, Lazio and Catania had been promoted from Serie B.

Final classification

Results

Top goalscorers

References and sources

Almanacco Illustrato del Calcio - La Storia 1898-2004, Panini Edizioni, Modena, September 2005

External links

 :it:Classifica calcio Serie A italiana 1984 - Italian version with pictures and info.
  - All results on RSSSF Website.

Serie A seasons
Italy
1983–84 in Italian football leagues

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Mackers Riverbend is a holiday getaway near Hazyview (17km) and 25km from the entrance to the Kruger National Park.
Situated on the Sabie River, Mackers provides accommodation in a choice of 3 self-catering cottages.
The cottages are perched on a hill overlooking the Sabie Valley. Each cottage is equipped with braai facilities. There are no televisions at Mackers.
Starlings Nest (cottage 1) is a one bedroom cottage with a double bed and en-suite bathroom. The kitchen is equipped for self-catering and the lounge has an additional roll out bed suitable for 2 children.
Kingfishers Nest (cottage 2) can accommodate 4 people and comprises 1 bedroom with en-suite bathroom, lounge with sleeper couch, kitchen and a spacious verandah.
Sunbirds Nest (cottage 3) is a 2 bedroom cottage which can accommodate 6 people. The cottage comprises the main bedroom with queen bed and a second bedroom with 2 single beds. The lounge has a double sleeper couch and the kitchen is equipped for self-catering.
At Mackers Riverbend you will be treated as one of the family. Bring your tubes, canoes and brave the grade 3 kayaking rapids, mellow out in the rock pools or lace up your boots and venture on a bush walk along the Sabie River.


text:
Q: Why is this struct cleared after being created? I have a struct that looks something like this:
[StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)]
public struct in_addr {
    public Anonymous1 S_un;

    [StructLayoutAttribute(LayoutKind.Explicit)]
    public struct Anonymous1 {
        [FieldOffsetAttribute(0)]
        public Anonymous2 S_un_b;

        [FieldOffsetAttribute(0)]
        public Anonymous3 S_un_w;

        [FieldOffsetAttribute(0)]
        public uint S_addr;
    }

    [StructLayoutAttribute(LayoutKind.Sequential)]
    public struct Anonymous2 {
        public byte s_b1;
        public byte s_b2;
        public byte s_b3;
        public byte s_b4;
    }

    [StructLayoutAttribute(LayoutKind.Sequential)]
    public struct Anonymous3 {
        public ushort s_w1;
        public ushort s_w2;
    }

    public in_addr(byte[] address) {
        S_un.S_addr = (uint)BitConverter.ToInt32(address, 0);

        S_un.S_un_b.s_b1 = address[0];
        S_un.S_un_b.s_b2 = address[1];
        S_un.S_un_b.s_b3 = address[2];
        S_un.S_un_b.s_b4 = address[3];

        S_un.S_un_w.s_w1 = 0;
        S_un.S_un_w.s_w2 = 0;
    }
}

When I try to create a new instance of this struct, every byte field is set to 0.
in_addr temp = new in_addr(bytes);

I've stepped through the struct's constructor and verified that the bytes are indeed getting assigned to the fields. But when I step out of the constructor and check the value of temp, everything is 0.
What's causing this?

A: Because of these lines:
S_un.S_un_w.s_w1 = 0;
S_un.S_un_w.s_w2 = 0;

They are mapped to your 4 bytes via
[FieldOffsetAttribute(0)]
public Anonymous2 S_un_b;

[FieldOffsetAttribute(0)]
public Anonymous3 S_un_w;

A: I can't reproduce this; your code works for me. I'm using Mono but I very much doubt that this is a bug in the Microsoft C# compiler, it's more likely that you've got an error elsewhere.

A: I just tested this in VisualStudio 2008 using C# and got the expected output (1, 2).
Try posting the actual example code that you're having an issue with.
EDIT This is why example code can be bad ;)
Your issue was with the StructLayout.Explicit on Anonymous1. Is there a particular reason that

*

*You did explicit instead of sequential and putting them in the order you wanted

*You left the indices as 0 for all of them

When I changed it to Sequential and removed the attributes, it worked fine for me.
EDIT 2 (Deleted)
EDIT 3
Your issue is with the assignment in the constructor. Not sure how I missed this. You don't need to set all of those variables, because your FieldOffset attribute makes them all stored in the same location. The struct itself is only occupying 4 bytes of memory (in theory, anyway). Whether you're accessing it via the int, the bytes, or the two shorts, they all go to the same place. As a result, your first two sets of assignments (to the int and to the bytes) are redundant, and the last set (to the shorts setting them to 0) clears out what you just did.
Unfortunately the C# compiler doesn't know this, so I'm sure you added the last assignment because it complained about the struct not being fully assigned. Add the dummy assignments first for the shorts and the int, then assign the bytes explicitly from the array.

A: If you are using C# 3.0, just try the following:
MyStruct ms = new MyStruct
{
    MyByte = 1,
    MyNestedStruct.NestedStryctByte = 2
}

That should work, and would alleviate the need to have a constructor in your struct. If you can't directly initialize the NestedStructByte, create it first:
MyStruct ms = new MyStruct
{
    MyByte = 1,
    MyNestedStruct = new MyStruct.NestedStruct
    {
        NestedStryctByte = 2
    }
}

A: I tested your code - everything is OK.
public struct MyStruct
    {
        public byte MyByte;
        public NestedStruct MyNestedStruct;

        public struct NestedStruct
        {
            public byte NestedStructByte;
        }

        public MyStruct(byte[] bytes)
        {
            MyByte = bytes[0];
            MyNestedStruct.NestedStructByte = bytes[1];
        }
    }

    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            MyStruct ms = new MyStruct(new byte[] { 1, 2 });
            //ms.MyByte; // 0, but should be 1
            //ms.MyNestedStruct.NestedStructByte; // 0, but should be 2

        }
    }

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


In appointing Mark Carney as the new Governor of the Bank of England the Chancellor has brought in someone who not only has a reputation as an excellent central bank governor but crucially an outsider who understands financial markets.
While that is a great starting point for reforming the Bank merely changing the man at the top is not enough. There must be wholesale reform of both the structure and culture of the Bank of England if the new Governor is to avoid the mistakes of his predecessor.
The big problem at the Bank was that it was too hierarchical, lacked transparency and in the financial field focused too much on moral hazard than on supporting the financial system. Much of this stemmed from the power of the Governor to push the Bank in the direction he wanted. Under Sir Mervyn everything was focused on monetary policy and meeting the inflation target. The financial stability role at the Bank was downgraded and no attention was paid to financial markets. The result was that the Bank missed the financial crisis coming, and was to slow to respond when it arrived. It simply did not join the dots between the financial markets and the implications for the economy.
While it did act aggressively everything finally blew up in 2008, it has repeated its errors in the aftermath of the crisis. Instead of ensuring that the supply of credit was maintained, the Bank withdrew its support and forced banks to raise capital and liquidity. The result is that lending has fallen as banks have cut balance sheets and the economy has stalled despite hundreds of billions spent on QE.
The structure and culture of the Bank needs to be changed so Mr Carney and his new team can join the dots. We would start with his role as Governor. Under Sir Mervyn the Governor simply had too much power with all decisions flowing through him. If that was undesirable in the old smaller Bank it is a disaster waiting to happen in the newly enlarged Bank.
In our report, we will propose that the new Governor cedes some of that power to his Deputy Governors who take over the day to day management of the Bank. He would take on a Chairman like role ensuring coordination across all areas of the new Bank. To enhance that communication those Deputy Governors would also by right sit on each others committees. It is bizarre that under the current proposals the Deputy Governor for the Prudential Regulatory Authority would not even sit on the Monetary Policy Committee.
We also propose that the Governor and his team are made more responsible to the Court of the Bank. The new Court would be made up entirely of non-executives (not including the Governor and his Deputies as currently) and it would hold formal reviews of the performance of the Governor and his team annually. No more reviews to be held five years after the event. Accountability will be a yearly event.
To change the culture we believe the Bank needs more outside influence. We would amend legislation to give the external members of the MPC and FPC a majority so the Bank insiders could be outvoted. We propose that the two committees meet together once a quarter to ensure that policy decisions are coordinated and not taken in isolation. We also believe there should be teams created inside the Bank to challenge the consensus view. Finally we think the Bank should seek to hire many more people with financial experience into its ranks and send its staff out on secondment to financial institutions so they understand markets.
Only then can we be confident that the new Bank under its new Governor can change enough to avoid the mistakes of the past and ensure us all of a more stable future.


Your always up to date guide to the east valley's most sought after community - Las Sendas.
Your Always Up To Date Guide to the East Valley's Most Sought After Real Estate.
The Bearse Team. Live Here. Sell Here.
Las Sendas is a master planned community in North East Mesa boasting over 40 enclaves containing 3,500 homes, including ours. Over 28 acres of parks, two community swimming centers, six tennis courts, multiple basketball courts, volleyball courts, 24/7 security, multiple jungle gyms, a workout center, conference rooms, and more! There is no other place we want to call ours. Las Sendas Real Estate is our passion.
Browse MLS Activity According to their Subdivision.
Virtual Tour, Dress Code, Rules, Policies, and Las Sendas Golf Course information.
Learn about Las Sendas's ten original sculptures!
Watch this video featuring the community and golf course!


text:
Q: Subquery on relationship I'm trying to do some aggregation with relationships to build an api response. Forms and Categories have many-to-many in both directions.
This work:
 $forms = $organisation->forms()->with('categories')->get()->toArray();

And it gives me a nice array with all the related category models. But I would like to make a subquery to make the categories be just a flat array with the id's.
So I'm trying to figure out how to do this:
 $forms = $organisation->forms()->with('categories')->[ pluck('categories.id')->toArray() ]->get()->toArray();

That doesn't work of course. But hopefully it explains what I'm after. So I want to do an eager loading of the categories relationship, but I only want to fetch the id's of the categories - not the whole model.
Is that even doable?

A: Eloquent have something useful for that:
Assume you have "categories.form_id" foreign key field, which references to "forms.id". Without selecting "form_id", you will not get the categories, but the empty array instead.
$forms = $organisation->forms()
    ->with(['categories' => function($query) {
        $query->select(['id', 'form_id']);
    }])
    ->get()
    ->toArray();

Also there's another shortly way to do that (with the same result):
$forms = $organisation->forms()
    ->with('categories:categories.id,form_id')
    ->get()
    ->toArray();

Note: TRY to avoid to use eloquent methods after the "->get()" and try do work with them on extreme cases. Cuz the "get()" method just invokes and retrieve the results from query builder. Usage of any official methods after the "get()" will just increase the retrieving and conversion time, and will speed down your performance.
Official Docs: Eager Loading Specific Columns
Additional Q&As: 1, 2, 3

A: Eloquent needs to select the foreign id in its hasMany relationships. A way you could force the result to look the way you want is by using the setRelation method on every item in the resulting collection.
$forms = $organisation->forms()
    ->with('categories')
    ->get()
    ->each(function ($form) {
        $form->setRelation('categories', $form->categories->pluck('id')->sort()->values());
    })
    ->toArray();

This will turn the categories relationship into a collection of ids, which will then turn into an array of ids when you convert the forms collection to an array.
If you want the categories relationship to be na array before that, you can call toArray() inside the setRelation() method.
$forms = $organisation->forms()
    ->with('categories')
    ->get()
    ->each(function ($form) {
        $form->setRelation('categories', $form->categories->pluck('id')->sort()->values()->toArray());
    });
    // ->toArray();

Another way you could do that would be to read up on API resources.


text:
FG Slashes Import Duties On 115 Items
The Federal Government, in a bid to promote development in critical sectors of the economy, has approved a reduction in the import duties of 115 items in various sectors of the economy.
The approval was given by President Muhammadu Buhari as part of the fiscal policy measures of the Federal Government for the country.
The Minister of Finance, Mrs. Kemi Adeosun, while communicating the approval through a circular obtained by our correspondent in Abuja on Wednesday, said the move was in line with the provisions of the Economic Community of West African States ' Common External Tariff.
The ECOWAS CET, which will cover the 2017 to 2019 fiscal periods, is composed of three categories made up of an Import Adjustment Tax list of 173 tariff lines, a national list consisting of 91 items and an import prohibition list, which is applicable to certain goods originating from non -ECOWAS member states.
It read in part, " This is to confirm that His Excellency, Mr. President, has approved the 2016 fiscal policy measures made up of the supplementary protection measures for implementation together with the ECOWAS CET 2015 – 2019 with effect from 17th of October, 2016.
"Consequently, all transactions prior to the effective date of this circular shall be subjected to the tariff rates applicable before the coming into effect of this 2016 fiscal policy measures. "
An analysis of the import adjustment tax list, which contains 173 items, shows that the Federal Government has given approval for the reduction of 26 of them, while it left the tariffs on 144 items unchanged.
However, the tariffs on three items contained in the import adjustment tax list were reviewed upwards.
For the national list consisting of 91 products, the circular stipulated that a downward review was approved for 89 items in order to encourage development in the real sector of the economy.
The items in the national list whose import duties were reduced from 10 per cent to five per cent are milk and cream ; tea ; fats of sheep or goat ; malt extract ; tomatoes prepared or preserved by vinegar; under-natured ethyl alcohol for medical , pharmaceutical or scientific purpose ; petroleum oils and oils obtained from bitumen minerals other than crude .
Others are hypochlorites; synthetic organic colouring matter; grease for treatment of textile materials; prepared glues and adhesives; activated carbon; picking preparations for metal surfaces; organic composite solvents and thinners; mixes alkylbenzenes; and industrial monocarboxylic fatty acids.
In the same vein, the government also approved a reduction from 10 per cent to five per cent for tubes , pipes , hoses , sheets , foil , tape , polyethylene , paper and paper board , yarn , synthetic staple fibres , semi -finished products of iron or non – alloy steel , stranded wire ropes , and completely knocked down or unassembled for the assembly industry .
For items such as automatic circuit breakers, switches, lamp – holders, electrical apparatus for switching or protecting electrical circuits, the Federal Government gave an approval for the reduction of their import duties from 20 per cent to 10 per cent.
For machineries and equipment used in sectors such as agriculture, cement, hospitality, power, iron and steel, solid minerals, textile and aviation, the government, according to the circular, approved a zero import duty.
Before the approval, the import duties for machineries and equipment used in these sector were put at five per cent.
The circular also reinforced the ban placed on the importation of some items.
Some of them are refined vegetable oil , cocoa butter , spaghetti /noodles , fruit juice in retail packs , bagged cement, soaps and detergent , mosquito repellent coils , corrugated paper and paper boards , telephone recharge cards and vouchers , carpets and rugs , all types of footwear , bags and suitcases, and used motor vehicles above 15 years from year of manufacture.
The government also banned the importation of live or dead birds, waters, liquid dietary supplements and medicament such as paracetamol tablets and syrup, chloroquine tablets and syrup, among others.
Customs Generates in N1.3b in December
Global Debt Tops 325 Percent of GDP
A year after shutting down all of its dilapidated refineries to figure out how to fix them, Nigeria still can't say how much it will cost to do the work or where the money will come from.
Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. said it has finished the appraisal of its largest facility, but hasn't completed the process at two others. Refining experts said the extended halt means the plants are at risk of rotting away and unlikely to restart on time.
"Things haven't been looking good lately," with Nigeria's plants probably "completely out of action for some 18 months," said Elitsa Georgieva, Executive Director at Citac, a consultant that specializes in African refining.
The dysfunction of its domestic refineries has long put Africa's biggest oil producer in an ironic situation. It exports large volumes of crude to plants overseas, then pays a premium to import the fuels its customers produce.
Failed Attempts
Pledges to fix the facilities have been made and broken again and again over the years. For at least a decade, NNPC's 445,000 barrels a day of refining capacity barely processed 20% of that amount.
The latest effort to fix the refineries was supposed to be different to the failed attempts that came before. The company had totally shut all three plants down by January 2020 to do a comprehensive appraisal, and set the ambitious target of having them all back up and running at 90% of capacity by 2023.
"The refineries have been deliberately shut down to allow for a thorough diagnosis," said Kennie Obateru, an Abuja-based NNPC spokesman. "They can be fixed based on what the diagnosis reveals."
The appraisal of the 210,000-barrel-a day Port Harcourt refinery has been completed and NNPC has called for bids for the necessary repairs, Obateru said. The company hasn't determined how much the work will cost.
"It is when we close the bids, everything is analyzed and presented that we will know how much we need," he said.
The diagnosis is underway at the 125,000-barrel-a-day Warri facility and should be complete before the end of the year, he said. After that, the study of the 110,000-barrel-a-day Kaduna plant will commence.
Major Challenge
One year into the process, refining analysts are skeptical that all this work can be done by 2023.
"I don't think anyone has a good understanding technically of what's wrong with those refineries," said Alan Gelder, vice president of refining, chemicals and oil markets at Wood Mackenzie Ltd. "They're probably corroding, which makes it a very difficult proposition."
NNPC reaffirmed its deadline and said there's no reason the refineries, which are at least 40 years old, can't be restored to full operation.
"There are refineries that are over a hundred years old still running, so age is not necessarily an impediment," Obateru said.
There are parallel efforts backed by private companies to add to Nigeria's capacity. Aliko Dangote, Africa's richest person, is building a state-of-the-art 650,000 barrel-a-day refinery, which Citac estimates will start production in 2023.
Bringing NNPC's Port Harcourt refinery to the same clean-fuel standards as Dangote's modern plant would cost about $1.3 billion for the equipment, on top of whatever other repairs are required to get the facility running, Georgieva said.
NNPC is talking to oil-trading firms about $1 billion of prepayment deals that could finance the repairs at Port Harcourt, Reuters reported last week. Obateru declined to comment on the report, but said "I don't envisage that we will have a problem getting people to invest."
Food Inflation Hits Record High of 19.56 Percent in December 2020
Food Index, which measures prices of food items, grew by 19.56 percent in the month of December 2020 amid herdsmen attacks and flooding.
In the latest report from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), increases were recorded on Bread and cereals, Potatoes, Yam and other
tubers, Meat, Fruits, Vegetable, Fish and Oils and fats.
On month on monthly basis, the food sub-index rose by 2.05 percent in December 2020, 0.01 percent from 2.04 percent recorded in November 2020.
"The average annual rate of change of the Food sub-index for the twelve-month period ending December 2020 over the previous twelve-month average was 16.17 percent, 0.42 percent points from the average annual rate of change recorded in November 2020 (15.75) percent" the report stated.
Headline inflation number increased by 15.75 percent in the month of December 2020, up from 14.89 percent.
The report noted that increases were recorded in all COICOP divisions that yielded the Headline index.
On a month-on-month basis, "the urban index rose by 1.65 percent in December 2020, same as the rate recorded in November 2020, while the rural index also rose by 1.58 percent in December 2020, up by 0.02 percent above the rate that was recorded in November 2020 (1.56 percent)."
Nigeria's Inflation Rate Rises to 15.75 Percent in December
Inflation rate in Africa's largest economy, Nigeria, rose at the fastest pace in several months in the last month of 2020, according to the latest report from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).
Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures inflation rate, increased by 15.75 percent year-on-year in December 2020, representing a 0.86 percent increment from the 14.89 percent attained in November.
On a monthly basis, headline inflation rose by 1.61 percent in the month of December, representing 0.01 percent increase from the 1,60 percent posted in the month of November.
Food gauge that measures prices of items in Africa's largest economy increased by 19.56 percent in December from 18.30 percent in November.
NBS attributed the increase to the surge in prices of Bread and cereals, Potatoes, Yam and other tubers, Meat, Fruits, Vegetable, Fish and Oils and fats.
On a monthly basis, the food sub-index grew by 2.05 percent in December 2020, an increase of 0.01 percent points from 2.04 percent recorded in November 2020.
The more stable annual rate showed Food sub-index over the last 12 months increased by 0.42 percent points from 15.75 percent in November to 16.17 percent in December.
Herdsmen attacks, the rising cost of fuel, flooding and the wide exchange rate are some of the key factors impacting the cost of food items in Nigeria, especially in December when demands were the highest.
Still lack of enough fiscal buffer to cushion the effect of COVID-19 and ease forex scarcity also drag on raw materials necessary for the production of some import-dependent items.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Finding the right path to new customer insight takes a mix of industry, domain and technology expertise. Jeppe Deigaard combines these traits and advises clients on how to get more value from Business Intelligence and Advanced Analytics including how to visualize data for decision-making.
Having worked with the SAS platform for more than 10 years, Jeppe has deep insight on customer journeys and how to use analytics to shape or redesign the journey to best meet the needs of both customer and the business.
In this role, he oversees the Nordic SAS FANS Visual Analytics network and has moderated and held several sessions on Business Intelligence, Visual Analytics and SAS platform-specific topics at the SAS FANS conferences.


text:
'The Grudge' Review: Nothing Horrifying Here
by Dewey Singleton	| Posted on January 3, 2020
The Grudge (remake, reboot, regurgitation … whatever you want to call it) is downright laughable. To call this uninspired nonsense, a horror movie is an insult to fans of the genre. I've seen better fan films than this. If anything, the first release of 2020 is yet another example of why it's always best to move on to the next idea rather than dig up old ones. How many times have we been down this road already? What was left to tell? The narrative is downright convoluted and uninspired that it's likely to inspire walkouts and refunds across the globe. Also, for a movie that's 98 minutes long, it felt like I was watching The Irishman.
The premise is there's the house that anyone who enters it is doomed to die at the hands of the Kayako Ghost (it followed someone home after a trip to Japan which I guess is meant to tie this into the previous films). The jump scares were dumb, and the insistence of Nicholas Pesce to craft this narrative using a non-linear timeline only made matters worse. The lighting was just awful, and the set design was unappealing. Zack Galler's cinematography failed to add any tension and seemed to pick up on predictable beats leading to these terrible payoffs.
While Cats was certainly the trainwreck to end all trainwrecks, at least, you had a sense of what the director was trying to accomplish on screen. The Grudge seems to have little purpose, and that should tell you everything about the film. With so many better options out right now, why would anyone want to subject themselves to this?
'The Grudge'
Review: 'Pokémon Detective Pikachu' Is Lackluster
Review: 'The Curse Of La Llorona' Will Scare The Hell Out Of You
The Top 10 Worst Movies of 2019
Movie Movie ReviewsHorror Movie Review The Grudge
'The Art of Self Defense' Review: A Fabulous Take down of Toxic Masculinity
'Annabelle Comes Home' Review: A Joyous Experience For Fans Like Sam
'The Irishman' Trailer Arrives and so Begins Netflix's Award Season Push


text:
Dhaka, Thimphu to finalise PTA to boost bilateral trade
United News of Bangladesh . Dhaka | Updated at 12:12am on July 10, 2019
Bangladesh and Bhutan are going to finalise the Preferential Trade Agreement aiming to increase bilateral trade between the two neighbouring countries. Outgoing Bhutanese ambassador to...
Bhutan's PM is a doctor on Saturdays
Agence France-Presse . Thimphu, Bhutan | Updated at 12:27am on May 10, 2019
It's Saturday in Bhutan and Lotay Tshering has just completed urinary bladder repair surgery on a patient at the Jigme Dorji Wangchuck National Referral Hospital.But...
Bhutanese PM leaves after 4-day visit
Banglades Sangbad Sangstha . Dhaka | Updated at 12:49am on April 16, 2019
Bhutanese prime minister Lotay Tshering left Dhaka on Monday morning after wrapping up his four-day official visit that focused on exploring more connectivity and business...
Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha . Dhaka | Updated at 12:14pm on April 15, 2019
Bhutanese Prime Minister Dr Lotay Tshering left here this morning after wrapping up his four-day official visit that focused on exploring more connectivity and...
Be a good human being to be a good doctor: Bhutanese PM
United News of Bangladesh. Mymensingh | Updated at 10:01pm on April 14, 2019
Bhutanese prime minister Dr Lotay Tshering, who was a student of Mymensingh Medical College, on Sunday said one has to be a good human being...
Bhutan PM calls on president
Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha . Dhaka | Updated at 01:11am on April 14, 2019
Bangladesh and Bhutan expressed keen interest to take the existing bilateral trade and investment relations to new heights as Bhutanese prime minister Lotay Tshering called...
Bangladesh, Bhutan agree to work together
Bangladesh and Bhutan on Saturday agreed in principle to work on allowing duty free and quota free access of a number of their products to...
Bhutan keen to import more medicines
Bhutan has expressed its keen interest to import more pharmaceuticals from Bangladesh as well as taking more expert physicians....
Bangladesh, Bhutan sign five bilateral documents
United News of Bangladesh . Dhaka | Updated at 12:17pm on April 13, 2019
Bangladesh and Bhutan on Saturday signed five bilateral instruments aiming to enhance cooperation on inland waterways, health, agriculture, tourism sectors and public administration training centres....
Bhutanese PM in Dhaka
United News of Bangladesh . Dhaka | Updated at 09:49am on April 12, 2019
A red carpet was rolled out as Bhutanese prime minister Lotay Tshering arrived Dhaka on Friday morning on a four-day official visit. The Bhutanese prime...


text:
Peter Dinklage Editor's Picks
Who are we supposed to side with on Game of Thrones?
Game of Thrones' seventh season has been nothing short of extraordinary. The intricacies, tangled subplots and huge cast of characters that once seemed so overwhelming have simmered into a full-scale war.
For years we've been following…
For years we've been following Daenerys Targaryen as she rose up from literal ashes, with feeble dragon eggs in hand, to witnessing her shock and awe assault on Westeros. We've waited for all the political backstabbing and deceit to transform and ignite a hot war. The battles thus…
Peter Dinklage Movie News
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri - Red-Band Trailer
After months have passed without a culprit in her daughter's murder case, Mildred Hayes (Academy Award winner Frances McDormand) makes a bold move, painting three signs leading into her town with a controversial message directed at William…
After months have passed without a culprit in her daughter's murder case, Mildred Hayes (Academy Award winner Frances McDormand) makes a bold move, painting three signs leading into her town with a controversial message directed at William Willoughby (Academy Award nominee Woody Harrelson), the town's revered chief of police. When his second-in-command Officer Dixon (Sam Rockwell), an immature mother's boy with a penchant for violence, gets involved, the battle between Mildred and…
Game of Thrones: Season 7 - Teaser Trailer
HBO's critically lauded fantasy series Game of Thrones returns for its seventh season on July 16th.
Peter Dinklage to star in Avengers: Infinity War
Peter Dinklage, best known for playing Tyrion Lannister in Game of Thrones, is in talks for a role in Avengers: Infinity War.
Game of Thrones rules the Emmys with 23 nominations
It's good to be the King in the North.
Peter Dinklage Movie Reviews
Game of Thrones Season 6: "The Winds of Winter" Review
SPOILER WARNING: If you have not watched Game of Thrones Season 6, Episode 10: "The Winds of Winter," do not read on.
King's Landing, more specifically the Great Sept of Baelor, is in ruins after the shocking first half of "The Winds of…
King's Landing, more specifically the Great Sept of Baelor, is in ruins after the shocking first half of "The Winds of Winter." Cersei destroys all of her enemies with wildfire. Brother Lancel crawls towards three lit candles laid in place to ignite the secret weapon, but he is the first to meet a fiery death. His eyes glow a bright green before we see a spectacular…
Game of Thrones Season 6: "Battle of the Bastards" Review
SPOILER WARNING: If you have not watched Game of Thrones Season 6, Episode 9: "Battle of the Bastards" do not read on.
"Battle of the Bastards" is a blitzkrieg of an episode. Jon and Ramsay go to war, Daenerys unleashes her full grown…
"Battle of the Bastards" is a blitzkrieg of an episode. Jon and Ramsay go to war, Daenerys unleashes her full grown dragons on the attacking Masters — and the tyrannical Ramsay Bolton meets his fate.
We open with Tyrion and Queen Daenerys discussing what to do about the surprise attack on Meereen. Daenerys echoes the likes of her late father, the Mad King,…
Game of Thrones Season 6: "No One" Review
SPOILER WARNING: If you have not watched Game of Thrones Season 6, Episode 8: "No One," do not read on.
"No One" begins with Sandor Clegane prowling through the trees, wielding an axe. He tracks down a group from the Brotherhood Without…
"No One" begins with Sandor Clegane prowling through the trees, wielding an axe. He tracks down a group from the Brotherhood Without Banners and murders them violently. One quick swing results in a decapitation, another relieves a poor man of his genitals. It's a satisfying way to begin an episode, and while this week sees Game of Thrones at its most ultra-violent and action-oriented,…
Game of Thrones Season 6: "The Broken Man" Review
SPOILER WARNING: If you have not watched Game of Thrones Season 6, Episode 7: "The Broken Man," do not read on.
"The Broken Man" is a brisk, compact episode of Game of Thrones, bringing fan favourite characters back from presumed purgatory,…
"The Broken Man" is a brisk, compact episode of Game of Thrones, bringing fan favourite characters back from presumed purgatory, and acts as a focused entry in a season that has been packed with a conglomerate of story lines.
Sandor Clegane, aka The Hound, returns, still ugly as ever, brutish and invincible while slightly honorable. He is traveling around the Riverlands with…
Peter Dinklage Movie Previews
Rememory - A Private Moment
Peter Dinklage has a private moment in this new clip from Rememory.
The Angry Birds Movie - Nice Chatting With You Clip
Our favorite angry birds attempt to discuss their feelings in this new clip!
Peter Dinklage Movie Features
Game of Thrones: Season 6 - Prosthetics Featurette
New featurette for Game of Thrones season six has arrived. The series will premiere on April 24.
Why Game of Thrones is likely to win the Emmy for Outstanding Drama Series this year
For several weeks, audiences generally complained that nothing was happening this season on Game of Thrones. What those people failed to realize, is that there's a difference between a show being slow and taking its time to build things up…
Peter Dinklage Movie Trailers
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri Trailer
In this darkly comic drama, a mother personally challenges the local authorities to solve her daughter's murder, when they fail to catch the culprit.
Rememory Trailer
The widow of a wise professor stumbles upon one of his inventions that's able to record and play a person's memory.
Game of Thrones Season 7 - Trailer #2
It may be the first day of summer, but Winter is Here on July 16.
Game of Thrones: Season 7 - Trailer


text:
Vienna Maine
Town Government Directory
Selectmen's Minutes
Town Health Officer
Comprehensive Plan Committee
Civic Groups
Neighbors Driving Neighbors
Union Hall Association
Vienna Fire Department
Vienna Historical Society
Mill Stream Grange #574
Vienna Mountaineers
Vienna Calendar
Vienna Newsletters
Dr. Shaw Memorial Library
Trash and Recycling (Merry Dumpsters)
Town Profile
History of Vienna
Boating Stickers
Neighboring towns
Planning Board Meeting - March 27, 2019
Waine Whittier, Alan Williams, Creston Gaither, Ed Lawless, Tim Bickford, David Gifford
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE VIENNA
PLANNING BOARD HELD MARCH 27, 2019
On March 23 Regular members Waine Whittier, Alan Williams, Creston Gaither, Ed Lawless, and Tim Bickford met with Dave Gifford at his Flying Pond property, depicted on 2019 tax map 10 as lot 131, to discuss his application for permits required for the construction of a house on the lot.
The Board's regular meeting convened at the Town House on March 27 at 7:00 PM. Regular members present were Waine Whittier, Creston Gaither, and Ed Lawless. Dave Gifford was also present. Minutes of the February 27 meeting were read and accepted.
The aforesaid application was reviewed. Proposed setbacks appear to be conforming. As the footprint is large, roof runoff is a concern. Dave said he would like to drain the water into downspouts and route it underground. He was advised that this may require a SSWD permit. It was agreed that the usual requirements for best practices for soil erosion should apply. Given that the existing Bradley Road has in effect been "discontinued" and now has the status of a driveway, it was agreed that only the new access road, which has been established as a legal right-of-way by written instruments of record, will count as a road from which required setbacks must be maintained. It was noted that Section 15.Q of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance (SZO) requires a written erosion control plan to be submitted. It was agreed that this and a written plan for dealing with runoff should be submitted, hopefully before the Board's next meeting.
It was noted that SZO Section 15.B.2 excepts antennas etc. from the 35-foot height restriction; it was agreed unanimously that the proposed chimney is one of the "similar structures" excepted from the height requirement in Sect. 15.B.2.
Tim briefly reported on a MMA training session he attended in Portland. He is unaware of anything the Vienna Planning Board is doing especially wrong.
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM.
Creston Gaither, secretary
Vienna Record
Selectmen Minutes
Ordinance Review Committee Minutes


Start line fun at the Aisling Irish Community Center's 5K.
The Aisling Irish Community Center in The Bronx showed in force on Sunday that every step makes a difference.
On Sunday, April 15th, hundreds of runners and walkers braved the cold Sunday morning on Katonah Avenue to show their support for Aisling Irish Community Center. The Annual 5K Walk & Run was held in memory of Pauline Boylan-Coll. Smiling faces of all ages warmed the streets of Woodlawn and Yonkers, with volunteers cheering them along the way!
This is a fitting tribute to Pauline and provided an opportunity for her friends and the community to honor her happy spirit and bravery, to recall her laughter and friendly personality. Pauline was taken from this world too soon, but left an unforgettable legacy.
As well as a few new programs and services to the center this year including; The QPR Suicide Prevention Training and the Foroige Leadership for our teens.
The 5K started and ended at the Rambling House Bar and Restaurant who donated the restaurant space, staff and nourishment for all participants.
Many thanks to this year's Sponsors including; Major Sponsors; The Rambling House, Eurotech Construction and James Trading Company Green Sponsors; Eclipse Contracting, Empire City Casino, GC Warehouse and JT Magen & Company Inc. Start & Finish Sponsors; Country Bank and Reiken Construction Water Sponsors; Brickens Construction, Inc., In Memory of Ira Goldman, McGowan Builders Inc., Neil Weinrib & Associates and St. Barnabas Church Fitness & Music Sponsors; John Mackey Insurance Brokers, St. Johns Riverside Hospital and Catholic Charities.
Find out more about the Aisling Irish Community Center, call the center at 914-237-5121 or email info@aislingcenter.org. Follow us on FACEBOOK, Twitter and Instagram.


Why Are People Fond Of Dogs?
Are you a proud owner of a pet? If so, is it a dog? If you look around, you are highly likely to discover many individuals that find themselves loving an adopting dogs. In fact, if you consider the majority of your friends circle, most of them are likely to be owners of dogs, including yourself. Therefore, it is believed that dogs are one of the most trusted and common pets that humans love tp have in their company. In fact, it is said that dog is man's best friend. Here are some of the reasons as to why it is believed to be so.
Sometimes, all you need is someone to boost your mood up to a good level after a day of tight schedules. In fact, you may find comfort in coming home, back to the calm and serenity of your homely surroundings and the family that loves you. One such adopted family member could be your dog. It is believed that dogs are one of the best pets that can raise the mood of a human being, even at times of peril. If you feel sad, go to your dog and it will make you forget all the pain that has been troubling you.
There are times that you may feel unsafe in your neighbourhood. When there could be threats of people or even animals that could harm you and your loves ones are a possibility, your dog is highly likely to become the family protector. In fact, it would ensure to warn the whole neighbourhood of any such danger and keep them safe. Therefore, you might want to rethink the decision of purchasing aluminium cages for along with UTE tool boxes for sale.
This little detail about dogs may come to you as a surprise. However, if you take a look at your daily routine with your beloved pet dog, you are likely to discover that it involves a lot of running and playing around. This is one of the primary reasons as to why it is believed that dogs help increase your health stability. While playing and running with your dog, you receive exercises and will be able to improve your physical fitness even without going to a gym. So let it out of the well made dog cages for utes for sale that you bought and enjoy your time with the dog.
As mentioned earlier, dogs are considered man's best friend. Therefore, you will most certainly find your pet dog at your service during its lifetime. It is believed that dogs are the most loyal animal that man can find. Therefore, cherish the time with your beloved pet dog as no one can love you as much as it could.


HomeUncategorizedStay on Target... Stay on Target!
James 1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 1:7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
God's Spirit Lusts for Us!