text:
unapologetic vintage + unique fabrics for the mouthy, glam obsessed
James Daugherty Red Disco Dress
Rarely do we ever go into the background and history of a garment. Most of the time, it feels unoriginal and contrived, to be quite honest, but for this particular Disco Goddess of a gown, we're willing to throw caution to the wind for a tale of determination, as well as a scope of how far, yet how little, we've come as people. Many funky moons ago, a young man by the name of James Daugherty found himself looking for work post-graduation from art school (Relatable. Been there, done that). Somehow, James managed to score employment at Warner Bros. Studios as a janitor for the writer's building. With full access to each office, Daugherty sprinkled his sketches that he envisioned for the actresses to wear on each executives desk, but only after leaving the room spotless and sparkling. Quite a bold move, but can't say we wouldn't try it, either. While the aspiring designer's play didn't exactly play out how he intended, James was eventually taken on as a sketch artist for world renowned costume designer, Edith Head. Now, if we told you how much we ADORE Edith, it wouldn't be enough. She was a creative genius that reshaped costuming, becoming the first woman to lead a design department at a major movie studio, paving the way for others to follow. Sorry for fangirling, Edith Head is just....the coolest. Anyway, as his experience with the costumer expanded, James launched his self-titled line in 1974, becoming an instant success. Named Designer of the Year by the Fashion Sales Guild in November 1976, the designer was featured in various publications including Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, and Ebony magazine, becoming one of the first Black designers to showcase their collection on Seventh Avenue. Long pause and reread. 1976 wasn't really that long ago, folks, yet, he was one of the first? Daugherty later spoke that, early on, "When prospective employer's saw me, their faces would drop and they'd utter some silly excuse why I wasn't qualified". Determined not to let color be the only thing holding him back from success, James learned to arrange job interviews by phone.
In today's world and given current events, we find ourselves asking the question, "Have we really come that far"? The answer remains unclear. Especially, now. If anything, it feels as though, the world is regressing. It's baffling to imagine a person, today, yesterday, or in the '70s, walking into a scenario and being rejected solely based on one's melanin levels of their skin. To be frank, it's a whole lotta BS and it's something that NO ONE should ever be put through, in any circumstance, yet here we are, in the year 2020, actin' 50 years out of date. James Daugherty paved the way for future generations, emphasizing why Black Dreams Matter.
Over here at SW, we are especially honored to offer this remarkable gown that is such a monumental piece of history from a label that Edith Head, herself, ordered exclusively. The fire engine red gown features:
✶A sweeping, floor length sleeveless silhouette with a romantic lowcut neckline, hanging slightly off the shoulder
✶Dramatic pleating cascading from shoulder to front upper bust and back shoulder blade
✶Breathtaking full, gathered skirt with belt loops at waistline AND POCKETS!
✶100% Poly Crepe. Unlined with centerback zipper and hook & eye closure
✩MEASUREMENTS
Size: 10 (Would fit best on a Small or Medium)
Hip: Free"
Shoulder-Shoulder: 16"
Total Length: 57 1/2"
✶CONDITION: Very Good: used, with very minor flaws, no repairs are necessary.
Well taken care of. Notch at wearer L hem, but not noticeable.
(She's clean and ready to karaoke to Don't Speak by No Doubt).
✩CARE INSTRUCTIONS
✶FREE DOMESTIC SHIPPING
Only applicable to the US.
✩instagram| @sequinwhore
✩All orders will be processed after payment is accepted. Sequin Whore accepts all major credit cards through Etsy Direct Checkout and Paypal. Etsy keeps payment information secure and credit card information is never divulged to shop owners.
✩You may cancel your order up to 24 hours after you hit THE BUTTON. (I get it, sometimes buyer's remorse is way too real).
Sequin Whore offers domestic and international shipping with insurance of $100 on all orders. Sequin Whore is NOT responsible for any lost or stolen packages.
✩DOMESTIC SHIPPING
Once payment is received, Sequin Whore ships all items within 1-3 business days via USPS Priority Mail, unless otherwise requested, and typically takes 2-3 days to arrive at your doorstep.
Sequin Whore is not responsible for any shipping delays on USPS' part.
✩INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING
Priority Mail International is offered for all orders outside of the U.S. Please contact Sequin Whore for a direct quote to your country. On international shipping, please allow for a 2-6 week delivery time. Sequin Whore is not responsible for customs delays.
Buyer is responsible for all standard customs and duty fees. These fees are in no way, shape, or form reflective of Sequin Whore. Here's a duty calculator for you because, we're like, soo thoughtful. http://www.simplyduty.com
✩Shopping is kind of like Tinder. You have to look over all of the photos, details, measurements, and terrible music tastes, before you make THE COMMITMENT. All sales are final.
✩Sequin Whore vintage items are previously worn and loved with a story to tell. The pieces are hand chosen with attention to condition, quality, hand, construction, and fit. Before the article is given a stamp of approval for saleability, it is carefully looked over for flaws and imperfections. Any inadequacies are reflected in the condition portion of the lisiting description. However, despite the best efforts and most thorough eye, it is possible that a slight blemish may have been overlooked. Refunds will only be explored if a piece has been widely misrepresented. (Whoosh, what a mouthful that was).
✩If a refund is deemed appropriate for vintage purchases, the buyer is responsible for return shipping. Returned merchandise is expected to be postmarked within 2 days of it's arrival date and in the condition it was in when sold. If additional damage has been done to the item upon return, buyer will be responsible for cost of loss in value. In such case, the buyer will be contacted before any proceedings take place. Monetary refunds may take up on 7 business days depending on bank processing.
✩Refunds will not be offered for sizing issues in vintage purchases. Sequin Whore offers garment measurements in listing descriptions and will happily work alongside you if additional information is needed. (Pinky promise, we will get through it together).
✩Color may vary with different monitor and resolution settings. For this reason, returns are not accepted for reasons to do with color. If you need to match color for fabric purchases, please request a $1.75 sample. Samples are put in an envelope and shipped USPS. (If there is any doubt or worry about color, please, please, PLEASE request a sample).
✩Custom cuts for fabric purchases are non-refundable.
✩Exchanges are offered on a case by case basis.
Sequin Whore follows the guidelines below for all vintage item condition listing descriptions.
✶Perfect: as new, flawless, pristine condition with no
indications of wear.
(She's clean and ready to go out on the town).
✶Excellent: used, light wear, no noticeable flaws.
(She's clean and ready to dance).
✶Very Good: used, with very minor flaws, no repairs are
(She's clean and ready to karaoke to Don't Speak by No
Doubt).
✶Good: visible wear, minor flaws, optional repairs
needed.
(She's clean and ready to go to the movies).
✶Fair: numerous flaws, repairs needed, fragile.
(She's clean but going to her best friend's house for a
girl's night in).
✶Poor: extensive damage, for display, costume, or pattern
use only.
(She hasn't showered in days, maybe years, and is
staying in).
✩All dimensions for vintage wears are measured edge to edge with the garment laying on a flat surface then doubled. Measurements will include Bust, Waist, Hip, Total Length, and Sleeve Length (if required). If you would like to have additional measurements of the piece, please message Sequin Whore and we will promptly get you the desired information.
✩Garment measurements provided do not allow for wearer's ease. Please allow 1" in coordinance with wearer's measurements. If you are completely confused and are like, "Girl, I don't know if this is going to fit me", please contact me with your measurements so I can help you out.
✩All fabric purchases require a 1 yard minimum. No exceptions.
✩Sequin Whore provides custom cut and wholesale pricing on fabric orders. If you need more than the advertised yardage, please contact me to check for stock availability. (The odds are probably in your favor).
✩Please follow Sequin Whore on social media for updates, sales, new arrivals, and the latest questionable life decisions.
instagram | sequinwhore
facebook | sequinwh0re
© 2021 Sequin Whore.


text:
Will Switzerland dare to prosecute two African leaders the Gambian Sonko and the Liberian Kosiah ?
2 June 2017 By Julia Crawford, Swissinfo
To multiply its impact, information must flow freely
Republish our original articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.
You are free to republish this article both online and in print. We ask that you follow some simple rules described on our copyright.
Please do not edit the piece, ensure that you attribute the author, their institute, and mention that the article was originally published on Justiceinfo.net
Copy this HTML into your CMS
Press Ctrl-C to copy
Human rights NGOs hope Switzerland has the political will to prosecute former Gambian minister Ousman Sonko and former Liberian rebel leader Alieu Kosiah. Sonko is suspected of crimes against humanity while Kosiah is charged with committing war crimes.
The NGOs TRIAL and Civitas Maxima see both cases as important tests for Switzerland's use of an international legal tool known as "universal jurisdiction".
Ousman Sonko, a former long-time interior minister of Gambia, was arrested in Bern in January this year, on allegations of torture filed by the Swiss branch of TRIAL International. The allegations against Sonko now include crimes against humanity, and his case has been referred to the federal authorities.
But the first case that could come to trial is Alieu Kosiah, a former rebel leader in Liberia, who has been in custody in Switzerland since November 2014, on accusations of war crimes filed on behalf of Liberian victims by several lawyers, including the Director of Civitas Maxima, Alain Werner. Werner says this case is well advanced.
As well as hosting international peace talks and housing the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland also changed its legislation in 2011 to admit the principle of "universal jurisdiction", which allows it to try people of any nationality suspected of "international crimes" (genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity) committed anywhere in the world. Yet only one person has so far been tried and convicted in the country under this principle, in a case dating back to the late 1990s.
"If the Attorney General decides to send Kosiah's case to the Federal Criminal Court in Bellinzona, it will be historic," Werner told swissinfo.ch. "It would be the first international war crimes case in history before the Swiss Federal Criminal Court. The only such case in Switzerland to date where there has been a trial and conviction was Rwandan mayor Fulgence Niyonteze but at the time in 1998 it was before a military court, under the old legislation."
Setting an example
TRIAL Legal Advisor Sandra Delval has been working on the Sonko case. "The competent authorities can set an example by conducting quality investigations," she said. "All the more so because former Gambian dictator Yahya Jammeh, whose right arm Sonko was, is still at large with impunity, and victims are crying for justice. The presence on Swiss soil of the Number Two of the former Gambian regime means that Switzerland has a duty to set an example."
Lack of political will?
"Certainly, there have been cases in Switzerland," TRIAL's Delval continued. "But our analysis at the current time is that universal jurisdiction cases are dragging. The prosecutors in charge do not have the resources to investigate and dedicate themselves to these cases as they should, because they also have many other cases to take care of (…). So universal jurisdiction cases get bogged down and are much slower. In some cases we have the impression that there is a deliberate will to dismiss them. So we question the political will of Switzerland, which makes pretty speeches about the need for justice but which does not in practice dedicate the means."
Swiss Attorney General Michael Lauber admits that his staff are overstretched and that there is a lack of resources. "We have reached the limit of what an organisation can endure," he said in an interview quoted by Swiss newspaper Le Temps.
Civitas Maxima director Alain Werner also regrets that there have not been more cases. "It is not right that there are so few cases in Switzerland and also elsewhere in the world," he said. "It is not right that there are so few universal jurisdiction cases brought worldwide, and that is why we exist."
TRIAL is particularly concerned about the dismissal in Switzerland of a case concerning former Algerian defence minister Khaled Nezzar, and is supporting a pending judicial appeal filed by the victims against that decision. Nezzar was arrested in Switzerland in October 2011 following a criminal denunciation filed by TRIAL over his alleged role in violations committed from 1992 to 1994 in Algeria. The Swiss Attorney General's office dismissed the case early this year, saying there were no grounds to charge Nezzar with war crimes because there was no evidence of an armed conflict in Algeria during the period in question.
Algeria's 'black decade'
"This decision is surprising and hard to understand," says Delval. "The black decade that Algeria experienced left more than 200,000 people dead, and there are numerous sources testifying to the intensity of fighting between the Algerian army and armed groups, also to the organisation of the armed groups. It is inexplicable that the office of the Attorney General investigated for six years without apparently ever questioning the existence of an armed conflict, only to abruptly close the case saying there was none."
So if there is a lack of political will, why might that be? "We think it could be due to a desire not to upset diplomatic relations between certain countries," Delval said, "even though Switzerland has a duty to prosecute and investigate universal jurisdiction cases regardless of any political consideration."
Praise for arrests
Despite their criticisms, both TRIAL and Civitas Maxima hail the efficiency of the Swiss authorities in arresting both Kosiah and Sonko shortly after criminal complaints were filed against them.
Werner also said that, given the Liberian government's continuing lack of response on Swiss requests to investigate in Liberia, the Swiss authorities have invested time, money and effort in bringing numerous Liberian victims and witnesses to be heard in Switzerland in the Kosiah case, for both prosecution and defence. He is hopeful that investigations in this case can be closed this year, and that it will be sent to trial at the Federal Criminal Court.
The preventive detention order on Sonko was also renewed at the end of April and investigations against him are continuing, the Attorney General's office confirmed.
This article was first published by Swissinfo.
©FlickrBrigadier General Robert Ferrell shares a laugh with Ousman Sonko, the Inspector General of the Gambian Police, during the opening ceremony for Operation African Endeavor 2011 in Banjul
Switzerland : Related articles
Why Switzerland is relaunching an Iranian cold case for "genocide"
Switzerland: Kosiah convicted in first universal jurisdiction trial
National tribunals - Related articles
Colombia: 21 Army officials own up to war crimes and crimes against humanity

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Web3: Extract data from soliditySha3 Let's say I call the following function to generate a hashed message for generating a signature.
function signMessage(recipient, amount, newNonce, contract, type) {
    const msgHash = web3.utils.soliditySha3(
        { t: "address", v: recipient },
        { t: "uint256", v: amount },
        { t: "string", v: newNonce },
        { t: "address", v: contract },
        { t: "uint256", v: type }
    ) || ""

    return web3.eth.accounts.sign(msgHash, privateKey);
}

On Solidity smart contract, how should I extract each information (for example, the "type") from that signature?

A: Turns out the hashed value is not reversable, but I can use the same variables to hash again on the smart contract and check if the two hashed values are the same, so I can know the value is transferred correctly.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Jorge Gaviño Ambriz (Ciudad de México, 4 de julio de 1957) es un abogado y político mexicano. Es diputado y coordinador de bancada del Partido de la Revolución Democrática en la II Legislatura del Congreso de la Ciudad de México.

Fue director General del Sistema de Transporte Colectivo desde el 16 de julio de 2015 hasta su renuncia el 2 de marzo de 2018.

Fue presidente del Comité de Dirección del Distrito Federal del Partido Nueva Alianza y asambleísta por el mismo partido en la VI Asamblea Legislativa del Distrito Federal en el periodo del 2012 al 2015 donde participó como presidente de la Comisión Especial Investigadora de la Línea 12 del Metro de la Ciudad de México.

Biografía
Es egresado de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), con estudios en Planeación y Gestión Metropolitana, por la UNAM, así como Política Comparada en la Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. Realizó la Maestría en Derecho Ambiental y el Doctorado en Ciencias Ambientales, ambos en la Universidad de Alicante, España.

Ha realizado cursos sobre Capacitación Política en la Sociedad Civil Global, en la Universidad Complutense de Madrid; Historia Antigua del Medio Oriente en Egipto; el Cooperativismo Agrario en Israel (becado por la Embajada de Israel) y en la Organización de Sindicatos de Israel Histadrut.

Ha sido catedrático en la Universidad Hispano Mexicana, la Escuela Nacional de Enfermería del ISSSTE y en el Instituto Politécnico Nacional (UPIICSA). Integrante de la Muy Respetable Gran Logia Valle de México, de la cual fue Gran Maestro y Presidente de la Asociación Cultural Valle de México por el periodo de 1999 a 2002.

Colaboraciones

Articulista en los periódicos
 Excélsior
 El Día
 La Crónica
 Diario de Toluca
 Rumbo de México
 El Sol de México

Colaborador en
 Revista Dfensor de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Distrito Federal
 Consejo Editorial de la revista Economía y Democracia del Colegio Nacional de Economistas en 2006
También ha sido comentarista radiofónico en el Programa Tertulias de Radio 13 y en el Programa Detrás de la Noticia de ABC Radio; participante en el programa Va en Serio del Canal 34 de Televisión Mexiquense, integrante del Consejo Editorial de Punto Crítico.

Libros
 Autor del Libro "Reflexiones en el tiempo" (2009)
 Prefacio "Influencia de la Masonería en la Constitución de 1917" (2017)
 Coautor  "El Poder de la Masonería en México (2012)".

Premios y reconocimientos
 Es miembro de la Legión de Honor Nacional de México y de la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía y Estadística, donde es presidente de la Academia de Desarrollo Social.
 En 2013 fue reconocido con la condecoración del Premio Nacional Tlatoani 2013, otorgado por el Instituto Mexicano de Evaluación, como "Mejor Diputado del Distrito Federal".

Trayectoria en el servicio público
Fue Representante en la Segunda Asamblea de Representantes del Distrito Federal (ARDF)  en el periodo de 1991-1994, por el Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI).

Delegado político en la Delegación Álvaro Obregón de 1994-1995. De 1997 a 1999 fue director General de Coordinación de Delegaciones Metropolitanas y Federales del Centro en la Procuraduría Federal del Consumidor.

Director General de Asuntos Jurídicos del Secretariado Ejecutivo del Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Pública de 2007-2008.

En el ISSSTE, se desempeñó como Coordinador de Asesores del Director General, Delegado Regional de la Zona Norte del Distrito Federal, así como, Coordinador General de Administración, de 2002 a 2006, durante la administración Benjamín González Roaro.

En 2009, laboró como asesor de la Coordinación Ejecutiva de la Dirección General de Pemex, posteriormente, hasta 2011, asumió los cargos de Coordinador de Asesores del Director General y Subdirector General de Comercialización y de Servicios en la Lotería Nacional.

Fue director General y Delegado Fiduciario Especial del desaparecido Fideicomiso de Vivienda y Desarrollo Social y Urbano (FIVIDESU) de 1995 a 1996, y Director General del Instituto de Vivienda de la Ciudad de México de 1996 a 1997. Actualmente es Diputado electo por el distrito 6 de Gustavo A. Madero, en la Ciudad de México

Referencias

Nacidos en Ciudad de México
Políticos de Ciudad de México
Alumnado de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Miembros del Partido de la Revolución Democrática
Diputados de la VI Legislatura de la Asamblea Legislativa del Distrito Federal
Diputados de la LXIII Legislatura de México
Diputados de la I Legislatura del Congreso de la Ciudad de México
Diputados de la II Legislatura del Congreso de la Ciudad de México

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
The Wabbit at his Adventure Caffè
The team assembled at a favourite caffè in Piazza Giambattista Bodoni - and waited for Skratch. They didn't wait long. "Oh look! It's Skratch the Cat," shouted a man. "Ciao Skratch!" yelled a woman. Lapinette turned as customers welcomed the approaching figure. Skratch took a seat. "You're popular," observed the Wabbit. Skratch meaowed. "Must have been my popular lecture series." Lapinette twitched enquiring ears. "Foregrounding factors in signification," explained Skratch. Everyone applauded but the Wabbit tapped the table. "So tell us, Skratch. What kind of adventure did we just have?" Skratch laughed. "I'm tempted to say it was about the semiotics of light." Wabsworth nodded sagely. "My thoughts exactly. Typically absurd, the adventure's narratology configured around light itself." Lapinette rummaged under her frock for a spare copy of Samuel Beckett's Comment c'est, L'image, which she kept for reading emergencies - and lifted a paw. "The light followed, illuminated and ultimately reversed the adventure's absurdist flow." Wabsworth laughed heartily. "So the Wabbit would like to be indifferent to the universe, but the universe is not indifferent to him." The Wabbit nodded his head in agreement. "I think I'm somewhere between being and nothingness." He pointed at the empty tray and then raised a paw for service. "And only halfway to an aperitivo."
4. Skratch and the Call of the Wild
3. Skratch and the Vanishing Creatures
2. Skratch and the Captured Creatures
1. The Wabbit and the Curious Tale
5. The Wabbit and the Abstract Place
4. The Wabbit and the Mobius Snail
3. The Wabbit, Lapinette and the Fence
2. The Wabbit and the Banister Rail
1. The Wabbit and the Floating Beam
The Wabbit's Adventure Caffè


It improved our winning percentage from 56.76% to 58.97%, which is 25% of our raw score. And, it improved our opponents winning percentage slightly, from 58.59% to 58.90%. That's 50% of our raw score.
As of Monday, our adjusted score was .5830. To get our RPI rank up to, say, #35 or so, we need to move our raw score up to about the .5960 range. That's doable, and this is why.
Right now our opponents winning % is 58.90% (870 wins to 607 losses), through 39 games. But our remaining 14 games are against teams that right now have a winning % of 75.15% (363 wins to 120 losses). If our past opponents and future opponents continue winning and losing at these rates, by the end of the regular season our opponents winning % will rise from 58.90% to 62.91%, which is huge since that metric is worth 50% of our raw RPI score.
That's what gives me hope that we can move our RPI rank up into the middle 30's or so. If we keep winning I could see our final RPI rank in the 32-36 range. That, plus our expected top 25 wins (4 now with many more opportunities) will be more than enough to secure an NCAA bid.


We're so glad you're here, and we're eager to get the school year underway! This year, we will have fewer PTA meetings overall, but you can count on them to be brief, chockful of information from Student Leadership, Principal Andy Meloche and the various PTA committees. You'll also hear current legislative updates so you can see what lawmakers in Lansing are considering that may impact our schools.
We hope you can make it to at least one of our meetings so you can hear firsthand from our new principal and learn about what will be going on at BHS throughout the year.
All BHS PTA meetings are all held in the BHS Collaborative Center and begin at 7:00 p.m.
Please join BHS PTA! Membership is $11 and each member gets a free BHS Resource Directory.
Please support us with a donation. Our budget is funded through a tax-deductible donation drive so that we don't interfere with student, sports or booster club fundraisers. Fill out our donation form or pay online, below. Donations are also accepted at Meet the Teacher Night and at parent/teacher conferences. Return the completed form with payment to the BHS office or make your donation at the PTA table during Meet the Teacher Night or conferences.
As always, we appreciate your support in the coming year and hope to see you soon. Thank you!


text:
Having Fun With the Fourth National Climate Assessment Report
National Climate Assessment Report
Guest context by David Middleton
The headlines…
What's actually in the report
Volume I of NCA4 (Climate Science Special Report) features this nifty image of projected global temperatures (°F) for several Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios. RCP2.6 is a drastic mitigation scenario, RCP4.5 is a strong mitigation scenario, RCP8.5 is bad science fiction and often described as "business as usual." All the really bad stuff happens in an RCP8.5 world.
Figure 1. Figure 1.4 from NCA4.
Figure 1.4 shows the projected changes in globally averaged temperature for a range of future pathways that vary from assuming strong continued dependence on fossil fuels in energy and transportation systems over the 21st century (the high scenario is Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, or RCP8.5) to assuming major emissions reduction (the even lower scenario, RCP2.6). Chapter 4: Projections describes the future scenarios and the models of Earth's climate system being used to quantify the impact of human choices and natural variability on future climate. These analyses also suggest that global surface temperature increases for the end of the 21st century are very likely to exceed 1.5°C (2.7°F) relative to the 1850–1900 average for all projections, with the exception of the lowest part of the uncertainty range for RCP2…
Chapter 1: Our Globally Changing Climate, Figure 1.4
I downloaded HadCRUT4 and UAH 6.0 from our friends at Wood For Trees. After converting to Fahrenheit and applying static shifts to match NCA4's baseline, I overlaid the real data on the NCA4 image and projected UAH 6.0 to the end of this century.
Figure 2. HadCRUT4 and UAH 6.0 overlaid on NCA4 figure
Looks like the forecast for 2100 is slightly warmer than RCP2.6. RCP2.6 is a world in which atmospheric CO2 tops out at just over 400 ppmv and the world runs out of oil…
Figure 3. Energy sources under RCP scenarios. The Grauniad.
Most of us look at temperatures on thermometers. A thermometer at the same scale as a typical temperature anomaly plot would be about 64′ tall. So, I took the liberty of reducing the temperature anomaly plot to the same scale as a thermometer, a genuine Texaco thermometer…
Figure 4. Scary? Huh?
Volume II, Chapter 2 features this summary of what the climate would have done without Texaco…
Figure 5. How they know Texaco is to blame.
This what they say about the image above…
Figure 2.1: Both human and natural factors influence Earth's climate, but the long-term global warming trend observed over the past century can only be explained by the effect that human activities have had on the climate.
Sophisticated computer models of Earth's climate system allow scientists to explore the effects of both natural and human factors. In all three panels of this figure, the black line shows the observed annual average global surface temperature for 1880–2017 as a difference from the average value for 1880–1910.
The top panel (a) shows the temperature changes simulated by a climate model when only natural factors (yellow line) are considered. The other lines show the individual contributions to the overall effect from observed changes in Earth's orbit (brown line), the amount of incoming energy from the sun (purple line), and changes in emissions from volcanic eruptions (green line). Note that no long-term trend in globally averaged surface temperature over this time period would be expected from natural factors alone.10
The middle panel (b) shows the simulated changes in global temperature when considering only human influences (dark red line), including the contributions from emissions of greenhouse gases (purple line) and small particles (referred to as aerosols, brown line) as well as changes in ozone levels (orange line) and changes in land cover, including deforestation (green line). Changes in aerosols and land cover have had a net cooling effect in recent decades, while changes in near-surface ozone levels have had a small warming effect.18 These smaller effects are dominated by the large warming influence of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. Note that the net effect of human factors (dark red line) explains most of the long-term warming trend.
The bottom panel (c) shows the temperature change (orange line) simulated by a climate model when both human and natural influences are included. The result matches the observed temperature record closely, particularly since 1950, making the dominant role of human drivers plainly visible.
Researchers do not expect climate models to exactly reproduce the specific timing of actual weather events or short-term climate variations, but they do expect the models to capture how the whole climate system behaves over long periods of time. The simulated temperature lines represent the average values from a large number of simulation runs. The orange hatching represents uncertainty bands based on those simulations. For any given year, 95% of the simulations will lie inside the orange bands. Source: NASA GISS.
This is what I think of panel (a), "All Natural Influences"…
Figure 6. You can trust your climate the the man who wears the star, the big, bright Texaco star! Texaco and the rest of the Climate Wrecking Industry saved us from The Ice Age Cometh!
Most of the serious banter has been about how Gorebal Warming will wreck our economy…
Climate Change Is Bad News for the Economy, U.S. Government Says
By BLOOMBERG November 24, 2018
The Trump administration just published a major report documenting the advance of climate change, weeks earlier than expected and on a day many Americans are occupied with family and holiday shopping. The news is predictably bad, but this time the tally comes with a pricetag—one significantly larger than you'll find at the mall.
The report catalogs the observed damage and accelerating financial losses projected from a climate now unmoored from a 12,000-year period of relative stability. The result is that much of what humans have built, and many of the things they are building now, are unsuited to the world as it exists. And as time goes on, the added cost of living in that world could total hundreds of billions of dollars—annually.
The rest of the article was even stupider.
Apparently, these dire economic forecasts are based on RCP8.5 and research funded by Tom Steyer…
4 Problems With the New Climate Change Report
f you're like me, you're happy the White House released the latest version of the National Climate Assessment on Black Friday. Publishing the 1,700-page report the day after Thanksgiving saved me from unwanted dinner conversations about our planet's impending climate doom.
But if your aunt calls you up this week spouting claims of mass deaths, global food shortages, economic destruction, and national security risks resulting from climate change, here's what you need to know about this report.
1. It wildly exaggerates economic costs.
One statistic that media outlets have seized upon is that the worst climate scenario could cost the U.S. 10 percent of its gross domestic product by 2100. The 10 percent loss projection is more than twice the percentage that was lost during the Great Recession.
The study, funded in part by climate warrior Tom Steyer's organization, calculates these costs on the assumption that the world will be 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer. That temperature projection is even higher than the worst-case scenario predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In other words, it is completely unrealistic.
2. It assumes the most extreme (and least likely)climate scenario.
The scary projections in the National Climate Assessment rely on a theoretical climate trajectory that is known as Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5. In estimating impacts on climate change, climatologists use four representative such trajectories to project different greenhouse gas concentrations.
To put it plainly, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 assumes a combination of bad factors that are not likely to all coincide. It assumes "the fastest population growth (a doubling of Earth's population to 12 billion), the lowest rate of technology development, slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty, plus high energy use and emissions."
3. It cherry-picks science on extreme weather and misrepresents timelines and causality.
4. Energy taxes are a costly non-solution.
The National Climate Assessment stresses that this report "was created to inform policy-makers and makes no specific recommendations on how to remedy the problem." Yet the takeaway was clear: The costs pf action (10 percent of America's GDP) dwarf the costs of any climate policy.
The reality, however, is that policies endorsed to combat climate change would carry significant costs and would do nothing to mitigate warming, even if there were a looming catastrophe like the National Climate Association says.
Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proposed a carbon tax of between $135 and $5,500 by the year 2030. An energy tax of that magnitude would bankrupt families and businesses, and undoubtedly catapult the world into economic despair.
These policies would simply divert resources away from more valuable use, such as investing in more robust infrastructure to protect against natural disasters or investing in new technologies that make Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 even more of an afterthought than it already should be.
The Steyer-funded study is not pay-walled and it's a doozy!
Estimates of climate change damage are central to the design of climate policies. Here, we develop a flexible architecture for computing damages that integrates climate science, econometric analyses, and process models. We use this approach to construct spatially explicit, probabilistic, and empirically derived estimates of economic damage in the United States from climate change. The combined value of market and nonmarket damage across analyzed sectors—agriculture, crime, coastal storms, energy, human mortality, and labor—increases quadratically in global mean temperature, costing roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per +1°C on average. Importantly, risk is distributed unequally across locations, generating a large transfer of value northward and westward that increases economic inequality. By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20% of county income (90% chance) under business-as-usual emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5).
Hsiang et al., 2017
They literally did refer to RCP8.5 as "business-as-usual emissions."
Based on a realistic climate sensitivity (TCR = 1.5 K per doubling) and the simple projection of UAH 6.0 to the end of this century, we get about 1.5 to 1.9 °C of total warming by the end of this century. According to Hsiang et al., 2017, that equates to about a 1% reduction in US GDP from 2080-2099, relative to what it would be without any additional warming…
Figure 7. Figure 5 from Hsiang et al., 2017. Estimates of total direct economic damage from climate change.(A) Total direct damage to U.S. economy, summed across all assessed sectors, as a function of global mean temperature change. Dot-whisker markers as in Fig. 3. The black line is quadratic regression through all simulations (damage = 0.283 ΔGMST + 0.146 ΔGMST2); the shaded region is bounded by quantile regressions through the 5th and 95th percentiles. Alternative polynomial forms and statistical uncertainty are reported in fig. S14 and tables S16 and S17. (B) Contributions to median estimate of aggregate damage by impact category. (Coastal impacts do not scale with temperature.) (C) Probability distribution damage in each of 3143 U.S. counties as a fraction of county income, ordered by current county income. Dots, median; dark whiskers, inner 66% credible interval; light whiskers, inner 90%. (D) Distributions of GDP loss compared with direct damages when a CGE model is forced by direct damages each period. Black line, median (labeled); boxes, interquartile range; dots, outliers. Energy, Ag., Labor, and Mortality indicate comparisons when the model is forced by damages only in the specified sector and GDP losses are compared with direct damages in that sector under the same forcing. CGE mortality only affects GDP through lost earnings, but direct mortality damages in (A) to (C) account for nonmarket VSL. "All" indicates the ratio of total costs (excluding mortality for consistency) in complete simulations where all sectors in the CGE model are forced by direct damages simultaneously.
How much would you spend today to avert a 1% loss 80 years from now? Dean Wormer has the answer:
This is how President Trump should handle the purveyors of this crap…
Hsiang, S. et al. Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science. 356 , 1362–1369 (2017).
Jay, A., D.R. Reidmiller, C.W. Avery, D. Barrie, B.J. DeAngelo, A. Dave, M. Dzaugis, M. Kolian, K.L.M. Lewis, K. Reeves, and D. Winner, 2018: Overview. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH1
USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I[Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp.
UN Climate Report Recommends Taxing Carbon and Discouraging Agriculture
Cartoons by Josh Calendar 2019
Climate models are running around 1.5 to 2 degrees too hot…
..climate scientists are using those same models..to extend straight lines… to predict future catastrophes
Reply to Latitude
Hi Climate models are running 1.5 to 2 degrees too hot how come in figure
1 above the climate models lie on the actual temperature line? The graphs
here show an excellent agreement between the models and measured temperatures.
Reply to Percy Jackson
Percy….those aren't climate models
They also stopped the "current data" at the top of the recent El Nino spike.
Prior to the spike, it was below the line. After the spike, it's back below the line.
Bill_W_1984
Percy,
They start the climate models from the most recent data
so that they always match the observed data at the time
the report was published. Figure 1 is probably the one from
the most recent IPCC report which means that there are only
a few years of comparison of the data with the model. Not
sure if they re-did the model calculations starting from this
year when they did this last assessment. If they did, then there
is almost no comparison of actual temps with models.
"how come in figure 1 above the climate models lie on the actual temperature line? The graphs
here show an excellent agreement between the models and measured temperatures….."
They are probably quite recent climate models. For the sake of argument, let's assume they were run in 2010. So, when they ran the models they already knew the answer. The graphs show a forecast of the past. Obviously, it's pretty easy to forecast the past – it certainly doesn't require billion dollar climate models.
Of course, if they had simply pasted the historical data into the models it would be pure fraud. But what happens has a similar result.
It is impossible for the models to use the laws of physics and nothing else. So, the models are packed full of arbitrary constants / parameters – referred to as "parameterisation". This allows the modellers to tune the models so that they better reproduce the historic data. As Willis pointed out, parameter changes that make the match worse will be weeded out, while parameter changes that make the match better will be retained. It may well be a perfect equivalent of Darwinian natural selection.
So, to answer your question: the models match the historic data because they were adjusted to match the historic data. It's no more than a sophisticated form of curve matching. There is a perfect test of this. The official length of time for climate is 30 years. So, check the models from 30 years ago and see how well they forecast the climate over that period up to today.
Of course, they are a hopeless failure, predicting far more warming than actually happened. Despite this failure they persist in forecasting the same warming today, in fact the CO2 sensitivity the models use is essentially unchanged since the seventies.
The peer-reviewed science is showing an ever smaller CO2 sensitivity, and yet the IPCC doggedly ignores this and sticks to the value from the seventies – a value that was dreamed up almost literally on the back of a fag packet. But here's their problem: if they observed the science, as they claim to do, then they would be significantly reducing their predictions of future warming. Of course, that wouldn't do at all as their whole purpose is to make it as alarming as possible.
The computer models are not just wrong – because they don't simply rely on the physical laws and are driven by political needs, they are close to fraudulent.
Climate models run too hot because the IPCC models assume that the global temperature will always go up without considering cyclical events of which there are a number.
Spectral analysis of the almost 170 year long CRUTEM4 temperature data set
CRUTEM4 Spectrum
shows that there are five spectral components of approximately equal intensity, which control short and long term trends.
Reply to vukcevic
That's because they have removed, "adjusted", all traces of past cycles from their temperature data.
As long as they hindcast to Hadcrut or GISS, they will always end up aiming way high.
Reply to fred250
Easily done with a band-pass filter; it would explain why none of 5 components is dominant as opposite to what would be expected to be in an unadulterated temperature data set.
That is just nonsense. The source code for the major climate models are available on the
web and if they were programmed to ensure that the temperature always went up then you
would be able to point to the lines of code involved and show that there was an error.
All of the models assume that a small increase in temperature will result in an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.
That has been shown to be false, but none of the models have removed that assumption.
Without that assumption it's impossible to get the scary numbers that drive the scam.
Reply to MarkW
Again can you prove that assertion — show me the lines if code where that is assumed.
And then show me the evidence that it is false.
Percy Jackson November 28, 2018 at 12:13 pm
Hello Percy, no need hunt through the code.
Instead look at the barometric pressure records.
Also YOU ( or your lords and masters) furnish the change in pressure that would be required for the CO2 driven temperature change theory to work. Also present us with the barometric pressure records going back to the mid 1850s. The device was created in 1850.
I eagerly await your submission.
michael 🙂
Oh as for your models, there is a reason that the CCCP and the USA never launched on warning. If they did we would not be have this discussion.
As usual, Percy demands that unless others can come up with the evidence to prove him wrong, he's going to stick with what he was taught to believe.
No, Percy is asking that you provide evidence for your assertion. Don't you think that's fair?
Timo Soren
@Percy WRT code: the expectation to respect a million lines of code without, say ISO9000, standards is simply foolish. You regard, The Code as holy. Very strange that blind trust should be applied. Every single block of code should have a complete set comments, and if complicated an additional meta-file explaining what the code does.
The fact the following: while (/(]+>)|(]+>)|([^><]+)/go)
could be easily intelligible to a perl script writer is not very useful without explaination so that others can confirm the reasonability of the line of code.
If anyone expects people to believe then many people have to read the code.
Gerald Machnee
Percy wants proof?
Nobody has proven that an increase in CO2 results in an increase in water vapor and this has NOT happened. It is a theory which is NOT working.
So the water vapor has not increased and neither has the temperature as a result.
But the media, politicians, pseudo-scientists and too many gullible readers have accepted this false theory.
So I have proven it wrong.
–	Assemble the observed data
–	Remove all natural oscillations with a band-pass filter (proof: strength of QBO = ENSO = HF AMO = SOLAR input = LF AMO)
–	Construct a model to correctly back-cast adulterated data
–	Forecast with such model
–	Publish code for the model
Here are two ORIGINAL graphs of N. Hemisphere temperature published in 1970 and 2018.
Comparison graph updated with CRUTEM4 actual data (see the link above)
That is just nonsense. ….
What it is…is the best proof that the lower adjustments to past temperatures is f r a u d
They hindcast the models… tune them to those temperatures….which were adjusted down to show a faster rate of warming…
…so of course, the models show a faster rate of warming than what is real
Hivemind
I've read a review of that code. Apparently it' rubbish. Tens of thousands of adjustable parameters that nobody knows the actual values to, so they adjust them until the model provides the answers they want. This is no way to do science.
Reply to Hivemind
And then there is the question of just what temps where entered as a "baseline". Hansen's most resent "adjustments"? Gavin's? Temps before either got a hold of them?
And adjustments aside, just how valid are past (very) scattered local temp records of any kind of value to determine past GLOBAL measurements? (The best we have now for any true global measurements are satellites but even they only measure a layer or two of the "onion" that is our Globe.)
All of the foundations of all the models are sand.
Percy they are saying the problem isn't a few lines of code it most of the lines of code because blocks of the code represent concepts believed true. Even a climate scientist if they agree the models are running warm has to figure how to adjust the underpinnings in the model and it is not likely to be a few lines but entire blocks of code.
There is a more fundemental problem that escapes most Climate Scientists because of their lack of science background. Go to any physics site and ask the question "what limits Numerical weather prediction" (so not even climate at this point) and why are they limited to around 3 days. There is one wrong answer that certain groups will give in chaos, it is wrong if it was chaos you could solve it but the problem is the other answer they will give you. Once you understand the problem it will dawn on you why you can't fix the models :-).
ShanghaiDan
Here's what happens when you run the models from, say, 1979 to now:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
The reason the graphs always look good, is they re-run the models with post-dated data. Fitting a curve to existing data is easy (and that is what they do); getting the curve to match the future prior to collection of data is hard (and is what Dr. Spencer shows).
CMay
Reply to ShanghaiDan
The chart you linked was the inspiration for the chart shown Here.
and here.
Look at my earlier post for the complete evaluation.
Sophisticated computer models of Earth's climate system allow scientists to … e x p l o r e … the effects of both natural and human factors
Yep … explore … my emphasis. Explore new ways to separate $$$ from American Workers in the form of PUNISHMENT taxes. Moral $$ indulgence payments. Tithes to the church of Warmism. Punishment and destruction of Capitalism.
Farmer Ch E retired
. . . a straight line forecasting a climate that is driven by multiple cycles of differing magnitudes and frequencies??? Sounds like multiple differential equations / Laplace Transforms may be needed here.
RCP 8.5 is bad disaster fiction.
I propose that we start using GACC temperature scale, G. I believe rather than using F or C, G scale will denote the real scare.
Freezing point of water in G will be at 100 and the boiling point will be 8100. Hence we can expect a warming of at least 60Gs but more likely 160Gs.
That will teach the skeptics
This is not a report from the "Trump" Administration.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders should make a strong statement regarding this stinky dead carp.
I don't know if 'The Donald' could or should shut this foolishness down. Even if he wanted to, why do so?
The squawk from the cAGW cult would be like shock and awe — silence scientists (although most are not), freedom of speech being stomped, other similar stuff. Who wants that? Let them bloviate. Then poke them with a sharp stick.
Somewhere else I saw 15°F (correct notation is 15F°) rise in the next 80 years! Good grief!
Gyan1
Hypothetical projections are being treated as an unquestionable and certain future. Pseudo-science at it's finest! Nobody knows what future conditions will be. Claiming otherwise is fortune telling.
Scott Man
These guys are more entertaining than those who calculate toxicity recommendations for EPA. Never mind that by 2088 our GDP would be far better able to afford mitigation (if any is needed). Further, no one can account for the fact that if warming continues as projected, we ingenious little 3rd chimpanzees will probably figure out novel ways to leverage that environmental condition into even higher level of GDP.
Is something missing ?
3. It cherry-picks science on extreme weather and misrepresents timelines ( time lines ) and causality.
Reply to Marcus
A bracketed ellipsis […] means that a section of text was not quoted.
Quoting entire articles can become a copyright issue. When I quote passages from articles, I generally use the bracketed ellipsis to indicate the omitted sections.
https://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/ellipsis.htm
Reply to David Middleton
That's a good way of distinguishing between one's own ellipses and ellipses in the original—thanks!
DayHay
"Both human and natural factors influence Earth's climate, but the long-term global warming trend observed over the past century can only be explained by the effect that human activities have had on the climate."
Statements like this always burn my butt. So these brainwaves MUST also know exactly what caused every temperature excursion across the Holocene, when all these human meatbags were not present and CO2 was apparently not a problem?? How many times had the temperature risen in the Holocene, 50?
Reply to DayHay
If you ask them, they will admit that they don't know what caused the past climate fluctuations, but they know that the current warming must be caused by CO2, because that's what the models say.
The "funny" thing is that the models indicate steady global warming throughout the Holocene due to slowly increasing CO2 and retreating ice sheets… The Late Holocene exhibits a long-term cooling trend that can't be explained by the models.
Marine and terrestrial proxy records suggest global cooling during the Late Holocene, following the peak warming of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (∼10 to 6 ka) until the rapid warming induced by increasing anthropogenic greenhouses gases. However, the physical mechanism responsible for this global cooling has remained elusive. Here, we show that climate models simulate a robust global annual mean warming in the Holocene, mainly in response to rising CO2 and the retreat of ice sheets. This model-data inconsistency demands a critical reexamination of both proxy data and models.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/34/E3501
Basically, the models can't explain 99% of the climatic variation over the past 10,000 years.
Stephen W
If their models can't explain natural cooling, of course their models would be unable to explain the warming.
It should therefore be no surprise that models such as in figure 5 show no natural explanation for recent warming.
And then when models are tuned to CO2 being the primary driver of temperature, surprise surprise, temperature trends along with CO2 and results in humans being the cause, at 95% confidence.
So really, the only thing that backs up humans being the driver, is their assumption that they are correct.
And there is no evidence to assume they are correct.
Tom Abbott
Reply to Stephen W
"So really, the only thing that backs up humans being the driver, is their assumption that they are correct. And there is no evidence to assume they are correct."
That sums it up pretty good.
Everything about the CAGW scare is based on assumptions. The Alarmists are seeing what they want to see, not what is there, or, in this case, not there.
I was doing a little digging yesterday, trying to find out what the review process is for reports like the National Climate Assessment (or as I like to call it, the National Climate Assassination of Rationality), and I came upon this interesting bit of information:
http://www.cfact.org/2017/12/30/biased-national-academies-review-taints-national-climate-assessment/
"The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) have peer reviewed Volume 1 of the latest National Climate Assessment and they are scheduled to review Volume II, which will be the main volume. The Volume I review committee contained no skeptics, just well known alarmists. This is a direct violation of OMB's [US Office of Management and Budget] rules for peer review of federal scientific assessments. NASEM should either shape up or ship out."
Given that the NASEM [National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine] peer review fails to meet the Bulletin [OMB Bulletin] requirements, it follows that the required peer review has not been done for Volume I. Moreover, unless there is a big change at the NASEM, their review of Volume II will likewise fail to comply with the OMB [US Office of Management and Budget] Bulletin.
I do not know whether any changes to the review process occurred for Volume II — I'm doubting it — I haven't found information discussing this yet.
Jonathan Griggs
Reply to Robert Kernodle
This is a very interesting find and ounds like the sort of thing that could be its own article here on WUWT. If I had a twitter account I would message this to president Trump.
Bubbagyro
Can we generate a petition to demand that Steyer release his tax returns? I think that we would find that he falls under the famous Eisenhower warning in Ike's 1961 Farewell Address at Dartmouth:
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
Gary Ashe
Hmm i like poker.
My bank was £200
then 196
It was a good game and the profit trend is looking good.
Reference period first 3 nights average bank was £195.33 = baseline session
2nd session of 3 i was trending down -£11.67 average bank £183.66
3rd session of 3 i was trending up £+13.67 average bank £209
4th session of 3 i was trending up £+17.67 average bank £213
Profit zero. but i'm trending a roll right.
Global mean average temperature of earths surfaces combined land sea and ice 14.4C 1850
14.9C 2017 El nino year.
Difference 0.5c higher. 2018 14.5C maybe 14.6C… 0.1/0.2C higher ?.
Because that is yer global warming .. the difference between the start and the end.
What is in the middle is meaningless.
Only what was, and what is now matters.
start £200 finish £200 warming zero.
Graemethecat
Reply to Gary Ashe
Exactly. How do the climate clowns justify extending a trend linearly decades into the future?
Reply to Graemethecat
Because they are mathematical inebriates.
Someone taught them a little bit of rote maths, but they are clueless how to use it.
Did you mean 'invertebrates'?
Cephus0
Interpolation is fraught enough with potential errors but unless you are absolutely certain that you have an exquisitely accurate physical theory for the system under consideration, extrapolation is generally suicidal.
David, once again a fun post. The ridicule is more deserved now than ever. Are these people part of the human race? There will be no coordinated participation in climate action other than the carnival barking of the left and opportunistic 3rd World governments clamoring for cash (they think the шнутеs have gone crazy and hey, why not cash in?).
The cost, if their urgent demands were to be taken seriously, would be far worse than 10% of GDP and everybody, the butcher the baker and candlestick maker know the expenditure would be to no effect. The jig is up and the elites are in D*nile, the real psychological kind. People already voted on it in the US and in a growing number of countries.
For those who have until recently been unsure about our climate impact, the contrary evidence they really understand has come in in a flood. No, not the 'sciencey' stuff, although it toppled about a decade ago. It is the angst and shrill entreaties of the cynical billionaire elites who don't know aerosols from snip. 'Follow the money' subsumes it will be somewhat hidden, but with these guys its now all hanging out in a last 'Sauve qui peut!' on a pockmarked battlefield. Steyer's Deplorables plaid shirt and blue jeans seem somehow sad.
CD in Wisconsin
"….Figure 2.1: Both human and natural factors influence Earth's climate, but the long-term global warming trend observed over the past century can only be explained by the effect that human activities have had on the climate…"
So there was no natural recovery from Little Ice Age of the previous 400-500 years? Were CO2 levels rising from human fossil fuel use or other human actions from 1900 onward? No UHI effects in the 20th century? No temperature station siting issues involving NOAA guidelines?
I wish Trump would pull the plug on the financing of this garbage. As I have said in the recent past though, he is being reactionary and taking no offensive action against any of this. If I were in his shoes, the alarmists at the U.N. and around the world would be on the run and dealing with the entire body of refuting evidence presented for the whole world to see and consider.
The best defense is a good offense.
Mumble McGuirck
Reply to CD in Wisconsin
Trump can't "pull the plug" on these Climate Reports. They are required by Congress. He should have a say, however, on who puts them together. Reading the list of Lead Authors we see familiar alarmist names like Jim Kossin and Kathrine Hayhoe. It's about a 2:1 ratio of Government to Academic people.
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/credits/
The list of who the authors and editors are should be within the purview of the White House, or at least WH has final approval. The addition of just a few skeptics would have a salutary effect on the final product. Right now, I bet the editorial meetings take place in a safe, warm alarmist bubble.
John M Ware
In the quote, "only" is misplaced. To mean what the author[s] want it to mean, the placement must be thus: "the long-term trend . . . can be explained only by"
As stated, the clause means "the trend can only be explained; it cannot be believed, it cannot be proven, it can't be acted on, it can't be tested; it can only be believed." And that is a problem–the explanation is basically empty of significance.
Think about the differences among these sayings: "I only love you." "Only I love you." "I love only you." "I love you only." (The last two mean the same thing. The first two are very different from each other and from the last two.)
So many of these explanations and assertions are careless in their use of language, which makes one wonder how careless they also are in matters of science and of fact.
Reply to John M Ware
The phrase you object to reads: "the long-term global warming trend observed over the past century can only be explained by the effect that human activities have had on the climate."
You write, "the placement must be thus: "the long-term trend . . . can be explained only by"
As stated, the clause means "the trend can only be explained; it cannot be believed, it cannot be proven, it can't be acted on, it can't be tested; it can only be believed. […] So many of these explanations and assertions are careless in their use of language,""
Henry Fowler, author of the authoritative Modern English Usage, disagrees with you, and so do subsequent usage authorities, mostly. He wrote (in a much longer passage):
"It may at once be admitted that there is an orthodox placing for only, but it does not follow that there are not often good reasons for departing from orthodoxy. For He only died a week ago no better defence is perhaps possible than that it is the order that most people have always used and still use, and that, the risk of misunderstanding being chimerical, it is not worthwhile to depart from the natural." He adds at the end that the natural position may be "often demanded by rhetorical needs."
@M McGuirk: I realize that the NCA report is required by Congress. If Trump can influence who prepares the report, then he should have an equal number of alarmists and climate realists (skeptics) on its panel and ensure that it is balanced. Right now it is anything but balanced from the looks of it.
When I said "pull the plug," I guess I was thinking more in terms of the IPCC. Did the UNFCCC not admit the Palestinian Authority as a member some years back? If I recall correctly, there is a U.S. law that requires withholding U.S. funding of any U.N. organization that does that. So far as I know, Trump hasn't done that….yet. In the absence of that balance, President Trump could (and perhaps should) put together a panel of scientists to show Congress why the NCA report is built on highly questionable science that might justify Congress' repeal of the the law requiring the report.
Also, if climate models in academia and elsewhere in the U.S. are indeed running hot, then the funding for them also needs to be questioned by Congress and the President. If the modelers can't explain why the models don't agree with the satellite record, then the funding of the models should be difficult to justify.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
Bill Murphy
RE: a panel of scientists to show Congress why the NCA report is built on highly questionable science that might justify Congress' repeal of the the law requiring the report.
Fat chance of that happening with the Dems running the House starting in January. A Dem majority that includes such paladins of scientific knowledge as Hank (Guam may capsize) Johnson and the Child legislator, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is actually going to Congress without Daddy holding her hand.
Kevin Dort
Reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon that proudly on display at work and at home.
"What if I don't trust the economic models"
"Who hired the climate denier"
https://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14
Ron Long
David, those "simulation runs" are so good I'm utilizing them to substitute for my regular exercise. What a fracking great feeling sitting in front of the TV with chips and beer while "simulation runs" exercise for me. Meanwhile back in touch with Reality, I see several large areas of North America are off to the coldest start to winter ever recorded.
Ewin Barnett
When a cause that is advanced by Progressives converges towards a socialitic solution far faster than it converges towards solving the issue they claim is urgent, then we can be at least 97% confident that we are dealing with ideology far more than we are dealing with honest science.
"But if your aunt calls you up this week spouting claims of mass deaths, global food shortages, economic destruction, and national security risks resulting from climate change,"
Especially if her name is Sally.
Kevin Balch
How does the atmospheric CO2 concentration of RCP2.6 compare to measured CO2 concentrations? I can't find RCP2.6 CO2 concentrations vs. time in tabular form that would allow an accurate comparison with actual data. If actual CO2 concentration falls below projected levels and the resulting warming still matches projected warming, I would think the climatologists would be citing this as proof that "it's worse than we thought".
Perhaps this is why the data is presented on low resolution graphs.
Another observation I have is that the RCPs seem to run together until there is a divergence beginning somewhere between 2030 and 2040 (again based on low resolution graphs). So how can ANY conclusions be made about the accuracy or usefulness of the projections until that time period?
Reply to Kevin Balch
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Here's UAH 6.0 plotted at the same scale as a similar image in IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR):
This was pre-RCP. They used "story line" scenarios (SRES) back then. Same result. UAH 6.0 tracked at the bottom of the range of model outputs.
Thanks for the post. I looked at what you presented here and in your post back in April. Here are a few points. I read in another article that the NCA was not based on the solid red line. Rather, it is based on 15F instead. Below is a quote form the article I read:
"That study only found substantial damage to the U.S. economy under an extreme global warming scenario of 15 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 — twice the United Nations' worst-case scenario called RCP8.5."
Your figure 2 shows how it could be 15F if you use the maximum of the shaded area. This is what I would call extreme squared. I used 15F as the basis for what I document here.
Perhaps, this comment is more directed at what you posted back in April, but I hope it adds something.
First, regarding CO2. As you can see in the figure below, I have a very precise fit to the Mauna Loa measurements.
Ignoring the yearly cycle, I get this rate of change until 2100.
Extending this out to 2100 I get this
I think in the April post you came up with 683 and I came up with 672. Not bad.
Now, onto 15F.
I wrote a little program for this evaluation. I can get to the final temperature of 15F two ways. I can find what ECS value gets me there or I can determine what the final value of CO2 must be with a given ECS value. That is what this little program does.
There you have it. If CO2 grows at its current pace as shown in the earlier figures the ECS value must increase to 8.56. If we use the worst-case IPCC value of 4.5 the final PPM value would have to be 1254. That is not too far from your value as I recall.
Now to illustrate just how foolish this report is I added a new line to my graphs in my cyclic analysis of UAH data. My cyclic analysis with a contribution from CO2 is a very good match to the measured data.
I performed a 5-year moving average of both the measured data and the cyclical data and essentially duplicated a familiar curve that included balloon data. You can see the lines are on top of one another. The figure also includes the Lewis and Curry estimate for ECS too. I added a new line for the NCA 15F estimate.
You will also find a line identified as rcp85. That is my digitation of the red line from your figure 2. You will see that the IPCC 4.5 line is a reasonable match for it. Make note of how well the Lewis and Curry value matches the data.
Now taken out to 2100 this is the result.
In my estimation, the people who wrote this report should be ashamed of themselves. It is truly extreme squared. It is fiction.
So the government climate weasels changed the BAU scenario for the science fiction scenario of RCP 8.5 and figured (correctly) that the climate concerned are too gullible to notice the difference.
And even then in their arrogance they managed to still over hype and make the outcome far worse than reality indicates.
rishrac
Food shortages won't be from warming, they'll be from cooling. Warming increases the areas where we can grow food. And as the alarmist like to say that snow is caused by increased evaporation, it's just as likely to rain than having droughts.
stinkerp
These "studies" all use the RCP8.5 projections because it's the scariest. Despite all the chest-thumping about "government action" in the form of carbon taxes, wind and solar subsidies, prohibitions on fossil-fueled energy production and vehicles, especially by the most deluded of the progressive governments around the world, no one is actually doing anything substantial to "combat" so-called "climate change" so, in fact, the "do nothing" scenario is the most plausible as far as global action.
The irony, however, is that actual measured temperature trends so far barely reach to low end of the RCP2.6 scenarios; the balls-to-the-wall-damn-the-economy mitigation fantasies envisioned by the climatistas. Simply stated, the computer-generated Representative Concentration Pathway projections are spectacularly wrong.
Ivan Kinsman
US sceptics want to destroy theit country. EU leading the way: https://wp.me/p8BEgP-13a
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to Ivan Kinsman
Keep flogging that poor strawman there Comrade Ivan. We enjoy the entertainment.
Chris Hanley
… Sophisticated computer models of Earth's climate system allow scientists to explore the effects of both natural and human factors …
Homicide detecting would be a lot easier if police could charge the first person they come across without an alibi.
Fig 2.1 is derived from IPCC report AR5 that clearly states that the 'drivers of climate change' since 1750 were overwhelming anthropogenic:
That's an assumption contained in the models there is nothing sophisticated about it; it's purely a deductive process, if practically all climate drivers are anthropogenic then it follows that practically all observed changes will be due to anthropogenic:
http://www.cfact.org/2018/03/01/circular-reasoning-with-climate-models/
Zig Zag Wanderer
I took the liberty of reducing the temperature anomaly plot to the same scale as a thermometer, a genuine Texaco thermometer…
Hah! So you used a fossil-fuel-funded thermometer? No wonder your denialist assertions are false!
/sarc for the humour-deficient
Back when there was REAL science, had I ever turned in a paper with a hockey stick on it, I would have been FAILED and rightly so. Now, it's standard to use the failed paper as representing reality. Science is so destroyed.
Stephen Singer
I'm picking RCP 2.6 as the answer to the question of what's ahead for the future environment.
This NCA s so Cherry Picked that it is indefensible. Plus it uses a deceptive twisting of some of their references to try to mislead their readers.
Their heat wave histogram starts in 1960. To anyone who knows better, that is a truncation of data. Their is high quality temp data across the the entire 20th Century for the US lower 48. That quality data that clearly shows the heat waves of the 1930s-40s were worse, so they truncated it.
Their use of Mann's discredited hockey stick paleo-temperature reconstruction (in Figure 1.8) turns their report into more of a farce.
And then there is this steaming pile of poo where they write:
(paragraph 7, Section 1.6, Global Changes in Land Processes)
"Many studies have documented a lengthening growing season, primarily due to the changing climate, and elevated CO2 is expected to further lengthen the growing season in places where the length is water limited. (ref: 173) "
Their Reference 173 is:
Reyes-Fox, M., H. Steltzer, M. J. Trlica, G. S. McMaster, A. A. Andales, D. R. LeCain, and J. A. Morgan, 2014: Elevated CO2 further lengthens growing season under warming conditions. Nature, 510, 259–262, doi:10.1038/nature13207.
where the final part of the Reyes-Fox, et al. abstract reads:
"Elevated CO2 further extended growing, but not reproductive, season length in the warmed grassland by conserving water, which enabled most species to remain active longer. Our results suggest that a longer growing season, especially in years or biomes where water is a limiting factor, is not due to warming alone, but also to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations that extend the active period of plant annual life cycles."(end of abstract)
(My bold to highlight the authors' relevant findings.)
That NCA wording completely turns around the Nature paper's wording in order to deceptively misrepresent what the authors said. That plants in water limited areas become more water efficient and continue growing is an inconvenient message they try to erase through misrepresentation.
Dan Pangburn
Earth climate is regulated by water. The huge effective thermal capacitance, mostly due to oceans, prevents rapid sustained temperature changes. Reported short term (a year or so) SST changes result mostly from roiling of the ocean surface such as shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ir1w3OrR4U
The ghg water vapor has increased about 8% since 1960. About 96% of the increase appears to be from increased irrigation. The added water vapor has contributed to average global temperature increase.
Total Precipitable Water (TPW) has been measured by satellite since 1988 and is reported by NASA/RSS. Graphed through Oct, 2018 here
CO2 increase has little, if any, effect on climate according to the preponderance of evidence from paleo to present (click my name).
Reply to Dan Pangburn
The NCA authors clearly had an agenda. That agenda had to be:
Do not present any benefit from increased CO2 or resulting climate change that (supposedly) emanates from it to make it into the report's wording.
An analogy to highlight:
Imagine a Roman Catholic Vatican-sponsored conclave to pontificate on the Devil and the evil he represents on humanity. Now imagine that conclave writing a scholarly theology report that says, "The Devil bad, but occasionally, just occasionally, the Devil does good."
That of course would never happen. The Devil has to be evil and bad 24/7/365. It's a religious dogma both in scripture and in church teachings.
Climate change is now firmly a religious dogma too. That dogma says, "More CO2 is evil and nothing good can come of it."
That is why this NCA is nothing more than climate religion dogma. The senior authors/editors clearly could not allow the report to contain statements or sections on the beneficial things of more CO2 or a warmer climate.
And that is why this NCA must be dismissed by all rational scientists.
To even see some of my meteorologist colleagues fall for this crapola is disheartening. We-do-not-and-will-not-ever-control-global-climate-and-weather.
Mike Maguire
Some incredible cherry picking and biased stuff.
They predict that crop yields will fall 12.1% because of weather/climate change, crop disease and insects which is already adversely effecting food production according to them.
What about atmospheric fertilization from carbon dioxide from the law of photosynthesis?
From the report. "effects of CO2 on crops are highly uncertain".
For soybeans, the 6 highest yielding years, have been the last 6 growing seasons. This is not in spite of climate change and the increase in CO2 but because of it:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/soyyld.php
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf
These scientists can't even get the law of photosynthesis right. It's not just crops but all plants:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
And it's not just plants in thousands of studies but plants on the entire planet:
That even affects deserts:
https://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html
That doesn't look highly uncertain to me.
They claim that the number of tornadoes in tornado outbreaks has increased because of climate change. They show a graph that has an increase since the 1990's of tornado days that had 30 or more tornadoes on that day.
What a strange coincidence that this sudden bump up, coincided with the installation of the nation wide NEXRAD doppler radars at NWS sites in the 1990's(last one in Indiana in 1997) which could now detect actual tornadoes that were not detected before!
Maybe they should have looked here and shown this graph instead:
They mention the possibility of the extreme cold from several Winters ago being caused by blocking from climate change. Yeah, we heard about that from the government before:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/john-holdren-video-polar-vortex/
"A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues," Holdren asserts. Watch it"
One can appreciate how powerful the brainwash is, when the brainwasher, tries to maintain the brainwash by convincing the brainwashed that extreme cold is being caused by global warming. ….and the brainwashed give a standing ovation to the presentation!!
They discuss atmospheric rivers and models forecasting a 50% to 600% increase in them for the West Coast……….but claim that there is no clear consensus on whether this increase in frequency and intensity will translate into increasing precipitation for California.
They discuss the 11 year major hurricane drought in the US, sort of in damage control mode. They are correct when they state that there has been no increase in number or strength of tropical cyclones……….from global warming/climate change so far, (even though models have predicted this). They site a study that suggests that climate change could result in less hurricanes striking the US. It sounds sort of objective………..but then claim that land falling major hurricanes is the wrong metric to use for measuring damage from hurricanes…………and they go ahead and use data from busted models for estimating economic losses from extreme weather from hurricanes being 10% stronger.
Ulric Lyons
UAH starts during a cold AMO phase, that will artificially increase your trend projection. HADCRU4 shows about 0.5°C warming since the 1940's. Continuing that trend to 2100 would be just over another 0.5°C.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1900
nicholas tesdorf
the Fourth National Climate Assessment Report RCP 8.5 is a bad joke and useful only as a bad joke. It has no scientific basis, it exists only as a piece of ludicrous CAGW propaganda. Sadly no one is laughing much.
BTW, I have additional confirmation that they used 15F and not the 8F shown in the charts.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/28/delingpole-the-national-climate-assessment-is-a-national-joke/
I posted an earlier comment on this article with my analysis of what this means and how ridiculous this is.
I have never said anything like this before but I think the authors deserve public ridicule.
Walter Sobchak
"The Climate Won't Crash the Economy: A worst-case scenario projects annual GDP growth will be slower by 0.05 percentage point." by Steven Koonin on Nov. 26, 2018
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-wont-crash-the-economy-1543276899
Mr. Koonin, a theoretical physicist, is a University Professor at New York University. He served as undersecretary of energy for science during President Obama's first term.
The final figure of the final chapter shows that an increase in global average temperatures of 9 degrees Fahrenheit (beyond the 1.4-degree rise already recorded since 1880) would directly reduce the U.S. gross domestic product in 2090 by 4%, plus or minus 2%—that is, the GDP would be about 4% less than it would have been absent human influences on the climate. That "worst-worst case" estimate assumes the largest plausible temperature rise and only known modes of adaptation.
To place a 4% reduction in context, conservatively assume that real annual GDP growth will average 2% in the coming decades (it has averaged 3.2% since 1935 and is currently 3%). That would result in a U.S. economy roughly four times as large in 2090 as today. A 4% climate impact would reduce that multiple to 3.8—a correction much smaller than the uncertainty of any projection over seven decades.
If we take the new report's estimates at face value, human-induced climate change isn't an existential threat to the overall U.S. economy through the end of this century—or even a significant one.
How many years has WUWT now been saying the IPCC reports are fictional, contain errors, etc, etc. It's all quite clearly wrong even to a common layman who can type a few lines on a keyboard.
Yet, all these brilliant retired engineers who so clearly know better than the established science haven't made a dint in it – not one, not in any way. 30years in which the sceptics have got absolutely nothing right while the evidence for serious AGW risks has mounted and the pause blown away in a couple of years exactly as scientists said it would be.
Meanwhile Anthony Watts racks up the advertising revenu and his cronies sell books and calendars as part of his self-described "enterprise".
This site is now a shrine to narcissistic, arrogant ignorance and pig-headed denial of truly astonishing proportions. And it will only get worse as the days, weeks and months tick by.
At what point are the sceptics here going to realise that Anthony Watts is the presiding Emperor of WUWT who has been swanning around naked here for years? At the same time, robbing readers of their dignity and stripping them of their cash. I guess it will go on for a while, given that sadly, there's probably one of them born every minute.
pbweather
Reply to Donald
Nice rant Donald.
A perfect example of how WUWT is starting to get through to policy makers, the general public and frustrating the environmental extremists in control of climate science who want us all to go back to living in caves.
To quote Steve Milloy…"Winning".
Request for Public Nominations for Authors and Scientific/Technical Inputs and Notice of Planned Public Engagement Opportunities for the Fifth National Climate Assessment
Research From Latest US Climate Report Tied to 2 Major Democratic Donors
A Few Thoughts on the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4)
National Climate Assessment Report Opinion
Hyping draft climate studies only serves alarmism


The Habirao Forbidden District lies in the islands south of Ohtoku City. This unusual mushroom forest has been marked off limits to civilians due to the unnaturally high concentration of photon in the air. The area's photon concentration has not only been known to poison individuals, but it seems to have had an effect on the native creatures, mutating some into unique subspecies.


text:
Business | Highlights
Volkswagen to invest €4.2 billion in Catalonia and Navarra factories over next 4 years
The German car manufacturer has announced massive investment in two of its factories in Spain: its plant located in Martorell (Greater Barcelona) and its factory in Navarra. In particular, Volkswagen expressed its intention to invest €4.2 billion between 2015 and 2019 in what many newspapers have called "the largest industrial investment ever made in Spain". According to estimates made by the Catalan Business and Employment Minister Felip Puig, it is likely that more than half of the total investment will be concentrated on the plant in Martorell, which builds Seat cars as well as models from other brands of the Volkswagen group such as Audi. In a meeting with the Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, Volkswagen Global Sales Vice President, Javier García Sanz, stated that the two plants that will receive the multibillion investment are among "the best factories of the Group".
Barcelona (ACN).- The German car manufacturer has announced massive investment in two of its factories in Spain: its plant located in Martorell (Greater Barcelona) and its factory in Navarra. In particular, Volkswagen expressed its intention to invest €4.2 billion between 2015 and 2019 in what many newspapers have called "the largest industrial investment ever made in Spain". According to estimates made by the Catalan Minister for Business and Employment, Felip Puig, it is likely that more than half of the total investment will be concentrated on the plant in Martorell, which builds Seat cars as well as models from other brands of the Volkswagen group such as Audi. In a meeting with the Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, Volkswagen Global Sales Vicep President, Javier García Sanz, stated that the two plants that will receive the multibillion investment are among "the best factories of the Group". The German carmaker also said that it plans to bring further models to the Catalan and Navarran factories, but did not specify which models exactly. Volkswagen said that this information will be announced at a later stage.
According to the company, the investment will not only guarantee the future of the two facilities, but will also bear a very positive impact on the Spanish ancillary industry, both in terms of activity and employment. Indeed, the German group will significantly increase the procurement of parts and components manufactured in Spain, it announced.
In 2014, the Volkswagen factories in Martorell and Navarra produced between them some 748,400 cars from several brands of the group, representing a 13.1 % increase compared to the previous year. Currently, one in three vehicles manufactured in Spain is made by Volkswagen.
"The Group reaffirms its commitment to its role as the Spanish economy's engine with the largest investment ever made in the history of our country," said the car manufacturer's Global Sales VP, Javier García Sanz, and thanked Rajoy for his support to the automotive sector.
After a lunch meeting with representatives of the industry at Barcelona's International Car Show, the Catalan Business Minister declared that the investment announced by the German multinational is "great news" and a "sign of confidence" in the Catalan economy. Moreover, it "combats the message that Catalonia does not attract foreign investment". Felip Puig also stressed that Volkswagen will announce in the coming months more investments on new models to be manufactured in the Seat plant in Martorell.
Currently, the German carmaker employs 22,000 people in Spain through its various brands, distributed over 12 working centres: Seat de Martorell, Volkswagen Navarra, Volkswagen-Audi España, Volkswagen Financial Services, Volkswagen Group Retail Spain, Porsche Ibérica, MAN Truck & Bus, MAN Finance, MAN Diesel & Turbo, Scania Ibérica, Scania Finance, Italdesign Giugiaro Barcelona and Audi Tooling Barcelona.
Last year, the Volkswagen Group's turnover in Spain totalled approximately €13.8 billion, which amounts to more than 1.3% of Spanish GDP. In 2014, the German carmaker sold 216,250 vehicles in Spain, of which over 200,000 were passenger cars. Thus, one in four new cars and SUVs registered in Spain in 2014 were manufactured by Volkswagen.
Audi Audi Q3 Automation Cluster Barcelona Business Car Fair Car Industry Car Manufacturer Car Sales Cars Catalan Economy Economic Recovery Economy Employment Felip Puig Foreign Investment Germany Investment Jobs Martorell Multinational Navarra Saló Internacional de l'Autòmobil Seat Seat Ibiza Seat León Volkswagen
Seat plant in Martorell, in Greater Barcelona (by ACN)


We had a really early start this morning. Daylight hours are starting to affect us quite a lot so when we can we need to get up and get ready in the dark to be ready to hike at dawn. It wasn't too bad as we were obviously in a nice hut and the sleeping area and kitchen area were separated so we didn't disturb everybody. The hunters were heading out early as well so we weren't the only ones. We hit the trail right after dawn and turned off the Greenstone pathway on to the Mavora Lakes track.
The rain had cleared overnight and we were expecting a nice sunny day. Thankfully we weren't disappointed and the sun quickly came up and started to warm us. The first forest section was relatively straightforward and we breezed through this pretty fast. The second half to get to Taipo Hut was mostly bog and tussock so this was quite a bit slower but we still made good time to the hut.
The hut had this quircky little turnstile feature instead of the usual gate. I'd be interested to see how many goats have gotten stuck in it. After a quick break we crossed the swing bridge and continued on towards the next hut. It was very similar to the part we'd just completed and included a lot of bog. It was probably better that it had just heavily rained as it was much fresher and not as smelly as usual.
The views were great the whole way and it wasn't to hot. We came across a random bench pieced together from some old fence and stopped for lunch here. We didn't bother stopping at the next hut as we'd just had lunch and it was slightly off trail.
The next part was easy 4WD track, the only hard part about this was that there were a lot of unmarked 4WD tracks around. Some of them were very eroded and some were flooded but clearly a lot of dirt bikes and ATVs came up here razzing around. We passed a few that blew right by us. We also passed a group of older hikers heading to the hut we'd just bypassed for the night. There were six of them so they would've filled up the hut entirely. When we passed them they were stopped and after walking another 50m we found an old woman and her husband looking for her glasses on the side of the trail. Unfortunately we didn't see them but promised to keep an eye out.
As we came around North Lake Mavora we arrived at the next hut and decided to stop in. It was a decently large hut but seemed to have more sandflies inside than outside. There were three others in here who gave curt hellos and nothing else so we kept moving. We took a picture with the lake as apparently some part of Lord of the Rings was filmed here, we couldn't figure out what it was though. We bustled through the final 10km to the North Mavora Lake campground in less than 2 hours.
We met a nice little old man here who came up and told us three more hikers had passed by and kept going and that there were plenty of places to camp. On this information we decided to keep going a little further. Near the bottom of the campground we passed a guy who can running up to us from his campsite and said they were wondering how long we'd been on trail. We told him, but he came up to us from a BBQ with an empty spatula in hand. I wasn't sure how to subtly suggest that next time he bring two hot dogs with him. The track crossed over a swing bridge and continued through a mixture of forest and open tussock to the South lake.
It was starting to get pretty dark so we decided to set up camp at a great little spot that we found right by the lake. The no-hot dog guy also told us it's supposed to be raining by morning so unfortunately even though it's incredibly clear we're sleeping with the rainfly on. It's definitely really cold now as well.


text:
The Society is administered by a select group of employees of the Victoria Foundation.
Brin Morgan
Brin was born in Edmonton and raised in Prince George. She has called Victoria home since 1991, when she moved…
Rory Grewar
Director of Special Funds
Rory was born and raised in Winnipeg and attended the University of Manitoba. He worked for 14 years as a…
Gord Griffiths
Gord Griffiths has lived in the Greater Victoria area since 1989 and for the vast majority of that time has…
Nathan LaPointe
Nathan was born in Vancouver, raised in Victoria and graduated from Oak Bay High School. He has been with the…
Brin was born in Edmonton and raised in Prince George. She has called Victoria home since 1991, when she moved here having never visited the city before. She attended Camosun College and the University of Victoria, studying psychology and then business administration. After 16 years in the tourism industry, she changed career paths and joined a local real estate company. As part of their support staff for over 5 years, she filled many different roles including Reception and Conveyancing. Outside of work, Brin enjoys an active lifestyle, reading, and creating foods, crafts and memories with her family.
Rory was born and raised in Winnipeg and attended the University of Manitoba. He worked for 14 years as a Senior Administrator with the Provincial Government's Environment Commission. In 2004 he moved to B.C. to become Director of Administration at the David Suzuki Foundation and in 2010 fulfilled a lifelong dream to move to Vancouver Island when he joined the Victoria Foundation. Rory has served on several charitable boards including the All Charities Campaign of Manitoba, the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, and the Performing Arts Lodge (Vancouver). He has also volunteered with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, The Immigrant Centre of Winnipeg and, most recently with the Victoria Film Festival. He has a passion for travelling and has visited over 30 countries and loves theatre, classical music, art and architecture.
Gord Griffiths has lived in the Greater Victoria area since 1989 and for the vast majority of that time has been involved with the community.
Gord has served in various capacities as a Controller, Executive Director, CFO, and CEO in both the private and public sectors. He is a CPA, CA, and Audit Committee Certified by The Directors' College. He has been both reporting to and serving on Boards since 1994. Having dealt extensively with many varied businesses and philanthropic pursuits as a professional accountant, and in his banking career, his familiarity with finance and governance is supported by knowledge and experience in human resources and general business operations.
He is also active on hockey association, private company, co-operative boards of directors, and in various volunteer roles. Gord and his family reside on Vancouver Island and participate in a variety of sports and outdoor pursuits.
Nathan was born in Vancouver, raised in Victoria and graduated from Oak Bay High School. He has been with the foundation since May 2008. He graduated from Camosun College in April 2009 with his Bachelor of Business Administration (Accounting Option) degree. He completed the Certified General Accountant program in August 2011. Nathan completed co-operative work terms with local accounting firms before joining the Foundation. Nathan enjoys volunteering, reading books and playing board games.


text:
My Recorded Cover Songs – Sweet Jane (re-mix)
August 4th, 2011 . by Alexander Fisher
I just posted my recorded versions of One of the Boys, and Ready for Love. Both songs were from the Mott the Hoople album All the Young Dudes. I didn't realize they were both on the same album. After I realized they were, I wondered if I would be re-recording the whole record. I was only half not serious. I got to looking in iTunes for the contents of the album and I remembered that I had also recorded Sweet Jane. It is a Lou Reed song that Mott the Hoople had on that album also. I do a hybrid of the Lou Reed "Rock and Roll Animal" version and the Mott version. But I hear more Mott than Lou in it.
I just did a re-mix of that Sweet Jane recording, so here it is. I don't see me recording anything else from the album. Not even Jerkin' Crocus.
[audio:http://www.linearcanvas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Sweet Jane 20110807_1637mcd.mp3]
Sweet Jane was written by Lou Reed. The guitar is my Fender Stratocaster electric. The bass is my Rickenbacker 4001. The drums are Session Drummer 3 and a Roland Octapad. I originally recorded the song on my Fostex VF-16 digital multi-track recorder and then processed it with Cakewalk Sonar 8.5 Producer and Sony Sound Forge 9.
My Recorded Cover Songs – Ready for Love (re-mix)
August 2nd, 2011 . by Alexander Fisher
Recently I did a re-mix on another Mott the Hoople song I recorded (One of the Boys). It made me start thinking about this song, Ready for Love. The song was written by guitarist Mick Ralphs and was originally recorded on Mott's All The Young Dude's album. When Mick left Mott to form Bad Company, he took this song with him and it was recorded for Bad Company's first album as well.
I have always felt I do a bit of a cross between the two versions. Probably a little louder than either one though. I also do an After Lights ending like was originally recorded by Mott. Not note for note, but the same feeling, I think.
Ready for Love
[audio:http://www.linearcanvas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Ready for Love 20110502_1530mcd.mp3]
When I started to look for it, I couldn't find any of the original recorded tracks anywhere. I looked on all my old hard drives. I checked both the computer drives and the drives for my digital recorder. They were no where to be found. The mistake I was making was that the original mix sounded so good, I assumed that I was dealing with digital files. What I found was that the recording was probably one of the last I did on my analog Yamaha four track cassette around 1999. By then I had acquired a Sony MD recorder. It wasn't much of a digital audio recorder, but it did work. I replaced my dbx cassette deck as the sub-mixing deck with it. It made a big difference. But I only used it like that a few times as I bought a digital multi-track just a little while later.
The guitar is a Fender Stratocaster electric. The bass is a Rickenbacker 4001. The drums are Ludwig's. I originally recorded the song on my Yamaha MT100II. I transferred it to my Fostex VF-16 multi track recorder and then processed it with Cakewalk Sonar 8.5 Producer and Sony Sound Forge 9.