Internal APIs: What are the best opportunities for value improvement?
Save time, empower your teams and effectively upgrade your processes with access to this practical Internal APIs Toolkit and guide. Address common challenges with best-practice templates, step-by-step work plans and maturity diagnostics for any Internal APIs related project.
The latest quick edition of the Internal APIs Self Assessment book in PDF containing 49 requirements to perform a quickscan, get an overview and share with stakeholders.
Featuring 718 new and updated case-based questions, organized into seven core areas of process design, this Self-Assessment will help you identify areas in which Internal APIs improvements can be made.
Will team members regularly document their Internal APIs work?
What is Internal APIs's impact on utilizing the best solution(s)?
At what point will vulnerability assessments be performed once Internal APIs is put into production (e.g., ongoing Risk Management after implementation)?
Activity Duration Estimates: Are actual Internal APIs project results compared with planned or expected results to determine the variance?
Cost Management Plan: Do Internal APIs project teams & team members report on status / activities / progress?
Lessons Learned: What solutions or recommendations can you offer that would have improved some aspect of the Internal APIs project?
Quality Management Plan: How relevant is this attribute to this Internal APIs project or audit?
Step-by-step and complete Internal APIs Project Management Forms and Templates including check box criteria and templates.
With this Three Step process you will have all the tools you need for any Internal APIs project with this in-depth Internal APIs Toolkit.
This Toolkit empowers people to do just that – whether their title is entrepreneur, manager, consultant, (Vice-)President, CxO etc… – they are the people who rule the future. They are the person who asks the right questions to make Internal APIs investments work better.


text:
Polityka demograficzna (populacyjna, ludnościowa) – wszelkie działania państwa i jego instytucji, mające na celu ukształtowanie takich stosunków ludnościowych, aby osiągnięta została określona liczba oraz struktura ludności. Używając odpowiednich bodźców państwo wpływa zatem m.in. na strukturę ludności według płci lub wieku, na przyrost naturalny bądź na rozmieszczenie terytorialne. Jest to taka polityka, której zadaniem jest wpływanie na zachowania demograficzne ludności danego państwa.

Polityka społeczno-ekonomiczna
Jest to część działań państwa związanych z polityką demograficzną, które mają na celu zabezpieczenie przed negatywnymi skutkami zmian np. struktury ludności, rozmieszczenia terytorialnego. Główną przyczyną takich działań są nierówności między poszczególnymi częściami danego państwa a celem owej polityki jest eliminowanie najbardziej uciążliwych skutków tych nieregularności. Narzędziami polityki społeczno-ekonomicznej są:
 równomierny rozwój systemu edukacji;
 równomierny rozwój zatrudnienia;
 równomierny rozwój budownictwa mieszkaniowego;
 system sprawiedliwego zabezpieczenia społecznego.

System edukacji
Zmienność liczebności dzieci w wieku szkolnym zmusza państwa, do przystosowanie systemu edukacyjnego do potrzeb ludności. Państwo musi niwelować negatywne skutki niżów i wyżów demograficznych, ale musi być także przygotowane na nadejście wyżu. Wiąże się to nie tylko z ilością placówek edukacyjnych, ale również na przykład z liczbą uczniów przypadającą na jednego nauczyciela, gdyż zmienność liczebności dzieci powoduje stałe zmiany zapotrzebowania na siłę roboczą w szkolnictwie. Jeżeli weźmiemy natomiast pod uwagę szkolnictwo wyższe, należy rozważyć również kwestię "mody" oraz wymagań rynku pracy. Moda na posiadanie wykształcenia wyższego i rosnące wymagania pracodawców wydają się być największymi motorami rozwoju szkolnictwa wyższego.

Demografia a rynek pracy
Na rynku pracy największym problemem, a także najważniejszym obszarem zainteresowania polityki demograficznej, jest zmienna liczba ludności w wieku produkcyjnym. Ważne jest również zagadnienie starzejącej się siły roboczej. Działania państwa w zakresie polityki gospodarczej i społecznej mają na celu zapewnienie zrównoważonego rozwoju rynku pracy, tworzenie nowych miejsc pracy oraz zwalczanie bezrobocia.

Kształtowanie procesów demograficznych
Poprzez kształtowanie procesów demograficznych rozumie się taką politykę, która wpływa na poziom płodności, umieralności oraz migracji społeczeństwa. Są to przede wszystkim: programy planowania rodziny, promocja płodności, system ochrony zdrowia, a także promocja poszczególnych miast i wsi.

Wpływanie na poziom dzietności
Istnieją dwa kierunki działań mających na celu zmianę poziomu dzietności, a mianowicie: polityka pronatalistyczna oraz polityka antynatalistyczna. Pierwsza ma podnieść, a druga obniżyć poziom dzietności społeczeństwa. Do podstawowych działań promujących rozwój rodziny zalicza się: kredyty niskoprocentowe, pomoc materialna od państwa, ulgi podatkowe, promocja macierzyństwa na rynku pracy i związana z nim długość urlopów macierzyńskich oraz wychowawczych.

Podnoszenie stanu jakościowego ludności
Celem polityki ludnościowej jest również podnoszenie stanu zdrowia ludności, a także jej stanu bytowego i kulturalnego. Podnoszenie stanu zdrowia ludności związane jest z zorganizowanym systemem placówek leczniczych – przychodni i szpitali. Ważnym elementem jest jednak także podnoszenie świadomości społeczeństw na temat chorób, promocja zdrowego stylu życia, odpowiedniej diety oraz dbałości o środowisko. Stan bytowy społeczeństwa musi być natomiast równoważony przy pomocy państwa, które przez system zabezpieczenia społecznego stara się zapewnić swoim obywatelom chociaż minimalny dochód pozwalający na przeżycie. Podnoszenie stanu kulturowego polega przede wszystkim na promocji szeroko pojętej kultury.

Wpływanie na ruchy migracyjne
Podstawowym zadaniem państwa w tej dziedzinie jest kontrolowanie strumienie odpływów i przypływów ludności w taki sposób, aby nie dopuścić do zniekształcenia struktury ludności na danym obszarze.

Bibliografia
 Kurzynowski A.: Polityka Społeczna. Warszawa 2003

Linki zewnętrzne
From population control to reproductive rights feminist fault lines Rosalind Pollack Petchesky (1995), Reproductive Health Matters, 3:6, 152-161, DOI:
A chat with Tim Flannery, senior research scientist, on Population Control, Karina Kelly, Peter Kirkwood, Owen Craig.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Swiss Open Gstaad 2021 – tenisowy turniej ATP kategorii ATP Tour 250 w sezonie 2021 z cyklu Swiss Open Gstaad rozgrywany w dniach 19–25 lipca 2021 roku w Gstaad na kortach ceglanych o puli nagród wynoszącej 481 270 euro.

Gra pojedyncza

Zawodnicy rozstawieni

Drabinka

Faza finałowa

Faza początkowa

Pula nagród

Gra podwójna

Zawodnicy rozstawieni

Drabinka

Pula nagród

Uwagi

Bibliografia

Linki zewnętrzne

2021 w tenisie ziemnym
2021
2021 w Szwajcarii


text:
Smart lock Amadas to cancel Kickstarter campaign
Haje Jan Kamps	4 years
Despite reaching its funding goal, Amadas will cancel its Kickstarter campaign on Monday. The campaign wasn't as clear as the company hoped, the company's CEO tells me. The challenge is that the backers and the company had some misunderstandings about the features of the product. The campaign might make a return to the platform early next year.
"We weren't well enough prepared to run a campaign," Eun Min Park, the CEO at Amadas tells me when I spoke to her at TechCrunch Disrupt today. "We may try one more time, and get it right this time."
The problem, the team points out, is that its solution is Bluetooth only, but a lot of the competitors in the market offer remote unlock solutions over Wi-Fi. The challenge was that many of the backers assumed that Amadas' solution would also support remote unlocking from anywhere in the world.
"Nowhere on our campaign page does it say that we support Wi-Fi," says Sung Kim, the company's COO, "but we were getting a lot of complaints from the backers, some even claim we are misrepresenting our products."
The team explained to me that it would take them a long time to add Wi-Fi to the mix, which a number of the backers were requesting.
"We are taking responsibility for any possible misunderstandings," Park explains, highlighting why the company chose to cancel the campaign. "Eventually, we will make locks that are compatible with HomeKit, Nest and so forth. But I know TechCrunch wrote about the problems about hacking of smart locks and we need to make sure we put security as the most important factor."
The Bluetooth-driven smart lock has a number of smart innovations, including a PIN-based unlocking feature, and even a backup solution in case your front door runs out of its AA batteries. The outside handle of the lock has a small solar panel built in, so you can use a flashlight (such as the flashlight built into most smartphones) to charge its internal batteries for long enough to let you into the house to unlock.
The steel Amadas lock has a trick up its sleeve: being able to charge the internal battery with a flashlight so a flat battery doesn't ruin your day.
Statement from Amadas
After this article was published, Amadas reached out to us to clarify a few things. The company's statement is below.
AMADAS is sincerely thankful for all the support given by the Kickstarter backers and apologizes to any Kickstarter backer who has learned about the cancellation before its official announcement on Kickstarter updates. AMADAS decides to cancel the project in order to focus more on delivering a "better" product to users (either in crowdfunding or B2B/B2C channels) in the near future and to take the full responsibility for causing any misunderstanding among backers. Lack of WiFi solution is only an example of features that AMADAS plans to implement in the future, not the sole reason for cancellation. AMADAS promises to return to the market with the products that will change the status quo by solving more comprehensive key pain points of door lock solutions. In order to show its gratitude, AMADAS will also offer the same discount rate to the Kickstarter backers who have already signed up and keep them informed of any key milestones in the future.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


I recently headed to the International Lactation Consultant Association Conference to represent Team CBWS! The ILCA conference was a fantastic opportunity to reach out to professionals who work regularly with new caregivers and talk to them more about what we do at CBWS!
The connections made with members of the lactation industry will hopefully offer more opportunities for our graduates by allowing these professionals to see how babywearing and breastfeeding go hand in hand!
It was wonderful to see many CBWS Graduates during the course of the week, as well as be joined by great representatives of the babywearing industry! I'm looking forward to next year's conference, see you all in Chicago (but hopefully sooner!).


It's done on 18 count which means that the final design is a 'normal' size for framing (5-7 inches), but is rather hard on the eyes! So far I've done approximately 2.5 hours work on it, so many many more hours to go! Ive said it before, and I'll say it again, cross stitch is slooooowwwwwww.
This is the right eye (well, the hole in the middle will be the eye when I use that colour) and the side of the nose heading towards the end(????) of the nose. Is there a special name for the black bit on the nose???


text:
Who do we help?
Role and remit
Register of Advisers
Volunteering with UKRIO
The Concordat to Support Research Integrity
Upcoming Webinar Series
Research Ethics Support and Review
Code of Practice for Research
Checklist for Researchers
Checklist during COVID-19
Case Study Packs
Researcher Checklist of Ethics Applications
Concordat Self-Assessment Tool
Guidance notes and position statements
> Publications > Guidance notes and position statements
Animal Materials Working Group
Expert involvement in investigations
Published Guidance
Get advice from UKRIO
Contact our Subscribers
Subscribing to UKRIO
Past Webinar Series
Newsletter issues
Misconduct Investigation Procedure
Integrity in Practice toolkit
Research Integrity Resources
Academic Image Integrity
Digital Badge
Ethics in AWERB
General Data Protection Regulation and Research Integrity
Open Access and Doctoral Theses
Pre-prints vs Pre-proof/Pre-press
Questionable Research Practices
RECs and animals
To supplement our core publications – our code of practice for research and our research misconduct investigation procedure – UKRIO is publishing a series of guidance notes on specific aspects of academic, scientific and medical research. These guidance notes cover all disciplines of research but will also highlight issues relevant to particular subject areas.
As well as providing useful guidance for researchers themselves, research organisations can use our guidance notes to raise awareness of the particular topic, and as material for staff and student development and training. Our guidance notes can also be used as reference tools by organisations who wish to create specific policies on these issues, or to revise existing policies. As with all of the guidance that we provide, it is up to organisations and researchers to decide how best to implement it and in a way that suits their particular research environment.
The first three documents in this series, covering internet-mediated research, authorship in academic publications and retractions in academic journals, are available below. UKRIO will be publishing further guidance notes in 2017.
The aim is not to be prescriptive, but to highlight particular challenges involved in research and to foster discussion on what might constitute 'good practice' in these fundamentally important parts of the research process. Like our other publications, the guidance notes are underpinned by 'lessons learned' from UKRIO's confidential Advisory Service on the conduct of research, which has operated since 2006 and covers all disciplines, from the arts and the humanities to health and biomedicine.
Good practice in internet-mediated research
This guidance note, aimed at researchers and research organisations, explores research integrity, ethical considerations and other issues applicable to internet-mediated research.
It is unsurprising that an increasing number of researchers are choosing the internet as a tool for data collection, for recruitment and as a research landscape. The ubiquitous nature of the internet and the digitisation of our lives is reflected in the number of disciplines interested in using the internet as a research tool or landscape. In turn, this new landscape requires consideration of the ethics in research practice online.
The document covers all disciplines of research but does not put forward a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. It complements existing guidance on internet-mediated research, such as provided by the Association of Internet Researchers, the British Psychological Society and the Economic and Social Research Council, and does not seek to replace them.
As internet-mediated research evolves further, good practice will continue to develop. This document will be revised periodically, to reflect such developments and highlight those new challenges which emerge. UKRIO will seek feedback from the research community to inform the revision of this document
Good practice in research: authorship
Written by Dr Elizabeth Wager, former Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), this guidance note focuses on good practice in the authorship of research publications and covers issues relevant to all disciplines of research. Aimed at both researchers and research organisations, it highlights particular challenges relating to authorship and aims to foster discussion on what might constitute good practice in this fundamentally important part of the research process.
Research organisations will be able to use this guidance to raise awareness of the practicalities of good authorship practices, and also as material for staff and student development and training. It can also be used as a reference tool by organisations who wish to create specific policies on authorship or revise existing policies, or who need guidance on how to resolve problems and disputes.
This document will be periodically revised to reflect developments in authorship and publication ethics, new examples of good practice and additional 'lessons learned' from UKRIO's Advisory Service and other work. UKRIO welcomes feedback from researchers, research organisations, editors and publishers to inform the future development of this guidance.
Guidance for researchers on retractions in academic journals
This guidance note covers good practice in relation to retractions in academic journals. As most published guidance on this topic is aimed at journal editors and publishers. UKRIO and the Committee on Publication Ethics have produced this document to help raise awareness of the proper criteria for retractions, corrections and expressions of concern in academic journals. Our aim is to help researchers understand how these important mechanisms for safeguarding the record of research should – and should not – be applied in practice.
Research Integrity – a primer on research involving animals
Written by Dr Nikki Osborne, Responsible Research in Practice this primer focuses on responsible conduct, good governance and ethical oversight of animal use in research. It complements existing UKRIO guidance referencing animal use in research, as well as the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and guidance regulating the use of animals in scientific procedures.
It is intended to provide research ethics committees, research staff, and those in research support, research integrity or governance roles with an overview of issues that need to be considered to facilitate a robust approach to good practice in the context of research involving animals. The document is relevant to all research involving the use of live animals, animal derived materials, or animal-derived data. This is because the scientific, ethical and welfare concerns that have underpinned the development of good practice guidelines and standards in this area apply irrespective of legislative requirements.
Research organisations may use this document as a reference tool to aid the review of how best to support the responsible use of animals in research, revise specific policies on animal use in research, develop training material, and/or consider how to manage or resolve potentially controversial aspects associated with research involving animals.
Version 1.0 was published in February 2019 and can be found here
Version 2.0 February 2021:
This revised edition seeks to highlight the abundance of information regarding good practice, responsible conduct and integrity that relates to animal use in research. General awareness of these across the Life Science research community is highly variable. However, many of the documents referenced offer useful tools to assist in the review of training, support and/or mentoring to equip students and staff with the necessary knowledge and skills that they will need to achieve, or work towards achieving, the expectations described.
Research Integrity: A primer on research involving animals V2.0
In this section you can learn more about the positions adopted by UKRIO on various research-related issues. To discuss any of these issues further, please contact us.
Position statement on research involving security-sensitive material
Position statement on the statutory regulation of research integrity
UKRIO: Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct
UK Research Integrity Office
Sussex Innovation Croydon
No 1 Croydon
12-16 Addiscombe Road
Croydon CR0 0XT
Registered Company No: 7444269
New Year Research Integrity Challenge
UKRIO Newsletter - Navigating the Evolving World of Research Integrity OUT NOW!
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas...
UKRIO Chair Prof. Ian Boyd on Scepticism, Science & Statistics
Copyright @2022 | Ecommerce Website Packages Designed and Developed by OJM Digital


Dyer, R.A.; Emmanuel, A.; Adams, S.C.; Lombard, C.J.; Arcache, M.J.; Vorster, A.; Wong, C.A.; Higgins, N.; Reed, A.R.; James, M.F.; Joolay, Y.; Schulein, S.; van Dyk, D.
Ephedrine and phenylephrine have both been used to prevent and treat the spinal hypotension that is common during cesarean delivery. When compared with phenylephrine, ephedrine is associated with greater fetal acidosis in healthy parturients. However, there are limited data regarding the relative efficacy of these 2 drugs for managing hypotension in women with fetal compromise. The present trial examined the effects of bolus ephedrine versus phenylephrine for the treatment of spinal hypotension in women with severe preeclampsia and a nonreassuring fetal heart tracing who were undergoing cesarean delivery.
Obstetric Anesthesia Digest38(4):172-173, December 2018.


The Chorley Clinic has private consultation rooms located near to the centre of Chorley.
There is on-site parking and the entrance to the clinic is on Briercliffe Road.
© Copyright Wendy Marsh MBACP Accredited Counsellor & Supervisor 2019. All Rights Reserved.


Origami originated in China and is the art of folding paper. With a few simple folds (and some holes) you can turn a piece of ordinary square paper into three-dimensional artwork. To make an origami shrimp, all you need is a piece of origami paper, which can be purchased from most craft stores, and a pair of scissors. Origami paper comes in many colors. Real shrimp are light red; however, you can make your paper shrimp whatever color (or colors) you want. The shrimp is be made in steps, separated into the body, head, antennae and tail.
Start by folding the paper from corner to corner to form a triangle. This creates a crease in the center that will be the guide for future folds. With the crease laying vertically, fold the top corners toward the center so that the corners meet in the middle (like folding a paper airplane).
Next, fold the edges in again to make it even narrower.
After that, fold the bottom corners toward the center as if you are making a paper kite. This will be the head of the shrimp. Take the bottom corner and fold it backwards. Take the tip and fold it forward. It should look like a head, with the tip pointing away from the body.
Next, take your scissors and make two holes in the back of the head for the antennae to go through. Then, starting at the back, begin to cut thin slits in the sides. Stop before you get to the head so that the paper strips stay intact. These will be the antennae. Poke the strips through the holes you cut earlier so that they look like they are coming out of the head.
After that, starting where the crease is, fold the tail forward and back like an accordion. It should start to look like a shrimp now. Once you have folded the paper back and forth all the way to the tip of the tail, fold the entire shrimp in half on itself so that the edges meet. Pull the folds in the tail to make it curve down for a finishing touch, and the shrimp is complete.
Traditionally, origami were considered lucky and given as gifts, but your paper shrimp could also be a party favor, or decoration - there are many fun uses for finely-crafted origami creations!


text:
Last updated on: 2/22/2008 9:39:00 AM PST Voting Machines Home Page > Source Biographies > >Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation Biography
"Since the adoption and implementation of DREs, substantial errors have occurred during elections, including errors resulting in significant voter disenfranchisement and, in at least one case, the need for an election to be reheld. Additionally, computer scientists nationwide have expressed concern about the security and auditability of DREs."
Letter to Henry McMaster, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, July 19, 2004
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) works in the public interest to protect fundamental civil liberties in the digital age. The Internet and other communication technologies can herald the most liberating era of human history -- or the most regulated and controlled as new threats to our basic rights to free speech, privacy and free and open communications emerge with alarming speed."
"Electronic Frontier Foundation - Mission," www.guidestar.org, accessed Feb. 12, 2008
"From the Internet to the iPod, technologies are transforming our society and empowering us as speakers, citizens, creators, and consumers. When our freedoms in the networked world come under attack, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the first line of defense. EFF broke new ground when it was founded in 1990 — well before the Internet was on most people's radar — and continues to confront cutting-edge issues defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights today. From the beginning, EFF has championed the public interest in every critical battle affecting digital rights. Blending the expertise of lawyers, policy analysts, activists, and technologists, EFF achieves significant victories on behalf of consumers and the general public. EFF fights for freedom primarily in the courts, bringing and defending lawsuits even when that means taking on the US government or large corporations. By mobilizing more than 50,000 concerned citizens through our Action Center, EFF beats back bad legislation. In addition to advising policymakers, EFF educates the press and public."
"About EFF," www.eff.org, accessed Feb. 12, 2008
Other: A donor-funded nonprofit public interest organization comprised lawyers, policy analysts, technologists, and activists
1. Is Logic and Accuracy Testing an Effective Method of Assuring That Electronic Voting Machines Are Operating Properly before an Election?


Heat a large nonstick pot on medium-high heat and add onions with 1 tsp oil and cook until golden brown, about 4 to 5 minutes. Divide onions in half.
In a large bowl, combine half of the sautéed onions with the ground beef, breadcrumbs, egg, 1 tbsp. tomato paste, 1/4 cup of the beef broth, and salt and pepper, to taste.
In a small bowl, mix flour and 1 cup broth until smooth. Mix in the rest of the onions and remaining 1 tbsp. tomato paste.
Heat the non-stick pot back on medium-high, add remaining teaspoon of oil and brown the meatballs about 2 minutes, turn and brown an additional 2 minutes (or until each side looks browned). Add more salt and black pepper and pour the sauce over the meatballs.
Cover and cook 20 minutes. Garnish with parsley, if desired. Serve over mashed potatoes or cooked noodles.
Slow Cooker Directions: Saute meatballs in a skillet, transfer to slow cooker, season with salt and pepper, and pour sauce over. Cover and cook low 6 to 8 hours, until tender.
I know it looks pretty orange, but it's a delicious orange-ness.


text:
A New Millennial Global Surface Temperature Reconstruction
Climate FAIL
By Andy May
Nicola Scafetta has written a new paper (Scafetta, 2021) in Atmosphere on a new millennial surface temperature reconstruction. This is his latest "what if the models are accurate?" analysis. Scafetta's idea is, let's assume a model is correct, what are the implications?
Previously, he examined the PMOD solar model, by assuming it was correct and the Sun is invariant long-term, does this make sense? Another example, if we smooth through the urban heat island effect (UHI), do we eliminate it, or just smear it out, so the data looks better, but is just as inaccurate? In the latter post, on UHI, I wrote:
"Relative to 1940 to 1960, the original HadCRUT curve shows 0.59°C of warming and 0.48°C using Scafetta's corrections. The UAH record shows 0.44°C. The CMIP5 climate models show 0.78°C of warming.
It is possible, according to Scafetta's correction, that non-climatic biases may have contributed a fifth of the reported HadCRUT global warming since 1940-1960. It is also possible that the CMIP5 climate models may overestimate warming by a third. These are significant problems."
Computer models have a downside. They can be used by those on the other side of the debate. If they lead to absurd or inconsistent conclusions, they make you look foolish. What if Scafetta assumed that the HadCRUT recent temperature record is correct? Then he further assumes that the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) ensemble mean is correct, what does this mean for past temperatures? Do we find inconsistencies?
Scafetta did a frequency analysis of the temperature records since 1860, and reconstructions of Holocene climate and identified at least eight significant frequencies. One of these is a well-known and strong millennial signal, which is often associated with the Eddy solar cycle. This is the oscillation that probably caused the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA). We can presume that these oscillations are natural and are probably due to variations in solar output. Javier has discussed the evidence for the millennial cycle or oscillation and says:
"Within the paleo-climatological scientific community there is widespread acceptance of millennial cycles during the Holocene because their effects are observed in most climatic proxies, and there is ample agreement over certain periodicities that come out of frequency analysis and are in phase from multiple proxies at different locations."
It is well known, but poorly understood, that natural climate variability is composed of natural oscillations. Examples are the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the El Nino Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and others. These, and many others, have been observed, but never explained to everyone's satisfaction. As a result, the magnitude of their effect on our climate is unknown and the CMIP5 global circulation models (GCMs) do a poor job of simulating them. It goes without saying that if we cannot measure natural variability in climate, we cannot compute the human influence on it. We have a temperature record of unknown accuracy, models of unknown accuracy, and natural climate oscillations we don't understand, what are we to do?
Scafetta assumes the HadCRUT4 temperature record is accurate. Then, he models it as a function of the stronger observed climate oscillations, records of volcanic eruptions, and anthropogenic influences. His analysis of the model results suggests that the natural climate oscillations provide about half of the warming seen from 1970 to 2000, when the AMO was in a warm phase. When the various shorter (70 years or less) oscillations are combined, they result in a ~60-year climatic oscillation that is evident in historical, archaeological, and paleoclimatic data for many millennia. Figure 1 shows the HadCRUT4 record (blue) and Scafetta's model in red. The model shown uses a computed anthropogenic input based on the CMIP5 models, but while they use an assumed climate sensitivity to CO2 (ECS computed from the CMIP5 ensemble model mean) of ~3°C, Scafetta uses 1.5°C/2xCO2 to accommodate his estimate of natural forcings.
Figure 1. HadCRUT4 in blue and Scafetta's model of it in red. This is from Figure 4 in his paper. The HadCRUT4 data stops in 2013 as a test. Notice Scafetta's model accurately reproduces the 2016 and 2020 peaks in temperature. See his paper for more details on the model. Scafetta seems to also have predicted the sudden drop in temperatures seen at the end of 2020 and the beginning of 2021.
Next, he extends the CMIP5 models back in time with data from a reconstruction of climate forcings by Thomas Crowley (Crowley, 2000). The reconstruction depends on both Crowley's data and the CMIP5 models of the anthropogenic, volcanic and solar "forcings." The extension to 1000AD is shown in Figure 2, where the blue line is Scafetta's CMIP5 extension and the pink line is the CMIP5 multi-model mean. The CMIP5 solar radiation model is shown in red and the same model extended into the past is shown in black, basically the models assume that the Sun hardly varies over the long-term.
Figure 2. The CMIP5 temperature anomaly in purple and the matching solar signature in red. Scafetta's extension of the CMIP5 model is shown in blue and the matching solar signature in black.
In Figure 3 we compare the results to the Moberg, et al (Moberg, Sonechkin, Holmgren, Datsenko, & Karlen, 2005) temperature reconstruction from 1000AD.
Figure 3. The Moberg reconstruction is shown in red, the CMIP5 extended temperature record is shown in light blue, the CMIP5 multi-model mean is shown in dark blue and the HadCRUT4 record is shown in green.
Clearly, the CMIP5 model does not successfully capture the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). There was no significant difference in volcanic activity, land use, or in CO2 or other greenhouse gas concentrations, and these are what drive the CMIP5 models. As you can see in Figure 4, from the IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report (page 6), the CMIP5 models assume that natural variation and internal climate variability are zero. So, they have no way to compute the MWP warming shown in Figure 3.
Figure 4. The factors that drive the CMIP5 climate model results. Natural forcings, such as solar variations, and internal variability, the oceans, are assumed to net to zero on climatic time scales.
The assumptions shown in Figure 4 work OK after the Little Ice Age (LIA). This is probably because the natural forcing is trending upward in a similar fashion to the CO2 concentration. By assuming that the Sun is invariant, they can assign all the warming to CO2. This assumption, that there is no natural variability over long periods of time, leads the IPCC to the mistaken assumption that ECS is 3°C/2xCO2. This assumption breaks down in the MWP.
Solar variability cannot be proven to have caused the MWP, but there is little else that could have caused it. Here, by solar variability, we mean the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth, especially the Earth's surface. The radiation reaching the Earth's surface could vary because the Sun varies, as stars like the Sun do. Or it could be due to other, natural astrophysical effects, such as, variations in the solar wind, cosmic rays, or the orbits of the Moon or other planets.
Summary and Conclusions
The millennial oscillation has been very persistent throughout the Holocene Epoch, or the past 12,000 years. It gave us the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the Modern Warm Period. The Modern Warm Period is also, at least partially, influenced by some human contribution. However, Scafetta thinks that, at least 50% of the warming since 1950 is natural. Figure 5 shows Scafetta's final semi-empirical model in blue, Moberg's reconstruction in pink, and HadCRUT4 in red.
Figure 5.Scafetta's model in blue, Moberg's reconstruction in pink, HadCRUT4 in red and the CMIP5 extension (greenhouse gases, aerosols, and volcanic eruptions) in black. The black curve is moved downward for clarity.
Scafetta's semi-empirical model is generally consistent with Moberg's reconstruction but shows a colder Little Ice Age.
In general, Scafetta's model shows us that the CMIP5 models are missing important climatic "forcings" or mechanisms. The smooth nature of the CMIP5 ensemble mean suggests that the CMIP5 models are not modeling the short-term climate oscillations and the mismatch with the Medieval Warm Period shows they are not modelling the longer-term oscillations either. Basically, CMIP5 is ignoring nature.
Nothing really has changed since the time of Guy Callendar or the second IPCC report, called "SAR." The original draft of SAR Chapter 8, which was changed from the original, by politicians, contained the following statement:
"we have no yardstick against which to measure the manmade effect. If long-range natural variability cannot be established, then we are back with the critique of Callendar in 1938, and we are no better off than Wigley in 1990." (Lewin, 2017, p. 277)
Guy Callendar was the first to use empirical data to compute the temperature effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. One of the major criticisms of his work was how did he know? If you don't know the natural climate variability, how can you compute the impact of CO2? This was also the criticism that Tom Wigley faced when he was working on similar calculations for the chapter on the detection of the greenhouse effect for the first IPCC report, "FAR," in 1990. The criticism is still valid today.
Crowley, T. (2000). Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 years. Science, 289(5477). Retrieved from https://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270.abstract
Lewin, B. (2017). Searching for the Catastrophe Signal. Global Warming Policy Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Searching-Catastrophe-Signal-Origins-Intergovernmental/dp/0993118992
Moberg, A., Sonechkin, D., Holmgren, K., Datsenko, N., & Karlen, W. (2005). Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature, 433, 613-617. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03265
Scafetta, N. (2021). Reconstruction of the Interannual to Millennial Scale Patterns of the Global Surface Temperature. Atmosphere, 12(2). Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/2/147
The Shocking Climate Graph @climateofgavin Doesn't Want You To See
Court Ruling: French Government is Failing to Meet Paris Agreement Pledges
Weekly_rise
I'm curious as to why Scafetta's "CMIP5 Extension" looks so very different from Crowley, 2000's model response, which it is purportedly replicating:
Crowley shows excellent agreement with reconstructed temps. The only note I can offer is that Scafetta's modeled response doesn't seem to actually reflect solar forcing, it looks like it might be the sum of just volcano+GHG's, and looks nothing like the solar+volcano model from Crowley, Fig 3B:
Reply to Weekly_rise
Weekly_rise, How disingenuous! I admire your cleverness.
Crowley shows excellent agreement with reconstructed temps.
Except many (perhaps most) reconstructed temps are more robust. Here are 3.
I notice Moberg's and Christiansen's are not among those you mention.
Reply to Andy May
Andy, the graphs are not my own, they are screenshots from Crowley, 2000. We might suppose Crowley did not include the later reconstructions because he is not a time traveler.
But your comment doesn't address my actual question, which is why does Scafetta's modeled response apparently not include solar forcing? That seems like an important component to include, and it is the solar component that brings Crowley's modeled response into agreement with the reconstruction.
I'm asking in earnest, I don't know the answer.
OK, I understand now:
why does Scafetta's modeled response apparently not include solar forcing?
This was the point he was making. Scafetta likes to assume the other side, in this case solar does not vary over climatic periods of time (just see AR5, this is exactly what the IPCC does) then say: "does this make any sense?"
In this case we can see that it doesn't.
Obviously, solar variation does happen and it does make a difference. This seems to be what you are saying as well. It is also what Nicola and I believe. But, the IPCC says no, the Sun is a constant. See the point?
There is a pretty huge difference between saying the sun doesn't vary significantly enough to explain the observed modern warming trend and saying solar input is an unwavering constant across all timescales and should be excluded from response models. Nowhere does the AR5 claim solar forcing should be excluded. Clearly the solar component is necessary to explain the change across the late Holocene, as shown in Crowley, 2000. There is no justification for its exclusion, as Scafetta does.
Can you cite specifically where the IPCC says the sun is constant at all timescales? Or at >1 kyr timescales?
Weekly rise,
See my Figure 4.
That is from the section where they attribute global warming to humans.
I believe that graphic is only attributing warming post-1950 to anthropogenic forcing, but solar activity was trending down slightly during this period, as shown in Crowley's model, which is why the IPCC does not attribute any significant positive forcing to it. The IPCC is not here saying that solar forcing is nonexistent or negligible on all timescales, just that it wasn't a driver of warming for the past several decades.
Last edited 1 year ago by AlanJ
February 4, 2021 6:25 am
IPCC AR5, page 390:
Weekly_rise, I think the key point here is that the Crowley solar signature is much, much larger than the CMIP5 solar signature. CMIP5 uses the PMOD model of solar output, which makes no sense relative to the MWP or Crowley's model. See here for more details:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2018/09/19/how-constant-is-the-solar-constant/
Weekly_rise,
solar activity was trending down slightly during this period, as shown in Crowley's model,
Sorry, not buying it. The PMOD model is trending down during the period. The ACRIM and deWitte models trend up. You are cherry picking your models.
But again, you're missing my point: the IPCC never assumes that solar forcing plays no significant role in millennial-scale climate changes, just that the observed solar forcing over the past several decades wasn't the primary driver of the observed warming trend. That position holds whether you are using PMOD are ACRIM.
IPCC never assumes that solar forcing plays no significant role in millennial-scale climate changes
Sorry, wrong. See attached and page 390 of AR5. The only one they did not use in a simulation was LBB, the realistic one.
Weekly_rise, Check IPCC AR5, page 390. There you will find the attached chart, Figure 5.1. They show one millennial solar record "LBB" that is realistic and could have caused the MWP and LIA, then they say it is the only one they did NOT use in their simulations.
To quote:
"All records except LBB have been used for PMIP3/CMIP5 simulations."
Can you describe why you believe the Lean 1995 reconstruction is "righter" than all the others? It seems to me to be the outlier (which is also the position of the IPCC AR5). Lean herself has produced more recent estimates (*included in the graphic you shared) which are more in line with other recent estimates.
To note: the fact that Lean 1995 might be more in line with what you want to see does not make it a better reconstruction.
And, again, you're showing me the TSI reconstructions that were used in climate simulations – this fact stands in direct contrast to your claim that the IPCC doesn't account for solar forcing in climate simulations.
Weekly_rise, The TSI reconstructions shown in the figure are cherry-picked, there are many more. No one knows which one is right, all of them may be wrong. That was not my point. My point was the IPCC ignores the many reconstructions that show the Sun varies and might be the cause of some of the warming and cooling of the past 1,000 years. Here you make an error:
And, again, you're showing me the TSI reconstructions that were used in climate simulations
The caption explicitly says the Lean(1995b) reconstruction WAS NOT used in the CMIP5 simulations. They only used the straight-line ones.
This is a very complicated topic that I have written a lot about. You can read more here:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2020/04/18/ipcc-politics-and-solar-variability/
Last edited 1 year ago by Andy May
Yet again, what you're saying to me is, "The IPCC didn't use the TSI reconstructions I wanted them to." But that is completely different than, "the IPCC excludes solar forcing from all simulations," which is what Scafetta has done. Scafetta appears to have just dropped solar forcing entirely from the "CMIP5 extension" based on Crowley, 2000's model. You can't simply drop solar forcing and then claim the CMIP5 extension invalidates CMIP5 because it can't explain paleoclimate reconstructions. Of course a model of volcanic forcing will not explain MWP warmth.
And that is aside from the fact that you can't simply append the modeled response series from Crowley, 2000 to the CMIP5 ensemble and claim you've extended the CMIP5 experiments back across the late Holocene, and then claim you've invalidated the CMIP5 if the modeled response series divergences from the reconstruction (that you seemingly have cherry picked from the available suite of paleoclimate reconstructions).
The paper seems to get messier the more I wrap my head around what exactly has been done. I'm not sure how it passed peer review in its current state.
Weekly_rise, The IPCC only uses solar reconstructions that are invariant over climate time scales. They assume that the only natural factors that matter are volcanos and aerosols. You seem to be blaming Scafetta and I for what the IPCC has done.
I agree totally with this statement in your comment:
"Of course a model of volcanic forcing will not explain MWP warmth."
This is correct and yet the IPCC want us to believe that, except for CO2, only volcanos and aerosols matter for the past millennium. It is right there in AR5 on the page I referenced above.
All Scafetta did was point out what they are doing. Don't blame him for that, it is his job as a scientist.
"Weekly_rise, The IPCC only uses solar reconstructions that are invariant over climate time scales."
This is simply untrue, based on the graphic you yourself provided above. There is substantial variability in the reconstructions of solar forcing over the late Holocene. It is also untrue that Crowley, 2000, uses an invariant solar forcing. You can see in Fig 3 from Crowley that the volcano+solar series is markedly different than the volcano-only series, and it is the volcano-only series that Scafetta chooses (or rather some variant of the volcano+GHG series), with no justifiable explanation.
Fig 3:
And, again, please see the second paragraph in my comment above. Scafetta's approach to "back-casting" the CMIP3 ensemble by appending Crowley's modeled response series and then making proclamations about the skill of the CMIP5 appears to be completely invalid to begin with, whether Scafetta is using the appropriate data from Crowley or not.
This is simply untrue, based on the graphic you yourself provided above. There is substantial variability in the reconstructions of solar forcing over the late Holocene.
There is not. Look at the graphic I referenced above, the variability in the IPCC model is less than 1 W/m^2. That is nothing. More appropriate models, in my opinion, vary by more than 4 W/m^2. For all practical purposes, a variation of 1 is a straight line.
I don't know much about Crowley's model, but the charts you have in your comment don't show very much solar variability. About a 0.1 of a degree in 1000 years, that is below the margin of error and rounds to zero.
Look at the charts in your first comment, the only things that matter are GHG and aerosols.
You might think the reconstructions don't show enough variability, but that is not an adequate justification for claiming that the solar forcing has 0 impact on model simulations and then simply dropping the solar component out of the model response series that you're claiming represents the simulations, as Scafetta has done. Clearly the solar component has a substantial impact on the forcing. You're trying to frame the argument as being about which solar reconstruction is the most suitable, but in fact any of the reconstructions are more suitable than Scafetta's choice of simply using none at all.
And, again, not to sound like a broken record, but please read/address my comment above about this entire exercise of "backcasting" the CMIP5 ensemble by appending the model response series. It does not seem to me to be a sound approach and this fact would invalidate Scafetta's entire argument.
"The extension to 1000AD is shown in Figure 2, where the blue line is Scafetta's CMIP5 extension"
Looks to me like a hockey stick.
" CMIP5 models, but while they use an assumed climate sensitivity to CO2 (ECS) of ~3°C"
CMIP5 models do not use any assumed climate sensitivity.
"The smooth nature of the CMIP5 ensemble mean suggests that the CMIP5 models are not modeling the short-term climate oscillations"
No, it suggests that they are an ensemble. They have oscillations, but not in phase. That is well known, and reflects what we know of Earth, where we don't know what determines the phase either.
Reply to Nick Stokes
Nick, Nick, Nick. You know this is BS. All models are tuned, and they are not included unless they toe the party line. How often has INMCM4 been ignored as an outlier, when it is the only model that matches observations!
You keep asserting, without any evidence or substantiation, that the models assume a sensitivity. That is a specific complaint, and a lie. Here you even refine it to say that they assume 3°C per doubling. Where on earth do you get that from? You made it up.
The net albedo and TOA radiation fluxes at the preindustrial are tuned for, and so it should be no surprise that they are similar across models and to observations.
Ref: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2013MS000265
Apologies will be accepted graciously.
Global temperature is not specifically tuned for, as they say later in the article, but ECS is a function of time, as well as temperature. If the early days are tuned for, you can make ECS anything you want.
Here is another jewel:
Maintaining a well-tuned model version and concurrently having a continuous overview of the ECS evolution and the main feedback parameters over time will support us in the critical evaluation of any new model developments and will suggest a critical retuning of the model whenever important changes in climate sensitivity are found.
https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/13/3465/2020/
Hmmm, it seems ECS is dependent upon tuning after all.
He speaks of ECS evolution. It is something the model calculates. It isn't an assumption.
Again, your statement is specific. ECS is assumed, and now you give a specific figure. But you can't provide any substantiation of that claim. Models are structured. If ECS is assumed, it would be shown as an input. That can easily be searched for. And it just isn't.
Nick, Your reading and critical thinking skills are in question, read this again:
concurrently having a continuous overview of the ECS evolution and the main feedback parameters over time will support us in the critical evaluation of any new model developments and will suggest a critical retuning of the model whenever important changes in climate sensitivity are found.
I don't think that is ambiguous.
No, it isn't. Read again the part you bolded:
"whenever important changes in climate sensitivity are found"
If they have assumed ECS, how could they "find" a change. It is an output, used here as a diagnostic.
If the temperature of your cooling water rises, you should retune the engine. That doesn't mean you assumed a temperature to get the car started. It's just something you watch in the output.
Nick, you exhibit one of CliSci's more odious traits: You deny the documented modeling practice of tuning a model to get an ECS "that seems about right," by obfuscating it with comments that "ECS is not a model input;" trivially true, but a lie on the face considering what is under discussion. Modelers input ECS into their models; the models don't miraculously generate ECS.
Rory Forbes
Reply to Dave Fair
No, no, no, no … models are sentient, don't you know? ECS doesn't need to be an input because the models are able to determine the truth and arrive at an appropriate ECS from the given data.
"You deny the documented modeling practice of tuning a model to get an ECS "that seems about right,""
How about some links to that "documentation"? In fact the paper Andy quoted from was written because:
"Our EC-Earth model also shows an increased sensitivity: EC-Earth2 (hereafter ECE2), which was used for CMIP5, had an ECS of 3.3K that has increased to 4.3K in the newer model version EC-Earth3 (hereafter ECE3) that is used for CMIP6. The goal of this study is to identify and quantify the contributions of model updates when going from ECE2 to ECE3."
They aren't trying to undo the change. They are trying to understand why it happened. That would not make sense if it happened because they had changed their assumption. As they say:
"Despite the simple definition of the ECS, it is not easy to constrain its value with observations or models"
It would be easy if you just assumed it.
Well said Dave Fair,
"…the documented modeling practice of tuning a model to get an ECS "that seems about right," by obfuscating it with comments that "ECS is not a model input;" trivially true, but a lie on the face"
"You keep asserting, without any evidence or substantiation, that the models assume a sensitivity. That is a specific complaint, and a lie"
How can you make a predictive model without assuming an ECS – if you assume one exists?
Reply to Mike
ECS is an output of climate models; it is the thing you're trying to get at in the first place.
A predictive climate model is supposed to predict future climate. To do that you must assume an ECS…. if you believe one exists.
Read it again…."Maintaining a well-tuned model version and concurrently having a continuous overview of the ECS evolution and the main feedback parameters over time will support us in the critical evaluation of any new model developments and will suggest a critical retuning of the model whenever important changes in climate sensitivity are found."
Last edited 1 year ago by Mike
ECS is the future climate state attained following a doubling of CO2 – it is something the models calculate (i.e. it is the predicted future climate state). You can read more about the topic here:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity
An experiment tests an hypothesis to predict reproducible results … in other words science.
A model tests the validity of an algorithm used to projected a range of possible outcomes … prognostication. You get to pick the outcome you prefer,
Derg
MC ^2 = a range of E 🤔
Reply to Derg
There would certainly be a range of E if there was uncertainty in M or C. But you do nicely point out that E is the quantity being solved for – we don't feed it into the lefthand side of the equation.
Jim Gorman
And I suppose that the "calculations" are never "tuned" to provide the "expected value". One does not have to simply assign an ECS as a constant in order to tune. Give these guys some credit in using code further down that is tuned to provide a correct answer. That is, "well maybe this equation isn't quite right in the way it uses the input from another equation".
Dream on, my man.
If it is an output why is it listed as an input?
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf Table 9.5
Reply to lee
"why is it listed as an input?"
It isn't listed as an input. The caption to the table begins:
"Table 9.5 | Effective radiative forcing (ERF), climate sensitivity and climate feedbacks estimated for the CMIP5 AOGCMs"
You don't have to estimate inputs; you know them. The numbers here are from two papers which diagnose GCM output.
And the reason they vary? The underlying assumptions.
Table 9.5 is showing sensitivity estimates from the CMIP5 experiments, not the model inputs. The caption clearly says, "ECS is calculated using regressions following Gregory et al. (2004)." The abstract of Gregory et al. 2004 says "We describe a new method for evaluating the radiative forcing, the climate feedback parameter (W m−2 K−1) and hence the effective climate sensitivity from any GCM experiment in which the climate is responding to a constant forcing."
And the numbers vary because? They rely on assumptions. :0
Rather, there is a range in ECS because there is uncertainty about the components of the system being modeled. That does not make ECS an input to the models.
Weekly_rise, One of the serious problems with CMIP5 is that they average the output of many completely different models. In computer modeling this is an unusual practice and it reveals that they do not have a good model.
What they should do is choose just one model that is produces the best match to observations and make many sensitivity runs with just that one model. Then their so-called "ensemble mean" would make sense.
The way they are doing it destroys their estimate of natural variability, since they do not understand how to model the natural part, and the models are out of phase. What they get is a useless, smoothed output.
And the actual model-builders say "we adjust parameters until we get an ECS that seems about right," or thereabouts.
You keep asserting, without any evidence or substantiation, that the models assume a sensitivity.
ECS is computed from model results and it is examined after every run.
Only one model in CMIP5 matches observations, INM-CM4. Using the results of that one model we get an ECS of 2.1. Normally that would be the end of it, we would just use INM-CM4. But, the overall average ECS, computed from all the models is 3.2, why? If INM-CM4 matches observations and gives us 2.1, why "tune" the others to give a higher number? The evidence is in the papers I've already cited and in AR5, see page 818.
No, it suggests that they are an ensemble. They have oscillations, but not in phase.
This is precisely Nicola's point! Thanks for agreeing.
You said that " the CMIP5 models are not modeling the short-term climate oscillations". I said that they do, but if you average an ensemble (of anything) events of different timing get smoothed out. The difference between GCMs and Scafetta is that one is ensemble averaged, the other not.
If they are modeling the short-term climate oscillations, why are they out of phase?
You can model a bell. You can describe the mechanism and frequency of the oscillations. But you can't predict the phase.
If you have an ensemble of bell models, they will produce a cacophany. Just like real bells, without elaborate coordination. The ensemble will not collectively produce the clear ringing that each bell can.
Therefore models aren't competent for the important predictions, required in climate science. Projections simply have no practical use, especially with climate. With a projected range of ECS from 1.5C – 4.5C you're not really doing anything. It's not science. It's just bad guesswork.
If I was to say your salary will be somewhere between $20K and $60K annually, depending on my whim, I doubt you would jump at the job.
Last edited 1 year ago by Rory Forbes
Geez dude you be-clown yourself more and more each day.
Nick, we agree that the model ensemble, used to make policy, cannot predict natural variability. The models used to make the average are out of phase, so the variability is lost. You seem to be arguing it doesn't matter, but I think it does. All the variability from 1950 to today was lost in the averaging process, artificially inflating the computation of ECS.
"I said that they do, but if you average an ensemble (of anything) events of different timing get smoothed out."
Hallelujah! We finally have a convert to the criticisms of Global Average Temperature!
NS is basically describing the effect that averaging has on variance. It smooths the variance out until you can no longer tell what the range of actual values may have been. In addition, it is impossible to "reconstruct" the parts that make up the whole.
It also "hides" the uncertainty of the very measurements used to make up the final value. It is why Dr. Pat Franks assessment of uncertainty for the GCMs came out so high.
This is one reason that time series analysis is more applicable than simple averaging and then calculating a simple regression.
Nick, I suggest you look at Table 9.5 Row 4. It clearly says "Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity". The table gives a range of 2.1 to 4.9. Those to me are assumptions.
Lee, I think you mean column 4, but I agree. Actually, the only models that make any sense, vis-a-vis observations are INM-CM4 ECS=2.1, TCS=1.3 and GISS-E2-R. The others are obviously tuned to get a too-high ECS.
David A
And Andy, it has been that way for well over a decade now. If the goal was to reflect the real world, the scary yet politicaly useful, always wrong to the observations models, would have been rejected long ago.
Yet here we are, about two decades later, still writing stories to frighten the Greta's of the world, based on clearly wrong models that fail to reflect, not only the current observations, but also fail to manifest known past warm periods like the MWP, and we are still tuning the real world observations to cling to the scary stories!
Last edited 1 year ago by David A
"Those to me are assumptions."
They are actually just numbers estimated. The caption to the table begins:
Nick, I think (hope) that everyone knows ECS is not a model input. I certainly never said that, in fact, I think that it is your repeating that assertion that is the problem.
What I do say, and it is certainly true, as I've documented, that tuning changes the output ECS. It is also true that while tuning the models, the modelers monitor the effect on ECS.
That is and always was my point. So, stop beating the drum about ECS being an input, we all know it isn't, and it has become a red herring.
"everyone knows ECS is not a model input. I certainly never said that"
Well, you said, and I quoted it:
" The model shown uses a computed anthropogenic input based on the CMIP5 models, but while they use an assumed climate sensitivity to CO2 of ~3°C…"
You "clarified" by saying that number was
"(ECS computed from the CMIP5 ensemble model mean)"
but that makes even less sense. Who can use the model mean in running a program? What about a model with an ECS outcome of 5°C? Did they "use" 3°C? or 5°C? In fact they wouldn't have known the model mean before they reported.
Nick, The model that matches observations computes an ECS of 2.1. The ensemble mean of all the models computes an ECS of 3.2, according to Table 9.5 on page 818 of AR5, why? You write:
Who can use the model mean in running a program?
Everyone uses model run means in running a program, although the proper way is to run the same model multiple times and then average the runs. The IPCC runs different models and then averages them, which makes very little sense.
Tuning the errant models can easily change the results of all of them to match observations like INM-CM4. Then they would all get 2.1. That is why I used the word assumed. They are assuming the parameters that result in an average of 3.2, ignoring the measurements of the past 40 years.
Have you ever done any computer modeling, or written any models? I've written several and ran them in real-world cases for 42 years. This is how everyone does it. It is beyond my understanding why they stubbornly ignore the data and push these unrealistically high ECS values.
Graemethecat
From an admittedly superficial reading of this paper I get the impression that none of the existing models can reproduce past climatic excursions such as the MWP and the LIA. Is this the case? If so, how can any anthropogenic contribution be detected?
Why are we even bothering with climate models?
Reply to Graemethecat
I agree, they are not accurate enough to take seriously, too many tunable parameters. You can make them get any answer you want, a politicians dream model. They assume a flat solar input curve. In the attached figure from AR5, page 390, the only solar curve not used in their simulations is the one that shows the Little Ice Age, "LBB."
I see where you got confused. I changed the above quote to make it clearer to:
" CMIP5 models, but while they use an assumed climate sensitivity to CO2 (ECS computed from the CMIP5 ensemble model mean) of ~3°C"
I thought it was clear before, but now there is no doubt what I meant.
Richard Page
Comes back to what has been said again and again – until we understand more about the natural climate variability computer models are just complete nonsense and a waste of both time and money.
Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Page
Reply to Richard Page
Richard Page, I couldn't agree more.
Joel O'Bryan
Unless it is your comfortable paycheck and paychecks and careers of those around you who feed off your grants (university overhead feeders, etc) on the line should you admit that truth publicly.
And if you don't do it (produce junk science to meet a political agenda) then the climate scammers will find someone who will for your nice paycheck whilst you go re-train to install solar panels (h/t: J Kerry). Which is how they got the job in the first place.
Last edited 1 year ago by Joel O'Bryan
Figure 1. HadCRUT4 in blue and Scafetta's model of it in blue.
Scafetta in RED ?
Reply to Steve Taylor
Steve, A thousand apologies! My bad, I fixed it.
1 will do.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/lbvils/thread_climate_change_activist_greta_accidentally/
Gyan1
The suns output doesn't vary much but the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface due to variations in cloudiness dwarfs the human forcing.
https://file.scirp.org/Html/22-4700327_50837.htm
"The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere,"
Reply to Gyan1
Lindzen's Iris Hypotheis
Reply to Joel O'Bryan
Data from NASA shows that a majority of modern warming was from fewer clouds. 3 other papers put the increase at 2.8, 3.5 and 8W/m-2. NASA still cites the summary for policy makers lie that it is mostly anthropogenic rather than their own data.
The Iris Hypothesis says that the warming was the Iris (clouds) responding to the 60s-70s cooling.
Fewer clouds lasted at least until 2012.
…and stronger El Ninos until even more recently.
There are other large unknowns here as well. While TSI varies little, solar wavelength varies considerably, and this can be multi year, and even multi decadal variations.
The wavelength flux may very well affect cloud formation, as well as the amount of surface insolation entering the oceans, and the residence time of said energy entering the oceans.
As solar insolation penetrates up to 800′ into the oceans, even a relatively small change in wavelength insolation can, over a long ocean residence time and long term solar flux, lead to significant acumalated below the surface energy, positive or negative.
This may manifest as warmer or cooler ocean currents in well known Atlantic and Pacific patterns.
Reply to David A
The thermal inertial of the oceans appears to be fairly long with the PDO and AMO holding on to warm phases.
Unknowns are the reason the definitive claims about future warming are pseudoscience.
Ron Long
Playing down the Medieval Warm Period, so it was not as warm as today, is countered by the fact that wine grapes were grown in northern England and they are not there today. Likewise the warming of the Little Ice Age, when Ice Fairs were held on the River Thames. I would like to see more Archaeology rolled into climate reconstructions.
Reply to Ron Long
Not just grapes in northern England. It bears constant repeating that the Medieval Warm Period has conclusively been shown to have been a global phenomenon in both the NH and sH, from Europe to the Americas to Asia. The Climate Scammers have consistently tried to erase it and the LIA from climate proxies, but the Anthropological evidence for the MWP and LIA is just far too strong. And their attempts paints the paleotemp proxy reconstructors who try to erase them as the science frauds they are.
Pat from kerbob
Just received my copy of "A cultural history of Climate".
Looking forward to it
Reply to Pat from kerbob
Just placed an order for this, thanks for mentioning it!
Marxists have always tried to erase History and Culture.
paranoid goy
Oh, ye gods! If there is one branch of pseudosciencery more obsessed with their own backsides than climastrology, it must be archaeology. Every single one of them is sure he found the definitive origins of civilisation by ascribing religious significance to every pot shard and scratched rock. Last I saw, they found Hebrew messages inked onto Mesopotamian cuneiform clay tablets… Inked, I tell you.
Please, please lord, don't get the archaeologists involved in this new religion, I don't think I will survive all that sighing and eye-rolling! And the splitting of the sides, oy vey, the hurting splitting of the sides!
Don't we spend enough time insulting each other over guesstimates and models based thereupon? ECS indeed.
Thank goodness my government just allowed alcohol sales again, I would not have survived this comment section without it.
More seriously: All the graphs depict "anomalies". Anomalous to what, exactly? Just asking.
Last edited 1 year ago by paranoid goy
Scafetta schmetta….ppppfffftttt!
It's all about "climate justice" for Climate Change true believers now. Not only is NO science required for them now, any science now is just a distraction for their agenda.
That is whereas science is a self-correcting process, today's climate consensus science is a political agenda-affirming process.
Temperature variation in 0.1C graduations..When we cannot honestly measure the current area temperature to that accuracy today,but we can know what this imaginary measure was 1000 years back?
Now I am assuming this "temperature anomaly" is that same old bugbear,the "Average Global temperature".
So a whole bunch of words to speculate on "changes in Temperature" for which we enough information to honestly say only"We don't know".
I have decided to label this year 2021 as " The International Year of Lying."
As we are awash in nonsense and the political slime have returned to pushing the Cult of Calamitous Climate,promote a continuous public health emergency,over a virus with a 99.8 survival rate and full on censorship of any citizenry who mock the mass hysteria .
It is a real shame that Hubert Lambs work died with him,it would be very nice to have an accurate scientific estimate of past climate..instead of the policy based gunk created at the Climate Research Unit..
You know one of those carefully researched guesses listing the data and error bars..we used to expect with any science based speculation.
As another anniversary of Climate Gate fades into the past..does anyone have a copy of the promised data?
that "lost" (accidentally erased) data that was to be recreated in just 3 years…21 years ago.
I'll ask again, because I still have not got an answer from anyone..
Which climate model(s) show similar temperature to now in the 1940s, in the Arctic region?
Burl Henry
Andy May:
You state "Solar variability cannot be proven to have caused the MWP, but there is little else that could have caused it"
And "The millennial oscillation…….gave us the Roman Warm Period, The Dark Ages, the MWP, the LIA, and the Modern Warm Period"
No, the MWP was clearly due to a dearth of Volcanic eruptions, only 30 VEI4, or larger, eruptions in 300 years. And the LIA was caused by a large increase in volcanic eruptions, as proven by the Central England Instrumental temperatures Data Set, where every temperature decrease correlates with a volcanic eruption, with the 1727-1739 warm period having no eruptions.-
Examination of the other periods show that their temperatures were also driven by volcanic eruptions.
Scaffeta's paper is nonsense.
Reply to Burl Henry
Mount Paektu, on the border between North Korea and China, erupted at the start of the MWP in a VE7 event. Wikipedia has a good article on it.
Graemethecat:
Yes, but it should not be considered to be part of the MWP. The next eruptions (Tolbachik.and Bezymianny) occurred 4 years later, and the next one, Vesuvius (968), occurred 18 years later. This was the pattern throughout the MWP.: An eruption, followed by many years of clean air, with no Volcanic aerosol pollution.in the atmosphere..
Burl, Scafetta's paper is not nonsense.
the MWP was clearly due to a dearth of Volcanic eruptions
This is not true.
the peak of the Medieval Warm Period is generally agreed to be sometime between 990 and 1090AD. Between 900AD and 1080AD there were 8 major volcanic eruptions (>5VEI). One was a monster 7, Baekdu in ~946AD.
See my reply to Richard Courtney below for more details.
Andy:
"This is not true"
No, it IS true..With only 30 eruptions in 300 years, there were many long intervals with no atmospheric pollution, For a VEI4, the air clears in about 18 months, and a for a VEI5, about 30 months. Even in modern times,,when there are intervals of no volcanic eruptions, temperatures rise.
There is no evidence of any solar variability, as Scafetta surmises., .
There is no evidence of any solar variability, as Scafetta surmises
There is a huge amount of evidence on every time scale, here is a post on longer times scales:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/solar-variability-and-the-earths-climate/
Andy May::
It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine ANY variations in past solar activity by ANY proxy measurements, because of the interference of SO2 aerosols circulating i n the atmosphere
The best that can be done is to identify periods where volcanic activity has increased or decreased.
Only since the era of satellite imagery, above the atmosphere,has it been possible to observe solar variability. ,
I am sorry, but your reference to solar variability has no basis in fact.
Nonsense, historical solar activity can be reconstructed via many techniques, as described in this post:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2018/05/03/climate-change-due-to-solar-variability-or-greenhouse-gases-part-b/
Sunspots are only one of many different ways. SO2 doesn't affect any of them.
Here is one on shorter times scales, less than 1000 years:
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/42/16742
Another big eruption in AD 1257.
Reply to John Tillman
Thus, there were at least two VEI 7 eruptions in the MWP, but only one in the LIA, towards its end, ie Tambora, 1815.
The number of VEI 6 eruptions in the two intervals is about the same, given: MWP from ~900 to 1350 and LIA from ~1350 to 1850. Cool periods suffer repeated, long solar minima, like the Maunder.
The Dark Ages Cool Period, ~450 to 900, suffered only four VEI 6 eruptions, but there was a 7 in 431. The cause of "the worst year to be alive", AD 536, has yet to be identified, but an Icelandic or tropical eruption have been suggested, but also an extraterrestrial explanation.
John Tilman:
It largely depends upon what dates one chooses for the start of the MWP, and the start of the LIA.. It began warming up AFTER the 946 eruption, and ended in 1257, the start of the LIA, so neither belongs within the MWP..
However, there was a VEI7? eruption in 1000?, but such an eruption after the prior 30 year warming period probably did no even cause an El Nino.
Burl, the MWP warming began during the 800s. The Vikings conquered Ireland, Normandy, Sicily and Russia and settled in Iceland in 874AD. Greenland was colonized in 980AD, by then the warming was near the maximum.
It appears from your historical references that the MWP WAS in progress earlier than noted by my reference (c.950). I will have to examine the prior volcanic activity, but would expect to see the same pattern as within the later period– volcanic eruptions separated by multiple years, allowing cleaner air and therefore higher temperatures within the intervals.
I thought that I was replying to John, rather than to you .Sorry.
You are correct that the warming began during the 800s. Between 850 and 950 there were 24 VEI4 or higher eruptions, and of these, 10 were separated by 4 years or more (5 by 10 years).
More than 50 years of pollution-free air would have melted a LOT of ice, freeing up Greenland and Iceland to settlement.
Warming definitely began before the Korean-Chinese eruption. Nor did it end in 1257. The disastrous first half of the 14th century suffered a cyclic cool cycle within the secular warming trend, but its second half was warmer, such that some don't start the LIA until 1400.
Times were good after the Black Death. The last warm cycle of the MWP kicked in and fewer people meant more land and better bargaining position for the serfs, soon to become free peasants.
The Hundred Years War resumed in 1356 atter its break for the plague.
Yes, at the beginning of the LIA
but while they use an assumed climate sensitivity to CO2 (ECS) of ~3°C,
No that is not how they work. ECS is an emergent property not an "assumed" sensitivity. However, models can be tuned to provide a wide range of climate sensitivities while still matching latter 50 years of 20th c. ( and ignoring that they don't capture the rest ) .
So what they are doing is tuning the models to produce a result which fits their political agenda, while pretending they are not progamming it in. If you claim they are using an assumed value in the models, they can easily rebut it. You need to call out the fact the models are rigged to produce the apparent "result" of ECS.
No. The model means do not have short term oscillations BECAUSE they are model means. Averaging many models or model runs removes the short term features. Individual models may have short term oscillations but you would not see that in the mean.
Last edited 1 year ago by Greg
Richard S Courtney
Reply to Greg
Andy May,
You conclude saying,
Yes, that "criticism is still valid today".
Climate behaviours can be observed but it will not be possible to separate behaviour(s) of specific effects (e.g. of GHGs, of solar variation, of volcanism and of etc.) from natural climate behaviour(s) until climate variability is understood and quantified. Therefore, the only discussion of your article meriting consideration would be citation and/or presentation of determination of natural climate variability because all claims – including yours – of specific effects on climate behaviours cannot be separated from natural climate variability in observed climate behaviour(s).
Simply, you make a good and valid case which you damage by attempting to replace claimed effects of volcanoes and GHGs with your claims of solar effects.
Reply to Richard S Courtney
Richard Courtney, Burl Henry, and Greg, I do believe that variations in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth play a role in climate change. I cannot prove it, but I perceive the evidence to be overwhelming.
I also believe that large volcanic eruptions play a role, but the effects of volcanic eruptions don't last very long, most of the effect is gone after a few years.
For example, the peak of the Medieval Warm Period is generally agreed to be sometime between 990 and 1090AD. Between 900AD and 1080AD there were 8 major volcanic eruptions (>5VEI). One was a monster 7, Baekdu in ~946AD.
Ocean cycles play a large role over long periods of time, at least 1500 years.
Some of the proposed stronger solar cycles are longer term, The Eddy cycle, mentioned in the article is ~980 years.
Because natural influences are cyclic, complex, and there are many of them, the models have trouble reproducing them. The IPCC then makes a huge mistake and averages them. The models are imprecise and out of phase, so they destroy the natural variability and mistakenly think that it doesn't exist over longer time periods, like 1000 years or longer.
Do not think that, simply because I think solar variability is important, yet ignored by the IPCC, that I am excluding other natural influences. This is not either/or. The proper answer is their are many natural influences on climate and we don't know how big any of them are or even which is dominant. It probably depends on when and how long the period you are looking at is.
If you will examine my paper, "A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change" you will see that the PRIMARY natural influence affecting our climate is the amount of dimming SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, There is also some natural warming as the climate continues to recover from the LIA (albedo changes)
http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climatic-change/
"Averaging many models or model runs removes the short term features. Individual models may have short term oscillations but you would not see that in the mean."
This is my point. The models are not capturing the cyclic natural climate variability properly, they are out of phase, and when averaged they show no natural variability. Thus, they are useless for computing the human impact on climate.
Take a look at Table 9.5 in AR5, Chapter 9, page 817.
In that table of model results, only INM-CM4 matches observations. It has an ECS of 2.1 and a TCS of 1.3. Then tell me that the other models are not tuned to produce an ECS of about 3.
I see how that phrase can be misinterpreted. I fixed it in post. I thought what I was saying was clear, but you are not the only one I confused. Now the sentence is unambiguous:
use an assumed climate sensitivity to CO2 (ECS computed from the CMIP5 ensemble model mean) of ~3°C, Scafetta uses 1.5°C/2xCO2 to accommodate his estimate of natural forcings.
Andy Pattullo
Well that is all very well if you insist on the scientific approach, but what about wide-eyed, anthropocentric, self destructive, superstitious panic. Now that is a movement we can all get behind.
Bindidon
As a layman, I start with a simple question.
In Scafetta's article, I see the following picture (I had to generate screenshots, because for some reason, the original pictures were not accessible):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14BmIk3j3NDYxjMbagECs_6YqbkbP1Rfe/view
while your article begins with an 'interesting' cutout of it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UaWzOE4puywClavHZa107oN2Syl_24N9/view
Did something disturb you in the original picture?
J.-P. D.
Reply to Bindidon
Bindidon, Your first link is my Figure 5, I don't know where your second link came from. What computer and browser are you using? I did not trim the graph. If you are still having trouble, try viewing the post here:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2021/02/03/a-new-millennial-global-surface-temperature-reconstruction/
If you are talking about the posts "featured image," we have no control over how that is displayed. The full image is there, but the website that is displaying it trims it according to their own algorithm. It varies from site to site, by browser, and device.


text:
Early Voting Begins in Iraq
DeepDiveAdmin
Iraq's provincial Election Day is on Saturday, but thousands of Iraqis--most of them employed by the country's security forces--have already cast their ballots, according to the New York Times.
The Times reports that approximately 615,000 Iraqis went to the polls on Wednesday, and violence was minimal. An official from the Minister of Interior announced that two police officers were killed by gunmen while guarding a polling center south of Kirkuk, but aside from that the voting has gone smoothly.
The reason for the early voting, according to government officials, is to ensure that security forces will be on duty protecting polling stations on Election Day, when approximately 14 million Iraqis are eligible to vote. In a speech on Wednesday, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki said that "the arrangements we are seeing today are a slap in the face to those
who are betting that Iraqis will not go to the ballot box because they
are despairing."
Nevertheless, security on Saturday is expected to be very tight. Reuters is reporting that Iraq will close its borders, shut down its airports, ban most vehicles and deploy thousands of security forces. In a Baghdad news conference, Major-General Aydin Khalid--head of Iraq's electoral security committee--told reporters, "We have enough security forces, they are well trained and they will protect every single one of the polling stations."
In Iraq's first election in three years, voters will choose between more than 14,000 candidates running for 440 seats in 14 provinces.
POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW


A woman in New South Wales, Australia, is claiming she found a little something extra insider her double Quarter Pounder: a whole mess of maggots.
Eager to share her repulsion with other "Maccas" customers, Yasmine Batur posted footage of her meal to Facebook on Oct. 2. In the video, Batur zooms in on the corners of her Quarter Pounder box, where there appeared to be a few small insects squirming around.
"Those little things you're seeing there are maggots," she said, before dissecting the burger and zooming in on the meat, which also appeared to contain maggots. "They're in the meat patty," she added.
According to Daily Mail Australia, who first broke the news, McDonald's Australia has denied Batur's claims and said the notion that the little critters came from their kitchens is absurd.
Likewise, Batur has not yet responded to Fox News' request for comment.


text:
Bishara Abd Allah al-Khuri, född 1884, död 1968, var en libanesisk poet, känd under pseudonymen al-Akhtal as-Saghir.

al-Akhtal inspirerades av romantiska strömningar till en starkt emotionell poesi med bilder hämtade från naturen. 1908 grundade han tidskriften al-Barq ("Blixten"). Al-Akhtals första diktsamling al-Hawa wash-shabab utgavs 1953 och hans samlade dikter utkom 1961.

Källor
 Nationalencyklopedin multimedia plus, 2000

Libanesiska författare
Poeter under 1900-talet
Födda 1884
Avlidna 1968
Män


text:
namespace ibas {
    /** 断言错误 */
    export class AssertionError extends Error {

    }
    /**
     * 单元测试,断言相关
     */
    export namespace asserts {
        /**
         * 断言相等
         * @param message 消息
         * @param unexpected 目标值
         * @param actual 运行值
         */
        export function equals(message: string, unexpected: any, actual: any): void;
        /**
         * 断言相等
         * @param unexpected 目标值
         * @param actual 运行值
         */
        export function equals(unexpected: any, actual: any): void;
        /**
         * 断言相等
         * @param pars 参数
         */
        export function equals(): void {
            let message: string, unexpected: any, actual: any;
            if (arguments.length === 2) {
                message = "assertion failure: not equals.";
                unexpected = arguments[0];
                actual = arguments[1];
            } else if (arguments.length === 3) {
                message = arguments[0];
                unexpected = arguments[1];
                actual = arguments[2];
            } else {
                throw new Error("assert equals invalid parameters.");
            }
            if (unexpected instanceof Date && actual instanceof Date) {
                if (equalsDate(unexpected, actual)) {
                    return;
                }
            }
            if (unexpected !== actual) {
                throw new AssertionError(message);
            }
        }
        /**
         * 是否为相等的日期
         * @param unexpected 判断的
         * @param actual 实际的
         */
        function equalsDate(unexpected: Date, actual: Date): boolean {
            return unexpected.getTime() === actual.getTime();
        }
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


RJ Kool offers commercial laundry equipment rental for a variety of multiple-housing facilities including apartment complexes, condominiums, retirement communities and college dormitories. Many utilize RJ Kool's Route Service in which RJ Kool rents top of the line commercial laundry equipment and provides service for their washers and dryers.
RJ Kool oversees regular collections and returns a significant portion of the revenue back to the facility. It's the hands-free way for multiple-housing facilities to provide their residents with the latest and best commercial laundry equipment with $0 cash investment. We also provide an emergency number for quick service response even on nights and weekends.
RJ Kool can help you settle on a contract duration that best suits your location. The terms will vary based upon the size and number of machines that you need, but they are usually in the 5 to 7 year range. Most of the time, RJ Kool only requires a 30 day notice if you wish to end the equipment rental agreement and have us remove the machines.


Since that first implementation of V6, the CMS has evolved quite a bit: The system went through a difficult upgrade to V7; the LSA site was redesigned; over 60 LSA units began using the CMS; and the leading content management company, OpenText, purchased the Vignette product and added it to its flagship suite of software offerings. There is no question that LSA is among the leaders in higher education in terms of deploying such an advanced technology across campus for its websites.
Multimedia: Embed YouTube-style videos on your page. Upload them in several common formats and let the system convert them to the appropriate web-friendly format for you. Additional media formats will be available in the future (e.g., podcasts, vodcasts, mp3 downloads, et cetera).
RSS feeds: Units may now easily paste XML links into their sites to display other people's content within the context of their own sites. LSA units may also turn their own news and events content into RSS feeds so others may syndicate their content.
Faculty publications: Store and display faculty members' publication information in a way that ties it to their personal profile page.
See the complete feature list for more information or read the White Paper for more detailed information on the technical architecture, our development process and redundancy.
LSA units who have previously used V7 should notice some improvements with version 7.6 beyond the new content features: Fewer pop-ups to create new content, an improved region config tool, batch uploads, and more consistent format types.
Users new to the CMS entirely should expect to adjust their thinking about websites: The idea of treating websites as collections of content rather than a series of pages can take some getting used to, and with any software, there's a learning curve.
But version 7.6 is by far the most powerful and easiest to use iteration of LSA's CMS implementation thus far.


Never mind that the Lords were right to block the stupid and unnecessary Tory cuts to tax credits – they dared to defy David Cameron and George Osborne, so they must pay the price, it seems.
So a review of the Lords' powers is to say peers should lose their absolute veto over secondary legislation like statutory instruments.
You'll note that we already know what the "review" will say. Clearly it is not an impartial review of the Lords' powers and the reasons for having them; the word "review" is in fact a euphemism for a dictat from Cameron.
It should be blocked; it represents another step towards the 'One-Party Nation' that the Tories want to create, in which every slightest whim that passes through their tiny brains is inflicted on the public full-force.
The question is, in the land of Apathy, can anybody be bothered to stand up to these monsters?
David Cameron is preparing to use the full force of the law to clip the wings of the House of Lords after it blocked his welfare cuts, the BBC has learned.
A review will say peers should lose their absolute veto over detailed laws known as secondary legislation.
Peers will instead be offered a new power to send these laws back to the Commons, forcing MPs to vote again – but will only be able to do this once.
The review was ordered after peers voted to delay tax credit cuts.
Labour said the reform was a "massive over-reaction" to the government defeat.
But then this sort of action is just what you expect from spoiled brats such as the Tories, especially the likes of Camoron and Gideon.
The House of Lords is hardly democratic, but at least it put up some resistance to the Nasty Party. Any reforms should go hand-in-hand with reforms to our 19th century electoral system, and not just made in a fit of spoiled-brat pique.
there should be some machinery,in a democracy to stop any government excesses or what are conceived as bad laws by other respected bodies.
whether a government has a majority,it should not be allowed to do just what it wants.
Public apathy is one of the greatest assets the Tories have. We all complain about the way they run roughshod over democracy but no one has yet come up with any suggestions for a concerted effort to get rid of them. I had hope that the Unions would be up for a fight but they seem prepared to let it all blow over their heads until it really is too late.
Are you sure about the public apathy?
If you're right, why hasn't more been done to stop the Tories from doing whatever they want?
It's their revenge for not getting the tax credit cuts and everything else that they wanted to push through, the tories must be stopped from getting their own way all the time, it's high time they were brought to heel by all of us!


text:
Quentin Suspension Not Severe Enough
By Scott Andes
Major League Baseball handed down their verdicts yesterday to the players involved in the Dodgers/Padres brawl during last Thursday's game. The commissioners office handed out suspensions to San Diego thug Carlos Quentin, and Dodger's utility guy Jerry Hairston Jr, for their roles in last Thursday night's sixth inning brawl between the Dodgers and the Padres at Petco Park.
Whether you agree with the decisions or not, it is what it is, and there is nothing we can do about it. Major League Baseball gave Carlos Quentin an eight game suspension, while Hairston received a one game suspension. Both players are appealing their rulings.
San Diego Padres left fielder Carlos Quentin (left) charges the mound after being hit by a pitch by Los Angeles Dodgers starting pitcher Zack Greinke (21) during the sixth inning at PETCO Park. Mandatory Credit: Jake Roth-USA TODAY Sports
Quentin received his well deserved eight game punishment, for his cowardly and unprovoked attack on Dodger right hander Zack Greinke. Quentin charged the mound colliding with Greinke, and then tackled him to the ground during the bottom of the sixth inning, during last Thursday's 3-2 Dodger win at Petco Park. Quentin was leading off the bottom of the sixth frame, and was hit by a full count Greinke pitch on the upper arm. After taking a couple of steps towards first base, Quentin stared at Greinke and then viciously charged the mound, colliding with Greinke before tackling him to the ground. This resulted in the bench clearing brawl which lasted for several minutes before being broken up. Greinke suffered a fractured left collar bone in the collision with Quentin, and is out for eight weeks.
Hairston's involvement came after the initial brawl. Hairston ran over to the Padre's dugout after hearing someone on the bench making fun of Greinke's injury. Hairston will appeal his one game suspension. Matt Kemp was not named in the report, and will not receive any kind of fine or punishment, despite being very vocal during the altercation.
MLB described the reason for Quentin's suspension for "charging the mound, and inciting the bench clearing incident". Zack Greinke and no other players were given suspensions, or named in the report.
Dodger manage Don Mattingly, and everyone else on the planet, believe that Quentin should have received a longer suspension. Mattingly called Quentin's goon-like actions stupid, and said this.
""He should not play a game before Greinke throws a pitch. If he plays before Greinke pitches, something is wrong.""
There has been no prior fued documented between Greinke and Quentin, but some believe there may be based on the previous two times that Quentin had been hit by Greinke pitches. Or at least it exists in Quentin's mind, because Greinke denies having any problems with him before the incident. Greinke stated after the postgame that the HBP was unintentional and that he was not aware of any other past bad blood between the two players.
Quentin has been hit by pitches 117 times during his career, and only three of them by Greinke. The San Diego outfielder has a history of crowding the plate. The veteran outfielder should know that in a one-run Baseball game in the bottom of the sixth inning, on a full count, you don't put the winning run on base.
I'm having trouble finding any fault on Greinke's part other than a pitch that got away from him at the wrong time. There is no reason for Greinke to be throwing at Quentin. If you look at the replay below, you'll see, the pitch bounces away, and then Quentin stares at Greinke for a few seconds. You can see poor A.J. shouting "Hey!", at the goon. Then he just charges at Greinke. Did Greinke say anything to Quentin? I can't see him saying anything at all. Mattingly was right, the whole thing was stupid, and unnecessary. Listen to Greinke talking to reporters below. He said, he didn't say anything to Quentin, nor was he trying to throw at him intentionally. Greinke even said something about thinking Quentin's staring was a ploy to keep pitchers from throwing inside at him. Honestly, Greinke seemed just as confused about the whole incident as we all were at the time.
If you think that Greinke tried to instigate the brawl, by saying something to Quentin, or whatever, watch the replay and the postgame interviews, and you tell me your opinion.
I have no idea what was going through the mind of Carlos Quentin before his brutal attack on Zack Greinke. It doesn't matter what he was thinking, the brutal attack was uncalled for, and the punishment not nearly severe enough. Of course Quentin was unapologetic for his actions. He showed no remorse, and never once said he was sorry. Despite the fact that several San Diego teammates sent along their apologies to Greinke, and well wishes.
Batters get hit all the time, every day in Baseball games. Hell, the Dodgers had two batters hit by pitches during opening day against the Giants. Does that mean Matt Kemp should have charged the mound and put Matt Cain in a headlock? Or should Andre Ethier have drop-kicked Santiago Casilla before giving him a knuckle sandwich? No of course not. That's because this isn't hockey, this is Baseball. It's a civilized game, well normally it is. Just like in the real world, if you put your hands on someone and hurt them, then you suffer the consequences, whether the other person instigated the fight or not.
In real life, that person would face jail time, in the world of the Baseball regular season, that player faces suspension and loss of playing time. Eight games just isn't long enough. If a player can get 50 games for using a substance, then a player should get well over that length, for putting another player's career in jeopardy.
It's important to note here, not to place blame on San Diego manager Bud Black, or any of the other 24 Padre players. It's not their fault. It is in fact, the fault of only one man, Carlos Quentin, the ogre. One childish goon has possibly tipped the balance of the National League West Division race for the next 60 games. The Dodgers lose Greinke for eight weeks, while Carlos Quentin only loses eight games of his pay. Is that fair?
At some point during the regular season, the Dodgers will get their redemption, and Quentin will receive his deserved fate. Use your imagination on how that will happen. just hope nobody else is hurt because of Quentin's thug life machismo. Eventually justice will be served, somehow.
The two squads meet once again, starting Monday night at Dodger Stadium, for a three game series.