text:
Quite often, you'll see personal finance writers talk about the big things – the single moves that will save you quite a lot per month. Downgrade your living quarters! Sell that car! Buy a used car! Change your insurance!
Those things are flashy because they can save you a lot of money with one action. Yet, they have several serious limitations (that I'll get into below). Simply using a short checklist of these big things and calling it good enough will certainly help, but they only take you halfway to your big goal.
It's the small things, the mountain of pebbles, that can really carry things over the top. Here are seven reasons why – and seven small things you can easily do.
7 Reasons to Care About the Small Things
1. There are many more tiny things than big things
Our lives are filled to the brim with choices. We choose what we do with our time and money virtually every second of the day, whether we're at work or doing chores or sleeping or watching television or anything else we do. Those choices, as a whole, are very simple and minute, but on the whole they add up to a lot: our day, our week, our month, our future.
Almost all of those little choices have a financial implication. Do I make something at home or do I go out to eat? Do I watch television or do I read this book from the library? Do I flip the light switch on my way out of the room? They pop up over and over and over again throughout our day – we have many more opportunities to do the little things than the big things.
Tiny thing #1: Train yourself to flip off the light switch every time you leave a room. Every hour a single 75 watt light bulb stays on costs you roughly a cent. If a single switch can turn off several lights, it quickly adds up.
2. The tiny things usually don't alter your quality of life
Yes, some of those little choices can alter your quality of life. Do I go out to eat or not? Depending on your values, the answer to that can certainly alter your life quality.
Many choices, however, have virtually no impact on our quality of life. Choosing to flip off the light switch on the way out of the room has no impact. Choosing a bulk purchase of laundry detergent? Minimal impact. Choosing to pick up a penny off the ground? Virtually no impact. Reading a book instead of watching television? No impact except possibly a positive one. All of those choices have a small but positive influence on your money, though.
Tiny thing #2: Drive the speed limit instead of five or ten miles over. It will improve the fuel efficiency of your car (a small thing) but also reduce your chances of a traffic ticket.
3. The tiny things help you get into a "money saving" mindset
As you grow more conscious of all of these little choices and start actively choosing the ones that save you money, this begins to feel like it's the "natural" mode. The choice to save money rather than "living large" begins to feel like the normal option.
The end result of that? You make lots of little choices that save you money and it begins to add up quick. Of course, to get started, you have to start actively making little choices…
Tiny thing #3: The next time you go to buy something nonperishable that you use regularly, buy the bulk version.
4. The tiny things don't require a lot of active thought
Most of the little choices in our lives are considered and done so quickly that we don't even really consider them. When we walk by the light switch, the decision to flip or not to flip the switch is made almost instantaneously. The decision on which version of a product to buy at the store is made extremely quickly.
Compare that to the "big" saves, like selling your house or buying a used car. Yes, they make a huge impact, but the time investment is substantially longer, too. When you calculate both to an hourly rate, they're often surprisingly comparable.
Tiny thing #4: On your way to the grocery store, go over what you're going to buy in your mind. If you have someone in the car with you, make a list together. Better yet, make a list before you go.
5. There are many more opportunities to use the tiny things
You can only save money on a car purchase once every few years. You can use an energy saving trick once every few hours.
That adds up. Yes, by all means, save $500 on your car purchase. But you'll be doing that once every five years. Alternately, you can save eight cents on something three times a day. 365 days a year. Five years. $450.
Tiny thing #5: Eat the fresh food in the fridge when you're thinking about a snack. If you choose the preserved food, the fresh food might get old and spoil.
6. The tiny things often improve your skill set and your social network
You can either drive to the oil change place – or you can learn how to change the oil yourself. Either way, you're burning an hour. Yet, the "hard" option is not only cheaper, but it also teaches you a useful skill, one that you can use elsewhere.
This pops up time and time again: cooking, landscaping, minor home repairs, and so on. Choosing the slightly harder path almost always saves you money, but more importantly, you learn something new. That new thing might later on come in handy in helping out a friend or building a new relationship.
Tiny thing #6: Buy unshredded cheese, then shred it as you put food on the table. The cheese is less expensive, plus it tastes a lot better since the cheese surface is fresh.
7. The time investment in most tiny things is miniscule
Most of the "tiny things" take very little time to do. Flipping the light switch? Half a second. Using a generic product? No time at all. Doing a price comparison? A second or two. Driving the speed limit? A minute or so.
If you make the choice to do the tiny thing to save yourself money, you're usually not investing much time in it at all. It doesn't disrupt your schedule or eat up a bunch of your spare time. It usually just takes a few seconds or a moment or two – and given the amount of idling in our lives, it's often easy to fit these things in.
Tiny thing #7: Turn your tap off when you brush your teeth. If you do this for two minutes per brush twice a day, you end up saving hundreds of gallons of water a year, trimming easily from your water bill.
The little things really add up. Given the little effort they require, there's no reason not to add a lot of them to your life.


text:
Here's a preview of of the project's present Kickstarter page. Your feedback is welcome. Feel free to share the link to help spread the word during the days leading up to the event. I had to delay the launch seven days to prevent the end of the campaign falling during the July 4th weekend. "D-Day" is therefore Wednesday morning June 14th, ending Thursday July 13th at 9pm (21:00) US Central Time. So far, as long as the British Pound stays roughly where it is, print and postage for backers outside the USA should require no additional fees, save for poster maps (especially those I would have to mail through the US Post Office). I should mention that I noticed a 10-15% increase in US printing costs since the previous project.
Click Here for the Kickstarter Page

subset: commoncrawl


text:
© 2020 NativePath, All right reserved.
Company Address: 1200 S Brand Blvd Ste 184, Glendale, CA 91204
Customer Support: 1-800-819-2993 / or / email@example.com
The material on this site loxmay not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached, or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of NativePath, LLC. This website is an educational service that provides general health information. The materials are all provided "as is" and without warranties of any kind either express or implied. Our guides are not intended to provide or substitute for medical advice and treatment from your physician or physical therapist. Readers are advised to consult their own doctors or other qualified health professionals regarding the treatment of medical conditions. The authors shall not be held liable or responsible for any misunderstanding or misuse of the information contained in this program or for any loss, damage, or injury caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by any treatment, action, or application of any exercise or stretch discussed in this manual. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Your results and experience may be different from any claims or testimonials on this site. The FTC requires that we identify what a "typical" result is. Typically people never do anything with products and information that they buy, so in most cases they won't get any results. The statements and photos you see on our pages are examples of individuals that took action in changing their lifestyle, and the results are not typical. If you're looking for results, you need to take action and stick to the plan!


text:
Your bag will be emptied when you change your country settings.
We currently only provide our site in English for your country. Do you want to translate it to Danish with Google Translate?
Oops, our server is having problems. Maybe one of these options can help:
We use cookies.
Cookies are blocked or not supported by your browser. You must enable cookies to use this website.


text:
Item Description
Letter, Wm Phillips to Respected Madam [Sara Robinson]
Author: Phillips, William
Date: May 26, 1856
William Phillips, after visiting Charles Robinson in jail, wrote to Sara Robinson updating her on her husband's situation. Phillips reported to her that Charles was being held on two counts: one for high treason and the other for usurping office. He also related to her the events of the sack of Lawrence and the resulting destruction of her home.
Location of Original: KU Call Number: RH MS 38.I.1
Item Number: 101664 Number of images: 3
Keywords: Douglas County, Kansas Territory; Lawrence, Kansas Territory; Leavenworth County, Kansas Territory; Leavenworth, Kansas Territory; Lecompte, Samuel D. (Samuel Dexter), 1814-1888; Phillips, William; Preston, Colonel; Robinson, Charles, 1818-1894; Robinson, Sara T. L. (Sara Tappan Lawrence), 1827-1911; Sack of Lawrence, May 1856; Shannon, Wilson, 1802-1877
pg. 1
pg. 2
pg. 3


text:
Deatschwerks 02J-01-0950-6 950cc Side Feed Injectors 90-96 Nissan 300ZX
Deatschwerks P1P2-6 Adaptor Kit 90-94 Nissan 300ZX
DeatschWerks only sells Phase2 Nissan sidefeed injectors. This adaptor kit allows you to use Phase2 injectors in your Phase1 fuel rail. The adaptor kit is REQUIRED for use of DeatschWerks injectors in 90-94 Z32. The kit includes adaptors with hardware (pictured) plus harness clips, P2 rail caps, all required o-rings, lube, and instructions.
Contact us for more information about this adaptor kit.


text:
The climate science translation guide
by Shaun Chamberlin on September 3rd, 2008
We are all familiar with the concept of climate change, and the need for reduced carbon emissions, but really getting a handle on the scale of the problem can be difficult, thanks to all the confusing terminology.
I looked all over the web for a straightforward comprehensive explanation of terms like Global Warming Potential (GWP) and the different meanings of CO2equivalent but I couldn't find it, so eventually I decided to spend some of my time (and the time of many helpful friends and colleagues) on creating one.
I didn't count on quite how intricate the underlying science is (it became ever clearer to me why there is so much confusion in this area), so the process took some considerable time, but I believe that this post is now something that many will find useful. It has been checked for accuracy by qualified experts.
In order to fully understand the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global temperature increase then, we first need to consider the concept of radiative forcing.
The Earth is continually receiving energy from the Sun, and continually losing energy into space (as space is much cooler than the Earth). Radiative forcing is simply the difference (measured in watts per square metre) between the amount of energy received and the amount of energy re-radiated back into space. In other words it is the rate at which the planet's surface is either warming or cooling. [1]
If the planet were losing energy at the same rate it was gaining it then the radiative forcing would be zero and the temperature would remain stable at its current level – this state is called thermal equilibrium. Since a hotter planet loses more energy into space, the natural system tends to move towards thermal equilibrium.
However, rising greenhouse gas concentrations (measured in parts per million – ppm [2]) in the atmosphere act like an insulating blanket, reducing the rate at which energy can escape into space, and so affecting radiative forcing, which in turn affects the temperature. The rough illustrative graphs below give an idea of these relationships and show the time delay between changes in emissions rates (up or down) and temperature changes. [3]
The graph below shows that if we can bring anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions back down we can stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations and bring radiative forcing back towards equilibrium, but at a higher temperature. [4]
So, emissions contribute to greenhouse gas concentrations which in turn contribute to radiative forcing, but it is radiative forcing that determines the rate of change in temperature. Armed with this understanding, the terms below become clearer:
Global warming potential (GWP) is an estimate of how much a given greenhouse gas contributes to Earth's radiative forcing. Carbon dioxide (CO2) has a GWP of 1, by definition, so a gas with a GWP of 50 would increase radiative forcing by 50 times as much as the same amount (mass) of CO2. A GWP value is defined over a specific time interval, so the length of this time interval must be stated to make the value meaningful (most researchers and regulators use 100 years).
For example, methane has a GWP of 72 over 20 years, but a lower GWP of 25 over 100 years. This is because it is very potent in the short-term but then breaks down to CO2 and water in the atmosphere, meaning that the longer the period you consider it over, the more similar its effect is to that of CO2 alone. [5]
Equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2e) is an estimate of the concentration of CO2 (in ppm) that would cause a given level of radiative forcing. [6]
For example, the IPCC's[7] latest report in 2007 considered the effects of the main greenhouse gases currently present in our atmosphere and calculated a CO2e for these of around 455ppm (and rising). This means that (over a defined period) the radiative forcing effect of these gases at current concentrations is roughly equal to the effect a 455ppm concentration of CO2 alone would cause. This particular CO2e calculation takes into account the six major greenhouse gases considered under the Kyoto Protocol, and so may be labelled CO2e(Kyoto). [8]
However, the orange line in the graphs above represents the total radiative forcing of the planet. This is the important figure – the one that determines the rate of change in Earth's temperature – and as well as the Kyoto gases it is also affected by other factors such as the effects of sulphate aerosols, ozone and cloud formations. The chart below quantifies the effect of each of these factors, and we can see that a number of them (those coloured blue) are actually negative forcings, which act to reduce the total radiative forcing. Because of these, the equivalent CO2 for all forcings combined – CO2e(Total) – is, thankfully, lower than CO2e(Kyoto). The IPCC's latest figures give CO2e(Total) as roughly 375ppm. [9]
When we hear scientific debates between stabilisation scenarios of, say, 350ppm, 450ppm or 550ppm it is CO2e(Total) which is under discussion. So this 375ppm is the key number, but it has a far wider margin of error than the others. This is because it is relatively easy to measure the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and the GWP of those gases, but considerably more difficult to account for all the effects that contribute to the ultimate CO2e(Total) radiative forcing over a given period. The column in the below chart labelled LOSU stands for the "Level Of Scientific Understanding" of the various forcings, and as we can see it is not universally high. [10]
Radiative forcing is the fundamental issue, but it is easy to see why most discussions revolve only around emissions – not only are CO2 emissions much the largest way in which humanity is changing the planet's radiative forcing, but they are also easier to understand conceptually and easier to quantify than radiative forcing.
According to the IPCC atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 379ppm in 2005, which coincidentally happens to be close to our best estimate of 375ppm CO2e(Total). Unfortunately this coincidence also creates a good deal of confusion, as it is not always clear which measure an author is referring to – scientists often assume that this is obvious to their audience, and many others do not themselves fully understand the distinctions between CO2, CO2e(Kyoto) and CO2e(Total). [11]
The other source of confusion is that all of the numbers we have discussed are based on evolving science, and many can only be given approximately. For example, these are the IPCC's given figures for the GWP of methane over 100 years, taken from their last three reports:
1995 – 2nd Assessment Report (SAR): Methane 100 year GWP = 21
2001 – 3rd Assessment Report (TAR): Methane 100 year GWP = 23
2007 – 4th Assessment Report (AR4): Methane 100 year GWP = 25
These changes are entirely appropriate – the values should become more accurate over time as new measurement methods or changes in scientific understanding develop – but it makes it important to check where any figures are sourced from. [12]
Where we are today
So let's take stock. Below are the latest IPCC figures, which define the situation as it was in 2005:
CO2 = 379ppm (error range: minimal)
CO2e(Kyoto) = 455ppm (error range: 433-477ppm)
CO2e(Total) = 375ppm (error range: 311-435 ppm) [13]
Emissions are still increasing year-on-year (faster than projected in any of the IPCC's scenarios) and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently rising by between 1.5 and 3 ppm each year. They are at roughly 385ppm in mid-2008 (for the very latest updated CO2 figure click here).
It is worth noting that the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere was 278ppm and did not vary by more than 7ppm between the years 1000 and 1800 C.E. [14]
Global average (mean) temperature has already risen by around 0.8°C since pre-industrial times, and a minimum additional 0.6°C of warming is still due from emissions to date – the delay in warming being a consequence of the time-lags in the system discussed above. [15]
Ok, that's it! If you followed everything here you should be well-equipped to consider the scientific discussion of climate change. Indeed, you may find you understand it better than some of those who write and speak about it!
Hopefully this post will provide a resource to aid wider understanding of the changes we are causing to our global climate system and the climate emergency we are facing. Should any inaccuracies come to light I will of course amend them.
This work forms part of my forthcoming book The Transition Timeline, produced in partnership with the Transition Network
, and set for publication in March 2009 and available now, published by Green Books. It uses the understanding outlined here to examine the wider context of climate change and peak oil, discuss the options facing our communities and consider the cultural stories which underlie our choices.
1. There is also a warming effect from the geothermal energy at the Earth's core, but this is sufficiently small and stable that for our purposes we can ignore it.
2. Parts per million is the ratio of the number of greenhouse gas molecules to the total number of molecules of dry air. For example, 300ppm means 300 molecules of a greenhouse gas per million molecules of dry air. Strictly speaking concentrations are measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv), but this is widely abbreviated to ppm. Don't be confused if some papers refer to ppmv.
3. Emissions are not the sole determinant of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations due to the Earth's natural 'carbon sinks' which soak up some of our emissions. Concentrations are not the sole determinants of radiative forcing due to other forcings which will be discussed shortly. The time delay between radiative forcing and temperature increase is caused by the thermal inertia of the planet – it has great mass (with much of the heat initially being used to warm the deep oceans) and therefore takes some time to warm or cool. Of the (equilibrium) temperature increase ultimately produced by a given increase in radiative forcing, only about half manifests within 25 years, the next quarter takes 150 years to manifest, and the last quarter many centuries.
4. These illustrative graphs do not include the effects of climate feedbacks such as carbon sink degradation. Also see the MIT Climate Online 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions Simulator'
5. Figures from: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Chapter 2 , Table 2.14, p. 212.
More detail on GWP available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential – note that the GWP for a mixture of gases cannot be determined from the GWP of the constituent gases by any form of simple linear addition.
6. There is also a separate but related concept called Carbon Dioxide equivalent. This gives the amount of CO2 that would have the same GWP as a given amount of a given gas (or mixture of gases). It is simply calculated by multiplying the GWP of the gas by the given amount (mass) of gas. For example, over a 100 year period methane has a GWP of 25, so 1 gram of methane has a Carbon Dioxide equivalent value of 25 grams.
In practice, since Carbon Dioxide equivalent is expressed as a mass (grams, tonnes etc.), and Equivalent Carbon Dioxide (CO2e) is expressed as a concentration (usually in parts per million), they are not easily confused, despite the similar names.
You may also encounter references to the "carbon equivalent", especially when discussing carbon that is not in gaseous form (e.g. carbon in coal deposits). A carbon equivalent figure can be converted to carbon dioxide equivalent by multiplying by 3.644 to account for the different molecular weights (3.644 tonnes of CO2 contains 1 tonne of carbon).
7. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the body established jointly by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation in 1988 to assess the available scientific evidence.
8. The IPCC considered the so-called 'Kyoto basket' of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Under the Kyoto Protocol, signatories committed to control emissions of a 'basket' of six GHGs – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs and SF6.
455ppm figure from e.g.: IPCC AR4 Working Group III Report, Chapter 1 , p.102
The IPCC estimate of CO2e(Kyoto) is detailed by Gavin Schmidt of NASA in a post at Real Climate
9. These negative forcings include the so-called 'global dimming' effect. For more on this crucial consideration see: "On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead", V. Ramanathan and Y. Feng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 105, 23 September 2008, pp. 14245-14250
IPCC CO2e(Total) figure: IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report, notes to Table 5.1, p.67
10. Table source: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM.2, p.4
11. IPCC 2005 CO2 levels: IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5
12. IPCC 2001 figures: IPCC TAR Working Group I Report, Chapter 6, Table 6.7
1995/2007: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Chapter 2 , Table 2.14, p. 212
13. Error ranges: IPCC AR4 Working Group III Report, Chapter 1 , p.102
14. Up-to-date measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations are always subject to revisions, pending recalibrations of reference gases and other quality control checks. Trends and 2008 figure taken from: NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory – Global Monitoring Division (site accessed August 2008)
Pre-industrial CO2 levels from: NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
15. See footnote [3] above for details on climate time-lags. Figure for warming from emissions to date taken from the Climate Code Red report by Carbon Equity, p.22.
Also see IPCC AR4 Working Group III Report, Summary for Policymakers, Table SPM.5, p.15 for ultimate (equilibrium) warming from current atmospheric concentrations.
Finally, note that a 2008 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined the impacts of air pollution (which blocks sunlight and thus reduces temperatures – the effect known as 'global dimming') and found that this is masking the full extent of the warming effect from greenhouse gas concentrations. Building on the IPCC's work, the paper finds that if air pollution reduces – as it is expected to do – then 2005 atmospheric concentrations could commit us to around 2.4 degrees of warming above pre-industrial temperatures, with about 90% of this warming taking place this century.
1. Climate-o-meter used (in edited form) with permission from https://www.ageofstupid.net/
2. Radiative forcing illustration used with permission from David Wasdell
3. Indicative climate graph created by author in partnership with David Wasdell, and with assistance gratefully acknowledged from Ben Brangwyn.
4. Indicative climate graph created by author in partnership with David Wasdell, and with assistance gratefully acknowledged from Ben Brangwyn.
5. Radiative forcings table from: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM.2, p.4
6. Indicative climate graph created by author in partnership with David Wasdell, and with assistance gratefully acknowledged from Ben Brangwyn.
Benjamin says:
3 September, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Excellent, thankyou. And gratifying that I'm some way up the spectrum of climate change understanding. (and a little further now than this morning). Cheers
Roger says:
5 September, 2008 at 8:55 am
An impressive bit of sorting out, but I am guessing that it is still far too complex for most people to sort out the message coming from science … which is potentially disastrous since it perhaps will require the people to insist on government action before we get any.
I notice that we are already committed to 1.4 degrees C of eventual temperature rise, which is a long way already toward the 2 degrees C which some regard as a point we really should not exceed …
I note also that CO2 concentrations are not just increasing but accelerating upward in uncontrolled manner .
The lowest graph above indicates that to bring CO2 down again under control that we simply must bring CO2 emissions below pre-industrial levels , something with absolutely massive implications for our way of thinking , our work, and our lifestyle, changes which are being currently almost completely ignored by our governments.
So how few years do we have to act to prevent eventual disaster of 2 degree C temperature rise and what is involved if we do change our ways and act to save ourselves?
Is it even possible in any realistic plan for the whole world to change so much in those few years when in fact we are still going the wrong way by increasing CO2 output, not reducing it ?
What then are the real targets we need to guarantee reaching and time frame involved to stop catastrophic human deaths beyond say ten times the current unacceptable levels ? … since it would seem that we will not treat the matter as urgent and initiate emergency changes until we know in a format many can understand, that is before the results are felt painfully by most and have become irreversible .
The problem it seems is that we have walked blindly into a trap , since global warming continues long after we act to slow it… but we are still looking at the comfort of our lifestyle now rather than the misery and death we are buying for our future by inaction, the real inevitable consequences of inaction are not being seen by most, nor the rate of response required for acceptable mitigation of human loss of life.
One study (below) indicates that we are already committed to a further 0.5 degrees C rise even if we were to control emissions to year 2000 levels , which we are not doing … is the implication then that we are already committed, by inaction, political inertia, to future catastrophic damage to our home planet's ability to support human life… the death count simply determined (exponentially with time , up to human extinction) by our level of inaction in the next few years. Why would an intelligent species not minimise the long-term risk of catastrophe to itself ?
Death rate from global warming is already recorded at WHO and already unacceptable ,but what is not stated is how many future deaths are already inevitable as a result of damage already done which we know has worsening consequences for centuries to come :-
Shaun Chamberlin says:
6 September, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Thanks for your comments.
The graph you mention above highlights not simply that emissions must reduce below pre-industrial levels, but that we must draw down carbon from our atmosphere.
As also mentioned above, this post is an extract from the Transition Timeline project which is indeed examining exactly how we can go about addressing those massive changes in our cultural stories and practices to which you refer. The project will be published in late 2008 (as soon as I can manage!)
The Transition Towns movement is a rapidly growing force in addressing the imperative to keep temperatures at a level to which life on Earth can adapt. As you highlight our Government is not currently addressing the same question, and only massive popular demand for a future can change this.
To my mind, the barrier to such overwhelming demand is not the lack of a desire for a future for ourselves and our children, but rather a lack of widespread understanding of the emergency we face. It is to the amelioration of this that this post is dedicated.
As I outlined in a previous post, I do believe that it is still realistic to change our perspective sufficiently to enable that future, and to answer your question directly my present best assessment would be that we need to stabilise global emissions levels by 2012 and start rapid reductions from there in order to achieve this (though climate change is not our only challenge).
It is perhaps relevant to note here that the physical limits to fossil fuel supply rates mean that continuing the current rate of increase in anthropogenic emissions is impossible anyway (see here and here) – the current cultural paradigm is meeting its limits today, in ways that are being experienced in present, direct and immediate ways. The tussle we must engage with is in providing the stories that will succeed it. In this humanity faces our last chance to choose the consequences we desire, for ourselves and all of Nature.
"I am always surprised when people get depressed rather than energised to do something. It's not too late to stabilise climate… I am not about to give up" – NASA's Dr. James Hansen (Sept 2007)
alexlockwood.net » Blog Archive » Wondering minds: global warming video says:
23 October, 2008 at 7:50 am
[…] here's an explanation of climate change written as a 101/glossary of the information you need to interrogate […]
DocBud says:
27 October, 2008 at 12:37 am
You say: Since a hotter planet loses more energy into space, the natural system tends to move towards thermal equilibrium.
How then do you explain the fact that prior to the use of fossil fuels by humans, the earth's temperature naturally fluctuated considerably?
DocBud says:
27 October, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Despite the ongoing increase in anthropogenic CO2 (you don't discuss the far greater quantities of natural CO2 emissions or water vapour), we are entering a period of global cooling (the planet has not warmed since 1998 and has shown recent cooling, we are back to where we were in the 1980s). The theory is being falsified by real world data and yet people still dishonestly talk of dramatic or unprecedented temperature increases. There is nothing dramatic or unprecedented about the current climate which begs the question: what is your agenda? It sure isn't saving humans or any other species, we and they will all do fine in a warm, healthy, productive planet and if the earth cools and becomes less hospitable, I'm sure most of us will adapt.
alexlockwood.net » Blog Archive » Engaging across blogging divides on climate says:
28 October, 2008 at 9:43 am
[…] kicked into gear. It seems that her article (or possibly some comments from Doc Bud on a post from Dark Optimism) were picked up by Australia's Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt, and an Englishman's […]
DocBud says:
31 October, 2008 at 1:51 pm
"Sigh. These days I generally don't respond to such disinformation"
You being a climatologist one can understand why, but your first link clearly shows a recent cooling trend, even if using exaggerated y-axes and long time scales tends to obscure the reality of the last ten years.
Shaun Chamberlin says:
5 November, 2008 at 8:25 pm
There are always many short term effects and variations – these change neither the extraordinarily clear present trend nor the improving understanding of the reasons for it. Looking at the same graph, your argument is akin to claiming we were entering a period of global warming based purely on the increase around 1880.
For a better understanding of the nature of climate prediction and the reasons why basing predictions on a few cool or hot years is inappropriate take a look at this excellent presentation from Oxford University.
DocBud says:
9 November, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Shaun, I appreciate your scientific insights (There are always many short term effects and variations).
I'm a bit confused as to what constitutes short term and long term. It seems ten years of static to cooling temperatures (although someone emphatically stated "The Earth is not cooling and the temperature increases certainly are dramatic") is too short a period to suggest that temperatures do not correlate to human emissions of carbon whereas a little over 20 years is long enough to determine that there is a correlation and in response we need to commit global economic suicide, condemn the world's poor to greater poverty and restrict people's freedoms to live how they choose to live.
I did follow the link to the allegedly "excellent presentation from Oxford University" which probably helps to illustrate why Oxford is such a poor cousin to Cambridge these days. It starts and finishes with the assumption that human emissions are a significant driver of climate change without, as no individual or organisation does, offering a shred of proof.
DocBud says:
10 November, 2008 at 2:20 pm
"We understand ever better how and why our actions to date will tend to increase radiative forcing over the long-term." Easy to type, very difficult to verify, perhaps you might like to try.
"Indeed, no-one has suggested a remotely scientifically plausible hypothesis as to why dramatically increasing the concentrations of known greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would fail to do so." What a load of old tripe, the actual science says quite clearly that modest increases in minor greenhouse gases cannot have the dramatic consequences claimed. Only when we step into the virtual reality of numerical models and imagined climate forcings do things become scary.
"There is also an improving understanding of the short-term cycles which are currently pushing against this long-term warming forcing and which are expected to cycle to push with it shortly after. Most predictions are that the warming will slow over the coming years (great news in theory, terrible news if it means that many will mistakenly believe the problem has gone away) before accelerating to catch up with the long-term forcing."
Before the recent non-warming there wasn't any such understanding and all predictions were of continued warming (Hansen's and the IPCC's most certainly were), but to keep the scary pot boiling the alarmists had to change their story for fear people might see the emperor has no clothes.
"It troubles me that you have the graph in front of you with the temperatures from ten years ago and the (substantially higher) current temperatures" You are joking, of course.
But you are not alone, even your heroes tell porkies.
"I am writing in shorthand because I am busy" The last vestige of the person with no argument.
DocBud says:
13 November, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Sorry about the delay, I've been working on site and my client's server blocks access to pretty much any site that is not news, science or engineering based.
The simple fact is that the scientific consensus (a meaningless consept in science as Einstein observed) does not explain climate change. If you can point to anything in IPCC AR4 or previous reports that constitutes proof, as opposed to vague assertions, of the validity of the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are primarily responsible for recent climate change, please do. The IPCC is a prime example of pre-conceptual science, the outcome is predetermined, the evidence is then cherry picked to suit the desired outcome. With the IPCC, the science is made to suit the Summary for Policymakers, not the other way round as is the case for most scientific endeavours (although we do see similar types of behaviour in other public policy areas such as obesity and passive smoking). The IPCC's science amounts to, here is evidence that the climate changes, we believe that this is mostly caused by human CO2 emissions and that if humans carry on emitting this will happen and this is what we think will be the impacts.
Climate science is still a poorly understood field of research and to claim that anything we do not yet understand must be due to human CO2 emissions is not good science. In essence that is what is happening, human CO2 emissions alone are not sufficient to explain current climate change so the computer models have to be programmed to amplify the effect, the justification being that there are positive feedbacks. Any hypothesis is falsified when it does not match reality, the human influenced global warming hypothesis has been falsified by the absence of a meaningful correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. (Incidently, I did notice that you made no attempt to justify why 10 years is a short term but a little over 20 years is sufficiently long to conclude that human CO2 emissions are the significant driver of recent climate change).
The list of climate drivers or potential drivers (including CO2, mostly natural, miniscule amount human) is very long and their relative importance poorly understood. These include: cosmic ray flux, solar magnetic cycles, sunspot cycles, cosmic dust, the shape of the Earth's orbit, 'wobbles' of the Earth upon its axis, changing rotational velocity of the Earth's core, changes in the Earth's magnetic field, tectonic movements of the Earth, volcanic eruptions, changes in the circulation patterns of the oceans, changes in ocean salinity and chemistry, changes in atmospheric water vapour, clouds and cloudiness, changing albedo of Earth through landscape change, natural and human, changes in vegetation and fires (natural and human). Despite these and other factors, known and probably unknown, we are supposed to harm the global economy, and hit the poorest hardest, by restricting the emissions of miniscule quantities of a minor trace gas whose actual influence is likely to be equally miniscule.
The primary reason why it is not good science to ascribe current climate change primarily to humans is that, as any geologist will tell you, there is nothing unprecedened about what is happening now.
Skeptic about Denial says:
21 January, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Shaun, time to give up on feeding DocBud. He's railroading any possible discussion. Let him think he is persuasive – he's not. DocBud, I will not be replying to you, so if you put me in your sights whatever you choose to say will be uncontested. Just wanted to let the author take ownership of his work back so the rest of us can appreciate his excellent analyses.
David / PlanetThoughts says:
19 February, 2009 at 9:40 am
Just found this article. I have noticed in a number of discussions from a number of people that they all use very similar phrases and say that the world has been cooling since 1998. Clearly it is based on truncating the starting and ending points to show a net drop in the sine-wave-like patterns of global temperature. But the fact that they have studied the same false science and take it for reality is clear. Those who care enough to be open to truth would quickly understand the need for a best-fit line, or some of the other analyses about time intervals to use for accuracy in looking at trends. But I think at that point of intellectual challenge, they would be capable of handling it but with mental stress – which is where the propoganda comes and takes over as it is easier to deny than to grapple with the details of the science and what they imply.
jojoba says:
28 February, 2009 at 2:08 pm
well, u assume sun radiation is constant
and water vapour figures NOT as a greenhouse gas
clouds are there only as a cooling factor, that is albedo, reflecting solar radiation back into space.
riding my bicicle to the job every morning, i can FEEL the difference between a cloudy night and a cloud free night sky.
it is BIG
so, back to the drawing board, and try to establish what could cause variation in the H2O concentration in the athmosfere
my 2c
Green Media Environments | Engaging across blogging divides says:
21 May, 2009 at 7:07 am
[…] kicked into gear. It seems that her article (or possibly some comments from Doc Bud on a post from Dark Optimism) were picked up by Australia's Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt, and an Englishman's […]
wayne says:
8 December, 2009 at 1:36 pm
What will happen if gobal temperature does not rise in the next 30 years as CO2 climbs higher?
Adjustments by U.N. to the markets?
wayne says:
8 December, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Woops. Typo, global not gobal.
Does anyone know how this is to be adjusted, or no adjustment at all?
Joe Jenkins says:
14 December, 2009 at 2:08 am
Does 350 ppm mean that there are 3.5 CO2 molecules for every 10,000 air molecules. If so, it seems odd that 3.5 molecules out of 10,000 would have any appreciable effect on our climate. Answer please.
Transition Times :: Transition Times » Blog Archive » Heroes and Villains in Copenhagen, and Beyond says:
10 January, 2010 at 4:37 pm
[…] below, but to cut a long story short, nothing was agreed that comes remotely close to addressing the scale of our climate challenge. Indeed, as I and many others have been pointing out for months, an agreement in line with climate […]
Toby says:
11 January, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Ever heard of Beer–Lambert law ? If you have, guess you forgot to mention it. If not, please look it up.
John says:
11 March, 2010 at 7:16 am
Dear Shaun,
Thank you for your post. I am looking for "that" study mentioned by Al Gore in his documentary, which reviews 500 (I think) articles by scientists which agree that Global warming is a reality, and compares this to another 500 articles (or how many?) in the popular press, which argue that there is some uncertainty. It was published in the journal Science (I think) many years ago. You don't have a reference to it by any chance?
Thanks a lot.
Please delete this post, since it disrupts your discussion.
Elena Reyes says:
12 April, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Shaun, thanks a lot for the explanation! I've had a hard time trying to really understand the implications of CO2 in Global Warming. But this raises the question, how much is a kg of CO2 in terms of Global Warming? I mean, if a product emits 1kg of CO2 in order to be produced, how does that affect radiative forcing? Do you have any reference that could help me understand that?
Thanks a lot.
Carl says:
19 July, 2010 at 12:03 am
WATER VAPOR is the MAJOR greenhouse gas, being more than 22,000 ppm versus 386 ppm for CO2. Also, it absorbs roughly 10 times the bandwidth of IR and absorbs light which CO2 does NOT. This water planet is a water planet and it is the water vapor that causes warming and cooling. CO2 is so insignificant that is it silly to talk about it except as negligible. The second law of thermodynamics assures that the Earth, approximated by a black body, will radiate its thermal energy to frigid outer space. That is why we need the Sun's radiation every day or we will get colder over time, but water vapor in the atmosphere and the oceans hold some latent heat to keep the planet from being -16 degrees centigrade.
AFTER STUDYING THE HISTORICAL DATA for the last year, I can only conclude that the Earth cools at times when CO2 is higher and warms at times when CO2 is higher. Similarly for less CO2. Thus I conclude the the level of CO2 and Earth's average temperature are independent – which means that NEITHER CAUSES THE OTHER.
— I am sorry if this shatters some deeply held beliefs (religiously) in the power of an insignificant greenhouse gas. HOWEVER, more CO2 will be fortunate for humans because it causes plants to grow faster and bigger with less water. All of the experiments show this on various plants. In real greenhouses, they add CO2 to make the plants lusher and grow faster. So the food supply can be expanded and be cheaper and world hunger can be eliminated (desert areas can produce food) – but it will take a lot more CO2 (which is safe up to 10,000 ppm).
PERMISSION is granted for anyone to use this material for any purpose. I have hundreds of pages of details to back up the above much more strongly. But that material will not be free! Sorry, but it took a lot of time and study.
Carl says:
19 July, 2010 at 5:17 am
Some climatologists use certain theories to try to show that CO2 causes warming and has positive feedback to make it more powerful than it is. THE HISTORICAL DATA SHOW THAT EARTH WARMS AND COOLS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE AMOUNT OF CO2. So you can trust a computer model that could pump any result the designer wants it to show, as those of us who have done a lot of computation math. know well, but WHAT THE HISTORICAL DATA SHOW IS WHAT THE REAL WORLD HAS ACTUALLY WROUGHT. If your computer model gives results that contradict what the physical world has recorded, you would be just an idealogue in the same genre as the religious true believer. Like Einstein said, if your theory is to be accepted, it must be tested by real world data. All this blah blah on this Web site is unreal self-flagellation that flies in the face of pragmatic science. It leaves me wondering whether or not we are about to enter a new dark age where speculation and sophistry replaces observation and experimentation.
IF I COULD SEE REAL WORLD DATA FROM NATURES EXPERIMENTS, OR A WELL DESIGNED EXPERIMENT, THAT SHOW THAT CO2 HAD A NONNEGLIGIBLE WARMING EFFECT, I would then be more emenable to further investigation, but don't come back with only a theory, or the cherry-picked or fudged data. THE HOCKEY IS A FARCE AND EVERYONE WHO HAS LOOKED AT UNTAMPERED DATA KNOWS IT.
I am done on this subject. Ciao!
Feliton says:
20 July, 2010 at 11:36 pm
So, have there been any progress since the initial article ?
I see its been few years now?
Nafeez Ahmed says:
29 November, 2010 at 11:07 pm
thanks for dropping by my blog and notifying me of this piece. Fantastic work you've done that has cleared up an issue that often causes confusion – and which certainly threw me, as you noticed, despite the fact that I've actually looked into this! So I'm a bit miffed with myself. There's also a great piece on this up at RealClimate https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/co2-equivalents/
It's worth noting though that the lower value of the CO2eTotal doesn't necessarily give us much breathing space. There's a prescient comment on the RealClimate article, as follows, which the authors of the original article agree with:
"The low value of CO2eTotal is less comforting if the negative forcings arise from the same activities as the positive forcings (e.g. dirty coal combustion). Then measures that reduce CO2 emissions or clean up local air pollution reduce the masking effects on a short time scale, while long-lived gases remain in the atmosphere, so that CO2e would rise rapidly. This effect would seem to make the headroom between 375 and 450 somewhat illusory."
Of course that doesn't mean the distinction is not important, indeed, critical, and thanks for pointing out my error!
Best wishes
Dan says:
14 February, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Great stuff, but I'm still getting confused with the numbers. You say that the CO2eTotal is 375 (or was at the time you wrote this). You contrast that with the 388 number for CO2 that a lot of people use (Bill McKibbon in 350.org for e.g. uses it as a reference point relative to the 350 ppm that we need to get to). OK, I get the difference. But how about the pre-industrial historical comparison. For CO2 I see lots of references to a number like 280 ppm. But is there a comparable base line figure for CO2eTotal for 1750? And is there a CO2eTotal target number that equates to McKibbon's 350 ppm? I'm teaching a class and would like to get this right, and would prefer to talk strictly CO2eTotal so as to avoid confusion. Thanks!
Martin Fetner says:
2 May, 2011 at 9:14 pm
We installed a Solar Electric System that will generate 56 Mwh of power per year. It will take the place of power generated from a oil- fired generating facility. How does this translate into Carbon Credits?
The Carbon Charter says:
15 September, 2011 at 12:04 pm
[…] Up, Freak Out. If you are quite scientifically minded, you may enjoy Shaun Chamberlin's Climate Change Translation Guide. Top-pick links from Shaun's page of climate change resources include the Climate Time […]
The Ferocious Summer says:
15 September, 2011 at 4:02 pm
[…] Wake Up, Freak Out. If you are quite scientifically minded, you may enjoy Shaun Chamberlin's Climate Change Translation Guide. Top-pick links from Shaun's page of climate change resources include the Climate Time Machine […]
Communities, Councils and a Low Carbon Future says:
15 September, 2011 at 5:37 pm
[…] Wake Up, Freak Out. If you are quite scientifically minded, you may enjoy Shaun Chamberlin's Climate Change Translation Guide. Top-pick links from Shaun's page of climate change resources include the Climate Time Machine […]
Ian Rudge says:
28 November, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Seems to me that the key question in all this is: What is the mathematical relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and equilibrium-state surface temperature, as compared to a CO2-free atmosphere?
Is the relationship linear, log or exponential, and is a saturation point reached beyond which adding more CO2 has zero effect? None of the climate scientists seem to be able to give an answer to this one, yet it's a pivotal question to the whole AGW debate. Without this information, the rest is pure surmise.
The Carbon Charter - The Book Cafe says:
23 February, 2012 at 8:59 am
[…] Links The Climate Science Translation Guide […]
The Climate Challenge - The Book Cafe says:
23 February, 2012 at 9:38 am
[…] The Climate Science Translation Guide […]
Britt San says:
5 March, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Took me time to study all the comments, but I really enjoyed the post. It proved to become really beneficial to me and Im positive to all of the commenters right here!
Transition: Peak Money… « UKIAH BLOG says:
24 May, 2012 at 1:48 pm
[…] Yet, on reflection, there does seem to be something different about the crisis of the financial economy – it isn't as directly rooted in physical reality. There is something immutable about the amount of fossil fuel available to the world, and overwhelming physical inertia in the inexorably increasing levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosph…. […]
Carl G. Looney, Ph.D. says:
23 June, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Without CO2 there could be no life on Earth. CO2 + water + sunshine => photosynthesis the provides the basic foodstuffs for all animal life. More CO2 => more green plants and foodstuffs. Why would anyone to reduce it. We need lots more with 7 billion humans and all the animals (land and sea) to feed them. Anyway, the historical data show CO2 and temperatures are independent factors, which means that one doesn't cause the other, although warmer oceans cause more outgassing of CO2 from the oceans, where most of it resides. When the equatorial oceans reach 30-31 degrees C, the water molecules have the kinetic energy to escape surface tension and jump into the air. Warmer oceans => greater evaporation, more floods, more rain and snow in temperate and polar zones, and more glacial buildup there. So if it warms, as it has done in the past, more ice will accumulate and the weather will be colder in the temperate and polar zones. Why is this so hard to understand?
Carl says:
1 May, 2014 at 8:29 pm
Without CO2 there could be no life on Earth. CO2 + water + sunshine => photosynthesis the provides the basic foodstuffs for all animal life. More CO2 => more green plants and foodstuffs. Why would anyone to reduce it when it actually is insignificant in warmng of cooling.
The historical data show CO2 and temperatures are independent factors, which means that one doesn't cause the other, although warmer oceans cause more outgassing of CO2 from the oceans, like a warm Coca Cola. The equatorial oceans can't excede 31 degrees C where their molecules have enough kinetic energy to escape surface tension/ Warmer oceans => greater evaporation, more cooling, floods, rain, snow and more glacial buildup there.
When mammals emerge there was much more atmospheric CO2. Its current low levels cause high blood pressure, aching muscles, painful joints, premature aging of the heart, brain, skin and other organs, among other ailments. Many medical studies show this.
The FAKE science sounds good and could convince nonscientists and politicians, but it doesn't fool physicists and data analysts.
Colin says:
3 April, 2017 at 11:29 pm
Yes, Carl, your fake science does sound good, and it could convince nonscientists and politicians like the current POTUS, but it doesn't fool actual scientists wh have studied the subject.
"Without CO2 there could be no life on Earth," no duh. No one is talking about eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere. The question of whether more CO2 = more plants is an interesting one and the answer is non-obvious. A corollary would be, more O2 = healthier animals, which is not the case.
"The historical data show CO2 and temperatures are independent factors…" Really? Let's see some references, there. LOL!
"The equatorial oceans can't excede 31 degrees C," where the hell did you pull that out of?
"Warmer oceans => greater evaporation," okay, that sounds right. "More cooling," not so much. "Floods, rain," okay, but are you trying to say floods are good? Fantastic. "Snow and more glacial buildup," only if the temperature isn't above 0ºC. The evidence of receding glaciers and ice fields contradicts that rather handily.
"When mammals emerge there was much more atmospheric CO2. Its current low levels cause high blood pressure, aching muscles, painful joints, premature aging of the heart, brain, skin and other organs, among other ailments," hahaha. And peach pits cure cancer…
"Many medical studies show this," really? Let's see some references to THAT one!
Yep, the fake science is out there, but it's mostly coming from your side of the fence.
100% renewable electricity in reach by 2050 – Enjeux énergies et environnement says:
8 November, 2017 at 12:07 pm
[…] greenhouse gas emissions would be significantly reduced, the study says, from about 11 GtCO2eq in 2015 to zero emissions by 2050 or earlier, as the total LCOE of the power system […]
Nonrenewable vs. Renewable – Environmental Systems says:
21 January, 2018 at 10:07 pm
[…] greenhouse gas emissions would be significantly reduced, the study says, from about 11 GtCO2eq in 2015 to zero emissions by 2050 or earlier, as the total LCOE of the power system […]
Nicholas says:
27 September, 2018 at 1:44 pm
Truly keen to read more of this website's posts now. Kudos to Wikipedia for pointing me here.
Elisha Holroyd says:
27 September, 2018 at 2:53 pm
Your style is really unique in comparison tⲟ other climate science people Ӏ have read stuff fгom. I appreciate yоu fοr posting when you have the opportunity, thanks.
Tony Morales says:
1 October, 2018 at 12:57 am
Damn. Wish I'd found this earlier. Been totally mislead on CO2e..
Maddison says:
22 October, 2018 at 10:26 am
I appreciate this so much, finally found exactly what I was taking a look for. You've ended my 4 day long hunt!
God Bless you man.
Brigette says:
29 November, 2018 at 1:35 am
Excellent, what a useful post! I wish the data were a little more recent, but I can look it up
Welcome to Dark Optimism! - pinned post - Dark Optimism says:
16 January, 2019 at 6:34 pm
[…] The Climate Science Translation Guide ~ And finally, some of my best articles published elsewhere (magazines, journals etc) […]


text:
Fohsan Wellcamp Building Materials Co.,Ltd
Located in Foshan city, Guangdong province, China, is one of the most powerful enterprises of steel structure, prefabricated house, light steel villa, Container house and different proposed house.
Depending on our professional sales, technology, engineer and after-sales service, our products are sold all over the world. Wellcamp has passed ISO9001:2008 Quality Management System and our products are certified under SGS, UL, BV, CE. What's more, we are awarded the honor of China Top 10 Brands of Prefab House and International Famous Brand.
80 experienced workers, advanced machines and the support of the customers ensure that we normally ship more than 10,000 square meters of the houses to the overseas market every month..


text:
Die Union (Galveston, Tex.), Vol. 8, No. 107, Ed. 1 Tuesday, July 3, 1866
Description: Tri-weekly German newspaper from Galveston, Texas that includes local, state and national news along with advertising.
Date: July 3, 1866
Item Type: Refine your search to only Newspaper
Partner: The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History


text:
FARMERS in West Oxfordshire say they have seen about 1,000 acres of land disappear under water in the floods.
Low-lying land in rural areas west of Witney, including Aston, Cote and Chimney, has been rendered unusable.
Tim Hook, 32, says he has lost 300 acres to flooding at Cote Lodge Farm, which has possibly ruined his wheat crops for the rest of the year.
He said: "We expect the water to stay for two weeks, but it has been on our land for six weeks.
"It'll have ruined my grass and my wheat crops. I'm not sure what I'm going to plant that can feed my cattle through the winter.
"Once it's all gone, I could plant a spring crop, but then what if it floods again?
"I'm losing £70 an acre just for the cost of seed and spray, never mind the money I'm losing from sales."
Mr Hook and his father John were visited on Monday by Peter Kendall, the president of the National Farmers' Union and members of the union's Witney & Chipping Norton branch were due to meet Environment Agency officials to discuss the situation last night.
Witney residents have not escaped the rising water levels, with the Windrush having risen in recent days, before dropping away.
Collette Lally, who works at the Finders Keepers estate agent on Bridge Street, said: "We watch it all the time. It's quite scary.
"If the water gets much higher it will be going into our car park and causing real problems for us.
"We've moved all of the computers up off the floor, but apart from that there's not much we can do."
Amanda Bevan-Talbot, who lives in nearby Crawley, said: "It's not as bad as it was in 2007, but I am worried we'll see those levels again."
Ms Bevan-Talbot's home is on the flooded Dry Lane, which is causing problems for through-traffic and residents.
She said: "It's hard enough going to work and not knowing if you'll be able to get back home.
"My wife can work from home, but I need to be able to go out for my job as a window cleaner."
In Abingdon, residents whose homes were damaged by flooding seven years ago fear being hit by the floods again.
River levels were within 2cm of reaching the highest ever recorded on the Thames at Abingdon Lock – at 52cm – on Monday.
They dropped to 49cm yesterday and residents reported floodwater receding away from their front doors, but more heavy rain is forecast for Abingdon today.
Claire Snowdon's flat in St Helen's Mill, off St Helen's Wharf, was flooded by the River Ock in 2007 by half a metre of water.
The flat was uninhabitable for almost a year while it was dried out and furniture was replaced.
Residents banded together to install a £50,000 flood prevention system in the building which was pumping water out from underneath the surrounded flats yesterday.
Ms Snowdon said: "People who have never been flooded don't understand how long it takes to dry it all out. You do get worried. Even though we have had all that flood prevention work done, it has never been fully tested."
Ms Snowdon said residents are in talks with the Environment Agency about building a protective wall which was promised after the 2007 floods.
They are meeting for more discussions about the plan on February 19.


text:
Andrea Stramaccioni stressed that Inter should "not fear anything" ahead of their last 16 Europa League tie against Tottenham Hotspur. "This match will be Tottenham-Inter and not just Gareth Bale against Inter," highlighted the Italian tactician. Alongside defender Juan Jesus in their pre-match Press conference, the pair emanated an air of confidence in handling the Welshman and his colleagues.
In the first meaningful action of the outing Bale towered above Esteban Cambiasso to head the ball into the corner of Samir Handanovic's net. Stramaccioni could only slump further into his seat as Man-of-the-Match Gylfi Sigurdsson prodded home a Jermain Defoe rebound a mere quarter of an hour later. Ricky Alvarez exemplified the visitors' collective first half effort when he squandered a simple opportunity.
Stramaccioni's training ground altercation with Antonio Cassano has proved to be the tipping point of several weeks of tension. Lacklustre performances, coupled with a key injury to first choice forward Diego Milito in the previous round of the competition, have dented the moral in the dressing room, and subsequently stunted the side's growth in the results department both domestically and in Europe.
Rodrigo Palacio's strike after the interval was the only shot Inter registered on target in the entire outing. Captain Javier Zanetti was the single player that provided much needed grit, but it was all in vain as Andre Villas-Boas humiliated his opposition tactically. Walter Gargano could not deal with Mousa Dembele, while youngster Mateo Kovacic was too isolated to make a positive impact.
Cambiasso was once again found wanting from Jan Vertonghen's header early in the second half, and the goal has all but sealed the Nerazzurri's fate in the tournament after several signs they might still possess a chance were lost. Despite the fact Bale will be suspended for the second leg after his dive, Spurs have the capabilities to hold out for the result and inflict further damage at San Siro.
Inter now have to evaluate their immediate future. The momentum for the Champions League places and that coveted third spot has fallen in Milan's territory. Stramaccioni's future will also have to be discussed. He may not be to blame for some of the club's questionable work on the transfer market, but his recent inability to begin matches on the right foot has to be questioned.
Watch Serie A live in the UK on Premier Sports for just £9.99 per month including live LaLiga, Eredivisie, Scottish Cup Football and more. Visit: https://www.premiersports.com/subscribenow


text:
A lot of the time, the hate mail Bob Lefsetz receives is simple and succinct, stuff like "You are a fucking shithead" or "You are an amazing douche." But once in a while, the put-downs get more elaborate, as was the case when Kid Rock lashed out at Lefsetz in a 2007 email. "Your a failed musician with a big mouth," wrote the rapper-singer, his typing fingers undoubtedly damaged by years of devil-horn gesticulations. "You do NOTHING but talk. See you on the streets you punk ass mother fucker!!"
Lefsetz is the author of the Lefsetz Letter, an online record-biz op-ed that mixes analysis, rants, boomer-rock reveries, and the odd bit of futurism. Like most music bloggers, Lefsetz posts frequently and verbosely; unlike most music bloggers, he has actually gained the interest of the music industry, so much so that even Lefsetz's most casually tossed-off missives get noticed. The line that irked Rock: A simple "Fuck Kid Rock"—just the sort of low-grade blogenspiel that a star of Rock's stature would normally shrug off.
But Rock was compelled to respond, as are many of the musicians, managers, and producers Lefsetz calls out (or, on occasion, praises effusively) in his Letter. It's tough for them to ignore his latest proclamation, because even if they try, they'll probably just wind up hearing about it from somebody else. "At every label," says Scott Rodger, manager for Paul McCartney and Arcade Fire, "from the mail room to the A&R department to the chairman's office, I guarantee they all read him."
Which is strange, given that many of Lefsetz's readers would have a hard time naming a single achievement from his pre-Letter career. Though one of his online bios refers to him as an "industry legend," Lefsetz, 58, was actually fired from his midlevel record-biz gig two decades ago. A former lawyer, he has never produced a Top 40 song or signed a hit band, and unlike other members of the web's pop-culture commentariat—Nikki Finke, Harry Knowles, the solemn-honky cabal at Pitchfork—Lefsetz doesn't get scoops or launch careers.
Instead, he sits in the Santa Monica, California, apartment he shares with his girlfriend and writes lengthy, sporadically caps-locked screeds about everything from overpaid executives to kowtowing artists. He's become a sort of digital-era pamphleteer, working alone at all hours of the night, nailing manifestos to the church door—manifestos that call for revolt, for sanity, and for a deeper appreciation of Jackson Browne. And, in an industry whose few survivors still strive for a certain on-the-record chumminess, Lefsetz always names names. "Bob's not beholden to anybody," says music manager (and longtime friend) Jake Gold. "So he can afford to say whatever's on his mind."
That's why, in addition to containing the occasional threat of bodily harm, Lefsetz's inbox also surges with fan mail. There might be a note of support from Quincy Jones or an invitation to dine with a major-label head. Even Kid Rock came around, and the two are now occasional email buddies. Lefsetz's followers are a lot like him: music-biz lifers who've watched the record industry become downgraded from a pop culture superpower to a desperate banana republic. And, like him, they miss the glory days.
Lefsetz won't reveal the size of his audience, except to say that it's "much, much bigger" than hundreds of thousands. He now makes a living the same way many artists do: by giving away his work for free online and then hitting the road—in his case as a paid speaker at music conferences.
Still, for all of Lefsetz's ever-increasing visibility, he remains a bit of a mystery. During a 2009 Canadian music conference, after Lefsetz blasted Kiss frontman Gene Simmons for his keynote speech, the two had a public showdown. It was an awkward exchange, and halfway through, the towering, gargoylish Simmons turned to the impishly belligerent Lefsetz and posited a question many in the industry have been wondering for years: "Who the fuck are you?"
As readers of his letter can attest, Lefsetz occasionally indulges in broad, far-reaching analogies that don't so much digress as loop through some distant metaphorical cosmos, stopping off at several far-off planets along the way. Over brunch in Beverly Hills, he lays out one prime example, which we'll call the Aniston Axiom.
"Let's say you're a unionized worker on the line," Lefsetz says. "You're working some overtime, you're making some pay. You have a house, and you have a boat, and you're sitting there having sexual fantasies about somebody on Friends. You say, 'If I moved to Hollywood, I could fuck Jennifer Aniston.' And you truly believe it. To get from there to actually fucking Jennifer Aniston is not impossible, but it's an unbelievably long journey."
We're at a corner table on the patio of a restaurant at the Four Seasons, where Lefsetz occasionally meets with record-biz pals. He's dressed like a dad touring a college campus on parents' weekend: jeans, sneakers, long-sleeve polo with the collar popped. Lefsetz's resemblance to Wallace Shawn (Vizzini in The Princess Bride, himself in My Dinner With Andre) has been invoked before, and while it's an apt comparison, what's most jarring is how, at moments of heightened emphasis, he also conjures the actor's pinched voice ("Inconceivable!").
The point of the Aniston story, which goes on for a while, is that while millions of people dream of making it in the music business, only a few have the talent and hubris to actually do so. It's an obvious observation, perhaps, but one Lefsetz says is lost on the countless musicians who email him every day, looking for a shortcut to fame. "The wannabes," Lefsetz says, using one of his favorite put-downs, "have no idea how sophisticated the game is."
Gene Simmons
At a conference in 2009, Lefsetz accuses Simmons of shamelessly promoting his new label. "When does Gene Simmons give back," Lefsetz asks, "as opposed to only being about what's in his fuckin' wallet?"
Simmons assails Lefsetz's credibility: "What have you done?" he asks. "What's your qualification for even farting through your oral passage?"
Taylor Swift
After Swift's off-key Grammy performance in January 2010, Lefsetz—an early supporter of the country star—writes, "Taylor Swift can't sing," and that she "shortened her career last night."
The 2010 Swift song "Mean" is rumored to have been written about Lefsetz.
Kid Rock
Writing about the Country Music Awards in 2007, Lefsetz dismisses the rapper-singer with a terse "Fuck Kid Rock."
In an email, Rock writes: "You can mother f—me all day long, but i will see you one day, and when i do it will be fun to watch you bitch up!" The two men have since made up.
Irving Azoff
Chairman, Live Nation
In April 2011, Lefsetz assails the seven-figure salaries of several Live Nation executives, calling the company's recent performance an "utter disaster."
Azoff, a longtime friend of Lefsetz, disputes the figures. ("I wanted him to do his fucking research," Azoff tells Wired.) After a frosty period, the two appear to have reached a détente.
Illustration: Boneface
Lefsetz has lived in LA since the '70s, when he moved here to follow his dream—his Aniston, if you will—of getting into the music industry. He was raised in the suburbs of Connecticut and went to college in Vermont, and his writing often draws on the musical experiences he had in those formative years: His first listen of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" on a car radio; his devotion to Neil Young's "Down by the River," which he learned to play on guitar.
Back then, music functioned as a sort of social shorthand. Lefsetz could walk into a party and start discussing the latest single, and everyone would know what he was talking about. "In the '60s and '70s, music drove the culture," he says. "It was the best way to connect to your generation."
He'd hoped to be a music journalist, but when a college teacher criticized his writing, a dejected Lefsetz started looking for an alternate route to the music business. By the early '70s, the record industry was becoming increasingly corporate, and lawyers were suddenly in demand, so he enrolled in law school. After earning his degree, he moved to LA, where he was soon handling contracts and negotiations.
Eventually, Lefsetz wound up at a management company called Sanctuary, serving as a creative consigliere to heavy-metal acts like W.A.S.P. and doing office work for other heavy-metal acts like Iron Maiden. But after he clashed with W.A.S.P. frontman Blackie Lawless—Lefsetz says they couldn't agree what song to release as a single—he was fired. A few ancillary gigs followed, including work on some low-budget movies. Then in 1986, while perusing Billboard, Lefsetz felt a renewed urge to write. "I thought, 'I could do better than this,'" he says. What was missing, he felt, was analysis. "There were facts and figures, with questionable accuracy, but no one making sense of them all."
It was the dawn of the desktop publishing age. Lefsetz taught himself to use a computer and started the Lefsetz Letter, a six- to eight-page printed bulletin full of tips and commentaries. (Sample talking point from this era: Is Steve Winwood sacrificing his credibility by dancing in his music videos?) He bought a showbiz directory and mailed copies to label execs, hoping to get their attention. "They didn't know who the fuck I was," he says. "My goal was to get another job in the music business, not to be the guy writing the newsletter."
Over time, though, he realized he could use the Letter to speak to an industry that was experiencing a fresh epoch every few years: the hostile takeover of radio by MTV, the outbreak of indie labels and hip hop, the ignoble demise of hair metal. Lefsetz believed that, from the outside, he could help those on the inside understand what was happening.
By the late '80s, the Letter had become popular enough that Lefsetz could make a living at it, at one point charging more than $100 for a yearly subscription. Then, in 2000, he dropped the fee and put the Letter online. (He has never taken advertising and instead has earned money from syndication deals, speeches, and occasional consulting gigs.) The timing for Lefsetz's digital debut couldn't have been better: Mainstream music mags were more interested in artist profiles than industry gossip, blogs barely existed, and "pop-culture pundit" had yet to become a widely held vocation.
Even better for Lefsetz, Napster was just getting started. If any single issue has helped accelerate Lefsetz's career and burnish his cred, it's the war over online music. Lefsetz spent the early '00s haranguing the labels for trying to shut down Napster, arguing that file-sharing was not only an inevitability but a necessity. In retrospect, this stance may not seem especially shocking. But within the record industry, it was utterly seditious. "I got a certain amount of heat from the usual suspects, i.e., the label people," Lefsetz says. "But the tide was turning, and people needed someone to explain the new world to them."
By taking up Napster's cause so fervently, Lefsetz not only earned himself a reputation as a quasi futurist, he also lucked into an irresistible—and renewable—narrative, one that frequently casts the label heads (and sometimes the artists) as the villains and the music lovers as the victims.
It's an ideological tactic Lefsetz has employed ever since, whether it means assailing artists for high ticket prices or bemoaning the endless procession of roboto-perfecto pop singers. These are, for Lefsetz, highly personal causes; he has devoted so much of his life to music—it's both his love and his livelihood—that the industry's missteps feel like betrayals. And he's not alone. Lefsetz's columns tap into a populist rage that resonates with several species of music lovers all at once: the indie-minded purists who think the major-label game is rigged, the technocrats who want music digitally available to everyone, and the aging listeners who can't understand why anybody would rather listen to Ke$ha than Derek and the Dominos.
Lefsetz's truths—that the labels blew it with Napster, that artists are better off on their own—are not all that radical. But consider the powers to which they speak. The music industry has long been resistant to change, and even today there's the sense that a few stubborn lifers are still trying to put on a united-denial front: We're gonna be fine, really! All we need is for everyone to stop pirating music. Oh, and for Michael Jackson to be alive again, and then to die again. In the meantime, would you like to buy this new Christina Aguilera/will.i.am single? It's called "Pork Product," and it sounds like Ethel Merman deflowering a Commodore 64.
To those still hoping for a last-minute return to the industry's heyday, the Letter is an oft-unwelcome reality check. "You get two groups of people pissed at you," Lefsetz says. "The people running the old game, and the people who want to be the last ones to get in on the old game. They say, 'Hey, don't write about the major labels, because I want to get signed. I wanna get paid.'"
Lefsetz is a digital-era pamphleteer, posting manifestos that call for revolt, for sanity, and for a deeper appreciation of Jackson Browne.
Lefsetz has in fact jeopardized friendships because of the Letter. He got into a tiff with Live Nation chair and Eagles manager Irving Azoff last year when he reprinted (and criticized) the company's executive salaries. The two have since made up, in part because Azoff—who praises Lefsetz's "incredible passion"—has known him since the '80s and is used to such tiffs. "I have a senior executive who calls him an 'equal-opportunity fucker,'" Azoff says, laughing. "He fucks everybody equally."
Other victims have been less forgiving. In 2007 Lefsetz wrote a gushing ode to Taylor Swift, who at the time was a star only in country-music circles. ("Melody and hooks are not dead," he wrote, "nor is authenticity.") Swift got in touch with Lefsetz, occasionally emailing or calling him. But after he wrote a takedown of Swift's performance at the Grammys in 2010, he says, the correspondence stopped. A year later, rumors started circulating that Swift's song "Mean" was a thinly veiled attack on Lefsetz.
The tune is about an unnamed antagonist who's "washed up and ranting about the same old bitter things," and in the album liner notes, Swift's highlighted letters spell out the message "I thought you got me." (Lefsetz says she told him "You get me" several times; Swift did not respond to requests for comment.)
It's not hard to see why Swift would have been upset by Lefsetz's reversal. He dismisses her, saying, "Now everyone knows she can't sing," and adding that "in one fell swoop she's consigned herself to the dustbin of teen phenoms." Lefsetz has included lots of details about his life in the Letter—things like his divorce in the '90s and his recent health problems (in 2009, Lefsetz was diagnosed with CML, a treatable form of leukemia: "I have the one and only cancer there's a pill for," he says). But as intimate as his writing can get, the Swift attack was one of the most personal tracts Lefsetz had ever written. You got the sense that he felt duped, that he really believed in her. Which, for Lefsetz, doesn't happen a whole lot anymore.
Toward the end of our brunch, Lefsetz and I start talking about new music. Though he's enthused in the Letter about a few emerging acts—including roots-rock groups like Mumford & Sons and electronic artists like Deadmau5—he can't find a lot to recommend as of late, in part because he holds artists to exacting, impossible-to-satisfy standards. Why listen to the White Stripes or Arcade Fire, Lefsetz argues, when you can listen to Led Zeppelin?
As a result, debating music with Lefsetz can be frustrating—like talking film with someone who compares everything to 2001. And, indeed, if you scan the various Lefsetz-skewering tirades that occasionally pop up on music blogs, you'll find this is what drives his detractors crazy: For all his talk of the future, Lefsetz would prefer to live in the past, ideally a past where he's lounging in a ski chalet somewhere listening to James Taylor bootlegs.
That may be true, but what's also true is in Lefsetz's perfect world, you'd be there with him, listening to those same records. Despite his constant pressing for change, he still pines for a time when music was mass, in every sense of the word—when everybody at the party knew the tune.
A few years ago, Lefsetz wrote that some of the strongest relationships of his life have been with music. "Maybe it's just that connecting with other human beings is not my forte," he wrote. "They're subtle, they're moody, they get distracted. Unlike records. Which are static, frozen in time."
At one point, I mention to Lefsetz that I don't necessarily think the end of a monoculture is a bad thing—that I'm perfectly fine in my own self-curated pop-cultural microcosm. "But you have a world that works," Lefsetz says. "You have a wife and a kid, et cetera. For those of us who don't, where music is going is a primary concern."
Lefsetz isn't exactly a lonely guy. He has a steady girlfriend, gets taken out to nice meals, and can get on whatever guest list he wants. But in a real way, it's still those frozen-in-time records that keep him tethered to this world. This is partially why he remains desperate to understand music's future, whatever that may be. Because it's his future too.
Contributing editor Brian Raftery (@BrianRaftery) profiled director David Fincher in issue 19.12.Go Back to Top. Skip To: Start of Article.


text:
Toot toot! You have non-stop fun with a BRIO railway. Play with the toy trains and explore the different track layouts you can build. Here you'll find all BRIO's train sets and railway tracks.
Smart Tech is our way of adding extra layers of functionality and play value to BRIO Toys. Integrated technology and ingenious design opens up a new kind of interaction between child and toy. Sound, light and action are combined to create cause-and-effect chain reactions, telling little stories in the process. A passing train makes the farm animals come to life. A tunnel causes and engine to stop, reverse or even appear broken, letting your child become the hero by deciding what's going to happen next.
Smart Tech combines BRIO's classic soft curves and wooden details with new educational and entertaining qualities. The result is a deep and rich experience – and many hours of captivating play.
They chuff around and flash their lights. A railway is a classic children's toy. Trains fascinate children from a very young age. BRIO My First Railway is designed for beginners. Give the youngest train drivers a new adventure with BRIO's My First Railway.
BRIO's first classic railway was launched in 1958. Its miniature railways have been enchanting children and adults ever since. BRIO is the ultimate classic railway.
Fun track layouts, crossings and tunnels. You can combine BRIO's trains and train sets in endless ways. Run your train to the countryside, the coast or on safari with one of our exciting sets.
Historic or modern – but always busy, busy, busy! BRIO has engines, trains, wagons and vehicles in different designs from all eras. Which BRIO vehicle will you be driving today? Train, cement truck or ferry?
Cranes, bridges and exciting stations. New accessories for your railway make playing extra fun. Why not treat your BRIO railway to a cool new accessory?
Is it time to take your rail play in a new direction? We have curved, ascending or straight tracks that can take your BRIO railway to a new level. Here we've collected all the tracks & roads your railway needs.
Mickey & Friends


text:
- Did you mean
- classes events selling december consider
Search results
Hocking Valley Scenic Railway
Since 1972, The Hocking Valley Scenic Railway has been operated and maintained by volunteers. The train departs each Thursday and Friday at 1 p.m. and Saturday & Sunday from the Nelsonville Depot at 12 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. The train ride is approximat ...
Sunrise Sanctuary Yoga
September 26. The event is open to all levels and the proceeds from the yoga session will benefit all of ... The farm is run by an all-volunteer staff and depends on events like this socially-distanced yoga ... event to keep providing happy homes for the animals. Tickets to the event will cost $25 and after the ...
Career Discovery with Purina Animal Nutrition
horizons. This event will include a 40 minute introduction to Land O'Lakes and an overview of it's ... event and indicate which breakout session/speaker you're interested in. The first five students to ... career opportunities within Supply Chain at Land O Lakes, Inc. For more information on the event and how ...
MS Translational Pharmacology Online Information Session
accepting applications through February 1, 2021 for summer 2021 enrollment (classes begin Wednesday, May ...
Cropland Values and Cash Rents for Western Ohio: Survey Results are In
167 surveys. Respondents were asked to group their estimates based on three land quality classes ... : average, top, and poor. Within each land-quality class, respondents were asked to estimate average corn and ... for each land-quality class. According to the Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents Survey, ...
Buckeyes In Your Corner
Back by popular demand, we're continuing our monthly events that focus social, mental & ... emotional wellness. The focus of these monthly departmental events vary, and this month we are focused on ...
Hagyard Equine Medical Institute Internships
breeding season (January-June) from medicine and field care, to surgery focuses. Why consider Hagyard ...
CFAES Career Expo-Alumni Mock Interviews
professional CFAES graduates. Participate in this event and sign-up HERE before 5pm on Wednesday, ... September 23. The event will take place on September 28th and 29th. To make the most of your time with your ...
Animal Sciences Graduate School Information Meeting
learn more! RSVP before the event, October 26th, to recieve the Zoom link. More information on the ...
Lemelson-MIT Student Prize
not limited to class projects or thesis work, and any side/personal projects could also be considered ...


text:
Gold is up again todayon several factors: 1) end of month buying, 2) speculation that the European Central Bank is unlikely to raise rates, meaning rates will stay low in the U.S. and Europe for some time, and 3) Chicago Fed's Evans endorsing low rates for some time to come.
Where will gold go from here? No one can give you a sureproof answer to this question, but here's two different ways to think about it.
1) Watch the women of India. They are the largest purchasers of gold in the world, and they are no fools. The issue is not whether gold will go up or down, but whether it is currently cheap or expensive compared to other investments.
The price of onions. I spent some time a short while ago with AngloGold Ashanti CEO Mark Cutifani at his office in Johannesburg, South Africa, who has spent a lot of time talking to Indian gold consumers.
He notes that they view gold strictly as an investment, and compare it to the cost of other commodities and investments. Like onions. Like fuel. And like real estate.
(How do commodity futures work? )
"So they're triangulating a basket of commodities against the price of gold so with inflation going up, for thousands of years, they've worked out what gold is in relation to the things that matter in their life and they see gold as volume against the price. And that's how they get to the price of gold. At the moment, they're saying, gold looks pretty good. On a relative basis, it's holding its value."
Notice how carefully Cutifani chooses his words: at the moment, gold looks pretty good. On a relative basis. That means that if inflation stops, and gold keeps going up...it will be less attractive as an investment to Indian investors. Or if real estate suddenly drops in price, while gold keeps going up, real estate might be a better investment.
So look for signs of "buyer fatigue" in places like Asia and the Middle East.
And remember, gold has competition from its eternal nemesis, silver. This is happening in the United States, where demand for gold jewelery again declined in 2010 as consumers shifted to more affordable silver jewelery.
2) Look at gold as a play on paper currency. Aside from demand issues, John LaForge and Chay Norbom at the respected Ned Davis Research firm have made what I think is a correct observation: the peak price of gold will reveal itself in the currency markets.
"Gold's bull run reflects a lack of trust and credibility in governments and central banks worlwide to stop printing paper money at will. We believe this because gold continues to rise versus every currency we track--developed country and commodity country currencies alike. Until governments start enacting more sound money policies, gold should continue to rise. Gold's ultimate demise will come when confidence in paper currencies returns, which forecast is not today."
Want more on the history of gold and how the gold business operates? Go to my special report for — The Golden Age, on the home page of .
Bookmark CNBC Data Pages:
Want updates whenever a Trader Talk blog is filed? Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/BobPisani.
Questions? Comments? email@example.com


text:
Remarkable things can happen when key stakeholders and leaders in Washington find common ground for a common good. An excellent case in point is the congressional effort to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, a landmark conservation measure signed into law by President George W. Bush five years ago this January.
In the mid 2000s, we had arrived at a point where our marine fisheries management system just wasn't working in many parts of the country. The clock was ticking to reform our nation's primary law for governing U.S. ocean fish. Disputes among main constituencies were many, but one thing was clear to virtually all — business as usual was no longer an option.
With numerous vital commercial and recreational fish stocks severely depleted, action was needed to help them recover and prevent others from facing the same fate. Everyone knew the way forward wouldn't be easy, but something had to be done.
A coalition came together at the last minute to pass the legislation. With vital support from the White House, the group spanned traditional partisan lines and included leaders from conservation as well as the commercial and recreational fishing communities.
Initially, the discussion stalled on technical matters, as many debates in Congress do. In the end, however, the effort led to a well-considered compromise that balanced the many competing needs and pressures on our oceans. The linchpin was a new federal mandate promoting more sustainable practices on the water and embracing the usage of strong, science-based catch limits to restore and maintain fish populations at healthy levels.
Every American who loves the ocean and enjoys seafood should applaud this accomplishment. For such policies to be more effective, however, it's critical that Congress continue to support these efforts with adequate funding for fisheries research.
Today, we have one of the most advanced marine resource management programs in the world. For the first time in U.S. history, by the end of January we are set to have science-based catch limits — as well as measures to ensure that these limits are not exceeded — for all of our federally managed stocks. These efforts have put us on track to end overfishing— the problem of taking species from our oceans faster than they can reproduce — in U.S. waters once and for all.
Anglers, commercial fishermen, and all of those who depend on a healthy ocean are beginning to reap the benefits of these and other reforms in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Twenty-three previously depleted species' populations have been rebuilt, including Atlantic sea scallops, one of the most valuable fisheries in the country, and mid Atlantic summer flounder. Other commercially and recreationally important species, such as red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, are heading toward recovery.
There will always be competing needs and viewpoints on how to best manage our nation's fisheries. But the bottom line is that the system is now working. One place where Congress can further support this effort is by providing additional resources for federal managers to have the best science possible to make their decisions.
Collaborative research programs are bearing fruit across the nation. As an example, the University of South Florida is working on a cooperative project with partners in the commercial fishing industry to look at new technologies that can be used for stock assessments. The results so far are impressive, thanks in part to the extensive knowledge that many fishing captains have brought to the initiative.
The coalition that came together to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act was a classic example of how Americans with varying perspectives can put aside their differences and work toward a common goal. Similar support for legislative proposals to promote additional cooperative research and management projects would be an excellent way for members in this Congress to build upon the work of those who came before them.
Lee Crockett directs the Pew Environment Group's Federal Fisheries Policy Project. Bill Hogarth is the former dean of the USF College of Marine Science and is currently director of the Florida Institute of Oceanography, a consortium of 20 ocean institutions in the state.
© 2012 Scripps Howard News Service


text:
Firefighters have extinguished a large fire at a cardboard packaging factory in Otara.
Fire service spokesperson Scott Osmond said crews were called to the blaze at Huhtamaki on Bairds Road about 3.15am.
Mr Osmond said the fire started in an oven containing egg cartons. The blaze was contained to the inside of the building, he said.
At the height of the fire, there were 20 trucks at the scene.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Mr Osmond said the fire has been extinguished, however 15 trucks remain onsite.
No one was injured in the blaze, which is not thought to be suspicious.
- nzherald.co.nz


text:
Rob Riggle is in final negotiations to star in the Fox comedy pilot The Gabriels, TVGuide.com has learned.
Which canceled show would you bring back?The project, previously titled House Rules, will follow an introverted, neurotic Wisconsin family surrounded by neighbors who overshare. It comes from Justin Hurwitz and Andrew Gurland, who will write and executive-produce. Wedding Crashers director David Dobkin and Running Wilde's Paul Young and Peter Principato will also serve as executive producers.Riggle has appeared in numerous shows and films, including 21 Jump Street, NTSF:SD:SUV:: and Wilfred.(Additional reporting by Natalie Abrams)


text:
Awesome: 0%
Worth A Look: 0%
Just Average: 0%
Pretty Crappy: 0%
Sucks: 100%
1 review, 0 user ratings
Blind Fury by Jack Sommersby
Craft, The: Legacy by Peter Sobczynski
Forbidden World by Jack Sommersby
Joysticks by Jack Sommersby
Exterminator/Exterminator 2, The by Jack Sommersby
Doorman, The (2020) by Jay Seaver
Postmortem by Jack Sommersby
Warrior and the Sorceress, The by Jack Sommersby
Come True by Jay Seaver
Prisoners of the Lost Universe by Jack Sommersby
subscribe to this feed
Films I Neglected To Review: 100% Giuliani-Free!!!
Films I Neglected To Review: Manderley Balls
Screamfest LA (2020 Edition)
Films I Neglected To Review: What's The Matter With Kids These Days?
The Virtual Fantastic Fest Celebration of 2020
The 58th New York Film Festival
Films I Neglected To Review: Independents Day
Films I Neglected To Review: Hope-Less Romantics
Reflections from the Toronto Film Festival (Virtual Edition 2020)
Fantasia Film Festival (Reviews from the 2020 Edition)
subscribe to this feed
"Endangered Species"
USA 14-Aug-2015 (R) DVD: 06-Oct-2015UK 31-Aug-2015 (15)Australia 14-Aug-2015
Directed by
Tyler Shields
Written by
Adam Prince
Stephen Scarlata
Alejandro Seri
Johnny Silver
Abigail Breslin
Wes Bentley
Logan Huffman
Alexander Ludwig
Cameron Bright
Brett London