Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[igrowone]

a summary of the recent greenland melt
interesting reading

Europe’s warm air spikes Greenland melting to record levels

Featured

August 6, 2019
Warm air from Europe’s heat wave reached Greenland on July 29 and 30, setting temperature records at Summit Station and melting about 90 percent of the ice sheet surface from July 30 to August 3. Melt runoff was estimated at 55 billion tons during the interval, or about 40 billion tons more than the 1981 to 2010 average for the same time period. Overall, melting this July was much higher than average, leading to more extensive bare ice and flooded snow areas.
Overview of conditions

Figure 1a. The top left map shows melt extent for Greenland on July 31, the peak of the recent warm event. The map includes temperatures at local noon for that day from several Programme for Monitoring of the Greenland Ice Sheet (PROMICE) weather stations. The top right map shows the total number of melt days for January 1 to August 3, 2019. The bottom panel shows the melt area day-by-day for 2019 (blue) and several other high-melt years.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image

Figure 1b. This graph shows the cumulative surface melting area for 2019 and several of the most recent years.
A rapid increase in surface melting on the Greenland ice sheet began on July 30 and continued through August 3, covering primarily the central and northern areas of the ice sheet on both the east and west ice sheet slopes. On July 30 and 31, melting reached the Summit Camp area of the ice sheet, corroborated by both air temperature from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station at Summit and the passive-microwave melt analysis. Peak melt area occurred on July 31, with just over 60 percent of the ice sheet surface experiencing melt (Figure 1a). Over the course of the five-day event approximately 90 percent of the surface of Greenland reached the melting point at least once.

Cumulatively, the 2019 season sum of melt area for every day is tracking well behind 2012, the satellite-era record for total melt-day area, and slightly behind 2016 (Figure 1b). However, total ice mass loss for 2019 is nearly equal to 2012 because of low winter snowfall. Early melting of the surface in 2019 quickly removed the snow accumulation from winter, and deeper melting this month has eroded older snow and ice over large areas of the western side of Greenland.

 

[St. Phatty]

a summary of the recent greenland melt
interesting reading

Someone posted something about, it started snowing again in the Arctic.

Sounds like it's still hot enough to melt glacier ice.

Do people ride the glacier ice rivers ?

Or is that considered dangerous because people end up dying in crevasses ?

 

[igrowone]

Someone posted something about, it started snowing again in the Arctic.

Sounds like it's still hot enough to melt glacier ice.

Do people ride the glacier ice rivers ?

Or is that considered dangerous because people end up dying in crevasses ?

big island, room for lots of weather
riding a glacier river sounds like a one way trip
but getting to one could be plenty dangerous
though i've read that crevice detecting tech has gotten very accurate

 

[moose eater]

Someone posted something about, it started snowing again in the Arctic.

Sounds like it's still hot enough to melt glacier ice.

Do people ride the glacier ice rivers ?

Or is that considered dangerous because people end up dying in crevasses ?

Several folks just died in the 'lake' at the base of the Valdez (Alaska) Glacier, presumably from the 'toe' of the glacier calving, and maybe crushing them; haven't heard any more yet.

------------------------------


Separate article in the Anchorage Daily News on-line edition today/this evening, re. increased vertical wind-shears over the Atlantic at higher altitudes being attributed to climate change, making for bumpier rides on cross-Atlantic flights.

 

[TychoMonolyth]

No worries. It's just a hoax.

 

[St. Phatty]

No worries. It's just a hoax.

good picture.

Where is that ?

The mountain tops have pretty distinctive shapes.

 

[TychoMonolyth]

good picture.

Where is that ?

The mountain tops have pretty distinctive shapes.

The Arctic ~ 100 years ago and today

Christian Åslund, a Swedish photojournalist who works with Greenpeace, gathered some early photos of glaciers in Svalbard, Norway from the Norwegian Polar Institute, and juxtaposed them next to his own photos of the same locations from 2002.

 

[St. Phatty]

The Arctic ~ 100 years ago and today

Christian Åslund, a Swedish photojournalist who works with Greenpeace, gathered some early photos of glaciers in Svalbard, Norway from the Norwegian Polar Institute, and juxtaposed them next to his own photos of the same locations from 2002.

beach front property, I tell ya !!

The surf community has already done a lot of video documentaries of normal Arctic surfing.

Plus a little bit of thrill seeking type, surfing the wave when a chunk of glacier falls off and makes an ice-berg.

Wearing a 4/3 wetsuit is no big deal.

Wouldn't be surprised to see the World Surf League do a special event up there within the next 5 to 10 years.

First there will have to be an event like Teahupoo in 1998.

Chance surfing led to EPIC minor league event with a controversy filled final (wrong guy won.)

Then the major league claimed it around 2005.

They must have some awesome (there's that surf word again !) storms and therefore wave generation.

Hard to have a contest unless the storm is too close though.


On a side note ... I was never a big fan of Burning Man.

I think they should have a Drowning Man. Heat + water, maybe.

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXmcZMnfv58


[YOUTUBEIF]hXmcZMnfv58[/YOUTUBEIF]


July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/j... http://www.drroyspencer.com/


July Global Temperatures http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conten... http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conten...


Different global temperature sets http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conten...


Evidence that ERA5-based Global Temperatures Have Spurious Warming http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/e...


Sea Ice Charts DMI August 05, 2019 http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickne...


Total Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover 2019 https://globalcryospherewatch.org/sta...


Sea Ice Charts http://climate4you.com/


August 05, 2019 sea ice chart 1979-2019 http://climate4you.com/images/IRAC%20...


Greenland cumulative melt vs gain http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/su...


DMI 80N temperatures in the Arctic http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.u...



Typhoons Asia Pacific https://www.cwb.gov.tw/V7e/prevent/ty...

 

[White Beard]

Not impressed, trich: the video is so agenda heavy, I’m surprised you can’t smell it.

I’ll check out more of those links when I’m more bored than I am now, but your record with links is not great, so it may be a minute

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRQqlZlOqw


[youtubeif]XrRQqlZlOqw[/youtubeif]

 

[TychoMonolyth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXmcZMnfv58


[YOUTUBEIF]hXmcZMnfv58[/YOUTUBEIF]


July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/j... https://www.drroyspencer.com/


July Global Temperatures https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conten... https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conten...


Different global temperature sets https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conten...


Evidence that ERA5-based Global Temperatures Have Spurious Warming https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/e...

...

Here's a little something about your Dr. Roy Spencer.

Spencer is a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming",[32][33] which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."

So.... God will save us?

 

[SuperMac]

No God is not going to save us.

The climate crises argument is too theoretical and removes the issue of self-responsibility. The root cause of most of the pollution is consumerism which means it stems from how people live their lifestyle.

We need to be talking about what we are doing in our personal lives for Mother Earth and Father Sky. We can start by being aware of every scrape of garbage we create and every single mile we drive.

Being O2+ is the goal.

 

[trichrider]

Not impressed, trich: the video is so agenda heavy, I’m surprised you can’t smell it.

I’ll check out more of those links when I’m more bored than I am now, but your record with links is not great, so it may be a minute

give your 'computer' some oxygen, you've got some nerve talking about agendas...you sir require institutional evaluation.

Here's a little something ...
Fuck you.

well said comrade


UN Latest Climate Change Report: Saving Planet Will Require ‘Drastic Changes’ in Land Use, Human Diets

179

Gemunu Amarasinghe/AP PhotoPenny Starr8 Aug 20191,115 4:17
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report on Thursday that calls for letting agricultural land return to the wilderness and for people to eat more plants and fewer animals.

The report reiterates the globalist organization’s claim that man’s use of natural resources to improve people’s lives around the world is making “global warming” worse and will make food more scarce, more expensive, and less nutritional.
“The cycle is accelerating,” NASA climate scientist Cynthia Rosenzweig, a co-author of the report, said in an Associated Press report. “The threat of climate change affecting people’s food on their dinner table is increasing.”
“But if people change the way they eat, grow food and manage forests, it could help save the planet from a far warmer future, scientists said,” AP wrote about the report, entitled “Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.”
AP reported that the report was unanimously approved “by diplomats from nations around the world,” including the United States, and “proposed possible fixes and more dire warnings.”
“The stability of food supply is projected to decrease as the magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events that disrupt food chains increases,” the report said.
“Global crop and economic models project a median increase of 7.6 percent (range of 1 to 23 percent) in cereal prices in 2050 due to climate change, leading to higher food prices and increased risk of food insecurity and hunger,” the report said.
“If people change their diets, reducing red meat and increasing plant-based foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and seeds, the world can save as much as another 15 percent of current emissions by mid-century. It would also make people more healthy,” NASA’s Rosenzweig said in the AP report.
“We don’t want to tell people what to eat,” Hans-Otto Pörtner, an ecologist who co-chairs the IPCC’s working group on impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, said in a Nature article on the report. “But it would indeed be beneficial, for both climate and human health, if people in many rich countries consumed less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect.”
Nature reported:

Efforts to curb greenhouse gas-emissions and the impacts of global warming will fall significantly short without drastic changes in global land use, agriculture and human diets, leading researchers warn in a high-level report commissioned by the United Nations.
The report highlights the need to preserve and restore forests, which soak up carbon from the air, and peat lands, which release carbon if dug up. Cattle raised on pastures of cleared woodland are particularly emission-intensive, it says. This practice often comes with large-scale deforestation such as in Brazil or Colombia. Cows also produce large amount of methane, a potent greenhouse-gas, as they digest their food.
The report cautions that land must remain productive to feed a rising world population. Warming enhances plant growth in some regions, but in others ― including northern Eurasia, parts of North America, Central Asia and tropical Africa ― increasing water stress seems to reduce the rate of photosynthesis. So the use of biofuel crops and the creation of new forests― seen as measures with the potential to mitigate global warming ― must be carefully managed to avoid the risk of food shortage and biodiversity loss, the report says.
​

“It’s really exciting that the IPCC is getting such a strong message across,” Ruth Richardson, the Toronto, Canada-based executive director at the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, said in the Nature article. “We need a radical transformation, not incremental shifts, towards a global land use and food system that serves our climate needs.”
IPCC will be issuing another report on climate change and the ocean and ice sheets soon, according to Nature. The next climate change summit will take place in December in Santiago, Chile.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...uire-drastic-changes-in-land-use-human-diets/


New United Nations Climate Report Yet Another Waste Of Paper

2 days ago
2 comments
4 min read

It will eat up more than 1,000 pages and be hailed as the finest document since the Magna Carta. But the United Nations’ land-use report will free no man, save not one life, lift no one out of poverty, nor have any perceptible impact on the global climate. Should President Donald Trump be re-elected next year, he should pull the U.S. out of the U.N. the same way he pulled the country out of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate. Call it Amerexit.
U.N. negotiators finalized in Geneva on Wednesday what Agence France-Presse is calling “the most comprehensive scientific assessment yet of how the land we live off affects climate change.” It’s been “compiled by 108 scientists drawing from thousands of data points, is expected to spell out the stark choices facing a warming planet with a growing, hungry population.”
The best comment on Yahoo’s posting of the story was from Jim, who said:
“After the negotiations were over everyone went to the nearest bar where they patted each other on the back and made plans for the next meeting at a five-star resort where they could continue this important work of saving the planet. After a few days of relaxation they hopped on their chartered or private jets and went back home exhausted.”
Coming in a close second is Marshall, who said the report is “not science, folks. That’s a consensus devoid of any scientific methods used to validate a theory. The (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a political body, not a research facility.”
The U.N.’s IPCC has been producing junk for decades. Its “findings” have consistently pressed the narrative that human activity, in particular the use of fossil fuels for energy, is warming the planet to dangerous temperatures through the greenhouse effect. Yet we look around and observe that nothing is happening outside of the natural variations. The data tell us the same.
The trouble with the IPCC reports is that the summaries, which are read by pandering politicians and hysterics in the media, are not the actual reports. Those, according to climate scientist Tim Ball and International Climate Science Coalition Executive Director Tom Harris, “almost no one reads.” In fact, we’re apparently not even supposed to see them.
“The ‘Final Government Draft’ of the underlying science report, which appears on the IPCC Web site, even cautions the reader, ‘Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute,’” Ball and Harris wrote last year covering the SR15 report released in 2018.
The summaries, though, are “written mostly by government representatives and also has to be approved by them. The (Summary for Policymakers) is consequently a highly political document that fulfills policy objectives of the member governments and typically does not properly reflect uncertainties in the underlying science,” they wrote in the Washington Times.
The headline of Ball and Harris’ Washington Times op-ed? “Why U.N. climate report cannot be trusted.”
The IPCC was formed for the purpose of seeking solutions to man-made global warming and is therefore always in search of a problem. Its mission “was never to study the causes of climate change,” according to the Heartland Institute, but to instead frighten the world into submitting to policies the “experts” tell us will avoid the inevitable disaster. So it will always produce work that bolsters the global warming narrative. It’s really more of a propaganda shop for the U.N. and marketing firm for progressive policies than a scientific body seeking facts. This country should not be a party to such an obviously political agenda.


https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/08/new-united-nations-climate-report-yet-another-waste-of-paper/


July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record

August 2nd, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. July 2019 was probably the 4th warmest of the last 41 years. Global “reanalysis” datasets need to start being used for monitoring of global surface temperatures. [NOTE: It turns out that the WMO, which announced July 2019 as a near-record, relies upon the ERA5 reanalysis which apparently departs substantially from the CFSv2 reanalysis, making my proposed reliance on only reanalysis data for surface temperature monitoring also subject to considerable uncertainty].
We are now seeing news reports (e.g. CNN, BBC, Reuters) that July 2019 was the hottest month on record for global average surface air temperatures.
One would think that the very best data would be used to make this assessment. After all, it comes from official government sources (such as NOAA, and the World Meteorological Organization [WMO]).
But current official pronouncements of global temperature records come from a fairly limited and error-prone array of thermometers which were never intended to measure global temperature trends. The global surface thermometer network has three major problems when it comes to getting global-average temperatures:
(1) The urban heat island (UHI) effect has caused a gradual warming of most land thermometer sites due to encroachment of buildings, parking lots, air conditioning units, vehicles, etc. These effects are localized, not indicative of most of the global land surface (which remains most rural), and not caused by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because UHI warming “looks like” global warming, it is difficult to remove from the data. In fact, NOAA’s efforts to make UHI-contaminated data look like rural data seems to have had the opposite effect. The best strategy would be to simply use only the best (most rural) sited thermometers. This is currently not done.
(2) Ocean temperatures are notoriously uncertain due to changing temperature measurement technologies (canvas buckets thrown overboard to get a sea surface temperature sample long ago, ship engine water intake temperatures more recently, buoys, satellite measurements only since about 1983, etc.)
(3) Both land and ocean temperatures are notoriously incomplete geographically. How does one estimate temperatures in a 1 million square mile area where no measurements exist?
There’s a better way.
A more complete picture: Global Reanalysis datasets
(If you want to ignore my explanation of why reanalysis estimates of monthly global temperatures should be trusted over official government pronouncements, skip to the next section.)
Various weather forecast centers around the world have experts who take a wide variety of data from many sources and figure out which ones have information about the weather and which ones don’t.
But, how can they know the difference? Because good data produce good weather forecasts; bad data don’t.
The data sources include surface thermometers, buoys, and ships (as do the “official” global temperature calculations), but they also add in weather balloons, commercial aircraft data, and a wide variety of satellite data sources.
Why would one use non-surface data to get better surface temperature measurements? Since surface weather affects weather conditions higher in the atmosphere (and vice versa), one can get a better estimate of global average surface temperature if you have satellite measurements of upper air temperatures on a global basis and in regions where no surface data exist. Knowing whether there is a warm or cold airmass there from satellite data is better than knowing nothing at all.
Furthermore, weather systems move. And this is the beauty of reanalysis datasets: Because all of the various data sources have been thoroughly researched to see what mixture of them provide the best weather forecasts
(including adjustments for possible instrumental biases and drifts over time), we know that the physical consistency of the various data inputs was also optimized.
Part of this process is making forecasts to get “data” where no data exists. Because weather systems continuously move around the world, the equations of motion, thermodynamics, and moisture can be used to estimate temperatures where no data exists by doing a “physics extrapolation” using data observed on one day in one area, then watching how those atmospheric characteristics are carried into an area with no data on the next day. This is how we knew there were going to be some exceeding hot days in France recently: a hot Saharan air layer was forecast to move from the Sahara desert into western Europe.
This kind of physics-based extrapolation (which is what weather forecasting is) is much more realistic than (for example) using land surface temperatures in July around the Arctic Ocean to simply guess temperatures out over the cold ocean water and ice where summer temperatures seldom rise much above freezing. This is actually one of the questionable techniques used (by NASA GISS) to get temperature estimates where no data exists.
If you think the reanalysis technique sounds suspect, once again I point out it is used for your daily weather forecast. We like to make fun of how poor some weather forecasts can be, but the objective evidence is that forecasts out 2-3 days are pretty accurate, and continue to improve over time.
The Reanalysis picture for July 2019
The only reanalysis data I am aware of that is available in near real time to the public is from WeatherBell.com, and comes from NOAA’s Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2).
The plot of surface temperature departures from the 1981-2010 mean for July 2019 shows a global average warmth of just over 0.3 C (0.5 deg. F) above normal:
Note from that figure how distorted the news reporting was concerning the temporary hot spells in France, which the media reports said contributed to global-average warmth. Yes, it was unusually warm in France in July. But look at the cold in Eastern Europe and western Russia. Where was the reporting on that? How about the fact that the U.S. was, on average, below normal?
The CFSv2 reanalysis dataset goes back to only 1979, and from it we find that July 2019 was actually cooler than three other Julys: 2016, 2002, and 2017, and so was 4th warmest in 41 years. And being only 0.5 deg. F above average is not terribly alarming.
Our UAH lower tropospheric temperature measurements had July 2019 as the third warmest, behind 1998 and 2016, at +0.38 C above normal.
Why don’t the people who track global temperatures use the reanalysis datasets?
The main limitation with the reanalysis datasets is that most only go back to 1979, and I believe at least one goes back to the 1950s. Since people who monitor global temperature trends want data as far back as possible (at least 1900 or before) they can legitimately say they want to construct their own datasets from the longest record of data: from surface thermometers.
But most warming has (arguably) occurred in the last 50 years, and if one is trying to tie global temperature to greenhouse gas emissions, the period since 1979 (the last 40+ years) seems sufficient since that is the period with the greatest greenhouse gas emissions and so when the most warming should be observed.
So, I suggest that the global reanalysis datasets be used to give a more accurate estimate of changes in global temperature for the purposes of monitoring warming trends over the last 40 years, and going forward in time. They are clearly the most physically-based datasets, having been optimized to produce the best weather forecasts, and are less prone to ad hoc fiddling with adjustments to get what the dataset provider thinks should be the answer, rather than letting the physics of the atmosphere decide.


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbQ-KviHT5I


[YOUTUBEIF]wbQ-KviHT5I[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

We do realize that climate change is a very passionate topic to debate - but lets stay civil about it guys - no need to pursue personal attacks against each other over it -

 

[St. Phatty]

Here's a little something about your Dr. Roy Spencer.

So.... God will save us?

More like, Nut Case Christians & their "Special Friend" Israel have doomed us.

 

[moose eater]

I understand that growing beef with grain, rather than eating the grain, places a variety of stressors on the land, air, etc.

But as a sometimes selfish, somewhat self-absorbed westerner, living in relative comfort, in contrast to many other 2nd and 3rd world peoples, I'm going to miss my well-marbled, grain-fed angus rib-eye steaks over a wood or coal-fired grill. I don't know that I'll cry just yet...... but I might..

 

[trichrider]

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2019-07-02/global-beef-trade-amazon-deforestation


i was under the impression you ate moose and other ungulates, but i would never accuse you of contributing to deforestation or the detriment it causes. proper wildlife management (and forest management) does not do this.

being born into western civilization is not a sin or crime...when in Rome...
i'm a smoked brisket enthusiast myself.


btw, do you think the alarmists include deforestation in their models?

 

[moose eater]

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2019-07-02/global-beef-trade-amazon-deforestation


i was under the impression you ate moose and other ungulates, but i would never accuse you of contributing to deforestation or the detriment it causes. proper wildlife management (and forest management) does not do this.

being born into western civilization is not a sin or crime...when in Rome...
i'm a smoked brisket enthusiast myself.


btw, do you think the alarmists include deforestation in their models?

We still eat a good bit of moose, salmon, halibut, caribou, etc., depending on the year's successes. And a smaller amount of muktuk (whale).

Once upon a time we ate almost exclusively moose, caribou, salmon, and halibut, with a RARE purchase of pork or chicken to make specific dishes. And very rarely, lamb or duck, only because my wife doesn't care for the oily nature of either, while my younger son and I love the stuff.

For years the cow moose hunts were put forth here as a matter of game management, but having seen a relatively pristine area I frequent, plundered, and the realization that much of this particular (supposedly science-based) management was really a matter of caving to political pressures from the suburban and urban week-end warriors.

Watched as an area where I used to be able to spend a day in a tree-stand, and watch several different groups of moose, ranging in number from 10-30 each, become a place where few might be seen at all in an entire day.

One of the arguments used had to do with over-browsing, alleging that the forage there (specifically willows, etc.) was over-eaten to the point of putting populations at risk. Nearly complete bullshit. I could go there back then and see ALL KINDS of still healthy growth in the areas we frequented.

Years into this program, I/we could hardly watch (with any accuracy) the areas we once viewed from 20 ft. off the ground, as the growth was nuts, and even larger moose were invisible in it.

During those earlier years of that program, it wasn't illegal to kill even a cow that clearly had a calf or calves with her, and many did, sometimes not taking all of the meat; we took and submitted pics to ADF&G of a cow and calf kill site one winter, with the cow still having the back-strap (New York cut) and tenderloin (fillet mignon) intact in her spine area, and the calf was left with an entire (albeit small) hind quarter laying there.

Some seasons back then, you could find a gut pile every 1/4 mile, no BS, along the Rex Trail, over 40 miles from the highway..

It's our nature as a species, in my opinion; poor self-restraint or discipline where resources are concerned.

Anyway, the State has since banned taking cows with calves. The State has also restricted the number of cow kills a fair bit, and tried to contain those permitted hunts to specific areas that are known to still have increased populations there, but many of those areas are so far out in the bush, and so difficult to get to, even with proper equipment, that, people being who and what we are, many ignore the area restrictions, kill a cow, lie about the location of their actions, and sometimes, though rarely, get busted. Jackasses one and all.

I'll abstain from further specific stories, as this is already quite lengthy, but we're not a very honorable species.

but yeah, while I like to smoke some pork ribs in a home-done dry rub, with saturation through time soaking, the prospect of a NICE, marbled, grain-fed, angus rib-eye, cooked rare as can be, over wood coals or charcoal, is one of my favorites. Mmmmm.... We ate several of them this last trip over to Aishihik Lake.

And I admit to having an addiction to 'candy from the sea'; slow smoked, low temp sockeye salmon and king salmon, smoked over freshly cut green alder. Another orgasmic food, though now containing increased levels of Cesium35 from what the news said.