California Burning

Not modeling but could have an effect..

Watching the news a few minutes ago, they showed a wild fire within 7 miles of Napa. Hopefully, Dave and his family are in a safe location. Also they showed many other wild fires that were apparently started by dry lightning. Some of those fires appeared to be near Livermore, Patterson and in the coastal range. I sure hope they can get them contained. I remember the 1987 Stanislaus National Forrest fire that chocked the central valley so full of smoke you couldn't even go outside. Everyone pray for California. The Governator should now be making a speech on T.V.


Jim Pollock [photo not recovered: cry.gif]

A true California Prune Picker....Born in Berkeley

This is just "standard routine" for us every year. If we don't get enough rain then the fire season will be bad. If we get to much rain then the fire season will be bad. No matter how you cut it, we're screwed.

Bill,

800 fires is NOT normal. I remember growing up in Modesto in the 1950's, 1960's and so on that wild and forest fires did happen, but never that many at a single time. In fact the worst air we had to worry about in those days were from the smudge pots in the peach orchards during cold snaps. The same thing occurred in So Cal with the citrus crops.

Jim Pollock

>Bill,
>
>800 fires is NOT normal. I remember growing up in Modesto in
>the 1950's, 1960's and so on that wild and forest fires did
>happen, but never that many at a single time. In fact the
>worst air we had to worry about in those days were from the
>smudge pots in the peach orchards during cold snaps. The same
>thing occurred in So Cal with the citrus crops.
>
>Jim Pollock

Had dinner with David's mom Sunday night after flying with him that morning. By both accounts the fires are visible but across an intervening range from their location. David's home is well sequestered from trees, foilage, etc. and is unlikely to be vulnerable(though not impossibly). As of then they were aware but not overtly concerned (Mom moreso than David).

Ted

p.s. No, it's not normal for us here. Many fires have been attributed to "dry" lightning during a recent "very" hot spell. I wasn't aware of any but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. I'm, frankly, a bit surprised the media hasn't raised the "arson" flag, given the large number of fires and the fact they were sometimes closely located in "clusters".

> Many fires have been
>attributed to "dry" lightning during a recent
>"very" hot spell. I wasn't aware of any but that
>doesn't mean they didn't happen. I'm, frankly, a bit
>surprised the media hasn't raised the "arson" flag,
>given the large number of fires and the fact they were
>sometimes closely located in "clusters".

Some of them may have been arson, particularly the fires in the Santa Cruz mts., but I can confirm that on Saturday afternoon there definitely what seemed to be thunder from the direction of Gilroy/Morgan Hill. Saturday afternoon weather in the south bay looked very strange - it was on the same trajectory as Friday (pretty high but not ridiculous temps (102 at my house outside), but very humid for around here). It was 87 degrees at 9 o'clock and got to 94 by 11 - and then started clouding up and the temps went down. That afternoon it looked more like Nebraska than it did the bay area - puffy cumulus in the mornting and afternoon heating towering cumulus to the south, overcast, and at times, dark. There was a lot of virga and the aforementioned lightning to the south. That's exceptionally unusual.

Brett

Brett,
Sounds like typical Tucson summer "Monsoon". Happens nearly every day here in the summer time, although the Temps may go a little higher than that.

Randy C

It would be awful to have finally finished a new airplane and then have it burn up with your house a couple of weeks later. If Phillip's house goes up, I can imagine him running into the inferno to rescue his clearcoat.

Howard (got mine in the safe deposit box) Rush
Bellevue, WA

>Howard (got mine in the safe deposit box) Rush

So get it out and use it!!! Soon

>> Many fires have been
>>attributed to "dry" lightning during a recent
>>"very" hot spell. I wasn't aware of any but
>that
>>doesn't mean they didn't happen. I'm, frankly, a bit
>>surprised the media hasn't raised the "arson"
>flag,
>>given the large number of fires and the fact they were
>>sometimes closely located in "clusters".
>
> Some of them may have been arson, particularly the fires
>in the Santa Cruz mts., but I can confirm that on Saturday
>afternoon there definitely what seemed to be thunder from the
>direction of Gilroy/Morgan Hill. Saturday afternoon weather in
>the south bay looked very strange - it was on the same
>trajectory as Friday (pretty high but not ridiculous temps
>(102 at my house outside), but very humid for around here). It
>was 87 degrees at 9 o'clock and got to 94 by 11 - and then
>started clouding up and the temps went down. That afternoon it
>looked more like Nebraska than it did the bay area - puffy
>cumulus in the mornting and afternoon heating towering cumulus
>to the south, overcast, and at times, dark. There was a lot of
>virga and the aforementioned lightning to the south. That's
>exceptionally unusual.
>
> Brett
>
Years ago I worked for a company that mfg. electric fencers.
Lightning was a real problem with them.
They hired some consultants and were told by them that it does not have to be dark and cloudly for lightning to occur.
When traveling through the country you would see lightning rods on
almost all houses and barns.
Im told some people made a living going around and for a small fee
they would plug a weird machine with lots of meters and knobs,into your lightning rod circuit and recharge them !

>Bill,
>
>800 fires is NOT normal. I remember growing up in Modesto in
>the 1950's, 1960's and so on that wild and forest fires did
>happen, but never that many at a single time. In fact the
>worst air we had to worry about in those days were from the
>smudge pots in the peach orchards during cold snaps. The same
>thing occurred in So Cal with the citrus crops.
>
>Jim Pollock

I never said nor indicated the # of fires that were burning. What I was referring to is the fact that we go through this EVERY year in one part of the state or another. Might not be 800 but it doesn't really matter. You have all the people that insist on building their homes in the forest and then refuse to cut the brush back because then their house might be seen. After the fire their homes, if they didn't burn down, can darn sure be seen. Fires are a tragedy waiting to happen. Down here where I live it is the Santa Ana winds to contend with. The media hypes up the fact that they are going to blow so as to give plenty of time for the knuckleheads to get their matches and go to work. But it is a fact that no matter how much rain we get it is going to burn. If we don't get enough then it dries out sooner. If we get to much then we have a explosion of grass and brush growth to contend with. If you don't agree with me, fine. Have it your way.

Here is a Newsweek article. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2007/10/25/why-california_2700_s-wildfires-are-america_2700_s-future.aspx

Bill,

I didn't disagree with you, just pointed out how many were burning and the number wasn't normal. I would agree that there are too many houses being build where the vegetation around them can burn and also get the structures caught up into it.

Jim Pollock

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/23/800-california-wildfires_n_108803.html

5,000 to 6,000 lightning strikes and 800 fires in this past weekend alone.

Calif and Oregon get their share of hits but usually it is later in the summer and just before our winter storms hit. Sometimes we get lucky and there is enough rain along with it to extinquish most of them. Unfortunately not this past weekend.

I think this page shows you those in the past hour.
Kind of local to Calif
http://www.sloweather.com/lightning.htm

US wide
http://www.weather.com/maps/activity/golf/uslightningstrikes_large.html

The Napa fire started in a hill range just behind our house. It is about 4-5 miles as the crow flies, so it was very close. As of today, it is still only 65% contained, but under control and doesn't threaten any more structures. 3500 acres so far. The kids and I sat on the back patio and watched the fire bombers all afternoon, they eventually got the DC-10 bomber out. A bunch of S-2's and helicopters. Quite the airshow.

I was not overly concerned becaue the wind on Saturday and the normal prevailing wind would take the fire away from us. A lot of smoke is still hanging in the valley.

Howard, I did think about what to put in the car to evacuate, right after the new plane and tool box, would be the kids, Kathy, then a bunch of other stuff...

Nice dave real nice.


we know your kidding. but does she?

Dave jr.

Glad everyone seems to be safe.

My friend in the Carson Valley ( below Tahoe ) says he can't see much because of all the smoke...

> My friend in the Carson Valley ( below Tahoe ) says he can't
>see much because of all the smoke...


The sunlight around the South bay has been anomalously yellowish for the last couple of days.

Brett

I got to watch seven or eight lightning strikes up on Pacheco Pass Saturday while at work could believe there werent any fires up there

>I got to watch seven or eight lightning strikes up on Pacheco
>Pass Saturday while at work could believe there werent any
>fires up there


I never saw any lightning but I heard some. I can't imagine a lightning strike not setting a fire in the Pacheco Pass - it's got to be like gunpowder up on the hills this time of the year (particularly given that it got to 105+ degrees the day before).

Brett

>> My friend in the Carson Valley ( below Tahoe ) says he
>can't
>>see much because of all the smoke...
>
>
> The sunlight around the South bay has been anomalously
>yellowish for the last couple of days.
>
> Brett
>

Wow Brett,
ANOMALOUSLY....Good word! Nice to read about model airplanes and increase one's vocabularly at the same time.

Just pulling your chain!!!


Randy C

Who will be the first politician to blame this on global warming?
Jim

As a nativce of So. Calif., I was at one time a volunteer providing emergency mobile communications during wildfires. Seemed like every couple years, most of the Malibu area would go up in flames, along with many expensive homes belonging to "movie stars".

We sometimes forget that So. Cal. is naturally a desert, but lots of water from the Colorado River (and the Calif. Aqueduct)keeps it green, sort of. When the balance is disturbed, it reverts back into desert and becomes a target for fire. Not so critical in the north, but conditions of hot dry winds from the San Joaquin Valley can dry out the bay area in a hurry.

Floyd now in OR

>Who will be the first politician to blame this on global
>warming?

Well, ironically, one thing that I have noticed this year is that the average temperatures are generally lower than usual. By this time of year it's almost always upper-mid 80s, frequently in the 90s and at least not unexpectedly in the 100s. Most of the days this month have peaked in the high 70's and it's been downright chilly quite a few days when I went outside at lunchtime.

The irony is that this, too, is explained by "global warming" experts. Just like they predicted catastrophic increase in hurricanes from global warming, then got virtually none, then "retro-explained" that this was also to be expected. So, yes, they can't predict what happens next month or next year, but they are certain they can predict what will happen in 50 years.

So global warming climate models predict both more frequent and less frequent hurricanes, both higher and lower local temperatures, both the advance and retreat of polar ice, both the extinction and overabundance of polar bears (whose populations are growing so rapidly the hunting quotas in Canada are being raised and the number of nuisance bears shot has gone up exponentially). Global warming climate models are so amazing that they can predict ANYTHING, including things that contradict each other!

Brett

>>Who will be the first politician to blame this on global
>>warming?
>
> Well, ironically, one thing that I have noticed this year
>is that the average temperatures are generally lower than
>usual. By this time of year it's almost always upper-mid 80s,
>frequently in the 90s and at least not unexpectedly in the
>100s. Most of the days this month have peaked in the high 70's
>and it's been downright chilly quite a few days when I went
>outside at lunchtime.
>
> The irony is that this, too, is explained by "global
>warming" experts. Just like they predicted catastrophic
>increase in hurricanes from global warming, then got virtually
>none, then "retro-explained" that this was also to
>be expected. So, yes, they can't predict what happens next
>month or next year, but they are certain they can predict what
>will happen in 50 years.
>
> So global warming climate models predict both more
>frequent and less frequent hurricanes, both higher and lower
>local temperatures, both the advance and retreat of polar ice,
>both the extinction and overabundance of polar bears (whose
>populations are growing so rapidly the hunting quotas in
>Canada are being raised and the number of nuisance bears shot
>has gone up exponentially). Global warming climate models are
>so amazing that they can predict ANYTHING, including things
>that contradict each other!
>
> Brett

Isn't "Pseudo Science" marvelous.....set a hypothesis....jump to a conclusion then say the evidence supports whatever you said....whether it does or not. Maybe that should be called "Political Science".....o'migod is that a pun. Sorry.


Randy C

Part of our problem is that climate science is considerably more complex than, for example, rocket science, and thus not as well understood. On a broad scale, Climate also affects our lives more than rockets do, so there is a political response to any pronouncement about climate. For example, Canada is considering shutting down polar bear hunting, which would have negative economic consequences, etc. for many of the people involved. On a broader scale, little if any thing of cosmic consequence is going to be done in response to pronouncements about climate change. So, don't worry, be happy!

>Part of our problem is that climate science is considerably
>more complex than, for example, rocket science, and thus not
>as well understood. On a broad scale, Climate also affects
>our lives more than rockets do, so there is a political
>response to any pronouncement about climate. For example,
>Canada is considering shutting down polar bear hunting, which
>would have negative economic consequences, etc. for many of
>the people involved. On a broader scale, little if any thing
>of cosmic consequence is going to be done in response to
>pronouncements about climate change. So, don't worry, be
>happy!

While I do agree with you for the most part, I don't think climate science is more complicated than rocket science just more politicized.
Since there is less data, the politicians and Pseudo scientists feel more secure in misinterpreting the data that does exist.
I personally know several would be astronomers and a couple of would be engineers who have become "Climatologists" because they couldn't cut it in physics. It's much easier to form opinions if you don't have to base them on facts and can just sell conjecture.

Randy C

>Part of our problem is that climate science is considerably
>more complex than, for example, rocket science, and thus not
>as well understood.

Well, as a simple-minded rocket scientist I would say that if it's so complex and poorly understood, making bullsh*t predictions with absolute certainty would appear to be irresponsible. As does demanding massive expensive and massively intrusive changes to ensure that the prediction doesn't come true. As does the suggestion of putting those who don't "believe" on trial for heresy, er, global warming denial, er, spreading misinformation about climate change.

Here's a thought experiment, suppose we invented a machine tomorrow that could absorb every molecule of CO2 we wanted. There's a dial on the side of the machine that sets how much CO2 it will allow in the atmosphere. But once set, it can't be changed for 100 years . What you set it to? 200 PPM? 300PPM? 50PPM? Do you even dare to turn it on - because if you guess wrong you have screwed it up far worse than if you had left it alone?


Now, modify the experiment. Now the machine can be adjusted at any time you want to any set point, and works instantly. You start out with it set to 50 PPM because you are "really worried about global warming". Over the next three months you get an indication that the global temperature is *falling* at a rate extrapolated to about 1 degree per decade. It keeps doing that for the next 50 years. When you decide to turn it back up to prevent it from getting too low? How much do you turn it back up? Say you decide after 50 years to turn it back up to 200, but the temperature continues down. Do you turn it up more, or do you wait for it to react to the change? At 100 years, it's still low but slowing down. How long to you wait then, and which way to you turn the dial? After 100 years of being low, you note that the earth's albedo is going up from all the ice being formed at the poles, and exacerbating the cooling by reflecting more sunlight. Do you turn the machine up to 400 to melt the ice, then start over?

The answer to those questions are all "we don't know" because once you provide a disturbance into the (as you admit, exceedingly complex and poorly understood) system, you have no idea how to control it. It may well turn out (and almost certainly is) a system with multiple complex poles and natural periods on the order of millennia. That's certainly what is suggested by paleoclimatology.

Now, forget about the hypothetical CO2 machine, take the same reasoning and apply it to any other artificial method of CO2/greenhouse gas control (like regulating emissions for only the developed countries and draconian standards for industrial and personal carbon use). The answer is the same - we don't know enough to know if reducing the anthropogenic CO2 will help, hurt, or do nothing, nor do we have any idea what we need to do to adjust it in a closed-loop manner.

So, to summarize, it *is* a complex and poorly-understood system, with evidence of self-regulatory features over the history of the earth. Current predictive models are essentially worthless as they have successively predicted global cooling, global warming, enhanced hurricane formation, reduced hurricane formation, higher local temperatures, lower local temperatures, all in contradiction. We don't understand it - which is precisely why we shouldn't attempt to provide additional essentially random disturbances.

If your argument is that it's so uncertain as to not comport to the rules of the scientific debate, then fine, just call it a cult and be done with it.


Brett

Brett,
It's useless to try to inject intelligent considerations into "pseudo science". Like most other things "liberals" embrace they just Know they're right. Confusing the issue with facts just annoys them.

Randy C

PS: this is not intended to indicate that anyone involved here is a "Liberal".

Like most other things
>"liberals" embrace the just Know they're right.

Well, college professors told us what to think, and they're the academic authorities on what to do in real life, so it must be true.

Besides, there's no need to pick on liberals right now - they are already having a pretty bad day.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html#cnnSTCText

(although why we ever needed in interpretation of something so clearly stated in the first place is beyond me...).

Brett

And, of course, you must always remember that many of the same twits now postulating "Global Warming" are the same ones who were warning us of a "New Ice Age" in 1974. It's also necessary to remember that there is considerable evidence that the climate was much warmer in the 14th century than it is even now, and they didn't even have AlGore to educate them of the "fact"!

The paper this AM said ofver 700 wildfires burning in CA today!
IF global warming is a fact, which I don't believe, I do think that the destruction of rain forests is a real problem for the future. I became aware of the effect of rain forests when on a vacation in the US Virgin Islands and found out that all their water is now brought in by barge since the sugar plantation builders cut down all the trees to make room for sugar, thank you Great Britain. No more trees, no more updrafts to slow down the trade winds and cause the precipitation.
Now if you compare rain forests at the turn of the 20th century to now, it's really scary. I saw a National Geographic article about it quite a few years ago.

Lastly, Al Gore is a blithering idiot IMO!


don Burke
Menifee, CA
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming, WOO HOO, What a Ride!

>Lastly, Al Gore is a blithering idiot IMO
Sorry, can't buy into that. Al is many things(hipocrit, liar, inventor of the internet,all around political crook, etc.) but he is not stupid.
Do we have any idea how much money he has made off this hoax-got to be brazilions. And a Nobel prize to boot.
Excuse me, I have to go throw up.
Jim

Agreed! He's a RICH idiot!
don Burke
Menifee, CA
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming, WOO HOO, What a Ride!

In my estimation... Al Gore is the modern day Dan Quale!

Jim Pollock

As a CENTRAL CALIFORNIA resident ,which means near Fresno,California

it is interesting to note that after a trip to Dodger Stadium last night

(Southern California) that there were blue skies and no smoke!

California is a large State(I know ,I know not as big as Texas) so when

there are lots of fires this does not by any means indicate the whole

state is burning.

I was in the process of picking up my youngest daughter at UC Santa

Cruz when we noticed the smoke coming from the hill not far from the

College, It is hard to believe that all 800 fires were started by

lightning. Given the temperatures were 110 in the Central Valley a week

or so ago and the winds were blowing this makes for an ideal setting

for the fires to go wild.


In summary California is a large state both is length and width

I live right in the middle and will be glad when the smoke clears.

For Warren Walker and my buds is Southern California enjoy your blue

sky!

Hi Walter,

As an ex central valley resident ( Modesto, Fresno and Ceres)
I used to watch the weather on Channel 3 in Sacramento back in the 70's. The WX man at the time was a huge expert on how things happened in the valley. He watched the pressure difference at sea level between the coastal areas and the valley. When the heating got the difference to a certain point he would predict, the winds would blow and they sure did! Sometimes even cooling of as far south as Fresno, but not always. I really have missed my good buddy from Fresno that died of Leukemia about 1973 - Lon Cooper. Oh well, such happens in life.

Jim Pollock

>> My friend in the Carson Valley ( below Tahoe ) says he
>can't
>>see much because of all the smoke...
>
>
> The sunlight around the South bay has been anomalously
>yellowish for the last couple of days.
>
> Brett
>

As well as ominously.

ted

Engineers spent little time in English class.

Floyd

HEY! We spent the time (HAD TO!), just didn't pay too much attention!
don Burke
Menifee, CA
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming, WOO HOO, What a Ride!

>Engineers spent little time in English class.

Uh, anomalously is definitely a word and the word I intended. The adverb form of anomalous.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=anomalously

Brett

Brett,
I don't think anyone intended to imply that it was not a word....certainly I did not. It is however one that is not used very often which is why I said one could improve one's vocabularly here.
Randy C

Should we perhaps consider refraining from postulating our theories via superfluous circumloutions?

(Alright, I'm just yanking everyone's chain there.)

Mike Keville [photo not recovered: devil.gif]

Now for the liberal view……It’s nice to know “Manifest Destiny” is alive and well.

I remember when I was a 21 year old senior in the theoretical mathematics department. We thought engineers were lightweights. I’ve mellowed over the years.

I too listen to the “Weatherperson?” every Sunday before I take the fifty mile trek to Woodland. I’m always apprehensive because when they say winds 5-15 often means 30. To model all the permutations and parameters of the weather on a global scale is just too big a job at this time, even for Brett.

Now I’ll go find a stake and you go find the firewood.

Lewdog3

My own thought is that we should do things to thwart global warming which make sense to do anyway, or at least should do no harm. Energy conservation, alternate sources; etc. I don't think any of the proposed draconian measures will actually be put in place.

I had a couple of climatology courses back in the mid-50's, and thus know enough to recognize my own ignorance.

Brett's questions are good ones, but beyond my knowledge to answer. When I took climatology, climate was defined as the average weather over the last 40 years. So the fact that I had a mild winter, a relatively cool spring and and a hot dry summer so far has very little effect on the nature of the climate here.

There are a large number of websites on climate change, giving all viewpoints. Some are more authoritative than others. I would suggest those interested should google around, and I've said all I want to say because I would rather talk about model airplanes on this forum.

A good start to combat global warming, put out all the fires....

I know, no big words. Enineering...

Common sense is always a good substitute for government regulation!

don Burke
Menifee, CA
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming, WOO HOO, What a Ride!

“My own thought is that we should do things to thwart global warming which make sense to do anyway, or at least should do no harm. . . .”

I agree. Soda pop and beer contain a lot of carbon dioxide. So does flatulence, exhaled breath, and belches.

So, a sedentary CL flyer who drinks iced tea is about even with a marathoner who eats beans and drinks champagne.

Larry Fulwider

>Should we perhaps consider refraining from postulating our
>theories via superfluous circumloutions?
>
>(Alright, I'm just yanking everyone's chain there.)
>
>Mike Keville [photo not recovered: devil.gif]

Oops, Mikey. Left out a "c" there.

(signed)
your 67th grade spelling teacher

>>Should we perhaps consider refraining from postulating
>our
>>theories via superfluous circumloutions?
>>
>>(Alright, I'm just yanking everyone's chain there.)
>>
>>Mike Keville [photo not recovered: devil.gif]
>
>Oops, Mikey. Left out a "c" there.
==============================================

Really? WHERE?

M.K. [photo not recovered: devil.gif]

>>>Should we perhaps consider refraining from
>postulating
>>our
>>>theories via superfluous circumloutions?
>>>
>>>(Alright, I'm just yanking everyone's chain there.)
>>>
>>>Mike Keville [photo not recovered: devil.gif]
>>
>>Oops, Mikey. Left out a "c" there.
>==============================================
>
>Really? WHERE?
>
>M.K. [photo not recovered: devil.gif]

Hmmm? Perhaps the little "c" in the second half of circumlo(C)utions

Ted

. . . the little "c" in the second half of circumlo(C)utions...
===============================================================

Ooops! I never knew there was another 'c' in that word. Been mis-spelling it for years. Thanx for the heads-up.

Mike Keville

>>Engineers spent little time in English class.
>
> Uh, anomalously is definitely a word and the word I
>intended. The adverb form of anomalous.
>
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=anomalously
>
> Brett

Uh, my only point was that although the condition was, indeed, anomalous, the resulting appearance was ominous.

Ted (never mistaken for a rocket scientist)Fancher

>>>Engineers spent little time in English class.
>>
>> Uh, anomalously is definitely a word and the word I
>>intended. The adverb form of anomalous.
>>
>>http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=anomalously
>>
>> Brett
>
>Uh, my only point was that although the condition was, indeed,
>anomalous, the resulting appearance was ominous.
>
Guess it's a good thing I didn't respond to *your* post then.

Brett

Back in the mid-50's when I was trying to become an engineer, my curriculum included four semesters of English.

>Back in the mid-50's when I was trying to become an engineer,
>my curriculum included four semesters of English.

Back in the mid-60's, my engineering major came with an English minor. Well, not really, but it would have if they had offered a minor to go along with the Engineering degree. I had all the courses!

Bill