It has to be admitted, your lead editor has always been drawn to aviation, even though my other interests and activities have always tended to be much more in the non-technical, natural, and sometimes esoteric, vein. As a child, I had models of all the fastest fighter planes in the US and World arsenals hanging from my bedroom ceiling, which I had just made. It was not their warfare capabilities that I was interested in, but their record-breaking performances. The first jets from 1945-52 could only go up to about 1120 kph (700 mph, less than sonic speed). Still, to think about that, at that time, it was truly amazing what was done with the technology of their day. Mach 2 aircraft, capable of traveling at twice sonic speed, or up to 2430+ kph (1520 mph), were developed in the mid to late 1950s, and were in widespread use throughout the Cold War nations by the early 1960s. I avidly read as a youth the stories of all the test pilots and astronauts, as they put themselves in great danger, and often died, in the development of the ever faster and higher-flying air and spacecraft. I also always liked to keep up with the latest developments in commercial aviation, small planes for individuals, as well as what were/are the most "advanced" large passenger jets.
And I still, to this day, avidly follow the global aviation industry/arena, though more commercially, and less militarily.
Aviation as we know it today is a global enterprise, requiring global cooperation from all nations in air traffic management, weather forecasting, communications, and pilot training. And with modern jet travel, it enables more and more people to experience and interact with others from different cultures and backgrounds, which is what we need more and more of, to help foster a more globally cohesive culture. Which will help all the nations of the World more easily come together to help solve the global problems we are now facing, warming/climatic chaos, resource depletion, environmental collapse, overpopulation, etc...
Unfortunately of course, increased and cheaper air travel, while helping to maintain and build a more globally-cohesive culture, is also contributing significantly to the very problems it can help humanity to overcome.
This article, above, gives an excellent summary of aviation's global climate change influence. We won't post all of it here, but thought the following sections of it were worthy of inclusion. We highly recommend you give the whole article a read, if you can though, it is very enlightening.
Aviation’s Contribution to Climate Change
First, how much aviation contributes to climate change is still open to debate. Several governmental and aviation industry organizations have been reporting a “less than 3 percent” number for quite some time ,while environmental groups, particularly in Europe, claim that the percentage is anywhere from 5 to 9 percent. In examining the claims and counterclaims concerning emissions of GHG, one has to be very careful about the language and the metrics used in determining the impact that any given industry will have on climate change.
Many reports and studies focus only on CO2; however, there are other gases and anthropogenic actions that exacerbate climate change. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed regulations that would require major emitters of six “greenhouse gases” to report their emissions to the EPA on an annual basis. These six greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorochemicals (PFCs), and other fluorinated 20 gases (e.g., nitrogen trifluoride and hydrofluorinated ethers [HFEs]). It also should be kept in mind when discussing climate change, especially with respect to aviation, that water vapor is estimated to contribute anywhere from 36 to 72 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is important because the radiative forcing effect of cirrus cloud formation from the aircraft is a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect. As pointed out above, it is generally accepted that for aviation the GHGs of concern are CO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx), aerosols and their precursors (soot and sulfate), and increased cloudiness in the form of persistent linear contrails and induced-cirrus cloudiness.
GHG Impacts are Broader than CO2
The predominance of CO2 as the GHG of concern leads to another issue: measurement of GHG. Many reports state their findings in terms of “CO2e,” or CO2 equivalent. Carbon dioxide equivalency is a quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of greenhouse gas, the amount of CO2 that would have the same global warming potential (GWP) when measured over a specified time scale (generally, 100 years). For example, the generally accepted GWP for methane over 100 years is 25, and for nitrous oxide 298. This means that emissions of 1 million metric tons of methane and nitrous oxide, respectively, are equivalent to emissions of 25 and 298 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. This article will keep the convention of designating GHGs other than CO2 in terms of “CO2e.”
Most reports and studies begin with the groundbreaking work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which in 1999 estimated that, based on earlier data, fuel combustion for aviation contributes approximately 2 percent to the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions inventory, and if left unmitigated, this could grow to as much as 4 percent by 2050. Despite the age of the data, the 2 percent number has been used consistently throughout the first decade of the 21st century. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) in a 2006 press release relied on the IPCC report by stating that “[a]ir transport contributes a small part of global CO2 emissions – 2 percent” (IATA press release , 2nd Aviation Environment Summit). Even as recently as September 2009, the Transportation Research Circular of the Transportation Research Board fudges the issue by stating in the section about climate change and greenhouse gases that “fuel combustion for aviation contributes approximately 2 percent to the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions inventory.” What these estimates leave aside is the fact that CO2 emissions are only one facet of the greenhouse gas equation.
The aviation industry tried to correct this in its paper Aviation and Climate Change: The Views of Aviation Industry Stakeholders published in February 2009 by stating that “greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from aviation constitute only a very small part of total U.S. GHGs, less than 3 percent.” However, the report that the paper cites, the U.S. EPA’s Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006 (April 15, 2008; 2008 EPA Inventory), only mentions emissions of CO2 in the discussion of its inventory of greenhouse gases in the creation of energy (2008 EPA Inventory, Chapter 3). Moreover, the EPA only examined the aviation sector’s combustion of fossil fuel and did not, for example, take into account the radiative forcing effect of cirrus cloud formation on climate change. When the EPA published its next inventory, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007 (March 2009; 2009 EPA Inventory), the contribution of aviation to carbon dioxide emissions increased. It estimated that when international fuels were included, domestic and international commercial, military, and general aviation flights represented about 3.4 percent of the total emissions of CO2 in the United States.
There is no question that the emission of CO2, and, for that matter, the combustion of fossil fuels, does not tell the whole story with respect to aviation. However, there are relatively few studies that focus solely on aviation and examine the effects of all GHGs and not just CO2. In 2005, Robert Sausen and a group of climate scientists published their article Aviation Radiative Forcing in 2000: An Update on IPCC (1999) (Sausen 2005). This article concluded that when NOx emissions, contrails and cirrus clouds are added into the mix, aviation’s impact on climate change is about 2 to 5 percent greater than that of CO2 alone worldwide. This would mean that aviation would have an impact on climate change in the range of 4 to 10 percent when all aspects of emissions of GHG and other radiative forcing factors are taken into account. These numbers were updated in a July 2009 article, Aviation and Global Climate Change in the 21st Century (Lee et al., 2009), which appeared in the periodical Atmospheric Environment. The authors, a group of atmospheric scientists, concluded that when aviation-induced cirrus radiative forcing is included, aviation represents 4.9 percent of total anthropogenic “radiative forcing of climate.” While these studies are not United States specific, as the EPA inventories are, since these studies consider all GHGs emitted by aviation (not just carbon dioxide), are focused entirely on the climate effect of aviation, and are based on more recent data, the conclusion that aviation contributes close to 5 percent of climate change is more accurate than the “under 2 percent” used by many in the aviation industry.
Fortunately, there are options available now to help global aviation reduce, and eventually even eliminate entirely it's "carbon footprint", i.e., rely on renewable bio-fuels, whose CO2 emissions are counteracted by the growth of new stock. The most promising source now seems to be the humble, often derided and scorned, ALGAE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel
Algae fuel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
High oil prices, competing demands between foods and other biofuel sources, and the world food crisis, have ignited interest in algaculture (farming algae) for making vegetable oil, biodiesel, bioethanol, biogasoline, biomethanol, biobutanol and other biofuels, using land that is not suitable for agriculture. Among algal fuels' attractive characteristics: they do not affect fresh water resources,[4] can be produced using ocean and wastewater, and are biodegradable and relatively harmless to the environment if spilled.[5][6][7] Algae cost more per unit mass (as of 2010, food grade algae costs ~$5000/tonne), due to high capital and operating costs,[8] yet can theoretically yield between 10 and 100 times more energy per unit area than other second-generation biofuel crops.[9] One biofuels company has claimed that algae can produce more oil in an area the size of a two car garage than a football field of soybeans, because almost the entire algal organism can use sunlight to produce lipids, or oil.[10] The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (39,000 km2) which is only 0.42% of the U.S. map.[11] This is less than 1⁄7 the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000.[12] However, these claims remain unrealized, commercially. According to the head of the Algal Biomass Organization algae fuel can reach price parity with oil in 2018 if granted production tax credits.[13]
Jet fuel
Main article: Aviation biofuel
Rising jet fuel prices are putting severe pressure on airline companies,[25] creating an incentive for algal jet fuel research. The International Air Transport Association, for example, supports research, development and deployment of algal fuels. IATA’s goal is for its members to be using 10% alternative fuels by 2017.[26]
Trials have been carried with aviation biofuel by Air New Zealand,[27] and Virgin Airlines.[28]
In February 2010, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced that the U.S. military was about to begin large-scale production oil from algal ponds into jet fuel. After extraction at a cost of $2 per gallon, the oil will be refined at less than $3 a gallon. A larger-scale refining operation, producing 50 million gallons a year, is expected to go into production in 2013, with the possibility of lower per gallon costs so that algae-based fuel would be competitive with fossil fuels. The projects, run by the companies SAIC and General Atomics, are expected to produce 1,000 gallons of oil per acre per year from algal ponds.[29]
Algae cultivation
Algae can produce up to 300 times more oil per acre than conventional crops, such as rapeseed, palms, soybeans, or jatropha. As algae have a harvesting cycle of 1–10 days, it permits several harvests in a very short time frame, a differing strategy to yearly crops (Chisti 2007). Algae can also be grown on land that is not suitable for other established crops, for instance, arid land, land with excessively saline soil, and drought-stricken land. This minimizes the issue of taking away pieces of land from the cultivation of food crops (Schenk et al. 2008). Algae can grow 20 to 30 times faster than food crops.[30]Photobioreactors
Most companies pursuing algae as a source of biofuels are pumping nutrient-laden water through plastic or borosilicate glass tubes (called "bioreactors" ) that are exposed to sunlight (and so called photobioreactors or PBR).Running a PBR is more difficult than an open pond, and more costly, but also more effective.
Algae can also grow on marginal lands, such as in desert areas where the groundwater is saline, rather than utilize fresh water.[31]
Because algae strains with lower lipid content may grow as much as 30 times faster than those with high lipid content,[32] the difficulties in efficient biodiesel production from algae lie in finding an algal strain, with a combination of high lipid content and fast growth rate, that isn't too difficult to harvest; and a cost-effective cultivation system (i.e., type of photobioreactor) that is best suited to that strain. There is also a need to provide concentrated CO2 to increase the rate of production.
Closed loop system
Another obstacle preventing widespread mass production of algae for biofuel production has been the equipment and structures needed to begin growing algae in large quantities. Maximum use of existing agriculture processes and hardware is the goal.[33]In a closed system (not exposed to open air) there is not the problem of contamination by other organisms blown in by the air. The problem for a closed system is finding a cheap source of sterile CO2. Several experimenters have found the CO2 from a smokestack works well for growing algae.[34][35] To be economical, some experts think that algae farming for biofuels will have to be done as part of cogeneration, where it can make use of waste heat, and help soak up pollution.[31][36]
Open pond
Open-pond systems for the most part have been given up for the cultivation of algae with high-oil content.[37] Many believe that a major flaw of the Aquatic Species Program was the decision to focus their efforts exclusively on open-ponds; this makes the entire effort dependent upon the hardiness of the strain chosen, requiring it to be unnecessarily resilient in order to withstand wide swings in temperature and pH, and competition from invasive algae and bacteria. Open systems using a monoculture are also vulnerable to viral infection. The energy that a high-oil strain invests into the production of oil is energy that is not invested into the production of proteins or carbohydrates, usually resulting in the species being less hardy, or having a slower growth rate. Algal species with a lower oil content, not having to divert their energies away from growth, have an easier time in the harsher conditions of an open system.These are all encouraging developments. But we need faster development and mass implementation of these new technologies for the fuel needs of all our transportation sources, aviation, shipping, and land-based. The only way this can be accelerated is through both tax credits for existing companies engaging in these efforts, and focused funding and development by our government, similar in scale and urgency to the space program in the late 1950s through early 1970s. Most of the basic research has been done, we just need the focused resources to accelerate it's development. Of course, under the current U.S. government's corporate control, this will not occur. Just one more of the many reasons why we must end "corporate personhood", and their domination of our political process.
JUST TOO MUCH
Directly related to this, the last few weeks of the federal government's debt debacle were just too much for us here at the A.P.R. We are totally disgusted by the president's abject capitulation to the demands of the psycho/sociopathic "tea-party" Republicans, to begin cutting/dismantling Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. We have been warning you for some time that most of the Democrats, and Obama in particular, are just as much beholden to the "corporatocracy" as the Republicans. This should now be crystal clear, as Glenn Greenwald lays out very succinctly in this article:
Democratic Politics in a Nutshell
Let's begin by taking note of three facts:
(1) Three days ago, Democratic Rep. John Conyers, appearing at a meeting of the Out of Poverty caucus, said: "The Republicans -- Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor -- did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that" (video here, at 1:30);
(2) The reported deal on the debt ceiling is so completely one-sided -- brutal domestic cuts with no tax increases on the rich and the likelihood of serious entitlement cuts in six months with a "Super Congressional" deficit commission -- that even Howard Kurtz was able to observe: "If there are $3 trillion in cuts and no tax hikes, Obama will have to explain how it is that the Republicans got 98 pct. of what they wanted," while Grover Norquist, the Right of the Right on such matters, happily proclaimed: "Sounds like a budget deal with real savings and no tax hikes is a go."
(1) Three days ago, Democratic Rep. John Conyers, appearing at a meeting of the Out of Poverty caucus, said: "The Republicans -- Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor -- did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that" (video here, at 1:30);
(2) The reported deal on the debt ceiling is so completely one-sided -- brutal domestic cuts with no tax increases on the rich and the likelihood of serious entitlement cuts in six months with a "Super Congressional" deficit commission -- that even Howard Kurtz was able to observe: "If there are $3 trillion in cuts and no tax hikes, Obama will have to explain how it is that the Republicans got 98 pct. of what they wanted," while Grover Norquist, the Right of the Right on such matters, happily proclaimed: "Sounds like a budget deal with real savings and no tax hikes is a go."
(3) The same White House behavior shaping the debt deal -- full embrace of GOP policies and (in the case of Social Security cuts) going beyond that -- has been evident in most policy realms from the start. It first manifested in the context of Obama's adoption of the Bush/Cheney approach to the war on civil liberties and Terrorism, which is why civil libertarians were the first to object so vocally and continuously to the Obama presidency, culminating in this amazing event from mid-2010: "Speaking at a conference of liberal activists Wednesday morning, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero didn't mince his words about the administration's handling of civil liberties issues. 'I'm going to start provocatively . . . I'm disgusted with this president,' Romero told the America's Future Now breakout session."
In other words, a slew of millionaire politicians who spent the last decade exploding the national debt with Endless War, a sprawling Surveillance State, and tax cuts for the rich are now imposing extreme suffering on the already-suffering ordinary citizenry, all at the direction of their plutocratic overlords, who are prospering more than ever and will sacrifice virtually nothing under this deal (despite their responsibility for the 2008 financial collapse that continues to spawn economic misery). And all of this will be justified by these politicians and their millionaire media mouthpieces with the obscenely deceitful slogans of "shared sacrifice" and "balanced debt reduction" -- two of the most odiously Orwellian phrases since "Look Forward, not Backward" and "2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate" (and anyone claiming that Obama was involuntarily forced by the "crazy" Tea Party into massive budget cuts at a time of almost 10% unemployment: see the actual facts here).
With those fact assembled, this morning's New York Times article -- headlined: "Rightward Tilt Leaves Obama With Party Rift" -- supplies the perfect primer for understanding Democratic Party politics. The article explains that "Mr. Obama, seeking to appeal to the broad swath of independent voters, has adopted the Republicans' language and in some cases their policies," and then lists numerous examples just from the debt debate alone (never mind all the other areas where he's done the same):
Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said polling data showed that at this point in his term, Mr. Obama, compared with past Democratic presidents, was doing as well or better with Democratic voters. "Whatever qualms or questions they may have about this policy or that policy, at the end of the day the one thing they're absolutely certain of -- they're going to hate these Republican candidates," Mr. Mellman said. "So I'm not honestly all that worried about a solid or enthusiastic base.”
In other words: it makes no difference to us how much we stomp on liberals' beliefs or how much they squawk, because we'll just wave around enough pictures of Michele Bachmann and scare them into unconditional submission. That's the Democratic Party's core calculation: from "hope" in 2008 to a rank fear-mongering campaign in 2012. Will it work? The ones who will determine if it will are the intended victims of that tactic: angry, impotent liberals whom the White House expects will snap dutifully into line no matter what else happens (even, as seems likely, massive Social Security and Medicare cuts) between now and next November.
In other words, a slew of millionaire politicians who spent the last decade exploding the national debt with Endless War, a sprawling Surveillance State, and tax cuts for the rich are now imposing extreme suffering on the already-suffering ordinary citizenry, all at the direction of their plutocratic overlords, who are prospering more than ever and will sacrifice virtually nothing under this deal (despite their responsibility for the 2008 financial collapse that continues to spawn economic misery). And all of this will be justified by these politicians and their millionaire media mouthpieces with the obscenely deceitful slogans of "shared sacrifice" and "balanced debt reduction" -- two of the most odiously Orwellian phrases since "Look Forward, not Backward" and "2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate" (and anyone claiming that Obama was involuntarily forced by the "crazy" Tea Party into massive budget cuts at a time of almost 10% unemployment: see the actual facts here).
With those fact assembled, this morning's New York Times article -- headlined: "Rightward Tilt Leaves Obama With Party Rift" -- supplies the perfect primer for understanding Democratic Party politics. The article explains that "Mr. Obama, seeking to appeal to the broad swath of independent voters, has adopted the Republicans' language and in some cases their policies," and then lists numerous examples just from the debt debate alone (never mind all the other areas where he's done the same):
No matter how the immediate issue is resolved, Mr. Obama, in his failed effort for greater deficit reduction, has put on the table far more in reductions for future years' spending, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, than he did in new revenue from the wealthy and corporations. He proposed fewer cuts in military spending and more in health care than a bipartisan Senate group that includes one of the chamber's most conservative Republicans. . . .How can the leader of the Democratic Party wage an all-out war on the ostensible core beliefs of the Party's voters in this manner and expect not just to survive, but thrive politically? Democratic Party functionaries are not shy about saying exactly what they're thinking in this regard:
But by this month, in ultimately unsuccessful talks with Speaker John A. Boehner, Mr. Obama tentatively agreed to a plan that was farther to the right than that of the majority of the fiscal commission and a bipartisan group of senators, the so-called Gang of Six. It also included a slow rise in the Medicare eligibility age to 67 from 65, and, after 2015, a change in the formula for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments long sought by economists.
Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said polling data showed that at this point in his term, Mr. Obama, compared with past Democratic presidents, was doing as well or better with Democratic voters. "Whatever qualms or questions they may have about this policy or that policy, at the end of the day the one thing they're absolutely certain of -- they're going to hate these Republican candidates," Mr. Mellman said. "So I'm not honestly all that worried about a solid or enthusiastic base.”
In other words: it makes no difference to us how much we stomp on liberals' beliefs or how much they squawk, because we'll just wave around enough pictures of Michele Bachmann and scare them into unconditional submission. That's the Democratic Party's core calculation: from "hope" in 2008 to a rank fear-mongering campaign in 2012. Will it work? The ones who will determine if it will are the intended victims of that tactic: angry, impotent liberals whom the White House expects will snap dutifully into line no matter what else happens (even, as seems likely, massive Social Security and Medicare cuts) between now and next November.
Enough of that for now, I hope if any of you who are Democrats reading this, will see now who they are really working for. Certainly not for you! There are a few exceptions of course, like Congressman Dennis Kucinich, but they are few and far between. We will NEVER vote for any Democratic politician on a national scale again.
Well, let's move on to something a little more pleasant. We'd just like to show you a few pictures from another close-at-hand area here near Anchorage, that we are fortunate enough to have quick access to, for running, hiking, and skiing.
THREE FIFTY-FUN
This was the route of a beautiful 31 km (19 mile) run we did about ten days ago, up the South Fork of the Eagle River drainage, to Symphony and Eagle lakes, with a side jaunt up Hanging Valley, on the return leg. Unfortunately, we had to leave our research assistant Homer back at the CFRC. He had a large tumor on his left front leg (which has since been removed, and he's on the mend nicely), which was impeding his mobility; this would have proven very troublesome for him on this rocky, and at times, rough route. He was unhappy about that, but he would have been more so, had he gone along.
Not more than 20 minutes after we started our run, around 1300 in the afternoon, on a beautiful sunny day, with a temperature near 17C (63F), Mattie had to pursue one of her favourite pastimes. She just has to always be in the water, when it's not frozen, no matter how dirty or muddy. And seems to really enjoy the mud. Needless to say, I had to warn others on the trail to stay away from the "Mud Monster", lest she try and give some muddy affection to them. We're always able to find some clean, clear water though, at the end of our outings, for her to clean up in.
Just about 9 km in, from the trailhead, after gently rolling along the east side of the S. Fork of the Eagle River, the trail ends up in vast piles of granitic boulders, just before reaching Eagle Lake. These went on for almost 2 km, and were quite arduous, having to stumble and scramble over. Homer would have had a very difficult, if not impossible, go of it here. As it was, I had to walk most of this part, which was partially marked by cairns. Fortunately the rocks were dry, these lichen-covered boulders can become treacherously slippery when wet. 
Beautiful little Symphony Lake was the first one we came into. It's not nearly as big, or long, as Eagle Lake, but is backed by 2000+ metre (6560 ft) peaks. Since this was only 10 km in from the trailhead, it's a fairly easy pack in, and so there were several parties camped around the lake. After sightseeing here, we next ran back over the boulder fields to Eagle Lake, which is our favourite. It is a long, glacial fed (hence that wonderful pale blue colour) lake, in a fiord-like valley, which was clearly scraped out by glaciers in the last ice age, if not sooner.
It is about 4 km in length (2.4 miles), but we weren't able to quite make it running down it's full length. A narrow trail/track on the south side of it eventually just petered out into thick berries/alder brush, forcing Mattie and I to turn back. She saw and flushed several ptarmigan in here, but they are too fast for her, fortunately.This is surely one of the most beautiful lakes in our area, backed as it is by other 2000+ metre peaks. We'll be back here quite a bit, when we have the time. It only took us about 90 minutes of running/scrambling to reach near to the end of the lake.
So we had to turn back, and head back out. But we weren't ready to give up yet. We wanted a longer run, for marathon training (I prefer at least 30K training runs, once per week, Mattie of course does 2 to 3 times whatever Homer and I do). So on the way back up the S. Fk. Eagle River trail, we headed up the Hanging Valley trail, a spur that takes you in to the little, sheltered, Hanging Valley. It was a steep ascent up a few hundred metres at first, before leveling off in the valley into a rolling, curving route.
It's a beautiful, fairly easily accessible place. We didn't make it all the way back into the head of the valley, which is backed by 1500-1800 metre peaks, and contains a small lake, we wanted to save that for an actual pack trip. It would be a fairly easy one as well, but one not too-heavily used. We saw no one else in here, even just half way in, on this saturday afternoon. After running in about 4 km, we turned round, and headed back out, ready to finish our run, and head back to Homer, at the CFRC. We were feeling a little guilty, and had to get him out for at least a decent walk, when we returned. 
The late afternoon light, coming out of Hanging Valley, was sure beautiful, on this perfect day. We don't have too many mild, sunny days like this, in South-Central Alaska summers, so this was a treasure. Light winds, and around 17-18C (63-65F).One of our favourite views though, heading back toward the trailhead, is that looking back, up the valley. Where the 2000+ metre glaciated peaks form the backdrop, looming up behind as a beautiful sheer wall of rock, snow, and ice.
What more could we ask for, on our 3:51, 31 km run/scramble? We were both a little tired, but so glad we were able to have a day like this for our outing. We wouldn't be anywhere else. Cheers.
Further up the canyon, it opens up into tall grass fields, as you gain elevation above 1500 feet. The weather up here gets progressively colder and harsher by this altitude, than down in the city below 500 feet. The real high country really teases us as we keep going up. These peaks are only around 5000 feet, but they are completely devoid of life, nothing grows on them, not even lichens or moss, it is so cold and harsh, at that altitude. 
