jennifermarohasy.com/blog - The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:

Subscribe

August 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Dec »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Archives

Authors

Site search

Please visit

Categories

Nature Photographs

Links

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Gone Fishing

I am going to take some time out from this blog to try and complete a couple of projects that I’ve started, but am having trouble finishing. So there may be no new posts here for a while.

In the meantime you can subscribe for my irregular email updates here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/subscribe/

And check the ‘Community Home’ page for updates from other readers with their nature photographs and more here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/category/community/

And here’s a picture I took of a fisher, a darter cormorant, in Kakadu National Park a few years ago.

Interestingly according to one account of life in the Lower Murray in South Australia one hundred years ago there was a bounty on cormorants (that are closely related to darters), with 34,000 taken in one year ostensibly because they ate too many fish [1].

*********
[1] Travels in Australasia, by Wandandian see page 301

26th July 1909 at Caurnamont, near Mannum

‘Birds were very scarce, though we saw one fine old spoonbill wading round the swamp and swinging his head from side to side in the peculiar fashion these birds have while feeding.

On the latter day, while out shooting, I picked up a freshly decapitated turtle of the kind called by the natives “emys,” and on meeting a fisherman enquired of him whether he had caught many, and why it was without a head.

He replied that the turtles were so destructive of fish spawn, that a scalp fee of one penny was paid on the head of each by the Government, and that he caught a good many from time to time.

On further enquiry, I found that in the past year the South Australian Government had paid over £600 in scalping fees to various people for 116,000 turtles and 34,000 cormorants, thus satisfactorily explaining why the cormorants are so shy, and look upon every man with suspicion; for when one contemplates what a hunting they must have in the course of the year to furnish such an enormous “bag,” it would be decidedly strange if they were at all otherwise. In spite of all this I saw hundreds of them on the Murray and lake waters, so that I am sure many must pour in from outside to take the place of those that are shot, and should this be the case it will be many years before their numbers are at all reduced, or the Government get anything like the full value for their money, or even justify its expenditure.’

[Back then Murray cod were plentiful despite the turtles and the cormorant though now there are no Murray cod in that stretch of river below Lock 1.]

Advertisement

3,962 Responses to “Gone Fishing”

Pages: « 170 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 [80] Show All

  1. Comment from: Debbie


    In that case I am not returning!
    Sorry Graeme,
    but if I am helping that site financially by reading it, I refuse them that privilege regardless how funny it is to watch them sqirm away from your questions.
    I would much prefer to give that privilege to this blog and others which allow for contrary but reasoned views.
    I thought Luke & Bazza could be overly judgemental and rude but following that thread at deltoid puts them in a different category.
    That Wow dude is off the planet.

  2. Comment from: Graeme M


    Yeah, I think I’ll have to give it a miss. As I say, I’m happy to be shown I am wrong but they just avoid the question entirely. Wow is downright weird. I keep thinking I must miss the point somewhere, but if the height of a tide is not the sea level at that particular time, then I have no idea what a ‘sea level is…

  3. Comment from: Debbie


    It must be whatever they say it is and definitely not anything you say it is or spangled said it was.
    But I have no more clue than you have about what on earth IT (bold) is or was or is predicted or whatever.
    Even trying to explain the behaviour has caused me to write a conflated sentence!
    Anyway, after reading cohenite’s comment, it is probably best to leave them to their own devices. I’m a bit horrified that my visits there help to finance such negative and argumentative (academic pissing contest) rubbish.

  4. Comment from: gavin


    “sea level rise played no part in Sandy”

    http://www.rtcc.org/hurricane-sandys-timely-reminder-to-take-sea-level-rise-seriously/

    http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=hp&cp=14&gs_id=1o&xhr=t&q=sea+level+rise+played+no+part+in+Sandy&pf=p&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=sea+level+rise+played+no+part+in+Sandy&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dGY&fp=def9f3f538eb70d&bpcl=40096503&biw=1366&bih=643

  5. Comment from: Graeme M


    Gav, I am not arguing that SLR did NOT have a role in Sandy’s impact. I simply asked a question at deltoid – show me the evidence. No-one could, or would. They just said that because sea level had risen, it must have. So I said, tell me what the tide height was at that moment. Because as far as I can see, the tide height would have been the major factor, not the SLR. If the actual physical sea level at that time were Sandy NOT to have occurred was the same as at say 1970, then SLR did not have any effect. And I still stand by that claim.

    But note – I am NOT saying SLR is not occurring, or that SLR at that location hasn’t occurred. And of course if we look at say the period since say 1812, then clearly sea level has risen and so Sandy had a greater impact than it would have had in 1812. But that thread was about SLR accelerating in recent times, so if the sea level was largely no different to what it might have been in 1970, then where is the argument for the enhanced impact?

    At the end of the day, for SLR to have increased Sandy’s impact, the sea level at the time of the surge had to have been at a height that was outside the range of historical sea levels (in this case, historical being say the past what, 40 years or so?). This is because we cannot pick and choose when a hurricane will strike, so when planning for its effect, we would look at the tidal range for the region and consider that the highest normal tide would be the worst impact.

    It would only be if the sea level, ie tide height, at the time the hurricane struck were outside of that ‘normal’ range that we could argue for an effect from SLR. Or so it seems to me. Just saying, here’s an average on a graph doesn’t tell me anything about what the ACTUAL sea level was at the time of Sandy. If it had been dead low tide, it would have been at a lower level than the mean sea level for that location, unless the SLR had exceeded the range from lowest low water to mean sea level.

    So, I asked if the predicted tide height at the time of Sandy was any different. And did that set them off. And so now, I have no idea if my take has any credibility. It makes sense to me, but clearly not them…

  6. Comment from: gavin


    GM; after reading reading your reply again, I need to ask if you have considered the driving force and the duration of Sandy?

    Through the period Sandy was building prior to hitting the US coastline, it’s impact would be felt over a number of tides and the surge would extend to land long before the eye crossed the coast. Also, seawater would be dumped in surounding areas as heavy rain lifting stream flows dramaticly. Shorelines being inundated from both directions must raise the float gauges right through.

    Most important though, is the energy factor. As this weather event spreads through the atmosphere, it takes charge of surface conditions till all that energy is dissapated. Hot water was key to this storm and this is best viewed by storm extent from above

  7. Comment from: cohenite


    SST did not play a part in Sandy:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/an-inconvenient-truth-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-along-sandys-track-havent-warmed-in-70-years/#comment-1137128

    The Sandy surge was not historically exceptional:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/01/hurricane-sandys-unprecedented-storm-surge/

    And sea levels were not a factor:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/part-2-of-on-sallenger-et-al-2012-hotspot-of-accelerated-sea-level-rise-on-the-atlantic-coast-of-north-america/

    Thank you Bob!

  8. Comment from: Graeme M


    Gav, remember I am not trying to disprove the effects of SLR in terms of Sandy, rather I was after evidence that SLR DID make Sandy worse. Now, you have said

    “Through the period Sandy was building prior to hitting the US coastline, it’s impact would be felt over a number of tides and the surge would extend to land long before the eye crossed the coast. Also, seawater would be dumped in surounding areas as heavy rain lifting stream flows dramaticly. Shorelines being inundated from both directions must raise the float gauges right through.”

    I’m still not sure what point you are making. Any time there is a large storm there is a storm surge. That means a higher sea level at the relevant coastline than would otherwise be the case for that time and place.

    All I am saying is that had the storm NOT struck, what would the sea level have been? Let’s take several days either side of the storm’s arrival. What would the normal tidal range be for that period? There is a maximum high water and a minimum low water for that period.

    Were those numbers outside of the normal range of tides for that time? I don’t know, I was just asking the question. But if the maximum tide height for that coastline in 1970 (discounting other storm surges – ie a ‘normal’ tide) was 1.5 metres, and the maximum tide height in the period sandy struck was within a few cm of that, then how could you argue SLR played a part?

    Now, it is PROBABLY true that the tide height WAS above the historic numbers, so SLR may very well have had an impact. I was merely posing the question. And I would still like to know.

  9. Comment from: Graeme M


    By the way, when I say ‘tide height’ I mean the actual physical height of the sea at high tide, relative to the land. Because surely that is the determining factor, not a graph of mean sea levels?

    I thought tide gauge data would show us that, but apparently that is measured against mean lower low water.

    But in effect, what I am posing is the same issue SD raises. Regardless of tide gauge data or statistical means etc, what height is max tide reaching at a given coastline over time. If it hasn’t increased in 70 years, then what real effect has AGW driven SLR had?

  10. Comment from: Graeme M


    By the way, when I say ‘tide height’ I mean the actual physical height of the sea at high tide, relative to the land. Because surely that is the determining factor, not a graph of mean sea levels?

    I thought tide gauge data would show us that, but apparently that is measured against mean lower low water.

    But in effect, what I am posing is the same issue SD raises. Regardless of tide gauge data or statistical means etc, what height is max tide reaching at a given coastline over time. If it hasn’t increased in 70 years, then what real effect has AGW driven SLR had?

  11. Comment from: Graeme M


    I know Jen wants to close this thread off, so I shall make any new comments in the new thread.

  12. Comment from: jennifer


    Thanks Graeme M. This thread is now closed.

Pages: « 170 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 [80] Show All