- The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:


August 2012
« Jul   Dec »




Site search

Please visit


Nature Photographs


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:

And check the ‘Community Home’ page for updates from other readers with their nature photographs and more here:

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.]


3,962 Responses to “Gone Fishing”

Pages: « 154 55 56 57 58 [59] 60 61 62 63 6480 » Show All

  1. Comment from: gavin

    Reputable items on Krakatoa (the big one with records) for those interested

  2. Comment from: Polyaulax

    Robert,I think the thing with Laki,and all the ‘cooler’ eruptions is high altitude injection of aerosols and SO2. Laki went on for eight months at high volume and in particular sustained a high output of SO2 and aerosols which must have reached the high atmosphere and dimmed part of the planet. I’m not exactly sure of the timing [seems like an early June start] but I read it straddled1783-1784,so that it did most of its stuff after the summer equinox,and amplified natural seasonal cooling dramatically. Then again I read that summer was hazy and hot in England but hazy and cool in the US. Perhaps the jet stream was interrupted bringing in low latitude heat under the high aerosol fog in the UK.

    I just looked at the CET annual mean figures from 1772. 1782 was anomalously cold,1783 only a little [maybe the hot summer countered the winter]. Then 1784,85,86 were very cold [the high altitude SO2 and dust falling out slowly],and the whole decade was on the low side. I don’t know what happened in 1798,but 1799 was very cold . This is suggesting that there was significant vulcanism at times in those decades as well as the effect of the Dalton Minimum. Pre and post Tambora was just as bad. The other stand out cold period is 1835-40 and a Nicaraguan volcano has been fingered for that.

    This is an interesting paper that documents eruptions in the first half of the 1800s,their temperature effects and their effect on sunspot observing days.

  3. Comment from: gavin

    Poly: the story of Krakatoa and it’s impact in our region has changed very little during my time. I came across it first in some kids book way back and was impressed by the numbers lost and the greater distance of it’s bang and wave records.

    From the history in msm, we don’t need science to show us the world and it’s climate copped a beating. It is also easy to imaging difference between ours and the NH climate change as other volcanoes erupted through time. These terrestrial driven changes would appear be short lived however making backwards climate investigation difficult.

    This outline is good enough without too much conjecture.

  4. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Cohers, those goal posts may not be real but they sure can be changed at any time.

    I find it fascinating how, when Hadcrut3 won’t show the desired effect, it morphs into Hadcrut4.

    “Only the future is certain, the past may change at any time.”

    La legenda continua…

  5. Comment from: spangled drongo

    A hadley that gav would love. Back to where it was 350 y ago:

  6. Comment from: Debbie

    The unfolding story today on the MDBP via MSM

  7. Comment from: kuhnkat


    if you haven’t already run across it this paper is quite interesting. It agrees with G&T but shows me wrong. The flawed Halpern paper was rejected, but, eventually published without correcting the flaws!! Gotta love that Climate Gatekeeping!!

    Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact Kramm Dlugi

    It was mentioned on this interesting thread:

    and for Little Lukey and Polywog:

  8. Comment from: spangled drongo

    KK, interesting link to Tallbloke and Stephen Wilde’s discussion on why the GHE doesn’t warm the planet.

    In the Channel Country in central Aust, isolated waterholes surrounded by hot red deserts are freezing cold in the middle of summer even in relentless temperatures well in excess of 40c [100f+]. These waterholes never warm up and they are small potatoes compared with oceans.

    “The radiative Greenhouse Effect is a flea on the back of an oceanic elephant and the influence of CO2 but a microbe on the back of the flea and the influence of anthropogenic CO2 but a molecule on the back of the microbe.”

    Says it all, really.

  9. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    anyone coming from a farming background knows how cold dam water can be even in the middle or end of summer, apart from the top 2 or 3 inches. Some substantial depth, taken for granted of course but nothing compared to the sea.

  10. Comment from: Polyaulax

    JW, some farm dams and waterholes are going to be hard to heat because they can be small and relatively deep, sitting in sheltered gullies without much wind, and without mixing they stratify. Large bodies of water get overturned by wind action,and of course if they get to sea size they’ll have currents and upwellings driven by wind trends and elevation differences. If your dam is any where on the tablelands, nights are always cooler than on the coast,and you know how frosty it gets. The stratified water just radiates to space at night so the heating restricted to the surface layer has to start from scratch the next day.

  11. Comment from: Robert

    I just thought of an ingenious way to heat a swimming pool. It may not work, but it’s ingenious.

  12. Comment from: el gordo

    ‘The retreat from El Niño thresholds over the past several weeks is considered highly unusual, as September–October is typically the time when developing El Niño (or La Niña) events consolidate and mature. While some chance of El Niño remains, climate models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology suggest sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean are likely to be warmer than average, but stay within the neutral range for the rest of 2012 and early 2013.’


    Highly unusual sounds pretty ominous, must be gorebull worming.

  13. Comment from: Polyaulax

    KK,you have read SOD’s piece on Kramm and Dlugi? Essentially he thinks their paper is fluff, his tone is sarcastic. For instance,he “thanks” them point by point for the irrelevant material they introduce. His first look at K & D is worth reading. He notes the problem that the paper presents for those from the “reject the GHE because it violates the 2nd law” camp.

  14. Comment from: spangled drongo

    “Large bodies of water get overturned by wind action,”

    You could have that wrong, Poly?

    I think you’ll find that wind only mixes the surface water which is possibly made even cooler by evaporation. Ever been swimming in a strong wind? Freezing!

  15. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    Large bodies of water get overturned by wind action, and of course if they get to sea size they’ll have currents and upwellings driven by wind trends and elevation differences.

    I think you might have to rethink the wind overturning a large amount of water?

    Unless you mean shallow waters of wast expanse but hardly an ocean?

  16. Comment from: cohenite

    “Large bodies of water get overturned by wind action,and of course if they get to sea size they’ll have currents and upwellings driven by wind trends and elevation differences.”

    That is the AGW solution to the obvious fact that backradiation cannot proviude or transfer heat from the atmosphere radiatively to the ocean; it is problematic:

  17. Comment from: Polyaulax

    Yes,you’re right,I should not have used ‘overturned’ so generally, it’s clearly wrong. Large shallow lakes can be mixed by strong prevailing winds. And also certainly, wind driven waves do a lot of mixing of the upper ocean layer that is not available to small bodies of water. Ocean overturning, which involves huge volumes but is impossibly slow because of vast volumes,is driven by a whole bag of forces including wind as a co-instigator of currents. Temperature differential and salinity changes do the deeper currents but they must communicate functionally with surface current work in places.

    SD perhaps a strong wind might drive evaporation to lower the skin layer temperature,but heat flows from the warm water a few molecules below? What feels immediately cold is the evaporative cooling effect on human skin sensation.

    ‘The AGW solution’? I thought general climate theory supported the heating of the oceans by solar radiation, wind/current/etc thermohaline overturning helping to move that heat into the ocean. Why would AGW disagree with that? Those mechanisms will always be at work. The major thing that is enhanced in EGHE is the opacity of the atmosphere to IR. Moving the average net radiative layer higher so the layers closest to the surface warm. Then perhaps an enhanced downwelling IR factor will affect the skin layer thermal gradient,reducing heat conduction and enhancing the classical heating effects.

  18. Comment from: Debbie

    It’s all very interesting and very high tech.
    However, the theory is not playing out in reality.
    No one is arguing that things don’t change or that the weather/climate isn’t fascintaing or interesting.
    The ACO2 ‘global’ signal is the point of disagreement.
    While it’s possible to statistically represent it as a ‘presence’, in reality it does not appear to be a ‘catastrophic’ or ‘harmful’ presence.
    Trying to explain away the impacts of far greater influences is not really achieving anything worthwhile.
    Even the ‘correlation’ attempts are only appearing in models.
    Real time data is not supporting either postdictive or predictive modelling that contains ACO2 forcings to any ‘alarming’ degree.
    Making rules & regs designed on this modelling is not proving to be a worthwhile experiment.
    But, the theory is nonetheless compelling and it’s all academically interesting.

  19. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Poly, I was making the point that the freezing, evaporative sensation felt on the skin is exactly what is happening to the water surface.

    How this simple negative feedback enormously overwhelms any radiation effect in even the hottest of weather.

  20. Comment from: cohenite

    “‘The AGW solution’? I thought general climate theory supported the heating of the oceans by solar radiation, wind/current/etc thermohaline overturning helping to move that heat into the ocean. Why would AGW disagree with that? ”

    Because it is additional heat.

    SOD has a good post on whether backradiation, the AGW mechanism, heats the ocean:

    Read all 4 parts; the comments are instructive; I like Tallbloke’s comment:

    “The Sun heats the ocean, the ocean heats the atmosphere, the atmosphere traps some of the heat for a while, bounces it back off the ocean surface, then loses it to space.

    If instead you want to say that the increased co2 level slows the rate of cooling of the ocean, you need to demonstrate that nothing else has changed to offset it. At the moment this is the big hidden assumption in your reasoning. The empirical evidence, imperfect though it may be, shows that humidity was falling for most of the latter C20th.”

  21. Comment from: John Sayers

    this is what we are up against:

  22. Comment from: spangled drongo

    I wouldn’t worry too much about Grist, John.

    It might be jargon free but it is also fact and evidence free.

    “There was a young girl from Aberystwyth

    Who took grain to the mill to get Grist with…

    You probably know the rest.

  23. Comment from: John Sayers

    The miller’s son Jack
    Laid her flat on her back
    And united the organs they pissed with. :)

  24. Comment from: Debbie

    Yes SD,
    I would also back that up with what happens to the large shallow areas of water here at the moment as everyone (us included) are filling up their rice bays.
    No wind and sunny, water is warm. Sunny and windy, even a hot westerly, water is cooler.
    Cloudy, no wind, water will hold heat, as soon as a wind blows, water will cool even with the clouds.
    Also correct by observation out here that deeper water, such as dams, the river and large channels, only heats on the very top. It can be ffffreeeezing underneath, even on a balmy, sunny, Summer day with no wind.
    Oceans are of course affected by other factors and are even more open to the vagaries of wind and weather than the vast open spaces here.

  25. Comment from: gavin

    Guys; thanks for discovering latent heat and evaporative cooling

    paper on hydrodynamics and mixing re lakes and climate models

  26. Comment from: Robert

    There are no models of climate. The climate is too vast, too variable, too unknown. Everything impinging on climate is also too vast, too variable, too unknown. You can learn a bit about climate, but you can’t model it. Things called “climate models” may exist, but they are not models of climate. People say they are useful, but I don’t see how. Maybe, if you print them out, you can use the paper to wrap fish guts and prawn heads. But why not use just any paper?

  27. Comment from: el gordo

    ‘Things called “climate models” may exist, but they are not models of climate.’

    Top marks squire….

  28. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes

    Guys; thanks for discovering latent heat and evaporative cooling

    very droll gav, would have been a useful comment if it were relevant to what we were discussing!
    On second thought, not even then.


  29. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Debbie, I well remember taking the station governess for a swim in a Diamantina waterhole on a scorching day and in spite of her trim bikini my ardour was well and truly cooled by that freezing water.

    Blue, I was.

  30. Comment from: Neville

    Geezzz SD I had an experience like yours with a sort of governess and I didn’t have any really cold water to worry about. Had a great time.

    Btw the Greens have been told to imagine they are talking to aliens. That’s no surprise to me.

  31. Comment from: Debbie

    No Gavin,
    no discovery.
    Just pointing out the bleeding obvious.

  32. Comment from: kuhnkat


    “KK,you have read SOD’s piece on Kramm and Dlugi? Essentially he thinks their paper is fluff, his tone is sarcastic. For instance,he “thanks” them point by point for the irrelevant material they introduce.”


    Let me just remind you that hte Halpern was similarly dismissive of G&T and contained significant errors that prevented its immediate publication. It is still a shameful piece.

    Thanks for letting us know that you prefer listening to apologists who distort and get the science WRONG even after being corrected by their betters.

    For instance on the Moon paper old SOD went to great lengths to show it had an error. The error did NOT destroy the basis of the paper that GHG’s actually moderate temps and don’t just warm. Oh, and it was shown to be WRONG!!! Talk about FUBAR!!! Additionally SOD is fond of making the sweeping generalization that the 390 surface OLR and the TOA 240 IR PROVES Gorebull Warming. PLEASE!!! Do you REALLY want to be associated with this kind of ignorance?!?!?! The fact that the 390 number is determined without the correct computations is simply additional fecal matter on his head.

    Why do people like you cling to morons who are so deep into the anal orifices of their activist leaders they couldn’t breathe on their own??

    The complaints about the papers are superficial and unhelpful, but, choose what you will.

  33. Comment from: spangled drongo

    An interesting paper on sea water emissivity that arrives at the same result by saying the opposite; that it is a positive feedback that amplifies solar influence and can account for the historical natural variability of our climate including the MWP:

    Summary and Conclusions:

  34. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Sorry, these are the summary and conclusions:

  35. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Looks they don’t want to print. Try again:

  36. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Yet again:

  37. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Sorry about that. Y’ll jist havta gittem from the paper. Page 24.

  38. Comment from: Neville

    The new Briffa study completely wrecks the hockey stick fraud. Surprise, surprise.

    All the biased data and manipulation that has driven this imaginary , delusional nonsense for years should now come to an end.

    Of course this was generously and endlessly promoted by Gore, Hansen and the clueless IPCC and siezed on by fanatics all over the globe.

    The graph at 5c says it all, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about late 20th century warming at all.

  39. Comment from: spangled drongo

    In spite of all of the above our brilliant Climate Commission have said that our infrastructure cannot cope with climate change and that CC will cause 9 billion a year damage.

    Maybe they are just saying that we have not yet invented weather proof paint.

  40. Comment from: Neville

    Two more recent studies also show MWP. From Jimbo at Watts. BTW I wonder what caused the higher spike around 1750?

    Let’s not forget these 2 papers earlier this month.

  41. Comment from: Neville

    Interesting blog at McIntyre’s on the OZ HS con by Gergis and Karoly. Jean S has very interesting comments on the blog. Emails very interesting.

  42. Comment from: cohenite

    Same old same old; what a corrupt mess AGW is; it is appropriate that this corrupt government should have been elected on the back of AGW and Gillard’s lie. Of course she has lied so often and so much AGW has probably been superseded as the emblematic lie of her government.

  43. Comment from: Polyaulax

    ‘Corrupt mess’? Extrapolating much? Melvin and Briffa have a regional paper, different technique and suddenly the hockey stick ‘fraud’–derived from multi-proxy,multi-location study– is completely wrecked? That assertion does not make sense simply on an apples to oranges basis. MB find local warmth periods comparable to 20th century. So have other papers from Northern Europe.

    Mann made his methodological choices at the time of MBH99 out of curiosity and in the expectation that he would have to justify them,revisit them and revise them. Or even abandon them if the body of subsequent work moved the field onwards as expectable. I don’t think he is attached to them for practical reasons,but understandably will defend them for what they really are against malicious attempts to reorder reality. That some of his colleagues have been drawn into defending Mann,and scientific freedom,is unsurprising…it would have been surprising and disappointing if they hadn’t.

    Anti-Mann bullying and hysteria has invented a story around the paper that anti-Mann obsession will not surrender. That is more interesting, and indefensible, than the paper itself.

    IPCC palaeo discussion contains a lot more than just MBH99. Always did,always will. I look forward to IPCC AR5s expanded discussion of palaeolimnological and palaeoglaciological evidence for modern warmth exceeding that of the MWP. Though I am fond of trees.

  44. Comment from: el gordo

    ‘Soil carbon storage, much beloved of Opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt and others, is (almost) a complete furphy.’

    John Quiggin (blog)

  45. Comment from: cohenite

    Corrupt mess works for me poly; don’t defend the indefensible.

    As for Briffa’s study being just a regional one which therefore does not touch Mann’s abomination; Watts replies to Joel Shore, another old AGW hack:

    “You really are a myopic sorts aren’t you? By your logic then we should ignore Yamal, and the infamous YAD061 sample becuase it is too local. That seemed fine for these scientists purposes before.

    The truth is that Mann’s hockey stick is a fabrication, he’s “embellished” it, just like he did his Noble Prize claims, and there are other papers that confirm that the MWP is as warm or warmer than today, such as

    Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute and F C Ljungqvist of Stockholm University.

    Esper et al in the Journal of Global and Planetary Change

    But you’ll poo poo those too. because that’s what you do as a defender of the faith….a faith that is now dying a slow sure death. Go ahead spin furiously, because nobody but the faithful believes in the embellished dendro claims of the team anymore.- Anthony”

    As for Mann, he is an egotist; ask Steyn.

  46. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    But you’ll poo poo those too. because that’s what you do as a defender of the faith….a faith that is now dying a slow sure death. Go ahead spin furiously, because nobody but the faithful believes in the embellished dendro claims of the team anymore.- Anthony”

    I pointed this very thing out to Poly before, makes no difference what or whom we quote if it’s not supporting their view, than it’s no good as far as they’re concerned.

    Look at how they handle Dr. Judith Curry, hardly a sceptic, once a favored scientist of the brigade, now being shunned.

    Reminds me of the trolls on Bolt’s blog, only visit once in a blue moon but rest assured the same trolls are there spewing the same rubbish, disregarding facts or reason.

  47. Comment from: Debbie


    ‘Onwards as expectable’?

    Onwards to what Polyaux?


    “I don’t think he is attached to them for practical reasons,but understandably will defend them for WHAT THEY REALLY ARE (bold) against malicious attempts to reorder reality.”

    What are they really Polyaux?

    Apparently, by what you have written here, they’re not practical?????????(Mann’s theories/modelling?)

    Is that what you meant?

  48. Comment from: cohenite

    JW, poly is reasonably well informed but revealed his emotional level of support for AGW when he went on about the lungs of the planet.

    The gaia concept, as espoused by Lovelock and traduced by nincompoops like Flannery informs AGW and provides the ‘spiritualism’ of the whole shebang.

    It really ticks me off when nominally intelligent people argue basically from this vantage; if they want to be religious about something then good and well but don’t corrupt science to vindicate it.

    AGW and its proofs are exactly the same as those tried out by ID. It is amazing that this defining characteristic of AGW doesn’t get more currency.

  49. Comment from: spangled drongo

    The US presidential campaign at least shows that sceptics won the climate debate.

  50. Comment from: Debbie

    Not just corrupting science Cohenite.

Pages: « 154 55 56 57 58 [59] 60 61 62 63 6480 » Show All