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: « 159 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 6980 » Show All

  1. Comment from: gavin


    Btw folks; I was nodding off late last night during posting (apologies all) and I missed the one online auction I was “watching” then.

    I want to raise the issue of PS job security after a long morning lecturing the multicultural crowd passing my spot on the virtues that spring from our notion of mateship in terms of product testing, fair trade and mou’s etc gov to gov on a fair go for exporters and importers.

    My classic lesson for imported labour seeking quality trade tool replacement is look for any items marked with manufacturer name or logos, alloy type and Catalogue Numbers typical with international purchasing, guaranteed quality and supply. These demos usually draw a small audience including retirees, PS / IT contractors, students at our defense college, their wives and so on.

    One regular asked today if we knew of any cheap land out west where he could retreat with several containers while renting out his Canberra house cause he feared they, anyone in hired IT would be the first to go based on a strong rumor our red head PM was quite rapidly stuffing up the country. I refused to accept his reasoning re imposed hermit lifestyle after further budget cuts and I have very little sympathy for nerds stuck in ruts. My 20% project contingency advice did not fit either with his so called industry standard of 50% (over first estimate I presume).

    Caught up with my lot briefly on Saturday, all 3 in IT but only one PS. Each have moved AROUND a lot keeping up with technology change and business opportunity. Loyalty must be a thing of the past because they can say what is most unsettling at work and the world at large. Their mutual bond seems strengthened by ongoing tech industry turmoil. One other present, a teacher at our local super school said there is evidence that infants today are developing different learning pasterns to their forebears because of IT.

    Did I mention our NBN? Two other points and these only dawned yesterday. One; I could say Obama was helped by Sandy. Two; after glancing through the latest real estate supplement I noticed what could be a trend. new housing complexes and other dwellings featuring night time flood lit landscapes. It’s a great way to measure designed power consumption max and a chance to legislate for sustainable energy only buying for that proportion of consumer expectation

  2. Comment from: Neville


    This is probably the best and most comprehensive interview of Michael Smith by Alan Jones explaining the Gillard AWU slush fund.

    http://www.2gb.com/article/gillard-slush-fund

    Incredible material, but how can this person still be PM of Australia? I hope Cohenite ( a lawyer) has the time to listen to this long interview.

  3. Comment from: John Sayers


    Yet Barry Cassidy and Philip Corey on Insiders didn’t seem to know what Julia had to answer for in the AWU slush fund affair.

  4. Comment from: Neville


    Interesting to look at the maths relating to co2 emissions from 1990 to 2010. In 1990 the USA emitted 5 bn tonnes pa and China emitted 2.3 bn tonnes pa.

    But by 2010 the USA had added just 0.6 bn tonnes pa to 5.6 bn tonnes while China had increased by a further 6 bn tonnes pa to 8.3 bn tonnes. China has therefore out emitted the number 2 emitter the USA by a factor of 10 in just 20 years.

    http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2010&unit=MMTCD

    BTW Graeme please see my response to you at the bottom of previous page. They say all science relies on maths, so why is it that nobody here wants to add up these very simple sums or understand very simple graphs?

  5. Comment from: Neville


    Bolt exposes the idiocy of leftwing journalists.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_did_journalism_courses_become_schools_for_the_left/#commentsmore

    Little wonder we have such confusion when we try to “debate” ( YUK YUK) AGW, or co2 emissions, or SLR, or cyclones/hurricanes/tornadoes etc, or temps, or rainfall, or bushfires, or river health, or UHIE, etc or even just the simple temp and rainfall record of just one site like Mildura.

    Even OZ’s best scientist and lead author Karoly can’t even read a simple chart and then underestand simple numbers. Unbelievable but true.

  6. Comment from: Neville


    Wonderful to see a person like Chris Tangey tell big HIPPO Al Gore that he can’t be bought for any price. This true man of principle compares well to this biggest hypocrite and fraudster.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/al-gore-tries-back-door-and-gets-knocked-back-again-by-australian-filmmaker-again/#more-25193

  7. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    Debbie
    “And over the barrages!”

    What? No bold? for shame.

    Greame,
    “JW no, I’m not Canadian. I’m an Aussie through and through and I vote Liberal but come from a staunchly pro Labour family background.”

    No significance as to where you are from or for whom you vote Graeme, It’s just that your expressions and writing style reminded me of an other poster on an other forum also called Greame, who definitely claimed Canadian origins, that’s all.

    And BTW I agree with Debbie about “experts” any kind of expert by definition is someone with, most likely, limited knowledge in all and great knowledge in a narrow field of his/her expertise.

    They should be kept as far away from formulating social policy as possible.

  8. Comment from: Neville


    The Combet idiot should yell BS at his clueless boss. Abbott’s just a rank amateur when compared to Gillard and labor.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_combets_bull/#commentsmore

  9. Comment from: Graeme M


    Whoa JW! Keep the experts away from formulating policy??? Who are you going to seek your advice from then? Generalists? The bloke in the pub? Abdul the taxi driver???

  10. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    I don’t think you get it Graeme.

    Either you’re not listening or your convictions/ideology prevents you from reading what we said.

    First, as I said before, there are more experts around with different views about the same subject.
    Just look at any court case.

    Why is the government only taking into account one set of experts’ advice, advice I may add, suits the government’s agenda?

    Secondly formulating policy is the job of elected representatives not technocrats.

    How can a “climate scientist” see all the implications of his advice on the whole of community the economy, social structure?
    He may for instance advocate the instant and permanent shut down of all coal fired power stations, because he firmly believes, that is the only solution?

    PS sarcasm is a fine art. You do not possess it.

  11. Comment from: spangled drongo


    “Keep the experts away from formulating policy???”

    That’s right Graeme.

    This is the cause of bad policy that is not only horrendously expensive but pointless and futile.

    Use their advice, by all means, but in conjunction with the broader picture.

    The evidence of this is everywhere in the developed world this century which has led to economic paralysis there but no sound solutions.

  12. Comment from: Graeme M


    Hmmm… lucky I am not in government formulating policy eh? Governments may indeed make bad policy, and that may indeed be the case everywhere right now.

    But the governments we have are the governments we have. Do you have an alternative that doesn’t involve a complete social revolution? I think we can agree that for the next 20 years at least we will have a Lib or Labor government in Australia.

    So, what are they going to do to form policy? Seek input from experts in a variety of fields, surely? Politicians and public servants may have their failings but on the whole they aren’t complete ninnies.

    So of course they will take on board the views of climate scientists from prestigious universities and think tanks and organisations. And the views of a range of other experts. And community opinions. And opinions of lobbyists. And Big Business. etc.

    But at the end of the day, if the agreed science tells them that climate change is likely and will be costly, what the Hell do you expect them to do? Ignore it in favour of Andrew Bolt or Anthony Watts??? Or a few tame sceptic scientists of doubtful pedigree?

  13. Comment from: cohenite


    “Or a few tame sceptic scientists of doubtful pedigree?”

    The tame scientists are those queueing up for government handouts to peddle the lie of AGW. In respect of sceptic scientists consider this list from Jo Nova:

    1.Hansen J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy and J. Lerner, (1984) Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, pp. 130-163 [Abstract]
    2.Anderegg, William R. L., James W. Prall,Jacob Haroldand Stephen H. Schneider(2010). Expert credibility in climate change, PNAS, 10.1073 [PDF]
    3.IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 10 Box 10.2 p798 [PDF]
    4.IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14, p631 [PDF] see also Page 632.
    5.Andrews, T. and Forster, P.M. (2008) CO2 forcing induces semi-direct effects with consequences for climate feedback interpretations , GeoPhys Res Letter, 35. [abstract]
    6.Svensmark, H., Bondo, T. and Svensmark, J. 2009. Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL038429.
    7.Kirkby, J. et al. (2011) Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation, Nature 476, 429-433 (2011). [Article]
    8.Pielke Sr., R.A., (2003): Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.
    9.Chapter 1 of the: Annual Report on the State of the Ocean and the Ocean Observing System for Climate. OCO, NOAA. [HTML]
    10.Loehle, C., (2009) “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003,” Energy and Environment, Vol. 20, 101–104.
    11.Douglass, D.H. and Knox, S.R. (2009) “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 373, pp3296–3300.
    12.Pielke, R. A.., (2008)“A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system,” Physics Today Vol. 61, no. 11, 2008, pp. 54-55.
    13.von Schuckmann, K., F. Gaillard and P.-Y. Le Traon [2009] Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003-2008. J. Geophys. Res., 114, C09007, doi:10.1029/2008JC005237 [Abstract] [discussion] [other PDF]
    14.Knox, R. S. and D. H. Douglass [2010] Recent energy balance of Earth International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, vol. 1, no. 3 (November) – In press Published Online 2010 [PDF]
    15.Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705 [abstract, PDF]
    16.Lindzen, R. & Yong-Sang Choi, Y, (2011) On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications, Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 [PDF]
    17.Wielicki, Bruce A, Takmeng Wong, Richard P Allan, Anthony Slingo, Heffery T Kiehl, Brian J Soden, C T Gordon, Alvin J Miller, Shi-Keng Yang, David A Randall, Franklin Robertson, Joel Susskind, Herbert Jacobowitz [2002] Evidence for Large Decadal Variability in the Tropical Mean Radiative Energy Budget, Science, Vol 295 no. 5556 pp 841-844, [Abstract] [Discussion]
    18.Chen, J., B.E. Carlson, and A.D. Del Genio, (2002): Evidence for strengthening of the tropical general circulation in the 1990s. Science, 295, 838-841.
    19.Cess, R.D. and P.M. Udelhofen, (2003): Climate change during 1985–1999: Cloud interactions determined from satellite measurements. Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 30, No. 1, 1019, doi:10.1029/2002GL016128.
    20.Hatzidimitriou, D., I. Vardavas, K. G. Pavlakis, N. Hatzianastassiou, C. Matsoukas, and E. Drakakis (2004) On the decadal increase in the tropical mean outgoing longwave radiation for the period 1984–2000. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 1419–1425.
    21.Clement, A.C. and B. Soden (2005) The sensitivity of the tropical-mean radiation budget. J. Clim., 18, 3189-3203.
    22.IPCC, Assessment Report 4, (2007), Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14 [PDF] Page 631
    23.NOAA Satellite and Information Service, Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive, Data Coverage. June 8th 2010. [Link]
    24.Karl et al (2006), Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2006 Report, Chapter 1, 1958-1999. Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP, Chapter 1, p 25, based on Santer et al. 2000; [PDF]
    25.Karl et al (2006) Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2006 Report, Chapter 5, part E of Figure 5.7 in section 5.5 on page 116 [PDF]
    26.Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. (2007). A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007. [Abstract] [PDF]
    27.Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E Taylor, T. M Wigley,. L. Lanzante, J. R. Solomon, M. Free, P. J Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood and F. J. Wentz (2008), Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology, 28: 1703–1722. doi: 10.1002/joc.1756 [Abstract] [PDF]
    28.McKitrick, R., S. McIntyre, and C. Herman, (2010), Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series. Atmospheric Science Letters, 11: 270–277. doi: 10.1002/asl.290 [PDF]
    29.McKitrick, R., McIntyre, S., and Herman, C. (2011) Corrigendum to Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series, Atmospheric Science Letters, Vol. 11, Issue 4, 270–277. [Abstract]
    30.Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J., Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010) What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148 [PDF]
    31.Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011 [PDF] [Discussion]
    32.McKitrick, R. and Vogelsang, T. J. (2011), Multivariate trend comparisons between autocorrelated climate series with general trend regressors, Department of Economics, University of Guelph. [ PDF]
    33.Stockwell, David R. B. and Cox, A. (2009), Structural break models of climatic regime-shifts: claims and forecasts, Cornell University Library, arXiv10907.1650 [PDF]
    34. Miskolczi, Ferenc M. and Mlynczak, M. (2004) The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial adiation. Idojaras Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251 [PDF]
    35.Miskolczi, Ferenc M. (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. Idojaras Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40 [PDF]
    36. Miskolczi, Ferenc M. (2010), The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth’s Global Average Atmospheric Planck-Weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness. Energy & Environment Vol. 21, No. 4, 2010 pp 243-263 [PDF and Discussion]
    37. Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). [PDF]
    38. IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. [PDF] Page 610 8.3.1.1.2 “The balance of radiation at the top of the atmosphere”
    39. IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. [PDF] Page 636 8.6.3.2 “Clouds”
    40. Zhang, M.H., Lin, W.Y., Klein, S.A., Bacmeister, J.T., Bony, S., Cederwall, R.T., Del Genio, A.D., Hack, J.J., Loeb, N.G., Lohmann, U., Minnis, P., Musat, I., Pincus, R., Stier, P., Suarez, M.J., Webb, M.J., Wu, J.B., Xie, S.C., Yao, M.-S. and Yang, J.H. 2005. Comparing clouds and their seasonal variations in 10 atmospheric general circulation models with satellite measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research 110: D15S02,
    41. Randall, D., Khairoutdinov, M., Arakawa, A. and Grabowski, W. 2003. Breaking the cloud parameterization deadlock. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 84: 1547-1564.
    42. Allan, R [2011] Combining satellite data and models to estimate cloud radiative effects at the surface and in the atmosphere. University of Reading [Abstract] [Discussion]
    43. Croke, M.S., Cess, R.D. and Hameed, S. 1999. Regional cloud cover change associated with global climate change: Case studies for three regions of the United States. Journal of Climate 12: 2128-2134
    44. Herman, J.R., Larko, D., Celarier, E. and Ziemke, J. 2001. Changes in the Earth’s UV reflectivity from the surface, clouds, and aerosols. Journal of Geophysical Research 106: 5353-5368
    45. Spencer, R.W., Braswell, W.D., Christy, J.R., Hnilo, J. (2007). Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007/GL029698. [PDF]
    46. IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. (see 8.6.3.2) [PDF]
    47. Kirkby, J. et al. (2011) Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation, Nature 476, 429-433 (2011). | Article
    48. Svensmark, H. 1998. Influence of cosmic rays on earth’s climate. Physical Review Letters 81: 5027-5030. [Discussion CO2Science]
    49. Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E.: Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage – a missing link in solar-climate relationships, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 59, 1225–1232, 1997.
    50. Mauas, P., Flamenco, E., Buccino, A. (2008) “Solar Forcing of the Stream Flow of a Continental Scale South American River”, Instituto de Astronomı´a y Fı´sica del Espacio, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Physical Review Letters 101 [http://www.iafe.uba.ar/httpdocs/reprint_parana.pdf])
    51. Alexander, W., Bailey, F., Bredenkamp, B., van der Merwe, A., and Willemse, N. (2007) Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol. 49 No 2 [PDF]
    52. Shaviv, N.J. (2008) Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing. Journal of Geophysical Research 113: 10.1029/2007JA012989. [CO2 Science discussion]
    53. Herschel, W. 1801, in Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, 265 and 354. (See here, and here)
    54. Spencer, R., and W.D. Braswell. (2008). Potential biases in feedback diagnosis from observations data: a simple model demonstration. Journal of Climate, 21, 5624-5628.
    55. Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, (2010), On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res, 115, D16109
    56. Spencer, R. W.; Braswell, W.D. (2011) On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance, Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613. [PDF]
    57. Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.
    58. Chapter 1 of the: Annual Report on the State of the Ocean and the Ocean Observing System for Climate. OCO, NOAA. [HTML]
    59. C. Loehle, “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003,” Energy and Environment, Vol. 20, 2009, 101–104.
    60. D. H. Douglass and R. S. Knox, “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 373, 2009, 3296–3300.
    61. R. Pielke Sr., “A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system,” Physics Today Vol. 61, no. 11, 2008, pp. 54-55.
    62. von Schuckmann, K., F. Gaillard and P.-Y. Le Traon [2009] Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003-2008. J. Geophys. Res., 114, C09007, doi:10.1029/2008JC005237 [Abstract] [discussion] [other PDF]
    63.Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]
    64. Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis, N. & Christofides, A.
    (2008) On the credibility of climate predictions. Hydrol. Sci. J.
    53(4), 671–684. changes [PDF]
    65. Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/hypothesis-testing-and-long-term-memory/langswitch_lang/th/
    66. Idso, S.B. 1998. CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change. Climate Research 10: 69-82. [abstract] [Discussion]
    67. Idso SB (1982) A surface air temperature response function for earth’s atmosphere. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 22:227–232
    68. Quirk, T. (2009). The Australian temperature anomaly, 1910 – 2000. Energy & Environment, 20 (1-2), 97 – 100. [PDF]
    69. Stockwell, David R. B. and Anthony Cox, [2009], Structural break models of climatic regime-shifts: claims and forecasts, Cornell University Library, arXiv10907.1650 [2009] [PDF] [Discussion]
    70. McKitrick, R. and Vogelsang, T. J. (2011), Multivariate trend comparisons between autocorrelated climate series with general trend regressors, Department of Economics, University of Guelph. [Discussion paper PDF]
    71. Douglass, D.H., and J.R. Christy (2008): Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth. Energy and Environment, Vol 20, No 1. [Abstract] [Discussion]
    72.Loehle, C. and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment, 19, 93-100. [Discussion WCR]
    73.Ljungqvist, Fredrik Charpentier, 2010, A New Reconstruction Of Temperature Variability In The Extra-Tropical Northern Hemisphere During The Last Two Millennia , Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, Volume 92, Number 3, pp. 339-351(13) [abstract]
    74. Zu, L., et al (2012) An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula, Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters, Volumes 325–326, 1 April 2012, Pages 108–115
    75.Huang, S., H. N. Pollack, and P. Y. Shen (1997), Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world‐wide continental heat flow measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24(15), 1947–1950. [Abstract, PDF] Discussion
    76.IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, Chapter 9. section 9.4 [IPCC site] Page 684
    77. Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. (1998) Global scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392: 779-787
    78. McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2003. Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy database and Northern Hemispheric average temperature series. Energy & Environment,14, 751-771 [PDF].
    79.McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2005. Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750. [discussion]
    80.McShane, Blakely B. and Abraham J. Wyner [2010] A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? The Annals of Applied Statistics 2011, Vol. 5, No. 1, 5–44 [PDF]

    Jo’s link here:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/

  14. Comment from: Neviller


    Graeme you may claim to be a sceptic but you certainly don’t write like one. I suppose we should listen to a scientist like Karoly or Hansen or an activist like Gore or Flannery or Suzuki etc?

    I know you can’t answer my questions about simple maths, simple graphs and simple logic and reason because it proves there is zero we can achieve by attempts at AGW mitigation.

    Anyway here’s more facts and an interesting drop in temp after Sandy. Oh yes it’s from WUWT and one of the best researchers Mr Bob Tisdale.

    BTW sceptic Graeme can you name some of those tame scientists of doubtful pedigree?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/11/inverse-hockey-stick-hurricane-sandy-cools-the-ocean/#more-74112

  15. Comment from: Graeme M


    Geez you blokes are a bit quick on the trigger finger. Look, the gist of my posts has been fairly straight forward. I am trying to ascertain what you actually think government should do – that is, what would YOU do if you were in government, and by that I mean what would you really seriously do given the actual context of being in government.

    Trotting out all the usual stuff doesn’t mean anything to me in that sense – I’ve read it all and I’m across most of the arguments as best i can be with my limited background.

    The point is that while there is a fairly solid sceptical case in my view, there is NOT a solid sceptical case accepted within mainstream science, or at least within the mainstream science that is willing to put its name to anything.

    As far as I can tell mainstream science is fairly confident that AGW is a fact. All that isn’t known is the extent of the impacts, but there is a body of opinion that it’ll be bad. So. Governments aren’t in the business of following down every for and against argument for everything they have to legislate upon. What they will do instead is go with the generally agreed position by the relevant experts.

    All I am saying is that how can you find governments at fault for acting on the advice of the experts?

    As to the experts, well… I am sceptical and I think they are wrong. For most of the reasons that you all do. So don’t be going trying to show me where I’m wrong! :)

    All I was trying to do was find out whether you actually THINK about how policy is formulated and how government works or whether its simple kneejerk reactionism.

    So far, no-one has offered their view on just how THEY would deal with the threat of AGW if they were in government, bearing in mind the actual context of the politics and the people involved. And I don’t think reading JoNova or Anthony Watts cuts it as responsible and diligent policy research.

  16. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Graeme, if your were genuinely sceptical you should at least accept Bjorn Lomborgs argument that it is better to wait until 1/ we see that we actually have a problem and 2/ by which time we are more likely to have the ability and technology to solve it.

    If, in the meantime, we introduce realistic policies [like modern nuclear reactors and/or other economically sound renewables], the problem may solve itself without a hiccup.

  17. Comment from: Polyaulax


    SSTs fall [temporarily] along the path of cyclones? Who knew,Nev? Actually,that’s been known for generations,from way back when SSTs were recorded by ships. What might be interesting about SSTs in that slice of ocean post Sandy is just how much energy was harvested,and what it says about Sandy’s great width.

    Bob Tisdale, a ‘best researcher’? Climate qualifications? Zip. Statistical quals? Zip. Papers published in any field? Zip….Bob is just another blogger downloading data ,plotting it,mashing it and making claims and extrapolations. Most of them without actual support.

  18. Comment from: cohenite


    Dumb post poly.

    Sandy’s path:

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-2.jpg

    SST history along Sandy’s path:

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-3.png

    I don’t care who shows these FACTS, the fact is Sandy was not exceptional, unusual and did not involve high SSTs or any indication of AGW; which makes LIARS of the Climate Commission and Matthew England in particular for saying Sandy was so strong because of AGW warmed SSTs.

    It was a LIE. AGW is a lie and I am fed up with the waste and distraction caused by AGW believers.

  19. Comment from: Robert


    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    “It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

    This was the warning Eisenhower gave after the more frequently and eagerly quoted warning about the military-industrial complex.

    Graeme, boffins tend to self-promotion, impracticality, cultism…and the daffy, Big Lever solutions you at least try to vote against when you vote for the Libs. Of course, technocrats should be heard (not obeyed) within a strict frame of reference. Outside that frame, they should be considered suspect, maybe more so than Abdul the taxi guy. As a trade-off, their researches should have freedom…far more freedom than they have at present. Expensive? Not as expensive as the delicately calibrated “consensus” we now see in the field of climate, where science is settled for political purposes and unsettled for funding purposes.

    Then there’s the matter of cohenite’s list of rogue scientists. Our Green Betters have no trouble treating these people with skepticism as to their competence and motives.

    Skepticism: It’s easy when you really try!

  20. Comment from: Graeme M


    Robert I agree totally, and SD I would think Lomborg’s approach seems on the face of it a more sensible one. I was merely trying to highlight the fact that governments must act on the best advice. And that advice isn’t coming from the Jo Novas of this world.

    Unfortunately, my personal take is that the best advice is being highjacked by an agenda and I see that in so much of the reporting in the MSM. Sandy is no exception. I reckon it is actually criminal how that has been used to implicate AGW, but there you go.

  21. Comment from: Debbie


    Mainstream science?
    Again. . . . Say what?
    It appears that Graeme’s definition of ‘mainstream science’ are scientists EMPLOYED (bold) by the govt or by govt funded institutions.
    There are just as many, if not more, scientists who are either EMPLOYED by other than govt or scientists who also run their own ‘mainstream’ businesses.. . . ie. . . their education is science but their EXPERIENCE is much wider. My industry (agriculture/farming) is peopled by many highly educated, science trained individuals.
    Business people are also highly aware of the pitfalls associated with basing management decisions on ‘modelling’ and stats. They are useful tools, not magic crystal balls. The so called ‘mainstream science’ deny this basic fact & are flatly refusing to usefully update their data and stats.
    It leads to rather stupid resource management decisions that are reflective of out of date modelling NOT(bold) reality.

  22. Comment from: Graeme M


    Debbie, I didn’t define mainstream science. Nor did I define scientists. What I said in a nutshell is that the agreed science as it is understood by the scientific ‘community’ (however you wish to define that) is that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic emissions is affecting the world’s climate. The physics for how this happens is widely understood, widely agreed, and forms the foundation for a whole body of knowledge around the behaviour of atmospheric systems. And it is used everyday by pretty much any scientist or organisation that has to evaluate weather, climate or the atmosphere.

    Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

  23. Comment from: Polyaulax


    Dumber post cohenite. Sandy was a record breaking storm.

    Tisdale has cherry picked his SST period to run from the 1940s peak to the current warming of the last 30 years,and gets no trend [the 0.02C decade 'cooling trend' has no statistical significance]. The longer data set shows that a statistically significant warming exists for that tranche of sea surface data. The northern end of that tranche WAS warmer than at any time in the modern record,and Tisdale’s deliniation time and of lat. and long. cannot show that.

    Fact is Sandy was a very large [total width of storm force windfield and storm surge] storm,and a very powerful one for its time of year,and it involved high SSTs,and record SSTs at the northern end of it path,plus greater potential atmospheric moisture because of tropospheric warming. The high tide it coincided with was natural,the sea level rise which further potentiated its surge was GW induced.

  24. Comment from: spangled drongo


    “the sea level rise which further potentiated its surge was GW induced.”

    So, Poly, you think it was systemic?

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/05/systemic-thinking-on-causation/#more-10416

  25. Comment from: Neville


    Well Graeme then why are we still exporting coal, gas and iron ore in such huge tonnages? Why does the Gillard govt through Martin Ferguson encourage the Vic govt to process the Latrobe valley brown coal and export it overseas?

    Ferguson states that the deposits are so large that Vic’s brown coal could be another Pilbara and boy that’s huge.
    So it’s okay to discourage aussies using brown coal but it’s just dandy to even process it and create an entire new coal export market?

    BTW I’ve told you exactly what we should do the moment you asked the question. It’s pretty much what Lomborg would do except I wouldn’t have a token co2 tax just to finance more R&D. But I could live with his $2 a tonne as long as it was strictly used on R&D and then hopefully lead to new technology.
    But if you think that reducing OZ emissions by 5% by 2020 is going to achieve anything then I know you’re mistaken.

    But again why should we have this stupid new co2 tax when this govt proves they couldn’t care less about increasing co2 emissions created by our exports overseas?

  26. Comment from: Debbie


    Well then Graeme,
    I would need to know your definition of ‘ scientific community’ as it would be essential to understand that before I could possibly agree or disagree with your statement.
    You won’t find anyone here that would say that anthropogenic behaviour has NO (bold) influence. So, with respect, that part of your comment is somewhat redundant.
    That is NOT (bold) the point of disagreement.

  27. Comment from: spangled drongo


    If Sandy was downgraded from a big hurricane to a big tropical storm prior to reaching land how does that make it “GW induced”.

    Are you saying that Lindzen is right and that GW can only reduce the severity of hurricanes?

  28. Comment from: Robert


    Sandy was, indeed, very wide and very late. I’m sure it broke all kinds of “records”.

    If the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635 or the Long Island Express of 1938 etc etc (I really could go on!) had occurred in 2012 I’m sure all kinds of records would have fallen. And am I in the slightest doubt that it would have been viewed by Our Green Betters as confirmation of CAGW? Is anyone in doubt? We know these people don’t waste a good bit of bad weather. Re-use and recycle!

    What if there were a re-run of the 1954 hurricane season, with its eleven named hurricanes and storms (plus one unnamed), including the second Alice on December 30! Talk about late in the season. Talk about extreme. Happy Christmas, warmies. No pudding for skeptics!

  29. Comment from: spangled drongo


    In the test cricket at the Gabba between Australia and South Africa the bowlers can’t get anyone out.

    Usually this time of year in sub tropical humidity wickets tumble as the ball moves around unpredictably but this match has been played in very cool weather more like an English summer.

  30. Comment from: Neville


    Here’s the normalized damage caused by USA hurricanes since 1900. See Sandy at 30 bn at right. Prof Pielke jr is always good value.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/normalized-us-hurricane-damage-1900.html

  31. Comment from: cohenite


    Dumb and dumber poly; SD has captured the base absurdity of AGW believers claiming Sandy, which is AGW must be making storms reduce in size!

    Tisdale hasn’t cherrypicked anything; there was no 1940′s peak in SST; the peak in the 72 year range was 1950 [extratropics]; in fact Tisdale has answered your very grizzle which was raised by the more gracious Nick Stokes in the comments; Bob says:

    “Nick Stokes says: “How does this fit with the map you showed of SST anomalies for October? They look pretty high near where Sandy approached the shore.”

    HADISST updates lag by a few months, but it just so happens I prepared graphs with the HADISST since Jan 1870 and Reynolds OI.v2 data since Nov 1981, and with a horizontal line to show the Reynolds values for October 2012. I used the same base years for anomalies: 1971-2000. The Reynolds shows a lot more variability but the October 2012 values get us in the ballpark of the HADISST data. Here’s the graph for the full path of Sandy:
    http://i50.tinypic.com/2629yz9.jpg

    And here’s the one for the extratropics:
    http://i48.tinypic.com/2im0tx3.jpg

    Along with McIntyre, Watts, Nova, Marohasy, Stockwell, Ken Stewart and his merry band, the world owes a debt to people like Tisdale who, with no government funding, no arrogance, no deceit, have just looked at the facts and revealed what a scummy lie AGW is.

  32. Comment from: cohenite


    First attempt in moderation; try this:

    Dumb and dumber poly; SD has captured the base absurdity of AGW believers claiming Sandy, which is AGW must be making storms reduce in size!

    Tisdale hasn’t cherrypicked anything; there was no 1940′s peak in SST; the peak in the 72 year range was 1950 [extratropics]; in fact Tisdale has answered your very grizzle which was raised by the more gracious Nick Stokes in the comments; Bob says:

    “Nick Stokes says: “How does this fit with the map you showed of SST anomalies for October? They look pretty high near where Sandy approached the shore.”

    HADISST updates lag by a few months, but it just so happens I prepared graphs with the HADISST since Jan 1870 and Reynolds OI.v2 data since Nov 1981, and with a horizontal line to show the Reynolds values for October 2012. I used the same base years for anomalies: 1971-2000. The Reynolds shows a lot more variability but the October 2012 values get us in the ballpark of the HADISST data. Here’s the graph for the full path of Sandy:
    http:i50.tinypic.com/2629yz9.jpg

    And here’s the one for the extratropics:
    http:i48.tinypic.com/2im0tx3.jpg”[// removed]

    Along with McIntyre, Watts, Nova, Marohasy, Stockwell, Ken Stewart and his merry band, the world owes a debt to people like Tisdale who, with no government funding, no arrogance, no deceit, have just looked at the facts and revealed what a scummy lie AGW is.

  33. Comment from: Debbie


    “…downloading data ,plotting it,mashing it and making claims and extrapolations.” :-)
    Chuckle
    And how would that be a crime, something that should be dismissed OR… ANY DIFFERENT to what anyone else is doing????
    Polyaux seems to think only ‘certain’ people have the right to download data and make claims and extrapolations…or the right to pick start /stop calendar points.
    He doesn’t seem to understand that it isn’t ONLY people who are EMPLOYED to download data that are more than capable of doing it and also more than capable of recognising the inherint pitfalls and discrepancies in the work of others.

  34. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    Debbie,
    “Polyaux seems to think only ‘certain’ people have the right to download data and make claims and extrapolations”

    Why do you think the Bible was written in Latin only, for such a long time, and only the clergy could read it and interpret it?

    As a matter of fact interpreting the scriptures even today, although it’s available in English and more then that, in modern English, laymen are still discouraged to interpret it for themselves.

    Just a thought and a comparison one cannot avoid to make with an other faith, don’t you think?

  35. Comment from: Polyaulax


    Oh, listen to you and your waffle,cohenite. You are so eagerly deceived. “..the world owes a debt to people like..” Claptrap. Blog contrarianism is entertaining but of little worth. The peak decade in the 72 year range for that tranche is largely within the 1940s.

    Extratropical 24-40degN is also sleight of hand. It’s the warm water at 30+degN that Tisdale avoids. As well, his longitudinal definition is nonsensical as you can see Sandy’s eye track on the eastern margin of his carefully chosen area. That way he omits warm waters to the east and north-east from his figuring that feed moisture into the circulation which was extremely broad. Fact is over Sandy’s path SSTs were anomalously warm particulary for the last few days of the storm’s progress.

    Tisdale bleats “there is no evidence for an anthropogenic warming signal in the satellite era sea surface temperature data” with dogmatic fervor,as if by staring dumbly at anomaly chart some physical three-dimensional ocean /atmosphere process will be revealed. He reckons it’s all ENSO: according to Bob,strong El Ninos have stepped up the heat,while La Ninas have [mysteriously] failed to dial it back. LOL. Does he expect ENSO to disappear? Does he expect circulation to utterly change,so as to reveal the hand of man? ENSO is providing convenient alignments for Tisdale to hang his rejectionism on. Meanwhile he ignores detailed GH mechanisms and. He confuses the delivery service for the message.

  36. Comment from: toby


    Graeme, it would I think have been very hard to ignore CAGW altogether given the constant stream of “science” that is pushed by the main stream ( definition; the science being pushed by most scientific organisations, the ABC, Age, CSIRO, IPCC, Uni’s etc). I am reliably told howard and costello both believed CAGW to be rubbish but felt compelled to take action because their advisors/ experts were all so convinced. It would take a brave man/ woman who just ignored them. And at the time I doubt any one would have been reelected on a climate change is bullshit model…… now however pointing out that platitudes that come at great cost but do nothing, might actually be a winner?

    we have moved on from the cold war as a means of fear and controlling to CAGW,

    now to the second part of the question, what would i do about CAGW?
    personally nothing excpet provide Research and Development credits to find an alternative energy source ( the only viable solution if indeed a problem does exist)…but if i was in charge i would have to be seen to do something I guess….so i would employ a competent economist to do some real cost benefit analysis of a variety of actions. I would not employ people like Stern and Garnaut WHO START WITH PRECONCEIVED IDEAS AND create embarrassingly awful propaganda reports.

    And I would not subject our economy to a 9b a year tax that raises more revenue from 22m than europe’s tax has done from 300m over 8 years!! ( and nor i am sure would you!!)

    it is very easy for those of us on the side lines to say just do nothing it is mostly bullshit. but if we were actually elected to positions of power, i suspect it would be very hard to do nothing at all! Although i would like to believe that is what i would do!!

  37. Comment from: Graeme M


    Exactly Toby. If you are elected to power there is *some* expectation that you’ll steer the nation in a sensible direction, and there are a lot of competing tensions that help to keep the ship on a reasonable course. Now it is possible (just) that there is some underlying conspiracy, but generally speaking I can’t imagine that being too overt. But who knows. The real question is how can we expect our government to ignore the experts? Debbie’s complaint about the experts ignores the very real matter of the experts being, well… the experts.

    Anyway, I think we’ve done that one to death. I am more intrigued by Poly’s views. Now, let’s assume all that’s claimed is true. It was the largest storm in the modern record, unusually late in the season, formed in waters warmer than usual, and it created a record (just) storm surge.

    But so what? How is there the unmistakable signature of AGW in that?

    Have we clear evidence that no Atlantic storm of the past 500 years was not as big?
    Is being late in the season unique, highly unusual, unusual or just infrequent?
    Do we have clear evidence that the waters have not been as warm in the past 500 years? Or the past 100 years?
    Are we confident that warmer waters would result in a larger storm? Sandy was after all not especially intense. And I am not sure theoretical modelling is evidence.
    The record storm surge is partly due to the confluence of events – high tide, full moon, direct hit on New York, the local geography. Where is AGW in that?

    What exactly is it that stamps Sandy indelibly as a product of AGW and not a coincidental fit to a preconception?

  38. Comment from: Robert


    Climate bed-wetters should be grateful they don’t live in the decade taste forgot. Charles Bronson may have been at his artistic peak, and the orange shag pile didn’t show the Coolibah Claret spills…but you didn’t want to be in the way Super Typhoons Tip, Nora and June. June in ’75 had three bloody eyewalls! Same decade produced six major cyclones for Oz. Mind you, Yasi and Mahina, with more than a century between them, were real brutes for Qld.

    Tip in ’79 was the monster of them all, but, fortunately, it slowed a lot before it gave Japan a mangling. What a conscientious theologian couldn’t do with another Tip! Keep the faith, warmies.

  39. Comment from: cohenite


    “Meanwhile he ignores detailed GH mechanisms and.

    OK, what are those mechanisms, details please.

    And what does this mean:

    “He confuses the delivery service for the message.”

  40. Comment from: Debbie


    Debbie isn’t complaining Graeme,
    Debbie clearly asked for your definition.
    Do you have one?
    If you want people to agree or disagree with you, please define your interpretation of experts and the scientific community.
    I suspect it differs to mine.
    It is just as important as your last question.
    What exactly is it that stamps Sandy. . . . etcetera.
    Coz some people who claim to be ‘experts’ are claiming that Sandy is a product of AGW are they not?

  41. Comment from: cohenite


    And this:

    “It’s the warm water at 30+degN that Tisdale avoids.”

    No he doesn’t:

    http://i48.tinypic.com/2im0tx3.jpg

    You didn’t even look at Tisdale’s post graphing the SST temp history at 30+degN!

  42. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    “You didn’t even look at Tisdale’s post graphing the SST temp history at 30+degN!

    What? and destroy a good vibe? Not on your nellie.

  43. Comment from: Graeme M


    I don’t offer a definition Debbie. Nor did I ask anyone to agree or disagree with me.

    You on the other hand are being disagreeable just for the sake of it.

  44. Comment from: Polyaulax


    I DID look at the graphic. That graphic shows 24N -40N as warm as it has ever been, If you narrow it to 30N-40N it’s warmer: the warmest anomalies were well north of 24 to 30N. IOW inclusion of 24-30N obscures the anomalous warmth over the last days of the track. And if you honestly look at the breadth of Sandy [and show some understanding of mechanisms] rather than concentrating on the eye you’ll see that the eastern delineation that Tisdale carefully chooses excludes more anomalously warm feeder water. Storm force winds on landfall spanned a distance of 1500 kilometers…fed by oceanic warmth outside the narrow delineation by Tisdale,plus the energy of the continental trough blocked by ridging enhanced by Arctic relative warmth.

  45. Comment from: cohenite


    poly, you are nuts; Sandy wasn’t even a catergory 1 cyclone at landfall so how can it be the biggest cyclone of any description or are you saying a strom is bigger than a cyclone? Are we making up terminology now, turning it on its head?

    And this:

    “That graphic shows 24N -40N as warm as it has ever been,”

    Can someone else look at this:

    http://i48.tinypic.com/2im0tx3.jpg

    What I can see is that SST was warmer in 1950; can someone else confirm that?

    And this:

    “If you narrow it to 30N-40N it’s warmer: the warmest anomalies were well north of 24 to 30N. IOW inclusion of 24-30N obscures the anomalous warmth over the last days of the track.”

    Where is your data or graph; if 24-30N is when added to 30-40N it makes 30-40N cooler than how much cooler was 24-30N then normal?

  46. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    I’m looking at it now and looked at it before I made my last comment re. poly and your link.

    Sticking to your conviction or believing your lying eyes comes to mind.
    But never mind, who cares anymore? It’s all down to politics and spin.

  47. Comment from: Robert


    When using expressions like “record” and “ever” – if one must! – it would be great if people specified the period of record or implication of such a loose term as “ever”. For example, the planet may have had, in recent months, its MOST ice “ever” – by the same measure that Arctic ice has been as low as it’s “ever” been. Two amazing, contradictory and simultaneous “records”. Of course, if you let other measures and info intrude, it’s a different story.

    Also, could someone flash me the Atlantic SSTs for 1635? That’s AD. If you happen to have the figures for BC that would be handy too.

  48. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Poly, you should know that when you get even a mild cyclone combined with a king tide [as happened with Sandy] there is a big sea surge.

    And that’s what does the damage.

    At the peak of the ’74 Gold Coast floods the Nerang River was running UPSTREAM.

    IOW the surge was greater than the record flood levels.

    The fact that Cat 1 Hurricane Sandy was downgraded to a storm when it struck the mainland says it all.

    It was a pussycat.

  49. Comment from: Graeme M


    Thats the thing of it SD and what annoys the heck out of me – even people at work come out with the superstorm Sandy/AGW rubbish. If it hadn’t been for NATURAL events like the high tide, the full moon and the sheer luck involved in it striking where it did, what would its effect have been?

    The bottom line is that a combination of quite natural factors led to it causing considerable damage. I cannot see for the life of me how the effects of AGW can be identified in a Cat 1 storm that was not even a hurricane as such when it came ashore.

    What it DOES illustrate is that as time passes and urban areas on coastlines and river deltas grow, the likelihood that weather events will cause damage is also growing. Rather than explaining every major event as AGW caused (with the obvious implication that reducing AGW will reduce the likelihood of damage to property and life), we would do well to observe that the norm for weather is to experience extremes.

    Presumably the ‘experts’ are aware of this but certainly that is NOT the public view today and worse that view is steadily being manipulated by the alarmist worldview.

  50. Comment from: toby


    I have to make a speech next week, and came across these lovely quotes;

    Mark twain; How empty is theory in presence of fact!

    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

    The trouble with political jokes is that very often they get elected.

    all of which seem quite appropriate in our modern world!

Pages: « 159 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 6980 » Show All