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: « 160 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 7080 » Show All

  1. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Spoken like a true sceptic Graeme. The manipulating and convenient labelling that occurs from the very top to be gleefully spread by MSM is what’s killing the truth.

    And here is ever more evidence of convenient labelling.

    Perfectly described as bi-polar disorder of the convinced/confused/confirmed warmers.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/bipolar-disorder-as-in-the-arctic-the-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-is-affected-by-wind-unless-of-course-its-climate-change/#more-74165

  2. Comment from: spangled drongo


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

    LOL!

  3. Comment from: Debbie


    No Graeme,
    not disagreeable for the sake of it.
    I just needed your definition of ‘experts’ & ‘ the scientific community’ before I could decide to whether I agreed or disagreed.
    Many ‘experts’ who advise govt and inform social policy are claiming that Sandy is a product of AGW.

  4. Comment from: Graeme M


    Debbie, I wasn’t trying to get all clever with anyone. I was raising a simple point – that if you were in government and you were advised by those who are paid to be experts that X is the case, then I think you’d have to act on that advice and accept that X is the case.

    I’m not sure that in the case of AGW there are THAT many shades of meaning around what I meant by experts. I didn’t mean Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, Roger Pielke, the Heartland Institute or whomever. I meant the people and organisations that publish papers, teach students, undertake research and advise government and industry. In Australia that will largely be the CSIRO and probably the Dept of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and I am pretty sure their views are not out of kilter with the rest of their peers worldwide.

    Maybe I don’t really understand how it all works, but surely it is the CSIRO and DoCCaEE that advises our government? And if so, that’s the kind of people I refer to as ‘experts’.

  5. Comment from: Neville


    Graeme I’m not a sceptic about humans having an influence on the climate. I think Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Curry, Carter etc have the correct point of view that there is about perhaps 1c of warming to be expected from a doubling of co2 or 560ppmv. That’s called a negative feedback.

    But I’m very certain that there is nothing that we can do about it. China. India etc just don’t want to know and unfortunately that’s where a doubling will come from not from the nearly flatlining OECD countries.

    Therefore the case for mitigating AGW is a 100% fraud and con, unless we wake up tomorrow and find that some scientist has perfected cold fusion or whatever. Not likely.
    Our best response is to adapt and spend more dollars on R&D and start to use our common sense and brains for a change.

    Lomborg is correct, so what is the attraction of wanting to waste billions $ every year for decades into the future for a zero return?

  6. Comment from: Graeme M


    Nev, I can’t really answer that. I am not a policy maker nor do I have sufficient grasp of the economics of the possible policy responses. I agree that IF there is likely to be an impact then perhaps managing that impact is a more sensible strategy particularly given our rather minor role in CO2 production.

    But the science as it is accepted suggests a primary radiative forcing of what, 1.2C from a doubling of CO2 and then the positive feedbacks are predicted to be in the range of 2-4C I think from memory. So the expectation, or fear, is that once we get up to around 560 we’ll be in big trouble. So the argument being advanced is that whatever steps we can take now to reduce the CO2 output and perhaps avoid that scenario are surely worthwhile.

    Sure FlimFlam reckons that heating already in the pipeline can’t be really redressed for many years to come, but we already see policy being developed around how to handle that. It’s not that which requires the changes in energy production – rather it’s the longer term scenario of 560 or more.

    You can bet your bottom dollar that the eco freaks and the more alarmist scientists WOULD actually undertake massive scale social and industrial revolution if they could. But governments don’t have that luxury. rather, they have to steer a course that will hopefully meet shorter term goals (like some sort of social stability or even just getting re-elected) whilst attending to the longer term.

    Their expectation is that the doubling of CO2 is still a little way off so we can potentially avoid that if we impose policies and strategies that will take effect over the coming decades.

    Now, what we ARE seeing are few of the predicted impacts that the alarmists have been pushing and that unequivocal message of ‘settled science’ and looming catastrophe is actually a major strategic blunder on their part. Judith Curry’s latest post touches on that matter.

    The problem in terms of an AGW response is that governments are doing EXACTLY what you all accuse them of doing – playing the short game and ignoring the longer term. In other words, the growing public distrust of the alarmist position is helping governments to moderate their policy responses. This has been exacerbated by the problems in Europe (and the GFC etc) which has grabbed a lot of the focus as well.

    So, where that leaves us is here. A limited and perhaps unwise policy response that will mean one of two things. Substantial savings and a pause for more meaningful evaluation IF AGW turns out to be a crock (my guess), or a woefully inadequate response should AGW actually happen as expected over the next 50 years (Jim Hansen’s guess).

    It remains to be seen if Sandy ends up being the best or worst thing that could have happened at this point…

  7. Comment from: Robert


    I’ve long been an admirer of Calvin Coolidge, and wish he’d been around later, instead of Hoover and then FDR. His idea was that you listen politely to everyone, and then say NO to most things. Eventually people and institutions settle in to a realistic, useful rut, instead of hoping to impose their grand ideas for the improvement of the human lot (Ref: 20th Century).

    The whole advantage of an elected civilian government is balance, inertia, boredom and skepticism. The most plausible and qualified people never get to run things, because they are too convincing. The CSIRO needs to be kept firmly in its place, just like the BOM, and the Australian Army. A reasonable elected government gives them a bit, and at times may give them a lot – but that decision must rest with the elected government, with its mediocre and political mindset.

    The question must then be asked: what if you have a sly, amoral dunce running the country? That person will be more inclined to cave in to such lobbies as the arts luvvies, the technocrats and so on, in order to get cred and political reinforcement. That’s just the plain bad luck of democracy, but you are better off tolerating the waste and folly for a while till you can get to a ballot box – even if the waste runs into the billions. The government I’ll be inclined to vote for is one that is wary and skeptical of all technocracy and claimed expertise, and can see the human-nature component which distorts such things – and makes them especially dangerous.

    So, to echo Eisenhower, a man who saw a bit in his life and career, I’d say that government needs to be intensely skeptical of all technocracy, especially of one which is fad-ridden, has an Armageddon theme behind it and is based on very recent and raw science. I’d rather risk Armageddon than risk giving power to preachers of Armageddon.

  8. Comment from: Debbie


    Thankyou for your answer Graeme and I apologise if I appeared to be disagreeable.
    From my direct experience, organisations such as CSIRO have been denuded of the experts who understood the importance of and had much experience in the ‘frontline’ and ‘practical’ application of science. Many of those people have lost their funding over the past 2 decades and an alarming number of them are working overseas where their expertise is appreciated.
    Interestingly federal funding of ‘science and innovation’ has increased by nearly double in that same time frame…so it has obviously been channeled elsewhere.
    The recent Green and White papers released by the Fed Govt clearly indicate that some essential links to ‘productivity’ have been lost. That also includes environmental and ecological productivity.
    Decisions in resource management have been based on incomplete and theoretical assumptions…they look compelling but they are NOT(bold) translating well into practice.
    Bureaucracies are often the most likely to waste resources …not conserve them. They have to follow the ‘rules’ even when those rules have no basis in the current reality.
    Of course we need basic rules and regs….but they need to be linked to clear productive outcomes and they also need to be flexible and adaptive if they are dealing with such uncooperative beasts like the weather/climate. The climate/weather is not interested in following rules or computer generated trends. We don’t know enough to claim that the models are crystal balls and then make decisions based on those assumptions.
    So we can’t ‘control’ the weather/climate by modelling….but we can use modelling to learn more and better cope with its vagaries and extremes and we can use use technology responsibly to help us do that…as long as there are clearly defined desired outcomes that have a sound basis in practical application (as opposed to a political application).
    BTW….modelling is essentially stats….it is not ‘SCIENCE’ nor is it the practical application of science/technology/innovation.
    The climate modelling uses climate data…which is just data collection and analysis. Scientists are not necessarily the best people to perform those functions….and stat analysis can only really ever take a series of ‘snapshots’ and then extrapolate….or make ‘best guesses’.
    It is all very high tech and very interesting….but not exhibiting good ‘practical application’ results.

  9. Comment from: Graeme M


    Debbie, I think you are bemoaning a loss of practical expertise and its replacement with theoretical analysis. I can’t say too much about that in the context of resource management which is clearly where your own experience lies.

    But are you so sure that notion can be transferred to an assessment of ‘climate science’? AGW rests on well understood proven physical processes. And a lot of analysis, evaluation and modelling.

    So, let’s do an experiment in terms of experts and their knowledge. I assume you are sceptical of either AGW or the government response. Which specific things do you disagree with?

    Is there a Greenhouse Effect?
    Is CO2 a forcing?
    Are the feedbacks nett positive, negative or neutral?
    If CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, will it warm?
    If so, how much?
    Will we see unpredictable weather outcomes from that – ie will climate change?
    For better or worse?
    Who should be advising government about this?
    Should government act on that advice?
    If yes, what policies should government be developing in response?

    In answering those questions, which ‘experts’ are you relying upon? And how do you know that those experts are the ones you should trust? What is your basis for evaluation?

  10. Comment from: spangled drongo


    After Tony Newberry’s [Harmless Sky] valiant but vain effort to to get the 28 faceless ones from the BBC under FOIA, Magnificent Maurizio comes up with the goods.

    Many of the expected suspects “playing a blinder” for the last few years. What a sad organisation.

    Are you paying attention Auntie?

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/11/12/bbc-climate-28-revealed.html

  11. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Graeme, another question which is important is: seeing climate is always changing how do we separate nat var from human induced?

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if nat var was warming us and ACO2 was cooling us.

  12. Comment from: Neville


    More wasted millions on stupid renewables.

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

  13. Comment from: Debbie


    Graeme,
    based on your earlier comments and my last comments, I don’t believe those are the key questions.
    If you’re asking me if I think ‘climate modelling’ is a good basis to inform social policy, my answer is no.
    If you’re asking me if I think that future Climate Change is the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’, my answer is no.
    You are correct that it relates to my experience with resource management. Reliance on stat computer generated predictive modelling has led to some stupendously wasteful management decisions in the MDB since 2006/07. No good outcomes for the human environment, the natural environment or the Australian tax payer.
    As you have also pointed out, it has also led to AGW celebs and accepted ‘experts’ laying dubious claim to weather events like Sandy.
    More specifically, but without great detail however… on your wider questions my answers in order:
    1) Yes…but it is a misnoma, because the atmosphere does not behave the same as a greenhouse and therefore the results are different to the perception of ‘greenhouse’. Water vapour is the key ‘greenhouse’ roof in our atmosphere and is quite different to a roof on a ‘greenhouse’.I also don’t think the human influence is a global influence. It clearly does have local influence however.
    2) I would reword that question to…is CO2 a key driver in climate change? My answer to that question is it doesn’t appear to be the case….real time data is not supporting either the predictive or postdictive modelling that uses CO2 forcings as a key driver of global change….the correlations are tenuous and differ remarkably with different calendar start/stop datum points.
    3) I think the jury is still probably out on those feedback questions. It is actually at the core of the disagreement in the physics and the other ‘sciences’.
    4) That one too has many contradictory answers depending on the modelling methodology and which other variables are switched on or off…from 1 degree upwards from a doubling…to the question of lag and some modelling that shows CO2 may possibly predicate cooling….but that is a very brief answer to a rather complicated question.
    5) I think that is also the wrong question….of course climate will change….it always has….but can we stop it from changing or control how it changes? Should we be meddling in something like that?What are the costs? What exactly are we trying to achieve by meddling in it?
    Your last 3 questions are politically based….and I believe I have already answered them.
    I think SD’s question above is also valid.
    Natural variation is highly likely to drown out any attempts on our part to mitigate climate/weather behaviour….we would probably do better to focus on learning lessons from extreme weather events that can help us to cope better the next time they come around….as they invariably do.
    I sincerely hope that we will get better at ‘predicting’ seasonal variations….but we are far from that place yet.
    A large percentage of humanity has chosen the urban coastal fringes as their ‘natural habitat’ and they are therefore at risk from the heavy influences of that positioning. I don’t believe mitigating CO2 emissions will do much to reduce that particular risk….and from a couple of your earlier comments I suspect you don’t either.

  14. Comment from: Neville


    Graeme have a look at NOAA’s reconstruction of the PDO from 993 to 1996, or about a thousand years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO1000yr.svg

    The first 300 years would have seen extreme mega droughts in western USA and Canada and very high rainfall in eastern Australia. Flooding must have been extensive and very severe cyclones over that period.
    Then another period of 150+ years of the reverse, rainfall in USA west coast and very bad droughts over eastern OZ.
    The last cool phase shown is the 1950s and 1970s wet period for OZ.

    But the NATURAL climate shown here is much more extreme than anything we have experienced over the last 100 years.
    So will we ever be able to say oh yes this extreme climate we’ve had is very unusual and must be caused by humans emitting more co2? Of cause not.

    And will we ever change the climate for the better by spending trillions $ over the next 100 years. Of course not?

  15. Comment from: Neville


    BTW here is the abstract for the PDO reco above.

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/pdo-macdonald2005.txt

    Mention is made of the mega droughts in W. USA and W. Canada during that huge cool phase at the start of the graph.

    Silly use of cause instead of course above , sorry.

  16. Comment from: John Sayers


    Neville – re the Solar Dawn Project – the Newman government removes a $75 mil subsidy which accounts for 6.5% of the total budget and the whole project falls over. These renewable schemes are a joke.

  17. Comment from: Neville


    John you’ve gotta laugh. Newman pulls out funding of 6.5% and it’s all over but the Gillard govt pulls out of funding Mildura’s second solar project and we get the same result.

    The Vic govt is now asking why? What a super con and fraud and farce. Solar and wind wouldn’t last 5 minutes without taxpayer funding and of course can’t change temp or climate by a whisker.
    This whole mess is a delusional, barking mad sick joke that criminaly wastes billions of dollars every year for a 100% guaranteed zero return on our investment.(?) Ya gotta laugh or just crawl into a heap and cry. Why are we so stupid and disregard simple maths and simple logic and reason?

  18. Comment from: Neville


    Just to add to the above. If AGW is the “greatest moral challenge of our lives”, then why does the Gillard govt want the Vic govt to turn the latrobe valley into another Pilbara?

    We have monster reserves of brown coal that can’t be easily exported yet the Gillard govt now wants the Vic govt to allow the processing of that brown coal into black coal so it can then be exported. DUH!!!!
    Gillard and her govt are bi-polar hypocrites and should be held to account for their lies and blatant stupidity.

  19. Comment from: John Sayers


    Neville – we did a story on the solar tower idea, i.e as in Mildura, back in 1986 when I was working on Beyond 2000. 36 years later it still hasn’t eventuated.

  20. Comment from: Neville


    Anthony Watts has set up a TV response to Gore and his fabricating dirty weather nonsense.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/13/counter-programming-to-al-gores-dirty-weather-report-will-be-on-wuwt-tv-live-starting-wednesday-nov-14-at-8pm-est/#more-74206

    That’s tomorrow our time, very good presenters by the look of it.

  21. Comment from: Graeme M


    While we are meandering around on this thread, I thought I’d post a question I’ve not really found an answer to. So if there’s

    anyone with a strong physics background that can explain I’d be grateful. I first started wondering about this back when Nasif

    Nahle was posting here. I must warn you up front that I am not sure I can frame the question clearly enough but here goes.

    One of the basics of the radiative greenhouse theory is that of the energy budget. This tells us how much heat per square

    metre we have going in and out. Now I don’t recall the exact numbers, but I think it’s argued that there is about 1365 w/m2 at

    the TOA which is then divided by 4 to provide a representative number for each square metre of the earth’s surface. Now I can

    understand the reasoning for that, but then the same equation seems to be applied to a theoretical blackbody. This idea seems

    to be used to derive the difference between a blackbody earth and an earth with an atmosphere (and hey presto, GHE).

    Where I come unstuck is the notion that you’d divide the amount of incoming solar radiation by 4 for a blackbody. Now, the 4

    number is used for a rotating body. If we were just calculating for a non-rotating blackbody sphere, we’d divide by 2. That

    is, the sphere intercepts the amount of radiation equivalent to a disk of same diameter, but that amount is then smeared over

    a hemisphere, and the area of a hemisphere is 2x that of a disk.

    However to me that’s just a matter of geometry. It isn’t dealing with the actual physics of energy absorption/heat

    transfer. So clearly there is something about the latter that I don’t understand.

    So, here’s my problem.

    As I understand it, a perfect blackbody absorbs all incident radiation and has no albedo. The critical point to me though is

    whether that occurs at the molecular level, or at a smaller or larger scale.

    Imagine the surface of our blackbody sphere. At a point on the equator with light shining from the sun directly at that point,

    how much radiation can an individual totally absorbent molecule absorb? How much is available for it to absorb? I won’t go

    into the detail of how a molecule actually heats and re-radiates, partly cos it is a bit too micro-detail for this question

    and partly because I don’t actually understand that bit.

    My guess is that it absorbs as much of the available energy as it needs to ‘heat’ up and reach thermal equilibrium. Presuming

    that my guess is right, let us now consider another molecule at a point very close to the pole. What will be the effect on

    that molecule, providing that the full disk of the sun is visible to the molecule?

    Bear in mind that molecule is part of a blackbody with no atmosphere, so there is no atmospheric absorption or scattering and

    the body has no albedo. Does our molecule absorb more or less radiation than the one at the equator, and does it heat more or

    less?

    The question is, does it reach thermal equilibrium more quickly, more slowly, or at the same rate? Put another way, is

    there more or less radiation available to our pole based molecule when compared to our equator based molecule?

    Anyone?

  22. Comment from: Neville


    Graeme there are many sites that have physicists posting and responding all the time. Like Watts or Curry or McIntyre or Spencer etc.

    Perhaps Cohenite might be able to help if he has the time? Just don’t bother asking the weather is climate brigade.

  23. Comment from: Graeme M


    Heh, haven’t been game to try any of those yet. Might try the Physics Forums. I posed a question there a while back about what is air pressure. That got quite a variety of answers and eventually it got too hard to follow. I’m just not THAT smart.

  24. Comment from: kuhnkat


    Graeme M,

    “But the science as it is accepted suggests a primary radiative forcing of what, 1.2C from a doubling of CO2 and then the positive feedbacks are predicted to be in the range of 2-4C I think from memory.”

    This is a THEORETICAL consideration. By now most intelligent people should understand that in reality THEORETICAL considerations can be completely overwhelmed or undermined by other real physics. Since all the studies based on what empirical evidence can be found is at most 1.5c and there is NO evidence for positive feedbacks, and some recent empirical work showing NEGATIVE feedbacks, you really need to let go of your binkie.

    Oh, you need to show us that who accepted it matters and they matter because they have supported the theoretical work with empirical work. Sorry bud, that is how it works, NOT arm waving pleas to save the whales and earth etc.

  25. Comment from: Graeme M


    “you really need to let go of your binkie”

    Gosh. OK, if you say so!

    You could try reading comprehension classes maybe? I am not arguing that those numbers are right, I am just reflecting what I have read and understood was the accepted position. Sure there is some controversy about that, but what do you reckon I’d be taught at any high school or university in the land?

    As to showing you that whoever accepted those numbers matters, well… no I don’t. If that is what climate scientists think it is and that’s what they use in their papers and in their research, then it is what it is. If they think it’s something different, well then it’s something different. I’m not trying to convince you of anything.

    Trigger happy much?

  26. Comment from: Robert


    It’s worth remembering that many people referred to as “climate scientists” believe that climate can be modelled. This is akin to presenting oneself at the start of a Formula 1 race with the Dinky Toy of a Morris Minor – and expecting to compete.

    Think about how very rough but useful sets observations, like ENSO and PDO, have become simplistic levers or “drivers” in the mechanistic view of climate now blatantly promoted by gang-reviewed “science”. You only have to have your own acronym and you’re a climate player.

    It’s not science. It’s the bloody death of science.

  27. Comment from: Graeme M


    Just a point of clarification. In my earlier comments I was really just posing a question about how governments should respond to advice from experts. I wasn’t and am not trying to argue whether the experts really are expert, or are the right experts. I am not trying to argue any particular case at all.

    That said, my own view is definitely sceptical and with some of the new revelations coming to light you do have to wonder at what’s going to happen next. Check out 28gate at WUWT and others, also read a couple of the recent posts on Tallblokes site.

    And the whole Superstorm Sandy thing – deliberate misrepresentation to sell an agenda.

    No wonder some are sceptical eh?

  28. Comment from: el gordo


    Methane hydrates … the future is now.

    http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/11/12/alaska-ice-tested-as-possible-new-energy-source/

  29. Comment from: Debbie


    Graeme,
    you are seemingly somewhat ‘conflicted’ about the ‘science’?
    I am intrigued by your comment above re what climate scientists say it is (or isn’t) then that’s what it is (or isn’t).
    I don’t know if you have noticed, but the actual climate/weather doesn’t appear to agree with that comment.
    It isn’t doing what the climate science and the AGW celebs say it should be doing. Even that ‘fleeting fancy by 2012′ (ie snow in Australia)

  30. Comment from: Graeme M


    Debbie, I must have a poorer grasp of English that I thought.

    Look, when it comes to science, there is a body of knowledge generally acknowledged as being what we think we know. Some bits are better ‘known’ than others, but that is what we call science. And consensus, regardless of the usual sceptic rhetoric, is consensus. In other words, it is what scientists can agree on. And that is what we teach, what we use in all sorts of research & development, it’s what the public accept as being the science. This isn’t some new thinking here. It’s how it is. That doesn’t mean that science isn’t always being revised or even discarded because of course, it is.

    Now when it comes to what we call climate science, like it or not, the generally agreed science is what it is. I am not a scientist, I don’t mix with scientists and I don’t read broadly of the literature. As far as I know, the agreed view of climate scientists, when it comes to AGW, is that it exists. That increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the radiative forcing which will cause the average surface temperature to increase. I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong, I am just observing that that is what mainstream science thinks. If you disagree, show me the evidence. And that does NOT mean the various sceptical talking points.

    Am I conflicted? Yes. I am not sceptical because I wish simply to be a contrarian. I am sceptical because the consensus view, the agreed hypothesis regarding AGW, seems unlikely to me. After doing a LOT of reading, I know two things.

    One, there is an awful lot of manipulation, deceit, and extreme activism within the ranks of the scientific community, though I admit to not being certain just who this ‘community’ is. This raises substantial suspicion in my mind.

    Two, climate science is not just a shallow and vaguely practiced discipline. A lot of very diligent and clever work has been done to develop the ideas and concepts that currently underpin the science. I cannot hope to understand it well enough to truly be confident my scepticism is well founded.

    So, I am left uncertain. My gut tells me it’s a crock, but my mind tells me it’s not possible for me to know enough to say that with confidence. So I leave it to others and read avidly of the blogs and the discussion and I watch the signs.

    So far, I think AGW as a concept is taking a battering. And I think within the science itself we are seeing a major shift… The next few years will be very interesting indeed.

  31. Comment from: gavin


    Back in snappy mode again while seeking info for a sea change. Hundreds of coastline photos over several days with latest lumix super zoom compact digital. More evidence of a distinct SL max line creeping up and across our seaside landscape.

    This line is constantly punched in by wave action on every high tide. On a sandy sea floor there is an abrupt surface change where every full tide reaches frontal dunes. On rocky headlands most clifs are under cut at the same level. This horizontal line from a distance is virtually continious round every bay.

    Close up the most acute angle is actually a fine curve with it’s radius devined by the strata hardness from point to point. The upper most tides have formed vast but scarred near horizontal rock platforms, some hundreds of meters across. These wave action boundaries skirt nearby islands too.

    Back in the larger river estuaries, we see different markers much less affected by tides. Wooden piles carry clusters of oysters that define the uppermost tidal movement, Concrete piers likewise can’t hide the stains that only occur in the active zone.

    Tidal lakes further inland give the game away with their distinctive pink salty margins in otherwise fertile grass lands. These are damped tidal fringes with stable to rising water level

  32. Comment from: gavin


    GM re your Q above, you really have to be nimble with calcs to follow radiation physics properly.

    Having burnt out my calculator decades back, I got by with the engineering for radio communications and instrument analysis of signals just using short cuts based on fundamentals.

    Any one including Nassif who starts to fiddle with blackbody and unity misses the point. Anyone who thinks they know how radiation plays through the atmosphere molecule by molecule is likely to be useless in the practice of communication.

    For instance there are suttle short cuts around transducers, medium to medium that engineers take for granted like black body physics. Atenuation aluminium rod to atmosphere and vice verca? Never. A miss match at critical frequency can burn hence the diapole must be present regardless of its shape.

    Can you imagine a series of dipoles tickling each other as we go from earth surface to space? What are the concequencies of miss match gas to gas including H2O? Antennas, filters, resonance etc all stuff in IEEE is essential for feet on ground radiation physics.

  33. Comment from: Debbie


    Hmmm?
    Perhaps the real issue is therefore the politics?
    Perhaps ‘the science’ is being used inappropriately?

  34. Comment from: gavin


    Now, can I go home? Big struggle yesterday to get Wi Fi up on the laptop just to stay with you guys. Patient lady in the Phillipines worked through the news and 7.30 to get me “enabled”. NextG, 3G, 4G? Bring on the NBN!

  35. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Gav, I wouldn’t recommend a sea change.

    A bloke as nervous as you should stick to the hills. If you can’t set your mind at rest by observing a 160 year old structure like Fort Denison that has measured a 3 cm SLR in the last 100 years or the 170 year old MSL mark and tide lines at Port Arthur and prefer to believe your own interpretation of recent satellite photos you would end up wetting the bed with anxiety every night.

    Not a good way to spend your old age.

  36. Comment from: Neville


    SD I think Gav should take a bex and a good lie down.

    BTW Terry McCrann has a good article today on Combet and Gillard the two biggest BS merchants and liars.

    China is doing sweet FA about co2 emissions and he makes some very good pointa.

    We will cut real co2 emissions by only 50,000 tonnes pa.
    Most of our cuts will come from the purchase of super expensive certificates from Europe, about 66%.
    I’ve explained years ago that Europe’s co2 trading is rort with corruption and has been closed before to try and clean up their unholy mess.

    So our our real cuts will be swamped by India and China by a factor of 90 or a ratio of 90 to 1.

    Does anyone still believe in our co2 tax mess? But why is the Gillard govt lying once again to the Aussie electorate? What is wrong with the ABC and Fairfax media?

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

  37. Comment from: gavin


    Nev; repeater stations inc?

  38. Comment from: Graeme M


    At the end of the day, SLR is somewhat dependent on local circumstances. Rather than all the blather about rebound this and GRACE that and so on, what would be interesting is direct on the ground impacts. What is actually happening locally? It would be interesting to be able to collate real life measurements against local structures over say the past 100 years for as many coastal points as possible. This would offer some sense of both the impact and the local rate of change and be some kind of mechanism for evaluating the theoretical numbers.

  39. Comment from: cohenite


    Graeme says:

    “That increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the radiative forcing which will cause the average surface temperature to increase. I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong, I am just observing that that is what mainstream science thinks. If you disagree, show me the evidence. And that does NOT mean the various sceptical talking points.”

    Graeme is the sort who hits the ‘consensus science’ with a feather and wants perfection from the sceptics.

    I have given him a plethora of papers which disprove AGW and the so-called heating properties of increasing CO2; he has ignored him; so perhaps back to basics, Beers Law which is explained here:

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/radical-new-hypothesis-on-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/?cp=11

    Graphically the effect on CO2 ‘warming’ can be shown as this:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png

  40. Comment from: Neville


    Geezzz I’m sorry Gav ,I know how you hate facts.

    Julie Bishop gives a good summary of the total fraud and con that is the EU co2 trading system. A real corrupt first class con, fraud and ponzi scheme.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/the-bishops-gambit/carbon-offsets-have-already-run-out-of-credit-20110720-1hnmv.html

  41. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Yes Nev, the looney left and MSM just cannot spot the elephant. They rant on about Abbott’s claim re the carbon tax, that he overstates it whereas really they just won’t examine it in any detail.

    And gav not only can’t see the wood for the trees, he can’t see the message for the messenger.

    But don’t feel lonely gav, all my lefty green neighbours do likewise. I listen to and watch the ABC in order to get the dregs but my lefty green mates won’t even read a message from any messenger who hasn’t been “peer reviewed”.

  42. Comment from: Graeme M


    Cohenite, you don’t need to belt me around with papers etc. The paragraph of mine that you quote above is taken out of context and then misunderstood.

    All I was saying is that as I understand it, mainstream science – the ‘consensus’ if you will – agrees that the GHE is real and that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the primary forcing and cause the surface temperature to rise. I was NOT making any statement about what I personally think of AGW.

    Look, I’m sorry I asked the question. I really only hoped to get a sense of whether anyone here had seriously considered what a government should do in the face of expert advice about a matter.

    Arguing with me about who are the experts or whether they are right or trying to prove that I am saying something about the science is to miss the point entirely and I’m starting to wonder if you are all being deliberately obtuse or if I cannot write sensibly.

    So let’s just pretend I never raised the question and go back to debating sea level rise or something…

  43. Comment from: gavin


    GM; despite our need for the easy life, I still working hard by standing on the sand with fellow visitors including some who know a thing or two about seas and tides. Two independent local guides teaching surfing with two loads of year ten first timers from Canberra must know something about likely conditions today.

    Long waves forming late on high tide cater for any pure starters. Little onshore wind and a fine day make it all excelent viewing as it so happens we get the highest and lowest tide in one day. Just below the boards resting up the dune is a big flat covered in the latest debris. Larger pieces of driftwood mark the most recent wave extremity.

    Round behind the frontal dune this high tide is also clearly defined right back to a road bridge over the creek. Here the flat is quickly guttered by the extra volume of sea water retreating. This tide has picked up logs that will wait on rocks outside for their next lift, over against the clifs. The line holds everywhere and is very easy to find.

  44. Comment from: toby


    Graeme, for what its worth i thought what you wrote was very clear.

    and also a worthy point.

    some seem to want to argue for the sake of it?…i suspect too much skim reading?

  45. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Graeme, I actually wrote up a reply to your q on what govts should do but something came up and it didn’t happen. It was to the effect that in these days of rampant duck shoving and bankruptcy a govt should make promises to do all the PC corrections and if it wins power should put them on hold until the Bjorn Lomborg eventuality comes into play.

    If the election is AGW-free as in the US then saying nothing but having those same policies is better still.

  46. Comment from: kuhnkat


    So Graeme,

    you think that we should accept what the self proclaimed experts on Flying Saucers tell us also?? How about those witch doctors and Voodoo Practitioners?? You want to tell us what they believe so we can better understand magic?? You live in a fantasy world of made up Argument from made up Authority!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Let go of it. You WILL feel more adult almost immediately after that first shock of feeling exposed and helpless!!

  47. Comment from: kuhnkat


    Graeme says,

    “All I was saying is that as I understand it, mainstream science – the ‘consensus’ if you will – agrees that the GHE is real and that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the primary forcing and cause the surface temperature to rise. ”

    Actually they only agree with their own echo chamber. Your statement in its structure shows a bias towards accepting it at a real level. Really Graeme, LET GO!!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  48. Comment from: kuhnkat


    Graeme backs off with,

    “So let’s just pretend I never raised the question and go back to debating sea level rise or something…”

    DEBATING???

    I think we are getting to the basic issue. Graeme is not able to make rational evaluations of the information and come to realistic conclusions so must DEBATE where some ephemeral valuation is put on the presentation and arguments that do not necessarily have anything to do with reality, facts, and empirical observations.

    Graeme, you are debating and it is irritating to us who are actually looking at data and evaluating it in relation to reality and not some extremely poor models and modelled data.

    After years of having the Consensus View rammed down our throats it is the last thing we want to hear as it is made up BS!!! Do try and LET GO!!!

  49. Comment from: spangled drongo


    “Tidal lakes further inland give the game away with their distinctive pink salty margins in otherwise fertile grass lands. These are damped tidal fringes with stable to rising water level”

    Gav, got any solid, measurable data on that or is it just something you feel in your water?

  50. Comment from: toby


    No KK, he asked a perfectly reasonable question in my opinion and you appear to want to be dogmatic/ argumentative for the sake of it. from the way i read Graeme’s posts he thinks cagw IS HIGHLY LIKELY TO BE COMPLETE CRAP. he just has a little empathy for those who actually have to make decisions and wondered what others would do in their position.
    You think it is crap, i think it is crap, most of us here think it is crap. BUT WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE THAT IT IS CRAP!
    MOST POLITICIANS are not bright enough to think critically for themselves to work out what we have done. If all your highly paid “experts” told you we must act the world is soon to end…would you really do ntg?….remember you ( the polllie not you KK) are too stupid to think critically for yourself…and probably dont have time with everything else on your plate. you probably only listen to the ABC, read the canberra times,have the utmost respect for the UN, world bank, IPCC ETC, and get your science from grabs from national geographic and the prior “sources” mentioned.

    “you” also probably believe humans need to be controlled and govt needs to be more and more in control of everything we as a globe do…all for the “sake of mankind” and climate change gives you a perfect route to this path…so self interest in a way prevents you from even questioning what is for us so abundantly clear.

Pages: « 160 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 7080 » Show All