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: « 165 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 7580 » Show All

  1. Comment from: Neville


    Geezzzz Gav you evidently have not noticed but the trend for SLR is declining. IT IS A DECLINING TREND.

    At the moment the trend to 2100 is only 17cm, way down on the trends in the last 4 IPCC reports 1990 to 2007.

    Humlum is quoting UNI Colorado latest estimates which admittedly could change in the future. But for the last 25 years the trend is down.

    Guess what Gav I could ask any number of young people like yours above and if they’ve been bitten by the your alarmist bug they’ll believe the same silly nonsense.

    Many closely recorded Glaciers have advanced and retreated for thousands of years and these are documented.
    So why would things be different today?

    Just posting some of the info AGAIN from Humlum’s Ocean page. Please see that even satellite measurements have seen a decline in SLR from once 4mm year to about 2mm year.
    Read the last few paragraphs below and read the last paragraph for IPCC report’s reducing trends.

    The 12-month global sea level change display significant variations, apparently with an approximate 4 year period. These variations are seen to be superimposed on a general falling trend. Overall, since initiation of these satellite measurements, the 12-month sea level rise has decreased from about 4 mm/yr to about 2 mm/yr (using the 3 yr average).

    The annual global sea level change shown in the diagram above can be used for estimating the resulting global sea level change at year 2100, compared to now, if the most recent sea level change rate is taken as being representative for the remaining time until year 2100. Clearly this is not realistic, but the result of such an exercise might still have some interest for comparison with computer-generated sea level forecasts, and is shown in the diagram below.

    Estimated average global sea level change until year 2100, according to sea level change values provided by the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at University of Colorado at Boulder (see figure above). The estimated average global sea level change is calculated using a simple extrapolation of the most recent observed annual sea level change (thin line; diagram above, please see also note below). The thick line represents the simple running 3 year average of this estimate. Time is shown along the x-axis as calendar years. Last diagram update: 18 September 2012, with a prognosis (red graph) of about 17 cm average global sea level rise until 2100.

    Click here to download the entire data series since 1992.

    Click here to read about details of calibration.

    Click here to read about data smoothing.

    Note: Using the 3 year average shown in the diagram above, based on observed sea level changes, around 1999 the total sea level change from then until year 2100 would have been estimated to about 40 cm, in 2005 to about 30 cm (year 2005-2100), and in 2010 to about 22 cm (year 2010-2100). On July 14, 2012, the prognosis would be about 16 cm sea level increase until 2100. It is interesting that this simple empirical forecast has shown a steady trend towards lower values since about 2002.

    Click here to jump back to list of contents.

  2. Comment from: spangled drongo


    D’ya think gav that with all this glacial melt and the SLs going nowhere that we may not be across all that is happening?

    That the historical obs and measurements may not be quite right?

    Or the noise might be bigger than the signal?

    “The melting of the ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica is about twice as slow as previously thought. The study, conducted by TU Delft, SRON and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The scientists published their findings in the September issue of Nature Geoscience.

    We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted.’ The average rise in sea levels as a result of the melting ice caps is also lower.”

    Maybe those ice caps are still gaining like they were before GRACE came along to tell us otherwise.

  3. Comment from: Neville


    That Flannery idiot at it again.

    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3640530.htm

  4. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Yes Neville, but not just Flim Flam. Eastley and the ABC are also tarred with that brush so how can you expect a rational question.

    When the three of them know that more than half the country don’t subscribe to their ideology and the economics of it will never add up in the real world, they blithly waffle on, ignoring the elephant.

    Someone was saying at Jo’s that the Climate Commission is being used to brain-wash and train other department heads so fed PS will need a big flush-out ASAP.

    Not to mention our ABC. Did you see Robyn’s science show only published 4 comments.

  5. Comment from: spangled drongo


    More comments trickling through. All highly critical of Williams.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/climate3a-who-denies3f/4381756

  6. Comment from: el gordo


    Ian there is a need for governments to begin infrastructure building, not freeways in congested cities but Chinese built very fast trains under the Great Divide to open up the west ….criss crossing the whole country.

    I’m not confident today’s politicians have the bottle for the job.

    Gav I don’t believe CO2 causes global warming, so a little glacial melt doesn’t alarm me.

  7. Comment from: Neville


    Interesting study by Aussie scientist AA Boretti on the remarkable deceleration in SLR over the last 10 years. He uses Jason and Topex satellite data.

    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/aug/8aug2012a1.html

    Here is his quote at the end of the article.

    Commenting on these findings, Boretti writes that the huge deceleration of SLR over the last 10 years “is clearly the opposite of what is being predicted by the models,” and that “the SLR’s reduction is even more pronounced during the last 5 years.” To illustrate the importance of his findings, he notes that “in order for the prediction of a 100-cm increase in sea level by 2100 to be correct, the SLR must be almost 11 mm/year every year for the next 89 years,” but he notes that “since the SLR is dropping, the predictions become increasingly unlikely,” especially in view of the facts that (1) “not once in the past 20 years has the SLR of 11 mm/year ever been achieved,” and that (2) “the average SLR of 3.1640 mm/year is only 20% of the SLR needed for the prediction of a one meter rise to be correct.”

    Clearly, the more-rabid-than-the-IPCC-crowd has it all wrong when it comes to both sea level and climate, for as Boretti concludes, “the oceans are truly the best indicator of climate,” and what they suggest is not compatible with what those alarmed about climate change continually claim.

    The paragraph above is a gem, just as I claimed a few days ago. “The oceans are the best indicator of climate.”

  8. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    Scientist!
    Quote from the Catallaxy files,

    It is neither necessary nor sufficient to have a degree in a science discipline to be a scientist. Some of the greatest scientists in history had no formal academic qualifications. Some of the great fraudsters in history had an armful of degrees. A degree is merely an indicator.

    To be a scientist requires just that a person proposes testable hypotheses and applies the scientific method. Not that their hypotheses are necessarily right, just that they apply the scientific method with rigour and care, and that their tests are repeatable, and that their conclusions are based on logic. It also requires that a scientist be open-minded, and be willing to reject previously strongly held views when presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Finally, a scientist (should) normally attack only another person’s method and conclusions, not their person.

    The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method thus:

    a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses

    I always though this to be true, although formal qualifications are a great help, no denying.

  9. Comment from: Neville


    The clueless Gillard govt puts more of investment at risk because of the co2 tax and other cost blowouts.

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

  10. Comment from: gavin


    Keeping up guys?

    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2012/nov/12_196.shtml

    http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/sea-level-rise-1/assessment

    http://w3.unisa.edu.au/hawkecentre/events/2012events/JSA_DarrenRay.pdf

    Btw; sceptics are only about 2%

  11. Comment from: Neville


    Gav sceptics are only 2% ? So does that include UNi Colorado, IPCC on SLR, Humlum and Boretti on satellite data?
    All show a decline in SLR over many years and now until 2100. Your first link seems to confirm that SL goes up and down over thousands of years , I can’t link to the second and the last is a govt mickey mouse yarn for kids that’s almost impossible to read.

    If you believe these fantasies then protest in India and China because there is no chance that OECD countries reductions in emissions of co2 can help your cause.

    Remember that simple graph and simple maths? OECD 6% co2 increase by 2035 and non OECD a whopping 73% increase in co2 emissions by 2035.
    When will you wake up?

  12. Comment from: Neville


    It seems that some of the dendro groups and former pals are turning on their one time hero Michael Mann.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/dendros-stick-it-to-the-mann/#comments

    Poor Mann must look back at the time when his BS hockey stick was a pin up emblem for Gore , the IPCC and many scientific institutions around the globe.
    We owe McIntyre and McKitrick etc a big round of applause for their exposure of this con trick. Now the rest are starting to wake up and hopefully catch up.

  13. Comment from: gavin


    Nev; I can go on quietly because I’m arguing on firm ground. Hay tackles IPCC model projections as reported here

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/346332/title/Sea_level_rise_overflowing_estimates

    and here

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121101153549.htm

    a guy fumbles @wuwt, I find someone who knows his math here, see a Fourier analysis, then try to shake it

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/sea-level-and-la-nina/

    took me under five min to debunk decel

  14. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Gav, your first link is essentially saying that GRACE is wrong and shouldn’t be measuring any reduction in ice caps. They should still be growing.

    Your second link isn’t working and your third is, as Neville says, reconstructed and satellite measurements [mostly harmless] which is pretty much child propaganda.

    BTW, did you object to the ABC’s standards in the science show?

  15. Comment from: Neville


    Gav that first story is pure bunk. The earlier holocene was much warmer with much higher SLs than today. Not the Eemian interglacial as stated in this yarn.
    Anyhow just more complex modeling used to try and forecast SLR by 2100. I’ll stick to the latest deceleration shown by IPCC reports, UNI of Colorado and Boretti etc.

    If Tamino thinks he’s onto something then let him pursue it. But SLR is decelerating whether you like it or not.
    I’m still asking you the obvious question, if you believe the above tell us what we should be doing about it. Like how can we change things for the better and give us your time line?
    I’ve asked this question for years but you can’t even attempt an answer. Why not?

  16. Comment from: gavin


    2nd link – ScienceDaily (Nov. 1, 2012) — “Sea levels are rising faster than expected from global warming, and University of Colorado geologist Bill Hay has a good idea why. The last official IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise between 0.2 and 0.5 meters by the year 2100. But current sea-level rise measurements meet or exceed the high end of that range and suggest a rise of one meter or more by the end of the century”.

    Simple; SL rise is thermal expansion and glacial melt, both related to global temp. Can’t have one without the others, so rate of SL rise is related to glacier retreat and thermal expansion of all oceans.
    Glacier retreat is all round and growing, decel is impossible, no model needed.

    Re Science Show, did I miss something there?

  17. Comment from: Neville


    Gav your point is supposition and modeling for future reference. Actual MEASUREMENTS don’t support your silly arguments.
    SLR is decelerating and it has been for years. But you’re the believer, so please answer my question. I mean you’ve been asked for ages so what’s your problem?
    After all the maths and graph are easy to understand.

  18. Comment from: Neville


    Gav you’re quoting from a bloke who doesn’t even understand the basics of our holocene temp and SL history. Here is the quote from his speech.

    The last time Earth’s climate was as balmy as today was about 120,000 years ago, when the planet was 2–3° Celsius warmer and sea levels were 4–6 meters higher. Much of the Greenland ice sheet was melted then. “Those sea level change rates are very, very large, and that was under natural conditions, not the human perturbation that’s going on now,” says Hay.

    And Greenland isn’t the only concern — Antarctica contains a vast amount of ice that, if emptied entirely into the ocean, would cause 80 meters of sea level rise. For years scientists suspected the Antarctic ice was frozen to the ground, but evidence now suggests there is liquid water under many regions, lubricating the ice base like a skating rink. The only things stopping that ice from sliding into the sea are ice shelves, which act like corks in a bottle, Hay says. As these ice shelves break up — as some are already doing — “it’s like taking the cork out of the bottle.”

    Are you serious about this bloke? The holocene optimum was the last time the planet was much warmer than today and SLs were much higher.
    Not the emmian 120,000 years ago, when it was much warmer as well.
    Did you read this nonsense before you posted it? So tell us do you agree with his comment or not .
    Was there much higher temps in the holocene optimum with much higher sea levels? Yes or No?

  19. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Gav, Bill Hay’s “evidence” is just more of his assumptions to add to the models.

    “In climate change, every feedback seems to go positive”

    Oh dear!

    Garbage in, Gospel out.

    But it doesn’t debunk anything.

    If you want to seriously debunk deceleration you can’t do it from either people’s assumptions or satellite measurements, you have to use factual observations and empirical measurements.

    Of course, if you still refuse to believe what’s actually happening in the real world there’s not much else we can do for you.

  20. Comment from: spangled drongo


    “Glacier retreat is all round and growing, decel is impossible, no model needed.”

    There is some glacier retreat but there is no SLR or at least no acceleration in SLR.

    For that to happen it only needs the ice caps to remain stable and according to your earlier link that is what is happening.

    Prior to GRACE when the height of the ice caps were measured it was acknowledged that the ice caps were increasing.

    What this is telling us is that we should ignore computerised measurements and stick with simple indicators like observed SLR.

    For you to deny reality, look at computer screens and keep muttering “decel is impossible” is a bit deranged.

  21. Comment from: spangled drongo


    East coast of Australia for the last ~ 100 years. 2 inches of SLR, all last century:

    http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/196_high.png

  22. Comment from: Robert


    It’s just a factoid, but quite a few major glaciers are advancing. Means nothing, of course, just like the retreat of many more glaciers.

    If our Green Betters get their way and man is finally able to manipulate climate by sacrifices and temple offerings to GIM and Goldman Sachs, they’ll be able to restore Europe’s glaciers to the pre-warming levels of 1700.

    Mind you, around 1700 people watched glacier advance with horror – and yearned for the good old pre-cooling days. Can’t win sometimes, can you?

  23. Comment from: cohenite


    gav quotes someone:

    ““Sea levels are rising faster than expected from global warming, and University of Colorado geologist Bill Hay has a good idea why. The last official IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise between 0.2 and 0.5 meters by the year 2100. But current sea-level rise measurements meet or exceed the high end of that range and suggest a rise of one meter or more by the end of the century”.

    That is a lie; refer to Houston and Dean’s and Watson’s papers. Houston and Dean found sea level rises which:

    “are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010).”

    You’re a crank gav.

  24. Comment from: debbie


    I think our CAGW panic merchnts and SLR panic merchants need to revisit the serenity prayer.
    They can even make it to Mother Gaia if they want:
    Mother Gaia grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And the wisdom to know the difference.

  25. Comment from: gavin


    coh, you forgot to mention Tamino knocks Houston & Dean a over h. Too easy to fiddle when only using 50 or so records when others can find 500.

    Need to look deeper little mate.

  26. Comment from: gavin


    People who wish to know SL instruments and methods can start here.

    http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/jevrejevaetal2008.php

    This time stretch is essential in order to understand SL decel v accel frauds using truncated data and Deb can dry up in the chorus

  27. Comment from: Neville


    Pack it in Gav you’re making an even bigger fool of yourself. Also I note you can’t even make an attempt to answer my question.

    BTW Terry McCrann takes apart GAIA brain Flannery and the lies and frauds of wind and solar.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannerys_100_per_cent_fantasy/#commentsmore

  28. Comment from: cohenite


    gav says:

    “coh, you forgot to mention Tamino knocks Houston & Dean a over h. Too easy to fiddle when only using 50 or so records when others can find 500.”

    ?

    50? 500? Tamino?

    Clarification, links?

  29. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    gav you know they selected 24 sites only to prove their assumptions, don’t you?

    I downloaded the data provided on site and will test it myself as soon as I can grab a moment, hope this data is the complete one and not only the 24 they used, if so then no point really.

    Gavin, with your often claimed intimate knowledge of all things technical it would be a breeze for you to do the same and see it for yourself.
    Give it a go Gav, it might give an insight you seem to be missing at the moment.

  30. Comment from: gavin


    Tamino stuff was on DailySc or ScepticalSc

    Having managed a few floats, pitfalls are sinking float, slime scum, gunk on dopey rope or rusty chain, spinning top windup, max/min records, tide records out of sync, no peered calibration or zero after discontinuities.

    Remind u of old weather stations?

    VIP cert of health reqd before taking data seriously.

  31. Comment from: gavin


    forgot waves and ripples, hence blocked/ unblocked float cell/ sea water channel

  32. Comment from: spangled drongo


    You might find that SLR acceleration if it doeas exist may be due to another cause:

    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/current-wisdom-no-climaterelated-acceleration-sea-level-rise

    But when actual SLs aren’t as high as they were 66 years ago, how can there be “acceleration”?

    CAGW, you may have noticed, is about talking, not walking.

  33. Comment from: gavin


    Cato inc stink Michaels?

    SD; you are scraping the barrel bottom for support.

    As I wrote over and over, glaciers in, SL up, no beaches on high tide, decel fiddle by the idle.

  34. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Go back to Port Arthur and Fort Denison and check the real world.

    You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

    And anyone who has just realised that beaches tend to disappear at highest tides hasn’t learned anything about sea levels.

    Beaches are only the shape they are because of constant inundation.

  35. Comment from: Debbie


    No beaches at high tide?
    3 questions:
    1) Have you any proof that is a global phenomenon?
    2) Did you know that in certain areas that has always been the norm? eg WA & UK?
    3) Do you understand that tidal behaviour shapes coastlines not CAGW?

    If the tide doesn’t cover the whole beach that actually means that in previous eras, the tides were higher than now not lower.

  36. Comment from: Neville


    A very good must read from Walter Starck at Quadrant magazine online.

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/11/speak-loudly-and-carry-a-busted-hockey-stick

    I’d better repeat my criticism of Gav’s expert on SLR above. This fool really thinks that our present warming is the same as the much warmer eemian interglacial.

    He deliberately states this in his speech, yet any blogger knows this is absurd and we only have to return just 6,000 years to the holocene optimum to find much warmer temps and higher SLs than now. (But the Hol optimum was not as high temps and SLs as the eemian I might add.)
    NOT 120,000 years, but a tiny fraction of those years. I honestly think Gav hasn’t got a clue and his expert must be a first class fool as well.

  37. Comment from: Neville


    Tony from OZ responds to Flannery’s latest delusional madness on renewable energy claims.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/tim-flannery-baseload-is-just-a-coal-industry-idea-yes-and-darkness-is-a-renewable-idea-eh-tim/#comments

  38. Comment from: Debbie


    Yes, good piece by Tony from OZ,
    He always pays attention to what actually works in practice.
    Wish there were more like him…we certainly need more people like Tony who can point out the ‘bleeding obvious’….and operate from common sense.
    People like Mr Tim Flannery who believe they operate from some type of ‘higher order thinking’ and have ‘higher level principles’ need to spend some more time with people like Tony from OZ.
    I don’t think there is anything ‘higher order’ or ‘higher level’ if the thinking and behaviour is sytematically trashing the systems that allowed people like Mr Flannery the time and the werewithal to think about other ‘stuff’ in the first place!
    Just like my last sentence….I would call that circular thinking….and the circles are ‘ever decreasing’!

  39. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    “Gav hasn’t got a clue and his expert must be a first class fool as well.”

    birds of a feather?

    Gav wants to believe so much he can’t help himself seeks out info reinforcing his own views.
    Reminds me of Terry Lane of ABC fame.

    Strange for someone who spent his working life looking at measured facts?

  40. Comment from: cohenite


    Classic gav:

    “Having managed a few floats, pitfalls are sinking float, slime scum, gunk on dopey rope or rusty chain, spinning top windup, max/min records, tide records out of sync, no peered calibration or zero after discontinuities.”

    “gunk on dopey rope or rusty chain,”

    Poetic gibberish of a high quality.

  41. Comment from: Neville


    Geezzz Cohenite you’re a lot smarter than me, here was I thinking Gav was just playing silly buggers and tasking the p–s.
    It can be so difficult to tell at times.

  42. Comment from: gavin


    For Deb; this UK errosion site illustrates my high tide no beach observation ie, no SL recession, decel or anything else to do with sceptic Bs.

    http://www.bgs.ac.uk/landslides/happisburgh.html

    “Beaches are only the shape they are because of constant inundation” and this proves my point SD, not yours.

    And coh fell for it Nev. Before electronics, an old tide gauge never was a SL meter because they can’t be referenced to a common data point.

    Hind sight analysis must include some process that ties in all data to a notion of SL mean however hard to achieve. Zero was the catch, not the chain or the rope as either could be referenced by float marks up the cell wall or a nearby pile with oysters clinging to the active tide zone.

    Far more useful, the installers original notes re setting up max/min deviation as a scale

  43. Comment from: spangled drongo


    ‘“Beaches are only the shape they are because of constant inundation” and this proves my point SD, not yours.’

    Sorry gav old chap, this just proves what a sap you are. That’s not SLR, that’s erosion. You need to know that you can have one without the other in that sort of sandy country. That sort of situation exists all around out coastlines. The whole of the Gold Coast was being washed away in the ’60s and ’70s with sea-front high-rise buildings teetering on the brink until Bruce Small built the boulder wall and then buried it under huge quantities of sand which then became a series of buffering dunes which, 40 years later have proved a most successful mitigation. You need sacrificial areas of sand that will come and go with the seasons and a built-in back stop for extremes.

    But never mind, plenty of SLR in Doha, not to mention permafrost panic to keep you happy:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/doha-lies-rising-faster-than-expected/

  44. Comment from: spangled drongo


    “Hind sight analysis must include some process that ties in all data to a notion of SL mean however hard to achieve.”

    Or you can just do something simple like this. It’s worked well for the last 170 years:

    http://www.john-daly.com/photomrk.htm

    It’s very reassuring to know that a 170 year old mark is still pretty much in the same place as it was then in relation to SLs.

    Reassuring to know that the old convict buildings won’t go under for a while.

  45. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    gav

    “And coh fell for it Nev. Before electronics, an old tide gauge never was a SL meter because they can’t be referenced to a common data point. “

    As the good captain Mannering used to say:
    “now you are in the realm of phantasy”

    What rubbish, “can’t be referenced to a common data point.” what has electronics got to do with common data points?

    Surveyors managed all right, throughout the ages.

  46. Comment from: gavin


    JW; “Surveyors managed all right, throughout the ages”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_datum

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_datum#Vertical_datum

    one handed, keeping sleeping tabby off keys, a lot of aus physics calcs were still ref Greenwich in my instrument building days but I could call prof at Melb uni for updates based on their studies, flattened earth, G, etc.

    Mean SL was reqd for altimeters made locally by others at Essendon, that’s how I knew about pending agreements for our data point assumptions. “Flat Earthers” may actually live on a flat spot.

    Electronics enabled satellites, radar and various refinements to data acquisition, processing for the space travel age. Standards etc should remain under constant revision, but not by information wreckers.

    http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/gps/clynch_pdfs/Datumintr.pdf

    http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10975/

  47. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    gav

    You are waffling again.
    Your example of altimeters is a bad one. Just so happens I’m a holder of a private pilot’s license and know how they work.

    You have to know your elevation and preferably the area barometric pressure, to set it correctly in the first place , and it works entirely on air pressure difference.

    Who do you think established the elevation of airports (1650 ft at Kyneton where I learned to fly.) and towns well before electronics?
    Surveyors did that with optical instruments.

    To make it clear, I have nothing against electronics it was one of my subjects, I don’t know why you introduced it in the first place? Nothing to do with the subject discussed.

  48. Comment from: Debbie


    Gavin,
    do you know the difference between decelerating trend and recession?
    You seem to be muddling the 2 concepts when you write and link re SLR.
    The earlier models re trends are being updated & new info now indicates that the previously published SLR trend has decelerated. That does not mean that SL is receding or anything else other than the previous modelling is now being updated and the ‘trend’ in the modelling is different. It is just stat modelling. It is entirely correct to update it. Just because it is high tech does not mean that it has all the answers or that it is a crystal ball.
    Trying to shore up the older information by using entirely natural coastal behaviour is not advancing our understanding.
    No one has claimed that erosion is not happening.
    Quite the contrary in fact.
    Coastal infrastructure is always at risk from erosion and always has been. That is not a new or arlarming phenomenon.
    A carbon tax and/or global governance of emissions will not change that.
    And Gavin?
    What is an ‘information wrecker’?

  49. Comment from: Neville


    Gav perhaps I should write these facts and post them for you every 24 hours. The USA EPA, IPCC, Uni of Colorado, Humlum etc, etc all show a decelerating trend for SLR for dacades.

    The USA EPA estimated SLR of several metres by 2100 in the 1980s. Since then every IPCC report has shown a decelerating trend from the first report in 1990 to the fourth report in 2007.

    The fourth report had a mid point rise of 30-cm by 2100 but now the UNI of Colorado has a mid point rise of just 17cm.
    Note that’s a drop of about 43% in just 5 years or 13 cm or about 6 inches. I suggest if you want to argue with anyone then go and argue with Uni Colorado or the IPCC.

    But they’ll need someting more than silly photos of beaches and erosion and silly estimates calculated on the back of an envelope.

  50. Comment from: gavin


    “Your example of altimeters is a bad one”. I agree, cause you can’t use one to find SL OR SLM.

    JW, as you did not read my links, end of discussion.

    Deb; re my above links, experts have to agree on fixed horizontal and vertical datum points for all navigation, surveying, instrument and system calibration because few locations are on the perfect circle.

    Systems of mapping don’t exactly overlap even in Aus. Cartographers must specify limitations. Classic case Apple v Google.

    Erosion rate is essential for understanding coastline formations relative to SL. In many places, recent past inland coastline formations have been completely undermined where soft sedentary rock underlays volcanics etc

Pages: « 165 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 7580 » Show All