jennifermarohasy.com/blog - The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:

Subscribe

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

Tags

Archives

Authors

Site search

Please visit

Categories

Nature Photographs

Links

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

Gone Fishing

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

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

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

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

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

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

26th July 1909 at Caurnamont, near Mannum

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement

3,962 Responses to “Gone Fishing”

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

  1. Comment from: Graeme M


    I hope everyone had a great Christmas break, I know I did. I haven’t done much blog following so am way behind on all the various blogs I follow, but that’s the way of it I guess.

    Spangled Drongo, I had to drop a short windup on the Deltoid thread. I’m sure it’ll elicit some frothing, but in all honesty I haven’t the time to follow through. All I can say is, they’ve spent a lot of time trying to confuse with science. A LOT of facts, but little actual evidence. I am not saying they are wrong, but no-one comes back with any actual physical evidence of anything happening.

    And those graphs of Brisbane and Gold Coast tide heights actually appear to back your claims, but then what would I know huh?

    Mind you, some of their commenters like Bernard and Lotharsson do seem like pretty smart guys! :)

  2. Comment from: Mark A


    gavin
    “with our Gaia collectve adjusting climate and environment for external impacts IMO of course”

    Could you clarify this statement?
    What do you actually mean by “adjusting climate”? and “for external impacts”?

  3. Comment from: el gordo


    ‘but no-one comes back with any actual physical evidence of anything happening.’

    SLR is not going anywhere and they can’t prove otherwise. Taking this further, the atmospheric temperature of the globe appears stable and CO2 doesn’t cause warming… nevertheless the warminista will soon be out banging drums with ’2012 was the hottest ever in the continental US.’

    Anthony Watts is planning a rebuttal… hopefully.

  4. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Yes Graeme, you have it in a nutshell. They are bright people and a lot smarter than I am but they are such pompous ideologues that, even though they have made no personal obs, they believe in only what they choose to believe in, regardless of what continues to happen around them.

    Plus they love to insult anyone who intros them to the bleedin’ obvious. It makes you despair for the future and you realise this old world is in for a rough ride.

    As I said in one of my comments there, the only pos feedback that will lead to a runaway tipping point is their out-of-control ideology.

    If I was witnessing SLR I would say so. But their trouble is they only want selective evidence.

    Now that Bernard J has come back with nothing of substance I’ll have to stop commenting. ☺

  5. Comment from: Graeme M


    It IS intriguing. They may very well be right, but I’d like them to illustrate why more physically than by constant reference to all sorts of mechanisms that seem to be largely statistical. The interesting thing is that they have tacitly agreed that your obs must be relevant because of the length they have gone to in order to illustrate why there is no observable change at your benchmark. Bernard J’s tide gauge data to me looks pretty much flat in trend, but could be sold either way depending on which bit you look at. That implies to me considerable noise around at best a very small change overall. And the only concrete real world example they can toss back is Hurricane Sandy.

    I am on hols so may persevere some more. I may be quite wrong, but it’s fun to try to nail them down. Funnily enough earlier they emphatically proved I am a dummy by showing global temp anomaly as trending around 0.01-0.02 per year, which over 100 years gives us just 1-2 C of warming. Right where sceptics claim…

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rates.jpg

  6. Comment from: Neville


    I’m sorry but these dopes don’t seem very bright to me. If they can’t accept the facts and want to make up nonsense about CAGW then that just leaves me shaking my head.

    This morning on AM ABC a home owner talked about the reasons he wanted to go off grid and finished with these comments.

    “MICHAEL GUNTER: I’m trying to look at the big picture and the small picture as well…

    WILL OCKENDEN: For Michael Gunter, the cost doesn’t really matter. For him, it’s political and environmental. And he hopes he’ll find a tenant that can share the same view.

    MICHAEL GUNTER: There are no land lords and tenants on a dead planet and the situation, as I read the climate science, is just getting so extreme that even if it is only one person out of all the households in Melbourne, I think we’ve got to start somewhere so I’m going off grid.

    DAVID MARK: That’s Melbourne home owner Michael Gunter, ending Will Ockenden’s report.”

    To me that’s about as dumb and extreme as you can get. How you can try to make a case that the climate science proves that we’re heading for a dead planet is beyond comprehens
    ion.
    To me the opposite is the case, we live in the cooler end of the holocene, just look again at Alley’s GISP 2 graph.
    The temp hasn’t risen for 16 years, SLR isn’t a problem ( 1.5M higher 4,000 years ago) there is no evidence that extreme weather events are worse today than earlier times etc.

    I’m afraid these people are fantasists and loons who believe in delusional nonsense.

  7. Comment from: el gordo


    They are reasonably bright, but have been severely brainwashed.

    I know intelligent professional people who have been conned into thinking CO2 causes global warming, we have a huge problem to sort out and we made need your help Graeme.

  8. Comment from: spangled drongo


    “Funnily enough earlier they emphatically proved I am a dummy by showing global temp anomaly as trending around 0.01-0.02 per year, which over 100 years gives us just 1-2 C of warming. Right where sceptics claim…”

    Graeme, I made that point to them too, that they insult first and agree second. But won’t admit they agree.

    Neville, farmers were all off-grid once and they sure don’t want to go back there even with some [but not much] improvement in off-grid systems.

    Reality [as in horrendous cost increase and/or poor energy supply] will catch up very quickly.

  9. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Neville, I should have added that you still a back-up generator that will emit about the same as your on-grid emissions.

    Not to mention on-going big battery probs.

    Smart, hey?

  10. Comment from: el gordo


    ‘…they insult first and agree second. But won’t admit they agree.’

    The degree of their brainwashed state can be measured by the abuse aimed at us. The places where I hang out are left wing political blogs, where you find watermelons in abundance.

    The life of a professional troll is not easy, your adversaries will never give in to reason, but there are gains to be made until the weather turns finally in our favour.

  11. Comment from: Neville


    A good post by Verity Jones on the climate scientists road to hell.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/27/climate-scientists-road-to-hell/#more-76494

    Listed are most of the recent cons, frauds, halftruths, tricks and nonsense. Sometimes out of their own mouths.

  12. Comment from: Mark A


    Spent half an hour reading Deltoid on the SL thread.

    I’d like my half hour back. Someone here opined that the regular warmists on that blog are bright and smart
    people.
    They must have demonstrated their brightness on an other thread, because on the one I read all they did was
    to denigrate, the opposition, no facts.

    Not a site I’m likely to visit again even on holidays.
    Unless one likes to engage in fruitless argument, why bother?
    Just my opinion of course

  13. Comment from: Debbie


    I went and had a look too.
    You guys are doing a great job there.
    I was sorely tempted to comment a couple of times but I’m agreeing with Mark A a little bit here.
    It does seem to be a fruitless argument. I remember EG commenting some time back that they are a rather humourless crowd there.
    After reading what’s been going on I would have to agree.
    I don’t really think that they are particularly smart Graeme. Their focus is so incredibly narrow. I don’t think that’s a smart way to look at the world.
    Possessing a higher education or being very skilled in one area doesn’t necessarily mean that you are smart.
    I don’t know about you, but I have certainly met some highly educated idiots. They see themselves as experts about topics they have no training or experience in.
    They also seem to have a huge and unreasonable fear of making errors of judgement and would prefer to get in a ditch rather than just admit they made a mistake.
    I find the smarter academics are the ones who have that education as well as solid practical experience.
    I also remember Luke commenting some time back that academics like to argue (or maybe he said scientists?).
    I think that looks true of the crowd at Deltoid too. It looks to me as if they make stuff up to argue with a lot of the time. They have certainly been doing that to you 2 as well as someone called GSW and someone called Chameleon. The 4 of you have been trying to make fairly simple observations but they read all sorts of other sinister stuff into it.
    It is actually rather amusing to read but I guess it must be incredibly annoying for you?
    I also think it looks very much like what Walter Starck calls an ‘academic pissing contest’.
    And BTW Gavin?
    Please do tell what you actually meant by that comment of yours?
    I’m as fascinated as Mark A.

  14. Comment from: Graeme M


    I dunno, they do seem pretty smart and educated, but rather stuck on one point of view. So they do indulge in some pretty serious axe grinding.

    One thing that does stand out is that at blogs like Desmoid, they really have a double standard. Happy to insult and denigrate anyone that disagrees, but crying foul when someone insults them back.

  15. Comment from: Neville


    New study finds that the modern sea ice coverage in Canadian arctic is close to the highest for the past 150 years.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/new-paper-finds-modern-sea-ice-coverage.html

  16. Comment from: Neville


    Princeton study finds little to worry about SLR from Greenland ice melt.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/

  17. Comment from: Debbie


    We must disagree what the definition of ‘smart’ is Graeme.
    I suspect that most of those commenters at Deltoid have a decent IQ and decent academic quals.
    To me, that doesn’t mean they’re smart or clever.
    They’re missing some of the essential ingredients for ‘smart’ from my reading of that SL thread.
    They’re certainly missing a sense of humour and a sense of balance.
    I don’t think they have got much of a grasp on reality either . . .based on the way they reply to you and spangled.
    For what it’s worth:
    Your comments and questions read way smarter than theirs.

  18. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Thanks Deb, yes, if you don’t live in the real world you really aren’t too clever.

    Neville, I posted your link on GRACE and SLR over there in the interests of education.

  19. Comment from: John Sayers


    I gave up.

    Their attacks bore no respect to reason. Pure vile.

  20. Comment from: gavin


    Must be missing some fun at Deltoid.

    SD; I reckon that yacht of yours is a bit under a third of Wild Oats 11, if you can coat it in under a day, btw I wish, never to see another toy just after purchase with the tag, grandpop can fix aniything.

    Mark A; I recall a CSIRO researcher claiming on ABC radio, a “MOU”- my term, existed for marine life in dumping salt to the ocean floor long before I knew Lovelock had published Gaia. The other guy said our SH ocean salinity remained constant regardless of continued runoff and abrupt climate change.

    That seemed a fascinating discovery at the time, and had as much influence on my thinking as “Chaos Theory”.

    Part of my work then was measurements in turbulent environments ie. man made streams of water and gas, also furnaces, digestors and reactors. Getting a “fix” on conditions frequently required imagination beyond the physics and engineering. We had many control loops with only one or two mathematical terms in response to typical impacts such level changes. Three terms were a luxury and a nightmere given likely step changes in product demand.

    Anticipating trouble and making response settings in advance of unforseen events is an exciting game. Automation in any event remains a art form even with modern digital techniques employed. Human takeover will be a rocky ride after Gaia.

    Deb; stay fluid.

  21. Comment from: Neville


    Another recent 2012 study from Uni Colorado shows SLR of 1.48mm year from all sources.

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/recent-contributions-glaciers-and-ice-caps-sea-level-rise

    This is about 30% less than was estimated previously and also shows another declining trend.

    This trend is about 14.8 cm a century or 5.9 inches.

  22. Comment from: gavin


    “also shows another declining trend” Hmmm?

    Nev; after following the Nature link and seeing the same abstract as published back in Feb, I reckon you are having a lend again.

    Nev can’t see that SL is constantly rising despite failures in models and predictions. Btw other readers should see notes in Colorado’s FaQ list

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/what-determines-x-intercept-ie-zero-crossing-or-baLISTse-year-gmsl-plots

  23. Comment from: Neville


    Geeezzzz Gav what is it you don’t understand about the declining trend in SLR .
    Have a look at Humlum’s trends since the first IPCC report. I also mentioned the trend of several metres from the USA EPA in the 1980s.

    I’ve never said there isn’t SLR just that the trend is declining. Rather stuffs up any CAGW contribution to the trend, there isn’t one.

    If the 100 metres Williams loon and the Gore Hansen trends are to come true they’d better be praying for much more melting etc from all sources and in a heck of a hurry.

    Gore and Hansen only need a few inches more increase every year but Williams needs more than a metre evey year from now until 2100 if he is to meet his estimation. You see there’s only 87 years until 2100.

  24. Comment from: Neville


    Very good post from Paul Driessen on super storm Sandy and its many and stronger natural predecessors that have pounded that area over the centuries.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/29/the-political-superstorm-that-devastated-new-york/#more-76572

    As Pielke Jnr remarked the USA is in a hurricane drought and Driessen states that this is the quietest period since the American civil war. Or about 150 years.

  25. Comment from: Debbie


    Double geeeez from me Gavin.
    The point being made is that the TREND (bold) is decelerating.
    The TREND Gavin, the TREND.
    The hypothesis was that an increase in ACO2 was causing an alarming and worrying correlating TREND in SLR.
    Emerging real time data is not supporting that hypothesis. While ACO2 is clearly rising in the atmosphere the theorised alarming TREND in SLR is not materialising.
    No one has claimed that SL itself is decelerating.
    No one is claiming that SL has a recognised equilibrium or balance.
    You links neither prove or disprove Neville’s comments.
    Who knows?
    You might be right but there is no real time data that proves you are correct beyond all reasonable doubt.
    What is very clear is taxing CO2 emissions in Australia will have no statistically significant result on that ‘might’.
    That is a demonstrably pointless exercise.
    I have also started to suspect it is a bald faced attempt to do what Luke often complains about in Agriculture:
    Socialising losses and capitalising gains re coastal urban infrastructure.
    It certainly won’t signifigantly reduce global ACO2 nor cool the weather/climate.

  26. Comment from: Robert


    Nev, it’s infuriating when people use the words “ever” and “unprecedented” in the hope that most people will not check the history. The past is now a reference point for contemporary spin – it is otherwise unexamined and effectively abolished.

    Spend a minute contemplating the events in Victoria Feb 6 1851? Not one second will they spend. Black Thursday and the natural conditions which enabled it would kill their cheesy climate catastrophe script. We’ve actually reached a point where the fictions generated by ludicrous modelling (all climate modelling being ludicrous) are more real than Australia’s, and possibly the world’s, greatest known inferno. The follies of irresponsible development in a low-lying and hurricane prone Manhattan are ignored in favour of blaming farming and industrialisation – for a storm that was lame compared to those of 1938 and 1821!

    The script! Always the script!

  27. Comment from: Neville


    Debbie and Robert I think we agree that SLR isn’t a problem and is certainly not unprecedented or unusual at all.

    Roger Pielke has a post on trying to mitigate SLR by severe reductions in co2 emissions.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/how-much-sea-level-rise-would-be.html#comment-form

    He finds that the effect on SLR by 2100 would be small ( about 3 inches) and after that SLR would continue as before.
    He wisely states that we should use adaptation as a preparation for extreme events and I have to agree it makes the most sense.

  28. Comment from: Mark A


    Neville,

    He wisely states that we should use adaptation as a preparation for extreme events and I have to agree it makes the most sense.

    Neville if we didn’t have the political blindness/greed none of this would be happening.

    We’d be going on as humanity ever did and adopt, change, move. Not saying it would be painless, but a lot less painful and this time we could handle the change a lot better than in the prehistoric and early historic times, when climatic change caused the destruction of whole civilisations.

    I say this because I firmly believe that we cannot change the climate, and by the facts presented so far I’m not convinced at all that we caused as much harm as it’s claimed. Read somewhere that if we burned all the available fossil fuels we still could not elevate the CO2 levels high enough, provided one actually could prove that CO2 is indeed as dangerous as claimed.

    I’m almost sure that the more rational warmists, specially the opportunistic politicians know in their heart of hearts, that all this is bunkum, but at the moment it’s very convenient. After all, political wisdom tells that one must keep the population in a constant fear of some sort of disaster and offer salvation from it to retain control.

    Don’t deny that many actually believe in it. Can’t be helped, there are other religions attracting millions, without a shred of evidence supporting their faith, but that what faith is!

  29. Comment from: Neville


    I’m not sure whether this NOAA SL world map has been shown here before.

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

    The arrows for SLR are UP and SL fall are DOWN. Australia has just two gauges on NE and E coast. NZ has two gauges and one gauge for Papua New Guinea. ( a fall)

    Our gauges show a rise of 0 to 3mm a year, with mid point of 1.5mm a year. About 0 to 1 foot per century or 6 inches mid point per century.

    You can drag the map up or down to find any country or continent. It’s amazing how gauges can sometimes be quite close and yet one shows a rise and another a fall. All on the same coastline.
    In some cases the fall in SL must be due to the land rising as is the case in Sweden etc.

  30. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Interesting link Neville. It is also interesting how they are all prognosticating SLR when people like Morner aren’t convinced.

    I just worked out from a website that says world’s sea surface fluctuates by +/- 24 centimeters due to trade winds etc, that the ocean at 361,000,000 sq klms is therefore considerably flatter than a billiard table. In fact it would have a surface variation of the equivalent of 1/20th the thickness of a human hair over the length of a full size billiard table.

    If the world’s oceans have that sort of equilibrium and I have seen no rise, only a fall, in SLs in ~70 years in Moreton Bay then I cannot see SLR happening anywhere really.

  31. Comment from: gavin


    Nev; “just that the trend is declining” Your statement is not supported by the Colorado team, nor by any other. If you insist on a reference to earlier IPCC statements, then leave me off the hook as I don’t work with other models. See – bang on trend

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2012_rel4/sl_ns_global.png

    Deb: find your own arguments and sources

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

    “OSLO, Dec 23 (Reuters) – West Antarctica is warming almost twice as fast as previously believed, adding to worries of a thaw that would add to sea level rise from San Francisco to Shanghai, a study showed on Sunday”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/23/west-antarctica-warming-climate-change_n_2356287.html

  32. Comment from: gavin


    SD; I reckon you guys have run into the SLR back on trend issue at Deltoid too

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/707627main_pia16294-673.jpg

    Back in November

    “The newest data clearly indicate that the drop in 2010-11 was only temporary.”"In 2011, we detected a lot of water that was temporarily stored over land, causing severe flooding in some regions,” said JPL co-author Felix Landerer. “In 2012, we have seen much of this water find its way back into the ocean.”

    http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/sea-level-rise-continues-strong-upward.html

    Can you all please keep up?

  33. Comment from: Neville


    Gav the SH is gaining ice,it’s now the highest for the satellite record. The antarctic peninsula is an old story and has NATURALLY gained and lost ice many times for thousands of years.

    If the PDO continues in cool phase we could see more la ninas and probably a drop in SLR trend. Who knows?

    I repeat the IPCC earlier SLR estimates for earlier reports have been adjusted down for decades, just read the earlier estimates. Humlum has the estimates from those earlier reports.

    The NOAA world map shows a mid trend that doesn’t show much increase until 2100. The estimate for OZ is 0 to 3mm with a mid trend of 1.5mm or 6 inches.
    That’s less than the 8 inches for the previous 100 years. Even the disputed satellite trend only has a mid point trend of 160 mm or 6.4 inches in 100 years.

    BTW I don’t think we are the ones who need to keep up.

  34. Comment from: Neville


    BTW Gav if you’re so alarmed by this fraudulent nonsense tell us how to prevent it happening?
    Tell us how we can make a difference and reduce future SLR for the coming centuries.
    It’d be good for a laugh.

    But remember the simple maths numbers. But we all know you won’t try, just like all the other people pushing the alarmist button.

  35. Comment from: gavin


    There is that tiresome IPCC again cause Nev can’t get off his SH sea ice. Land ice mass is the only ice that counts in SL calcs but water on land may temporarily as shown previously

    “I don’t think we are the ones who need to keep up”

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

    I repeat : there is no SLR decel

  36. Comment from: gavin


    Ooops; please ignore my NH ice extent link

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/24/greenland-ice-sheet-thaw-nasa

  37. Comment from: Another Ian


    In case this hasn’t shown up before.


    Gail Combs says:
    December 21, 2012 at 6:22 pm
    spangled drongo says: @ December 21, 2012 at 3:53 pm
    ….. the warmists’ serenity prayer:

    God grant me the BIAS to reject the facts I hate, the BLINDNESS to embrace the ones I love and the BAD MANNERS to address those who try to show me the difference.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Isn’t that

    God grant me the BIAS to reject the facts I hate, the BLINDNESS to embrace the ones I love and the BAD MANNERS to /address/ curse those who try to show me the difference.”

    (/address/ was a strike through in the original)

    From comments at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/21/friday-holiday-funny-the-twelve-days-of-climategate/

  38. Comment from: Neville


    More deception and hiding declines from the IPCC masters.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/30/ar5-chapter-11-hiding-the-decline-part-ii/#more-76591

    Well Gav you’re wrong on just about everything, but please tell us how to fix your problem? If you’re convinced we’ll suffer a whopping 30 cm of SLR in 100 years compared to 20 cm over the last century, just give us your answer to fix it.

    If you can’t find a way to save us from that extra 4 inches then admit it. But why would we bother?
    Time to put up or shut up, but remember the dreaded China, India etc soaring co2 emissions.

  39. Comment from: Robert


    If Arctic temps, after the melt scare of the late fifties, plunged as recently as the sixties, leading to a whole lot of ice-increase as recently as the 1970s, and if SLR is a post Napoleonic Wars phenomenon which has limped along into the present century…

    What are we buggerising on about?

    Despite fetish-worshipping Scientism and the primitive mindset which has led to faith in the insulting nonsense called models, there’s no prob – except that Gaia is as big a bitch as she’s ever been.

  40. Comment from: Debbie


    She certainly can be Robert.
    That’s what’s so humourously ironic about much of the claims made by our self appointed gaia worshipping green betters.
    At the moment she is doing that to her worshippers.
    Flatly refusing to co operate. :-)
    About normal and definitely amusing.
    As a collective, we do know more about the weather/climate/ SL than ever before.
    But pretending it’s ‘settled’ and that it’s propensity to change is largely our fault and therefore we must pay to ‘control’ these changes or even stop them is bordering on nonsense.
    As we have done from our cave man days we need to learn to adapt more efficiently and responsibly.

  41. Comment from: Neville


    This is probably the best article on AGW history that I’ve ever read in the Age. See article at the end of Jo Nova’s post. Spooner should be congratulated for his honesty.
    The 2013 published book should be interesting.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/the-age-sceptics-weather-the-storm/#more-26191

  42. Comment from: Robert


    Deb, I’m starting to wonder if the hocus pocus isn’t sending practical climate knowledge backwards. Think Sandy, where a mere storm at landfall, though very large in area, caught the world’s most highly developed city unprepared. They didn’t even have bottled water!

    Think “living rivers” and “environmental flows” where black sludge is sent downstream and waters are released needlessly into floods or not released in advance of floods.

    Think weather forecasting, where the forecast is adjusted continually till, by the time the day arrives, it is nothing like the previous forecasts. Here we are lucky if they get it right one day out. Admittedly, the sat, radar and loose observation sets like ENSO and PDO are handy…but one wonders about the people twiddling the dials. (See Warwick Hughes’ blog, if anyone thinks I exaggerate.)

    I took a train back to the bush from Sydney last Saturday. It was late, of course. What struck me was that the announced delay was always less than the actual delay, through the course of many hours. For all of the trip we were running about an hour and ten minutes late, but the announcements had us fifty-five minutes late. When I arrived, we were still an hour and ten minutes late, as we had been all through the trip. Climate alarmism came to mind. I’ll leave you to ponder why.

    We are told that things are unprecedented when there are precedents all over the shop. We are told there will be no more snow, then we are not supposed to notice when the Northern Hemisphere is white and there is even snow in the middle of summer here in Oz?

    Are Scientism and Climate “Science” becoming obstacles to genuine science and simple commonsense?

  43. Comment from: Graeme M


    Dammit, gotta go do stuff and have to leave the Deltoids to themselves. But you should really read the latest back and forward…

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/12/12/sea-level-rise-acceleration/comment-page-7/

  44. Comment from: jennifer


    Hey Everyone,
    Wonderful to check-in every so often and read the latest from you all.
    I’ve started a new thread – just today:
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/12/still-fishing/
    And will probably close this one in the next day or two. I’ve had a few problems with hackers over the last month, so probably best not to leave really long threads open indefinitely.
    Jen xo

  45. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    another wasted time, why oh why do I bother?

    Those folks at deltoid would not see reason if it bit them on the backside.
    This bloke Cameleon and Bolt for PM are really asking for punishment and lapping it up.
    Why?
    The poster called “wow” is the most obnoxious stupid idiot I ever had the misfortune tor read or listen to.
    No content just meaningless dribble.

    Bolt for PM quoted a recent article I happened to read myself and it’s a very reasonable one too, well worth looking it up, but there was no way any of it sank in over there.
    Apparently an alleged 6 inch sea level rise did it all, never mind the exceptionally high tide!

    My fav. saying in these circumstances,the mind boggles!

    anyway had to give up reading the page half way through, one can only stomach so much.

  46. Comment from: Graeme M


    Chameleon is a woman who claims a science background and to have visited Deltoid for the first time. She’s copped a fair hiding for simply asking questions. Bolt for PM is me, and I am just asking questions too. My latest question is simple. Regardless of sea level rise, was the actual sea level at the time of Sandy higher than at any other time on record, when measured against the land? That is, was the high tide higher than any other high tide? If not, then how can you claim SLR ‘dunnit’?

    No-one seems to get that question, so maybe I’m just missing the point and I’m the dummy?

    Wow is an unmitigated git :)

  47. Comment from: gavin


    GM: Sea Levels and tides are swamped during events such as hurricane Sandy. The “surge” can be appreciated if one considers that the enormous low presure region actually lifts the ocean surface by meters.

    http://gcaptain.com/sandy-wave-height-analysis/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBsvNfrUN0I

  48. Comment from: Graeme M


    Gavin, you are doing what the deltoids are doing. I must be much dumber than I thought, because what I am saying seems obvious. I am NOT arguing anything at all about whether the surge was a record or not. I appreciate how big the surge was and how it formed and how it ‘swamped’ sea level.

    But it is claimed on deltoid that it is the increase in sea level that made the storm surge worse than it would otherwise have been. OK, so what WOULD it have been without sea level rise? The only way that I can see to consider that question is to look at the actual physical height of the sea at the time of sandy’s landfall, IF Sandy had not been present.

    In other words, at that time, what was the predicted tide height? Given it seems to have struck at or near high tide, what was that height? Well, it was predicted to be 4.7 feet. So, is that height higher, lower, or the same as a high tide at that time in the past?

    When I plot the data, it turns out that the same high tide on 29 October 1995 (as far back as the data goes in the website I used) was predicted to be 4.7 feet.

    So, if the physical sea level relative to land at those two points in time is the same, how can one argue that the sea was higher and exacerbated the storm surge?

    I am not trying to be tricky, I just don’t see what is wrong with my thinking.

  49. Comment from: Debbie


    Silly me!
    I went back and had another look too.
    I don’t think anything is wrong with your thinking Graeme.
    You did indeed ask perfectly reasonable questions.
    I note one of the commenters have launched a personal attack on Humlum.
    I congratulate you for your persistence Graeme but I don’t think I will go back there anytime soon. They look to be a hopeless cause. That Wow dude is an absolute classic! He ducks and weaves around all your questions and supplies only bitter, negative insults.

  50. Comment from: cohenite


    “I am not trying to be tricky, I just don’t see what is wrong with my thinking.”

    Nothing wrong with your thinking Graeme; you’ve just struck gav in non-thinking mode.

    SLR played no part in Sandy; but like the vultures they are the AGW believers will claim any disaster to bolster their fairy tale.

    Re Deltoid; don’t forget you bolster the litle man’s numbers which will make it easier for him to get advertising.

    I used to be tempted to go to Deltoid but the fetid nature of the atmosphere there makes it unproductive, and as I say, only gives a financial leg-up to them.

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