- The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:


December 2012
« Aug   Jan »




Site search

Please visit


Nature Photographs


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

Still Fishing

Best wishes for the New Year.   Jen


277 Responses to “Still Fishing”

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 » Show All

  1. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes

    And best wishes to you too and for everyone here.
    Hopefully your project won’t keep you away for too much longer.


  2. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Likewise Jen, lovely to see you back. We missed ya!

  3. Comment from: John Sayers

    what Jim said :) hope you caught something.

  4. Comment from: Magsx2

    I hope you are having a fantastic break, and a Very Happy New Year to you and your family as well. :)

  5. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Jen that looks like a Calophyllum inophyllum leaf on a tropical beach. Don’t blame you for fishing up there.

  6. Comment from: John Sayers

    Interesting tree SD. What’s it’s common name here.?

  7. Comment from: jennifer

    Hey Spangled, And I was sure it was the leaf from one of the Avicennia marina (grey mangrove) growing at the other end of the beach… Lammermoor beach, Capricorn Coast.

  8. Comment from: Neville

    All the best to everyone for a prosperous and safe new year. Good to hear from Jen again.

  9. Comment from: spangled drongo

    You are probably right Jen, they are very similar looking fig-like leaves. The Calophyllums grow along the beach in NQ and often have staghorns in their branches hanging over the salt water. Hopefully these are some images:

  10. Comment from: spangled drongo

    John, as far as I know the locals just call them Calophyllums but that link says they have other names.

  11. Comment from: gavin

    Happy New Year to all. 2012 was long enough hey

    Jen; what is your mystery fish, any clues?



  12. Comment from: James

    ‘stoned on leave’? Have a good one. Look forward to hearing from you in 2013!

  13. Comment from: Rhyl

    Dear Jen and John, Happy New Year

    Hope we see you back on the air in 2013, and success with the projects.

    Cheers, Rhyl

  14. Comment from: el gordo

    All the best everyone, especially comrade Gavin.

  15. Comment from: el gordo

    Sea level began rising around 1840.

    I don’t think its human induced, but might be wrong, the Industrial revolution had already begun.

  16. Comment from: gavin

    Lets get the ball rolling

  17. Comment from: spangled drongo

    EG, 23 cms in 170 years seems to tie in with world tide gauges but it is not steady and there is not much happening in recent decades.

  18. Comment from: Neville

    Gav those predictions or estimates only come true if some of the more fanciful modeling is correct.
    So far SLR is little different than it has been for the last 100 years, so I’d put my money on 8 inches or 20mm by 2100. Just like the last 100 years.
    The temp models are hopeless and therefore that will wreck the SL models as well. Let’s keep an eye on observations and real data not silly models.

  19. Comment from: Neville

    Gav here’s all the models for SLR until 2300, rather stuffs up your argument. Antarctica or 89% of the planet’s ice has a negative trend for SLR for the next 300 years. While GLand does show a positive trend it’s only one ninth the size of Antarctica. Simple maths.

    So explain where all that extra melt water is to come from please. Simple maths again.

    BTW still waiting for you to explain how we can avoid this delusional, dangerous SLR you bed wetters keep yabbering on about? Come on Gav be the first to have a go.

  20. Comment from: Neville

    Good post from Watts on insurance BS and extreme weather.

    At least the IPCC has proved you can’t tell porkies forever and has started to look at the real observations and data.
    Good stuff as usual from Pielke jr as well, factual and accurate as always.

  21. Comment from: Debbie

    Happy 2013 everyone,
    1st of Jan is an absolute cracker in the MIA. Just glorious.
    The summer crops and the plethora of wetland species are having a good run.
    We have a very amusing flock of water fowl that have decided to make our house dam home.
    Our house pets are rather bemused (especially the cat).

  22. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Thanks Debbie and the same to you and everyone. You’re not supposed to have weather like that any more. It’s pretty nice here too this morning, with Lyrebirds, Turkeys, Pheasants, Custardheads, Hares, Satin Bowerbirds etc around the house, scratching up the lawn. Don’t have the heart to chase ‘em.

  23. Comment from: Mack

    Here’s a little mickey taking which brings a smile….. it’s on the US ABC Nature and Environment titled ” Climate: Warmer, More Extreme , and Get Used to it.”
    Doug Brockman says:
    The new weather is much more exciting than the old weather which, admit it, was decidedly boring.
    Mack says:
    Yes Doug, all weather from now on is unprecedented, we do live in new and exciting times.

  24. Comment from: Robert

    If Doug wants warm, he can try reading up on the 1930s in the US. He can even read about it in what is no doubt one of his favourite leftist blather sheets:

    If Doug wants extreme…well, that’s all the time. But if he wants extreme with serial hurricanes on the east coast where Sandy went, he can’t go past 1954:
    For a single east coast storm, nothing beats 1635 and 1821, but 1954 was one hell of a year.

    If Doug needs cooling off:

    You might think somebody like Doug is stupendously ignorant or hopelessly indoctrinated. But all I can say is: “Climate Alarmism: Dopier, More Extreme, and Get Used to it.”

  25. Comment from: Robert

    I was talking about the east coast, but worse things have happened elsewhere in the North Atlantic region. While Galveston in 1900 remains the worst disaster in US history, with 8000+ dead, it’s likely that nothing in recorded Atlantic history can top the Great Hurricane of 1780, which left over 20000 dead in the Caribbean. (The same year and month of October produced two other deadly hurricanes in the region.)

    Recent storms and hurricanes in the Gulf and Atlantic have been horrific also. Katrina was a killer, and Wilma in 2005 was a scary 882 hPa, though not nearly as intense as 1935′s Labor Day at landfall. All of which would indicate that humans need reliable energy, safe water supply, sensible coastal development and solid infrastructure. But don’t listen to me – I’m a tea party redneck who wouldn’t know a nuance if it bit him on the backside.

    Happy New Year everybody! (Even the warmies, who are probably reading all this surreptitiously.)

  26. Comment from: Mack

    Doug was on our side taking the mickey along with me. Robert, with only ,it seems, Gavin about ,you might have become a little trigger-happy. I’d hate to be an alarmist walking in here on the receiving end of that blunderbus shot :) However, good shooting. :)

  27. Comment from: Robert

    My apologies to both Mack and Doug! But you shouldn’t stir up us pensioner rednecks with all that satire and nuance stuff. Makes us go all misogynistical, or whatever the word is.

  28. Comment from: Robert

    If you can wade through the climate propaganda swamp when trying to find out simple facts about New York’s geography, you may eventually arrive at its official altitude, which is 6 feet. Sydney, by contrast, has an official altitude of 25 feet. These are just factoids, of course, but you do wonder why, in a hurricane-prone region, someone would use rubble to build an urbanisation like Battery Park City right near sea level, and one which creates a choke in the Hudson River.

    I wonder if all the silly blather about sea levels isn’t meant to cover a certain amount of embarrassment. Few people are as convinced of their own cleverness as New Yorkers. Could these uber-clever urbanites be responsible for some very unclever development, involving millions of humans and billions of dollars?

    Of course, drastic SLR only happens in movies and “models”. It never stops people like Goldman Sachs building by the water’s edge. Like Sydney and the Maldives and Kiribati, everything in NY is where it always was, even that former swamp, Brooklyn. But do these people really think they can stop surges and floods in their city by crippling the whole developed West?

    Pity they couldn’t ask Arthur Phillip for an opinion on good siting.

  29. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes

    It seems to me the canny Dutch knew what they were doing when they sold the place?
    As you said, it never stops greedy people to build on questionable land.

  30. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Yes, apart from the 8″ SLR it’s had in the last 150 years or so it has also sunk by about the same amount so 14+ feet of king tide and sea surge combined would have to do some damage.

    But you can’t blame anyone for that. It obviously had had great advantages at the time of settlement.

    And the Dutch aren’t reknowned for choosing high and dry country. ☺

  31. Comment from: Bob Tisdale

    A Happy New Year to you, too, Jen, and to all the visitors here.


    PS: You must have a boat load of fish by now.

  32. Comment from: Neville

    Jo Nova has a good post on Kyoto and the expensive mess it has become for EU etc.

    As I’ve said here many times the USA didn’t sign Kyoto but has easily beaten the EU in reducing per capita co2 emissions.

    Less dependency on coal and more use of cheaper coal seam gas.

  33. Comment from: hunter

    Happy New Year, Jennifer.
    Best wishes for a prosperous and healthy year for you and yours.
    May you finally catch that fish in 2013…. ;^)

  34. Comment from: Larry Fields

    Hi Jennifer,
    I think that your outperforming the BOM seasonal forecast for Qld ‘on a shoestring,’ using off-the-shelf AI, was a great accomplishment. Without a doubt, you are the top person in Australia in the field of evidence-based environmental policy. I hope that you have another successful New Year.


  35. Comment from: Graeme M

    Hi all, and happy new year to everyone.

    I have made a few comments on the previous thread about my experiences at Deltoid, which were enlightening to say the least. The thread in question there claimed that several graphs showed sea level rise to be accelerating. I genuinely couldn’t see that and posed a few questions which of course were howled down. So, I’ve decided to summarise here for your thoughts. I apologise for the length of this post.

    One of my questions related to SD’s issue – can anyone offer an example of a real world impact from AGW derived SLR? Now, that’s a bit of a loaded question because no-one denies that sea levels rise and fall, so clearly there are impacts on coastlines over long enough periods.

    But the thread there seemed to be largely focussing on the effects of CO2 which as far as I could tell, they seemed to think were being observed with a higher degree of confidence in the past 100 years. So, my question was more to the effect, what impacts can we see from 100 years of SLR on the Australian coastline. No-one offered any. So I asked for any example worldwide.

    The only concrete examples were Florida’s problems with sea level, and the impact of Hurricane Sandy. I agree that Florida is being affected by SLR but that coastline has many confounding factors, so I find it hard without extensive research to see how much of that might be caused by AGW derived SLR.

    Which brought us to Sandy. I asked a simple question. For AGW derived SLR to have exacerbated Sandy’s effects, we would need to know the actual sea level at the time of its arrival. So, what was it? I asked this on the basis that as far as I can see, that is the critical value. For example, if it had hit at low tide, the effects would have been less.

    Again, nothing concrete in reply apart from a lot of insults. I was told that because there has been SLR obviously the impact was greater. OK… but still, isn’t the actual sea level relative to the land at the time of Sandy’s landfall the real issue? It seems that’s what they were arguing by claiming that the higher sea level was what exacerbated Sandy’s storm surge. What is actual sea level at the time if it isn’t the tide height? I don’t care what the sea level actually was when Sandy struck in this context – it was what it was and it includes the surge. But for it to have been higher than it otherwise might have been we need to see what was predicted for that time and date.

    Was that value significantly higher than a high tide could have reached in the past? If not, then where’s the impact? After all, we cannot predict when a storm will hit, so any storm surge’s maximum impact is most likely at the highest high tide, surely? That’s the worst effect we could get.

    Thus, if the predicted high tide for that time and place was substantially higher than previous high tides say 50 years ago (remember, it is the accelerating SLR that is the problem – if the tide height is a little bit higher, then that could be ‘normal’ SLR or even ground subsidence), perhaps we can argue for an additional effect from AGW derived SLR.

    Does that make sense, or am I barking mad? The Deltoids say the latter.

    Just from curiosity, I did some research. I haven’t enough time to do that seriously, so what follows may be completely incorrect.

    First, tide heights at The Battery are calculated with reference to what is known as Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). This is the datum point used with reference to the official Benchmark, and I’ll assume the Benchmark is on the land (well, it is in fact).

    MLLW is the average of the lower low water height of each tidal day observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch. The National Tidal Datum Epoch is the period over which a mean is set. The two most recent are the modern one which was set in the period 1983-2001 and the superceded one which covered 1960-1978. So right there, we have our 50 years.

    For the prediction or measurement of tides, we use MLLW as the zero point, so in the data, it appears as zero. However, for the 1960-1978 period it was set at 936mm above the Benchmark and for the period 1983-2001 it was 1002mm. You can see therefore that in terms of these means, there is an increase of some 66mm. Anyways, without going into too much detail, what I did was to find the various tidal datums and adjusted for the MLLW figure. That is, Mean High Water today is 1443mm. Adding on the MLLW value of 1002mm gives us an actual value of 2445mm above the Benchmark (land). Does that make sense?

    So, what are our figures?

    We can use Mean Higher High Water, Mean High Water and Mean Low Water.

    MHHW 2496 2543
    MHW 2393 2445
    MLW 1003 1065

    Figures in absolute millimetres above the benchmark, 60-78 first and 83-01 second.

    In this case, the tide of the day at the time of landfall was the High Water one, not the Higher High Water one. What was that predicted to be? 1444mm. Add our adjustment, and we get 2446mm.

    You will see that is 53mm higher than the 1960-1978 mean, but bang on the money for the 1983-2001 mean. So, right there, we could argue for around 53mm of effect from SLR. However, the 2393mm number is a mean, and we can assume some tides were higher than that in that period, so our number MAY be less than 53mm. Also, the land there is subsiding and I have no idea if that’s been adjusted for in the Benchmark values. I’ll assume it has been, but maybe not. So, our SLR effect seems to be somewhere between 0mm and 55mm. Let’s settle on that 53mm number.

    Hurricane Sandy got just on an 2 extra inches of sea level with which to devastate New York compared to if it had struck in 1960. This does not seem a frightfully large number and seems not to support the idea of an increasingly worrisome trend due to AGW derived SLR. It DOES however show that sea level relative to land at The Battery IS rising and should be planned for.

    What do you think? Remember, I make no claim I am right, I also note I have no real idea what I am talking about. But the IDEA seems sound to me. If you can quickly and easily shoot me down, please do. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve completely cornswaggled myself :)

  36. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes

    “What do you think?”

    I think you are overcomplicating things now.

    Your question in essence is a simple one.
    Did the extra two or eight inches of sea level rise since the seventies made all the difference on top of the very high tide?

    What if there was a low tide at the time of the storm instead, would the extra few inches still cause more damage?

  37. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Makes sense to me Graeme. Only 2″ in 50 years! And that would be mostly land settlement. Well, well! Doltoids are claiming a greater SLR but that is mostly due to adjustments and the East Coast US sinking. Morner explains those adjustments:

    I have asked the Doltoids to tell me if they consider whether calm seas, at rest, are LEVEL or do they think the bumps in the geoid cause a ship to be going either up or down hill.

    No answer, was the stern reply.

  38. Comment from: debbie

    I don’t blame you for wanting to validate your thinking.
    Last time I looked (over a day ago after I read Cohenite’s comment here)… nothing those deltoid people said either answered your perfectly reasonable questions and/or disproved your observations (or spangled’s).
    Hurricane Sandy was a hurricane. They have had them before. They have actually had worse ones before. There may have been a 2″ difference in SL to last century when the last severe hurricane hit there.
    Don’t you think perhaps that they may have cornered you into arguing about and worrying about not very much at all?
    The article you linked (I think?) that JW commented on here contained far more useful information about what was responsible for the vast majority of the damage…..and it wasn’t that PERHAPS (bold) 2″ of SLR that they’re all going on and on and on and on about.
    As I have said before here….anyone who has spent any time living on the coast knows that coastline infrastructure is vulnerable to the power of the ocean.
    Humans like to build permanent habitat on the coastline because when it’s not being an uncontrollable beast… it is a very pleasant environment.
    However… despite all the prattle about ACO2 and SLR… coastlines and estuaries have always and will always be subject to movement, inundation, erosion and subsidence.
    That is actually normal!
    The only time it isn’t is when other natural phenomenon like earthquakes and volcanoes force the land back against or into the ocean OR (bold) when us very smart humans build clever mitigation infrastructure!!!!
    So frankly, even though it’s very funny to read, those deltoid people are screeching mostly academic BS!!!!!
    I congratulate you (and spangled and chameleon) on your persistence in trying to talk some common sense with them but I really don’t think they’re interested in anything other than preaching the CAGW religion.

  39. Comment from: Neville

    Have a look at this link again and work it out. Most of the east coast USA has either 0 to 3 mm century trend or the higher yellow arrow trend.

    I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with them, they don’t seem to like facts. If anyone wants to believe that Sandy was a powerful hurricane and the small NATURAL SLR made a difference that’s their choice.

    The fact is the last thing you would try is a reduction in co2 emissions to combat SLR. Best bet is to copy the Dutch and use adaptation to combat any future SLR.
    It’s far cheaper and you get a proven immediate result. Even Flannery admitted as much to Andrew Bolt when he conceded that it would take centuries or perhaps 1000 years to change the temp via a reduction in co2 emissions.

    BTW THAT’s IF THE ENTIRE WORLD STOPPED EMITTING CO2 TODAY. So the entire argument is infantile and stupid as far as I’m concerned.

  40. Comment from: Neville

    Sorry Graeme I didn’t include your name at the beginning of my reponse above.

  41. Comment from: Robert

    When people feel sanctified by their Environmentalism, they no longer feel a need to practice Conservation. How can Leo di Caprio jet about the globe just to catch extra New Year’s Eve partying? Because he has been sanctified by his enviro-posturing. Gaia has blessed Leo, and granted him dispensation. How can New Yorkers justify dumping rubble and dredged sand into their Hudson River, narrowing it by 700 feet near its mouth? Goddess Gaia winked, and told them those old conservation rules were only meant for the hicks out in flyover country. Moreover, the odd natural disaster is good for the Snake Oil industry.

    Conservation for our Green Betters is like morality for a Borgia pope.

  42. Comment from: Graeme M

    JW, you ask:

    “I think you are overcomplicating things now.
    Your question in essence is a simple one.
    Did the extra two or eight inches of sea level rise since the seventies made all the difference on top of the very high tide?
    What if there was a low tide at the time of the storm instead, would the extra few inches still cause more damage?”

    That sort of ISN’T the question, and of course it’s really neither here nor there. But I go off on these tangents at times because I find the investigation fun and enlightening. Some others in recent times are “what is air pressure” and “why does a disc of earth’s diameter intercept the same amount of light as a hemisphere”. Simple on the face of it, but the things I found out.

    In this case, the question ISN’T really how much the SLR sits on top of the high tide. It is, rather, was the high tide at that time any higher than at any other time. Because the SLR in the graphs is a MEAN value of a RANGE of sea levels (ie tides). So, regardless of high tide or low tide or in-between, how far outside of that range was the sea level at the time of the storm. That’s a more subtle question to my mind.

    If the range of tides say 50 years ago was from A to B, then regardless of the tide status if the predicted height was within that range when sandy struck then SLR had no impact because the event was always possible.

    Sure the actual level may have been slightly higher than the same tide without SLR, but if it is within the range then there has been no impact above what was always possible.

    Caveat: I might be quite wrong in thinking this!!! :)

  43. Comment from: cohenite

    As SL increases tidal range should decrease because of greater inertia.

  44. Comment from: sp

    Sea level rise study misrepresented; humans still raising sea level

    The following guest post is a briefing note by the Climate Science Rapid Response Team:

    What can I say???

  45. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes

    “Caveat: I might be quite wrong in thinking this!!! ”

    I’m sorry but unless I completely misunderstood the whole thing, you are wrong.

    You introduce something that cannot have any relevance on this matter, namely:
    “range of tides say 50 years” Unless the gravitational pull of the Moon and the Sun changed, and I did not hear it mentioned, the range of tides today are as they were not only fifty but a thousand years ago.
    The timing of the storm is irrelevant in a way, it could have happened at low mid or high tide.

    Therefore only the SLR can be an accentuating factor.

    Sorry but your reasoning is a voluminous one, I may have misinterpreted it along the way.

    The fact remains that the tides themselves have not changed or very very little if any, could not have for the reasons I outlined.

  46. Comment from: ohenite

    “What can I say???”

    Well,you could say the Church paper sums up AGW as being speculative rubbish; one of the comments from professor Abrahams, who had the famous stoush with Lord Monckton, says it all:

    “In short, saying that the relationship between global climate change and sea level rise is weak is not the same as saying “climate change has nothing to do with sea level rise.”

    I’d call that wishful thinking; maybe Church has seen the light since Dean and Houston beat him up

  47. Comment from: cohenite

    “What can I say???”

    Well,you could say the Church paper sums up AGW as being speculative rubbish; one of the comments from professor Abrahams, who had the famous stoush with Lord Monckton, says it all:

    “In short, saying that the relationship between global climate change and sea level rise is weak is not the same as saying “climate change has nothing to do with sea level rise.”

    I’d call that wishful thinking; maybe Church has seen the light since Dean and Houston beat him up

  48. Comment from: Graeme M

    JW, thanks for your comments. As I said, I may be completely wrong-headed. Anyways, you have again misunderstood what I am driving at.

    Let me try to explain a different way.

    The sea level that is shown on graphs is the monthly mean sea level over time. Now, mean sea level (MSL) is, according to the definition, “the arithmetic mean of hourly heights observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch”. And of course, the hourly heights will be different over the course of a day, depending on the tide. So tide height is, in effect, the sea level at any point on a coastline. So the ACTUAL sea level at a time of day on any given day is not necessarily the same as the MSL – it can be higher or lower.

    Now, over a period of time, you must have a maximum high tide (discounting storm surges etc) and a minimum low tide. You will also have a mean for each. These are the figures I showed earlier.

    Let’s use some arbitrary figures for a period of time, let’s say from Jan 1 1960 until Dec 31 1978. That period incorporates some major tidal cycles so we should get a representative range of heights.

    Min Low Tide Height – 800mm
    Max High Tide Height – 2600mm

    Mean Low Tide – 1000mm
    Mean High Tide – 2500mm

    When I say range, I mean the range of these values. These are the heights of the sea for those tides relative to a land based benchmark.

    Min to Max is 800mm-2600mm
    Mean Min to Max is 1000mm-2500mm

    This is the range of possible tide levels, and hence, sea levels. You’ll see that MSL is somewhere in the middle-ish.

    Now, if Sandy rocks up in 2012 and causes a surge, how can we deduce what effect sea level had on that surge? Well, to my way of thinking, it depends on the height of the tide. If it occurred at dead low tide, and that was, adjusted for the current period, let’s say 1050mm, we can easily see that the tide was 50mm higher than the mean was in the period 1960-1978. So in effect, we had an extra 50mm or so of sea level for the storm to play with than if the sea level hadn’t risen.

    There are a couple of ways of looking at that. Because that tide height is NOT outside the range of either the mean low to mean high, or the min low to max high for 1960-1978, then even though SLR DID affect the storm surge, it was not outside the range of possible surge heights that we could have experienced back then. So realistically, we did not experience anything we could not have theoretically experienced at any time since 1960.

    On the other hand, if it happened at high tide, and that tide was 2650mm, then it is beyond either range, and we can clearly say we had an effect of an extra 50mm sea level that we did not experience in 1960-1978. therefore, SLR did play a part, albeit quite small.

    That is, disregarding other confounding factors such as land subsidence, local changes in geography etc.

    Does that make sense?

  49. Comment from: Graeme M

    By the way, I’m not trying to show that SLR did not occur, I was simply asking myself the question – “how would I tell if SLR contributed to Sandy’s impact”.

  50. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes

    Graeme M

    I think I must pass on this one.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 » Show All