jennifermarohasy.com/blog - The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:

Subscribe

December 2012
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Jan »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

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.

Still Fishing

Best wishes for the New Year.   Jen

Advertisement

277 Responses to “Still Fishing”

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 » Show All

  1. Comment from: Graeme M


    No worries JW. I think you are probably right – I’ve expended a lot of effort to show that sea level is rising…

    But I DID learn a few things in the process, so that’s good.

  2. Comment from: Debbie


    You’ve expended a lot of effort to show that sea level is rising?
    Now I’m intrigued.
    Who has said SL wasn’t or hasn’t risen Graeme?

  3. Comment from: John Sayers


    I just can’t escape the empirical evidence no matter what the computer predictions are.

    Go to The Pass at Byron Bay – it’s the same today as it was 30 years ago. I’ve witnessed both.

    Go to the rocks at Milford beach in Auckland where I grew up in the 50s /60s – the same! I’ve witnessed both.

    I’m sorry – computer BS is not supported by the empirical evidence as SD and Nils-Axel Morner has constantly said!

  4. Comment from: Debbie


    No argument from me John,
    Any rise is clearly not significant.
    That’s not what intrigued me about Graeme’s last comment.
    Perhaps it reads differently than he intended?
    It certainly looks different to his Bolt for PM comments that I read at deltoid.

  5. Comment from: John Sayers


    The computer models predict melting of the Himalayan glaciers causes sea level rise.

    New paper says otherwise.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00373.1

  6. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Could I possibly be convincing the Doltoids? Neil White finally agreed to the fact that the geoid ocean is effectively level apart from wind and current driven water.

    spangled drongo

    January 2, 2013 “So, while it departs from the ellipsoid that it is referenced to by up to about +/- 100 metres, it is, in effect a ‘level surface’ for all normal purposes”

    Neil White, thanks for that bit of common sense.

    And that 4th graph down is what I have been trying to tell you-all about for days.

    THAT is the only fluctuating surface level of the sea!

    Over the world’s oceans it is less than the equivalent 0.01 of a human hair [ 1 micron] over the length of a billiard table.

    IOW it is ~ one hundred times flatter than a billiard table which shows to go just how flat and agressively in equilibrium our world’s oceans really are.

    So that if local SLs have not risen but actually reduced in Moreton Bay over ~ 70 years, there cannot be SLR in the rest of the world, accelerating or otherwise.

    QED

  7. Comment from: Graeme M


    Debbie, what I meant was that more than likely all I’ve done is show that there has been sea level rise and it did enhance Sandy’s impact. Which is what they argued at Deltoid. I wasn’t trying to disprove whether there has been SLR, rather just question to what extent it might have contributed.

    What I wrote above makes sense to me, but perhaps it’s glaringly obvious to everyone else. I just don’t know enough about tides, cycles, ranges and so on – it just seemed obvious to me that it’s the actual tide height that should be the deciding factor.

    But what I have suggested ties in with Spangled Drongo’s concerns. For example if the mean sea level at the Gold Coast has risen say 140mm over 70 years, you’d be hard pressed to see that at any old moment, because the sea level is the tide height and that varies continuously. MSL is not an actual real world property, it’s a statistical construction.

    What you MIGHT see though would be low water that is not as low, or high water that is higher. But imagine IF due to a range of factors highest high water over that time was set say 50 years ago?

    You may find that generally speaking, high water today is no higher than it was 50 years ago, however MSL has risen.

    So, observing high tides may not, in the shorter term, actually tell you what MSL is doing.

    All of that said, I still have no idea how Wow at Deltoid could argue so strongly that tide height is not sea level. Tide heights are not MSL, but they ARE the local sea level at whatever time you care to check.

  8. Comment from: Graeme M


    By the way, here’s another question which appears to me to be obvious, but is perhaps completely silly and obviously so to others.

    When everyone talks about SLR and its impact, they always seem to argue as though the water is in something like a smooth sided container, let’s say a cylinder. So a SLR of say 5mm/yr means an increase of 50mm in 10 years or 500mm in 100 years. Now that would work in a cylinder, but in the real world?

    As the sea rises, wouldn’t it spread out as well? The same volume, over greater area? Why should it continue to rise at the same rate? For example, at some point it may get high enough to spill over into a previously dry valley, or plain. That could be a very large valley or plain. And this must happen all over the world. Plus, the extra weight on the land would presumably press it down, possibly speeding the rate at which water spreads out.

    Or is this spreading out effect likely to be too small to be noticeable?

  9. Comment from: Graeme M


    Visualisation.

    Cylinder half full of cold water being warmed. Water level will increase as it heats, at presumably a uniform rate if our source of heat is constant.

    Imagine at some point a small pocket in that wall. When the water level reaches that, it flows over into that pocket. What would be the effect on the rate of rise of the water level? I am not sure, it hurts my head to try to figure that one out. :)

  10. Comment from: Graeme M


    Visualisation.

    Cylinder half full of cold water being warmed. Water level will increase as it heats, at presumably a uniform rate if our source of heat is constant.

    Imagine at some point a small pocket in that wall. When the water level reaches that, it flows over into that pocket. What would be the effect on the rate of rise of the water level? I am not sure, it hurts my head to try to figure that one out. :)

  11. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    “What would be the effect on the rate of rise of the water level?”

    The rate is the same but since it’s spreading out on a wider area the height of actual rise will be smaller.

    Don’t confuse the two!

  12. Comment from: gavin


    GM: cause I’m extreemly handicapted while tryng to drive a new pc, os and larger monitor I must be so brief about my observations re later part of this thread.

    Simply; stay focused on SL facts as described via msm and go back only a month or so in keeping up.

    A quick review finds items like 3.2mm/y and the West Antaratic melt contribution to SLR. Any GLACIER MELT adds.

    Stay with the climate research, not the the global conspiracy to undermine it. Mutual understandings and agreements exist now to help with SL data analysis from various measurement systems both old and new.

    I sugest a look at the Panama Canal. SL on the Pacific side is about 20cm higher but only 50 km away from this station.

    http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/163.php

  13. Comment from: Graeme M


    Anyways, those are just a couple of thoughts from my confused imaginings. I’ll leave you all to your usual far more productive discussions!

  14. Comment from: Graeme M


    Anyways, those are just a couple of thoughts from my confused imaginings. I’ll leave you all to your usual far more productive discussions!

  15. Comment from: Robert


    Gav, I don’t know how many times one has to say it, but SLR started around the time of Jane Austen and Napoleon Bonaparte. Open and common knowledge. I don’t know what currents or volcanic vents may be affecting some parts of Western Antarctica, but sea ice in the SH has been trending high in recent years. Open and common knowledge. I’m talking about the whole of Antarctica, not just some melty bits. Isn’t it good to know that things aren’t too bad?

    I’m not saying the climate’s terrific, but it’s about as terrific as it gets. Just a bit of chilling back in the seventies had everybody squawking, so just enjoy this milder moment in the holocene while it lasts.

    As for climate research…in the age of Publish or Perish, all the best geeks like to poo-poo any paper older than their iPhone. So why not get in early? That’s all a skeptic does.

  16. Comment from: gavin


    Recent reports on climate change, wind and waves

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/science/global-warming/121030/hurricane-sandy-climate-change-global-warming

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121012102615.htm

  17. Comment from: Neville


    More common sense from Matt Ridley, probably one of his best columns.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-world-outlook-rosy-europe-outlook-awful/

  18. Comment from: Neville


    Still waiting for your answer Gav, come on have a go. You post regularly here about the terrible state of the planet brought on by CAGW but won’t provide any solution to fix drought, floods, SLR, bushfires, lower the temp etc and you seem to want to provide us with the wonderful ( SARC) climate of 1750.

    What’s your problem? You can regularly complain but never offer a solution, why? Strange.

  19. Comment from: Debbie


    Graeme,
    It is an interesting question but JW is correct.
    You are undermining your own argument by confusing rate and rise.
    Essentially, if any SLR is not significantly affecting coastlines then SD has nailed the real problem.
    There is rather a lot of OVER STATING (bold) the effect of any discernable SLR.
    The argument over Sandy is a good example and the article you linked at deltoid (I think it was you?) explained the important contributors to the damage.
    Any contribution from SLR and further any contribution from the ACO2 signal in SLR was NOT (bold) significant.
    If they want to learn from the event, sooking about SLR is not the lesson.

  20. Comment from: Neville


    My last two posts have disappeared, so I’ll provide this Matt Ridley link again.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-world-outlook-rosy-europe-outlook-awful/

    It’s a very good column and was published in the Times. Probably one of his best, full of facts and common sense as usual.

    BTW Gav I’m still waiting for you to provide an answer on how to return the climate back to 1750. You insist that there really is CAGW but you can’t seem to even attempt a solution.

  21. Comment from: Neville


    Sorry now my previous posts have risen from the grave. What’s going on?

  22. Comment from: gavin


    Nev; I will only take your question seriously when you acknowledge AGW in climate change and SLR, also the possibility of accel over decel

  23. Comment from: Neville


    Lomborg states on page 77 of “Cool It” that the IPCC estimate the total costs for the USA national protection and property abandonment for a 1 metre SLR ( more than 3 times what’s expected) at about 5 to 6 billion $ over this century.

    This is tiddlywinks in dollar terms compered to trying to change the climate or SLR by reducing co2 emissions and you have a result once the work is completed.

    Just imagine wasting endless trillions of dollars for many centuries and still not see a benificial change in temp or climate or SLR etc.
    Of course you won’t change the climate or temp by a whisker, just see the blow out in co2 emissions since the Kyoto signing. The increase or blow out in emissions was about 58% i.e. a total fraud and con. Mostly from China, India etc and they won’t sign.

    Remember this particular theoretical IPCC estimate is for a 1 metre SLR over this century, if you’d ever believe that load of SLR crap.
    The IPCC official estimate is of course about 30 cm, but that 1 metre is a good guide for cheap sensible ADAPTATION.

  24. Comment from: Neville


    Well Gav you’ve just stated my exact position. I’ve told everyone here many times that I accept some AGW for a doubling of co2. Possibly a rise of 1C over time.
    But so does Lindzen, Christy, Carter, Spencer, Monckton, Bolt, Lawson , Nova, Watts, Evans. McIntyre, McKitrick, Bast, Dyson etc ,etc.

    If the SST goes up we should get some future SLR through thermal expansion at least. So the balls in your court because I’ve always believed in some AGW.

    Now let’s see your mitigation strategy?

  25. Comment from: Neville


    BTW Bolt’s still providing the occasional post from his family holiday in Holland and the USA. He certainly nails our lying govt and the excuses they’ve used to sign up to this idiot’s Kyoto 2 noose.

    What have we done to deserve such a hopelessly useless,clueless, dumb govt?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

  26. Comment from: Neville


    Alaska starting to get colder, in fact a drop of 2.4F so far this century.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/02/report-forget-global-warming-alaska-is-headed-for-an-ice-age/#more-76734

    Could it be partly due to the change in the PDO?

  27. Comment from: Debbie


    Gavin,
    Neville has already answered your question but I must say you are being highly obtuse.
    NOBODY (bold) has claimed that SL has not altered or that humans have not affected their local environments.
    The point of disagreement is the C bit in CAGW.
    Many people, including Neville are questioning the costs involved in
    a) attempts to prove that C bit and;
    b) taxing to change the changing weather/climate.
    The question is really very simple.
    What do you think should be done to adapt to changing climate?
    or alternatively:
    Do you think that taxing CO2 emissions in Australia will have any practical mitigation effects?

  28. Comment from: Robert


    Nev, that’s an interesting link to Ridley. I recall reading that Sir John Cowperthwaite, or some other post-war manager of HK affairs, very deliberately refused to gather economic data. If one looks at the nonsense of extrapolation, modelling etc in the fields of economics and climate, you can see the point.

    Here’s one example. If you were a paid scholar and climate boffin in 1700, watching the advance of the glaciers, you would have made predictions for 2012 based on what had happened during the 1700s. You could have produced all kinds of calculations and extrapolations to prove that an ice age was inevitable by now. The Archduke was paying you for an opinion, and you would have been as unlikely as a modern Publish-or-Perish academic to give a sensible answer like: “How should I bloody know?”

    Another example. If you had been observing sea-levels before the Napoleonic Wars, you would have had lots of stats and measurements to prove that higher levels by 1900 were impossible.

    Nobody in the thirties thought there was a chance of a global cooling alarm just forty years later. Very few in the seventies – till that freak English heat of 1976 shook up the the CRU and the “ice man”, Hubert Lamb – thought we were heading into a warming crunch.

    Intellectuals of all colours have trouble understanding that life is flux and that all trends come to an end. There is, of course, a great need for intellectuals and, above all, real scholars. But there is danger in putting too much faith in people who can collate, measure and calculate but who cannot, on the most elementary level, just THINK. We cannot delegate commonsense.

  29. Comment from: cohenite


    gav lays down the law:

    “Nev; I will only take your question seriously when you acknowledge AGW in climate change and SLR, also the possibility of accel over decel”

    On the other hand we will never take you seriously gav.

  30. Comment from: Debbie


    “We cannot delegate commonsense.”
    I SOOOOOOO wish that there was a like button at this blog.
    Very well said Robert!
    I also liked who ever it was that said
    “We cannot legislate for stupid!”

  31. Comment from: gavin


    I would realy be wasting my time bareing my soul in this society, wouldn’t I coh?

    Nev complies with a begrudging 1C for 2 x CO2 and claims the same frame for Bolt, Lawson , Nova, Watts, Evans and presumably other non climate scientists after Spencer and co.

    On all AGW questions, science and politics won’t mix. When you side with science, let me know.

    Deb, Rob; the switch from cooling to warming mid phase has lots to do with our economics. Call off the science by association if you will.

  32. Comment from: hunter


    gavin, your last comment is stoopid, even for you.
    Nova has more science eddication than you, as does our hostess. And Spencer is, well, a rocket scientist, meteorologist and accomplished academic. You are a neverwuzzer; not even a couldabeen.

  33. Comment from: Neville


    Gav I never thought you would have the guts to even try and answer my challenge. Luke’s best attempt was perhaps nuclear could be an answer, but he also admitted it would be very difficult.

    Simple maths dictates there is zero we can do to change the temp or climate because China and India etc are easily out stripping any savings in emissions the OECD could ever make.

    You should read Lomborg’s book because he’s covered just about every scenario for the rest of the century.

    The reduction of co2 path is a complete waste of time and money and can never make a scrap of difference. Just look at the Kyoto blow out of 58% more emissions and think of the idiocy and wasted billions $ to come via Kyoto 2. All for a zero return.
    We should be using all our scarce borrowed money on new inventions, more R&D and adaptation to anything the weather/climate throws at us.

    There will always be droughts , floods, fires, cyclones, tornadoes, SLR perhaps and sometimes dangerous coastal storm surges etc.
    We should be planning for every one of the above events before it happens and not waste countless billions $ for a guaranteed zero return.

  34. Comment from: Debbie


    Because the deltoids were trying to discredit Humlum I googled to see if he has been mentioned recently and found this:
    http://www.troymedia.com/2012/12/08/un-chief-errs-again-on-climate-change/
    Perhaps Graeme or Spangled can use it if they’re still arguing with them?
    Gavin,
    I do have to agree with hunter.
    That was a bit of a silly comment.
    You must give credence to the POLITICAL (bold) notion that there is white hat or good fairy science and black hat or evil witch science that is based on whom you work for?
    Yet here you are commenting on Jen’s blog and you MUST (bold) be aware that there have been many attempts to discredit her work based on that same ridiculous notion.
    One of the latest was that abysmal media watch attempt at character assassination.
    BTW,
    I think Nev has always said exactly that.

  35. Comment from: Neville


    Debbie thanks for that link, so much common sense is heartening to read.
    The UN chief’s comments are incredibly stupid and just proves what silly numbskulls we have running the planet’s affairs.
    Where do we get these silly people from and why don’t more journos speak out when these fools sprout these clueless absurdities.

  36. Comment from: John Sayers


    Debbie – the Deltoids willl just attack that article with ad homs. Bob Carter will be first, Anthony Watts will be next – they will never address the science the group is advocating.

  37. Comment from: spangled drongo


    John is right Debbie. They are like a pack of rabid dogs and you have to give them nothing but the narrowest of parameters and if they don’t respond just come back later. I’ve finally got a couple of the more reasonable to agree that the surface of the geoid represents level ocean and am trying to proceed from there.

    I am not holding out much hope and probably deluding myself but it is interesting.

  38. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    Re. the question Graeme M asked about changing rate.

    Driving home I was pondering if he grasped the difference. Debbie picked it up.

    His example involves heating water in a vessel.

    Cylinder half full of cold water being warmed. Water level will increase as it heats, at presumably a uniform rate if our source of heat is constant.

    Well the expansion rate is not linear but fairly constant with the application of heat until boiling point, for practical purposes we can say it’s constant.

    What Graeme M confused is the rate of expansion and the rate of the rise of the water level in the cylinder, when
    suddenly encountering a wider surface area, while the expansion rate remains the same the rise of level is slowed down.

    This is the quandary with the claim of a uniform rate of SLR. (any rate) While the addition of extra water can be calculated by observed data or computer models, the claim of any distinct sea level rise like 2mm or 100mm is practically meaningless unless a very complex calculation is made taking into account the elevation of every bit of our planet.

    And I’m sure when these people are talking about “Sea level rise of 10mm” they assume that all the world’s water and ice is contained in a vast cylindrical container with the lip at an even height.

    That is not the case as we know, so once the sea level reaches low lying areas like Bangladesh the rise will inevitably slow down despite the supply of water is constant.

    Like I said before the “expansion rate/ melt-water supply” may be constant we cannot say that the sea level rise will be linear so any claim of a rate of rise is bunkum.

    Hope I did not confuse you even more Graeme M.

  39. Comment from: spangled drongo


    “so once the sea level reaches low lying areas like Bangladesh the rise will inevitably slow down”

    Probably more than most people realise. What effectively happens at a huge river delta that frequently floods is that the land always remains slightly above SL. It “floats” similar to coral atolls. And it also grows in area with beautiful alluvial soil.

  40. Comment from: Debbie


    Yes JW & Spangled,
    Of course.
    Spangled was trying to explain the way water always aggressively seeks equilibrium to the deltoids when I stopped visiting.
    They clearly weren’t getting it.
    Also, if there is no alarming SLR in places like Bangladesh the whole hypothesis. . .including Graeme’s example. . . sort of falls over doesn’t it?

  41. Comment from: Jonathan Wilkes


    That’s how I see it SD.

    If we assume, that the melting of Antarctic ice and the glaciers is as predicted. I doubt it, but let it be.

    If they use the change of rate of melting as a substitute for change of SLR rise up or down, I can accept that.
    But that’s cheating.

    I have seen many floods where the same amount of water caused enormous damage on one side of a hill because it had nowhere to go and piled up to ten feet, while on the other side it was nothing more than a bl..y nuisance.

    I’m not arguing here about SLR one way or other but the use of terminology. One cannot speak of a uniform or should I say steady sea level rise on an uneven surface, it will fluctuate as low lying lands are inundated.

    There are many below sea level areas now, that could be filled?
    Not a good situation in any case, but why not be be clear what we are talking about?

  42. Comment from: Graeme M


    No JW I wasn’t confused, I just used the wrong word. All I was posing is a simple question – if the water is rising in our hypothetical cylinder, what happens when it reaches our hypothetical pocket. To my mind, the rate at which the actual water level is climbing would be momentarily slowed. However, I didn’t mean anything significant from that thought, it was just an observation that I’ve never seen mentioned anywhere. It may have no real world effect at all.

    As far as sea level in the real world at any particular place, that is just an average over time of all heights of all tides with variation removed ie they screen out fluctuations like storm surges, currents etc.

    So all that happens is that a monthly mean of sea level, drawn from tide gauges, is then plotted. This is where we see the evidence of a sea level rise. The linear trend that they are fond of showing is just that, a linear trend of noisy data. The actual monthly means show substantial variation.

    Have a look at this plot for The Battery at New York.

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750

    You’ll see the linear trend but the actual sea level heights (ie Mean Sea Level) are quite variable.

  43. Comment from: Debbie


    Just to qualify that comment,
    remember I am a broad acre irrigator and I manage gravity fed irrigation.
    I understand that the ocean behaves differently because of other variables but water will always follow the laws of gravity and SD is correct that it will do so aggressively.
    Hope that helps?

  44. Comment from: Graeme M


    And remember that the global SLR is simply an average of ALL plots.

    By the way, that New York plot – it’s hard to tell from looking at it, but it seems to show SLR of 150 mm from 1960 to the present day, yet you’ll remember my calculation that indicated no more than 53 mm of actual rise in the particular tide I was investigating. I might dig some more into that, I am still curious, even if I am off up a blind alley.

  45. Comment from: Graeme M


    Debbie, yes, SD’s observation does make sense. But it IS hard to argue that when we can see SLR in some tide gauge data and not in others. There must be some sort of local variables that affect what is happening. But I have always wondered about the point SD is making – if sea level is rising, why is it not visible in some places? I can imagine local variation having some short term effect, but if sea level is rising globally then those short term effects must eventually give way to the broader underlying trend. No way could it rise by 150-200mm globally and not at all in one place, surely.

    Intriguing.

  46. Comment from: Debbie


    Graeme,
    go back and read what JW & SD & John S said.
    Or maybe. . .block off your backyard and leave a hose running?
    What does the water do?
    If you heat it by a poompteenth of a degree will it make a significant difference?
    Also. . ., think about what happens in dams and channnels etc when it gets hot.
    What happens?
    At my place the water level rapidly decreases, sometimes several cm in just one day.
    If we have a run of hot weather they rapidly dry up.
    We have to keep refilling them with more water.

  47. Comment from: Graeme M


    Not sure what you are driving at Debbie. I understand SD’s point, but there ARE tide gauge records that clearly show sea level rise. The one I linked to is an example. SD is arguing that if there is no obvious SLR at his benchmark, then because the sea is level and aggressively seeks equilibrium, it calls into question any case for SLR anywhere. But it is clearly there in the data.

  48. Comment from: cohenite


    SD; interesting point about the Geoid which is a distilled gravitational frame of reference; but it deals with endogenous gravitational effects, which are dynamic; it does not consider exogenous gravity such as that produced by the moon; while that may be constant the effect of lunar gravity will depend on the form of the water on Earth; for instance if there is more water in the oceans the tidal range will decrease; that in turn will redfine the Geoid.

    Is that your understanding?

  49. Comment from: gavin


    Glad to see you guys considering G and our lumpy flat sided earth re SL and SLmean. Tide is also lumpy hence the hunt for power sites. Turbulence is another factor when considering tide flow through straights but we don’t see much on that form of “surge”

    GM, I reckon it’s way too soon for all science on Sandy

    coh; your reading too much. Go do measurements for a change.

    Tidal analysis

    ” While the moon’s gravitational force is recognised as the primary influence on tides, there are more than 100 scientifically recognised constituents (called harmonic constants) that affect the timing and height of tides. NTC balances the impact of these specific constituents with analysis of regional factors, such as coastally-trapped waves, to prepare tide predictions for port and harbour authorities, the Royal Australian Navy, and persons and authorities engaged in recreation, tourism, marine resource related industries, coastal development, trade and commerce.”

    SD; re your old tide marks v PA, any ref needs grounding assurances

  50. Comment from: gavin


    Glad to see you guys considering G and our lumpy flat sided earth re SL and SLmean. Tide is also lumpy hence the hunt for power sites. Turbulence is another factor when considering tide flow through straights but we don’t see much on that form of “surge”

    GM, I reckon it’s way too soon for all science on Sandy

    coh; your reading too much. Go do measurements for a change.

    Tidal analysis-

    ” While the moon’s gravitational force is recognised as the primary influence on tides, there are more than 100 scientifically recognised constituents (called harmonic constants) that affect the timing and height of tides. NTC balances the impact of these specific constituents with analysis of regional factors, such as coastally-trapped waves, to prepare tide predictions for port and harbour authorities, the Royal Australian Navy, and persons and authorities engaged in recreation, tourism, marine resource related industries, coastal development, trade and commerce.”

    SD; re your old tide marks v PA, any ref needs grounding assurances of associated variables, particularly pressure

    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/vprp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=vprph09&period=12month&area=nat

    Nev;re mitigation, my ACT region is again on the edge of a big dry but (my) concern about the grass fire hazard (in all SE AUS) is officialy recognised now and up in the media for all to see

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 » Show All