Hirdy

BST Users
  • Content count

    478
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hirdy

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • About Me:
    Serious about fly fishing since late 2011.
  • Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
    Photography, cycling
  • What I do for a living:
    Geologist conducting seismic interpretation and geological modelling in the minerals industry

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Perth, Western Australia
  1. I have a short length of PVC pipe, flattened a little, with neodymium magnets epoxied inside at the lower end. That is clipped to my sling pack. When I clip a fly off, I drop it into the pipe and let the magnets catch the fly. They stay in place quite securely until I finish fishing, at which time I unclip the pipe and run fresh water through the whole thing to rinse the salt off. Lay the flies to dry on some kitchen paper and put them back tin the fly box. Cheers, Graeme
  2. Remember, there are two versions. The original BAG was 9' and the Quickshot is 8'. I loved the 8' when I had a cast and hated the 9'. They are "chalk and cheese". If someone answers without specifying which one they are talking about, ask for clarification. Cheers, Graeme
  3. Yes. By which I mean: you can use all three types of line successfully with Clousers. Mix it up and choose what works in your fishery. The "jigging" action of a clouser on a floating line is deadly. Cheers, Graeme
  4. Strapping never works Mike. You probably should have nailed him to the perch.
  5. A Norwegian Blue? One that is pining for the fjords?
  6. Sure, nothing to say it but the weight of science. A few pages back, Steve in Pa posted his anecdote of 80% of papers being overturned in the journal he was involved with. That's impressive, but I'd be happier if it were 90% or 95%. That is a demonstration of how science works: One guy puts up a theory and a bunch of other guys try to tear holes in it. If the first guy made a mistake, the theory is shot down. If he didn't make a mistake, the other guys say so and perhaps build on that theory. The mainstream media loves a sensational story. A cooling world is pretty sensational, so stories like that cited by tomkaz got air play. Indeed, there really were a few scientists predicting a cooling world. From New Scientist, 2007: The link there is dead, but here's the paper from the American Meteorological Society that they are citing. Citing the fact that 10% of scientists in the 70s predicted global cooling as proof that climate science is 100% wrong is like saying scientists in the 1600s said the sun went around the Earth, so clearly astrophysics is guess work. It shows a complete ignorance of scientific methodology. I just hope you don't rely on weather forecasts to plan your fishing trips, because, you know, those guys are all full of carp. There is supposed to be dissent in science! It's how progress in a field is made. That 97% of all climate scientists agree that AGW is happening shows just how hard it is to disprove that hypothesis. If you disagree, FFS, write that paper and publish it in a journal. You'll be world famous (and very rich) if you're right. If you don't have the conviction or the evidence to publish, or even the ability to find some published evidence to argue with someone like me, all you have is an opinion. BTW, I'm not expecting any of you to change the way you live. As a geologist working for nearly thirty years in the minerals industry, that would be hypocritical of me. I don't intend to make any major sacrifices in my life. I'm simply telling you that most of you don't know enough about the science to present informed arguments against global warming. Most of you rely on ad hominem attacks or patently false evidence or shout "HOAX!" because you think it's a great argument. I just don't care. The world is huge and the timeframes we should be discussing have no meaning for 99% of people. Some of you even think 10,000 years is "a long time!" I understand earth sciences well enough to be convinced we are well and truly rooted at this point. We have 415 ppm CO2, climbing at 3 ppm per annum (and still accelerating). Add in the other GHGs and we're just over 500 ppm eCO2. If those numbers don't alarm you, you really should do some research. Enjoy your lives knowing we are living at the very peak of human existence right now. We've never had it better, nor will we ever have it as good again. As they say, "Live for the moment." On that cheery note, I'm outta this carpfight. Catch ya.
  7. Sorry, I should have given you a more deserving answer. You spent some time finding a very good graph and I did not show you the respect you deserve for that. Your graph is a very good depiction of just how stable the climate has been for the last 11,000 years. I could not have found a better one to demonstrate the point. It shows that during that period, temperatures have deviated no more than 1˚C from the global mean of 15˚C. That narrow range of temperatures has let us domesticate animals and plants (around 8,000 years ago) and we've turned that into a huge advantage for us as a species. Prior to this stable period, we needed to keep moving to follow the animal and plant food sources: setting up a farm wasn't possible. We we're hunters and gatherers. Your graph begins about 11,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age. Even in that graph, you can see the temperature was 4˚C below the mean we've enjoyed since then. The most conservative climate scientists say we can no longer avoid being 1.5˚ above this long term average. (The most pessimistic ones say 6˚ to 8˚C higher is unavoidable, but let's not go there ...) That 1.5˚C is already outside our comfort zone for long term agriculture. Some of the most recent posters here are looking at your graph and saying "SEE!!! It has not been stable! Look at the variation!" To paraphrase another Aussie, I say "That's not a variation. THIS is a variation!" (Source: https://coastadapt.com.au/how-climate-and-sea-level-have-changed-over-long-term-past ) I've chosen this timeframe because it is about as long as Homo Sapiens has been around as a species. Knight771, your graph occupies that little flat part on the extreme right of this one, where dotted zero line hits the side of the graph. Your graph, put in this context, demonstrates just how good we've had it for 11,000 years. My graph shows how few periods of stability there have been since humans climbed down from the trees. Once again, my apologies for the short answer before. You deserved better. Cheers, Graeme
  8. No, I didn't say that. Cheers, Graeme
  9. G'day Little, Sorry, no I don't have any images like that and I'd just be resorting to google myself. So, that's a no from me. Cheers, Graeme
  10. Nah, I've been watching. I haven't seen anything to make me change my opinion.
  11. It's also known as a Grey Mackerel, apparently. In my house, it's known as an ingredient.
  12. I try, but all I get in return is ignorant rants from people who can't be bothered reading scientific journals. Get an education about science and how it's done and what the implications are. Or even just get an education.
  13. You are kidding, right? A youtube video is your idea of scientific research?
  14. Sorry, I'm not your research agent. There are plenty of scientific references for you to read.