Future krill kill?

Risk maps for Antarctic krill under projected Southern Ocean acidification : Nature Climate Change : Nature Publishing Group

Hey, this blog must one of the few in the world that is always interested in krill stories.   If you search at the sidebar, you'll find at least six posts in the past.

And today, another article in Nature Climate Change (above) with concerns that ocean acidification will eventually kill them off in Antarctica, with dire consequences for the whole food chain.  I'll cut and paste the whole summary, because it has interesting bits about the entire krill life cycle (who knew their eggs hatched so deep?):

Marine ecosystems of the Southern Ocean are particularly vulnerable to ocean acidification¹. Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba; hereafter krill) is the key pelagic species of the region and its largest fishery resource². There is therefore concern about the combined effects of climate change, ocean acidification and an expanding fishery on krill and ultimately, their dependent predators—whales, seals and penguins^{3, 4}. However, little is known about the sensitivity of krill to ocean acidification. Juvenile and adult krill are already exposed to variable seawater carbonate chemistry because they occupy a range of habitats and migrate both vertically and horizontally on a daily and seasonal basis⁵. Moreover, krill eggs sink from the surface to hatch at 700–1,000 m (ref. 6), where the carbon dioxide partial pressure (p_CO2) in sea water is already greater than it is in the atmosphere⁷. Krill eggs sink passively and so cannot avoid these conditions. Here we describe the sensitivity of krill egg hatch rates to increased CO₂, and present a circumpolar risk map of krill hatching success under projected p_CO2 levels. We find that important krill habitats of the Weddell Sea and the Haakon VII Sea to the east are likely to become high-risk areas for krill recruitment within a century. Furthermore, unless CO₂ emissions are mitigated, the Southern Ocean krill population could collapse by 2300 with dire consequences for the entire ecosystem.

Tony reflects

A minor incident, perhaps, but the photo was screaming out for enhancement.

People watching in central Greenland

My blog seems yet to have ever had a hit from Greenland, and I also spend much of this time of year looking at the Arctic sea ice melting around it.

So I was just now inspired to look for webcams from there, and found this one for Summit Station, a research station on the top of the central ice cap.  It looks very lonely there:

It also does indeed seem to be live and updating every few minutes. I spotted someone on the ice a few minutes ago, and he (or she) is not there now.  Oh - I just saw two people walking past.

I see that is summer and still - 12 degrees C.  Winter must be brisk!

Update:  the website I got the webcam from has a "users guide" for any researcher staying there.  Amongst other interesting things to learn are:

*  the cook has Sundays off, so everyone has to cook for themselves that day, or eat leftovers;
*  it has internet and phone service, but bandwidth is limited. (It seems their phone numbers are listed here, if anyone wants to Skype them.  I wonder if this is about the remotest place in the world one can ring and annoy with telemarketing?);
*  anyone abusing drugs or alcohol are on the next flight out;
* it's at an elevation of 10,500 feet:  altitude sickness can be a real problem for some.

By the way, it's now 2.30 am and the sun is out:

A good question

Are testicles external for cooling, galloping, display, or something else? - Slate Magazine

So there you go:  the reason most people believe - that it's for cooling - is actually much disputed from an evolutionary point of view, and has been for some time.

It's actually a well written,  fascinating story.

Anxiety rising in Abbott's office

I haven't seen it yet, but I take it that Tony Abbott got an aggressive interview with Chris Uhlmann last night.  I should watch it later today to see what I make of both of their performances.

Meantime, didn't I say last week that "new, improved Rudd", who I still say has taken lessons in apology from Peter Beattie, would be causing anxiety in Abbott's office?   With Newspoll showing it now 50/50, there is no doubt at all that I was right.

And all I can do from afar is laugh at people who comment and post at Catallaxy, who are stressing out about the Labor resurgence.  I share their puzzlement over Rudd's personal popularity (although, as I say, he is clearly performing cleverly at the moment and has learnt at least some political lessons over the last 3 years), but it's highly amusing when people from a site whose main unifying theme is "climate change is crap" start calling the Australian public idiots. 

Technological optimism

Once a Joke, Battery-Powered Airplanes Are Nearing Reality | MIT Technology Review

Electric hybrid planes, even of substantial size, may be in our future:

Several major corporations envision a future in which airplanes rely at least in part on electric propulsion. Although the technology will be applied to small planes at first, eventually it could help reduce noise and emissions from airliners.

“Within this decade, we will certainly see hybrid electric aircraft entering the market,” says Frank Anton, who heads the hybrid aircraft efforts at Siemens. Four-seat hybrid aircraft are likely within that time frame, he says, but even 19 seaters are possible before the decade is out. Anton predicts that eventually we will see 100-passenger hybrid aircraft that use half as much fuel as today’s airplanes.

Boeing is taking this a step further with a concept for hybrid airplanes the size of 737s, which can seat more than 150 passengers, although it’s unlikely these will come into service before 2030. EADS, the parent company of Airbus, has also developed a conceptual design for passenger airplanes that fly exclusively on electricity, although the range of these aircraft would be limited.

Cool.

Slippery Tony

Abbott repaid cost of 2009 book trips

So, Tony repaid monies for what was a private, book promoting trip back in 2009.

One gets the impression that such repayments are not all that uncommon amongst politicians, but it's still amusing to read:

Freedom of Information documents show Mr Abbott repaid the expenses in 2010, despite initially describing the allegations through a spokesman as ''a blatant attempt by Labor to smear and mislead''.

Mr Abbott made the trips in July and August 2009 - before he became Opposition Leader in November 2009 - to promote his book....

According to the documents released, Mr Abbott's chief of staff, Peta Credlin, wrote in October 2010 that the flights ''were inadvertently booked as official travel, rather than private''. ''I enclose a full repayment of all outstand- ing costs … amount $6255.49.''
In January 2011, Mr Gray wrote to Mr Abbott's office noting $3141.93 m

As it happens, I've been arguing at Club Troppo that while I agree that there is an element of dishonesty "baked into" politics, a Leader has less scope to get away with it than any other MP, and if they have a history of particular dishonesty, it's not unreasonable for this to reflect poorly on their suitability as leader.

There are pretty classic examples of spontaneous dishonesty in Abbott's past:  denying meeting George Pell, a Medicare promise made in circumstances it seems he knew it couldn't be kept, denial of the real circumstances of his involvement in funding of the Hanson case, and now this (which, I suppose, we cannot directly pin on him, but it's a bad look, especially in light of the Coalition licking its lips over former Abbott mate Peter Slipper facing charges over travel rorts.)

I'll keep saying it:  Abbott's not suited to the leadership.

Unusual art

The photo does not really do it justice, but I was a bit surprised to find this bit of sculpture (I suppose you call it) inside the Queensland Art Gallery today:

I am always impressed with the arts precinct at South Brisbane; every visitor to the city should allow a full day there.

Caramel and cancer

Drinking Cola will not give you Cancer

Ian Musgrave looks like he might easily have a second career in Tolkien movies, but he writes really well about issues to do with toxic chemicals and food and the misleading way studies about same are often reported.

In the link above, he talks about caramel in cola drinks, and gives me reassurance that my modest consumption of diet cola is not likely to kill me, at least from that substance.

He also wrote interestingly about coffee recently, and I had probably read before but forgotten this:

....in fact studies consistently show that coffee consumption actually reduces your risk of diabetes (see here, here and here for systematic reviews). In at least one study, the risk was reduced by around 35%, which is quite good.

 Yes, it is.  But only if it works with freeze dried coffee, too...

Horsing around

It seemed time for my once a decade or so trip to the theatre, and what more popular show could I pick than War Horse?

I liked the Spielberg movie a lot, as did my son, and so I also took him to the stage play (the first real professional show he has seen.)

This might have been a bit of a mistake.  The normal progress is to see a stage show and then the film, and the added realism of the latter does not jar in any sense.  But I think, especially for a younger person, seeing the film first adds to the awareness of the "staginess" of a stage production.  He still liked it, more or less, but did comment that the some of the actors seemed to be being too dramatic.  I said that it's something you have to get used to in live theatre - it doesn't allow for whispers and the same subtlety of acting as does the audio and close ups of cinema.

But as for my reaction:  I assume it has been said before, but I kept thinking while watching it "this is like a masterclass of the very best in stagecraft and what can be achieved in theatre."  The lighting design, the sets which work with suggestion more than materials, the back projection, the music, the use of songs as linking device, and, of course, the puppetry.   I mean, it is kind of ridiculous triumph of theatre that the reunion of a man and his (artificial) horse makes a substantial  number in the audience cry.

I saw part of a documentary of how the show was made in Britain a few months ago - it took an extraordinarily long time, with a huge number of people involved.   They really deserve their success.

I was going to end this by noting that I would not go so far as to say that it has cured me of a preference for the additional realism of cinema; but really, they both deserve admiration whenever they work and win over an audience.

Saturday night fish recipes

A few weeks ago, I tried this salmon recipe from the Coles website: ginger and soy glazed salmon with buk choy.  The glaze and the salmon worked a treat, but the coconut rice (which I had never tried cooking before) burnt thoroughly on the bottom of the saucepan despite my attempt to use as low a gas flame as I could, and was unusable.   Maybe a heavier based pan next time?  I didn't realise coconut rice could be tricky.

Tonight, it was an old favourite, from an old recipe book I've had for maybe 20 years - The Macquarie Dictionary of Cookery.

This book, which I see was reprinted in 1991, is truly remarkable for the terrible quality of the illustrations.  There are no photos at all, just the occasional bad black and white line drawing.  For example, the entry on Spanish cooking  is illustrated thus:

Yet, despite the terrible look of the internal pages, it has proved to be a pretty reliable resource for your basic household recipes.  If you want a straight forward recipe for scones, stews, or (as in tonight's case) trout with almonds, it's very reliable, even if you have no idea at all what the final result should look like.

I've made the trout with almond recipe before and always liked it.  Strangely, given her general love of all seafood, my wife eats trout but without great enthusiasm.  I've always liked it, and I just can't work out why she downplays its qualities.  So I get to cook it only once a year or so.

Tonight, the kids ate this too and had no complaints.  Farmed trout is always available and (I see with pleasure) a reliably cheap-ish fish too. (About $16 a kilo today for filleted trout at Coles, and one big fillet each is plenty for this dish with lots of butter.  I cringe at buying fillet fish which is more than $30 a kilo, as many are these days.)

Anyhow, for each of my future reference, in case my crappy Macquarie cook book ever falls apart, here it is:

I don't worry about whether it's fresh parsley or not I use with the almond sauce; tonight I used oregano (which grows permanently and reliably in our garden, unlike parsley) in its place, although I also had a bit of thyme and its flavour works well in a butter sauce I think. As I indicated earlier, I just buy rainbow trout fillets if I can, and don't worry about extracting the bones.  They are so fine they are not going to chock anyone, and even my kids didn't bother pulling them out as they ate.

Maybe I can work up to having it once every 6 months, or 4, if I am lucky!

Revolution revised

New Revolutionary War books by Nathaniel Philbrick and Joseph Ellis ignore modern historical research. - Slate Magazine

Not that I know much about it to start with, but this Slate article, complaining that new popular histories of the American War of Independence leave out some of the more interesting recent academic takes on the matter, is interesting.    For example:

In his new academic press book, The Men Who Lost America, Andrew O’Shaughnessy shows that the British mismanaged the war not because they were unabashed tyrants but precisely the opposite: They were struggling to manage the most democratic government the world had ever seen. Britain’s popularly elected parliament never had more power than in the 1770s. But partisan politics paralyzed the government. Legislators were divided over how to respond to the American protests, and a free press only fanned the factional flames. King George III, an avid supporter of the Enlightenment, advocated a powerful display of force abroad in part to assert control over his nascent democracy at home.

 And:

Take what happened in Virginia, where the war was ultimately won. Wealthy planters were happy to champion liberty so long as their lives weren’t put on the line, as an article in a forthcoming collection of scholarly articles shows. They paid poorer men to fight for them, and when they tried to institute a draft, less affluent Virginians rebelled, knowing they’d be forced to carry the burden. The rioters demanded a volunteer militia, and at a high price: They wanted land as payment, and, just as importantly, slaves to cultivate that land with. Virginia’s elites grudgingly conceded, confiscating slaves from abandoned loyalist plantations, and handing out Native American lands that the British had given up after the war ended. Even still, when the patriots won at Yorktown, Va., in 1781, the battle that ended the war, Virginia’s militia made up just 20 percent of the patriots’ 15,000 troops. The Continental Army, most of them northerners, provided about one-third, and more than one-half were French.

These new pop histories of the Revolution are oblivious to the war’s global dimensions, as well as the quotidian reality of ordinary colonists, despite their claims to the contrary. They naively indulge the Revolution’s idealistic rhetoric, even if they dutifully note how those words failed to be put into practice. It makes sense; after all, there’s nothing’s less romantic than the complicated, disheartening truths of war-torn societies. The irony is that these new histories all try, rightly, to make the Revolution seem relevant again. Yet paying more attention to the new scholarship would show how much more similar the Revolution was to our own wars now.

Perhaps there’s a lesson we could learn from the Revolution’s losers, the British, for instance. They took on what looked like an easy war abroad to patch over partisan divisions at home, yet nonetheless lost the war because of imperial overreach. Or perhaps we could learn something from the vast majority of ambivalent colonists, the ones unsure whether the war was even worth it. The Revolution scared them, or held false promises. Their experience provides a sobering lesson about the hubris of war, but one we can still thank them for today.

A strange musical story

From the Spectator, a very strange story of how a Schumann concerto came to be re-found and played:

Robert Schumann met a wretched end. He died in a lunatic asylum where he thought the nurses were feeding him human faeces. Meanwhile he drove his fellow residents mad by sitting at the piano and bashing out nonsense-music until he had to be dragged away — a grotesque indignity for the creator of the most bewitching quicksilver fantasies in the history of the instrument.

After Schumann’s death in 1856, the violinist Joseph Joachim hid away the strange concerto that the composer had written for him in 1853 because it showed evidence of softening of the brain. Clara, Robert’s widow, agreed. That became the conventional wisdom. The violin concerto was suppressed until 1933 when — appropriately for such spectral music — the disembodied voice of Schumann contacted two of Joachim’s nieces during a séance and demanded its recovery. The work was fished out of the Prussian state library and championed by the Nazis, who saw it as an alternative to the devilishly hummable violin concerto by the Jew Mendelssohn.

Go away, Chris

Labor is sinking and the captains are to blame - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I've never thought much of Chris Uhlmann:  I don't think he does great interviews, and is not overly intelligent or personable as a TV host.  Despite having a Labor politician wife, and presumably having considerable contact with many on the inside of the party, I don't think he's ever particularly enlightening, and he is inclined to catastrophic forecast for how Labor is fairing.

Today's column is one of the worst examples of this.

Why won't his wife punish him for me?  Please?

More self amusement...

Fact checking Peter Anderson

So, the Australian today has an opinion piece by Peter Anderson, from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, complaining that the Gillard minority government didn't do much for business, was too union friendly, and increased costs and regulation, and business wants Rudd to go to an election now.   All very much in line with Rupert Murdoch's twitter-casted position (which I am presuming will end up in an Australian editorial soon, if it hasn't already):

Australian public now totally disgusted with Labor Party wrecking country with it's sordid intrigues. Now for a quick election.

But Googling around for other things Peter Anderson has said in the past, I see he was not happy with the carbon price policy of Julia Gillard, and was happy to promote this prediction in 2011:

DAVID TAYLOR: The chief lobby group for Australian business is most concerned about the potential hit to company bottom lines as a result of the tax.

PETER ANDERSON: Well the research that has been independently prepared, which we released yesterday, shows that small and medium businesses that are trade exposed are going to suffer losses in profitability of between 10 and 20 per cent.

Shouldn't there be enough time now to see how this dubious sounding prediction has panned out?

And as for Anderson's interest in the Coalition's policy:

SABRA LANE: The Government's been strong on this point though. It says that it's consulted widely. It had a number of round table groups. I think you were a member of one of them.
PETER ANDERSON: The Government has undertaken some consultation but it has come up with a flawed proposal.
SABRA LANE: Do you support Tony Abbott's plan to cut carbon?
PETER ANDERSON: Not necessarily. The business community has to subject that proposal to exactly the same rigour that we are subjecting the Government's proposal to.

 Yeah, sure.  I bet we'll see a lot of concern from Anderson about a policy that no economist in the land thinks makes sense for the purpose it says it seeks to achieve.

The accessory for the dedicated US politician

How to Not Urinate for 11 Hours - James Hamblin - The Atlantic

The answer, in the case of the Texas Senator who recently filibustered a proposed abortion law, is (apparently) to insert a urinary catheter and have a bad strapped to her leg.

In other examples of US politics are its weirdest (did it invent the filibuster, by the way?  Why does it seem no other country in the world follows this strange endurance procedure?):

Strom Thurmond famously opted to keep a bucket in an adjacent cloakroom, where he could relieve himself while still keeping a foot on the Senate floor. During a 2001 filibuster, St. Louis Alderwoman Irene Smith had aides surround her with tablecloths while she relieved herself in a trash can in the middle of City Hall. O beautiful for spacious skies.

The whales I never knew were there

Whale carcass may be towed out to sea to save pod | Environment | guardian.co.uk

The story is about some stranded killer whales up at Fraser Island, and ends with this:

Killer whales, also known as orca, follow the humpback whale migration along Australia's east coast to prey on calves.

I didn't know that.  Obviously, their tastes don't run to humans all that much, as I have never heard of an orca being seen anywhere near a beach on the Gold or Sunshine Coast as they pass on their way to or from Hervey Bay. 

I actually assumed they always stayed in colder waters.  My knowledge of marine biology is obviously lacking.

The use of on line photo editting to amuse myself continues (most people can safely ignore...)

PS, the face came from here.   By the time you squash it in, it's sorta hard to tell, I guess.

Some hope yet for a more realistic European carbon market

Europe’s politicians vote to resuscitate carbon market : Nature News Blog

From the link:

The world’s largest carbon-trading market may awaken from its coma: politicians in Europe’s parliament today agreed a plan to revive market prices which have collapsed in the recession.

It’s a change-of-heart from a parliament which had rejected the same idea in April. But although it would lift the market out of total irrelevancy, the plan still won’t raise carbon prices high enough to spur investment in low-carbon energy, which was one of the European trading scheme’s key goals when it was launched in 2005. So some politicians say much deeper reforms are needed. What’s more, the plan still needs to be approved by the ministers of Europe’s member states – a decision that won’t be taken until after Germany’s elections in September.