Academic literature on the topic 'Fronts (Meteorology) Victoria Melbourne'

Georg von Neumayer established the first formal program to take meteorological observations in Melbourne in 1858 at the Flagstaff Hill Observatory. In doing this he set the platform for a long-term climate record of Melbourne of immeasurable value to the city of Melbourne and the nation. He also helped set in train an ever expanding program of weather recording in Victoria, and around the country. This program of observing the weather then evolved into the sophisticated system which exists today. Today’s weather observation program underpins the modern weather forecasting service, which the nation depends on so much for short and longer term activities.

Wood et al. (2008; FPB 35) concluded their measurements of evapotranspiration (ET) in Eucalyptus regnans F.Muell. forest at Wallaby Creek, Victoria showed that ET differs only slightly between regrowth and oldgrowth, contrary to the findings of previous research. We assert that the conclusions of Wood et al. are invalid and argue that Wood et al. substantially overestimated annual transpiration and rainfall. Monthly whole-forest ET measured by Wood et al. using eddy covariance in a 296-year-old stand sum to ~700 mm year–1; consistent with rainfall of 721 mm year–1 recorded nearby by the Bureau of Meteorology. However, the Wood et al. conclusions were based on 1077 mm annual transpiration at this site, which appears to be estimated from a few months of heat pulse velocity measurements. Transpiration alone cannot be 54% higher than whole-forest ET because the latter includes transpiration, rainfall interception and evaporation from the forest floor. We believe Wood et al. made errors in scaling heat pulse velocities to whole-stand annual transpiration. Their rainfall of 1175 mm year–1 averages 62% higher than at three Bureau of Meteorology and Melbourne Water sites nearby. The paper also contains inaccuracies in reporting of the literature and numerous other errors.

The papers published in this special issue of Children Australia were originally presented at a two day symposium held in Melbourne on 26 and 27 November 2009. The symposium, Adoption, fostering, permanent care and beyond: Re-thinking policy and practice on out-of-home care for children in Australia, was jointly convened by the Department of Human Services (DHS), Victoria and the School of Political and Social Inquiry at Monash University in conjunction with the History of Adoption in Australia project (Monash University 2009).The event was a partnership between professionals working in this area and university researchers. Each group brought different perspectives and imperatives to the table. For DHS and the sector, the immediate frame of the symposium was the major policy statement Directions for out-of-home care, announced in May 2009 by the Victorian Minister for Community Services after consultation with community service organisations and young people living in care (DHS 2009a). It announces a framework for change which incorporates action on seven fronts or ‘reform directions’. These are to support children to remain at home with their families; to provide a better choice of care placement; to promote wellbeing; to prepare young people who are leaving care to make the transition into adult life; to improve the education of children in care; to develop effective and culturally appropriate responses to the high numbers of Aboriginal children in our care; and to create a child-focused system and processes (DHS 2009a). The driving principle informing the reforms is to ensure that policy and service provision are centred on the needs and interests of children and young people, and to ensure that young people are consulted as to what their needs are (rather than assumptions being made by adults as to their needs).

AbstractIntroductionComprehensive studies on the relationship between patient demographics and subsequent treatment and disposition at a single mass-gathering event are lacking. The Sydney Royal Easter Show (SRES; Sydney Olympic Park, New South Wales, Australia) is an annual, 14-day, agricultural mass-gathering event occurring around the Easter weekend, attracting more than 800,000 patrons per year. In this study, patient records from the SRES were analyzed to examine relationships between weather, crowd size, day of week, and demographics on treatment and disposition. This information would help to predict factors affecting patient treatment and disposition to guide ongoing training of first responders and to evaluate the appropriateness of staffing skills mix at future events.HypothesisPatient demographics, environmental factors, and attendance would influence the nature and severity of presentations at the SRES, which would influence staffing requirements.MethodsA retrospective analysis of 4,141 patient record forms was performed for patients who presented to St John Ambulance (Australian Capital Territory, Australia) at the SRES between 2012 and 2014 inclusive. Presentation type was classified using a previously published minimum data set. Data on weather and crowd size were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) and the SRES, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v22 (IBM; Armonk, New York USA).ResultsBetween 2012 to 2014, over 2.5 million people attended the SRES with 4,141 patients treated onsite. As expected, the majority of presentations were injuries (49%) and illnesses (46%). Although patient demographics and presentation types did not change over time, the duration of treatment increased. A higher proportion of patients were discharged to hospital or home compared to the proportion of patients discharged back to the event. Patients from rural/regional locations (accounting for 15% of all patients) were more likely to require advanced treatment, health professional review, and were more likely to be discharged to hospital or home rather than discharged back to the event. Extremes of temperature were associated with a lower crowd size and higher patient presentation rate (PPR), but had no impact on transfer or referral rates to hospital.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that analyses of patient presentations at an agricultural show provide unique insights on weather, attendance, and demographic features that correlated with treatment and disposition. These data can help guide organizers with information on how to better staff and train health care providers at future mass-gathering events of this type.CrabtreeN,MoS,OngL,JegatheesT,WeiD,FaheyD,LiuJ.Retrospective analysis of patient presentations at the Sydney (Australia) Royal Easter Show from 2012 to 2014.Prehosp Disaster Med.2017;32(2)187–194.

On the back cover of The Art Forger’s Handbook, Eric Hebborn proclaims No drawing can lie of itself, it is only the opinion of the expert which can deceive. (Hebborn) Well certainly, but like many forgers Hebborn was dedicated to ensuring the experts have ample material with which to work. The debate about authenticity rolls into the debate about originality rolls into the debate about excellence, slipping between the verifiable and the subjective, shadowed by the expert assessing, categorising, and delivering verdicts. Yet the proclamation ‘This is authentic’ is not straightforward. It is impossible to prove that the statement ‘This is a painting by Sir Arthur Streeton’ is true. It is always possible (though not probable) that the work in question is an excellent copy, manufactured with materials identical to those employed by Streeton, with brushstrokes reflecting Streeton’s manipulation of paint, applied in the kind of sequence Streeton used and with a provenance crafted to simulate perfectly an acceptable provenance for a work by Streeton. Much easier to prove that a work is not by a particular artist; one very obvious anomaly will suffice (Sloggett 298). But an anomaly requires a context, the body of material against which to assess the new find. John Drew’s manipulation of the art market was successful not because of the quality of the pictures he paid John Myatt to produce (after all they were painted with household emulsion paint often extended with K-Y Jelly). His success lay in his ability to alter the identities of these works by penetrating the archives of the Tate and the Victoria and Albert Museum and manufacturing an archival history that virtually copied the history of works by his target artists, Nicholson, Giocometti, Chagall, Epstein, Dubeffet, and de Stals. While the paintings mimicked works by these artists, without a provenance (an identity and identity trail) they were nothing more than approximate copies, many which were initially rejected by the dealers and auction houses (Landesman 38). Identity requires history and context: for something to be deemed ‘real’, both need to be verifiable. The plight of stateless refugees lies in their inability to verify their history (who am I?) and their context (I exist here because…). Drew’s ability to deliver a history is only one way in which works can slip identities (or in the case of Drew’s works – can be pushed). Drew’s intention and his ability to profit by the deception denoted fraud. But authentication is more often sought to support not fraud but optimism. ‘Can you please look at this painting which hung in my grandfather’s lounge room for over 50 years? It was given to him by the artist. I remember it as a small boy, and my father also remembers it when he was a child. But I can’t sell it because someone said it didn’t look right. Can you tell if it is by the artist?’ Such a problem needs to be approached on two fronts. Firstly, how strong is the evidence that this work is by the artist and secondly, what is the hypothesis of best fit for this work? The classic authentication process examines a picture and, against a framework of knowns (usually based on securely provenanced works) looks for points of identification between the proffered work and provenanced works. From these points of identification a theory of best fit is developed. For example, a painting with the inscription ‘Arthur Streeton/1896’ is analysed for its pigment content in order to test the proposition that this is a work by Arthur Streeton from 1896. Pigment analysis indicates that titanium white (a pigment not available commercially until 1920) is found in the clouds. So the proposition must be modified: either this is a work by Streeton that has been heavily reworked after 1920, or this is not a work by Streeton, or this is a work by Streeton but the date is wrong. The authentication process will define and redefine each proposition until there is one that best fits the evidence at hand. Fluorescing the date to establish whether it is a recent addition would be part of this process. Examining other whites in the painting to check if the clouds had been added later would be another. Checking the veracity of the provenance would also be critical. We may decide that this is not an 1896 work by Streeton based on the evidence of the pigment. But what if an art historian discovers a small pigment manufacturer in Box Hill whose records show they produced titanium dioxide as a pigment in 1890? The new evidence may affect the conclusion. But more likely we would want to verify such evidence before we altered our conclusion. Between the extremes of Drew’s manufactured identities and the optimism of a third generation is the strengthened work, combining identity shift and hope. Dali pulled a reverse strengthening when he signed 20,000 blank sheets of paper for lithographs that had not yet been executed (Hebborn 79), but more usually it is the inscription not the image that is missing. Of course a signature is good, but signature works may not have, and do not need signatures. A signature may be a picture of a certain place (Heidelberg) at a certain time of day (moonrise); optimism will soon join the dots, producing a David Davies Moonrise. Often an inscription helps; a nondescript clean-shaven Victorian gentleman can become a bearded founding father, an anonymous nag the first winner of the Melbourne Cup. And if the buyer is not convinced, then a signature may win the day. Unlike Drew’s fabricated histories these changes in identity are confined to transformations of the object itself and then, by association, to its context. Art fraud is an endearing topic, partly because it challenges the subjective nature of expertise. When van Meegeren manufactured his most successful ‘Vermeer’ The Supper at Emmaus (1937) he explored the theories of experts, and then set about producing a work that copied not an existing Vermeer, but the critic’s theory of what an as-yet-undiscovered Vermeer would look like. Hannema, van Schendel and finally Bredius subscribed to the theory that Vermeer’s trip to Italy resulted in Caravaggio’s influence on the artist (Dutton 25). Van Meegeren obligingly produced such a work. So does it matter? Is an identical work as good a work? Is a sublime copyist of great artists a great artist? (Not that van Meegeren was either.) Authentication is a process of assessing claims about identity. It involves reputation, ownership, relationships and truth. When an artist executes a copy it is homage to the skill of the master. When Miss Malvina Manton produced a scene of dead poultry in 1874, she was copying the most popular painting in the fledgling collection of the National Gallery of Victoria, Schendel’s The Poultry Vendor (Inglis 63), and joined a league of copyists including Henry Gritten and Nicholas Chevalier who sought permission to copy the Gallery’s paintings. When John O’Loughlin copied works by Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri and passed them off as original the impact on the artist was less benign (Gotting). Sid Nolan refused to identify problematic paintings attributed to his oeuvre claiming that to acknowledge such paintings would cast doubt on his entire oeuvre. Bob Dickerson assiduously tracks down and ‘outs’ problematic paintings from his oeuvre, claiming that not to do so would leave the thin edge of the wedge firmly embedded for future opportunists. Both are concerned with their identity. Creation is a fraught business, simply because the act of creation is the act of giving an identity. Whether we create a child, a musical score, a painting or a t-shirt brand, the newly created entity is located within a lineage and context that means more than the single individual creation. This is why identity theft is such a major crime. If someone steals an identity they also steal the collateral developed around that identity, the ability to deal in credit, to drive a car, to travel overseas, to purchase a house. Identity is a valuable commodity; for an artist it is their tool of trade. There is no doubt that the public celebrates the fake. Perhaps it is a celebration of the power of the object over the critic or the theoretician. But it is an extraordinarily costly celebration. Despite the earlier assertion that it is possible to make the perfect copy, very few even approximate the vibrancy and intelligence of an original. Most, if accepted, would seriously dilute the strength of the artist’s oeuvre. Forging Aboriginal art is even more disgraceful. In a society where cultural transmission has traditionally been based on complex relationships of dance, song, painting and objects to customary rights, laws and obligations, art fraud impacts on the very fabric of society. There will always be works that slip identities, and many are not pulled back. False works do damage; they dull our perceptions, dilute our ability to understand an artist’s contribution to society, and are usually no more than blunt instruments used for financial gain. References Australian Institute of Criminology. “Art Crime: Protecting Art, Protecting Artists and Protecting Consumers.” 2-3 Decembeer 1999. 1 May 2005 http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/artcrime/>. Catterall, L. The Great Dali Art Fraud and Other Deceptions. Fort Lee, New Jersey: Barricade, 1992. Dutton, Denis, ed. The Forger’s Art Forgery and the Philosophy of Art. California: U of California P, 1983 Gotting, Peter. “Shame of Aboriginal Art Fakes.” 16 July 2000. 31 May 2005 http://www.museum-security.org/00/112.html#3>. Hebborn, Eric. The Art Forger’s Handbook. London: Cassell, 1997. Inglis, Alison. “What Did the Picture’s Surface Convey? Copies and Copying in the National Gallery of Victoria during the Colonial Period.” The Articulate Surface: Dialogues on Paintings between Conservators, Curators and Art Historians. Ed. Sue-Anne Wallace, with Jacqueline Macnaughtan and Jodi Parvey. Canberra: The Humanities Research Centre, the Australian National University and the National Gallery of Australia, 1996. 55-69. Landesman, Peter. “A 20th-Century Master Scam.” The New York Times Magazine (18 July 1999): 31-63. Sloggett, Robyn. “The Truth of the Matter: Issues and Procedures in the Authentication of Artwork.” Arts, Antiquity and Law 5.3 (September 2000): 295-303. Tallman, Susan. “Report from London Faking It.” Art in America (November 1990): 75-81. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Sloggett, Robyn. "Slipping and Sliding: Blind Optimism, Greed and the Effect of Fakes on Our Cultural Understanding." M/C Journal 8.3 (2005). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0507/09-sloggett.php>. APA Style Sloggett, R. (Jul. 2005) "Slipping and Sliding: Blind Optimism, Greed and the Effect of Fakes on Our Cultural Understanding," M/C Journal, 8(3). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0507/09-sloggett.php>.