You can’t take climate change out of the flood equation

Bill Door says:

08:28am | 25/01/11

@Eric

That wouldn’t have something to do with the fact that the dam wasn’t there in either 1974 or 1893 reduce to the size of the flood?

Dave-o says:

09:16am | 25/01/11

The amount of water that has fallen is well in excess of previous flood years.

JE says:

09:24am | 25/01/11

@ Bill Door, Bremer river at Ipswich almost 25m in 1893, nothing to do with Wivenhoe Dam not being built. The current floods must have been due to climate change…. duh

MP says:

10:05am | 25/01/11

Eric I totally agree with you.  The floods in Queensland were much larger in the 1800’s we were not so populated then!

Getting desperate I would say people like Mal Farr are not doing Australians any favours by all of this printed garbage!  What is your response Mal to the 1800 Floods?

Bill Door says:

10:59am | 25/01/11

@MP

How do you know that floods were bigger in the 1800’s?

JE says:

11:47am | 25/01/11

@ Bill Door…. do some research Bill, the bom website shows river heights for all of the major floods we have had since records began. Do some research there and then re-read or even correct your posts on this site.

Bill Door says:

12:13pm | 25/01/11

@JE

You’re missing the point. How do you compare river heights now, after the building of the Wivenhoe Dam, to the 1800’s when there was no dam?

Can you tell me what how high the Brisbane river would have gotten to with the protection of the dam?

Rob says:

01:04pm | 25/01/11

The thing to watch for will be if we have a similar sized flood in 1-5 years and then so on repeatedly every 1-5 years. This would then be an indicator of a change in the frequency of sever flood events.
Although interestingly if you treat the 1890/1974/2011 floods as being fundamentally the same size:
1890—1974 -  84 year gap
1974—2011 - 37 year gap
Of course from a statistical view this is way to smaller sample size and we really need a further 30-40 years worth of data to draw any accurate conclusions either way.

Gregg says:

01:16pm | 25/01/11

@ Billy
” You’re missing the point. How do you compare river heights now, after the building of the Wivenhoe Dam, to the 1800’s when there was no dam?

Can you tell me what how high the Brisbane river would have gotten to with the protection of the dam? “
You could get a reasonable idea Bill of comparing the water inflow to the dam to the rate of release when it was just about going full bore and about matching that coming in.
The existing water would not have been in the dam because it accumulated over the many months prior to the deluge that they used the over 100% flood mitigation allowance to help contain.

Gregg says:

01:33pm | 25/01/11

@Rob,
Have a better look at the 1800s records, particularly the nine years about 1893 and five sizable floods.
http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/brochures/brisbane_lower/brisbane_lower.shtml

MarK says:

01:40pm | 25/01/11

There was more than one huge flood in the 1890’s Rob.

Brax says:

06:25pm | 25/01/11

I think the point you are all missing is the fact that it wasn’t just Brisbane that was flooded( Seems like thats all you lot are arguing about) But 3/4’s of the state….then a lot of the rest of the Eastern seaboard afterwards. This is unprecedented since weather events were recorded.
I don’t know if climate change is real or not, however these kinds of worsening events have been part of the warning. It wouldn’t hurt humanity & the world if we took some heed & looked after the planet a bit better even if the scientists are wrong. This article is right on the money, it should all be CONSIDERED…this is the key word here. Now get your bloody heads out of the sand & take a bit of notice.

Gregg says:

12:08am | 26/01/11

@Brax,
For some reason an earlier very factual post of mine was not put up.
In the three years 74-76 Broken Hill had record rainfalls, year after year, a period when the desert like country bloomed and I’m talking of somewhere near four times the normal average in each year.
It was possibly 1975 or 1976 that I had a week on a houseboat from Renmark and we were able to go way off th Murray in places up little creeks that were not too clearly defined by the normal trees for the water went out into paddock after paddock of a depth that many fences were under and we were even able to go cross country in the houseboat.
So the extent of water this time may not be any more widespread than it was then and obviously the inland regions would have had bugger all people about in the 1800s to record what ir was like.

What is known that before we had rail and roads, the Murray and Darling had a great riverboat trade servicing stations and collecting wool bales and that probably would have been about during the 1800S which were one hell of a lot wetter than the last century and start of this one if the Brisbane River level records are anything to go by.

MarK says:

12:32am | 26/01/11

Lol wat Brax.

Exaggerate much….“then a lot of the rest of the Eastern seaboard afterwards.”

And this ripper

“This is unprecedented since weather events were recorded. “

No. Much of the eastern seaboard was not flooded. I live on it. It wasn’t flooded.

There was nothing unusual or unique about the recent floods. All been seen before. Do not make stuff up.

“This article is right on the money, it should all be CONSIDERED”

Ok give me a sec.

Considered it. Discarded it. Next.

Reg says:

06:54am | 26/01/11

Good point Brax. If it doesn’t happen in Brisbane then the South-East corner doesn’t see it as all that important. Their main hope it that cyclones will remain a Northern problem and that it won’t increase the price of bananas.

Empire says:

10:30am | 26/01/11

UM, mal must be doing his own censoring. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/the-great-avoidable-flood-an-inquirys-challenge/story-fn7iwx3v-1225992644199

Gregg says:

05:58pm | 26/01/11

@Empire,
Trouble with such stories is that always have the benefit of hindsight and judgements by some guy called O’Brien do not carry much weight and it’s surprising the Australian has printed as much.
Are they suggesting that future management of the dam should be based on a Pastry Cook living nearby ringing a radio station in a state of alarm?
If you want the view of another with engineering experience it seems the Wivenhoe Dam management people did as good a job as could be expected in the circumstances and were monitoring the dam inflows as well as level of the dam and in being aware of rainfall ocurring to the south and west of Wivenhoe that would find its way into the Brisbane River, they released water at a rate to maintain the security of the dam whilst also being conscious of flooding flows.

Examine the figures in detail yourself and you will find that water at a reasonable rate was already being released from Wivenhoe in the week prior to the flooding and had been on and off from as far back as October last year.
. The Bureau of Meterology have stated that they cannot accurately predict local rainfall situations even if there is a rainfall pattern prevalent, the weather that caused the Wivenhoe Catchment, Toowoomba and Lockyer Valley deluge could just as easily have headed more west or not have had the same intensity of precipitation.

. So you have the Dam being managed on a what is basis more so than what may be though there was still plenty of mitigation capacity on Monday even after it had risen from 108% capacity on Friday to 148% on Monday, discharge rate being increased but not to near maximum levels until the deluge broke and they knew what the dam was in for.

There are going to be many armchair critics who will say that more should have been released earlier so that it had caused less flooding and then if the catchment had received only smaller falls so the dam remained well within the mitigation capacity, what would then be your judgement?

Anna Bligh ought to shelve this enquiry and rather make it more about how to lessen flooding impact.
. Do you run Wivenhoe at 50% - 70% or whatever as some suggest and I am sure Brisbanites would be happy with that come the next drought and being reliant on desalination at the additional costs.
The Desal Plant btw has hardly been out of commissioning, there being all sorts of problems and if that type of plant is sitting as a reserve for a few years, I’ll wager that it’ll again have a heap of problems to be reolved when they want it to run, stuff as simple as clogged filtration to general corrosion and controls that do not function as they should, that typical of process plants after a lay-off.

There are other measures that can be developed, all at a cost and inconvenience but probably less so than thousands up to their knees in mud and houses up to their eaves and more in water.

John says:

10:01am | 27/01/11

In 2007 Tim Flannery said Brisbane would probably run out of water by 2009. They are now 97 per cent full.  He was made Australian of the Year.

Maybe it is climate change, but it is equally odd how conveniently a tune can change so to suit those propounding the position that every dramatic weather event is our own fault.

There should be a debate about climate change and its proponents should be able to justify their positions.

Ironside says:

09:51am | 25/01/11

equally to spend billions of dollars and cripple the economy when there is no worldwide agreement to tackle climate change, on the basis of a possibility is also stupid

ibast says:

10:20am | 25/01/11

Right Ironside, do we have the possibility of economic hardship (or possibly stimulus) one one hand vs the end of the human race on the other.

Your right, let’s do nothing for a little bit longer until popular opinion agrees.

Jack says:

11:27am | 25/01/11

Yeah ibast, all based on scientists that 35 years ago were pushing global warming, then latter global cooling and now climate change. They lost my respect with the blatantly false hockey stick graph that supports the willingness of some scientists to falsify data. Don’t get me wrong however, I do believe we can move the economy to increase reliance on renewable fuels, power etc, to deduce pollution and improve or economic/energy security, but this can be done without using the brain-dead green stances that only line the pocket of middle men/women (parasites) and compromise Australia’s security. We just need a leader with some vision and the courage to use some direct action, there goes dillard and bobby.

Markus says:

11:41am | 25/01/11

I think it is time for economists to come into the equation.

That is, weigh up the financial impact of being:
- pro-active, which would be paying for projects aimed at preventing as frequent future impacts by reducing AGW. This would include costs incurred in projects that turn out to not assist. Versus:
- reactive, that is, saving money to tackle potential issues as they come.

Given some of the hair-brained prevention schemes I have seen pitched by the AGW community so far - from the well-meaning but infeasible plan to replace all power generation with renewables, to floating large mirrored satellites into orbit to deflect the sun’s rays away from the earth - I get the feeling that being reactive would be much cheaper (especially if AGW turns out to be complete bunk) and require less work.

mike says:

12:49pm | 25/01/11

climate change is constant and inevitable, how could you say this was no climate change attached? It ws sunny the day before, and then the ark floated by. Yes water is natural, so is being hit by a large object from space. I suppose you would say the large object from space is normal?!. Well it is, but atmospheric carbon dioxide has never bee seen to expand like this EVER. And then add the extra moisture in the atmosphere that produces warming many time greater than CO2. disastrous for a species or species’ that evolved in cooler couple million years. We changing our atmosphere to time more similar to dinosaur era, just a lot less oxygen. As Bob says, “the times they are a changin”

Ben81 says:

01:13pm | 25/01/11

ibast - “Right Ironside, do we have the possibility of economic hardship (or possibly stimulus) one one hand vs the end of the human race on the other”

Well there’s the problem.  Even if humans are having a big effect on climate, (and I personally think there is at least some effect going on that is often exaggerated), will Australia shutting down overnight let alone just reducing our emissions make even a 0.01 degree average difference?  Serious question, because I just don’t see how that’s possible.
Do we accept “economic hardship” and a less competitive environment to do literally nothing at all?

Gregg says:

01:24pm | 25/01/11

@ Mike,
And where exactly does all the additional moisture in the atmosphere come from!
The ammount of water the planet has is rather constant and as for that in the atmosphere it just gets spread about according to weather patterns.
We may get more as Ice/Snow melts and temperatures can cause evaporation but then the balancing act will be lower temperatures and more ice/snow that is also occurring frequently enough of late in the NH.

Who is to say just how far off the next great Ice Age is and the Climate Change proposers, supporters, sceptics nor denyers all will have nought of a chance of predicting it.
Australia’s population may go up many many fold as it advances.

Ben says:

05:32pm | 25/01/11

@iansand: yes there is a way to know for certain, by learning the causes of floods and the effects of climate change.

@jack: what’s blatantly false about the hockey stick graph? surely you need to support such a declaration with evidence? the graph you mention was construsted over decades of data by thousands of scientists working all over the world. which of them falsified data and what parts did they falsify?

@gregg: you’re right that the amount of water on the planet is constant, but the amount of water suspended in the air is not. you should be familiar with the effect of cooler air causing rain, and the reverse is also true - as the air warms up it holds a larger percentage of water vapour which in turn makes the air hold even more heat.

Jason says:

07:09am | 26/01/11

@ ibast “we have the possibility of economic hardship (or possibly stimulus) on one hand vs the end of the human race on the other.”.

Dear Sir, not even the IPCC are claiming global warming due to human C02 emissions will be the end of the human race. You see gross exaggerations like yours is one good reason that public support for global warming is falling. Another good reason is the science supporting this theory is unsupported by actual measurement data. Even Phil Jones of Climate Gate fame said there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.

Even if the Floods were due to AGW, even shutting down Australia will have NO IMPACT without action by all the major emitters like US & China. Even with say 25% reduction in emmisions, the effect of temps would be minimal according to the models. The only sensible course of action for Australia if any is to adapt as humanity has done since the Ice Age. We have plenty of time to do that if ever needed.

Les says:

09:27am | 26/01/11

Have you ever heard of LA Nina it happens every so often

Chris L says:

01:17pm | 26/01/11

@Jason perhaps ibast is responding to the equally sensationalist claims that acting on climate change will Roooon us all!

If we clean up our act but didn’t need to, we end up with a cleaner planet.
If we do nothing but find out we should have done something the results could well be disastrous.

I’m reminded of a Dilbert comic where the boss went missing because he received a bomb threat. He didn’t tell anyone else to evacuate in case it was a hoax.

MarK says:

08:13am | 25/01/11

I see.

China has come on board.

Pray tell us how exactly. I wait with intense anticipation. Also, since we are singling out obviously large nations with huge populations, explain India’s stance.

Eric says:

08:28am | 25/01/11

Just to correct a couple of your untruths.  (i) Abbot said the science behind climate change was crap.  Big difference.  (ii) India’s Environmental Minister just last week said man made climate was nonsense.  Japan has pulled right back. 

Stop telling porkies to try and build up your case.  Pathetic.

Bill Door says:

08:35am | 25/01/11

@ MarK

Climate change is a fact, says China

“A deputy director of China’s most powerful economic ministry has come out swinging against climate change denial.

Senior Chinese government figures have described the view that climate change is not man-made as an “extreme” stance which is out of step with mainstream thought.”

“Climate change is having an impact on China in terms of the instability of agricultural output.

“There’s now more flooding in the south of China and increasing shortages of water in the north. Forests and grasslands are being eroded and there are more typhoons and storm surges along our coast.

“So, if you look ahead to the long term, climate change may have a huge impact on China’s food security and the life and property of our people.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/11/2842415.htm

Bill Door says:

08:38am | 25/01/11

@Eric

If the science behind CG is crap. Then by definition CG is also crap. Unless Abbott knows of some other science that supports CG that nobody else is aware of.

iansand says:

10:12am | 25/01/11

Here you go, MarK.

‘But there may be another means to reduce China’s dependence on foreign oil, reduce urban pollution, and make Chinese auto companies globally competitive: alternative fuel vehicles. In 2008, the Ministry of Science and Technology mandated that 10% of Chinese cars will run on alternative fuels by 2012 and called for 10 billion yuan (US$1.5 billion) in research subsidies over the next three years for research and development of alternative fuel vehicles.

“Last February, the Ministry of Finance announced a new commitment to promote alternative fuel vehicles in the country’s 13 largest cities - Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, Zhangchun, Dalian, Hangzhou, Jinan, Wuhan, Shenzhen, Hefei, Kunming, and Nanchang. The mandate calls for public services to begin adopting alternative fuel vehicles in these cities and provides subsidies for production and purchasing of alternative fuel cell vehicles, including 50,000 yuan per hybrid and 60,000 yuan per fully-electric model produced by domestic car manufacturers.”

From here http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/KJ09Cb01.html

Is there anything about which you know something?

Seth Brundle says:

10:12am | 25/01/11

So it would seem that the Chinese government have finally cottoned on to the fact that they too can milk their population for more tax by climate change fear mongering?  Good on them!

nossy says:

10:29am | 25/01/11

@Eric - yeah but Eric Abbott is the guy who told us all he was technically illiterate then proceeded to try and wreck the NBN ! I gasp at this hypocracy Eric ! Now the same guy calls climate change crap so am I now to believe Abbott is an expert in climate change ? Fella Abbott should stick to his budgie smugglers and lycra - things he does best !  hahahahah

watty says:

10:41am | 25/01/11

Of course climate change is a fact known by anyone with an IQ above their shoe size.

The we have the “experts” like Flannery,Williams et who predict between them up to 100 metre tidal rises and drought ridden States in 2010.

Just who to believe?

MarK says:

10:57am | 25/01/11

Awesome ian. A newspaper article from October 9 2009. Just before Copemhagen.

How was the Chinese commitment there?

Also since you quote so eloquently form the article and give us the facts since 2012 is a mere 11 months away how are they going NOW on their target.

Have either you or Bill got anything recent or some actual facts on action that HAS BEEN taken? Or is it just like Gillard and Rudd. talk talk talk….....move the greatest moral challenge of our timer down to 7 on the to do list.

What they say and what they do are totally different things.

Really? This line

“Is there anything about which you know something? “:

gives it away. I know I get to you. I know you don’t read anything I write except for all of it. Please do give me something to think about. Please. I did have hopes for you but alas.

China is committed to reducing its emissions as a percentage of GDP unit. Not in absolute terms. Get it? They will emit more and more as their economy grows. They will not let outside measurements be taken. They will self monitor.

Glad you are so trusting.

Let us mark this down for January next year. Let us see how your China target of alternative fuelled cars goes. Lets ask the owners how they run. Should be fun.

Bill Door says:

11:25am | 25/01/11

@MarK

“Already, in the last three years, China has shut down more than a thousand older coal-fired power plants that used technology of the sort still common in the United States. China has also surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other clean energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas mileage for cars.”

“China’s goal has been to reduce energy consumption per unit of economic output by 20 percent this year compared with 2005, and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases per unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent in 2020 compared with 2005. “

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/business/global/05warm.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Grumpy says:

11:29am | 25/01/11

Abbott says the science behind climate change is crap, when he is not a scientist, and every major science body shows climate change is happening. He is also a devout catholic so ANY SCIENCE is in direct conflict with his beliefs. He also blindly apposes any policy put forth by the Labor party, and refuses to come up with alternatives unless they are to contradict the Labor party… anyone who denies climate change is happening, is flawed mentally and cant be trusted.

MarK says:

12:09pm | 25/01/11

My last comment to you Bill was censored out for some reason but no matter.

Same as per my reply to ian.

The article you quote is just after Copenhagen where the Chinese ratf$%ked us according to the man who listed it in 2009 & 2010 as the greatest moral challenge of our time - beating climate change by taxing the hell out of us. Now it sits as number 7 on his to do list, well the public to do list. The private one simply consists of buying his way into the UN.

Again the point is what they say and what they do are two different things. Yes they are investing in better power generators, more efficient and “cleaner”. But they will have more.

Your first article also quotes the Chinese as saying it is a Western problem and we should clean it up.

“He said the responsibility for this climate change rested squarely with the Western world, so the onus was on it to clean up the mess caused in the rush to industrialisation.”

There you go. Do you read what you link?

Now lets look at the second piece. The one you quoted from.

“China’s goal has been to reduce energy consumption per unit of economic output by 20 percent this year compared with 2005”

That is there. That is my point.

They are not going to cut greenhouse emissions in actual terms. They will pump more and more out as their GDP increases. And you claim they are leading paragons of virtue in the fight to cut emissions? They will emit more CO2 than anyone. Well India will be running in that race too I guess.

How much did China concede at Cancun? What absolute cuts did they promise to make.

By the way they allow no outside testing and measurement. They provide the data. Awesome stuff.

Just to ensure no imbecile takes my comments out of context I applaud the Chinese government for their sensible approach. They have at least attempted to embrace cleaner forms of energy use and have decided NOT to dismantle their economic growth in the pursuit of a false idol. Very sensible.

@Grumpy I am not catholic. Climate change is crap. Not every scientist or scientific body believes in it. I am mentally flawed but you can trust me. What else….ummmm oh yes please tell me how many times Gillard supported Howards policies. Tell me what she opposed. Show me the material difference between Gillard and Abbott in opposition. Go on soldier get cracking.

Given Labor and its track record of Batts, BER, green loans, handouts and what not opposing what they propose to do seems eminently sensible as a default position. Gillard admitted it when she knifed Rudd- she said the government was off the rials. We are all waiting for it to get back on them you see.

Bill Door says:

12:28pm | 25/01/11

@MarK

If you believe that China being the world’s largest investor in wind turbines and other clean energy technology plus shouting down more than 1000 old technology coal-fired power plants is doing nothing, then debating you is pointless.

Ben81 says:

12:55pm | 25/01/11

Bill Door - You’ll find China at the top of a lot of lists to do with energy consumption simply because they have the largest population on Earth.  Their Coal power consumption is and has been increasing fast, you imply the opposite, scratching the surface with wind power isn’t going to cut it. 
One positive point is that they’re about to become one of the fastest embracers of Nuclear power in agese, with long term plans for the industry.

Gregg says:

01:10pm | 25/01/11

@ Bill Door,
China may have been shutting down older smaller coal fired stations and though coal fired power stations are considered to have a normal operating life of 30-40 years, seeing an actual list of the power stations shut down and their capacities is another matter.
Meanwhile they’re still building new powerstations at a great rate of knots, more efficient combustion as you would expect and also far greater in capacity, coal contracts even being set with Indonesia.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/coal-fired-power-heats-up-in-china/story-e6frg9df-1111115813288 gives a broader slant rather than just a claim of shutting down coal fired power stations.

ZSRenn says:

01:50pm | 25/01/11

LMFAO Years of China bashing by the loony PC crowd and now China has agreed with Climate Change models so it must be true.

I think I know a bit about how China works and let me say “Buddha may be their deity but money is defiantly their god.” China has come around on this issue because they see a quid in it.

They were a force in Copenhagen because they wanted to ensure maximum gain from its outcome only. They have a pollution problem and know that if they can create new technology which helps reduce it they are going to be able to sell it for maximum profit to the PC west.

Vaunted says:

02:37pm | 25/01/11

Yeah yeah, and last week the scenario was endless drought. Make up your mind nossy, which is it? Or is it that the climate always changes, always has, and the effects are more or less unpredictable. And by the way, my understanding is that the CRAP assessment related to the capacity of an Australian cap-and-trade to have any effect on controlling climate, other than the Australian economic climate, but nice twist anyway. But say, if you’re so determined to live in the third world nossy, have you considered saving yourself the trouble of earbashing us with what amounts to arrant nonsense, and migrating to (say) Tanzania?

Jason Stevenson says:

06:51am | 26/01/11

@ Grumpy “Abbott is also a devout catholic so ANY SCIENCE is in direct conflict with his beliefs.”. This is totally irrelevant and illogical. Kevin Rudd, is also a Catholic and he wanted the ETS.

@nossy: Scientific basis linking Floods to AGW is tenuous at best. The general concensus is we are experiencing a stronger than average La Nina. This means a huge pool of COLDER water across the equatorial Eastern Pacific is pushing warmer waters to the west causing increased rainfall and cooler summer in Australia. The cause of the La Nina / El Nino events are not fully understood but generally agreed not to be due to human causes.

Chris L says:

01:24pm | 26/01/11

@ZSRenn are you saying that China’s action reducing pollution is for economic reasons? If so, why the hell aren’t we doing that?

Jim says:

08:56am | 25/01/11

Cyclone Larry damages less than 1% of the countries banana crops…banana prices still go through the roof, this affects inflation, then we had to have an interest rate hike.

Lot’s of money to be made from the Climate Change Myth isn’t there!

The Original Oz says:

09:00am | 25/01/11

I accept that there is climate change, I do not accept that it is man-made. In the 1700’s the earth went through what was classified as a mini-ice age. We are still coming out of this. Temperatures today are still milder than they were in the middle ages. Climate change today is an industry. Plenty of mouths at the trough that benefit from the “sky is falling” campaign that the climate change believers promote rabidly. The recent floods in Queensland are not unusual. Approximately every 40 years Qld floods and these floods reached lower levels than those in the 1800’s. Yes the dam is there to minimise the effects but due to poor dam management this didn’t really happen. Remember in the 1970s/80s it was Global Cooling, in the 1990’s it was Global Warming and now, because neither could be proven it has become Climate Change. Just another way to ensure the Grant money keeps on flowing.

Philthy says:

09:19am | 25/01/11

Absolutely. Thank you. The warmists want it all their own way….and how many global warming scientists is being paid to have that view ?????? The earth does what it does, whether man is here or not. Melbourne didn’t build a dam…..because it wasn’t going to rain like it has in the past…....desal plant unable to be worked on due to flooding
Why wasn’t more water released from wivenhoe…..was it because Qld will never receive rain like it previously did…...enough said
AGW is a load of rubbish

JB says:

11:28am | 25/01/11

Personally, I do believe man has contributed to climate change. But even if it is totally natural, as some of you think, that shouldnt mean that we shoudnt do anything about it. We still need to prepare for the effects of a climate that IS changing, no matter what the cause of this is.

Palmy Paul says:

11:42am | 25/01/11

climate change, its up there with killer bees, hole in the ozone layer, acid rain, the Y2K bug….just another way to scare the multitudes

Jack says:

12:26pm | 25/01/11

I will always remember a tv article about 35 years age on the global cooling. A scientist interview was treated as a prior by the scientific community for saying that the globe was warming. As he indicated the vast number of scientist were on the state sponsored global cooling gravy train and because his research was threatening the gravy train he was condemned.  Interesting how in 35 years the scientific community can suddenly become global warming zealots and now climate change extremists. At least they have remained consistent with their treatment of anyone that challenges their research (gravy train).

Seth Brundle says:

02:31pm | 25/01/11

I’m still trying to recover from the fact that we will run out of oil before the 1980’s.  Remember that one ?
My greatest regret about global warming/climate change is that I have no way of getting on the gravy train.

Markus says:

02:41pm | 25/01/11

JB, preparing for a climate that is changing is not what is being argued.

What is being argued is that manmade factors are a major cause, and that taxing these factors will prevent this change somehow.

Jason says:

08:52am | 26/01/11

Markus, Australia taxing C02 emissions will have ZERO measrable impact on climate. So move on.

Irishdon says:

11:34am | 25/01/11

Well said Mark.  But there is climate change, the climate has been changing in cycles since the big bang. Anyway what happens on this little ball we live on is of little importance to the bigger picture:THE UNIVERSE.

Bobster says:

12:14pm | 25/01/11

@ Irishdon, I’m sure that will be of great comfort to you when you’re up to your arse in water or watching wildfire rip through your home town.

Ryan says:

03:45pm | 25/01/11

@Bobster: but how do you get a wildfire when you are up to your arse in water? Oh right, that’s that climate change thing, any event whatever it is must be climate change.

iansand says:

07:00pm | 25/01/11

But Ryan - that is the point.  There will be more extreme events. There will be more energy in the system.  Is that too hard to comprehend?

Bobster says:

07:15pm | 25/01/11

@ Ryan,

See above.

Ryan says:

09:04pm | 25/01/11

@iansand: actual hard evidence please?

Reg says:

07:04am | 26/01/11

@Ryan ... A comet explosion 1000 times larger than Big Boy any place and any time of the night or day? http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/June09/TunguskaComet.html

If you don’t know what Big Boy is, then Google it.

iansand says:

08:35am | 26/01/11

Ryan - What do you mean “hard evidence”?  Do you seriously doubt that, with more energy in a physical system, there are more extreme events?  You may think you sound clever by asking for “hard evidence” but you reveal yourself to be so ignorant of fundamental science that your opinions can be discounted.

Ryan says:

09:18pm | 26/01/11

@iansand: incorrect, real science is based on provable replicable hard evidence. Science is not on your side, this has been proven over and over with the embarrassing admissions by the IPCC on their lies about the Himilayan Glaciers, the embarrassing admissions by the University of East Anglia on many of their lies and last but not least the MANY embarrassing lies sold to the world under the guise of “science” by Al Gore in his fictional movie. Those “apparent” drowning polar bears still makes me laugh at just how gulliable you AGW religion sellers are.
Real hard evidence please.. can’t wait.

Lisa Meredith says:

11:02pm | 26/01/11

Dear Ryan,

The proof of AGW lies in the stability and accountability of the science of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model, as is evidenced in the reliability of the technology we use in everyday life.

The corroborative evidence lies in the long-term trends, which show a doubling in the human carbon footprint and its attendant temperature rise every forty years.

The accuracy of weather prediction models is, at best, circumstantial evidence, and in my opinion has no scientific merit when discussing the proof.

My comment can be read in full on this blog in the thread of Richard
(09:57am, 25/01/11). I hope this helps.

iansand says:

08:58am | 27/01/11

Ryan - Put a saucepan full of water on a stove.  Do not turn it on.  Watch it for a while.

Turn the hotplate to 1.  Watch the water for a while.

Turn the hotplate to 2.  Continue watching.

Repeat up to the highest setting.

Do this a million times (if that is enough replication to satisfy you).  The result will be the same (there may be slight variations in the convection patterns).  Do you still have any doubts that adding energy to a physical system causes more extreme events?

Your problem is that you are regurgitating the crap fed to you by “sceptics” without an adequate background to assess its worth.

I do not know, to a requisite degree of scientific certainty, that AGW is occurring.  No one does.  We don’t have a control.  However I do know that a lot of the stuff produced by “sceptics” is absolute, unmitigated bullshit.  They are relying on uneducated dupes to propagate their lies.

Ryan says:

01:14pm | 27/01/11

@iansand: so you are saying the hotplate is the sun? How interesting!

iansand says:

04:57pm | 27/01/11

Ryan - The hotplate and the sun are sources of energy. 

A word of advice - stop digging.

Reg says:

09:13am | 25/01/11

Oh good, I feel better now that Joan and MarK have put us straight.

MarK says:

09:56am | 25/01/11

No worries Reg. Happy to tell you with utmost certainty that the climate apocalypse will not be occurring.

So sorry to ruin your doomsday cultist view of the world and all.

Who would have thought that giving good news would cause so much hate?

Joan says:

09:58am | 25/01/11

Reg: You`ll feel even better if you read MacKellar`s `My Country`... give yourself a real treat!

Reg says:

06:44am | 26/01/11

There is certainly something to be gained by the image you project Joan. One of a woman standing reading poetry to the wind and the other standing beside you spiting the poison that wells up within him at every opportunity. Then expecting us to accept the science derived from his wasted moments at the office. I guess this doesn’t say much for the night life of Port Macquarie. The years have taught me Joan, that Dorthea Mackeller has her place and it’s not out fighting bush-fires or filling sandbags.

Jason says:

07:26am | 26/01/11

Super D, great post. I agree 100%

jeffb says:

04:02pm | 26/01/11

“There were many who said it would never rain again”

Rubbish.

Climate change isn’t something new, if you’d actually read anything about it over the past 20 years you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

All water that evaporates will eventually condense and fall back to earth, the speed at which water vapour in the atmosphere condenses is regulated by the temperature of the atmosphere, the hotter it is the longer the vapour is stored. Temperature also regulates evaporation.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what are the likely results of increased evaporation combined with increased storage of water vapour in the atmosphere…

Perhaps increased periods of hot, dry weather interspersed by intense rain events?... It’s almost as if I’ve read about this exact situation before or something…

Bill Door says:

10:57am | 25/01/11

@Jon

You do know that Howard took a carbon tax to the 12007 election. Why wasn’t it called a new big tax then.

Your CO2 is dishonest. Nobody is saying that CO2 is bad. Yes plants need it. So what? What has that got to do with the chemistry of the atmosphere?  The fact is too much CO2 in the atmosphere will turn us into Venus.  Venus has an atmosphere made up of 96.5% CO2.

And to use your logic. Jesus, with all that CO2 you have to wonder why there are no plants on Venus.

L. says:

11:39am | 25/01/11

“Jesus, with all that CO2 you have to wonder why there are no plants on Venus. “

Because God didn’t put them there… Just ask the ACL

Grumpy says:

11:44am | 25/01/11

Well Chlorofluorocarbon put a hole in the ozone layer…so yea its impossible for any other gases released on the scale it is currently to cause any sort of damage. Gee you showed the climate change experts up, i bet their faces are red.

Jon says:

01:21pm | 25/01/11

@grumpy cfc’s put a hole in the ozone did it?

do you have proof of that?

the hole was above Antarctica, suggesting that somehow, all the CFCs produced by America, Europe and Asia got swept all into one big cloud and settled over Antarctica and burnt a bit giant hole.

the truth of the matter is that nobody knows how the ozone layer got damaged, the ozone layer depletes and replenishes itself over time, do some research.

@Bill Door ” Nobody says that CO2 is bad”  really?  I could’ve sworn that that was one of the main arguments used by the Propaganda climate change-ologists.

as for CO2 on venus causing it to be so hot… it begs the question; if venus can get the way it is, apparently naturally, (unless you believe at women do come from venus), then it indicates that if CO2 levels do rise, it will be through nature itself and not necessarily through the actions of humankind.  If venus can get hot without mankind, why couldn’t earth?

It has happened before our industrial revolution, whilst our ancestors were still cooking over an open fire, so it can’t now without us being to blame?

jeffb says:

04:43pm | 26/01/11

Jon, the only reason someone brought up Venus was to make you look ridiculous, it worked.

You also managed to show you have zero understanding of how our planets atmosphere works at the same time with your comments regarding CFCs and ozone depletion.

Congratulations.

Margie says:

10:04am | 25/01/11

What about the enormous emissions daily from erupting volcanoes?  They spew more carbon into the atmosphere every day than the rest of the world emits in a year!  The El Nino effect meant we were in drought, now La Nina has kicked in and the opposite happens.  The climate is always changing, it has nothing to do with the self serving scientists regarding “global warming” or climate change.

Reg says:

10:28am | 25/01/11

You want a prediction? I have a prediction. I predict that if the British wanted to move into South Australia and set off all their nuclear tests before moving to the NW edge of WA, people would yell blue murder exclaiming “it’s them bombs what done it, that’s what it is.” 

I have no idea what the contribution of the continual burning of vast quantities of petroleum contribute to the environment. Nor do I have any idea of what the continuous burning of coal might contribute. Burning that even with a first use efficiency of 22% still finishes up heating the environment. What I do know is that absolutely no-one would agree today to those atomic tests being conducted upwind from the total Eastern seaboard of Australia. Some things are just too too obvious to ignore and yet Bob Menzies and his British mates managed it.

Professor Julian Cribb ex-CSIRO suggests that all the evidence he has seen, supports the principal of Global warming. It doesn’t really matter whether it’s man made or natural, the real need is to take action to accommodate the changing demands of the environment and how they impact on the goals that we humans regard as of first-importance. Either that or we alter our expectations.

In my life-time these types of floods have all happened before, just rarely all at once. Nor do I recall whether Africa and Brazil were effected the same way at the same time because everything was more remote 50 years ago. Only comparatively recently are we ordinary people able to take in a bigger picture and with hindsight simply cannot believe that we blindly accepted those atomic tests in South Australia. Perhaps we’ll one day look back at Global Oscillation in the same way, but if we can’t, then it doesn’t really matter anyway.

MarK says:

10:30am | 25/01/11

See the usual apologists for the warmists cults bereft of facts or evidence relying on personal attacks to carry the day.

Typical. Like lemmings off a cliff.

Bobster says:

10:46am | 25/01/11

Warmist, eh MarK?

Direct from Bolt’s blog then as he’s the one who coined that particular bullcrap term?

Make a beeline for the semantic argument, mate. That’ll convince everyone to come to your side.

No one’s talked about global warming for 20 years because it’s too easy for the moron conspiracy theorists to hide behind it.

Go look at the ocean temperatures though - they are rising steadily.

Warmer oceans mean more rain, they don’t mean it’s going to be 40 degrees in Katoomba in July.

Get your hand of it.

Keith Coolridge says:

11:01am | 25/01/11

Thousands of peer reviewed papers supporting AGW vs zero for the deniers bereft of facts and yet still they come.
Why should they have peer reviewed papers and datasets when all they need is rhetoric. 
Flocking to expel their guano. There must be much pleasure in its release, see them flock, the air is rank with their arrival

watty says:

11:18am | 25/01/11

“Peer reviewed”? Reviewing each other’s subsidised computer models?

Sorry, but the Global Warmers” “Big Days Out” finished with the Rudd whimper in Copenhagen where all the IPCC predictions were shredded.

Bilby says:

11:28am | 25/01/11

Keith - The peer review process has obviously broken down quite badly. Once the outputs from computer models that can’t tell you the current climate given historical data were accepted as fact, the whole process became a sham. Climate modelling is essentially invalid in any form, because we lack the dense sensor array that we would need to have enough data to actually make predictions.

The average alarmist lacks credibility simply because they will not admit to the obvious flaws in the process or are not well acquainted enough with computer modelling to understand its limitations.

Sherlock says:

12:38pm | 25/01/11

Keith Coolridge says: 10:01am | 25/01/11
Thousands of peer reviewed papers supporting AGW vs zero for the deniers bereft of facts

Really? You won’t find them if you don’t look. It’s a bit like that apparent consensus that in reality boils down to a handful of scientists.

Anyway here’s a few hundred of those non-existent papers

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Who is the “Dolt” now?

pex says:

12:48pm | 25/01/11

Keith, could you enlighten me.  What would happen to the funding for all those peers if they found their colleagues ‘evidence’ didn’t support AGW ?

Keith Coolridge says:

01:48pm | 25/01/11

Sherlock
Do try to keep up, that site has been debunked many times.
The “papers” they allude to do not dispute AGW and they are not peer reviewed, so they are just opinion.
Stop spreading lies and do try to keep up. I do pity you, but I guess dolts have to exist.

notSue says:

02:47pm | 25/01/11

@ Bobster
“Go look at the ocean temperatures though - they are rising steadily.”

This is the point that most worries me and according to the meterologists and climate experts I’ve heard, is the major factor behind the extremity of this La Nina event.

Whether the climate change is man made or not is debatable, however, I firmy believe it* is* changing and we had better face that fact or be totally unprepared with out heads in the sand for increasing consequences.

Nafe says:

04:52pm | 25/01/11

Bobster, Its all well and good to state, The oceans are steadilly increasing in temprature or what ever reason you have that so called “proves” global warming exists.

Not sure if you are aware of the difference between symptoms and cause. Warming tempratures is a symptom. Proof is required to the cause being humans. I have not seen any such proof.

Gregg says:

12:28am | 26/01/11

@NotSue
The Ocean temperatures and because the IPCC or whoever comes out and tells us the ocean temperatures are rising we accept that blindly as some prediction of doom.

Look, temperatures still fluctuate with the seasons and no doubt from undersea volcanic eruptions or surface eruptions with lava flowing into the sea so measurement of temperatures about the globe will be very subjective.

How many monitoring points are there and to what depth and how are current variations take into account?
Ever do laboratory testa at school and found you didn’t always get expected results or across a range of people doing the same lab, there’d be a range of results, call it system errors being allowed for.
Do you not think the same happens when the planet is the laboratory!

Reg says:

10:25am | 26/01/11

@Gregg, Sue was only expressing concern for one of the many indicators. Lab experiments that yield a variable result can still indicate a trend, even if not a single one of them is 100% accurate. 

This whole concern being expressed is because of this same breath of observable variations. Perhaps it is only because for the first time in our lives, we are in a position to make some of these observations and that is why we have to seek further knowledge from the fossil records. In the mean time, just like any child who puts his finger on a red hot plate, we are forced into making short term remedies.

Bobster says:

11:54am | 26/01/11

Underwater volcanic explosions could be responsible for a rise in ocean temperatures, you reckon? Not a physics major, were you Gregg?

And honestly, who gives a toss if humans caused it or not?

The question is can humans mitigate it? Because, if we can’t, we’re all going to $%^&ing; die and the self-righteous climate deniers aren’t going to have a hell of a lot of time or space in which to feel smug.

Gregg says:

01:49pm | 26/01/11

@ Reg,
I’ve got no qualms about science Reg and the need to gain greater knowledge if we ever can to know a lot more about what the future may hold for our tiny planet within the greater universe but given the age of the planet and all the climate cycles it has had even within a few centuries let alone thousands of years, all the variable there are re what the Sun does, our orbit of it and axis oscillation, I doubt we’ll ever have accurate answers to man’s input into climate change.

I would hope that we could have a much cleaner planet with far less pollution but the industrial revolution and improvements in medical technology just mean there are many more of us than before the industrial revolution with numbers not looking likely to diminish unless we have another massive asteroid strike to cause some global mayhem or the next Ice Age cometh, both nature’s way of some sort of a correction.
However, whilst the more of us keep increasing and there remain that human greed for more and more in way of everything, we’re hardly going to stop having more and more fossil fuel burning and factory processes for pollution.
Watched a doco on a guy doing a trip about China the other day and we hear of coastal places like Beijing, Shanghai and HK as being populous but Chongqing alone has 30M people and the air was bloody thick and there’re so many more major cities in China, India and other countries that have been like that for a few decades and yet what real change have we seen?

So @ Bobster,
Lots of volcanoes about Bobby, and they’ve been spewing some pretty warm stuff forth for all of the earth’s life.
So we’re all up for it soon enough are we?
Better hope I’ve got time for the cricket and doing a steak on the BBQ!
I’ll have a coldie for you too.

PaulB says:

10:01am | 25/01/11

I knew man-made climate change was a load of crap when bankrupt Governments the world over decided it could only be fought with more taxation and charging.

Reg says:

10:36am | 26/01/11

Right-whingers don’t believe in market forces when the shit hits the fan. They expect the community to rally around and rescue them from their plight, which is a pretty good philosophy come to think of it.

Jim says:

10:51am | 25/01/11

Bobster…I too believe AGW is a money making exercise perpetuated by idiots, but even I find that post - despite being tongue-in-cheek - very offensive to the people who lost family members in the floods.

Bobster says:

11:18am | 25/01/11

Send me someone who lost family in the floods then. If they feel the same as you I’ll be happy explain it to them as I can understand why they might have an emotional response.

However, I’ll assume, because you haven’t identified yourself as such, that you are not one of them.

As a result, your offense isn’t of great consequence to me just as my offense isn’t of great consequence to the climate deniers.

The Black Knight says:

11:30am | 25/01/11

“I too believe AGW is a money making exercise perpetuated by idiots”

@ Jim

Is Margaret Thatcher at the top of your list as one of these idiots?

Gregg says:

12:40am | 26/01/11

@Justin
As AJ has said the hottest on record means SFA when you consider the age of earth and its development.
And with
”  Over the next 40 years, Queensland regions can expect increased temperatures of between 1.0 °C and 2.2 °C and reduced rainfall across all regions, except Cape York. In addition to projected higher sea levels, Queensland’s coastline may also be subjected to more severe tropical cyclones.”
Could they be merely guessing?
And with
I actually think it’s fair to claim that there is a broad scientific consensus that man made climate change is happening (going by the published literature), but there is very little consensus on what that climate change will do (going by the published literature). The “experts” don’t know what’s going to happen, so how can we work to change something when we don’t know what we’re changing it from? Makes it pretty easy to claim success or failure.

So you’re merely saying because some prople have done reports on what they reckon could happen, it must be so
Please!

AJ from WA says:

11:31am | 25/01/11

BOM here in WA said the same thing at the end of last year. One point however - what they actually said was the warmest decade since records started being kept. (100 years). So they have a 1 in 10 data pack. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but 1 in 10 is not enough for decent statistical rigour

Nick says:

10:58am | 25/01/11

Link?  what link!..come out from under the bed and have a look at the big picture..The earths climate has been changing since day one and will continue to do so carbon tax or not..With people James and Mal there IS no HOPE for Australia..

MarK says:

11:28am | 25/01/11

Mal was careful to make no such link. He just accused the flood by innuendo and association. Not with fact.

Mal is too cowardly to take it to next level. His faith tells him that it must be so but the facts don’t line up. Therefore he has to skate around the edges.

MarK says:

11:29am | 25/01/11

“If it is true, it will cost much more repairing the damage done than addressing the problems immediately. “

Why?

Alexis says:

11:39am | 25/01/11

Wrong in a fundamental way, as a major factor has been ignored by the IPCC and ALL of the computer models used to date.  More clouds equals less incomming solar radiation (test this yourself by walking outside) equals less retained energy through the day/night cycle.  The models are seriously flawed, but they have a useful side effect in that they seemn to mysteriously attract a lot of grant money.  Base national policy on fairy stories if you like, but at least have the guts to admit that the driver is a new religion, not science.

Reg says:

11:49am | 25/01/11

@ MarK, For the same reason it is cheaper to let a few aircraft and their passengers plunge to their deaths than it is to double the cost with improvements that reduce the already low fatalities by a small percentage.

Bill Door says:

12:09pm | 25/01/11

@Alexis

Different types of clouds cancel each over out in relation to incoming solar radiation. Some clouds let solar radiation. Other clouds reflect it back out to space. The problem is that the clouds that reflect it back out will also trap the solar radiation in that was let in by other types of clouds. And the clouds that let it in will also let out out.

The end result is that they cancel each other out.

MarK says:

12:11pm | 25/01/11

@Reg - that is pretty much the most ridiculous analogy I have ever read. And I used to hang at 4chan.

Gawd.

Richard says:

01:14pm | 25/01/11

BillDoor: not sure about the clouds cancelling each other out. By that logic nothing changes, nomatter how much evaporation occurs. Perhaps that is your point? If the CO and CO2 increases as it is, causing more reflected and absorbed long wave radiation causing greater temperatures, causing more evaporation, causing more clouds and these clouds negate each other then that goes against the point that water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

Lisa Meredith says:

02:27pm | 25/01/11

Dear Alexis,

I believe it is scientifically disingenuous to use any individual weather event or set of events to prove or disprove global warming.

One of the main reasons for this is due to the fact that we do not have a Control as per the Scientific Method. This Control would help us to differentiate between the effects of natural climate change and the effects of man-made climate change, both of which are happening all the time.

In the AGW scenario this Control would be either: -
1. An identical earth that is not experiencing AGW yet still undergoing natural climate change, as it has done for billions of years;
2. Or an identical earth that is experiencing AGW, but where all other determinants of global temperature (independent of the CO2-based greenhouse effect) remain constant.

What this means is that if the weather pans out as predicted by any particular climate model, then it verifies the accuracy of said model, and this is all it does.

It does not in any way speak to the veracity of the underlying physics and chemistry of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model, the predictions of which describe and quantify: -
1. The behaviour of atoms and molecules.
2. The way they absorb and emit photons, eg, the way CO2 absorbs long-wave infrared photons emitted from the earth and open water as it heats up during the day.
3. The magnetic dipole this sets up in some molecules, as the absorbed photon pushes an electron into a higher energy orbit and causes an asymmetry in the static electric field of the electron cloud.
4. The way the oscillation caused by this dipole injects extra kinetic energy into each collision in the atmospheric gas.
5. The way, when each photon is subsequently emitted back into the atmosphere, it can be released downwards or sideways back into the atmosphere so it can be absorbed by another molecule and the process begins all over again. This behaviour is called scattering.
6. The behaviour of radioactive decay, which identifies the carbon emitted from the burning of fossil fuels.

The stability and accountability of the science of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model is evidenced in the reliability of the technology we use in everyday life.

The corroborative evidence lies in the long-term trends, which show a doubling in the human carbon footprint and its attendant temperature rise every forty years. This also means that photon availability is not a limiting factor and the CO2 is very probably 100% saturated with long-wave infrared photons.

In conclusion, the accuracy of weather prediction models, at best, is circumstantial evidence, and in my opinion has no scientific merit when discussing the proof. By the same token we cannot use AGW to explain away the floods, but for me, as Mal Farr suggests, the best approach is to not dismiss the idea out of hand.

I guess the key is that is very hard to plan for an uncertain future, and I would argue that our time and resources would be better spent discussing the effectiveness of various mitigation strategies rather than deriding the science.  If our society expects science to deliver technology we rely on everyday, perhaps it is incumbent upon us to understand this trust we place in it, while maintaining a healthy skepticism as science dictates we should. So question away, as the Scientific Method requires, but we do have to start somewhere in dealing with AGW, and perhaps learn as we go.

In theory, ad-hoc approaches such as these are fraught with danger like the evolution of, say, the British Constitutional Monarchy. It was painful, expensive and took a long time, but we did learn, and a paradigm shift did ensue, and it continues to evolve today.

Reg says:

06:40pm | 25/01/11

Now that MarK has gone off with his teddy, I’ll explain the economics of the aircraft solution and how it applies to flood mitigation. You can argue as much as you like about what does or does not cause it, but the solution still comes down to economics, both financial and political.

Politically, in that grossly expensive works that rarely make a return or only make the return beyond the life of the investing government, will find our friend still throwing rocks at it from his wheel chair.

It has been observed that for maximum economical advantage, certain overseas airlines had decided that it was more economical to bear the rare and relatively inexpensive losses of life and damage, than it was to upgrade a whole fleet of aircraft to prevent an accident that rarely happened. Especially by using a contrived procedure for handling the failure.

Now how does this rare but tragic situation apply to floods and flood mitigation in Australia and the enormous losses and costs of protecting against them?

In India and China and other places, it is not rare to hear of loss of life from floods reaching into the tens or hundreds of thousands. Compared with our tragic loss of life the other is tragic beyond belief. Ours is still, by comparison, minuscule.

On an economic basis alone, IS it less costly to repair the damage that happens infrequently, OR is it better to divert the limited resources of the country to protect against something that can be avoided by taking adequate precautions? This is the equivalent in the aircraft situation, one of having a procedure to be used in the event of failure, one which can itself fail because this is no such thing as absolute protection.

MarK says:

12:51am | 26/01/11

Oh dear Reg.

This is awesome stuff.

“Politically, in that grossly expensive works that rarely make a return or only make the return beyond the life of the investing government, will find our friend still throwing rocks at it from his wheel chair.”

Makes no sense at all.

“It has been observed that for maximum economical advantage, certain overseas airlines had decided that it was more economical to bear the rare and relatively inexpensive losses of life and damage, than it was to upgrade a whole fleet of aircraft to prevent an accident that rarely happened. Especially by using a contrived procedure for handling the failure.”

So some foreign airlines, according to you let people die, rather than spend money. Therefore this statement

“If it is true, it will cost much more repairing the damage done than addressing the problems immediately. “

is true?

I mean .

WTF?

It is totally nonsensical and the last sentence in that paragraph is just some words, they don’t mean anything collectively as you have presented them.

I love how you think the government allows people to die because of expense. Get Gillard to admit that. Go on.

“Now how does this rare but tragic situation apply to floods and flood mitigation in Australia and the enormous losses and costs of protecting against them? “

Pro-tip. It doesn’t but what the hell lets have a laugh.

“In India and China and other places, it is not rare to hear of loss of life from floods reaching into the tens or hundreds of thousands. Compared with our tragic loss of life the other is tragic beyond belief. Ours is still, by comparison, minuscule.”

I know. It is a tragedy. It has also been happening for centuries like the 1911 flood in the Yangtze that killed 100,000+ or the 1642 China flood that killed 300,000 or the Netherland floods opf 1228 that killed 100,000.

Climate change in them too?

“On an economic basis alone, IS it less costly to repair the damage that happens infrequently, OR is it better to divert the limited resources of the country to protect against something that can be avoided by taking adequate precautions? This is the equivalent in the aircraft situation, one of having a procedure to be used in the event of failure, one which can itself fail because this is no such thing as absolute protection. “

So what. Ask the parents of the dead. The sons and daughters of the deceased. The friends and relatives.

That is not the point.

Richard says that climate change is happening. Fine. Then he states that it is better to spend money now to fix some unstated problems that will occur in the future.

Note the problems are unstated. Note the cost to fix them is not stated. Seems a big claim to sayu that it will cost more later than now then doesn’t it.

By all means Reg run off at a tangent if you fail to see what people are syaing.

Please do so legibly though.

Gregg says:

12:53am | 26/01/11

@Richard
It is all relative though for on any given day there will be oodles of clear skies devoid of clouds.
Massive deforestation is not a great idea for any number of reasons but with animals respiring and fossil fuels burning, at least the loss of clouds from the deforestation will be counter to the animals.

Now putting all the facts together and say there is a marginal impact on temperatures from greenhouse gases, perhaps that may end up being a desirable result if it is going to be easier to withstand a couple of degrees rise in temperature if it actually reduces the impact of a coming Ice Age, for I reckon having a mile or so of Ice in your backyard might just be a little more difficult to contend with.

It may be that all the Gods ordained that all animals should be breeding like rabbits and we should be creating as much heat as possible to insulate as many generations as possible against the next Ice Age.

And perhaps we should not even be considering any attempt to repair climate change damage any more than we have to in order to survive for whatever we do, it my be trivial against nature’s powers.

Robert says:

03:15am | 26/01/11

Dear Lisa Meredith,

Your comment was superbly crafted.  Clear, succinct and insightful.
Thank you for bringing a glimmer of reason to this thread.

Mankind represents only a small element in the complex system that is our world.  As our nature compels us to probe and understand more of this world, we poke and prod and measure with the intent to gain some sort of control within it.  Independent of our presence or absence, the planet will do what the planet does.  For now, we are along for the ride.
 
It’s lovely to assume that man is the master of the earth, and it will do our bidding.  However, it becomes blatantly obvious that this is not the case when events like these floods occur. It’s natural to look for someone or something to blame.  After all, man has come a long way towards controlling many elements in our lives.  It’s very uncomfortable to face the fact that we do not control the earth.
Using the Scientific Method, advances have and will continue to give us more understanding of the overall system of which we are a part.  Ideally this will bring us more and more ability to make sound decisions that are in sync with our planet’s natural actions.

The question isn’t whether climate change is happening, or whether it is getting cooler or warmer.  The question is how can man control this environment to promote the survival of our species indefinitely. 
To this end, I say let the scientists continue with their theories, experiments,  observations and conclusions. Fund them. Yet, at the same time, maintain a healthy skepticism of the conclusions reached. Policy makers must not be drawn into hasty decisions based on unproven emerging theory.  We are just beginning to formulate an understanding of the dynamics of our atmosphere.  We need to keep in mind how much we don’t know as compared to how much we do.  Otherwise, we can end up making rash and foolish decisions with devastating long-term social effects.  I believe a carbon-tax to be just such a decision.

I look forward to the day when science advances to the seemingly miraculous point that the weather announcer is able to predict the weather tomorrow and be right 100% of the time.  Until then, I’ll hold onto my skepticism.

Lisa Meredith says:

11:52pm | 26/01/11

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your compliment. You have made my day! 

I agree with you, although I reserve my judgment on the best way to go about dealing with AGW. I am not sure that a price on carbon is the best way, but I’m not convinced it has no merit at all. I am still waiting to see more options on the table. Nevertheless, we have to start somewhere, the sooner the better.

In the meantime we could do more to get solar panels on more houses in Australia: this would go someway to reducing the draw on our base-load power. We could also do more to get electric cars on the road and improving public transport. This could provide new opportunities for domestic industry.

We could enact a whole bunch of regulatory laws or put a price on carbon and let market forces do the rest. Maybe we need a combination of both.

ibast says:

11:37am | 25/01/11

You are absolutely right there.  We can reduce emission for a while and whilst that may slow things a bit, the reality is, without global population control all it will result in is a delay.

There are however two things that will obstruct any attempt at global population growth.  The first is money.  Market growth (and thus economic growth) is directly linked to population growth.

The second is religion.

Most countries around the world make their political decisions based on one or the other or both.

I personally fear we may have already exceeded the critical point in world population.  Mother nature will correct it any day now.

Grumpy says:

12:15pm | 25/01/11

Do you believe man put a hole in the Ozone layer?

James says:

11:53am | 25/01/11

Read this: http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/  it will answer your questions and show you the globe is warming and why we are causing it.

Richard says:

01:04pm | 25/01/11

Here we go again: It’s true in times before humans there were greater amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and the earth and it’s organisms existed symbiotically. These organisms were adapted to the atmospheric conditions. If you believe in evolution, land dwelling animals evolved according to the purity of breathable air. It is known that prehistoric plants were adapted to higher CO2 levels by less stomata on their leaves. (I’m not touching creationism). Perhaps, by following this same line, we will evolve to adapt to our surroundings by developing larger lungs.
Tectonic plates will continue moving, and volcanos will continue to erupt, changing the landscape of the earth.
What I was really implying before was that multiple changes in local environments will eventually have a global impact. Computer modelling will never be precise. We cannot predict what may happen. We can only produce possible scenarios.
Of course, if ‘climate change’ is just a catchphrase and a load of crap that is somehow a way to help governments raise money through taxes then we have nothing to worry about.

Keith Coolridge says:

01:50pm | 25/01/11

More seagulls arriving from the east.

Gregg says:

01:30pm | 25/01/11

It’s very simple, we have politicians prepared to go with whatever the mob of sheep has gone with and the mob of sheep are being driven by the Climate Change Lobby despite nothing ever being proven nor the principle of cycles well known being disproven.

Reg says:

01:16pm | 26/01/11

@Gregg ... Dear Gregg ...  May we consider the above as an admission that you too know SFA about it? That you will therefore stop trying to persuade us that it can never happen and will declare yourself open to be convinced one way or the other by scientific experiment? Unless you have information to the contrary, it is not obvious that your loudmouthed friend from Port Macquarie is any more an authority than you are.

MarK says:

02:55pm | 25/01/11

The best one is they had to postpone a meeting about the MDBA report thingy because the town booked was flooded

Nature is so awesome in it’s perversity.

Ryan says:

03:55pm | 25/01/11

That is what they are not willing to do, when I ask the question on how many degrees per year a carbon tax will reduce the temperature I am greeted with nothing but disdain. Surely if we are paying for something expecting results then we should have measurable results?

Reg says:

02:55pm | 26/01/11

But wait Neil, you mentioned, yet failed to explain the significant reduction in episodes since 1950. Decreased from ???? to only 8.

Someone also explained that the mining of the past has resulted in earth protuberances that absolutely ensure floods of greater severity than had the earth remained undisturbed.  So I think you need to tell use why there has been this remarkable “reduction” you mention.  Only 25 floods worth mentioning in 140 years. The alteration to 8 in the last 60 years actually sounds even worse, in fact an increase of 60% in the last 60 years relative to the previous reference. No adding in the ones you describe as “hardly worth mentioning” it represents a gigantic “reduction” in flood frequency. If it’s not a cyclical change then at best it is unexplained. Inconclusive, is the word.

Neil says:

04:52pm | 26/01/11

No Reg, You will find there have only been 9 total floods since 1958, which is far less. As for the mining factor, why is it Gympie has been mined on and off right up until only recent years and still we are to again see the same type of events as the 1890’s. So just to prove a point for you here we go. 1870, 1889, 1890 X2, 1893 X2, 1898 X2, 1927 X5, 1928 X2, 1931, 1947 X4, 1948, 1950, 1951, 1953 X3, 1954 X4, 1955 X3, 1956 X3, 1958. There are the first 37 floods, some missing of course, this equates to 36.63% Reg, now, let us continue.. 1971, 1972 X2, 1973, 1974 X2, 1983, 1989 X2, 1992 X2, 1999, 2011, 13 events which = 32.5% Even after all that mining and all those extra buildings. Not a significant as I thought so I stand corrected there Reg, but still a reasonable reduction, nowhere near your mythical 60%. If anything the mining should have reduced the flooding by keeping the water stored underground first yes? Also that 37 events mention pre 72 does only indicate at least one more event than mentioned in the report, the actual figue could be much higher, so now I guess you stand corrected too. If not I am sure the Gympie TAFE offers an adult basic maths class. Cheers Reg.

Reg says:

05:37pm | 26/01/11

Thank you Neil, your mathematical gyrations have shed a little more light on your input. So if I understand you correctly, your are saying there has been a significant and unexplained reduction in flooding around Gympie? 

With all the floods that were “not worth mentioning” you seemed to have left the way open for just about any outcome you wanted. So what did you mean to imply with the scornful opening about “so called experts?” I thought you were about to set the record straight. No such luck eh?

Neil says:

11:10pm | 26/01/11

Reg, The ones I left out were all between 1870 and 1971, therefore it would have blown you totally out of the water so to speak. To get the larger more acurate figures I would have to wait until next time I go home and send them to you to shut you up. I see you have been a busy little sausage commenting on almost every anti climate crap comment, you must have a very boring life, you should spend some of your time researching a bit before you continue to make a fool of yourself time and again. I shall argue with you no more though, as the saying goes, never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Cheers Reg, enjoy your trolling ventures

Reg says:

09:57pm | 27/01/11

@Neil, “To get the larger more acurate figures I would have to wait until next time I go home and send them to you to shut you up.”

Which clearly means you were not equipped to even make an observation. If you read a little more closely dear Niel, you will notice that my argument is not in favour of either stance, my argument is that it is inconclusive just as you have unwittingly shown in this particular instance. If you wish to resort to abuse I will suggest that you, ... apparently an anti-warming adherent ... are not merely trolling, but are actually treating anyone who disagrees with disdain. Considering your opening condescension and the lack of substance of your argument, you have failed miserably in every respect. So naturally you resort to abuse and to a pitiful explanation that you don’t have the facts at hand. Why did you bother?  The situation is that there appears to be a significant climate change of unknown origin and we had better prepare to face the extremes it is likely to will bring.

kerry says:

05:10pm | 25/01/11

I like your way of thinking on this topic ff -hope you’re not some rabid right-winger, then again you’d probably be accused of “socialism” if any of the jumped-up, jump-on-board anti-intellectual brigade happen to read your sensible remarks - or perhpas you’ll be accused of engaging in a “leftie conspiracy against capitalism” Who knows.
So, after my little anti-ideological rant, why would the farmers be forced of their land? For the resources beneath? Who is going to grow the food for the foreign masters? Don’t they need the drones to do the work?

fred firth says:

07:30pm | 25/01/11

All the unemployed farmers Kerry

Neil says:

03:06pm | 25/01/11

I’ll help you Thommo, I’ll take my fuel sucking, gas blowing fire breathing 351 V8 out for a drive just for your organisation I’ll even invite all the other petrol heads out. Hope it helps

fred firth says:

04:30pm | 25/01/11

In science…scepticism WAS the default position.
That is why so many people believed that the hole in the ozone layer had just appeared at the same time the first satellite images became available.
We didn’t question our scientist then. It Sold a lot of fridges and air-conditioners didn’t it.
Money and influence is the default position of science today.

Jim says:

05:08pm | 25/01/11

@fred, you’re right, no one knew how long the hole had been there. Nor did they know if it fluctuates in size.

What they could provide irrefutable proof of was that ozone helps shield us from UV rays, and that CFC’s broke ozone down. People probably did make money out of it, but it was accepted because the evidence was tangible.

The warmists would have much better luck convincing people if they had that type of hard proof. They don’t.

They should break their AGW theories down into it’s constituent parts then go about proving one by one…it’ll be easier and much more convincing.

Will Al Gore Pty Ltd be profitable that way???

Reg says:

07:31pm | 25/01/11

People have been making money out of break-downs since the earliest thunder-boxes exploded. Then it was the Church, now it’s Science. Apparently there is no need to say how widely this is practiced, just one of each classifies the lot as thoroughly bad eggs eh Fred.

Actually on a side issue, I am a little concerned that India has decided to dump the idea of Global Warming on the basis, that everything done in India goes to the guy who can afford the largest bribe.

fred.firth says:

11:55pm | 25/01/11

India sounds a bit like here then Reg. Just a little more transparent.

Reg says:

11:33am | 26/01/11

May I take it that you are an advocate of bribery Fred? Or is this only another of your generalizations?

ibast says:

03:59pm | 25/01/11

No.  It’s a case of the increased debate creating increasing levels of false rhetoric on the net and thus giving those who don’t want to believe ammunition to continue holding on to their comfortable norm. 

Other countries around the world have had professionals review the data, accepted it as given and got with remedying it.  Germany is a good example of this.  Here we’ve allowed it to be distracted by a poorly educated public debate, because the solutions might cost someone a position in parliament.

Jason says:

10:13pm | 26/01/11

@iBast, “Other countries around the world have had professionals review the data, accepted it as given and got with remedying it.  Germany is a good example of this.”.

A few inconvenient facts for you.

1. Europe is the centre of the AGW Universe. Why? Because it fits with the political preferences of Europeans for left wing governments who control every aspect of their lives in return for higher taxes paid.
2. The European ETS is a shambles and has just been rocked by another scam. It seems it’s a tad hard to regulate taxation of thin Air! And you guys want to do that here!
3. The European economies are a basket case of unsustainable government debt. Unless Europe develops a sustainable competitive advantage with the rest of the world this situation will get worse for them. Just wait when France and Germany start struggling with the debt burden of Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and now Ireland.
4. At Copenhagen China saw AGW for what it is that is a silly indulgence by the west. China laughed at the west and now the Chinese are busy turning AGW into their advantage and it has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with raising the living standards of 1.3 Billion Chinese.
5. Climate Scientists in China and Russia do not support the consensus of Western climate establishment (eg. the corrupted peer review system, group think and so forth).
6. Retired scientists in the west are coming out against the theory as soon as they finish their jobs funded by the global warming grants gravy train.
7. Catastrophic global warming cannot occur from C02 emissions alone without positive feedbacks from water vapour. Despite BILLIONs in research grants the AGW crowd have been unable to show ANY empirical evidence for positive feedbacks. In fact there are Peer reviewed papers supported by actual measurement data that suggest water vapour feedbacks are actually negative due to effects from clouds.
8. Lets move onto real issues like over population, future food shortages, finding a cure for cancer and so on. AGW is just sucking money and oxygen from REAL problems the world needs to face.

I could go on but my time is short!

Jason Adams says:

07:57am | 26/01/11

Well said Randall. You see Malcolm’s view is an example of “the annointed’. The annointed are those with moral superiority over the masses. We should never question their word. If they say the Floods were due to human global warming we should take it as given without question. Facts and evidence are irrelevant to the Annointed who by and large are highly articulate and thus adept at moving the goalposts as it suits them. For example Global Warming became Climate Change when measured temperatures failed to agree with their predictions from 15 years ago.

fred firth says:

07:27pm | 25/01/11

Maltese:
If quack scientist Tim Flannery’s demands to cull Australia’s population to six million are taken seriously, you will be going long before the pet dogs.

Reg says:

02:59pm | 26/01/11

They represent fantastic emergency rations. One actually saved Captain James Cook’s life but not for long, so how’s that for an Australia Day connection?

graham johns says:

09:29am | 27/01/11

Have not come across the old “its not warming but if it is it’s not us “
drivel for a while,  should have finished of with the usual “if it is us then it will be good’,

graham johns says:

03:39pm | 27/01/11

It is your ignorance that we find amusing,

CO2 Measuring Stations          
Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (NOAA)
Barrow, Alaska (NOAA)
Trinidad Head, California (NOAA)
Tutuila, American Samoa (NOAA)
South Pole, Antarctica (NOAA)
Carbon cycle observation sites worldwide (NOAA)
Map of worldwide observation sites (Scripps)
Data from worldwide observation sites (Scripps)

the measurements at mauna loa are not taken on the…...why bother they are too dumb to grasp an explanation, lets just say that all other worldwide measuring stations are consistent with mauna loa , my 8 year old grandaughter knows more about this than you ,

fred firth says:

02:42am | 28/01/11

An who would WE be?
If you can’t construct a coherent sentence, get your eight year old to try.
P.S NOAA scientists forecast an ice age in 1975, so what is their opinion worth?
Here it is: http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Neil says:

07:00am | 26/01/11

Fear, Gympie is the shining light in the whole flood situation here. I lived there all my life until I moved to Chinchilla, now I really understand how well designed Gympie is for flood events. You will find the local council are very strict on their residential approvals when it comes to flood areas, these areas are reserved for commercial purposes only. It takes some 15 metres before it touches a building in Gympie, yet some places only require a 3 metre rise. Also to send Police, Fire and Ambulance, SES and other essential services across the river before the flood cut the town was an absolute master stroke. Yes they had time and notice, and they used it well, perhaps some of our states fearless leaders should book an appointment in Gympie for a lesson. It is the local governments that approve buildings, so the state should not ever entertain the thought of entering a buy back scheme with Brisbane City Council, it is their mess, they created it, they need to fix it with their funds, not ours.

graham johns says:

09:21am | 27/01/11

“those areas known to flood’
Those places that in area would cover germany and france combined , containing farming and cattle properties’  they could all move up into the ranges to places like toowoomba”

James says:

09:41am | 26/01/11

Are you a scientist?  Would you even understand a scientific answer if it was given you.

Seano says:

09:26am | 26/01/11

FFS. I am beyond tired of hearing this BS about Y2K.

Yes Y2K was over hyped by the media, planes falling out of the sky was a bit much. But it was a genuine and serious problem that could have caused many, many businesses to grind to a halt. Imagine what would have happened to the economy if several major banks all at once had problems like NAB did recently, shutting down the whole business but taking weeks to sort out?

Two days before Y2K our test team came up with just a such a problem and a bunch of us (salaried employees btw) worked without sleep to get it sorted. That was the reality of Y2K it was a serious problem but because we did such a good job of sorting it out there barely any problems on the day.

Much like climate change which considering we’ve just had the warmest decade on record we should not ignore at our peril.

The Badger says:

12:37pm | 26/01/11

Seano
Very true, If you weren’t involved in Y2K, you have no idea.
Trying to convince the technically illiterate of the real threats posed by not addressing Y2K falls on deaf ears.
These days, people think they are technically literate cause they have a mobile, can use email and social networking.
You are wasting your breath mate.
This type of person would rather listen to B grade journo’s ideas about climate change than thousands of scientists.

Stuart.W says:

12:24pm | 26/01/11

Not all of us Keith. BTW Did you know the climate has been fluctuating for ever, and will continue to. It’s not something for the Labor-Green alliance tax can tax us on now!
Just because they squander money at an alarming rate.

Keith Coolridge says:

07:05pm | 26/01/11

Quick Stuart
Back to the balustrades of bolt
Another attack is imminent. We need you to drop more guano on the invaders to repel them.

Reg says:

05:11pm | 26/01/11

Joe, for everyone, what did you say his qualifications were?

Consensus? Shit mate, take a look at religion, it’s built on consensus.

Reg says:

10:42pm | 27/01/11

Your mention of the flood plain is an excellent point. I know the area very well. Rockhampton is surrounded by a gigantic natural flood plain to the South and to the North West and they are intended to flood. Having been closely associated with the area, I can do nothing but shake my head in wonderment when I hear that Rocky is surrounded by a flood of “Biblical proportions.” It’s supposed to be that way.  No doubt many of the other flood areas are the same. The Missippii River authority has realised rather late, the problems they created when they tried to keep the river from inundating its natural “slow flowing” storage extension. They are now in the process of dismantling past “improvements.” 

Yeppen is the pre-historic path of the Fitzroy River and there is every reason to suppose that one day the river will choose to take that path again, straight through the Southern flood plain, with every possibility of making the older part of the city a permanent island. Gympie is a special case, they apparently chose to mess with the landscape and in so doing were driven to set up plans to address the distortion they had created. Hardly a natural situation. If there is a dramatic increase in rainfall and the Frtzroy redirects some, or most of its water around through Yeppen, then a similar increase in the Gympie area would likely return the hills and hummocks to their original configuration.This, to the Gympie residents would may indeed seem like a flood of Biblical proportions.

Bobo says:

05:07pm | 27/01/11

Hey graham johns, you wrote ...
“Climate change is likely to affect extreme rainfall in SE QLD, Abbs et al (2006},”

Dp you have a link for this?
And what were they saying about Victoria and the Murray -Darling pray tell???

I’ll tell you what they were scaremongering about, PERMANENT DROUGHT!

And you warmist lapped it up without question because it suited your whacko “carbon tax” agenda!

“drought is the new norm across Australia’s greatest food bowl, the Murray Darling basin”
Bob Brown, Greenie Carbon Crackpot, Just Before The Flooding

Climate “Scientist”: Australia May Be Facing A Permanent Drought
September 23 2003

Australia may be facing a permanent drought because of an accelerating vortex of winds whipping around the Antarctic that threatens to disrupt rainfall, scientists said on Tuesday. Spinning faster and tighter, the 100 mile an hour jetstream is pulling climate bands south and dragging rain from Australia into the Southern Ocean, they say. They attribute the phenomenon to global warming and loss of the ozone layer over Antarctica.  “This is a very serious situation that we’re probably not confronting as full-on as we should,”

Dr James Risbey, Center for Dynamical Meteorology and Oceanography, Monash University…  [...]

http://twm.co.nz/ausdrght.htm

graham johns says:

12:28pm | 27/01/11

Wivenhoe is operated by a Manual not by opinion, it was the LNP that wished to keep Wivenhoe above the Water supply level of 100% capacity and into the flood mitigation capacity levels , The predictions about QLD rainfall are spot on ,more droughts over the long term and more intense rainfall when it comes , you should change your name to Bozo

graham johns says:

12:35pm | 27/01/11

The mothballed desal plant came back on line after the floods to help supply clean water, it was a blessing that it was there,

Bobo says:

05:00pm | 27/01/11

Hey Grahame Johns, you wrote ...
“The predictions about QLD rainfall are spot on ,more droughts over the long term and more intense rainfall when it comes “

Huh?

Every warmist was talking about PERMANENT DROUGHT UNTIL VERY RECENTLY!
So who predicted “more intense rainfall”??????

Spot on my *rse!

“drought is the new norm across Australia’s greatest food bowl, the Murray Darling basin”
Bob Brown, Greenie Carbon Crackpot, Just Before The Flooding

It’s Not Drought, It’s Climate Change, Say “Scientists”
Whackos!
August 30 2009

“Scientists” studying Victoria’s crippling drought have, for the first time, proved the link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state’s dramatic decline in rainfall.

A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many “scientists” long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change.

‘‘In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our water and agriculture planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.’‘

The research program, supported by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, the federal Department of Climate Change and the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, was set up in 2006 to solve the puzzle of why south-east Australia had experienced such a dramatic loss of rain.

The program covers the Murray-Darling Basin, Victoria and parts of South Australia.

Monash University’s Neville Nicholls, a lead author on the IPCC who has also published on the subtropical ridge, said he believed the program’s results were right.

‘‘We did think that the loss of rain was simply due to the rain-bearing storms shifting south, off the continent,’’ Professor Nicholls said.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html

Bobo says:

05:26pm | 27/01/11

Hey graham johns you wrote
“The mothballed desal plant came back on line after the floods to help supply clean water, it was a blessing that it was there, “

Oh I get it.
They built the desal plant because they were expecting massive flooding!!!

ROTFLMAO

Ex Premier Peter Beattie explained, the “likely impact of climate change” included “lower than usual rainfall” and dams would not do.

But now Brisbane’s dams are full to overflowing, and Victoria’s own $5.7 billion desal plant, also built by a government claiming “we cannot rely on this kind of rainfall like we used to”, has been delayed for months by rain.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_great_warming_scare_turns_into_a_greater_joke/

graham johns says:

08:32am | 28/01/11

bozo, all you are confirming is that you do not read anything about climate change except newspaper articles and crank blog sites
Abs et (2006} has been cited in all major gov reports since 2007,
now lets get you educated
read NOAA long term projections for Tas and Vic, devastating droughts from 2060 continuing,
read IPCC AR4 expansion of the tropics , when we do get La nina then the monsoonal trough will punch down into victoria,
now read the latest BOM press release, monsoonal trough punched down into victoria,
it is your own ignorance of the science not the validity of the science that is in question here

graham johns says:

07:30pm | 27/01/11

David , look up the meaning of sceptic, i know what you want it to mean but sorry it does not mean deny , we propose a new name for the deniers ,The Climate Cranks

so instead of the Australian Climate Sceptics ( ACS)  they are now the “Australian cranks society ”

graham johns says:

06:03pm | 28/01/11

Daj, the floods did not just happen in Brisbane and even there only 20,000 out of two million were affected , further north an area the size of germany and france combined was flooded , the tax levy is to replace roads, bridges,railroads etc etc. you are eating my grandchildrens lunch so you will be debated , how do you equate “acceptance of science with political bias?

fred firth says:

01:35am | 30/01/11

Why bother. This is what they were saying in 1975:
Google Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling.

The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72.

And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

The scientists suggested spraying soot over both poles to warm things up a bit. Still think we should listen?