More Flooding

Large areas of Queensland and New South Wales are flooding again.

In New South Wales:

Flood Warning – Clarence River,
Flood Warning – Bellinger River,
Flood Warning – Hastings River,
Flood Warning – Manning River,
Flood Warning – Orara River,
Flood Warning – MacIntyre River,
Flood Warning – Gwydir River,
Flood Warning – Peel-Namoi Rivers,
Flood Warning – Castlereagh River,
Flood Warning – Culgoa-Bokhara-Narran Rivers,
Flood Warning – Warrego River,
Flood Warning – Paroo River,
Flood Warning – Barwon-Darling Rivers,
Flood Warning – Paterson-Williams Rivers,
Flood Warning – Nambucca River.

In Queensland:

Flood Warning – Burdekin River,
Flood Warning – Fitzroy River,
Flood Warning – Condamine-Balonne Rivers,
Flood Warning – Macintyre/Weir,
Flood Warning – Moonie River,
Flood Warning – Nebine/Wallam/Mungallala,
Flood Warning – Warrego River,
Flood Warning – Paroo River,
Flood Warning – Bulloo River,
Flood Warning – Thomson/Barcoo/Cooper Ck,
Flood Warning – Western Queensland Rivers,
Flood Warning – Gulf Rivers.

85 Responses to More Flooding

  1. John Sayers February 3, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    Yup – isn’t it beautiful.

    Obviously not for the people flooded out of their homes but great for the inland environment.

    I’ve been lucky – east of me has flooded, west of me has flooded.

  2. Neville February 4, 2012 at 7:26 am #

    This is light years away from Gaia brain Tim’s predictions and some in the BOM etc during the recent drought.

    Don’t forget Gaia brain Tim is the Chief CC Commissioner chosen by the Gillard govt to explain CAGW to the electorate.

    So how could this expert get things so wrong? Of course most lay people know that warm PDOs bring more El Ninos and less rain and sometimes bad droughts. ( in OZ E states)

    Cool PDOs bring more La Ninas and higher rainfall and sometimes bad floods. Fairly simple stuff really. ( in OZ E. states)

  3. Neville February 4, 2012 at 8:08 am #

    It seems Prof Ove Guldberg is a sore loser and couldn’t be more wrong about the GBR.

  4. Debbie February 4, 2012 at 9:05 am #

    Darn it!
    That climate of ours just completely refuses to co operate with those projective models.
    Does that indicate that perhaps the assumption that human produced C02 is a major or highly influential driver of climate is possibly flawed?
    Would that possibly indicate that taxing C02 will likely deliver no measureable influence in managing climate?
    I would like to see those dollars and that energy spent on working out the best ways to mitigate the damage that is caused by flooding and droughts. To me, that has the potential to deliver much better results for all concerned.

  5. John Sayers February 4, 2012 at 9:36 am #

    And Tuvalu and the Maldives aren’t in as much trouble as they claim:

    Next, Tuvalu continually claims rising seas are doing bad things to it. It so happens that someone found 27 aerial photos of Tuvalu and nearby Kiribati from 60 years ago, and these can be compared with modern satellite photos. Big surprise, the Tuvalu island chain has increased in area, with seven islands growing, including one that has grown by 30%. (The most populous Tuvalu island was not included). Overall, 23 of the total 27 islands were stable or growing, and only four, mostly uninhabited, were shrinking. The study’s co-author, Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University, said the physical basis of the island chains looked OK for the next 100 years, because of the way that coral debris piled up on them and grew there.

  6. Luke February 4, 2012 at 9:36 am #

    “That climate of ours just completely refuses to co operate with those projective models.”

    and what would be the paper/report you’re quoting against there Debs? you know – just for the record

  7. John Sayers February 4, 2012 at 9:42 am #

    Gee luke – just open your eyes!!

  8. Debbie February 4, 2012 at 10:09 am #

    I guess the paper/report I would choose to quote would depend on what I was attempting to prove if I was trying to advance a theory or an assumption Luke.
    I’m not!
    Let’s try again….the current climactic conditions do not match the projections in the much touted AGW modelling….not even the lower end of the projections…..and there are literally thousands of them!
    They are the models advancing a theory, not me.
    They attempt to show that human induced C02 is a key driver of climate and design a range of climate projections based on that theory.
    So…the climate is not co operating with the models.
    As John just said,
    Try opening your eyes 🙂

  9. Mark A February 4, 2012 at 10:23 am #

    Just as you said John, Luke will always believe the models over his lying eyes.
    Better still, he doesn’t open them at all!

  10. spangled drongo February 4, 2012 at 10:33 am #

    Skinny Hoad the drover,
    Up to his arse in mitchell grass
    And up to his knees in clover,
    Up to his neck in a channel in flood,
    Skinny Hoad the drover.

    If the bottomless black soil that covers huge areas of the west could be irrigated with water stored from these good seasons, we could feed the world with twice the population.

    With current technology the world is more underpopulated now than it has probably ever been.

  11. spangled drongo February 4, 2012 at 10:49 am #

    I dunno who wrote “Skinny Hoad”, there were a lot of verses, some of which, about his sexual exploits with indigenous ladies, wouldn’t bear repeating but Henry Lawson says it well:

    But rains are heavy on roads like these;
    And fronting his lonely home,
    For weeks together the settler sees
    The teams bogged down to the axletrees,
    Or ploughing the sodden loam.

  12. spangled drongo February 4, 2012 at 11:05 am #

    But for Luke and those sceptical of rain, this by Will Ogilvie:

    They have carried their outposts far, far out,
    But – blade of my sword for a sign!-
    I am the Master, the dread King Drought,
    And the great West Land is mine!

  13. Luke February 4, 2012 at 11:06 am #

    Debbie – a big FAIL – caught bulldusting – you just hand wave dreary

    sceptic optometry problem

  14. Luke February 4, 2012 at 11:13 am #

    Hey SD – Copeton’s at 97% – I want see 100%

    Split Rock needs to get going too

  15. John Sayers February 4, 2012 at 11:13 am #

    No luke – as you warmists constantly say – 1970 – 2011 is too short a time scale to determine any trend.

    This is a real time scale:

  16. Robert February 4, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    I agree with you, SD. But my views are probably more radical than yours.

    The world is almost empty of people. A billion will starve as likely as seven billion without generosity of both ideas and heart. We need more development, along with high conservation standards, far higher than the destructive, wasteful fetishism imposed by our Green Betters. Our nation needs to be opened up to many more immigrants and refugees – always on generous terms, but always our own terms. (Countries regarded as prime destinations for immigration have to be doing a lot of things right and they should not take advice from loser-conventions like the UN. When the Aussies are on leaky boats trying to get out of here, I’ll change this view.)

    There is no danger of overpopulation in a developed society. When the aspirational and middle classes become dominant, as in Australia, you get smaller families, and population has to be imported. So import! And let the new people form a middle class and have fewer children but with straighter teeth. The only downside is that these people will eventually send their kids to do loooong university courses where they’ll be taught lots of Chicken Little crap.

    We should be proud if obesity is our most serious nutrition issue. Shopping malls and the democratisation of consumption are triumphs. Nobody’s poverty is necessary or quaint or fruitful. We don’t have to live with a permanent underclass, and reducing the stock of humans is about as smart as all those water buy-backs!

  17. ianl8888 February 4, 2012 at 11:38 am #


    To counter the Resident Dipstick’s malignancy, use this:

    The basic argument is that of a climate shift-of-state around 2000 (in chaos theory terminology, a bifurcation) NOT related to atmospheric CO2 levels and completely unpredicted by modelling

    The argument now goes that this unexpected “pause” in warming may be many decades long but any time after that we’ll continue to fry … like from 0.7C in 150 years frying

  18. spangled drongo February 4, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    Robert says:

    “The only downside is that these people will eventually send their kids to do loooong university courses where they’ll be taught lots of Chicken Little crap.”

    And being all lefty indoctrinated they’ll vote in successive govts that get so big they employ just about the whole country whose only industry is introducing new regulations and printing its weekly pay packet.

    What a challenge!

  19. Debbie February 4, 2012 at 12:30 pm #

    But Robert?
    Then we would have to accept that we have mostly got it right.
    How can the alarmist hypothesis possibly justify itself if it does that?
    I don’t know about too radical. Maybe too logical or too realistic?
    Luke, you seriously don’t get it. I do not need to justify myself. In the face of stark reality, I am asking for justification of those failed projections in AGW modelling. Human C02, although possibly an influence, is looking less likely to be a key driver in climate.

  20. Binny February 4, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    There is nothing even vaguely surprising in this, droughts are always followed by floods. The bigger the drought, the bigger the floods that follow.

    You’re right – if food was worth anything the western world would be able to to produce enormous amounts more of it. Look at the amount of money that is currently being thrown into mining in Australia, if that sort of investment was placed in to agriculture, we could easily quadruple output. The fact is; at the moment the western world has a significant oversupply of food, and this has downgraded its value to the point where it is almost worthless.

  21. Luke February 4, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

    Ah the ye olde a single ice core equals the world ruse. Ah yes.

    Poor Debs – failed projections and she can’t even support her argument. And a single paper from the deniers collection – a bifurkation – what utter crap – sigh ….

  22. Debbie February 4, 2012 at 2:12 pm #

    You are deliberately missing the point.
    No one is arguing that data is/isn’t being collected. Good grief! We’re nearly snowed under by data collection and computer modelling.
    I even believe it is a good thing that our ability to collect data and analyse it is improving.
    The point remains that the AGW modelling has advanced the theory that Human emissions, particularly C02 , is a key driver in climate behaviour. The current climate is simply not behaving as those projective models hypothesised.
    Are you attempting to claim that some of the climate models do capture what is currently occuring?
    Of course they do….but they aren’t the models that are claiming that C02 is a key driver.
    BoM has some of those…..some of them are useful.
    They are the some of the models we use for assisstance in planning our farming programs. We have never considered them prophetic however….because they don’t claim to be….unlike the work that has been hijacked and touted as prophetic and a justification to create obstructive and expensive government policy.
    Your emotional attachment to the science and the modelling is admirable I guess, but your responses so far are managing to ignore the point.
    Also Luke, it may shock you to realise this, but I wasn’t submiting my comment for you to pass or fail. Neither am I even slightly tempted to offer you the climate modelling that I find very useful for you to scoff at. What would be the point of that?

  23. John Sayers February 4, 2012 at 2:48 pm #

    Binny – the stunt pulled by Coles last week about halving the cost of it’s fruit and vegetables is because there’s a glut in food at the moment because all the growers have had good rain. Farmers in Gladstone are ploughing food back in because it’s not worth picking as the prices have fallen so far.

  24. spangled drongo February 4, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    I wonder if David Jones has changed his mind yet:

  25. ianl8888 February 4, 2012 at 4:52 pm #

    From the Resident Dipstick:

    “And a single paper from the deniers collection – a bifurkation – what utter crap – sigh ….”

    Followed by:

    All peer-reviewed, with many more in the literature and all supporting a chaotic bifurcation around 2000. ENSO analyses of the last 11,000 years support an impact of up to 15C on global temperatures during multi-decadal ENSO episodes, literally swamping the +0.7C over 150 years currently accepted from atmospheric CO2 increases. Most of this 0.7C occurred in the last decade of the strong Nino phase of the current ENSO. Cloud *types* are demonstrated to be recognisably different when forming in response to ENSO episodes (Wong, 2007)

    And from The Bible:

    Paragraph 5 section of the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 TAR report says:

    “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    The Resident Dipstick really is a nasty, ignorant little twerp

  26. Johnathan Wilkes February 4, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

    “The Resident Dipstick really is a nasty, ignorant little twerp”

    Ian, Luke may be nasty and a twerp but I don’t think he is ignorant.
    What I think happened is, that now he realised that his world of deception is falling in a heap around his ears, he is just taking the p… to get a reaction.

  27. Luke February 4, 2012 at 10:42 pm #

    Chaotic bifushshitation – rofl. Now we’re lead to believe that internal noise is the driver when any SST analysis wouldn’t derive it as a primary ENSO pattern of warming. ROFL But good to see you’re actually reading something which is better than Debs.

    In fact AGW has already bumped it

    Debs “Are you attempting to claim that some of the climate models do capture what is currently occuring?” well yes single instaniations indeed do

    “Your emotional attachment to the science and the modelling is admirable I guess” well what else do you have in the end

    Except for some music

  28. Neville February 5, 2012 at 7:23 am #

    I see Anthony Watts believes Mann should be given the right to speak at any forum and so do I.

    That’s as long as anyone else can debate him at the same forum as well. This blokes like Timmy and Jimmy, they are far too valuable to the sceptics cause to be closed down and hidden away. I would also like to see a Gore/ Lomborg debate on the science and the economics of AGW mitigation as well, shown live on a top TV channel and online.

  29. Neville February 5, 2012 at 8:15 am #

    Amazing what you can find when you look for it. From NOAA are graphs comparing GISP2 Greenland and Hulu cave China.

    First graph shows the Younger Dryas period ( good corelation ) and second graph shows most of the last interglacial, again fairly close fit.

    But what amazes me is the frequency of these extreme warming periods, that must be several degrees over just a few years. Note the near vertical climb of the graph out of cold to warmer temps during these shifts in the intergacial.

    Makes our 0.7C climb from the LIA in the last 100+ years a bit timid.

  30. Debbie February 5, 2012 at 8:21 am #

    the models which seem to hit closer to the mark are not the models which are attached to the AGW hypothesis. As always, reality needs to be the final judge of any projective theory.
    It is looking less likely that human C02 is a key driver. You seem to be claiming that there has to be an alternate theory in place about key drivers, otherwise we all have to stick to the C02 models. Why?
    That is a rather unscientific attitude.
    Since time imemorable, mankind has been searching for those key drivers. When we become emotionally attached to one and overly defensive even in the face of reality, that looks more like religion and politics, not science.
    Genuine researchers and scientists ( not AGW celebs) are already aware that the theory is deficient.
    It may make you feel better to make comments about other people’s abilities and their comprehension skills (or lack thereof) but it doesn’t have anything to do with the topic of discussion.

  31. Neville February 5, 2012 at 8:27 am #

    Sorry, secong para should read ” most of the last glacial”, not interglacial. Also ” shifts in Glacial” not interglacial.

  32. Debbie February 5, 2012 at 9:35 am #

    me too!

  33. Ian Thomson February 5, 2012 at 9:49 am #

    Hi Luke,
    You don’t want Copeton dam at 100pc , just like they shouldn’t have had Wivenhoe up there.
    That is ,if foreign to the City assumption, major dams also are put there for serious flood mitigation.
    -That said, you may just see it this autumn.

    Climate models, like all other forms of mystical astrology will always cover all possibilities.

    Entirely separate, is the bit where the High Priests will save you from calamity, if you pay the tithe.
    And the money changers twist the story to suit the process.- Rewarding bad news with sponsorship to provide more of the same.
    Debbie just found some good news that they let slip.

  34. bazza February 5, 2012 at 11:37 am #

    Debbie, if you want to move on fron those pesky projective models, try another source. There are five. The bulk of the evidence for a few decades now says climate sensitivity (CS) is about 3 for a doubling of CO2. The range is 2 to 4.5c. There is an occasional paper suggests lower and a worrying number suggest more. Coupled climate models have sensitivity as an outcome. There are 5 other sources of evidence all consistent, all confirming a CS of about 3C give or take a bit depending on the specific study. These are:
    Current climate observations
    Last 150 years observations
    Studies of the last interglacial (19-12,000 years ago)
    Studies of Palaeoclimate ( millions ago)
    Effects of volcanic eruptions
    Sources ( IPCC and New Scientist 22/10/11).

  35. spangled drongo February 5, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    Too many “experts” think they fully comprehend the way climate works and can design a comprehensive model to account for all factors. Like a stock market model, it will never work because individuals or groups are never in possesion of all the facts.

    “Science is no longer so simple; many important scientific facts now have justifications that are beyond the comprehension of a single person.”

  36. spangled drongo February 5, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

    “The bulk of the evidence for a few decades now says climate sensitivity (CS) is about 3 for a doubling of CO2.”

    Where did you disinter that evidence bazza?

    That’s the supposed result after multiplying the agreed sensitivity of ~ 1.1c by the warmists’ feedback of 3x – 5x as opposed to the sceptics feedback of 0.5x.

  37. bazza February 5, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    Fair shake sd, I gave you mine, I rest my case.

  38. Debbie February 5, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    Thanks Bazza,
    I notice you have the good sense to recognise the difference between human produced C02 and what is present or not present due to circumstances completely out of human control.
    I question the actual forcing/feedback ratio that is being used.
    The last 48+ months do not indicate that is a correct formula….it may change but it is looking less likely. There have been huge carbon/C02 influxes from such things as volcanoes that should’ve helped prove that formula would be correct…..doesn’t seem to be matching the real data.
    I have no doubt it is an influence but the forcing/feedback CS formula is just not performing outside the models….ie…..C02 is maybe not behind the steering wheel after all….it’s looking more likely that it’s just a passenger.

  39. spangled drongo February 5, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    That’s not evidence bazza. Have you checked the models’ predictions off against current reality?

    Their interpretation of feedbacks is not what happens in the real world.

  40. bazza February 5, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    I thought the last 48 months was a wee bit more weather+ENSO than climate. The current reality is the bulk of the evidence, empirical and modelled .

  41. spangled drongo February 5, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

    NASA’s latest CERES satellite to sort out the energy budget:

    “CERES monitors minute changes in the Earth’s energy budget, the difference between incoming and outgoing energy,” said CERES principal investigator Norman Loeb, of Langley Research Center.

    “Any imbalance in Earth’s energy budget due to increasing concentrations of heat trapping gases warms the ocean, raises sea level, and causes increases in atmospheric temperature,” Loeb said. “Amassing a long record of data is important in order to understand how Earth’s climate is changing in response to human activities as well as natural processes.”

    Pity Loeb is so unscientific about his assumption that it will only cause warming.

    This is why the GCMs are programmed to calculate the way they do.


  42. spangled drongo February 5, 2012 at 3:34 pm #

    And if it doesn’t warm, I’m sure NASA will attend to it as they always do:

    Sorry about the O/T Jen, but it’s all their fault.

  43. Debbie February 5, 2012 at 3:47 pm #

    Gee whiz Bazza,
    What exactly are you asking or trying to prove?
    The AGW projections have been around a lot longer than the last 48+ months.
    The last 48+ months have operated outside the lower end of the ranges and still trending that way.
    That means we have now had time to test the projections against real data.
    The only projective climate models I have seen (and I freely admit that no one could possibly read them all) that get approximately close to the ones that sort of resemble reality and are still resembling it, are NOT the models that were attempting to find a C02 signal. Sorry, I can’t be any blunter than that.
    The ones (that I have seen and that I use for my planning purposes) that are at least vaguley resembling reality are finding C02 is more a symptom than a cause.
    It’s certainly in there somewhere and it does certainly match some tracking work but it doesn’t match the projective work. I think it also probably does interfere with cloud activity and may even sometimes affect rainfall patterns at a local level…..but….not on a global level.
    By all means keep trying but I suspect that the forcing/feedback formula is not correct.
    Something else other than just ENSO + weather is at play here.
    And no…I have no idea what it is….best guess from what I have seen is ocean currents and solar activity and some type of other variable/ variables that cause extra interraction between them.

  44. Luke February 5, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

    “otherwise we all have to stick to the CO2 models. Why?” groan – more stupidity from Debs

    I guess we could always put in what know about solar and ENSO and model that – gee I wonder if they’ve thought of that. Wonder what a CO2 model looks like. zzzzzzzzzzzz

  45. Luke February 5, 2012 at 4:05 pm #

    “the models which seem to hit closer to the mark are not the models which are attached to the AGW hypothesis. ‘

    oh yoo hoo Debs – could you just give us a reference or two.

  46. Debbie February 5, 2012 at 6:49 pm #

    You have plenty of them Luke.
    Quite obviously your life and your livelihood is not much affected by the current political agenda that has hijacked those models and used them inappropriately.
    Except of course in a cerebral/academic manner.
    Isn’t it amazing that the solar and ENSO models are STILL proving to be closer to the mark?
    Gee I wonder if anyone has thought of that?

  47. Luke February 5, 2012 at 6:54 pm #

    No answer from Debs – thought as much. You’re just reciting what you’ve been told like a good little girl. Polly want a cracker. There are no solar and ENSO models Debs….. just like there are no CO2 models.

  48. John Sayers February 5, 2012 at 6:59 pm #

    oh – F**k off luke – you are deranged.

    you don’t deserve to converse in Debbie’s territory.

  49. Another Ian February 5, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    Obviously Luke never heard of the

    “No answer was the stern reply”

    And that wasn’t the Stern of famous report.

  50. Another Ian February 5, 2012 at 8:12 pm #

    Update for our area.

    Flood level slightly above March 2010. We have fence damage, one dam so far. Stock will hopefully not be a problem as we are not flood plain. Access road is a shire superhighway due to a co-operative effort on flood damage from last time.

    Highway access for anything will be a problem unless finger pulled.

    Fortunately when the entire communication system fell over it wasn’t about 3 days before, when information on rain and flood levels was crucial.

    And Luke better convene another meeting – again local knowledge of rain, water levels etc seems to have in the oolu to those in gov service.

    (Jen, more here it you’re interested – email)

  51. Debbie February 6, 2012 at 7:25 am #

    Thanks for correcting my terminology Luke.
    That isn’t the point either.
    BTW, there are megabytes and megabytes and reams and reams of models I just used C02 etc as adjective.
    You are shooting the messenger.
    There has been a lot of damage to property and also crop losses in these areas that our AGW celebs claimed would never see flooding and dam filling rains like this again. And yes Luke I know they are not the science. Unfortunately for you and the rest of us, they have hijacked the science. I remember Bob claiming loudly on public media last year that we should make the coal mining companies pay because they caused the flooding.
    The day we really nail climate projection and understand all the variables will be a happy day for people in my industry.
    I don’t believe however that we’re ever going to be able to ‘manage’ the climate by ‘managing’ human behaviour.
    Scientists are not prophets and the genuine scientists and researchers are fully aware of that.
    They are also fully aware that their models are deficient, despite the incessant claims otherwise from the current political agenda.

  52. Neville February 6, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    Debbie I don’t think you will achieve anything of value trying to talk any sense into Luke.

    Because this is a post on floods I just thought it is important to look at the rainfall record again over Australia from 1900 to 2011.

    It certainly has changed over Oz and has indeed produced more rainfall over the last 112 years.
    I’ve set this as an anomaly graph showing above and below average rainfall with the moving average line extended out to 15 years.

    Most of the states have increased rainfall except Tassie and SWWA and Vic is lineball. WA overall has much increased rainfall over the last 112 years.

    BTW heard an interview on Vic ABC country hour today with a bloke named Wood from the Gratton Institute and I was stunned by the utter nonsense and delusional drivel sprouted by him.

    It seems we must “address CC” by reducing our emissions of co2 by 80% by 2050 and could do this by CCapture and storage of our CF power stations and use more Solar and wind power.

    The lame ABC interviewer didn’t know enough to ask him how this could reduce total world emissions when our “addressed” emissions would be replaced by China etc in a matter of months and at a much cheaper cost.

    He said it would be difficult but we had nothing to fear. But I thought nothing to fear but the waste of countless billions for zero result and a hopelessly inefficient and dangerously unreliable, super expensive electricity supply.

    How have we become so barking mad that we can’t even understand simple kindy maths. Also our bi-polar thinking is breathtakingly stupid. On the one hand we are trying to reduce our use of coal in OZ but happily export three times that tonnage overseas every year and we are desperately seeking ever higher tonnages every year as well.

    If its used in Sth Korea or Japan or India or China it’s okay and they can freely benifit from the cheap power produced. For them it means more cheap reliable energy and more industry and jobs, but if we use a fraction of the same coal here in OZ that’s BAD with a capital B.

    It can’t change the temp or climate by a jot, but we must be punished and lose our industries and jobs overseas. Just barking mad and so easy to understand. So why can’t they ?

  53. Luke February 6, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

    The ye olde whole of Oz time series rainfall ruse when there are very important spatial anomalies. Only a denier like Neville ignoring all the science done on the said anomalies would run it. But then Neville doesn’t have any science except for looking up BoM’s web site.

    But on the other hand don’t the last two years look anomalous – what was that prediction about wetter wets? Nah – don’t swing at it.

  54. Neville February 6, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    Well Luke I’ve just linked to the BOM website, now tell me where was I wrong? I mean I didn’t change the rainfall record or tamper with it , now where am I wrong?

    Now if I was really dim and barking mad I could have suggested there was a definite co2 connection or attribution for the 1940s drought.

    Even today everyone’s suddenly gone cold on co2 or AGW being the cause of the last drought when co2 levels are 390ppmv, not the bare skimpy 300ppmv at most in the early 1900’s.

    I’ve never claimed to be well educated or a scientist but at least there are some limits to my imagination.

  55. Luke February 6, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

    You’ve been told so many times that it’s now tedious.

    I agree with your “I’ve never claimed to be well educated or a scientist”

  56. Debbie February 6, 2012 at 4:49 pm #

    I will have a swing,
    I repeat, the day when we really nail climate projection will be a very happy day for my industry.

  57. Another Ian February 6, 2012 at 6:02 pm #

    Maybe Luke could try this tack to keep employee loyalty?

  58. Neville February 6, 2012 at 6:05 pm #

    Well let’s look at the spatial rainfall differences across OZ over the last 112 years and boy they were certainly different.

    The stand out is the 1922 to 1947 ( roughly) period of low rainfall over nearly all states and northern, southern, sth eastern, etc. Wonder what caused that low rainfall pattern just at that time?

    The only state to miss out is Tassie and SWWA. The NT was incredibly dry for the first 75 years of the record, in fact bone dry. Why was this I wonder and why is South Aust a wetter place now as well?

    What a pity we haven’t got accurate rainfall records for say the last 300 years, perhaps we would be very surprised by some of the spatial changes.

  59. Luke February 6, 2012 at 7:07 pm #

    Of course it would amazing if the inmates actually tried reading and thinking – but that’s unlikely.


    SEA (continental Australia south of 33.5°S and east of 135.5°S) has recorded the lowest
    thirteen-year rainfall period in the entire (1900-2009) historical record (-11.4%). The deficit
    is 45% larger than the previous driest thirteen-year period in the record (-7.8% during 1933-
    1945). Shorter low rainfall periods were observed in the past at the time of the Australian
    Federation and at the time of the WWII. However, the duration of the current drought is

    The current drought is clearly linked to global warming through the strengthening of the
    STR. Moreover, the WWII dry decade can be seen as the first dry decade of the 20th century
    in SEA that could be considered partially due to global warming through the intensification
    of the STR.

    And of even more interest –

    This suggests that the drivers of long-term trends in southern Australian rainfall do not involve the tropical oceans so much as changes in the large-scale atmospheric circulation.

    So what stopped the drought sequence? What will happen when drought returns.

  60. Debbie February 6, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    They are actually excellent questions Luke,
    When we find the answers to those we can rightly claim that the climate puzzle is starting to be solved.
    I take issue with the claim that there is a clear link with global warming.
    Way too much other stuff happening.You call it wiggle, wobbles and noise.
    As Binny commented, there is nothing unusual about a flood following a drought in SE Australia. Neville’s links also show that.
    I think that some are confusing the issue with those pesky long term averages. That is different to what most would call normal.
    Maybe large scale atmospheric circulation was influencing the catchment areas? Maybe not? Cloud seeding could maybe create some equilibrium? At the very least that has a definite achievable goal. Mind you, it’s not something we need to do at the moment. No permanent bureaucracy needed for that initiative.
    I seriously doubt that putting a price on carbon will help the Oz climate, don’t you?

  61. Neville February 6, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

    Luke the duration of the earlier droughts in the NT, Southern Australia, South Australia, NSW and MDB rainfall were also unprecedented in severity.

    So what caused those droughts 80 to 90 years ago. Don’t forget that South Australia had below average rainfall for a total of 17 years straight, with no relief at all.

    As bad as that last drought in SE Australia was the trend overall is still positive. The first 70+ years of the NT record was in drought for most of the time. NSW was much drier for the earlier part of the record as well.

    And as you should know by now Southern Australia has been drying out for at least 5,000 years and from a shorter high point 1,000 years ago to the lower rainfall of the present day.

  62. el gordo February 6, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

    The recent drought is clearly linked to natural variability, drought is followed by flood and has done so in this big brown land over millennia.

    Are they saying that SA is somehow immune from ENSO and the IOD?

    Bollocks… the klimatariat are clutching at straws.

  63. Neville February 6, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    Bolt shows what hypocrites the warmests really are. Michaels gets peanuts and is lambasted by these idiots, then they step up to the plate and accept $28 million.

    What liars and fraudsters these greedy fantasists are shown to be.

  64. Luke February 6, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

    “So what caused those droughts 80 to 90 years ago.” Your drivelly analyses are not a study Neville. Your whole excuse is “oh something happened sometime before, and shit happens in lots of places” and if it’s drying out – well why is it now flooding? And why did it flood in the 50s and 70s if it’s drying out? Why is drying out? I know – coz shit happens.

    “The recent drought is clearly linked to natural variability, drought is followed by flood and has done so in this big brown land over millennia.” El Gordo’s level of science. Shit happens.

    “Are they saying that SA is somehow immune from ENSO and the IOD?” so much for El Gordo’s intelligence test.

    You see Debs – if I was a top flight climate scientist I wouldn’t waste my time even talking to these guys – unable to even articulate a single intelligent question and reduced to recycling blog slops from Bolta.

    And there’s lots of thoughtful ideas in the material I’ve posted above, but here on blog we’re about at the Australopithecus level of bashing rocks together.

  65. Neville February 7, 2012 at 7:32 am #

    Face it Luke you are a first class fool and a somewhat delusional fool at that. Over the years we’ve given you many examples to show that that latest temps, sea levels, etc are not unprecedented or unusual at all.

    Instead of whooping up support for C models you should just look at past records like our rainfall records I’ve linked to above.

    Rainfall varies NATURALLY all over OZ to an incredible degree as the record shows, but to pick out a couple of recent spatial spots and claim they are caused by AGW is ridiculous.

    But then again why would anyone bother arguing with a person who believes that a 10% increase ( just) in co2 levels would be a factor causing the 1940’s drought?

  66. spangled drongo February 7, 2012 at 7:44 am #

    I see the flood level in the Balonne at St George reached 13.85m this morning and the levy is holding. We hear all the time that the highest flood was in 2010 at 13.4m or thereabouts but the BoM list July 1950 as the record peak but don’t give a measurement.

    Does anyone know what that peak was?

  67. Neville February 7, 2012 at 7:55 am #

    Monckton shows how to whip the backside of a delusional fool.

  68. Neville February 7, 2012 at 8:26 am #

    McIntyre shows up the UEA again. Where would we be without people like the two Canadian treasures McIntyre and McKitrick.

  69. Luke February 7, 2012 at 8:32 am #

    Gee Neville is that what’s on Nova’s site today? Can you tell us whats on Wattsy too. And Bolta’s – we’re unable to go there ourselves.

    “Rainfall varies NATURALLY all over OZ to an incredible degree as the record shows, but to pick out a couple of recent spatial spots and claim they are caused by AGW is ridiculous.” – WHY? this shows what a total dickwit you are – you expect a uniform effect do you. What sheer stupidity. And those spatial spots happen to be massive and right in the bread basket.

    So after some considerable alarm in the bush on these issues brought up producer organisations, industry and the public, the government funds a forensic investigation of SEA, SWWA and SEQ. Interestingly the same researchers find no AGW influence in SEQ. If they were slavish devotees wouldn’t you think they would have? Why let a chance like that slip by?

    So Neville – just suppose YOU had to work out whether AGW had any INFLUENCE on Australian regional rainfall – how do you think methodologically you would go about such a thing? Come on Neville – tell us …

    And the reason that you can’t is that you have no ability to research anything. You are clueless as where to start. Reduced to telling us what Nova said today or Bolta and regurgitating the old BoM time series graphs.

  70. kuhnkat February 7, 2012 at 10:30 am #

    Little Lukey,

    “WHY? this shows what a total dickwit you are ..”

    Now there is a really persuasive argument. You gonna be the last hold out with the scammers Little Lukey??

    Yeah, an influential Socialist and Environmentalist wrote a book knocking the CO2 scam!! Don’t be the last one to bail Little Lukey. The peasants pitchforks and torches can hurt!!

  71. spangled drongo February 7, 2012 at 11:02 am #

    Sea ice build-up on England’s “Med”.

  72. spangled drongo February 7, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    “Gee Neville is that what’s on Nova’s site today? Can you tell us whats on Wattsy too. And Bolta’s – we’re unable to go there ourselves.”

    Thanks Neville.

    Read them, have ya Lukie? Good stuff, eh?

    Specially Jo’s. D’ya reckon Cook will feature Monckton’s refute on SS?

  73. Neville February 7, 2012 at 12:15 pm #

    Thanks for that SD. Geezzz Luke where do we start. Well just listened to a fellow on Vic Country Hour and he is an expert on Enso etc from USA.

    He’s giving talks at a Sydney conference at the moment and he stated that the changes over the last few decades in El nino and La nina are probably natural.

    Didn’t listen to it properly but I’ll try to get the info later and who he is. But I’m sure the last thing you should do to fix the spatial rainfall drop off in SE OZ or VIC or TAS or SWWA problem is bring in a Co2 tax. Of course Vic is lineball and SE OZ is showing a positive trend.

    Even Flannery states it wouldn’t make a difference for up to 1,000 years even if the entire world stopped emitting today. And he’s a full on looney when it comes to CAGW.

    The only thing we can do is to adapt to whatever the climate throws at us. The fact is Luke we can’t change anything even though the Labor party are stupid enough to try with their idiot co2 tax.

  74. Neville February 7, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    Thanks for that German story Kkat. let’s hope it becomes a story that’s soon told all over the world, but in the MSM this time as well.

    But what a total fraud and con this mitigation of CAGW is and so easy to understand. The Germans have got an unbelievable mess on their hands after wasting scores of billions of Euros on this fraudulent nonsense.

    This always happens when you listen to leftwing lunatics, every time.

  75. Luke February 7, 2012 at 4:27 pm #

    Diversionary smoke about AGW celebs and carbon taxes to avoid a climate science discussion.

    Burn witches and books.

    Of course natural variability exists – and the science position is that current and impact on ENSO is unclear. But that’s not the southern Australian AGW mechanism of influence being hypothesised with a moderate degree of evidence.

  76. Another Ian February 7, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    After a day’s flood fence rebuilding – exercises, exercises, we must do our exercises.

    Anyone know of a Luke comment form here getting taken up on another blog?

  77. Debbie February 7, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

    Hope Jen is going well today and tomorrow,
    She is speaking in Sydney about some of the insanity that surrounds us re climate change and in particular the fiasco of water reform.
    Here is something I got today….I would really like you, Luke, to think about this from the perspective of people who are trying to recover from the millenium drought and who do desperately need some sanity to prevail.
    Those spatial spots did occur in Australia’s bread basket and I do believe that ORIGINALLY we had people who were trying to understand that and even come up with some ‘common sense’ management ideas.
    As far as I’m concerned…very unfortunately….this is what has happened and all of us, including the ranting AGW celebs the scientists need to understand that we’re attempting to solve the wrong problem and we’re using the wrong scale as well: This is not mine, but I’m sure the author will not mind me reproducing it….it does come from a policy expert who has training in the science as well:

    I have come to the conclusion that the Water Act 2007 and the Murray Darling Basin Authority is a failed experiment. What has been demonstrated is that the national scale is the wrong scale to be managing water.

    The MDBA has been unable to produce a practical plan for the management of the Murray Darling Basin, and this is agreed by all parties. All governments should walk away from the Murray Darling Basin Plan, including the Commonwealth Government.

    What is needed is an honest review of all the institutional arrangements relating to water, and a new structure which allocates responsibility, funding and accountability at the appropriate scale.

  78. Another Ian February 7, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

    WRT to the thread

    Luke might need a new supply of sandbags

  79. el gordo February 7, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

    ‘Of course natural variability exists – and the science position is that current and impact on ENSO is unclear.’

    We know the sun has an impact on the NAO, but not sure of the influence on ENSO. The solar cycle may directly effect the IPO, which would explain a lot about how regional cooling and warming spreads worldwide.

    The ten year lag?

  80. spangled drongo February 7, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

    Well look at these few grains of truth that have been found in Greenland:

    “The find is final proof that the first Vikings to live in Greenland did grow barley – the most important ingredient in making a form of porridge, baking bread and of course in brewing beer, traditionally seen as the staple foods in the Vikings’ diet.”

  81. gavin February 8, 2012 at 5:17 am #

    Unprecedented? Sure, it’s all that water from our new tropics and that extra dry SE patch but who knows whats happening round Tas SD? Good records are growing though including fickle Lake George, so just watch it!

    “Gee Neville is that what’s on Nova’s site today? Can you tell us whats on Wattsy too. And Bolta’s –”

    Guys; see the latest Media Watch and the following ABC forum There is enough right wing crap building up here to ground another cruise ship

  82. Luke February 8, 2012 at 6:39 am #

    And speaking over those anomalous anomalies and those circulation changes


    A recent and abrupt decline in the East African long rains

    Key Points
    There has been an abrubt decline in East African rainfall
    The rainfall decline is associated with abrupt changes in the tropical Pacific
    The Indian Ocean does not appear to be a primary factor as previously suggested
    Bradfield Lyon

    International Research Institute for Climate and Society, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Earth Institute at Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA

    David G. DeWitt
    International Research Institute for Climate and Society, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Earth Institute at Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA

    The successive failure of the East African short rains (typically October-December) and subsequent long rains (March-May) in 2010–11 plunged much of the region into severe drought, impacting millions of people and triggering a humanitarian crisis. While poor short rains in 2010 were generally anticipated given linkages with La Niña, the subsequent long rains do not exhibit similar predictability. Here we show the long rains failure in boreal spring of 2011 is consistent with a recurrent large-scale precipitation pattern that followed their abrupt decline around 1999. Using observations and climate model simulations, we show the abrupt decline in long rains precipitation is linked to similarly abrupt changes in sea surface temperatures, predominately in the tropical Pacific basin.

    “The observed shift
    in Pacific SSTs in the late 1990s does not appear to be
    closely related to previously identified patterns of decadal
    variability in the basin and is not explained simply by
    changes ENSO behavior [e.g., Merrifield, 2011]. What
    caused the shift is a currently unresolved question. Our
    analysis does not preclude decadal variability or the influence
    of anthropogenic forcing.”

  83. Robert February 8, 2012 at 7:59 am #

    Media Watch, the ABC, and GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS. Which takes the cake for slob reportage and juvenile tricksterism?

  84. Debbie February 8, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

    I hope I don’t create another rant and scoffing,
    I don’t usually want to link reports because as Luke often proves they are all so contradictory that it’s possible to state almost anything about the climate and find a model/graph/study to give it some credibility.
    But here is links to data supplied by BoM and their “Special Climate Statement 38”
    Which concludes that 2010- 2011 are Australia’s wettest 2 year period on record.
    This is ‘real data’ and this is the information that needs to be fed into those projective models….1000’s of them….to update them correctly.
    You never know….the odds indicate that maybe a few of them may get close….but it is almost certain they won’t be the models that the AGW celebs and our current political agenda have hijacked.
    Of course this report is qualified by the usual disqualifiers but it is the raw data that is worth looking at.

  85. George B February 13, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

    I couldn’t help but notice in the navigating through the BoM site the current water storage levels for the mainland states:

    State Current Last Year

    WA 93.9% 78.5%
    NT 94.4% 85.1%
    SA 89.7% 92.0%
    QLD 94.0% 99.7%
    NSW 75.2% 68.8%
    VIC 75.6% 69.3%
    ACT 95.9% 100.0%

    Look to me, by and large, that Australia is in pretty good shape for water storage.

Website by 46digital