Comments on: It May Get Even Drier Along the Murray

By: Alan Hunter

Alan Hunter — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:07:45 +0000

What this meaningless graph doesn’t show is which month the rain falls, in the Murray region if all the rain falls in the summer it is useless, worse than useless most of the time because crops and pasture don’t grow in summer only weeds. we need rain in autumn, winter and spring.
We haven’t had an autumn break for 15 yrs, we rarely get enough in winter and spring has become very very dodgy. You might also note that the period 35-45 had unders and overs, from 2000 on its all under and the previous years when it was over I bet that rain fell mostly in summer
If you want to fool somebody use a graph, that is a well known fact in the field of statistics and probability, in fact whole books have been written on this subject, it all depends on the presentation, and this one omits the most relevant information, and is therefore useless and a rather suspect was formulated for a different purpose that this blogger has used it for.
To base ones argument on one graph is an exercise in fooling fools.

By: Col.

Col. — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:53:34 +0000

If all the money which has been wasted on a non-existant ‘AGW/CC’, had been spent instead on things like the ‘Bradfield Scheme’ then presumably the Mighty Murray wouldn’t be in the state it is now?

By: kasphar

kasphar — Mon, 11 May 2009 01:49:01 +0000

Warwick
You are quite right in one of your links that you state that the BOM have the data to correct many of the fallacious claims made
about drought and floods by providing the media with the facts. But they don’t and I’m not sure why.
Obviously we wouldn’t be wasting our time looking up difficult to find data if the truth, from a reliable source, can be accessed.
Your graph at ‘The 2002 drought in Australia, growth of a myth’ is the type of graph that needs to be known about.
Has it been updated?

By: Ian Mott

Ian Mott — Sun, 10 May 2009 23:29:48 +0000

Is that a touch of land envy we can detect in our treeless, landless eco-drone? He thinks he could do a better job at land management but will never get to find out because he is just another ‘poh white campus trash’.

By: Luke

Luke — Sat, 09 May 2009 13:36:51 +0000

Pfft – You have no calculations on any of the relativities x areas – and are simply pulling numbers sans bum.

Still waiting for your explanation of the how the inflows are calculated. You don’t know do you? But happy to put the boot in.

Nar you hate metrodwellers – you just wreak of metro abuse – turn off the Foxtel – eschew the shopping malls – get down to the indulgent hobby farm and tend the prickles.

By: Ian Mott

Ian Mott — Sat, 09 May 2009 09:41:21 +0000

Regrowth uses more water than old growth, eco-gimp. And the reason this recent post fire regrowth has a bigger impact on water yield is that this lot cannot be recleared or thinned as was the case in the past. Remember the clearing bans, boy wonder? All the ecological chooks are home to roost and all our little bimbocrat mate can do is crank out the old undergrad sneer.

And you seem to think the term “metroscum” refers to all metropolitan dwellers. Nope, just the sad plodders who believe what the ABC and the Courier Mail tells them. The ones who send a hundred bucks to greenpimp each year so they don’t feel guilty about their two SUV’s that have never seen a dirt road. The ones who think they have been real clever by buying their water in the 12 bottle “economy pack”.

By: Luke

Luke — Sat, 09 May 2009 09:10:40 +0000

Pity we’re not talking about Australia wide eh? As usual denialists love to deliberately miss the point.

By: Warwick Hughes

Warwick Hughes — Sat, 09 May 2009 07:58:57 +0000

Good on you Kasphar, the mass delusion about rain and drought in this country runs so deep, facts need repeating. The 2002 drought was only ever the Great West Queensland Drought of 2002 see my analysis of BoM high quality rain stations.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/2002/
Lots more articles about rain – drought at.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?cat=5

By: kasphar

kasphar — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:47:49 +0000

As I keep pointing out, there were lower rainfall figures between the 1900-1908 then 2000-2008, both Aust-wide and MDB area.
What else can I say?

By: Luke

Luke — Fri, 08 May 2009 11:23:13 +0000

Love it when the waddler tries the big ram raid.

MDB Depopulation Mafia – well jeez mate you’d better stop living the high life with Foxtel in the burbs and get on down to Come By Chance. You hate the metroscum – so what’s your excuse. You should be in the middle of the MDB. Be handy if you needed to whip on down to Goolwa to punch out a few locals wouldn’t it?

Again you should work in the butcher shop with the little finger on the scales. You’ve skipped from the Murray to the whole MDB hoping the readers didn’t notice. Hands off the scales mate.

And you’re bluffing your arse off – tell us how they do the inflow calculations? Come on – you don’t even know ya big lair? The calcs are fine – you’re not not.

As for the fires – ho hum. Check the rainfall maps I have cited above. No rain is no rain mate. Sort of basic isn’t it.

In any case there would be more trees at the turn of the century 1900s – less land cleared – more trees – more suck – but you haven’t added that in – so we need to increase the earlier drought inflows for that. giggle – you haven’t a clue.

And there’s never been any catchment fires before? Yea sure. Funny how they seem to happen in these big droughts? Part of the landscape dude.

Anyway – you haven’t got time to be here. You’ll have to whip down to the MDB and stop the population exodus.