I encourage you to share links to breaking news and interesting information at this thread. 
I intend to post more in the future about the need for Australia to have a comprehensive climate policy. In the meantime get informed by reading Bob Carter’s new book entitled ‘Taxing Air’. Electronic copies available on Amazon for instant download for $8.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well Jen – against my better judgement I purchased an iTunes version of Bob’s book. Grrrrr …. and having lots of personal angst – the urge to punch my iPad screen is very high but I know it’s going to cost me heaps if I do. I didn’t find Plan B in there though ? Or any mention of the PETM? Anyway it’s be kind to Bob day so I’m saying anymore on that today. Grrrr !
I am interested in what you think a positive climate policy is – I’d hope it’s more than just longer range climate – do observations, weather, seasonal, scientific infrastructure, advice and outreach also factor in?
How about cultural – as a dissenter how are you going to ensure “accountability” and “performance management” of the scientists doing the work. How will the new policy incorporate dissent – so if someone decides ENSO is caused by Pluto’s orbit and everyone else thinks it’s the most stupid idea ever are you going to indulge them?
How would you tell you’re getting quality and value for money?
Jen’s off to a good start with her pos climate policy with that portable BBQ running on a renewable resource.
Luke tangles himself up with all these invented problems just like our leftie govt does with illegal immigrants.
Like CAGW old chap. It’s all in your head.
Like it was in the ALP’s head until yesterday.
Pluto is unlikely to be a driver of ENSO (too insignificant) but Jupiter/ENSO deserves a grant. Certainly makes more sense than AGW.
Luke,
In terms of Bob’s book and a proper future climate policy…
What is missing:
1. There is a need to somehow incorporate the ideas in Bill Gammage’s book about aboriginal land management… the need for adaptive and intelligent land management especially for wildfire mitigation.
2. There is a need for better forecasting systems for seasonal forecasts and also for cyclones and extreme rainfall. General Circulation Models produce a forecast that is worse than climatology and this needs to be admitted upfront, now, by BOM and CSIRO. Then we can start to work out where to go next.
Something from Don Aitkin today here on the general concept of the need for proper policy…
http://donaitkin.com/the-climate-policy-that-australia-needs/
Jennifer
“1. There is a need to somehow incorporate the ideas in Bill Gammage’s book about aboriginal land management… the need for adaptive and intelligent land management especially for wildfire mitigation. ”
All I can say is; Good luck with that!
As long as the bureaucracy is controlled predominantly by Greenies, it will never happen.
Luke,
I am still very interested in your definition of ‘accountability’ and also ‘performance management’.
I strongly suspect that therin lies a serious disconnect between bureaucracy, corporations and the people who run their own businesses.
‘Accountable’ for what and ‘performance indicators’ measured against what?
Please remember that we are talking about managing natural resources & the weather/climate in this instance.
Whom do you believe needs to shoulder the risks for ‘accountability’ and ‘performance management’ ?
Don Aitkin forgot to mention Dawes, the colony’s first weather man. I support his sentiment for a bipartisan approach, but no idea how to achieve this outcome.
‘Australia needs a strong and robust climate policy, one that is bipartisan, causes few if any wrangles between the Commonwealth, the States and Territories, and local government, and is measurably effective.’
Jen – “General Circulation Models produce a forecast that is worse than climatology and this needs to be admitted upfront, now, by BOM and CSIRO” – well they don’t (and din’t know CSIRO did forecasts) – your evidence is what?
Spangled – well don’t follow round in my wake – make an argument – your philosophical position is based on whinging at imaginary leftist issues – what’s lefty about accountability or weather satellites. Really Spangled – moronic. Now try again and make a contribution.
Well Debbie – do you want your tax paper dollars pissed against the wall or spent on quality weather and climate services. How do you know you’re getting quality service and value for money? Surely you want accountable organisations. Maybe you don’t – over to you…
Incidentally LNP (now big L) is mad on value for money, efficiency, accountability and contestability. But maybe you’re voting greens or Labor? Jen going have problems with an maverick views though as once the efficient accountable machine has decided don’t try to be a contrarian or you’ll be on remedial performance management with a view to terminate. Anarchy not allowed.
Jen I looked in Bob’s book – and a nice folksy fireside chat but couldn’t find Plan B.
I read Aitken’s article and an thoroughly unimpressed. Does he tell us anything about a Plan B that we don’t know and have known for decades? What’s new? There’s been a national climate variability in agriculture program for 20 years, with customised regional tweaks. A revolution and positive attitude to access of meteorological data under Jones in contrast to Kininmonth’s era. Lay persons have never had more access to systems.
Do we think our climate scientists don’t know anything about ENSO or the IPO?
NZ GeoNet – how did that help with Christchurch?
Tropical cyclones – the individual system tracking is very good – how much better can one really do?
And as for Don advising that we’re “enjoying” a neutral year – well tell Qld beef producers that they’re enjoying the decile one rainfall conditions.
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/queenslanddroughtmonitor/queenslanddroughtreport/2013/jun28.gif
So all very fine platitudes – but very little that is new or illuminating discounting of much that is going on.
So where is the serious Plan B with some detail ? It’s all a bit fuzzy and hand waving isn’t it.
Luke,
can you please answer the question rather than getting tetchy?
Of course I don’t want tax payers money wasted.
I truly am interested in what you think ‘accountability’ & ‘performance management’ means and how that should be measured in relation to the management of natural resources and climate/weather.
Who/what shoulders the risks Luke? How is ‘performance management’ measured in this particular space?
“First, it at once diverts the listener from a perfectly sensible question, which is whether or not global warming really is a problem, and how much of a problem, and to whom, and so on.”
Don then fails to answer the question.
The answer is simple – we need do nothing! the Lord Monckton solution.
Well I wasn’t getting tetchy – it’s very simple
Do you want your government organisations e.g. BoM and CSIRO under Bob’s novel Plan B to be accountable.
Do you want them to undertake rigorous quality research, offer value for money, and be efficient with their resources, exercise probity. If so how would you determine this was happening. (subtext theme on this blog for years is that they have not – so now it’s up to you wise lot – the vanguard of Bob’s Plan B to tell us how the reform will occur).
Here’s an example of “lack of accountability” to make it clear. I remember it well.
“During the 2007 election campaign, Turnbull announced that the then Government would contribute $10 million to the investigation of an untried Russian technology (note – was some sort of metal grid) that aims to trigger rainfall from the atmosphere, even when there are no clouds. Literature suggests that the technology is based on bogus science. The Australian Rain Corporation presented research documents written in Russian, explained by a Russian researcher who spoke to local experts in Russian” wiki summary
Modern climate and weather science requires significant computational capacity – supercomputers – expensive devices from a variety of vendors – complex to acquire with many vested interests. Or perhaps satellite ground stations, automated sensing networks for meteorology and flood. How will you ensure accountable investments? Jen’s complained about supercomputers for years – so perhaps you’ll be issuing staff with a Hewlett Packard calculator or abacus ? You tell me, as you guys are the new Plan B experts?
Surely as a taxpayer Debs you don’t want the organisations running amok and running their own agenda – unaccountable to the parliament and ultimately the taxpayers? Essentially you’ve been suggesting they’re all left greenie commie water-melons for years. So won’t the white knight Plan B vanguard be looking into these serious matters.
Making sure those strategic plans and operational plans are spot on with relevant scope, stratgeic context, goals, milestones, objectives, deliverables and key performance indicators. Surely as a businesswoman you understand these things?
The libraries will have be cleansed of GRL, Nature, J Climate and so forth and replaced by E&E and many copies of Bob’s book?
And surely you would want quality staff to undertake such activities and they would have their performance assessed by modern “performance management” processes and so if they didn’t deliver – well perhaps they be be “retrained” or ‘let go”.
Of course your HR Division would be recruiting new staff to replace the lefty greenie commies that were “let go” under the old AGW Plan A “experiment” when things were “unaccountable” and “performance” was not managed. Well surely – after all this time you’re looking for a new way? It’s what the blog has been saying for years has it not ?
Of course you might like to have some sort of anarchic free-range libertarian approach – which is cool – but the punters might like a bit of detail on how that will pan out?
So here’s the big chance for the all-knowing sceptic community to shape a beaut Plan B for whatever weather-forecasty-data-climate thingy your heart desires. Maybe you’d like nothing at all – and just sack everyone – which is also cool.
We could of course out-source the whole lot to NZ or China or India. Why have a BoM or CSIRO at all? Maybe subcontract the whole show to David (frozen by 2015) Archibald. Why not? You know – get the entrepreneurial thing happening. Or ask Gina to buy us a whole Met Bureau from some African republic.
If you want to go for broke and break the mould – let’s hear it ! Don’t be shy Debs.
Luke, you’ve never expressed a positive philosophy on climate yet.
I thought I spelt your lefty attitude out for you but if you’re confused here it is again:
You-all need to believe in the null hypothesis, as opposed to trying to get the ROW to impoverish itself to solve a non-problem to suit your upside-down-maybe ideology.
Everything you do is reactive, restrictive and wrapped in red and green tape.
There does not exist a molehill that you lot can’t turn into a mountain of problems.
And as witnessed by Kevin Rudd yesterday, when he completely reversed Labor’s policy on illegal immigrants that he used to wedge John Howard, it is all a figment of your over-worked imagination, hyped-up bed-wetting and need never have seen the light of day.
Except that, at the time, it suited your argument in order to con honest people that you had the answers.
When the time comes will you-all similarly just shrug off your equally dumb climate policies too?
Rubbish Luke,
No one anywhere has said that ALL the work that CSIRO & BOM do is no good.
I note you are missing the point of my question.
Who or what is accountable when we look at natural resource management and/or climate/weather?
Who or what shoulders the risks? Shouldn’t it be easy to define that when we discuss such concepts as ‘accountability’ and ‘performance management’?
You are falsely assuming that Jen & others are advocating that we trash EVERYTHING. That is not the case at all.
There is however some criticism of an entrenched culture that is not producing good results or even measureable progress.
I would assume (as a business person) that to be ‘accountable’ there would have to be some agreed measureable goals?
What are they and who/what is responsible/accountable for measuring them?
Who, for instance, is responsible/accountable for the ‘science is settled’ ?
“perhaps you’ll be issuing staff with a Hewlett Packard calculator or abacus
I’ve yet see an abacus giving a wrong answer if used correctly.
Plenty of examples of multi million $ supercomputers giving the wrong answer.
Incidentally, abacus are still used in small towns in Russia and were still widely used in
Moscow in the early nineties.
And they are in use because if you know how, they are a lot faster than a calculator and never need a battery!
Talking of corner stores/milkbars here!
This is the true Luke, BoM, CSIRO, Hockey Team et al vision of the state of the climate, for the very good reason that, when viewed in this corrupt fashion, it becomes [for them, not us] the gift that keeps on giving:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/yipes-don-miss-this-stunningly.html
‘Why have a BoM or CSIRO at all?’
Plan B would be better served if those two entities divorced, eliminating the Klimatariat hierarchy along the way.
‘The libraries will have be cleansed of GRL, Nature, J Climate and so forth and replaced by E&E and many copies of Bob’s book?’
No, everything will remain in place so that we can look back and marvel at human folly. The psychology disciplines will have a field day with ‘mass delusion theory’.
‘….so perhaps you’ll be issuing staff with a Hewlett Packard calculator or abacus ?’
Much amusement, but no. The large computers can stay, although they may need tweeking to take out CO2 as an influence on temperatures. This should give us the opportunity to implement Plan B, based on the fact that global warming has stopped and a global cooling tipping point is near.
Not a single intelligent response. Nothing. You all clearly are clueless that couldn’t run a chook raffle. When it’s your turn to put up all you do is follow me. Sigh. For years massive levels of complaining about everything but zero useful ideas. Wreckers not builders.
Hi Luke ,
Good to see you brought up Turnbull, the thinking mans Kev, favoured even over Kev by the polled masses.Favoured even more by the mammon men, say no more ?
I could be simplifying things here, but I thought that Jennifer’s sortee into weather forecasting was all about doing it on a laptop , BETTER.
I also have noted the recent failures of the squillion dollar British Met supercomputer to beat astute forecasters .
Supercomputers are only useful when vast amounts of data need correlating. There is not a real vast amount of knowledge yet about most of this planet. To put it mildly.
“Not a single intelligent response. Nothing.” Typical Luke response when nailed to the wall.
Can’t resist it Luke ,
John Cleese said he got much of his inspiration from listening to Parliament.
“During the 2007 election campaign, Turnbull announced that the then Government would contribute $10 million to the investigation of an untried Russian technology (note – was some sort of metal grid) that aims to trigger rainfall from the atmosphere, even when there are no clouds. Literature suggests that the technology is based on bogus science. The Australian Rain Corporation presented research documents written in Russian, explained by a Russian researcher who spoke to local experts in Russian” wiki summary”
A man who sold an email company, then fell for someone called Godwin Gretch’s false email , would be a born buyer for ” The Australian Rain Corporation “, with a prospectus in Russian.
Not O/T , as people on here are suggesting he is a threat to Abbot.
LOL! ROFL! LMAO! etc etc . . .
🙂 🙂 🙂
Seriously Luke?
It appears to me that you can use the spin (ie words & phrases like ‘accountability’ & ‘ performance management’) but you can’t actually explain what they mean and/or how that’s applicable in the real world.
I asked you a very simple question. Why can’t/won’t you answer it?
Instead you sneer about your idea of other’s intelligence (or lack thereof).
I am still interested in YOUR definition. . . instead you pretend that people like me are advocating we dump all that data and all that information . . . which is delightfully ironic if you want to think about it. 🙂
There is no lack of intelligence here Luke. . . Including you petal.
petal 🙂 nice one Deb.
I was discussing AGW with a guy on face book and I called him a bedwetter! did he go off! never heard the term before in climate discussions, shows how much discussion he’s had.
Either you’re thick or clueless Debs.
As usual and Bazza was amazed at your vacuous mind and inability to make a statement – no idea what you want. There’s no much on here that hasn’t been attacked and dismembered Debs – the climate station data and analysis is shite, forecasts shite (weather, seasonal, climate), models crap, climate mechanisms all wrong, mainstream journals where knowledge is reported all crap – there’s this great Plan B which nobody can define (Well John did – he wants nuttin’ nadda nyet). Jen’s laptop beats a GCM strawman concocted comparo (ROFL!) but anyway ….
over to you Debs – I apologise that I’m unable to suit your definitional needs (perhaps ask Campbell Newman and Tony Abbott – I’m sure they have some ideas on accountability and performance management – just call it a guess). Obviously my efforts have been unable to convey any information. Again I apologise.
Over to you to lead the debate and make a positive contribution. Please don’t follow my wake. Carve your own brave new course and show that leadership.
But Luke?
Apparently. . . According to you. . . I lack intelligence?
🙂 🙂 🙂
According to you . . . I’m not worth listening to.
It’s a very, very simple question.
What’s the problem? 🙂 🙂 🙂
You have laid down the gauntlet re ‘accountability’ & ‘performance management’. . . NOT moi. . . It isn’t over to me sweetie pie. . . It truly is over to you.
BTW. . . I would NEVER claim you lack IQ.
That claim of yours is truly mind boggling.
MAYBE? ? ? ? Along with ‘accountability’ you may also need to define ‘intelligence’ ? ? ?
At least with a botched NBN and a botched insulation scheme you come out with a few ditches, wires and crumbly batts. With Abbott’s green plans you get a few seedlings to pat before the wallabies move in for a feed. Malcolm Turnbull believes in creating a “market” not just in thin air but in a fraction of thin air. Charge big for nothing. Is that what they call a perfect business model?
The hope seems to be that he can charm the inner-urban bourgeoisie away from Labor and GetUp, and that, under Turnbull, government of the doctors’ wives, by the doctors’ wives, for the doctors’s wives shall not perish from the earth.
Dropped into Deltoid the other day, the gatekeeper is absent, so I’m hanging around until thrown overboard.
Imagine a place full of Lukes with only a few sceptics doing battle … very robust.
Plan B is Adaptation.
I don’t know why you people bother with Luke? He believes in pixie dust, he can’t understand simple kindy maths, he follows blogs where so called climate scientists are thieves,liars and fraudsters and others use paleo data upside down etc etc.
He sees nothing wrong with wasting billions of dollars year after year for a zero return but gets very upset when anyone reminds him of this waste and stupidity.
He still thinks climate models do a good job when any retarded kid of five can see they don’t. He also thinks that a warming of perhaps 0.4c attributable to humans since 1850 and at the end of a minor ice age is good reason to hit the panic button.
But here’s a good job from Krudd and his wreckers. They’ve now come full circle and ended up offshore again the barking mad fools.
Talk about how to start with a plan that worked so well and stopped the boats and then bugger it all up for nearly five years costing billions and 1000 + people drowned at sea.
I mean these Labor idiots just seem to have the gift for making a mess of things don’t they? Bolts just listed all their idiocy and all the HIPPOS and morons who’ve now decided to come on board.
What scum they are.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/will_labor_apologise_to_the_howard_government/
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Fergit taxes on thin air, (tulip mania,)
fergit long term guvuhmint projects. we can’t see far enough ahead
ter make effective long-term policy decisions, concentrate on drivers
of economic productivity free up business and be responsble with OUR
hard- earned money goddam balance the budget.
A serf.
EG you’ve got it in one, adaptation and more R&D as I’ve been saying for years on this blog. But Luke thinks we shouldn’t adapt and he thinks we shouldn’t progress either.
Just search back a few weeks and you’ll see where he has a go at me for suggesting it. He doesn’t think it would work the silly plonker.
You see Luke is a good Labor/Green man who likes to see things run via the wrecking ball method. Just wreck everything that works fine and replace it with stuff ups that manage to waste countless billions $ more every year for a guaranteed zero return.
Yes thet’s the Labor Green way of doing things. You can have the best terms of trade since 1900, yet using their preferred method you still can’t produce a surplus budget for 6 years.
Now that really takes a particular genius to achieve that result. NOT.
“Not a single intelligent response. Nothing.”
Says luke looking in the mirror.
I like Abbott’s plan about developing the top-end; we’d better do it soon or it will partitioned by China or India or Indonesia.
“EG you’ve got it in one, adaptation and more R&D as I’ve been saying for years on this blog”
well huckey-doo – BRILLIANT ! ZOUNDS ! AMAZING !
and might you expand on that Neville? chirp chirp chirp white noise hello Neville you there ,,,,
(enter Debbie – but what do you mean by that? Can you define that? I never said that? I’ve always said you can be both black and white? Why are you labelling me?”
Meanwhile I’ll be philosophical and listening to this for John S http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3wXqyRQZnA
You see Debbie I like to watch things on TV … hahahahaha
Really Cohenite zzzzzzzzzzz Labor thought of it first. As we know the LNP is anti-infrastructure – e.g. the daily stupidity of the anti-NBN loonies
zzzzzz – http://www.csiro.au/en/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Water-for-a-Healthy-Country-Flagship/Sustainable-Yields-Projects/NASY.aspx
http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Water-for-a-Healthy-Country-Flagship/Sustainable-Yields-Projects/Flinders-and-Gilbert-Agricultural-Resource-Assessment-overview.aspx
BUT BEWARE ! The Northern Myth http://blogs.crikey.com.au/northern/2008/11/22/the-northern-myth-chapter-1/
‘I like Abbott’s plan about developing the top-end’
Me too, but the electorate is evenly divided on the subject. Abbott better have a solid plan ready to go or the Ruddster, being a charismatic revolutionary, will steal the idea.
Oh wait….the plan is already out there.
http://www.andev-project.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Coalitions-2030-Vision-for-Developing-Northern-Australia.pdf
Any suggestion that this plan is somehow related to ANDEV is purely coincidental.
And again off the pace – the Chinese are already here “Chinese corporation Shanghai Zhongfu, which has won the right from the West Australian government to lease the land and turn the $517 million publicly funded Ord land stage 2 expansion into a vast new sugar-growing area.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4382114-3×2-340×227.jpg
So Luke?
You don’t know what you meant when you used those terms? ? ?
Maybe you heard them on TV? ? ?
Dear dear Debs – for a comprehensive treatise on the subjects and hours of amusement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_management
Put more simply Debs – the blog generically has been strident in its criticism of our “climate” organisations. I suggested a million lines ago (wake up Debs!) that there may be cultural issues to overcome in the organisations to address the shortcomings that you have all ranted about for so long (e.g. see Neville last 1000 days) – SO I’m suggesting that might require a rework as to how you make the said organisation properly accountable and performance managed. Capeesh ?
Now of course all over your head and you won’t have a clue but may I suggest (and call me intuitive) that perhaps, just perhaps, a couple of the inmates here may be less than happy with a number of facets of the said organisations. Just wondering if you have any idea as to what you might do about it – or are you as I suspect clueless and only able to ask incremental questions that indicate how dense you are.
Now Debs – don’t ask any more questions – the answer starts with “Well what I would do is …..”
Now if you can’t form this sentence it means either (a) you’re thick and clueless (b) you’re a bot (c) you think everything is pretty good really and just been having a bit of a whinge/sook (d) you wouldn’t know where to start (e) you think this is a cooking show and have missed the point (f) you didn’t read this and just thought you’d ask another question coz that’s easier
you forgot (g) you are not a brainwashed public servant who thinks in jargon terms.
Beth, Luke doesn’t get that what you said IS Plan B!
What the responsibles have been doing forever. Mind our business and pay attention.
Plan B leaves him unemployed.
Luke thinks that this is Plan A working thanks to diligent public servants:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/another-big-success-for-julias-tax/
The toll so far:
We need Plan B (Carter, Marohasy, Spangled et al)
We don’t need anything (Sayers)
Hi my name is Beth – I can’t spell and I’m into glib statements
I know Plan B is good whatever it is (Spangled) – is sold Harbour Bridge
Met organisations in Australia have multiple issues and need reform (95% everyone for years)
Don’t know anything about running organisation (public or private) and haven’t really got any idea (95% everyone)
Err can you define that again (Debbie)
Err can you define that again (Debbie)
Err can you define that again (Debbie)
Err can you define that again (Debbie)
We need more R&D and adaptation (Neville) (but I don’t know what – but surely it’s a good idea)
Develop the North – context ?? Cohenite (who’s about to move to Hughenden) (we’ll call you)
Can we get away from AGW and back to weather/seasonal/data – NUH ! coz we are only good at sooking about AGW – we never thought we’d have to say something positive – we only whinge – we’re AGW whingebots
Hughenden? Why? Because of the dinosaurs?
You miss the point luke; all we need and want is a bit of competence!
‘Can we get away from AGW and back to weather/seasonal/data’
I don’t mind, there has a been a CAO in southern Brazil and talk that it has something to do with Antarctic sea ice build up.
Makes sense, but I’ll draw your attention to the late 1950s when the condition was more prevalent in that part of the world…. during the cool break.
Well because Luke has been wrong on just about everything to do with his CAGW for years, he now wants us to concentrate on other topics.
Forget about the facts, like there has been zip change in SLR, rainfall, tornadoes, hurricanes/cyclones, bushfires, flooding, all extreme weather events ( lives lost less today)etc.
Just proves once again that adaptation is the only method that works ( also doesn’t waste endless billions $ for zero return) and sensible R&D definitely shorts cuts new and better ways to spend our now borrowed money.
But even if the world developed new,super cheap, safe and reliable nuclear energy today and started tomorrow we still wouldn’t change temp or climate for hundreds or perhaps thousands of years.
Certainly the stupid liars/fools in the Labor and Greens parties won’t change the temp/climate through OZ’s 5% reduction for 5 or 10 thousand years or longer.
But how many people in the electorate understand these simple facts? Of course there is ZIP guarantee that those generations thousands of years in the future would notice anything better about extreme weather events or climate or whatever at all.
And even if they thought things were better in another 5,000 years they certainly couldn’t attribute that to human’s efforts many thousands of years before their time. It is all just so much BS.
BTW I think the Bolter will note Bowen’s criticism of the Gillard/Swan govt’s fiscal irresponsibility on todays show. The idiot Krudd’s first term should be included as well.
Hockey, Minchin and Neal will be on the show.
Speaking of global warming, we have always had clear, official, written records – contemporary with events – from China that the range of citrus and other sub-tropicals went further north than now during the MWP. Then the range went radically south, with cooling and the woes of the Ming. But we know from Europe, Japan, Greenland and even the old fire residues in Yellowstone that what we are experiencing now is just warming as usual before cooling as usual. Will it get warmer still? It did before now, so why not?
Mark me down in the toll with John Sayers and Beth, please. NO policy, just thrift, better development standards and a return to that forgotten concept, Conservation. If readiness for bad and good weather is a climate policy, then you can call me a policy wonk. If policy means a response to the mass neurosis called Environmentalism and the idiocy of alternative energies known to be useless before they are even implemented, call me a policy-free zone. Please.
The late Song and the Yuan may not have had climate policies, but they had a prudent eye on things. As for us, we have the unspeakable trash of Publish-or-Perish, the intellectual shame of our age. (“Abstract: Here we show…”). We cannot understand or even contemplate the past, we bungle the present with wrong prognostications and polices, where all is settled until it’s differently settled…
But the future is so clear!
More verifiable facts from Bjorn Lomborg. Will they ever wake up and start using their brains?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/20/lomborg-lets-get-our-priorities-right/#more-90194
‘Will it get warmer still? It did before now, so why not?’
It may cool slightly for 20 years and then pick up again, as its prone to do, or it could slip further down like Eemian’s end.
What did you say Robert?
NO POLICIES?
Wash your mouf out!
You surely realise that to solve all of today’s problems we gotta have wall-to-wall PhDs inventing and supervising new rules and regs for EVERYTHING!
And we will always need our Lukes conducting choir practice 3 times a day.
If a new reg just happens to send the last private producer/employer/taxpayer belly-up well that’s just too bad. Another reg will soon fix that.
We just have to maintain our policies at all costs.
Yes Luke,
there may indeed be cultural issues to overcome.
It’s heartening that at the very least you have recognised that little corner of the picture.
But Luke?
Who or what is going to be ACCOUNTABLE/RESPONSIBLE for clearing up/out that entrenched culture and who/what bears the risks?
Who thinks inventing yet another watchdog dept will fix it? . . . All depts that deal in NRM have proven to be almost entirely risk averse. They want to be paid for managing it but . . DO NOT . . . UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES. . . want to make flexible and timely management decisions. . . So KPI’s are all about following a predetermined process and ticking all the boxes.
The rules and the process means that they are therefore NOT accountable.
(Just using the jargon to see if it helps you to understand) 🙂 🙂
Rather than sneer at the spelling. . . take another look at Beth’s comment. . & have another think about what Dave from Weewaaa said a few weeks ago. 🙂 🙂
And JS is entirely correct. . . (g) is the right answer.
“It’s heartening that at the very least you have recognised that little corner of the picture.”
NO ! you’re saying there is a problem – I’m asking what you’re going to do about it – I mean you guys keep telling me what real world super-duper practical managers you are – sound of crickets……
“Well because Luke has been wrong on just about everything to do with his CAGW for years, he now wants us to concentrate on other topics” –
NO – that’s what you keep telling me is important – just gave you the opportunity…. more crickets
I studied Robert’s useful (Sarc) contribution – he just wants “Conservation” hmmmm well that’s helpful – we’ll call you Rob – sit by the phone
Debs is worried about watchdogs – maybe get a German Shephard?
So dudes and dudettes …………………
I have simply tried to get a conversation going on what Plan B is – from what you tell me are corrupt (see 1000 screeches from Neville) organisations.
Working on the wrong issues you tell me ….
John Sayers bless his socks is easy to deal with – he’s into the big libertarian let-it-rip mode – nothing – nadda nyet nuttin’ which is cool – John doesn’t care about approaching cyclones, multi-billion water infrastructure decisions, drought relief or if his jetliner flies into a major storm – I admire this – it’s just everyone for him or herself anarchy. Ya need nuttin – and you’re on your own. Hairy chested big balls stuff. Dump Abbott and put JS in – “Listen Australia – harden the f up – from now on – no weather news – nuttin – fend for yourself (and no boats)”. They’ll vote for it I’m sure.
But as for the rest of ya’s
(1) As for reforming the organisations you reckon are so crook – no ideas
(2) Climate science infrastructure – whether it be computing, satellites or observation systems – nuttin
(3) Weather or seasonal forecasting – nuttin
(4) Meteorological phenomena or climate mechanisms – nuttin
(5) How to “remove” the infiltration of AGW (line by line I guess) in all the science codes and coming up with a whole new radiation science – sound of crickets
(6) How to attract new scientists to the field – well after being libelled by you lot – who’d want to join up. One bad forecast and “off with their heads”. Safer doing hairdressing I think.
WHAT A CLUELESS INTELLECTUALLY BANKRUPT BUNCH OF WHINGERS.
At least http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke has stopped that unbearably snobbish wiki-talking. A small mercy.
Should be about 1000 idea tabled here on Plan B but we have little homilies and parables.
Here’s a few really practical ones (that I don’t want but landholders do)
(1) why did we end up with a serious drought in northern and western Queensland after a major previous wet and what seems to be a “neutral” ENSO year. What causes droughts in neutral years in general. – supplementary – why are some La Nina events fizzers.
(2) how can we turn MJO advice into a planting break tool
(3) BoM have moved from a statistical forecasting system (non-GCM) to POAMA GCM forecasting grid box indicators – communicate how good this new system is and show us us how the skill analysis works
(4) data punch any climate records not yet computerised
(5) put all the climate records up on National Science Infrastructure so Cohenite can check it line by line
I notice that plan A now involves the World Bank boycotting the financing of any coal fired power stations in 3rd World countries. As of last week.
No????
So you didn’t write this on the previous page (admittedly with added usual sneering)….?
“I suggested a million lines ago (wake up Debs!) that there may be cultural issues to overcome in the organisations to address the shortcomings …..”
You insist on claiming that because people like me are QUESTIONING those cultural problems that therefore means that people like me want to dump everything, including such things as weather forecasting etc….
That is total rubbish Luke!
here is a lovely example from above…..
“Listen Australia – harden the f up – from now on – no weather news – nuttin – fend for yourself (and no boats)”. They’ll vote for it I’m sure.
And here….
How to attract new scientists to the field – well after being libelled by you lot – who’d want to join up. One bad forecast and “off with their heads”. Safer doing hairdressing I think.
And of course here….
WHAT A CLUELESS INTELLECTUALLY BANKRUPT BUNCH OF WHINGERS….
And your questions (IMHO) are simply the wrong questions Luke.
Try these instead….
1) Why did it take sooooo loooong for relevant departments to wake up that we had ended up with a serious drought in northern and western Queensland (and most of the rest of the Eastern Seaboard) after a major previous wet? Why were they not able to quickly adjust to the radically changed conditions and then.. when they finally did…why weren’t they able to then adequately adjust when the drought broke and we had dramatic changes again? (As one simple NRM example…why did the water management authorities squander the flood mitigating properties in Wivenhoe when the catchment conditions had altered and why did SH dump stored ‘environmental water’ on the back of a flood in the Murray/Murrumbidgee rivers?)
2) Why aren’t the relevant departments able to turn MJO advice into a useful plant break tool?….(think about that accountability issue Luke)
3) Why can’t the relevant departments communicate how good these new systems are, what’s missing from the communication as far as the customers are concerned?
4 and 5 can be left off for the moment because, depending on how it’s read, 4 makes some sense (and isn’t a question) and 5 is just you being a smart alec.
‘Should be about 1000 idea tabled here on Plan B’
Unnecessary, adaptation only requires that we be observant of natural variability, so everything is more or less in place.
Modern technology offers forewarning of impending natural disasters and as a consequence the death toll has been falling. No matter a warmer or cooler world, humanity will survive.
Where Plan B comes into its own is the opening up of Australia’s north as a food bowl, assuming climate turns nasty and there are billions to feed.
The heavy rain in China has dudded their wheat crop, so they will be importing hugely… this is the result of natural climate change.
Ah so typical Debs – the pinnacle of intellectual abandonment – ALL departments everywhere need to have intuitively preempted all ideas that you may or may not want. All resources will be optimised under all conditions for Debs. Grow up.
Debbie I know you mainly read your own comments but EVERYTHING about the met agencies has been questioned. Try opening your eyes to other comments.
as (1) drought and waking up – well they didn’t take “too long” – but why!? is the mechanism question (2) there is some MJO work – but entree for you to say you’d like to know more and what you might need (3) “why did the water management authorities squander the flood mitigating properties in Wivenhoe when the catchment conditions had altered” – they didn’t – are you actually mental – what mindless drivel – do you think they don’t know about catchment conditions AND incidentally that may be ANOTHER WHOLE AGENCY (4) how good systems are – oh that’s right I forgot – you’re not really interested are you – you’re only interested in the “broad social implications” of such forecasts – what a bullshit artist. A pretend user and serial whinger.
(5) was serious actually – sceptics I would assume would like full free access
More clueless handwaving by Debs. No ideas – just ask more questions.
“Unnecessary, adaptation only requires that we be observant of natural variability, so everything is more or less in place.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA – good one !
That’s not “Adaptation” – that’s called “copping it”. a duh – I observed the 1 in 500 natural variability of the river level as it well over my house roof. “I observed it”
Good stuff El Gordo – in the met bureau – feet up and coffee on – how’s the “observation” of that cyclone going – “oh we observed it just flattened Cairns” – we’re adapting though as we observed.
And now we’re growing wheat for China in the tropics are we? Rightyo …..
Blog variability in natural stupidity running a banker.
what can I say Luke other than you must have missed your true career path in the creative arts. In the words of Casey Chambers, “were you not pretty enough”
Oh …what Deb just said.
This pretty well sums it up.
‘And now we’re growing wheat for China in the tropics are we?’
Not wheat, we already have that covered down south.
“I observed it”
Yes well, I thought that flood was caused by human error, but at least there was little loss of life… compared to Bangladesh on a regular basis.
Adaptation is a natural response to life on this planet, it seems to work.
Of course we are not growing wheat in the tropics Luke! Australia ia like India and China – the Indians and Chinese who live in the north live on a wheat based diet, those in the south have a rice based diet. I always though Indian food was just indian food but here in Dubai there is a vast separation between the north and the south. Similarly in China, southern cantonese food with its rice and rice noodles is entirely different from northern food with it’s wheat noodles and pork buns.
The problem we face in opening up the north is transport. The Ord river farmers could grow produce but by the time they got it to market it was overpriced. For example I came across an ord river farmer who had a pallet of rockmelons he was giving away for free – he couldn’t afford to transport them to the east coast. Yet here in Dubai I can by melon juice – it’s rock melon and honey-dew melon juice – it’s delicious.
Oh dreary me Luke!
ZZZZZZZZ! typical response.
I did NOT SAY that these people don’t know about catchment conditions…so this question is just plain ridiculous….
” they didn’t – are you actually mental – what mindless drivel – do you think they don’t know about catchment conditions AND incidentally that may be ANOTHER WHOLE AGENCY ”
Are you trying to pass the buck somehow? Who cares which bleeding ANOTHER WHOLE AGENCY it may have incidentally been????
STUUUUUPPPPPIIIIIDDDDD Question Luke!
Of course they collect relevant data and know about catchment conditions…my question was basically asking WHY DIDN’T THEY ADAPT TO IT in a timely manner?
What mechanisms and processes…within WHICHEVER bleeding department/s it may have been…prevented some sensible adjustment in management?
It wasn’t unique to QLD….although the bureaucratic responses to catchment conditions were far more dramatic there…in terms of results.
Down here…they actually dumped stored water from the top of the system into a flooded catchment as ‘pay back’ to the ‘environment’.
Many of us (via numerous different rep organisations) tried for over 6 months prior to the major 2010 flood to stop this from happening.
Plenty tried in QLD as well.
The problem is NOT that they don’t know about the catchment….the problem is their inability to adjust/ adapt.
Somewhere, somehow…no one seems to want to remember that this is indeed “a land of drought and flooding rains”.
It’s not really that complicated Luke.
OK then – so adaptation is in the bag – no probs at all. All tickedy-boo. Right. Someone better tell Bob, Jen and Jo – that’s it – pull up stumps. All done.
No policy needed for anything.
Departments are doing fine or maybe we just get rid of them (not sure what was decided).
A blog bereft of ideas. A sort of twilight where one is neither dead nor alive. Periodically interrupted by the news boy (Neville).
“WHY DIDN’T THEY ADAPT TO IT in a timely manner?” Well shucks I guess anticipating a climate change charged 1 in 5000 rainfall event over the catchment might be a tad difficult but not for super-Debs.
Well they did adapt – that’s why the fuse plugs didn’t blow. Dam has operating rules. Flood inflows and releases were balanced. US Army Engineering Corps also says so – and Debs your expertise is what ? reading op eds?
Dam has an additional 126% flood compartment on top of the 100% FSL. That was the design. And now because of that hitherto unprecedented extreme event experience they have “adapted” using “synoptic and seasonal forecast information” (which you will not above Debs is NOT NEEDED – unless of course you think it’s adequate) to CONTROVERSIALLY reduce the dam below FSL. A change in Joh era rules.
An admission in fact that the rainfall probabilities have changed. I guess you’d like to deny it was a super La Nina – wasn’t record VP and SSTs. Of course you’d like to deny that.
“Somewhere, somehow…no one seems to want to remember that this is indeed “a land of drought and flooding rains”.
It’s not really that complicated Luke.”
Well tell that to Qld’s northern and western beef producers ENJOYING a neutral ENSO year. So enjoyable.
And if it’s not complicated well you won’t be needing any drought or flood relief will you. As you say – it’s not that complicated. You’ve got it in the bag Debs !?
I saw this little gem the other day…. 🙂 🙂 🙂
seems appropriate after Luke’s last reply….
GOVERNMENT POLICY: If it aint broke, fix it ’till it is.
Sorry Luke….but seriously?
There is a GIANT CHASM between what I meant by “it’s not that complicated” and your interpretation above. 🙂
Does anyone know if Bob Carter is predicting global cooling?
Well is it complicated or not Debs? Which is it?
“…a climate change charged 1 in 5000 rainfall event…”
To think 1974 and 1893’s triple header did it all on their own in Brissie. Look, ma, no climate change! I wonder how NSW’s new freshwater sea managed to appear without CC in 1955. State damn near floated away…all without climate change! As for those 1950 totals…
CAGW OR AGW or extreme whatever-we-are-calling-it-this-week is just one gigantic and obvious fib, isn’t it? Yet the climatariat keep inserting it niftily into every discussion, even while pretending the subject is other. When they can’t bring the trash through your front door, they use the back door or a window left ajar. It’s trash, but expensive trash for which we are paying every day. And they dump it somewhere into every discussion, policy and decision. Never miss.
Luke,
There is no doubt that the politics/policies/management principles that have developed around NRM and climate/weather has become very complex/complicated.
However. . . The concept that this sunburnt country is ‘a land of drought and flooding rains’ is not a complicated concept to prove or grasp at all.
Neither is catchment behaviour particularly complicated.. . . BUT. . catchment management principles and the policies that drive them have become increasingly tangled and complicated.
Geddit?
Don’t be such a denier Robert. 1974 and 1893 were cyclones not supercells. Tell us the state of water vapour and SSTs leading up to the event. Off the meter as AGW predicts. It’s in front if your denying nose.
Well Luke, 1893 still holds the record for the highest rainfall in all the catchments and word supercell wasn’t even invented.
Good to see two sane scientists give their testimony before the US senate.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/two_scientists_testify_to_us_senate_hearings_on_warming/#commentsmore
Some of the others just seem to be oddballs, at least Spencer and Pielke use real science and facts to support their case.
Of course what they should have stressed is the fact that we can’t turn the weather/climate/temp knob back to some perfect period of time at all. And we would be barking mad to try and do so.
The best we can do is adapt and find new ways to produce clean, reliable energy at the lowest cost.
🙂
1956 & 1974 gave it a good shake too.
“Well Luke, 1893 still holds the record for the highest rainfall in all the catchments and word supercell wasn’t even invented.”
Yes John, and in 1824 there was an even bigger flood discovered by both Lockyer and Oxley.
Luke is too dumb to realise that Jan 2011 was a flood of our own making but was a pussycat compared to some earlier floods.
It was caused by public servants not paying attention and then dropping their bundle when they finally realised the problem.
“Well they did adapt – that’s why the fuse plugs didn’t blow.”
That wasn’t adapting, that was sheer panic.
There was not only no-one on watch, there was no-one on board and when they finally woke up and opened the spillway, the dam levels were within a whisker of blowing the fuse plugs.
If that had happened there would have been death and disaster instead of just flooding downstream.
I agree SD – Joh built Wivenhoe Dam to protect Brisbane from the regular floods and they dropped the ball because they’d been freaked out by Flannery.
SD,
Very rare. .. but. .. I don’t entirely agree with you. . .
They undoubtedly knew there was a problem but they were not able to ACT.. . . & Luke is being rather duplicitous in failing to recognise why that was the case.
Also. . . That 2011 flood was not entirely manageable. . . despite the fact that they were DEFINITELY warned there was a developing problem.
Eventually. . . They did do the best they could. . . EVENTUALLY!
Pity that it wasn’t begun earlier.
The inquiry was always doomed. . . It was always going to find that no one was ACCOUNTABLE because everyone followed the RULES/REGS/ENTRENCHED POLICIES. . . and no one was going to actually point out that those RULES/REGS/ENTRENCHED POLICIES were actually the problem.
Well, where to start? The mid-seventies are an amazing period for rain and storms in all Australia, but 1974 rates as our wettest year on record, with floods all over the shop. January was the wettest recorded month in Australia overall, and the wettest in Qld and NT. Before Wanda helped push the trough that did the damage, ground and river systems were at capacity in SE Qld. Preceding the cyclonic conditions and flood, there had been three weeks of constant heavy rain, and the previous year had been a soaker. No wonder that this climate change caused outbreaks of encephalitis and Ross River, as well as fires, when the bush had the first opportunity to burn after the all the regrowth. I really could not say what the ocean was doing at the time, but it was a La Nina period to remember. (Since there are so many contradictions when one uses El Nino and La Nina to explain major events, I’ll spare people the “super” and “ultimate”. The hot, parched 1930s are the only decade with no pronounced El Nino, while the La Nina period of 1928-30 left most of the country as dry as a chip. Something tells me our knowledge of these things is a touch inadequate.)
The 1890s must have worried those who worry about “extremes”. It was a decade of floods and droughts, but the triple flood which hit Brissie in February of 1893 (followed by another winter flood) would have been a real test of pioneer nerve. At least two of the floods were connected with cyclonic activity, but what makes 1893 stand out is that, unlike 1974, the conditions occurred in otherwise dry times. Weird stuff, just like the amazing La Nina drenching of 1950 which came in the normally drier months from mid-winter to late spring. Talk about climate change!
The 2010-11 flooding had its own scary personality, and the influence of Tasha on this monsoonal trough would not have been as strong as that of Wanda in ’74…but that’s climate change for you! No two floods alike. As to the implication that this flooding was associated with a supercell, I’m baffled. The storm and hail which dropped half a million tonnes of hail on eastern Oz in the spring of 1999 has been classified as a supercell, but I’m unaware on any such event in connection with the Qld floods. Perhaps the term has been extended to mean something different these days, or maybe the climatariat have decided to educate us a little more with some controlled hyperbole for our own good…a bit like those new colours the BOM has added to its map.
I’m afraid I can’t see the supercell before my denying nose.
A litany of lies and libel by a bunch of frauds. Disgraceful.
If you have any decency put up some serious evidence of engineers not on duty or Flannery interference.
Table it or just be utter creeps !
‘…they dropped the ball because they’d been freaked out by Flannery.’
Hear Hear!
http://www.apesma.com.au/newsviews/latest/?id=2223
Don’t be a lying fraud El Gordo – put up some evidence.
There was also the Toowoomba problem. They had refurbished an area of town through which the water flowed during heavy downpours. The landscape architects didn’t like the look of the huge pipes the engineers had suggested and put in smaller pipes. When the rain eventually came and reached the small pipes it banked up and up and up until it finally broke the whole system apart and a wall of water rushed down the hill taking everything in it’s path.
I bet no one was held accountable for that as well.
Hey Robert – “Two major rain events, both the equivalent of the 1974 flood, occurred across Wivenhoe and Somerset dams and catchments less than 30 hours apart.” But as a denier you’d find this unremarkable.
Luke – I can’t be bothered finding Flannery’s “even if it does rain it won’t fill our dams” prediction.
That’s not evidence of anything other than Flannery voicing an opinion. If that is your “evidence” re Wivenhoe management go hang your head in shame. Disgraceful !
Luke – the rainfall records for Esk which is 20km from Somerset dam and 5 km from Wivenhoe recorded 478 mm in january 2011 and 633 mm – january 1974 and the Wivenhoe Dam recorded 539mm for the whole of january 2011 the highest being 248mm 0n Jan 11th and 133mm on the 12th.
Admittedly the rain in the wivenhoe catchment built up over 6 days or so in 2011 but it stopped straight after it whereas the 1974 flood was continuous rain all january building up to an peak of 218 on the 27th yet still continuing after that so eventually more rain fell in the month in 74 than it did in 2011. It’s also interesting to note there is no rainfall record in Esk on the 28th, the day after the peak and 3 other days in that month.
Luke – at that short period in time Flannery’s “opinion” was highly respected – we learnt better of it.
It’s also interesting to note that Esk recorded 1036.4mm in february 1893 which still remains the highest rainfall for the town.
“Two major rain events, both the equivalent of the 1974 flood…”
Why on earth would I be surprised if one flood event caused greater inflows to a certain catchment than another event? Especially when one allows for land use etc. in different eras. What if 1893 had greater inflows than 2011? Or vice versa? What would it prove except that severe floods occur periodically in Eastern Australia, usually in the summer months, and associated with La Nina and with cyclonic activity, such as Wanda (1974) and Tasha (2010). Australia’s wettest single rain event occurred in 1979, as did the world’s most monstrous known cyclone. I don’t assume that things are safer now, because of some imagined “trend” since 1979. The next year could bring a wetter event than Peter and a cyclone larger in area than Tip. Why should it not? We seem to be in a period of storms. In common with every single human being alive, I do not have a clue when and what the next climate disaster will be. I think Port Hedland will again be hit one day by a major cyclone, since cyclones are so frequent in the NW and tracking is more predictable. I would like to see my taxes spent directly by government to make Port Hedland safer, not given to “market-mechanism” scoundrels who promise to manipulate or stabilise a climate that has never been manipulable or stable.
“It was the largest flood inflows that South East Queensland experienced in more than 100 years.” I assume that the “100 years” is a reference is to 1893?
As to your supercell…well, we all get carried away. You just seem to get carried away and never come back.
In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems … “.
Pathetic John – Esk is to the northwest of the dam with a significant mountain in front and between the dam and the town – storm systems coming from the east ! Stanley River near Maleny providing major flow. These were super intense cells – why don’t you do something smart and look at dam inflows. Do you dispute the magnitude of the systems in the catchment. Why don’t you emaiL SEQ Water and do some serious hydrology instead of using rain records like a brick.
Who cares what Flannery says/said – doesn’t mean it influences SEQ Water dam engineers does it? Stupid comment John – really dense. If you want to make a statement prove there’s a link. And engineers are usually pretty sceptical hard-nosed lot so if you think some blown-in mammal biologist is going to teach them rainfall/runoff well hahahaha…. good grief. You’re easily bluffed aren’t you John.
Robert – you might ponder thousands of computer simulation runs of all the rainfall records over the dam. Do you have any idea how much analysis goes on into constructing worst case scenarios for dam management. If they were surprised then I’m content to believe one is dealing with something exceptional.
“It was the largest flood inflows that South East Queensland experienced in more than 100 years. Two major rain events, both the equivalent of the 1974 flood, occurred across Wivenhoe and Somerset dams and catchments less than 30 hours apart. ”
http://www.previous.seqwater.com.au/public/sites/default/files/userfiles/file/pdfs/Seqwater%20COI%20Final%20260912.pdf
Do you think you know better or have an analysis to challenge with?
Luke just shouting down what I say doesn’t disprove it
“.. doesn’t mean it influences SEQ Water dam engineers does it?”
Why do we pay him then?
Doug
Luke, if you believe that media statement you believe in fairies.
I had been camping in the catchment just prior to Jan ’11 and SEQwater had dumped a big flow 3 months earlier which was the first big flow in years because of the drought and the locals screamed because of the waste and damage. Newman was the Brisbane mayor then and he told them [and everyone who would listen] that we were going to get a flood and to be prepared. However because of the backlash from the locals, Anna and SEQwater went into a huddle and the dam was not spilling enough.
On that weekend when there was no-one on watch I had tried to contact SEQwater for hours at their emergency number because I had property that could have been affected. Even politicians I contacted could not find out what SEQwater were doing. If you ever saw that damning picture of the dam when it was brimming, you will understand that someone sure slipped up. Another few centimetres and the whole side of the dam would have gone sliding down to Lowood, with much more disastrous results.
How surprising that Luke would support the official finding that exonerates the bureaucrats.
Just cleared by 4 independent experts and US Army Corps.
You’ll never satisfy denialist creeps with no evidence (LIKE YOU!). So put some evidence not pub yarns and hearsay.
Newman told them there as a flood – are you for real – tell us something that nobody knew. You utter clown. It was only the talk of the town. Be prepared – like what ? move your house? buy elsewhere?
“Another few centimetres and the whole side of the dam would have gone sliding down to Lowood, with much more disastrous results.” utter drivel – the structure wasn’t in jeopardy. What you mean is the purpose built spillway would have worked.
How long have you been an alarmist ?
And a whinger – the choices are either impact the immediate downstream farms significantly and cause more damage or try to buffer the flows for a more coordinated release. In the future they should just let it rip and erode your holiday farm/tax dodge to buggery. Is that what you’d like?
FarmerDoug – gee FD – strangely government might have been getting all sorts of advice for 100s of years. Funny that. Every bit of advice is adhered to (Sarc) – I assume you actually have evidence of Flannery making such advice? or are you quoting a door stop interview and promulgating sceptic meme speak?
Luke, now you are just stating the obvious about dam management standards and the severity of the 2011 flood, then implying that I have been somehow “challenging” these things. I am supposed to have an “analysis” to “challenge” some Seqwater media statement about culpability of staff, a subject I have not raised? No Luke, I’m not getting after some duty engineers here.
I’m after the climatariat and the gigantic lie which is CAGW. I’m after those who use weather and climate disasters to propagate that lie by burying the past and pretending to a knowledge of present and future which they do not have. Your comment that “1974 and 1893 were cyclones not supercells” is typical of such distortions. It’s as if one just needs to get in a word like “supercell” or “superstorm” or “Frankenstorm” and it’s job done. The obedient masses will fall into line, and believe that they are living in some brave new climate and need saving by making lavish temple offerings.
“Supercell”? As cause of that massive summer flooding all over SEQ, after the wettest spring since 1900? Or have you been discussing Kansas weather with Dorothy? These scary events do occur in Oz, but what do they have to do with the enormous Qld floods of 2010-11? You even seem to imply (it’s hard to know from the sloppy wording) that cyclones hit Brisbane in the earlier floods, while it’s clear all these floods, inevitably very different from each other, were influenced by cyclonic conditions in the north. You’ve surely at least heard of 2010’s Cyclone Tasha, which joined up with the monsoonal trough after coming ashore in North Qld on Xmas Day? Similar – no, not identical! – conditions were likely associated with other great floods of the Brisbane River, those of 1841 (highest flood level), 1890, and 1931.
But a supercell? What sort of crazy verbal stunt or junk science confection is that? Just what are you talking about?
Luke, you’ve reached the point where you realise you’ve made some gross errors and you are just covering up with the usual bluster and self-importance.
Verbal stunt – are you a mental midget – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercell
Good grief – put your wife on mate and give it away ….
I can’t help it there was off the record water vapour and SST measurements. I can’t help it if the storms that caused the 2011 were freakish in intensity. Supercells change a rain event into a monster. A deluge on top of a deluge. Two 1974s in 30 hours.
‘
Of course they don’t prove AGW – only 50 years of data will. And yes all floods are different. But the observed phenomena certainly well first the prediction.
Hi El Gordo,
“The heavy rain in China has dudded their wheat crop, so they will be importing hugely… this is the result of natural climate change.”
I agree with your sentiment, but it was SEVERE FROST that damaged the crop.
Climate changing , but the difference between warm and wet and cold and dry , is what I and others are worried about.
Warm and wet enough and the crocs would return to the Sahara. The much discussed’ trends’
mean very little, when it is remembered that those crocs were made homeless in less than 20 years.
Plan B would need some quick thinking people, building the infrastructure in N Oz would take more than 20 years . Allowing for planning , appeals, native title disputes, Green financial pressure , etc , etc.
But I agree with your sentiment, partly because of the unrelenting pressure to close down existing irrigation in the South. Practically , we will develop it and China or someone will buy or lease it.
The latest storm, flood firestorm …worse than whatever…
Herewith a minor experience associated with apocalyptic pronouncements
associated with humane guilt…
When I was walking in a field,
An apocalyptic prophet spoke to me.
He fixed me with his glitttering eye
And told me of my human infamy.
‘The sea will boil, the earth a sultry fireball
Will become. We eat, we drink, we overpopulate
The earth … pollute the atmosphere with CO2’ …
He goes on. blah, blah, blah, unceasingly pontificates.
So then I tell him that the clouds
Heaped overhead, an imminent catastrophe presage,
He’d better make it of of here,
Ansd I am left alone on centre stage.
I feel the quickening breeze and see
It brush the waiting grass, and then
A cricket chirps, the air grows cool
…and then it rains.
Beth the serf
It’s like dealing with a gaming adolescent who’s revved up on Red Bull, who’s strung out after playing “GHGs versus the Aerosols: The Final Conflict” or “The Rise of the SSTs” or “Supercells Vapour-Charge the Frankenmonster”.
You’ve actually looked up the meaning of “supercell” and you still think previous floods were “cyclones” and 2011 was “supercell”? And now you are going to wiki-talk us about supercells, while hoping we don’t actually look them up on wiki?
Just what are you and your climatariat mates trying to sell us? Have you rung the Macquarie dictionary asking for a new definition of “supercell”? Is it like “misogyny”: sounds so effective that we need to extend the meaning officially?
You think that we need to be told that an enormous flood like 2011 was freakish in intensity? You can’t have a flood like that unless you have freakish intensity. If I had to nominate the most “exceptional” flood I’d have to nominate 1893, because it occurred as a triple or even quadruple in a decade of mostly drought conditions. The big floods of 1974 and 2011 happened with a lot of wet weather before and after. But all three of those great Brisbane floods were exceptional in different ways, though all were associated with cyclonic conditions meeting monsoonal troughs. And you could toss in 1840. That must have been a brute.
Ask the people of Maitland and most of NSW about the intensity and freakiness of 1955. Heard about the phenomenal discharges of the Namoi and Macquarie? How did Coonabarabran, of all places, manage well over a foot of rain in one day during the ’55 event? After the waters subsided in Gilgandra, they found a huge hole in the street…containing two semi-trailers! Were SSTs and water vapours sitting at home watching cricket or I Love Lucy, while all of that just happened? There’s nobody around to ask about the 1840 Brisbane flood, but how do you think all that water got there? I’ll tell you how…
Freakish intensity!
Tsk! Ist para edit, ‘human’ ( kindness has nothin’ ter do with it.)
Given up trying to understand your ranting Robert. Just gibberish to me matey.
“climatariat mates” what is that? really put your tin foil hat on .,….
Yep 2 x 1974s in 30 hours from a non-cyclone hit is just par for the course.
“Yep 2 x 1974s in 30 hours from a non-cyclone hit is just par for the course.”
How on earth could the massive inflows of 2011 be par for the course? This is someone determined to stay in an argument at all costs, disputing what is not in dispute and ignoring all the important points made concerning floods through Australia’s history.
Luke, on this thread you’ve revealed an astonishing ignorance of the very subject which brings you to this blog. I’m wondering now, as other must be wondering: what else does Supercell Luke not know?
“par for the course” – That’s what we might call sarcasm Robert.
So Robert’s logic – big things have happened before so you can’t ever prove anything about anything. It’s the “big things” defence. Then there’s the “teensy weensy” defence. CO2 concentrations are ppm so that’s teensy weensy.
So if a black hole swallowed the solar system Robert would just exclaim “harden up”. And call that a black hole – I know one that swallowed a galaxy so there !
Supercell is not a special term Robert. But what happened over Wivenhoe and Toowoomba was some pretty off the scale stuff; and it kept coming.
On the run of SST and VP data available (no not back to 1893) off the chart – so I guess for you Robert if it looks like it’s happening it’s still not because there must have been something bigger better somewhere in the galaxy.
A very good post comparing all the data sets from IPCC expert reviewer Lord Monckton.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/21/ten-years-of-accelerated-global-warming/#more-90236
Spot on Robert, don’t let him BS you. He always trys it on.
Yes Robert well said.
LUKE!
It is not and has NEVER been about individuals who are doing the best they can to fulfil their job descriptions.
They are good people just trying to do their job.
It is about the over riding drivers of policy that have tangled these poor people up in so much box ticking/rules/regs and processes that they find themselves unable to act in a timely and flexible manner when dealing with emergencies in NRM.
Cyclones/supercells/big rain events or whatever else you would like to name them are not interested in waiting to see if they have followed a process, ticked off all the regulatory boxes or if they are legally accountable for their action.
They’re not interested in the damage they wreak on the environment or whether the parcel of water that has been stored for a particular purpose will actually be accounted and therefore paid for.
It takes me straight back to my original question about ‘accountability’.
There’s NO QUESTION that the circumstances of 2011 were unusual and dramatic…but that storage and regulatory system there was in fact designed to help mitigate the damage from such an event…even though you’re loathe to admit it. . . many people from many different backgrounds did try to warn SEQW (or whatever the acronym is) of the developing problem.
The circumstances in the catchment had changed Luke.
Small rain events were already creating good runoff. . .the soil profile was already well saturated… which was certainly not the case when the drought was at its deepest.
More could have been done earlier….but of course when they finally did get their act together they did the very best they could.
I hope that everyone has learned something from this but if most are reacting as you are…then I do worry about next time.
It seems that the focus has gone to exercising the great art of covering backside and creating more rules about ‘accountability’ rather than admitting that perhaps….just perhaps….it was those tangled rules and processes and the over riding politics/policies that were driving them that were the problem.
Dr Bill Johnson looks at OZ’s climate record and finds mostly natural warming, with little room for AGW warming.
Tell us something we don’t know.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/21/australias-average-temperature/#more-90263
“many people from many different backgrounds did try to warn SEQW (or whatever the acronym is) of the developing problem.” Debbie are you so silly ! such clown statements – just drivel Debbie – mindless drivel
Debbie answer me this – do you think anyone would have a precise forecast of two 1974s in 30 hours. And I just did a “phone a friend” on this issue. Suffice to say – broke a rib laughing at the nonsense you and Robert are speaking.
The reality is unless you want to run the system below FSL – you need to be able stump up 2$billion to make up the lost water. And impact on a major flood still won’t be that much.
ANYWAY NO EVIDENCE FROM ALL THE ACCUSERS – SO YOU’RE ALL FULL OF IT ! A swag of libelous comments yesterday and zero proof offered.
Luke, I always thought you were dumb but not that dumb.
Regardless of how much rain fell [and I would like to see some evidence of what you claim] the fact that dam levels were allowed to reach almost auto-destruct before someone turned up to increase the spill shows that no-one was home doing their job.
If they were able to save the dam at the end of that “30 hours” without blowing the fuses, think how much less a spill would have been necessary many hours earlier.
And the smart money was telling them weeks, if not months earlier.
Is that just bureaucratic cretinism or is it simply “up you Campbell, we’re running this show”, or both?
Noting your responses above it is probably the latter.
No, not something bigger and better in the galaxy. Just events comparable, though different, in Brisbane and south into NSW in other eras. Of course, I could have gone on about rainfall in 1950, and been so radical as to suggest some extraordinary wind, humidity and oceanic conditions to bring that about. The complete failure of the Westerlies meant that Qld and NSW were saturated in what was by far their wettest year, yet much of the continent dried out, making it a very different Big Wet to those of the mid-fifties and mid-seventies. In central NSW, it’s not that annual precip records were set, but how far those records exceed second place. Then, in December, just when the rain should be abundant…a nasty little drought! Off the scale freakish, it was. People were blaming the A-Bomb, just as they would blame Sputnik for the 1960 heatwave. Now they blame…But we mustn’t overload you! I know you don’t like this stuff. I know you hate it, in fact.
You’ve now reached the point of saying anything, anything at all, Luke, to stay in an argument where you’ve displayed colossal ignorance. I hope I don’t need to give you a wiki link to “ignorance”. You can find it the same way you found found “supercell”. If you don’t like the definition, why, you can just make it mean whatever you want…like with “supercell”. And if you find the Robert who thinks that what happened over Wivenhoe and Toowoomba was NOT some pretty off the scale stuff, please let me know who and where this Robert is and I’ll give him a big serve for being a Brissie Flood denier.
Although your question about precise forecast is TOTALLY irrelevant to my post. . . like TOTALLY! . . .I am nonetheless happy to answer it. . .
My answer NO!
Good grief!
Krudd spends millions $ of taxpayer funds to re-elect the Labor govt.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_dare_rudd_blow_our_cash_on_labor_ads/
When the Director of Meteorology issued his report after the 1974 floods, he observed that, after 1893, the times between severe floods had increased and and there had been nothing as severe as 1893. (If you look at a Brisbane River historical peak graph, you’ll see a lot more flooding prior to the Fed Drought, especially in those “extreme” 1890s, which were either too wet or too dry.) He also observed (which is clear from the graphs) that flood heights at Brisbane PO in 1841 and in 1893 (but twice in 1893!) were far above those of 1974. While flood height alone won’t tell you how bad a flood was, that is a very interesting fact. He went on to mention a geological report from Qld U which indicated that still higher floods had occurred in the remoter past, and might occur again. There was evidence found at Indooropilly of a flood 5.5 metres higher than that of 1974. That might give you a flood height ten feet over the two 1893 floods and the 1841 flood! Wivenhoe was built.
I think Australia’s response to the wet, turbulent seventies, especially in Darwin and Brisbane, was pretty creditable. What’s happened since?
Spangled – And so in hindsight – you would like them on the basis of 70% forecast technology months before to dump half of Brisbane’s drinking water would you?
Tell me you’d sign off on it and be prepared for the billions it will cost you to replace the water you dumped if you were wrong. Tell me you’d make that call.
Robert – anecdotal hand waving, diversions and increasingly incomprehensible. Seriously? I’m not even sure whether it was five shots or six and whether you feel lucky? What are we actually arguing about anyway? I’ve now forgotten…. perhaps you can succinctly summarise
I’m interested to know if my summations have been incomprehensible to anybody else besides Luke (and his phone friend, of course). And I wonder why so many straightforward facts about past climate events are causing him so many comprehension problems. Brisbane River heights in 1841 and twice in 1893 were close to the thirty foot mark at the Brisbane PO. In 1974 they were around the 22 foot mark. Where is the mystery? What is incomprehensible?
No need to answer, guys. Supercell Luke knows exactly what not to understand. And if he needs help not understanding, he can phone his friend with the fragile ribs.
“Spangled – And so in hindsight – you would like them on the basis of 70% forecast technology months before to dump half of Brisbane’s drinking water would you?”
Dumb and Dumber. There was already a flood in October and they dumped when it still had a big reserve but failed to dump in January when there was very little reserve.
Between Oct and Jan everyone and his dog knew that there was a big wet coming yet when it arrived they were MIA.
Kids playing mud-puddles could have worked it out better.
It’s not rocket science.
The flood doesn’t stop when the rain stops. There was so much water around with so much inertia that it kept pouring into Wivenhoe for days but the dam level went down considerably because of the huge spill.
If a lesser spill had been initiated just a couple of days earlier, flood levels would have been much lower and most of the pain could have been avoided.
The time/volume equation has to be applied to the delivery just you did to the supply.
“Brisbane River heights in 1841 and twice in 1893 were close to the thirty foot mark at the Brisbane PO. In 1974 they were around the 22 foot mark. Where is the mystery? What is incomprehensible?”
Indeed Robert, and in 1924 they were 99 feet above mean river level near the Bremer junction.
The Daddy of ’em all.
Those were big floods. 2011 was a pussycat in comparison, made bad by bad management.
Ironically, if the flood-mitigating Wivenhoe hadn’t been there, there may not have been a flood.
Maybe the bureaucrats weren’t saying “up yours Campbell” so much as “up yours Joh, we can still make it flood”.
Because you would need to either have some sort of agenda to have got a flood out of Wivenhoe in Jan 2011, be some sort of cretin or be simply MIA.
Yes cyclones traversing the region bring big rains – so?
The river peaked 3 times in 1893 actually.
And where would 2011 be without the dam? Your number is ?
What do you mean “dumped” – you mean released.
And as a Lowood land-holding whinger you’d appreciate how these releases affect landholders downstream and road access !
So interestingly found by 4 independent experts, and the US Army Corps found as good a job as could be done, unless with 20:20 perfect hindsight you had emptied the dam.
And if you got it “wrong” and it didn’t flood you would have just dumped half Brisbane’s water supply.
I asked you and you have ducked it – would you sign off on it? You’re a hindsighted arm-chair dwelling bunk artist.
Luke – your evidence for the 2 x 1974 rain event is that one report by SEQwater covering their arses so they don’t get sued in a class action. As I’ve shown the rainfall measurements in the district at Toowoomba, Esk, including the measurements at the Wivenhoe Dam itself don’t support that statement yet the rainfall measurements do support the intensity of the 1893 event.
I think you said ‘dump’ first Luke 🙂
But ‘release’ is just fine.
Not to put too fine a point on it. . . but in the timeframe being discussed here. . . there was not an urgent problem with supplies of Brisbane’s drinking water. . . that problem was well and truly over.
That is partly the basis of the criticism here. . . they hadn’t moved on. . . and were still managing the storage system as if there still was shortages, restrictions and nil inflows.
Yes, Debbie,
That ol’ siege mentality
has a negative effect
on adaptability.
Bts
JS – hohoho – a law firm (vested interest galore) and where is the class action BTW. There isn’t any is there? I wonder why – coz their engineers have told them there’s nothing in it perhaps?
On rainfall – Get hold of the hydrology gauges data and BoM reports. Get hold of the BoM radar records. Where’s your due diligence JS?
Debs “That is partly the basis of the criticism here. . . they hadn’t moved on. . . and were still managing the storage system as if there still was shortages, restrictions and nil inflows.” errrr no actually Debs. Piffly rot.
Where is the class action?
here Luke:
“Lawyers for victims of the 2011 floods in Brisbane and Ipswich are on track to file class action suit by year’s end
LAWYERS representing thousands of Brisbane River flood victims are expected to file one of the largest class action lawsuits in Australian history against the state’s dam operators before the end of the year.
It still has not been determined what court will be used or even which state the case will be filed in.
Maurice Blackburn lawyers, with litigation funding from IMF, are continuing to build their case against Wivenhoe Dam engineers, alleging they were negligent in their handling of releases during the January 2011 flood.
The class action could seek up to $1 billion in damages or more.”
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/lawyers-for-victims-of-the-2011-floods-in-brisbane-and-ipswich-are-on-track-to-file-class-action-suit-by-years-end/story-e6freoof-1226617572607
Why do I need to get radar images etc – the rainfall record is sufficient to determine whether it was 2 x 1974.
Yes well where is it? waiting ……….. “It still has not been determined …….” blah blah blah
The rainfall gauge network is NOT sufficient JS – shows how little you know,
http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0005/3965/Seqwater-opening-submission-11-March-2011.pdf if you really want to be informed instead of your infantile general knowledge read 173-176
Luke, you made the claim about it being an all-time record supercell rainfall.
So where is YOUR evidence?
And as I have already explained to you, there is nothing to sign off ON. No risks to take. SEQwater had already dumped big quantities 3 months earlier but went to sleep when it was really essential to release progressively. You only have to release as the water is arriving. There is no gamble involved. Just watching the levels and adjusting the release rate.
There was never a time when there was more water entering the dam than could be responsibly released. It just needed to be done earlier and more progressively to prevent flooding.
This is just what Plan B is all about. But if you go to sleep you fail.
The lawyers are really going to make Qld pay for this bureaucratic stupidity.
No wonder the coalition has to sack so many Labor bureaucrats if it is to have any chance of getting into the black.
Is this how and why you lost YOUR job?
Luke – it will happen – Maurice Blackburn have the funding for it to proceed – there are 4,800 claimants, a case of this size takes time – as the lady says, it won’t heppen overnight, but it will heppen.
With respect to the SEQwater submission this is the opening submission from 2011. It’s interesting that this huge flood event and water inflow was produced by a rain event that unfortunately radar shows wasn’t within an area where there were rain gauges – how unfortunate – yet it doesn’t stop them from comparing the inflow to Wivenhoe to the 1974 flood when Wivenhoe didn’t exist and they even compare it to the 1893 flood when no dams existed. They later report that the rainfall in Brisbane was not sufficient to flood local roads as it did in 1974.
I smell a rat don’t you Lukey?
John, that report bears out exactly what I have always claimed.
That big, late dump was what caused the damage, coming on top of the Lockyer flood and it should never have been necessary if someone was on watch on the weekend when it started.
You can see how they shit their pants and let it all go. The dam levels dropped rapidly yet if any sane person had been there paying attention they could have had cool control of the situation.
And spared the flood victims a lot of trouble and Qld a lot of expense.
And as you show, it ain’t finished yet by a long shot.
BTW Luke, I wonder how they figure it was 1.9 times 1974 and equal to 1893 at Wivenhoe when Wivenhoe didn’t exist then?
Tell me it wasn’t a computer simulation! Oh hang on….
RTF SEQ submission or remain ignorant loons ! Frankly you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
Listen to pig ignornat Spanglers froth. What a goober.
“yet it doesn’t stop them from comparing the inflow to Wivenhoe to the 1974 flood when Wivenhoe didn’t exist” Are you daft about basic modelling rainfall/runoff techniques – the mainstay of Australian hydrology.
They later report that the rainfall in Brisbane was not sufficient to flood local roads as it did in 1974.” Yep so – if you read anything you’d know the events are synoptically different
The rat is ignorant whingers, faux sceptics and opportunists. This is what the denialist filth is all about – not reading up on issues, ignoring all analyses, and keep chipping to find something/anything that suits your fetid views.
The threshold test was for you to read a full account of the event at the commission. A miserable failure by useless arch-chair deniers. Shame on you.
The level of ignorance here is simply off the meter.
Computer simulation – and check their validations – check the flows – check the mass balance. Do you know anything about hydrology. No you’re pig ignorant. I basically towed you twits all over the lake here and only now you’re even at the basics of discovering the fundamental event data. What clowns.
While and you have to laugh till your ribs hurt – in your stupid infantile little minds you think Tim Flannery is somehow in there pulling some levers. You utter wankers. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Luke – the area around Somerset and Wivenhoe dams is riddled with rainfall guages – they all have readings similar to 1974 – heavy rain on the 10th followed by further rain on the 11th but not 2 x 1974 except perhaps on the computer models – Oh dear, another case of the empirical evidence disagreeing with the computer models.
Who’d you say is frothing Luke?
What did you make of the rise and fall of the dam?
No panic? Controlled release?
Does it ever occur to you that people who are defending themselves against serious claims of malpractice may not always tell it like it really was?
Always hang sceptical and maybe even check your own over-defensive problems.
Poor John Sayers – in denial over the evidence. Hasn’t even read the basic evidence. Another piss poor denier effort, trying to do a professional hydrology job reading BoM’s info-tainment general site. Grow up.
Spangled – malpractice – well it all remains to be seen doesn’t it. Bring it. Wivenhoe does not control the entire catchment including Lockyer Ck or Warril Ck. Like John a shoddy job in acquainting yourself with the minimum facts. When confronted with some data like John “oh well it’s a conspiracy”. “Must be a conspiracy”.
The real issue is why do people live on the edge of flooding rivers and flood plains. Bad call. Take some responsibility and don’t expect to be molly coddled by a nanny state and shame on white shoe developers and councils who let them especially after 1974. Everyone always wants to blame someone else – “someones gotta pay”. BTW in Brisbane’s leafy suburbs the tradies having been going gangbusters – many many of the homes renewed and all put back again – sitting there waiting for another event which might come next year or in 50 years.
Luke luv, you are so far off in your reasoning it is hardly worth responding.
You present a case for the defence prepared by the defendant and you don’t hang sceptical?
“The real issue is why do people live on the edge of flooding rivers and flood plains. Bad call.”
Just think about what you just said.
If only Australia had been populated by bureaucrats prior to the settlers…..
Particularly if you’d all been here for a thousand years prior. And had all the flood levels and red and green tape ready for us.
What a fantastic resource you-all would have been.
“BTW in Brisbane’s leafy suburbs the tradies having been going gangbusters”
Is that the baby or the bathwater, luke?
That’s your idea of productivity? That and a carbon tax?
I’m sure the flooded home owners whose homes are now worth around half the mortgage are impressed.
Everyone in Qld now has to have compulsory flood insurance thanks to that bureaucratic stuff-up at Wivenhoe.
Even if you live on a mountain top. And premiums, for some, are unaffordable.
But that’s Plan A, hey?
Looks like Lukey’s great CAGW delusional con is starting to run out of political supporters.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/the-start-of-the-end-mainstream-press-says-politicians-go-cold-on-global-warming/#comments
Even our own fraudster Krudd is trying to save votes by closing down his corrupt con. Trouble is if we’re unlucky we may be paying a much higher increase in co2 emissions than we do today.
Neville, this article makes a few points that have been previously overlooked:
“Clearly global greenhouse gases cannot be the cause of melting inside the Arctic, while simultaneously sea ice is expanding in the Bering Sea and the southern hemisphere.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/why-antarctic-sea-ice-is-the-better-climate-change-indicator/
Also, how does one explain the melts of the early 1800s and 1900s, the biggest SLRs occurring concurrent with the increase of Arctic ice as the 19th century wore on? And how does one explain the very dramatic increase in Arctic ice from the 1960s to the end of the 1970s? It’s no wonder that the climatariat and our Green Betters have the one thing in common: a detestation of history in all its forms. When you think about it, that’s quite sinister…but not unfamiliar to anybody acquainted with the worst aspects of the century just gone. The New Man has to be formed in an insulated bubble of fad theory, junk science, rigid dogma, censorship and intolerance.
““BTW in Brisbane’s leafy suburbs the tradies having been going gangbusters”
That’s your idea of productivity?”
Moreover simply a vote of confidence by the well heeled for continuing to live on the waters edge and in the economy in general – put it all back bigger and better. Good luck !
“bureaucratic stuff-up at Wivenhoe.” you mean – first class management and risk mitigation without any counter-point of significance from yo’all
Of course of no interest to neo-luddites like Robert is the real story of significance – Expansion of the Hadley cell (GRL, vol 36 P L03803) , or simply put an expanding tropics (Nature GeoScience vol 1 p21) which will result in a drying subtropics – bad for hundreds of millions – Mediterranean, US South-West, southern parts of Australia, Africa and South America.
All missed of course to our ignorami!
Supercell Luke (aka Hundreds-of-Millions or Frankentropics or It’s-Worse-than-We-Thought Luke) is an expert on everything that will happen, but on nothing that is happening or has happened.
Well you’re wrong. If all you can do is mock I think that’s an indication that old codgers’ anecdotes of everything has happened before is somehow any science insight. Just boring Robert.
“nothing that is happening or has happened.” the ultimate hilarious denier nihilism – nyet nuttin non no nothing
what insight
tell us a tale of when you were young gramps?
Thanks for asking, Supercell. Most middle-aged blokes like you show know interest in us oldies. (People say St George supporters live in the past. They wouldn’t have dared say that to me in 1956!)
A tale of my youth? Well, when I was young they blamed floods and heatwaves on Sputnik, A-bombs, jet planes…that sort of thing. Little did we know the real problem was the stuff that made our Creaming Soda and Fruitypyne go fizzy.
Pay that ! – I love you Robert
“put it all back bigger and better. Good luck !”
When some young hard working family has bought a million dollar house in a well established suburb because the latest govt flood maps courtesy of Anna, computer modelled based on the construction of Wivenhoe, told them they didn’t have a problem yet the flood came up to the roof and the bank lent them $900,000 in the boom time also based on this computer modelling plus their capacity to pay and now this house [after having a fortune spent on it] can’t find a buyer at half the mortgage, what do you think this family has for options?
There are many people in this situation.
I don’t think for a minute that a real flood will change the situation to anything like what those computer generated maps claim but this was essentially only a chicken-shit flood that could have been avoided if your mates had been paying attention and doing their jobs.
If only they could be made to pay instead of the poor bloody taxpayer.
It’s also interesting you consider this to be “first class management and risk mitigation”
” young hard working family has bought a million dollar house ” I just laughed myself to death !
young and $1M eh? wow “$900,000 in the boom time ” yuh !
It has been known for years that Wivenhoe will mitigate some floods (like 2011) but not all as it only covers 50% of the catchment, tides and local creek effects all make a difference.
An intelligent due diligence buyer would have checked 1974 and 1893 lines unless you’d come down in the last shower. People are silly. There is heaps of land in SEQ no where near a flood line. How hard is it?
“chicken-shit flood” you mean 2 x 1974s – do you DENY it – of course you do
So they’ve bought badly and are in over their heads? hmmmm
Capitalise gains and socialise losses eh?
Luke, you denialist twerp, I know young, professional, hard working families who are in precisely this predicament.
Have you forgotten the boom-times of 2007 when real estate was going through the roof, before the sub-prime melt-down?
Some river and water-fronts were changing hands at up to 50 million. [and more!]
Are you trying to say that young professional people with good incomes didn’t spend that sort of money [1million] on houses at that time?
They not only borrowed it and spent it, they now often face an uncertain future job-wise and they are half a million under water.
This is quite a common situation. They are not wealthy people. They were just badly advised and when the public memory has conveniently rewritten history, young buyers haven’t got a chance.
Nobody, today, is going to pay them more than half price for a home that could go under water to the roof. They’d be lucky to get a buyer at all. And on top of that they are stuck with flood premiums at such huge increases they are simply not a proposition.
Of course it was a chicken-shit flood! You can see from that graph that those levels could have [and should have] been prevented for all the reasons I gave upthread.
“young professional people with good incomes ” the lucky country $1M
“Some river and water-fronts were changing hands at up to 50 million. [and more!]”
“They are not wealthy people.”
and even though they are professional people they face an uncertain future job-wise – really !
yuh !
if it went underwater to the roof I think anyone with an inch of nous would have known ! In bet it wasn’t on big hill. It was a bloody flood plain and they took a risk on an x in 100 flood. They didn’t count on a 2 x 1974 in 30 hours did they !!
What an old codger yarn Spangles
Would you like to come with me and meet these people?
You really mean you are not aware of the Brisbane Q100 flood maps that existed prior to 2011 that have now been consigned to the dustbin and redrawn?
That were based not on historic flood levels but on computer modelling of Wivenhoe’s potential flood reduction for Brisbane?
Real Estate agents loved ’em.
I bet Maurice Blackburn have kept a copy.
Houses that have been historically threatened and even destroyed by floods and cyclones prior to 1974 have changed hands for as much as 70 million prior to 2011. I tell you this because it just shows how quickly the world forgets history [as witnessed by your lack of memory of Q100s] and if very wealthy people spend 70 million on houses in very risky [though beautiful] areas, imagine how many more are prepared to spend a paltry million of [mostly] the banks money.
Go and talk to some real estate agents if you are too dumb to grasp what I’m telling you.
You also seem to be in denial that Campbell sacked a large number of high salaried public servants, the very types who would have bought these houses in fashionable riverside suburbs. And are you also denying that the job market for high enders has diminished?
“a paltry million” – silvertail. Come to some real suburbs and meet some real hard working people.
In your usual denialist sleaziness you’ve glossed over which jurisdictions and commercial contracting of these issues – pathetic and sleazy smear by you. http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/11706/QFCI-Final-Report-Chapter-2-Floodplain-management.pdf
“Real Estate agents loved ‘em.” Yep and used car salesmen – did they read the fine print or treat their customers like fools? If you think given all the scenarios that a flood can be modelled and reduced to a single line you deserve to be separated from your money.
2 x 1974s in 30 hours !!!!!!!!!!
“And are you also denying that the job market for high enders has diminished?” not if you’re an insider – no probs at all. But we’re now in the big “knowledge gap twilight”. Good luck to them working out what they’ve lost.
“2 x 1974s in 30 hours !!!!!!!!!!”
Yeah, you keep telling us how accurate these hydrology computers are.
Like the one that did the Q100 flood maps.
And we now know how completely wrong those were.
Particularly when the bureaucrats are out to lunch.
And belting the victims with a stick is sure a great way to make your point.
It’s amazing how you seem to deny there are street-loads of similar situations to varying degrees who were conned by Q100 and the hydrology computer.
Why do you think MB Lawyers are pursuing a class action?
Bob Tisdale looks at three data sets and finds no change in one and a reduction in the other two for global precipitation.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/23/no-consensus-among-three-global-precipitation-datasets/#comments
This CAGW theory is starting to look a bit ordinary at best and bloody awful at worst. Remember the rider Lukey, Bob is just the messenger and this is not his data.
Measured inflows doofus ! Deny all you like – you’ve put up nothing and haven’t even acquainted yourself with basic facts. You’re a total bunk artist.
“It’s amazing how you seem to deny there are street-loads of similar situations to varying degrees who were conned by Q100 and the hydrology computer.” well maybe these people shouldn’t vote if they easily abdicate their responsibilities – it ain’t that hard.
You’d be a chump if you think that all floods are the same wouldn’t you? What did the caveat on the Q100 say or do you normally sign things without reading?
“Why do you think MB Lawyers are pursuing a class action?” hmmmm gee dat’s a hard un – perhaps it’s the American disease of trying to gouge a very large amount of money and get a big fee? And where is the class action? Surely it’s just so obvious?
As usual everyone wants to blame someone – a 1 in 200 flood – no let’s blame someone instead of taking personal responsibility. Nanny state.
If you build on flood plains you will get flooded. Ain’t hard. It’s a risk. And it isn’t Bangladesh – plenty of non-flood land available – stacks of it – and if people didn’t learn after 1974 they won’t learn after 2011 either.
That would be the self-confessed stats error-prone Tisdale wouldn’t it. Maybe he could help do Qld Q100 maps? You’re a sucker Neville for unreviewed trash. Has Macca done an audit? Wanna buy a harbour bridge.
In fact what really is happening is scary – a bit above your comic book reading level though – get your Mum to translate for you
http://www.atmos.pku.edu.cn/yhu/aas2011.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/full/ngeo.2007.38.html
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/cdeser/Docs/lu.wideningtropics.grl09.pdf
http://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-35148885585&origin=inward&txGid=BA2EA8ED739373E6C36E24504FF2A6C1.y7ESLndDIsN8cE7qwvy6w%3a2
I’ll have a look at your links when I have the time. But come on Lukey you’re the one that believes in SCARY CAGW, so tell us how to fix it?
And that’s without the stupid, infantile kindy abuse,just give us your answer. Don’t forget to give us an answer that includes simple kindy maths to verify your claims.
Luke,
taxpayers paid for Wivenhoe and all the computer analysis you are referring to. They are also the ‘public’ that the public service is paid to ‘service’.
While I agree in principle that some personal responsibilty (accountability?) needs to be taken for choosing to live on coastlines, flood plains etc. . . you are disigeniously ignoring the reasonable points t management decisions in the timeframe.
In fact you are ‘spraying’ and ‘dodging’ when it was in fact you who raised the issue of ‘accountability’ in the first instance.
‘INACTION’ at critical turning points after the drought had broken is a feature. People were basically frozen into ‘inaction’ by the increasingly complicated rules/regs/policies.
Put simply. . . until they could find legal advice (out of hours) they were not prepared to put their bottoms on the line.
They also wanted to ‘blame’ something/someone else.
So I guess you’re right that it is normal (but regrettable) human behaviour.
Irrelevant response Neville. Why haven’t YOU brought this critical information to our attention. Why are you graffitting the place with stats incompetent material??
Debbie – what waffle. You have not produced one concrete bit of information – simply hand waving hearsay and drivel. Go and get yourself up to speed and stop talking out of your hat. Major event – well managed. People want 100% certainty. No such thing. Build on a hill.
Measured inflows? Where was that meter in 1974?
Pure computer modelling. Just like Q100.
“What did the caveat on the Q100 say or do you normally sign things without reading?”
Well firstly it said “Q100” which meant that it was a 1 in 100 year projection and as the last flood was only 25 years ago at the time, it made the risk seem much reduced.
Essentially it was projecting a much lower expected flood level in 75 years time.
These people all knew the 1974 levels but Q100 was supposed to negate all that.
The simple fact that insurance companies lost so much because of lower premiums in known flood areas shows they were conned as well.
If you don’t believe that, just compare premiums then and now.
“If you build on flood plains you will get flooded. Ain’t hard. It’s a risk.”
Of course people who build on flood plains are going to always get flooded.
That’s not the argument!
As Debbie says, just stop spraying and dodging and admit that these people were very poorly served by those bureaucrats who were supposed to be looking after them in Jan ’11.
I’m sure if there were dedicated modellers and simulators around in 1974 they could have come up with some sort of “x1893” description of what had occurred, if they absolutely need to do so. And, like all stats, it would have been true in some degree. Considering the personality of the 1974 flood and the 600-700mm that fell on Brissie in a thirty-six hour period, one wonders how that might be doubled and still leave room for the rest of the rain recorded in early 2011. But inflows and local rain are different things, and I’m not too keen on helping Maurice Blackburn attack Seqwater staff. It would be nice if people who deserve compensation get it, but one would prefer to see certain policy makers, national treasures and “public intellectuals” held to account, if account must be rendered, not staff on duty. Considering the sheer silliness of climate scientism (not science at all!) and its links to politics and global money-grubbing, Deb is probably right, but proof will be hard, and the axe may fall on scapegoats.
The real danger of climate fantasism is its tendency to make us forget what has been made clear by the fairly recent past. Brisbane has something in common with Victoria. Its driest known year is separated from its wettest by only six years. Vic was parched and on fire in 1967 and drenched in 1973. 1893 was the wettest year in Brissie, and the flood month of that year is its wettest month by far; yet only six years before that Brisbane was at its driest. (Sydney was to have its terrifying drought and water-shortage a couple of years after, in 1888.) Whatever you’ve forgotten about with Aussie weather is the very thing that might happen next.
But it’s not just short turnarounds which should concern us. What about longer term stuff? Are we sure that the climate of even the last hundred years tells us all we need to know?
The conditions which produced the floods of 1893 – two of which in February were far more severe than anything since – must be considered possible again, and in the near future. Even then, people are not secure. 1841’s flood was also in the mind of the authorities who built Wivenhoe. They said so. They also got info from geologists, and they knew that there was clear evidence of a high water mark shown to Oxley by aborigines, of a 12 metre flood early in the 19th century. Oxley took it seriously, as did the local aborigines. Think that can’t happen again? Because it’s an anecdote? Well, Wivenhoe was built on the strength of the 1974 flood, but also on the strength of the known 19th century floods, and geological evidence of worse floods…and those anecdotes!
Not a bad response back in 1974. Wivenhoe was a good beginning. Now, over to us.
Well said Robert!
I, too, hate to see taxpayers contributing to the legal industry.
The trouble is, bureaucrats thought Wivenhoe was Plan A when it was always meant to be Plan B.
And when they’ve always got the suckers to pick up the tab they never have to have any sleepless nights over it.
Some facts into this factless deniers debate
River levels upstream of Somerset and Wivenhoe Dam’s exceeded 1974 flood heights and in some locations recorded their highest levels on record. Inflows into Somerset and Wivenhoe Dam’s were nearly double those of 1974 and can be compared to the 1893 flood event.
see 2011 colour graphic and event description – at lower end this url
http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml
Be in no doubt !
When was Wivenhoe built?
Why was it built?
Poor Lukey year after year he’s asked about mitigation of his real SCARY CAGW and he still can’t provide an answer.
If it’s so SCARY and serious you’d think he’d be able to give us an answer? But NO he doesn’t believe his own nonsense and there is little evidence to back up his delusion.
Here’s more of this CAGW fakery and fraud. Straight out of these horse’s mouths.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/another_fake_scare_no_global_warming_isnt_causing_starvation/#commentsmore
If all these con merchants weren’t wasting so many billions $ on this barking mad delusion we could at least have a belly laugh at their expense.
Luke, I never thought I’d say this, but that’s a good link. (I feel so unclean, associating Luke with a good link…)
Let’s hope that, unlike your link to “Supercell”, you got around to reading it. Every flood is different, with different peaks in different places, different land use etc, and maybe they can measure inflows into a dam that did not exist in 1974. Really, I wouldn’t know. I’m sure the inflows were massive. (Just quietly, I’d fiddle things a bit in my favour as soon as I heard those two words, Maurice Blackburn.)
I still don’t grasp the 30 hour claim made by you previously. The estimated inflows for Wivenhoe (hypothetical) and Somerset being nearly double those of 1974 are surely not impossible, just surprising. The 96 hours mentioned in the link for most of the 1000+mm of rain which fell makes sense, though it is still a bit hard to square up with the 642 mm which fell on the city in just 36 hours in 1974, if one is to speak of a double 1974. But who knows? The build-up to 2011 was very different to that of 2011, which was very different to that of 1893, and inflows and rain are different things. You can have rain well below the main catchment and then you can have tides which mitigate/exacerbate the effect of all that. Maybe 1974 was more coast and city centred, while 2011 was more of a catchment event? Never mind. 2011 was a colossal flood, and that’s plenty of info for me. Determining its exceptionalism is only possible in the degree that every major flood will be exceptional in many ways. I’m sure of two things: Brishane will one day flood again, and that flood will have its own personality.
I think it’s terrific that you’ve found and shared this link, Luke. If a still bigger drenching than 1893 occurs, you’ll be able to see it in perspective, instead of having to invent some word like “Hypercell”. When your mates start supercelling and demanding that more money be sent to the UN or GIM or Goldman Sachs, you’ll be able to show them that big peak for 1841 and say: “Let’s keep the dough at home where it can do some good…bedwetters!” Then you can be my little cane toad mate. Have you any idea how cool it is to be one of my mates?
A good tool to measure the impact of co2 mitigation. Perhaps Lukey can use this to help him out.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/a-handy-dandy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator/#comments
Jo sets it to 100% etc and comes up with not much by 2100. Big surprise.
The 30 hour claim is SEQWater testimony not my claim – read my commission refs above.
And I’ve quoted the Brisbane floods graphic for years. Not a recent find at all. It’s been updated for 2001 onwards.
You’ve been dumping on me for days but I have been informed that jaw-dropping supercell – 1 in 2000 type stuff (whatever that really means as it’s a statistical extrapolation – off the meter anyway) system dumped in the middle of catchment as indicated by radar and the flows responded thus. It was this that pushed the system into the difficult zone ! Double jeopardy.
And yes no two floods are the same. But the 2011 was not associated with a cyclone traversing the said region. Although the cyclone trough interaction is acknowledged.
Suffice to say I have friends personally impacted by 1974 and 2011. In $250,000 homes on workers not silvertail salaries. Moved much furniture in 1974 and put people up who were dislocated. They believe the engineers did their very best and that floods are dangerous things – and if they had some better options they wouldn’t live where they are. I hear it mentioned that a number of the engineers have stress disorders due to the public haranguing they received. Especially when people say they were not engaged or asleep at the wheel.
“Be in no doubt !”
I’m certainly in no doubt that you don’t get what this argument is all about.
There is no doubt that the inflows were substantial over a considerable period.
There is no doubt that Wivenhoe could have coped with these inflows and outflows without causing havoc downstream.
So therefore there should be no doubt that the argument is about the management [or lack thereof] of the problem.
And from that graph there is no doubt that it wasn’t managed at all until too late, causing said havoc.
There is considerable doubt however as to the volume of the inflows compared with previous floods but that’s not what this is about.
Er, Supercell, in the case of neither 1974 nor 2011 did a cyclone hit Brisbane. Wanda and Tasha were way up to the north, and joined with monsoonal troughs. Cyclonic weather (Yeppoon landfall) in the north was also behind the 1893 (Feb) events. A cyclone, by the way, did track over Brisbane in 1898 and another over Collangatta in 1954. Your statement that 1974 and 1893 “were cyclones” not “supercells” is just bewildering. You linked to the definition of “supercell” yourself, so you must have read it by now. I remember old Gav used to use the term “supercell” to dramatise recent weather conditions. Judging by what you’ve just written above, which is a bit garbled, maybe you are in the habit of using the term in a similar way. It’s very odd. You seem determined to make recent disasters proof of modern climate exceptionalism. It’s like listening to a mullah or a salesman.
What is “jaw-dropping’ about our great coastal floods (I live near the Macleay!) is not some mythical “supercell” playing a role only in recent times but the sheer force and scale of the bloody things. It takes a lot to flood a real river like the Macleay (unlike the stupid Bellinger, which floods if you spit twice), but when it happens big, as in 1949 and 1950, look out.
Anyway, you’ve exposed yourself to a little historical fact by linking to the BOM flood history. I hope you’ll come to see that talking of climate change without reference to past events is to talk about nothing at all. The skeptics who love “the Pause” are being as silly as the alarmists who wet the bed over post-1980 events and conditions. Cronk does not kick a field goal at the start of SOO and then send everybody home. Without a time-frame, you are talking about nothing. If you feel not enough is known about the past…then you’ll just have to give up talking about climate, won’t you?
We do have a friend in all this, who has never been wrong. Make Dorothea Mackellar your friend, Luke.
“Especially when people say they were not engaged or asleep at the wheel.”
What does this 260% within centimetres of the fuses blowing look like to you:
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.jellway.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/post_rrr_floods2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.jellway.com/page/2/&h=340&w=604&sz=31&tbnid=wy-FH4FDoINm8M:&tbnh=89&tbnw=158&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dphotos%2Bof%2Bwivenhoe%2Bdam%2Bat%2Bpeak%2Bof%2B2011%2Bflood%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=photos+of+wivenhoe+dam+at+peak+of+2011+flood&usg=__6Rh3LG0oBWCqkAYstE636dPbetI=&docid=NqjJaObdYWx5cM&sa=X&ei=bnzvUfDBG9HrkwWRooHgBQ&ved=0CFIQ9QEwDA&dur=18831
Something else to be in no doubt about:
“The hydrology report, commissioned by the Insurance Council of Australia and published yesterday, ruled the Brisbane flood to be a “dam release flood”.
Flood events in lower Lockyer Creek, in the lower Bremer River and in the lower Brisbane River were dwarfed by the subsequent water level rise associated with releases from Wivenhoe Dam”
Sigh Robert –
http://australiasevereweather.com/tropical_cyclones/1973_1974/bom/tropical_cyclone_wanda.htm The cyclone eye doesn’t have to pass over Brisbane Post Office. In fact more rain bands in the arms and upper Stanley is critical. The rain depression after it came ashore was incredible. I was there in 1974 – it rained and rained and rained at such intensity for a day.
1893 – 3 cyclone traverses in the region. Remember the Stanley headwaters are not at Brisbane but up near Maleny. http://www.tesag.jcu.edu.au/staff/jnott/pracs/cairnscyclones.do
Cyclone tasha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tasha_2010_track.png
Spangled and that’s what 2 x 1974s looks like. They did a brilliant job of balancing it out under the circumstances and could have made it much worse- and all the serious reviews suggest they could have made it worse. I guess you’d have liked that. More to whinge about. And the fuse plugs did not blow and the dam did not overtop.
In fact next time let it rip and erode your property to smithereens.
The only solution is to completely reevaluate the water supply and risk profile calculation for the dam. Drop FSL considerably, crank up the desal, and the recycle, revisit the overhyped Joh era hydrology reports on Wolfdene which probably had much lower yield and higher evap than in reality. Or stop migration at Tweed Heads with a big wall.
SO predicting wet seasons that will flood is now a billion dollar decision – coz the dice will eventually throw up a drain below FSL decision – and it won’t have flooded, the water will be gone and a 10 year drought sequence will commence. I guess you’ll be the drought class action too won’t ya ! Gettem’ on both the down and the up sequence !
“were dwarfed by the subsequent water level rise associated with releases from Wivenhoe Dam”
talk about having your cake and eating it too. Let the water go – no hold the water – no let it go.
You don’t know what you’re even saying Spangled.
RISK PROFILE?????????
(I want to type a row of expletives!)
Luke!
Here we go again! 🙂
How about you throw in ‘risk appetite’ as well?
Who do you think wants to shirk all the risk here and has noooooooo idea what a risk profile/appetite truly is. Seriously?
Good grief!
Well Luke, there is nothing in your last post that I can disagree with. It shows understanding and commonsense. I’m not sure what the sighing is for, or who is the Robert who was under the impression that cyclone eyes have to pass over the Brisbane PO to make a bunch of rain there. What a silly fellow he must be. Why, I’m on the midcoast of NSW and can cop a huge flood when a tropical cyclone joins with a monsoonal trough way, way up north (Oswald 2013). And a cyclone with a low wind-shear, like Tasha, can suck in more rain than a brute like Yasi. A close cyclone might give you less of an overall drenching than a remote one. Depends on what oceans and westerlies etc are doing, I suppose. You never can tell. And speaking of oceans and winds…
All that rain in NSW and Qld in 1950 – the most on record by far – created weather freaks all over the shop. Easterlies were keeping the winter temps freakishly high in normally cold holes like Inverell, and Tully…where did it put 25 feet of rain? And what was that monsoon trough doing over in Boulia? Boulia? Even though the complete failure of westerlies kept the rain in the east, the locals at Lake Eyre watched in disbelief as it filled up, something thought impossible after the mid-century drought. While we are talking about floods, I think it would be wise to prepare for a re-run of all that…and also for drought. But not by sending a bunch of money offshore to a bunch of thin-air traders. Sorry, I meant tiny-fraction-of-thin-air traders.
Helps to know about climate change, doesn’t it? For the next lot you are certainly going to get.
Like I said up thread Luke, you just don’t get it!
Check that graph on the water release on your link and my link.
They show as plain as day that they went to sleep and got caught with a dam-full of water and no option but to dump it FAST or the fuses would have blown.
Which would have given them a busted dam as well as a flood.
No-one in their right mind would let Wivenhoe get to those levels if they had been on the job and paying attention.
It requires the intelligence of a 10 year old to accomplish but there was simply no-one home.
That’s the whole drama in a nutshell yet after all this argy-bargy you still can’t get it through your numb skull.
CSIRO strikes again:
They found the missing heat.
Not one measurement. It’s all in the computers:
“To test this, the researchers examined more than 40 state-of-the-art climate simulations that included historical changes to greenhouse gases and aerosols over the twentieth century. “What we found was that the models do a good job at simulating the late twentieth century cooling and rapid warming in the subtropical southern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, however they show an around 30-year delay in the warming in the Indian Ocean” said Mr Cowan.”
http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Media/Rapid-upper-ocean-warming-linked-to-declining-aerosols.aspx
“They did a brilliant job of balancing it out under the circumstances”
Yes Luke, they played a blinder. Who does that remind you of?
A fitting reputation for the UEA:
UEA hosts the Climate Research Unit, where Phil Jones & Co hang out. The CRU is notorious for producing much fiction about the climate. A comparison of leading British universities mentions the UEA and says where its strengths lie:
For example, the University of East Anglia tends to drop in and out of the top 20 in terms of overall reputation, yet is considered the best university in the UK for Creative Writing.
OK you all win – I give up. Hunt the engineers down like dogs, their families, friends and pets too..
Yes Tim Flannery was in the control room with Anna and saying “hold your nerve – hold – hold – hold onto your water Anna”.
The Labor Party were totally evil and actually got off wasting vast amounts of money on the water grid and wanted to flood the silvertail LNP suburbs. True believers in Ipswich even laid down their own properties to take them out. Now that’s commitment !
I was gonna argue till we got to 200 comments but I don’t have the energy to keep up the rudeness.
Besides I want to check out Spangled’s Lyre Birds, have a cuppa with Robert and check out Debbie’s frogs.
“Besides I want to check out Spangled’s Lyre Birds”
That’s a good idea Luke but they have now stopped mating and calling so we’ll have to wait till next June to locate them.
And we can both check that release graph while you’re here.
I’d like to tell you all that a young kid who used to sail with me has just won his division in the Transpac. That’s a yacht race from California to Hawwaii.
His name is Mark Callahan and he captained the 70 foot, Disney-owned Pyewacket
He also came second overall. Syd Fisher in Ragamuffin 100 got line honours.
A couple of great Aussies.
Here’s a good summary of the warmist scientists slowly trying to make sense of the lack of warming over the last 15 years.
Or now about 17 and a half years according to IPCC head Pachy. Or 19 and 23 years of no SS warming according to UAH and RSS.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/scientists_talking_about_no_warming/
BTW looks like the the IOD has now turned negative and will probably last for another 3 months. Usually means more rainfall over SE OZ during this phase.
No Luke,
Not the engineers but the boffins (like the legal and accounting depts) who tangled up the rules/regs/processes including how many people should be on watch out of hours when inflows are increasing/high. . .
In the interests of your bureaucratic idea of ‘accountable’ & ‘risk profile’ & probably ‘cost recovery’ & the insane idea that you can have ‘one size fits all’ decisions re water management & catchment management. . . the rules/regs/processes froze the engineers & operations staff.
They were likely subject to legal action IF (REPEAT IF!) they did want they likely knew needed to be done.
That is not unique to QLD and Wivenhoe BTW.
I find it amusing that you try to ‘personalise’ this by mentioning the engineers and their families.
You’re more than happy to forget that ‘people’ are involved when we talk about the GBR, MDBP, Agriculture, new dams etc.
What but you didn’t find it interesting that Spangled tried to personalise? What hypocrisy. The way the engineers have been treated is disgraceful. They have been cleared by independent hydrologists, the US Army Corps and the CMC. So this is germane to the argument – I hear it’s now difficult to recruit for these positions. Who would want to do the job! So good luck with that.
As usual you have ignored everything that has been said about the event and engaged in more “Debbie-waffle”. Everything you have written above is pig ignorant tripe. And you have not provided one fact here. Just more Debbie speak. You have an exceptional event, flooding the Lockyer, engineers trying to balance flooding, backup into Ipswich on another tributary, avoid immediate downstream property damage …. you wouldn’t have a clue Debs. No a single clue.
Your take on accountable is one of most weird stupid slants I have ever seen? Managing a large organisation (public or private) may take a bit more nous than you and hubby managing your prickle farm.
And of course one size does not fit all. The point ! And if you drop the dam significantly below FSL before a “forecasted big wet” and it doesn’t flood and goes into a drought sequence – well then you’ve just let billions in water go ! Good luck with that too.
Debbie, Luke is too hide-bound to acknowledge that this dam which is brimming at 263%, has 163% of capacity as a flood buffer.
That’s a fantastic safety margin.
This gives bureaucrats an enormous amount of elbow room in dealing with flood control without endangering its 100% carrying capacity and/or potential flood victims.
And this was how it was designed to be.
Foolproof!!!
Or so the designers thought, until some fools took over and went to sleep in the middle of a crisis.
Luke, unless you were MIA, totally absent when the shite was hitting the fan, you simply could not be inept enough to do what they did.
They should have been increasing the release of that increasing flood well before they did.
Even you must be able to see that from that graph.
Luke,
The proof is in those rules/regs/processes.
And the inquiries found that everyone followed the rules/regs/processes.
So the Inquiries found the right result within their own terms of references.
MAYBE LUKE???? JUST MAYBE????…as was the case in my patch….IT WAS ACTUALLY THOSE RULES/REGS/POLICIES that were the problem?????
While I absolutely accept that most intentions were good…we can only judge by results (or in bureaucratic speak…outcomes)
The result re water management right across the Eastern Seaboard when the drought had broken?…PERVERSE OUTCOMES.
SD is on the money where he explains that the dam and the regulatory systems in the catchment were being used in a contrary manner that was not keeping pace with the radically changed conditions.
Wivenhoe was specifically built for mutually beneficial reasons (store water and then have extra air space to manage flood situations). It is an excellent design…and we could use some extra dams like that down here.
I do not and have not blamed the people who did everything they could within the bounds of the rules (although some of them could have grown a bit of mettle and spoken up a bit louder earlier)…but I do blame the entrenched ‘risk averse’ culture that has grown like wildfire in the PS.
So your ‘proof’ is staring you straight in the face.
BTW Luke….whether it is a multi national corporation or a major public company or a little pickle farm…the basic principles are the same….if you try to work against those basic principles or shift the risks to places/people where they don’t belong….you get PERVERSE OUTCOMES!!!!!
Like DUH!
Factual information = zero. Opinion rampant. Knowledge = none. Ability to listen = zero.
Price of coffee to go up because of that CAO in Brazil.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-23/arabica-coffee-gains-before-brazil-cold-weather-cocoa-advances.html
Sorry Luke,
you’re the bunny not getting it.
Claims like 100% certainty & risk profile re losing $billions of water re uncertain forecasts is not the issue.
That dam was not meant or designed to hoard water above a designated percentage for any length of time in a wet catchment experiencing good inflows.
I see another long winded para from Debs that I may read next week.
I take the credit for the interesting and violent exchange on this thread. Can we get to 200 comments for Jen. At least we’ve been able to stop Neville’s mindless news-boy wall-papering with graffiti and enjoyed a decent barney (albeit with the only serious factual material produce by myself coz am I very good. I hope you lot have learned something from my valuable input here. But poor Neville – I think he needs a good outburst of posting. Surely there is more fraud to expose and be angry about.
And why you’re all drips and Debs is clueless
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/01/wivenhoe-dam-and-brisbane-flood-mitigation-a-note-from-tony/?cp=2#comment-482534
You’re a funny guy luke; what a pity you’re a dickhead.
Debbie, Luke just wants to demonstrate how a really determined bureaucrat can stuff up even the most perfectly designed, fool proof system while remaining completely unaware that that’s what he has done.
Lets give him a round of applause!
Cohers, I’m afraid you’re right. I was prepared to give Luke the benefit of the doubt. I thought maybe he was bunging it on.
But the poor lad is really convinced that releasing all this water too late was the best that could be done and quite excusable.
It just proves how far the bureaucratic mind is removed from reality.
“I take the credit for the interesting and violent exchange on this thread.”
nothing violent Luke and nothing really interesting – all you contributed was the link to the SEQwater preliminary report which was full of BS – I provided the rainfall data and the civil case by MB confirmation which you had said wasn’t happening.
Take your hand off it mate – you’ll go even more blind.
Not very nice Cohers.
JS learn not to swing at my wides.
But it is true – if I wasn’t here it would be hopeless – you’d all just backslap each other – no serious facts would get an airing and you’d all just wallow in your redneck cuteness. You owe me – even Cohenite wouldn’t be where he is today if I had not trained him. And now he calls me a dickhead.
And who got comment 200? And what does Cohenite mean anyway? Is it Swahili for little ponce.
Channeling Bishop Hill
‘The prominent climatologist Mike Hulme has slammed the Cook et al 97% “nonsensus” paper in a comment at the Nottingham University Making Science Public blog.
The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?
‘This is an interesting development since nobody is going to finger Hulme as any kind of a sceptic.’
Ah the flea covered climatologists have just realised they’ve lain down with dogs.
No doubt you’ve all been sweating over future warmth from the Carbon Calculator:
http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-we-calculate-you-decide-handy-dandy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator
It really brings home the ideology of the concerned climatologists.
CATO crud. What lack of scepticism. Lead around the ring by the nose by professional activists.
Wivenhoe was built as a flood mitigation dam after 1974. In 2010 it was being used as a drought mitigation dam and was full. It was being used as a drought mitigation dam because the government had bought the science of AGW which had predicted endless droughts.
As simple as that.
The same with the 2009 bushfires. Bushfire mitigation through burn offs had been prevented by green policies.
As simple as that.
Anyone who argues against that is a dickhead.
“Lead around the ring by the nose by professional activists.”
Gotta larf at that.
Hey dickhead, did you try it?
Do you have any problem with how it is set up?
Those IPCC projections and feedbacks not enough for you?
You can use whinnying Jimmy’s if you prefer.
Professional Activists??????
🙂 🙂 🙂
ROFL!, LMAO!, LOL! etc etc ….
That is completely hilariously and totally ironic.
Good one Luke!
I will be laughing over that one for days.
“Wivenhoe was built as a flood mitigation dam after 1974. In 2010 it was being used as a drought mitigation dam and was full. ‘
NOPE ! what a fool you must be – WIvenhoe was designed to mitigate floods not prevent them. For decades any Brisso-ite would have known it would take 2m off a 1974, not prevent all flooding. That’s what the massive flood reserve on top of FSL is for – actually for some comic relief – why don’t you give this as expert testimony to any litigation and be laughed out of the dock as 6 feet of 1980s hydrology design plans are dumped on your stupid flat denialist head.
More climate sceptic dross (but really see tea party rednecks).
Cohenite says:
‘Wivenhoe was built as a flood mitigation dam after 1974…..’
Then Luke says:
‘…NOPE ! what a fool you must be – WIvenhoe was designed to mitigate floods not prevent them. ‘
I’m curious to know how Cohenite’s use of THE SAME WORD!!!! MITIGATE!!!!! was suddenly morphed by Luke into PREVENT?????????
This from the Courier Mail 6 months before the floods”
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/new-fears-wivenhoe-dam-is-at-breaking-point-as-it-reaches-994-per-cent-capacity/story-e6freon6-1226431075806
John Sayers – err nope ! wrong and thanks for playing
And silly billy Debbie, he then added…..
“In 2010 it was being used as a drought mitigation dam and was full. ”
Because he’s an utter half-wit wacker he doesn’t understand that it was not full at all – it was at FSL….. He’s only 126% out !
It’s amateur folks – step right up and make a fool of yourself.
Luke – @ 100% it is a drought mitigation storage for Brisbane drinking water – the addition 126% is for flood mitigation.
“err nope ! wrong and thanks for playing”
what the hell does that mean – I wasn’t trying to be right or wrong – I just pointed out that 6 months before the flood they were concerned that SEQwater were holding 100% – now we don’t know what they meant by 100% because it’s very confusing having a 226% full capacity.
So what Luke?
Cohenite did not say PREVENT. . . he most definitely said MITIGATE!
And Luke. . . a saturated soil profile and good inflows at that time of the season meant that there was no danger to Brisbane’s water supplies. . . as that news article 6 MONTHS earlier clearly indicated. . . the practical concerns were about something else entirely.
Geddit?
Growup Debs – the 2nd sentence is derivative. Interestingly I think all dams are used for “drought mitigation” – it’s called A “water supply”. mmmmm
And even more stupid Debs – check the date on the Courier article – whoops ! Put on dunce cap. Sit in back of class. Write on board “I will not be stupid”.
Correct Luke – My bad, not Deb’s.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/engineer-warned-of-danger-from-wivenhoe-dam/story-fn7iwx3v-1225991369355
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/what-the-floods-inquiry-didnt-hear-wivenhoe-breached-the-manual/story-fn59niix-1226250814487
etc.
Yes Luke,
EXCEPT for Wivenhoe.
Look it up Luke. . . I love the concept. . . as well as storing water (drought mitigation) it also is designed to mitigate the extremes of floods.. . . in fact I’m quite sure you’re aware it was the 1974 FLOODS (not drought) that was the justification for its construction.
You’re right . . . I didn’t double check the date of that particular report. . . but that does NOT change the basic argument.
So apology for that mistake. . . NOT the basic point about sensible/flexible NRM.
I also note Cohenite’s subsequent references.
So boring Cohenite – and lawyers trick – try to be a better job – the inquiry was recalled from that http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/dam-bursts-on-new-evidence-as-queensland-flood-inquiry-is-recalled/story-fn59niix-1226252884772
zzzzzzzz
and the engineers finally found no case to answer (by a number experts including US Army – except those with preconsidered opinions or an axe to grind).
But yep on 75% and now the storage can be dropped below 100% to 75% with lots of “decision-making” and the decision is not well regarded by many and considered controversial. One may have dumped billions of dollars of domestic and industrial water. Depends on future rainfall.
Which brings us right to go with you clowns doesn’t it.
Dropping dam levels on a forecast eh? Progress with synoptic and seasonal rainfall forecasting requires meteorological and climate science. Requires supercomputer power, observing systems, talented and committed career staff.
Requires knowledge of the climate system and in the case of seasonal forecasting knowledge if you have any AGWish drift in your indicators (above the head of twits like yourself and see Indian Ocean) some insight into climate change.
So when I asked yo’all about an investment in such new climate science above in the threads and as to what an accountable new organisation that delivered such outcomes would be – sound of crickets, stupid comments, and Auntie Debs having a nana-fit as to what accountable might meann (zzzz).
No idea on science, technology, management – zippo nyet nadda – but you’re all so full of yourselves thinking that you know better. When asked to step up and produce an alternative /future vision/ list of great topics – done a runner and laid smoke.
The nihilistic cess-pit of faux sceptic anti-science far right knuckle grinding.
Keep up to date luke:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/the-great-wivenhoe-debacle/story-e6frg6z6-1226480592519
“Dropping dam levels on a forecast eh?”
Stop ranting Luke, you have already been hung by your own petard.
The simple fact is that according to their own submission they didn’t begin to release increased volumes of water until the fuses were in danger of blowing.
Another short period of time and the fuses would have blown and it would have been apparent to all that they had stuffed-up in a big way.
But luckily for them they turned up in the nick of time and dumped their misdeeds all over Brisbane thereby covering their arses.
Their graph though, shows when that happened and it was exactly at the time when dam levels were at bursting point.
They could have started the increase at least 2 days earlier when they had information of increasing inflows and the higher flood levels in Brisbane could easily have been avoided.
The problem was they just weren’t there to do it.
http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0005/3965/Seqwater-opening-submission-11-March-2011.pdf
The graph is on page 11
Keep up to date yourself Cohenite – we all know that the Australian is just an anti-science deniers rag.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cmc-clears-wivenhoe-dam-engineers-20120821-24jdy.html
Listen to Spangles froth
“The problem was they just weren’t there to do it.” this phrase alone shows that you don’t even know how gate operations work. “But luckily for them they turned up in the nick of time” hahahahahahahaha …. they weren’t even there you utter imbecile and for good reason. Do you know where the flood operations centre is?
Isn’t it typical denier’s stuff – just keep parroting … recite the same old same old. No information. Just froth. SO above we have Spangled caught in the open fabricating his arse off. “oooo they weren’t even there” good grief. More amateur hour.
” we all know that the Australian is just an anti-science deniers rag.”
Pardon? – the class action will sort this out, maybe we should all retreat and see what happens.
It’s hard to credit Luke with genuinely supporting the coalition govt and the taxpayer purse.
Could it simply be bums he is trying to cover?
I hope MB lawyers don’t win their case but the truth is SEQwater stuffed up here and a lot of people suffered.
White washing is not what we need to fix this problem for the future.
So that’s it Spangled – you won’t even fess up to your gross error of making up a yarn as to where engineers were – how grubby – “they went out to the dam and paniced”- pffft ! Stop fabricating eh?
Fix the problem for the future? Well it involves controversially dropping the full water supply level to 75% on a “forecast”. I see you are missing in action on any discussion on that one !
JS – ” we all know that the Australian is just an anti-science deniers rag.” – Deltoid’s series “The Australian’s War on Science” is up to number 81 I think !!
It involves way, way, waaaaaaaaaay more than that Luke,
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy more.
That 75% is just a blip in big picture. Try to widen your focus.
““they went out to the dam and paniced”- pffft ! Stop fabricating eh?”
The graph shows they opened the spillway gates widest at the precise moment the dam was at its brimful highest.
I’ll admit I didn’t actually witness the faeces floating down the spillway.
But what do you suggest the graph indicates?
Luke, the brim full dam at the lowest fuse plug is 20 metres above the 100% level.
That volume is ~ 2billion cubic metres or 4 times the volume of Sydney Harbour.
Anyone who reckons they can’t start control-releasing before the full volume of 4 syd harbs arrive shouldn’t have that job.
You could even do it if I took you aside long enough to get it through your thick skull.
But I realise that would need more than 250 comments.
Deltoid’s series “The Australian’s War on Science” is up to number 81 I think !!
Yeah, but the Doltoids also think that SLR is accelerating.
They have a mindset worse than Dana and Cooky:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/26/john-and-dana-in-trouble-at-school-again-josh-232.html#comments
Luke,
just checked Deltoid.
It has turned into a sad, myopic, bitter, little backwater that only has one open thread per month and is peopled by the same insufferable snobs who enjoy trading insults and whose only fallback is an appeal to authority.
I am surprised that National Geographic still sponsors it. . . maybe they’ve decided they’re doing us all a big service by letting them have a place to rant and rave and puff up their chests? 🙂
Tim Lambert has not commented there for several months and whoever moderates that blog is doing a very ordinary job. There are comments from both sides which are personally abusive and downright ugly.
I note that EG has paid a visit and is stirring them up. . . and it looks incredibly easy to do that.
It makes for amusing reading.
I was banned from Deltoid years ago and dropped in the other day on spec. The gatekeeper was absent and so I’ve stayed around for amusement.
Its robust.
Sleazy Spangled caught fabricating tries to change the topic. The dam levels reflect 2 x 1974s in 30 hours and brilliantly managed.
“It has turned into a sad, myopic, bitter, little backwater” hmmmmm …. meaning Debs disagrees. I suppose we have our own sad, myopic, bitter, little backwater? hahahahahaha “personally abusive and downright ugly” hahahahahaha – try saying something contrary on Nova ! But must admit Jen is very tolerant; I think she digs the dialectic. Like do you want an echo chamber whereby Spangled, El Gordo, John, you and I are all very chummy. And where is Neville – I hope I haven’t prevented him doing his paperboy run – I’ll have to start doing my own research.
Hate to say it Debs but I’m probably codependent on you lot for a daily fix. Who’ll get up you if I don’t?
Actually Debs doing a black op I have even done my own drive by shooting at Deltoid.
Now Debs – don’t be unfair – Tim has done a lot for the blogosphere over the years. He’s now less interested. You may remember than Jen took leave too and we stalwarts carried on getting comments into the 1000s….
It may surprise Spangled that the Flood Operations Centre has always been in Brisbane and they have robust comms to 2 dam operators at Wivenhoe. It’s for good reason that they are not up there (no not personal safety or comfort). The situation monitoring is continuous. People don’t sleep. Multiple objectives. Multiple inputs. You are only thinking of one. Like Lockyer Ck also in flood and entering below the dam.
Luke – we waste more time on this site keeping YOU in line than you us. We carry on sharing links and ideas and you come along and constantly add unproven BS with shonky links – it may amuse you and make you feel important but it doesn’t really contribute anything of value. 🙂
Luke,
Nova’s site does not tolerate the type of outright personal abuse that is rampant at Deltoid.
I took a look because your post led me to believe there was something there re the Australian.
I merely described what I found.
What is it that you claim I disagree with at Deltoid?
Also Luke. . . I note you appear to have backed away from that 75% counter argument?
“The situation monitoring is continuous. People don’t sleep.”
Oh, is that right?
I wonder why SEQwater were uncontactable during that weekend?
Too busy monitoring, I suppose.
Or maybe their finger was stuck in the spillway.
Spangled I’m sorry they were busy and not able to take your personal phone call. Or alternatively they were all down the pub. You could find out who was on duty at flood ops but that would spoil your smear wouldn’t it.
“Nova’s site does not tolerate the type of outright personal abuse” pigs bum Debs – unless directed by the border patrol against anyone they don’t like. Patently untrue and one eyed.
Deltoid is pretty rough – but slip into them.
Debs – 75% – no you can do that – you can also empty it have 100% security. There’s a big trade off in water security though, that is valued at billions. And it involves forecasts which are not 100% by any means. I have tried to get a sensible discussion on that but nothing from you lot. Debs you’ve spent half the thread asking what accountability might mean.
JS “We carry on sharing links and ideas ” well you mean using a discussion forum as a billboard – no discussion, no exploration of values (rednecks probably don’t know they don’t have any) and nothing factually relevant here on Wivenhoe except from myself. You’re looking around Esk Post Office ignoring a massive literature of reports – what a goose.
Actually Debs – I just sussed out last two sections of Deltoid open thread – seems pretty much one on one and even to me. Some funny sledges but at least a science discussion with back and forth.
“and nothing factually relevant here on Wivenhoe except from myself.”
Oh really – you denied there was a class action, the only rainfall evidence you provided was that shonky claim in the SEQwater submission about this huge rainfall storm that happened to be in a an area where there was no rain gauges yet both Dams have gauges and there are heaps of them in the vicinity north, west and east of the dams.
“Oh there’s a huge mountain range between Esk and the dam” yeah – 200m high.
But Luke?
Wouldn’t that 75% be under specific circumstances?
Like. . . saturated soil profile and running creeks and tributaries? In the circumstances and the timeframe we are discussing here, if that big wet did/does not eventuate. . . the inflows make up for that.
Isn’t that the basics?
I actually agree with you that we shouldn’t be targeting the engineers and the operations staff . . . They had to follow the rules and they also had to wait until they were given the go ahead by the legal eagles.
They would have been liable for doing what obviously needed to be done if they did not get legal/risk averse approval.. . which takes us back to that disconnect we obviously have over ‘accountability’.
I’m not particularly interested in arguing with you about Deltoid. . . I merely described what I saw.
If you like it there and think it’s appropriate behaviour. . . good luck to you. . . knock yourself out. . . but you won’t be engaging with me there.
Deltoid; how dreary; one of the inmates is still persisting with this claptrap:
“A) An increase in (atmospheric) CO2 causes warming, all other things being equal and on a global average, but not the same amount of warming everywhere at once.
B) A decrease in (atmospheric) CO2 causes cooling, all other things being equal and on a global average, but not the same amount of cooling everywhere at once. (This is necessary to explain the paleoclimatic observations. Over very very long time periods after CO2 spikes, natural processes remove CO2 from the atmosphere which slowly slowly cools the planet down, all other things being equal.)
The “all other things being equal” part is very important. All forms of natural variability violate this condition, as do all sorts of other things humans are doing (many of them pointed out above).
And that means the changes due to CO2 can be temporarily overwhelmed by other forces. And that has important consequences”
Lotharsson.
Luke’s idea of factual relevance is sticking his fingers in his ears and blowing raspberries.
He is in denial that extra flood capacity of over 100 sq klm by 20 metres deep can’t be used to successfully regulate flooding because
He is in denial that his fellow bureaucrats dumped all that water at the precise time that it was about to overwhelm Wivenhoe as a result of their negligence [as shown by their own graph] in order to protect collective bureaucratic arse.
BTW Luke, I could get flood ops for the Hinze Dam but not Wivenhoe. I even had politicians who had electorates in the flood plain trying to contact them but no success. No-one home.
Sayers you can’t help yourself – I’m not denying there’s a class action? But they’ve had plenty of time – where is the court submission if it’s so obvious? Struggling to get traction is the answer.
As for the rainfall event – it’s from BoM matey – a thing called radar rain fields. Call up the Brisbane office and ask for the record? Go on – don’t bluster – get yourself informed. You don’t even have access to all the hydrology gauges JS? You can reconcile the rainfall with inflows too.
Debbie yes you can have a wet catchment and a forecast for more rain. Then it doesn’t rain and you have dumped 25% of Brisbane’s drinking water. As I said it’s controversial.
The water “wasn’t dumped” – it was released. of course they could have released it more quickly and made flooding in Ipswich worse but that’s the home of $200,000 homes not your silvertail mates $1M (hard working – barf – more like tax dodging) McMansions. You’re some sort of clown on this – the engineers have got multiple objectives, they have to consider downstream erosion, damage to bridges, road access, tides, and OTHER INTERSECTING RIVER SYSTEMS flowing in below the dam. They will and should try for a soft landing if they can.
The 1 in 2000 event that JS has decided didn’t exist coz he knows better and had made up his mind – was the wildcard in this event. I assume your pretend sceptics have a technology for a 1 in 2000? Shit you’re good.
Yes Spangled – the flood ops centre was vacant. Everyone was at the pub – dream on or ask for the records of operation. You’re such a little creep for suggesting nobody was at flood ops? Just because nobody took your special phone call well boo hoo.
Perhaps Debbie might actually read a very anecdote from this blog ….
Comment from: Lachy May 23rd, 2011 at 10:41 pm
I am a resident close to the Mt Crosby Weir / Colleges Crossing area and regularly cross the river here when doing shopping or heading to work. To be honest I cannot see where the dam operators went wrong – there is missing information for the 9th-11th weekend period but I can confirm that the river was pretty much at breaking point then, at least around this area. Colleges Crossing had been flooded for days and the waters were consistently 70cm below the Mt Crosby Weir, which for those who haven’t seen it has one hell of a clearance. During the previous week there was only one 48 hour period where waters dropped, but for at least 4 days beforehand water was lapping at the base of the Weir. Interestingly it had been at this height for probably 2 days out of 3 over the last few months with the La Nina weather system since August 2010 and the water height recorded on the BoM river height data for the Mt Crosby Station seems to indicate that they closely managed the river height right on the Mt Crosby Weir’s maximum height – this seems to make sense as the next non-flooded river crossing is the Centenary Motorway bridge at Jindalee which would have been a logistical nightmare (the road is already a friggin parking lot in peak hour without the extra volume of the entire western suburbs and a lot of Brisbane-bound traffic from northern Ipswich joining in).
It then gets interesting – it was pissing down with rain on the weekend and I got home on Saturday evening and saw the Weir only had 50cm clearance. Seems it might have just been the heavy rain the stalled frontal system was dropping. When I headed to work at 4:30AM Monday morning however the Weir was in full flood and during Monday the water level increases significantly (I visited a few times since I had nothing better to do that day; told work I wasn’t driving the Jindalee route just for a 4 hour shift). For this to happen they would have been ramping up releases on Sunday, so that indicates they started to really release water ABOVE the rate they usually do on the weekend.
Friday:
Somerset – 107.2% (rising)
Wivenhoe – 106.3% (rising)
Monday:
Somerset – 154.7% (rising)
Wivenhoe – 148.4% (rising)
They were operating according to the manual, which requires releases to bring the dams down to 100% occurring no later than 7 days after the 100% level is surpassed. So on Friday things looked pretty peachy despite dam levels rising; if you look it was at 120-130% levels about 3 times in the previous 4 months and they were able to hold releases at the rate that kept the Mt Crosby Weir from flooding. They were a mere 6-7% above the threshold on Friday and despite it rising they were well within the management level (you have to remember they didn’t have that steep curve to look at yet cos it hadn’t happened! They were at the bottom of it!).
Now, given that inflows would have become quite high they did have a 120% flood compartment so it wasn’t necessary for them to flood downstream properties initially; however in just a 36 hour window they did ramp up releases dramatically so that the Weir was hardcore flooded by very early Monday morning. In that time they would have realised this was necessary. The whole point of having a flood mitigation compartment is so you can trade-off flood height with flood duration, so filling the flood compartment with the immediate inflow so it can be released over a longer period of time at lower volume is what the entire mitigation strategy is all about. THEY HAD BEEN DOING THIS FOR OVER A WEEK! Sometime in that 36 hour window when the rain really started falling with the stalled front system, it became apparent the flood compartment was not going to be large enough to accommodate the inflows, so they ramped up releases and inundated downstream properties.
Really, the fact is only 6-7% of the flood compartment was filled when catastrophic inflows began and in less than 36 hours they were upping releases on the path to armageddon. Sounds to me like they managed it in a proper way. They could have dropped the dam levels below the 100% threshold, but they were already discharging enough water to almost put the Weir under and the dam had started rising rapidly. Therefore they would have had to do some pretty serious releases that would have caused major flooding downstream over a long period of time, perhaps over a week beforehand, and in the end when balancing out the inflow and outflow rates probably would only have shaved off 10%. Considering the dam at the height of the rainfall + Lockyer Valley flooding was filling at 10% per hour, you would have bought just ONE HOUR of relief (in fact, since the purpose of mitigation is to decrease outflow volume and increase outflow duration, you would have had even less than 1 hour of relief if the inflow rate was 10% of capacity per hour). Even then, we would not have been able to predict a stalled front weather system 7 days in advance anyway so SEQWater had no reason to ramp up releases.
Not to mention it is important to remember that the Wivenhoe-Somerset system only mitigates the Stanley and Brisbane River systems; the enormous inflows from the Bremer were unchecked.
Overall, they did the best they could with the information they had at hand. Even if they were funnelling in meteorological data and acting beyond the scope of the operating manual they didn’t have any reason to drop the dam below the 100% threshold until it was too late really.
Aren’t facts so inconvenient for out and out shonks like Spangled. Nobody is at home yet yet the engineers are mitigating for over a week … I wonder how they did this from the pub?
“Mitigating for over a week” were they Luke?
Of course they were you chump. No one is saying the spillway was closed but when you have the info and the flood absorption capacity they had, they should never have let the situation get to where it got.
If they were able to save the dam so late in the day when they had absolutely no other option but to dump big time, they could have released more water a lot sooner and a lot more gently, with much less catastrophic results, if they had been paying attention.
It’s quite a simple time/volume operation.
Stop screaming and hand waving. They plainly stuffed-up.
I did read it Luke! 🙂
It doesn’t change the basic point. I’m finding it amazing that you fail to geddit! It’s not that difficult.
Your 75% is an attempt at totally irrelevant excusitis or even scare mongering.
Oh Luke – you really have lost it – you are telling me to get hydrology information as if you have and I don’t. You don’t have it else you’d post it so you are bluffing. Your only rainfall/intake story is from the accused!
“But they’ve had plenty of time ” have you any idea of how long it takes to organise 4,200 individual claims in a class action??, oh a couple of weeks I hear you say!
The damn dam was designed to stop this kind of disaster from happening! some one f**ked up.
When I contacted the emergency bloke at the Hinze and Little Nerang dams, because of the huge dump at Springbrook, he was very helpful and described the current spillway situation and the amount of release. You could tell he was switched on to the unfolding conditions.
At Wivenhoe OTOH, with literally hundreds of ks of shoreline where emergencies could arise there was no contactable person to report problems to or to get info.
If that’s what you call “remote monitoring”, SEQwater here, were so remote as to completely out of it.
And yet they have a big office at the dam wall.
Spangled – stop your screaming and hand waving. They clearly did not stuff up and various independent assessments say so? And who are you – some chook farmer? pffft ! You expected them to predict a 1 in 2000 and flood properties downstream more than they should have earlier. Do you have shares in MB?
John – by this point you fundamentally a bad faith debater. You have denied the official BoM report and the SEQWater report. You have ignored a reasonable history of the full event. You have ignored independent hydrology experts and the US Army Corps found nothing. And now you want me to waste more of my time doing your research for you and do more work which you’ll say is corrupt. You have more than enough information. If you want more go and get it. Ask BoM for the radar animation of the event and the data, and ask SEQWater for the dam inflows. Now off you go or do you want me to get you the email addresses too. And when you’re asking for the data don’t forget to tell them you’re a grub and will be suggesting that what they provide you has been tampered with. Coz that’s what you’re implying.
Debbie what do you mean my 75%”. Huh and WTF? What are you on about now?
Debbie why don’t you stop gibbering and tell me if you read the account above? Of course not coz Auntie keeps asking more and more questions like a gatling no pratling gun. Why is the sky blue? How do you know that? Why did you ask that? And why did you ask again? What does “why” mean? What does “mean” mean”? How do I know what what is? And what is the difference between a duck?
“They clearly did not stuff up and various independent assessments say so?”
They clearly did stuff up on first principles luke; the first principle is the dam was being used for a purpose which was contrary to its designed purpose.
The second principle is that AGW predictions were wrong about less rain in the future.
The ultimate liability lies with the government but as senior bureaucrats the engineers had a choice just like the climate scientists; they made the wrong choice.
The US engineers’ report contradicted the findings previously made by Catherine Holmes, as commissioner of the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry. Holmes’s report found:
“There are several things that may have motivated the three engineers to present the false flood report, including a wish to protect their professional reputations from the damage that would be caused by a disregard of the manual, or the maintenance of (dam operator) SEQWater’s immunity under the (relevant legislation).”
The US report did not even refer to the conclusions of Holmes!
At law all evidence has varying degrees of probative value; I would suggest the US engineers’ report will have less probative value then the report by Holmes.
We can now all witness Luke’s idea of good bureaucratic policy WRT emergency situations:
Do nothing difficult until the last possible moment whereupon you then can’t be blamed if your only remaining option causes the max catastrophe.
And because they followed this principle they therefore didn’t stuff up.
And Luke has the hide to criticise the sceptics Plan B.
Luke,
you are claiming that it will controversially require dropping dam levels based on forecasts.
You are claiming that is something new and controversial . . . and could result in the loss of $billions if the forecast is incorrect.
I think that claim is bogus and an example of scare mongering ( or maybe as SD says. . . . bum covering).
The inflows make up for that 25% under those specific circumstances. It isn’t something new or controversial. It’s the same basic principle that was the justification for building Wivenhoe in the first place.
There is no need to drop levels when the catchment is dry for 2 bleeding obvious reasons:
a) The dam is highly unlikely to be at 100% if the catchment is dry
b) Inflows don’t become dramatic until the catchment is soaked.
What a shonk you are Cohenite. And what happened as a result of that smear on the engineers. Went to the feared CMC and “no case to answer – cleared”. Think about about it – fancy spending all the money on an inquiry and finding it was bad luck. Someone had to pay.
http://www.engineeringcareer.net.au/archived-news/wivenhoe-dam-engineers-cleared-of-wrongdoing
“irst principle is the dam was being used for a purpose which was contrary to its designed purpose.” UTTERLY UNTRUE – utter utter crap. Where does it say this in any legislation?
“The second principle is that AGW predictions were wrong about less rain in the future.” ! What a fraudulent diversion and sophistry. Put up one single scintilla of evidence that seriously supports that was an issue. Flannery opinions don’t get you a point. I’m talking something tangible.
Of course you might ponder the off the record vapour pressure and SSTs in the lead up period – perhaps next time we’ll have the sceptics on the stand if there’s another 1 in 2000 rainfall event.
TEST QUESTION FOR DEBS – are there more La Ninas than there are big floods
But Debbie that requires basic intuition.
Bureaucratic Lukes don’t work that way.
I worry about your mental state after what you wrote at 11:39 Debs I really do.
Auntie Debs new physics. It has been raining so it will always be raining and lots. I see Debs you’ve done the hydrology integration run simulation – can you put up your 100 year time series please? Or did you come up with your idea baking some lammies.
Basic intuition is why casinos make a profit.
No SD,
It is not basic intuition.
It is basic water management principles.
But you’re right. . . the current ‘risk averse’ mindset is working against those principles.
Luke’s questions and his focus on the so called ‘controversial’ need to drop Wivenhoe dam levels is demonstrating that he has NO CLUE.
His latest questions are red herrings.
“The second principle is that AGW predictions were wrong about less rain in the future.”
cohers is spot on.
I wonder why Labor govts and the true believers spent all those billions on desal plants and why, with an already well established La Nina with flooding rain starting 3/4 months prior to Jan ’11 and the Lord Mayor telling all who would listen that Brisbane was in for a big flood, the Labor state govt sat on its hands.
D’you think maybe they were sceptical of natural variation and the historical record?
Or just supporting their “never-ending drought” punt?
What was your prognosis and advice at that time, Lukie Luv?
I’m with Robert on this one,
Luke . . . . will you tell that Auntie Debs who said it has been raining and it will always be raining and lots. . . that she is wrong?
Because that is definitely, definitely not what I wrote.
“Put up one single scintilla of evidence that seriously supports that was an issue. Flannery opinions don’t get you a point. I’m talking something tangible.”
Ok, how about the engineers and SEQwater themselves:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/forecasts-to-blame-not-wivenhoe-dam-operator/story-fn59niix-1226017387567
“Basic intuition is why casinos make a profit.”
Wrong again Luke, casinos make a profit based on statistical margins.
And imagine allowing those dud predictions to govern your actions. Just shows how badly they really stuffed-up.
All they had to do was sit in the office that looked out over the dam through the panorama view windows and regulate the spillway over the phone.
Is it true that similar laws are gunna be passed in Canberra so that bureaucrats can still get jobs?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/27/states-attorneys-now-opposing-feds-opposition-to-criminal-background-checks-for/
I’m finding it amusing at the thread re soil carbon sequestration that Luke seems to get the basic point that we need to manage for variability and that different seasonal circumstances in NRM require different management regimes.
My comment (after congratulating Luke that it is indeed about ticks and crosses) was as follows….
There are times & conditions when it works & others when another method needs to be employed.. . mainly because the circumstances are highly variable.
Nothing in this space is 100% certain or applicable.
It’s called ‘adaptive and/or flexible management’. . . and I’m starting to suspect that lungfish (and numerous other species) understand that concept far better than bureaucrats who work in NRM….”
I think it applies to this discussion too.
That’s what I loved about the TV series Yes Minister – Sir Humphrey was the classic bureaucrat with no real concern for the outcome, just the process.
Q=CIA/360
Brainwashed or disingenuous?
KEVIN RUDD: There are two sources of authority that we should listen to, because we pay them for their best and considered advice. One is the International Panel of Climate Change scientists – not just-
ANDREW BOLT: I’ve just quoted one.
KEVIN RUDD: Yeah, you’ve just quoted one of 4,000-
ANDREW BOLT: A very prominent one.
KEVIN RUDD: A very selected quote.
ANDREW BOLT: I’m asking you, do you accept-
KEVIN RUDD: And the second point is this. The second source of authority-
ANDREW BOLT: What will make you change your mind?
KEVIN RUDD: The second source of authority, as the Prime Minister of Australia, is the CSIRO….
EG if Krudd really believes his nonsense about CAGW then we’re stuffed. But if he does then how come they’re trying to export so much coal, gas and iron ore overseas?
If he really believed his stupidity surely he would want to do something about it? How anyone could vote for this nutter is beyond me, his interview with Bolt was a disgrace and he’s an embarrassment to Australia.
And yet Jennifer repects his point of view? It is totally illogical and moronic,but it some how makes sense to some people.
Cohenite, I would really appreciate a summary from you of the situation re. the flooding of Brisbane… here or if you prefer email it to me to start a new thread. This could even be expanded making the point that having a climate policy (as per all the major political parties) that is based on the flawed AGW concept can have catastrophic consequences i.e. the flooding of Brisbane. If we linked it back to/in with Bob’s book we might be able to place it in the Courier Mail or somewhere like that?
Can I suggest that it gets expanded to the southern MDB Jen?
The policies that saw the SHL licence neccesitating dumping water unneccesarily as the drought broke is an example of same s**t different day.
Even the rhetoric around the Murray Mouth is part of the same problem.
Amazing how Guy Callendar’s climate model from 1938 out performs most of todays models.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/26/guy-callendar-vs-the-gcms/#more-18244
Even 75 years ago Callendar well understood that clouds would make a difference to feedbacks and lead to lower sensitivity.
TEST QUESTION FOR DEBS – are there more La Ninas than there are big floods
It’s a very easy question to answer Luke,
Why do you think it’s relevant?
“that is based on the flawed AGW concept can have catastrophic consequences i.e. the flooding of Brisbane.”
Put up some proof here and now. Once and for all. It’s very very simple Jen
The sentence starts with “The proof is ….”
It doesn’t start with “I heard …” or “Everyone knows ….” or ” Flannery said ….”
The proof that any consideration of AGW policy materially or physically altered what the engineers did is what?
The sentence starts with “The proof is ….” go on ….
So your answer is Debs and it’s very relevant.
Luke,
WHY (????) Do you think it’s relevant to this discussion(?????)
How does it relate to your comment on the controversial 75% and potential loss of $billions of water?
Stop waffling Luke. With the 2010/2011 la Nina, the rain began in October and the drought had broken but with 4 syd harbs and 3 months to play with your mates could still not get it anywhere near right.
Answer the question Debs? Probably can’t – oh well. Put your Mum on then.
No proof Spangles ? none?
Neville if Abbott takes a similar line to the Ruddster, then you’re stuffed.
Jennifer, a history of the 2010 floods should begin with the purpose for the construction of the Wivenhoe dam up to it’s use prior to the flood and whether that use was motivated by AGW and then whether the SEQWater’s own guidelines were followed as a response to the flood.
I’m flat out right now but it is something which needs to be looked at; things should be clearer for me in a couple of days.
There was a Hugh Lunn article comparing the flood in 1974 with the 2010-2011 flood and the 1893 flood in the Australian but I am having trouble linking to it; here it is mentioned:
http://brisbanefloodphotos.blogspot.com.au/p/new-posts.html
There is a great number of newspaper articles and reporting, mainly in the Australian which I have stored. It is just a matter of having the time to collate it all.
Cohenite – newspapers aren’t source documents. Especially the war on science Australian magazine. I look forward to your authoritative sources documents – this will be a hoot. Hydrology by press clipping – as good as sceptics get?
Blog bunk artists condemned by the historical source. Sceptics caught bulldusting.
Wivenhoe Dam will be a multi-purpose water storage facility of
about 2.5 million megalitres capacity. About 1.14 million
megalitres will be used as an urban water storage and about
1.4 million megalitres will be used for a flood storage.
The provision of the next water supply source for the Brisbane
Conurbation is the primary purpose for which Wivenhoe Dam will
-be built. The water from the Dam will be needed in 1981/82
and the Dam should meet the demand for water until about 1995.
1977 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:242971/Grigg_T_J_1977.pdf
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/a-35-year-warning-on-brisbane-flood-ignored/story-e6frg6z6-1226004260668
Luke – the dam wasn’t opened until 1985.
Are you suggesting it was only viable for 10 years?
The first comment from the link I gave above is interesting
“Well, SEQWater would say that, wouldn’t they! Experts hired by insurance companies disagree. SEQWater claim they did everything right, they followed the dam operator’s manual. Unfortunately the manual took no account of the ENSO state, i.e. whether there was an El Nino or La Nina at the time. Oops! On top of this, the operators seem to have forgotten the primary purpose of Wivenhoe, for flood mitigation. There was a weekend effect, when no senior person would make a decision about water releases over the Saturday and Sunday. Much worse however was that SEQWater took no notice of the sheer size of this La Ninaand its drenching effects already felt up north as a forecasting tool. Nor did they use the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) for guidance that Eastern Australia’s weather patterns had changed in 2007 to be dominated by La Ninas instead of El Ninos. But perhaps SEQWater’s worst failing was that they swallowed the line sold by Flannery, CSIRO and Labor-Greens that Climate Change had already shifted the climate so that we would never get these big rains again.It will be hard and expensive for us taxpayers to be honest about this stuff-up, but we must learn these lessons.”
my emphasis.
I just laughed and laughed at Sayers at 1:12. What drivel.
“There was a weekend effect, when no senior person would make a decision about water releases over the Saturday and Sunday. Much worse however was that SEQWater took no notice of the sheer size of this La Nina” yea they’d just be on it solid – and they all went home for the weekend – hahahahahahahaha
and he parrots again “the operators seem to have forgotten the primary purpose of Wivenhoe, for flood mitigation.” just keep parroting a meme – just repeat it until you are blue in the face
“The dam wasn’t opened till 1985” – yes they build them overnight John….. only takes a few months
John put up some solid evidence that the decision making was influenced by Flannery, CSIRO and Labor-Greens. I’m calling you – put it up !! Come on put up – parroting it does not make it true. Jen used to insist on an evidence based blog – all gone now.
Luke – I posted some one else’s comment, I thought it was interesting because it is what everyone here has been saying, totally unconnected person has a similar view, that’s all, no need to get your knickers in a knot.
As I said many posts back – the class action court case will sort it all out when people take the stand on oath.
“John put up some solid evidence that the decision making was influenced by Flannery, CSIRO and Labor-Greens. I’m calling you”
And John, while you’re at it, a bit of the same evidence as to why decision making on Climate Change was influenced by the same suspects.
Our resident “sceptic” probably finds that hard to believe too.
What a hypocrite!
Also that “weekend effect” describes it beautifully.
“John put up some solid evidence that the decision making was influenced by Flannery, CSIRO and Labor-Greens. I’m calling you”
You callin’ me too Luke?
Is your dept buying dum-dums too?
http://www.infowars.com/national-oceanic-and-atmospheric-administration-buys-72000-round-of-ammo/
This is getting serious.
And why not a sea wall right around Oz? I bet Kevin could be talked into it. Keep the illegals out too:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/drowning-in-sea-level-nonsense.html
EG the last time I looked we have a preferential voting system in OZ. I’ve stated a number of times that I’ll be voting for an independent first and making sure Labor and the Greens receive my last choice.
I happen to understand that Abbott’s DA plan can be removed quickly when everyone comes to their senses, but Labor’s mess is and will be a disaster for our economy and this may be our only chance to get rid of it.
But as a bonus the Coalition are also much better at running the country, better on reducing waste, better at fixing our broken borders, better for industry and jobs etc so the choice isn’t very difficult.
But you’re the one who wants to hold out for a charismatic???? leader so I know it’s a waste of time trying to understand you.
I guess some people just never, ever wake up, but hey that’s your problem not mine. At least I’m trying to use my vote to get rid of future fraudulent co2 trading, but you haven’t the sense or common sense to even lift a pen to try and make a difference.
Thanks luke, you are the gift which keeps giving:
“Wivenhoe Dam will be a multi-purpose water storage facility of
about 2.5 million megalitres capacity. About 1.14 million
megalitres will be used as an urban water storage and about
1.4 million megalitres will be used for a flood storage. ”
Those ratios show that nearly 60% of Wivenhoe was meant to be a flood mitigator; that is, it should have been 60% EMPTY at the time of the 2010 flood. How empty was it really? Not at all, it was 100% FULL.
Of to work now. Jennifer, there you have it; the backbone of your article, courtesy of luke. Well done luke!
OK Luke?
Put up your evidence that we are making ‘controversial’ decisions and it could jeopardise $ billions in lost revenue for water.
Parroting it does not make it true.
BTW. . . WHY????? Do you think your la Nina question vs floods question is relevant to this discussion?
So no evidence tendered.
Debs can’t answer the La Nina question. And tries the Aunt Debbie technique which is never do anything except ask another question. What a loser.
Cohenite stands completely contradicted and can’t see it (hilarious). Doesn’t understand what 100% FSL is. Maybe he’s really stupid. Mate it only goes totally against what you and other silly parrots here have been saying for days. But it’s all here in the thread I’ll just keep quoting you.
And no idea on a Plan B. What a bunch of fools.
“Those ratios show that nearly 60% of Wivenhoe was meant to be a flood mitigator; that is, it should have been 60% EMPTY at the time of the 2010 flood. How empty was it really? Not at all, it was 100% FULL.”
I’ve actually framed this as Cohenite’s pinnacle of stupidity. He hasn’t got a clue.
Luke,
You are spraying and dodging again.
As with my non interest in irrelevant arguing about Deltoid. . . I am not interested in playing floods vs la nina discussions unless you can demonstrate why you think it is relevant to this discussion.
I note that after making such a fuss about the ‘controversial’ 75% that was potentially going to cost $Billions you have totally backed away.
Where’s your evidence or solid proof for that claim?
Don’t tell me you were just ‘parroting’ something you heard in some department somewhere?
So how are you going with that question Debs?
Debbie – your whole style of debate is fundamentally dishonest. All you do is serially ask questions. Used to amuse Bazza no end. Not playing anymore I’m afraid.
Luke,
Not projecting much?
Over the last few years you have complained that I write too much…then write like a Gattling gun…that I don’t put up links….that I put up too many links….that I ask too many questions….that I don’t inquire enough…etc etc etc.
It’s very amusing Luke…but only proves that you don’t want to actually engage with the substance of the argument…you’d rather instead try a personal attack.
So even though it may set you off again…let me try it this way….
What is wrong with DEMONSTRATING THE RELEVANCE of your question?
But just to make you happy petal….no doubt you are looking for things like these?
http://science.time.com/2011/01/18/weather-whats-responsible-for-devastating-floods-blame-la-nina/
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/lnlist/
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42858.html
BTW….I still fail to see how you think this is relevant to the current discussion about BASIC water management principles, the flood mitigation capabilities of Wivenhoe and the state of the catchments when the drought finally broke.
Water management principles, when the water comes in one end and out the other and you’ve got 4 syd harbs for a buffer plus the capacity to dump almost everything that is thrown at you without blowing the fuses, is primary school maths.
Or no maths at all, just observation and reaction.
The sorta things ya learn pre-school, making muddy puddles in the rain.
I think Luke’s having his own “weekend effect”.
I think you might be right SD,
The principles are indeed very basic and can easily be demonstrated by playing in mud puddles.
It ponds and then runs once the dirt is soaked…
OH!… and it will always go to the default position and push lotsa stuff outa the way to do it.
All you had to say Debs was that all La Ninas don’t cause floods. Sigh and therein lies the problem. Unable to have the most basic discussion with you on probability which goes back to Jen’s “forecast” paper days. Sigh sigh sigh. Interestingly enough these are problems that can be explored but we’re never going to get near having a discussion on here as it’s just as bad as Abbott negativity mantra. Never get to anything positive.
Take Spangled above – he’s just ranting now. He’s made no attempt to understand the problem or the dynamics of the event and is projecting from his personal situation into what bureaucracies may or may not be doing or how they get their advice. It’s simply rubbish and tripe. All personal projection.
“The principles are indeed very basic ” well they’re not – if you think they are – you’re silly. You are not dealing with certainty.
“Pinnacle of stupidity” I’m still looking up at your peak:
http://www.previous.seqwater.com.au/public/dam-levels
Probability?
Seriously?
They DIDN’T pay attention to probability Luke…therein lies the problem.
That catchment was soaking wet and all the creeks and tributaries were running strongly… well before the big one hit.
BTW….where oh where do you think I have claimed we are dealing with certainty?
BTW…where is your ‘certainty’ proof about that ‘controversial 75%’ and the $Billions to be lost in water?
Rubbish Debbie – utter tripe – instead of opining go and read what they’d been doing for a week. And also the consequences of that. How’s your prediction probability of a 1 in 2000 event going? Silly auntie.
Cohenite – and document the speed of events. (if you’ve able – snigger)
BTW…where is your ‘certainty’ proof about that ‘controversial 75%’ and the $Billions to be lost in water?
Well that’s the point diddums – it’s – how they say …. err “uncertain”
Which part is rubbish/tripe Luke?
That the catchment was saturated or that they ignored the probability of even minor flooding . . most likely for those controversial/uncertain consequences you are not providing proof for?
It would appear that the management team were focused more on that uncertainty than the lesser degree of uncertainty that even a small downpour was going to create significant runoff in that saturated catchment.
Brisbane’s water supplies were no longer in danger of shortages. . . The immediate danger was the saturated catchment and the la nina conditions. . . whether all of them cause major flooding or not is irrelevant. The very high probability is that it will be wetter.. . NOT . . .drier!
Even if it was just a small event. . . under those conditions . . . any drawdown from above 100% would have been replenished by the existing inflows. . . which is how/why Wivenhoe was designed that way in the first place.
“and document the speed of events”
Ha; you mean the mad scramble to cover backsides.
Was the dam at 160%+ in December 2010 knucklehead? Just answer the question, we can all snigger later.
No Luke, I’m pointing out how demonstrably basic the problem is. How it’s simply a time/volume problem and the more storage volume you have, the more time you have.
You are the one who has so far not provided a reason why this problem can’t be handled by any normal, intelligent person.
You can see from that graph when the intake began and when the sudden, wildly accelerated release began.
Now, why didn’t they start releasing earlier when they only had to maintain ~ 100% level yet they had a total of 260% of storage available for cushioning and the chances of ongoing drought, then, were zilch and didn’t have to be considered?
Is that a hard question for you to understand?
It isn’t for a kid playing mud-puddles.
“Ha; you mean the mad scramble to cover backsides.”
Tell them to their face so they can snot ya
What wrong with 160% – would you like them not to use the flood compartment? And your skills are – I forgot – some arts graduate – poncy arts graduate vs engineers. WeallY?
So there is no consequence for releasing water as soon as it arrives? No downstream consideration?
Clearly we’re in AGW territory 2 x 1974s in 30 hours and a 1 in 2000 event over the catchment. Do you deny those data. If so it behoves you to FOI the data and make a better case. So when you do and find you’re wrong a massive apology will be expected. So off you toddle and get some data and work up an alternative. Let’s see your hydrology expertise – it’s all just mud puddles after all.
“Clearly we’re in AGW territory 2 x 1974s in 30 hours and a 1 in 2000 event over the catchment. Do you deny those data”
I’ve been constantly denying it Luke as the only reference for that Data is from the SEQWater preliminary report and their phantom non measured rain event. Hell, the commissioner asked “Why would the engineers lie?” well they probably did about this as there is NO evidence from all the rain gauges in the area including the gauges on each of the dams to support their assessment! Now you can deflect the argument and cry about hydrology and radar maps and inflows but it doesn’t detract from the fact that the rain gauges in the vicinity of the dams do NOT support the SEQWater assumptions.
The dam engineers had adequate warning of increased inflows to the dams, the whole area from Cairns to NSW, including Bonalbo, had been flooded by Tasha, everything was totally saturated, any addition rain was going to go straight into the dams, there was no chance in hell of the land absorbing any more water and the engineers had plenty of time to prepare the dam for any possible onslaught that may occur – but they failed to act.
Luke,
In a dry catchment with prevailing el nino conditions. . . there is nothing wrong with 160% (if you’re lucky enough to have that much inflow under those conditions)
In a wet catchment with la nina conditions. . . you’re asking for trouble.
I think I need to let you know that SEQWater did an exemplary job of managing those supplies in the depth of the drought. . . Brisbane did not run out of water. . . although it was perilously close at times. . . they are probably not congratulated enough for that.
However. . . when the drought broke. . . the catchment was soaking. . . and we were undoubtedly observing la nina conditions. . . the management focus needed to change from the mindset that prevailed during the drought. It did eventually and once the engineers and operations staff finally got the nod to do what they already knew needed to be done. . . they did indeed do the best they could.
It is not unique to QLD. . . the same problems occured in my patch but we don’t have the same flood mitigation capacities in our systems. 🙁 🙁
Sadly. . . the few we did have had been jammed shut in the depth of the drought. . . so when our turn came in 2012 . . .
Is it bird, is it a plane? No, it’s Supercell!
“Clearly we’re in AGW territory 2 x 1974s in 30 hours and a 1 in 2000 event…”
See? They never stop trying it on. Never. Or should I say, they CLEARLY never stop trying it on.
Luke, it wouldn’t matter even if it were a 2×1974 [which it wasn’t] but if it were it has nothing to do with the fact that they first dumped in their pants and then the spillway [or maybe both at the same time but I don’t think they were even that capable].
“So there is no consequence for releasing water as soon as it arrives? No downstream consideration?”
Don’t look now but your stupid is showing.
I’m sure even you would understand that after a wet spring in a La Nina situation with the serious wet season about to arrive you have to start releasing as progressively and gently and as early as the time frame and spare volume allow.
They had already started doing this responsibly in October 2010 but then stopped because of local criticism.
And then either got so confused or went to sleep that they let the peak go at the last possible minute.
No new information. Just ranting.
“However. . . when the drought broke. . . the catchment was soaking. . . and we were undoubtedly observing la nina conditions. . . the management focus needed to change from the mindset that prevailed during the drought. It did eventually and once the engineers and operations staff finally got the nod to do what they already knew needed to be done. . . they did indeed do the best they could.”
Tell us another fairy bedtime story Aunty Debs…. tomorrow night can we have the version where Tim Flannery is in the control room. I like that version.
“See? They never stop trying it on. Never. Or should I say, they CLEARLY never stop trying it on.” Which is why Robert is A DENIER.
Utter fools here would be well advised to study the US engineers report – Appendix A at the bottom. It flies in the face of your ongoing denier claptrap – http://www.dews.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/27999/Independent-review-Seqwater-Flood-Event-Report.pdf
Debs might have a little read on forecast 101 and give up on bedtime stories.
“Could have made it worse !” …..
Supercell, when you call me a DENIER I feel like Lex Luthor, threatening a 3×1974 in 20…unless I’m paid a billion by the mayor of Brisbane. Never mind, you’ll save the planet. You always do, Supercell.
Now it’s up, up and away!
“Wivenhoe Dam releases were increased as the reservoir approached the elevation of the first fuse plug segment pilot channel but this was an identified objective in the Manual of Operations Procedure for Flood Mitigation at Wivenhoe and Somerset Dam.”
WOW!! When they can describe the huge, destructive dump at that last possible moment in these incredibly understated terms you can see why Maurice Blackburn are rubbing their hands together.
I didn’t read the whole 89 pages but I wouldn’t be surprised if these engineers reckoned our engineers “played a blinder”.
What does that remind you of?
New information?
WTF?
There is no need for NEW INFORMATION(!!!!!!!!) Good grief! Unless. . . perhaps. . . you’re trying to reinvent the past!?
Stop spraying and dodging Luke.
OF COURSE! It was possible to make it worse!
Why in any place in Australia would ANYONE want that to be the case?
Wouldn’t ANY half way decent person want to make it better?
That has to be one of the silliest, ill advised comments you HAVE EVER EVER EVER EVER made at this blog! EVER!
Why in any world would any sane person want it to be worse?
SHEEEEEEEEESH!
“The 1974 event produced rainfall heavier than, or comparable to, the Jan 2011 event.” and
“For this event [2011], radar suggests the heaviest rain may have fallen lacking sufficient gauging.”
So where’s proof of that 2 x 1974 supercell?
In Luke’s head?
“Why in any world would any sane person want it to be worse?” Just the drongos on here.
Spangled you must be a bit of hick who doesn’t read. Just the BoM radar report given as evidence – nothing much ? I guess one could back up from inflows to estimate rainfall – dum de dum de dum (sound of crickets). Weally?
A few choice snippets
“This plot shows the
January 2011 inflows would be among the highest ever recorded in the United States, considering
catchment size” – YES FOLKS IT WAS A WHOPPER ! (and yes it wasn’t in the US)
“Initially, the
short-range 24-hour precipitation forecasts were tracking reasonably well, over estimating rainfall by
21% until 1600 Saturday 8 January 2011. After that, quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPF)
underestimated rainfall by 160% – 340% until 1000 Tuesday 11 January 2011. At that point, there was
an over estimation of the rainfall between 196% – 625%. This variability indicates issues with forecast
uncertainty. This is not uncommon in large rainfall events and underscores the difficulty in
communicating high confidence for the forecaster and user. ” AH YES OK – UNDERSTAND
“Had there been earlier implementation of Strategy W4 as soon as
forecasts predicted Wivenhoe to exceed 74.0 meters (a day or two earlier), this may have resulted in
somewhat reduced peak releases from Wivenhoe as more storage may have been usable later in the
event. The other outcome may have been higher peak releases than occurred – if the timing of the
inflow and earlier gate openings may have accelerated the releases beyond those actually made. It
does not seem likely that either alternative would have made a significant difference in downstream
stages. Based on the contemporaneous information, the flood operation engineers made correct
release strategy decisions. ”
Debbie of course won’t be able to read these accounts for fear of going blind.
🙂 🙂 🙂
You’re a hoot Luke 🙂 🙂 🙂
Anyone who knows about the real Erin Brockovich and her lawyer mates will understand why I’m not interested in helping out Maurice Blackburn. Maybe there were more inflows to catchment in 2011 and more concentrated falls on Brisbane City in 1974 (which falls were indeed enormous). Why should one disastrous flood pattern another? A deluge is still a deluge, even if the flood occurs in the middle of nowhere where the land is not contoured to flood, or where there is no land. Certainly, Supercell Luke’s exciting 2x figure for inflows is not an impossibility, though the 30 hours make it a bit of a stretch. But if Seqwater are fudging or dramatising a bit because they know Maurice Blackburn will not miss a trick, fair or otherwise, who can blame them?
Using the recent flood as more Welcome-to-the-New-Climate spin is an absolutely desperate and ghoulish fiddle by alarmists, but modern climate exceptionalism is one gigantic fiddle, is it not? 1893 had four floods, two of them vastly overtopping 1974, and 1841 topped 1893, all according to clear readings accepted by the authorities who built Wivenhoe.
However, do we want to add to the paralsysis of engineers and water decision-makers by litigating? I can see how people’s minds may have been clouded by climate preachers, but with litigation we make people afraid to make any decisions at all. We have got to give the Seqwater people the benefit of every doubt, because Maurice Blackburn is the type of company that would employ a Julia Gillard or an Erin Brockovich. Enough said.
Luke, higher latitude rainfall rarely compares with lower latitude rainfall.
The report, if it does one thing, it indicates that large rainfall between Oct 2010 and Jan 2011 primed the catchment for a major flood and there was so much moisture that you realise the minders could have virtually drained the dam without endangering the water supply.
In excusing the engineers they again blame insufficient gauges to judge the inflows.
They say the requirements set forth in the flood manual were very general and gave the engineers discretion as to what to include in the flood mitigation reports.
But claiming that if bigger releases were commenced sooner, they would not have had an appreciable effect on flooding, is illogical.
“could have virtually drained the dam without endangering the water supply” and isn’t hindsight so wonderful. And perhaps the skys may have cleared and an El Nino drought sequence commenced. “Oh but it wouldn’t you say” in 20:20 hindsight. The engineers report discuss the uncertainty with the forecasts and I have teased you above a few 100 comments back as how you’d like to equip the BoM to be better at these scenarios – there VERY RARE 1 in 2000 events Debs ! No buy-in – just sound of crickets.
The engineers were managing well until a massive system dumped in the lake. In fact hitherto they were progressively releasing to minimise immediate downstream damage and keep roads open. Like Lowood, Fernvale, Colleges !
The learnings from the event are many – extreme precipitation rules rewritten. A desire to use seasonal forecasts to drop water levels below FSL – but Debs should know some La Ninas are a fizzer (lack of easterly dip!) and we have gone from waist deep in water in the Gulf to a decile 10 drought this year. Get it wrong and the populace will be up you for the rent for losing their drinking water.
BoM needs faster computers with more integrative capacity to resolve these extreme events. Better gauging and telemetry. Get people out of flood plains.
Debs it’s not “obvious” at all and any student of history as hydrologists are will be crunching many many scenarios.
I believe the engineers were well applied but run down by an extreme extreme event. The dam was not endangered and the fuse plus did not blow (which would prevented overtopping). Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The next big one is out there somewhere. Might be next year or in 40 years. But one thing for sure – want to avoid flooding – don’t build or buy in a flood plain. It’s that simple. It’s not the Bangladesh delta – there are plenty of hills in SEQ.
And one has to admire the culture of persecution here – someone must pay – pay what – the lawyers’ salaries? But no view of what to what now in terms of analysis or technology.
Simply some vague wafting notion on the breeze of a Plan B ! When one needs better doppler radar, faster supercompute, pre-run multiple hydrologic scenarios, operation research, upside and downside of seasonal forecasts, why some La Ninas fizz, better gauging and telemetry, better operations room, and an ability for flood engineers to get some sleep and not be up for weeks on end 24 hours a day . The sort of stuff that put men on the moon and developed atomic weapons. Bobbies book of cartoons and Plan B ain’t gonna help. It’s just a whingefest.
“don’t build or buy in a flood plain. It’s that simple. It’s not the Bangladesh delta – there are plenty of hills in SEQ.”
Unbelieveable! – it’s close to the CBD and a very attractive area to live in – everyone was assured that the Wivenhoe dam had been designed to prevent future flooding but unfortunately we forgot it was being run by a bunch of bureaucrats who only have their department’s reputation to worry about because they can bullshit their way out of every problem they may confront by sheer numbers. Well Newman put paid to that!
That last rant of yours Luke makes you a part of the despicable unaccountable bureaucratese that is destroying this nation and all we stand for! F**K you and yours!
The patently obvious that arises from all this is that the minders could have released a lot more water a lot sooner which would have prevented much of the high-level flooding.
Why they didn’t remains a mystery.
There are plenty of procedures in the manual to use as an alibi. After all, Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote it.
In the lead-up, as early as October they dumped big volumes but got a rap on the knuckles and immediately desisted. There was obviously some inner conflict that is not being mentioned but which contributed to the stuff-up.
The current shore-line of Wivenhoe is considerably higher than it was in 2010, just prior to the La Nina, but it is still ~ 20 metres below the fuse plugs. What that constitutes in actual percentages I wouldn’t know but it is a huge cushion against flooding regardless of the rainfall rate.
Lets hope we get Campbell, as opposed to Humphrey, management in future.
“it’s close to the CBD and a very attractive area to live in” well you’d be a big sooky dope wouldn’t ya ! So in Sayers new geometry world, EVERYWHERE is now close to the CBD – cool ! Anywhere that floods stands out like doggies for anyone with half a brain (not John). And the flooded zone very much a minority of the area. And anyone with half a brain knows Wivenhoe promised no such assurance and in fact was talked about actively (not John). This would be the white shoe brigade Sayers now advocating people live in flood plains? Land manager of the year – hahahahahahaha – what a clown.
Spangled – What does it mean in actual % – I thought you were an expert. It’s means it 99.9% of FSL. Let’s let half of it go eh? Just to be sure.
http://www.previous.seqwater.com.au/public/dam-levels
Anyway Debs will be through soon to ask about 50 questions. But why. But why. But why.
“Lets hope we get Campbell, as opposed to Humphrey, management in future.”
Like everyone is new and doesn’t know where the lift and loo is (but someone’s mate and nice guy). Good luck with that. Like outsourcing and find the money now gets 50% of the original job done. Good luck with that too. Like massive tunnels spruiked up by the dude now losing money like a Wivenhoe dam dumping your drinking water. Good luck with that?
Shock, horror the Marshall islands will suffer a SLR of about 14 cm in the next 100 years.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/run_the_seas_will_rise_14cm_in_a_century/
Thats about 5.6 inches in the next 100 years. Or just as it would be without CAGW. This would be a giggle if it wasn’t costing us billions a year for a zero return on our money.
Can this mitigation fraud and con be more blatant and all this from the Gillard/Krudd govts who’ve shown by their actions that they couldn’t care less about much higher export sources of co2 emissions?
Yet somehow Krudd’s real practical demonstration of zero concern for co2 emissions is rewarded by some people who’ve stated that they respect him for believing in SFA.
Fair dinkum if anyone completes a science degree they should also have to complete a course on simple logic and reason to help straighten out their thought processes.
We should only hope they can understand simple kindy maths as well. All this seems to be in short supply among climate scientists ( perhaps most scientists) around the world.
But will they ever wake up, somehow I doubt it? So easy to understand, yet these fools just can’t see it. Wood for trees anyone?
“That last rant of yours Luke makes you a part of the despicable unaccountable bureaucratese that is destroying this nation and all we stand for! F**K you and yours!”
A nice summary JS
That’s just great; now luke, hybrid between a peacock and a bowerbird that he is, uses the same SEQ graph I linked to earlier to prove that both the flood storage level and the water storage level were full just before the flooding; and luke uses it to prove the opposite?
Luke=anvil, facts=hammer.
“Like outsourcing and find the money now gets 50% of the original job done.”
You mean like fire ants Luke?
Where the original job was zilch achieved.
How many years and how much money have Labor spent and made no difference?
At least the contractors have to stick to the contract and you get people involved who have a vested interest in succeeding as opposed to failing.
Imagine if the bureaucrats still built roads, bridges and hospitals instead of just providing the red and green tape.
“At least the contractors have to stick to the contract and you get people involved who have a vested interest’ HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Luke,
it is obvious, it is relatively simple, I have read it and I have no need to ask questions.
More of this co2 tax con exposed. The parliamentary secretary for CC doesn’t even know the cost they’ve inflicted on business people.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/you_pay_the_carbon_tax_dath_forgets_how_much/#commentsmore
What do we pay these donkeys for, or more importantly why do we pay for these donkeys at all?
Share the joke Luke.
Do you consider that to have a monetary interest [as in a job] dependant on a satisfactory outcome is a bad thing? IOW a bad outcome will cost you?
Or you prefer to think that having a job that is dependant on a good outcome is no guarantee of doing the best you can do?
As Neville shows above, the bureaucrats know not what they do.
But yet they are certain they are leading us all down the paths of righteousness.
The problem with Labor’s private contracts, they are in such a rush to implement their hare-brained schemes for political purposes like the NBN etc, where there is no CBA or due diligence done so no contractor will sign up without carte blanche. Thus taxpayers are left with more incredible stuff-ups.
So, what do we know so far?
1 Catherine Holmes wrote a damning report of the SEQ procedure
2 US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Department of Interior wrote a glowing report of SEQ procedure
3 The water storage capacity of Wivenhoe was at maximum; and the FSL was also at capacity at the time of the flood.
4 The 1974 flood was bigger in terms of gauge height than the 2010 flood while the 1890 floods were much bigger.
5 In terms of all indicators, including climatic ones, the 2010 were not exceptional.
Issue:
1 Was the preparedness of Wivenhoe and the response of the SEQ engineers qualified by any policy to do with AGW?
I think we are going to have to wait for the court case where the phone conversations, interdepartmental reports and emails are presented, if they were influenced by AGW it will show itself there.
Cohenite is an idiot, a moron unable to present basic facts:
1. WRONG
2. Not really
3. WRONG !
4. Relevance = 0.0
5. WRONG !
Hypothesis: Zero evidence. Hearsay, conspiracy theorists and stupid deniers don’t count.
Luke,
you have based nearly all your ranting and raging on evidence around number 4 (it has even motivated Robert to dub you supercell). . . How did it suddenly become irrelevant?
Now, now luke, settle down; and give me time to properly consider your devastating rebuttal of my summary of the situation.
Good post by Jo Nova comparing our OZ co2 emissions to the soaring Chinese and Indians.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/australian-emissions-reductions-target-is-undone-by-one-week-in-china/#comment-1301261
Just another way to understand that our emission reductions don’t count at all. But of course we should still respect Krudd for not understanding simple graphs , simple maths and simple logic and reason. Give me strength.
I was settled Cohers and laughing…. I can’t believe how crook your analysis is. It’s the same style as the 10 worst papers scams – you just make stuff up. You creds are zero my friend. Pity as you were once a promising sceptic. Buying into the whole tea party style has brought you undone.
Debs – well funnily that’s because there was this big mitigatey thing in the river among other things. But sceptics always compare apples with oranges. Standard scam stock in trade.
Luke – just saying “wrong” doesn’t answer someone’s post – if you say something is wrong you must back it up with some evidence – which is what you demand of us.
As Cohers inferred your rebuttal was a joke!
As I have been saying all along and as the graph showed, W3, which is a stage release designed to seriously reduce levels but not cause inundation of urban areas, was not invoked until 6.30 am, Monday, Jan 10.
This was too little too late and the next step was desperation.
Up until this time they had been releasing at W1 to keep rural bridges open.
This is where I suspect Seqwater will lose it in any class action and the taxpayer will take another big hit.
And once again Campbell’s conservatives are forced to mop up after Labor’s bureaucratic bungles.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/what-the-floods-inquiry-didnt-hear-wivenhoe-breached-the-manual/story-fn59niix-1226250814487
Who was it said the Arctic was gunna be ice-free by 2013?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
John S – it’s more economical not to repeat yourself on time wasters.
“This was too little too late and the next step was desperation.” Nope – unless of course you can determine a 1 in 2000 event.
There’s a strong story that the class action has got legs actually. Few takers. Won’t be lodged. If so so much for confidence.
Well you keep repeating the falsity that it was a 1 in 2000 event and 2 x 1974 when your only evidence is the flawed paper produced by the accused! No one else supports your claim.
The data are all there and analysed. And you are who? Pullease. Put up an alternative analysis based on some data mate. You’ll be arguing against 4 independent hydrology reports and the US Army. Good luck doofus. I can see John at the court hearing – puts hand up “it’s all bullshit your honour”. hahahahahahahaha (the evidence for the prosecution) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sayers – what a clown.
Luke – this is what the US Army report says;
“It is recommended that an overall review of the hydrometeorological data network be undertaken. The rain gauge data collection network is extremely dense; however, the specific characteristics of this meteorological event were such that intense rainfall that fell directly over the Wivenhoe Lake for example may not have been completely captured.………… Additional stream gauges might be considered to capture inflows into Somerset and Wivenhoe Lakes.”
That’s what I have been saying – there are lots of rainfall gauges yet for some reason they didn’t capture the supercell. They also didn’t trust the inflows data either. So I’m not arguing against the Army – you are!
The US Army also stated “Recommendations were provided based on the review of the Flood Event Report.” ah that report again – the one you keep quoting! They obviously didn’t trust it and neither do we.
BTW – their report was based on;
4 hours with ONE flood engineer, 2 hours telephone with remaining engineers and 1 hour session with the BoM
How feeble is Luke’s reasoning. How to justify the “weekend effect”:
Because the minders had to keep local roads and bridges open for as long as possible they were justified in not invoking W3 which would have lowered the dam levels, flooded a couple of bridges, not inundated any urban areas, but also then would not have needed W4 to be invoked on Tuesday am which is what did all the damage.
The fact that this procedure was contrary to the manual doesn’t enter his head.
I am still sure that the reason they didn’t invoke W3 on the Saturday was because there was nobody paying attention.
“4 hours with ONE flood engineer, 2 hours telephone with remaining engineers and 1 hour session with the BoM”
Luke didn’t even get a look in.
Luke @ 5.11
Ummmmm?
Isn’t the management of that big mitigatey thing in the river what we’re discussing?
How does its very obvious existence suddenly make point 4 irrelevant when you have been continuously banging on about the intensity of the event?
What a tukey – china is looking to australia for leadership – lying turkey – gobble gobble gobbledegook!
One of Lukes mates at it again
China looking to Oz for leadership!!!
What a turkey – gobble gobble gobbledegook – lying turkey. Must be a mate of Luke
John discovers better the data recommendation and thinks “this is it”. I’ve found it. You haven’t found anything except a great recommendation. You’ve been towed down the thread mate. You’d still be at Esk Post Office if I hadn’t given you a hand.
sp – don’t think you can blow in here in serious shitfight and try to pony up. You’ve got about 6 days reading before you’re even minimum up to speed. Go and ask Debs a few questions and divert her. Ask her how her lammies are going.
Spangled mandates hindsight training for off the record events by flood engineers. All engineers must now undergo hindsight training in off the meter one in 2000 events.
And a report from SKM that wipes the floor with the deniers here…. in fact blows Sayers away
http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0005/7592/Report_of_Rory_Nathan.pdf
private enterprise – Spangled will wet himself
But they’ll want more. As all good deniers do.
They’ve just released the State of Australian Cities Report
I’m I’m pleased to see that at Last – Geelong City has developed a climate change toolkit.
“The City of Greater Geelong has been addressing its capacity to manage climate change.
It published in 2012 a Climate Change Adaptation Toolkit, specifically designed to help
local governments address climate change in a practical way. The Toolkit was developed
in collaboration with RMIT University and the Net Balance Foundation.
“The Adaptation Toolkit is based on the ISO 31000:2009 Risk
Management Standard, and took approximately 12 months
to develop. Its concepts and structure were tested with the
Engineering and Community Development Departments of the
City of Greater Geelong.
• integrate adaptation into existing processes
• develop effective risk management strategies
• make consistent decisions regarding climate change
• incorporate uncertainty into decision making by:
– making decisions that are flexible and work across a range of future scenarios;
• be more responsive to climate change shocks and trends
• maintain standards of service delivery during extreme weather conditions
• form linkages across different work areas, internally and externally.
The Toolkit is designed to be implemented once an organisation has developed a list of
priority climate risks. It offers three tools that can be implemented in sequence or used as
standalone steps:
1. exploring the risk context
2. developing adaptation actions
3. screening for climate change interactions”
So now give us a short summary in your own words Luke.
How good was the minder’s performance and could it be improved upon?
Congratulations to Jo for her great expose of ETS schemes in today’s Australian:
“So, who profits from the carbon market? The brokers in a carbon market – like large financial institutions such as Deutsche Bank, UBS, Morgan Stanley, CBA, Citi, HSBC, Macquarie, – make money on every trade. The global carbon market turned over $176bn in 2011. These groups have been lobbying for a market, not a tax, and the reasons are obvious.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/jo-nova-in-the-australian-carbon-credits-market-is-neither-free-nor-worth-anything/
Yes Spangled Jo is to be congratulated for helping to expose this mitigation of CAGW fraud and con over many years.
This is not a free market but is forced on the people just to raise revenue by hurting the poor in the EU and now here in OZ, worse luck.
It can’t change the temp or climate at all for hundreds of years at best or thousands of years at worst.
Here’s more of this Mitigation con. If you’re well off you can choose to purchase a solar system for your home and the taxpayer helps to fund your purchase.
In just a few years you can greatly reduce your electricity bill while poorer people keep funding your system and they pay the full price for their power.
Meanwhile in the EU co2 trading is rife with fraud and corruption and even the mafia has enjoyed the spoils of this fraud.
Neville, a few farmers around here installed literally hundreds of solar panels on horse stables, barns etc and in the first flush of the madness they must have been doing very handsomely.
You can’t blame them, it was good business but I suspect that now they have found it is like the rest of their business and good income is a sure cure for good income.
Socialising the gains and privatising the losses, hey Luke?
Like my Telstra shares ☺.
But in reality climate madness is mainly big losses to all except the Al Gores:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/cfact_billboard_climatepolicy.jpg
Exactly the same here Spangled. They are on shearing sheds, houses ,cottages etc, in fact everywhere.
I even had a go at some of my mates and they told me they know it’s BS but it’s just their way of getting some of their money back from higher power charges.
I’ve had heaps of urgers phoning me with incredible offers but so far I’ve knocked them all back.
They can’t understand me when I tell them it’s a fraud, some even say “so what.”
Certainly the subsidy has dropped but so has the cost of the systems. I reckon the systems have dropped by at least a third in the last 18 months.
My brother and one of his mates told me a week ago that they are both thinking about puchasing a 12 panel system for their homes. And they both know it’s total BS.
As I understand it they are being paid 60c/kWh until 2015 as per their contract with the government – it’s now dropped to zero for further solar additions but I’m sure the original investors are still being paid. (unless the government has reneged on it’s deal which I doubt)
There’s a storage shed business in Casino with 40 panels 🙂
“Whether we are given predictions about rainfall, maximum or minimum temperatures, the BOM can’t seem to get it right. In 2011, it declared that Australia had the third-wettest year on record. Rainfall was well above average in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Victoria experienced record rainfall, while the Murray-Darling Basin experienced its third-highest summer rainfall on record. Australia’s mean rainfall total was 699 mm — some 234 mm above the long-term average.
In 2012 so much rain fell across Queensland that rivers broke their banks and people were evacuated from their homes and businesses. In New South Wales up to 150 mm of rain led to flooding on the Bellinger River.
What a pity that Newby didn’t refer to Vizard et al. (2005) who looked at the BOM predictions of rainfall forecasts between 1997 – 2005. They concluded that the BOM forecasting system was a low-skill pursuit and that no economic benefit could have been reliably derived by users of their seasonal rainfall forecasts.
But, if it’s any consolation, weather predictions from the UK’s MET and European agencies were, if anything, further off the mark than BOM predictions.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/07/the-climate-of-bias-at-their-abc
One of the perverse outcomes from the hike in energy prices and the hike in ‘demand charges’ is that many irrigators who pump have started to pull out their electric pumps and replace them with deisel pumps EVEN THOUGH many of them have installed solar panels via the subsidy programs.
The 2 main reasons are:
1) The deisel pumps are now cheaper to run (bleeding obvious I know) and
2) They can have their lives back because they can use their pumps at no extra cost during the day (rather than having to irrigate all night on off peak power).
So they have large areas of solar panels but find it more economical and a better family lifestyle to NOT (!) use electric pumps.
Go figure!
It’s madness Debbie – hopefully Tony will remove the carbon tax and the renewables levy and things can get back to normal.
No doubt that would help JS,
I think the main requirement however is the formulation and implementation of some clear, sensible policies that are economical, balanced and measureable via cold, hard, achievable results.
At the moment. . . especially in NRM. . . We appear to have almost totally lost the plot!
sp – thanks for posting that excellent Quadrant article, I’m sharing it around.
I liked this comment in that article:
Perhaps Team Catalyst might consider putting together a program which illustrates the limitations of weather forecasting, the chaotic nature of climate and why accurate long-term forecasting of weather and climate is currently out of reach.
And this one:
The climate is changing as I write this and will continue to change irrespective of what we do. The ABC’s use of the term “climate change denial” is not only silly, it is unprofessional and inappropriate. Journalists and politicians should note there are no climate change deniers. There are, however, climate change realists and climate change alarmists.
So has Lukey given up or is he away on a public service outing to Sea World.
I’ve been expecting his post telling us we are all wrong and we are a bunch of stupid redneck deniers.
Smokers hit by another increase in tax. Here in Dubai a packet of 20 costs around $2.40 so you can manufacture and sell at a profit by charging only $2.40. What do you pay for a packet of 20 in Australia now?
Let me make it clear I no longer smoke, I gave up in 2008, but I am sympathetic to my friends who still do.
The accusation by non smokers is that smokers cost the country dearly in additional health expenditure. One figure bandied around is $31 Billion.
So here’s a few facts that people should consider.
NSW Health report, The Social Costs of Smoking, September 2010:
IN the financial year 2006-07 the federal government outlaid $55.5 million on tobacco-attributable health expenditures in NSW, while receiving $1576m in net tobacco tax revenue for NSW smokers. The overall result was a federal excess of revenue over expenditures of $1520.5m … NSW smokers generated, for the federal and NSW governments combined, an excess of net revenue over expenditures of $1728.1 million.
also this interesting figure:
In the US nearly 80% of people diagnosed with lung cancer in 2012 were non-smokers. All of the anti-smoking campaigns imaginable are not going to make a difference for this 80%.
I heard it put this way – when 80% of the population smoked 80% of lung cancer deaths were smokers, now that only 20% smoke only 20% of lung cancer deaths are smokers.
From the Cancer Council in Australia.
“In 1945 approximately 72% of Australian men smoked.
The rate has been dropping since then.
In 2010 only 16.4% of Australian males (14 years or older) were daily smokers.”
Also:
Smoking is a major cause of cardiovascular disease (heart, stroke and blood vessel disease). Smoking kills more than 15,000 Australians a year (more than 40 Australians each day) and nearly 40 per cent (6,000) of all deaths from smoking are due to cardiovascular disease.
Total deaths from heart disease in 2010 were 21,708 of which 27.6% were smokers. BTW – the heart disease rate in 2000 was 26,521, it’s dropping.
Total deaths in Australia in 2009: 140,769.
This is serious;
A seven year old boy was at the centre of a courtroom drama yesterday when he challenged a court ruling over who should have custody of him.
The boy has a history of being beaten by his parents and the judge initially awarded custody to his aunt, in keeping with the child custody law and regulations requiring that family unity be maintained to the degree possible.
The boy surprised the court when he proclaimed that his aunt beat him more than his parents and he adamantly refused to live with her. When the judge suggested that he live with his grandparents, the boy cried out that they also beat him.
After considering the remainder of the immediate family and learning that domestic violence was apparently a way of life among them, the judge took the unprecedented step of allowing the boy to propose who should have custody of him.
After two recesses to check legal references and confer with child welfare officials, the judge granted temporary custody to the Australian Cricket team, whom the boy firmly believes are not capable of beating anyone.
John Sayers @ 4.40pm.
So. . . . the VERY LAST THING that State and Federal Govts would want is for too many people to give up smoking?
I also note that the justification re public health costs seems to be suffering from a similar ‘kindy maths’ problem that Neville always refers to re mitigating AGW?
I am a ‘reformed smoker’ too. . . but this is total ‘bi polar’ nonsense.
Unless the vast majority of the funds are going to the health budget (AND THEY’RE NOT!!!!!!!!) Then this is another example of ‘same S**T different day!
Yes Deb – sure is.
It’s like driving fines and tolls don’t go into road maintenance.
Yes Minister episode on health.
“HUMPHREY,” I said, “when cholera killed 30,000 people a year in 1833 we got the Public Service Act … But cigarettes kill 100,000 people a year and what do we get?”
“Four billion pounds a year,” he replied promptly … “Cigarettes pay for one-third of the total cost of the National Health Service. We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntarily lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors.”