Never lets a good disaster go to waste
Linking the tragic Queensland floods to climate change in 3..2..1… Who cares about the dead, injured and missing? Never let a good disaster go to waste, right? Such is the utter, disgraceful, jawdropping callousness of the warmists, they manage to link weather events to climate change by expressly not linking weather events to climate change, but just by chance happening to talk about the subjects at the same time – brilliant! Will Steffen (link to ANU page – search here for email), Gillard’s Alarmist-in-Chief does exactly that, in a typically sickening soundbite:
Climate change committee member Professor Will Steffen, the executive director of the ANU Climate Change Institute, said there was no direct link between global warming and the tragic flash flooding in Toowoomba which has killed at least nine people in southeast Queensland.
But he told The Australian Online that climate change would lead to heavier, more frequent rain.
“As the climate warms, there is more water vapour in the atmosphere,” he told The Australian Online.
“This means that there is a probability that there will more intense rainfall events around the world.
There is some evidence that we can see them now. I think the place where the best data is the US.” (source)
We have a term at ACM for people like Steffen. It’s [censored].
UPDATE: Marc at ABC NewsWatch usefully summarises the flood history of SE Queensland here. Guess what, there have been less severe floods and more severe floods and no floods at all… and nothing has changed. Did anthropogenic CO2 cause the floods in 1893 perhaps? Hang on, let’s get the script right [clears throat]: “No direct link between global warming and the 1893 floods, but climate change would lead to heavier, more frequent rain.” Unspoken conclusion: leading to more floods like the one we just happen by chance to be talking about right now… That’s the sneaky thing about flood plains, they flood… duh.
News just in: Queensland floods blamed on George Bush, John Howard, Sarah Palin…
Australian Climate Madness 
Not so long ago we were being told that due to Climate change Australia would be in a state of permanent drought.
Facts that you can find in a few minutes on the bom.gov.au site
There were ten major floods in Brisbane between 1841 and 1900.
Go figure ?
Scroll down to the first graph and you will see that there were a lot more floods in the 19th century than the 20th. The simple reason that there are floods in south east Qld is because all of it is a flood plain and it floods every 20 years or so.
http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/brochures/brisbane_lower/brisbane_lower.shtml
Thanks Matt also for linking to the same data.
A link to BOM’s overview of historical floods in the Brisbane area is included in the following post…
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2011/01/babc-se-queensland-floods.html
The 1890s and early 1970s particularly severe.
The combination of an intense La Nina and negative PDO has happened before and no doubt will happen again. The increased likelihood of major flooding during the coincidence of these events was predicted by Stewart Franks, Anthony Kiem and Danielle Verdon in their paper “Climate variability in the land of fire and flooding rain”. Available in full. (Search google for the paper title). Perhaps If government listened to Franks and Co rather than Steffen we would have been better prepared.
Thanks, Marc, for the flood history. I have added a link to the main post. Cheers.
It was supposed to lead to overall drier conditions and on that basis they blamed the drought on climate change. I think these Climate Witnesses need to be labeled for what they are. Their testimony reliably changes with the weather. I wonder what percentage of the public have memories short enough to let the slimes get away with it.
I note that this is yet another dishonest Global Warming sermon that won’t be allowed comments. The editors of the Australian would know that it would be torn to shreds. And to think that this paper was recently accused of not being compliant enough with the Global Warming scam.
Well at least Steffan’s real-time modelling is sound. To-day he links “climate change” to extreme rainfall – as it’s falling. Previously, he linked “climate change” to drought when we were in the middle of it.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-debate-almost-infantile-20100524-w81e.html
“….the primary cause since the middle of the last century had been industrial greenhouse gas emissions – should be accepted with the same confidence as the laws of gravity and relativity”, says this pompous chiselling geek.
What is even more certain than gravity is that ACM’s censored in-house term for Steffan is absolutely spot on.
The people of QLD aren’t that stupid. There is no way it is going to be accepted that the drought of 02-09 and the floods of 10/11 are both caused by climate change. So far I haven’t heard the QLD media or politicians use the ‘CC’ word at all. Everyone knows about 1974, even more people about 1893. Bit difficult to explain those two prior events away with ‘climate change caused by industry’, particularly the one in 1893 when steam, horse or feet were your only transport options, and most of the world lived in something constructed of materials found in the local area.
Perhaps that’s why lifelong residents of SEQ (like my parents) have always scoffed at suggestions of climate change, because, in their memories, nothing has changed at all. But a blow-in desk jockey professor armed with a computer and a burning need to be noticed could never know such things as they surf weather headlines and try to hitch their ego-wagon to emerging news in a transparent attempt at getting published.
The global warming alarmists and fraudsters were predicting our world to become dryer and warmer. We are drowning and the northern hemisphere is freezing. The Bureau of Meteorology (AU), Met office (UK), IPCC/UN and government officials must be held accountable for not making sensible weather forecasts based on climate cycles/history, common sense, satellite data, etc. Global warming/ climate change hidden agendas must stop!
Every cloud has a silver lining.
Queenslanders are being given a unique opportunity to live the low-carbon dream:
no electricity, no public transport, no services, plunging CO2 emissions.
David Karoly also having an each way bet in the SMH:
“Professor Karoly stressed individual events could not be attributed to climate change. But the wild extremes being experienced by the continent were in keeping with scientists’ forecasts of more flooding associated with increased heavy rain and more droughts as a result of high temperatures and more evaporation.”
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/all-the-wrong-stars-aligned-for-perfect-storms-20110111-19mrr.html?from=watoday_ft
You guys really need to get your heads out of your asses. This post, and all its comments, seem only to focus on parts of the picture that fit your climate change sceptics school of thought.
What meteorologists have been saying (and be aware that these are people who have been studying the weather all their professional lives, and hold much more credence than a bunch of laypeople on the internet), is that climate change would lead to greater incidences and severity of extreme weather phenomenon. For the Australian east coast, this would mean that both the El Nino and La Nina cycles, both which rely heavily on the temperature and flow of ocean currents, would cause drier longer drought periods and heavier monsoonal summer rain. Scientists have also agreed that we would begin to see sub-tropical weather expand further south, so summer rain and tropical humidity would reach further south.
Today I woke up to Melbourne’s relative humidity being 98, higher than Vietnam. This is almost unheard of.
I can’t believe climate change sceptics and your seeming belligerance in the face of so much scientific evidence. These meteorologists have NO REASON to fabricate any scenarios. If the studies on global warming rejected its existence, then they would say so, and the issue would be null and void. These are people of science. They work with evidence. Not just that, they are professionals who have devoted their lives to studying the weather. Needless to say, they know a lot more about the topic than the laypeople throwing in their two bob herewith. Yet you guys still throw a tantrum, and even get personal labelling these people all kinds of names when researching this phenomenon is simply in their job description?
It’s in all our interests as Australians to prove that global warming does not exist, given so much of our wealth is from coal exports. So why would scientists want to undermine our way of life by bending facts to support climate change? Fact is, they only publish the truth. And the vast majority of meteorologists worldwide agree that climate change is real and accelerated by human emissions. You guys are a diminishing voice.
UPDATE: Tom hadn’t quite finished, and sent the following:
One quick clarification to prevent a misinterpretation.
When I say “drier longer drought periods and heavier monsoonal rain” I mean that for El Nino and La Nina periods respectively.
What meteorologists are saying is that our weather patterns will become more intensely bipolar. Our El Nino periods will be longer and drier, and our La Nina periods wetter. As such, we will potentially suffer more fires during El Nino cycles, and more floods during La Nina cycles.
Nice to start of a comment with a command to “us guys” to “get our heads out of your asses”. Sets the tone perfectly, thanks. I almost can’t be bothered to respond, but…
There are plenty of well credentialed scientists who dispute the consensus, but I guess they’re all funded by Big Oil so they don’t count – many of the commentators on the internet aren’t a “bunch of laypeople” but highly qualified scientists who write peer reviewed material. I understand the difference between weather and climate. There is no evidence to show more extreme weather events as a result of recent warming – it’s just that people have very short memories. Just search the newspapers from the last century. Check the flood records for Brisbane from the BoM website. Your point about 98% humidity in Melbourne is total nonsense – if it’s foggy, you have 100% humidity – the air cannot hold any more water vapour so it condenses out as droplets – nothing to do with climate change at all. The rest of your email is not worth commenting on except this statement: “Fact is, they only publish the truth.” Hilarious. And the hypocrisy of your statement about “personal labelling all kinds of names” isn’t lost on me either.
Tom, that’s all very interesting but that doesn’t explain why there were more intense rain events with associated flooding, of larger size during the period of 1850-1900. Because if the GW hypothesis of larger events (even if less frequent) was true, we’d be seeing higher flood levels now. But we’re not. The flood peaks are lower, and the events are less frequent.
And all of that still doesn’t actuallly link the weather to higher concentrations of co2. Nobody around here is arguing it’s not warmer now than 1850. Just that co2 increases from 1850 didn’t cause the QLD flooding, because it is well in line with historical variability. In other words, there is no correlation between atmospheric co2 concentration and rainfall events in SEQ.
As for the humidity in Melbourne, it’s somewhat amusing to go on about scientific evidence and then use a personal anecdote to talk about the weather and declare it ‘almost unheard of’. From the place of 4 seasons in one day, almost no type of weather pattern is ‘unheard of’.
“Youse guys” would have been more illustrative, but Tom, you still managed to announce your class and politics in your first sentence.
Unfortunately they do have reason. There’s peer acceptance, careers, prestige, getting papers into Nature, funding and not being branded a ‘denier’.
James Randi tells us about an astrologer from way back, who looked at the position of the stars and concluded that the world was about to end. People were running around in a panic. Another astrologer looked at the stars and concluded that everything was fine. But did the good people embrace the second opinion? No, he was a party pooper! The more conservative astrologer didn’t realise how little interest there is in, “Nothing to see here, folks”.
In any case, it is redundant to argue that they would have no reason to fabricate, when we can regularly observe them doing exactly that. NASA GISS provides good examples. Under the guidance of the James Hansen, the temperatures are systematically massaged upward for the present and downward for the past. This is performed by various means. Many rural stations that showed no temperature rise, or even cooling, were eliminated. The ones proximate to concrete, brick walls, asphalt and other heat sources, get favoured. When corrections are made, the heat-island affected ones aren’t adjusted downwards; the rural ones are adjusted upwards! They call that ‘homogonization’. The number of stations has gone from around 6,000 to around 1,500. Consequently data is provided for vast areas where no stations exist. With such flexibility they can produce whatever ‘trend’ they like and that is exactly what they do.
By changing the name from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’ and now to ‘Climate Disruption’, the warmists can claim contradicting indicators as affirmations. Even extreme cold is captured by the name set, because with back-translation, it too belongs to perilous warming.
I recall the when Jehovah’s Witnesses would be on my doorstep saying the same things – they’ve now stopped coming. Even in the mid eighties they were prophesying Armageddon based on the Bible and the supposed increased frequency of extreme natural events. That apologetic process has been happening with various doomsday religions throughout history. The end is always nigh; the signs are always there. Far from being more restrained, by using and twisting even contradictory indicators (e.g. cold = warm) the Climate Church shows itself to be among the worst when it come to sign hijacking.
Tom, what evidence do your Climate Witnesses have that there have been more extreme weather signs over the last decade? Please don’t just rattle off some recent anecdotes. Show us that the occurrences actually represent an increase and a significant increase.
You would do well to gain an understanding from Phil Jones, a high-profile leader in the science. Here is what he said in the Climategate e-mails:
http://tinyurl.com/yhwnqwp
It’s due to their self-importance and hence their priorities. You, Tom, described the condition eloquently in your first sentence, which I quote at the top. These people also tend to be politically to the left, making it comfortable for them to leap onto idealistic bandwagons.
By the way, there is another interesting admission in there that Jones did not intend the public to see. He said, “I would like to see the climate change happen”. In other words, it hasn’t happened yet and he is still anxiously waiting. He isn’t the only climatologist waiting.
Then why hasn’t the temperature been keeping track with the CO2 rise the way they said is would? Why are they now having to twist evidence that wasn’t supposed to eventuate, like a succession of freezing winters in the northern hemisphere? And why do we see some climatologists trying to prove ‘Global Warming’ by citing the occurrences of extreme winters, while others do the opposite, citing their infrequency as proof? The reason for these conflicting proofs is because they are becoming more desperate and are wildly shooting in all directions, resulting in casualties from friendly fire.
If they know so much, how come the UK’s Met Office habitually leaves the country unprepared by repeatedly predicting warm winters? I’ll tell you why; it’s because these cold winters go against their beloved warming models, not with them. Tom, don’t you remember being informed by the orthodoxy that snowy winters were really a thing of the past and that snow would be a rare and exciting event?
Climatology is a soft science. It’s not like physics or mathematics. It’s more like economics. Recall the economists failed even to predict the Global Financial Crisis. Having said that, I don’t ever recall hearing an economist sounding as ridiculous as the warming
climastrologistsclimatologists.Firstly, as I said, there is the condition that you described in your opening sentence. It’s a product of selfishness, the term that Phil Jones admitted. Secondly, the more Green they are, the less likely their ideology will be interested in the preservation of western society.
If the warmists really believed this terrible disaster is looming, given that they are NOT going to get all the main CO2-emitting countries to sufficiently service their needs with solar panels and wind turbines, they would be calling for nuclear power. So why won’t they? Either they don’t really believe the stuff or they have motives other than saving the planet.
So if the lie is not what in in the publish, then the lie must be in what they say to each other in private. Was Trenberth lying when he sent an e-mail saying that it was a ‘travesty’ that they could not find the expected heat? From the Climategate e-mails:
http://tinyurl.com/4qxxm66
Elsewhere you said:
So wet-drought is the sign you look for? Tom, ‘drier’ was the bottom line for the prediction. Show me where enduring rains and floods were the orthodoxy. If this wet is what we are supposed to be seeing from Global Warming, how come the CSIRO, about three months ago, played down the rain then? You, on the other hand, are trying to use it as a true sign.
By the way, I notice that the Australian electronic media has removed the standard background images of dry cracked ground when talking of Climate Change. Why would that be?
“These are people of science”, many of whom are computer geeks and economists with a stake in the success of the alarmist industry.
“They work with evidence.” No, they work with computer models to produce projections that are little more than sophisticated guesswork, such is the complexity of climatic systems. They may be touted as “evidence” but, as such, they are a travesty of the scientific method.
“What meteorologists have been saying…..is that climate change would lead to greater incidences and severity of extreme weather phenomenon” (singular). Yes, extreme drought. So hysterically persuasive have they been that states have seen fit to construct hideously expensive and redundant desalination plants rather than dams and flood mitigation strategies at a fraction of the cost. Conceivably, those harbingers of doomsday drought may well find themselves targets of legal class action. Perhaps that is the only road to fully expose the dangerous climate change scam for what it is.
“The rest of your email is not worth commenting on…”
Ah, that old chestnut! One of the easiest things to say when one hears something for which they cannot find a response.
The fact remains (which I highlighted clearly in my comment): Everyone here has purposely misrepresented the statements of Will Steffen and the meteorologists at the BOM. I haven’t read anywhere anybody claiming that global warming directly caused the floods in QLD. Rather they’ve highlighted the possible scenario that global warming has contributed in some way to the severity of these floods. How much they have contributed, nobody has claimed to know.
Simon, you still haven’t responded to the fact that climate change influences the severity of BOTH drought (El Nino) and wet (La Nina) cycles. I’ll blankly call you out on your need to evade this fact by saying it’s “not worth commenting on”. Is this just a way to permit you and your friends in the sceptics school to continue to heckle the meteorologists claims every time the cycle changes?
I would point out that such a response is not an “old chestnut” when the majority of your comment was nothing more than a rant at anyone who dares disagree with your sacred consensus. I responded to the points that were worthy of a response, and I did not avoid them. I said there was no evidence to back up the claim that climate change influences the severity of weather events – and there isn’t. Example: despite “global warming”, which was supposed to increase the intensity of hurricanes, accumulated cyclone energy is at a 30 year low. The “consensus scientists” haven’t a clue. So in desperation, alarmists like Steffen and Karoly have now turned AGW into an unfalsifiable hypothesis, where climate change “contributes in some way” to everything and anything you care to mention. Nothing can possibly ever disprove the hypothesis, which renders it utterly meaningless.
Tom said,
If there was no implication at all, why mention Global Warming at all? Why ALWAYS mention it anytime there are weather extremes? Once again, the warmists want to have it both ways. They demand that weather is NOT climate . . . unless it’s bad weather and then it’s either a question of Climate Change’s involvement, or (more often) it’s a question of the degree of involvement. The latter affirms more than implies CC’s part. But whichever spin is used, the implication of CC’s involvement will ALWAYS be injected. Simon was absolutely right in identifying the manipulation deployed through endless predictable weasel words of the warmists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
And let’s revisit this:
Then how about you and Steffen highlight the much greater probability that the warmists have contributed in a specific way to the severity of the floods? The Climate Change disciples (like Bligh) believed that Global Warming would result in the continuance of drought and dry dams. On that basis decisions were made that saw the disaster worse than it needed to be. Given the relaxed attitude on the danger of flooding, housing development was allowed to take place in areas previously considered unsafe:
http://tinyurl.com/5wutm46
Secondly, Wivenhoe dam was allowed to fill to near capacity when it could have been safely bled off earlier to ease the impending disaster. It was left too late:
“Brisbane’s Man-made Flood Peak”
http://tinyurl.com/5r7qp24
‘Mann-made’ would more appropriate because it better identifies the negligent mindset .
Apparently this team of scientists have easily been able to prove the hypothesis;
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/more-of-australia-getting-hot-and-wet-extremes-20110115-19rj7.html
And yes, global warming is meant to increase the intensity of cyclones, however it’s also predicted there will be LESS cyclones. The statistic you’ve chosen, accumulated cyclone energy, is heavily influenced by the number of cyclones. Of course it would be less! Once again you’re just trying to pick and choose your data to try and disprove global warming and humiliate the scientists. Anyone with half a brain can see past your game Simon.
Before you continue on this anti-warming tirade, I suggest you actually research the topic a bit more in depth (know your enemy, and all):
Click to access climatechange2010.pdf
You should try peddling your religion elsewhere Tom. The readers of this blog are independent thinkers and have generally leaned it’s a waste of valuable time arguing with religious fanatics.
I suppose you got a “Skeptic Alert” email for this post…..???
http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384
….and just like a true zealot are only following the Climate Clergies call to spread your religious “message” and “fight the good fight” against the terrible climate heresy; so I suppose we can’t really hold that against you.
But here’s a word of advice.
Perhaps you should try sticking to the gullible and naive in future as they will be far more receptive to your doctrine of lies.
Loaded Dog said to Tom,
I have just subscribed.
Tom said:
Then you need to explain this (from 2009):
Click to access arthur.pdf
You’ll notice that it says rather the opposite to what you claim. You see, Tom, it gets made up along the way and is made to suit whatever is convenient at the time. It’s throwaway science and should be discarded thoughtfully.
i saw this clown steffan interviewed on 7’s coverage of the floods on thursday(13th). he said the event was within their climate models for qld………..however. in the ipcc’s climate paper for qld, not one mention of floods, just drought. here;
““Was the IPCC regional impact prediction for the Queensland area, more rainfall and
subsequent flooding?
quote IPCC.
“”Using a transient simulation with the NCAR CCMO GCM at coarse resolution
(R15) (Meehl and Washington, 1996), Kothavala (1999) found for northeastern
and southeastern Australia that the Palmer Drought Severity Index indicated
longer and more severe droughts in the transient simulation at about 2xCO2
conditions than in the control simulation.”
“This is consistent with a more El Nino-like average climate in the enhanced
greenhouse simulation; it contrasts with a more ambivalent result by Whetton
et al. (1993), who used results from several slab-ocean GCMs and a simple
soil water balance model.”
“Similar but less extreme results were found by Walsh et al. (2000) for
estimates of meteorological drought in Queensland, based on simulations with
the CSIRO RCM at 60-km resolution, nested in the CSIRO Mk2 GCM.” end quote.
So, the IPCC TAR prediction for north-east Australia (Queensland) was
lessrainfall, more droughts, and a generally drier climate.
And what about the possibility of flooding caused by increased rainfall?
Nothing.
Not one word.
If you all actually researched what you’re trying to sound as experts on, you will have noticed that climatologists all predicted that extreme floods would be an effect of climate change. Also, these predictions were done years ago, not ex post facto the Qld floods as many of you are attempting to claim.
Click to access p6fy.pdf
5.4 (one example) Other severe weather events such as severe storms, wind and flooding also contribute to injury and mortality on an annual basis.
Interesting reading of Table 9: 100 year storm surge height around Cairns doubles 22%: area flooded doubles.
Of course this didn’t happen for these floods as the context of the table was for a 1-2 degree increase since the time of publication.
But wait, there’s more…
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/080807_rainfall.htm
The findings “reveal a distinct link between rainfall extremes and temperature, with heavy rain events increasing during warm periods,” wrote the authors, Richard P. Allan of the University of Reading, U.K. and Brian J. Soden of the University of Miami, Fla.
I genuinely feel it’s time you stop selectively quoting and falsifying the predictions and models of climate change. All along they have detailed and predicted that storms would become more extreme and human settlements would be at greater risk of flooding.
The only leg the sceptics have to stand on in this argument is the 1893 & 1974 floods. I will admit that the verdict is out as to how much climate change influenced these floods. But unlike those in your school of stone throwers, I’ll put my money on those who devote their lives to studying the science behind it, and actually know what they’re talking about.
I am growing tired of the hectoring tone of your comments. If you don’t like what goes on here, go someplace else. Cut the ad homs, or else your comments will be simply moderated out without further notice. I know it’s hard for true believers not to hurl insults at those that disagree with them, but try. If you have something to debate, make the points civilly or else don’t bother – go and play with Joe Romm over at Climate Progress instead. Dealing with your points:
That’s because climate change is now an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You will find a climatologist or a model predicting any weather event you care to mention. What climate/weather events would disprove climate change? The reality is that Australia was warned to prepare for extreme drought, not long term flooding rains.
LOL. The “only leg” is stronger than anything you have put forward so far. Records go back only 150 years, yet there were numerous floods, not just those you quote, that were as severe as the current floods. There is NOTHING in the flood record to indicate an increase in the severity or frequency of flooding since atmospheric CO2 started rising as a result of man-made emissions. Again, the reality is that for thousands of years, floods like these have been occurring unobserved. People have very short memories, and no concept of geological time.
So Tom, floods were predicted as a consequence of climate change, were they?
Have a look at this report by the QLD Govt and tell me how many times the word ‘flood’ is used.
Click to access climateqreport-chapter4.pdf
I’ll save you the bother. It’s zero times. Flood is not mentioned once in the entire chapter on ‘observed and projected change’.
Now search for ‘drought’. I’ll again save you the bother. It’s mentioned 24 times and the header for the document is a bunch of cows standing around in a dry, hot, vegetation free land.
Now tell me, honestly, that floods haven’t been retro-fitted into the theory in a blatant case of curve-fitting. Climate change was invoked to ‘prove’ the drought, and has been invoked to ‘prove’ the flood. I’m sure the next report will feature those same cows standing up to their bellies in flood water, and drought will disappear from the pages.
As for only standing on the 1893 and 1974 legs – I manage just fine on two legs. And any scientific theory only needs one contradicting fact to render it useless.
Besides, how do you know that AGW didn’t lessen the severity of the floods? Perhaps climate change might be beneficial? I’m not suggesting that it was, but this is equally unproveable as asserting that climate change made the floods worse, or indeed caused them.
Your kayo comment was well worth sharing with Tim Blair and company, brc.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/victory_is_ours/P20/
(12:35 pm)
Full agree Simon and brc. Furthermore, in response to Tom blubbering about “those who devote their lives to studying the science behind it”, they would be strongly advised to spend what’s left of their careers looking at the empirical evidence e.g.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/the-warmest-year-antidotes/
Tom said:
Yeah, right. Recall when you said:
Well I’m still waiting for you to explain this (from 2009):
It directly contradicts your statement. So is it you who is confused, Tom, or is it your beloved Global Warming science that you would teach us?
[snip – I warned you]
brc, if you bothered to look outside qld for your sources, you would notice that prediction of floods is a common theme.