The trouble is that we AREN'T getting more critical weather events. The number of hurricanes in the Atlantic has dropped to an all-time low and there are no more weather-induced floods or heatwaves than there were last decade or the decade before. Of course, there are more people to get in the way of them, and more measuring instruments to detect them -- (although there are actually many less remote weather stations in use around the world than there were in the 70s -- gee, I wonder what effect THAT might be having on the figures).

No reputable scientist now claims a link between global warming and CURRENT critical weather events, regardless of what they might have said in 1992. Yes, they like to speculate on what may happen, to keep the grants coming in, but nobody is willing to draw a direct connection now, because they know how fast they would be shot down by people who can do the math. Only misguided populists like Mike Carlton seriously advance this kind of nonsense -- and his latest rant was pulled off the SMH website after one day. Perhaps the powers that be are starting to see reason after all.

I agree Jon.

Yasi was just one of another cyclone to hit the Queensland coast. We've had them recorded since European settlement and I doubt we bought them with us. It was a cat 5 but did less damage than the cat 4 that hit Darwin and Innisfail.

The Qld flooding was mostly the result of a monsoonal trough. No record flood levels were recorded except around Condamine. Again as above, we've had them before and we'll get them again.

The Brisbane floods were a lot less extensive than in 1974 and other years... and not because of mitigation. Again we'll have them again.

And of course the snows in the northern hemisphere in winter are traditional.

What was that you and your warmist mates were telling us last year? No snow in the Northern Hemisphere in winter anymore and perpetual droughts in Australia forever?

This type of chicken little fear squawking isn't going to make the sky fall in.

they like to speculate on what may happen,
Jon J,
yeah, that's all they do at our expense. The cost of all that speculation would pay for just about bullet proof infrastructure. Just imagine how many flood mitigation dams the cost of the Kopenhagen party alone could have built.

There is another big weather influence evolving ie the magnetic north is shifting at 49 km per yr.Scientists say this could be causing severe electrical storms.They say already our magnetic field has decreased by 10%.This magnetic shield blocks a lot of radiation from the sun.We have had 400 swappings of the poles they are aware of.It takes 1000 yrs to complete a cycle.Our huge soft iron core is moving and this will also have an influence on our floating continents.ie earthquakes and volcanoes.

Weather very complex and we need to look at all the variables not just the man made ones.

It's sad to see someone of Julian's seniority made such outlandish claims.

There's a kind of desperation in the global warmers prognostications which comes from the fact that their issue is falling off the media agenda. They are getting more and more hysterical as per this article. Still, OLO is a broad church.

The claims of heat death have nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with people not checking that older people in large cities have the air con on and are drinking water. It's a sociological problem more to do with how we treat old people rather than global warming. This fact has been cited again and again in medical journals and the popular press.

I thought it was 100,000 yrs for poll shift. That's the first time i have seen Arjay state something that has actually happened before.

a579 ad hominem is all you can muster.

[Deleted for abuse.]

It's not about AGW or 1/100 events. It's about Wetland Sustainability!

Consider the man on the Grand Canyon Tour and how he enthuses. He can Either jump off a cliff and see all in 10 seconds and die. Or, take a 5 day mule-train and savour the views. Sure the donkeys stink and make noises, are stubborn and the insects and ...
But sure enough next year he'll make plans to do it again.

That is sustainability. In regard to Wetlands, let me say this:

If Queensland's President Anna Bligh had made efforts to stop the commercial devastation of wetlands along 3000Km of Qld's New-Florida coastline. If she had told the investors who lend her presidential $coffers & POWER that the WETLANDS are needed. Needed to stop incipient weather patterns breaching Queensland's coast like a dumb tourist striking the bottom of the Grand Canyon. If she'd told them that they would have to not only protect existing wetlands but pay a levy to create 10's of thousands more wetlands, THEN Queensland would not be the NATURAL DISASTER basketcase it is today.

Sure the wetlands stink and make funny noises and the insects and ... and you know the bit. But sure enough the cyclones and rain squalls would not reverb massive interior heat loads over the Macdonnells to the West and around the Artesian Basin to the Sou-East. They would take the slowmo route into Queensland and water the crops, enliven the barrier reef and make the bananas and sugar cane grow. And ... these tropical weather patterns would interact sustainably with wetland ecologies & do it all again, year-in, year-out. Such is the law of conservation of ORDER or ENTROPY .. THE mechanical advantaging of the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

And some premonitions:

Given the reprieve from BP's folly and its one season only Low Entropy oil-slicked Hurricane barricade miracle, America's Gulf is ungirded from folly. It is now on track for immense economic growth, immense wetland destruction & immense 2011 hurricanes.

Beware March! More Qld hurricanes & a greater $fiscal respect for coastal wetlands is a Thermodynamic certainty.

Allright .. some predictions .. you call them premonitions, but semantics aside, I like to see folks get their predictions right out there.

"And some premonitions:

Given the reprieve from BP's folly and its one season only Low Entropy oil-slicked Hurricane barricade miracle, America's Gulf is ungirded from folly. It is now on track for immense economic growth, immense wetland destruction & immense 2011 hurricanes."

So, 2011, immense hurricanes .. well, none for years, so let's see if you are correct .. not just one mind you, more than one immense hurricane in the USA .. awesome!

BTW .. didn't all the "natural" oil from the BP spill just disappear, being a natural substance, got eaten up and just vanished .. that wasn't processed or anything.

just goes to show, all the scaremongering and hysteria was utter rubbish, nature took care of it all. So many hysterics all claimed, oil was "unnatural", when in its raw state is a natural substance

'Unprecedented floods and cyclones in Australia. Floods' Start with a lie and then you end up with ridiculous conclusions. Kinda like the big bang!

rpg,

Oil, in its "natural" state, is enclosed within the earth's crust - not floating about on the surface of her oceans.

RPG,

In Applied Mathematics, System Dynamics, Cyclones must track according to Hamilton's principle of least time to dissipate. That means the final track must minimise cyclonic lifespan subject to external influences of heat intake and losses along the final track. To wit hurricanes never track towards overt LOW ENTROPY SOURCES like massive BP, low entropy oil spills unless there is no alternative higher entropy pathway. Calculus of variations offers ways to find solutions to such dynamic problems. It so happens that along the US east coast and Cancun and other Caribbean resort areas that human effluent offers tremendous High Entropy tracking opportunities for Hurricanes and they don't go into the US Gulf if low entropy oil spills are present.

For America to avoid Gulf framed hurricanes they must either create annual oil spills or encourage their neighbours to emit MORE effluent plumes during the hurricane season.

As neither option is likely the US Gulf will be hit hard this year post June 1st. On previous analyses of wastewater emissions, Galveston to Pt Arthur and Ft Myers to Tampa are the prime initial targets.

As for Qld the biggest river basin on the Nth coast will attract a mid to late March Cyclone. And next year, not 1/100 probability but 1/1, a similar event will unfold. Qld has the highest rate of land clearing on the planet. Ahead of the Amazon. If Anna Bligh and her cohorts want to see the Grand Canyon in 10 seconds, a Qld coast free of mozzies and stinky wetlands, then they will. But they cannot expect to be politically alive afterwards!

Julian - go back and look at what you wrote about that dodgy piece of CSIRO research where they put a doubling of CO2 into some models.
Then compare the CO2 levels now compared with then.

A further problem for your CSIRO forecasts is that neither the flooding nor Yasi were unusual in the sense that they had never happened before, and the floods had been forecast, in a way, with much greater precision by NASA using a climate cycle model.

In 2008 NASA pointed out that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation had flipped into its cool mode which meant that there would be more and more severe la ninas. It was also in cool mode during the 1974 floods in Brisbane and the 1950s floods around Maitland. High ocean temperatures may have made the flooding from the current la nina a little worse but the floods themselves were certainly not the result of those warm temperatures. The PDO flips regularly.

Climate cycle forecasting is becoming better established world-wide, as those who use it can point to a track record in rainfall, not just with the PDO. The only people who seem unaware of them is the activists.

The CSIRO forecasts which you trot out don't use cycle forecasting, so if they could be described as right in any way - which is unlikely - it was for the wrong reasons. Time to inform yourself.

There is no evidence that the recent cyclone was anything out of the ordinary. There is evidence that the 1918 cyclone that clobbered Innisfail was much worse and that the earlier Bathurst Bay cyclone may have been worse again. I have a hunch that when all the data is examined that the recent cyclone will get downgraded significantly. I reckon that there is plenty of evidence that Innisfail gets preferentially belted by cyclones; (three severe cyclones in 26 years). My view on that is doubtless caused by the fact that I live in poor old Innisfail. I am a victim at last!
To the article: it is poor and so replete with overstatement as to be rather counter productive. The comparison with Indian and Chinese health services with CO2 reduction is rather silly. I am disappointed in Julian Cribb, he is capable of much better work than this.
However, unlike the fascistically inclined ANZ I support absolutely his right to say it and for the article to be published on OLO. Furthermore I support absolutely the right of others to tell me that what I have said here is a load of total rubbish.

Julian may or may not be correct re his you aint seen nothing yet prediction re the weather in the years to come, but I would suggest that unfortunately he is most probably correct in his prediction re the coming global famine.

One of the triggering factors of which will be global climate change, and human activity via massive de-forestation.

And the possible disappearance of honey-bees. If that occurs it WILL be the end of the human story.

There was an item in the news 2 weekends ago re the failure of the grain crops in northern China, the complete lack of rain for three months, and the dropping of the groundwater table too.
Much of Russia's grain crop failed last year too. It was too hot with unprecedented high temperatures.
Australia's food production dropped significantly due to the recent storms and floods.

Re the dropping of the levels of groundwater, and of the shortage of water altogether. This is a world-wide problem and will be a contributing factor in future wars.

In fact it already is a key factor in various geo-political hot-spots on the planet. Access to, and control of water is a key factor in Middle Eastern politics, including the applied politics of the state of Israel.

Another one!

Julian, why now?

Why did your boiling pot not cause all this rain in the last 10 years?

Why did it decide to do it during the coolest spring summer season for many years in coastal Queensland.

Why do you quote only 4 papers in 15 years that agree with you?

Did you have trouble finding any amid the hundreds, from similar sources claiming we'd all be cooked?

Give it over mate, no thinking person believes any more. Do you?

You could be right, eyejaw, in suggesting that the recent cyclone was not anything out of the ordinary. It is hard to comprehend greater ferocity than that of the Bathurst Bay cyclone of March 1899; and the second cyclone of March 1918 (there had been earlier, in January) wreaked more havoc than Yasi.

The ordinary is any amount enough to worry anyone with a spark of sanity and concern for people living within a cyclone’s reach. Contemplate the thought of another Yasi sneaking up to the coast where it made landfall, and then stooging along south; just off-shore to keep warm water feeding it, eventually coming ashore at Coolangatta (same landfall as for a February 1954 cyclone).
That things might get worse is not a matter of cheer; and the vast bulk of reputable scientists working in the relevant field tell us indications are that it will; and that observations of the data for these indicators continue to reinforce the trend

Yasi, once the BOM have done their usual comprehensive review it will be found to be a Cat 5 cyclone that inflicted less loss of life and property danamge, on a per capita basis, than both cat 4 cyclones Tracey and Larry.

One stark statistic (supported) I've uncovered so far is that Tracey destroyed utterly 9000 buildings and Yasi destroyed utterly 150 in the Tully region. Given the main population areas of the eye crossing and range of the Severe Destructive Winds within the orbit of the Eye, in the Cassowary Coast, were Ingham and Innisfail and both were totally devoid of utterly destroyed buildings, (in fact reports say neither sustained any significant wind or tide damage) I doubt very much there'll be anywhere near 9000 utterly destroyed buildings throughout the region.

I can't wait till I see what basis they used to determine the 300klm/hr winds in Yasi as it neared and crossed the coast ... as in the past and particularly with Tracey, that statistic was deteremined by multiplying the Sustained(1 minute) Winds by a factor of 1.25. Tracey's maximun wind gusts were found to be 236klm/hr, and that was confirmed by using more than one method. Tracey's Sustained winds were estimated/recorded(?) (Not totally sure just now and will need to recheck as doing this from memory) at 189klm/hr. From ancedotal accounts the Sustained Winds of Yasi as it crossed the coast were neglible or at the very least nowhere near 189klm/hr.

I'm still researching Larry but I expect similar results.

Colinsett - sorry but nope on all counts.

KAEP should pay attention to.

First off there is simply no scientific consensus on any level about what increasing temperatures would do to cyclones. For every paper we could cite saying that such and such would happen should temperatures increase, you can cite another that says the opposite. The conflicting papers may even have the same authors. The same thing could be said about existing trends.

I could say a great deal more about this but there is certainly no evidence that Yasi was a cyclone out of trend, and some that cyclone tracey, although a smaller storm system, had category five winds (the scientist who headed the investigation into Tracy for the Commonwealth Government told me this recently.)

In any case, the real story is about the interaction between cyclones and building codes. The bullk of the damage caused by Yasi was to housing built before the early 1980s when the building codes were changed. In the town where most of the houses lost their roofs no new houses had been built in decades, hence the damage.

So its quite possible to more have powerful storms and less damage as more of the housing stock is renewed - that is, if we are going to have more powerful storms.

That is absolute rubbish colinstt.

All the research shows a reduction in the number & strength of cyclones world wide in the last 20 years, during your global warming

Having spent many years running tourist boats in the reef waters, & checking the log books of 35 years, I can assure you we spent much more time back then, up mangrove creeks, hiding from cyclones, than they have to do today.

In fact, looking at Port Hinchinbrook & Cardwell, it would appear that even the knowledge of what to do, in a cyclone, has been lost, due to lack of practice.

It is a damn sight safer up a mangrove creek, in a sound boat, than in a near waterfront house, when the winds really gets up.

Interestingly, the one bloke who took his boat up a creek was considered "missing" feared lost, until he sailed undamaged back into port. Perhaps James Cook should run a undergrad course in cyclone survival, using his experience & expertise. Would be much more use than much of their stuff.

You are a refreshing voice of reason Hasbeen. Did the left ever have any commonsense or is it compulsory to deny all evidence and replace it with dubious failed computer models?

Compare this article with Julian's 2009 piece 'Desert Knowledge - Surviving the 21st Century'. Now there's a backflip any politician would be proud of. What's it going to be;

2009: 'The wisdom of desert knowledge...may offer clues to survival in the 21st century, not only for ourselves but, potentially, for much of humanity in dry, uncertain times.'

or

2011: 'Anyone who still thinks this is natural climate variability at work needs to think again. The processes now under way mean that storms, heavy rainfall and floods can only get more severe from here on.'

The debate from the 'climate disruption' side gets more ridiculous by the day.

Hasbeen appears to be attacking JCU. What the motive for that attack is I do not know. Of course all the toys (boats) should have been taken up mangrove creeeks for safety. All local boaties do exactly that. In the Innisfail area they all vanish up Bamboo Creek and other small mangrove lined streams. I can only presume that many of the owners of the boats at the posh resort in Cardwell were not locals but from outside the area. Sort of well off toy boaties. That would explain the ignorance displayed. For Hasbeen to blame JCU or any other university for the ignorance of the rich at play is, shall we say, a bit rich.

Julian states that there are currently 1500 heat related deaths per year in Australia and that this number will increase with global warming. A little more research would tell him that there are currently 7000 cold related deaths in Australia, being the excess mortality in the three winter months compared with the three summer months. Refer http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/winter-kills-excess-deaths-in-the-winter-months/
His statement reminds me of the IPCC’s quote that 30,000 deaths were caused by the European heatwave in the August 2003, a figure that originated from one of the green activist organisations. Again a little more research would have revealed the World Health Organisation’s figures that show an average of 200,000 heat related deaths every year in Europe – but about 1.5 million deaths from excess cold. (WHO’s World Health Report 2004). Statistics in the UK show an increase in the death rate of 1.5% for each degree of temperature drop below 18 degrees C. The only conclusion that can be drawn from these figures is that future temperature related deaths will trend in the opposite direction to that projected in Julian’s piece. I wonder what that says for his other prognostications.

I find it astonishing that a person with academic and presumably therefore research credentials can make such ill-informed statements. Sad may be a better word, sad that people can be so driven by religious fervour in the contentious climate debate as to be blind to the broader range of information and evidence available. How can we expect our politicians to make the right decisions when this type of bias and misinformation is so dominant among supposed opinion leaders and the media?

Very good point about the European 2003 heatwave Malrob. Another factor was that the hospitals were understaffed as the doctors (espc in France) had gone off on hols. I was there. Major scandal.

Also, the government failed to tell older people to drink water and if they take blood pressure tablets (which can interfere with the bods cooling mechanism) to be extra vigilent.

I have been alarmed too at some of the conclusions that these 'eminent' scientists or communicators have made.

Curmudgeon,

Sorry to contradict you but The Federal BOM Report into Cyclone Tracey simply states Tracey was a Catagory 4 cyclone and that

'Estimates based on anemometer readings, pressure gradients, and satellite data are thus well supported and the consistency of these different approaches leads to the conclusion that peak gusts associated with Tracy were most likely in the range 217 to 240 km/h,
corresponding to maximum mean winds (10 minute average) over Darwin of 140 to 150km/h.'

page 45

Due to the thoroughness and professionalism on display in that report I have no doubt that had gusts been up to Cat 5 it would have said so.

With all due respects it is about wind intensity on infrustructure not just interaction between cyclones and housing building.

I am fearful that if a true catagory 5 cyclone the size of Yasi hit's Mission Beach in future we will see damage on an unprecedented scale with Ihgham, Cardwell, Tully Mission Beach and Innisfail utterly flattened, in Darwinesque fashion, by cat 5 Sustained Winds and Gusts, with Cairns and Townsville devestated by at least Catagory 4 Sustained winds and Gusts.

Any suggestions the scale of damage and, by others, the loss of life, in Yasi was minimised by Modern Building Codes and masterful cleanup preparation has the very great danger of creating complacency.

If anybody thinks a Cat 5 Cyclone the size of Yasi inflicts the relatively minimiscle and limited geographically spread damage that yasi did inflict... then they are terribly wrong.

<The Brisbane floods were a lot less extensive than in 1974 and other years... and not because of mitigation.>

That is an interesting point of view, Keith. According to one hydrologist, the Wivenhoe took 1.5 metres off the latest flood, despite it holding so much water at the time. With an extra 1.5 metres, the 2011 flood would have been worse than the 1974 flood.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/brisbane-saved-from-ruin-by-dam/story-fn59niix-1225992598096

So how is it that you think that a dam designed for flood mitigation had no mitigating effect?

Posted for the benefit of Poirot.
Who cleaves to the quaint notion that all that clings or clogs or chokes can only be of human concoction : [ “Oil, in its "natural" state, is enclosed within the earth's crust - not floating about on the surface of her oceans.”]

1)“Oil residue in seafloor sediments that comes from natural petroleum seeps off Santa Barbara, Calif., is equivalent to between 8 to 80 Exxon Valdez oil spills” http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=76955

2)“However, we have found that the biggest source of oil in the sea is natural seepage. We estimate that during the 87 days of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which leaked up to 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, an additional 3 million barrels leaked naturally. This natural seepage has been going on for thousands of years.” http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827810.700-oil-perspective.htm

Keith
yes I know Tracy is classified as a category four, and it was for the most part.. I said that parts got up to five while at Darwin... my source for this was the scientist who led the investigation. He said that it was the only way to explain some of the wind damage. (note this is inferred, not measured - the wind measuring instrument broke). He told me this only last week - now that I think of it, he did say something about his disagreeing with the classification. He also said the smaller wind systems can have sections with more intense winds.

However, if its not in the report its certainly not official and if you don't want to accept it, that's fine. It matters only to the extent that it is the first time I've heard of any claims of category five winds actually affecting buildings, as opposed to being somewhere in the wind system when it hit the coast.

And that was back in the 1970s. The climate apocalypse is getting further away, not closer.

SPQR,

Thanks for that - it's actually quite an interesting phenomenon.

Wind speed at sea is one thing, but when you get land involved, it can be something else entirely. Unless you have local Doppler readings, no wind speed reports mean very much.

When you hear boaties talking about bullets, they are usually not talking about things that come out of a gun, but gusts of wind. In many anchorages in Queensland you will be sheltering behind an island, or part there off. This usually means that there will be one or a few quite rugged ridges from a hundred to many hundred of meters high, between you & the direction of the prevailing wind.

In these anchorages you are protected from the sea, [waves] but often, not the wind. The steep ridges will stop the wind for a short while, but it will build up pressure, & then a "bullet" of wind will come roaring over, [or around] the ridge, often at a multiple of 2 or 3 times the prevailing wind speed. The direction of the wind in a bullet can be from almost any point of the compass.

This can lead to a very uncomfortable night in a boat, but in a cyclone, things get more deadly. A mile or two inland a high quality structure can have alternating direction & strength gusts tear it apart, while a lean too shed next door is not damaged, as it never received even half the wind of it's neighbour.

This is why mangrove creeks offer such good protection. The friction of blowing over a Km or 2 of level tree tops reduces & stabilises the wind speed & direction. Usually a lot of rain raises the level of water over the mud they grow in, helping to support them, from being broken or blown over.

Fester

according to many reports Wivenhoe was full at 200% capacity and water was released in the days leading up to the Brisbane flood to 'save' the dam. Some claim the amounts and timings of the releases actually added to the expected flood level. Anyway that is to be covered by the official enquiry.

Hydrologists predictions about the height of the flood keep changing, up and down. Less than 2 hours before the flood peak in Brisbane they were still predicting a higher peak than 74. It was laughable the way they downgraded the prediction in those last two hours. It wasn't until approx 30 minutes before the peak they advised the level 'might' be about 1 metre below the 74 level.

Hydrologists up here during the floods seemed more like race-callers.

For a science communicator, the author is poorly informed about climate science.

If he were to conduct a scientific literature search, he would find (a) that there is no scientific evidence that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have had a measurable effect on average global temperature, and (b) that there is no scientific evidence that there are more climatic emergency events at the moment than in the past or that these are more frequent or more dangerous.

Instead of remaining in a state of warmist-propaganda inebriation, the author should sober up by reading the 2010 published book, "A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy", by Mark Lawson, investigative science journalist, science graduate and OLO contributor, which reviews the state of climate science.

And that reference is the one we take as gospel. right.

You can find a graph of Wivenhoe Dam levels here:

http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/dam-levels

While the dam did reach a high level, it was not at that level when the rain started, so clearly the dam did have some mitigating effect. The mitigating effect would have been greater were Wivenhoe not essential for Brisbane's water supply, as a lower level could then have been maintained.

<Hydrologists up here during the floods seemed more like race-callers.>

Is that a comment on their ability or the quality of data available to them?

The point was their predictions changed hourly. What was the point of all those earlier predictions when every prediction proved to be wrong, even those 30 minutes prior to the peak level? Why bother?

Thanks to the apparent negligence of the Wivenhoe Dam operator, necessitating the emergency release of about a third of the dam's capacity on the Tuesday, and thus causing most of the Brisbane flooding, federal taxpayers are expected to bear the cost of repairing that flood damage. Given that the dam operator is a Qld Govt instrumentality, the Qld Govt should assume responsibility for that negligence and bear the full cost of repair.

The objective of the dam operating manual should be to exercise foresight so as to avoid major downstream flooding, rather than to give priority to protecting the dam operator from liability, as appears to have been the case.

Keith asks

'The point was their predictions changed hourly. What was the point of all those earlier predictions when every prediction proved to be wrong, even those 30 minutes prior to the peak level? Why bother?'

Because the 'science is settled'. Just ask Flannery and Garnaut as they cash in on the Government coffers to tell the Australian people that by paying more for electricity we will save the planet. Forget the fact that all the alarmist rubbish has proven wrong or fraudulent.

Keith

I think you are being a bit unfair in your criticism of the scientists accuracy in predicting a flood peak. Remember that the Wivenhoe was built as a flood mitigation dam on scientific advice. Remember that a bit over a decade ago scientific advice to develop alternative water supply sources like Wolfdene so that Wivenhoe could be more effective for flood mitigation was ignored. Remember that a few years ago the pollies went into a panic meltdown and wasted billions on overpriced and poor quality infrastructure. Remember that the 2011 flood was worse than it would have been had the Wivenhoe been able to be utililised more for flood mitigation and less for water storage.

Continue your scientist bashing crusade if you wish, but I think that Brisbane's residents would have been far better off had the advice of scientists been acted on instead of ignored. How much would Brisbane's residents be paying for their water if a scientific course of action had been taken instead of a political one? How much flood damage would have occurred with an emptier Wivenhoe? Less on both counts I would think.

People need to learn about the climate and how weather patters work. Most of the coments here are of ignorance and lack of informed education. I believe that in Australia and other countries this is from the all talk fest that occurs around the world regarding climate change.

People are being asked to make decisions on things that they do not understand fully or they do not care to understand. Then there is talk of a levy or a carbon tax being introduced. Simple a carbon tax is a waste of time and taking money from regular folk. This is not needed and not required, people shut off and will refuse to listen. everyone was lost at the hello here is a carbon tax it will help. No it will not people are not that stupid. Actual incentives to cut pollution, alternatives to fuel for cars and help to reduce rising energy costs is far more effective and will be accepted by most people. Tax businesses that are huge consumers of energy that is polluting, do not tax people. Or incentives like I have mentioned. no more talk of global warming or climate change people are sick of it they want some action and they want to be able to benefit. Encourage farmers , or agricultural business to adopt cleaner safe work practices which will not affect the selling of their crops. Make it mandatory for all homes bought or built to come with solar power. Discuss about soil trapping carbon not taxes. Or people as you see will be well the weather is changing and that is normal. Yes it is normal just the intensity of the weather has increased in parts of the world. Big business are the energy consumers and third world countries share technology or trade it to them at a cheaper price.Focus on goodwill.

Hasbeen, Keith, 'runner' likes you.
Bummer.

Fester

Hydrologists are not scientists they are engineers.

Grim,

Damn, so few do!

Keith

They use a scientific method and race calling is not a part of their qualification. It is sad to see people so quick to blame those who have given advice that would have saved so much money and hardship were it heeded.

Fester,

the hydrologists, who use mathematical models and not science, made predictions which were always over-estimations and tended to suggest we were in a race to best previous records. The resulting much lower than predicted levels was what caused lower levels of hardship and saved money.

It was Joh and his engineers who foesaw the possibility of future catastrophic floods and who planned to mitigate them.

It was Rudd, when running Qld for Goss, who trashed plans for Wolfdene and dumped the engineers expert advice.

I suggest you take the matter up with him. Not me.

keith, Yasi was bigger and much more severe than Larry. The damage to the place is catastrophic.
I suspect you have not been up here to see the damage first hand. It looks like an atomic bomb, loaded with agent orange, hit the place. Houses stood up simply because of better engineering. There was no loss of life simply because Yasi hit a rural area where most people are familiar with the safety precautions needed for cyclones.

Hasbeen, the people left the boats in Port Hinchinbrook because their insurance covered them in a mariner and penalised them if the boaties went up the mangroves. One of the blokes who went up the mangroves where he got hit by a few trees etc even though the boat survived, was slammed a $5,000 excess from his insurance because he did not stay in the mariner! Get your facts straight.

Keith
Hope this clears it up for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrologist

a597, further to the suggested Mark Lawson book read, you would bring yourself up to date by:
(a) consulting Bob Carter's book, 'Climate: the Counter Consensus' and
(b) reading the 8 February 2011 open letter, 'The Truth About Climate Change', submitted to the United States Congress by a group of responsible US scientists, in response to a letter of 28 January 2011 from eighteen climate 'alarmists', that is available at the following link
http://www.co2science.org/education/truthalerts/v14/TruthAboutClimateChangeOpenLetter.php

Add to that a597;

. The Adventures Of Noddy

. The Further Adventures Of Noddy

. The Classic Adventures Of Noddy

:)

Not a bad response to my few word query. It shows real intelligence from un-matured scape goats.