HUN War on Science: Andrew Bolt, lying about Queensland floods

The odious Andrew Bolt claims scientists and warmists “did not see this coming”:

The global warmists claimed Queensland’s rains would dry up, which is why the Labor Government built a desalination plant – now mothballed – instead of yet more dams:

(Premier Peter) Beattie said the effects of climate change on our region meant we could no longer rely on past rainfall patterns to help us plan for the future…

“My advice indicates if we continue to experience below average rainfalls it could take several years (anywhere from five to ten years) for our major dam system to climb back up past 40 percent even with purified recycled water, desalination and the other measures we’re taking to supplement our water supplies.

“Given the current uncertainty about the likely impact of climate change on rainfall patterns in SEQ over coming years, it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower than usual rainfalls could eventuate.

And which of your useless experts – Monckton, Nova, Watts – made a prediction worth a damn?

He then cherry picks data from a 2007 CSIRO report:

The CSIRO’s global warming models in 2007 certainly predicted less rain, not more:

5.2.1 Median precipitation change by 2030

Best estimates of annual precipitation change represent little change in the far north and decreases of 2% to 5% elsewhere. Decreases of around 5% prevail in winter and spring, particularly in the south-west where they reach 10%. In summer and autumn decreases are smaller and there are slight increases in the east…

By 2050, under the B1 scenario, the range of annual precipitation change is -15% to +7.5% in central, eastern and northern areas, with a best estimate of little change in the far north grading southwards to a decrease of 5%.

The range of change in southern areas is from a 15% decrease to little change, with best estimate of around a 5% decrease. Under the A1FI scenario changes in precipitation are larger. The range of annual precipitation change is -20% to +10% in central, eastern and northern areas, with a best estimate of little change in the far north grading to around a 7.5% decrease elsewhere.

But here is the real kicker: the CSIRO report makes predicitons for 2030, 2050 and 2070 not 2010.

It is about long term trends, using the IPCC models to make various predictions under different emissions pathways.

It is not intended as a weather forecast for the next six months!

Andrew Bolt does not even understand what he is reading.

What did my previous post just demonstrate (from 2010 report):

Climate change is also likely to affect extreme rainfall in south-east Queensland (Abbs et al.2007). Projections indicate an increase in two-hour, 24-hour and 72-hour extreme rainfall events for large areas of south-east Queensland, especially in the McPherson and Great Dividing ranges, west of Brisbane and the Gold Coast. For example, Abbs et al. (2007) found that under the A2 emissions scenario, extreme rainfall intensity averaged over the Gold Coast sub-region is projected to increase by 48 per cent for a two-hour event, 16 per cent for a 24-hour event and 14 per cent for a 72-hour event by 2070. Therefore despite a projected decrease in rainfall across most of Queensland, the projected increase in rainfall intensity could result in more flooding events. 

A decrease in overall rain and increase in extreme events:

In Queensland the major risks to communities and their supporting infrastructure are cyclones and flooding. In addition, poor building design will place an increasing load on mechanical cooling to manage the effects of higher temperatures, increasing the need for fossil-fuelled electricity generation and thereby increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate change will affect settlements through direct and indirect impacts resulting in damage to buildings and other infrastructure. These climate changes include: 

> increased intensity of rainfall events
> increased temperatures
> more frequent extreme weather events
> increased extent and frequency of coastal flooding due to sea level rise and storm surges.

The man has no shame, and is a blight on the media landscape.

The cowardly Bolt has disabled comments on his blog.

Excuse the language, but f*ck Andrew Bolt.

31 thoughts on “HUN War on Science: Andrew Bolt, lying about Queensland floods

  1. Sherro says:

    “The cowardly Bolt has disabled comments on his blog. Excuse the language, but f*ck Andrew Bolt.”
    Interesting that on other posts in this blog Andrew Bolt has been consistently pilloried for playing the man… Bolts comments have been disabled since mid-Decemeber for all posts on all topics as he is on leave, as his blog explains. Not sure how you reach that to be “cowardly” behaviour? Happy to hear you explain it though.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      If he is on leave, why is he posting?

      • Sherro says:

        Cause you can post and article on a blog easily enough, having to filter a couple hundred responses to ensure nothing is defamatory takes a lot longer I would suppose. In any event, all comments on all topics have been disabled since mid December until the end of Jan as I read it, so you can’t make the case as implied, that he put this up and ran away from comment, he is having I assume, a holiday. Make your case on fact, not spin.

      • Dewi says:

        Sherro,

        Looks like he doesn’t have time to filter *his own posts* for defamatory material, so they shouldn’t be going up either, particularly if debate is being silenced on something sold as a “blog”.

  2. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by felixmeister. felixmeister said: RT @WTDeniers: #AndrewBolt is a liar, cherry picks info and claims no one saw floods coming. Proof he lies http://tinyurl.com/49gadok […]

  3. Sou says:

    I’ve just seen Prof David Karoly from Melbourne Uni on ABC News 24. He gave an excellent explanation of the floods brought by La Nina, and how the oceans, warmed to record levels as global warming gets worse, are making the floods the worst on record. He spoke in no uncertain terms about how we are causing disasters like this by increasing the heat retained on earth (not his words).

    I’ve posted a quick and dirty summary on my blog (link on my name). Sorry for the plug, but I am wanting to promote another idea to help Queenslanders in the next day or so – so want to drive some traffic🙂

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Thanks Sou, I will check it out.

    • Klem says:

      The worst floods on record? But these homes and cities are built on flood plains, they are called flood plains because they flood. They have been flooding for milenia, just how far back do HIS records go? Merely 100 years? 500?

  4. Sou says:

    As a grumpy old maid, I’m proud to be identified with GOMMs (grumpy old maids and men). I’ve kicked off a couple of ideas for how cash poor, time rich(er) people like me can help out those in Queensland and northern NSW over the coming months. Any comments or contributions would be most welcome🙂

    http://bundanga.blogspot.com/2011/01/gomms-ideas-for-helping-out-after.html

  5. memoryvault says:

    The current QLD rain and subsequent flooding has NOTHING to do with the CO2 AGW fraud. It was predictable, and predicted, 35 years ago after the last similar flood.

    A flood mitigation program was started, but never completed, because more recent “experts” had assured successive governments that such rains “were a thing of the past”, and pushed for the construction of water desalination instead, to cope with the coming “endless drought”.

    But let’s not let mere “facts” get in the way of a good CO2 AGW disaster story.

    How many good folk do you people have to kill before you wake up and smell the coffee?

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100071290/queensland-floods-but-at-least-the-endangered-mary-river-cod-is-safe-eh/#dsq-content

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Oh look, another conspiracy fantasist.

      Sure, a UK tabloid journalist knows more than the world’s scientific community.

      Bored now.

  6. memoryvault says:

    Thanks for confirming my theory that people like you don’t even READ anything that might upset your fantasy world-view.

    The link I posted was to an article in the UK Telegraph. However, it was largely a reprint of a comment I made on a previous article.

    It was about the flood mitigation program that never happened because of people just like you.

    I wrote it and I live just out of Brisbane QLD where all this happening.

    And where might you be, to be such an “expert” on the subject?

    • Sherro says:

      Maybe he watched Al Gores movie, or heard Robyn Williams tell us sea levels will rise by 100m…. nah, just kidding, he gets his data via email from Phil Jones… lol

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      People like me?

      I stopped flood mitigaton?

      We both suffer the consequences of climate change.

      That’s my point and concern.

    • Nick says:

      Memory Vault ,you dimwit, Traveston Dam if approved would not have been complete in time to intercept flood waters from the upper Mary River in this event.

      If it had been complete,it would have been completely full well before this weeks deluge,and as such would have played absolutely no part in mitigating flooding. Did you not notice that Fairbairn dam has twice failed ,in 2008 and this December,to mitigate floods in Emerald,despite its huge capacity?

      Another example of your monumental ignorance is the fact that earlier flooding in the lower Mary river around Miva and downstream came from 200-300mm of rain in that area…well below where Traveston would have been built. So zero mitigation there,too.

      The claim that ‘experts’ advised successive governments that flooding was ‘a thing of the past’ is such patent rhetorical bullshit that I do not understand how you could try it on.

      It is a matter of public advice that flooding occurs in the Condamine-Balonne catchment on average every two years. Flood brochures are available for every major catchment in Queensland,detailing flood histories and characteristics for each river. There is no suggestion that flooding is ‘a thing of the past’.

      A proposal to raise Wivenhoe and Somerset Dams has been developed recently,and will no doubt be brought forward in the aftermath of this event. Several new dams are at planning stage in the Fitzroy catchment-notably,flood mitigation is NOT their core function,because such a role is not feasible in the light of knowledge about their catchments’ potential for extreme events.

      As for Bolt,he obviously thinks a continental trend in annual or decadal rainfalls has some bearing on local one day,one week or one month extreme events. He’s just another professional whiner who does not know when he is revealing his incapacity for analysis..a time-waster.

      • Nick says:

        I’m sorry I got the bit about Traveston’s buffering capacity wrong…looking at the wrong docs. It could have knocked the top off the recent flood it seems,according to running four historical floods through a hydrographic model,as it did have a stage one flood air space and gates… But definitive statements about its ability are limited by the limits of this modelling.

        The rest stands,with bells on.

  7. Sou says:

    re memoryvault’s comments, WatchingtheDeniers is doing an excellent job exposing those who, by denying climate change, are most definitely trying very hard to delay mitigation of floods and droughts. (Of course there have been a lot of mitigation works over the past 30 years, including mitigation works to minimise the effects of floods, drought and coastal erosion. It’s unfortunately hard to keep up with the worsening extremes of weather.)

    I suggest memoryvault looks in the mirror.

    As for Delingpole – his lies have been exposed many times in the past. His newspaper has retracted some of them even if he refuses to apologise. I charge that anyone who spreads his lies is as guilty is he is of delaying works to minimise weather-related disasters.

  8. Tom Curtis says:

    The CSIRO was predicting increased peak rainfall with consequent flooding as far back as 2003, and in 2005 predicted up to 20% increased rainfall in peak events even with less than 1 degree warming. (See my blog for links)

    Re Memoryvault, his memory is obviously defective. Following the ’74 floods Wivenhoe dam was built with the specific purpose of preventing another ’74 flood. At the same time, Brisbane’s drainage system was massively enhanced to prevent another repeat of ’74. In other words, the flood mitigation was already in place well before the period of which he speaks.

    That flood mitigation is working. Wivenhoe increased its stored water by 40% in twenty four hours as a result of the torrential rain in the Lokyer Valley and Range on Monday. At the same time, in order to prevent an unmitigated disaster, it released sufficient water to generate a greater than ’74 flood in Brisbane. Without Wivenhoe, we would have had a ”74 flood a week ago, and would now be facing a flood to match 1893.

    Further, as indicated above, the experts durring the period he was talking about were telling the government that in addition to longer and drier droughts, global warming would bring more intense floods with the rise in peak rainfall. The CSIRO has predicted that increase in rainfall because increased temperature drives up evaporation, resulting in more rain ready to fall (when it is going to). This is seen clearly in the current flood. In ’74, and in 1893 (Brisbanes greatest recorded flood), Brisbane flooded because weeks of rain was followed by the remnants of a tropical cyclone passing over us. This time round, with far improved flood mitigation, we have not required the cyclone.

    The bad news is that because of global warming we can expect a flood like this every 10 to 20 years in the future (with long droughts in between). If the government listens to twits like memoryvaults, it will plan based on past flooding, and treat this as just an exceptional event. I hope we are lucky enough to have governments that will listen to real scientists instead of denier hacks.

    And to head of the predictable ad hominem, I live in Brisbane, and all my close familly live in Brisbane or Toowoomba.

    (I have already tried to post this without success. I apologise if it turns into a double post.)

    • Nick says:

      ..and the utter pretention of the Delingpoles and Bolts of this world,that they can teach people to suck eggs who have dedicated their careers to understanding how catchments work,is absolutely galling.

      Insulated by their narcissism and craving for attention,they blunder on fomenting helplessly wrong and destructive gossip at any and every opportunity. A plague on their houses.

  9. adelady says:

    I do like the idea of ‘stopping’ major floods on these rivers. When watching teev coverage of Rockhampton (was that just last week?) the commentary was that the flow of the Fitzroy past the city was 1 1/2 Sydney Harbours per day. And there were 2 SHs a day flowing into Wivenhoe at the point where they had no choice but to start releasing more water into Brisbane River.

    Just how many Sydney Harbour sized holes in the ground do such people intend to dig?

    I think that Wivenhoe did an absolutely fantastic job. Had the rain stopped a day or two earlier, the flooding in Brisbane would have been quite manageable.

    • Nick says:

      I think you could divert quite a few SydHarbs into the hole that Bolt has dug for himself over the years!

      Brisbane is a mess,a bigger mess than 1974 because there has been a lot of suburban infilling-some ill-advised- now the population has grown by 1,5 million,but without Wivenhoe the flood would have been faster and higher,which means even more main river velocity. It has worked as planned,but was pushed to closer to design limits than anyone would like.

      We were saved by the very rapid cessation of heavy rain.If it had tailed off more slowly,and there were another couple of hours of 30mm/hr plus intensities over a 1000km2 of Wivenhoe catchment…

    • Chris W says:

      Yeah, I heard that statistic too adelady.

      I’d just like to add to it from another article I read … the biggest dam in QLD is across the Burdekin River, and at 1,860,000 ml it holds between 3 and 4 times the capacity of Sydney Harbour, 562,000 ml. It is truly one *massive* piece of engineering and I’ve been there when there was 3 metres of water over the spillway (much like the photo in Wikipedia).

      In any event it would fill from *dead*empty* to full within two days of that Fitzroy flow but dimwitted ninnies like memoryfault don’t seem to be able to work out stuff like that. All they are interested in is scoring some sort of gotcha about ‘green nazis cause all the problems’ bullshit.

      Not only would they send us broke building them but where do these geese think all the monster dams would go ? The best places are already taken.

  10. Bolt’s a pathetic excuse of a reporter. I’m convinced that he’s only kept for shock value. I mean, if any educated individuals can easily see through his crap, it doesn’t matter – for they’re reading him regardless.

  11. Adam says:

    Bolt is making money of feeding the ignorant rage inducing nonsense.
    His latest crap suggests that because the brisbane river did not peak past 1974 levels that Anthropogenic Climate Change is making no impact.
    He deliberately ignores
    (a) The reduction of river levels due to the Wivenhoe Dam.
    (b) There was NO cyclone generating the rain
    (c) Ignores how WA is outside (largely) the effects of La Nina. Their heat is as expected.
    (d) He ignores sea surface temperatures.
    (e) He dismisses local council concerns about developments that could be affected/flooded by rising sea levels yet asks why did Brisbane councils permit dwellings to be built in an area that could be flooded?
    (f) He does not say that Toowoomba and Grantham disaster would not have been reduced/prevented by dams.

    His efforts in 2011 has been shocking and the level of ignorance dangerous.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Agreed Adam, quite frankly I’m appalled. But then, what would one expect?

      Apparently he is on “holidays” and not allowing comments on his blog – and yet is posting on regular basis.

  12. Klem says:

    The floods can be explained as examples of climate change, no problem. But they are evidence of claimte change only, not evidence that CO2 is the cause. I’m sure you know all about that.

    Here’s the question I never hear you ask; when you build homes and cities on flood plains, why are people surprised when it floods?

  13. Tom Curtis says:

    Klem, your last sugestion is silly. Do you think the entirety of of the Midwest of the US shoudl be abandoned as a human habitation because it is one vast flood plain? Or that Egyptians should live only in the desert as all else of their country is flood plain?

    In the case of SE Queensland, Brisbane was settled because it was the only suitable natural harbour on the SE Qld coast. It’s location was determined by the highest point in the Brisbane River Estuary navagable by ocean going vessels of the time. At that point the high side of the river was settled. But Brisbane (as capital cities tend to) grew, and inevitably grew onto the flood plain as well as the surrounding hills.

    Recognizing that Brisbane is prone to flooding, Brisburnians have built a variety of flood mitigation methods, of which the two most important are dams capable of holding an excess capacity (above normal water storage) equal to 2.67 times the volume of Sydney Harbour. Having done that, some of us are a little surprised when rains so heavy arive that we can only keep those dams intact by releasing more water into the river in a day than is found in Sydney Harbour. Some of use are particularly surprised when these heavy rains aren’t even associated with a cyclone. (Some of use are not so surprised because we have read the CSIRO’s predictions about the consequences of global warming.)

    Ipswich founded at the highest point navagable by river barges lies 17 meters above the Bremer River, and so is not meaningfully on a flood plain. It just happens that three times in the last 150 years the Bremer river has flooded above 17 meters.

    Toowoomba is at the very crest of a Mountain Range. The only things further up stream of Toowoomba is more of Toowoomba. Suggestions that it is on a flood plain are just Silly.

    Grantham, the hardest hit community, lies on a small creek you could easilly jump over in normal circumstances. The catchment area of that creek is a few kilometers long, and about a kilometer wide. You do not expect so small a cachement to produce a wall of water 7 meters high without notice, and it has not done so for 150 years until this week. Floods they expected. “Instant inland tsunamis”they did not, nor should have.

    • Nick says:

      Tom,I think your description of Grantham is a bit out. The creek through Grantham,Sandy Creek,is a bit bigger than that. Looks about 15-20km long with a catchment of 60km2 or so. Still,it is normally dry or a trickle as you say.

      I also wonder how much the larger Lockyer Creek influenced events as it was flash flooding too. From the aerial shots I have seen it looks like the Lockyer flooded in from the west while Sandy Creek pushed in from the north. Most of the destruction seems to be on the plain where the creeks meet.

  14. Interesting that you should mention Egypt because much of the more densely populated areas of Egypt (and many other older settlements) came about because they were floodplains. The seasonal fluctuation of the Nile meant that when it spilt out on to the floodplains, it brought with it much needed nutrients for agriculture. This whole system of carting in bags of fertilisers is only a few generations old and as flooding was no longer so imperative (in many cases impossible due to growing water usage), levies and other means have been used to try and reduce flooding of such areas.
    At the same time, such places also saw populations dramatically increase over the past century…
    As you go on to say – flooding as we’ve seen in Qld is not to be expected. It’s a freak event (some people in my group even model flooding in Adelaide as unlikely as that is) and not simply due to a one terrible storm, but months of above normal rainfall.
    You might what to blame last year’s warming on the El Nino and the flooding of the past 3 months on La Nina, but that in itself is a sign of climate change as the results of these events are more severe than otherwise expected.

  15. […] HUN War on Science: Andrew Bolt, lying about Queensland floods […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: