No one quite knows how much of the continent of Australia is under water at the moment but just in the State of Queensland it exceeds 800,000 sq KM or about 10% of the continent and guess what? The monsoon season has only just started in the tropical north. To put that in some perspective it is an area larger than France and Germany combined, This won't displace the number of people displaced in the recent flooding in Pakistan but the cost is counted in billions of dollars. I have always said there is a lot of flat land in Australia for a reason and we are being shown the reason.

Where is all that water going to go? Well some of it will go into the Pacific ocean and some of it will go inland to add to the water already making its way to Lake Eyre. Some of it will refresh the Murray Darling system and bring a halt to the senseless buying of water rights by the Federal government. This will transform the inland for years to come, the Pelicans may even return to make their home there again.

Now it might be said all this is the result of global warming, but I remember similar events in my youth long before global warming became popular and we haven't inhabited this continent long enough to know what a thousand year flood might look like. If those events are repeated we are in for years of floods. In fact, nowhere in the world do we have enough information to really understand what nature might throw at us in a normal weather cycle. So how about we stop all this nonsense about global warming and go back to normal variability?

I read about the flooding this morning . Glad to see our HAARP plans are on schedule. Once we get the glitches ironed out, we will be able to provide enough rain for irrigation and potable use ,without the flooding inconvenience. :rolleyes:

Yeah it's not Pakistan ,but it is impacting nearly a quarter million people and has not gotten the coverage it deserves.
http://www.wtma.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=113&itemid=29615526

Are there been any reservoir projects in the works ? If I'm not mistaken Queensland has annual drought and flood cycles. Couldn't some of this water be captured in the rainy season ? It would help agriculture.

So how about we stop all this nonsense about global warming and go back to normal variability?Hello clete:

Until you present your scientific credentials for making a such a statement, I'll consider your plea to be nothing more than right wing politics as usual..
You look around, and see lots of water - ergo, global warming is a hoax... But, the water sits on FLAT land... ergo, the earth is flat... Why is THAT observation different?

Dude! You are a science denier.. You are a believer in Intelligent Design.. That, in and of itself, is clear evidence of your denial... It's clear, that your interest is in promoting religion and NOT science...

excon

Ironically the very basis for science is skepticism.. yet the cult of AGW calls skeptics 'science deniers'. Sounds like they are promoting their own religious brand.

ironically the very basis for science is skepticism .Hello again, tom:

In the language I speak, being skeptical that something is happening, and denying that it is happening, AREN'T the same thing...

excon

"denier" is a smear cleverly crafted by AGW proponents to discredit the growing numbers of people ,including retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon ,who dispute the so called "consensus " on man made climate change.

When you smear us as being anti-science ,you smear him as well ,along with the growing number of scientists who now dispute the contention.

Hello again, tom:

I don't know what your problem is.. You DO deny the scientific consensus... What other word would you prefer I use? Deny, is exactly what you do... The word is accurate. To couch it as skepticism, is political correctness gone nuts... It's DENIAL... It's NOTHING other than denial...

Let's take on the second issue... People who believe in, or give an inkling of credibility to Intelligent Design, are science deniers. They may THINK they're evaluating different opinions equally, but they're not... One is science. One is religion. People who can't tell the difference are science deniers...

That's NOT a smear. It's ACCURATE...

excon

I read about the flooding this morning . Glad to see our HAARP plans are on schedule. Once we get the glitches ironed out, we will be able to provide enough rain for irrigation and potable use ,without the flooding inconvenience. :rolleyes:

Yeah it's not Pakistan ,but it is impacting nearly a quarter million people and has not gotten the coverage it deserves.
1250 AM WTMA: The Big Talker | News and Talk from Charleston, South Carolina (http://www.wtma.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=113&itemid=29615526)

Are there been any reservoir projects in the works ? If I'm not mistaken Queensland has annual drought and flood cycles. Couldn't some of this water be captured in the rainy season ? It would help agriculture.

Yes it is a HAARP attack on us, but we won't harp on that particular conspiracy theory.

Yes it is badhttp://www.news.com.au/national/thousands-forced-from-homes-military-help-called-in-as-flood-crisis-deepens/story-e6frfkvr-1225979694261

You can't build a dam in this country anymore, the environmentalists will find some rare species it affects, only recently a large dam project in NSW which would prevent flooding in the Hunter, a natorious area for flooding, was rejected and in Queensland they have sewerage recyclying projects and desalination plants instead of dams. There is a long standing project called the Bradfield plan to turn these coastal rivers inland and send the water to Lake Eyre but it will not ever get off thr ground because of "green" thinking. You can't do nation building any more because of the mentality of the left. Hydro projects are outside their thinking even.

Hello clete:

Until you present your scientific credentials for making a such a statement, I'll consider your plea to be nothing more than right wing politics as usual..
You look around, and see lots of water - ergo, global warming is a hoax... But, the water sits on FLAT land.... ergo, the earth is flat... Why is THAT observation different?

Dude! You are a science denier.. You are a believer in Intelligent Design.. That, in and of itself, is clear evidence of your denial... It's clear, that your interest is in promoting religion and NOT science...

excon

Ex, without doubt you are an idiot, I have come to that conclusion from patient observation. The Earth is flat because water flows over it, this is why we get flat land between the mountains. That I know this is the result of patient observation over a life time and I didn't need a degree in Earth sciences to discern this.

Do I believe in God? Yes, that same patient observation has left me with no doubt, and yes, I am interested in promoting a particular form of religion which agrees with my observations. That science has not proven God is only because they haven't taken the time to examine the facts. The absence of research doesn't prove anything. Remember Albert Einstein, a brilliant scientist, he said; I just want to know the thoughts of God, everything else is just the details. So Ex, take the time to get out of the details for a while.

Happy New Year, by the way.

In the language I speak, being skeptical that something is happening, and denying that it is happening, AREN'T the same thing...



Ok Ex I have outlined my SKEPTICISM on a number of occasions but you don't accept what I say as valid, that makes you a denier. I have not denied that industry is adding to CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere. I have not denied that we need to find ways to get away from the carbon fuel cycle. What I am SKEPTIC about are the conclusions that have been drawn that this is the major source of climate change and that we have the science, there is that word again, to effect or even reverse the outcomes we observe.

So why won't you allow my SKEPTICISM that we have been presented with valid conclusions. I'll tell you why and that is that it doesn't fit in with your political views and you feel threatened by this. Yours is a political view EX that we must interfere to SAVE the Planet. The planet is always being saved from some threat or other by bleading hearts like you, whether it is Saddam or climate change, whereas I am completely SKEPTICAL that this is anything other than vested interests pushing their political agenda

Ex, without doubt you are an idiot, I have come to that conclusion from patient observation. Hello again, clete:

You make pronouncements on a scientific subject INSISTING that your religious viewpoint takes precedence, and I'm the idiot... Right..

excon

Hello again, clete:

You make pronouncements on a scientific subject INSISTING that your religious viewpoint takes precedence, and I'm the idiot.... Right..

excon

You must be, Ex, because you keep making unfounded statements about what I am or am not doing. I have made very few religious statements in this particular forum. You see, EX, I happen to hold the view that man is not God and that he will never replace him, whereas as you apparently hold the view that man, in the form of science, is all knowing and therefore God.

Ex ,by the nature of the discipline ,consensus science is an oxymoron. It is probably the oxymoron of the decade .

In the words of Michael Crichton

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

Yet you apparently think some of the most credited scientists in the field who have minority views are not only AGW deniers, or man made climate change deniers ,but are deniers of science itself.

Well said Tom

Hello again,

Let's get back to basics. You observe that it's cold, or there's lots of water - ergo, there's no such thing as global warming...

I observe that throwing trash into the air does something bad, even if I don't know exactly what it is - ergo, there MIGHT be global warming, and if not warming, it's doing something bad.

But, I don't have a stake in global warming. I don't CARE. I have a stake in keeping my skies clean. I have a stake in keeping my cushy lifestyle. I have a stake in keeping my country fully employed.. I have a stake in NOT sending tons of our money to our enemy's. I have a stake in finding alternative energy. I have grandchildren. I have a stake in their future.

I have a stake in doing those things, because whether global warming is real or NOT, doing those things will nip it in the bud, alongside with accomplishing those other good things... It's win, win, win.

Yet, you don't want to do those things... I have no idea why, even if you HATE Al Gore.

excon

But, I don't have a stake in global warming. I don't CARE. I have a stake in keeping my skies clean. I have a stake in keeping my cushy lifestyle. I have a stake in keeping my country fully employed.. I have a stake in NOT sending tons of our money to our enemy's. I have a stake in finding alternative energy. I have grandchildren. I have a stake in their future.

excon

Ah, Ex, your mistake is you think that we aren't all in the same boat and have similar aspirations. But I do have news for you, you cannot keep your cushy lifestyle and sign on to the argument that we should change everything that provides that lifestyle. The basic sign of madness and idiocy is that we want change and keep doing the same things. It all starts not with renewable energy and less CO2 but with changing our lifestyle. It starts with less food produced by non sustainable means adding to surplusses that have to transported all over the world, less turkeys and chickens on the table, less corn churned up to make fuel and less air conditioning and cities lit up like christmas trees, less SUV's and as far as keeping your country fully employed, start with less illegal immigrants, an immediate fix, so long as you are prepared to do the meniel jobs, or make the real decision and decide you can have someone in another country do those jobs for you.

Ex ,by the nature of the discipline ,consensus science is an oxymoron. It is probably the oxymoron of the decade .

In the words of Michael Crichton

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.


Hi Tom,

Based on what Crichton says above I would disagree in principle. However, I would be interested in seeing what else he has to say. As I said in an earlier post I think we need to get away from viewing science as some type of 'ideal'. Be it right or wrong there has always been a consensus when it comes to science.

In his book 'The Struggle for the Soul of Science', Steve Fuller puts forward an interesting 'twist' on an old debate concerning the growth of scientific knowledge. I don't necessarily agree with everything that is advocated but it puts the scientific debate into perspective.

http:academicevergreen.edu/circular/atpsmpa/Fuller.pdf

http:academicevergreen.edu/circular/atpsmpa/Fuller.pdf

Hi Tut would have liked to take a look at your article but that link doesn't go anywhere

Hi Tut would have liked to take a look at your article but that link doesn't go anywhere

Sorry, try..

http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/atpsmpa/Fuller.pdf

Ah, Ex, your mistake is you think that we arn't all in the same boat and have similiar aspirations. But I do have news for you, you cannot keep your cushy lifestyle and sign on to the argument that we should change everything that provides that lifestyle. Hello again, clete:

You're out to lunch... I've never met anybody so wedded to being wrong.

Nobody is talking about STOPPING one technology while we develop another... It's called a TRANSITION.. Like we transitioned from gas lights to electricity, without missing a beat.. Like we transitioned from horse drawn carriages to autos, without missing a beat.. Like we transitioned from an analog world to a digital one, without missing a beat.

As a matter of fact, those transitions didn't END cushy lifestyles, they ENHANCED them. I don't see why this one won't do the same thing... You, on the other hand, think it's the end of civilization as we know it.. I have NO clue where you get that stuff..

The fact is, we ARE going to make that transition, whether you like it or not, or we'll wind up on the trash heap of history. It's time to start.

excon

The fact is, we ARE going to make that transition, whether you like it or not, or we'll wind up on the trash heap of history.

excon

To listen to you this is the trash heap of history with all the trash we are putting in the atmosphere. Why don't you make up your mind. Sure there will be a new world out there full of windmills and solar cells and electric cars all built on unsustainable rare Earths technology but haven't you stopped to think that that is the same paradigm we have now, same wastefull use of energy, unchecked growth, mining resources. You preach renewables and change but you want what the existing technology provides. You want the existing technology to be perpetuated and just the energy source changed.There is no free lunch.

You see Ex I'm not against change, but it has to be real change not a political papering over of the problems like the Kyoto protocol, and the Cancun accords.

You see Ex I'm not against change, but it has to be real change not a political papering over of the problems like the Kyoto protocol, and the Cancun accords.Hello again, clete:

I haven't mentioned those things at all. I don't even know what they are other than political gobbeldy gook. My solutions AREN'T political or partisan.. They're American business solutions. They don't involve the world. They involve us, and what WE do.

It's true. I don't buy into your "can't do" philosophy. I'm an AMERICAN, after all. We can do anything.

In fact, it's politics that are STOPPING it - YOUR politics.

excon

In fact, it's politics that are STOPPING it - YOUR politics.

excon

No Ex it is american politics that is stopping it, because of all those who have the same attitude you do, they want their cushy lifestyle. Did america embrace Kyoto, no ultimately they were the single holdout, so don't preach american business to me, I know the reality of it. The reality that you won't show the leadership you claim, you are leading us all into oblivion, that is what your can't do attitude has achieved and you accuse us of can't do. We have achieved our Kyoto obligations

Tut ,yes there was a time when consensus science said the earth was flat. To Crichton's point ;it indeed took one scientist to challenge consensus thinking.

Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton (http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html)

Clete your nation is one of the leading coal exporters . Hard to make that claim that you are on board.
Not that it's wrong. There were good reasons for our rejection of Kyoto .

But don't you worry. The SCOTUS decision in Massachusetts v. EPA ,instructed the agency to determine whether greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide pose (or potentially pose) a danger to human health and safety under the Clean Air Act. In December 2009 the agency determined they were a danger,and gave itself the green light to issue rules cutting CO2. This in turn opened the door for the Obots through our EPA to aggressively regulate CO2 even though Congress didn't pass Cap and Tax or ratify Kyoto.

We will be forced to comply by fiat ,and then watch Americans howl about the impact on their lifestyle.

Tut ,yes there was a time when consensus science said the earth was flat. To Crichton's point ;it indeed took one scientist to challenge concensus thinking.


Yes, but we have to have a consensus so one scientist can challenge the consensus thinking. This is the point that eluded Karl Popper ( my earlier web page reference).

Crichton is an anti-realist when it comes to science. Drake and Sagan are realists when it comes to science. Anti-realism may sound like it has negative connotations, but it is not the case when it comes to science.

The SETI programme and the Drake Equation are a good examples of the anti-realist criticism. In a nutshell,if it cannot be verified then it doesn't exist. I suppose we could say scientific realism came about as a reaction to the dominant anti-realist position prior WW11. Basically,scientific realists would say that such things as the Drake Equation ( non-observable entities) should be given the same status as non-observables. This is certainly the case when it comes to such things as String Theory.

Science like politics moves on. As I said before, it is unrealistic to think that we can get back to some 'pure' form of science. In other words, scientific realism is politically tainted while the anti- realist position is free of politics. Crichton is as political as the next scientist.

Tut

Clete your nation is one of the leading coal exporters . Hard to make that claim that you are on board.
Not that it's wrong. .

No Tom we are also a chief miner of uranium but on board with non proliferation. Like the communists who will sell the last capitalist the rope to hang himself and iare successfully doing it, we will sell the last communist the coal to choke himself and if you have been to China you know what I mean.

CO2 is not pollution that is a consensus myth and a northern hemisphere problem.

Ex you keep talking about scientic consensus associated with climate change but I don't think you understand the definition of what you are talking about. Here is a definition

Climate change is a long-term change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods that range from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in the average weather conditions or a change in the distribution of weather events with respect to an average, for example, greater or fewer extreme weather events. Climate change may be limited to a specific region, or may occur across the whole Earth.

In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, climate change usually refers to changes in modern climate. It may be qualified as anthropogenic climate change, more generally known as global warming or anthropogenic global warming (AGW).


Some important words here
long term
average weather conditions
changes in modern climate

So you see there is a "presumed consensus" about changes to "average weather conditions" in the short term context of "modern" climate. Are you confused yet?

Hello again, clete:

You don't know when to stop, do you?? A person who falls for bunk called Intelligent Design has NO business lecturing anybody about science...

excon

Hello again, clete:

You don't know when to stop, do you??? A person who falls for bunk called Intelligent Design has NO business lecturing anybody about science...

excon

Ex, when have I said anything about intelligent design? In fact, you are an example of why the argument might be flawed, but seriously, Ex, you highjacked my thread and turned it into an argument about climate change and you think I should lie down. To take us back to the original discussion, we were talking about large scale flooding, which incidentally might not be as large as has been previously observed, and so cannot be blamed on climate change. So we have a bit of a problem. How should we define this problem?
In terms of the weather of "modern climate" we could say the climate has changed because such floods haven't been observed for fifty years, but records tell us this is not unusual and might happen on "average" every fifty years. The consensus at the moment is that it is wet in Queensland and I haven't heard a denier anywhere. Why? Because the facts support the idea even though there may be parts of Queensland where it is not wet

So how about we stop all this nonsense about global warming and go back to normal variability?
Ex, you highjacked my thread and turned it into an argument about climate change and you think I should lie down.Hello again, clete:

No, I think you should pay attention.

excon

Hello again, clete:

No, I think you should pay attention.

excon

I do pay attention, Ex, I listen to arguments from both sides and on balance I have to say that certain assertions remain unproven both in the political arena and in the debate on climate change

A long time ago a wise man said $hit happens and what we have is the evidence of it

Sorry, try..

http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/atpsmpa/Fuller.pdf

Thanks Tut I particularly like the argument

far too many philosophers of science today are “underlabourers” for the scientific establishment who justify the power and authority of modern big science as opposed to holding up its practice to the highest possible ethical and intellectual standards exemplified by philosophy at its best.

I think this captures the climate change debate in a nutshell, and I definitely think climate change is a philosopy

Thanks Tut I particularly like the argument


I think this captures the climate change debate in a nutshell, and I definately think climate change is a philosopy


Hi Clete,

Yes, I think there is a lot that can be gleaned from the article. In the late 60' and early 70's the Popper versus Kuhn debate about how science progresses apparently suffered from one big problem. That is, everyone (except Popper) thought they were debating science. Apparently, they were debating politics. Forty years later Popper has emerged as the consummate politician he always was.

Regards

Tut

Well here's the latest on the water it's raining cinema roofs in my home town, nice little storm we had.

Hate to drag up something that's been dead for nearly a week...

But DAMN... were in the hell did all that water come from? (yeah, rain).

SHould have been building a few ARKs if you had seen that coming.

But DAMN.......were in the hell did all that water come from? (yeah, rain).Hello smoothy:

I don't know.. What I DO know, is that you ain't going to ask a climate scientist.

excon

Hello smoothy:

I dunno.. What I DO know, is that you ain't gonna ask a climate scientist.

excon

No... they worship all Gore and believe the facts are whatever you want to present them to be. In effect, they dream up facts to fit their beliefs... not tailor their beliefs based on the facts.

Just like I think the Church of Scientology is all a bunch of hoooey.

And wonder why aliens only abduct high school droppouts with alcohol or drug problems from rural trailer parks. And not say... nice Urban Mansion dwellers with advanced degrees if there was any truth behind those too.

But DAMN.......were in the hell did all that water come from?Maybe this?
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)

Maybe this?
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)

Not a chance... Space aliens didn't just suck it up at the north pole and spit it out over Australia, bypassing everything in between... or do you believe that too?

...or do you believe that too?What space aliens? Nah, I lump that in with men with grey beards in the sky controlling everything we do. LOL!

Hate to drag up something thats been dead for nearly a week....

But DAMN.......were in the hell did all that water come from? (yeah, rain).

SHould have been building a few ARKs if you had seen that coming.

Where did all that water come from? It's called a monsoon and northern Australia experiences a monsoon every year but for the last ten years we have had drought, courtesy of "global warming" and el nino. This year the monsoon is early, has moved south and we have el nina. El nina is said to be caused by the sea heating up, something that has been happening for a long time

Smoothy we didn't see it coming because the predicted el nina events have been weak in the last ten or fifty years but despite all the water it still hasn't reached the highest recorded levels yet so no need of arks. If you have seen the news you will have noted that Queesland builds houses like arks, they are built on stilts so the floods can flow under, people have been surviving floods there for a long time, but now some of the water will move south and add to the unheralded flood occurring much further south. Hey it is even happpening in Western Australia for the second time in months, but once again no one there, so no news coverage

where did all that water come from? it's called a monsoon and northern Australia experiences a monsoon every year but for the last ten years we have had drought, courtesy of "global warming" and el nino. This year the monsoon is early, has moved south and we have el nina. el nina is said to be caused by the sea heating up, something that has been happening for a long time

Smoothy we didn't see it coming because the predicted el nina events have been weak in the last ten or fifty years but dispite all the water it still hasn't reached the highest recorded levels yet so no need of arks. If you have seen the news you will have noted that Queesland builds houses like arks, they are built on stilts so the floods can flow under, people have been surviving floods there for a long time, but now some of the water will move south and add to the unheralded flood occuring much further south. hey it is even happpening in Western Australia for the second time in months, but once again no one there, so no news coverage

Heck... even if it WAS predicted... that is so extensive I can't see how anything much could have been done. That's like 1/4 of Australia under water. Yeah I know much of it is uninhabited... but that's still a lot of people. And a historic evacuation had it been attempted.

I assume you have much of the same soil conditions that makes that sort of rain disastrous to south Texas... where shallow soil over bedrock prevents much from soaking in so it floods on the surface until it runs off.

Yeah, I saw that on the Stilts... you find that a lot in the Gulf and certain coastal areas in the USA. For the same reasons... works too, as long as the water doesn't get deeper than the stilts are tall. If it does you are screwed.

Heck...even if it WAS predicted....that is so extensive I can't see how anything much could have been done. Thats like 1/4 of Austrailia under water. Yeah I know much of it is uninhabited...but thats still a lot of people.

I assume you have much of the same soil conditions that makes that sort of rain disasterous to south Texas....where shallow soil over bedrock prevents much from soaking in so it floods on the surface until it runs off.

Yeah, I saw that on the Stilts.....you find that a lot in the Gulf and certain coastal areas. For the same reasons....works too, as long as the water doesn't get deeper than the stilts are tall.

Yes it is extensive and the effect lasts a long time, like it takes months for the water to flow down some of the river systems. They say the river at Rockhampton will stay at flood level for many days. I don't know if 25% is a good figure, Queensland flooding represents about 10% and New South Wales maybe another 5% who knows how much WA represents. I can't comment about the soils, lot of clay, but we also have the Artesian basin we have no idea how much of this water has gone there.

Where I live we are now experiencing subtropical conditions with daily thunder stoms. This is because the inland is saturated and that effect will take some years to work through

I guess the maps they have shown on the news here makes it look worse than it is. That's where I get the 25% number... because they have about 1/4 of the Australia map painted blue in the NE to represent the flooding.

I thought that area was reasonibly flat (compaired to the mountany parts of the USA anyway). And that's never good for getting floodwaters away fast.

I guess the maps they have shown on the news here makes it look worse than it is. Thats where I get the 25% number....because they have about 1/4 of the austrailia map painted blue in the NE to represent the flooding.

I thought that area was reasonibly flat (compaired to the mountany parts of the USA anyway). and thats never good for getting floodwaters away fast.

Australia has two main drainage systems, the Murray/Darling which drains a very large part of the continent towards the south west of the Great Dividing Range and the second largest; the Fitzroy, which drains parts of central Queensland to the Pacific ocean. Much of the flooding is presently concentrated in the Fitzroy basin. There are no large lakes the water might drain into, excepting for Lake Eyre in Central Australia. However a very large part of Queensland west of the Range is subject to flooding presently, this would tend to confuse someone unfamiliar with the topography. Queensland represents 1.7 million sq kilometers of which 0.8 million is said to be flooded. Some 22 population centres are at risk. This is the start of the monsoon and much of northern Queensland can expect further localised flooding. The position is made worse because the Queensland flood waters will also inundate northern New South Wales on their way to the Southern Ocean. NSW already has it's own flood problems to deal with from December rains.

The land west of the range is relatively flat and as you say it takes a long time for the water to travel

This will give you a better picturehttp://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/

Thanks... sometimes the news oversimplifies things so much... they render the story useless for details.

I admit my knowledge of Austrailias topography is pretty limited to a number of moves filmed there and National Geographic shows. Not a very good representation I know. I've never been able to visit the country. (Wife monopolizes my vacations)

Yes the movies tend to focus on a few clichés. We have mountains and plains, drought and flooding rains, beaches and seas and above all emptyness

Yes the movies tend to focus on a few cliches. We have mountains and plains, drought and flooding rains, beaches and seas and above all emptyness

Yeah... I have head the interiour gets so little rain a year its effectively uninhabitible by humans, besides getting hot as hell. A lot like our much smaller death valley in that manner, except our death valley is the lowest point in the western hemishpere, 282 feeet below sea level. You are basically limited to the outer half of the country.

It's a place I've wanted to visit... but that would require the wife's cooperation... something I'm not likely to get. Besides... thats one heck of a long flight.

I think you are talking about the Simpson desert. Temperatures inland can get extreme but people live in many parts of the continent, it's just that most of us wouldn't want to. Basically three hundred miles from the sea puts you where the towns are 50 - 100 miles apart but don't think of it like Canada a strip 100 miles wide. 12,000 miles of coastline leaves you with a lot of options

So break the flight in Hawaii or travel overnight

That means NOT going to Italy that year and suffering the "wrath of the upset wife".

Goes to show how often TV doesn't portray things exactly like they are. All the shows that I have seen have portrayed the interior to be a hot and very dry place that wasn't conducive to long term habitation. Clearly as you have said that's not very accurate. Don't honestly know how far inland that supposedly started according to them.

But then... most of those shows were produced via PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) ((We jokingly refer to them as PRAVDA) and well, they have a pretty distorted world view in anything political. Kind of hoped they could at least do the nature stuff right. Guess they can't.

I have heard of the Simpson Desert, Ayers rock (who hasn't).. and some other things... but I'll admit its pretty limited.

smoothy I expect what I might find habitable and you might could be two very different things but as I said earlier we see a lot of clichés. For example; no one here would have thought of spoiling king prawns (shrimp) by cooking them on a Barbq until Paul Hogan did it for a tourism ad, we prefer to eat them cold. We see PBS here in the form of a news program. Everywhere is hot, I have experienced 43'C right beside the Pacific Ocean, that was the day Canberra burned, but these are the exceptions. The most comedic cliché I have seen recently was in the film Australia where the US army was depicted racing through the Australian outback During WWII. Didn't happen, no roads, any progress would have been painfully slow.
I expect what you have seen is factual but not representative of most of the country. Uluru is interesting, the Great Barrier Reef is interesting

smoothy I expect what I might find habitable and you might could be two very different things but as I said earlier we see a lot of cliches. For example; no one here would have thought of spoiling king prawns (shrimp) by cooking them on a Barbq until Paul Hogan did it for a tourism ad, we prefer to eat them cold. We see PBS here in the form of a news program. Everywhere is hot, I have experienced 43'C right beside the Pacific Ocean, that was the day Canberra burned, but these are the exceptions. The most comedic cliche I have seen recently was in the film Australia where the US army was depicted racing through the Australian outback During WWII. Didn't happen, no roads, any progress would have been painfully slow.
I expect what you have seen is factual but not representative of most of the country. Uluru is interesting, the Great Barrier Reef is interesting

Quite possible... I might consider the outback more habitible than say... Finnland. If it wasn't for the water thing. I tolerate heat far better than cold. But also true... I may be less comfortible in that extreme heat than you are. I'm certainly not aclimated to it. But our heat and your heat may feel far different... I assume much of that is dry heat with so little rain at least in the interior... here where I am the humidity soars when the temptature does and which always within days prompts severe thundershowers. Hot and dry is way different than hot and humid... and each has its own dangers if your aren't careful.

The movie had something for everyone . My wife likes Hugh Jackman and I like Nichole Kidman.

Also most Americans are not familiar with the attack on Darwin Feb 1942 by the Nagumo task force that had attacked Pearl Harbor.

The movie had something for everyone . My wife likes Hugh Jackman and I like Nichole Kidman.

Also most Americans are not familiar with the attack on Darwin Feb 1942 by the Nagumo task force that had attacked Pearl Harbor.

Yes... I was a HUGE WW2 buff in my youth, Had one uncle with the silver star awarded in the pacific theater he was a P-38 pilot (lot of other awards to but can't remember them all right now) and another uncle that has every bone in his body broken by a concussion shell on D-Day at Omaha Beach, Normandy... he recovered and was part of the first team of Americans that entered Peenemünde later in the war. Heard those recounts from him personally as I grew up before he passed away. He had also told me about the actions of my other uncle as that one passed away before I was born. And I had another Uncle that dissappeared during the Corrigador Death March... He was among those who started it... but wasn't among those at the end.

But I knew nothing about what happened in Australia from all the books I had read or any history class until recently. And I had red every book in the WW2 section our library had... and then some.

Hello again:

Bill O'Reilly is a science denier. Tide goes in, tide goes out, and science doesn't know why... Huh?? He probably thinks climate change is a hoax too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI&feature=player_embedded

excon

Hello again:

Here's a science denier. He probably thinks climate change is a hoax too... Tide goes in, tide goes out, and science doesn't know why... Huh???

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly v. Dave Silverman - You KNOW they're all SCAMS! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI&feature=player_embedded)

excon

Because Al Gore has been proven a fraud... Global Warming Advocates are as much real Scientists as the Church of Scientology is when it comes to credibility anout things scientific.

If its hot they blame global warming, if it snows hard it global warming... if its dry they blame global warming... if it rains they blame global warming. In fact they blame everything on global waming... when its all been happening for EONS already.

But I knew nothing about what happened in Austrailia from all the books I had read or any history class until recently. And I had red every book in the WW2 section our library had...and then some.

Yes it was somewhat of a forgotten war. Darwin was raided shortly after Pearl Harbour. Not an american in sight at that time, which makes the scene in that movie ridiculous. We accomplished much with a small number but lacked the fire power that America brought with them. If our army wasn't fighting the British end of the war in Africa and Malaya we could have put a better effort into New Guinea. If you are interested in a really great exploit look up the Krait. Also from my history point of view see beheath Hill 60, very possibly an account of my grandfather in WWI. Also consider this one sixth of the population was under arms in WWII.

Hello again:

Bill O'Reilly is a science denier. Tide goes in, tide goes out, and science doesn't know why... Huh??? He probably thinks climate change is a hoax too...

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly v. Dave Silverman - You KNOW they're all SCAMS! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI&feature=player_embedded)

excon

He's mistaken there is a scientific explanation for the tides. Ironically it is an invisible force.

When my daughter was born her pediatrician ;using the best settled science ,recommended that she take floride fortified prescription vitamins. My wife and I being skeptics refused because we knew that there was plenty of naturally occurring floride in the water supply ,and that tooth pastes all had sufficient floride to make up any possible shortage... even if we lived in an area where floride wasn't added to the water supply.
We did our own independent search and found that some kids who took floride vitamins were ending up with brown and mottled teeth .Our research also showed that fluorine displaces iodine in the thyroid and American's do not consume enough iodine as it is.

Some called us crazy conspiracy nuts . But our objections wasn't based on loony theories of gvt, mind control. We made our decision based on our own reading of the science available.

Yesterday the FDA announced that the settled science on this issue was false.

Now had we followed the recommendation of the best scientific knowledge of the time ;the chances were good that my daughter could've been one of the people who were ingesting too much floride.

Today's settled science is yesterdays false premise.Yesterday floridation of the water supply was a great public health measure... today... ooops we were wrong.

Well Tom we have come full circle, Ex challenged my assertion that natural variability is responsible for the weather we see and now you are proving that consensus science should not be believed. Poor Ex, shot down in flames.

Interestingly we just had another remarkable weather event 300mm of rain and another city is instantly threatened by floods. Ex would have us believe that this is the result of northern hemisphere pollution of the atmosphere. Remarkably two hundred years ago the western rivers were navigable almost to the Queensland border, Even this flood will not restore those conditions, but take heart, Ex, these floods will reduce the burning of coal in the northern hemisphere for a while

Yes it was somewhat of a forgotten war. Darwin was raided shortly after Pearl Harbour. Not an american in sight at that time, which makes the scene in that movie rediculous. We accomplished much with a small number but lacked the fire power that America brought with them. If our army wasn't fighting the British end of the war in Africa and Malaya we could have put a better effort into New Guinea. If you are interested in a really great exploit look up the Krait. Also from my history point of view see beheath Hill 60, very possibly an account of my grandfather in WWI. Also consider this one sixth of the population was under arms in WWII.I've watched that move... just a few weeks ago in fact (God I love Pirate bay). Was a really good movie. And like I said... completely new territory for me since I had heard of none of it previously. And over 6 decades after that war ended, you would have thought everything would have been out and well known. And that was hardly a minor detail.

Smoothy what happens in Australia doesn't make box office in the US, not unlike the US we have remarkable epic stories here but little capital and few risk takers. These things are well known in Australia but we can't afford to be making B movies about little known stories which used to be the stock in trade of hollywood. This is why our artists feature so promenently in your film industry. Look at the recent TV series the Pacific, one recognisable Australian actor got a place despite much of the series being made here and not a mention of the New Guinea campaign. That tells you that it was aimed at US box office



Australian has had few novelists to bring the stories forward

A lot of the history of the world has been lost because there wasn't a novelist to turn it into an epoch .

The battle of Manila is a case in point. Most Americans know the major urban battles in the Atlantic Theater but do not know how terrible the battle to liberate Manila was .It certainly rivals Stalingrad in horror . The civilian death toll in Manila was greater than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Are you getting your share of the Gillard recovery money ?

Smoothy what happens in Australia doesn't make box office in the US, not unlike the US we have remarkable epic stories here but little capital and few risk takers. These things are well known in Australia but we can't afford to be making B movies about little known stories which used to be the stock in trade of hollywood. This is why our artists feature so promenently in your film industry. Look at the recent TV series the Pacific, one recognisable Australian actor got a place despite much of the series being made here and not a mention of the New Guinea campaign. That tells you that it was aimed at US box office



Australian has had few novelists to bring the stories forwardWell, WW2 was so extensive and encompassing... not doubt a multitude of smaller campaigns will be overlooked in history... but you would think the Bigger ones would be.

Are you getting your share of the Gillard recovery money ?

Tom it's a joke I think more has been raised from appeals than the government have given out yet. They have announced various plans but as usual they have lots of rules so people will have to be destitute to see any of it. The amounts they are talking about wouldn't pay the deposit on getting started to rebuild.The reality is that like all disasters businesses have been wiped out, homes have been wiped out, employment has been wiped out and recovery will take years. Just yesterday another city was wiped out by a raging torrent, it just doesn't stop, that's two in two days.

The report I heard on one of the few reliable sources I monitor talked of days of 3"+ rain... that there is a convergence of the major rivers into a flood plain that exceed the territory of some major European nations.

When the price of wheat goes out of site the US will take notice.

The report I heard on one of the few reliable sources I monitor talked of days of 3"+ rain .....that there is a convergence of the major rivers into a flood plain that exceed the territory of some major European nations.

When the price of wheat goes out of site the US will take notice.

We are not talking about 3" of rain we are talking about 12" in a couple of hours followed by continuing falls and we are talking about several river systems some flowing to the sea and some inland, all this water fell on the continental divide so it has nowhere to go but down hill. I don't think some people realise what an inch of rain represents 800,000 gallons an acre

It won't just be the price of wheat, but sugar, coal, gas, rice, cotton these storm systems since beginning of December have ravaged a major producing nation, they have already impacted currency. The US should be in a position to profit from this

Yes I know... with the state of our currency we are only competitive when comodity prices rise .

More water
Queensland Floods: At least 8 dead, 72 missing | QLD Floods (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/at-least-eight-dead-72-missing-as-inland-tsunami-hits-queensland-towns-20110111-19ldz.html)

This has gotten to be beyond a joke, probably 3 million people are now affected as Brisbane a major metropolitan centre prepares for the worst flooding in more than thirty years. Further the weather systems have moved south bringing flooding to mountain top towns, cutting major highways and leaving us wondering just what a flood of biblical proportions must be like
floodrelief/mega-disaster-zone-could-be-declared-for-queensland-floods/story-fn7ik2te-1225985781146 (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/mega-disaster-zone-could-be-declared-for-queensland-floods/story-fn7ik2te-1225985781146)

I don't think anyone ever considered it a joke... Floods are never jokes. Not even little ones. And this isn't little by anyone's interpretation.

Reports I heard yesterday is Brisbane is being evacuated.

I hear death adder ,brown snake and crock attacks are a problem in the area also.

I don't think anyone ever considered it a joke....Floods are never jokes. Not even little ones. And this isn't little by anyones interpretation.

Smoothy Australian saying, meaning things are bad. Australians use irony when the situation gets bad, you might say in a way it's an appeal to God

Reports I heard yesterday is Brisbane is being evacuated.

I hear death adder ,brown snake and crock attacks are a problem in the area also.

Well there are calls for people to leave low lying suburbs but just where they could go becomes problematical, I can believe the death adder and brown snake but crock are more likely to be found in Rockhampton and Cairns Seems some reports might be becoming confused as basically the whole state which includes tropics and temperate climates is experiencing flooding. The state has 13,000 Km of coastline

This flooding thing has become bizairre now we have flash flood warning for Melbourne
flash-flooding-alert-for-melbourne/story-e6frfku0-1225986024030 (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/flash-flooding-alert-for-melbourne/story-e6frfku0-1225986024030) and I saw a report yesterday that there is a weather system extending from the tropics to Tasmania which will bring heavy rain across half the continent. Just what we need, more rain
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/national_radar_sat.loop.shtml

Smoothy Australian saying, meaning things are bad. Australians use irony when the situation gets bad, you might say in a way it's an appeal to God

Lot of places outside of Australia do that when things get bad too... its a way to put a smile on your face no mater how briefly when there really is little to smile about.

Lot of places outside of Austrailia do that when things get bad too....its a way to put a smile on your face no mater how breifly when there really is little to smile about.

Yes, in fact, right at this moment you might say we are up the creek without a paddle as is the Drift restrauant,said to be the best restaurant in Australia, which just sunk in the Brisbane river

When everyone's a star: torrent of giving to ease the grief (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/when-everyones-a-star-torrent-of-giving-to-ease-the-grief-20110114-19qm2.html)

Going to be a boom for the Construction industry down there for some time I hear.

I heard Bull sharks were confirmed 45 miles inland today (Forget the name of the river and town). Besides the poisonous snakes and crocks on the loose certain places.

Going to be a boom for the Construction industry down there for some time I hear.

I heard Bull sharks were confirmed 45 miles inland today (Forget the name of the river and town). Besides the poisonous snakes and crocks on the loose certain places.

Not surprised about the sharks, have been waiting for a report, There would be sharks in most of the coastal rivers anyway, but they don't like fresh water.
Sharks In Queensland Floods | Goodna Sharks | Brisbane Floods (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/flood-shark-sightings-have-residents-on-edge-20110113-19ozp.html) anyway the crocks look after them
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/nzealand-flood-rescuers-get-aussie-snake-catcher-20110114-19r53.html

This kind of boom we don't need, a couple of years ago it was towns wiped out by bushfires, they still haven't recovered from that. Where we get the tradesmen from is anybody's guess. More houses buily by Jerry. In Brisbane it will be like New Orleans, large numbers of houses condemned because of mould, etc and real questions have to be asked as to whether they should be rebuilt. In my own city there has been for many years a policy of compulsorary acquistion and demolition of flood prone houses but they still have a long way to go to remove them all or protect them with adequate levies, We still have idiots who think its okay to build on a flood plain as long as you build the site up above some benchmark.

That and how many flood cars are going to be cleaned up and sold improperly as cars that have never been wet. Going to be a lot of car buyers screwed with cars that have serious electrical and rust issues as a result of the flood too.

You have those fools everywhere... that will build a house anywhere they can get away with... and aren't always caught until something bad happens.

That and how many flood cars are going to be cleaned up and sold improperly as cars that have never been wet. Going to be a lot of car buyers screwed with cars that have serious electrical and rust issues as a result of the flood too.

You have those fools everywhere....that will build a house anywhere they can get away with.....and aren't always caught until something bad happens.

Yes I observed many car yards with new vehicles under water, heavy machinery sales the same but those will have warranty. Oddly enough rust isn't the issue it used to be. Queensland is a pecular place where car road worthiness is concerned, no one asks any questions until a vehicle changes hands so there will be some very dangerous vehicles on the roads

Hello clete:

Until you present your scientific credentials for making a such a statement, I'll consider your plea to be nothing more than right wing politics as usual..

excon

Ok ex when I first raised this subject I used the term variability and you used that as an opportunity to call me a science denier, etc.

You ask for scientic opinion that backs my claim
Will this do?
Drought and floods: what's coming next? (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/drought-and-floods-whats-coming-next-20110118-19ust.html)
Perhaps you want a consensus? The consensus is it is going to be wet in eastern Australia not countesy of global warming but courtesy of natural variability.
Please note the scientists using the term natural variability. Two important concepts here "natural" and "variability" nothing certain except things change naturally. The other day we had that fine scientific mind, politician Bob Brown, leader of the Greens Party, telling us the floods were the result of global warming, burning fossel fuels and digging coal out of the ground and guess what his answer was? Tax it to pay for flood reclaimation. Not stop doing it, but tax it and the power industry along with it.

It's summer in Australia and all the loons come out.

Save or spill conflict for Wivenhoe Dam bosses | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/tony-abbott-calls-for-nbn-to-be-dropped-in-favour-of-rebuilding-after-floods/story-fn7iwx3v-1225990640368)

A quick examination of the facts has found why Brisbane flooded and guess what? It wasn't all that rain but mismanagement and cost saving

Figured it would only be a matter of time before SOMEONE tried to cash in on so many peoples misfortune. And its usually a politician or one of their minions that does it first.

They are usually on the scene even before the Ambulance chasers are.

Figured it would only be a matter of time before SOMEONE tried to cash in on so many peoples misfortune. And its usually a politician or one of their minions that does it first.

They are usually on the scene even before the Ambulance chasers are.

Not sure what you are referring to, yes our politicians have been fact finding during the crisis. The PM and the Premier have not been short of photo ops with the Premier assuming the PR anchor role but my recent post focuses on scapegoating, the dam built to prevent the crisis caused the crisis? It is all Joh's fault. We are bigger people than this or apparently not. I'm waiting for the little red fox to shunt the blame as Bob Brown did. He is the worst kind of opportunist politician and is just showing his true colours. It will be interesting to see what they blame the Victorian flood on. The Victorians have assumed a much lower profile, perhaps because a major city isn't involved so far

That's what I am refeing to... grabbing the glory ( and the spotlight) during someone else's hardship and pointing fingers everywhere else but themselves, like they alone are saints. Politicians are famous for that worldwide.

Thats what I am refeing to....grabbing the glory ( and the spotlight) during someone elses hardship and pointing fingers everywhere else but themselves, like they alone are saints. Politicians are famous for that worldwide.

Indeed, and Mr Brown among them

Countesy of a cyclone,Yasi, hurricane to those north of wherever, and it is big will it ever end?
There is a nice picture for anyone interested
Live coverage: Cyclone Yasi bears down on Queensland coast | Latest news on the Queensland Floods | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/north-queensland-braces-for-cyclone-anthony-as-cyclone-yasi-brews-behind-it/story-fn7ik2te-1225997552623)

Wow, I hope everyone listens and prepares or leaves the area.

Stringer

Bet boat sales have been brisk... nobody NEEDS that much rain.

Bet boat sales have been brisk......nobody NEEDS that much rain.

I don't think a boat is going to cut it, they are talking about 300 kmh winds and 700 mm of rain and a 7 metre tidal surge. I just hope it crosses the coast in a relatively uninhabited area at the moment it looks like Innisvale, which took the hit a few years ago is going to get pasted again

Just so you know how big this thing is
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/how-cyclone-yasi-compares-around-the-world/story-fn7ik2te-1225998762870

I don't think a boat is going to cut it, they are talking about 300 kmh winds and 700 mm of rain and a 7 metre tidal surge. I just hope it crosses the coast in a relatively uninhabited area at the moment it looks like Innisvale, which took the hit a few years ago is going to get pasted again

Just so you know how big this thing is
How Cyclone Yasi compares around the world | Latest news on the Queensland Floods | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/how-cyclone-yasi-compares-around-the-world/story-fn7ik2te-1225998762870)

Time to seriously consider building an ARK... but time isn't on your side.

At least statisticlly... you may never see another year like this in your lifetime. I know its not over yet... but that's a positive thing to look towards.

Time to seriously consider building an ARK....but time isn't on your side.

At least statisticlly....you may never see another year like this in your lifetime. I know its not over yet....but thats a positive thing to look towards.

Smoothy I think I did see another year like this, was it 1954 or 1956? Hard to remember now but there was a cyclone in there somewhere and a lot of water but you're right it wasn't as bad as this. I already have my ARK, I now live in the mountains and my house is well above the high water mark

Smoothy I think I did see another year like this, was it 1954 or 1956? hard to remember now but there was a cyclone in there somewhere and a lot of water but you're right it wasn't as bad as this. I already have my ARK, I now live in the mountains and my house is well above the high water markThat's older than I am. And my knowledge of today's Australia is sketchy... much less something that old.

Mountain is the best Ark... if THAT starts to move... you have far more serious things to worry about than getting your feet wet.

Thats older than I am. And my knowledge of todays austrailia is sketchy....much less something that old.

Mountain is the best Ark....if THAT starts to move......you have far more serious things to worry about than getting your feet wet.

All the volcanos moved south and left their remnants. The mountains don't move very often here. You want to know a little history Google the Maitland Flood