Due to the move of the blog to Wordpress posts from Jan 2012 onward will have commenting disabled (when I remember to do it)
Cheers - AE

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

So are the Queensland floods our fault or not?

It turns out that despite all that rainfall up in Queensland it looks like it wasn't as much as they got in the 1974 floods, and that for a big flood in 1893 might well have been bigger than either.
BRISBANE had more rainfall in the 1974 floods than it did in the latest episode, preliminary figures show.

And rainfall during the 1893 floods may have dwarfed both the 1974 and 2011 events.

The weather bureau on Tuesday unveiled rainfall comparisons suggesting the city falls were relatively light compared with '74. But the inland falls that caused the flooding of the Brisbane River were extremely heavy.

The bureau stressed all data was not yet complete.

But weather experts suggested "peak rainfalls from the 1974 event were substantially heavier than those in 2011".
So now, with tongue very much in cheek, I'm trying to fit this into the warble gloaming mantra of doom. Is warble gloaming "proven" because there was a big flood or is it "proven" because these three big flooding events show a trend of decreasing rainfall? Or, taking it as read that either will do for the purposes of selling the AGW scare, does it depend simply on whether the person asking the question is more worried about droughts or more worried about floods?
Related Posts with Thumbnails