Rain and flood

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,932
Location
Brisbane, Oz
Disease is a problem if you go into floodwaters with an open wound. Apart from anything else, you have to realize that sewage pumping stations are on bypass ...

After wading through water to help people move their stuff to safety, our former prime minister had to go to hospital after contracting an infection through an abrasion on his foot. A handful of people have picked up some rare exotic diseases.

But the waters have now mostly receded in Brisbane and countless thousands of volunteers have been cleaning up the muck, so that externally, it's becoming hard to tell that some areas have even been flooded. Doesn't do anything for the destroyed interiors of buildings though.

In the warehouse of the largest computer component supplier in Brisbane, the water reached the ceiling. 100% of stock was destroyed and they had 70 people trying to clean out all the rubbish. One of their buildings had to be demolished. I don't know if they will be able to recover, let alone when they might be able to supply stuff, so looking forward to huge hassles getting quality parts at sane prices. :cry:

Here's some detailed aerial photos that show before and after views of some of Brisbane. They're a bit understated because they weren't taken at the flood peak. The sixth and the eighth are interesting for the unexpected things in them. ;)

However, photos really don't do justice to the reality, or rather the surreality. A local industrial estate built on an incline was flooded except for access from the top for about 400 meters (it's about 2 kilometers long). When I checked it 5 days later, businesses about half way down had piles of ruined stock and furniture out the front. I couldn't get further than about 1000 meters because of all the heavy machinery carting away rubble ...
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
It's like a tsunami all over the inland area. Insane! Many, many broken lives and billions in losses. Really sad.
 

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,726
Location
Québec, Québec
On the other hand, it's not like it never happened before. If humanity wants to live in a place that get flooded badly every thirty years, it has to build infrastructures in consequence. Sure, the recent flood was worse than the one in the 70s, but from what I read on the Net, such flood happened several times in the previous century. And with climate changing for the worst, I doubt it'll take another thirty years before a similar even re-occurs.

Time is smart, he decided to live on a hill. As for his neighboors in the river valley, they were more or less asking for it.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,932
Location
Brisbane, Oz
Yes and no. I admit it's a little hard to find much sympathy for those who thought it would be cool to live on the banks of a large river with a history of major flooding. A guy who had a floating restaurant (now sunk) moaned that 35 insurance companies refused cover; you'd think that might have made him think a bit ...

Others, such as Toowoomba residents - or the poor unfortunates who copped the same water once it had accelerated down the side of a mountain - had no idea that anything like that could happen. That was the "inland tsunami".

In between, you have a great fraud that was perpetrated on many citizens, including me. Thirty years ago, they built the dam and claimed that it would protect the city from flooding, especially major flooding. Building permits were granted based on revised flood level estimates at least 2 meters lower than those recorded in 1974, which was considered a 1 in 50 year event. Many people have been conned.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
In between, you have a great fraud that was perpetrated on many citizens, including me. Thirty years ago, they built the dam and claimed that it would protect the city from flooding, especially major flooding. Building permits were granted based on revised flood level estimates at least 2 meters lower than those recorded in 1974, which was considered a 1 in 50 year event. Many people have been conned.
Wait, wait, wait... Wait just a minute... You mean to tell me politicians lie and gov't is often incompetent?

Something...

does...

not...

compute...

;)
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,595
Location
I am omnipresent
The moral of the story in both cases is to not rely on the gov't to save you or protect you from mother nature.

Perhaps the better lesson is that mother nature can overcome any expected assessment of her behavior.

I suppose we could get into the impact of global warming on environmental risk assessment analysis, but I don't think I want to open that can of worms with you.
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
Scientists warn California could be struck by winter ‘superstorm’

A group of more than 100 scientists and experts say in a new report that California faces the risk of a massive "superstorm" that could flood a quarter of the state's homes and cause $300 billion to $400 billion in damage.

The scientists built a model that showed a storm could last for more than 40 days and dump 10 feet of water on the state. The storm would be goaded on by an "atmospheric river" that would move water "at the same rate as 50 Mississippis discharging water into the Gulf of Mexico," according to the AP.


etc.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.
Will Durant
US historian (1885 - 1981)
 

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,726
Location
Québec, Québec
That would be a very different case because there isn't a history of Californian superstorm. Insurance conpanies would all go bankrupt if it was to happen. They always offer flooding insurance in places not supposed to be flooded so when those places are flooded, they have to pay. A 40-million-persons State being sunk on a quarter of its territory (probably where most of its population lives) would hurt a lot.

You should all move to Arizona.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,524
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Scientists warn California could be struck by winter ‘superstorm’

A group of more than 100 scientists and experts say in a new report that California faces the risk of a massive "superstorm" that could flood a quarter of the state's homes and cause $300 billion to $400 billion in damage.

The scientists built a model that showed a storm could last for more than 40 days and dump 10 feet of water on the state. The storm would be goaded on by an "atmospheric river" that would move water "at the same rate as 50 Mississippis discharging water into the Gulf of Mexico," according to the AP.


etc.

No doubt, and I'm comfortable with that, depending on the odds. This millennium? No problem. This century? Thanks for the warning. This decade? Time to sell...

Edit: From the article

"We think this event happens once every 100 or 200 years or so, which puts it in the same category as our big San Andreas earthquakes,"
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,670
Location
USA
It's always something. Maybe an asteroid will be next. There is no insurance against that. Our sun will not last forever either.
 

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,726
Location
Québec, Québec
It's always something. Maybe an asteroid will be next. There is no insurance against that. Our sun will not last forever either.
We should be extinct a good 4 billion years before the Sun morph into a red giant. Even if we find a way not to kill ourselves before, life on Earth will only be possible for maybe another 500 million years or so. After that, it will be far too hot and dry.
 

paugie

Storage is cool
Joined
Dec 13, 2003
Messages
702
Location
Bulacan, Philippines
It is raining here at a time when we usually only get cold winds.
In parts of our country there also have been mud slides and devastation.
Of course, it's because the politicians own a lot of logging concessions.
 

BingBangBop

Storage is cool
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
667
All the global warming theory I've read calls for hotter and wetter (due to increased evaporation from the increased temperature).

That is a climate generality that is probably true but may not be apply to a specific locality. Just like weather is different than climate, a specific place could come out dryer and cooler even though worldwide it is hotter and wetter.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Talk about a straw man argument. All the global warming theory I've read calls for hotter and wetter (due to increased evaporation from the increased temperature).
How is it a straw man? Just because you don't like the facts presented doesn't make it a straw man. The fact is they decided to build desalinization plants that were unnecessary. The fact is they let people build on a flood plain. The fact is last spring they refused to release water from the dam. Their actions were clearly centered around drought, not floods.

Why? Well the author asserts it's because the weather experts told them needed to worry about drought because floods were a thing of the past due to global warming. If you've got another theory why they were obsessed with drought and not concerned with floods, feel free to present it.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,524
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Why? Well the author asserts it's because the weather experts told them needed to worry about drought because floods were a thing of the past due to global warming. If you've got another theory why they were obsessed with drought and not concerned with floods, feel free to present it.

Because they were idiots. This is different than arguing the facts of global warming. That they took good data and made bad conclusions/decisions doesn't make it bad data.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Because they were idiots. This is different than arguing the facts of global warming. That they took good data and made bad conclusions/decisions doesn't make it bad data.
Well, the fact that there's nothing that can happen that would make it "bad data" in the eyes of those people who think it's "good data" makes me suspicious that it's not actually good data.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,524
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Plenty could happen that would make me suspicious. How about one of these graphs looking different than the rest? How about some data that doesn't show that last year was one of the hottest, and the last decade was the hottest on record?

What would it take for you to change your mind?
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Plenty could happen that would make me suspicious. How about one of these graphs looking different than the rest? How about some data that doesn't show that last year was one of the hottest, and the last decade was the hottest on record?

What would it take for you to change your mind?
Proof of causation rather than correlation.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,524
Location
Horsens, Denmark
1. Is that possible? Can you identify any kind of experiment that would satisfy you? Of course, small scale has already been done. ;)

2. Causation is largely irrelevant. Not planning for future temperatures to at least partially follow the trend line for existing data would be pretty silly.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
1. Is that possible? Can you identify any kind of experiment that would satisfy you? Of course, small scale has already been done. ;)

2. Causation is largely irrelevant. Not planning for future temperatures to at least partially follow the trend line for existing data would be pretty silly.
1) Should be possible. How about measuring the temperature of other planets where there isn't human activity. If they're also increasing in temperature at the same rate then I think we can rule out human activity as the cause. Or, how about measuring solar output?

2) Causation is very important. If human behavior is not causing the warming, then why should I be forced to modify my behavior by some authoritarians on a power trip relying on junk science to push a political agenda?

It's not like global climate change is unprecedented or something. It's happened many times in the past and human behavior clearly wasn't the cause. Why is this time different? Because CO2 (which is found in parts per million in the atmosphere) is increasing slightly in the atmosphere?

Further how did we magically decide that that the present temperature of the earth is the ideal temperature and any hotter is bad?

Lastly, do you think that if the earth was cooling and heading into an ice age the same people pushing the whole "green" agenda would suddenly support everyone going hog wild pumping CO2 into the atmosphere as fast as possible to help warm the earth to stave off the ice age?
 

BingBangBop

Storage is cool
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
667
1)
2) Causation is very important. If human behavior is not causing the warming, then why should I be forced to modify my behavior by some authoritarians on a power trip relying on junk science to push a political agenda?

I would argue that causation is totally unimportant. What matters is not the cause but rather can anything be done about it.

If there is a flash flood are you really going to get out of the way only if the event was caused from someone blowing up a dam but if it was caused by a rain storm you'll choose to stay in the path and drown because it is totally a natural event. I think not -- You'll get out of the way in either case.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
I would argue that causation is totally unimportant. What matters is not the cause but rather can anything be done about it.

If there is a flash flood are you really going to get out of the way only if the event was caused from someone blowing up a dam but if it was caused by a rain storm you'll choose to stay in the path and drown because it is totally a natural event. I think not -- You'll get out of the way in either case.
Apples and oranges my friend, apples and oranges...

If I don't get out of the way of the flash I have a high risk of dying. If I do nothing about global warming... Well, basically nothing changes.

A more appropriate analogy would be the the person who sees the flash flood and start taping up their windows with duct tape thinking that will save them (akin to using Mercury light bulbs to save the planet). Considering natural causes put more CO2 in the atmosphere than human activity, it'll be pretty hard to stop the warming even if we are helping it along.
 

Chewy509

Wotty wot wot.
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
3,327
Location
Gold Coast Hinterland, Australia
So how is it down under now?

Slowly getting back to normal for those not directly effected, most supermarkets have stock of most things (some lines at higher than normal prices though due to importing them from interstate), most public transport is back up and running, petrol stations have fuel again.

For those areas directly effected by the floods, there are still a few areas without power/telecomms due to extensive damage of the local equipment, and many homes/businesses that either need major repair work or a simple matter of tear down and completely rebuild.

The big thing at the moment is insurance coverage, and government assistance. And the state government about to spend $$$ to find out why this all happened so they can point fingers...

Shell and BP have also announced that ethanol fuel stock will be low for the next 6-18 months due to ethanol production being effected due to damaged crops. (Which doesn't bother me, as the family car runs like crap on ethanol blended fuel, and the bike can't take ethanol blends at all).
 

Pradeep

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
3,845
Location
Runny glass
How is it a straw man? Just because you don't like the facts presented doesn't make it a straw man. The fact is they decided to build desalinization plants that were unnecessary. The fact is they let people build on a flood plain. The fact is last spring they refused to release water from the dam. Their actions were clearly centered around drought, not floods.

Why? Well the author asserts it's because the weather experts told them needed to worry about drought because floods were a thing of the past due to global warming. If you've got another theory why they were obsessed with drought and not concerned with floods, feel free to present it.

Looking at the facts:

"Q. There have been reports saying the dam operators should have released more water, perhaps down to a level below Wivenhoe's 100 per cent drinking reservoir to offset the floods, do you think this is wise?

This is a very difficult question and it's one where some politicians have tried to play games with.

Let's remember that back in 2007 here in Queensland we were in the middle of a period of nearly eight to nine years of drought.

In 2007 the water level in Wivenhoe Dam was down to 15 per cent.

Wivenhoe Dam is a major water supply for south-east Queensland and to reduce the water supply capacity of the dam below the present 100 per cent is gambling upon the long-term water supply of all south-east Queensland.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/21/3118379.htm?section=justin

And the critical part:

"And one needs to remember the traditional Queenslander home was one built on stumps where the living areas were upstairs and the downstairs was an area that could be flooded.

When you buy a property in Brisbane in the floodplain you take a risk that your house will be flooded. You should be aware of this and you need to take individual responsibility."
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,932
Location
Brisbane, Oz
The second and third biggest regional cities in Queensland have so far escaped significant flooding.

So you can guess where this cyclone is headed, right?

Satellite Image

For anyone who doesn't know, Australia is about the same size as the US without Alaska. That's a seriously big Category 3 storm, with some modeling now suggesting it could reach Category 5 by landfall (although I think that's unlikely).
 
Top