Thread: Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

And 1890 and 1893 were far higher than 1974.
I can remember being at a function in the motel opposite Parliament house in Brisbane and remember seeing marks on the wall on the ground floor indicating the 1890 and 1893 flood levels.
The marks were about 9feet up the wall whereas in the 1974 flood the ground floor was not affected.
The Victoria Bridge was washed away in 1890 and AFAIR again in 1893.
The Queensland navy was marooned in the Gardens in 1890 and refloated in 1893.
My wife's cousin owned a house in Fig Tree Pocket that was completely submerged for 3 days in 1974.

Regards PhilipA

Originally Posted by V8Ian

Governments, bureaucrats and news publishers have memories of convenience for various reasons.
Facts can be reported with a spin that that barely resembles actuality. Brisbane has always been prone to catastrophic flooding, with major events in 1841/90/93, 1931/74 and 2011. I was in Brisbane for the latter two. 1974 was a bigger flood than 2011yet the media had to beat up the latest event in their sensationalist manner, in order to attract the gullible, ergo sell more advertising space.The media reports were not wrong, but they were far from the truth.
FACT. The water was deeper in the Brisbane River and low lying suburbs in 1974.
REPORTED. 2011 floods are worst on record. Places flooded that were not flooded in '74. More buildings flood effected than in 1974.
ACTUALLY. Land previously designated floodprone had been approved for development. Floodplains built up, covered with houses, concrete and bitumen causing houses that didn't flood in '74 to go under in '11.
It was only a worse flood for people who were inundated in 2011, but not in '74.
Are the gullible going to blame climate change for Brisbane flooding? Bear in mind until the early 1660s, when the Dutch and Spanish had a quick squiz from the water, white folk hadn't seen the east coast. Then Jimmy breezed up the coast in 1770, camping at Cooktown for a month or two, but he seemed to be preoccupied with boat building so didn't get much chance to do any significant climate change stuff. Flinders (take note Pedro) had a bit of a scout around, a couple of times around the turn of the century but didn't leave a footprint. Just before midway through the 1800s, Oxley, Petie and Lockyer paved the way for settlement. Admittedly, it's in the timeframe of the first recorded flood but I don't think Europeans had time to cause it. Maybe there were previous floods that the Aborigines didn't notice, or were too inconsiderate to record and measure.

Without trivialising the heartbreak and trauma of the current bushfires, they are regular, natural events. They are the worst for the poor souls who are directly affected, the press who sensationalise for revenue and the gullible.
In 1967 the nation was stopped by a newsflash, The Prime Minister has disappeared off Cheviot Beach. A significant event, worthy of the description breaking news. These days, the Prime Minister's chauffeur getting a parking ticket would be considered breaking news. Hardly a week goes by without a newsflash, breaking or unfolding story about some relatively minor issue.
There endeth the history lesson.

So, you are on public record saying that you do not think climate change is an issue, in these fires, or any future ones? BTW, the 1974 floods had more to do with Seqwater releasing millions of tons of water from the dams, at the wrong time , compounding the problem. Try as I might, I can't find where any one has posted that the floods were due to climate change. Drought, on the other hand..... As for Flinders his first voyage on the Reliance to Moreton Bay and Hervey Bay accompanied by his younger brother Samuel, even though he spent 15 days in Moreton Bay, he didn't find the Brisbane River. He reported that" no river of importance intersected the East Coast between the 24th and 39th degrees of south latitude". In fact no rivers up that way were found by seaward exploration; they were discovered by inland travellers. Flinders interaction with aborigines in Moreton Bay consisted of trying to fire his gun at one who had thrown a spear at him. His gun misfired twice, but discharged on the third attempt, making a lot of noise, but hitting no one. The Reliance sprung a leak two days out from Port Jackson, on the way north, and grains of maize kept choking up the pump. I think relying on the testimony of explorers such as these on such things as floods or fires is , considering most of their effort was expended simply trying to stay afloat, and not run aground in Moreton Bay, tenuous, to say the least.

An amusing aside as to how things never change presents itself, when two Scotsman tried to lighten the tension between aboriginals and Flinders by doing a comedic version of the Highland fling. No one laughed, Scotsmen seem to have that effect on people.

Originally Posted by rick130

It seems a lot of the Murdoch press aren't deeming the fires that newsworthy.
Pictures only apearing on page 4 on new years day in the Oz and the Herald Sun on new years Eve
Bashing the ABC is much more important!

How Murdoch murdered climate policy. Even Credlin says it was a stitchup.

Michael Pascoe: How Murdoch’s myrmidons murdered climate policy How Murdoch’s ink-stained imps killed climate sanity

The long term trend is clear in climate change.
Average global temperature is up about 1 degree since 1910, mostly since 1950.
That's why the country is drier and burns more dangerously than in the past.
This is not about belief, it's just fact.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

The long term trend is clear in climate change.
Average global temperature is up about 1 degree since 1910, mostly since 1950.
That's why the country is drier and burns more dangerously than in the past.
This is not about belief, it's just fact.

Cause and Effect.
In this instance the links appear direct but they are not.

Drought conditions, excessive fuel sources, inappropriate building permissions granted. All these have contributed to poorer outcomes for Australians.

Yes, there are changes in Climatic conditions - these do not directly lead to firestorms. Every year I’ve been up North the ground is struck with lightening. Fuel on the ground drives the outcomes.

Better management of the habitat, better planning of where housing can be located, better land management all can reduce the hazards and loss.

Originally Posted by Tombie

Cause and Effect.
In this instance the links appear direct but they are not.

Drought conditions, excessive fuel sources, inappropriate building permissions granted. All these have contributed to poorer outcomes for Australians.

Yes, there are changes in Climatic conditions - these do not directly lead to firestorms. Every year I’ve been up North the ground is struck with lightening. Fuel on the ground drives the outcomes.

Better management of the habitat, better planning of where housing can be located, better land management all can reduce the hazards and loss.

I dunno.
I think the severity and length of drought, hotter than average temps, etc its not unreasonable to draw a direct link

Originally Posted by rick130

I dunno.
I think the severity and length of drought, hotter than average temps, etc its not unreasonable to draw a direct link

More severe drought =more dead vegetation = hotter fires. That's about as direct a link as its possible to get.
It's worse on the coast where there is more vegetation to die and burn.

Originally Posted by rick130

I dunno.
I think the severity and length of drought, hotter than average temps, etc its not unreasonable to draw a direct link

Not hard to rustle up a couple of links, dryness and temp will do it every time:

Climate Maps - Rainfall Latest

Climate Maps - Temperature Latest

Funny how the fires fit with dry and warm. Plenty of forest to the west that isn't burning even though there's been plenty of lightning strikes. I still view the dryness and temp as natural variability but some of the biased media is doing it's best to get me to be rational.

DL