The Floods

Can't find the right forum, then post your general surf-related remarks here!

Moderators: Butts, beach_defender, Shari, collnarra, Forum Moderators

Beanpole
BUTTONMEISTER
Posts: 41633
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:21 am
Location: Button Factory

Re: The Floods

Post by Beanpole » Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:55 pm

The Australian is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Haven't actually heard too much about dams for a while but I'm sure I'm going to from now on. :roll: :roll:
I actually thought Bligh was trying to make one. Luckily the Tweed has the majestic Clarrie Hall Dam at Doon Doon.
They used to just prop Clarries hand on the paper to get his signature. He was pretty well blind. Someone I know ended up with water front property when they filled the valley and they paid him for reclaiming some of his land.

I can't imagine many pollies getting up in the last 5 or so years and proposing more dams on the Murray. Last I heard they wanted to turn the Clarence inland to feed the Murray and farmers were fighting miners who wanted to mine the aquifers for coal and everyone else was fighting the cotton growers.

Don't really know what you do when you have cities in the wrong places and weaker building standards.
Maybe put people where the water is like Dungog and Bellingen.

User avatar
crabmeat thompson
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 25440
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:57 pm
Location: good fanks

Re: The Floods

Post by crabmeat thompson » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:10 am

mustkillmulloway wrote:
p.p.s i hope your familys nearly out the worst it braithy :?:
Yes mate. Roads opened up y'day morning. Supermarket shelves are still bare, hopefully today they fill up. My colon can't take too much more luncheon and mayonaise on toast. :lol:
steve shearer wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:31 am
You are both absorbing salt and urinating.

User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3838
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: The Floods

Post by Damage » Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:12 am

mustkillmulloway wrote:
p.s there are a lot angry people out there olds looking for a scapegoat...
Exactly.

Fong given that there was almost twice as much rain falling in Brisbane's catchment as the 1974 flood event and yet the 2011 flood peak did not reach the 1974 peak, how would you explain that?

User avatar
Cookie
regular
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:06 pm

Re: The Floods

Post by Cookie » Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:42 am

Damage wrote:
Fong given that there was almost twice as much rain falling in Brisbane's catchment as the 1974 flood event and yet the 2011 flood peak did not reach the 1974 peak, how would you explain that?
74 was a totally different scenario with TC Wanda slamming into Brisbane. A major part of the flooding was due to the cyclone surge holding back the Brisbane River.

Twice as much rain? Says who? Where? Over what time period? Total Rainfall has very little to do with it. Its much more to do with Peak Rainfall intensities over entire catchments and the interaction of those catchments as the flow into the Brisbane River.

Why did the Bremer River which is a substantial part of the inflow only peak at 19.4m this time even though it reached 20.5 in 1974? Half the rainfall hey?

Why was Wivenhoe at 150% before the major rain event on the Monday? Did trying to avoid minor flooding early contribute to worsening the situation later.

Fong's asking the right sort of questions. Why is the being an inquiry into all of this? Even Anna Bligh is suggesting that things could possibly have been managed better.

User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3838
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: The Floods

Post by Damage » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:06 am

Cookie wrote:
Why did the Bremer River which is a substantial part of the inflow only peak at 19.4m this time even though it reached 20.5 in 1974? Half the rainfall hey?
Huh?

I have no problems with Fong or anyone else asking questions. It's just the jumping to conclusions bit I find a bit hard to stomach. It does not do the situation any good. Let the dust settle, we all get our breath (and lives) back and then we sieve through the evidence and make some judgements. Given the depth of knowledge displayed in your post you would also know that these situations are hugely complex.....

An enquiry is being held into this because it's arguabley the biggest natural disaster in the nation's history. Victoria had one post bushfires and Newcastle had one post-earthquake. It's what happens. Simple.

:D
Last edited by Damage on Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kayu
Local
Posts: 611
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:24 pm

Re: The Floods

Post by kayu » Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:29 am

is it human nature to search for someone to blame after an natural disaster?

still here
charger
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:07 pm

Re: The Floods

Post by still here » Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:18 pm

oldman wrote:
still here wrote:Australia has always has droughts and floods . It's spoken of in the dreaming and etched into the sands of time , carbon printed into the rock , as well as recorded in the brief "European history" .
True
still here wrote:Whats stupid is that the tree hugging greenies and climate alarmists ignore this !
Complete non-sequitur. No they don't and it has no connection to these floods. You are an idiot.

well a short while ago it sounded like them tree hugging greenies were spouting off how it may never rain again due to anthropomorphic climate change ! In reality a 10 year drought is nothing new to Australia (there's "rock solid " proof of that ) - and greater floods have come and gone , too even in the short period of European settlement !!! But the real issue is that Bob Browne can blame coal mining for the floods . That sure sounds like ignoring the cyclical nature of Australian weather .
Crikey you must live in a vacuum !

still here wrote:They blame farmers for depleting the Murray-Darling and demand prohibitive water cuts and taking away of legal water entitlements .
No they don't, if you have been following the debate at all. They blame governments for over-allocating water that doesn't exist, and a small proportion of farmers who are trying to ignore the reality they see on their land. See previous comment.

Your semantic argument is a waste of time !!! If you want to play this game then the correct terminology should be "they blame goverment policy for ..." . But it's bullshit ..... basically they're blaming farming practices from an armchair in Mcquairie street . Give the man on the land a few kudos or do YOU too want to drive food production offshore ?

still here wrote:Fact is the drought was always going to end , and with it would be floods.
True, the only question being whether human kind still exists by the time the next flood comes along .
The real question is whether the greenies and "labor government policy" will have wiped out Australian farmers before the next drought or flood . With a new lobby to tax farmers for the water they dam , the next proposal will be to tax them for sunshine too ! I wonder , do you support taxing water dammed by farmers on farmers land ??
still here wrote: No water shortage just a water containment problem.
If insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result, then still here is exhibit A. Imbecile.

I suppose you're proposing to CONTINUE to ignore the cycle of Australian weather and CONTINUE to suffer drought and floods by inaction other than to lay cable for faster internet . The real problems of Australia are ignored at the expense of technology that will be outdated as the world moves to wireless technology . Have you heard of it yet ?
still here wrote:How pompous to think that humans can so radically alter climate. All that we currently experience has been experienced throughout the ages in the distant past and recent past ...... and on a greater scale . It's just that we have more people and more possessions in the way of the cycle , and more efficient dissemination of news .
And now he is taking theology lessons from Cardinal Pell. Wonderful.

Look , anthropomorphic climate change due to increased carbon in the atmosphere is as much a closed loop belief system as Christianiaty . There were much higher carbon levels in the past , and it's really a question of what came first carbon or temperature . Ultimately anthropomorphic climate change is unproven
still here wrote:Anyway , they'll punish the farmers with continued water restrictions no doubt and send food production the way of industry ......... to China !! But at least we'll have hyper fast internet accessible when you plug in at home . Fark !!
And farkwits filling the sterile void where a functioning mind should be with thoughts like this.

Your ignorance is appalling, but not as much as the pride you hold in your ignorance.

But you are welcome to post your opinions here.
You display the thought processes of a Labor politician and are as charismatic and appealing as Julia Gillard !!

mustkillmulloway
Owl status
Posts: 4962
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: i live in a pineapple under the sea

Re: The Floods

Post by mustkillmulloway » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:51 pm

still here wrote: You display the thought processes of a Labor politician and are as charismatic and appealing as Julia Gillard !!

well the thought process bit is a oxymoron and hey :!: how dare u compare olds too gillard

thats going too far....i defend him :idea:

plus..........

he...........

doesn't................

even...............

talk.............

like..........

her.............. :roll:


this is a funny read :arrow:

http://afr.com/p/opinion/bravo_bligh_bu ... gkm1jjyufJ

damage ....how about while where waiting for the results from the investagation

we all hold hands and hum silently towards our flag :lol:

u fuc.ken idiot....u need get out more

p.s are u embassed (like me vote green) last election....given browns totally melt down blaming the miners :?:


p.p.s it's all gonna be ok anyways.....labors going bring in a new tax fix everything....who didn't see that coming :cry:
reginald wrote:Hang on, now all of a sudden I'm the bad guy. How the try again did that happen?

Lard Lad
regular
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:15 pm

Re: The Floods

Post by Lard Lad » Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:01 pm

I'm hearing ya 'still here'......

AGW theory is the biggest load of bollocks EVER.......

To the faithful, PROVE your theory or FUSCHIA. off...... (here comes the thousand posts of babble, but produce some actual proof, go on I dare ya, the IPCC can't so it'll be good to see ya do so)

Recent Qld and Vic floods, last years N/W NSW floods and Vic bushfires before them, the result of Australian climate cycles (El Nino / La Nina), nothing more, nothing less.......

Wivenhoe did, and continues to do it's job to provide water and mitigate flooding........

Bob Down Brown is a c.o.c.k.s.m.o.k.e.r., this is a fact and no I am not a homophobe, but surely for anyone other than the biggest of FUSCHIA.w.i.t.s. his choice of sexual orientation does not place him in the highest esteem to be lecturing and speculating to others on the actual workings of nature???

And the mongs that voted labor last election, please feel free to pay my carbon tax when those nonces bring it in too, you FUSCHIA.i.n.g. idiots........

User avatar
No Pants Lance
Snowy McAllister
Posts: 9348
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:26 am
Location: where wake collide

Re: The Floods

Post by No Pants Lance » Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:18 am

I'm not much on facts and figures. I speak from the gut. Observation and instinct suggest things arent really as they should be. Things happen for a reason. But not without input from both good and evil. Indifference and ignorance play a big part too. As does meaningful intention and willfull purpose.

So. What part of - " we have messed with this planet so much since the industrial age, to the extent that along with natural cycles, she has had to compensate and subsequently spill her guts in ever more dramatic and subsequently destructive ways "- don't you Lard Lad and Still Here not understand ?
The planet can only take so much. Just like your hallowed body. By circumstance- genes - you live with or without ailments for as long as you maintain it. When you begin to compromise it with harmful additives - tobacco, processed food, toxins of all sorts from pollution and pesticide riddled foods etc etc. you suffer. Get it?
I'm not going to join in the blame game but you have to look at the facts of how from early settlement, questionable agricultural practices were carried out which have clearly affected the natural balance of the land. Wanton clearfelling for one. The result of which is a destabilized landmass resulting In massive erosion and subsequent poisoning of our waterways, estuaries and oceans after floods such as we are seeing now. This is not the way it's supposed to be as you try in vain to argue.
And for fcuk sake will you stop carrying on about peoples' sexual preferences like some villainous closet freaks. There something hideously allarming about it. There's no logic or rational. It's just plain and simple ignorant bigotry.

User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3838
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: The Floods

Post by Damage » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:29 am

Lard Lad wrote:
Bob Down Brown is a c.o.c.k.s.m.o.k.e.r., this is a fact and no I am not a homophobe, but surely for anyone other than the biggest of !!!.w.i.t.s. his choice of sexual orientation does not place him in the highest esteem to be lecturing and speculating to others on the actual workings of nature???
Easily one of the most moronic things ever posted on RS.
Last edited by Damage on Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

2nd Reef
Harry the Hat
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:14 pm
Location: Pau Malu

Re: The Floods

Post by 2nd Reef » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:56 am

still here wrote:How pompous to think that humans can so radically alter climate
Well, we put a hole in the ozone layer with 20 years of CFC use. What damage 200 years of carbon build-up?

User avatar
monkey
regular
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:47 pm

Re: The Floods

Post by monkey » Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:20 am

Damage wrote:
Lard Lad wrote:
Bob Down Brown is a c.o.c.k.s.m.o.k.e.r., this is a fact and no I am not a homophobe, but surely for anyone other than the biggest of !!!.w.i.t.s. his choice of sexual orientation does not place him in the highest esteem to be lecturing and speculating to others on the actual workings of nature???
Easily one of the most moronic things ever posted on RS.
Surely Lard lad is just taking the piss...

alakaboo
Duke Status
Posts: 18955
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: The Floods

Post by alakaboo » Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:39 am

still here wrote:Australia has always has droughts and floods . It's spoken of in the dreaming and etched into the sands of time , carbon printed into the rock , as well as recorded in the brief "European history" .
still here wrote: No water shortage just a water containment problem.
still here wrote:That sure sounds like ignoring the cyclical nature of Australian weather .
so which is it? either the cycle of droughts and floods is natural and should be respected, or it's a dangerous scurge which should be regulated through the construction of artificial resevoirs designed specifically to disrupt the natural cycles.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Lard Lad wrote:AGW theory is the biggest load of bollocks EVER.......
To the faithful, PROVE your theory or !!!. off...... (here comes the thousand posts of babble, but produce some actual proof, go on I dare ya, the IPCC can't so it'll be good to see ya do so)
what proof would you like, Lard Lad? What type of evidence would satisfy your keen analytical mind? This is an honest question.

And do you have proof that AGW is not true? I assume so, otherwise you wouldn't be nearly as righteous in your condemnation.
I don't mind what your point of view is, but you can't demand a level of evidence that you can't satisfy yourself.

as has been stated many times before, it isn't possible to prove something that hasn't happened yet. It's not even possible to prove connections where things have already happened. That's the basis of science.
Lard Lad wrote:Bob Down Brown is a c.o.c.k.s.m.o.k.e.r., this is a fact and no I am not a homophobe, but surely for anyone other than the biggest of !!!.w.i.t.s. his choice of sexual orientation does not place him in the highest esteem to be lecturing and speculating to others on the actual workings of nature???
So, scientists can't comment on nature, and neither can homosexuals. I assume women are equally disqualified, though they probably wouldn't be able to make many astute observations from the kitchen window while they bake scones. Thank goodness for heterosexual farmers, otherwise we wouldn't know anything about the world around us.

User avatar
daryl
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 20459
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:23 pm
Contact:

Re: The Floods

Post by daryl » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:17 am

2nd Reef wrote:
still here wrote:How pompous to think that humans can so radically alter climate
Well, we put a hole in the ozone layer with 20 years of CFC use. What damage 200 years of carbon build-up?
We also nearly demolished biodiversity using DDT.

User avatar
ajohnsen
Duke Status
Posts: 11841
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:38 am
Location: Marrickville

Re: The Floods

Post by ajohnsen » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:02 pm

Dear Lard Lad and Still Here,

Years ago, David Suzuki wrote a book, with Holly Dressel, called Good News for a Change. He made the point that we live in a biosphere and that the resources within that biosphere are finite. Yet, economists only ever speak of growth. Well, I hate to burst your bubble, fellas, but perpetual growth is an oxymoron. So, you might argue AGW theory, but how do you refute the simple fact that everything runs out. Just because you're not here to see a thing's ultimate demise, doesn't mean it won't happen.

Please, if you click on one link, choose this one - http://interactive.nfb.ca/#/testtube

Don't use the lack of proof of AGW theory to justify continued over-consumption. Maybe open your minds up a little; there are plenty of people out there a hell of a lot smarter than you and me - on both sides of the political divide.

Johnno
Harry the Hat
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:19 pm
Location: Mid North Coast

Re: The Floods

Post by Johnno » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:05 pm

ajohnsen wrote: So, you might argue AGW theory, but how do you refute the simple fact that everything runs out. Just because you're not here to see a thing's ultimate demise, doesn't mean it won't happen.
Just one example :arrow: The world needs 74.5 million (2010) barrels of oil per day to function. 7 days a week 52 weeks a year.

We have reach a point that we need 2 1/2 planet earths to supply our needs.

Fortunately I won't be around when things start to run out ... :wink:

User avatar
Trev
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 23617
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Any Point Break

Re: The Floods

Post by Trev » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:36 pm

nuffink ngo wrote:Before the floods I thought it was necessary to Talk really loud to Queenslanders Because they were dumb.
After seeing the press conferences with hand jiver off to one side I now understand one of the reasons for the blank stares I get when I talk to one.
The big letters are for the last 33.3% of the population Queensland who would be the blind "see no evil" type of monkey
I can't hear you.

Maybe that's because you've got nuffink to say.
#sixfeetissixfeet!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests