This ridiculous video story below from ABC news cites über alarmist Richard Somerville of Scripps in San Diego, and is backed up with this print story.

Here’s what the print story headline said:
Raging Waters In Australia and Brazil Product of Global Warming
Quoting Somerville:
“Because the whole water cycle speeds up in a warming world, there’s more water in the atmosphere today than there was a few years ago on average, and you’re seeing a lot of that in the heavy rains and floods for example in Australia,” Sommervile [sic] said.
he adds:
“This is no longer something that’s theory or conjecture or something that comes out of computer models,” Sommerville [sic] said. “We’re observing the climate changing — it’s happening, it’s real, it’s a fact.”
Well perfessor, while a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor content, I call BS on your statement. The climate has always changed. The same argument is being used to hype increased hurricane threats, and as we’ve seen from Dr. Ryan Maue, the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) says the linkage just isn’t there.
The headline of course is sensational, they really didn’t put any thought or research into the Brisbane, QLD flooding, they simply drew a conclusion and found somebody to support it with a soundbite. I’ve seen plenty of examples of this style of crappy TV news journalism in my career. Professor Somerville apparently couldn’t be bothered to do a little historical research before claiming the floods in Queensland were connected to “global warming”, neither could ABC News.
What did ABC news and professor miss? This graph from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) on Brisbane flooding history. When you add the 2010 flood levels to the graph (as Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. bothered to do, shown in red below) all of the sudden, the historical context for the flood being driven by global warming disappears:
And this is backed up from the BoM web page narrative.
Explain then perfesser, how the 1974 flood, which was worse, links to “global warming”. Or how about the biggest flood, in 1893? How does that figure with “global warming”, especially when it was cooler in 1974 and in 1893 there was no appreciable rise in CO2 globally?
Some people will say, “well that’s just Queensland”, so here is the Australian continent. The same questions apply:
The historical narrative for 1893 from BoM:
| 3/2/1893 | Lower part of Brisbane submerged, and water still on the rise; the “Elamang” and the gunboat “Paluma’ were carried by the flood into the Botanical Gardens, and the “Natone” on to the Eagle Farm flats. |
| 4/2/1893 | Disastrous floods in the Brisbane River; 8 feet of water in Edward Street at the Courier building. Numbers of houses at Ipswich and Brisbane washed down the rivers. Seven men drowned through the flooding of the Eclipse Colliery at North Ipswich. Telegraphic and railway communication in the north and west interrupted. |
| 5/2/1893 | The lndooroopilly railway bridge washed away by the flood. Heaviest floods known in Brisbane and suburbs. |
| 6/2/1893 | The lower part of South Brisbane completely submerged. The flood rose 23’9″ above the mean spring tides and 10 feet above flood mark of 1890; north end of the Victoria Bridge destroyed. |
| 7/2/1893 | Flood waters subsiding. Sydney mail train flood bound at Goodna, unable to either proceed or return. |
| 13/2/1893 | Second flood for the year in the Brisbane River. |
| 16/2/1893 | More rain in the south east districts; another rise in the Brisbane; further floods predicted. |
| 17/2/1893 | A third flood occurred in the Brisbane River for the year. |
| 18/2/1893 | The ‘Elamang” floated off from the Botanical Gardens. Business at a standstill in Brisbane. Ipswich and other towns. Several deaths by drowning reported. |
| 19/2/1893 | The gunboat “Paluma” safely floated off the Gardens, and the “Natone” off Eagle Farm flats. Another span of the lndooroopilly railway bridge carried away. The third flood reached its maximum height at 12 noon, viz. 10 inches below the first flood. |
In my opinion, professor Somerville is spouting nonsense about Australia.
As for Brazil, they don’t have as easily accessible climatology, but I did find this newspaper front page from the 1967 Brazil flood, on the website of my friend and fellow skeptic, Alexandre Aguilar in Brazil who works for the weather forecasting firm METSUL. This event which mainly hit Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, with floods and landslides/mudslides, was the worst ever then. The headline cites 400 dead.
The final death toll was 437 people.
METSUL writes on their blog: (more photos there)
The disaster in the mountainous region of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil is the largest since the disaster Caraguatatuba in 1967 (photos). On March 18 of that year, a flood came down the hills like a tsunami of water, mud and rocks, causing a landslide. Hundreds of homes were submerged and rivers have won strong currents, trailing not only houses, but trees, bridges and other structures. The exact number of dead is unknown until today, having been speculation over 500, but officially are considered 300 fatalities. The rain gauge installed at São Sebastão in March 1967 indicated a [monthly?] precipitation of 851.0 mm, with 115.0 mm and on day 17 and 420 mm the next day. The accumulated [rainfall total] may have been higher due to saturation of the rain gauge.
Again, how did this massive flood happen without the help of CO2 back then?
The Australian rains are being driven by La Nina says NASA in this press release
“Although exacerbated by precipitation from a tropical cyclone, rainfalls of historic proportion in eastern Queensland, Australia have led to levels of flooding usually only seen once in a century,” said David Adamec, Oceanographer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. “The copious rainfall is a direct result of La Niña’s effect on the Pacific trade winds and has made tropical Australia particularly rainy this year.”
UPDATE: Here’s yet another expert with a similar opinion, from CNN, where they quote a Columbia (where NASA GISS is located) lead forecaster:
The catastrophic weather events taking place across the globe – from Brazil’s and Australia’s flooding to the Eastern United States’ heavy snowfall – have two likely explanations.
Tony Barnston, lead forecaster at Columbia University’s International Research Institute for Climate and Society, said two phenomena – La Niña and the North Atlantic Oscillation – are likely responsible for the patterns we’re seeing.
UPDATE2: T Gough in comments points out this discussion on the Met Office website:
For the Australian state of Queensland, there is strong evidence to suggest that La Niña is the main reason for the ongoing widespread flooding. The current floods are also the worst since 1974 – which coincided with the strongest La Niña on record.
They offer this chart:
And this Q&A discussion which is a transcript of a video interview (PDF)
La Nina and severe weather around the world
Adam Scaife – Senior Climate Scientist
What is La Nina?
La Nina is part of a natural climate oscillation in the tropical Pacific. It oscillates between the warm El Nino phase, El Nino is Spanish for ‘the boy’, and the cold La Nina phase. So La Nina is like the cold little sister phase of this oscillation and it’s a purely natural event, occurs every few years as part of this natural oscillation.
Is the flooding in Australia linked to La Nina?
So during La Nina the rainfall that normally falls out over the Pacific shifts west over Indonesia and indeed northern and eastern parts of Australia. So the fact that there’s been lots of flooding in Queensland recently is very consistent with the occurrence of near record La Nina this year.
Is the flooding in Sri Lanka and Brazil linked to La Nina?
So La Nina affects weather patterns throughout the globe but of course the further away you are from the La Nina the more difficult it is to pinpoint the affects, it’s a bit like waving a long stick, the uncertainty grows the further away you are from the source. And so when we look at remoter regions, like Brazil or Sri Lanka, it’s more difficult to attribute the recent flooding events to La Nina. If we take the Brazil case, then when we look in historical records and in our climate models, then southern parts of Brazil are actually dry during La Nina so it would be difficult to attribute the recent flooding near Rio to the La Nina that is going on at the moment. If you go to Sri Lanka that is a little bit more complicated, a little bit less clear because it’s right on the edge of the wet influence from La Nina, but again historically it looks like La Nina tends to drive drier conditions in Sri Lanka so the previous biggest event, or the biggest on record in fact in 1974, Sri Lanka was actually dry.
Is La Nina linked to climate change?
La Nina, El Nino cycles have been going on for a very long time, they’re natural cycles, they’re part of a natural oscillation in the Pacific and indeed when we run our climate models into the future with increasing levels of greenhouse gases then there are no consistent changes in the El Nino, La Nina cycle.
Here’s the video:
While the Met Office may have trouble forecasting winter, they are right about this basic understandign of La Nina. It seem’s there’s a consensus forming that contradicts Somerville’s view of the world.
UPDATE3: My Oz friend Dr. Jennifer Marohasy has this discussion of Eastern Australian rainfall from 2008 and offers this graph, not the 1974 peak. When this graph is updated with the latest rainfall data, it may show a spike similar to 1974.
What the graph demonstrates is that heavy rainfall spikes have occurred in the past, and they are not exclusive to our present with m ore CO2. h/t to reader Crosspatch for this link.
UPDATE4: Crosspatch also points out that BoM now has the most recent rainfall totals online, here is the rainfall for QLD:
Weather history apparently can repeat itself, and the precedent was set before CO2 became a worry.
UPDATE5: See this report about Brazil –
Is the Brazilian flooding catastrophe evidence of another global warming era extreme ?
I think Dr. Richard Somerville needs a swift kick in the butt style reality-check, or perhaps he needs a course in weather history, or both.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


![20110105SSTgraph10[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/20110105sstgraph101.png?resize=602%2C358&quality=75)
Sou says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:53 pm
“… everyone knows the arctic ice continues to disappear, glaciers are melting, snowfalls and rain are more intense etc etc. And that warming-related extreme events far outweigh cold extreme events.
Unfortunately, not wanting all this to happen is not sufficient to prevent it. Nor is protesting that it’s not happening.”
———————-
You need to catch up on the facts. Globally, almost all glaciers are advancing not melting. The Northwest Passage between Canada and the polar icecap is well and truly frozen over. And the Antarctic ice extent increased by 3,500,000 km^2 in the three years to mid 2010. So Global Warming (via the miniscule amounts of Co2 being returned to the biosphere from previously sequestered deposits in coal and limestone) is making lots of ice in both hemispheres, but you think we need to decimate our economies to avoid boiling to death!
Speaking as a hydrologist in the Australian flood zone – none of the recent events are much outside of limits of variability in even our very limited records. I’d be wary of comparing simple flood heights in a tidal system such as Brisbane however.
Me and mine are fine – thank you – but traumatised by the deaths and made more sad and cynical by those attempting to make political capital.
I think the Pacific Ocean drives climate much more than climate drives the Pacific Ocean – see http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/index.html
The Australian hydrological consensus is that we get 20 to 40 years of a drought dominated regime (DDR) followed by 20 to 40 years of a flood dominated regime – an analysis replicated endlessly across the country. This, btw, is an example of chaotic bifurcation in the complex and dynamic (as in chaos theory) climate system. The system bifurcated after 1998 to a flood dominated regime. And yes – we should assume 10 to 30 more years of intense and frequent La Nina – something which I and others have repeatedly publicly predicted for years. A case of pearls before swine apparently. I know Stewart Franks had a (draft – but never finalised) policy with the National Committee on this very topic for most of the last decade. Ironically – this was replaced by some nonsense about global warming induced water shortages recently.
Superimposed on DDR and FDR is the idea that ‘global warming’ (a muddle headed idea based on simple causality) intensifies both La Nina and El Nino – an idea for which there is scant and conflicting evidence.
A correction to my last post – that is the National Committee on Water Engineering
Well, at least some headway is being made in the UK.
The Independent, until recently one of the staunchist bastions of global warming hysteria, ran an article this morning with the headline: ‘This isn’t global warming, but it may be the face of the future’.
The article stated clearly that La Nina was the cause of the Queensland floods and that climate change wasn’t. Experts were quoted to add weight to that position.
The situation in Brazil was described as being exacerbated by poor construction practices on steep hillsides, which is factually accurate but probably of little comfort to those who lost relatives.
The issue of inappropriate urban development was highlighted, which for any sane person is the reason behind the more toxic effects of floods when they do happen. Namely that if you are idiotic enough to build houses on flood plains, don’t be surprised when they flood. It might be once every 5 years, once every 35 but it’ll flood. Because nature is pretty predictable on longer time scales…….
The issues to me should focus now about expecting reservoirs to be low most of the time since you need really big ones to catch all the water from floods like these. But given the propensity for long-term drought in some of those areas, that’s precisely what you need to keep things going during the dry periods…….
It should also focus on either not building on flood plains or building houses on stilts if you must build there. No doubt politicians will take due care to ensure that those stilts don’t collapse at times of flood due to cowboy developers who bunged them a few hundred grand to let the development take place in the first place????
bryn says:
January 14, 2011 at 11:37 pm
“And after all that, I agree Somerville is an ignorant idiot.”
So is our new drive by troll, Sou.
Got any training in science, earth science or any other kind , Sou? Lots of posters here have.
Or are you just a Greenpeas patsy?
I’m not impressed by the idea of just using Brisbane records as an indicator of the flood severity. People in other locations report this flood was worse than past ones.
To get an indication that is not misleading, the amount of water fallen over some common baseline area needs to be calculated for all floods past and present.
Timiboy says
——-
It is enough of a tragedy without these rat bags politicising what is a tragic event. They will stoop to anything to push their agenda. Filthy Bastards. It is NOT OK.
——-
You’re right, so why were you silent when climate skeptics did exactly that?
I had a chance to fly over the Lockyer Valley today but didn’t take it. My First Officer (wife) and I decided it would be voyeuristic so went where we were going by an alternate route.
It was good to hear my friends in 161 troop Australian Army Aviation come up on the frequency flying Search and Rescue in the valley. Good kids. It is our pleasure to know them.
I did not like the tone of Jim Cole comment at January 14, 2011 at 9:31 pm.
We are talking about peoples homes (whether these be mansions or wooden shacks) and one cannot pay a higher price than to pay with one’s life and/or the life of family members.
The point is though, if one builds a town high in the mountains where avalanches occur in the Spring, one is always living in the shaddow of an avalanche occuring. The same is so on mountain sides where there is a prospensity for mud slides, or on flood plains, or in the foothills of a volcano. When one builds and lives in these areas, one runs a risk that nature will strike with a vengance and from time to time she does just that.
We should not be surprised by the cruelty of nature (after all this is the driving force behind natural selection) but rather by man’s stupidy in settling in places which do not make good habitats or in failure to manage properly the known risks which are inherent in the habitat chosen (I have in mind that with better management, at least in Brisbane, the worst effects of the flooding could have been controlled and reduced, much like New Orleans and her sea defences). As regards Australia, one suspects that town planners/city engineers were being told that with global warming drought is the problems and floods will become a thing of the past such that they took their eye of the ball. This is what has happened in the UK with winter snowfall. There is a lot of blood on the shoulders of the AGW crowd.
The best available measure is Claus Wolters’ multi-variate ENSO index found here – http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/
The big La Nina are all found prior to 1976 – it is associated with the Pacific decadal pattern. More frequent and intense La Nina to 1976, more frequent and intense El Nino to 1998 and a climate shift since to more frequent and intense La Nina. The intensity of the current La Nina is similar to the large events prior to 1976 and I’m betting that it will hang around this year intensifying again into next summer. The cool Pacific decadal pattern brings more intense and frequent La Nina for 20 to 40 years.
‘El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the most important coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon to cause global climate variability on interannual time scales. Here we attempt to monitor ENSO by basing the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) on the six main observed variables over the tropical Pacific. These six variables are: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C). These observations have been collected and published in COADS for many years.’
Richard S Courtney says
———–
I think we are seeing a new meme being presented by catastrophists. It is based on this argument:
Weather events are driven by energy flows,
and AGW increases energy in the climate system,
so the severity of each weather event is increased by AGW.
——
Richard, it is an old meme. Maybe 20 years old. Glad to see your climate science knowledge is catching up.
Here is a little question for you. How many years of crazy weather would it take to convince you?
My only comment, after the comprehensive smackdown, is that we are constantly being told not to cite cold weather events to counter AGW yet they have cited Russian heatwave, Pakistan floods and now the Amazon and Australian floods as a sign of global warming. They also cited the previous droughts in Amazon and Australia as a sign of global warming.
Let’s look at some natural disasters of the past:
Ten worst floods in history
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/flooding/tenworst.shtml
Five worst forest fires
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/forestfires/tenworst.shtml
Ten worst hurricanes in history
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/hurricanes/tenworst.shtml
Ten worst tornadoes in history
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/tornadoes/tenworst.shtml
Ten worst avalanches in history
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/avalanches/tenworst.shtml
Ten worst landslides in history
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/landslides/tenworst.shtml
Worst natural disasters in history
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/worstdisasters.shtml
Lazy Boy won’t like that.
Dear Dp,
“Poo hole” ??!?!
Ha! ROFL! Lololol ! Whew, caught me off guard with that one. Yes indeedee …. very apt description. Well done! And thank you for the funny-
Carolina
Or that.
Brian H says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:20 am
As for “warm air holds more moisture”, the converse is also true: cool air holds less moisture. So it falls out and lands on the ground as rain, causing floods. I think you’d find much more statistical support for that observation than the Hot Rain one.
————–
So you have not heard of monsoons then and don’t believe in tropical rain storms at all then?
And the idea of rain accompanying cold fronts must be totally alien then?
And other popular climate skeptic ideas like: drought is caused by cold must be totally confusing to you then.
The problem is you don’t want to understand how rain fall is related to temperature and moisture content. All you are interested in is simple minded debating points.
1974 would be the 37 year ago, cycle two analog year I use for my forecast method, so it is no surprise to me this rerun of the past is right on time…. I sure would like to get hold of a complete record of the daily raw data back to about 1900, to generate a daily map based forecast for Australia, for the next 10 years or so.
I would need the data in a Lat, Long, parameter value (highs, lows, precipitation,snow, and dew point would be nice) format, for a rapid response forecast generation, in less than 6 months.
Maps of Brisbane’s floods: 1893, 1974, 2011
[Includes a good background article]
“LazyTeenager says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:59 am”
Yeah, and alot I saw in reports weren’t old enough or weren’t even in the country to recall the 1974 floods, so your comment is rather pointless. Regardless, I have seena shift in poersonal accounts. A few weeks back you’d see reporters talking to “older” people stating “Seen it like this before!” Now, I see very young people, some were NOT teenagers at all, being asked if they’d seen “…anything like this before?”. But I get the impression that if you see and hear “accounts of an event or past events” on TV, and in colour, it must be true right?
Floods are very common in Queensland, early settlers adapted to it by bulding differently, ie, building houses on stilts, which was a departure from building standards known to the early settlers.
Sou says:
January 14, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Check this out: http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm#20080927:%20Reflections%20on%20the%20correlation%20between%20global%20temperature%20and%20atmospheric%20CO2
Not only has the warming stopped, but global temperatures have not correlated with CO2 concentrations. Hence, CO2 does not drive global temperatures. AGW hypothesis falsified.
Now about those 1893 floods.
There was also a economic panic here in the US in 1893.
My grandmother was born in 1893.
Clearly, my grandmother’s birth was the cause of all those bad events in 1893.
These floods were caused by a government that let their people down. Dams that would have protected people and saved lives weren’t built.
Rhys Jaggar says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:45 am
Here in Colorado the issue is building homes in firewood stands, also known as forests.
People want to be close to nature, but there is a risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayman_Fire
The irony of the Hayman fire is the source was a government employee whose job was to prevent forest fires.
Every year we have homes burn up. But people still keep building up there.
Imagine being able to truly believe in something like these so called scientists say they do, to actually know beyond doubt that you have the undisputed facts.
It makes me wonder if they know what they don’t know or are total frauds.
The other irony here is that La Nina is defined as colder-than-normal water temperatures in the central Tropical Pacific. So here we have a moderate to strong La Nina event. So much for the warming oceans.
Whoosh. That’s the sound of the point of this article going right over the heads of WUWT posters. It’s not one crappy paper that’s the problem but the whole peer review process. Small wonder that the cargo cult scientists spout it’s wonders to behold. It’s because peer review is eminently corruptible.
You pay for the privilege of headline grabbing “research” but are not allowed to examine the full paper without subscribing to a privately owned and profit oriented media outlet.
Do you as a taxpayer feel this farce should continue?
WUWT had a post on DECREASING atmospheric water vapor
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/18/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature/
Not that I would expect alarmist dolts like Sommerville and his ilk to actually look at facts before they spout AGW rhetoric.