From
Operator of dam ‘invented’ rain data
EXTREME rainfall so rare it happens on average once every 2000 years has been “invented” by the government operator of a major Queensland dam as part of its explanation for releasing huge volumes of water that caused most of Brisbane’s January flood.
The claim by SEQWater in its official report that a “one-in-2000-year” rainfall event occurred over the Wivenhoe Dam at a critical stage on January 11 has been widely reported in the media and cited by senior public servants to justify the near loss of control of the dam at the time.
But no such rainfall event was measured by any rainfall gauges. Instead, the claim was manufactured by SEQWater after it modelled the rapid rise of levels in the dam, repositioned rainfall data to an area immediately upstream of the dam, and then doubled it.
After extrapolating in this unusual way to achieve an extreme number, the SEQWater report states: “Rainfall of this intensity and duration over the Wivenhoe Dam lake area at such a critical stage of a flood event was unprecedented.
…
The technical report by SEQWater shows it relied on a manual gauge of dam levels, not the actual rainfall in gauges, to extrapolate data to claim the occurrence of a one-in-2000-year event.
However, in doing this, SEQWater disregarded the data from a nearby electronic gauge, which showed dam levels lower than those in the manual gauge.
Full story here
=================================================================
My heart goes out to the people of Queensland and in particular, Brisbane, where I visited last year. Heads should roll over this. h/t to WUWT reader Betapug
UPDATE: Reader Frank K points out this article by skeptical cartoonist John Cook in ABC:
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2011/01/17/3114597.htm
The headline:
The essay was also posted on his antithetically named “Skeptical Science” blog:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OK-global-warming-this-time-its-personal.html
He’s right about one thing, this event IS personal, and preventable. And, I’m willing to bet there will be scads of very personal lawsuits by people who have been grievously harmed by the government ineptitude in managing the dam.
If Mr. Cook has any integrity, he’ll retract his story. But, I doubt he will.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anyone who doubts that John Cook’s Skeptical Pseudo-Science blog is anything but an alarmist propaganda blog should read his Brisbane tripe. Any remaining doubts will evaporate for all but the most cognitive dissonance-impaired.
It sounds like they started by simply using climate science best practices — namely removing adverse data:
“The technical report by SEQWater shows it relied on a manual gauge of dam levels, not the actual rainfall in gauges, to extrapolate data to claim the occurrence of a one-in-2000-year event.
However, in doing this, SEQWater disregarded the data from a nearby electronic gauge, which showed dam levels lower than those in the manual gauge.”
They then used the commonly accepted next step of adjusting the retained data to suit the model (since data that doesn’t fit the model is ‘obviously wrong’). I think the real innovation here was in adjusting the data by 2X.
I think may qualify as temporary man made climate change . . .
“Global warming means more intense rainfall and more intense drought.”
Yes, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus told you so. Say hello to the fairies at the bottom of your garden for me.
This is what its going to cost if you let these ##### people have any sort of say in government etc. ie Gillard etc. Its going to cost lives and a lot of money. This is probably the first concrete example of what happens.
As I recall Flannery would have been one of responsible by feeding these pea brains (the SEQ Water Board and Bligh warmistas)) the idea that QLD was in for eternal drought. He even published a paper on it probably in another trashy Australian Scientific Journal.
Moral turpitude. Not a phrase I often use, but it sure springs to mind here. Inventing data to suit the model is a novel kind of hindcasting. Not without merit as a speculative device in some circumstances. But not in the ones reported in your post.
Incredible. Absolutely incredible!
only nuclear power plants are unsafe, hydro is perfect
jorgekafkazar says:
March 28, 2011 at 11:18 am
“Global warming means more intense rainfall and more intense drought.”
Yes, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus told you so. Say hello to the fairies at the bottom of your garden for me.
========================================
I’m still trying to understand the concept of a “more intense drought”. What does that mean? “AHHH!!!! THE LACK OF RAIN INTENSIFIES!!!! AHHH!!!”
I’m not sure how that occurs, but I think it has something to do with “super-exponential.”
Somebody needs to plant half a dozen bristlecones near that rain gauge!
That dam was designed to be operated only half full specifically in order to provide capacity to the flood control system. The real problem is that the hype over water shortages before the flood resulted in the dam operators being unwilling to release water. Consequently the dam was almost full when the flood hit. At that point there isn’t much that could have been done to make things better. Looks like someone panicked and made things worse.
James Sexton says:
March 28, 2011 at 10:05 am
I was merely illustrating the typical CAGW cult’s practice of blaming every natural disaster on global warming…especially very soon after a given tragic event. We also saw this with the Japanese earthquake/tsunami. If the hurricane season is above normal this year, guess what??
Next, they’ll be blaming the UFO sitings in Colorado on global warming…[heh]
This is looking more and more like Milo Minderbinder from Catch 22 all the time.
Appealing to the integrity of alarmists is always a losing game. They simply have none, their mantra is “the ends justify the means”.
In the movie ‘V’ for Vendetta, the government did something that killed a lot of people and cause a lot of harm. In the movie ‘V’ for Vendetta the government did it to sway public opinion about an imagined threat. In the movie ‘V’ for Vendetta the government did it to increase their level of control over the population.
The movie ‘V’ for Vendetta had a hopeful ending.
It was only a movie.
vboring says:
March 28, 2011 at 9:22 am
####
And your point is ……… ?
pat says:
March 28, 2011 at 9:54 am
What fools. And expect similar from California. It has been so long since California has experienced normal/above normal rain fall that there is discussion that the current generation of operators are unprepared for reservoir and dam flood control.
The dam operators in California have engineered themselves into a potential nightmare. Current main reservoir storage is 80-92% of capacity, with 160% (as of 03/28/11) of normal April 1st snowwater content sitting on the mountains. Just because this is not an El Nino year and it’s past February does not mean that warm/heavy rains are unexpected. Such a disaster struck the state in May, 1955.
Right now, inflow equals or exceeds outflow with rivers in the valleys backed up near capacity to handle the discharge.
The dam operators in California are gambling.
James Sexton says:
March 28, 2011 at 12:24 pm
I’m still trying to understand the concept of a “more intense drought”. What does that mean? “AHHH!!!! THE LACK OF RAIN INTENSIFIES!!!! AHHH!!!”
rotflol!
I’m not sure how that occurs, but I think it has something to do with “super-exponential.”
In the case of rain in a drought, it might be underlogarithmic. Or hypozero. Climate rhetorics is making great contributes to newspeak.
G’Day Patrick,
that story was covered by Jennifer Marohasy here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/02/questions-over-snowy-hydro-water-management/
In a nutshell, amping up electrickery production to benefit the shareholders (NSW, Vic & Commonwealth governments), while apparently oblivious to the results downstream.
I read in another of Jennifer’s blogs that this was in aid of a planned privatisation; more revenues from generation leading to a higher sale price for the utility.
Another example of piss poor water management and dare I say it another argument for binning useless, bickering state politics.
“However, in doing this, SEQWater disregarded the data from a nearby electronic gauge, which showed dam levels lower than those in the manual gauge.
Mr O’Brien said SEQWater’s methodology in adopting the data from the manual gauge, ignoring the data from the electronic gauge, and then having to “scale this rainfall up by a factor of two to match the rapid lake level rises” would become a “major technical argument”.”
Apparently Mike’s nature trick is at work here as well.
Dam Operator or Damn Operator?
Double Damn.
Today, Monday 28th March, I received an e-mail from a good friend of mine who had a house in Brisbane, which he’d rented out, and who’d put all of his household goods into a furniture repository whilst he and his wife went off up to Cairns to skipper a yacht running cruises around the Whitsundays for 18 months.
They’d watched on TV as their house was drowned and then the furniture repository get flooded up to the third storey. Their kit was all on the second storey. He put in his insurance claim (he’d paid for flood insurance) and all seemed to be progressing well until this morning (Aus. time).
Now his insurance company is withholding all pay-outs pending their own investigation into these revelations concerning the operation of the Wivenhoe Dam.
If insurance companies are taking this seriously, then so are all of their customers. I know that my friend is deeply concerned.
We had quite a discussion of this matter at Bishop Hill and Pielke Jr at the time, as it appeared that the release to save the dam might have caused the peak. It is worth reading those threads if anyone is interested in the case.
The main problem was the belief that the water in the dam had a high value for water supply, and that that value remained high even after the government commissioned a desalination plant and a water network permitting inter-basin transfers. The operating rules do not seem to have been changed, as I believe they should have been, after the system changed, because the relative value of water in storage and flood protection capacity should have changed. The evidence is mounting, including evidence that the dam operator warned over the weekend that releases should be made, but they did were not made until Tuesday – in time to produce the peak rather than moderate it.
All this will be the subject of an inquiry, and the insurers have engaged consulting engineers. They have several million reasons to be sceptical of the way in which the dam was operated. It does appear, however, that belief in a ‘perennial drought’ meme contributed to decision-making.
It should be interesting to watch.
mit_t says:
March 28, 2011 at 12:23 pm
“Only nuclear power plants are unsafe, hydro is perfect.”
Oh the irony of it all !!! It is almost mind-boggling!