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.
Define “more intense” and “more frequent”…everybody has a different view as to those and can be applied broadly. My favorite is “Its happening much faster than previously expected.” How much faster? What was originally expected? “Changing rainfall patterns” is another one. When have they never changed? And please tell us just how HOT was the HOTTEST year.
It proves one thing, when in a group, absurd things can be said that otherwise would be stupid and embarrassing if said as a loner. If there weren’t such a large agenda and people knew they would be backed up, they wouldn’t dare make such ridiculous statements, such as it’s going to getter “wetter and drier”, hotter and colder, snow and no snow”….they basically predict the same things that have been happening forever, EXCEPT, they are “more intense” and “more frequent.” Got it!
I read that a drought is official when an area only receives 75% of normal rainfall and is classified accordingly from moderate to extremely severe. If that is the case, then it explains why so many areas are in a “drought” if 75% is the cutoff. Plus, at some point the area qualifies for Federal Aid. That’s probably a big motivation to fudge the gauge.
Frank K. says:
March 28, 2011 at 12:59 pm
James Sexton says:
March 28, 2011 at 10:05 am
I was merely illustrating the typical CAGW cult’s
============================================
I know Frank, again, sorry. See my post underneath the one you referenced,
James Sexton says:
March 28, 2011 at 10:10 am
@ur momisugly Frank K. says:
March 28, 2011 at 9:43 am
Sorry, conditioned response to Cook.
Josualdo says:
March 28, 2011 at 1:26 pm
In the case of rain in a drought, it might be underlogarithmic. Or hypozero. Climate rhetorics is making great contributes to newspeak.
==============================================
It sure does. The parallels to the Orwellian thought are remarkable and unmistakable. “Warmcold” and “drywet”………..
In this particular case, we have a fairly immediate catastrophe resulting from placing faith in models over reality. But I suspect the lesson will not be learned, and the green movement will continue to place faith in THEIR models.
Seems to me this is what happens when you spend too much time sequestered in labs and classrooms and neglect to get out into that world you’re trying to model…
“Someone just demonstrated the qualities to become a climate scientist, and IPCC Lead Author” – Golf Charley
How can anyone argue with the perfect logic of this statement?
Maybe it is just me, but I detect a distinct rise in the number of news reports recently of government officials “cooking the books.”
Two days ago in WSJ March 26, 2011, Page 1 lower right.
“New York Liberals Battle a Bike Lane”
Mayor Bloomberg’s office stands accused of manipulating safety data.
Last night I read in Houston Free Press
http://www.houstonpress.com/2011-03-24/news/women-s-funding-network-sex-trafficking-study-is-junk-science/
“Women’s Funding Network sex trafficking study is junk science”
Schapiro Group data wasn’t questioned by mainstream media.
By Nick Pinto Wednesday, Mar 23 2011
Which delt with how this group released in a (Waxman) Congressional Hearing the results of a (bogus) study they did. Now they are collecting donations based upon the hearing presentation.
Now this about the SEQWater report.
I am not surprised that people cook the books. I am surprised at this small cluster of news stories on it. Maybe its coincidence. Maybe I’ve become hypersensitive to it. Maybe it is just me. Time to collect some data…..
Stephan above…and I agree…let’s go for someone like Tim ‘Ghost Metropolis’ Flannery. His ceasless predictions that major urban areas were going to run out of water contributed to the water ‘hoarding’ that was official policy even as the rain came down in buckets!
What about the CSIRO? Surely they gave ‘written’ advice to SEQ about hoarding water.
Wouldn’t it be great to see one of these people at least shamed publicly for their incompetence?
An experienced farmer upstream of the dam, call the hotline on the Saturday to warn them that a major flood was on its way. Because it was the weekend all management personnel were unavailable, and the operator told him to call back on Monday.
By the time the bureaucrats wandered in to work on Monday, held meetings, drank coffee, ate biscuits, and explored every buckpassing option, the situation was out of control. Finally the Premier ordered panic releases on Tuesday only hours before the dam failed.
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?
=======================================================
It means that we are ignoring the dust bowl drought of the 1930’s.
The worst drought in history, lasted around a decade, and displaced over 2 million people….
…but that didn’t count
It was before wetdry, warmcold, droughtflood, snowrain was invented….
…and obviously it’s not as bad as a drought that last only a few months now
Because that’s history.
Dammed if you don’t, dammed if you do! 🙂
Seriously, when can we expect the hyper educated to step aside and let gut feelings and hunches return to management? It wouldn’t take any model or PHD to figure out what needed to be done.
IMHO….
The future career of Al Gore may be in the modeling business . It is all about beauty and narcissm . Ever read : The valley of the dolls ?
Australia is a pretty open society and this was found out. The worry is that in less open societies or with a little more collusion by those in the know or whatever this sort of thing never comes to light. Does anybody have any suspicions about any such events in their part of the world?
I am in the UK but I think the liability law is similar in most parts of the English speaking world. My career was in property damage claims for a major insurance company. If I was not now retired I would now be looking into major subrogation claims against these jokers. In practice this would mean their liability insurers having to make major payouts down the line.
All you need to know about Cook’s integrity is that he named his climate-alarmist blog “skepticalscience.” It reminds me of the way some long-shot political candidates in our local elections sometimes just “turn out” to have names that are very similar to the frontrunner’s. If you go ahead and read the article about his blog, you see that he’s clueless enough to boast about how his uncle and father have become true global-warming skeptics, having to run from the room every time they see him at family gatherings.
Sounds a bit like a beat up to me. ‘Invented’ is a nasty word for calculated. ‘Manual’ gauge means one that someone was reading. Now if I’m reading a physical gauge, and the automatic one next door is showing a difference, I’m going to believe the one I looked at.
The rainfall should be pretty easily calculated from the rate of rise in the dam level. To call this ‘invention’ is a bit over the top.
And ‘doubling’ is probably a projection of peak rainfall rate from average, which sounds about right.
A bit of skepticism would be good on this one.
Sorry I am a strong climate change sceptic an a big fan of this site but this story from the Australian is purely political in nature. They are staunchly pro-liberal and this is reflected in much of their reporting. (I am a liberal voter also so I’m normally in support of their position). This is nothing but a shot at an incumbent labor government in QLD.
I just finished providing a 2 hour presentation on the impact of the dam on the 2011 flood event. I examined the 1180 SEQ Water report in minute detail and I also read Mr OBriens submission to the flood inquiry.
He shows a very poor grasp of the weather conditions and the current capabilities of weather forecasting capabilities. He clearly has not examined the data from all the gauges during this event nor has he clearly examined the radar loops available. Some gauges recorded rainfall rates of 90mm an hour during the peak period of rainfall. Mount Glorious recorded 410mm over less than 12 hours.
Who are we to believe 4 duty engineers with over 120 years expeience between them in relevant fields or Mr O’Brien, with a degree in chemical engineering and little if no experience in dam operations.
When the duty engineers all say the automatic gauge was recording low readings and the manual gauge was more accurate I tend to accept their version as more accurate. Particularly since the flow rates below Wivenhoe would tend to support the duty engineers version. I’m inclined to believe the duty engineers with many years of experience in the relevant field would have been in a much better position to judge which gauge was providing accurate readings.
The Australians claims are offensive. The dam operators did a magnificent job in preventing a far greater flood in Brisbane.
Before you draw conclusions familiarize yourself with all the data available rather than believing a political story.
Frankly, I find it very disappointing that this has been reported on WUWT. I’m normally a big fan but this sort of thing starts to erode my confidence in this site.
Incompetency is probably the cause but also should be checked:
Engineered to create a Public pro-global warming stance?
Where does SEQWater make their money from?
In fact I am so disapppointed in the manner you have reported this I’m not sure I really trust your site or your judgement any more. This is a shame as I have previously been a strident supporter of your stance on AGW.
Brisbane floods “Only property damage”? One wonders how many people have and will take their own lives after having lost their homes and all of their personal effects and memories (Many “Property damaged” persons will not receive a cent in compensation or relief from anybody. This is despite the flood donations because the government is handling the cash!).
Gofer,
“Define “more intense” and “more frequent”…”
it means “more better”…. 🙂
If I recall correctly, the water should have been released earlier when the first forecasts of significant rain were received.
Just one more anthropogenic effect upon climate data.
It certainly isn’t unprecedented that the term ‘unprecedented’ has been used in human histroy to inflate and distort data during social movements.
Incorrect Gerald. I suggest you become better informed in relation to the forecasts.
In fact most models, and certainly all the reliable ones, were forecasting the heavy rainfalls to be South of the dams catchment areas. Earlier releases in those circumstances would have been a very bad move.
In fact, all but one of the lives lost in the 2011 Brisbane flood event, were from rainfall that fell in the Lockyer catchment BELOW Wivenhoe dam. This rainfall sent a “wall of water” down the Lockyer Valley that resulted in a number of deaths. Again illustrating the point, that releasing more water into an area that was forecast to have the heaviest rainfalls would have been an extremely unwise move.
Arguments on earlier releases have generally come from people with little or NO experience in understanding of weather forecasting and the computer models used to do so.
So manmade extreme events have finally been observed and verified. In Ontario, Canada we had a major outbreak of ecoli (google Walkerton ecoli) several years ago that killed several people because the operator invented the mandatory water sample analyses taken by an alcoholic brother employee giving the water a safe pass. Did they get jailed? No they were retired and got their pensions. Surely the inquiry came down hard on them? No, they blamed the Provincial Premier Harris for privatising the analytical work – they even subpoenaed the retired premier to testify. Somebody’s got to put a stop to this craziness..