A study has found that warmer ocean temperatures worsened Queensland’s deadly floods in 2011. But as you can expect there is a lot of fantasy and wishful thinking involved in this conclusion.
The floods in 2011 were surely bad. Well, they caused a lot of damage, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the flooding was worse than 50 or 100 years ago. It just happens that the cities have grown a lot and people live in areas that are susceptible to flooding. Every time we hear scare stories about bad weather events with loads of victims and damage a close look shows that denser population is the main cause of the increase in victims and damage, not worse weather events.
“Researchers said the warmer water added more moisture to the atmosphere, which led to an increase in rain that exacerbated the floods.” That sounds like solid science, but is it really? Warmer water ads more moisture to the admosphere, but that’s it. Was the water really warmer that summer? And how much warmer? And how much more moisture did that add? And did that really fall down again in Queensland, or did it go somewhere else? And what was the reason that the water was warmer? That’s a lot of questions that aren’t answered. Simple statements might convince loads of people, but such statements rarely cover the real situation.
“Professor Matthew England, from ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science” From what centre? Such long names are often meant to hide that they are not doing anything useful and in this case that’s probably true. Would anyone believe that this professor would come to any other kind of conclusion than that climate change is responsible for any unpleasant weather event? Producing this kind of studies is his job, so don’t expect solid science.
“That’s very simple physics but what’s a bit trickier is … the way that moisture gets to these extreme events.” Considering how little is known about weather any simple conclusions must be wrong. You can come up with all kinds of nice theories, but proving them is pretty much impossible. But lack of proof has never stopped scientists from making confident statements.
“He said what the researchers found was startling.” Startling? I don’t think so. The findings and conclusions were already there before the study even started. The only thing the researchers needed to do was find ways to go from A to B. Climate scientists are particularly good in ignoring facts and producing wild statements.
“What we did is separate all the effects of La Nina that was in play from the ocean warming due to human emissions and look at those factors separately,” Ah, La Nina. Let’s ask the professor what La Nina is exactly, how it forms, what the effects are, how predictable it is and how much he knows about this interesting weather phenomenon. He won’t have any answers, for very little is known about it. We know that El Nino makes it hot and dry and La Nina causes a lot of rain and low temperatures. But how much rain and how high or low will the temperatures be? Nobody knows and nobody can predict. So how would the researchers know how much of the rain was caused by La Nina? And why it came down in this area? They cannot possibly know, so anything after that is just wild guesses. But doing this “separation” means that they can produce any outcome they want and produce a neat way to come to the desired conclusions.
“He said the amount of rain that fell over the land contributed to a seven millimetre drop in average global sea levels.” Average global sea levels? Who does this guy think he’s kidding? Sea level at any place at any time is very hard to determine, as it’s influenced by many different factors, most of which are unknown. But he says he knew what the sea levels were all over the world and that the rain in Queensland influenced those levels. There is more fantasy here than in the average novel.
“Professor England said the findings were important, because La Nina and El Nino weather events are tipped to become more frequent.” And how would he know? Nobody knows why these weather events happen, why they come infrequently and why there is more often an El Nino than a La Nina. A few years ago we were told we would get another El Nino, but at the last moment it turned away. Why? Nobody has any clue. But that doesn’t stop climate scientists from producing these kind of absurdities.
“So I hope people understand that doing nothing about greenhouse gas emissions does have ramifications for our climate system and for our exposure to these extreme events.” And there we go with the usual stuff. Greenhouse gas emissions cause the earth to warm up, which causes more rain and more La Nina’s. Does anyone have even the tiniest bit of proof for all of this? If they have it then I would like them to show it. So far they have miserably failed in producing evidence.
“The release of the report coincided with the latest climate talks in Paris.” Coincided? I don’t think so. I would say it has very intentionally been produced at this time of the year. And it shows very well that it’s all about politics, not about science. Loads of reports have been published in the last few weeks, just before the climate meetings in Paris. I suppose all those climate scientists want to make sure they will get enough funding again for more stupid studies. After all they wouldn’t want to lose their cushy jobs. And in the end that’s all it is about: money. The majority of the people doesn’t even believe in climate change anymore, so likely the majority of those politicians in Paris don’t believe in it either. And the scientists? Do they really believe in what they are doing? I don’t know, but I hope they do. For else it’s not just stupid, but fraud. And that’s even worse than stupidity.