http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/publications/final-report

had a skim, it is interesting, and they (imo) have covered alot, and in depth

it is slow to download atm tho

ba-dum, tsh.

Was going to mirror it, but it downloaded at 1.2mbytes/sec for me so I suspect it's your end.

Disappointed to see it's not CC licensed but it is redistributable :

© Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry 2012
The Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry supports and encourages the dissemination and
exchange of information. However, copyright protects material in this report. The Commission
has no objection to this material being reproduced but asserts its right to be recognised as author
of its original material and the right to have its material remain unaltered.

^ sounds that way

I blame the rain.

Over a year to finish a flood report and right in the middle of an election. These guys come a close second to the International Criminal Court in terms of speed. Timing is everything.

edit: sorry I forgot Fair Work Australia pips flood report due to Thomson investigation.

So whats the bottom line, did they blame the dam operators?

yep. it calls on the CMC to investigate the dam engineers.

I was under the impression that the majority of flow actually came through the Bremer system, not at all affected by the dam. I guess I was mistaken though.

Feel sorry for the Engineers they were in a bad position, but if mistakes were made we have to try and avoid that in the future.

The Government lied about Dam Management leading up to and during the crisis.
There is going to be a huge damages claim which will be paid for by all of us.
We are liable for their incompetence.
Our Rates notices will include a Flood Reparations Contribution payment.

The goal was to fill Wivenhoe to the brim because Global Warming Science said Rain wouldnt fill our Dams in the future. Releasing too much Water would have meant justifying to Taxpayers why they were paying skyhigh water prices when the Government was flushing it out to Sea for nothing.

Don't they imply that random extreme weather events will actually increase?

Dam all i saw was FOOD report out =[ dam was hopping it was a cool food thread =[

The trouble with Climate Change predictions, is that they're predictions. Also, they get it wrong more often than BOM.

lol the data/fact parabol

love it

But if you're a climate-change denier who has been frothing at the mouth over the last 10 years and been holding fingers in ears, you'd still be referring to it all as global "warming", as Faceman has been doing.

Its no warmer today than it was way back in 1980.

Its no warmer today than it was way back in 1980.

Ah yes, you're pointing to the current year's trough which happens to be in the 1980's range and you somehow claim that's significant.

*clap clap*

Take a rough yearly average of 1980 and compare it to the current yearly average and the Truth emerges: "you are talking shit again".

Talking about 20 years ago is pointless anyway when you look at longer term

anyone want to hazard a guess at the financial implications this report?

Global warming hand wringers are hilarious when confronted with reality.

kos, minor fix to your picture for accuracy:

So people live in flood prone areas and then get all antsy that it flooded because there was a shitload of rain. They should be happy that dam was there to catch as much water as it did or they would have been even more fucked.

The goal was to fill Wivenhoe to the brim because Global Warming Science said Rain wouldnt fill our Dams in the future.

how could this be true - global warming theories don't suggest that random extreme weather events no longer occur do they?

well?

nah, it does make sense

the problem is, it looks like you were so set on what you thought would be another chance to diss on the idea of climate change science again, that you blurted out yet another wild and baseless conspiracy theory before you even considered the amazingly obvious hole in it - that science doesn't preclude things like excessive rain and flooding, therefore the water commission can't make any such goal for the reason you claim

It wasnt a unique event

that level of flooding is relatively unique - how often is brisbane flooded like that? besides, you're basically arguing against yourself now aren't you? the more frequent that type of occurrence, the less likely any such goals (as you claimed) to keep the dam as full as possible

and certainly wasnt attributable to the Political Science of Global Warming.

huh? that hasn't even been said here

you're either super-dopey, or just spouting nonsense in the hope that people will get so frustrated trying to talk sense with you, that they give up and your folly is left uncalled

I like your little side show of smoke and mirrors, trying to make out something else is being argued. you must really have a low perception of your own intelligence if you think other people will buy your little diversions

nobody in this thread was saying anything about climate change until you came along and claimed it was behind the policy for the maintenance of the dams - which is clearly a scatter-brained claim to make since nothing in climate change discounts flooding from excessive rain. so even if the water commission are devout climate change believers, spread it on their toast, sprinkle it on their cornflakes and listen to cd's about it every time they drive to and from work, they can't make a policy that ignores this potential for flooding

you're just speaking complete and utter tripe yet again

Are the Oceans warming ?
What does the most advanced system of measuring Ocean Heat say ?




Nope.

Combined Argo and World Ocean Circulation Experiment floats:



A quote from the Argo project's website:

"Over the past 50 years, the oceans have absorbed more than 80% of the total heat added to the air/sea/land/cyrosphere climate system. As the dominant reservoir for heat, the oceans are critical for measuring the radiation imbalance of the planet and the surface layer of the oceans plays the role of thermostat and heat source/sink for the lower atmosphere."



last edited by typo at 19:26:15 19/Mar/12

Over the past 50 years, the oceans have absorbed more than 80% of the total heat added to the air/sea/land/cyrosphere climate system

Its important to understand that this statement is based on the fallacy that Co2 caused the Warming. Reference period 1957=1990 ? after 1990 new data is added. levitus, any ideas how that data was constructed ? I can tell you.

The formula to measure that heat is Modelled with Climate Data that is polluted with Co2 Warming Science. This is what i mean by the Fruit of The Poisoned Tree that permeates Global Warming research.

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..%5Cdocs%5CGlobal%20ocean%20heat%20content%201955_2008.pdf

The pre-1990 data is very different to what happened once the newer study took over. It almost looks like the Hockey Stick, howd that get in there ?


When Real World Data is measured not using "the fruit" the effect is reduced.
Like the Argo Data from the new system.
Its quite obvious both of those Graphs cant be right.


All the other cooling events last century were due to Huge volcanic eruptions.
There is none this time. The Climate System has stopped heating and nobody knows why.
Sea level has stopped rising when it should be accelerating.
The temperature is back to what it was in 1980 when It should be accelerating.

Where has all the heat gone ?
whatever did has stopped or at least paused.
Co2 Emissions have not paused, they are up 30% since 1998.
The Science of Global Warming is wrong.
Co2 did not cause the Warming from 1980 to 1998.
What did ?

Settled Science ?
Settled Politics.
ELECTION NOW !