Media covers up metropolitan Melbourne’s biggest rain event on record

Submitted by Flowerpower on Sat, 05/02/2011 - 10:36pm

By 9AM on Saturday February 5th, areas of Melbourne Metropolitan area had received their highest rainfall total on record. Although the rain event has been extensively reported, the historically significant level of these rains has been almost completely unremarked upon in the mainstream press. For example Berwick in Melbourne’s South East received, 168mm and Officer receiving an incredible 195mm

The only comparable events in the last hundred years were in December 1934, February 1973 and Feb 2005. An examination of table from the Bureau of Meteorology shows that the rainfall total for Officer was the highest on record for any Melbourne suburb since records began. This oversight fits the pattern of the mainstream media attempting to normalise extreme climate events to prevent the public from clamouring for action on climate change.

Neither the The Age, Herald Sun or the ABC Online made any mention of how historically significant this rain event was.

The following paragraph from a Melbourne Water press release explains just how intense the rains were around Melbourne:

In the 24 hours from 9am on 4 February to 9am on 5 February 2011, metro Melbourne experienced intense storms. Rainfall was highest in the eastern and south-eastern suburbs, with some isolated parts of the system seeing rainfall intensity consistent with a 1-in-500 year storm. Other parts were lower than this (around 1-in-20 years) but the February rainfall averages for virtually all areas were exceeded with a few hours.

The last two years in Melbourne have seen the highest ever recorded temperature on Black Saturday February 2009 of 46 degrees, a massive hailstorm on 6th March 2010 and now the highest ever recorded rainfall event within metropolitan Melbourne. 2011 in Australia has already seen two cyclones in Queensland, deadly flooding in four states and a record heatwave in Sydney

A report has also recently been released stating that by 2030 Melbourne will flood more often due to a combination of aging infrastructure and more intense rain events because of climate change.

The Age article from Sunday 6th February, Victoria swamped:storm wreaks havoc is a case in point. Whilst extensively listing the damage to Melbourne, it again does not mention either that the rainfalls in Melbourne's south east were the largest on record for a Melbourne suburb. Nor does it link the storm to climate change. Even though it includes the following paragraph:

"Bureau of Meteorology forecaster Terry Ryan said the ''unprecedented'' movement of cyclone Yasi inland to the Northern Territory, combined with a longer cloud band caused by ex-cyclone Anthony, had produced a humid and unstable air mass over Victoria. ''We've never seen anything like it in Australia,'' he said."

The 2007 IPCC clearly stated that "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."referenced here. The Age like many other media outlets is failing to put the recent swathe of extreme weather events in their correct context.

Whilst El Nina and El Nino have obviously played a part in recent weather events it is also clear that as predicted by the IPCC for decades, these natural cycles are being accentuated by human induced climate change. The media rather than normalising the increasing levels of extreme weather events should instead be raising the alarm that urgent action is required to slash Australia’s and the worlds carbon emissions. The cost of “business as usual” is becoming more obvious by the day.

Image of submerged car in Belgrave in Melbourne's East on Saturday 5th Feb 2011

Keywords: 
climate change
Australia
Melbourne
Geography: 
Melbourne
  • 12801 reads

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 12:17am

MAyday SENews Update
Catastrophic flooding - could it happen here in the outer SE? See what happened in 1934. Could it happen again? Yes it could.
http://mayday-senews.weebly.com/
Scroll down for 1934 flood story - 300mm plus in the Dandenongs & Casey/Cardinia foot hills last friday night in December - same 100/150 that Lyndhurst copped but more general & by about 10am Sat Chelsea, Koorerup and surrounds were under 2m of water.

Submitted by Sam (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 1:44am

Melbourne had this weather pattern in 73Bc and then again in 346Ad.
My point being if you have weather records dating back 100 years and the world is millions of years old your weather records are not worth shit,it would take another couple of million years of weather records to be able to see a pattern.It's like if I go to China and interview 200 people and ask them if they like Australians and 102 of them say no do i then believe that over half of China hates Australians of course not there is over a billion people in China, it's as silly as saying I have 100 years of weather records so i know what the world weather pattern is. And even then if there is climate change(which there probably is) how do you prove it is man made?.I remember in 2009 they said it was the hottest day of that month since 1903 the car was invented in 1886 the areoplane was invented 1903 so what made it hot in 1903 it can't of been man.
Did you know that people grew grapes in Scottland in medieval times but you cant now because its too cold was this global cooling?
Here's another one Australia is the biggest emitter of carbon per capita in the world sounds bad hey.Or how about Australia emits the least amount of carbon in the world per square kilometre sounds good hey.
So to work out whats going on you have to follow the money trail and you find con men like Al Gore who lives in a mansion who does not give a shit about saving energy or carbon.
I bet you were one of the clowns that believed in Y2K,where's all the crap about the ozone layer gone, its a con job wake up Flower power

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 2:35am

"So to work out whats going on you have to follow the money trai"

No. To work out what is going on you use the scientific method. You be a scientist and you study the world. You take measurements. You come up with a theory that explains your measurements. You then release your work to global community of scientists for them to scrutinise to the highest degree. If someone finds problems with your theory you go back and take another look, refine it.

What you don't do is find some ad hoc anecdote to "prove" what you want to believe.

As for Y2k. There was a problem. But computer programmers fixed it before the year 2000 hit.

Submitted by David (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 2:45am

Or do Scientists tell the Government what they want to here or their Government grants get cut?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 3:01am

Well I cannot say that that does not happen.

But are you saying that every scientist (or most scientists) in the world are caught up in this scenario?

There are millions of scientists in the world, multitudes of laboratories and research centres. This is what makes science robust. It is a decentralised network of people that can review each others work.

But all of them are blackmailed into skewing results are they?

Submitted by David (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 3:36am

Their is a lot of Scientists that dont agree with man made global warming. Its a con to get more money out of you.Remember people would come around to your house and would try to give you energy saving globes? Then i thought what company in their right mind would tell you to use less of their product? none.Now that energy consumption dropped because of energy saving globes the price of electricity has gone up.Now it costs more to run your fridge or to watch TV Conned again. And if your so GREEN why are you up at 3am with the lights on using you computer to speak crap contributing to your carbon foot print?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 10:20am

Thanks for that. Your absolutely pathetic logic/reasoning/argument shows us why nobody should give listen to folk like you.

"Their is a lot of Scientists that dont agree with man made global warming"

Ok, what's the figure? How many? What percentage?

And of course, are the scientists you are referring to actually climate scientists? Or are they scientists of a field that isn't particularly qualified to make comment on global warming/climate change?

E.g. A bio-chemist. Not that I don't have respect for bio-chemists, I do. But they have spent their life examining the chemistry of biological organisms, not climate.

We shouldn't generalise all scientists as being one in the same.

"Then i thought what company in their right mind would tell you to use less of their product? none.Now that energy consumption dropped because of energy saving globes the price of electricity has gone up.Now it costs more to run your fridge or to watch TV Conned again."

What's your point here? It's just rambling. The globe thing was a government initiative.

And what determines the price of power? Why has it gone up?

"And if your so GREEN why are you up at 3am with the lights on using you computer to speak crap contributing to your carbon foot print?"

And here you show us that you don't have an argument. You're just a troll. You didn't even answer my question about all scientists being co-opted. And you finish with a personal attack that contains assumptions.

Thank you very much for demonstrating how crap the arguements of climate skeptics are. I think most people reading this thread will see you've been out gunned on the most basic levels of argument.

Go home sucker.

Submitted by Rodney (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 10:04pm

After reading all the comments I would say the Climate skeptics have out gunned the climate change people.sorry but thats just my opinion

Submitted by catherine (not verified) on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 6:47pm

I agree!!

Submitted by Martin (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 2:56am

Bullshit computer programmers fixed it, the only problem was the date showed 1900 instead of 2000 I used the same computer for a year after and never made it Y2k compatible.they said at the time your computer would crash and you would loose saved data it never happened to any bodies computer it was a con.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 3:06am

oh, is that why your emails keep showing up down at the bottom of the list in my Outlook?

Ok, who is "they" ?

I'm obviously talking to a troll/imbecile here.

Was your computer a production server in a bank or a shipping company or some other critical infrastructure? No, dipshit. You can do set the date on your own PC to whatever you like, it ain't going to crash.

The problem wasn't so much to do with making computers "crash". It was more to do with them creating incorrect data which screws up calculations in said critical infrastructure.

Submitted by Frank (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 3:14am

Yep the fool did believe in Y2K, he or she even paid a computer programmer to fix a problem that did not exist sucker!

Submitted by fungi on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 5:42pm

interest = (date end - date start) * amount * rate

good

10 = (2000 - 1999) * 100 * 0.1

bad

-990 = (00 - 99) * 100 * 0.1

Submitted by TOM (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 2:08am

Did you know that North Africa had lush green forests in the pyramid times and global warming killed that off but there was no fossil fuels then.Let go of it you will go blind

Submitted by Paul Thomas (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 2:29am

Hang on a minute ABC 24 news had people sending in their own photos and video's of the Melbourne floods,SBS news ran a story on the floods with footage of it in Chapple st and Cranbourne under water.I saw two men standing on a bench seat to stay dry and the water running under it.When i was driving home 3aw had a fishing show on that they put it on hold to let every body know what roads were flooded like around Thomastown they had people ringing in, one person said that Chadstone shopping centre had water in side the shops and only go shopping if you had gum boots with you.Flower power you are a lier or you have been smoking too much of you own flowers and missed the news.

Submitted by Simon B (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 2:40am

Hey Paul i think your right Flowerpower must be on the herb because the 4th of Febuary 2011 was a Friday not a Saturday like stated.This fool doesnt even know what day it is.
It sums up the Morons that believe in this rubbish!

Submitted by Flowerpower on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 8:28am

1. It would be great if any of the climate skeptics writing here could actually refute the figures I quote in the article provided by the Bureau of Metereology - largely from this link to a table
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/sevwx/vic/2005feb/rainfallrecords.shtml

All the figures I provide are from the Bureau of Metereology. It clearly shows that the amount of rain in Lyndhurst was the highest ever recorded within a Melbourne suburb.

2. I am not suggesting that major rain events have never occured before, in fact I mention them in my article however I am arguing that the fact this was one of the largest rain events ever to hit Melbourne was not mentioned is part of a pattern by the media of decontextualising extreme weather events from both their historical context and Climate Change.

Submitted by Stan (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 9:32am

Flowerpower It was on the news we all saw it, stop speaking shit!

Submitted by Stan (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 9:50am

My Great Great Grand Father kept weather records in a book we had 205mm of rain in Melbourne in 1849 so what are you trying to say the Bureau of metereology records dont go back long enough to be worth any thing?or is that it was wet in 1973 I dont get what you are trying to say your records dont go back far enough to be used as data as has been said before on this post.The Melbourne floods was reported on the news you are WRONG you should stop telling lies no one believes you.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 10:08am

It's pretty easy to pull figures like that out of your arse isn't it Stan? Great Great Grand Father bullshit.

No one believes you except your skeptic buddies.

Submitted by Stan (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 11:36am

How do you know it is bull shit you weather records don't go back that far.That is the point I am making you records are only about 120 years old they are worth shit in a world that is millions of years old you have about 0.000000000001% of the picture or is that too hard to work out you climate conspirator.

Submitted by Flowerpower on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 10:06am

The article does not argue that the rain event itself was not covered by the media, rather that the coverage decontextualized the extreme weather from both its historical context and climate change.

Also forgive me for using the Bureau of Meterology data not your great great grandfathers book! If you could provide a credible source which contradicts the Bureau data I have linked too, it would make your arguments much stronger

Submitted by Sean (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 10:13am

It rains -thats global warming
It doesn't rain - thats global warming
It snows -thats global warming
It doesn't snow-thats global warming
We have a cyclone -thats global warming
We don't have a cyclone -thats global warming
The news reports floods in Melbourne you miss it and you come up with a conspiracy
What sort of an argument is that you brain washed fool?

Submitted by Michael Jones (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 11:26am

They were cyclone induced rain from cyclone Yasi which makes this a bit different. I know this because it was on the news.So what are you on about flowerpower go smoke more weed!!!!!

Submitted by anonym (not verified) on Wed, 09/03/2011 - 10:54pm

Michael, the news is not honest. It is a bunch of people telling stories to be a part of the fake money system. The banking system is criminal and they support the media and vice versa. Be careful of the source of your information. If you do not see something with your own eyes and coming from an experiential level, be cautious. Check out fractional banking...you are being ripped off by the taxation system.

Submitted by Flowerpower on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 12:50pm

The following is a quote from Today's Age article on the storms. You are right - it is because of Yasi - however once again The Age does not mention that it included the largest ever recorded rainfall event on a Melbourne suburb, nor does it link this "unpredented" event of cyclone moving inland and affecting the Southern states to climate change. How on earth does the fact that Cyclone Yasi contributed to these rains undermine my point that the media is not putting this event in its proper context in terms of history and climate change!! Read the 2007 IPCC report: more severe cyclones are predicted as a consequence of Global Warming.!!

Bureau of Meteorology forecaster Terry Ryan said the ''unprecedented'' movement of cyclone Yasi inland to the Northern Territory, combined with a longer cloud band caused by ex-cyclone Anthony, had produced a humid and unstable air mass over Victoria. ''We've never seen anything like it in Australia,'' he said.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/victoria-swamped-storm-wrea...

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 11:41pm

I don't think it's gonna matter what you say Flower power (and anyone else on the climate concerned side). These delusionists are lacking any basic understanding of science and logic. They don't seem to have the mental capacity to actually understand one's point, without projecting their own biased opinion over the top. They miss the point and continue to argue irrelevant info.
If 100 doctors told a patient they had cancer. That patient would be insane to take the opinion from a media guru telling them there's no such thing as cancer.
They'll never get it.

Submitted by james (not verified) on Mon, 07/02/2011 - 7:33pm

If 100 scientists told you the world was flat you would believe it,like all they did once upon a time.Or if Pluto was a planet.They have been wrong before.

Submitted by Gary Thomas (not verified) on Sun, 06/02/2011 - 9:50pm

Flowerpower just face it the news reported it and global warming is crap so shut up we have heard enough of you crap you have made a fool out of your self.

Submitted by Sacred Plants o... (not verified) on Mon, 07/02/2011 - 10:07am

Once the Cannabis slur comes up it's a safe bet that it's all just infantile gibberish.

Submitted by james (not verified) on Mon, 07/02/2011 - 7:39pm

With a name like Flowerpower and he or she dont know what day it is I think you have brought the cannabis slur on your self.Dont tell me you dont get it

Submitted by Sacred Plants o... (not verified) on Wed, 16/02/2011 - 9:31am

What does the calendar error have to do with the name of the poster? Are we supposed to assume if a female name had been used you were to blame it on that?

Submitted by James (not verified) on Wed, 16/02/2011 - 5:43pm

If there is a calender error what else is a error?
I only said he or she because I did not want to assume that Flowerpower was a man or a woman this has nothing to do with peoples sex,I still dont know if Flowerpower is a man or woman or do I care!
Sorry you wont be able to play the sexist card this time around.
All I know is Flowerpower is a fool and I suspect it may be drug induced how else could you be that stupid !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Submitted by Heidi (not verified) on Wed, 16/02/2011 - 5:51pm

Dont worry James I get it,Flowerpower,Hippies , Drugs, all go hand in hand.No wonder they fall for this climate change rubbish they cant work things out for them selves

Submitted by anonym (not verified) on Wed, 09/03/2011 - 10:59pm

why do you attack cannabis when it has been around since time immemorial? Way before the cancerous prescriptive drugs were around, drugs that now rule people's lives and cause all sorts of mental health problems and support the illegal and criminal monetary system based on fractional banking and fraudulent behaviour. Stop attacking something as natural as what comes from nature. Can you not see that they are destroying vast numbers of trees that have been standing for thousands of years?

Submitted by Simon (not verified) on Wed, 09/03/2011 - 11:44pm

your off your head cannabis is a cancerous drug when smoked ask Willie Nelson how he got throat cancer.
cannabis rules peoples life I know people that can't go a day without a smoke and when they can't get it they go agro (mental health problems)short term memory loss they even forget what they are saying half way through a sentence.
When you buy cannabis you are supporting illegal and criminal monetary behavior, mean while the person buying it never has any money always broke.Look at full on smokers that have been smoking for 20 years they drive shit box cars and dont own a house and dressed in rags they blow all their money on cannabis.

The cannabis today is not natural its hydro full of chemicals and cross bred by humans to increase the level of THC it wrecks your brain the only problem the people hooked on it can't see it.

The other problem is you have to hang around scum bags to get it.

It's not too late to wake up for your own good !!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 09/03/2011 - 11:59pm

thank you for the most unconvincing reefa madness tirade i have read in years.

...shit box car??? wtf?

> I know people that can't go a day without a smoke

well they should probably smoke less and / or take a break

> is not natural its hydro

hence you smoke less, but i prefer bush buds so moot point

> When you buy cannabis you are supporting illegal and criminal monetary behavior

so your saying we should legalize, regulate, and control its distribution just like alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceuticals... with you 420%

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 09/02/2011 - 1:54pm

To all the climate change sceptics out there, please could you submit details of any peer-reviewed scientific journal article detailing why climate change is erroneous? I would suggest you start looking in the journal Nature, as it is one of the most respected peer-reviewed scientific journals dealing with this particular subject matter. Furthermore, a lot of scientists get government grants to undertake work, and so they should. The alternative is to allow the private sector fund all research which is far likelier to introduce bias. If there is a conspiracy for scientists to obtain further funding from government by preaching climate change disaster, please explain why the government is opting for the business as usual approach? Also, if you are concerned about rising fuel prices, why not install renewable technologies onto your house? If you don't have the money, why not insist on government subsidies for households to do so? Why would you be interested in trying to debunk something so that the coal industry can be supported? It is a disgusting industry from start to finish and is responsible for more worker-related deaths and injuries than solar or wind could realistically ever be. The point contained in this article was not sufficiently refuted by pointing out records don't go back far enough. There is plenty of evidence from ice core samples of the changing climate, the real issue is the speed it is taking place is over 150 years, rather than thousands or millions of years as every other event evidenced by the samples humanity has so far taken appears to have been. Simply put, surely it is better to be cautious rather than brazen when life as we know it is potentially under threat?

Submitted by Donna (not verified) on Wed, 09/02/2011 - 9:39pm

What happened to the Ozone layer ? Why was Global warming changed to climate change? Can any body help?

Submitted by Sound Familiar (not verified) on Thu, 10/02/2011 - 1:04am

Donna so how is the hole in the ozone layer it's bigger than before but nobody is screaming out headlines of environmental disaster of global proportions and extinction of mankind.
Well guess what it wasn't the CFC's after all. The ozone layer is not depleting the "hole in the ozone layer" over the Antartica is caused by Nitrogen oxides being pushed into the lower atmosphere by solar winds.
It's a natural process that has always occurred and always will.
So who was the winner here -The scientists with their Government grants (sound familiar ?) followed by the manufacturing sector followed by the wholesale and retail sectors.Governments and Environmentalists are also big winners because they created a crisis ,provided a solution to problems that did not exist and gained power and influence.They were able to put fear into the population and make the people jump(sound familiar ?).
It was all a con Dumb arses like flower power helped push it like they do with climate change.
So what happened to global warming well the globe is getting cooler so to save red faces the name was changed to climate change.
As Kelly has mentioned in this comment page search "CLIMATEGATE SCANDAL" you will see that Man made climate change is a scam like the Ozone layer was and thought up by the same people!

Submitted by takver on Mon, 28/02/2011 - 9:23am

Actually thew ozone hole over Antarctica reached its maximum in 2006 and is slowly declining since then.

The chemical cause for the destruction of ozone is well known and the Montreal Protocol that limited CFCs is slowly reducing CFCs and bromine in the atmosphere.

Even so, the ozone hole is not expected to return to pre-1980 levels till about 2060–2075.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Submitted by Josh (not verified) on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 9:36pm

And just think China and india just to name a few did not come on board with the Montreal Protocol until 2006

Submitted by Kelly (not verified) on Wed, 09/02/2011 - 11:39pm

I see you are quoting the IPCC have you heard of the climate gate scandal where some of the most prominent scientists in the world have been caught "busted" with manipulation of weather data they have completely eliminated data to make it look like the word is getting hotter such as the long accepted Mediaeval warm period with temperatures much higher than they are today.This is all fact search "CLIMATEGATE SCANDAL".
Or have you seen where Climate scientists have with drawn Journal claims of rising sea levels a study published in 2009 in nature Geoscience has been with drawn because mistakes by scientists.I also see you quote the bureau of Metereology is this the same people that cant get a seven day forecast right ? and you trust a one hundred year forecast from these people. You will see its all a scam ( if you can take your blinkers off) and Flowerpower you have fallen for it.Looks like you owe the so called Climate change sceptics an apology.

Submitted by Brett (not verified) on Thu, 10/02/2011 - 5:45pm

Kelly I looked up climate gate scandal and to my shock you are right,we are being sucked in and the Government are steeling our money if a carbon tax comes out we all must fight their lies.

Submitted by Dan (not verified) on Sat, 26/02/2011 - 9:19pm

WE will fight their lies at th next election

Submitted by Sean (not verified) on Thu, 10/02/2011 - 5:52pm

Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Climategate HA HA HA HA Ozone layer HA HA HA what you got too say about that Flowerpower HA HA HA HA HA they got you hook line and sinker I knew it was all a con to get our money HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HE HE HE HE HA HA HA HE HE!!!!!!

Submitted by Simon (not verified) on Thu, 10/02/2011 - 7:48pm

After reading several sites on climategate I have come to the conclusion that we have all been fooled by our government and enviromentalists the only reason for this is greed.
I wonder what else the government is lying about I will never trust our government or a greenie again

Submitted by Neil (not verified) on Sun, 13/02/2011 - 8:55am

3AW ran a pole on Friday 11 of feb to see who believed in man made climate change 76% said it was not true and 24% said it was true.So the media doesn't want to run stories that every body knows is crap.

Submitted by Malvina (not verified) on Sun, 13/02/2011 - 3:33pm

Neil? Neil Mitchell? Seriously, the opinion of 3AW listeners is the equivalent of scientific research! Holy crap!

Submitted by Neil (not verified) on Sun, 13/02/2011 - 8:05pm

It was Ross & John in the morning. At least 3AW listeners dont cook the books to suit there argument like the scientific researchers do, they were caught red handed in climategate.
Malvina not all of us listen to JOY FM XXX