Solomon Islands, floods and climate change

I've been saying for a few years now (following Australia's extraordinary run of floods in 2011/12) that more frequent, more damaging floods may well be the first really clear adverse consequence of climate change.

I have been curious to see whether the Solomon Islands devastating floods were the result of clearly exceptional rainfall, especially given that one would expect that an island in the South Pacific would be no stranger to some heavy downpours.

It's been hard to find precise figures for the Solomon Islands event, however.   Several websites referred to "record rainfall", without specifying how much of a record it was.  I think I heard someone on Radio National from the Island claim it was (from memory) much worse than anticipated levels for a 1 in a 100 year flood.  (He also said he had not heard anyone there claim it was due to increased illegal logging.)

The Solomon Islands weather bureau seems to be out of action for any such details, which is hardly surprising.

As for actual figures, I have at last tracked down some:

Around 138m of rain fell in 24 hours on 2 April in Honiara, and a further 318mm fell the next day. The Low Pressure System that caused the rainfall remains in the region and further rain is expected over the next 24 hours.

Not being a meteorologist, how big are those numbers?  Well, in a tropical Queensland context, pretty big.  From a November 2013 news report:

Parts of the north Queensland coast have been lashed by record rainfall with thunderstorms causing flash flooding.

Bowen on Queensland's Burdekin coast officially recorded 267 millimetres overnight.

That is more than double the previous 24 hour rain record for the month of 129 millimetres set in 1950.  Jonty Hall from the weather bureau says much of that came in an hour long deluge.

"Drainage really struggles to cope with that sort of rainfall especially over that period of time," he said.

In the Whitsundays, Hamilton Island registered 233 millimetres - also well up on the previous November record of 145 millimetres in 1991

But in absolute terms, 318 mm is just over a third of the record Queensland daily rain record (an extraordinary 907 mm in 1893, apparently.)   

I wonder what the previous daily record in Solomon Islands is, then.   This site indicates that the average monthly rainfall for March and April are about 350 and 220 mm respectively, which does show that one day of 318mm is a lot.   But in fact, Tully, widely regarded as Australia's wettest town, appears to have a March average rainfall of 752mm. 

So, it does seem that parts of Queensland are, on average, about twice as wet as the Solomon Islands, which is not something I would have expected.

Also, interestingly, this chart which is at a .pdf page you can link to from here, shows a long term trend of decreasing annual rainfall for Honiara:



So, this is another of those cases where climate change is not of uniform consequence everywhere, which scientists have known for a while, but which denialists can't seem to get their head around.  They also can't get their head around the concept of how climate change can mean that a local climate can (as apparently in Honiara's case) be both generally getting drier, but also intermittently be suffering worse floods than ever due to the intensity of rain when it does fall.   (Roy Spencer really jumped the shark with this post.)

But I still don't know how exceptional the rainfall in Honiara recently really has been, for daily local records.

Update:  it looks like the heaviest daily rainfall on at least at one part of Solomon Islands is only 380mm.  I guess the recent rains might still represent a record over a certain number of days, though; and also,  I don't know where Auki station is.

Various thoughts

I'm still pretty occupied with this and that, but a few more random observations:

*  Judith Sloan looked like she ate a lemon before she came on last night's Q&A.  But I fell asleep during it and missed nearly all of her bon mots.   Did she mention that cyclone warnings are a crock, for example?

*  smoked mussels on a cracker with a slice of ripe avocado is a very nice combination.  (Buy them from Aldi and they are from Europe, not some Chinese polluted pond.)

*   I think I am pretty much over Wes Anderson before I even got into him.  I saw The Grand Budapest Hotel on Saturday night, and still think the best thing of his I have seen is Fantastic Mr Fox.  I mean, the characters  in that actually felt more real than most of the human characters in his other movies.   I have not seen his earlier works, which are well regarded, but I do not understand the critical enthusiasm for the latest movie.  The audience did not seem to find it all that funny either.  (The guy next to me actually seemed to be sighing in disappointment from about the middle onwards.)   Sure, it looks charming, but I need a bit more than that.

* Nicholas Gruen's post about his father's role in aboriginal pay reform in the 1960's is unusually interesting (see the comments following as well.)

*  Has anyone got any suggestion as to how to deal with men or women who work in physical  jobs whose bodies may not last until retirement at 70?   My father was a perfect example - a bricklayer for nearly all his life, who paid off the house but had no retirement savings whatsoever.   It would have been cruel watching him try to continue working at that job til the age of 70. 

A bit of catching up

Here's a few things that caught my eye last week, but about which I did not have time to post:

*  Greg Jericho looked at what the government can do to increase revenue via taxation in his usual calm and measured way.   Interesting, he includes an international comparative table of combined government expenditure that shows that, as a percentage of GDP in 2012, Australia is actually way, way down the list.   Amongst the highest spending countries are some of the European social democrat ones like Sweden, Denmark and Finland.  The figure for Sweden is surprising at 52% of GDP, as the Washington Post noted late last year that the country had made big cuts:

Sweden’s economic growth has been much higher than that of the rest of Western Europe, or the United States, since 2006. Data from the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development show that Sweden has one of the lowest inflation rates in Europe; it runs a budget surplus every year; its corporate tax rates are considerably lower than U.S. rates; and it spends more on research and development, as a share of its economy, than we do. Its firms are highly competitive in the world economy, and it runs sizable current-account surpluses.

After its crisis, Sweden reduced public expenditures by 20 percent of its gross domestic product, slashing social transfers such as unemployment benefits and sick-leave compensation. It cut its public debt in half (its debt, as a proportion of the economy, is now about half that of the United States).

So is it the case that Sweden is still a big spender of government money internationally, even after it changed tack somewhat?   I think so, but doesn't the IPA tell us that big government spending as a percentage of GDP is always bad, bad, bad?


*  Speaking of the IPA, Julie Novak apparently did her PhD on government size:

The thesis was entitled “The economic consequences of the size of government in Australia” and she found inter alia that an increase in government size by ten percentage points is associated with a lower annual GDP per capita growth rate of between 1.2 and 2.5 percentage points.

I wonder if the Scandinavians got consideration in it?  Or is Australia just meant to be a special case?

Anyway, consistent with her faith based ideology that taxation is always, always to be reduced, she naturally wrote against increasing the GST in The Drum, a government funded mouthpiece for the IPA which the IPA wants the government to defund.   Funnily enough, she complains about the regressive nature of the GST:

Another dimension of the GST debate which perhaps deserves more attention is that the poor, who generally pay little in income taxes in any case, are likely to financially suffer as a result of increasing the GST because more of their disposable incomes are directed toward everyday consumption items.

Yet, aren't the IPA types always complaining about how its only the rich who are paying all the taxes?   I got the distinct impression they wanted the poor to pay more to pay their way.  

And, what's more, Sinclair Davidson tweeted last week (with apparent approval) a column in the AFR with the title: "‘Regressive’ claim against GST does not stack up."

So who from the IPA do I believe?   Get your act together, fellas; you're not even consistent now.


*   So, Tony Abbott is back from his square gaiting tour of Asia.  There seems to me to be an awful lot of unqualified praise for "free trade" agreement that takes 15 years to fully kick in, and it is a curious thing that only a few commentators have pointed to the Productivity Commission's 2010 skepticism about such bilateral agreements But the mere fact that such diverse commentators as Bernard Keane and Terry MCrann are on the same skeptical side indicates to me that the skepticism is probably well deserved.

And here are a couple of more skeptical takes: from the Canberra Times and Sydney Morning Herald (both Fairfax outlets, yet the general gist of their political commentary has been to celebrate the deals as a triumph.) 

In fact, prolific blogger on journalistic matters Mr Denmore has been pretty furious about the general journalistic preparedness to read out scripts prepared by (presumably) Peta Credlin on the trade agreements.  I think it clear that he has a point.

Update:   Ha!  Of course it couldn't last.  Terry McCrann, who works for Rupert, naturally has to get in line and praise the Abbott trip to high heaven.

Mind you, I am not at all surprised that the Chinese find an Abbott visit a more pleasant experience than one with 

And I forgot before - not much skeptical commentary around about Abbott flying the kite about joint military operations with China.   Where did that come from?   Was they any spluttering over morning coffee at Russell Offices when they read that?  

Krugman on Piketty

I'll be posting more often again soon, but meanwhile, Paul Krugman's review of the important Piketty book is here and is a good, nuanced, read. 

Death notice

My Mum passed away peacefully in her sleep on Saturday night, aged 90.   As I explained in a previous post, she was mentally sharp until she was 87, and lived independently until 88, which is not a bad run by any means.  Her recent decline with Alzheimers was rapid but not as extreme as some cases, as until the last couple of months the family had confidence that she recognized us, even if she could barely speak.  She's survived by 7 children, 16 grandchildren, and when it comes to great grandchildren I have to get a calculator and consult on numbers.  

I'll be busy with family stuff for a while, then, although I might have time for some posts.

Update:  been going through the photos, as you do.   Here's Mum and Dad on their wedding day in 1950 (Dad died in 1986):

Back to the Mozilla story...

A very mealy-mouthed effort in the Schumpeter blog at The Economist to excuse the scandalous bullying of Eich to leave Mozilla, I think.   But I do recommend one of the comments following:

It's the new phenomenon of homophobophobia, some sort of weird overcorrection for past wrongs. It's like intolerance is such a reprehensible thing that we must be intolerant of it. The truly worrisome thing is that he did nothing overtly intolerant. He was merely supporting something that was, until just a year or so ago, felt by the majority of Americans. Now that that has switched over to a minority, the new majority, empowered by a new standard of political correctness, feels free to persecute the former majority.

Homophobophobia.  I like it.

Credlin analysed

Quite a fascinating profile of political uber operative Peta Credlin in the Fairfax press today.

A few impressions:

*  the way she interacts with Abbott is no doubt the reason for the long standing rumour that they have been more than just friends;

*  the profile is full of assessments which are bending over backwards to excuse her (fully acknowledged) belligerence and aggression on the basis that she has a large part of the Abbott "success";

*  she sounds like exactly the type of overly ideologically driven person who takes politics too seriously and therefore is a detriment to a healthy political climate.

Template works in progress

Got to do something about that heading.  Am working on it...

Wow

There is something especially eye-catching and exhilarating about this picture I just saw on The Independent, even if I have no great desire to hurl myself out of a plane unnecessarily:

The unreliable Andrew Sullivan

It seems to me that Andrew Sullivan gets paid less attention now than he used to, but a comment at Slate about the Mozilla "you must support gay marriage or leave" story led me to check his views.

It turns out that he is pretty appalled by the Mozilla story:

This is a repugnantly illiberal sentiment. It is also unbelievably stupid for the gay rights movement. You want to squander the real gains we have made by argument and engagement by becoming just as intolerant of others’ views as the Christianists? You’ve just found a great way to do this. It’s a bad, self-inflicted blow. And all of us will come to regret it.

So, good call.

But just above that, he weighs in on the Mayo Clinic pro circumcision paper, and it turns out to be pretty much an anti circ nutter:

The question is whether the slight and contested medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the mutilation’s effects, and whether permanently dulling a man’s sexual sensitivity is something we have a right to impose on boys and men without their consent.

The "loss of sensitivity" angle of this movement has always struck me as crazy, given the perfectly happy sensations God knows how many billion men have had after the operation. 

So, just goes to show - it's hard to find a pundit who always makes sense.

Kissing festival noted

From the Jakarta Post photo caption, a description of an odd festival:

Kiss me, if you can: A Balinese girl (right) tries to avoid a kiss from a man during the Omedan Omedan kissing festival in South Banjar , Denpasar, Bali, on Tuesday. Balinese believe that the festival, held every year on Bali Island, ensures the good health of those taking part and prevents bad luck from hitting the village. During the festival, village priests dump buckets of water over couples to douse their passions.

Catholic priests miss out on such fun.

Anti liberal Left discussed

Brendan O'Neill, playing up to his annoying role of blowhard contrarian with political and philosophical views seemingly picked up at random, wrote on Spiked earlier this week that he couldn't understand how gay marriage became such an orthodoxy so quickly (fair enough, I've said the same myself), but then settles on the reason being:

...the weakness of modern society’s attachment to traditional institutions and long-term commitment, and to the ability of small elites in our post-political age to shape the public agenda in a scarily thoroughgoing fashion.

Again, no problem with the first line up to "institutions", but as for "long term commitment", well the "conservative" argument for gay marriage is that it may enhance commitment amongst same sex couples.  (Not that I am convinced that is a realistic assumption.)  But O'Neill then goes on to concentrate on the scary "small elites".  He ends with this:

For the transformation of gay marriage from just an idea to a juggernaut in the blink of an eye actually has little to do with the expansion of tolerance, but rather speaks to the very opposite phenomenon: the emergence of new forms of intolerance that demand nothing less than moral obedience and mandatory celebration from everyone - or else.

I don't see how the position he ends up at is really much different from the right wing view he earlier derides:

As for the anti side’s claim that a sharp-elbowed gay lobby is demolishing marriage as we knew it, and probably laughing as they go - that veers towards conspiracy-theory territory, echoing the old right’s nonsense about Western culture being under threat from pinkos ‘marching through the institutions’.

So, I think his column is a bit of a dog's breakfast, and his complaint about "new forms of intolerance" does little to explain how the younger generation has swung so strongly in favour of gay marriage.

A much better take on some of the nutty Left's intolerant aggro is to be found at The Nation, in a column about the stupid anti-Colbert campaign. 

It's incredible that some on the Left have apparently lost the ability to recognise satire aimed at the Right.

And I have to agree that campaigns against people who have supported the no gay marriage political cause are too precious, intolerant and annoying.

So, yes, it has to be admitted, there is some resurgence in Left wing anti-Liberalism.   I still don't think s.18C needs amendment at this time, though!

UPDATE:   Slate runs a column in which it is argued that all CEO's who don't support gay marriage deserve to go, because they are anti rights:

Opposing gay marriage in America today is not akin to opposing tax hikes or even the war in Afghanistan. It’s more akin to opposing interracial marriage: It bespeaks a conviction that some people do not deserve the same basic rights as others. An organization like Mozilla might tolerate that in an underling, and it might even tolerate it in a CTO. But in a CEO—the ultimate decision-maker and public face of an organization—it sends an awful message. That’s doubly so for an organization devoted to openness and freedom on the Web—not to mention one with numerous gay employees.

I hope this gets some push back in comments!

But regardless of this, which you might say supports O'Neill's complaint, I still do not think that such campaigns have been behind the rapid acceptance of gay marriage by the younger generation.  Indeed, it's not behind things like the quite rapid growth in Catholic acceptance of gay relationships, and now marriage.

The philosopher's underpants, and more

I just posted about circumcision, then philosophy, so it seems apt that we now move on to philosopher's underpants.

I was unaware until watching a recent episode of Horrible Histories (I think its writing is not as good as last season, by the way) that English philosopher Jeremy Bentham is credited by some as having "invented" underpants.

That seems a big claim, but there is some support for it from this 2005 article in Times Higher Education:

The creator of the "greatest happiness of the greatest number" principle naturally believed that the dead should be made useful to the living. He would have loved to have carried a donor card. As it was, he left careful instructions about the fate of his body. His medical disciple, Thomas Southwood Smith, was to dissect his body while lecturing on its parts, and an auto-icon was to be created afterward. 

In recent years, the auto-icon has enjoyed much attention and has been a source of many surprises. One of the more unusual emerged when, some 20 years ago, his clothes were taken to the Textile Conservation Centre, then an outpost of the Courtauld Institute at Hampton Court, where they were conserved and left a good deal cleaner than they would have been when he first put them on. 

Bentham was found to be wearing knitted underpants. These later became common male underwear, but he was clearly way ahead of his time - most of his contemporaries just tucked the tails of their shirts between their legs. It is not widely known that the great philosopher of jurisprudence and ground-breaking social scientist was also a pioneer of pants. 

And so, in the 1980s, Bentham's knitted underpants were photographed from every possible angle by a keen young researcher to accompany an article for the journal Textile History , with which I was then involved. Months later, I noted that the piece had not appeared. When I asked why, I was told that the woman in question had left the centre to get married. "Surely marriage and writing an article about Jeremy Bentham's underpants are not incompatible," I found myself saying. Yet the piece has still not been written. I do not know if the young woman is still married.

But, as I expected, the history of underwear is a lot more complicated than that, and the Wikipedia article on undergarments seems a pretty good summary.  I note the "modern era" or mens underwear seems to date for the 1930's:

Modern men's underwear was largely an invention of the 1930s. On 19 January 1935, Coopers Inc. sold the world's first briefs in Chicago. Designed by an "apparel engineer" named Arthur Kneibler, briefs dispensed with leg sections and had a Y-shaped overlapping fly.^[5] The company dubbed the design the "Jockey" since it offered a degree of support that had previously only been available from the jockstrap. Jockey briefs proved so popular that over 30,000 pairs were sold within three months of their introduction. Coopers, having renamed the company Jockey, sent its "Mascul-line" plane to make special deliveries of "masculine support" briefs to retailers across the US. In 1938, when Jockeys were introduced in the UK, they sold at the rate of 3,000 a week.^[5]

In this decade, companies also began selling buttonless drawers fitted with an elastic waistband. These were the first true boxer shorts, which were named for their resemblance to the shorts worn by professional fighters. Scovil Manufacturing introduced the snap fastener at this time, which became a popular addition to various kinds of undergarments.

The article talks about earlier forms of men's underpants, though, and links to an entire article on the "union suit", popular from the mid 1860's, which I suppose you could say was an undergarment "onesie". (If I had seen this picture, I would have thought they were "long johns", but they apparently are the two piece version.) As far as the way union suits were worn, Wikipedia claims:

It was not uncommon until the mid-20th century for rural men to wear the same union suit continuously all week, or even all winter.

However, there is no citation for that claim.

And finally, Googling for the history of  washing underwear has led me to this rather esoteric article:  A History of War Time Laundry and The U.S. Army.

It's contains some rather interesting information:

World War I marked the first real attempt to provide front line soldiers with clean clothes through laundering and sanitation. The risk of massive non-battle disease, coupled with the advent of chemical warfare, kicked slow moving sanitation plans into high gear. The first American military portable laundry unit was completed in October 1917 by the Broadbent Portable Laundry Corporation. It consisted of four trailers carrying the laundry equipment, two trailers carrying supplies and a steam tractor as prime mover and power source. 

Laundry companies were organized to operate the systems led by one second lieutenant and 37 enlisted soldiers. These companies were attached to units who could provide hardstands, good roads and considerable maneuver space. Unfortunately WWI front line soldiers never received adequate laundry service as most of the units were operated primarily in the rear. More than 90 percent of the soldiers on the front line had disease-carrying lice. 

In the years before World War II, the mobile laundry and sanitation units were redesigned into smaller units with a washing machine, an extractor and two steam-heated tumblers for drying clothes. Contracts were let for 1,331 systems and by October 1942, several hundred had been shipped to mobile laundry companies for training. 

Technological changes and innovations continued throughout World War II. An airborne laundry system with two self-contained skid-mounted units needing only fuel, water, and oil to operate. It could be mounted in either a C-47 or a CG-4A glider. The system was designed to service soldiers at isolated sites far from fixed facilities, primarily on the islands of the South Pacific.

 Perhaps unsurprisingly, General Patton had a laundry platoon following him around, but they apparently could still acquit themselves well:

With the new units capable of reaching the front lines, the "laundry men" had to pull patrol duty, fight snipers and survive many bombings. One laundry platoon followed Lieutenant General Patton across France and set up on a river bank. In the midst of a battle between American tanks and German Infantry, Technical Sergeant Rufus Pressley, the platoon sergeant, and his men "joined in the fight, captured eight Germans, killed a few, and chased off the remainder." (Quartermaster Training Service Journal, 10 November 1944, page 24.) 

 Gee.  Why haven't I heard about the glorious fighting laundry platoons of World War 2 before?  (Slight snigger.)

Anyway, there's another gap in my knowledge filled.

Putin's narrow philosophical interests

From Philosophy Now:

Kremlinologists were granted a glimpse into Vlad ‘The Inscrutable’ Putin’s ideological motivations, when the Washington Post reported that he had ordered Russia’s regional governors to read three weighty books by 19th and 20th century Russian philosophers. The books are The Philosophy of Inequality by Nikolai Berdyaev; Justification of the Good by Vladimir Solovyov and Our Tasks by Ivan Ilyin. Putin has quoted from these three philosophers a number of times in recent speeches. Commentators scrapped over what all this might mean. David Brooks of the New York Times said that the three philosophers shared three central ideas: Russian exceptionalism, devotion to the Orthodox church, and autocracy. He claimed that all three had lurid, grandiose visions of Russia’s mission in the world. Others (such as Damon Linker) claimed this to be an oversimplistic reading.

Simple operation, big benefits

Gawd, this will send some anti-circ nutters into a frenzy of attempted rebuttal:

A paper in Mayo Clinic Proceedings finds that the benefits of infant male circumcision to health exceed the risks by over 100 to 1. Brian Morris, Professor Emeritus in the School of Medical Sciences at the University of Sydney and his colleagues in Florida and Minnesota found that over their lifetime half of uncircumcised males will contract an adverse medical condition caused by their foreskin. The findings add considerable weight to the latest American Academy of Pediatrics policy that supports education and access for infant male circumcision.

In infancy the strongest immediate benefit is protection against urinary tract infections (UTIs) that can damage the kidney in half of babies who get a UTI. Morris and co-investigator Tom Wiswell, MD, Center for Neonatal Care, Orlando, showed last year that over the lifetime UTIs affect 1 in 3 uncircumcised males. In a systematic review, Morris, with John Krieger, MD, Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, showed that there is no adverse effect of circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure, which dispelled one myth perpetuated by opponents of the procedure.

The rate of circumcision in the US is still quite high (81% overall, although much less amongst Hispanics.)   I am surprised - I would have thought the rate would have dropped a lot, as it has in Australia, once the medical bodies initially moved somewhat against it.

But Professor Morris is strongly pro:

"The new findings now show that infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination and that as such it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy. Delay puts the child's health at risk and will usually mean it will never happen." 

 I don't think you can get it done in public hospitals in Australia.  I wonder if that will change?

Steve's simple guide to fiscal policy

As far as I can make out, this would represent a common sense approach to future taxation and spending by the Australian government:

*  broaden somewhat the GST and increase the rate modestly.

*  retain the mining tax - it is clearly not harming the industry (hello, new mine funding for Gina) and why give up even a couple of hundred million dollars for ideological reasons?   (Also, does anyone know what that might increase to in future, once the miners run out of fiddles to avoid it.)

*  scrap the Abbott parental leave tax - no one apart from Abbott and a couple of feminists who Abbott would not normally think had anything worthwhile to say believe it is necessary or good for the country

*  adopt the Labor plan for a floating carbon price.  It may or may not work, but it is better than government "direct action" spending which everyone knows has no chance of working and is bad for the budget bottom line.   The current level of tax is not hurting the economy in any substantial way;  the Coalition has done a disgraceful job of encouraging people to think their energy bill rise is only due to it (and that they weren't compensated for it in other ways.)

*  Push hard at all international forums for agreement to remove the ability of large, enormously profitable multinational companies to pay tiny amounts of tax.

*  Do not implement Abbott's mad promise to increase defence spending from 1.5% of GDP to 2%.   Defence is a permanent bottomless pit of desirable spending, all for a country which hasn't used its Air Force in anger for nearly 50 years now.   For an ocean surrounded country, having some submarines will always make some sense; always having the latest in fighter jets doesn't.  Sure, look to high tech (like drones), but it must be cost efficient.

*  Once a week, tar and feather an economist or employee associated with the IPA on TV (the ABC, of course).  It won't directly solve the fiscal problems, but would provide entertainment at very cheap cost, satisfy the IPA of its hypocritical desire to be on the government funded media which they hate, and raise the chances of more sensible economic, social and climate change policy from anywhere.

Update:  has anyone mentioned estate taxes yet?   I recently discovered that England still has quite a large one, and so does the US both at the Federal level and (often) at the State level.  Why are Australians declining a source of funding for useful things like health and aged care services from people who actually don't need money anymore?  A federal one which kicks in only at total estates worth (say) $1,000,000 or more may or may not be worthwhile, as I presume it would lead to avoidance measures which may be difficult to plug.  Still, I wouldn't want to rule it out prematurely. 

Above ground fish

BBC News - Hong Kong's fish farms in the sky

Interesting.  That's all.