UPDATE 12 October 2022: Covid-19 and Australian Mortality

Please note: I have decided to remove Figure 3 from this post as I confused myself with the ABS changes to baselines and mortality counts. I will be very soon posting a further analysis of Covid which will present information in a much improved manner.

In a post last week (October 5) Jo Nova raised questions about an apparent surge in mortality in Australia this year.

There may be a simple explanation.

Also, it is time for an update on Covid-19 and mortality.

I have looked at ABS data for Australia as a whole and for four states: New South Wales (which eased restrictions earlier than some thought wise); Queensland (which had rigid border restrictions, then opened at the start of the Omicron wave); Victoria (which had lax early restrictions then became overly rigid); and Western Australia (which maintained border restrictions until 4 March this year).

Changes in the way ABS collect and publish data complicate analysis.  The ABS changed its baseline for calculations from January this year; and, as well, previous State and National mortality data now available for download is only for doctor certified deaths whereas 2022 State data is for total mortality figures (including data from coroners’ reports).    This can be confusing. I work around this by calculating the percentage change from the baseline.  The next figures illustrate this.

Figure 1: National Absolute Mortality (as certified by doctors)

The baseline changed in January 2022 as shown.  There was a large step up in the baseline at the same time as the Omicron wave.

Figure 2: NSW Absolute Mortality (as certified by doctors to December 2021 then all deaths from January 2022))

Notice the huge jump- that’s why I calculate percentage change from the expected number or baseline.

Figure 3: National Percentage Change in Mortality (removed)

The percentage change shows the fluctuations in mortality as a result of the Covid-19 waves, lockdowns, international border closures, and influenza.  There is nothing alarming about recent figures.

The next plot compares NSW with WA.  NSW relaxed restrictions early and WA kept borders closed until March 2022.

Figure 4: Percentage Change in Mortality- NSW and WA

WA missed most of Omicron.

Figure 5: Percentage Change in Mortality- Qld and Victoria

Victoria had major problems with hotel quarantine in the second wave, then imposed very severe restrictions, but again had large Delta and Omicron outbreaks.  Queensland may have had an “early” undetected first wave, a peak in Omicron, but had a larger than expected number of deaths in June 2022 due to a severe flu outbreak on top of already struggling public hospitals.

You will note the large weekly up and down spikes.  This is probably due to late reporting of deaths by doctors and nursing homes.  There was evidence of this in January this year in Queensland, when several weeks of nursing home deaths were added in one week.  The next plot smooths the weekly data with a centred 5 week running mean.

Figure 6: 5 Week Centred Mean of Percentage Change in Mortality

I have indicated the Covid peaks. 

Note: 

Queensland’s possible early first wave, and Victoria’s second, Delta, and Omicron waves show clearly.

Omicron struck Queensland, NSW, and Victoria hard with 27% to 37% increase on expected mortality (5 week averaged).

Queensland had a large number of unexpected deaths in 2021, beginning well before vaccine rollout. 

West Australia’s mortality figures are similar to other states, apart from largely missing Delta and Omicron.

The small peaks around weeks 68 -72 are not associated with vaccine rollout: vaccinations gathered speed after this time (early May 2021).

The ABS data does not show any large surge in unexplained deaths in 2022.

Advertisement

Greenland Update

In July 2021 I showed how summer minimum snow cover in Greenland has grown by about 100,000 square kilometres over the past 30 years, and that Greenland could be completely covered by snow all year round in about 45 years.

I explained why this is worth monitoring:

“Many scientists think glacial periods start when summer insolation at 65 degrees North decreases enough so that winter snowfall is not completely melted and therefore year by year snow accumulates.  Eventually the area of snow (which has a high albedo i.e. reflects a lot of sunlight) is large enough to create a positive feedback, and this area becomes colder and larger.  Ice sheets form, and a glacial period begins.  This is a gradual process that may take hundreds of years.

Well before global temperatures decrease, the first sign of a coming glacial inception will be an increasing area of summer snow in north-eastern Canada, Baffin Island, and Greenland.“

Here is an update with a further two summers of data from Rutgers University.

Figure 1:  Greenland snow area for every month of the year.

Greenland snow cover has been increasing, at an average rate of nearly 1,000 square kilometres a month.

There is a maximum limit:  2,149,412 sq.km. which is 100% of Greenland (not 2,166,000 sq.km. – I was mistaken.)

The minimum at the end of summer fluctuates from year to year, and was much less in the past.

Figure 2: Greenland snow area anomalies from monthly means

Snow cover was hundreds of thousands of square kilometres less in the 1960s and 1970s, with an abrupt change in 1978, and a smaller change in the late 1990s.  Before 1978 monthly anomalies above the means were very rare, with large excursions below the means; from 1978 to 1998 there were small decadal fluctuations above and below monthly means; and since 1999 negative values have been rare.

Figure 3: Minimum snow area at the end of summer

There is an increase in the area of unmelted summer snow.   The trend of over 4,000 sq.km.per summer results from step changes in the late 1970s and late 1990s, with the trend continuing.

When we consider the percentage of Greenland covered by snow at the end of summer, the trend is even more startling.

Figure 4:  Percentage of Greenland covered by unmelted snow after summer

Since 1997, the area of unmelted summer snow has remained above 90% of Greenland.  The trend is 0.2% increase each year.  I have extended the x-axis to 2065, and extrapolated the trend line and recent higher and lower values.  IF the trend continues, Greenland may have 100% snow cover for at least one summer by 2030 (8 years from now), and permanent snow cover by about 2063.  (IF)

For comparison I now look at data for North America.

Figure 5: North American snow cover

North America is a very large continent, so there is no upper limit to snow cover.  Snow cover was higher in the past.

Figure 6:  North American summer snow cover

Interesting- when Greenland summer snow cover was low, North American snow was high.  The trend since the mid-1980s is much less steep but still negative- summer snow is still decreasing. 

Now let’s look at winter.

Figure 7:  North American winter snow cover

There’s a surprise.  Winter snow cover is stable- not decreasing- and half a million square kilometres more than 25 years ago.

Figure 8: North American winter snow cover since 1997

Since the late 1990s, winter snow area- as with Greenland summer snow area-has been slowly increasing.

If  this applies to Greenland as well It makes sense- more and thicker snow in Greenland will take longer to melt, so summer snow area will increase.

As I have said previously, short term trends are weather and may not continue, but Greenland is one area that must be watched.

Queensland’s Energy and Jobs Plan

Last Wednesday Queensland Premier Anastasia Palaszczuk released her $62 billion Energy and Jobs Plan. 

I can feel an election coming on.  This is pure political spin, pie in the sky stuff, that can’t and won’t work, designed to woo the city voters.  If I’m wrong and she’s serious, Queensland is in for big trouble.

However, part of it I can agree with.

It will involve building 1,500 km of 500 KVA transmission lines to strengthen the grid between north and south Queensland.  That I do applaud.

More from the statement:

The super grid will support 22 gigawatts of new wind and solar power, from between 2,000 and 3,000 more wind turbines and 36 million solar panels.

There will be another $2.5 billion to top up the $2 billion Queensland Renewable Energy and Hydrogen Jobs Fund.  That’s now $4.5 billion.

The government will finance 3 new wind farms, a new battery at Swanbank power station, and

A new hydrogen-ready gas peaking power station at Kogan Creek.

This project will provide power initially from gas blended with hydrogen with the future ability to use 100 per cent renewable hydrogen.

This will provide 3GW by 2035.

Pure hydrogen?  What can possibly go wrong?

Pumped Hydro:

However, the big ticket item is pumped hydro – $17 billion.  This will involve enlarging and redesigning Borumba Dam near Gympie to supply 2GW of electricity.  The major one is the Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro scheme.

Why am I concerned about this?

A sudden change of heart:

A government that is reluctant to build dams for agriculture (Rookwood Weir took years for approval) can suddenly build dams purely for renewable energy.

Poor record in dam building:

Let’s hope these dams are better designed and built than Paradise Dam, where 58% of the storage had to be released to lower the water height to a safe level. 

Effect on Community, Agriculture, and Environment:

The Pioneer-Burdekin project will involve two dams on the western side of the Clarke Range and a dam at Netherdale at the top of the Pioneer Valley.

Quoting from the Brisbane Times,   

A map of the site shows the lower reservoir — from which water would be pumped into higher dams to be released back down when energy is needed — would inundate a community of about 100 people, including cattle and cane farms, at the locality of Netherdale.

Figure 1:  Official map

I used to live close to Netherdale.  It is a beautiful part of the world, in most picturesque surroundings, in a high rainfall area.

Figure 2: Looking down the valley from Eungella

Figure 3:  Aerial image from Google Maps

To appease the greens and environmentalists,  no national park land will be affected- just farms, houses, and people.

In an indication that the Netherdale plan may not be politically viable, the government has announced that alternative sites are being considered “in the event the project is unable to proceed”.

Flooding Danger:

This proposal is not just dumb, it is dangerous.  This is a high rainfall area.  Nearby Dalrymple Heights has no BOM data since January 2010, but had 1264mm in December 1990, 1246 mm in January 1991, and 1520mm in February 1991.  That’s 161 inches in 3 months.  In February 1958 there was 1737mm and in March 1955 there was 1804mm.  In a wet season with a cyclone knocking out wind and solar farms, and cloud reducing rooftop solar over most of eastern Queensland, all these three reservoirs will be overflowing and the Pioneer River will be in flood.  Any attempt to release enough water to “keep the lights on” will cause much greater flooding.  But that’s OK- it will be caused by climate change.

The Premier claims that this plan is proof the government is returning taxes to the regions, but the pumped hydro plan will do nothing for agriculture, water supply, or flood mitigation.  It’s purely for a renewable dream that can’t and won’t work.  Here’s why.

Limited Size:

The Pioneer-Burdekin hydro project will supposedly produce 5 Gigawatts (GW) for 24 hours, or 120 Gigawatt hours (GWhr).

The Borumba Dam will produce 2 GW, or 48 GWhr.

The next plots use data from OpenNEM.

Figure 4:  Total Qld Electricity Use to 29 September

In the week to 7.30 a.m. on 29 September, Queensland’s baseload electricity usage (generation less exports) was a touch over 5 GW, the lowest being 5.036 GW at 3:30 a.m. on Sunday 25^th September.  That wasn’t to “keep the lights on”.  That was to run hospitals, electric trains, street lights, traffic lights, cold stores, mines, aluminium smelters- and all before sunrise or a normal working day.  Baseload power is the minimum amount of electricity that has to be maintained for 24 hours a day every day- that is at least 120 GWhr.  Pioneer-Burdekin could do that for just one day.

Figure 5: Electricity Usage for the Year to 27 September.

In the past year, Queensland’s average daily usage was 165.2 GWhr.  (That rose to more than 180 GWhr for most of summer).  Just 31 GWhr on average was produced by solar and wind generation, with up to 39.6 GWhr of solar on one day last summer, but only 4 GWhr on July 4 .

Our grand hydro “batteries” would last for just over 24 hours, at today’s usage. 

Inefficiency:

How efficient would the pumped hydro scheme be?  From the Premier’s own Statement:

Each megawatt of pumped hydro energy storage unlocks investment in another three megawatts of wind and solar generation.
That’s because more renewable energy is needed to pump water up hill during the day storing renewable power for when it’s needed.
Supporting around 21 gigawatts of renewables – or more than 150 new wind and solar farms.

There it is: to store 1 GW of existing renewable energy we need an additional 3 GW of wind (at about 33% efficiency) and solar (at 15 to 20% efficiency).

Transport and Industry Needs:

Further, we’re supposed to be transitioning to electric vehicles.  According to Budget Direct’s Fuel Consumption Survey & Statistics 2022 in 2021 Queensland used 3,343 billion litres of petrol (excluding diesel).  At roughly 9 KWhr equivalent per litre, if only 10% of cars are electric in 2035, another 310 566.5 GWhr of electricity per year would be needed. Include diesel and the figure is 1,020 GWhr. (I’m not confident about my calculation- but this will need a huge amount of electricity.)

And Queensland is meant to be supplying hydrogen for industry as well, so the demand will be much, much greater.

Conclusion:

I am pleased with the proposal to improve Queensland’s electricity grid.  However, the rest of the plan- especially the pumped hydro- is nonsense.

Hello, Anastasia- Queensland voters aren’t so gullible.  If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.