Alberta floods

[Guest American Woman]

That's just an example from a rural area with houses of much lower value. What Alberta will do is not known yet, but it will be a very large program.

I'm sure it will be a very large program. There are a lot of houses/households affected by the flood. That doesn't mean the government is going to be giving them practically all they lost in compensation. When all is said and done, I'm sure it'll be but a fraction of what they lost.

[WWWTT]

you refuse to accept these are not root causes, particularly of this event... one of the aspects being discussed is that a preliminary rain prior to the real deluge caused exactly what you describe - soil saturation. Depending on location, the deluge is stated to have released 3-to-5 times as much rain as the preliminary rainfall event... and then, of course, there were continued sporadic rainfall occurrences, after the main deluge. No amount of soil, particularly given the 'high-speed mountain valley thoroughfares', would ever soak-up the incredible amount of rainfall that occurred. I'm not aware of any significant deforestation in the associated protected National & Provincial Parks - are you? Care to speak to the wetland areas you claim existed... and were drained?

you refuse to accept a climate change induced problem... even the possibility of it. I pointedly asked you, "what causes the increased moisture that turns into the rainfall? What causes jet-stream shifts? What causes blocking events that holds systems in place?" You ignored it. I've spoken of Arctic amplification several times in the past in other MLW related threads... the effects resulting from climate change induced accelerated melting of Arctic sea ice. In this thread I wrote the following which itself linked to a prior post I'd written in another thread. Apparently, you also ignored that.

let's try a bit more reinforcement, hey: Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes

good luck with that!

.

To do the proper historical research of the farmland and local geography is not within my ability.

When did large scale farming start in Alberta anyways?

You could be right about the climate change thing warming the oceans and causing greater precipitation.

Either way,I wish the best for the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta in this trying time.

WWWTT

[margrace]

Just came back from a drive down a road not far from us. This is a dead end road because a big river makes a big U in our area. Back before our township had planning laws, bunch of farmers thought they weren't needed, a gentleman from Toronto bought a huge swamp in this U. He proceeded to sell off lots and the township could do nothing. But we have a group who did everything to stop the planning. Back off Government this is our land, ever see those signs. Its called grandfathering and this spring some of those mansions built down in the flood plain were under several metres of water.

This is the kind of stupidity that goes on all the time.

[Bryan]

We used the program. You don't know what you're talking about. If there's an issue, it's with seasonal dwellings or questionable losses. We had to use both DFA and MASC, and both programs worked well, with near 100% cost recovery for what we did.

You're one of the lucky ones. A lot of people in this area can't even get a response to their application. They're told to stop calling, that they'll be dealt with eventually. Many people who did come to an agreement are still waiting for the actual money. There's a reason why there have been protests at the legislature over this; the govt is over two years behind on many people's payments.

[margrace]

Does anyone on here know what ALEC is? Google it and find its American description, then look for the Canadian Connection. This might explain some of the odd things on here such as the denial that the floods in Alberta are just an ordinary event and nothing to be worried about.

[Accountability Now]

This might explain some of the odd things on here such as the denial that the floods in Alberta are just an ordinary event and nothing to be worried about.

Why are they not ordinary? Looking at this paper (http://people.ucalgary.ca/~hayashi/geog515/lectures/515_0609.pdf), it says there were five major floods in Calgary between 1902 and 1932 with the flood in 1932 being the worst until now. There were no major floods from 1932 until 2005. So we get two in a span of seven years and that's weird? They had five in thirty years....was that global warming too? Or was that government conspiracies back then too?

You have to remember there are two rivers merging as one. That complicates this even more.

[waldo]

As predicted, more climate change dogma is being trotted out to take advantage of a flooding event. This time it's Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University Marine & Coastal Sciences. USA...of course !

nobody cares about your ultra-sensitivities and your lack of self-confidence... nobody cares that you have this fevered itch to interject an American declaration into a brazillion MLW posts - nobody cares!

[bush_cheney2004]

nobody cares about your ultra-sensitivities and your lack of self-confidence... nobody cares that you have this fevered itch to interject an American declaration into a brazillion MLW posts - nobody cares!

Do tell....apparently at least one person does ! Go ahead and try to take advantage of a perfectly normal flooding event in Alberta to support the global warming alarmist cause. American public and private research investment and data analysis stands ready to supply you with all the references you may need now...and into the future !

[waldo]

Why are they not ordinary? Looking at this paper (http://people.ucalgary.ca/~hayashi/geog515/lectures/515_0609.pdf), it says there were five major floods in Calgary between 1902 and 1932 with the flood in 1932 being the worst until now. There were no major floods from 1932 until 2005. So we get two in a span of seven years and that's weird? They had five in thirty years....was that global warming too? Or was that government conspiracies back then too?

You have to remember there are two rivers merging as one. That complicates this even more.

with your singular focus on Calgary, in comparing severity, if we take your provided numbers at face value, you're relying completely on flow-rates as the measure of severity? Really? Again, if we accept your provided numbers at face value, this current 2013 flood's flow-rate is more than 4 times that of the 2005 flood, ~ 3 times that of the second and third worst floods and more than double the flow-rate of the worst previous (1932) flood in our provided 'top 10 worst'.

care to offer your insights on the attribution of those earliest worst floods... and what you presume caused/contributed to this latest one? Prior to 2005, you have to go all the way back to 1953 to find a flood in your provided 'top 10'... over a 50 year span to the next 2005 flood event. In those last 60 years, has anything changed in the upstream watershed and in terms of water management practices as compared to those earliest period dates? Are you stating, unequivocally, that you don't accept there may be a climate change impact that contributed to this current flood?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Are you stating, unequivocally, that you don't accept there may be a climate change impact that contributed to this current flood?

There is no so called "climate change" impact to this "current flood". The dead aren't even buried yet...but no matter to the "warmies" out there.

[waldo]

Go ahead and try to take advantage of a perfectly normal flooding event in Alberta to support the global warming alarmist cause.

do you feel that threatened that even the suggestion of a possible climate change contributing influence causes you to troll rush into a fevered bluster?

[bush_cheney2004]

do you feel that threatened that even the suggestion of a possible climate change contributing influence causes you to troll rush into a fevered bluster?

No, unlike warmies, I welcome whatever may come as a thermodynamic opportunity. It's just tacky to use this single event to push the alarmist cause even before the dead have been buried.

[scribblet]

Does anyone on here know what ALEC is? Google it and find its American description, then look for the Canadian Connection. This might explain some of the odd things on here such as the denial that the floods in Alberta are just an ordinary event and nothing to be worried about.

Maybe you could give us a link and explain what it has to do with the Alberta Floods... thanks

[scribblet]

Why are they not ordinary? Looking at this paper (http://people.ucalgary.ca/~hayashi/geog515/lectures/515_0609.pdf), it says there were five major floods in Calgary between 1902 and 1932 with the flood in 1932 being the worst until now. There were no major floods from 1932 until 2005. So we get two in a span of seven years and that's weird? They had five in thirty years....was that global warming too? Or was that government conspiracies back then too?

You have to remember there are two rivers merging as one. That complicates this even more.

Thanks, I was looking for that info.

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe you could give us a link and explain what it has to do with the Alberta Floods... thanks

Not clear how/what ALEC could have a direct impact on Alberta floods and/or policy in any province. Their conservative legislative and pro-business platform could influence policy discussions just like any other lobby group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

[Accountability Now]

with your singular focus on Calgary, in comparing severity, if we take your provided numbers at face value, you're relying completely on flow-rates as the measure of severity? Really? Again, if we accept your provided numbers at face value, this current 2013 flood's flow-rate is more than 4 times that of the 2005 flood, ~ 3 times that of the second and third worst floods and more than double the flow-rate of the worst previous (1932) flood in our provided 'top 10 worst'.

care to offer your insights on the attribution of those earliest worst floods... and what you presume caused/contributed to this latest one? Prior to 2005, you have to go all the way back to 1953 to find a flood in your provided 'top 10'... over a 50 year span to the next 2005 flood event. In those last 60 years, has anything changed in the upstream watershed and in terms of water management practices as compared to those earliest period dates? Are you stating, unequivocally, that you don't accept there may be a climate change impact that contributed to this current flood?

So wrong on so many levels!!!! You have to compare each river on its own as per Alberta Environment. (http://alberta.ca/estimated-peak-river-flows.cfm). If you look at the projected flow rates for the Bow...it is projected to be at 1700 cms (even though revised projections are showing lower numbers). This is about 10% higher than the worst storm ever in 1932 which was 1520 cms. NOT DOUBLE! The Elbow river in 2013 is projected at 959 cms versus 836 cms in 1932. NOT DOUBLE!! Oh my!!!!! The sky must be falling! Double the flow rates in 1932???? Not even close! It was double the flowrate on the Bow from 2005...oh wait....that is comparing a 100 year storm versus a 14 year storm. So was your response an alarmist response? I guess this is what happens when you try to think for yourself rather than just citing graphs and charts.

[waldo]

So wrong on so many levels!!!! You have to compare each river on its own

you do? I see... do you make this up on the fly? Cause, like, uhhh... your preceding post's 'top 10 (worst)' list didn't identify an associated river in it's relative comparison. You're not very consistent, are you? But what's up here - your reply is quite ramped up in tone/volume relative to anything I wrote your way. Don't tell me you're still smarting from the rubbin's you've taken in the past - are you? Just a friendly thought here for ya - your carrying a grudge will get the better of you.

as per Alberta Environment. (http://alberta.ca/estimated-peak-river-flows.cfm). If you look at the projected flow rates for the Bow...it is projected to be at 1700 cms (even though revised projections are showing lower numbers). This is about 10% higher than the worst storm ever in 1932 which was 1520 cms. NOT DOUBLE! The Elbow river in 2013 is projected at 959 cms versus 836 cms in 1932. NOT DOUBLE!! Oh my!!!!! The sky must be falling! Double the flow rates in 1932???? Not even close! It was double the flowrate on the Bow from 2005...oh wait....that is comparing a 100 year storm versus a 14 year storm.

well... you claim to be from Alberta... yet one can only wonder why you would reach for data from the Elbow at Bragg Creek (46 km away) - notwithstanding, the most current peak data between 07:00 - 1600 June 20th seems to be missing there - go figure, hey? So... for that river and your/the Calgary focus... you're really not in the right location and the actual data isn't there (yet) - supposedly, you're going off an estimate (but for the wrong location - oh my!). Sorry to burst your bubble. Of course, since your focus was Calgary, and as you're a self-proclaimed Albertan, one wonders why you wouldn't have relied upon the Elbow at Sarcee data, hey? (Or even below the Glenmore... your choice). Surely, you weren't attempting to boost your numbers... were you? Cause, like the peak at the Sarcee is only 692 m³s on June 20. Man, as you say, "you're so wrong on so many levels"!

but really, let's get to it: relying solely on your provided linked 'top 10 (worst)' flood list from your preceding post, the list that fails to actually name the associated rivers, I looked at the flow rate for 2005 @ 791 m³​s. Which river, which river, which could it be? I went with the Bow River... which seems to have been the right choice, hey... since it's even more than the Elbow (at Sarcee) peak for the current flood (the worst evah!). So... the Bow then for your list's 2005 entry. Equally... the prior worst ever flood in Calgary, the 1932 flood... well, given it's number @1520, that just has to be the Bow, as well. So... the Bow River then for 2005/1932 (as are the #2 and #3 spots on your provided list).

so... I'm relying upon your provided list and news media coverage, most notably from Mayor Nenshi, who is front&center everywhere in print/tv coverage. Granted, with all the coverage of Nenshi standing next to Harper, he doesn't have the flash&glitz of Harper and his "flight jacket" ... but, hey... Nenshi actually appears to be a doer, getting things done, as opposed to Harper playing for the cameras! But, I digress. I heard Nenshi repeatedly make the same comment carried over and over again (covered on CBC, CTV and Global)... the same comment covered in print, everywhere - like here: (but take note: this is Calgary and the Mayor of Calgary... he's not relying upon your Bragg Creek numbers! )

Even with the improvement, Nenshi noted that the flow rates were still higher than the last big flood in Calgary eight years ago.

“Remember that these numbers are still four times higher than they were in the floods of 2005, so we’re still dealing with very, very high numbers,” he said.

I'll leave you with that '4 times higher than 2005' reference and allow you to check my math against your provided link's 'top 10 (worst)' list numbers! Again, sorry to have burst your bubble.

.

So was your response an alarmist response? I guess this is what happens when you try to think for yourself rather than just citing graphs and charts.

and what kind of a response was yours? You were so busy scurrying about, gathering data from wrong locations, that you somehow missed my direct questions to you. Must have been an oversight on your part, right? Here, try them again:

care to offer your insights on the attribution of those earliest worst floods... and what you presume caused/contributed to this latest one? Prior to 2005, you have to go all the way back to 1953 to find a flood in your provided 'top 10'... over a 50 year span to the next 2005 flood event. In those last 60 years, has anything changed in the upstream watershed and in terms of water management practices as compared to those earliest period dates? Are you stating, unequivocally, that you don't accept there may be a climate change impact that contributed to this current flood?

.

[waldo]

....that is comparing a 100 year storm versus a 14 year storm.

having dispatched with your self-serving disparity angle, this extract of your statement does warrant a timely update from the Insurance Bureau of Canada:

Future trends in the frequency and severity of extreme weather will have a significant impact on the ability of individuals, governments and insurance companies to prepare for future catastrophic events. This is a concern given that the IPCC has concluded that it is very likely that extreme weather such as hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will become more frequent over the next 50 years.

The frequency with which Canada experiences events such as heavy rainfall of a given intensity (known as the return period), is projected to increase such that an event that occurred on average once every 50 years will be likely to occur about once every 35 years by 2050. Even in regions of the country where average rainfall is projected to decrease in the summer, the frequency at which severe precipitation events occur is expected to increase over the next 40 years.

Changes to Canada’s climate will also have implications for climate effects other than changing precipitation patterns. The occurrence of forest fire activity is projected to increase by 25% by 2030, with major regional variations as certain parts of the country become hotter and drier than others. Recent observations have led to projections of global mean sea level rises of 1 metre or more over the next century, with tangible impacts for Canada’s coastal regions.

.

[cybercoma]

Right, because heat waves, drought, wildfires, and floods never existed before so-called climate change.

Shady, the scientists are referring to the rate at which these events occur. They're happening more frequently. No one has made any argument whatsoever that they weren't happening before and are now all of a sudden happening now. If someone is saying that, then they're wrong.

[scribblet]

Not clear how/what ALEC could have a direct impact on Alberta floods and/or policy in any province. Their conservative legislative and pro-business platform could influence policy discussions just like any other lobby group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

Thanks, although I'm not sure how reliable wiki is on the description and purpose etc. However, I see that it a lobby group, one of many from both sides of the fence.

It is sad that some people have to politicize this tragedy. Next thing you know they'll be blaming the Conservative Party for starting the flood in order to avoid having the convention.

[Accountability Now]

you do? I see... do you make this up on the fly? Cause, like, uhhh... your preceding post's 'top 10 (worst)' list didn't identify an associated river in it's relative comparison. You're not very consistent, are you? But what's up here - your reply is quite ramped up in tone/volume relative to anything I wrote your way. Don't tell me you're still smarting from the rubbin's you've taken in the past - are you? Just a friendly thought here for ya - your carrying a grudge will get the better of you.

Actually I don't make anything up. This is the way that its done according to federal and provinical environmental groups like Alberta Environment. If you would have take the time to read the link (remember..lettters make words...words make sentences) you would have seen in blurb saying "Flood Frequency, BOW RIVER UPSTREAM OF THE ELBOW RIVER. Its hard reading sometimes, isn't it?

Rubbin's in the past? Like when I schooled you on Green Energy versus Green Economy? Seriously? You can't win this one so you want to revert to one of your other defeats.

well... you claim to be from Alberta...

Is that the best you have....to reach for personal attacks? Claim to be? Born, raised and still live here. Do you have a problem with that? I can point Alberta out on a map if you need me to.

yet one can only wonder why you would reach for data from the Elbow at Bragg Creek (46 km away) - notwithstanding, the most current peak data between 07:00 - 1600 June 20th seems to be missing there - go figure, hey? So... for that river and your/the Calgary focus... you're really not in the right location and the actual data isn't there (yet) - supposedly, you're going off an estimate (but for the wrong location - oh my!). Sorry to burst your bubble. Of course, since your focus was Calgary, and as you're a self-proclaimed Albertan, one wonders why you wouldn't have relied upon the Elbow at Sarcee data, hey? (Or even below the Glenmore... your choice). Surely, you weren't attempting to boost your numbers... were you? Cause, like the peak at the Sarcee is only 692 m³s on June 20. Man, as you say, "you're so wrong on so many levels"!

Boost my numbers? You are the one trying to show that this flood is the worst ever. I gave you 959 cms as the 2013 number and you are arguing that it should be 692? So what you are saying is this flood is even lower than the 1932 flood which resulted in a peak flow of 836cms. Wow...aruguing with you isn't even fun as you concede so easily.

So lets just sum this up for the fine people looking to weigh in on this. Waldo starts the claim off by saying the 2013 flood was double the flow rate of the 1932 flood. Double of course meaning twice as much. (Waldo....let me know if you want me to slow down for you). So on the Elbow River the flow at Bragg Creek in 1932 was 836. So double (as Waldo says) would be 1672 cms. HMMMMMM??? Pick any point you want Waldo....its not even close to double. Lets look at the Bow. 1932 number was 1520 cms. Let's see....double would mean taking that number and adding the same number to it....that would make it 3,040. And what is the number for 2013? Oh....its 1740.

Wow...so wrong but you must be used to that by now.

so... I'm relying upon your provided list and news media coverage, most notably from Mayor Nenshi, who is front&center everywhere in print/tv coverage. Granted, with all the coverage of Nenshi standing next to Harper, he doesn't have the flash&glitz of Harper and his "flight jacket" ... but, hey... Nenshi actually appears to be a doer, getting things done, as opposed to Harper playing for the cameras! But, I digress. I heard Nenshi repeatedly make the same comment carried over and over again (covered on CBC, CTV and Global)... the same comment covered in print, everywhere - like here: (but take note: this is Calgary and the Mayor of Calgary... he's not relying upon your Bragg Creek numbers! )

Ah...there we have it. You're relying on media coverage from a mayor who has had 8 hours sleep in four days. And me....well I'm getting numbers directly from the source (Alberta Environment). Shame on you Waldo...for a guy who is all about citations, graphs and charts....you are now relying on hearsay from a mayor possibly starting to work on his claim for federal funding? You're right...let's not look at objective numbers...let's go with whatever he says. LMFAO!!!

I'll leave you with that '4 times higher than 2005' reference and allow you to check my math against your provided link's 'top 10 (worst)' list numbers! Again, sorry to have burst your bubble.

Math? You have provided a statement. I have provided the math. Math consists of number (1,2,3 etc). I know you really struggle here so I'll show you agian...Bow river 2005 was 791 cms. Bow river 2013 is 1740 cms. So you then take the larger number (1740) and divide by the smaller number (791) and this will give you an answer of 2.2 which some people would say is double...not quadruple (oh wait....you might not get that...it means four times).

Seriously quit wasting forum thread time and admit that you screwed up believing in hearsay when the numbers just don't back your claim! At least I can respect that.

care to offer your insights on the attribution of those earliest worst floods... and what you presume caused/contributed to this latest one? Prior to 2005, you have to go all the way back to 1953 to find a flood in your provided 'top 10'... over a 50 year span to the next 2005 flood event. In those last 60 years, has anything changed in the upstream watershed and in terms of water management practices as compared to those earliest period dates? Are you stating, unequivocally, that you don't accept there may be a climate change impact that contributed to this current flood?

.

I have no problems answering this once you clearly admit that your accusation of this being twice as bad as the 1932 flood is completely false. If you aren't willing to do that then what's the point?

.

[Accountability Now]

Shady, the scientists are referring to the rate at which these events occur. They're happening more frequently. No one has made any argument whatsoever that they weren't happening before and are now all of a sudden happening now. If someone is saying that, then they're wrong.

Cyber....if you look at Calgary alone then you will see there were five major floods from 1902 to 1932. There was one more in 1953 and then two in 2005/2013. I certainly wouldn't say they are more frequent IN THIS CASE. The other key thing to note is that all of these floods vary in magnitude which is why they call them 5 year, 10 year, 100 year floods. It doesn't mean how frequent they happen, rather it refers to the possibility of them happneing in a given year.

Other places may very well have an increased frequency.

[Accountability Now]

having dispatched with your self-serving disparity angle, this extract of your statement does warrant a timely update from the Insurance Bureau of Canada:

.

I have zero angle. You said this flood was double the worst flood in history. You were and continue to be wrong. So in classic waldo fasion you are now trying to dispatch yourself from the thread.

Just say you were wrong and we can move on. No shame in that...is there?

[bush_cheney2004]

.....It is sad that some people have to politicize this tragedy. Next thing you know they'll be blaming the Conservative Party for starting the flood in order to avoid having the convention.

I guess it's par for the course nowadays..."never waste a good crisis". Floods use to be "natural disasters"....now they are proof of "climate change" and the evil misdeeds of corporations. Maybe only the "deniers" fill sandbags.

Edited June 24, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Actually I don't make anything up. This is the way that its done according to federal and provinical environmental groups like Alberta Environment. If you would have take the time to read the link (remember..lettters make words...words make sentences) you would have seen in blurb saying "Flood Frequency, BOW RIVER UPSTREAM OF THE ELBOW RIVER. Its hard reading sometimes, isn't it?

really? You mean your linked document that includes 2 listings of major floods in Calgary: the 'top 10 (worst)' table (without explicit river association) and a separate listing, by river association, for each of the Elbow & Bow Rivers? 2 listings... in your linked document, that you claim is "the Bow River only". Your claim! As you say, "remember, letters make words... words make sentences. Its hard reading sometimes, isn't it?".

but it gets better! The separate list, by identified river, includes a 1902 major flood reference for the Bow River... and yet, that doesn't appear in the separate 'top 10 (worst) list'. Not only that, shared commonality of years exists between the 2 rivers in the 'by identified river' list... showing only 6 actual years listed shared between the 2 rivers. So... where's 1902 in the top 10... if it's only the Bow River? So... where did the other 4 years in the top 10 come from - what river do they associate with, particularly given your own linked document has taken the effort to categorically list floods for both the Elbow & the Bow Rivers? As you can see, if you actually take the time away from your narrow-skewed focus, those 4 questionable years could actually be the Elbow River as the listed flow rates are in line with what the Elbow River has produced in the past. As you say, "remember, letters make words... words make sentences. Its hard reading sometimes, isn't it?".

clearly, if you're going to put up a document you really should take the time to review your own referenced document, hey?

.

Rubbin's in the past? Like when I schooled you on Green Energy versus Green Economy? Seriously? You can't win this one so you want to revert to one of your other defeats.

nice self-serving revisionism. How desperate are you to attempt to save face? My point: my initial post to you was quite innocuous - tame! You thundered back in reply in tone/volume that in no way matched my initial post to you.

.

Is that the best you have....to reach for personal attacks? Claim to be? Born, raised and still live here. Do you have a problem with that? I can point Alberta out on a map if you need me to.

get real! How is stating you claim to be from Alberta a personal attack? Again, how desperate are you? My point was, if you're from Alberta, you should know the province... so why would you rely upon Bragg Creek data for the Calgary focus you introduced? If, as you say, you can point Alberta out on a map... can you also point out Bragg Creek and the 46km distance between it and Calgary? Can you do that?

again, you seem to have missed my questions: here, again, now for the 3rd time:

care to offer your insights on the attribution of those earliest worst floods... and what you presume caused/contributed to this latest one? Prior to 2005, you have to go all the way back to 1953 to find a flood in your provided 'top 10'... over a 50 year span to the next 2005 flood event. In those last 60 years, has anything changed in the upstream watershed and in terms of water management practices as compared to those earliest period dates? Are you stating, unequivocally, that you don't accept there may be a climate change impact that contributed to this current flood?

.