Alberta floods

[Topaz]

I'm not saying the following subject is true or not true but do you think that the weather is being control by man. I've heard on different programs that Russia and the US can, I'm not sure. The way the US supposely is doing this is through HAARP in the Alaska. Thoughts? http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/haarp_mind_weather_control.htm

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe....I know for certain that Canada controls the weather in my U.S. state. During winter, we call a fast moving winter storm an "Alberta Clipper". So if Canada can do it, I am sure that other nations can do the same thing.

[waldo]

More "sky is falling" nonsense. It's a flood....just like other floods....from too much water. It is not confirmation of WMO statements.

where are you reading your "sky is falling" hyperbole? Where are you reading it's a, as you say, "confirmation of WMO statements". Why are you so desperate as to fabricate your own purposely skewed interpretation of that WMO statement?

[bush_cheney2004]

where are you reading your "sky is falling" hyperbole? Where are you reading it's a, as you say, "confirmation of WMO statements". Why are you so desperate as to fabricate your own purposely skewed interpretation of that WMO statement?

Floods are common in my part of the world, not far from the Red River. We have never sought solace and faith from the WMO, preferring to place confidence in sand bags instead. Calgary and the surrounding areas will recover and rebuild, just like the rest of us.

Thanks for your help WMO.

[-TSS-]

I'm surprised that this news is not more commented on this site as it must be a big news in Canada. After all, if a highly developed country like Canada is helpless in confronting the floods you can only imagine the blight of people in Bangladesh which is not as highly developed and where floods are a more frequent thing.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm surprised that this news is not more commented on this site as it must be a big news in Canada. After all, if a highly developed country like Canada is helpless in confronting the floods you can only imagine the blight of people in Bangladesh which is not as highly developed and where floods are a more frequent thing.

Floods, flood plains, seasonal flooding, flash flooding, and flood protections are well known in Canada and the U.S. The script has been repeated hundreds of times. Media reporting has a longstanding behaviour and integration with weather reporting.

[dre]

There must be a lot of sodomy and gay sex going on out there!

[ReeferMadness]

no - all that is being said... all that I have said (here), is that there is a demonstrated increase in the frequency of extreme events. I quoted you the World Meteorological Organizations statement, in kind. Clearly, you choose to ignore it... or anything that might suggest that climate change is impacting on the appearance of increased extreme events. You continue to emphasize temperature... in spite of receiving several posts speaking to the shifting jet-stream (and the related cause of that shift). Are you purposely ignoring anything/everything posted and replied to you?

of course, there is also study analysis/result to show that, for certain extremes, not only the frequency has increased, the severity has also increased. More pointedly, scientists are working to more better correlate, directly - if it exists, the frequency/severity of extreme events to climate change. There are studies out there in this regard... would you care for... a few?

(note: your "20 year plateau" nonsense has been addressed in the other concurrently running thread)

Waldo, you're wasting your time. Your logical and scientific arguments, well constructed as they are, will bounce off faith-based beliefs like ping pong balls hitting a concrete wall.

The world's biggest religion isn't Christianity or Islam or Hinduism. It's Capitalism. The people who adhere to its tenets are as devoted and immune to counter-arguments as any religious fundamentalist. They can and will rationalize anything.

A suggestion that economic activity is damaging or unsustainable is a suggestion that economic activity should be limited. Any suggestion that economic growth should be limited due to resource shortages or damage to the planet must be wrong and must be stamped out. You are a heretic. Therefore, you are wrong.

Ipso facto.

[The_Squid]

Photos from the public sent in to the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2013/06/your-photos-of-southern-alberta-floods.html

[ReeferMadness]

Nevertheless, it would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change.

What left-wing, soft-headed, communist-sympathizing, socialist-loving organization is responsible for this statement? Why, it's none other than Munich Re, the reinsurance giant.

Damned communist insurance companies.

[jacee]

the Calgary 2005 flood was declared a 'once in a century' event.

"Once in a century" ?

... twice in a decade ...

[ReeferMadness]

Here is a blog written by a former Albertan.

In performance-enhanced baseball, no single record-breaking home run is directly due to steroid use. But the chances of a powerful hit at bat is far higher. By radically changing the chemical composition of our atmosphere we’ve changed the chances for extreme events like these floods. If we don’t urgently reduce our greenhouse gas emissions we’ll face the consequences of our “juicing” in uninsurable homes, damaged communities, and public expenditure for disaster response.

[The_Squid]

There must be a lot of sodomy and gay sex going on out there!

It is Calgary.....

[bush_cheney2004]

The climate change alarmists will seize upon any and all such events as proof of their dire predictions...that the capitalist sinners must repent and change their destructive ways. Of course, there will still be floods anyway.

[ReeferMadness]

The climate change alarmists will seize upon any and all such events as proof of their dire predictions...that the capitalist sinners must repent and change their destructive ways. Of course, there will still be floods anyway.

Yes, those climate change alarmists like Munich Re.

[WWWTT]

Yes, those climate change alarmists like Munich Re.

To believe that the Earth's climate is fixed or set and incapable of ever changing for me is very hard to accept.

Fossil records show that it has, and in my opinion it would be a safe bet that it is always changing.

Caused by human or not????

I'm not convinced that an increase of less than 1000ppm (CO2) increase would increase the atmosphere's ability to store more heat energy from the Sun.

Regardless,there are other issues that humans have a more direct impact that have not bein discussed.

Such as draining wet lands/marshes for farm use.

Lack of irrigation,deforestation and redirection of rivers.

I believe that these other issues provide greater security in weakening the impact of floods.

WWWTT

Edited June 22, 2013 by WWWTT

[waldo]

To believe that the Earth's climate is fixed or set and incapable of ever changing for me is very hard to accept.

Fossil records show that it has, and in my opinion it would be a safe bet that it is always changing.

Caused by human or not????

of course climate changes... and when it has changed in the distant past... and when it has changed in the relatively near term, scientists have sought to apply attribution cause(s) to those climate changes. In this relatively near term period of global warming and related climate change, scientists have done the studies, have done the analysis - the results emphatically show, without reservation, that the increased/accelerated level of anthropogenic sourced CO₂ in the atmosphere, is the principal causal tie to global warming... and related climate change.

.

I'm not convinced that an increase of less than 1000ppm (CO2) increase would increase the atmosphere's ability to store more heat energy from the Sun.

perhaps do some reading on the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle... the increases in atmospheric CO₂ reflect the natural carbon cycle being out of sync with the atmospheric increases and the abilities of natural sink outlets to absorb these additional atmospheric increases beyond the natural carbon cycle balance. The atmospheric increases of CO₂ are cumulative and retention within the atmosphere is over a very extended period (of hundreds of years to centuries).

there is absolute empirical evidence (well beyond anything to do with model simulations) that absolutely prove the increases in atmospheric CO₂ can be attributed to anthropogenic sources (principally mankind's burning of fossil-fuels, land use changes and cement production).

.

Regardless,there are other issues that humans have a more direct impact that have not bein discussed.

Such as draining wet lands/marshes for farm use.

Lack of irrigation,deforestation and redirection of rivers.

I believe that these other issues provide greater security in weakening the impact of floods.

your belief is incorrect. You can 'tweak' with contributors... if the foundation is weak, your 'tweaking' may result in compromised gains and/or your anticipated gains will/may never materialize.

.

[waldo]

Waldo, you're wasting your time. Your logical and scientific arguments, well constructed as they are, will bounce off faith-based beliefs like ping pong balls hitting a concrete wall.

the usual suspects have no basis for their denial... they cannot dispute the prevailing science - they cannot provide alternatives to the prevailing science. They simply have chosen to not accept the prevailing science. Even if they cared, only they can rationalize their unsubstantiated/unsupported denial against what seems, again, nothing more than "denial for denial's sake".

[WWWTT]

of course climate changes... and when it has changed in the distant past... and when it has changed in the relatively near term, scientists have sought to apply attribution cause(s) to those climate changes. In this relatively near term period of global warming and related climate change, scientists have done the studies, have done the analysis - the results emphatically show, without reservation, that the increased/accelerated level of anthropogenic sourced CO₂ in the atmosphere, is the principal causal tie to global warming... and related climate change.

.

perhaps do some reading on the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle... the increases in atmospheric CO₂ reflect the natural carbon cycle being out of sync with the atmospheric increases and the abilities of natural sink outlets to absorb these additional atmospheric increases beyond the natural carbon cycle balance. The atmospheric increases of CO₂ are cumulative and retention within the atmosphere is over a very extended period (of hundreds of years to centuries).

there is absolute empirical evidence (well beyond anything to do with model simulations) that absolutely prove the increases in atmospheric CO₂ can be attributed to anthropogenic sources (principally mankind's burning of fossil-fuels, land use changes and cement production).

.

your belief is incorrect. You can 'tweak' with contributors... if the foundation is weak, your 'tweaking' may result in compromised gains and/or your anticipated gains will/may never materialize.

.

Actually you didn't address my question of the claim that our planets atmosphere will retain heat energy as a result of an increase of CO2 less than 1000ppm.

Regardless,there are many areas in North America (also around the world) where it was well established that the draining of marshes/wetlands and deforestation for farmland and development was the major contributor to severe flooding.

But it sounds like that these well documented and independently verified causes for flooding does not fit the "evil fossil fuel conspiracy". and are tossed out the window.

Keep in mind that flooding is caused by runoff from snow melt and/or rainfall that the land can not retain.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

the usual suspects have no basis for their denial... they cannot dispute the prevailing science - they cannot provide alternatives to the prevailing science. They simply have chosen to not accept the prevailing science. Even if they cared, only they can rationalize their unsubstantiated/unsupported denial against what seems, again, nothing more than "denial for denial's sake".

Actually it is you that is not accepting the fact that flooding is caused by the lands inability to retain an increase of water from either/both snow melt/rain.

WWWTT

[waldo]

Keep in mind that flooding is caused by runoff from snow melt and/or rainfall that the land can not retain.

Actually it is you that is not accepting the fact that flooding is caused by the lands inability to retain an increase of water from either/both snow melt/rain.

caused by??? Just how simplistic is your position/understanding? What causes the increased moisture that turns into the rainfall? What causes jet-stream shifts? What causes blocking events that holds systems in place?

.

[waldo]

Actually you didn't address my question of the claim that our planets atmosphere will retain heat energy as a result of an increase of CO2 less than 1000ppm.

no - I did address your question... giving you the benefit of your past displayed AGW/CC denier ways, I suggested you read up on the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle... I described the cycle imbalance given the inability of natural sinks to absorb the increase in anthropogenic sourced atmospheric CO₂. I mean, I can hold your hand through this... if you'd like. Or, you could actually do something quite radical - you could investigate it yourself. You could research the basis for understanding the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (from the earth's surface into the atmosphere) aligned with the wavelength bands that atmospheric CO₂ (and methane) absorb energy at (i.e., the greenhouse effect). You could research the basis for understanding the increase in downward longwave radiation (from the atmosphere to the earth's surface) corresponding to an increase in temperature/atmospheric CO₂... and the spectral radiation data that shows this increase is due to, again, greenhouse gases (CO₂, methane, etc.); again, i.e., the greenhouse effect. You could do all that - or not, your choice.

perhaps... first... first, you could extend upon your earliest statement (before I replied) suggesting, "you're not convinced". What avenues have you explored that have failed to "convince you"? What would/will it take to "convince you"? What are you looking for... to convince you?

[kimmy]

It's hard to even comprehend that many people being evacuated. Lots of people will have relatives they can stay with, but I wonder what happens to others who don't have family nearby.

You guys can debate the climate change issue, but have you considered that maybe this flooding was actually caused by the government's weather control satellites? At Alex Jones Prison Planet, they think this is a NWO plot!

Meanwhile, back here on earth, I hope that everyone is ok and that everything possible is being done to help.

-k

[WWWTT]

no - I did address your question... giving you the benefit of your past displayed AGW/CC denier ways, I suggested you read up on the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle... I described the cycle imbalance given the inability of natural sinks to absorb the increase in anthropogenic sourced atmospheric CO₂. I mean, I can hold your hand through this... if you'd like. Or, you could actually do something quite radical - you could investigate it yourself. You could research the basis for understanding the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (from the earth's surface into the atmosphere) aligned with the wavelength bands that atmospheric CO₂ (and methane) absorb energy at (i.e., the greenhouse effect). You could research the basis for understanding the increase in downward longwave radiation (from the atmosphere to the earth's surface) corresponding to an increase in temperature/atmospheric CO₂... and the spectral radiation data that shows this increase is due to, again, greenhouse gases (CO₂, methane, etc.); again, i.e., the greenhouse effect. You could do all that - or not, your choice.

perhaps... first... first, you could extend upon your earliest statement (before I replied) suggesting, "you're not convinced". What avenues have you explored that have failed to "convince you"? What would/will it take to "convince you"? What are you looking for... to convince you?

Looks like you still do not accept the fact that in North America (and around the world), many marshes and wetlands have been drained.

Many forests have been eliminated,reducing the lands ability to safely absorb increases in precipitation.

Returning much land and rivers to their natural wild state is what will protect us from disasters of this nature.

You may be right waldo,but I seriously doubt that will have an immediate impact in resolving the risk of flooding in the future.

WWWTT

[Topaz]

The pictures are so unbelievable and its a good thing Alberta makes lots of money from its oil because this looks its going to cost billions, if not trillions of dollars to fix and take months. I wonder if there's anything they can do to stop this from happen again?