Alberta floods

sharkman · June 25, 2013

Maybe there isn't enough collective memory from 2005. Those with flooding experience know the drill and exactly what to do. After water recedes, turn off utility supplies, don protective clothing/mask, de-water, remove for disposal all contents and damaged floor/ wall coverings down to studs, squeegee mud and water, Shop-vac, power air circulation for drying, then have a beer (or two). Buy new stuff. No government required.

True, although I think they're getting the hang of it. I pity Vancouver/Richmond should they have some kind of natural disaster. There would be serious gnashing of teeth and lawsuits directed at weathermen and all levels of government while the various gangs loot each other's grow ops.

BubberMiley · June 25, 2013

True, although I think they're getting the hang of it. I pity Vancouver/Richmond should they have some kind of natural disaster. There would be serious gnashing of teeth and lawsuits directed at weathermen and all levels of government while the various gangs loot each other's grow ops.

Are your posts ever based on reality and not stereotypes and speculation? BTW, I still haven't found those posts you referred to in your last post.

waldo · June 25, 2013

I am honestly gettting dumber just listenting to you. How do you find the way out of your parent's house in the morning? I know you don't know how to do math or read but now your memory is failing too? Oh boy. Let's try this one more time and I will dumb it down waldo-size to make this as easy as possible.

... which tells anyone with a brain that its NORMAL.

You really don't have a clue do you? I honestly feel sorry for you as you take so much pride in coming to this site since its the only real interaction you have with people. However, you clearly don't know how to interact. Your condescending, smug remarks makes it impossible to converse with you. But...that's not something I need to worry about. Afer all you have to deal with yourself all the time. I can pick and choose when I want to humilate you.

You started your attack by saying:

you were not attacked. I most certainly haven't written anything that comes even remotely close to your vitriolic expression - the above quote, a case example of your out-of-control self. We've seen you degrade to this level now several times in various MLW threads.

waldo · June 25, 2013

All this Bragg Creek conversation aside....

your bellicose nattering notwithstanding, in your latest convoluted post, you went to extremes to attempt to avoid/negate the fundamental fact that, with your focus on the city of Calgary, you chose an unrepresentative flow-rate on the Elbow River from a small Alberta hamlet (Bragg Creek), 46km upstream from Calgary. No matter how hard you bluster, based entirely on the actual flow-rate measurements taken during this flood, your chosen location flow-rate is more than a full third greater than that of the 2 choices within Calgary proper... the two choices you opted to avoid/ignore. You doubled down on your most improper choice by using it for your comparison purposes against a historical flow-rate number from a completely different river, the Bow River. You called these fails... "nuances"!

.

you can't derail the original point that this 2013 flood was at best marginally worse than the 1932 flood

I asked you twice previously; I'll ask again:

- is your measure of the severity of a flood simply one of "flow-rate"? Clearly, with preliminary damage cost estimates coming forward @$5 billion, with huge never before seen infrastructure destruction, with direct impacts to hundreds of thousands of persons and hundreds of businesses, surely severity can't be measured by your narrow-skewed focus on flow-rate alone.

- I also pointedly asked you if there were any watershed/management practice changes in place today... intended to improve on those affecting circumstances that impacted on distant past Alberta floods.

- I also asked if you'd care to offer your insights on the attribution of those earliest worst floods... and what you presume caused/contributed to this latest one.

clearly, you want nothing to do with these questions.

there's certainly been no thread derail attempt from me. Given your latest self-destruction post, one can only wonder to what depths you'll prowl in attempting to further denigrate a most legitimate source and his statements... statements honestly applied within this thread. It's clear your earlier slime job on Mayor Nenshi was simply an early testament of just how far you're prepared to go, and that you'll say just about anything as you attempt to save face.

waldo · June 25, 2013

Are you serious? Jet stream, Arctic....I'm waiting for you to start blaming the oil sands for this too. Perhaps it was all those windmills in Southern Alberta. YES!!!! That's is where we should be looking! Damn those green energy devices of death!

Why not, thats what brought this water and also what brought a heat wave the likes not seen to Alaska. http://www.wral.com/94-in-alaska-weather-extremes-tied-to-jet-stream/12589361/

And the same jet stream did this in 1932 when the last 100 year flood happend. Was global warming happening then? Was the Artic suffering then? What was the CO2 levels back then?

don't be afraid of science No Accountability Now! :lol: Science is your friend. Try a read of the following; a dose of reality may help snap you out of your funk:

the southwest Alberta floods are caused by, as described, "the confluence of a massive high pressure system, held in place by a loop in the jet stream, slamming up against the mountains". That same unusually placed jet stream has been responsible for the recent record Alaska high temperatures over the last couple of weeks. The jet stream!

again, see anthropogenic sources... see global warming... see accelerated Arctic ice melting... see Arctic Amplification... see changing/shifting jet-stream... see an expectation of "more extreme weather events, such as heavy snowfall, heat waves, and flooding in North America and Europe, varying in location, intensity and timescales".

.....Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes

.

Topaz · June 26, 2013

I feel sorry for the people who had homes on the rivers banks, that went into the river or the houses on the edge and unlivable. I know the banks said they will delay mortgage payments but some people will have a mortgage and no home to go to. I heard one person say the water was up to his house and out in the street were fish and they also said parasites were in the water. It's no wonder that there are many with emotional and mental health issues, which was reported on the news.

Accountability Now · June 26, 2013

you chose an unrepresentative flow-rate on the Elbow River from a small Alberta hamlet (Bragg Creek), 46km upstream from Calgary.

It is very clear to me that you accept the fact that you are wrong and are being so daft about attempting to derail this thread. I can use Bragg Creek, I can use Sarcee, Glenmore, or ANY POINT in between and their peak discharge will vary around 5%. A little lesson on science here waldingo...its objective. You can't pick and choose the points you like and don't like just to serve your purpose. I gave you the hard, cold numbers on this DIRECTLY from Environment Canada and you are still denying it? You are messed up.....seriously. You expect people to listen and accept the graphs, charts and obscure data that you present however something as simple as this evades you?

No matter how hard you bluster, based entirely on the actual flow-rate measurements taken during this flood, your chosen location flow-rate is more than a full third greater than that of the 2 choices within Calgary proper... the two choices you opted to avoid/ignore.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong and wrong again. Do you want me to say it one more time? Wrong. I used a projection which was given by Alberta Environment. I clearly said it was a projection and the actual numbers would be lower. When the actual numbers came in we saw that the numbers were lower...just like I said. Of course...you conveniently forget the fact that I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE my chosen point to be lower. This proves that the flood is not as abnormal as your fear mongering makes it. How many times do you need to derail the thread to avoid facing the fact that you are complely uneducated on this one?

You doubled down on your most improper choice by using it for your comparison purposes against a historical flow-rate number from a completely different river, the Bow River. You called these fails... "nuances"!

Now you are just spewing crap. I used the historical FACTS from the Alberta (http://alberta.ca/estimated-peak-river-flows.cfm). On this page it clearly shows the historical peak flows FOR EACH RIVER which I used. You want it again? Sure...why not.....

Bow - 1520 (1932) versus 1680 (2013). Actual numbers...same river...same point. Wait.....????? YOU said 2013 was DOUBLE the worst flood ever? LOL. Come on...get it together already.

Elbow - 338 (2005) versus 692 (2013). Acutal numbers....same river....same point. Wait.....??? YOU said 2013 was FOUR TIMES the 2005 flood. I could also compare the 692 in 2013 to the 836 in 1932 showing it doesn't even surpass that event...but you don't have the mental capabilities to understand it.

clearly, you want nothing to do with these questions.

Again...I have answered you three times on this....Why on earth would I enter into a discussion about PART B of the conversation when it is abundantly clear that you can't comprehend PART A?

Admit that this flood is marginally worse (and NOT DOUBLE) than the worst flood in history and I will gladly answer your self guided questions.

Accountability Now · June 26, 2013

don't be afraid of science No Accountability Now! Science is your friend. Try a read of the following; a dose of reality may help snap you out of your funk:

Don't be afraid of Science. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You won't even accept hard, concrete numbers about river discharge or about comparing past floods and you want to lecture on science be a friend? Doesn't surprise me that you don't know what a friend is. Again...you can not pick and choose when you want to use science and when you don't it just doesn't work that way.

What is your science background anyway? I mean seriously....they teach you in grade school abut correlation. How can you NOT see that flood is marginally worse than the worst flood in RECORDED history. Yes...key word being recorded. Prior to 1900s they weren't exactly monitoring this stuff. Yet...you want to take this marginal and NORMAL flood and now extrapolate the cause to global warming.

When this flood massively increases in size then we can talk global warming. When the frequency of these massive floods increases then we can talk global warming. Until then....its just plain ol' boring nature causing it. The stats prove it....so you have to suck it up and deal with it and stop being such an alarmist.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Accountability Now

Accountability Now · June 26, 2013

Ah....here we go...

Periodic major floods are one of the ways nature fertilizes and replenishes the topsoil on the Prairies.

Rich silt is lifted from the mountains by spring runoff and dumped by rivers as they flow eastward. When the spring rains and spring snowcap-melt in the Rockies occur at the same time, it floods.

According to a study done at the University of Calgary following Alberta's last major flood year in 2005, there were eight springs in the 20th century with weather and snowpack conditions resembling last week's. In six of those years - 1902, 1915, 1923, 1929, 1932 and 2005 - major flooding occurred.

Indeed, one of the reasons last week's flooding in downtown Calgary was so remarkable is that it was the first time since the flood of '32 that the core sustained major flooding. And back in 1932, there was far less development there - far, far less. That's why last week's looked much worse.

Nor was this year's deluge worse than those early 20th-century floods just because several dams have been built since.

If we have dams and are still getting floods, then today's floods must really be terrible. As a report for Alberta Transportation pointed out following the 2005 flood, dams along most Alberta rivers are largely useless at containing flood waters.

In 1932, the flow of the flooding Bow River through downtown Calgary was 1,520 m3/sec. Last Friday, it reached 1,642 m3/sec.

However, the worst flood on the Elbow at Calgary occurred in 1879. Then, the usually tiny river roared at 980 m3/sec. Last weekend, it reached only 616.

At the Carseland weir 40 km downstream from Calgary, the flow last weekend didn't even reach the level of the fairly tame flood of 2005.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/06/20130626-070852.html

Let me guess. The Sun news is right wing and has a Consevative, right wing view on flooding?

sharkman · June 26, 2013

Are your posts ever based on reality and not stereotypes and speculation? BTW, I still haven't found those posts you referred to in your last post.

You Winnipeggers are all the same, griping about the government while probably scarfing plenty of Doritos and Reese's Peanut Butter Cups(though that may be speculation on my part)!

Edited June 26, 2013 by sharkman

BubberMiley · June 26, 2013

You Winnipeggers are all the same, griping about the government while probably scarfing plenty of Doritos and Reese's Peanut Butter Cups(though that may be speculation on my part)!

Are you capable of a post with any substance whatsoever? But let me say again I think both the civic and provincial governments in Alberta are doing an excellent job. Hopefully the federal government doesn't stall with its assistance as it did here in Manitoba, and hopefully all three get together and devise a plan to reduce future damage from similiar flooding, as they did here in Manitoba.

Shady · June 26, 2013

You Winnipeggers are all the same, griping about the government while probably scarfing plenty of Doritos and Reese's Peanut Butter Cups(though that may be speculation on my part)!

You'd figure some of the welfare equalization money could pay for some of their flooding issues.

BubberMiley · June 26, 2013

You'd figure some of the welfare equalization money could pay for some of their flooding issues.

It has! WInnipeg is a model for the world for flood control. The city has seen increasingly frequent flooding, including the great flood of 1997, but the floodway has paid for itself many times over in terms of reducing damage and guaranteeing a stable place to do business. It's a great example of how government can do wonderful things.

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

guyser · June 26, 2013

True, although I think they're getting the hang of it. I pity Vancouver/Richmond should they have some kind of natural disaster. There would be serious gnashing of teeth and lawsuits directed at weathermen and all levels of government while the various gangs loot each other's grow ops.

Says the guy from Abbotsford.....

Abbotsford metropolitan area as defined by Census Canada (which includes Mission) had the highest property crime rate and the second highest violent crime rate for cities with a population of 100,000 to 500,000 in Canada

Chances are things would be worse in A'ford. Fancy that huh?

waldo · June 26, 2013

I can use Bragg Creek, I can use Sarcee, Glenmore, or ANY POINT in between and their peak discharge will vary around 5%. A little lesson on science here waldingo...its objective.

You can't pick and choose the points you like and don't like just to serve your purpose. I gave you the hard, cold numbers on this DIRECTLY from Environment Canada and you are still denying it? You are messed up.....seriously. You expect people to listen and accept the graphs, charts and obscure data that you present however something as simple as this evades you?

your unrepresentative peak flow number: Elbow River @ the hamlet of Bragg Creek (46km upstream from Calgary) => 959 m3s

peak flow number within Calgary city proper: Elbow River @ Sarcee Bridge => 628 m3s

if you think you can manage it... try to squeeze out your declared 5% variance from these 2 actual numbers being used/referenced to this point. :lol: (of course, I also gave you the option of selecting from the other available measuring point within the city proper @ Elbow River below Glenmore... I said it was your choice/call. You didn't bite. It was actually lower than @ Sarcee, so..... it's not going to help you with your 5% squeezing).

as I said below: (note: I've increased the font, color, size to reinforce your "confusion")

your bellicose nattering notwithstanding, in your latest convoluted post, you went to extremes to attempt to avoid/negate the fundamental fact that, with your focus on the city of Calgary, you chose an unrepresentative flow-rate on the Elbow River from a small Alberta hamlet (Bragg Creek), 46km upstream from Calgary. No matter how hard you bluster, based entirely on the actual flow-rate measurements taken during this flood, your chosen location flow-rate is more than a full third greater than that of the 2 choices within Calgary proper... the two choices you opted to avoid/ignore. You doubled down on your most improper choice by using it for your comparison purposes against a historical flow-rate number from a completely different river, the Bow River. You called these fails... "nuances"!

.

waldo · June 26, 2013

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong and wrong again. Do you want me to say it one more time? Wrong. I used a projection which was given by Alberta Environment. I clearly said it was a projection and the actual numbers would be lower. When the actual numbers came in we saw that the numbers were lower...just like I said. Of course...you conveniently forget the fact that I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE my chosen point to be lower. This proves that the flood is not as abnormal as your fear mongering makes it. How many times do you need to derail the thread to avoid facing the fact that you are complely uneducated on this one?

nice! Your provided link still shows the same number you foolishly put forward. Aside from the fact this is the number you clearly want to run away from... the actual numbers you say... came in... where are they; where can they be found? You keep nattering the same thing... I keep repeating the same reply you obviously can't grasp and choose to ignore: "You doubled down on your most improper choice by using it for your own "doubling comparison" purposes against a historical flow-rate number from a completely different river, the Bow River." The 2005 rate for the Bow River was the reference... not only did you choose to compare that to the Elbow River... you used your unrepresentative non-Calgary city number (from the hamlet of Bragg Creek). Don't you remember... you declared these two big-time fails as nothing more than "nuances"! :lol:

Accountability Now · June 26, 2013

your unrepresentative peak flow number: Elbow River @ the hamlet of Bragg Creek (46km upstream from Calgary) => 959 m3s

peak flow number within Calgary city proper: Elbow River @ Sarcee Bridge => 628 m3s

if you think you can manage it... try to squeeze out your declared 5% variance from these 2 actual numbers being used/referenced to this point. (of course, I also gave you the option of selecting from the other available measuring point within the city proper @ Elbow River below Glenmore... I said it was your choice/call. You didn't bite. It was actually lower than @ Sarcee, so..... it's not going to help you with your 5% squeezing).

as I said below: (note: I've increased the font, color, size to reinforce your "confusion")

Hey....if you're going to quote what I said...then actually do it. Look below at my real quote an I too know how to increase font, color and size....however I don't think it will help your confusion as you are beyond help.

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.

I used a projected number to show you that you ridiculous claims were WAY off. The actual numbers are 5%.

Chew on that.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Accountability Now

Accountability Now · June 26, 2013

nice! Your provided link still shows the same number you foolishly put forward. Aside from the fact this is the number you clearly want to run away from... the actual numbers you say... came in... where are they; where can they be found? You keep nattering the same thing... I keep repeating the same reply you obviously can't grasp and choose to ignore: "You doubled down on your most improper choice by using it for your own "doubling comparison" purposes against a historical flow-rate number from a completely different river, the Bow River." The 2005 rate for the Bow River was the reference... not only did you choose to compare that to the Elbow River... you used your unrepresentative non-Calgary city number (from the hamlet of Bragg Creek). Don't you remember... you declared these two big-time fails as nothing more than "nuances"!

Yep...still wrong waldingo. Keep trying. Your original claim just sucks...plain and simple.

waldo · June 26, 2013

Why on earth would I enter into a discussion about PART B of the conversation when it is abundantly clear that you can't comprehend PART A?

like I said, you won't go near these questions! Clearly, you total myopic focus on flow-rate doesn't speak to severity... most particularly comparative severity back 80 years+ when the population, infrastructure, watershed, management practices, etc., were radically different.

I asked you twice previously; I'll ask again:

- is your measure of the severity of a flood simply one of "flow-rate"? Clearly, with preliminary damage cost estimates coming forward @$5 billion, with huge never before seen infrastructure destruction, with direct impacts to hundreds of thousands of persons and hundreds of businesses, surely severity can't be measured by your narrow-skewed focus on flow-rate alone.

- I also pointedly asked you if there were any watershed/management practice changes in place today... intended to improve on those affecting circumstances that impacted on distant past Alberta floods.

- I also asked if you'd care to offer your insights on the attribution of those earliest worst floods... and what you presume caused/contributed to this latest one.

clearly, you want nothing to do with these questions.

.

waldo · June 26, 2013

I used a projected number to show you that you ridiculous claims were WAY off. The actual numbers are 5%.

Chew on that.

show the actual numbers... from this flood... the flow rates on the 20th of June where the peak occurred.

Accountability Now · June 26, 2013

nice! Your provided link still shows the same number you foolishly put forward. Aside from the fact this is the number you clearly want to run away from... the actual numbers you say... came in... where are they; where can they be found? You keep nattering the same thing... I keep repeating the same reply you obviously can't grasp and choose to ignore: "You doubled down on your most improper choice by using it for your own "doubling comparison" purposes against a historical flow-rate number from a completely different river, the Bow River." The 2005 rate for the Bow River was the reference... not only did you choose to compare that to the Elbow River... you used your unrepresentative non-Calgary city number (from the hamlet of Bragg Creek). Don't you remember... you declared these two big-time fails as nothing more than "nuances"!

Bow - 1520 (1932) versus 1680 (2013). Actual numbers...same river...same point. Wait.....????? YOU said 2013 was DOUBLE the worst flood ever? LOL. Come on...get it together already.

Elbow - 338 (2005) versus 692 (2013). Acutal numbers....same river....same point. Wait.....??? YOU said 2013 was FOUR TIMES the 2005 flood. I could also compare the 692 in 2013 to the 836 in 1932 showing it doesn't even surpass that event...but you don't have the mental capabilities to understand it.

Ok...last time. Now pay attention. SAME RIVERS, SAME LOCATIONS for both comparison.

waldo · June 26, 2013

Yep...still wrong waldingo. Keep trying. Your original claim just sucks...plain and simple.

no - not wrong at all... it's exactly what you did. You used your stupidly chosen unrepresentative non-Calgary city number (from the Elbow River) and you referenced it (for doubling comparison purposes) against the reference... which was the 2005 number from the Bow River. You used the wrong location and you doubled down on it by comparing it to another river's reference. Again, your two declared "nuances"! :lol:

Accountability Now · June 26, 2013

like I said, you won't go near these questions! Clearly, you total myopic focus on flow-rate doesn't speak to severity... most particularly comparative severity back 80 years+ when the population, infrastructure, watershed, management practices, etc., were radically different.

Still won't answer my question hey.....yawn...this is getting boring.

waldo · June 26, 2013

Ok...last time. Now pay attention. SAME RIVERS, SAME LOCATIONS for both comparison.

that's not your original post... you know, the one that presumed to draw comparisons to 'a doubling'... when the original reference was, again, the 2005 flow rate for the Bow River. Try to keep up, hey!!! :lol:

Accountability Now · June 26, 2013

that's not your original post... you know, the one that presumed to draw comparisons to 'a doubling'... when the original reference was, again, the 2005 flow rate for the Bow River. Try to keep up, hey!!!

quote my original post and show me.