Alberta floods

waldo · June 26, 2013

yawn...this is getting boring.

then I suggest you liven things up a bit... you know, go into another of your meltdowns! After your recent one in this thread, I was curious to reflect back on the worst of your worst... I found the post where I re-quoted a dozen or so of your gems. You actually have a ways to go in this thread to catch up to that one. What are you waiting for? :lol:

Accountability Now · June 26, 2013

then I suggest you liven things up a bit... you know, go into another of your meltdowns! After your recent one in this thread, I was curious to reflect back on the worst of your worst... I found the post where I re-quoted a dozen or so of your gems. You actually have a ways to go in this thread to catch up to that one. What are you waiting for?

I thought you worked that out with your therapist. Damn it. You're still hurting aren't you?

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.

Ok..gotta run. Family time. Make sure you don't work too hard on looking for this original quote. I would love to see it though. Perhaps it may explain why you're so off track here.

waldo · June 26, 2013

quote my original post and show me.

it's there, and you know it. It's also followed up by a post that clearly lays out the assumptions made for your provided references table 'top 10 (worst)' list (the one that didn't identify the respective rivers associated with each entry)... the assumptions identifying the 2005 reference in the table as one associated with the Bow River (@ 791 m³s.) That was the reference for doubling. So, of course, in your own doubling effort, you drew a doubling comparison back to the reference - the Bow River (@ 791 m³s.)

... where's the "actual numbers for Bragg Creek" you just spouted off about?

Edited June 26, 2013 by waldo

waldo · June 26, 2013

Don't be afraid of Science. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

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.

clearly, you're challenged. You can deny the accelerated Arctic ice melting, you can deny Arctic amplification, you can deny global warming, you can deny climate change... you can deny it all! You can absolutely refuse to even consider a possible climate change contributory impact on the 2013 southwest Alberta flood.

But again, you shouldn't be afraid of science - science is your friend!

sharkman · June 26, 2013

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?

Certainly Abbotsford has a high crime rate, but I'm not sure what the relationship between criminal activity and response to a natural disaster is. On the other hand Abbotsford has a high percentage of rural population and those raised in a rural setting. That hardworking ethic may help out in such situations.

Edited June 27, 2013 by sharkman

Accountability Now · June 27, 2013

it's there, and you know it. It's also followed up by a post that clearly lays out the assumptions made for your provided references table 'top 10 (worst)' list (the one that didn't identify the respective rivers associated with each entry)... the assumptions identifying the 2005 reference in the table as one associated with the Bow River (@ 791 m³s.) That was the reference for doubling. So, of course, in your own doubling effort, you drew a doubling comparison back to the reference - the Bow River (@ 791 m³s.)

... where's the "actual numbers for Bragg Creek" you just spouted off about?

Come on big shot. SHOW ME!!!! Back it up!!! This is a written forum where everything we've said is recorded and can be quoted for future reference. Just like how I quoted you on your tragic departure from MLW. Or is the truth that I was right? The truth will set you free!!!!

Accountability Now · June 27, 2013

clearly, you're challenged. You can deny the accelerated Arctic ice melting, you can deny Arctic amplification, you can deny global warming, you can deny climate change... you can deny it all! You can absolutely refuse to even consider a possible climate change contributory impact on the 2013 southwest Alberta flood.

But again, you shouldn't be afraid of science - science is your friend!

I don't deny the Arctic, global warming or climate change...but I absolutely deny their correlation to this event.

See this is the problem with you left wing nut jobs...you want people to take you serious but you keep crying wolf on everything and anything. So when you claim global warming causes a completely normal flood...well it makes me question ALL of your beliefs! Keep crying wolf and no one is going to care!!

By the way...it looks like even science doesn't want to be friends with you!

Edited June 27, 2013 by Accountability Now

waldo · June 27, 2013

Come on big shot. SHOW ME!!!! Back it up!!! This is a written forum where everything we've said is recorded and can be quoted for future reference. Just like how I quoted you on your tragic departure from MLW. Or is the truth that I was right? The truth will set you free!!!!

please, control yourself and stop attacking me. It's the very first post you replied to me with... where you threw down a reference to your 'top 10 (worst)' table list... and were subsequently most adamant that your referenced paper, your list, was with respect to the Bow River. The flow-rate from your list's 2005 entry became the reference - again, Bow River. You really need to keep your own provided references in mind - yes? You proceeded to offer an Elbow River comparison to that Bow River reference. Again, you compared across/between rivers.

waldo · June 27, 2013

I don't deny the Arctic, global warming or climate change...but I absolutely deny their correlation to this event.

based on what? You're not even open to the possibility of a climate change contribution - based on what? You were directly provided a study and related video speaking to the results of the accelerated Arctic ice melting impacts (i.e., Arctic amplification). Those results, particularly the jet-stream shifting, correlate with a circumstance of the 2013 southwest Alberta flood. Another MLW member provided you a linked article that spoke to exactly that point. In this regard, what do you base your declared, "absolutely deny" on?

Michael Hardner · June 27, 2013

Isn't there supposed to be a general reluctance to tie specific events to Climate Change since the focus is on too short a timescale ? We heard the difference between weather and climate in debates in the past.

bush_cheney2004 · June 27, 2013

Isn't there supposed to be a general reluctance to tie specific events to Climate Change since the focus is on too short a timescale ? We heard the difference between weather and climate in debates in the past.

Not anymore.....the climate change faithful now wish to press any dramatic weather event into service as an example of the certain doom to come for political points and support (sorely needed after taking a beating in the media) .

The_Squid · June 27, 2013

Isn't there supposed to be a general reluctance to tie specific events to Climate Change since the focus is on too short a timescale ? We heard the difference between weather and climate in debates in the past.

I agree. I think climatologists look at trends. These types of extreme weather events are more likely and will occur more fequently due to climate change; rather than saying this particular flood is due to climate change. Edited June 27, 2013 by The_Squid

waldo · June 27, 2013

Isn't there supposed to be a general reluctance to tie specific events to Climate Change since the focus is on too short a timescale ? We heard the difference between weather and climate in debates in the past.

more a cautionary assessment view balanced against definitive evidence. That definitive evidence is coming forward as more scientists have engaged to study the attribution of extreme events. As I quoted early on in the thread, from the World Meteorological Organization's (March 2013 release) of its annual Statement on the Status of the Global Climate: WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 2012

... continued warming leading to climatic changes generating increased extreme weather-related events, including "major heatwaves and extreme high temperatures, major drought and wildfires, extreme precipitation and floods, snow and extreme cold, and tropical cyclones."

The continued upward trend in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and the consequent increase in radiative forcing of the Earth’s atmosphere confirm that the warming will continue.
.

.

Natural climate variability has always resulted in such extremes, but the physical characteristics of extreme weather and climate events are being increasingly shaped by climate change.

GostHacked · June 27, 2013

Climate change causing changes in ... climate?

I really don't think there is a debate on climate change. We all agree that it is changing, we just simply disagree on what is driving the change.

Accountability Now · June 27, 2013

please, control yourself and stop attacking me. It's the very first post you replied to me with... where you threw down a reference to your 'top 10 (worst)' table list... and were subsequently most adamant that your referenced paper, your list, was with respect to the Bow River. The flow-rate from your list's 2005 entry became the reference - again, Bow River. You really need to keep your own provided references in mind - yes? You proceeded to offer an Elbow River comparison to that Bow River reference. Again, you compared across/between rivers.

Attacking you? Asking you to back up your outlandish claims with a quote is attacking? If that is attacking, then I will continue to attack you as you have stated that I am wrong and you are not willing and moreso NOT ABLE to back it up.

So...the very first post I replied. Well....that would be post 91. And don't worry about going back to look for it as I pasted it here for you to see the error in your ways.

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.

Let's see...the top 10 list I provided was from the Bow River at Calgary. Still don't believe me? Check out the data from Envrionment Canada which backs up every number for every year.

http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/applications/H2O/report-eng.cfm?station=05BH004&report=peak&data=flow&year=2011&yearb=&yeare=

Going back to your original claim.....you said that this flood was double 1932 and four times worse than 2005. So as per above, I looked at 2013 first showing the relationship for the Bow and Elbow separately.

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!!

The proof for 1932 was all I really needed to sqaush your lame statement however I thought to myself...why not squash his entire statement. So I went back to the Bow for 2005.

It was double the flowrate on the Bow from 2005...oh wait....that is comparing a 100 year storm versus a 14 year storm.

Now by this time I assumed you didn't need me to quote the 2013 flowrates for the Bow again. I really trusted you could look two sentences above and see the 1700. I also trusted that you would be referencing the top 10 list yourself which showed the peak flow on the Bow in Calgary was 791 cms which of course still remains closer to DOUBLE.....exactly like I said but yet you still dispute.

Later on I also showed you numbers for the Elbow from your beloved Sarcee location were 692cms versus 338cms back in 2005. Again....not four times but only double.

I never should have trusted that you had the mental capabilities to keep up to this seminar that I was giving you. I will keep your limited capabilites in mind the next time you throw out alarmist, outlandish statements.

WWWTT · June 27, 2013

... continued warming leading to climatic changes generating increased extreme weather-related events, including "major heatwaves and extreme high temperatures, major drought and wildfires, extreme precipitation and floods, snow and extreme cold, and tropical cyclones."

Wow,is there anything that global warming hasn't caused???

So pretty much any severe weather can be used to justify "global warming"!

I give it a couple years and "nice mild weather" will be on that list.

WWWTT

Accountability Now · June 27, 2013

based on what? You're not even open to the possibility of a climate change contribution - based on what? You were directly provided a study and related video speaking to the results of the accelerated Arctic ice melting impacts (i.e., Arctic amplification). Those results, particularly the jet-stream shifting, correlate with a circumstance of the 2013 southwest Alberta flood. Another MLW member provided you a linked article that spoke to exactly that point. In this regard, what do you base your declared, "absolutely deny" on?

You are hypothecating where as I am correlating. Which one makes more sense? Your hypothesis will not be a scientific fact until it can be backed up with statistical proof. At this point the statisctical proof shows that this flood is within the realm of past floods meaning there is no additional force adding to it. Further meaning that your hypothesis DOES NOT APPLY to this scenario.

At this point I could have just as much luck with a hypothesis saying the mountain goats are eating away all the vegetation thus causing increased flooding. OR....global cooling is happening causing the ground to freeze longer thus not letting percolation into the soil thus causing the flooding. These too would just be ideas but not facts.

Science is based on facts so if you want it to be your friend...then get used to dealing with facts.

Accountability Now · June 27, 2013

Isn't there supposed to be a general reluctance to tie specific events to Climate Change since the focus is on too short a timescale ? We heard the difference between weather and climate in debates in the past.

I could at least see the claim when we have a single event that is much more powerful than anything we see in history. Or if we get more frequency of major storms. But this Calgary flood was marginally worse than the worst ever flood on the Bow and not even as bad as the worst flood on the Elbow. More so, we have seen a higher frequency of major floods in the first half of the 1900s than we have in the second half or in the 2000s.

No increased intensity or frequency!

Accountability Now · June 27, 2013

Wow,is there anything that global warming hasn't caused???

So pretty much any severe weather can be used to justify "global warming"!

I give it a couple years and "nice mild weather" will be on that list.

WWWTT

Honestly...it makes their cause lose face when they claim stuff like this. How many times do they need to cry wolf?

Boges · June 27, 2013

People always use Superstorm Sandy as evidence of Climate Change.

In the 50's a Hurricane Hazel devastated Toronto. If a similar event happened today people would blame it on Climate Change.

People thought Hurricane Katrina was a harbinger of things to come as far as Hurricanes in the Gulf Coast. We have yet to see an increase in comparable Hurricanes in Gulf of Mexico 8 years later.

What about the Quebec Ice storms in 1998? I've heard people say that event would have been a simple blizzard if not for climate change. Do we have similar catastrophic winter storms to compare to that freak event 15 years later?

Edited June 27, 2013 by Boges

waldo · June 27, 2013

Going back to your original claim.....you said that this flood was double 1932 and four times worse than 2005. So as per above, I looked at 2013 first showing the relationship for the Bow and Elbow separately.

and there we have it! You went a long, long, long way to finally admit just what you actually did. You acknowledge your referenced 'top 10 (worst)' table list associated to the Bow River. I've never disputed it - I simply stated your reference never explicitly tagged the table as such... and that I assumed it was the Bow River and proceeded to use it (year 2005) as the reference. I noted the assumptions in so doing.

as you clearly admit, you compared the Elbow to that reference, to the Bow reference... you compared one river to the next... you compared across/between rivers. Good on ya, for finally acknowledging just what you did. You could have done this pages and pages back and saved this thread from such an inconvenient derail. Perhaps a lesson for next time, hey?

waldo · June 27, 2013

Wow,is there anything that global warming hasn't caused???

So pretty much any severe weather can be used to justify "global warming"!

I give it a couple years and "nice mild weather" will be on that list.

WWWTT

what you're stating isn't in that quote. There is no "justification" attachment to the quote. That World Meteorological Organization quote simply speaks to an increased frequency of extreme events associated with continued warming/climate change. There's no need for you to make things up.

Accountability Now · June 27, 2013

People always use Superstorm Sandy as evidence of Climate Change.

In the 50's a Hurricane Hazel devastated Toronto. If a similar event happened today people would blame it on Climate Change.

People thought Hurricane Katrina was a harbinger of things to come as far as Hurricanes in the Gulf Coast. We have yet to see an increase in comparable Hurricanes in Gulf of Mexico 8 years later.

What about the Quebec Ice storms in 1998? I've heard people say that even would have been a simple blizzard if not for climate change. Do we have similar catastrophic winter storms to compare to that freak event 15 years later?

You're exactly right Boges. The hurricanes are great examples as people are often misguided as what classifies the 'worst'. Some people use amount of damage/cost the hurricane caused, others use amount of deaths. However if we basing this on climate change and scientifc numbers then we should be using it based on highest wind speed at landfall.

Looking at your Katrina example, it ranks first for cost (when looking at 2010 dollars. The 1926 (SE Florida) hurricane still beats it when adjusted for inflation, poputlation and housing.

Katrina ranks 3rd for the deadliest hurricanes again behind 1900 Galveston and 1928 Okeechobee. Having said this, the majority of deaths were caused by the levee breaking and the resulting floods....not from the brute force of the hurricane.

However, it doesn't even appear in the top five for highest windspeed.

Accountability Now · June 27, 2013

and there we have it! You went a long, long, long way to finally admit just what you actually did. You acknowledge your referenced 'top 10 (worst)' table list associated to the Bow River. I've never disputed it - I simply stated your reference never explicitly tagged the table as such... and that I assumed it was the Bow River and proceeded to use it (year 2005) as the reference. I noted the assumptions in so doing.

as you clearly admit, you compared the Elbow to that reference, to the Bow reference... you compared one river to the next... you compared across/between rivers. Good on ya, for finally acknowledging just what you did. You could have done this pages and pages back and saved this thread from such an inconvenient derail. Perhaps a lesson for next time, hey?

You are drunk aren't you? Or just clearly that daft to not understand. You forgot to hightlight the most important word....SEPARATELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I looked at the Bow and the Elbow SEPARATELY!!!!!!! The table of worst ever was referenced to the Bow and by your own recent admission, you apparently knew that....which is not true. I then compared the Elbow using the Alberta Environent table which was also cited in that same posting.

I'm truly sorry that you can't keep up. Honestly. I will try my best to waldosize these conversations in the future.