Alberta floods

[Accountability Now]

There's no need for you to make things up.

Kind of like you making up outlandish claims about the severity of this flood?

[waldo]

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.

please calm down and quit attacking me personally. Apparently, you still don't understand. What were your separate relationships compared to? Yes, that's right - the Bow River reference, the 2005 flow rate for the Bow River. You've again confirmed just what you did, now for the second time in repeated posts. You compared the Elbow River to the Bow River reference. You compared one river to the next... you compared across/between rivers.

again, "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]

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.

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

"hypothecating"??? Try another word, that one won't work for you. As just one scientific example, I gave you direct scientific evidence showing a correlation between increased extreme weather events and Arctic amplification - you ignored it. I gave you the World Meteorological Organization statement advising of a correlation between the increased frequency of extreme weather events and continued warming/climate change - you ignored it. I provided an industry tie by linking to the insurer Munich Re's position/data on the correlated/increased trend between extreme events and climate change - you ignored it.

I also find it most self-serving of you to attempt to compare floods 80 years apart to determine comparative severity... particularly when your only described metric is river flow-rate. There are 3 questions I put to you that speak directly to challenging this most myopic view of yours. Of course, you ignored them.

[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.

Make things up?

I remember when I first heard of global warming back in the 90's,only hot weather was attributed/attached.

But the associated list of weather events attributed to global warming has grown.

As our knowledge increases,naturally so does our understanding,but the list of symptom extreme weather has grown to the point where anything can be pulled into the climate change debate.

WWWTT

[waldo]

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.

anything different happen in the period between... anything of consequence? You know, one of the questions you keep ignoring/avoiding in terms of watershed/management practices. Ever heard of the initial builds and/or upgrades to the Horseshoe Dam, the Kananaskis Plant Dam, the Lake Minnewanka Reservoir, Ghost Dam, Spray Lakes/River reservoir, Bearspaw Dam, Cascade River Dam, Glenmore Dam, Glenmore Reservoir, etc.,

given all the changes that have transpired in the period between, do you realistically hold to a legitimate comparison between the flow-rates of respective rivers, 80+ years apart? Really? Are you sure?

[waldo]

Make things up?

I remember when I first heard of global warming back in the 90's,only hot weather was attributed/attached.

But the associated list of weather events attributed to global warming has grown.

As our knowledge increases,naturally so does our understanding,but the list of symptom extreme weather has grown to the point where anything can be pulled into the climate change debate.

WWWTT

the 'make things up' reference was to what you stated... which had no bearing or relationship on/to the WMO statement.

you're missing the distinction here between direct attribution and statements that speak to an increased correlation/trend between the frequency of extreme events and climate change.

[bush_cheney2004]

you're missing the distinction here between direct attribution and statements that speak to an increased correlation/trend between the frequency of extreme events and climate change.

Correlation is not causation...to believe thus is a logical fallacy. Carry on.....

[gunrutz]

O look, no trend, and when you count the absolute fact that far more storms are caught with sattelite now than before the space age, those that never make landfall, you could argue that there are fewer that there were 70 years ago. This clearly supports global warming theory, because you know, every weather event does. I read recently that during grover clevelands presidency 9 times the number of hurricanes made landfall than those that have done so during Obamas presidency, so again, this clearly supports agw as does any weather anywhere that the agw theologists say does.

Edited June 28, 2013 by gunrutz

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I read recently that during grover clevelands presidency 9 times the number of hurricanes made landfall than those that have done so during Obamas presidency, so again, this clearly supports agw as does any weather anywhere that the agw theologists say does.

Good point, and clear proof that Grover Cleveland caused more hurricanes than Barack Obama.

[Topaz]

There's something going on with the weather and one only has to watch the weather channel or the news. Even though what happen to Alberta is really bad, its nothing compared to what is happening in India. The very heavy rains are causes the rivers to over flow and causes many many building , beside homes into the rivers, which are three times as large. They also have huge mud slides. In Europe they had the same thing and we could probably disaster like this on every continent.

[waldo]

O look, no trend, and when you count the absolute fact that far more storms are caught with sattelite now than before the space age, those that never make landfall, you could argue that there are fewer that there were 70 years ago. This clearly supports global warming theory, because you know, every weather event does.

it is always heartening to the waldo that prior schooling has paid off:

Remember all those extreme Hurricanes we are going to have?

no - you are confusing (purposely?) frequency with intensity. Continued uncertainty exists as to whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency; however, there most certainly is increasing evidence that global warming is increasing hurricane intensity. In past MLW threads, I've detailed several studies that speak to the increased intensity of hurricanes relative to increased global warming... if you persist, I will dig them up and cite even more current like studies. Or, you can just stew over this IPCC AR4 summary position statement that says, "Tropical storm and hurricane frequencies vary considerably from year to year, but evidence suggests substantial increases in intensity and duration since the 1970s"... of course, that evidence is given in detail, fully cited, within the respective/related IPCC reports.

one of the most recent studies confirming an increasing trend in more severe/intense Atlantic hurricanes (Cat4-5 versus Cat1-2 hurricane categories)... adding to a considerable weight of other studies completed in recent years:

=> March 2013 - Journal: Climate Dynamics - Recent intense hurricane response to global climate change (Greg Holland, Cindy L. Bruyère - U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, NESL/NCAR): data focus is on the more robust/detailed period of satellite coverage from 1975 on.

.

I read recently that during grover clevelands presidency 9 times the number of hurricanes made landfall than those that have done so during Obamas presidency, so again, this clearly supports agw as does any weather anywhere that the agw theologists say does.

an active Atlantic hurricane season does not necessarily translate into a U.S. landfall for respective hurricanes. There are an assortment of factors at play, including the most fundamental aspect that those forming to the east and north have a greater propensity to 'recurve' into the ocean. Of course, you went to NOAA for your misdirected initial reference... you should have stuck with it in regards your landfall talking point: Warmer Ocean Could Reduce Number of Atlantic Hurricane Landfalls

Using data extending back to the middle nineteenth century, we found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up. This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, which could result in fewer U.S. landfalling hurricanes.

.

[waldo]

Correlation is not causation...to believe thus is a logical fallacy. Carry on.....

correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Carry on.....

[WWWTT]

There's something going on with the weather and one only has to watch the weather channel or the news. Even though what happen to Alberta is really bad, its nothing compared to what is happening in India. The very heavy rains are causes the rivers to over flow and causes many many building , beside homes into the rivers, which are three times as large. They also have huge mud slides. In Europe they had the same thing and we could probably disaster like this on every continent.

You may be right.

I feel that the weather/climate has not been analytically observed on a global scale long enough to come to any conclusion that something is wrong,let alone what the cause is!

WWWTT

[Accountability Now]

please calm down and quit attacking me personally. Apparently, you still don't understand. What were your separate relationships compared to? Yes, that's right - the Bow River reference, the 2005 flow rate for the Bow River. You've again confirmed just what you did, now for the second time in repeated posts. You compared the Elbow River to the Bow River reference. You compared one river to the next... you compared across/between rivers.

again, "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?".

I would love to spend more time explaining this to you and educating you on this subject however I don't speak jibberish (which appears to be your native tongue. It could be drunkenese too. Not sure). Its funny thought because I thought mathematics was a universal language but you don't speak that either. Tough life hey?

Edited June 28, 2013 by Accountability Now

[Accountability Now]

"hypothecating"??? Try another word, that one won't work for you.

Guess its too big for you. It means to hypothesize. Look it up http://www.yourdictionary.com/hypothecating

"hypothecating"??? Try another word, that one won't work for you. As just one scientific example, I gave you direct scientific evidence showing a correlation between increased extreme weather events and Arctic amplification - you ignored it. I gave you the World Meteorological Organization statement advising of a correlation between the increased frequency of extreme weather events and continued warming/climate change - you ignored it. I provided an industry tie by linking to the insurer Munich Re's position/data on the correlated/increased trend between extreme events and climate change - you ignored it.

I also find it most self-serving of you to attempt to compare floods 80 years apart to determine comparative severity... particularly when your only described metric is river flow-rate. There are 3 questions I put to you that speak directly to challenging this most myopic view of yours. Of course, you ignored them.

Again....you highlight ALL THE WRONG WORDS. Here...I'll help you again. All of your so called studies reference extreme weather events and their increased frequency. This flood was the first of its kind in 81 years. It was MARGINALLY worse that that one. Trying to tie this example to those studies is as practical as walking around with your tin foil hat.

Of course I ingored these suggestions just like I ingore the nammering of children talking about their imaginary friends.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Accountability Now

[Accountability Now]

anything different happen in the period between... anything of consequence? You know, one of the questions you keep ignoring/avoiding in terms of watershed/management practices. Ever heard of the initial builds and/or upgrades to the Horseshoe Dam, the Kananaskis Plant Dam, the Lake Minnewanka Reservoir, Ghost Dam, Spray Lakes/River reservoir, Bearspaw Dam, Cascade River Dam, Glenmore Dam, Glenmore Reservoir, etc.,

given all the changes that have transpired in the period between, do you realistically hold to a legitimate comparison between the flow-rates of respective rivers, 80+ years apart? Really? Are you sure?

You are making this way too easy. I guess you didn't hear about the the Alberta Transportation report after 2005?

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.

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

[WWWTT]

Sorry to take you guys away from the circular climate debate,but here is another take!

Harper's wife,among others,appears to be trying to score points on others misery!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/prime-minister-wife-calgary-working-hard-hardly-working-191404377.html

I see this all the time in Brampton with mayor Susan Fennel ( the queen of photo ops!)

I find it disgusting and it says a lot of those who do it!!!

WWWTT

[waldo]

I would love to spend more time explaining this to you and educating you on this subject however I don't speak jibberish (which appears to be your native tongue. It could be drunkenese too. Not sure). Its funny thought because I thought mathematics was a universal language but you don't speak that either. Tough life hey?

I accept your unconditional surrender. Try harder next time, hey?

[waldo]

Again....you highlight ALL THE WRONG WORDS. Here...I'll help you again. All of your so called studies reference extreme weather events and their increased frequency. This flood was the first of its kind in 81 years. It was MARGINALLY worse that that one. Trying to tie this example to those studies is as practical as walking around with your tin foil hat.

Of course I ingored these suggestions just like I ingore the nammering of children talking about their imaginary friends.

what you're quoting was generalized to extreme events, at large. Some events have an increase in frequency only, some intensity only, some both frequency and intensity... depends on the respective event. You continue with your myopic view that flow-rate is the only measure of severity. I've asked you many times to speak to differences within the basin headwaters and related management practices - you run away from this. I rattled off a list of dams/reservoirs built during the interim period - you ignored it.

you're as incapable of reading and replying to questions/challenges as you're unable to post without resorting to your juvenile name calling.

[waldo]

You are making this way too easy.

try again - when I see Lorne Gunter coupled with Sun News, I won't waste a second looking at your trash reference.

[scribblet]

Sorry to take you guys away from the circular climate debate,but here is another take!

Harper's wife,among others,appears to be trying to score points on others misery!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/prime-minister-wife-calgary-working-hard-hardly-working-191404377.html

I see this all the time in Brampton with mayor Susan Fennel ( the queen of photo ops!)

I find it disgusting and it says a lot of those who do it!!!

WWWTT

Surely you are not serious, she's helping people, if she didn't no doubt you wouldn't like that.

[Accountability Now]

unconditional surrender.

Yes...I will accept your unconditional surrender. You should have done this at the start and saved a bunch of time

[waldo]

an expert weighs in!!!

Well no, this is a once in a century event, and there was no one talking about man-made climate change in 1892 when we saw the last flood of this nature. We haven't had a warm spring here, we had some rain for three days and a heavy run off that lead to this situation.

[waldo]

management by disaster... in the absence of disaster, assume disaster will not occur! Is there a problem!

Calgary floods spotlight cities' costly failure to plan for climate change --- Municipalities not ready for rising number of severe weather events

"There are other disasters waiting to happen in other parts of Canada, but Calgary is a good poster child for inaction on warnings they received not too long ago," said James P. Bruce, former Environment Canada assistant deputy minister.

But a community's ability to react during a disaster is one thing. Minimizing the impact of a flood is another. Now, the province faces a potentially decade-long cleanup effort that could cost $5 billion by BMO Nesbitt Burns estimates.

Disaster risk management experts say the Alberta situation should serve as a wake-up call to municipalities across the country of the need to spend money and time mitigating the risks before disaster strikes, especially as climate change is predicted to bring bigger and more frequent severe weather events.

[WWWTT]

Surely you are not serious, she's helping people, if she didn't no doubt you wouldn't like that.

Where her photographers helping to for the 10 minute sand bag chain she was in?

Give me a break,I see this all the time!

She was there with a crew to document her helping.

WWWTT

Edited June 29, 2013 by WWWTT