Water, Water Everywhere...

[mick b]

Latest news is the the jetstream is moving out of our way....keep your fingers crossed that the snows affecting the US don't replace the rain....

 

[barbelboi]

Latest news is the the jetstream is moving out of our way....keep your fingers crossed that the snows affecting the US don't replace the rain....

That's not possible Mick, anything from that direction will warm over the Atlantic and fall as rain (as now) - we get our snow from the North and East.

PS Watched Tight Lines earlier with Clayton and Lindsay chatting about the floods on the LIF.................

 

[Dave Smith]

True-ish Davie. But when 98% of expert scientific opinion agrees on something, the other 2% are wrong, 99.999 times out of 100. The IPCC IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a carbon/oil fuel funded group of scientists in loud denial but it's a tiny amount. There IS a consensus

If were you I would look in to the so called 98% and see what actually these 98% where, I think you'll find it was a survey in 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU)
This the a break down of how the 98% of expert opinion from a link


survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.


Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”

So you see the 98% figure isn't really 98% of climate scientists in the world just a tiny amount as you put it !I could post up some comments from climate scientists and show what they think of Michael Manns famous Hockey Stick..not very flattering is all i'll say!!

Yes you are right these climate scientists are and have been funded by oil company etc and yet every time a sceptic comes along and destroys a piece of (cough) science(Climate Audit is good at this) they have come out with, shout of big oil is funding climate sceptic get shouted!!! how strange?

---------- Post added at 13:33 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------

That's not possible Mick, anything from that direction will warm over the Atlantic and fall as rain (as now) - we get our snow from the North and East.

PS Watched Tight Lines earlier with Clayton and Lindsay chatting about the floods on the LIF.................

Where do you think the air that has brought snow to wales and Scotland has come from?
model runs from a couple of days ago where show the -5 and -10 isotherm coming across the Atlantic, the air has been so cold in North America/Canada this is what fueling our storms.

 

[barbelboi]

If were you I would look in to the so called 98% and see what actually these 98% where, I think you'll find it was a survey in 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU)
This the a break down of how the 98% of expert opinion from a link


survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.


Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”

So you see the 98% figure isn't really 98% of climate scientists in the world just a tiny amount as you put it !I could post up some comments from climate scientists and show what they think of Michael Manns famous Hockey Stick..not very flattering is all i'll say!!

Yes you are right these climate scientists are and have been funded by oil company etc and yet every time a sceptic comes along and destroys a piece of (cough) science(Climate Audit is good at this) they have come out with, shout of big oil is funding climate sceptic get shouted!!! how strange?

---------- Post added at 13:33 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------



Where do you think the air that has brought snow to wales and Scotland has come from?
model runs from a couple of days ago where show the -5 and -10 isotherm coming across the Atlantic, the air has been so cold in North America/Canada this is what fueling our storms.

Once again you need to do a bit of research....................

Will the UK get America's Big Freeze and snow? - ITV News

 

[cg74]

Don't knock the Environment Agency.

The Environment Agency are only a Statutory advisor to the Local Councils.
The EA don't make planning decisions, they are just a consultee.

Its up to the Local Council if they take the advice the EA provides or ignore it.
The Local Councils have the final say on what is built in their area.

The EA do provide a Flood Risk Map to Local Councils and a Flood Risk Assessment should be submitted with a planning application.
The EA recommend the use of their Sequential Test to planning applications in flood zones, however this is only a recommendation not a statutory regulation.

If a Local Council gives planning consent nobody has right of appeal.
If a Local Council rejects an application only the Developer has right of appeal.
If a Local Council turns down an application it can go to a Public Inquiry where the Planning Inspector listens to presentations from objectors and makes the final decision.

It should be remembered that EA has lost a lot of staff over the past six years which this has had a serious impact on what they can or cannot do.
They now don't have the capacity to look at all planning applications and have to be more selective in the work they undertake.
In many cases the EA are relying on standard advice to local Councils rather than responding to each individual application.

The EA have also been instructed by Government to 'seek a positive solutions-focused approach' meaning they must look for solutions rather than raise objections (irrespective of the reason).

The bottom line is that the EA is a Government body, and if the Government instructs them to do something (or do nothing at all) they must obey or suffer drastic restructuring!

.

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at this post!

"Its up to the Local Council if they take the advice the EA provides or ignore it."
From experience here lies the crux of the problem; The bloody EA do and say f*** all, I'm currently in the process of pursuing a couple complaints with the EA regarding their complete and utter incompetence at dealing with Planning Applications.
Throughout the complaints procedure the EA have shown nothing but ineptitude, with a baffling level contradictions , mistruths and facts that are factually incorrect. Also, strangely enough nigh on every correspondence has been dealt by a different person.

All the agency seems hell bent on is denying everything.

As for dredging well its always has served the Levels and since the stopping of dredging by the EA in the early 90's!! well here we are farms and house's flooded out ,now I am not saying even with dredging flooding wouldn't occurred it would just not to the degree it has! dredging is not a yearly occurrence, once done it should not be done for many years to come (depending on surrounding land use) and rivers do recover if dredging was/is so destructive how come we yearn to have fishing like our fathers and grandfather days...when dredging was a common sight??. question is what come first businesses, home, farms or wetland habitat, bird sanctuary's

All dredging would've achieved is to flood areas downstream of the current affected region. You see, there are a multitude of factors responsible for the magnitude of this flood.

When the flooding first started it coincided with huge tides and a tidal surge created by high winds. So is it better to flood a town the size of Bridgwater in an attempt to save a few farms and a couple hundred house?
When in all likelihood they'd of flooded anyway?

Just take a look at the names of two villages that keep appearing on the news; Muchelney (The Increasingly Great Island) and Moorland, hmmm tells me something - Do you need me to explain........?

 

[Dave Smith]

Once again you need to do a bit of research....................

Will the UK get America's Big Freeze and snow? - ITV News

No don't think so bud! never said we get their frezzing weather:wh I said where do you think the air came from that gave Scotland Wales their snow! it came from north American continent!:wh read next time :j
And linking a news outlet is hardly research is itmg:..well maybe for you!

---------- Post added at 14:55 ---------- Previous post was at 14:37 ----------

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at this post!

"Its up to the Local Council if they take the advice the EA provides or ignore it."
From experience here lies the crux of the problem; The bloody EA do and say f*** all, I'm currently in the process of pursuing a couple complaints with the EA regarding their complete and utter incompetence at dealing with Planning Applications.
Throughout the complaints procedure the EA have shown nothing but ineptitude, with a baffling level contradictions , mistruths and facts that are factually incorrect. Also, strangely enough nigh on every correspondence has been dealt by a different person.

All the agency seems hell bent on is denying everything.



All dredging would've achieved is to flood areas downstream of the current affected region. You see, there are a multitude of factors responsible for the magnitude of this flood.

When the flooding first started it coincided with huge tides and a tidal surge created by high winds. So is it better to flood a town the size of Bridgwater in an attempt to save a few farms and a couple hundred house?
When in all likelihood they'd of flooded anyway?

Just take a look at the names of two villages that keep appearing on the news; Muchelney (The Increasingly Great Island) and Moorland, hmmm tells me something - Do you need me to explain........?

Please do, you seem to know so much!

 

[cg74]

Please do, you seem to know so much!

They is both, errrm, wet places!! :wh

 

[Dave Smith]

I bow to your superior knowledge

 

[barbelboi]

davieboy - that was just one outlet from many to keep it simple - nothing personal but your responses so far from various threads are somewhat............................. (I'll leave you to it)

 

[cg74]

.................... (I'll leave you to it)

Nooooooo, don't, he'll only go and ask me to fill in the blanks!

 

[mick b]

Quote: Originally Posted by barbelboi
.................... (I'll leave you to it)

Nooooooo, don't, he'll only go and ask me to fill in the blanks!

Comeon Davieboy, you gotta laugh at that one....

 

[Dave Smith]

Oooh yeah splitting my sides
if you have some thing to say,say it don't fanny around

 

[tiinker]

They just had a woman on the BBC news moaning about to little to late she lives on Ham Island in the middle of the river Thames. What the hell do these people expect should not be living there in the first place as far as I am concerned.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I went for a drive up the valley from Durrington to Upavon yesterday looking for a pub' that was open and had hot food.

Most of the pubs were either closed or had 3 or 4 inches of water in their car parks, so the Ship at Upavon was full to bursting point as it was actually open.

The problem in the valley now is that not only is the river full and over the banks in many places but the springs have burst due to saturation and are flooding areas well away from the river.

We ended up in Wilton at the Pembroke Arms having spent 90 minutes driving in weird conditions. Still the lunch was very good . . . . .

 

[The bad one]

Oh to live in the rainy NW of England eh!
Checked river site for the Ribble Sat Evening after a Txt from a mate asking was I fishing. 3.1 m and peaked in the headwaters at 9 00pm. That’s 3/5th of the channel up. May be was my reply. Checked a couple of weather sites to see the rain forecast, which gave a dry 24 hour period. Second txt defo going river should by 3 00pm Sunday, only have .75m on and dropping.

On arrival my prediction was correct at .75m, by the close of fishing 8 30 pm and 4 chub to the good, the river had dropped by another .4m and just about perfect, as it will be today for anyone who goes on it.

It might rain a lot in the NW all the time but our rivers know how to cope with the flood waters and get rid of it without flooding peoples homes too often.

You’re the very Bad One from a dry and rarely flooded NW of England