Flooding in Great Britain, climate change and sea level rise

[mac]

Not surprised. Solutions require understanding. Blame does not.

[mac]

The changes in flood management in Great Britain over the last few decades are staggering, and perhaps warrant understanding and analysis. In 1989, when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minster, the National Rivers Authority (NRA) was created to manage flood control, among other functions, as part of her interest in privatization of utility services. But further changes were afoot, perhaps indicating that privatization was less than a complete success. In 1995 legislation, the Environmental Agency was created to replace the NRA assume flood control responsibilities. But the floods of 2007 led to the Pitt Report, which recommended further changes based on the lessons of those floods, and the result was the Flood and Water Management Act of 2010. In implementing that Act, the Environmental Agency developed a list of 1500 different projects, and a budget of 2.3 billion pounds. It is not clear to me how many of those projects have been implemented, how they might have affected the potential for flooding from the recent storms, or how the budget has changed over time.

Construction activities, either new construction or maintenance, whether done by governmental employees or contractors, require an approved budget. It seems pretty clear that the politicians in the UK have been dissatisfied with the governance of flood control, for whatever reasons, since 1988. It seems equally clear that reforms have not been successful, and perhaps have not even been consistent. It would not surprise me to see another effort like the Pitt study to look at flooding issues, and further changes. Perhaps debate over climate change will make those discussions rancorous. But before we reject the possibility of climate change having affected the recent flooding, perhaps we should look at this:

[GURGLETROUSERS]

I object to the opening of that presentation, which smacks of bias.

'The exceptional (a change from unprecedented, at least) rainfall that wreaked havoc ........CAN be linked to man made global warming.'

Simply substitute any of the great recorded events of the past, the extreme storm sequence of the 1700's or,in our times, the extreme storm tidal surge of 1953 which breeched Hollands dikes, and demolished many old Victorian properties along the S,coast -I stood and watched such happen as a young teen- and the same statement could stand.

Also, that great event of 1953 was what actually kick-started the bout of rebuilding many of our sea defences (a wake up call that extreme events occur) especially along the S. coast. It had nothing to do with politics!

Nobody in their right mind disputes the possibility that our actions MAY contribute to global warming, but such events cannot as yet be claimed as proof, no matter how many scientists claim otherwise.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

As quoted in today's Independent Newspaper.

'The Met Office said that a strong El Nino could be influencing our weather by increasing the probability of a "positive phase" of the North Atlantic Occilation, which is associated with milder and wetter than average conditions over our part of Western Europe.'

Hardly a ringing endorsement of that claim that ....

'the exceptional rainfall....CAN be linked to man made global warming.'

Perhaps the Met Office has been stung by past accusations that they had been a little less objective in their whole hearted approach to 'pushing' the man made global warming agenda. I've certainly noticed a 'cooling' of that approach, or a more guarded set of public statements, these last couple of years.

[mrgybe]

[mac]

This much is nearly true:

[nw30]

One thing is for sure, we only have 24 days left to fix this!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

24 days to Al Gore’s ’10 years to save the planet’ and ‘point of no return’ planetary emergency deadline

Anthony Watts / 2 hours ago January 2, 2016

From the “say your prayers, we’re gonna roast” department.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/02/24-days-to-al-gores-10-years-to-save-the-planet-and-point-of-no-return-planetary-emergency-deadline/

[mrgybe]

Here is a link to the World Weather Attribution's coordinator, Climate Central. If anyone can point to language in the description of WWA, which indicates that they do not regard global warming as a fact, please point to it. Those who struggle with sentence construction may still have difficulty. The "possible influence" referred to the linkages, not to the existence of global warming.
http://www.climatecentral.org/wwa

[isobars]

[mac]

Facts:

-The earth has warmed about 1.5 degree over the last 100 years.
-2/3 of the warming has occurred since 1975
-warming in the arctic is occurring twice as fast as in the rest of the world
-land-based ice in Greenland is melting faster than predicted by most climate change models
-heat has accumulated in the ocean at the rate of 17 times 10 to the 22 power of joules over the last 30 years
-ocean heat is the energy that drives much of the weather on the globe

Most scientists accept not merely that the globe is heating--they do pay attention to facts--, but that much of the heat is due to human activities. The only serious debate in the literature is how much of the heating may be natural, and what the economic impacts of carbon dioxide controls might be.

Delusion--the ability to ignore facts that would disturb one's belief system.

Still waiting for a single peer-review study, much less a theory as to how the heat stored in the ocean is not affecting storm activity.