Cameron government rejected flood risk warnings from climate advisers

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:03 pm

First topic message reminder :

Committee on Climate Change had warned in October that the government must take action to protect homes from risk of flooding

The UK government was warned by its official climate change advisers in October that it needed to take action on the increasing number of homes at high risk of flooding but rejected the advice.

The decision not to develop a strategy to address increase flooding risk came just a few weeks before Storm Desmond brought about severe flooding in Cumbria, Lancashire and other parts of the north west causing an estimated £500m of damage.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) also told the Guardian that, despite David Cameron’s promise to do so, the government had failed to learn lessons from the widespread flooding in the winter of 2013-14. Those floods led to emergency financial bailouts to flood defence funds which had previously been cut under the coalition government.
The revelation came as George Osborne announced a £50m repair and renew scheme for Cumbria and Lancashire in the wake of the floods, promising that businesses and homeowners will quickly receive the help that they need.

Osborne said the scheme would be administered by local authorities, acknowledging that a centrally administered fund following the floods in 2014 had been slow to get funds to families in need.

The region had to deal with more heavy rain on Wednesday, causing more disruption, although flooding on the scale of last weekend is not expected. Cumbria police said that more than a thousand homes are still without power.

In June, the CCC’s statutory report on the UK’s progress on climate change highlighted dealing with floods from extreme weather as the government’s most serious failing in preparing for the impacts of global warming. It stated: “Plans and policies, or progress in addressing vulnerabilities, are lacking”.

The CCC said “residual” flood risk – the flooding resulting from extreme weather events that cannot be prevented by normal flood defences – was increasing. On Monday, environment secretary Liz Truss said the Storm Desmond floods had resulted from “extreme weather conditions” and “unprecedented amount of rainfall.”

The CCC recommended that the government should “develop a strategy to address the increasing number of homes in areas of high flood risk”. But in October the government replied: “We believe that a strategy to address future residual risk would not be appropriate at this time.”

“The CCC made a very clear recommendation in its statutory advice, but the government rejected it,” said Daniel Johns, the CCC’s head of adaptation.

“The government approach is to build and protect, but this only provides a certain level of protection,” Johns told the Guardian. “Defences can’t be considered to remove the risk of flooding entirely.”

He said that even in the best case scenario, with full flood defence funding, no building on flood plains and moderate climate change, the number of people in the high risk category for flooding will still increase by 45,000 by 2050 as global warming causes more extreme weather.

“But the government has no strategy to address this residual risk,” Johns said. Such a strategy would focus on reducing the impact of extreme floods by, for example, increasing protection on properties themselves and managing river catchments so rain runs off hills more slowly.

Johns also said the government had failed to learn lessons from the 2013-14 floods. “After 2013-14, the wettest year in instrumental records, it is notable that there was no systematic review of lessons learned in the same way as there was after 2007”, when severe flooding lead to the extensive Pitt Review.

In February 2014, prime minister Cameron visited the submerged Somerset Levels and said: “There are always lessons to be learned and I will make sure they are learned.”

“David Cameron promised a full review of the future capability of UK’s flood defences back in 2014, but has never delivered on this,” said Guy Shrubsole, at Friends of the Earth.

“With the government’s inadequate climate change preparations leaving thousands more homes at high flood risk by 2050, ministers clearly need to do far more,” Shrubsole said. “The prime minister must get tough on flooding and tough on the causes of flooding – and that means tackling carbon emissions as well as investing more in flood defences.”
A government spokeswoman said: “This government has been clear on its commitment to climate change action and we are pushing for an ambitious global deal in Paris as well as driving innovation to build a low-carbon economy. We are also investing £2.3bn over the next six years to better protect 300,000 homes. The Environment Agency’s figures take account of climate change and show that this investment will reduce flood risk.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/09/cameron-government-rejected-flood-risk-warnings-from-climate-advisers

This article was after the first floods at the beginning of December, now we are on the 3rd floods and they are at unprecedented levels all over the country, the situation for many is truly awful. Cameron pontificates on tv that more troops will be sent. Too little, too bloody late and questions are going to asked of why he ignored what he was told and did nothing. The fire service are trying to help, but have been cut back, as have other emergency services. Truly he is a waste of space and a liability.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:20 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

I am not wrong at all Victor and some land no matter how many prevent measures you put in place will still flood as the ground can only soak up so much water .I really think people do not even begin to comprehend how so many areas are at risk.

I KNOW you havnt the foggiest....

yes , some places will flood....as the ground becomes saturated....THEN you need to manage the water...If rivers streams dykes and ditches are in good heart and properly maintained this can to a large extent be achieved

if the rivers in cumbria had been a foot or two deeper and a couple of foot wider they likely would have coped...yes the water then goes downstream...so those ares need to be cleared...untill you get to a FLOOD PLAIN

where the water can be left to "do its thing."

then the river below the flood plain needs to be maintained...all the way to the sea,,,

I have seen the Severn flood plains in use...that is ...flooded.....all part of the natural cycle.

and again wrong didge the areas which CAN flood are well known......where any particular flood will occur is decided by the weather..... but sooner or later all "flood prone" areas will cop it

Actually that shows you have no understanding at all of the ground water levels that place many areas at risk.
Again the ground can only hold so much water Victor

Telling me I am wrong does not disprove my points

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:22 pm

saw the bloody south off at watford gap and leave it to sink....at 3cm a year.....

I think "power house of the north"...

i think you will find he meant cash grab of the north

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:22 pm

sassy wrote:I think what Didge is saying is he doesn't give a fuck about these people and is perfectly prepared to (I was going to say hang them out to dry but not applicable) hang them out to drown.

And when the left know they have no valid reasoned points, they resort to the most immature and pathetic tactic ever when losing a debate, make falsified claims, claiming now I do not give a fuck about people after debating today and reasoning becuase I most definately give a fuck about the many suffering under the perseution of ISIS

When all else fails for the lefty, they resort to slander

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:24 pm

And when all else fails with a Right DickHead, they pretend they know what they are talking about, defend the indefensible and let people go to hell as long as they are ok.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:27 pm

sassy wrote:And when all else fails with a Right DickHead, they pretend they know what they are talking about, defend the indefensible and let people go to hell as long as they are ok.

I rest my case, not only did sassy look very stupid for the last claim when I have argied today to help against any injustice if there is something we can do. She does not retract her appalling accusatiion on me, but instead tries to even worse just spout more childish and hateful gibberish

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:27 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
sassy wrote:

Compared to how much money was lost by not putting in place the flood prevention measures that should have been taken for Somerset, the actual cost of the measures that they had to take to stop the flooding was no where near as much.

Dredging the Parret and Tone, repairing roads that had sunk to below field level, making permanent flood defences and pumping stations that were temporary, helping the Somerset Rivers Authority set up an intermanagement board, repairing and cleaning drains and making sure new drains met the highest standards were some of the things done. If they had been done before the area flooded, as local people had requested, a huge cleaning up bill would have been avoided.

What on eartha dn of what revelance are you barking on about bnow you mad woman
Again so many areas need defenses.
Where is moeny going to best spend.
Labour have already stated they woulod have kept in line with the tory cuts.
Again we are talking about risks to floods and if that takes precedent.
Hence again to political score off such events is thge most slimiest double faced weael reasoning a poster can use

And that, Dick, was a case where flooding occured where it need not have occured, cost a fortune to clear up, and then they had to spend the money anyway. And of course it's relevant, it's showing how to deal with flood problems, and showing that it costs less to deal with them than it does to clear up after them and get people back on their feet. DOH!

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:29 pm

sassy wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

What on eartha dn of what revelance are you barking on about bnow you mad woman
Again so many areas need defenses.
Where is moeny going to best spend.
Labour have already stated they woulod have kept in line with the tory cuts.
Again we are talking about risks to floods and if that takes precedent.
Hence again to political score off such events is thge most slimiest double faced weael reasoning a poster can use

And that, Dick, was a case where flooding occured where it need not have occured, cost a fortune to clear up, and then they had to spend the money anyway. And of course it's relevant, it's showing how to deal with flood problems, and showing that it costs less to deal with them than it does to clear up after them and get people back on their feet. DOH!

Again point so far over Sassy;s head its not computed yet.
Any government has money to spend, its about whether no matter who was in power would and if every aread would be invested in and protected. You though fail to understand that and a great many things. Your hatefull emotions drive your reason, which is why they are flawed

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:31 pm

You are talking tosh. Now it has happened Cameron is promising any money that is required. Too late, if he had used the money before, he wouldn't be spending so much now.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:33 pm

You can claim to tell me you think I am wrong all night sassy and just furthers my point you cannot address my points.

Anyway, as much as it has been fun, have things to do

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:34 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

I KNOW you havnt the foggiest....

yes , some places will flood....as the ground becomes saturated....THEN you need to manage the water...If rivers streams dykes and ditches are in good heart and properly maintained this can to a large extent be achieved

if the rivers in cumbria had been a foot or two deeper and a couple of foot wider they likely would have coped...yes the water then goes downstream...so those ares need to be cleared...untill you get to a FLOOD PLAIN

where the water can be left to "do its thing."

then the river below the flood plain needs to be maintained...all the way to the sea,,,

I have seen the Severn flood plains in use...that is ...flooded.....all part of the natural cycle.

and again wrong didge the areas which CAN flood are well known......where any particular flood will occur is decided by the weather..... but sooner or later all "flood prone" areas will cop it

Actually that shows you have no understanding at all of the ground water levels that place many areas at risk.
Again the ground can only hold so much water Victor

so why do you agree with me and yet use your agreement as an argument against what I said...?? huh??

try reading what I said again...

but to help you

"yes , some places will flood....as the ground becomes saturated....THEN you need to manage the water...If rivers streams dykes and ditches are in good heart and properly maintained this can to a large extent be achieved"

Telling me I am wrong does not disprove my points

you havnt GOT a point..

flooding CAN be managed not stopped note, but MANAGED so as to largely prevent risk to life and property

the cost of doing so is an order of magnitude LESS than the cost of repairing and replacing what is damaged

allowing grasping greedy developers to build in flood plains is a major part of some of the problems

we are now beginning to see regualr occurences of 1 in 100 year events....so they are no longer 1 in 100 year events....due to climate change
(for instance HAD this been a "typical winter" that rain thats falling on the north even now...would be falling as ....SNOW

ok that wouldnt be over great...like 12 feet of snow... (1 inch rain = 1 foot snow approx)

but ...when it melted it releases the water over several days/weeks even....rather than a few hours.....so the ground can soak it up and gradually run it away.

this is ONE big difference that fails to show up in dumbass graphs like tommy is so fond of.....

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:36 pm

Good Grief, he thinks he made points. Ah welll.

David Cameron pledges review of flood defence spending after chairing Cobra meeting

That's today. Basically he's got to review it because he knows he got it REALLY wrong.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:40 pm

Oh, and just in case those poor sods think it is all over:

Cameron government rejected flood risk warnings from climate advisers - Page 2 CXPGUSPWMAADYcP

Cameron government rejected flood risk warnings from climate advisers - Page 2 CXPGUSPWMAADYcP

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:41 pm

read the link I gave sassy....

thanks E.U .

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:43 pm

Will do but I'm trying to find it!

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:45 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Actually that shows you have no understanding at all of the ground water levels that place many areas at risk.
Again the ground can only hold so much water Victor

so why do you agree with me and yet use your agreement as an argument against what I said...?? huh??

try reading what I said again...

but to help you

"yes , some places will flood....as the ground becomes saturated....THEN you need to manage the water...If rivers streams dykes and ditches are in good heart and properly maintained this can to a large extent be achieved"

Telling me I am wrong does not disprove my points

you havnt GOT a point..

flooding CAN be managed not stopped note, but MANAGED so as to largely prevent risk to life and property

the cost of doing so is an order of magnitude LESS than the cost of repairing and replacing what is damaged

allowing grasping greedy developers to build in flood plains is a major part of some of the problems

we are now beginning to see regualr occurences of 1 in 100 year events....so they are no longer 1 in 100 year events....due to climate change
(for instance HAD this been a "typical winter" that rain thats falling on the north even now...would be falling as ....SNOW

ok that wouldnt be over great...like 12 feet of snow... (1 inch rain = 1 foot snow approx)

but ...when it melted it releases the water over several days/weeks even....rather than a few hours.....so the ground can soak it up and gradually run it away.

this is ONE big difference that fails to show up in dumbass graphs like tommy is so fond of.....

Which shows you fundementally do not graps the eventuality of the suituationas the floods continue to increase and more areas become at risk
Again there is many areas to cover and money is already being spent on defenses though again it is seen of lesser importance to other sectors.
So use your brain Victor, what areas else do you want to cut?
Not only that we are going to have to increase spending to even get close to tackling this ever growing problem
So going off what has been done wrong by as you call them greedy deveolpers does nothing to resolve anything but you feeling better getting that off your chest

Major floods are now expected every 30 years than where it was 50 years previously for the UK
That should give you some idea and scope of how problematic this is to even just attempt to contain.,

I suggest you do your homework on this, as its severley lacking.

Right noght nate, see you tomorrow

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:46 pm

LOL Vic, thought you meant on on this thread, you mean THAT link! That I have.

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:50 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:It would be interesting to see what flood defences have been recently installed/improved further up the rivers of places that have now suffered from flooding...?

Also... if any of these areas have ever flooded before... then can hardly be claimed to be something new...

cumbria was flooded 2 years back...and despite "promises" fook all done so???

Didn't answer the main question... but confirmed that flooding is not new...

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:53 pm

Just been published:

Failed flood defences cast doubt on UK readiness for new weather era

Army called in and thousands evacuated after homes and businesses are hit by ‘unprecedented’ water levels in northern England

Cameron government rejected flood risk warnings from climate advisers - Page 2 4896

Cameron government rejected flood risk warnings from climate advisers - Page 2 4896

Members of Cleveland Mountain Rescue and troops help with evacuations in York city centre. Photograph: Ian Forsyth

Britain’s ability to cope with the “unprecedented” flood crises that hit several urban centres simultaneously over the weekend has been called into question after the failure of key flood defences in the north led to thousands of homes being put at risk.
Three cities were hit by the severe weather, alongside scores of towns and villages, forcing the evacuation of thousands in what David Cameron described as an unprecedented situation. Three hundred troops were in the worst-hit areas on Sunday, with a further 200 soldiers on the way.
Amid warnings that climate change would lead to more frequent and severe flooding, the state of the large-scale defences was brought into sharp relief after pumping equipment in York was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of water.

Mute

Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 1:08
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%

Facebook [url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=David Cameron%3A northern England flooding %27incredibly serious situation%27 %E2%80%93 video&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgu.com%2Fp%2F4fchk%2Fstw] Twitter [/url] Pinterest
David Cameron: northern England flooding ‘incredibly serious situation’
In a move that apparently sacrificed some areas in order to prevent greater devastation elsewhere, officials decided at the weekend to raise the river Foss flood barrier in order to prevent it from becoming stuck.
Hundreds of homes were evacuated and entire streets were submerged in the city, as floods continued to bring chaos to thousands of homes and businesses elsewhere across the north of England.
While experts caution that it is too early to give precise figures for losses caused by Storm Desmond and Storm Eva, the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers said that an initial analysis showed that they could run as high as £1.3bn.
York’s barrier – which was built in 1987 following serious flooding in 1982 – also experienced problems in 2012 after four of its eight pumps failed due to overheating, resulting in flood warnings for hundreds of householders.
Facing questions about Britain’s readiness to cope with severe weather events after cuts to the government’s flood spending over the past five years, the environment secretary Liz Truss pledged that flood defences would be reviewed.
Flood defences had been overwhelmed, she said, as the army and emergency services were deployed to lead recovery efforts. In Leeds, main roads in the city centre remained under water. In Greater Manchester, 7,000 homes were still without power after rivers topped their banks.

In York, where 3,500 homes were at risk near the rivers Ouse and Foss, there were calls for the state of flood defences and funding to be reviewed. Among the worst affected was the area around Huntingdon Road, close to the city centre, where vehicles and homes were partially submerged.
Problems arose at the weekend at the Foss barrier and pumping station, which controls river levels by managing the interaction between the rivers Foss and Ouse. In a model that is commonplace around the country, pumps behind the barrier are supposed to pump the water clear.
The station became inundated with flood water after the volume exceeded the capacity of the pumps and flooded some of the electrics, according to an Environment Agency spokesperson, who said that a helicopter was due to airlift in parts to complete repairs on Monday.
“The barrier gate was opened to let the river Foss flow into the river Ouse to prevent very high water levels in the Foss from backing up and creating dangerous levels of flooding, which would have created a serious risk to the public,” the spokesperson added.
The chaos comes after the publication just before Christmas of the government’s flood spending levels over the past five years. They tumbled nearly 30% after 2010-11 and have only now picked up thanks to “exceptional” funding as a result of the 2013-14 floods. By 2014-15 capital investment on flood defences had fallen to £228m, supplemented by a further £125m.

Innes Thomson, a former flood chief at the Environment Agency who heads the Association of Drainage Authorities, whose job is to manage water levels and keep water flowing, called for more money to be spent on maintenance rather than on big new defence projects.

“If we were to spend more just maintaining and managing water levels it would be money well spent,” he said. “If we spent a slug of money now cleaning up rivers, it would help. All sorts of work needs to be done. We have £22bn of flood risk assets, but [we need to ask] have we got the right standard? Are they in good condition? Should we upgrade our pumps? Do we need to ensure all our embankments are sound? Are our watercourses clear of obstacles?

“I think we are talking about tens of millions of pounds. Now is an opportunity to reconsider where we spend our money.”
More than 200 flood alerts and warnings were in place for England, Wales and Scotland on Sunday afternoon, including more than 20 severe warnings, indicating danger to life. Among the most seriously affected areas were Pennine towns between Leeds and Manchester that saw rivers hit record levels – up to 5ft above their previous peak in some places.

In Sowerby Bridge, West Yorkshire, hundreds of homes and businesses were flooded, with residents piling sodden furniture, Christmas presents and other belongings in the street.
A few miles down the valley in Hebden Bridge, residents were coming to terms with their third devastating flood in the past four years.
Truss told the BBC: “Every single river [in Lancashire] was at a record high,” adding that in Yorkshire some rivers were a metre higher than ever before. “Clearly in the light of that we will be reviewing our flood defences.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/27/floods-army-called-continue-devastate-northern-england?CMP=share_btn_tw

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:55 pm

My earlier post of graph of rainfall shows current levels are well within normal range...

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:59 pm

Which that article proves leftoes have no comprehension fo levels of rainfall, their instensity over time periods and geograpy over what are land can effectivelly deal woth, before that limit is reached.
Even then with more spend on defences you are going to do very little from stopping futire flpods and how they are going to be devastanting.
Again it really shows how badly people do not even comprehend the difficulties ahead of dealing with this.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:59 pm

Is that so Tommy:

UK Annual Rainfall

Cameron government rejected flood risk warnings from climate advisers - Page 2 UK

by Guest Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:05 am

Annual rain?
How abot levels on localised rainfalls and their intensity over periods.
Then you might be able to start to understand why you lack understanding here sassy

by Tommy Monk Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:06 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Aren't local councils/water companies responsible for drains..?

Anyway...

Really sassy...!!!???

You post bullshit...

The above is the truth!!!

by Guest Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:07 am

Mine is the Met Office official records:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/actualmonthly

by Victorismyhero Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:08 am

and as i I pointed out tommy your graph is actually meaningless , given that in the past most of this wet stuff would have fallen as snow.....a different matter altogether...

I mean I dont know where you grew up...but didge is a townie...so i dont really expect any intelligent input on matters of the countryside from him.....

he asks what to cut in order to boost spending on flood prevention...well I say NOTHING NEEDS to be cut, after all we can suddenly afford billions to drop expensive munitions on syria

equally we were suddenl;y able to find billions to help the very refugees we helped create

so I'm sure that the few billion required to secure our flood prone areas can be found without too many tears.....

and didge clearly has difficulty in differentiating between prevention and MANAGEMENT

and yes didge .....flood plain development is a HUGE cause of problems...

by Victorismyhero Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:09 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Aren't local councils/water companies responsible for drains..?

Anyway...

Really sassy...!!!???

You post bullshit...

The above is the truth!!!

and utterly irrelevant......SNOW........

by Guest Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:10 am

Lord Foul wrote:and as i I pointed out tommy your graph is actually meaningless , given that in the past most of this wet stuff would have fallen as snow.....a different matter altogether...

I mean I dont know where you grew up...but didge is a townie...so i dont really expect any intelligent input on matters of the countryside from him.....

he asks what to cut in order to boost spending on flood prevention...well I say NOTHING NEEDS to be cut, after all we can suddenly afford billions to drop expensive munitions on syria

equally we were suddenl;y able to find billions to help the very refugees we helped create

so I'm sure that the few billion required to secure our flood prone areas can be found without too many tears.....

and didge clearly has difficulty in differentiating between prevention and MANAGEMENT

and yes didge .....flood plain development is a HUGE cause of problems...

Saw a chart a while ago showing how much water could not get into the ground because of concrete drives, patios and paths. Over the whole country it's a huge amount.

by Tommy Monk Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:12 am

Maybe so... but only showing a shorter period of time...

The longer term picture is shown in my post...

And shows that all is well within the long term previously seen happenings...

by Guest Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:12 am

We are really lucky here because of the water meadows. They cover a huge area and do what they are supposed to do, flood and take the water from the town.

by eddie Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:13 am

sassy wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:and as i I pointed out tommy your graph is actually meaningless , given that in the past most of this wet stuff would have fallen as snow.....a different matter altogether...

I mean I dont know where you grew up...but didge is a townie...so i dont really expect any intelligent input on matters of the countryside from him.....

he asks what to cut in order to boost spending on flood prevention...well I say NOTHING NEEDS to be cut, after all we can suddenly afford billions to drop expensive munitions on syria

equally we were suddenl;y able to find billions to help the very refugees we helped create

so I'm sure that the few billion required to secure our flood prone areas can be found without too many tears.....

and didge clearly has difficulty in differentiating between prevention and MANAGEMENT

and yes didge .....flood plain development is a HUGE cause of problems...

Saw a chart a while ago showing how much water could not get into the ground because of concrete drives, patios and paths. Over the whole country it's a huge amount.

Never thought of that! Shocked

by Victorismyhero Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:13 am

erm....SNOW tommy ...you know...that white stuff.....

by Guest Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:14 am

And Victor still cannot grasp where it is weather that is going to become far more intense over the levels of rainfall over a short time that is going to increase the risks of floods and how again the land is onlt able to sustain certain levels and again the amount of defences needed to prevent floods is stggering. No matter how much prevention you do, you are never going to be able to prevent floods. At best we can contiain some
Victor also fails to grasp ahain what we be seen a sa priority in the bigger castle in the sky. Of course at present everyone will pointing the finger to spending, but not matter who is in power, they will always place this of lesser importance than other sectors. That is not me being horrible but fundementally understanding that people will always place events of less chance of predicting or knowing where they will happen to the lesser priotities.

Is that wrong?

Very much so, but like i say no matter who is in power the situation will be thw same

by eddie Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:14 am

Lord Foul wrote:erm....SNOW tommy ...you know...that white stuff.....

How do you know it's snow and not rain?
Just asking

by Tommy Monk Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:14 am

Bullshit Vic. ..

Precipitation... clue...

by Irn Bru Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:15 am

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Again which shows you have not got the first clue what you are tslking about.
Many areas are at rick from floods and goong off after an event, whih is point scoring not understanding again cost and what Labour would do, shows how fundementally you do not know what you are talking about.
Look I know you and sassy cannot reason for yourself and need endless links, but try actually researching the topic and see how difficult a taslk this is

You don't know what you are talking about and it shows. As far as cost is concerned the overall cost for all that has happened in the NE will dwarf what has been saved by not doing more to limit the effects.

Stop trying to score points on this because that's what you are doing.

Wow what a reply, telling me I am wrong by utterly failing to show in anyway that I am.
Its you two poltically scoring off natural disasters.

You're wrong because when you started with the 'leftie' nonsense your fate was sealed regarding points scoring.

AS far as flood defence spending is concerned are you saying that no areas have been protected from flooding at all and that all the money spent has been wasted?

by Guest Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:16 am

eddie wrote:
sassy wrote:

Saw a chart a while ago showing how much water could not get into the ground because of concrete drives, patios and paths. Over the whole country it's a huge amount.

Never thought of that!

It's better to use decking, because the water can get between the boards and it's stones underneath that the water can drain through.

by Guest Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:17 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Wow what a reply, telling me I am wrong by utterly failing to show in anyway that I am.
Its you two poltically scoring off natural disasters.

You're wrong because when you started with the 'leftie' nonsense your fate was sealed regarding points scoring.

AS far as flood defence spending is concerned are you saying that no areas have been protected from flooding at all and that all the money spent has been wasted?

Did sassy try to political score off this natural disaster?

Fundemnetally she did

Again please go away and actually research into sometjing you understand little about

by Tommy Monk Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:18 am

And I have mentioned concreting and driveways before too... look at my graph... rainfall hasn't changed from previous seen levels...

by Victorismyhero Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:20 am

bull shit yourself tommy

if it falls as snow...it is released into the land slowly as the snow melts

so if you had 12 foot of snow (= 12 inches of rain) that would take anywhere between a week and six weeks to thaw (in normal conditions)

so 12 inches of rain in a few hours is ENTIRELY different....

the thaw from snow CAN be over 1 to 6 weeks, absorbed and dissipated by the ground and rivers,,,,

that amount of rain fall CANNOT be disipated in a few hours..

and if you fail to understand the difference then you truely are an idiot....

by Tommy Monk Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:23 am

Does a rainfall graph show snowfall... or rainfall. ..! ?

by Irn Bru Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:29 am

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Wow what a reply, telling me I am wrong by utterly failing to show in anyway that I am.
Its you two poltically scoring off natural disasters.

You're wrong because when you started with the 'leftie' nonsense your fate was sealed regarding points scoring.

AS far as flood defence spending is concerned are you saying that no areas have been protected from flooding at all and that all the money spent has been wasted?

Did sassy try to political score off this natural disaster?

Fundemnetally she did

Again please go away and actually research into sometjing you understand little about

My question has not been answered. Would you like to give it a go?

by Victorismyhero Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:30 am

either tommy...either...

in winter a weather staion will either measure the depth of snow and "convert that to "inches of rain" OR will have a heated rain guage that melts the snow as it falls on it and record that.

roughly 1 foot of snow is equivalent to 1 inch of rain (the heated rain guage is more accurate since some snow is "fluffier" than others(and hence less "dense")

but yes tommy they count "snow" as "rain"

1 it saves confusion...if you know what they are talking about ...(but not if you dont)
2 it provides a "consistant" measure accross all seasons

by Victorismyhero Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:33 am

they should probably call it "inches of precipitation."

or inches of wet stuff....

or something like that....

whats provided for you on TV weather forcasts AINT the same animal thats recorded in weather journals ....

by Tommy Monk Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:37 am

Rivers sometimes flood... nothing new then...

by Victorismyhero Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:40 am

true tommy...but we can...and should be able to "manage" the problem

THATS the point...

and the cost of doing so is less than the cost of not doing so

by Tommy Monk Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:45 am

Live on a river and enjoy all the lively benefits of it then also expect to sometimes be flooded by it too...

by Victorismyhero Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:47 am

live in a town and enjoy its benefits

and expect to be choked by the fumes....

say NO to expensive pollution controls in towns.....

by Tommy Monk Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:48 am

Stopping flooding at one place and thereby creating a flood elsewhere further down stream is not the answer...

by Guest Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:53 am

What do you think they do in Singapore, Malaysia etc Tommy, where they have monsoons and get very large amounts of rain in very short periods? They have drains that cope with it and carry it to the sea!!!!!!

by Victorismyhero Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:55 am

true...unless the "elsewhere down stream" is a FLOOD PLAIN....

thats what I mean by management...from source to sea rivers streams dykes and ditches should be kept in good order....improved where needed and unobstructed.....

by Sponsored content