On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 4:39:41 PM UTC, Dave Ludlow wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 08:14:34 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 12:46:06 AM UTC, Scott W wrote:
Reports of EnvAgency rain gauge reporting 351.8mm in 24hrs at Honister near Keswick (Cumbria). This could be a record? The nearest high 24hr total I can find is 279mm at Martinstown, Dorset, on July 18, 1955

Today, BBC.

'The Met Office confirms that Cumbria received 341.4mm of rainfall in the 24-hour period from 1830 GMT on Friday 4 December to 1830 GMT on Saturday 5.

This beats the previous record set at Seathwaite, Cumbria, of 316.4mm on 19 November 2009.'

Met Office Twitter says it's for the 24h period ending 6pm... also
mentions that Thirlmere too beat the previous record, at 322.6mm.

Just noticed the Met Office comment as part of that:

"Prof Dame Julia Slingo, chief scientist at the Met Office, said these
"extraordinary amounts of water" broke records going back to the
1800s."

But what they omit to mention is that 24 hour rainfall totals for
non-standard periods like this are not available for most stations for
most of that period of time 'since the 1800s'

--
Dave
Fareham (W)

Don't shoot the messenger!

"Desperate Dan" wrote in message
...

With that intensity of rainfall I would question the accuracy of any TBR.
There would be a tendency to under read.

Obviously depends on intensity though. I'd certainly believe eg 24 hours at
10mm/hr much more than 2-3 hours at 100mm/hr.

The Environment agency sensor density has increased 10 fold in the last 18 years, so there probably wasn't a sensor in all of the current locations until recent years. This puts into perspective the claims of "wettest" records all over the place in the last 8 years or so. "Since records began" might be only 18 years or so for most sensors.

The elephant in the room id definitely the amount and location of land development into housing and retail parks etc since the 1980s. Carlisle etc. have had many floods over the decades but the much faster run-off and greater coverage of concrete, tarmac and roof area means that water rushes downhill to pinch points and housing on flood plains in minutes instead of days.

It all comes down to massive over population...the cause of most of the world's major issues...indeed the elephant in the room for all political figures and governments. Until we have policies to limit population growth...nothing will change.

We need to admit the real problems before we can solve them.

Good luck and comiserations to all the poor innocents who are affected by the nation's sensationalism, hype and lack of proper action/solutions.

I'd be very surprised if rain gauge density in England and Wales has increased ten fold in eighteen years. That would be a huge increase and budgets have been cut, in real terms, over that period.

On 07/12/2015 22:59, Crusader wrote:
The Environment agency sensor density has increased 10 fold in the last 18 years,
so there probably wasn't a sensor in all of the current locations
until recent years.
This puts into perspective the claims of "wettest" records all over
the place in the
last 8 years or so. "Since records began" might be only 18 years or
so for most sensors.

Malham cove has been there for quite a long geological time.
No one in living memory can recall seeing it with a waterfall over it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35026529

The elephant in the room id definitely the amount and location of land development
into housing and retail parks etc since the 1980s. Carlisle etc. have
had many floods
over the decades but the much faster run-off and greater coverage of
concrete, tarmac
and roof area means that water rushes downhill to pinch points and
housing on flood plains in minutes instead of days.

Here you have a *VERY* good point. There was a very good reason why
certain well known locally areas were used as school playing fields or
parks. Because they were known to flood and so avoided for development.

The hubris of modern developers means that they will build on any land
they can get planning permission for and cash strapped councils will aid
and abet them by selling off the school playing fields. Then they wonder
why schoolchildren are obese and lack exercise.

We need to admit the real problems before we can solve them.

One of the serious problems is building new houses on known dodgy flood
plains. There is a new build close to me where they had to stop work
completely last year because the whole site was under water!

Heaven help the punters who have now bought them and moved in when the
inevitable happens - as it surely will. Free moat with every home...

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 11:29:21 AM UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 07/12/2015 22:59, Crusader wrote:
The Environment agency sensor density has increased 10 fold in the last 18 years,
so there probably wasn't a sensor in all of the current locations
until recent years.
This puts into perspective the claims of "wettest" records all over
the place in the
last 8 years or so. "Since records began" might be only 18 years or
so for most sensors.

Malham cove has been there for quite a long geological time.
No one in living memory can recall seeing it with a waterfall over it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35026529

The elephant in the room id definitely the amount and location of land development
into housing and retail parks etc since the 1980s. Carlisle etc. have
had many floods
over the decades but the much faster run-off and greater coverage of
concrete, tarmac
and roof area means that water rushes downhill to pinch points and
housing on flood plains in minutes instead of days.

Here you have a *VERY* good point. There was a very good reason why
certain well known locally areas were used as school playing fields or
parks. Because they were known to flood and so avoided for development.

The hubris of modern developers means that they will build on any land
they can get planning permission for and cash strapped councils will aid
and abet them by selling off the school playing fields. Then they wonder
why schoolchildren are obese and lack exercise.

We need to admit the real problems before we can solve them.

One of the serious problems is building new houses on known dodgy flood
plains. There is a new build close to me where they had to stop work
completely last year because the whole site was under water!

Heaven help the punters who have now bought them and moved in when the
inevitable happens - as it surely will. Free moat with every home...

I feel London is sleepwalking in to a massive mistake with the latest plans to develop every remaining scrap of floodplain.

https://wansteadmeteo.wordpress.com/...h-development/

https://wansteadmeteo.wordpress.com/...the-east-plan/

Planners will say that there is a risk of flooding but it is within Environment Agency guidelines. However, what if these guidelines are way off?

Luke Howard once wrote that the River Lea that runs into the Thames was once a 'mile wide' in 1809. However, it took until the disastrous floods of 1947 for the government to do something and the River Lea navigation was designed and built over decades, the equivalent of billions in today's money was spent. But it worked. However, this system in recent years has twice come close to failing.

https://wansteadmeteo.wordpress.com/...s-a-mile-wide/

If developers really want to put buildings on floodplain they, and not the government, should shoulder most of the cost of upgraded flood defences.

"Scott W" wrote:

snip
I feel London is sleepwalking in to a massive mistake with
the latest plans to develop every remaining scrap of floodplain.
....
Planners will say that there is a risk of flooding but it is within
Environment Agency guidelines. However, what if these guidelines
are way off?

There is a very direct and immediate relationship between temperature and
atmospheric humidity (about 7% increase in specific humidity per degree C of
warming) which inevitably leads to more intense precipitation and hence
increased risk of flooding. If they're not taking into account the fact
that our part of the world has already warmed more than one degree, and that
the warming and rising humidity will continue for decades to come (if not
centuries), then they must be under-estimating the risk of flooding.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.B.gif

On 08/12/2015 16:52, Togless wrote:
"Scott W" wrote:

snip
I feel London is sleepwalking in to a massive mistake with
the latest plans to develop every remaining scrap of floodplain.
...
Planners will say that there is a risk of flooding but it is within
Environment Agency guidelines. However, what if these guidelines
are way off?

There is a very direct and immediate relationship between temperature
and atmospheric humidity (about 7% increase in specific humidity per
degree C of warming) which inevitably leads to more intense
precipitation and hence increased risk of flooding. If they're not
taking into account the fact that our part of the world has already
warmed more than one degree, and that the warming and rising humidity
will continue for decades to come (if not centuries), then they must be
under-estimating the risk of flooding.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.B.gif

They must surely be taking that into account in the major flood models.
However, the local planning rules seem to be a movable feast and nobody
cares about building development on land known to flood (by locals).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown