• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No increase in flooding with increased rainfall

Tim the plumber

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,829
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08481-1

There is overwhelming consensus that the intensity of heavy precipitation events is increasing in a warming world. It is generally expected such increases will translate to a corresponding increase in flooding. Here, using global data sets for non-urban catchments, we investigate the sensitivity of extreme daily precipitation and streamflow to changes in daily temperature. We find little evidence to suggest that increases in heavy rainfall events at higher temperatures result in similar increases in streamflow, with most regions throughout the world showing decreased streamflow with higher temperatures. To understand why this is the case, we assess the impact of the size of the catchment and the rarity of the event. As the precipitation event becomes more extreme and the catchment size becomes smaller, characteristics such as the initial moisture in the catchment become less relevant, leading to a more consistent response of precipitation and streamflow extremes to temperature increase. Our results indicate that only in the most extreme cases, for smaller catchments, do increases in precipitation at higher temperatures correspond to increases in streamflow.
Click to expand...

From "Nature". Basically, with an extreme rainfall event it will generally happen in a bit of the catchment area of the river so whilst shocking when you are under it it will generally not overwhelm the river.

In fact, observational records present more evidence for a decrease in annual flood maxima13,14,15, despite increases in precipitation being well documented16,17,18.
Click to expand...

They don't seem to say why this is happening but I guess that the increased flood prevention work being done world wide and the increased vegitation world wide due to increased rainfall in general and increased CO2 and nitrogen will be having a very significant effect.

P.S. Thanks to Jack Hays for putting this on the forum first. I thought it deserved a whole thread.
 
Tim the plumber said:
They don't seem to say why this is happening but I guess that the increased flood prevention work being done world wide and the increased vegitation world wide due to increased rainfall in general and increased CO2 and nitrogen will be having a very significant effect.
Click to expand...

Oh my god... Did you just admit that varying the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can have a very significant effect on the planet??? I never thought you'd come around, but congratulations.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Oh my god... Did you just admit that varying the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can have a very significant effect on the planet??? I never thought you'd come around, but congratulations.
Click to expand...

Yes there ae 40% more leaves about today than there otherwise would be.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yes there ae 40% more leaves about today than there otherwise would be.
Click to expand...

I'm just glad you were even able to make this tiny baby step away from the outright and religious science denial you've been perpetuating for so long. Maybe over time we can get you to accept the scientific fact that CO2 changes a lot more than just ground-leaf density. Progress.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I'm just glad you were even able to make this tiny baby step away from the outright and religious science denial you've been perpetuating for so long. Maybe over time we can get you to accept the scientific fact that CO2 changes a lot more than just ground-leaf density. Progress.
Click to expand...

I demand that you either cite where I have ever denied science or appologise and retract that.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I demand that you either cite where I have ever denied science or appologise and retract that.
Click to expand...

This being an internet forum, you don't have a right to demand anything. If you'd like some examples just peruse through your and Jack Hays' post histories on environmental topics. You don't get to **** on science day in and day out and reject a scientific consensus about as high as that of heliocentrism then pretend you're not anti-science. Like I said, I'm so glad you at least admit atmospheric CO2 content has any effects at all that I'll let you ramble on about ground-leaf density to your heart's desire. The residents of coastal Texas and Florida can rest easy knowing an internet forum scientist has declared these floods to be totally normal. Carry on.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Oh my god... Did you just admit that varying the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can have a very significant effect on the planet??? I never thought you'd come around, but congratulations.
Click to expand...

A very significant effect on vegetation growth.

Context is everything.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The residents of coastal Texas and Florida can rest easy knowing an internet forum scientist has declared these floods to be totally normal.
Click to expand...

What exactly does that mean?
 
Tim the plumber said:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08481-1



From "Nature". Basically, with an extreme rainfall event it will generally happen in a bit of the catchment area of the river so whilst shocking when you are under it it will generally not overwhelm the river.
Click to expand...
This is what I was speaking of before in another thread. They refer to non urban areas, where the soil sill absorbs the most significant portion of rainfall. In suburban and urban areas, the release of rainwater is limited by storm sewer designs.

Tim the plumber said:
They don't seem to say why this is happening but I guess that the increased flood prevention work being done world wide and the increased vegitation world wide due to increased rainfall in general and increased CO2 and nitrogen will be having a very significant effect.

P.S. Thanks to Jack Hays for putting this on the forum first. I thought it deserved a whole thread.
Click to expand...
The faster growing vegitaion removes the ground water faster, keeping it ready to absorb more.

Thing with focusing on a single day even being greater, is the day before and day after are probably less. The three days combined is probably insignificantly more than any other three day spread of precipitation.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
This being an internet forum, you don't have a right to demand anything. If you'd like some examples just peruse through your and Jack Hays' post histories on environmental topics. You don't get to **** on science day in and day out and reject a scientific consensus about as high as that of heliocentrism then pretend you're not anti-science. Like I said, I'm so glad you at least admit atmospheric CO2 content has any effects at all that I'll let you ramble on about ground-leaf density to your heart's desire. The residents of coastal Texas and Florida can rest easy knowing an internet forum scientist has declared these floods to be totally normal. Carry on.
Click to expand...

So you are unable to show any instance of me denying science. OK, noted.

You would have seen, had you had the slightest ability to see past your chosen religious view, that I do not dispute the warming effects of CO2 as described by the IPCC. I don't know enough physics to do that. Then again I have seen that there are professors at CERN who don't know if the IPCC is right or not. They seem th think that a relationship between cosmic rays and climate is more likely. I don't know.

That I point out that there are no bad things happening or likely to happen due to slightly warmer temperatures or more CO2 is not any formm of denial. It is simply pointing out the obvious.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The faster growing vegitaion removes the ground water faster, keeping it ready to absorb more.

Thing with focusing on a single day even being greater, is the day before and day after are probably less. The three days combined is probably insignificantly more than any other three day spread of precipitation.
Click to expand...

The effect of simply having a more shaded and broken surface which is far more able to absorb water is also presumably a key factor.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The effect of simply having a more shaded and broken surface which is far more able to absorb water is also presumably a key factor.
Click to expand...

That is my point.

Places covered with concrete, asphalt, and buildings lose that natural absorption. We now rely on storm sewers to prevent flooding. When we do flood, it means the storm sewers were inadequate for the precipitation.

There are also places where we reduced river and steam flow capacities.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That is my point.

Places covered with concrete, asphalt, and buildings lose that natural absorption. We now rely on storm sewers to prevent flooding. When we do flood, it means the storm sewers were inadequate for the precipitation.

There are also places where we reduced river and steam flow capacities.
Click to expand...
I am not sure of the current calculation for retention ponds in Houston, but I think it is like
for a given size of impermeable surface, they need enough capacity to hold 12 inches of rain.
A 2 acre store and parking lot would need a pond capable of holding 2 acre feet of water.
It did seem to help a lot of neighborhoods.
 
Do people realize how stupid they sound when they use term climate denier or science denier?
 
KLATTU said:
Do people realize how stupid they sound when they use term climate denier or science denier?
Click to expand...

I agree mostly.

I will still use "denier of science" to the alarmists who can't comprehend the difference from what the peer review papers say, and what the pundits say. And those who have total faith in the pundits words instead of even reading real science material.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom