North Dakota Floods Aggravated By “Global Warming”

Guest post by Steven Goddard

Global warming has predictably struck again.

White said climate change caused by global warming likely is changing ice conditions and adding to the unpredictability.

Kate White is a civil engineer at the Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H., and one of the nation’s leading experts on ice jams.

UPDATE: President Obama has also weighed in.
“I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating. … If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota, and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there,’ that indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.”

From the Scientific American Blog

North Dakota's Red River Valley prepares for flooding
River ice generated by global warming in North Dakota
LA Times Photo

The Red River in Fargo, North Dakota had been expected to crest as high as 43 feet on Saturday, but instead it peaked at less than 41 feet due to freezing springtime temperatures.

The river crested in Fargo at 40.82 feet (12.44 meters) shortly after midnight yesterday, never reaching the 42-foot forecast the weather service expected, which would have put it at the top of some city dikes. The crest broke the record of 40.1 feet set in April 1897.
The river was at 40.27 feet as of 4:15 a.m. local time this morning and was forecast to recede to 38.1 feet as of 1 a.m. on April 5, according to the National Weather Service.

Freezing Temperatures
Temperatures as cold as 7 degrees Fahrenheit froze water running into the river and are responsible for turning back the flood, said
David Kellenbenz, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Grand Forks, North Dakota, about 80 miles north of Fargo.

The weather service had said earlier that the Red River could crest as high as 43 feet.

In fact, temperatures in North Dakota have been running about 5-10 degrees below normal for the entire winter and spring.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/hprcc/nd/Last3mTDeptHPRCC-ND.png

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/hprcc/nd/MonthTDeptHPRCC-ND.png

NOAA’s Center for Climate Prediction had incorrectly forecast a warm winter for the region last autumn.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/archives/long_lead/gifs/2008/200810temp.gif

Using AGW logic, it all makes perfect sense.  The models forecast a warm winter.  The models were wrong, and instead it was extremely cold and snowy.  All that late melting snow caused a flood, so the flood must be blamed on the global warming predicted by the models.  AGW Commandment #1 : Reality must never take precedence over computer models.
Author’s Note : Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is now known as “climate change” because the scientists were just kidding when they gave it the original name.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change, Ridiculae, Weather. Bookmark the permalink.

184 Responses to North Dakota Floods Aggravated By “Global Warming”

  1. CPT. Charles says:

    Apparently the party line/’current truth’ has spread pretty quickly.

    Pity there’ll be no follow-up question on that statement: …’on the basis of what data do you make pronouncement?’

  2. P Folkens says:

    That’s odd. The predictions of worst-case-scenario of extremely severe flooding were averted by unusually cold temperatures that re-froze upstream water.

    The L.A. Times photo caption says it: “River ice generated by global warming in North Dakota”

    Help me here . . . ice generated by global warming? Did global warming selectively choose North Dakota to assert its influence? Are abnormal freezing temperatures a good measure of global warming?

  3. Steve Keohane says:

    Just ridiculous. Models cause warming, especially when scantily clad, but its only a local effect, so it must be weather.

  4. Aron says:

    People are crazy

  5. Mike Brown says:

    How does a Civil Engineer with an expertise in ice jams know anything about meteorology, climatology, or oceanography???

    Last I checked ice accumulation was based on freezing degree days???

    I did get to blow up ice jams in the arctic back in the 70′s, didn’t work to well as I recall.

    Great work keep it up!!!!

  6. Mike Kelley says:

    I live in neighboring Montana, and the flooding over in North Dakota is the predictable end of a very nasty winter there. The temperatures in that area, especially the Fargo/Grand Forks region, have been amazingly cold all winter long. They have also received much more snow than normal, I have heard. Rather than “evidence of global climate change”, this winter has been seen around here as more of a return to the tougher winters of the 60′s and 70′s. I have heard a lot of ridicule of Al Gore, too. Oh yeah, it is snowing again, and more is predicted.

  7. I was watching a debate on BBC about Afghanistan, the new US commitment and plan and NATO roles …. and the words “Climate Change” came up several times in addressing the european NATO memebers combat roles.

    The assertion was that because Obama was aligned on climate change with the EU that NATO members would commit more resources to Afghanistan to act in combat roles.

    Some much for that “Peace Prize” there Al.

  8. CPT. Charles says:

    Sorry…make that pronouncement…

  9. Robert M. Marshal says:

    Newsflash! I just heard on the news that a new storm center is approaching North Dakota, likely to dump even more snow on the already beleaguered residents. That snow and ice, is also predicted to eventually melt, adding yet another catastrophy at the feet of AGW Deniers. But wait, there’s more, Scientist believe that Detroit will suffer a devastating drought this summer culminating in a return of wild fires in the city as Holloween approaches.

    I was kidding about one of these;-}

  10. PFC says:

    It was true when I was in university 4 decades ago, and its still true today: engineers should never be allowed to speak in public. :)~

  11. crosspatch says:

    “The crest broke the record of 40.1 feet set in April 1897.”

    Excuse me but what was the climate like the last time the record was set in 1897? Were we “in the grip of global warming”?

    Actually, what has happened this year is related to snow pack and not temperature. That region had been in drought for several years. This winter’s snowfall has eliminated that drought.

    So drought is blamed on global warming, and lack of drought is blames on global warming.

    I have a suggestion … if you don’t want repeated disasters year after year, move the town away from the river, move the levees back a half mile on each side, allow the river to spread out and slow down. Trying to maintain a city that is for all practical purposes built in the middle of a river bed is dumb and you deserve to get wiped out year after year. We should stop paying to rebuild from “flood disasters”. Move the city out of the flood plain.

  12. Sorry last comment was Off-Topic.

    This post is just another in a long line of “Climate Changes causes…” We all knew this was coming, I am waiting for the Volcanic Activity in Alaska Triggered by Climate Change piece that is due out any time now.

    There is a down side and that is we will get a double top when the spring melt happens. So this is not over for the year. The next peak may break this new record.

    So be ready for those headlines…

  13. Raven says:

    There is another aspect of this story that is worth highlighting:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090328.FLOOD28/TPStory/?query=fargo%20river%20government

    [quote]Downriver in Manitoba, authorities have taken some of the guesswork out of the Red equation. Starting with the construction of the Red River Floodway in 1962 – informally named Duff’s Ditch for Premier Duff Roblin – provincial governments have consistently taken a longsighted approach to flood protection. The floodway diverts overflow from the Red around Winnipeg. In 37 years, the floodway has been opened 20 times, saving $10-billion in flood damages, according to government estimates.[/quote]

    IOW – even if floods are a result of GW it would be a lot cheaper to build structures like the floodway instead of investing in dubious alternative energy projects that may do nothing to stop the inevitable.

  14. R Campbell says:

    I’ve been following this story a couple of days now. We all knew this statement was coming. LOL

  15. Arn Riewe says:

    So, let me get this straight. NOAA climate predicts temps above normal. Temps are actually 6-10 below normal and therefore the flooding is due to “global warming”. Ms. White is obviously drinking too much of the free Kool-Aid they’re giving out in New Hampshire. Her “on-the-ground” research is impeccable.

  16. swampie says:

    Perhaps Kate White needs to read up on Lake Agassiz.

  17. Mike N says:

    Ever notice that when a climate critic–I refuse to call them skeptics–points to a cold weather event as contrary evidence of GW, the greens always dismiss it claiming weather is not climate. But when any warm weather event happens like heat waves or melting, the same greens insist it’s proof of GW climate change. Their hypocrisy is astounding.

  18. Peter Hearnden says:

    The title of this post is “North Dakota Floods Aggravated By “Global Warming”” yet the article you quote has 18 paragraphs only ONE of which even mentions global warming, and does not pin the blamer on global warming.

    And that merits a post and a series of oh so predictable comments?

    Run that by me again will you?

  19. Kirk W. Hanneman says:

    The Leader is good
    The Leader is great
    We surrender our will
    as of this date

  20. D. King says:

    White said climate change caused by global warming likely is changing ice conditions and adding to the unpredictability.

    Kate White is a civil engineer at the Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H., and one of the nation’s leading experts on ice jams.

    I like her solution to problems caused by AGW…..Dynamite!

  21. MartinGAtkins says:

    Steven Goddard

    Author’s Note : Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is now known as “climate change” because the scientists were just kidding when they gave it the original name.

    “climate change” Is sooo yesterday. It’s now “climate chaos” dontcha know?

  22. Gary says:

    March 29, 2009, non-climatologist Gary in Arkansas has waded into the Global Warming debate with a radical new hypothesis. Gary is a non-scientist and non-meteorologist who has brought some very interesting scientific observations into the fray.

    “It’s like this,” says Gary, “everyone is familiar with a compass. There is a needle that spins around and around. We seem to be experiencing a sort of “weather compass” effect, where man-made Global Warming has gotten so bad that the dial has spun all the way around into the colder ranges.” Gary goes on to say that many things in life are similar, like the famous board game Monopoly. If you roll the dice too high – you go past “Go.”

    “I have submitted my data to Mr. Al Gore and he found the results quite scientific,” says Gary. “I really just want to get this out to other scientific-minded fellows. I just want to make a name for myself, I mean, I think this global warming thing has gotten way out of hand.

    Gary’s hypothesis has scary implications. “Yeah, think about it. It’s obvious to me, by using my models, that the warming has gone on for so long that we’ve moved way beyond simple heating. We’re now into cooling. So even if were to cool the earth using the brave tactics being put forth, we’d actually cool down back into the warming area. I feel the measures being looked at haven’t taken this into account. We need even more stringent measures to reverse what mankind has done.”

    [Shoot, y'all, see how easy this science stuff is? Any yahoo can get into it!][WINK]

  23. Jim Watson says:

    So now we have the U.S. Army against us? Bring in the Marines!

  24. Harold Ambler says:

    The actual quote for the LA Times photo is as follows:

    “The North Dakota National Guard hauls volunteers by truck through floodwaters in Oxbow. In one Fargo neighborhood, mandatory evacuations were ordered after cracks were found in an earthen levee.”

    Anyone curious can follow the link that was included in the caption.

  25. Jim Cripwell says:

    Raven writes “IOW – even if floods are a result of GW it would be a lot cheaper to build structures like the floodway instead of investing in dubious alternative energy projects that may do nothing to stop the inevitable.”

    You need to be very careful with this idea. Any sort of floodway increases the flooding downstream. Winnipeg is lucky in that Lake Winnipeg is very close to the outlet of the floodway, so there is not much left of the Red River to flood. If you put a floodway just around, for example, Fargo, heaven help the people immediately downstream.

  26. Benjamin P. says:

    it’s la nina, just like in ’96-’97

    O/T

    I like all the ad hom/strawman I read on this site, gives credence to that whole science thing.

    Ben

  27. Roger Sowell says:

    PFC:

    “…engineers should never be allowed to speak in public. :)~”

    Hey! I resemble that remark…. ;-)

    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=speak

    Another rather good (Rex is actually VERY good) public speaker, a civil engineer, now CEO and Chairman of the Board of ExxonMobil, is Mr. Rex W. Tillerson. Rex’s speeches are on the web at

    http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/news_speeches.aspx

  28. Indiana Bones says:

    Peter Hearnden (10:02:33) :

    “The title of this post is “North Dakota Floods Aggravated By “Global Warming”” yet the article you quote has 18 paragraphs only ONE of which even mentions global warming, and does not pin the blamer on global warming.

    And that merits a post and a series of oh so predictable comments? ”

    Well, yeah. Because we see so many oh so predictable “It’s global warming” comments in the MSM. This is just a tiny, no-influence blog from Anthony Watts. Hardly the epitome of balance for the big time AGW campaign. And note:

    The L.A. Times photo caption: “River ice generated by global warming in North Dakota”

    ???

  29. evanmjones says:

    My data indicates there was a La Nina event from 9/95, ending in 3/96.

    I might add that there is less ad hominem on this site (and on CA) than any other climate sites I have seen. The pro-AGW sites, on the whole, seem much worse in that regard. One sees the occasional snipe on skeptic sites, but the prominent pro-AGW sites consist almost exclusively of ongoing, non-stop torrents of personal abuse, and extremely heavyhanded elimination of posts from the other side. You will not find that here.

    As for “that science thing”, I can only encourage concentrating on the science and the data issues.

  30. D. King says:

    White said officials have tried several methods of predicting ice jams but what scientists really need for the job is a full understanding of various site-specific conditions, because ice jams have unique circumstances and characteristics. Time and money are barriers to that, she said.

    Money?

  31. Indiana Bones says:

    Of course we’d like to give the young man a chance… But here is the President’s statement:

    “”If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?’” Obama told reporters at the White House Monday. “That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.”

    “Temperatures as cold as 7 degrees Fahrenheit froze water running into the river and are responsible for turning back the flood, said David Kellenbenz, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Grand Forks…”

  32. Tom says:

    “The title of this post is “North Dakota Floods Aggravated By “Global Warming”” yet the article you quote has 18 paragraphs only ONE of which even mentions global warming, and does not pin the blamer on global warming.”

    Peter, how does this article even deserve “ONE” mention of Global Warming. You really miss the whole point of this posting by a mile. You need to open your eyes and recognize that lately any article on any natural (and even man-made sometimes) disaster somehow has at least “ONE” mention of global warming. It makes me wonder if these writers are working on an AGW commission, with bonus pay for coming up with the most outlandish and creative connection to Global Warming.

  33. Benjamin P. says:

    evanmjones you are correct, i retract my hastily construed assertion :)

    As for the ad hom/strawmen, wouldn’t it be nice to just have a discussion about climate without it?

    Ben

  34. evanmjones says:

    I can’t argue with that.

    I try to avoid the political aspects. Yes, the issue is prominent because of that, but that makes it all the more important to consider the science apart from politics, lest emotions affect the data gathering, itself.

  35. Steven Goddard says:

    A few commentors appear confused. The WCCO article said :

    global warming likely is changing ice conditions

    That quote has appeared in news stories all over the Internet. How should it be interpreted? Multiple choice.

    1. The record flood is affected by global warming.
    2. The record flood is not affected by global warming

    Harold,

    As far as the river photo caption goes River ice generated by global warming in North Dakota – that is my caption, and could be described as sarcasm. WUWT readers are Internet saavy people who know how to click through the links.

  36. Leon Brozyna says:

    And this is what happens when you build cities, towns, and villages on flood plains. They’re called flood plains for a reason.

    Ever notice that on some farms located on flood plains, the farming families have, over time, built up the area where their homes & barns are built.

  37. voodoo says:

    You all miss the point. AGW has nothing do with science or evidence. It is just a convenient ruse allowing government to take control of your life and your wealth. If AGW and ‘Climate Change’ won’t do it, then there is always a banking scandal or…

    Since Ms. White, like most ‘climate scientists’, owes her welfare to the government it is no surprise she sings the party song. Keep those grants and civil service checks coming! The larger government is the hungrier it gets. We are likely past the tipping point and it has nothing to do with CO2.

  38. Raven says:

    Jim,

    Manitoba made a conscious choice to sacrifice farmland south of Winnipeg in order to protect the city. The floodway has been in place long enough that the farmers have to accept as the price of owning that land. If you brought in a new floodway there would have to be compensation given to minority that are sacrificed in order to protect the majority but the cost would be a fraction of the costs of building these ad hoc dikes and the repairs when they are breached.

    That said, my main point is we can and should focus on adapting to any climate change instead of wasting resources trying to stop what may be unstoppable.

  39. Steven Goddard says:

    This is what President Obama had to say about the flood and global warming.

    “If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?’”

    http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=obama-cites-north-dakota-floods-in-2009-03-25

  40. Tim Channon says:

    Emotions affecting data?

    Poor dear thermometer it’s cold. Here have a knitted warmer.

  41. Cathy says:

    @ Tom

    You are so right.

    You said: “Peter, how does this article even deserve “ONE” mention of Global Warming. You really miss the whole point of this posting by a mile. You need to open your eyes and recognize that lately any article on any natural (and even man-made sometimes) disaster somehow has at least “ONE” mention of global warming.”

    I watched CBS Sunday Morning today. They had a piece about the increase in giant squid off the coast of CA. I was perched on the couch just waiting. Yup. There it was: Caused by global warming.

  42. MartinGAtkins says:

    Peter Hearnden (10:02:33) :

    The title of this post is “North Dakota Floods Aggravated By “Global Warming”” yet the article you quote has 18 paragraphs only ONE of which even mentions global warming, and does not pin the blamer on global warming.

    White said climate change caused by global warming likely is changing ice conditions and adding to the unpredictability.

    These are weasel words. The situation has been building throughout the season. By subscribing to the notion that our climate or seasonal weather are predictable, they may have been negligent in their duty to show due diligence to the prevailing conditions.

    Should anyone be to blame? Probably not.

    They are not super human and some conditions you can’t control or predict. Did they do a good job when the problem became critical? This is something for the people of North Dakota to decide.

    Any hint that global warming or climate change is in anyway responsible is to diminish their expertise and that could lead to a culture of blame and excuses.

    It has happened and it may happen again. The people of North Dakota need to plan ahead and take appropriate actions that will limit the damage to it’s community.

    This does not involve destroying it’s industries or denying themselves access to rapidly deployable energy.

  43. Steven Goddard says:

    Answering President Obama’s question

    “If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?’”

    http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=obama-cites-north-dakota-floods-in-2009-03-25

    Given that the flooding was due to unusual cold and snow, chances are two degrees of warming would have mitigated the flood or perhaps prevented it.

  44. AnonyMoose says:

    This flooding was increased by what happened this winter. The ground froze earlier than usual, reducing the amount of water absorbed by the soil from fall until now. Continued cold during the winter kept it that way. With the solid stage set, the heavy snowfall arrived to begin the performance. The sun returned from the south, and the show began.

    A long cold winter gives more time for a lot of snow to accumulate. For similar floods to happen in warm weather, there would have to be a hurricane’s worth of heavy rains in the spring.

  45. Stephen Skinner says:

    We should not denegrate anyones judgement because they are not ‘trained’ in the subject they wish to get speak on. All that matters is if they are right or not. There are many people who are able to provide useful insite into things they are not ‘qualified’ for. However, it does appear that Kate Wite has excluded all other possibilities for this flood and has ‘tacked’ AGW onto this event, which is lazy. How has urbanisation and/or agriculture changed upstream since the previous high level? Both urbanistion and agriculture will change the way water runs off the land in a fundamental way.

  46. Antonio San says:

    The “great global warming” of 1897 is very well documented… however the co-relation between flood crest and CO2 concentration is not that clear… More work is needed and a new super computer too…

  47. Stephen Skinner says:

    And further more there was a previous flood of similar proportion here before, which means this type of flood can happen here again.

  48. L Gardy LaRoche says:

    Here’s the feedback page for US Army cold Research region for inquiries on their expertise and credentials in Oceanography, Meteorology, Climatology, etc..

    http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/crrel/feedbackform.html

  49. Francis says:

    The word “likely” inadequately qualifies the uncertainties.

    the word “likely” inadequately qualifies the uncertainties. But the
    Associated Press would probably balk at writing, “conditions to be expected after continued climate change,” in every AGW story.

  50. DJKP says:

    Who would have thunk it, building your home on a flood plain, next to a river that is historically prone to flooding, and your home gets flooded! Not the result of poor judgement of course, pass the buck onto “Global warming” (or is it called climate change now?, I can never remember) .

  51. Retired Engineer says:

    If you build your house on a flood plain, sooner or later, you will get wet. In ND it happens almost every year. The Big Easy found out what happens when you build below sea level a few years back. They all know it is coming, yet refuse to take a common sense approach. Don’t fight Mother Nature, build elsewhere? No, we’ll just spend billion$ more on levees and such.

    Some threads back, folks asked about pumping all this water west or at least to places with drought. Why not pump it just far enough to reach the Ogallala Aquafer? We’re draining that much faster then filling it, particularly if T.B.P. gets his plan in place. We certainly have enough excess water in the Mississippi and other mid-west rivers every spring.

    If we really get practical, let some of the Mississippi flood over the Delta and replenish the silt that the Caribbean washes away. That would be too much to hope for …

  52. David Ball says:

    Has anyone bothered to find out about Lake Agassiz? Look at it’s size, location and timeframe of existence. You will no longer be wondering why the Red River is flooding. Like a religion, one has to turn a blind eye to so much history (fossil records, etc. ) to believe the “climate change” doctrine.

  53. hareynolds says:

    I feel compelled to defend CRREL, as many of my former profs and fellow students did a lot of work there (on subjects like the mechanics of ice).

    They used-to have the best cold room on the planet.
    They were a preeminent facility when they were doing foundations for the DEW line.

    Too bad they’ve stumbled out of their element AND gotten lazy, all at once.

    There STILL aren’t any Sunspots.
    Buy coal.

  54. tommoriarty says:

    See here for links to a very nice USGS poster about the history of Red River flooding and its causes. The “landform factors” and “Weather factors” mentioned in the poster are laid out in the post and addressed one by one. The bottom line: Extremely high precipitation in the fall saturated the soil. Then temperatures dropped to record lows in mid-December through mid March. Then the temperatures rose to above normal for about two weeks in the last half of March.

    The Red River finally crested at about 40.8 feet, slightly higher than the previous record of 40.1 feet in 1897. I think that even Barack Obama would agree that the 1897 flood was not due to global warming. So where is it between 40.1 feet and 40.8 feet that global warming becomes obviously responsible?

    Best regards
    ClimateSanity

  55. Carol says:

    Al Gore found a way to keep his name in the limelight and to fill his pockets and everyone is falling all over themselves helping him to keep them full.

    I do believe we need to keep the planet as clean as possible…but I also believe in cyclical weather changes…

  56. Joel Wallach says:

    Obviously, the entire AGW – Climate Change – Climate Chaos is a scam.

    Ice dams will and will not occur – Ms. White seems totally clueless from what has be reported… Anthony has proved that AGW data lacks credibility and he has created a reasoned forum on climate.

    Slightly off the topic…

    Sensibly, cities and towns should NOT be rebuilt on FLOOD Plains… flood plains should be used to grow crops as the rivers naturaly flood and deposit minerally rich soil. The crops pull the minerals from the soil and w eat them… much, much better than corporate farms with NPK only – the plants look good but have very little food value.

  57. Carol says:

    A lot of people have spent a lot of time building dikes around their homes…now that they are them…cover them with dirt and grass seed and have a permanent berm in place for next year….just build in a flood gate that can be closed after you drive your car inside.

  58. Stephen Skinner says:

    “So where is it between 40.1 feet and 40.8 feet that global warming becomes obviously responsible?”
    Well put.

  59. Wally says:

    The ’97 flood probably had much more total water involed. Dikes although helping to keep areas protected also raises the river level by reducing the potential width of the river.

  60. NC says:

    If Obama actually said the following his ignorance scares the hell out of me

    President Obama has also weighed in.

    “I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating. … If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota, and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there,’ that indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.”

    Is he just playing politics thinking appeasing warmers gets votes or does he really believe this. Science could not have been his best subject. This makes me seriously question his knowledge of world affairs.

  61. Roger Sowell says:

    Retired Engineer (12:00:41) :

    “If you build your house on a flood plain, sooner or later, you will get wet. In ND it happens almost every year. The Big Easy found out what happens when you build below sea level a few years back. They all know it is coming, yet refuse to take a common sense approach. Don’t fight Mother Nature, build elsewhere? No, we’ll just spend billion$ more on levees and such.”

    You are so right! My family owns a farm/ranch on a fairly small river, with the house and outbuildings located about a mile from the river, built on the highest hill. That hill also will not get isolated during a flood. Nobody in their right mind would build homes in a river flood plain. But some do. There are homes near Austin, Texas, built below the spillway level on Lake Travis. These homes were submerged a few years back, and the MSM played up the angle that these homeowners had no flood insurance. As if any insurance company would issue insurance on homes built in a known flooding zone!

    “Some threads back, folks asked about pumping all this water west or at least to places with drought. Why not pump it just far enough to reach the Ogallala Aquafer? We’re draining that much faster then filling it, particularly if T.B.P. gets his plan in place. We certainly have enough excess water in the Mississippi and other mid-west rivers every spring.”

    That was me, among others, proposing a NEWTAP federal project to use wind-power to pump Missouri/Mississippi River water to the continental divide in New Mexico where the water would join the Colorado River via tributaries. (National Excess Water Transport Aqueduct Project).

    Re recharging the Ogallala, there are stormwater infiltration devices, which are now mandatory in California on some construction projects. These are designed as holes in the ground, filled with a permeable structure such as hollow plastic cubes. The rainwater (such as it is in California!) drains into the infiltration device, instead of into a storm drain. The water eventually percolates into the groundwater. The cost is huge, of course.

    http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/02/wind-water-farms-and-power-generation.html

    “If we really get practical, let some of the Mississippi flood over the Delta and replenish the silt that the Caribbean washes away. That would be too much to hope for “

    An imminently practical idea! That would also go a long way toward combating sea level rise. I once calculated (and observed after the river flooded a few times on the family farm) that much more than 3.3 mm of silt was deposited from a flood. We are told that the seas are rising at 3.3 mm per year (but not lately, according to the data), so one flood per year should balance that out.

  62. Ohioholic says:

    “So where is it between 40.1 feet and 40.8 feet that global warming becomes obviously responsible? ”

    This question is sooo obvious. 0.7 feet (8.4 inches) is roughly 25% of the value the IPCC predicted the seas would rise. The models predicted this. The sea-level rise won’t be a full frontal assault, we will be outflanked by the rivers. Sheesh, don’t you read the papers?

    [sarcasm off]

  63. Bill Junga says:

    Wait a minute to see if I am getting this straight, a couple of degrees plus or minus of, say, temperatures 50 years ago or 100 years ago will cause river ice to be so unstable?I would like to see the data on that too.
    Reminds me of a story at the University where a native of Poland lucky to get out in the 1950′s with his parents was studying for a PhD in Electrical engineering in the1970′s and lots of exciting things were happening in the field. A grad student studying Civil Engineering comes over and says how hard his exam was. THe EE major says “How can Civil Engineering be that hard and what’s so new in it, “what you’re doing are things ROMANS did and from the looks of things they did a better job,a lot of their stuff is still standing! “Of course it was said in jest.
    2) Lake Agassiz ,oh yes, I wonder if the fishing could have been good, do you think it had muskies, Northern Pike( as I don’t know if there is a Southern Pike) and Walleyes. But alas, the open face spin casting reel wasn’t invented yet.
    3) I don’t know if the world is better or worse without Lake Agassiz and if the Petrified Forest was still growing. Couldn’t be AGW that did them in.

  64. Ron de Haan says:

    Steven,
    Thank you for the article.

    One remark though!

    When the winter seaon started, the flooding area was hit by days of heavy rain.
    The area was saturated with water when the cold came in.

    Now the snow is melting, instant run off of water takes place.
    The pre winter saturation and the amount of melting snow is the factual cause of the floods.

    Global Warming has nothing to do with it.

    There is no Global Warming.

    Today Obama announced an International Forum on Energy and Climate to be held in Washington, April this year.

    His target is to make a success of the Copenhagen UN Climate Meeting in December.

    If they succeed our economies will be hit by an “Atomic Bomb”.

    Let’s stop this idiot.

  65. Ohioholic says:

    David Ball (12:05:49) :

    “Has anyone bothered to find out about Lake Agassiz?”

    Lake Agassiz is a direct result of global warming. All those glaciers melting fed into a giant lake. See? Global warming is real. Humans are burning so much CO2, it is going back in time and altering past climates as well as present, hence the changeof name to ‘climate change’.

  66. Jim notes…

    “You need to be very careful with this idea. Any sort of flood way increases the flooding downstream. Winnipeg is lucky in that Lake Winnipeg is very close to the outlet of the flood way, so there is not much left of the Red River to flood. If you put a flood way just around, for example, Fargo, heaven help the people immediately downstream.”

    I think the point is that a flood way provides more channels and diverts around population centers, you do not have to terminate them back into the river so they flood others, you divert to other areas, like lets say municipal and agricultural reservoirs and the like.

    Winnipeg was lucky they have the lake as a terminus, but really do you want me to believe that the only viable flood control system only would simply pass it down the line?

  67. Gary says:

    “If you build your house on a flood plain, sooner or later, you will get wet. In ND it happens almost every year. The Big Easy found out what happens when you build below sea level a few years back. They all know it is coming, yet refuse to take a common sense approach. Don’t fight Mother Nature, build elsewhere? No, we’ll just spend billion$ more on levees and such.”

    The same thing can be said of people building along the Gulf Coast. I lived in St. Pete, FL for years. I’ve seen the pictures of the “shanties” built along the Pinellas coast line way back when. They were nothing but shacks. Nobody in their right mind was building fancy homes on the beach. The storms would tear them up and/or flood them. You know? Like storm surge and such? I give you Katrina, Ivan, Fran, etc. I guess people forgot about hurricanes there for a while. Mother Nature has reminded mankind of her fury from time to time. Let us all remember: Don’t build our homes on the sand nor in the flood plain!

  68. AnonyMoose says:

    A lot of people have spent a lot of time building dikes around their homes…now that they are them…

    … fill in the space and have the house raised.

    After Galveston was hit by a hurricane in 1900, the city was raised. 2,100 buildings were raised by as much as 17 feet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galveston_Hurricane_of_1900#Aftermath

  69. Bill P says:

    My submission for this and the Quote of the Week thread:

    “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” — Rahm Emanuel

  70. WakeUpMaggy says:

    It’s becoming obvious that Obama has no ability to think in terms of math or science. He’s at the mercy of the tabloid pseudo social scientists. In addition he’s lacking a bullsh*t meter.
    We can’t see his school records, maybe he took no math or real science.

    Heaven Help Us!

  71. DB2 says:

    Studies by Kunkel et al. have found that the frequency of high precipitation events were equally high in the period 1895 – 1905, so an event such as Fargo isn’t something unusual, although it can be used as a poster child.

    Temporal variations of extreme precipitation events in the United
    States: 1895 – 2000
    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/DaveLegates03-d/Kunkeletal03grlextremeinUSA.pdf

  72. DB2 says:

    This paper by Pinter et al. last year looked at floods in the Mississippi River system and concluded that “the largest and most pervasive contributors to increased flooding on the Mississippi River system were wing dikes and related navigational structures, followed by progressive levee construction.”

    Flood trends and river engineering on the Mississippi River system
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035987.shtml

  73. Henry Galt says:

    We are arguing politics people. Science left the building when the sprinkler system kicked in.

    NC (12:53:41) :

    “…. does he really believe this. Science could not have been his best subject. This makes me seriously question his knowledge of world affairs.”

    Like most leaders he relys on advisors to supply the knowledge and the wives of friends, you can call them seceretaries, to supply the diplomacy.

  74. Rob says:

    Using AGW logic, it all makes perfect sense. The models forecast a warm winter. The models were wrong, and instead it was extremely cold and snowy. All that late melting snow caused a flood, so the flood must be blamed on the global warming predicted by the models. AGW Commandment #1 :

    UK winter of 1947, it was extremely cold and snowy, all that late melting snow caused a flood, was that AGW, just weather.

    http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/1947winter.gif
    http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/NottsFloods1947.jpg
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gesc_b/Pages/Index.html

  75. Rob says:

    UK 1947

    So, scores on the doors for 1947; over England and Wales 1947 had the worst snowfall in 150 years, some of the worst floods on record in the ensuing thaw, the coldest February since records began in 1659 and the wettest March since records began in 1766. Spring was one of the 4 wettest on record and later in the year August was the 4th warmest and 2nd driest on record. The summer was the 6th warmest since 1659. October, and autumn as a whole, were the 6th driest since records began in 1766.

    Clearly an incredible amount of extreme weather over the country throughout the whole year. Makes you wonder what today’s press would have made of it all!

  76. Spartacus says:

    Find the following text using Google. You will be surprised!!!!!!! See how yesterday’s arguments were the same that are used today to reinforce the opposite idea!!! Even the burn of fossil fuels is there.

    “In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone’s recollection.”

  77. Mike Bryant says:

    http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nsa/index.html?region=National&year=2009&month=9&day=1&units=e

    Almost 1/3 of continental USA has snow cover. Most on this date since foor at least the last five years…

  78. Skeptic Tank says:

    People are crazy

    … and just plain dumb.

  79. old construction worker says:

    Antonio San (11:37:26) :

    ‘The “great global warming” of 1897 is very well documented… however the co-relation between flood crest and CO2 concentration is not that clear… More work is needed and a new super computer too…’

    You forgot to say “more money needed”.
    If the CO2 cap and trade program is passed, EPA annual budget will increase by 34.9%

  80. Richard Sharpe says:

    Hmmm, what has the effect been on winter crops?

  81. tarpon says:

    The fact that most of the area had over twice the normal snowfall, and it keeps coming, seems to have escaped scrutiny in the rush to say the computer models are real.

    Tell Mr Obama, are computer models real science? Because that’s all the proof you have.

  82. Methow Ken says:

    You don’t have to tell me about the ”departure from normal” temperatures in ND this winter:
    I spent the last 3 months in far northern ND, right there in one of the 6-to-8 degrees BELOW normal bands. We had a 3-day blizzard last week; was snowed in for several days. After getting down into single digits above zero again last night, FINALLY today it made it into the mid-30s above.

    So WRT a little ”global warming”, all I can say is:
    BRING IT ON !!…. please…..

  83. Robert Bateman says:

    AGW freezes water.
    Oh, my. No, it’s the Gore Effect that causes rivers to freeze.
    AGW, Artificial Gore Warning.
    Media Hysteria. Crying Wolf.
    These people are living in a cartoon world.
    What is thier ultimate goal? Running around bare in the Garden of Eden?
    Return to Planet of the Neanderthals?
    Archeologically Generated World.
    Al Gore & James Hansen, meet Grans Solar Minimum (GSM).

  84. Robert Bateman says:

    My cousin has been doing insurance claim settlements in New Orleans. He told me about the 4″ of snow they had.
    The South, paralyzed with snow.
    Good grief. GSM.

  85. matt v. says:

    During negative or cool phases of PDO there are more La Nina’s and more STRONG and MODERATE La Nina’s than during the positive phases. This contributes to more cold winters and colder years during negative PDO.

    The current cool PDO phase is why we have had all the cold weather and cooling during the last 3 years and this may have directly contributed to the Red River Flooding of 2009 ,
    Under typical La Nina conditions , polar jet stream splits into two paths , one going further north to Alaska and then comes south across the Canadian western and Prairie provinces bringing all the cold air to the western provinces and the US northern central states . The other lower branch of the jet stream brings extra rain and snow across to the states of Washington and Oregon and then to the northern US states close to the Canadian border where all the flooding is now happening.

    Of 20 most significant Red River floods in terms of discharge or flow rates [1950m3/sec or more], 14-15 happened during NEGATIVE PDO. See the attached reference for these floods [http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/floods/redriver/table1_e.php]

    As there may be an extended[ 20-30 years] NEGATIVE or cool PDO phase, there will be more La Nina’s and associated more snow and cold in the Red River region an the northern states. More floods are possible. There were 10 floods with flows 1800 m3/sec or more during the last negative phase of the PDO between 1944 and 1976, with 1950 flood being the largest at 3058 m3/sec. Looks like the 2009 flood which was spawned under similar negative PDO and near La Nina conditions is the first of those that may yet come.

  86. matt v. says:

    http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/education/lanina/canadian/region/index_mean_e.cfm?region=prairies

    This is an excellent web page maintained by the Meterological Services of Canada. It shows how La Nina Conditions affect the winter weather in the Canadian Prairie Provinces adjacent the Red River area. Similar weather pattern existed south of the border.

  87. Paul R says:

    I can’t imagine worse conditions for a flood, flood waters are bad enough when the weathers warm and the water contains just the usual suspects like mud. Trying to cope with freezing water with chunks of ice in it , no thanks.
    Of course this was all the fault of global warming, just like any natural disaster.

  88. Robert Bateman says:

    Even with a cold PDO and La Nina, it does not help to have comatose Solar Activity added on top of it. That’s putting the cart before the horse, as the biggest kid should be leading, but there be no acceptance of the Sun affecting climate on Earth, there is no evidence.
    Just looney-tunes models.
    Goofy and Baby Huey call the shots.

  89. matt v. says:

    FROM ENVIORNMENT CANADA’S OWN 2008/2009 WINTER CLIMATE REPORT
    http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/rtable_e.html?region=f&table=temperature&season=Annual&date=2008&rows=61

    BETWEEN 2006-2009 [WINTERS ONLY], THE REGIONAL WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES DECLINED AS BELOW

    GREAT LAKES AREA COOLED 3.1 C
    NORTHEASTERN FORESTS COOLED 3.4C
    NORTHWESTERN FORESTS COOLED 7.1C
    PRARIES COOLED 6.6 C

    Notice that the winters of the Canadian Prairies which are directly north of North Dakota cooled 6.6 degrees since 2006. This happens whenever the PDO goes cool or negative. The entire north central region gets more snow and is colder than normal. When all this snow melts we have more floods.

    The flooding has nothing to do with global warming but everything to do with cyclic global cooling due to the cyclic negative PDO like we had 1944-1976

  90. Mike D. says:

    Obama made his ill-informed (gibbering) statement while trying to sell Dakotans on his multi-trillion dollar cap-and-trade tax that will bankrupt N and S Dakota (and the rest of the country, too) and leave the residents with no power and no means to forestall or mitigate floods, which, as has been pointed out, are a common occurrence in the flat plains of Glacial Lake Agassiz.

    The remedy proffered by the President is no remedy at all but instead an enormous back-breaker impediment to the economy and to public health and safety. He got the science wrong on purpose, because science is now just a propaganda tool, and he got the economics wrong on purpose because economics are a joke to party in power.

  91. pyromancer76 says:

    Be imaginative. Send Lake Agassiz water west. Solve global warming/climate change and La Nina problems all in one fell swoop — without bankrupting the USA. No more floods for the Red River Valley (love the sound of those words-”From this valley…”) and no more desertification during La Nina for the West.

  92. Pofarmer says:

    Just when I think we’re making progress. I was watching some Mt. Redoubt video’s on youtube. And somehow, the comments in one turned to Arctic warming. On idjit claimed that “In my town it used to be 70 or 80 degrees in the summer, now it’s over 100!!! We’re all gonna die!(I just added that last). What a bunch of Maroons.

  93. J.Hansford says:

    I’m getting pretty tired of the media, government and environmental special interest groups dictating what is truth.

    This whole AGW farce is ten years past it’s use-by date. It is no longer about science, weather or climate. It’s about a political agenda and a Socialist, global agenda at that.

    I don’t mind Political debate, nor a redefinition of societal goals and direction….. But only if the process is based on facts and knowledge to arrive at an accepted truth for people to discuss.

    Once again we have the “Vanguard” of elites pretending to support the interests of the people, the planet and the future…… But as usual. It is all based on a lie.

    It’s an obvious lie and it’s time it was called one.

  94. Harold Ambler says:

    Hey Steven.

    I understood what you were doing with the caption, and only wanted to clear it up for the person who seemed to have misinterpreted it.

    Good post…

  95. Ric Werme says:

    Joel Wallach (12:13:16) :

    Ice dams will and will not occur – Ms. White seems totally clueless from what has be reported… Anthony has proved that AGW data lacks credibility and he has created a reasoned forum on climate.

    Well, I correctly deduced her Email address. I sent a test message and started typing a message inviting her to post here and was surprised to get a reply from her before I sent the second message.

    Her first reply mentioned http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1331/ , that draws too much from the IPCC for my tastes and I pointed out “Temperature increases are expected to change the mix of precipitation toward more rain and less snow. These shifts have already been reported in northern New England, the Great Lakes region, and the Western United States.” Last year’s snowfall in New Hampshire nearly broke the all time record and this year is above average. I left out the last two regions. Pity – it’s snowing in Chicago now.

    Sensibly, cities and towns should NOT be rebuilt on FLOOD Plains… flood plains should be used to grow crops as the rivers naturaly flood and deposit minerally rich soil. The crops pull the minerals from the soil and w eat them… much, much better than corporate farms with NPK only – the plants look good but have very little food value.

    I’ve never lived west of Ohio, but apparently one of the problems is that the flood plains is miles wide so to be out of the flood plain is to be miles away from one’s livelihood. Less of a problem now than it was before cars.

  96. Eve says:

    I loved that remark when Obama made it also. Let’s see, more snow equals more sping run off equals global warming. Opps.
    I thought this president could read or had advisors who could.

  97. It’s a mistake to confuse weather with climate… a mistake made by both sides in the debate.

    But global warming as a trend is real. Sorry to disappoint any naysayers. Let’s all revisit this topic in 20 years, and see who’s ready for some crow. ; )

  98. Steven Goddard says:

    Well Mr. President the Red River flows north into Canada and eventually into Hudson Bay but it can’t because there is still ice on the Red River in Canada, which acts as a dam and won’t let the water pass. So if it were 2 degrees warmer in Manitoba, probably nothing would change, but lets say it was 10 degrees warmer, then there would be NO FLOODING in Fargo.

    So you are right, this flood has nothing to to do with Global Warming, it has everything to do with ICE not melting. It happens every spring to some degree, but it is worse after a harsh winter like this one.

    http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/03/never-let-a-good-crisis-go-to-waste.html

  99. Policyguy says:

    So, no Tornados or Thunderstorms. No hail, wind or a soaking rain. Not even a drizzle.

    Any tall mountains to store a winter full of snow for spring runoff?

    Where did all the flood water and ice come from? A heavy fog?

    Our President says it was global warming. Must have been that smell of brimstone hanging in the air that tipped him off. I guess the Times sniffed it to.

  100. Ohioholic says:

    “I’ve never lived west of Ohio, but apparently one of the problems is that the flood plains is miles wide so to be out of the flood plain is to be miles away from one’s livelihood. Less of a problem now than it was before cars.”

    I have lived in the west, CA specifically. There was a lake bed in the desert I lived in that would fill every time it rained significantly, and these little creatures (spade-footed toad & brine shrimp), would rise out of the desert floor, lay their eggs, and their spawn would return to wait for the next rain. Isn’t it odd how life can bloom in the harshest of climes?

  101. evanmjones says:

    Take me to the river
    Dip me in the water

  102. pobept says:

    Maybe the head line should read, Mini-Ice Age aggravated by human intervention

  103. Richard M says:

    The flood plain around Fargo is miles wide. I’ve driven there many times. The flatness of the terrain is evidence of the historic flodding. No doubt caused by silt depositied over centuries.

    As I mentioned on another thread, warmer temps would reduce the flooding as has been the case over the last positive PDO period. I remember lots of flooding back in the 60s and 70s. Much less in recent years. Warmer temps lead to more winter thaws which reduce the amount of snow melt in the spring.

  104. Jon H says:

    let me splain how dis wurks. Cold makes snow and ice fall, snow and ice turn to water, water mixes with soil, volume of water expands.

    If you have 19 feet of snow and ice you get Katrina level water event.

  105. Raveler says:

    If it’s too hot it’s global warming. If it’s too cold it’s global warming. If Aquarius is rising and it’s a good day to eat lettuce, it’s global warming. These loons would have blamed it on capitalism, but that scapegoat was already taken.

  106. WakeUpMaggy says:

    Wandering OT….thanks to the concept of a north flowing river in spring.

    Does anyone attempt to calculate the volume of river silt filling the coastal floors and building new land? How much silt is now restrained by dams? How much silt used to get deposited on farmland before flood control and levees?
    Is there really new water being added to our atmosphere from comet debris? How much?
    Do hot little iron meteorites pepper the seas with fertilizer?
    What parts of the oceans get deeper and wider from shifting tectonic plates? Surely as continents get slowly uplifted or sink, ocean capacity would change. Volcanoes belching forth the inner earth into the seas surely change the volumes. Who’s measuring this stuff?
    Is much of Greenland really sunk below sea level now due to the weight of the ice so if it melted it would be the same as Arctic salt water ice in volume?
    Surely the collapse of the Atlantic cod fisheries has reduced ocean volume. Haha.

    Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea, joy to you and me.

  107. sukiho says:

    does anyone read all this stuff? I mean the blog is sort of interesting then you get all the ignoramuses jumping in it takes more time then I have to find an interesting reply, and Im sure there are some

  108. matt v. says:

    Robert Bateman

    You make a very valid observation about the sun being at low activity and not helping at the present the flood situation. This is the second reason I think cooler climate may prevail for the next 2-3 decades. The current solar projections are calling for quite low solar cycles for the next two soalr cycles [20 -25 years]. During the last negative PDO CYCLE we had the benefit of the strongest solar cycle in modern times , namely # 19 . With no such extra solar boost for the next 20-30 years , plus a negative or cool PDO and more cooler La Nina’s , and a cool or negative AMO as well ,the central US high plain states and Canadian Priries will get more frequent cold weather and a greater risk of more snow than normal,and when this all melts in the spring, more frequent floods . Yet the sad part about all this is that instead of preparing for this future risk [putting more infrastructure money into flood controls [like Winnipeg, Canada did in the past after they had a devastating flood], people arebeing urged by the government to prepare for unprecedented global warming and the money is going to areas like to replace perfectly good power plants that do not need to be replaced with expensive nuclear power plants that have even a greater risk to humanity on the long run. Very expensive carbon storage is another dead end approch draining money for a useless purpose.

  109. stageupn09 says:

    stageupn

    Alors on parle du climat? soit, il fait beau!!! :)

  110. Brian D says:

    Just barely broke the record from 1897. Global warming in 1897 caused the river to be just as high? Wonder if the man-made structures, levees, sandbagging, and the like, helped the river make this record crest. Were these structures in place in 1897? If not, would the 1897 flood have been higher than this one with those structures in place?

  111. Steve Keohane says:

    Mike Bryant (14:49:48) It’s even better than you said, from your link, snow extent for March 30th:
    2009 27.8%
    2008 24.3%
    2007 17.9%
    2006 13.9%
    2005 13.9%
    2004 08.9%
    Does anyone else detect a trend?

  112. matt v. says:

    Brian.D
    PDO records show 1897 was also negative or cool PDO year like 2009 .Back then probably fewer people lived along the flood plain and the risk was perhaps smaller.

  113. vintagejenta says:

    Are people ever going to get it that global climate change does not automatically mean warmer weather? Weather does not equal climate, people. Climate is weather patterns over a very long period of time. Just because it was cold this year instead of the predicted heatwave does not mean that climate change is not occurring.

    For instance, in Fargo this past fall, we got a ridiculous amount of rain (which was not only unusual, but also raised the water table significantly). One of the effects of global climate change is increased preciptation.

    We also got two ridiculously harsh blizzards over two consecutive weekends and we are about to get another, after very little snow over the rest of the winter. Another effect of global climate change is increased severity of storms and weather patterns.

    So while the flood itself may not be directly affected by global climate change (although please note that March both “came in like a lion” and is now going out like a lion; nothing lamb-like about this upcoming storm), increased precip did contribute significantly to the flood.

    See? Global climate change does not equal automatically warmer temps! But it DOES mean higher and more severe precipitation. Can we all memorize that now? Thanks.

    I’m off to go sandbag and stock up for the impending blizzard.

    P.S. I was born & raised in Fargo and still live here. But thanks for your interest in my humble city, however misplaced.

  114. WWS says:

    Vintagegenta – you missed the memo that said the “global warming” (aka climate change) is also going to cause increasing and unstoppable desertification due to lessened rainfall.

    So here’s the rules, so you can keep score:

    If there’s more rain, it’s global warming.
    If there’s less rain, it’s global warming.
    If there’s more snow, it’s global warming.
    If there’s less snow, it’s global warming.
    If there are hurricanes anywhere, it’s global warming.
    If there are tornados anywhere, it’s global warming.
    If anything bad happens anywhere on the surface of the earth, it’s global warming.

    See how easy that is?

  115. Steven Goddard says:

    vintagejenta ,

    Note that NOAA’s climate prediction center forecast a warm winter for you. That should give you a lot of confidence in the models behind the AGW theory you have embraced.

  116. E.M.Smith says:

    crosspatch (09:41:49) : We should stop paying to rebuild from “flood disasters”. Move the city out of the flood plain.

    Never has more truth been spoken.

    At a minimum, everywhere they put up a sandbag dam ought to be turned into a concrete wall, but that spoils the views and reminds folks they were stupid to live there. The best solution is as you stated:

    If an area floods, or can be shown to be in the (pick one: 25, 50, 100 year flood plain) it ought to have a dike built on the 100 year contour line (for the 500 year event ;-) and anyone on the other side told:

    1) You are on your own if you stay on the wet side.
    2) There is a nice spot of land for your neighborhood in NewTown here, on the dry side of the levy, homes will be moved for free for 1 year starting now. When you move, the land on the wet side joins River Park.
    3) All lands on the wet side of the levy are condemned for future construction. Anything is washed away, that spot is now part of River Park.

    And in some cases this has actually been done… (modulo some details like the 100 year levy).

    Oh, and I just have to ask:

    If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota, and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there,’

    If it was a 2 degree warmer winter would not less snow have fallen and more rain? Would there not be less snow to suddenly melt making floods? Less ice dams? I don’t see a lot of sudden snow melt flooding going on in Florida…

  117. matt v. says:

    It would appear to me that the AGW supporters have confused the climate /weather language somewhat. First they used the term GLOBAL WARMING and predicted unprecedented warming starting immediately [0.21C in each of the next two decades ]. When this proved to be in error several years ago and the planet started to cool instead , the term was switched to CLIMATE CHANGE . We are now asked to stop climate change. Well climate change has been with us ever since records were kept and natural climate variability is the name of the game on this planet . You cannot stop it. Every natural weather and climate event like this flood or the latest drought in California, if only slightly more severe than the last one, is falsely blamed on manmade greenhouse gases .Now that this latest term is being proven to be wrong as well, a new term is being used REDUCE THE CARBON PRINT. This term will also prove to be wrong as Nature knows how to deal with excess carbon.It is not a threat . It has done so well before we came on the planet. However they have forgotten the term REDUCE POLLUTION which was the legitiamate fight until the global warming sidetracked everyone and which involves real pollutants like NOX, SO2, CO, GROUND LEVEL OZONE, SMOG, LEAD and particulate matter. These kill people. When were lower targets for these real pollutants last discussed in the headlines . Weather we are talking about short term or long term , reducing real pollutants should be our battle. Becoming aware of natural climate cycles that cause floods like the one this year and learning how to better prepare for them is also a worthy goal instead of chasing dead end goals like reducing carbon.

  118. E.M.Smith says:

    Harold Ambler (10:17:49) : “The North Dakota National Guard hauls volunteers by truck through floodwaters in Oxbow. In one Fargo neighborhood, mandatory evacuations were ordered after cracks were found in an earthen levee.”

    Well there’s your problem, kids: “Oxbow”

    An oxbow lake forms when an old river channel is cut off by the river cutting a new channel across the ends of the “omega” shape, leaving behind a lake.

    Simple solution, as stated by crosspatch: get out of the flood plain.

    A river, on geologic time scales, is like a worm wiggling in a low spot. It wanders back and forth. Banks erode at the outside of turns and dirt deposits on the inside. Eventually this makes the loop so large that it cuts itself off and leaves an oxbow lake behind. Wait long enough and the new straight channel will cut back sideways into new wiggles and reclaim that oxbow.

    We have just been so incredibly arrogant as to think we can stop this process without any consequences and so self centered as to think that our perception of time is the only valid one. Old Man River runs on a different time scale and does not think much of our activities. Just leave him alone and step back to a nice vantage point to watch. Enjoy River Park in the summer, fall, and even winter. Spring melt, not so much…

    An Never Ever build a home in a place name “Oxbow”.

  119. Re the comments regarding building in a flood plain. Fortunately or unfortunately, the best farmland is located in flood plains, the rich soil being deposited as flood sediment over time. Flood plain land is also the most easily irrigated because it’s the closest to the level of the river that runs through it. The best harbors for unloading ships are also, gulp, usually located on flood plains.

    To those who continually comment that anyone who lives where fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. may occur: please tell me where this magical location exists that has no potential for any of the above scenarios, and we can all live there, although we’ll probably all starve to death.

  120. E.M.Smith says:

    OT: Just had a 4.4 earthquake on the fault I was worried about at the start of the month:

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsus/Quakes/nc40234037.php
    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/36.38.-123.-121.php

    Just a nice little window shaking roller where I am, but it may not be the last on that system. I’m still holding out for something bigger at the next peak / king tide area:

    hiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/are-we-quaking/

    The latest comments are more about spin-orbit coupling, but the early discussion was about quake / spin / tide coupling…

  121. matt v. says:

    http://facstaff.unca.edu/chennon/classes/atms223/ppt/climatic_oscillations.ppt#298,44,Slide 44

    SLIDE #44 Well illustrates why there is more rain, snow and cold during the current cool PDO and winter La Nina for the northern US states and the Canadian western provinces. These events have been happening for hundreds of years.

  122. M White says:

    The bumper crop of snow in the Alps will be melting soon. Could be interesting.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4905666.stm

    The winter of 2005/6 will remain long in the memory

  123. AJ says:

    Nice one mate! … Keep ‘em up … my blog is at http://abhi.com.np/blog/
    Please do review it too and give me some comments on it too.

  124. BTW says:

    Interesting way to quote Obama:

    “I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating. …”

    (Ooops – something he said got snipped with … – what might that be??)

    “If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota, and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there,’ that indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.”

    What he said that you snipped out with was:

    “Which is going on right now. Now I can’t ascribe that in particular to climate change.”

    So why was the part where he specifically DID NOT attribute this to climate change omitted? In doing so you make it appear as though he was saying this was caused by climate change. But then I suppose if you had left it in the folks posting comments here wouldn’t have as much to get worked up about would they?

  125. dhogaza says:

    Obama didn’t say that global warming caused the flooding.

    The context was that slightly cooler weather than expected friday or saturday (I forget when precisely) had led to a forecast that the river would crest slightly lower than feared earlier.

    Obama’s comment, ‘If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there’ is a perfectly reasonable “what if?” question given that situation. If it were 2 degrees warmer, presumably the river would’ve crested higher as earlier feared, possibly breaching the sandbagged barriers.

  126. dhogaza says:

    In fact your own post supports his hypothetical “what if?” question when you state:

    The Red River in Fargo, North Dakota had been expected to crest as high as 43 feet on Saturday, but instead it peaked at less than 41 feet due to freezing springtime temperatures.

    We do need to be aware that relatively small changes in temperature can have surprisingly significant side-effects.

  127. Steven Goddard says:

    Temperatures have been running 5-10 degrees below normal all winter. If the temperature was 2 degrees warmer as Obama mused, it would be 3-8 degrees below normal.

    Using AGW logic, normal temperatures would cause Noah’s flood.

  128. vintagejenta says:

    WWS: Yep, you got it about right! Except for tornadoes and that last bit there (the “anything bad”). Tornadoes I’m pretty sure have not shown any significant increase due to global climate change.

    However, the others are all true because climate change rearranges weather patterns. So it makes sense that if some areas are extra-wet, it makes other areas extra-dry!

    It should be noted, however, that global climate change does not CAUSE hurricanes, it only makes them stronger.

    See how easy it is?

    And to all those who say most of Fargo should be wiped off the face of the planet because it’s in the way of the river, does that also mean we should remove everyone who lives on or near a fault line, a volcano, a mountain (avalanches and rock falls and mud slides, oh my!), the ocean (hurricanes and white squalls!), or in Tornado Alley needs to move, too? And might I ask WHERE you propose to put all these people?

    Flooding is something that happens every year and we’ve dealt with it since Fargo was established. So why don’t you worry about your own little selves. We’re not asking for your help. We chose to live here, we’ll deal with it.

  129. vintagejenta says:

    Just a note to E.M. Smith regarding oxbows: I don’t know if you’ve ever looked at a map of the Red River, but the ENTIRE RIVER is oxbows. That’s what happens when you put a millenia-old river on a flat plane that tilts gently down in a northerly direction. It tends to meander.

    Also, “out of the floodplain” is several MILES away from the river. ‘Cause, y’know, it’s flat out here, and water likes to spread out in flat areas. So you’re suggesting that all of Fargo and Moorhead pick up and move about 10 miles away from the river. Smart idea.

    Wow. Okay, I’m really not usually this snippy. I don’t mean to be so angry, but it just gets me a little riled up when people who don’t know much about my hometown act like they do.

  130. vintagejenta says:

    Wow, okay, don’t mean to be commenting so much, but I just read another comment regarding rain vs. snow (as in the “2 degrees warmer” thing would give us rain, not snow).

    I don’t know if most people understand why the Red floods every year, so I’m going to explain it.

    Much like the Nile, the Red flows north. With the Nile, it floods because there was spring melt in the mountains and rains to swell it. In the Red River Valley, it’s because the southern part melts first, meaning that extra water gets held up by the still-frozen waters north of it. So even if we didn’t get that extra snow from those two terrible blizzards that shut down the city, the Red still would have flooded. And if that precip had been rain instead of snow, the Red STILL would have flooded, maybe just as bad.

    A little rain is not going to melt foot-thick ice on the river. And the Red freezes over every winter because, and let’s be honest, it gets FRICKING COLD up here (-20 temps with -40 windchill were pretty common this past winter).

    SO, even if the snow had been rain, it probably would have just pooled on top of the already-saturated ground, covering an already full water table (remember the rain last fall?), making a big mess until the river ice melted and it could all flow north to Lake Winnipeg and then to the Hudson Bay.

    So can we PLEASE stop speculating on what MIGHT have happened and focus on the present? It flooded really effing badly because we got a heckuva lot of precip over the fall and winter. Maybe some of that extra precip was worsened by global climate change, maybe it wasn’t. But they call it a 100 year flood for a reason (1897, 1997, hey look! 100 years! Wait, 2009?! That’s only 12!). And for 100 year floods to be happening twice with just over a decade between them, that’s not normal, I don’t care if you “believe” in gloal climate change or not.

    And now I’m going to stop ranting.

  131. Gary Pearse says:

    A check on the randomness of “records” is, first, to list the years sequentially from 1 to the end (if100 years, then 1-100). Next convert the peak flow rate data to a ranking by size also from 1-100 in our example. Treat the first year as a record and then mark each successively larger record and count them. If the numbered arrangement of the peak flows is a random permutation of the numbers 1 to a 100, then the number of “records” should be approximately Ln 100. In the case of Winnipeg flood records from 1875 (first officially measured- earlier were more anecdotal) there are 124 years to 1998 (last major flood 1997). Ln 124 = 4.82, so we should expect about 5 records to have occurred. I count exactly five.

    Year Peak flow* (m3/s) Year Peak flow* (m3/s) Year Peak flow* (m3/s)
    1826 6371 1919 665 1959 991
    1852 4672 1920 1090 1960 1965
    1861 3540 1921 629 1961 481
    1875 (1042) 1922 821 1962 1688
    1876 807 1923 1809 1963 660
    1877 1068 1924 654 1964 1002
    1878 382 1925 1189 1965 1809
    1880 1178 1926 379 1966 2498
    1881 1291 1927 1455 1967 1727
    1882 (2364) 1928 912 1968 510
    1883 1422 1929 912 1969 2209
    1884 1345 1930 1042 1970 2280
    1885 1008 1931 688 1971 1526
    1892 1957 1932 1062 1972 1589
    1893 1897 1933 1096 1973 530
    1894 1303 1934 442 1974 2718
    1895 957 1935 425 1975 1671
    1896 1741 1936 1068 1976 1807
    1897 1954 1937 219 1977 187
    1898 1458 1938 436 1978 1750
    1899 345 1939 357 1979 3030
    1900 331 1940 498 1980 881
    1901 977 1941 1184 1981 159
    1902 1405 1942 1291 1982 1458
    1903 818 1943 1195 1983 1393
    1904 2209 1944 493 1984 1048
    1905 614 1945 1487 1985 991
    1906 866 1946 1079 1986 1812
    1907 980 1947 1039 1987 2339
    1908 909 1948 2124 1988 564
    1909 578 1949 1362 1989 1390
    1910 980 1950 (3058) 1990 396
    1911 345 1951 1065 1991 280
    1912 586 1952 1008 1992 1399
    1913 1277 1953 357 1993 946
    1914 442 1954 524 1994 1121
    1915 326 1955 1521 1995 1877
    1916 (2427) 1956 1974 1996 3058
    1917 1124 1957 654 1997 (4587)
    1918 405 1958 524 1998 1557
    Flood frequency analysis for the Red River at
    Winnipeg by Donald H. Burn and N.K. Goel
    http://www.crhnet.ca/casestudies/redriver/flood_frequency.pdf

    I was surprised that the author’s didn’t appear to know this test. Now there are a number of parameters that make such things not exactly random, of course. For example, if we are going into another cold period, we may expect a bunching up of floods with increasing snow fall because of prolonging winter, harder freezes in the outlet areas of north-flowing rivers, etc. However, if the cooling down and warming up periods are cyclical, then in the long run the Ln N would tend to average out.

  132. Paul R says:

    And for 100 year floods to be happening twice with just over a decade between them, that’s not normal, I don’t care if you “believe” in gloal climate change or not.

    Someone should buy this climate a calender, It’s obviously functioning out of sink with our concept of time and doing all sorts of naturally variable silly things. :)

  133. Steven Goddard says:

    vintagejenta,

    No one has any idea what the weather would have been like this winter in Fargo if CO2 levels were 50 ppm lower or higher. It might have been better, it might have been worse.

  134. dhogaza says:

    Temperatures have been running 5-10 degrees below normal all winter. If the temperature was 2 degrees warmer as Obama mused, it would be 3-8 degrees below normal.

    Using AGW logic, normal temperatures would cause Noah’s flood.

    And, using your logic, those professionals who predicted the flood would crest slightly lower because of slightly cooler than forecast temperatures were wrong, eh?

  135. Steven Goddard says:

    dhogaza,

    My prediction is that AGW promoters will continue to argue in non-sequiturs when rhetorically cornered.

  136. dhogaza says:

    Temperatures have been running 5-10 degrees below normal all winter.

    Stephen, is february part of winter?

  137. dhogaza says:

    Stephen, and speaking of non-sequiturs…

    Using AGW logic, normal temperatures would cause Noah’s flood.

    Obama didn’t claim that AGW caused the flooding, he only pointed out that a 2 degree change would’ve had a significant impact on THIS SITUATION, which is in total agreement with the statements of those forecasting the cresting height of the flood.

  138. Steven Goddard says:

    dhogaza,

    If the average temperature of the earth was two degrees warmer, “THIS SITUATION” (5-10 degrees below normal) wouldn’t be happening. Read up on chaos theory here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

    Glad to help out.

  139. Gary Pearse says:

    Paul R (13:13:48) :

    “And for 100 year floods to be happening twice with just over a decade between them, that’s not normal, I don’t care if you “believe” in gloal climate change or not.”

    Paul brush off your statistics primer – randomness doesn’t preclude two close together. If you want to make a climate connection to the “two close” together you are unfortunately faced with matching them with a cooling climate. This is precisely why I suggested the departure from randomness. Incidentally, try Ln N on baseball records and see if a bunching up coincides with steroid and other performance enhancing drugs. And then see if there is another record broken for 50 years after they clean up the sport.

  140. E.M.Smith says:

    E.M.Smith (09:51:11) :

    That ought to have been:

    chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/are-we-quaking/

    don’t know why the leading “c” got dropped.

    Per the “2 degrees more causes more rain” that was not an absolute +2 from present -x it was an average +2 means you spend more time with rain at the lead in / lead out from the frozen range, so more of your total precipitation ends up on the ‘rain side’ of frozen…

  141. dhogaza says:

    If the average temperature of the earth was two degrees warmer, “THIS SITUATION” (5-10 degrees below normal) wouldn’t be happening.

    “this situation” obviously referred to the impact of two degrees warming on the cresting level of the river.

    And, as was pointed out above, you quote-mined him in the first place.

    And it hasn’t been “5-10 degrees below normal all winter” in MN.

  142. Steven Goddard says:

    dhogaza ,

    Obama’s statement indicated a thorough lack of understanding of the science, as do yours.

    ‘If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?

    If the world was two degrees warmer, “the situation” in Fargo would not be happening. Read the paragraph below carefully.

    An early pioneer of chaos theory was Edward Lorenz whose interest in chaos came about accidentally through his work on weather prediction in 1961.[14] Lorenz was using a simple digital computer, a Royal McBee LGP-30, to run his weather simulation. He wanted to see a sequence of data again and to save time he started the simulation in the middle of its course. He was able to do this by entering a printout of the data corresponding to conditions in the middle of his simulation which he had calculated last time.
    To his surprise the weather that the machine began to predict was completely different from the weather calculated before. Lorenz tracked this down to the computer printout. The computer worked with 6-digit precision, but the printout rounded variables off to a 3-digit number, so a value like 0.506127 was printed as 0.506. This difference is tiny and the consensus at the time would have been that it should have had practically no effect. However Lorenz had discovered that small changes in initial conditions produced large changes in the long-term outcome.[15] Lorenz’s discovery, which gave its name to Lorenz attractors, proved that meteorology could not reasonably predict weather beyond a weekly period (at most).

  143. E.M.Smith says:

    vintagejenta (12:14:24) : [...] the ENTIRE RIVER is oxbows. That’s what happens when you put a millenia-old river on a flat plane that tilts gently down in a northerly direction. It tends to meander.

    I know. Where I was born and grew up is 32 FEET of elevation. It’s 20 miles to the really big river on one side and It’s 5 miles from the big river on the other. It is about 250 miles from that point to sea level… in a straight line and the river aint straight. We had 3 foot curbs downtown, 1 1/2 foot in the residential areas, and building lots were about 2 feet higher than that so that WHEN the river flooded it stayed in the streets, not in the house (by about a foot!). I know flat, floods, and rivers spreading out miles…

    There is now a nice little flood plain on the really big river, defined and set aside, bounded by dikes. The river can meander inside this plain (called the causeway) and folks regularly farm it, fish there, drive dirt buggies there, etc. Works great. The river on the other side got a dam some years later. Now the town just looks funny with tall curbs… but for over 100 years the simple expedient of being above flood level (even by only 1 foot) worked great.

    So you’re suggesting that all of Fargo and Moorhead pick up and move about 10 miles away from the river. Smart idea.

    Glad you thought it was smart. Thanks. ;-) BTW, I don’t think ALL should move. What I said was residences ought to be given a 1 year ‘free pass’ to relocate and those who do not, get left alone… very alone. No Federal or State taxes paying for bad decisions by other people, and then I don’t care what you do.

    Further, while I didn’t explicitly state it (thinking it pretty obvious) things that need a river, like marinas, restaurants on the marina, fishing docks, cargo docks, etc. have no reason to move and business can decide for it self what makes economic sense (minus my tax money…). Farming in a flood plain works very well too though parking for tractors is a bit dicy. We usually put them on the levee or similar dirt pile. Basically, in a flood emergency everybody can drive away from the restaurant and shopping mall, I don’t see it as a problem; but the home evacuations are a problem (and I’d even add things like nursing homes and maybe even trauma centers…). 90% of the problem is gone if you relocate the residential area higher up.

    Also, FWIW, I’d be just as prone to endorsing relocating the houses straight up… Put ‘em on pilings so they are above the high flood mark. That, too, has been done and worked. Want to live 10 feet below sea level? Fine with me as long as you are on pilings a couple of feet above flood level or even if the lower story is the concrete block garage and the living area is above flood level. Heck, the dutch have a wonderful design for floating houses where the basement is a steel tub and the whole house floats up on mooring poles!

    Just don’t put the residential ground floor below flood level and expect other folks or other folks money to deal with it when you get flooded.

    Wow. Okay, I’m really not usually this snippy. I don’t mean to be so angry, but it just gets me a little riled up when people who don’t know much about my hometown act like they do.

    You are leaping off a cliff of conclusion… as I said, I grew up in such a river bounded flood plain. I’m speaking from the experience of wading in the flood water more than once… Finally stopped flooding when they put in a giant dam in the mountains (and shipped the water to Kern county and L.A.). Yeah, not exactly your home town, but a very similar geology. I did have to admire the founders of my home town (in 18xx something early) who had the wisdom to dictate the lots be elevated above the flood depth 5 miles from the river (even if ‘newbies’ did hit their car doors on the high curbs ’till they figured it out ;-) and think a very similar solution is a Very Good Idea in your home town (unless you don’t like it and chose to stay below the flood and want to be left alone… very alone.)

  144. matt v. says:

    M.WHITE

    You think that extra record snow and the flooding risk in the ALPS is very real, just note this. With all the extra snow and cold temperatures for the last several years in Canada where the Prairie winter temperatures dropped some 7.1c degrees since 2006 , this just came out of an AGW den http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090330.BCGREEN30/TPStory/Environment

    You just can’t win sometime.

  145. dhogaza says:

    Obama’s statement indicated a thorough lack of understanding of the science, as do yours.

    ‘If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?

    If the world was two degrees warmer, “the situation” in Fargo would not be happening. Read the paragraph below carefully.

    Sigh. It’s clear he was talking about local conditions. When the forecasters said “slightly cooler weather has led us to reduce our forecast of crest height to under 41 feet” they weren’t saying “slightly cooler global temps …”.

    This was the context.

    I understand the science perfectly well, thank you, and not only that, I understand English, the context of the quote.

    Now, you still haven’t told us why you quote-mined in the first place, leaving the impression that he was blaming the flooding on global warming when he explicitly said one could not.

    Quote-mining is a sin.

  146. Bruce Cobb says:

    dhogaza (11:25:20) :
    Obama’s comment, ‘If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there’ is a perfectly reasonable “what if?” question given that situation. If it were 2 degrees warmer, presumably the river would’ve crested higher as earlier feared, possibly breaching the sandbagged barriers.

    “Perfectly reasonable” by whose reasoning – yours? There is only one reason for asking that “what if” question, and that is AGW alarmism. It’s a completely rhetorical question, based on the false premise that A) we are warming at an alarming and unprecedented rate, and 2) man is primarily responsible via his contribution of C02.

  147. dhogaza says:

    It is also clear that Obama could’ve chosen his words more carefully, since it’s obvious that some people are going to intentionally misinterpret what he says in an attempt to make him look foolish.

    Sometimes even stooping to quote-mining, eh, Stephen?

    Why haven’t you put the full quote at the top of the page, rather than leaving the quote-mined version up there?

  148. dhogaza says:

    “Perfectly reasonable” by whose reasoning – yours?

    By applying the same logic that slight regional cooling caused the river to crest a foot or so lower than the best estimate made the day before.

    It’s a completely rhetorical question, based on the false premise that A) we are warming at an alarming and unprecedented rate, and 2) man is primarily responsible via his contribution of C02.

    Science is known for the promotion of false premises, I agree. That’s what scientists do, sit in their labs, plotting promotion of false premises.

  149. Smokey says:

    “That’s what some scientists do, sit in their labs, plotting promotion of false premises.”

    Fixed.

    [And some of those scientists work at NASA/GISS.]

    Finally, what’s with the ‘quote mining’ accusations? The quote was taken from the Scientific American article, which states in the very first sentence:

    “President Obama says potentially historic flood levels in North Dakota are a clear example of why steps need to be taken to stop global warming.”

    Now, I understand that Scientific American was bought by a pro-greenie German company a few years ago, so they try to pitch the AGW/CO2 fallacy every chance they get. But it seems the readers are smarter than the editors. For example, look at the comments below the article: click

    Note the article’s title, too.

  150. Pofarmer says:

    Sensibly, cities and towns should NOT be rebuilt on FLOOD Plains… flood plains should be used to grow crops as the rivers naturaly flood and deposit minerally rich soil. The crops pull the minerals from the soil and w eat them… much, much better than corporate farms with NPK only – the plants look good but have very little food value.

    I’m sorry folks, that just does NOT work.

  151. Steven Goddard says:

    dhogaza,

    Sigh all you want, but you obviously don’t understand the science and have the blinkers on about Obama’s comment – which was a blatant and unambiguous suggestion that global warming is an aggravating factor in the Fargo floods.

    If the average global temperature was two degrees warmer, the flooding event in Fargo most likely would not have happened. Some alarmists here have repeatedly made the point that this flood is due to La Nina, which is a cooling event – not a warming event.

  152. E.M.Smith says:

    Pofarmer (17:07:54) :
    “flood plains should be used to grow crops as the rivers naturaly flood and deposit minerally rich soil. The crops pull the minerals from the soil and w eat them… much, much better than corporate farms with NPK only – the plants look good but have very little food value.”

    I’m sorry folks, that just does NOT work.

    Well, I think you really meant that it works, just not all that well ;-) It worked for a few thousand years in the Nile for example. It’s just vastly more efficient to transport the needed fertilizers via truck… BTW, to the original poster, farmers also measure trace minerals and correct for them where appropriate too. It’s not just NPK. And large industrial farmers often do this more than small guys who are less formal about it.

    I’m not endorsing either one, just pointing out what I’ve observed…

  153. WakeUpMaggy says:

    ” dhogaza (15:53:40) :

    It is also clear that Obama could’ve chosen his words more carefully, since it’s obvious that some people are going to intentionally misinterpret what he says in an attempt to make him look foolish.”

    We shall see, dhogaza. Obama seems incapable of choosing his words, when he speaks extemp. I’m deeply afraid there isn’t a lot of data in there from which he CAN choose. No one wants him to look foolish, the real fear is that he IS foolish.

  154. dhogaza says:

    If the average global temperature was two degrees warmer

    Point me to the part where he said “average global temperature”.

    Please.

    Point me to the part where “this situation” refers to this mythical “all winter which has been 5 to 10 degrees lower than normal”.

    I do understand the science, I’ve been aware of chaos theory (which is math, not science) for decades, I know that long-term weather (as opposed to climate) forecasts are an impossible nut to crack due to the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, and I know that none of this has anything to do with the fact that *if* the temps along the Red River had been two degrees warmer this weekend, *then*, if the forecasters are to be believed, the river might well have crested the 43 foot sandbagged barriers, causing much more extensive flooding than occurred.

    He was using the local situation as an illustration that small changes in temperature shouldn’t be hand-waved away as being unimportant.

    Temperatures have been running 5-10 degrees below normal all winter.

    Where. February is winter, I pasted a link above that shows this is a false statement for February in the United States, and in particular in MN.

  155. E.M.Smith says:

    Smokey (16:17:07) : Now, I understand that Scientific American was bought by a pro-greenie German company a few years ago, so they try to pitch the AGW/CO2 fallacy every chance they get. But it seems the readers are smarter than the editors. For example, look at the comments below the article:

    Not only were the comments generally repudiating AGW and critical of Obama calling a weather event evidence of climate… But there were all of 30 of them while this thread alone is 156 as I type!

    WUWT trounces Scientific American! Way To Go!

    As I child I read SciAm nearly religiously at the library in my podunk farm town. Got quite a very broad science education from it. After the sale to {whoever} when it turned into more of a marketing & propaganda machine, I gradually stopped reading it — but sometimes for free in the grocery store I’d read an article. Last time I picked it up after a cover tease, the article was so broken about AGW that I just put it back and walked away. Haven’t picked it up since and don’t even get teased by the cover while grocery shopping any more… And folks wonder why propaganda newspapers are going under right and left and propaganda magazine lose money. It’s called choice, and places like WUWT let folks like us choose truth over slick propaganda.

    Game changer. Congratulations!

  156. Steven Goddard says:

    dhogaza,

    Pretend for a minute that (as you were suggesting) Obama was talking about a local two degree increase in temperature, rather than a global increase (which is what he obviously was talking about.) That would mean North Dakota was 3-8 degrees below normal instead of 5-10 degrees. What on earth does that have to do with global warming?

    Read between his lines. What he was saying is “if the one degree of warming we have had so far did this, imagine what another two degrees of warming would do.”

    Obama dodged criticism all through the campaign by not being precise on many topics, but it was always obvious where he stood – to anyone who was willing to listen and think. This is no exception.

  157. E.M.Smith says:

    Indiana Bones (10:29:06) : The L.A. Times photo caption: “River ice generated by global warming in North Dakota”
    ???

    I wonder… Now if I were employed in a propaganda mill, and my editor required me to fill my quota… would I try to go passive-aggressive and slip in things like “ice generated by … warming”? MaaayBee…

  158. E.M.Smith says:

    Jim Cripwell (10:19:11) : You need to be very careful with this idea. Any sort of floodway increases the flooding downstream.

    Um, not always… If it’s a narrow bypass channel, yes, but if it’s like the Sacramento River Bypass (Yolo Bypass per wiki though I never heard it called then when I lived there…) bypasses Sacramento, it’s miles wide and the river gets to spread out and slow way down. Suppresses the crest for the entire length of the river down stream. Think 25,500 acres (103 km2) lake 10 to 20 feet deep (3-6 m). Holds (and so delays) a lot of water.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yolo_Bypass
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yolo_Causeway

  159. Steven Goddard says:

    The sarcastic caption under the LA Times photo is my own writing. I was just pointing out how absurd the idea of blaming this flood on global warming was.

  160. E.M.Smith says:

    Retired Engineer (12:00:41) : Some threads back, folks asked about pumping all this water west or at least to places with drought. Why not pump it just far enough to reach the Ogallala Aquafer?

    My Gosh that makes a lot of sense. At first I thought “you crazy? Pump water to Texas?” then I looked at the map here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

    You’d have to cross all of South Dakota and can hit the aquifer on the southern edge of S. Dakota or N. Nebraska. That’s very doable… Don’t know if you could add volume to the Missouri River part of the time or it if would take an added channel or humongous pipeline, but at a first glance it looks like a way good idea. During times of excess flow, divert some of the excess into the aquifer and save everyone downstream at least part of the grief.

    Yeah, water rights issues, but if it’s water that’s destined to destroy & flood I can’t see too much of a fight over it. Don’t know how fast water travels through the aquifer… might need many injection / recharge points and Texas might have to wait a few decades for the water to get there. But given the alternative of some 27% or so of all irrigated farm land in the U.S.A. going thirsty while other places flood…

    Has this ever been proposed before? Is there any history on something like this?

  161. WakeUpMaggy says:

    E.M.Smith (19:41:22) :

    Retired Engineer (12:00:41) : Some threads back, folks asked about pumping all this water west or at least to places with drought. Why not pump it just far enough to reach the Ogallala Aquafer?

    Since they can drill obliquely to extract oil, perhaps they can drill obliquely to drain water.

    Brilliant!

  162. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Heads Up Folks.

    Apparently all that Global Warming is about to deliver a Blizzard to North Dakota.

    Ref: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25269271-2703,00.html

  163. E.M.Smith says:

    Roger Sowell (12:54:33) : there are stormwater infiltration devices, which are now mandatory in California on some construction projects. These are designed as holes in the ground, filled with a permeable structure such as hollow plastic cubes. The rainwater (such as it is in California!) drains into the infiltration device, instead of into a storm drain. The water eventually percolates into the groundwater. The cost is huge, of course.

    These are different from the old rock filled dry wells of my youth how?

    Helped the neighbor put in a dry well to take his roof water a few decades ago. Downspout to a pipe into a 1 foot by 10? foot hole full of rocks…
    Didn’t want the rain water making his lawn soggy or washing over the driveway…

  164. Ric Werme says:

    E.M.Smith (18:43:12) :

    As I child I read SciAm nearly religiously at the library in my podunk farm town. Got quite a very broad science education from it.

    The decline of SciAm is one of the saddest stories in science journalism. Like you (and the Unabomber!), I looked forward to each issue. My father subscribed to it. At the time, Mathematical Games was my favorite column. I can still do Jacob’s ladder and make hexaflexagons from adding machine tape. Questar ads! Of course, as I got older and understood the science better, I learned about electrophoresis, holograms, plate tectonics, and all the other great stuff that ws going on. When my sister moved to California, we decided to discard all those issues (except for Henry Stommel’s article on The Year without a Summer.) By then there was no point in subscribing to what the magazine had become.

    I think the fall happened as Discover, Omni, and other magazines showed up aimed at a less knowledgable audience. They took advertisers from SciAm and created an environment tough for all magazines. By the time some of the upstarts had the decency to fail, SciAm as we knew was no more.

  165. E.M.Smith says:

    vintagejenta (07:02:54) :
    Are people ever going to get it that global climate change does not automatically mean warmer weather? Weather does not equal climate, people. Climate is weather patterns over a very long period of time.

    Yup, unfortunately it’s about a 1500 year time interval, not the 30 year weather pattern that the AGW folks (among others) seem to think counts as ‘climate’.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500-year_climate_cycle

    Until the cause for Bond Events can be explained, any attribution of ‘climate change’ to anything other than nature is simple self delusion.

    So, set your sights on things in the 3000 to 10,000 year range and we can talk about Climate Change. Anything under 1500 years is just weather, and we all know that we can’t do anything about the weather and that weather events mean nothing to climate change.

    Oh, and explain these too:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard-Oeschger_events

    One hopes the explanation is the same as Bond Events, but you never know…

    Just because it was cold this year instead of the predicted heatwave does not mean that climate change is not occurring.

    Right! Climate change has happened over the entire lifetime of the planet. 4.5 billion years or so. No way to stop it, or even slow it down. See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

    Notice that most of the time it’s about 4-6 C colder than now, but sometimes it’s up to 4-5 C hotter than right now and it’s normal to oscillate between them on a periodic basis. Also notice that the last few thousand years have been extraordinarily stable and that it sure looks like the most probable movement after an interglacial high point is a plunge into deep cold. You are very right, we really do need to accept that climate change is coming, just not likely to the hot side! (‘Cause Fargo is not going to handle it well with a 1 km ice dam overhead…)

    See? Global climate change does not equal automatically warmer temps! But it DOES mean higher and more severe precipitation. Can we all memorize that now? Thanks.

    Certainly we can, and I’m fairly certain that with the PDO flip in place, with the sun hitting the snooze alarm, and with the time for the next Bond Event being, well, Any Decade Now: You will get a lot of opportunities to repeat that phrase “Global Climate change does not equal [...] warmer temps!” and “higher and more severe precipitation” with emphasis on the snow part.

    I’m off to go sandbag and stock up for the impending blizzard.

    Good luck, and don’t forget to put up about 40 years worth of cold weather provisions and gear. You will likely need it.

    BTW, your

    http://citygirlcountryfood.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/comfort-food-simple-meatballs-creamy-smashed-potatoes/

    recipe looks pretty good! I’ve bookmarked it and when I get time I’m going to wander through the other recipes you have. Your boyfriend is a lucky guy! (I get to do the cooking for my family, having grown up in a family restaurant… but I’ve been looking for some new ideas to freshen the menu.)

  166. dhogaza says:

    Pretend for a minute that (as you were suggesting) Obama was talking about a local two degree increase in temperature, rather than a global increase (which is what he obviously was talking about.)

    Quit lying. It’s clear he was relating a global increase to a local one, as an *analogy*, an *example*. “look what a 2 degree increase would do to THIS SITUATION (Red River, Fargo, local stream forecasters saying that the eventual crest hight was highly sensitive to local temps).

    Pretend for a moment that you were honest, and hadn’t quote-mined him in the first place.

    Damn, I can’t.

    REPLY: Don’t call others liars just because they present a different viewpoint. – Anthony

  167. dhogaza says:

    Read between his lines. What he was saying is “if the one degree of warming we have had so far did this, imagine what another two degrees of warming would do.”

    So on the one side, we have RWingnuts laughing because Obama is prone to stumbling a bit when speaking off-the-cuff.

    And here we have you saying “read between the lines”, that his (obviously awkwardly worded) statement has some deep meaning including words he never said, like “if one degree of warming we have had so far did this”, even though he CLEARLY said you can’t attribute “this” to “that”.

    REPLY:
    The point is that warming didn’t cause the ice dam, and I’m going to say, stop this back and forth over meanings of words. Pick a new subject. – Anthony

  168. E.M.Smith says:

    dhogaza (18:37:19) : I do understand the science, I’ve been aware of chaos theory (which is math, not science)

    You sure about that? Really? Last chance… OK,

    Math, often called “The Queen of the Sciences”…

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

    “The word “mathematics” comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma), which means learning, study, science, ”

    Or in other words, the very name of mathematics means science…

    and

    “Carl Friedrich Gauss referred to mathematics as “the Queen of the Sciences”.[21] In the original Latin Regina Scientiarum, as well as in German Königin der Wissenschaften, the word corresponding to science means (field of) knowledge. Indeed, this is also the original meaning in English, and there is no doubt that mathematics is in this sense a science”

    Now if you want to subscribe to the belief that math is not popperian so can be excluded from “science” that is your belief, but not very useful. Popper is one person, not God nor the sole authority on thought.

    And of course there have been folks who have said that Physics is just applied Mathematics and that Chemistry is just applied Physics; so I don’t think you want to head down the path of trying to show that these are somehow dramatically different forms of thought… (We’ll skip over the assertion that Engineering is just applied Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics … )

    Popper is an interesting guy with some interesting ideas, but there is no need to put his straight jacket on your mind and call it truth.

  169. Mark T says:

    The “engineering” I do is almost purely statistics (detection theory).

    Mark

  170. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    E.M.Smith (22:12:53) :

    ….
    Popper is an interesting guy with some interesting ideas, but there is no need to put his straight jacket on your mind and call it truth.

    Personally I found Popper a rather dry read, and I take a position that Thomas Kuhn (of “The Copernican Revolution”, Paradigm Shifts, etc) has a better take.

    However, I really like the idea that Science should be Falsifiable. A characteristic that is typically missing in action in the current AGW movement.

  171. Steven Goddard says:

    Since the beginning of the meteorological winter in December, Fargo, ND has had an average temperature of 11F, with at least 80% of days below normal.
    http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KFAR/2008/12/1/CustomHistory.html?dayend=31&monthend=3&yearend=2009&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
    http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/histGraphAll?day=1&year=2008&month=12&dayend=31&yearend=2009&monthend=3&ID=KFAR&type=6&width=500

    Temperatures on the Minnesota side of the ND border have also been averaging up to 10 degrees below normal this winter.
    http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/hprcc/mn/Last3mTDeptHPRCC-MN.png
    http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/maps/current/index.php?action=update_daterange&daterange=Month

    Note that the entire drainage of the Red River on both sides of the border has been running well below normal. Imagine the devastation that a two degree rise in temperature would bring. No wonder Obama’s teleprompter is concerned.

  172. Brian D says:

    Thanks Gary Pearse for that PDF. It helps put things into perspective on Red River flooding.

    Basically, it has flooded bad before, and sometimes frequently. And what is happening now is no different than the past.

    What is different is the all the man-made structures (flood controls) which can skew the data for flow rates. So estimates have to be done for comparisons from before flood control measures. In this case, all data after 1968 is estimated. Data prior to 1875 is also estimated. But that’s all we got, and have to use it. Wonder how skewed the heights are now from before flood control measures (permanent and temporary)? A 40ft flood without flood controls (allowing the river to spread out), and a 40ft flood now are not the same. Estimate the 40ft now to what it would be naturally would not be so high. Maybe by a couple feet, I don’t know.

    The one thing that makes floods, and all natural disasters so devastating is the amount of infrastructure, and people in the way of them, now. It’s why they seem so much worse. The 1826 flood was the largest on record (in the Winnipeg area). It didn’t effect near the people, but was just as devastating to them, and their property. AGW theory would have been tempting to accept, then, as it is now.

    Labeling events as 100yr, 500yr is extremely misleading, IMO. You can get a series of major events in one man’s lifetime, yet another man’s life may not see that many. Matter of perspective, than factual. Records are more spotty prior to the 20th century.

    Here are the years with flow rates of 3000 m3/s or better up to 1998. Maybe there are records for 1999-2008 somewhere. But I’ll list what was given from the PDF.

    1811 – 3171
    1826 – 6371
    1850 – 3002
    1852 – 4672
    1861 – 3540
    1950 – 3058
    1979 – 3030
    1996 – 3058
    1997 – 4587

  173. matt v. says:

    Just a brief analysis of the 20 major floods and the more frequent factors present were :
    COOL PDO about 70%
    COLDER THAN NORMAL TEMP 55%
    PRESENCE OF LA NINA 35%
    PRESENCE OF SOLAR MIN 3 FLOODS

  174. E.M.Smith says:

    FWIW, I found a map of hydrology of the Fargo / Moorhead area. It looks to me like a very “doable” project to cut a bypass from south of the towns over to the Buffalo River system (though I don’t know it’s capacity to carry more water, at least it looks rural with plenty of room to cut a wider channel if needed). The map is fairly large so if you do ‘click through’ you will likely need to scan over to the right and down to find Fargo. See:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/fargo-bypass/

    for more detail.

  175. hotrod says:

    Paul R (13:13:48) :

    “And for 100 year floods to be happening twice with just over a decade between them, that’s not normal, I don’t care if you “believe” in gloal climate change or not.”

    The concept of a 100 year flood is widely misunderstood. It does not mean that the floods will only occur once each 100 years it means that a flood of that severity has a 1/100 chance of occurring in any given year. As mentioned above these are random events and just like tossing double sixes with a pair of dice, you can figure out the odds of throwing double sixes in an infinite series of throws. That said if you throw a double six your odds of throwing another one on the next throw are exactly the same as they were on the first throw. Independent random events do not influence each other so you could easily have more than one 100 year flood in a single season.

    The methods of flood mitigation are well known and there are lots of things communities can do to reduce their risk. The big mistake most towns make is building their flood control dikes right along the normal river channel. That gives the river no where to go as it enters flood stage. It is much better to condemn a swath of property a 1/4 mile wide or so on each side of the river and build the flood control structures set back by a 1/4 mile from the channel. You then zone the area inside this flood plain for uses that are little effected by flooding. Things like parks, golf courses, soccer fields, ball fields, City parking lots, elevated river side restaurants etc.

    In some cases rather than force relocation, the property owners are offered a choice. If you relocate, we will provide a relocation incentive, but if you get flooded out, you will get no reconstruction benefits (all on your dime) and you will be on your own during the flooding period.

    By providing that extra flood impoundment, you greatly slow the flood water flow rates and give it a chance to spread out and it lowers the peak crest at the exchange of a slightly longer period of flooding.

    In a town north of Denver, they are built on very flat ground and during heavy thunderstorms they whole area floods. The local community has a simple solution for the problem. Instead of having to put sand bag barriers around the whole town or every structure, all the homes are surrounded by low walls with narrow access areas set up so a simple board could be slid into the gate way, and a couple sandbags is all that is necessary to prevent flooding of the homes yard.

    In a known flood area, they could use landscaping to pre-place segments of a flood control structure in critical locations and during flooding their sand bag requirements would be reduced by an order of magnitude.

    This has all been done in may communities, it is not rocket science, all you need is the political will and public will to work out a solution that fits the local conditions and minimizes the predictable flood losses every time it floods.

    Larry

  176. AJ says:

    Thanks for the great article and the pdf file. i would like to post about it to my blog http://abhi.com.np/blog/

  177. matt v. says:

    In my opinion, the flood threat for FARGO in the next several decades continues to be present if AMO and PDO both continue to be negative or cool. Such a pattern existed previously from 1964-1976 and may repeat for the next decade or two if past PDO AND AMO patterns repeat and they last for 20-30 years once they start.[ however, sometime they fluctuate with shorter cycles] The average flow 1965-1976 was 1740m3/sec. , six years had a flow of 1800 m3/sec and four years with 2209-2718 m3/sec. This well above the normal

  178. E.M.Smith says:

    Just a small update on the Fargo Bypass idea. from:
    http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nd/nwis/uv/?site_no=05054000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060

    we get that the delta from ‘very high’ to ‘record flood’ is about 10,000 cfs.
    That’s a capacity almost the same as the California Aqueduct. So a concrete ditch about 20 feet x 150 feet (or 30 x 100) would carry all the ‘flood excess’ past Fargo. What’s that, 20 miles? Almost trivial in size compared to the California aqueduct. That’s the ‘cost of mitigation’…

    For the inevitable complaint about the downstream effects:

    ALL that water is going downstream anyway. Unlike a levee (that makes it worse) a bypass adds capacity, slows velocity, lowers the peak (downstream too!) and restores some of the natural ‘spreading out’ behaviour (it just does it in a controlled place and time). So it makes it better downstream, not worse.

    I do like the idea of using a tunnel boring machine to put the whole thing underground, but it adds a lot of cost…

  179. matt v. says:

    EM SMITH

    The web page you referenced shows maximum flows of 19800 cfm, which translates to about 560m3/s.[1m3/s=35.3146 cf/s ]This is much lower than the 3000-6000m3/s peak flows we talked about earlier at Winnipeg. The difference must be the flow at FARGO and the flow at Winnipeg . The latter receiving the flow from a much larger drain basin? Is this your understanding?

  180. matt v. says:

    I meant to say maximum flow of 30,000 which is 850m3/sec at FARGO

  181. AnonyMoose says:

    Greg Gladen’s Blog has an interesting, long, post about this at “The Ice Ages Matter (Even Today)”

  182. Joel Wallach says:

    E.M.Smith (11:27:47) :

    Just a small update on the Fargo Bypass idea. from:
    http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nd/nwis/uv/?site_no=05054000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060

    we get that the delta from ‘very high’ to ‘record flood’ is about 10,000 cfs.
    That’s a capacity almost the same as the California Aqueduct. So a concrete ditch about 20 feet x 150 feet (or 30 x 100) would carry all the ‘flood excess’ past Fargo. What’s that, 20 miles? Almost trivial in size compared to the California aqueduct. That’s the ‘cost of mitigation’…

    For the inevitable complaint about the downstream effects:

    ALL that water is going downstream anyway. Unlike a levee (that makes it worse) a bypass adds capacity, slows velocity, lowers the peak (downstream too!) and restores some of the natural ’spreading out’ behaviour (it just does it in a controlled place and time). So it makes it better downstream, not worse.

    I do like the idea of using a tunnel boring machine to put the whole thing underground, but it adds a lot of cost…

    Great Ideas,

    Lets build a toolkit for deealing with the following;

    Flooding adjacent to rivers:

    If flood stage is low enough AND there is enough land available, low lndscaped berms could be built around the structures… with a removable floodgate allowing access.

    If flood stage is higher than berms can handle, stuctures could be raised to above expected flood levels – except that accessibility for function and ADA would present another issue.

    If flood stage is higher than berms can handle and we desire to actually use the structures after modification – we have two choices – move the strctures out of the way of the water OR move the water out of the way of the structures.

    I see great benefits to moving the water and letting it silt out its minerals to form more growing land, and eventually provide drinking water.

    I certainly hope farmers are replacing all of the 70 some odd minerals in the soil, unfortunately I do not think that they are, why not let mother nature take care o the issue for us.

    Obviously, attempting to use ‘historical’ flood data without considering physical changes over time is just as ridiculous as neglecting heat islands in temperature measurements.

    We could build a few more great ditches to siphon off EXCESS water in wet years, but we need to be very careful so that we allow all downstream human, animal and vegetable life to continue normally.

    I agree that the entire ‘Climate Change’ phenom is little more than a massive distraction from REAL issues that require REAL TALENT to solve… the talent needs to come back in from the Mann-Hansen-Obama-Gore-UNIPCC Lunacy and get back on a real discussion based on science –

    Back to designing buildings.

Comments are closed.