Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (see update at the end)
In England there was a recent partial collapse of the Whaley Bridge Dam. Of course, this couldn’t have been from, oh, I don’t know, bad construction or bad reservoir water-level management …
So naturally, the UK media is full of scary headlines.
The Whaley Bridge dam collapse is terrifying – but it will soon be dwarfed by far greater eco-disasters
Increasingly volatile weather due to climate change will mean events like these will become the norm. Unless we act to reduce our carbon emissions now.
Yeah, right … this totally ignores the facts that nobody has shown any correlation between rainfall and CO2 levels, and that climate models are notoriously bad at predicting precipitation … but I digress.
So I thought I’d take a look at the “increasingly volatile” rainfall that they are claiming. Here, from the good folks at the Hadley Centre, is the HadUKP monthly rainfall data for all of England and Wales :
No sign of the dreaded “increasingly volatile weather” in that data. But folks also say that although the total rainfall hasn’t changed, the individual storms are dumping more water. So I took a look at the daily rainfall data. It only covers back to 1931.
No trend there … so I thought I’d look at just the days with big rainfall amounts, those days with over a third of the maximum daily rainfall. Here’s that dataset:
In the daily, monthly, and daily largest precipitation data for England and Wales, the trend is less than 1 millimetre per century and is not statistically significant in any dataset …
Finding nothing, I thought that I should look at a smaller scale. The Hadley Centre also puts out regional rainfall data. The Whaley River Dam is located in the sector that Hadley calls “Northwest England”. Here are the corresponding three graphs for just Northwest England.
Again, there is no statistically significant trend in either monthly or daily data. I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing any sign of increasing rainfall, either daily or monthly, that would cause any increased risk of dam collapses.
This is a recurring problem with climate predictions. Me, I need to see some significant variation in the actual record before I say that something has changed and that as a result, the future well may be different.
But far too often, climate scientists and the media make statements about future changes that are not at all supported by the actual record.
In other words … for the time being, at least, I’d say that the dams in the UK are safe from rainfall risks … although management and construction risks are an entirely different question …
Best to all on a lovely quiet summer evening here in the forest, with a bit of smoke from a small forest fire a hundred and fifty miles north …
w.
[Update] Steve Mosher pointed out in the comments that I hadn’t directly measured the “volatility” of the daily rainfall. I said if it were getting more volatile you’d see it in the daily records themselves … however, to cover all bases I went back and looked at the data. Volatility is measured as the standard deviation of the data. So I looked each year at the trailing 10-year standard deviation of the daily rainfall … here is that graph.
As you can see, the period with the greatest volatility is not the present, but the decade ending about 1990.
My thanks to Mosh for pushing me to put the last nails in the coffin.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Love that final photograph, Willis. I’m thinking you must have a copy of Gary Snyder’s ‘The Back Country’ tucked away in your well-travelled rucksack…😊
Yes that is a very pleasant scene. I’m jealous, Willis.
Here’s video footage of the actual dam spillway taken three years prior to the collapse of the concrete panels on the spillway. It shows weeds and a tree growing between the concrete panels which would likely allow egress of water under the panels to wash away the earth/clay underneath. As the article points out, the spillway looks poorly maintained.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7318299/Does-picture-neglected-Whaley-Bridge-dam-prove-disaster-waiting-happen.html
Also, the wall of the spillway on the side that collapsed, channels inwards very severely at the point where it collapsed, which would force more water at higher pressure over that section of the spillway.
and that dam was built in the later 1800s I gather, its allowed to be tired;-)
Well done, Willis … you blinded them with science!
Dam Straight
Dam good article W
What did the fish say when he swam into a concrete wall?
DAM
Negligent maintenance, by a damn site.
On a more relavent note, the image is so reminiscent of the Oroville Spillway washout. all the way down to the soil missing along the retaining wall to the right of the collapse area
That is exactly what I thought when I first saw this. Despite the Guardian doing its inevitable best to make this into a climate “crisis” issue, after about 3 days they did end on a comment about them looking into the question of possible maintenance issues.
Spillways are designed to spill excess water. If they start to break up when water spills onto the spillway, they were either badly designed and constructed or not properly maintained.
A few years ago, whilst on a Strucutral Engineers’ Conference, I heard a great Geotechnical & Geological Engineer say, (whilst displaying slides of engineering “disasters” around the World), that “water has a way of seeping through every theory!” I found it very profound! Whenever I look at a subsidence issue with a property, if localised springs are discoverd (not unusual) I instruct remedial measures to remove the water from the vicinity via appropriate drainages works!
The spillway had probably received little maintenance over the years, most likely due to budgetary constraints, I would put money on the fact that “engineers” had been telling the powers-that-be to spend some cash or expect the worst, “powers-that-be” take note re hurricane Katrina & the badly maintained levies! Engineers can create & edsign & build wonders, but they ALWAYS need money spent on them for maintenance!!!!
I have developed the opinion that many (most) government operated structures like this purposely delay maintenance so that the federal government will pay for some/all of the repair after failure. Happens to often to be a coincidence.
There certainly are similarities. Some of the best reporting on Whaley Bridge dam came on the blancolorio Youtube channel, precisely because Juan Browne had followed the Oroville story from day 1 and still reports on it, and so knew exactly what to look for: he managed also to get some useful on the ground local reports, including people who recalled past events there.
Paul Homewood did a series of posts on the weather data starting here:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/08/03/did-climate-change-damage-the-whaley-bridge-dam/
He showed that there was nothing exceptional about the rainfall there, or rainfall trends. I suspect Willis might owe him a hat tip.
Once again, the citizen reporters far outran the official media and TV for accuracy and insight and investigation of the dam’s past (it’s had problems on several occasions before, perhaps not surprising for something that started to be built before Queen Victoria ascended the throne).
Another thumbs up for the Juan’s Blancolirio channel, been following his channel ever since he started reporting on the Oroville spillway collapse. No-nonsense reporting at its finest! 🙂
The biggest difference is that the Oroville spillway collapse didn’t risk the dam itself collapsing, as the spillway was off to the side of the dam. At the Whaley Bridge dam, the spillway was constructed on top of the dam, so that the undercutting of the spillway actually weakens the dam itself. Fortunately it seems that they were able to stop the damage in time, before the dam was damaged to the point of collapse.
It’s just so disappointing and depressing for the Alarmists and Warmistas when the Climate Statistics just flatline like that. Adjustments are obviously needed.
The data obviously hasn’t been sufficiently homogenized. Best send it to the BOM in Aus, they are pretty good at homogenizing data until they get the desired trend.
yup they managed to wipe out at least 10mm off our last weeks rainfall in just ONE day!
mn(º¿º)nm
wot? no hockey sticks?
As always, Willis, excellent stuff.
yes, its a great pity the general public who are being herded to panic stations will never see it
Thanks for the low down on the data Willis. Could you explain how you get your various gaussian low-pass filters to run right up to the end of the data? How are you padding the data to achieve that?
Greg, I describe my method in my post entitled Dr. Michael Mann, Smooth Operator.
w.
A very worthwhile and yet depressing read that I had forgotten about.
Nice work, Willis.
The Whaley Bridge Dam failure was nicely covered by blogger Paul Homewood of the UK, and some of his UK regulars. The dam was very old, the spillway constructed on an angle causing maximum force on the side that failed, and was in visibly poor repair.
The improper spillway construction and poor repair facts are very reminiscent of the Oroville Dam fiasco in California.
Both showing that UK and California money wasted on global warming and renewables would be much better spent on basic infrastructure.
Guardian: “UK reclaims place as world’s second largest arms exporter. Figures reveal record £14bn sales last year…”
Should be a few bob left over to maintain some old bridges one would think?
Congratulations Willis on a tidy bit of work using actual data to rebut the all too prevalent “meeja-hype” practised by the BBC and others. As you well know the chaotic weather in the UK is governed by several competing weather systems that overlap our “green and pleasant land”. Gives rise to wide variability with very little trending — it is why we play cricket over 5 days!
imarcus
“it is why we play cricket over 5 days”
It’s why we schedule cricket over five days. Better – no?
Don’t seem to be doing too well at playing into the last day; probably too much of the ‘electric rounders’ in the county game to actually unearth, let alone prepare, Five Day specialists.
Your comments on the weather, however, are top notch.
Auto – depressed by the cricket at Lords – England 150-6 as I write.
The alarmists are increasingly rejecting the IPCC reports as inadequate. link That means they have given up any pretense of an appeal to any kind of at least semi-credible science.
At least the IPCC pretends to be based on science.
I never thought I would have to hold up the IPCC as an example of semi-credible not-totally-fraudulent science.
The problem is when the green doomsday cult does distort and exaggerate the reports they just stay silent. So they are complicit in the misinformation that gets published along with media who never bother to actually check details promoted by activists. Griff is a prime example he has a truth and accuracy rate of less than 10% (I was keeping tally for a while) and when you look at his favoured source it is the Guardian.
And the Guardian’s favoured source is likely Griff (or some Griff). Ever the wheel of bulls**t turns. You can tell when the UK media get caught out by verifiable facts – they fall quickly and suspiciously silent, like a parrot with a blanket thrown over its cage. Apart from the BBC and their newsprint wing, who seem to change gear from alarmist hype to outright making things up in an effort to dig themselves deeper. I love it: each time they ramp up the hype and ‘jump the shark’ they lose a little bit more credibility in the eyes of the public. The more credibility they lose, the more they need to ramp up the hype.
Willis,
Hoping you mean the final photo, not the smoke, is 150 miles from home. Earth curvature and all that.
Like you, I am tired of childish expressions like “when future rainfall/temperatures/floods/droughts are expected to become more severe/frequent/long lasting because of climate change”. Look at the past, as you did. Geoff S
The photo is from my kitchen, the fire is 150 miles away. Smoke blew this way yesterday, but today it’s clear.
w.
Every year they assure us, don’t worry, next year it will start getting bad. Then you will believe.
“Tomorrow, Tomorrow, you’re always a day away”
Song: https://www.bobgibsonfolk.com/song-to-morrow/
To Morrow
Well, I started on a journey about a year ago
To a little town called Morrow in the state of Ohio
. . .
. . .
Exacting review. + + + +
I live on Point Grey, which is as far west as you can get and still be in Vancouver.
In looking to the view i can say that the ocean is definitely at sea level.
No concerns here.
Maybe the tech used in selecting personalized advertizing for individuals surfing the net would be useful in debunking lies by activists and all-in, paid-for climate weevils. When the unsupported lies about burgeoning climate change rainfall is printed, for example, Willis’s zero trend rainfall graphs pop up for both readers and writers of this stuff. Any ideas out there?
I’m actually blown away that there is such a balance for a country and parts thereof with all the noisy data in a rainy nation. A millimetre or two a century ‘trend’ over two and a half centuries!! S’Truth that’s the most remarkable ‘nothing is happening’ I’ve ever seen.
They are already doing this, but in the opposite direction. For example, if you watch youtube videos on certain subjects, you will get a little box at the bottom pointing you to the “correct” information. For climate related issues, this is the “consensus” view (i.e. the alarmist position).
The rainfall trend is, in my opinion, probably very stable as it won’t be greatly affected by urban heat islands. At least not to the extent that the temperature record is. Although, I’m not sure how much rainfall would vary if the climate was actually changing substantially. I imagine it would, but by what degree and in what direction would be quite difficult to predict in advance.
Great article and homework, but there is a real problem.
https://www.wwno.org/post/new-poll-majority-louisiana-voters-believe-climate-change
First, you have to have to ask a dumb question with no qualification or definition given, second you have to be wedded to the statistical reliability of polls, third, you must have people answering in a juvenile way, fourth, this might provide an excuse to do something.
So, as the article says, “I think [the conversation is] changing, frankly, because of what we’ve seen,” Cochran said. “Not only coastal impacts, but rainfall extremes all across the state.” I lived there for three decades, I doubt it.
Bring back the dark, Satanic coal plants!
You need the 20/20 Climate Googles in order to see climate change in the data, now on special for $9.99. They make quite a fashion statement as well. Hurry, supplies are limited, and they are going fast. Just go to http://www.Clim4U.
As I indicated on another piece at WUWT earlier today, the media’s obsession with their CAGW conjecture has become one of the worst threats to rationality since the tragedies that The Inquisition, Salem, Nazism, Dictatorial Communism, Jonestown, and the like inflicted on gullible societies.
(On a more optimistic note, however, all the above-mentioned lunacies eventually ended. I hope the CAGW lunacy goes the same way sooner rather than later)
“all the above-mentioned lunacies eventually ended.”
Yes, but at what a cost in Human lives, suffering, & misery, not to mention environmental destruction with it, yes the National Socialists were great eco-bunnies, right up the until destruction of everything in its path became necessary!
Although I hope with coal miners no longer in thrall to Communist union bosses.
Thanks for all the work on this, Willis. I note however that, on figs 5 and 6 at least, what appears to be a visible uptick in the incidence of daily rainfall events of more than 30 mm from the mid-2000s onwards. I do not at all mean to attribute this to ‘climate change’, as I am fully aware of the randomess of rain events. But could these recent years with ‘more than average’ high rainfall events have been outside the design assumpions used by the designers of this dam, thereby contributing to the failure?
As an aside, I live in Brisbane, Australia and you may be aware of the serious flood here in 2011 caused by poor water management of the 3 million megaliter Wyvenhoe dam. This dam has two functions, the main water supply of the city of Brisbane and flood mitigation, with 50% of the dam capacity nominally ‘reserved’ for each purpose. Unfortunately, the folk responsible for managing the dam water level failed to lower the water level before and during the ‘wet season’ here, and then had to fully open the floodgates to avoid damage to the dam after a couple of weeks of very heavy rain had both saturated the city and filled the dam to overflowing. This resulted in significant flooding of towns and cities downstream of the dam. Brisbane is sub-tropical, so we are used to high rainfall events – 300 mm in a day is not that uncommon here.
Might poor management have contributed to the damage to the Whaley Bridge dam?
It certainly did. The principal cause of the damage was inadequate maintenance of the concrete spillway that was built over the earthen and clay core dam as an addition to the original spillway that sits to the side of the dam. The original spillway overflowed its bounds in 1964, so they decided to add the new one by about 1970. It consists of concrete slabs that aren’t particularly thick. The joints between them have frequently been allowed to deteriorate, with plants growing through the gaps, opening up paths for rain water to get underneath and scour the earth below. Frosts can also open up the gaps. During a major statutory inspection last November, the spillway was passed as OK. It should not have been. I’ve found pictures of the spillway (which has barely been used in anger) going back over quite a number of years that show the sporadic nature of maintenance.
Following a similar flooding in 1964 it was determined that the original spillway was inadequate to take the design flood and a new spillway was built (the one that failed here).
In 1840 they didn’t really ‘design’ dams…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toddbrook_Reservoir
The media, even including the BBC , have pointed out the weeds shown growing through , and destroying, the concrete of the slipway before its collapse. So poor management is certainly one of the causes of the problem. However the story( if I have got it right) is a bit complicated because the dam was originally built to supply water for nearby canals when these were major arteries for local textile trade and industry. After nationalisation of public services after WW2 , canals and their maintenance were run by the British Waterways Board . However , i think it was the Chanceller George Osbourne who thought that it was too big a burden on public finances and transferred responsibility to a voluntary body : the Canal and River Trust , earning revenue from donations and charges on pleasure craft. This money is clearly inadequate , as you can see if you walk along any canal bank and look at the state of the locks.
Concerned at the deterioration of the banks of the Macclesfield Canal I offered my services as a voluntary manual labourer to help with restoration , but they only wanted people to hand out tea and cakes to boaters passing through the locks . Some of the locks are getting quite bad even to my inexpert eye.
The problem is not the IPCC, the problem is activism. And the dedicated followers of fashion
EternalOptimst
August 14, 2019 at 4:37 pm
Yes, good point…maybe you’ve coined a new term…”climate fashion”. Well done!
Can I use that or are you expecting royalties? Or do I have to stick with “climate jet set”?
Add ‘entropy’ to the list of things blamed on man-made climate change.
These “scary” headlines simply help to create and promote the climate hysteria that is going on around us in a seemingly endless spiral. This type of fear inducing journalism affects people’s thinking and promotes needless fear and worry in the minds of the public. I have read that school children are taking authorities to court over the government’s apparent failure to control or mitigate global warming (another futile waste of money caused by juvenile emotion). Is there no way that a class action lawsuit can be issued against the IPCC and the MSM for the damage that they are causing by wasting taxpayers monies chasing something that has not been proven conclusively to be the responsibility of mankind (can we still use that word)? I understand that the litigation would be horrendously expensive, but when we consider the billions (trillions) of dollars that are being wasted on this goosechase, a few million dollars spent to corner these charlatans would be money well spent. Would the IPCC be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that CO2 is the monster that they claim it to be and is therefore responsible for changes in the climate experienced since 1850?
But there’s several people walking over a remarkably spindly looking bridge, across a terrifyingly eroded dam, holding back gazillions of gallons of water, which would turn into a tsunami if the dam breached, sweeping them to their deaths amongst the rocks in the valley below.
Ooops….sorry, dayglow safety jackets, they’re fine.
The dam has been having issues since back in 1931. Concrete was added in 1969, after major problems from flooding in 1964 (remember, that was a time they were worried about global cooling). And it has been having problems ever since.
But, hey, lets’ blame Other People driving fossil fueled vehicles.