https://www.newscientist.com/article...ive-uk-floods/

Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:24:27 -0000, harry wrote:

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ive-uk-floods/

Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

Don't buy a house too low down. Simples.

--
I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves.

On 29/12/2015 18:36, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:24:27 -0000, harry
wrote:

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ive-uk-floods/


Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

Don't buy a house too low down. Simples.


Flood plains will flood unless a 20 foot high concrete wall is built to
totally enclose the rivers. And then those who are complaining about
floods will start complaining that their desirable river side property
has been devalued because of the work.

The BBC seem to have changed their stance of "the highest since records
began" to the 'highest in living memory' without saying who's memory.
In one summing up of a report they ignored the resident who said "about
the same level it was in 1990" in favour of the "highest level I've seen
in the 5 years since I moved in."

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 29/12/2015 18:36, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:24:27 -0000, harry
wrote:

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ive-uk-floods/


Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

Don't buy a house too low down. Simples.


Flood plains will flood unless a 20 foot high concrete wall is built to
totally enclose the rivers. And then those who are complaining about
floods will start complaining that their desirable river side property
has been devalued because of the work.

The BBC seem to have changed their stance of "the highest since records
began" to the 'highest in living memory' without saying who's memory.

My interpretation of that phrase is that the reporter is only in their
twenties and hasn't seen much.

In one summing up of a report they ignored the resident who said "about
the same level it was in 1990" in favour of the "highest level I've seen
in the 5 years since I moved in."

--
Please note new email address:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 20:39:45 -0000, charles wrote:

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 29/12/2015 18:36, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:24:27 -0000, harry
wrote:

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ive-uk-floods/


Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

Don't buy a house too low down. Simples.


Flood plains will flood unless a 20 foot high concrete wall is built to
totally enclose the rivers. And then those who are complaining about
floods will start complaining that their desirable river side property
has been devalued because of the work.

The BBC seem to have changed their stance of "the highest since records
began" to the 'highest in living memory' without saying who's memory.

My interpretation of that phrase is that the reporter is only in their
twenties and hasn't seen much.

The BBC isn't the perfection it used to be. It is being disassembled, good riddance to it. About time they stopped charging us for programmes other companies show.

In one summing up of a report they ignored the resident who said "about
the same level it was in 1990" in favour of the "highest level I've seen
in the 5 years since I moved in."



--
Why is it that people say they "slept like a baby" when babies wake up every two hours?

On 29/12/15 19:37, alan_m wrote:
Flood plains will flood unless a 20 foot high concrete wall is built to
totally enclose the rivers.

Bollox. Go and study some basic hydraulics. A deeper channel will do
exactly the same, and that's why we dredge silly boy.

In the same way a large bore pipe carries more flow at less pressure drop.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 30/12/2015 00:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/12/15 19:37, alan_m wrote:
Flood plains will flood unless a 20 foot high concrete wall is built to
totally enclose the rivers.

Bollox. Go and study some basic hydraulics. A deeper channel will do
exactly the same, and that's why we dredge silly boy.


Rubbish!
It has to be deeper all the way to its exit and that isn't likely to be
possible in the UK. If you don't do it all the way down it just makes
the water arrive downstream at a faster rate and causes a bigger flood
there.

They could dredge the flood planes so they can flood easier and store
more water, that would work for a bit.
They did that a couple of miles away from me but its never flooded into
the storage area in living memory (i.e. since it was done ~30 years ago).

On 30/12/15 12:04, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/12/2015 00:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/12/15 19:37, alan_m wrote:
Flood plains will flood unless a 20 foot high concrete wall is built to
totally enclose the rivers.

Bollox. Go and study some basic hydraulics. A deeper channel will do
exactly the same, and that's why we dredge silly boy.


Rubbish!
It has to be deeper all the way to its exit and that isn't likely to be
possible in the UK. If you don't do it all the way down it just makes
the water arrive downstream at a faster rate and causes a bigger flood
there.

That's why you do it all the way down.


They could dredge the flood planes so they can flood easier and store
more water, that would work for a bit.
They did that a couple of miles away from me but its never flooded into
the storage area in living memory (i.e. since it was done ~30 years ago).


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

"harry" wrote in message
...

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ive-uk-floods/

Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

Last year, numpty.
q
Much of southern England is underwater thanks to a record-breaking deluge
that has fallen over two months. More than 5000 homes have flooded in the
Thames valley and Somerset. Many of the people affected complain that rivers
should have been dredged to allow the water to escape faster. But
hydrologists say dredging alone would have made little difference. The only
way is to manage entire catchment areas, or in the case of Somerset, perhaps
build an artificial lagoon.
/q

On 29/12/15 19:10, Richard wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ive-uk-floods/


Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

Last year, numpty.

[...]
Actually two years ago.

Tim W

On 29/12/15 19:10, Richard wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ive-uk-floods/


Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

Last year, numpty.
q
Much of southern England is underwater thanks to a record-breaking
deluge that has fallen over two months. More than 5000 homes have
flooded in the Thames valley and Somerset. Many of the people affected
complain that rivers should have been dredged to allow the water to
escape faster. But hydrologists say dredging alone would have made
little difference. The only way is to manage entire catchment areas, or
in the case of Somerset, perhaps build an artificial lagoon.
/q

The news scientist is the Guardian with more difficult words in, thats all.

Its firmly on the lefty**** agenda. They aren't going to publish
anything that doesn't toe the fashionable lefty green bigotry line.



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 29/12/15 18:24, harry wrote:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...ive-uk-floods/

Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

Unlike you who just posts ancient drivel that you don't even read yourself.

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:12:43 +0000, TimW wrote:

On 29/12/15 18:24, harry wrote:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...ould-not-have-
stopped-massive-uk-floods/

Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

Unlike you who just posts ancient drivel that you don't even read
yourself.

Ancient OFF TOPIC drivel. That's what annoys me.

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 22:24:46 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:12:43 +0000, TimW wrote:

On 29/12/15 18:24, harry wrote:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...ould-not-have-
stopped-massive-uk-floods/

Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

Unlike you who just posts ancient drivel that you don't even read
yourself.

Ancient OFF TOPIC drivel. That's what annoys me.

How would you know that it's off topic as it's something you know **** all about?

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 00:34:03 -0800, harry wrote:

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 22:24:46 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:12:43 +0000, TimW wrote:

On 29/12/15 18:24, harry wrote:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...ing-would-not-
have-
stopped-massive-uk-floods/

Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

Unlike you who just posts ancient drivel that you don't even read
yourself.

Ancient OFF TOPIC drivel. That's what annoys me.

How would you know that it's off topic as it's something you know ****
all about?

It's politics. That is not DIY. Although the fact that your politics are
all DIY (and jerry built at that) might be the reason, I guess.

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 22:12:45 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 29/12/15 18:24, harry wrote:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...ive-uk-floods/

Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

Unlike you who just posts ancient drivel that you don't even read yourself.

The point is ****-fer-brains, that there's no simple solution.
Hydrology is some learned, not intuited about by some of the brain dead posting here.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 00:32:38 -0800, harry wrote:

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 22:12:45 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 29/12/15 18:24, harry wrote:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...ould-not-have-
stopped-massive-uk-floods/

Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

Unlike you who just posts ancient drivel that you don't even read
yourself.

The point is ****-fer-brains, that there's no simple solution.
Hydrology is some learned, not intuited about by some of the brain dead
posting here.

And you are incapable of learning anything.

The whole point is that you need to do something to slowly release the
built up water. All that dredging does is stop it flooding at that point,
and only for however long the dredging lasts, it just transports more of the
water down to the next victim.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.newscientist.com/article...ive-uk-floods/

Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

On 30/12/15 07:57, Brian-Gaff wrote:
The whole point is that you need to do something to slowly release the
built up water. All that dredging does is stop it flooding at that point,
and only for however long the dredging lasts, it just transports more of the
water down to the next victim.


Or to the sea.

That's why estuarine dredging is so important.

Flooding is the combination of two things - peak flow and channel size.
If the peak flow exceeds the channel size capability, then the water
goes elsewhere.

Storage reduces peak downstream flow. Dredging increases channel capacity.

Naturally it has to be done holistically. Otherwise it will as you say
move the problem somewhere else.


So you start below the last major town and move upwards.



Brian



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 29/12/15 19:27, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:24:27 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ive-uk-floods/

Instead of the drivel some people here seem to read.

That of course refers to the flooding in 2013-2014, much of it on the
Somerset levels.

I never did understand the argument that dredging the River Parrett
would have prevented the flooding there. AIUI the Parrett hadn't
overtopped its banks and is actually raised above the flood plain in
the relevant areas. I failed to see how water on the flood plain could
somehow magically rise up into the river by natural drainage. Only
pumping could have done that, and the existing pumping arrangements
were completely inadequate for the job at the time, resulting in that
battery of massive pumps being brought in from Holland IIRC, where
they know a thing or two about pumping flood-plains.
http://tinyurl.com/h699wj9

AIUI those pumps were pumping _into_ the Parrett, which rather
suggests the river was quite capable of coping with the extra water
without it being dredged. The Environment Agency insisted at the time
that the problem didn't arise simply because the Parrot hadn't been
dredged for several years, but they were shouted down and probably
told to shut up by the politicians. The dredging that has taken place
since was in response to local pressure and was a political
expediency, a sop to the locals.

Whether the experience on the Somerset Levels has relevance elsewhere
is a moot point. I imagine that each flooding circumstance is unique,
requiring its own specific solutions, of which dredging may well be
one.


Okay I will tell you. There are big tides in the Bristol Channel, so
much of the levels are below sea level on the top of a high tide. That
in simple terms is why the Parrett which is the main drain of that part
of Somerset has high banks, built up to prevent the sea coming in.

At low tide all the land is above sea level and will drain by gravity
into the river and away. The river needs to be big enough to drain a lot
of water in a few short hours around low tide before the sea level rises
again and the sluices are closed and the river is again higher than the
surrounding plain.

All the engineers said that dredging wouldn't have helped. It was a bit
of a populist cry to 'do something!' but there is a certain logic to the
argument as heard in any local public bar - bigger river, better drainage.

Tim W