|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 19, 2020 12:23:33 GMT
I belong to the brigade that KNOWS that the EA and C&RT put together are considerably less use than Lord Lucan's passport ! The fact that you've been involved in the construction of some flood defences in the course of a career in civil engineering hardly qualifies you to hold an informed opinion on their effectiveness in comparison with dredging out siltation 'choke points' that otherwise impede a river's ability to get rid of excess water as quickly as possible. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I don't think you know anything specific about EA's or CRT's usefulness or lack thereof in this respect. What specialist training, knowledge and experience do you have in matters of flood defences relevant to the Somerset Levels other than the popular non-technical opinion that more dredging must be a good thing?
This thread is not about the Somerset Levels ! The whole point behind opening the topic is the effect on flooding that many years of very little or no dredging have had, and are now having, on our navigable rivers and river navigations. Had you taken the trouble to read what I actually said in the second post I made on page 1 of this thread you would have realized that my mention of the Somerset Levels was only in response to to a question from Dogless asking - "what can be done ?". I merely cited the effectiveness of public pressure on the EA and the Government in getting what the locals believed to be much needed and overdue dredging done, . . I did NOT claim to have any personal experience or knowledge of flooding, or the means of alleviating it, on the Somerset Levels. As for your questioning of what I specifically know with regard to the usefulness of the EA and C&RT [as maintainers of navigations], and any - "specialist training, knowledge and experience" that I have, . . how about what I've learned from a total of 64 years of boating of one form or another, with 49 of those years (my last commercial boating work ended in July 2013) on UK inland waterways operating a range of cargo carrying commercial vessels from narrowboats carrying around 50 tons on a pair up to 500 ton capacity barges, river and canal tugs, crane-barges, and various other forms of maintenance, dredging, and specialized AIL and contracting craft ? You may question the extent of my - "specialist training, knowledge and experience", but when UK Boatmaster's Licences became mandatory in 2007, I was one of the handful of people to whom the MCA issued an unrestricted UK Boatmaster's Licence under what is generally known as 'grandfather rights'. Is that good enough for you ?
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Feb 19, 2020 13:22:01 GMT
Kindly refrain from misquoting me.
I have not been 'involved in the construction of some flood defences'. I have been involved in studies, assessing design proposals and advising clients in several countries that experience flash floods and freak events.
I don't think you know anything specific about EA's or CRT's usefulness or lack thereof in this respect. What specialist training, knowledge and experience do you have in matters of flood defences relevant to the Somerset Levels other than the popular non-technical opinion that more dredging must be a good thing?
Ah, computer design modeling. What a load of crap. The fact is, eight miles of the Somerset levels were dredged a few years back, and the successful results have proven the need for regular dredging. Here's a rather simple computer modeling design for you where did I mention 'computer design modelling'? please do not misquote me.
how does the level of the water in the right hand diagram drop if the high sea levels prevent the water from draining away? please refer to an earlier post from me.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Feb 19, 2020 13:24:13 GMT
One other point - ask yourself if localised flooding is, in your opinion, the most important urgent issue facing the country at present. not just 'one other point' - this is the crux of the matter. you are bang on.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 19, 2020 13:27:00 GMT
Evidence of change in solar orbit? Or you are just spouting pseudo science. There's plenty of evidence, google it, rather than trying to undermine my view and score points. Phuckin muppet. Asking for evidence isn't undermining your viewpoint, it's asking you to strengthen it. I had googled, found nothing to support your view, though there is evidence to the contrary. climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earths-orbit-cannot-explain-modern-climate-change/Just thought you might like to support your claim with evidence.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Feb 19, 2020 13:36:41 GMT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I don't think you know anything specific about EA's or CRT's usefulness or lack thereof in this respect. What specialist training, knowledge and experience do you have in matters of flood defences relevant to the Somerset Levels other than the popular non-technical opinion that more dredging must be a good thing?
This thread is not about the Somerset Levels ! The whole point behind opening the topic is the effect on flooding that many years of very little or no dredging have had, and are now having, on our navigable rivers and river navigations. Had you taken the trouble to read what I actually said in the second post I made on page 1 of this thread you would have realized that my mention of the Somerset Levels was only in response to to a question from Dogless asking - "what can be done ?". I merely cited the effectiveness of public pressure on the EA and the Government in getting what the locals believed to be much needed and overdue dredging done, . . I did NOT claim to have any personal experience or knowledge of flooding, or the means of alleviating it, on the Somerset Levels. As for your questioning of what I specifically know with regard to the usefulness of the EA and C&RT [as maintainers of navigations], and any - "specialist training, knowledge and experience" that I have, . . how about what I've learned from a total of 64 years of boating of one form or another, with 49 of those years (my last commercial boating work ended in July 2013) on UK inland waterways operating a range of cargo carrying commercial vessels from narrowboats carrying around 50 tons on a pair up to 500 ton capacity barges, river and canal tugs, crane-barges, and various other forms of maintenance, dredging, and specialized AIL and contracting craft ? You may question the extent of my - "specialist training, knowledge and experience", but when UK Boatmaster's Licences became mandatory in 2007, I was one of the handful of people to whom the MCA issued an unrestricted UK Boatmaster's Licence under what is generally known as 'grandfather rights'. Is that good enough for you ? so, as I suspected, you have no specific training or knowledge of flood prevention engineering, just the experience of observing and navigating flood events, which is not particularly relevant.
You suggested that my experience of constructing flood defence works was not very relevant, which would of course have been true because constructors are generally disinterested in the whys and wherefores of the design process .............. but as noted above that was not a correct description of my involvement.
Your experience is marginally relevant, mine is totally pertinent.
It often appears that your agenda is driven by a disdain for the competence of the authorities, unfortunately this inevitably leads to a biassed viewpoint that is not based on engineering principles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 13:40:52 GMT
There's plenty of evidence, google it, rather than trying to undermine my view and score points. Phuckin muppet. Asking for evidence isn't undermining your viewpoint, it's asking you to strengthen it. I had googled, found nothing to support your view, though there is evidence to the contrary. climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earths-orbit-cannot-explain-modern-climate-change/Just thought you might like to support your claim with evidence. Bullshit. You only see what suits your own ignorance. Try NASA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 13:57:58 GMT
One other point - ask yourself if localised flooding is, in your opinion, the most important urgent issue facing the country at present. not just 'one other point' - this is the crux of the matter. you are bang on. Mind you, if the increase in localised flooding is due to climate change and that leads to most of the population being wiped out....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 14:08:57 GMT
Bullshit. You only see what suits your own ignorance. Try NASA. Well I did come across this NASA page on climate this morning. The first sentences say it all really. climate.nasa.gov/causes/Unless the majority of scientists are lying, our production of greenhouse gases is making things worse regardless of natural events.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 14:17:54 GMT
Bullshit. You only see what suits your own ignorance. Try NASA. Well I did come across this NASA page on climate this morning. The first sentences say it all really. climate.nasa.gov/causes/Unless the majority of scientists are lying, our production of greenhouse gases is making things worse regardless of natural events. "The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 14:23:30 GMT
In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.
and
But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the Sun:
- Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
- If the warming were caused by a more active Sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
- Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 14:33:21 GMT
Bullshit. You only see what suits your own ignorance. Try NASA. Well I did come across this NASA page on climate this morning. The first sentences say it all really. climate.nasa.gov/causes/Unless the majority of scientists are lying, our production of greenhouse gases is making things worse regardless of natural events. Although the wobbly planet theory does have the virtue of allowing those who subscribe to it the luxury of not giving a fuck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 15:02:43 GMT
Well I did come across this NASA page on climate this morning. The first sentences say it all really. climate.nasa.gov/causes/Unless the majority of scientists are lying, our production of greenhouse gases is making things worse regardless of natural events. "The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives". As I say, no expert and all that is true for previous cycles. However I think the current data shows that even if we are entering another cycle, greenhouse gases emitted by modern humans is the biggest factor by far behind our current climate change. Or as I say, the majority of scientists are lying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 19:39:08 GMT
It is important in all this to acknowledge that individual beliefs or opinions around the causes of global warming are in fact completely irrelevant.
When the end of the world comes Armageddon outa here.
All the super rich people are going back to Mars soon.
What a lot of humans do not understand is that it is them who are the alien species. They accidentally landed here years ago in a flying saucer and were so much more clever than animals they invented things like dinosaurs because the only way to get back to Mars safely was by enslaving all the other diluted humans by offering them money so they can have more comforts but even more importantly provide cash to help build good rockets. No flying saucer tech down here sadly and no interstellar Comms.
the original humans suffered high reproduction rates including, sadly, with non aliens which leads to a diluted species, and a lot of idiots.
All of history is a cleverly organised scam to get money off people to make rockets to get back to Mars.
It's actually quite simple, and deliberate warming of the environment will agitate the non original humans enough to make them have a go at each other while the original ones get their shit together to go back to Mars.
Then big bang #2 happens.
The end.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Feb 19, 2020 19:47:58 GMT
Kindly refrain from misquoting me.
I have not been 'involved in the construction of some flood defences'. I have been involved in studies, assessing design proposals and advising clients in several countries that experience flash floods and freak events.
I don't think you know anything specific about EA's or CRT's usefulness or lack thereof in this respect. What specialist training, knowledge and experience do you have in matters of flood defences relevant to the Somerset Levels other than the popular non-technical opinion that more dredging must be a good thing?
Ah, computer design modeling. What a load of crap. The fact is, eight miles of the Somerset levels were dredged a few years back, and the successful results have proven the need for regular dredging. Here's a rather simple computer modeling design for you So your computer modelling is limited to treating a river as a static container, such that if you remove the silt at the bottom the water will no longer spill over the rim?
That is nursery school logic. Your analysis is not 'a rather simple computer model', it's simplistic nonsense.
If dredging is undertaken in order to allow water to replace the silt, then why not just dig big holes all over the flood plain and let them fill with water?
The river flow regime is largely governed by the gradient of the water surface. Dredging silt from the bottom of the river does not increase the gradient - it may increase the effective cross sectional area of the river, but without adequate gradient not much changes. Lowering the water level downstream does increase the gradient, but if the water is not being discharged from the lowest point it won't happen. As I said earlier, in the case of the Somerset Levels, the water level at the lowest point is governed by the sea (tide) level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 19:52:37 GMT
Drilling some holes at an angle across the edge of the earth's crust followed by lining with concrete might be worth looking at.
|
|