Re: GW and floods
- <The models suggest that instead of the
chances of a 100-year flood occurring once every 100
years, which is what you would expect, the risk will
increase in the 21st century to somewhere between 3 to 6
chances in 100, which is a manifold increase," he
said.><br><br>I would think that a 100 year flood would be of the
size that would occur 10 times in a thousand years, or
100 times in 10,000 years. Probability says that you
won't get exactly one flood each 100 years, of course.
So, if you get more floods one century, perhaps there
were fewer before records kept track. And, perhaps
there will be fewer in our future. <br><br>Likewise,
climate is always changing. What was a 100 year flood
5000 years ago is not the same as today. I don't
really know if it would be larger or smaller - only that
it is a moving average, as climate continues to
change.<br><br>In the last 500 years or so, a stupendous amount of
biological matter has been mowed down, often replaced with
towns, cities, concrete or man's idea of agriculture.
The pre-existing biological matter worked together as
a watershed, storing water. Whack them down, expect
more floods. No need to blame CO2 there...
<br><br>However, it is interesting to know that researchers, if
they already KNOW CO2 is the culprit, discover that
all research leads to CO2 AS the culprit. Gad.
- This group started in 1999 and got its first posting on volcanos in
2001. BUT you got nothing nada on the underwater volcano that
erupted or formed off Oregon Coast.
Let me check if you got anything on NOAA.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, shotsky1 wrote:
> This is an interesting article which describes
> the difficulty encountered in recreating a
> temperature profile over the last century. Of course the
> temperature profile is how we determine whether, and how
> much, the global climate is changing. Very interesting
br><br>Summary:<br>The records of annual global surface temperature
> anomalies and their regional distribution are not
> explicable by a theory of steady almost uniform global
> temperature increase, such as the supposed effects of
> increases in greenhouse gases. The surface temperature
> behaviour is much more readily explained by local effects,
> particularly heating, which can take place in both urban and
> rural sites, and is most likely in cold locations.
> <br><br>The MSU satellite temperature records of the lower
> troposphere detect important climate effects also evident in
> the surface record, such as those of volcanos, ocean
> circulation (El Niño, and ocean cooling) and the sun. They do
> not detect, however the regional hotspots which are
> largely responsible for the rise in surface temperature.
> The differences between the surface temperature
> record since 1978 and that recorded by the MSU
> satellites in the lower troposphere must therefore be
> largely due to local heating which is highly regional,
> and is particularly evident in cold climates.