« Previous | Main | Next »

3rd anniversary of June 2007 floods

Paul Hudson | 14:06 UK time, Friday, 25 June 2010

Today marks the 3rd anniversary of the worst summer floods ever to hit Yorkshire.

Averaged over England and Wales, June 2007 turned out to be the wettest since 1860.

The period in June 2007 that brought severe flooding to large parts of Yorkshire was the wettest 12 day summer period ever recorded in the county.

Interestingly June 1982 was even wetter than June 2007. But in 1982, heavy downpours were more evenly spread throughout the month whereas in 2007 the rain was concentrated in a much shorter time period, resulting in flooding that was far worse and more widespread than anything experienced in 1982.

I visited Filey earlier this week. The Muston road area has suffered flooding 3 times in 8 years: In 2000, 2002 and 2007 localised torrential rainfall left sewers unable to cope, leading to flash flooding of local properties.

It's becoming a common problem. This part of Filey used to be agricultural land. But the need for new housing has lead to extensive development. So when torrential downpours occur, the rainwater runs off much more quickly than it used to do, leaving local sewers overwhelmed.

Up and down the country, urbanisation is leading to more and more incidents of flash flooding, and it's often too easy for the media to blame it on climate change. It's true to say that if climate projections are correct for the UK, a warmer climate will lead to heavier rainfall. But urbanisation is a significant factor in the increased incidents of localised flash flooding.

Yorkshire Water, who are ultimately responsible for surface water drainage think they have come up with a solution - in Filey at least.

Storage.jpg

They've spent over £2 million pounds building a flood water storage tank that holds 1.1 million litres of water - by volume its half the size of an Olympic swimming pool and is designed to hold excess water that the sewers can't cope with until the storm abates, slowly releasing the water back into the sewer system when the rain stops falling.

It's a fear that many people who have been flooded have; every time it rains, will it happen again? After 3 floods in 8 years, the residents will be hoping that the next time a downpour affects Filey, they can be a little more relaxed about the risks of 4th flash flood hitting Muston Road.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 2:31pm on 25 Jun 2010, trisha wrote:

    we are also experiencing floods in our place and its not a nice story to tell. every year we experience flood almost 3 to 4 times and floodwater remains inside our home for about a week. it is sad that our local government doesn't do anything about it.


    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 7:37pm on 25 Jun 2010, PingoSan wrote:

    The global warming alarmists say that global warming would lead to the jet stream pushing north, leading to hotter and drier summers (get those Mediterranean drought-resistant plants into your garden!).

    2007 was a clear example of the jet stream instead sinking south (following the deep solar minimum), which caused a lot of the rainfall. This has continued ever since, with more easterly winters and duller summers.

    So what did the alarmists do? Blame these 2007 rains on global warming.

    Their lack of logic in attempting to pin every weather occurence on global warming just shows how desperate they have become that their precious theory is being destroyed by quite a few unfair facts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 10:24am on 26 Jun 2010, John Marshall wrote:

    I live on the side of a hill so flooding is of low concern to me but the sight of homes filled with dirty water fills me with horror so I really sympathise with those who have had such a problem.
    It is important that new build is provided with adequate open storm drains. I say open because they are easier and cheaper to clean and any problem blockage is seen and delt with. This is vital for residents in flood prone areas like flood plane (the name rather gives it away) where most houses are built,
    I also feel that some of the Hull residents who are not yet back in their homes after three years is absolutely obscene. WHY? It does not take three years for flooding repairs to be done and any officials who are responsible for this long wait should be flogged, or in the very least loose their jobs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 2:13pm on 26 Jun 2010, Hudsonfan wrote:

    Try and remember, if its a long spell of hot weather with unbroken sunshine, its global warming. If its flood,tempest or unusual storms,it's climate change! Keep this in mind and you won't gofar wrong,well that and quoting a load of boffins in the pay of the U.N.!

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 06:04am on 27 Jun 2010, PingoSan wrote:

    "This part of Filey used to be agricultural land. But the need for new housing has lead to extensive development. So when torrential downpours occur, the rainwater runs off much more quickly than it used to do, leaving local sewers overwhelmed."

    Manmade environmental change we can all agree on. Sadly though this doesn't provide the excuse for economy-wrecking that the "greens" enjoy seeing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 7:36pm on 28 Jun 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    It is important to remember that a report by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology concluded that:
    “The river floods of summer 2007 were a very singular episode, which does not form part of any clear historical trend or show consistency with currently favoured climate change scenarios.”
    This is a fact which the proponents of climate change often forget, as they (including the Met. Office), often use the 2007 floods as an example of the effects of climate change. Unfortunately, due to the fact that "a lie, if repeated often enough, becomes the truth", most people probably think that these floods were due to climate change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 10:17am on 29 Jun 2010, John Marshall wrote:

    Some good news from the atmospheric CO2 front. Atmospheric CO2 content is down by 2.5% or so. The alarmists are saying that this is because of out lower CO2 output. This is not correct for two reasons. 1 our CO2 output is only 3% of the total CO2 annual budget so any small lowering by us would not affect the overall total and 2 the oceans have cooled slightly and due to this have adsorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere. Simple!
    If anyone out there still cling onto the theory of GHG's then look at the icecap.us site and look at 'The Greenhouse Effect-a few cracked panes' which explains fairly well why this theory is incorrect and should be thrown away.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 12:22pm on 29 Jun 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #7. - John Marshall:
    "Some good news from the atmospheric CO2 front. Atmospheric CO2 content is down by 2.5% or so."
    Do you have a source for this?
    The latest figures from NOAA/Mauna Loa appear to show a continued rise.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 8:40pm on 29 Jun 2010, Boleslas_Broda wrote:

    It would be hard to credit such a drop of atmospheric CO2 concentrations as 2.5%, absent evidence, context or parameters, especially given that QV has done research disputing the evidence offered by JM.

    But.. if it is so, interesting that it correlates with the record drop this year in Arctic sea ice extent (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png).

    While not yet reduced below the record 2007 levels, the extent is falling faster than any year in history, and is close to 20% below the lowest previous sea ice extent for this date.

    Dropping ice, dropping CO2 concentration. That's a correlation!

    By the voodoo science used to connect changes in the sun to changes in the weather, it is inevitable that the one causes the other. Clearly, melting ice leads to water that absorbs CO2 out of the atmosphere, producing briney soda water.

    A bit of desalination, some whiskey and a shot of bitters, and we could all toast the success of science by correlation.

    .. Or QV is right, JM wrong, and wild speculation about unproven half-formed opinion is premature and ill-advised.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 08:11am on 30 Jun 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #9 - BB
    I wouldn't go as far as saying I had done any "research", only a short google on the topic, which found the following:
    http://co2now.org/index.php/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=1
    I notice that today a report from the Committee on Climate Change, that UK EMISSIONS were down 8.6% in 2009, due to the recession, so it's possible that world emissions could be down 2.5%, so could that be the source of the claim? Of course a reduction in emissions is not the same as a reduction in concentration and UK emissions are only a small part of global emissions. I ask JM again to let us know the source of his claim about a 2.5% reduction in concentrations, so we can all see it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 11:11am on 30 Jun 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    PingoSan wrote:

    "2007 was a clear example of the jet stream instead sinking south (following the deep solar minimum), which caused a lot of the rainfall. This has continued ever since, with more easterly winters and duller summers.

    So what did the alarmists do? Blame these 2007 rains on global warming."

    Looking at the science as reported in 2007, changed rainfall patterns were confirmed - heavier in the winter but undetermined in the summer;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6912527.stm
    http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/?ref=1157358561
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/england-under-water-scientists-confirm-global-warming-link-to-increased-rain-458348.html
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article2127599.ece

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 1:30pm on 30 Jun 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    I suppose if development takes place on flood plains then I suppose it is almost certain that properties will get flooded.

    The environment agency is probably one of the worst agencies to deal with this. In the past it employed qualified engineers now it employs greens? The Green agenda is well known.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 10:31pm on 30 Jun 2010, PingoSan wrote:

    "Looking at the science as reported in 2007, changed rainfall patterns were confirmed - heavier in the winter but undetermined in the summer"

    So how would you explain this year then? Another "change"?

    I wonder why global warming alarmists find it so difficult to accept that weather has wide variability, but also persistence. When it goes to one extreme, it is not a sign of anything changing but the result of statistical randomness. You don't query the roulette wheel when it throws 6 reds in a row.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 10:55am on 01 Jul 2010, John Marshall wrote:

    #8 This was published on the icecap.us site and they can provide source. There has always been a problem with the NOAA data from Mona Loa. This is a dormant volcano sitting on an island with five active volcanoes. All volcanoes emitt CO2 at varying and unmonitored rates. I have asked them via email how they can be certain that their atmospheric CO2 content figures are accurate. They replied that they knew what they were doing and not to worry. Well I do! The only other NOAA station for CO2 measurement is on Antarctica which seems loath to publish data continuously like ML.
    Remember NOAA/NASA have a vested interest in pushing the AGW story. Hansen, who is boss of NOAA, is one of Gores help mates and both of their claims are getting wilder and wilder. Enough said.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 11:25am on 01 Jul 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    PingoSan Asks;

    "So how would you explain this year then? Another "change"?"

    And then answers his own question;

    " weather has wide variability, but also persistence. When it goes to one extreme, it is not a sign of anything changing but the result of statistical randomness. You don't query the roulette wheel when it throws 6 reds in a row."

    The linksto the research I gave look over a larger period of time, some from 1925, to confirm changed rainfall patterns.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 12:56pm on 01 Jul 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #13 - PingoSan
    "I wonder why global warming alarmists find it so difficult to accept that weather has wide variability, but also persistence. When it goes to one extreme, it is not a sign of anything changing but the result of statistical randomness. You don't query the roulette wheel when it throws 6 reds in a row."
    Presisely. The reason is, that they are blinkered and have closed minds on the subject. As far as they are concerned "the science is settled". Is that the attitude of a true scientist?

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 10:55am on 04 Jul 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #14 - John Marshall
    "This was published on the icecap.us site and they can provide source. There has always been a problem with the NOAA data from Mona Loa."
    I have searched the icecap.us site and I cant' find a specific reference to a reduction in co2 concentrations. Perhaps you could provide a more specific references? However, there is normally a seasonal reduction in NH concentrations, due to plant growth. Maybe that is the source of the quoted reduction in concentrations?
    I must admit that I myself, have had concerns that the only source of this data is from a volcanic island but one must assume they indeed know what they are doing. Given the importance of this measure, one would think that several reliable sources would be desireable. It seems surprising that there isn't a global map of of CO2 concentrations. How many people know that these figures are based on a single observation location?

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 6:12pm on 14 Jan 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    An interesting article in The Telegraph, which suggests that the floods in Australia may have been made worse by the Queensland Government's belief that "climate change" would result in water shortages.
    It makes the claim that the Wivenhoe dam was running at 150 to 180% of capacity (not sure how that is possible), prior to the heavy rain, meaning that water had to be released from the dam at the same time as the rain-caused floods were hitting river system.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100072049/did-australias-obsession-with-global-warming-contribute-to-the-brisbane-floods/

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 1:22pm on 17 May 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #66 - LabMunkey wrote:
    "@ 65.... linking dellingpole and not expecting anything but rampant hyperbole is like standing under a waterfall and expecting to stay dry... :-)"
    But we need people putting the opposite point of view, in the interests of democracy.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.