High Water Events Could Be More Frequent
Thursday, June 28, 2012 @ 10:00 AM
Prince George, B.C.- The rising waters of the Fraser and other rivers in B.C. , may be more common in years ahead. That is the bottom line of research conducted by researchers at the University of Northern B.C.
Headed by UNBC Environmental Science and Engineering professor, Stephen Dery, the report says severe flooding events which used to be considered to happen once every hundred years, could happen more frequently, perhaps as often as every 10 years.
“ If rivers are the veins of Canada, we’re having some pretty dramatic blood pressure fluctuations,” says Dery. The report says the fluctuations are having a negative impact on salmon returns, water quality and the safety of residents in the region.
Analyzing streamflow data from 139 sites in the Fraser River Basin from 1911 to 2010 , the research showed increasing variability in annual streamflow over time, with more prominent changes in spring and summer across the basin.
The reasons for the dramatic swings in streamflows could be the result of climate change, receding glaciers, and the loss of millions of hectares of water retaining trees because of the mountain pine beetle epidemic.
This morning, the Fraser River at South Fort was at 9.1 metres and continues to recede. It is now under a high streamflow advisory.
- The Fraser River from Quesnel to the Fraser Canyon is under a flood watch
- The Quesnel river is under a high streamflow advisory (downgraded from flood watch)
- Nechako River at Prince George remains under a high streamflow advisory
- Skeena, Bulkley and tributaries in the north west, are under a high streamflow advisory.
Comments
I like the use of the words, may, could happen, perhaps, could.
Nothing specific in this report.
May, could, could be, and drums please the money grant seeker, climate change.
No information here, more research needed, send money momma needs new shoes.
Yes the climate is always changing and he stepped around outright saying mann caused climate change, but the inference is there.
Oh by the way the south pole hit a record low a few days ago, minus 100.8.
“could, may, etc. are predictive, prognostive, prophetic, etc. words.
“did, was,” etc. are retroactive words. They look at what has happened.
Some people have a mental block when it comes to the notion of forcasting. As a result, the worst would have some life decision challenges.
More importantly there are some key jobs/professions that they would not do well at such as medicine, meteorolgy, engineering, forestry, planning, law, inudstrial design, poject planning, and many, many more.
All such work situtions deal with knowing the past, understanding the past, knowing at least the key variables which have cause past changes and determining an acceptable predictive range which would arrive at a future forcast for the field of study or activities.
From than we can delve into the notion of the risk of doing A versus B = building one type of bridge rather than another or giving one type of medication versus another.
Now, apply that to sending the first person into space, the first person to land on the moon, the first person to discover a new way to get to the east by heading west.
Palopu and Seamutt would certainly not excell at such assignments. In fact, they keep on ridiculing that entire aspect of human endeavor.
I just have to wonder what was to blame for the floods of 1972. Must have been high levels of precipitation, as there probably wasn’t any local scientists to interview. Anyone remember the spruce beetle epidemic ? I don’t remember Dave Barrett or any humans being blamed for that. Oh the seventies…. (pg’s boom years) …….how come the city didn’t want to build dikes back then ?
Gus you are way off the mark. You have no dog in this fight what so ever proven by your statement. Absolutely no understanding of the issues. You are unwilling for some reason to check the resources that I have posted. Maybe you are unwilling to admit you might be wrong.
So keep humming to yourself and keep paying the carbon taxes, higher energy costs of which these taxes, cap and trade up the cost of living. Go ahead ask no questions why this money is being spent, for what, where does it go? Ever wonder about the science.
Well I tried.
The City did not want to build a dike back in the Seventies because there was no grant money available to do so.
This City operates on the basis of getting grant money, and then matching it, and building a project, it matters little whether or not the project makes sense.
In fact they have (or had) people on the payroll whose job was to look for Government grants.
This is just one of many reasons why we are in a deep hole in this City.
Gus likes to make excuses for Civil servants, engineers, etc; fact of the matter is, we need more people in this Country to stand up and be specific as to what is going on.
If you jump out of an airplane with or without a parachute, we dont say you may, could, might, hit the ground. We say you will hit the ground. However if we are a civil servant, engineer, etc we will say.
If you decide to get into an airplane, and go the an elevation of 10,000 feet and then after having a discussion with the pilot about the model of the airplane, the speed it is travelling, the amount of fuel it uses per flight, and the direction of the plane, and the wind. the colour of the parachute, and the pilots eyes. If you then decide to jump from the plane depending on the wind, etc; you may, could, might, hit the ground. However if the wind should rise, or you drift over a lake, you may, could, might, land in water.
In addtion they would add that there is no concrete evidence that you would not hit the ground, however that doesnt mean that it doesnt exist, it just means that they are not aware of it existing.
In any event, even if you do not jump, you will at sometime return to the ground because the plane has to land, or crash.
Such is the science of covering your ass.
Comments for this article are closed.