Paris Flooding, Again

By Kip Hansen – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Paris, France is flooding again.  The River Seine has risen over its banks and streets are covered with slowing moving yellowish water.  The Louvre is building sandbag barriers to protect its statuary.

Paris_Flooding_Again

There is talk, as always, that the culprit is the dreaded modern boogeyman — Climate Change.

As our introductory image states, Paris is not just flooding, it is flooding again, and again, and again, and again.

“Why does the Seine, famous for its bridges, flood at all?

As one of France’s major commercial waterways, the river is closely monitored so it can accommodate a constant procession of barges and other commercial vessels. The river begins in Burgundy, in east-central France, and meanders 485 miles westward until it reaches its mouth, near the port city of Le Havre.

Upstream from Paris, four large dams control the flow of the Seine and three of its major tributaries: the Aube, the Marne and the Yonne. According to Charles Perrin, a hydrologist at the National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture, in late spring the dams start stocking large reserves of water that can be released in the drier summer months.

Dams and locks normally keep the water level consistent, particularly in the Paris region, where the Seine’s traffic is especially heavy, in part because of tourist and other recreational vessels. If the water level drops too far, the barges could scrape the riverbed and get damaged. If it gets too high, vessels cannot pass under the city’s lowest bridges.”

Last spring “The dams were already at 95 percent capacity when heavy rains started in late May, so their ability to take in the excess water was limited.”  So, Paris flooded — again.

“Public authorities said they expected the Seine to crest on Sunday at up to six meters, or about 19.6 feet. In the floods of June 2016, which killed four people in France, it peaked at 20 feet.”

“Although some experts said it was hard to determine whether global warming was behind the current flood, others warned that a worrying pattern was emerging.

“Because of climate change, we can expect floods in the Seine basin to be at least as frequent as they are right now,” said Florence Habets, a senior researcher at the C.N.R.S., France’s national center for scientific research. “No matter what we say, the more we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the more we reduce our impact on droughts and floods.”

The French scientist tells us that “Because of climate change…”  the flooding frequency will remain the same.  Brillant!

What is the flooding frequency?   Every recent flood is compared to the great flood of 1910, “in 1910, a January deluge turned Paris into Venice for a week — river levels rose nearly 30 feet above normal — causing roughly $1.5 billion worth of damage, in today’s terms.  …  Topographically, Paris is a basin, with hills in Montmartre and Montparnasse rising in the north and south of the city, respectively. When it comes to flooding, that means big trouble for anyone who lives in the city center, which in 1910 was not so different than it is today”  [source].   “A very severe period of high water in January 1910 resulted in extensive flooding throughout the city. The Seine again rose to threatening levels in 1924, 1955, 1982, 1999–2000, June 2016, and January 2018.” [source]

The New York Times carried the story of the 1910 Paris flood — read the full original report on the front page of January 27, 1920.

Jan_27_1910

This “worrying pattern”  really began in the 17th Century with major Paris floods being recorded in 1649, 1651, 1658, 1690, 1711, 1732, 1740, 1779, 1795, 1802, 1830, 1836, 1879-80, 1882-83, 1886…..you get the idea here.

What’s the deal here?  Again, as with Bangladesh:  GEOGRAPHY.

Geography_of_Paris

There we have it.  Four rivers flow into one another and converge just before Paris:  The Seine itself, the Aube, the Yonne, and the Marne.

Google Earth reveals that the Seine is no longer a river but a channeled and closely controlled canal, complete with flood control devices and locks for the river traffic.

Locks

We see once more that the efforts to control great rivers and put them solely to our own purposes leads to unforeseen, or at least, unacknowledged, problems.  The upriver dams, used to store water against the dryer summers, to maintain river levels appropriate for shipping,  are allowed to fill in the Spring, find themselves nearly full — and if late summer rains come, there is nowhere to store the resultant excessive river flow — floods start upstream and spread down the river to Paris.  We see this same pattern with the great rivers of the American Midwest — the Mississippi and the Missouri.

Of course, the Europeans have known all about this situation for years and years, and publish reports and recommendations such as OECD Reviews of Risk Management “Policies  Seine Basin, Île-de-France: Resilience to Major Floods”.

Still, Paris floods and the blame gets shifted to anything but the real cause — inadequate action to remedy the known problems of Seine River managenment.

Remember our expert Climate Science opinion:   “Because of climate change, we can expect floods in the Seine basin to be at least as frequent as they are right now,”

CONTINUE READING –>

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Paris Flooding, Again

  1. What a stupid man you are. Global warming is a fact, and anyone claiming competence to discuss ‘US issues’ should have troubled to learn something about it. ONE symptom of global warming is a changing climate, but emphasis on that one manifestation of what’s happening is a PR stunt deliberately chosen by advisors to the then-US president. The screwed argument went that if people know that burning fossil fuels is bad, then they won’t buy enough oil. But if you say it’s just a ‘climate change’ they’ll shrug and feel nothing can be done.

    The science has been established for more than two centuries from which we understand what’s happening; every scientific body in the world had reached concurrence by the 1980s that this was a real and urgent danger to all of us. The Times refused to print their open letter to the people: because democracy mustn’t interfere with business.

    If you want to know about the reality of global warming and all it’s effects, including the changing climate, floods, hurricanes, melting ice-caps, dead oceans and all the rest… spend a couple of hours talking to an insurance company about changing rates of assessment, and why what used to be called ‘200-yr events’ are now ’60-yr’ events, and what used to be ‘100-yr’ events are now ‘regular events’. When it touches company profits, people start reading science.

    So should you.

    Liked by 1 person

    • There are so many possible answers to your criticism (rant). So, let me just ask, if the CO2 catastrophic science case is so strong, then why do the scientists who support the theory have to lie?

      GISS and the others make repeated adjustments to the raw data. In a recent 6 year period, they made 5 major adjustments, all of which increased their reported trend of global temperature rise. The trend today – as they report it – includes about 1/2 from these adjustments. They also don’t talk about error bars on the numbers. Of the 1221 official weather stations (reduced from around 7000), 92% do not meat the NWS own standard for location. Less than 8% have a siting reliability of 1 degree Celsius or less. When they report the averages to the nearest 100th of a degree (or even 10th of a degree), they are lying to you. By the rules of mathematics, you can’t average unreliable data to get more reliable results.

      Mann & Briffa each used a single magical tree to create their hockey stick graphs, while denying the existence of the Medieval Warm Period & Little Ice Age, as reported in scientific journals thousands of times over 100 years. Mann’s graph it turns out can be recreated from random numbers using his program.

      The IPCC Summary for Policymakers (written by political wonks) is written & released before the scientific chapters are even finished. And, on numerous occasions, they’re forced changes to the science section to support their summary.

      Hurricanes & tornadoes have become less frequent – not more as predicted. Rising insurance payouts are due to many more people living in harms way than previously, building structures that are larger and ‘more valuable’ due to inflated dollars being used in the calculation. And federal flood insurance encourages building in flood zones.

      Polar bear populations are not declining, the great barrier reef is not collapsing, and great numbers of species are not going extinct. Researchers like Palmisano have to resort to virtual fraud to show a local ‘population’ of butterfly is endangered. (She looked at a natural fire cleared woodland, where butterflies colonized. As the new grassland began reverting to forest, she found the butterflies disappearing. DUH!)

      Solar, wind, & electric vehicles are not economically viable today without major subsidies. Even so, they are substandard compared to fossil alternatives. Solar & wind only work when the sun shines and the wind blows. Those who push these as clean energy are lying, since production of the PVC panels and the windmills are notoriously dirty, and windmills and solar plants like at Tonopah are killing hundreds of thousands of birds &
      bats.

      Computer models are crap. They can’t even forecast the past. Effectively, the models are very long range weather models. Anyone who has any knowledge of forecasting the weather can tell you that, once you get past about 5 days out, the reliability of the model goes way down. 50 to 100 years? Don’t make me laugh. Current model performance confirms this, as their output is 2-3 times the actual temperature data since the models started. BTW, the models include outrageously inflated sensitivity numbers, and the alarmist use ridiculously unrealistic CO2 output scenarios. And, did you know that 90%+ of global CO2 production is NATURAL? Nature produces the vast majority of this plant food.

      Rising CO2 levels over the last 50-100 years have been beneficial (at least so far), and even alarmists have to admit this. Food production is way up, and the number of ‘excess deaths’ caused by cold has declined by an order of magnitude compared to excess deaths due to heat.

      There’s much more, but you get the idea.

      You may want to start reading actual science rather than the continuous opinion pieces being churned out. Saying the world is going to end doesn’t make it so. Showing a correlation doesn’t show cause & effect.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dear usissuescom,
        I have studied what you call ‘the science’ which includes a number of scientific disciplines including organic and inorganic chemistry, botany and so forth.
        The bottom line is this – you have no idea of what the issues really are; no understanding that we are seeing an escalating collapse of the bioweb, and that ‘climate change’ as you like to describe it is one symptom, and only one, of what is happening. You do not care to know whether or not the arguments are valid. You are living in a wish-filled dream and will probably only wake from it when it’s far too late to do anything remotely useful.

        However – benefit of the doubt is an important principle in science as in law, so let me suppose you do care for the future of any children, grandchildren, nephews and friends you may care for – at least enough to stop posturing and start reading.

        Perhaps you would do well to begin here before moving on to some of the solidly scientific papers and books.

        https://skepticalscience.com/

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I’ve looked at https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm as you suggested.

    One difficulty is that science does not work like a courtroom. In science, you look at all the data, not just at what will support your view.

    So, CO2 gets into the atmosphere in natural ways as well as through burning fossil fuels. In fact, something like 90% of CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural sources.CO2 also leaves the atmosphere, contrary to the impression you’re being given. The 280 ppm number was one of several conflicting readings for pre-industrial times – but let’s use that number anyway.

    ‘Pre-industrial times’ was during the Little Ice Age – a very well documented occurrence. A huge amount of CO2 is stored in the oceans. When the oceans warm, the oceans release some of that CO2. When they cool, they reabsorb some CO2. The 280 number during the LIA is low due to the cold temperatures causing CO2 uptake into the oceans (among other reasons). Part of the information withheld from you in this article is that those bubbles in the ice cores show that CO2 levels have fluctuated over time, and that CO2 levels generally have been much higher – many thousands of ppm – throughout the last few million years than they are today.

    Another withheld piece of information is that, while CO2 absorbs in a specific spectrum, different from the other gases shown in the graph, the most powerful greenhouse gas – water vapor – is not shown. As it turns out, water vapor absorbs energy in the same spectrum as CO2, so much so that water vapor leaves precious little energy for CO2 to absorb.

    And, while I’m talking about water vapor, please note that clouds are made of it. Clouds reflect energy before it even gets down to the earth’s surface. Just a percent shift in cloudiness can explain all of what temperature rise we’ve seen since the Little Ice Age. An excellent piece detailing this is: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/

    Finally, for now, global temps have gone up about a degree since the Little Ice Age. An arbitrary 2 degrees (since the LIA) was chosen as a line in the sand. But this is nonsense. The earth has been much warmer than that during this inter-glacial (the Holocene) without all the scary bad stuff that the alarmists cower over. The Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, and Minoan Warm Period all were much warmer than today, and they witnessed a flowering of civilization. Within the 5-8 degree (C) global temperature swings between glacial and inter-glacial, warm has been good while cold has been bad.

    So far, during the current upswing in temps, the net effects have been – and are forecast for at least decades into the future – to be very net positive. Food production due to CO2 plant food is up. Excess deaths from cold are down an order of magnitude more than excess deaths from heat. Hurricanes & tornadoes are down, The earth is greening. The unprovable bad stuff won’t happen until you and I and our grandkids are long dead. Just as we’ve adapted through insulation and air conditioing, future generations will adapt if they really need to.

    Please try to keep your head from exploding long enough to look at all the evidence, not just one side’s worst fears.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. This is a good tip particularly to those fresh to the blogosphere.
    Brief but very precise information… Appreciate your sharing this one.

    A must read post!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s