Morning Hasbeen

The full capacity of the Wivenhoe dam is 225 per cent, with 100 per cent referring to storage of the region's drinking water supply and 125% set aside for flood storage. So when you say that they let the dam get to 190% it still had 35% to go before it was going to spill over the top.

Based on what I have read, I believe that without the dam the 2011 floods would have been worse, on the other hand I don't doubt that if the dam had been better managed the flood damage could have been further reduced. By the way the Somerset dam above it was also designed to mitigate flooding.

I agree that built up areas are more prone to flash flooding due to instant runoff and sometimes poor engineering.

Morning Yuyutsu

If I believed in prayers,then my prayers would be for the world to reduce it's dependance on fossil fuels, and for people have the courage to base their opinions on the facts rather ideology.

'morning warmair,

"If you take the time to carefully check what I wrote you will see that there is no contradiction between what I said and what the IPCC says."

Oh but I did check carefully warmair, which possibly explains why you have reached rock bottom and started digging.

You said "As for your comment about no global warming since 1998"

Wrong, this was NOT my comment it was a direct quote by the IPCC AR5 and SPM report which says "the AR5 report notes the lack of warming since 1998"

You "translated" this as, "The IPCC says the rate of warming has not increased in a statistically significant way, which is totally different to saying temperatures have not increased." Duh?

I will leave you to explain your way out of that one to OLOers?

Your comments that " that on average they will be stronger and produce higher rainfall".

You present as having some scientific/atmospheric background but your comments are unsupported by the IPCC, I'll stick with the IPCC on these issues thanks.

"There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”

I can't help you beyond this, you will have to take your argument up with the worlds premier climate authority, the IPCC.

spindoc,

"You "translated" this as, "The IPCC says the rate of warming has not increased in a statistically significant way, which is totally different to saying temperatures have not increased." Duh?

I will leave you to explain your way out of that one to OLOers?"

Erm....just because you don't understand what the term "statistical significance" represents, doesn't mean that it's irrelevant.

Here's an explainer pertaining to Phil Jones and comments of his in answer to a question which were misrepresented by "skeptics".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/phil-jones-warming-since-1995-significant.html

(Yes, I know it's Skeptical Science, but it refers exactly to the point regarding "statistical significance".)

Eg:

"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

"Why choose 1995 as the starting point in this question? Well, that is the closest year for which the answer to this loaded question is "yes". From 1994 to 2009, the warming trend in the HadCRUT dataset was statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (CL). It's also worth noting that there's nothing magical about the 95% CL - it's simply the most commonly-used interval in scientific research, but it's also true that the HadCRUT 1995-2009 trend was statistically significant at a 93% confidence level."

'morning Poirot,

the AR5 report" notes the lack of warming since 1998",

I just wonder how silly and desperate you can get Poirot?

I quoted from the latest AR5 report, you quoted Phil Jones from 2010 and in a BBC interview in 2011, five years and two IPCC reports out of date, AR4 and AR5?

The IPCC notes "THE LACK OF WARMING SINCE 1998" Lack, absence, nil, zero, zilch, nothing.

All previous semantics are off the table because the IPCC says so.

Get over it Poirot

Nice one, spindoc.

You didn't "get" warmair's reference to statistical significance - and attempted instead to send him up.

I posted a little helpful info to assist your understanding.

Point being that "statistical significance' is usually referenced at being a "confidence level" [CL] of 95%.

The statistical significance of warming from 1995-2009 was 93%

The statistical significance of warming from 1994-2009 was 95%

Which was just to help you along since you don't appear to understand what you are talking about.

You're welcome : )