Wet in the Dales
- Thread starter Pitlamp
- Start date
whitelackington
New member
Is the foam a mixture of microbial "adhesive" and water stirred up by a surge?
Pitlamp
Well-known member
I thought that the foam is at least partly derived from the natural soapy compounds which are produced due to the microbial breakdown of reeds.
For foam actually to accumulate (as opposed to going speeding past) you need a way for it be trapped. Dowstream sump pools are the classic places for this to happen because the sump roof acts a bit like those floating booms used to contain marine oil spills - they trap anything buoyant, which then builds up on the sump surface.
In the Speedwell example above, Treasury Sump carries excess flood water into Peak Cavern, so "Sand Passage" on the Speedwell side is where loads of foam accumulates.
For foam actually to accumulate (as opposed to going speeding past) you need a way for it be trapped. Dowstream sump pools are the classic places for this to happen because the sump roof acts a bit like those floating booms used to contain marine oil spills - they trap anything buoyant, which then builds up on the sump surface.
In the Speedwell example above, Treasury Sump carries excess flood water into Peak Cavern, so "Sand Passage" on the Speedwell side is where loads of foam accumulates.
Pete Brookdale
New member
Fulk said:
strangely enough i just saw the pictures in a copy of descent i was reading.
Also in Fall pot, I went down Lancaster Hole shortly after the flood of 10th August 2010 to find flood indicators in Bill Taylors passage just below Kaths Way. All the footprints were smoothed over and the mud was streaked but no foam. I guess this suggests that if you were at Fall Pot at the height of this flood you would be swimming!
This same flood also put flood debris at the top of the last pitch of Lost Johns - up to about the Y hang and straw/grass on the ledge. It was still there when I visited before Christmas. It may be the same refered to earlier in this post or there may have been another event, but I'd like to think this is quite rare.
This same flood also put flood debris at the top of the last pitch of Lost Johns - up to about the Y hang and straw/grass on the ledge. It was still there when I visited before Christmas. It may be the same refered to earlier in this post or there may have been another event, but I'd like to think this is quite rare.
langcliffe
Well-known member
There was only about 10 mm of rain last night, but Ease Gill Beck was a torrent outside County Pot this morning. I suspect that most of the water was the result of the sudden thawing of the bogs.
County is quite fun in those conditions!
County is quite fun in those conditions!
langcliffe
Well-known member
Fulk said:
Very true! Clapham had about 10 mm and Bendrigg had 12 mm. CDG have yet to organise a rain gauge for Great Coum.
Nobody knows the true answer to that, but using certain figures you can get a good idea I'd say. (as langcliffe says)
And if the rain was anything like it was where I am (far too many miles away from the Dales), drizzle - it reminds me of when I stayed at BPF one night (many years ago) when it was drizzly and was somewhat surprised when I headed underground the day after to find the water levels were fairly high.. Ever since then I've had respect for drizzle!
And if the rain was anything like it was where I am (far too many miles away from the Dales), drizzle - it reminds me of when I stayed at BPF one night (many years ago) when it was drizzly and was somewhat surprised when I headed underground the day after to find the water levels were fairly high.. Ever since then I've had respect for drizzle!
Pitlamp
Well-known member
The problem is, of course, that most of us who have rain gauges live at low level but the rainfall that matters is at high level. The obvious question is: "Is it possible to use data from low level gauges to help make predictions about the effect of rainfall at higher level on cave streams".
To try and get an idea of how the two may (or may not) correlate we used the opportunity to collect data both from high and low level when the CPC winch meet was running in 2010. This wasn't a properly contolled investigation (for example the 18 day period in question took no account of how the time of year affects weather patterns and rainfall distribution). The work was written up in CPC Record 101 (January 2011) page 18, in case anyone wants to look at the detail.
We concluded that the limited scope of the exercise made it impossible to use these data to come anywhere near to answering the question above with any confidence. The total amount of rainfall at GG over the whole 18 days period (77.5 mm) was more than at low level (66.3 mm averaged across three gauges) - so only 17% more. Dig a little deeper though and the day by day numbers show greater rainfall at lower level than at GG on some days!
If anything this study reinforced my own view that rain gauge data provide only one of several sources of information needed to make judgements about the effect of rainfall on cave streams. A daily rainfall amount gives no real idea of the distribution of the rain over the 24 hours; if it all falls in one 60 minute period the effect is likely to be very different from the same amount falling over 24 hours. Perhaps the best guide comes from people at the scene who can report what is actually happening (as per comments sometimes added on the CDG website's VisBot page). Failing that, the internet is a treasury of information - the Environment Agency's river monitoring stations and the Settle Wiercam (in daylight hours) being particularly useful for Dales conditions.
At the end of the day, as we all know, the weather in the Dales is often very localised and fickle. The closing words of the article mentioned above state the obvious but are perhaps worth repeating: "caves need respect if we are to enjoy visiting them safely".
To try and get an idea of how the two may (or may not) correlate we used the opportunity to collect data both from high and low level when the CPC winch meet was running in 2010. This wasn't a properly contolled investigation (for example the 18 day period in question took no account of how the time of year affects weather patterns and rainfall distribution). The work was written up in CPC Record 101 (January 2011) page 18, in case anyone wants to look at the detail.
We concluded that the limited scope of the exercise made it impossible to use these data to come anywhere near to answering the question above with any confidence. The total amount of rainfall at GG over the whole 18 days period (77.5 mm) was more than at low level (66.3 mm averaged across three gauges) - so only 17% more. Dig a little deeper though and the day by day numbers show greater rainfall at lower level than at GG on some days!
If anything this study reinforced my own view that rain gauge data provide only one of several sources of information needed to make judgements about the effect of rainfall on cave streams. A daily rainfall amount gives no real idea of the distribution of the rain over the 24 hours; if it all falls in one 60 minute period the effect is likely to be very different from the same amount falling over 24 hours. Perhaps the best guide comes from people at the scene who can report what is actually happening (as per comments sometimes added on the CDG website's VisBot page). Failing that, the internet is a treasury of information - the Environment Agency's river monitoring stations and the Settle Wiercam (in daylight hours) being particularly useful for Dales conditions.
At the end of the day, as we all know, the weather in the Dales is often very localised and fickle. The closing words of the article mentioned above state the obvious but are perhaps worth repeating: "caves need respect if we are to enjoy visiting them safely".
Respecting drizzle!
I've spent all winter bucketing away the drizzle off our garage, I'm amazed at how much rain water collects from about a 18 square metre surface area. Doesn't help that the water collecting butt is designed by a eejit and if I had spare few dyas and the knowledge I'd replace the draining tap lower to the ground and bung up the overflow hole 6" from the top meanign the 200 litre barrel has a capacity before overflow of about 60l which can fall in a day. When it overflows the ground here is claylike so it's builds and runs under and up into the garage floor so trying to maintain a dry garage has proved a challenge.
I've found water to be a fairly unstoppable adversary.
I've spent all winter bucketing away the drizzle off our garage, I'm amazed at how much rain water collects from about a 18 square metre surface area. Doesn't help that the water collecting butt is designed by a eejit and if I had spare few dyas and the knowledge I'd replace the draining tap lower to the ground and bung up the overflow hole 6" from the top meanign the 200 litre barrel has a capacity before overflow of about 60l which can fall in a day. When it overflows the ground here is claylike so it's builds and runs under and up into the garage floor so trying to maintain a dry garage has proved a challenge.
I've found water to be a fairly unstoppable adversary.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
Bit of siphon pipe?
If you rig one up with a quarter turn valve (easily available with the correct fittings for standard hosepipe) you can avoid breaking the siphon each time, with a bit of care.
Is there any reason you can't just disharge the water down a gully into the drains?
If you rig one up with a quarter turn valve (easily available with the correct fittings for standard hosepipe) you can avoid breaking the siphon each time, with a bit of care.
Is there any reason you can't just disharge the water down a gully into the drains?
langcliffe
Well-known member
Drizzle or no drizzle (I have no idea in what form the rain fell as I wasn't there), I have never seen Ease Gill running so high after just a few millimetres of rain.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
You mentioned the possibility of bog thawing contributing to the flow in the beck Langcliffe. Could it actually be that because bogs were still frozen less rain than normal was absorbed by the soil, so the beck came up by more than one might have expected from (evidently) such a meagre amount of rain?
langcliffe
Well-known member
It was probably a combination of factors - a sudden rise in temperature, and precipitation falling on frozen, and saturated ground. If the same amount of rain had fallen in summer conditions, Ease Gill Beck would certainly not have been roaring past the entrance to County Pot.
Thinking about it, we can be sure that it wasn't drizzle. Precipitation rates rarely exceed 0.3 mm per hour for drizzle, and are more commonly nearer 0.1 mm per hour. If the precipitation was 10 mm and it fell over six hours (as is likely), it would have qualified as light rain.
Thinking about it, we can be sure that it wasn't drizzle. Precipitation rates rarely exceed 0.3 mm per hour for drizzle, and are more commonly nearer 0.1 mm per hour. If the precipitation was 10 mm and it fell over six hours (as is likely), it would have qualified as light rain.