Serial climate disinformer Michael Mann waffles about “extreme weather” again.

Posted: August 19, 2016 by tallbloke in Incompetence, solar system dynamics

michael_mann_hurricane_matrixIn a recent interview, Prof ‘taking the Mickey’ Mann said this about floods in the US:

NOOR: So we’ve seen this historic flooding not only in Louisiana but more recently in West Virginia, even right here close to Baltimore in Ellicott City. Is it, are we seeing more and more of this and is this connected to climate change?

MANN: We often hear about events being characterized as thousand year events and what that means is just given the usual statistic of the weather, we wouldn’t expect such an event to happen more than once in a thousand years. Meaning we probably wouldn’t expect to see it during our lifetimes. And yet we are seeing a plethora of these thousand year events. Whether it’s the flooding events in South Carolina, in Arizona, in Texas as I said and of course this latest event in Louisiana and Alabama. We are seeing thousand year events far too often to be able to attribute them just to randomness. We are seeing the loading of the random weather dice by climate change.

Mann is disinforming the public here. 1000 year or 100 year flooding events measure the likelihood of that event occurring on a specific stretch of river, not in a selection of whichever random states happened to get a flood that year.

Wiki: In the United States, the 100-year flood provides the risk basis for flood insurance rates. Complete information on the National Flood Insurance Program is available here. A regulatory flood or base flood is routinely established for river reaches through a science-based rule making process targeted to a 100-year flood at the historical average recurrence interval.

Regarding ‘1000 year’ events. How long have we been keeping flood records in the US. It’s unlikely they predate Columbus’ discovery of the continent in 1493, so, not more than 500 years. How well established is the basis of characterising a flood as ‘once in 1000 years’ then? You can be sure there’s a model for it…

It’s also worth remembering that there’s around a 60%chance of seeing more than one ‘100 year flood’  in a specific location during a 100 year period anyway.

Wiki: A common misunderstanding exists that a 100-year flood is likely to occur only once in a 100-year period. In fact, there is approximately a 63.4% chance of one or more 100-year floods occurring in any 100-year period. On the Danube River at Passau, Germany, the actual intervals between 100-year floods during 1501 to 2013 ranged from 37 to 192 years.[4] The probability Pe that one or more floods occurring during any period will exceed a given flood threshold can be expressed, using the binomial distribution, as

P_{{e}}=1-\left[1-\left({\frac  {1}{T}}\right)\right]^{{n}}

where T is the threshold return period (e.g. 100-yr, 50-yr, 25-yr, and so forth), and n is the number of years in the period. The probability of exceedance Pe is also described as the natural, inherent, or hydrologic risk of failure.

There is of course the possibility that Mann simply doesn’t understand the stats, given his previous record. There again, if that’s so, he shouldn’t be professor of rubber ducks, let alone a science with such enormous cost implications for public policy.

Comments
  1. rishrac says:

    Don’t worry, there will be some big flooding in North New Jersey. I’ve seen the pictures from 1910 1914. I recently saw the flooding at Denham Springs, LA. It’s hard to tell whether that happened 100 years ago or not. I’m sure I-12 didn’t run through there. Wholesale development of large housing tracts have gone in where there once was wetlands and swamps… imagine swamps in Louisiana. Is it unusual ? I don’t know if it even made the news when Hwy 68 flooded before all the building, before I-12 was built. Just another rainstorm. What ? It doesn’t rain a lot in Southeast Louisiana?

  2. Anoneumouse says:

    Micheal E. Mann, a once in a lifetime arsehole

  3. oldbrew says:

    Climate science and stats: ask Steve McIntyre how well that’s been going.
    http://climateaudit.org/author/stevemcintyre/

  4. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    😁

  5. Cain says:

    yeah, remind climate alarmists about this statement from michael mann the next time one of them pulls the “weather and climate are different” card when a skeptic cites cold weather as a basis for being skeptical. If climate alarmists can cite any number of weather events as a basis for their views, so can the skeptics. Which reminds me, that not too long ago, it snowed in DC for the first time in decades, there was a serious cold spell that gripped parts of the US.

  6. tom0mason says:

    On a more scientific note, historically the number of floods and the amount of lives lost or imperilled are directly correlated to the number and quality of Blues songs from that region.

    Like this one for example.
    🙂

  7. tom0mason says:

    On a more scientific note, historically the number of floods and the amount of lives lost or imperilled are directly correlated to the number and quality of Blues songs from that region.

    Sorry just can’t take that Mann seriously.🙂

  8. oldbrew says:

    Did This Climate Alarmist Just Admit His Own Position Is Propaganda?

    ‘Alarmists are so focused on their vision of a world in peril that they are unwilling to accept the defeat of each of their predictive models.’
    http://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/18/did-this-climate-alarmist-just-admit-his-own-position-is-propaganda/

  9. oldbrew says:

    CLIMATE ALARMISM: PROBABLY THE GREATEST HOAX/SCAM IN WORLD HISTORY

    From the viewpoint of a skeptical former Sierra Club activist and USEPA senior analyst
    Aug. 19, 2016 – Alan Carlin

    ‘The authors of the models have a self-interest in supporting CAGW since government grants almost always go only to supporters. This self-interest is what makes the hoax into a scam. If true climate believers understood that longer term projections cannot be made on the basis of these models, they would hopefully dismiss the whole hoax/scam for what it is.’
    http://quixoteslaststand.com/2016/08/19/climate-alarmism-probably-the-greatest-hoaxscam-in-world-history/

  10. gregole says:

    If Mann is a math genius, why didn’t he just explain it as this short post has. Could be “There is of course the possibility that Mann simply doesn’t understand the stats, given his previous record. There again, if that’s so, he shouldn’t be professor of rubber ducks, let alone a science with such enormous cost implications for public policy.”

  11. Andrew pattullo says:

    According to MM no one should ever win the lottery given the statistical probability, unless of course it is due to CO2 emissions, then it al makes sense.

  12. E.M.Smith says:

    Either is actually clueless about statistics, or willfully lying. Or both in some mix. In any case, not a real scientist.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s