Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I see that the Fourth US National Climate Assessment has just been published. It’s here, and it should be required reading for those masochists who like overblown claims, flimsy justifications, and ridiculous pretensions.
The fun thing about each of the Climate Assessments is that after an initial flurry of media hype following the publication of their latest hyperbolic claims, everyone ignores them. They sink with the sad finality of an outboard motor spark plug accidentally dropped overboard two miles at sea …
As a result, the authors apparently have concluded that with each successive incarnation of the Assessment, they have to ratchet up the alarmism to new heights. And as you might expect, the most recent one is the most over-the-top to date. It contains statements like:
The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. In the absence of significant global mitigation action and regional adaptation efforts, rising temperatures, sea level rise, and changes in extreme events are expected to increasingly disrupt and damage critical infrastructure and property, labor productivity, and the vitality of our communities.
… climate changes will “disrupt and damage labor productivity”? Say what?
They continue:
Rising temperatures, extreme heat, drought, wildfire on rangelands, and heavy downpours are expected to increasingly disrupt agricultural productivity in the United States. Expected increases in challenges to livestock health, declines in crop yields and quality, and changes in extreme events in the United States and abroad threaten rural livelihoods, sustainable food security, and price stability.
Seems like they have been reading too much of Paul Ehrlich’s endless failed serial doomcasting about STARVATION! FOOD RIOTS! MASS DEATH! CROP FAILURES! and the like …
They go on, there’s no stopping them:
Climate change has already had observable impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and the benefits they provide to society. These impacts include the migration of native species to new areas and the spread of invasive species.
And here’s a quote from a typical media report, under the headline of
Government climate report warns of worsening US disasters
“We are seeing the things we said would be happening, happen now in real life,” said report co-author Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University. “As a climate scientist it is almost surreal.”
And report co-author Donald Wuebbles, a University of Illinois climate scientist, said, “We’re going to continue to see severe weather events get stronger and more intense.”
It’s already happening, so be afraid … be very, very afraid …
After reading all of that, I got to wondering about the recent temperature history of the US. I went to NOAA’s Climate At A Glance, got their recent monthly data, and graphed it up, along with the dates of the four US National Climate Assessments. Here’s that result:
Figure 1. Recent US temperatures, most recent (October 2018) temperature, and dates of the US National Climate Assessments.
As you can see, since the First US National Climate Assessment some 18 years ago, the US average temperature has gone up by … well … about zero degrees Celsius. Or for Americans, it’s gone up by … well … about zero degrees Fahrenheit.
I can see why the hype in the Climate Assessments has had to keep increasing in order to keep the alarmism alive …
… it’s to distract us from the most embarrassing fact that the US temperature hasn’t increased in the slightest in the 18 years since the first US National Climate Assessment.
Oops …
My best wishes to you all from a lovely rainy midnight,
w.
As Usual: I politely request that when you comment, you quote the exact words that you are discussing, so we can all be clear about who and what you are commenting on.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What happened to the Palm Oil post. I got the email about it but the link did not work
Bill
I don’t know about the post, I got it as well but the link was broken. It was reported on notalotofpeopleknowthat and the link to the article is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/magazine/palm-oil-borneo-climate-catastrophe.html
But be prepared to be very shocked!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/23/palm-oil-was-supposed-to-help-save-the-planet-instead-it-unleashed-a-catastrophe/
Bill, I’m not clear about the “Palm Oil” post, as I don’t recall either writing one or sending an email about one …
w.
Good post – thank you Willis.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/17/in-the-climate-deception-game-where-the-end-justifies-the-means-the-objective-is-the-headline/#comment-2521557
[excerpt]
If this was error rather than corruption then the results would be random. As it is, almost all the “errors” are in one direction – to encourage global warming hysteria – to stampede the sheep.
In general, I call both incompetence AND corruption among the usual suspects who promote catastrophic man-made global warming.
” … climate changes will ‘disrupt and damage labor productivity’? Say What?”
Sure, Willis. I mean, how can we toil well in the vineyard when we’re all treading water, running from rampant wildfires, or dodging hordes of tornadoes?
And all while trying to drain the swamp so we can choose whether to be eaten by crocodiles or alligators. At opposite ends of Oz are the two truth testing machines: the Fremantle Tide gauge at GMT +8 hours and the Fort Denison Tide gauge at GMT + 10hours. Each shows a gentle rise in sea level consistent with the billions of tonnes of soil &c washed into the sea by the rivers. The important point is that in each case the sea level rise has been significantly less in the most recent sixty years than in the previous sixty years.
” … climate changes will ‘disrupt and damage labor productivity’? Say What?”
OK then, the UNIONistas will demand $20/hr. min. wage in lieu of $15/hr. … problem solved.
I fear this is something hard wired into half the population, that they really like being scared to death. Maybe they like horror movies. Actually, horror movies aren’t on my first list, unless it has a real theme to it, is very well done and not just mindless horror. It would be very interesting to see further research into what makes an alarmist and a skeptic tick. I really do think we would find differences in basic character that would explain why two people of equal intelligence and basic background, could have opposing views on the same subject of climate science. I am seeing this watching PBS this very minute on NewsHour, about how the PBS media is linking almost every weather event as evidence of CAGW and climate change, to the tune of hundreds of billions now and trillions into the future. The same drivel, the wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, cold snaps, droughts, record flooding in a paved over city…everything is just climate change. And we have to do something. It used to be everybody talked about the weather, but nobody did anything about it. Now the sad part, is they are trying to do something about it. Like limiting access to basic energy for the masses. Maybe this will never end, because it is part of fundamental human nature.
Do you like “The Shining”?
Never saw that movie yet, and not really a Stephen King fan anyway. King’s horror movies might be better technically written with better plots and themes, but really not my interest. Although it was probably well acted if Jack Nicholson was in it. Maybe I will try and watch that one to just see if there is anything there that might interest me. I am not really into the shock factor. Maybe I should watch that instead of the news.
But I did see An inconvenient Truth, and thought that was a very poorly done ‘horror’ movie. A real ‘B’ Grade movie if there ever was one.
Grade F. For Fra*d.
Don’t think too much about it, just watch it. Sure, Stephen King wrote the book, but the film is all director Stanley Kubrick’s baby. It’s more psychological thriller, really, than horror. Nicholson at his best, but the small supporting cast is top notch.
Survival is hardwired. These tag lines play on our fear of death.
My wife loves her horror shows but doesn’t believe the climate alarmist meme.
The issue hyped is never the real issue with the progressives. Gun control is not about crime or shootings but about control. Same with climate change. It’s not about the climate it’s about fundamental changes in society enabled by government control of the power generation and transportation industries. So truth and facts have nothing to do with their reports because they have nothing do with science.
Laughing at the utter absurdity of such people seem appropriate, but that marvelous POS report was put together with tax money. And that isn’t funny, that’s a really disgusting perversion and a very crooked administration of government that needs to be abolished.
Otherwise, it would be hilarious.
I don’t believe in AGW but there should be much more control of who can own a weapon. Equating the two is really silly.
Silly only because you won’t admit what is right in front of you. Both are about government control. Both are about transferring certain basic individual liberties to the state. At least in the case of firearms the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. We have no such protection from the multifaceted threats to our liberties that the “climate change” meme presents. Do you not see that the same people that demand “gun control” or have already taken firearms from the individual are the same that demand globalism on the pretense of fighting “climate change”?
We have gun control in Canada. We’re pretty similar to Americans, but our per capital fatality rate from firearm deaths is on tenth that of the U.S. just a thought.
Trebla,
Cities have higher homicide rates than rural areas. If one looks at the firearm homicide rates for northern US states (rural areas with high firearm ownership) they are very similar to the rate for Canada. There is more at play than just prevalence of firearms.
The steady eroding of our society’s moral base has far more to do with the current levels of violent crime than the number of guns in circulation.
hornblower,
Are you advocating that training in martial arts should be outlawed or strictly controlled? After all, a well trained person becomes a walking weapon. Maybe, after training soldiers in hand to hand combat, we should find a way to erase their memories. In any event, considering how many people have been killed with hammers, axes, and knives, we should strictly license those who might have access to such things. Oh yes, don’t forget about cars and trucks. Despite universal licensing, not only are people killed accidentally with vehicles, but there are far too many instances where crowds have been driven into by ‘weapons’ behind the steering wheel.
Of course, with all of those knife murders in ‘gun free’ London, there was always someone who wanted to ban the sale of kitchen knives…
hornblower,
I can’t control the weather but I CAN and WILL control a pair of thugs that try a home invasion or otherwise attempt to cause me harm.
Earthling2
I think the difference between an sceptic and an alarmist is the half full glass syndrome. Is it half full, or is it half empty?
Because sceptics take the time to delve deeper into the subject of climate change we are obviously curious, and curiosity is a positive character trait as far as I’m concerned.
We are probably also less inhibited about expressing ourselves, especially when we see something wrong, even an every day practical thing like asking someone to pick up their litter.
We look for positives in our lives rather than fearing everything negative. We are optimists and would welcome a half full glass of water rather than scorning a half empty glass.
The positives of climate change, assuming the world is getting warmer, far outweigh it getting colder, we know that with 100% certainty, everyone knows that. We also recognise that no matter what we do, the climate and the world will change so why not make the best of what we have instead of whining about what might, or might not happen.
We say, why not do something about the 120,000,000 people in developing countries who will die from smoke inhalation by 2050 (32 years away) because they are forced to burn cow shit and twigs to keep warm and cook with? We say, that could be me and my family right now were it not but for the grace of god.
We are realists, we look at the problem of climate change and determine that attempting to solve the problem with wind turbines and solar panels which provide a 1% solution, lets forge on and deal with real issues affecting us now. With a healthier, wealthier population we can face anything coming our way far more effectively than one half of the world limping along dragging the other half in our wake.
We are positive people. We’re not sceptics simply because we enjoy dismantling another’s argument, we point out the reality of the situation like the world greening by 14% in the last 35 years with no help whatsoever from wind turbines or solar panels. We recognise that there is not one single demonstrable negative effect yet attributed to increased atmospheric CO2 yet the 14% greening is entirely ignored by alarmists, why is that?
We know that no one has ever demonstrated by empirical means that CO2 causes the planet to warm, that’s no one, ever, so why would we worry about an unproven hypothesis?
We have seen claims for the last 50 years or so, flip flopping back and forth, between cooling and warming. We have seen claims of impending doom on a regular basis during that period, now being made on an annual basis. How can we possibly be positive about that when all the results of those claims are negative, none of them have manifested themselves.
Sceptics are positive realist’s, alarmists are negative fantasist’s, there’s a bogey man around every corner, probably why they like horror movies, a phenomenon that has never interested me since I was a kid because my realistic nature assures me it’s all just fantasy and green screen technology.
Wonderfully sane comments, HotScot
NO. AGW alarmists are not just benign negativists.
They are evil people that want to control most every facet of your life. They will use any opportunity to mess with your life. Lies and MSM propaganda are their favorite tools.
Their utopian world cannot coexist with truth and individual freedom. Individual freedoms stand in their way…so far.
Also…so far…their lies aren’t working to motivate the masses. Only misdirecting (i.e. stealing) $Billions into their pockets from the taxpaying masses… thereby significantly increasing their power…so far.
This IS a major crisis…the nearly system-wide corruption of the entire scientific establishment (by its willing participation and by its almost universal silence). A precious gem tarnished almost beyond recognition. Fortunately, the kernel of that gem is nearly indestructible.
https://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-human-nature/
Earthling
Intelligence and analytical reasoning are distinctly different. Rabid increases in extended education has not produced a noticible impact on average IQ, it has however increased the number of individuals that have uniform thinking patterns, skill sets and response process.
Regards
[The mods point out that, although many collegiate studies do appear to be “rabidly” crazy in the way they mold our youth, the rapidly increasing number of “almost crazy” and “somewhat crazy” college classes is indeed alarming. .mod]
Last time I looked, the number of strong F3+ tornadoes was falling.
And the number of tropical cyclones was also falling.
And the number of forest fires was reducing dramatically.
(The high number of forest fires in the 1920s may include forest maintenance back-burning.)
And the winter snow extent in the NH has been increasing.
R
ralfellis – You don’t expect the IPCC and MSM to report on empirical data do you? It’s not scary . . . unless your afraid of the cold.
Willis, as a trained, and yes, as a still practising scientist, I greatly enjoy your thought-provoking and insightful posts. Long may they continue! To augment your point on the near-zero increase in continental US temperatures since 1990, however, I also note that US data sets on the frequency of F4 tornadoes, and on the frequency of severe hurricane landfalls since year 1900 show very slight decreases or no change at all: in short, the ~0.5 degrees C of warming across the continental US since then, is conferring a neutral to beneficial effect, is it not?. Could we not more loudly emphasise in the public domain the data on F4 tornado frequency and severe hurricane landfall frequency decline; and could we not emphasise the point that it is increasing population in F4 tornado prone and hurricane prone regions that is the cause of the increasing damage and fatality counts?
The stratospheric polar vortex pattern indicates severe winter in the northern hemisphere.
Hudson Bay very quickly freezes.
http://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r10_Hudson_Bay_ts_4km.png
Another Hudson Bay graph https://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/CVCSWCTHB/20181119180000_CVCSWCTHB_0010332958.pdf
Here you are up to date.
https://weather.gc.ca/saisons/animation_e.html?id=month&bc=sea
The BBC are using this nonsense as the lead story on some output this morning on this side of the pond.
Sky news is doing the same thing, the sky is falling yet again. Nevermind, I’ll do the jobs I need to do around the house then adjourn to the pub to await the end of the world. 🍺
How are the BBC getting away with this incessant one sided propaganda? Why are questions not being asked in Parliament about their total lack of impartiality? You could not make it up and worse the public is being fleeced to pay for their propaganda.
Simple, it’s being lead by Parliament.
Got to have the “Scientific support” for green taxes, renewable energy, closing reliable coal-fired power stations, switching us to electric cars & smart meters.
Propagandists don’t stop voluntarily, they stop when they are stopped.
CBS lead with it, later on NBC, and ABC last, at least from Philadelphia, US perspective. Lots of weather and fire damage to spice up the hype.
We had this report on our New Zealand evening TV news tonight .An over hyped scare mongering story that we all have to do something to stop the world from frying .
And the droughts wildfires and floods are going to get worser and worser .
I am sure that there is very little change to our underlying climate in the last 65 years in New Zealand that I can recall and the 1930s and 40s were warmer than the fifties and sixties by all accounts.
The South Island had snowfalls last week some on the central plateau ,unusual for November as it is late spring.
We had the massive 1958 flood in the Waikato and nothing like that since .There was a flood on the West coast last week with torrential rain that caused a lot of damage but the mountains catch the rain and that has always been occurring .
We get regional droughts mostly on the East coasts of both Islands every few years .
We have idiots who would love to knock down our hydro dams on the Waikato river and let the river run free.
They have short memories or are just stupid as the Waikato river flooded the lower Waikato frequently and now the dams store the flood waters and release it gradually producing electricity through the eight power stations on the river .
Our power charges are escalating as we have a lot of wind turbines that are at best intermittent.
Our latest power account was 29 cents a kw hour and 19 cents per hour for controlled, for water heating with a few discounts to take off.
Despite being at the bottom of the world our politicians are doing their best to screw our economy with increased fuel taxes and electricity charges which affect every one and every thing that is manufactured,grown and distributed in the country and the country relies on our agricultural exports to pay for all the things we cannot manufacture economically in a small market of 4.8 million people ,
The BBC has been reporting the Fourth US National Climate Assessment one the hour every hour since it came out. They are (as is usual) using it to spike comments against President Trump’s opinion that anthropological climate change is just hokum.
Still that is what modern journalism has become — fail to report the actuality, no dispassionate analysis of the assessment, just emote, emote, emote!
Thankfully President Trump knows it and uses it against the media.
Having not seen the Beeb reporting on NCA4, I wonder if any of their reporters have slogged through the 13+ Chapters in the full report, or are they simply regurgitating the summary.
Here is a sad statement from the Economist Magazine…which is a public mouth piece for the climate change industry for the intellectual.
“Today slavery is less about people owning other people, instead, it is about exploiting and controlling them.”
Well, that sort of sums up the entire climate change industry. In a way, the CAGW movement is about enslaving people, both figuratively with mind control, but also materially by making access to energy so expensive that it effectively makes slaves of many poor and disenfranchised, so that they have to spend a disportioncate amount of their income to just get by. Ironically, it was fossil fuel energy that did away with a large amount of the physical slavery 150 years ago. What’s old is new again, just in another convoluted way.
disproportionate…how does my fancy new MacBook Pro spell checker change that into a word that doesn’t even exist? And I even re-read it twice checking for errors…grrr.
It’s a poor machine that can only think of one way to spell a word.
–with apologies to Andrew Jackson
A climate “assessment” that is full of “expect”s doesn’t strike me as anything other than an abuse of language.
I personally expect that it will continue to turn out nice again as the photo-synthetic base of the pyramid of life continues to expand due to the greater availability of carbon dioxide.
Children used to be taught in primary school that plants take carbon dioxide and water and (warm) sunshine to make the building blocks of life. Only silly people would now try and convince us that more of this is now net negative.
Hayhoe is not a scientist. She’s a compulsive liar.
This is a woman who on her facebook asked me for evidence Mann’s Hockeystick was wrong, then blocked me from posting papers to show that very thing, when she actually asked me to provide citations.
The ONLY reason this liar has a job is because she tows the line
Sorry, but a grammar quibble…
It’s “toes the line”, as in a military formation.
toes
I don’t know, maybe tow. Like in canal boats hand rope towing. ‘What job you have Joe?’ I be on the tow rope. Smile. Nice day today.
Try this explanation for toe the line.
Read the entire piece.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-toe2.htm
I’ve surmised that ‘toe the line’ comes from second century BCE Rome, when the Roman Consul, Gaius Laenas, drew a line in the sand around Antiochus the Seleucid King, disallowing him from invading Egypt.
Antiochus had to toe the line.
Toes the line.
Having not seen the Beeb reporting on NCA4, I wonder if any of their reporters have slogged through the 13+ Chapters in the full report, or are they simply regurgitating the summary.
Every time I hear anything coming out of Katherine Hayhoe’s mouth, I think how on earth does anyone believe the BS that she spouts. She tried to convert me on Twitter and when I showed her evidence that she was wrong on many of her claims and that I have the qualifications to back up my arguments….she blocked me.
I just don’t understand how anyone like this can be a key figure in a report like this. By her own admission she was an “average student”. How does an average student gain a PhD let alone head up a National Climate Assessment? Michael Mann was a newly minted PhD before being thrust into the limelight as well. I am getting the impression of a pattern here.
Yet Texas Tech continues to employ her. Her husband has a church not far from where this post was made. I personally feel sorrow for him and his followers. Sad.
Hmm, they both believe in nonsense. Interesting.
Good one, Mate Good one!!
Part of the problem is that there are too many institutions of “higher learning”. Filling seats requires flooding the corridors of academia with mediocrity. Pursuit of an academic career requires machinations far beyond the exercise of raw talent or intellect. We play lip service to the scientific method but there seems to be no code of conduct for so called scientists. Cherry picking of data, abuse of statistics and even outright lying should be deadly sins but instead are embraced by the community in pursuit of the “noble cause”.
pbweather,
It appears to be a typical case of a party hack being rewarded for her faithful service to the good of the party. It is all about power and control. Thus, the end justifies any means.
Someone wake me up when someone like Stokes et al criticizes this report’s inaccuracies publicly.
Mark,
Are you planning on emulating Rip Van Winkle?
Next time I’m going into the predicting business. I predict that No. 5 will smell even worse, unless you are a climate scientist, then you can grow roses with it. Who here doesn’t think that the next assessment will be worse than the last? They don’t need 1,000 people, unless you are hiding in the forest, I can write the next assessment.
AGW is starting to do something different though, the timeline is changing. It has increased by 10 times. It was catastrophe in 8 years, now it’s 80, by the end of the century.
In the next 80 years I predict, all of these are major, an earthquake, a vie volcano of 4 or greater, devastation by hurricanes, droughts, floods, record high temperatures, record low temperatures, record snowfall, record low snowfall. Seal level will not only rise but fall. Ships and airplanes will disappear. There will be wars, starvation, migration, and new unheard of diseases. And there is always the possibility of a large rock falling out of the sky.
I also predict that enforced energy poverty will increase the severity of these events. All caused by some people’s fixation with the co2 molecule.
So what to do? Elect me as Chairman for life. I can prevent all these things from happening. How you might ask? Put on your rose tinted glasses and… believe, they’ll be gentle rains at night and sunshine days, and anybody that disagrees will be severely punished.
I think they’re trying to sell us a bridge.
Willis quoted and said: “… climate changes will “disrupt and damage labor productivity”? Say what?”
There have been a number of studies already carried out in this area.
https://epic.uchicago.edu/research/publications/impact-temperature-productivity-and-labor-supply-evidence-indian-manufacturi-0
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095069617304588
Do you really think you would notice a half a degree change while you’re working?
Especially while working inside a building, vehicle, or vessel w/ climate control.
Why do you think the buildings are climate controlled? The studies I posted were about factories, not vehicles or vessels. Trucks in hot climate countries like India are not air conditioned, so your point is irrelevant for those countries.
It’s not a matter of “noticing”, it’s the results looking at the productivity of 500,000 factories compared to temperature data. Go ahead and provide data to the contrary.
Meh, your funny.
Another fact-free post from Hugs. Yawn.
Chris,
Climate change theory as expressed in the models show the highest temperature increase in the high latitudes and almost no temperature increase in the tropics. How do you square this with the nonsense about disruption of labour productivity?
Robert, you said “nonsense about disruption of labour productivity.” Why is it nonsense? It’s amazing to see the knee-jerk reaction here on WUWT. Any impact of rising temperatures is dismissed out of hand, even things that are known to be true. Good grief. Gee, do world records in the marathon get set when it’s 40C? Of course not, they get set in Berlin when it’s cool, overcast and 8-10C. For factory work, humans perform best at 20-25C – this has been known for decades.
As far as temperatures, in India they are forecast to increase by 3-4C by the end of the century. What is your evidence that no increase is expected in the tropics?
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/DEFRA-india-climate-Rainfall.pdf
Chris, if labor productivity was an inverse function of environmental temperature, there should be hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific papers documenting how workers in the tropic and subtropic zones (0-40 degrees latitude, north and south) are less productive than those in temperate zones (40-60 degrees latitude, north and south), who in turn are less productive than in the cold zones (60-90 degrees latitude, north and south). I’m not aware of any scientific paper that reaches this conclusion. Moreover, the history of labor productivity in the continental United States when it was comprised of 13-48 states (approx. bounded by 25 to 49 deg N latitudes) clearly demonstrates the fallacy of this theory.
And athletic records have little, if any, correlation with labor productivity. Just my knee-jerk reaction to that implication.
Chris, a couple of things.
First, whatever the optimum temperature for labor productivity might be, any warming will move some people towards it and some people away from it. So the NET change will be very small.
Second, you say that
That is not true. The truth is that:
a) The MODELED temperatures in a MODELED India are MODELED to increase by a MODELED 3-4°C by the end of the century.
b) Anyone claiming that they can predict what the temperature will be in 100 years, when we cannot predict what the next decade will bring, is blowing smoke up your … fundamental orifice.
Finally, regarding productivity, I find the following:
One percent for every 9°F (5°C). Over the entire 20th century the average temperature rose by 0.6°C … which would reduce productivity by 0.6 / 5 = about a tenth of one percent …
Color me unimpressed …
w.
Some people are naturally credulous, especially when it suits their agenda or world view. I know ludicrous when I see it.
Chris: How about the the Science News of March 1975 that had the “Ice Age Cometh” on the cover? What would your take be now if you had been alive to read that? Here is a partial list of publications on ice age fears very broadly reported at a time before the hyper digital, global instant news activity of today:
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/4kvxhv/climate_hysteria_70s_style_global_cooling/
Read it, you won’t be the same.
Willis I have posted a query here before that went unanswered. In recent Allstate Insurance Commercials the former POTUS actor on Fox’s 24 who narrates the commercial makes the statement that we have had (26), 500 year weather events in the last decade.
Is there a basis for this claim?
Since you have a panoply of knowledge on many fronts I pose the question to you since no one has taken up the response.
I was curious about this and did a little research. Here is what I found:
– 500 year weather events refer to floods.
– They are not events that happen every 500 years. They are floods that have 0.2% chance of occurring. “For a 500-year flood, there is a 0.2 percent chance of having a flood of that magnitude occurring” in any given year, according to the National Weather Service.
– Who calculates the probability? The NOAA
– The data used are precipitation records collected from stations across the US and its territories.
– Some of the station data goes back over a century, some only 20 years. The data is organized on a grid.
Using this methodology, Houston, Texas experienced three “500 year” floods over a three year period 2015-2017).
Clearly, the probability calculations that NOAA uses are absurd. If they were bookmakers that would be out of business in no time. But this does serve a purpose. If I tell you if you flip a coin there is only a 0.2% it will come up heads. Then when it does come up heads and will say, “Wow, this is a once in 500 years event.”
It’s like tossing 500 coins on the floor, finding 242 heads, and claiming 242 heads is a 500 year event.
Right, no need to explain the statistics, we know they’d just embarrass themselves.
“In recent Allstate Insurance Commercials the former POTUS actor on Fox’s 24 who narrates the commercial makes the statement that we have had (26), 500 year weather events in the last decade.
Is there a basis for this claim?”
I’ve seen that commercial. Even if true, does that stat really have any dire meaning? Is it even unusual? If the 500-year events all occurred in one location, it might be a cause for concern. But is it really unusual for 26 geographically dispersed areas each to experience a 500-year event within a relatively small period of time? I would think it’s not.
I’ve seen that ad, too. I believe he says something to the effect, “500 year events should only happen once every 500 years, right?”
Which totally misrepresents what “500 year event” means.
It’s great scare tactic to try and make people buy more insurance and coverage. Also justification to raise rates. Win, Win for them.
Right.
“500 year events” are occurring regular as clockwork throughout the world because statistically they should be happening with regularity. It is only when you observe a particular phenomenon at a particular location that said 500 year events should be rare and even then, pinning down the expected frequency of the event is fraught with error. But then, an insurance company can be trusted to give you the truth, right?
Records are local. Random 500 year flood events, which are admittedly far fewer than normal flood events are programmed into a random run of the events for just that one location. Now run 10’s of thousands of US locations that have records. Hell, add Canada and South America. My back of the envelope guess says there is a pretty good chance you would get a fair number of records in one year. Yawn.
A better metric would be an increasing record trend at each individual site that bucks even natural cycles.
Statistical analysis is these days meant for the putting on of lipstick on a pig.
There, a nice explanation of why this is crap from the beginning.
Pamela,
I’ve been dying to learn how one gets the pig to hold still for such an indignation. 🙂
Easy. The pig has already been cooked. It’s what all climate…cough…gag…hack…scientists do. Otherwise the pig wriggles too much.
Carbon Bigfoot,
See what Pamela @ur momisugly 8:55 writes.
Here’s the solution for someone buying/building a house.
Do not think that because your parcel choice was flooded two years ago it won’t be flooded for another 498 years.
Rather, find the high water mark, and stay well above and back from that. When the next flood comes expect rapid erosion, chemicals, and “stuff” to impact the area.
Might want to include the non-existent “extreme weather events” over that same period of time.
Willis, you show US temperatures. Is the global (??) significantly different?
Thank you W, I see you’ve had a spark plug do that … fun isn’t it … two-strokes. lol
Willis Eschenbach
“A storm system moving into the Great Basin on Sunday and Monday will turn winds out of the northeast and bring gusty winds to the normal wind prone areas,” AccuWeather Meteorologist Maura Kelly said.
While she pointed out that this will be a weak to moderate Santa Ana event, they will still push dry air over the mountains and towards the Los Angeles and San Diego region.
“They sink with the sad finality of an outboard motor spark plug accidentally dropped overboard two miles at sea …”
While I appreciated the thrust of your column (as always), the quote above was simply excellent – I’ve been there too…
Why a problem? break out the spare. What? No spare?
Was it the spare that sank? That seems more likely. All this is good to know since I am looking at a boat to buy next Saturday.
Pamela,
Instead of using lead weights on your fishing line, use spark plugs. That will ensure that you have plenty of spares! 🙂
All the focus on average mean temps l think is a distraction. lt would be far more useful to study the trends in the 0C isotherm over the years across the NH. As this would far more impact on the climate.
The NH snow extent suggests this has trended sidewards the over the last 25 years. With the snow extent trends suggesting that the 0C isotherm expanding southwards during the autumn and winter has been off set by a retreat northwards during the late spring and early summer.