3 ms·
There is no way to credibly make this kind of claim. We don't have the data to quantify the recurrence rate of low-probablity events like this, nor can we be su
by idlewords 9y ago
There is no way to credibly make this kind of claim. We don't have the data to quantify the recurrence rate of low-probablity events like this, nor can we be sure the the underpinning mechanism isn't changing with time.
- tertius 9y agoIf we have a baseline of 500 year flood level at 0.2% and it's well over that then yes there is a basis for making this claim. I wouldn't make this claim though...
- idlewords 9y agoI don't think I understand what you're saying. To be able to say things about 0.2%/year events, we would need many thousands of years of data on an unchanging system.
- ars 9y ago> If we have a baseline of 500 year flood level at 0.2% That's exactly the point. We don't have that baseline, despite acting as if we do. We would need data going back 5,000 years to do that.
- tertius 9y agoYou're right. But he's going off of what is established, whether that is faulty or not. So his claim is based on something faulty, but it is based on something. Your qualm is not with him or his statements, rather with the standards for current 10 year/100 year/500 year estimates.
- JimboOmega 9y agoAnd why would a judge (And not someone in environmental sciences) be making that claim anyway?!
- maxerickson 9y agoHe's the chief county administrator.