[M T]

The Sacramento Bee had a good explanation:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/a...67041.html

Specifically, the temperature anomaly, which is expected to reach about 3.5 standard deviations above the mean, is a 1 in 4000 year event.

These sea surface temperatures are almost 3.5 standard deviations above average for this time of year – the equivalent of a once-in-4,000-year event under normal conditions. ...

I appreciate the lesson, BC.  You always contribute solid information,  Your point #4 (a time-based component to the measure) was the first thing I would have called out.

I read that part of the article differently than how it seems you took it.  I read it to say that the CURRENT temperatures are 3.5 standard deviations above the past temperatures at this time.   I did not see any justification that the current standard deviations predict the standard deviation of the eventual peak.  Common sense would suggest there is a correlation, but that is far from prediction.

So, I'd add another grain of salt: the assumption that the magnitude of an early trend predicts the magnitude of the peak, or even the duration above a threshold.  It may. But it may just indicate an earlier peak (ie, a time shift of the whole effect) or a broader but not necessarily higher peak.


Oh, and for those considering flood insurance, maybe you want to get a whole-house generator, and get your tree foliage thinned out and make sure your roof is in good shape.  I worry more about the effects of the wind and soaked ground than I do about flooding.  But that depends on where one's house is.

[M T]

The Sacramento Bee had a good explanation:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/a...67041.html

Specifically, the temperature anomaly, which is expected to reach about 3.5 standard deviations above the mean, is a 1 in 4000 year event.

These sea surface temperatures are almost 3.5 standard deviations above average for this time of year – the equivalent of a once-in-4,000-year event under normal conditions. ...

I appreciate the lesson, BC.  You always contribute solid information,  Your point #4 (a time-based component to the measure) was the first thing I would have called out.

I read that part of the article differently than how it seems you took it.  I read it to say that the CURRENT temperatures are 3.5 standard deviations above the past temperatures at this time.   I did not see any justification that the current standard deviations predict the standard deviation of the eventual peak.  Common sense would suggest there is a correlation, but that is far from prediction.

So, I'd add another grain of salt: the assumption that the magnitude of an early trend predicts the magnitude of the peak, or even the duration above a threshold.  It may. But it may just indicate an earlier peak (ie, a time shift of the whole effect) or a broader but not necessarily higher peak.


Oh, and for those considering flood insurance, maybe you want to get a whole-house generator, and get your tree foliage thinned out and make sure your roof is in good shape.  I worry more about the effects of the wind and soaked ground than I do about flooding.  But that depends on where one's house is.