Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts

Are Six 100 Year Storms Across the GTA Rare Over a 14 Year Period When Considering Probabilities of Observing Extremes at over 150 Rain Gauges?

Roll a 100-sided die once. That is what looking
for a 100 Year storm at a single rain gauge
in a single year is like.
A motion at the City of Toronto notes the following regarding extreme rainfall in the GTA: "According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Greater Toronto Area has had six “100 Year Storms” since 2005". See Mike Layton motion here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-131063.pdf

CBC has reported on this: link

While we are all concerned about flooding, the question on large storm frequency is "So What?". Or more specifically, from a statistical, mathematical, logical point of view, is more than five 100 Year storms over a 14 year period (2005 to 2018) rare and unexpected, or does this have a high probability of occurring? As we know the Insurance Bureau of Canada does not always rely on proper statistics to support statements on extreme weather, confusing theoretical shifts in probabilities of extreme events with real data (see IBC Telling the Weather Story where IBC ignores Environment and Climate Change Canada's Engineering Climate Datasets).

Let's do some math to see if over five 100 Year storms is rare or not.

First, consider that a 100 Year storm has a probability of occurring of 1/100 = 1 percent per year.

***

Second, count up the number of rain gauges that have been proliferating across the GTA to support inflow in infiltration studies for wastewater studies and to support operational needs. Here are some counts with various sources:

i) City of Toronto (https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/open-data/open-data-catalogue/water/#09dee024-b840-174f-7270-29c1a1773d14) - 46 rain gauges

ii) Region of York (https://www.york.ca/wps/wcm/connect/yorkpublic/b22ae2f3-5140-48f2-869e-a803d2552893/2017+Inflow+and+Infiltration+Reduction+Strategy+Annual+Report.pdf?MOD=AJPERES) - 71 rain gauges

iii) Peel Region (https://www.peelregion.ca/council/agendas/pdf/ipac-20110811/4b.pdf) - 6 rain gauges (correction July 25, 2019 - Peel has 28 rain gauges ... probabilities in this blog post will go up a bit)

iv) Halton Region (https://www.peelregion.ca/budget/2018/pdf/conservation-halton.pdf) - 14 rain gauges

v) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (http://199.103.56.152/xcreports/Precipitation/precipitationOverview.aspx) - 14 rain gauges

Total number of gauges = 151. A good first estimate - certainly there are more. (correction July 25, 2019 - as Peel has 28 rain gauges the total is 173 stations)

***

Third, assuming each rain gauge observes rainfall events independently year to year, what is the chance of getting at least one 100 Year event at a single gauge in 14 years?

Probability = 1 - (1-1/100)^14 = 13.1% chance of a 100 Year storm storm at a single gauge. That seems pretty big.

The number of 'trials' or samples equivalent to 14 rolls of a 100-sided die, meaning 14 independent observations or 'samples' from the statistical population of events.

It is reasonable to assume that a single rain gauge can record a 100 Year event but not surrounding gauges? Yes indeed. The August 2018 storm in Toronto only exceeded 100 Year rainfall totals at one gauge. So it is reasonable for smaller, spatially isolated rainfall events that do occur.

***

Fourth, assuming all rain gauges observe rain independently what is the chance of getting more than one 100 Year events across all 151 gauge in 14 years?

The number of trials/samples/observations = 151  x 14 = 2114

Probability = 1 - (1-1/100)^(2114) = over 99.9% chance of at least one 100 year storm at 151 independent gauges. That is almost a certainty.

(Additional comment: we know that storms exceeding 100 Year volumes can cover large areas such that observations are adjacent gauges are not completely independent, especially if they are spatially very close - so this fourth scenario is considered an upper bound on sensitivity analysis considering gauge independence - below, another bound is evaluated assuming less independence).

What about more than five 100 Year storms over 14 years? We have to then consider combinations of events (we do not care which of the 2144 samples has the events) and approach this by subtracting the probability of 1, 2, 3, and 4 events. This summarizes the approach (thanks so much FP!):



The probability of 5 or more 100 Year events is again over 99.9% (see cell F22), showing that when there are many, many trials, the probability of a multiple rare event is very high.

***

Fifth, assuming large storms cluster across several gauges and they do not operate independently from each other for extreme events, and that say they observe 100 Year storms in groups of 5, what is the chance of getting one 100 Year event across 151/5 = 30.2 rain gauge clusters in 14 years?

The number of trials/samples/observations = (151 x 14) / 5 = 2114 / 5 = 422.8

Probability = 1 - (1-1/100)^(422.8) = over 98.5% chance of at least one 100 year storm at 30 independent gauge clusters.  Near certainty. Not rare at all!

Let's consider over five 100 Year storms again. A keen reader has shown that the probability is 41.6% for this, as shown in cell L22 in the spreadsheet image above. Again, pretty high chance of getting 5 or more events when gauges do not observe extremes independently, but rather in clusters.

For more on this analysis, and the probability of 5 or more occurrences in 423 observations the probabilities considered in deriving the probability are as follows:
  • 4 occurrences in 423 observations (P = 0.195038119)
  • 3 occurrences in 423 observations (P = 0.183893083)
  • 2 occurrences in 423 observations (P = 0.1297298)
  • 1 occurrences in 423 observations (P = 0.060868484)
  • 0 occurrences in 423 observations (P = 0.014245815)
  • Sum = 0.583775302
So P[ X ≥ 5; 423] = 1 - 0.583775302 = 0.416224698, or 41.6% noted above. This is the common approach for deriving the probability of a scenario, i.e., by subtracting the probability of the event not occurring from 1.0 (the probability of all events). In this case the sum of the probability of zero to 4 observations occurring is the probability of the scenario of interest (5 occurrences or more) not occurring. If you are interested in testing other scenarios and assumptions for size of rain gauge clusters, use this helpful web site (also used to check the calculations in the spreadsheet shared above): https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx. Below are checks of the probability analysis:

Probability of 5 or more 100 Year Storms at Independent Rain Gauges (151 gauges x 14 years = 2114 'trials')
Probability of 5 or more 100 Year Storms at Clusters of Rain Gauges With Dependent  Observations (30.2 gauge clusters x 14 years = 422.8, say 423, 'trials')

There are more rain gauges in Durham Region and other Conservation Authorities in the GTA which means there may be more than 30 clusters to observe extreme weather in, meaning an even higher probability of observing extreme events.

So about 423 rolls of a 100-sided die may result in more than five occurrences of a single number with a relatively high probability. If the clusters are bigger, the probability is a bit less, but as we have seen, sometimes only one gauge 'sees' the 100 Year extreme rain. If gauges observe events in clusters of 10, which is an extreme end of the range as we have examples of storms affecting only one gauge (August 2018 in Toronto), there is still a probability for 5 events of over 5% (see below):

Probability of 5 or more 100 Year Storms at Large Clusters of Rain Gauges With Dependent  Observations (15.1 gauge clusters x 14 years = 211.4, say 211, 'trials')
Past flood events in Toronto reveal that between 1 and 12 rain gauges observe 100 Year rainfall depth, as shown in this Toronto Water presentation: https://www.slideshare.net/glennmcgillivray/iclr-friday-forum-reducing-flood-risk-in-toronto-february-2016
It shows:

  • May 12, 2000 - 1 rain gauge over 100 Year (see slide 9)
  • August 19, 2005 - 12 rain gauges over 100 Year (see slide 11)
  • July 8, 2013 - 6 rain gauges over 100 Year (see slide 19)
The August 7, 2018 flood in Toronto was due to only one Toronto rain gauge in the Open Data dataset exceeding 100 Year volumes. Therefore, assuming a cluster size of 5 dependent rain gauges within independent clusters that observe extreme events seems quite reasonable.


Conclusion - is it not rare to get more than five 100 Year rainfall observations at over 151 GTA gauges, over 14 years. The chances range from near certainty (over 99.9%) for independent events at each rain gauge to relatively high probability (over 40%) if gauges are independent clusters of 5 or more.

***

So what else does that tell us? There is a tendency to exercise an 'availability bias' in the words of Daniel Kahneman, and ignore statistics when making quick observations about extreme events. A description of this and other "Thinking Fast" heuristic biases surrounding flooding and extreme weather is in this paper.

Most media reports seldom "do math" and echo sources without question many times - that was the finding of the CBC Ombudsman on this topic of more frequent or severe extreme rainfall recently - see Ombudsman ruling.

Its one thing for a reporter to echo IBC statements on extreme weather for a news story, but Toronto should be careful in taking on a court case with limited data - it would be great to see any IBC statistics or analysis (unlike in the Telling the Weather Story communications). Toronto should also be aware that its flood problems are due mainly to its own design standards in the original size municipalities dating back before the 1980's. Spatial analysis shows that is where the risks are and where the flood reports are being made to the City of Toronto - see slide 36 in this review of flood risk factors which clearly do not include more extreme weather - partially separated systems have the highest risk and Toronto has allowed development to occur without mitigating risks in the past (hence the famous Scarborough Golf court case decision against municipalities for gaps in their stormwater management practices (Scarborough Golf Country Club Ltd v City of Scarborough et al)). Same thing on other GTA cities - see slide 7 in this presentation to the National Research Council's national workshop on urban flooding February 2018 for flood vulnerabilities in the City of Markham - see where Mississauga flood calls occur in this previous post (more than half of flood calls are in pre-1980 areas designed with limited resiliency for extreme weather).

So there has always been flooding:


And the most extreme rainfall intensities in Toronto over short durations happened in the 1960's:


And now extreme rainfall statistics from Environment and Climate Change Canada show decreasing short duration intensities since 1990 in and around Toronto:


.. as shown in a previous post. These 5 minute 100 Year intensities have dropped between 4.0 % and 8.1% between 1990 and 2016-2017 depending on the location.

Such decreases in short duration intensities are happening across southern Ontario as well, based on the newest Engineering Climate Datasets as shown here. Toronto should be careful in preparing for a legal challenge and any claims on flood causes.

As noted in my recent Financial Post OpEd, making a big deal about irrelevant risk facts distracts us from addressing the root cause of flood problems. The City of Toronto should try to not get distracted. And Councilor Mike Layton is probably in the running for a Milli Vanilli "Blame it on the Rain" award this year :)

***

Terence Corcoran covers this all very well in today's column, referencing analysis on this blog.

Note: probabilities for 5 or more events corrected/updated April 1, 2019. Thanks to keen readers for helping define the probabilities of combination events and for the nostalgic references to University of Toronto's Professor Emeritus Dr. Barry Adams' CIV340 course notes that outline the analysis approach.

***

What are the probabilities considering the updated number of stations (i.e., more in Peel), meaning a total of 173 stations? That is, 2422 trials if stations are independent and 484 trials if stations are clustered in clusters of 5.

For 5 or more 100-year storms in 14 years, the probability is 99.9% - 53.2% for independent and clustered gauges, respectively.

For 6 or more storms the probability is 99.9% - 35.6% for independent and clustered gauges, respectively.

Bogus statements on storms in cbcnews.ca report - 'twenty times more storms' in Windsor-Essex

Update: CBC has updated their story in response to our complaint on the accuracy in the original news report.  Thank you for listening CBC Windsor.  Here is the clarification offered:

Clarifications

  • This story has been updated to include comment from Environment Canada on heavy rainfall events in the Windsor region.
    Nov 20, 2015 12:06 PM ET
The highlighted text below has been added to the report.  Note, we provided information to CBC on rainfall trends between 1946 and 2009 as shown below, and it appears Environment Canada has also reviewed trends from 1953 to 2012 to respond to the complaint :

"A lot of it has to do with the frequency of the storms and I think you could even extrapolate that it's got to do with climate change," ...

 ... "we're getting 20 times more storms now than we were 20 years ago."

However, Environment Canada says it has recently looked at the trends in heavy rainfall events and there were "no significant changes" in the Windsor region between 1953 and 2012.

It appears that the interviewee based statements on an insurance industry newsletter.  

Excerpt. CBC response to complaint on storm statistics and frequency causing flooding.

****** Updated Post Below *******

(Originally) no fact checkers at cbcnews.ca this week for a story on storm frequency.  Hence bogus statements  introduce an article on why storm damage claims are increasing:

"The more storms Mother Nature dishes out, the more problems homeowners have with their sewers and basements.
And with an increasing frequency of storm events, insurance companies serving homeowners in Windsor and Essex County are taking a harder line on what coverage they can offer and what their customers must pay to receive it."
And the interviewee seems to back this up by doubling down:
"On a statistical basis ... "we're getting 20 times more storms now than we were 20 years ago.""
Well this embodies the quote about there being lies, damn lies and statistics, because the true statistics on rainfall frequency shows the opposite in Windsor-Essex, from whence many a Tecumseth tall tale teller hail.  Environment Canada statistics show us decreasing intensities - i.e., REAL downward trends in annual maxima for rainfall volumes over a range of durations from 5 minutes to 24 hours. 

climate change toronto

This data is freely available to anyone with an internet connection, and is readily applied by those water resources engineers and municipal drainage designers who work with rainfall statistics as part of their professional practice.  Certainly, storms did not increase twenty times and storms cannot explain the change in insurance claims over the past decades.  Storm intensities are decreasing at the Windsor Airport gauge (station ID 6139525) since the mid 1940's (CBC has clarified through Environment Canada correspondence that "there has been no significant change in rainfall events over several decades").  Other possible factors affecting damages:
1) Runoff increased due to development
2) Overland drainage systems have been compromised
3) More expensive stuff in basements
No doubt cbcnews.ca needs better fact checking (some fact checking?).  There is no QA/QC in reporting on extreme weather in Canada.  Sad.  It took all afternoon to summarize the trends in rain intensity for climate stations across Canada in one simple graph, but its not hard to do because Environment Canada does the trend analysis on the raw data and categorizes trends as significantly significant or not in their publications - this summary of rain intensity trends is for 565 stations:

climate change canada
Real climate data from Environment Canada shows no change in historical rainfall intensities.
 The statistics for 565 weather gauges show us the following:
  • there is no statistically significant change in rainfall intensity for 86% of data points
  • there is a statistically significant decrease for 2 to 3% of data
  • there is a statistically significant increase for 3 to 5% of data
  • there is incomplete data for trend analysis 7% of the time
  • for shortest duration rainfall that affects urban flooding, just less than 3% of data shows increases in intensity (5 minute intensity increases at 2.7% of gauges)
If the rainfall frequency distribution is stationary (no change), after a long, long time, half of gauges would have increases and half decreases.  Looking at all data points including the non-significant trends what are the changes? :
  • 41% of data showed a decrease in intensity
  • 52% of data showed an increase in intensity
  • 7%  of data was incomplete (no data trend)
So it is not like there are a lot of increases just shy of statistical significance ... its a fairly even split for a random sample. I redid the analysis screening out rain gauge records shorter than 20 years (the data above was 10+ years) and using only gauges whose record ended in since the year 2000 to focus on newer data and more long-term reliable records.  For these screened 345 gauges we find more or less the same:
  • 42% of data showed a decrease in intensity
  • 56% of data showed an increase in intensity
  • 2%  of data was incomplete (no data trend)
So has Mother Nature dished out more rain, or have developed municipalities dished out more runoff over the decades?  Saying there are 20 times more storms than there were 20 years ago is just plain wrong - in fact it is a 'worse-than-useless' statement because it diverts attention from real risk factors and effective management approaches.  Canada needs evidence-based policy on flood risk management and open data to support better decision making.  The real Environment Canada data is available for download here:

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/prods_servs/engineering_e.html

climate change ontario
Environment Commissioner of Ontario infographic non-data

The cbcnews.ca data  is available in the Government of Ontario infographic at right.  Notice there is no real data there, no labels on the access, no data sources, nothing really.  But it seems quite definitive with the exclamation point and all.

Further Government of Ontario climate data is available in the rubber-chicken graph below, because data does not matter to those who do not believe in evidence based policy, science, statistics, or informed decision making.

Government of Ontario climate data.  Oh my, it is getting big and scary just like the infographic and cbcnews.ca foretold!