Paris Flooding, Again

By Kip Hansen – Re-Blogged From

Paris, France is flooding again.  The River Seine has risen over its banks and streets are covered with slowing moving yellowish water.  The Louvre is building sandbag barriers to protect its statuary.


There is talk, as always, that the culprit is the dreaded modern boogeyman — Climate Change.

As our introductory image states, Paris is not just flooding, it is flooding again, and again, and again, and again.

“Why does the Seine, famous for its bridges, flood at all?

As one of France’s major commercial waterways, the river is closely monitored so it can accommodate a constant procession of barges and other commercial vessels. The river begins in Burgundy, in east-central France, and meanders 485 miles westward until it reaches its mouth, near the port city of Le Havre.

Upstream from Paris, four large dams control the flow of the Seine and three of its major tributaries: the Aube, the Marne and the Yonne. According to Charles Perrin, a hydrologist at the National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture, in late spring the dams start stocking large reserves of water that can be released in the drier summer months.

Dams and locks normally keep the water level consistent, particularly in the Paris region, where the Seine’s traffic is especially heavy, in part because of tourist and other recreational vessels. If the water level drops too far, the barges could scrape the riverbed and get damaged. If it gets too high, vessels cannot pass under the city’s lowest bridges.”

Last spring “The dams were already at 95 percent capacity when heavy rains started in late May, so their ability to take in the excess water was limited.”  So, Paris flooded — again.

“Public authorities said they expected the Seine to crest on Sunday at up to six meters, or about 19.6 feet. In the floods of June 2016, which killed four people in France, it peaked at 20 feet.”

“Although some experts said it was hard to determine whether global warming was behind the current flood, others warned that a worrying pattern was emerging.

“Because of climate change, we can expect floods in the Seine basin to be at least as frequent as they are right now,” said Florence Habets, a senior researcher at the C.N.R.S., France’s national center for scientific research. “No matter what we say, the more we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the more we reduce our impact on droughts and floods.”

The French scientist tells us that “Because of climate change…”  the flooding frequency will remain the same.  Brillant!

What is the flooding frequency?   Every recent flood is compared to the great flood of 1910, “in 1910, a January deluge turned Paris into Venice for a week — river levels rose nearly 30 feet above normal — causing roughly $1.5 billion worth of damage, in today’s terms.  …  Topographically, Paris is a basin, with hills in Montmartre and Montparnasse rising in the north and south of the city, respectively. When it comes to flooding, that means big trouble for anyone who lives in the city center, which in 1910 was not so different than it is today”  [source].   “A very severe period of high water in January 1910 resulted in extensive flooding throughout the city. The Seine again rose to threatening levels in 1924, 1955, 1982, 1999–2000, June 2016, and January 2018.” [source]

The New York Times carried the story of the 1910 Paris flood — read the full original report on the front page of January 27, 1920.


This “worrying pattern”  really began in the 17th Century with major Paris floods being recorded in 1649, 1651, 1658, 1690, 1711, 1732, 1740, 1779, 1795, 1802, 1830, 1836, 1879-80, 1882-83, 1886… get the idea here.

What’s the deal here?  Again, as with Bangladesh:  GEOGRAPHY.


There we have it.  Four rivers flow into one another and converge just before Paris:  The Seine itself, the Aube, the Yonne, and the Marne.

Google Earth reveals that the Seine is no longer a river but a channeled and closely controlled canal, complete with flood control devices and locks for the river traffic.


We see once more that the efforts to control great rivers and put them solely to our own purposes leads to unforeseen, or at least, unacknowledged, problems.  The upriver dams, used to store water against the dryer summers, to maintain river levels appropriate for shipping,  are allowed to fill in the Spring, find themselves nearly full — and if late summer rains come, there is nowhere to store the resultant excessive river flow — floods start upstream and spread down the river to Paris.  We see this same pattern with the great rivers of the American Midwest — the Mississippi and the Missouri.

Of course, the Europeans have known all about this situation for years and years, and publish reports and recommendations such as OECD Reviews of Risk Management “Policies  Seine Basin, Île-de-France: Resilience to Major Floods”.

Still, Paris floods and the blame gets shifted to anything but the real cause — inadequate action to remedy the known problems of Seine River managenment.

Remember our expert Climate Science opinion:   “Because of climate change, we can expect floods in the Seine basin to be at least as frequent as they are right now,”



2 thoughts on “Paris Flooding, Again

  1. What a stupid man you are. Global warming is a fact, and anyone claiming competence to discuss ‘US issues’ should have troubled to learn something about it. ONE symptom of global warming is a changing climate, but emphasis on that one manifestation of what’s happening is a PR stunt deliberately chosen by advisors to the then-US president. The screwed argument went that if people know that burning fossil fuels is bad, then they won’t buy enough oil. But if you say it’s just a ‘climate change’ they’ll shrug and feel nothing can be done.

    The science has been established for more than two centuries from which we understand what’s happening; every scientific body in the world had reached concurrence by the 1980s that this was a real and urgent danger to all of us. The Times refused to print their open letter to the people: because democracy mustn’t interfere with business.

    If you want to know about the reality of global warming and all it’s effects, including the changing climate, floods, hurricanes, melting ice-caps, dead oceans and all the rest… spend a couple of hours talking to an insurance company about changing rates of assessment, and why what used to be called ‘200-yr events’ are now ’60-yr’ events, and what used to be ‘100-yr’ events are now ‘regular events’. When it touches company profits, people start reading science.

    So should you.


    • There are so many possible answers to your criticism (rant). So, let me just ask, if the CO2 catastrophic science case is so strong, then why do the scientists who support the theory have to lie?

      GISS and the others make repeated adjustments to the raw data. In a recent 6 year period, they made 5 major adjustments, all of which increased their reported trend of global temperature rise. The trend today – as they report it – includes about 1/2 from these adjustments. They also don’t talk about error bars on the numbers. Of the 1221 official weather stations (reduced from around 7000), 92% do not meat the NWS own standard for location. Less than 8% have a siting reliability of 1 degree Celsius or less. When they report the averages to the nearest 100th of a degree (or even 10th of a degree), they are lying to you. By the rules of mathematics, you can’t average unreliable data to get more reliable results.

      Mann & Briffa each used a single magical tree to create their hockey stick graphs, while denying the existence of the Medieval Warm Period & Little Ice Age, as reported in scientific journals thousands of times over 100 years. Mann’s graph it turns out can be recreated from random numbers using his program.

      The IPCC Summary for Policymakers (written by political wonks) is written & released before the scientific chapters are even finished. And, on numerous occasions, they’re forced changes to the science section to support their summary.

      Hurricanes & tornadoes have become less frequent – not more as predicted. Rising insurance payouts are due to many more people living in harms way than previously, building structures that are larger and ‘more valuable’ due to inflated dollars being used in the calculation. And federal flood insurance encourages building in flood zones.

      Polar bear populations are not declining, the great barrier reef is not collapsing, and great numbers of species are not going extinct. Researchers like Palmisano have to resort to virtual fraud to show a local ‘population’ of butterfly is endangered. (She looked at a natural fire cleared woodland, where butterflies colonized. As the new grassland began reverting to forest, she found the butterflies disappearing. DUH!)

      Solar, wind, & electric vehicles are not economically viable today without major subsidies. Even so, they are substandard compared to fossil alternatives. Solar & wind only work when the sun shines and the wind blows. Those who push these as clean energy are lying, since production of the PVC panels and the windmills are notoriously dirty, and windmills and solar plants like at Tonopah are killing hundreds of thousands of birds &

      Computer models are crap. They can’t even forecast the past. Effectively, the models are very long range weather models. Anyone who has any knowledge of forecasting the weather can tell you that, once you get past about 5 days out, the reliability of the model goes way down. 50 to 100 years? Don’t make me laugh. Current model performance confirms this, as their output is 2-3 times the actual temperature data since the models started. BTW, the models include outrageously inflated sensitivity numbers, and the alarmist use ridiculously unrealistic CO2 output scenarios. And, did you know that 90%+ of global CO2 production is NATURAL? Nature produces the vast majority of this plant food.

      Rising CO2 levels over the last 50-100 years have been beneficial (at least so far), and even alarmists have to admit this. Food production is way up, and the number of ‘excess deaths’ caused by cold has declined by an order of magnitude compared to excess deaths due to heat.

      There’s much more, but you get the idea.

      You may want to start reading actual science rather than the continuous opinion pieces being churned out. Saying the world is going to end doesn’t make it so. Showing a correlation doesn’t show cause & effect.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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