We’re going to have to stop calling these floods out for how infrequent they "used* to be.
That’s like saying something is on sale for 10% off all the time. It’s not on sale, it’s just the price.
Vermont has had 2 “100 year flood” events in the last 15 years.
Grade them like earthquakes or hurricanes, based on the amount of energy &/or water released.
That’s the way it’s going but it will take some time before it’s mainstream.
https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/atmospheric-river-rating-system-chart
A 100 year flood just means a 1% chance, or, in the 99th percentile of intensity.
Say we had a coin toss, that’s the 2-year storm. You could easily get 2 or three of those in a row.
But you’re correct that the climate is changing, and in many cases the statistics are not applicable to the current climate.
I vote they be called hyperactive water events
I could get behind excessive water events.
lol didn’t parts of California flood last year/earlier this year? Why even bother calling them “10-year floods” when we can expect them annually or even more frequently
the water table down there could use a few more “10 year” floods.
So Vancouver surely is even more likely to get hit hard if Seattle is?
