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
I vote they be called hyperactive water events
I could get behind excessive water events.
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.
So Vancouver surely is even more likely to get hit hard if Seattle is?
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.
