'100-year' floods will happen every 1 to 30 years, according to new flood maps

'100-year' floods will happen every 1 to 30 years, according to new flood maps
Researchers at Princeton University calculated flood risks for 171 counties across four regions: New England (green), mid-Atlantic (orange), southeast Atlantic (blue), and Gulf of Mexico (red). They found that what used to be considered 100-year floods will occur far more often depending on the location. Credit: Reza Marsooli et al

A 100-year flood is supposed to be just that: a flood that occurs once every 100 years, or a flood that has a one-percent chance of happening every year.

But Princeton researchers have developed new maps that predict for every county on the Eastern and Gulf Coasts and find 100-year floods could become annual occurrences in New England; and happen every one to 30 years along the southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shorelines.

"The historical 100-year floods may change to one-year floods in Northern coastal towns in the U.S.," said Ning Lin, associate professor of civil and at Princeton University.

In a new paper published in the journal Nature Communications, researchers combined , sea level rise, and the predicted increased occurrence and strength in and hurricanes to create a map of hazard possibility along the U.S. East Coast and Gulf of Mexico. Coastlines at northern latitudes, like those in New England, will face higher flood levels primarily because of sea level rise. Those in more southern latitudes, especially along the Gulf of Mexico, will face higher flood levels because of both sea level rise and increasing storms into the late 21st century.

'100-year' floods will happen every 1 to 30 years, according to new flood maps
The relative contributions of rising sea levels and changing storms differed according to the area of the country being studied. In northern areas, sea level rise is a major contributor to increased flooding, while changing storm dynamics are relatively more important in southern areas. Credit: Reza Marsooli et al

"For the Gulf of Mexico, we found the effect of storm change is compatible with or more significant than the effect of for 40% of counties. So, if we neglect the effects of climatology change, we would significantly underestimate the impact of climate change for these regions," said Lin.

The study's predictions are different than what else is currently available, said Reza Marsooli, assistant professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology, who worked on this study while a research scholar at Princeton, because they combine multiple variables that are typically addressed separately. For example the new maps use the latest climate science to look at how tropical storms will change in the future instead of what they are right now, or even looking backwards at previous storms, as federal disaster officials do to build their flood maps. These data, in turn, are integrated with sea level analysis.

The researchers hope that creating more accurate maps—especially those that are customized according to local conditions down to the county level—will help coastal municipalities prepare to face the effects of climate change head on.

'100-year' floods will happen every 1 to 30 years, according to new flood maps
Researchers at Princeton University calculated flood risks for 171 counties across four regions: New England (green), mid-Atlantic (orange), southeast Atlantic (blue), and Gulf of Mexico (red). They found that what used to be considered 100-year floods will occur far more often depending on the location. Credit: Reza Marsooli et al

"Policy makers can compare the spatial risk change, identify hotspots, and prioritize the resource allocation for risk reduction," said Lin. "Coastal counties can use the county-specific estimates in their decision making: Is their risk going to significantly change? Should they apply more specific, higher-resolution data to quantify the risk? Should they apply coastal flood defenses or other planning strategies or policy for reducing the future risk?"


Explore further

Rising sea levels will boost moderate floods in some areas, severe floods in others

More information: Reza Marsooli et al, Climate change exacerbates hurricane flood hazards along US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts in spatially varying patterns, Nature Communications (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-11755-z
Journal information: Nature Communications

Citation: '100-year' floods will happen every 1 to 30 years, according to new flood maps (2019, August 23) retrieved 18 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-08-year-years.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1803 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 23, 2019
An absolute Blow to the good of Humanity on this Earth ! !

Aug 23, 2019
The Utter profoundly disconnect these Barbarians show towards what is happening on a Global Scale Defies reality like nothing ever before seen ! ! ! !

Aug 23, 2019
Human Induced Climate Change continues to Relentlessly lay waste to our precious and fragile home

Aug 23, 2019
How can this be happening with a blind eye turned towards something that will destroy our whole planet !

Aug 23, 2019
predicted increased occurrence and strength in tropical storms and hurricanes


But there hasn't been. What crap alarmist "science".

Aug 23, 2019
An absolute Blow to the good of Humanity on this Earth ! !


Things are better than ever before in human history. You are an alarmist fool.

Aug 23, 2019
Sorry, but the title just made me laugh .

Aug 23, 2019
An absolute Blow to the good of Humanity on this Earth ! !


Have you not feet? Can you not walk? #walkaway

Aug 24, 2019
researchers combined...the predicted increased occurrence and strength in tropical storms and hurricanes

Ummm...little problem. The "predicted increase" in number and strength of tropical storms and hurricanes isn't happening. That prediction is bogus. Back to the drawing board...

Global hurricane frequency:
http://models.wea...freq.png

Global tropical cyclone energy:
http://models.wea..._ace.png

Global tropical cyclone frequency:
http://models.wea...nths.png

Atlantic hurricanes:
https://www.esrl....+Results

Aug 24, 2019
No sorry, you forgot to ask your daddy...again.. that explains zero.Putting up a few graphs and using those dumb thumbs to type a dumb sentence hardly explains anything, as You don't know anything about how the complicated weather system works and how Man Made Climate change is affecting it. Back to kindergarden for you and when you can one day understand the word science, you could take on what scientists call Research ;)

Aug 24, 2019
An absolute Blow to the good of Humanity on this Earth ! !


Have you not feet? Can you not walk? #walkaway


What happened to those 2 peas lol

Aug 24, 2019
Back to kindergarden for you and when you can one day understand the word science


No doubt coming from a young buffoon who's accomplished nothing in life, and is certain he knows it all.

Aug 24, 2019
And, in other news....
AGW Cult bullshit will happen every.......

Aug 24, 2019
I recently stumbled across a plausible explanation for Shootist and other climate change deniers. They have such an enormous about of hubris they believe, somewhat like Trump and his super stable genius with a very large brain claim, that the arguments they continue to push forward have not been considered by the scientific community. And the reason for this is because they are smarter than anyone else on the planet studying the issue.

I absolutely know I am a really smart guy. I have taken enough IQ tests to confirm it. But I also understand at a gut level that not only are there a whole lot of people much smarter than myself walking around, that people who have specialized in a particular field of study usually know MUCH more than myself in that field. I wonder if Shootist understands that he claiming to be smarter than the entire collective community of scientists studying climate change. And just how ludicrous that claim really is.

Aug 24, 2019
HeloMenelo, I just showed you measurements, available from NOAA, that demonstrate unequivocally that there is no trend of increasing hurricane or tropical storm frequency or strength. Show us your data. Measurements, please, not predictions, models or studies based on models. Just measurements. We've had 50 years or so of humans supposedly causing climate change. It should show up.

"Experts" keep "predicting" storms will increase based on mathematical models that ignore fundamental meteorology, and nature keeps defying their predictions, Why? Because they're wrong. All we see is random, natural variation.

I guess it's hard to digest real science when you've been imbibing climate alarmist propaganda for so long. You can't trust your own eyes when the evidence is displayed plainly before you because you're so invested in a theory that, to date, still hasn't been validated. The question to ask yourself is why you want to believe a theory when the evidence doesn't support it.

Aug 24, 2019
I recently stumbled across a plausible explanation for Shootist and other climate change deniers. They have such an enormous about of hubris they believe...that the arguments they continue to push forward have not been considered by the scientific community.

I have a better explanation. We have actually looked at the data and find that theory doesn't match measurements. It's called "science" in case you were wondering what gives us insight into something that appears inscrutable to you. Try some yourself. Here's a hint. Every single alarming claim about global warming is based on computer models, specifically the most implausible RCP8.5 scenario. Measurements show warming and sea level rise is moderate, nothing like the predictions, and that natural variability appears to still dominate. Meanwhile all that lovely CO2 is greening the planet.

Oh, and the "scientific community" includes many scientists who are skeptical of the human-caused-disaster theory.


Aug 24, 2019
Houston, Texas has experienced 3 '100 year floods' in the last 5 years. This is just silly speak.

Aug 24, 2019
My toilet experiences a "flood" every time I flush and it contains way less faeces than this fabrication.

Aug 24, 2019
Obama ain't worried. Just dropped 15 million on beach front Martha's Vineyard.

Aug 24, 2019
occurs once every 100 years, or a flood that has a one-percent chance of happening every year


That's not actually how probability works. The expected value is once per 100 years, but the actual probability of having 99 consecutive years without a flood is calculated as (1 - 0.01)^99 = 0.37 or 37%. You wouldn't bet on having the next 99 years without a flood, because the odds are 2/3rds against you.

This is something that people have troubles wrapping their heads around. Having a "once in a hundred year" probability does not mean you'll only get floods once every 100 years. It only averages out to 1:100 over a sufficiently many 100 year periods, which means thousands of years.

A related fallacy that people make is the gambler's fallacy, which is saying that "Okay, now we've had three floods in 100 years, so we'll have the next 300 years without a flood" - that's not how it works either. Plain probability doesn't have a "memory".

Aug 24, 2019
I absolutely know I am a really smart guy. I have taken enough IQ tests to confirm it.


Were all those tests online?

What you're doing is simply an appeal to authority, which is not a smart thing to do. One can admit their own incompetence in judging a matter, but this does not logically lead to the conclusion that the "smarter people" are correct in their judgement either. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean someone else - that you believe to be smarter - must have the correct answer.

That's the point of the scientific method: your intelligence does not matter. Only your evidence.

There's a related mistake to this one as well: just because someone's spending money (investing) in it doesn't mean it actually works; just because someone else believes in it doesn't actually mean it's true.

Aug 24, 2019
Your arguments lack some punch considering the amount of flooding measured decade by decade, @Eikka.

Here's a chart of billion-dollar weather events since 1980 in the US: https://www.ncdc....e-series

Notice how slow the site is? That's to discourage people from looking at it, orchestrated by Traitor Trump and Moscow Mitch. That's what controlling the money does for you.

Aug 24, 2019
Measurements show warming and sea level rise is moderate, nothing like the predictions, and that natural variability appears to still dominate.

Actually, the warming is in line with the models (https://www.clima...vations/ ) and the sea level rise is at the upper end of the model projections (https://skeptical...ions.htm ). The sea level rise is exponential. Unfortunately, the (US) lay public is innumerate, so they don't understand what exponential means. Both the sea level rise and warming are beyond the realm of natural variability. The human fingerprint can be detected in the satellite temperature data (https://www.natur...9-0424-x ). And given that years of La Nina weather in the 2000-2015 period didn't stop the warming, it seems silly to claim that natural variability dominates.

Aug 25, 2019
The skies are fallin',
The deep blue seas are risin',
Doom behest by the augurs.

Aug 25, 2019
What's all of the hoopla when we're talking about a couple centimeters of change in water height? And some persons on this forum are talking like it's the end of the world. Very little scientific thought into these horribly inflated comments. That's why we "deniers" choose to ignore all the crazy ranting and raving.

Aug 25, 2019
Go tell it to the Miami residents whose septic tanks are overflowing into their front yards.

Aug 25, 2019
Back to kindergarden for you and when you can one day understand the word science


No doubt coming from a young buffoon who's accomplished nothing in life, and is certain he knows it all.

Copy and pasting denier 101 phrases from your ask daddy sockpuppets book again ? Learn some real and original phrase by focusing those 2 peas.
When you learn to brush your teeth, we could maybe asses whether we will call it an accomplishment, just to make you feel better ;)

Aug 25, 2019
HeloMenelo, I just showed you measurements, available from NOAA, that demonstrate unequivocally that there is no trend of increasing hurricane or tropical storm frequency or strength blablablah


This rambling clearly shows your incompetence to understand Human Induced Climate change as a whole, fueling your stupidity beyond recognition... o my how the scientists can have fun with your pea minded arguments... :D

Aug 25, 2019
My toilet experiences a "flood" every time I flush and it contains way less faeces than this fabrication.
A a aaaa Moneky... You forgot to mention the part where you eat the ones of your fellow baboony that doesn't make it down the tree branch And we know it experiences a flood, we see you dumping it in all of your comments everyday ;)

Aug 25, 2019
Menelo, you and your tribe are such loser DENIERS. There are no increased hurricanes or tropical storms you meathead.

Aug 25, 2019
Go tell it to the Miami residents whose septic tanks are overflowing into their front yards.

Alarmist's feeble attempt at scare tactics and psychological terrorism. That stupid people build homes with septic tanks at sea level between an ocean and a swamp shouldn't be considered.

Aug 25, 2019
Your arguments lack some punch considering the amount of flooding measured decade by decade, @Eikka.


40 years of measurement is less than half a period on a century event timescale. The law of large numbers starts to apply around 32 events, so you need to observe 32 centuries in order to say with strong certainty that the average number of the "100-year" flood per century at your particular location is approximately 1. On any individual century, you can have any number of floods.

And, you changed the criteria from "once in a century" flood to "billion dollar flood", which is measuring a different thing, so you just shifted the goalposts.

It's also more than likely that the "100-year flood" was misjudged to begin with and they actually do occur more frequently than that, and always have. If the probability of the type of flood is 1% per year then it's not a "100-year" flood, and vice versa.

Aug 25, 2019
So let's get right down to it.

You are claiming that floods won't happen more often like the researchers say they will. Right?

Aug 25, 2019
So let's get right down to it.

You are claiming that floods won't happen more often like the researchers say they will. Right?


No, I'm claiming that the article is misrepresenting the case by suggesting that "100-year" floods happen ordinarily only once in a hundred years. Look - this is a simple case:

https://en.wikipe...ar_flood
A common misunderstanding is that a 100-year flood is likely to occur only once in a 100-year period. In fact, there is approximately a 63.4% chance of one or more 100-year floods occurring in any 100-year period. On the Danube River at Passau, Germany, the actual intervals between 100-year floods during 1501 to 2013 ranged from 37 to 192 years.


In other words, having "100-year" floods every 30 years is nothing out of the ordinary. It happens.

Aug 25, 2019
But what the issue is about is whether flooding will happen more often or not. You're just quibbling.

Aug 25, 2019
But what the issue is about is whether flooding will happen more often or not. You're just quibbling.


Well, I touched on that subject in the latter part of the criticism, which is about the misjudged frequency of 100-year floods. From the same wikipedia article:

Direct statistical analysis[9][12] to estimate the 100-year riverine flood is possible only at the relatively few locations where an annual series of maximum instantaneous flood discharges has been recorded. In the United States as of 2014, taxpayers have supported such records for at least 60 years at fewer than 2,600 locations, for at least 90 years at fewer than 500, and for at least 120 years at only 11.


In other words, the observation period for these 100-year events in the US is so short that the statistical predictions have vast uncertainties. There's barely any observations over even one 100-year period.

Aug 25, 2019
And you're avoiding the real issue which is whether floods will happen more often.

Fine. Noted. We're done here.

Aug 25, 2019
And you're avoiding the real issue which is whether floods will happen more often.

Fine. Noted. We're done here.


No, I'm addressing exactly that.

Flood prediction are on a shaky foundation to begin with, and the conclusions are different from other studies on the same subject:

The study's predictions are different than what else is currently available, said Reza Marsooli, assistant professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology


I would not trust this study. You can make your own mind. The bigger problem here however is that the article presents the case as if the "Science is Settled" again - with false representations of the concepts involved to make it sound more dramatic, and neglecting to mention the vast uncertainties involved in the measurements and predictions. In other words, the article is propaganda.

Aug 25, 2019
The excuse is:

because they combine multiple variables that are typically addressed separately.


But then the problem becomes:

There are a number of assumptions that are made to complete the analysis ...

The second assumption is that the observed extreme events must come from the same probability distribution function.

For example, if the extreme events on record all come from late summer thunderstorms (as is the case in the southwest U.S.), or from snow pack melting (as is the case in north-central U.S.), then this assumption should be valid. If, however, there are some extreme events taken from thunder storms, others from snow pack melting, and others from hurricanes, then this assumption is most likely not valid.


By combining data from different events and causes, they may easily break the statistical assumptions that make their prediction work.

Aug 25, 2019
Go tell it to the Miami residents whose septic tanks are overflowing into their front yards.


They've been getting flooded septic tanks for 80 years.

And banks still give out 30 year mortgages there.

Aug 25, 2019
So, in fact, you lied: you *are* claiming floods won't happen more often.

Again, noted, and we're still done here.

Aug 25, 2019
@Old_C_Code.

Give it a rest, mate. You're whistling against the wind and denying the reality under your nose when you call others "alarmist" for being cognisant of the worsening climate reality trending as we speak. Anyhow, good luck to you and yours, mate....and to us all. :)

Aug 25, 2019
@aksdad.

You're misreading and misrepresenting the implications of those graphs, mate. You also miss the POST-2016 events to date since those graphs cut off. The extremity, widespread, persistence, frequency, serial/cluster nature and increasingly un-recoverable costs of the current trending climate disaster situation is clear to anyone not blinded/corrupted by Russian/GOP troll-factory money paid by vested political/fossil/criminal interests to use 'weaponised stupids' and 'bots' to post the stupid/dishonest stuff you and others here have been trying on in the hope that people are stupid enough not to see through your shameful anti-science and anti-humanity campaigns-for-profit-and-power. Shame on your 'mercenary stupidity' and your 'Thirty Pieces of Silver'. Shame. :(

Aug 25, 2019
@antigoracle.
My toilet experiences a "flood" every time I flush and it contains way less faeces than this fabrication.
Pity you flush away more brains than faeces during your toilet floods, mate. Look at the bright side: you have very few brain cells left to lose from now on! Pity your 'weaponised stupid' and 'bot posting' pay from Russian/GOP troll-factory employers won't be able to 'buy' you brains to replace whatever you had started with but mostly lost since due to your toilet flood experiences. Never mind; you were never that useful to science or humanity to start with, mate; only to the Russian/GOP miscreants who employ you because your lack of brain power makes you perfectly 'qualified' for 'weaponised stupid' and 'bot poster' duties. Pity. :(

Aug 25, 2019
@Bart_A.
What's all of the hoopla when we're talking about a couple centimeters of change in water height? And some persons on this forum are talking like it's the end of the world. Very little scientific thought into these horribly inflated comments. That's why we "deniers" choose to ignore all the crazy ranting and raving.
You fail to include all the other problems/risks/damage/costs etc which are also in train besides just sea-level rise. Anyway, you also miss the point that even a few centimetres rise will be extremely costly because the CONFLUENCE of high tides, storm surges and interior rainwater/floodwater streaming to coasts will be more destructive than they are already. Not to mention the lessening alkalinity of ocean waters due to increasing dissolved CO2 will affect the food chain reproduction/survival disastrously. Mate, you really should get out in the real world and see for yourself and then think seriously about the whole picture. Resist your 'programming'. :)

Aug 25, 2019
100-year' floods will happen every 1 to 30 years - Or are we Old Fogies

Whereas RealityCheck waxes lyrical on this watery tale "Pity you flush away more brains than faeces during your toilet floods, mate"
Foreth, is
RealityCheck discussing the article or his own waterworks?

we all know
we're are all
old fogies

but really
this takes
the biscuit

there is one thing in life
we do not need reminding about
that is our water-works

Aug 25, 2019
@granville583762.

It's @antigoracle who used his 'waterworks' in his troll-spiel, mate. I merely went along with it; pointing out his erstwhile brains must obviously have accompanied his faeces whenever he flushed the toilet he alluded to in his troll-post. :)

Aug 25, 2019
you call others "alarmist" for being cognisant of the worsening climate reality trending


Worsening media. Get a clue. It's almost constant alarm now, five articles or more a day here.

Aug 25, 2019
@Old_C-Code.
you call others "alarmist" for being cognisant of the worsening climate reality trending


Worsening media. Get a clue. It's almost constant alarm now, five articles or more a day here.
So you wished that the news reports and studies didn't happen commensurate with the ongoing reality events/trendings which happen anyway whether we reported/studied/learned from them or not? Mate, you can't just shut out reality like that. It is what it is; and denying it is happening and covering your eyes/ears so you don't have to encounter/acknowledge it isn't a healthy thing to do, no matter who you are. It is incumbent on all thinking humans to face the reality regardless of how hard one would wish it were not happening. Intelligence also comes with ability to forecast from past/present information/events so that survivability is better rather than ignoring/denying reality in the hope it will somehow go away. Be prudent and pay attention. Else all is lost already.

Aug 25, 2019
So you wished that the news reports and studies didn't happen commensurate with the ongoing reality events/trendings which happen anyway whether we reported/studied/learned from them or not?


These articles are absurd with flimsier and flimsier evidence. You take any weather/earth event and turn it into a climate change issue. We see it daily.

Aug 26, 2019
@RC
Don't you think that it is rather odd that the mainstream medias in so many countries are claiming that the destruction of all life is imminent due to global warming? Have you not NOTICED that something strange is going on, particularly in NGOs and political discourse in the media, where presidential candidates in the US are vying to become the nominee based on their promises to cut out the use of fossil fuels along with abolishing legal gun ownership for self-protection, while they continue to support the illegal immigrants from Central America that they promise to house, feed and provide for by the welfare system in the US that is fully funded by America taxpayers?

Are you aware that several nations, as well as certain groups in the US are pushing for Socialism? In the US these certain groups are aiming to get rid of our US Constitution that gives every American man, woman and child the freedom and rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Aug 26, 2019
@RC
Are you aware that the AGW indoctrinators have hijacked that belief as one of the premises for the need/requirement of a future of World Socialism and then full Global Communism? Are you ready for totalitarianism? Do you want it? If you don't, then you had better open your eyes and ears much wider to find out what is really going on. It's the CO2 and warming that will be the excuse for taking control over whole countries. They don't think that we can manage ourselves, and they want to do it for us.
So wake up, RC.

Aug 26, 2019
"100-year' floods will happen every 1 to 30 years" or this "scattered bunch of flowers"

When espousing you're observations on the variability of floods
The rule of thumb is
Check historically from sedimentary data?
Going back millions of years
The variability cyclic nature of these floods
Because
As this English teacher once pointed out; you cannot have, a "scattered bunch of flowers"
Equally
You cannot have, "100-year floods in every 1 to 30 years"

Aug 26, 2019
Hmm...what about the thousand year floods?

Aug 26, 2019
Thousand year floods

antigoracle> Hmm...what about the thousand year floods?

Hmm... 1000-year' floods will happen every 1 to 30 years
If we make that 1,000,000 year floods every 1 to 30 years, that's a triple Hmm... Hmm... Hmm...

Aug 26, 2019
@Old_C_Code.
So you wished that the news reports and studies didn't happen commensurate with the ongoing reality events/trendings which happen anyway whether we reported/studied/learned from them or not?
These articles are absurd with flimsier and flimsier evidence. You take any weather/earth event and turn it into a climate change issue. We see it daily.
Not at all, mate. It's the more notable TRENDING in extremity/frequency/widespreadness/peristence/clustering etc nature of events that make it into PO science/news reports; not the run-of-the-mill events, which happen even more often but are not as 'news-worthy' as those increasingly most extreme etc that DO make the AGW-related news bulletins. There a many more events that are hardly heard of beyond the 'local news' media as part of daily ho-hum weather reports. The major/globally significant collection of events DO appear HERE; either as PO sci-news, or as study results having global climate change implications. Ok? :)

Aug 26, 2019
@granville583762.
You cannot have, "100-year floods in every 1 to 30 years"
Mate, you have this one slightly arse-up. It's an incidence count estimate OF 1 such event now tending to occur every 30 years. Or just over 3 such events every 100 years; as compared to the previous occurrence rate of of 1 such event every 100 years. Ok? :)

Aug 26, 2019
@S_E_U.

Please don't keep bringing your religious, political and paranoid conspiracy crap into the serious science/problem of what is happening that will affect the globe regardless of what religion, politics, or crazy agendas/conspiracies you have been 'primed' with by the usual miscreant Russian/GOP/Fossil/Alt-right etc crazies-alliance for profit and power motives which don't care about you or your family/descendants as long as they can rule the world at YOUR expense and that of everyone else not part of their greed/power/craziness-driven efforts to minimise/deflect from the looming common disaster unfolding under our very noses as we speak. As for 'controlling' and 'intervening in' etc in other countries/nations, what do you think ALL the major nations have been doing since history began; and since the Cold War and the 'new wars' between (mafia type) gangs of crooks running those powerful nations? Wake up to yourself; realise it is YOU being manipulated, S_E_U. Get real, ok? :)

Aug 26, 2019
RealityCheck, a play on words

@granville583762.
You cannot have, "100-year floods in every 1 to 30 years"
Mate, you have this one slightly arse-up. It's an incidence count estimate OF 1 such event now tending to occur every 30 years. Or just over 3 such events every 100 years; as compared to the previous occurrence rate of of 1 such event every 100 years. Ok? :)

We know what the article is implying, RealityCheck
This is a play on words

Aug 26, 2019
Thank you RealityCheck

@S_E_U.Please don't keep bringing your religious, political and paranoid conspiracy crap into the serious science/problem of what is happening that will affect the globe regardless of what religion, politics, or crazy agendas/conspiracies you have been 'primed' with by the usual miscreant Russian/GOP/Fossil/Alt-right etc crazies-alliance for profit and power motives which don't care about you or your family/descendants as long as they can rule the world at YOUR expense and that of everyone else not part of their greed/power/craziness-driven efforts to minimise/deflect from the looming common disaster unfolding under our very noses as we speak. what do you think ALL the major nations have been doing since history began; and since the Cold War and the 'new wars' between (mafia type) gangs of crooks running those powerful nations? Wake up to yourself; realise it is YOU being manipulated, S_E_U. Get real, ok? :)

You're experience is most welcome!

Aug 26, 2019
Fore there is one thing in life, RealityCheck

you know
your monsters
hiding under stones

Aug 26, 2019
@granville583762.
You cannot have, "100-year floods in every 1 to 30 years"
Mate, you have this one slightly arse-up. It's an incidence count estimate OF 1 such event now tending to occur every 30 years. Or just over 3 such events every 100 years; as compared to the previous occurrence rate of 1 such event every 100 years. Ok? :) We know what the article is implying, RealityCheck. This is a play on words Dare I say it, mate? The subject, the science and the relevant stats, in this time of climate crisis, are not suitable subject for either 'wordplay' or 'levity' which may be counterproductive to proper understanding of the seriousness of the crisis we all face re AGW. I for one would appreciate it if you self-restricted your penchant for wordplay/levity to those subjects where such amusing distractions may have a positive effect in reducing the usual tension between certain posters. Good luck, mate; and I look forward to more properly 'targeted' fun in future. Thanks. :)

Aug 26, 2019
Obama ain't worried. Just dropped 15 million on beach front Martha's Vineyard.
says Shootist

ROFLOL I am glad that you mentioned that. Yes, $15million USDollars for a mansion that is adjacent to the beach where the tide rolls in and can easily inundate the house and everything near it - IF the Atlantic Ocean were to rise a few feet above normal sea level. And now the Barack Obama family are neighbors with the Kennedy family and the rich get richer. One has to wonder how much Barack Obama pays in income taxes. Have the Liberal/Socialists asked to see his Income Tax Returns? After all, he certainly was not wealthy before he was elected POTUS. Where and how did he get all that money that enabled him to afford a 15million dollar home in an exclusive section of Cape Cod?

Aug 26, 2019
REFORMAT
@granville583762.
You cannot have, "100-year floods in every 1 to 30 years"
Mate, you have this one slightly arse-up. It's an incidence count estimate OF 1 such event now tending to occur every 30 years. Or just over 3 such events every 100 years; as compared to the previous occurrence rate of 1 such event every 100 years. :)
We know what the article is implying, RealityCheck. This is a play on words
Dare I say it, mate? The subject, the science and the relevant stats, in this time of climate crisis, are not suitable subject for either 'wordplay' or 'levity' which may be counterproductive to proper understanding of the seriousness of the crisis we all face re AGW. I for one would appreciate it if you self-restricted your penchant for wordplay/levity to those subjects where such amusing distractions may have a positive effect in reducing the usual tension between certain posters. Good luck, mate; and I look forward to more properly 'targeted' fun in future. :)

Aug 26, 2019
Go tell it to the Miami residents whose septic tanks are overflowing into their front yards.
says Schneib

Where did you read or hear that? Got any links to it?

Aug 26, 2019
Fore there is one thing in life, RealityCheck

you know
your monsters
hiding under stones

RealityCheck, you're not keeping an eye on that itchy trigger comment finger
These antenna were on full alert this morn, RealityCheck
And although you're correct
In this is science, there is this human element, as that is this antenna
RealityCheck, you have long experience of this antenna

Foreth RealityCheck, it is rarely wrong!

Aug 26, 2019
SEU, do not take it to heart
foreth this antenna, RealityCheck proved a point
as RealityCheck has spent many hours licking these ravages of finrot
so think on and don't take it to heart

Aug 26, 2019
Go tell it to the Miami residents whose septic tanks are overflowing into their front yards.

Alarmist's feeble attempt at scare tactics and psychological terrorism. That stupid people build homes with septic tanks at sea level between an ocean and a swamp shouldn't be considered.
says CD85

I have wondered for a thousand years or so as to why it is that humans have a 'THING' about building their homes either on the water, over the water, or somewhere very close to the water. Beach-front property ownership is the rich man's dream, and the vast majority who own such property are the wealthy who are able to afford to raise their homes onto concrete pillars if need be. And the ones whose homes are right at the edge of a beach are too rich to care. They too, have the money to have their septic tanks pumped out as frequently as the ocean floods the tanks.

Very few poor or middle-class are owners of such properties, but they know enough to get out of the way.

Aug 26, 2019
RealityCheck in REFORMAT
Dare I say it
mate
The subject
the science
and the relevant stats
in this time of climate crisis
are not suitable subject for either
wordplay
or
levity
which may be
counterproductive to proper understanding
of the seriousness of the crisis
we all face re AGW
I for one would appreciate it
if you self-restricted your penchant for wordplay
levity to those subjects
where such amusing distractions
may have a positive effect
in reducing the usual tension
between certain posters
Good luck
mate
and
I look forward to more properly
targeted
fun in future

You missed my point in your rush to levity, RealityCheck
My Point
When espousing you're observations on the variability of floods
The rule of thumb is
Check historically from sedimentary data?
Going back millions of years
The variability cyclic nature of these floods

Quite a detailed point, RealityCheck

Aug 26, 2019
@S_E_U.

Please don't keep bringing your religious, political and paranoid conspiracy crap into the serious science/problem of what is happening that will affect the globe regardless of what religion, politics, or crazy agendas/conspiracies you have been 'primed' with by the usual miscreant Russian/GOP/Fossil/Alt-right etc crazies-alliance for profit and power motives which don't care about you or your family/descendants as long as they can rule the world at YOUR expense and that of everyone else....
says RC

I don't believe in manmade religions. I thought that you understood that.
But you accuse me of mentioning politics, and then YOU go on to also mention politics such as GOP which is the Republican Party of the US. Since you are a citizen of Australia, you should be more concerned about your own political system there, not the GOP.
But as I said previously, the AGW cult has been hijacked by those in NGOs who see that AGW is a good method to gain control globally.

Aug 26, 2019
In other words, RC, the more panic that the AGW theme causes in western nations, the better chances that humans will give up their Rights to those who are perceived to have the means of "saving" all of them from the dreaded "'Anthropogenic Global Warming".
Why, even those who live in naturally hot countries in or close to the Equator who believe that their temperatures in their already hot countries will get even hotter will BEG those in the AGW leadership to DO SOMETHING to save them from global warming.

It is human nature to panic when something is proposed that is so dire and dangerous to life as AGW has been said to be. The humans who read and hear of this threat will come to your way of thinking, and they will give up ANYTHING TO BE SAVED. But WHO are the 'saviours" and the 'Knights in shining armour' who will come riding to the rescue? Who will that be, RC?
And how much of your personal wealth AND freedom will you have to give up to them?

Aug 26, 2019
SEU, I'm curious
How long does it take for RealityCheck to compose his comments
Because
RealityCheck is always on the hop
Has his difficult to read, convoluted, punctuated style any relevance
It must take considerable time to compose

Hence: RealityCheck on the hop

Aug 26, 2019
LOL I think that RC has a problem with using a more moderate verbiage to introduce and present his thoughts and opinions to Physorg readers. There are many, such as RC, who eschew an easier method of putting across one's ideas in more daily language. As much as I enjoyed the blogs written by the late William F. Buckley many years ago, I had to struggle to comprehend many of his phrases, and often wound up consulting my dictionary as to his meanings. A highly intelligent lad he was, but he often preferred the use of rarely-used verbiage.

Aug 26, 2019
I don't know, but I think that it may be something that highly-educated men suffer from. Buckley was not only highly-educated and had attended and graduated from a very prestigious University, but was also highly prized for his abilities to assess the world's many conditions and describe those conditions clearly and concisely. That's back when a University education really meant something.
Not that I'm comparing RC to Buckley. There are, after all, major differences, and I don't know RC's level of education.

Aug 26, 2019
Obama ain't worried. Just dropped 15 million on beach front Martha's Vineyard.
says Shootist

ROFLOL I am glad that you mentioned that. Yes, $15million USDollars for a mansion that is adjacent to the beach where the tide rolls in and can easily inundate the house and everything near it - IF the Atlantic Ocean were to rise a few feet above normal sea level. And now the Barack Obama family are neighbors with the Kennedy family and the rich get richer. One has to wonder how much Barack Obama pays in income taxes. Have the Liberal/Socialists asked to see his Income Tax Returns? After all, he certainly was not wealthy before he was elected POTUS. Where and how did he get all that money that enabled him to afford a 15million dollar home in an exclusive section of Cape Cod?

"Political favors from the deep state".... Maybe Epstein gave him some cash? Then again, we know BO preferred big boys like Moochelle to young girls any day.

Aug 26, 2019
LOL Yes, Mooooochelle is quite muscular and burly for a woman. But I think I will pass on that aspect of her (ahem) charms. The former Obama POTUS is known to have hung out in a homosexual 'club' called "Man's Country" when he was much younger and before he entered politics, IIRC. I think the club was/is in Chicago.
As to Jeffrey Epstein, I KNEW that he did NOT commit suicide after I heard that some other prisoners heard SHRIEKS coming from Epstein's cell. Suicide do NOT SHRIEK when hanging themselves. And he had been waiting for the following day to see if he could be given a lighter sentence - or something like that. I don't recall the exact detail of it.
And how does one commit suicide with a paper blanket? It would have torn. But his hyoid bone in his neck was broken, which happens when the neck is broken as in hanging or strangulation. I suspect that a huge guy came into his cell when he didn't expect it and strangled him. But it could have been something else that I won't

Aug 27, 2019
Ouch! Never mind that Florida will be largely under water soon, the current administration golf club may get flooded much sooner.

By combining data from different events and causes, they may easily break the statistical assumptions that make their prediction work.


Yes, if you try to do it for a specific locale, which was what the article you link to discuss.

The article, as well as the research, claims that "estimates [are] available" - since they don't break 'assumptions'. (Tested constraints, really, since they see increased flood rates as expected.) And that one of the difficulties in estimates is that man made global warming is ongoing, but you somehow (why!?) forgot to cite that.

So we are, indeed, "still done here".

Aug 28, 2019
@S_E_U.
I don't believe in manmade religions. I thought that you understood that.
And yet you persistently turn the discussions to religious/superstitious/personal-beliefs. That is what I am asking you to desist in and stick to the scientific aspects and eschew the irrelevancies which you keep intruding into the threads. Thanks. :)
But you accuse me of mentioning politics, and then YOU go on to also mention politics such as GOP which is the Republican Party of the US. Since you are a citizen of Australia, you should be more concerned about your own political system there, not the GOP. But as I said previously, the AGW cult has been hijacked by those in NGOs who see that AGW is a good method to gain control globally.
It's not 'the politics' I raised, it's the ABUSE by the GOP/Fossil/Russian (and now Chinese) interests, via 'ghost accounts' and 'bot postings'. And YOU seem to have 'lapped up' all their anti-science/anti-humanity lies/spiels as if it were 'gospel'. Bad. :)

Sep 14, 2019
So, in fact, you lied: you *are* claiming floods won't happen more often.

Again, noted, and we're still done here.


No, in fact I'm claiming their data is inconclusive - it doesn't actually say one or the other because they're breaking the underlying assumptions behind the statistics that make the predictions valid. In other words, they're doing faulty comparisons, apples to oranges, by changing the goalposts between the counts.

You're the one who's lying by putting words in my mouth - as usual. By forcing the question to be one or the other, you're guilty of the fallacies of undistributed middle and false dilemma.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more