AGAIN, you're saying things i never said...i do understand how statistics work...i never said that it only happens once per 100 years. You're trying to take a small sample size and say that's what i'm saying. No no and explicitly no. I feel like i'm taking crazy pills here. A 1% chance over the long run will give you one out of every hundred...not necessarily this hundred but when you average them all out. If i have to explain what an average is to you, then I don't think I can continue this conversation.
But since you won't agree that the document you even cited states them as 100 year floods or 500 year floods or that the terminology is THE SAME F%$CKING THING...lets move on from that.
Lets call them .2% or 1% floods then. You don't think the fact we've had 7 of these in the last 26 years is concerning? That .2% chance has been happening an awful lot. To hit that .2%...if it doesn't hit that mark again...you'd need 3500 years. So over 1000 years before Jesus was born. You can argue the terminology all you want but these are statistically significantly high.
100 year flood and a 1% chance are the same thing. It's only different if you're misinterpreting the definition. They both occur..on average...once every 100 years.
Unless they calculated the 1% and 0.2% levels WRONG because they didn't have enough data.
Seems like the need to do some new calculations Regardless of the reasons.
Last edited: