Posted: Jan 09, 2016 6:09 pm
Macdoc wrote:when you have climate models predicting more intensive storms ( not more frequent ) AND a clear history in the past 20 years of that being born out....historical frequency is not a good guide.
As the governor of a mid-west state quipped...a single 100 year storm we can accept ....3 of them in 12 years ??!!! something else is going on.
I'm Brits in certain areas would concur.
Entirely agree. This notion of 100 or 250 year storms has proved to have validity. It should be dropped for the worst case scenario.
Enough of gambling.