The entire thesis of once in 300 years or once in 1000 years or once in 100 years weather event really has to be let go by the media. The fact is these things are happening or more and more often and are a direct result of climate change and then not once in 300 years, they’re happening all the time
The article says it's the heaviest rainfall recorded in Hat Yai over the last 300 years. So that's the actual meaning, and interpreting it in the probabilistic sense seems to have been the initiative of the headline writer.
I mean, we’re still working on convincing people that climate change is actually happening, so if they want to keep reporting the 100yr storms that happen every year now, that’s fine by me.
'Once in 300 years'???
While the functional form of the statistical distributions themselves might still be valid, certainly the old parameters are no longer so.
The entire thesis of once in 300 years or once in 1000 years or once in 100 years weather event really has to be let go by the media. The fact is these things are happening or more and more often and are a direct result of climate change and then not once in 300 years, they’re happening all the time
The article says it's the heaviest rainfall recorded in Hat Yai over the last 300 years. So that's the actual meaning, and interpreting it in the probabilistic sense seems to have been the initiative of the headline writer.
yeah they should measure rainfall in swimming pools, or sydney harbours.
I mean, we’re still working on convincing people that climate change is actually happening, so if they want to keep reporting the 100yr storms that happen every year now, that’s fine by me.
They should be clearer: "storms that were once in a 100 years in the 'old' climate".
But how do you fit in nuance and statistics into news headlines etc?
[flagged]