You can calculate the probability as a binomial coefficient. 1-0.99^100 = 63.4%. This means that there is 63.4% probability of one major flood occurring in a hundred years.
Sorry math buffs, I meant to say binomial distribution. The article says its 67%. I believe this difference is due to the fact that he probably used software.
Ahem! the main point of the article is that the probability is shifting higher, not constant at 1% per year, per the OP in this thread. If my whimsical suggestion that these are now occurring at 100 month intervals, 12% per year frequency would be more appropriate…. for now.
The Binomial or Negative Binomial distributions are only (realistically) applicable accurately when the probability of loss parameter is constant.
An application of the Poisson distribution for the time dependent frequency would need to reflect changing mean value parameters.
100 year floods are happening every 100 months. Why can’t we go back to the old schedule?
(cough) climate change (cough)
You can calculate the probability as a binomial coefficient. 1-0.99^100 = 63.4%. This means that there is 63.4% probability of one major flood occurring in a hundred years.
Sorry math buffs, I meant to say binomial distribution. The article says its 67%. I believe this difference is due to the fact that he probably used software.
Poisson distribution might be more appropriate here.
You’re right. But there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Ahem! the main point of the article is that the probability is shifting higher, not constant at 1% per year, per the OP in this thread. If my whimsical suggestion that these are now occurring at 100 month intervals, 12% per year frequency would be more appropriate…. for now.
The Binomial or Negative Binomial distributions are only (realistically) applicable accurately when the probability of loss parameter is constant.
An application of the Poisson distribution for the time dependent frequency would need to reflect changing mean value parameters.
It’s time to cue up David Bowie’s “Changes”.