We're not talking about vague shifting definitions of "normal." We're talking about "the wettest 12 months ever recorded," in the 125 years we have data for.

125 years is still a very small amount of time to assess climate, and the quality of the data 125 years ago isn’t very good. Considering all “solutions” to the “problem” of climate change involve a radical remaking of society, it’s not unreasonable or unserious to ask for more data.

If anyone is suggesting we spend taxpayer money to prepare for extreme wet seasons, then yes, we may need more data on that.

On the other hand, it is beyond doubt that global warming is happening and getting worse. Ergo, we have to seriously cut down our CO2 emission. In the year 2019, anybody who's asking for more data on that is just willfully stalling discussion.

Stop getting hung up on "radical remaking of society," because that's going to happen anyway. Whether we like it or not, society is going to be radically remade when we lose Miami and New Orleans to the sea.

> Considering all “solutions” to the “problem” of climate change involve a radical remaking of society, it’s not unreasonable or unserious to ask for more data.

We need to replace our energy sources with renewable and/or nuclear ones, we do not have to radically remake society.

Reminds me of the an article a while back talking about how via studying tree rings and sediment, that scientists think California experienced back-to-back 200 year droughts starting around the year 850.

Isn’t a back-to-back 200 year drought a 400 year drought?

You're having a totally different discussion than all the people you replied to. Nobody above you said "this is destroying the planet and we need to guillotine the oil barons." You introduced the idea of "we don't know what normal is" when it wasn't relevant.

This is the wettest 12 months in the US on record. This is almost certainly because the global temperature has gone up significantly in the last century+.

If you want to talk about this, talk about this - don't waste time attacking imaginary points you think other people are implying.

Does anyone know what the odds are of experiencing a 1 in 125 year event in a 20 year time span?

I feel like sometimes weather records are given higher significance than they really are in the grand scheme of things. Not saying this is one of them, but just trying to look at things in a balanced way.

Assuming independent events (a bad assumption no doubt) then you're looking for 1 - the probability that for 20 years straight you don't have the event happening.

- E event happens in given year - N event doesn't happen in given year

Then P(E) = 1/125. Conversely P(N) = 1-1/125.

We're looking for 1-P(NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN) = 1 - (1-1/125)^20 = 15%

Though I'm sure someone will tell me how I'm wrong

And you know there wasnt something wetter 150 years ago how?

There probably was! It would be the acme of foolishness to surmise that we've never had a wetter year in the history of our planet.

But we compare to things that we know about, instead of guessing.

Which is fine when it doesent affect politics and just stay in the scientific as a debate, it doesent get applied to political discourse. Thats the opposite of science.