Record rain led to Missouri flash flooding. Climate change could bring more deadly storms 34%

By Kate Grumke52%

7/16/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, False Dilemma, and Optimism Bias, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 25% saturation with 216 hits. Analysis detected 1,338 faulty-reasoning hits from 864 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42% and a BS Rank of 34% (14,063 of 21,180 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.40% of the article peer group.

Record rain led to Missouri flash flooding. 
Climate change could bring more deadly storms 
The record-breaking storm was a reminder for some scientists of how the changing climate will force new plans for the future. 
Extreme rainfall and flash flooding in southeastern Missouri last week broke multiple weather records, according to scientists. 
The storm killed one person and led to hundreds of rescues, including campers and staff who were airlifted to safety from Camp Taum Sauk. 
As much as a foot to 14 inches of rain fell in some parts of the storm Thursday night into Friday, with one observer in Iron County reporting 12.25 inches of rain, according to the National Weather Service. 
"Twelve to 14 inches is an extreme rain event anywhere in Missouri," said Jon Carney, a meteorologist with the weather service in St. 
Louis. 
"That's something that does not happen very often at all." 
The deluge of water was about three times the average amount of rain the area gets in the entire month of July. 
The previous 24-hour rainfall record for close to 25 counties in the eastern Ozarks region was 11.74 inches in Reynolds County, said Zack Leasor, state climatologist with the University of Missouri. 
"This is completely unprecedented based on that total," Leasor said. 
Much of the rain fell into the Black River Basin, causing record-breaking flash flooding. 
The Black River hit a record flood stage in Annapolis. 
There, the river rose more than 20 inches in 12 hours, hitting 28.73 feet and breaking the previous record set in 1993 by more than a foot. 
"An event like this from the data side really pops off the page when you see a flash flood emergency like what was issued," Leasor said. 
How climate change plays in 
While scientists cannot definitively say if climate change made the event more likely or intense, Leasor said climate change is already causing more of these types of storms because a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. 
"We know that in a warmer climate with more moisture in the atmosphere and the capacity to hold more moisture, we're going to see more extreme events like this and extreme precipitation events," Leasor said. 
That, in turn, can lead to flash floods. 
"Flash flooding has always occurred in this region, heavy precipitation has always occurred in the region, at least historically, but when you warm things, then you increase the likelihood of these really heavy, really intense precipitation events," said Samuel Muñoz, an associate professor at Northeastern University who studies rivers and climate change. 
That, in turn, can lead to flash floods. 
"Flash flooding has always occurred in this region, heavy precipitation has always occurred in the region, at least historically, but when you warm things, then you increase the likelihood of these really heavy, really intense precipitation events," said Samuel Muñoz, an associate professor at Northeastern University who studies rivers and climate change. 
To truly understand how climate change contributes to extreme weather, scientists do attribution studies, in which they work to see how much influence climate change had on an event. 
But individual rainstorms can be especially hard to study because they are small, complicated weather events. 
Attribution work is usually directed at deadlier and more damaging outbursts. 
"Because these studies, especially for heavy rainfall events, take some time, we don't have infinite scientific bandwidth to be looking at every flooding event around the world," Dahl said. 
But Dahl and other scientists said it's still important to consider how events like this are changing. 
"While we can't say yet, the extent to which climate change influenced this particular event, we do know that it's consistent with the trends we've observed and what we know about climate change," Dahl said. 
Future planning 
Moving forward, Leasor said Missourians can expect more extreme weather and records falling. 
"We saw a 1,000-year flood, but maybe now that this data point is in the record, we need to adjust some of the other expectations there as well," Leasor said. 
Those moving targets will affect how people live near rivers, said Jonathan Remo, a professor at Southern Illinois University's School of Earth Systems and Sustainability. 
"Our infrastructure is based off the past and not what's going to happen in the future," Remo added. 
"And that gets us into trouble when we have flooding, and especially under the changing climate we're observing today." 
Roads, bridges and homes are built with an eye toward past extreme events. 
But government flood maps designed to help are generally based on historical records and haven't been updated recently, Muñoz said. 
"For the average person who wants to spend time in these kinds of environments or build in these kinds of environments, be cautious and don't assume that the mapped-out 100-year floodplain, for example, is a safe bet," Muñoz said. 
"Be more conservative." 
A flood like this can be a reminder of what is possible, Remo said. 
"Over the long term, we can take this information, the precipitation data, the river discharges and improve our predictions and improve our designs over time," he said. 
Copyright 2026 St. 
Louis Public Radio 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.0%Kate Grumke: 2.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias8.0%This article: 6.0%Kate Grumke: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias6.0%This article: 5.8%Kate Grumke: 2.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.8%This article: 2.5%Kate Grumke: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic2.5%This article: 2.4%Kate Grumke: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias2.4%This article: 25.0%Kate Grumke: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias25.0%This article: 4.4%Kate Grumke: 6.1%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect4.4%This article: 4.9%Kate Grumke: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion4.9%This article: 2.4%Kate Grumke: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.8%Kate Grumke: 5.3%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Kate Grumke: 8.2%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 4.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Kate Grumke: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.7%Kate Grumke: 4.2%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority17.7%This article: 14.1%Kate Grumke: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma14.1%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.4%Kate Grumke: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning3.4%This article: 7.3%Kate Grumke: 3.2%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization7.3%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.6%Kate Grumke: 3.7%Columbia Missourian: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion1.6%This article: 8.2%Kate Grumke: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question8.2%This article: 7.3%Kate Grumke: 3.1%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.3%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.5%Kate Grumke: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division1.5%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 2.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.2%Kate Grumke: 2.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.2%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.4%Kate Grumke: 2.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice2.4%This article: 5.1%Kate Grumke: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination5.1%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Grumke: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Kate Grumke: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.8%

864 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers70%attributed speech262writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageNational Weather Service • 38 words • 0.0% coverageJon Carney • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJon Carney • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageZack Leasor • 31 words • 0.0% coverageZack Leasor • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageZack Leasor • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageZack Leasor • 36 words • 0.0% coverageZack Leasor • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageSamuel Muñoz • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageSamuel Muñoz • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDahl • 29 words • 0.0% coverageDahl • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDahl • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageZack Leasor • 13 words • 0.0% coverageZack Leasor • 30 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Remo • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Remo • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Remo • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMuñoz • 20 words • 0.0% coverageMuñoz • 39 words • 100.0% coverageMuñoz • 3 words • 100.0% coverageJonathan Remo • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Remo • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Muñoz

100%flagged-word coverage
62 attributed words10% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Indoctrination+67.0 ptsWriter: 0.8%Muñoz: 67.7%67.7%Attempt to Sell a Product -9.2 ptsWriter: 9.2%Muñoz: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Muñoz: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.