Hurricanes aren't like earthquakes where something builds up over time to make an event more likely if there has not been one recently. It's like saying "The roulette wheel is due to hit number 2."
This is based off my memory of a class from years ago, so I am likely oversimplifying it.
This produces both shear stress (i.e. stress that promotes sliding on the fault) and normal stress (i.e. stress that resist sliding on the fault due to friction).
One common manifestation of the elastic rebound theory says that there is some relatively fixed stress ratio at which the shear stress overcomes the frictional resistance to slip and the fault slides rapidly in an earthquake. The basic assumption (which is supported by data for some well-studied faults such as the San Andreas) is that the rates of strain accumulation are generally constant through time, and therefore earthquakes on a fault are quasiperiodic in time and have more or less similar magnitudes. These are called 'characteristic earthquakes'.
In this situation, then the likelihood of an earthquake on a given part of a fault does increase with time since the last earthquake. I wrote a blog post quantifying this for the southern San Andreas Fault [1], using data from the geologic record and only a few assumptions (basically just that the geologic record contains all of the earthquakes).
However, though very few researchers disagree with the fundamental principles of elastic rebound theory, there is an ongoing scientific debate over whether earthquakes are periodic and characteristic, or more or less random. Many statistical seismologists believe that they are the common form of 'random', i.e. that the likelihood of an earthquake doesn't change with time since the last earthquake. Some faults (and especially larger fault systems) seem to behave in this fashion, but for an individual fault this implies very different earthquake physics. There are huge fights in places like California between senior scientists over this topic when doing seismic hazard modeling. Additionally there are other statistical distributions than either characteristic/quasiperiodic and random (Poissonian) that produce different behavior [2,3]--with some models, the longer it's been since the last earthquake, the longer it will be until the next, and with others after some time for stress to renew on the fault, it becomes basically random.
For storms, floods, etc. the likelihood of a big event happening in a given year is more or less equal every year and therefore 'random' with the exception of some multiyear cycles such as El Niño. However, over shorter timescales, they aren't. Big storms are more likely to occur during rainy seasons rather than dry seasons, and big floods are more likely soon after previous big floods (i.e. days to weeks) because the meterological conditions that generate them may be persistent and the groundwater is still high, which means that it takes less rain to get the same river levels.
[1]: http://rocksandwater.net/blog/2016/07/wrightwood-recurrence/ [2]: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3071/de51c5abc4f770b0b11ede... [3]: http://windofweef.jp/library/o_m/disaster_prevention/img/10....
In brief and simplifying:
Relative to each other, the Pacific plate is moving to the northeast and the North American plate to the southwest (absolute motion is a bit different) and a fairly constant rate of about 25cm per year. Being solid rock these plates don't slide past each other continuously (except in a few rare places) but build up stress over time near the contact between the two plates (fault). When the stress is high enough, the fault breaks loose at a single location and propagates a distance from there. How far the break propagates and how much the plates move relative to each other determines the size of the earthquake.
How plates move on the large scale relative to each other changes on the million year timescale, so on the 10,000 yr timescale, where you will have about 50-100 ~7.5 to 8.0 magnitude earthquakes on the San Andreas under San Francisco, the mean frequency and standard deviation of earthquakes won't change much. Geologist can determine when large past earthquakes occurred by digging trenches through faults and looking at the physical displacement of sediments [2].
How to predict earthquakes by better than 30% chance in the next 30 years (this is the current best estimate for the Hayward fault near where I live) is on-going and with no success so far. Looking at changes in ground conductivity some weeks and days before an earthquake is the most promising path at the moment, but has not yet been proven to work.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics [2] https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/safz-paleo/
You can make the general claim that sea levels are rising globally, but to make the claim that global warming is specifically responsible for climate event A requires a lot of evidence.