We don't really need to.
Look at what those books are for. Its very different purposes.
The first part of Genesis (chapters 1-11) is essentially a collection of Jewish creation myths. It is not all that different in form (and in some instances in content) from other peoples' creation myths. The point of that form of writing is to instruct the listener a bit about the telling culture's values, under the pretext of explaining how things that are came to be.
They are generally composed over generations as oral traditions, by societies far before they've developed a scientific outlook on things like history and the natural sciences. As such, they freely mix metaphor and fact, and are quite happy to sacrifice the latter in the interests of the former. They are simply not intended to be what we modern people would consider literal scientific truth. Trying to read them that way risks not only misleading you as to the literal truth, but missing the deeper points being made.
In the case of Genesis 8:22, we are explaining why this same thing (the Great Flood) doesn't happen every day, why the natural cycles are so regular, and ending the story. The deeper message is about God making a pact with the Jewish people. The real point here, the purpose this story exists, is to talk about God's relationship with the people (going forward from there of course).
So is the poem in Genesis 8:22 literal truth? Heck no. Historically, there was the year without a summer (due to volcanic activity). There are places on earth where people live that don't really have cold/hot seasons (the Equator), or where agriculture is impossible (North Asia and Northern Canada). We know that one day our Sun will expand to the point where human habitation of the Earth will be impossible. If you wonder how all this can be literally reconciled with Genesis 8:22, the answer is that it wasn't written to be that kind of literal truth. If that's all you're looking for in it, you are missing the real truth that was written into it.
So how about The Revelation (aka: The Apocalypse of John)?
There were in fact many Christian Apocalypses written during that era. This is the only one to have made Canon*, and that decision was very controversial both at the time and today. The Eastern (Syrian) tradition doesn't in fact recognize it as such, and never has. You will find many scholars of the Roman-derived traditions that think the Easterners made the right choice. Among those who didn't rate it were Martin Luther and John Calvin. So I think first off its fair to say its only canonish, and if you think there's an inconsistency between it and another book, its reasonable to defer to the other book.
The book itself is generally accepted to have been largely using coded language to talk about the persecutions of Nero. This coded language was required at the time, because openly criticizing a Roman Emperor was a good way to end up dead. It should go without saying that expecting complete literal truth out of what was essentially written as a cypher is likely to lead to a misreading of the work.
I'm not going to venture an interpretation of Rev:22, as there are too many good candidate theories. However, we are clearly in the wrap-up stages of the story, (as with Gen 8), and it seems equally clear that the author is trying to imply that things will far better when we get through to that point. The NIV gives it the heading "Eden Restored". Its also pretty clear he isn't referring to the kinds of everyday times that the authors of Gen 8 were referring to.
In short, neither passage was intended to be read as literally as this question is trying to do, and they were talking about completely different times for completely different purposes. In general people shouldn't be playing continuity nerd with the Bible. If you find yourself doing that, its a good indication that you are missing the forest for the trees. Look underneath for what its trying to tell you, and save that technical energy for your Marvel movies.
* - The Old Testament Book of Daniel is also an apocalypse. A rather important one too, that New Testament authors were clearly familiar with.