Did climate change impact Hurricane Harvey?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lynnvinc

Guest
It seems people and the mainstream media are politicizing Hurricane Harvey by NOT mentioning how climate change may have intensified it – so people kept unawares can simply rebuild as before and go on blindly with our current GHG emissions level. CNN and MSNBC, not to mention Fox, etc, are derelict in their duty to bring up this discussion on TV, tho at least CNN has some coverage on their webpage (see below).

BTW, my niece it there in Houston trapped in the surrounding flooding, tho luckily unharmed. Also Harvey could have come to my area and harmed us if the weather pattern had directed it here. So it is NOT “political” for me, but personal and a serious life & property issue.
…‘One-in-1,000-years type of event’
… Gradually warming temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico – as much as 2 degrees Celsius above average – could be a pressure cooker for key ingredients of a hurricane: extreme winds, rainfall and storm surge.
Where Harvey intensified and made landfall off the Texas/Mexico coast, the water temperatures were about 1 degree Celsius above average.
…“A warmer atmosphere can also hold more water,” Sublette wrote. “It’s the reason that it feels humid in the summer, but not the winter – there is more actual water vapor in the atmosphere. For every 1°F of warming, the atmosphere can hold 4% more water vapor. And the global atmosphere is about 1-3°F warmer than a century ago.”
cnn.com/2017/08/28/us/hurricane-harvey-climate-change/index.html

From another source a top climate scientist told about other factors contributing to Harvey’s catastrophic harms, such as (1) how the sea level has risen on the East and Gulf coasts by about a foot (somewhat higher than the global average), and (2) how Arctic warming is thought to be contributing to weather patterns stalling (which was a major factor in Houston’s extreme deluge).

See democracynow.org/ for 8/30/217, the segment on climate change and James Hansen.
 
I knew it was only a matter of time before someone would say, “this is why we have to fight climate change!”

You are claiming then that by NOT politicizing Hurricane Harvey, we are politicizing Hurricane Harvey? :confused:

You know why people are skeptical of climate change science? Because it is so broad and ambiguous that literally every weather event is used as proof of it.

I believe Harvey hit Texas because hurricanes are an annual occurrence in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean this time of year and at this particular time prevailing air and water conditions led it into Texas. Sometimes they hit Mexico. Sometimes they hit Florida, Alabama, or Mississippi. Sometimes they go the other way and hit Haiti and Cuba. Sometimes they go north and hit South Carolina and North Carolina. A lot of times they pitter out at sea or swing out into the vastness of the ocean. Some years there are 3-5 hurricanes. Some years there are no hurricanes. At the end of the day, hurricanes are going to hurricane, and blaming oil companies and the media doesn’t help anybody and it certainly won’t stop hurricanes from developing every year in the Gulf and occasionally hitting populated areas.

Back in 2003-2005 we had a whole rash of hurricanes. It was predicted that because of global warming they would get progressively more and more numerous and more and more powerful. Katrina was the definitive proof. Then suddenly we went back to having 1-2 hurricanes a year that might or might not make landfall as a tropical depression and that theory was quietly set aside. Now we have a big hurricane again and suddenly we are right back on track with armageddon. It is so predictable…
 
Another word for “climate change” is “weather”.

So yeah. Weather happens.
 
It’s amazing how schmucks will take any opportunity to wave their schmuck flag high.

Read a history book. Devastating hurricanes are not innovative contemporary novelties.
 
I’m surprised it took this long for a climate change caused harvey thread to get posted.
 
It’s amazing how schmucks will take any opportunity to wave their schmuck flag high.

Read a history book. Devastating hurricanes are not innovative contemporary novelties.
Right, There was a Major hurricane that hit Galveston in 1900 and a Major flood in Huston in 1935.
 
Houston has been “underwater” for decades.

Here is a story from the Los Angeles Times:

**For years, engineers have warned that Houston was a flood disaster in the making. Why didn’t somebody do something?
**
Ralph Vartabedian Contact Reporter

August 29, 2017

Houston is built on what amounts to a massive flood plain, pitted against the tempestuous Gulf of Mexico and routinely hammered by the biggest rainstorms in the nation.

It is a combination of malicious climate and unforgiving geology, along with a deficit of zoning and land-use controls, that scientists and engineers say leaves the nation’s fourth most populous city vulnerable to devastating floods like the one caused this week by Hurricane Harvey.

“Houston is very flat,” said Robert Gilbert, a University of Texas at Austin civil engineer who helped investigate the flooding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. “There is no way for the water to drain out.”

Indeed, the city has less slope than a shower floor.

Harvey poured as much as 374 billion gallons of water within the city limits, exceeding the capacity of rivers, bayous, lakes and reservoirs. Experts said the result was predictable.

The storm was unprecedented, but the city has been deceiving itself for decades about its vulnerability to flooding, said Robert Bea, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and UC Berkeley emeritus civil engineering professor who has studied hurricane risks along the Gulf Coast.

The city’s flood system is supposed to protect the public from a 100-year storm, but Bea calls that “a 100-year lie” because it is based on a rainfall total of 13 inches in 24 hours.

“That has happened more than eight times in the last 27 years,” Bea said. “It is wrong on two counts. It isn’t accurate about the past risk and it doesn’t reflect what will happen in the next 100 years.”

In an average year, Houston gets 50 inches of rain — as much as Harvey will deliver to some parts of the city.

Harvey hits southeast Texas as flooding in Houston turns deadly
The muddy rivers — notably the San Jacinto and the Buffalo Bayou — that meander through Houston struggle to carry much water.

Dams along the rivers were built mainly for water storage, not flood control. Because Texas is so flat, the dams can’t hold much water, unlike western dams that are built in deep gorges.

Lake Conroe, a reservoir 43 miles north of the city, is one example. Completed in 1973, it has a capacity of 430,000 acre-feet, about 12% of Oroville Dam in California.

The San Jacinto River Authority, which manages water supplies, knew that Harvey was probably headed its way. But a spokeswoman, Rhonda Trow, said the authority chose not to release water from Lake Conroe in advance because the amount it held wouldn’t have made a difference and could have caused flooding even before the storm hit.

But by Monday, the authority had no choice but to open the flood gates to send 79,141 cubic feet of water to flooded Houston every second.

The situation was similar on two dams on the Buffalo Bayou controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers up river from the Houston Ship Channel.

The long-term risks facing Houston are growing, owing to warming water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, which will fuel more powerful hurricanes by increasing the moisture they carry.

Harvey caused a surge in the Gulf of Mexico that raised its level by as much as 15 feet along the Texas coast, Bea estimated. That meant that for some period of time, rivers were not flowing normally, leaving inland areas less than 15 feet above sea level with little drainage.

In Katrina, the level of the gulf surged by 28 feet, the largest ever recorded along the Gulf Coast, sending water pouring over levees and canal walls. But far less rain fell in that storm than in Harvey.

Beyond the climate change, Houston faces other growing risks for flooding.

Shuhab Khan, a geologist at the University of Houston, has documented that some areas of Houston are sinking at up to 2.2 inches per year, a rapid rate in geological terms.

While some of the subsidence is caused by natural movements of salt deposits, Khan said that most is the result of pumping oil and water from under the city.

So far, it appears some of the hardest-hit flooded areas, such as the Jersey Village nieghborhood, are also the ones affected by subsidence, he said.

In the 1930s, a new residential subdivision was built in the Brownwood neighborhood, which at the time was 10 feet above sea level. Forty years later, it was less than 2 feet above sea level, a subsidence blamed on ground water pumping along the Houston Ship Channel. The neighborhood was destroyed in Hurricane Alicia in 1983 and is now the Baytown Nature Center.
 
LA Times story continued:

Another long-term problem is the city’s rampant growth and urbanization. The city has 2.2 million residents and the metropolitan area has 6.5 million, all living in a state that eschews much of the zoning and land-use controls that help keep construction away from flood zones in states with more regulations.

“It is naturally prone to flooding,” said Don Riley, the former chief of the Army Corps of Engineers civil works division. “People have built in this massive flood plain. They have to understand that.”

The Corps and local officials have discussed ways to avert even greater risks by improving zoning, reducing the amount pavement to allow better drainage into the soil, building retention ponds in new housing developments and constructing new storm barriers. But when the Corps has tried to encourage land-use controls, the local reaction by politicians and developers has often been swift and furious, Riley said.

“The problem is not decreasing, whatever the future of the weather is,” he said. “It will worsen in the sense that there will be more population. You have to be smart about where you put development.”

The future defense of Houston is likely to be expensive, experts said. The Corps spent $14.2 billion to improve flood control in New Orleans after Katrina, which was aimed at building up levees and flood walls. But just this month, the city was again flooded when its decrepit pumping system was overwhelmed by rainfall.

In the aftermath of Katrina, the American Society of Civil Engineers said that New Orleans’ flood control was a system in name only.

Bea said that reflects the reality of Houston as well.

He estimated that it could cost hundreds of billions of dollars to build a system that would prevent future flooding, involving land-use restrictions, new flood barriers and other measures similar to those in the Netherlands. The Dutch system attempts to defend Amsterdam and Rotterdam from a 10,000-year storm event.

Exactly what Houston could do is far from certain. Gilbert, the University of Texas expert, said any big measures would take a lot of study. Chicago, for example, has massive tunnels hundreds of feet underground that can store 21 billions of gallons storm water and prevent sewage contamination of Lake Michigan, he noted.

“Houston is excessively developed,” he said. “It has 6 million people with lots of concrete and lots of people in harm’s way.”
 
My friends in Texas posted that the area where this is occurring has frequent floods. It’s not some new weird thing.
So they frequently get 50+ inches of rain? The flooding was caused by the storm but it’s the storm that they are saying was intensified by global warming. That much rain would flood almost anywhere that’s not on a mountain.
 
So they frequently get 50+ inches of rain? The flooding was caused by the storm but it’s the storm that they are saying was intensified by global warming. That much rain would flood almost anywhere that’s not on a mountain.
“They”? Who is this “they”? Can “they” be found assisting in relief efforts right now? Or are they just sitting around engaging in mutual mental masturbation?
 
It’s immaterial whether it would flood “anywhere” as the place where it is flooding is a FLOOD PLAIN with known flooding issues, not some mountain somewhere. If people would not overbuild in areas that are KNOWN TO FLOOD, then it would help tremendously. Anyway, I’m out. If you want to continue sitting around nattering about theories please feel free, but you are not helping to prove a case for global warming by bending over backwards to blame every weather event that happens on it. Bye.
 
There is evidence that earth once had an ice age. We are no longer in that ice age. The climate on this earth has been changing for a long time. Carbon emissions taxes won’t change that.
 
The only thing amazing or unusually about this storm is how the forecasters pretty much hot it right their computer models were excellent .
This storm was he result of a very unusual combination of events.
Hurricanes typically don’t sit in one place like this one did ,but the weather patterns were perfect for this condition.
When they said the models were calling for 35. -50 inches of rain I thought they might be be giving the extreme variable.
This storm and flooding had nothing to do with “Climate change”
Living in a city barely above sea level comes with risk.
Global Cooling advocates ,yes they exist ,are claiming Harvey as a sign of cooling
But if you predidict increased rainfall in one area and drought elsewhere everyone can claim victory. That’s pretty much what advocates of both sides do.
Personally I think there has been an overall warming tread for 200 years
but the earth has been cooling or warming for its entire history.
 
“They”? Who is this “they”? Can “they” be found assisting in relief efforts right now? Or are they just sitting around engaging in mutual mental masturbation?
They would be the friends of Tis Bearself that said flooding is normal.
 
So they frequently get 50+ inches of rain? The flooding was caused by the storm but it’s the storm that they are saying was intensified by global warming. That much rain would flood almost anywhere that’s not on a mountain.
Do you think the storm might have been mad because Trump pulled us out of the Paris Accords and this was just payback?
 
So they frequently get 50+ inches of rain? The flooding was caused by the storm but it’s the storm that they are saying was intensified by global warming. That much rain would flood almost anywhere that’s not on a mountain.
“Flooding” is relative. If we got 50 inches of rain in a short period, the river bottoms would be incredibly flooded. But the hills and plateaus would still be above water because water flows downhill and it would require hundreds of feet of rain, all in a very short time, to flood where I live, and it’s not “on a mountain”.

A flood plain is a place that floods, historically. A city built in a flood plain is going to flood; sometimes worse than others.

And storms can “stall out”, not moving on as they usually do.

Not much mystery to the effects of Harvey, actually. And if any hurricane “stalls out” over some flood plain, it will do the very same thing. It doesn’t require global warming to do it.

And it has undoubtedly happened in that area in the past or it wouldn’t be a “flood plain”.
 
Are you currently on any psychotropic medication?
What’s wrong with you? You’re being weird.

Here’s what I responded to:
*My friends in Texas posted that the area where this is occurring has frequent floods. It’s not some new weird thing. *

I replied:
*So they frequently get 50+ inches of rain? The flooding was caused by the storm but it’s the storm that they are saying was intensified by global warming. That much rain would flood almost anywhere that’s not on a mountain. *

I can’t imagine what got you so upset.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top