Did climate change impact Hurricane Harvey?

[Sojourner003]

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.

That’s how things roll on this forum. I pretty much avoid global warming threads because of this. There is no reasoning. Don’t bother. But we need to protect all people against the effects of global warming, no matter if they believe in it or not. Let’s hope we can.

 

[ProVobis]

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”.

In that case the whole world is a flood plain since Noah. Or you can simply throw out all 5000-yr floods.

 

[SuperLuigi]

All indications are no.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Please cite me a Climate Scientist that claims increased ocean temps caused this storm severity to increase by 1-2 categories

I heard a climate scientist describe it this way today, using an analogy: “I cannot tell you which particular home run was caused by steroids, but I do know that steroid use in baseball has the effect of increasing the frequency of home runs.”

Applying this to extreme storm events, I cannot tell you which particular storm was increased in intensity or by how much as a result of climate change, but I do know that climate change increases the probability of a higher frequency and intensity of storm events.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

Most people have difficultly relating to probabilities. That is why casinos make money. In the case of climate change we have a scientific statement that is inherently about probabilities. Yet people on both sides of the global warming debate often ignore the role of probability and try to analyze the situation as they would the theory of gravity, in terms of a perfectly repeatable cause-and-effect outcome. The statement above, “It doesn’t require global warming to do it” illustrates this approach. Climate scientists do not make the claim that global warming is** required** for any specific event. So they would agree the “It doesn’t require global warming to do it.” Yet the scientific statement involving probabilities still stands.

Consider a weighted penny that comes up heads 55% of the time and tails 45% of the time. Someone who bets heads all the time using this penny will win money in the long run. However the weighting of the penny is not** required** to explain any one coin toss that happens to come up heads. Yet making that statement does not diminish the role played by the weighting when considering the better’s winnings.

 

[Theo520]

I heard a climate scientist describe it this way today, using an analogy: “I cannot tell you which particular home run was caused by steroids, but I do know that steroid use in baseball has the effect of increasing the frequency of home runs.”

Applying this to extreme storm events, I cannot tell you which particular storm was increased in intensity or by how much as a result of climate change, but I do know that climate change increases the probability of a higher frequency and intensity of storm events.

A for effort, but the frequency of such storms hasn’t increased, like the frequency of home runs has with steroids.

Again, you get an A for effort, but a D for applicability.

 

[EasterJoy]

You are correct that climate change does not mean that it will get hotter every year and we will have worse weather every year on a defined linear scale.

The problem comes when people advocating massive economic regulations to combat climate change do point out these isolated events when it suits them, and when it doesn’t, well, its just a trend. It is a classic case of crying wolf. You can pull videos off youtube right now of mainstream news media telling us New York will be mostly underwater by 2015. Yet we are supposed to believe them when they then tell us “just kidding, we meant 2023!”

In addition, “climate change” covers literally everything, and therefore has no real meaning. It gets hot-climate change. It gets cold-climate change. Record storm-climate change. No storm-climate change. What climate phenomenon would NOT be evidence of climate change? It is so all-encompassing, it is unassailable. And why is it always inextricably tied to massive government taxes and regulations?

I think it is fair to ask why acknowledging the reality or seriousness or even high likelihood of some particular problem automatically implies consent for some particular solution.

As for taxes and regulations, well, our 4th largest city is pretty much under water. Call it a one-time event, call it climate change, but the people need money to recover, they need a lot of it, and yet of course no taxpayers just wants to open a Treasury Department ATM to anyone living in Houston. Where there is a lot of money, the fraudsters will close in like hyenas.

So then, when you rebuild, how do you do that in a fiscally-responsible way? You have to decide whether or not you re-build with the last disaster in mind as something that is going to repeat itself in five years, 50 years, or never?

One scientist said trying to tie one particular storm to climate change is like trying to tie one particular home run to steroid use. Many of the baseball players taking steroids were already frequently hitting home runs before they started, so it is impossible to say in any one case, “oh, that is a steroid home run.” Look at the number over a career, though, know the effect steroids have on a human body, and no one thinks the overall number would be the same without the performance-enhancing drugs.

 

[EasterJoy]

A for effort, but the frequency of such storms hasn’t increased, like the frequency of home runs has with steroids.

Again, you get an A for effort, but a D for applicability.

Not more hits, but it does seem there are more home runs:
William Lau, a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, concluded in a 2012 paper that rainfall totals from tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic have risen at a rate of 24 percent per decade since 1988. The increase in precipitation doesn’t just apply to rain. NOAA scientists have examined 120 years of data and found that there were twice as many extreme regional snowstorms between 1961 and 2010 as there were from 1900 to 1960.
But measuring a storm’s maximum size, heaviest rains, or top winds does not capture the full scope of its power. Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed a method to measure the total energy expended by tropical cyclones over their lifetimes. In 2005, he showed that Atlantic hurricanes are about 60 percent more powerful than they were in the 1970s. Storms lasted longer and their top wind speeds had increased by 25 percent. (Subsequent research has shown that the intensification may be related to differences between the temperature of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.)
–In a Warming World, the Storms May Be Fewer But Stronger

 

[Theo520]

I know the models predict increased rainfall in the future, but I don’t think there is current evidence of any consequence.

The data we do have shows a wide variation in levels over the centuries, which would indicate your references could be cherry picking their data.
Large variations in precipitation over the past millennium

Not more hits, but it does seem there are more home runs:
William Lau, a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, concluded in a 2012 paper that rainfall totals from tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic have risen at a rate of 24 percent per decade since 1988. The increase in precipitation doesn’t just apply to rain. NOAA scientists have examined 120 years of data and found that there were twice as many extreme regional snowstorms between 1961 and 2010 as there were from 1900 to 1960.
But measuring a storm’s maximum size, heaviest rains, or top winds does not capture the full scope of its power. Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed a method to measure the total energy expended by tropical cyclones over their lifetimes. In 2005, he showed that Atlantic hurricanes are about 60 percent more powerful than they were in the 1970s. Storms lasted longer and their top wind speeds had increased by 25 percent. (Subsequent research has shown that the intensification may be related to differences between the temperature of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.)
–In a Warming World, the Storms May Be Fewer But Stronger

 

[Theo520]

Here is what NOAA has on storm data, it shows wide variation not a trend.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[johnnyc176]

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.

Heh…schmuck flag.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

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.

Start counting up the number of erroneous storm forecasts!

Even a blind pig gets lucky once in a while and finds an acorn or a truffle.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Take a look at this:

privateislandsonline.com/caribbean/bahamas/the-abacos/walkers-cay

A little bit of heaven. Your very own island in the Bahamas.

Walker’s Cay.

Got hit by two hurricanes.

Crushed.

Nasty storms happen.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

I think it is fair to ask why acknowledging the reality or seriousness or even high likelihood of some particular problem automatically implies consent for some particular solution.

As for taxes and regulations, well, our 4th largest city is pretty much under water. Call it a one-time event, call it climate change, but the people need money to recover, they need a lot of it, and yet of course no taxpayers just wants to open a Treasury Department ATM to anyone living in Houston. Where there is a lot of money, the fraudsters will close in like hyenas.

So then, when you rebuild, how do you do that in a fiscally-responsible way? You have to decide whether or not you re-build with the last disaster in mind as something that is going to repeat itself in five years, 50 years, or never?

One scientist said trying to tie one particular storm to climate change is like trying to tie one particular home run to steroid use. Many of the baseball players taking steroids were already frequently hitting home runs before they started, so it is impossible to say in any one case, “oh, that is a steroid home run.” Look at the number over a career, though, know the effect steroids have on a human body, and no one thinks the overall number would be the same without the performance-enhancing drugs.

Unfortunately municipalities are notorious for their penchant for shifting funds allocated for infrastructure and disaster relief to some other pet project that will win them votes in the here and now. Everything else is a future problem. Katrina was only as bad as it was because New Orleans redirected funds set aside by the Corps of Engineers to modernize and strengthen the levies on Lake Pontchartrain. The levies broke, and New Orleans suffered for it. It seems we are in a similar situation in Houston. The Army Corps of Engineers routinely recommended upgrading the city’s flood-preventing infrastructure, and the city routinely put it off as such disasters “probably won’t happen”.

Personally, I happen to know a mechanical engineer who works for a municipality and he constantly has to fight to retain funds for routine infrastructure upgrades and maintenance. The current infrastructure of the city is already becoming overwhelmed, yet the money set aside by the municipal utilities specifically for the purpose of maintenance and upgrades has been poached by the mayor who simply sees a big pile of money that he can spend right now on a more visible project like “beatification”. Rates then have to be hiked to try and cover this. At some point something serious will fail, and the engineers will be blamed.

I have no problems with disaster relief funds being given to Houston hand over fist. This is a terrible natural disaster and we should all band together to help them. But cities like Houston with predictable natural disaster possibilities absolutely have to be held accountable and invest in the proper infrastructure to prevent these disasters as much as possible.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Start counting up the number of erroneous storm forecasts!.

You are making an unsubstantiated claim that there is a surprising number of erroneous storm forecasts. The fact is that the forecasts have been surprisingly accurate.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

You are making an unsubstantiated claim that there is a surprising number of erroneous storm forecasts. The fact is that the forecasts have been surprisingly accurate.

First of all, NO. Not true at all. Totally false.

Second. I merely suggested folks start counting up the false forecasts.

And there are a LOT of bad, false, grossly inaccurate forecasts.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

First of all, NO. Not true at all. Totally false.

Are you going to support that?

Second. I merely suggested folks start counting up the false forecasts.

Why?

And there are a LOT of bad, false, grossly inaccurate forecasts.

Prove it. What is your standard for accuracy?

 

[Ender]

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)…

Since the hurricane hit land around Corpus Christi the (NOAA) sea level trend for that city should be relevant to this claim.

(I don’t know why I can’t post this picture, but the graph to which I refer is here.)

Yes, the sea level has gone up about a foot…since, what?, 1950? It’s gone up 2 feet since 1900, and probably three since 1850. Although it isn’t easy (isn’t possible?) to detect a CO2 influence in sea level change - after all, the line is virtually straight - that is apparently irrelevant to the claim that global warming made Harvey so devastating.

Ender

 

[Theo520]

Your chart only has data from ~1985 to the present. You can’t take that trend and project it out several hundred years.

Also, aren’t they losing height due to subsidence?

Since the hurricane hit land around Corpus Christi the (NOAA) sea level trend for that city should be relevant to this claim.

(I don’t know why I can’t post this picture, but the graph to which I refer is here.)

Yes, the sea level has gone up about a foot…since, what?, 1950? It’s gone up 2 feet since 1900, and probably three since 1850. Although it isn’t easy (isn’t possible?) to detect a CO2 influence in sea level change - after all, the line is virtually straight - that is apparently irrelevant to the claim that global warming made Harvey so devastating.

Ender

 

[phil19034]

I’m not one of those people who says that climate change is 100% natural. I’m also not one of those people who change climate change is 100% man-made. I do beleive we are having an impact, but we don’t know how much. We could be having a 10% impact or 80% impact. Truth is, we don’t know. And of course, we should be doing everything possible (without hurting families) to protect our planet.

Now, with that said, there is nothing abnormal about Hurricane Harvey. The Hurricane was only a Category 3 hurricane. It’s was NOT a Category 5. Also, and this is the first hurricane to hit Texas in 12 years, which is a record. Texas usually receives far more hurricanes.

The only thing that is different about Hurricane Harvey is that is moved slower than typical hurricanes (hardly a sign of climate change). Harvey didn’t cause more rain to fall than other Category 3 hurricanes. The difference is that most other hurricanes are moving faster, so the rain is spread out over a larger area. Harvey moved slower so more rain was concentrated over the Houston area.

As the LA Times has reported, Houston was build on a flood plain. And this is not the first time Houston has flooded, it has similar floods in the 1930s.

You can say what you want about climate change, but there is nothing specific about Hurricane Harvey that is out of the ordinary to prove or disprove climate change.

It’s currently hurricane season, and hurricanes have been developing in the Caribbean & Gulf of Mexico, hitting the continental United States for thousands of years.

God bless.