M
- Status
L
lynnvinc
Guest
No scientist or environmentalist or person concerned about life on earth is claiming Harvey would not have happened without the impacts of CC, only that CC has likely had a serious impact on making it much worse than it would have been without CC in at least 3 or 4 ways:
- by increasing the likelihood of higher sea-surface temps (which have been shown to have increases, esp in the Gulf), this increases the amount of energy that can go into a hurricane, making it stronger and more fierce. There is a connection between heat and kinetic energy, which I would hope school children are still learning about as we did in the 50s and 60s.
- by increasing the likelihood of higher air temps (and these have been shown to have increased), there is more moisture in the air to come down as precipitation. I would hope that school children are still being taught about evaporation in this current age.
- by increasing sea temps, that expands water, contributing to sea rise (it has risen about a foot in the Gulf of Mexico since the onslaught of CC). Also by melting ice and snow that is above water, that contributes to sea rise. Hopefully children are learning that heat melts ice and expands water.
- by the differential increased warming in the Arctic, this contributes to longer and stronger Rossby waves, which cause weather patterns to stall and go in north-south directions, rather than the more typical east-west pattern of more swiftly moving patterns. The contributed to the stalling of the storm over Houston and E. Texas, etc. While this is cutting edge science, the proof is mounting for this effect.
The upshot is that we who are contributing to CC (esp in excess of our needs in energy/resource inefficient/non-conservative ways) are culpable of making Harvey much worse than it would have been.
I know this is a very painful truth to accept. God bless those who are able to accept it.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
That’s bec scientists are extremely conservative and reticent about making claims, focused on avoiding the “false positive.”
As for laypersons (and hopefully policy-makers) living in the world and concerned about human welfare, we can very easily surmise Harvey would not have been a Cat 4 and would not have stalled for such a long time, and would not have dumped so much rain without CC impacts, based on what the scientists have found and told us.
The point is we live in a globally warmed world, so from our perspective, someone would have to prove at the .05 (95%) level that CC did NOT impact Harvey for us to accept your reasoning. Or we’d have to be be earning money from the CC denialist industry to accept what you’re saying.
Unfortunately Lindzen’s iris hypothesis of clouds pretty much mitigating global warming has not panned out. The current data doesn’t support it and no reputable climate scientist accepts it today, even though they acknowledge some impact or role of clouds in the warming (some clouds reducing it, some increasing it).
And BTW, the climate science predictions have been much more accurate, close to evidence, than Lindzen’s prediction of a fairly flat line of no warming.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane
AD1900
6,000 to 12,000 dead
No internal combustion engines for rescue vehicles.
No computer models.
No radar.
No satellite.
AD1900
6,000 to 12,000 dead
No internal combustion engines for rescue vehicles.
No computer models.
No radar.
No satellite.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I’ve been advocating for decades that we mitigate CC/GW in ways that save us money, reduce other problems that harms us, and enhance our lives. No one listens, they all think that horrible policy implications (that no one is really advocating) determine the science of climate change with the result that CC could not possibly be happening.
I agree CC is not a good term for it. Neither is “global warming” nor “an enhanced greenhouse effect.” They all sound like no problem at all, even something that could be good and wholesome.
George Monbiot just said today he would call it “climate breakdown,” but said even that is not the best term for it. He said that “climate change” sounds like calling an enemy invasion of a country “the arrival of unexpected guests.”
Let’s start out with the science and evidence that CC (global warming, climate breakdown or climate catastrophe for life on earth or whatever you want to call it) is happening as the science says, then start looking for solutions to mitigate it, rather than assume that the policy implications are so horrible that it could not possibly be happening.
We started doing that 27 years ago (before it become politicized by the denialists), and were even willing to sacrifice for the cause of reducing our harm to life on earth, but were quite pleasantly surprised over the decades to find we could reduce our GHG emissions (and also other harmful and deadly pollution) by over 60% below our 1990 emissions in ways that (1) have saved us $1000s over the decades; and (2) have not reduced our living standard and quality of life, but even increased it a bit.
But try to get others to do the same or similar. That’s mission impossible, like banging one’s head against a brick wall. People would rather take there money out to their front lawn and burn it up like autumn leaves than do what is good, right, just, and economically sensible. That’s been my bitter lesson.
I think what it really boils down to (assuming deniers are not on the take from the fossil fuel industries) is that people do not want to accept they may be harming other people and others of God’s creation, including their own progeny. That is just untenable for them.
F
frobert
Guest
Weather one accepts climate change or not, conserving energy is prudent simply because we live in a finite world where:I’ve been advocating for decades that we mitigate CC/GW in ways that save us money, reduce other problems that harms us, and enhance our lives. No one listens, they all think that horrible policy implications (that no one is really advocating) determine the science of climate change with the result that CC could not possibly be happening.
I agree CC is not a good term for it. Neither is “global warming” nor “an enhanced greenhouse effect.” They all sound like no problem at all, even something that could be good and wholesome.
George Monbiot just said today he would call it “climate breakdown,” but said even that is not the best term for it. He said that “climate change” sounds like calling an enemy invasion of a country “the arrival of unexpected guests.”
Let’s start out with the science and evidence that CC (global warming, climate breakdown or climate catastrophe for life on earth or whatever you want to call it) is happening as the science says, then start looking for solutions to mitigate it, rather than assume that the policy implications are so horrible that it could not possibly be happening.
We started doing that 27 years ago (before it become politicized by the denialists), and were even willing to sacrifice for the cause of reducing our harm to life on earth, but were quite pleasantly surprised over the decades to find we could reduce our GHG emissions (and also other harmful and deadly pollution) by over 60% below our 1990 emissions in ways that (1) have saved us $1000s over the decades; and (2) have not reduced our living standard and quality of life, but even increased it a bit.
But try to get others to do the same or similar. That’s mission impossible, like banging one’s head against a brick wall. People would rather take there money out to their front lawn and burn it up like autumn leaves than do what is good, right, just, and economically sensible. That’s been my bitter lesson.
I think what it really boils down to (assuming deniers are not on the take from the fossil fuel industries) is that people do not want to accept they may be harming other people and others of God’s creation, including their own progeny. That is just untenable for them.
Currently, we are (over)dependent on fossil fuels to heat our homes, run our cars, power our offices, industry and manufacturing, and respond to our insatiable desire to power all of our electrical goods. Nearly all of the energy needed to meet our demands – 80 percent of global energy – comes from burning fossil fuels. At the current rate of global energy demands, fossil fuels cannot replenish fast enough to meet these growing needs.Can Renewables replace fossil fueuls?
Solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, bioenergy and ocean power are sources of renewable energy. Currently, renewables are utilised in the electricity, heating and cooling and transport sectors. Renewable energy, collectively provides only about 7 percent of the world’s energy needs. This means that fossil fuels, along with nuclear energy — a non-renewable energy source — are supplying 93% of the world’s energy resources. Nuclear energy (a controversial energy source among public opinion) currently provides 6% of the world’s energy supplies.
Source…
Researchers have been underestimating the cost of wind and solar. Judge for yourself.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
truthrevolt.org/news/climatologist-former-nasa-scientist-houston-flood-not-sign-climate-change
**Climatologist, Former NASA Scientist: ‘Houston Flood Not Sign of Climate Change’
“There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low.”
**
8.29.2017 News Trey Sanchez
Houston is underwater after being slammed with rain brought to shore by Hurricane Harvey. Officials say it could be weeks before the roads are traversable. While the mainstream media and other alarmists are eagerly pegging human-caused global warming on the rising waters, others are saying, “Not so fast.”
One of them is climatologist and former NASA scientist Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. At his blog, Spencer said Harvey was nothing more than a “natural weather disaster.” They’ve “always occurred and always will occur,” he added. Spencer explains that global warming alarmists, like Al Gore, favor the dishonest tactic of “making naturally-occurring severe weather seem unnatural,” when all the while, there’s always a logical explanation:
Major floods are difficult to compare throughout history because the ways in which we alter the landscape. For example, as cities like Houston expand over the years, soil is covered up by roads, parking lots, and buildings, with water rapidly draining off rather than soaking into the soil. The population of Houston is now ten times what it was in the 1920s. The Houston metroplex area has expanded greatly and the water drainage is basically in the direction of downtown Houston.
There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low. In December of 1935 a massive flood occurred in the downtown area as the water level height measured at Buffalo Bayou in Houston topped out at 54.4 feet.
By way of comparison, as of 6:30 a.m. this (Monday) morning, the water level in the same location is at 38 feet, which is still 16 feet lower than in 1935. I’m sure that will continue to rise.
So far, according to Spencer, the flooding in Houston isn’t nearly as bad as it was over 80 years ago when the city had two million fewer people. But maybe a man-warmed Harvey brought in an “unprecedented” amount of rain? Not at all, says Spencer:
Harvey stalled after it came ashore and so all of the rain has been concentrated in a relatively small portion of Texas around the Houston area…
There is no aspect of global warming theory that says rain systems are going to be moving slower, as we are seeing in Texas. This is just the luck of the draw. Sometimes weather systems stall, and that sucks if you are caught under one. The same is true of high pressure areas; when they stall, a drought results.
Spencer compares the rainfall totals from Harvey, now around 40 inches over a few days, with the much-weaker 1979 Tropical Storm Claudette, which produced 43 inches of rain in just 24 hours in Houston. Aren’t these “unprecedented” weather events worsening because of man-made global warming? Not so, explains Spencer:
In this case, we didn’t have just a tropical storm like Claudette, but a major hurricane, which covered a much larger area with heavy rain. Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out that the U.S. has had only four Category 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970, but in about the same number of years preceding 1970 there were 14 strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.
Going back even earlier, a Category 4 hurricane struck Galveston in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history.
And don’t forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time – almost 12 years – without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S.
In fact, Spencer is confused as to why everyone is calling Harvey “unprecedented”:
The National Weather Service has termed the event unfolding in the Houston area as unprecedented. I’m not sure why. I suspect in terms of damage and number of people affected, that will be the case. But the primary reason won’t be because this was an unprecedented meteorological event.
If we are talking about the 100 years or so that we have rainfall records, then it might be that southeast Texas hasn’t seen this much total rain fall over a fairly wide area. At this point it doesn’t look like any rain gage locations will break the record for total 24 hour rainfall in Texas, or possibly even for storm total rainfall, but to have so large an area having over 20 inches is very unusual.
They will break records for their individual gage locations, but that’s the kind of record that is routinely broken somewhere anyway, like record high and low temperatures.
In any case, I’d be surprised if such a meteorological event didn’t happen in centuries past in this area, before we were measuring them.
“‘Unprecedented’ doesn’t necessarily mean it represents a new normal,” Spencer concludes. “Weird stuff happens… Weather disasters happen, with or without the help of humans.”
**Climatologist, Former NASA Scientist: ‘Houston Flood Not Sign of Climate Change’
“There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low.”
**
8.29.2017 News Trey Sanchez
Houston is underwater after being slammed with rain brought to shore by Hurricane Harvey. Officials say it could be weeks before the roads are traversable. While the mainstream media and other alarmists are eagerly pegging human-caused global warming on the rising waters, others are saying, “Not so fast.”
One of them is climatologist and former NASA scientist Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. At his blog, Spencer said Harvey was nothing more than a “natural weather disaster.” They’ve “always occurred and always will occur,” he added. Spencer explains that global warming alarmists, like Al Gore, favor the dishonest tactic of “making naturally-occurring severe weather seem unnatural,” when all the while, there’s always a logical explanation:
Major floods are difficult to compare throughout history because the ways in which we alter the landscape. For example, as cities like Houston expand over the years, soil is covered up by roads, parking lots, and buildings, with water rapidly draining off rather than soaking into the soil. The population of Houston is now ten times what it was in the 1920s. The Houston metroplex area has expanded greatly and the water drainage is basically in the direction of downtown Houston.
There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low. In December of 1935 a massive flood occurred in the downtown area as the water level height measured at Buffalo Bayou in Houston topped out at 54.4 feet.
By way of comparison, as of 6:30 a.m. this (Monday) morning, the water level in the same location is at 38 feet, which is still 16 feet lower than in 1935. I’m sure that will continue to rise.
So far, according to Spencer, the flooding in Houston isn’t nearly as bad as it was over 80 years ago when the city had two million fewer people. But maybe a man-warmed Harvey brought in an “unprecedented” amount of rain? Not at all, says Spencer:
Harvey stalled after it came ashore and so all of the rain has been concentrated in a relatively small portion of Texas around the Houston area…
There is no aspect of global warming theory that says rain systems are going to be moving slower, as we are seeing in Texas. This is just the luck of the draw. Sometimes weather systems stall, and that sucks if you are caught under one. The same is true of high pressure areas; when they stall, a drought results.
Spencer compares the rainfall totals from Harvey, now around 40 inches over a few days, with the much-weaker 1979 Tropical Storm Claudette, which produced 43 inches of rain in just 24 hours in Houston. Aren’t these “unprecedented” weather events worsening because of man-made global warming? Not so, explains Spencer:
In this case, we didn’t have just a tropical storm like Claudette, but a major hurricane, which covered a much larger area with heavy rain. Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out that the U.S. has had only four Category 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970, but in about the same number of years preceding 1970 there were 14 strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.
Going back even earlier, a Category 4 hurricane struck Galveston in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history.
And don’t forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time – almost 12 years – without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S.
In fact, Spencer is confused as to why everyone is calling Harvey “unprecedented”:
The National Weather Service has termed the event unfolding in the Houston area as unprecedented. I’m not sure why. I suspect in terms of damage and number of people affected, that will be the case. But the primary reason won’t be because this was an unprecedented meteorological event.
If we are talking about the 100 years or so that we have rainfall records, then it might be that southeast Texas hasn’t seen this much total rain fall over a fairly wide area. At this point it doesn’t look like any rain gage locations will break the record for total 24 hour rainfall in Texas, or possibly even for storm total rainfall, but to have so large an area having over 20 inches is very unusual.
They will break records for their individual gage locations, but that’s the kind of record that is routinely broken somewhere anyway, like record high and low temperatures.
In any case, I’d be surprised if such a meteorological event didn’t happen in centuries past in this area, before we were measuring them.
“‘Unprecedented’ doesn’t necessarily mean it represents a new normal,” Spencer concludes. “Weird stuff happens… Weather disasters happen, with or without the help of humans.”
E
Ender
Guest
I didn’t project it back a hundred years, NOAA did (and I didn’t project it out at all). The claim was made that the sea level in the Gulf has risen by a foot. Given that there was no “since when” provided, that statement is surely true, albeit irrelevant and misleading. More to the point, the chart doesn’t show an increasing trend which would necessarily be the case if CO2 was driving sea level, because CO2 certainly shows an increasing trend. You can look at any of the eight measuring stations on the Texas coast and they all show the same lack of rate change in sea level rise, with the data for Port Isabel going back to about 1945.
There is nothing in the sea level data to support the suggestion that the damage caused by Harvey was augmented by global warming. Surely if there is no data to support a claim we ought to consider the claim spurious.
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No, that isn’t how it works. You can’t just make an outrageous claim with no support and then expect others to do the work you should have done before you made your claim.
E
Ender
Guest
Actually, lynnvinc constantly makes outrageous claims with no support and expects everyone to accept them, and I’ve not seen you take this position with regard to her claims. If what you assert is true for Monte then it ought to be equally true for Lynn.
As to whether others should do the work of countering unsubstantiated claims, that is exactly what I did regarding Lynn’s claim that rising sea levels caused by global warming added to Harvey’s destruction. I have no problem with countering claims I believe are false. Do you find the effort needed to refute someone unnecessary, or just difficult?
Ender
This hurricane was not very strong.
The devastating impact was caused by it stalling out.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
What? This is completely backwards from basic statistics.
You are saying “I have a hypothesis, it is correct unless you convince me otherwise”.
If we follow statistics, what you should be saying is, “I have a hypothesis, let me see if there is any statistically significant evidence for it”.
The starting assumption should always be that there is no correlation, not that there is.
I mean you have literally just said "I am right, and if you disagree with me you are being paid by or influenced by the ‘denialist industry’ ". This is completely antithetical to unbiased inquiry.
Water expands as it freezes.
Not the other way around.
F
frobert
Guest
Quote
When water heats up, it expands. Thus, the most readily apparent consequence of higher sea temperatures is a rapid rise in sea level. Sea level rise causes inundation of coastal habitats for humans as well as plants and animals, shoreline erosion, and more powerful storm surges that can devastate low-lying areas.
National Geographic
E
Ender
Guest
“As a general rule a liquid expands when its temperature is raised; the notable exception to this rule is water, which, in the limited region of temperature from 0C to 4C, contracts when its temperature is raised. Above 4C, water expands with an increase in temperature.” Old college physics book.
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I suppose this was a response to Lynn’s “Also by melting ice and snow that is above water, that contributes to sea rise.” What Lynn should have said is that** melting snow and ice that is sitting on land contributes to sea rise**. Actually, ice that is floating on the water has no direct effect on sea level. Try it yourself. Place a number of floating ice cubes in a bowl of water. (They must be floating - not touching the bottom.) Then wait for the ice to melt. You will see that the level of the water remains exactly the same before and after the ice melts. It has nothing to do with ice expanding or contracting. It has everything to do with the weight of the water remaining the same whether it is solid or liquid. The amount of water displaced by floating ice is equal to the amount of water that weighs the same as that ice.
But ice and snow on land is a different matter. When it melts it adds directly to the volume of the sea and raises the sea level accordingly.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes, but I wouldn’t put a glass of water in the freezer.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Here is the thing: Engineers do not usually plan for the most likely strain a structure is going to suffer. They usually plan for the greatest strain in the likely realm of possibility, and then put in a little more for safety, particularly when lives will be lost by underestimation of need. That doesn’t mean that they build structures that can’t fail. That means they build structures that are far less likely to get anyone killed when disaster strikes.
More frequent and more severe storms may not be a given, but they are definitely in the realm of possibility. Municipalities and states need to have disaster plans ready for weather events that are far beyond what they have seen before, particularly considering how many such storms have been seen in the last 20 years. That is not a poor use of limited financial resources. If the extra strenghth pays off one time in twenty over the lifetime of the structure, it will be well worth it.
E
Ender
Guest
The actual data does not support the claim that storms have become either more frequent or more violent in the last 20 years.
Ender
- Status