Hurricane Harvey - wettest ever. Irma - strongest ever (maybe). And now Grayson. Is this global warming in action?
drummerboy said:
I don't think I've ever heard of a prediction of 36 inches of rain in the U.S. before. And a 12 foot!! storm surge.
That sounds apocalyptic.
And yet again, we'd like to extend our thanks to Republicans and climate change deniers for helping us to get into this mess.
I have - for a YEAR!
I can't imagine how the deniers explain this to themselves. This is terrifying.
this kind of speculation is just as bad as Jim Inhofe holding up a snowball in the Senate and saying it proves global warming isn't happening.
There's weather, and there's climate. A hurricane is weather.
Hurricanes are nothing new.
However, with global air & water temperatures slowly climbing, hurricanes are likely to become stronger. How Harvey would have developed if the water temperature had been 1.5 deg F lower is next to impossible to predict.
Here is an article about Houston from summer of 2016. Houston has had numerous "100-year" rain events in just the span of a few years. Yes, you can call each a weather event but they are influenced by the climate. Ignoring the clear trend is just as bad as Jim Inhofe holding up a snowball... you know the rest.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/03/historic_floods_in_houston_texas.html
I'm not suggesting anyone ignore climate trends. But anyone who wants to be taken seriously should defer to the scientists on these issues. Are scientists saying global warming is the cause of Harvey's severity?
Also, beware references to "100-year" rain events or flooding. It's an easily misunderstood, and often statistically under-supported, term.
this is no longer the consensus. The latest governmental climate change report states that we're now at the point where we can ascribe a probability to extreme weather events as to what effect global warming had on it.
We've reached the tipping point.
ml1 said:
this kind of speculation is just as bad as Jim Inhofe holding up a snowball in the Senate and saying it proves global warming isn't happening.
There's weather, and there's climate. A hurricane is weather.
see my response to ml1. It's a new day.
tomcat said:
Hurricanes are nothing new.
However, with global air & water temperatures slowly climbing, hurricanes are likely to become stronger. How Harvey would have developed if the water temperature had been 1.5 deg F lower is next to impossible to predict.
DaveSchmidt said:
Also, beware references to "100-year" rain events or flooding. It's an easily misunderstood, and often statistically under-supported, term.
The only thing unusual about this storm is that it is predicted to not move once it hits shore and linger in the area pouring rain for a few days. I do not know one way or another if the fact that it is blocked is just one of those things or related to something more fundamental.
I'm not arguing against this point. A probability of more storms over a long period of time is different than saying this particular storm -- Hurrican Harvey -- is the result of global warming. And you go even further than that, "thanking" Republicans for it.
If we are going to be more fact-based than the global warming deniers we need to hold ourselves to the same evidentiary standards we hold the Jim Inhofes of the world.
drummerboy said:
this is no longer the consensus. The latest governmental climate change report states that we're now at the point where we can ascribe a probability to extreme weather events as to what effect global warming had on it.
We've reached the tipping point.
ml1 said:
this kind of speculation is just as bad as Jim Inhofe holding up a snowball in the Senate and saying it proves global warming isn't happening.
There's weather, and there's climate. A hurricane is weather.
a 12 foot storm surge with 36 inches of rain is not exactly the same ol' same ol'.
tomcat said:
Hurricanes are nothing new.
Do you have any real statistics regarding that?
I think if you are looking for impact from climate change you will be on more solid ground (pun intended) looking at the Alps where recent landslides very likely result from increasing instability in the glaciers.
drummerboy said:
a 12 foot storm surge with 36 inches of rain is not exactly the same ol' same ol'.
tomcat said:
Hurricanes are nothing new.
the storm is expected to stay in one spot for 5 days, which is the reason for the high rainfall predictions. Is there any reason to believe global warming is the cause of the expected stall?
you are not helping your cause by making arguments that are as evidence-free as the global warming denialists.
Also, the consensus on whether or not it is advisable to beware the term "100-year" rain event or flooding has not been tipped.
There's a certain fallacy at work here, though I'm not sure I know what it's called.
OK, so we can't blame any one storm, or its intensity, on climate change. But there are analogous situations that might shed light on it.
Let's say there's a toxic waste dump (think Love Canal). There is a increase in cases of cancer. But some would have gotten cancer anyway. But obviously you can't link any specific case of cancer to the toxic waste. So can you dismiss the importance of the toxins?
Or just imagine if you could that road repair budgets have been slashed. The amount of money that car owners have to spend on new tires and wheels is rising rapidly. But some people were going to get flat tires anyway, and so you can't say that any one particular blowout was due to a pothole that wasn't repaired because of the budget cuts. Does this mean that road repairs are unimportant?
You can probably come up with other examples.
tom said:
Let's say there's a toxic waste dump (think Love Canal). There is a increase in cases of cancer. But some would have gotten cancer anyway. But obviously you can't link any specific case of cancer to the toxic waste. So can you dismiss the importance of the toxins?
Epidemiologists question the causes and meaning of apparent cancer clusters all the time.
tom said:
Let's say there's a toxic waste dump (think Love Canal). There is a increase in cases of cancer. But some would have gotten cancer anyway. But obviously you can't link any specific case of cancer to the toxic waste. So can you dismiss the importance of the toxins?
No. But in your example, the proof of the phenomenon does not come from one specific case. My point is that arguments like the one that started this thread play right into the hands of global warming deniers. So those of us who are concerned about the larger phenomenon should stop ourselves from making these unsupported claims.
There is some change in the behaviour of these bigger cyclones and hurricanes, but scientists aren't completely sure they understand why just yet. There was a lot of discussion locally in the couple of months post-Debbie, and early in the European summer (following heavy rain), and more now heading into our early seasonal watch for El Niño etc.
With Debbie, although she was slow-moving and expected to stay put for a day or so, she drifted off-shore and even doubled-back a couple of times before being downgraded and moving down our eastern coast (still causing a massive amount of damage in rainfall and storm surges). The fact she coincided with a king tide for first landfall here didn't help either.
Disaster management teams were and are asking that rather than puzzle over the scientific details, we focus on updating sound building codes, maintaining infrastructure and ensuring everyone is Emergency-trained and ready. It's the best way to save lives and $$$.
I don't think that a 12 foot storm surge is unusual for this type of storm. The huge amount of rain in the forecast is. I grew up on the gulf coast of Texas and I never recall more than 10-12" in one storm and that was more than enough to cause massive flooding. That area is incredibly flat, so there's just nowhere for the water to go quickly.
I don't think any of my family members or friends there are in low-lying areas and they are all smart enough to stay put or evacuate as needed, but a lot of people and property there are threatened and not everyone is easily able to leave or otherwise protect themselves and their families.
The storm is exceedingly moisture filled because the ocean underneath is a bubbly 87 degrees.
Anyway, "evidence free" is not accurate. It is way too early to study the storm for it's possible causes. It has to finish in order to get the necessary data. There is little evidence at this point.
But to deny the possibility that a single event was caused/exacerbated by global warming, at this late date in the game, is a bit naive, I think.
Anyway, as I said earlier...
Among the more significant of the study’s findings is that it is possible to attribute some extreme weather to climate change. The field known as “attribution science” has advanced rapidly in response to increasing risks from climate change.
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
a 12 foot storm surge with 36 inches of rain is not exactly the same ol' same ol'.
tomcat said:
Hurricanes are nothing new.
the storm is expected to stay in one spot for 5 days, which is the reason for the high rainfall predictions. Is there any reason to believe global warming is the cause of the expected stall?
you are not helping your cause by making arguments that are as evidence-free as the global warming denialists.
ml1, you are way out of date on the science on this one. Trust me.
ml1 said:
tom said:
Let's say there's a toxic waste dump (think Love Canal). There is a increase in cases of cancer. But some would have gotten cancer anyway. But obviously you can't link any specific case of cancer to the toxic waste. So can you dismiss the importance of the toxins?
No. But in your example, the proof of the phenomenon does not come from one specific case. My point is that arguments like the one that started this thread play right into the hands of global warming deniers. So those of us who are concerned about the larger phenomenon should stop ourselves from making these unsupported claims.
Trends vs incidents. While it is not supportable statistically (and therefore scientifically) to attribute this storm's specific charateristics to climate change, it is becoming very clear that a pattern of severe storms, of which this is one, can be attributed to climate change. It's the point tom was making above.
John Schwartz, who covers climate and the environment for The New York Times, writes that the relationship between hurricanes and climate change is not simple. Some things are known with growing certainty — rising sea levels makes storm surge worse. Others, not so much.
One unresolved question, Mr. Schwartz writes, is whether climate change is affecting the number and the intensity of the storms. It could be making some stronger, and certainly wetter. In the article, Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech and one of the authors of a sweeping climate science report, notes that scientists are not saying that hurricanes are necessarily caused by climate change, but are being affected by them.
“We care about a changing climate because it exacerbates the natural risks and hazards that we already face,” she said. “People always want to know is it climate change or is it not? The answer is it’s in between.” Read more »
I do love this article on recent controversy:
No - we are past trends vs. incidents. Please read my links.
max_weisenfeld said:
Trends vs incidents. While it is not supportable statistically (and therefore scientifically) to attribute this storm's specific charateristics to climate change, it is becoming very clear that a pattern of severe storms, of which this is one, can be attributed to climate change. It's the point tom was making above.
I believe Mr. Schwarz is also behind on the latest science. And anyway - no one said it was a simple relationship.
j_r said:
John Schwartz, who covers climate and the environment for The New York Times, writes that the relationship between hurricanes and climate change is not simple. Some things are known with growing certainty — rising sea levels makes storm surge worse. Others, not so much.
One unresolved question, Mr. Schwartz writes, is whether climate change is affecting the number and the intensity of the storms. It could be making some stronger, and certainly wetter. In the article, Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech and one of the authors of a sweeping climate science report, notes that scientists are not saying that hurricanes are necessarily caused by climate change, but are being affected by them.
“We care about a changing climate because it exacerbates the natural risks and hazards that we already face,” she said. “People always want to know is it climate change or is it not? The answer is it’s in between.” Read more »
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
I don't think I've ever heard of a prediction of 36 inches of rain in the U.S. before. And a 12 foot!! storm surge. (eta - OK, 12 feet is not as large as I thought, historically speaking. )
That sounds apocalyptic.
And yet again, we'd like to extend our thanks to Republicans and climate change deniers for helping us to get into this mess.
ETA: I guess I just assumed that most (or even some) people were familiar with the recent findings of the governmental assessment on climate change that stated that there is increasing confidence in attributing extreme weather events directly to climate change. To say a particular storm was either more likely or more severe due to climate change is no longer "evidence free" or alarmist, in and of itself.
The field is called "attribution science" if you want to research it.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world