Hurricane Harvey and Climate Change

[Loren Pechtel]

Houston was hit by a 500-year event.

For the third time in 3 years.

 

[RavenSky]

Sherlock Holmes: Evidently, this man was poisoned, and the scent of bitter almonds proves the killer used arsenic.

Dr. Watson: Nonsense, Holmes. His body doesn't contain enough arsenic to cause death.

SH: Watson, please. A dose of only 300 milligrams is lethal. That's about a half teaspoon's worth.

DW: In a 200-pound man?? 300 milligrams would be only 0.0000003% of his body weight!

SH: Watson, go sit down over there until the adults in the room call on you.

^^^ That.

I suspect, though, that your meaning flew right over Ruy's head

 

[Shadowy Man]

Houston was hit by a 500-year event.

For the third time in 3 years.

What's the probability of that?

 

[RavenSky]

I am not going to argue the finer points of climate change with a climate change denier. I will leave that task to those with more patience and more knowledge than me.

I will point out, however, that no one here actually mentioned "human activity is the primary cause". We were simply discussing how climate change is creating more and more intense storms. And that is a documented fact.

The United States is already experiencing more intense rain and snow storms.

As the Earth warms, the amount of rain or snow falling in the heaviest one percent of storms has risen nearly 20 percent on average in the United States... The Northeast has seen a 74 percent increase in the amount of rain or snow falling in the heaviest storms.

As storms increase in intensity, flooding becomes a larger concern.

Flash floods, which pose the most immediate risks for people, bridges and roads, and buildings on floodplains, result in part from this shift toward more extreme precipitation in a warming world.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...pacts/global-warming-rain-snow-tornadoes.html

Already, there is evidence that the winds of some storms may be changing. A study based on more than two decades of satellite altimeter data (measuring sea surface height) showed that hurricanes intensify significantly faster now than they did 25 years ago. Specifically, researchers found that storms attain Category 3 wind speeds nearly nine hours faster than they did in the 1980s. Another satellite-based study found that global wind speeds had increased by an average of 5 percent over the past two decades.

There is also evidence that extra water vapor in the atmosphere is making storms wetter. During the past 25 years, satellites have measured a 4 percent rise in water vapor in the air column. In ground-based records, about 76 percent of weather stations in the United States have seen increases in extreme precipitation since 1948. One analysis found that extreme downpours are happening 30 percent more often. Another study found that the largest storms now produce 10 percent more precipitation.

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.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php

Does that mean that Hurricane Harvey or any other specific weather event was caused by or made worse by climate change? That is extraordinarily difficult to say with absolute certainty - though NOAA did an interesting study on exactly this question in 2013 - and not every extreme weather event will be a result of climate change, but NOAA did find that

...analyses of seasonal and annual precipitation extreme values over the north-central and eastern United States (see “Seasonal and Annual Mean Precipitation Extremes Occurring During 2013: A U.S. Focused Analysis” in this report) showed an anthropogenic
contribution.

So can we blame climate change for Harvey? Maybe. Maybe not. But we do know that - thanks to climate change - Texas and Florida and other coastal states can expect to see a continuing increase in "500 year flood" events like Hurricane Harvey.

And finally, in response to those who say that it wasn't the storm itself that created the flooding; that is was the massive amounts of concrete in a city like Houston... wouldn't that be an example of "human activity is the primary cause"?

 

[skepticalbip]

Houston was hit by a 500-year event.

For the third time in 3 years.

What's the probability of that?

Apparently 100%, that is unless it is denied that it happened.

 

[skepticalbip]

.......snip..........

And finally, in response to those who say that it wasn't the storm itself that created the flooding; that is was the massive amounts of concrete in a city like Houston... wouldn't that be an example of "human activity is the primary cause"?

It wasn't the concrete. It was the high pressure system that caused the storm to stall instead of continuing on. Storm movements are frequently stalled or diverted by high pressure systems. This one just happened to stall in a spot where it could still draw moisture from the gulf and dump it on Houston. If not for the high pressure system stalling the storm, the storm would have moved on through the area and Houston would have had only a few of hours of rain.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Houston was hit by a 500-year event.

For the third time in 3 years.

What's the probability of that?

On the Planet Earth? Inevitable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am not going to argue the finer points of climate change with a climate change denier. I will leave that task to those with more patience and more knowledge than me.

I will point out, however, that no one here actually mentioned "human activity is the primary cause". We were simply discussing how climate change is creating more and more intense storms. And that is a documented fact.

As storms increase in intensity, flooding becomes a larger concern.

Flash floods, which pose the most immediate risks for people, bridges and roads, and buildings on floodplains, result in part from this shift toward more extreme precipitation in a warming world.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...pacts/global-warming-rain-snow-tornadoes.html

Already, there is evidence that the winds of some storms may be changing. A study based on more than two decades of satellite altimeter data (measuring sea surface height) showed that hurricanes intensify significantly faster now than they did 25 years ago. Specifically, researchers found that storms attain Category 3 wind speeds nearly nine hours faster than they did in the 1980s. Another satellite-based study found that global wind speeds had increased by an average of 5 percent over the past two decades.

There is also evidence that extra water vapor in the atmosphere is making storms wetter. During the past 25 years, satellites have measured a 4 percent rise in water vapor in the air column. In ground-based records, about 76 percent of weather stations in the United States have seen increases in extreme precipitation since 1948. One analysis found that extreme downpours are happening 30 percent more often. Another study found that the largest storms now produce 10 percent more precipitation.

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.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php

Does that mean that Hurricane Harvey or any other specific weather event was caused by or made worse by climate change? That is extraordinarily difficult to say with absolute certainty - though NOAA did an interesting study on exactly this question in 2013 - and not every extreme weather event will be a result of climate change, but NOAA did find that

...analyses of seasonal and annual precipitation extreme values over the north-central and eastern United States (see “Seasonal and Annual Mean Precipitation Extremes Occurring During 2013: A U.S. Focused Analysis” in this report) showed an anthropogenic
contribution.

So can we blame climate change for Harvey? Maybe. Maybe not. But we do know that - thanks to climate change - Texas and Florida and other coastal states can expect to see a continuing increase in "500 year flood" events like Hurricane Harvey.

And finally, in response to those who say that it wasn't the storm itself that created the flooding; that is was the massive amounts of concrete in a city like Houston... wouldn't that be an example of "human activity is the primary cause"?

My largest pet peeve, discussions on climate change that always center on weather occurring in the US.

 

[Shake]

Houston was hit by a 500-year event.

For the third time in 3 years.

Inconceivable!

 

[Shake]

I'd suggest that Ruy specifically check out the following video playlist which discusses climate change and just as importantly, how to properly and accurately source your data. This comes not from an actual scientist, but rather a science journalist, and a journalist of a caliber rarely seen anymore these days, a sadly vanishing breed it would seem.

 

[Elixir]

My largest pet peeve, discussions on climate change that always center on weather occurring in the US.

Why is that a peeve? It's not like anyone is going to miss a few thousand brown people in say, Bangladesh, right? Most of them are probably terrorists anyhow. What really matters is getting the oil industry back up and running in Houston.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What's the probability of that?

Apparently 100%, that is unless it is denied that it happened.

Um... no. One can calculate the probability that a 1/500 event comes up three times in a row.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How far Texas has fallen:

Half a century ago it was "Houston, we have a problem."

Now it's "Houston has a problem."

And it's not like it was unexpected:

https://www.propublica.org/article/hell-and-high-water-text

 

[Elixir]

Apparently 100%, that is unless it is denied that it happened.

Um... no. One can calculate the probability that a 1/500 event comes up three times in a row.

I get about 1 in 771,666,729

 

[skepticalbip]

Apparently 100%, that is unless it is denied that it happened.

Um... no. One can calculate the probability that a 1/500 event comes up three times in a row.

Predicting the probability of possible future events is one thing. Figuring the probability of something that already happened is quite another- if it happened then it is a certainty that it happened.

No one is amazed that they get any random but specific five cards in a game of stud even though, before they draw that specific hand, the probability of drawing those specific five cards is one in more than three hundred billion.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Um... no. One can calculate the probability that a 1/500 event comes up three times in a row.

Predicting the probability of possible future events is one thing. Figuring the probability of something that already happened is quite another- if it happened then it is a certainty that it happened.

No one is amazed that they get any random but specific five cards in a game of stud even though, before they draw that specific hand, the probability of drawing those specific five cards is one in more than three hundred billion.

You can be pedantic about it all you want, but I wasn't asking what the probability was that a reported event that happened happened as reported. My point was that improbably things do happen occasionally, so I was wondering how improbably it would be that a 500 year event would happen three years in a row.

 

[blastula]

It's a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly | Michael E Mann | The Guardian

We can’t say that Hurricane Harvey was caused by climate change. But it was certainly worsened by it

 

[skepticalbip]

Predicting the probability of possible future events is one thing. Figuring the probability of something that already happened is quite another- if it happened then it is a certainty that it happened.

No one is amazed that they get any random but specific five cards in a game of stud even though, before they draw that specific hand, the probability of drawing those specific five cards is one in more than three hundred billion.

You can be pedantic about it all you want, but I wasn't asking what the probability was that a reported event that happened happened as reported. My point was that improbably things do happen occasionally, so I was wondering how improbably it would be that a 500 year event would happen three years in a row.

Exactly. And I was explaining that since it did happen then it is a certainty. The fact that it did happen does not mean that the world is coming to an end any more than my drawing any specific stud poker hand (all of which would have a one in more than three hundred billion probability) does. However the probability of it happening again in the future is pretty damned slim.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You can be pedantic about it all you want, but I wasn't asking what the probability was that a reported event that happened happened as reported. My point was that improbably things do happen occasionally, so I was wondering how improbably it would be that a 500 year event would happen three years in a row.

Exactly. And I was explaining that since it did happen then it is a certainty. The fact that it did happen does not mean that the world is coming to an end any more than my drawing any specific stud poker hand (all of which would have a one in more than three hundred billion probability) does. However the probability of it happening again in the future is pretty damned slim.

Honestly, I don't want to argue with you any more about this, but your response to me is like if I flipped a coin and got heads and then asked what's the probability of getting heads and instead of saying 50% you say "100% because you flipped heads". Sigh...

 

[RavenSky]

I am not going to argue the finer points of climate change with a climate change denier. I will leave that task to those with more patience and more knowledge than me.

I will point out, however, that no one here actually mentioned "human activity is the primary cause". We were simply discussing how climate change is creating more and more intense storms. And that is a documented fact.





http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...pacts/global-warming-rain-snow-tornadoes.html

Already, there is evidence that the winds of some storms may be changing. A study based on more than two decades of satellite altimeter data (measuring sea surface height) showed that hurricanes intensify significantly faster now than they did 25 years ago. Specifically, researchers found that storms attain Category 3 wind speeds nearly nine hours faster than they did in the 1980s. Another satellite-based study found that global wind speeds had increased by an average of 5 percent over the past two decades.

There is also evidence that extra water vapor in the atmosphere is making storms wetter. During the past 25 years, satellites have measured a 4 percent rise in water vapor in the air column. In ground-based records, about 76 percent of weather stations in the United States have seen increases in extreme precipitation since 1948. One analysis found that extreme downpours are happening 30 percent more often. Another study found that the largest storms now produce 10 percent more precipitation.

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.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php

Does that mean that Hurricane Harvey or any other specific weather event was caused by or made worse by climate change? That is extraordinarily difficult to say with absolute certainty - though NOAA did an interesting study on exactly this question in 2013 - and not every extreme weather event will be a result of climate change, but NOAA did find that

...analyses of seasonal and annual precipitation extreme values over the north-central and eastern United States (see “Seasonal and Annual Mean Precipitation Extremes Occurring During 2013: A U.S. Focused Analysis” in this report) showed an anthropogenic
contribution.

So can we blame climate change for Harvey? Maybe. Maybe not. But we do know that - thanks to climate change - Texas and Florida and other coastal states can expect to see a continuing increase in "500 year flood" events like Hurricane Harvey.

And finally, in response to those who say that it wasn't the storm itself that created the flooding; that is was the massive amounts of concrete in a city like Houston... wouldn't that be an example of "human activity is the primary cause"?

My largest pet peeve, discussions on climate change that always center on weather occurring in the US.

Then you will like the study by NOAA that I linked to because it didn't. (It is a PDF though)

The bit that I quoted is talking about the "north-central and eastern United States" because this thread is about Houston. Interestingly, however, the same study found that intense storms in other parts of the world did not have as much or any "anthropogenic contribution."