Hurricane Harvey and Climate Change

[Rhea]

Reading a Houston warning.

My heart goes out to people in the middle of danger and I hope they are all safe and stay safe.
Meanwhile, this paragraph contains the most blistering irony of the day. Can anyone spot it?

This community will have to come together after another devastating flood that seems likely to approach the same magnitude as that of our previous reference event, Tropical Storm Allison. That is two historic floods in less than two decades. Hopefully, we will learn from this. Certainly, we will rebuild.

https://spacecityweather.com/a-bad-situation-in-houston-has-turned-worse-much-worse/

And then there are the claims of the climate change deniers in the comments section. Holy shit.

 

[rousseau]

It's unfortunate, but in a way I don't blame people.

People don't want to accept that the beautiful world we created in the last hundred years might have been a huge mistake. They don't want to accept that our stunning level of affluence, free-time, and worldly pleasures may become more and more at risk. They don't want to believe that 'God-like' human-kind may be stunningly fallible. Many just want to believe that they're in a nice little bubble, where the outside world can't touch them. They want to raise their kids in their yards, surrounded by picket-fences, and pretend that nothing is wrong.

To me it doesn't look much different from belief in religion. Climate change denial is akin to a psychological mechanism that lets people believe all is well, despite obvious, cruel, and harsh realities about the world around us. It shields people from the cognitive dissonance they'd experience if they accepted that human-kind is really not that great, smart, or meaningful.

Unfortunately, you can dodge your responsibilities, but you can't dodge the consequences of dodging your responsibilities, as we are now (not in the future) witnessing.

 

[Rhea]

It's unfortunate, but in a way I don't blame people.

[...]

Unfortunately, you can dodge your responsibilities, but you can't dodge the consequences of dodging your responsibilities, as we are now (not in the future) witnessing.

Yes to all of this.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's unfortunate, but in a way I don't blame people.

People don't want to accept that the beautiful world we created in the last hundred years might have been a huge mistake. They don't want to accept that our stunning level of affluence, free-time, and worldly pleasures may become more and more at risk. They don't want to believe that 'God-like' human-kind may be stunningly fallible. Many just want to believe that they're in a nice little bubble, where the outside world can't touch them. They want to raise their kids in their yards, surrounded by picket-fences, and pretend that nothing is wrong.

To me it doesn't look much different from belief in religion. Climate change denial is akin to a psychological mechanism that lets people believe all is well, despite obvious, cruel, and harsh realities about the world around us. It shields people from the cognitive dissonance they'd experience if they accepted that human-kind is really not that great, smart, or meaningful.

Unfortunately, you can dodge your responsibilities, but you can't dodge the consequences of dodging your responsibilities, as we are now (not in the future) witnessing.

Houston's problem is less about climate change than about there being large human populations located where there once were none. The pictures from the Houston area of devastating floodwaters are more related to the structures humans have built that impede the penetration of rainwater into the ground. Yes, sea levels are rising but that isn't Houston's problem and isn't what is causing the flooding. Water doesn't percolate through asphalt roads and concrete driveways. Rather it runs off and collects as it makes its way downstream. But floodplains are now populated with more asphalt and more concrete, sidewalks and rooftops, so water simply can't flow away fast enough.

And lets remember that during Noah's big rainstorm those 50 inches Houston is getting over five days hit the ground in about the first eight minutes, and then continued at that rate for about six weeks.

 

[RavenSky]

Houston's problem is less about climate change than about there being large human populations located where there once were none. The pictures from the Houston area of devastating floodwaters are more related to the structures humans have built that impede the penetration of rainwater into the ground. Yes, sea levels are rising but that isn't Houston's problem and isn't what is causing the flooding. Water doesn't percolate through asphalt roads and concrete driveways...

Although I understand your general point and don't entirely disagree, I do have a couple of comments...

First, climate change does not solely refer to sea level rise. The very fact of the intensity of Harvey (and other recent hurricanes) is very likely caused by climate change.

Second, while it is likely not the case in Houston, ground water rising through the asphalt is a thing. It happens in Miami Beach all the time.

 

[rousseau]

Houston's problem is less about climate change than about there being large human populations located where there once were none. The pictures from the Houston area of devastating floodwaters are more related to the structures humans have built that impede the penetration of rainwater into the ground. Yes, sea levels are rising but that isn't Houston's problem and isn't what is causing the flooding. Water doesn't percolate through asphalt roads and concrete driveways...

Although I understand your general point and don't entirely disagree, I do have a couple of comments...

First, climate change does not solely refer to sea level rise. The very fact of the intensity of Harvey (and other recent hurricanes) is very likely caused by climate change.

Second, while it is likely not the case in Houston, ground water rising through the asphalt is a thing. It happens in Miami Beach all the time.

Yes. Extreme weather events are now the new normal, unfortunately. Hurricanes like Harvey are going to start coming at us fast.

 

[skepticalbip]

Hurricanes like Harvey are not abnormal. It is only that it came ashore at a densely populated area like Houston that made it so destructive, the same for Katrina. The 1969 hurricane, Camille, was much, much worse except it came ashore at a less densely populated area of the Mississippi coast. Hurricane Camille was so severe that it didn't leave hardly any rubble along the coast - it was all blown or washed twenty miles inland. Had Camille hit Houston or New Orleans, those cities would have been gone rather than just flooded. Even during the Spanish conquest of the Americas in the 1500s, many of their ships vanished during strong hurricanes.

 

[Rhea]

Hurricanes like Harvey are not abnormal. It is only that it came ashore at a densely populated area like Houston that made it so destructive, the same for Katrina. The 1969 hurricane, Camille, was much, much worse except it came ashore at a less densely populated area of the Mississippi coast. Hurricane Camille was so severe that it didn't leave hardly any rubble along the coast - it was all blown or washed twenty miles inland. Had Camille hit Houston or New Orleans, those cities would have been gone rather than just flooded. Even during the Spanish conquest of the Americas in the 1500s, many of their ships vanished during strong hurricanes.

It's not that Harvey is abnormal. No _one_ of the events is abnormal. It's the frequency of severe that is being studied. The frequency of intense storms.

 

[skepticalbip]

Hurricanes like Harvey are not abnormal. It is only that it came ashore at a densely populated area like Houston that made it so destructive, the same for Katrina. The 1969 hurricane, Camille, was much, much worse except it came ashore at a less densely populated area of the Mississippi coast. Hurricane Camille was so severe that it didn't leave hardly any rubble along the coast - it was all blown or washed twenty miles inland. Had Camille hit Houston or New Orleans, those cities would have been gone rather than just flooded. Even during the Spanish conquest of the Americas in the 1500s, many of their ships vanished during strong hurricanes.

It's not that Harvey is abnormal. No _one_ of the events is abnormal. It's the frequency of severe that is being studied. The frequency of intense storms.

According to NOAA, the average number of hurricanes between 1968 and 2016 was 6.2 with a standard deviation of 2.9. 2015 there were 4 hurricanes and 2016 had 7 hurricanes. Both years were within the standard deviation for hurricane frequency.

I don't know why NOAA chose that time period but it seems from their lists that the average would not change much if the time period were extended further back. Unfortunately, there isn't real good information on hurricane frequency before the mid-1900s since many hurricanes that didn't make landfall would not have been known to have happened.

 

[Ruy Lopez]

Have to disagree with those who believe that human activity is the primary cause of global warming since 1850 CE or AD. I have been on this forum from FRDB and for 5 years , I have not seen a single piece of EVIDENCE that humans are the main cause of global warming. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that humans are not the cause. The temperature chart below says so.

Evidence does not mean theories by NASA or NOAA or computer simulations by UN-IPCC. Evidence has to be factual from the past, an accomplished event.

Image result for holocene temperature chart

 

[bigfield]

Have to disagree with those who believe that human activity is the primary cause of global warming since 1850 CE or AD. I have been on this forum from FRDB and for 5 years , I have not seen a single piece of EVIDENCE that humans are the main cause of global warming. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that humans are not the cause. The temperature chart below says so.

Evidence does not mean theories by NASA or NOAA or computer simulations by UN-IPCC. Evidence has to be factual from the past, an accomplished event.

Image result for holocene temperature chart

Once you figure out how to put an image in a post, and (more importantly) provide a link to your source(s), we can take a look at the science supporting your position.

 

[Ruy Lopez]

Have to disagree with those who believe that human activity is the primary cause of global warming since 1850 CE or AD. I have been on this forum from FRDB and for 5 years , I have not seen a single piece of EVIDENCE that humans are the main cause of global warming. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that humans are not the cause. The temperature chart below says so.

Evidence does not mean theories by NASA or NOAA or computer simulations by UN-IPCC. Evidence has to be factual from the past, an accomplished event.

Image result for holocene temperature chart

Once you figure out how to put an image in a post, and (more importantly) provide a link to your source(s), we can take a look at the science supporting your position.

Sorry but still don't know how to post charts or graphs in this forum. I'll just cite the website link. Also just google search " temperature last 2,000 years" and "holocene temperature chart" and click "images" and you'll see how obvious it is that temperature fluctuates on its own without CO2 influence. CO2 does not drive temperature on planet earth. CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Does CO2 correlate with temperature history? – A look at multiple ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the second chart that is easier to connect. During the holocene (last 10,000 years), temperature fluctuated by more than 10 degrees C in cycles if 3,000 years, 1,500 years and 750 years. CO2 had nothing to do with the fluctuations.

 

[bigfield]

Once you figure out how to put an image in a post, and (more importantly) provide a link to your source(s), we can take a look at the science supporting your position.

Sorry but still don't know how to post charts or graphs in this forum. I'll just cite the website link. Also just google search " temperature last 2,000 years" and "holocene temperature chart" and click "images" and you'll see how obvious it is that temperature fluctuates on its own without CO2 influence. CO2 does not drive temperature on planet earth. CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Does CO2 correlate with temperature history? – A look at multiple ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the second chart that is easier to connect. During the holocene (last 10,000 years), temperature fluctuated by more than 10 degrees C in cycles if 3,000 years, 1,500 years and 750 years. CO2 had nothing to do with the fluctuations.

You can't possibly be so fucking stupid that you can't copy and paste a hyperlink:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04...les-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

The blogger, conspiracy theorist Anthony Watts, doesn't actually cite the source of this graph, but I found it:

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm

Ole Humlum, the creator of climate4you.com, provides this caption:

Fig.3. The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO₂. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO₂ content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO₂record ends in the year 1777.

You'll find that, contrary to the citations, the first graph does not appear in Alley and the second graph does not appear in Monnin et al:

The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewedfrom central Greenland
Alley, 2000
http://www.klimarealistene.com/web-...rval as viewed from central Greenland QSR.pdf

Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C and DML ice cores
Monnin et al 2004
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11753888.pdf

These citations are meaningless: Humlum has simply cherry-picked two sets of data, created his own graphs, and claimed that there is a meaningful relationship between the two where none exists. The citations exist solely to create the facade of credibility.

There are several problems with your source:

1. It doesn't support your claim that "temperature fluctuated by more than 10 degrees C in cycles if 3,000 years, 1,500 years and 750 years". In fact, your claim bears such little resemblance to the graph that I doubt I am looking that the right one, which is why you need to learn one of the most basic skills of computing and paste a fucking link to your source.

2. Humlum is clearly cherry-picking his data to support a conclusion. NOAA measure air temperature and CO₂ at dozens of sites around the world, but he has selected one of each, on opposite sides of the world from each other, in order to misrepresent the data to suit his desired conclusion.

3. The graph is falsely labelled "Approximate global temperature anomaly". It's not; it's just data from a single ice core.

Ole Humlum is one of the small minority of climate scientists who are skeptical of the effects of CO₂ on the atmosphere. Humlum published a paper arguing that climate change could be explained by solar and tidal forcing, but Humlum's evidence is extremely bare and the theory lacks widespread support.

Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change
Humlum, Solheim and Stordahl
http://klimarealistene.com/web-cont...lumEtAl GlobalAndPlanetaryChange 1012pdf.pdf

Humlum puts a lot of content on his website, but practically none it can be found in peer-reviewed journals. By self-publishing on his website, Humlum bypasses the peer-review process which prevents junk science (like the graphs above) from being published.

- - - Updated - -

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

... junk science ...

Not so sure I'd include the word "science." Simply calling it junk is more appropriate.

When we get heavy enough rains around here there are places where you can see the runoff being ejected from the tops of storm drains. They look like fountains. This is simply hydraulic pressure doing its thing. Again the problem is that rainwater simply has less places to go.

Some years back we had localized devastating floods where main streets turned into rivers. The problem is that streams moving through communities now have to handle much more water because of human activity. Floods that never happened before now happen regularly.

 

[James Brown]

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here is the deal, this storm isn't climate change. The waters in the Gulf are warm, that's normal. A tropical storm formed. That is also normal. What is abnormal are the atmospheric steering conditions. The storm stalled... partially over the Gulf. So rains continuously are training on the NE quad of the storm.

While urban sprawl is a problem when dealing with stormwater, especially in streams that handle short, but intense, bouts of stormwater, this is simply about a once in long while storm that you simply can't design for. Regarding flood protection... this is a unique storm. You can't really build for this. You build for the hurricane, you put structures up on piles close to the coast. You make structures more protected from the wind. But you really can't build a stormwater system that can handle 3 to 4 feet of rain, with very little grade to work with. This is a type of storm that will challenge even well designed levee systems.

What is thankful is that Houston didn't order to evacuate with no very little time to evacuate (the storm built up too quickly before landfall), leaving cars stranded, bumper-to-bumper, on the very highways that are flooding.

 

[Rhea]

Ruy, so you choose to not believe the conclusions of the vast majority of climate science people who have studied this for decades, and instead choose to believe the guy who picks data so clearly unscientific as to not pass muster fom a basic review of his source?


Why?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Here is the deal, this storm isn't climate change. The waters in the Gulf are warm, that's normal. A tropical storm formed. That is also normal. What is abnormal are the atmospheric steering conditions. The storm stalled... partially over the Gulf. So rains continuously are training on the NE quad of the storm.

While urban sprawl is a problem when dealing with stormwater, especially in streams that handle short, but intense, bouts of stormwater, this is simply about a once in long while storm that you simply can't design for. Regarding flood protection... this is a unique storm. You can't really build for this. You build for the hurricane, you put structures up on piles close to the coast. You make structures more protected from the wind. But you really can't build a stormwater system that can handle 3 to 4 feet of rain, with very little grade to work with. This is a type of storm that will challenge even well designed levee systems.

What is thankful is that Houston didn't order to evacuate with no very little time to evacuate (the storm built up too quickly before landfall), leaving cars stranded, bumper-to-bumper, on the very highways that are flooding.

I don't know what codes Houston has concerning runoff. Being Texas, I seriously doubt they have any in Houston. True, enough water will still cause flooding, but that much less flooding will occur. Because you cannot mitigate such events as these does not mean you cannot partially mitigate them. Only a fool would blame all of this on the weather.

In my neck of the woods you must include catch basins to mitigate flash flooding. Even a new housing development must include these structures. There is another SHEETZ up the road which has one of these things. It's just a big rocky hole with an overflow that holds tons of water, most of which just perks back into the ground without running off at all. I see them along trails and just about everywhere anymore. If you redevelop a bit of old land you must include these in the new plans.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here is the deal, this storm isn't climate change. The waters in the Gulf are warm, that's normal. A tropical storm formed. That is also normal. What is abnormal are the atmospheric steering conditions. The storm stalled... partially over the Gulf. So rains continuously are training on the NE quad of the storm.

While urban sprawl is a problem when dealing with stormwater, especially in streams that handle short, but intense, bouts of stormwater, this is simply about a once in long while storm that you simply can't design for. Regarding flood protection... this is a unique storm. You can't really build for this. You build for the hurricane, you put structures up on piles close to the coast. You make structures more protected from the wind. But you really can't build a stormwater system that can handle 3 to 4 feet of rain, with very little grade to work with. This is a type of storm that will challenge even well designed levee systems.

What is thankful is that Houston didn't order to evacuate with no very little time to evacuate (the storm built up too quickly before landfall), leaving cars stranded, bumper-to-bumper, on the very highways that are flooding.

I don't know what codes Houston has concerning runoff. Being Texas, I seriously doubt they have any in Houston. True, enough water will still cause flooding, but that much less flooding will occur.

Honestly, this storm is historic. This type of storm makes people write Flood Narratives for holy books.

Because you cannot mitigate such events as these does not mean you cannot partially mitigate them. Only a fool would blame all of this on the weather.

Here is the deal. Yes, these issues should be dealt with, however, complaining about this right now is much like complaining about whether they should have used kentucky bluegrass to seed a levee. It isn't very relevant. Simply put, Houston is flat.

In my neck of the woods you must include catch basins to mitigate flash flooding.

Yeah, but in Houston they have limited grade to work with. This is why climate change has started causing nuscience flooding, where seaside areas are seeing minor flooding in minor storm events because the ocean tide is inundating the stormwater lines, reducing flow capacity. Regarding catch basins, they don't carry that much capacity. You need it, yes, but when talking about Harvey, the only thing saving Houston right now are a few dams, and some levees, which may or may not have been designed for this storm event (and if the levees weren't... it wouldn't have been because of shortsightedness). That is just how big this storm is.

Even a new housing development must include these structures. There is another SHEETZ up the road which has one of these things. It's just a big rocky hole with an overflow that holds tons of water, most of which just perks back into the ground without running off at all. I see them along trails and just about everywhere anymore. If you redevelop a bit of old land you must include these in the new plans.

For local neighborhoods, yes, this is a thing, for local drainage. And they work, but they offer little storage overall. There was a hot thing called "Green Infrastructure" when cities were sold a bill of goods about ditches, storage ponds, etc... to keep the stormwater out of the sewers temporarily, so as not to overload the system. But like most miracle ideas, they are overly expensive and not particularly helpful volume wise.

Ultimately, you can only reasonably design a system for so much water. Harvey is well in excess of this for stormwater handling, and close to meeting high end levee design.

 

[Peez]

Have to disagree with those who believe that human activity is the primary cause of global warming since 1850 CE or AD. I have been on this forum from FRDB and for 5 years , I have not seen a single piece of EVIDENCE that humans are the main cause of global warming. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that humans are not the cause. The temperature chart below says so.

Evidence does not mean theories by NASA or NOAA or computer simulations by UN-IPCC. Evidence has to be factual from the past, an accomplished event.

Image result for holocene temperature chart

Would it be possible to avoid ALL CAPS and incorrect use of the word "theory"?

Peez