Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well the reason why it rained for days in Houston was due to a High Pressure system sitting in Oklahoma that kept that storm from moving. It didn't have any more water than any other tropical event. Since it never moved north it sat there and fed off the gulf waters. That is all a pure natural event. hly fk. People should learn how weather develops and moves.Here's the first cult member to blame Harvey on global warming. I knew it wouldn't take long. It's difficult to exaggerate how stupid these people are:
We can’t say that Hurricane Harvey was caused by climate change. But it was certainly worsened by it.
What can we say about the role of climate change in the unprecedented disaster that is unfolding in Houston with Hurricane Harvey? There are certain climate change-related factors that we can, with great confidence, say worsened the flooding.
Sea level rise attributable to climate change – some of which is due to coastal subsidence caused by human disturbance such as oil drilling – is more than half a foot over the past few decades. That means the storm surge was half a foot higher than it would have been just decades ago, meaning far more flooding and destruction.
Harvey was almost certainly more intense than it would have been in the absence of human-caused warming, which means stronger winds, more wind damage and a larger storm surge.
The stalling is due to very weak prevailing winds, which are failing to steer the storm off to sea, allowing it to spin around and wobble back and forth. This pattern of subtropical expansion is predicted in model simulations of human-caused climate change.
In conclusion, while we cannot say climate change “caused” Hurricane Harvey, we can say is that it exacerbated several characteristics of the storm in a way that greatly increased the risk of damage and loss of life. Climate change worsened the impact of Hurricane Harvey.
Article chock full of facts...check
Article chock full of science and data...check.
Any hysterical rantings? Nope.
Was the article written by a paid Russian troll? Nope.
Was the article based on easily debunked, baseless claims? Nope.
No wonder every single conservatard on this site chimed in to offer their little "opinions."
It is an opinion piece.
While it may be true that: "In addition to that, sea surface temperatures in the region have risen about 0.5C (close to 1F) over the past few decades from roughly 30C (86F) to 30.5C (87F), which contributed to the very warm sea surface temperatures (30.5-31C, or 87-88F).
There is a simple thermodynamic relationship known as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation that tells us there is a roughly 3% increase in average atmospheric moisture content for each 0.5C of warming. Sea surface temperatures in the area where Harvey intensified were 0.5-1C warmer than current-day average temperatures, which translates to 1-1.5C warmer than “average” temperatures a few decades ago. That means 3-5% more moisture in the atmosphere.
That large amount of moisture creates the potential for much greater rainfalls and greater flooding."
It is not at all unusual for these type of storms to meander along the upper Texas coast. I've seen many tropical systems wobble in my 40 years here.
Warming may have increase the rainfall amounts slightly, imo, the affect on Harvey's path is minimal.
Harvey has dumped more rain than the three previous major hurricanes COMBINED. I hardly think your 3% increase in moisture is responsible.
My 3%? Do you understand where Mann got that figure? Harvey's path has more to do with the flooding than any other factor. I recall many storms have done that in the last 40 years.
His claim that a deep layer of warm water help intensify the storm has no reference to any study, but after all it is an opinion piece.
Study targets warm water rings that fuel hurricane intensification in the Caribbean Sea
"Tropical storms receive energy from their surrounding ocean waters. As a storm moves across the water, it may interact with rings of warm water known as eddies. As the storm moves forward over these eddies, the warm ocean waters below help fuel the storm's intensity through enhanced and sustained heat and moisture fluxes.
Similar warm ocean eddies exist in the Gulf of Mexico, a result of their separation from the warm-water Loop Current, are also of interest to the research team involved in this study.
Last year, Hurricane Matthew rapidly intensified from a tropical storm to hurricane status as it moved over the Caribbean Sea in the location where a warm ocean eddy exists, and in close proximity to where these measurements were taken for this study two years prior."
Read more at: Study targets warm water rings that fuel hurricane intensification in the Caribbean Sea
No science that Harvey carried an UNUSUAL amount of water. The entire problem wasn't the WATER CONTENT of the storm. It was the SPEED and TRAJECTORY of that storm..
Hurricane rainfall is ALWAYS MORE affected by track and speed, than a slight variation (if any) of contained water..
well I say it doesn't since you idiots think we cause more warming. so, no for this particular issue.We have just ended one of the longest streaks on record in the USA of not having a major hit the continent
When a fact like that is staring you right in the face it's best to pay attention rather than talking about bogus hockey sticks and inconclusive tree rings
Do hurricanes that don't hit the US not count ?
We have just ended one of the longest streaks on record in the USA of not having a major hit the continent
When a fact like that is staring you right in the face it's best to pay attention rather than talking about bogus hockey sticks and inconclusive tree rings
The US coast line is not a very good measure of hurricane/tropical storm frequency.
There's not been any conclusive results about the frequency or intensity of Atlantic hurricanes increasing.
Using the US coastline would suggest there was a decrease in frequency. Any data collected during the first half of the 20th century for the Atlantic is inconclusive based on the sparseness of data collected
Bullshit. The frequency and intensities of hurricanes took a bump after 1980 when we had full satellite coverage of the area. No "spareness" of data. The data gets better every decade. It tends to OVER- REPORT storms that reach Cat 1 (or any any level) for a mere few hours. The P3 Hurricane planes are flying on EVERYTHING in hurricane alley as it enters the Caribbean or Gulf.
Well the reason why it rained for days in Houston was due to a High Pressure system sitting in Oklahoma that kept that storm from moving. It didn't have any more water than any other tropical event. Since it never moved north it sat there and fed off the gulf waters. That is all a pure natural event. hly fk. People should learn how weather develops and moves.Article chock full of facts...check
Article chock full of science and data...check.
Any hysterical rantings? Nope.
Was the article written by a paid Russian troll? Nope.
Was the article based on easily debunked, baseless claims? Nope.
No wonder every single conservatard on this site chimed in to offer their little "opinions."
It is an opinion piece.
While it may be true that: "In addition to that, sea surface temperatures in the region have risen about 0.5C (close to 1F) over the past few decades from roughly 30C (86F) to 30.5C (87F), which contributed to the very warm sea surface temperatures (30.5-31C, or 87-88F).
There is a simple thermodynamic relationship known as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation that tells us there is a roughly 3% increase in average atmospheric moisture content for each 0.5C of warming. Sea surface temperatures in the area where Harvey intensified were 0.5-1C warmer than current-day average temperatures, which translates to 1-1.5C warmer than “average” temperatures a few decades ago. That means 3-5% more moisture in the atmosphere.
That large amount of moisture creates the potential for much greater rainfalls and greater flooding."
It is not at all unusual for these type of storms to meander along the upper Texas coast. I've seen many tropical systems wobble in my 40 years here.
Warming may have increase the rainfall amounts slightly, imo, the affect on Harvey's path is minimal.
Harvey has dumped more rain than the three previous major hurricanes COMBINED. I hardly think your 3% increase in moisture is responsible.
My 3%? Do you understand where Mann got that figure? Harvey's path has more to do with the flooding than any other factor. I recall many storms have done that in the last 40 years.
His claim that a deep layer of warm water help intensify the storm has no reference to any study, but after all it is an opinion piece.
Study targets warm water rings that fuel hurricane intensification in the Caribbean Sea
"Tropical storms receive energy from their surrounding ocean waters. As a storm moves across the water, it may interact with rings of warm water known as eddies. As the storm moves forward over these eddies, the warm ocean waters below help fuel the storm's intensity through enhanced and sustained heat and moisture fluxes.
Similar warm ocean eddies exist in the Gulf of Mexico, a result of their separation from the warm-water Loop Current, are also of interest to the research team involved in this study.
Last year, Hurricane Matthew rapidly intensified from a tropical storm to hurricane status as it moved over the Caribbean Sea in the location where a warm ocean eddy exists, and in close proximity to where these measurements were taken for this study two years prior."
Read more at: Study targets warm water rings that fuel hurricane intensification in the Caribbean Sea
No science that Harvey carried an UNUSUAL amount of water. The entire problem wasn't the WATER CONTENT of the storm. It was the SPEED and TRAJECTORY of that storm..
Hurricane rainfall is ALWAYS MORE affected by track and speed, than a slight variation (if any) of contained water..
nope, it is generally why large rain falls occur. High pressure systems that stay stagnate and don't move the weather system.Well the reason why it rained for days in Houston was due to a High Pressure system sitting in Oklahoma that kept that storm from moving. It didn't have any more water than any other tropical event. Since it never moved north it sat there and fed off the gulf waters. That is all a pure natural event. hly fk. People should learn how weather develops and moves.It is an opinion piece.
While it may be true that: "In addition to that, sea surface temperatures in the region have risen about 0.5C (close to 1F) over the past few decades from roughly 30C (86F) to 30.5C (87F), which contributed to the very warm sea surface temperatures (30.5-31C, or 87-88F).
There is a simple thermodynamic relationship known as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation that tells us there is a roughly 3% increase in average atmospheric moisture content for each 0.5C of warming. Sea surface temperatures in the area where Harvey intensified were 0.5-1C warmer than current-day average temperatures, which translates to 1-1.5C warmer than “average” temperatures a few decades ago. That means 3-5% more moisture in the atmosphere.
That large amount of moisture creates the potential for much greater rainfalls and greater flooding."
It is not at all unusual for these type of storms to meander along the upper Texas coast. I've seen many tropical systems wobble in my 40 years here.
Warming may have increase the rainfall amounts slightly, imo, the affect on Harvey's path is minimal.
Harvey has dumped more rain than the three previous major hurricanes COMBINED. I hardly think your 3% increase in moisture is responsible.
My 3%? Do you understand where Mann got that figure? Harvey's path has more to do with the flooding than any other factor. I recall many storms have done that in the last 40 years.
His claim that a deep layer of warm water help intensify the storm has no reference to any study, but after all it is an opinion piece.
Study targets warm water rings that fuel hurricane intensification in the Caribbean Sea
"Tropical storms receive energy from their surrounding ocean waters. As a storm moves across the water, it may interact with rings of warm water known as eddies. As the storm moves forward over these eddies, the warm ocean waters below help fuel the storm's intensity through enhanced and sustained heat and moisture fluxes.
Similar warm ocean eddies exist in the Gulf of Mexico, a result of their separation from the warm-water Loop Current, are also of interest to the research team involved in this study.
Last year, Hurricane Matthew rapidly intensified from a tropical storm to hurricane status as it moved over the Caribbean Sea in the location where a warm ocean eddy exists, and in close proximity to where these measurements were taken for this study two years prior."
Read more at: Study targets warm water rings that fuel hurricane intensification in the Caribbean Sea
No science that Harvey carried an UNUSUAL amount of water. The entire problem wasn't the WATER CONTENT of the storm. It was the SPEED and TRAJECTORY of that storm..
Hurricane rainfall is ALWAYS MORE affected by track and speed, than a slight variation (if any) of contained water..
Certainly not the first storm to do that here either.
It's THE standard of measurement and public effect, inconvenient for you I am sure, fish storms nearly meaninglessWe have just ended one of the longest streaks on record in the USA of not having a major hit the continent
When a fact like that is staring you right in the face it's best to pay attention rather than talking about bogus hockey sticks and inconclusive tree rings
The US coast line is not a very good measure of hurricane/tropical storm frequency.
We have just ended one of the longest streaks on record in the USA of not having a major hit the continent
When a fact like that is staring you right in the face it's best to pay attention rather than talking about bogus hockey sticks and inconclusive tree rings
The US coast line is not a very good measure of hurricane/tropical storm frequency.
There's not been any conclusive results about the frequency or intensity of Atlantic hurricanes increasing.
Using the US coastline would suggest there was a decrease in frequency. Any data collected during the first half of the 20th century for the Atlantic is inconclusive based on the sparseness of data collected
Bullshit. The frequency and intensities of hurricanes took a bump after 1980 when we had full satellite coverage of the area. No "spareness" of data. The data gets better every decade. It tends to OVER- REPORT storms that reach Cat 1 (or any any level) for a mere few hours. The P3 Hurricane planes are flying on EVERYTHING in hurricane alley as it enters the Caribbean or Gulf.
When compared to what? Data collected during the first half of the Century?
"However, the density of reporting ship traffic over the Atlantic was relatively sparse during the early decades of this record, such that if storms from the modern era (post 1965) had hypothetically occurred during those earlier decades, a substantial number would likely not have been directly observed by the ship-based “observing network of opportunity.” We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero"
Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
The US coast line is not a very good measure of hurricane/tropical storm frequency.
There's not been any conclusive results about the frequency or intensity of Atlantic hurricanes increasing.
Using the US coastline would suggest there was a decrease in frequency. Any data collected during the first half of the 20th century for the Atlantic is inconclusive based on the sparseness of data collected
Bullshit. The frequency and intensities of hurricanes took a bump after 1980 when we had full satellite coverage of the area. No "spareness" of data. The data gets better every decade. It tends to OVER- REPORT storms that reach Cat 1 (or any any level) for a mere few hours. The P3 Hurricane planes are flying on EVERYTHING in hurricane alley as it enters the Caribbean or Gulf.
When compared to what? Data collected during the first half of the Century?
"However, the density of reporting ship traffic over the Atlantic was relatively sparse during the early decades of this record, such that if storms from the modern era (post 1965) had hypothetically occurred during those earlier decades, a substantial number would likely not have been directly observed by the ship-based “observing network of opportunity.” We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero"
Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
Pretty much what I just told you. No increase. ESPECIALLY not in the Satellite era.
Problem with relying on that "sparse data" as a safe space --- is that it's REALLY REALLY sparse data from tree rings, mud bugs and ice cores from just a few locations on the planet --- things that are not even thermometers, that have given rise to all the arrogant GW conclusions that this HIGHLY MEASURED temperature anomaly is UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude or rate of rise in the last 10,000 years..
Imagine how sparse and statistically damaged THAT data is. But even then --- the data was NEVER sturdy enough to make those conclusions. Lots of LEAPS into "faith" in this GW biz.
BS. Just the greedy idiot lying GOP rich, dupe. The Dem rich want to raise taxes on themselves and them and finally invest in America again...The answer they always give is "more."Meanwhile, you dingbat dupes don't believe in obvious MMGW or that the richest don't pay enough, causing slow ruin of the middle class and the country for 35 years now...Taxes on the nonrich have gone up more under the GOP- they cut fed taxes but state and local taxes go up to make up for that, and they kill the nonrich.Liberals will conjure up any excuse to raise taxes, climate change = tax increases.
The rich already pay half the Federal income taxes, how much more do you think they should pay? I'm sure we'd all be fascinated to hear you libs finally pick a number. How much would be enough for you people to stop whining about it?
Because its just something the left use to foment division and hatred. Isolate and demonize the 'rich', same tactic the Nazi party used against Jews.
It's THE standard of measurement and public effect
Mann's graph has been
