Water levels were 16 feet higher in the flood of 1935
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
In the context of climate change, is what we are seeing in Houston a new level of disaster which is becoming more common?
The flood disaster unfolding in Houston is certainly very unusual. But so are other natural weather disasters, which have always occurred and always will occur.
(By the way, making naturally-occurring severe weather seem unnatural is a favorite tactic of Al Gore, whose new movie & book An Inconvenient Sequel [ currently #21,168 in Kindle] is dismantled in my new e-book, An Inconvenient Deception [currently #399]).
Floods aren’t just due to weather
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.
Are the rainfall totals unprecedented?
Even that question is difficult to answer. The exact same tropical system moving at, say, 15 mph might have produced the same total amount of rain, but it would have been spread over a wide area, maybe many states, with no flooding disaster. This is usually what happens with landfalling hurricanes.
Instead, 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. In both cases, the atmosphere produced the same amount of rain, but where the rain lands is very different. People like those in the Houston area don’t want all of the rain to land on them.
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.
Even with the system stalling, the greatest multi-day rainfall total as of 3 9 a.m. this Monday morning is just over 30 39.7 inches, with many locations recording over 20 inches. We should recall that Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979 (a much smaller and weaker system than Harvey) produced a 43 inch rainfall total in only 24 hours in Houston.
Was Harvey unprecedented in intensity?
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.
So what makes this event 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.
And don’t pay attention to claims of 500 year flood events, which most hydrologists dislike because we don’t have enough measurements over time to determine such things, especially when they also depend on our altering of the landscape over time.
Bill Read, a former director of the National Hurricane Center was asked by a CNN news anchor whether he thought that Harvey was made worse because of global warming. Read’s response was basically, No.
“Unprecedented” doesn’t necessarily mean it represents a new normal. It can just be a rare combination of events. In 2005 the U.S. was struck by many strong hurricanes, and the NHC even ran out of names to give all of the tropical storms. Then we went almost 12 years without a major (Cat 3 or stronger) hurricane strike.
Weird stuff happens.
I remember many years ago in one of the NWS annual summaries of lightning deaths there was a golfer who was struck by lightning. While an ambulance transported the man to the hospital, the ambulance was stuck by lightning and it finished the poor fellow off.
There is coastal lake sediment evidence of catastrophic hurricanes which struck the Florida panhandle over 1,000 years ago, events which became less frequent in the most recent 1,000 years.
Weather disasters happen, with or without the help of humans.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Another day has passed and now this article becomes even more inaccurate. Comparing water height levels at specific locations 80 years apart isn’t science, but instead, an attempt to prove a position. Hidden behind your article is a generous dose of climate change denial. Luckily, Texas is filled with like-minded people who will now expect the rest of us to bail them out.
Interestingly, I cannot quickly find the construction dates for the Addicks and Barkerr dams, but since the original approval came in 1938 and you’re referencing events from 1935, I find yet another flaw in your reasoning. Having said that paved structures are calculated as having a very low infiltration-obviously, as are homes at basically 0. Obviously, infiltration has been reduced by population growth. As well, the entire infrastructure of Houston now is not comparable now with 1935. Since both dams are now at capacity, you may be seeing water levels of the past.
Meanwhile, I couldn’t miss the fact that the good doctor has been working for the energy industry for some time now. It reminds me of the old saying, “figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
Michael Mann “Human-caused warming is penetrating down into the ocean warming not just the surface but creating deeper layers of warm water in the Gulf and elsewhere.”
Is this a correct statement or not?Seems perfectly logical .Waters warm in Hawaii cold in San Francisco.
Does air temp raise water temp?
Are the rainfall totals unprecedented?
yes, in the mainland US they are.
And it isn’t entirely about the flooding here – the built up area and flood controls ahve changed since 36 – but it is about the amount/intensity of rain.
That is unprecedented in Texas…
…and a clear sign of a warming climate
“…in Texas…
…and a clear sign of a warming climate”
But Texas has been cooling, (over the total period of record 1895-2016)
“That is unprecedented in Texas…
…and a clear sign of a warming climate”
Even more demonstrable lies, Skanky?
You just can’t help yourself, can you?
Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for lying about her professional credentials yet?
or a clear sign of overly large human saturation all in one area and 500+ miles of paved roads and housing development etc just might have a wee bit of impact on how the dirt absorbs the rain fall… much the same with AZ and NM hotter there from the same reasons stated above = the suns heat isnt absorbed into the dirt/ sand and bouncing it back up making it hotter.
As a point of interest, I responded, with many of Roy’s clarifications along with several others, to an alarmist article by Michael Mann on his Facebook page. He must have been impressed as within hours I was banned from his site and my comment remove.
This is the first time I’ve ever been banned from anywhere (other than the girls’ shower room when I was very young) 😉
According to the US Geological Survey report, Buffalo Bayou topped out at 60.8 feet during this flood. See chart on page 280 of this link:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/0796g/report.pdf
According to this page, Buffalo Bayou topped out at 38.78 feet at 7:30 AM CDT on Aug 28, although the data is subject to revision. Much lower than the 1935 flood.
A warm AMO has nothing to do with AGW, neither does the meridional blocking.
Per ERSSTv5, northern gulf warmed +0.2C since 1950. Also SST cooled by hurricane prior to TS rain. AGW signal likely doesn’t exceed noise in Houston flooding.
Let me pose counter evidence that posits that Hurricane Harvey is directly linked to climate change:
BBC: Hurricane Harvey: The link to climate change
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41082668
Time: Is Hurricane Harvey Related to Climate Change? Scientists Have a Better Answer
http://time.com/4914840/hurricane-harvey-climate-change/
The Washington Post: What does Hurricane Harvey say about climate change?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2017/live-updates/weather/hurricane-harvey-updates-preparation-evacuations-forecast-storm-latest/what-does-hurricane-harvey-say-about-climate-change/?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.da57fbb8e962
New York Times: The Relationship Between Hurricanes and Climate Change
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/hurricane-harvey-climate-change-texas.html?smid=fb-share
LA Times editorial: Harvey should be a warning to Trump that climate change is a global threat
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-harvey-global-warming-trump-flood-20170830-story.html
All your sources are about as credible as Alex Jones at Infowars.
Millions of subscribers around the world both TRUST and READ their information so I’m not sure I can agree with you on this point.
“We raised up everything,” said Susan Rath, who had returned to a home in south Houston where she and her husband, Jim, had tried to place valuables higher before evacuating. The water got higher still. They returned to sodden drywall, destroyed furniture and a closet full of blouses soaked up to the elbow.
“It didn’t matter,” she said. The Raths had just rebuilt this house, after it was destroyed in a 2015 flood. Now, they will have to decide whether to rebuild again.
How dumb is this???
Are you familiar with the definition of insanity?
It’s doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Jackpot!
Now move out of a historical flood zone.
This is a futile attempt to fill the gaps of reason; a feeble attempt by the author to find internal equilibrium as he struggles to marry his brewing concern – that climate change might actually be real – with all his other values and beliefs (beliefs instilled in him by the very system by which he was raised and which created climate change in the first place).