I’d never agree to this, and in fact, if such a request was made to me about a WUWT post, I’d tell them to buzz off….but that’s just me, I’d never be that desperate. Here’s what “The Revolution” says about Dr. Mann’s work and his opinion on Hurricane Harvey and Climate Change..
Source: http://revcom.us/a/506/role-of-climate-change-in-the-disaster-of-harvey-en.html
What the Communist Party website says say about their connection with Dr. Mann and his article:
Editors’ Note: Revolution/revcom.us is reprinting with permission this Facebook post from Dr. Michael Mann, a Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University with joint appointments in the departments of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute. He is also Director of the Penn State Earth Systems Science Center and author of several books, including his most recent work, The Madhouse Effect.
Here’s what they say about themselves and their website:
The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has taken on the responsibility to lead revolution in the U.S., the belly of the imperialist beast, as its principal share of the world revolution and the ultimate aim of communism. This Party is built on and takes as its foundation the new synthesis of communism that has been brought forward through the body of work and method and approach of Bob Avakian. Its members are united in their profound desire for a radically different and better world, and their understanding of the need for revolution to get to that world. They have dedicated themselves wholeheartedly to revolution, and on the basis of that they channel their individual abilities and passions to the cause and needs of this revolution.
Probably not a smart move by Dr. Mann to associate with this group, but then again he may think such an association is perfectly fine if he granted permission to use his work and his name. OTOH, this could be a mistake and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. He may not have granted permission knowing who he granted it to. If so, I’m sure he’ll be made aware of this WUWT post, and here’s his chance to correct that oversight and disconnect from an organization who describes the country I hold dear as “the belly of the imperialist beast”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That’s funny — the communists (under the guise of progressives) have already won, to a great extent, The only problem is that those in that particular group aren’t in charge.
The Revolution will not be televised.
No but it will probably be streamed live on social media.
If he gave them permission without finding out who they are, he’s a moron.
If he gave them permission after finding out who they are, he either:
1- doesn’t care, and he’s a moron
2- sympathizes with their cause, and he’s a traitor and a moron
If he did not give them permission, and he finds out they lied about it, and does nothing, he’s a moron.
If he did not give them permission, and he finds out they lied about it, and asks them to remove it from their website, he’d show more integrity than I have ever given him credit for. But I’d still think he’s a moron.
🙂
Shouldn’t it be “moronn” in his case?
“OTOH, this could be a mistake and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. ”
Well, yeah, since he has a history of making mistakes, what’s one more?
/grin
He has a history of doing wrong things. I wouldn’t equate that to making mistakes. Every jackass in prison says he made a “mistake”.
On details, the Revolutionary Communist Party is a separate group from the Communist Party of the USA. Communists are about as eager to divide into factions as (other) religious groups. Antifa is run by the Workers World Party in some places, and by BAMN in others. Communist without a modifier is not quite accurate.
Another AGW misguided soul, our friend and the intrepid polar explorer Rupert Nigel Pendrill Hadow known as Pen Hadow in his quest to sail to the North Pole, has reached 80N and appears to have got stuck in the ice pack. Latest report:
30/Aug/2017 14:00:04 UTC
80° 09.362N, 148° 50.777W
Course: 117° @ur momisugly 0.0 knots
-5°C at 0 m above sea level
i wish him the best. We all seek evidence in support of our theories. Oh,….wait,….
Send Griff up there to show him that all the ice is actually gone and he can sail and sunbathe as his heart desires.
Reports are published every 2 hours (on even hour).
The last 24 hours of sailing are shown here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Last24h.gif
click on the image for updates
What the hell is that graph supposed to show, vukcevic?
Meandering like Harvey.
An editorial from the highly respected L.A. Times. How long is it going to take climate sceptics to disassociate the issue from politics and change their blinkered thinking on the impact of climate change, both human and financial?
https://www.google.pl/amp/www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-harvey-global-warming-trump-flood-20170830-story,amp.html
ivankinsman
August 30, 2017 at 9:39 am: You jest, surely?
As you sit in your nice comfortable house with your nice comfortable lifestyle there are families in Houston whose lives have been pretty much destroyed by a hurricane that dumped a year’s rain in one week – so I don’t really think they see this as a joke.
You can laugh my friend until it happens to you one day and then let’s see if you still see the science behind climate change as one big jest.
Begging the question again, Ivan?
Gee,Ivan, if one precisely reversed that statement, and applied it to CAGW advocates, you would be right.
Don’t play the fool Tom. I don’t think you are in a situation in which you have exoerienced a Harvey-type ordeal. Until you do, you can continue in your scepticism.
However, I think that those sceptics in Houston who have seen their city deluged with water and their homes destroyed now might be taking rather a different view on human-induced climate change.
I recomment the Dutch to make your place safer. Americans do not maintain their infrastructure properly. Flaw of the capitalist system? Sorry, this no time to make jokes.
Flaw of the bureaucratic/socialist system of the various Federal, State and local governments while they take advantage (taxation and regulation) of individual and corporate actors, David.
You are indulging in proof by assertion,Ivan. As there is zippo proof that Harvey has anything to do with AGW, you are on the level of throwing virgins into volcanoes to appease angry gods.
Ok so world renowned newspaper’s editorial team – and here I am referring to the L.A. Times – decides to write an editorial on a subject thatvseem to think is based on a bunch of hocus pocus for its millions of readers. Now that is an interesting one. Why would any newspaper want to do that if it seeks to maintain its circulation levels?
Ivan, just how well has the legacy media been doing? The LA Times is not doing any better than average.
One if the top 10 most trusted news sources in the US. Its editorial team are smart intelligent journalists who do not publish leading editorials based on fiction. If they did this they would be laughed out if town.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/aug/09/four-uk-news-sources-among-top-10-most-trusted-in-us-survey
What planet are you living on, Ivan? One of the ten most trusted is like discussing skinny sumo wrestlers.
C’mon Tom you sound like an intelligent guy. Don’t tell me you distrust every single news outlet and that they all have a biased agenda on the issue of climate change. That is completely f####ng absurd. The L.A. Times is a major news outlet and its trustworthiness has been proven – stop trying to find any way of wriggling out of the general acceptance of what the L.A. Times editorial states is impartial and unbiased on this issue. Why wouldn’t it be? Or are they in the pockets of Al Gore and Dr Michael Mann in some kind of cc conspiracy?
Ivan, I stopped believing in the tooth fairy about 1962, and the neutrality of the Mainstream Media about 1965. The trick is to identify the agenda of a source, not look for a guru.
Ok man everyone has their own agenda…
And a drought somewhere would cause me to acknowledge CAGW?
A prolonged drought that is exacerbated by CAGW, yes. Of course droughts occur naturally. Your view is that CAGW is having little to no impact on droughts, mine the opposite.
Well, ivankinsman, my “view” is supported by the evidence. Even the politicized IPCC had to admit no observed increase in worldwide drought.
Since the small warming from the Little Ice Age is overall beneficial, where is your CAGW. And, please, don’t cite nonsense futures excreted from the bowels of climate models.
I’ll agree that there has been no increase in worldwide drought but I suggest you read this on the topic as to why this is the case:
Global drought has not increased, but climate change is still a threat
http://theconversation.com/global-drought-has-not-increased-but-climate-change-is-still-a-threat-10751
Global warming and changes in drought
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2067.html
Several recently published studies have produced apparently conflicting results of how drought is changing under climate change. The reason is thought to lie in the formulation of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) and the data sets used to determine the evapotranspiration component. Here, we make an assessment of the issues with the PDSI in which several other sources of discrepancy emerge, not least how precipitation has changed and is analysed. As well as an improvement in the precipitation data available, accurate attribution of the causes of drought requires accounting for natural variability, especially El Niño/Southern Oscillation effects, owing to the predilection for wetter land during La Niña events. Increased heating from global warming may not cause droughts but it is expected that when droughts occur they are likely to set in quicker and be more intense.
Summary of the report here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts
Where do I begin, ivankinsman? The last shall be the first: A 2013 article by the Guardian is far from being proof of anything other than left wing sensationalism. It presents the typical series of begging the question on human causation; no proof, just assertions of received wisdom.
Next we go to: “Paper co-author Michael Roderick from the Australian National University said global warming does not necessarily lead to more droughts.
“Drought has not been an effective way of measuring climate change over the past 60 years,” he said.”
The paper’s abstract and The Conversation’s discussion of it simply amounts to: “We haven’t seen any increases in drought associated with the minor warming from the Little Ice Age, but you just wait; we’re continuing to torture the data until we eventually find something. You see, the models and other swell assumptions tell us it is so, so it will be.”
Another bright idea flounders on reality. People need to read this stuff with a critical eye. Would you accept this crap from your physician? “Well, we have a new strain of leech since that last one didn’t work.”
Look what it is basically saying is that the wet areas are getting wetter and the dry areas drier so it evens out in terms of global droughts and the researchers warn about climate change as an on-going factor. Seems a reasonable hypothesis to me.
“researchers warn about climate change as an on-going factor.” is nothing more than political propaganda, ivankinsman. IPCC climate models are particularly inaccurate in respect to precipitation, as well as being bunk overall. Although unintended, AR5 manipulation of model results to cool medium term “projections” showed that models run unacceptably hot, even for true believers.
Unidentified “researchers” give us nothing but ideology-driven speculation.
Your opposite view is wrong.
There is ZERO increase in GLOBAL droughts, floods, storms, extreme weather events, tornadoes, rate of SL rise, etc…
From 1973 to 2017, there have been 4 cat 4 land fall hurricanes. In the 42 years prior to that there was 14.
( and of story)
Except Harvey had the weakest ground recorded wind gusts of every cat 4 hurricane in history.
Harvey was a natural disaster because Harvey hovered. Harvey Hovered over a subsiding swamp where humans built a city.
Harvey hovered my friend because climate change is altering the existing pattern of the jet stream. This is shifting higher to the north and becoming more ‘loopy’ which has resulted in Harvey sitting where it is rather than quickly moving on. Surely you can see this for yourself in the daily newscasts?
How can a newspaper with a stated policy of not printing letters from skeptics be a trusted source on climate issues?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-climate-change-letters-20131008-story,amp.html
Did you actually read this article – the editor states very clearly why he does not publish climate sceptic letters in the LA Times:
“As for letters on climate change, we do get plenty from those who deny global warming. And to say they “deny” it might be an understatement: Many say climate change is a hoax, a scheme by liberals to curtail personal freedom.
Before going into some detail about why these letters don’t make it into our pages, I’ll concede that, aside from my easily passing the Advanced Placement biology exam in high school, my science credentials are lacking. I’m no expert when it comes to our planet’s complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts — in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.
And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a body made up of the world’s top climate scientists — said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn’t whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.
Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change” is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.”
So the Editor of the LA TImes has no idea what the nature of the IPCC is, and no interest in finding out. Typical.
You must have missed this section: “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a body made up of the world’s top climate scientists”
If you want to find out more, Tom, about the IPCC, then you should visit: http://ipcc.ch/index.htm
As someone who will argue religion with a Jehovah’s Witness, I should know better than to continue this argument, but I am doing so anyway. You know better about the IPCC than you pretend to. The IPCC is, and was, a political organization, not a scientific investigating body, and a cursory investigation will make that obvious. You do not strike me as the fool you pretend to be.
Actually I am a Protestant who practicescas a Catholic.
Your mistake here is that you are trying to make this argument a partisan, political one when in reality it is completely bipartisan in almost every country around the world bar the United States.
The IPCC is made up of the world’s preminent climate scientists whose work is to independently verify whether human induced climate change is happening or not. They have overwhelmingly determined the former through independent peer-to-peer reviewed scientic research.
Only a political organization, which the IPCC is, would hire Ragendra Pachauri or Christiana Figueres in a senior role.
Ok so your saying here that all UN appointees have to be Conservatives who meet the approval of the WattsUpWithThat community. Come off it mate …
Neither is a scientist, and the equivalent would be appointing right-wing politicians based entirely on their politics.
You loathe these two for their politics as much as I loathe Pruitt at the EPA from an enviroment angle – so you see it cuts both ways. He has zero environmental credentials and is a stooge to pro-business lobbyists et al.
Are you saying Harvey wouldn’t have happened if we didn’t drive cars, and heat our homes? How much less flooding would there be if alarmists ruled the world? Personally, I think Harvey would have been the same, but what would power the rescue boats and helicopters?
Those questions were for Ivan, of course.
That is simplifying the whole issue to an incredibly basic level. Would Harvey have been the same? Many are now disagreeing with you – as I am sure are some of the Houston climate sceptics who have seen a single hurricane dump a year’s annual rain in one week. Is that really par for the course?
True believers notice the hand of their God all around. Would it really help to built more windmills or cover all roofs with solar panels? To shut down a reliable energy system? But true: in a medieval world we simply don’t know what happens elsewhere. I suggest the Texans use much more fossil fuels to improve their infrastructure .
Is that windmills for grinding corn or beautiful gleaming wind turbines for creating renewable energy at a very low development cost – think there is a big difference here. Texas’s relationship with Big Black Dirty Oil is going to have to change at some stage, my friend. I know it – and you will eventually know it.
[Texas’s relationship with Big Black Dirty Oil is going to have to change at some stage, my friend]
R.I.P. my friend.
So, ivankinsman, weather in Texas is climate? Until some other CAGW believer says it isn’t in another context? Please give me the code words that allow jumping from one CAGW meme to another.
Have no idea what your talking about here Dave Fair. Seems you don’t like some honest debate?
Also, I would start associating weather more with ‘weather-and-climate disasters’ and take a look at the financial cost that this is going to put on the US economy (that is, if you can be bothered to read up on the subject):
Hurricane Harvey is a billion-dollar disaster – America’s 10th in 2017
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/01/hurricane-harvey-us-billion-dollar-weather-disasters-2017
Read some stuff from Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., before going off on weather (not climate) disaster costs, ivankinsman. After you do so, maybe you will have something intelligible to say on the topic.
BTW, what is your addiction to the Guardian all about?
The Guardian in my opinion gives the best coverage of what is going on in terms of environmental issues around the world. Well-informed journalism on a broad range of issues.
Meaning the Grauniad does not challenge any of your prejudices?
Just like WUWT doesn’t challenge any of yours. Some people don’t like my presence here it seems.
No, you and Griff make for the equivalent of target practice.
Also not just The Guardian. Nice CNN article here about a third of Bangladesh under water. Strange – Houston under water, Bangladesh under water … now I wonder what the connection could be?
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/01/asia/bangladesh-south-asia-floods/index.html
“The Guardian in my opinion gives the best coverage of what is going on in terms of environmental issues around the world.”
Oh dear, you’ve really got problems…
Haven’t had time to read any of Dr. Pielke Jr’s. work yet, heh, ivankinsman?
Look, I am perfectly open to people like Dr Pielke making their views heard in the climate change debate and they should not be pilloried or attempted to be silenced. Ref. climate change, people talk about the 97% consensus, so of course there is some disagreement, and this should be taken on board by environmental journalists and the like if a valid case is made.
I have been referred to as some kind of ‘Jehovah’s witness’ on this site. Not the case at all – I am just looking at the evidence right in front of my eyes.
Read Dr. Pielke, Jr’s work before giving me an inane response, ivankinsman. Please.
If you believe the 97% meme, it would call into question your research and analytical skills.
Dave Fair, as I said the ROW has accepted human induced climate change as shown by the signatory countries to the IPCC Paris Climate Agreement. Only the US still has some remaining climate sceptics but this is based primarily on partisan ideological lines. Correct me if I am wrong here (I am European so neither a Democrat nor a Republican).
[what would power the rescue boats and helicopters]
exactly! And if only a fraction of the money now spend on “fighting climate change” had been invested in the Texas infrastructure, Texans would have been a lot safer.
Fossil fuel saves lives. Words and reports do not raise dykes.
Get your facts right David before you comment. Houston’s planning went wrong ten years ago when it approved planning of the worst kind – low level urban sprawl, some of it over natural flood plains, that creates a hard surface of concrete, asphalt and roof tops on which flood water just sits with no natural escape route.
Donald Trump has exacerbated this situation by repealing legislation under the Obama administration that required authorities and developers to take climate change into consideration when building new developments. As you can see from the Houston example, now this has been explained to you, this is a completely idiotic decision that is only going to make the future problems arising from natural disasters even worse.
millions of Dutch live below sea level, protected by dikes. And indeed: in some occasions flooding occurred and dikes where improved.
ivankinsman “as I said the ROW has accepted human induced climate change”
So you say.
However, it seems that according to the UN ‘My World’ survey commencing 2015 and currently covering 9,736,484 respondents the citizens of the ROW don’t seem very concerned about it, “Action taken on climate change” comes flat last, sixteenth of sixteen causes for concern.
http://data.myworld2015.org/
You may also be interested by this:
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
Strange.
Information published by the highly esteemed Pew Research Center (not sure who MyAnalytics are) seems to completely contradict the survey you quote:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/global-concern-about-climate-change-broad-support-for-limiting-emissions/
Also, ref. Christiana Figueres, don’t take her words out of context. She is referring to a future economic model that is not 100% dependent on fossil fuel combustion but a more diverse energy mix that includes renewable energy. Basically, she is stating that keep on continuing with the current carbon-based energy model and mankind’s days are numbered as a species living on this planet – AND THIS IS HAS BEEN WIDELY ACCEPTED.
Also accompanying this are the huge and deadly floods in South Asia. US climate sceptics need to look beyond their own shores to what the impact is of human induced climate change around the world:
http://www.euronews.com/2017/08/31/fresh-downpours-spread-misery-across-south-asia?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1504179049
You know what would have happened if Clinton were president.
Antifa is communist……
Logical fallacy.
Not entirely OT: Why Do Half-Measures Work for Markets, But Not for Socialism?.
F.A. Hayek, perhaps the leading authority on the history and working of collectivist societies (socialism), said that if socialists understood economics they would never be socialists.
Economics deals with the allocation of scarce resources for which there are alternative uses. In a free economy, resources usually sell to the highest-price offer. Any eBay habitué knows that. The losing bidder typically goes to the next item.
Socialists promote their utopia with a new freedom, “one without which political freedom is nothing:” It is supposed to be freedom, Hayek said, from “nature’s parsimony.” That’s an impossibility. Socialists nonetheless assure us that planners will dole out everything anybody desires in a bounty exceeding a free market’s (as well as exceeding reality). It is the promise of a scoundrel to a fool.
As Lord Acton said in a similar context, “history has proven that.”
Now it is Mikey the Marx Man
Mann may not object. Remember the old popular front motto ” no enemies to the left”. I’m sure that it applies to a good progressive like Mann.
See the resemblance. Mustache, beard, bald
Mann
Lenin
Another Stalinist of the highest order of magnitude:
Who is it?
The problem I have with many commentators on WUWT is that too many approach the issue of human induced climate change from a political angle and flounder about for somewhat obscure scientific evidence to support their viewpoint.
Instead this whole issue should be a non-partisan one as the ROW approache it. Everything should be based on the scientific findings and the politics should be kept out of it. Who really cares if Dr Michael Mann is a Democrat, Republican, Communist or Martian…
“The problem I have…”
The problem you have sunshine is that you haven’t the first fcuking clue what you’re wittering about.
Careful catweazle666, you know what they say about glass houses.
And up pops another…
These jerks show up at every protest here in Toronto (or some version of them). Its seriously tedious to discuss if they are communist, Communist, Marxist, Marxist/Leninist, Maoist, anarchist, etc.
If you live long enough, you understand that Monty Python already had a sketch for it:
BRIAN: Are you the Judean People’s Front?
REG: @ur momisugly#$%@ur momisugly off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Judean People’s Front. We’re the People’s Front of Judea! Judean People’s Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS: Wankers.
BRIAN: Can I… join your group?
REG: No. #@ur momisugly$% off.
BRIAN: I didn’t want to sell this stuff. It’s only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE’S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG: Stumm.
JUDITH: Are you sure?
BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the P.F.J., you’d have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You’re in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the #@ur momisugly%$ Judean People’s Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah…
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters…
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People’s Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters…
LORETTA: And the People’s Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters…
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People’s Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We’re the People’s Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People’s Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He’s over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!
Mann’s article is remarkably similar to this piece of ‘analysis’ on the BBC: Hurricane Harvey: The link to climate change. Do these people coordinate their story by any chance? And note the bit about ” a new branch of knowledge called attribution science” to be used in climate litigation.
OK. for all the commentators I have been communicating with, I will lay out a very clear step by step here as to how climate change is exacerbating (not causing) extreme weather events around this planet.
1) Houston has suffered record-breaking rainfall – 52 inches (The US National Weather Service has had to introduce a new colour on its graphs to deal with the volume of precipitation. Harvey surpassed the previous US record for rainfall from a tropical system, as 49.2 inches was recorded at Mary’s Creek at Winding Road in Southeast Houston. FACT
Nepal, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Pakistan have suffered equally intense storms in which months of rain has fallen in just a few hours. Since June, 21 countries – many in west and central Africa, such as Guinea, Ghana and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – have been struggling with exceptionally heavy rains, mudslides, hurricanes and intense floods in which months of rain has fallen in just a few hours.FACT
2) How is climate change exacerbating this?
The oceans are getting warmer. Example: In the Gulf of Mexico is currently more than half a degree celsius higher than the recent late summer average, which is in turn more than half a degree higher than 30 years ago, according to Michael Mann of Penn State University. As a result there was more potential for a deluge.
FACT: Harvey intensified rapidly amid sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico up to 2.7 – 7.2°F (1.5 – 4°C) above average, relative to a 1961-1990 baseline. http://www.climatesignals.org/resources/map-atlantic-sea-surface-temperature-anomaly-august-24-2017#.WapWFRYFkSY.twitter
3) Warmer seas evaporate more quickly. Warmer air holds more water vapour. So, as temperatures rise around the world, the skies store more moisture and dump it more intensely.There is a proven link – known as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation – that shows that for every half a degree celsius in warming, there is about a 3% increase in atmospheric moisture content. FACT
4) Other than higher amounts of rainfall, how else can climate change contribute to impact of hurricanes?
In Houston’s case, the storm surge was greater because sea levels have risen 20cm as a result of more than 100 years of human-related global warming. This has melted glaciers and thermally expanded the volume of seawater. FACT
5) Harvey appears to have parked above Houston, pumping huge volumes of water from the sea to the sky to the city. Will stationary storms like this become more common in the future?
There is not yet a clear link between this and climate change. But scientists have observed a general slowdown of atmospheric summer circulation in the mid-latitudes as a result of strong warming in the Arctic. According to this expert, “This can make weather systems move less and stay longer in a given location – which can significantly enhance the impacts of rainfall extremes, just like we’re sadly witnessing in Houston,” noted Stefan Rahmstorf, a co-chair at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. FACT
6) Can scientists quantify how responsible humans for the extreme weather events like those cited in point 1?
It is generally agreed that attribution is a relatively nascent science, but increasingly sophisticated computer models use temperature records, emission figures and recent data to calculate how the rise in greenhouse gases has increased the risk of a hotter world.
Last year, researchers with World Weather Attribution and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated that man-made emissions nearly doubled the odds of last year’s heavy rains in Louisiana. This summer, they found the heatwave that struck Portugal and Spain was 10 times more likely to have occurred due to global warming. FACT