L A Times dishonest, deceptive and flawed claim that Hurricane Harvey is linked to man made climate change

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The L A Times published yet another of its climate alarmist campaign articles unsupported by scientific data attempting to politicalize Hurricane Harvey as being connected to man made climate change.


This article is just another of the papers flawed attempts to falsely portray the occurrence of natural climate and weather events as being driven by greenhouse gas emissions.

The L A Times long standing schemes to push a purely political and scientifically unsupported climate alarmist agenda are well documented at WattsUpWithThat? in articles noted here, here, here and here.

Unaddressed in this Times political article are presentations by noted climate scientists providing scientific data showing that anyone claiming Hurricane Harvey is driven by man made climate actions “doesn’t have a leg to stand on” as concluded by climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry who assessed historical hurricane data.


Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer also provided scientific data supporting his conclusion that Hurricane Harvey is an extreme but natural weather event and not a sign of climate change.


Additionally Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has presented scientific data to Congress, including assessments in the UN IPCC AR5 and IPCC SREX reports showing, no connection between man-made emissions and extreme weather events such as hurricanes and floods.





The Times climate alarmist article makes a feeble effort trying to suggest some scientific basis supporting its absurd claims of Hurricane Harvey being linked to climate change but the hyperlinked references are pathetic.

The Times statement of man made climate change creating “stronger” hurricanes references a Washington Post article where the following assertion is provided without any supporting scientific data whatsoever:

“The storm is a bit more intense, bigger and longer lasting than it otherwise would be,” added Kevin Trenberth, a climate researcher with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.”

Furthermore the Times referenced Washington Post article concludes with this less than startling statement:

“So in sum: Harvey’s expected damage will mainly be attributable to the simple fact that it’s a strong summer hurricane that is not only going to hit the United States but will do so along an unfortunate path and is expected to linger, dumping huge amounts of rain. But the climatic and sea level context is also shaping this storm, as is inevitably true for other hurricanes as well. We should neither overplay that nor forget it.”

The Times statement that man made climate change is making hurricanes “quicker to intensify” references a mathematical climate model study which concludes that the study results “imply” that conditions “in the North Atlantic region typically support powerful TC intensities only during the peak hurricane season.”

This conclusion does not support the Times article claim of “quicker to intensify” hurricanes.

The Times article also has climate scientist Michael Mann offer his opinion and speculation on man made climate change driving hurricane behavior based on climate model guess work.


This L A Times article is just their usual climate alarmist politically driven hype which displays the hallmarks of their reporting on climate issues which always involve dishonesty and deception combined with flawed and false claims which are unsupported by scientific data.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
August 31, 2017 4:06 pm

Well, the LA Times wants to be the New York Times, so what else do you expect?

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 31, 2017 4:28 pm

If you repeat a lie often enough, people start to believe it. Propaganda 101.

Reply to  Greg
August 31, 2017 8:49 pm

Only with people who want to be lied to.

Reply to  Greg
August 31, 2017 9:23 pm

The Phil Klotzbach list of hurricanes landfalling the US as Cat-4/5 falsely excludes Katrina, which was Cat-4 as of its first NHC advisory (26b) after its center crossed a coastal barrier island of Louisiana, and that’s according to the pre-2012 definition of Cat-4.

Reply to  Greg
September 10, 2017 11:29 am

My apologies. I just learned that Katrina’s 135 MPH wind as of the 26b advisory was reanalyzed downwards to 125 MPH (more exactly from 120 to 110 knots) after the storm.

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 1, 2017 7:26 am

They are both competing to see which will be forced to declare bankruptcy first.

August 31, 2017 4:19 pm

It’s the LA Times. I’d expect nothing else.

August 31, 2017 4:24 pm

Pretty telling that they do not cite any science but chose another journo hack’s unfounded garbage.

Reply to  Greg
August 31, 2017 4:26 pm

the “once in 500y flood” that is the largest since 1935. OK, got it.
[In a region with only 150 years of rainfall records …]

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Greg
September 1, 2017 9:23 am

C’mon. Most journalists barely know how to write these days, don’t ask them to do math, ok?

August 31, 2017 4:27 pm

A couple of years ago climate change hit my street (localities 3 km away had only little rain). One Sunday afternoon, without warning (except heavy clouds) in one hour and a quarter, I received 110 mm in my backyard rain gauge!! As this had never happened before in my street, this was undoubtedly due to increasing CO2. So there : LA Times must be right.

Leonard Lane
August 31, 2017 4:28 pm

If the science is settled in an area of science, then there is no use in continuing to study or conduct additional research in that particular scientific discipline. So lets stop all climate science research and use the saved money to support exciting areas where real discoveries can occur.
If this sounds crazy to you, then remember how crazy global warming, or climate change and climate science are.
Also note the quality of scientists screaming about climate change has rapidly declined and are now mainly Cultural Marxists, Marxists Sociologists, Communication Specialists, Professional members of the Press, politicians, and other non-science qualified jobs on the left fringes of society.

August 31, 2017 4:28 pm

Well they had to do something. Now that never ending drought is out of the picture for California they needed something to take up the CC slack and Harvey was just the first catastrophe that came along to fill their need.

August 31, 2017 4:45 pm

Just went looking for the unreported storm surge data from Harvey and came across this pic.comment image
Single brick walling , not armature at the top of the wall and already seriously compromised structurally, to judge by all the white lines. Looks like it was seriously cracked and has been “glued” back together with silicone paste.
Unreal. I assume they have building regs in Texas, maybe they should apply them.
Cleanex construction: one blow and it’s a crumpled mess.

Reply to  Greg
August 31, 2017 4:46 pm

I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow you house down.

Reply to  Greg
August 31, 2017 5:10 pm

Greg, it is not a “glue” issue, it is the lack of “brick ties”, not a single one present. Brick facade needs support, it is not structure (unlike cinder block). The glue was there to fix the cracks from the bricks moving, glue was the result not the cause. Building code issue yes, glue, no. My two cents….

Reply to  Greg
August 31, 2017 5:21 pm

Greg, it was not the ‘glue’, but the lack of “brick ties”. Brick facade needs to be secured to the structure, it have very little horizontal support, unlike cinder block. There are none present. The glue was just the symptom to fix the cracking from movement. Building code issue yes, glue no.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RP-mvQxIYUk/UiWrJ46nC2I/AAAAAAAAEkU/nQfBMXlrRn8/s640/Brick-Ties7.jpgcomment image

Reply to  Duncan
August 31, 2017 5:22 pm

Sorry double post (world press must be slow)

Reply to  Duncan
August 31, 2017 8:17 pm

So what are those silver things. On each stud. About 16″ apart.

Reply to  Duncan
August 31, 2017 8:27 pm

You mean the round blue things?
Those are the screws that held the sheathing on.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Greg
August 31, 2017 6:01 pm

Brick or stone veneer is not structural. The faults with that building are inadequate solid sheathing, inadequately fastened. Wall ties to the brick would have helped, but not much.

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 31, 2017 6:41 pm

Good point Tom, the wall sheathing looks like foil wrapped foam board, hence the ‘blue’ anchors to hold it on (not needed for plywood or chip board). Good R value, zero strength. Once the brick let go, the foam just blew out.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Duncan
August 31, 2017 6:48 pm

Yes, I did construction in California, and anything that meets earthquake standards should meet most of hurricane standards, mostly lateral and racking strength in frame walls.

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 1, 2017 10:53 am

If that’s meant to be a permanent dwelling wall ,(first pic),it looks very flimsy to me ,(but i’m not a builder or structural engineer)Here in the uk ,external walls are of two skins of (usually brick externally ,&brick or concrete blockinternally ,linked by wall ties .insulation &plaster work is then put over the interior..Of course ,we do not suffer many hurricanes fortunately (the last was 1987 i believe)but i think this would be a stronger method .I Inotice also ,that many houses in usa use a lot of timber in the build,which suggests to me that they are .a weaker overall building ,&therefore more easily damaged in hurricane conditions

Tom Halla
Reply to  kendo2016
September 1, 2017 12:23 pm

Kendo, I am not an engineer, but proper “stick” construction is rather stronger with lateral loads, like wind or earthquakes, than masonry, unless one has a great deal of steel rebar in the masonry. The building in the picture was built to an inadequate standard, and should have had structural sheathing acting as shearwall on the studs. There should have also been enough fasteners so the stress was borne by the whole unit.

Reply to  Greg
September 1, 2017 7:29 am

You don’t indicate where the building was located. If it was hit by storm surge, it’s hardly surprising that it was pounded to pieces.

Reply to  Greg
September 1, 2017 5:50 pm

Or the house may be 80 or more years old, like mine is (not in TX), grandfathered in to very old building codes. In which case, perhaps it should be leveled and rebuilt. Just sorry for any losses the owners suffered with whatever furniture and possessions that were inside.

August 31, 2017 4:48 pm


How climate change is linked to sudden spike in American road fatalities

Because it’s warmer, people are going out more and getting killed as a result!
Is there nothing CO2 can’t do?

Reply to  Jer0me
August 31, 2017 6:57 pm


Roger Knights
Reply to  Jer0me
September 1, 2017 6:42 am

I’ve read that experts are speculating that the main cause of the rise in traffic fatalities is more distracted drivers, mainly because of their use of smartphones.

Reply to  Roger Knights
September 1, 2017 7:18 am

Roger….don’t be naïve. These deaths are the result of CO2. The CO2 caused warming which leads to more productivity which lead to the smartphones.

August 31, 2017 4:55 pm

The historical context/contrast is the Great Flood of 1927. Far worse, covered far more area, displaced far more people, many permanently.
The is even a movie about it (I got it at my local library on DVD). The fabulous song Louisiana 1927 by Randy Newman. Sung most recently by Aaron Neville.
Texas has been allowing building neighborhoods on known flood plains for the last 100 years or so, and is still somehow surprised when they flood.
No one is happy about a disaster of this magnitude, but Andy Revkin and Peilke Jr. have been trying to explain this “building in harm’s way” for years to deaf ears.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 31, 2017 5:32 pm

Probably because so few hear it from a good old fashioned sermon.

NW sage
August 31, 2017 6:09 pm

I don’t understand the fuss about the Times article! They are right – Climate Change made the storm worse. Here is how:
Goals were set to reduce CO2 [to prevent more global warming – or climate change, whatever rocks your boat]
Wind farms (especially in Texas) were made operational to comply with these CO2 restrictions – and Government subsidies
When Hurricane Harvey crossed into Texas part of the wind energy was sucked up by those windmills.
Since any hurricane is moved by the wind it follows that, since Harvey stalled and had to back up and recross the Texas coast (twice), the energy that would have otherwise kept Harvey moving in an orderly way had been stolen by those wind farms. It took a second try for Harvey to get to Louisiana.
Meanwhile the rain didn’t stop!!
See – that’s how Climate Change made Harvey worse.
Al Gore is to blame (but we all knew that anyway)

August 31, 2017 6:13 pm

The polarization of USA politics has reached a new low:
Meet The ‘Vogue’ Writer Who Ripped Melania Trump’s Shoes During Hurricane Harvey Relief Effort
Here is her photo – Yikes!
All in all, I’m with the beautiful Mrs. Trump on this issue.

Ron Long
September 1, 2017 2:42 am

I’m sorry I clicked on that link!

Reply to  Ron Long
September 1, 2017 12:30 pm

Wow! I need another glass of red wine. Surprise!
But is it not possible that that picture is photoshopped [or whatever the modern term is!]?
It certainly shows the pixellation!

August 31, 2017 6:46 pm

Where’s Bob Tisdale these days? Someone should look at northern gulf SSTs since 1950. Trend is pretty flat.

Reply to  climateadj
September 1, 2017 7:31 am

As water temperature increases evaporation increases geometrically.

Reply to  MarkW
September 1, 2017 1:47 pm

Yes, 7 % per 1C. On the high side, the trend shows 0.2C of warming in Northern GoM since 1950. So an increase of 1.5% in water vapour. That’s without considering that Hurricane Harvey cooled the waters that Tropical Storm Harvey flooded Houston with.
P.S. Other trends show no warming since 1950.

Patrick B
Reply to  climateadj
September 1, 2017 8:30 am

A number of liberal sites are claiming the Gulf waters are unusually warm this year (due of course to Global Warming/Climate Change) and that was why Harvey was so severe. It would be useful to see an article that analyzed this claim (and please let’s not forget margins of error).

Reply to  Patrick B
September 1, 2017 11:16 am

Slidell of the weather channel was making that claim before Harvey had even come ashore the first time.
At that time, the weather channel was predicting Harvey to plunge deep into Texas.
Twenty four hours later they changed to Harvey bouncing back into the Gulf. Oddly, resembling almost exactly, Joe Bastardi’s storm path prediction.

Reply to  Patrick B
September 1, 2017 1:52 pm

The anomaly may have been well above the trend line. I haven’t checked. Regardless, that would be considered weather not climate.

August 31, 2017 7:55 pm

My 6 year old brought home a homework reading sheet based on a news report about Harvey. It was all fine except for one glaring sentence. It said that Houston is a very flat area where flooding is unusual. I lived in Houston for 9 years including during allison, and parts of the city flooded every time there was a hard rain. The water table is very near the surface, and basements are rarely built because of that. The houses are built several feet above the roads so that when it inevitably floods, the houses stay dry.
Harvey was a catastrophic flood, but in my experience Houston is very prone to flooding.

Reply to  KTM
August 31, 2017 10:30 pm

KTM. …a homework reading sheet … It said that Houston is a very flat area where flooding is unusual…
Any chance you could contact the Principal and find out if we are having propaganda set by an activist or did someone just get it wrong.
Expect …not suggest…that he or she inform the teacher who set this homework of the error and have the sheet withdrawn.
Show them this headline from The Houston Chronicle of May 31. 2016.
‘The trouble with living in a swamp: Houston floods explained’
Things get bad when Houston floods. Water swamps homes takes lives and shuts down the city. But it should be so much worse. There shouldn’t even be a city here.
But there is, and most Houstonians casually accept the enormous drainage system—the bayous, creeks and gullies—that keep it precariously dry in a former wetland…
Ask the Principal if it is a policy for teachers to set homework from the perspective of …Ignorance Is Bliss.
It would be heartening if the homework teacher did their homework.

Reply to  KTM
September 1, 2017 7:32 am

Flat land means that water drains very slowly. As a result, every heavy rainstorm will cause localized flooding.

August 31, 2017 10:31 pm

Thanks for the clarification.

September 1, 2017 1:06 am

But the impact of Harvey is surely linked to climate change…
Houston has recently had 2 ‘one in 500 year’ flood events and now a ‘one in a 1000 year’ flood event…
Probability alone suggests some additional/new factor behind that.
The sustained rainfall is exactly as predicted from warming…
That Houston would experience such an event has long been predicted -e.g. this article from June:

Leo Smith
Reply to  Griff
September 1, 2017 2:26 am

I see statistics is something you fail to understand.
If a chance of any given city being hit by a serious flood is once in every thousand years, and there are a thousand cities in the USA, what is the probability of a serious flood somewhere in a year?
(a) 50:50
(b) 1:1000
(c) something else? (specify why)

Reply to  Leo Smith
September 1, 2017 8:32 am

I think you’re being a bit unfair to Griff, giving him an advanced problem like this one. You’re expecting him to run when he can’t even walk (and doesn’t want to, either).
If I assume that the cities’ chances of flooding are independent, the answer I come up with (using log tables) is about 40 per cent. My mathematical skills atrophied long ago, so in IPCC-speak I have “high confidence” in this result. My calculator tells me about 36 per cent, but that’s for 1024 years not 1000.
But the assumption of independence can’t be correct. What do you think is the chance in any one year of serious floods in Minneapolis but not in St. Paul, or vice versa?

Reply to  Griff
September 1, 2017 6:35 am

With only at best one to a few hundred years of weather and flood data its hard to know how to come up with a 1/500 or 1/1000 year statistic.
We had the same problem in the UK with cold winters, if you recall. After predicting that cold winters and snowfall were a thing of the past, when we had heavy snow around 2011 the Met Office said the probability was 1/20. We then had three years in a row. The Met Office said the chance was still 1/20 each year, and that snowfall and cold winters year-to-year are independent events. That means the chance of 3 cold winters and snow in successive winters was therefore 1/(20*20*20). Or a 1 in 8,000 year event.
Which is of course bollocks. Bit like your use of statistics.

Reply to  Griff
September 1, 2017 7:34 am

The Gulf isn’t warmer.
The air isn’t warmer.
The recent flooding was caused by a hurricane stalling out. As has been proven over and over again, the stalling wasn’t caused by global warming, but rather the storm getting trapped between two high pressure regions.
Is there any lie so stupid that you won’t repeat Griffie poo?

Reply to  MarkW
September 1, 2017 8:30 am

Griff is typical of the other warmists.
If there is a history of bad flooding in areas, then he declares that having another bad flood is a sign of climate change; the floods should not be so frequent.
If there are no floods in an area that has a record of flooding, then the dearth of storms must be climate change, and our children will not know what a flood is.
If there is no history of floods in an area that is now flooded, then climate change must be responsible for the “unprecedented event.”
Climate change is the only explanation for normal, random weather events.

September 1, 2017 1:06 am
Reply to  Griff
September 1, 2017 7:35 am

It’s pretty much impossible for a storm to get trapped the way Harvey was anywhere on the eastern seaboard.
So one again you are willingly taken in by a lie.

Reply to  Griff
September 1, 2017 8:58 am

Ah yeah the old storms hanging around for days and days and along with accelerating sea level rise that will reach several foot by 2045. So these events will be like the Arctic being ice free by 2012 etc then?
There is a common theme going and why Climate Science has lost credibility.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Griff
September 2, 2017 8:42 am

Griff, of course more low lying damage will occur. We are in a natural interstadial period. On geologic proxi time scales, the folks looking at a proxi 10 to 20,000 years from now will hardly notice the uptick. But there are ways to develop finer scales. Equatorial proxies for ENSO events are promising and demonstrate that these ups and downs are very likely all natural in terms of climate. But human encroachment into warm-water related hurricane driven flood events causes these natural flood events to become catastrophic. Prove that your CO2 position not only competes with natural variability, it supersedes it. From all the well-done research based on proxies, not models, this latest catastrophe has likely happened many times way before the incredibly small anthropogenic fraction of total CO2 became a “thing”.

Reply to  Griff
September 2, 2017 4:08 pm

Ah, more drivel from your favourite alarmist propaganda rag, Skanky?
Why don’t you quote from something really authoritative such as ‘The Beano’?
Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for maliciously slandering her yet?

James Loux
September 1, 2017 4:15 am

Rainfall and flooding from a storm has little to do with “Climate Change” or even the strength or category of the storm. A lowly tropical storm could cross the panhandle of Florida and head up the Eastern Seaboard, flooding the Appalachian Mountain areas from Georgia to West Virginia as it goes north, finally turning inland, stalling and flooding central Pennsylvania and the Southern Tier of upstate New York with 15 to 20 inches of rain for 3 days. In fact, that really did happen, 45 years ago, well before there was any thought of “Global Warming,” or the term “Climate Change” had to be coined after the globe stopped warming.
In 1972, the very same folks who try to scare us now about new monster storms from “Climate Change” were building fear of the imminent end of the Holocene interglacial and the onset of glaciation. There was no inkling yet of Global Warming. Born in the Gulf of Mexico in June, Agnes was the first hurricane of the season. Although downgraded to a tropical storm before US landfall, Agnes created historical flooding, especially in Harrisburg, PA. But most of the serious flooding and damage occurred in rural areas, which limited both the dollar damage and national knowledge of how badly the folks who were impacted by the flooding had actually suffered.
Tragically, Houston, a large city, and the surrounding areas have lost at least 38 lives due to Harvey. Corning, NY, a city of only 16,000 at the time, lost 21 people to the flood waters from Agnes, which were as much as 30 to 40 feet deep. I was there and I knew and worked with some of those who were lost. I also dealt with the recovery that was needed in the aftermath of the flood for friends and co-workers. Even after 45 years, my emotions are still strong when I see anyone who has suffered from being flooded out of their home, especially massive flooding of so many homes. And I find it infuriating when I hear a CNN host call Harvey a 500 year storm, implying that such a storm has never happened before, or the LA Times claim that somehow “Climate Change” made this storm and flood happen like never before. Sadly, the same weather pattern, and the resulting massive floods, has in fact happened many times before. Today’s tragedy, too, should not be callously diminished by using it to fallaciously claim that such a flood has never ever happened, so therefore Harvey and this flood are proof of “Climate Change.”
Track of Agnes June 1972
Rainfall from Agnes June 1972

Reply to  James Loux
September 1, 2017 5:05 am

Experts are not saying it hasn’t happened before. They are simply stating that the power of such a hurricane is exacerbated by climate change given that the Gulf of Mexico is 1.5 erg warmer than average, and a warmer sea level temperature leads to more moisture in the air.

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 1, 2017 7:36 am

Except the Gulf hasn’t gotten warmer.

Reply to  MarkW
September 1, 2017 7:37 am

Yes it has my friend…

Reply to  MarkW
September 2, 2017 12:04 am

And here is emphatic proof MarkW that you haven’t done your research – just making a denial statement:

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 1, 2017 8:44 am

Ivankinsman: storms create cooling in the Gulf and oceans, and the cooler water becomes part of the overall average. Warmer, above average, temps before a storm; cooler, below average, temps after. If you look at the water temps in this part of the Gulf of Mexico, today, they are cooler than average. https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/wgof.html
Nothing has changed. It all averages out.

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 1, 2017 11:11 am

“iyankinsmanlegs September 1, 2017 at 5:05 am
Experts are not saying it hasn’t happened before. They are simply stating that the power of such a hurricane is exacerbated by climate change given that the Gulf of Mexico is 1.5 erg warmer than average, and a warmer sea level temperature leads to more moisture in the air.”

Now show proof.
Alarmists made specious claims to keep their money flowing.
Gulf of Mexico water temperatures are within 1.5° of “average”? That is within normal variations and is perfectly normal.

James Loux
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 1, 2017 11:16 am

ivankinsman: You completely avoided the documented point of my post. Agnes was not even a hurricane when it hit Florida and then flooded Virginia, Pennsylvania and upstate NY, 1,000 miles from the the warm waters of the Gulf. It isn’t the strength of the hurricane that matters for rainfall caused flooding. It is the weather pattern and the resultant track of the storm that causes inland rainfall and flooding. Harvey dithered along, half on and half off the coast just like Agnes did 45 years before. Agnes actually flooded more area, but mostly rural areas, so fewer folks knew or cared.

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 1, 2017 12:57 pm

Perhaps reading something from a real climate scientist on the question will help.
Besides that the fact is that Harvey was way down on the list of for intensity of CAT IV and CAT V hurricanes. Like 14th.
What made Harvey bad was not intensity but the fact it loitered over an area for a long time. And that was a result of well understood meteorological science as explained by Joe Bastardi who predicted it would loiter and loop well before the it came ashore:
There is not a bit of scientific evidence that either the intensity or incidence of tropical cyclones has increased due to increasing CO2 levels.

Reply to  RAH
September 1, 2017 10:35 pm

This, to me, is a balanced article than the Spencer article in which he just seems to talk about his PhD (as if trying to convince he is right) and promoting his book.:
Warmer Seas Creating Stronger Hurricanes, Study Confirms

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 2, 2017 8:31 am

“ivankinsman September 1, 2017 at 10:35 pm
This, to me, is a balanced article than the Spencer article in which he just seems to talk about his PhD (as if trying to convince he is right) and promoting his book.:
Warmer Seas Creating Stronger Hurricanes, Study Confirms
Of course ignore the research Dr. Spencer put into this article and having a degree in meteorology and having made his dissertation on hurricanes is eminently more qualified to talk about hurricanes than the average climate scientist including Mann. And you of course mischaracterized the article completely failing to address the data in it. And even more revealing than that, ignore the fact that Harvey was ranked 14th in the record in CAT V and CAT IV storms striking the US. And ignore the fact that most of the devastation from Harvey resulted in it loitering and looping over the Houston are which is a low lying natural drainage basin that has flooded several times before. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi predicted that Harvey would loiter and loop well before the storm made landfall because of meteorological conditions and then took Mann to task for claiming the weather patterns that caused this to happen was due to climate change.
It doesn’t take any deep knowledge of statistics to see what the article you linked to is.
What caused the spike in the 2nd decade of the last century?
Add to that the fact that in the pre-radar and satellite era the count of storms would be expected to be lower simply because of the very limited ability to detect and measure them if they did not make land fall or cross major shipping routes. This inflation of count is will understood.

Reply to  RAH
September 2, 2017 8:53 am

Harvey set a new record for rsinfall in the co ti ental US. That is why the flooding was so extensive. When ocean warms up there is more water in the atmosphere. Why warmer ocean water? Climate change my friend pure and simple

Pamela Gray
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 2, 2017 8:51 am

Hmmm, North Atlantic data appears to follow the Arctic Oscillation.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 2, 2017 2:28 pm

Climate change during interstadial peaks: It happens but on a small scale. Eventually we will catastrophically cool on a large scale to a stadial period with many more tragic sequelae than we see during the abundance of the interstadial peaks. However for those who will not or cannot zoom out, the continued debate will be driven by short term emotional beliefs and thought, not by reasoned non-emotional evidence based long term perspectives.

September 1, 2017 4:39 am

$70 TO $90 BILLION WORTH OF DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF HARVEY EXACERBATED BY HUMAN INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE (expert on BBC World News). 300,000 people seeking disaster relief assistance. US disavowing climate change will have a huge fiancial cost down the line on US economy.

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 1, 2017 6:12 am

It’s a minor blip wrt national GDP, but it is very destructive economically regionally. Funniest, fave Leftie economist Joseph Stiglitz is quoted as talking about all the benefits of rebuilding efforts, lol. Actually preaching what’s known as the “broken windows fallacy” in free market economics circles. They want to have it both ways – it’s devastating and it’s great, just depends on what political cause they are agitating for that day.

Reply to  scribblerg
September 1, 2017 6:30 am

That is the general consensus – will boost growth but it ignore the human misery factor for thousands of Americans, and Indians, Pakistanis Bangladeshis etc

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 1, 2017 7:37 am

I’m still waiting for evidence that Harvey was exacerbated by global warming.
So far all I’ve seen is trolls claiming that it must have been.

Reply to  MarkW
September 1, 2017 7:42 am
Reply to  MarkW
September 1, 2017 8:49 am

Ivankinsman: The higher average temps are the direct result of no major storms in the Gulf during the time period under study. The average temps will return when the storms do.

Reply to  MarkW
September 1, 2017 9:14 am

The never think about that problem of how CAGW suddenly created a localized warming. It’s warming so it has to be connected yet any analysis like Pielke etc do and publish shows that it isn’t so. If a volcano sprung up in the middle of USA I am sure CAGW would get the blame because heat is involved.

James Loux
Reply to  MarkW
September 1, 2017 12:51 pm

As I saw the various postings from ivankinsman constantly repeating his mantra “1.5 degrees warmer, stronger storms, 1.5 degrees warmer, stronger storms” in order to keep his mind from receiving evidence to the contrary, I wondered about his source of the 1.5 degrees warmer part. His link to the BBC article quotes “Sir Brian Hoskins from the Grantham Institute for Climate Change” stating that “it’s almost inevitable” that Global Warming has “contributed to” the 1.5 degree warming of the Gulf of Mexico (my emphasis). Now that is a well known term of science, “almost inevitable.” I hear it all of the time in science, “It’s almost inevitable that what goes up must come down, but maybe not.” Actually, the term qualifies as an oxymoron, since “inevitable” is a term referring to an absolute condition and “almost” is a qualifier that means not in that condition. So it is impossible to be “almost inevitable.” A condition is either inevitable or it is not inevitable.
Sir Brian Hoskins’ use of this oxymoron says more about him as a purported scientist than about the scientific relationship between “Global Warming,” a warmer Gulf of Mexico, and Harvey’s resultant flooding. But we see people working in various Institutes for Climate Change using these oxymoronic terms all of the time, making subtle equivocation part of their dire predictions and prognostications. How else can one survive through the years and decades while touting failed end of the world scenarios? Just keep repeating over and over, “1.5 degrees warmer, stronger storms, 1.5 degrees warmer, stronger storms.” Eventually, you might even believe it yourself.

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 1, 2017 11:06 am

Weather disasters are normal.
Increased value of property.
Increased density of possessions.
Increased building in flood zones.
Increased building on swamp lands.
Surprise surprise! Weather disasters get more expensive every year.
Now sill ivan man:
Explain why Texas has so few hurricanes over the last few decades.
One hundred years ago it was very deadly to live along the Gulf or Eastern coasts.
When the frequent storms became less frequent, the fools built more structures along waterways and in flood zones.
All along the East coast are cities that ignore several hundred years of hurricanes and Nor’easters wreaking damage and causing deaths.
The flood and hurricane records validate the normalcy of “Harvey”.
Unlike the specious warmista claims based on fallacy and false correlation opinions.
Also explain why you insist the warmer “was warmer than average”?
“warmer than average” means nothing.
The question is, was the water significantly warmer or within normal variances?
Of course, confirmed trollops like yourself refuse common sense and logic.
Must be another paid trollop.
Last on your CAGW Houston disaster sophistry; explain how CO2 warms the Gulf of Mexico?

Reply to  ATheoK
September 1, 2017 1:47 pm

Thanks – exactly: –
“All along the East coast are cities that ignore several hundred years of hurricanes and Nor’easters wreaking damage and causing deaths.”
Now, there will be rebuilding. Excellent!
Will this be at the same levels, in the same areas?
Or will much or all be moved to higher ground [much higher – not just 10-20 feet, 3-6 metres]?
Or will all new construction be built on 20 feet/6 metres piles?
Or will Houston flood again the next time a similar – very unusual, but, now, plainly, not unprecedented – rain falls?
Does the system work only for those at the top, or will POTUS Trump seek to ensure that the little people get some fair treatment this time?
[Our PM, May, is apparently keen on helping the JAMs – the Just About Managings – but seems perplexed at how to do this.
Some Answers –
Get more houses built. Reasonable houses – many with room to extend – not the Toytown Townhouses on pocket handkerchief plots we have now in so many parts of London. Blair caused the immigration that will need the sacrifice of parts of the Green Belt [around London, at least] – his administration’s fault. We still want and need folk from Europe and around the world, but we need the infra-structure [schools, houses, sewerage, medical facilities, roads etc. etc.] for those folk as well – something the dismal Labour administrations completely omitted. And there has been precious little catching up.
Stamp Duty is a horrible weight round folks’ necks – certainly below about £5,000,000 purchase price. Cut it hugely for ordinary folk.
Cut Government waste. the NHS – iconic though it is – is notorious for waste. Seek better value for money. HS2 – a rail line to get folk out of Leeds quicker – will cost 50 billion [present estimate; like all builders’ estimates, double that for the finished job. cut it. Re-instate the smaller [so less photo-op-worthy] schemes to improve railways in the North of England. Also – the Trans-Pennine ‘HS-3’ needs advancing.
Indeed – does the Government need to do all that it currently does do?
Simplify the tax system – corporate and personal taxes. And reduce taxes on the JAMs: the threshold for 40% tax – at about £40,000 income per year – needs to be increased by several thousand a year – so at the next election it is over £50,000 – and commit to increasing that to perhaps £75,000 over the next decade.
Ditch all renewable energy subsidy within two years. If it can’t compete with other, dispatchable, power, it can’t compete – and all the subsidies are then openly seen as passing money from poor voters to rich land-owners [or flashy solar-panel sales-folk], and the often-foreign manufacturers.
After Brexit, seek over a three-year period, to get groups of experienced business folk, civil servants, entrepreneurs, and others (ideally mainly recently retired, and who will work pretty-much for expenses [and perhaps an MBE] for the good of the nation), to take small segments of the European Acquis Communautaire, and see which elements can reasonably be retained. Much is bureaucratic fiddle-faddle, justifying jobs in Euro-Institutions without adding anything to health and safety, productivity, general happiness – or even the new God(dess), inclusivity.
Bolster the Armed Forces – numbers, morale, equipment. This will mean spending serious money – for the Defence of the Realm. The money which we have sluiced across Europe will, from 2019, go a long way to help this, but seek best value for money – best bang for our buck. And joined-up policy and strategy. (is that phrase ‘joined-up Government’ Tony Blair’s only good contribution to public life in a decade of Premiership? Gordon Brown [not a favourite of mine – DID keep us out of the imploding Euro. Hurrah for GB!]
Try – over a decade – to end the Cover-up Culture in public service.
This currently ensures that lessons are n o t learnt, so opportunities for improvement are not taken – costs are unnecessarily incurred [notably compensation and legal costs].
This will also mean improving individual responsibility.
Some senior staff – Air Vice Marshals, Consultant Surgeons, Borough Planning Directors, County Surveyors, perhaps High Court Judges – that sort of level – will probably need to be publicly sacked for cover-ups [not necessarily the original mistakes – so like Watergate].
Culture Change will take a decade or more.
For sure.
Changing culture in a small organisation will take years.
In Government – a decade is probably very optimistic. But it needs to be done.
You can almost certainly add to this, but this is a formidable to-do list, which may need getting some opposition MPs on-side – for the good of the country [and the planet].
[How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time!]
You could almost certainly add another dozen ideas. Please add them here.
There – a brief To Do List for the bits of Government not hypnotised by Brexit – those looking at the real country, which still needs governing and improving.
And this needs to be explained, clearly to the tax-payers [= voters] who have to pay for this.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 2, 2017 8:55 am

Ivankinsman, folks here will often ignore talking heads on news programs. Taking the time to study data, read research, and perform due diligence in that endeavor in terms of educated critique is a necessary part of this armchair debate lest you be proven a fool.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 2, 2017 9:02 am

Sorry who are you and what are you talking about? Why are you calling me a fool – because I am putting up rational arguments and evidence? In your case I suggest you put up or shut up, or at least try to add something useful to the debate on human induced climate change. This forum is for discussion, not a mutual self gratulation platform. I am open to climate scepticism if I am shown solid scientific evidence thst this planet is not warming as a result of fossil fuel combustion. So , Pamela Gray, what can you put forward?

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 2, 2017 11:01 am

I try to use precise language unless I am being sarcastic or am using poetic license. Quote where I said you are a fool.

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 2, 2017 11:30 am

Damage and casualties are a function of where a hurricane of any given strength and size comes ashore and how quickly it advances afterwards. Development amount and type, population, configuration of the shoreline, topography of the near shore sea bottom, tide state at time of land fall, etc, etc, etc, all effect the damage done. Damage has nothing to do with the scientific measurements of storm intensity.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence that Harvey was more powerful or damaging because of a 400 PPM CO2 level. Just as there is no evidence that the less than 300 PPM CO2 level at the time had anything to do with the intensity or destruction 117 years ago when CAT IV hurricane hit this week in 1900 wiping out Galveston, TX. That was deadliest natural disaster in US history killing 6 to 8,000 in Galveston and eventually over 10,000 people total.

Reply to  RAH
September 2, 2017 11:31 am

The Galveston tornado came ashore Sept. 8th, 1900.

Reply to  RAH
September 2, 2017 11:33 am

Darn it: Galveston hurricane. I was thinking at the time I wrote that several tornadoes it spawned added to the death toll.

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 2, 2017 11:51 am

We always know the argument about science is over when a poster reverts to damage and death.
11 years and over 10 months with no major hurricane striking US shores and they crawl out of the woodwork. The character traits of a carpet batter, an ambulance chasing lawyer, or gun control advocate after a shooting are so plain to see.

Reply to  RAH
September 2, 2017 1:04 pm

And these intense events will continue to happen my friend – let’s look at it from those who have been affected, which obviously you haven’t been. Oh – someone with water halfway up their house who cannot afford insurance. Well tough luck buddy – that’s just the luck of the draw.

Reply to  RAH
September 2, 2017 1:21 pm

Nope not effected but able to read data and charts and able to recognize bull hockey and those that shovel it. And easily recognize the dupes that buy into what the quacks that crawled from the woodwork when an extreme weather event occurs are selling.
If a tornado came and took my home I wouldn’t be crying that climate change did it! And I well understand that no amount of taxing the people to pay for reducing CO2 levels is going stop hurricanes and tornadoes from occurring or decrease their intensity. Tornadoes and hurricanes just as intense were occurring long before we came here and will be occurring long after we’re gone no matter what we do. And I’m not so foolish as to believe that we can control an natural event that releases the equivalent energy of 1 million Hiroshima bombs a day.

Gunga Din
Reply to  RAH
September 2, 2017 1:39 pm

Ivan, you seem to be incredibly confused about the differences between “science”, “political” and “climate science”.
“Climate science” is political. It’s agenda is to promote a political agenda, not to understand the reality we all live in.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” Christiana Figueres, who heads up the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, told reporters.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,” Figueres said.

September 1, 2017 4:47 am

But even if climate change made Harvey stronger that doesn’t mean that we should get rid of fossil fuels and join Paris agreement.

Reply to  fredar
September 1, 2017 7:38 am

The cost benefit is pretty straight forward.
A few dollars (if that much) more in damage, vs trillions in benefits.

September 1, 2017 5:42 am

Serious question from on the science from a non-scientist. I of course know these claims are insane. But I have heard one statement made several times from various AGW hysterics about dramatic increases in the frequency and intensity of “heavy downpours”. There has supposedly been a sharp increase in single day heavy precipitation events in certain areas of the U.S. Here’s one report on it. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/heavy-downpours-increasing
Is this BS? The worst part for me is that I simply cannot evaluate these competing claims. I really don’t want to destroy the planet, but don’t trust these maniacs as they have lied for so long and about so much that I can’t trust anything they say. I read the ongoing debunking here but most of the time I get lost…Sigh.
I think the left loves this. Focusing on highly esoteric and technical “evidence” that the public isn’t equipped to evaluate. Fyi, I’m not stupid, I would normally not mention this but I possess a very high IQ. I also find that this subject is like an onion, or falling down Alice’s rabbit hole. There always seem to be yet another model, another dataset, another risk, another study.
Sigh…Very appreciative of all you folks here.

Reply to  scribblerg
September 1, 2017 8:26 am

You can google historical regional extreme weather events like precipitation. NOAA has graphics; I used some in essay Credibility Conundrums concerning the false assertions in the US National Climate Assessment 2014. There is no evidence of any increases.

Reply to  ristvan
September 1, 2017 8:51 am

Okay, Ris, this all connects for you. But I can’t really compare the data and sources, as the NCA 2014 has data cites as well. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll believe you over them but I cannot reason this through myself. It’s intensely frustrating. I know a bit of math and am not ignorant scientifically but what keeps happening is that I get out of my depth pretty quickly. This exchange is one of many I’ve had since say 2004 when I started paying more and more attention to all this. I just keep getting ping-ponged around. I’m clear that the AGW hysterics lie a lot but sometimes they don’t. And that the skeptics may be not intentionally lying, but there are more than a couple who may not be correct either. Setting aside the insane politics and hysteria, I’m still a bit confused. Just being honest here.
Would love to read that essay, I couldn’t find it. Where can I read it? And thanks for responding.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  scribblerg
September 2, 2017 10:53 am

Measuring downpour frequency must first undergo a refinement of “downpour”. One person’s downpour is another person’s light rain. Each micro climate region has its own definition that has not at all been stable over generations. Finally, to determine if the present condition has happened before, long term data is required else we see little past the nose on our face and ascribe all kinds of unnatural causes to what may be just Mother Nature.
Now that you know that nailing this metric down on a global scale would be like nailing warm jello to a tree, the best evidence we have of downpour intensity is in the geologic history saved in soils and evidence of landslides, river surges, and river beds that are old, new, and abandoned. This data base is not global yet so extrapolations to global climate change is tenuous at best.
Here is a direct link to one study in one small area of the globe.
Studies like this by researchers should hold more sway than the opinion of researchers. Holding opinions at bay in the scientific community is why research was invented in the first place. Opinions frequently don’t hold much water. Mine included. The journals are filled with research that is at odds with previously held opinions, sometimes by the same researcher.
So, I recommend buyer beware and keep your hand on your wallet. What is accepted opinion today will likely be changed tomorrow.

September 1, 2017 7:24 am

Noble cause corruption.
They believe that they are saving the world, therefore lying is justified.

Andrew Cooke
September 1, 2017 9:00 am

So Griff and Ivankinsman, I have a couple of questions for you. This is the sort of questions that you would ask yourself if you would use critical thinking (also known as objective analysis).
Did the 1.5 degree higher temperature cause Hurricane Harvey to stall out? Or was it a weather pattern to the north as Joe Bastardi indicated?
Before the Gulf of Mexico’s water was this warm were there any hurricanes that dumped this much rain? Even more interesting, did any of them dump almost as much yet move much faster?
Would staying in the Paris Treaty have kept this Hurricane from happening? Would it keep it from happening in the future?
Will you bother to answer these questions? My guess is probably not, mostly because I am sure you do not apply critical thinking skills to your belief system.

Reply to  Andrew Cooke
September 1, 2017 9:16 am

I would add how did CAGW lead to the localized 1.5 degree higher temperature rise please explain the mechanism because we can now monitor it as a clear marker signal for climate change.

Reply to  Andrew Cooke
September 2, 2017 9:27 am

Not sure about causing it to stall – I believe the consensus is that it was meteorological conditions at the time. As for the unprecedented 52 inches of rainfall – no doubt about warmer ocean water being the main factor. Will Paris climate agreement stop this happening in the future. No, hurricanes a natural event but it is the intensification factor that can be mitigated against. Southern Asia also experiencing unprecedented flooding in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. This is by no means a ‘one-off’ event. That critical thinking good enough for you or is it all garbage?

Caligula Jones
September 1, 2017 9:38 am

Hard to believe that the paper that refused to release a video of Obama saying he would kill the coal industry would publish this.
I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked.

September 1, 2017 10:04 pm

For those commentators who don’t seem to believe the Gulf of Mexico has to warmer, then these articles must be complete rubbish, with the newspapers simply making up the stories – strange
Gulf of Mexico waters are freakishly warm, which could mean explosive springtime storms
For the first time, the Gulf of Mexico didn’t fall below 73° this winter

Reply to  ivankinsman
September 2, 2017 12:05 am
Pamela Gray
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 2, 2017 11:12 am

Saying that the Gulf was warmer on the day your graph displays SST and that a record was broken proves CO2 is the driver or that pre-data collection events were less than they are now, how? Cite peer reviewed evidence that the anthropogenic portion of CO2 made the Gulf SST hotter and superseded natural Holocene long-term variability, which I believe to be your conjecture. Citing media reports will not suffice.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 2, 2017 1:12 pm

So what else could account for the temperature increase? You prove to me that this wasn’t due to climate change. Also, why is south Asia experiencing record monsoon rainfall and flooding? What us causing the increase in ocean temperatures? Why did a huge crack and breakaway occur in the Antarctic ice shelf recently? Why are fish migrating out of their normal territories? Come up with some theories here…

Tom Halla
Reply to  ivankinsman
September 2, 2017 1:18 pm

A nice use of argument from ignorance==>as there is no other proven explanation, it must be climate change (due to CO2 levels). It was a fallacy when Aristotle described it, and it still is.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 2, 2017 2:31 pm

Again you state your case without citation.

Pamela Gray
September 2, 2017 9:13 am

Scientific argumentative debate should NEVER be undergirded with media reports. Ivan, you demonstrate the dangers related to picking this low hanging fruit to present your case. As an educator schooled in the argumentative form of written discourse, I can reasonably conclude you fail at the elementary level. If you cannot up your game to at least the freshman level your comments can be safely ignored.
At the very least, provide a link to peer reviewed research on both the Atlantic and the Gulf regarding long term SST change. To really rise to the occasion, point to research that indicates this rise is contrary to expectations of the current Holocene epoch we are in.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 2, 2017 9:50 am

My recommendation to improve reasonable argument and sited evidence is to link directly to peer reviewed research articles, plus data site graph such as NOAA’s AO graph but not a research or research support website or media report. If a commentator wishes to just emphatically state an opinion with second hand information there is no stopping you. But be warned that you will be sorely tested by the more seasoned visitors here, if they even choose to engage you. I have suggested that Ivan improve his argument by citing long term data and peer reviewed journal articles. When he does I will engage in a discussion of that improved cited evidence. But presenting what media says or cherry picking one day’s SST measure is just plain foolish.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 2, 2017 9:52 am

I hate autocorrect! Please read “cite or cited” in all cases of the sense in my post.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights