Hurricane Harvey and Climate Change
Extreme weather events attribution science yields murky results
By Ronald Bailey, Reason Magazine
Rainfall from Hurricane Harvey so far has averaged around 30 inches, although the U.S. Weather Service projects that some areas of coastal Texas might receive as much as 50 inches before the slow moving storm exits the region.
Historically, Texas is no stranger to tropical storm inundation. In 1978 and 1979, the two wettest tropical cyclones on record, Amelia and Claudette respectively, dropped 48 and 42 inches of rain on coastal and central Texas.
Nevertheless, Hurricane Harvey has prompted some climatologists to assert that man-made climate change likely exacerbated the wind speed and moisture content of this tropical cyclone. Such claims are made based on the developing science in which researchers try to figure out how much man-made warming may have contributed to intensifying specific extreme weather events.
Last year the National Academies of Science (NAS) issued a report, Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change that observed, “The science of extreme event attribution has advanced rapidly in recent years, giving new insight to the ways that human-caused climate change can influence the magnitude or frequency of some extreme weather events.”
The NAS panel noted extreme event attribution science relies on the historical record to assess the change in probability or magnitude of various weather events and/or compares actual events with computer simulations of hypothetical worlds without climate change. The accuracy of such climate change attributions depends on judgments that the historical weather records are long enough to account for natural variability and confidence in the reliability of computer model projections.
Climate computer models suggest that hurricanes will increase in frequency and intensity should the planet warm over the course of this century. The NAS report, however, assigns “lower confidence” to making attributions about how climate change may be affecting hurricanes.
The 2017 draft of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report notes that “both theory and numerical modeling simulations (in general) indicate an increase in tropical cyclone (TC) intensity in a warmer world.” Nevertheless, MIT hurricane researcher Kerry Emmanuel told AFP, “It is awfully difficult to see climate change in historical data so far because hurricanes are fairly rare.” It is worth noting that the accumulated cyclone energy indexmeasuring the kinetic energy of Atlantic hurricanes has been trending downward during the last ten years.
The 2017 Special Report further finds that trends with respect to floods in the U.S. are a mixed: They have increased in some regions and declined in others. The draft also observes that “attribution studies have not established a robust connection between increased riverine flooding and human-induced climate change.”
Full story here: http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/29/hurricane-harvey-and-climate-change
There were dozens of cyclones and typhoons on my side of the planet last year that didn’t make landfall in U.S. climate propaganda outlets.
What is the rate of tropical storms over time, worldwide. I fully know that there is an artifact due to satellite imaging, so the number should increase in recent decades due to that alone.
unrelated:
When Josie comes home, So good
She’s the pride of the neighborhood
She’s the raw flame, The live wire
She prays like a Roman, With her eyes on fire.
Bye Walter.
Until I read this I didn’t know. He will be missed.
I crawl like a viper
Through these suburban streets
Make love to these women
Languid and bittersweet
R.I.P.
It seems like only yesterday
I gazed through the glass
At ramblers, wild gamblers
That’s all in the past
I know you’re used to sixteen,
Sorry we only have eight.
“I know you’re used to sixteen or more,
sorry we only have eight”.
When I see my little cousin Janine walk in
All I could say was ow-ow-ouch
What the left dosen’t understand is 2 basics.
Trump dosen’t need the greed.
The left think that robbing the the taxpayer for their own finacial gain is not capitalism.
Mann never said that hurricane Harvey was attributed to climate change, he said it was worse that it would have been.
he said it was worse THAN it would have been.
Zero evidence of that.
Well, except a real climate scientist laid out the reasons that Harvey was stronger if had the earth not been hotter.
Why were hurricanes in the past stronger and more frequent than Harvey when the planet was colder?
why not?
Who said Harvey was a record? It was just in bad location. The point is not that it is or is not a record, only that it is worse than it would have been.
….because if you don’t know why it was worse when it was colder, then you don’t know if it will be worse when it is warmer.
Chris Landsea, the NOAA hurricane specialists, says that the modelling predicts that the winds would have been 1 to 2 miles per hour faster due to the warming that has occurred.
I wonder why the amount is never mentioned when CC is blamed for making the winds stronger.
I think it was not as bad as it could have been. See how easy this is. Science in 2017!!
To do that, you would first have to demonstrate that the Gulf was warmer than it otherwise would have been.
Lots of naked assertions. Zero actual science.
They look at the past, run models, come to conclusions that could not be supported in any real way by the evidence.
You can’t take a reference period, run a model, and anything that deviates, is “made worse”…
The very historical record shows that we cannot separate the man made from the natural, so how can you claim any measure of each.
WE
DONT
KNOW
Which is fine, study the problem, Mann’s absolute claims are not supported
Plus Joe Bastardi clearly explained that Mann got so called explanation for Harvey being worse, completely upside down meterologically speaking.
This is the second time man went public with meteorology claims that were based on a complete lack of understanding of that area of science.
And (headline aside) Joe Bastardi tore him a new Ozone Hole.
Point by point he showed he was dead wrong about why it stalled from a meteorological standpoint.
And Mann claimed all the things he got wrong were because of Man-made climate change.
https://junkscience.com/2017/08/bastardi-no-michael-mann-climate-change-did-not-cause-hurricane-harvey/
PS I linked to Junkscience because the comments to the story got “straw-maned” by those claiming the headline was a straw-man. (Who then ignored everything else Joe said.)
OOPS!
Should be:
“… comments to the story here got “straw-maned”…”
“bastardi-no-michael-mann-climate-change-did-not-cause-hurricane-harvey”
The trouble with the title is that Mann never said that hurricane Harvey was attributed to climate change. So why bother reading nonsense?
Because it wasn’t.
In general, if the the title is nonsensical, what follows is as well.
It addresses the issues that Mann claimed was responsible for humans causing the hurricane to be worse than otherwise. Therefore the title although misleading is irrelevant by content of the article.
Well, the first and most important argument of Mann was that the Gulf was warmer that it would be sans GW, and more energy and more moisture was in the storm. And it wasn’t addressed. So seems like bunk. You really need to learn to be more skeptical.
THANKS!
You just proved my point.
Well done!
Looks like you ignored my point. so we are even.
The extra moisture was addressed caused by a ridge much further south than usual and not normally there.
“If it was just caught in a subtropical ridge, it would HAVE NO BAROCLINIC FORCING which enhanced the rain. The cooling from the trough while the storm was stalled and STILL bringing in warm moist air clearly helped amounts. Take a storm inland with a uniform temperature gradient as in an enhanced subtropical ridge, they die.”
Mann said ridge, while it was actually a trough much further south.
ReallySkeptical – your brush is broader than your mind by far.
Reallyskeptical;
From 1973 to 2017 there were 4 category 4 hurricane strikes on the U.S.. (44 years)
In the 42 years prior to that there were 14.
Harvey had the weakest ground based winds of any category 4 in US history.
Other Texas hurricanes have had stronger winds, greater storm surge and more intense hourly rainfall rates.
Mann’s hypothesis is the intensity and frequency of hurricanes will increase due to CO2.
Observations thus far say no.
A scientists who clings to his hypothesis when he has ZERO evidence is not defensible.
Defending Mann is scientifically indefensible. ( his own colleagues said so)
Mann said CO2 made Harvey more deadly, an irresponsible statement falsified by the planet.
Please post the data confirming that the Gulf of Mexico was warmer, say the past 20 year trend/data, and the data for the period say 1880 to 1940, ie., prior to the rise in manmade CO2 emissions, so that a proper comparison can be made;
Please post the data confirming the amount of evaporation from the Gulf of Mexico for the past 20 years, and the data for the period say 1880 to 1940, ie., prior to the rise in manmade CO2 emissions, so that a proper comparison can be made.
The reality is that the claim by M@nn is mere supposition since we do not possess the data to know whether what he is saying is right or wrong. A good illustration of junk science.
Anyone who makes a claim which cannot be backed up with data is not making a scientific claim.
In have not got the data for the Gulf of Mexico, but the North Atlantic Ocean shows no change in SST these past 20 years (there being a significant step change around ~1993 to ~1999%). Viz:
The South Atlantic is even more stable showing no significant warming for around 40 years.
Whilst these plots include but are not specifically limited to the Gulf of Mexico, one must bear in mind that the formation of the hurricane takes place way out at sea, not in the Gulf of Mexico itself.
This data suggests that M@nn’s claim is almost certainly devoid of merit.
Inconsequential.
How much extra energy is 0.001C supposed to add to a hurricane?
Can somebody give me links to some of the the best papers or articles by respected scientists who challenge the “settled science” of the impact CO2 levels on global temperatures? I need some ammunition against a group of young climate scientists who are ganging up on me on Twitter.
These may not be exactly what you asked for but a good place to start.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/how-to-discuss-global-warming-with-a-liberal-the-smoking-gun-files/
http://columbia-phd.org/RealClimatologists/index.html
https://defyccc.com/search/
Can somebody give me links to some of the the best papers or articles by respected scientists who challenge the “settled science”
Which will do you good how? Their argument is that the science is settled, there’s a consensus, what’s a handful of papers referenced in a tweet going to do against that?
I suggest you instead challenge the consensus itself, because there isn’t one. There were two “97%” consensus studies. The first was Zimmerman et al, in which over 10,000 earth scientists were surveyed, and then the responses from all but 57 of them discarded. The survey didn’t even ask any questions about endangerment. The second study was Cook et al, which was enitely debunked by none other than Richard Tol, not just a leading figure in the debate, but one who is a lead author for the United Nations IPCC report on the impacts of global warming on the global economy. There’s plenty of detailed articles on these supposed consensus papers on this site, read them, learn them.
When someone argues from bullsh*t authority, never attack the science. Attack the credibility of the authority. Then ask your detractors why, if there is such a consensus, do the reports of it have to be fabricated?
Thanks much!!
Dave, also web search NIPCC and Poptech.
This is a good site for sources also. Scroll down a little and look on the right side. http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.ykv1yY8o.dpbs
DaveA723: IMO, the best place is to start with the null hypothesis, that is, to get them to state their claims specifically, and the evidence they believe supports it. A logical and scientific refutation has to deal with each Claim point in isolation. You will also need to get them agree to what comprises acceptable evidence from their perspective, and also how the flow of the debate will proceed . During that discussion of those items, I think it will be clear to you where their prejudices and preferences are, information you can use in the construction of your plan
Once you have organized the points which you need to refute (from the studies they use to support their claims), the materials you need should be easier to locate and organize. There is a ton out there For you to use, but without a structure to use as you proceed, IMO it will seem overwhelming.
In a way, I amproposing that you pull apart the hairball 1 strand at a time.
You could start with a simple question, what evidence would ‘disprove ‘ AGW in their eyes. If they cannot answer that , then whatever they are doing it is not science.
Daveandrews
Australian Website. Jo Nova.
Jo has a detailed rebuttal. The very active and established alarmist groups got Professor’s in the various fields to try and take it apart but could not find a T missing a cross or an I missing a dot.
The Sceptics Handbook.
Jo is a former gun student and a qualified molecular biologist and her husband…David Evans… is a qualified Maths whiz and a former employee in one of our early Climate Commissions.
The Free to Download Sceptic Handbook at the home page is located in the menu on the left hand side of the first page.
Dave, CO2 science
http://www.co2science.org/
The key, “The accuracy of such climate change attributions depends on judgments that the historical weather records are long enough to account for natural variability and confidence in the reliability of computer model projections.” Fact is the climate-data record does not have enough duration to reliably predict event frequency. Mann blows smoke with his models. Better to invest in infrastructure, generally inadequate, example Barker-Addicks.. and if the models prove correct, needing reinforcement going forward.
You are too kind
The word science used loosely
The Karlization of temperatures killing the pause, the 2016 El Nino throwing these guys another liferaft and now a landfall hurricane after a 12yr drought and they’re back in business. But maybe not for long:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
You may have to click the graph for latest status. The Dreaded Pause looks to be coming back. It’s over 5yrs long just now even with the Karlization and likely a decade long without it. This cooling is not going to be denied.
Perhaps (and I hope not), however I’m living in the the Boston area and it’s been really comfortable all summer after a cool, wet, protracted Spring. It don’t recall more than 6 or so days this summer that got above 90 (or even cracked the 90s). More over, there have been some shortish stretches of temps well BELOW average…and sometimes by 10-20 degrees. Also, evening temps have been very cool, for three or so weeks. Still, I’ll mention to people I know how beautiful a summer we’ve had, and some will still say that they think it’s been warm (!). What can I say? If you’ve paid attention to it, as I have, it helps you remember what it’s been like. On the other hand, if you don’t and all you hear about is heat, heat, heat. Well, if really does condition people to experience the whole summer/year differently. They will only remember the days they considered warm, or hot. And with enough others in the echo chamber (in person, or in the news) just reinforcing that opinion (based on “memory” of how ‘hot it was’) for them all, the opinion becomes the remembered reality; even it it really wasn’t while it was happening. It’s really kind of nuts. Everyone loves a lie…so long as the lie tells them what they want to hear. Right now, lies about heat and CO2 are in very high demand.
The very recent ENSO cooling is probably not yet of sufficient duration (still less magnitude) to impact upon the August satellite temps.
The ENSO meter is presently slightly negative, but none of the organizations are predicting a La Nina. They all predict ENSO neutral to the end of year/early 2018.
I would have liked to have seen a La Nina at the end of this year/beginning of 2016 since that would probably have brought back the pause and would have made the writing of AR6 more difficult.
…and doesn’t this nitpicking about miniscule changes in temperature drive you nuts!! It does me.
Yes it does Ton.
We can’t measure to tenths of a degree. The entire concept that a few tenths of degree makes any significant difference give the range in daily temps, seasonal variation, and the range of climates in which man inhabits is absurd.
I propose that the first snowstorm that strikes a city this coming winter should be hailed as a sure and certain sign of the absence of global warming. Shout it from the highest hills, “There be no global warming; there be no climate change”. The alarmists have said that children would not know snow, so snow is an absolute sign they were wrong.
All greenhouse gases represent 1% of the total components of our atmosphere. They are powerful in fractionally small quantities because they absorb and re-emit Earth-sourced longwave infrared radiation which grossly keeps our planet 30 degrees warmer (atmospherically) than it would be without these greenhouse gases. CO2, a powerful but very small contributer comprises only 0.0397% of the total atmosphere. I love linking to “the other side” because their statements are often filled with unicorns. Regardless, atmospheric composition is well known: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/atmospheric-composition
Of that amount of CO2 (remember total CO2 is 0.0397% of total atmosphere), human sourced CO2 is a vanishingly small amount of 0.0397% (variously estimated at 3% to as much as 40% of 0.0397%). But I defer to experts: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-much-of-atmospheric-co2-increase-is-natural/
So I ask Griff and Nick, how in the heck would such a fanishingly small amount of human sourced CO2 make a storm system of ANY strength dump more or less rain, or have more or less wind????? And even more important, how would such a vanishingly small amount of anthropogenic CO2 increase SST to a degree, or even part of a degree warmer, thus making for either a stronger hurricane or one that has more water vapor???? Do you know how many watts it takes it heat water????
To be fair, in the moist tropics, water vapor can reach four percent, ie 40,000 ppm, comparable to human breath level.
But there is no way that having four molecules of CO2 per 10,000 dry air molecules now, as opposed to three a century ago, can explain Harvey happening to hit badly subsided and paved Houston, staying over it, going back out to sea and coming back in again, raining the whole time.
Yes, the increase in average surface temperatures (global warming) is real, but it is not being caused by any increase in atmospheric CO2. Correlation does not mean causation.
Water (H2O) vapor is a lot more potent “greenhouse gas” than is CO2 ….. and that is simply because of the extremely greater quantity of water (H20) molecules in the atmosphere as compared to CO2 molecules, …… plus the fact that each atmospheric water (H2O) molecule is capable of absorbing 2.3 times more thermal “heat” energy (1.850 kJ/kgK verses 0.709 kJ/kgK ) …… at a given temperature …….. than each molecule of CO2 can absorb. And given the fact that there can be up to 100 times more H2O vapor (4.0000% or 40,000 ppm) in the atmosphere as there is CO2 (0.0400% or 400 ppm). Thus 100 x 2.3 = 230 times more potent absorber/emitter of IR/thermal “heat” energy than is/are the CO2 molecules.
Specific Heat Capacity of H2O vapor @ 175K – SHC = 1.850 kJ/kgK
Specific Heat Capacity of CO2 @ 175K – SHC = 0.709 kJ/kgK
Reference: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/spht.html
Therefore, if the amount of atmospheric CO2 has an effect on global temperatures ….. then the amount of H2O vapor will have up to 230 times greater effect on global temperatures.
Thus, I don’t see how one can attribute any increase in Average Temperatures to an increase in CO2 content, even if they doubled it to 0.0600% or 600 ppm, …… because there still wouldn’t really be enough to make any difference in the temperatures.
There is the same amount of CO2 in City (urban) air as there is in Country (rural) air ….. and even the dummies know “It is always hotter in the City”.
Therefore, attempting to associate an increase in recorded Average Temperatures with an increase in atmospheric CO2 …….. is bogus, fraudulent and pure “junk science”.
Pamela – all that Michael Mann said was that when they “Karled” the ocean temperature data that the actual temperature of the oceans suddenly rose and increased the water vapor content of the atmosphere by 3%. This extra moisture fell on Houston during Hurricane Harvey. The amount of rain that would have fallen had this “warming” not occurred would be 97% of what actually fell.
Does this “Karling” happen everytime the SST in the Gulf rose by that amount? I think not. Take that “Karl” and work it backwards toward similar sudden SST rises. Use proxies for storm surgers as well as early SST data. Does CO2 have sentient ability? Knowing when it is this century versus last century? If rapid SST rises occured at other times resulting in hurricanes of uber strength, what was it due to then? And since we are in an interstadial period we will have natural ups and down, shown by proxy measures. Your argument does not refute natural drivers.
It is instructive to study paleo-periods of rapid climate change. Helps us understand the emotions of anthropogenic CO2 LOLOL!
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip_Gingerich/publication/222491370_Evidence_for_rapid_climate_change_in_North_America_during_the_latest_Paleocene_thermal_maximum_oxygen_isotope_compositions_of_biogenic_phosphate_from_the_Bighorn_Basin_Wyoming/links/0046352121f7673a70000000/Evidence-for-rapid-climate-change-in-North-America-during-the-latest-Paleocene-thermal-maximum-oxygen-isotope-compositions-of-biogenic-phosphate-from-the-Bighorn-Basin-Wyoming.pdf
Is rain coming more “oftener”? Uh…no.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012%3C2515%3ALTTIEP%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Walt D — really speaking the system and associated rainfall are highly variable from year to year wherein the ocean temperature change [natural variability]. In the case of Bay of Bengal storms the storms intensity is severe in winter phase than in monsoon phase.
Pamela Gray — the Figure 10 in the second referred article — the data was simply fitted to linear. This is not correct scenario of the precipitation pattern but this follows a cyclic pattern [around 60 years cycle] and this can be seen more clearly in Figure 11.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
The “sarc” got omitted from my post – 97% is a magical number for climate scientists!
Thanks for the Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum study you cited below Pamela, the first paper of it’s kind I’ve seen. It should make for interesting reading on the train this morning.
I think it’s possible that Harvey was a few percentage points worse than it would otherwise have been, because the globe is warmer, part of who is attributable to man. Maybe hurricanes will get 10% worse in 20 years or so. But that’s not enough of a problem to attempt (fruitlessly, BTW) to mitigate CO2 emissions globally, because it’s very doubtful that there will be positive feedbacks to CO2’s direct warming effect.
IMO a human contribution to global warming is not detectable, however theoretically possible. But it’s negligible at best, and the net effect of all human activities could well still be cooling.
There are of course local and even regional effects from urbanization, irrigation, pollution (which CO2 manifestly is not), farming, forestry, etc, but do these add up to a net warming? Maybe, but so slight as to be virtually unmeasurable, IMO, on a global scale.
Zero evidence of that.
” because the globe is warmer”
In relation to when?????? How do the storms now compare to that “when”? I think your argument is mostly BS.
Roger knight says “Maybe hurricanes will get 10% worse in 20 years”
Sorry Roger, as they hurricanes have gotten ZERO percent worse in the past 100 years, or 50 years, or 10 years, any increase over the next 20 years has, at best, a 20 percent random chance of being worse then any other 20 year period over the last 100 years. ( which even if it occurred leaves one a long ways from determining cause. Today’s ” climate scientists” have determined cause absent the event or observation.
I’d say the biggest impact people have had would be the addition of so much impermeable surface around Houston.
You chose an incorrect word.
Impermeable surface areas around the Houston area was not a problem.
The restricted size of the “outflow channels” in and/or around the City was/is the problem.
The following is not a photo of an abandoned “4-lane highway”, to wit:
http://seriss.com/people/erco/fovicks/roll1/pic00003.jpg
It is a photo of a portion of the Los Angeles River flood control channel.
Don’t forget ground water extraction!
Droughts are bad. They are caused by CO2. Anything that stops the drought is therefore good and could not be caused by CO2 because CO2 is evil and causes bad things like drought.
It has been 12 years since the last hurricane like this one. That is in fact a hurricane drought and has to have been caused by CO2. Harvey ended the drought so it couldn’t have been caused by CO2. It is difficult to see how it is good but we see the facts and it ended the drought so it must be good.
It is all just logic and settled science.
Sarcasm is difficult for me.
There it is again: “in A warmer world.”
This is psychological distancing. “As the world warms” or even “if the world warms” links the writer to the event or possible event, and therefore also, to its falsification if the word fails to warm. But “A warmer world”, that is, some other world, that is warmer, allows the writer to disconnect themselves from the warming, or not, of THIS world. It is expression of the subconscious suspicion that they are, after all, wrong.
Deniers! Clearly I have to repeat myself. The basic principle is:
All Phenomena Are Caused By And Are Proof Of Global Warming.
So if it snows in summer, or if it doesn’t snow in summer, that is caused by GW.
Wind and calm are caused by GW.
If a raindrop falls where you expected, that is proof of GW.
If it falls two inches to the right of where you expected, that is proof of GW.
More clouds than usual? GW.
Fewer clouds than usual? GW.
The usual number of clouds? It’s worse than we thought!
It’s a great theory. Explains everything, proved by everything.
Not to rustle up trouble, but that’s typical of the reasoning used to demonstrate the existence of a deity.
Bartleby, if you really want to find out what’s going on, then take a look at: http://ipcc.ch/index.htm
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the international body for assessing
the science related to climate change. The IPCC was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide policymakers
with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and
options for adaptation and mitigation.
IPCC assessments provide a scientific basis for governments at all levels to develop climaterelated
policies, and they underlie negotiations at the UN Climate Conference – the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The assessments are policy-relevant but
not policy-prescriptive: they may present projections of future climate change based on different
scenarios and the risks that climate change poses and discuss the implications of response options,
but they do not tell policymakers what actions to take.
The IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to
decision-makers because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature. Participation in the IPCC is
open to all member countries of the WMO and United Nations. It currently has 195 members. The
Panel, made up of representatives of the member states, meets in Plenary Sessions to take major
decisions. The IPCC Bureau, elected by member governments, provides guidance to the Panel on the
scientific and technical aspects of the Panel’s work and advises the Panel on related management
and strategic issues1
.
IPCC assessments are written by hundreds of leading scientists who volunteer their time and
expertise as Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors of the reports. They enlist hundreds of
other experts as Contributing Authors to provide complementary expertise in specific areas.
IPCC reports undergo multiple rounds of drafting and review to ensure they are comprehensive and
objective and produced in an open and transparent way. Thousands of other experts contribute to
the reports by acting as reviewers, ensuring the reports reflect the full range of views in the scientific
community. Teams of Review Editors provide a thorough monitoring mechanism for making sure
that review comments are addressed.
IPCC was set up to assess man caused global warming. It’s in the charter.
They have ignored all other causes.
MarkW What other causes could there be? Solar flare radiation – not a chance.
The question I would always like to ask is: given the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning, particularly over the last 100 years, where does all of it go? Does it simply evaporate into thin air? Or is it absorbed by the global vegetation and the world is getting ‘greener’ – which is a completely absurd explanation. The theory that a part of it has been absorbed by the oceans is a plausible one, thus leading to increased acidification/coral die off/warming temperatures. The theory that is also exists as particles in this planet’s atmosphere also seems plausible…
ivankinsman September 5, 2017 at 7:07 am
“MarkW What other causes could there be?”
A few thousand years ago, where I live was under several hundred metres of ice, and the surrounding countryside was sculptured by the glaciers and their withdrawal.
Within a dozen miles of where I sit now, there are drumlin fields, a moraine dam, U-shaped valleys, hanging valleys and an erratic the size of a house.
So tell me, what caused those glaciers to retreat?
You’ll find a summary to increased glacial melt as a result of HAGW and CO2 absorption into the oceans here. I recommend you read the whole article so that you learn the key points about the big thaw:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/
“The theory that a part of it has been absorbed by the oceans is a plausible one, thus leading to increased acidification/coral die off/warming temperatures.”
Clearly you are unaware that according to Henry’s law increased temperature of the oceans will cause CO2 to be outgassed, not absorbed.
You don’t really have a clue, do you?
But, as you regard ‘The Guardian’ as the Holy Grail of knowledge on the subject of climate science, that is not surprising.
Outclassed? What are you wittering on about? What spurious scientific evidence are you trying to come up with now?
ivankinsman – September 5, 2017 at 7:07 am
Ivankinsman,
About 5 years ago I compiled the following statistics via reliable sources, to wit:
Increases in World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade
year — world popul. – % incr. — Dec CO2 ppm – % incr. — avg increase/year
1940 – 2,300,000,000 est. ___ ____ 300 ppm est.
1950 – 2,556,000,053 – 11.1% ____ 310 ppm – 3.3% —— 1.0 ppm/year
1960 – 3,039,451,023 – 18.9% ____ 316 ppm – 1.9% —— 0.6 ppm/year
1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 21.9% ____ 325 ppm – 2.8% —— 0.9 ppm/year
1980 – 4,453,831,714 – 20.1% ____ 338 ppm – 4.0% —– 1.3 ppm/year
1990 – 5,278,639,789 – 18.5% ____ 354 ppm – 4.7% —– 1.6 ppm/year
2000 – 6,082,966,429 – 15.2% ____ 369 ppm – 4.2% —– 1.5 ppm/year
2010 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 389 ppm – 5.4% —– 2.0 ppm/year
2012 – 7,057,075,000 – 3.62% ____ 394 ppm – 1.3% —– 2.5 ppm/year
Source CO2 ppm: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Based on the above statistics, to wit:
Fact #1 – In 70 years – world population increased 207% – CO2 increased 31.3%
Fact #2 – Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently increasing at a rate of 1 to 2 ppm per year for the past 70 years, …… whereas human generated CO2 releases have been increasing exponentially every year for the past 70 years.
Fact #3 – Global Temperatures have been steadily and consistently increasing a few hundredths or tenths of a degree for the past 70 years, ……. whereas human created infrastructure, housing, vehicles, etc. (Heat Islands) have been increasing exponentially every year for the past 70 years.
My conclusions:
Given the above statistics, it appears to me to be quite obvious that for the past 70 years there is absolutely no direct association or correlation between:
Increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm and world population increases.
Increases in Average Global Temperature and world population increases.
Increases in Average Global Temperature and Heat Islands construction increases.
Increases in Average Global Temperature and atmospheric CO2 ppm increases.
But then of course, …… I am not looking through Rose Colored Glasses.
Now, Ivankinsman, please tell me what you now think about “human causation – AGW”.
Ref. your last increases point, this pretty much explains the link between increasing CO2 ppm and increasing global temperatures – that have risen in parallel:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters
catweazle,
You’re missing a crucial part of that equation. Due to the partial pressure increase of CO2, the oceans are a net absorber. The calculations to demonstrate this are easy and straightforward. They (the oceans) may be outgassing, but they’re also absorbing according to Henry’s Law.
rip
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/cdiac74/chapter2.pdf
This will really get you and others worked up, catweazle, but it is pretty much spot on I’m afraid in a lot of the ‘skeptic’ scientific literature you and your fellow commentators tend to refer to:
https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/
“This will really get you and others worked up, catweazle”
Heh, Katharine Hayhoe…Dana Nuccitelli…97% expert consensus…er, Right…
Oh dear me!
Just makes me laugh, actually.
Surely not even you can be stupid enough to take that pile of old donkey droppings seriously!
Your part of the 3% my friend and I think it can only get smaller over time…
Ivan, your use of the “97%” theme makes you look ignorant. The two similar studies in that genre are both examples of really, really bad research design, one reducing the sample from 11944 to 64 to get the 97%.
More than a bit sloppy on your part to buy that theme.
“Your part of the 3% my friend and I think it can only get smaller over time”
I’m not your friend, bedwetter.
Moderator, snip this guy. He is accusing me of … wetting my bed 🙂
ivankinsman,
the IPCC has been wrong on many things since 1990,funny you don’t realize it.
This makes you very ignorant,since some of the failures have been known for YEARS!
Keeping on dreaming my friend. IPCC 201t Paris climate agreement best thing since sliced bread.
ivanmarksman,
falls for the articles nonsense,since it was a shallow attack on a very few published papers,by warmist loons who have embarrassed themselves with stupid statements over weather,events in recent years.
“This will really get you and others worked up, catweazle, but it is pretty much spot on I’m afraid in a lot of the ‘skeptic’ scientific literature you and your fellow commentators tend to refer to:..”
I went through it,to see it as a poorly presented attack.
It takes only one failure of the AGW based prediction/projection to destroy it,yet there have been many.
How come you are so ignorant about it?
When people start talking about ‘ignorance’ I switch off because they are immediately moving into the realm of generalisations
Ignorance is something you value, as it is the main way to keep your faith.
Hey, Tom. The ignorance that you seem to value is going to leave US industry trailing in the wake of its international rivals who are gearing up for the mass movement away from fossil fuel combustion.
US automobile manufacturers better get their skates on or another crisis in on the horizon when they failed to follow the consumer trend towards more fuel-efficient automobiles:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/07/jaguar-land-rover-electric-hybrid-cars-2020
ivankinsman writes,
“When people start talking about ‘ignorance’ I switch off because they are immediately moving into the realm of generalisations.”
actually you made my case since I gave you something to answer,but didn’t.
“the IPCC has been wrong on many things since 1990,funny you don’t realize it.
This makes you very ignorant,since some of the failures have been known for YEARS!”
Your stupid reply is a classic DODGE!
“Keeping on dreaming my friend. IPCC 201t Paris climate agreement best thing since sliced bread.”
You are pathetic,to be that ignorant of well known IPCC predictive/projective failures. It is clear you don’t know.
Ok let’s start off with some basic information for your education and then I’ll send you some more once you have absorbed this:
http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters
I see that ivankinsman wants to avoid answering my statement about IPCC prediction/projection failures.
He writes in a condescending tone about stuff I have known about for years,he doesn’t seem to realize,that I have been on this stuff for THIRTY FIVE years now.
“Ok let’s start off with some basic information for your education and then I’ll send you some more once you have absorbed this:”
This man is fast becoming the latest warmist loon troll,because he has already TWICE avoided my statement about IPCC failures,will he do it a third time?
I wrote,
“the IPCC has been wrong on many things since 1990,funny you don’t realize it.
This makes you very ignorant,since some of the failures have been known for YEARS!”
Your continued dodging my statement, indicates that you don’t want face it.
Susettommy – no one is infallible – neither you, me, Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, or the IPCC, especially when it comes to subject of climate. However, what is important is that the IPCC contains the largest body of climate experts – basically a brain bank – on what can be expected from unchecked AGW and here it is in black and white:
“The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report from 2013 made a more realistic estimate of what might happen, and what the temperature outcome would be.
In the IPCC’s most pessimistic scenario, where the population booms, technology stagnates, and emissions keep rising, the atmosphere gets to a startling 2,000 ppm by about 2250. (All the IPCC scenarios presume that mankind’s impact on the atmosphere levels out by 2300.) That gives us an atmosphere last seen during the Jurassic when dinosaurs roamed, and causes an apocalyptic temperature rise of perhaps 9 degrees C (16°F).
In the next-most-pessimistic scenario, emissions peak around 2080 and then decline, leading to an atmosphere of about 700 ppm and probable temperature increases of more than 3 degrees C.
In the most optimistic scenario, where emissions peak now (2010-2020) and start to decline, with humans actually sucking more carbon out of the air than they produce by 2070, the atmosphere dips back down below 400 ppm somewhere between 2100 and 2200 and the temperature increase is held under 1 degrees C in the long term.”
It appears that a new warmist troll is now deflecting from my specific statement about numerous predictive/projection failures,with this terrible attempt to rationalize away their failures. He has avoided my statement THREE times now.
He writes desperately,
“Susettommy – no one is infallible – neither you, me, Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, or the IPCC, especially when it comes to subject of climate. However, what is important is that the IPCC contains the largest body of climate experts – basically a brain bank – on what can be expected from unchecked AGW and here it is in black and white:”
This is stupid baloney,since their prediction/projection failures are fully based on the AGW conjecture,which means it has failed the test. It failed a number of times too,which means the AGW conjecture is INVALIDATED!
The 1990 to 2007 IPCC reports made the SAME temperature projections, that have been waaaay toooo high,every time. They have been wrong for 27 years now. They are STILL wrong today!
He writes this babble,since he doesn’t know what the Scientific Method is,doesn’t know that it doesn’t meet the falsification criteria. You are too ignorant to know why this 2013 IPCC report is CRAP!
Ivan the ignorant troll writes,
““The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report from 2013 made a more realistic estimate of what might happen, and what the temperature outcome would be.
In the IPCC’s most pessimistic scenario, where the population booms, technology stagnates, and emissions keep rising, the atmosphere gets to a startling 2,000 ppm by about 2250. (All the IPCC scenarios presume that mankind’s impact on the atmosphere levels out by 2300.) That gives us an atmosphere last seen during the Jurassic when dinosaurs roamed, and causes an apocalyptic temperature rise of perhaps 9 degrees C (16°F).
In the next-most-pessimistic scenario, emissions peak around 2080 and then decline, leading to an atmosphere of about 700 ppm and probable temperature increases of more than 3 degrees C.
In the most optimistic scenario, where emissions peak now (2010-2020) and start to decline, with humans actually sucking more carbon out of the air than they produce by 2070, the atmosphere dips back down below 400 ppm somewhere between 2100 and 2200 and the temperature increase is held under 1 degrees C in the long term.”
Ivan, doesn’t realize their EARLIER emission scenarios/temperature increase predictions/projections have ALL been utter failures, yet thinks their latest wild guesses is suddenly better, despite they haven’t change their delusional future scenarios projections much since 1990. It is stupid to be hanging onto wild guesses,that have been wrong for 27 years.
The previous four reports have been shown to be failures on the PER DECADE warming trends.All four previous reports say it should warm around .3C per decade,based on the Business as usual scenario,but it has ALWAYS been below .20C per decade,while the more accurate Satellite data around .13C per decade.
This alone destroys the AGW hypothesis. It is time to abandon it.
Making far into the future wild guesses,then saying this is credible science stuff, is indicative of science illiteracy, since the NULL hypothesis,The Scientific Method and Falsification are being abandoned for pseudoscience.
He tried to spank me over the Yale article,but he is so ignorant of the topic (Nicola Jones,hopes you are.It is how she can get away with it) that he doesn’t know she LIED about CO2 levels of the past,that she left out a lot things about the Molecule CO2,what it does and doesn’t do. That most of what she says is IRRELEVANT!
Being profoundly ignorant of the topic is why you can’t answer me directly,since you simply don’t know. Seen your article before,plus many other highly misleading dishonest warmist garbage over the years. I am well aware of the pitiful warmist beliefs,most of it disconnected to reality.
Time and time again I have to show sceptics such as yourself the list of 175 countries that profoundly disagree with you (and it seems POTUS and the head of the EPA) on the issue of AGW. For these countries this is not a politicised issue – they have looked at the science, the evidence laid before them and have committed themselves to an action plan to mitigate AGW with or without the USA (although the governors, mayors and businesses who are acting independently deserve a huge slap on the back for their efforts):
http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/04/parisagreementsingatures/
Now Ivan the troll, is running away from addressing my statement about IPCC failures,as he has done FOUR times now. He is clearly a science illiterate,because can’t address one of the main pillars of the IPCC AGW based claim about projected warm forcing scenarios.
He instead chose to employ the consensus fallacy,despite that I was willing to discuss what the IPCC said about temperature projections, the very thing he avoids,what his “consensus” actually believes in.
Ha ha ha………
The science is proven my friend (and there is no way I claim to be a climate scientist or anything close) so I am not going to dispute it with you.
What I am going to do, though, is show the broad INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS on what action needs to be and is already being taken to mitigate the impact of AGW:
Organisation: C40 is a network of the world’s megacities committed to addressing climate change.
Acting both locally and collaboratively, C40 cities are having a meaningful global impact in reducing both greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. C40 brings together a unique set of assets and creates a shared sense of purpose. C40 offers cities an effective forum where they can collaborate, share knowledge and drive meaningful, measurable and sustainable action on climate change.
Link: http://www.c40.org/
Business: Mars
‘We’re trying to go all in’: Chocolate giant Mars pledges $1 billion to fight climate change
Link: http://www.businessinsider.com/mars-climate-change-investment-global-warming-sustainability-plan-greenhouse-gas-2017-9?IR=T
Ivan,once again avoids discussing known IPCC projection failures,he is apparently going to ignore them completely,to maintain his climate cult status.
He writes like a man who has no idea what an ignorant fool he is:
“The science is proven my friend (and there is no way I claim to be a climate scientist or anything close) so I am not going to dispute it with you.
What I am going to do, though, is show the broad INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS on what action needs to be and is already being taken to mitigate the impact of AGW:..”
I am the one who tried talk about FAILED science projections based on the IPCC reports,while this warmist turd wants to avoid it totally,yet thinks the science (what ever that is) is proven.
To sum it up, Ivan is into the following nonsense,:
Consensus fallacy
Science is settled absurdity
Push political solutions on unverified modeling scenarios
Avoid discussing anything
IPCC Reports is his religion
Ivan, cheerfully admits he is has no science literacy, yet thinks the science is proven,while he is profoundly ignorant of the same science he defends.
Pathetic!
Let me put this scenario to you. You have been asked to comment on the digestive system of the Tasmanian devil. You know nothing about it – you are not a biologist – so what do you do? You take a look at all the research out there, particularly that put out by the experts on the topic. You then look at the areas where there is broad consensus and try to reflect this in your description.
You, my friend, are not on the IPCC because you are not a climate scientist expert but an amateur who is ranting and raving because your evidence has not been accepted by the mainstream scientific body.
ivankinsman – September 6, 2017 at 7:26 am
Ivankinsman, …. ONLY, ….. iffen you close one (1) eye …… and look blurredly through your other eye, ……. will the near-surface calculated average yearly global temperatures appear to be “rising in parallel” with the factually accurate measured yearly increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.
Whereas, the literal fact is, increases/decreases in atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities always “track behind”, or follow, …….. primarily the increases/decreases in the ocean surface water temperatures ….. and secondarily to a lesser amount, increases/decreases in near-surface air temperatures.
And the above said “tracking” is explicitly defined/denoted on the following factual accurate graph(ic), to wit:
1979-2013 UAH satellite global lower atmosphere temperatures & CO2 ppm data
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/1979-2013UAHsatelliteglobalaveragetemperatures.png
And Ivankinsman, please note that the yearly average ocean surface water temperatures have not been included on the above graph, …… but iffen they were, ….. I am damn sure that they would closely correspond to the plotted increase in CO2. To wit:
A few of us commented here: just like Sandy, Harvey was not a big deal, as far as hurricanes goes.
Harvey was a Cat2 briefly at landfall.Winds in Rockport may have been clocked at 105mph, at the most.
Soon after landfall, Harvey was not even a hurricane. It was, however a big storm that basically water-wheeled rain onto a major metropolitan area for three days. Harvey was moving at 3MPH for those days. And, not in the same direction.
Some predictions had Harvey going out to gulf, then back across Houston. Instead, Harvey went more easterly. If it had gone over Houston, things would have been far worse, and the climate cult would have been able to raise a bigger fuss, like they did with Sandy – which was not even a hurricane at landfall.
Also, Harvey’s stats were well within normal limits, going back a hundred years. Harvey was not any kind of outlier.
Yes, Harvey hovered. Mann got the science of why very wrong.
What was the impact of globull warning on Harvey rainfall? Let’s crunch some numbers. First of all, according this article in Wired magazine:
.
Converting to metric, 86°F is 30°C and 87°F is 30.55°C. It takes one calorie to heat one gram of water one degree Celsius. Likewise the heat of vaporization of water is 540 calories per gram. Thus, starting at 30.55°C, it would take 69.45 calories to heat one gram of water (ignoring that it is salt water) to 100°C plus 540 calories to evaporate it for a total of 609.45 calories. 609.45 calories per gram equals 609,450,000 calories per cubic meter.
According to this article in the Washington Post, 1 trillion gallons of water fell on Harris County alone in four days from Saturday (Sep. 2) through Tuesday. According to Wikipedia, the area of Harris County is 4,602 sq. km. One trillion gallons is 3,781,998,708 cubic meters. Dividing by 4,602,000,000 sq. meters, the height of the water column that fell on Harris County would be 0.8225579713 meters or about 32.3841720984 inches.
If we take the 609,450,000 calories per cubic meter it takes to evaporate that water and multiply it by the 3,781,998,708 cubic meters that fell on Harris County, we obtain a total of 2.3070192117588E+018 calories which is the energy that Harvey used to evaporate the water that fell on Harris County. Assuming that all the water that Harvey evaporated also was condensed, then we can use this energy to calculate how much water Harvey would have dropped on Harris County if there had been no globull warning (i.e. if the SST had been 86°F instead of 87°F).
Starting at 30°C, it would take 70 calories to heat one gram of water (ignoring that it is salt water) to 100°C plus 540 calories to evaporate it for a total of 610 calories per gram or 610,000,000 calories per cubic meter. Dividing 2.3070192117588E+018 calories by 610,000,000 calories per cubic meter, we obtain a new estimate of the volume of water that Harvey would have evaporated sans globull warning: 3,781,998,708 cubic meters. Again, we divide by the area of Harris County and we obtain a water column of 0.8218163207 meters or about 32.3549732559 inches, which is what would have fallen on Harris County sans globull warning.
Subtracting, the latter water column from the former, we obtain an estimate of the ginormous, earth shattering, economy stopping how-much-worse-globull-warning-made-Harvey of … (drum roll):
0.0291988425 inches or about 29/1000 of an inch!!!!!!
Of course, my estimate might be wrong. If somebody spots an error, please do not hesitate to point it out. It is surprising that it would make so little difference (honestly).
I hope someone confirms your numbers. Even if they are off by about one magnitude and the correct number was one quarter inch of additional rain over 4 days, Mann’s claim of CO2 making Harvey more deadly is falsified.
Not to mention the determination of the causes of this warming is TBD.
As your calculation highlights, the real reason why a very slight increase in SST makes no significant difference is that the limiting factor is the enthalpy of vaporization, ie., the 540 calories required to evaporate 1 gram of water. This is several orders of magnitude greater than the slight variation in energy required brought about by a change of ~ 1/2 or 1 degC in sea surface temperature.
Whilst one can nit pick with the calculation eg, water can evaporate at less than 100 degC (but more energy is then required), and sea water boils at more than 100 degC, and water boils at less than 100 degC when the pressure is reduced (as it is when a hurricane passes over), none of these alter the thrust of the simple point that you make.
It is a pity that M@nn did not stop and think about his statement.
Mann is a serial sensationalist, a trait demonstrated by decades of publications. The truth is, his followers would look on the analysis Phil presents (which is very concise and convincing IMO) with distrust and suspicion. It’s in the nature of AGW proponents to mistrust scientific evidence and reasoning; had they succumbed to the siren’s song of science, they’d have abandoned ship long ago.
1) Assuming the 1F increase is real, and not the result of Karlization.
2) Assuming that 100% of the increase is due to man.
Yes, assuming all that, still not one bit of evidence of human contribution to one death, whichever Mann’s claim.
Surely the issue is not whether “climate change” made Harvey better or worse: it is whether CO2 had anything to do with it. If the climate changes anyway then all the alarmists propaganda begins to sound tautologous. If the climate has changed, then “climate change” is real. It is rather a big jump from “Houston has flooded” to “we need more windmills”. Correlation is not causation
To sum it up, if the gulf was 1F warmer because of human emissions, winds were 1-2 mph faster before landfall and possible a quarter of that soon after, and a quarter of an inch of extra rain fell than if we didn’t improve our lives 100 fold.
These claims of attribution, or the claim that it is more likely that we will see an increase in extreme weather events, or that extreme weather events are now more extreme than they were in the past because of climate change are absurd because there has been no recent climate change.
It does not matter whether there has or has not been a pause or, if there has been, its precise duration, since the pause is simply a statistical construct based upon incomplete data that has large error bounds.
We do not know whether there has been some slight warming these past 20, or so years, or whether there has been no warming at all, or even some cooling. What we can say is that for practical purposes, within the limitation of our data, there has been no significant warming and hence no climate change. Any modern warming (ie., post 1940), if there was any at all, happened in the period ~1973 to ~1998, and not recently in the 21st century
Climate is driven by ocean and atmospheric changes so the best place to examine that is in the SST data, and the satellite data since these are the regions where weather patterns are driven.
We know from the satellite data that bearing in mind the error bounds, no significant change in temperature is seen these past 20 years.
Likewise with SST. the claim is that the energy is hiding in the deep ocean, not that SST has significantly warmed. It does not matter whether the mid or deep ocean has or has not warmed, the fact is that there has been no material warming of the SST. For example see my post above in which I set out the North and South Atlantic SST.
Given that there has been no (significant) recent warming there is no basis on which to hang any claim that extreme weather events are being caused by, and/or are becoming more frequent due to and/or are exacerbated by climate change, simply because there has been no recent climate change.
These claims are devoid of scientific merit and should be called out for the junk science which they represent.
I have read several reports contradicting the information here stating that human induced climate change was a factor in exacerbating – not causing – Harvey and will be fot future hurricanes.
For those who take a light-hearted approach to this issue – thinking it is a Chinese hoax Fair science or nothing more than an attack on personal liberty – I suggest you take a look at the human misery that a hurricane like Harvey causes:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40927487
Fair science=fake science
I suggest you take a look at the human misery that a hurricane like Harvey causes: minus the human misery that a hurricane like the 1527 one (162 deaths at Galviston) causes.
I rather doubt that there is anyone on this site who underestimates the devastation that a hurricane can cause, or seeks to down play the power of nature.
Nature is every powerful, but fortunately for us, we are living in times when if anything extreme events are less than they used to be, and the consequences not so serious as we have learnt to better adapt.
Whilst Harvey was devastating it does not begin to compare to events when the Texas coast was hit by a category 4 hurricane killed more than 10,000 people and destroyed many cities on September 8, 1900.
Just to add a little perspective to the BBC report,
A generic claim that a storm is “worse than it would have been” due to global warming is nonsense. The “global warming” that has been experienced and the models that have been devised to explain it do not show a uniform warming all over the planet. Some areas are warmer, some areas are colder. Notably there is often mention of polar amplification, generally in reference only to the arctic. With non-uniform warming both spatially and temporally, it is not at all clear that the Gulf of Mexico is currently “warmer than it would have been”. This is hurricane season, and the gulf is in a warm part of the year. Given the inhomogeneous impacts of the human effect on climate (one of the reasons why measuring this remains so elusive), the gulf might be currently warmer than it would have been by a little bit, or it might be colder than it would have been by a little bit. It seems very convenient to invoke human caused warming when something is warmer than usual, but that sentiment ignores the fact that the overall warming experienced is not evenly spread and that any given anomalous warm event might actually be “cooler than it would have been”. I do not personally believe that additional carbon dioxide is warming some locations while cooling others. I simply note that while it is claimed that the global average temperature has increased it is simultaneously observed that some areas are warmer and others are cooler, and that the warm and cool areas vary both in time and location. If one is to believe that human causes have raised the global average temperature, this does not imply that every warm event is warmer than it would have been absent the effect.
The only thing really remarkable about Harvey was the fact that it stayed in the same (densely inhabited) place for days. Had it not been held in place by some areas of high pressure or not happened to hover over a major city, it would have been little more than a ho-hum.
A very good response from the Houston Chronicle refuting some of the claims that the flooding in Houston is a) due to lack of urban planning b) due to paving over everything in sight c) unlike anything in the past, or d) in some other way self-inflicted:
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/Don-t-blame-sprawl-forHouston-s-floods-12172004.php
Ultimately making statements like this come down to depending on computer modeling as evidence. As we have seen with the modeling for global warming, these models are next to worthless. Same can be said for the intensity of the storm: worthless. `
You know what? I have had a few glasses of wine. And I am DONE with this flower power kum ba ya nonsense! Tell me, how much w/m2 is in one single molecule of anthropogenic CO2 directed towards the ocean (less than 50% if you consider up and side ways directions), specifically the Gulf of Frickin Mexico, MINUS the amount sequestered, and then tell me how such a smidgen of tiny amount of that power managed to increase the SST to above the contrived “average” by some amount to result in some unprepated…unpresidented…whatever… catastrophy!
Catweazle666You are confusing natural outgassing that has been going on since this planet formed with the oceans absorption of anthropomorphic produced C02. The general consensus is that the oceans have soaked up 40% of this but have now reached capacity, resulting in higher C02 levels in the atmosphere.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7640/full/nature21068.html?foxtrotcallback=true
Catweazle666You are confusing natural outgassing that has been going on since this planet formed with the oceans absorption of anthropomorphic produced C02. The general consensus is that the oceans have soaked up 40% of this but have now reached capacity, resulting in higher C02 levels in the atmosphere.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7640/full/nature21068.html?foxtrotcallback=true