The Hurricane Harvey Hustle

Facts about Harvey negate attempts to use it to advance manmade climate cataclysm agendas

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

“When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight,” English essayist Samuel Johnson observed 240 years ago, “it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” That’s certainly true in the climate change arena.

After ending US participation in the Paris climate treaty and abolishing many government restrictions on fossil fuel use, the Trump Administration began preparing red team-blue team examinations of the science behind claims of “dangerous manmade climate change.” Asian, African and even European countries are building still more coal and gas-fired power plants. A recent poll found that only 28% of Americans think climate scientists understand the causes of global climate change “very well.”

All this is certainly concentrating the minds of climate alarmists, who are also taking former Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel’s cynical advice to “never let a crisis go to waste.” The new climate hustle is on.

The record 12-year absence of Category 3-5 hurricanes striking the United States had to end at some point, and Hurricane Harvey definitely underscored our recent good fortune. Alarmists wasted no time in asserting that Harvey was due to or worsened by mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions. As Irma beefs up and brings more widespread devastation, it too will likely achieve iconic climate chaos status.

Fossil-fuel-driven global warming made the Gulf of Mexico warmer and its air more moisture-laden, thereby feeding Harvey’s strength and moisture content, said one climate and weather “expert.” A century ago a storm along the same path would have been less intense and brought less rain, claimed another.

Harvey stalled over Houston because manmade climate change caused “a greatly expanded subtropical high pressure system,” which led to “very weak prevailing winds” that failed to steer the storm back into the Gulf of Mexico, a third putative expert asserted. An Antifa climate activist ranted that Harvey was due to “this administration’s climate denial, racism and callousness.” Another railed about climate murder.

Any journey back to climate and weather reality should begin by noting that doctrines of manmade climate cataclysm asserted that the record 12-year interlude between major US hurricanes should never have happened. The overall reduction in major hurricanes in recent decades shouldn’t have either.

Weather historian Roger Pielke, Jr. says 14 Category 4-5 hurricanes made landfall along US coasts, during the 44-year period between 1926 and 1969. In the ensuing 47 years, 1970 to 2017, just four struck the US mainland, including Harvey. Some, like the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane in the Florida Keys, were incredibly powerful. NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division counts 10 Category 4-5 monsters between 1920 and 1969 (50 years), but only four since then. Either way, it’s a huge reduction.

Harvey lost its Cat 4 status shortly after making landfall, so winds declined as a major factor after they destroyed Rockport. What devastated Houston was the vast quantity of rain: some 19 trillion gallons of water in the Houston/South Texas area alone. By comparison, Chesapeake Bay holds 18 trillion gallons.

Worse, all this rain came in just a few days. Harris County (Greater Houston) alone got 1 trillion gallons. The Mont Belvieu area got 51.9 inches of rain – the highest rainfall total in any storm in US history. The 16 inches of rain August 27 at George Bush Airport is the single wettest day in Houston history.

However, previous storms were not far behind. Hurricane Easy deluged Florida with 45.2 inches in 1950; Tropical Cyclone Amelia dumped 48 inches on Texas in 1978; and Tropical Storm Claudette inundated Texas with 54 inches in 1979. In fact, Claudette emptied 43 inches in just 24 hours on the little town of Alvin, Texas; that one-day record still stands. Buffalo Bayou topped out at 62.7 feet this time – but it reached 54.4 feet in 1935. All the Texas storms were along its Gulf Coast.

All you need is the right (ie, wrong) confluence of events. As climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer explains, when a strong tropical cyclone has access to abundant moisture evaporating from a large body of warm water like the Gulf of Mexico – and that situation combines with little inland movement by the cyclone – you get record rain. So why did Hurricane Harvey settle in for a long haul over Houston?

There was no “expanded subtropical high pressure zone,” WeatherBELL Analytics chief forecaster Joe Bastardi points out. What happened with Harvey was the “exact opposite.” What trapped Harvey was a predicted MJO phase 2 – a major cool trough associated with the eastward moving disturbance of clouds, rainfall, winds and pressure that traverses the planet every 30 to 60 days or so. “Normally,” there would be no major trough that far south to stop a storm, Bastardi notes. But this time there was.

So instead of moving inland (which it did later), Harvey stalled. Its circular winds remained stuck in the trough (or what Weather Channel founder John Coleman calls a “void”) until surface pressures around it changed, and the storm was able to move to the northeast. It was “an unusual pattern,” an unusual confluence of events, says Coleman, but it was “not unprecedented.” Amelia and Claudette demonstrated that. Name just one hurricane that was ever “steered back” into the Gulf of Mexico, Bastardi challenged.

If the exact same tropical storm had simply moved inland at 13-15 mph, while generating the same total amount of rain, the downpours would have been spread over a much wider area, perhaps many states, with no flooding disaster, Dr. Spencer points out. But Harvey did not move inland for days.

In fact, “hurricanes that enter Texas often stall or meander, and are very wet. That’s why half of the top ten wettest US tropical rainfall events have been in Texas,” adds consulting meteorologist Joe D’Aleo. It has nothing to do with human-caused climate change.

“Hurricanes are nature’s way of taking heat out of the tropics and re-distributing it to the temperate regions,” when summers are hot and waters are warm, as the planet rotates, notes Bastardi. They require a unique combination of circumstances, with sufficiently warm sea surface temperatures being just one, adds Spencer. “The Gulf of Mexico is warm enough every summer to produce a major hurricane.

“But you also usually need a pre-existing cyclonic circulation or wave, which almost always can be traced back to the coast of Africa.” Why some systems intensify and others don’t is still not well understood.

Multi-decadal sea surface temperature (SST) oscillations in the Atlantic occur on a cyclical basis, as does the total energy accumulated each year by tropical storms and hurricanes. However, their origins and mechanisms are likewise still unknown, Dr. Michel de Rougemont notes.

It is impossible right now to separate all these natural factors from alleged manmade influences. Or to look at hurricane history and August SST anomalies over the years – and discern patterns that can be attributed to human-caused (or even natural) global warming. Those claiming an ability to do so must prove their claims, produce their data and algorithms, defend their thesis before red team experts, and not be allowed to assert “proprietary” data or point to secretive black box computer model simulations.

Houston flooded not just because of the sheer volume of water. The city is built on impermeable clays and former swamp lands that have subsided in many places over the decades from the steadily increasing weight of buildings, homes, other structures, and concrete and asphalt roads and runways. It is close to sea level, with little topographic relief, insufficient drainage, and reservoirs that can handle most big rains but not those that Harvey brought. Deluges thus have few places to go, except upward, over dams and into homes. It’s no wonder the area has experienced floods throughout its history.

To use this tragedy to advance anti-fossil fuel agendas is disgraceful. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, they are the bedrock of our civilization, jobs, living standards, well-being and life spans. To drive up their costs, or replace them now with expensive, unreliable “renewable” energy would be disastrous.

Fossil fuels allow us to track storms, warn people and get them out of harm’s way. They bring rescue boats, helicopters, high-rider vehicles, water, food, clothing and new building materials to stricken communities. They could do the same for Bangladesh and other countries that face natural disasters – and have been bereft of electricity and decent living standards for too many generations.

Meanwhile, those in the path of Irma (and storms that will inevitably follow) should prepare their family, home, neighborhood, community and state. Houston should prepare now for the next one.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on the environment.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 9, 2017 7:57 pm

Also, no long term trends in total annual ACE

Pop Piasa
Reply to  chaamjamal
September 9, 2017 9:16 pm

They don’t like to discuss ACE scores from history. That’s what gets Bastardi worked up.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 10, 2017 7:23 am

Simply make the graph (1926-1969 count=14 cat 4-5 making landfall) and ( 1970-2017 count=4 cat 4-5- making landfall) – I would but my W/P skills are weak (like the 1970-2017 period of cat 4-5 landfall hurricanes)

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  chaamjamal
September 9, 2017 10:54 pm

Natural variability is part of climate change. Tropical storms and Hurricanes since 1913 to date followed [between June 1 to November 30] normal distribution with peak at September 10; Atlantic basin Hurricanes counts — major hurricanes, hurricanes, US land falling hurricanes — [1851-2006] of 5-year moving average pattern showed a 60 year cycle — typhoons in opposite phase.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
September 10, 2017 1:45 pm

Here is a novel and interesting thought about hurricanes. As it happens, I am just now reading Ian Plimer’s authoritative book “Heaven and Earth”. On page 141 he writes “Changes in cyclonic activity and tropospheric wind shave been reported a few days after solar flares”. Ian Plimer refers to Damon, Cheng and Limick : “Possible connections between surface winds and solar activity and the Earth’s magnetic field (1989)” – and to : Stuiver, Braziunus, Grootes and Zielinski :”Is there evidence for solar forcing of climate in the GISP2 oxygen isotope record (1997)?”. – These last couple of weeks our nearest star has been particularly restless.

September 9, 2017 8:11 pm

For some of the lunatics, the collapse of civilization is their goal.
To use this tragedy to advance anti-fossil fuel agendas is disgraceful. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, they are the bedrock of our civilization, jobs, living standards, well-being and life spans. To drive up their costs, or replace them now with expensive, unreliable “renewable” energy would be disastrous.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” –
Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

Reply to  Rob
September 9, 2017 9:01 pm

Maurice Strong has a lot to answer for indeed.
And it is not confined to the US of A or Europe. I live in NZ and right now we have a national n election in progress. There is a good chance that a leftist government coalition can be formed. With a very green agenda. They are demanding NIL CARBON emissions.
Below is a video clip that parodies a very green local government in Dunedin made at the time of our Local Body elections and around Maurice’s death. The issue still the same with the greens and the ‘leftists’ . It’s really all about the demonising of carbon dioxide (Co2) which they all call CARBON.
So Maurice is still doing his stuff – maybe from ‘down under’.

Reply to  Rob
September 10, 2017 7:01 am

UNEP-FI was established about the same time as the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
It’s possible to compare the ownership of renewable energy companies with UNEP-FI members. And also
compare North American renewable energy companies with North American UNEP-FI members.
Similar for the financing of renewable energy projects such as wind and solar.
Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade are also part of the U.N. global agenda. At least this issue can be traced back to the time just prior to Kyoto and to Kyoto itself.

Reply to  Barbara
September 10, 2017 9:58 am

UNEP-FI: Portfolio Decarbonization Coalition (PDC)
Mobilizing financial markets to drive economic decarbonization
‘UN secretary-general advises pension funds to divest from fossil fuels’
UN Environment, 01 Sep 2015
‘Global Divestment Conference in Paris: The UNEP Inquiry highlights opportunities for a sustainable financial system’
Event organized by and Green/EFA Group in the European Parliament.

Reply to  Barbara
September 10, 2017 11:52 am

UNEP Inquiry, April 2016
Inquiry Working Paper, 14, pages
‘How Paris Became The Capital of Climate Finance’
Re: Networks and Networking
And on p.7, Global Carbon Tracker, Greenpeace and

Reply to  Barbara
September 11, 2017 1:24 pm

UNEP, 2011
Re: Information leading up to Rio + 20, 2012
‘Towards a green economy’
‘Finance: Supporting the transition to a global green economy’, 44 pages
P.584: Acknowledgements
P.622: Conclusions
Book chapter/Report chapter

Reply to  Rob
September 10, 2017 9:26 am

Just remember ONE thing: Money rules and rocks the world. Whatever technologies are cheapest, best, most efficiently deliverable and profitable are the ones that will be used. Period, case closed. I haven’t yet seen a single major oil or gas company file for bankruptcy due to CAGW-based legislation (though you guys may know of some). The Wall Street Journal is all but giddy about the prospects of U.S. energy independence and profitable exports due to fracking. Most Americans who haven’t been brainwashed are strongly in favor of all of this.
There’s frankly been a sea change in the talk since Trump took us out of Paris. All of a sudden it’s “OK” for CAGW dissenters like Joe Bastardi and others to clearly and openly state the facts in the media. The alarmists are losing ground rapidly, in China and Russia they’re already a joke, and I think by 2020 they’ll be pretty much a non-factor; sandwich-sign types with long hair and Birkenstocks mumbling to themselves.
I haven’t noticed even ONE. SINGLE. ONE. of the loudest of them modifying their “lifestyle” one iota. Such hypocrisy the world has now noticed and the nonsense is being dismissed, wholesale.

Reply to  Rob
September 10, 2017 9:42 am

Really? How long do you think Maurice Strong would last in a an upper-midwestern winter with no heat source, no electricity, and frozen water pipes, never mind no way to get out of his house and get food?
The only REAL hope for this planet is to get people like him to see a shrink. Otherwise, we start looking for other worlds to colonize ASAP.

Reply to  Rob
September 10, 2017 3:06 pm

Rubbish…it is not the destruction of civilisation that is wanted, but a restructuring of it. The restructuring is necessary because the existing model is flawed. You can not rely simply on growth…because, like cancers, growth eventually kills its host and thereby destroys itself….and that is a stupid model.

Russ R.
Reply to  Blaze
September 10, 2017 10:22 pm

Those that do the “restructuring” will be the ones doing the killing. Growth is the key to more efficiency, and more efficiency is the key to doing more with less. The history of human behavior shows that free people doing what is in their own interest is ALWAYS more efficient than a bureaucracy ruling by force and determining who gets what. Your restructuring will look like the restructuring of Cuba under Castro, China under Mao, and Russia under Stalin. They all got rid of that nasty growth, by getting rid of people.

Will Nelson
September 9, 2017 8:22 pm

Climate alarmism is a sweet gig. Whatever just happened can be used to prove the theory. Sometimes whatever just happened is not well understood and turns out to be wrong. So obviously climate change has made it harder and harder to predict the past.

Reply to  Will Nelson
September 10, 2017 6:08 am

A theory that proves every possible outcome is not science.

Reply to  Will Nelson
September 10, 2017 9:28 am

And of course SO many of us look to bimbo starlets and gone-to-seed movie actors for our “science!” /sarc

Tom Halla
September 9, 2017 8:27 pm

These hurricanes are seen as just another tool to advance the agenda of the green blob. I agree with Rob that some of the hard greens have a nihilist streak, and hate modern society, at least for the masses.

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 10, 2017 9:32 am

It’s a lame attempt, post-religion for lefties, to create a secular “morality.” So the kale-chompers can feel superior to me, who’s buying roast beef. The Prius driver can stick his nose in the air at the 4×4 Ram. The bearded little beta-male in the skinny jeans whose parents pay for his Brooklyn dive while he “designs the next killer app” can feel all righteous about his “fair-trade” mud-flavored coffee. Ad nauseum. And “models” can advertise their upper-classness (hah!) by starving themselves to death and binging and purging while some other leftist decides to become a she-male. All of the above should be ignored by sensible people!

September 9, 2017 8:45 pm

I’m a newbie here – was fascinated to read about the # of cat 4 & 5 storms making landfall over the years (and the decline in numbers). Anyone know how the numbers look if you remove the “making US landfall” part of it? Does the declining trend still hold?

Reply to  Mark
September 9, 2017 9:16 pm

The problem is that recent Atlantic hurricanes are more likely to be rated as Cat 4 or 5 because of improved observational techniques, and bias on the part of the “scientists” making the observations.
But, accepting present offical ratings, the decade with the most Category 5 hurricanes was 2000-09 (an way of decadizing), in which eight occurred: Isabel (2003), Ivan (2004), Emily (2005), Katrina (2005), Rita (2005), Wilma (2005), Dean (2007) and Felix (2007). The previous decades with the most Category 5 hurricanes were the 1930s and 1960s, with six occurring between 1930 and 1939 (before naming began), and four in the ’60s.
There were two Cat 5 Atlantic hurricanes in the 1920s, six in the ’30s (as noted), none in the 1940s, two in the ’50s, four in the ’60s (as noted), three in the ’70s (one in 1979), three in the ’80s (one in 1980), two in the ’90s, eight in the ’00s (as noted) and so far two in the ‘teens (Matthew last year and Irma this year), with Jose getting close for a third. That’s 32 in almost the past century, ,ie 1924 to 2017, for an average of one about every three years.

Reply to  Sixto
September 9, 2017 9:29 pm

Thanks for the quick reply. Good point on tracking – have to imagine in the 1930’s the tracking of storms that didn’t hit the US was in any way remotely close to what we have today. Do the cat 4 numbers look similar?

Reply to  Sixto
September 10, 2017 3:47 am

Inflation in the tornado count and assessment of intensity has also occurred. Though in that case it seems to be strictly because of the better technology and it’s wide spread use and the fact that there are far more trained spotters widely distributed across most of N. America. NOAA even recognizes this inflation in the Tornado count and tries to compensate for it by issuing an adjusted count. The reason why they do so is to try and maintain the validity of the record for historic comparison and analysis. As far as I know, no such effort to do the same for Tropical Cyclones has been attempted.

Reply to  Sixto
September 10, 2017 6:25 am


It’s important to recognize that experts are real experts. Their years of education and experience should be recognized and are worthy of respect.
On the other hand, it is important that experts recognize their own limitations. Bloviating idiots like Dr. Michael Mann clearly do not recognize their own limitations. That’s a big big problem.
Mann is a scientist, not a “scientist”. Calling him a “scientist” is just an ad hominem. It does nothing to prove your point and it may alienate reasonable people who might otherwise be receptive to your argument.
You point out that observations may be wrong because of observer bias. The list of cognitive biases is long. It’s a big deal and is a major reason that most published research is wrong. link
Everyone should recognize the limitations of experts. When discussing the outcome of complex systems, expert predictions are no more accurate than those of a dart-throwing chimp. link
Getting a PhD is something to be proud of. Thinking that the possession of a PhD automatically makes one’s speculations right is just stupid.

Tom - the non climate scientist
Reply to  Sixto
September 10, 2017 6:40 am

Reply to RAH – Vecchi (or Vecchio ) 2003 has done a couple of studies attempting to recompute the number of atlantic basin hurricanes. He is a warmist with the conclusion that A) data to conclude that hurricanes are getting stronger does not exists, but B) the models show that the will get more intense. This dispite the fact that during a period of 150+ years of warming, the hurricanes will get more intense.
One of the difficulties in hurrincane/typhoon count is the number of unobserved cyclones prior to the satellite era. For those of you that remember your WII history – Hasley, one of the top US admirals nearly lost his command of the fleet when he sailed the fleet directly into a typhoon in 1944. In spite of the massive naval presense in the pacific, no one really know the typhoon was there. think of all the other unobserved Typhoons/hurricanes without human presences or without the natives ability to report the typoon.

irritable Bill
Reply to  Mark
September 9, 2017 11:42 pm

To Mark, its not just hurricanes dude, its tornadoes, cyclones, typhoons etc. and all round the globe. All in decline. See polar bear numbers if you don’t believe a denier…see if they accord with the unambiguous line that Big Al the “Manbearpig” says. Read up on crop yields worldwide…see the geologic Co2 records and ask yourself, WTFH is going on with the mainstream media? We all are!

Reply to  irritable Bill
September 10, 2017 4:50 am

Al Gore and its co-ordinates have sent it in a clever way. Media to buy, so as to influence public opinion, by prescribing to journalists what they have to write is the best way to pass your agenda. There is less to reality than to effect. For journalists, the old saying applies, which also applies to politicians and meteorologists: What worries me my talk yesterday. It depends on the effect.
Just imagine, there is no Internet, only purchased media. No one would even be able to interrogate even ludicrously enforced and entrenched lies, everything would be taken without criticism. We had such times here in Germany even before WWII and also long decades afterwards.

Reply to  Mark
September 10, 2017 1:56 am

Prior to very recent advanced satellite sensing systems and telemetry, the only way to rate hurricanes was by physically measuring wind speed.
The stronger the hurricane, the harder it was to measure wind speeds as powerful winds simply broke wind measuring devices.
Over the last few years, hurricane status is assigned by estimated pressures at the center of the storm; i.e. it is “modeled”. Even when the ‘hurricane hunters’ fly into storms, the pressure is used to drive wind speed calculation which assigns storm status.
Prior to satellites, at sea hurricanes were only known to and reported by ships.
Several hundred years of hurricane caused ship wrecks taught even the densest ship owners that it is stupid to spend much time in hurricane frequented waters during hurricane season.
Nor were ship captains eager to sail into hurricanes to get hurricane measurements.
Meaning, only hurricanes that came ashore or had ship captains survive a hurricane, were measured and rated for hurricane status.
Lately, that advanced satellite sensing systems and telemetry allows NHC to assign ‘tropical storm’ status to the fleetest cyclonic systems.
Comparing virtually anything of today’s hurricane frequency to historical hurricanes foolish nonsense. It also makes naming storms somewhat a mockery. As the fake weather channel displays in their name any weather disturbance for maximum emotional impact philosophy.
Comparing today’s frequency and strength of storms to any storms prior to modern advanced satellites just silly.
Except, when today’s maximum count numbers fail to match history’s storm numbers and frequency, that is telling and frightening.
It is not CO2 driving hurricane formation and strength. Whatever confluence of atmospheric conditions favor today’s lower storm frequency is beneficial to humanity. A return to historical normalcy will be a rude wake up to the frivolous anthropogenic harpies.

September 9, 2017 8:54 pm

(Me) Solid words…
(Quote) “After ending US participation in the Paris climate treaty and abolishing many government restrictions on fossil fuel use, the Trump Administration began preparing red team-blue team examinations of the science behind claims of “dangerous manmade climate change.”
(Me) Not always, but occasionally…. It’s all just BS in the end….

September 9, 2017 8:56 pm

Buffalo Bayou topped out at 62.7 feet this time – but it reached 54.4 feet in 1935.

Major Texas Floods of 1935, Dalrymple, et. al.
On page 71, Buffalo Bayou shows a gage height of 60.8 feet at 2 AM on Dec, 9, 1935
I downloaded preliminary data for Buffalo Bayou (USGS 08074000) tLinkText Herehat shows a maximum gage height of 38.78 feet at 7:30 AM CDT on August 28, 2017.
I apologize, but I have to question your data on Buffalo Bayou, although I might be wrong.

September 9, 2017 8:58 pm
Pop Piasa
September 9, 2017 9:25 pm

Houston appears to have made much of its superhighway system at low elevations from video I saw. This must have exacerbated the flooding impacts.

David A
Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 10, 2017 4:07 am

Houston was built on a swamp and has subsided from several inches to 12 feet

David E Long
September 9, 2017 11:11 pm

One correction: it’s not the weight of buildings and various infrastructure that has caused subsidence, it’s groundwater withdrawal. This practice has been stopped, or is in the process of being phased out, over the entire Houston metro region. In some areas considerable subsidence has already been caused however.

September 9, 2017 11:14 pm

“Any journey back to climate and weather reality should begin by noting that doctrines of manmade climate cataclysm asserted that the record 12-year interlude between major US hurricanes should never have happened”
(Explain why you think it is wrong) MOD

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 9, 2017 11:27 pm

Yet another drive by.
Please show all those “climate scientists” who in 2005 predicted that no more major hurricanes would hit the US for 12 years. Thanks.
Were those “climate scientists” (if any) who in 2005 claimed that “global warming” and/or “climate change” made that year’s hurricanes more numerous and powerful right or wrong? If right, then why were there no US landfalling major hurricanes during the next 12 years, during which presumably the world warmed and CO2 kept increasing? Thanks.

Reply to  Sixto
September 10, 2017 2:22 am

Please show all those “climate scientists” who in 2005 predicted that no more major hurricanes would hit the US for 12 years. Thanks.
They are probably located in the same place as all the scientists who predicted there would be a lull in the frequency of Hurricanes.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Sixto
September 10, 2017 7:38 am

You don’t know of any either, eh?

Robert B
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 10, 2017 1:18 am

The problem is that what makes it into a paper and what makes it into a press release or interview can differ a lot (eg. The Hansen prediction and the defense that it was only an interview).
Dr Olivier Talagrand, the director of research at France’s National Centre for Scientific Research, said that he was “strongly tempted” to link the number and intensity of hurricanes this year to global warming, the gradual heating of the Earth’s surface by greenhouse gases, which reflect the Sun’s heat back to Earth instead of letting it radiate into space.
Warmer than usual waters are a pre-requisite for hurricanes, and Talagrand said the sea temperature in the Caribbean region was particularly high this year.
“It’s not proof of global warming but tends in that direction,” he said.
Talagrand said both the number and intensity of hurricanes was set to rise because of global warming.
Dominique Escale of Meteo-France agreed that hurricanes would become more violent, with stronger winds and heavier rainfall, but she said the increased cyclone frequency was part of the normal climate cycle. …
Dr Michel Petit, of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agreed with Escale that it would be “excessive” to blame the storms on global warming.
But Petit disagreed that cyclones would get fiercer or happen more often. Based on analysis of existing studies, “we cannot say that we expect cyclones to be stronger in 2050”, and prediction models “don’t seem to be suggesting any more cyclones”, he said.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 10, 2017 6:12 am

I bet you communicate the same way at pro-AGW sites. Not.

September 9, 2017 11:44 pm
September 10, 2017 12:28 am

Tropical revolving storms (Hurricanes etc) are nasty things. They have always existed.
At sea, they are a real problem.
Here are some instructions on how to avoid them whilst at sea. It contains some illuminating information.
First written in 1958, revised 1972 and 1986 it contains a table of TRS frequency for each ocean, highlighting the seasons when they mainly occur on page 6. The table was constructed with data from 1930 to 1970.
It contains a myth busting sentence: “September/October is the most dangerous period with often two to three cyclones at the same time in the weather forecasts” on page 9.
It may seem odd that mariners are advised to be self sufficient wrt weather and storms, but you cannot rely upon external forecasts to predict the path of severe storms. Mistakes can be deadly.

Jumped Up Neobarb
September 10, 2017 2:23 am

Michael Mann was replayed on XM radio yesterday. He is now a rhetorician and not a scientist. Perhaps Heaviside’s term for Preece, a “climate scienticulist” is appropriate.
He said “we know” that (1) Harvey was made stronger by warm waters warned even more from carbon dioxide released by burning by fossil fuel (no mention of random variations in hurricane size over history), (2) subsidence is caused by extraction of fossil fuels from the earth (no mention of ground water withdrawal), and (3) Carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas that drives temperature in the atmosphere (no mention of water vapor).
He treats the scientific literature the way some of my in-laws treat the buffet at Golden Coral, just choosing whatever suits their current fancy. In Mann’s case, he chooses whatever evidence supports his economic interest by advancing the AGW narrative, and leaves other, just as valid, evidence on the buffet.

Reply to  Jumped Up Neobarb
September 10, 2017 6:13 am

Mann is only showing his bright red rear end when he repeats his anti-science nonsense.

Reply to  Jumped Up Neobarb
September 10, 2017 6:16 am

Was he ever a scientist?

September 10, 2017 2:35 am

As you were. Apparently the global warming/climate change/extreme weather threat has stalled-

September 10, 2017 3:17 am

Just a reminder —
Even worse than the disaster that was hurricane Harvey is the number of scammers trying to make money from the awful events. As Krebs on security has it in Beware of Hurricane Harvey Relief Scams (at ) if you wish to donate —

The FTC also warns consumers not to assume that a charity message posted on social media is a legitimate, and urges folks to research the organization before donating by visiting charity evaluation sites such as Charity Navigator, Charity Watch, GuideStar, or the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance. The agency also reminds people who wish to donate via text message to confirm the number with the source before you donate.

krebsonsecurity site includes links to these charity evaluation sites.
No doubt the scammers are readying themselves for the generous but misinformed to donate to them with the latest disasters.
Is there no depths to which soulless scammers will sink?

I Came I Saw I Left
September 10, 2017 3:17 am

Does not compute

The Mont Belvieu area got 51.9 inches of rain – the highest rainfall total in any storm in US history. … Tropical Storm Claudette inundated Texas with 54 inches in 1979.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
September 10, 2017 6:11 am

Transposed. Should be 45.

I Came I Saw I Left
September 10, 2017 3:32 am

If Claudette had tarried over Alvin (metro Houston) for 3 days like Harvey did, that conceivably could have resulted in 129″ rain. Not inconceivable, as a 4-day event in Cuba (Flora) resulted in 100″ rain.

September 10, 2017 3:33 am

Here in the Netherlands, I regularly participate in discussions about climate and energy transition. Recently I noticed a strong desire for more urgency ( in energy transition away from fossil…) by leaders of a union, environmental activists, filosofers and directors of energy corporations and pension funds. “We have to accept public suffering and increasing social inequality” to achieve our goals”. Also I heard the plea to set democratic rules aside. “What we need is a green dictator” and the wish to allot individual CO2 rights. Rather scaring.

Reply to  David
September 10, 2017 6:17 am

Yes, excellent point. When the sciencey sounding facade is taken away, the climate obsessed community shows itself to be highly tolerant, if not outright supportive, if tyranny and suffering.

Reply to  David
September 10, 2017 6:19 am

It was always the goal to have a green dictator. That was never hidden. The need for World Government has always been clearly stated as the only solution to global warming. Everyone knew people would not be thrown back to 19th century living standards voluntarily and if ALL countries didn’t play along, envy would destroy the whole scheme. It was always about a tiny minority ruling the world.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Sheri
September 10, 2017 6:57 am

It has always been the goal of some entity to control the entire World. It will always be so. What scare they use or how they plan to do it isn’t important. It will change to something else in the next 2000 years.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  David
September 10, 2017 7:46 am

This is how evil always thrives, by hiding behind the mask of virtue. But if one looks closely, the ugliness can still be discerned.

Bruce Cobb
September 10, 2017 7:20 am

For sure, these weather events and others will be used at the next annual Climate Jamboree in November, in Bonn. They will be doing double-duty, first to shame and blame the Trump administration (thus, blaming the victim, how nice), and secondly as a warning to others to fall in line because if they don’t, these types of events and worse can and will happen elsewhere. That is how they “communicate climate change”.

Murphy Slaw
September 10, 2017 7:39 am

Pamela Gray, you are correct. With a 24/7 news cycle it may only take 20 years instead of 2000.

Reply to  Murphy Slaw
September 10, 2017 8:08 am

Everybody wants to rule the world, at some point. Most of us grow out of it and happily settle for ruling our backyards. Most of us. 😐
Human history is a long chain of Big Kids making Big Messes and the adults moving in to quietly and thanklessly clean them up.

Reg Nelson
September 10, 2017 9:16 am

One of the reasons alarmists feast on disasters is that they call sell a message that is visible, even if the purported cause of event is not true, or cannot be proven. People can see the devastation and destruction with their own eyes.
On the other hand, when 2016 is the warmest year by 0.03 C, no one really cares because this has no effect on their lives, or anyone else’s. Their is no evidence of devastation or destruction. There is no tragedy to exploit.
It’s sad that when so many are suffering, Climate Scientist see this as opportunity to promote their political views, i.e, “The Cause”. Not surprising I guess, the Climategate emails documented their total lack of morals or ethics.

Jeff Alberts
September 10, 2017 9:20 am

“But you also usually need a pre-existing cyclonic circulation or wave, which almost always can be traced back to the coast of Africa.”
How can something exist before it exists? Tachyon cyclone?

September 10, 2017 9:48 am

Speaking of disasters, the morning newspaper had an article that Texas ranchers are facing a massive financial disaster caused by Harvey’s flooding, because the dead cattle count, including mother cows with calves, is rising as the cleanup progresses. Cattle ranchers generally don’t insure their herds, so this is going to really hit them hard.
If you use beef, be sure you stock your freezer with beef now, while the price is still low. There may be plenty of beef in the holding rooms (giant refrigerators), but the gap time for replacements will figure into pricing.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights