Wrong, Bloomberg, Texas “Deniers” Are Right, Climate Change Had Nothing to Do with Hurricane Beryl

By H. Sterling Burnett

From ClimateREALISM

Bloomberg recently published an article which said Hurricane Beryl in particular, and other natural disasters which commonly hit the state, are symptoms of climate change, and that Texas’ pro-fossil fuel policies are partly responsible. Bloomberg’s article is wrong, a classic case of blaming the victim, Texas residents, for something that is 100 percent beyond their control, the weather. Beryl was not the earliest hurricane or tropical storm to ever hit Texas, some media reports to the contrary, and despite modest warming, data show no trend in worsening hurricanes or other extreme weather events in Texas or nationally. In short, contrary to Bloomberg’s unsubstantiated assertions, there is no “signal,” that climate change is causing or contributing to weather disasters in Texas.

In the article, “Hurricane Beryl Makes a Mockery of Texas Climate Deniers,” by opinion editor, Mark Gongloff, Gongloff used Hurricane Beryl as the news hook writing:

On Monday [July 8], the state [Texas] was slammed by the third incarnation of Hurricane Beryl, which had been re-re-fueled by bathtub-warm waters in the Gulf of Mexico after wreaking havoc on several Caribbean islands, Jamaica, and Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. It made landfall south of Houston as a Category 1 hurricane, bringing high winds, a storm surge and heavy rainfall, and leaving millions without power in sweltering heat.

That much of Gongloff’s story was accurate, but then he goes completely off the rails, writing:

Pop quiz time: Which US state is the most vulnerable to climate-fueled weather disasters and soaring home-insurance costs but is also growing rapidly and has a government hostile to the very concept of climate change? The most obvious answer is Florida, with its hurricanes and floods and anti-woke, stunt-loving governor. The correct answer, however, is Texas.

No other state has suffered more climate-related damage over the past several decades than the Lone Star State — not even Florida, California or Louisiana. Home-insurance costs rose more in Texas than in any other state last year and over the past five years, according to S&P Global. And though Governor Ron DeSantis has outlawed the mention of climate change in Florida, Texas’ aggressive pro-global-warming policies have real teeth and will continue to do real harm. Especially to Texas.

While it is true that Texas likely suffers more weather-related disasters than almost every other state when one counts hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and flooding, that is because of its unique location (vis-à-vis natural weather patterns), size, and increasingly demographics with more rapid development in regions prone to extreme weather hazard; the number and severity of extreme weather event has not changed.

Long-term trends show no increase in extreme weather as fossil fuel development and use has proceeded apace, despite modest warming. By contrast the state has benefitted tremendously from the development and use of fossil fuels, a significant reason why job, economic, and population growth is strong. Indeed, the top four industries by revenue in Texas are, in order, gasoline and petroleum wholesaling, oil and gas extraction, petroleum refining, and gasoline and petroleum bulk stations which, by themselves, produced more than 1.13 trillion in revenue for the state in the most recent year. This doesn’t account for the billions more in revenue produced by the chemical refining industry, which produces plastics, fertilizers, pesticides, lubricants, and other fossil fuel-based products in broad and common use across Texas, the United States, and the world as a whole. As high as the cost of natural disasters are in Texas, which Gongloff pegged at $350 billion since 1980, those cost are dwarfed by the benefits delivered by fossil fuels over the same period. Indeed, the revenue generated by gasoline and petroleum wholesaling alone in the most recent year, 486.5 billion is greater than the cost of weather-related disasters over the entire 44-year period of Gongloff’s accounting.

And of course, it is unclear that long-term climate change contributed to any of the weather-related costs Texas has suffered since 1980, because there is no evidence it has made hurricanes, tornados, flooding, or wildfires worse or more frequent.

Let’s deal with Beryl and hurricanes more generally, first. Contrary to what has been implied in some reports, Beryl was not unprecedented. On June 26, 1986, Hurricane Bonnie made landfall in south Texas, dumping more than 13 inches of rain, spawning tornados, and killing four people. For those counting, June 26 is almost two weeks earlier than July 8. Also on June 30, 2010, Hurricane Alex made landfall just south of the Texas coast in Soto la Marina, Tamaulipas, Mexico, delivering heavy rains, winds, tornadoes, and flooding to the Texas coast and the Rio Grande valley. Six other named storms have made landfall in Texas in June since 1980 alone – and this doesn’t count any that did so before 1980. In case anyone is wondering, the great Galveston Hurricane of 1900, 124 years of global warming ago, remains the deadliest natural disaster in Texas and U.S. history, claiming as many as 12,000 lives.

Concerning hurricanes more generally, real world data clearly show that there has been no increase in hurricanes or major hurricanes as the planet has modestly warmed (see the figure, below)

Data equally show no trend of increasing number of tornados in Texas as the Earth has warmed, rather it shows tornado numbers waxing and waning with no predictable or identifiable pattern year to year. Nationwide, despite better methods of detection and tracking, as discussed in Climate at a Glance: Tornadoes, the number of tornadoes, in general, and major tornadoes (F3 or higher), in particular, have declined over the over the past 45 years. Sadly, though a fact, this is not the impression one would get from the mainstream media’s coverage of tornadoes.

Concerning wildfires, the National Park Service reports that they have always been a part of Texas history, from the arid, brushy western part of the state, to the grasslands of central Texas and the hill country, to the Pineywood forests of east Texas.

In a classic example of yellow journalism, Gongloff attributed the historic Smokehouse Creek wildfire in the western and northern panhandle of Texas in February and March 2024 to climate change induced drought. Yet, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Texas show that the state has experienced a declining trend in the number of very hot days and a slight increase in precipitation, since the 1950s. And the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change agrees that fire weather isn’t becoming more common, writing on Page 90 – Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report that “Fire weather” has not emerged from climate change.

With fewer hot days and increased precipitation recorded in the long-term climate records, the claim that present day conditions are conducive to Texas wildfires due to climate change simply doesn’t hold up.

More directly, according to the US drought monitor, the region beset by the Smokehouse Creek wildfire was not experiencing any degree of drought, nor was it, or the adjacent region of Oklahoma caught up in the wildfire, even “abnormally dry,” when the fire arose. Indeed, because the region had had good rains in the prior months, grasses grew well, and when they dried out, tinderbox conditions arose that just needed a spark to ignite.

And despite the alarming headlines one may read from mainstream media outlets, globally the number and amount of acreage lost to wildfires has declined dramatically during the recent period of modest climate change, according to satellite data from NASA and the European Space Agency.

It was irresponsible for Bloomberg to publish this article, rife as it was with inaccuracies and misleading claims. As former Democratic Senator and Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” There is no evidence that climate change is worsening the extreme weather events impacting Texas or the nation, so there can be no justification for blaming Texas’ continued development and use of hugely beneficial fossil fuels for the harm natural disasters have caused, and will undoubtedly continue to cause, in the state.

H. Sterling Burnett

H. Sterling Burnett

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News. In addition to directing The Heartland Institute’s Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, Burett puts Environment & Climate News together, is the editor of Heartland’s Climate Change Weekly email, and the host of the Environment & Climate News Podcast.

4.9 19 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

49 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 15, 2024 10:20 pm

The Little Ice Age was not known for good weather, which included hurricanes.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 15, 2024 11:05 pm

Hurricanes are caused by heat – except when they’re caused by cold.

traxiii
Reply to  Mike
July 19, 2024 11:21 am

Reminds me of a old sailing adage a mentor of mine would say “There’s always wind in the fog” to which I would add “unless there isn’t” as we sat there becalmed in our little 27 footer, with a tug pushing a barge, looming somewhere out in the soup.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 15, 2024 11:22 pm

Are there hurricane records from the Little Ice Age?

1saveenergy
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
July 16, 2024 12:28 am

Yes
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08219

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380444930_A_major_midlatitude_hurricane_in_the_Little_Ice_Age

28 ships of the Spanish Armada (+ 5,000 men) were lost in the storms of 1588 along the jagged steep rocks of the western coast of Ireland.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  1saveenergy
July 16, 2024 1:07 am

Ahh. I wasn’t clear. I meant general records, as in proxies like stirred up sediments, smashed forests, something that would allow counting hurricanes before anyone was writing them down.

Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
July 16, 2024 3:42 am

I don’t have a link but recall reading about a recent study of ocean sediments that showed tropical storm activity was MORE ACTIVE during the Little Ice Age than it is today.

Which stands to reason, because in a colder climate the temperature DIFFERENTIALS between the tropics and the poles INCREASE in a colder climate.

Duane
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
July 16, 2024 3:40 am

Christopher Columbus experienced two deadly hurricanes during his four voyages to the new world, and this was duly recorded at the time. The first hurricane he experienced during his second voyage virtually destroyed his colonial settlement at La Isabela on the island of Hispaniola (now the Dominican Republic & Haiti). The second hurricane took place during his fourth and final voyage. Having sensed that a hurricane was approaching Columbus warned the governor that it was approaching, took his fleet to a relatively safe harbor some distance away from Santo Domingo, but he was ignored and a Spanish treasure fleet of 30 ships sailed right into the hurricane with 20 ships lost.

This second hurricane occurred in June. So much for major hurricanes not taking place early in the “hurricane season” from June through November.

hdhoese
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
July 16, 2024 6:36 am

Liu, K-B. and M. L. Fearn. 2000. Reconstruction of prehistoric landfall frequencies of catastrophic hurricanes in northwestern Florida from lake sediment records. Quarterly Research. 54:238–245. https://doi.org/10.1006/qres.2000.2166
They have a 7,000 year record, from the abstract–
“The landfall probabilities increased dramatically to ca. 0.5% per yr during an “hyperactive” period from 1000–3400 14C yr B.P., especially in the first millennium A.D. ”

July 15, 2024 11:30 pm

At present, the average atmospheric concentration of CO2 is increasing by approximately 2.4 parts per million per year. This produces an increase in the downward LWIR flux to the surface near 34 milliwatts per square meter per year. Such a small increase can have no effect on surface temperatures or extreme weather.
 
For further discussion see:
 
 ‘A Nobel Prize for Climate Modeling ErrorsScience of Climate Change 4(1) pp. 1-73 (2024) https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202404/17

Reply to  Roy Clark
July 16, 2024 2:48 am

Harold the Organic Chemist Asks and Says:

Why do you say: “This produces an increase in the downward LWIR flux to the surface…”? When a molecule of CO2 at the earth’s surface absorbs a photon of IR light, it undergoes a vibrational excitation and then a very rapid deactivation by collision with nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. This transfer of vibrational energy increases the speed of the air gas molecules which increases of the temperature of the air. Some of these air molecules and CO2 collide with surface which warms up.

At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 is 427 ppm. This is 0.839 grams of CO2 per cubic meter of air. On a sunny day, how much heating of air does the CO2 cause?

For air at 21 deg. C and 70% RH on a sunny day, the concentration of water is 17,780 ppm by volume. This is 14.3 grams of water per cubic meter of air. How much heating of the air does the water cause?

For above weather conditions, water is about 98% of the greenhouse effect. Water is the main greenhouse gas and CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas. We really do not have to worry about CO2 emissions.

How do we inform the people that CO2 is not a problem? The politicians have already inflicted much harm on the people and on the economies of many countries.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Harold Pierce
July 16, 2024 9:11 am

Wrong. Electron vibration does not change the momentum of the molecule as it moves. Vibration is sinusoidal with a net change in momentum of 0.

The emission of a quantum of electromagnetic energy (aka photon) happens is femto seconds although some studies claim it is as high as 1 nano second and is highly dependent on the valence bond (frequency and valence state).

The photon emission happens based on quantum mechanics, specifically quantum probabilities. While is is possible that molecular collisions in rare occasions cause the molecule to emit the photon, it still is not heat.

Heat, defined as thermal energy transfer, in “colliding” molecules is simply an exchange of momentum, p = mv. Kinetic energy is KE = 1/2 m v^2.

A photon of IR (14.9 um) has an energy of ~ 3.7 eV. 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 J.
Molecules travel at an average of 500 m/sec. or 500 nm in 1 nsec.
Molecules travel an estimated 70 nm between collisions.

The mass of a single CO2 molecule is 7.306 x 10^-20 kg.
The mass of an electron is 9.109 × 10^−31 kg
The momentum of a single CO2 molecule moving at 500 m/sec is 3.653 x 10^-23 kg m/sec (N sec).
One joule equals the amount of work that is done when 1 Newton of force moves an object over a distance of 1 meter. I’ll lead the math to the reader.

Should be clear that valence electrons do not cause heat. The mass difference between the electron and the molecule is proof.

The assumption that the electrons collide is an error. Electrostatic forces repel the electrons before the touch.

Otherwise, your post is very good.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 16, 2024 4:06 pm

Harold the Organic Chemist Says:

I am not wrong and I stand by what I posted. When CO2 absorbs an IR photon, the frequency of the bond vibration increases. Electrons are not involved. The vibrationally excited molecule then undergoes very rapid collisional deactivation by colliding with nitrogen, oxygen, or argon.
Transfer of the energy of vibration to colliding air molecule or atom causes an increase in the speed of the molecule or atom. The air then heats up.
End of story.

Use Google and search for: infrared of spectrum of carbon dioxide. Then use Google and search for: infrared spectrum of water. The spectrum of water shows that it absorbs far more IR than CO2. Do you know why the absorption bands of water have fine structure.

BTW: Are you chemist or physicist?

Reply to  Roy Clark
July 16, 2024 8:49 am

“This produces an increase in the downward LWIR flux to the surface”

No it doesn’t. Prove it.

1saveenergy
July 16, 2024 12:08 am

“There is no evidence that climate change is worsening the extreme weather events”

Climate is a result of long term weather patterns; NOT the cause of weather events.

Reply to  1saveenergy
July 16, 2024 3:46 am

Yes, you’ve got to chuckle.

These idiots pushing the “climate crisis” bullshit would insist that the exhaust pipe of a car is what causes the engine to run.

strativarius
Reply to  Steve Richards
July 16, 2024 12:46 am

Interestingly….

But it adds: ‘Don’t debate the science.’

guidvce4
Reply to  strativarius
July 16, 2024 6:09 am

Good advice cuz there ain’t no “science” behind the claims.

strativarius
July 16, 2024 12:21 am

everyone is entitled to his own opinion

Even a doctor

Doctors should talk to patients about climate change, say health leadersCritics call guidance ‘virtue signalling’ and warn it could have dangerous consequences


Doctors should start talking to patients about climate change, health leaders have said…

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/16/doctors-should-talk-to-patients-climate-change/

Hello doctor what a lousy summer…

Reply to  strativarius
July 16, 2024 3:48 am

Hell if I was a doctor I’d talk to my patients about climate change – I’d tell them the “crisis” is non-existent and to stop worrying about it.

strativarius
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 16, 2024 5:52 am

My kind of doctor

Reply to  strativarius
July 16, 2024 3:59 am

I wouldn’t have much confidence in a doctor who believed in human-caused climate change. There’s no scientific basis for the belief, so why would the doctor believe in it? It demonstrates a confused mind. I don’t want someone with a confused mind treating me. What else is he confused about?

strativarius
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 16, 2024 5:53 am

At the mention of it I’d bid them a good day.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 16, 2024 9:13 am

Don’t you know that Dr. means a medical practitioner is a expert climate scientist?

Do I need the /s?

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 16, 2024 12:34 pm

I’d ask them if my global average body temperature was a health concern to them.

Reply to  strativarius
July 16, 2024 12:33 pm

What in gods name is a health leader?

Are we talking about Richard Simmons?

July 16, 2024 1:38 am

Given that Texas is approximately the same size as France and the U.K. (maybe more, but that doesn’t change the analogy significantly) it would be ridiculous to suggest that weather events would be constant across it. Southern France has wildfires, we have them in the U.K. occasionally, we have floods, the Bay of Biscay has storms (not hurricane force by any stretch).

Coeur de Lion
July 16, 2024 1:54 am

We are a month and a half into the hurricane season and have seen only Beryl, right ? What’s happening to 2024, predicted to be exceptionally windy? By alarmists

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 16, 2024 4:06 am

There was a lot of African dust in the air a few weeks ago (the last visual I saw).

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 16, 2024 9:16 am

2 tropical storms so far in addition to Beryl.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 16, 2024 12:19 pm

There was Hurricane Alberto, named on June 19th. Not much longer than a 24-hour named hurricane. Still, damage was widespread.

July 16, 2024 3:43 am

From the article: “Pop quiz time: Which US state is the most vulnerable to [Human-caused] climate [change]-fueled weather disasters”

The answer would be no State is vulnerable to Human-caused Climate Change-fuelled weather disasters, because there is no evidence that humans are causing the climate to change.

Duane
July 16, 2024 3:53 am

Texas sits at the west end of the Gulf of Mexico, making it obviously a potential target for any hurricanes that do not get turned north prior to hitting Texas. Secondly, Texas sits at the boundary between the Gulf of Mexico warm moist marine air masses pushing in from the east and south, and the cold dry continental air masses pushing down from the north. This makes Texas a natural target for thunderstorm development as these air masses collide, and thunderstorms are the natural nurseries of destructive tornadoes. Also, as the warm moist marine Gulf air masses move onshore, due to daytime heating of the land this naturally produces a large number of thunderstorms due to adiabatic cooling of the rising warm air resulting in thunderstorm cells which causes precipitation, that as it falls creates very strong localized surface winds (“wind shear”).

Florida is subject to much the same effects from both hurricanes and thunderstorms as Texas experiences. Ditto with the rest of the Gulf states, and progressively up the Atlantic coast.

This is all a result of geography and natural wind and weather patterns.

LT3
July 16, 2024 4:20 am

A rapidly cooling world will have more convective storms. It is not just warm water that fuels these storms, cold air aloft is equally important. And the world is setup in perfect conditions to create large storms, just as it was in 2008. If Africa starts sending pulses, we will see some big ones this year. And why is the world cooling, because the HT water vapor is dissipating.

Loren Wilson
July 16, 2024 4:55 am

Beryl’s eye went over my town in the suburbs west of Houston. it was a modest cat 1 went it made landfall. Wind speeds were maybe 50 mph with gusts to 70. One neighbor lost some shingles off his roof. My fence did not blow over. We did have power outages far more wide-spread than I expected considering this was tropical storm force winds. As far as I can tell, outages were caused by trees contacting the overhead power lines. It appears that Hurricane Ike in 2008 has taught us nothing (Cat 4 at landfall).

John Hultquist
Reply to  Loren Wilson
July 16, 2024 12:24 pm

suburbs west of Houston
A friend there got about 7 inches of rain.
In the lee of the Cascade Mountains, I get about 9″ of total precipitation a year.
There is the potential for a couple inches of volcanic dust. Rain is preferable.

guidvce4
July 16, 2024 6:05 am

More sensationalism trying to pass off as wisdom from the left. Saw it was “Bloomberg”, quickly discounted whatever it claimed. The MSM has cried “wolf” one too many times to be believed.

Reply to  guidvce4
July 16, 2024 12:44 pm

Only one?

JWP
July 16, 2024 6:11 am

Having lived in Texas since 1971, by far the hottest summer in the last 50+ years was 1980. And it’s not even close.

BenVincent
Reply to  JWP
July 16, 2024 3:03 pm

I’ve lived all my 62 years in Temple, TX. This summer (this entire year really) has been mild. We had one period of a few days where it was near or at 100. Today we start the second period of a few days at or near 100. Big deal. What is most remarkable is that we have had a few days in July where it only reached the upper 80s.

John Hultquist
July 16, 2024 12:05 pm

The Galveston hurricane is an interesting episode — storm surge, a rail line, and the raising and rebuild of the City. It takes 3 hours of searching and reading to make sense of it all. Astounding history.
Currently, we are a month away from the average peak time of Atlantic hurricanes. There are none in the making at the moment. On the coast of Africa, winds are from the West. There is a Low at 10°N, 35°W that is not yet got official attention from the NHC folks. Keep watch.

Reply to  John Hultquist
July 16, 2024 5:30 pm

Do you think we could blow up infant hurricanes off the coast of Africa with cruise missiles?

Reply to  John Hultquist
July 16, 2024 7:17 pm

Another important point. Every hurricane strike is followed by “build back better.” Post hurricane Ike, Galveston has been booming with growth, tourism, rising property values, demolition of substandard structures, renovation/modernization of classic homes, and increasing use of hurricane-rated construction. In some ways, once you get past the immediate struggles, hurricanes are renewing events that, while costly, are a net good.

When damage estimates are cited, sometimes in the $billions, much of the damage is to substandard properties and infrastructure with huge backlogs of deferred maintenance. The hurricane speeds up what was needing to be done anyway.

A simple example: new roofs on homes are expensive for the owner. Many or most try to stretch old roofing to the limit and beyond. Along comes a hail storm, and, voila, insurance pays all or part of the costs of the awaited replacement.

July 16, 2024 6:55 pm

Refuting bad “science” and bad “journalism” has simply become a game of whack-a-mole, especially now that weather event attribution has emerged as the latest strategy to scare the public.

Planet earth is large and varied, so on any given day or week, there is some record being broken or a severe weather event occurring somewhere on Earth. Due to satellites and several billion mobile phones, there are always “eyes” there to see and record every event and post that on social media, news outlets, and such. The climate news cabal knows this, and needn’t bother to even go looking for horror stories. They merely take common weather events and spin them as attributable to “climate change.” Now the U.S. National Weather Service is issuing “excessive heat” advisories and warnings almost daily, almost everywhere in summer. Duh!

Sterling is doing the painstaking and righteous work of refuting yet another lie, but there are too many events falsely trumpeted by too many liars holding access to communications to beat them down. As I said, it has become a game of whack-a-mole.

i am hopeful that the “fear the weather” and “fear the heat” strategy will wear thin with more people, as they become saturated with such stories and see through the false doom and gloom reporting.

July 16, 2024 7:22 pm

Hurricane Beryl was almost a nothing burger of a storm, with very little damages and modest rainfall for coastal Texas. We needed the rain where I live. The problems in Houston were mostly attributable to derelict hardening and maintenance of the electrical distribution system (e.g., tree trimming), exacerbated by poor pre-storm mobilization, positioning, and dispatching of repair crews. That was a utility company failure.

David S
July 16, 2024 7:29 pm

The deadliest hurricane that ever hit the USA hit Galveston TX and killed 8000 people. That happened in 1900.
Was that climate change?

Reply to  David S
July 17, 2024 5:35 am

Was that climate change?

Was there hurricane alarm? Reinforced concrete? Strict building standards? Hurricane shelters? Planned evacuation? Etc. (Of course all these things were missing, systematic planning for hurricanes started in the 40s-50s, and the mass use of modern building materials, modern building standards started a bit before. After that casualties and damages radically decreased.)

cipherstream
July 17, 2024 9:49 am

There is a saying in Texas, that is as old as the state (probably…I’m being hyperbolic), which goes “If you don’t like the weather, just wait around, it will change.” The citizens of Texas have known for over a century (not sure when the phrase was first uttered) that Texas’s weather is as dynamic as its people. What appears to be the most significant change is that the collective memory of the environment of Texas is shortening. The west is rugged, arid, and hot; the south is humid and hot; the east used to be full of pine forests, humid, and hot (good shade though); and the north is windy, dry-ish, hot in the summer, and not as hot in the winter. Plenty of pop-up T-storms and tornadoes. Those have always been “a thing” here. Hurricanes too. It’s just there are more people on the coast and all the flood plains are increasingly occupied more by people and not cattle or grass. People tend to express their discomfort more than grass or vegetation when it floods.