Hurricanes

Hurricane Harvey and Climate Change

Extreme weather events attribution science yields murky results

|

HoustonFloodedHarveyNewscom
Jerome Hicks/UPI/Newscom

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 index measuring 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."

A new study in the Journal of Hydrology analyzing long term flooding trends in North America and Western Europe finds no discernible increase in floods in those areas during the past 80 years. A team led U.S. Geological Survey researcher Glenn Hodgkins reported, "There was no compelling evidence for consistent changes over time in major-flood occurrence during the 80 years through 2010, using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse but minimally altered catchments in North America and Europe." The researchers added, "For North America and Europe, the results provide a firmer foundation for the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] finding that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking."

The 2014 National Climate Assessment reported, "The heaviest rainfall events have become heavier and more frequent, and the amount of rain falling on the heaviest rain days has also increased." Interestingly, a 2016 study by researchers at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophyiscal Fluid Dynamics Laboratory looked for precipitation trends over the contiguous United States. They reported that "no evidence was found for changes in extreme precipitation attributable to climate change in the available observed record."

Ultimately the concern about hurricanes is the risk they pose to lives and property. Sadly, Hurricane Harvey is reportedly responsible for 14 deaths so far and one estimate places property damage from the storm at $40 billion. According to the National Weather Service, deaths attributed to hurricanes have averaged 5 per year since 2007.

So what about hurricane damages? A 2015 study in Nature Geoscience argued that some economic losses from hurricanes striking the United States are "consistent with an influence of climate change." On the other hand, after normalizing damages by taking increases in population and wealth into account, many other researchers have concluded that so far anthropogenic climate change has not significantly increased losses from weather disasters.

In a 2008 analysis, Colorado University environmental policy researcher Roger Pielke Jr. and his colleagues similarly reported that between 1900 and 2005 there was no trend toward increasing losses from hurricanes in the United States. Updated through 2013, Pielke found that normalized losses from hurricanes in the United States are still not rising.

Last month, Pielke observed, "The world has had a run of good luck when it comes to weather disasters. That will inevitably come to an end." Time will tell if Harvey is a signal that our run of good luck has ended.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

206 responses to “Hurricane Harvey and Climate Change

  1. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jer…..e-not-hoax
    Jerry Brown on California drought: ‘Climate change is not a hoax’
    We had record rainfall in the winter of 16/17; moonbeam seems to have forgotten his bullshit.

    1. Drought then rain = Extreme weather volatility: more proof of AGW!

      1. Al Gore and the zombie horde are changing the name again to “Weather Extremes” now. Looks they did it just in time.

        You have to hand it to the marketing of this scam. They are fantastic purveyors of horsesh*t.

        I guess selling stuff to idiots is a time honored craft.

        1. More infrared returning to earth, higher temperatures, more water vapor in the atmosphere, higher energy for our storms on earth.

          1. renewableguy loves bullshit more than data:
            “It is worth noting that the accumulated cyclone energy index measuring the kinetic energy of Atlantic hurricanes has been trending downward during the last ten years.”

            1. Dumb ass doesn’t realize that storms are caused by a difference in temperature. IOW, a heat engine.

            2. There is still more energy returning to earth than leaving. Doesn’t matter some of the offbeat measurements. The oceans are heating up and that is measured. Which means more water vapor, which means more ghg returning infrared back to earth, which means stronger storms, which means heavier rains.

              Its all happening in the extreme in Harvey.

              If we continue on in the Humpty Dumpty Trumpty style, Harvey in the future will not be the record anymore.

              1. The oceans are heating up and that is measured.

                1. Here is the Argo buoy data. Now show us the “heating up”.

                  http://apdrc.soest.hawaii.edu/…..dex-1.html

              2. renewableguy|8.29.17 @ 11:03PM|#
                “There is still more energy returning to earth than leaving. Doesn’t matter some of the offbeat measurements. The oceans are heating up and that is measured. Which means more water vapor, which means more ghg returning infrared back to earth, which means stronger storms, which means heavier rains.
                Its all happening in the extreme in Harvey.
                If we continue on in the Humpty Dumpty Trumpty style, Harvey in the future will not be the record anymore.”

                Look, bullshitter, is there ONE prediction which has proven true? Just one, your ‘just-so’ stories besides.

                1. Models did this before it was observed and measured. The cooling of the stratosphere from global warming.

          2. More infrared returning to earth, higher temperatures, more water vapor in the atmosphere, higher energy for our storms on earth.

            You have it backwards. It is the temperature difference. The warming would be more pronounced in the high latitudes (the poles) which have little water vapor.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com…..3/abstract

            Remarkably, the two periods of most frequent typhoon strikes in Guangdong (AD 1660?1680, 1850?1880) coincide with two of the coldest and driest periods in northern and central China during the Little Ice Age.

            1. You have it backwards. It is the temperature difference. The warming would be more pronounced in the high latitudes (the poles) which have little water vapor.

              True and they also have infrared returning to earth there also. The oceans warming all through the world circulate into the poles.

        2. And never ever let a perfectly good crisis go to waste.

          1. When you’re wrong, move the goal post. When up is down and down is up, you can never be wrong!

            Yeah! Let’s just let governments tax/regulate the use of every ounce of energy. That’ll end well.

  2. “”””Such claims are made based on the developing science”””

    The science is settled!!!!!!!

    1. On Bill Maher last week, Matt Welch said AGW is real. Matt Welch n longer has any credibility with me. I guess getting invited to the ‘Real Tonight me’after party is more important than principles.

      1. ‘Real Time’…….goddamn squirrels.

      2. ghg’s are real. Measured ocean temps increasing are real. Measured atmospheric temps are real. Measured ice melt on land is real, Measured sea level rise is real. Measured decrease in infrared leaving earth is real.

        What is your issue then?

        1. renewableguy|8.29.17 @ 11:06PM|#
          “ghg’s are real. Measured ocean temps increasing are real. Measured atmospheric temps are real. Measured ice melt on land is real, Measured sea level rise is real. Measured decrease in infrared leaving earth is real.
          What is your issue then?”

          So
          .
          .
          .
          .
          what?
          Do you have ONE prediction of grievous harm which has been shown true? One?, Just one? Or are you floating bullshit hoping someone will buy it?

          1. Hurricane Haiyan.

        2. Question: if the strength of a storm is dependent on the temperature differential between the ocean and the upper atmosphere and you claim that the upper atmosphere is getting warmer shouldn’t the storms be getting less intense?

  3. Professional question beggars.

    1. He who begs questions only ends up questioning beggars.

      1. Thank you Captain Conundrum.

        1. I have no question that all of this stuff is questionable.


  4. 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.

    Well, since they aren’t and they don’t, the projections are going to be wrong after all. Not surprising, given that this is the first hurricane in quite some time to make landfall in the U.S. and they are always sold as ‘because climate change’ and ‘worst one evah1!1!’ each and every time, even while their actual predictions utterly failed to materialize.

    1. Hurricane Matthew killed 47 Americans less than a year ago.

      1. Hurricane Matthew was barely a Category 1 hurricane.

        1. that’s not what the news said. Level 3 and level 4 both.

    2. given that this is the first hurricane in quite some time to make landfall in the U.S.

      Well while we comment, there is flooding in India/Bangladesh/Nepal that has so far killed 1200 with 40 million homeless.

      1. Isn’t that just a regular Tuesday for them this time of year?

      2. Which of course isn’t related to climate change at all.

    3. We are increasing energy returning to earth and warming us at the rate of 4 atomic bombs per second. The earth is out of balance in energy with .6 watt per meter at the top of the atmosphere.

      ANother words we have .6 watt per meter more back to earth than leaving the top of the atmosphere.

      1. We are increasing energy returning to earth and warming us at the rate of 4 atomic bombs per second.

        The incoming solar radiation is warming us at a rate of 9066.67 atomic bombs per second.

        1. The incoming solar is not increasing. The infrared returned to earth is increasing. That is measured and observed.

          this is about earth’s energy balance.

          1. this is about earth’s energy balance.

            No. It’s about your idiotic postings.

            1. this is just science. that is all. With knowledge comes responsibility. You seem to have trouble with the latter so you disagree with the first.

              https://goo.gl/B8McX5

              If the incoming energy flux is not equal to the outgoing energy flux, net heat is added to or lost by the planet (if the incoming flux is larger or smaller than the outgoing respectively).
              Indirect measurement[edit]
              An imbalance must show in something on Earth warming or cooling (depending on the direction of the imbalance), and the ocean being the larger thermal reservoir on Earth, is a prime candidate for measurements.
              Earth’s energy imbalance measurements provided by Argo floats have detected an accumulation of ocean heat content (OHC). The estimated imbalance was measured during a deep solar minimum of 2005-2010 to be 0.58 ? 0.15 W/m?.[13] Later research estimated the surface energy imbalance to be 0.60 ? 0.17 W/m?.[14]
              Direct measurement[edit]
              Several satellites indirectly measure the energy absorbed and radiated by Earth and by inference the energy imbalance. The NASA Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) project involves three such satellites: the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), launched October 1984; NOAA-9, launched December 1984; and NOAA-10, launched September 1986.[15]
              Today NASA’s satellite instruments, provided by CERES, part of the NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS), are designed to measure both solar-reflected and Earth-emitted radiation.[16]

              1. this is just science

                All your doing is acting like a trained parrot. I linked to the data for ocean temperatures. Either do something with it or look like the fool you are.

                The estimated imbalance was measured during a deep solar minimum of 2005-2010 …

                Data for the Argo network goes to 2017 which just might have data that doesn’t agree with what you are parroting.

                1. I’m not interested in your opinion or political opinion. Its the science. My opinion about the science isn’t relevant. Its the science that is relevant.

              2. You
                Are
                An
                Idiot

                FIRST it was Global Cooling and an impending ice age …. and the science was settled. ….. But no cooling showed up

                THEN it was Global Warming and impending melting of the poles with widespread flooding ….. and the science was settled …. But the warming ended and turned out to be no warmer that other periods of history plus the Antarctic ice was increasing.

                NOW it is Man-Made Climate Change and it could be increasing storms, or Global Warming, or Global Cooling …. with makes it simple since every single weather event can be used as justification ….. AND again, the science is settled.

                But of course, they keep getting caught cooking the data to show results where not exist, and the models continue to fail in predicting anything.

                There are lots of problems in all of the predictions and demands for action.

                The data sucks. In this I mean there is not enough data of sufficient quality, over a long enough period of time, to draw any conclusions.

                The folks cooking the data (and getting caught) have destroyed their credibility. If they had the data, they would not need to cook it. And the fact that they cast aside their professional ethics to cook the data, means that you must assume that the are faking results even when you don’t catch them at it.

                The attachment to some doomsday scenario, with the inner knowledge you are right even if you have to cook the data to show others, is a characteristic of religion, not science.

                1. https://goo.gl/Aa1HCF

                  IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

                  the data stands on its own. The military used this data before the climate scientists did to shoot enemy airplanes. It works and it is real. Satellites see less infrared leaving and ground instruments see more coming to earth. Its about yyour view of science for you.

                2. “is a characteristic of religion, not science”

                  And the rulers regard religion as useful.

      2. Harvey (according to Roy Spencer) was delivering 1 million atomic bombs into space
        and thus away from the planet. You will have to check Roy’s site for the units.

        1. that’s ok.

          accumulated all over the world is warmer water in the different ocean basins. I don’t think Harvey will even things out.

          1. Well, you are partially correct. At least when you said “I don’t think…”

  5. 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.

    Totally not a tail chasing exercise.

    1. It’s like measuring the effects of the Snark on weather patterns. Or maybe it was a boojum?

  6. We have built structures that are better able to withstand wind damage and that probably mitigates losses from these events which may explain why we haven’t seen increases in losses. On another note, Louisiana has been especially fucked lately when it comes to flooding. We had two events last year one in North Louisiana and the other in SE Louisiana that devastated and I mean it absolutely fucked those places up. It’s SW Louisiana’s turn this year. I’m not blaming human climate change or anything. Just saying it’s been rough down here in the last decade or so.

    1. SW La. took it in the ass with Rita. They took their turn 12 years ago.

      1. took it in the ass with Rita

        Ah, that brings back memories.

      2. Yeah I know I saw the aftermath. It was like a bomb went off in Lake Charles. I was there in BR when Gustav fucked everything up and when Katrina hit I remember watching the military helicopters flying over BR down to NO. Funs times in the bayou.

    2. While I don’t deny climate change might have an effect, it rally is largely the fault of human development. More concrete and pavement and fewer marshes and open floodplains can explain like 90% of the increased flooding. No global warming needed.

      1. Yep, apparently much of the SE LA flooding last year could have been prevented had they built a drainage canal from a few rivers to the MS river but people down here were consumed with whether it was safe to go to the mall because ISIS could kill you. These fucks down here voted for everyone of these wars too and they vote against federal disaster aid right up until they needed some. It goes back to not being able to correctly prioritize risk and indulging in fear mongering.

    3. more floods are caused by the crappy dikes we build around rivers so i guess flooding is man made after all

    4. No, the big problem in Louisiana is not climate change, it is river change.

      Both natural and man-made processes have been at work. Louisiana is where the Mississippi dumps all the sediment shed from the continental interior. That sediment, if normal processes work, fill in the low areas. And over time, the sediment compacts (and the ground surface falls). These events occur annually, punctuated by bigger storm-driven dumps. This works fine until we fuck with the system, build on areas (looking at you, New Orleans) that continue to compact and subside, but never get more new sediment on top.

      And more rarely (on the order of several hundred years), and dramatically, the river switches courses, and the primary delta jumps. THAT should be interesting.

  7. I’m surprised that the ‘tards haven’t claimed yet that it’s Gaia’s retribution for electing Donald Trump.

    1. Try to keep up with the news:

      http://www.orlandosentinel.com…..story.html

      1. Heh. You can’t even parody these loons without looking silly five minutes later!

        1. You know who else was really easy to parody?

          1. Keith Fucking Olbermannn?

      2. Pretty sure Florida went for Trump too.

        1. In all fairness to Texas, it would be hard for a hurricane NOT to hit a state that went for Trump.

          1. In a bit of irony, the counties most effected, by population, voted for Hillary. So… to sum up my point, it’s Hillary’s fault!

            Am I doing this right?

      3. “Hopefully this will help them realize the GOP doesnt care about them”

        why does the GOP let bad things happen to good people?

        1. GOP spelled backwards is POG.

      4. at least this guy was fired for being stupid thats something new

      5. Let’s hope some roughnecks give that fucker a good karma beat down.

  8. So the unprecedented rainfall from Harvey was precedented 40 years ago.
    And after Katrina and Rita we were warned that megastorms were the new normal, but have had only a handful in the 12 years since then.

    1. Typhoons in the Pacific have been some of the most devastating to hit landfall. Its not just about the Atlantic basin.

  9. Last month, Pielke observed, “The world has had a run of good luck when it comes to weather disasters. That will inevitably come to an end.” Time will tell if Harvey is a signal that our run of good luck has ended.

    “Fuck my own data, you can’t believe that shit. What you better believe is that you should be scared. very. scared.”

    1. “And, incidentally, spend trillions of dollars and live in the dark in order to bring the temperature down 0.01 degree.”

      1. Sh*t’s gonna be really bad one day. I mean really, really bad one day.

        We’re not sure but soon to 100 years out, something might happen.

        We need to shut down all for profit businesses and stamp out capitalism once and for all.

        1. Sh*t’s gonna be really bad one day. I mean really, really bad one day.

          In about 500 years.

          1. Since most of that movie has already come true, climate change is the last thing I am scared of.

      2. Increase 3 or 4*C or decrease .1*C. I’ll take the decrease of .1*C.

        1. No need to worry about it renew. None of the stuff these lunatics have been forecasting has ever happened so probably not a real threat.

          1. Actually Timbo, a lot of models projected global warming traits before they were observed. The cooling stratosphere for one.

        2. Increase 3 or 4 degrees Celsius is actually welcome. More food, better conditions.

          1. United States crops would have to move north. Corn, wheat, and oats don’t do well in higher heat.

    2. Hang on, Pielke is one of the good ones (mostly) in that he accepts changes are occurring but doubts there is a significant human fingerprint or that the results will be catastrophic. His statement here is just recognizing reversion to the mean. We have had 12 years between Cat3+ storms in the US…

  10. The models say that tropical stirms should increase in frequency and intensity. The real world appraisal of cyclinic energy shows a downward trend, so the observed data is suspect? Sounds legit

    Gee, I thought singular storm events were weather, not climate. Or is Harvey convenient for confirming biases?

    1. Gee, I thought singular storm events were weather, not climate.

      Storms are now climate events. It’s only weather when it doesn’t confirm the faith. Like this relatively cool August. That’s just weather.

      1. Abnormal cool is somehow the poles breaking their curfew. That’s all.

        All departure from a narrative is to dismissed as silly racists wanting to keep people down.

        Waiting for the first person to be called a racist in the next two days for something relating to Harvey. Gonna be awesome.

        1. Abnormal Cool was my nickname in college.

          1. Warm Globule was what the ladies called me.

            1. They had girls in your college? I knew I shouldn’t have majored in Computer Science.

              1. We had a couple in mine …. engineering!

          2. I was known as the Priapic Platypus’.

      2. Climate is average of weather. Average of weather has more energy in the climate to work with. Hmmmmmm does this make sense to yyou?

        1. What does that have to do with storms that start near the equator off the coast of Africa ever year forever and ever regardless of evil capitalists?

          1. Are you avoiding the physics of Harvey? Harvey formed in the gulf where the waters are warm. More fuel to work with. Does this make sense to you? If not, why not?

            1. Harvey formed in the Atlantic, east of the Antilles.

              1. Nice!

                “Harvey formed in the gulf where the waters are warm. More fuel to work with. Does this make sense to you? If not, why not?”

                Apparently it does not make sense to you! That is obviously because it is WRONG! LOL

                Guess renewableguy is off to cook some data now!

                1. Opinions are irrelevant. Reality is king. Ghg’s are present all through the universe. The militaryy uses the science of ghg’s to help them shoot down airplanes.

        2. “Hmmmmmm does this make sense to yyou?”

          Non-sequitur.
          Does that make sense to you?

          1. It does make sense to me.

            1. Impressive, incorrect as Tropical Storms and Hurricanes pretty much never develop in the Gulf.

              1. When they do then what?

                https://goo.gl/rN7DcC

                Story Highlights
                Another tropical system may form as soon as early next week in the western Gulf of Mexico.

                It is too soon to determine which areas may be threatened by this future system.

                Residents along the Gulf Coast should monitor forecasts for this system.

  11. I’ll say this too, you have these politicians looking for problems that aren’t our problems when our problems are unmet. Take Bush for example. He spent so much money fighting stupid fucking wars when he should have spent the money here building up our infrastructure or fighting diseases that are slaughtering us. Same with Obama in Afghanistan, Libya etc. And here we have Trump ready to blow another half a triilion in Afghanistan when our immediate concerns like floods and cancer are raping us to death. I wish we had leaders who were good at identifying threats and apportioning resources appropriately to best mitigate those threats. Instead we special interests using up our limited resources to meet their selfish narrow concerns.

    1. Because, without the federal government money, no one is researching new ways to treat cancer.

      1. You didn’t build that.

    2. True. If we’re going to nurture a welfare industry in this country, it may as well be something we all can use like infrastructure, rather than the MIC, which provides no significant benefit for the rest of us.

      1. Not true. I find that misallocating capital to make things and then blow them up produces a lot of wealth in the form of reinvestment.

        1. We could always blow up our own bridges and then rebuild them. It would give the military something to practice on, and we’d get new bridges.

          1. Napoleon was a big fan of digging holes and filling them in. Keynes took it to the next level so that argument will never loose with politicians.

            Both are righteous misallocations of capital and do not produce wealth. you’re right that only one actually destroys capital however.
            We could also reduce the size the behemoth military rather than spending millions of dollars every minute fighting psychos with sticks in huts.

            1. “We could also reduce the size the behemoth military rather than spending millions of dollars every minute fighting psychos with sticks in huts.”

              To be fair, Obama tried this at first. Think Iraq withdrawal, or Libya support role (as opposed to lead). And he was blasted for allowing a power vacuum that lead to the creation of ISIS. I had high hopes for Trump based upon his rhetoric, but that lasted about a day.

              1. I am now convinced of one thing that happens on day one as president.

                A bunch of spooky guys and some old politicians come into a room. They basically say, “you had a nice run on the campaign trail. This is what happens when you mess the MIC, the FED, or the welfare state” Then they show him some horrifying video of politicians being executed.

              2. See, my hopes for trump were minimal.

                1) He needed to *not* be Hillary. He’s doing OK there.

                2) He needed (and still expect him) to nominate good SCOTUS Justices and lower court justices.

                Anything beyond that is gravy.

                1. DeVos: gravy.
                  EPA reign-in; gravy.
                  Gov’t gridlock; gravy.
                  He’s a loose cannon and a blowhard, but he’s doing better almost by accident than the last four or five put together.

                  1. Agreed. If someone would just lock him in his office and delete his Twitter account, he’d be OK.

              3. Obama didn’t want to withdraw from Iraq. He was forced to by the SOFA Bush arranged.

                The GOP were certainly disingenuous assholes to blame him for ISIS, but the idea that he decided to get out of Iraq is simply not true.

          2. “We could always blow up our own bridges and then rebuild them.”

            Go home, Krugman, you’re drunk.

            1. Isn’t drunk Krugman usually looking to service a gloryhole somewhere? I think he missed hails calling.

              1. The boys at Princeton were prettier than the boys at NYU.

  12. Prog Rule #1: Don’t let data or math ruin your narrative

    1. So the prog rule #1 is the same as the Dungeons & Dragons rule #1?

      1. D&D rule #1 is don’t tell anyone you play. That way they won’t make fun of you for being a dork. Dork.

      2. I thought the #1 rule of D&D was bring the god damn Mt. Dew or don’t show up at all? Might have just been that one DM. God knows that stuff is disgusting but some people seem to run off it.

        1. Mountain Dew and Funions, dude.

          1. I overdosed on funions when I was 11 and haven’t touched them since.

        2. Pizza or BBQ and beers is how we roll.

    2. “Prog Rule #1: Don’t let data or math ruin your narrative”

      Cognitive dissonance apply’s to pretty much everyone regardless of political alignment.

      1. “Cognitive dissonance apply’s to pretty much everyone regardless of political alignment”.

        With regard to the Scientific Method, rejecting hard data because it doesn’t support your theory is a poor example of cognitive dissonance, but a very good example of fraud.

  13. 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.

    Because hurricanes never happened before the industrial revolution…

    developing science in which researchers try to figure out how much man-made warming may have contributed to intensifying specific extreme weather events.

    I do not believe there is an adequate way to quantify this. We have not the understanding of all relevant variables or the length of documented history which to analyze. Never mind the cyclical nature of nature.

    1. I do not believe there is an adequate way to quantify this. We have not the understanding of all relevant variables or the length of documented history which to analyze. Never mind the cyclical nature of nature.

      You’ll never get any fat, government grants with that attitude.

    2. If I was welling this scam for money, I would keep going to the same well.

      Why not? Obviously, the majority of americans are totally brainwashed so actually, these dirtbags are right to push the scam.

      If millions of clinically retarded people like Tony/Palin Butt/ et al will blindly do what you say every time you repeat it, you might as well eventually take their money too.

      Of course the only way to take the money from the zombie horde is to make all of the other useful productive people poor and miserable.
      But hey! Polar Bears and wetlands!.

      1. One of the reasons I don’t read the newspaper anymore is that there was always at least one article that talked about global warming. I got sick of it.

        1. The only reason to consume any information anymore is for the shear comedy. I still remain baffled and terrified at the utter lunacy and stupidity of the average dolt in my midst but at least watching them lose their sh*t over every single manufactured and orchestrated distraction is absolutely hilarious.
          And I always keep a gun at the ready for the next Tony and Palin Butt to finally realize what nothings they are and to start their antifa rampage.

          1. I used to find it funny. Now I find it to be depressing. I agree about staying armed though.

            1. Clinton begat Bush begat Brak begat Trump so I am not depressed yet. I will be in 3 years when Castro is elected however. Until then, get drunk and watch the process unfold.

              Collapse is a process, not an event.

              I used to wonder about my grandparents and what is was like growing up in such pivotal times in history(depression and WWII). They used to party their asses off too.

        2. Well, that little mystery solved.

          1. Go drink Drano you lousy pinko.

      2. But hey! Polar Bears and wetlands!.

        Fuck both of these things. One wants to kill you and the gov’t claims to own all of the other and charges ridiculous taxes to “impact” it and levy’s even more ridiculous fines for “impacting” it without the gov’ts approval.

        1. I can see Tony and Plain butt trying to fuck both of those things. They both seem like that Timothy Treadwell imbecile that got eaten by the bears.

    3. https://goo.gl/Mxjx8n

      This is very well studied.

      1 Background
      2 Detection vs. attribution
      3 Key attributions
      3.1 Greenhouse gases
      3.1.1 Water vapor
      3.2 Land use
      3.2.1 Livestock and land use
      3.3 Aerosols
      4 Attribution of 20th century climate change
      4.1 Details on attribution
      4.1.1 “Fingerprint” studies
      4.1.2 Extreme weather events
      5 Scientific literature and opinion
      5.1 Detection and attribution studies
      5.2 Reviews of scientific opinion
      6 Solar activity
      7 Non-consensus views
      7.1 Effect of cosmic rays
      7.1.1 Consensus view on cosmic rays

      1. I put very little faith in the well studied conclusions of Gov’t scientists who depend on more Gov’t money to find their careers. It seems rather simple. 100s of doomsday predictions have not only been proven wrong, they have missed their mark with fantastic error.

        What would it take to even question the validity of this hypothesis? I’m not asking the horde to denounce global climate warming cooling, just to possibly consider that it might be wrong science.

        1. Measured and confirmed. Thumbprint of ghg warming. Cooling stratosphere. Warming oceans at the rate of earth’s energy imbalance. .6 watts per meter squared. 9200 papers by the ipcc ar5 shows man is warming the planet based in science. Ignor this at our peril.

          1. Measured and confirmed. Thumbprint of ghg warming. Cooling stratosphere.

            And apparently dumb ass is unfamiliar with what ozone does in the stratosphere.

            1. Ozone blocks ultraviolet rays. Are you referring to something else? The stratosphere is cooling simply because less infrared is reaching the stratosphere.

              1. renewableguy|8.30.17 @ 12:54AM|#
                “Ozone blocks ultraviolet rays. Are you referring to something else? The stratosphere is cooling simply because less infrared is reaching the stratosphere.”

                Oh, look! One more non-sequitur!

                1. You aren’t Greg, Sevo.

      2. Yes, and no ONE prediction has been shown true.

        1. Actually many have come true. Its more about you than the science. Confirmation bias?

          1. renewableguy|8.30.17 @ 12:08AM|#
            “Actually many have come true. Its more about you than the science. Confirmation bias?”

            And yet, dimbulbs like you are not capable of citing even one.
            Confirmation bias much?

            1. Name calling there bud. A little anger in you runs deep.

              there are several mentioned in here.

              https://goo.gl/aqgU7P

  14. Surely this is all the result of offshore windmills!

  15. Aren’t severe atmospheric weather events more a result of extreme gradients in conditions (pressure, temperature, etc.)? I’m really asking, and not critiquing, if anyone has more knowledge on the topic.

    Here in the central U.S., tornadic outbreaks seem to occur when large low pressure and high pressure systems collide. And I believe hurricanes occur when warm ocean surface temperatures interact with cooler atmospheric temperatures (again, I could be wrong, I’m no meteorologist).

    I would think that global warming from the greenhouse effect would result in slightly more uniform temperatures/conditions as gases insulate against IR heat losses and reduced albedo. Thus, lower gradients might temper severe weather.

    Anyone have any insights at all?

    1. No rational discourse allowed dude. Haven’t you been paying attention for the last 8 years?

      1. We didn’t listen!

        1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE8XJEeOpyA

          That was supposed to be a hyperlink for this URL

    2. Look. Big Oil is bad because they make shitloads of money. We’re burning their products at an alarming rate, so that must have an effect on the planet. Because Big Oil is an evil corporation, the effect on the planet must be terrible. I mean, they’re making all that money. They must be destroying the planet. That’s why storms are going to get worse. Because Exxon posted record profits, and profits are theft. Duh. Don’t you know anything?

      1. And big oil is exploiting the workers. These workers keep coming from far and near and begging to work for these greedy pigs and all big oil does is provide benefits and profit sharing plans and competitive salaries, and affordable energy for the masses, and petro chemicals/plastics that everyone uses and that make everything cheaper, and……

        How do I become an exploited worker?

        1. They exploited me just fine.

      2. Big Oil is in on the conspiracy now. Only you are smart enough to see through the scam. That’s right, smarter than everyone at Exxon and NASA and anyone who’s an actual expert on this subject. You. Sarcasmic of reason.

        1. Big oil is an expert on the subject. They practically started this storm in in the atlantic with all of their black goop. Big oil rains, causes blizzards, it blows, it floods, it causes drought.
          Big oil and big business are responsible for the wanton destruction of everything that is good and decent.

          The only thing that can solve such atrocities like this is for the government to take over big oil and big business so that all can have free stuff.

          There is only time tested and ample evidence of government taking over big oil and big business where everyone lives happily ever after.
          Am I right Comrade?

          1. You seem to be taking this subject very seriously.

            1. Not in the least. I am smart enough to know that the only thing that matters on this world is the economy.

              The rest is distraction to divert form the failures of the state.

              You should learn about the fed and free market economics. The rest is noise for the herd to fight over.

              1. “the only thing that matters on this world is the economy.”

                What does that even mean? Are you playing a parody of a libertarian?

                A non-insane case could be made that right now the only thing that matters in the world is for that world to be habitable for the human species.

                1. A non-insane case could be made that right now the only thing that matters in the world is for that world to be habitable for the human species.

                  Any non-insane person would realize we have made great progress. But keep beating the chicken little drum Tony cus we know science is just not in your wheel house.

          2. A lot of what is repeated in here is magnified by the contributions of big oil to denier organizations. To bad you are repeating lies.

        2. Exxon has one hell of a conspiracy going. In the last five years, their stock has gone from 90 to 76. I guess they’re playing 4 dimensional chess, just like Trump.

        3. Tony|8.29.17 @ 4:21PM|#
          “Big Oil is in on the conspiracy now.”

          Tony could be rich from peddling tinfoil hats by now, but he’s too stupid to figure it out.

          1. Make that artisanal organic free-range tin hats.

    3. Aren’t severe atmospheric weather events more a result of extreme gradients in conditions

      Smaller scale: Hot air rises, cool air rushes in => Thunderstorm

      I would think that global warming from the greenhouse effect would result in slightly more uniform temperatures/conditions as gases insulate against IR heat losses and reduced albedo. Thus, lower gradients might temper severe weather.

      Yes. Tropical systems are a result of the dif in temp at the poles and equator. If you diminish this dif then fewer and weaker storms would result.

    4. your correct but thats not the point its still our fault

    5. Very interesting observation bro.

    6. Severe weather increases exponentially with global warming. Since it is rare in the past, it is quite easily increased with more ghg’s added to the atmosphere.

      1. I understand that there is research out there to establish correlation, but I’m asking about the underlying mechanisms that could establish causation.

        1. Build up of energy in the climate. More energy to work with, the climate extremes increase with it.

          More if you are curious.

          https://goo.gl/4wnskH

          There is growing empirical evidence that warming temperatures cause more intense hurricanes, heavier rainfalls and flooding, increased conditions for wildfires and dangerous heat waves.

          1. renewableguy|8.29.17 @ 11:31PM|#
            “There is growing empirical evidence that warming temperatures cause more intense hurricanes, heavier rainfalls and flooding, increased conditions for wildfires and dangerous heat waves.”

            And, strangely, those, like other bullshit from renewableguy’s buddies have not been demonstrated.
            Hey, dimbulb, do you ever look at data rather than your religion?

            1. Nice opinion Sevo. Get some science.

    7. Aren’t severe atmospheric weather events more a result of extreme gradients in conditions (pressure, temperature, etc.)?

      My best guess is that extreme atmospheric events are a result of increased energy in the atmosphere. I doubt anyone knows enough about local conditions to really predict how that will work out at the local level – ie weather – or for any individual event. It takes a billion shit-tons of energy to create a billion tons of rain (the amount that falls on the Earth every minute) and keep it going in a cycle. And while that energy is all solar in origin, greenhouse gases leverage that.

      Globally I’d bet that the only way those gradients diminish in an increasing energy atmosphere is if the Earth itself starts being more uniform – eg if rain starts falling in deserts, poles melt so they are oceans, etc. Could happen after that – but I doubt before. And if it does it would probably probably happen on a geological time-scale not a human one. Because what we are doing re greenhouse gases is creating geologic scale – combusting millions of years of those sequestered gases and releasing them into the atmosphere in a couple centuries.

      1. Actually there are studies to localize now. It is a recent development.

        1. I doubt it. ‘Climate’ gets the money to ‘develop’ stuff. Meteorology doesn’t. And the two aren’t the same thing.

        2. renewableguy|8.29.17 @ 11:32PM|#
          “Actually there are studies to localize now. It is a recent development.”
          Cite missing.

      2. That makes sense I guess to correlate increased energy with more severe weather, but I think severe weather is really more about energy transfer events rather than overall energy. Take Venus, which is an extreme example of the greenhouse effect, surface conditions are relatively calm and uniform (although extreme in terms of temperature and pressure). Only in the upper atmosphere, which is less insulated, does weather become more chaotic. Then look at mars, which has almost no atmosphere (relative to Earth). Yet seasonal gradients in Martian temperature cause planet-wide dust storms.

        (Not that it makes a difference for this discussion, but I would point out that not all of the energy is solar. Probably the vast majority is, but there are tidal forces, radioactive decay in the core/mantle, and latent heat escaping from the Earth’s formation. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate at which energy is radiated from Earth, but the ratio of energy in:energy out is still

        1. less than 1. (not sure why it cut that off of my post)

        2. My guess is that our production of greenhouse gases will end up creating an earth similar to Eocene era. That was the last ‘greenhouse Earth’ afaik. CO2 averaged about 800-900 ppm then (400 now – up from 280 in 1850 – run rate now about 2+/yr). Obviously don’t know what the weather was like then but the fossil records indicate a very homogeneous Earth – no ice at the poles, no deserts, hot tropical rain forest everywhere, herbivores/plants dominate life, ocean heat/current transfer stagnant, extremely fast evolution/speciation. As I said before I can see that being very boring weather – AFTER it happens. But getting from here to there I doubt it is boring because it is precisely weather-type events that will make those changes happen – and in a geological eye-blink.

          1. Oh – and I doubt humans will be around to experience much of the neo-Eocene era. Most geological eras are accompanied by a mass extinction of greater/lesser size. All externally-driven so far – but this one could be human-created. We’re gonna effectively kill off all semi-large or wide-ranging species – and who knows how many unknown ones. And the extinction will end with – our own extinction (probably a bug).

            On the bright side – Chuck Berry will still be playing Johnny B Goode long after our sun dies in galaxies far far away. And if that is the only record we ever existed (since we won’t be fossilized absent an external-caused extinction), well that’s not too bad.

  16. “The world has had a run of good luck when it comes to weather disasters. That will inevitably come to an end.”
    instead of weather just insert earthquake or fire or meteor or Robot war on man, not hard to predict so how do I get in on the paid prediction market. disaster always strikes eventually

    1. How has the world had good luck with weather disasters? They seem to happen at a somewhat regular pace and fuck shit up every time. Same with earthquakes. Wasn’t all that long ago that over 250,000 people died because of an earthquake/tsunami. One caused a nuclear meltdown and another essentially destroyed most of Nepal. So much good luck!

  17. Isn’t CA overdue for a major earthquake? You want to get in on the prediction market? figure out how to sell the global warming scam when an earthquake strikes. That narrative will come less than two days after the earth splits in two.

    1. Ca is always overdue and the market is flooded with predictors that never get it right, can’t make money here everyone already quit listening

  18. Everyone is always so mad at everything.

    Why doesn’t the horde get mad at Global warming? We could send them off to some field somewhere and they can protest the environment.

    That should buy us one weekend without a bunch of utter pussies crying.

  19. Q: Is climate change occurring?

    A: Well, I wouldn’t say yes and wouldn’t say no.

    Q: Would you say maybe

    A: I might.

    – Paraphrased from a conversation by 2 of 3 eminent scholars.

  20. I thought bad weather trashed the Gulf because George W. Bush doesn’t care about black people.

  21. https://goo.gl/fMJhFq

    Whyy are we going backwards.

    Trump’s proposed cuts to weather research could make it much harder to prepare for storms

    1. Because his entire presidency is about pandering to the stupidest people in the country, and their primary concern is being agin’ whatever the libtards are for?

    2. Trumps cuts to the epa are going to kill our grandchildren.

      Obama’s love of the environment. Prevented any major storms during his whole presidency.

      Obama is a god. Politicians are smart, oil is the worst thing to ever happen to humanity, profiteering capitalists are the devil and tony and renewable guy are going to huddle in a puddle of their tears and pray for Che.
      Y’all are the zombie go-to useful idiots. Sorry fellas.

      1. We effect the climate. Measured and observed. Now it is time to change.

        1. renewableguy|8.29.17 @ 11:34PM|#
          “We effect the climate. Measured and observed.”

          And yet to be shown to be of concern.
          ———–
          “Now it is time to change.”

          Yes, time for you to find a brain-cell; you are an imbecile.

          1. YYour science brain cells are missing Sevo. Need a transplant?

    3. renewableguy|8.29.17 @ 5:49PM|#
      “Whyy are we going backwards.”

      Because of idiots like you and Tony

      “Trump’s proposed cuts to weather research could make it much harder to prepare for storms”Prove it.

      1. Satellites can also be used for climate studies. The powers that be, do not like that. It will hurt the wealth of the fossil fuels.

        1. renewableguy shows up, posts non-sequiturs and flat-out bullshit and conspiracy theories.
          Do you have anything other than that and arm-waving?

          1. Time to tamp your hard on down sevo. Earth is in an energy imbalance from our carbon emissions.

            You really are a cunt Sevo

            https://goo.gl/e7NKgp

            Earth’s energy imbalance[edit]
            If the incoming energy flux is not equal to the outgoing energy flux, net heat is added to or lost by the planet (if the incoming flux is larger or smaller than the outgoing respectively).
            Indirect measurement[edit]
            An imbalance must show in something on Earth warming or cooling (depending on the direction of the imbalance), and the ocean being the larger thermal reservoir on Earth, is a prime candidate for measurements.
            Earth’s energy imbalance measurements provided by Argo floats have detected an accumulation of ocean heat content (OHC). The estimated imbalance was measured during a deep solar minimum of 2005-2010 to be 0.58 ? 0.15 W/m?.[13] Later research estimated the surface energy imbalance to be 0.60 ? 0.17 W/m?.[14]
            Direct measurement[edit]
            Several satellites indirectly measure the energy absorbed and radiated by Earth and by inference the energy imbalance. The NASA Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) project involves three such satellites: the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), launched October 1984; NOAA-9, launched December 1984; and NOAA-10, launched September 1986.[15]
            Today NASA’s satellite instruments, provided by CERES, part of the NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS), are designed to measure both solar-reflected and Earth-emitted radiation.[16]

  22. “2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”

    “NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”

    “NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”

    “Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”

    “NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”

    “NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”

    “2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”

    “NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”

    “A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”

    “The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”

    “NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”

    NOTE: the NOAA is The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a scientific agency within the Department of Commerce focused on the conditions of the oceans and the atmosphere.

    [Tip of the hat to James Taranto’s WSJ Best of the Web]

    I’m sure that *EVENTUALLY* they’ll get one right…2016 was the “strongest in years” but was still pretty much meh, except for Matthew’s impact on Haiti.

    Actual activity in 2016: 15 named storms, 7 hurricanes, 4 CAT3+

    Average (1981?2010[1]) 12.1, 6.4, 2.7
    Record high activity 28, 15, 7

  23. Facts and logic are both real bitches.

  24. In other words, Harvey is evidence of global warming, but the preceding 12 years of less-than-average storm activity is just a statistical blip. Riiiight…

  25. Category 4 hurricane ripped through Galveston, Texas, killing an estimated 6,000 to 8,000 people. Except that was 1900. I guess there might be something wrong with the AGW data. Ooops.

  26. The claims of climate alarmist are not based on science, they’re based on belief and speculation. Science is based on a falsifiable hypothsis and since we don’t know what these hurricanes would have done without human influence, there is no way to falsify the doomsayers assertions. What we are witnessing is an apocalyptic flood cult that masquerades as “science” by misconstruing it to as to serve as high priests and prophets of doom.

    The end be nigh the sea levels will rise and wrathful weather will destroy civilization for mankind’s sins. Repent build an ark or an electric car and save the animals. Climate change is a religion folks. Tropical storms dumping feet of water on Texas every decade or two is entirely ordinary.

  27. “Climate computer models suggest that hurricanes will increase in frequency and intensity should the planet warm over the course of this century.”

    Which of course never actually happened. In fact it went the other direction.

    But one big storm fits the narrative, so ignore that fact!

  28. “Attribution Science”? You keep using that word science. I do not think you know what it means.

  29. Even assuming AGW, I’m still a little confused about what the politicians are supposed to do about it. A carbon tax is just about the only government policy I’ve heard suggested, and I don’t have a lot of confidence in that having much effect on AGW, the way governments create and enforce their policies. More likely a carbon tax will simply be another way to redistribute money and fudge the numbers.

  30. The major purpose of a web directory is to provide directory users with a categorized list of high quality websites from a chosen field or industry.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.