Hurricanes

Is Climate Change Loading Tropical Storm Barry Up With Extra Rain?

Research suggests that inundations are increasing because climate change makes hurricanes linger longer. The good news is that normalized losses from hurricanes aren't increasing.

|

Tropical Storm Barry is expected to make landfall in Louisiana later today. The National Hurricane Center (NHC) projects that the slow-moving storm could drop up to 25 inches of rain on Baton Rouge and 15 inches on New Orleans.

For comparison, since 1898 only four downpours in New Orleans have exceeded one-day totals of more than 10 inches. Yearly rainfall totals for New Orleans and Baton Rouge average just a bit over 60 inches in each city.

Consider also that over 16 inches of rain fell on Houston on August 27, 2017. Records going back to 1921 show that Houston had never before experienced such a double-digit daily rainfall total. That was during Hurricane Harvey, which dropped more than 60 inches of rain while it dawdled over the Houston area for several days. That was the greatest amount ever recorded in the continental U.S. from a single storm.

It is now customary for reporting on big weather events to include speculation on how man-made climate change may be affecting them. In its story about Barry's impending landfall, The New York Times quotes Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researcher Christina Patricola: "Regardless of the methodology that you use, we're starting to see more and more evidence that climate change so far has been enhancing the rainfall on some of these recent hurricane events."

Patricola is co-author of a 2018 Nature study that applied climate models to observational data to calculate how much warming added to the precipitation in a suite of recent hurricanes. Among other things, that study found evidence that warming boosted rainfall amounts in Gulf Coast hurricanes Katrina, Irma, and Maria by 6 to 9 percent. Another 2018 Nature study found that since 1949 tropical cyclones have slowed down by about 10 percent; it suggested that human-caused climate change might be contributing to the change. Slower hurricanes tend to dump more rain on the areas over which they linger. However, other researchers think the alleged slow-down may be an artifact deriving from changes in the way cyclones have been detected over time.

Interestingly, another 2018 article, this one in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Associationfound that "since 1900 neither observed [continental United States] landfalling hurricane frequency nor intensity shows significant trends." Hurricanes hitting the U.S. may be getting wetter and slower, but their winds are not stronger and they are not more frequent. That said, in May the World Meteorological Organization comprehensively reviewed the scientific literature and concluded that "it is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes."

Meanwhile, a 2018 article in Nature Sustainability reports that normalized losses due to hurricanes remain basically flat. The researchers "normalize" the losses by attempting to estimate direct economic losses from a historical storm as if that same event were to occur under contemporary social conditionsThe upshot we're losing more buildings and infrastructure, but only because there is much more property to be destroyed along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts than there used to be. Once you adjust for that, the proportion of assets damaged by hurricanes even possibly amplified by climate change is not increasing.

Whatever the effect of climate change may have on Barry's destructive potential, let's hope that the people in the storm's path stay safe.

NEXT: At Least 80 Workers Are Losing Their Jobs at This Pennsylvania Steel Plant. Tariffs Are To Blame.

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.

  1. Bad news boys.
    Climate change is a natural phenomenon and man has no larger part than the rest of nature.
    This old world gets colder and warmer over various long periods of time, always has, always will. It was happening before man, and will happen after man.
    Deal with it; but not by using anything as an excuse to take even more of my money.

    1. …or my freedom.

    2. Thoughts and prayers, the solution to everything.

      1. Haha. Guilt and grievance. The justification for dumb non solutions that give politicians more money to waste. Good plan.

      2. “Thoughts and prayers, the solution to everything.”

        Thoughts and prayers aren’t being offered as the solution to anything. Decent people try to express their sorrow and condolences after something tragic happens.

        Indecent people try to exploit every tragedy to further their political agenda.

    3. Was watching a video the other day on the Tollense bronze age battlefield site in northern Germany. The narrator causally remarked how the rive flowed much slower during the time of the battle (circa 1200 B.C.) because the Baltic Sea level was substantially higher at that time.

      The only way the Baltic could be higher is if all sea levels were higher, due to smaller ice caps.

      Meaning a much warmer climate existed around 1200 B.C. A clearly pre-industrial time.

      1. What part of isotasy don’t you understand?

        1. What part of isotasy [sic] don’t you understand?

          Care to explain how isostasy relates to significantly higher sea levels 1200 years ago? You know, for us dumbasses at the back of the class who wouldn’t just pull misspelled sciencey words out of our ass to try looking smart on the internet.

          1. The crustal rocks underlying the Baltic were forced downward by the weight of miles of overlying ice during the last ice age.

            When the ice retreated , the isostatic rebound of the landscape began.

            1200 years ago , sea level there was not higher- the land lay several meters lower than today. It is still wising millimeters per year, and it will go on doing so until the erth’s curst in the region reaches postglacial isostatic equilibrium.

            Which is why Thomas is wrong when he writes:
            “The only way the Baltic could be higher is if all sea levels were higher, due to smaller ice caps.”

            1. If the land under the Baltic Sea were lower then than it is now, but sea levels were not higher then than now, then why would the river flow more slowly then than it does now?

            2. You do know there were Viking settlements at that time on Greenland, farms, that have been back under glaciers ever since…

      2. Yep, medieval warm period. It is well known that vikings, celts, and huns were burning the shit out of coal and oil back then.

        1. I thought they were just burning shit …

    4. It all depends on your starting reference point –

      Since the 1970s – warming
      Since the 1950s – warming
      Since the mid 1930s – cooling
      Since the 1850s – warming
      Since the 1100s – cooling
      Since the 100BCs – cooling
      Since the 10,000 BCs – warming
      Since 30,000 BC – warming
      Since 30 Million BC – drastic cooling
      Since 60 Million BC – warming
      Since 200 Million BC – cooling
      Since 650 Million BC – drastic warming
      Since 3 Billion BC – Unbelievable cooling

    1. ‘Is Climate Change Loading Tropical Storm Barry Up With Extra Rain?’

      No.

      1. Is the vapor pressure of warmer water higher or lower than less warm water?

        You are at liberty to ignore radiative forcing from increased CO2 levels.

        The Gulf of Mexico not so much.

        1. Yes, the earth appears to have warmed since the early 15th century. What’s the point.

        2. The study quoted suggests a ~7.5% increase in precipitation. That’s the sort of change that’s noticeable to a scientist, but not so much to the man being rained on.

          For comparison, surface temps in the Gulf of Mexico have increased by about .5° C since 1960. That’s not really enough of a change to worry us.

          1. exactly. the US had big storms in the 1930s. and the 1970s. the climate change the libs are worried about hasn’t even happened yet.

        3. The earth has been on a warming trend since the last ice age. This article, and every one like it inferring that human activity is behind this stuff.

          So again, no.

  2. And the denialist and his sock posted first. Without evidence of course.

    1. When you guys say “denialist” is makes it sound like you’re part of a religious order. Its weird.

      1. like it’s a weapon or something. ooh i’m a denialist okay kewl.

    2. It’s usually the person making the assertion that needs the evidence dumbfuck.

      1. So pony up the evidence that massive increases in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere somehow doesn’t affect the climate magically.

        1. Are you actually asking me to prove a negative you retarded shit?

          First, your entire question is a strawman. It effects climate, but not at the catastrophic wailings liberals proclaim. Using an assumed perfect absorption rate, a doubling of carbon would effect climate by 0.7-0.8 C. Yet the models all claim 2.5ish to 7. This increase is the result of not well understood feedbacks (per the IPCC), the greatest feedback coming from clouds which the modelers admit they do not have a good understanding of. The models continue to overestimate the sensitivity to carbon by at least 50%, ie a doubling of observed. There are dozens of papers on the sensitivity if you cared (but we know you don’t, and no Jeff, not going to google it to you since most are paywalled and we know you are too fucking stupid to spend money on a paywalled science site). Also the IPCC in the last report stated they had low confidence increases in severe weather events were tied to climate change. So you can go read the IPCC report if you cared to.

          Any other things you want to know?

          1. So everything’s fine!

            Yeah, I want to know what is so goddamn appealing about a fringe nerdy political cult that feeling that you’re right about the role of government is more important than saving the species of planet earth.

            1. Now you are going with the ignorant “life is fragile” theory and ignoring hundreds of thousands of years as evidence.

              God damn you’re dumb Tony. Please, keep being scared of 1.5 degrees of warming over 100 years. Please keep thinking life is non adaptable. Ignore that the global greening is occurring due to increased carbon. Ignore the fact that plants need less water due to increased carbon (desalinated water is a much more sparse resource). Ignore the increased crop yields. Let’s keep people in poverty because you want to triple the costs of energy.

              By the way.. the carbon/water consumption in plants is also a negative feedback, releasing less water into the atmosphere. If you were intelligent you’d know that water is actually the largest contributor to the feedback mechanisms.

              https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110303111624.htm

              Guess what? The models don’t account for this mechanism yet.

            2. “Saving the species of planet earth”! Haha.

              See, that’s it right there dude. So noble and heroic! Get over yourself.

              1. Planet Earth is a species? I love how these “believers in science” can’t even get science right. Then again how are supposed to prcticeactivism when you are stuck in a lab?

                1. prcticeactivism — practice activism

                  Damn Mac keyboards

            3. So you are denying the theory of evolution? No species should go extinct?

              1. I’d prefer it if the human species didn’t.

                But that’s, of course, secondary in importance to proving that government is just too damn big.

              2. “No species should go extinct?”

                Ask Jeffy how many T.Rexes he would like roaming his back yard.

                1. “Apex predator diversity is our strength!”

            4. “I want to know what… is more important than saving the species of planet earth.”

              Not proposing a cure that doesn’t work, wrecks the economy, and is worse than the presumed disease? Earth temperatures getting a little more pleasant is good for the flourishing of plant and animal species, and always has been. Setting technology back decades or centuries, and borrowing tens of trillions of dollars for ineffective “Green” projects would have no impact on the global temperature, but would have catastrophic impacts on the economy.

              1. Citation needed.

                This is science, after all.

              2. I would like to know what the minimum wage and free college and universal health coverage have to do with the Climate “Crisis” (although AOC’s handlers already mistakenly let the answer to this one leak out)

            5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

              The Species on Planet Earth evolved during a period when it was 10 degrees hotter than it is now, when there was no permanent ice sheet on Antarctica.

              It is almost impossible for you and your ilk to be lessscientific

        2. Not how that works you stupid bitch.

          Of course, this is all far too complex for your to comprehend anyway in your limited, diseased little mind. Best you go back back to pounding your own asshole with a giant dildo.

          1. Climate change denialism is by far the more positive, evidence-requiring claim at this point. A little education about a few axioms can be a dangerous things.

            Prove that the earth isn’t flat. Is that necessary every time we talk about earth, or can we just go ahead and assume it?

            1. The precautionary principle dictates that we don’t change what we’re doing with emissions, Tony. If we stop there’s no way of knowing the damage that might ensue.

              1. Is that an attempt at humor?

                Try harder.

                What’s with you people? All this flirtation with social darwinism when you halfwits would be left in a field at birth if we did it your way.

                1. You’re a fag Tony. If not for our work, you’d have no rights at all and probably be murdered by bigots.

                  1. Your work. Ha!

                    Jacking off to Ayn Rand is not what secured marriage equality, I’m sorry to say.

                    1. True, you had to ignore and decry the results of democracy that you hold as holy only when you get the results you want.

            2. More stupid shit out of Tony’s mouth. Tony doesn’t use logic, he just raves.

              A raving faggot.

            3. The proof is known to everyone who has watched a ship sail over the horizon.

            4. OK, prove that the Arctic was ice-free by 2010, or that we will see more and more and bigger and more destructive hurricanes since 2005. Prove that glaciers will disappear by 2020 (will patiently wait on that one).

              Those are your models, the very best models, the IPCC/Al Gore/east Anglia models

    3. Without evidence of course.

      Climate and weather are non-linear and chaotic systems. A system that is non-linear and chaotic can not be predicted and there is no math that describes such a system. This is why climate scientists can only model system behavior.

      Models rely on assumptions. Assumptions are not evidence. Hypotheses confirmed without evidence are not scientific. There is no consensus of climate scientists because climate science is not science.

      Please feel free to correct my logic if it is faulty.

      1. A system that is non-linear and chaotic can not be predicted and there is no math that describes such a system.

        There is no math that can describe such a system in the form of an analytic solution.

        Models rely on assumptions. Assumptions are not evidence. Hypotheses confirmed without evidence are not scientific. There is no consensus of climate scientists because climate science is not science.

        I hate to break it to you, but all of science is based on models and assumptions, on one level or another. Science without models is just observation, not *science*.

        It is fully possible to conduct science in the presence of models and observations. Proper models should make predictions that are able to be falsified based on new evidence. If there is any fault with climate science, it is the willingness to attribute everything and anything to “climate change”. That is not right. That is the result of a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

        But there is nothing unscientific or wrong about constructing a model based on reasonable assumptions, and then testing the predictions of that model against observations.

        There is a lot of uncertainty in the models, and there is a lot that human beings don’t know about the climate. All that is true.

        None of that however should deter us from simply being responsible human beings. If burning fossil fuels may be causing harm to the planet, and there’s a reasonable alternative, why not explore the alternative? What’s the harm?

        1. “But there is nothing unscientific or wrong about constructing a model based on reasonable assumptions, and then testing the predictions of that model against observations.”

          The models are constantly wrong against observations, it is why they keep resetting the baseline every few years as the models predict a doubling of observed data and have for years (most notably seen in the divergence between models and balloon/satellite data). The idiots had to rely on a single spike during an el nino event crossing the 2.5sigma bounds to claim the models met reality even though the concurring cooling event quickly dropped the observations outside of 3-sigma again.

          “None of that however should deter us from simply being responsible human beings. If burning fossil fuels may be causing harm to the planet, and there’s a reasonable alternative, why not explore the alternative? What’s the harm?”

          We’ve been exploring alternatives since the 50s you dumb shit. Environmentalists have gone to war against the best alternative in nuclear. But as for what’s the harm? Great economic harm is the harm. The thing that has brought the most people out of poverty is cheap energy. The areas of the world with the least access to cheap energy remain the most poverty stricken. I’m not shocked you don’t know this.

          How much more of the economy do you want to control on your “what’s the harm?” theory?

          1. The models are constantly wrong against observations

            “All models are wrong; some models are useful.”

            https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box

            Just saying “the model is wrong” is not enough of a criticism. Of course it’s going to be wrong! You have to look at the assumptions behind the model, the quality of the empirical data, etc.

            We’ve been exploring alternatives since the 50s you dumb shit.

            That’s good!

            Environmentalists have gone to war against the best alternative in nuclear.

            I don’t know if nuclear power is the *best* alternative, but it is a good one, and it is wrong to categorically reject nuclear power out of hand.

            But as for what’s the harm? Great economic harm is the harm.

            Oh wait, did you assume that “exploring options” meant “government subsidies and coercion”? Because that is not what I meant. What I meant is what I said – exploring options. I think most environmental solutions are best addressed on a voluntarist level. Persuade people that the best course of action is just to be mindful of what you’re doing. If that means they still will burn tires in their backyard – fine. But I’m willing to bet that a not insubstantial number of people will take the message to heart and think mindfully about what they’re doing. What is the harm in that?

            1. “All models are wrong; some models are useful.”

              Models that cannot predict the present are not useful for predicting the future.

            2. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the model is useful. It’s unsurprising that you don’t understand the true meaning of the quote.

              Most models are wrong because they are a simplification of the underlying process. Not all of them are even that. There are plenty of first principles models out there that are not the least bit wrong as long as the underlying theory is correct.

              What makes a model truly wrong is its skill or lack thereof. If your model makes all sorts of predictions which all fail, which have severe discretization errors, which cannot even hindcast, then they’re wrong. That was his point and he’s correct.

            3. “Government subsidies and coercion”.

              That may not be what you meant. But we’re a long way past “let’s all recycle and turn down the thermostat and wear an extra sweater when it’s cold, ok?”

              Don’t you agree?

            4. It’s not merely that all the models are wrong, it’s that they are all wrong in the same direction – too hot – and by more than 2X the standard error. That is damning of the underlying assumptions. These models also fail to accurately fit data before about 1920 when run backwards. Only recently have they started to include ocean currents, that are responsible for the short cyclic T variations, and these have improved some models, but shrink the impacts attributed to CO2.

              The one model based on sunspots is the most accurate both in forward and reverse fit to the data.

              1. Thank you! I’ve been saying for years that all the studies the leftists tout are based on bad math, severely underweight is the contributions of solar activity in their equations.

                It’s refreshing to see others point this out too.

        2. But there is nothing unscientific or wrong about constructing a model based on reasonable assumptions, and then testing the predictions of that model against observations.

          Reasonable assumptions. How many assumptions is unscientific?
          Are temperatures estimated from ice cores and tree rings to .1 degree scientific? Is tweaking the data to make the models more predictive of the past scientific? At some point you have to admit it’s all bullshit.

          I did when my Environmental Science professor told me that nuclear power was racist. It isn’t science. It’s religion. You either believe it or you are a heretic.

          What’s the harm?

          It has been demonstrated time and again that environmentalism disadvantages or outright kills brown people. Are you not the champion of brown people on Reason?

          1. Reasonable assumptions. How many assumptions is unscientific?

            It depends on the quality of the assumptions, don’t you think?

            Are temperatures estimated from ice cores and tree rings to .1 degree scientific?

            I don’t know, that depends on the quality of the method, doesn’t it?

            Is tweaking the data to make the models more predictive of the past scientific?

            That certainly sounds wrong, but again, some more context would be appreciative.

            I did when my Environmental Science professor told me that nuclear power was racist.

            Then your professor was an idiot. It is possible, you know, for your professor to be an idiot, AND for climate change to be an actual problem.

            1. You are consumed by prejudice and apparently dumbfounded by the scientific principal. Like any other good proggie environmentalist, you certainly behave like you are following a religion.

              I, the heretic, on the other hand, will be in Glacier National Park next week where I will get to observe firsthand the glaciers and the accompanying signs that the NPS have changed because we still have the glaciers that, according to the previous signs, ‘scientists’ predicted would be gone in 2020.

              Keep on progging!

              1. Prejudice about what?

                You just can’t handle complexity. The world is not as black and white as you think it is. Trying to discern scientific truth is more difficult than it appears.

                What ‘religion’ am I following? Where have I said that the planet is going to die, or any of the other doomsayer predictions? I don’t believe that nonsense. But because the apocalyptic crap is false, doesn’t mean that there isn’t any problem whatsoever.

                Have fun with your vacation. I hope you have a good time.

                1. Pedo Jeffy is tedious, as usual. He also has t paid his rent to me.

                2. “But because the apocalyptic crap is false, doesn’t mean that there isn’t any problem whatsoever.”

                  Sunspots, Jeffy.

                  What the fuck-all do you propose to do about those?

        3. “If burning fossil fuels may be causing harm to the planet, and there’s a reasonable alternative, why not explore the alternative? What’s the harm?”

          What reasonable alternative are you referring to? Right now, we just have one, and the same people that are screaming “existential threat” are telling us we can’t use that one.

          And your comments regarding modeling are simplistic as well. I did numerical modeling of complex systems for several decades in my professional life. Since you can’t predict the future perfectly, once you get your model built and back-tested, you run scenarios in which you vary the assumptions to get a range of outcomes. The problem we have is the so-called “alarmists” are doing what they’ve always done, which is taking the most extreme (and least likely) model run and publicly insisting that we face doom if we don’t turn control over to them. The whole “we’ve go 12 years” thing is based on a model with assumptions that are so extreme that the IPCC guesses that it has less than a 5% chance of occurrence. But the media runs with it because it gets reactions from people like Tony that aren’t paying attention.

          1. There’s lots of reasonable alternatives, depending on the individual’s particular situation. I agree that demonizing nuclear power is wrong. There ARE some problems with nuclear power that all should freely acknowledge, but the demonization is wrong.

            I also agree that the fearmongering on the climate model predictions is wrong. Just because the 5% probability prediction is unlikely to occur, does not mean that the models are entirely bunk.

            There is a middle ground between “no problem here” and “nationalize all industry in the name of the environment”.

            1. The models are garbage. They (probably intentionally) undervalue the contribution of solar activity in their models. Probably among a myriad of mistakes. They simply don’t have the tools to properly model this stuff yet.

              Now….. where is my rent?

            2. The 30 year track record of 0% reliability means the models are in fact garbage

          2. “If burning fossil fuels may be causing harm to the planet, and there’s a reasonable alternative, why not explore the alternative? What’s the harm?”

            If replacing natural vegetation with food crops may be causing harm to the planet, and there’s a reasonable alternative, why not explore the alternative? What’s the harm? This is a larger factor than CO2. And starving millions is not a reasonable alternative, to most of us. Instead we are replacing more natural vegetation with crops to burn as fuel as if the CO2 from fresh vegetation is somehow not a problem, just fossil CO2. Insanity.

            Keep buying those indulgences…..Er, carbon credits.

        4. There is no math that can describe such a system in the form of an analytic solution.

          Bzzt! Thanks for playing.

          Problems may may intractable because of stiffness or global interactions (the model, not the planet necessarily) or discretization or parameterization, but that does not mean that the underlying equations cannot be known.

          1. You’ve derived an equation of motion for the planet Earth and all of its constituent particles? That’s pretty impressive! Better publish that.

            1. Equation of motion relative to what? Define its constituent particles. Are we talking about purely classical or even relativistic motion? Or are you talking about predicting the motions of particles at the quantum scale? Well, Heisenberg has a thing or two to say about the latter. But that’s not the definition of a chaotic or non-linear system.

              It isn’t the closed form solution that’s the problem, it’s the fact that there is far too much dependence on hysteresis which is not known to sufficient precision to allow forward computation and prediction.

              You claimed that nonlinear and chaotic systems cannot be analytically described. That’s simply not true. Now you want to move the goalposts like you always do. The only thing for certain is that no math or logic can describe your thought processes.

              1. You claimed that nonlinear and chaotic systems cannot be analytically described

                Nope, I claimed that

                There is no math that can describe such a system in the form of an analytic solution.

                Try reading, asshole.

                Still waiting for you to publish your analytical solution for the motion of Earth and all of its constituent particles.

              2. Now you want to move the goalposts like you always do.

                You are the one who shit on this discussion just to pick a fight.

                Chuckles was the one who originally stated that

                “A system that is non-linear and chaotic can not be predicted and there is no math that describes such a system.”

                which is false. I CLARIFIED his false statement with one that was actually true. Why didn’t you jump down his throat with facile links to chaos theory? Oh that’s right, you just want to pick a fight, asshole.

                1. “You are the one who shit on this discussion just to pick a fight”

                  Yes Jeff, it’s always someone else being an asshole to you. Literally all your interaction are other people being assholes to you.

                  You got schooled. Shut the fuck up and eat the L.

                2. Pedo Jeffy, stop being rude to your betters. Which is everyone here but Tony, Rev. Arty, Buttplug, Buttplug’s many socks, and Tony.

                  You are a barely tolerated annoyance, neither deserving of civility or respect.

        5. Science is based on observation.
          Observation of replication.
          If it can’t be replicated, it ain’t science.

  3. >>>It is now customary for reporting … to include speculation

    sure is … shame

  4. More global socialism shilling from Bailey.
    Wonderful

    1. It really is all bullshit. A great boogeyman to scare people into buying socialism as a solution to environmental catastrophe.

  5. I remember a few years back, when the usual suspects were flipping out about the “record number of named storms before the official start of hurricane season.“ We were told that because of climate change, this was going to be the wave of the future, and we could expect hundreds of hurricanes on a daily basis every day of the year. Needless to say, that did not occur. And we hear no more about “named storms before the official start of hurricane season.”

    1. Well since hurricanes haven’t become more frequent as was predicted, I guess we pivot to, “Well, they uhh, hang around longer.”

      1. Exactly

        If you look at enough parameters ( duration , timing, precipitation , number , location , width , eye speed , wind speed ) something will be different . Ergo publication.

        PS: my personal position is that global warming is real, partly man made and NOT catastrophic.

      2. It’s always something.

  6. “For comparison, since 1898 only four downpours in New Orleans have exceeded one-day totals of more than 10 inches.”

    So we should expect a double-digit day roughly every 25 years, and the last one was in 1995. I’m not seeing how this is out of the ordinary.

  7. The worst flash flooding ever experienced by anyone living in West Baton Rouge happened a few weeks ago after 8 inches of rain fell in a few hours time. People are spooked.

    1. You mean flash flooding caused by increased geoengineering and construction? Damn climate change and their engineers.

      1. But we cannot damn the engineers – AOC is going to move everything by train – –

        1. Including her victims, like the Jews, to concentration camps. To be disposed of in carbon friendly ovens.

    2. “I live in a swamp and it gets wet”

      News at 11.

  8. If it’s cool and dry, it’s just weather. If it’s hot, it’s climate change.

    Sort of over it.

    1. Not a claim anyone with the remotest understanding of the issue ever makes. So try harder.

      1. Tony are you saying that as someone who historically has not the remotest understanding of anything.

    2. That is why they do not call it global warming anymore. Calling it Climate Change means any weather event can be caused by Climate Change. Record cold last winter….Climate Change.

      1. Which makes it easier to dismiss all lapses in logic and still use it as a selling point for more taxes and less freedom.

  9. Just got a couple anecdotes from my hair guy. Two of his clients expressed similar opinions on climate change. One, it’s god working in mysterious ways. The other, those “big fans” on the prairie are causing it (she meant windmills).

    I consider this progress. They’re acknowledging the problem exists.

    1. Does the rest of your science education come from your ass waxer?

      1. He mostly talks about porn. But he’s a 1 minute drive away.

      2. Still more informed than the rightwing goobers on freedumb.net you get your science from.

        1. “Still more informed than the rightwing goobers on freedumb.net you get your science from.”

          Tony, you’re the guy that’s having a freak out over a model scenario that even the IPCC says has less than a 5% chance of happening. Maybe you should quit looking down your nose at other folks……

        2. Tony, I am far better educated, more knowledgeable, have more useful experience, and am vastly more intelligent than you can possibly fathom.

          You do understand that you’re viewed as something of a clown here, right?

          1. No you’re not, and I would give even odds you’re typing this from prison.

            1. Tony, I had a real education. I went to a very well respected prep school, and took real degrees from a good college. I didn’t study some made up sociology bullshit, or whatever non degree you got. I also have a vastly higher IQ. Which would be apparent to you if your weren’t so low.

              You really are a dull witted buffoon. But feel free to keep digging yourself in deeper with your asinine statements.

              1. You didn’t deny that you’re in prison, probably for something fucked up.

    2. I’m glad you understand the difference between anecdotes and data, but you have to realize on a 4 billion year old planet the 150 years of weather data we have is really just an anecdote.

      Our current ice age is only about 2 million years old, so most species today (including most human evolution) evolved on a planet without ice caps, but somehow the idea of having weather revert to what it was in the very recent geologic past will somehow be “catastrophic”.

      1. That’s a nice hypothesis. I’m sure it will do very well in competition with the one every scientist on earth accepts.

        1. Keep peddling your bullshit story Tony. Soon you and your propagandist friends will be dealt with. A little advice when the time comes; just shut up and go to Venezuela, or wherever else you’re going to be sent. If you try and resist, it won’t go well for you.

  10. “Consider also that over 16 inches of rain fell on Houston on August 27, 2017. Records going back to 1921 show that Houston had never before experienced such a double-digit daily rainfall total.”

    Tropical Storm Allison mocks the emptiness of this statement. That website is based on the results of a single weather station.

    “Over 28 inches of rain fell just northeast of downtown Houston in a 12-hour span, far surpassing the nearly 21 inches of rain that fell over 12 hours during Harvey.”
    https://abc13.com/weather/record-rains-ts-allison-compared-to-hurricane-harvey/3578094/

    1. Thanks for that.

    2. Just more proof that current climatology models are based on the thinnest of data, and for relatively short periods.

  11. According to NOAA,

    “With increased National Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the United States, the total number of EF-1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF-3 to EF-5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These tornadoes would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.”

    (If you look at the bar charts, the trend, such as it is, has been down…)

  12. While, on the hurricane front, they have this to say:

    “Recent papers (Vecchi and Knutson 2008; Landsea et al 2010; Vecchi and Knutson 2011.; Villarini et al. 2011) suggest that, based on careful examination of the Atlantic tropical storm database (HURDAT) and on estimates of how many storms were likely missed in the past, it is likely that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency in HURDAT since the late-1800s is primarily due to improved monitoring.”

    The bottom line is, despite all the fear mongering predictions, there’s no actual evidence that global warming is having any affect at all on either hurricanes or tornadoes.

    1. No, you’re probably right. Hurricanes and tornadoes are such big events that it’s going to be hard to pinpoint a small human impact due to climate change on the magnitudes of those events. It’s misguided to try to point to OMG HURRICANE as a justification for action on climate change.

      Human beings just need to be good stewards of the planet, and that means, hopefully, not completely ruining it.

      1. Human beings just need to be good stewards of the planet

        Your Gaia religion is the reason for this fucking problem.

        1. Are you seriously objecting to the idea of simply being a good steward of natural resources? Seriously?

          1. How about we talk about the efficient use of resources and minimizing externalities? This is Reason, not Vox.

            1. Well, okay. Does this include pricing in the cost of externalities, the cost of which may be uncertain or unknown at the present time?

              1. Nope. We are not gods. We cannot be expected to know the future. You only get to talk about now and what is known. In science, uncertainty demands conservatism.

                1. The *conservative* approach (not ideological conservative, but meaning “cautious”) would be to take into account our uncertain knowledge about the climate, and act accordingly. It may be that human activity has no impact on the climate, but it may also be that human activity *does* have an impact, and wouldn’t it be wise to prepare for either possibility?

                  1. “take into account our uncertain knowledge about the climate, and act accordingly.”

                    Again, the incompetence of the media, or the ulterior motives of certain folks (take your pick) is misleading the public. We have been acting accordingly. US carbon emissions have been dropping for roughly 15 years. They’re currently at roughly the level they were at in 1990. A lot of contributions to this, but the biggest has been natural gas displacing coal as fuel in electricity generation. You know. “fracking”. Something the so called stewards of the environment are trying their best to stop. Because maybe carbon emissions aren’t actually the issue.

                  2. The *conservative* approach (not ideological conservative, but meaning “cautious”)

                    What the fuck else would I mean? It is amazing how your politics make it so difficult for you to process plain language.

                    There is zero actual evidence of a climate emergency and zero actual evidence that anything we might or might not do would avert an emergency in any case. The scientific approach is to respond to any climactic shifts we observe as we observe them.

                    If sea levels rise, build breakwaters or move inland. If viable farmland shifts, shift farms to where it is efficient. If areas get dryer, build reservoirs. All of which we have been doing ever since we unlocked the wealth of fossil fuels.

                    The rest of the world can do the same or fuck off.

                    1. Okay, that is just you being bitchy. I’m attempting to clarify the meaning of the language that I use, because as you well know, the word “conservative” has many different meanings. But you know, trying to clarify the meanings of words is somehow problematic. Whatevs.

                      What you describe are technological responses based on scientific observations. Those are fine. But you know what would be even better? Obviating the need for a technological response in the first place. Many progressives mean that to mean “confiscate lots of wealth and use that to restructure the global economy”. I don’t. What if individual change could accomplish the same goal, without all the coercion, and without having to deploy the technology that you envision? Wouldn’t that be *better*?

                    2. The universe is a nasty place. A infinitesimal sliver of it is inhabitable by us. The progressive (read regressive) looks at that and says, “REPENT, SINNER, FOR THE END IS NIGH!” and thinks that we need to apply the precautionary principle because otherwise we might extinguish that tiny sliver with our wicked ways. He doesn’t realize that that tiny sliver is transient and ever changing. That even in its most benign form is quite good at killing humans and non-native delta smout. The best way, unquestionably, of creating and sustaining an environment where humans can thrive is through the acquisition and application of energy. Heat waves don’t kill because we air condition now (well it still kills Europeans because they’re morons). Cold still kills more than heat but that is less than a risk that it was a century ago. Famine is conquered as long as we don’t let your socialist friends back in the clubhouse. The same for disease caused by lack of hygiene.

                      So when you talk about “obviating a need for a technological response” you’re really just demonstrating either your utter ignorance on the topic or a certain fondness for death by nature. The determination of which is left as an exercise for the reader.

              2. Provable externalities, sure. But you seem to want to price in highly theoretical externalities that have little actual proven support.

  13. Another example of Betteridge’s law.

  14. So, Ron or anybody – is there an actual hypothesis as to why climate change would affect the speed at which storms move.

    I mean, so far it hasn’t resulted in storms getting any stronger, although there’s an easily understandable hypothesis as to why it should cause stronger storms. And the occasional above normal rain amounts is due to how the storms are steering – I experienced Harvey and the problem is that it basically didn’t go anywhere for four days. But I’m hard pressed to see why warmer air temperatures would affect the movement of storms.

    1. Presumably pressure gradients. But the real problem is that the storms that are supposedly going to kill us all are, at their heart, just heat engines. And a warming planet generally reduces thermal gradients. It isn’t a coincidence that peak tornado season is generally around may and not August.

      1. Sorry, didn’t notice you’d made that point first.

    2. “although there’s an easily understandable hypothesis as to why it should cause stronger storms. ”

      Easily understandable, but not particularly sensible. Storms are heat engines, and yes, if you push more heat through a heat engine, you get more power out.

      But heat engines have to take in heat, AND expel it, with their power coming from the difference between the temperatures at which these two things happen. And the greenhouse effect doesn’t increase insolation, it increases insulation.

      Throw a blanket over your car’s radiator, and the engine WILL get hotter. Will it produce more HP? No, quite the contrary.

    3. re: “is there an actual hypothesis as to why climate change would affect the speed at which storms move”

      Since the predictions of the mainstream climate researchers have included:
      – storms will get bigger and stronger
      – storms will get bigger and slower
      – storms will get more frequent
      – storms will get less frequent
      and several more mutually contradictory claims, I think the answer is no.

      A review of the thermodynamics from first principles suggests that storm strength of a storm is based on global heat differential, not absolute heat magnitude. Storms after all are heat engines and engines require differentials. All the climate change models and evidence show the temperature of the poles increasing while the temperatures in the tropics are staying essentially flat. In other words, as the planet warms, the differentials are decreasing, not increasing.

      1. And now I see that two people already said the same thing. Apologies for the duplication. I do wish Reason would make their threads a little more readable.

        1. I’m just glad they fixed the problem with the pages being so unstable.

      2. Yes, we’re apparently supposed to be horrified by the prospect of milder winters and warmer nights.

  15. “Is Climate Change Loading Tropical Storm Barry Up With Extra Rain?”

    Without getting fancy or technical, I’ll guess the answer is….No?

    1. But wokeness is loading Reason up with extra BS.

    2. In the land of the blind, the man with a steamed up monocle is an honorary citizen.

  16. HOAX…HOAX…HOAX !!!!

    1. Brek-ek-ek-ex, Koax, Koax!

  17. The better light bulbs save me cost.

    The more efficient washing machines are way better than the old ones.

    My car, I like V8s uses less gas and still can kick.

    So what is the problem. More rain and storms. I have no idea about that.

  18. Anyone else notice the giant purple dong over Baton Rouge?

  19. Hurricanes are becoming more destructive as climate change causes them to slow down and dump more rain. Or hurricanes are becoming more destructive as climate change causes them to speed up and create more wind damage. Climate change has caused more hurricanes or fewer hurricanes, I forget which. But I am certain that whatever the case may be all is proceeding as the climate models have predicted.

  20. Our faith in AGW has been tested over the past decade. Can Barry mark our salvation?

  21. Why not try some alternatives? They are all less capable than hydrocarbons of delivering safe, reliable, cheap energy. (except possibly nuclear)

    Inconvenient Energy Realities.

    https://economics21.org/inconvenient-realities-new-energy-economy

    1. California has that figured out. They’re just asking people not to use power between 4 to 9 pm because there’s not enough renewable energy. It’ll be like a late siesta.

      1. Cali wants to outlaw all oil drilling even though it is literally, not figuratively, percolating out the ground.

  22. “Patricola is co-author of a 2018 Nature study that applied climate models…”

    So, garbage in, garbage out. Got it.

  23. Mother Gaia is still displeased with us?!? We better throw more money at the people who claim to speak on her behalf!!! /party of science

  24. For what it’s worth–and that’s not much–I have seen climate change where I live: Atlanta. We’ve always been known for our hot summers (the city’s nickname is “Hotlanta”) but when I first moved here, the summer heat was regularly relieved by monsoon-like cloudbursts in late afternoon or early evening. Those cloudbursts seem few and far between these days. Why that should be so, I don’t know.

    1. I know what you mean, but 2 years ago we had those frequently. My friends’ apartment building was swamped by refugees from the Music Midtown monsoon… though that might’ve been 3 years ago. 2 years ago I was working right next to Hartsfield and remember often looking outside to see the deluge.
      Indeed, Atlanta’s weather is remarkably consistent in its inconsistency. But that’s more of a long form thing.

  25. Are we destroying nature?

  26. “2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay .com, May 22, 2006
    “NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
    “NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain .com, Aug. 7, 2008
    “Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN, Dec. 10, 2008
    “NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”—headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), May 28, 2010
    “NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”—headline, BDO Consulting press release, Aug. 18, 2011
    “2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”—headline, LiveScience, Aug. 9, 2012
    “NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, NOAApress release, May 23, 2013
    “A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CityLab .com, June 19, 2015
    “The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”—headline, CBSNews, Aug. 11, 2016

    “NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”—headline, CNSNews, Oct. 24, 2016

    “Best of the Web” from The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto

    1. Just keep predicting the sensational and you’ll eventually be right.
      Might have to lower your standards for what qualifies as sensational though

  27. https://www.popsci.com/hurricanes-more-destructive-chart/?CMPID=ene112918#page-3

    Hurricanes are doing more damage and it’s our own fault

    It has surprisingly little to do with climate change.

    As our oceans warm, hurricane rainfall and intensity are going to rise. But more water and wind aren’t the reason that today’s storms destroy more communities in their wake—it’s simply that there are more communities sitting in that path.

    From 1970 to 2016, the number of Americans living in states directly exposed to tropical cyclones grew by 60 million. Most of that growth was in coastal counties, though there are also many people living inland who can still see impacts from lingering storms. Along with the burgeoning coastal population has come an increase in the number of houses. The Atlantic and Gulf Coast regions, the two most prone to hurricanes, have 34 million more homes in the current decade than they did in 1940.

    This shift toward vulnerable regions, not an increase in storm severity, is what climate scientists think is causing the rapid increase in apparent destructiveness. A new analysis supporting that conclusion appeared in Nature Sustainability this week, spearheaded by a group of researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and several other top climatological research centers. Their work actually isn’t new, though—it’s an update to data that these scientists have been working with for decades.

    1. When the “elites” start selling their Malibu and Miami Beach properties below market rates, then I’ll think about taking them seriously.
      As it is, I believe prices continue to rise… perhaps not along with the seas

      1. You f they had to lay market rates for flood insurance it would certainly change things.

    2. “As our oceans warm, hurricane rainfall and intensity are going to rise. ”

      Again, there is no evidence of this happening.

      Even while trying to stoke fears, this essay from NOAA acknowledges that there is no evidence in the weather records of this effect actually happening. And the dramatic projections are only related to the upper limit of the climate models, anyway; They wouldn’t be noticed at the lower limits, which actual weather is at worst tracking.

    3. Pretty funny (God is on our side and has a sense of humor) that after AlGore released his award winning “documentary” with the picture of a hurricane coming out of a smokestack, Florida went over a decade without seeing a hurricane landfall. Unprecedented in the age of modern records….

      – which I guess is yet further PROOF of Climate Change – more hurricanes, less hurricanes…

  28. HIDE THE DECLINE WITH MIKE’S NATURE TRICK!

  29. Yay! It’s summer! When Weather becomes Climate again!

    1. I’ve never seen one’s own stupidity be deployed as the position of the opposing team so fucking ridiculously.

      1. Give it up, you dead thread-fucking moron.

  30. Considering that the storm produced third to half of predicted amounts. Once again the models were wrong but the scare mongering will last forever. So the answer to the premise of the article is no

  31. ‘Is Climate Change Loading Tropical Storm Barry Up With Extra Rain?’

    No. This is entirely due to Trump, as is every thing that can be presented as a bad thing, regardless of actual harm.

  32. No, it’s not. The climate has barely changed. People are looking at forecasts that are decades out and then seeing purely normal storms as evidence that the sky is falling.

    1. purely normal storms

  33. Weather guy in 1898: “Damn it George, the rain gauge is full again. I told you to use a taller gauge because the 10 inch one fills up too fast. Now write down 10 inches for this storm and use the 12 inch gauge next time. Okay?”

  34. Apparently the Gangrene New Deal crowd has finally figured out that whinging about a hurricane occurring during hurricane season is not the killer propaganda they thought it would be, so now they’re hunting for something else.

    1. “a hurricane occurring during hurricane season is not the killer propaganda they thought it would be,”

      It made Reason magazine, in spite of their hurricane denialist stance. You want to bet this isn’t the last hurricane of the season to get coverage?

  35. Like climates, economies are complex. Central planners tried to model them for almost a century in multiple countries in an attempt to prevent the diagnosed ills of the time; poverty, inequality, greed, etc. Nowadays, we recognize that humans are not intelligent, omnipresent, or fast enough to centrally plan. Markets move at the speed of human interaction, not bureaucrats. Why do we think the climate is any different?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.