• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYT: Scientists Link Hurricane Harvey’s Record Rainfall to Climate Change

:roll:

I provided a link to the first paper, which actually presents the evidence. You obviously didn't even skim the paper. Or read the NYT article. Or read the post to which you are responding.

No evidence there either.
 
Your initial premise was false, deriving from your deep need to attack Watts. The "quoted sentence" implied nothing of the sort claimed by you. Please note the title of the post referring to a "statistically significant downward trend" in "hurricane landfalls."

This is the sentence that Watts wrote in his introduction:

"A new study in Geophysical research Letters studies hurricane activity in the Atlantic concludes that a “statistically significant downward trend since 1950 exists”."

This implies a downward trend in hurricane activity in the Atlantic, which is not what the article says.

The title of the article: "Study: a ‘statistically significant downward trend since 1950 exists’ in hurricane landfalls" is also wrong. The article claims a statistically significant downward trend in the percentage of Atlantic hurricanes making landfall, not the number of Atlantic hurricanes making landfall.
 
And yet Harvey's rainfall cooperated with the same rainfall standard they have been using for almost a half a century.
They predict how much rainfall a hurricane will drop, based on 100 divided by the storms speed in MPH.
Harvey was moving at 2 MPH, so 50 inches.
Attribution of a change would actually have to show a change.

These people attribute everything to climate change that just shows you how
Off the wall they are. Even when it is just a weather event.

Hurricanes like everything else run in cycles.
This year and probably next year we are going to see more hurricanes.
2004 was the last bad year it happened.
 
Last edited:
:roll:

I provided a link to the first paper, which actually presents the evidence. You obviously didn't even skim the paper. Or read the NYT article. Or read the post to which you are responding.



And yet, you didn't actually bother to look at the data. Hmmmmm



No, it isn't. As you would know, if you had actually read anything I'd written and linked.

Almost every post in your Gish Gallop invokes the same straw man argument. As I quoted -- in a passage you apparently did not read -- the current expectation is that climate change will either reduce or keep the same frequency of tropical cyclones, while the intensity of those storms will increase. (So will the damage, although part of the damage is because we insist on building and rebuilding in increasingly vulnerable areas, and are not preparing adequately for the increased intensity of those storms.)

Even more critical is that a significant portion of hurricanes never make landfall on the US. Nothing about climate change suggests that more tropical cyclones will hit the US. That entire perspective is, to put it mildly, unscientifically myopic.

So, can you do anything more than post links to irrelevant WUWT and Curry articles?

From the link in #5:

DW: So are those who point to Harvey and Irma as being climate change in action, are they mistaking weather for climate?
JC: Oh yes, they’re mistaking weather for climate. Harvey and Irma were big storms, but they’re don’t really rank up there with the worst that we’ve seen in the last decade or the last century. There were some horrendous ones earlier in the twentieth century. Including really bad ones that hit Houston and Florida. These aren’t particularly unusual as far as hurricanes go. They’re top-20 kind of storms, but they’re not record-breaking in any way, apart from the overall rainfall from Harvey, which was really more of a fluke from the weather situation that allowed the storm to sit in one place for a very long time. There’s nothing unusual about this hurricane season or about Harvey and Irma. The US had incredibly lucky run of 12 years without a major landfall during this active phase of the hurricane cycle. We were incredibly lucky. Our luck is now broken. But it’s totally expected.


 
I was here for it, got 48 inches at my house, I know it rained a lot.
What I am saying is that the amount of rainfall was predicted ahead of time, based on the storms
predicted speed.
Yes, and what the authors of the paper are saying is that the intensity and volume of rainfall has escalated significantly compared to past storms. They are also looking at a longer time span, dating back to at least 1880.


My simplified claim is coming from NOAA.
Blank
lol

Try again. What you're citing is the Kraft rule of thumb -- "100 divided by the speed of the storm in knots yields an estimate of the 24-hour rainfall in inches" -- which is exactly what that page criticizes! If you will forgive some selective quoting for the sake of brevity:

The two graphs above argue that forecasters should not wed themselves to the Kraft technique. The lack of a well defined relationship between the speed of the cyclone and its associated precipitation maximum should come as no surprise since the Kraft method fails to take into account the following: 1)the size of the storm, 2) the amount of convection associated with it, 3) that some storms are asymmetric due to shear and 4) the impact of nearby fronts.... Storm size, morphology, track, interaction with synoptic and mesoscale features and even the time of day can impact the precipitation associated with the storm.

I suspect we've been over this before. Like it or not, the amount of rainfall generated by Harvey was completely unprecedented. It is the kind of storm that used to only have a 0.3% chance of hitting; now, it's nearly a 1% chance of happening, thanks to climate change.
 
This is the sentence that Watts wrote in his introduction:

"A new study in Geophysical research Letters studies hurricane activity in the Atlantic concludes that a “statistically significant downward trend since 1950 exists”."

This implies a downward trend in hurricane activity in the Atlantic, which is not what the article says.

The title of the article: "Study: a ‘statistically significant downward trend since 1950 exists’ in hurricane landfalls" is also wrong. The article claims a statistically significant downward trend in the percentage of Atlantic hurricanes making landfall, not the number of Atlantic hurricanes making landfall.

I think your error is in combining two things that are meant to be separate.

1. "Scaling this landfall activity metric by basin-wide activity reveals a statistically significant downward trend since 1950 . . . " -- a downward trend in hurricane landfalls since 1950.

2. . . .
with the percentage of total Atlantic ACE expended over the continental U.S. at a series minimum during the recent drought period." -- with the percentage of activity dropping to the observed minimum 2006-2016.
 
I think your error is in combining two things that are meant to be separate.

1. "Scaling this landfall activity metric by basin-wide activity reveals a statistically significant downward trend since 1950 . . . " -- a downward trend in hurricane landfalls since 1950.

2. . . .
with the percentage of total Atlantic ACE expended over the continental U.S. at a series minimum during the recent drought period." -- with the percentage of activity dropping to the observed minimum 2006-2016.

No. Your error seems to be one of simply ignoring the words that you don't like or understand.
 
Yes, and what the authors of the paper are saying is that the intensity and volume of rainfall has escalated significantly compared to past storms. They are also looking at a longer time span, dating back to at least 1880.



lol

Try again. What you're citing is the Kraft rule of thumb -- "100 divided by the speed of the storm in knots yields an estimate of the 24-hour rainfall in inches" -- which is exactly what that page criticizes! If you will forgive some selective quoting for the sake of brevity:

The two graphs above argue that forecasters should not wed themselves to the Kraft technique. The lack of a well defined relationship between the speed of the cyclone and its associated precipitation maximum should come as no surprise since the Kraft method fails to take into account the following: 1)the size of the storm, 2) the amount of convection associated with it, 3) that some storms are asymmetric due to shear and 4) the impact of nearby fronts.... Storm size, morphology, track, interaction with synoptic and mesoscale features and even the time of day can impact the precipitation associated with the storm.

I suspect we've been over this before. Like it or not, the amount of rainfall generated by Harvey was completely unprecedented. It is the kind of storm that used to only have a 0.3% chance of hitting; now, it's nearly a 1% chance of happening, thanks to climate change.
And yet that rule of thumb proved accurate, which means Harvey's rainfall rates were in line with other storms,
it just hung around longer.
And Harvey's rainfall rates were not completely unprecedented, similar rainfall rates occur during tropical events
every few years, and have been for decades.
1979, Tropical storm Claudette near here in Alvin dropped 42 inches of rain in 24 hours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_Storm_Claudette_(1979)
I-45 was pretty much underwater from Southeast Houston, all the way to Galveston.
 

[h=1]Fact: Hurricanes Harvey and Irma Can’t Be Blamed on Global Warming[/h]By ALAN REYNOLDS, Cato Institute “Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like: It’s time to open our eyes and prepare for the world that’s coming.” That August 28 Politico article by Slate weatherman Eric Holthaus was one of many trying too hard to blame the hurricane and/or flood on climate change. Such stories are typically infused with smug arrogance. Their authors…

September 9, 2017 in Climate News.

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Since AGW has almost become a de facto religion to the "greenies," it's important to remember that most religions don't require facts in order to be believed - it's usually a matter of faith in what you're being told - so if the AGW dogma seems to contradict itself from time to time, it's only because those making gloom and doom predictions are only human, after all, and they're just trying to sound an alarm on something that they feel should be made known for mankind's survival! Sure, it can be frightening, but its necessary if we are to be good stewards to save our planet from too much CO2 in the atmosphere! Also keep in mind that a true scientist would never make the mistake of stating "it seems like" when discussing anything related to AGW - it's far too important, judging from the amount of money currently being discussed, to be thought of as just a "maybe" thing. *sarcasm intended*

:rantoff:
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Since AGW has almost become a de facto religion to the "greenies," it's important to remember that most religions don't require facts in order to be believed - it's usually a matter of faith in what you're being told - so if the AGW dogma seems to contradict itself from time to time, it's only because those making gloom and doom predictions are only human, after all, and they're just trying to sound an alarm on something that they feel should be made known for mankind's survival! Sure, it can be frightening, but its necessary if we are to be good stewards to save our planet from too much CO2 in the atmosphere! Also keep in mind that a true scientist would never make the mistake of stating "it seems like" when discussing anything related to AGW - it's far too important, judging from the amount of money currently being discussed, to be thought of as just a "maybe" thing. *sarcasm intended*

:rantoff:

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Nice rant!:shock:
 
And yet that rule of thumb proved accurate, which means Harvey's rainfall rates were in line with other storms,
it just hung around longer.
And Harvey's rainfall rates were not completely unprecedented, similar rainfall rates occur during tropical events
every few years, and have been for decades.
1979, Tropical storm Claudette near here in Alvin dropped 42 inches of rain in 24 hours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_Storm_Claudette_(1979)
I-45 was pretty much underwater from Southeast Houston, all the way to Galveston.
Try again. With Claudette, only Alvin got hit with 42" of rain; most other areas received far less. With Harvey, there was a huge band between Houston and Port Arthur that saw 40"-50" of rain, plus the surrounding areas were hit with 20"-30" of rain.


Claudette 1979 rainfall map
claudette1979SETXcountiesfilledrainwhite.gif


Harvey 2017 rainfall map
Hurricane-Harvey-Precip-Totals-Texas_Lg.png
 
Since AGW has almost become a de facto religion to the "greenies," it's important to remember that most religions don't require facts in order to be believed - it's usually a matter of faith in what you're being told....
:roll:

So instead of in any way attempting to engage the actual research, you just let loose a broadside that has no scientific foundation, and is based purely on faith.

 
Try again. With Claudette, only Alvin got hit with 42" of rain; most other areas received far less. With Harvey, there was a huge band between Houston and Port Arthur that saw 40"-50" of rain, plus the surrounding areas were hit with 20"-30" of rain.


Claudette 1979 rainfall map
claudette1979SETXcountiesfilledrainwhite.gif


Harvey 2017 rainfall map
I was here for both events, Harvey's rainfall was from Saturday night, to Monday night, roughly 48 hours.
Claudette was a 24 hour event, and a much smaller storm.
None of this takes away from the fact that Harvey fell into the same rainfall prediction
envelope as almost every other hurricane, it simply moved slow, so dropped a lot of rain.
For them to say Harvey had heavier rainfall than other storms, they would have to show that
if fell out side of the prediction envelope, and it did not.
 
Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Nice rant!:shock:

On a day like this - 14 degrees currently, snowing like we really might get the 5-6 inches of snow predicted with 4 inches on the ground already, and very windy, dogs are hiding so they don't have to go outside, and visitors from Texas showing up at my front door begging for a hot cup of coffee - having made the mistake of thinking a visit to NE Ohio for Christmas would be fun - :lamo - a rant just seemed to be appropriate somehow! :giggle1: They'll be staying with my brother and his family......
 
On a day like this - 14 degrees currently, snowing like we really might get the 5-6 inches of snow predicted with 4 inches on the ground already....
Please tell me that you are not seriously suggesting that "because it is cold in my town today, climate change cannot be real!"
 
Please tell me that you are not seriously suggesting that "because it is cold in my town today, climate change cannot be real!"

Greetings, Visbeck. :2wave:

Climate has been changing without my okay for a long, long time - I don't see it doing anything different in the future, whether I like it or not! :lamo
 
Greetings, Visbeck. :2wave:

Climate has been changing without my okay for a long, long time - I don't see it doing anything different in the future, whether I like it or not! :lamo

We got real lucky this year Pol with mild temps through most of Nov. But Winter has arrived as it should in December. And this week has been very cold. Brrrrrr. Yesterday was in the teens but because of the wind real feel was 5 degrees. The 12 weeks ahead as always will be Hell until we start to see the first signs of new life. Stay warm!
 
We got real lucky this year Pol with mild temps through most of Nov. But Winter has arrived as it should in December. And this week has been very cold. Brrrrrr. Yesterday was in the teens but because of the wind real feel was 5 degrees. The 12 weeks ahead as always will be Hell until we start to see the first signs of new life. Stay warm!

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

:agree: This extreme cold spell came as a surprise! I've lived here all my life, and I shouldn't be surprised that it got so cold this fast, but I am! Even the dogs are loathe to go outside, and they do their business as fast as they can, then they bark to come back inside! :wow: My daughter's son will be arriving from Austin next week for Christmas, and will be here until Dec 28, then he will go back to Texas to celebrate New Years with his friends - can't say I blame him, but I still want to say "Aw Shucks" anyway! :sigh:
 

The passage quoted in #29 remains applicable.

DW: So are those who point to Harvey and Irma as being climate change in action, are they mistaking weather for climate?
JC: Oh yes, they’re mistaking weather for climate. Harvey and Irma were big storms, but they’re don’t really rank up there with the worst that we’ve seen in the last decade or the last century. There were some horrendous ones earlier in the twentieth century. Including really bad ones that hit Houston and Florida. These aren’t particularly unusual as far as hurricanes go. They’re top-20 kind of storms, but they’re not record-breaking in any way, apart from the overall rainfall from Harvey, which was really more of a fluke from the weather situation that allowed the storm to sit in one place for a very long time. There’s nothing unusual about this hurricane season or about Harvey and Irma. The US had incredibly lucky run of 12 years without a major landfall during this active phase of the hurricane cycle. We were incredibly lucky. Our luck is now broken. But it’s totally expected.
 

Both papers are meaningless if you want fact. Speculation and models, with not enough pertinent data. When you look for something with confirmation bias, you will find it.
 
Or maybe the fact that other systems caused it to sit there, for 3 days dumping rain?

This has been explained in past threads, but the sheeple listening t the alarmists will believe the dogma.
 
Both papers are meaningless if you want fact.
Yes, because looking at decades of actual rainfall measures as the basis for an analysis, noticing a significant increase over time, and then using thoroughly understood atmospheric effects to determine what amount of that increase is attributable to AGW/CC, is "meaningless." Especially when one of the papers explicitly states that they are only using observational data.

Or perhaps you just don't want to accept the conclusion of the papers. When you look for something with confirmation bias, you will find it.
 
Back
Top Bottom