- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,615
- Reaction score
- 14,470
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
Once again, most tropical systems are capable of producing between 1 to 4 inches of rain per hour,
Because the storms normally move between 5 and 10 MPH, the accumulation rate is not that high.
100 divided by 10 Mph = 10 inches, or by 5 mph = 20 inches of rain, amounts seen in most tropical systems.
The only reason Harvey accumulated so much rain is because it slowed to a near stop.
The actual rate per hour, was not any more than other tropical storm events, and quite a bit less than some.
I got a honest 48 inches of rain at my house, between evening, Aug 26, and about 6 pm Aug 28,
a period of about 44 hours. The average rainfall for the event was a little over one inch per hour.
There were periods where the feeder bands produced about 4 inches an hour, but not much more.
I have a very large rain gauge in my back yard, the pool is 8 inches from the bottom of the tile to the top
of the edging, when it got to the top of the edging, I pumped it down to the bottom of the tile.
I had to do this 6 times in those 44 hours.