I didn't and can't read all of that right now, but it seems like it will come down to which scientist you personally agree with.
global warming is for real, about 5 years ago we visited the kiribati islands in the pacific (my mother is from there), two years later the high tide mark was 7 feet higher than when we last visited, kiribati's highest point in the country is 40meters, that just like over 100 feet.
I heard yesterday that the arctic ice is shrinking but I'm no scientist.
But I do believe in global warming.
How can that be??? I thought all scientists were pure of heart and apolitical and interested only in the truth of global warming?
Face it, CBF...the facts are that the jury is still out. I'm not saying there's not global warming going on...and I'm not saying there is. And if there is...it may be natural, or it may be man-made, or it may be a synergistic combination of both.
Don't know means don't know.
And if you don't think that politics doesn't affect research teams or journal pubs then you're fooling yourself badly. I wish to God it didn't because this subject really needs a thorough, unbiased approach...but for the most part, that's not happening. OK, maybe "the most part" may be a little bit of editorializing on my part...but I can definitely say the loudest voices have political motivations.
I just saw a graphic on the weather channel stating that 2004 was the 9th coolest summer on record, and 2005 was only the 10th warmest summer on record.
We could be heading for another dust bowl - oh, wait, that means that it already happened back in the late 1920's-1930's. Was there global warming in the 1920's?
Only the 10th? I would have thought for sure it'd be at least in the top 3....damn, it's been hot.
I'm with cbf
its like if I was talking about Wayne McGarity
global warming huh....i dont like it
Travis said:
"Face it, CBF...the facts are that the jury is still out. I'm not saying there's not global warming going on...and I'm not saying there is. And if there is...it may be natural, or it may be man-made, or it may be a synergistic combination of both."
Travis, there is global warming going on, every since the ice age. That is a fact. But we, the human race, didn't cause it. The sun or whatever else in nature caused it. And you know what? Nature could reverse itself and we could go back into the ice age. How many times have we read and supposedly learned that the artic was a tropical area at one time. Heck they even showed the leaves, or evidence thereof, of tropical plants. But what do I know. I just read the papers.
scientific journals, i need scientific jopurnals!!!
Im not one to mix disasters with politics. But the unprecedented hail storm last year and now the record rain fall and hurricane to hit texas this year gots me wondering if the warmer weather has attributed to the weather being more extreme. there has always been hail storms and hurricances, but not on steroids.
I miss Manny. He used to get so mad at articles about cold weather.
holy , Manny was a climate change skeptic?
Yeah actually. But I got a degree, and I'm halfway to a PhD now where I actively study ways to measure it's effects. I was convinced before I went back to school but I was basically had enough knowledge to think I knew better than I actually did when I was a skeptic. Honestly don't remember what led to my change in thinking but it's pretty damn clear what the evidence says when you actually look at the evidence.
Since you are more knowledgeable than I (grew up a weather geek but shifted gears once I got to college), how much of an impact do you think climate change had on Harvey?
I'm having a hard time finding a link between the two considering in 2005, I believe, we had three nasty hurricanes (Rita, Katrina, and Wilma) that all got to Cat 5 at some point whereas Harvey was technically only a Cat 4 at its strongest. It was the combination of Houston being caught up in the nasty NE quadrant of the storm, and the fact that it decided to move 1 mph to the East when it was raping us.
I'm genuinely curious what your thoughts are though
It's always hard to pin a specific event on a long term climate shift
Though in warmer weather, there is more water vapor in the air, naturally. More potential for strong rains/floods
Climate change had a huge impact on Harvey and it's undeniable. I'm out of town and don't want to type a long message now so I'll just post this link which has some great scientists and their observations.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...tween-climate/
Too bad most of the article disagrees with your assessment of a "huge impact"
No true.
Any cyclical storm can stall. They just rarely do. Just happened a large one did.
Oh...
That paper by Mann is laughable. He didn't fact check, and neither did the peer reviewers.
It's just common sense really. The more people and you get into a room, the hotter it gets. Why would it be any different with the World?
global warming and co2 emmissions scheme...who collects the funds and how is it distributed? lol illuminati bull Ponzi crap transferring wealth from poor to rich kents again...
In your own words explain how a carbon tax on mass CO2 producers is a transfer of wealth from poor to rich.
Even the most conservative of the scientists in the article talk about huge impacts. For instance, Landsea's notion of 2 extra inches of rain directly impacts thousands more homes in Houston through flooding. 2 inches is the difference between having no water in your home and having several inches in your home. 2 inches over a broad area when funneled into a drainage basin can be feet of flooding. And that's simply one aspect.
Ask someone who had never flooded before what they think about that. Ask someone who barely avoided being flooded how they feel about throwing a couple of more inches on the rain they got.
And honestly, Landsea is more than likely too conservative in his estimate. There were record high precipitable water measurements taken when Harvey came ashore. I had never seen a reading over 3 inches (or 2.5 inches for that matter) and yet a sounding taken at landfall showed 3.26 inches.
https://twitter.com/MesonetMan/statu...77687255752704
http://gizmodo.com/how-a-team-of-met...cte-1798678986
I don't expect laymen to understand the context of this, but this is a reading that we've never come close to. This is a measure of the amount of water vapor in the atmospheric column, and directly shows that the atmosphere was holding more water than had ever been measured. So while yes, Harvey stalling as a major contributor to the flooding, this shows that even without slowing down Harvey was working within an atmospheric environment that had more water to be rained out than we've ever seen.
Furthermore, we don't need stalling storms to produce record flooding and we likely didn't here either. The Memorial day floods last year happened due to an immense amount of rain in a short period of time, for instance. The majority of the flooding in this situation occurred due to high rain rates over a short period of time on Saturday. There was a lot of rain that fell after that and made things worse, but that initial band had incredible rain rates and places got a foot of rain in a couple of hours. That has nothing to do with a stalled system but rather a system that is working with a) an atmosphere with incredible moisture content and b) a plentiful source of water vapor to recharge the atmosphere (the Gulf with incredibly high SSTs).
It's fairly impossible to be dismissive of the impact of climate change on the precipitation in this event but then again it's impossible to ignore all of the evidence that climate change exists and yet we have deniers in this nation so do with this information what you will.
Last edited by MannyIsGod; 09-04-2017 at 05:05 AM.
The flooding occurs because the rate of precipitation exceeded the capacity of the storm sewers. Storm sewers should be built for such events, but to save money, they are only built to normal high events.
My daughter was flooded.
I blame city planning. Not nature, or AGW.
Think about how easy it is for them to rationalize their piss poor planing on greenhouse gasses rather than their responsibility.
Which is cheaper?
Building an adequate storm sewer system, or trying to reduce global greenhouse gasses?
Probably, but keep in mind. Our records of such events are limited to a very short geological time frame.
Do you have any prediction of how much different these events would be if we didn't block natural historical flow channels with dikes and bridges? How about if we didn't cover more than 80% of the land with asphalt, concrete, and buildings which prevents ground absorption?
AGW is another convenient excuse for city planners to be incompetent at their jobs.
Does that mean you don't believe in weather cycles in a climate system?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
