Climate change likely helped fuel Harvey's strength

[Santti]

It's possible, perhaps even likely, but I don't think well ever really know.

News Flash Climate change happens with or without humans interactions. Do you think we had the iceage because cave men had campfires?

Looks like someone needs to do some reading on what anthropogenic climate change is. Because that's what we are talking about. What you just regurgitated, is not it.

[PC2]

It didn't hit Canada and we didn't pull out of the Paris accord. 0/2.

The Paris accord doesn't mean you're taking serious action on climate change. Canada is one of the worst per capita GHG emmiters. Out of 100 Canada's rank is about 90.

[Tennis]

The damage does not indicate increase on frequency or intensity.

You can have a category 5 hurricane in the middle of the nothing, every year, for 12165165165 years, and the damage caused will be lower than the damage caused by a single categoty 3 hurricane in a densely inhabited area.

Exactly. So this is what matters. A hurricane which hits a deserted island really means nothing. What matters is damage done in $$

[Mafic]

The Paris accord doesn't mean you're taking serious action on climate change. Canada is one of the worst per capita GHG emmiters. Out of 100 Canada's rank is about 90.

Logic. Don't do that because you will confuse..on never mind lol.

Global warming hysteria can be stopped by three countries over night (US, Canada and China). But there is money to be made so on it goes....

[Tennis]

Sounds like a good reason not to live in coastal cities.

Sure dude. Tell LA, Miami, NY, Houston etc to move.

[Waniou]

News Flash Climate change happens with or without humans interactions. Do you think we had the iceage because cave men had campfires?

One of these days, people will stop making this long discredited argument

[caervek]

Is it ironic that it just hit the country that quit the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

No because the two are completely unconnected, it's not like the USA quit the PA and the planet said "**** you, have a hurricane". This would have happened even if the USA had never been colonized, or if humans had never existed.

[AceofH]

No because the two are completely unconnected, it's not like the USA quit the PA and the planet said "**** you, have a hurricane". This would have happened even if the USA had never been colonized, or if humans had never existed.

exactly. teh US quit the paris accord because it was grossly imbalanced AGAINST the US. and it was.

[Ahovv]

Yes, warmer waters will have an effect on hurricane intensity.

Anyone denying that is laughable ignorant of science.

[Masark]

Before commenting on this thread, everyone should take a look at this chart:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

It pretty much shows this article is nothing but a piece of propaganda.

So just to clarify, your claim is that hurricanes that do not hit the USA do not exist?

[Gutpile]

If only we were back in the days when strong hurricanes didn't occur.

[Wildtree]

Good job there, tennis...
Should have paid better attention possibly. Maybe watch, US news? Stuff like the... Weather Channel? In such event, you know, you watch the most skilled ppl?
Anyway.... Harvey would have happened either way. Without climate change or with.
That warming oceans contributed to the fuel (the water masses it dumped) is a probability, but not a fact.

If you want to achieve that deniers and doubters take climate change serious, stop spreading nonsense.

[Dys]

Exactly. So this is what matters. A hurricane which hits a deserted island really means nothing. What matters is damage done in $$

The cost of the damages mean absolutely nothing when the original claim is "Climate change is making hurricanes stronger". The strength of a hurricane is not measured by cost or damage done. It's determined by wind speed.

What you should have said is something along the lines of "Climate change is making hurricanes more devastating to people." Then you could measure and compare by cost.

[Fizrazz]

Its actually happened quite a lot in the past, and Harvey in itself wasn't THAT powerful of a Hurricane. The issue with Harvey was that it sat in place for such a long time, that the water levels accumulated, and that is what caused most of the damage (Harvey was only a Cat 4). Even the amount of Rainfall recorded thus far is comparable to other Hurricanes of the past (Hurricane Hiki in 1950 is the wettest of all US tropical cyclones, Hurricane Mitch in 1998 while not in the U.S. had reports up to ~75 inches of rainfall [Harvey was around 51]). Also as others have pointed out the 1900 Hurricane that hit Galveston Texas was arguably "stronger" in the sense that it had lower atmospheric pressure (936 vs 998 mbar) and higher wind speeds. Thus pointing to Hurricane Harvey as evidence in itself as climate change is foolish, as you even yourself have said that Weather =/= Climate. However Harvey could be used as a single data point of many Hurricanes together in a study of an increasing rate of strong storms within the Atlantic region. I myself whole heartedly support the notion that climate change is a real threat and needs to be dealt with, however knee-jerk reactions from news sites pointing to a single event as evidence for a global phenomenon is asinine and hurts the cause as a whole as it discredits the actual data supporting the theory.

[caervek]

if only we were back in the days when strong hurricanes didn't occur.

3,000,000 bc?

[Tennis]

The cost of the damages mean absolutely nothing when the original claim is "Climate change is making hurricanes stronger". The strength of a hurricane is not measured by cost or damage done. It's determined by wind speed.

What you should have said is something along the lines of "Climate change is making hurricanes more devastating to people." Then you could measure and compare by cost.

Hurricanes are more devastating due to climate change though. The science is clear on it. Warmer oceans mean stronger hurricanes.

[ge0]

How many times have we had a hurricane which has dropped this much rain on a region?

Dude come on. This has nothing to do with strength and everything to do with positioning and movement. The storm was rapidly intensifying as it made landfall, yes, so if you want to make a case for climate change impacting the damage from the initial landfall then go for it. Warmer ocean waters = rapid intensification.

When it comes to flooding, the storm moved inland over southeast Texas and stalled out for days. This has absolutely nothing to do with climate change and was more bad luck than anything. Having a weak tropical rainstorm sit over an area right next to the Gulf of Mexico for days is a recipe for disaster. The center of circulation was onshore, and the winds rotating around the center were pulling moisture in off the Gulf of Mexico almost nonstop because the lack of movement in such close proximity to the coast. You could see this on radar. This is what caused Harvey to be such a bad rainstorm. Normally these types of storms make landfall and continue inland and the storm dies out because it moves away from its energy source (the ocean).

Climate change is real and maybe action should be taken, but Harvey is a really poor example to argue this.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Good job there, tennis...
Should have paid better attention possibly. Maybe watch, US news? Stuff like the... Weather Channel? In such event, you know, you watch the most skilled ppl?
Anyway.... Harvey would have happened either way. Without climate change or with.
That warming oceans contributed to the fuel (the water masses it dumped) is a probability, but not a fact.

If you want to achieve that deniers and doubters take climate change serious, stop spreading nonsense.

First thing I rather do is call it fucking Global Warming, so people get away from this bullshit with equating it with their local weather.

[igualitarist]

So just to clarify, your claim is that hurricanes that do not hit the USA do not exist?

Err... no ?

My claim is that there are no evidences that hurricanes are getting stronger or happening with an increased frequency.

[Masark]

Err... no ?

My claim is that there are no evidences that hurricanes are getting stronger or happening with an increased frequency.

And the data you used to "support" your claim is the number of hurricanes that made landfall, ignoring any storms that form and never hit land.

Looking at the total number of storms and hurricanes, there is a clear uptick. 16 out of the last 20 years have been above average for named storms. 13 out of 20 are above average for hurricanes, 12 above average for major (3+) hurricanes, and 13 above average for accumulated energy, including having a new record set in 2005.